Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of gun owners, striking down Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ in Wolford v. Lopez.
• This ruling states that Hawaii cannot automatically prohibit carrying firearms on private property open to the public without explicit permission.
• The decision reinforces Second Amendment rights, rejecting Hawaii’s argument for a regional exception based on local customs.
• The ruling also sets a precedent that may challenge similar carry laws in other states like California and New York.
• While Hawaii’s default rule was struck down, its list of ‘sensitive places’ remains in effect for now.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today handed gun owners a second straight win, striking down Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule” in a 6-to-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez.

I have been waiting on this one. The ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, holds that Hawaii cannot presume carry is forbidden on private property open to the public unless the owner first gives express permission. The Court found that default violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here is what the law actually did. Most states let you lawfully carry into a business open to the public unless the owner posts a sign saying otherwise. Hawaii flipped that. Under Act 52, a permit holder committed a misdemeanor by carrying into a store, gas station, restaurant, or pharmacy unless the owner had affirmatively said yes, in writing, verbally, or by posted signage. Carrying without that permission carried up to a year behind bars.

The practical effect was a near-total carry ban. One judge below noted the law presumptively barred carry on more than 96 percent of the publicly accessible land in Maui County.

The Court did not buy it. The majority held the rule “hobbles what the Second Amendment protects,” forcing peaceable people to seek permission before walking into the businesses they visit every day.

The Court also shut the door on Hawaii’s regional-exception argument. Justice Alito wrote that the Second Amendment “cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii” any more than it bends to local attitudes anywhere else.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief urging exactly this outcome, joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

More from USA Carry:

• Federal Court Drives a Stake Through New York’s “Vampire Rule,” But Won’t Touch the Park Ban
• Hawaii Concealed Carry Permit Information
• ‘Lawful Carry Is Dangerous’: Prosecutors Urge Supreme Court to Let States Ban Guns by Default
• First Hawaii Concealed Carry Permit Issued In Oahu After Bruen
• Hawaii Firearm Permits at Record High Level in 2011

“This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut put the principle plainly, arguing the burden belongs “on the proprietor, not the private citizen,” the same way we all live with “no soliciting” signs.

The case was brought by three Maui County residents, led by Jason Wolford, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the California Gun Rights Foundation also backed the challengers, as did the federal government, which filed a brief and shared argument time on their side.

One important point of clarity, since I am already seeing it muddied online. This decision struck Hawaii’s private-property default rule. It did not touch Hawaii’s separate list of “sensitive places” like beaches, bars, parks, and schools, which were not before the Court. Those provisions stand for now, and the fight over them continues elsewhere.

The reach goes well past Hawaii. Four other states, California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, adopted similar default rules after Bruen, and several were already blocked in lower courts. With this precedent in hand, those copycat statutes are squarely in the crosshairs, and I will be tracking the follow-on litigation closely.

Read the original story: Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule,’ Restoring Carry on Property Open to the Public

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner shot a burglary suspect while his family was inside the house in Medford, Oregon.
• Police responded to reports of a break-in on Gilman Road and safely evacuated the family.
• The suspect, Nathan Roberson, 21, had a gunshot wound and was taken into custody.
• Roberson is under police custody awaiting treatment and has not been formally charged.
• The article emphasizes the importance of being armed for home defense, especially with a family present.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MEDFORD, ORE. — A homeowner opened fire on a man trying to break into his house Sunday night while his family was still inside, and the suspect ended up in custody with a gunshot wound.

As reported by KOBI5 (NBC5), the Medford Police Department responded to a reported burglary in progress on the 800 block of Gilman Road at about 10:47 p.m. on June 21. The caller told dispatch that someone was trying to force entry and that the homeowner had fired shots.

The family inside got out safely and met responding officers at a spot away from the house. Officers then set up a perimeter.

With help from drone operators, police located and made contact with the suspect, 21‑year‑old Nathan Roberson, who was still inside the residence. Roberson was found with a gunshot wound.

More from USA Carry:

• Neighbor Fatally Shoots Intruder Beating Elderly Man Inside Medford Apartment
• Resident Fatally Shoots Knife-Wielding Intruder During Attempted Break-In in Medford, OR
• Oregon Apartment Resident Shoots Axe-Wielding Intruder Trying to Break Through Door
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Claimed She Wanted to Buy His House at 5AM
• Pawn Shop Employee Get Into Gunfight with Robbers, Hits One That is 14-Years-Old

He was taken into custody without further incident and brought to a local hospital for treatment. He remains in police custody while being treated. According to MPD, Roberson is from out of state and had been staying at a nearby hotel.

Roberson has not been formally charged. MPD says the Jackson County District Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case for charges, and the investigation is ongoing.

Here is the part that matters to me. A family was asleep in their own home when a stranger tried to force his way in. The threat in that moment is not to the furniture or the television. It is to the people inside. When seconds count, police are minutes away, and the only person standing between an intruder and that family was the homeowner. He got his family out and he had the means to answer the threat himself. That is exactly why I carry, and exactly why I keep a firearm within reach at home. I have a 10 year old in the house, so mine stays in a quick access safe on the nightstand, locked but ready in seconds. Secured and accessible are not opposites, and at 10:47 at night you want both.

Read the original story: Medford Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Broke In While Family Was Home

Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department warns California to drop the Glock ban or face a lawsuit.
• California’s Glock ban takes effect July 1, limiting sales of many pistols.
• The DOJ argues this ban violates Second Amendment rights, as handguns are crucial for self-defense.
• California’s enforcement of handgun roster requirements is also under scrutiny for being unconstitutional.
• The federal timeline is tight, with California needing to respond by June 30.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Justice Department put California on notice this week: drop the Glock ban or get sued.

On June 24, Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, sent Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta a formal notice of suit. She gave the state until 5 p.m. Eastern on June 30 to say whether it will negotiate. If California does not respond, the United States may file its complaint without further notice.

Tick tock! On July 1, CA plans to impose an unconstitutional “Glock Ban.”
Today, I notified @CAGovernor & @AGRobBonta to drop the unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ rights to purchase legal firearms before the ban goes into effect, or we will sue. Stay tuned! pic.twitter.com/xhGmRt4VPz

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) June 24, 2026

The timing is no accident. The law in question, Penal Code section 27595(a), takes effect July 1. That is the day after the deadline.

Californians know this statute as the “Glock Ban.” It came out of Assembly Bill 1127, which Newsom signed last October. Starting July 1, licensed dealers cannot sell what the state calls a “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” In plain terms, that sweeps in nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol built around a cruciform trigger bar.

The DOJ’s position is simple. Handguns are the arms Americans most often choose to defend themselves, and the Supreme Court said in Heller the government cannot ban them. California is banning the sale of the most popular handgun in the country.

Dhillon did not stop at AB 1127. The notice also targets California’s handgun roster, the list a pistol must appear on before a dealer can sell it. To make the roster, a handgun needs a chamber-load indicator, a magazine-disconnect mechanism, and, until recently, microstamping. Those demands are why no new handgun made the roster between 2013 and 2023.

More from USA Carry:

• Newsom Signs Law Banning Sale of Most Glocks in California, Targeting ‘Convertible Pistols’
• Second Amendment Groups Challenge Newsom’s “Backdoor Glock Ban” in Court
• Second Amendment Court Cases To Watch In 2023
• CZ Pistols Face California Compliance Review: Temporary Sales Suspension Recommended
• Taurus Optics Ready Option Revolvers Are Now California Approved!

A federal judge has already taken aim at those requirements. In Boland v. Bonta, the court held the roster’s feature mandates unconstitutional and ordered them enjoined. The judge wrote that Californians have a right to acquire current-generation handguns to protect themselves and should not be stuck with decade-old models to stay safe.

That injunction is stayed while the state appeals, so the roster rules remain in force for now. California also pushed its microstamping mandate out to January 1, 2028. The DOJ argues the provisions are unconstitutional regardless.

Here is the part worth watching. Dhillon is not only calling the laws unconstitutional. She is treating California’s enforcement of them as a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct, the same kind of claim the federal government brings against rogue police departments. The authority she cites is 34 U.S.C. section 12601.

The demands are blunt. The state must stop enforcing the laws, acknowledge they are unconstitutional, and agree to a court-enforceable consent decree permanently barring California from passing similar restrictions. The letter also orders state officials to preserve every record tied to the matter.

This is separate from the lawsuit gun-rights groups already filed. The NRA, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation sued over the same law last fall in Jaymes v. Bonta. Now the federal government is lining up its own case behind them.

I have said before that California treats the Second Amendment as a privilege the state hands out rather than a right the Constitution secures. A ban on selling America’s most common handgun is that mindset in action. It is good to finally see the Civil Rights Division turn the tools built for civil-rights enforcement toward defending this one.

The clock is running. California has until June 30 to blink, and the law is set to hit July 1. I will be tracking what the state does next and whether the United States follows through.

Read the original story: Justice Department Gives California Six Days to Drop Glock Ban or Face Federal Suit

Key Takeaways

• PHLster Holsters launched the Enigma Micro on June 23, designed for small pistols like the Ruger LCP II and Glock 42.
• The Micro is a beltless concealed carry rig, allowing for secure, adjustable carry without the bulk of traditional holsters.
• Its innovative CamWing design offers on-body adjustability for concealment, ride height, cant, and retention while wearing it.
• Each holster comes custom molded to your chosen gun, along with a lifetime warranty and resources for setup and tuning.
• Founder Jon Hauptman emphasizes the Micro’s focus on users who prioritize safety and functionality in their everyday carry.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

PHLster Holsters released the Enigma Micro on June 23, a beltless concealed carry rig built specifically for the small pistols a lot of people now carry as their primary gun.

It is available now at phlsterholsters.com for $150, fully assembled and ready to wear out of the box.

The Micro fits three of the most popular pocket-size pistols at launch: the Ruger LCP II and LCP Max, the Glock 42, and the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0. The Carry Comp and Performance Center versions of the Bodyguard 2.0 are not covered by the Micro and stay on the Enigma Express lineup. Each holster ships custom molded to the gun you choose.

Like the original Enigma, the Micro carries securely against the body without a gun belt. It is the same beltless approach the original Enigma is known for, and it lets people carry under clothing a traditional belt holster cannot handle.

What makes the Micro different is on-body adjustability. PHLster says it is the first holster of any kind that lets you tune concealment, ride height, cant, and retention while you are wearing it.

