The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a case challenging the ban on possessing and carrying firearms in United States Post Offices.

In granting summary judgment in favor of SAF, the court granted both declaratory and injunctive relief, declaring the ban unconstitutional and preventing its enforcement for the plaintiffs, including SAF members. Originally filed in June 2024, the lawsuit challenges the ban on firearms carry in U.S. Post Offices and on postal property. SAF is joined in the case, FPC v. Bondi, by the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.” Read more

SAN FRANCISCO — Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed an important brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals explaining how the appellate court should apply the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test for determining the constitutional protection for arms first established in the 2008 D.C. v. Heller ruling and further explained in the 2022 NYSRPA v. Bruen decision.

In its September 5, 2025, order in the case of Knife Rights v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit requested amicus briefs to address critical questions around the Supreme Court’s use and application of the terms “in common use” and “dangerous and unusual.”

“FPC is interested in this case because it raises fundamental and important questions about the nature and application of the ‘in common use’ test the Supreme Court has established to govern Second Amendment challenges to laws banning a type of weapon,” FPC explained in the brief. “The answers to these questions are of critical importance to FPC’s many members throughout the country, including within this Circuit, who wish to keep and bear common arms for self-defense and other lawful purposes.” Proper application of the Supreme Court’s binding precedents is important to ensuring the full protection of bearable arms by the Second Amendment—a determination that is central to FPC’s ongoing lawsuit challenging California’s unconstitutional ban on so-called “assault weapons,” currently before the Ninth Circuit. Read more

Twenty years ago, as the residents of New Orleans were reeling in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin and Police Superintendent P. Edwin Compass III ordered law enforcement officers to seize lawfully owned firearms from civilians stating at the time “Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed suit against the city and, 20 years ago today, were granted a consent order forcing law enforcement to immediately stop confiscating firearms. Thanks to the continued work of SAF and the NRA after Katrina, President George W. Bush signed the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, which included provisions prohibiting the seizure of legally owned firearms during emergencies.

“In the aftermath of one of the worse natural disasters this country has ever seen, the mayor and law enforcement in New Orleans unthinkably decided to go door-to-door confiscating firearms when citizens needed them most,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case serves as a great reminder of why SAF must continue its critical work. The Second Amendment rights of American citizens cannot be wiped away just because a handful of people want to disarm a population.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a new lawsuit challenging the Santa Clara County Sheriff Department’s exorbitant fees and mandated psychological exam associated with applying for a concealed carry permit.

Joining SAF in the lawsuit are the California Rifle and Pistol Association and several individuals. In Blank v. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, the lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of carry permit policies and practices that charge excessive and burdensome fees to obtain a concealed carry permit in Santa Clara.

“Fees this extreme for the application of a simple permit can only be in place for one reason – to keep the peaceable citizens of Santa Clara from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “These fees amount to nothing short of a pay-to-play scheme wherein only those with the means to afford the application costs have the ability to exercise their constitutional rights. Not only is this discriminatory, but it’s a clear violation of the Second Amendment.” Read more

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners a partial victory today in a case challenging New Jersey’s “Sensitive Places Law” but left in place carry restrictions for many public areas.

The case, Koons v. Platkin, challenges New Jersey law that create a series of “sensitive places” in which even permitted concealed carriers are prohibited from carrying their firearms. Those places create a patchwork of overlapping categories such as public gatherings, zoos, parks, beaches, recreation facilities, and more, intended to encompass nearly every square inch of the state.

In the partial victory, the Third Circuit upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for some of these categories: youth sports events, private vehicles, public property and private property without the owners express consent. The Court also upheld the injunctions against a tax on the states carry permit, and a liability insurance mandate.

“Today, a panel of the Third Circuit concluded that ‘the People’ have the fundamental right to bear arms in public, with the minor caveat they simply can’t do so where people assemble with others, eat and drink, conduct commerce, discuss opinions, seek amusement and recreation, learn, worship, travel on public transit, seek leisure or community, and anywhere children or vulnerable people are normally present,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And even then, in the remaining social wastelands leftover which the court grudgingly allows, one may only carry a firearm for self-defense if they have first secured the subjective endorsement of at least four ‘reputable’ persons. This treatment would not be tolerated in the context of any other constitutional right, and it should not be so here.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) have filed a motion for summary judgment in its lawsuit challenging Illinois law that bans firearms in homes licensed to provide foster or day care.

