Key Takeaways

• Rep. Christopher Rabb proposed the ‘Firearms Dealer Accountability and Modernization Act’ to enhance inspections of gun stores in Pennsylvania.
• The legislation aims for annual inspections by the Pennsylvania State Police and establishes a duty to report lost or stolen firearms.
• The bill includes grant programs for good-faith dealers to modernize and oversight for those who verify firearms storage compliance.
• The proposal signifies increased scrutiny on licensed dealers, aiming to identify those allegedly complicit in issues related to public health.
• Despite ongoing discussions, a co-sponsorship memo is not an official bill and lacks scheduled votes or committee referrals.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

HARRISBURG, PA — A Philadelphia Democrat in the Pennsylvania House has filed a co-sponsorship memo announcing legislation that would send the Pennsylvania State Police, or people the agency designates, into every federally licensed gun store in the state once a year.

Rep. Christopher Rabb’s co-sponsorship memo calls the proposal the “Firearms Dealer Accountability and Modernization Act.” In it, Rabb writes that “with more than 3,000 federally licensed firearms dealers across Pennsylvania, we must determine which establishments are complicit” in what he calls a public health crisis. The bill, he says, “focuses on the bad actors while providing support for good-faith dealers seeking to modernize their operations.”

The memo describes three mechanisms:

• Require the Pennsylvania State Police, or their designees, to conduct annual inspections of federally licensed firearms dealers.
• Codify a duty to report lost or stolen firearms or ammunition.
• Establish two programs: one issuing grants to licensed dealers to modernize their operations, and another funding State Police recruitment, training and oversight of designees who verify that dealers properly store and secure their firearms sales records, consistent with federal law.

The heaviest word in that list is “designees.” Federally licensed dealers already operate under federal recordkeeping rules and are already subject to federal inspection. What the memo proposes adding is a state layer on top of that: a guaranteed annual visit, and a trained pool of people who are not sworn officers with authority to walk into a licensed business and go through its paperwork.

The framing matters as much as the mechanics. Rabb’s stated starting point is that some unknown share of Pennsylvania’s 3,000-plus dealers are “complicit,” and that the job of the state is to determine which ones. Everyone gets inspected annually so the state can sort the group. Dealers who satisfy the process are offered grant money to modernize. That is a compliance structure built on the premise that a licensed retailer is a suspect pool to be narrowed rather than a regulated business to be audited when there is cause.

The lost-and-stolen reporting piece is the least remarkable part of the package. Plenty of dealers already report theft to federal authorities as a matter of course. Codifying it in state law creates a separate state penalty exposure for a paperwork failure, which is a real change for a small shop, but it is not the part of this memo that redraws the relationship between the state and the counter.

Gun Owners of America reported that on September 22, 2025, the House Judiciary Committee advanced four gun control bills on a strictly party-line vote, with every Democrat in favor and every Republican opposed. GOA identified them as HB 1099, which the group describes as making it a third-degree felony to manufacture, sell, possess or transfer a firearm made entirely of non-metal material; HB 1593, which GOA says would bar private long gun sales without government permission first and, in GOA’s characterization, set the stage for a statewide firearms transaction registry; HB 1859, creating red flag orders that GOA calls ex parte proceedings, meaning a judge can order firearms seized in a hearing the gun owner is not present for; and HB 1866, a ban on machine gun conversion devices that GOA argues duplicates existing federal law.

GOA also reported two outcomes worth noting. HB 837, Rep. Shusterman’s bill limiting handgun purchases to one per month, was passed over after Rep. Dan Miller entered a “No” vote. And a Republican amendment from Chairman Rob Kauffman that would have substituted constitutional carry for one of the anti-gun bills was defeated on party lines.

NRA-ILA has been flagging the same pattern, publishing a June 2026 alert headlined “Pennsylvania: House Majority Democrats Pushing More Gun Control Next Week.”

More from USA Carry:

• Florida AG Files $5 Million Lawsuit Against Jacksonville Over Illegal Gun Registry, Citing 2007 City Memo That Warned Against It
• Secretary of War Signs Memo Ending Gun-Free Zone Policy on Military Bases, Restoring Second Amendment Rights for Service Members
• Make Sure Your Guns Are Unloaded When Cleaning | Don’t Have a Desk Pop Like This Guy
• New Mexico Senate Approves Bill Restricting Common Rifles and Magazines Over 10 Rounds
• Concealed Carrier Shoots Pot Dealer After Confrontation Turns Violent in Chicago

A co-sponsorship memo is not a bill. There is no bill number, no filed text, no committee referral and no scheduled vote, and introduced language routinely differs from what a memo promises. The statute gets judged when there is a statute to judge.

Dealer-side regulation rarely draws the attention that carry bills and hardware bans do, because it does not restrict what any individual may buy or carry. It shapes who is still open on a Saturday morning to sell it. I will continue tracking this proposal and the rest of the Pennsylvania package as the session moves.

Read the original story: Pennsylvania Democrat Files Memo to Put State Police Inside All 3,000-Plus Licensed Gun Dealers Once a Year

Key Takeaways

• Episode 67 covers flying from New Orleans to Las Vegas, focusing on check-in and firearm declaration procedures.
• The author introduces USA Carry Travel Tags, which feature a QR code linking to essential firearm policies and resources.
• Travel tags are available for pre-order and will ship in about three to four weeks, with high demand expected.
• Upon arriving in Las Vegas, the author confirms his bag and firearm case are intact, highlighting the consistency of the travel process across episodes.
• The overall experience remains the same: declare firearms, fill out the form, wait for your bag.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Episode 67 was filmed August 20th, flying Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas. Smooth check-in, and I used the 15-minute wait to talk about something new I’ve got coming.

Check-In at MSY

Declared firearms. One bag to check, one handgun in a Condition 1 case inside another piece of luggage. Agent confirmed my final destination was Vegas, then handed me the declaration form. I filled out what I could and he took care of the rest. Signed the back.

He confirmed unloaded and locked, dropped the form in my FedEx sleeve, gave me my gate, and I was set. Set my 15-minute timer and waited at the flagpole. TSA didn’t come out.

USA Carry Travel Tags

While I was on the wait I wanted to mention a new product. I’m now selling USA Carry Travel Tags. USA Carry logo on one side, QR code on the other that takes you straight to the Pew Policies page. That page has the USA Carry reciprocity maps, each airline’s firearm policies, TSA’s policies, and NFA forms. Everything you’d want to pull up at a counter or before a trip, in one spot on your bag.

They’re up for pre-order now and shipping in about three to four weeks. They’re already moving fast, so if you want in on the first batch, grab one here: https://store.usacarry.com/products/usa-carry-travel-tags

More from USA Carry:

• Pew Policies Travel Tags Put Every Airline’s Firearm Policy One Scan Away, and I’m Giving Away Four Sets
• Check-In and Flying With Your Guns & Ammo | Step by Step
• Flying with Guns: Episode 48 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 42 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 54 – Southwest from Houston to New Orleans

Arrival in Las Vegas

Bag came out on the carousel at LAS. Checked the locks on the Condition 1 case, all intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Sixty-seven episodes in and the process still runs the same way. Declare, fill out the form, wait, pick up the bag.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 67 – Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas

Key Takeaways

• The CDC estimates defensive gun use ranges from 60,000 to 2.5 million times annually, now reinstated on their website after removal in 2022.
• Gun control advocates, like The Trace, have objected to the CDC’s retrieval of this data.
• The variance in estimates stems from differing methodologies in question framing and study populations.
• Gun Owners of America claims that fewer than 8% of defensive uses result in harm, with many instances resolving without shots fired.
• The CDC’s display of defensive gun use data signals a shift in dialogue despite no legal changes or impacts on firearm regulations.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

ATLANTA, GA — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is again telling the public that Americans use firearms defensively somewhere between 60,000 and 2.5 million times a year. The estimate sits on the agency’s “About Firearm Injury and Death” page under a subheading titled “Defensive Gun Use.”

The number itself is not new. What is new is that it is back. The CDC removed the defensive gun use material from its site in 2022 and has now reposted it, and the gun control outlet The Trace has publicly objected to its return, as reported by Breitbart News.

Here is the agency’s language, verbatim: “Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to study design. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.”

That is a federal public health agency, on a page whose stated purpose is calling firearm violence “a serious public health problem,” conceding that the upper bound of lawful defensive firearm use in this country runs into the millions. The CDC defines defensive gun use as the use of a firearm to protect and defend oneself, family, and other people against crime or victimization. Deadly force, of course, is a narrower thing than that. It is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the standard armed citizens across the country carry under every single day.

The spread between 60,000 and 2.5 million is enormous, and the CDC says plainly why: the answer moves depending on how you ask the question and who you ask. Anyone who quotes the top number as settled fact is overselling it, and anyone who quotes the bottom number as settled fact is doing the same thing in the other direction.

Gun Owners of America has cited the 2.5 million figure for years in its “Guns Save Lives” fact sheet, and GOA also points to a lower federal estimate: the National Institute of Justice published a figure of as many as 1.5 million defensive uses per year in its 1997 “Guns in America” study. GOA’s fact sheet makes a second point that gets lost in the argument over totals. In the overwhelming majority of defensive gun uses, nobody is shot. By GOA’s accounting, fewer than 8 percent of the time does an armed citizen kill or wound an attacker. The gun is presented, the threat evaporates, and the encounter ends without a round fired.

More from USA Carry:

• The Truth About Gun Violence: New Data from the CDC
• Criminal Attacks and Senior Citizens
• Deadly Shooting Between Family Members Was Self Defense, According To Witnesses
• Federal Appeals Court Tosses Felon Gun Ban Based on Meth Possession
• Firearms, Suicides, and Veterans

That is the part of the data that matters most to the way I train and the way I tell readers to train. The overwhelmingly likely defensive gun use is not a gunfight. It is a decision made under pressure, in bad light, on short notice, and mindset is what carries it. The same people making that decision are also navigating a state-by-state patchwork of carry rules, which is why I keep concealed carry permit information by state current and why knowing your own state’s standard before you need it is not optional.

What a federal agency chooses to publish is a policy signal, not a legal change. Nothing about the CDC restoring this page alters a single statute, permit requirement, or use-of-force standard anywhere in the country. But for two decades the loudest institutional voices in this debate have counted firearm harms with precision and firearm defenses not at all, and a page that acknowledges the defensive side exists is a different starting point for the next argument than a page that does not.

Read the original story: CDC Puts Defensive Gun Use Back on Its Website: 60,000 to 2.5 Million Times a Year

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

CHATHAM COUNTY, GA — A man who rode a Jet Ski out to a sandbar in the Ogeechee River was stabbed there by another man and shot him, according to the Chatham County Police Department.

Police say the incident happened around 6:45 p.m. on Sunday, August 23, 2026, on a sandbar near Shad Road. Witnesses and the victim told Criminal Investigations Division detectives that shortly after the victim arrived by Jet Ski, 47-year-old Kevin Ramage started a verbal confrontation with him.

The victim said he tried to leave. Ramage stabbed him. The victim fired his gun and struck Ramage.

Police say the victim left the sandbar on his Jet Ski and met law enforcement officers and EMS at Morgan’s Bridge. Ramage was dropped off at a nearby fire station for medical assistance and then transported by ambulance to a hospital for treatment of what appear to be non-life-threatening injuries.

More from USA Carry:

• Armed Intruder Gets More Than He Bargained For
• Chicago Homeowner Shoots Intruder in the Back During Break-in Attempt
• Concealed Carry Holder Involved in Shootout Over His Stolen Car in Chicago
• House Republicans Reject Trump’s ATF Budget Increase, Counter With $285 Million Cut and Pro-Gun Riders
• Michigan Homeowner Shoots Intruder in Neck During Early Morning Break-In

Ramage is in Chatham County Police Department custody and will be served with an aggravated assault warrant before being transferred to the Chatham County Detention Center, police said.

When I say carry all the time, this is what I mean. A sandbar in the Ogeechee River is reachable by water and nothing else. There is no door to lock, no store to duck into, no crowd to disappear into, and no officer a block away. A man went out on his Jet Ski on a Sunday evening for a few hours of sun and water, and he came off that sandbar with a stab wound and a defensive gun use behind him. Nobody schedules that into the day. The gun that counts is the one you have on you when an ordinary afternoon turns.

Read the original story: Stabbed as He Tried to Walk Away, Jet Ski Rider Shoots 47-Year-Old Attacker on Ogeechee River Sandbar

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge denied Louisiana State Police Superintendent Frank Besson’s request to involve the U.S. attorney general in a lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s concealed carry law.
• Judge David C. Joseph ruled that the lawsuit does not challenge the constitutionality of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act, so there was no need for a defense from the Justice Department.
• The decision keeps the lawsuit focused on Louisiana’s concealed carry rules, allowing it to proceed more quickly without introducing additional constitutional arguments.
• The ruling represents a small win for gun owners, but it does not grant any new rights or changes in law.
• The ongoing challenge to Louisiana’s concealed carry scheme remains active, with no court ruling on its merits yet.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

LAFAYETTE, LA — A federal judge has turned down a request from Louisiana State Police Superintendent Frank Besson to certify questions about the constitutionality of the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act to the United States attorney general, leaving the federal school zone law outside a lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s concealed carry scheme.

