BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed two Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) cases for conference on Friday, Jan. 10.

The two cases – Snope v. Brown and Gray v. Jennings – challenge “assault weapons” bans in Maryland and “assault weapons” and magazine capacity bans in Delaware.

In Snope, SAF is challenging Maryland’s ban on “assault weapons” and is joined in the case by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and private citizen, David Snope.

SAF sought cert after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled en banc that the modern semiautomatic rifles banned by Maryland fall outside the protection of the Second Amendment because they are too similar to military arms. SAF and its partners contend this reasoning “is becoming a commonplace misapplication” of Supreme Court precedents established by the 2008 Heller ruling, 2010 McDonald decision and 2022 Bruen decision.

“Snope provides the Supreme Court with an excellent vehicle to correct the widespread misapplication of the Court’s precedent regarding these firearms and the Second Amendment, itself,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The case is on appeal from final judgment with an en banc decision of a circuit court. Read more

WASHINGTON ? Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced Wednesday that it has filed a new federal lawsuit challenging Washington D.C.’s ban on firearm magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. The complaint in Wehr-Darroca v. D.C. can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/wehr-darroca.

“The magazines at issue in this case are not ‘dangerous and unusual,’ but instead are standard components of the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes,” the lawsuit argues.

“Washington D.C. is not exempt from the Constitution,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Today FPC continues its work to end these immoral firearm magazine bans and other unconstitutional policies throughout the country.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, denounces the coordinated “lawfare” effort by Democratic state attorneys general to abuse the judicial system through frivolous claims against a firearm manufacturer. New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, joined by Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison along with 13 other states and the District of Columbia, are coordinating and repeating the unfounded claims against GLOCK, Inc., filed by the City of Chicago, which wrongfully colluded with the Biden-Harris White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety. That improper collusion is currently under investigation by the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight and Government Accountability Committee.

“This is clearly an abuse of the courts to attempt to circumvent the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA),” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Attorneys General Platkin and Ellison, along with the other colluding states, are attempting to extend the frivolous claims that have no foundation in law and abuse taxpayer dollars to advance an unconstitutional gun control agenda. These claims are a devious manipulation of the courts by attempting to force a gun control agenda through judicial fiat and are contrary to the will of lawmakers and are expressly prohibited by federal law. This is the very definition of ‘lawfare’ and should be rejected by the courts.”

NSSF previously applauded the House Oversight and Government Accountability Committee for investigating allegations that The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention collaborated with the antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and the City of Chicago to target GLOCK, Inc., with a frivolous lawsuit, alleging the company is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals unlawfully attach an illegal “switch” to handguns. Everytown for Gun Safety is representing the City of Chicago in the lawsuit. In previous demands for information, House Oversight Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) noted, “On the very day the suit was filed, Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt posted on X, ‘Federal officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.’” Read more

Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that attorneys for the organization have filed a brief with the Washington Supreme Court in support of parties challenging the State’s unconstitutional ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds. FPC’s brief for State of Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns, et al. can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.

“Under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, Washington’s attempt to punish a gun store for selling magazines that are commonly used must fail,” argues the brief. “Bruen unequivocally reaffirmed what District of Columbia v. Heller taught: All instruments that compose bearable ‘arms’ are covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. That certainly includes the magazines which are necessary for the proper functioning of a firearm.”

“Immoral bans on standard firearm magazines must be put to an end. The Washington Supreme Court should follow the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent and enjoin enforcement of this unconstitutional law,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco supporting the defendant in a Montana case which challenges the federal gun-free school zones law. The case is known as United States of America v. Gabriel Cowan Metcalf.

SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition and Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel, Joshua Robert Dale and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates of Long Beach, Calif.

Metcalf lives in Billings, Mont., across the street from an elementary school. Local police were notified he was carrying a firearm while walking in his yard, and in the neighborhood. He told officers he was patrolling the neighborhood to protect himself and his mother from a stalker against whom she had a protection order. Montana law does not prohibit the carrying of firearms in proximity to a school.

