An Interview With Cody Wisniewski From FPC Action Foundation at SHOT Show 2025

We got to chat with Cody Wisniewski from Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation at the 2025 National Shooting Sports Foundation SHOT Show.  Wisniewski, the president and CEO of the FPCAF, talked about litigation that was recently filed about a month ago, ongoing legal battles, as well as some of the strategies going forward. Portions of this interview have been cleaned up for clarity and readability.

Petrolino: Good afternoon. Today I’m with Cody Wisniewski from the FPC Action Foundation. Cody, how we doing today? 

Wisniewski: Doing great. Day one at SHOT Show.

Petrolino: How’s your SHOT Show been so far?

Wisniewski: It’s been good. It’s been good. It’s always fun to come and see everybody. See what’s going on in the industry. Talk to people about the work.

Petrolino:  Well, I got a couple questions for you, and I also know that you might have maybe some announcements. What happened yesterday? Yesterday was January 20, right? 

Wisniewski: Yes. 

Petrolino: So what happened then?

Wisniewski: Of course the thing that everybody’s talking about that happened yesterday is we filed a federal lawsuit challenging the interstate handgun purchase ban. As most people will know, for those that don’t, right now it is illegal for you to buy a handgun from an FFL outside of your state of residence. It’s illegal for an FFL to transfer a handgun to you if you’re not a resident of that state. It’s a federal ban that’s been around for some time. And so we filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas challenging the law.

Petrolino: Now, what is the expectation here? Are we thinking we’re going to be strongly victorious? Do we think – or do you…don’t want to give up any strategy?

Wisniewski: We always think we’re gonna win. We have a pretty good demonstrated track record of victory. I feel like it’s a fair assumption – but no.

What’s clear here is Texas courts, [the] Fifth Circuit, has actually reviewed this law before, but they did so under the prior test that was being applied, right? This was after Heller. There’s this two-step test that a bunch of circuits around the country were using. It was wrong. 

But when Bruen came out, Bruen made clear that all gun ordinances, gun laws, are to be examined at text, as informed by history. And so when the Fifth Circuit looked at this law before they upheld the law. But, it was under that flawed two-step test.

We are confident, based on our knowledge and review of history, the Bruen standard and even things that were addressed before that, we have a really good chance of victory here.

Petrolino: Of course. I don’t think you have to go much further than the textual, you know, connotations here. 

Wisniewski: Yeah. 

Petrolino: Now we’re at SHOT Show. This is where you go for the stuff that we’re trying to protect, right? What do you think about going forward? Because something else happened the other day as well. We know that we have a new president. Under this new administration, what do you expect to see over the next, I guess, two years and then four years, as far as litigation and where we’re going to be able to play nice, maybe not play nice. What do you say? What’s the tea leaves read?

Wisniewski: It’s totally up to the administration and the AG, the solicitor general, whomever we see come in and take over the ATF, potentially – you know, there hasn’t been a clear candidate come out on that one yet.

I think what’s clear is there are opportunities where the administration can do the right thing, right? I mean, this law is clearly unconstitutional. It’s a federal law, and we’lll see exactly what they’re going to do in response. And of course, this is an end, right?

We still have a pending lawsuit that’s over the pistol brace ban, right? There are several opportunities for the administration to show exactly the positions that it’s going to take in these cases.

And look, if we have to litigate it tooth and nail from day one to the Supreme Court, we’ll do that. I have no problem doing that. That’s a bunch of fun. If there’s a way that they’re going to show that they’re going to be able to actually get rid of – declare this law unconstitutional – and enjoin the government from enforcing it. That’s a victory, right? If people can go to the state that they want to go to, or they’re in a state and they can purchase a handgun, just like they can right now with a rifle or a shotgun, that’s a win. 

At the end of the day, [a win] is what we care about. We care about people being able to have access to their rights and being able to do what they want to do in order to protect themselves, their loved ones, [and] their families. That’s all I care about.

Petrolino: I got two more questions, and I’ll let you have the full run.

You mentioned the pistol braces. Just to talk – and you don’t have to answer this if you don’t want to, just say, why don’t we talk about something else? – we’re looking at the situation with the pistol brace. We have a new president, and he said we’re going to reverse everything that Joe Biden did. Well, part of what Joe Biden did was the pistol brace ban. 

Wisniewski: Yeah. 

Petrolino: Just for the readers and people listening in, say, Donald Trump doesn’t reverse the pistol brace, or maybe he does, I don’t know what’s the expectation from FPC if he does or he doesn’t reverse that.

Wisniewski: I mean, if he doesn’t…

Petrolino: Right. 

Wisniewski: We have already successfully vacated that law, right? We were successful at the district court. You know, the case is at the Fifth Circuit. It’s fully briefed. Hasn’t been argued yet, but we don’t think that’s going to change for any reason. The Fifth Circuit had already heard the case earlier on that preliminary injunction that put a pause on it. They ruled in our favor [and] that we’re confident that they would rule in our favor again.