Judge David C. Joseph of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued the decision on August 21, as reported by Bloomberg Law. The plaintiffs suing over Louisiana’s concealed carry rules are not challenging the federal law and are not asking the court to block its enforcement, Joseph said.

Note who asked for what. The request to bring in the U.S. attorney general came from the state side, from Besson, the head of the Louisiana State Police. It did not come from the people suing over the state’s carry rules.

Here is what certification means. If people in a lawsuit argue that a federal law is unconstitutional, and the federal government is not part of that lawsuit, the judge is supposed to tell the U.S. attorney general so Justice Department lawyers can show up and defend their own law. Besson asked the judge to send that notice about the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The judge said no.

That does not mean the federal school zone law passed a test. The judge did not decide whether it is constitutional. He said the people suing are not going after the federal law at all, so there was nothing for the Justice Department to come in and defend.

For gun owners, this is a small win, and I want to be precise about how small. Nobody gained a right here. What happened is that the state tried to widen the case, and the judge kept it narrow. Justice Department lawyers are not joining the fight, the federal school zone law is not on the table, and the lawsuit stays aimed where the plaintiffs aimed it, at Louisiana’s own concealed carry rules. A case that stays narrow moves faster and is harder to bury under a second constitutional argument nobody in it raised.

The 1,000-foot federal school zone rule is no abstraction for anyone who carries in Louisiana. The Second Amendment Foundation’s Lee Williams reported on how New Orleans officials redesignated the Eighth District police station, sitting in the middle of the French Quarter, as a vocational technical school, which made everything within 1,000 feet of it a gun-free zone, including more than five blocks of Bourbon Street. No classes were planned for civilian students. The zone came off the city’s online zoning map after Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill met with NOPD Superintendent Anne Kirkpatrick, District Attorney Jason Williams and Councilwoman Helena Moreno.

More from USA Carry:

• Louisiana: State Considers No-Fee CCW Permits for Veterans
• Active Duty Military and Some Veterans Can Now Carry Concealed in Louisiana Without a Permit
• Ohio and Louisiana Sign Concealed Carry Reciprocity Agreement
• Federal Judge Rules Against California Gun Advocates
• California DOJ Updates CCW Instructor Qualifications, Expands Training Options

Dan Zelenka, president of the Louisiana Shooting Association and a board member of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told SAF the map change mattered because the map is a requirement to prosecute under the school zone. He also told SAF he expects the city to try again, possibly by partnering with a real school that would hold classes at the station. Where a “school” gets drawn on a map is what decides where a lawful carrier becomes a defendant, which is why a procedural fight like this one is worth reading closely. If you carry in the state, I keep the permit and carry rules together on my Louisiana concealed carry page.

The underlying challenge to Louisiana’s concealed carry scheme is still live, and no court has ruled on the merits of it. I will continue tracking the case as it moves through the Western District of Louisiana.

Read the original story: Louisiana State Police Tried to Pull the Justice Department Into a Concealed Carry Lawsuit. The Judge Said No, and the Case Stays Pointed at the State.

Key Takeaways

• The National Institute of Standards and Technology informed Congress that there is no reliable evidence supporting microstamping as an effective gun control measure.
• Microstamping would require handguns to imprint a unique code on cartridge cases, but manufacturers argue the technology is unworkable.
• Major handgun manufacturers, including Ruger and Smith & Wesson, claim compliance with California’s microstamping regulations is impossible.
• Glock has also stated that their pistols cannot meet the California microstamping requirements, highlighting the widespread concern.
• Microstamping proposals continue to appear in legislation, raising questions about regulation versus prohibition of handguns.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The federal government’s own measurement and standards agency has told Congress there is no reliable evidence that microstamping handguns would be an effective gun control measure.

That assessment came from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Commerce Department agency responsible for testing and validating technical standards, as reported by NSSF.

Microstamping is the idea that a pistol can be engineered to stamp a unique identifying code onto the cartridge case every time it fires, so investigators who recover a spent case at a scene can trace it back to a specific gun. The entire policy rests on the technology actually doing what the statute says it must do, every time, on every round, on every gun.

That is exactly the point handgun manufacturers have been putting in front of courts. According to a news release from the Second Amendment Foundation, Ruger CEO Michael O. Fifer and Smith & Wesson President and CEO James Debney each submitted declarations in Pena v. Lindley, SAF’s challenge to California’s handgun roster requirements, which include both microstamping and magazine disconnects.

SAF quotes Fifer as stating, “There is no workable microstamping technology today, and Ruger believes that California’s microstamping regulations make compliance impossible.”

SAF quotes Debney as stating, “Smith & Wesson does not believe it is possible currently to comply with California’s microstamping regulations. Quite simply, the state law requires the technology to perform at a level that it cannot.”

SAF also says Glock, Inc. filed an amicus curiae brief in the case through attorneys Erik S. Jaffe of Washington, D.C. and John C. Eastman of Orange, California. An amicus brief is a filing from someone who is not a party to the lawsuit but has a direct stake in how it comes out, submitted to give the court information it would not otherwise have. Per SAF’s account, Glock’s position was that neither its pistols nor any other handgun in common use can comply with the California mandate.

More from USA Carry:

• Microstamping Law Now Requires Stamp on Pistol Parts
• 3 Reasons The 1911 Is A Great Carry Gun
• Suspect Shot and Killed During Home Break-In in Commerce City, CO
• State Mandated Training Requirements: Help or Harm?
• Black Friday / Cyber Monday Guns Deals

What is not in dispute is the shape of the argument. Three of the largest handgun makers selling in the United States told a court the same thing, and a federal standards agency has now told Congress that the reliability evidence is not there. SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb put the consequence bluntly in the same release: “You cannot regulate handguns out of existence or out of the marketplace by mandating technology that doesn’t work.”

Microstamping proposals keep resurfacing in state legislatures and in Congress, and the technical question underneath them is the one that decides whether they are regulation or prohibition. I will continue tracking the microstamping fight in Congress, in the states, and in the courts.

Read the original story: Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Glock All Told a Court the Same Thing About California’s Microstamping Rule

Key Takeaways

• Two men were shot and killed in separate domestic violence incidents in Warren, MI, with shooters claiming self-defense.
• Both shooters held Michigan CPLs and faced no charges after the incidents were reviewed by prosecutors.
• The first shooting occurred during a family argument, while the second involved an uninvited ex-boyfriend confronting the current boyfriend.
• Warren police expressed concern over domestic violence and launched Operation Cycle Break to intervene in such cases before escalation.
• Officials reported a 57% drop in reoffending rates and a decrease in domestic violence incidents since the program’s initiation.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WARREN, MI — Two men were shot and killed in separate domestic violence confrontations about 70 minutes apart and roughly a mile and a half from each other early Sunday morning, and Macomb County prosecutors have declined to charge either of the men who fired.

Both shooters were valid Michigan CPL holders, and both were released from custody after prosecutors determined one man acted in defense of another and the other acted in self-defense, as reported by Macomb Daily.

The first call came in at about 2:05 a.m. at a home on Newport Avenue, off Frahzo Road west of Schoenherr Road. Officers found a 28-year-old man dead in the backyard with a gunshot wound. Life-saving measures were attempted. He was pronounced deceased at the scene.

Investigators determined that the 28-year-old had gotten into a verbal argument, assaulted his 63-year-old father, and then threatened to kill the people at the scene. His 25-year-old brother, a CPL holder, fired and killed him.

Just over an hour later, at about 3:15 a.m., officers were called to a home on Stewart Avenue near Stephens and Hayes, where a 40-year-old man had been shot. Investigators determined he arrived uninvited at his ex-girlfriend’s home, assaulted her, and then aggressively confronted her current boyfriend, a 33-year-old CPL holder. The boyfriend shot him during the confrontation. Prosecutors concluded he fired in self-defense.

Neither shooter has been identified, and no names have been released for the two men who died. Both men who fired were taken into custody and both were released once prosecutors reviewed the cases. In Michigan, that charging call belongs to the county prosecutor, and in both of these it has already been made.

Warren police tied the two shootings together in their release, calling them “tragic incidents” that “underscore the department’s ongoing concerns regarding domestic violence.”

“Domestic violence can tear families apart in an instant, as we sadly saw twice in one night,” Warren Police Commissioner Eric Hawkins said.

The department launched a program called Operation Cycle Break in May 2025 to intervene in domestic disputes before they reach what officials called “catastrophic levels,” using lethality assessments, intervention strategies, and victim support through community partners including Turning Point Macomb. Officials said last November that in the program’s first four months there was a 57% drop in defendants reoffending within a short period from 2024 to 2025, and a 7% decrease in domestic violence incidents compared with the prior two years.

“Operation Cycle Break was created precisely to address the volatile situations head-on, offering victims a lifeline and helping our community prevent violence before it reaches deadly crossroads,” Hawkins said.

More from USA Carry:

• Warren Woman Fatally Shoots Ex-Boyfriend in Self-Defense After Forced Entry Amid Domestic Violence History
• Facebook Marketplace Robbery Foiled CPL Holder
• Michigan Open Carry
• Brother Fatally Shoots Sibling in Self-Defense During Family Dispute in Houston
• ‘If They Can Serve, They Can Carry’: Michigan Bill Would Let 18-Year-Olds Get Concealed Pistol Licenses

Warren police are asking anyone suffering from domestic violence to contact the department for resources.

Neither of these men went looking for a fight, and neither of them was out in public when it found them. One was standing in a house where his father had just been attacked and a family member was announcing he intended to kill the people in front of him. The other was standing in a home an ex-boyfriend had come to uninvited, where a woman had just been assaulted. Both had seconds to decide, and both had to make that decision at an address they knew well against a person they knew even better.

Read the original story: 70 Minutes Apart in Michigan: A Brother and a Boyfriend, Cleared in Two Fatal Domestic Violence Shootings

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

PHILADELPHIA, PA — A man behind the wheel of a blue Volvo was shot during an attempted carjacking in West Philadelphia early Monday morning, drew his own firearm, and fired back at the attackers, police said.

The shooting happened near the intersection of 51st and Kershaw streets at about 7:13 a.m. on Monday, August 10, 2026, according to police information as reported by NBC10 Philadelphia, which also obtained surveillance video of the moment gunfire erupted.

Police said the driver was the target of a carjacking. The suspected attackers produced a firearm. They shot him. He produced his own weapon and returned fire.

Investigators recovered the victim’s firearm at the scene along with four spent shell casings. The man who was struck was taken to a nearby hospital and listed in stable condition.

Surveillance video from the scene shows armed men rushing across the roadway as gunfire breaks out. A woman’s voice can be heard shouting “stop, stop” over the shots. That is a public street in a residential stretch of West Philadelphia at the front end of a Monday morning commute, with people already out and awake close enough to be heard screaming on the recording.

More from USA Carry:

• Omaha Homeowner Shoots Former Roommate Acting Erratically in Self-Defense
• Why You Might Want This 26-inch Tool
• “Hacksaw” Jim Duggan Confronts and Detains Intruder w/ .44 Magnum
• Intruder Shot Multiple Times As Soon As He Broke In Through Back Window
• Woman Fires 13 Rounds in Self-Defense Against Two Home Invaders

Police did not say how many attackers were involved and did not say whether any of them were struck by gunfire. No suspect has been identified publicly and no arrest has been announced. Police said the investigation is underway.

This was 7:13 in the morning, in traffic, seat belted in, hands on the wheel. Whatever the driver had on him was what he had. There was no going back inside for it.

Read the original story: Philadelphia Carjacking Crew Picks a Driver Who Was Armed Too, Police Say

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

EDGEMOOR, SC — An argument over a vaping device ended with two people dead in the early morning hours of August 20, 2026, after a second person struck by gunfire shot back, according to the Chester County Sheriff’s Office.

Investigators say the shooting happened in the area of Mays Drive in the Edgemoor community. In an update posted by the sheriff’s office, investigators said they have determined the shooting occurred because of an altercation over a vaping device.

According to the sheriff’s office, Brandon Tavon Cassidy shot the first victim multiple times with a handgun. That victim died of their injuries.

A second victim returned fire. The exchange left both that person and Cassidy with gunshot wounds. Cassidy died of his injuries.

The sheriff’s office says the second victim returned fire in self-defense.

I cannot make sense of a handgun coming out over a vaping device. What I can say is that when someone decided a vape was worth shooting a person over, the second victim was not defenseless.

