The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has had success in a series of recent 2nd Amendment cases, including Worth v. Jacobson, a challenge to Minnesota’s ban on carry for 18–to–20–year–olds; Francisco v. Cooke in New Jersey, overturning the state’s “justifiable need” carry ban; the Reese v. ATF age-related lawsuit in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Also, FPC filed for summary judgment in a California case seeking to strike down the state’s 10-day firearm waiting period. Here’s more on each legal effort:
Francisco v. Cooke (New Jersey)
On July 11, FPC won a decisive victory out of the District Court in Trenton, New Jersey in a federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the state’s “justifiable need” carry ban.
“We are delighted to successfully conclude this challenge to New Jersey’s disarmament scheme,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We will continue to fight until all peaceable people can exercise the right to bear arms in public without fear of government harassment or prosecution.”
In 2021, FPC and two of its members filed a challenge to New Jersey’s draconian requirement for individuals to prove a “justifiable need” to acquire a permit to carry a firearm. The NYSRPA v. Bruen 2022 decision overturned New York’s similar requirement and forced changes to New Jersey law. Thus, the Court has approved a consent order stating that the NJ provision violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants in the case are responsible for the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs.
FPC was joined in this case by two FPC members. The Plaintiffs in the case were represented by Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown, LLC.
Worth v. Jacobson (Minnesota)
On July 16, FPC won at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, in which the court unanimously affirmed a decision that the Minnesota’s age-based carry ban is unconstitutional.
“Minnesota has not met its burden to proffer sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that 18- to 20-year-olds seeking to carry handguns in public for self-defense are protected by the right to keep and bear arms,” the court stated in its unanimous decision. “The Carry Ban…violates the Second Amendment as applied to Minnesota through the Fourteenth Amendment, and, thus, is unconstitutional.”
Combs said, “This case is another example of our work and the truth prevailing over pet gun-control advocacy organizations like Everytown.”
FPC is joined in this case by three individual FPC members, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Second Amendment Foundation. The Plaintiffs are represented by Cooper & Kirk, PLLC and Blair W. Nelson.
Reese v. ATF (Louisiana)
On July 26, FPC filed a supplemental brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans in the gun group’s challenge to the federal government’s handgun ban for adults aged 18 to 20 years old.
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Rahimi further confirms that the government’s ban on firearm and ammunition sales to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional under the correct historical analysis,” said Combs. “We look forward to eliminating this ban just as we have similar age-based restrictions.”
FPC’s brief, requested in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Rahimi, argues that Rahimi reaffirms that the Second Amendment’s plain text extends to all people and that no relevant historical tradition prohibits peaceable adults from buying firearms. In opposition to ATF’s claims, FPC insists that the founding era is the critical period for understanding the scope of the Second Amendment, and that Rahimi undermines the government’s 19th-century historical arguments.
FPC is joined in this case by three individual FPC members, Louisiana Shooting Association, and Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by Armbruster & Associates, APLC, and Cooper & Kirk, PLLC.
Richards v. Bonta (California)
On July 26 in San Diego, FPC filed for summary judgment with the Southern District Court of California in a case challenging California’s 10-day firearms waiting period.
Said Combs, “The Golden State’s waiting period ban forces people who pass a background check to further wait at least 10 days to pick up their firearm. This is untenable and unsupportable. As Justice Thomas explained in 2018, the Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the states to respect that right. We are eager to resolve this case and eliminate this ban once and for all.”
FPC argues that California’s law is impermissible under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which requires governments to justify firearms regulations by citing sufficient analogues from founding era history and traditions. Noting that the first known waiting period law appeared in 1923 — way later than allowed under Bruen — the brief emphasizes that the state’s modern-day waiting-period scheme cannot survive the required burden of proof.
FPC is joined in this case by three individual FPC members, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by Benbrook Law Group, PC.