The piece doing that work is a patent-pending part PHLster calls the CamWing. It is a small tapered wing that presses the holster into the body as the belt tightens, which gives a tiny holster a real concealment wing without adding bulk.

PHLster founder Jon Hauptman framed the launch around the people who carry these guns out of necessity, not convenience. He said the company built the Micro to take those carriers “as seriously as they take their own safety.”

That line gets at the whole point of the product. For some people a pocket .380 is a backup gun. For a lot of others it is the most gun they can fit into their day, given their body, their clothing, their job, or their routine. The Micro is aimed squarely at that second group.

More from USA Carry:

• Carrying a Tourniquet: Considerations and Strategies
• Draw and Reholster Techniques When the Gun is Below the Waistband
• Summer Concealed Carry: How to Stay Armed in the Heat
• Car Holsters Put to the Ultimate Crash Test in PHLster’s “PHLiesta” Experiment
• STOP Printing and START Concealing your Gun

Key features include a new Enigma faceplate, ultra-low-profile custom hardware, adjustable ride height and cant, PHLster’s ComfortScape molding on each holster, and both single and two-point leg leashes. Every Micro comes with PHLster’s lifetime warranty and access to the company’s free setup guides, video library, and live tune-up classes.

I have carried Enigmas since the original launch, so this one had my attention the moment it dropped. I own a Bodyguard 2.0 that I have only ever run in a pocket holster, never on my waist. PHLster sent me a Micro to put through its paces. I am out of town until July 3, so the real testing starts when I get home, and I will report back once I have lived with it for a while.

What I keep coming back to with this company is how much thought goes into the design. PHLster brings real innovation to a category that does not see much of it, and the Micro looks like another example of solving a problem most makers ignore.

Read the original story: PHLster’s New Enigma Micro Is Here: Beltless Carry for the LCP, Glock 42, and Bodyguard 2.0

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation and partners are appealing a court ruling that limits a handgun sales ban relief to certain members.
• They argue the federal court’s decision in Reese v. BATFE violates the Second Amendment for adults ages 18-20.
• The district court’s judgment only protects members in the Fifth Circuit and as of January 27, 2026, which the groups contest.
• They claim the government could have sought Supreme Court review but chose not to, thus undermining broader relief.
• The appeal maintains that gun rights should not be restricted by state boundaries and that all affected adults deserve full protection.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

NEW ORLEANS, LA — The Second Amendment Foundation and two partner organizations have asked the Fifth Circuit to expand a court victory that struck down the federal ban on handgun sales to adults under 21, arguing the relief they won is being withheld from most of their members.

In an opening brief filed June 22, 2026, as announced by the Second Amendment Foundation, the groups challenged how a federal district court applied last year’s ruling.

The dispute traces back to Reese v. BATFE, where the Fifth Circuit held in January 2025 that the federal prohibition on licensed handgun and handgun ammunition sales to 18-to-20-year-olds violates the Second Amendment. The court found that adults in that age range are part of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.

The government chose not to ask the Supreme Court to review that decision.

On remand, the district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs but sharply narrowed the remedy. It limited the injunction to members living within the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana), and only to those who were members as of the date judgment was entered on January 27, 2026.

SAF and its partners, Firearms Policy Coalition and the Louisiana Shooting Association, argue both limits are unsupported by law and leave the government free to keep enforcing an unconstitutional ban against the vast majority of their members.

More from USA Carry:

• Gun Rights Groups in Nevada Celebrate Legislative Victories
• Things You Need To Know About Concealed Carry Today
• SAF Scores Victory In California Non-Resident Carry Case
• A Victory for Oregon Universities’ Students, Staff and Faculty
• [BREAKING] Illinois Gun Ban – Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction

The brief contends the government tried to make the win “a victory in name only.” It leans on the long-settled principle that courts should grant a prevailing party complete relief, not a remedy carved down to a fraction of those harmed.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said, “There is no doubt adults in this age range are part of ‘the People.'”

The groups also point out that the government, unlike private litigants, is not bound by this loss in any way that would justify limiting who benefits from it. If the government wanted to contain the nationwide reach of the ruling, they argue, it could have sought Supreme Court review and chose not to.

A related case, West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. ATF, challenges the same federal law and is awaiting word on whether the Supreme Court will take it up.

A court victory that protects only some law-abiding adults in three states is no real victory, and the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at a circuit boundary. I will continue tracking this appeal as the Fifth Circuit weighs whether to restore the full relief these young adults are owed.

Read the original story: Second Amendment Foundation Fights to Extend Under-21 Handgun Ban Victory Nationwide

Key Takeaways

• A woman used pepper spray on her ex-boyfriend after he broke into her home and attacked her.
• When pepper spray failed, she shot him three times, resulting in critical injuries.
• The incident highlights the importance of having multiple self-defense tools, like pepper spray and firearms.
• Pepper spray may not always stop an attacker, making it necessary to have a backup plan.
• No charges have been filed against the woman for her actions in self-defense.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FORT WORTH, TEXAS — A woman pepper sprayed and then shot her ex-boyfriend after he broke into her home and began attacking her, striking him three times.

Officers responded to a report of gunshots at the 5500 block of Hidden Creek just after 7 a.m., as reported by WFAA. When they arrived, police found the incident had been a domestic situation where the man entered the woman’s home without permission and began assaulting her.

The woman deployed pepper spray against her attacker first. When that did not stop him, she drew her firearm and fired, striking him three times. He was transported to the hospital with critical injuries. No charges have been reported against the woman.

More from USA Carry:

• Woman Shoots Two Early Morning Burglars Then Gets Pepper Sprayed
• Suspect Uses Pepper Spray in Carjacking, Victim Responds with Gun
• Intruders w/ Pepper Spray Demanded Money & Valuables; Got This Instead…
• Vape Shop Employee Shoots Armed Robber During Attempted Robbery in Fort Worth
• Fort Worth Homeowner Shoots Alleged Intruder During Attempted Break-In

What stands out to me about this case is the layered approach to self-defense. I carry pepper spray alongside my firearm, because they are different tools for different situations. There are moments where pepper spray is the appropriate response and a firearm is not, and having that option gives you a way to meet a threat without escalating to lethal force when it is not warranted.

But this incident is also a reminder of something you have to be prepared for: pepper spray does not always work. Some people fight through it. Some are impaired by drugs or alcohol and barely react. The spray did not stop her attacker here, and she had to escalate. Luckily she had a firearm to defend herself with when the less-lethal option failed. That is exactly why I do not treat pepper spray as a replacement for a firearm. It is a complement to one. If you carry less-lethal tools, you should also have a plan and the means for when they do not end the threat.

Read the original story: Fort Worth Woman Pepper Sprays, Then Shoots Ex-Boyfriend Who Broke In

Key Takeaways

• Filmed Episode 62 on June 12th, flying Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas with an easy check-in.
• Handled firearms declaration smoothly with TSA, confirmed no lithium batteries were present.
• Emphasized the importance of self-defense coverage with CCW Safe while waiting at the airport.
• Arrived in Las Vegas, retrieved luggage, and checked firearm case locks without issues.
• Overall, the travel process was smooth and as expected.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 62 was filmed June 12th, flying Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas. Easy check-in, bag on the carousel.

Check-In at MSY

Declared firearms. I was traveling with my Condition 1 16″ 3 Pistol Case #179 inside a regular piece of luggage. Agent asked about lithium batteries, vapes, and power banks — none. Handed me the declaration form and a pen. When I mentioned the sleeve she said it would work wonderfully. Put it in, and I was good to go.

Set my 15-minute timer and waited just in case TSA needed access.

A Word About CCW Safe

While I was on my 15-minute wait I talked about something worth mentioning here too. If you carry concealed, you need self defense coverage. My choice is CCW Safe. I cover defensive gun use incidents nearly every day and I know what the aftermath looks like. Having someone in your corner from the moment something happens — walking you through the process, picking up the phone on the emergency line — is reassuring. I’ve seen their team respond firsthand and they don’t hesitate. If you carry, you should have coverage.

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 48 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 42 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 54 – Southwest from Houston to New Orleans
• Flying with Guns: Episode 49 – Southwest from MSY to LAS
• Flying with Guns: Episode 57 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans

Arrival in Las Vegas

Bag came out on the carousel at LAS. Opened it up, checked the locks on the Condition 1 case — intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Smooth process. Same as it should be.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 62 – Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas

Key Takeaways

• Layzon Breland, 26, was shot multiple times in his home after an altercation with an armed man.
• Breland tried to escape upstairs but was followed and shot, despite returning fire.
• Yasim McDonald, 27, was identified as the shooter and faces charges of criminal homicide and tampering with evidence.
• Rapid DNA tests linked McDonald to blood found at the scene, and he remains in custody pending a preliminary hearing.
• Breland’s mother has set up a fundraiser to cover his funeral and memorial costs.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

COOLBAUGH TOWNSHIP, PA — A Monroe County man died inside his own home last week after another man forced his way in and chased him upstairs at gunpoint, according to Pocono Mountain Regional Police.

Police say Layzon Breland, 26, of Tobyhanna, was shot multiple times, including a fatal wound to the head, in the upstairs bedroom of his Chelsea Circle home on June 18. Officers were dispatched just before 8 p.m. and found him gravely wounded. He died at the scene despite efforts to save him.

Investigators say the confrontation began outside, with a physical fight between Breland and another man in the front yard. Breland tried to retreat into the house. The other man forced the front door back open and came in after him, now armed with a handgun, police say.

Breland ran upstairs to his bedroom to get away. According to police, the armed man followed him up the stairs and started firing. Breland grabbed a handgun of his own and fired back. Both men were struck. Breland did not survive.

There is nothing triumphant about this story. A young man is dead. But the detail I keep returning to is that Breland had to reach for a firearm stored in his bedroom while an armed attacker was already coming up the stairs after him. Those few seconds are everything.

This is about as clear a case as I can point to for carrying on your person instead of leaving a gun in a nightstand or a drawer across the room. A firearm you have to run to is one you may never reach. The one you are carrying is the one that is actually there the moment someone forces his way through your door.

The man who fled left a blood trail running from the bedroom, through the house, and out to the street, investigators say. Roughly half an hour later, a white vehicle dropped a wounded man at a hospital in Scranton.

More from USA Carry:

• Elderly Man that Shot Killed Unarmed Man Ruled Justifiable Homicide
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Found in Daughter’s Bedroom
• Mother Arrested After Starting Argument at Miami-Dade McDonald’s, Gun ‘Discharges When Dropped,’ Injuring 15-Year-Old Daughter
• My 3 Favorite Tactical Flashlights
• Would-Be Intruder Shot by Apartment Resident

That man was identified as Yasim McDonald, 27, of Scranton. Police say he had a gunshot wound to the arm and matched the description witnesses gave. Detectives recovered a projectile from him consistent with the 9mm casings found in Breland’s bedroom.