More from USA Carry:

• North Carolina Vape Store Worker Injured in Robbery; Suspect Shot While Fleeing
• Mask, Gloves, and a Gun: Florence Vape Shop Employee Fires on Armed Robber Loading Cash Into a Bag
• Armed Citizen Chased Down Stabbing Suspect; Shoots Him in Self-Defense
• Couple Attacked by Two Men, Victim Shot in Leg, 1 Attacker Shot in Chest
• Houston Homeowner Fatally Shoots Suspected Burglar Upon Return Home

A great deal has not been released. Neither victim has been identified by the sheriff’s office. The condition of the second victim has not been announced beyond the fact that the person was struck. Investigators have not said how the people involved knew one another, who started the altercation, or what time the call came in. No charging decision has been announced, and in South Carolina that call belongs to the solicitor’s office, not to investigators.

The sheriff’s office says this remains an active investigation.

Read the original story: Argument Over Vape Leaves Two Dead in South Carolina After the Second Victim Returned Fire

Key Takeaways

• The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed California and Giffords’ lawsuit against the Biden administration’s ghost gun rule, ruling 3-0 that the plaintiffs did not prove harm.
• The court’s decision focused on standing, meaning California and Giffords failed to show concrete injury from the rule.
• This ruling does not impact another case where a federal judge declared the ghost gun rule unconstitutional and vague.
• California frequently appears in the Ninth Circuit, often on the defense side regarding gun laws.
• A dismissal for lack of standing does not change existing federal and state gun laws; individuals should consult a lawyer before making any decisions.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — A federal appeals court has thrown out a lawsuit brought by the state of California and the gun control advocacy group Giffords over the Biden administration’s ghost gun rule, with a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling 3-0 that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate the rule caused them harm.

That account comes from an August 21, 2026 wire report, as reported by Reuters, which supplies the panel, the vote, and the ground for the dismissal.

Last week I covered Gun Owners of America’s announcement that a federal judge ruled the same Biden ghost gun rule unconstitutional and void for vagueness. That was a different case in a different court, and this Ninth Circuit dismissal does not touch it.

The ground matters more than the vote count here. A ruling that plaintiffs did not show the rule harmed them is a ruling about standing. Standing is the threshold question in federal litigation: before a court will hear your argument at all, you have to show that the thing you are challenging actually injured you in some concrete way. Reuters reports the panel found California and Giffords did not make that showing. That is a decision about who gets through the courthouse door, not a decision about whether the rule is good law.

California is a fixture in the Ninth Circuit, though usually on the other side of the caption. NRA-ILA announced in July 2025 that the Ninth Circuit struck down the state’s background check requirement for ammunition purchases in an NRA-backed case. Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation filed their opening brief in the Ninth Circuit in May 2025 challenging California Penal Code Section 26806, the law requiring firearm dealers to run 24 hour video and audio recording of customers and retain it for state inspection. In October 2025, the Second Amendment Foundation announced it had filed Jaymes v. Bonta with the NRA, the Firearms Policy Coalition, a licensed retailer and two individuals, challenging AB 1127, the state law banning commercial sale of Glock and Glock platform pistols.

In those cases the state is defending its own statutes. In this one, by the Reuters account, California went to the federal courts asking for something and was turned away before anyone weighed the substance of the request. Gun owners live under the opposite version of that problem constantly, told that a law they cannot lawfully violate has not injured them enough to challenge. Standing cuts in every direction, and it just cut against a state attorney general and a national gun control organization.

More from USA Carry:

• The Right to Bear Arms – Openly
• Trump DOJ Keeps Biden’s Ghost Gun Rule in Place, Defying White House’s Own Second Amendment Executive Order
• New Jersey Man Arrested After Using a ‘Ghost Gun’ To Defend Himself Against Two Home Invaders
• Polymer 80 Glock Build Project – Building My Ghost Gun, Part-Two
• ATF Inflating ‘Ghost Gun’ Numbers Hoping Congress Inflates Its Budget

I will not tell you what this ruling changes about buying, building, or selling anything. A headline is not a holding. A dismissal on standing leaves federal and state law where it already sat, and California’s own statutes on unserialized frames and receivers are what govern people in that state regardless of how this appeal came out. Talk to a lawyer in your state before you change anything you are doing.

I will continue tracking this case and will report on the panel’s actual opinion once the text is available.

Read the original story: Three Judges, One Vote, Zero Merits: Giffords and California Tossed From Ghost Gun Rule Fight

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge upheld Massachusetts law banning 18- to 20-year-olds from possessing handguns and semiautomatic firearms.
• The ruling, issued in Escher v. Noble, rejected a constitutional challenge from plaintiffs including the NRA and other gun rights groups.
• Judge O’Toole argued that historical context supports state restrictions on minors’ firearm possession while noting plaintiffs lacked standing on most challenges.
• This decision adds to a pattern where courts uphold under-21 restrictions, despite 18-year-olds being considered adults in other areas.
• Meanwhile, some states have moved to allow concealed carry for younger adults, highlighting a divide in state responses to gun rights.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

BOSTON, MA — A federal judge has upheld the Massachusetts law barring 18- to 20-year-olds from possessing handguns and semiautomatic firearms, rejecting a constitutional challenge brought by a 20-year-old resident and a coalition of gun rights organizations that included the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Judge George O’Toole issued the ruling in Escher v. Noble, No. 1:25-cv-10389, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Friday, Aug. 21, 2026, as reported by Bloomberg Law.

The case was filed in February 2025. According to the Second Amendment Foundation’s announcement, the plaintiffs are Massachusetts resident Mack Escher along with SAF, the NRA, Gun Owners of America, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners Action League and Commonwealth Second Amendment. SAF identifies the defendants as Col. Geoffrey Noble, superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, and Heath J. Eldredge, chief of police in Brewster, both in their official capacities. The plaintiffs challenged provisions enacted through H.B. 4885, signed in July 2024 by Gov. Maura Healey, which SAF describes as a complete bar on 18- to 20-year-olds acquiring, possessing or carrying any handgun or semiautomatic firearm.

“Massachusetts’s law barring 18-20-year-olds from being able to acquire, possess, and carry commonly possessed firearms fails to comport with the Constitution’s command,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said when the suit was filed. “These adult individuals are entitled to the full scope of the Second Amendment’s protections, yet the State has opted to affirmatively treat them as if they have less rights.”

GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt put it more bluntly in his organization’s release. “The government has no right to pick and choose which Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Pratt said. “Massachusetts’ unconstitutional ban on young adults owning firearms for self-defense is an egregious attack on the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Per Bloomberg Law’s report, the challenge leaned heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires a gun regulation to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs argued the age cutoff turned the Second Amendment into a “second-class right.” O’Toole rejected that framing, writing that “that argument conflates regulation with relegation.”

The historical hook O’Toole reportedly used is the infancy doctrine, a founding-era legal concept dealing with the limited legal capacity of people below the age of majority. Bloomberg Law reports that state officials argued the doctrine made it practically impossible for anyone under 21 to acquire firearms in that era, and pointed to founding-era statutes requiring parents and guardians to furnish arms to minors serving in the militia, some of which imposed fines when they failed to do so. “The historical record before the Court reveals that the ‘pre-existing right’ ‘codif[ied]’ by the Second Amendment” allowed for restrictions on minors’ ability to possess firearms, O’Toole wrote, according to Bloomberg Law. “The statutory age restriction fits within that principle … in both why and how it burdens the Second Amendment right of eighteen- to twenty-year-olds.”

He was not writing on a blank slate. The ruling cited the Eleventh Circuit’s 2025 en banc decision upholding Florida’s ban on firearm sales to people under 21, en banc meaning the full bench of that appeals court reheard the case rather than the usual three-judge panel. It also cited a Tenth Circuit decision upholding a Colorado under-21 ban, which found that the age of majority at the founding was 21 in most states.

There is a second holding here that matters just as much as the historical analysis. O’Toole also found that the plaintiffs lacked standing on three of the four provisions they challenged. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete, personal injury from the specific law he is attacking, and if a court finds it missing, it never reaches the question of whether the law is constitutional. That narrowed the case down to a single statute, the one setting 21 as the minimum age for a Massachusetts license to carry.

So three quarters of what the plaintiffs came in to fight was never decided on the merits at all. The bulk of the Massachusetts scheme those plaintiffs targeted is still standing untested, and a different plaintiff with a cleaner injury could put it back in front of a judge.

On the merits that were reached, though, this is one more district court adding to a post-Bruen pattern I have watched build for two years now. Two federal appeals courts have already signed off on under-21 restrictions using the same founding-era reasoning, and a district judge in Boston has now followed them. An 18-year-old in Massachusetts is an adult for voting, for contracts, for military service and for criminal liability, and courts keep locating a historical tradition that says the one right he does not get is the one written into the Bill of Rights.

Legislatures have been moving the other way all year. In the spring I covered the Kentucky legislature overriding the governor’s veto so that 18- to 20-year-olds can get concealed carry licenses starting July 15. West Virginia went further, and I reported that adults 18 and older could carry concealed there without a license starting June 12, then followed up once that law was in force. Same age group, same constitutional question, opposite answers. Which rights a 19-year-old has right now comes down to which state line he happens to be standing behind.

More from USA Carry:

• Massachusetts Concealed Carry Permit Information
• DOJ Backs FPC in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Ban on Commonly Owned Pistols
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against Massachusetts
• Appeals Court Upholds Maryland Gun Ban
• Two More States Go Shall Issue, Removing ‘Good Cause’ When Applying – Maryland & Massachusetts

This is a district court decision, not the last word. The First Circuit sits above the District of Massachusetts.

I will continue tracking Escher v. Noble as it moves forward.

Read the original story: Federal Judge Upholds Massachusetts Handgun Ban for 18- to 20-Year-Olds, Rejecting NRA and SAF Challenge

Key Takeaways

• Virginia courts, including Lancaster County, have paused litigation over the state’s assault firearms ban amid ongoing challenges.
• The law, signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, defines ‘assault firearms’ and bans magazines over 15 rounds, effective July 1.
• Gun Owners of America secured a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the ban until December 31, 2026, allowing ongoing legal proceedings.
• The Supreme Court’s review on assault weapon bans influences the timing of Virginia’s court decisions, creating uncertainty for gun owners.
• Attorney General Jay Jones emphasizes defending the law’s constitutionality while acknowledging the current legal ambiguities.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

RICHMOND, VA — Four other courts had already hit pause on the litigation over Virginia’s ban on so-called assault firearms and on magazines holding more than 15 rounds. A Lancaster County Court judge has now joined them.

Back in May I covered Lawsuits Hit Virginia’s New “Assault Firearm” Ban Within 24 Hours of Spanberger’s Signature, when the ink was barely dry and the courthouse filings were already stacking up. What has changed is that the challenges have stopped moving one by one, and this ruling adds another to the pile. The court granted a stay Friday in John Crump, et al. v. Jeffrey S. Katz, a decision that aligns Lancaster County with three other Virginia state courts and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, all of which had already granted similar stays in challenges to the law, as reported by WWBT. A stay is a pause. The case stays alive, but it stops moving while the court waits on something else, and the something else here is the U.S. Supreme Court, which is currently reviewing challenges to assault weapon bans.

The underlying law is what Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed this spring. It makes any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases or transfers an “assault firearm” guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor, and it defines that term to cover semiautomatic rifles chambered in anything other than .22 rimfire, along with rifles carrying common features like a collapsing stock, a pistol grip or a threaded barrel. It also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. The effective date was July 1.

Before any of the stays, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and the Virginia Citizens Defense League won a preliminary injunction in Crump v. Katz on June 25. GOA says that order prevents the Virginia State Police from enforcing the challenged gun and magazine bans while the case moves through the courts, and that it pushed the enforcement date from July 1, 2026 to December 31, 2026. GOA also says the bans reached publicly carrying many commonly owned firearms, which is why this litigation matters to anyone who follows Virginia’s carry laws rather than only to collectors and buyers.

A month later, NRA-ILA announced a stay in its own challenge under the headline “Court Stays NRA Challenge to Virginia’s ‘Assault Firearm’ and Magazine Bans, Keeping Statewide Injunction in Place Until Supreme Court Rules on ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans.” That is the organization’s characterization of the order, not language from the court.

The commonwealth reads the same rulings very differently. “My office has fought for the uniform and fair application of the law, and today’s decision delivers exactly that,” Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones said of the Lancaster County stay. “With the United States Supreme Court now reviewing major challenges to assault weapons bans, this stay ensures Virginia’s cases move forward on solid, consistent footing.” Jones said the law sits firmly within the bounds of the Constitution of Virginia and that his office will keep defending it.

For Virginia gun owners, the practical picture is narrower than the headlines suggest. No court has ruled on the merits of whether these bans are constitutional. What GOA describes is an injunction with an expiration date on it, and an injunction with a date on it is not a repeal. December 31, 2026 is a calendar entry every Virginian who owns one of these rifles or magazines should have written down, because the relief GOA describes runs out on a schedule while the constitutional question sits and waits on Washington.

