Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

ORLAND PARK, IL — A concealed carry license holder pumping gas at a Shell station on Harlem Avenue shot an armed man who police say was trying to rob him around 9 a.m. Tuesday, September 15.

The confrontation happened at the Shell station at 15100 Harlem Avenue, as reported by Hoodline. The license holder was at the pump when the armed suspect approached. He fired and struck the suspect, who was taken to a local hospital. His condition has not been released.

Fox Chicago reported the encounter was caught on a security camera and widely shared on Facebook. In the reporter’s description of that video, the man at the pump sees someone approaching and appears to put his firearm in his belt or pocket. The suspect is armed too and apparently announces a robbery. The man at the pump fires. The suspect runs.

And if you plan on carrying concealed, you should have self-defense protection like CCW Safe. The license holder in Orland Park did everything right, and he still spent his morning answering questions from detectives instead of driving home with a full tank. Knowing someone will have your back from the second you call them to the final verdict, and every step in between, is reassuring. That is why CCW Safe is who I personally use and trust.

That first move is the one I want people to notice. He saw the approach before any robbery was announced and got his gun to where he could reach it. A gas pump is one of the most predictable places for a stranger to close on you, with your hands busy, your attention on the nozzle, and your back to the lot. Awareness there is not paranoia. It is the mindset that gives you a chance to act instead of react.

More from USA Carry:

• Chicago Suburb Passes Ordinance Decriminalizing Ccl Prohibited Area Violations
• Armed Citizen Hops Into Car As It Is Being Stolen; Shoots Carjacker Multiple Times
• Road Rage Incident Leads To Self-Defense Shooting At Gas Station
• How to Stay Armed in Restricted States
• Shotgun Fun

Orland Park police said officers arrived, confirmed a bona fide shooting, and immediately contained the scene. No suspect was at large and there was no threat to the public, though the department described an elevated police response. The license holder is cooperating with investigators, according to Fox Chicago. That puts his account on the record from the first minutes and gives detectives a witness who stayed, not a shooter who left.

Illinois does not hand out carry licenses easily. The state requires a valid FOID card, a background check, a minimum age of 21, and 16 hours of approved training that includes live-fire qualification at 5, 7, and 10 yards.

Read the original story: Armed Robbery Suspect Picks the Wrong Customer at an Orland Park Shell Station and Ends Up in the Hospital

Key Takeaways

• Six gun rights organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take up Johnson v. Jacobson.
• The case addresses Minnesota’s refusal to honor concealed carry permits from other states, impacting those like trucker Jeffrey Johnson.
• SAF argues historical traditions support more leeway for travelers than residents regarding concealed carry rights.
• The brief argues that costly and lengthy permit processes violate citizens’ rights to carry across state lines.
• The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to hear the case, but the implications could be significant.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — Six gun rights organizations led by the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on September 15, 2026, urging the justices to take up Johnson v. Jacobson and hold that Minnesota must honor concealed carry permits issued by other states. An amicus brief is a filing from an outside party that is not a litigant, giving the Court arguments and evidence the parties themselves may not present. SAF was joined by the National Rifle Association of America, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos T. Moros is counsel of record.

Last week I covered Jeffrey Johnson’s petition, the long-haul trucker with Florida and Georgia carry permits who has to unload and lock up his handgun every time his route crosses into Minnesota, and who asked the Court to strike down that scheme after the Eighth Circuit sided with the state. The case is now docketed as No. 26-255, and this brief puts six organizations on the record behind him.

The reciprocity piece is simple. Some states sign formal agreements to honor each other’s permits. Others honor out-of-state permits on their own, with no agreement at all. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show which states do what. Minnesota does neither for Johnson’s permits. According to SAF, the only way he can legally carry there is to obtain a separate Minnesota permit, and my Minnesota concealed carry page lays out what that state demands of anyone who wants one.

The brief makes three arguments, and the first is the one that matters most under Bruen. From the colonial era through the 19th century, according to SAF, states and localities routinely passed “traveler’s exception” laws that exempted visitors from the concealed carry restrictions that applied to locals. That inverts the usual posture in these cases. Bruen requires a state defending a carry restriction to show the rule fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The amici say the tradition here ran the opposite direction: travelers got more leeway than residents, not less. On that basis they argue the Court should summarily reverse the Eighth Circuit, meaning reverse it without full briefing and oral argument.

“The right to carry does not stop at state lines,” Moros said in SAF’s announcement. “A truck driver who already holds permits from Florida and Georgia should not have to fly to Minnesota, appear in person at a sheriff’s office, pay another set of fees and complete another training course just to exercise the same constitutional right he already has. Our historical tradition offered travelers more leeway than residents when it came to the right to carry. Minnesota’s scheme turns that tradition on its head.”

The second argument puts numbers on the burden. Per SAF, California nonresident permits can cost $500 to $2,000 and take months or years to obtain. Some states still refuse nonresident applications outright. One couple documented more than $12,800 in fees to assemble permits covering 46 states and the District of Columbia. That figure is the whole problem in one receipt. A right that costs five figures and a stack of applications to exercise across the country is being treated like a privilege each state hands out at its own discretion.

More from USA Carry:

• One Permit or Fifty? Minnesota Gun Owner Asks Supreme Court Whether Americans Need a License From Every State to Carry
• Woman With VA Concealed Carry Permit Arrested After Self-Defense in Maryland — SAF Urges Supreme Court Review
• Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling
• Minnesota Hearing Scheduled on Semi-Auto Ban and 10-Round Magazine Limit
• Denied Over the State on His Driver’s License: NRA Sues Denver, Says Visitors Have No Legal Way to Carry a Gun There

The third argument goes to who these permit holders actually are. SAF points to Florida, which has revoked only 0.36% of the more than 6.6 million permits it has issued since 1987. Johnson himself cleared the background and competency requirements of two states. Minnesota’s position is that his fitness to carry has to be re-proven at its border anyway.

“Americans should not need a stack of state licenses and thousands of dollars to exercise a constitutional right just because they cross an imaginary line,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The Supreme Court should grant this petition and make clear that shall-issue permitting, even if a state may require it of its own residents, does not authorize a state to ignore the permits of every other state.”

To be clear, the Court has not decided whether to hear the case, and an amicus brief is persuasion, not a ruling. Minnesota will get its chance to defend the Eighth Circuit’s decision.

I will continue tracking Johnson v. Jacobson as the Court decides whether to take the case.

Read the original story: One Couple Paid $12,800 in Permit Fees to Carry in 46 States: SAF, NRA and Four Other Groups Urge Supreme Court to Make Minnesota Honor Trucker’s Out-of-State Carry Licenses

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

EUREKA, CA — A Eureka resident shot a 30-year-old parolee who forced his way into his home on the afternoon of September 14, 2026, and deputies found the wounded suspect a short distance away after he fled on foot, according to the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office.

The sheriff’s office said its Emergency Communications Center took a 9-1-1 call at about 4:34 p.m. from a resident in the 3900 block of Walnut Street. The caller told dispatchers he had shot a male subject who had forcibly entered his residence. He reported the suspect ran off on foot toward Walnut Drive.

Deputies responded along with officers from the Eureka Police Department. They located a man matching the suspect’s description in the area of W Street and Glatt Street. He had a gunshot wound. Emergency medical personnel who were already staged in the area treated him and transported him to a local hospital, where his injuries were deemed non-life-threatening.

The sheriff’s office identified him as Taren Joseph Ray Aubrey, 30, of Eureka. Based on evidence recovered at the scene and statements from the resident and witnesses, deputies determined Aubrey had forcibly entered the home before he was shot.

Once the hospital released him, Aubrey was booked into the Humboldt County Correctional Facility on charges of burglary, felon or addict in possession of a firearm, unauthorized entry of an occupied dwelling, and violation of parole. He was on parole at the time, and the parole violation charge means the state can hold him on that alone while the rest of the case works its way forward.

The resident was not injured. Deputies said that based on the evidence gathered, they determined he acted out of fear for his life when Aubrey was shot. He was not arrested. The case has been forwarded to the Humboldt County District Attorney’s Office for review, and no charging decision has been announced.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carry Holder Returns Fire in Fatal Chicago Triple Shooting
• Licensed Concealed Carrier Thwarts Home Intrusion: A South Side Standoff Ends with Intruder Wounded
• Store Employee Shoot Homeless Man As He Charges Him
• Concealed Carrier Turned the Tables on Armed Robbers at Car Wash
• Armed Citizen Defends Himself After Suspect Pulls Gun During Online Sale, Teen Shot During Attempted Carjacking

The resident made the call himself, reported what he had done, told dispatchers which way the suspect ran, and stayed put for deputies. That put his account on the record from the first minutes, pointed responders straight at the man they needed to find, and gave investigators a cooperative witness whose story they could check against the physical evidence and the neighbors’ statements. When deputies say the evidence and the witnesses line up with what the homeowner told them, that is the payoff of handling the aftermath the right way.

A man forcing his way into an occupied home at 4:30 in the afternoon is not looking for an empty house. The resident had whatever seconds it took Aubrey to get through the door to recognize the threat and respond to it, and he did. The suspect is in jail, the homeowner went home uninjured, and the district attorney now has the file.

Read the original story: California Homeowner Shoots 30-Year-Old Parolee Who Forced His Way Inside, Deputies Find Suspect Wounded Nearby

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SACRAMENTO, CA — A Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy shot and killed a knife-wielding suspect on the morning of Wednesday, July 15, as the man was actively stabbing a 26-year-old woman who had just pulled him off her 63-year-old mother inside the garage of a residence on Diablo Drive, according to the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office.

The sheriff’s office laid out the sequence in a critical incident debrief it released on its official social media accounts. At approximately 6:30 a.m., its Communications Center received a call reporting that a transient adult male was causing a disturbance at the Starbucks at Elkhorn Boulevard and Diablo Drive. Employees said the suspect was behind the store counter armed with a kitchen knife. They hid in the back room and waited for law enforcement.

When deputies arrived, the suspect had already fled. Deputies canvassed the area for him. Minutes later, one deputy saw a man matching the description walking on Diablo Drive. As the deputy drove toward him, the suspect ran across the street. The deputy closed the distance. The man ran into the open garage of a residence in the 5700 block.

Inside that garage, a 63-year-old woman was getting into her vehicle. The suspect stabbed and cut her numerous times. Her 26-year-old daughter heard the screams and saw him on top of her mother. She pushed him off. The sheriff’s office said that shove saved her mother from further attack. The suspect then turned on the daughter and stabbed and cut her numerous times.

The deputy witnessed the attack, which the sheriff’s office said unfolded within seconds, and drove straight into the driveway. The suspect was still actively stabbing the daughter. The deputy fired his handgun. The suspect was struck. Additional deputies arrived and began life-saving measures on the suspect and both women. Fire personnel pronounced the suspect dead at the scene. The mother and daughter were taken to a local hospital, where they were listed in serious but stable condition. No deputies were injured.

This was not a civilian defensive gun use but the principle is the one I write about every week. A man with a knife was on top of two women in a garage, and nothing stopped him until someone with a gun arrived and used it. The employees hid. The daughter shoved. The deputy shot. Two of those three things kept people alive, and only one of them ended the threat.

More from USA Carry:

• 10 Guns That Match With Cars
• Father Shot by Son After Being Mistaken for Intruder
• Sacramento: Long Wait for Concealed Weapon Licenses
• Man Shot by Homeowner After Threatening to Kill During Break-In Attempt
• Armed Neighbor Tried to Intervene in Fatal Stabbing at Texas Apartment Complex

The sheriff’s office identified the suspect as Faryeshyi Allahdin. Investigators believe the victims were random and had no known connection to him.

Random is the part that should shape the mindset of anyone who carries. There was no argument to walk away from and no dispute to de-escalate. A woman was getting into her car at 6:30 in the morning. The attacker chose her, and then he chose her daughter. Neither woman controlled whether the attack came, and it went from first cut to a deputy’s gunfire in seconds. The only reason it ended there is that an armed man happened to be close enough to see it. Most people picked at random will not have a deputy pulling into the driveway. The question to settle before that morning is what you would have in your hands if it were you.

Read the original story: Good Guy With a Gun: Sacramento Deputy Shoots and Kills Knife Attacker Who Was Actively Stabbing 26-Year-Old Daughter After She Pulled Him Off Her Mother

Key Takeaways

• Firearms Policy Coalition filed a motion for summary judgment against New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law, claiming it violates the Second Amendment.
• The motion requests the court to block the law’s enforcement, arguing it imposes a purchase quota on citizens’ constitutional rights.
• The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently weakened New Jersey’s gun laws, creating a supportive backdrop for FPC’s case.
• New Jersey has strict permitting requirements, and the law prevents approved buyers from purchasing more than one gun per month.
• The outcome of the case will have significant implications for New Jersey’s gun regulations and gun owners’ rights.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CAMDEN, NJ — Firearms Policy Coalition filed a motion for summary judgment on September 14, 2026, asking the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey to strike down New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law as a violation of the Second Amendment. The filing is a 23-page memorandum in support of the motion, entered as Docket 91-1 in case 1:24-cv-07098, a challenge FPC first brought in 2024.

Summary judgment is a request for the judge to decide the case now, without a trial, because the facts that matter are not in dispute and only the law is left to argue. FPC put it more bluntly in its announcement on X, calling the motion “a request to permanently block the law from being enforced.” The same post carried the line that gives this story its headline: “New Jersey’s ban is officially on notice.”

