Feed aggregator

What: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a motion to supplement Renna v. Calif. Attorney General Rob Bonta, its federal lawsuit challenging California’s handgun roster, to add a claim against the State’s ban on semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars, including nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol on the market.

What: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) filed comments with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) on the proposed “Revising Definition of ‘Unlawful User of or Addicted to Controlled Substance’” rule, which would revise the agency's definition of who is considered an "unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance" and therefore prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law.

What: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), joined by the Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), filed a new federal lawsuit, Elliott v. Denver, challenging Denver’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and Denver’s and Colorado’s bans on magazines that can hold more than 15 rounds. The filing comes the same day the U.S. Supreme Court granted review in FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County challenge to Cook County, Illinois’s “assault weapons” ban.

What: The Supreme Court of the United States denied Pennsylvania officials’ request for review (certiorari) in Firearms Policy Coalition’s Bivens case, formerly captioned Lara v. Paris and Lara v. Evanchick, leaving in place FPC’s Third Circuit victory against Pennsylvania laws that banned peaceable adults under 21 from carrying firearms outside the home.

WASHINGTON (June 30, 2026) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued the following statement in response to the United States Supreme Court granting review in FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois lawsuit challenging the County’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment:

Thanks to GOA’s lawsuit, a federal judge in Texas vacated Biden’s “Engaged in the Business” rule in its entirety.

That rule tried to twist the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to impose backdoor universal background checks by redefining who counts as a “dealer.”

Now, ATF has proposed a replacement rule that claims to “rescind” the Biden rule, but in reality keeps key parts of its legal framework in place and leaves gun owners exposed.

We’re calling on all GOA members to speak up and stop the ATF from attempting to keep the worst parts of this now-dead rule on the books!

The deadline for comments is coming up, so gun owners can’t afford to sit this one out, our rights depend on it!

COPY PRE-WRITTEN COMMENT

PASTE & SUBMIT COMMENT

Preview comment

I oppose ATF’s proposed “Engaged in the Business” rule (RIN 1140-AB01).

Although ATF claims this proposal rescinds the Biden Administration’s unlawful rule, it openly admits that “some sections of the Biden rule will be retained.” Rather than fully restoring the limits Congress placed on federal authority, this proposal preserves many of the same legal theories that threatened ordinary, law-abiding gun owners under the previous rule.

I agree with Gun Owners of America that ATF should fully abandon the Biden Administration’s interpretation of the law instead of simply repackaging it in a different form.

Congress carefully distinguished between commercial firearms dealers and private citizens who occasionally buy, sell, or trade firearms from their personal collections. Yet this proposal continues to blur that line. ATF continues to believe that a person can be “engaged in the business” without ever earning a profit.

Even more troubling, ATF continues to treat ordinary, lawful conduct as evidence of criminal activity. Under this proposal, keeping a simple list of your firearms, reselling the same model within a short period of time, or even offering to sell a firearm can still be used as evidence that someone is “engaged in the business” without a license. The agency also continues to promote the dangerous theory that intent alone can be enough to prosecute law-abiding gun owners, despite federal court rulings rejecting that approach and despite the clear limits Congress wrote into the statute.

The proposal also fails to fully protect the broad statutory safe harbor Congress created for occasional private sales and transfers from a personal collection. Americans should not have to fear federal prosecution simply because they decide to sell or trade personally owned firearms.

These regulations are simply a recycled version of the Biden Administration’s effort to impose backdoor universal background checks through executive action rather than legislation. That represents a clear breach of trust with America’s law-abiding gun owners.

ATF should withdraw this proposal and issue a new rule that faithfully follows the plain language of federal law, respects the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and clearly rejects the flawed legal theories that federal courts have already rejected.

ATF’S BAIT-AND-SWITCH: RESCIND THE RULE, KEEP THEIR FAVORITE PARTS

Under this proposal, ATF says it will drop some of Biden’s presumptions and narrow definitions, but it openly states that “some sections of the Biden rule will be retained.”

ATF still treats everyday behavior by gun owners as suspicious: keeping a simple list of your firearms, reselling the same model within a short window, or even just offering to sell a firearm can be used as evidence that you are “engaged in the business” without a license.

The agency continues to push the idea that intent alone can be enough evidence to prosecute law-abiding gun owners as illegal firearms traffickers, despite the court’s ruling and the clear limits Congress placed in law.

ATF cannot keep the Biden‑era Engaged in the Business framework on the books.

The rule must be rescinded in its entirety.

A federal court has already rejected the Biden rule, and ATF’s own history shows that its aggressive theories reach far beyond what Congress intended.

Our vocal grassroots members can hold ATF accountable.

GOA members have been crucial to change and have worked to stop bad policy in the past.

Here’s how it works:

Step 1: Copy our model comment.

Step 2: Then, with our model comment copied, paste it into the federal register’s comment section and submit your comment to the ATF.

Let them know that gun owners want real change, not a return to the status-quo.

COPY PRE-WRITTEN COMMENT

PASTE & SUBMIT COMMENT

ATF CANNOT KEEP THIS RULE.

IT MUST BE ABOLISHED.

ATF’s notice of proposed rulemaking also shows that it is not seriously inviting gun owners into the process.

Instead of asking broad questions about how the statute should be interpreted, the agency mostly seeks comments on the details of its already‑chosen approach.

But the Administrative Procedure Act requires ATF to consider substantive public comments, and courts have blocked rules when agencies ignore evidence or exceed what Congress authorized.

Gun owners have a critical opportunity to speak up and stop the rule.

If ATF doesn’t listen, these comments build the record that will be used in future legal challenges.