The office of Monroe County District Attorney Mike Mancuso says rapid DNA testing linked McDonald to blood from the fleeing shooter’s trail, with a full forensic report still pending. The white Kia, rented by McDonald’s girlfriend the day before, allegedly showed dried blood and signs of an attempted cleanup.

McDonald has been charged with criminal homicide and tampering with evidence. The charges were approved by Assistant District Attorney Chad Martinez and filed after an investigation by Detectives Donald Scarfo and Zachary Scheetz. He was arraigned and remains in custody, with a preliminary hearing set for later this month. The charges are allegations, and McDonald has not been convicted.

Breland’s mother has set up a fundraiser to help cover funeral and memorial costs for her son.

Read the original story: Scranton Man Charged With Homicide After Pocono Homeowner Dies in Bedroom Gunfight

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation sued Contra Costa County over unique carry restrictions on firearms.
• The lawsuit challenges policies that prohibit attaching red dot sights and flashlights to handguns, as well as banning 1911-style pistols.
• Residents with valid CCW permits, Andrew Moore and James Treuel, filed the complaint due to fear of prosecution.
• The case argues that these restrictions lack historical tradition and violate the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
• SAF seeks a court declaration declaring these policies unconstitutional and is tracking the case in the Northern District of California.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

MARTINEZ, CALIF. — The Second Amendment Foundation has sued Contra Costa County over carry restrictions that, by the group’s account, exist nowhere else in the country.

The federal complaint, filed June 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenges Sheriff’s Office policies that bar concealed carry permit holders from attaching red dot sights or flashlights to their handguns. The same policies ban carrying single action only semiautomatic pistols built on the 1911 platform.

SAF is joined by two Contra Costa County residents, Andrew Moore and James Treuel. Both hold valid CCW permits issued by the county. Both say they have held back from setting up their carry guns the way they want, out of fear of prosecution or losing their permits.

The Sheriff’s Office spells the rule out on its own permit page. Its guidance states that “Firearms with attached laser sights, flashlights, red dots, and sighting systems are not acceptable.” A separate line bars any single action only firearm, including any semiautomatic handgun built on the Colt 1911 configuration.

I have a hard time reading those policies as anything but an outlier. Red dot sights and weapon lights are standard gear for millions of armed citizens, and they do exactly what defensive equipment should do. They help you see the threat and place your shots only on that threat, especially in low light.

The complaint rests on the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, the government must point to a historical tradition that matches a modern restriction. SAF argues no such tradition exists for banning optics, lights, or the 1911.

“These are common, popular and safety-enhancing features,” said Kostas Moros, SAF’s director of legal research and education. He argued the restrictions cannot survive scrutiny under Bruen.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Shoots Suspect Who Tried to Run Him Down Using His Own Stolen Vehicle
• SAF Seeks Injunction Against NYC Gun Permit Regulation
• Some Thoughts on CCW in Schools
• Bystander Injured in Shootout Between Burglary Suspects and Concealed Carry Holder on Chicago’s South Side
• Armed Citizen Fires at Robbers After Woman Pistol-Whipped & Robbed in Chicago, Suspects Flee Unharmed

The suit also highlights a contradiction baked into state law. Because California CCW permits are valid statewide, a permit holder from any other county can legally carry a red dot, a weapon light, or a 1911 straight through Contra Costa County. Only the county’s own residents are boxed out.

The 1911 is hardly exotic. It served as the U.S. Army’s standard sidearm from 1911 to 1985 and remains one of the most popular handgun designs in the country. The complaint notes that several California agencies, including the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department SWAT team, Los Angeles County Sheriffs, and the Long Beach Police Department, have adopted Staccato 2011 pistols built on the same single action only design.

The lawsuit targets only the ban on single action only semiautomatic pistols. It does not challenge the county’s separate restriction on single action revolvers such as the Colt Single Action Army.

The named defendants are Contra Costa County, the Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff David Livingston in his official capacity. SAF is asking the court to declare the policies unconstitutional, to enjoin their enforcement, and to award nominal damages and attorney’s fees.

The case is Second Amendment Foundation v. Contra Costa County. I will be tracking it as it moves through the Northern District of California.

Read the original story: SAF Sues the Only County in America That Bans Red Dots, Lights and 1911s for Permit Holders

Key Takeaways

• A man shot one of two armed robbers outside a convenience store in north Tulsa, leaving the suspect in critical condition.
• The robbers, one with a knife and one with a gun, targeted the man as he was near 36th Street North and Lewis Avenue.
• The man fired his weapon after being attacked, striking one robber in the head; the other suspect remains at large.
• Investigators are reviewing surveillance footage and the man is cooperating with authorities.
• This incident highlights the disparities in force during armed confrontations and the need for self-defense options.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

TULSA, OKLA. — A man who police say was targeted by two armed robbers outside a north Tulsa convenience store drew his own firearm Thursday evening and shot one of them, leaving the suspect in critical condition.

The Tulsa Police Department says two suspects, one armed with a knife and one armed with a firearm, tried to rob the man near 36th Street North and Lewis Avenue, as reported by News On 6.

Police say the man pulled his own gun and fired, striking one suspect in the head. That suspect ran across the street and collapsed, then was taken to a hospital in critical condition.

Investigators are still searching for the second suspect and reviewing surveillance footage from the store.

More from USA Carry:

• Tulsa Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attacker, Injures Another After Group Assault
• Woman Fatally Shoots Child’s Father During Alleged Assault in Tulsa Apartment
• Stop Using Crappy Holsters | Holster Fail During Draw in DGU Incident
• Tulsa Teen Grabs Gun, Kills Father Who Police Say Was Attacking His Mother
• Dropped Wallet Leads Tulsa Police Straight To Burglar Shot By Homeowner

The man who fired the shot is “cooperating with investigators,” according to TPD.

Two attackers, one with a blade and one with a gun, is exactly the kind of disparity of force that leaves a person no good options. This is a reminder that the ability to defend yourself does not get to choose its moment.

Read the original story: Tulsa Man Outguns Two Robbers, Drops One With a Shot to the Head

Key Takeaways

• The lawsuit Moser v. Nessel challenges Michigan’s pistol purchase permit system in federal court.
• Plaintiffs argue that the License to Purchase is redundant and unconstitutional, as it allows local agencies to deny permits without solid reasoning.
• Several individuals detail how they faced unjust denials from police departments despite passing federal background checks.
• The lawsuit also targets Michigan’s pistol records system, which plaintiffs claim acts as a de facto registry without proper regulations.
• This case could impact permit-to-purchase laws across multiple states if the court rules against Michigan’s system.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. — The National Rifle Association and three Michigan gun rights groups have dragged the state’s pistol purchase permit system into federal court, and they picked a strong target.

The lawsuit, Moser v. Nessel, was filed June 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. It challenges Michigan’s License to Purchase, or LTP, the permit a resident without a concealed pistol license must get before buying a handgun.

Here is the core problem. A law-abiding adult can walk into a gun shop, pass the federal NICS background check, and still get turned away because a local police chief refused to sign off on a separate state permit.

The plaintiffs argue that permit is redundant, discretionary, and unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.

Michigan lets a local agency deny an LTP on “probable cause” that the applicant would be a threat or would commit an offense with the gun. The complaint calls that a predictive, standardless judgment with no meaningful appeal.

The filing puts it bluntly, describing the statute as “shall issue” in form but “may issue” in operation.

The four individual plaintiffs show how that plays out.

Dean Moser says Troy police denied him over old “contacts” that were misrepresented. When he applied in Battle Creek, he says he was denied automatically based on Troy’s earlier decision. Neither department offered an appeal.

Thomas Overly was denied by Kentwood police. He went to the FBI, which confirmed he had no prohibiting record and issued him a federal identification number. Kentwood still refused to let him buy.

David Raney says the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Office turned him away before he could even fill out an application, telling him he was not a county resident.

Reagan Janson was denied by Walker police on “probable cause” because the department believed she had applied in other jurisdictions.

More from USA Carry:

• Michigan Open Carry
• Michigan Bills Could End Many Gun-Free Zones, Expanding Carry to Bars and Churches
• Lock Your Doors! Armed Robbers Walk Right In, Hold Owner at Gunpoint and Steal His Gun
• Michigan Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Who Broke Into Attached Apartment and Assaulted Tenant Before Trying to Enter Home
• Michigan Man Shoots Himself in Thigh While Testing a Holster

The suit also targets Michigan’s pistol records system. Every handgun sale gets reported to a statewide database run by the Michigan State Police, linking specific guns to specific owners. The plaintiffs call that a de facto registry with no historical pedigree, the exact kind of regulation Bruen put under the microscope.

The defendants include Attorney General Dana Nessel, Michigan State Police Director Col. James Grady II, and several cities, police chiefs, and a county sheriff who administer the permits.

The plaintiffs want the court to strike the licensing and registration provisions, block enforcement, and order the state to purge firearm ownership records tied to the plaintiffs.

I have said it before. A right you have to ask permission to exercise is not a right, it is a privilege. Michigan stacked a permission slip on top of a federal background check that already does the job, then handed local officials a discretionary veto with no appeal. That is the abusive, discretionary licensing Bruen warned against.

This case reaches past Michigan. Permit-to-purchase laws sit on the books in several states, and a federal ruling here could shape how courts treat all of them. I will be tracking Moser v. Nessel as it moves through the Western District.

Read the original story: NRA Takes Michigan’s Pistol Permit System to Federal Court Over ‘Discretionary’ Denials

The crash happened just before 6:30 p.m. at a home on Morenci Road, in a neighborhood near Hunt Highway and Coppermine Road. As reported by AZ Family, deputies with the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office found that an SUV driven by a 34-year-old man had plowed into the house, injuring a man and a woman inside.

Investigators said one of the residents shot and killed the driver after the crash. The driver has not been publicly identified.

The injured woman was taken to a Valley hospital. The male resident was taken into custody and interviewed by detectives, then released. He was later taken to a hospital for his own injuries.