Here is what a one-gun-a-month law does in plain terms. A resident who has already cleared every hurdle the state puts in front of a buyer walks into a shop, completes a lawful purchase, and is then told to come back next month if he wants another. It is a purchase quota on a constitutional right. The state has decided how often a law-abiding citizen may exercise it.

That is the argument FPC is asking the court to accept, and the state will get its chance to answer. A motion for summary judgment is a request, not a ruling, and the court has decided nothing yet.

The venue matters. Any appeal from the District of New Jersey goes to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and on July 17, 2026, that court, sitting en banc, meaning the full bench rather than a three-judge panel, struck down key parts of New Jersey’s assault weapons and magazine capacity bans, according to the Second Amendment Foundation and NRA-ILA. SAF said the Third Circuit adopted the Supreme Court’s recent Wolford v. Lopez clarification of what counts as an “arm” and that the ruling created a circuit split. The appellate court that supervises this district has just shown it will hold New Jersey’s gun laws to the Supreme Court’s framework. That is the backdrop the district judge is working against.

More from USA Carry:

• Federal Court Clears the NRA to Join the Fight Against New Jersey’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
• SAF Files Summary Judgment Motions in ATF Frame Rule Case and NFA Registration Challenge
• SAF Files for Summary Judgment In Mass Resident Alien Gun Ban Case
• SAF Files for Summary Judgment Against California’s 11% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax
• Dealing With A Violent Incident in Your Neighborhood

New Jersey already runs one of the most demanding permitting regimes in the country, and I keep my guide to New Jersey’s concealed carry laws updated because the rules there change and the penalties for getting them wrong are severe. A buyer who has satisfied all of that is not a trafficking risk the state has identified. He is a citizen the state has already approved, and the law tells him to wait anyway. Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing exactly what the law lets you do and when, and right now the law in New Jersey answers that question with a calendar.

I will continue tracking FPC’s motion in the District of New Jersey.

Read the original story: ‘New Jersey’s Ban Is Officially on Notice’: FPC Asks Federal Court to Permanently Block the State’s One-Gun-A-Month Law

Key Takeaways

• James Reeves, a YouTube firearms reviewer, received a subpoena in the case Roberts v. Smith & Wesson, seeking extensive data about his reviews.
• The plaintiffs claim that even independent reviews count as advertising, challenging the distinction between editorial content and marketing.
• The lawsuit holds Smith & Wesson accountable for marketing practices influencing the shooter, alleging deceptive advertising and negligence.
• Dealers and the shooter’s father face accusations related to the sale and transfer of the firearm involved in the shooting.
• Reeves warns others in gun media to respond to subpoenas and preserve all materials, as deleting evidence increases legal risks.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

HIGHLAND PARK, IL — James Reeves, a YouTube firearms reviewer, says he has been served with a subpoena in Roberts v. Smith & Wesson, the Lake County lawsuit that grew out of the July 4, 2022, Highland Park parade shooting. He is not a defendant. According to his post on X, the plaintiffs are demanding years of information and analytics about Smith & Wesson and the reviews he has produced, and their subpoena defines an “Advertisement” broadly enough to include unpaid, organic social media content.

A subpoena is a court-backed demand for records or testimony from someone who is not being sued. Reeves says this one reaches “essentially any YouTube video about the M&P15 during the relevant period.” His summary of the plaintiffs’ position: “even an independent review of a lawful product is ‘advertising.’” That is the piece of this story that matters to anyone who has ever put a rifle on camera. The mindset behind that definition treats editorial coverage as corporate marketing, and it does not stop at guns.

The case itself is laid out in the First Amended Complaint, dated July 2, 2024, in the Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois (22 LA 487). Keely and Jason Roberts sue individually and on behalf of their twin 8-year-old sons, C.R. and L.R. The defendants are three Smith & Wesson entities, online retailer Budsgunshop.com LLC, Illinois dealer Red Dot Arms Inc., the shooter Robert Crimo III, and his father Robert Crimo Jr. The complaint alleges Crimo III fired 83 rounds from a rooftop starting at 10:14 a.m., killing seven and injuring 48. It says Keely Roberts was shot through the foot, L.R. was hit with shrapnel, and C.R. was struck by a round that left him hospitalized for 73 days and, in the complaint’s words, will never walk again. The complaint states Crimo III has been charged with 21 counts of first-degree murder, 48 counts of attempted murder, and 48 counts of aggravated battery.

Against Smith & Wesson, the theory is marketing. The complaint pleads violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2 and 505/2BBBB), the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/2), and common-law negligence. It alleges the company sold M&P rifles to young men through “More Adrenaline” and “Kick Brass” slogans, ads styled after first-person shooter video games, military imagery the complaint calls a “halo” effect, and paid influencers who showed viewers how to move “cover to cover.” It faults Smith & Wesson for having no age gates on its social media. And it alleges all of that influenced Crimo III to pick the M&P15 out of the several firearms he owned, which the complaint lists as also including a Kel-Tec SUB2000, a Remington 700, and a shotgun. That is the causal link the plaintiffs have to prove, not that the rifle fired, but that advertising made a 21-year-old choose it.

The dealers and the father are in the case on different grounds. The complaint alleges Bud’s Gun Shop sold the rifle online in January or February 2020 and Red Dot Arms transferred it on February 10, 2020, even though both knew the buyer lived in Highwood, where a local ordinance bans possession of assault weapons. It alleges Crimo Jr. sponsored his 19-year-old son’s Illinois Firearm Owners Identification card application in December 2019, months after police filed a “clear and present danger” report on the son, and notes the father has since pleaded guilty to seven misdemeanor counts of reckless conduct.

The complaint also names three companies, Cybear Interactive LLC, Watauga Group LLC, and Clandestine Media Group LLC, as “respondents in discovery.” In plain terms, that is an Illinois procedure for pulling in outfits that are not being sued but may hold information the plaintiffs want, and the filing asks that they answer written questions, produce documents, and sit for depositions. Pair that with the complaint’s allegation that Smith & Wesson marketed “directly and through third parties” and its focus on influencers, and the subpoena Reeves describes is not a surprise. It is the next step in the same logic.

Reeves frames all of this as an end-run around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the 2005 law he describes as enacted to shield manufacturers from lawsuits over crimes committed by third parties with their products. He says plaintiffs have increasingly pleaded around it with “negligent marketing” claims since Soto v. Bushmaster, the Sandy Hook lawsuit against Remington, and calls Roberts “the same playbook, almost copy+paste.” He says that is why he drafted what became the PLCAA Clarification Act, which by his account has been enacted in West Virginia, Montana, and Kentucky. He adds that he has been told Kentucky has already dismissed a lawsuit under it, though he offers that secondhand. Illinois, he notes, is not going to pass it. Congress could.

More from USA Carry:

• Smith & Wesson Fires Back at House Oversight and Reform Committee
• Florida Judge Rejects Stand Your Ground Defense in Theatre Shooting
• Retired Police Officer and Burglary Suspect Hospitalized After Exchanging Gunfire
• California Gun Advertising Law Blocked as Legal Costs Exceed $1.3 Million
• Concealed Carrier Caught After K9 Detects Gun at Highland Park, IL High School Game

He closes with advice for anyone else in gun media who gets served: do not ignore the subpoena and do not delete anything. That is the right call. Destroying material after a demand for it arrives creates a bigger problem than the one you started with.

I will continue tracking Roberts v. Smith & Wesson as it moves through the Lake County court.

Read the original story: James Reeves Subpoenaed for Being a Guntuber: Highland Park Lawsuit Against Smith & Wesson Reaches Into Firearms Media and Defines Unpaid Reviews as ‘Advertising’

Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department plans to file a lawsuit against San Jose over its $1,591 concealed carry license fee, claiming it infringes on Second Amendment rights.
• Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argues that this fee disproportionately impacts low-income individuals and lacks constitutional justification.
• The lawsuit will challenge both the exorbitant fee and the enforcement practices of San Jose police as unconstitutional.
• The Department may negotiate with San Jose, but requires the city to halt the fee’s enforcement and acknowledge its unconstitutionality.
• San Jose’s fee is part of broader issues in Santa Clara County, where legal challenges over excessive fees are also underway.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

SAN JOSE, CA — The Justice Department has authorized a federal lawsuit against the City of San Jose over the $1,591 it charges residents to apply for a concealed carry license, and it has given the city until 5:00 p.m. Eastern on September 15, 2026 to say whether it wants to negotiate first.

When the City Council pushed that fee to $1,591, I covered it in It Now Costs $1,591 Just to Apply for a Carry Permit in San Jose, and That’s Before Training. What has changed is that the federal government has now weighed in. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Civil Rights Division, sent a September 9, 2026 letter to Mayor Matt Mahan, Police Chief Paul Joseph, and City Attorney Susana Alcala Wood, and posted it publicly the same day. Its subject line reads “Notice of Suit: United States v. City of San Jose.”

The increase was adopted this year under Resolution No. 2026-183. The letter walks through what the neighbors charge for the same license. San Francisco charges $144. Berkeley charges $255 to apply and $325 more once an applicant is approved. Santa Clara charges $488 up front and $488 at issuance. Alameda County charges $347 and $346. “To our knowledge,” Dhillon wrote, “San Jose charges the highest CCW application fee in the entire nation.”

A number that size does not screen out dangerous applicants. It screens out people who do not have $1,591, and that is not a category the Second Amendment recognizes.

Dhillon made the same argument publicly the day the letter went out. “Constitutional rights aren’t for sale,” she wrote on X. “Charging $1,600 to carry a firearm outside the home is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”

The letter’s legal argument runs through Bruen, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that let states keep shall-issue permit systems. Shall issue means the agency has to grant the permit once an applicant meets the written requirements, and the Court said governments may charge fees for that process. But it drew a line: a licensing scheme cannot be “put toward abusive ends” by imposing “exorbitant fees [that] deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” Dhillon leaned on that word. “In the United States, keeping and bearing arms is not a luxury enjoyed by the privileged few,” she wrote, quoting Heller. “It is a right enjoyed by all ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens.'” The letter also cites McDonald v. City of Chicago and the Court’s 2026 decision in Wolford v. Lopez.

The complaint Dhillon says she has already authorized will carry two claims. The first is that the fee itself denies ordinary citizens their Second Amendment right to carry in public. The second is aimed at the police department. Because San Jose officers are the ones enforcing the fee schedule, the letter alleges that enforcement amounts to a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the federal statute that lets the Justice Department sue a police agency for systematic unconstitutional policing rather than going after a single bad stop. The letter cites United States v. County of Maricopa, a 2018 Ninth Circuit decision holding that officers enforcing an unconstitutional local policy violate that statute.

The Department says it will consider holding off on filing for a short period if San Jose comes to the table, but it set a floor on what any deal has to include. The city would have to immediately stop enforcing the fees, acknowledge that they are unconstitutional, and agree to a court-enforceable consent decree permanently barring it from doing the same thing again. A consent decree is a settlement a federal judge signs and can enforce, which means the city would not be able to quietly reinstate the fee later without answering to the court.

The letter doubles as a document-retention notice, instructing city officials, employees, and contractors to preserve records, emails, photos, videos, and computer files relevant to the matter. If San Jose wants to negotiate, it was told to contact Barry Arrington, Chief of the Division’s Second Amendment Section.

San Jose is not the only pressure point in the area. The city sits inside Santa Clara County, and the county is already in federal court over its own fees. According to the Second Amendment Foundation’s case page for Blank v. Santa Clara County, filed September 22, 2025 in the Northern District of California, the Sheriff’s Department amended its fee schedule to $976, a $488 initial fee plus a $488 issuance fee, up from $662. SAF says that figure excludes a required training course that typically runs $250 to $400, and that the department makes every applicant sit for a psychological examination costing around $500. SAF, joined by the California Rifle and Pistol Association and several individual plaintiffs, alleges there is no statutory or constitutional authority for conditioning a fundamental right on universal psychological testing without evidence or good cause. Those are allegations by a party to the case, and the court has not ruled on them. The docket shows the case is active, with a status conference held August 4, 2026 before Judge Edward J. Davila and a motion to intervene set for hearing on September 17, 2026.

More from USA Carry:

• It Now Costs $1,591 Just to Apply for a Carry Permit in San Jose, and That’s Before Training
• San Jose Wants You Pay $25/Year to Exercise Your 2nd Amendment Rights…and Get Liability Insurance
• AAG Harmeet Dhillon: Supreme Court Will Eventually Rule AR-15s Are Legal for All Law-Abiding Americans
• Two California Smash and Grab Robberies, Two Very Different Outcomes
• DOJ Files Second Colorado Lawsuit in 24 Hours, Targets State’s 15-Round Magazine Ban as Civil Rights Violation

Anyone applying anywhere in the state should walk in knowing the full cost and the full process, which is why I keep a standing breakdown of California concealed carry requirements. The check you write for the application is rarely the whole bill.

I will continue tracking the Civil Rights Division’s action against San Jose and the Blank litigation in the Northern District of California.

Read the original story: “Constitutional Rights Aren’t for Sale”: Harmeet Dhillon Puts San Jose on a Six-Day Clock Over Its $1,591 Carry Permit Fee

Key Takeaways

• Ammunition Depot launched AmmoVault, allowing users to build an ammo reserve gradually with minimal upfront costs.
• Users create an account, select a caliber, and choose subscription options to purchase ammo at current prices without markup.
• Ammo is stored securely and can be shipped upon request, ensuring no unexpected deliveries.
• AmmoVault caters to those with limited storage or who prefer to purchase ammo over time rather than in bulk.
• The service is ideal for individuals looking to reserve ammo at today’s prices before potential shortages.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Ammunition Depot launched AmmoVault on Aug. 27, and I set up an account to see what it actually does. The short version: it’s a way to build an ammo reserve over time without buying a whole case at once. You pick the ammo, set a budget, and you can start with as little as five bucks. You’re buying real ammunition, and Ammunition Depot stores it for you until you decide you want it shipped.

