Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it and its co-plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment in Struck v. Davenport, asking the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to declare the State’s “one-gun-a-month” handgun purchase ban unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement. This move comes after FPC was successful in striking down California’s similar law—the first time the Ninth Circuit issued a final judgment striking down a law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

FPC’s motion argues that the case is straightforward under the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. The constitutional text protects the right to “keep and bear Arms,” and courts across the country have recognized that the right necessarily protects the ability to acquire firearms. Because the plaintiffs seek to acquire handguns for lawful purposes, the motion argues that their conduct is presumptively protected and New Jersey bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The FPC motion also points to FPC’s landmark victory in Nguyen v. Bonta, where the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s substantially similar one-gun-a-month restriction. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Jacobson, urging the Court to grant review in the case and confirm that states must honor carry permits, no matter where in the country they were obtained.

SAF was joined in the brief by the National Rifle Association, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The case challenges Minnesota’s refusal to honor valid concealed-carry permits issued by other states. Johnson, a long-haul truck driver licensed to carry in Florida and Georgia, cannot legally carry in Minnesota without obtaining a separate Minnesota permit. The Eighth Circuit upheld that requirement. The brief argues that the Second Amendment’s general right to carry arms in public for self-defense is national in scope and cannot be made to depend on a costly, state-by-state licensing gauntlet.

From the colonial era through the 19th century, “traveler’s exception” laws routinely exempted visitors from concealed-carry restrictions that applied to locals. The brief documents that tradition in the colonial era through the 19th Century. Amici contend that history demands summary reversal of the Eighth Circuit’s ruling in favor of Minnesota.

“The right to carry does not stop at state lines,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros, counsel of record on the brief. “A truck driver who already holds permits from Florida and Georgia should not have to fly to Minnesota, appear in person at a sheriff’s office, pay another set of fees and complete another training course just to exercise the same constitutional right he already has. Our historical tradition offered travelers more leeway than residents when it came to the right to carry. Minnesota’s scheme turns that tradition on its head.” Read more

Texas DPS Director agrees challenged laws are unconstitutional while Houston Astros and other anti-rights organizations ask Fifth Circuit to preserve them

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed its reply brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Ziegenfuss v. Martin, urging the Court to reverse the judgment below and strike down three Texas laws that criminalize carrying firearms at certain locations, including racetracks, businesses that derive 51 percent or more of their revenue from alcohol sales, and sporting and interscholastic events.

The case presents an unusual situation: Defendant Texas Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin agrees with FPC that the challenged carry bans are unconstitutional, but nevertheless argues that FPC’s lawsuit should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, which would allow DPS to continue enforcing bans it still enforces today. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed an important friend-of-the-court brief in United States v. Squire, urging the en banc United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to reverse Curtis Squire’s conviction and hold that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to turn purely local firearm possession into a federal crime merely because a gun crossed state lines sometime in the past.

This case is about whether the federal government has constitutional authority to turn purely local firearm possession into a federal crime merely because the gun crossed a state line sometime in the past. Here, the federal government does not contend that Squire engaged in interstate commerce involving the handgun found in his home. Instead, it relies on the fact that the firearm had previously traveled across Louisiana’s border to prosecute him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).

“The federal government does not get to use the Commerce Clause as a backdoor to powers the Constitution never gave it,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “A firearm does not become subject to permanent federal control just because it crossed a state line sometime in the past. That fiction has been used for far too long to manufacture federal crimes out of purely local conduct. Congress has limited, enumerated powers, and it is time for courts to enforce those limits.”

FPC’s brief argues that the Constitution does not give Congress a general police power to legislate on whatever subject it chooses. Instead, every federal law must rest on an authority actually granted to Congress by the Constitution. Mere intrastate possession of a firearm is noneconomic conduct, FPC argues, and Supreme Court decisions including United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison foreclose treating local criminal conduct as interstate commerce simply because Congress wants to regulate it.

The Squire brief is part of FPC’s broader effort to challenge federal gun-control laws that exceed Congress’s enumerated powers. Read more

NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, applauds the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s decision in NSSF v. Attorney General New Jersey, holding that NSSF has standing to challenge New Jersey’s “reasonable controls” law (A1765) and reversing a lower court’s decision that it was required to abstain from ruling on the merits of NSSF’s lawsuit because the New Jersey attorney general brought an enforcement action against one of its 10,000 members.

A previous challenge to the law by NSSF was dismissed for lack of standing because the law had yet to be enforced against a member company, making the lawsuit premature. This time, a lower court held that it could not reach the merits of the case by invoking the YoungerAbstention Doctrine, a legal rule that cautions federal courts from interfering with ongoing state court proceedings because the New Jersey attorney general was enforcing the law. That effectively barred NSSF from the courthouse doors for being too late. The Third Circuit rejected New Jersey’s argument.

“New Jersey’s proposed rule would create a Catch-22,” the Third Circuit decision reads. “If the association sued before the enforcement action against one of its members, it would be dismissed for lack of standing, like in NSSF I. If it sued after the enforcement action, it would be dismissed under Younger. Because NSSF, and its members, are ‘entitled to [their] own day in court,’ we reject New Jersey’s proposed rule.”

“This is a tremendous legal hurdle that has been cleared to permit our challenge to be heard in court. Read more

In a closely watched and reported-on case by the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) Investigative Journalism Project editor Lee Williams, Patrick “Tate” Adamiak today has been issued a pardon by President Donald Trump. Adamiak was wrongfully arrested, charged and convicted of illegally possessing a toy machinegun after Biden-era Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents stormed his house.

