SAF

SAF and its partners have filed supplemental briefs in three ongoing National Firearms Act (NFA) cases considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rulings. Outlined in the briefs are how the High Court’s decisions in United States v. Hemani, Wolford v. Lopez and Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety impact SAF’s current NFA cases working their way through the lower courts. Based on the Landor ruling, SAF argues that Congress’ taxing power cannot be used to support the NFA since the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms was eliminated in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Eliminating that tax, therefore, no longer justifying Congress’ taxing power under the NFA. From both the Wolford and Hemani opinions, SAF highlights the Supreme Court’s ruling that the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled firearms violates the Second Amendment. “When the Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor of Landor, Wolford and Hemani, the precedent set had a direct impact on SAF’s ongoing NFA challenges,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “With those rulings in hand, we are now able to better explain to the courts exactly why the remaining registration scheme left in the NFA lacks constitutional authority and is a direct violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We are hopeful these cases will move expeditiously and rightfully restore the full constitutional rights of gun owners across the nation.” SAF itself is a named plaintiff in the NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is also backing two additional challenges – Jensen v. ATF and Roberts v. ATF. All three cases seek the removal of the NFA’s remaining registration requirements since the $200 tax on the affected arms was eliminated last year... Full article here: saf.org/saf-files-brie…

If this request is approved (and they usually are) then amicus briefs in support of Viramontes/Grant will be due September 4th. Also means a December oral argument, I think. Not positive on that though.

In the aftermath of the landmark Hemani and Wolford wins from the Supreme Court, SAF has filed a flurry of supplemental briefs across the country, including our challenges to the NFA, explaining precisely how the recent wins support SAF’s positions and the restoration of the Second Amendment. Sign up for our newsletter so you don't miss any updates saf.org/newsletter/

Tench "Huge" Coxe making it more clear than the tears of crown loyalists... Full Quote: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

💥HUGE💥 The Keynote Speaker for the 2026 GRPC in Dallas Sep 25-27 is Judge Benitez! More info and tickets here: saf.org/grpc/ Honorable Roger T. Benitez (Ret.) served as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of California from 2004 until his retirement in April 2026. Appointed by President George W. Bush, he previously practiced law in Imperial County, served as a California Superior Court judge, and was also a U.S. Magistrate Judge. Judge Benitez earned national recognition as one of the most consequential judicial defenders of the Second Amendment in the post-Heller era. Applying the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen, he issued rulings striking down California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (Duncan v. Bonta), another ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta), and the state’s error-prone ammunition background check (Rhode v. Bonta). Most recently, Judge Benitez issued an injunction restraining California school districts from denying parents the right to learn if their children were experiencing signs of gender incongruity such as wanting to use different names or pronouns. That injunction was upheld by the Supreme Court in a groundbreaking and monumental decision. A Cuban-born immigrant, Judge Benitez’s principled rulings on the Second Amendment continue to shape the national debate over the right to keep and bear arms as the cases continue on appeal in the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court. Judge Benitez has recently retired from the bench and is now working as a mediator, arbitrator or special master with ADR Services Inc.

9.25.26-9.27.26*, obviously! Thanks @snarkyposters for noticing that.

Mythbuster: U.S. Much Safer Than Many Peer Nations realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/… #2a #crime #australia #Canada #UK realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2026/…

The best form of the anti-AWB Bruen argument that they have mustered so far, which Willinger repeated on the podcast, is this: In the 19th century, when bowie knives started to be used a lot in violent crimes, states started restricting them [note: just their carry usually, though a few states placed taxes on them too, and a couple banned them for a bit]. So that's like after mass shootings became a problem, they passed AWBs! Historical analysis done, antigunners wins, game over. The problem with all that is three-fold: 1. It completely ignores the founding purpose of the Second Amendment as a common defense and anti-tyranny measure. Like it or not, rifles like AR15s are the most suited to that purpose in the modern day. You'd basically be ignoring the preeminent historical tradition the Second Amendment is based on, in favor of a minor one that mostly didn't even involve possession bans. 2. As I've argued before, it's nonsensical to argue that bowie knives are analogues to modern rifles, but repeating rifles (which no state ever banned) are not. 3. AR15s are overwhelmingly used for lawful purposes, with a few nutjobs using them for evil purposes. The use in crime is an incredibly rare and tiny fraction of the overall usage of these weapons. That was likely true of bowie knives too, but again, that's why few states ever banned them, they just restricted their carry.

