BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed an amicus brief today in the Supreme Court of Maryland supporting the petition for certiorari in Darius Duvall v. State of Maryland, challenging the state’s refusal to recognize valid, out-of-state carry permits.

The brief urges the Court to grant review and hold that Maryland’s refusal to recognize these permits violates the Second Amendment. American historical tradition overwhelmingly protected travelers from other states, who were routinely exempted from state and local restrictions on the concealed carry of firearms. This “traveler’s exception” appears in Colonial-era laws, early 19th-century statutes from states like Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama, and continued after the Civil War in states including Nevada and California. More than 80 such historical examples have been compiled.

SAF is joined in the brief by Maryland Shall Issue, National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Law Center, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Cato Institute.

“History is clear: travelers from other states were given greater leeway to carry arms than residents,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Maryland’s modern scheme, which forces law-abiding adults who already hold permits from their home jurisdictions to jump through redundant and costly hoops or risk arrest, has no analogue in our nation’s historical tradition. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen, Wolford, and Hemani require states to respect that tradition. The Court should grant the petition and put Maryland on the right side of the Second Amendment.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s unconstitutional prohibition on issuing handgun carry permits to peaceable adults under 21. The case, Pool v. Hodges, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. FPC also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a prompt final judgment against the unconstitutional ban.

Federal law separately generally prohibits firearm possession on or within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school unless the person has a carry license issued by the state where the school is located. But Louisiana prohibits adults under 21 from obtaining a handgun carry permit. As a result, these adults are trapped within a sprawling network of invisible “gun-free zones” where they cannot lawfully carry a firearm. Neither so-called “constitutional carry” laws nor a license recognized only through reciprocity exempt people from criminal liability for carrying in these “gun-free zones.” By denying carry licenses to adults under 21, Louisiana prevents them from lawfully carrying through vast portions of the State as they go about their daily lives.

In addition to its litigation efforts, FPC is also working to eliminate the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) and preempt state and local restrictions that undermine the right to bear arms through federal legislation.

FPC’s Pool lawsuit follows the Fifth Circuit’s binding decision in FPC’s Reese v. ATF case, which held that peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults are part of “the People” protected by the Second Amendment and struck down the federal handgun and handgun-ammunition sales ban for that age group. Under Reese, Louisiana’s age-based licensing restriction cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

“The Fifth Circuit has already made it crystal clear that peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults are among ‘the People’ protected by the Second Amendment and enjoy the same right to keep and bear arms as every other adult. Yet Louisiana denies them access to the permits they need to fully exercise their right to bear arms in public, Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Bathras v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to the Maryland Glock ban signed into law by Gov. Wes Moore.

In May, SAF filed the lawsuit immediately after Gov. Moore signed into law Senate Bill 334, which states a person “…may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a machine gun convertible pistol.” It further defines a “machine gun convertible pistol” as a firearm that contains a cruciform trigger bar. Cruciform trigger bars are a unique design element found across all Glock handguns. The intent of the bill is to prevent the already illegal conversion of semi-automatic handguns into machineguns, by banning the legal handguns themselves. The ban goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

“Anti-gun politicians will constantly tell you that ‘no one is coming for your guns,'” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And then they pass bills like this that bans the most commonly owned handgun in America. Both can’t be true. Maryland’s Glock ban, and those like it that have popped up around the country, are a thinly veiled attempt to ban all guns, one chunk of the market at a time. But the law is overwhelmingly on our side. The Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment protects handguns, as they are the ‘quintessential’ firearm of choice for self-defense, and Glock-style pistols are massively popular and commonly used in Maryland and around the country.”

As noted in the complaint, “This case is about whether Maryland may ban Glock and Glock-style handguns consistent with the United States Constitution merely because someone can convert those firearms into something that they are not.” SAF is joined in Bathras v. Moore by Atlantic Guns, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Laws like this strip peaceable Americans from access to constitutionally protected arms and seek to bully and hold liable lawful manufacturers and sellers for the criminal misuse of firearms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This law is the equivalent to banning free speech in the hopes of preventing fraud. It’s bad policy and unconstitutional. We look forward getting it tossed.” Read more

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down New Jersey’s assault weapon and magazine capacity bans, bolstering a positive outcome in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) two assault weapons ban cases currently before the Supreme Court.

