The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Federal District Court Judge Stephen P. McGlynn has ruled in the FPC Law case of Harrel v. Raoul that the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, is unconstitutional. The 168-page decision, which followed a full bench trial, can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/harrel.

After considering all of the evidence and arguments, the “Court must take action as justice demands,” the Court said in its decision. “PICA is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined. The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.” However, the Court also stayed the injunction for 30 days to allow the State time to appeal and seek a stay from the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

“We are gratified that the Court properly found that these bans violate the constitutionally protected rights of Illinois residents and visitors. As we clearly showed at trial, PICA fails even under the Seventh Circuit’s misguided test that conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We will continue to fight forward until we eliminate every unconstitutional ban like this throughout the country. Further, we are optimistic that the Supreme Court will soon address bans like these in our Snope v. Brown case out of Maryland, which is pending the Court’s decision on our petition for certiorari. Gun owners across the United States should be confident that the ultimate victory on these issues is coming, likely soon.” Read more

CINCINNATI– Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announces that a reply brief was filed with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in C.S. v. McCrumb, an FPC-backed lawsuit challenging a Michigan public school’s ban on pro-gun speech. The brief can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/mccrumb.

Under the Supreme Court’s “clearly established, settled authority, the School Officials’ speculative, after-the-fact hypothesizing about potential disruption was insufficient to justify their content-based command that [the student] remove a hat they did not like.”

“The First Amendment protects this public school student’s right to engage in peaceful speech in support of the Second Amendment. The Sixth Circuit should make that clear by holding that the school violated her rights and reversing the district court’s absurd ruling,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

By Glen Wunderlich

Charter Member Professional Outdoor Media Association (POMA)

Anti-American, gun-grabbing anti-Constitutionalist liberals can sit back and watch America’s revitalization take place right under Kamala’s nose.

If Kamala Harris’ intention to promote the notion of mandatory gun buy-backs is not anti-Second Amendment – another dance around the Constitution – then how could she square her forked-tongue language that she didn’t want to take anyone’s guns?

She and her ilk will have plenty of time to cry a river.

Let’s go hunting!

A federal judge in New York has issued a permanent injunction against the Cortland Housing Authority (CHA) prohibiting any sort of firearms ban against CHA tenants, in a victory for the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its fellow plaintiffs.

SAF was joined in this action by three private citizens, Robert Hunter, Elmer Irwin and Doug Merrin. They are represented by attorneys Edward Andrew Paltzik, Serge Krimnus and Meredith Lloyd at Bochner PLLC in New York City. U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York signed the order.

“Pursuant to Plaintiffs’ claims as set forth in the First Amended Complaint, Defendants, and their respective employees, agents, representatives, service providers and/or contractors, are enjoined from prohibiting Plaintiffs and all other CHA tenants from owning, possessing, transporting, or using firearms for lawful purposes, provided they are otherwise qualified and in compliance with all federal, state, and local laws applicable to the ownership, possession, transportation and use of firearms,” Judge Suddaby wrote.

He also ordered the defendants — CHA and Executive Director Ella M. Diiorio — to pay plaintiffs’ counsel $150,000 for attorney’s fees and costs.

“This is not the first time SAF has successfully challenged a gun ban in a public housing authority facility,” recalled SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Whenever we are alerted to this sort of thing, we are prepared to challenge it. Bringing these cases simply fulfills our effort to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

“At some point,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed, “it should become abundantly clear to various public housing authorities that gun bans are not allowed. Residents do not leave their constitutional rights at the entrance, as each of our victories over the years have affirmed.” Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the general ban on firearms carry in post office facilities have filed a plaintiffs’ brief supporting their motion for summary judgment in the case.

The brief was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Gavin Pate and George Mandry, who are members of both organizations. They are represented by attorneys R. Brent Cooper and S. Hunter Walton at Cooper & Scully, P.C. in Dallas, and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and Megan M. Wold at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. The case is known as FPC v. Garland.

