Key Takeaways

• The U.S. House passed H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, with a vote of 221 to 201.
• This bill prohibits payment card networks from requiring firearm-specific merchant category codes, blocking the creation of a purchase database.
• Enforcement will involve the Attorney General, who must set up a complaint process and report to Congress annually on investigations.
• H.R. 1181 aims to unify state laws by creating a federal prohibition, replacing the current inconsistent regulations across states.
• The bill now moves to the Senate, where it faces challenges in securing adequate support to overcome a filibuster.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. House on Tuesday passed H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, a bill that would prohibit payment card networks from requiring firearm-specific merchant category codes and block payment processors from assigning them.

The vote was 221 to 201. According to the House Clerk’s official roll call, 215 Republicans, five Democrats, and one Independent voted yes. One Republican, Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, joined 200 Democrats in voting no. The Democrats who crossed over were Reps. Henry Cuellar of Texas, Don Davis of North Carolina, Jared Golden of Maine, Adam Gray of California, and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

The bill is sponsored by Rep. Riley Moore of West Virginia and now heads to the Senate.

Here is what the bill actually does, based on the text reported out of the House Financial Services Committee. It bars payment card networks like Visa and Mastercard from requiring a firearms retailer to use a merchant category code that is used only or primarily for gun stores, or that identifies the retailer as being in the business of selling firearms, ammunition, or firearm parts and accessories. It also bars the banks and processors that handle merchant accounts from assigning those codes.

Merchant category codes are the multi-digit classification numbers attached to every business that accepts card payments. A firearm-specific code matters because it would let financial institutions flag and track gun and ammunition purchases as a category, transaction by transaction. That is the raw material for a purchase database that no federal law authorizes the government to build directly. NRA-ILA, which has pushed this bill since its introduction, describes it as blocking a backdoor registry of gun owners assembled through the payment system.

More from USA Carry:

• Your Credit Card Company Can Now Start Tracking Your Gun Purchases
• Hurricane Ian Highlights the Need for National Constitutional Carry
• Sheriff Warns of Phone Scam Targeting Concealed Carry License Applicants
• Mistakes to Avoid for the First-Time Gun Buyer
• National Reciprocity Bill Advances in House Alongside Firearm Due Process Reform

Enforcement runs through the Attorney General, not private lawsuits. The bill directs the AG to set up a complaint process within 90 days of enactment, investigate complaints, and give violators written notice with 30 days to fix the problem. If they don’t, the AG can seek an injunction in federal court. The bill explicitly creates no private right of action, and it requires the AG to report to Congress annually on investigations and outcomes.

The bill also preempts state and local laws regulating the assignment, use, or disclosure of firearm-specific merchant codes. That matters because the states have gone in opposite directions on this issue. California mandated use of a firearms merchant code, while more than a dozen states passed laws prohibiting it. H.R. 1181 would replace that patchwork with a single federal prohibition. The preemption clause carves out compliance with laws related to fraud, dispute processing, and transaction integrity.

Rep. Moore introduced the bill in February 2025 with Reps. Andy Barr of Kentucky and Richard Hudson of North Carolina among the original cosponsors. It picked up more than 100 additional cosponsors before the Financial Services Committee reported it out in February of this year.

The Senate is the harder chamber. A companion effort would need 60 votes to clear a filibuster, and Tuesday’s House margin suggests Democratic support remains thin. I’ll be tracking the bill as it moves to the Senate and will report on any committee action or floor scheduling.

Read the original story: Five Democrats Cross Over as House Votes to Block Credit Card Tracking of Gun Buyers

Key Takeaways

• Episode 65 details a Southwest flight from New Orleans to Las Vegas with firearms.
• The author used a Pelican rifle case, ensuring privacy for the contents during check-in.
• They paid an extra fee for exceeding the weight limit of their checked luggage.
• The luggage pickup was smooth and quick upon arrival in Las Vegas.
• The article suggests packing wisely to avoid heavy bag fees and using a side-slide method for forms.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Episode 65 was filmed July 9th, flying Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas. Rifle case, a weight fee I saw coming, and some of the best counter banter of the series.

Check-In at MSY

Declared firearms. This trip I had my large Pelican rifle case with a rifle and a few handguns inside, plus a second checked bag. Agent asked about the locks — clarified they’re not TSA recognized locks, which is the point. Signed the back of the declaration form. No loose ammunition.

For the form itself, I did something worth showing: instead of opening the entire case at the counter for everyone to see what’s inside, I removed one lock and opened two latches, which gives enough room to slide the form in through the side. The contents stay out of view and the form is inside where it needs to be.

The case weighed in at 55 pounds, over the limit. I had a feeling it would be once I packed it all up, so the extra fare was no surprise. Paid it and moved on. The agents got a kick out of the weight — jokes about bowling balls and and dead bodies. One of them told me I was building a reputation, showing up with the heavy stuff. All in good fun. These agents have seen me plenty of times now.

Set my 15-minute timer and waited. TSA didn’t come out.

More from USA Carry:

• Check-In and Flying With Your Guns & Ammo | Step by Step
• Concealed Carrier Fends Off Group of Robbers; 16-Year-Old Suspect Dead
• Florida Cab Driver Shoots Would-be Killer
• Flying with Guns: Episode 57 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans
• Flying with Guns: Episode 46 – Southwest from LAS to MSY

Arrival in Las Vegas

Pickup was quick. I actually missed the luggage guy bringing it to the Southwest office — turned around at some point and it was already sitting there waiting for me. Showed my ID and was on my way.

Final Thoughts

Pack a rifle case full and you’re probably paying the heavy bag fee. Know it going in and it’s a non-issue. And if you don’t want to open your whole case at the counter, the side-slide method for the declaration form works.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 65 – Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas

Key Takeaways

• A road rage incident in Charleston ended fatally when a driver confronted another man after trying to avoid conflict.
• William Ray Hinerman, 63, drove aggressively before getting into an altercation where he attacked the other driver.
• The other driver shot Hinerman in self-defense after being physically assaulted.
• The shooter called 911 immediately and cooperated with police, which are positive actions after a defensive shooting.
• No charges have been filed yet, and the investigation is ongoing to determine if the shooting was justified.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

CHARLESTON, W.VA. — A late-night road rage encounter on Greenbrier Street turned deadly Monday, May 18, when a driver who had pulled over to avoid a confrontation shot the man police say came back and attacked him.

As reported by 13 WOWK, the Charleston Police Department received a call at 10:45 p.m. about a shooting near the intersection of Greenbrier Street and Deitrick Boulevard.

According to the department’s preliminary investigation, William Ray Hinerman, 63, of Charleston, was driving aggressively before the incident. Investigators believe the driver of a second vehicle pulled over to the side of the road specifically to avoid a confrontation with him.

That should have been the end of it. Police say it wasn’t.

More from USA Carry:

• Residents Disarm and Wound Intruders During Charleston Home Invasion Attempt
• Wife Fatally Shoots Husband By Firing a Warning Shot Through the Door
• 19-Year-Old Woman Shoots 31-Year-Old Boyfriend in Self-Defense After Violent Assault in Charleston, WV
• West Virginia House Bill Seeks to Allow Concealed Carry on School Grounds
• Driver Shoots Two Men After They Allegedly Followed Him, Blocked His Vehicle, and Attacked Him in Harris County, TX

Based on statements and evidence gathered at the scene, investigators allege Hinerman made a U-turn, drove back to where the other driver had stopped, got out of his vehicle, and approached him. During the confrontation that followed, Hinerman allegedly struck the other driver multiple times.

The second driver then drew a gun and fired one round, striking Hinerman in the abdomen. He was taken to a local hospital, where he died.

After the shooting, the driver immediately called 911, stayed at the scene, and cooperated fully with investigators. Those are exactly the right steps after any defensive shooting, and they matter. They put the driver’s account on the record from the first minutes and gave investigators a cooperative witness instead of a fleeing suspect.

WV MetroNews reports the driver has not been charged. Once the investigation is complete, the evidence will be presented to the prosecuting attorney, who will determine whether any charges should be filed.

To be clear, no authority has ruled on whether this shooting was justified, and the investigation remains active and ongoing. But the account police have released so far describes a driver who tried to disengage, was followed, and was physically attacked before he fired. Deadly force is never about defending your pride in a traffic dispute. It is a last resort against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and under the facts police describe, that is the question the prosecuting attorney will be weighing.

Read the original story: Driver Who Pulled Over to Avoid Road Rage Confrontation Fatally Shoots Man Who Attacked Him, Charleston Police Say

Key Takeaways

• The gun rights coalition claims New Jersey’s sensitive places carry law is unconstitutional following recent Supreme Court rulings.
• In Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey, plaintiffs argue that decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani invalidate New Jersey’s restrictions on carry permits.
• The brief highlights how New Jersey’s law creates significant criminal exposure for permit holders through its extensive list of banned locations.
• Plaintiffs believe the Supreme Court’s rationale in recent cases undermines New Jersey’s attempts to restrict carry rights, referencing history and legality.
• With an en banc Third Circuit review underway, the outcome of this case may significantly impact New Jersey’s gun laws post-Bruen.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

PHILADELPHIA, PA — The gun rights coalition challenging New Jersey’s sweeping “sensitive places” carry law just filed a supplemental brief telling the en banc Third Circuit that the Supreme Court has already done most of the court’s work for it.

The July 8 filing in Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey argues that two Supreme Court decisions handed down in late June, Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, leave New Jersey with no path to save Chapter 131, the law Trenton rushed through after Bruen to turn most of the state into a no-carry zone for licensed citizens.

The plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and four individual permit holders led by Ronald Koons.

Start with the strongest piece. In Wolford, the Court struck down Hawaii’s rule that presumptively banned licensed carry on private property open to the public unless the owner gave express permission. New Jersey has a materially identical provision, and the Wolford opinion specifically cited New Jersey’s statute as one of the laws that flipped the traditional default rule after Bruen. The brief argues the conclusion is unavoidable: New Jersey’s private property default rule “has been struck down as inconsistent with the Second Amendment and can no longer stand.”

I want to be precise here, because precision is what separates us from press release journalism. Wolford formally invalidated Hawaii’s law, not New Jersey’s. But when the Supreme Court holds that laws prohibiting carry on private property without affirmative owner consent violate the Second Amendment, and then cites New Jersey’s statute by section number as an example of that exact scheme, the writing is on the wall. The Third Circuit would have to ignore a direct instruction to uphold it.

More from USA Carry:

• Magazine Ban and Licensing Rules Back in Play as D.C. Court Grants Benson En Banc Rehearing
• Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Reject Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users
• FPC and SAF Ask Supreme Court to Strike Down New York City’s Stun Gun Ban, Call Second Circuit Ruling “Caetano 2.0”
• Woman’s Murder Charge Dismissed After Being Deemed a Justifiable Homicide

The rest of Chapter 131 is where the real fight remains. New Jersey makes it a third degree crime, carrying up to five years in prison, to carry in 25 categories of locations, including libraries, museums, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, and entertainment venues. It also bans carrying a functional handgun in any vehicle. Wolford did not rule on those location-specific bans directly. But the brief argues the Court’s reasoning cuts straight through them.

The plaintiffs point to the Wolford majority’s hypothetical of a young woman with a carry permit going about an ordinary day, who by the end of it “could be a criminal at least six times over.” The brief walks through the New Jersey version: a morning trip to the library, lunch at a restaurant that serves alcohol, and the drive in between would each expose a permit holder to felony charges and years in prison. That, the plaintiffs argue, is exactly the kind of scheme the Court said “severely hampers” the right Bruen recognized.

