Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), joined by the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and three FPC members, filed a major new federal lawsuit—Jaymes v. Bonta—to block California’s unconstitutional new ban on Glock and Glock-style handguns, some of the most popular firearms in America. The full complaint is available at firearmspolicy.org/jaymes-v-bonta.

The move to strike down the new law comes just three days after California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1127 into law. Under AB 1127, California firearm dealers will be prohibited from selling a broad class of popular and constitutionally protected semiautomatic handguns, including Glocks. Jaymes v. Bonta builds on FPC’s important and ongoing Renna v. Bonta lawsuit, which seeks to strike down the entire California “handgun roster” ban that prevents sales of many other popular handguns in the Golden State.

As detailed in the Jaymes complaint, the plaintiffs challenge California Penal Code § 27595(a), which bans the sale or transfer of Glock and Glock-style handguns with cruciform trigger bars. “These handguns are in common use; indeed, they are among the most popular firearms in the nation,” the filing explains. If the law takes effect, Californians “will have no practical way to acquire them”—a direct violation of the Second Amendment. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a new lawsuit in New Hampshire challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle, based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from the search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes kept his firearm in his truck – in full compliance with all federal and state laws – but always removed the gun from his vehicle before going to school. When school authorities became aware of Harrington’s gun ownership, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. The school had no reason to believe Harrington brought his firearm to school, and no firearm was found during the invasive and unconstitutional search.

“Being public about exercising your private rights cannot be grounds for being harassed and searched on campus,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The apparent position of the school district here is ‘choose to exercise one right, give away another.’ That’s just not how it works. If simply being a gun owner is legal justification to be harassed and searched by authorities, what would stop them from submitting gun owners like Jack to searches every day? And what’s their proposed solution to avoid that abuse, that he sells his privately owned firearm?” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to the Solicitor General’s opposition, filed on behalf of the Trump Administration, in Rush v. United States, a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) short-barreled rifle restrictions:

Once again, the Trump Administration has chosen to defend federal gun control instead of the Constitution. In its latest filing, the administration urged the Supreme Court to reject review of a case raising a serious and valid Second Amendment challenge to the NFA’s short-barreled rifle provisions—laws with no historical justification and no place in a free society.

The administration’s position on the Second Amendment is now unmistakably clear: federal gun control is good and constitutional, but state gun control is bad and unconstitutional—unless, of course, it mirrors the federal controls they favor.

Earlier this year, President Trump directed the Attorney General to “protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.” Filing briefs that defend the government’s power to tax, register, and criminalize the mere possession of constitutionally protected arms does the exact opposite. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to California Governor Gavin Newsom signing AB 1127—the so-called “Glock ban”—which criminalizes the sales of widely owned, constitutionally protected handguns:

Governor Newsom has once again proven that California’s political class will stop at nothing to attack peaceable people and their rights. AB 1127 is an unconstitutional, bad-faith attempt to outlaw some of the most common firearms in the United States.

But no tyrant, no politician, and no state will ever be allowed to extinguish the rights of a free people. Not now. Not ever.

FPC and our legal team have been preparing a challenge to AB 1127 for months. We and our allies will move swiftly to strike down this unlawful and immoral ban in federal court. The Constitution—not Gavin Newsom—defines the limits of government power, and we will make sure he once more learns that lesson.

Individuals who want to support this lawsuit should join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a response brief in its Ziegenfuss v. Martin case, a federal lawsuit challenging Texas laws that unconstitutionally ban peaceable people from carrying firearms in everyday public places like bars, sporting events, and racetracks.

In its filing, FPC dismantled arguments made by court-appointed amici (“friends of the court”) defending the bans. The amici claimed Texas (and all governments) can prohibit carry by carving out “sensitive places” at will, but the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision flatly rejects that theory.

As FPC explained, constitutional rights cannot be erased with labels or policy preferences, and under binding Supreme Court precedent, every restriction must be justified in this Nation’s historical tradition. But there is no such tradition to point to, and thus the laws must be struck down as unconstitutional.

“Texas cannot escape the Constitution by slapping the words ‘sensitive place’ on vast swaths of ordinary public life,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The government has no power to redefine rights out of existence. Our history and traditions show that people have always had the right to be armed in public, including where crowds gather. That right does not disappear when you walk into a restaurant, attend a ball game, or watch a race.”

