Gun Owners of America (GOA) is excited to announce their inaugural Gun Owners Advocacy and Leadership Summit (GOALS), which will be held in mid-August in Knoxville, Tennessee.

This two-day weekend event is expected to draw tens of thousands of attendees and will feature speeches from leaders in the gun rights movement, educational panels, meet and greet sessions, and musical performances from major artists. Additionally, the convention’s festivities will kick off on Friday August 16th with an exclusive industry expo for manufacturers, retailers, and other firearms businesses.

GOA is also excited to share that all attendees will be able to lawfully carry while in attendance. Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, applauded the decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Schopler granting an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of California’s law that exposes firearm industry members to lawsuits in California for the lawful commerce in firearms that takes place entirely outside the state of California when those legally made and sold products end up being misused by criminals and others in California.

The ruling by Judge Schopler in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of California enjoined the enforcement of California AB 1594, the so-called “Firearm Industry Responsibility Act.” NSSF sued to challenge the law in June of 2023 and moved for an injunction. In granting the injunction, Judge Schopler found the law is likely unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.

“We are thankful the court enjoined the state from suing members of the firearm industry under this unconstitutional law that attempts to use the real threat of liability on commerce beyond California’s borders and impose its policy choices on its Sister states,” stated NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane.

Among other provisions, California AB 1594 bans the manufacture, sale and marketing of firearms the state deems “abnormally dangerous.” It allows civil lawsuits against a firearm industry member to be filed by the Attorney General, any municipality and any person who claims to have suffered harm from the misuse of a legal, lawfully sold firearm by a remote third party. The law unconstitutionally invades the sovereignty of sister States by directly regulating lawful commerce occurring entirely outside the state of California in violation of the Commerce Clause and the United States’ system of federalism. The law also violates the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) enacted by Congress in 2005 to stop just these sorts of frivolous lawsuits against members of the industry.

Keane added, “We are reviewing the balance of the court’s decision and whether we will file an amended complaint to provide the court more details on how California’s unconstitutional law and its threat of crushing liability is causing real and ongoing harm to members of our industry.”

NSSF also claims in its lawsuit that the law also infringes on the Second Amendment and chills First Amendment rights by restricting protected free-speech advertising of Constitutionally-protected products that are lawfully made and sold – even when that advertising takes place outside of California’s borders. Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) petitioned for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in their challenge to New York’s mistakenly named “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.”

This sweeping law was passed in Albany after the Supreme Court rebuked the state’s may-issue concealed carry permitting scheme. But frustratingly, this new statute is more onerous and restrictive than the one overturned in the Bruen decision.

GOA quickly challenged this new law after its passage in federal court, where Judge Glenn Suddaby repeatedly sided with GOA by blocking several of its major provisions. Frustratingly, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals was eager to intervene on behalf of anti-gunners, keeping much of the challenged law in place, which has led to today’s filing with the Supreme Court.

The law’s provisions that are still in effect require applicants for a concealed carry license to:

• • Display “good moral character”
  • Have in person interviews with law enforcement
  • Provide four “character references”
  • Undergo 18 hours of combined training, a tremendous increase from the existing 4-hour requirement

Read more

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that challenges Colorado’s age-based gun ban. Colorado’s Gov. Jared Polis signed a law last year that denies Second Amendment rights to adults under the age of 21, unconstitutionally denying their right to lawfully purchase any firearm.

NSSF argues in the amicus brief in Polis v. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners that Colorado’s law unconstitutionally denies the Second Amendment right to adult citizens between the ages of 18 to 20 to legally obtain a firearm at retail. Colorado’s law effectively institutes an age-based gun ban, denying the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms to adults fully-vested in the full spectrum of their civil liberties. No such restriction would ever be considered for any other right protected by the U.S. Constitution. Colorado’s law relegates the Second Amendment to a second-class right.

The U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer ruled the law was unconstitutional in August. Colorado’s Gov. Polis appealed that decision to the 10th Circuit. Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal challenge of the Illinois ban on modern semi-auto firearms and “large-capacity magazines” have filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking certiorari in the case of Harrel v. Raoul.

SAF is joined by the Illinois State Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., C4 Gun Store, LLC, Marengo Guns, Inc., and a private citizen, Dane Harrel, for whom the case is named. The federal complaint was originally filed in January 2023. They are represented by attorneys David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Will Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC and David Sigale in Wheaton, Ill.

“Clearly,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “the Illinois gun and magazine bans are unconstitutional under principles set down in the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2022 Bruen decision. In both of those opinions, the high court said the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use. It is indisputable that modern semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten cartridges are in common use by tens of millions of U.S. citizens, so such a ban is, in the court’s own words, ‘off the table.’” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court in Barnett v. Raoul, to consider the Constitutionality of Illinois’ ban on over 1,000 models of firearms including Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines.

NSSF argues that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit erred in its judgment upholding the state’s ban on the purchase and possession of more than 1,000 previously lawful semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns – including the most popular semiautomatic rifle in America. The state’s ban on these firearms, and standard-capacity magazines, violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have once again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in their continuing challenge of Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

SAF and CCRKBA are joined in this petition by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Field Traders, LLC, and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is titled. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh. The Supreme Court in late June 2022 granted certiorari in the case, and vacated the earlier ruling by a lower federal court and then remanded the case back to the Fourth Circuit for further action based on guidelines established in the 2022 Bruen ruling.

Since being remanded, the case was fully briefed and argued before a three-judge panel for the Fourth Circuit. Inexplicably, over a year after argument was held and with no panel opinion issued, the Fourth Circuit sua sponte elected to hear the case en banc, further delaying the exercise of a fundamental right and seemingly to prevent publication of an opinion that favors the plaintiffs. Seeking certiorari before judgment is an extraordinary remedy reserved for cases of imperative public importance.

“It is clear to us this case must be decided by the Supreme Court,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The type of modern semiautomatic rifle banned in Maryland is in common use across the country, and is the most popular rifle in America. Yet, the Fourth Circuit and other courts of appeals have strained credulity to uphold such bans in the wake of the high court’s ruling in Bruen. This issue must be resolved.” Read more