Then there’s the history problem. Both June decisions tightened the screws on what counts as a valid historical analogue under Bruen. Wolford held that an analogue must be “widespread, well-known, and widely accepted,” and that outlier laws from a few locales prove nothing. It also rejected Hawaii’s reliance on a Reconstruction-era Black Code, calling the argument that a racist statute illuminates the original understanding of the right one that “cannot be taken seriously.” New Jersey leaned on Louisiana and Texas Black Codes in this very case.

Hemani, decided a week earlier, unanimously held that the federal ban on gun possession by drug users was unconstitutional as applied to a man whose marijuana use never rendered him dangerous or incapacitated. The Koons brief uses Hemani to dismantle the vacated panel decision’s alcohol-venue reasoning. The panel had pointed to Founding-era laws about drunks and taverns. Hemani read those same laws narrowly, as reaching only people whose drinking left them practically incapacitated. A law that disarms every sober permit holder who walks into an Olive Garden, as the brief puts it, sweeps in exactly the people history never touched.

Some quick procedural context. A three-judge panel upheld most of the sensitive places list 2-1 in September 2025. The full Third Circuit vacated that decision in December, granted en banc review, and heard argument on February 11, 2026. The court has been sitting on the case since, and the widespread assumption among court watchers was that it was waiting for Wolford and Hemani before writing. Those decisions are now in, both sides have filed their supplemental briefs, and the case is ripe for decision.

One housekeeping note: the case is still widely known as Koons v. Platkin, but Matthew Platkin left office in January. Jennifer Davenport is now New Jersey’s Attorney General, confirmed unanimously in February, and her office inherits the defense of Chapter 131.

The plaintiffs are asking the en banc court to affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction in full. Given a reshaped Third Circuit with a Republican-appointed majority and two Supreme Court decisions that read like a roadmap for striking this law down, New Jersey’s post-Bruen experiment in legislating around a constitutional right is on borrowed time.

I’ll be tracking this case and will report on the en banc decision when it comes down.

Read the original story: Koons Plaintiffs Tell Third Circuit: The Supreme Court Just Gutted New Jersey’s Carry Restrictions

Key Takeaways

• NSSF will petition the U.S. Supreme Court in Barnett v. Raoul to challenge Illinois’s rifle ban, emphasizing that it is a named plaintiff.
• The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision reversed a ruling declaring the Protect Illinois Communities Act unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
• NSSF argues that over 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles exist in circulation, asserting they cannot be banned as they are commonly used for lawful purposes.
• Additionally, NSSF claims the panel misapplied the Bruen test by incorrectly referencing historical knife carry restrictions as analogous to a rifle possession ban.
• The cert petition is significant as it provides the Supreme Court a comprehensive trial record, potentially influencing their decision on state bans of popular rifles.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The firearm industry is not letting the Seventh Circuit have the last word on Illinois’s rifle ban.

NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, announced Thursday that it will file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in Barnett v. Raoul. That matters because NSSF is not just commenting from the sidelines. The trade association is a named plaintiff in the case, standing alongside Caleb Barnett, two Illinois gun stores, and the individual plaintiffs who challenged the Protect Illinois Communities Act from the day it was signed.

I covered the Seventh Circuit’s 2-1 decision last week. The panel reversed Judge Stephen McGlynn’s ruling that PICA violates the Second Amendment, a ruling McGlynn issued only after a four-day bench trial and a 160-page opinion. That trial record is what makes this case different from every other assault weapon ban challenge in the country, and it is what makes NSSF’s cert petition significant.

In its statement, NSSF said it “respectfully disagrees” with the panel’s decision and attacked the majority’s reasoning on two fronts.

First, the numbers. NSSF points to more than 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles in circulation, citing its own production figures, plus hundreds of millions of standard-capacity magazines owned by law-abiding Americans. By nearly any measure, these rifles are commonly owned and commonly used. Under Heller, that should end the analysis. A government cannot ban arms in common use for lawful purposes.

Second, the history. NSSF argues the panel misapplied the Bruen test by leaning on a handful of Bowie knife carry restrictions that are, in the association’s words, “in no way analogous” to a flat possession ban. Those knife laws also came after the founding and after the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, which is exactly the kind of late-arriving historical evidence Bruen warned courts against treating as founding-era tradition.

More from USA Carry:

• Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois AR-15 and Magazine Ban, Setting Up Supreme Court Showdown
• NSSF Vows Legal Action if Maryland Governor Signs Striker-Fired Handgun Ban
• FPC Just Asked the Supreme Court to End Maryland’s Carry Bans, and the List of Banned Places Is Staggering
• FPC and SAF Ask Supreme Court to Strike Down New York City’s Stun Gun Ban, Call Second Circuit Ruling “Caetano 2.0”
• ATF Swamped With 150,000 NFA Applications in One Day — Up From 2,500 Daily Average — as Outdated System Crashes

NSSF also endorsed Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent in the strongest terms. Brennan wrote that with perhaps the most comprehensive trial record in any Second Amendment case to date, the Seventh Circuit repeated its Bevis error, and that because the American people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 and its magazine, those arms are protected.

Here is why the cert petition matters strategically. The Supreme Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins on June 30, and those cases will be argued next term. But both arrived at the Court without the factual record Barnett carries. A Barnett petition gives the justices the option to consolidate, to hold the case pending the outcome, or simply to have the full trial record in front of them while they decide whether states can ban America’s most popular rifle. Either way, the industry’s trade association just guaranteed that the Seventh Circuit’s decision will not be the final judgment on PICA.

NSSF is confident that Heller and Bruen plainly vindicate these challenges. After reading the trial record McGlynn built, I think that confidence is well placed.

I’ll keep tracking the Barnett cert petition along with Viramontes and Grant as the Supreme Court’s next term approaches.

Read the original story: NSSF Takes Illinois Rifle Ban Straight to the Supreme Court After Seventh Circuit Defeat

Key Takeaways

• A man shot during an altercation on Hardy Street will not face charges as Hattiesburg detectives ruled he acted in self-defense.
• Police responded to a report of shots fired, finding evidence at the scene and a victim with a non-life-threatening gunshot wound.
• The shooter cooperated with police and provided details about the incident, supporting his claim of self-defense.
• Mississippi law allows deadly force when facing imminent threats, which the evidence supported in this case.
• The investigation remains ongoing, but initial findings indicate a lawful use of self-defense in the shooting.

HATTIESBURG, MISS. — A man who told police he opened fire after being assaulted during a late-night altercation on Hardy Street will not face charges at this time, with Hattiesburg detectives determining he acted in self-defense.

According to the Hattiesburg Police Department, officers responded to a report of shots fired in the 4400 block of Hardy Street at approximately 9:56 p.m. on Tuesday, July 7. When they arrived, they found evidence confirming a shooting had taken place. WDAM identified the scene as the Westwood Square area.

Shortly after, a person showed up at a local hospital with a gunshot wound to the leg. Police said the injury was not life-threatening.

Officers also spoke with a man who stayed at the scene. He told them he fired the shots after being assaulted during the altercation, and he cooperated with investigators throughout.

That last part matters. He stayed put, told officers what happened, and let the evidence speak. Based on what detectives gathered at this stage of the investigation, HPD determined he was acting in self-defense. No charges have been filed at this time, and the investigation remains ongoing.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Shoots Three of Four Attackers, Fatally Wounding Two
• Tulsa Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attacker, Injures Another After Group Assault
• Michigan Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Who Broke Into Attached Apartment and Assaulted Tenant Before Trying to Enter Home
• Intruder Shot After Family Barricades Themselves in Bedroom
• Why You Need More Than One Concealed Carry Gun

It is worth being precise about what happened here. This was not a shooting over an argument or wounded pride. According to police, the man was physically assaulted, meaning he faced a direct threat to his own safety when he fired. Under Mississippi law, a person may use deadly force when facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and the physical evidence at the scene apparently backed up his account.

The determination is preliminary. Detectives made their call based on the evidence gathered so far, and the case is still open. But when the person who fired stays on scene, cooperates fully, and the evidence lines up with his story, that is exactly how a lawful defensive gun use is supposed to look in the aftermath.

Read the original story: Late-Night Altercation in Hattiesburg Ends With One Wounded and No Charges for the Man Who Fired

Key Takeaways

• Kentucky’s General Assembly overrode Governor Andy Beshear’s veto of House Bill 312, allowing concealed carry licenses for 18 to 20-year-olds.
• The law takes effect on July 15, 2026, and requires background checks and firearms training for applicants.
• A provisional license will be valid statewide until the holder turns 21, with a requirement to apply for a standard license prior to expiration.
• Kentucky becomes the 26th state to permit concealed carry for young adults, although federal law still prohibits them from purchasing handguns from licensed dealers.
• This legislation acknowledges the self-defense rights of young adults who can vote and serve in the military.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

FRANKFORT, KY — The fight over concealed carry licenses for young adults in Kentucky is over, and the General Assembly won.

Lawmakers returned to Frankfort on April 14 and overrode Governor Andy Beshear’s veto of House Bill 312. The House voted 81 to 18 and the Senate voted 28 to 9. The bill was delivered to the Secretary of State the same day and enrolled as Acts Chapter 173.

The law takes effect July 15, 2026. Attorney General Russell Coleman confirmed the date in a formal opinion, citing Section 55 of the Kentucky Constitution, which makes most legislation effective 90 days after the session’s final adjournment on April 15.

As I covered in April, Beshear vetoed the bill on April 3, pointing to age restrictions on renting cars and buying alcohol as justification for blocking adults from carrying concealed. The override margins made clear how little traction that argument had in the legislature. Both chambers exceeded their original passage votes of 73 to 17 in the House and 30 to 7 in the Senate.

More from USA Carry:

• Kentucky Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Allowed Concealed Carry Licenses for 18- to 20-Year-Olds
• Lawmakers Approve First Step for Concealed Carry Licenses for 18- to 20-Year-Olds in Kentucky
• Kentucky Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Concealed Carry Licenses for 18- to 20-Year-Olds
• North Carolina Eliminates Permit Requirement for Handgun Purchases
• Man Shot, Killed Acting Out A Fake Robbery For A YouTube Video

House Bill 312, sponsored by Rep. Savannah Maddox (R-Dry Ridge) with 27 co-sponsors, directs the Kentucky State Police to issue provisional concealed carry licenses to adults aged 18 to 20 who meet the same eligibility requirements as applicants 21 and older. That includes the background check and firearms training required under KRS 237.110. This is not a watered-down permit. It is the standard process applied to adults the old law excluded.

A provisional license is valid statewide and remains in effect until the holder turns 21. Ninety days before expiration, KSP must mail the holder a notice along with an application to switch to a standard license. The holder can file the paper application with their county sheriff or apply electronically through KSP. No retraining is required to make the switch.

There is a deadline worth knowing. A provisional licensee who fails to apply for a standard license within six months of expiration has to start over with a full application under KRS 237.110.

Maddox said on social media that Kentucky becomes the 26th state to allow 18- to 20-year-olds to carry concealed firearms.

One federal wrinkle remains. Adults under 21 still cannot purchase handguns from licensed dealers under federal law. HB 312 does not and cannot change that. A 19-year-old with a provisional license would need to acquire a handgun through a lawful private transfer or as a gift.

Kentucky has been a permitless carry state for adults 21 and older since 2019, and open carry was already legal for adults 18 and up. What was missing was any lawful path for a young adult to conceal a firearm for personal protection. Starting July 15, that path exists.

These are legal adults who can vote, sign contracts, enlist, and deploy. Kentucky’s legislature just recognized that their right to self-defense does not wait three more years.

I’ll keep tracking KSP’s rollout of the provisional license program as the July 15 effective date arrives.

