The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), joined by New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate, have filed a new lawsuit challenging the confiscation of a New Jersey resident’s firearms after his wife was involuntarily committed for a mental health evaluation.

The case, Aliaj v. Fort Lee Police Department (FLPD), stems from a language-related misunderstanding at a medical clinic in Englewood, New Jersey. Elsid Aliaj’s pregnant wife sought care for pregnancy-related nausea during which time she made a remark in her second language of English that caused the provider to mistakenly believe she may want to harm herself. She was put on a 72-hour mental health evaluation hold to rule out any danger to herself.

Subsequently, however, officers with the FLPD showed up at the couple’s home and demanded Aliaj turn over his firearms due to his wife’s involuntary admission to the medical facility. Believing he would be arrested if he didn’t comply, Aliaj handed over his firearms, ammunition and accessories. The officers provided no warrant or red flag order which would provide authority for such a seizure because they had none. Since the unlawful seizure, both FLPD officers and local prosecutors have continued to withhold Aliaj’s firearms with no legal justification, and have since doubled down on their unconstitutional conduct by seeking to revoke Aliaj’s New Jersey Firearms Purchaser Identification Card. There are no criminal or prohibiting allegations against Aliaj – merely that his wife may be prohibited.

“The actions by the Fort Lee Police Department and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office are absolutely unconstitutional,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that a petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in Schoenthal v. Raoul, an FPC-backed lawsuit asking the Court to overturn the Seventh Circuit’s dangerous decision upholding Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation. The appellate court’s ruling, the petition explains, shreds the clear command of the Constitution and defies the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents.

The Seventh Circuit wrongly declared that buses and trains are “sensitive places” where Illinois can disarm peaceable people by decree. But the right to bear arms for self-defense does not vanish the moment a citizen boards a bus or subway. Millions of Americans rely on public transportation every day—and they don’t surrender their rights when they do. The Supreme Court’s review is urgently needed to restore clarity, reaffirm the Constitution, and end the lower courts’ retreat from fundamental liberties.

“The Seventh Circuit’s dangerous opinion was legally, historically, and morally wrong,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The Supreme Court must step in and make clear that the right to bear arms for self-defense doesn’t stop when you step onto a bus, train, or subway.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. — — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the court to grant certiorari in Harris v. United States, a case challenging the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals who use marijuana.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center.

“The Third Circuit’s ruling defies Bruen and Rahimi by upholding a lifetime disarmament of sober citizens who occasionally use a substance – marijuana – that is now legal to various extents in 40 states and socially accepted by a supermajority of Americans,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the danger of mixing alcohol and firearms by temporarily disarming the actively intoxicated, never by stripping gun rights from anyone who simply drank in moderation. The Third Circuit ignored this close historical analogue and instead relied on remote comparisons to laws disarming the ‘furiously mad.’ We urge the Court to intervene and restore the proper Bruen framework.”

While the Supreme Court has recently granted cert in another marijuana-related case, U.S. v. Hemani, that case involves harder drugs than marijuana and other unusual facts, and the brief urges the Court to hear this case alongside it. Read more

In a landmark decision affirming Second Amendment protections, a Virginia circuit court struck down the state’s universal background check law for private firearm sales, granting a permanent injunction that bars the law’s enforcement statewide. The ruling in Wilson, et al. v. Colonel Matthew D. Hanley, highlights fatal constitutional flaws in the statute, rendering it completely unenforceable.

The Court declared Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:5 unconstitutional, particularly due to its discriminatory impact on law-abiding adults aged 18-20. The Court then granted our request to enjoin the administration and enforcement of the law across the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: “This decision vindicates the rights of all Virginians to engage in lawful private firearm transfers without unconstitutional barriers. The Act’s enforcement mechanism was fatally flawed from the start—criminalizing everyday citizens while ignoring basic constitutional principles. We’re grateful the court recognized that patchwork fixes can’t save a broken law.” Read more

PORTLAND, Ore. (October 30, 2025) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today confirmed the filing of its Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in Montgomery v. Rosenblum, the federal challenge to Oregon’s unconstitutional ban on personally manufactured firearms (PMFs), enacted through House Bill 2005 (HB 2005). This filing follows the District Court’s September dismissal of the case in an absurdly activist decision that flipped Supreme Court Second Amendment precedent on its head and allowed the State to evade historical scrutiny.

FPC’s SAC demonstrates that the combined force of Oregon’s statutes, which ban the possession of both unserialized precursors and finished self-made firearms, function as a total and absolute prohibition on the right to make one’s own arms. It also surgically addresses the district court’s flawed order by exhaustively linking the ban directly to conduct and arms that are indisputably protected by the Second Amendment. This makes crystal clear that Oregon’s laws amount to an unconstitutional ban and that it is the State’s burden to justify them using relevant history—which it cannot do.

