BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a new lawsuit in Massachusetts challenging the commonwealth’s process for non-residents to acquire a license to carry (LTC).

The process of acquiring and maintaining a Massachusetts non-resident permit is wrought with burden, cost and delay. The initial permit application process often takes six months or more and includes repeated mandatory in-person visits to the commonwealth, creating an unconstitutional barrier to an applicant’s right to carry for self-defense. To add insult to constitutional injury, Massachusetts non-resident permits are only good for one year (while in-state permits are good for 6 years), requiring permit holders to file their renewals every year mere months after having received their permit, as the renewal process is plagued by the very same unconstitutional delays and the challenged laws provide no grace period for expired permits that are pending renewal. This new lawsuit requests the courts to step in and hold the commonwealth accountable for their tactics of unconstitutional burden and delay, and for the singling out of non-residents for particularly harsh treatment.

“Thanks to the Massachusetts permitting regime, non-residents who travel to – or even through – the state for business or vacation must follow the extremely long permit process or risk arrest and prosecution,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Second and Fourteenth Amendments clearly protect the right of ‘ordinary, law-abiding citizens’ to carry handguns for self-defense, and the state is violating the constitutional rights of non-residents with such a burdensome process to receive and renew a license to carry.” Read more

FPC is proud to Bolt Up for Mr. Perryman and the Second Amendment so that he and others can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.

LOS ANGELES – NFL veteran Denzel Perryman, a linebacker for the Los Angeles Chargers, was arrested last night in the Los Angeles area for exercising his constitutionally protected rights, according to TMZ. As reported by the outlet, “the NFL player was picked up by the South Los Angeles Sheriff’s Station officers Friday evening and booked on a felony charge of possessing an assault weapon.”

In response, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) noted that California’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ was declared unconstitutional in October 2023 in FPC’s Miller v. Bonta case. However, the district court’s injunction has been stayed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has often used questionable maneuvers to prevent pro–Second Amendment decisions from taking effect.

FPC says that Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman should put an end to the County’s enforcement of the ban. “District Attorney Hochman should dismiss the charges against Mr. Perryman, and everyone else affected by this unconstitutional and immoral law,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Law enforcement should not be putting people in cages for exercising their fundamental rights. This insanity must end, and it must end now.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two members of the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Brown v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Until President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), the NFA established a $200 tax and tax-enforcement registration regime on certain classes of firearms, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and NFA-defined “any other weapons.” With the elimination of this excise tax in the OBBB, the joint complaint alleges that the NFA registration regime is no longer justifiable as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, nor any other Article I power.

The lawsuit also asserts that the NFA’s registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment. Read more

ST. LOUIS — Today, the Firearms Policy Coalition announced a major new lawsuit, Brown v. ATF, challenging the federal National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. FPC is joined in the case by two individuals and one retailer, as well as the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, and Second Amendment Foundation. Key case documents for the lawsuit are available at firearmspolicy.org/brown.

This important case challenges the NFA on two separate grounds. First, the plaintiffs claim, the NFA exceeds the limited, enumerated powers granted to Congress in Article I of the Constitution. Moreover, they say, the NFA also violates the right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment. The challengers are seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against the government’s enforcement of the NFA with respect to some NFA firearms which are now untaxed due to the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Brown closely follows FPC’s recently filed challenge to New Jersey’s ban on so-called “short-barreled rifles” in FPC v. Platkin, as well as its challenge to the NFA’s suppressor regulations in United States v. Peterson, and the end of the Biden ATF pistol brace ban rule that was vacated through FPC’s Mock v. Garland case.

“The National Firearms Act isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s a tyrannical abomination,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “Not only does the NFA violate your Second Amendment rights, but Congress never had the lawful authority to pass it in the first place. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Brown v. ATF, SAF’s challenge to the federal ban that prevents adults aged 18 to 20 from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers.

SAF’s Petition for Certiorari highlights the circuit split that has emerged on the issue, with the Fifth Circuit striking down the law earlier this year in SAF’s Reese v. ATF case, while the Fourth Circuit upheld it in Brown. Joining SAF in the case are the West Virginia Citizens Defense League and a private citizen, Alec La Neve.

“The issue of 18-20-year-olds purchasing handguns is split between two circuit courts across the nation,” said SAF Executive Director and attorney of record in the case Adam Kraut. “Additionally, the circuit courts are split as to the ability of this age group being able to acquire and carry firearms more broadly. There is no doubt that adults under 21 are part of “the People” and therefore should be afforded the same rights as other adults, and in particular, be able to fully exercise their Second Amendment rights by purchasing a handgun – the ‘quintessential self-defense weapon.’ We are optimistic the High Court will agree to hear the case and end the confusion that permeates the rights of this group of adults once and for all.” Read more

“The Trump Administration recently announced a review of TSA policies designed to simplify travel ahead of major US events like the FIFA World Cup, Olympics and America250 anniversary celebrations.

America’s 83 million gun owners are hoping that review will include a streamlined approach to air travel with firearms. For millions of gun owners who fly with firearms each year, the process is seen as unnecessarily burdensome, while at the same time adding little to public safety.

With nearly a third of the adult population in the country owning at least one firearm, it’s not surprising that millions of gun owners want to travel with them for a wide variety of reasons ranging from recreational shooting and hunting to personal protection and competition.”

To read the rest of the column click here

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s law requiring a background check for each ammunition purchase violates the Second Amendment in Rhode v. Bonta—a case backed by the National Rifle Association and California Rifle and Pistol Association.

The Ninth Circuit applied the text-and-history test set forth in the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen.

“The Ninth Circuit has ruled California’s ammunition law violates the Second Amendment and is unconstitutional,” said NRA Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer Doug Hamlin. “This is just one example of the NRA-backed cases in which we fight for the constitutionally protected rights of NRA members and law-abiding gun owners in California.” Read more

A District Court judge in California has denied in part a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) in a ruling that favors the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in CRPA v. LASD, SAF’s challenge to lengthy concealed carry permit wait times in Los Angeles.

The Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department’s (LASD) filed a motion to dismiss most aspects of SAF’s claims and limit any relief going forward to only the individual plaintiffs listed in the lawsuit. The court found that SAF can sue on behalf of all its members, and not just those who are specifically named in the lawsuit. Now, as the case proceeds to final judgment, any relief SAF wins will be on behalf of all its members.

“One of LASD’s main arguments in their Motion to Dismiss was that any relief obtained would not apply to all SAF members who have applied for a permit with LASD, only to the listed individual plaintiffs, which is absurd,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Every SAF member, regardless of their affiliation with this case, faces the same long wait times, period. We are grateful the judge in this case saw through this thinly veiled attempt to subvert the Second Amendment rights of California residents.” Read more

NEW YORK – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has commenced appellate briefing at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Calce v. City of New York, the organization announced today. The lawsuit, filed in 2021, directly challenges New York City’s ban on electronic arms like stun guns and tasers. But the case is not just about less-lethal arms, FPC says, because the appellate court — which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont — will, for the first time since the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, have to address constitutional protection for ‘arms’ following a final judgment.

This, FPC argues, makes the case critically important for all arms, since the framework the court ends up applying in the case will most likely affect how the Second Amendment is enforced against many other gun control laws in the circuit. Read more