BELLEVUE, WA –Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal challenge of Maryland’s expanded “sensitive places” law, have filed a reply brief, supporting their earlier motion for summary judgment and opposing the state’s summary judgment request.

The case, known as Novotny v. Moore, was filed earlier this year against the law, which places broad restrictions on where a legally-licensed private citizen may carry a firearm for personal protection. SAF is joined in the case by Maryland Shall Issue, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all of whom possess “wear and carry permits,” including Susan Burke of Reisterstown, Esther Rossberg of Baltimore, and Katherine Novotny of Aberdeen, for whom the lawsuit is named. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson and Peter A. Patterson at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C., Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and Matthew Larosiere from Lake Worth, Fla.

The lawsuit, filed in May, focuses on SB1, a bill signed by Gov. Wesley Moore, which added new restrictions on where legally-licensed citizens may carry firearms for personal protection. SAF and its partners maintain that Maryland is attempting to wildly expand so-called “sensitive places” in an attempt to prohibit lawful, licensed concealed carry in almost every venue in the state outside of someone’s home or business.

“Maryland is desperately clinging to its belief it can continue to impair the rights of law-abiding citizens who are legally licensed to carry in public for their personal protection,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Maryland lawmakers are trying hard to not comply with either the spirit or the letter of the Supreme Court ruling last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and instead are almost literally fighting tooth-and-nail to perpetuate restrictions they know are no longer permissible under the Constitution.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who is also an attorney in neighboring Pennsylvania, concurred: “Maryland’s thumb-in-the-eye reaction to the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling is simply not compatible with this nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation nor the rule of law. We are hopeful that the court will correct the legislature’s misstep.” Read more

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted a stay sought by the Biden administration in a federal challenge of the “new rule” on frames and receivers published by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, allowing the rule to remain in effect while the case moves through the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) was allowed to intervene in the case, which is known as VanDerStok v. Garland, as a plaintiff. The high court stay is in effect through the final disposition of the appeal, including a petition for certiorari. If that petition is made and denied, the stay terminates. If certiorari is granted, the stay remains in effect pending the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“While we are disappointed that the Government’s final rule remains in effect pending the outcome of our appeal,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “we remain optimistic that we will ultimately prevail. We believe the district court’s rationale, striking down the final rule, was legally sound and we look forward to defending our position on appeal.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The Illinois 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has finally reversed and remanded a lower court ruling in a case which could determine whether the Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card requirement is constitutional.

The Second Amendment Foundation notes this will be the third go-round for the case in White County Circuit Court, but it could ultimately end up before the Illinois State Supreme Court, noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. The case was brought and funded by SAF and the Illinois State Rifle Association.

The five-page order was unanimous, with Justices John B. Barberis and Barry L. Vaughan concurring with Justice Thomas M. Welch, who delivered the opinion. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA. – The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a motion in U.S. District Court for summary judgment in its challenge of Washington State’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines” in a case known as Sullivan v. Ferguson.

SAF is joined in this case by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Rainier Arms, LLC and a private citizen, Gabriella Sullivan. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and William V. Bergstrom with Cooper & Kirk PLLC in Washington, D.C., Cody J. Wisniewski at the FPC Foundation, Brian Abbas at Mountain States Legal Foundation, and locally by Joel Ard at Ard Law Group.

“We maintain the magazine ban is unconstitutional,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we note in our motion, magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are in common use across the country. There are millions of such magazines, including huge numbers in Washington, and modern rifles and pistols come from the factory with magazines that hold more than ten cartridges.”

“Designating ten rounds was an arbitrary number,” added SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “for which there is no justification. Anti-gun lawmakers and Gov. Jay Inslee seemed to settle on that number as some sort of magic limit. There is no basis in this nation’s history or tradition to restrict firearm magazine capacities to such an illogical number.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” have submitted a reply to the state’s objection to SAF’s amended motion for a preliminary injunction.

The case is known as Grant v. Lamont, in U.S, District Court for the District of Connecticut. Joining SAF are the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens, Jennifer Hamilton, Michael Stiefel and Eddie Grant, Jr. They are represented by Connecticut attorneys Doug Dubitsky of North Windham, Craig C. Fishbein of Wallingford and Cameron L. Atkinson of Harwinton.

