Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to California Governor Gavin Newsom signing AB 1127—the so-called “Glock ban”—which criminalizes the sales of widely owned, constitutionally protected handguns:

Governor Newsom has once again proven that California’s political class will stop at nothing to attack peaceable people and their rights. AB 1127 is an unconstitutional, bad-faith attempt to outlaw some of the most common firearms in the United States.

But no tyrant, no politician, and no state will ever be allowed to extinguish the rights of a free people. Not now. Not ever.

FPC and our legal team have been preparing a challenge to AB 1127 for months. We and our allies will move swiftly to strike down this unlawful and immoral ban in federal court. The Constitution—not Gavin Newsom—defines the limits of government power, and we will make sure he once more learns that lesson.

Individuals who want to support this lawsuit should join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a response brief in its Ziegenfuss v. Martin case, a federal lawsuit challenging Texas laws that unconstitutionally ban peaceable people from carrying firearms in everyday public places like bars, sporting events, and racetracks.

In its filing, FPC dismantled arguments made by court-appointed amici (“friends of the court”) defending the bans. The amici claimed Texas (and all governments) can prohibit carry by carving out “sensitive places” at will, but the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision flatly rejects that theory.

As FPC explained, constitutional rights cannot be erased with labels or policy preferences, and under binding Supreme Court precedent, every restriction must be justified in this Nation’s historical tradition. But there is no such tradition to point to, and thus the laws must be struck down as unconstitutional.

“Texas cannot escape the Constitution by slapping the words ‘sensitive place’ on vast swaths of ordinary public life,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The government has no power to redefine rights out of existence. Our history and traditions show that people have always had the right to be armed in public, including where crowds gather. That right does not disappear when you walk into a restaurant, attend a ball game, or watch a race.”

Unless the Court requests further filings, the case is now fully briefed and awaiting the Court’s final decision. Read more

After a district court in Louisiana ruled earlier this week that the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) must turn over its member list as part of the court’s judgment in Reese v. ATF, the organization, in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ), filed its motion to amend the judgment.

The case challenges the federal law which prevents licensed firearm dealers from selling or transferring handguns to adults under 21. The judgment entered earlier this week stated that, “Within twenty-one days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs…shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.”

“Once we read the judge’s order, we took quick and decisive action to ensure our member data will not be supplied to anyone, much less the government,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Thankfully the Department of Justice agreed with our position and has joined in this motion to amend the judgment. However, it should still be made extremely clear, SAF has never – and will never – provide the government a list of our members, and we won’t be strong-armed into turning over the private data of those who support SAF and the Second Amendment.” Read more

The National Rifle Association—along with the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation—announced the filing of another lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Jensen v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Originally, the NFA imposed a $200 tax and established a tax-enforcement registration regime for certain classes of firearms. However, President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) eliminated this tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and NFA-defined “any other weapons,” leaving only the registration requirement in place. The complaint in Jensen argues that since the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power—nor any other authority granted under Article I of the Constitution.

The complaint also asserts that the NFA’s registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And, the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration regime for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) Wednesday filed an urgent Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Koons v. Platkin, urging the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals to correct a deeply flawed 3-judge panel decision that greenlit New Jersey’s sweeping, unconstitutional scheme to nullify the right to carry in public.

The panel’s September ruling upheld much of the ban, allowing New Jersey to maintain a vast patchwork of unsecured, so-called ‘gun-free zones.’ As the petition explains, this scheme “disarms only the law-abiding and leaves them at the mercy of those who cannot be deterred by a legal prohibition alone.”

FPC contends that the panel’s flawed methodology directly conflicts with the Third Circuit’s precedent in Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police—a case FPC also litigated and won at the Third Circuit—showing the urgent need for the full court to restore coherence to Second Amendment law and reject reliance on late-19th-century sources.

Said FPC President Brandon Combs, “States cannot erase the right to carry by declaring everyday places off-limits, but that is exactly what New Jersey has done. Worse, the Third Circuit panel all but blessed the State’s unconstitutional scheme. The full Third Circuit Court of Appeals must correct this failure and faithfully apply both the Second Amendment and binding Supreme Court precedent.”

