Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is a non-profit working to restore, defend, and expand 2nd Amendment rights through litigation. #2A

Joined March 2009
2,675 Photos and videos
Jun 13
Tucker Daubs doing his thing with his @SilencerShop equipped lever gun. What would you caption this? instagram.com/tuckerdaubs/
3
2
16
1,067
Jun 13
1
4
633
Jun 13
3
475
Jun 13
6
430
Jun 13
1
4
477
Jun 11
SAF will have a booth at GunCon and we'd love to meet you. You also won't want to miss Executive Director Adam Kraut on the 2A Panel Saturday June 20! @guncollective
1
2
11
834
Jun 11
This month @atriusdev will be donating a portion of proceeds to the Second Amendment Foundation to help support our work and protect our right to keep and bear arms. Visit atrius.dev today!
2
12
742
SAF retweeted
The @CivilRights Division is suing VA, CO, & DC over 2nd Amendment restrictions that violate the Constitution and SCOTUS precedent. @TheJusticeDept is standing up for ALL citizens who want to exercise every right protected by the Constitution — including the 2nd Amendment.
205
1,250
5,077
84,635
Jun 10
SAF urges the Virgin Islands legislature to reconsider an expansive gun control bill in light of pending Supreme Court and Third Circuit cases. SAF today submitted formal testimony to the 36th Legislature of the United States Virgin Islands opposing Bill No. 36-0144, which would adopt expansive gun control laws in the territory. SAF advises the Virgin Islands legislature to adopt a wait-and-see approach given that multiple pending cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals will directly impact the constitutionality of many of the bill’s provisions. In a letter to Senate President Milton E. Potter, SAF highlighted that the amendment contains numerous Second Amendment violations—including restrictions on carry in places where such limits are impermissible, bans on common arms in violation of Heller, and exorbitant fees that effectively tax the exercise of a constitutional right—but emphasized a practical reason for delay. “Many of the very laws that the bill would enact are already awaiting court rulings that would be binding on the Virgin Islands,” SAF wrote. “There is no reason for taxpayers to incur the expense of potential lawsuits, especially at a time when the Virgin Islands are already under federal scrutiny for related issues. These questions are all about to be answered in other cases.” The letter specifically notes that the amendment’s “vampire rule” restricting carry on private property open to the public without affirmative permission is set to be decided by the Supreme Court as soon as this week in Wolford v. Lopez. It also flags en banc Third Circuit cases addressing “assault weapon” and magazine bans and sensitive-places restrictions (including SAF's case Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey)—all of which involve issues directly implicated by the Virgin Islands legislation. SAF offered to provide detailed substantive arguments on each constitutional defect if senators are interested, but stressed that the pending litigation alone warrants pausing the bill rather than rushing it into law only to face likely invalidation while saddling taxpayers with unnecessary legal bills. Link to letter here: saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2…
2
5
41
11,359
Jun 10
"...When we compare these broader estimates, Australia’s rape and sexual assault rate is roughly three times higher than that of the United States. Australia’s assault rate is about twice as high, and its burglary rate is about 2.5 times higher. Robbery is the only category where the two countries report similar rates..." spectator.com.au/2026/06/the… ht: @CrimeResearch1
1
1
7
481
SAF retweeted
Six Members of Congress want Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak freed. The lawmakers blame the Biden Administration for Adamiak's 20-year prison sentence. by Lee Williams Congresswoman Jen Kiggans along with Congressmen Eli Crane, Eric Burlison, Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S., Rob Bresnahan, Jr., and Daniel Webster recently sent a letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Justice Department Pardon Attorney Edward J. Martin Jr., asking that Patrick “Tate” Adamiak be freed from his 20-year prison sentence. ATF Director Robert Cekada was also copied with the correspondence. The letter was the idea of Rep. Eli Crane, who recently questioned Cekada during a live congressional hearing about Adamiak’s incarceration. The six U.S. Representatives were very clear as to their intent: “We, the undersigned Members of Congress, respectfully request that you work with President Donald Trump to give fair consideration to a commutation request for Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak. We believe that certain inconsistencies in the regulatory framework applied in his case as well as the broader enforcement environment at the time warrant careful review and consideration for executive clemency,” the lawmakers wrote. The Representatives were extremely clear about Adamiak’s innocence, stating he had “maintained a well‑documented interest in military history and the lawful collection of historic artifacts, replicas, and training devices.” “The items of concern in his case were inert collector pieces, nonfunctional replicas, and training aids that were incapable of firing,” the letter states. The