“The Metcalf case is a textbook example of what is wrong with the ‘gun-free school zones’ act,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The law was written as a solution to school shootings, but in the process, it effectively disarms and legally jeopardizes law-abiding citizens who live within a picked-out-of-the-hat 1,000-foot perimeter, or those who simply travel through such areas in the course of their daily business. Pick any rural community in the country and you will find schools within close proximity of business districts, supermarkets and gas stations; places visited daily by legally-armed, peaceable citizens.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praised the San Diego County Superior Court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Smith & Wesson, Inc. under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). The court decided Tuesday that Smith & Wesson, Inc. is not responsible for the horrendous criminal acts committed by a deranged murderer at the Chabad of Poway, in Poway, Calif., on April 27, 2019.

The PLCAA protects the firearm industry from frivolous lawsuits that attempt to hold firearm businesses liable for the criminal misuse of lawfully sold firearms.

“We are heartened by the court’s decision today correctly interpreting the PLCAA and ruling in favor of Smith & Wesson, Inc. that the criminal liability for the horrific actions of a murderer are the sole responsibility of that individual,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Plaintiffs in this case attempted to hold Smith & Wesson, Inc. responsible for these horrific crimes by alleging that because the firearm could be illegally modified, the company violated federal law. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged Smith & Wesson, Inc.’s advertising caused the murderer to commit his violent crimes. The firearm industry is grateful that the judge found these claims lack legal merit and correctly granted judgment in favor of Smith & Wesson, Inc.”

NSSF earlier in the case filed an amicus brief in support of Smith & Wesson, Inc.

The murderer in this incident was convicted and sentenced by a California state court to life in prison, without the possibility of parole. The sentence carried an additional 121 years to life, plus 16 years as part of a plea agreement. The murderer was also convicted by a federal court and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus 30 years.

The PLCAA was signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush with broad bipartisan support by Congress. The law was spurred by numerous frivolous lawsuits orchestrated by gun control groups to circumvent Congress and put firearm companies out of business based on the criminal misuse of firearm by remote individuals who lack respect for both life and law. The PLCAA has been repeatedly upheld as Constitutional by federal courts.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in a long-running challenge of California’s restrictive gun control policies regarding gun shows have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in a case known as B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom.

SAF is joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, South Bay Rod & Gun Club, Asian Pacific American Gun Owners Association, Second Amendment Law Center, L.A.X. Firing Range, B&L Productions—for whom the case is named—and several private citizens. They are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer at Kilmer Law Offices in Caldwell, Idaho, and C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir and Tiffany D. Cheuvront at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, California.

The case involves questions about First and Second Amendment rights, and whether the state can adopt laws and policies which abridge and impair those rights.

“We are at a point where California has essentially ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling in 2022 that eliminated the use of ‘judicial balancing tests’ when deciding Second Amendment claims,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “while trampling on the First Amendment protections of speech which is necessary for the commerce of lawful products.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that it has filed a new federal lawsuit challenging Pennsylvania’s law banning 18-20-year-olds from applying for Licenses to Carry Firearms (LTCFs). FPC is joined in the litigation by two FPC members and the National Rifle Association (NRA). The lawsuit, styled Young v. Ott, comes as the Third Circuit is considering an FPC lawsuit challenging another one of the state’s age-based carry bans. The complaint can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/young.

“On their eighteenth birthday, the Plaintiffs in this case became legal adults for almost all purposes and certainly for the purpose of exercising their other constitutionally protected rights. They can vote, enter into contracts, and get married. They can join the military to fight and die for their country. And as adults, there are no parents or other legal guardians legally responsible for their care and protection. Yet, the laws challenged in this case prevent Plaintiffs from exercising their Second Amendment protected rights on par with all other law-abiding adult Americans,” the complaint states.

“Governments like Pennsylvania cannot deny the right to bear arms to otherwise eligible legal adults. We are proud to join forces with the NRA in this important case and look forward to eliminating these unconstitutional age-based bans throughout the United States,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

The Young case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube. Individuals who want to support FPC’s work to eliminate unconstitutional laws can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org or make a donation at firearmspolicy.org/donate. Read more