Washington, D.C. – Last week, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) joined the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Palmetto State Armory, B&T USA, and the States of West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Utah in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in defense of former Iowa Police Chief Bradley Wendt. Chief Wendt, who previously ran the Adair Police Department, was targeted by the Biden-Harris DOJ for acquiring machine guns for his police department, which is expressly permitted under federal law.

Although federal law clearly allows local governments to acquire, possess, and use machineguns within their complete discretion, the ATF and DOJ have recently begun a malicious prosecution scheme aimed to crack down on the ability of local government officials to acquire machineguns. Tellingly, DOJ’s prosecutions have been brought against small town police chiefs and rural sheriffs – generally the very same officials who stand up for their constituents against the efforts of radical gun grabbers.

In July, Chief Wendt was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison for making false statements and fraud in connection with acquiring machine guns for his department, and his case is now on appeal to the Eighth Circuit.

In our brief, the coalition argues that federal law expressly prohibits the federal government from interfering in a local police department’s authority to acquire, possess, and issue machine guns to officers. Additionally, our brief argues that the alleged false statements made by Chief Wendt could not be considered by ATF under their own regulation, meaning they were not material and should never have been presented to the jury. Read more

A federal district court judge in New York has ruled that the state’s restriction against concealed carry on private property open to the public is unconstitutional, handing a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in a case known as Christian v. James.

U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. issued a 43-page decision in which he observed, “The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such a curtailment of the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the right to self-defense is equally important—and equally recognized—on then vast swaths of private property open to the public across New York State.”

Judge Sinatra further wrote, “The State maintains there is ‘extensive historical support spanning the colonial era to Reconstruction and beyond that forbade carrying guns onto others’ property without their permission. But the State fails, on this historical record, to demonstrate that the challenged restriction is ‘consist[ant] with a well-established and representative National tradition.”

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Brett Christian, for whom the case is named.

“As we’ve said all along, the ‘sensitive place’ carry restrictions imposed by New York post-Bruen are unconstitutional. Hard stop,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled that once again, the courts have agreed, and sent this amoral and unlawful ban packing.” Read more

NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, has developed a webpage containing resources for military veterans, including a fact sheet discussing mistaken beliefs that cause some veterans to forego seeking health care from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) because of concerns about having their firearms taken away.

“Understanding the facts about this topic can help veterans make informed decisions about seeking the health care they are entitled to,” said NSSF President and CEO Joe Bartozzi. “This care can range from a routine checkup to a hip replacement to screening for PTSD to mental health care.”

The fact sheet is titled “Correcting Mistaken Beliefs about VA Confiscating Veterans’ Guns.”

The webpage notes that “NSSF and its member companies proudly support America’s military service veterans. On this page NSSF shares information and resources that can benefit veterans’ health and resiliency, and that highlights their importance as employees and leaders in America’s firearm industry.”

The site includes information about several NSSF veterans-focused initiatives. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— On Tuesday, Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) regulation expanding what constitutes a “firearm.”

Arguments will begin at 10 a.m. EST and will be broadcast live here.

SAF is joined in the case by Defense Distributed and Not an LLC (doing business as JSD Supply). SAF and its partners are represented by attorneys Charles R. Flores and Josh Blackman of Houston, and SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.

In April 2022, the ATF published its Final Rule amending the regulatory definition of the term “firearm” to encompass precursor parts that, with enough additional manufacturing operations, would become functional firearms frames and receivers, but in their current state were non-functional objects. Read more

Firearms News’ Facebook Page Getting Deleted Is Part of the Reason Why

DENVER – The saying “what comes around, goes around” rings true today as Firearms News, a leading voice in the Second Amendment community since 1946, announces a renewed commitment to print media as social media censorship further restricts free information flow. The publication’s Facebook page, a top resource for nearly 1 million followers, was recently deleted without warning, underscoring the growing challenges faced by conservative and pro-Second Amendment voices online.

Firearms News has long balanced the legacy of print media with the immediacy of digital content, publishing both monthly issues and daily updates online. Despite digital disruptions, the publication remains steadfast in its dedication to delivering unfiltered Second Amendment news, historical firearm insights, and gun reviews.

“Social media censorship shows the importance and value of our print roots,” notes David M. Fortier, Executive Editor at Firearms News. “Our community relies on us for unbiased journalism, and print is a key part of ensuring our message reaches those who value freedom and transparency.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, wholeheartedly supports the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee’s subpoena of The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention to investigate allegations that the administration wrongfully colluded with gun control groups and the City of Chicago to bring an unfounded lawsuit against a firearm manufacturer. It is proper and fitting that the House of Representatives exercises its oversight authority to demand records of the office led by Vice President Kamala Harris, which appears to have weaponized the weight of the federal government to bring “lawfare” against an industry the Biden-Harris administration politically disfavors.

NSSF calls on The White House to comply with the subpoena, end its collaboration with special interest groups to deny Americans their Constitutionally-protected Second Amendment rights and abandon their support for the City of Chicago unfounded claims that amount to another example of “lawfare.”

“The White House already ignored requests to voluntarily provide this information to the House Oversight Committee. This office – led by Vice President Harris, the administration’s ‘gun control czar’ – appears to have manifested the firearm industry’s deepest concerns that it was never formed to improve community safety,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Rather, it appears this office is a taxpayer-funded effort to do the bidding of radical, special interest groups to weaponize the courts through ‘lawfare’ and advance an agenda to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. NSSF urges The White House to comply with the subpoenas and provide the information to Chairman James Comer.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is applauding an amicus brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a Second Amendment case which contends a man named Steven Duarte “did not forfeit his Second Amendment rights because of a past, nonviolent felony conviction.” The case is known as U.S. v. Duarte.

“This is a remarkable and refreshing approach by the ACLU,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The organization has produced a stunningly detailed amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment. While acknowledging its history of concerns regarding gun-related violent crime, in this case the ACLU properly criticizes federal law for permanently disarming people previously convicted of nonviolent offenses, including misdemeanors where a state legislature has imposed a sufficiently long possible prison sentence to result in a lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights. Thus, as the ACLU sagely observes, someone could be put in prison for ‘the most fleeting, innocuous, or merely constructive ‘possession’ of a firearm’.” Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Maryland resident Donald S. Willey have submitted an appellants’ brief to the Maryland Supreme Court in their federal challenge of that state’s so-called “red flag” law. The case is known as Willey v. Brown and was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in August 2023.

Mr. Willey, a 64-year-old Marine Corps veteran, has been battling officials in Maryland’s Dorchester County over alleged di minimis nuisance and zoning infractions. Ultimately, Willey became the subject of an Extreme Risk Protective Order (“ERPO”) to have his firearms and ammunition confiscated, for allegedly making threats, which Willey steadfastly denied. Willey was forced to endure a humiliating involuntary mental health evaluation. The federal lawsuit alleges Willey’s constitutional rights were violated for nearly two weeks, after which his firearms were returned.

SAF and Mr. Willey are represented by attorneys Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and by Edward A. Paltzik, Serge Krimnus and Meredith Lloyd at Bochner PLLC in New York.

While the federal case remains active, it hinges on the interpretation of Maryland state law, so the federal district court certified two questions of law for the Maryland Supreme Court to answer. Once the Maryland courts interpret/define “reasonable grounds” as used in the state’s ERPO law, the federal lawsuit will resume. Those questions are: Read more