Read the original story: Kentucky Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto: 18- to 20-Year-Olds Can Get Concealed Carry Licenses Starting July 15

Key Takeaways

• The Seventh Circuit Court upheld Illinois’s ban on AR-15s and 30-round rifle magazines in a 2-1 decision.
• The decision reverses a previous injunction and bases its reasoning on historical weapon regulations.
• Chief Judge Brennan dissented, arguing that the AR-15 is widely accepted and legal in many states.
• The ruling focuses only on AR-15s while leaving applications to other firearms open for future challenges.
• The case may eventually reach the Supreme Court amid ongoing concerns over Second Amendment rights.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CHICAGO, IL — The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Illinois can ban the most popular rifle in America.

In a 2-1 decision in Barnett v. Raoul, the panel reversed Judge Stephen McGlynn’s permanent injunction against the Protect Illinois Communities Act. Judge Amy St. Eve wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook. The court held that PICA’s restrictions on AR-15s and 30-round rifle magazines are “consistent with the principles that underpin our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.”

Chief Judge Michael Brennan dissented, just as he did when this court blessed the same law at the preliminary stage in Bevis v. City of Naperville back in 2023.

This ruling caps a case with one of the most developed trial records in any Second Amendment challenge to date. After a four-day bench trial in September 2024, Judge McGlynn issued a 160-page opinion finding that PICA violates the Second Amendment and enjoined the entire law. The Seventh Circuit stayed that injunction almost immediately, which means the ban has stayed in effect this whole time. Thursday’s decision directs the district court to enter judgment for the state.

The majority’s reasoning should concern every gun owner in the country. Rather than apply the common use test from Heller, the panel leaned on 19th century Bowie knife regulations as historical justification for banning a rifle owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. The court acknowledged the Act has no historical twin. It upheld the ban anyway, reasoning that legislatures have long restricted “particularly dangerous” weapons and that AR-15s paired with 30-round magazines represent a dramatic technological change enabling unprecedented societal concerns.

The panel also rejected the plaintiffs’ facial challenge outright, holding they failed to show the law is invalid in every application. And it upheld PICA’s registration requirement, comparing the endorsement affidavit process to a shall-issue licensing regime.

More from USA Carry:

• Appeals Court Upholds Maryland Gun Ban
• No Right To Concealed Carry, Says California Appeals Court
• Federal Courts Split on Post Office Gun Ban as Connecticut Judge Upholds Carry Restriction
• Florida Appeals Court Upholds Firearm Purchase Age Limit Amid Legislative Reconsideration
• Illinois Getting Closer to Having Concealed Carry

Chief Judge Brennan’s dissent is worth reading in full. He wrote that the people “have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice,” and that ends the inquiry under Heller. He pointed out that AR-15s are legal in 41 states, that millions are in circulation, and that even one of the state’s own expert witnesses, retired Lt. Col. Jason Dempsey, keeps an AR-15 for home defense. Brennan also accused the majority of inventing a “particularly dangerous weapons” tradition the Supreme Court has never recognized, effectively letting judges rather than the American people decide which arms deserve protection.

There are two important limits on Thursday’s ruling. The panel decided only the Act’s application to AR-15s and 30-round rifle magazines. It expressly left the ban’s application to pistols, shotguns, and handgun magazines open to future as-applied challenges. And the majority itself acknowledged the elephant in the room: on June 30, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two assault weapon ban cases. The AR-15 question is finally headed to the high court.

Justice Thomas warned after the Bevis cert denial that if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allowed Illinois to ban America’s most common civilian rifle, the Court can and should review that decision. That moment has arrived. The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the other plaintiffs now have a final judgment to take up.

We’ll keep tracking Barnett v. Raoul out of the Seventh Circuit, along with Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins at the Supreme Court next term.

Read the original story: Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois AR-15 and Magazine Ban, Setting Up Supreme Court Showdown

Key Takeaways

• A resident shot an intruder during a break-in at an apartment in west Houston on Sunday morning.
• Police responded to the scene and one person was taken to the hospital while another was detained.
• Authorities are investigating the incident to determine if the shooting was justified under Texas law.
• No identities have been released and police have not announced any charges yet.
• This incident highlights the importance of being armed and prepared during home invasions.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

HOUSTON, TX — A person breaking into a west Houston apartment was reportedly shot by the resident inside on Sunday morning, according to the Houston Police Department.

As reported by ABC13, officers responded to a shooting call at an apartment complex in the 11000 block of Harwin Drive around 10 a.m. Investigators said the resident reportedly shot a person who was breaking into the home.

Police said one person was shot and rushed to the hospital. Another person was detained at the scene. HPD has not said whether the detained individual was the resident or someone else connected to the incident.

More from USA Carry:

• Would-Be Intruder Shot by Apartment Resident
• Homeowner Fires 9 Shots at Intruder That Broke In Through Young Son’s Room
• Houston Man Exchanges Gunfire with Burglar Who Stole Firearm from His Car
• Houston Homeowner Fatally Shoots Suspected Burglar Upon Return Home
• ‘He’s not breathing’: Female homeowner shoots intruder with criminal past during break-in

No identities have been released, and police have not announced any charges. Investigators will determine whether the shooting was justified under Texas law, and any legal conclusions will come from that process.

What we know so far fits a pattern I cover often. A break-in at an occupied home puts the people inside face to face with an unknown threat, and seconds matter. This is exactly the situation where being armed and prepared can make the difference.

Read the original story: Houston Resident Shoots Suspected Intruder During Sunday Morning Break-In, Police Say

Key Takeaways

• Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation filed a federal lawsuit against Pennsylvania’s law that bars individuals with minor drug convictions from obtaining a License to Carry Firearms.
• Plaintiff Craig Philips, a veteran with a 1994 misdemeanor conviction, seeks to challenge this lifetime ban despite being a lawful gun owner.
• The lawsuit argues that the recent Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Hemani undermines Pennsylvania’s justification for the ban, as it requires proof of dangerousness for disarming individuals.
• The case emphasizes that permanent restrictions on carrying firearms violate the rights of individuals who maintain otherwise clean records.
• The lawsuit, Philips v. Bivens, highlights the issue of treating law-abiding citizens unfairly due to outdated convictions.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BUTLER, PA — Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania law that permanently bars anyone with any drug conviction, no matter how minor or how old, from ever obtaining a License to Carry Firearms.

The lead plaintiff is Craig Philips, an Air Force veteran who served from 1989 until his honorable discharge in 1992 following the Gulf War. In 1994, Philips was convicted of possession of a small amount of marijuana, an ungraded misdemeanor carrying a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $500 fine. That is a lighter maximum penalty than a non-traffic summary offense in Pennsylvania.

Philips has not used marijuana since. He worked roughly twelve years as an air conditioning equipment mechanic for the Department of Veterans Affairs, recently retired, and has been married since 2006. He remains fully eligible to own firearms under both state and federal law and has passed background checks to purchase handguns.

None of that matters under 18 Pa.C.S. § 6109(e)(1)(ii). The statute permanently disqualifies anyone with any conviction under Pennsylvania’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act from getting an LTCF. When Philips applied in Butler County in 2024, he was denied through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System based solely on the 1994 conviction.

The complaint, filed July 8 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, names Acting Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner Lt. Col. George L. Bivens and Butler County Sheriff Michael T. Slupe in their official capacities. Bivens oversees the PICS system, and Slupe’s office issued the denial.

An LTCF in Pennsylvania is not just a concealed carry permit. Without one, Philips is substantially restricted from carrying a firearm in his vehicle, cannot carry at all on public streets in Philadelphia, and faces heavy restrictions on carrying during any declared state of emergency. The lawsuit argues the denial effectively strips him of the right to bear arms in ordinary public life.

The timing here is significant. The complaint leans heavily on United States v. Hemani, decided by the Supreme Court just three weeks ago on June 18. In that unanimous ruling, the Court held the federal prosecution of a regular marijuana user for possessing a firearm was inconsistent with the Second Amendment, absent any showing he was dangerous. Writing for the Court, Justice Gorsuch warned that letting the government label entire groups dangerous “would quickly swallow the Second Amendment.”

The Hemani ruling was a narrow, as-applied decision, not a facial strike-down of the federal statute. But its reasoning cuts directly against Pennsylvania’s scheme. If the federal government cannot disarm a current, every-other-day marijuana user without proof of dangerousness, it is hard to see how Pennsylvania justifies a lifetime carry ban over a single possession misdemeanor from 1994.

More from USA Carry:

• Pennsylvania Lawmaker Introduces Bill for Constitutional Carry and Optional Concealed Carry Permits
• Feds Allow Agencies to Mail Guns — But Ban You? GOA Says Enough
• Concealed Carrier Pulls Gun on Couple Wearing MAGA Hats
• Pennsylvania Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Arrest of New Jersey Marine Highlights Issues with Gun-Free Zones

The plaintiffs are careful about what they are not challenging. Serious CSDDCA offenses that make someone a prohibited person under state or federal law remain untouched. This suit targets only the automatic, permanent denials imposed on people who remain fully legal gun owners.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, said Pennsylvania is “treating a peaceable veteran like a second-class citizen” over the decades-old misdemeanor. GOA’s Pennsylvania Director, Dr. Val Finnell, and GOF Executive Vice President John Velleco both argued the ban cannot survive the historical test required under Bruen and Hemani.

I think they are right. A man who served his country, held a federal job for over a decade, and has a spotless record for 32 years can walk into a gun store and legally buy a handgun today. But Pennsylvania says he can never carry it for self-defense outside his home. That is not a public safety measure. That is a permanent punishment with no off-ramp, and after Hemani, the Commonwealth bears a historical burden it almost certainly cannot meet.

The case is Philips v. Bivens. USA Carry will continue tracking this lawsuit as it moves through the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Read the original story: GOA Sues Pennsylvania Over Lifetime Carry Ban Triggered by a 32-Year-Old Marijuana Misdemeanor

Key Takeaways

• The National Rifle Association and others filed a lawsuit against Illinois’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases.
• The lawsuit claims the waiting period infringes on Second Amendment rights and argues it does not correlate with background checks.
• Plaintiffs detail how they completed background checks but still faced the waiting period, causing delays in obtaining firearms.
• Legal precedents from other states and recent Supreme Court decisions support the plaintiffs’ argument against waiting periods.
• The plaintiffs seek to have the statute declared unconstitutional and to stop its enforcement.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CHICAGO, IL — The National Rifle Association, the Illinois State Rifle Association, three federally licensed gun dealers, and five individual gun owners filed a federal lawsuit this week challenging Illinois’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases.

The case, Pearlstein v. Raoul, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. It names Attorney General Kwame Raoul and Illinois State Police Director Brendan F. Kelly as defendants, both in their official capacities.

At issue is 720 ILCS 5/24-3(A)(g), which makes it a Class 4 felony for a dealer to hand over a firearm less than 72 hours after the buyer and seller agree to the purchase. That’s true even when the buyer passes a background check in minutes, which is exactly what happened to the individual plaintiffs.

According to the complaint, plaintiff Gayle Pearlstein went to Suburban Sporting Goods in Melrose Park on July 6 to buy a Masada Slim 9mm pistol. She passed her background check within minutes, paid in full, and was told she still had to wait three days. Plaintiffs Brian Childs, Kamal Kishore, and Timothy Vik tell nearly identical stories from gun shops in Geneseo, Pekin, and East Peoria.

The lawsuit argues the waiting period has nothing to do with background checks. The statute itself says the 72-hour clock runs independently of the NICS check dealers must still complete. The complaint calls it an effort to “delay the exercise of Second Amendment rights for the sake of delay.”

The plaintiffs also point out how broad the Illinois law is compared to other states with waiting periods. There is no exception for concealed carry license holders, no exception for people facing documented threats, and no carve-out for long guns.

