Consistent with FPC’s victories against “vampire rule” laws in multiple states, the United States Supreme Court today issued a major 6-to-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez holding that Hawaii cannot presume that peaceable carry is forbidden on private property held open to the public unless the owner first gives express permission. In the decision, the Court held that this reversal of the longstanding common-law default unconstitutionally infringes upon the exercise of the right to bear arms and violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The Court explained that these laws did not merely regulate where licensed people could carry. Instead, they severely burdened the ordinary exercise of the right to bear arms by forcing peaceable people to seek permission before entering the stores, restaurants, gas stations, pharmacies, and other businesses they visit every day. That burden, the Court held, is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to carry firearms for self-defense as Americans go about their daily lives.

The case against the State of Hawaii was brought by three individuals and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. Notable amicus briefs filed in support of Wolford include those by FPC, California Gun Rights Foundation, and the United States. FPC has successfully blocked enforcement of “vampire rule” laws in multiple states, including California, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York.

The Court’s opinion for Wolford was written by Justice Alito. A concurring opinion was written by Justice Barrett and partially joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. Dissenting opinions were written by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor).

The ruling confirms what FPC has argued from the beginning: States may not nullify Bruen by turning ordinary places open to the public—stores, restaurants, parking lots, and other public-facing private property—into carry-prohibited zones by default. Read more

A reply brief in support of the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was filed in Roberts v. ATF, an FPC-backed challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs in the case include T.J. Roberts, Zachary Cockrell, Meridian Ordnance, Buckeye Firearms Association, Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and American Suppressor Association Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Nicholas Varone of Cooper & Kirk.

The brief was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, in Covington.

The brief was filed on June 24, 2026.

The brief responds to the Trump DOJ’s defense of the NFA and explains why the plaintiffs should win on summary judgment. The NFA’s registration scheme can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power because the taxes it was designed to help collect no longer exist; even if it could, the scheme still violates the Second Amendment by infringing upon the right to keep and bear suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

“The National Firearms Act is a relic of a darker era and an authoritarian scheme without a constitutional foundation. The federal government cannot use a dead tax scheme as an excuse to maintain a registry and regulatory regime for constitutionally protected arms, period. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Reese v. ATF, challenging the district court’s denial of complete relief after FPC prevailed against the federal age-based handgun and ammunition purchase ban.

The plaintiffs include FPC, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Louisiana Shooting Association. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, as well as George J. Armbruster III of Armbruster & Associates, APLC.

The brief was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, based in New Orleans, Louisiana.

The Fifth Circuit already held that the federal age-based handgun ban is unconstitutional. On remand, the district court limited relief to the Fifth Circuit and to people who were members of the plaintiff organizations at the time of the order. But the Trump DOJ has gone even further, arguing that the plaintiffs should receive no meaningful injunction at all and that relief should be limited to a narrow, shrinking group of people. FPC filed this brief to secure complete relief for its members and prevent the government from continuing to enforce unconstitutional laws.

“The Trump Administration is fighting as hard as it can to continue violating the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans. Even though the Fifth Circuit already held that these bans are unconstitutional, the government is trying to limit the decision’s reach so it can keep disarming peaceable adults across the country. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a reply in support of its motion for summary judgment in Morris v. Savannah, its lawsuit challenging a City of Savannah, Georgia firearm storage ordinance that is patently unlawful under the State’s comprehensive firearm preemption law.

FPC is joined in the litigation by Deacon Morris, an FPC member. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney John R. Monroe of John Monroe Law, P.C.

The brief was filed in Chatham County Superior Court in Georgia.

The brief was filed on June 18, 2026. The Court will now either decide the motion on the papers or scheduled oral arguments.

Preemption laws like Georgia’s exist to prevent peaceable gun owners from having to navigate a minefield of ordinances that could result in fines and jail time. The state’s law applies to all local jurisdictions, including Savannah. Read more

The United States Supreme Court today issued a decision in United States v. Hemani, unanimously holding that the federal ban on gun possession by “unlawful” users of controlled substances (such as marijuana) violates the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment as applied to Mr. Hemani.

The Court’s opinion for Hemani was written by Justice Gorsuch. Concurring opinions were written by Justices Thomas, Jackson (joined by Justice Sotomayor), and Alito (joined by Justice Kagan).

The decision was issued on June 18, 2026, by the United States Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

Today’s ruling ends the government’s unconstitutional prosecution of Mr. Hemani for possessing firearms while being a marijuana user and significantly raises the burden for future prosecutions under the statute. The decision also clarifies the “how” and “why” analysis under Bruen, squarely rejecting the government’s attempt to analogize historical laws targeting habitual drunkards to a modern law that broadly disarms marijuana users. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a federal lawsuit in California challenging Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Office policies that prohibit permit holders from carrying handguns equipped with red dot sights or flashlights, as well as their outright ban on the carry of single action only (SAO) 1911- and 2011-style pistols.

The policies, enforced by Sheriff David Livingston, are unique in the nation. To SAF’s knowledge, no other county or city in California – or anywhere else in the United States – imposes such restrictions on law-abiding carry permit holders. The complaint alleges the policies violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments under the Supreme Court’s decisions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller.