A vehicle is a deadly weapon, and a driver who has already put one through your wall and injured the people inside gives a resident every reason to fear what comes next. Arizona law recognizes the right to answer a threat of death or serious physical injury with force, and a crash that violent, that sudden, and that close to your family is exactly the kind of intrusion that can put a person in fear for their life. Investigators have not announced a determination, and any charges would go to the county attorney for review. But detectives questioned the resident and let him walk the same night rather than booking him, which is not how things tend to go when deputies think someone is the aggressor.

The investigation is ongoing. The sheriff’s office said any potential criminal charges will be sent to the county attorney’s office for review once it is complete.

Read the original story: Resident Shoots, Kills Driver After SUV Slams Into San Tan Valley Home

Key Takeaways

• An armed robbery occurred at the Smoke Shack in Fayetteville, where the clerk tried to defend himself.
• The suspect shot the clerk in the leg and stole his gun during the struggle.
• The article emphasizes the right to bear arms but warns that being armed does not guarantee safety.
• Law enforcement continues to search for the suspect and investigate the incident.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — An armed robbery at a Fayetteville smoke shop turned into a shooting Wednesday night, and the clerk who tried to defend himself ended up wounded and disarmed.

Police say a suspect walked into the Smoke Shack in the 4400 block of Murchison Road around 9 p.m., pulled a gun, and tried to rob the store.

The clerk was armed too. According to CBS17, he brought out his own weapon, and the two men got into a struggle.

That struggle did not go his way. Police say the suspect shot the clerk in the leg, then took the employee’s gun and ran out of the store.

I want to be straight about this one. A clerk facing a robber pointing a gun is staring down an imminent threat to his life, and he has every right to meet that threat with a firearm. That is exactly what the right to keep and bear arms is for.

More from USA Carry:

• Two Teens Shot and Killed During Attempted Home Invasion
• Store Employee Draws On Armed Robbers, Chases Them & Shoots One
• After the Smoke Clears: Steps to Take After a Defensive Shooting
• Vape Shop Employee Shoots Armed Robber During Attempted Robbery in Fort Worth
• Armed Robbery Suspect Fatally Shot During Struggle on Chicago’s South Side

But being armed is not a guarantee. Closing the distance and fighting over a gun is dangerous, and here it cost the clerk a gunshot wound and his own weapon. It is a hard reminder that a defensive firearm is a tool, not a force field.

As of late Wednesday, Fayetteville police were still searching for the suspect and continuing to investigate.

Read the original story: Armed Robber Shoots Fayetteville Smoke Shop Clerk, Steals His Gun and Runs

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in Blue Springs shot and killed an intruder after calling 911 to report the break-in.
• Police arrived but the homeowner acted in self-defense before they reached the scene.
• The article highlights the reality that when seconds count, the police cannot always respond in time.
• This incident reinforces the argument for the right to keep a firearm for personal safety in the home.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

BLUE SPRINGS, Mo. — A homeowner shot and killed an intruder early Friday morning after calling 911 to report that someone had forced their way into the residence, according to the Blue Springs Police Department.

Officers were dispatched to a burglary in progress in the 100 block of Little Garden. The homeowner told dispatchers that an individual had unlawfully entered the home.

Police say the homeowner shot the reported suspect before officers reached the scene. The individual was pronounced dead at the residence.

More from USA Carry:

• Constitutional Carry Comes to Missouri!
• Missouri Open Carry
• Missouri Town Votes to Expand Their Carry Rights
• MO Senator’s New Bill Would Allow Concealed Carry on Campus
• Missouri Concealed Carry Permit Information

I want to be clear about what is and is not established here. Detectives are conducting an active shooting investigation, and authorities have not released a determination on the shooting or identified anyone involved. I am reporting what the police account states and nothing beyond it.

But the timeline is the part worth sitting with. The homeowner did everything right on the front end. They recognized the threat, they called police, and help was on the way. It just was not there yet.

That is the reality behind a phrase a lot of us have heard for years: when seconds count, the police are minutes away. Officers cannot teleport into a doorway. On Friday morning, the danger was already inside the home, and the person who lived there was the only one in a position to respond to it in that moment.

This is the entire argument for the right to keep a firearm in the home. Not as a theory, but as the practical difference between being able to answer a threat and waiting on a response that has not arrived.

Read the original story: Missouri Homeowner Shoots Intruder Dead During Break-In, Before Police Could Arrive

Key Takeaways

• The Fifth Circuit ruled that silencers qualify as ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
• This split creates a significant circuit disagreement, potentially beneficial for suppressor owners.
• The Fifth Circuit emphasized that if a device aids self-defense, it qualifies as an arm, while the Ninth Circuit viewed silencers as optional accessories.
• Both cases upheld convictions due to non-ideal test circumstances, illustrating the complexities of the registration process.
• The split may encourage the Supreme Court to address the definition of suppressors and their status under the Second Amendment.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

NEW ORLEANS, LA — Two federal appeals courts just looked at the same question weeks apart and gave opposite answers. The question was simple. Is a silencer an “arm” the Second Amendment protects?

On June 18, the Fifth Circuit said yes. On June 3, the Ninth Circuit said no. That disagreement is now a real circuit split, and it may be the best thing to happen to suppressor owners in years.

I covered the Ninth Circuit loss earlier this month in United States v. DeBorba. Now the Fifth Circuit has answered back.

Start with the win. In United States v. Comeaux, a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that silencers are protected “Arms.” Brennan James Comeaux had been convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act after deputies searched his home and he admitted making the devices. He challenged the charge on Second Amendment grounds.

Earlier rulings had ducked the core question, assuming silencers might be arms without deciding it. Judge Jerry E. Smith decided it. “They are,” he wrote.

His reasoning tracks the Constitution. Silencers cut noise and recoil, reduce muzzle blast, and improve accuracy and follow-up shots. Those functions make a gun safer and more effective for lawful self-defense. Because a silencer facilitates armed self-defense, it falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The government’s argument that a silencer is not necessary to fire a gun did not move the court. Under Bruen, an arm does not have to be necessary. It only has to facilitate self-defense.

Now compare that to the Ninth Circuit. In DeBorba, the same kind of NFA charge produced the opposite holding. That panel called silencers “optional accessories,” lumped them in with slings and scopes, and ruled they are not arms because a gun fires without one. Same statute, same Supreme Court precedent, completely different result.

This is the heart of the split. The Fifth Circuit asks whether a device facilitates self-defense. The Ninth Circuit asks whether a device is strictly necessary to make a gun go bang. One test protects the modern tools gun owners actually use. The other lets a court carve away any feature it decides is optional, and there is no obvious stopping point once scopes and sights are on the table.

More from USA Carry:

• Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not “Arms” the Second Amendment Protects
• GOA’s “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Under Fire as Gun Control Groups and DOJ Defend National Gun Registry
• Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional
• Federal Courts Split on Post Office Gun Ban as Connecticut Judge Upholds Carry Restriction
• The Benefits of Shooting Suppressed Pistols

Here is the frustrating part the two cases share. Both men still lost, and both courts leaned on the same crutch to get there. Under the shall-issue theory borrowed from a single Bruen footnote, the NFA’s registration scheme is treated as presumptively lawful unless a challenger proves it is being abused through things like excessive fees or long delays. Neither defendant made that showing. Both panels also noted that the old $200 making tax dropped to zero on January 1, 2026, which knocked out any argument that the fee was excessive.

So even the court that got the arms question right still upheld the conviction. That tells you the registration fight and the arms fight are two separate battles.

There is a reason the Comeaux concurrence is worth reading. Judge Edith Brown Clement, joined by Judge Kyle Duncan, wrote separately to say the Fifth Circuit’s own shall-issue rule was wrongly decided. She argued it stretched that lone Bruen footnote into a doctrine that flips the proper analysis and revives the interest-balancing the Supreme Court threw out. She called for the full court to revisit it. That is the Fifth Circuit signaling its own discomfort with the half-measure.

I will be honest about how we got here. Neither Comeaux nor DeBorba was the ideal test case. DeBorba in particular was about the worst possible vehicle, an illegal alien who lied about citizenship on gun forms and was under a domestic violence order. Bad facts invite bad law, and the Ninth Circuit took the bait. But the silver lining is undeniable. We now have two circuits openly disagreeing on whether suppressors are arms, and a clean split is one of the strongest reasons the Supreme Court agrees to take a case.

I will keep tracking both rulings, the push for en banc review in the Fifth Circuit, and whether this split carries the question all the way to the Supreme Court.

Read the original story: Two Federal Courts, Two Weeks Apart, Split on Whether Silencers Are Protected Arms

Here is why this build is worth your time if you carry or keep a gun for home defense. Most of the campaign leans toward rifles and hunting rigs. Day 64 is built around a pistol-caliber platform, a quiet 9mm can, and the paperwork service that puts all of it on your doorstep.

The host firearm is the Ruger PC Charger. It is a blowback 9mm built on Ruger’s takedown chassis, with a 6.5-inch cold hammer forged barrel threaded 1/2×28 for a suppressor, a 17-round magazine, and interchangeable magazine wells that run both Ruger and Glock mags. The dead blow action keeps recoil and muzzle rise low, and the whole pistol breaks down for transport in seconds. It ships suppressor ready.

The suppressor is the BANISH 9 from Silencer Central. It is a full-size 9mm can with 14 baffles and up to 34 decibels of reduction, built from titanium with a 7075 aluminum tube. With its Micro Booster installed it runs 7.16 inches and 8.57 ounces, and in direct-thread trim it drops to 6.8 inches and 6.73 ounces. It is rated from .380 through 9mm and also handles .300 Blackout and 350 Legend, so it follows you across more than one host.

The optic is an ATN ThOR 6 Mini thermal scope. It runs ATN’s 6th-generation thermal engine with a 12-micron core, a 50 hertz refresh, SharpIR image processing, picture in picture, and Recoil Activated Video that saves the seconds before and after your shot to 64 gigabytes of onboard storage. The housing is magnesium alloy and IP67 rated, so it earns its place on a working gun, day or night.

The ammunition is Winchester Super Suppressed 9mm, a 147-grain subsonic load that leaves the muzzle at 990 feet per second. It stays under the speed of sound by design, so there is no sonic crack for the can to fight, and the encapsulated bullet burns clean to keep fouling down.

The steel is a Shooting Targets USA dueling tree. Six 6-inch paddles of quarter-inch SR500 steel flip from side to side when you hit them, on a five-foot stand built for non-magnum handgun calibers. It is made in King, North Carolina, and it is the kind of target you can run all afternoon.

The package also includes a one-year membership to Armorer, the firearm maintenance app I built. It tracks round counts per gun, flags service intervals, manages your ammo inventory, and gives a suppressor or optic its own cleaning schedule. Serial numbers are encrypted and photos are stripped of location data before they upload.

