What: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), joined by the Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), filed a new federal lawsuit, Elliott v. Denver, challenging Denver’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and Denver’s and Colorado’s bans on magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds. The filing comes the same day the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County challenge to Cook County, Illinois’s “assault weapons” ban.

Who: The plaintiffs include FPC, CSSA, and individual FPC members. They are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

When: June 30, 2026.

Where: The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

Why: The challenged bans unconstitutionally prohibit peaceable people from acquiring, possessing, and using firearms and magazines protected by the Second Amendment. This lawsuit is part of FPC’s nationwide strategy to eliminate bans on constitutionally protected arms throughout the United States.

Quotes:

“We filed this lawsuit to end Denver and Colorado’s war on gun owners and force these tyrants to respect the Second Amendment, whether they like it or not. This case is another critical step in our nationwide campaign to eliminate tyrannical bans on constitutionally protected firearms and magazines. Alongside our friends at CSSA and the FPC Grassroots Army, we’re proud to Fight Forward for all Coloradans and everyone who visits the Centennial State.” — FPC President Brandon Combs

“Denver’s ‘assault weapons’ ban and Colorado’s magazine restrictions don’t make anyone safer — they just turn law-abiding citizens into criminals for owning some of the most common firearms and components in America. The Colorado State Shooting Association is proud to stand alongside the Firearms Policy Coalition in challenging these unconstitutional laws, and it’s no coincidence the DOJ is challenging the same policies. The writing is on the wall for lawmakers who’ve ignored the Second Amendment for too long.” — Kolby Zipperer, Vice President, CSSA Read more

The Supreme Court of the United States denied Pennsylvania officials’ request for review (certiorari) in Firearms Policy Coalition’s Bivens case, formerly captioned Lara v. Paris and Lara v. Evanchick, leaving in place FPC’s Third Circuit victory against Pennsylvania laws that banned peaceable adults under 21 from carrying firearms outside the home.

After FPC first prevailed at the Third Circuit in January 2024, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case for further consideration after it issued the June 2024 United States v. Rahimi decision. The Third Circuit then issued a new decision again holding that Pennsylvania’s ban violates the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania officials asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, but the Court rejected their petition today.

The plaintiffs challenging Pennsylvania’s ban include FPC and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Joshua Prince of Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C.

Today’s Supreme Court action leaves in place FPC’s win securing the right to bear arms for peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults in Pennsylvania. This win adds to FPC’s growing record of victories including those against age-based gun bans. It also strengthens FPC’s ongoing Pennsylvania carry-license challenge in Young v. Ott, which seeks to ensure that adults under 21 can apply for and obtain the carry licenses needed to lawfully carry in public, carry in vehicles, and carry in Philadelphia.

“Today’s Supreme Court order makes clear that Pennsylvania’s ban is finally dead. FPC and our Grassroots Army beat this immoral and unconstitutional ban twice at the Third Circuit, and now the Supreme Court has allowed that victory to take effect. That matters not only for this case, but for others where FPC is fighting to make sure peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults can actually obtain carry licenses and exercise their right to bear arms throughout Pennsylvania, including in Philadelphia. Anti-rights governments do not get to deny the rights of peaceable adults, full stop. FPC and our Grassroots Army will keep Fighting Forward until every age-based ban is eliminated.” — FPC President Brandon Combs Read more

The U.S. Supreme Court handed the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) a victory today by declining to hear a case brought by the organization to vindicate the firearm carry rights of young adults in Pennsylvania. By refusing to take the case, SAF’s victory in Third Circuit Court of Appeals is now final.

The Third Circuit twice ruled in SAF’s favor, finding that adults under 21 are indeed members of “the People” as contemplated by the Second Amendment, and therefore enjoy the same scope of rights as all other adults. The ruling struck down a portion of Pennsylvania’s carry regime which prevented young adults from being able to carry firearms during declared states of emergency.

“While a cert grant on this case could have meant an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take our win in the Third Circuit and apply it nationally, we are still content that our victory in this case is now permanent and final,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Adults under 21 enjoy all the same constitutional rights as their older adult counterparts, and the rights protected by Second Amendment are no different. This victory serves as a major stepping stone to striking down additional unconstitutional portions of Pennsylvania state law and those like it around the country.”

Joining SAF in Bivens v. SAF (formerly Lara v. Paris) are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three individuals.

“The Third Circuit ruled not once, but twice, that 18-20-year-olds have the same rights as their peers older than 21,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Those over 18 in this country can buy property, join the military and get married just like those over 21-years-old. Why then should they be forced to wait to enjoy their Second Amendment rights? There is no reason – they are adults under the law and should therefore be afforded their full constitutional rights.”

For more information visit SAF.org. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — The U.S. Supreme Court has granted two of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) petitions for a writ of certiorari in both Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the organization’s challenges to the bans on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois and Connecticut.

Originally filed in 2021, Viramontes challenges Cook County’s ban on many commonly owned modern guns, which was the precursor for the nearly identical statewide ban passed by the Illinois legislature. In Grant, SAF is challenging Connecticut’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles – both by name and by feature set. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, SAF presented the case to the Supreme Court for consideration.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”

SAF is joined in Viramontes by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, and is joined in Grant by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens.

