WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, released its 2024 Congressional Report Card, grading sitting U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators on key legislation that is of critical importance to the firearm industry, the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens and America’s hunters and recreational target shooters. Five U.S. House of Representatives were not graded due to special elections to fill vacancies, resulting in the new Members having an insufficient voting and co-sponsorship record for grading.

“This report card will be critical for voters to do their research as we head into the final stretch towards the November elections just six weeks from now. NSSF’s 2024 Congressional Report Card tells voters exactly where their lawmakers stand on issues including defending the firearm industry’s ability to engage in the lawful commerce of firearms and ammunition and safeguarding the Second Amendment rights of customers, as well as promoting hunting and recreational target shooting – America’s greatest outdoor pastimes,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This nonpartisan report card reflects the level of support of each lawmaker on firearm industry priority legislation during the 118th Congress, between 2023 and 2024. These grades indicate their public voting record as well as their sponsorship and co-sponsorship of key legislation, their work on committees, letters signed to support firearm industry issues and their overall leadership in championing our industry.”

NSSF awarded 29 U.S. Senators and 123 U.S. Representatives the rating of “A+.” Of those, 8 Senators and 24 House Members attained the new NSSF distinction of being named to the Dean’s List. To earn this special recognition, members needed to have a 100-percent voting and co-sponsorship record. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners in two different federal court challenges of gun and magazine bans in Delaware have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari, asking the court to rule whether an infringement of Second Amendment rights constitutes per se irreparable injury.

The cases — Gray v. Attorney General Delaware and Graham v. Attorney General Delaware — were consolidated with a third case in the Court of Appeals. In Gray, SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), DJJAMS LLC and two citizens, William Taylor and Gabriel Gray. In the Graham case, SAF and FPC are joined by two other citizens, Christopher Graham and Owen Stevens. They are represented by attorneys Bradley P. Lehman at Gellert, Scali, Busenkell & Brown in Wilmington, Del., and David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

Noting in their petition that the high court has previously ruled that “the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury,” SAF and its partners ask the court to determine whether the same standard applies to the Second Amendment.

“All rights protected by the Constitution are equal,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “and therefore any infringements on one right should merit the same degree of scorn as infringements against another right.” Read more

Last week, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed public comment with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in opposition to their proposed rule to ban the use of lead ammunition of certain public lands, starting with this upcoming fall/winter hunting season. The proposed rule, which was first announced in early August, is the fourth attempt by anti-gun and anti-hunting activists in the Obama-Biden-Harris administrations to ban lead ammo on public lands in the last nine years.

While the Obama-Biden attempt to ban lead ammo and lead based fishing tackle was reversed by President Trump, the Harris-Biden Administration has now initiated its third lead ammo ban, prompting sportsmen to voice serious concerns with their lawmakers in Washington.

In its comments, GOA argues that USFWS has no statutory mandate to effect such a ban, and they highlight the complete lack of any compelling and statistically significant evidence that suggests the presence of lead ammo is detrimental to wildlife or human populations. Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has handed a partial victory to the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its allies in a challenge of state laws prohibiting licensed concealed carry in so-called “sensitive places.”

The SAF case, known as May v. Bonta, was decided along with two other cases — one from California and the other from Hawaii — Friday. Circuit Judge Susan P. Graber, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote the 71-page opinion for the court, which affirmed an injunction against California’s restrictions “with respect to hospitals and similar medical facilities, public transit, gatherings that require a permit, places of worship, financial institutions, parking areas and similar areas connected to those places, and the new default rule as to private property.”

The ruling reverses a preliminary injunction as it applied to “bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, playgrounds, youth centers, parks, athletic areas, athletic facilities, most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife, casinos and similar gambling establishments, stadiums, arenas, public libraries, amusement parks, zoos, and museums; parking areas and similar areas connected to those places; and all parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.”

“We are pleased that the 9th Circuit has affirmed part of the lower court’s injunction,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “However, we maintain that the areas as to which the Court reversed the injunction, and reinstated the carry ban, violate the Second Amendment. The State’s expansion of so called ‘sensitive places’ goes beyond what the Supreme Court contemplated when it mentioned them in Bruen and are designed to discourage individuals from bearing arms in public. SAF and its partners will continue to aggressively litigate this case to ensure Californians may exercise their Second Amendment rights in full.” Read more

Vice President Kamala Harris advocated for the removal of police officers from schools in an effort to “demilitarize” school campuses, according to unearthed footage from 2019.

A federal district court judge in Illinois has ruled that state’s ban on licensed concealed carry aboard public transit violates the Second Amendment in a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF). The case is known as Schoenthal v. Raoul.

