WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed an amended complaint against New Jersey’s anti-Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) law that is not “consistent with the Constitution.”

NSSF filed a motion to reopen the NSSF v. Platkin case and for leave to file an amended complaint today in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The motion and amended complaint were filed after New Jersey’s Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin brought a lawsuit against GLOCK, Inc., alleging the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals modify and alter well-designed and lawfully-sold GLOCK pistols by illegally obtaining, possessing and installing a “switch” into the handgun.

NSSF previously sued to block New Jersey’s law from taking effect, but that challenge was dismissed by a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit because the court determined that NSSF lacked standing at the time to challenge the law. The Office of Attorney General Platkin disavowed to the appellate court that it had any intention of suing firearm manufacturers for engaging in lawful commerce or placing liability on firearm manufacturers for the criminal misconduct of third parties beyond their control. They promised to only sue for a company’s own misconduct. In dismissing the case, Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote, “[W]e see little evidence that enforcement is looming. Because the Foundation has jumped the gun, its challenge must be dismissed.”

That has all changed now that Attorney General Platkin is seeking to enforce this unconstitutional anti-PLCAA law against GLOCK, Inc., and other industry members.

“As feared, Attorney General Platkin has weaponized the judicial system against firearm manufacturers who have done nothing but engage in lawful commerce and have not violated any federal or state statutes. New Jersey is seeking to blame GLOCK and other industry members for the actions of criminals,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel.

NSSF’s amended complaint argues that New Jersey’s public nuisance law flouts the will of Congress and undermines the U.S. Constitution because it is preempted by the bipartisan PLCAA. Additionally, it violates the First Amendment, Second Amendment, Due Process Clause and the Commerce Clause. Read more

GW: Just another end run around the Constitution. Sure gets old!
Contact your Delegate today and urge them to Oppose these New Taxes!

On Thursday, February 13th at 1:00PM, the House Ways and Means Committee will hear two bills aimed at creating new, punitive taxes on firearms, accessories, and ammunition. If passed, these bills will have a significant impact on industry operations in Maryland.

HB 387 imposes an excise tax of 11% on the sale of firearms from dealers in the state and on sales from outside the state to residents of Maryland.

HB 937 increases the sales and use tax rate to 12% for firearms, firearm accessories, and ammunition.

These new taxes are in addition to the 11% excise tax already imposed by the Pittman-Robertson Act. Proponents’ arguments that the money will fund programs and services to decrease gun violence are disingenuous. These taxes are punitive and have the intention to drive firearm retailers and manufacturers out of the state.

Please take action today by contacting your delegate and asking them to oppose these new taxes. You can also reach out to committee members and voice your opposition directly. Ways and Means committee membership is listed here.

On January 30th, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled unanimously that the federal ban on the sale of firearms to adults 18, 19 and 20 years old is unconstitutional. Because the Fifth Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling and remanded the decision back to the lower court, the decision is not yet final. Likewise, the government may appeal the ruling and seek a stay. Therefore, we would recommend that FFLs in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi do not sell handguns to adults under the age of 21, until the case has been resolved to final judgment. NSSF® will update our members as the matter develops.

The Fifth Circuit ruling can be read here

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction in its lawsuit, Hoffman v. Bonta, challenging California’s ban on firearm carry by non-residents. The motion and other case filings can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/hoffman.

“This ban is unconstitutional. Individuals do not lose protection of their rights under the First Amendment’s speech or religion clauses when they cross state lines. Nor do they lose their protections under the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. They likewise do not surrender their Second Amendment protected rights when they travel outside their home state,” the plaintiffs argue in the brief.

Thus, they say, the court “should enter a judgment that declares California’s non-resident carry ban unconstitutional and enjoins Defendant (and all those under Defendant’s supervision, including sheriffs) from enforcing the residency requirement for carry applications with respect to otherwise qualified individuals who are not California residents.”

“California cannot restrict non-residents from exercising their inalienable right to carry firearms in the Golden State. Gavin Newsom’s hatred of the Constitution and contempt for peaceable gun owners do not change California’s obligation to respect Second Amendment rights,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “FPC will continue fighting forward until this ban, and all immoral restrictions across the country, are eliminated.” Read more

NEW ORLEANS – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the federal government’s handgun ban for adults aged 18 to 20 years old is unconstitutional. The opinion in Reese v. ATF can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/reese.

“Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban […] In sum, 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(b)(1), (c)(1) and their attendant regulations are unconstitutional in light of our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,” the Court said in its opinion.

“Today’s ruling is yet another critical FPC win against an immoral and unconstitutional age-based gun ban. We look forward to restoring the Second Amendment rights of all peaceable adults throughout the United States,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

The Reese case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by two FPC members as well as the Second Amendment Foundation and Louisiana Shooting Association. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has scored an important victory in its challenge of a federal prohibition on handgun sales to young adults with a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a lower court decision and remand the case back for further action.

SAF is joined in the case by Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association and two private citizens, Emily Naquin and Caleb Reese, for whom the case is named. The case is known as Reese v. ATF.

Writing for the court, Circuit Judge Edith Hollan Jones, a Ronald Reagan appointee, stated, “Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence ‘cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.’ In sum, 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(b)(1), (c)(1) and their attendant regulations are unconstitutional in light of our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation. We REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Joining Judge Jones are Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, and Circuit Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, a George H.W. Bush appointee. Their decision relies on guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2022 Bruen ruling.

“We’re delighted the Fifth Circuit took this action,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We have always maintained that young adults, who can vote, join the military, get married, enter into contracts and even run for office can also enjoy the full rights of citizenship which includes rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. If we can trust young adults to defend our country, we can certainly trust them to own any and all legal firearms.”

“Today the Fifth Circuit reaffirmed what prior courts and common sense tell us: ‘that the right to keep and bear arms surely implies the ability to purchase them,’” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Adults 18-20 years old are indisputably part of the People, whose rights under the Constitution are no less than their father’s or their grandfather’s.” Read more