Unless the Court requests further filings, the case is now fully briefed and awaiting the Court’s final decision. Read more

After a district court in Louisiana ruled earlier this week that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) must turn over its member list as part of the court’s judgment in Reese v. ATF, the organization, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ), filed its motion to amend the judgment.

The case challenges the federal law which prevents licensed firearm dealers from selling or transferring handguns to adults under 21. The judgment entered earlier this week stated that, “Within twenty-one days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs…shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.”

“Once we read the judge’s order, we took quick and decisive action to ensure our member data will not be supplied to anyone, much less the government,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Thankfully the Department of Justice agreed with our position and has joined in this motion to amend the judgment. However, it should still be made extremely clear, SAF has never – and will never – provide the government a list of our members, and we won’t be strong-armed into turning over the private data of those who support SAF and the Second Amendment.” Read more

The National Rifle Association—along with the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation—announced the filing of another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Jensen v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Originally, the NFA imposed a $200 tax and established a tax-enforcement registration regime for certain classes of firearms. However, President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) eliminated this tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and NFA-defined “any other weapons,” leaving only the registration requirement in place. The complaint in Jensen argues that since the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power—nor any other authority granted under Article I of the Constitution.

The complaint also asserts that the NFA’s registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And, the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration regime for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) Wednesday filed an urgent Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Koons v. Platkin, urging the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals to correct a deeply flawed 3-judge panel decision that greenlit New Jersey’s sweeping, unconstitutional scheme to nullify the right to carry in public.

The panel’s September ruling upheld much of the ban, allowing New Jersey to maintain a vast patchwork of unsecured, so-called ‘gun-free zones.’ As the petition explains, this scheme “disarms only the law-abiding and leaves them at the mercy of those who cannot be deterred by a legal prohibition alone.”

FPC contends that the panel’s flawed methodology directly conflicts with the Third Circuit’s precedent in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police—a case FPC also litigated and won at the Third Circuit—showing the urgent need for the full court to restore coherence to Second Amendment law and reject reliance on late-19th-century sources.

Said FPC President Brandon Combs, “States cannot erase the right to carry by declaring everyday places off-limits, but that is exactly what New Jersey has done. Worse, the Third Circuit panel all but blessed the State’s unconstitutional scheme. The full Third Circuit Court of Appeals must correct this failure and faithfully apply both the Second Amendment and binding Supreme Court precedent.”

Individuals who want to support this lawsuit and FPC’s broader mission to dismantle unconstitutional gun control can join the FPC Grassroots Army at firearmspolicy.org/join. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), joined by National Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation, filed a critical brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Zherka v. Bondi, urging the Court to strike down the federal ban that permanently disarms peaceable Americans for nonviolent offenses.

In their brief, FPC and its allies argue that there “is no tradition of disarming peaceable citizens” like the petitioner.

“Historically, nonviolent criminals—including nonviolent felons—who did not demonstrate a propensity for violence retained the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.” Indeed, they noted, “some laws expressly allowed or even required them to keep and bear arms. Certiorari should be granted to establish that the Second Amendment forbids the disarmament of peaceable Americans.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a petition for en banc review with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in SAF’s lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” firearms carry restrictions.

The case, Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey, challenges the law New Jersey enacted in response to the 2022 landmark Supreme Court Bruen decision, which creates multiple overlapping categories of so-called “sensitive places” where even those with a concealed carry permit are prohibited from carrying a firearm. This patchwork of restrictions created by the challenged law encompasses nearly every square inch of the state and was passed with the express intent of extinguishing the fundamental right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

In September, SAF secured a partial victory in the case when a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for the carry of loaded, operable firearms in private vehicles and carry on private property open to the public without the owners express consent or signage. That panel decision did, however, uphold carry bans on public transportation, in public libraries and museums, places where alcohol is served and in entertainment venues.

“Major elements of the panel decision run contrary to both Third Circuit and Supreme Court law in ways which demand review by the entire Third Circuit,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “By deriving overly broad generalizations to define what a ‘sensitive place’ actually is under the law, the panel decision improperly bars New Jersey residents from exercising their rights in many of the types of places people go during the course of normal life in a way entirely inconsistent with the demands of the Supreme Court.” Read more