NEW YORK CITY – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its opening brief with the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian v. James, an FPC Law case that challenges some of the State of New York’s post-Bruen bans on public carry. The opening brief, filed Friday, addressed the plaintiffs claims regarding carry in public parks and can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/boron. The Second Circuit plans to hear arguments in June.

“Given that the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the ‘plain text’ of the [Second] Amendment extends to cover carrying firearms in public, and the Parks Ban prevents carrying firearms in public parks, this case unquestionably passes Bruen’s threshold inquiry, and the Parks Ban is presumptively unconstitutional,” argues the brief. “The question then is one for history, and the history of firearms regulation demonstrates that the Parks Ban is neither facially constitutional nor, in the alternative, constitutional when applied to parks outside of urban areas.”

“New York’s ban on carry in parks is unconstitutional and it’s not a close call. The Second Circuit should put a stop to this restriction that the State enacted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s clear decision in Bruen,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

NEW ORLEANS – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) issued the following statement regarding United States v. George Peterson, a criminal matter presenting an FPC-backed challenge to the U.S. Government’s regulation of suppressors through unconstitutional registration and taxation requirements. Key case documents in Peterson can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/peterson.

Background

In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) (26 U.S.C. § 5801, et seq.) which, among other things, regulates firearm suppressors (“silencers”), imposing registration and tax payment requirements.

Under federal law, the terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.” (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(25).)

In 2022, the United States Government criminally charged Mr. George Peterson, a resident of Louisiana, with possession of an unregistered firearm suppressor (i.e., “silencer”) in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871.

Mr. Peterson has been and remains an FPC member.

As an affirmative defense to the charge, Mr. Peterson challenged the NFA’s constitutionality with respect to its regulation of suppressors as being unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

In 2023, Mr. Peterson entered a conditional plea of guilty (pursuant to Rule 11(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure), reserving the right to have the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit review the district court’s denial of his motions to dismiss the Indictment and to suppress evidence.

In February 2025, a 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Mr. Peterson’s motion to dismiss in a horrifically flawed and dangerous decision.

Recognizing the danger the panel decision represents to Second Amendment-protected rights, FPC agreed to financially back world-class counsel for Mr. Peterson’s appeal. Read more

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that attorneys for the challengers in an FPC-backed lawsuit challenging the State of Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation and in related facilities have filed a response brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate filing comes after the district court declared the ban unconstitutional as applied to the named plaintiffs and denied the state’s motion to stay that decision. Key case filings for Schoenthal v. Raoul can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/schoenthal.

“Both the State and County offer a variety of principles to support the ban, but all lack merit,” argues the brief. Under the relevant history, the challengers say, “the only time when the government banned carriage of firearms was when it took upon itself the obligation to secure a location from the unlawful carriage of firearms. But the general rule was and is that individuals are empowered to bear arms for their own defense.”

“FPC is proud to maintain its support of this important case to eliminate unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms in public,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We will continue to Fight Forward in Illinois and throughout the United States.” Read more

BOSTON — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its final summary judgment brief at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Granata v. Campbell, a lawsuit that challenges the Commonwealth’s ban on handguns. The brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/granata.

“At its core, the State’s argument in this case is precisely the sort of argument that the Supreme Court ruled out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” argues the brief, which goes on to explain why the arguments the Commonwealth make in defense of its ban do not justify the law under the Court’s text-informed-by-history standard.

“Massachusetts may not ban the purchase and possession of constitutionally protected handguns, full stop. This has been true since 2008 when the Supreme Court decided the question in D.C. v. Heller. We hope the district court will soon declare the regulatory scheme unconstitutional and put an end to its enforcement.” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed an opposition to Washington, D.C.’s motion to dismiss Wehr-Darroca v. D.C., FPC’s lawsuit challenging the District’s ban on firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The brief, which argues that the D.C. Circuit’s precedents regarding standing in Second Amendment challenges are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions as well as every other circuit court in the nation, can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/wehr-darroca.