“Contra Costa County is the only jurisdiction in America that forbids law-abiding CCW permit holders from using red dot sights, firearm-mounted lights, or carrying the venerable 1911 platform,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “These are common, popular and safety-enhancing features and firearms used by millions of Americans and even adopted by multiple California law enforcement agencies. There is zero historical tradition supporting these restrictions, and they cannot survive scrutiny under Bruen.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), alongside Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and 2A journalist John Crump, have petitioned the Virginia Supreme Court for an urgent ruling in their lawsuit challenging Virginia’s upcoming ban on “assault firearms” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” The petition requests that a decision be made on the plaintiffs’ pending motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in advance of the ban’s July 1, 2026 effective date.

This petition to Virginia’s high court comes one month after GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court for Lancaster County, in Crump v. Katz. Within days of challenging Virginia’s unconstitutional ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines, the Crump plaintiffs filed their currently pending motion to preliminarily block enforcement of the ban for the duration of their lawsuit.

However, in a disappointing move by the Lancaster court, the court indefinitely paused the Crump plaintiffs’ challenge by staying the case – taking a hearing on the Crump plaintiffs’ motion off its calendar – because the state government has filed a request to have the Crump case consolidated with other legal challenges to the ban that have been filed in other Virginia counties.

Of course, constitutional rights cannot wait. That is why GOA and the Crump plaintiffs have petitioned the Virginia Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the Lancaster court to decide their motion on an emergency basis. In the alternative, the Crump plaintiffs request that the Virginia Supreme Court preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the gun ban itself. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its opening brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Ziegenfuss v. Martin, challenging Texas’s carry bans in numerous ordinary public places following the district court’s misguided opinion upholding the bans.

The plaintiffs include FPC and FPC members. The plaintiffs are represented by Bradley A. Benbrook, Stephen M. Duvernay, and Jamie G. McWilliam of Benbrook Law Group, P.C. as well as R. Brent Cooper of Cooper & Scully, P.C.

The brief was filed at the federal Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana. The Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction of appeals from federal district courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

FPC’s opening brief was filed on June 15, 2026.

Texas bans the carrying of firearms in businesses where alcohol comprises 51% or more of sales, at racetracks, and at sporting events. Under the Second Amendment’s text and our Nation’s historical tradition, these locations cannot be treated as so-called “sensitive places.” FPC filed this appeal to end enforcement of these unconstitutional carry bans and continue building on its track record of victories protecting the right to bear arms throughout the United States.

“The Second Amendment cannot be redlined out of existence through laws that are incompatible with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history. But that is exactly what Texas is trying to do here. Under binding Supreme Court precedent, Texas cannot criminalize carrying firearms in ordinary places people visit every day, like restaurants, sporting events, and racetracks. Our brief explains why the Fifth Circuit should reverse the trial court’s misguided decision and order these unconstitutional carry bans struck down. We will proudly continue to Fight Forward until every state—whether led by Republicans, Democrats, or anyone else—fully respects the rights of its residents.” — FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal lawsuit, Lopez v. Los Angeles, challenging local laws in the California cities of Los Angeles and Inglewood that prohibit any person from purchasing more than one handgun in any 30-day period.

The plaintiffs challenging the local laws include FPC, an FPC member, and the California Gun Rights Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by Chad Flores of Flores Law PLLC and David Bartels of Lawrence Bartels LLP. FPC thanks C.D. Michel, Joshua Robert Dale, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association for their assistance and support.

The complaint was filed on June 3, 2026.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The cities continue to enforce local handgun rationing laws that are materially indistinguishable from California’s statewide law, which the Ninth Circuit held unconstitutional.

“The Ninth Circuit already held that handgun rationing laws like these are unconstitutional, but Los Angeles and Inglewood are still enforcing them anyway. FPC and our Grassroots Army filed this lawsuit to end these unconstitutional laws and force these cities to respect the Second Amendment, full stop.” — FPC President Brandon Combs Read more

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is applauding the decision by at least four county prosecutors in Virginia to not enforce the ban on so-called “assault firearms” and original capacity magazines, signed into law by Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger

Prosecutors in Powhatan, Pulaski, Smyth and Spotsylvania counties say the ban violates the Second Amendment. Those Commonwealth attorneys are Phillip Blevins Jr. (Smyth County), Rob Cerullo (Powhatan County), Justin L. Griffin (Pulaski County), and Ryan Mehaffey (Spotsylvania County). The Washington Times is reporting that Scott County Commonwealth’s Attorney Kyle Kilgore “made similar remarks.”

“We are proud of these men for taking a stand against legislation which is clearly unconstitutional,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Abigail Spanberger ran for office as a moderate, but immediately after being sworn in, her far-left agenda became apparent, and she especially launched an attack on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians.

“When the new law takes effect July 1, ironically just three days ahead of the nation’s 250^th anniversary, we are confident it will be successfully challenged in court,” he added. “The four prosecutors have reportedly reviewed the new statute, and they have all concluded that the ban is unconstitutional, and therefore unenforceable. We certainly agree.

“Nowadays,” Gottlieb observed, “it has become obvious that such bans are not being pushed by Democrats in the interest of public safety, but in a concerted effort to crush the protections guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Read more