Key Takeaways

• A teenage intruder was shot during a home invasion at a Jacksonville apartment complex.
• The homeowner discovered the intruder inside his residence upon returning home.
• The Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office is investigating the shooting, with all parties cooperating.
• This incident highlights the importance of situational awareness and legal self-defense rights in Florida.
• Lawful gun owners have the right to use deadly force when facing imminent threats in their homes.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

JACKSONVILLE, FL — A suspected home invasion ended with a teenage intruder shot and hospitalized Monday afternoon at a Jacksonville apartment complex near Jacksonville University.

As reported by First Coast News, Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office investigators responded to a shooting call at approximately 4 p.m. at the Lakeside Nest Apartments on University Boulevard North. Arriving officers found a male in his late teens suffering from a gunshot wound to the shoulder. The victim was transported to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries.

What makes this case stand out from many home invasion incidents is the sequence of events. Rather than waking up to a break-in or being caught off guard inside his own home, the homeowner returned to his residence and discovered the intruder already inside.

JSO Sgt. Christopher Smith said detectives determined the homeowner confronted the intruder upon walking in, and the intruder was subsequently shot. All parties involved were detained and are cooperating with the investigation.

No charges had been announced at the time of the initial report. The investigation remains active.

More From USA Carry:

• Carjacking Attempt Foiled: Florida Man Shoots Two of Four Gunmen
• Suspect Shot in the Face After Firing Shotgun into Crowd in Jacksonville
• ND While Cleaning Gun Leads to Neighbor Being Shot in the Head
• Florida Man Shoots Armed Suspect Who Followed Him Home from Nightclub
• Florida Attorney General Moves to Sue Jacksonville Over Illegal Firearm Registry, City Faces $5 Million Fine

Situational Awareness Doesn’t End at the Front Door

This incident is a reminder that threats don’t always announce themselves. A lawful gun owner re-entering his own home faced an immediate unknown threat the moment he opened that door. The ability to recognize danger quickly and respond appropriately can be the difference between becoming a victim and defending your life.

Under Florida law, a person who is lawfully present in their home and faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm has the legal right to use deadly force in self-defense. That right is fundamental, and situations like this one are exactly why armed citizens and legal carry matter.

Read the original story: Florida Man Shoots Intruder After Walking In on Home Invasion at Jacksonville Apartment

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment against California’s 11% excise tax on firearms, claiming it unconstitutionally discriminates against a civil right.
• SAF argues that purchasing firearms is protected by the Second Amendment, drawing parallels between this tax and First Amendment tax cases.
• California enacted this tax through Assembly Bill 28 in September 2023, effective July 1, 2024, with proceeds funding gun violence prevention.
• The plaintiffs, Poway Weapons & Gear and Sacramento Gun Range, have remitted significant tax payments and sought refunds, which were denied.
• If the tax stands, SAF warns it could lead to unlimited tax increases on constitutional rights.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

SACRAMENTO, CA — The Second Amendment Foundation filed a motion for summary judgment this week against California’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition, arguing the tax unconstitutionally singles out the exercise of a fundamental civil right for disfavored treatment.

SAF filed the motion alongside plaintiffs Poway Weapons & Gear and Sacramento Gun Range on April 8 in Sacramento Superior Court. The case is represented by Michel & Associates and Cooper & Kirk. The hearing is scheduled for August 25, 2026 before Judge Christopher E. Krueger.

California enacted Assembly Bill 28 in September 2023, adding an 11% excise tax on the retail sale of all firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition. The tax took effect July 1, 2024, and proceeds are deposited into the state’s Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Fund.

Both dealers began collecting the tax on that date, passing the cost on to customers as a line item on receipts. Between the two plaintiffs, hundreds of thousands of dollars in quarterly tax payments have been remitted to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration since the law took effect.

The dealers sought refunds, which the CDTFA denied, stating it lacked authority to issue refunds based on constitutional arguments without an appellate court ruling. After exhausting all administrative remedies, the plaintiffs filed suit in August 2025.

More from USA Carry:

• Lawmakers Propose Nationwide Ban on Gun and Ammo Taxes
• SAF Files for Summary Judgment In Mass Resident Alien Gun Ban Case
• Dealing With A Violent Incident in Your Neighborhood
• 3 New Pistols for Early 2018
• Court Declares Gun Ban Unconstitutional—Then Demands Names of Pro-2A Group Members

SAF’s motion argues that buying firearms and ammunition is conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and that the state cannot justify the tax under the historical analysis required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The brief contends there is no historical tradition of singling out the exercise of a constitutional right for special taxation.

The motion draws a direct comparison to First Amendment tax cases, where the Supreme Court has repeatedly struck down taxes targeting newspapers and religious activity. SAF cites the court’s own language that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to a different body of rules than other constitutional protections.

SAF also argues that accepting the state’s position would open the door to unlimited tax increases on any constitutional right. If an 11% tax on firearms is permissible, there would be nothing legally stopping California from imposing a 50% or 100% tax on the same right.

The case is Poway Weapons & Gear, Inc. v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Case No. 25CV018964.

Read the original story: SAF Files for Summary Judgment Against California’s 11% Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax

Key Takeaways

• Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 350, allowing tenants to possess firearms in their rental homes, effective January 1, 2027.
• The law prohibits landlords from using leases to ban firearm possession, while still permitting rules for handling firearms in shared spaces.
• Affected tenants can sue for violations, seeking various forms of damages, while compliant landlords are protected from liability.
• Exceptions exist for state agency properties, mental health facilities, and certain educational properties, among others.
• This law significantly strengthens Second Amendment rights for renters in Tennessee, affirming their right to keep firearms for self-defense.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

NASHVILLE, TN — Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee has signed Senate Bill 350 into law, giving residential tenants across the state the legal right to possess, carry, transport, and store firearms in their rental homes — regardless of what their lease says. The law takes effect January 1, 2027, and applies to leases entered into, amended, extended, or renewed on or after that date.

The legislation passed with overwhelming support in both chambers. The Senate concurred with the House-amended version 32-0, and the House passed it 73-21. Gov. Lee signed the bill on March 26, 2026.

As I covered when this bill was moving through the legislature, the law directly addresses a common conflict between renters and landlords over Second Amendment rights. Under the new law, landlords cannot use lease agreements to prohibit tenants from keeping firearms in their dwelling units, storing them in vehicles parked on landlord-provided parking, or carrying them through common areas when entering or exiting those locations.

More from USA Carry:

• Tennessee Landlords Banned From Prohibiting Firearm Possession in Rental Homes Under New State Law
• Landlord w/ Concealed Carry Permit Justified in Fatally Shooting Tenant
• Does Renting Property Change Your CCW Rights?
• Michigan Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Who Broke Into Attached Apartment and Assaulted Tenant Before Trying to Enter Home
• 72-Year-Old in Wheelchair Defends Himself Again Tenant Attack

Landlords do retain some authority over how firearms are handled in shared spaces. A landlord may require that firearms be concealed, holstered, or stored in a carrying container when tenants are moving through common areas such as elevators and shared hallways. If a tenant violates that specific requirement, the landlord can request compliance or pursue remedies outlined in the lease — but those remedies cannot include banning firearms from the tenant’s own unit.

Tenants who are harmed by a landlord’s violation of the law have a legal path forward. The statute allows affected tenants to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief, actual damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees. At the same time, landlords who comply with the law are protected from civil liability for doing so.

The law does carve out exceptions. It does not apply to properties leased to state agencies, facilities contracted with the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Children’s Services, licensed hospitals and their campuses, nursing homes, memory care facilities, assisted care living facilities, or educational properties.

This is a meaningful win for Tennessee renters who legally own firearms. For years, many tenants faced lease clauses that effectively forced them to choose between their home and their right to keep a firearm for self-defense. That changes with this law. The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t stop at the front door of a rented home, and Tennessee’s legislature made that position clear.

Read the original story: Tennessee Governor Signs Law Protecting Renters’ Gun Rights — What Landlords Can and Can’t Do Starting in 2027

Key Takeaways

• Principal Kirk Moore tackled an armed intruder at Pauls Valley High School, sustaining a leg injury but preventing potential harm to students.
• Moore and staff confronted 20-year-old former student Victor Hawkins, who entered the school with a firearm.
• Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt and Superintendent Brett Knight praised Moore as a hero for his quick and brave actions.
• Hawkins faces multiple charges, including shooting with intent to kill, with a $1 million bond set.
• The incident highlights the importance of situational awareness and immediate action in violent encounters.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

PAULS VALLEY, OK — A high school principal is being called a hero after he tackled an armed intruder inside his school Tuesday, stopping a potential mass shooting at the cost of a gunshot wound to his own leg.

As reported by Fox News, Pauls Valley High School Principal Kirk Moore spotted 20-year-old former student Victor Hawkins entering the building with a firearm. Moore and other staff immediately moved to confront and subdue the gunman before he could reach students.

“When the principal noticed this, he quickly stepped in, as well as other staff,” Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Hunter McKee told KOCO-TV. Hawkins managed to fire multiple rounds during the struggle, striking Moore in the leg, but no students were injured.

The shooting unfolded around 2:21 p.m. The school was placed on lockdown while officers responded, and students were later reunited with their families. Moore and staff held Hawkins down until law enforcement arrived and took him into custody.

More from USA Carry:

• Charlie Kirk Assassinated During Utah Valley University Event, Suspect Still at Large
• Boyfriend Hailed as Hero After Being Fatally Shot in Shootout with Female Robber
• Missouri House Bill Proposes Expansion of Concealed Firearms in Schools
• Apple Valley Resident Shoots Intruder During Early Morning Break-In Attempt
• Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling

Pauls Valley Superintendent Brett Knight praised Moore at a press conference held at the scene. “I know the word gets thrown around quite a bit, but he is a hero today,” Knight said.

Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt echoed that sentiment, saying Moore “acted bravely to protect students’ lives.” Stitt added that he and his wife were praying for Moore’s quick recovery and expressed gratitude that no students were harmed.

Hawkins, who was booked into the Garvin County Jail, was charged Wednesday with one count each of shooting with intent to kill and carrying a weapon to a public assembly, along with two counts of feloniously pointing a firearm. His bond was set at $1 million. A motive for the shooting has not been determined.

