The U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear two cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, and will ultimately decide whether semi-automatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation will file a “friend of the court” brief to argue that semi-automatic bans hurt sportsmen, and asking the court to strike them as unconstitutional.

Major news from the courts: Judges across the country have officially hit the pause button on lawsuits challenging semi-automatic firearm and magazine bans.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision to review Viramontes v. Cook County (IL) and Grant v. Higgins (CT), lower courts are staying active litigation. They are waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling on whether popular semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s are protected by the Second Amendment.

“Stays are a tool that courts have to conserve judicial resources,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “The stay allows courts to press pause on the case while other actions that impact the case get resolved. Here they are staying cases until the Supreme Court answers the underlying questions in the case—whether semi-automatic rifles and so-called ‘high-capacity magazines’ are protected by the Second Amendment and why they are protected by the Second Amendment. Once those questions are answered by the Supreme Court, the lower courts won’t have to answer them. They will only have to determine if the bans before them are factually and legally distinguishable from the Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut bans currently before the Supreme Court.”

To ensure the voice of hunters and gun owners is heard at this critical juncture, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation will be filing an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief, explicitly arguing that semi-automatic bans directly harm sportsmen and requesting that the Supreme Court strike them down as unconstitutional.

Here is what these court stays mean for gun owners, sportsmen, and the future of our firearms rights:

Where Firearm and Magazine Ban Lawsuits Stand: Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a reply brief in a case challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle that was based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

In October last year, SAF filed Harrington v. Crawford after Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle was illegally searched while parked on school grounds. Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes kept his firearm in his truck – in full compliance with all federal and state laws – but always removed the gun from his vehicle before going to school. When school authorities became aware of Harrington’s gun ownership, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent.

“The school’s knowledge that Jack was a lawful gun owner outside of school did not justify their search of his truck,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “They had no information to indicate he had ever brought the gun to school or had done anything illegal or against school policy whatsoever. The search they conducted could not have been supported by probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. Administrators ignored repeated insistent refusals by Jack to provide consent and now rest their hat on the fact that after telling him the search was going to happen regardless, he replied ‘okay.’ That is not consent in the eyes of the law. Jack’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated here.”

As noted in the brief, “The burden lies with Defendants to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that valid, voluntary consent to the Search was given. Consent ‘coerced by threats or force, or granted only in submission to a claim of lawful authority’ is invalid. Moreover, the evidence of voluntary consent must be ‘unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.’ Consent obtained by coercion is invalid ‘no matter how subtly the coercion was applied.'”

“School district officials took it upon themselves to infringe on a lawful gun owner’s rights based on the baseless ‘possibility’ that he had committed a crime, which is not sufficient to justify a search,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners are pleased to announce a settlement resolving the remaining claims in California Rifle and Pistol Association v. LASD, SAF’s challenge to numerous Second Amendment infringements by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).

The settlement follows LASD’s representation that it is now processing concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit applications within the 120-day period required by California law. The case, originally filed to address multiple systemic barriers to the right to carry in California, produced several significant victories along the way. SAF is joined in the case by the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California and several individuals.

“This case was ambitious from the start, tackling several different obstacles Californians and visitors faced when trying to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “While we settled the remaining claims against LASD once they demonstrated compliance with the statutory timelines, the broader impact of the litigation is clear: California residents and nonresidents alike now have more Second Amendment freedoms thanks to the diligent work of SAF and its partners. We will continue monitoring to ensure these gains are not rolled back.”

Among the key results: Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Renna v. Bonta, a Second Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s handgun bans, including the State’s “Roster” ban, microstamping ban, and ban on semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars (including nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol on the market). Today’s motion is limited to the cruciform trigger bar ban; FPC’s district court preliminary injunction victory against parts of California’s handgun Roster is pending a decision at the Ninth Circuit.

The plaintiffs include FPC, individual and retailer FPC members, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Second Amendment Foundation, and National Rifle Association of America. They are represented by Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group, PC.

The motion was filed on August 4, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

California’s handgun ban scheme unconstitutionally prevents peaceable people from acquiring some of the most popular handguns in America. FPC filed the motion to prevent enforcement of the State’s “Glock ban” while the case proceeds on the merits.

“California is the unmistakable leader in innovating new and creative ways to impose tyranny. Read more

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled that the remaining registration scheme for short-barreled rifles and suppressors in the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional in Jensen v. ATF, a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase certain classes of firearms, including silencers and short-barreled rifles, to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), purportedly drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. Through the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, however, the tax on these arms was eliminated but the registration requirement was left in place. SAF and its partners have filed three lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power is no longer justifiable.

“The basis for each lawsuit challenging the NFA registration scheme is the same – without the tax, the remaining requirements for the affected arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “And today the first court to rule on the issue has agreed with us. We’re eager to continue this fight and leave major portions of the NFA in the dustbin of history. A big win is a great way to kick things off.”

SAF itself is a named plaintiff in NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is backing two additional challenges – Roberts v. ATF and this case, Jensen v. ATF. Plaintiffs in Jensen are SAF sister organization – the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals.

“The removal of the $200 tax in the One Big Beautiful Bill offers the best opportunity to remove the NFA registration requirements that we’ve had in almost a century,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) submitted a series of formal comment letters to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on multiple proposed rules, urging the agency to modernize regulations in ways that better respect the Second Amendment, gun-owner privacy and the right to interstate travel with firearms.

In late April, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut was on hand for the announcement of 34 proposed and final rules announced during a press conference and signing by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada. At the ceremony, Cekada signed final rules, including the rescission of the “stabilizing brace” and “engaged in the business” rules, and provided summary insights into proposed rules, including updates to Form 4473 for the commercial transfer of firearms, clarifying interstate transportation of firearms under the Gun Control Act, and recordkeeping requirements for Federal Firearms Licensees.

