Attorneys for George Peterson have filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in Peterson v. United States, a Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC)-backed challenge to the federal government’s unconstitutional National Firearms Act (NFA) tax and registration requirements for suppressors.

George Peterson is represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and Jack Tucker of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Cody J. Wisniewski of FPC Action Foundation and Richard J. Richthofen, Jr.

The petition was filed at the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, D.C., and a decision in this case would affect the entire country.

The petition was filed on March 9, 2026, with the government’s response to be due one month after it is docketed at the court.

A ruling in Mr. Peterson’s favor would overturn his conviction and restore the right of peaceable people to possess suppressors without submitting to unconstitutional taxes and registration schemes.

“FPC is proud to back this important Supreme Court petition challenging the federal government’s immoral and unconstitutional NFA registration-and-tax regime. Forcing people to pay special taxes on constitutionally protected rights and register their firearms is precisely the kind of tyranny our Founders rejected. Read more

The Virginia General Assembly passed SB749, which would ban so-called “assault firearms” and “large capacity” magazines, despite both being protected by the Second Amendment. The bill is a major part of Governor Abigail Spanberger’s agenda, and she previously pledged to sign such a bill if it reaches her desk.

The bill was passed by the Virginia Senate in a 21-19 vote (after having been previously passed by the House of Delegates), and now goes to the governor for her expected signature.

The bill was passed by the Virginia General Assembly in Richmond, VA.

Once the bill is transmitted to the governor, she will have seven days to sign or veto it, or it becomes law without her signature. If signed, the bill will take effect on July 1st, 2026.

The bill would unconstitutionally ban semi-automatic “assault firearms” that have features such as threaded barrels, adjustable stocks, and pistol grips, along with banning standard-sized magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds of ammunition.

“Instead of upholding the rights of Virginians, tyrants in Richmond have voted to gut the Constitution and turn peaceable gun owners into felons. FPC has been preparing a federal lawsuit to challenge this immoral ban on constitutionally protected firearms and magazines. We will not hesitate to sue to defend Virginians against their authoritarian government if Governor Abigail Spanberger signs this anti-gun bill into law,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is proud to endorse Senator Mike Lee of Utah’s bill, the National Constitutional Carry Act. Senator Lee’s bill restores the right to carry as the founding fathers had intended 250 years ago. This bill would ensure that law abiding American citizens are able to carry around the country without fear of antigun states arbitrarily restricting or criminalizing their chosen self-defense tool. Residents of antigun states would no longer have to endure second class Second Amendment treatment, whether through outright hardware bans or policies that indirectly discourage the exercise of one’s rights.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement: “In a time of war, Americans cannot afford to have the right to bear arms delayed by arbitrary state permitting processes. Public safety is threatened not only by ordinary criminals, but also bad actors working for foreign adversaries, and Americans need to be armed for the security of our free state. That’s why Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Senator Mike Lee’s National Constitutional Carry Act. Under this GOA-backed legislation, the right to carry a firearm without a government permission slip will be fully restored, and unconstitutional states regulations on firearms, ammunition, and magazine size will be preempted.”

You can read the bill text here. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a reply in support of its petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Schoenthal v. Raoul, SAF’s challenge to Illinois’ ban on public transit carry.

The lawsuit was originally filed in 2022 and challenges the public transit firearms carry ban in Illinois. To lawfully carry a firearm in the state, residents are required to obtain not only a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID), but also a concealed carry license. However, even with both the FOID card and a carry license, Illinois still bans carrying a firearm on “…any bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.”

“One of the animating principles behind the Second Amendment is the ability to be armed in public in case of confrontation,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The practical effect of banning carry on public transit is obvious – anyone who relies on it faces a de facto ban on their ability to carry anywhere. There is no historical support for the categorical ban of permitted carry on all public transportation, and without that the Second Amendment and Supreme Court have held that this law must be struck down.”

A District Court in Illinois originally granted summary judgment in favor of SAF and its partners in the case, agreeing the public transit carry ban was unconstitutional. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reversed, allowing the ban to remain in place. SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens.

“There’s no doubt these ‘sensitive places’ laws do little in terms of thwarting criminals from carrying a firearm on public transit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “In fact, the ban only forces peaceable citizens to disarm, leaving them and those around them more vulnerable to criminal violence. The Second Amendment equally protects your right to carry for self-defense, whether you take the train to work or drive your car.” Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that a reply brief in support of the cert petition has been filed with the Supreme Court of the United States in Schoenthal v. Raoul, an FPC-backed lawsuit asking the Court to overturn the Seventh Circuit’s dangerous decision upholding Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation.