If the administration doesn’t do anything, and it moves forward, and that happens then I’m confident that we’ll continue to be victorious, and that will continue to succeed in keeping that law vacated. There’s several things that the administration could do. They could try and do a brand new rulemaking. potentially. They could look to do a rulemaking that repeals the pistol brace ban. There’s a lot of options available to them. But, at the end of the day for me, for us, it’s about making sure that people can buy what they want to buy, do what they want to do, and exercise their rights how they see fit. And I’m happy to get to that conclusion however possible.

Petrolino: But a net benefit, might be precedential. If, say, there’s no further rule making, we’re not going to cry about this, because we get the win in the court. That’s maybe a better win? I don’t know. Maybe I’m projecting.

Wisniewski:  I’ll always take a court victory. 

Petrolino: And secondly, I want to just real quick – let’s talk about the Massachusetts roster, because we’ve been playing ping pong like Forrest Gump…

Wisniewski: Yeah. 

Petrolino: For a couple of years here with this Massachusetts roster, why don’t you give us maybe the 90 seconds on that?

Wisniewski: Right now it’s the Snope case [we’re watching], right? The Bianchi case coming out of Maryland is actually where we’re really seeing probably the next phase of movement. 

Petrolino: Sure.

Wisniewski: What’s going to be big there is the Supreme Court is currently determining whether it’s going to hear the case. Right? It’s up on what we call a petition for certiorari. The court is deciding if they’re going to hear it. The court has circulated it for conference, and it’s been recirculated for this Friday. Orders generally will come out either after that conference or the Monday after. That’s the next big pending thing.

Does the court take that case and finally give us some real clarity on common use, on whether you can ban semi-automatic rifles or not? That’s really going to be a big phase for us. It’s going to be a big indication, and that will trickle down to everything else, right?

If the court takes that case, then that precedent, that ruling, whatever they say there will be applied in all of these other cases, which is going to affect all of the roster cases. It’s also going to talk about – well,, because a roster is just a ban, right? It’s just a ban on everything not on the roster. If you have the Supreme Court that steps in and says, “Hey, you can’t ban things that are protected under the Second Amendment and don’t follow history, which means things that are in common use,” then all of those things that are not on the roster, that are in common use would all also fall under that precedent. There’s a few roster cases. They’re all kind of ping ponging around…there’s a lot of this.

Petrolino: The Massachusetts case has been special, though. 

Wisniewski: Yeah.

Petrolino: They’re playing games, like it’s okay. I’m hopeful that we’re going to see relief, hopefully soon, and all of that, and then also something good coming out of the SCOTUS. 

I don’t know, I’ve talked to other attorneys on this, recently, on this particular [case, Snope,] what do you think, they’ll GVR like a Cateno? Do you think we’ll get an answer?

Wisniewski: You know, I…

Petrolino: Throw the chicken bones on the table? We don’t really know what’s gonna happen.

Wisniewski: You’re talking to conferences. Just those nine justices sitting in a room, talking, deciding, and you find out after the fact. And all you find out is what they decided, right? You don’t ever find out their thought process. 

Petrolino: Yeah. 

Wisniewski: Here’s where I think we have put the perfect case in front of the court. They have indicated to us that they don’t want to hear cases on preliminary posture. They want to hear cases on the merits. Snope is on the merits. Snope is another example of some craziness, right? That case was pending forever, and then all of a sudden, the court decided, the circuit decided to take it en banc, meaning the full Fourth Circuit…

Petrolino: Without taking into consideration the three judge panel, the opinion that was I think never published…

Wisniewski: …never published. And then we found out in that en banc decision, that the panel had written the opinion and that the Fourth Circuit had held it. There’s a lot of sketchiness happening there, and we know that at least Thomas has indicated that they wanted to hear a case about, or that he was interested in hearing a case about whether or not a government could ban a semi-automatic rifle. That’s Snope to a T. 

It is exactly what they’ve asked for, and it is a great case to be in front of them. Look, who knows if they grant [Snope,] amazing. We’re gonna fight it. I’m very confident that we are gonna win that case and that we have the right arguments. If they don’t grant it. We have 63 other cases that are currently pending in the court. 

Petrolino: Sure. 

Wisniewski: There’s gonna be plenty more that are gonna go up to SCOTUS. So I’m either way the fight continues.

Petrolino: Tell everybody watching, where they can find you, how they can support you, who FPC Action Foundation is. What’s the difference between FPC Action Foundation and the FPC? 

Wisniewski: FPC, you can go to FirearmsPolicy.org. You can see all of our work, all of our cases. You can join FPC there. Support that way.

FPC Action Foundation, we’re basically the legal action arm. We’re a 501(c)(3). We’re a different organization, but we manage and oversee FPC law. I’m a litigator by trade. I started out in courtrooms. All of FPC’s active cases, we oversee. We help manage — you know, we make sure that there’s strategic consistency across the country. 

Two different organizations. FPC, you can see at FirearmsPolicy.org. Action Foundation, FPCActionFoundation.org. and then, of course, follow FPC on all the socials, which is @gunpolicy. That’s where all the fun spiciness is.

Petrolino: Cody, thank you so much. And if we had to summarize it, we’re going to make that lawsuit printer do what?

Wisniewski: That’s gonna go “burrr.”