SAF originally filed the lawsuit last September, naming Gov. Edward M. Lamont, Jr. as the main defendant, along with several other officials. The case involved Connecticut’s one-size-fits-all-type “assault weapons” ban, under which firearms previously identified as “any other firearm” by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were suddenly reclassified last year as “rifles” or “short-barreled rifles.” They all became “assault weapons” under the state’s definition.

“The state is attempting to convince the court that these firearms are not in ‘common use,’ which evidence clearly shows otherwise,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The defendants are asking the Court to adopt unprecedented legal standards that squarely contradict established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, and we’re fighting back.”

In its 17-page rebuttal to the state’s objection, SAF contends the defendants have not supplied any evidence or analogues supporting the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation is delighted with the a 2-1 ruling by a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel that the Biden administration’s “final rule” on pistol braces is “likely illegal” because the government violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by adopting the rule without meaningful opportunity for public comment.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives—under Joe Biden’s hand-picked director Steve Dettelbach—violated the APA. Writing for the majority, Fifth Circuit Judge Jerry Smith observed, “(P)laintiffs establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The ATF incorrectly maintains that the Final Rule is merely interpretive, not legislative, and thus not subject to the logical-outgrowth test. The Final Rule affects individual rights, speaks with the force of law, and significantly implicates private interests. Thus, it is legislative in character. Then, because the Final Rule bears almost no resemblance in manner or kind to the Proposed Rule, the Final Rule fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA.”

“This is a significant win for gun rights,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because the arguments in this case are essentially the same as we are making in our own challenge of the pistol brace rule.”

SAF’s case is known as SAF, et.al. v. ATF, et. al and is joined by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston, Texas. SAF has already won a preliminary injunction in that case.

“This ruling,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “is a serious setback for the Biden administration’s gun control agenda. As the court noted, the Final Rule was not the logical outgrowth of the original proposed rule, and therefore must be set aside. Thanks to this ruling, we can jump start our own case with very good prospects for success.”

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed its opposition brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, opposing a stay in its case challenging the government’s attempt to classify unfinished firearm frames and receivers as “firearms.”

The case is known as VanDerStok v. Garland, and last month, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay portions of the rule which SAF successfully challenged. SAF has intervened in the case.

“With our attorney, Chad Flores of Houston, Texas, we’re arguing that the Biden administration’s new administrative definition of a firearm illegally expands the term beyond its critical statutory boundaries,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We consider this expanded definition to be nothing more than a power grab. Our opposition brief details our position to Associate Justice Samuel Alito succinctly.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and its attorney, Chad Flores, are preparing a response to an application to the U.S. Supreme Court by the Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to stay a ruling which vacated the “final rule” defining gun parts kits as firearms in a case known as VanDerStok v. Garland.

U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down the ruling, and the government wants a stay pending appeal to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. SAF was allowed to intervene in the case. Earlier this month, the Fifth Circuit refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay.

“This case ultimately challenges the authority of the ATF to simply change rules and definitions of firearms without Congressional authority,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We will vigorously pursue this issue through the courts.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation is cheering a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in the case of VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the authority of the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate items that are not firearms, as if they were firearms.

SAF had intervened in the case, opposing the ATF’s change in defining frames and receivers. The court today refused to stay portions of the rule SAF successfully challenged, pending appeal. Issues which SAF did not challenge when it intervened in the case were granted a stay. SAF and its partners in the intervention are represented by attorney Chad Flores.

According to the Fifth Circuit panel, “Because the ATF has not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits, nor irreparable harm in the absence of a stay, we DENY the government’s request to stay the vacatur of the two challenged portions of the Rule. “[V]acatur …reestablish[es] the status quo ante”…which is the world before the Rule became effective. This effectively maintains, pending appeal, the status quo that existed for 54 years from 1968 to 2022.

“The court issued a ruling which declined to stay our successful challenge during this appeal,” noted SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As this case moves forward, we expect to again prevail on the portions of the Final Rule that we challenged. The court’s finding that ATF had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits bodes well for SAF and its members.”

“We’re delighted the court ruled in favor of our challenges to the Biden administration’s overreach, and we will pursue this case to its ultimate conclusion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.