Four years ago, Adamiak was arrested and charged with illegally possessing two destructive devices, two inert RPGs that had holes drilled into their receivers and were stripped of internal parts. He was convicted in 2023 and sentenced to more than 20 years in prison after ATF’s “expert” added parts from real RPGs until they would fire a single subcaliber 7.62 x 39mm round. As a result, he classified the RPGs as destructive devices even though the same inert RPGs are still legally sold today without an FFL or any other paperwork. At the time of his arrest, Adamiak was an active-duty Navy E-6 and had been accepted to attend BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training).

“This is the day Tate and his family have fought for since his conviction 2023,” Williams said. “We have reported on this case on an almost weekly basis since his conviction and covered every angle of the story. In no way, shape or form did Tate deserve to be arrested, much less convicted for owning what are considered merely toy firearms. We are extremely thankful the administration saw an opportunity to right a wrong and are grateful Tate is now headed home to be with his family.”

Since first learning about Adamiak’s case, Williams has written more than 60 articles on the lack of evidence, the “expert” testimony presented at his trial and how officials in the Biden-era ATF railroaded an innocent young man to gain a conviction.

“Tate Adamiak endured every gun owner’s worst nightmare for more than four years,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Despite the tenacity of Matthew Larosiere’s representation of Tate during his prosecution and subsequent appeal, the judicial system failed to yield a just decision. Thanks to the tremendous investigative reporting by Lee, this case was brought to the forefront of people’s minds on a continuous basis. While Tate shouldn’t have endured what happened to him in the first place, we are thrilled he has finally received the pardon he deserves.” Read more

Safari Club International (SCI) and the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation (Sportsmen’s) urged the U.S. Supreme Court to protect semi-automatic firearms commonly used in hunting under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. These organizations submitted an amicus brief asking the Supreme Court to strike bans enacted by Cook County, Illinois, and the State of Connecticut, on use of these rifles by hunters, sportsmen, and recreational shooters.

In the brief, SCI and Sportsmen’s highlight their longstanding commitment to protecting hunting access and defending Second Amendment rights in connection with lawful hunting. Firearms are central to America’s hunting heritage, serve as essential tools for lawful hunting and wildlife management, and generate significant conservation funding nationwide.

The brief explains that semi-automatic rifles are protected “arms” and cannot be banned when commonly used for lawful purposes, including hunting. For more than a century, hunters have used semi-automatic rifles and continue to use these firearms due to their accuracy, adaptability, portability, affordability, and suitability for wildlife management and hunting.

“This case is about far more than a particular type of firearm. It is about protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans and preserving the tools hunters have safely and responsibly used for generations,” said W. Laird Hamberlin, CEO of SCI. “Semi-automatic rifles are commonly used for lawful purposes, including hunting and wildlife management. Bans on these firearms threaten our hunting heritage, undermine conservation efforts funded by hunters, and conflict with the Second Amendment’s protection of arms that are in common use.”

About Safari Club International: Safari Club International is a global leader in protecting the freedom to hunt and promoting wildlife conservation worldwide. Through advocacy, litigation, and education, SCI fights to promote the sustainable use of wildlife resources and to defend the rights of hunters. Visit www.safariclub.org today to join the mission.

Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it has filed a motion for preliminary injunction in its Pool v. Besson lawsuit, asking the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana to immediately block Louisiana’s ban on handgun carry permits for 18-to-20-year-old adults.

The lawsuit is brought by Louisiana residents Ella Pool, Christian McDuffie, and Charles Matthews, along with FPC. Each individual plaintiff is a peaceable adult between the ages of 18 and 20 who is legally eligible to possess firearms and would apply for a Louisiana concealed handgun permit, but is prevented from doing so because of the State’s age restriction.

Louisiana generally allows adults 18 and older to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. But the State still prohibits 18-to-20-year-old adults from obtaining a Louisiana concealed handgun permit. That ban has significant real-world consequences, including restrictions on carrying within 1,000 feet of school grounds under federal law and the denial of legal protections Louisiana grants to permit holders.

But this lawsuit could have been avoided if Louisiana had simply fixed the constitutional problem when FPC first raised it.

In April 2025, while FPC was working with Louisiana officials to resolve constitutional problems raised in its Mate v. Wescott litigation to end the State’s non-resident carry permit ban, FPC’s counsel warned Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga that the State’s carry laws also violated the rights of 18-to-20-year-old adults, and provided Louisiana with proposed legislative language addressing both problems. The proposal would have allowed nonresidents to obtain Louisiana permits and lowered the minimum carry permit age from 21 to 18. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Novotny v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s so-called “sensitive places” carry ban.

In May, SAF petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s ultra-restrictive “sensitive places” carry ban, passed after the landmark Bruen ruling forced the state to begin issuing concealed carry permits. Lawmakers sought to circumvent Bruen by passing a new law prohibiting carry in an overlapping patchwork of newly defined areas deemed “sensitive places.” Examples include mass transit facilities, establishments that serve alcohol, state parks, healthcare facilities, museums, stadiums and more.

“The Supreme Court has been clear that the Second Amendment protects a right for individuals to carry for self-defense as they go about their daily lives,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Put bluntly, when forced by the Supreme Court to issue carry permits, Maryland simply made those permits useless everywhere. Today’s reply makes clear that neither Maryland, nor the other jurisdictions that passed similar laws, should be allowed to so blatantly thumb their noses at the Supreme Court or the Constitution.” Read more