The federal government has filed an amicus brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in support of Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Granata v. Campbell lawsuit, which challenges Massachusetts’s ban on modern, constitutionally protected handguns. FPC’s appeal in this case was filed after the district court upheld the ban.

In the case of Granata v. Campbell, FPC is joined by two individual members as well as The Gun Runner, LLC, a retailer in the state. The parties are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Richard Cullin Chambers, Jr. of Chambers Law Office. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in support of the respondent in United States v. Hemani, a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession for marijuana users. Read more

Silencer Central, America’s leader in silencer sales and advocacy for suppressor ownership, proudly supports actions by the South Dakota legislature to deregulate these essential firearm accessories. Current law states that suppressors are legal only if the owner has the proper Federal Stamp. In 2026, the Federal Stamp fee was reduced to $0, bolstering the ongoing movement for full deregulation and removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA), altogether. If successful, however, current state laws would not allow for new purchases of suppressors outside of the traditional NFA Federal Stamp process. And South Dakota is not alone. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Grant v. Rovella, SAF’s challenge to Connecticut’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.

SAF originally filed its cert petition in November last year urging the High Court to take the case and decide once and for all that AR-15-style rifles are most certainly in “common use” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment. In Connecticut it is a crime to sell, transfer, or possess so-called “assault weapons” in the state. Connecticut’s law specifies some firearms by name and identifies various features to define what it believes constitutes an “assault weapon.”

“There are tens of millions rifles in circulation across America that meet Connecticut’s made-up definition of ‘assault weapon,'” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Given that these firearms are no different than any other semi-automatic firearm owned by citizens for self-defense, there is no doubt these arms are in ‘common use’ and are certainly covered under the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has already stated that a firearm cannot be banned if it is in common use for lawful purposes, which is exactly what is happening in Connecticut and elsewhere across the country.”

As noted in the brief, “Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and similar rifles, and most do so for defensive purposes…applying the correct “common use” standard, and situating it at the proper historical stage of Bruen’s framework, could change the outcome of this case.” SAF is joined in the case by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens.

“This is SAF’s second ‘assault weapons’ ban challenge we have before the Supreme Court for consideration,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The list of banned firearms in Connecticut – and elsewhere across the United States – make peaceable gun owners felons for simply owning certain types of arms for self-defense. This obstruction to the Second Amendment rights of Americans cannot be allowed to stand, and we are optimistic the Court will agree to hear at least one of our lawsuits in relation to these infringements on the right to keep and bear arms.” Read more

GW: How prophetic was Abraham Lincoln, when he delivered, in part, the speech below? Judge for yourself in consideration of the chaos that has developed by those among us who hate America.

The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions:
Address Before the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
January 27, 1838

…At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it?– Shall we expect some transatlantic military giant, to step the Ocean, and crush us at a blow? Never!–All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined, with all the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their military chest; with a Buonaparte for a commander, could not by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years.

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide…

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praises the unanimous decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals to end the City of Gary, Indiana’s 26-year-old frivolous lawsuit against firearm manufacturers that sought to hold them responsible for the criminal actions of unrelated and remote third parties. The Court upheld the constitutionality of a recently enacted law — championed by NSSF — providing that only the state of Indiana can bring a lawsuit against a firearm industry member. As a result, it directed the trial court to dismiss the lingering Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary public nuisance lawsuit, which failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing despite more than a quarter century of litigation.

“This is a tremendous day for of the rule of law, common sense and the firearm industry,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “The City of Gary never had a serious claim. Instead, it was committed to a losing lawfare strategy to abuse the courts in order to force gun control policy outside of legislative channels. The bottom line is that these sorts of frivolous claims have no business clogging our courts and special-interest groups cannot circumvent elected representative bodies by attempting legislation through litigation. NSSF is deeply grateful to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita for his strong defense of this law.”

Former Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb signed House Bill 1235 into law in 2024 that “provides that only the state of Indiana may bring or maintain an action by or on behalf of a political subdivision against a firearm or ammunition manufacturer, trade association, seller, or dealer concerning certain matters.” The law “prohibits a political subdivision from otherwise independently bringing or maintaining such an action,” effectively negating the City of Gary’s frivolous claims. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession as applied to an individual with a decades-old misdemeanor DUI conviction.

The case, Williams v. Attorney General of the United States, will be argued before an en banc panel in February. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Law Center.

“The government’s position defies Bruen and Rahimi by seeking to impose a permanent disarmament on a law-abiding citizen based solely on a nonviolent misdemeanor from 20 years ago, with no evidence of ongoing danger,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the risks of intoxication and firearms through temporary restrictions on those currently impaired, never by stripping gun rights forever from someone who once drank irresponsibly but has since reformed. We urge the Court to reject this overreach and affirm the district court’s ruling.”

If the Third Circuit rules in favor of Mr. Williams, it could have major implications for many others who are disarmed due to similar convictions. Read more

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted full-court review in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Koons v. Platkin challenge to New Jersey’s sweeping post-Bruen carry restrictions. This significant development ensures that the entire court will evaluate the state’s unconstitutional scheme under the proper historical and constitutional framework. The prior panel’s flawed decision—upholding key elements of the law—has been vacated, restoring the case to a posture where New Jersey’s unlawful policies can be fully and fairly scrutinized. FPC remains steadfast in pursuing meaningful relief for all who seek to exercise their right to bear arms in New Jersey and nationwide.

Gun owners can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org to join the fight to strike down New Jersey’s public carry bans and support dozens of other important lawsuits to end gun control laws across the country.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant certiorari in Gardner v. Maryland, a case challenging Maryland’s refusal to honor firearm carry permits issued by other states.

The case involves Eva Marie Gardner, who was arrested for carrying a firearm without a permit after defending herself in Maryland. Ms. Gardner had a Virginia carry permit, but Maryland refuses to honor permits originating from any other state. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling defies Bruen by allowing states to force visitors from other states to jump through costly and time-consuming hoops to exercise their right to carry arms for self-defense,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that travelers from other states were not only allowed to carry firearms but often received special exemptions from local restrictions. We urge the Court to intervene and ensure the Second Amendment protects Americans nationwide, regardless of state borders.”

If granted review, this case could affect millions of law-abiding Americans who face arrest and prosecution simply for carrying a firearm with a valid out-of-state permit while traveling through restrictive states like Maryland, California, New York, Illinois, and others. Read more