The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession as applied to an individual with a decades-old misdemeanor DUI conviction.

The case, Williams v. Attorney General of the United States, will be argued before an en banc panel in February. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Law Center.

“The government’s position defies Bruen and Rahimi by seeking to impose a permanent disarmament on a law-abiding citizen based solely on a nonviolent misdemeanor from 20 years ago, with no evidence of ongoing danger,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the risks of intoxication and firearms through temporary restrictions on those currently impaired, never by stripping gun rights forever from someone who once drank irresponsibly but has since reformed. We urge the Court to reject this overreach and affirm the district court’s ruling.”

If the Third Circuit rules in favor of Mr. Williams, it could have major implications for many others who are disarmed due to similar convictions. Read more

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted full-court review in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Koons v. Platkin challenge to New Jersey’s sweeping post-Bruen carry restrictions. This significant development ensures that the entire court will evaluate the state’s unconstitutional scheme under the proper historical and constitutional framework. The prior panel’s flawed decision—upholding key elements of the law—has been vacated, restoring the case to a posture where New Jersey’s unlawful policies can be fully and fairly scrutinized. FPC remains steadfast in pursuing meaningful relief for all who seek to exercise their right to bear arms in New Jersey and nationwide.

Gun owners can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org to join the fight to strike down New Jersey’s public carry bans and support dozens of other important lawsuits to end gun control laws across the country.

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is a nonprofit membership organization that exists to create a world of maximal individual liberty and eliminate unconstitutional gun control laws. FPC works—and wins—for the People through high-impact strategic litigation, groundbreaking research, legislative and regulatory advocacy, grassroots activism, education, and public engagement. FPC’s legal division, FPC Law, is the nation’s leading initiative dedicated to restoring the right to keep and bear arms across the United States. To learn more about how FPC is working—and winning—for the People, sign up for FPC news alerts at firearmspolicy.org and follow FPC on X, Instagram, and Facebook.

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court urging the Court to grant certiorari in Gardner v. Maryland, a case challenging Maryland’s refusal to honor firearm carry permits issued by other states.

The case involves Eva Marie Gardner, who was arrested for carrying a firearm without a permit after defending herself in Maryland. Ms. Gardner had a Virginia carry permit, but Maryland refuses to honor permits originating from any other state. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle 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.

“The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling defies Bruen by allowing states to force visitors from other states to jump through costly and time-consuming hoops to exercise their right to carry arms for self-defense,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that travelers from other states were not only allowed to carry firearms but often received special exemptions from local restrictions. We urge the Court to intervene and ensure the Second Amendment protects Americans nationwide, regardless of state borders.”

If granted review, this case could affect millions of law-abiding Americans who face arrest and prosecution simply for carrying a firearm with a valid out-of-state permit while traveling through restrictive states like Maryland, California, New York, Illinois, and others. Read more

Yesterday afternoon in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, the St. Lucie County State Attorney’s Office and the Sheriff of St. Lucie County, representing the State of Florida, reached a settlement with Gun Owners Foundation and Gun Owners of America in GOA v. Del Toro. The lawsuit, filed in August 2024, challenged Florida’s open carry ban.

Under the settlement, Defendants agreed not to enforce Florida’s ban on open carry, and acknowledged that law enforcement agencies must align their practices with the right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. GOA maintained, and Defendants agreed, that the open carry of firearms is “presumptively protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment” and that § 790.053(1) is incompatible with the Second Amendment. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) welcomed reports that the Trump Administration will establish a dedicated Second Amendment rights section within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice—an action that directly reflects FPC’s top executive-branch recommendation and a priority first proposed by FPC during the previous Trump Administration. The new office is expected to officially ramp up in early December.

FPC has consistently called for the creation of such a legal arm as part of a broader, long-term strategy to challenge and dismantle unconstitutional state and local restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. The new section represents a vital infrastructure piece needed to confront what FPC has described as the ‘Axis of Authoritarianism’—governments that continue to defy Supreme Court precedent and block the exercise of fundamental rights.

FPC described the administration’s move as a major step toward properly recognizing the Second Amendment as protecting a real right that warrants the same institutional protection as all other enumerated rights. FPC also emphasized the importance of appointing leadership with deep expertise in original-public-meaning jurisprudence to ensure that the new section’s work remains faithful to the Constitution, as recommended in FPC’s White House briefing. Read more

The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in the United States Supreme Court in a case challenging Hawaii’s concealed carry laws under the Second Amendment. This is the second time in the last week that SAF has urged a court to invalidate a law under the Second Amendment.

