Gun Owners of America (GOA) is proud to endorse Representative Jimmy Patronis’ bill introduced today on the week of the 40^th anniversary of the Hughes Amendment becoming law. The Firearm Freedom Act would repeal the Hughes Amendment, an unconstitutional provision of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) which banned the sale, transfer, and possession of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.

The Hughes Amendment was a poison pill in FOPA that should never have passed. GOA opposed the adoption of this amendment when it was introduced in 1986, and to this day, continues to oppose it and call for its repeal.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement: “For the last 40 years, gun owners across this country have been denied their constitutional right to own a post-1986 machine gun. The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment as a check on tyrannical government, and the Hughes Amendment serves as a serious infringement of that purpose. Many Americans, still alive today, remember being able to lawfully purchase newly-manufactured machine guns. The Hughes Amendment is one of the most egregious laws passed by Congress in the past few decades.”

Representative Jimmy Patronis, of Florida’s 1^st Congressional District, issued the following statement to Gun Owners of America: “I’m proud to introduce the Firearm Freedom Act to defend the Second Amendment, and I’m grateful for the support of Gun Owners of America, as we fight to protect gun owners across this country. For too long, Washington bureaucrats have tried to chip away at the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. The Firearm Freedom Act pushes back against that overreach and stands up for the rights afforded to all Americans.” Read more

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Christian v. James lawsuit that New York’s ban on firearms at all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner (also known as the “vampire rule”) violates the Second Amendment. The court however also facially upheld the state’s ban on carry in public parks.

FPC is joined in this case by FPC member Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet.

The Court’s opinion was issued on May 18, 2026. The case will now be sent back to the district court, which will issue a final order in this case. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal lawsuit, McDonald v. Katz, after Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed legislation to ban so-called “assault firearms” and “large capacity” magazines. FPC is seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Virginia bans as well as other relief.

The plaintiffs challenging the ban include two individual FPC members, the National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with P. Thomas DiStanislao and Michael Brady of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP.

The complaint was filed on May 14, 2026. Likely next steps include an answer from the defendant and a briefing schedule from the District Court.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Read more

Following closely on the heels of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signing new gun control legislation into law, the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging the commonwealth’s new bans on “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines.

Gov. Spanberger signed into law a ban on so-called “assault firearms” declaring that “…any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The law further defines an “assault firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle chambered in any caliber besides .22 rimfire or one that contains a litany of common features such as a collapsing stock, pistol grip, threaded barrel or more. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. The new laws go into effect on July 1.

“It’s wild that lawmakers who each take an oath to uphold the Constitution insist on passing bills purposefully designed to gut it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The firearms and magazines banned in this law aren’t bizarre and unusual outliers, they’re among the most commonly owned guns and magazines in the country. They’re owned in the tens of millions by peaceable Americans who use them overwhelmingly lawfully. Virginia has now joined the minority of radical states to ban these constitutionally protected firearms, and in so doing, joined the club of states we’re suing over it.”

As noted in the complaint, “The firearms that Virginia bans as ‘assault firearms’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic firearms. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic firearms, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use. Regardless of any new category of arms created by state lawmakers, they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual.” SAF is joined in McDonald v. Katz by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Virginia lawmakers lied to their constituents and to themselves when they said these laws weren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A new sales and transfer ban is a ban that’s just one generation removed. On July 1, anyone turning 18 in Virginia will find out that the rights enjoyed by their predecessors don’t apply to them. These bans are an afront to the Constitution and an insult to the intelligence of Virginians who were fed lies and misrepresentations by their elected officials. We’re excited to fast track this case to the Supreme Court.”

For more information visit SAF.org. Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), alongside Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and 2A journalist John Crump, have filed a lawsuit today in direct response to Virginia’s enactment of SB749 and SB727, the “assault weapons” ban and public carry ban. These two bills represent the most immediate threat to the rights of every law-abiding gun owner in Virginia.

By criminalizing the purchase and transfer of the most popular firearms in America and effectively banning self-defense in public spaces, these laws are a direct assault on the Second Amendment and stand in open defiance of Virginia’s own constitution and necessitate an immediate strike in court.

Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit urging the Court to strike down California’s ban on the open carry of firearms.

The case, Baird v. Bonta, mostly prevailed before a three-judge panel, but that victory was vacated and the case will be reheard en banc. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“The plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms – openly or concealed – and open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for most of American history,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “California’s ban has no foundation in our nation’s tradition, and this Court should reaffirm that open carry is protected just as the Founders and generations of Americans understood it to be. As our brief argues, neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

This case presents another clear opportunity for the Ninth Circuit to faithfully apply Bruen’s historical tradition test to one of the last remaining state bans on open carry, rather than allowing the government to nullify the right through interest-balancing disguised as a “nuanced approach.”

