FPC Fights to End D.C. Circuit Precedent in Magazine Ban Lawsuit

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“For too long, these outdated precedents have barred pre-enforcement Second Amendment challenges in this Circuit, only allowing cases to move forward if a litigant has been arrested,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

Puerto Rico Lawsuit Against SIG Dismissed

United States District Court for Puerto Rico has dismissed Berrios v. Sig Sauer. Police officer Elvis Ramon Green Berrios claimed his P320 service weapon discharged without the trigger being pulled. Mr. Berrios voluntarily withdrew his suit after “admitting in court that his P320 pistol has no defects and does not discharge without a trigger pull.” For three years, SIG says it “has vigorously defended the safety, quality and dependability of their P320 pistol” continuing that Berrios’ admission came after “scientific evidence showing that the P320 cannot fire without a trigger pull and contains no manufacturing defects.” This suit is the eighteenth time SIG has successfully defended the P320 in court.

FPC Asks Supreme Court to Hear Age-Based Gun Ban Case

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

Reckless Lawsuits Against Firearm Industry Members SB 318

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

SAF Files Response Brief with SCOTUS in Minnesota Carry Case

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

Maryland Alert: Lead Ammunition Ban Bills

Contact Your Senator and Delegate Today and Urge Them to Oppose These Bans!

This session, the Maryland General Assembly is considering two bills that will ban the use of traditional lead ammunition for hunting throughout the state.

Senate Bill 634 and House Bill 741 will phase out the use of traditional lead ammunition for hunting by 2029. These bills use a species-based phase-out scheme that does not consider the current and future availability of lead alternatives. In fact, the bills are being pushed by anti-hunting groups that want to ban hunting all together.

Currently, both these bills are sitting in their respective committees awaiting committee votes. The deadline to report these bills favorably is quickly approaching as the bill crossover date is March 17. This is the day each chamber sends to the other chamber those bills it intends to pass favorably.

Please take action by contacting your senator and delegate. Respectfully ask them to oppose these bans. Instead of a ban, ask them to support voluntary measures that encourage hunters to try some of the new, non-lead products available on the market. The ultimate decision should be left up to hunters themselves and not mandated by the state. You can find your legislator by clicking here.

FPC Defends Victory in New York Firearm Carry Ban Lawsuit

NEW YORK – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it filed its answering brief with the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian v. James, an FPC Law case that challenges New York’s laws banning firearms on all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner.

These accelerated appellate proceedings closely follow the Western District of New York’s judgment in favor of the FPC plaintiffs just two months ago in January. This brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/boron.

New York’s ban “implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment by regulating where firearms may lawfully be carried. And it cannot be reconciled with the historic principles underlying the Second Amendment,” argues the brief. “This Court already has held that the State is unlikely to be able to justify the law historically. The Court should now hold that its prediction was correct.”

“We are committed to putting an end to this immoral and unconstitutional law, whatever it takes, and this brief is an important step to that end,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “This outrageous regulatory scheme simply cannot pass constitutional muster and the Second Circuit should hold as much without delay.” Read more

Biden Holdovers at DOJ Move to Stall GOA Victory in Lawsuit Against ATF

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), alongside the states of Texas, Louisiana, Utah and Mississippi have filed an opposition to the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) motion to stay our ongoing lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The case, which seeks to block the Biden Administration’s unlawful “engaged in the business” rule, had already seen a victory at the lower court, where a judge granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs. But now, the DOJ is attempting to stall the case by asking for a stay, which could delay a resolution for an indefinite period of time.

In our response filed today, GOA and the Texas Attorney General’s office made it clear that the DOJ’s request to stay the case only serves to further entrench the issue in a “quagmire of administrative process and serial litigation.” As the case is now on the brink of resolution, the DOJ’s actions seek to prolong the legal uncertainty, making it harder for gun owners to defend their rights.

The DOJ’s request to stall this victory is not only baseless but also indicative of the entrenched anti-gun agenda within DOJ’s bureaucracy.

This legal battle is part of a larger fight to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. GOA and the Texas Attorney General’s office are working tirelessly to ensure that the ATF’s overreach is held in check, demanding that the DOJ cease its efforts to derail the court from deciding our case. On the campaign trail, President Trump said: “Biden is trying to ban all private gun transfers in the United States with a stroke of a pen. Under a Trump administration, all of those Biden disasters get ripped up and torn out my first week.” Read more

Contact Governor Youngkin Today and Oppose The Antigun and Anti-industry Bills

On Saturday, February 22, the Virginia General Assembly adjourned sine die from its 2025 legislative session. Like last year, Democrats in both the Senate and House passed a plethora of antigun and anti-industry bills that, if signed, will negatively affect manufacturers, retailers and consumers. Governor Glenn Youngkin, like last year, has indicated that he will not sign bills that unjustly attack the industry and penalize individuals that choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Please contact Governor Youngkin’s office and let him know you appreciate him standing in support of the industry.

Industry Specific Bills passed this year include: Read more

GOA & GOF Filed Reply Brief in NY Court to Expand Victory from NYC to Statewide Access for Nonresident Concealed Carry

GW: “…unconstitutional restrictions on nonresidents seeking to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense.”

Washington, D.C. — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), on behalf of Carl Higbie and two other plaintiffs, have filed an Opposition to New York’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment in the Northern District of New York, responding to the state’s defense of restrictive concealed carry permit laws. Our work here aims to expand the victory previously won when New York City began to allow nonresidents to apply for permits to the entire state of New York, removing the current barriers that confine nonresident concealed carry access to just New York City.

This legal action is part of our ongoing commitment to dismantle unconstitutional gun laws that restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens across the country. We argue that New York’s current laws violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments by imposing unconstitutional restrictions on nonresidents seeking to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense.

The state’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment focused on saying first, that New York does not prohibit nonresident permit applications, and second, defending local regulations that limit nonresidents’ ability to apply for permits to carry firearms in the state. We countered with a powerful response, reaffirming that New York’s restrictive policies infringe upon the fundamental right to self-defense and are out of step with state and federal law and the rest of the country.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“Our rights, protected by the Constitution, aren’t up for debate—period. We are not backing down in our fight against New York’s unconstitutional policies. GOA and GOF will continue to fight to ensure that the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, including nonresidents, are upheld. We will not rest until every law-abiding citizen is free to exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense, wherever they are.”

Sam Paredes, on behalf of Gun Owners Foundation, added: Read more

1 2 3 4 149