Armed Citizen Takeaway

This incident is a reminder that the first line of defense in any violent encounter is often the people already on the scene. Law enforcement response is critical, but the window between the start of a violent attack and police arrival can be the difference between lives saved and lives lost. Moore and his staff acted without hesitation the moment they identified a threat, and that immediate action is what kept students safe. Situational awareness, the willingness to act, and the courage to close the distance on a threat are not skills reserved for law enforcement. They are survival skills every responsible adult should think about in advance.

Read the original story: Oklahoma Principal Shot While Tackling Armed Intruder Inside High School, Hailed as Hero

Key Takeaways

• The DOJ will uphold the Biden-era ATF rule on homemade firearms despite previous opposition from the Trump administration.
• This decision arises from the case VanDerStok v. Blanche in the Northern District of Texas, dealing with the definition of firearms in relation to ghost guns.
• The Biden rule expands ATF’s authority and conflicts with Trump’s Executive Order concerning Second Amendment rights.
• Key parties, including the Second Amendment Foundation, continue to challenge the rule, indicating ongoing legal battles.
• The case could influence regulations on privately made firearms and the legal responsibilities of builders.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Department of Justice has informed a federal court that it will maintain the Biden-era ATF rule restricting homemade firearms, even as the Trump White House had previously called that same rule an attack on gun owners that “undermines the Second Amendment.”

The decision came in the ongoing case VanDerStok v. Blanche, currently in the Northern District of Texas. In a letter dated April 8, 2026, DOJ trial attorneys notified all parties that, following a review prompted by President Trump’s Executive Order 14206 titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” the government has chosen to keep the current definition of firearm “frame” and “receiver” contained in ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F.

That rule, finalized under President Biden, significantly expanded ATF’s regulatory reach over so-called ghost guns — privately made firearms and unfinished parts kits. The rule stretched the statutory definition of “firearm” beyond what Congress intended, and the case has wound through federal courts ever since.

The DOJ’s reversal of its prior stay request puts the agency at direct odds with language coming from the White House itself. The Trump administration had publicly described the Biden rule as an “attack” on gun owners before its own Justice Department decided to defend it in court.

More from USA Carry:

• New Jersey Man Arrested After Using a ‘Ghost Gun’ To Defend Himself Against Two Home Invaders
• Polymer 80 Glock Build Project – Building My Ghost Gun, Part-Two
• ATF Inflating ‘Ghost Gun’ Numbers Hoping Congress Inflates Its Budget
• Biden’s Executive Order on Gun Control: Background Checks and Red Flag Laws
• Grey Ghost Griff Pack Review

The letter notes that parties — including Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and government defendants — have agreed on a proposed renewed merits briefing schedule to be filed with the court by April 9, 2026. A status report on the proceedings is expected by April 16.

This development raises serious questions about the gap between political messaging and legal action. Executive orders and campaign promises carry weight, but it is what the DOJ argues before a federal judge that shapes the actual law.

The Second Amendment Foundation, which is a named party in this litigation, has been among the most vocal opponents of the ghost gun rule. Their continued involvement in the case means the legal fight over the rule’s scope is far from over.

Armed citizens who build or own privately made firearms should closely follow this case. The outcome could determine what components are regulated as firearms under federal law and what legal exposure home builders face.

Read the original story: Trump DOJ Keeps Biden’s Ghost Gun Rule in Place, Defying White House’s Own Second Amendment Executive Order

Key Takeaways

• The USPS proposes to allow mailing lawful handguns, reversing decades of restrictions following a DOJ legal opinion.
• The proposed rule classifies handguns as ‘Mailable Firearms,’ alongside rifles and shotguns, under specific conditions.
• Key requirements include shipping unloaded firearms, no external indications of contents, and tracking for packages.
• The public can comment on the rule until May 4, 2026, focusing on regulatory clarity and usability rather than the merits of the OLC opinion.
• This rule signifies a shift in Second Amendment rights, expanding legal options for firearm transfers.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The United States Postal Service has published a proposed rule that would allow lawful handguns to be mailed through the mail system for the first time in decades. The proposal, published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2026, follows a January opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that the existing federal ban on mailing concealable firearms is unconstitutional.

The comment period is open now and closes on May 4, 2026. If you have thoughts on how the rule should work, this is your window.

What Changed — and Why

For years, federal law under 18 U.S.C. 1715 made handguns essentially nonmailable through USPS. Rifles and shotguns could move through the mail under certain conditions, but handguns were treated differently. That created a legal inconsistency that gun rights advocates had long challenged.

On January 15, 2026, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo concluding that Section 1715 is unconstitutional as applied to handguns and other constitutionally protected firearms. OLC directed the Postal Service to update its regulations accordingly. We covered the federal court battle that preceded this shift — you can read that here.

This proposed rule is the Postal Service’s response to that directive.

What the Proposed Rule Would Do

Under the new framework, lawful handguns would be classified as “Mailable Firearms” alongside rifles and shotguns. The rule defines mailable firearms broadly to include pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and rifles — as long as they are legal to possess.

Firearms that remain nonmailable include machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and any firearm that is undetectable by metal detectors and X-ray machines after removal of grips, stocks, and magazines.

Key requirements for mailing handguns under the proposed rule include:

• All mailed firearms must be unloaded.
• No markings on the outside of the package may indicate the contents are a firearm.
• Shipments must use a USPS product that provides tracking and signature capture at delivery, unless shipped between licensed dealers, manufacturers, or importers.
• Mailers must still comply with the Gun Control Act and all applicable federal, state, and local laws.

Non-FFL owners would be allowed to mail handguns to themselves in another state for lawful activities, or to a licensed FFL dealer. Licensed FFL dealers could ship to each other without restriction.

Now, the Obvious Question

Even if this rule goes into effect, would you really want to mail your handgun through USPS? Think about it. These are the same folks who occasionally deliver your neighbor’s packages to your porch and consider “delivered” a flexible concept. For a firearm, the required tracking and signature capture helps — but plenty of gun owners will probably stick with dedicated shipping carriers for anything valuable. Still, the constitutional principle here matters. The government should not have been banning the mailing of a constitutionally protected item in the first place.

More from USA Carry:

• Are You Illegally Carrying Concealed at the Post Office?
• Armed Good Samaritan Foils Armed Robbery of Mailman
• Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Limit USPS Gun Ban Ruling, Expands Protection to SAF and FPC Members
• TGSCom Closes Amid Fraud Complaints and “Financial Issues”
• Gun Owners WIN: DOJ Declares USPS Handgun Ban Unconstitutional in Landmark Second Amendment Ruling

How to Submit Your Comment

The Postal Service has been clear that comments on the merits of the OLC opinion — including which firearms should or shouldn’t be mailable under the Second Amendment — are outside the scope of this rulemaking. What they are asking for is input on the clarity and practical usability of the proposed regulations.

That said, gun owners and Second Amendment advocates should still show up in this process. Your participation signals engagement and helps shape how these regulations are written and enforced going forward.

To submit a comment before the May 4, 2026 deadline:

• By mail: Director, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015
• By email: PCFederalRegister@usps.gov (include your name and address; use subject line “Shipping Firearms”)
• Online: regulations.gov — search for document number 2026-06376

The Bigger Picture

This rule is a direct result of years of Second Amendment litigation and legal pressure. Courts and legal authorities have increasingly recognized that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home, and that government restrictions on lawful firearms must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. A blanket ban on mailing handguns didn’t meet that standard.

For licensed dealers, gunsmiths, and collectors, this rule could open up meaningful new options for lawful commerce. For individual gun owners, it expands legal pathways for transferring firearms to yourself or to an FFL when traveling or relocating. The rule does not override state laws, so you’ll still need to know the laws in both the origin and destination states before mailing anything.

The comment period closes May 4. Make your voice heard.

Read the original story: USPS May Start Delivering Handguns — But Would You Trust Them With Your Gun?

Key Takeaways

• Match2Cal simplifies adding USPSA matches to your calendar by pulling details directly from PractiScore pages.
• This free tool automatically sends match information to Google Calendar, Apple Calendar, or provides an ICS file.
• Users can quickly install a Chrome extension for easy access on desktop, with support for other browsers forthcoming.
• Match2Cal works on mobile through a bookmarklet, making it accessible on iPhone and Android devices.
• It costs nothing and requires no account, streamlining the process of managing match details.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

If you shoot USPSA, you already know that adding a match to your calendar means opening it up, typing in the match name, figuring out the date, hunting down the address, and doing it all manually. Every single time. I got tired of that about five minutes in, so I built Match2Cal instead.

I built something to fix that.

Meet Match2Cal

Match2Cal is a free tool that reads your PractiScore match page and sends everything — match name, date, location, your squad number, your squadmates — straight to Google Calendar, Apple Calendar, or an ICS file you can import anywhere. The whole process takes about five seconds.

No account. No app to download. No typing anything manually.

Add your first match now at match2cal.com.

How It Works

Navigate to any match page on PractiScore.com — whether it’s the public registration page or your personal shooter page after you’ve signed up — and click the Match2Cal button. That’s it. You’ll land on a page showing your match details with three buttons: Apple Calendar, Google Calendar, and Download ICS.

If you’re already registered and squadded, Match2Cal pulls your squad number and every squadmate’s name, division, and class directly from the page and drops it all into your calendar event description so you have everything you need in one place.

Available as a Chrome Extension

The easiest way to use Match2Cal on desktop is the Chrome extension, available now in the Chrome Web Store. Install it once and a small calendar icon lives in your toolbar. When you’re on a PractiScore page, click it — done.

Install the Match2Cal Chrome Extension here.

It works in Chrome, Edge, and Brave. A Firefox extension is also available and a Safari extension for Mac and iPhone is in the works.

More from USA Carry:

• Hawaii Firearm Permits at Record High Level in 2011
• HB 2346 Sidelined
• AR Barrel Steels And Why They Matter
• How I Got to USPSA B Class in 8 Months | What Actually Worked
• Chicago Concealed Carry Holder Shoots Two in Mall Shooting

Works on Your Phone Too

If you’re browsing PractiScore on your iPhone or Android device, Match2Cal has you covered with a bookmarklet — a small piece of code you save as a bookmark in your browser. Visit match2cal.com on your phone for step-by-step instructions to set it up in about two minutes.