“For too long, these outdated precedents have barred pre-enforcement Second Amendment challenges in this Circuit, only allowing cases to move forward if a litigant has been arrested, prosecuted, or singled out with specific threats or denials,” argues the brief. “This precedent has effectively closed the courthouse doors to law-abiding D.C. residents seeking to vindicate their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

“The D.C. Circuit’s case law on standing has turned the Second Amendment into a second-class right in our nation’s capital. The government should not be allowed to avoid constitutional compliance by forcing peaceable people to break the law and subject themselves to serious criminal liability before they can challenge unconstitutional laws. The Supreme Court’s precedents recognize this and every other circuit court in the country has held as much. It is time for the D.C Circuit to fix this serious doctrinal problem,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has asked the United States Supreme Court to hear its Worth v. Jacobson case, agreeing with the State of Minnesota that the Court should take up the State’s petition in order to affirm FPC’s victory below and eliminate unconstitutional age-based bans across the country. FPC’s Supreme Court brief and the Eighth Circuit’s unanimous decision in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/worth.

“While the court below correctly held that Minnesota’s age restriction on carrying firearms is unconstitutional, [Minnesota] is correct that the federal courts of appeal have divided over the constitutionality of such laws,” argues FPC’s response brief. “Whether the government may prevent peaceable 18-to-20-year-old Americans from acquiring or carrying firearms is a question of fundamental importance, and Respondents agree that it merits this Court’s review.”

“This case presents the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to take up this incredibly important issue and hold that all peaceable adults have the right to keep and bear arms. In case after case, FPC and our allies have successfully shown that these age-based bans are unconstitutional and cannot survive scrutiny. The Court should grant review and affirm the Eighth Circuit’s well-reasoned decision,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

Please Call Your State Senator Today!

SB 318 maliciously targets responsible, law-abiding firearm retailers and manufacturers with frivolous litigation intended to bankrupt and destroy them. This legislation opens all firearm industry members to “fishing expeditions” under the Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA) initiated by politically-motivated advocacy organizations and attorneys. Punitive damage awards for a violation are increased from $300 to a minimum of $250,000 (an 83,000% increase), but only for firearm industry members. Other industries will see penalties increase from $300 to $10,000 (a 3,200% increase).

Provisions & Concerns Include:

• Proponents deceptively claim this legislation pursues firearm industry members who violate laws and who refuse to change heavily-regulated practices to somehow counter criminal conduct such as converting semiautomatic firearms to fully-automatic firearms. In truth, SB 318 will be used against all lawful firearm businesses that advertise in any manner in New Mexico because of the vague, subjective nature of the UTPA and dramatically increased potential winnings.

• Incredibly, a violation of the UTPA includes any advertisement or statement that “may” or “tends to” be misleading. An ad that simply states that a modern firearm is “safe” or “effective” for self-defense is likely to trigger a suit because opponents of firearm ownership regularly claim that firearms are neither safe nor effective. Currently, maximum awards under the UTPA are set between $100 and $300. The vague law has not been a problem to date because there has been no financial incentive to abuse it.

• Authorizes any citizen merely “aware of” a suspected violation of the UTPA to file an action against a member of the firearm industry (someone who has seen or heard an ad and disagrees with it). This is intended to allow advocacy groups like Giffords Law Center to encourage their members to pile on any claimed violation. In order to sue any other industry in the state, plaintiffs must show that they have been harmed in some manner.

• Removes any disincentive against filing frivolous claims. SB 318 effectively eliminates the possibility that defendants will be awarded court costs and attorney fees if they prevail.

Take Action: Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, in a case challenging the State of Minnesota’s prohibition on licensed concealed carry by young adults ages 18-20, have filed a response brief with the U.S. Supreme Court encouraging the justices to “grant plenary review and set the case for argument.”

The case is known as Jacobson v. Worth, originally filed in June 2021 as Worth v. Harrington. SAF is joined by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, Kristin Worth, for whom the case is named, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson. While all three have turned 21, the Eighth Circuit Court granted a motion to supplement the record and allow another individual, Joe Knudsen, to carry the complaint. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

SAF won this case at trial and at the appeals court level. Minnesota is appealing the ruling.

“Today’s filing is unique in that we are agreeing with Minnesota’s request in asking the Supreme Court to hear our case to resolve a dispute between the circuits,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The lower courts are not unanimous in their approach to the Second Amendment rights of 18-20-year-olds. It is important that the Court weigh in to confirm that 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ and the Second Amendment applies in full to those individuals. The ban Minnesota seeks to uphold eviscerates the right of those adults to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is patently unconstitutional and while we prevailed at the court of appeals, the Supreme Court needs to ensure all the lower courts reach the proper result. By taking this case, they can do just that.” Read more