The pitch behind it

The worst time to start looking for ammo is when everybody else is looking for it. Ammunition Depot CEO Dan Wolgin said the same thing in the launch announcement, and anyone who lived through 2020 doesn’t need it explained.

Ammunition Depot points to its own 9mm price history: about 18 cents a round in late 2019, and 89 cents by February 2021. Cheap practice ammo disappeared first, and that’s the stuff most of us shoot the most. In February 2015, one ATF proposal about M855 green tip emptied shelves in days. Every run has a different cause. The result is the same, and the common calibers always go first.

How it works

You open a free account, pick a caliber and type (9mm 115 grain practice, for example), and choose either a one-time purchase or a subscription that runs weekly, every two weeks or monthly. You set the dollar amount. Each time it runs, that money buys ammo at Ammunition Depot’s current box price, with no AmmoVault markup, and the rounds go into your Vault.

That ammo is physically in stock, reserved for your account, insured, and stored in a climate-controlled facility alongside Ammunition Depot’s retail inventory. The company calls this its 100% In-Stock Storage Guarantee. It’s not points, store credit or an IOU.

Nothing ships until you ask. Buying into the Vault and shipping out of it are two separate actions, so there are no surprise boxes showing up on the porch. When you want it, request a shipment, pick an address and confirm. Ammunition Depot says most orders leave within a business day and arrive in three to seven.

What I saw in my account

In the video I set up a $100 a month subscription for 9mm 115 grain practice ammo. The first order put 322 rounds in my Vault. The dashboard shows your subscriptions, your activity and any upcoming shipments.

When I went to request a shipment, 300 of those rounds were available to ship. Shipments go out in full boxes, so the leftover 22 sit in the Vault until the next purchase fills a box, or you can round up to a full box and pay the difference at checkout. There’s also a trade-in option that lets you swap stored ammo for a different caliber at current prices, and a one-time purchase button if you’d rather drop in a set dollar amount without a subscription.

The brand thing

Your Vault holds a caliber, grain weight and type, not a specific brand. When you ship, Ammunition Depot pulls from whatever trusted brands it has in that category at the time. The names it lists are Speer, PMC, Winchester, Federal, CCI and Fiocchi. They say they won’t substitute a different caliber, grain weight or type, and that the bargain-bin stuff never makes it into the Vault program. If you’re particular about one specific load, this isn’t the service for that. If you want quality range ammo on hand, it works.

The fine print

Read this part before you open one.

Vault pricing matches Ammunition Depot box pricing. Case pricing on the regular site can still be cheaper per round. If you have the cash and the space for a full case today, buy the case. AmmoVault is for spreading it out.

Sales tax and shipping are charged when you ship, not when you buy. Vault shipments of $199 or more ship free at launch.

Storage is free as long as your account is active, and “active” is a low bar: a purchase, a login or a profile update inside 12 months. Go a full year with nothing, ignore the reactivation notice for another 60 days, and they start deducting storage fees from your ammo, 4 percent of inventory value or $10 a month. Log in once a year and that never touches you.

They ship anywhere ammo shipping is legal. If your state requires ammunition to go through an FFL, the Vault has the same restriction.

More from USA Carry:

• Locking Up My Guns from My Daughter
• Best Place to Buy 9mm Ammo
• Why You Should Have A Gun Safe
• Your Home Defense Plan Should Start At Home Depot
• Wake Up, Babe: New Hunter’s Dream $3K Gun & Gear Giveaway Just Dropped!

Who it’s for

Ammunition Depot has been around since 2011, and the press release says it has moved more than 2 billion rounds. That matters here, because a stored reserve is only as good as the company holding it.

The obvious fit is anybody short on storage space. I live in an apartment, so I know the feeling. It also makes sense if you’d rather put $5 or $50 a week toward a reserve than drop $300 on a case, or you want ammo set aside at today’s prices before the next rush starts.

If you’ve got the cash, the room to store it, and you want a case today, AmmoVault probably isn’t for you. Just buy the case from Ammunition Depot. I’ve already named them the best place to buy ammo online. AmmoVault is the other option: build your reserve a little at a time, let them store it, and ship it when you’re ready.

You can check it out at vault.ammunitiondepot.com.

Read the original story: Ammunition Depot Launches AmmoVault, an Ammo Reserve You Can Build $5 at a Time

Key Takeaways

• A neighbor shot a dog after four dogs escaped a yard in Norfolk, raising legal questions about negligence and justification.
• The dog’s owner was home and heard gunshots, finding one dog dead and three missing.
• The neighbor disputed the necessity of the shooting, citing ongoing complaints about the barking dogs.
• The Commonwealth’s Attorney emphasized that carelessness in dog ownership can lead to criminal liability, similar to parental responsibility.
• Legal justification for using deadly force hinges on immediate danger to a person, regardless of whether the threat is a dog or human.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

NORFOLK, VA — A neighbor shot and killed a dog after four dogs got out of a yard in Norfolk, and the city’s top prosecutor says a review of an incident like this cuts in two directions at once: whether the owner was criminally negligent, and whether the person who pulled the trigger was legally justified.

The account of the shooting and the reaction from both sides of the fence comes from a television report, as reported by 13 News Now.

In a social media comment described in that report, a woman said she was attacked and bitten while walking down the street.

The owner of the dogs said she was home when it happened. She was still putting her shoes on when she heard what she described as a bunch of gunshots. She ran outside. One of her dogs was dead, and the other three were gone.

Her next door neighbor disputes that the shooting was necessary and said the man who fired had long-running complaints about the animals. “I know he doesn’t care for them,” she said, describing him as bothered by the dogs barking.

That complaint history is not the legal question. Nobody gets to shoot a dog because it barks, and nobody loses the right to defend himself because he has been annoyed by an animal in the past. What matters is what those dogs were doing in the seconds before the shots, and the reporting does not describe it.

Norfolk Commonwealth’s Attorney Ramin Fatehi said he cannot comment on this case specifically, but he laid out how his office looks at this category of incident. A dog owner whose carelessness rises to a certain level and results in injury can face criminal liability, he said, comparing it to the way the law treats parents. “Accidents happen, but if your level of carelessness rises to a certain point, you wind up exposing yourself to criminal liability.”

The same review, he said, examines the person who fired. Where there is a risk of death or serious bodily injury, “then another person is entitled to use deadly force to protect themselves or to protect other people.”

More from USA Carry:

• Burglar Shot At By Homeowner Then Bitten by Dog
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against Massachusetts
• The Slowest Load: Reloading a Revolver with Loose Rounds
• 13 Virginia Prosecutors Now Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban
• Home Invader Gets Shot After Shooting The Dog

That is the standard, and it does not soften because the threat has four legs instead of two. A loose, aggressive dog can absolutely put a person at risk of serious bodily injury, and if you carry, an animal attack is one of the more realistic scenarios you may face on a sidewalk in your own neighborhood. The justification still rests on the danger to a human being in that moment, not on frustration with a neighbor and not on what is happening to anyone’s yard or belongings.

Nothing in the reporting identifies the man who fired, and no charging decision has been announced against him or against the owner of the dogs.

Read the original story: Norfolk Neighbor Shoots and Kills One of Four Loose Dogs After a Woman Says She Was Attacked and Bitten in the Street

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

MEMPHIS, TN — A man beaten by two intruders inside a Frayser apartment bedroom before dawn Tuesday wrestled a gun away from one of them, carried the fight outside, and shot him, according to the Memphis Police Department. Devonta Johnson died. The second man, 23-year-old Zarian Sanders, is a convicted felon and now faces four charges.

The break-in happened at an apartment complex on Madewell Drive around 4:40 a.m., as reported by WREG. Officers arriving on scene found Johnson suffering from a gunshot wound.

Police spoke with a woman at the apartment who said Johnson, her child’s father, showed up uninvited with another man. According to her account, the two kicked in her door and then moved the couch to block it. Then they went into the bedroom and started beating someone inside.

The man told officers the two who came into the bedroom were Johnson and someone he knew as “Shiesty,” later identified as Sanders. Both assaulted him, he said. Then Johnson said “watch this” and pulled out a gun.

The man grabbed for it. He and Johnson fought over the gun. Sanders jumped in, the man told police, because he was trying to take it away. He got the gun away from Johnson. He took the fight outside.

Outside, Johnson and Sanders kept assaulting him, police said. He fired one shot at Johnson. The only gun the account places in his hands is the one he had just taken from Johnson. The woman told police she heard a gunshot after the fight moved outside, and that Johnson, on the ground, told her the man from the bedroom had shot him.

It was not over. The man ran to another apartment complex, police said, with Sanders chasing him. He tried to get a resident to open a door. Sanders caught up first. He pointed a rifle at the man, threatened to shoot him, and hit him in the side of the head with it.

The two fought over the rifle. It went off three times. According to police, the man then gave the rifle back to Sanders, who ran off.

Two struggles over two guns in a matter of minutes, and he walked away from both with cuts, abrasions, and bruises. Weapon retention and disarming are trained skills with a high failure rate even under controlled conditions, and a rifle discharging three times mid-struggle shows how close this came to a different ending. The mindset is the transferable part. He refused to stand still and be shot, and he kept moving toward other people and a door that might open.

More from USA Carry:

• Gun Regulation Issue in Clinton/Sanders Debate
• Robbery Suspect Killed After Victim Wrestles Gun Away and Shoots Him at Harris County, TX Apartment Complex
• Memphis Men Wrestle Gun From Robber, Tie Him To The Porch Until Police Arrive
• Mental Health Crisis Turns Into Deadly Self-Defense Shooting At Gas Station
• Man’s Car Stolen After He Leaves It Running, Leading to Shootout in North Memphis

The man later identified Sanders as the one who broke in and assaulted him. Police say Sanders pleaded guilty in September 2025 to theft of a firearm valued under $2,500, a felony conviction that is the basis for the charge of convicted felon in possession of a firearm.

Sanders is charged with especially aggravated burglary, aggravated assault, convicted felon in possession of a firearm, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. His bond is set at $150,000, and he is due in court Monday.

Read the original story: Memphis Man Attacked at Home By Two Men Wrestles Gun Away From Intruder Who Said ‘Watch This,’ Then Shoots Him

Key Takeaways

• Jeffrey Johnson challenges Minnesota’s refusal to recognize his Florida and Georgia carry permits in Johnson v. Jacobson before the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Minnesota’s law requires Johnson to disarm each time he crosses the state line, which complicates his job as a long-haul trucker.
• His petition argues that once a citizen proves law-abiding status, they should not have to repeatedly prove their right to carry firearms in different states.
• The case references the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, questioning whether states can mandate multiple proof of permits.
• Johnson seeks broader recognition of existing permits, in line with the rights outlined in the Second Amendment.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — A long-haul trucker who holds carry permits from both Florida and Georgia has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take up his challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to recognize either one. Jeffrey Johnson, represented by the Liberty Justice Center, filed the petition in Johnson v. Jacobson on Tuesday, September 8, 2026.

Johnson hauls cargo across the country and makes regular trips to or through Minnesota, as reported by Reason. According to his petition, he always carries a handgun for self-defense because of the dangers that come with the job, but Minnesota does not grant reciprocity to permits from fifteen states, Florida and Georgia among them. So every time his route reaches the Minnesota line, state law requires him to unload the gun and secure it in a container.

Permit recognition works a few different ways in this country. Some states sign formal agreements with each other. Some honor out-of-state permits on their own, no agreement required. Some honor a select list and refuse everyone else. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show how that shakes out state by state, and my Minnesota concealed carry page covers what that state expects of anyone carrying inside its borders. For a driver whose work crosses state lines constantly, that patchwork decides where he is armed and where he is not.

Florida and Georgia both allow legal gun owners to carry without a license, but they still issue permits for residents who want to carry in states that demand one. A Florida concealed weapon license requires an applicant to be at least 21 (18 for honorably discharged veterans), have no disqualifying criminal or psychiatric record, not be under a domestic violence restraining order, and demonstrate competency with a firearm. Georgia’s requirements are similar. Johnson cleared both. Minnesota’s position is that none of it counts once he crosses in.

“Once a person proves he is a law-abiding citizen, he is entitled to carry a gun in public for self-defense,” said LJC Senior Counsel Ryan Morrison. “Constitutional rights, the Second Amendment included, do not require someone to prove their worthiness to exercise their civil liberties over and over again. Forcing someone to carry a Rolodex of firearm licenses to maintain his constitutional rights across the nation reduces the Second Amendment to second-class status and subjects it to an entirely different body of rules than the other rights secured by the Constitution.”

The legal argument runs straight through Bruen. In 2022 the Court held that New York’s “proper cause” requirement violated the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. It also set the test: when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers someone’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it, and the government has to show its regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Johnson’s petition asks the Court to apply that to a man who has already been vetted twice.

Bruen also handed states language they can point to. The Court said nothing in its analysis should be read to suggest that licensing regimes “designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’” are unconstitutional. Minnesota can call its permit exactly that. The question the petition puts to the justices is whether a state may demand that a citizen prove the same thing a second, third, or fifteenth time, depending on where the road takes him.