Silencer Central anchors the campaign and handles the part that scares people off. They run the ATF Form 4 for the winner through the eForm system and ship the approved suppressor straight to the door, with no FFL transfer to schedule. Their posted averages run about four days for individual filings and about 18 for trusts, and a free NFA gun trust comes with it.

Here is the part that changed the math this year. The $200 federal tax stamp went to zero on January 1, 2026 under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Form 4, background check, and registration are all still required, but the tax that sat on suppressors since 1934 is gone. The paperwork is the only step left, not the cost.

How to enter. The window opens at 6:00 a.m. Central Time on Friday, June 19, 2026 and closes at 10:00 p.m. Central the same day. Entry is free at popularsuppressors.com/100-days-of-silence/. Drop your email in the entry panel, then knock out the optional actions for extra entries. The winner is drawn Saturday, June 20.

Eligibility is open to U.S. residents 21 or older. Residents of New York, Florida, California, and Rhode Island cannot enter or win. The suppressor prize cannot be delivered to residents of suppressor-prohibited jurisdictions: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. The full Official Rules are linked from the campaign page.

Where Day 64 fits. Silencer Central’s 100 Days of Silence runs April 17 through July 25, 2026, with one suppressor given away every single day to a verified U.S. adult 21 or older in a suppressor-eligible state. Silencer Central anchors it and PopularSuppressors.com hosts it. Day 64 is the one I would point my own audience toward, because it is built around the pistol and the carry use case my readers already live in. Enter free Friday, and do it before the window closes.

Read the original story: Day 64 of the 100 Days of Silence Is a Complete Suppressed 9mm Build — Here’s the Nearly $4,000 Prize Stack

Key Takeaways

• The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that employers can’t fire workers for exercising self-defense at work.
• Mary Ann Moreno was fired by Circle K after confronting a thief armed with knives, claiming she acted in self-defense.
• The court established that self-defense is a fundamental right in Colorado, not limited to off-duty hours.
• However, the court did not determine if Moreno’s actions constituted self-defense, leaving that to a jury.
• The ruling protects employees only when they lawfully use self-defense against unprovoked attacks at work.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

DENVER, CO — The Colorado Supreme Court ruled this week that employers cannot automatically fire a worker for defending themselves on the job. I see it as a solid win for the principle that your right to self-defense follows you to work.

The case began with Mary Ann Moreno, a 72-year-old clerk at a Circle K. In October 2020, a man named Tyler Wimmer came to her register carrying two hunting knives and told her to hand over cigarettes for free. Moreno, who was unarmed, refused. Wimmer then walked around the counter toward her with the knives, and a brief confrontation followed. He grabbed a pack of cigarettes, left the store, and was later arrested. He pleaded guilty to menacing with a deadly weapon.

What happened in those few seconds is the one thing no one agrees on, and the law turns on the difference. Self-defense in Colorado does not require a weapon or a thrown punch. It requires a reasonable belief that you are about to be unlawfully attacked, and a response that fits the threat. Moreno never used deadly force, so her conduct is measured by that lower standard.

In Moreno’s account, she threw her arms out on instinct to keep an armed man who was advancing on her from getting any closer. With knives in hand and Wimmer within reach, putting her hands up to block him is a defensive act. That is self-defense.

In Circle K’s account, the knife had already turned away from her when she stepped toward Wimmer, put herself between him and the cigarettes, and grabbed him by the shirt to pull him off the merchandise while saying she would call the police. No imminent threat to her, and the goal was the cigarettes. That is not self-defense. It is trying to stop a theft.

The same gesture, an arm extended, carries opposite legal meaning depending on who was advancing on whom. That is why this comes down to a jury watching the surveillance video.

Circle K fired Moreno, saying she violated its “Don’t Chase or Confront” policy. That policy tells employees not to confront, chase, or fight suspected shoplifters, and to retreat to a safe spot instead. Moreno sued, arguing she was terminated for exercising her right to defend herself.

The legal fight took an unusual path. Moreno’s wrongful termination suit was in federal court, but the federal judge asked Colorado’s Supreme Court to answer a threshold question of state law first: does Colorado recognize a public-policy exception to at-will employment when a worker is fired for acting in self-defense?

On June 15, 2026, the court answered yes. In a 5-2 decision written by Justice Maria Berkenkotter, the majority held that Colorado’s self-defense statute and the state constitution both establish self-defense as a fundamental public right, and that the right does not vanish when a person clocks in for a shift.

The court rooted its decision in section 18-1-704 of the Colorado Criminal Code and Article II, Section 3 of the state constitution, which counts defending one’s own life among the inalienable rights of every person. As the majority put it, the right to self-defense “has never been cabined by role or location.” An employee, the justices wrote, should never have to choose between their job and their safety.

Here is the part worth understanding clearly. The court did not rule that Moreno acted in self-defense. It said plainly that it was taking no position on whether she was defending herself or the cigarettes. All the justices decided was that the legal exception exists. Whether Moreno’s own conduct qualifies now goes back to the federal district court, where a jury will weigh the competing accounts. Circle K’s best argument there is that Moreno provoked the encounter, since an initial aggressor generally loses the right to claim self-defense.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Foils Walgreens Cigarette Robbery; WWYD?
• Indiana Bill Would Prevent Employers from Asking About Gun Ownership
• Armed Citizen Stops Violent Crime Spree, Killing the Suspect, 1 Bystander Shot and Killed
• Ocala Man Caught Carrying Concealed Without a License, Thought It Was Legal
• Colorado Constitutional Carry Bill Advances

The ruling is also narrow by design. It protects an employee only when they lawfully use self-defense against an unprovoked attack at work. It does not give anyone cover to chase down or tackle a shoplifter, and it does not blur the line between protecting yourself and protecting merchandise.

Chief Justice Monica Márquez dissented, joined by Justice William Hood. She warned that the majority’s reasoning could sweep more broadly than the facts require and make it harder for employers to enforce de-escalation rules meant to keep workers out of harm’s way.

I land with the majority. The right to defend yourself against an imminent attack is a fundamental civil right, not a workplace perk an employer gets to revoke. A jury still has to decide what Moreno actually did that night. But the larger principle, that you do not forfeit the right to protect yourself the moment you put on a name tag, is the right call.

I will keep following the case as it returns to the district court and a jury weighs whether Moreno acted in self-defense and whether that is why Circle K let her go.

Read the original story: Colorado Supreme Court: Workers Can’t Be Fired for Defending Themselves on the Job

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot prosecute a person for owning a firearm solely because of marijuana use, reinforcing Second Amendment rights.
• In United States v. Hemani, the Court found that the government’s ban violated Hemani’s rights under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3).
• The Court emphasized that automatic disarmament without a hearing violates fundamental rights, rejecting the government’s claim that all marijuana users are dangerous.
• All nine justices agreed on the ruling, but the Court intentionally kept it narrow to avoid affecting bans on felons or mentally ill individuals.
• Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the Commerce Clause’s authority on gun possession, hinting at future legal challenges related to the ruling.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government cannot prosecute a Texas man for owning a firearm simply because he uses marijuana, landing another hit on the gun bans the government has tried to defend since Bruen.

In United States v. Hemani, the Court held that prosecuting Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the provision banning gun possession by any “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, violated his Second Amendment rights.

Hemani, a dual U.S. and Pakistani citizen born in Texas, told federal agents during a 2022 search of his family home that he used marijuana about every other day. He cooperated fully and handed over a gun he kept in the house. More than six months later, relying on that admission alone, the government charged him under 922(g)(3). For that, he faced up to 15 years in prison and a lifetime ban on owning a firearm.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the main opinion. The government tried to save the ban by comparing it to founding-era “habitual drunkard” laws. Gorsuch took that analogy apart piece by piece. Those old laws, he wrote, targeted people so impaired by drink that they could not manage their own affairs, not anyone who simply used an intoxicant. They served different purposes, reached different people, and almost always required some legal process before anyone lost a right. Section 922(g)(3) does none of that. It disarms a person automatically, the moment the government decides he is a user, with no hearing at all.

The decision was unanimous. All nine justices agreed Hemani’s prosecution had to fall, and not a single one dissented. Justice Gorsuch wrote for seven members of the Court. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan agreed with the result and wrote separately, reaching the same conclusion on a narrower path. If you saw “9-0” today, that is correct.

The Court kept the ruling narrow on purpose. Gorsuch made clear the decision does not touch the bans on felons or the mentally ill owning guns, does not reach drug addicts or anyone actually intoxicated, and leaves room for prosecutions backed by individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous.

What it does reject is the government’s central claim, that it can strip a fundamental right from millions of Americans on a categorical say-so. The Justice Department argued that marijuana users as a class are dangerous enough to disarm. The Court refused to hand over that kind of power, warning it would let the government “quickly swallow” the Second Amendment.

More from USA Carry:

• Second Amendment Foundation Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Reject Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users
• Know Your Environment: Who Will Be Prosecuting?
• California DOJ Updates CCW Instructor Qualifications, Expands Training Options
• Thousands Now Carrying Concealed in Washington D.C.
• Kidnapping Attempt Ended By Warning Shot

Justice Clarence Thomas went further in a solo concurrence, questioning whether Congress even has authority under the Commerce Clause to criminalize possession of a gun that crossed state lines at some point in the past. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor used their concurrence to renew their call to scrap the Bruen history-and-tradition test altogether.

This is the same statute used to convict Hunter Biden in 2024, as NPR noted in its coverage of the ruling.

The decision settles Hemani’s case but not the larger fight. By inviting prosecutions built on individualized proof of danger, the Court all but guaranteed the government will be back to test the limits. I will keep tracking how the lower courts and the Justice Department respond to Hemani.

Read the original story: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users

Key Takeaways

• A mother in Palm Coast shot an intruder who threatened her and her children during a home invasion.
• The intruder, Michael McDonald, 33, entered uninvited and faced the mother in her home.
• She fired one shot, hitting him in the arm, and he fled, but deputies later found him at a hospital.
• Sheriff Rick Staly supported the mother’s actions, stating she legally defended her family under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.
• McDonald was arrested for burglary with assault and has a history of prior arrests.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

BUNNELL, FL — A Palm Coast mother stopped a home intruder with a single gunshot Sunday afternoon after he forced his way inside and threatened her and her two children, according to the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office.

I’ve covered enough of these to know how fast they turn deadly. This one could have. It didn’t, because she was armed and willing to defend her family.

