The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in a case which could upend prohibitions on firearms possession by people using intoxicants or controlled substances because such laws violate the right to keep and bear arms.

The case is known as United States v. Daniels. SAF filed the brief in response to the unusual request by a three-judge panel in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals following oral arguments, which were heard June 5. Because no amicus briefs had been filed, the panel invited briefs from amici curiae “who wish to supply relevant information regarding the history and tradition of restrictions on the use and possession of firearms as pertinent to the issues presented in this case. Of particular interest are historical gun regulations applicable to intoxicated or impaired individuals.” Briefs were due by July 6. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of Delaware’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large capacity magazines” have filed a brief with the U.S. Third District Court of Appeals in a consolidation of cases.

SAF is involved in two of the three cases, known as Graham v. Jennings and Gray v. Jennings. The appeal brief focuses on three questions: Whether Delaware’s ban on commonly-possessed rifles, mischaracterized as “assault rifles” and the ban on “large capacity magazines” violates the Second Amendment, and whether the District Court erred in refusing to grant a preliminary injunction in both cases.

SAF and its fellow plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Bradley P. Lehman at Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown in Wilmington, Del., and David H Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

Other plaintiffs are Firearms Policy Coalition, DJJAMS LLC and individual citizens Owen Stevens and Christopher Graham, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray.

“Delaware has banned the most popular rifle in the country, along with the standard-capacity magazines supplied by manufacturers to consumers in most other states,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The laws being challenged have literally criminalized ownership of these popular arms and the magazines supplied with them, essentially jeopardizing an act of self-defense if it involves one of the affected firearms or magazines.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a challenge of Pennsylvania’s promulgated firearms regulation and its enforcement by the Pennsylvania State Police and Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, which includes warrantless searches.

SAF is joined by Shot Tec, LLC and a private citizen, Grant Schmidt. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Dillon Harris, Civil Rights Defense Firm, of Bechtelsville, Pa. Defendants are Col. Christopher Paris, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny, in their official capacities. The action was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

The petition challenges Col. Paris and the PSP’s “interpretation, implementation and enforcement” of the firearms regulation “which is being enforced” by Kilkenny, according to the court filing. The petition alleges that Sheriff Kilkenny “has implemented a policy…which he contends, based on the PSP’s promulgation and implementation of (the regulation) permit him, in the absence of probable cause and a warrant and in violation of…the Pennsylvania Constitution, to come into those…homes or business.” Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in its legal challenge, NSSF v. Bonta, seeking to enjoin California’s firearm industry liability law, AB 1594, that was passed last year and signed into law by Gov. Gavin Newsom. The unconstitutional law permits and encourages civil suits against members of the firearm industry for the damages caused by the actions of criminals. This law is an affront to the U.S. Constitution and abuses the judicial system in an attempt to circumvent the will of the U.S. Congress when it passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The law goes into effect July 23. NSSF’s motion to enjoin was filed by Clement & Murphy, PLLC.

NSSF’s motion argues that California’s firearm industry liability law is preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) which was passed with bipartisan support in Congress and subsequently signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2005. The PLCAA was specifically enacted to stamp out frivolous lawsuits sought by activist politicians, gun control lawyers and greedy trial lawyers seeking to bankrupt the lawful firearm industry by blaming them and their lawfully-sold and non-defective products for the violence and harm caused by criminals who misuse firearms to commit their crimes.

“It’s no surprise California’s rabidly antigun General Assembly would pass and Governor Gavin Newsom would sign into law a blatantly unconstitutional attack on the lawful firearm industry instead of looking in the mirror to see how their own policies are leading to historic levels of criminal violence and endangering law-abiding and innocent Californians every day,” said NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane. “NSSF will not stand by and allow the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, or the Constitutional protections of the industry that provides the means of exercising those rights, to be trampled upon while criminals committing acts of violence are handled with kid gloves by soft-on-crime prosecutors. California’s industry liability law is in blatant defiance of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen and is preempted by the PLCAA. NSSF will continue to defend our constitutionally-protected industry against the broadsides of Governor Newsom and his extremist antigun agenda.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a challenge of a ban on so-called “assault weapons” by Cook County, Ill., today filed a 16-page brief supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment in the case, which is known as Viramontes v. Cook County.

The case is being adjudicated in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It was originally filed in August 2021. Joining SAF in this case are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. They are Rubi Joyal, Christopher Khaya and Cutberto Viramontes, for whom the case is named. They are represented by attorneys David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom, all with Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

According to today’s reply brief, “In seeking to justify its ban on common semiautomatic rifles, the County proposes a faulty analysis for this case, conflating the textual and historical inquiries required by Bruen and then proposing to justify its ban by comparison to historical fire safety regulations governing gunpowder storage.”

“Cook County seems determined to obfuscate this case by making arguments which do not pass the constitutional smell test,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The county contends the AR-15 and similar firearms are not appropriate for self-defense, which is simply nonsense. It’s not up to the county to determine what types of firearms are appropriate for personal protection. That’s for the citizens to decide.” Read more