This is not the only reciprocity fight sitting at the Court’s door. In December 2025, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, and several partners filed amicus briefs, friend-of-the-court filings from groups that are not parties to the case, urging the justices to grant certiorari, meaning agree to hear the case, in Gardner v. Maryland. That case involves Eva Marie Gardner, a Virginia permit holder arrested for carrying without a permit after defending herself in Maryland, a state that honors no other state’s permit. “History shows that travelers from other states were not only allowed to carry firearms but often received special exemptions from local restrictions,” SAF’s Kostas Moros said of that case. NRA-ILA announced its own filing the same day. Gun Owners of America has worked the problem from a different angle, winning lawsuits in New York and California that ended those states’ denials of nonresident carry permit applications. Johnson is asking for something simpler and broader: recognition of the permits he already holds.

A petition is a request, not a ruling. The Court has not decided whether to hear the case, most petitions are turned away, and Minnesota will have its chance to respond before the justices decide anything.

More from USA Carry:

• [BREAKING] Illinois Gun Ban – Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction
• Maine Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling
• Minnesota Hearing Scheduled on Semi-Auto Ban and 10-Round Magazine Limit
• Minnesota Concealed Carry Permit Information

Johnson is doing what a responsible carrier has to do right now. He knows Minnesota’s rule, and he disarms at the line rather than risk a charge. That is the carry mindset working the way it should, and it is also the whole problem. A vetted, twice-licensed American rides unarmed through the stretch of his route where a state has decided his credentials mean nothing. Bruen said the right to carry in public belongs to law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs. It did not say how many times they can be made to prove it. This petition, with Gardner alongside it, asks the justices to answer that.

I will continue tracking Johnson v. Jacobson as the Court decides whether to take it up.

Read the original story: Two Permits, Zero Recognition: Long-Haul Trucker Asks Supreme Court to Strike Down Minnesota’s Refusal to Honor His Florida and Georgia Carry Licenses

Key Takeaways

• The Third Circuit revived the NSSF’s challenge to New Jersey’s firearms law on September 8, 2026, stating NSSF has standing to sue.
• Judge Porter criticized New Jersey’s proposed timing rule as a Catch-22 that unjustly prevented NSSF from court access.
• The court overturned an earlier decision that dismissed NSSF’s suit for lack of standing, noting that enforcement actions had begun.
• The case will now proceed to a preliminary injunction motion regarding the enforcement of New Jersey’s law.
• This ruling does not determine if New Jersey’s law is constitutional, leaving the merits of the case for further examination.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

PHILADELPHIA, PA — The Third Circuit on September 8, 2026, reversed a federal district court and revived the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s challenge to the New Jersey firearms law the state has used to bring enforcement actions against gun manufacturers and sellers. In NSSF v. Attorney General New Jersey, No. 25-2546, a unanimous panel of Judges Porter, Matey, and Ambro held that NSSF has standing to bring the suit and that the district court was wrong to step aside from deciding it.

New Jersey’s position boiled down to timing, and the panel named the problem. “New Jersey’s proposed rule would create a Catch-22,” Judge Porter wrote for the court. “If the association sued before the enforcement action against one of its members, it would be dismissed for lack of standing, like in NSSF I. If it sued after the enforcement action, it would be dismissed under Younger.” Because NSSF and its members are “entitled to [their] own day in court,” the panel rejected the rule.

The history explains the trap. The Third Circuit threw NSSF’s original suit out in 2023 in NSSF I for lack of Article III standing. Standing means a plaintiff has to show a real, concrete injury rather than a hypothetical one, and at that point the court found the prospect of New Jersey actually enforcing the law against NSSF’s members too speculative. According to the opinion, just a few months later New Jersey started enforcement actions against gun manufacturers and sellers, including Glock, an NSSF member. The speculation was over.

NSSF moved to reopen the case, filed an amended complaint, and asked for a preliminary injunction, which is a court order blocking enforcement of a law while the case is litigated. Judge Zahid H. Quraishi in the District of New Jersey reopened the case, accepted the amended complaint, and agreed NSSF now had standing. Then he held that he was required to abstain under Younger v. Harris, a 1971 Supreme Court decision telling federal courts to stay out of ongoing state court proceedings and let the state court handle any federal constitutional claims raised there. Applied here, it meant NSSF’s federal case sat frozen while New Jersey pressed its own suits in state court.

The panel agreed on standing and disagreed on abstention. New Jersey had argued, in effect, that NSSF could not get into federal court before the state sued anyone and could not get into federal court after the state sued someone either. There is no window in that rule, and the Third Circuit said so. The district court now has to take up the preliminary injunction motion it set aside.

The federal law hanging over all of this is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Congress passed PLCAA in 2005 to bar lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, importers, and their trade associations for harm “solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse” of a firearm by someone else when the product functioned as designed. The law has exceptions, and the one that matters here is the predicate exception, which allows a suit only if the company “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product” and that violation was a proximate cause of the harm. Whether New Jersey’s law fits inside that exception or is an end run around PLCAA is the merits question, and it has not been decided.

More from USA Carry:

• NSSF Vows Legal Action if Maryland Governor Signs Striker-Fired Handgun Ban
• NSSF Takes Illinois Rifle Ban Straight to the Supreme Court After Seventh Circuit Defeat
• ATF Swamped With 150,000 NFA Applications in One Day — Up From 2,500 Daily Average — as Outdated System Crashes
• NSSF and SAAMI Issue a Joint Statement on the Las Vegas Tragedy
• Firearms Industry Files Suit Against ATF to Stop Multiple Sales Reporting of Rifles

This is a procedural win. Nothing in the opinion says the New Jersey law is unconstitutional, and the state will get to defend it on the merits. It is still a significant win. Roughly four years after NSSF first filed, no federal judge has ruled on whether the law is lawful. First the case was too early, then it was too late. That pattern lets a state enforce a law aggressively while insulating it from constitutional review, and the Third Circuit’s answer is that a trade group and its members do not lose their federal forum because the state chose to sue first.

I will continue tracking NSSF v. Attorney General New Jersey as it heads back to the district court for a ruling on the preliminary injunction.

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

Read the original story: Third Circuit Rejects New Jersey’s ‘Catch-22’ and Revives NSSF Challenge to Gun Industry Liability Law After State Sued Glock

Key Takeaways

• Elisjsha Dicken stopped an active shooter in Greenwood, Indiana, by fatally shooting the attacker just 15 seconds after the attack began.
• The Crime Prevention Research Center argues that the FBI significantly underreports the percentage of attacks stopped by armed civilians, estimating it at 36.6% or higher.
• Major media outlets suggested Dicken’s actions were rare, citing FBI data which indicates that civilians rarely stop active shooter events.
• The FBI’s broad definition of active shooters includes various types of incidents, and they acknowledge armed civilians stopped attacks in 8 of 12 years reviewed.
• Dicken’s successful intervention highlights the importance of being armed and prepared in active shooting situations, contradicting many media narratives.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Elisjsha Dicken was 22 years old and carrying a licensed handgun when an attacker opened fire inside a Greenwood, Indiana, mall on July 17, 2022. The attack killed three people and injured another. Dicken fired his first shot 15 seconds after it began, from 40 yards away, and fatally shot the attacker.

Those two numbers, 15 seconds and 40 yards, are why his name drew national attention, and they are why the Crime Prevention Research Center put Greenwood at the front of a new analysis, as reported by CPRC on September 9, arguing the FBI has badly undercounted how often armed civilians stop active shooters.

In the days after Greenwood, much of the national press reached for FBI statistics to frame what Dicken did as a near impossibility. Reuters wrote that “it is rare for a bystander to stop an ‘active shooter’ attack in the United States,” pointing to an FBI report showing only two of 61 such attacks the prior year ended when “citizens engaged the shooter.” CNN called cases of an armed bystander confronting an active shooter “rare.” The Associated Press, the Washington Post, and the New York Times ran headlines to the same effect, and Politifact, citing the same FBI reports, said it “rarely happens.”

CPRC’s review of the FBI’s active shooter reports from 2014 through 2025 puts the share of attacks stopped by armed civilians at no less than 36.6 percent, not the 3.9 percent the FBI numbers imply. Set aside attacks in gun-free zones, the one category where a permit holder is barred from carrying in the first place, and CPRC says the average climbs above 52.9 percent. For 2025 alone, the group puts it at 58.3 percent.

The FBI’s own definition is broad. The Bureau counts an active shooter as one or more people actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a public place, excluding gang violence and crimes such as robbery. That sweeps in everything from a single missed shot to a mass public shooting. And the FBI’s reports do credit armed civilians with stopping attacks in eight of the twelve years reviewed. The cases exist in the Bureau’s own data. CPRC’s argument is that far more of them exist than the Bureau ever lists, and it has published its spreadsheet and the underlying news stories for anyone who wants to check the work.

When John Stossel asked the FBI about the omissions, the Bureau’s answer, as CPRC quotes it, was that its data is “not intended to explore all active shooting incidents but rather to provide a baseline understanding.” That is a fair thing for a research office to say about a baseline. It is not a fair basis for a headline calling Greenwood a fluke, and that gap between what the FBI says its data is and what reporters used it for is the whole problem.

More from USA Carry:

• Three Years Later: The Armed Citizen Who Ended a Mall Shooting in 15 Seconds and Saved Countless Lives
• Elisjsha Dicken Named 2022 Citizen of the Year for Heroism During Greenwood Mall Shooting
• 22-Year-Old That Stopped Mass Shooting Was Carrying Under Indiana’s Constitutional Carry Law
• 15 Seconds, 40 Yards Away, Elisjsha Dicken Landed 8 of 10 Shots on Mall Shooter
• Do Armed Civilians Really Stop Mass Shootings? This Study Has the Answer

Dicken’s shot is remembered for the distance and the clock, and both deserve it. Forty yards with a handgun during an active attack is not a range-day number. Neither would have mattered without the simpler fact. He was carrying. The mindset that put a licensed handgun on his body that day is the only reason the distance and the timing were ever his to use.

Three people died in Greenwood. The attack ended because a 22-year-old with a licensed handgun was there and fired 15 seconds after it started. CPRC’s numbers say he had far more company than the headlines allowed.

Read the original story: FBI Data Put Armed-Citizen Stops at 3.9%. A 12-Year CPRC Review Finds 36.6%, and 58.3% in 2025

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

DEARBORN, MI — The 19-year-old who shot and killed a man firing a gun inside Fairlane Town Center on July 3 has been sentenced to two years of probation. Not for the shooting. For carrying the gun he used to stop it without a license.

Martinez Long of Oak Park stood before a judge Tuesday on a charge of carrying a concealed weapon, as reported by FOX 2 Detroit. The shooting itself was never treated as the crime.

Police were called to the mall at 1:25 p.m. Cameron Watkins had gotten into a fight with Keonte Seaborn. Watkins shot Seaborn and killed him. He shot a second person during a struggle. He kept firing inside the mall. Long shot Watkins, and the shooting stopped. Three people were hit that afternoon and two of them died.

Watkins had already killed one man, wounded another, and was still pulling the trigger in a crowded mall when Long fired. The judge said as much from the bench. “I know there was a gun fight at the Fairlane mall, and the lawyers have agreed, according to this court’s evaluation, that you were acting in self-defense or the defense of others, so that’s a valid legal defense,” he said. Then he asked the question the whole hearing turned on: “Why did you walk into the mall with a gun in the first place?”

The judge did not let go of it. “Fortunately, you weren’t injured, but nonetheless, you had a gun there in the first place, which was poor judgment,” he told Long. “And what do you need a gun for protection in a mall, in the first place?” He answered his own question a few minutes earlier when he described a gun fight at the Fairlane mall. Long walked into a place where a man would shoot two people, and he was the one who ended it.

Long’s attorney conceded the carry charge and called the shooting a tragic incident. “He didn’t plan on using it that day. He thought he kept it for protection,” she said. “He didn’t instigate the fight. He didn’t start the fight, and he did pull it out for protection of others.” Long did not speak in court. His attorney said that was because of a potential civil liability case. A criminal court accepting your self-defense claim does not close the door on a lawsuit, and his lawyer was protecting him from the next one.

Michigan requires a concealed pistol license to carry a concealed handgun, and the state does not issue one to anyone under 21. At 19, Long had no legal path to carry the gun he used. The Michigan concealed carry laws did not care that the gun saved lives that day. The law cared that it was in his waistband without a license, and the court treated it exactly that way.

Now put the same 19-year-old in a constitutional carry state, one that lets law-abiding adults carry a handgun without a permit, and one whose law covers adults 18 to 20. The carrying-a-concealed-weapon count does not exist. There is no plea agreement, no probation, no therapy order, no two years without a gun, and no judge asking why he had it. The only question left is whether the shooting was justified, and this court already answered that. Everything Long is serving right now is the product of Michigan drawing the line at 21 and requiring a license to cross it. Move the same facts a state line away and Tuesday’s hearing never happens.

More from USA Carry:

• Missouri Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Who Prayed to Horse, Attacked Dog, and Tried to Break In
• New Florida Law Expands Concealed Carry Rights for Off-Duty Officers and Military Members
• Pennsylvania Man Sentenced After Mistaking Instacart Driver for Intruder and Opening Fire
• 19-Year-Old Apartment Resident Defends Against Three Armed Intruders; Hitting Two
• Second Self-Defense Shooting at Chicago Mall This Year

The sentence is two years of probation with conditions. Long must complete cognitive behavioral therapy, take handgun safety classes offered by the court, and possess no guns or ammunition for the length of the probation. The case was handled under Michigan’s Holmes Youthful Trainee Act, a program for young offenders. Long had no prior criminal record and is working toward his GED. “Nonetheless, I think this agreement is in the best interest of justice,” the judge said.