It’s Completely Free

Match2Cal costs nothing. There’s no premium tier, no account to create, and no data collected. It does one thing and it does it well.

I built this because I shoot USPSA and I’m too lazy to manually add matches to my calendar. If you’re the same way, you’ll love this.

Read the original story: I Got Tired of Manually Adding USPSA Matches to My Calendar, So I Built Match2Cal — and It’s Free

Key Takeaways

• Maryland lawmakers passed Senate Bill 334, banning the manufacture and sale of ‘machine gun convertible pistols’ starting January 1, 2027.
• The bill targets semiautomatic pistols that can be converted into machine guns with basic tools, further restricting them beyond federal law.
• Exemptions include law enforcement officers and licensed dealers, while individuals may transfer these pistols only to family members.
• Violations lead to a misdemeanor with penalties up to three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
• The bill awaits action from Governor Moore, and the Maryland State Police will regulate and publish a list of prohibited pistols before the law takes effect.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

ANNAPOLIS, MD – Maryland lawmakers have passed Senate Bill 334, legislation that will ban the manufacture, sale, purchase, and transfer of so-called “machine gun convertible pistols” in the state beginning January 1, 2027. The House gave final approval on April 8, 2026, passing the bill 92-39. The Senate had approved it 28-16 in March. The bill now heads to Governor Wes Moore’s desk.

The bill targets semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted into a machine gun by attaching a pistol converter to the rear of the slide without any additional machining or engineering. These devices, sometimes called “switches,” are already illegal under federal law, but Maryland’s bill goes further by restricting the pistols themselves if they are designed in a way that makes such conversion readily possible.

Under the legislation, any pistol that can be converted using common household tools would be classified as a “machine gun convertible pistol” and prohibited. The bill specifically includes pistols where a blocking tab on the frame can be removed with basic tools. Standard hammer-fired and striker-fired pistols without a cruciform trigger bar are explicitly excluded from the definition.

The law does carve out several exceptions. Law enforcement officers, active and retired, are exempt. Licensed dealers may still handle these firearms for servicing or transfer to out-of-state buyers. Individuals who already legally own one of these pistols may transfer it to an immediate family member. The Maryland Department of State Police will be required to adopt regulations implementing the law, including publishing a list of specifically prohibited pistols.

Violations carry a misdemeanor penalty of up to three years in prison and a $5,000 fine. The law takes effect October 1, 2026, with the sales and transfer ban kicking in January 1, 2027.

More from USA Carry:

• Newsom Signs Law Banning Sale of Most Glocks in California, Targeting ‘Convertible Pistols’
• Maryland Concealed Carry Permit Information
• GOA-Backed Bill Introduces Program to Sell Machine Guns to Law-Abiding Citizens in West Virginia
• National Groups Weigh in on Maryland Concealed Carry Case
• Missouri House Bill Proposes Expansion of Concealed Firearms in Schools

What’s Next

The bill now awaits action from Governor Moore. He has not publicly announced a position on SB 334. If signed, the Maryland State Police will be tasked with developing regulations and publishing a list of prohibited pistols ahead of the January 1, 2027 effective date for the sales and transfer ban.

The NRA-ILA has raised concerns that the bill’s language is broad enough to sweep in commonly owned semiautomatic handguns, including Gen 5 and older Glock pistols. That concern is worth watching closely as the State Police begin the process of drafting the prohibited pistols list, since the definition of what qualifies as a “machine gun convertible pistol” will ultimately be shaped by regulation, not just the statute itself.

For Maryland gun owners, the stakes are real. Law-abiding citizens who currently own pistols that fall under this definition could find themselves unable to sell or transfer their legally purchased property once the law takes effect. Anyone in Maryland who owns a Glock or similar striker-fired pistol should monitor the State Police rulemaking process carefully and consult with a Maryland firearms attorney if they have questions about their specific firearm.

Read the original story: Maryland Legislature Passes Bill Banning Machine Gun Convertible Pistols, Including Some Glocks, Sends It to Governor

Key Takeaways

• A Georgia man shot in a road rage incident after defending himself from an attacker who seized his revolver.
• The confrontation escalated quickly when Matthew Seawright attempted to exit his vehicle while an aggressive driver blocked his path.
• Seawright regained control of his revolver during a physical struggle and shot Earnest Howard, who later called 911 after fleeing the scene.
• An off-duty GBI agent mistakenly fired at Seawright without understanding the situation, but Seawright complied with commands immediately.
• The incident highlights important lessons for armed citizens about avoiding confrontation, weapon retention, and handling interactions with law enforcement.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HULL, GA – A Georgia man shot a road rage attacker who had seized his revolver and tried to use it against him, only to be fired upon seconds later by an off-duty GBI agent who arrived on scene without knowing what had led to the confrontation.

The incident happened around noon on April 4, 2026, on Kimberly Circle near U.S. Highway 29 in Hull. Matthew Seawright, 38, was driving with his teenage daughter when Earnest Howard, 47, of Athens, began brake-checking his truck before stopping and blocking the intersection.

Howard exited his vehicle and approached Seawright while yelling at him. Seawright got out of his truck and placed a revolver in his pocket. Howard then struck Seawright multiple times.

During the struggle, Seawright drew his revolver. Howard gained control of it and attempted to shoot Seawright. Seawright regained control of the weapon and fired several shots, hitting Howard.

At that moment, an off-duty GBI agent traveling north on U.S. Highway 29 witnessed Seawright firing and stopped to intervene. Without the benefit of knowing what had just unfolded, the agent fired multiple rounds at Seawright. Seawright was not struck. He immediately dropped his revolver and complied with the agent’s commands.

Howard drove away into Clarke County, stopped, and called 911 to report he had been shot. EMS transported him to an area hospital. He was later released and booked into the Madison County Jail.

Howard faces charges including Aggravated Assault, Battery, Possession of a Firearm During the Commission of a Felony, Cruelty to Children, False Imprisonment, and False Imprisonment of a Person Under the Age of 14. No agents were injured.

The Thomson GBI Regional Investigative Office is conducting both the aggravated assault and officer-involved shooting investigations. The cases will be forwarded to the Northern Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office once complete.

More from USA Carry:

• Burglar Inside Victim’s Home Shot Dead By Police After Advancing On Them With Knife
• Houston Woman Shoots Food Truck Robber After His Gun Jams
• Off-Duty CPD Officer Engages in Shootout with Attempted Carjackers on Chicago’s Far South Side
• Gun Store Owner Prevents a Possible Mass Shooting
• New Jersey Permit to Carry Fee Nullification Movement in Full Swing

What This Incident Teaches Armed Citizens

This case illustrates three critical lessons for anyone who carries.

First, consider whether you need to exit the vehicle at all. Howard had stopped and was blocking the road, but based on the GBI’s account, there may have been an opportunity to back up or maneuver around the situation rather than engage it on foot. Exiting the truck turned a road rage confrontation into a physical fight. With a teenage daughter in the vehicle, the decision should have weighed heavily toward creating distance and driving away if there was any way to do so. Getting out rarely makes a bad situation better.

Second, weapon retention matters. Once Seawright was in a physical altercation, Howard was able to take his revolver and attempt to shoot him with it. That is exactly the kind of scenario that can turn fatal in seconds. If you carry, train specifically for retention, because a gun you cannot keep in your possession can become a weapon used against you.

Third, how you handle the aftermath of a defensive shooting matters as much as the shooting itself. When the off-duty agent arrived, all he saw was a man firing a gun. Seawright’s immediate compliance after the agent engaged almost certainly prevented a worse outcome. Dropping the firearm and following commands the moment law enforcement arrives are not optional steps.

The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against the kind of attack Seawright faced. That right carries with it the responsibility to train, to think through scenarios before they happen, and to make the best decision possible when things escalate fast.

Read the original story: Armed Georgia Man Shoots Road Rage Attacker Who Grabbed His Revolver – Off-Duty GBI Agent Then Opens Fire on Him

Check-In

Walked up to the counter and led with “declaring firearms.” The agent asked about lithium batteries and e-cigarettes — standard screening question — then moved right into the firearm declaration. No hesitation, no confusion.

This trip I used my Stopbox with a single handgun inside. The Stopbox went into my regular piece of luggage. I handed over the declaration form, taped it to the Stopbox, and the bag and I was on its way.

TSA Wait

After checking the bag, I set a 15-minute timer — my usual 15 minutes — and waited near the counter just in case TSA needed access to the bag. They didn’t call. They rarely do.

Arrival

Bag came out on the carousel in Las Vegas. Because the hard-sided case was packed inside a regular piece of luggage, it “travels as standard checked baggage and”usually” comes out with everything else. Checked the Stopbox lock on arrival — still in place, no issues.

I also run AirTags in both the luggage and the hard-sided case. It takes the guesswork out of tracking and gives a real-time location on the bag from the moment it leaves the counter. Worth having.

Final Thoughts

Another smooth one. MSY to LAS, declared at the counter, bag on the carousel, lock intact. Consistent and predictable — that’s the whole point.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 51 – Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas

Key Takeaways

• West Virginia Governor approved House Bill 4106, extending permitless carry to adults aged 18-20, effective June 12, 2026.
• Previously, permitless carry only applied to those 21 and older, creating stricter rules for those under 21.
• The new law allows qualified residents aged 18 and older to carry a concealed weapon without a license, affirming Second Amendment rights regardless of age.
• The law keeps prohibitions for felons and individuals under domestic violence protective orders while clarifying rules for minors.
• Optional licenses remain for those seeking reciprocity in other states.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – West Virginia Governor approved House Bill 4106 on April 1, 2026, extending the state’s permitless carry law to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. The law takes effect June 12, 2026, 90 days from its passage by the legislature.

The bill was introduced in the House on January 14, 2026, and passed the House on February 17 before moving to the Senate. The Senate passed the bill with amendments on March 13, and both chambers reconciled the final version on March 14. It was sent to the governor on March 25.