Around 1:50 p.m., Flagler Emergency Communications took a call from a homeowner on Big Bear Lane who said she had shot a man inside her home. Deputies arrived within minutes and found blood at the scene, but the man and his vehicle were gone.

Detectives identified him as Michael McDonald, 33, of Palm Coast. According to the sheriff’s office, McDonald was known to the homeowner but showed up uninvited and unexpected. He lifted open the garage door, banged on a back window, then came in through the front door.

Once inside, McDonald confronted the mother and her two children in the foyer and made threats, deputies said. She repeatedly ordered him to leave and warned him she would shoot. When he kept advancing toward her, she fired one round, striking him in the arm. He fled in a silver Kia SUV.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Shoots Vehicle Burglar At West Palm Beach Gas Station
• The Slowest Load: Reloading a Revolver with Loose Rounds
• Watch 9-Year-Old Punch Mom’s Attacker in the Face
• Mother Arrested After Starting Argument at Miami-Dade McDonald’s, Gun ‘Discharges When Dropped,’ Injuring 15-Year-Old Daughter
• The East Coast Storm and 72-hour kits

Deputies found the vehicle a short time later at AdventHealth Hospital, conducted a felony stop, and detained him. He was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. The mother and her children were not hurt.

“When someone invades your home and threatens you and your family, they will likely be shot,” Sheriff Rick Staly said in the release.

Staly, who was re-elected to a third term in 2024, called McDonald a violent repeat offender and said the case is why Florida’s Stand Your Ground law exists. The sheriff’s office said the homeowner acted lawfully in defending herself and her children, though it noted the investigation remains active and ongoing.

McDonald was arrested for burglary with assault and booked into the Sheriff Perry Hall Inmate Detention Facility, where he is held without bond pending arraignment. The sheriff’s office said his record includes prior arrests for grand theft, drug possession, possession with intent to sell, resisting, obstruction, DUI, and robbery with a firearm. The current charge is an allegation, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted.

A mother facing down an intruder advancing on her kids had seconds to decide. The law gave her the right to protect them inside her own home, and she did.

Read the original story: Florida Mother Shoots Home Intruder Who Threatened Her and Her Two Children

Key Takeaways

• Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that adults aged 18 to 20 can carry concealed firearms, overturning the state’s 21-and-older requirement.
• The court found the minimum age provision unconstitutional, allowing young adults to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
• Florida’s Attorney General agreed with the ruling and will not appeal, leading to immediate implementation of the decision statewide.
• The case arose from Broward County, following an incident where an 18-year-old was charged for carrying a concealed firearm.
• The ruling aligns with the court’s view that young adults should have the same self-defense rights as older adults.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WEST PALM BEACH, FLA. — Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that adults aged 18 to 20 cannot be barred from carrying a concealed firearm, striking down the state’s 21-and-older requirement as a violation of the Second Amendment.

The court held that section 790.06(2)(b), Florida Statutes, the provision setting 21 as the minimum age for a concealed carry license, is facially unconstitutional as it applies to 18- to 20-year-olds. Because Florida’s permitless carry law still requires unlicensed carriers to meet the license criteria, that age floor had locked younger adults out of legal concealed carry entirely.

Judge Spencer D. Levine wrote for the panel. “The plain text of the Constitution and our country’s history and traditions say no,” he wrote, answering whether young adults can be denied the same self-defense rights as everyone else. Chief Judge Jeffrey T. Kuntz and Judge Shannon K. Shaw concurred.

The case came out of Broward County. In 2024, police responded to a call about a handgun and detained Jaylen Eubanks, who was 18 at the time. Officers found a handgun at his waist. He was charged with carrying a concealed firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm. He pled no contest but reserved his right to appeal the concealed carry charge on Second Amendment grounds. The court vacated only that concealed carry conviction. The improper exhibition count was not appealed and stands.

The panel applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. First, it found that 18- to 20-year-olds are part of “the people” the Second Amendment protects, and that public carry falls within the right to bear arms. Then it put the burden on the government to show a historical tradition supporting the ban. The state could not.

More from USA Carry:

• NRA Plans Appeal in Federal Age Limit Case
• Ohio Senate Blocks Cities from Limits on Concealed Knife Carry
• No Right To Concealed Carry, Says California Appeals Court
• It’s Official: West Virginia Adults 18 and Older Can Now Carry Concealed Without a License
• Adults 18 and Older Can Now Carry Concealed Without a License in West Virginia Starting June 12

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier had already conceded the point. His office declined to defend the statute on appeal, agreeing it could not stand. After the ruling, Uthmeier said the state “will not seek further review” and would work with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to put the decision into effect.

The Broward State Attorney’s Office took the other side. It filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending the age limit, arguing that those under 21 were treated as minors at the founding and that young adults misuse firearms at higher rates. Citing the 2018 Parkland shooting, the office said it “respectfully disagree[d] with the position taken by the Office of the Attorney General.” The court rejected the public-safety argument, noting that Bruen does not let the government save a gun law with statistics alone.

I have said it before. An adult is an adult. An 18-year-old can enlist and carry a rifle in defense of this country, vote, and sign a contract. Telling that same citizen there was no lawful way to carry a firearm for self-defense was never going to survive honest constitutional scrutiny. The court made the same point, observing that these young adults can defend the nation without restriction yet faced severe limits on defending themselves.

With the Attorney General declining to appeal, the decision stands and applies across Florida. I will be watching how the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services implements it, and whether the state’s remaining age-based gun restrictions fall next.

Read the original story: Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Ban for Adults Under 21

Key Takeaways

• The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is appealing three Texas laws that restrict gun owners from carrying in bars, restaurants, and at sporting events.
• Texas conceded that these laws violate the Second Amendment, but the trial court upheld them despite this concession.
• FPC argues these bans are historically unjustified, referencing the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision that protects public carry for self-defense.
• Only 14 states ban carry in bars and restaurants, making Texas an outlier among states like California and New York.
• A ruling from the Fifth Circuit would have implications beyond Texas, potentially affecting gun rights in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

NEW ORLEANS, LA — The Firearms Policy Coalition has taken Texas to the Fifth Circuit over three laws that strip law-abiding gun owners of the right to carry in places people visit every day.

FPC filed its opening brief on June 15 in Ziegenfuss v. Martin, asking the federal appeals court to strike down Texas bans on carrying in bars and restaurants, at sporting events, and at racetracks.

The case challenges three sections of the Texas Penal Code. One bans carry in any business that draws 51 percent or more of its income from alcohol. Another bans carry at high school, college, and professional sporting events. The third bans carry on the premises of a racetrack.

Two of those bans are third-degree felonies, punishable by two to ten years in prison and fines up to $10,000. The sporting event ban is a Class A misdemeanor.

The plaintiffs are three licensed Texas carriers, Charles Ziegenfuss, David Montgomery, and Brian Robinson, along with FPC. All three say they want to carry in these locations for self-defense but stay away out of fear of arrest.

Here is the part that stands out to me. Texas did not even defend these laws. The state conceded in the district court that all three bans violate the Second Amendment.

Because the state refused to defend the statutes, the trial judge appointed outside attorneys to argue for them. The court then upheld all three bans anyway in a March 24 ruling. FPC appealed the same day.

The brief leans on the Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which protects a general right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Under that standard, the government must show a law fits this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

More from USA Carry:

• Court Battle Over Guns at Post Office Heats Up as SAF & FPC Fights ‘Unconstitutional’ Government Tactics
• Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Limit USPS Gun Ban Ruling, Expands Protection to SAF and FPC Members
• DOJ Backs FPC in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Ban on Commonly Owned Pistols
• NRA, SAF, and FPC Hit Maryland With Federal Lawsuit Over New Glock Ban
• S&W Introduces the M&P FPC Folding Carbine

FPC argues Texas cannot meet that test. Taverns were everywhere at the Founding, yet no Founding-era legislature banned carrying inside them. The right, the brief argues, “does not evaporate when a law-abiding Texan walks into a bar.”

The brief also goes after the “sensitive places” idea. Bruen named only three historical sensitive places: polling places, courthouses, and legislative assemblies. Each one came with government-provided security. Texas provides none at the locations covered by these bans.

On the sporting event ban, FPC argues the trial court stretched a narrow history of disarming students on school grounds into a blanket rule covering every adult at any sporting event. The challenge does not touch carry on school campuses, which a separate law already restricts.

On racetracks, the brief notes that American horseracing dates to the 1600s, yet the trial court relied on a single 1868 Tennessee law to justify the ban.

Texas is an outlier. The brief cites figures showing only 14 states ban carry in bars and restaurants, a group that includes California, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.

FPC President Brandon Combs said Texas “cannot criminalize carrying firearms in ordinary places people visit every day.”

The Fifth Circuit covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, so a ruling here would reach well beyond Texas. I will follow this appeal through briefing and report on how the court comes down.

Read the original story: Texas Admitted These Gun Bans Are Unconstitutional. Now FPC Is Asking a Federal Court to Kill Them.

Key Takeaways

• Kentucky State Police are investigating a shooting in Clay County involving 23-year-old Jeremy Oliver.
• Oliver arrived intoxicated at his parents’ home, threatened the family, and a verbal argument escalated to gunfire.
• He sustained a gunshot wound to the chest and was initially treated before being airlifted to a hospital with life-threatening injuries.
• Authorities have not disclosed who fired the shot or if any charges will be filed.
• The case raises complex legal issues about self-defense within families.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MANCHESTER, KY — Kentucky State Police are investigating an early-morning shooting in Clay County that left a 23-year-old man fighting for his life after, troopers say, he arrived intoxicated at his parents’ home and threatened the family.

The call came in to Clay County 911 around 2 a.m. on Saturday, June 13. According to KSP Post 11 in London, the caller reported that a family member was at the residence on Portersburg Road and was threatening to harm them, followed by a series of gunshots.

When troopers arrived, they found Jeremy Oliver, 23, of Manchester, with a gunshot wound to the chest. Troopers placed a chest seal on him and turned care over to Clay County EMS, who transported him to St. Joseph Hospital in London. He was later airlifted to the University of Kentucky Albert B. Chandler Hospital in Lexington with life-threatening injuries.