Said FPC President Brandon Combs, “With this amended complaint, the Court has two choices: either hold Oregon’s feet to the fire or ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents altogether. Read more

A stunning report alleging that many of the American-made guns showing up at Mexican crime scenes were originally purchased by the Mexican government should trigger an official investigation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is demanding.

“Contrary to what America has been told for years—that Mexican crime guns are obtained illicitly from U.S. gun dealers thanks to lax gun laws here—it now appears the Mexican government may be a major source of those firearms,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Once again, it appears U.S. gun dealers and the Second Amendment have been taking the rap for violent crimes in another country, when the truth is staggering.”

Going back to 2010 and an Obama administration scandal known as “Operation Fast and Furious,” during which the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives office in Phoenix allowed some 2,000 guns to be “walked” into Mexico, American gun owners, retailers in the Southwest, and our gun laws were ultimately blamed for drug cartel violence south of the border. But now, veteran journalist Sharyl Attkisson and former ATF agent John Dodson have blown the whistle, again. Attkisson originally broke the story about the Fast and Furious scandal, and Dodson was the man who came forward 16 years ago to expose that debacle.

But now, the story has taken an alarming new twist, and CCRKBA is demanding full disclosure. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has submitted a comment letter to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in support of a proposed rights restoration rule.

SAF’s letter supports the proposed rule as a significant step toward restoring the Second Amendment rights of millions of Americans who have been unfairly denied their constitutional protections due to nonviolent convictions. However, SAF urges the DOJ to refine the rule to ensure that individuals convicted of other non-dangerous offenses are also eligible for rights restoration on a case-by-case basis.

“The proposed rule is a commendable effort to provide a pathway for law-abiding citizens to regain their Second Amendment rights, but it should go even further to align with Supreme Court precedents like Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The right to keep and bear arms cannot be stripped based on nonviolent or non-dangerous conduct. We urge the DOJ to revise the rule to ensure fairness and reduce unnecessary litigation.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), joined by the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and three FPC members, filed a major new federal lawsuit—Jaymes v. Bonta—to block California’s unconstitutional new ban on Glock and Glock-style handguns, some of the most popular firearms in America. The full complaint is available at firearmspolicy.org/jaymes-v-bonta.

The move to strike down the new law comes just three days after California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1127 into law. Under AB 1127, California firearm dealers will be prohibited from selling a broad class of popular and constitutionally protected semiautomatic handguns, including Glocks. Jaymes v. Bonta builds on FPC’s important and ongoing Renna v. Bonta lawsuit, which seeks to strike down the entire California “handgun roster” ban that prevents sales of many other popular handguns in the Golden State.

As detailed in the Jaymes complaint, the plaintiffs challenge California Penal Code § 27595(a), which bans the sale or transfer of Glock and Glock-style handguns with cruciform trigger bars. “These handguns are in common use; indeed, they are among the most popular firearms in the nation,” the filing explains. If the law takes effect, Californians “will have no practical way to acquire them”—a direct violation of the Second Amendment. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a new lawsuit in New Hampshire challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle, based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from the search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes kept his firearm in his truck – in full compliance with all federal and state laws – but always removed the gun from his vehicle before going to school. When school authorities became aware of Harrington’s gun ownership, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. The school had no reason to believe Harrington brought his firearm to school, and no firearm was found during the invasive and unconstitutional search.

“Being public about exercising your private rights cannot be grounds for being harassed and searched on campus,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The apparent position of the school district here is ‘choose to exercise one right, give away another.’ That’s just not how it works. If simply being a gun owner is legal justification to be harassed and searched by authorities, what would stop them from submitting gun owners like Jack to searches every day? And what’s their proposed solution to avoid that abuse, that he sells his privately owned firearm?” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to the Solicitor General’s opposition, filed on behalf of the Trump Administration, in Rush v. United States, a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) short-barreled rifle restrictions:

Once again, the Trump Administration has chosen to defend federal gun control instead of the Constitution. In its latest filing, the administration urged the Supreme Court to reject review of a case raising a serious and valid Second Amendment challenge to the NFA’s short-barreled rifle provisions—laws with no historical justification and no place in a free society.

The administration’s position on the Second Amendment is now unmistakably clear: federal gun control is good and constitutional, but state gun control is bad and unconstitutional—unless, of course, it mirrors the federal controls they favor.

Earlier this year, President Trump directed the Attorney General to “protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.” Filing briefs that defend the government’s power to tax, register, and criminalize the mere possession of constitutionally protected arms does the exact opposite. Read more