The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Court in support of a New Hampshire man who is challenging the Massachusetts permit law.

SAF and NRA are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut with SAF in Bellevue, Wash., Joseph G.S. Greenlee and Erin M. Erhardt with NRA in Fairfax, Va., and Edward F. George, Jr., at Edward George & Associates in Arlington, Mass.

The case involves New Hampshire resident Dean F. Donnell, Jr., who was stopped by police in Massachusetts and charged for carrying a firearm without a license. In their 38-page brief, SAF and NRA explain their interest as that of their members’ ability to travel with firearms legally across state lines, to use them for lawful purposes.

“There is no historical tradition that justifies the non-resident licensing scheme now in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Looking back, a government license has not been required to exercise the right to carry arms. Such licenses came into existence only in the late 19th Century, and they applied only to the concealed carry of firearms. Open carry was unrestricted.”

“Our brief,” explained Kraut, who is also SAF’s executive director, “discusses how there were often exemptions for those traveling from being subject to the same restrictions as residents of a particular state. We note how the licensing scheme in Massachusetts is unduly prejudiced against nonresidents. New nonresident license applications require an in-person appointment in Massachusetts, necessitating an extra (unarmed) trip to the Commonwealth—which, especially for residents of distant states, becomes a barrier to entry that may be financially untenable.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, donated $100,000 to Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) to support a legal challenge to the new onerous gun control law that was passed by the state legislature and signed by Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey. The donation will support the legal fight against the hulking gun control law that severely restricts lawful firearm ownership and creates a bureaucratic maze of licensing requirements that have still yet to be defined.

The law, H. 4885 – also known now as Chapter 135 – is clearly unconstitutional. The legislation was drafted in secret, even denying access to all Massachusetts lawmakers. There was no input from NSSF or other firearm owner advocacy groups as the final draft was crafted behind closed doors.

“Massachusetts is known as a birthplace of the American Revolution, but these lawmakers have turned their backs to rights that belong to the people and instead are instituting an Orwellian state over the citizens of the Commonwealth,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The fight to protect liberty and individual rights begins anew and we are confident that when federal courts apply scrutiny to this law, it will be relegated to the trash bin where it belongs. Massachusetts lawmakers are failing to defend the rights of the people and instead are kowtowing to the special-interest gun control machine that funds their perpetual re-elections.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— A federal court in Maryland has handed a victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a challenge of the state law restricting carry in certain locations, declaring three provisions in the statute to be unconstitutional. The case is known as Novotny v. Moore.

Chief U.S. District Judge George L. Russell III for the District of Maryland, a Barack Obama appointee, issued the 13-page ruling and a separate order granting summary judgment enjoining the state from enforcing provisions in the law which restrict the carrying of firearms in: (1) locations selling alcohol for onsite-consumption, (2) private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and (3) within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration.

“We are pleased that the Court found Maryland’s draconian ‘anti-carry’ rule to be unconstitutional,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Such a provision flies in the face of this nation’s history and tradition. Of course, we will examine the court’s opinion and weigh our options for appeal to continue to challenge other provisions we believe are unconstitutional.”

SAF is joined by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla. The case was consolidated with a similar case known as Kipke v. Moore. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— District Judge Christopher C. Conner with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania issued an order granting summary judgment to SAF and its partners, finding the state’s law banning carry of a firearm in a vehicle without a license unconstitutional. He further declared that a ban on firearms possession without a license during a state of emergency is facially unconstitutional, and enjoined Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Col. Christopher Paris from enforcing those provisions.

The court found, however, in favor of Col. Paris with respect to another issue in the case, and dismissed a challenge to another section of the state Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 for lack of standing, without prejudice. The court notes the plaintiffs have the right to file an amended complaint “curing that deficiency.”

In his 44-page memorandum detailing his decision, Judge Conner noted that if an amended complaint is filed, the case will be transferred to the Eastern District for further action.

“Each victory takes us a step further in our efforts to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“We will evaluate the judge’s ruling and determine our next course of action,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added. “However, we are pleased that the judge agreed with our position that the ban on carry in a vehicle absent a license is unconstitutional, as many Pennsylvanians were precluded from carrying and transporting firearms, with limited exceptions.” Read more

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has filed a lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule. The ATF’s Final Rule unlawfully redefines when a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and therefore required to be federally licensed. This new lawsuit is being filed on the heels of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have reined in executive branch agencies from acting outside of statutory authority.

“The ATF’s Final Rule stands to turn countless upstanding and well-intending citizens into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “When ATF released this Final Rule, NRA promised to use every means necessary to stop this egregious interpretation of the law. Now that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Loper Bright, Cargill, and Rahimi make clear that the ATF does not have unfettered authority to arbitrarily restrict NRA Members’ rights to buy and sell firearms, the NRA is fighting back.”

NRA, along with two individuals, Don Butler and David Glidewell, filed the lawsuit challenging the ATF’s Final Rule in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The complaint alleges that the Final Rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it exceeds the ATF’s statutory and jurisdictional authority and is arbitrary and capricious; violates the Fifth Amendment because it is unconstitutionally vague; violates the Second Amendment by infringing the rights to keep, bear, buy, and sell arms; and violates the Separation of Powers, non-delegation doctrine, and Take Care Clause by usurping legislative powers and prohibiting lawful conduct by executive fiat. Read more