“These comment letters reflect SAF’s commitment to ensuring that federal regulations remain consistent with the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “The Constitution and our historical tradition demand that ATF get these proposed rules right. Fortunately, for the most part, they have. The proposed rules are, overall, in accord with the Second Amendment. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this process and urge the agency to finalize rules that expand, rather than restrict, the rights of peaceable citizens.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed an amicus brief today in the Supreme Court of Maryland supporting the petition for certiorari in Darius Duvall v. State of Maryland, challenging the state’s refusal to recognize valid, out-of-state carry permits.

The brief urges the Court to grant review and hold that Maryland’s refusal to recognize these permits violates the Second Amendment. American historical tradition overwhelmingly protected travelers from other states, who were routinely exempted from state and local restrictions on the concealed carry of firearms. This “traveler’s exception” appears in Colonial-era laws, early 19th-century statutes from states like Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama, and continued after the Civil War in states including Nevada and California. More than 80 such historical examples have been compiled.

SAF is joined in the brief by Maryland Shall Issue, National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Law Center, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Cato Institute.

“History is clear: travelers from other states were given greater leeway to carry arms than residents,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Maryland’s modern scheme, which forces law-abiding adults who already hold permits from their home jurisdictions to jump through redundant and costly hoops or risk arrest, has no analogue in our nation’s historical tradition. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen, Wolford, and Hemani require states to respect that tradition. The Court should grant the petition and put Maryland on the right side of the Second Amendment.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s unconstitutional prohibition on issuing handgun carry permits to peaceable adults under 21. The case, Pool v. Hodges, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. FPC also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking a prompt final judgment against the unconstitutional ban.

Federal law separately generally prohibits firearm possession on or within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school unless the person has a carry license issued by the state where the school is located. But Louisiana prohibits adults under 21 from obtaining a handgun carry permit. As a result, these adults are trapped within a sprawling network of invisible “gun-free zones” where they cannot lawfully carry a firearm. Neither so-called “constitutional carry” laws nor a license recognized only through reciprocity exempt people from criminal liability for carrying in these “gun-free zones.” By denying carry licenses to adults under 21, Louisiana prevents them from lawfully carrying through vast portions of the State as they go about their daily lives.

In addition to its litigation efforts, FPC is also working to eliminate the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act (GFSZA) and preempt state and local restrictions that undermine the right to bear arms through federal legislation.

FPC’s Pool lawsuit follows the Fifth Circuit’s binding decision in FPC’s Reese v. ATF case, which held that peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults are part of “the People” protected by the Second Amendment and struck down the federal handgun and handgun-ammunition sales ban for that age group. Under Reese, Louisiana’s age-based licensing restriction cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.

“The Fifth Circuit has already made it crystal clear that peaceable 18-to-20-year-old adults are among ‘the People’ protected by the Second Amendment and enjoy the same right to keep and bear arms as every other adult. Yet Louisiana denies them access to the permits they need to fully exercise their right to bear arms in public, Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Bathras v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to the Maryland Glock ban signed into law by Gov. Wes Moore.

In May, SAF filed the lawsuit immediately after Gov. Moore signed into law Senate Bill 334, which states a person “…may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a machine gun convertible pistol.” It further defines a “machine gun convertible pistol” as a firearm that contains a cruciform trigger bar. Cruciform trigger bars are a unique design element found across all Glock handguns. The intent of the bill is to prevent the already illegal conversion of semi-automatic handguns into machineguns, by banning the legal handguns themselves. The ban goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

“Anti-gun politicians will constantly tell you that ‘no one is coming for your guns,'” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And then they pass bills like this that bans the most commonly owned handgun in America. Both can’t be true. Maryland’s Glock ban, and those like it that have popped up around the country, are a thinly veiled attempt to ban all guns, one chunk of the market at a time. But the law is overwhelmingly on our side. The Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment protects handguns, as they are the ‘quintessential’ firearm of choice for self-defense, and Glock-style pistols are massively popular and commonly used in Maryland and around the country.”

As noted in the complaint, “This case is about whether Maryland may ban Glock and Glock-style handguns consistent with the United States Constitution merely because someone can convert those firearms into something that they are not.” SAF is joined in Bathras v. Moore by Atlantic Guns, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Laws like this strip peaceable Americans from access to constitutionally protected arms and seek to bully and hold liable lawful manufacturers and sellers for the criminal misuse of firearms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This law is the equivalent to banning free speech in the hopes of preventing fraud. It’s bad policy and unconstitutional. We look forward getting it tossed.” Read more

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down New Jersey’s assault weapon and magazine capacity bans, bolstering a positive outcome in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) two assault weapons ban cases currently before the Supreme Court.

“Today’s Third Circuit decision striking down New Jersey’s so-called ‘assault weapons’ ban confirms arguments in SAF’s two cases before the Supreme Court – Viramontesv. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins are valid and well-reasoned,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Supreme Court’s recent decision Wolford v. Lopez, where he Court further clarified what constitutes an ‘arm’ for Second Amendment purposes, has already laid the groundwork for resolving these cases favorably and was adopted by the Third Circuit. We are optimistic today’s ruling will further bolster a favorable result once we have the opportunity to argue the cases before the Court this fall.”

In today’s opinion, the en banc Third Circuit struck down key parts of New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and magazine laws, which creates a circuit split on both issues. The ruling ultimately functions as an excellent opening act ahead of the Supreme Court consideration of SAF’s Viramontes and Grant cases in its upcoming term. Read more