Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed its reply brief with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Granata v. Campbell, its lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’s ban on modern, constitutionally protected handguns. FPC’s appeal follows the district court’s decision last year erroneously ruling in favor of the state.

The plaintiffs challenging the ban include two individual FPC members as well as The Gun Runner, LLC, a retailer in the state. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with Richard Cullin Chambers, Jr. of Chambers Law Office.

The reply brief was filed on April 15, 2026. With briefing complete, the court will either set an oral argument date or issue a decision without arguments.

The brief was filed in the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.

Massachusetts’ ban unconstitutionally prohibits common, modern arms that are constitutionally protected by the Second Amendment. Under the state’s logic, banning guns is perfectly fine as long as one model of handgun remains legal to buy.

“The Supreme Court held that handguns are protected by the Second Amendment-full stop. But if Massachusetts is allowed to ban the handguns at issue in this case the Second Amendment will mean however little anti-rights politicians decide it means that day. We are pressing forward to end this ban and free the people of Massachusetts from this unconstitutional tyranny-as the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent require.” -FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a supplemental reply brief in Brown v. ATF, one of the organization’s three lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements for short-barreled firearms and silencers.

Prior to President Trump signing the One Big Beautiful Bill, people wanting to purchase silencers and short-barreled rifles had to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the government. The One Big Beautiful Bill, however, eliminated the tax but left the registration requirement in place. SAF and its partners have now filed three separate cases challenging this remaining registration scheme.

“This reply brief gave us the perfect opportunity to rebut the government’s arguments in support of the NFA,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We were encouraged the court requested targeted supplemental briefing that addressed key elements of the proper Second Amendment analysis. In our principle brief we laid out in detail why the answer to every question posed supported our position. And now with this reply brief we have driven home the point and dismantled each of the government’s arguments to the contrary.”

SAF is joined in Brown v. ATF by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two private citizens.

“For nearly a century the government has used the NFA to disenfranchise law-abiding Americans and it’s high time this infringement be righted,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion for summary judgment in Morris v. Savannah, its lawsuit challenging a City of Savannah, Georgia firearm storage ordinance that is patently unlawful under the State’s comprehensive firearm preemption law.

FPC is joined in the litigation by Deacon Morris, an FPC member. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney John R. Monroe of John Monroe Law, P.C.

The motion was filed on April 14, 2026.

The motion in Morris v. Savannah was filed in Chatham County Superior Court in Georgia.

A ruling in FPC’s favor would affirm that Georgia’s firearm preemption law means what it says and blocks local governments from creating a confusing patchwork of gun laws.

“Savannah passed gun control law that Georgia law explicitly forbids-and then kept enforcing them even after the state’s own Attorney General told them the laws were void. No city gets to ignore the Constitution, ignore state law, and ignore the state’s top law enforcement officer. We’re going to make sure Savannah answers for it,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14206, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” It sounded promising, but it has since proven to be little more than empty rhetoric.

The following month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a disappointing decision upholding the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” rule, a relic of the Biden Administration. Rather than dismissing the appeal or withdrawing the Biden ATF regulation before the Court ruled, the Trump Administration chose to continue defending the gun control rule, allowing the Court to issue a decision that preserved President Biden’s regulatory overreach.

In May 2025, FPC provided the Trump White House, DOJ, and ATF with a complete, print-ready proposed rule to address the Court’s decision following months of dialogue with key officials. But the Administration has since sat on its hands.

Adding insult to injury, the Administration informed us yesterday that “At this time, the [Trump Administration] has decided to maintain the current definition of firearm ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ contained in that final [Biden Administration] rule.”

Whoever is steering the Trump Administration is aiming the Titanic directly at the iceberg.

To put this latest disappointment in context, FPC has provided the Trump Administration, the White House, DOJ, and ATF, with dozens of lawful actions that could be taken to protect peaceable gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms. Nearly all of those proposals have been ignored.

Instead, in case after case, the Trump Administration has adopted authoritarian, anti-American positions to restrict Second Amendment rights and prosecute those who exercise them. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that a motion for summary judgment has been filed in Poway Weapons & Gear v. CDTFA, an FPC-supported case challenging California’s unconstitutional 11% excise tax on the gross receipts from the retail sale of firearms, “firearm precursor parts,” and ammunition.

The plaintiffs include Poway Weapons & Gear and Sacramento Gun Range. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, Megan M. Wold, Nicholas A. Varone, and Athanasia O. Livas of Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, along with C.D. Michel, Anna M. Barvir, and Tiffany D. Cheuvront of Michel & Associates, P.C.

The motion was filed on April 8, 2026.

The motion in Poway Weapons & Gear v. CDTFA was filed in Sacramento Superior Court in California.

A ruling in the plaintiffs’ favor would strike down California’s gun and ammo tax, which singles out a right the state disapproves of for special unconstitutional taxation.

“This unlawful tax scheme is designed to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, and California cannot be allowed to get away with it. You cannot specially tax the exercise of a constitutional right – full stop. If courts allow an 11% tax today, nothing stops them from making it 50% or 100% tomorrow. We are suing to end this direct attack on the rights of peaceable people, and we intend to win,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. Read more

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today launched the 2026 FPC State Freedom Index—the most principled, transparent, and unapologetic scorecard of gun rights in America. With the Index, which shows the state of the law of the 50 states and Washington, D.C. as of the end of 2025, gun owners now have a single, clear tool to see exactly how their state is failing them—and the ammunition to demand their elected officials fix it. Gun owners and policymakers can visit fpcfreedomindex.org to explore the interactive map, compare states, and find out which laws need to be repealed.