Two men died at Fairlane Town Center that afternoon. One of them was killed by the man he was fighting. The other was killing people when a 19-year-old shot him. The court called that self-defense. It also took his right to carry a gun away for two years because he never had it legally in the first place. The mindset lesson here is not about whether to carry in a mall. It is that carrying outside the law puts you in front of a judge even when you did everything else right, and where that line sits depends entirely on the state you are standing in.

Read the original story: 19-Year-Old Who Shot Dearborn Mall Shooter After He Killed One Man and Wounded Another Sentenced to Two Years Probation for Carrying Without a Permit

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

NATCHEZ, MS — A man was shot in the chest Tuesday after he allegedly forced his way into a Natchez residence during a domestic dispute, according to Natchez Police Chief Lee Best.

Natchez Police officers responded to 96 Hunter’s Lane after the dispute reportedly escalated, as reported by Magnolia State Live. Best told The Natchez Democrat the man was shot after allegedly forcing his way into the residence.

Emergency medical services took the wounded man to Merit Health Natchez. Police have not released the extent of his injuries, but officials said he was conscious and able to speak with officers after the shooting.

Investigators brought the other individual involved in the dispute to the Natchez Police Department for questioning. Police have not released the names of anyone involved. The investigation is active and ongoing.

More from USA Carry:

• Homeowner Fires Warning Shot Before Putting One Into Early Morning Intruder
• Homeowner Shoots, Kills Burglar Breaking In Through Window
• Man Shot Dead After Breaking Into Ex-Girlfriend’s Boyfriend’s Home in Nashville
• Armed Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Forcing Entry into Buckeye Residence
• Couple Attacked by Two Men, Victim Shot in Leg, 1 Attacker Shot in Chest

That is the entire public record right now, and the word that will decide this case is the one the chief attached to it: forcing. A man pushing his way through a door that someone else did not open for him is a threat that has already moved past words.

Police are calling this a domestic dispute, and that matters. In a domestic situation the two people usually know each other, and the account of how the door got forced open comes from both sides. The other person involved is in an interview room, not walking free at the scene, and that is normal for a shooting with no witnesses named yet. Questioning is not an arrest. No charges have been announced against anyone.

Read the original story: Man Shot in the Chest After Allegedly Forcing His Way Into a Natchez Residence During Domestic Dispute, Police Say

Key Takeaways

• A man broke into a Calgary Drive home and was shot dead by the homeowner, according to Mobile Police Department.
• Police identified the intruder as David Lee Jr. and started a homicide investigation, but no charges have been announced against the homeowner.
• Details regarding the homeowner and events leading up to the shooting remain unclear; police are gathering evidence from the scene.
• The incident occurred around 9:15 PM, raising discussions about gun accessibility in the home during active hours.
• Alabama law permits homeowners to defend themselves without a duty to retreat.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MOBILE, AL — A man broke into a Calgary Drive home through a window around 9:15 at night and the homeowner shot and killed him, according to the Mobile Police Department.

MPD identified the man as David Lee Jr., as reported by FOX10 News. A news crew that reached the block just after 10 o’clock that night found crime scene tape strung around the home and detectives gathering evidence.

Police are working the death as a homicide investigation. That word alarms people, and it should not. Every death by gunfire gets that label at the front end, including the ones that end with no charges at all. It describes the category of investigation, not a conclusion about the person who fired. Police have not announced any charges against the homeowner.

More from USA Carry:

• Defensive Vehicle Tactics: A Reality Check
• Mobile, AL Man Robbed at Gunpoint Draws His Own Pistol, But Doesn’t Win the Gunfight
• Armed Ex-Boyfriend Kicks in Woman’s Door, Who Then Shoots Him, Sending Him to the Hospital
• Resident Fatally Shoots Intruder with Shotgun After Pursuit into Bedroom at Mobile Home Park
• Fire Investigator Holds Attacker at Gunpoint After Mobile Home Fires in Seffner, FL

Most of the rest is still unreleased. The department has not said who the homeowner is, whether anyone else was in the house, how far Lee got inside before he was shot, or whether he was known to the household. Alabama imposes no duty to retreat from your own home, and what investigators will work through now is the physical evidence, the layout of the house, and the homeowner’s account of the moment the shot was fired.

There is a practical takeaway in the timeline. This was not 3 a.m. with the house asleep. It was a little after nine, an ordinary evening, television-on hours. That is the argument for keeping a gun on your person at home instead of parked in a closet or a nightstand down the hall. A firearm you have to cross a dark house to reach is one you may not reach at all once someone is already through the window.

Read the original story: Mobile Homeowner Shoots and Kills Man Who Broke In Through a Window at 9:15 at Night, Police Say

Key Takeaways

• Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit against the ATF to challenge the registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA).
• The lawsuit argues that the NFA’s taxation basis no longer holds since a 2025 act eliminated taxes on many firearms, rendering the registration requirements unconstitutional.
• Additionally, the suit claims that suppressors and short-barreled rifles are protected under the Second Amendment, and there is no historical precedent for requiring their registration.
• Missouri bases its case on recent court rulings that deemed similar NFA requirements unconstitutional, establishing a legal precedent.
• The lawsuit does not affect Missouri state law, as suppressors and short-barreled rifles are already legal for Missouri residents to own, focusing instead on federal regulations.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

JEFFERSON CITY, MO — Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on September 8, 2026, asking a court to strike down the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled rifles. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:26-cv-01430, by the State of Missouri, appearing ex rel. its Attorney General, meaning the state is the plaintiff and Hanaway is bringing the case on its behalf, along with individual plaintiff Dave Marshak. It names the ATF, the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and ATF Director Robert Cekada as defendants, the two officials in their official capacities.

“Law and order and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. A government that respects the Constitution has empowered, law-abiding citizens who can protect themselves and their families. It does not paper over rights with red tape,” Hanaway said in the Attorney General’s Office announcement. “The ATF’s heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

The suit rests on two arguments. The first is about taxing power. Congress passed the NFA in 1934 as a tax measure, imposing a $200 tax on the making and transfer of certain firearms, and the Supreme Court upheld it on that basis in Sonzinsky v. United States in 1937. The complaint says that foundation is gone. On July 4, 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act zeroed the making and transfer taxes on nearly every NFA-regulated firearm but left the registration requirements and the restrictions on manufacture and transfer in place. Missouri contends a provision that collects no revenue cannot be justified as a tax, and that the NFA cannot be rescued under any other power in Article I. As to the untaxed firearms, the complaint argues, the NFA is now unconstitutional.

The second argument is the Second Amendment itself. Under Bruen, the complaint says, the Second Amendment presumptively protects all arms, and once an item qualifies as an arm the government carries the burden of showing a historical tradition that supports the regulation. Missouri argues that firearms equipped with suppressors and short-barreled rifles are arms as a matter of plain text, that they are neither dangerous nor unusual, and that there is no historical tradition of requiring Americans to register protected arms. The Attorney General’s Office adds that these items are commonly used for lawful purposes, including safer training, hunting, and self-defense, and that the federal government continues to enforce extensive registration and data-collection requirements, backed by criminal penalties, that the state says no longer have a valid constitutional justification. Missouri asks the court to declare those requirements unconstitutional as applied to suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

Missouri is not walking into this fight alone. The complaint leans directly on Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, a ruling out of the Northern District of Texas on August 5, 2026, in which the court held that Congress enacted the NFA under the taxing power and nothing else. According to Gun Owners of America’s release on that case, Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled the challenged NFA provisions unconstitutional for untaxed firearms and permanently blocked the ATF from enforcing registration, Form 1 and Form 4 applications, fingerprinting, and photography mandates against the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers. The plaintiffs included GOA, Gun Owners Foundation, Silencer Shop Foundation, several manufacturers, and a coalition of 15 states. Missouri was not one of them. That is the gap this new suit fills. “Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court,” Hendrix wrote, per GOA. The court stayed its order, meaning it paused the effect of the ruling, for seven days so the Justice Department could seek appellate review.

The Second Amendment Foundation announced the same day that a ruling in Jensen v. ATF, a case it supports in that same Texas district, went the same way. “Without the tax, the remaining requirements for the affected arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said. SAF says it is a named plaintiff in Brown v. ATF and is backing Roberts v. ATF as well, so the Texas ruling was the first of several tests of the same theory, and Missouri’s complaint is now one more.

To be clear, the Missouri filing is a complaint. Everything in it is an allegation, and the Eastern District of Missouri has not ruled on any of it. The federal government will get its chance to answer, and the Texas ruling binds only the parties it protects.

More from USA Carry:

• Congress Zeroed the $200 Tax and Kept the Registry. A Federal Judge in Texas Just Ruled It Cannot Have Both
• Michigan Bills Would Erase the State Felony for Suppressors and Short-Barreled Rifles After Federal Court Gutted NFA Registration
• NRA, FPC, SAF Tell Sixth Circuit the NFA’s Short-Barreled Rifle Registry Is Unconstitutional
• Constitutional Carry Comes to Missouri!
• Missouri Open Carry

Nothing in this suit touches Missouri state law. Suppressors and short-barreled rifles are already legal for Missourians to own. The fight here is over the federal paperwork that comes with owning one. The question is whether that should still require fingerprints, a photograph, and a permanent federal paper trail now that the tax the entire scheme was built on collects nothing. Part of a serious mindset around these tools is knowing exactly what the law requires of you and why, and right now the why has a hole in it that Congress opened in 2025 and never closed.

I will continue tracking Missouri’s challenge as it moves through the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Read the original story: Tax Zeroed, Registry Kept: Missouri Attorney General Sues ATF to Strike NFA Registration for Suppressors and Short-Barreled Rifles

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in New Jersey’s Supreme Court regarding the denial of A.A.R.’s Firearms Purchaser Identification Card.
• SAF argues that A.A.R.’s denial stems from subjective criteria about his character, which violates the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen.
• SAF contends that the denial is also unconstitutional because it retaliates against A.A.R.’s online speech, protected by the First Amendment.
• Ten other states granted A.A.R. carry permits, highlighting New Jersey’s inconsistent standard against objective criteria.
• The New Jersey Supreme Court has yet to decide on whether to hear the case, which will determine if the state’s denial stands.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief with the New Jersey Supreme Court on September 8, 2026, in the Matter of the Gun Permit Appeal of A.A.R., backing the petitioner’s request that the court review the denial of his Firearms Purchaser Identification Card.

An amicus brief is a friend-of-the-court filing from an outside party with a stake in how the case comes out. The card at issue, the FPIC, is the document a person needs to own firearms in New Jersey, according to SAF’s announcement. SAF’s brief targets N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5), the provision that lets licensing officials deny the card if they conclude issuance “would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.”

Per SAF, A.A.R. was denied the card in large part because of his online speech. He is not federally prohibited from owning a firearm. He holds carry permits in ten other states, and the list includes Massachusetts and Maryland, two states SAF describes as traditionally strict. Ten licensing authorities looked at this man and issued. New Jersey looked at his posts and refused.

SAF’s core argument is that this is exactly the kind of subjective suitability test the Supreme Court rejected in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In plain terms, Bruen said a state can run a licensing system, but the criteria have to be narrow, objective, and definite, the sort of boxes an applicant either checks or does not. An official’s opinion about whether you have the right “character of temperament” is not a box. It has no fixed edges, and a standard with no fixed edges is one an official can apply however he likes.

Then there is the speech problem. The denial, as SAF describes it, rests on what A.A.R. said online. SAF’s position is that the First Amendment bars the government from retaliating against speech it disagrees with, even speech that is socially or politically objectionable, and that New Jersey cannot use protected speech as the public-safety hook to deny the card needed to exercise a Second Amendment right. Two constitutional rights are stacked in one denial.

“Bruen is clear: licensing officials may apply narrow, objective, and definite criteria,” said Kostas Moros, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education. “They may not sit in judgment of an applicant’s ‘character’ or ‘temperament.’ If ten other states, including several with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, issued this applicant carry permits, New Jersey’s outlier denial is powerful evidence of the very subjectivity the Supreme Court forbade. Protected speech, even if it is deeply offensive, cannot be converted into a reason to deny a Second Amendment right.”

The court has not agreed to hear the case. A request for review is just that, an ask, and the New Jersey Supreme Court chooses which appeals it takes. SAF’s account of the denial is SAF’s account, and the state will get its say if the court steps in.

More from USA Carry:

• What To Do If Your Concealed Carry Permit Application Is Denied
• Boyfriend Shoots, Kills Dog Attacking His Pregnant Girlfriend
• YouTube Tightens Restrictions on Firearm-Related Content Amidst Growing Debate Over Free Speech and Gun Rights
• New York Concealed Carry Permit Information
• America, Do We have Rights or Privileges?

Ten states, several with strict licensing, ran this applicant through their systems and handed him carry permits. New Jersey, applying a temperament standard, would not let him have a card to own a gun. Either those ten states got it wrong or New Jersey’s standard is measuring something other than danger. That gap is the strongest evidence SAF has, because it shows how far a “character” test can drift once it is cut loose from objective criteria. Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing the rules change at every state line, but the constitutional floor is not supposed to move with them. Bruen set that floor, and this petition asks New Jersey’s highest court whether the state is standing on it.

I will continue tracking the Matter of the Gun Permit Appeal of A.A.R. as the New Jersey Supreme Court decides whether to take it up.

Read the original story: Licensed to Carry in Ten States, Denied a Gun ID Card in New Jersey Over Online Posts: SAF Asks State Supreme Court to Step In

Key Takeaways

• Episode 69 details a flight from Chattanooga to New Orleans with American Airlines, highlighting check-in experiences.
• The author declared their firearms and encountered a streamlined TSA process, receiving quicker clearance than usual.
• USA Carry Travel Tags offer convenient access to reciprocity maps and airline firearm policies, available for pre-order.
• Arrival in New Orleans went smoothly, with the author receiving their checked bag promptly.
• Different airports have varied procedures, but the final outcome remains consistent: successful travel with firearms.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Episode 69 was filmed August 28th, flying American Airlines from Chattanooga to Charlotte and on to New Orleans. Easy process, but the wait worked differently than I’m used to.

