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

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s newly signed Glock ban. The filing comes in immediate response to Gov. Wes Moore signing the bill into law today.

Gov. Moore signed into law Senate Bill 334, which states a person “…may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a machine gun convertible pistol.” It further defines a “machine gun convertible pistol” as a firearm that contains a cruciform trigger bar. The ban goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2027.

“This Maryland law bans nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market today,” said SAF Executive Adam Kraut. “These pistols are among the most popular on the market, chosen in overwhelming numbers by peaceable citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. Maryland has now attempted to ban these firearms because a subset of criminals illegally modifies them, using conversion parts that are themselves illegal to possess, and then commit crimes with the modified handguns. Not only is this law as foolish as banning hops and barley to prevent drunk driving, but these commonly owned arms are clearly protected by the Second Amendment, the ratification of which takes certain policy choices – including this one – off the table.”

SAF is joined in National Rifle Association v. Moore by the NRA and Firearms Policy Coalition.

“Bans like the one just signed in Maryland are the antithesis of good policy,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This unconstitutional law does nothing more than punish peaceable gun owners in the state, and it cannot be allowed to stand. You can’t stop criminal violence by broadening the law just to make everyone a criminal. That strategy never works.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is proud to endorse Representative Jimmy Patronis’ bill introduced today on the week of the 40^th anniversary of the Hughes Amendment becoming law. The Firearm Freedom Act would repeal the Hughes Amendment, an unconstitutional provision of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) which banned the sale, transfer, and possession of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986.

The Hughes Amendment was a poison pill in FOPA that should never have passed. GOA opposed the adoption of this amendment when it was introduced in 1986, and to this day, continues to oppose it and call for its repeal.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement: “For the last 40 years, gun owners across this country have been denied their constitutional right to own a post-1986 machine gun. The Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment as a check on tyrannical government, and the Hughes Amendment serves as a serious infringement of that purpose. Many Americans, still alive today, remember being able to lawfully purchase newly-manufactured machine guns. The Hughes Amendment is one of the most egregious laws passed by Congress in the past few decades.”

Representative Jimmy Patronis, of Florida’s 1^st Congressional District, issued the following statement to Gun Owners of America: “I’m proud to introduce the Firearm Freedom Act to defend the Second Amendment, and I’m grateful for the support of Gun Owners of America, as we fight to protect gun owners across this country. For too long, Washington bureaucrats have tried to chip away at the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. The Firearm Freedom Act pushes back against that overreach and stands up for the rights afforded to all Americans.” Read more

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Christian v. James lawsuit that New York’s ban on firearms at all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner (also known as the “vampire rule”) violates the Second Amendment. The court however also facially upheld the state’s ban on carry in public parks.

FPC is joined in this case by FPC member Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet.

The Court’s opinion was issued on May 18, 2026. The case will now be sent back to the district court, which will issue a final order in this case. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new federal lawsuit, McDonald v. Katz, after Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed legislation to ban so-called “assault firearms” and “large capacity” magazines. FPC is seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the Virginia bans as well as other relief.

The plaintiffs challenging the ban include two individual FPC members, the National Rifle Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with P. Thomas DiStanislao and Michael Brady of Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP.

The complaint was filed on May 14, 2026. Likely next steps include an answer from the defendant and a briefing schedule from the District Court.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Read more

Following closely on the heels of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signing new gun control legislation into law, the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging the commonwealth’s new bans on “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines.

Gov. Spanberger signed into law a ban on so-called “assault firearms” declaring that “…any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The law further defines an “assault firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle chambered in any caliber besides .22 rimfire or one that contains a litany of common features such as a collapsing stock, pistol grip, threaded barrel or more. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. The new laws go into effect on July 1.

“It’s wild that lawmakers who each take an oath to uphold the Constitution insist on passing bills purposefully designed to gut it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The firearms and magazines banned in this law aren’t bizarre and unusual outliers, they’re among the most commonly owned guns and magazines in the country. They’re owned in the tens of millions by peaceable Americans who use them overwhelmingly lawfully. Virginia has now joined the minority of radical states to ban these constitutionally protected firearms, and in so doing, joined the club of states we’re suing over it.”