“Open carry predates the Founding and was the primary mode of lawful carry throughout the Nineteenth Century,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF and its partners are proud to stand with Mr. Baird against California’s unconstitutional restrictions, and we urge the Court to reject the State’s baseless public-safety claims and restore the full scope of the Second Amendment right.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging review in Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States, a case involving a decorated Navy veteran sentenced to 20 years in prison for possessing cut-up gun parts and two inert RPG-7 training dummies.

Adamiak enlisted in the United States Navy at 17 years old, serving in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the Panama Canal. At the time of his arrest, he had orders to report to BUD/S and had completed the first phase of training on his way to becoming a Navy SEAL. He was also a gun collector who sold legal gun parts until a paid ATF informant falsely reported that he had a Mk-19 grenade launcher. After a search of his home and subsequent trial, Adamiak was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison.

Editor of SAF’s Investigative Journalism Project, Lee Williams, has followed the case closely and has written more than 40 stories on Adamiak and his plight. The full list of stories can be found here.

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.

“Lower courts continue to distort Bruen by turning the ‘plain text’ step into a restrictive Goldilocks test that lets the government evade its historical burden entirely,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “If cut-up gun parts and inert training aids are being regulated as ‘firearms’ under the NFA, they are presumptively ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment and require historical analogues. Patrick Adamiak should not be spending decades in prison because, among other abuses, courts refuse to apply the Supreme Court’s precedents faithfully.”

SAF’s brief focuses on the Second Amendment aspects of the case, including what constitutes an “arm,” why the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated, and why Bruen’s historical analysis may not be avoided.

“This case highlights the human cost of lower courts’ refusal to faithfully apply Bruen,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A Navy veteran is behind bars over inert gun parts, yet his Second Amendment claim was never even heard on the merits. SAF and its partners are committed to defending the right to keep and bear arms against this kind of judicial abuse, and we believe the Supreme Court must intervene.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that after more than six years of litigation, FPC has secured a settlement with the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) that resulted in the permanent revocation of the agency’s policy regarding “partially manufactured” firearm receivers. The PSP’s policy was imposed along with a December 16, 2019 opinion by then-Attorney General (now-Governor) Josh Shapiro. FPC secured a preliminary injunction against the policy in January 2020, blocking its enforcement, which has been in effect since and has protected Pennsylvania gun owners and lawful businesses.

“This FPC victory for the people of Pennsylvania ends the threat of this immoral and unlawful policy for good,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday should be commended for recognizing something that his ideologically driven predecessors refused to recognize: that they wasted six years of time and taxpayer dollars defending the indefensible. Pennsylvanians can rest easier knowing that Governor Shapiro’s pet policy is in the trash can where it belongs.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Defense Distributed have filed a motion for summary judgment in Defense Distributed v. Blanche (formerly VanDerStok v. Bondi), challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) rule which expands the definition of “firearm” in the efforts of the Biden Administration to regulate so-called “ghost guns.”

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, could become functional firearms frames or receivers, but in their current state were non-functional – and critically, non-firearm – objects. In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects” the ATF’s Final Rule directly contradicted Congress’ definition of “firearm” set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF’s re-definition of “firearm” in the Final Rule establishes a practical ban on the private manufacture of firearms – a constitutionally protected tradition.

“This rule was one of the primary attacks by the Biden Administration on the ability of peaceable citizens to acquire arms,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Self-manufacturing firearms for personal use is a time-honored tradition that countless citizens still practice, and one that is entirely legal under federal law. The frame and receiver rule that we have challenged here was promulgated with the goal of making self-manufacture so legally confusing as to dissuade Americans from exercising their rights.”

In December 2022, SAF filed to intervene in an existing lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas then known as VanDerStok v. Garland. The case challenged the lawfulness of ATF’s regulatory re-definition of a “firearm” under the Administrative Procedures Act. SAF scored a major victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated significant portions of the Rule. The Biden Department of Justice, however, appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled on only a portion of the lawsuit. Today’s motion for summary judgment seeks vindication on the remaining claims. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in an FPC-backed challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, Roberts v. ATF.

The plaintiffs challenging the federal law include T.J. Roberts, Zachary Cockrell, Meridian Ordnance, LLC, the Buckeye Firearms Association, the Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and the American Suppressor Association Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Nicholas Varone of Cooper & Kirk, and supported by FPC. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the defendant as the agency responsible for enforcing the NFA.

The motion was filed on April 24, 2026. Briefing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment will take place through the end of July.

The motion was filed in Covington in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The NFA imposes felony prosecution for violations of its regulatory scheme over now-untaxed firearms. The plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that such regulations are unconstitutional as they exceed Congress’ enumerated powers and violate the Second Amendment.

“The Trump Administration can’t keep forcing peaceable Americans to fingerprint, photograph, and register themselves just to own constitutionally protected tools like suppressors and short-barreled rifles. We filed for summary judgment to end the government’s unlawful NFA gun control scheme for good,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more