Maryland carry ban challengers filed their Supreme Court reply brief in Novotny v. Moore, arguing sensitive places are only where government provides security. Read the original story: Maryland Stretched ‘Sensitive Place’ Across Public Life. Now SAF, FPC and Maryland Shall Issue Have Filed Th...
The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in the consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut) for Wednesday, Dec. 2 at 10 a.m.
Twenty-seven states are urging the Supreme Court to strike down Illinois’ and Connecticut’s AR-15 bans, arguing that commonly owned rifles cannot be prohibited under the Second Amendment.
A new Supreme Court brief argues that Cook County and Connecticut have the Second Amendment backward: The AR-15’s militia utility strengthens its constitutional protection rather than justifying a ban.
Massachusetts failed to dismiss the central claims in an SAF lawsuit alleging that recurring delays, one-year licenses, and no renewal grace period leave nonresident gun owners disarmed for months.
A long-haul truck driver is asking the Supreme Court whether Minnesota can deny his right to carry because the state refuses to recognize his valid Georgia and Florida permits.
With briefing complete in Novotny v. Moore, the Supreme Court will consider whether to review Maryland’s sweeping “sensitive places” carry restrictions at its September 28 conference.
Aero Precision, Ballistic Advantage, Stag Arms, and VG6 are leaving private-equity ownership. Their new owners say manufacturing is ramping up, supply chains are being restored, and backorders will be addressed.
The Third Circuit acknowledged that machine guns are protected “Arms” but upheld the federal ban anyway. Its decision to place supposedly “minimal” suppressor-registration requirements outside the Second Amendment may be even more dangerous for gun owners.