lawmakers pointed out that none of these items meet the “standard of a firearm,” and that ATF never alleged any violence or “the criminal misuse of any weapon.” The six authors know who is to blame for Adamiak’s 20-year prison sentence. “His prosecution occurred under the Biden Administration, when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) implemented a series of expanded and draconian regulatory approaches to firearm regulation. These shifts occurred at a time when legislative changes could not be secured through Congress, resulting in an administrative posture that was both unusually aggressive and rapidly changing. Under President Trump’s leadership, several of these policies have since been reconsidered, modified, or withdrawn. This evolution raises reasonable questions about whether Mr. Adamiak’s case may have been influenced by an enforcement environment that no longer reflects current federal policy or Priorities,” the letter states. Crane, a U.S. Navy SEAL and combat veteran, pointed out that the Navy also had doubts about Adamiak’s guilt and allowed him to receive an honorable discharge while he was behind bars—an extremely unusual practice. “This determination speaks highly of his character, service record, and standing within the military community,” the letter states. Adamiak was extremely grateful for the letter and what it meant. He wrote the following response: “I am deeply grateful and humbled by the support of Representatives Eli Crane, Paul Gosar, Eric Burlison, Daniel Webster, Jen Kiggans, and Rob Bresnahan for taking the time to review my case and lend their voices to this effort.I also want to thank the countless supporters, veterans, Second Amendment advocates, journalists, and ordinary Americans who refused to let my case be forgotten. The fact that so many people took the time to speak up, write letters, share my story, and demand a closer look means more to me and my family than I can adequately express.For someone sitting in a prison cell, it is easy to feel forgotten. This letter reminds me that there are still people willing to stand up when they believe something deserves a second look. I am truly humbled by that support. My hope has always been simple: that the facts are examined fairly and objectively. I remain grateful to everyone who has helped bring attention to my case, and I thank these six Members of Congress for their leadership, their courage, and their willingness to stand behind a Navy veteran they believe deserves that review,” Adamiak wrote.
1
13
57
1,626
SAF retweeted
The police can't revoke a concealed carry permit based on arbitrary decisions of licensing officials. Today, I directed @CivilRights' 2A Section to investigate the Philadelphia Police Department's practice of revoking the CCWs of those lawfully carrying firearms in public. justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-d…
224
2,628
9,412
124,840
Jun 9
Christian Craighead (@one_man_in) was our Keynote Speaker for last year’s GRPC. His book is available for pre-order now! His story of single-handedly engaging terrorists in Kenya in 2019 and saving over 700 civilians is extraordinary. From the description: “… For the next twenty-two hours, Craighead relied on every bit of his twenty-eight years of elite military training to win a deadly game of hide-and-seek with a unit of ethnic Somali terrorists who had already carried out one suicide bomb attack and were intent on gunning down as many other innocent people as possible. At first on his own, then as the adopted leader of a small group of Kenyan police, Craighead moved through the complex, where more than a thousand hotel staff, guests, and office workers normally spent their days. He shepherded scores of terrified people to safety. And after he and his men located and engaged the terrorists, a battle of guns, grenades, and tactics ensued. Suffice it to say that Craighead and his men made it out. The terrorists did not…” Pre-order it here (or on Amazon): simonandschuster.com/books/O…
4
12
752
SAF retweeted
New DOJ investigation on the 2A front.
5
15
131
3,206
Jun 9
SAF's @MorosKostas and @GunWashington will be joined by @CamEdwards to discuss the huge 2A mutiny taking place in Virginia. Join us LIVE at 5pm West/8pm East on youtube:youtube.com/live/StFtqWoSclE…
4
14
1,327
Jun 8
We have a *tentative* ruling in the California excise tax case, Poway Weapons & Gear v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. The ruling is in the image below. Because this ruling is tentative, it may change following oral argument tomorrow. Typically, while some edits are made, the core of the decision usually does not change. But we will have to wait and see. A thread here on the tentative ruling.
5
14
86
22,173
Jun 8
Overall, California loses on the most maximal form of its argument, and the Court agrees that there is at least some avenue to challenge the tax as unconstitutional. But only if it is shown (to CA courts' satisfaction) that the tax imposes a "meaningful constraint" on the right to acquire firearms. The Court is thus asking whether Plaintiffs can show the tax is too much of a burden, which of course, is just interest balancing. Sadly, in California state courts, this is not a terrible outcome in an initial ruling. Again, this is all TENTATIVE, and subject to change. I don't expect it will substantively change, but we'll let you know if it does.
3
2
57
2,621