Under the new law, any West Virginia resident who is at least 18 years old, a U.S. citizen or legal resident, and not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm may carry a concealed deadly weapon without a license. Previously, permitless carry in the state applied only to those 21 and older, while adults under 21 faced a separate and more restrictive set of rules.

HB 4106 repeals the section of state code that made it a crime for persons under 21 to carry a concealed weapon without a license. The bill also removes the exceptions that had previously applied only to 18-to-20-year-olds, folding that age group into the general permitless carry framework.

All existing prohibitions remain in place. Anyone convicted of a felony, subject to a qualifying domestic violence protective order, adjudicated mentally incompetent, or otherwise disqualified under state or federal law is still prohibited from possessing or carrying a firearm.

The law also clarifies rules for minors under 18. Those under 18 who are not married or emancipated are still prohibited from carrying a deadly weapon in public, with limited exceptions for hunting, family property, and situations with parental and property-owner permission.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida Bill Could Make More Than Half the Country Constitutional Carry
• No Right To Concealed Carry, Says California Appeals Court
• What To Do If Your Concealed Carry Permit Is On Hold
• Florida’s Permitless Carry Bill: FBI & NICS, Red Flag Law & Criminal Data
• Ohio Aims to Join List of Permitless Carry States

The bill was sponsored by Delegates Horst, Brooks, Dean, Holstein, Kimble, Mallow, Martin, Masters, Phillips, Ridenour, and B. Ward.

For law-abiding adults between 18 and 20, this change is significant. Under federal law, this age group can already legally purchase and possess long guns, and many can purchase handguns through private sales. Extending permitless carry to this group recognizes that the Second Amendment does not come with an age qualifier for adults. A 19-year-old has the same right to self-defense as a 30-year-old, and West Virginia’s legislature has now affirmed that in statute.

If you carry in West Virginia or travel through the state, the new law takes effect June 12, 2026. Adults 18 and older who are otherwise eligible will no longer need a license to carry concealed. Optional licenses will remain available for those who want reciprocity in other states.

Read the original story: Adults 18 and Older Can Now Carry Concealed Without a License in West Virginia Starting June 12

Key Takeaways

• A teenage boy shot a man attacking his mother in their home in Owensboro, KY.
• The deceased, identified as 30-year-old Christopher Ray, was shot after physically assaulting the woman.
• The juvenile retrieved a firearm to defend his mother, and authorities released him pending a full investigation.
• Kentucky law allows the use of force in defense of another person facing imminent danger.
• This incident highlights the importance of the Second Amendment in protecting families from violent threats.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

OWENSBORO, KY – A teenage boy fatally shot a man who was physically attacking his mother inside their home, according to the Owensboro Police Department and the Daviess County Coroner’s Office.

Officers responded to a shooting shortly after 7:00 p.m. last Friday in the 3000 block of Daviess Street. When they arrived, they found an adult male inside the residence with a gunshot wound. Emergency personnel from the Owensboro Fire Department and American Medical Response transported him to Owensboro Health Regional Hospital, where he was later pronounced dead.

The Daviess County Coroner’s Office identified the deceased as 30-year-old Christopher Ray.

The initial investigation revealed that Ray was physically assaulting an adult woman inside the home. Her juvenile son, fearing for his mother’s life, retrieved a firearm and shot Ray in her defense. After consulting with the County and Commonwealth Attorney, investigators released the juvenile to his mother’s custody pending a full review of the evidence.

Detectives from the Criminal Investigations Division and Evidence Collection Unit continued working the scene. The investigation remains ongoing.

More from USA Carry:

• Security Guard Fatally Shoots Armed Man During Party Altercation in Owensboro, Kentucky
• Mother of 3 Shoots Intruder Twice in the Chest As He Was Breaking In
• Kentucky High Court: Guns in Car Legal on Campus
• Kentucky Homeowner Shoots Man Attempting To Unlawfully Enter His Home
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Claimed She Wanted to Buy His House at 5AM

A Son’s Decision

This case reflects a reality that armed citizens understand: there are moments when a family member must act to stop a violent threat to someone they love. A child, seeing his mother in danger, made a decision that likely saved her life.

Kentucky law recognizes the right to use force in defense of another person when that person faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The prosecutor’s decision to release the juvenile pending review suggests the facts, as they stand, align with that legal framework.

The Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep a firearm in the home exists precisely for moments like this one. Access to a lawfully kept firearm may have been the deciding factor between life and death for this mother.

Read the original story: Teen Boy Shoots and Kills Man Who Was Attacking His Mother Inside Their Kentucky Home

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner shot and killed a home invader early Monday morning in Chicago’s South Side.
• The incident occurred around 1:30 a.m. when the intruder charged at the homeowner, who acted in self-defense.
• Police found the suspect with a gunshot wound to the chest, and he died at the scene.
• Illinois law permits the use of deadly force against imminent threats in one’s home, highlighting the importance of lawful firearm ownership.
• Area Two detectives are currently investigating the shooting incident.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

CHICAGO, IL – A home invader was shot and killed inside a South Side residence early Monday morning after the homeowner opened fire in self-defense, Chicago police say.

As reported by ABC7 Chicago, the shooting occurred around 1:30 a.m. in the 2200-block of East 103rd Street. Officers responding to the scene found the unidentified male suspect shot in the chest and pronounced dead at the scene.

The 33-year-old homeowner told police that the intruder entered his home and charged directly at him. He fired his weapon, striking the suspect in the chest. No charges against the homeowner have been announced.

Area Two detectives are investigating the incident.

A Note for Armed Citizens

This incident is a reminder of why lawful firearm ownership matters. When an intruder enters your home, the threat of serious bodily harm or death can materialize in seconds. Illinois law recognizes the right to use deadly force when facing an imminent threat inside your own home. The Second Amendment exists precisely so that law-abiding citizens are not left defenseless in moments like this one.

More from USA Carry:

• Woman w/ CCW Fights Off Robbery Suspects in South Side Chicago
• Woman Shoots Two Early Morning Burglars Then Gets Pepper Sprayed
• 19-Year-Old Apartment Resident Fires On Three Armed Intruders; Hitting Two
• Concealed Carrier Not Charged After Shooting 16-Year-Old; Police Say It Was In Self-Defense
• Florida Sheriff After Homeowner Shoots Intruder: “Expect to Get Shot”

Read the original story: Homeowner Shoots and Kills Intruder Who Charged at Him Inside Chicago Home

Key Takeaways

• On April 2, 2026, a neighbor shot an armed man during a domestic violence incident in Puyallup, WA.
• The altercation escalated from a family home to the street, resulting in two female victims being shot.
• The suspect was shot by the neighbor after he had fired at the women, leading to one victim being hospitalized and the other two declared dead.
• Puyallup Police are investigating the incident, highlighting the rapid escalation of family disputes into life-threatening situations.
• This case emphasizes the importance of lawful defensive gun use under the Second Amendment during imminent threats.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

PUYALLUP, WA – A neighbor intervened in a deadly domestic violence incident on April 2, 2026, shooting an armed man who had just fired on two female family members in a residential driveway.

According to the Puyallup Police Department, officers responded at approximately 9:10 a.m. to the 1200 block of 31st St NW following reports of a domestic dispute. What began as a family altercation inside a nearby home moved into the street and eventually into a neighbor’s driveway and garage.

During the confrontation, one adult male family member produced a handgun and shot two adult female family members. The resident of the property where the dispute had moved was inside the home at the time. He exited and shot the male suspect, who had already fired on the two women.

Central Pierce Fire and Rescue responded and transported one of the female victims to a local hospital with life-threatening injuries. The other female victim and the male suspect were pronounced dead at the scene.

More From USA Carry:

• Armed Carjacker in Critical Condition Because the Car Owner Had a Gun Too
• Armed Confrontation with Car Burglars Leaves Homeowner Wounded in Driveway Shootout
• Suspect Shot by Homeowner During Attempted Tire Theft in Los Angeles Driveway
• Preemption Laws and the Use of Firearms and Ammo
• Warning Shot Fired In Dispute Over Parked Car Blocking Driveway

Detectives from the Puyallup Police Department Criminal Investigations Division are leading the investigation. Detectives from the Metro Cities Crime Response Unit are also assisting on scene.

This incident is a stark reminder of how quickly a situation can turn life-threatening, even when it begins as a family dispute in a residential neighborhood. The neighbor’s decision to act came in response to an immediate and visible threat to human life. Lawful defensive gun use exists precisely for moments like this one, when a person faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm and has no time to wait for help to arrive.

The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, and that right can matter most when seconds count and lives are on the line.

Read the original story: Armed Neighbor Stops Gunman After He Shoots Two Women in Washington Driveway

Key Takeaways

• Starting to compete in USPSA dramatically improves your skills; matches quickly expose weaknesses.
• Consistent dry fire practice, even for short sessions, is crucial for honing your shooting skills.
• Remove friction in your setup to encourage practice, and focus on fundamentals over speed for improvement.
• Competition shooting enhances defensive shooting skills, blending the two disciplines effectively.
• Nobody judges your skill level at matches; just show up and enjoy the experience to advance in classification.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

I went from my first USPSA match to B class in about eight months. I didn’t do anything crazy, but I did do a few things consistently. If you’re thinking about competing or you’re stuck in C or D class, here’s what actually helped me.

A Little Background First

Sometime last year I was trying to get better at shooting, which sent me down a rabbit hole of Ben Stoeger and Joel Park content. That led me into USPSA competition. Around June, I was doing dry fire and following their books. I was calling it my midlife shooting crisis. I wanted to get better at shooting, but I had to define what “better” even meant.

Once I started training with competition in mind, I realized I should go validate my skills at a match and see what happened. I wanted a way to test my training under pressure. Not just my own pressure with a timer on the range, but real match pressure.

The competition side was completely new to me. I’ve been shooting most of my life, and after launching USA Carry in 2007 I did some structured training, mostly defensive and concealed carry classes. No competition background at all.

Here’s what I learned along the way.

Lesson 1: Just Start Competing

Stop overthinking it. You don’t need to be ready. Matches expose your weaknesses fast. You’ll probably learn more about what you need to work on in one match than in multiple range sessions.

Before my first match I did take a competition class from Grandmaster Joon Kim. It focused heavily on movement, which was something I hadn’t been thinking about much. It opened my eyes to a whole other aspect of the sport. I was definitely in over my head, but I took a lot away from it.

