Two days after filing a federal lawsuit challenging a so-called “Red Flag” law in Maryland, the Second Amendment Foundation is announcing the launch of a new project to take subsequent legal actions against similar laws in several states.

This new initiative is called “Capture the Flag,” and it will focus on abuses and mis-application of “Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)” statutes which have been adopted by 21 states and the District of Columbia.

“SAF’s ‘Capture the Flag’ initiative looks to challenge these laws that deprive individuals of their right to keep and bear arms, where appropriate, based on evidentiary standards that are constitutionally impermissible,” explained SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is a practicing civil rights attorney.

Kraut said the project will initially focus on “Red Flag” laws in six states: California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Washington.

“SAF has been concerned about these statutes since they first started showing up,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We have already taken legal action against officials in Maryland for an egregious abuse of the law against a citizen in Dorchester County. But all of these laws should raise alarms because they prioritize citizen disarmament ahead of due process, and that can easily lead to deprivation of rights under color of law.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of the “Final Rule” issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives redefining frames and receivers as firearms, have filed an appellee’s brief in the case, known as VanDerStok v. Garland.

Joining SAF are Defense Distributed, and JSD Supply. They are represented by Houston, Texas attorney Chad Flores.

The brief explains how ATF redefined the term “firearm” without any Congressional action. Last year, the agency announced a Rule expanding the definition of firearm to include unfinished firearm components and kits used in the process of manufacturing a firearm. SAF and its partners are asserting ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). A federal district court judge agreed and concluded that ATF had acted in excess of its statutory authority, and granted summary judgment.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb recently promised the organization will pursue this case “vigorously” as it winds through the court system.

“This case challenges the authority of the ATF to change rules and definitions of firearms without Congressional authority,” Gottlieb said. “We simply cannot allow any federal agency to make up its own rules as it goes along, without Congressional approval.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and one of its members, Donald S. Willey, a 64-year-old Marine Corps veteran, have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the so-called “red flag” law enacted by the State of Maryland five years ago.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S District Court for the District of Maryland, Northern Division. Defendants are Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown, Dorchester County, Dorchester County Planning and Zoning Director Susan E. Webb, and Dorchester County Sheriff James W. Phillips. All three are sued in their official capacities, and Webb is also being sued personally.

SAF and Willey are represented by attorneys Edward Andrew Paltzik and Serge Krimnus of the Bochner PLLC law firm in New York City.

According to the federal complaint, for almost two decades Dorchester County authorities have “relentlessly pursued Willey for de minimis nuisance and zoning infractions.” More than two years ago, Webb allegedly stepped up the effort by accusing Willey of operating an illegal business on his property, leaving his yard in poor condition and for an “unpermitted disturbance to a 100-foot tidewater buffer.” These complaints were ultimately withdrawn, resulting in a consent order regarding the alleged condition of Willey’s yard.

Earlier this year, one of Webb’s inspectors entered Willey’s property to conduct a compliance inspection, culminating with Webb issuing new notices for Willey to make other improvements. Several days later, Webb and one of her inspectors visited Willey’s property without advance notice, as required by the consent order. At that time, Webb allegedly berated Willey before “violently” affixing Notices of Violation to a fiberglass cover on his boat, damaging the boat cover. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell’s immediate reaction to Sunday’s triple homicide at a hookah lounge in the city’s Mount Baker area “was a predictable launch pad for an attack on Washington State’s model firearms preemption law,” the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“Instead of encouraging people to help police solve this terrible crime and bring the perpetrators to justice,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “Mayor Harrell reminds us he is ‘partnering’ with state lawmakers to ‘end state preemption over firearms’ so the city can adopt policies which, experience tells us, will only impact law-abiding citizens and not prevent a single tragedy.

“Bruce Harrell was on the city council in 2015 when they hastily adopted the city’s notorious tax on gun and ammunition sales,” Gottlieb recalled. “In the years since, homicides have more than doubled in Seattle, the gun tax revenue has never come close to the forecast and the mayor and his allies continue blaming guns when they should be blaming the people misusing those guns.

“Mayor Harrell seems to forget that Seattle did adopt a policy—the gun tax—on the promise it would help prevent gun-related violence and the past eight years have shown it to be a total failure,” he added. “Instead of talking about getting guns off the street, how about focusing on getting criminals off the street? Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s ban on firearms carry by young adults has filed a response brief to the state’s appeal of SAF’s court victory. The case is known as Worth v. Harrington.