Check-In at CHA

Declared firearms. Agent asked about battery-powered devices and tobacco products — none. I opened the bag to show the case and realized it wasn’t locked yet. Locked it right there and we kept moving.

Filled out the declaration form, signed it, and slipped it into the FedEx sleeve. He asked what type of firearm I had. Handguns. I said three, then corrected myself to five.

Here’s where it went differently. Instead of sending me to wait by a flagpole for 15 minutes, he walked the bag straight back to TSA, which was set up right behind the counter. They ran it through the scanner while I stood there. He told me they’d let him know when I was clear and mentioned they might need to open my locks.

A few minutes later a TSA agent looked over, stuck her thumb up, and that was it. Good to go.

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 68 – Delta from Las Vegas to Chattanooga (via Atlanta)
• Attack In Chattanooga Leaves 4 Dead, 3 Wounded – Shooter Dead
• Concealed Carrier Fatally Shoots 1 of 3 Men Beating Him; Ruled Self-Defense Thanks to Video
• “All You Can Do Is Protect Yourself”: North Charlotte Man Fires on Burglar Who Forced His Way Inside
• Louisiana Set to Become 28th State to Embrace Constitutional Carry as Bill Heads to Governor’s Desk

USA Carry Travel Tags

Used the wait to talk about the USA Carry Travel Tags. Scan the QR code and it pulls up a page with my reciprocity maps, NFA forms, a link to each airline’s firearm policy, and TSA’s firearm policy. They come in a pack of two with a cable attachment. Pre-order is open now and I should have them in hand within about three weeks.

Arrival in New Orleans

American tags the bag for office pickup. I waited until I saw someone bring it into the office, then walked over, showed my ID, and they handed it over. Checked the locks on the case — intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Every airport routes it a little differently. Some send you to a flagpole with a timer. This one had TSA right behind the counter and gave me a thumbs up. Same outcome either way.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 69 – American Airlines from Chattanooga to New Orleans (via Charlotte)

Key Takeaways

• An armed customer shot a knife-wielding robbery suspect inside a Chase Bank in Cedar Hill, TX.
• The robbery occurred on August 31 around 9:04 a.m., with the suspect demanding money from employees.
• After being shot, the suspect fled but later died at a hospital despite life-saving efforts.
• No police officers fired shots, and there were no significant injuries to bank employees or customers.
• Carrying a gun regularly is crucial, as unexpected threats can arise during ordinary errands.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

CEDAR HILL, TX — An armed customer shot a knife-wielding robbery suspect inside a Chase Bank on Monday morning, and the suspect later died at a hospital, according to the Cedar Hill Police Department.

Officers were called to the bank in the 200 block of N. Hwy. 67 Service Road at approximately 9:04 a.m. on August 31 for a robbery in progress. According to preliminary information released by the department, a man entered the bank armed with a knife and demanded money from employees.

An armed customer fired, striking the suspect. The suspect ran from the bank. Officers found him a short distance away and immediately began life-saving measures. Cedar Hill medics took him to a local hospital, where he died.

More from USA Carry:

• Manager of Food Bank Holds Car Theft Suspect for Police
• Homeowner Fatally Shoots Knife-Wielding Intruder in 2nd Home Defense Shooting
• Two Robbers Shot Dead After Following Man from Bank
• Armed Woman Draws Pistol And Stops Knife Attack In Her Home
• Armed Customer Returns Fire at Memphis Gas Station Shooting, Suspect in Critical Condition

No shots were fired by police officers. The department says no significant injuries to bank employees, customers, witnesses, or officers have been reported. A bank lobby is a confined space with employees behind the counter and customers standing in line, and every round fired in a room like that has to be accounted for. Thankfully, the only person injured was the suspect.

Nobody carries a gun to the bank on a Monday morning because they expect a man with a knife to walk in behind them. That is the whole argument for carrying every day and not just when a trip feels risky. The mindset has to be that the ordinary errand is the one that matters, because you do not get to pick the morning.

Read the original story: Armed Customer Shoots Knife-Wielding Suspect Demanding Cash Inside a Texas Chase Bank at 9 A.M., Suspect Later Dies

Key Takeaways

• The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office deemed a road rage shooting justified, as reported by FOX 8.
• This conclusion reflects the agency’s interpretation of the evidence, but prosecutors still decide on charges.
• Road rage often provides an opportunity to de-escalate situations before resorting to firearms.
• The sheriff’s office determined that the shooter acted within their rights during the encounter.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

METAIRIE, LA — The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office has called a road rage shooting justified, according to a FOX 8 broadcast from the scene.

FOX 8’s Chris Welty reported live from Clearview and Airline Drive in Metairie with the sheriff’s office’s finding, as reported by FOX 8. The station described the update as breaking news and said the sheriff’s office had new details on the case.

A justified finding from the investigating agency is a significant signal, and it is the sheriff’s office’s characterization of the evidence, not a court’s. Prosecutors still hold the final call on charges, and until they speak, the agency’s read is where the public record stands.

More from USA Carry:

• Armed Robber Hails Wrong Ride: Driver Hands Over Bullets, Not Bills
• Missouri Bill to Lower Concealed Carry Age to 18 Passes House
• Missouri House Bill Proposes Expansion of Concealed Firearms in Schools
• Three More Break-ins, Three More Suspects Shot
• Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Domestic Violence

Road rage is the one category of defensive shooting where the armed citizen many times had an exit before the gun came out. Getting cut off is not a threat to your life. Someone stepping out of a car and coming at you can become one fast, and the space between those two moments is where the decision gets made. If you carry, your job is to keep that space open: let the other driver go, take the next turn, get 911 on the line. The pistol is for the moment leaving is no longer an option.

In this case the sheriff’s office looked at the encounter and concluded the person who fired was justified. That is the agency’s conclusion as FOX 8 reported it.

Read the original story: Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office Calls Metairie Road Rage Shooting Justified

Key Takeaways

• A man shot a dog that charged him after two loose dogs trapped his wife in their car in Fort Pierce, FL.
• The incident occurred as the woman returned home; she called her husband for help after the dogs blocked her exit.
• The husband retrieved a handgun and shot one dog that charged at him, while both dogs ran to their owner’s home afterward.
• Sheriff’s office is reviewing evidence, including surveillance footage, to determine the shooting’s justification.
• Florida law supports self-defense against aggressive dogs, but specific circumstances will dictate the ruling in this case.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

FORT PIERCE, FL — A St. Lucie County man shot a dog that charged him in his own driveway after two loose dogs trapped his wife in her car and would not let her out, according to the St. Lucie County Sheriff’s Office.

The shooting happened Sunday in the 5900 block of Palm Drive, in the Indian River Estates area, as reported by CBS12. The sheriff’s office says a woman had just arrived home and pulled into her driveway when two dogs approached her vehicle and prevented her from safely getting out. She called her husband for help.

That was the right move. A closed car door between you and two dogs you cannot read is worth more than any amount of confidence about how friendly they look.

Her husband came outside and saw the dogs. He went back in the house for a handgun. He came back out. One of the dogs charged him, deputies say. He fired before it could bite him. The round struck one of the dogs.

Both dogs ran to a nearby home on Myrtle Drive, where they live. The owner took the injured dog to an emergency animal hospital. Its condition has not been released.

The sheriff’s office describes a dog that charged “in an aggressive manner” and a man who fired “before he was bitten.” That is the agency describing what it believes happened, not a finding that the shooting was justified. Deputies say they are reviewing surveillance footage, interviewing independent witnesses, and gathering additional information, and that no conclusions will be drawn until all of the evidence has been reviewed. No one has been charged, and no charging decision has been announced.

More from USA Carry:

• Don’t Fall Into These Three Troublesome Training Traps for Revolver Shooters
• Mother Shoots Convicted ‘CM’ During Attack on Daughter in Indianapolis Hotel
• 22-Year-Old Florida Man Fires a Single 9mm Round During a Brawl with Acquaintance in Living Room
• The Slowest Load: Reloading a Revolver with Loose Rounds
• Road Rage and Trailer Theft Lead to Deadly Shootout in Bonney Lake, WA

I get asked about this more than almost anything else: can you shoot a dog that is coming at you? The short answer is that it depends on where you live. Most states allow force, including deadly force, against an animal that is attacking a person or is about to, but the details are set by state law and often by county or city ordinance layered on top of it. Some places require that the animal actually be attacking. Others cover a threatened attack. Some jurisdictions treat the shot as a separate animal cruelty question from the self-defense question, and firing a gun inside city limits can be its own violation even when the shot itself was lawful. Know what your state and your local ordinances say before you are standing in your driveway trying to remember.

Florida is generally on the side of a person defending himself from a dog that is actually coming at him, and nothing in the sheriff’s account suggests deputies see this as anything other than that. Favorable law does not settle the facts, though. The footage will show how fast the dog was moving and how close it got before he fired. That is the question in this case, not whether a man is allowed to defend himself from a dog.

Read the original story: Fort Pierce Man Shoots Charging Dog in His Own Driveway After Two Loose Dogs Trap His Wife in Her Car

Key Takeaways

• The challengers to Maryland’s carry bans filed a reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on September 2, 2026, asking for a review of Novotny v. Moore.
• They argue the Fourth Circuit misapplied precedents and that history does not support banning carry in ordinary public places.
• Their main point states that a ‘sensitive place’ must be a location secured by the government, like courthouses, not just any area the legislature names.
• Maryland does not recognize out-of-state permits, complicating carry rights for nonresidents and leading to constitutional challenges.
• The Court must decide if the definition of ‘sensitive place’ is limited to government-protected sites or if it can expand to other areas.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The challengers to Maryland’s location-based carry bans filed their reply brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on September 2, 2026, their last word before the Justices decide whether to take up Novotny v. Moore. The petitioners include Katherine Novotny, Sue Burke, Esther Rossberg, Susannah Warner Kipke, Maryland Shall Issue, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association. Governor Wes Moore is the lead respondent. They are asking the Court to review a Fourth Circuit ruling that went against them.

Here is the procedure in plain terms. The petitioners asked the Court for a writ of certiorari, which is just a request that the Justices agree to hear the case. Maryland filed its brief in opposition, and this reply brief is the petitioners’ answer to it. David H. Thompson of Cooper & Kirk is counsel of record for Kipke and the Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association. Mark W. Pennak represents Novotny, Burke, Rossberg, Maryland Shall Issue, SAF and FPC. If you carry in Maryland or plan to, my Maryland concealed carry guide covers the permit process the state requires before any of these location rules even come into play.

The brief makes three arguments, and none of them need a law degree to follow. One: the Fourth Circuit got this wrong under the Supreme Court’s own precedents, and appeals courts around the country are struggling with “sensitive place” cases, so the Justices need to step in. Two: the history Maryland relies on does not support banning carry in ordinary places the public uses every day. The petitioners back that up with state court decisions from the 1870s. Three: history shows a “sensitive place” is one the government actually secures against armed attack, not any place a legislature decides to name.

That third point is the whole case. Bruen said sensitive places exist, but the examples it gave were courthouses, polling places and legislative buildings. Those are places with guards and metal detectors, where the government takes on the job of keeping people safe. Maryland took that label and put it on ordinary public spaces where nobody is guarding the door. In those places you are responsible for your own safety, and the state says you cannot carry the tool to do it. If the Court agrees with the petitioners, most of the location bans restrictive states have passed since Bruen are in trouble.

Maryland has a second carry case knocking on the same door. In December 2025, SAF, joined by the National Rifle Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, filed an amicus brief, a filing by non-parties urging the Court to take a case, in Gardner v. Maryland. According to SAF, Eva Marie Gardner held a Virginia carry permit and was arrested for carrying without a permit after defending herself in Maryland, because Maryland honors no other state’s permit. Permit recognition in most of the country works one of two ways. Some states sign formal agreements with each other. Others simply honor out-of-state permits on their own, no agreement required. Maryland does neither, and my reciprocity maps show how few permits it accepts. SAF’s Kostas Moros said the Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling “defies Bruen by allowing states to force visitors from other states to jump through costly and time-consuming hoops to exercise their right to carry arms for self-defense.”

Put the two cases side by side and the picture is complete. A nonresident cannot carry in Maryland at all. A resident who clears the permit process still cannot carry in a long list of places. Gun Owners of America made a related point about the Fourth Circuit in its 2024 amicus brief in the Maryland assault weapons ban case, arguing the circuit had intentionally tried to circumvent Bruen. The Novotny petitioners are now saying the same thing about the same court on carry.

More from USA Carry:

• DOJ Joins Fight Against Hawaii Gun Law in Supreme Court Showdown
• New Jersey Closer to Enacting Nation’s Strictest Gun Laws
• Split Decision in Gun Rights Case: Maryland Law Upheld in Most Places, Rejected on Private Property Carry
• Did That Concealed Carry Class Prepare You for the Streets?
• Mass Shooting in Chicago – “One million shell casings,” an Officer Told 911

To be clear, these are arguments in a brief. The Court has not decided whether to hear Novotny v. Moore, and a reply brief settles nothing on its own. What it does is frame the question cleanly: does “sensitive place” mean a place the government protects, or any place a legislature decides to name? A Maryland permit holder has to build a carry mindset around that answer every day, knowing which doors his permit stops at and planning around them. The Court now gets to say whether that list was ever constitutional.

