RICHMOND, VA (August 23, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a supplemental brief in its Bianchi v. Frosh lawsuit, which challenges Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The brief, which was requested by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after the Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded Bianchi in light of NYSRPA v. Bruen, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The rifles banned by Maryland are among the most popular firearms in the country, owned by tens of millions of Americans for lawful purposes including for self-defense and defense of the home,” argues the brief. “Maryland has made clear that it does not like the people’s desire for these firearms, but that does not change the fact that they are bearable arms that the American people overwhelmingly favor and have a right to possess.”

“The Supreme Court recently affirmed what we’ve been arguing all along,” said FPC Director of Programs Bill Sack, “the rights of the people cannot be infringed through the use of watered down interest balancing tests. There is simply no historical analog to Maryland’s wholesale ban of some of the most popular firearms in the country.” Read more

CINCINNATI, OH – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation announced its successful appeal in Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell Township, Michigan, which challenges zoning restrictions imposed by the Township that prohibit shooting ranges for long guns. Because of this key decision, the case can now proceed at the trial court under the standard outlined in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The district court should decide, in the first instance, whether Oakland Tactical’s proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” reads the Sixth Circuit’s decision. “If the district court concludes that Oakland Tactical’s proposed course of conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, it should then determine whether historical evidence—to be produced by the Township in the first instance—demonstrates that the Ordinance’s shooting-range regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

“Howell Township must now prove that its training restrictions are based on analogous historical regulations,” said FPC Law’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee. “And because analogous historical regulations do not exist, we’re optimistic that the Township’s restrictions will be held unconstitutional.” Read more

RICHMOND, VA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of an important appellate brief, joined by FPC Action Foundation and Independence Institute, in Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan, a case that challenges Maryland’s gun licensing and training requirements. The brief can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“No law during the colonial, founding, or early republic periods required any American citizen to obtain a license before possessing a firearm,” argues the brief. “Only overtly racist licensing laws existed, which targeted slaves, free African Americans, and Indians—all of whom were denied Second Amendment protections. These discriminatory laws do not justify Maryland’s licensing law, and to the contrary, reveal its unconstitutionality.” Read more

FORT WORTH, TX – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a new lawsuit challenging the ATF’s rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce, including ones that would treat non-frames and non-receivers as if they were actual frames and receivers of weapons. The complaint in VanDerStok v. Garland can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“The Final Rule defies the plain language of the [Gun Control Act] and longstanding agency interpretation suggesting that the items at issue here, sometimes colloquially referred to as receiver blanks, unfinished frames or receivers, or 80% frames or receivers, are not firearms,” says the complaint. “Through this rulemaking, however, the Agencies are attempting to create a broad, sweeping definition by including items that are not yet the ‘frames or receivers’ of such weapons and by including ‘frame or receiver kits.’”

“Neither the president nor any federal agency has the power to make law,” said FPC’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation Cody J. Wisniewski. “The Constitution is clear–Congress has the power to make law, and the Executive Branch is limited to enforcing that law. But here, President Biden openly admitted that he would circumvent Congress and have the DOJ and ATF issue new regulations that go well beyond congressionally-established law and seek to greatly expand the ATF’s reach. FPC will not stand idly by while the federal government tramples the rights of peaceable individuals through agency rulemaking.” Read more

FPC to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee: Stay in your lane. Our rights are not debatable

Washington D.C. — Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sent a letter to the United States Senate Judiciary Committee informing it that abrogating fundamental rights are not within its purview. FPC’s letter spotlights the arrogance and immorality of attempts to vote away fundamental rights away from the People.

“For a legislative body to suppose that it can abrogate the human rights of the very people that delegate limited, enumerated powers to it is the height of conceit. Especially following the United States Supreme Court decision of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen… to even propose such a measure is to show unbridled recalcitrance and disrespect to the People the Congress serves. And to consider this legislation, which would if enacted increase state violence by orders of magnitude and put peaceable people in government cages for exercising their rights, is an act of tyranny. We urge you to terminate this awful and contemptible legislation.” Read more

San Diego, CA – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced a victory in its Campos v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenged policies and practices of California Attorney General Rob Bonta and his Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Firearms that delayed firearm transactions beyond the statutory 10-day waiting period absent a legal basis. The order can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Demand for firearms surged in 2020 when California citizens saw the rule of law crumbling around them. The California DOJ announced it was too busy to process background checks within 10 days, so it was going to start interpreting the law to give it 30 days. We brought this case to shine a light on the DOJ’s unlawful practice, and we are pleased the court has ordered DOJ to comply with the law,” stated Brad Benbrook, FPC’s counsel in the litigation.

When a person buys, transfers, or is loaned a firearm in California, they are generally required by law to wait 10 days after the DOJ receives the transfer application before taking possession of the firearm. Likewise, the firearms dealer cannot allow the person to take possession of the firearm before the end of the waiting period. But as soon as that 10-day period is over, California law says one of three things must happen:

1. The dealer can deliver the firearm;
2. The application is denied by DOJ; or,
3. The transfer has been delayed for one of three specified, expressly enumerated causes, and the background check and waiting period can be extended up to a total of 30 days. This additional delay to the background check can only be used by the State under a limited set of circumstances. (Cal. Penal Code § 28220(f)(1).)

Read more

MINNEAPOLIS, MN (August 8, 2022) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has filed a motion for summary judgment in its Worth v. Harrington lawsuit, a case that seeks to restore the right of adults under 21 years of age to carry loaded, operable arms in public for self-defense in Minnesota. The motion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“At the time the Second Amendment was ratified, not only were there no laws in any state that purported to limit the rights of 18-to-20-year-olds to carry firearms for self-defense, there were several laws enacted, including the Militia Act of 1792, that required 18-year-olds to buy and maintain firearms,” FPC argues in the motion. “Defendants will not be able to point to any historical tradition that could justify Minnesota’s attempt to deviate from the plain text of the Second Amendment, therefore this Court must declare the Carry Ban unconstitutional.”

The State of Minnesota also filed its own motion for summary judgment, which began by arguing that this case is “part of [FPC’s] coordinated, multi-state litigation plan to force a determination on the issue of whether the Second Amendment covers the right of 18-to-20-year-olds to publicly carry handguns,” and went on to say that “[t]he plain text of the Second Amendment does not cover those under 21, therefore a historical analysis is unnecessary” and that “18-20 year old women are also not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.” Read more