Hawaii does not respect the right to carry firearms. Between 2000 and 2018, the state issued just four concealed carry licenses. Things changed in 2022, when the Supreme Court declared that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home. After that, Hawaii—along with New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California—passed “default private property” or “vampire rules.” Under these rules, people exercising their right to carry a firearm need to get express permission from the open establishment before they can enter.

To justify its default rule, Hawaii is relying on classist hunting “qualification” laws that were a result of European feudalism. The brief explains that “early British game laws … were originally made with a view of taking the arms out of the hands of the common people, or at least with a design of rendering them in-expert in the use of them.” The colonial governments attempted to import these wealth qualifications to the United States. Hawaii and the other states that have adopted the default rule argue that these qualification laws establish a tradition of banning firearms under the Second Amendment.

As the brief points out, however, “America’s early settlers promptly rejected their mother country’s legacy of conditioning the right to take game on wealth and birthright.” And after the Revolution, courts referred to these qualification laws as “productive of tyranny” and “contrary to the spirit of our institutions.”

“We filed the brief to make sure those classist hunting laws that were rejected openly by the courts for 150 years remain in the past,” said Michael Jean, Litigation Counsel for SAF. “Those laws were never part America’s hunting heritage. They should serve as cautionary tales, and no more.”

Animal extremists already bully sportsmen. We do not need to be bullied by gun control extremists working to take away our firearms. The Sportsmen’s Alliance is fighting against those who are working to crater our heritage and traditions. Read more

On Nov. 20, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging two Hawaiian laws that pose undue burdens on gun owners.

Hawaii makes it very difficult for a person to acquire a handgun legally. The law first requires a permit to purchase. To do that, an individual must undergo a background check and provide specific information about the firearm they are purchasing—manufacturer, model, action, caliber, serial number, etc. The law forbids any local law enforcement agency from issuing the permit until 14 days after the application was received but requires it to be issued within 40 days. The permit expires 30 days after it is issued, and if the transaction is not completed in that timeframe, the process starts all over again.

But that is not the end of it. The seller must sign the permit and return it, along with the gun’s identifying information, to their local law enforcement agency within 48 hours. The pain is still not over as the buyer must then bring the firearm to the police station for a physical inspection within five days of completing the sale.

The expiration date on the permit to purchase and the five-day in-person inspection requirement were challenged in federal court under the Second Amendment. The trial court struck them down in 2021. Hawaii appealed, and a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the laws were invalid in March of this year. Hawaii then sought en banc review, a process in which 11 judges on the Ninth Circuit will review the three-judge panel’s decision. The Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation’s brief urges the en banc court to hold Hawaii’s regulations unlawful … again. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in Wolford v. Lopez, urging the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding Hawaii’s infamous “Vampire Rule.”

The Hawaii law, like similar statutes in California, New York and other states, declares virtually all private property open to the public — grocery stores, gas stations, restaurants and more — off-limits for lawful carry unless the property owner gives express permission. The result: permit holders who wish to exercise their Second Amendment rights are effectively banished from most places.

“This is the post-Bruen rebellion in its purest form,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Anti-gun states invented the ‘Vampire Rule’ for the sole purpose of nullifying the right to carry. They are not protecting private property rights – they are deliberately making public carry so burdensome that citizens will simply give up. The Ninth Circuit blessed this transparent end-run around the Second Amendment and only the Supreme Court can stop it.”

SAF is joined in the amicus by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Connecticut Citizens Defense League and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

“If the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands, the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense will exist only on paper in large parts of the country,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit following the U.S. District Court of Maryland’s decision dismissing NSSF’s lawsuit challenging Maryland’s law that intended to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The PLCAA prohibits frivolous lawsuits against members of the firearm industry for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold legal firearms by remote third parties.

“The PLCAA prohibits the type of laws that allow frivolous lawsuits brought by Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown seeking to hold industry members liable for the criminal acts of third parties,” explained Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The law gives Attorney General Brown license to target perfectly legal commerce. As a result, it not only seeks to impose a gun control agenda through litigation that not only runs afoul of the PLCAA, but it also violates the First Amendment by limiting protected commercial free speech, the Commerce Clause, Due Process and the Second Amendment.”

Maryland’s Gun Industry Accountability Act is part of a coordinated effort by antigun state legislatures, their attorneys general and gun control special interest groups to engage in lawfare against the firearm industry as an “end run” around the bipartisan PLCAA which Congress passed in 2005.

In enacting the PLCAA, Congress explained it was because antigun politicians were using the courts to “attempt to circumvent the Legislative branch of government” and “expand civil liability in a manner never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution.” Recently, antigun states began a new lawfare tactic by enacting laws codifying vague “reasonableness” standards to hold law-abiding firearm industry members liable for harms caused by criminals who misuse their lawfully sold legal products. Read more