BELLEVUE, WA. – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion in U.S. District Court for summary judgment in its challenge of Washington State’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” in a case known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

SAF is joined in this case by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Rainier Arms, LLC and a private citizen, Gabriella Sullivan. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C., Cody J. Wisniewski at the FPC Foundation, Brian Abbas at Mountain States Legal Foundation, and locally by Joel Ard at Ard Law Group.

“We maintain the magazine ban is unconstitutional,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we note in our motion, magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are in common use across the country. There are millions of such magazines, including huge numbers in Washington, and modern rifles and pistols come from the factory with magazines that hold more than ten cartridges.”

“Designating ten rounds was an arbitrary number,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “for which there is no justification. Anti-gun lawmakers and Gov. Jay Inslee seemed to settle on that number as some sort of magic limit. There is no basis in this nation’s history or tradition to restrict firearm magazine capacities to such an illogical number.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” have submitted a reply to the state’s objection to SAF’s amended motion for a preliminary injunction.

The case is known as Grant v. Lamont, in U.S, District Court for the District of Connecticut. Joining SAF are the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford and Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton.

SAF originally filed the lawsuit last September, naming Gov. Edward M. Lamont, Jr. as the main defendant, along with several other officials. The case involved Connecticut’s one-size-fits-all-type “assault weapons” ban, under which firearms previously identified as “any other firearm” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were suddenly reclassified last year as “rifles” or “short-barreled rifles.” They all became “assault weapons” under the state’s definition.

“The state is attempting to convince the court that these firearms are not in ‘common use,’ which evidence clearly shows otherwise,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The defendants are asking the Court to adopt unprecedented legal standards that squarely contradict established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, and we’re fighting back.”

In its 17-page rebuttal to the state’s objection, SAF contends the defendants have not supplied any evidence or analogues supporting the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted with the a 2-1 ruling by a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that the Biden administration’s “final rule” on pistol braces is “likely illegal” because the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by adopting the rule without meaningful opportunity for public comment.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—under Joe Biden’s hand-picked director Steve Dettelbach—violated the APA. Writing for the majority, Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith observed, “(P)laintiffs establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The ATF incorrectly maintains that the Final Rule is merely interpretive, not legislative, and thus not subject to the logical-outgrowth test. The Final Rule affects individual rights, speaks with the force of law, and significantly implicates private interests. Thus, it is legislative in character. Then, because the Final Rule bears almost no resemblance in manner or kind to the Proposed Rule, the Final Rule fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA.”

“This is a significant win for gun rights,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because the arguments in this case are essentially the same as we are making in our own challenge of the pistol brace rule.”

SAF’s case is known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al and is joined by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas. SAF has already won a preliminary injunction in that case.

“This ruling,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “is a serious setback for the Biden administration’s gun control agenda. As the court noted, the Final Rule was not the logical outgrowth of the original proposed rule, and therefore must be set aside. Thanks to this ruling, we can jump start our own case with very good prospects for success.”

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed its opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a stay in its case challenging the government’s attempt to classify unfinished firearm frames and receivers as “firearms.”

The case is known as VanDerStok v. Garland, and last month, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay portions of the rule which SAF successfully challenged. SAF has intervened in the case.

“With our attorney, Chad Flores of Houston, Texas, we’re arguing that the Biden administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm illegally expands the term beyond its critical statutory boundaries,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We consider this expanded definition to be nothing more than a power grab. Our opposition brief details our position to Associate Justice Samuel Alito succinctly.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and its attorney, Chad Flores, are preparing a response to an application to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to stay a ruling which vacated the “final rule” defining gun parts kits as firearms in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down the ruling, and the government wants a stay pending appeal to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. SAF was allowed to intervene in the case. Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay.

“This case ultimately challenges the authority of the ATF to simply change rules and definitions of firearms without Congressional authority,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We will vigorously pursue this issue through the courts.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.

SAF had intervened in the case, opposing the ATF’s change in defining frames and receivers. The court today refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. SAF and its partners in the intervention are represented by attorney Chad Flores.

According to the Fifth Circuit panel, “Because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, we DENY the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the two challenged portions of the Rule. “[V]acatur …reestablish[es] the status quo ante”…which is the world before the Rule became effective. This effectively maintains, pending appeal, the status quo that existed for 54 years from 1968 to 2022.

“The court issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As this case moves forward, we expect to again prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged. The court’s finding that ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits bodes well for SAF and its members.”

“We’re delighted the court ruled in favor of our challenges to the Biden administration’s overreach, and we will pursue this case to its ultimate conclusion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

BELLEVUE, WA – The San Francisco County Board of Supervisors has backed down on a proposed ordinance that would make much of the city into a “gun-free zone” after the Second Amendment Foundation and California Rifle & Pistol Association promised legal action.

The proposal was championed by Supervisor Catherine Stefani, who essentially tabled the motion indefinitely, after bemoaning the 2023 Supreme Court Bruen decision, which is giving gun control proponents fits, while jarring the San Francisco Police Department to start issuing carry permits. She referenced, perhaps as a face-saving maneuver, proposed state legislation that may be adopted later this summer by lawmakers in Sacramento, as a reason to stand down on the proposed ordinance.

“This happened after CRPA and SAF sent a letter to the Board of Supervisors explaining why the planned ordinance would be unconstitutional,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel, a longtime practicing attorney and gun rights authority in California. “It is truly unfortunate that San Francisco politicians refuse to respect the Second Amendment and can’t accept the new legal reality that people have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm in public.”

“As soon as we were advised of this proposal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “we took action. This is not the first time we’ve had to stop extremist gun control in San Francisco. We successfully sued the city twice over attempted handgun bans, and won both times. We’re prepared to do it again, but our letter to the Board of Supervisors evidently has made that unnecessary.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is calling out anti-gun Democrat Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland for portraying Hunter Biden as a “rich guy exercising his Second Amendment rights” as an explanation for Biden’s purchase of a handgun while allegedly failing to admit his drug use on the federal Form 4473 he filled out.

“I’m not sure whether to shake my head in disgust or just laugh out loud,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Raskin’s flippant dismissal of what would otherwise be a serious criminal act if anybody other than Hunter Biden were involved is either a new low in attempted sarcasm, or an exhibition of monumental stupidity.” Read more