More from USA Carry:

• Virginia Judge Blocks Spanberger’s Assault Firearm Ban Statewide Days Before It Takes Effect
• Shooting Drills for Fundamentals and Self-Defense
• Glock COA Pistols Pulled from Civilian Market — Rumors Tie Move to P320 Troubles
• Judge Hits Pause on Controversial Gun Ruling That Demanded Gun Rights Groups’ Member Lists
• GOA’s “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Under Fire as Gun Control Groups and DOJ Defend National Gun Registry

The pattern is the story now. Four state courts and one federal court have each decided, if the reporting and the parties’ accounts hold, that Virginia’s answer should come after the Supreme Court speaks rather than before. Gun owners get breathing room. They do not get certainty.

I will continue tracking John Crump, et al. v. Jeffrey S. Katz and the related Virginia challenges as they move through the state and federal courts.

Read the original story: Lancaster County Judge Joins Four Other Courts and Pauses GOA’s Challenge to Virginia’s “Assault Firearm” Ban

Key Takeaways

• A woman shot and killed Maurice Wright Jr. in Deerfield Beach, claiming self-defense during a physical attack.
• Wright had a criminal history, including a 2022 charge of second-degree murder for killing his father, which was resolved without a trial.
• Neighbors reported previous abuse and heard the couple fighting before the shooting occurred.
• Detectives interviewed the woman on the scene, capturing her account early on, but details about the incident remain unclear.
• Florida law permits deadly force only against clear threats, and Wright’s criminal history does not justify the shooting.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

DEERFIELD BEACH, FL — A woman shot and killed 31-year-old Maurice Wright Jr. at a Deerfield Beach apartment complex Wednesday night and told Broward Sheriff’s Office detectives she fired in self-defense during a physical attack. Deputies took her in for questioning and then released her. She has not been charged.

Wright was arrested in 2022 and charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of his sleeping father. That case closed in March 2026 without ever going to trial, and a review of his record turned up a lengthy criminal history that includes aggravated battery, as reported by Local 10. The woman who fired has not been publicly identified.

She stayed on the scene and gave detectives her account of the attack before she was ever transported. That put her version on the record in the first minutes and left BSO with a cooperating witness instead of a fleeing suspect.

Neighbors at the complex described a relationship that had already gone bad. Marcella Thomas told Local 10 the woman was her neighbor and that Wright was an ex who came looking for her after he got out of jail in Miami. “He was in jail for killing his dad, got out of the jail in Miami,” Thomas said. “Was trying to look for the woman where she stay at. They was going together, ex. He end up finding where she live.” Another neighbor said she had heard Wright “jumped on her and beat her up, her and the kids,” and prefaced it with “that’s what I heard.” Thomas said the same, framing it as secondhand: “What I heard is that the dude was abusing her, abusing the 4-year-old, tried to abuse the 11-year-old.”

Those are neighbor accounts, not findings, and the people repeating them said plainly they were repeating what they had heard. But the piece that is not hearsay is what the neighbors witnessed themselves. They could hear the two of them fighting through the walls. When the shots went off on the second floor, the neighbors next door went out a window, because Wright had threatened them before and they did not know what he would do.

More from USA Carry:

• Upstate Sheriff Aims to Create Law for Notifying Police After Self-Defense Shootings
• Woman Shoots Ex That Broke In and Put Gun to Boyfriend’s Head
• Bear-Spraying Robber Says “Happy Holidays” Before Jewelry Store Owner Shoots Her
• Deadly Road Rage Incident Ruled a Self-Defense Shooting
• Buffalo Man Shoots And Kills Home Invader, Leaves Scene, No Charges Will Be Filed

The 2022 case is the one that put Wright’s name in the news the first time. He was accused of killing his father with an assault rifle. Miami-Dade County sheriff’s deputies used an explosive tactical breach to take him into custody at a motel, and he was charged with second-degree murder. Five months before Wednesday night, that charge went away without a jury ever hearing it.

None of that history is what makes a shooting lawful, and it is worth being blunt about that. Florida justifies deadly force only against an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, which is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. A man’s record does not authorize anyone to shoot him. The only thing that answers the legal question here is the physical attack the woman described to detectives, and BSO has not publicly detailed what happened in the seconds before she fired.

Read the original story: Florida Woman Kills Ex Who Found Where She Lived, Five Months After His Father’s Murder Case Closed Without a Trial

Key Takeaways

• The Commonwealth’s Attorney dismissed a first-degree murder charge against LaToya Crabbe after reviewing a five-hour audio recording.
• The recording suggested evidence supporting Crabbe’s claim of self-defense, raising reasonable doubt about criminal intent.
• Prosecutors had initially based their case on actions after the shooting, not on the shooting itself.
• Crabbe claimed she acted in self-defense, alleging her husband threatened her with a knife before the shooting.
• The case illustrates the potential gap between legal standards for justifying deadly force and initial prosecutorial assessments.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

MANASSAS, VA — Prince William County Commonwealth’s Attorney Amy Ashworth has dismissed a first-degree murder charge against LaToya Crabbe, a pharmacist and mother of three who fatally shot her husband in October 2024, after prosecutors and Manassas City police investigators listened to a five-hour audio recording that had been sitting unexamined on a device seized during the original investigation.

Ashworth announced the dismissal on Friday, Aug. 14, as reported by Prince William Times, saying her office acted after prosecutors and investigators “accessed a previously unexamined audio recording recovered from a digital device seized during the investigation.” In her words, “The five-hour recording captured the extensive conversations and events immediately leading up to the shooting incident.”

After reviewing it, prosecutors concluded the recording introduced significant evidence that a reasonable jury could interpret as supporting a self-defense claim. “Because this newly available evidence creates a reasonable doubt regarding criminal intent, the Commonwealth cannot ethically proceed with the prosecution at this time,” Ashworth said in a statement.

Read that quote carefully, because it is a prosecutor saying she can no longer prove her case, not a judge or jury declaring the shooting lawful. Ashworth chose the words “at this time.” No court has made a self-defense finding here, and prosecutors are the ones who decide whether a case goes forward.

Crabbe was indicted on first-degree murder on March 3, 2025, in connection with the Oct. 21, 2024, fatal shooting of her husband, Curtis Crabbe. Court documents show she turned down a plea deal from prosecutors last year. She spent roughly a year and a half under a charge that carries the rest of a person’s life, and she refused the offer that would have ended it.

The Commonwealth’s original theory leaned heavily on what allegedly happened after the shots. Prosecutors alleged Crabbe deleted Ring.com video and audio footage that allegedly captured the shooting, deleted the app from her phone, and did not call 911, instead calling her mother, who called 911 afterward. Prosecutors also introduced evidence that she allegedly reloaded the gun during the shooting, according to court records.

That is where this case stops being about the shooting. Not one of those allegations addresses whether Curtis Crabbe was attacking his wife. Every one of them is aftermath conduct, and aftermath conduct is what let prosecutors build a premeditation narrative in front of a grand jury and carry it for nearly two years. Call 911 yourself. Preserve everything, including the footage you are afraid of. Say as little as possible and get a lawyer. The record you create in the first ten minutes is the record prosecutors will read back to you later.

That last point is also the argument for carrying self-defense coverage. A program like CCW Safe puts an attorney on the phone in those first minutes and funds the defense if a prosecutor decides to charge you anyway. Crabbe carried a first-degree murder indictment for roughly a year and a half before the evidence that ended it was played, and legal bills do not wait for the recording to be found.

Crabbe and her family have consistently maintained she acted in self-defense. Her attorney, David Daugherty, said in March 2025 that there was “zero evidence of premeditation” and that she “clearly only acted in order to protect herself and her family.” The defense has said she fired only after her husband threatened her and lunged at her with a stiletto knife. Her mother, Marilyn Martin, previously shared threatening text messages she said Curtis Crabbe sent to LaToya Crabbe shortly before the shooting.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country live under every day, at home and in public alike, and the permit side of it in this state is covered in my Virginia concealed carry guide. What this case shows is how far that standard can be from what a prosecutor can see in the file on day one.

More from USA Carry:

• Utah Pharmacist Prevents Burglary With Carry Gun, Chases Three Suspects Off
• Philadelphia Open-carrier Harassed by Police with Audio
• Illinois Homeowner Acquitted After Fatally Shooting Man in Rear End
• DoorDash Driver Indicted for Murder After Shooting Teen Who Tried to Steal His Car in Charlotte
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against Massachusetts

The allegations about deleted footage and a reloaded gun were never tested at trial, Crabbe was never convicted of anything, and no court has ruled on whether the shooting was justified. What exists is a dismissal, and the audio that produced it. A five-hour recording, seized at the start, opened at the end.

I will continue tracking the case, including whether the Commonwealth revisits it given Ashworth’s decision to dismiss “at this time.”

Read the original story: A Five-Hour Recording No One Had Examined Ends the First-Degree Murder Case Against a Virginia Pharmacist Who Shot Her Husband

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

FORT PIERCE, FL — A 22-year-old homeowner shot and killed a 37-year-old acquaintance inside his mobile home Wednesday night after the older man pushed him and punched him repeatedly in the stomach, according to the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office. No charges have been filed.

The two men knew each other and had been arguing by text message, and that argument escalated into a face-to-face confrontation at the homeowner’s door, Sheriff Richard R. Del Toro Jr. said, as reported by CBS12.

Deputies and St. Lucie County Fire District crews were sent to the Seminole Mobile Home Park in the 3300 block of Orange Avenue around 9 p.m. on Wednesday, August 12, 2026. The Sheriff’s Office logged the call at 9:11 p.m.

Investigators say the 37-year-old knocked on the front door and the homeowner let him in. That detail matters, because this was not a stranger coming through a door. It was a man the homeowner knew, arriving at the end of an argument the two of them had been having by phone.

Once inside, the older man pushed the homeowner and then punched him several times in the stomach in what deputies described as a brawl. The homeowner pulled a 9mm handgun. He fired one round into the man’s chest at close range. He stopped there. The 37-year-old was pronounced dead at a local hospital.

“Victim disengaged from the deceased, pulled out a handgun and shot one time,” Del Toro said, using “victim” to describe the homeowner. “The threat was over.”

The homeowner’s girlfriend and sister were inside the mobile home during the fight and gave statements to detectives that corroborated his account, investigators said. He stayed at the scene and cooperated fully with deputies.

Crime scene investigators obtained a search warrant, recovered the handgun, and cleared the residence at 6:11 a.m. Thursday.

Here is where this case is worth thinking hard about if you carry. Deadly force is lawful only against an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country live under every day. A shoving match does not automatically clear that bar. Repeated blows to the body from a larger man, inside your own home, after a running argument brought him to your door, is a very different set of facts, and it is the set of facts the State Attorney’s Office will be weighing. Del Toro said the case could end up classified as a stand your ground shooting, and he framed the test plainly on camera: “Obviously you have to be in defense of yourself, but at the same time, you have to be in fear for your life. Anytime you’re going to use deadly force.”

The sheriff said the man who died had three felony convictions and a record that included drug-related, resisting-officer, and domestic violence-related charges. Del Toro was careful to say that history was not the reason the man was killed, only context for the investigation, and he is right. A criminal record does not authorize anyone to shoot. What happened in that living room does, or it does not.

More from USA Carry:

• Man w/ Knife Attacks Ex at Traffic Light, Armed Friend Shoots Him in the Face
• Mother Shoots Convicted ‘CM’ During Attack on Daughter in Indianapolis Hotel
• Burglar Killed in Self-Defense; Accomplice Charged With His Murder
• Fort Worth Man Fatally Shot After Breaking Into Ex-Girlfriend’s Apartment
• Road Rage and Trailer Theft Lead to Deadly Shootout in Bonney Lake, WA

Naomi Perez, who identified herself as the girlfriend of the man who died, told reporters she wants answers. “I would like to see some justice,” she said, adding that the couple’s five-year-old son no longer has a father.

Neither man has been publicly identified. The homeowner has not been arrested or charged, and the St. Lucie County State Attorney’s Office will make the final determination on whether the shooting was self-defense or whether criminal charges are warranted.

Read the original story: 22-Year-Old Florida Man Fires a Single 9mm Round During a Brawl with Acquaintance in Living Room

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FLORENCE, SC — A store employee at a Florence vape shop grabbed a handgun and fired multiple rounds at a masked man who police say walked in armed and began loading money into a bag. The man ran and was found dead behind the business.

Officers were sent to a reported armed robbery at Smokers Town on Woody Jones Boulevard at about 10:15 p.m., and while they were still en route they were told the suspect had been shot by an employee, as reported by WBTW. The Florence County Coroner’s Office identified the man as Raheem Raykwain Brantley, 23, of Florence. Coroner Keith von Lutcken released the identification.

Police said their preliminary investigation indicates Brantley entered the business wearing a mask and gloves and carrying a gun. As he was trying to put money into a bag, the employee grabbed a handgun and fired multiple rounds.

Brantley ran out of the store. Officers found him a short time later lying in a grassy area behind the business. He had a handgun with him.

Drawing on a man who already has a gun in his hand is the hardest thing an armed citizen can be asked to do. Pulling a trigger is always faster than clearing a holster or reaching for a gun under a counter. That’s what drawing from the drop means, and it is why so much defensive training is about timing rather than speed. Moving first, at the wrong moment, may get you killed.