Let ATF know that gun owners expect real change, not a recycled version of Biden’s universal background check rule.

Last week, we told you that GOA, GOF, VCDL, VCDF, and gun rights journalist John Crump secured a preliminary injunction in Crump v. Katz, our lawsuit against Virginia’s so-called Assault Weapons Ban.

This injunction prevents the Virginia State Police from enforcing the challenged gun and magazine bans while our case continues through the court system.

Virginia gun owners cannot let up now.

We expect the Commonwealth to appeal, and local prosecutors across Virginia need to hear from gun owners immediately.

That is why we are asking you to send a pre-written letter to your Commonwealth’s Attorney today.

Tell them to agree with the judge’s ruling and refuse to enforce these unconstitutional gun and magazine bans against law-abiding Virginians.

SB749 and SB727 threaten ordinary gun owners with criminal penalties for acquiring, transferring, manufacturing, importing, or publicly carrying many commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

These bans violate Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Virginia gun owners deserve protection from unconstitutional enforcement at every level of government.

TAKE ACTION:

Please send a message to your Commonwealth’s Attorney and urge them to agree with the judge’s ruling.

Tell them Virginia’s gun and magazine bans are unconstitutional and should not be enforced against law-abiding gun owners!

Click here to view the list of Commonwealth’s Attorneys.

As a reminder, 17 Attorneys have already publicly committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of Virginians:

• W. Lyle Carver, Amherst County
• Leslie M. Fleet, Appomattox County
• Paul A. McAndrews, Campbell County
• Daniel J. Farnsworth Jr., Charlotte County
• Matthew E. Bass, Clarke County
• W. Eric Branscom, Floyd County
• John L. Lumpkins Jr., Goochland County
• Bethany Harrison, Lynchburg
• Chapman L. Good, Sr., Page County
• Dayna K. Bobbitt, Patrick County
• Rob Cerullo, Powhatan County
• Justin L. Griffith, Pulaski County
• Kyle Kilgore, Scott County
• Elizabeth H. Cooper, Shenandoah County
• Phillip Blevins, Smyth County
• Ryan Mehaffey, Spotsylvania County
• John S. Bell, Warren County

Below is a supplemental letter that you can use:

Dear [Commonwealth’s Attorney’s name],

As a Virginia gun owner, I urge you to agree with the court’s ruling in Crump v. Katz and refuse to enforce Virginia’s unconstitutional gun and magazine bans against law-abiding citizens.

SB749 and SB727 target many commonly owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines that Virginians have lawfully owned, used, acquired, transferred, and carried for decades.

Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution is clear: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The Lancaster Circuit Court has now issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Virginia State Police from enforcing the challenged statutes while the case continues.

I urge you to respect that ruling and publicly commit that your office will not prosecute peaceable Virginians under these unconstitutional laws.

Attorney General Jay Jones is trying to minimize the scope of the injunction by claiming it binds only the Virginia State Police. But pretending local prosecutors can carry on like nothing happened is reckless.

State law presumes officials obey constitutional rulings, and those who ignore them may lose qualified immunity and face personal liability.

Law-abiding gun owners should not be turned into criminals for exercising their constitutional rights.

Sincerely,
[Your Name]

The court has spoken. Now your local Commonwealth’s Attorney needs to hear from you.

Send your message today and demand that no peaceable Virginian be prosecuted under these unconstitutional gun bans.

Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and VCDL have secured a preliminary injunction in Crump v. Katz, our lawsuit against Virginia’s so-called Assault Weapons Ban!

This injunction prevents the Virginia State Police from enforcing the challenged gun and magazine bans while our case continues through the court system.

As it currently stands, the temporary injunction extends the enforcement date from July 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026.

This is a major victory for Virginia gun owners.

SB749 and SB727 threatened law-abiding Virginians with criminal penalties for acquiring, transferring, manufacturing, importing, or publicly carrying many commonly owned firearms and magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

Today’s ruling blocks enforcement of those unconstitutional bans while GOA and our allies continue fighting to defeat them for good.

We expect an appeal from the Commonwealth, but for now, Virginia gun owners have won a critical victory.

TAKE ACTION:

Please call your Commonwealth’s Attorney and urge them to agree with the judge’s ruling.

Tell them Virginia’s gun and magazine bans are unconstitutional and should not be enforced against law-abiding gun owners!

Click here to view the list of Commonwealth’s Attorneys.

As a reminder, 17 Attorneys have already publicly committed to protecting the Second Amendment rights of Virginians:

• W. Lyle Carver, Amherst County
• Leslie M. Fleet, Appomattox County
• Paul A. McAndrews, Campbell County
• Daniel J. Farnsworth Jr., Charlotte County
• Matthew E. Bass, Clarke County
• W. Eric Branscom, Floyd County
• John L. Lumpkins Jr., Goochland County
• Bethany Harrison, Lynchburg
• Chapman L. Good, Sr., Page County
• Dayna K. Bobbitt, Patrick County
• Rob Cerullo, Powhatan County
• Justin L. Griffith, Pulaski County
• Kyle Kilgore, Scott County
• Elizabeth H. Cooper, Shenandoah County
• Phillip Blevins, Smyth County
• Ryan Mehaffey, Spotsylvania County
• John S. Bell, Warren County

Please also consider contributing to our GOA Litigation Fund so we can keep defending your rights in Virginia and across the country as this lawsuit moves forward:

SUPPORT GOA’S LEGAL EFFORTS

GOA and our allies are not backing down.

We will keep fighting until Virginia’s unconstitutional gun and magazine bans are defeated for good.

This small victory is just the start of a long road ahead. Thank you for sticking with us when it counts!