NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, wholeheartedly supports the U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee’s subpoena of The White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention to investigate allegations that the administration wrongfully colluded with gun control groups and the City of Chicago to bring an unfounded lawsuit against a firearm manufacturer. It is proper and fitting that the House of Representatives exercises its oversight authority to demand records of the office led by Vice President Kamala Harris, which appears to have weaponized the weight of the federal government to bring “lawfare” against an industry the Biden-Harris administration politically disfavors.

NSSF calls on The White House to comply with the subpoena, end its collaboration with special interest groups to deny Americans their Constitutionally-protected Second Amendment rights and abandon their support for the City of Chicago unfounded claims that amount to another example of “lawfare.”

“The White House already ignored requests to voluntarily provide this information to the House Oversight Committee. This office – led by Vice President Harris, the administration’s ‘gun control czar’ – appears to have manifested the firearm industry’s deepest concerns that it was never formed to improve community safety,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Rather, it appears this office is a taxpayer-funded effort to do the bidding of radical, special interest groups to weaponize the courts through ‘lawfare’ and advance an agenda to deprive Americans of their Second Amendment rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. NSSF urges The White House to comply with the subpoenas and provide the information to Chairman James Comer.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is applauding an amicus brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a Second Amendment case which contends a man named Steven Duarte “did not forfeit his Second Amendment rights because of a past, nonviolent felony conviction.” The case is known as U.S. v. Duarte.

“This is a remarkable and refreshing approach by the ACLU,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The organization has produced a stunningly detailed amicus brief supporting the Second Amendment. While acknowledging its history of concerns regarding gun-related violent crime, in this case the ACLU properly criticizes federal law for permanently disarming people previously convicted of nonviolent offenses, including misdemeanors where a state legislature has imposed a sufficiently long possible prison sentence to result in a lifetime loss of Second Amendment rights. Thus, as the ACLU sagely observes, someone could be put in prison for ‘the most fleeting, innocuous, or merely constructive ‘possession’ of a firearm’.” Read more

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Maryland resident Donald S. Willey have submitted an appellants’ brief to the Maryland Supreme Court in their federal challenge of that state’s so-called “red flag” law. The case is known as Willey v. Brown and was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in August 2023.

Mr. Willey, a 64-year-old Marine Corps veteran, has been battling officials in Maryland’s Dorchester County over alleged di minimis nuisance and zoning infractions. Ultimately, Willey became the subject of an Extreme Risk Protective Order (“ERPO”) to have his firearms and ammunition confiscated, for allegedly making threats, which Willey steadfastly denied. Willey was forced to endure a humiliating involuntary mental health evaluation. The federal lawsuit alleges Willey’s constitutional rights were violated for nearly two weeks, after which his firearms were returned.

SAF and Mr. Willey are represented by attorneys Mark W. Pennak at Maryland Shall Issue in Baltimore, and by Edward A. Paltzik, Serge Krimnus and Meredith Lloyd at Bochner PLLC in New York.

While the federal case remains active, it hinges on the interpretation of Maryland state law, so the federal district court certified two questions of law for the Maryland Supreme Court to answer. Once the Maryland courts interpret/define “reasonable grounds” as used in the state’s ERPO law, the federal lawsuit will resume. Those questions are: Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of the United States in support of the challenge to Maryland’s “Assault Weapons” Ban. GOA and GOF were joined by several groups in the filing, including Gun Owners of California, Tennessee Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Heller Foundation.

In the brief, GOA urges the Supreme Court to take the case, arguing that the 4th Circuit has intentionally tried to circumvent Bruen with their ruling to uphold Maryland’s ban, just as they have done previously in other landmark cases that eventually reached the Supreme Court. Additionally, the brief highlights how so-called “assault weapons” unquestionably meet the definition of bearable arms under Heller and Bruen.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“Semi-automatic rifles have long been in the crosshairs of anti-gunners despite their soaring popularity, and under Heller and Bruen they are undoubtedly protected by the Second Amendment. Contrary to the political spin and temper tantrums of anti-gunners, these weapons are often Americans’ choice for self-defense – just ask our own Stephen Willeford.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving a Florida postal worker who was indicted for possessing a firearm in a federal facility.

He was cleared by the federal district court, and now the government is appealing SAF and its partners are encouraging the 11th Circuit Court to uphold the district court ruling. The case is known as U.S. v. Ayala.

Joining SAF are the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners’ Caucus and Second Amendment Law Center. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel and Konstadinos T. Moros at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, Calif. Read more

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