The 2026 Index’s scores show that far too many states run by supposedly “pro-gun” Republican leaders are failing their own constituents, with only Kansas and New Hampshire earning a perfect 100% score. Surprising exactly no one, California finished last at 4.55%. But the real disappointments? The so-called “Freedom State” of Florida scored just 81.82%. Ohio matched Florida’s poor performance. And Nebraska underwhelmed at just 77.27%.

“Every state other than Kansas and New Hampshire has had every opportunity to get to 100%, but instead they chose not to,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “That’s not a minor oversight—it’s a betrayal of the People and our fundamental rights. These states need to get their act together and fix their laws to fully respect the right to keep and bear arms.”

The FPC State Freedom Index gives gun owners and elected officials one clear, consistent answer to a simple question: Does your state respect the natural, pre-existing right to keep and bear arms—or not? Unlike rankings that rely on opaque methodologies or political favoritism, the FPC State Freedom Index objectively evaluates all 50 states and Washington, D.C. across 22 specific yes/no criteria in four categories:

• • Arms — What can you legally own?
  • Acquisition — How can you get it?
  • Carry — Where can you bear it?
  • Other — Preemption, registration, and more.

Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in George Peterson v. United States, a case challenging the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration and special taxation requirements for firearm suppressors.

SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

“Suppressors are clearly ‘arms’ protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and there is no historical tradition supporting the NFA’s burdensome per-arm registration and taxation scheme,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that the Founding generation would never have tolerated requiring every individual firearm or component to be registered with the government. These requirements burden the right to keep and bear arms and have no basis in our nation’s tradition. We urge the Court to grant review and strike them down.”

This case presents the High Court with an opportunity to clarify once and for all that suppressors are protected arms and to rein in unconstitutional registration and taxation schemes that treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a supplemental brief in Brown v. ATF, one of three lawsuits the organization is supporting challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Before President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, purchasing silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” (AOWs) under the NFA required paying a $200 tax and registering the firearms. The tax and registration regime, Congress insisted, was based on its authority to levy taxes. Once the One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated taxes on those arms, however, SAF and its partners filed lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power as constitutional authority to enact the law is no longer justifiable.

“In response to our Motion for Summary Judgment, the court requested additional briefing, which highlight multiple critical elements of our claim,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled to have an additional opportunity to explain exactly why our claim is so strong. The brief highlights why SAF and our members have standing to bring this suit, and precisely how the merits analysis supports our position. As we always do, we make our positions as plainly and forthrightly as possible, and we post links to the entire docket for each case on our website so everyone can read the full arguments we are making on their behalf.”

SAF is joined in Brown v. ATF by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two private citizens.

“For almost a century, the NFA has been used to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We now have a chance to remove these unconstitutional restrictions and look forward to fully restoring the right to keep and bear arms for the countless Americans who own silencers and short-barreled rifles across the nation.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) announce a significant legal victory in the ongoing battle against New York’s restrictive and misnamed “Concealed Carry Improvement Act.” In a Stipulation of Partial Settlement filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, State Defendants have officially consented to an injunction against the enforcement of N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1)(o)(iv).

This now-enjoined provision required applicants for a concealed carry license to submit a list of their former and current social media accounts from the past three years to confirm their “character and conduct.”

Key Takeaways from the Settlement:

• State Defendants have consented to the entry of a permanent injunction against their enforcement of the social media requirement.
• The Superintendent of the New York State Police is now explicitly required to ensure that the PPB-3 license application form does not include language requiring social media information.
• The remainder of the ongoing litigation will continue to target other statutory provisions, including N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d and various “sensitive locations” enumerated in N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e where the public carry of firearms for self-defense in prohibited, such as public parks, zoos, and places licensed for alcohol consumption.

The lawsuit, Antonyuk v. James, No. 1:22-cv-986-GTS-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), represents a broader, ongoing constitutional challenge to New York’s aggressive and unconstitutional post-Bruen gun control regime. By forcing the state to abandon its invasive social media check, GOA and GOF have secured a crucial win for both the Second Amendment and the privacy rights of New Yorkers.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: “New York’s ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ is a smokescreen. This law has never been about improving concealed carry for law-abiding citizens but instead is a calculated effort to disarm as many New Yorkers as possible. We will continue fighting this unconstitutional law in court, including New York’s onerous location restrictions.” Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in a case challenging New York’s law that undermines the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The case, National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc v. Letitia James, Attorney General of New York, challenges the continued filing of abusive public nuisance lawsuits against firearms manufacturers and dealers. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) and the Independence Institute.

“British efforts to suppress arms commerce in the years before the Revolutionary War were correctly understood by the Founders as a deliberate attempt to disarm and enslave the American people,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Congress enacted the PLCAA to stop the modern equivalent – coordinated litigation campaigns designed to bankrupt the firearms industry through meritless lawsuits. New York’s law invites precisely the kind of abusive end-run around federal protections that Congress sought to prevent. We urge the Court to grant review and reaffirm PLCAA’s vital safeguards for lawful commerce and Second Amendment rights.”

The Second Circuit’s erroneous ruling threatens to revive the very litigation campaign that Congress enacted PLCAA to halt, potentially devastating the firearms industry and undermining the constitutional rights it supports.

“This case is essential because it defends the firearms industry against efforts to achieve gun control through the courts rather than through the legislative process,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is proud to join the NRA and Independence Institute in urging the Supreme Court to protect the industry that enables Americans to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” Read more