BELLEVUE, Wash. —— District Judge Christopher C. Conner with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting summary judgment to SAF and its partners, finding the state’s law banning carry of a firearm in a vehicle without a license unconstitutional. He further declared that a ban on firearms possession without a license during a state of emergency is facially unconstitutional, and enjoined Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Col. Christopher Paris from enforcing those provisions.

The court found, however, in favor of Col. Paris with respect to another issue in the case, and dismissed a challenge to another section of the state Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 for lack of standing, without prejudice. The court notes the plaintiffs have the right to file an amended complaint “curing that deficiency.”

In his 44-page memorandum detailing his decision, Judge Conner noted that if an amended complaint is filed, the case will be transferred to the Eastern District for further action.

“Each victory takes us a step further in our efforts to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“We will evaluate the judge’s ruling and determine our next course of action,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added. “However, we are pleased that the judge agreed with our position that the ban on carry in a vehicle absent a license is unconstitutional, as many Pennsylvanians were precluded from carrying and transporting firearms, with limited exceptions.” Read more

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has filed a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule. The ATF’s Final Rule unlawfully redefines when a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and therefore required to be federally licensed. This new lawsuit is being filed on the heels of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have reined in executive branch agencies from acting outside of statutory authority.

“The ATF’s Final Rule stands to turn countless upstanding and well-intending citizens into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “When ATF released this Final Rule, NRA promised to use every means necessary to stop this egregious interpretation of the law. Now that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Loper Bright, Cargill, and Rahimi make clear that the ATF does not have unfettered authority to arbitrarily restrict NRA Members’ rights to buy and sell firearms, the NRA is fighting back.”

NRA, along with two individuals, Don Butler and David Glidewell, filed the lawsuit challenging the ATF’s Final Rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleges that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it exceeds the ATF’s statutory and jurisdictional authority and is arbitrary and capricious; violates the Fifth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague; violates the Second Amendment by infringing the rights to keep, bear, buy, and sell arms; and violates the Separation of Powers, non-delegation doctrine, and Take Care Clause by usurping legislative powers and prohibiting lawful conduct by executive fiat. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing New York resident Brett Christian have filed a memorandum of law with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, opposing a motion by the defendants for a summary judgment, and supporting their cross-motion for summary judgment in a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The case, known as Christian v. Chiumento, challenges New York state’s continuing prohibition on lawful concealed carry in public parks and all private property open to the public. Christian is represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C. and Nicolas J. Rotsko at FLUET in Tyson’s, Virginia.

“New York has been trying to dance around the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling in what amounts to a painful exercise in legal acrobatics,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case, which has been dragging along for a couple of years, illustrates the ridiculous lengths to which New York state has been going in order to keep its laws active which are clearly is not allowed under Bruen, which rejected ‘interest balancing’ in tests of Second Amendment restrictions.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, rebukes legislation proposed by Massachusetts House and Senate lawmakers that would denigrate the Second Amendment to a state-granted privilege and do nothing to hold criminals accountable for the criminal misuse of firearms.

State lawmakers negotiated a compromise through a closed-door conference committee and no input from the firearm industry, releasing the bill with just two weeks left in the session. However, this bill is anything but a compromise. It runs roughshod over the fundamental rights to keep and bear arms by creating unconstitutional age-based gun bans, magazine bans and subjects lawful firearm owners to onerous licensing requirements and searchable databases that compromise privacy.

“After nearly a year, in the state where the American Revolution began, Massachusetts legislators are seeking to rush through a 111-page bill that will do nothing to stem violence in the Commonwealth and will only create a bloated bureaucratic mess that impacts law-abiding gun-owners,” said Jake McGuigan, NSSF’s Government Relations – State Affairs Managing Director. “The legislature had the opportunity to do something truly special with a strong bill to address violence. Instead, the bill aims to suppress the exercise of the Second Amendment by implementing onerous training requirements just to purchase a firearm, bans all of the most commonly-used guns in America and implements a draconian gun registration scheme that criminals will ignore. It even makes it illegal for a 15-year-old Boy Scout to use a .22 caliber rifle to earn a merit badge. Judges continue to set free criminals in the Commonwealth while the legislature makes law abiding citizens immediate felons.”