The bigger point is this: get to a match. It’s the fastest way to understand what actually needs work.

Lesson 2: Dry Fire Is Everything

I’m not going to tell you I dry fired every single day for 30 minutes since June, because that didn’t happen. But I was consistent. I was dry firing four to five days a week, getting in anywhere from 10 to 45 minutes per session.

The drills I did most consistently were pretty boring. I used a shot timer to work on my grip from the holster, not even drawing, just getting a solid grip over and over. A lot of trigger control at speed, one shot, trying not to disturb the sights. I worked on grip pressure and transitions.

Most of my improvement didn’t come from the live fire range. It came from putting in the time at home for free. No ammo, no range fees. Dry fire is where you hone your skills. Live fire is where you validate them.

Lesson 3: Remove Friction

If it’s hard to start, you’re just not going to do it.

I keep dry fire targets set up around my office and living room on stands and walls so I can move them easily. My magazines are already loaded with SnapPoint USA dummy rounds. These are painted, true-weight dummy rounds that weight the gun down the same as live ammo. I also run a mag block so the slide doesn’t lock back during dry fire.

Everything is already set up and ready to go when I am. If it takes you 30 minutes to set up for a 15-minute dry fire session, you’re not going to do it. Keep the setup simple.

More from USA Carry:

• Making Competition Part of Your Defensive Training
• Live, Practice, and Compete from Concealment
• What I Learned From a USPSA Grand Master With Zero Match Experience
• How a USPSA Grand Master Enters Positions vs. First-Timer (Me)
• Does Competition Shooting Have Practical Applications?

Lesson 4: Fundamentals Over Speed

I didn’t have a single big moment where everything clicked. It was gradual improvement from dry fire at home, live fire at the range, and then putting it to the test at matches.

At my most recent match I shot 53 alphas, 10 Charlies, 4 deltas, and 2 mikes. Looking at that, I left knowing I need to clean up my hits. That comes down to fundamentals, not just going faster. You can’t outshoot your fundamentals.

Lesson 5: Tools vs. Simplicity

I’m not knocking any of the dry fire tools out there. I have most of them. I’ve used the Mantis X, Laser Academy, dry fire mags, and the ACE XR VR system. They all have their place.

But these past few months I’ve been defaulting to simplicity. I train with my actual competition gun or my carry gun. My gun in my hands, dummy rounds in the magazine, targets on the walls. That’s it. I feel like it’s given me a better feel for the gun than anything else.

I still use the ACE VR system for stage planning. I can set up a run one way, see my time, run it differently, and compare. That kind of decision-making should carry over to real stages. But for the fundamentals side of things, simple wins.

The best setup is the one you’re actually going to use. Find what works for you and stick with it.

Lesson 6: Competition Shooting Helps With Defensive Shooting

I don’t buy the argument that competition is going to get you killed in the streets. Going down this rabbit hole hasn’t changed my mind about carrying or what I carry. But it has improved my shooting across the board. My grip, transitions, and target confirmation have all gotten better, and that carries over to my concealed carry gun.

I actually compete using a concealment appendix holster from Carey Concealment, since I carry concealed and own USA Carry. I feel like I’m blending the two worlds. I’m working on draws from concealment in competition, which is how I carry anyway. The skills transfer. They always have.

Lesson 7: Nobody Cares About Your Skill Level

I wasn’t too anxious going into my first match, which surprised me. But I understand the anxiety of putting your skills in front of other people. The truth is, nobody cares.

Everyone I’ve met at matches has been supportive and helpful. I’ve been squadded with grandmasters and masters and they’ve all been great. Nobody cares if you’re unclassified, C class, or D class. Just be safe. That’s it.

If you’re not competing because you’re worried about what people will think, just show up. Those jitters will go away after the first stage or two, and you’re going to have a blast.

How the B Class Happened

I didn’t fully understand the classification system at first. I thought I needed eight classifiers to get classified. What I didn’t know is that USPSA classifies you after your first four. So most of last year I was running as unclassified when I was technically already a C class.

About a month ago I signed up for a five-stage all-classifier match and started looking at my numbers. I was less than one percent away from B class going in. I tried to tell myself not to think about it. Easier said than done.

I ran the match, threw some deltas, had a couple of mikes, and left not feeling great about it. Went to lunch with the guys from my squad and figured maybe it didn’t happen. No big deal.

USPSA stats update Tuesday night. But I couldn’t wait that long. Monday morning I built my own spreadsheet and did the math because apparently Practice Score has a bug in its percentage calculations. I did the math myself and confirmed it. I made B class.

Does it mean anything? Personally, yes. It validates that the training is working and I’m making progress. But B class is not a finish line. I’ve got the bug. I want to get to A class, then master, maybe one day grandmaster. We’ll see.

I’m going to keep doing the same things: dry fire, fundamentals, live fire validation, and matches when I can. I’ve got another training session coming up with Joon Kim and I’m not going to pass that up. How often do you get to train with a grandmaster?

The Bottom Line

If you’re thinking about competing, just go do it. Nobody cares about your skill level. You’ll have fun, you’ll get hooked, and you’ll meet a lot of good people.

If you’re stuck in C or D class, dry fire consistently. Pick up Baseline Dry Fire by Ben Stoeger and Joel Park, follow their plans, and work on fundamentals. Keep it simple.

I’m 47 years old and I got to B class in about eight months. It’s not that complicated. Put in the work and the results will follow.

Read the original story: How I Got to USPSA B Class in 8 Months | What Actually Worked

Key Takeaways

• The First Circuit ruled Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases is likely constitutional, reversing a previous injunction.
• Plaintiffs argued the law violates Second Amendment rights, citing difficulties in immediate access to firearms for self-defense.
• The court found the waiting period regulates pre-purchase conduct and does not infringe Second Amendment rights according to previous Supreme Court rulings.
• This ruling contrasts with a recent Tenth Circuit decision, increasing the chances of Supreme Court review on waiting period laws.
• The case highlights the impacts of waiting periods on individuals needing quick access to firearms, especially in urgent situations.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

PORTLAND, ME – A federal appeals court has ruled that Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases is likely constitutional, reversing a lower court decision that had temporarily blocked the law from taking effect.

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision on April 3, 2026, in Beckwith v. Frey. The three-judge panel vacated a preliminary injunction that had been granted by a federal district court in February 2025, and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Maine’s waiting period law, Me. Stat. tit. 25, § 2016, took effect on August 9, 2024. It prohibits licensed sellers from delivering a firearm to a buyer less than 72 hours after the purchase agreement is made. The law was passed in the aftermath of the October 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, which killed 18 people and injured 13 others.

The plaintiffs include gun shop owners, firearms instructors, and individual buyers who argued the law violated their Second Amendment rights. Among them was Andrea Beckwith, who runs East Coast School of Safety, an organization that provides firearms training to domestic violence victims. Beckwith argued the law interfered with her ability to help women facing credible, imminent threats arm themselves immediately.

Another plaintiff, Nancy Coshow, said she was forced to drive 80 miles twice in three days to purchase and then pick up a handgun, despite passing an immediate background check and being an experienced gun owner.

The district court had sided with the plaintiffs, finding they were likely to succeed on the merits of their facial Second Amendment challenge. The court applied the two-step framework established by the Supreme Court in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) and concluded the state had not shown the law was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The First Circuit disagreed with that approach. Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Aframe concluded the analysis should not have reached step two of the Bruen framework at all.

More from USA Carry:

• Federal Court Blocks Maine’s 72-Hour Waiting Period for Firearm Purchases
• Concealed Handgun License No Longer Needed in Maine
• Maine Bills Seek Improvement in Carry Laws
• The East Coast Storm and 72-hour kits
• Two More States Go Shall Issue, Removing ‘Good Cause’ When Applying – Maryland & Massachusetts

The court held that Maine’s waiting period regulates conduct that occurs before a person keeps or carries a firearm, placing it outside the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because the law delays but does not deny a lawful purchase, the court treated it as a condition on the commercial sale of firearms — a category the Supreme Court has called “presumptively lawful” under District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

The court compared the waiting period to “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing regimes, which the Supreme Court noted in Bruen are presumptively constitutional because they delay rather than deny the right to bear arms. The First Circuit applied the same reasoning here, finding the 72-hour wait to be a non-abusive burden on, rather than an infringement of, Second Amendment rights.

The plaintiffs argued the law was abusive because it applies broadly without any individualized assessment of whether a buyer is law-abiding or responsible. The court rejected that argument, noting that shall-issue licensing regimes also apply universally and that the Maine law includes several exceptions — including for law enforcement, family member transfers, antique firearms, and transactions not requiring a background check under federal or state law.

The decision puts the First Circuit at odds with the Tenth Circuit, which recently ruled in Ortega v. Grisham (2025) that a similar seven-day waiting period in New Mexico was likely unconstitutional after applying both steps of the Bruen analysis. That split in appellate authority increases the likelihood that the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in on waiting period laws.

This ruling is a reminder of the real-world consequences these laws carry. Waiting period requirements can affect anyone who needs a firearm quickly for personal protection, particularly women fleeing dangerous situations or individuals who face an immediate threat. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental civil right, and delays in exercising that right are never without cost, even when courts find them permissible.

The case now returns to the district court for further proceedings.

Read the original story: Maine’s 72-Hour Gun Wait Survives Court Challenge as First Circuit Reverses Lower Court Ruling

Key Takeaways

• A fatal shooting in Harris County involved 32-year-old Monae Brooks, who was confronted by a stranger while her children watched from her vehicle.
• Prior to the incident, Brooks reported a bullet found on her car and displayed signs of distress towards a van driver.
• Brooks exited her vehicle with a pistol after confronting the van driver, who then shot her in self-defense.
• Her two children were unharmed and placed with family members by CPS following the incident.
• Authorities are still investigating, and it remains unclear if any charges will be filed against the van driver.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

HARRIS COUNTY, TX – A confrontation between two strangers in a residential neighborhood ended in a fatal shooting Wednesday afternoon, with the woman’s two young children witnessing the incident from inside her vehicle.