The employee did not move first. Police say Brantley was occupied with the money and the bag when the employee grabbed a handgun and fired. That is a window, and in a situation like this it may be the only one a person gets. He saw it and he took it. Good for him.

Nobody will ever know whether Brantley was there only for the cash or whether he planned to shoot the employee once the bag was full. A masked, gloved man standing inside a small shop with a gun in his hand is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and the person on the other side of the counter does not get to wait and find out which kind of robbery this was.

More from USA Carry:

• Suspect with AK-47 Opens Fire in Florence Fast Food Restaurant as 17-Year-Old Employee Shoots Back
• North Carolina Vape Store Worker Injured in Robbery; Suspect Shot While Fleeing
• Tips for Winter Concealed Carry
• 5 Types Of Gloves Perfect For Concealed Carry
• Woman Shoots Masked Armed Man Approaching Her Outside Her Home

The employee has not been identified, and police said no charges have been filed against him at this time. Florence police and the coroner’s office are both still investigating, and the final call on whether the shooting was justified rests with prosecutors, not with police or with me. Everything police have described about how Brantley entered the store is a preliminary account.

That employee was behind a counter at night, in a business that had already been chosen as a target, with an armed man a few feet away. He did not have the option of distance, and he did not have the option of waiting to learn what the gun was for.

Read the original story: Mask, Gloves, and a Gun: Florence Vape Shop Employee Fires on Armed Robber Loading Cash Into a Bag

Key Takeaways

• Ohio Senate Bill 214 aims to remove suppressors from the state’s list of dangerous ordnance, a category that includes military hardware.
• The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kyle Koehler and supported by the Buckeye Firearms Association, has passed the Senate but awaits a vote in the House after summer recess.
• Currently, owning a suppressor in Ohio is legal only if registered in the federal database, leading to uncertainty after recent federal rulings.
• BFA advocates for the bill, arguing it promotes hearing safety and reduces noise pollution, effectively treating suppressors as safety accessories.
• The bill’s progress is monitored, as changes in Ohio law depend on the House’s vote and the governor’s signature.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

COLUMBUS, OH — Ohio Senate Bill 214 would take suppressors off the state’s list of dangerous ordnance, the same statutory category Ohio uses for military hardware. The Senate has already passed it. The House has not.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. Kyle Koehler, R-Springfield, and backed by Buckeye Firearms Association, which reports that the Senate passed it in March, that BFA testified in support before the House Public Safety Committee on June 9, and that House leadership has assured the organization the bill will move once the chamber returns from summer recess, as reported by Buckeye Firearms Association. NRA-ILA also reported the Senate’s passage in March.

The bill text itself is short and blunt about what it does. SB 214, introduced in the 136th General Assembly, amends sections 1533.04, 2923.11, and 2923.17 of the Revised Code to remove suppressors from the classification of dangerous ordnance. Section 2923.11 is the definitions section. Section 2923.17 is the unlawful possession statute. Section 1533.04 is the hunting provision that currently addresses using a suppressor while hunting game birds and wild quadrupeds.

Here is the problem in plain terms, as BFA lays it out. Ohio keeps a list of things the law calls dangerous ordnance. Explosives are on it. So are grenades, mines, and rocket launchers. So is a suppressor, under R.C. 2923.11(K)(5). Having anything on that list is generally a crime in Ohio, and it is a fifth-degree felony. There is one way out for a normal suppressor owner: R.C. 2923.17(C)(5) says you are in the clear if the item is registered in the federal database that tracks these items, the one ATF maintains.

So an Ohio suppressor owner is not legal because Ohio decided a suppressor is an ordinary accessory. He is legal because a federal registry has his name attached to one. Ohio borrowed its protection from federal paperwork instead of writing it into state law. SB 214 would write it into state law.

That borrowed structure is why BFA is pressing the House now. A federal judge in Texas ruled on Aug. 5 that the remaining registration requirement for short-barreled rifles and suppressors under the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional without a tax attached to it, a ruling I covered in 27 States Walk Out Same Day, 15 Still File the Form 4: The Full State List After the Midnight Suppressor Injunction. BFA’s legal counsel, Sean Maloney, argues that the federal change leaves a trap sitting in Ohio law, pointing to Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The logic is simple enough. If the federal registration that Ohio’s exception leans on is in question, the exception Ohio owners rely on is in question with it.

More from USA Carry:

• Man Facing Felony Charges After His Gun is Seen While Cheering
• Ohio Senate Passes Restaurant Carry
• Attempted Apartment Invasion Leads To Suspected Burglar’s Death
• Ohio Aims to Join List of Permitless Carry States
• Ohio Bill Bans Gun Store Closures, Confiscation During Emergencies

BFA’s legislative affairs director, Jim Samuel, put the case for the bill this way in testimony quoted by the organization: “Anyone who shoots or hunts frequently has likely experienced some degree of hearing loss. And noise complaints frequently plague outdoor ranges. This is why suppressors can be a useful tool to promote hearing safety and reduce noise pollution.” Samuel said the bill “seeks to treat suppressors as the safety accessory they are.”

The bill has cleared one chamber and sits in the other. Nothing changes in Ohio law until the House votes and the bill is signed. I will continue tracking SB 214 through the House.

Legislative data provided by LegiScan (CC BY 4.0, legiscan.com).

Read the original story: Ohio Law Files a Suppressor Next to Grenades and Rocket Launchers. SB 214 Would End That, and the House Still Has Not Voted.

Lodestar Independent Advisory Board

The Lodestar Independent Advisory Board brings together experienced professionals from the firearms, technology, safety, training, and consumer sectors to provide independent perspective throughout Lodestar’s product development process. By incorporating real-world expertise and outside feedback, the Board helps to strengthen product decisions and ensure customer needs remain central to innovation.

USA Carry

Representing USA Carry on the Advisory Board, Luke McCoy brings nearly two decades of experience evaluating firearms, educating responsible gun owners, and engaging one of the industry’s most respected concealed carry communities.

“Luke is a trusted voice in the industry and has built a reputation for evaluating firearms with honesty, technical expertise, and an unwavering commitment to the firearm owner,” said Ginger Chandler, CTO and Co-Founder of Lodestar Technology. “His willingness to ask hard questions, challenge assumptions, and provide candid feedback has already helped strengthen the LNK9. We’re excited to welcome USA Carry to our Independent Advisory Board and to continue working with Luke as we refine and develop what’s next.”

As founder and publisher of USA Carry, a competitive USPSA shooter, and developer of the Armorer firearm maintenance app, McCoy will provide independent field testing and product evaluation, helping assess performance and the overall ownership experience throughout Lodestar’s development process.

“Technology doesn’t earn trust because it’s new, it earns trust because it’s tested,” said McCoy. “I approached the LNK9 the same way I approach every firearm: run it hard, identify what works, point out what doesn’t, and report honestly. What impressed me most was that Lodestar not only welcomed independent feedback—they listened, acted on it, and made the product better. That’s the kind of commitment that ultimately benefits firearm owners.”

Continuing Independent Product Development

Lodestar will continue expanding its Independent Advisory Board with experts from a variety of disciplines, bringing together diverse perspectives that support responsible innovation, continuous improvement, and products that earn the confidence of firearm owners.

About Lodestar Technology

Headquartered in Chattanooga, Tennessee, Lodestar Technology is led by experts from a wide range of industries, including technology, firearms, manufacturing, and defense. Its leadership brings decades of experience focused on developing next-generation tools to address modern security challenges.

At Lodestar, we’re building more than technology—we’re creating a new standard in safety and security by engineering solutions that make the world safer without compromising performance or freedom. With a commitment to modernization, safety, and thoughtful design, Lodestar is helping to shape the future of responsible firearm ownership. Visit LodestarTech.com, or follow on YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn.

About USA Carry

Founded in 2007, USA Carry is one of the nation’s leading online resources dedicated to responsible firearm ownership, concealed carry education, self-defense, and Second Amendment news. Through in-depth product evaluations, educational content, legal updates, and training resources, USA Carry serves hundreds of thousands of firearm owners across its website, YouTube channel, newsletters, and social media platforms. Visit USACarry.com. or follow on YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram.

Media Contact

For press inquiries, test & evaluation requests, and interview opportunities, please contact:

Kie Wagner, Kie.Wagner@LodestarTech.com, Lodestar Technology Media Kit

###

Read the original story: Lodestar Technology Welcomes USA Carry to Independent Advisory Board, Names Luke McCoy Field-Testing Advisor

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MARTINY TOWNSHIP, MI — Michigan State Police say a single round fired during an altercation on Aug. 7 struck two men, hitting a 41-year-old in the shoulder and a 19-year-old standing nearby in the abdomen. Both men are expected to make a full recovery.

Gerald Griffin, 21, of Lansing, was arraigned on five felonies, including two counts of assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder and multiple weapons charges, as reported by WOOD TV. State police say Griffin and his girlfriend left the scene after the shooting, which pushed investigators to obtain a warrant for his arrest. Officers took him into custody in the Lansing area on Thursday.

Nothing about this is a defensive gun use, and I am not writing it as one. Police describe a man who pulled a gun during an argument and fired. The charges are allegations, Griffin has not been convicted, and prosecutors will decide how the case moves forward.

I am writing it up because of the ballistics. One trigger pull. Two wounded men. That is a bullet passing through a human body and continuing on with enough energy left to put a second man in a hospital bed. Every armed citizen has heard the phrase over-penetration in a class or a gun shop conversation. This is what it actually looks like.

Handgun rounds do not politely stop where you would like them to. Full metal jacket practice ammunition in particular is built to punch straight through, which is exactly what makes it cheap and reliable on a range and exactly what makes it a poor choice in a holster. Quality defensive hollow points are designed to expand on impact, slow down, and dump their energy inside the intended target instead of carrying it out the other side. That is the whole reason the ammunition costs more.

Expansion is not a guarantee. Hollow points can plug up on heavy clothing, fail to open, exit anyway, or simply miss and keep going through drywall, a car door, or a fence. Ammunition selection reduces risk. It does not eliminate it, and it never replaces the discipline of knowing what is behind your target before your finger moves. Police did not say what ammunition was in that gun, and it does not change the lesson.

More from USA Carry:

• The Best Self-Defense Caliber: Ballistics, Informed Opinions, and Conclusions
• Michigan Open Carry
• Frangible Ammo for Self-Defense and Concealed Carry
• Michigan Bills Could End Many Gun-Free Zones, Expanding Carry to Bars and Churches
• Lock Your Doors! Armed Robbers Walk Right In, Hold Owner at Gunpoint and Steal His Gun

The conduct after the shooting is its own contrast. Leaving the scene is what turned this into a warrant and a manhunt across the state. A lawful defender stays, calls 911, and gives investigators an account from the first minutes, which is the difference between being a cooperative witness and being the subject of an arrest warrant served days later in another city.

Both men are expected to recover. That is the best part of a story that could have read very differently, and the part that should keep the ammunition in your carry gun on your mind the next time you top off a magazine.

Read the original story: Over-Penetration Happens, and a Michigan Shooting Just Proved It Again

Key Takeaways

• A Cleveland Heights woman faces charges after claiming her husband attacked her; the case raises complex self-defense questions within a marriage.
• In self-defense cases, proving justifiable force is more challenging when the attacker is a spouse due to shared history and evidence.
• Domestic scenarios lack external evidence, making prosecution more reliant on personal accounts.
• Understanding state laws and having a legal plan is crucial for those who carry firearms; waiting until after an incident can complicate defense.
• Despite charges, the woman remains presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the final legal determination will rest with prosecutors or a jury.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, OH — A Cleveland Heights woman has been criminally charged after telling investigators that her husband attacked her, and the case now sits on the hardest version of a self-defense question: what happens when the person you had to defend yourself against is the person you married.

The charge and her account of the attack were reported by cleveland.com, which framed the case as “Self defense or murder?” No police release, charging document or court filing was available, so the public record at this point is her account as described in that report.

Everything else about the encounter, the date, the weapon, the sequence inside that home, is not established in anything I can verify, and I am not going to fill those gaps with guesses.

What is established is enough to make the point. Most defensive encounters I write about involve a stranger. A kicked door, a parking lot, a counter between two people who never met before that minute. This one does not work that way. In a marriage, there is no broken window to point at, no security footage of an unfamiliar face, often no witness at all. There is a shared address, a shared history, and two accounts of what happened in a room where only two people were standing.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and it does not change because the attacker is a spouse. What does change is how easy it is to prove. A stranger case tends to arrive with physical evidence that speaks for the defender. A domestic case arrives with a relationship attached to it, and every argument, every prior call, every text message becomes part of how prosecutors read those few seconds.