The dealer plaintiffs, Voodoo Firearms in Minooka, Shooting Sports in Moline, and Sacky’s Firearms in Willow Hill, describe lost sales and customers left defenseless. Voodoo Firearms owner Joseph Schiavone recounts a customer who had been beaten, watched his attacker released quickly under the SAFE-T Act, passed his background check, paid for a firearm, and still walked out empty-handed because of the law.

More from USA Carry:

• Maine’s 72-Hour Gun Wait Survives Court Challenge as First Circuit Reverses Lower Court Ruling
• Federal Court Blocks Maine’s 72-Hour Waiting Period for Firearm Purchases
• The Waiting Period and Background Check Exemption
• The East Coast Storm and 72-hour kits
• Illinois Getting Closer to Having Concealed Carry

The legal landscape favors the plaintiffs. The Tenth Circuit struck down New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period in Ortega v. Grisham in 2025. Last month, Florida’s Attorney General and all 20 of the state’s State Attorneys agreed in an Offer of Judgment that Florida’s own 3-day waiting period is unconstitutional. And the complaint leans heavily on the Supreme Court’s June decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, which reaffirmed that laws burdening the ability to keep and bear arms must be justified by historical tradition.

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford called the law “a blatant infringement that blocks law-abiding citizens” from exercising their rights after passing a background check.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the statute unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement. Counsel includes the Law Firm of David G. Sigale, Mountain States Legal Foundation, Clement & Murphy, and NRA-ILA.

I’ll be tracking this case as it moves through the Northern District of Illinois and will report on the state’s response and any preliminary injunction ruling.

Read the original story: NRA Takes Aim at Illinois’s 72-Hour Gun Waiting Period in New Federal Lawsuit

Key Takeaways

• A Pennsylvania man will not face charges after returning fire during a road rage shooting, as he acted in lawful self-defense.
• Richard Lee Vernon Jr. now faces attempted homicide charges for allegedly firing first in the incident.
• The victim grabbed a firearm after seeing Vernon with a gun and returned fire, endangering nearby homes but causing no injuries.
• Vernon denied the allegations, claiming his passenger fired a gun for him, but later the passenger contradicted his account.
• Vernon faces multiple charges, including aggravated assault and tampering with physical evidence, and awaits a preliminary hearing.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

LUZERNE TOWNSHIP, PA — A Pennsylvania man who grabbed a gun and returned fire after a road rage pursuit turned into a shooting will not face charges, while the man accused of firing first is now charged with attempted homicide.

As reported by WTAE, 39-year-old Richard Lee Vernon Jr. allegedly opened fire after following the victim through Luzerne Township on Sunday evening. The victim told police Vernon first tried to run him off the road, then followed him down Main Street.

The victim ran inside his sister’s home and waited until he heard Vernon’s truck leave. He then drove to his mother’s home, where Vernon spotted him again.

According to the criminal complaint, the victim saw Vernon with a gun and ran inside to grab his father’s firearm. When he came back outside, Vernon allegedly pointed his gun at him and fired.

One of those rounds nearly struck a woman who was in the shower inside the home. District Attorney Mike Aubele said neighboring homes were also endangered, though no one was injured.

More from USA Carry:

• Homeowner Defends Family from Intruder Who Fatally Stabbed a 77-Year-Old Woman Days Prior
• Armed Jeep Owner in Washington Opens Fire on Suspect During Pursuit
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Twice in the Face During Late-Night Robbery Attempt
• Pennsylvania Woman Shoots Intruder Who Broke Into Her Bedroom, Suspect Faces Felony Charges
• Homeowner Defends Family, Intruder Arrested After Stealing Neighbors Car and Police Pursuit

The victim fired back. The District Attorney’s Office determined he acted in lawful self-defense and will not be charged.

Vernon told police a different story. He denied shooting or pointing a gun at the victim, claiming his passenger had fired instead and saved his life by doing so. According to the Observer-Reporter, that passenger initially backed his account but later told troopers Vernon was the one who fired.

Court documents also state Vernon asked a neighbor to hold onto a gun for him that night, and that he is prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a prior charge.

Vernon faces charges including attempted homicide, aggravated assault, recklessly endangering another person, discharge of a firearm into an occupied structure, prohibited possession of a firearm, and tampering with physical evidence. He was denied bond and lodged in the Fayette County Jail, with a preliminary hearing scheduled for July 15.

Read the original story: DA Clears Armed Victim Who Returned Fire After Road Rage Suspect Shot at Him in Fayette County

Key Takeaways

• The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation challenged New York City’s ban on stun guns and tasers in the Supreme Court.
• They argue that previous courts incorrectly placed the burden of proof on plaintiffs regarding the common use of these weapons.
• The petition references the Second Circuit’s ruling as contrary to the Bruen framework established in prior Supreme Court cases.
• FPC President Brandon Combs emphasized that governments cannot bypass the Constitution by denying the status of certain arms.
• The petitioners seek a comprehensive review or reversal from the Supreme Court, linking their case to other significant arms ban litigations.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation have asked the Supreme Court to take up their challenge to New York City’s ban on stun guns and tasers, filing a petition for certiorari on July 7 in Calce v. City of New York.

The petition, filed by Cooper & Kirk attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom, opens by calling the case “essentially Caetano 2.0.” That is a reference to the Court’s 2016 decision summarily vacating a Massachusetts ruling that had denied Second Amendment protection to stun guns.

A federal court struck down the state ban in 2019 in Avitabile v. Beach, and the state never appealed. According to the petition, that leaves New York City as one of the only jurisdictions in the country, and possibly the last, still enforcing a categorical ban on these nonlethal arms. Stun guns can now be lawfully possessed in all 50 states.

The individual petitioners include Amanda Kennedy, who displayed a stun gun to stop a woman who was hitting her through her car window in Brooklyn. The display worked and the attack ended without anyone being hurt. When NYPD officers responded, they charged Kennedy with a crime for possessing the weapon. The charge was later resolved through an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, but the petition notes she still faces the threat of prosecution if she carries one again.

The district court granted summary judgment to the city in March 2025. On April 13, 2026, the Second Circuit affirmed in an unpublished summary order. Both courts held that the plaintiffs bore the burden of proving stun guns and tasers are in “common use” before the Second Amendment’s plain text even applies, and that they failed to produce enough statistical evidence to do so.

The petition argues that gets the Bruen framework exactly backwards. Under Heller, the Second Amendment’s plain text covers all bearable arms. Whether an arm is “dangerous and unusual” rather than in common use is a historical question at Bruen’s second step, where the government carries the burden. The petition says the Second Circuit’s approach lets anti-gun jurisdictions insulate arms bans from review by demanding statistical proof that rights holders should never have to produce.

The timing matters. Just twelve days before this filing, the Supreme Court decided Wolford v. Lopez, striking down Hawaii’s default ban on licensed carry on private property open to the public. Wolford laid out the plain text inquiry as three questions, and none of them includes common use. Justice Barrett’s concurrence went further, rejecting attempts to “smuggle additional limits” from regulatory tradition into the plain text stage. The petition argues the Second Circuit did precisely what Wolford forbids.

More from USA Carry:

• Supreme Court Rules that Second Amendment Applies to Stun Guns
• FPC Just Asked the Supreme Court to End Maryland’s Carry Bans, and the List of Banned Places Is Staggering
• South Dakota Bill Aims to Restore Concealed Carry, Pepper Spray, and Stun Gun Rights on College Campuses
• Woman’s Murder Charge Dismissed After Being Deemed a Justifiable Homicide
• Texas Lawsuit Could Blow Hole in Gun-Free Zone Laws Across the Country

The petition also points to a circuit split. The Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits treat common use as a threshold burden on plaintiffs. The Sixth Circuit holds that common use belongs to the historical analysis, where the government must prove its case.

FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement that “governments cannot rewrite the Constitution by pretending arms aren’t arms.”

The petitioners are asking the Court to grant full review, summarily reverse, or hold the case for Viramontes v. Cook County, the challenge to Cook County’s ban on so-called assault weapons that the Court agreed to hear on June 30. Viramontes presents the same underlying question of how courts must analyze bans on protected arms.

I will be tracking this petition as it moves through the Court, along with Viramontes and the rest of what is shaping up to be a defining stretch for arms ban litigation.

Read the original story: FPC and SAF Ask Supreme Court to Strike Down New York City’s Stun Gun Ban, Call Second Circuit Ruling “Caetano 2.0”

Key Takeaways

• Episode 64 details a flight from Cleveland to New Orleans with American Airlines, highlighting a check-in experience with firearms.
• The check-in included a small miscommunication about declaring firearms, but it was quickly resolved.
• At the bag service office in New Orleans, the author received their firearm case without issues.
• American Airlines provides office pickup for declared firearms instead of carousel retrieval, which is helpful to know.
• Overall, the experience was smooth with minor hiccups, but travelers should prepare for unique airline policies.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 64 was filmed flying American Airlines from Cleveland to Charlotte to New Orleans, heading home from GunCon 2026. Small miscommunication at check-in, no issues otherwise.

Check-In at CLE

Walked up and declared firearms. The agent didn’t catch it at first — we were already into the bag check before I pointed to the case inside the luggage and clarified. Once we were on the same page it moved quickly. He apologized and we kept going.

Agent asked about batteries, portable chargers, and vapes — none. Confirmed ammo was in factory boxes. He noted the locks were visible and said they didn’t need to open the case. Got the declaration card, signed the bottom, and dropped it in the FedEx sleeve on my https://amzn.to/4f7xKXW inside the luggage.

He mentioned American tags the bag for office pickup at the destination and to bring my ID to bag service. Said a lot of times they bring it right to you while you’re waiting. Also pointed me to Bar Simon near gate C3 for food — appreciated that.

Set my 15-minute timer and waited. TSA didn’t come out.

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 45 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 34 – Spirit from MSY to LAS
• “All You Can Do Is Protect Yourself”: North Charlotte Man Fires on Burglar Who Forced His Way Inside
• Flying with Guns: Episode 36 – Southwest from Las Vegas to Atlanta
• Woman fights back, shoots suspect after 5 men try to rob her at ATM

Arrival in New Orleans

Went to the bag service office at MSY. Showed my ID, they handed over the case. Checked the locks on the Condition 1 case — intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Small miscommunication at the start, sorted out in seconds. American does office pickup instead of the carousel when you declare firearms. Worth knowing before you land.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 64 – American Airlines from Cleveland to New Orleans (via Charlotte)

Key Takeaways

• San Jose raised its initial CCW application fee to $1,591, making it the most expensive in California.
• Total costs for first-time applicants exceed $2,000 when including state fees and additional requirements.
• The fee is part of a steady increase over the past two and a half years, rising roughly $300 since early 2024.
• Legal challenges are looming, with lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of such high fees.
• San Jose’s renewal fee is notably low at $25, suggesting that the initial fee is primarily a barrier to application.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SAN JOSE, CA — The most expensive place in California to ask permission to carry a firearm just got more expensive. On July 1, the San Jose Police Department raised its initial CCW application fee to $1,591, with 20 percent ($318) due when the application is filed and the remaining $1,273 due upon issuance.

That figure is the city’s fee alone. According to SJPD’s own fee schedule, city fees are in addition to applicable state fees under Penal Code 26185 and 26190, which run $93 for a standard CCW, and applicants pay a psychological exam and a required CCW training course directly to vendors. Stack it all up and a first-time applicant in San Jose is looking at well over $2,000 to exercise a constitutional right.

The July 1 change is an increase, not a new policy. Bearing Arms reported days before the hike that the city was already charging $1,491 and that the rate would rise to $1,591 on July 1. The climb has been steady. The Reload reported the fee at $1,290 in January 2024, and a February 2025 pre-litigation demand letter from the California Rifle and Pistol Association put it at $1,328. That is roughly a $300 jump in about two and a half years.