The Harris County Medical Examiner identified the woman as 32-year-old Monae Brooks. She was killed on Rusty Ridge Lane in the Highland Creek Ranch neighborhood after a roadside confrontation with a man she did not know.

The incident began earlier that morning. As reported by ABC13, home security cameras recorded what appeared to be a woman walking with a gun at around 10 a.m. A homeowner called police, and responding officers later confirmed the woman on the footage was Brooks, a neighbor.

Before the shooting, Brooks contacted law enforcement herself to report that a bullet had been left on top of her vehicle. A deputy was en route to take that report when calls about a shooting began coming in.

Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said a van driver pulling a small work trailer moved over to allow Brooks’ vehicle to pass. Instead of continuing, Brooks stopped her car and got out. Witnesses and surveillance footage indicated she was visibly upset and began yelling at the driver.

Authorities said Brooks then retrieved a pistol from her vehicle. The van driver drew his own firearm and shot her. She collapsed at the scene and was pronounced dead. A witness named Omar Velazquez said he ran outside after hearing gunshots and saw the two children crying inside the car.

Brooks’ 8-year-old daughter and 4-year-old son were in the vehicle along with their dog. Neither child was physically harmed. The children have since been placed with family by CPS.

The van driver remained at the scene, called 911, and cooperated fully with investigators. Authorities said the two individuals had no known connection to each other. The sheriff’s office has not announced whether any charges will be filed, and the investigation is ongoing.

Brooks’ mother said her daughter had been struggling with her mental health in the days leading up to the shooting and that she is heartbroken over what happened.

This case is a sobering reminder of how quickly a roadside encounter can turn deadly. The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense, and that right can matter in seconds when a confrontation turns life-threatening. Whether in a vehicle or on foot, maintaining situational awareness and a calm demeanor can be the difference between a tense moment and a tragedy.

Read the original story: Texas Man Shoots and Kills Woman Who Drew Gun on Him First During Neighborhood Road Confrontation, Kids in Car

Key Takeaways

• Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear vetoed House Bill 312, which aimed to allow adults aged 18 to 20 to obtain provisional concealed carry licenses.
• In his veto, Beshear cited age restrictions already in place and concerns about young adults carrying concealed weapons.
• The bill had strong support, passing both chambers of the General Assembly with significant margins before the veto.
• The legislation intended to provide young adults with a standard for carrying firearms while not changing firearm possession laws.
• Kentucky’s constitution allows for a veto override, but the bill’s vote margins fell short of the usual two-thirds requirement.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FRANKFORT, KY — Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear has vetoed House Bill 312, blocking legislation that would have allowed adults aged 18 to 20 to obtain provisional concealed carry licenses in the Commonwealth.

The governor signed the veto on April 3, 2026, citing age-related restrictions already in place under Kentucky law as justification for his decision. In his veto message, Beshear pointed to existing laws that prohibit those under 21 from renting cars, purchasing alcohol, buying tobacco products, and holding seats in the state legislature.

“While I believe in the Second Amendment,” Beshear wrote, “minors under age 21 could carry concealed deadly weapons, even though federal law restricts their ability to buy handguns.”

The governor also referenced a personal connection to gun violence, invoking the memory of Tommy Elliott, a friend he said was killed along with four others in a shooting three years ago. He stated he was vetoing the bill in Elliott’s honor.

More from USA Carry:

• Lawmakers Approve First Step for Concealed Carry Licenses for 18- to 20-Year-Olds in Kentucky
• Kentucky Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Concealed Carry Licenses for 18- to 20-Year-Olds
• Kentucky High Court: Guns in Car Legal on Campus
• Norwalk Business Owner Fatally Shoots Burglary Suspect During Attempted Robbery After Being Pepper Sprayed
• Kentucky Homeowner Shoots Man Attempting To Unlawfully Enter His Home

The veto comes after the bill cleared both chambers of the General Assembly with strong margins. The Senate approved the measure 30-7 on March 20, following a 73-17 House vote earlier in the session.

As covered previously here on USA Carry, House Bill 312 would have required the Kentucky State Police to issue provisional concealed carry licenses to individuals between the ages of 18 and 20 who met the same eligibility requirements as older applicants, including background checks and mandatory firearms training. The provisional license would have remained valid until the holder turned 21, at which point they could transition to a standard license without repeating training.

The legislation did not change who could legally possess a firearm. It focused specifically on how law-abiding young adults could carry for personal protection.

With the veto, Kentucky does not join the growing list of states that have extended concealed carry eligibility to adults under 21. The General Assembly could still attempt to override the veto. Kentucky’s constitution requires a majority vote in both chambers to override a governor’s veto, and the bill’s margins in both chambers fell short of the two-thirds threshold typically needed in other states, though Kentucky’s override process differs.

Adults aged 18 to 20 remain legal adults under both state and federal law, with the right to possess firearms and the responsibility that comes with it. The outcome of this veto is a reminder that Second Amendment rights, like all civil rights, can face political obstacles even when legislation has strong legislative support. Staying engaged with state-level developments is part of being an informed and responsible gun owner.

Read the original story: Kentucky Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Allowed Concealed Carry Licenses for 18- to 20-Year-Olds

Key Takeaways

• A North Charlotte couple faced an intruder early Wednesday, prompting the homeowner to defend himself and his partner.
• The homeowner confronted the intruder within seconds and fired a weapon, but the suspect fled the scene.
• The couple is now left with concerns about their safety and uncertainty about the intruder’s return.
• North Carolina’s Castle Doctrine allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruders, reinforcing the right to self-defense.
• The incident highlights the importance of having accessible firearms and being prepared to act in home defense situations.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

CHARLOTTE, NC – A North Charlotte couple was jolted awake early Wednesday morning by the sound of someone breaking into their home along Glen Brook Road off West Sugar Creek Road. Within seconds, the homeowner was face to face with the intruder and made a split-second decision to defend himself and his partner.

As reported by WSOC TV, the suspect was inside the home for roughly 10 seconds before the homeowner confronted them in the hallway and opened fire. “You don’t know how many people it is; you don’t know what their intentions are; you don’t know anything,” the homeowner said. “You just know somebody’s breaking in, so all you can do at that moment is protect yourself.”

The homeowner says he does not know whether he hit the suspect. The intruder fled the scene, leaving behind a bullet hole in the wall and a front door that had to be boarded up. The couple retreated to a bathroom and waited there until police arrived.

The homeowner’s partner spoke about the moment and the person who kept them safe. “He saved my life, saved my dog’s life,” she said. “I couldn’t ask for a better significant other in this situation.”

Now the couple is left with lingering uncertainty. “It’s just a matter of will they come back, what will happen?” the partner said. Channel 9 reached out to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department for updates on any leads, but had not received a response as of the time of the report.

North Carolina’s Castle Doctrine allows homeowners to use deadly force against an intruder who has forced entry into their home. There is no duty to retreat, and the law shields residents from civil and criminal liability when force is used lawfully in defense of their lives.

More from USA Carry:

• Woman fights back, shoots suspect after 5 men try to rob her at ATM
• 11-Year-Old Uses Gun to Defend His Mother from Being Attacked
• DoorDash Driver Indicted for Murder After Shooting Teen Who Tried to Steal His Car in Charlotte
• City Bus Driver Fatally Shot In Road Rage Incident – Union Calls For Action In A “Fatal Environment”
• [Watch] Armed Charlotte Bus Driver in Shootout with Passenger

This incident is a clear example of why so many Americans choose to keep a firearm in the home. When an intruder breaks through your front door in the middle of the night, there is no time to wait for help to arrive. The Second Amendment exists precisely to protect a person’s ability to defend their life in moments like this one, and North Carolina’s Castle Doctrine backs that right with the force of state law.

The homeowner’s instinct to act without hesitation likely made the difference. Having a firearm accessible and being mentally prepared to use it in a genuine threat situation are two of the most important elements of home defense.

Read the original story: “All You Can Do Is Protect Yourself”: North Charlotte Man Fires on Burglar Who Forced His Way Inside

Key Takeaways

• Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a directive allowing service members to carry privately owned firearms for personal protection.
• The new policy presumes approval for carrying firearms, reversing the previous effectively gun-free zone.
• Hegseth cites recent incidents as reasons for the change, emphasizing the need for trained personnel to have access to firearms.
• The directive aligns personal carry permissions with state laws at each installation.
• This policy shift is viewed as a correction for the Second Amendment rights of those who serve.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Secretary of War Pete Hegseth signed a directive this week that ends what he called an effectively gun-free zone policy across War Department installations, allowing uniformed service members to request permission to carry privately owned firearms for personal protection.

Hegseth announced the policy change in a video posted to X, framing the move as a restoration of a fundamental constitutional right that had long been denied to the military’s own personnel. Under the previous system, carrying a personal firearm on post was described as “virtually impossible” for most service members unless they were actively training or serving as military police.

Our military installations have been turned into gun-free zones—leaving our service members vulnerable and exposed.

That ends today. pic.twitter.com/IQ204YepZ0

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) April 2, 2026

The new memo directs installation commanders to presume that a service member’s request to carry a privately owned firearm is necessary for personal protection. If a request is denied, the denial must be in writing and must explain in detail the basis for that decision. The default position is now approval, not refusal.

Hegseth pointed to recent incidents at Fort Stewart, Holloman Air Force Base, and Pensacola Naval Air Station as examples of why the change is necessary. He noted that in those situations, “minutes are a lifetime,” and that trained war fighters have both the courage and the skill to respond when threats arise close to home.

More from USA Carry:

• Make Sure Your Guns Are Unloaded When Cleaning | Don’t Have a Desk Pop Like This Guy
• Sneaky Pete Holsters Review
• Will There Be Another Civil War in America?
• Leather vs Kydex vs Hybrid Holsters: Know The Pros And Cons Of Each
• Stopping Privacy Violations & Restoring Concealed Weapons Rights in Florida

“Our war fighters defend the right of others to carry,” Hegseth said. “They should be able to carry themselves.” He also emphasized that the policy aligns personal carry permissions with the state laws where each installation operates. The directive covers both carry and storage of privately owned firearms on post.

For the millions of Americans who believe the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, this policy shift is a long-overdue correction. The men and women who defend that right for every American citizen will now be able to exercise it themselves, on the very installations where they serve.

