The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in George Peterson v. United States, a case challenging the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration and special taxation requirements for firearm suppressors.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“Suppressors are clearly ‘arms’ protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and there is no historical tradition supporting the NFA’s burdensome per-arm registration and taxation scheme,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that the Founding generation would never have tolerated requiring every individual firearm or component to be registered with the government. These requirements burden the right to keep and bear arms and have no basis in our nation’s tradition. We urge the Court to grant review and strike them down.”

This case presents the High Court with an opportunity to clarify once and for all that suppressors are protected arms and to rein in unconstitutional registration and taxation schemes that treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a supplemental brief in Brown v. ATF, one of three lawsuits the organization is supporting challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Before President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, purchasing silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” (AOWs) under the NFA required paying a $200 tax and registering the firearms. The tax and registration regime, Congress insisted, was based on its authority to levy taxes. Once the One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated taxes on those arms, however, SAF and its partners filed lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power as constitutional authority to enact the law is no longer justifiable.

“In response to our Motion for Summary Judgment, the court requested additional briefing, which highlight multiple critical elements of our claim,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled to have an additional opportunity to explain exactly why our claim is so strong. The brief highlights why SAF and our members have standing to bring this suit, and precisely how the merits analysis supports our position. As we always do, we make our positions as plainly and forthrightly as possible, and we post links to the entire docket for each case on our website so everyone can read the full arguments we are making on their behalf.”

SAF is joined in Brown v. ATF by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two private citizens.

“For almost a century, the NFA has been used to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We now have a chance to remove these unconstitutional restrictions and look forward to fully restoring the right to keep and bear arms for the countless Americans who own silencers and short-barreled rifles across the nation.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) announce a significant legal victory in the ongoing battle against New York’s restrictive and misnamed “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” In a Stipulation of Partial Settlement filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, State Defendants have officially consented to an injunction against the enforcement of N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1)(o)(iv).

This now-enjoined provision required applicants for a concealed carry license to submit a list of their former and current social media accounts from the past three years to confirm their “character and conduct.”

Key Takeaways from the Settlement:

• State Defendants have consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against their enforcement of the social media requirement.
• The Superintendent of the New York State Police is now explicitly required to ensure that the PPB-3 license application form does not include language requiring social media information.
• The remainder of the ongoing litigation will continue to target other statutory provisions, including N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d and various “sensitive locations” enumerated in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e where the public carry of firearms for self-defense in prohibited, such as public parks, zoos, and places licensed for alcohol consumption.

The lawsuit, Antonyuk v. James, No. 1:22-cv-986-GTS-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), represents a broader, ongoing constitutional challenge to New York’s aggressive and unconstitutional post-Bruen gun control regime. By forcing the state to abandon its invasive social media check, GOA and GOF have secured a crucial win for both the Second Amendment and the privacy rights of New Yorkers.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: “New York’s ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ is a smokescreen. This law has never been about improving concealed carry for law-abiding citizens but instead is a calculated effort to disarm as many New Yorkers as possible. We will continue fighting this unconstitutional law in court, including New York’s onerous location restrictions.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a case challenging New York’s law that undermines the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The case, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc v. Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, challenges the continued filing of abusive public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and the Independence Institute.

“British efforts to suppress arms commerce in the years before the Revolutionary War were correctly understood by the Founders as a deliberate attempt to disarm and enslave the American people,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Congress enacted the PLCAA to stop the modern equivalent – coordinated litigation campaigns designed to bankrupt the firearms industry through meritless lawsuits. New York’s law invites precisely the kind of abusive end-run around federal protections that Congress sought to prevent. We urge the Court to grant review and reaffirm PLCAA’s vital safeguards for lawful commerce and Second Amendment rights.”

The Second Circuit’s erroneous ruling threatens to revive the very litigation campaign that Congress enacted PLCAA to halt, potentially devastating the firearms industry and undermining the constitutional rights it supports.

“This case is essential because it defends the firearms industry against efforts to achieve gun control through the courts rather than through the legislative process,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is proud to join the NRA and Independence Institute in urging the Supreme Court to protect the industry that enables Americans to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging the ban on firearms possession in federal facilities operated by the National Park Service.

The lawsuit specifically challenges the constitutionality of federal law 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which bars knowingly possessing a firearm in a federal facility, as applied to federal facilities operated by the National Park Service. The law defines a federal facility in the National Park System as “…government offices, visitor centers, ranger stations, fee collection buildings, and maintenance facilities.” Park officials themselves are also allowed to impose park-specific restrictions on where firearms may be carried.