This is the scenario I point people to self-defense legal coverage for. The fight can last four seconds and the legal aftermath can last four years. Charges, bond, discovery, motions, possibly a trial, and attorney bills that arrive whether the shooting was lawful or not. Programs like CCW Safe exist to put a defense attorney on your side from the first phone call instead of after you have already talked your way into a corner. I have no information about what coverage, if any, this woman had, and I am not suggesting she had any. I am saying that carrying a gun without a plan for the courtroom is half a plan.

A charge is an accusation and nothing more. She has not been convicted of anything, she is presumed innocent, and her statement that her husband attacked her is her account rather than a finding by anyone. Prosecutors, and ultimately a jury if this reaches one, make the final determination on whether the force she used was lawful.

More from USA Carry:

• Ohio Mother Grabs Gun After Seeing Son Being Pulled by Teens in Driveway
• Flying with Guns: Episode 64 – American Airlines from Cleveland to New Orleans (via Charlotte)
• Amazon Driver Delivers Fatal Shot to Suspect in Failed Carjacking Attempt
• Armed Citizen Stops Attack by Ex-Boyfriend; Not the Protection Order
• Flying with Guns: Episode 63 – Southwest from Las Vegas to Cleveland (GunCon 2026)

The practical takeaway for anyone who carries is unglamorous. Know your state’s rules before you ever need them, which is why I keep Ohio’s concealed carry information in one place, and understand that mindset includes the part that comes after the threat stops. Who you call. What you say. Who shows up for you.

There is no clean version of this story. Whatever a court eventually decides, a marriage ended in violence and a woman is answering for it in an Ohio courtroom. I will continue tracking the case as it moves forward.

Read the original story: “Self Defense or Murder?”: Cleveland Heights Woman Charged After Telling Police Her Husband Attacked Her

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FORT WORTH, TX — A resident came home Saturday afternoon to find a man already inside the house, and the fight that followed ended with both men shot and the intruder dead, according to Fort Worth police.

The Fort Worth Police Department confirmed on X that its public information officer was headed to the 6900 block of Misty Glen Court for the shooting. Police said the shooting was reported at 3:30 p.m. on Misty Glen Court near Interstate 30 and East Loop 820, that a resident returned home and found an intruder inside, that a physical fight broke out between the two men, and that both drew firearms and fired at each other, as reported by FOX 4 Dallas-Fort Worth. Neighbors told reporters they heard an altercation coming from the home shortly before the gunshots.

Both men were struck. The intruder died at the scene. The Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office identified him as 29-year-old Darius Levy. The resident was taken to a local hospital. His condition was not available, and his name has not been released.

Most home defense planning starts from the same assumption: you are inside, asleep or awake, and the threat comes to you through a door or a window. That is the scenario people rehearse. This is the other one. You come home in broad daylight, and the threat is already in there. You do not know where he is, how many there are, whether he is armed, or whether he is between you and the way back out.

Investigators said Levy had an active protective order filed against him connected to another resident of the home, but not the resident who was in the fight. A protective order is a court order telling a named person to stay away from another person. It creates legal consequences after it is broken, and that is the whole of what it does. It does not lock a door and it cannot put itself between the person it protects and the man it names. Whatever that order said, someone was inside the house on Saturday afternoon anyway.

More from USA Carry:

• Virginia Passes Bill That Allows People with Protective Orders to Carry Before Permit is Issued
• Protective Order Fails to Stop Attack: Woman Forced to Defend Herself with Firearm
• Oklahoma Open Carry HB 1647 in Trouble
• Estranged Husband with Protective Order Shot After Pointing Gun at Wife at Tulsa Gas Station
• Vape Shop Employee Shoots Armed Robber During Attempted Robbery in Fort Worth

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed Texans carry under every day. What police describe here is a hand-to-hand fight inside a home that ended with two men shooting each other. Detectives are still working the case, no formal charges have been announced, and the decision on whether any charge is filed belongs to prosecutors, not to the responding officers or to me.

What I would take from it: a locked door and a court order are both paper thin, and the moment of highest risk in a home invasion is not always the break-in. Sometimes it is the homeowner’s key turning in the lock.

Read the original story: Fort Worth Intruder Who Was Under an Active Protective Order Is Killed After a Resident Walks In on Him

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge ruled against the Biden administration’s ghost gun rule on constitutional grounds, citing the 2nd Amendment.
• The rule prohibited manufacturing unserialized kits and required licensing and background checks for sellers.
• Gun Owners of America claims this decision defeats a major infringement by the Biden Administration on gun rights.
• GOA encourages the Department of Justice not to appeal this ruling, paralleling previous successes with the National Firearms Act.
• The article advises caution and consultation with legal counsel before making changes in behavior based on this ruling.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FORT WORTH, TX — Gun Owners of America says a federal judge has struck down the Biden administration’s ghost gun rule, and this time on constitutional grounds rather than statutory ones. In an announcement posted to its Instagram account, GOA said Judge Reed O’Connor ruled against the ATF regulation and quoted the order as holding that “[T]he Final Rule is unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment & void for vagueness under the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.”

The rule at issue came out of an April 11, 2022 Rose Garden announcement. According to an account published on GOA’s website, the regulation banned the business of manufacturing unserialized “buy-build-shoot” kits that could be bought without a background check, treated those kits as firearms under the Gun Control Act, required commercial manufacturers to be licensed and to serialize the frame or receiver, and required sellers to become federally licensed and run background checks. GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said at the time that President Biden “basically admitted in the Rose Garden that he couldn’t get gun control passed in Congress,” and called the move an end run around the legislature.

The Supreme Court already looked at this rule once. GOA notes that the justices upheld it on statutory grounds in Vanderstok v. Garland. A statutory ruling answers a narrow question, whether the agency’s reading of the words Congress wrote was permissible. It does not answer whether the rule squares with the Second Amendment, and it does not answer whether the rule is clear enough to enforce against a citizen. GOA says O’Connor has now answered both, and describes the order as one that “defeats one of the last major remaining infringements by the Biden Administration.”

GOA is also using the moment to lobby the executive branch, saying it is “calling on the Department of Justice to stand down and not to appeal victories for the Second Amendment,” from the National Firearms Act to homemade firearms. I covered the NFA half of that fight in 27 States Walk Out Same Day, 15 Still File the Form 4: The Full State List After the Midnight Suppressor Injunction, and GOA is asking for the same outcome here that gun owners got there: no appeal.

What I am not going to do is tell you what this ruling lets you build, buy, or sell. GOA’s post does not say who the order covers, and the comments under it are full of people asking exactly that question. The government also retains its appellate options unless and until it says otherwise, and GOA’s plea to the Justice Department is a request, not a resolution. Talk to a lawyer in your state before you change your behavior based on a screenshot.

I will continue tracking this ruling and will report on the actual text of Judge O’Connor’s order once it is available.

Read the original story: GOA: Federal Judge Rules Biden’s Ghost Gun Rule Unconstitutional and Too Vague to Enforce

Key Takeaways

• Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized a regulation allowing non-violent felons to apply for restoration of their federal gun rights.
• The regulation establishes a thorough process while maintaining public safety concerns for violent felons and others deemed dangerous.
• The Second Amendment Foundation praised the announcement but continues reviewing the regulation’s details.
• The regulation addresses funding issues by creating an online application system through the Justice Department.
• Applicants must prove they do not pose a danger; state laws regarding gun possession may still apply.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized a federal regulation on August 17, 2026 and launched a new process allowing people who are prohibited from possessing firearms because of criminal convictions to apply to have their federal gun rights restored, according to the Justice Department’s announcement.

The Department’s press release, provided in advance to Breitbart News, quotes Blanche saying, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety. This rule establishes a rigorous, commonsense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration,” as reported by Breitbart News, which also published the release’s eligibility language and the reference to the Department’s new Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Program website.

The Second Amendment Foundation said in an Instagram post that the Department “released its final regulation re-establishing a formal pathway for non-violent felons to seek restoration of their Second Amendment rights,” and that SAF “led the way on this important issue, bringing multiple constitutional challenges to the lifetime prohibition for even non-violent felons.” The group called the announcement “an exciting next step” and said its review of the final regulation is still ongoing, with further comment to follow if the details warrant it. That last part is worth taking at face value. The organization that sued over these bans has not finished reading the rule, which is a reasonable signal for the rest of us to slow down before declaring what it does.

The release draws a hard line on who is not getting relief. “Absent extraordinary circumstances, violent felons, registered sex offenders, illegal aliens, and other individuals who present an ongoing danger will remain presumptively ineligible for relief,” the Department says. Applications are considered individually, and the burden sits with the applicant: each one “must establish to the Attorney General’s satisfaction that the circumstances giving rise to the prohibition, together with the applicant’s record, reputation, and subsequent conduct, demonstrate that the applicant is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”

Federal law has allowed prohibited people to petition for restoration of gun rights for decades. The reason nobody could actually use it is money. Since 1992, Congress has effectively barred the ATF from spending funds to process those applications, and the new rule works around that by standing up a separate application system run through an online portal at the Justice Department, as reported by KCRA in an Associated Press account of the announcement. A right you can petition for but nobody is funded to review is a right on paper only, and that is the specific problem this rule is aimed at.

More from USA Carry:

• Detection: The Necessity of Early Warning Systems in the Home
• Update on Pro-Gun Legislation in the Buckeye State!
• AAG Harmeet Dhillon: Supreme Court Will Eventually Rule AR-15s Are Legal for All Law-Abiding Americans
• Concealed Carry Expanded: PA and VA Finalize Firearm Reciprocity Agreement
• FPC Just Asked the Supreme Court to End Maryland’s Carry Bans, and the List of Banned Places Is Staggering

Federal relief is not the whole picture. Restoring federal gun rights does not wipe out state-level restrictions and state laws that may still bar a person from possessing a firearm or holding a carry license, so anyone in this position needs to read their own state’s rules alongside the federal process.

I will continue tracking the Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Program, the first grants and denials to come out of it, and any legal or congressional challenge to the rule.

Read the original story: SAF Sued Over Lifetime Gun Bans for Non-Violent Felons. The Justice Department Just Built the Application Portal.

Key Takeaways

• A federal court permanently enjoined enforcement of key National Firearms Act provisions regarding suppressors and short-barreled firearms.
• The injunction protects members of the Second Amendment Foundation and its sister organization, CCRKBA, including current and future members.
• SAF offers joint membership for $25 to access the protections of the Jensen injunction, emphasizing the need for active membership validation.
• State laws regarding silencers and firearms still apply and are not affected by the federal injunction, so it’s crucial to know your state laws.
• Consulting an attorney is advised before taking any action related to firearms, as court judgments do not equate to settled law.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation says a federal district court has permanently enjoined enforcement of core National Firearms Act provisions covering suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and that the protection runs to members of its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

I already walked through the mechanics in 27 States Walk Out Same Day, 15 Still File the Form 4: The Full State List After the Midnight Suppressor Injunction, so the short version: the Final Judgment landed August 5, 2026 in the Northern District of Texas in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF, the seven-day stay expired at 12:01 a.m. Central on August 13, and SAF says the injunction is now in effect against the NFA’s making, transfer and registration provisions as to untaxed firearms, with NFA-defined “any other weapons” excepted.

That list is the part worth reading twice. SAF says the injunction runs in favor of the named plaintiffs, including John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, David Lynn Smith, Hot Shots Custom LLC, the Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation and CCRKBA, and also in favor of those organizations’ members, their members’ customers, and their customers. SAF says the court did not limit the Final Judgment to any geographic scope and specifically noted that it applied to “both current and future” members and customers of the organizational plaintiffs.

Here is the practical piece. Because the protection SAF describes attaches to membership rather than to the public at large, SAF is pitching a joint SAF and CCRKBA membership for $25 with the pitch “Want the protection of the Jensen injunction?” Twenty-five dollars for two memberships is cheap by any measure, and it funds the litigation side of this fight either way.

And if you already believe you are a member, go verify it. Memberships lapse quietly. A card expires in a drawer, an auto-renew fails on a card you replaced two years ago, an email renewal notice lands in spam, and you go on assuming you are current because you were current the last time you thought about it. “Current and future” is the language SAF quotes from the judgment, and that language does no work for a membership that ran out in 2024. Log in, check the date, renew if it is close. It costs you five minutes to know instead of assume.

Now the limits, because they are real and SAF is blunt about them. SAF says the NFA still exists and that this ruling is specific in nature. More importantly for anyone reading this at a gun counter, SAF states that state law requirements are not enjoined by the Jensen decision and remain in effect, and notes that some states outright prohibit possessing or transferring silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs, or prohibit it unless the item complies with the NFA. A federal injunction against federal registration provisions does nothing about a state ban. This is the same discipline carry permits demand, where what is legal one state line over may not be legal where you stand, which is why I keep state-by-state permit information current on this site. Know your own state’s law before you order anything.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida Couple Confronts Tattooed “Devil-Faced” Intruder with Shotgun, Aids in Arrest
• CCRKBA Thanks N.H. Lawmakers for Expanding Self-Defense Rights
• Armed Citizen Stops Shooting That Started Over a Gym Membership Dispute
• SAF Files for Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois Carry Ban
• Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Limit USPS Gun Ban Ruling, Expands Protection to SAF and FPC Members

SAF’s own guidance is to talk to an experienced attorney in your area before undertaking any conduct, and it says the implementation of this injunction raises additional legal questions for both federal firearms licensees and individuals. Take that seriously. A district court judgment and a party’s summary of it are not the same thing as settled federal law, and the person holding the suppressor is the person holding the risk.