Individuals who want to support this lawsuit and FPC’s broader mission to dismantle unconstitutional gun control can join the FPC Grassroots Army at firearmspolicy.org/join. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), joined by National Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation, filed a critical brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Zherka v. Bondi, urging the Court to strike down the federal ban that permanently disarms peaceable Americans for nonviolent offenses.

In their brief, FPC and its allies argue that there “is no tradition of disarming peaceable citizens” like the petitioner.

“Historically, nonviolent criminals—including nonviolent felons—who did not demonstrate a propensity for violence retained the ability to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.” Indeed, they noted, “some laws expressly allowed or even required them to keep and bear arms. Certiorari should be granted to establish that the Second Amendment forbids the disarmament of peaceable Americans.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a petition for en banc review with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in SAF’s lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” firearms carry restrictions.

The case, Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey, challenges the law New Jersey enacted in response to the 2022 landmark Supreme Court Bruen decision, which creates multiple overlapping categories of so-called “sensitive places” where even those with a concealed carry permit are prohibited from carrying a firearm. This patchwork of restrictions created by the challenged law encompasses nearly every square inch of the state and was passed with the express intent of extinguishing the fundamental right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

In September, SAF secured a partial victory in the case when a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for the carry of loaded, operable firearms in private vehicles and carry on private property open to the public without the owners express consent or signage. That panel decision did, however, uphold carry bans on public transportation, in public libraries and museums, places where alcohol is served and in entertainment venues.

“Major elements of the panel decision run contrary to both Third Circuit and Supreme Court law in ways which demand review by the entire Third Circuit,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “By deriving overly broad generalizations to define what a ‘sensitive place’ actually is under the law, the panel decision improperly bars New Jersey residents from exercising their rights in many of the types of places people go during the course of normal life in a way entirely inconsistent with the demands of the Supreme Court.” Read more

Tuesday, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).

GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment. Read more

Silencer Central, the pioneer of home suppressor delivery, has initiated a lawsuit against FedEx and its subsidiary corporations. Filed October 8, 2025, in the Southern Division of the District Court of South Dakota, the complaint seeks to recover damages caused by FedEx’s alleged negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract.

“I have been discriminated against by big banks for over 20 years because of the type of business I am in, now it looks like common carriers are changing the rules to avoid transporting firearms and accessories.” Having just achieved a landmark reversal from J.P. Morgan Wealth Management regarding discriminatory denial of services, Silencer Central and its CEO Brandon Maddox are fighting back against FedEx to ensure firearm manufacturers and related organizations get fair treatment from one of the nation’s largest courier companies.

“They woke up one morning and decided they didn’t want to ship suppressors,” said Maddox. “Our agreement with FedEx was negotiated over months, key details were confirmed and reconfirmed, and we entered into a major contract in good faith. Based on the agreement, we transitioned our nationwide home-delivery network to FedEx, only to have the rug pulled out from under us. Almost overnight, FedEx decided it would not or could not provide the to-your-door customer delivery service which was central to our agreement.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued a scathing rebuke of the Northern District of Texas, which, in a profound act of judicial abdication, delivered an erroneous opinion upholding the federal government’s unconstitutional prohibition on the acquisition of handguns by peaceable Americans in Elite Precision Customs v. ATF.

Despite the clear mandates of the Supreme Court’s binding Bruen opinion, the Trump Administration shamefully defended this unconstitutional regulatory scheme, adopting the rhetoric of gun control extremists by arguing that this fundamental, enumerated right can be dismissed as merely subject to “reasonable commercial restrictions” and a “minimal burden on the right to acquire arms.” The district court—wrongly—agreed with the government.

“In short, the Court holds that the Sale Restrictions do not function as a de facto prohibition on possession but rather a reasonable commercial restriction enacted by Congress,” said Judge Pittman in his decision. “Consequently, the Court holds that the Sale Restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment.”

Said FPC President Brandon Combs, “This ruling is nothing short of judicial abdication. The court chose to ignore the clear mandate of Bruen and instead applied the very sort of test the Supreme Court rejected three years ago. The right to keep arms inherently includes the right to acquire them, and federal regulations that prohibit peaceable Americans from purchasing handguns across state lines are patently unconstitutional. We reject the fiction that infringing upon a fundamental, enumerated right is merely a ‘modest inconvenience’ that can be deferred to Congress. We will appeal this horrifically flawed decision to the Fifth Circuit.” Read more