NEWTOWN, Conn. — NSSF®, the firearm industry trade association, condemns the U.S. House of Representatives’ passage of H.R. 1808, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022, as amended. The legislation ignores the Constitutional right, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, for law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms that are in common use. NSSF estimates that there are over 24.4 million Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in circulation in America between 1990 and 2020.

“This legislation is as dangerous as it is revealing of the contempt for which the House Democrats hold for the Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Chairman Jerrold Nadler admitted during debate in his committee that he didn’t care the legislation was unconstitutional and defied Supreme Court precedent. Democratic representatives are not fulfilling the interest of ‘the People,’ instead representing special-interest gun control groups that seek to disarm law-abiding citizens and scapegoat them for crimes committed by others.” Read more

The Assault Weapons Ban of 2022 ineffectively addresses violent crime and punishes law-abiding citizens

West Bend, WI – The U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), which is one of the fastest-growing organizations in the country representing responsibly armed Americans, released the following statement on the House passage of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2022:

“The fundamental, natural-born right to defend yourself and your family should not be subject to what the federal government deems ‘acceptable’ for private civilian use,” said USCCA President and Founder Tim Schmidt. “The arbitrary label ‘assault weapon’ was created and perpetuated by anti-gun politicians and the media. Guns are inanimate objects and do not possess the ability to hurt people on their own.” Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement in response to the House vote on H.R.1808, the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2022”:

Today, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1808, which would, if enacted, criminalize the lawful and constitutionally protected conduct of millions of Americans.

In a time of economic recession, gross overreach and abuse of power by the federal government, and cascading governmental policy failures at all levels, 217 depraved representatives, including the deciding votes cast by Republicans Jacobs (NY) and Fitzpatrick, voted to violate natural rights and our Constitution, choosing to promote policies that would imprison peaceable people who have done no wrong.

There is no world in which American gun owners bend the knee and comply with this evil legislation. Further, if H.R.1808 is enacted, FPC Law will swiftly and aggressively take all actions necessary to fight and enjoin the bill.

Individuals who would like to Join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube. Read more

Philadelphia, PA– Thursday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an opening letter brief in Lara v. Evanchick, its Pennsylvania lawsuit seeking to restore the right to carry arms in public for adults under 21 years of age. The brief, which was requested by the Court after the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The impact of Bruen on this case is plain: it establishes that the Second Amendment protects the right to publicly carry and transport firearms, it forecloses the Commissioner’s argument that 18-to-20-year-old adult Pennsylvanians may be excluded from the enjoyment of that right, and it precludes the application of means-end scrutiny to the Pennsylvania age restrictions, which are instead invalid per se,” argues the brief. “The Court should reverse the decision below and order entry of judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor.”

“This is just the latest case against unconstitutional carry laws where we have responded to a request for additional briefing regarding Bruen’s impact,” said Director of Programs Bill Sack. “We look forward to restoring the People’s right to bear arms nationwide as the Supreme Court’s decision begins to affect numerous other pending cases.” Read more

NRA America’s 1st Freedom: What We Must Do to Defend Gun Manufacturers and Stores

As the lead attorney for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Lawrence Keane, is involved in litigation and legislation related to the firearm industry. Lately, firearm manufactures and stores are constantly vilified and under attack by the Biden administration.

“Many banks and other financial-service providers have been discriminating against the firearms industry for years now,” says Keane before getting into what we can do about it. Because there are things we can and must do, as America’s firearms manufacturers and gun stores are under attack from many directions.

The full interview with Keane is available exclusively at A1F.com. Read more

By Jim Shepherd

Another big day in Washington.

The House is holding hearings to lay the groundwork what are essentially“work-arounds” for anti-gun legislators. They’re looking for ways to punish gun owners, manufacturers, dealers and distributors since the Supreme Court seems insistent on upholding the position that enumerated rights – especially the right to “keep and bear arms” mean exactly what they say.

