In a pivotal procedural win, a federal judge in Massachusetts has denied the government’s attempt to dismiss a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) lawsuit challenging the state’s process for non-residents to acquire a license to carry (LTC).

As SAF’s original complaint in Lawson v. Campbell explained, non-residents of Massachusetts are forced to go through an arduous process to even receive their LTC and are then required to renew the permit each year. Often, those applying or renewing their “temporary” LTC must wait as long as three months or longer before receiving an in-person interview appointment, which is required by state law before a non-resident can be considered for a permit. This new lawsuit asks the court to remove these barriers and prevent further constitutional violations of non-residents who wish to exercise their full Second Amendment rights in Massachusetts.

“Massachusetts begrudgingly makes carry permits available for out-of-state residents but makes the process of acquiring and renewing them on an annual basis unconstitutionally burdensome,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Delays of multiple months for both new applications and renewals – which are required every year – are commonplace, and without any grace period for those folks with pending renewals, our members who are subjected to these delays have their rights extinguished for extended periods of time year after year.”

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the Gun Owners Action League and three individuals who have been, and remain, at the mercy of the permit application and renewal process.

“Because the right to carry is a federally recognized right, a state government cannot force someone to give up their right to keep and bear arms just because they crossed a state line,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Constitution doesn’t know state lines, and neither do our rights. Permits available on paper, but nearly impossible to maintain in practice, do not meet the clearly articulated demands of the Second Amendment. We are optimistic the Court will agree and fully restore the Second Amendment rights of non-residents who wish to travel and spend time in Massachusetts.” Read more

Following closely on the heels of celebrating its 52nd anniversary, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed their opening brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in cases challenging assault weapons bans in Cook County, Illinois and Connecticut.

On June 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two SAF cases – Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins – challenging the prohibitions of many commonly owned rifles, including the ubiquitous AR-15, in Cook County, Ill., and Connecticut. While legal and broadly adopted by Americans all over the country for a litany of lawful purposes – including self-defense – a minority of states have sought to outright ban the possession of these types of firearms. The question presented in Viramontes and Grant is whether those states may categorically ban a widely defined class of the most commonly possessed firearms in the country. SAF’s opening brief explains precisely why the Second Amendment, and well-established Supreme Court caselaw, have already concluded that no, they may not. Read more

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has granted summary judgment and entered final judgment holding New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period unconstitutional in Ortega v. Grisham. The case was brought by the National Rifle Association and Mountain States Legal Foundation, in partnership with the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

In response to the ruling, the NRA released the following statement: Read more

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms congratulates the three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for unanimously rejecting a lawsuit by California Attorney General Rob Bonta and the Giffords Law Center (GLC) against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) because they lacked standing as plaintiffs.

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Defense Distributed in Defense Distributed v. Blanche (formerly VanDerStok v. Bondi), holding the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule, which expanded the definition of a “firearm,” unconstitutional on both Second Amendment and due process grounds.

In April 2022, under the Biden administration, the ATF published its Rule amending the regulatory definition of “firearm” to encompass partially manufactured firearm frames and receivers. In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects” the ATF’s Rule impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to personally manufacture and gunsmith firearms, as well as establishing a convoluted and opaque set of non-exclusive “factors” that informed when an inert piece of raw material became a “firearm” under federal law. The court declared the rule unconstitutional as applied to all SAF members and issued a permanent injunction protecting Defense Distributed and current and future Second Amendment Foundation members as it relates to the specific gun kits involved in the case. SAF and its partners filed for a motion summary judgment in April of this year, which today, the Court granted.

“This rule was such a mess that it not only violated the Second Amendment but was so terribly drafted that it managed to be ruled unconstitutionally vague,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The Court rightly held that the Biden ATF’s rule not only sought to outright prohibit Second Amendment protected conduct but was written in such a vague and vaporous manner as to chill that protected conduct by making it impossible to even know what was legal and what wasn’t.”

As the judge stated in the opinion, “The decision of when a hunk of metal or plastic ‘may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver’ is left to the subjective determination of the ATF and does not provide fair notice to the reader about when a component becomes subject to enforcement.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal lawsuit, The Firing Pin v. James, after New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S9005C that bans so-called “convertible pistols,” semiautomatic handguns with a cruciform trigger bar. The ban applies against nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol on the market. FPC is seeking a declaration holding the law unconstitutional, an injunction against the enforcement of the ban, and other relief.

The plaintiffs challenging the ban include FPC, two individuals, The Firing Pin, LLC, the National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet.

The lawsuit was filed on August 13, 2026.

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

New York’s new law prevents peaceable people from acquiring some of the most popular handguns in America because those firearms can be illegally modified using devices that are already banned under both federal and New York law. FPC’s lawsuit argues that the State cannot ban commonly possessed handguns merely because someone could illegally convert them into something they are not. The case continues FPC’s nationwide campaign against similar Glock bans, including its challenges in California and Maryland.

“Tyrants in New York have joined California and Maryland in imposing a new assault on our rights by banning some of the most popular handguns in America. FPC is already challenging Glock bans in other states, and now New York will once again have to answer for its authoritarian actions. We and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward and eliminate every one of these immoral and unconstitutional bans throughout the United States.” — Brandon Combs, FPC President Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, a case challenging the state’s prohibition on publishing computer files which can be used for 3D printing firearms.

Originally filed in 2018, the case challenges New Jersey statute which prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information on the grounds it violates the First Amendment. Other courts have ruled that such computer code is indeed covered under the First Amendment, but the Third Circuit disagreed, creating a circuit split. In March, SAF filed a motion for rehearing with the Third Circuit, which was denied, creating the need to request the Supreme Court hear the case.

“The files at issue in this case are speech, and their publication is as protected as a book about gunsmithing,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As is typical in states like New Jersey, all basic principles of law and civil rights get thrown out the window when it’s related to guns. New Jersey hates the Second Amendment so much that it’s willing to infringe on other rights as collateral damage. Speech about making guns is no different from any other protected speech, and computer files that provide that instruction are no less protected than a textbook full of diagrams and measurements.” Read more

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