NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in support of plaintiffs challenging Vermont’s mandatory 72-hour “cooling off” waiting period when lawfully purchasing a firearm. NSSF argues that nothing in the nation’s history or tradition supports delaying a law-abiding citizen from exercising their Second Amendment rights when legally purchasing a firearm.

The challenge to Vermont’s law, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc., v. Birmingham, is pending before the Second Circuit. NSSF’s amicus brief was filed on Tuesday.

“NSSF has long held that these mandatory waiting period laws are unconstitutional. Simply, rights delayed are rights denied,” explained Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit found that New Mexico’s similar law requiring a mandatory waiting period when purchasing a firearm violated the Second Amendment. NSSF also supported a challenge to a similar 72-hour waiting period law in Maine, which is preliminarily enjoined pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. This is the same question before the Second Circuit.”

Firearms sold at retail are required to be transferred only upon the purchaser completing and signing a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, attesting that the purchaser (or transferee) is not prohibited from possessing a firearm and is the true intended recipient of that firearm. The purchaser must also be subject to an FBI National Instant Background Check System (NICS) verification that there are no records of prohibiting factors that would bar that individual from taking possession of a legally purchased firearm.

Vermont’s law requiring a mandatory 72-hour “cooling off” waiting period to take possession of a lawfully purchased firearm denies citizens facing credible threats against their safety or lives the ability to defend themselves. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit supporting plaintiffs-appellants in Vt. Fed. of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Birmingham, a case challenging Vermont’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases.

SAF is joined in the amicus by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and National Rifle Association.

“The district court’s ruling defies Bruen and Rahimi by misapplying the Second Amendment’s historical test and creating a false ‘fork’ in the analysis for so-called ‘ancillary’ rights, and by relying on unserious analogues like laws disarming intoxicated persons,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows no tradition of waiting periods, even as mass production made guns widely available in the 19th century. We urge the Second Circuit to reverse and restore the proper Bruen framework.”

The Tenth Circuit recently struck down a similar waiting period in Ortega v. Grisham, and several other cases challenging waiting periods are pending nationwide. The brief also relies on primary sources in the form of historical newspaper advertisements offering firearms for sale as far back as 1745. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in Jensen v. ATF, an FPC-backed federal case challenging key provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The motion—filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas—asks the court to strike down and permanently enjoin enforcement of the challenged provisions of the NFA. The full brief is available at firearmspolicy.org/jensen.

The filing argues that the NFA exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers and can no longer be justified under the Constitution. Because Congress eliminated the NFA’s making and transfer taxes for most regulated firearms in 2025, the Act’s remaining registration and recordkeeping mandates lack any valid constitutional foundation. The challengers also argue that the NFA’s regulatory scheme is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Said FPC President Brandon Combs, “For nearly a century, the federal government has used the NFA to turn peaceable Americans into criminals. It was never about safety—it was always about control. When Congress erased the tax, it erased the last illusion of legitimacy holding this law together. What’s left is an unlawful exercise of government power aimed squarely at the very people the Constitution was written to protect.”

Combs continued, “The right to keep and bear arms isn’t a privilege that the government can tax, track, or ration—it’s a birthright. The NFA’s collapse isn’t just overdue—it’s inevitable. And when it falls, it will remind Washington that freedom isn’t granted by permission slip or registration form, it’s guaranteed by the Constitution.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of its final brief in support of Supreme Court review in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, asking the Supreme Court of the United States to finally decide the constitutionality of so-called “assault weapon” bans.

The filing argues that the lower court’s decision upholding Cook County’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15 is “based on an interpretation of the Second Amendment that flagrantly distorts this Court’s precedent and makes a mockery of the Amendment’s text, history, and purposes.” That, they say, is irreconcilable with the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and Bruen decisions.

The brief explains that multiple federal courts have now split on how to apply Bruen’s text-informed-by-history framework, including whether “in common use” is a textual or historical inquiry and which side bears the burden of proof. It warns that “lower courts are in conflict” and cites Justice Thomas’s and Justice Kavanaugh’s recent calls for the Court to “address the AR-15 issue.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today issued the following statement condemning the Trump Administration’s ongoing defense of federal gun control laws and calling on President Trump to take immediate action to restore the integrity of his pledge to protect Second Amendment rights:

Since President Donald J. Trump signed the “Protecting Second Amendment Rights” executive order in February, his Department of Justice has done exactly the opposite—relentlessly defending the federal government’s unconstitutional gun control regime. Instead of using the Justice Department’s vast power to secure Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, the Trump DOJ has used it to fight against the People—even taking extreme positions in court to resist injunctions that block the government’s enforcement of gun laws that federal judges have already found unconstitutional.