“Today’s Third Circuit decision striking down New Jersey’s so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban confirms arguments in SAF’s two cases before the Supreme Court – Viramontesv. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins are valid and well-reasoned,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Supreme Court’s recent decision Wolford v. Lopez, where he Court further clarified what constitutes an ‘arm’ for Second Amendment purposes, has already laid the groundwork for resolving these cases favorably and was adopted by the Third Circuit. We are optimistic today’s ruling will further bolster a favorable result once we have the opportunity to argue the cases before the Court this fall.”

In today’s opinion, the en banc Third Circuit struck down key parts of New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and magazine laws, which creates a circuit split on both issues. The ruling ultimately functions as an excellent opening act ahead of the Supreme Court consideration of SAF’s Viramontes and Grant cases in its upcoming term. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the Trump Department of Justice moved to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of FPC’s victory against the federal post office gun ban in FPC v. Blanche—formerly FPC v. Bondi. If the Fifth Circuit grants the unopposed motion, the district court’s permanent injunction will remain in place unchanged.

The plaintiffs, which include FPC, two FPC members, and the Second Amendment Foundation, are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.

The government filed its motion on July 16, 2026, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The federal post office gun ban unconstitutionally prohibited FPC and SAF members from carrying firearms for self-defense inside ordinary post offices and on surrounding postal property. The district court entered summary judgment and a permanent injunction for the plaintiffs, then rejected the government’s effort to restrict that relief to only those who were members when the lawsuit was filed. The injunction protects all present and future FPC and SAF members. After fighting the case and appealing the judgment, the Trump DOJ has now asked to abandon its appeal.

“The Trump DOJ spent far too long defending an immoral and unconstitutional ban that treated peaceable Americans like criminals. Now, after losing on the merits and failing to gut the relief protecting our members, the government is finally waving the white flag. Good. This victory protects every present and future member of the FPC Grassroots Army, and it proves once again that membership can have real, direct consequences for the exercise of constitutional rights. But the government deserves no credit for finally abandoning its authoritarian effort to preserve an unconstitutional and immoral law. FPC will continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional gun ban is eliminated, full stop.” — FPC President Brandon Combs Read more

NSSF praises the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit for its decision that found New Jersey’s laws banning the sale and possession of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment. This decision is momentous as it fuels the challenges that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear on similar state and municipal MSR bans in the next session and creates disagreement between the circuit courts on the constitutionality of both MSR and magazine bans. “Today’s ruling by the Third Circuit vindicates what NSSF has argued for decades. The MSR is a commonly used firearm that is protected for legal sale and lawful ownership under the Second Amendment. Additionally, standard-capacity magazines are ‘arms’ that are also protected by the Second Amendment,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. Read the full press release here.

No firearm was found during the illegal search as it was safely stored at his home

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a motion for summary judgment in a case challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle that was based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from an unlawful search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Based only on an overheard conversation that Harrington lawfully owned a firearm, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. No firearm was found during the illegal search as it was safely stored at his home, nowhere near the school campus.

“Entirely lawful and constitutionally protected conduct cannot be the grounds for a search,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “School officials, especially when accompanied by law enforcement as was the case here, need at minimum reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle. Here, those officials learning that our client was a gun owner gave them that suspicion. They are mistaken. If that were the case, student gun owners all over the country could be subject to repeated and endless harassment.”

As noted in the motion, “Defendants relied upon a week-old, stale report of a single comment made by Jack and overheard by an assistant coach…relating to Jack’s storage of his handgun in the glove box of his truck while at a gas station nowhere near campus – indisputably legal and constitutionally protected conduct. At no point during the interrogation, the search, or at any time since, have defendants brought forth a single shred of evidence of unlawful conduct by Jack. Moreover, defendants confirmed that they did not view Jack as a threat to school safety; they did not believe Jack had a weapon on his person during the interrogation; and Jack had no previous disciplinary issues.”