As noted in the complaint, “The firearms that Virginia bans as ‘assault firearms’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic firearms. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic firearms, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use. Regardless of any new category of arms created by state lawmakers, they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual.” SAF is joined in McDonald v. Katz by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Virginia lawmakers lied to their constituents and to themselves when they said these laws weren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A new sales and transfer ban is a ban that’s just one generation removed. On July 1, anyone turning 18 in Virginia will find out that the rights enjoyed by their predecessors don’t apply to them. These bans are an afront to the Constitution and an insult to the intelligence of Virginians who were fed lies and misrepresentations by their elected officials. We’re excited to fast track this case to the Supreme Court.”

For more information visit SAF.org. Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), alongside Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and 2A journalist John Crump, have filed a lawsuit today in direct response to Virginia’s enactment of SB749 and SB727, the “assault weapons” ban and public carry ban. These two bills represent the most immediate threat to the rights of every law-abiding gun owner in Virginia.

By criminalizing the purchase and transfer of the most popular firearms in America and effectively banning self-defense in public spaces, these laws are a direct assault on the Second Amendment and stand in open defiance of Virginia’s own constitution and necessitate an immediate strike in court.

Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit urging the Court to strike down California’s ban on the open carry of firearms.

The case, Baird v. Bonta, mostly prevailed before a three-judge panel, but that victory was vacated and the case will be reheard en banc. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“The plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms – openly or concealed – and open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for most of American history,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “California’s ban has no foundation in our nation’s tradition, and this Court should reaffirm that open carry is protected just as the Founders and generations of Americans understood it to be. As our brief argues, neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

This case presents another clear opportunity for the Ninth Circuit to faithfully apply Bruen’s historical tradition test to one of the last remaining state bans on open carry, rather than allowing the government to nullify the right through interest-balancing disguised as a “nuanced approach.”

“Open carry predates the Founding and was the primary mode of lawful carry throughout the Nineteenth Century,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF and its partners are proud to stand with Mr. Baird against California’s unconstitutional restrictions, and we urge the Court to reject the State’s baseless public-safety claims and restore the full scope of the Second Amendment right.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging review in Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States, a case involving a decorated Navy veteran sentenced to 20 years in prison for possessing cut-up gun parts and two inert RPG-7 training dummies.

Adamiak enlisted in the United States Navy at 17 years old, serving in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and the Panama Canal. At the time of his arrest, he had orders to report to BUD/S and had completed the first phase of training on his way to becoming a Navy SEAL. He was also a gun collector who sold legal gun parts until a paid ATF informant falsely reported that he had a Mk-19 grenade launcher. After a search of his home and subsequent trial, Adamiak was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison.

Editor of SAF’s Investigative Journalism Project, Lee Williams, has followed the case closely and has written more than 40 stories on Adamiak and his plight. The full list of stories can be found here.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“Lower courts continue to distort Bruen by turning the ‘plain text’ step into a restrictive Goldilocks test that lets the government evade its historical burden entirely,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “If cut-up gun parts and inert training aids are being regulated as ‘firearms’ under the NFA, they are presumptively ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment and require historical analogues. Patrick Adamiak should not be spending decades in prison because, among other abuses, courts refuse to apply the Supreme Court’s precedents faithfully.”

SAF’s brief focuses on the Second Amendment aspects of the case, including what constitutes an “arm,” why the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated, and why Bruen’s historical analysis may not be avoided.

“This case highlights the human cost of lower courts’ refusal to faithfully apply Bruen,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A Navy veteran is behind bars over inert gun parts, yet his Second Amendment claim was never even heard on the merits. SAF and its partners are committed to defending the right to keep and bear arms against this kind of judicial abuse, and we believe the Supreme Court must intervene.” Read more