Second Amendment Foundation Updates - December 2025

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has had a busy close-out to the end of the year, filing and advancing significant legal challenges to defend, secure and restore the Second Amendment rights of citizens across the country. In the past month, SAF has filed two additional cert petitions with the Supreme Court, bringing the total number of cases SAF has asked the High Court to review to five. The organization also filed motions for summary judgment in two cases challenging the National Firearms Act’s registration scheme, along with submitting numerous amicus briefs in ongoing cases. Below is a summary of the organization’s most recent legal actions and updates.

SAF Seeks Supreme Court Review in Two Separate Cases

The Second Amendment Foundation petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in two separate cases challenging the public transit carry ban in Illinois, and the “assault weapons” ban in Connecticut.

Originally filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in 2022, Schoenthal v. Raoul, challenges Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit. The state requires residents to obtain a Firearm Owners Identification Card (FOID) and a concealed carry license to lawfully carry a firearm in public. Even with both the FOID card and a carry license, however, Illinois bans carrying a firearm on “…any bus, train, or form of transportation paid for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.”

In Grant v. Rovella, SAF is challenging Connecticut’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. Connecticut is on the minority list of states that have banned, both by name and feature set, commonly owned contemporary semi-automatic rifles. As part of SAF’s nationwide initiative to put an end to these types of unconstitutional arms bans, the organization filed suit on the grounds that the law violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. After a troubling and misguided preliminary injunction decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in August, SAF is now presenting the case to the Supreme Court for its consideration. Grant joins four other SAF cases currently before the Court, including Viramontes, SAF’s challenge to the Cook County, Ill., assault weapons ban.

In a press release distributed when Grant v. Rovella was filed, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said, “Last term Justice Kavanaugh said that he suspected the Court would take up the assault weapons issue in the next term or two. Our goal as a leader in the Second Amendment advocacy space is to build and present every possible opportunity for the Court to do exactly that. Bans like Connecticut’s are in direct contradiction to the demands of the Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions and its time they’re relegated to the dustbin of history.”

Motion for Summary Judgment Filed in Both SAF NFA Cases

The Second Amendment Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment in both Jensen v. ATF and Brown v. ATF, two SAF cases challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

Since 1934, the NFA has required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or “Any Other Weapon” (AOW) to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Through the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, however, the tax on these arms was eliminated but the registration requirement was left in place.

“The Court has all the facts it needs to hold major portions of the NFA unconstitutional,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said when the motion in Jensen v. ATF was filed. “Since the tax for the affected arms is zeroed out, the only reason they remain under the NFA is to create an unconstitutional registration scheme. We’re hopeful the court recognizes this blatant infringement for what it is – a violation of congressional power and Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”   

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.

Filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs in the SAF-supported case, Jensen v. ATF, are SAF sister organization the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals.

Should you have any questions or need more information, don’t hesitate to get in touch with SAF Senior Vice President Lauren Hill at lhill@saf.org. If you would like more detailed information on any of SAF’s more than 50 active cases, visit saf.org where all current cases are listed under the Legal Action section.