Read the original story: Secretary of War Signs Memo Ending Gun-Free Zone Policy on Military Bases, Restoring Second Amendment Rights for Service Members

Key Takeaways

• The Firearms Policy Coalition released its 2026 FPC Freedom Index, ranking states based on their gun rights protections.
• States are categorized: ‘Chad States’ for perfect scores, ‘Freeish States’ for strong records, ‘States of Confusion’ for mixed regulations, and ‘States of Disaster’ for strict laws.
• Kansas and New Hampshire achieved perfect scores, while California had the lowest at 4.55%.
• The index evaluates states on arms restrictions, carry laws, and acquisition requirements, providing a clear overview of each state’s standing.
• FPC encourages gun owners to engage and push for legislative changes to improve their state’s ranking towards 100%.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

The Firearms Policy Coalition has released its 2026 FPC Freedom Index, a state-by-state ranking that measures how well each state protects the right to keep and bear arms. The index is designed to give gun owners and policymakers a clear, objective look at where their state stands on some of the most consequential areas of firearms regulation.

FPC describes the index as a “principled and objective approach” to state rankings, built to cut through the political noise that has long clouded these comparisons. The goal is straightforward: show gun owners exactly where their state falls short, and give state legislators a target to shoot for.

The rankings use category labels to reflect each state’s overall posture on gun rights. States earning a perfect score are labeled “Chad States,” while those with strong but imperfect records earn “Freeish State” status. States with a patchwork of restrictions are called “States of Confusion,” and those with the most burdensome gun control laws are tagged “States of Disaster.”

Only two states earned a perfect 100% score: Kansas and New Hampshire. A large group of states, including Texas, Arizona, Kentucky, Montana, and North Carolina, scored 95.45% and sit in the “Freeish” tier. States like Louisiana, Arkansas, and Mississippi scored 86.36%, also in the “Freeish” range, while Florida and Ohio came in at 81.82% with “State of Confusion” designations.

At the bottom of the rankings, California scored just 4.55%, the lowest in the nation. New York came in at 13.64%, followed by Hawaii, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C., all at 18.18%. Maryland scored 27.27% and Illinois 31.82%, rounding out the bottom tier of “States of Disaster.”

More from USA Carry:

• Court Battle Over Guns at Post Office Heats Up as SAF & FPC Fights ‘Unconstitutional’ Government Tactics
• Texas Lawsuit Could Blow Hole in Gun-Free Zone Laws Across the Country
• S&W Introduces the M&P FPC Folding Carbine
• BREAKING: ATF Pistol Brace Rule VACATED!
• Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Limit USPS Gun Ban Ruling, Expands Protection to SAF and FPC Members

The index scores each state across several key categories: arms restrictions, carry laws, acquisition requirements, and other regulations. Nevada, for example, scored 90.91%. The state does not restrict common handguns, semi-automatic firearms, suppressors, or magazines based on capacity, and does not require a permit to carry. It did score “yes” on two questions, including a restriction on the personal manufacture of firearms and an age-based restriction for 18-to-20-year-olds seeking a carry license.

FPC is using the index as an organizing tool as well as an informational one. The organization is calling on gun owners to join its Grassroots Army and push for the repeal of the laws that are keeping their states from reaching 100%. The message is simple: if a state is not at 100%, the work is not finished.

For armed citizens, this index is a useful reference point. Understanding the specific laws that restrict your rights in your state is the first step toward changing them. Second Amendment rights are fundamental civil rights, and the FPC Freedom Index puts the details in plain sight.

You can check your state’s full score and breakdown at fpcfreedomindex.org.

Read the original story: Firearms Policy Coalition Releases 2026 State Freedom Index — See How Your State Ranks on Gun Rights

Key Takeaways

• Confronting criminals outside can lead to serious injury or death, as numerous reported cases show.
• Stepping outside exposes you to risks: loss of cover, unknown threats, and potential legal consequences.
• Self-defense encounters can result in significant legal and financial fallout; self-defense coverage can help mitigate these risks.
• Instead of confronting, maintain safety by staying inside, calling 911, and documenting situations.
• Bravery lies in making decisions that prioritize your safety over property; choose wisely in confrontations.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

You see it every time a story breaks about a theft or burglary: someone posts, “I’d walk outside and handle it.” Or, “Not on my property.” I understand that feeling. Nobody likes the idea of watching a criminal take what you worked hard for, and the instinct to protect your property is strong. But in most places you are not legally allowed to use a firearm to defend property, and more importantly, stepping outside to confront suspects can turn into something far worse. While some incidents have a happy ending, I’ve reported on enough cases where the homeowner ended up shot, beaten, or killed to know that it does happen, and when it does, the price is far higher than a stolen car or whatever was inside it.

This isn’t about being compliant or weak. It’s about recognizing the difference between protecting what matters and gambling your life for what doesn’t.

The Pattern We Keep Reporting

Here’s just a handful of cases we’ve already covered on USA Carry where the decision to confront suspects outside went badly:

• Wichita, KS — A teacher left his home to confront a teen rummaging through his car. Both were shot. The teacher remains in critical condition
• Nashville, TN — A homeowner and his brother exited their home to stop car burglars. The homeowner was shot in his own driveway.
• East Baton Rouge, LA — A man followed suspected burglars outside. He was shot in the arm.
• Bingham County, ID — A homeowner confronted an ATV thief. Gunfire was exchanged; the homeowner was hit.
• Windermere, FL — A homeowner and his son tried to stop a truck thief. Both were brutally beaten; one died, the other was severely injured.

And it’s not just USA Carry reporting. Other outlets show the same pattern:

• DeKalb County, GA — A woman was shot and killed confronting burglars outside her home (Fox5 Atlanta).
• Houston, TX — A man walked out and shot at car burglars; he hit one, but exposed himself to major legal risk (Fox26 Houston).
• Robert Coleman Case — Documented by Cato Institute: Coleman left his home to confront a burglar and was shot in the head, killed (Cato report, PDF).

Why It Goes Wrong So Fast

When you step outside, you give up almost every advantage you had:

1. You lose cover. Your walls, doors, and windows are protection. Step into the open, and you’re just a target.
2. You expose your intent. Thieves may panic or open fire the second they realize they’ve been spotted.
3. You face unknowns. Are there multiple suspects? Are they armed? Are they willing to kill for a car stereo? You don’t know until it’s too late.
4. You escalate the legal burden. In many states, juries and prosecutors may see leaving your home to engage as aggression—not defense.
5. You risk the ultimate asymmetry. They lose a car. You lose your life. That’s not a fair trade.

What the Numbers Say

• A JAMA study found that resisting burglary suspects significantly increased the risk of injury, while compliance or avoidance drastically reduced it.
• The Cato Institute documented numerous cases where “stepping outside” turned fatal.
• A National Library of Medicine review noted that most defensive gun uses don’t involve shots fired—meaning the best outcomes often happen when armed citizens never had to expose themselves to direct confrontation.

The Social Media Bravado Problem

When I posted the Sept. 30 Wichita story, the comments section lit up:

• “Shoot first and ask questions later.”
• “No one’s going to push me around.”
• “Shooting criminals prevents repeat offenders.”

But here’s the problem: those cheering for confrontation don’t see the aftermath. They don’t sit in the ICU. They don’t pay the medical bills. They don’t bury loved ones.

It’s easy to sound tough online. It’s harder to bleed out on your driveway for a car with full coverage insurance.

Your car is insured. Your body isn’t.

More from USA Carry:

• How to Read Media Coverage of CCW, The Second Amendment, and Self-Defense Topics
• Are You Covered? Homeowner’s Insurance and Firearms
• USCCA Announces Significant Enhancements to Member Self-Defense Liability Insurance
• How Concealed Carry Insurance REALLY Works
• California Man Waits for Intruders; Shooting Both; Killing One

Why Self-Defense Coverage Matters

Even when you do everything right, self-defense encounters carry massive legal and financial fallout. Prosecutors may second-guess your decisions. Civil suits can drain your savings. Medical costs can climb overnight.

That’s where having self-defense coverage comes in. Services like CCW Safe provide critical support:

• 24/7 attorney access after a shooting
• Coverage for criminal and civil defense costs
• Expert witnesses and investigators on your side
• Peace of mind that you won’t face the legal fight alone

The goal is not to encourage reckless confrontation—it’s to be prepared if the worst happens. Coverage doesn’t make you bulletproof, but it makes sure your rights and your family are protected if you ever have to defend yourself.

What You Should Do Instead

Nobody’s saying sit down and hand criminals the keys. We’re saying stack the odds in your favor:

• Stay inside. Maintain cover, arm yourself, and put barriers between you and the threat.
• Call 911. Police may not be fast, but they’re trained and equipped to confront.
• Observe and record. Cameras, license plate numbers, descriptions—all useful later.
• Be ready if they come in. The legal and tactical landscape changes entirely when suspects enter your home. That’s when defense of life—not property—becomes paramount.
• Train for decision-making. Real courage isn’t in chasing suspects—it’s in making the decision that keeps you alive.

The Hard Question

So here it is, plain:

If you had to choose between losing your car or ending up in critical condition, which would you pick?

Think about that next time someone cheers a confrontation. Bravery doesn’t mean making reckless moves. Bravery means living to fight another day.

Read the original story: Your Car or Your Life? Why Confronting Suspects Outside Can Get You Killed

Key Takeaways

• Nine NYC residents filed a federal lawsuit against the city over delays in processing firearms license applications.
• The suit claims the NYPD’s License Division operates on a 12-to-18 month timeline, violating a six-month state law deadline.
• Many applicants faced long waits for fingerprint appointments and additional document requests after months of waiting.
• The lawsuit alleges deliberate indifference to Second Amendment rights, pointing to prior lawsuits and attorney demand letters.
• This case challenges systematic delays that effectively deny the constitutional right to bear arms.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

NEW YORK, NY – Nine New York City residents have filed a federal lawsuit against the city, alleging the NYPD’s License Division systematically delayed their firearms license applications for months and even years, effectively stripping them of their Second Amendment rights while their paperwork sat untouched.

The suit, Milani v. New York City, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in February 2025. It names New York City as the sole defendant and was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the federal civil rights statute.