The negotiated legislation now includes, among other restrictions: Read more

Attorneys representing two New York state residents challenging the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” have filed a memorandum in support of their earlier motion for summary judgment.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition are supporting the case, known as Lane v. Rocah. The case challenges the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in New York state. This motion also opposes a cross-motion from the defendants for summary judgment Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut at the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Wash., Cody J. Wisniewski in Las Vegas, and Nicholas J. Rotsko at FLUET in Tysons, Va. The memorandum was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

In their memorandum, SAF attorneys show the state is relying on arguments which are either easily discredited, or essentially nullified by the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling in 2022 which rejected “interest balancing” in tests of Second Amendment restrictions.

“The state is trying to make arguments which have already been rejected by the Supreme Court,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “New York’s arguments reflect a stubborn resistance to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the 2022 Bruen ruling.”

“New York is arguing that modern semiautomatic rifles are ‘dangerous and unusual,’ merely because they resemble military weapons,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Yet, such firearms are in common use across the country for all types of legitimate use, from personal and home defense to competition, hunting and recreational shooting.” Read more

A three-judge panel in the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has handed down a unanimous 27-page ruling that Minnesota’s ban on concealed carry by young adults is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, giving a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners.

SAF is joined in the lawsuit, known as Worth v. Jacobson, by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and four citizens, Austin Dye, Alex Anderson, Joe Knudsen and Kristin Worth, for whom the case is known. They are represented by attorneys Blair W. Nelson in Bemidji, Minn., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

Acknowledging that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, Circuit Judge Duane Benton observed, “First, the right to keep and bear arms ‘is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.’”

Judge Benton adds, “Importantly, the Second Amendment’s plain text does not have an age limit…. Ordinary, law-abiding 18 to 20-year-old Minnesotans are unambiguously members of the people. Because the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the plaintiffs and their conduct, it is presumptively constitutionally protected…

“Minnesota has not met its burden to proffer sufficient evidence,” he concludes. “The Carry Ban…violates the Second Amendment as applied to Minnesota through the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus, is unconstitutional.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s recently adopted 11% excise tax on the sale of firearms, gun parts and ammunition.

The case was filed in San Diego County Superior Court. Joining SAF are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, Joshua Gerken and Danielle Jaymes, for whom the case, James v. Maduros, is named. The defendant is Nicolas Maduros, director of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, in his official capacity. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Konstadinos T. Moros, Tiffany Cheuvront and Joshua Robert Dale at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, California, and by David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

“We are challenging the constitutionality of the tax, as adopted by Assembly Bill 28,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We contend in the lawsuit that this 11 percent tax is unconstitutional because it literally taxes conduct protected by the Second Amendment. There is no analogous evidence such a tax was ever applied at the time of the Founding era, as required by the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen ruling.”

“The power to tax is literally the power to destroy,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Assembly Bill 28 gives the State of California the power to destroy the exercise of a right protected by the Constitution by singling it out for special taxation. If allowed to stand, this tax could be expanded, and California could ultimately impose similar excise taxes on other constitutional rights it dislikes. This will not stop with a tax on the right to keep and bear arms.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari in Barnett v. Raoul, one of several challenges to Illinois’ bans on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines. The decision not to review the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s decision at this early stage of the litigation, while disappointing, does not mean the Supreme Court will not review the matter later after final judgment.

The Supreme Court denied review now because the U.S. Court of Appeals has not yet issued a final judgment. Justice Samuel Alito, however, would have granted the petition now. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, “This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture. But, I hope we will consider the important issue presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment.”

Justice Thomas concluded Illinois’ bans are “highly suspect,” finding it “difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semiautomatic rifles are not ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.” Read more