I will continue tracking Jensen v. ATF and the implementation of this injunction, including whether the government’s position on appeal is confirmed on the record.

Read the original story: $25 for Two Memberships: SAF’s Pitch After a Texas Court Enjoined NFA Registration Rules for Suppressors and SBRs

The 1911 DS Prodigy 3.5″ AOS 9mm is not the same pistol as the Prodigy Compact 3.5″ already in the lineup. That gun uses a shortened grip module and a 15 round magazine. This one keeps the small slide and gives back the full grip, which is the configuration a lot of carry shooters have been asking double stack 1911 makers to build for years.

Two 18 round magazines come in the box. Springfield’s 1911 DS magazine line has been built around 15, 17, 20 and 26 rounders, so the 18 appears to be new.

The barrel is forged stainless steel with a black DLC coating. The slide is forged carbon steel in black Cerakote, milled to accept Agency Optic System plates with integral rear sights. Springfield shortened the beavertail grip safety and recontoured the hammer to pull in the profile.

The polymer grip module uses Springfield’s Adaptive Grip Texture and mounts to a hardcoat anodized, black Cerakote 7075-T6 billet aluminum frame. There is a strip of Picatinny rail on the dust cover and an ambidextrous manual safety.

Steve Kramer, vice president of marketing for Springfield Armory, said the new variant is “as equally at home in an EDC holster as it is on the range.”

MSRP is $1,582. Each pistol ships with an AOS cover plate, a Docter/Noblex footprint AOS plate, and a coupon for a second plate of the buyer’s choosing at $49.

Springfield is also producing a 10 round version for restricted states, listed as PH9114AOSLC. It carries the identical $1,582 price tag. Same barrel. Same slide. Same frame. Same grip module. Eight fewer rounds.

The pistol weighs 29.3 ounces, runs 7 inches overall and stands 5.5 inches tall. Sights are a tritium front post with a black serrated rear, and the recoil system uses a captured guide rod. The barrel is match grade with a 1:16 twist.

Compare that to the Prodigy Compact 3.5, which is also 7 inches long but 5.1 inches tall. Same length front to back, four tenths of an inch more grip, three more rounds. That is the whole pitch for this gun in one line.

Short slide with a full grip is a combination that tends to work for concealed carry, because slide length rarely drives printing and the grip is what you need to run the gun.

Read the original story: Springfield’s New 3.5-Inch Prodigy Hybrid Keeps the Short Slide and Gives You the Whole Grip Back

Key Takeaways

• Kenneth Voyles sues Touchstone Granite & Marble for $10 million after breaking in and being shot by owner James Grant.
• Voyles claims battery, assault, negligence, and emotional distress, seeking $5 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
• The incident occurred when Voyles entered the shop looking for warmth, leading to a confrontation with Grant who shot him.
• Grant asserts he felt threatened when Voyles raised bolt cutters, while Voyles claims he was trying to shield himself and escape.
• Voyles argues the business is liable for inadequate training for security responses after hours, affecting liability insurance.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

PORTLAND, OR — A man who broke into a closed Portland granite and marble shop before dawn and was shot by the owner sleeping inside is now asking a Multnomah County jury for $10 million.

Kenneth Voyles filed the suit on May 6, 2026 against Touchstone Granite & Marble Inc. and its owner, James Grant, alleging battery, assault, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and seeking $5 million in compensatory damages plus another $5 million in punitive damages, as reported by KPTV, which reviewed the filing. Grant’s account of the shooting and the fact that he was never charged come from Bearing Arms, which covered his testimony after the trial opened the week of August 10.

Start with what nobody is arguing about. Early on March 6, 2023, Voyles got into the closed business on Northeast Columbia Boulevard through a damaged section of a garage bay door. He was homeless, cold and sleep-deprived, and he was looking for warmth and food. Once inside he picked up a bag with a drill in it. His own complaint concedes he was a trespasser and that he intended to keep the drill.

What he did not know was that Grant was asleep in a back room. Grant did not know he had company either. The two men met in a dark showroom at an hour when neither had any reason to expect another human being in the building.

Grant threw objects at him, including heavy tiles, and Voyles ran for the garage door he had come in through. Surveillance cameras caught that first encounter. The second confrontation, seconds later near the garage door, was not on video, and that is precisely where the two accounts split.

Grant told jurors he did not have his hearing aids in and could not make out anything Voyles was saying. He said he intended to hold Voyles at gunpoint until police arrived. When the intruder raised a pair of bolt cutters over his head, Grant testified, he believed he was about to be attacked and fired three shots. “My adrenaline was flowing, to just protect myself,” he said.

Voyles tells it differently. He says he was apologizing the entire time, that he grabbed the bolt cutters to shield himself and to cut the padlock so he could get out, and that Grant left the room, came back with a handgun and opened fire without a word. His complaint goes further, alleging that after the first rounds Grant said, “Yeah. You’re going to die, dude,” shot him in the chest at point-blank range, and fired again as he tried to squeeze back out through the broken door. Those are allegations in a civil pleading. No court has found them true, and the man who wrote them is the man who broke in.

The complaint says Voyles suffered penetrating chest wounds, a collapsed lung and shattered bones in his right arm requiring vascular repair and multiple surgeries.

Police did not arrest Grant. Prosecutors in Portland, a city not known for straining to side with armed business owners, reviewed what happened and brought no charges. Three years later Voyles found the courthouse door that was still open to him.

A prosecutor declining to charge does not close off a civil suit. Different forum, different burden. A criminal case requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, while a plaintiff in a civil case only has to persuade a jury that his version is more likely than not, and the payout he is chasing is money rather than a conviction. That gap is why a shooting the state considered lawful can still put the person who fired in front of a jury years later.

This is exactly the scenario self-defense coverage exists for. On the criminal side, Grant got the best outcome a defender can hope for. No arrest, no charges, no jury deciding whether to send him to prison. He is still sitting in a courtroom three years later with someone asking him for eight figures, and somebody is paying the lawyers who are there with him. CCW Safe covers that. Every plan on their comparison chart lists civil defense costs, paid upfront, with no cap, and every plan covers civil trial costs even if the member was found guilty in the criminal trial. Training and mindset are what keep you alive in the showroom at 5 a.m. Coverage is what keeps a lawful shooting from costing you your house.

More from USA Carry:

• Neighbor Shoots Stabbing Suspect and Accidentally Shoots Boyfriend During Domestic Violence Incident in Portland
• Disturbance in Downtown Portland Ends with Man Shot by Passerby
• Federal Court Blocks Maine’s 72-Hour Waiting Period for Firearm Purchases
• [WATCH] Handyman Vows to Leave Portland after Beating from Antifa Mob
• Homeowner Discovers Catalytic Converter Thieves; Holds Them At Gunpoint For Police

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. Grant’s testimony puts him squarely inside it. Heavy steel bolt cutters raised overhead at close range in a dark building are a weapon, whatever the man holding them says he meant by it afterward. The drill bag was never the issue, and Grant never claimed it was. He described a man closing on him with something in his hands that could crush a skull.

The part of this suit that should get every small business owner’s attention is the part that reaches past Grant. Voyles argues Touchstone is vicariously liable because Grant was acting within the scope of his duties to secure the business, and that the company failed to put reasonable policies or training in place for after-hours security responses. Read that twice if you sleep near your shop, keep a gun in the office, or have ever asked an employee to go check why the alarm tripped at 3 a.m. It is an effort to turn one man’s split-second decision into a corporate training failure, and it is pointed at an insurance policy.

Read the original story: Never Charged, Now Sued: Portland Shop Owner Who Shot a Pre-Dawn Intruder Faces a $10 Million Claim

Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department sued Montgomery County, Maryland, over Bill 23-26, claiming it violates the Second Amendment by restricting firearm carry in many public locations.
• The ordinance creates a 100-yard exclusion zone, complicating lawful carrying for licensed citizens despite property owner consent.
• Legal arguments cite Wolford v. Lopez, stating the law hinders the right to carry arms for self-defense in daily life.
• The Silver Spring Jewish Center, along with other parties, is also challenging the ordinance on First and Second Amendment grounds.
• An unfavorable ruling could have wider implications for Maryland’s carry permits and the rights of citizens across the state.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Justice Department sued Montgomery County, Maryland, on August 3, alleging that the county’s newly enacted Bill 23-26 violates the Second Amendment by barring licensed citizens from carrying firearms at thousands of locations and inside a 100-yard exclusion zone drawn around every one of them.

I covered the county’s rewrite in Montgomery County, MD Rewrites Gun Ordinance After Court Loss, Keeps 100-Yard Carry Ban Near Schools, Parks and Churches, when a courtroom defeat produced a redrafted ordinance instead of a retreat and the 100-yard buffer survived. What is new is the plaintiff. The federal government is now the one in court.

According to the Department’s announcement, the ordinance applies even when the person carrying is duly licensed and even when the property owner has given express consent. Think about what that second part means. A shop owner who wants an armed customer, a congregation that wants its own trained members armed inside its own building, a landlord who says yes in writing. The county overrides all of them.

“The Second Amendment does not allow local governments to ban law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms in public places as they go about their daily lives,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Montgomery County makes it almost impossible for a law-abiding citizen with a valid carry license to walk down the street and avoid these exclusion zones. The Civil Rights Division will not stand idle while Montgomery County tramples the rights guaranteed to law-abiding citizens by the Second Amendment.”

The legal hook is Wolford v. Lopez. The Department’s position is that the sheer breadth of Bill 23-26, the 100-yard rings included, makes it practically impossible to conduct ordinary daily business in Montgomery County while lawfully armed, which puts the ordinance in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s holding that a law banning carry in “places that people routinely visit in the course of their daily routines . . . hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.”

The Department is asking a court to declare the law unconstitutional and to permanently enjoin the county and its law enforcement agencies from enforcing it, meaning a permanent court order that stops enforcement for good rather than a temporary pause while the case runs.

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action adds detail the Department’s release does not. The measure was passed as Expedited Bill 23-26 and took effect in late July. The categories it covers include houses of worship, schools, parks, libraries, recreation centers, government buildings, polling places and courthouses. Stack a 100-yard ring on each of those in a dense suburban county and the rings start touching. That is the practical argument, and it is not a hypothetical one for anyone who has ever mapped a commute against a gun-free zone.

NRA-ILA also notes that the Justice Department is not the only party in court against these restrictions. The Silver Spring Jewish Center and Rabbi J. Menashe Shapiro are challenging the county’s rules as applied to houses of worship, with the 100-yard zone at the center of the case, alleging violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, meaning the government cannot burden religious practice or dictate religious decisions, along with the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The effect of the ordinance, as NRA-ILA describes it, is to disarm congregants and a synagogue’s volunteer security team at a time when Jewish institutions are facing heightened threats of violence.

That is the part that should stop any armed citizen cold. A volunteer security team is a congregation looking at the threat environment honestly and deciding to take responsibility for its own people. An ordinance that shuts that down does not make the building safer. It just guarantees that everyone inside is waiting on someone else to arrive.

The stakes reach past one county line. NRA-ILA warns that an unfavorable ruling could serve as a road map for other Maryland jurisdictions, and that Maryland’s hard-won statewide carry permits lose their practical value if county after county layers on overlapping sensitive-place designations. Maryland is home to more than 600 houses of worship, by NRA-ILA’s count. A right that evaporates when you cross an invisible county boundary is not much of a right.

The Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section enforces the Second Amendment, the Police Pattern or Practice Act at 34 U.S.C. § 12601, and Executive Order 14206, and the Department’s release directs gun owners who believe a state or local government has infringed their rights to file a complaint through the Second Amendment Section.

More from USA Carry:

• Montgomery County, MD Rewrites Gun Ordinance After Court Loss, Keeps 100-Yard Carry Ban Near Schools, Parks, and Churches
• Black Friday / Cyber Monday Guns Deals
• Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against SIG SAUER as Officer Admits P320 Did Not Fire on Its Own
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder During Second Burglary After Firearms Stolen in First Break-In
• SIG Sauer Defends P320 Amid Controversy Over Alleged Unintended Discharges

None of this is decided. It is a complaint, the county has not answered it, and Montgomery County will get its chance to defend the ordinance on the merits. What has changed is who the county has to answer to.

I will continue tracking the Justice Department’s suit against Montgomery County and the related challenge brought on behalf of the Silver Spring Jewish Center.

