Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that attorneys for the challengers in an FPC-backed lawsuit challenging the State of Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation and in related facilities have filed a response brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The appellate filing comes after the district court declared the ban unconstitutional as applied to the named plaintiffs and denied the state’s motion to stay that decision. Key case filings for Schoenthal v. Raoul can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/schoenthal.

“Both the State and County offer a variety of principles to support the ban, but all lack merit,” argues the brief. Under the relevant history, the challengers say, “the only time when the government banned carriage of firearms was when it took upon itself the obligation to secure a location from the unlawful carriage of firearms. But the general rule was and is that individuals are empowered to bear arms for their own defense.”

“FPC is proud to maintain its support of this important case to eliminate unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms in public,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We will continue to Fight Forward in Illinois and throughout the United States.” Read more

BOSTON — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its final summary judgment brief at the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Granata v. Campbell, a lawsuit that challenges the Commonwealth’s ban on handguns. The brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/granata.

“At its core, the State’s argument in this case is precisely the sort of argument that the Supreme Court ruled out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” argues the brief, which goes on to explain why the arguments the Commonwealth make in defense of its ban do not justify the law under the Court’s text-informed-by-history standard.

“Massachusetts may not ban the purchase and possession of constitutionally protected handguns, full stop. This has been true since 2008 when the Supreme Court decided the question in D.C. v. Heller. We hope the district court will soon declare the regulatory scheme unconstitutional and put an end to its enforcement.” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

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

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

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

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

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

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