The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with David G. Sigale.

The reply brief in Schoenthal v. Raoul was filed at the United States Supreme Court, and a decision in the case will affect the entire country.

The reply brief was filed on March 3, 2026.

A ruling in FPC’s favor would restore the right to carry firearms for self-defense on public transportation, which has been unconstitutionally banned by Illinois and other states. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for rehearing in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey after a three-judge Third Circuit panel recently dismissed the case.

Originally filed in 2018, the case challenges New Jersey statute which prohibits the publication of computer files containing digital firearms information on First and Second Amendment grounds. The dismissal was largely based not on the substantive constitutional claims, but on legal technicalities and perceived factual deficiencies in the record presented to the court.

“The Third Circuit’s panel opinion included a number of analytical errors that run contrary to well-established legal precedent,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are hopeful that our petition for rehearing inspires some additional reflection and research and either the panel, or the entire bench, is willing to step in and set things straight.”

As noted in the petition, “This appeal challenges the New Jersey Attorney General’s long-running censorship of Second Amendment speech. It implicates fundamental speech rights protected in parallel by both the First and Second Amendments and exposes ‘the abusive manipulation of federal court procedures’ designed to evade merits review, bringing ‘issues that implicate not only the parties’ interests but those of the judicial system itself.'” Read more

In an effort to remove the remaining registration requirements from the National Firearms Act (NFA) for silencers and short-barreled rifles, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is now supporting a third lawsuit challenging the law.

In July last year, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill which eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and NFA-defined “any other weapons.” The result being that individuals are no longer taxed for making and transferring most firearms under the NFA, yet burdensome registration requirements for these arms remain in place.

“The government’s historically claimed constitutional authority for the NFA was its ability to levy taxes,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Once President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill and taxes on silencers and short-barreled rifles were zeroed out, that authority no longer applied. Without it, the remaining registration requirements must be struck down as well. That’s exactly why we are now supporting a third challenge to this law in federal court.”

SAF itself is a named plaintiff in the NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is now backing two additional challenges – Jensen v. ATF and the newly filed Roberts v. ATF. Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the named plaintiffs in Roberts are Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Center for Human Liberty, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Meridian Ordnance and two private citizens.

“SAF’s mission remains the same as it was when the organization was founded 52 years ago – to defend, secure and restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “That’s why SAF now supports three cases challenging the registration scheme left in the NFA – to ensure law-abiding citizens across America can fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being added to a government watchlist.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) is proud to support the introduction of SB 1071 in West Virginia. A GOA-drafted measure that would authorize the creation of a state entity to purchase and transfer machine guns to qualified law-abiding citizens pursuant to existing federal law.

The legislation utilizes a clear statutory exception contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), commonly known as the Hughes Amendment. While that provision generally restricts civilian possession of post-1986 machine guns, it expressly states that the prohibition “does not apply with respect to … a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of” a State or any department or political subdivision thereof.

Under the bill introduced in West Virginia, the State would establish state-run distribution centers authorized to acquire machine guns and conduct transfers “by” the State to qualified members of the general public. By structuring transactions within the text of the federal exemption, the legislation seeks to restore access to constitutionally protected arms while adhering to existing federal law.

The proposal is rooted in both statutory construction and the historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Beginning with the Militia Act of 1792, and continuing with surplus military sales throughout American history, federal and state governments have repeatedly supplied military-grade arms to civilians. Supporters argue that the Founders envisioned a citizenry equipped with arms suitable for militia service and national defense.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: “For decades, Americans have been told that the 1986 machine gun ban permanently stripped them of access to modern arms. But Congress included an explicit exemption for transfers ‘to or by’ a State, and that language matters. West Virginia is demonstrating that states have both the authority and the responsibility to defend the Second Amendment, restore parity between citizens and the government, and lead the way in dismantling unconstitutional federal overreach.”

Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, added: “The plain text of Section 922(o) makes clear that its prohibition does not apply to transfers conducted by a State. By carefully structuring this legislation within the existing statutory framework, West Virginia lawmakers are advancing a serious, legally grounded effort to vindicate the rights protected by the Second Amendment while exercising the State’s sovereign authority.” Read more