Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a motion for summary judgment in an FPC-backed challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, Roberts v. ATF.

The plaintiffs challenging the federal law include T.J. Roberts, Zachary Cockrell, Meridian Ordnance, LLC, the Buckeye Firearms Association, the Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and the American Suppressor Association Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Nicholas Varone of Cooper & Kirk, and supported by FPC. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is the defendant as the agency responsible for enforcing the NFA.

The motion was filed on April 24, 2026. Briefing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment will take place through the end of July.

The motion was filed in Covington in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

The NFA imposes felony prosecution for violations of its regulatory scheme over now-untaxed firearms. The plaintiffs seek a judicial declaration that such regulations are unconstitutional as they exceed Congress’ enumerated powers and violate the Second Amendment.

“The Trump Administration can’t keep forcing peaceable Americans to fingerprint, photograph, and register themselves just to own constitutionally protected tools like suppressors and short-barreled rifles. We filed for summary judgment to end the government’s unlawful NFA gun control scheme for good,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is vowing legal action should Maryland Gov. Wes Moore sign legislation that would ban the most popular selling handguns. The misguided legislation would unconstitutionally infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Marylanders by prohibiting an entire class of lawfully-made and lawfully-sold handguns, should it be signed into law.

Maryland’s legislature recently passed Senate Bill 334 and House Bill 557, which would prohibit the manufacture, sale, offer for sale, purchase, receipt or transfer of certain semiautomatic pistols the state loosely defines as “machine gun convertible pistols.” The legislation singles out certain striker-fired handguns because criminals ignore federal and state law to illegally modify these handguns to attach a “machinegun conversion device,” or MCD, which is illegal to both possess or to attach to a firearm outside of strict federal licensing.

“To borrow on a line from Jame Carville, whom Democrats revere, ‘it’s the criminal, stupid,'” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “These bills, and similar laws passed in other states, punish law-abiding citizens by infringing on their Second Amendment rights to legally obtain the firearms they choose to protect themselves and their families against criminals who, by definition, have no respect for life or law. Instead of enforcing the law and holding these criminals accountable, Maryland’s lawmakers pander to gun control donors and antigun special interests to ban an entire class of firearms, which the U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision clearly holds violates the U.S. Constitution. Should Governor Moore sign these bills into law, NSSF intends to have Maryland’s Attorney General Anthony Brown explain in court why Maryland willfully violates the rights of her citizens and ignores its responsibility to hold criminals accountable.”

Under the bills’ language, the ban includes pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that Maryland lawmakers say can be readily converted by replacing the slide backplate with an illegal MCD, and it directs the Maryland Department of State Police to publish a list of prohibited models. These include the same handguns used by Maryland State Police and the Baltimore Police Department, although law enforcement is exempted from the proposed prohibition. The proposed ban would to take effect on Jan. 1, 2027. Read more

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America (GOA), has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) launch an immediate investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the DOJ’s Civil Division. The request follows a series of alarming breaches in which the government intentionally filed, on a public court docket, the sensitive tax returns of a GOA member, along with details of this person’s private firearm collection.

During ongoing litigation in Silencer Shop Found. v. BATFE, DOJ attorneys representing the ATF intentionally filed the sensitive tax information and National Firearms Act (NFA) tax returns of a GOA member on a public docket. These disclosures included:

• Two approved ATF “Forms 1,” which legally constitute protected tax returns.
• In a negligent (but presumably inadvertent) move, the government failed to redact the GOA’s member’s name, city, and state.
• The ATF then provided a declaration detailing the exact number of NFA items owned by the GOA member, essentially providing a “map” of the member’s personal firearm collection to the public.

Under 26 U.S.C. § 6103, NFA registration forms are strictly prohibited from public disclosure. Despite this, even after being alerted to the breach and attempting to correct the filings, the DOJ inexcusably publicized much of the same sensitive information a second time.

“The sensitivity of this information cannot be understated, nor can the severity of DOJ and ATF’s breach of personal privacy and possible violations of federal law,” stated Erich Pratt in his letter to Acting Inspector General William M. Blier. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its reply brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Granata v. Campbell, its lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s ban on modern, constitutionally protected handguns. FPC’s appeal follows the district court’s decision last year erroneously ruling in favor of the state.

The plaintiffs challenging the ban include two individual FPC members as well as The Gun Runner, LLC, a retailer in the state. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Richard Cullin Chambers, Jr. of Chambers Law Office.

The reply brief was filed on April 15, 2026. With briefing complete, the court will either set an oral argument date or issue a decision without arguments.

The brief was filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.

Massachusetts’ ban unconstitutionally prohibits common, modern arms that are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment. Under the state’s logic, banning guns is perfectly fine as long as one model of handgun remains legal to buy.

“The Supreme Court held that handguns are protected by the Second Amendment-full stop. But if Massachusetts is allowed to ban the handguns at issue in this case the Second Amendment will mean however little anti-rights politicians decide it means that day. We are pressing forward to end this ban and free the people of Massachusetts from this unconstitutional tyranny-as the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent require.” -FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a supplemental reply brief in Brown v. ATF, one of the organization’s three lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements for short-barreled firearms and silencers.

Prior to President Trump signing the One Big Beautiful Bill, people wanting to purchase silencers and short-barreled rifles had to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the government. The One Big Beautiful Bill, however, eliminated the tax but left the registration requirement in place. SAF and its partners have now filed three separate cases challenging this remaining registration scheme.

“This reply brief gave us the perfect opportunity to rebut the government’s arguments in support of the NFA,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We were encouraged the court requested targeted supplemental briefing that addressed key elements of the proper Second Amendment analysis. In our principle brief we laid out in detail why the answer to every question posed supported our position. And now with this reply brief we have driven home the point and dismantled each of the government’s arguments to the contrary.”

