SACRAMENTO, CA – Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to the failure of California measures SB 918 (Portantino), which would have made it nearly impossible for most people to lawfully exercise their fundamental rights, and AB 1227 (Levine), which would have instituted punitive taxes on those same fundamental rights.

Despite a full court press by Attorney General Rob Bonta and Senator Anthony Portantino to turn the tide, their efforts to defy the Supreme Court’s decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen by expanding the definition of “sensitive location” to the point of comical absurdity has failed.

In addition, Assemblymember Marc Levine’s elitist attempt to create barriers to access the fundamental right to acquire firearms and ammunition with dramatic tax increases on these rights has also failed.

SB 918 and AB 1227 were examples of the contemptuous undermining of the natural rights of the People. This cavalier attitude, particularly following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, is naked conceit. These measures and those like them seek to increase state violence and put peaceable people in government cages for exercising their rights. Read more

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in their Linton v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s laws and policies that deny Second Amendment rights to peaceable people whose rights should have been fully restored after their non-violent felony convictions in other states were vacated and nullified. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

Plaintiffs Chad Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, and Kendall Jones were convicted of non-violent felonies in other states decades ago, and have since had those convictions set aside or vacated. Furthermore, the courts in the states in which they were convicted—Washington, Arizona, and Texas—restored their rights to purchase and possess firearms. Nevertheless, California still forbids them from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“The historical inquiry is: Can the State show that there is a relevant historical tradition, dating to the founding era, which allows for lifetime disarmament of individuals convicted of non-violent felonies?” asks the motion. “An examination of the scholarship and legal analysis of this period leads to the conclusion that as a matter of our Nation’s history, prohibited persons could have their rights restored once they were no longer considered dangerous.” Read more

FORT WORTH, TX – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in Andrews v. McCraw, its Second Amendment lawsuit that challenged a ban on handgun carry by young adults in the State of Texas. The judgment and injunction can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“The issue is whether prohibiting law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a handgun in public for self-defense is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” wrote Judge Mark Pittman in his Opinion. “Based on the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by Founding-Era history and tradition, the Court concludes that the Second Amendment protects against this prohibition. Texas’s statutory scheme must therefore be enjoined to the extent that law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds are prohibited from applying for a license to carry a handgun.”

“Texas cannot point to a single Founding Era law that prohibited 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying a functional firearm for self-defense, because not only did no such law exist, but those individuals are an important reason why we have a Bill of Rights in the first place,” said FPC Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation, Cody J. Wisniewski. “The typical age of individuals that went to war with the British for our Independence was between 17 and 20 years old. And young people have just as much a right to keep and bear arms in public as adults over the age of 21. This decision is a significant victory for the rights of young adults in Texas and demonstrates for the rest of the nation that similar bans cannot withstand constitutional challenges grounded in history, as Bruen and Heller require. We look forward to restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States in the coming months and years.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The New York City Police Department has issued an emergency rule deleting the “proper cause” and “letter of necessity” requirements from their application process to obtain a concealed carry license thanks to a legal action filed by the Second Amendment Foundation.

SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc, several private citizens, whose license applications have now been processed. They were represented by attorney David Jensen, PLLC of New York.

“Even with the Supreme Court ruling striking down the ‘proper cause’ requirement, we wanted to make sure the New York licensing process swiftly complied with the court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re delighted NYPD quickly complied, and we’ll chalk up one more victory in our effort to win back firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

According to a memorandum detailing the emergency rule, New York City “must immediately implement an operative concealed carry licensing scheme to address an imminent threat to safety ad property. This emergency rule ensures that pending and recently denied or ‘downgraded’ applications are evaluated consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen.” Read more

With the recent passage of California’s AB 2571, a law prohibiting the marketing of certain firearms to minors, Governor Newsom rode roughshod over constitutional protections to advance the legislation that many feel will be nothing more than an anti-gun talking point in what is likely to be a future presidential run. As author Daniel Sutter wrote, “Liberals have long celebrated good intentions over results.” And what suggests the viability of a White House run like surviving a recall initiated by nearly 2 million signatures?

Few crime experts see the new law as having any measurable impact on public safety, but rather see it as another step to curtail Second Amendment rights. “Given the degree to which popular culture glamorizes guns, almost any ad about guns could be interpreted as appealing to young people—along with everyone else,” says criminologist Gary Kleck. “This measure is just a pretext for banning all advertising of guns.”

Further, by aiming at gun advertising, while ignoring the proliferation of first-person shooter video games, violent movies, and the advertising of such, Newsom and his sycophants in the California legislature have made it clear their goal has little to do with safety of the state’s youth, but rather is about delivering on their political agenda—and that includes a cultural end run on the Second Amendment.

To read the rest of the article, click here.

RICHMOND, VA (August 23, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a supplemental brief in its Bianchi v. Frosh lawsuit, which challenges Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The brief, which was requested by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded Bianchi in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The rifles banned by Maryland are among the most popular firearms in the country, owned by tens of millions of Americans for lawful purposes including for self-defense and defense of the home,” argues the brief. “Maryland has made clear that it does not like the people’s desire for these firearms, but that does not change the fact that they are bearable arms that the American people overwhelmingly favor and have a right to possess.”

“The Supreme Court recently affirmed what we’ve been arguing all along,” said FPC Director of Programs Bill Sack, “the rights of the people cannot be infringed through the use of watered down interest balancing tests. There is simply no historical analog to Maryland’s wholesale ban of some of the most popular firearms in the country.” Read more

CINCINNATI, OH – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation announced its successful appeal in Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell Township, Michigan, which challenges zoning restrictions imposed by the Township that prohibit shooting ranges for long guns. Because of this key decision, the case can now proceed at the trial court under the standard outlined in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The district court should decide, in the first instance, whether Oakland Tactical’s proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” reads the Sixth Circuit’s decision. “If the district court concludes that Oakland Tactical’s proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it should then determine whether historical evidence—to be produced by the Township in the first instance—demonstrates that the Ordinance’s shooting-range regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

“Howell Township must now prove that its training restrictions are based on analogous historical regulations,” said FPC Law’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “And because analogous historical regulations do not exist, we’re optimistic that the Township’s restrictions will be held unconstitutional.” Read more

RICHMOND, VA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important appellate brief, joined by FPC Action Foundation and Independence Institute, in Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan, a case that challenges Maryland’s gun licensing and training requirements. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“No law during the colonial, founding, or early republic periods required any American citizen to obtain a license before possessing a firearm,” argues the brief. “Only overtly racist licensing laws existed, which targeted slaves, free African Americans, and Indians—all of whom were denied Second Amendment protections. These discriminatory laws do not justify Maryland’s licensing law, and to the contrary, reveal its unconstitutionality.” Read more