This argument that acquiring firearms is somehow not a right or less protected because the Second Amendment only applies to the literal "keeping" or "bearing" of arms has always been unserious. Perhaps if the Second Amendment said "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be completely eliminated," arguing that sales restrictions have some far lesser standard of review would make sense. But it doesn't. It says the right shall not be infringed. And sales restrictions or bans obviously infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. The 10th Circuit explained this best in Ortega v. Grisham: "New Mexico points to dictionary definitions of "keep" and "bear" that do not include acquisition. But dictionary definitions of those terms, in isolation, cannot denote the preexisting right's bounds that the text sought to concretize. In re Mallo, 774 F.3d 1313, 1321 (10th Cir. 2014). The Second Amendment's text is not limited to direct prohibitions on possessing or using firearms. It states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." U.S. CONST. amend. II. (emphasis added). One cannot keep or bear arms if one cannot acquire them. That is an infringement, even if it is not a direct prohibition or ban. Accord United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 812, 120 S. Ct. 1878, 146 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2000) (Even if a law "does not impose a complete prohibition," "laws burdening and laws banning speech . . . must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny.")." Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134, 1143 n.3 (10th Cir. 2025)

Auction Ends Sunday! Don't miss out on this one-of-one piece of history from @coltfirearms and @gunsdotcom. All proceeds go to SAF to help us fight for Second Amendment rights! Link here: guns.com/used-guns/p/co… Crafted to commemorate America’s 250th anniversary, this Colt Custom Shop Python pays tribute to one of the most sought-after commemorative revolvers in Colt's history: the 1976 Bicentennial Python. Drawing inspiration from that iconic firearm, this special edition features a bright stainless finish, smooth walnut grips with eagle medallion, vintage-style markings, and patriotic roll engraving honoring the nation’s founding and enduring spirit. What makes this particular revolver truly unique is the work of the Colt Custom Shop. Drawn from the limited production run of 500 Semiquincentennial Pythons, this auction firearm has been elevated with hand-executed C-Class engraving by a Colt Custom Shop expert engraver. Every detail of the engraving was completed by hand, making this a one-of-a-kind collector’s piece that reflects the artistry and craftsmanship that have distinguished Colt for generations. The revolver is presented in a special commemorative package that includes a custom presentation box, a commemorative challenge coin, Colt's official Letter of Authenticity, and a personally signed note from Colt’s CEO. Together, these elements mark a remarkable convergence of milestones: America’s 250th anniversary, the 50th anniversary of the Colt Custom Shop, and the legacy of the Bicentennial Python that inspired this modern tribute. - Semiquincentennial Anniversary Model Python - “C” Coverage Expert Level Engraving by John Adams Jr. - Harris Gold Bead Front Sight and Rear Blade Upgrade - Vintage Rollmarks based on the 1976 Bicentennial Python, - Barrel, 1776 U.S.A. Semiquincentennial 2026 - Cylinder Non-Fluted, Statue of Liberty, The United States Capitol, and Liberty Bell - Smooth Walnut Grips with Federal Eagle Medallion on left Grip

AG Bonta say a simple voter ID requirement would be racist and disenfranchising, but swoops in to help defend a county where the right to carry will cost you about $2,000.

@davekopel Wow - now that was a long thread. If you appreciate our work, please donate to SAF. saf.org/individual/

@davekopel Brennan concludes.

A thread on this ruling here.

@davekopel Brennan notes the Winchester 1866 held 17 rounds, at least one of its versions anyway.

@davekopel The State's own expert conceded that magazine restrictions could be fatal in self-defense scenarios. Also, love the repeated cites to VanDyke's excellent Duncan dissent.

@davekopel Magazines with capacities above ten rounds are common, per Brennan, because over 50% of them fall into that category.

@davekopel Looking to magazines, Brennan argues the plain text step is obviously just magazines generally, not specific kinds of magazines.

@davekopel Brennan explains that mass shootings are nothing new. (And the list is longer if you include bombings, arson, etc.)