Last month, the Administration’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer—the government’s top appellate lawyer, often called the “10th Justice” for his influence with the Supreme Court—urged the Court to deny review in a case challenging the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration and taxation scheme for short-barreled rifles. The Administration argued that the NFA’s intrusive requirements are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” effectively endorsing the very federal overreach the Second Amendment was written to prevent.

In an effort to convince the Court to dodge the question of unconstitutional federal restrictions, the Trump DOJ suggested that the Court should focus on “laws banning AR-15 rifles.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Grant v. Rovella, SAF’s challenge to Connecticut’s so-called “assault weapons” ban.

Connecticut is on the minority list of states that have banned, both by name and by feature set, commonly owned contemporary semi-automatic rifles. As part of SAF’s nationwide initiative to put an end to these types of unconstitutional arms bans, the organization filed suit on the grounds that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August, SAF is now presenting the case to the Supreme Court for its consideration. Grant joins three other SAF cases currently before the Court, including Viramontes, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban.

“Last term Justice Kavanaugh said that he suspected the Court would take up the assault weapons issue in the next term or two,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Our goal as a leader in the Second Amendment advocacy space is to build and present every possible opportunity for the Court to do exactly that. Bans like Connecticut’s are in direct contradiction to the demands of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions and its time they’re relegated to the dustbin of history.” Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a reply brief with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in a lawsuit challenging the ban on electronic arms in New York City.

New York City flatly prohibits the possession of stun guns, despite their common nationwide use as a less-lethal option for self-defense chosen by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Americans. Joining SAF in Calce v. City of New York are five individuals and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

“Courts all over the country have struck down bans just like this one as plainly unconstitutional,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “But the District Court in this case found a way to uphold New York City’s ban by improperly placing the ‘common use’ part of the analysis in the plain text portion of the test. This error not only ignores express instructions to the contrary from the Supreme Court but also shifts the burden from the government to prove their ban is constitutional, to the Plaintiffs themselves to prove their arms are protected. That is not the law, and appeal to the Second Circuit aims to correct these errors.” Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) joined the National Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation in urging the Supreme Court to strike down the federal lifetime gun ban for nonviolent offenses in a critical new brief filed today in Duarte v. United States.

As FPC and its allies argue in the brief, “Historically, nonviolent criminals—including nonviolent felons—who did not demonstrate a propensity for violence retained the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.” Indeed, they noted, “some laws expressly allowed or even required them to keep and bear arms. Certiorari should be granted to establish that the Second Amendment forbids the disarmament of peaceable Americans, including nonviolent felons.”

“Never in our history has any government had the authority to permanently disarm an individual for non-violent crimes,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. “The lifetime federal ban of today would have been unthinkable to the Founding Fathers. The Supreme Court should grant review in this and other cases to restore the right to keep and bear arms of all peaceable Americans.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) are celebrating a major victory for Tennessee gun owners after the Shelby County Chancery Court rejected the City of Memphis’ unconstitutional and illegal gun-control ordinance.

In its ruling, the Court made clear that Memphis’ sweeping local gun restrictions were not just unlawful—but entirely void.

The following are two major points outlined in the order:

1. The City CONCEDED its ordinance violates state law.
   Memphis admitted that every line of its handgun-carry ban, vehicle-storage rule, so-called “assault rifle” ban, and red-flag scheme is 100% illegal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1314. (Order pp. 3, 9–11)

1. The Judge called the ordinance “DEAD AS A DOORNAIL.”
   The Chancellor wrote that “The Ordinance and those who proposed it engaged in ‘virtue signaling,’” but “the Ordinance is as dead as a proverbial doornail as a matter of Tennessee law.” (Order p. 6) Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant certiorari in Duarte v. United States, a case challenging the federal ban on firearm possession by nonviolent felons.

SAF is joined in the filing by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Action Foundation.

“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling defies Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi by upholding a lifetime disarmament of someone who committed nonviolent offenses, ignoring that our historical tradition only supports disarming ‘dangerous’ persons – those with a proven proclivity for violence or threats to government,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “From colonial laws targeting violent threats to founding-era ratification proposals protecting ‘peaceable citizens,’ the shared common denominator has always been danger, and no precedent exists for stripping Second Amendment rights from nonviolent felons. We urge the Court to intervene and clarify that felon bans are ‘presumptively lawful’ only when applied to dangerous individuals.” Read more