In their 22-page brief, SAF and its partners argue, “The Founders did not bar carriage of firearms in Post Offices. Instead, they regulated the improper, threatening, and violent use of weapons in Post Offices. Later generations confirmed this historical tradition by protecting mail carriers with bounties and facilitating carriage, not banning firearms. Post Offices have been a feature of our country from before we were a country, and concerns about threats to Post Offices are as old as Post Offices themselves…Yet, to Plaintiffs’ knowledge, Congress passed no restrictions on the carriage of firearms in U.S. Post Offices during the Founding era, suggesting that the Carry Ban is unconstitutional.” Read more

Washington, D.C. – Last week, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) joined the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Palmetto State Armory, B&T USA, and the States of West Virginia, Missouri, Arkansas, Kansas, Montana, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Utah in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in defense of former Iowa Police Chief Bradley Wendt. Chief Wendt, who previously ran the Adair Police Department, was targeted by the Biden-Harris DOJ for acquiring machine guns for his police department, which is expressly permitted under federal law.

Although federal law clearly allows local governments to acquire, possess, and use machineguns within their complete discretion, the ATF and DOJ have recently begun a malicious prosecution scheme aimed to crack down on the ability of local government officials to acquire machineguns. Tellingly, DOJ’s prosecutions have been brought against small town police chiefs and rural sheriffs – generally the very same officials who stand up for their constituents against the efforts of radical gun grabbers.

In July, Chief Wendt was sentenced to 60 months in federal prison for making false statements and fraud in connection with acquiring machine guns for his department, and his case is now on appeal to the Eighth Circuit.

In our brief, the coalition argues that federal law expressly prohibits the federal government from interfering in a local police department’s authority to acquire, possess, and issue machine guns to officers. Additionally, our brief argues that the alleged false statements made by Chief Wendt could not be considered by ATF under their own regulation, meaning they were not material and should never have been presented to the jury. Read more

A federal district court judge in New York has ruled that the state’s restriction against concealed carry on private property open to the public is unconstitutional, handing a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in a case known as Christian v. James.

U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra, Jr. issued a 43-page decision in which he observed, “The Nation’s historical traditions have not countenanced such a curtailment of the right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the right to self-defense is equally important—and equally recognized—on then vast swaths of private property open to the public across New York State.”

Judge Sinatra further wrote, “The State maintains there is ‘extensive historical support spanning the colonial era to Reconstruction and beyond that forbade carrying guns onto others’ property without their permission. But the State fails, on this historical record, to demonstrate that the challenged restriction is ‘consist[ant] with a well-established and representative National tradition.”

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition and Brett Christian, for whom the case is named.

“As we’ve said all along, the ‘sensitive place’ carry restrictions imposed by New York post-Bruen are unconstitutional. Hard stop,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled that once again, the courts have agreed, and sent this amoral and unlawful ban packing.” Read more

NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, has developed a webpage containing resources for military veterans, including a fact sheet discussing mistaken beliefs that cause some veterans to forego seeking health care from the Dept. of Veterans Affairs (VA) because of concerns about having their firearms taken away.

“Understanding the facts about this topic can help veterans make informed decisions about seeking the health care they are entitled to,” said NSSF President and CEO Joe Bartozzi. “This care can range from a routine checkup to a hip replacement to screening for PTSD to mental health care.”

The fact sheet is titled “Correcting Mistaken Beliefs about VA Confiscating Veterans’ Guns.”

The webpage notes that “NSSF and its member companies proudly support America’s military service veterans. On this page NSSF shares information and resources that can benefit veterans’ health and resiliency, and that highlights their importance as employees and leaders in America’s firearm industry.”

The site includes information about several NSSF veterans-focused initiatives. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— On Tuesday, Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) regulation expanding what constitutes a “firearm.”

Arguments will begin at 10 a.m. EST and will be broadcast live here.

SAF is joined in the case by Defense Distributed and Not an LLC (doing business as JSD Supply). SAF and its partners are represented by attorneys Charles R. Flores and Josh Blackman of Houston, and SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.

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, would become functional firearms frames and receivers, but in their current state were non-functional objects. Read more