I will continue tracking Novotny v. Moore as the Court decides whether to grant review.

Read the original story: Maryland Stretched ‘Sensitive Place’ Across Public Life. Now SAF, FPC and Maryland Shall Issue Have Filed Their Last Brief Before the Court Decides Whether to Step In.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

CHESNEE, SC — A Spartanburg County homeowner shot and killed a 19-year-old man who had entered the home around 2 a.m. Sunday, according to the Spartanburg County Sheriff’s Office. Investigators say the two had no known prior relationship, and no charges have been filed.

Deputies responded to a reported shooting at a home on Cherokee Circle in Chesnee at approximately 2 a.m. on August 30, 2026, as reported by WYFF News 4. When they arrived, they found one person dead at the scene with multiple gunshot wounds. Two other people at the residence were identified as residents of the home.

Based on preliminary interviews and evidence gathered at the scene, investigators determined the deceased had entered the residence during the early morning hours. The homeowner encountered him inside. The homeowner fired. The man was struck and did not survive.

The Spartanburg County Coroner’s Office identified him as Xavier Felix Rivera-Goucher, 19, of Campobello. A forensic exam was scheduled for Monday.

Investigators said Rivera-Goucher had no known prior relationship with the residents of the home.

More from USA Carry:

• Virginia Homeowner Confronts Then Shoots Man Trying To Break In Through Window
• 19-Year-Old Apartment Resident Defends Against Three Armed Intruders; Hitting Two
• Homeowner Fatally Shoots 19-Year-Old Pounding on Door
• Father Shoots Kills Strange Man In Daughter’s Bedroom
• South Carolina Homeowner Shoots and Kills 19-Year-Old Stranger Who Forced Open a Back Door at 2 A.M.

Two residents were in that house. Whatever the homeowner had thought through in advance about a stranger in the hallway in the dark, that mindset was tested at 2 a.m. with no warning and no time to prepare. Nobody gets to schedule that moment. The work of deciding how you will recognize a threat, how you will get your family behind you, and when you will and will not fire has to be done long before someone else’s footsteps are in your home.

No charges have been filed. The sheriff’s office said the investigation remains active and ongoing as investigators continue to review the circumstances, and that additional information will be released as it becomes available. No formal charging decision has been announced.

Read the original story: South Carolina Homeowner Shoots and Kills 19-Year-Old Stranger Found Inside Chesnee Home at 2 A.M.

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge allowed a lawsuit about Massachusetts’ nonresident license to carry to proceed due to significant renewal delays.
• Plaintiffs argue their rights were violated because renewal took months past the 40-day deadline without a grace period.
• The court dismissed a facial challenge but allowed an as-applied challenge to move forward, citing the unconstitutionality of the delays.
• The Equal Protection claim survives, highlighting the unfair treatment of nonresidents based on their geographical location.
• The case, Lawson v. Campbell, emphasizes the complexities of carrying permits and the issue of bureaucratic delays affecting Second Amendment rights.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

BOSTON, MA — A federal judge has refused to throw out a lawsuit over how Massachusetts processes its nonresident license to carry, ruling that renewal delays running months past the state’s own 40-day deadline, with no grace period, plausibly deprived three out-of-state gun owners of their right to carry. Chief U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper’s Aug. 28 memorandum and order in Lawson v. Campbell is a split. Two claims go forward. Two are dismissed.

The plaintiffs are Russell Lawson Jr. of Queens, New York, Brian Burns of Miromar Lakes, Florida, and Christopher Penta of Hampstead, New Hampshire, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Gun Owners Action League. They sued Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and other state officials in August 2025. SAF announced the ruling Aug. 31 and called it a “pivotal procedural win.”

The system, as the court laid it out from the complaint and accepted as true at this stage: a resident’s license lasts six years and has a grace period if it lapses during renewal. A nonresident’s license lasts one year, has no grace period, costs $100 per application, requires annual fingerprinting, and new applicants must appear in person at the Firearms Records Bureau in Chelsea. By statute, the state must approve or deny within 40 days. The state’s own website says up to 90.

The plaintiffs say it took far longer. Lawson applied in January 2025 and got the earliest interview available, June 9. He missed it for work, rescheduled, and the next slot was Oct. 20. The FRB then asked about an out-of-state criminal charge he had not disclosed, and both sides told the court he was licensed March 3, 2026. Burns says one on-time renewal did not arrive until almost six months after his old license expired. Penta says one came almost two months late. The state’s own filing, citing the complaint, put the figures at 95 and 287 days of processing and 131 and 101 days to get an interview.

Massachusetts argued nobody was denied, so nobody was hurt, and since all three now hold licenses there was nothing left to decide. Judge Casper rejected both. Citing Bruen, she wrote that lengthy wait times can themselves be constitutional injuries, and a nonresident who cannot legally carry during a lapse has effectively been denied for that period. Because the license must be renewed every year, the same delays are likely to recur, so the case is not moot, meaning not over.

The plaintiffs brought two Second Amendment claims. The facial challenge, which argues the law is unconstitutional in every application, was dismissed: some applicants would face only a brief delay, and a brief delay is not constitutional harm. The as-applied challenge, which argues the law was unconstitutional in the way it actually worked on these three men, survives. The court called it “a close question.” The delays at minimum more than doubled the 40-day statutory period, and combined with no grace period, plausibly deprived the plaintiffs of their right to public carry. That overcame the presumption of constitutionality Bruen gives shall-issue licensing. The state then had to point to a historical tradition supporting the delays. It offered history for in-person interviews and none for the delays.

The Equal Protection claim, which argues the delays penalize the right to travel by treating people differently based on where they live, also survives. Judge Casper wrote the plaintiffs face a real dilemma: enter Massachusetts with a firearm during a lapse and risk arrest, or give up their Second Amendment rights at the state line. That triggers strict scrutiny, meaning the state must prove a compelling interest and a law narrowly tailored to it, and the state never argued how the scheme is narrowly tailored. The Privileges and Immunities claim was dismissed; the court found no decision holding that public carry is among the rights fundamental to the nation functioning as one.

“Massachusetts begrudgingly makes carry permits available for out-of-state residents but makes the process of acquiring and renewing them on an annual basis unconstitutionally burdensome,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack.

For readers outside Massachusetts, this matters because a permit is only as good as the states that honor it. Some states sign formal agreements; others recognize out-of-state permits on their own. My reciprocity maps show which is which. Where a state honors nothing, its nonresident license is the only legal path, and the speed of that process is the whole fight.

More from USA Carry:

• Woman With VA Concealed Carry Permit Arrested After Self-Defense in Maryland — SAF Urges Supreme Court Review
• California Opens CCW Application Process to Nonresidents Starting April 23
• Denied Over the State on His Driver’s License: NRA Sues Denver, Says Visitors Have No Legal Way to Carry a Gun There
• Now Everyone Can Pack in California — Out-of-Staters Finally Allowed to Apply for Concealed Carry Permits
• Federal Judge Orders California to Accept Nonresident Concealed Carry Permit Applications from Pro-Gun Group Members

Nothing is decided on the merits. The plaintiffs still have to prove the delays happened as alleged and were long enough to be unconstitutional as applied to them. But the argument that this case should never be heard is finished. Part of a carry mindset is knowing you are legal every day you carry, and a nonresident who renews on time should not need a federal lawsuit to get that.

I will continue tracking Lawson v. Campbell in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

Read the original story: Federal Judge Lets Out-of-State Gun Owners’ Challenge to Massachusetts Carry Permit Delays Proceed, Tosses Facial Claim

Key Takeaways

• A Minnesota gun owner requests the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify if Americans need firearm licenses from each state under the Second Amendment.
• The petition raises two critical questions about the necessity of state licensing and reciprocity statutes following the Bruen decision.
• Under current laws, states have different rules on recognizing out-of-state firearm permits, leading to a complex legal landscape for gun owners.
• The Supreme Court will decide if states can impose restrictions that make the Second Amendment a second-class right.
• Johnson’s case follows previous challenges to Minnesota’s carry laws, highlighting ongoing debates on firearm rights and state authority.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — A Minnesota gun owner has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Americans must obtain a firearm license from each state in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights across the country. Jeffrey M. Johnson, Sr., represented by Ryan Morrison of the Liberty Justice Center as counsel of record, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Johnson v. Jacobson, naming Minnesota Department of Public Safety Commissioner Bob Jacobson, in his official capacity, as the respondent. The case sits on the Court’s docket as No. 26-255.

A petition for a writ of certiorari is a request that the Supreme Court agree to hear a case. The Court has not decided whether to take this one, and nothing in the filing is a ruling. It is one side’s argument for why the justices should step in.

The petition presents two questions. First, “whether Americans must obtain a firearm license from each state to exercise their Second Amendment rights across the Nation.” Second, “whether state firearm license reciprocity statutes that do not recognize firearm licenses issued by all other states are valid under” the Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that the right to bear arms includes carrying a handgun in public for self-defense.

Here is the reciprocity piece in plain terms. Every state that issues carry permits also decides which other states’ permits it will honor. Some states sign formal agreements with each other. Others simply recognize out-of-state permits on their own, no agreement required. Some honor everyone, and some honor only a short list. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show how those choices play out state by state, and my Minnesota concealed carry page covers where Minnesota currently lands. Johnson’s petition takes aim at the second question above: whether a state that picks and chooses among other states’ licenses can square that with Bruen.

The case did not start at the Supreme Court. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota under the caption McCoy and Johnson v. Jacobson, No. 25-cv-54, where judgment was entered on September 11, 2025. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals took it up as No. 25-3036 and entered judgment on May 26, 2026. Johnson, who was the plaintiff-appellant in the Eighth Circuit, is now asking the Supreme Court to review that decision.

The petition’s argument runs on two tracks. The first is that states cannot turn the Second Amendment into a second-class right. The second is that state reciprocity statutes must recognize licenses from other states under Bruen, because refusing to honor another state’s license reaches conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, and because, in the petition’s words, America does not have a historic tradition of denying Second Amendment rights to “proven, ordinary, law-abiding citizens.” That framing tracks the two-step test Bruen laid out: if the conduct falls within the text, the government has to show a historical tradition that supports the restriction.

The “proven” part of that phrase is doing real work. A person carrying on an out-of-state permit has already cleared a background check and whatever training and application process his home state demands. The petition’s position is that a state line does not change who that person is or what he has already proven about himself. Minnesota, and every other state that draws a line between recognized and unrecognized permits, will argue it has the authority to set its own standards. That is the dispute the Court is being asked to resolve.

This is not the first time Commissioner Jacobson and Minnesota’s carry law have been in front of the justices. In March 2025, the Second Amendment Foundation announced it had filed a response brief in Jacobson v. Worth, a challenge to Minnesota’s ban on licensed carry by adults ages 18 to 20, and asked the Court to grant review and set the case for argument. Different issue, same statute book, same Court.

More from USA Carry:

• FPC Just Asked the Supreme Court to End Maryland’s Carry Bans, and the List of Banned Places Is Staggering
• Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling
• Minnesota Hearing Scheduled on Semi-Auto Ban and 10-Round Magazine Limit
• Minnesota Concealed Carry Permit Information
• FPC and SAF Ask Supreme Court to Strike Down New York City’s Stun Gun Ban, Call Second Circuit Ruling “Caetano 2.0”

Reciprocity is the single most common question I get from readers who travel, and for good reason. A permit that is perfectly valid at home can become worthless the moment you cross a border, and the burden of knowing that falls entirely on the carrier. Part of a serious carry mindset is checking the law in every state on the route before the trip, not after. Johnson’s petition asks whether that patchwork is something the Constitution tolerates at all, or whether Bruen already answered the question. Whether the Court wants to take that up is the next thing to watch.

I will continue tracking Johnson v. Jacobson as the Court decides whether to grant the petition.

Read the original story: One Permit or Fifty? Minnesota Gun Owner Asks Supreme Court Whether Americans Need a License From Every State to Carry

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. filed an amended complaint against the Virgin Islands Government and VIPD regarding firearms licensing practices and new laws.
• The revised suit challenges Act No. 9113, which includes bans on AR-15s, magazines, suppressors, and other restrictions on gun ownership.
• The original complaint highlighted unreasonable delays and invasive requirements in the licensing process, which still stand in the amended version.
• Key statute invoked is 34 U.S.C. § 12601, alleging a pattern of constitutional rights violations by the VIPD.
• The case will clarify the legality of the new gun laws and licensing practices as it progresses through court.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CHARLOTTE AMALIE, VI — The United States filed a First Supplemental and Amended Complaint on September 2, 2026, in its Second Amendment lawsuit against the Government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks in his official capacity. The filing, docketed as Case No. 3:25-cv-00050 in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, expands a case the Justice Department opened on December 16, 2025, over how VIPD handles firearms licenses. It now takes direct aim at Act No. 9113, the territory’s “2026 Second Amendment Rights and Public Safety Act,” which the complaint says was enacted June 25, 2026.

The amended complaint adds claims against the territory’s AR-15, magazine, and suppressor bans, its public demonstration carry ban, its long gun carry ban, its gun storage law, and its gun registration law, according to the Firearms Policy Coalition, which posted the filing the day it hit the docket. The complaint’s own summary points the same direction. It says Act 9113 “imposes numerous restrictions and requirements on law-abiding gun owners,” and it alleges that enforcing those restrictions causes a pattern or practice of conduct by VIPD officers that deprives gun owners of their Second Amendment rights.