The Foster Home and Day Care Home Rules and statutes in Illinois ban adults licensed to foster parent or provide day care in their own homes from keeping functional firearms for self-defense, even if they are otherwise allowed to possess them.

“Being a caretaker does not come at the expense of your fundamental rights,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The constitutional analysis is no different here than for any other type of gun control. The burden is on the state to prove a historical tradition of similar regulation at the time of the Founding, and that tradition simply does not exist.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed its opening brief with the Third Circuit in its case challenging the federal ban on gun ownership by medical marijuana users.

Greene v. Bondi is now on appeal before the Third Circuit from a district court opinion dismissing the suit. SAF is joined in the case by two private citizens – Warren County, Pa., District Attorney Robert Greene and James Irey. Greene currently possesses a medical marijuana ID card (MMID) under Pennsylvania law and desires to possess firearms and ammunition. Irey is a disabled veteran who wishes to obtain a MMID to treat his service-related injuries but not forfeit his Second Amendment rights in the process.

“Unlike prescription pain pills, marijuana is federally classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic, even if a state has legalized it for medical purposes,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “That poses a dilemma for anyone who legally uses medical marijuana – either give up your Second Amendment rights or receive relief from your symptoms. This is an absurd choice to force someone to make, especially given that anyone taking prescription pain killers, such as oxycodone, are allowed to purchase firearms.” Read more

Friday, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) condemned a decision by Chief United States District Judge Denise J. Casper that upheld Massachusetts’s ban on modern, constitutionally protected handguns and granted summary judgment to the state.

“The Court’s opinion is as dangerous as it is wrong. Incredibly, the judge held that Massachusetts’s handgun ban doesn’t even implicate the Second Amendment. In this bizarre and deeply flawed decision, the Court effectively said governments could ban every handgun make and model but one. This decision is absurd, lawless, and impossible to reconcile with binding Supreme Court precedent or the text and history of the Constitution,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Make no mistake: FPC will appeal this insane ruling and we will fight until this unconstitutional ban is struck down—whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today condemned a badly flawed decision issued by Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. George Peterson, an FPC-backed criminal appeal challenging the federal government’s unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm suppressor rules:

Once again, the Fifth Circuit has wrongly upheld the National Firearms Act in a dangerously flawed opinion that tramples the Constitution and disregards our nation’s history. Suppressors are unquestionably “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. Nothing in our nation’s history of arms regulation supports the government’s unconstitutional taxation and registration mandates. Indeed, the federal government’s NFA scheme is not just dangerous to liberty, it is blatantly unconstitutional. FPC will continue to stand with Mr. Peterson and his counsel as they weigh every option in the fight ahead to put an end to the NFA and its unconstitutional regulations on suppressors and other protected arms. Individuals who would like to support Mr. Peterson’s appeal, our Brown v. ATF NFA challenge, and dozens of important cases to eliminate unconstitutional federal, state, and local laws should join our FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced that it has petitioned the United States Supreme Court in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, seeking to overturn Cook County’s unconstitutional ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

This case is the ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to say—once and for all—that semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are protected by the Constitution,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “The stakes could not be higher: If the Second Amendment doesn’t cover the most popular rifles in America, then it covers virtually nothing at all.”

Combs went on, “The Supreme Court must end this lawless two-step where politicians ban arms they dislike and judges pretend that’s constitutional to rubber-stamp their policy preferences. The AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America, owned by millions of peaceable people for lawful purposes every day. The Bill of Rights is not a suggestion, and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. It’s time for the Court to make that unmistakably clear to the lower courts.”

“The issue raised by this case is exceptionally important,” the petition argues. “The AR-15 platform rifle is the most popular rifle in the country, and modern semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 are the second-best selling type of firearm in the country behind only semiautomatic handguns.”

Indeed, the petitioners argue in the filing, it is “hard to imagine a court of appeals treating any other provision of the Bill of Rights this way. If the Second Amendment is not to be relegated to second-class status, and if it truly is intended to elevate above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms for self-defense, then the decision below must be overturned.” Read more