“Lawmakers have long relied on fearmongering to pass laws that infringe on the Second Amendment, especially when it comes to common, semi-automatic rifles,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re hopeful the Court will finally put to rest the idea that these rifles are not covered by the Second Amendment simply because of their look and features. These arms are no different than other semi-automatic firearms millions of Americans own for self-defense, and we look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms for countless citizens through these cases.” Read more

Consistent with FPC’s victories against “vampire rule” laws in multiple states, the United States Supreme Court today issued a major 6-to-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez holding that Hawaii cannot presume that peaceable carry is forbidden on private property held open to the public unless the owner first gives express permission. In the decision, the Court held that this reversal of the longstanding common-law default unconstitutionally infringes upon the exercise of the right to bear arms and violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court explained that these laws did not merely regulate where licensed people could carry. Instead, they severely burdened the ordinary exercise of the right to bear arms by forcing peaceable people to seek permission before entering the stores, restaurants, gas stations, pharmacies, and other businesses they visit every day. That burden, the Court held, is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to carry firearms for self-defense as Americans go about their daily lives.

The case against the State of Hawaii was brought by three individuals and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. Notable amicus briefs filed in support of Wolford include those by FPC, California Gun Rights Foundation, and the United States. FPC has successfully blocked enforcement of “vampire rule” laws in multiple states, including California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

The Court’s opinion for Wolford was written by Justice Alito. A concurring opinion was written by Justice Barrett and partially joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Dissenting opinions were written by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor).

The ruling confirms what FPC has argued from the beginning: States may not nullify Bruen by turning ordinary places open to the public—stores, restaurants, parking lots, and other public-facing private property—into carry-prohibited zones by default. Read more

A reply brief in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was filed in Roberts v. ATF, an FPC-backed challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs in the case include T.J. Roberts, Zachary Cockrell, Meridian Ordnance, Buckeye Firearms Association, Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and American Suppressor Association Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Nicholas Varone of Cooper & Kirk.

The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, in Covington.

The brief was filed on June 24, 2026.

The brief responds to the Trump DOJ’s defense of the NFA and explains why the plaintiffs should win on summary judgment. The NFA’s registration scheme can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power because the taxes it was designed to help collect no longer exist; even if it could, the scheme still violates the Second Amendment by infringing upon the right to keep and bear suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

“The National Firearms Act is a relic of a darker era and an authoritarian scheme without a constitutional foundation. The federal government cannot use a dead tax scheme as an excuse to maintain a registry and regulatory regime for constitutionally protected arms, period. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Reese v. ATF, challenging the district court’s denial of complete relief after FPC prevailed against the federal age-based handgun and ammunition purchase ban.

The plaintiffs include FPC, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Louisiana Shooting Association. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, as well as George J. Armbruster III of Armbruster & Associates, APLC.

The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Fifth Circuit already held that the federal age-based handgun ban is unconstitutional. On remand, the district court limited relief to the Fifth Circuit and to people who were members of the plaintiff organizations at the time of the order. But the Trump DOJ has gone even further, arguing that the plaintiffs should receive no meaningful injunction at all and that relief should be limited to a narrow, shrinking group of people. FPC filed this brief to secure complete relief for its members and prevent the government from continuing to enforce unconstitutional laws.

“The Trump Administration is fighting as hard as it can to continue violating the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Even though the Fifth Circuit already held that these bans are unconstitutional, the government is trying to limit the decision’s reach so it can keep disarming peaceable adults across the country. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in Morris v. Savannah, its lawsuit challenging a City of Savannah, Georgia firearm storage ordinance that is patently unlawful under the State’s comprehensive firearm preemption law.

FPC is joined in the litigation by Deacon Morris, an FPC member. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney John R. Monroe of John Monroe Law, P.C.

The brief was filed in Chatham County Superior Court in Georgia.

The brief was filed on June 18, 2026. The Court will now either decide the motion on the papers or scheduled oral arguments.

Preemption laws like Georgia’s exist to prevent peaceable gun owners from having to navigate a minefield of ordinances that could result in fines and jail time. The state’s law applies to all local jurisdictions, including Savannah. Read more

The United States Supreme Court today issued a decision in United States v. Hemani, unanimously holding that the federal ban on gun possession by “unlawful” users of controlled substances (such as marijuana) violates the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Hemani.

The Court’s opinion for Hemani was written by Justice Gorsuch. Concurring opinions were written by Justices Thomas, Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor), and Alito (joined by Justice Kagan).

The decision was issued on June 18, 2026, by the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Today’s ruling ends the government’s unconstitutional prosecution of Mr. Hemani for possessing firearms while being a marijuana user and significantly raises the burden for future prosecutions under the statute. The decision also clarifies the “how” and “why” analysis under Bruen, squarely rejecting the government’s attempt to analogize historical laws targeting habitual drunkards to a modern law that broadly disarms marijuana users. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit in California challenging Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office policies that prohibit permit holders from carrying handguns equipped with red dot sights or flashlights, as well as their outright ban on the carry of single action only (SAO) 1911- and 2011-style pistols.

The policies, enforced by Sheriff David Livingston, are unique in the nation. To SAF’s knowledge, no other county or city in California – or anywhere else in the United States – imposes such restrictions on law-abiding carry permit holders. The complaint alleges the policies violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments under the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller.

“Contra Costa County is the only jurisdiction in America that forbids law-abiding CCW permit holders from using red dot sights, firearm-mounted lights, or carrying the venerable 1911 platform,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “These are common, popular and safety-enhancing features and firearms used by millions of Americans and even adopted by multiple California law enforcement agencies. There is zero historical tradition supporting these restrictions, and they cannot survive scrutiny under Bruen.” Read more