SAF is joined in the case by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and three young adults, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson and Kristin Worth, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys Blair W. Nelson of Bemidji, Minn., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

The case was originally filed in June 2021 and is now before the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. At issue is whether Minnesota’s ban on firearms carriage by young adults in the 18-to-20-year-old age group violates the Second Amendment. Earlier this year, U. S. District Judge Kathleen Menendez ruled the Minnesota law preventing young adults from obtaining carry permits is unconstitutional. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a legal challenge to Illinois’ unconstitutional law that seeks to muzzle firearm manufacturers’ and retailers’ First Amendment right of free commercial speech and to regulate industry members’ commercial conduct in every state of the Union. Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act into law and NSSF immediately filed its challenge.

“The flawed logic of this unconstitutional law is second only to the contempt for which the authors and Governor Pritzker hold for the Constitutionally-protected right of the citizens of his state to keep and bear arms,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This law bans commercial free speech, which is protected by the First Amendment. It also requires firearm manufacturers and retailers to establish undefined ‘reasonable controls’ to prevent criminals from lying on background check forms. The irony is that the firearm industry works hand-in-hand with the ATF and Justice Department to prevent illegal straw purchases of firearms while the governor signs laws that set criminals free on the streets to prey on the innocent citizens of Illinois. Just like Governor Pritzker’s signature on a law banning cash bail, this law empowers criminals and punishes those who obey the law. We are confident that this unconstitutional law will not survive.”

Illinois’ Firearm Industry Responsibility Act criminalizes First Amendment-protected commercial free speech by banning advertising with vague definitions of “intent to appeal to minors.” Gun control politicians in Illinois are attempting to restrict law-abiding citizens from passing on safe firearm handling and shooting skills to the next generation by squelching ability to depict it in advertising. Only adults over the age of 18 can legally purchase a long gun and only adults over 21 can legally purchase a handgun. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging a California statute designed to end gun shows on city, county and state-owned property in the Golden State have filed a 103-page appellants’ brief with the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

SAF is joined in this case by B&L Productions, Captain Jon’s Green Can Lockers, L.A.X. Firing Range, DBA LAX Ammo, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and South Bay Rod and Gun Club. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir and Tiffany D. Cheuvront, Michel & Associates, Long Beach, Calif., and Don Kilmer, Caldwell, Idaho.

At issue is AB 893, which the brief asserts was clearly intended to end gun shows on city, county and state property in California by banning the buying and selling of firearms, ammunition and firearms components. The law is being challenged on First and Second Amendment grounds.

“Banning gun shows has been the goal of anti-gun politicians and the gun prohibition lobby in California for a long time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They contend it’s wrong for the state to ‘benefit’ from the sale of firearms, but it goes deeper than that. They simply do not like firearms or the people who own, collect and use them, and ultimately it is their desire to eliminate firearms ownership.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA –Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal challenge of Maryland’s expanded “sensitive places” law, have filed a reply brief, supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment and opposing the state’s summary judgment request.

The case, known as Novotny v. Moore, was filed earlier this year against the law, which places broad restrictions on where a legally-licensed private citizen may carry a firearm for personal protection. SAF is joined in the case by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla.

The lawsuit, filed in May, focuses on SB1, a bill signed by Gov. Wesley Moore, which added new restrictions on where legally-licensed citizens may carry firearms for personal protection. SAF and its partners maintain that Maryland is attempting to wildly expand so-called “sensitive places” in an attempt to prohibit lawful, licensed concealed carry in almost every venue in the state outside of someone’s home or business.

“Maryland is desperately clinging to its belief it can continue to impair the rights of law-abiding citizens who are legally licensed to carry in public for their personal protection,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Maryland lawmakers are trying hard to not comply with either the spirit or the letter of the Supreme Court ruling last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and instead are almost literally fighting tooth-and-nail to perpetuate restrictions they know are no longer permissible under the Constitution.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is also an attorney in neighboring Pennsylvania, concurred: “Maryland’s thumb-in-the-eye reaction to the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling is simply not compatible with this nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation nor the rule of law. We are hopeful that the court will correct the legislature’s misstep.” Read more