Read the original story: DOJ Sues Montgomery County Over 100-Yard Gun-Free Buffer Zones That Make It Almost Impossible to Legally Carry Down the Street

Key Takeaways

• The author discusses their experience with shotguns, highlighting their familiarity with various models, including the Benelli Super Vinci.
• Benelli’s new M2-G1 Tactical features a Rear Piston Operated gas system, differing from traditional designs.
• The M2-G1 shot smoothly and is designed with components aimed at reducing fouling and improving reliability.
• Specs include a 12 gauge configuration, 18.5 inch barrel, and options for stock and grip adjustments, priced up to $2,149.
• A full review will follow after more extensive testing at the range.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

I’ve owned a few shotguns over the years. A Mossberg 500 at some point, and most recently a Benelli Super Vinci in Realtree Max-5 that I carried turkey hunting. These days the only one still in my safe is a .410 break-action my father gave me when I was young. I get out with a shotgun every so often, most recently some skeet at GunCon 2026.

So I’m not new to them. But I’ve never spent real time behind a tactical semi-auto, and that’s worth saying before I tell you what I think of one.

Benelli reached out and asked if we wanted to test and evaluate their new M2-G1 Tactical. One look at what it was and we said yes. They shipped it to Andy, a friend who has written for USA Carry and turned up in a few videos here, and he brought it out so I could put rounds through it. Benelli provided the shotgun at no charge. Nobody paid us for this coverage and Benelli had no say in what I write.

Here’s what caught my attention before it even showed up. That Super Vinci ran Benelli’s In-Line Inertia Driven system. No gas ports, no pistons, nothing to foul. Every M2 Benelli has built since 2004 works the same way. The M2-G1 doesn’t. It’s a gas gun, built on a new operating system Benelli calls Rear Piston Operated, or R.P.O. The name says M2. The guts say otherwise.

The change is where the gas gets pulled. Most gas shotguns tap it from a port partway down the barrel and hang the piston and recoil spring out front on the magazine tube, where carbon and moisture collect. Benelli moved collection back near the chamber, put two short stroke pistons there, and sealed the recoil spring inside the stock. Their reasoning is that gas closer to the chamber runs at higher pressure and burns cleaner, so less fouling reaches the parts doing the work.

Whether that holds up over a few thousand rounds, I can’t tell you yet. What I can tell you is that it shot smooth. Smoother than I expected out of a 12 gauge, and smooth enough that I want a lot more time behind it.

Benelli put out its own side by side chart pitting R.P.O. against the M4’s A.R.G.O. system, and the M4 wins three lines: auto-regulation, self-cleaning pistons, and gas cleanliness. Benelli calls the M4 combat proven and the M2-G1 duty ready.

More from USA Carry:

• Shot Show 2016: Benelli M4 Cerekote Shotgun
• 5 Best Defensive Shotguns Over $1,000
• Semi-Auto Shotguns Aren’t Perfect…But Are Awesome For Home Defense
• Walther CCP M2 Review: A Cheap Concealed Carry Option?
• Walther PPQ M2 Sub-Compact Review [HANDS-ON]

Specs are straightforward. All five configurations are 12 gauge, 18.5 inch barrel, chambered for 2 3/4 and 3 inch shells, with ghost ring sights on a Picatinny rail, M-LOK forend, enlarged controls, beveled loading port, parkerized bolt, QD sling points, and a 10 year warranty.

The gray fixed stock model runs $1,949 in either 5+1 or 7+1, with a 13 inch length of pull. Move up to the five position telescoping stock and upgraded pistol grip and you’re at $2,049 in gray, or $2,149 in MultiCam Black and FDE, with an adjustable 13.8 to 14.75 inch length of pull and about 8 pounds on the scale.

The full review comes we get more time at the range with it and get the round count higher.

Read the original story: I’m Not a Shotgun Guy. Benelli’s New M2-G1 Might Fix That.

Key Takeaways

• Security in a House of Worship requires addressing de-escalation before incidents escalate into emergencies.
• Training helps security teams distinguish between upset individuals and potential threats; clear communication is key.
• Domestic issues often enter the sanctuary, necessitating vigilance and an understanding of the dynamics involved.
• Security isn’t just about stopping an active shooter; it also includes managing everyday emergencies and disruptive behavior.
• Preventive measures and de-escalation techniques can significantly reduce risks and maintain a safe environment.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

When we talk about security in a House of Worship, the conversation usually goes straight to the active shooter. And yes, that threat exists. We have to be prepared for it. But what about everything that happens before something becomes that type of emergency?

What about the husband and wife who are arguing in the parking lot? What about the family dealing with a domestic situation that follows them into church? What about someone who is angry about something that happened during the service? What about the person who walks into the sanctuary already frustrated, emotional, or looking for an argument? What about the person who stands up in the middle of service and begins disrupting what is happening?

These situations may not start out looking like a security emergency. But they can become one. That is why de-escalation needs to be part of House of Worship security training.

Not Every Problem Requires a Physical Response

One of the biggest mistakes we can make in security is believing that every problem has to be met with force. It doesn’t. Sometimes the best security response is creating space, communicating clearly, listening, and getting the right people involved before the situation gets worse.

A security team should understand the difference between someone who is simply upset and someone who has moved into a level of behavior that presents an immediate danger. That takes training.

De-escalation is not about being afraid to act. It is about knowing when not to act physically. If we can prevent a situation from becoming physical in the first place, everybody wins.

Domestic Issues May Be More Common Than We Think

When we talk about threats to Houses of Worship, we often think about an outside person coming into the building. But sometimes the problem is already connected to someone who is part of the congregation.

Domestic issues can follow people through the front doors. A disagreement at home can become an argument in the parking lot. A custody dispute can spill into the children’s ministry. A relationship that has ended can create tension between two people who still attend the same church. Someone may come into the building angry, emotional, embarrassed, or looking for another person.

Our security teams need to recognize these warning signs. This doesn’t mean security volunteers become counselors, police officers, or marriage counselors. It means they know how to recognize a situation that is escalating and know what their role is.

Sometimes the right answer is simply: Separate the people. Create distance. Get leadership involved. Move children or vulnerable people away from the situation. Call law enforcement when necessary. The goal is to keep a difficult situation from becoming a dangerous one.

What About the Disruptor During Service?

Now let’s take it inside the sanctuary. Imagine you’re in the middle of worship and someone begins yelling. Maybe they are angry. Maybe they’re emotionally disturbed. Maybe they’re intoxicated. Maybe they are having a personal crisis. Maybe they simply want attention.

The first reaction from everyone around them may be to stare. Then somebody may yell back. Another person may walk toward them. Now you’ve got several people involved. The situation is getting louder. And suddenly, what started as one person’s disruption has become a larger problem.

This is where training matters. The security team needs to know who is responsible for communicating with the individual. Not five people. Not ten people. One trained person. The rest of the team should be observing, communicating, and preparing for whatever comes next.

That person needs to remain calm. Their voice matters. Their body language matters. Their distance matters. Their ability to listen matters. Sometimes simply allowing someone to talk can lower the temperature of the situation. That doesn’t mean agreeing with them. It doesn’t mean allowing them to threaten people. It means understanding that your job is to control the situation, not your emotions.

De-Escalation Starts Before the Incident

One of the things I tell Houses of Worship is that security isn’t something you turn on when something happens. Preplanning = Success in House of Worship Training.

Your team should already know: Who talks to a disruptive person? Who contacts leadership? Who watches the exits? Who protects the children? Who calls 911? Who meets law enforcement when they arrive? Where can the disruptive person be moved, if appropriate? What happens if the person becomes violent?

These decisions should not be made for the first time while everyone is standing there watching a situation unfold. Training gives people a plan. A plan gives people confidence. And confidence helps prevent panic.

De-Escalation Doesn’t Mean Ignoring the Threat

There is an important balance here. De-escalation does not mean standing in front of someone who is actively attacking people and trying to talk them down. There are situations where immediate action is necessary. Our security teams need to understand that difference.

We should always be looking at the totality of the situation: What is the person saying? What are they doing? Where are they going? Who is around them? Are there children nearby? Are they making threats? Do they have access to a weapon? Is the situation getting better or worse?

Those observations help determine what happens next. De-escalation is one tool in the toolbox. It is not the entire toolbox.

More from USA Carry:

• De-escalation: An Essential Skill for Self-Defense
• Stay Armed and Avoid Trouble: Considerations During Civil Unrest
• Florida Governor Signs Bill Allowing Armed Volunteer Security Teams at Places of Worship Into Law
• Concealed Carry in Church and Houses of Worship
• What Would You Do If… Do You Have a Plan?

We Need to Change the Way We Think About Church Security

I believe Houses of Worship need to move away from the idea that security is primarily about stopping an active shooter. That is one part of the responsibility. But our people face many other emergencies. Medical emergencies. Children’s safety issues. Domestic issues. Disruptive individuals. Mental health crises. Fire. Severe weather. Property damage. And yes, the possibility of an active or mass threat.

Our security teams need to be prepared for the whole picture. Sometimes security looks like protecting someone from an attacker. Sometimes it looks like getting a child away from a dangerous situation. Sometimes it looks like calling EMS. And sometimes security looks like standing between two angry people, creating some distance, and calmly saying: “Let’s take a breath. We’re going to work through this.” That is security too.

The Goal Is Prevention

The best security incident is often the one that never becomes an incident. If we can recognize behavior early, communicate effectively, create distance, and get the appropriate people involved, we may be able to stop a situation before it becomes physical.

That’s why I believe de-escalation belongs in every House of Worship security program. We train our people to respond to the worst-case scenario. But we should also train them to recognize the situations that happen every week.

Because the person who becomes a threat doesn’t always walk through the door looking like a threat. Sometimes they’re already angry. Sometimes they’re already hurting. Sometimes they’re already in crisis. And sometimes, with the right response from a trained team, the situation can end without anyone getting hurt.

We pray with our eyes open, so others may pray with their eyes closed. That means being prepared for more than the worst-case scenario. It means being prepared for what is actually happening around us.

Read the original story: De-Escalation in the House of Worship: A Security Skill We Can’t Ignore

Key Takeaways

• Todd Green’s passing in 2016 reminds us of missed training opportunities with influential instructors.
• Several notable instructors have died, leaving the community with regrets about lost training chances.
• Aging instructors like Dave Spaulding and Tom Givens are reducing their training schedules, making future opportunities limited.
• This current generation of instructors holds vital historical context in firearms training that is irreplaceable.
• To avoid regret, seize training opportunities now as they may become scarce.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

In March of 2016, Todd Louis Green, who went by ToddG online, passed away after a hard fight with cancer. This past March, 10 years since his passing, has brought this lesson to mind. I missed training with him by a year or so. He was scheduled to teach a class in Oklahoma a year or two prior, and ended up canceling most of his road courses to pursue treatment. Todd was the guy behind pistol-training.com, and even though I had not trained with him in person, was influential in both my shooting and writing journey. Being able to attend one of his classes would have likely been even more influential in the level of performance I could bring to shooting. Missing that opportunity because I was slow to the punch is a regret of my training journey. 

The Years Past

If you have paid attention to the training industry for the past 15-20 years, you will note several instructors that have passed well before they should have. We, as a community, losing the opportunity to train with them. Todd Green is one that I regret not training with when I had the chance quite a bit. William Aprill, Paul Gomez, James Yeager, and Pat Rogers are others that the training community have missed due to their passing. 

The Years Ahead

There is also a cadre of industry leaders that are aging out of the training game. The ones I mentioned earlier, all those notable instructors passed, some rather unexpectedly. We don’t necessarily get the grace of seeing those things coming. But, if we are paying attention, we do see the more senior members of the instructor community drawing closer to retirement, and once they retire the opportunity to train with them is often lost. Names like Dave Spaulding, Tom Givens, Clint Smith, Mas Ayoob, John Farnham, and Ken Hackathorn. Ken has been retired for a few years now. Dave is technically already retired, although he has been dabbling here and there still. Tom Givens has announced he is starting to reduce his training load, and Clint Smith has stepped away from Thunder Ranch, although has maintained that he will continue to teach.

More from USA Carry:

• Meet the Emissary | Springfield Armory’s New 1911
• The Compact Grip: Shooting Pistols with a Compromised Grasp
• What I Learned From a USPSA Grand Master With Zero Match Experience
• A Basic Checklist and Suggestions to Help Your Handgun Grip
• The 30 Super Carry: Innovation or Insignificant?

Bridging the Gap

This particular generation of instructor I think is incredibly important. They bridge an important gap in firearms training history, from the early days of places like Gunsite and the birth of the modern technique, to the current era of firearms training. They possess a historical context that cannot be easily replicated, if at all. Much of the commercial training industry that we enjoy now, was built off the backs of these instructors.  We would be wise to carefully consider where our training dollars get spent, and make those decisions understanding that we may soon lose opportunities to train with the people who have helped to build and mature this industry. They say that wisdom is learning from the experience of others, without having to experience the regret that may come from that experience. So, take it from me, a guy who has missed training with people he would have liked to. If you have the means, don’t miss the opportunities, because they may be getting fewer and fewer.

Read the original story: Footsteps of Giants