The DOJ has filed an amended complaint in its lawsuit against the US Virgin Islands’ gun permit scheme, which adds claims against the territory’s AR-15, magazine, and suppressor bans, public demonstration carry ban, long gun carry ban, gun storage law, and gun registration law:… pic.twitter.com/GxgqJS4aiE

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 2, 2026

The original complaint was about licensing. According to the filing, the Department alleged that VIPD imposed unreasonable delays in issuing firearms licenses, required applicants to install a home safe, required applicants to consent to warrantless searches of their homes, and required applicants to give a “proper reason” for wanting a license beyond a general need for self-defense. That last requirement hands an official the power to decide whose need to defend himself is good enough.

The amended complaint does not back off any of that. Paragraph three reads, in full, “The original complaint was correct.” The Department then alleges that in discovery responses and in Commissioner Brooks’s own declaration, the defendants admitted that VIPD engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct that violated persons’ constitutional rights. That is DOJ’s characterization of the territory’s filings, and the territory will have its chance to dispute it, but if it holds up, it is an unusual thing to have in the record before trial.

The legal hook is 34 U.S.C. § 12601. As the complaint frames it, that statute makes it unlawful for law enforcement officers to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their constitutional rights. Pattern or practice means the case is not about one bad decision on one application. It is about how the agency operates as a matter of routine. The complaint says that after the original filing, the Department uncovered additional constitutional violations, and it was filed under the court’s August 21, 2026 order allowing the amendment.

Everything in the amended complaint is an allegation. The court has not ruled on whether Act 9113 or the old licensing practices violate the Second Amendment.

More from USA Carry:

• Virgin Islands Concealed Carry Permit Information
• No Permit Recognized, No Way to Apply, No Open Carry: GOA Lawsuit Challenges Virgin Islands’ Total Shutout of Nonresident Carry
• Dallas Police Department No Longer Responding to Low Priority Calls
• Part-II: Pending New York State Legislation – Gun Control v. Criminal Control
• DOJ Sues City of Denver Over Assault Weapons Ban, Calls Local Ordinance a Civil Rights Violation Under Second Amendment

A jurisdiction got sued over how it hands out licenses, and while that case was pending it passed a broader law reaching the guns themselves, the magazines, the suppressors, where you can carry a long gun, how you store a firearm at home, and whether the government keeps a list of what you own. If DOJ’s reading of Section 12601 holds, each of those is now a separate claim in the same case. Part of a serious carry mindset is understanding that the rules governing your right can change overnight, and for gun owners in the Virgin Islands they changed in June in the direction of fewer legal firearms and fewer legal ways to carry them.

I will continue tracking United States v. Government of the Virgin Islands as it moves through the District Court of the Virgin Islands.

Read the original story: Sued Over Permit Delays, the Virgin Islands Passed an AR-15 Ban. Now DOJ Is Suing Over That Too

Key Takeaways

• A Vancouver homeowner held a suspected bike thief at gunpoint until deputies arrived, resulting in the suspect’s arrest.
• Josue Paredes Merino, 31, faces first-degree arson charges for a fire that spread from a dumpster to a warehouse.
• Investigators linked Merino to two separate fires after reviewing surveillance video and establishing a timeline of events.
• The fire damaged nearly 100 pieces of furniture, with losses exceeding $640,000 for the business involved.
• Merino also faces second-degree theft and reckless burning charges, and authorities are seeking additional information from the public.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

VANCOUVER, WA — A Vancouver homeowner armed with a gun held a suspected bike thief on the ground until Clark County deputies arrived last Friday, and that man has since been charged with first-degree arson for a fire that spread from a dumpster into a furniture warehouse two hours earlier.

The Clark County Sheriff’s Office laid out the timeline in a release Thursday, as reported by KGW. Deputies first responded Friday, Aug. 28, after a 911 caller reported a man starting a brush fire near the 4000 block of Northeast 119th Avenue, close to the Interstate 205 overpass. Crews from Clark County Fire District 6 put it out before it burned more than 200 square feet. No other damage was reported.

Deputies found Josue Paredes Merino, 31, in a neighborhood off Brookview Drive after a bicycle was allegedly stolen from a home there. Investigators told KGW the homeowner who confronted him had recognized him from security video a neighbor shared after the theft. The homeowner drew a gun. Merino went to the ground. Video aired by KGW shows him lying with his arms stretched straight out to his sides while the homeowner kept a gun on him. He stayed there until deputies arrived and took him into custody.

That is the extent of what the sheriff’s office and KGW have described. Neither account says what Merino did when he was confronted or whether investigators have reviewed the homeowner’s decision to draw. What the arrest did establish is who deputies had in handcuffs, and what he is now accused of doing in the hours before.

Two hours before the brush fire call, Clark County Fire District 5 had responded to a fire along Northeast St. Johns Road near Northeast 40th Avenue. It started in a dumpster, spread to the Furniture World Southwest warehouse, and reached a vintage train car and a mobile wrecking crane parked on the tracks behind the building. The fire went to two alarms. The Clark County Fire Marshal’s Office ruled it intentionally set and found two separate areas of origin.

Investigators also pulled surveillance video, which the sheriff’s office released. It shows a man with most of his face covered ride up to the dumpster on a bicycle, climb in, climb back out, and ride off. Less than 10 minutes later, flames flicker into frame from inside the dumpster. Investigators say the man matches Merino’s description.

Employees inside the Furniture World warehouse evacuated when the fire alarm went off. Clark County Sheriff’s Detective Tanya Johnson told KGW that an arson with people inside a building is “very traumatic.” Between the fire and the sprinkler system, an assistant manager said nearly 100 pieces of furniture were damaged. The business puts its losses above $640,000. Firefighters needed about 40 minutes to bring the fire under control.

The rail car belonged to the Chelatchie Prairie Railroad Association, a nonprofit that runs weekend tourist trains on a stretch of line near Yacolt and carries about 8,000 riders a year. The group had owned the car for 13 years and planned to restore it. They now fear the fire damage is too severe for that.

Johnson said the case came together quickly once detectives lined up the video from the different locations. “It was easy to establish and follow the pattern and the movement,” she said.

More from USA Carry:

• 86-Year-Old Man Shoots Alleged Scammer in Self-Defense Incident
• Las Vegas Bystanders Tackle Shooter After He Ambushed Ex-Girlfriend and Her New Husband Inside Smith’s
• Colorado Activist Registers a Potato as a Suppressor — Exposing ‘Ludicrous’ Federal Firearms Rules
• Florida Concealed Carrier Shoots a Criminal Off Deputy in Need
• Attempted Robbery Ends in 28-Round Gunfight, Armed Victim Shoots Attacker

KGW also spoke with a woman identified only as Sulma, who said Merino is her ex and the father of her daughter. She and her husband said he does not live at their home and is not welcome there. “We are helping him, but he does not listen,” she said. “He has to learn the hard way.”

Merino was initially charged with second-degree theft and reckless burning. On Thursday, sheriff’s detectives added a charge of first-degree arson for the warehouse fire. He is also a person of interest in a third fire that started around the same time between the two other locations, which remains under investigation. He is being held at the Clark County Jail and was due back in court Friday on the new charges. Investigators are asking anyone with video of him in the area that morning to contact the sheriff’s office. The charges are accusations, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted.

Read the original story: Armed Vancouver Homeowner Detains Man Deputies Now Say Torched a Furniture Warehouse and a Vintage Rail Car

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WICHITA, KS — A southeast Wichita homeowner shot an intoxicated man in his driveway late Tuesday night after the man banged on the door of a house he believed was his own, refused to leave, and tried to get inside, according to the Wichita Police Department.

Officers were called to a home in the 900 block of South Rutan around 11:10 p.m. and found a man in the driveway with a gunshot wound to his abdomen, as reported by KWCH, which detailed what police said about the location, the injury, and the sequence of events. He was taken to a hospital in critical condition. Police said he is expected to survive.

Police said the man was drunk and pounding on the door, convinced the house was his. The homeowner answered and told him to leave.

That should have been the end of it. Instead, police said, the man insisted the house was his, asked for a phone, and then tried to enter. The homeowner confronted him in the driveway. The homeowner felt threatened by the man’s actions and shot him, police said.

A stranger pushing his way through your doorway is one set of facts. A stranger you have followed out into the open air is another, and investigators will spend their time on exactly what changed between those two moments.

I say that without knowing the answer, because neither the department nor anyone else has released it. What police have described so far is a homeowner who felt threatened by the man’s actions. That is the agency characterizing conduct, not a finding that the shooting was lawful.

The department said a lockout connected to the shooting has since been lifted and that the investigation into what caused it is still ongoing. Anyone with information is asked to call 911 or to stay anonymous and call Crime Stoppers at 316-267-2111.

More from USA Carry:

• Vehicle Burglary Turns Violent as Wichita Teacher and Teen Suspect Both Shot, Showing Risks of Confronting Suspects
• Victim Fatally Shoots Suspect, Critically Wounds Another, While Sustaining Non-Life-Threatening Gunshot Wound
• 71-Year-Old Massage Parlor Employee Shoots Robber in Wichita
• Kentucky Homeowner Shoots Intoxicated Man Entering Home Illegally
• Intoxicated Man Gets Shot By Homeowner After Entering the Wrong Apartment

Neither man has been identified. No arrest has been announced, no charges have been filed against anyone, and prosecutors, not police, will make the final determination on whether the shooting was justified.

There is a version of this night where a confused drunk ends up in the back of a patrol car and everyone goes to bed. Instead a man is in critical condition, a homeowner is waiting on a prosecutor, and investigators are left to reconstruct what happened in the seconds after both men were standing outside.

Read the original story: Wichita Homeowner Shoots Intoxicated Man Who Banged on His Door at 11 P.M. and Then Tried to Walk Inside

Key Takeaways

• A California bill, Assembly Bill 2047, would ban the sale of 3D printers without firearm blocking technology starting July 1, 2027.
• The Department of Justice will check quarterly if ASTM International publishes relevant standards for these printers.
• If standards exist, the DOJ has 24 months to publish performance guidelines before enforcement begins.
• The bill provides exceptions for printers used in entertainment and offers liability protection for developers of blocking technology.
• The NRA opposes this measure, viewing it as censorship of private 3D printers.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SACRAMENTO, CA — A California bill would make it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or transfer for consideration any 3-dimensional printer in the state that is not equipped with firearm blocking technology.

Assembly Bill 2047 was introduced by Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan on February 17, 2026, with Assembly Members Patel, Rogers, and Stefani and Senator Grayson as coauthors. It has been amended five times, once in the Assembly on May 18, 2026, and four times in the Senate, most recently on August 28, 2026. The bill would add Title 21.1, commencing with Section 3273.631, to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code.

The mechanism is unusual, so it is worth walking through in plain language. The sales ban does not switch on by itself. Beginning no later than July 1, 2027, the California Department of Justice would have to check every three months whether ASTM International, a private standards-writing organization, has published industry standards for equipping 3D printers with firearm blocking technology.

If the Department determines that ASTM International has published or adopted such standards, the Department would then have 24 months to publish written guidance or regulations. Under the digest, that guidance would have to describe minimum performance standards for 3D printer firearm blocking technology before a printer can lawfully be sold or offered for sale in the state. Once that is in place, selling a non-compliant printer in California becomes unlawful.

There is an off-ramp. If, as of July 1, 2029, the Department determines that ASTM International has not published industry standards, the bill would relieve the Department of any further duty to keep checking.

Read that sequence again, because it is the whole bill. The Legislature is not writing the technical rule. It is handing the trigger for a statewide sales prohibition on a general purpose manufacturing tool to a private standards body, and then telling its own Department of Justice to fill in the performance requirements afterward. Californians would not know whether they can legally buy a 3D printer until an outside organization decides to publish a document.

The bill carves out printers used exclusively for the manufacturing of properties, meaning props, in the entertainment industry, and it authorizes the Department to adopt regulations providing additional exceptions. It also shields from civil liability a person who distributes, or causes the distribution of, digital firearm manufacturing code solely for the bona fide purpose of developing, refining, and testing the functionality of a firearm blocking technology. That last provision exists because California already authorizes civil actions against people who knowingly distribute digital firearm manufacturing code, and without a safe harbor the engineers building the blocking software would be exposed to the very liability the state created.

Existing California law already makes it a crime to knowingly or willfully cause another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms, including manufacture using a 3D printer, and already authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or a city attorney to seek civil penalties and injunctive relief against distributors of digital firearm manufacturing code. AB 2047 does not touch the conduct. It goes after the hardware, and it does so at the point of sale, which means the person affected is the buyer who has not manufactured anything at all. California already sits at the restrictive end of nearly every firearm policy, from California concealed carry laws to its existing restrictions on home manufacturing and on the distribution of digital manufacturing files.

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is opposing the measure, posting about it in February 2026 under the headline California: Lawmakers Introduce New Bill that Would Censor Private 3-D Printers.

More from USA Carry:

• Washington Bill Faces NRA Fire for ‘Unconstitutional’ 3D Printing Crackdown
• 3D Printed Guns: What Are They and Why Are They Controversial?
• The World’s First 3D Printed Metal Handgun: Your Thoughts?
• California Bill AB 1333 Would Force Crime Victims to Retreat Before Defending Themselves
• Your Phone is a Part of Your Defensive Toolset

The bill carries a majority vote threshold and includes a severability clause, which means that if a court strikes down one piece of it, the rest is intended to survive. Drafters include that language when they expect to be sued.

I will continue tracking AB 2047 and will report on the final enrolled text and any action taken on it.

Read the original story: California AB 2047 Would Make It Illegal to Sell a 3D Printer in the State Unless It Refuses to Print a Gun