SAF is joined in Brown v. ATF by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two private citizens.

“For nearly a century the government has used the NFA to disenfranchise law-abiding Americans and it’s high time this infringement be righted,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion for summary judgment in Morris v. Savannah, its lawsuit challenging a City of Savannah, Georgia firearm storage ordinance that is patently unlawful under the State’s comprehensive firearm preemption law.

FPC is joined in the litigation by Deacon Morris, an FPC member. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney John R. Monroe of John Monroe Law, P.C.

The motion was filed on April 14, 2026.

The motion in Morris v. Savannah was filed in Chatham County Superior Court in Georgia.

A ruling in FPC’s favor would affirm that Georgia’s firearm preemption law means what it says and blocks local governments from creating a confusing patchwork of gun laws.

“Savannah passed gun control law that Georgia law explicitly forbids-and then kept enforcing them even after the state’s own Attorney General told them the laws were void. No city gets to ignore the Constitution, ignore state law, and ignore the state’s top law enforcement officer. We’re going to make sure Savannah answers for it,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14206, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” It sounded promising, but it has since proven to be little more than empty rhetoric.

The following month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a disappointing decision upholding the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” rule, a relic of the Biden Administration. Rather than dismissing the appeal or withdrawing the Biden ATF regulation before the Court ruled, the Trump Administration chose to continue defending the gun control rule, allowing the Court to issue a decision that preserved President Biden’s regulatory overreach.

In May 2025, FPC provided the Trump White House, DOJ, and ATF with a complete, print-ready proposed rule to address the Court’s decision following months of dialogue with key officials. But the Administration has since sat on its hands.

Adding insult to injury, the Administration informed us yesterday that “At this time, the [Trump Administration] has decided to maintain the current definition of firearm ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ contained in that final [Biden Administration] rule.”

Whoever is steering the Trump Administration is aiming the Titanic directly at the iceberg.

To put this latest disappointment in context, FPC has provided the Trump Administration, the White House, DOJ, and ATF, with dozens of lawful actions that could be taken to protect peaceable gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms. Nearly all of those proposals have been ignored.

Instead, in case after case, the Trump Administration has adopted authoritarian, anti-American positions to restrict Second Amendment rights and prosecute those who exercise them. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that a motion for summary judgment has been filed in Poway Weapons & Gear v. CDTFA, an FPC-supported case challenging California’s unconstitutional 11% excise tax on the gross receipts from the retail sale of firearms, “firearm precursor parts,” and ammunition.

The plaintiffs include Poway Weapons & Gear and Sacramento Gun Range. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Megan M. Wold, Nicholas A. Varone, and Athanasia O. Livas of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir, and Tiffany D. Cheuvront of Michel & Associates, P.C.

The motion was filed on April 8, 2026.

The motion in Poway Weapons & Gear v. CDTFA was filed in Sacramento Superior Court in California.

A ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would strike down California’s gun and ammo tax, which singles out a right the state disapproves of for special unconstitutional taxation.

“This unlawful tax scheme is designed to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, and California cannot be allowed to get away with it. You cannot specially tax the exercise of a constitutional right – full stop. If courts allow an 11% tax today, nothing stops them from making it 50% or 100% tomorrow. We are suing to end this direct attack on the rights of peaceable people, and we intend to win,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today launched the 2026 FPC State Freedom Index—the most principled, transparent, and unapologetic scorecard of gun rights in America. With the Index, which shows the state of the law of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. as of the end of 2025, gun owners now have a single, clear tool to see exactly how their state is failing them—and the ammunition to demand their elected officials fix it. Gun owners and policymakers can visit fpcfreedomindex.org to explore the interactive map, compare states, and find out which laws need to be repealed.

The 2026 Index’s scores show that far too many states run by supposedly “pro-gun” Republican leaders are failing their own constituents, with only Kansas and New Hampshire earning a perfect 100% score. Surprising exactly no one, California finished last at 4.55%. But the real disappointments? The so-called “Freedom State” of Florida scored just 81.82%. Ohio matched Florida’s poor performance. And Nebraska underwhelmed at just 77.27%.

“Every state other than Kansas and New Hampshire has had every opportunity to get to 100%, but instead they chose not to,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “That’s not a minor oversight—it’s a betrayal of the People and our fundamental rights. These states need to get their act together and fix their laws to fully respect the right to keep and bear arms.”

The FPC State Freedom Index gives gun owners and elected officials one clear, consistent answer to a simple question: Does your state respect the natural, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms—or not? Unlike rankings that rely on opaque methodologies or political favoritism, the FPC State Freedom Index objectively evaluates all 50 states and Washington, D.C. across 22 specific yes/no criteria in four categories:

• • Arms — What can you legally own?
  • Acquisition — How can you get it?
  • Carry — Where can you bear it?
  • Other — Preemption, registration, and more.

Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in George Peterson v. United States, a case challenging the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration and special taxation requirements for firearm suppressors.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle Association, American Suppressor 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.

“Suppressors are clearly ‘arms’ protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and there is no historical tradition supporting the NFA’s burdensome per-arm registration and taxation scheme,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that the Founding generation would never have tolerated requiring every individual firearm or component to be registered with the government. These requirements burden the right to keep and bear arms and have no basis in our nation’s tradition. We urge the Court to grant review and strike them down.”

This case presents the High Court with an opportunity to clarify once and for all that suppressors are protected arms and to rein in unconstitutional registration and taxation schemes that treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right. Read more