For perspective, San Jose’s own schedule shows a retail firearms dealer pays $1,655 for an initial business license. The city now charges a private citizen nearly as much to carry a handgun for personal protection as it charges a gun store to open its doors.

How does the department justify it? When The Reload asked about an earlier increase, an SJPD spokesperson pointed to a “time-task analysis model” that prices the permit based on staff hours. In other words, the city says this is simply what it costs to process an application.

More from USA Carry:

• San Jose Wants You Pay $25/Year to Exercise Your 2nd Amendment Rights…and Get Liability Insurance
• Two California Smash and Grab Robberies, Two Very Different Outcomes
• New York Bill Would Require Passing a Mental Health Exam Before Buying a Gun
• Gun Rights Groups Sue Santa Clara Over $2,000 CCW Costs and Mandatory Psych Exams
• San Antonio Shooting Ruled Self-Defense After Initial Misidentification

That defense has a problem, and the Supreme Court named it. In Bruen, the Court warned that even shall-issue permitting schemes can be challenged where lengthy wait times or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry. A fee does not become constitutional just because a spreadsheet says it reflects labor costs. If the price walls ordinary people out, the right is being denied.

The legal pressure is building next door. CRPA and the Second Amendment Foundation are suing Santa Clara County over its $976 initial application fee, and CRPA’s demand letter singled out San Jose’s fee as unconstitutionally high even while noting the city’s $25 renewal is far cheaper than the county’s. A win against Santa Clara County would put San Jose’s schedule squarely in the crosshairs.

One more detail worth sitting with. San Jose’s renewal fee is $25. The city has effectively conceded that keeping a vetted permit holder licensed costs almost nothing. The $1,591 toll is loaded entirely onto the front door, which is exactly where a fee does the most work discouraging people from applying at all.

No other constitutional right works this way. Nobody pays the city $1,591 before speaking, worshiping, or voting. I will keep tracking San Jose’s fee schedule and the CRPA and SAF litigation that could finally bring it down.

Read the original story: It Now Costs $1,591 Just to Apply for a Carry Permit in San Jose, and That’s Before Training

Key Takeaways

• A fatal shooting occurred at the Maren apartment complex in Venice when 32-year-old Terry Lee Murphy forced his way into an apartment.
• Murphy had a history of threatening the resident, leading to a confrontation where he assaulted the resident and threatened him with a concealed weapon.
• During a struggle over a firearm, the gun discharged, injuring Murphy, who fled to another apartment before collapsing.
• The investigation remains active and is being conducted by the Venice Police Department, which will later inform the State Attorney for a final verdict on the case.
• The incident highlights the significance of the right to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

VENICE, FL — The Venice Police Department has released preliminary findings in a fatal shooting that unfolded during the early morning hours of Wednesday, July 1, at the Maren apartment complex on Vistera Boulevard. The man killed, 32-year-old Terry Lee Murphy of Venice, was not a resident of the apartment where the confrontation took place. According to detectives, he forced his way in.

Police say Murphy entered the complex by scaling a perimeter fence before knocking on the door of an apartment. When the resident answered, Murphy forced his way inside. Video evidence from inside the residence shows the resident attempting to keep him out.

Once inside, according to investigators, Murphy assaulted the resident and repeatedly threatened to shoot him while keeping one hand behind his back in a manner that led the resident to believe he was armed. Detectives say Murphy also attempted to force the resident to leave his own apartment against his will.

This was not a random encounter. Investigators say evidence shows prior conflicts between the two men, and the resident provided evidence of previous threats Murphy allegedly made against him.

During the confrontation, the resident retrieved a firearm from a bedroom. A physical struggle over the gun followed, and during that struggle the firearm discharged, striking Murphy.

More from USA Carry:

• New Jersey Concealed Carry Decision Heading to Debate in Supreme Court
• Navigating the Streets: Essential Encounter Skills with John Murphy | E9 | USA Carry Podcast
• The Effectiveness of Scaled Dry Fire Targets
• AAR: Street Encounter Skills and Tactics with John Murphy of FPF Training
• Must-Have Tools for Reloading Ammo | Reloading 101 – Part 1

Wounded, Murphy fled the apartment and descended two floors, where he entered another unit that its occupant had inadvertently left unlocked. That resident found him inside and immediately called 911. The resident from the original confrontation also called 911 to report what happened. Murphy collapsed inside the second apartment and was later pronounced dead.

Detectives have conducted numerous interviews, collected physical evidence, obtained 911 recordings, and reviewed video captured inside the residence. The investigation remains active, and police say no additional details are being released at this time.

The Venice Police Department noted it does not make the final call on whether a homicide is legally justified under Florida law. Once the investigation is complete, all findings will be forwarded to the Office of the State Attorney, which will determine whether the use of force was justified.

The resident has not been publicly identified, and no charges have been announced.

What the police account describes is a nightmare scenario: a man with a history of threatening you scales a fence, forces his way through your front door at 1 a.m., assaults you, and tells you he is going to shoot you. The resident’s decision to arm himself in that moment is exactly why the right to keep a firearm in the home matters.

Read the original story: Intruder Scaled Fence, Forced His Way Into Apartment Before Being Fatally Shot in Struggle Over Resident’s Gun

According to a preliminary release from the Atlanta Police Department, officers responded to 859 Oak St. NW around 11:20 a.m. on Friday, July 3, 2026, on a person shot call. They found 38-year-old Brandon Harper suffering from two gunshot wounds. Harper was transported to the hospital alert, conscious, and breathing.

Officers detained a second man at the scene. He was uninjured.

Investigators determined the two men had been in a verbal dispute. Police say Harper was the primary aggressor and fired a firearm multiple times at the other man. That man returned fire in self-defense, striking Harper twice.

The investigation also revealed that Harper is a convicted felon and was wanted on multiple outstanding warrants. As a felon, he was prohibited under both Georgia and federal law from possessing a firearm in the first place.

Police say Harper was charged in connection with the incident and will be taken to the Fulton County Jail once he is discharged from the hospital. The department did not specify the charges in its release.

The man who defended himself will not face any charges.

This is what armed self-defense looks like in the real world. A prohibited person with active warrants started shooting at someone over an argument. The intended victim faced an imminent, lethal threat and stopped it. He walked away uninjured, and investigators cleared him on scene.

APD notes the information released is preliminary and could change as the investigation progresses.

Read the original story: Convicted Felon Opens Fire in Atlanta Dispute, Gets Shot Twice When His Target Shoots Back

Key Takeaways

• A shooting at a Walnut Hills apartment complex will not lead to charges, as police deemed it self-defense.
• Officers found victim Gregory Taylor-Tolliver, 47, after a report of two people shot; he later died at the hospital.
• The shooting occurred after an assault, and authorities ruled it a ‘justifiable homicide.’
• Hamilton County Prosecutor’s office will not pursue charges unless new evidence emerges.
• Self-defense cases can arise in unexpected places, as highlighted by this incident involving neighbors.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

CINCINNATI, OH — A fatal shooting at a Walnut Hills apartment complex will not result in criminal charges after Cincinnati police determined the shooter acted in self-defense.

As reported by Fox 19 Now, officers responded to the Kemper Lane Apartments around 12:15 p.m. Tuesday for a report of two people shot. They found one victim, 47-year-old Gregory Taylor-Tolliver, who was taken to the University of Cincinnati Medical Center and later died.

Police said the shooting followed an assault, and they described the outcome as a “justifiable homicide.” Based on the Homicide Unit’s investigation, the Hamilton County Prosecutor’s office is not pursuing charges against the person who shot Taylor-Tolliver.

Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie Pillich declined to comment on the decision.

Fox 19 Now legal analyst Mike Allen explained the standard, noting deadly force is lawful when someone is “in fear of death or great bodily harm” to themselves or another person. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. It is not about winning a fight. It is about stopping an imminent, deadly threat.

More from USA Carry:

• Woman Shoots Two Female Attackers in Self-Defense, Sending Both to the Hospital
• Attempted Draw from the Drop Ends in Fatal Shooting Outside Cincinnati Liquor Store
• Elderly Man that Shot Killed Unarmed Man Ruled Justifiable Homicide
• 15-year-old Student’s Courageous Act Thwarts Planned School Shooting
• Mother Shoots Daughter’s Boyfriend During Domestic Disturbance

Both men lived in the same building, according to a neighbor who spoke with the station. Police have not released what led to the confrontation beyond confirming the assault that preceded the shooting.

Cincinnati police added that the prosecutor’s office could still pursue charges if new evidence comes to light.

This case is another reminder that self-defense does not always happen in a parking lot at midnight or during a home invasion. Sometimes the threat lives down the hall. When it turned deadly here, investigators looked at the facts and concluded the person who fired was legally justified.

Read the original story: Cincinnati Man Shot and Killed After Assault, Police Call It Justifiable Homicide

Key Takeaways

• An armed intruder broke into a home in Huntsville, AL, and remains in critical condition after being shot by an occupant.
• Police found the man at 3 a.m. on July 1, suffering from gunshot wounds after allegedly threatening the residents.
• The prosecutor suggests the shooting appears to be self-defense, and no charges are expected against the resident who fired.
• The intruder may face first-degree burglary charges, but his identity has not been released yet.
• The investigation continues, highlighting the common scenario of homeowners defending themselves against armed intruders.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

HUNTSVILLE, AL — An armed man who broke into a home on Salem Drive early Wednesday morning is in critical condition after one of the occupants shot him, and prosecutors say the evidence so far points to self-defense.

Huntsville police responded to a report of a shooting at a residence in the 200 block of Salem Drive around 3 a.m. on July 1. Officers found a man suffering from gunshot wounds. He was taken to a local hospital, where he remains in critical condition.

According to the preliminary investigation by HPD’s Violent Crimes Unit, the injured man unlawfully entered the home while armed with a firearm. Police say he allegedly threatened the occupants before one of them fired.

More from USA Carry:

• Prosecutor: Resident ‘Did Everything Right’ Before Shooting Intruder in Self-Defense
• Alabama Man Killed, Bystander Hurt by Stray Bullet in Huntsville Shooting After Early Morning Fight
• Concealed Carrier Exchanged Gunfire with 16-Year-Old During Robbery Attempt, Both Shot
• San Antonio Homeowner Shoots Suspect in Both Legs in Car Burglary Attempt; Police Seek Second Suspect
• Fort Worth Man Fatally Shot After Breaking Into Ex-Girlfriend’s Apartment

Investigators presented the case to the Madison County District Attorney’s Office, which agreed the shooting appears to have been an act of self-defense based on the evidence currently available. No charges are anticipated against the resident who fired.

The intruder, meanwhile, remains under investigation for possible first-degree burglary charges. HPD says formal charges may be filed as the investigation continues, and his identity will not be released until they are.

The investigation remains ongoing, but the early picture here is one I have seen play out over and over: an armed occupant was the only thing standing between the people in that house and a man who broke in with a gun at 3 in the morning.

Read the original story: He Broke Into a Huntsville Home With a Gun at 3 A.M. He Left in Critical Condition.

Key Takeaways

• Staccato announced the HD P4X, a new handgun aimed for duty belts and professional carry, built on a 4-inch compensated platform.
• The pistol features a steel frame for recoil absorption, a compensated barrel to reduce muzzle rise, and a full-size grip for increased capacity.
• It offers 18-round magazine compatibility and comes with ambidextrous controls, a reversible magazine catch, and Staccato’s optic-mounting system.
• Chambered in 9x19mm, the HD P4X has a starting MSRP of $3,599 and will be available on July 13, 2026, built in Texas from American steel.
• Staccato’s Senior Vice President called it the most shootable, reliable, mission-ready handgun they’ve ever built.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Staccato officially announced the HD P4X today, and USA Carry got to shoot it before the embargo lifted. Staccato invited us out to Staccato Ranch Vegas, where our USA Carry representative put rounds through the new pistol and Team Staccato professional shooter Michelle Viscusi gave us a full rundown of the gun.