In a 50-page decision, U.S. District Judge Iain D. Johnston, a Donald Trump appointee in the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division, granted declaratory relief to the four plaintiffs — Benjamin Schoenthal, Mark Wroblewski, Joseph Vesel and Douglas Winston — who brought their lawsuit in an effort to carry concealed firearms on Metra and on Metra’s real property. In addition, Vesel and Winston also secured relief for riding on CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) and being on CTA property.

SAF was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition in financially supporting the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David Sigale of Wheaton, Ill.

Defendants are Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul and State’s Attorneys Rick Amato (DeKalb County), Robert Berlin (DuPage County), Kimberly M. Foxx (Cook County) and Eric Rinehart (Lake County), all in their official capacities. In his ruling, the judge dismissed claims against Amato and Rinehart. The ruling applies to Raoul, Foxx and Berlin as it applies to Schoenthal. The ruling applies to Raoul and Foxx as it applies to Wroblewski, Vesel and Winston.

“This is a significant victory for legally armed Illinois residents who rely on public transit,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It is important that the court recognized Cook County Attorney Foxx’s argument that the ban was legal because Illinois is acting as a property owner was ‘breathtaking, jaw dropping and eyepopping,’ and that wasn’t a compliment. It demonstrates how far government will reach in an attempt to justify its effort to restrict Second Amendment rights.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in its continuing challenge of a ban on modern semiautomatic rifles in the state of Maryland, arguing that high court review is necessary to ensure the Second Amendment is “not truncated into a limited right.”

SAF is joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and a private citizen, David Snope. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Nicole J. Moss and John D. Ohlendorf at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.; Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at DiGuiseppe Law Firm in Southport, N.C. The case is known as Bianchi v. Frosh.

The petition was filed after the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that modern semiautomatic\ rifles — commonly misidentified as “assault weapons” — are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are “too similar” to a fully automatic military rifle known as the M16. 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 ruling.

“The Fourth Circuit, as well as other federal courts, are attempting to flip the Supreme Court’s Heller ruling on its head,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “They are essentially arguing the arms protected by the Second Amendment are limited only to certain state-approved firearms, which would make it no right at all, but a government-regulated privilege. This is the third time we have petitioned the high court in this case.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association have filed an amicus brief with the Massachusetts Supreme Court in support of a New Hampshire man who is challenging the Massachusetts permit law.

SAF and NRA are represented by attorneys Adam Kraut with SAF in Bellevue, Wash., Joseph G.S. Greenlee and Erin M. Erhardt with NRA in Fairfax, Va., and Edward F. George, Jr., at Edward George & Associates in Arlington, Mass.

The case involves New Hampshire resident Dean F. Donnell, Jr., who was stopped by police in Massachusetts and charged for carrying a firearm without a license. In their 38-page brief, SAF and NRA explain their interest as that of their members’ ability to travel with firearms legally across state lines, to use them for lawful purposes.

“There is no historical tradition that justifies the non-resident licensing scheme now in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Looking back, a government license has not been required to exercise the right to carry arms. Such licenses came into existence only in the late 19th Century, and they applied only to the concealed carry of firearms. Open carry was unrestricted.”

“Our brief,” explained Kraut, who is also SAF’s executive director, “discusses how there were often exemptions for those traveling from being subject to the same restrictions as residents of a particular state. We note how the licensing scheme in Massachusetts is unduly prejudiced against nonresidents. New nonresident license applications require an in-person appointment in Massachusetts, necessitating an extra (unarmed) trip to the Commonwealth—which, especially for residents of distant states, becomes a barrier to entry that may be financially untenable.” Read more

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, donated $100,000 to Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) to support a legal challenge to the new onerous gun control law that was passed by the state legislature and signed by Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey. The donation will support the legal fight against the hulking gun control law that severely restricts lawful firearm ownership and creates a bureaucratic maze of licensing requirements that have still yet to be defined.

The law, H. 4885 – also known now as Chapter 135 – is clearly unconstitutional. The legislation was drafted in secret, even denying access to all Massachusetts lawmakers. There was no input from NSSF or other firearm owner advocacy groups as the final draft was crafted behind closed doors.

“Massachusetts is known as a birthplace of the American Revolution, but these lawmakers have turned their backs to rights that belong to the people and instead are instituting an Orwellian state over the citizens of the Commonwealth,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “The fight to protect liberty and individual rights begins anew and we are confident that when federal courts apply scrutiny to this law, it will be relegated to the trash bin where it belongs. Massachusetts lawmakers are failing to defend the rights of the people and instead are kowtowing to the special-interest gun control machine that funds their perpetual re-elections.” Read more