More from USA Carry:

• Road Rage Leads To Victim Looking At The Wrong End of a Gun
• Kentucky Homeowner Shoots Man Attempting To Unlawfully Enter His Home
• Kentucky Homeowner Shoots Intoxicated Man Entering Home Illegally
• Intoxicated Man Gets Shot By Homeowner After Entering the Wrong Apartment
• Man Attempts to Enter Woman’s Car; Gets Shot in the Head

A preliminary investigation determined that Oliver came to his parents’ residence while intoxicated and started a verbal argument, troopers said. That dispute escalated and ended with Oliver being shot in the torso. The family tried to drive him to the hospital themselves but were unable to do so.

KSP has not said who fired the shot, has not announced any charges, and has not publicly characterized the shooting. The release names only the wounded man.

What makes a case like this so hard is who the threat came from. Standing up to your own son or brother is the most wrenching version of that choice there is, and the right to defend your life and your home does not vanish because the person threatening you is family. When someone faces an imminent threat of death or serious injury, the law recognizes the right to meet it with force, even against their own.

Read the original story: Kentucky Man Critically Wounded After Showing Up Intoxicated and Threatening Family, Troopers Say

TULSA, OKLA. — A convenience store clerk shot a man who police say stormed in swinging a machete, got behind the counter, and came after him twice.

It happened June 11 around 8:17 a.m. at Naifeh’s Food Mart near 200 N. Mohawk Blvd. Tulsa Police officers responded to a shooting call and found 61-year-old Donald Lockridge sitting outside with a gunshot wound to the hip. He was taken to a hospital and treated for non-life-threatening injuries.

Officers spoke with the clerk and reviewed surveillance video. Police say Lockridge walked into the store with a machete, yelling and swinging it, then got behind the counter and swung the blade at the clerk.

The clerk got out of the store and grabbed a gun from his car. Police say Lockridge followed him outside, then turned and went back into the store.

When the clerk went back in, police say Lockridge attacked him again with the machete. The clerk shot him in the hip and called 911.

More from USA Carry:

• Machete-Wielding Man Stopped By Concealed Carrier
• Homeowner Fatally Shoots Teenage Burglars Armed with Gun and Machete
• Tulsa Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attacker, Injures Another After Group Assault
• Woman Fatally Shoots Child’s Father During Alleged Assault in Tulsa Apartment
• Stop Using Crappy Holsters | Holster Fail During Draw in DGU Incident

A man with a blade closing distance behind the counter is a deadly threat, and the clerk had seconds to answer it. The detail that tells the whole story is who walked away facing charges. It was not the clerk.

Police say Lockridge is expected to be booked into the Tulsa County Jail on a complaint of assault with a deadly weapon once he is medically cleared. The investigation remains open, and Lockridge has not been convicted of anything.

Read the original story: Tulsa Store Clerk Opens Fire After Machete Attacker Gets Behind the Counter

Key Takeaways

• A man in Tulsa had his gun stolen while waiting to pay at QuikTrip, highlighting the risks of open carry.
• The suspect, identified as Aaron Deshawn Clayton, stole the victim’s Springfield XD 9mm and fled the scene.
• Police tracked Clayton to a nearby home, where he was arrested on charges related to the theft and prior felony convictions.
• The stolen pistol has not been recovered, and the search for it is still ongoing.
• Concealment is preferred because it prevents theft and avoids advertising one’s firearm to potential criminals.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

TULSA, OKLA. — A man waiting to pay inside a south Tulsa QuikTrip had his pistol taken straight off his hip, and the case is a clean example of why I carry concealed instead of open.

According to the Tulsa Police Department, the theft happened June 12 around 1:42 p.m. at the QuikTrip at 1415 E. 71st St. S. Officers were called for a larceny.

The victim told police he was getting a drink and then standing in line when a suspect walked up behind him and pulled his Springfield XD 9mm from a hip holster. Police said the holster had no retention device.

The suspect ran out of the store with the gun and got into a gold SUV that left westbound, police said. The victim followed and watched the vehicle drive away.

With help from the department’s Real Time Information Center, officers developed a lead on the vehicle and then on the suspect. Police identified him as Aaron Deshawn Clayton, 39.

Officers tracked Clayton to a home near 61st and Quincy Avenue. Police said he came out and rode off on a bicycle before he was taken into custody without further incident.

A search of the residence turned up a light blue trucker-style hat matching the one the suspect wore inside the store, according to police. The stolen pistol has not been recovered.

Clayton has a prior felony conviction, police said. He was booked into the Tulsa County Jail on complaints of larceny from a person after former conviction of a felony and possession of a firearm after former conviction of a felony.

This is an arrest, not a conviction. Police say the search for the stolen firearm is ongoing.

More from USA Carry:

• A Quiktrip Security Guard Shoots A Woman Who Threatened With A Pellet Gun
• Armed Citizen Fatally Shoots Suspect on Violent Crime Spree After Using the Gas Station Bathroom
• Tulsa Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attacker, Injures Another After Group Assault
• Woman Fatally Shoots Child’s Father During Alleged Assault in Tulsa Apartment
• Stop Using Crappy Holsters | Holster Fail During Draw in DGU Incident

I want to be clear about something. I am not against open carry, and the right to bear arms is a fundamental civil right that does not shrink because a holster is visible. But a firearm worn out in the open, in a holster with no retention, is an invitation to exactly what happened here.

A retention holster buys you time. Concealment takes you off the radar altogether. A thief cannot grab what he never sees, and he cannot easily rip free a pistol that locks into place.

That is why I carry concealed. Not because open carry is wrong, but because I would rather not advertise that I am armed, and I would rather not hand a criminal a head start on my own gun.

Read the original story: Felon Snatches Gun Off Open Carrier’s Hip Inside Crowded Tulsa QuikTrip

Key Takeaways

• Episode 61 details a smooth flight from Las Vegas to New Orleans on Southwest Airlines.
• At LAS, the author checked in a firearm, completed a declaration form, and waited for TSA, but no agent came out.
• Upon arrival, the bag with the pelican case arrived intact at MSY with locks secure.
• Despite varying questions at different counters, the overall process for flying with firearms remains routine.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 61 was filmed June 3rd, flying Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans. Smooth from start to finish.

Check-In at LAS

Declared firearms. Agent asked if there was ammunition in the chamber — no. Confirmed I was heading to New Orleans, then handed me the declaration form to fill out and sign on the back.

I put the declaration form in the Fedex shipping sleeve that was attached to my hard-sided case. She asked if I’d checked a firearm there before. I said yes. Confirmed she wanted me to wait at the flagpole and she said yes. Set my 15-minute timer and waited. TSA didn’t come out.

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 52 – SW from Las Vegas to New Orleans
• 3 Tips for Flying With Guns That Make the Process Smoother
• Flying with Guns: Episode 57 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans
• Flying with Guns: Episode 46 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 48 – Southwest from LAS to MSY

Arrival in New Orleans

Bag came out on the carousel at MSY. Pelican case was inside the luggage, locks intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Sixty-one in and it stays routine. The questions change a little counter to counter but the process doesn’t.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 61 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans

Key Takeaways

• The Washington Supreme Court ruled that repeat DUI convictions can strip Second Amendment rights, regardless of firearm involvement.
• In McLellan v. Brown, the court upheld a 2023 law barring firearm possession for individuals with multiple DUI convictions.
• The majority opinion did not require individual assessments, allowing disarmament based on conviction categories alone.
• Justice Whitener dissented, arguing that DUI is nonviolent and the law violates the Second Amendment.
• The ruling could set a precedent for further erosion of gun rights, as it targets categories of offenders without individualized analysis.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

OLYMPIA, WASH. — The Washington Supreme Court ruled June 11 that the state can strip your Second Amendment rights over repeat drunk driving convictions, even when no firearm was ever involved in the offense.

In McLellan v. Brown, the court upheld RCW 9.41.040, a 2023 law that temporarily bars anyone convicted twice within seven years of DUI from possessing a firearm. The justices reversed the trial court, which had let the challenge move forward, and ordered judgment entered for the State.

Geoffrey McLellan and Jackson Holloway brought the case. McLellan had three DUI convictions in seven years. Holloway had two. Both applied for concealed carry permits. Both were denied under the statute.

Neither man used a gun in any of those offenses. Neither was found individually dangerous. The court decided it did not need that finding.

Writing for the majority, Justice González held the law fits the nation’s historical tradition of disarming groups the legislature considers a special danger. The court pointed to old restrictions on serious offenders and on people who misuse alcohol.

The key move is what the majority did not require. It said the state does not need an individualized assessment of each person. A category of conviction is enough. The court called the Second Amendment “neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.”

That reasoning should concern every gun owner. It treats a fundamental civil right as something the legislature can switch off for an entire class of people based on a prediction about what they might do someday.

Under the statute, people disarmed this way can petition to restore their rights after five years of law-abiding behavior. Five years without a firearm, over a crime that never involved one.

Justice Whitener dissented, and got it right. She explained that the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Rahimi allows temporary disarmament only when a court finds a credible threat of physical violence to another person. A DUI is dangerous. It is not violent.

She noted that Washington law itself classifies DUI as a serious traffic offense, not a violent crime. The historical surety and affray laws the majority leaned on targeted people who actually threatened others with weapons, not nonviolent offenders.

More from USA Carry:

• Washington’s HB 1163 Seeks to Implement Firearm Purchase Permits, But Faces Hurdles Similar to Last Year’s Failed Bill
• Homeowner Fires On Burglars Stealing Pressure Washer; Wounding One
• Concealed Carrier Turned the Tables on Armed Robbers at Car Wash
• No Right To Concealed Carry, Says California Appeals Court
• Negligent Discharges During Training — Lessons Learned

Whitener called the law “an outlier” that violates the Second Amendment. She would have struck it down.

This is how a right gets hollowed out. Not all at once, but one “dangerous category” at a time. Today it is repeat DUIs. The logic the majority adopted has no obvious stopping point.

The respondents can still seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not directly decided whether nonviolent offenders can be disarmed by category. I will be tracking where this goes.

Read the original story: Washington’s High Court Says the State Can Take Your Guns Over DUIs, Even If You Never Touched One

Key Takeaways

• As of June 12, 2026, West Virginia allows adults 18 and older to carry a concealed deadly weapon without a license.
• House Bill 4106, signed into law on April 1, 2026, amended previous laws and eliminated the age restriction for concealed carry.
• Individuals under 18 still cannot carry firearms, except for hunting with parental permission or in specific situations.
• The law maintains existing prohibitions for those with felony convictions, mental incompetency, or protective orders.
• You no longer need a license to carry concealed if you are 18 to 20 years old in West Virginia, but optional licenses remain available.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — The change I wrote about this spring is now the law. As of June 12, 2026, any West Virginia adult 18 and older can carry a concealed deadly weapon without first getting a license.