The HD P4X is built on the same 4-inch compensated platform as the HD C4X, the concealed carry model with a compact aluminum frame. The P4X takes that platform in the opposite direction. It pairs a precision-machined 4140 DLC steel frame with a full-size Staccato HD grip, aimed squarely at duty belts, professional deployment, and overt carry.

The steel frame soaks up recoil, and the 4-inch DLC flush-fit compensated barrel cuts muzzle rise. The full-size grip brings capacity up to 18-round magazines. Staccato says the combination delivers the control and shot-to-shot consistency the HD line is known for, and it was one of the most requested configurations from their customers.

Paul Smith, Staccato’s Senior Vice President of Product, called it “the most shootable, reliable, mission-ready handgun we’ve ever built.”

More from USA Carry:

• Staccato HD C4X Now Shipping Nationwide With Integrated Compensator and 4-Inch Barrel
• Meet the HD C4X: Staccato’s Newest 2011 Is a Compensated Compact for Everyday Carry
• New Staccato HD C3.6 Launched: Duty-Grade 2011 Performance in a Compact, 24oz Carry Pistol
• Smith & Wesson Launches M&P Competitor HD – Feature-Rich Steel Frame for Competitive Edge
• Walther PPQ M2 4-Inch 9mm for Concealed Carry

Like the rest of the HD line, the P4X runs ambidextrous controls with a dual-sided safety and slide stop, a reversible magazine catch, Glock-pattern magazine compatibility, an active firing pin block, and Staccato’s HD HOST optic-mounting system. Every HD pistol also passes the federal Ballistic Research Facility standards, protocols built to simulate real-world defensive encounters.

Viscusi walked us through the pistol at the range, and our representative confirmed what the spec sheet promises. The steel frame and comp keep the gun flat, and the full-size grip makes it easy to drive through strings of fire.

The HD P4X is chambered in 9x19mm and will come in three configurations with a starting MSRP of $3,599. It hits Staccato authorized dealers on July 13, 2026. Like every Staccato, it’s built in Texas from American steel.

Read the original story: Staccato Unveils the HD P4X: Steel Frame, Full-Size Grip, and a Compensated Barrel Built for Duty

Key Takeaways

• Two Marine Corps veterans are suing Illinois for denying them the right to apply for a concealed carry license.
• The lawsuit, filed by Gun Owners of America, highlights Illinois’ strict nonresident license policy that limits applications to a few states.
• Rachel Henrichs attempted to apply but faced immediate rejection due to her Tennessee residency, despite holding valid permits.
• The case argues that Illinois’ restrictions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, referencing the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
• A scheduling conference has set the trial process in motion, with a summary judgment expected in mid-2027.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

EAST ST. LOUIS, IL — Two Marine Corps veterans who are both certified firearms instructors are suing Illinois because the state will not even let them apply for a concealed carry license.

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation filed the federal lawsuit, Henrichs v. Kelly, on March 13 in the Southern District of Illinois on behalf of Rachel and Reid Henrichs of Tennessee. The defendants are Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly and Attorney General Kwame Raoul, both sued in their official capacities.

Illinois refuses to recognize any other state’s carry permit. It also bans open carry. The only path for a nonresident is an Illinois nonresident license, and state law limits those applications to residents of states the Illinois State Police deems “substantially similar” to Illinois.

ISP has approved just six states: Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas, and Virginia. According to the complaint, that leaves roughly 81 percent of Americans with no legal way to bear arms in public anywhere in Illinois.

The plaintiffs are hard to dismiss. Rachel Henrichs is a Marine veteran who deployed to Iraq, works as an operating room nurse, and is a certified NRA pistol instructor. Reid Henrichs is a Marine veteran and former police officer who trained at the University of Illinois Police Training Institute and now runs the Valor Ridge training facility in Tennessee. He holds instructor certifications in multiple states, including with the Illinois State Police itself.

Both hold Tennessee Lifetime Enhanced Handgun Carry Permits. Neither can carry on a visit to friends in Marion, Illinois.

Rachel Henrichs tried to apply anyway. The ISP website blocked her application the moment she selected Tennessee as her state of residence. When she emailed the agency, ISP responded in writing that residents of Tennessee “are not eligible for a non-resident IL CCL.” That email is attached to the complaint as an exhibit.

More from USA Carry:

• Now Everyone Can Pack in California — Out-of-Staters Finally Allowed to Apply for Concealed Carry Permits
• Federal Judge Orders California to Accept Nonresident Concealed Carry Permit Applications from Pro-Gun Group Members
• California Opens CCW Application Process to Nonresidents Starting April 23
• Ohio House Bill 68 Would Expand Concealed Carry Access and Restore Firearm Rights for Nonresidents
• How a Marine Stopped This Kidnapping

The lawsuit brings a single count under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, arguing the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision leaves no room for a state to wall off public carry from citizens of 43 states. Illinois has faced this challenge before. Culp v. Raoul attacked the same scheme years ago and lost at the Seventh Circuit, but that was before Bruen rewrote the test. GOA is betting the old result does not survive the new framework.

There is reason to think it might not. Federal district courts in California and New York have already struck down similar nonresident permit bans, including in GOA’s own case brought on behalf of Newsmax host Carl Higbie, who is also a GOA member identified in this suit as wanting to apply in Illinois.

Illinois answered the complaint on April 13 rather than moving to dismiss. Chief Judge Nancy Rosenstengel held a scheduling conference on May 27 and set the case on a firm track: discovery closes December 18, 2026, dispositive motions are due February 26, 2027, and the presumptive bench trial month is August 2027 in East St. Louis.

The realistic decision point is summary judgment in mid-2027. I will keep tracking this case as it moves through discovery and report on any major rulings.

Read the original story: Marine Veteran Couple, GOA Sue Illinois Over Ban on Nonresident Concealed Carry Permits

Key Takeaways

• A road rage incident on Interstate 64 resulted in one driver dead and the other charged with second-degree murder.
• Robert R. Farek shot Luke Joseph Sherman after a confrontation that escalated off the highway.
• Prosecutors stated Farek cannot claim self-defense because he initiated the aggressive behavior prior to the shooting.
• The case highlights the importance of restraint for armed citizens in road rage situations.
• Missouri law does not protect those who provoke confrontations before resorting to violence.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

O’FALLON, MO — A road rage confrontation on Interstate 64 ended with one driver dead and the other charged with second-degree murder. Prosecutors say the shooter cannot claim self-defense because the evidence shows he started the fight.

Let me be clear up front. I am not defending anyone in this story. This is a case study in how quickly anger behind the wheel destroys two lives, and why carrying a firearm demands more restraint, not less.

According to the O’Fallon Police Department, officers responded to a 911 call around 4 p.m. on Tuesday, June 30, reporting a shooting on the Winghaven Boulevard exit ramp from westbound I-64. Police said an altercation occurred between two drivers on the interstate before both vehicles exited and stopped on the ramp.

The victim was identified as Luke Joseph Sherman, 35, of O’Fallon. Police said Sherman exited his vehicle during the altercation and was shot by the other driver. He died at the scene. Police initially reported he had been shot multiple times, but an autopsy revealed he was shot once.

The shooter, Robert R. Farek, 48, also of O’Fallon, remained at the scene and was the first person to call 911, according to police. Officers recovered a firearm and detained him for questioning.

On July 1, the St. Charles County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office charged Farek with second-degree murder and armed criminal action. He is being held on a $500,000 cash-only bond.

Here is where this case matters for every armed citizen. According to court documents reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the confrontation began when Farek passed Sherman’s Chevy Equinox on the left shoulder and immediately hit the brakes in front of him, miles before the Winghaven exit. Sherman then did the same to Farek about a half mile later. Both men chose escalation over disengagement.

Then came the detail that likely sealed the charging decision. Prosecutors said Farek followed Sherman off the highway at the Winghaven exit, deviating from his normal route home, and license plate reader data showed Farek had not used that exit in the past month.

“You can’t be the initial aggressor and then also claim self-defense,” Prosecuting Attorney Joe McCulloch told the Post-Dispatch.

That single sentence is the entire lesson. A witness riding in Sherman’s vehicle told police Sherman parked on the ramp, got out, and moved toward Farek’s driver side before shots were fired, according to court records reported by KSDK. Farek may well have believed in that moment he was justified. The prosecutor looked at the full timeline and concluded otherwise, because self-defense law does not evaluate the last five seconds in isolation. It evaluates how you got there.

More from USA Carry:

• Homeowner Shoots Suspected Burglar in the Hand After Confronting Him While Breaking Into His Shed
• NBA Star Christian Wood Scares Off Masked Intruders With Gunfire at Sherman Oaks Home
• Road Rager Arrested for Drawing Gun; Blames It On ‘Having a Bad Day’
• Keep Calm and Always Carry
• Situational Awareness: The Point of Criminal Focus

Missouri law is generous to armed citizens who act lawfully. It does not protect people who provoke a fight, chase it off the highway, and then shoot their way out of the confrontation they helped create. Brake-checking, shoulder-passing, and following another driver off your own route are all choices. Every one of them was an opportunity to let it go.

If you carry, your job in a road rage encounter is simple. Create distance, take the next exit if the other driver does not, and call the police. The gun on your hip is for an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm that you did everything possible to avoid. It is not a tool for winning an argument you should never have joined.

Sherman is dead. Farek sits in jail facing a murder charge. Two families are shattered over a driving dispute that neither man was willing to walk away from.

Read the original story: Missouri Man Charged With Murder After Road Rage Shooting Because Anger Is Not Self-Defense

Key Takeaways

• The proposed ATF rule allows local gun shops to ship firearms directly to your door by completing a Form 4473 and conducting a live video verification.
• Media coverage has misrepresented the proposal, confusing it with existing Gun Control Act requirements such as the waiting period and law enforcement notification.
• The ATF estimates around 3.28 million people per year could utilize home delivery, with initial participation from only 10 to 15 percent of FFL dealers.
• Public comments on the rule close on August 6, 2026, and substantive feedback is crucial in the rulemaking process.
• The rule aims to modernize gun sales while ensuring all transfers still comply with background checks and identity verification.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The ATF rule that would let your local gun shop ship a firearm straight to your front door is suddenly everywhere. Reuters ran a story this week, and Fox stations across the country picked it up within hours.

If you read USA Carry, this is not news to you. I covered this rule back in May when I broke down the new Form 4473 draft, which includes a checkbox built specifically for these transactions. But now that the national press has found the story, it is worth setting the record straight on what the rule actually does, because some of the coverage is muddying it.

The proposed rule is titled Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements, published in the Federal Register on May 8, 2026, under Docket No. ATF-2026-0266. It was signed by ATF Director Robert Cekada as part of the 34-rule reform package issued under Executive Order 14206.

Here is what it would do. A licensed dealer in your own state could complete a sale without you ever setting foot in the store. You would submit a Form 4473 and a copy of your government-issued photo ID. The dealer would then conduct a live video conference to compare your face to your ID, and you would verify your identity through a credential service provider meeting federal NIST standards, including biometric facial comparison and liveness detection. Only after all of that would the dealer run your NICS background check. Once the check clears, the gun ships to your door.

This is same-state only. Interstate purchases still route through an FFL in your home state, exactly as they do today.