The House Judiciary Committee is “marking up” H.R. 1801, their latest Assault Weapons Ban. H.R. 2814 the “Equal Access to Victims of Gun Violence Act” is also up as well.

H.R.1801 is exactly what it sounds like: another proposed ban on those evil, black rifles that apparently possess the souls of a minuscule percentage of their users, forcing them on murderous rampages. Unlike the “Clinton ban” this version has no expiration date.

H.R. 2814, however is not exactly what’s implied. It’s not a crusade to protect innocent victims, it’s an attempt to repeal The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The PLCAA prevents the manufacturers of firearms from being sued for the actions of others (you could use the word criminals) employing their products for nefarious purposes.

Recently, we told you that the CEOs of three gun companies, Smith & Wesson, Daniel Defense, and Ruger had been “invited” by House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Mahoney to testify before the panel – today.

They won’t be there. No, it’s not an act of defiance, it’s scheduling issues. But they won’t be there to either be lectured or grilled by the committee, so scratch one anti-gun photo op.

If you doubt this description of the less-than-cordial greeting she had planned, Rep. Mahoney’s “invitation” told the invitees: “the sale and marketing of assault weapons and the broad civil immunity that has been unfairly granted to manufacturers” would be part of the discussion.

She also wrote that the CEO’s products (these particular CEOs) “have been used for decades to carry out homicides and even mass murders.”

That would certainly have me rearranging my schedule to try and be there for Rep. Mahoney if I were Messrs. Daniel, Killoy or Mark Smith of Daniel Defense, Ruger and Smith & Wesson, respectively. Read more

NEWTOWN, Conn. — NSSF®, the firearm industry trade association, defended the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers in a letter to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) Bureau of Consumer Protection Director Samuel Levine. The letter was in response to several complaints by special-interest gun control groups falsely accusing NSSF members of violating the Federal Trade Commission Act. These attacks are nothing short of well-financed, special-interest gun control groups attempting to limit the First Amendment rights of firearm manufacturers to advertise lawful products.

Letters have been sent the FTC by gun control groups Everytown for Gun Safety, The Brady Campaign, Giffords Law Center and similar special-interest groups.

“These gun control groups are not content in attacking and denying one Constitutional right. They are now bent on attacking another,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “These groups are attempting to abuse the levers of government to deny the right to advertise a lawful product even as they use those same complaints as fundraising tools. This is a disgusting attempt to twist the role of a federal agency as a neutral arbiter to one that uses the weight of federal authority to deny not one, but two Constitutionally-protected rights.

“The NSSF is compelled by our duty to our members and our respect for the Constitution to stand against, and call out, such egregious manipulation of federal regulations by these groups,” Keane added. “Their disdain for the Second Amendment does not give them the right to infringe on the First Amendment rights of our members and others with whom they disagree.” Read more

Philadelphia, PA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an en banc petition in Williams v. Garland, which challenges the federal Gun Control Act’s lifetime ban on the exercise of Second Amendment rights due to a single misdemeanor conviction for a crime that did not involve violence, physical harm, or a firearm. The filing can be found at FPCLegal.org.

Following a 2005 trial, Edward Williams was convicted of driving under the influence, in violation of Pennsylvania law. Because he had a previous DUI non-conviction in 2001, that was later expunged, the 2005 conviction qualified as a first-degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum sentence of up to five years’ imprisonment. However, he was never imprisoned, and was instead placed under house arrest for 90 days, ordered to pay costs, a fine of $1,500, and to complete any recommended drug and alcohol treatment under the mandatory minimum sentence.

In May, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of the Government, saying that the case “must meet the same fate” as a previous one due to circuit precedent. Because the decision came before the Supreme Court’s opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, today’s petition argues that “[r]ehearing en banc is appropriate because the panel opinion contradicts Bruen, which mandates a historical test based on dangerousness and thus forbids the disarmament of peaceable persons like Williams.”

Read more