“District officials – and even a school resource officer who should know better,took it upon themselves to violate the constitutional rights of a peaceable, adult, firearm owner for no other reason than they learned of his status as a gun owner,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Law enforcement and school officials are required to understand the law and to follow it, and in this case, it appears they failed at both.” Read more

NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is disappointed by the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Barnett v. Raoul. NSSF respectfully disagrees with the Court’s decision to reverse and remand a lower court’s ruling — made after conducting a several-day bench trial — that Illinois’ law is unconstitutional and that Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment. As disappointing as this decision is, NSSF is confident that the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and Bruen are clear and those precedents plainly vindicate the challenges to similar laws that will be argued before the Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins in the next session.

NSSF is a plaintiff in this case and plans on filing a cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court.

NSSF believes the Seventh Circuit erred in its decision when it ruled that MSRs are “dangerous and unusual.” There are more than 32 million MSRs in circulation today, making these semiautomatic, centerfire rifles commonly owned and commonly used by nearly every standard. Likewise, there are hundreds of millions of standard-capacity magazines owned by law-abiding Americans in the United States. Further, NSSF believes the court misapplied the Bruen test by relying on a handful of laws restricting the carrying of Bowie knives that are in no way analogous to Illinois’ law and post-date not only the Nation’s founding, but also the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment.

NSSF agrees with Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent, in the strongest terms, in which he wrote, “Now, with perhaps the most comprehensive trial record in any Second Amendment case to date, this court repeats its error. Our Nation’s enduring traditions forbid governments from prohibiting firearms commonly owned for self-defense. Because the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment.”

About NSSF: NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) President Brandon Combs issued the following statement responding to the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in FPC’s Harrel v. Raoul lawsuit (consolidated with Barnett v. Raoul and others) challenging the Illinois Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity” magazines. The district court declared the bans unconstitutional following extensive briefing, presentation of evidence, and a trial, but the Seventh Circuit reversed that ruling today:

“Today’s decision is exactly what we’ve come to expect from courts desperately contorting themselves to keep failed gun-control theories alive. While the opinion is unquestionably atrocious in both its legal reasoning and moral foundation, the good news is that today’s opinion is not the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence but the death rattle of the failed gun-control era—the last gasp of a dying authoritarian legal movement that has spent years engaging in judicial jiggery-pokery, inventing exceptions, rewriting history, misrepresenting reality, and treating the Second Amendment like a second-class right.

Just days ago, the Supreme Court granted review in FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County case, which squarely presents the issue these lower courts keep working so hard to avoid. That grant of certiorari was not an accident. It is a recognition that the confusion and open defiance in the lower courts—exemplified yet again by today’s Seventh Circuit decision—cannot and must not continue.

The Constitution does not permit governments to outlaw these firearms and magazines, full stop. Nor does it allow judges to substitute their personal policy preferences for the scope of the right the Constitution enshrined, or to ignore the test the Supreme Court has repeatedly required. The Supreme Court now has the opportunity to restore order to a body of law that some lower courts have treated as optional. When it does, opinions like this will serve as little more than historical reminders of how far some courts were willing to go to deny Americans the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.

For years, anti-rights governments have benefited from some judges willing to do whatever it took to preserve their unconstitutional and immoral bans. They’ve won some battles along the way. But we are going to win the war.

FPC is going to achieve our Current Mission which is to restore the essential right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. We will continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional arms ban falls and the Second Amendment is treated like every other constitutional guarantee—not as a suggestion, but as the supreme law of the land.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion to supplement Renna v. Calif. Attorney General Rob Bonta, its federal lawsuit challenging California’s handgun roster, to add a claim against the State’s ban on semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars, including nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol on the market.

The plaintiffs include FPC, individual and retailer FPC members, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Second Amendment Foundation, and National Rifle Association of America. They are represented by Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC.

The motion was filed on July 1, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

California’s ban on handguns with a cruciform trigger bar adds to its existing unconstitutional handgun-ban regime by prohibiting peaceable people from acquiring some of the most popular handguns in the country. Read more