That date marked 90 days from the passage of House Bill 4106, which Governor Patrick Morrisey signed on April 1, 2026. Both chambers cleared the final version on March 14.

Under the new statute, any West Virginian who is at least 18, a U.S. citizen or legal resident, and not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm may now carry concealed without a permit. The state’s permitless carry framework used to start at 21.

HB 4106 did this by amending Section 61-7-7 of state code and repealing Section 61-7-3, the provision that had made it a crime for someone under 21 to carry concealed without a license. That offense no longer exists.

The law keeps every existing prohibition in place. Anyone convicted of a felony, subject to a qualifying domestic violence protective order, found mentally incompetent, or barred under federal law still cannot possess or carry a firearm. The federal bars in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) and (n) are written directly into the statute.

More from USA Carry:

• Adults 18 and Older Can Now Carry Concealed Without a License in West Virginia Starting June 12
• Virginia House Passes HB 217, Advancing Broad Assault Firearm and Magazine Ban
• SAF, NRA File Brief Challenging Pennsylvania Ban on 18-20 Year Old Carry
• What To Do If Your Concealed Carry Permit Is On Hold
• Florida Bill Could Make More Than Half the Country Constitutional Carry

Rules for those under 18 also stay intact. Minors who are not married or emancipated still cannot carry, with the long-standing exceptions for hunting, family property, and carrying with both parental and property-owner permission. A minor who violates that section can be adjudicated delinquent.

I see this as a straightforward correction. A 19-year-old adult has the same right to defend himself or herself as anyone older. Federal law already lets this age group buy and possess long guns, and West Virginia has now stopped treating young adults as second-class carriers.

If you are 18 to 20 and carrying in West Virginia, the change is live right now. You no longer need a license to carry concealed. Optional licenses are still available, and I would still recommend one if you travel, since reciprocity in other states depends on holding a permit.

Read the original story: It’s Official: West Virginia Adults 18 and Older Can Now Carry Concealed Without a License

Key Takeaways

• EDC lights primarily serve utility purposes but can also function as effective fighting lights.
• They enhance awareness by projecting a strong visual presence to deter potential threats.
• EDC lights are ideal for signaling needs, helping to gain attention in emergencies or roadside situations.
• Additionally, they can act as a low-level force tool, providing a deterrent without legal repercussions.
• The Surefire EDC Turbo series and Modlite handhelds are top choices for fighting lights.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

The obvious use for an EDC light is target ID, and to assist in the application of force (ie. Shooting). In essence, a fighting light. However, we don’t often use lights for fighting, because getting in fights is something we prefer not to do. So instead, we use EDC lights for utility most often, and in doing so, can sometimes loose the “fighting” part of the light. 

Instead, if we broaden our understanding of the fighting light’s purpose, we can sometimes better balance what we need in a light. Here are three things outside of the fight, that fighting lights can be good at. 

Projecting Awareness

Everyone carries a flashlight these days, in fact, you might even be reading this article on your multipurpose flashlight called a cellphone. The light on your phone is useful for all kinds of things. Finding that dropped item in the shadowy recesses of your car’s interior. Fumbling with your keys to get through a locked door. Rummaging through that poorly lit shed or garage looking for that tool you swear is in that one toolbox. What those types of lights, low output with poor throw, are not good at is projecting awareness. Our goal is not to be the baddest dude to walk down Main St, USA. It is to appear to be badder than the dude in front of or behind us. Appearing to be aware, (and better, actually being aware), is a key piece of that puzzle. A well deployed high output, high candela, handheld light can help us to accomplish this. It sends a clear “I see you” message to anyone who may have earned it. As a bonus, flashlights of the type we are talking, typically only get associated with one group of people, and it tends to be a group of people with arrest powers that the criminal element would rather not interact with. 

Signaling

I have been on the side of the road with vehicle accidents, broken down vehicles, injured persons, et al, way more than I have been in gunfights, or almost been in gunfights. Having a powerful enough to effectively signal approaching drivers, punch through tinted windows on wrecked or disabled vehicles (I know, not signaling) or draw the attention of emergency responders, can pay dividends. Punchier lights tend to do these things the best, and get attention quicker than less punchy lights. 

More from USA Carry:

• Accidental Child Shooting Deaths at a Record Low
• Possibly Moving To A New State? CCW License Transfer Tips
• EDC Drop & Christmas 2019 Gift Ideas & Guide for Gun People
• Polymer 80 Glock Build Project – Building My Ghost Gun, Part-Two
• An Object Lesson in Situational Awareness

Light as a Force Tool

Force exists on this continuum from 0, to 100. Too far above zero, and those uses of force come with legal repercussions if administered inappropriately. High powered lights can be used to apply a very low, basically legally inconsequential amount of force, but still sends a clear message of deterrence. You have heard of an eye poke in a can (OC/pepper spray), a well-designed light throwing a high number of candelas into a person’s eyes can be like a push in the chest. The message is clear, stay away. It has the bonus effect of essentially hiding the user behind a wall of light. Most people, when confronted with enough light, will squint, and lift their hands to block the light. Both help the light user. It blocks vision, and creates a relatively benign circumstance to give us information about the hands. 

The Wrap

So, there we go. Three reasons to carry a fighting light that doesn’t have to do with shooting a gun. Among my favorite lights are the Surefire EDC Turbo series of lights, and the Modlite handhelds. Are there some other players in the game? Sure, but these two seem to be playing this particular game at the highest level.

Read the original story: Three Key Uses of the EDC Light

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge vacated the ATF’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ rule, impacting all gun owners nationwide.
• The court found the 2024 rule unlawful and removed it, which makes the government unable to enforce it against anyone.
• The lawsuit included the State of Texas and various gun rights organizations, with Gun Owners of America celebrating the decision.
• The ruling stemmed from a change in administration, leading to the Justice Department dropping its appeal and the ATF starting new rulemaking.
• The previous rule is completely nullified, and the ATF’s replacement rule is still pending.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

AMARILLO, TX — A federal judge has wiped out the ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” rule, and the ruling reaches every gun owner in the country, not just the people who sued.

On June 12, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk entered final judgment against the ATF in State of Texas v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He found the agency’s 2024 rule unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and vacated it in full.

The rule, published at 89 Fed. Reg. 28,968 in April 2024, redefined who counts as a firearms dealer “engaged in the business.” Critics warned it swept in private collectors and hobbyists who sold the occasional gun, exposing them to felony liability for not holding a federal license.

Because the court vacated the rule rather than just blocking it against the plaintiffs, the relief is not limited to the parties. The judgment states the government “may not apply the Final Rule to anyone.” That includes people and organizations who never set foot in the case.

The plaintiffs included the State of Texas as lead, joined by Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, private citizen Jeffrey Tormey, Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, the Tennessee Firearms Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League. GOA called it a win for gun owners and said the courts saw the rule for what it was.

More from USA Carry:

• BREAKING: ATF Pistol Brace Rule VACATED!
• Judge Hits Pause on Controversial Gun Ruling That Demanded Gun Rights Groups’ Member Lists
• Thirteen Senators Demand Trump Administration Stop Enforcing Biden Pistol Brace Rule
• Dealing With A Violent Incident in Your Neighborhood
• Things You Need To Know About Concealed Carry Today

The path to final judgment ran through a change in administration. After President Trump took office, he directed the Attorney General to review Biden-era ATF rules. The Justice Department then dropped its appeal at the Fifth Circuit in April 2026, and the ATF opened a new rulemaking to undo the parts of the 2024 rule the court had already flagged as likely unlawful.

The government asked Kacsmaryk to pause the case while that rulemaking played out. He refused. He denied the stay, granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the vacatur, denied the government’s motion, and dissolved his own earlier preliminary injunction as unnecessary now that the rule is gone.

I have covered this rule since it landed, and this is the cleanest possible outcome. It is not a narrow carve-out or a temporary block. The rule is off the books for everyone.

The ATF’s replacement rulemaking is still pending. I will keep tracking it, along with the related “Engaged in the Business” litigation moving through the courts in Alabama, to see what the agency tries next.

Read the original story: Federal Judge Vacates ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” Rule Nationwide, and It Applies to Everyone

Key Takeaways

• A man is recovering in the hospital after being shot during a confrontation at a west Houston apartment complex.
• The shooting resulted from an argument where the resident stepped back, but the wounded man followed and shoved him.
• Houston police found the shooter and the victim were acquaintances, though the argument’s cause remains unclear.
• Prosecutors have not filed charges against the resident, pending further investigation of the incident.
• Texas law recognizes the right to self-defense, especially within one’s own home, complicating the legal evaluation of the shooting.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

HOUSTON, TX — A man is recovering in the hospital after a resident at a west Houston apartment complex shot him during an early morning confrontation, and prosecutors have so far declined to file charges.

Houston police officers were called to The Landing at Westchase Apartments on Meadowglen Lane around 12:40 a.m. Sunday. They found a man with a gunshot wound to the left side of his abdomen. Houston Fire Department paramedics took him to a hospital, where he was listed in stable condition.

Fox 26 Houston reported that the shooting grew out of an argument between the wounded man and a resident of the complex. According to police, the resident tried to back away, retreating toward his apartment patio. The other man followed and approached him again.

Police say the man then shoved the resident as he stood at his own apartment door. That is when the resident drew a firearm and fired one shot.

More from USA Carry:

• Identifying & Fixing Common Trigger Control Problems
• Suarez International’s Zero to Five Feet Gunfighting Review
• Burglar Killed in Self-Defense; Accomplice Charged With His Murder
• New Ohio Report Shows Permit Numbers Climbing Even Without Carry Requirement
• Reactions from the George Zimmerman Verdict

Officers say the two men appeared to be acquaintances who did not know each other well. The wounded man may have been visiting someone else at the complex. What started the argument is still not clear.

The Harris County District Attorney’s Office declined to accept charges against the resident at this time, pending further investigation.

I want to be careful with what we know here. The facts police have released describe a man who tried to withdraw and was pursued and shoved at his own door. Those details matter, and Texas law gives weight to a person’s right to stand armed in their own home. But the investigation is not closed, and prosecutors have not cleared anyone. We will report what the record shows, not more than it shows.

The right to keep a firearm for self-defense does not end at the threshold of an apartment. Where the line falls between a heated argument and a lawful defensive shooting is exactly the kind of question prosecutors are weighing now.

Read the original story: Houston Resident Shoots Man Who Shoved Him at His Own Apartment Door, DA Declines Charges