“More than 300 million people traveled through the National Park System last year, and each of them were unconstitutionally barred from carrying firearms inside specific buildings at those parks,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Campers wishing to carry a firearm for self-defense in these parks, for instance, are made to disarm before stepping foot inside a visitor center or ranger station to obtain a permit to camp. This disenfranchisement forces peaceable citizens to choose between following the registration rules for each park or going unarmed while they gather the proper documentation allowing them to enjoy our National Park System. That’s not a choice any law-abiding American should have to make.”

As noted in the complaint, “The Supreme Court has squarely held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that all responsible, law-abiding Americans are entitled to exercise that right. In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully extends to general carry of arms in public.” SAF is joined in Zimmerman v. Bondi by the Firearms Policy Coalition and private citizen Gary Zimmerman.

“These so-called ‘sensitive places’ restrictions across the country are nothing more than an attempt by idealogues to circumvent the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Peaceable citizens should not be forced to choose between exercising their right to keep and bear arms and enjoying the full breadth of the National Park System, and we will fight these unconstitutional bans to ensure Americans can enjoy their full Second Amendment rights everywhere they go.” Read more

Judge Pittman’s misguided opinion upholding Texas’s carry ban across wide swaths of public life-including at sporting events-isn’t even in the same ballpark as the Constitution. His decision is nothing but foul balls, so we’ve directed our attorneys to appeal this case to the Fifth Circuit without delay. We’re confident the law and the Supreme Court’s binding precedent will prevail-and this insane ruling will be reversed.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal lawsuit, Goldberger v. James, challenging New York’s “sensitive location” handgun carry ban in the Times Square area. FPC is seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the carry ban as well as other relief.

The plaintiffs challenging the ban include one FPC member. The plaintiffs are represented by Peter A. Patterson, William V. Bergstrom, and Alfonso Gamboa of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.

The complaint was filed on March 20, 2026. Likely next steps include an answer from the defendant and a briefing schedule from the District Court.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

New York’s ban unconstitutionally deprives individuals of the right to keep and bear arms in what is indisputably a public place where the need for self-defense may arise. The ban clearly contradicts the Supreme Court’s holding that governments cannot ban carry simply because a location is crowded and generally protected by the police. Read more

After four years of litigation, California finally conceded its youth firearms marketing law is unconstitutional and agreed to pay the challenging parties $481,792 in attorney’s fees. The Sportsmen’s Alliance was the first to sound the alarm about this Constitutional nightmare, and believe this victory isn’t just for Californians, but is one shared by all Americans.

In summer 2022, California passed Assembly Bill 2571. The bill banned any marketing of firearms or accessories that might be attractive to minors. In it’s original form, the bill was so broad that advertising youth hunter education programs was illegal. Sportsmen’s Alliance opposed the bill, calling it “dangerous legislation that takes hunter education and firearm safety training off the table in California,” and criticized the bill sponsors for “worshipping anti-gun and anti-hunting dogma over firearm safety.”

The bill passed, and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, Safari Club International, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and So Cal Top Guns, with support from the National Rifle Association, immediately sued, alleging that the law violated the First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It took nearly two years and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before we were able to get a preliminary order enjoining the state from enforcing the law.

“The First Amendment provides different levels of protection to all forms of speech,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “When it comes to commercial advertising, it protects truthful, non-misleading advertising, unless those advertisements further some other illegal activity.”

The Ninth Circuit recognized the law “does not ‘directly’ and ‘materially’ further” the purported goals of “reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors.” Instead, it bans truthful advertising — “for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California.”

But California was undeterred by that defeat. It prolonged the litigation by seeking an additional appeal before 11 judges on the Ninth Circuit—which was unanimously rejected. Then it fought the scope of the injunction in the district court. But after a second loss in the Ninth Circuit, California finally acquiesced. It now acknowledges what was obvious all along—it infringed on sportsmen’s First Amendment rights, and its paying a heavy price for doing so.

“This is why we have an in-house litigation team,” Jean continued. “And if California does it again, we will sue them again.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners filed an amicus brief with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court challenging the state’s firearms carry ban by 18–20-year-olds.

The brief was filed in support of the appellant in Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Kareem Mohammed Williams Jr., and challenges the state’s prohibition of law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds carrying firearms for self-defense. SAF joined the National Rifle Association and Firearm Owners Against Crime in the amicus filing.

“Pennsylvania’s ban defies Bruen by denying young adults their Second Amendment rights without any historical tradition of such age-based restrictions at the Founding,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that 18-to-20-year-olds were not only part of ‘the People’ protected by the Second Amendment but were required to keep and bear arms for militia and self-defense purposes. We urge the Court to reverse the lower court ruling and recognize that this subset of adults is afforded the same fundamental right to self-defense as other Americans who are 21 and older.” Read more