Now for what the national coverage keeps getting wrong. The Fox and Reuters stories describe a seven-day waiting period and law enforcement notification as if they were features of this proposal. They are not. Those requirements come from the Gun Control Act of 1968, which has always allowed non-over-the-counter sales under 18 U.S.C. 922(c), complete with a sworn statement, notice to the buyer’s chief law enforcement officer, and a seven-day delay after the CLEO response. The ATF is not inventing new safeguards. It is removing its own regulatory restriction that limited these sales to background-check-exempt transfers, a restriction the statute itself never required.

In other words, Congress authorized this in 1968. The ATF’s own regulation is what kept it dormant for nearly six decades.

The agency’s numbers are worth knowing. The ATF estimates roughly half of gun buyers, about 3.28 million people a year, might use home delivery, and pegs the savings to consumers at $103.7 million annually. It also expects only 10 to 15 percent of the roughly 45,600 dealer FFLs to offer remote sales at first. So despite the breathless framing, this starts as an option, not an overnight transformation of gun retail.

ATF Chief Counsel Robert Leider, the man who spearheaded the reform package, defended the rule to Reuters, saying critics “have an idealized view of what an in-store purchase is.” He has a point. The remote process requires biometric identity verification that no walk-in gun counter in America performs today.

More from USA Carry:

• Your Car or Your Life? Why Confronting Suspects Outside Can Get You Killed
• Act Immediately to Block ATF Long Gun Sales Reporting!
• How to Read Media Coverage of CCW, The Second Amendment, and Self-Defense Topics
• Intoxicated Concealed Carrier Shoots a Man Outside Family Dollar
• Are You Covered? Homeowner’s Insurance and Firearms

The opposition is predictable. Everytown and Giffords argue remote sales will fuel trafficking and straw purchases, ignoring that every one of these transfers still requires a completed 4473, a NICS check, and delivery to the verified buyer’s address on file. Some gun shop owners have also raised concerns about losing transfer business, which puts them in the strange position of agreeing with Everytown.

The press is also leaning hard on the fact that Donald Trump Jr. sits on the board of online retailer GrabAGun and owns shares in the company. That is true, and it is also irrelevant to whether the rule is good policy. Every online firearms retailer in the country stands to benefit, along with every rural gun owner who lives an hour from the nearest FFL.

This rule also is not moving alone. The Postal Service has proposed lifting its 99-year-old ban on mailing handguns after the Justice Department concluded the 1927 statute violates the Second Amendment. Twenty-two state attorneys general have filed comments opposing that change, and three of them are seeking to defend the old statute in court since the DOJ will not.

Here is the part that matters right now. The comment period on the ship-to-home rule closes August 6, 2026. That is about five weeks away. You can submit a comment directly at regulations.gov. Substantive comments carry weight in rulemaking, and the anti-gun groups will be flooding the docket. If this rule matters to you, say so on the record.

I will keep tracking this rulemaking through the comment deadline and the final rule.

Read the original story: The Media Just Discovered the ATF’s Ship-to-Home Gun Rule. Here’s What They’re Getting Wrong.

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in Fairbanks found two suspects stealing from his property and they opened fire on him.
• In response, the homeowner returned fire after the suspects shot at him first.
• No injuries reported, and the suspects fled the scene; the investigation is ongoing with no arrests made.
• The incident underscores the challenges of rural living, where response times for police can be lengthy.
• The community is urged to provide information to Alaska State Troopers regarding the armed suspects.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FAIRBANKS, AK — A homeowner along Old Steese Highway came home early Sunday morning to find two people allegedly stripping his property of copper, fuel, and other items. Before he could do anything about it, they opened fire on him.

As reported by Your Alaska Link, Alaska State Troopers responded to the scene around 5 a.m. on Sunday, June 28, after receiving a report of a burglary with shots fired.

According to investigators, the two suspects were in the middle of stealing copper, fuel, and other items when the homeowner arrived. Troopers say the suspects fired shots at the homeowner first. He then returned fire.

The suspects fled after the exchange. Authorities report no apparent injuries to anyone involved. The investigation remains ongoing, and troopers have not announced any arrests.

Think about that sequence for a second. This man did not interrupt a burglary and start shooting over stolen copper. He pulled up to his own home and was immediately fired upon by two criminals who decided his life was worth less than a load of scrap metal and fuel.

More from USA Carry:

• Kentucky Man Critically Wounded After Showing Up Intoxicated and Threatening Family, Troopers Say
• Alaska Concealed Carry
• Alaska Proposes ‘Safe Schools Act’ Mandating Concealed Carry on Campus
• Backup CCW Weapons: Finding the Best Approach
• Winchester Defender 00 Buckshot Review

That is the nightmare scenario. There is no time to call 911 and wait. There is no de-escalation option when rounds are already coming your way. The only thing standing between this homeowner and a hospital bed, or worse, was the fact that he was armed and prepared to defend himself.

Rural Alaska drives the point home even harder. Troopers cover enormous territory, and response times measured in tens of minutes are a reality of life along the Steese. When seconds count, this homeowner had exactly one lifeline, and he carried it with him.

Two armed suspects are still out there. Anyone with information about this incident should contact Alaska State Troopers.

Read the original story: Alaska Homeowner Returns Fire After Copper Thieves Shoot At Him On His Own Property

Key Takeaways

• South Dakota becomes the first state to remove firearm suppressors from its list of controlled weapons with the implementation of Senate Bill 2.
• The bill changes the definition of ‘controlled weapon’ to exclude suppressors, reducing legal risks for owners.
• Suppressors remain regulated under federal law, requiring registration and background checks, but state penalties have been eliminated.
• Governor Rhoden emphasizes that removing unnecessary restrictions preserves the right to bear arms, and the bill received no opposition in the legislature.
• The NRA supports South Dakota’s move and sees it as a step toward further federal deregulation of suppressors.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

PIERRE, S.D. — South Dakota’s law removing firearm suppressors from the state’s list of controlled weapons took effect Wednesday, July 1. Governor Larry Rhoden’s office says it makes South Dakota the first state in the nation to strike suppressors from a controlled weapons list.

Senate Bill 2 amends the definition of “controlled weapon” in state law. Under the enrolled text, the term now covers machine guns and short shotguns but explicitly excludes firearm silencers.

That change matters because knowingly possessing a controlled weapon is a Class 6 felony in South Dakota. With SB 2 in effect, suppressor owners no longer face state felony exposure tied to that classification. State law no longer adds its own layer on top of federal requirements.

Suppressors are still regulated under the National Firearms Act. Buyers must complete federal registration and pass a background check. But as I covered in December, the One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $200 federal tax stamp, and South Dakota’s move strips away the redundant state penalty on top of that.

More from USA Carry:

• South Dakota Concealed Carry Firearm Permit Information
• South Dakota Gov. Signs Bill Reducing CCW Fees to $0.00
• How South Dakota Became The 14th Constitutional Carry State
• Governor Rhoden, Senator Crabtree Join Forces to Remove Suppressor Restrictions in South Dakota
• South Dakota Governor Urges ATF to Remove Obsolete Suppressor Shipping Rule

“The right to keep and bear arms is a cornerstone of our freedom,” Rhoden said in a statement announcing the effective date, adding that removing unnecessary restrictions is essential to preserving it.

Governor Rhoden signed SB 2 on February 10 at Silencer Central in Sioux Falls, alongside prime sponsors Senator Casey Crabtree and Representative Drew Peterson. Crabtree, who is also running for South Dakota’s lone U.S. House seat, pushed the bill as a follow-up to the federal tax stamp repeal.

“Gun suppressors are hearing protection, not a weapon,” Crabtree said at the signing.

The bill drew no opposition in the legislature. South Dakota Searchlight reported it passed both chambers without a single no vote.

The NRA backed the bill throughout the session. “The NRA applauds Governor Rhoden’s steadfast support of the Second Amendment,” said Brian Gosch, the NRA’s South Dakota State Director.

The governor’s office says other states have since moved to deregulate suppressors at the state level, and it frames SB 2 as a message to Washington that further federal deregulation should follow. I will keep tracking suppressor deregulation efforts in other statehouses and at the federal level.

Read the original story: South Dakota’s Suppressor Deregulation Law Is Now in Effect, First of Its Kind in the Nation

Key Takeaways

• A neighbor shot a machete-armed man who was dragging a woman down the street while she screamed for help.
• Fort Worth police found the man critically wounded and he later died at the hospital.
• Witnesses reported a violent argument leading to the incident, prompting the neighbor to intervene.
• The neighbor approached the situation responsibly and cooperated with detectives afterward.
• No arrests have been made, and the identities of those involved remain undisclosed.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

FORT WORTH, TX — A neighbor who heard a woman screaming for help shot and killed a machete-armed man who police say was dragging her down a residential street Sunday night.

As reported by CBS News, Fort Worth police responded to a call about a person with a weapon in the 2900 block of Ross Avenue around 10:20 p.m. Officers found a man with an apparent gunshot wound. He was taken to a hospital in critical condition and pronounced dead.

Investigators say the man had been in a verbal and physical argument with a woman and was dragging her down the street while holding a machete. Witnesses told police the woman was screaming for help.

One neighbor came outside and told the man to stop. Police say the man, still holding the machete, then turned and approached that neighbor. The neighbor fired at least once.

More from USA Carry:

• Why Your Business Needs Firearms Training and Small Unit Tactics
• Armed Wife Saves Husband During Attempted Robbery
• Vape Shop Employee Shoots Armed Robber During Attempted Robbery in Fort Worth
• Fort Worth Homeowner Shoots Alleged Intruder During Attempted Break-In
• Fort Worth Robbery Attempt Ends Fatally After Gun Discharges During Struggle

Witnesses called 911. The neighbor stayed at the scene and spoke with homicide detectives.

No arrest has been made. Police have not released the names of anyone involved.

A man holding a machete, closing the distance on someone who just told him to stop, is an imminent threat by any honest reading. This neighbor did not go looking for trouble. He heard a woman screaming and stepped outside to protect her. That is exactly the kind of person you want living next door. He then stayed at the scene and cooperated fully with detectives, which is what a responsible armed citizen does.

Read the original story: Fort Worth Neighbor Shoots, Kills Machete-Armed Man Who Was Dragging A Screaming Woman Down The Street

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court will decide if the AR-15 and similar rifles are protected under the Second Amendment in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.
• Lower courts previously ruled that these rifles are not protected, sparking appeals from gun rights advocates.
• Cook County has defended its ban on these rifles, labeling them as weapons of war.
• The Court’s decision is expected by next year, potentially impacting states with similar bans.
• This case represents a significant moment for Second Amendment rights as it challenges longstanding regulations.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court agreed on June 30 to decide whether the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. For millions of law-abiding owners, this is the case we have waited more than a decade to see.

The justices granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County, the FPC and Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Cook County, Illinois. They consolidated it with Grant v. Higgins, a SAF and Connecticut Citizens Defense League challenge to Connecticut’s rifle ban. The two cases will be argued together, with one hour set aside for argument.

The question in front of the Court is direct. It is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to keep commonly owned semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. Lower courts have spent years dodging that question. Now they cannot.

The Illinois case started in 2021. Cutberto Viramontes and fellow plaintiffs, backed by FPC and SAF, sued over a Cook County ordinance that bars roughly 125 rifles by name, including the most popular rifle in America. The county first passed its ban in 1993 and has expanded it since.

The Seventh Circuit sided with the county. The Second Circuit did the same in the Connecticut case. Both appeals courts concluded these rifles fall outside Second Amendment protection. The petitioners argue the opposite, that an arm owned in the millions by peaceable citizens cannot be called “dangerous and unusual.”

Cook County is defending the ban. State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke, who took office in December 2024 and inherited the litigation, said her office will keep fighting to uphold it. She called the banned firearms weapons of war. That is the same tired label used to justify stripping a constitutional right from responsible people.

More from USA Carry:

• YouTube Prankster Shot While Filming Stunt at Virginia Mall
• Snake No Match for Gun As Man Attempts to Rob Store with Five-Foot Snake
• What is EMP and How Would it Affect Us?
• Supreme Court Asked To Hear NY Concealed Carry Case
• Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s “Proper Cause” Needed for Concealed Carry Permits

The timing is hard to miss. The Court agreed to hear the case days before the nation marks its 250th year. FPC framed the grant as the end of the beginning, not the end of the fight.

This grant did not come from nowhere. Last year, in Snope v. Brown, the Court declined a similar challenge, but Justice Kavanaugh signaled the AR-15 question would reach the Court within a Term or two. That prediction just came true.

Arguments are expected in the fall, with a decision likely by the end of the term next year. A ruling for the petitioners would reach every state that bans common rifles by name, by feature, or by political label.

I will be tracking this case through briefing, oral argument, and the final decision. This is the fight of the decade for the Second Amendment, and I will cover every step.

Read the original story: Supreme Court Takes Up the Case That Could Strike Down Assault Weapon Bans Nationwide

Key Takeaways

• Understanding minimum standards is crucial, as they set the baseline for performance in self-defense with firearms.
• Minimum standards are not about acceptability but about getting started; they represent the first step towards proficiency.
• Every gun and carry method adheres to minimum standards, which apply universally across the board.
• An example of a minimum standard is completing 5 rounds in 5 seconds at 5 yards into a 5″ target, emphasizing the importance of on-demand performance.
• Choose your standard based on logic and hold yourself accountable to it for continuous improvement.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

It is important that we understand these two concepts, and how they intertwine with each other. Hopefully, if you are carrying a gun for self-defense, and especially if carrying a gun professionally, you have set for yourself a minimum standard. Where that line should, or needs to be placed, is a discussion for another day. We are just talking concepts for now.

What a Minimum Standard Is

Minimum standards are not standards of acceptability, they are standards of not so bad to be rejected. It is like the bottom floor of a building. We are in the door, but only in the door. If all we do is stay one step inside the door, we aren’t doing enough to actually make the building useful.

Imagine, you need to go to the wild world of Walmart to pickup some groceries. You get to the parking lot, manage to park your vehicle of choice mostly between the lines, walk up to the automatic sliding doors, take one step inside the door, and then stop. Are you really accomplishing what you are there for? No. But, you are positioned to accomplish it, you just have to go do it. That is a minimum standard. The first step of a thousand step journey. Keep going.

The Catch (There Always is One)

Now here is the trick (you knew there was one), minimum standards apply to every gun, from every carry method. It doesn’t matter if it is a 2011 from a duty holster, or a J-frame from a pocket holster, the minimum standard applies across the board. All guns, all carry methods.

An Example

A common minimum standard is 5 rounds, in 5 seconds, at 5 yards, into a 5” target. It is attributed to Gila Hayes. If you do the math, that is a 2 second draw, and 0.75 splits if you want to shave it down to exactly 5 seconds. Really though, you need a little breathing room, so let’s say 0.70 splits.

A variation of this is the 5^5 as adapted by Claude Werner. The addition is that instead of shooting it once, you shoot it five times in a row. We have written about that variation of the drill HERE.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida Bill HB 133 Aims to Lower Minimum Age for Firearm Purchases from 21 to 18
• Florida Bill HB 759 Seeks to Lower Minimum Firearm Purchase Age to 18
• Armed Citizen Draws from the Drop and Wins
• A Suggested Training Track for Concealed Carriers
• Robber Demands Money; Get’s Shot Instead

What is On Demand Performance

This gets us to on demand performance. Something that you can do over and over and over again, regardless of level of preparation, or condition of circumstance. On demand means you can shoot the standard cold, regardless of how cold. In the rain, in the snow, in the sun. Basically, anywhere you would (or wouldn’t) eat green eggs and ham.

This is how these two things go together. The minimum standard is not something you should need to work up to. It isn’t something I shoot at the end of a range session to see if I make it. It is something I shoot at the beginning of a range session, preferably without even touching my gun beforehand. Shoot the ammo that is in it, then replace the ammo with fresh carry ammo at the end of the practice session.

Choose Your Standard

So, go choose your standard. Base it in some type of logic. There are plenty of suggestions on this website. Then hold yourself to the standard.

Read the original story: Minimum Standards and On Demand Performance

Key Takeaways

• An argument at a Popeye’s escalated into a shooting when a group followed Xavion Broussard home and opened fire.
• Broussard returned fire, wounding the driver and a passenger in the pursuing vehicle.
• No charges have been filed yet, and the investigation remains ongoing.
• In Louisiana, no permit is required for carrying a firearm due to constitutional carry laws.
• Driving home while being followed can endanger loved ones; it’s safer to go to a police station or a public place.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

ABBEVILLE, LA — An argument at a fast food restaurant ended in gunfire after a carload of people followed one of the customers home and opened fire, leaving two of them shot by the man they had chased, Abbeville Police say.

As reported by KLFY, officers first responded around 4:28 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, to a Popeye’s on Veterans Memorial Drive for a report of customers fighting. They found Xavion Broussard and a woman, Anayla Williams, in a verbal argument. The manager asked that everyone be removed, and both parties left separately. No one was arrested at the restaurant.

About an hour later, around 5:30 p.m., police were called to the 600 block of Hawthorne Street for a shooting. Investigators say video footage showed Broussard’s vehicle being followed to Hawthorne, where his grandmother lives.

According to police, occupants of a silver Chevrolet Malibu got out of the car and opened fire on Broussard. He returned fire, striking the driver and a rear-seat passenger. The Malibu fled and was later found on the 1500 block of Graceland, where Acadian Ambulance transported the two wounded to a hospital.

No one has been charged in the shooting itself as of this writing, and police say the investigation is ongoing.

It is not clear whether anyone involved held a concealed carry permit. In Louisiana, that question carries little weight. Since July 4, 2024, the state has been a constitutional carry state. Any adult who can legally possess a firearm may carry one, concealed or open, with no permit required. The absence of a permit tells us nothing about whether a person was carrying lawfully.

The detail that stays with me is the pursuit. Police say the Malibu followed Broussard from the restaurant to a private home. If you ever realize you are being followed, driving to where you live, or where your family lives, is one of the worst choices you can make. You bring the threat to the people you love and onto ground the other side has now seen.

More from USA Carry:

• Irresponsible Gun Owner: Woman Pulls Gun in Popeyes Drive-Thru
• Concealed Carrier Shoot and Kills Would-Be Robber; Mother Asks Why
• Man Getting Beaten by Five Draws, Shoots One Ending Assault
• Argument Over Place in Fast Food Line Leads to Woman Drawing Her Gun
• Manager of Food Bank Holds Car Theft Suspect for Police

Better options exist. Drive to a police station, a fire station, or a busy, well-lit public place. Call 911 and stay on the line so officers know your location and your direction of travel. Do not pull into the driveway and assume the problem will pass. A car that has tailed you for blocks is not lost.

I carry because I accept responsibility for my own protection, and part of that responsibility is not painting a target on my own front door. A firearm is the last resort, not a substitute for distance, awareness, and a phone call that puts the law on your side before anything happens.

The account police have released so far describes people who chased a man down and got out shooting first. If that holds up, it is the textbook setup for a lawful defensive response. The investigation is open and no official determination has been made, so I will let the evidence and the prosecutors do their work before calling it anything more than what police have said it is.

Read the original story: Popeye’s Argument Spills Into Gunfire After Pursuers Chase Man To Grandmother’s House

Key Takeaways

• The Tennessee Court of Appeals is reviewing the constitutionality of two firearm laws, which a trial court declared void.
• The going armed statute criminalizes carry with intent to be armed and affects self-defense rights, prompting legal challenges.
• A three-judge panel found the laws unconstitutional, applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision criteria.
• The state argues procedural issues, claiming the case belonged in circuit court and that the rulings overstepped boundaries.
• The Tennessee appeal continues as both statutes remain enforceable, though the case is expected to reach the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

JACKSON, TN — The fight over whether Tennessee can keep treating ordinary firearm carry as a crime reached the state Court of Appeals on June 23, where judges heard arguments over two statutes a trial court has already declared void.

At the center of the case, Stephen L. Hughes, et al. v. Bill Lee, et al., are two laws. The first is the “going armed” statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a), which makes it an offense to carry a firearm “with the intent to go armed.” The second is the parks statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), which criminalizes carrying in public parks, greenways, playgrounds, civic centers, and other government property.

The going armed statute is the broader problem. On its face it reaches anyone carrying a firearm to be ready for self-defense, anywhere in the state, including inside their own home. The only relief is a set of affirmative defenses that a person has to raise after being charged. That structure treats a core exercise of the right to bear arms as a crime first and a defense second.

A special three-judge panel saw it the same way. On August 22, 2025, Chancellor Michael Mansfield, Judge M. Wyatt Burk, and Judge Lisa Nidiffer Rice unanimously declared both statutes “unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.” The plaintiffs were Tennessee residents Stephen Hughes, Duncan O’Mara, and Elaine Kehel, joined by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation. The defendants were Governor Bill Lee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, and several state and county officials sued in their official capacities.

The panel applied the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Once a citizen’s conduct falls within the text of the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical tradition that supports the regulation. The panel found the state could not carry that burden for a law that criminalizes everyday carry.

Important context for anyone tracking this: the trial ruling is not in effect. The panel issued only declaratory relief, having earlier concluded it could not enjoin a criminal statute. Then, on September 30, 2025, the Court of Appeals stayed the ruling while the state’s appeal proceeds. Both statutes remain enforceable today. Tennessee carry law has not changed.

The state’s appeal leans almost entirely on procedure. Edwin A. Groves Jr. argued for the State that the case was filed in the wrong court, contending a chancery court cannot rule on criminal statutes and that the suit belonged in circuit court. He also argued the panel was wrong to strike the laws on their face when, in his view, some applications are valid, and that the panel granted relief beyond the named plaintiffs.

Judge Andy D. Bennett, who asked most of the questions, pressed that first point. The Tennessee Supreme Court itself appointed this three-judge panel under the state’s three-judge-panel statute. Bennett questioned how the high court could appoint a panel to hear a case it had no power to decide.

John I. Harris III argued for the plaintiffs that this is a civil action over a fundamental civil right, not a criminal proceeding, and that the panel had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory ruling. On the merits, he argued that the state’s “fringe” examples, such as grenades or people already barred from owning guns, did not save the laws. Those same edge cases were present in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, and the Supreme Court still reached the core of each challenged restriction.

More from USA Carry:

• Wisconsin Senate Panel Approves Permitless Carry
• Iowa House Panel Removes Restrictions on Gun Ownership, Proposes Further Change
• Minnesota Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Concealed Carry Q&A Digest – March 19, 2018
• Concealed Carry Map Update | July 1, 2021

There is a notable concession underneath all of this. In its own filings, the state acknowledged that the statutes have unconstitutional applications. That is a striking position for the government to defend laws it admits sweep in protected conduct.

One newer wrinkle came up at argument. A judge asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision the prior week in United States v. Hemani, handed down June 18, affected the case. The state said it did not, because Hemani was an as-applied challenge raised as a defense in a criminal prosecution, not a facial challenge like this one. On that narrow point the distinction holds, though Hemani is one more sign of how seriously courts are now taking Bruen’s command.

The Court of Appeals did not rule from the bench. A decision will come later, and whichever way it goes, this case is a strong candidate to reach the Tennessee Supreme Court. The stakes are plain. Tennessee bills itself as a constitutional-carry state, yet it is in court defending a law that makes being armed for self-defense a crime by default. I will continue tracking this case through the appellate process.

Read the original story: Tennessee Fights to Revive Two Gun Laws a Court Already Called Unconstitutional