New York State law sets a firm six-month deadline for licensing officers to both decide an application and issue the license if approved. Despite that mandate, the complaint alleges the NYPD’s License Division operates on a 12-to-18-month internal timeline. In one recorded phone call cited in the lawsuit, a License Division investigator confirmed that figure when asked about processing times. When a plaintiff pointed out the six-month legal deadline, the investigator reportedly replied that 12 to 18 months was simply “the general length.”

The complaint details delays at nearly every step of the process. Applicants waited months just to receive fingerprinting appointments. After being fingerprinted, many were told investigators would not be assigned for another six to nine months. Once investigators were assigned, some applicants received just five to ten business days to submit additional documents despite waiting more than a year for any contact at all. Approved applicants then faced further delays in receiving the physical license and Purchase Authorization needed to actually take possession of a firearm.

More from USA Carry:

• NYC Mayor Bloomberg Sued Over Excessive Gun Permit Fees
• GOA Lawsuit Forces NYC to Allow Non-Residents to Apply for Concealed Carry Permits
• NYPD After Your Legal “High Cap” Magazines
• NYC Concealed Carry Applicants File Federal Lawsuit Over Extreme Licensing Delays
• Learning from the NYPD Shooting

One plaintiff, a Suffolk County truck driver who routinely enters New York City for work, waited over 18 months from application to license. Even then, the license arrived with the wrong firearm listed. Another plaintiff, a Navy veteran, filed an Article 78 petition in state court just to force a decision on his application. Several plaintiffs were only approved after their attorneys sent formal letters to the License Division threatening legal action.

The complaint also describes an NYPD License Division that does not answer phones, ignores emails, and at times allowed printers dedicated to issuing licenses to sit idle while approved applicants waited. One individual who retrieved his license in person reportedly witnessed the License Division Director personally ask officers which printers were working before printing the licenses herself.

The lawsuit alleges this constitutes a pattern and practice of deliberate indifference to Second Amendment rights. The city was aware of the delays through hundreds of attorney demand letters, approximately 20 Article 78 petitions filed in 2024 alone, and a prior federal lawsuit filed in 2023 raising similar claims against the same License Division.

The case is currently in the discovery phase. The city has already produced thousands of pages of documents, with more expected. The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Mirel Fisch of the Law Office of Mirel Fisch in Brooklyn.

The right to keep and bear arms does not pause while bureaucrats delay paperwork. When a government agency imposes what amounts to a waiting period of 18 months through administrative inaction, it is not processing an application. It is denying a constitutional right. This case is a direct challenge to that kind of systemic obstruction, and it matters to anyone who believes the Second Amendment means what it says.

Read the original story: NYC Gun License Applicants Sue NYPD Over Years-Long Delays That Blocked Their Second Amendment Rights

Key Takeaways

• Chris Hughes, 41, was shot and killed while trying to force his way into a home in Kosciusko, MS.
• He was wanted in connection with two fatal shootings that occurred earlier that day.
• The identities of Hughes’s victims have not been released; all three deaths have been confirmed by the coroner.
• The article discusses the importance of the right to defend oneself, particularly against known violent intruders.
• The identity of the homeowner who shot Hughes remains undisclosed, as does the specifics of the fatal shot.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

KOSCIUSKO, MS – A man wanted in connection with two fatal shootings in Attala County, Mississippi, was killed Sunday night after he tried to force his way into someone’s home.

As reported by WAPT News, Attala County Sheriff Curtis Pope confirmed that the suspect was shot while attempting to enter a residence. The suspect, identified by Attala County Coroner Sam Bell as 41-year-old Chris Hughes, was pronounced dead at 11:25 p.m. Sunday at Baptist Attala Hospital in Kosciusko.

Hughes had been wanted in connection with two separate shooting deaths that occurred Sunday afternoon in Kosciusko. The sheriff confirmed the two victims were killed but did not release their names or additional details about the circumstances of those shootings.

More from USA Carry:

• Mississippi Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Loose Monkey from Lab Truck Shot by Mississippi Homeowner in Early Morning Scare
• Fired Employee Retrieves AR-15, Stopped by Armed Security Before Entering Mississippi Chicken-Processing Plant
• AAR: Synergy Shooting Solutions Red Dot Pistol Performance
• Mississippi man arrested after hiding gun in Taco Bell quesadilla

Coroner Bell confirmed all three deaths. The identity of the homeowner who shot Hughes has not been released, and the sheriff did not specify whether the homeowner or law enforcement fired the fatal shot.

This case is a reminder of why the right to defend yourself in your own home matters. A person facing a violent intruder, particularly one already wanted for multiple killings, is confronting a credible and immediate threat to their life. The ability to respond with force in that moment is not just a legal right, it is a fundamental civil right protected by the Second Amendment.

Read the original story: Double Murder Suspect Shot Dead After Trying to Break Into Mississippi Home

Key Takeaways

• A 21-year-old man shot his father during an altercation when the father brandished a knife.
• No charges were filed against Kaiden Tubbs after the shooting, following consultations with the District Attorney’s Office.
• Self-defense scenarios involving family can be emotionally challenging, regardless of the legal justification for shooting.
• CCW Safe offers mental health support as part of their plans, recognizing the trauma that can follow self-defense incidents.
• Their plans include legal coverage and various levels of mental health sessions, emphasizing comprehensive protection for armed citizens.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WILLIAMSPORT, PA – A 21-year-old man shot and killed his father after the older man produced a knife during a confrontation at a Central Avenue residence, according to Williamsport Police. Following an investigation and consultation with the Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office, no charges were filed against the shooter.

The incident began the evening of March 27, 2026, when 40-year-old Andrew Tubbs got into an altercation with his own father, with whom he lived at 2206 Central Avenue. When Andrew left the residence, he took a kitchen knife with him. His father then reached out to Kaiden Tubbs, Andrew’s 21-year-old son, to come to the home.

When Kaiden arrived, another altercation broke out between him and Andrew. At some point during that confrontation, Andrew produced the knife. Kaiden, who was legally armed, drew his firearm and fired, striking Andrew. Officers responding the following day, March 28, at approximately 12:27 p.m., found Andrew Tubbs deceased at the scene.

Kaiden Tubbs was detained at the scene and transported to police headquarters for an interview. Multiple witnesses were also interviewed. After consulting with the Lycoming County District Attorney’s Office, investigators determined that no charges would be filed against Kaiden at that time. The case remains an active and ongoing investigation.

For Armed Citizens

Situations involving family members are among the most emotionally difficult scenarios any armed citizen can face. The law does not distinguish between a threat posed by a stranger and one posed by a relative. When someone faces an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, the right to defend oneself applies regardless of the relationship between the parties.

Even when a self-defense shooting is legally justified, the emotional aftermath can be overwhelming. Kaiden Tubbs walked away without criminal charges, but no legal outcome erases the reality of what happened. For many survivors of self-defense incidents, the psychological weight is something they carry long after the investigation closes.

That is something many concealed carriers never think about when they consider self-defense coverage. Legal protection is the obvious priority, but what happens to you mentally after a critical incident? It is a real cost that most plans do not address.

CCW Safe Covers the Aftermath You May Not Be Thinking About

CCW Safe includes Licensed Professional Counseling Sessions as part of every plan. The Defender Plan provides up to 10 sessions valued at $1,500. The Liberty Plan steps that up to 20 sessions valued at $3,000. The Ultimate Plan covers up to 40 sessions valued at $6,000. For a concealed carrier who has just been through a traumatic self-defense event, access to professional mental health support is not a luxury. It is a critical part of recovery.

All three plans also provide no-cap coverage on attorney fees, investigation fees, and expert witness costs, paid upfront with no out-of-pocket expense and no recoupment. A 24-hour emergency hotline and trained after-incident peer support are included across every plan as well.

The Ultimate Plan offers the most comprehensive protection overall, covering the primary member and their spouse at no additional cost for $519 per year. It includes up to $1.5 million in civil liability coverage for the primary member, bond coverage up to $1.5 million for both the primary member and spouse, up to $1,000 per day in lost wages during trial, and up to $10,000 for Red Flag Law hearings. The Defender Plan starts at $209 per year and the Liberty Plan at $399 per year, giving carriers options at every level.

No matter which plan fits your situation, CCW Safe is built around the understanding that a self-defense incident does not end when the police leave the scene. It is the coverage I personally use and trust, and it is what I recommend to every armed citizen who takes their responsibility seriously.

Read the original story: Son Shoots and Kills Father Who Pulled Knife During Altercation; No Charges Filed

Anne Arundel County Police responded to the mall around 5:00 p.m. on March 28, 2026, following a report of shots fired. The victim, an adult male, told officers he was leaving the store’s vestibule when several suspects approached and began assaulting him.

During the attack, the victim attempted to draw his handgun. The suspects fought to take the firearm from him, and the gun discharged during the struggle, striking one of the attackers. The suspects then fled the mall with the victim’s handgun and cell phone. The victim sustained non-life-threatening injuries.

The department’s Real Time Information Center worked with mall security to identify the suspects and their vehicle, a black Nissan Altima. Eastern District patrol officers and the department’s Aviation Unit located the car in Glen Burnie. A pursuit was authorized after the suspects fled north on Interstate 97 into Baltimore County.

The vehicle exited onto Interstate 695 and crashed. All three occupants fled on foot before being tracked by the Aviation Unit and taken into custody with help from Baltimore City and Baltimore County police. One Anne Arundel County officer was injured in a separate crash during the response and was later treated and released.

Two suspects were treated for injuries from the crash. The third was treated for the gunshot wound he sustained during the initial attack. Officers recovered the victim’s handgun in the Burlington Coat Factory parking lot and his cell phone near Route 100 and Oakwood Road in Glen Burnie.

Three men were charged in connection with the incident: Brandon Eric Edwards, Jr., 21, of Severna Park; Daevone D’Andre Johnson, 24, of Glen Burnie; and Elijah Amontay Fisher, 20, also of Glen Burnie. The investigation remains active.

Armed Citizen Takeaway

This incident is a reminder of how quickly a situation can escalate when a firearm is introduced into a violent confrontation. The victim was targeted, assaulted, and his gun became part of the struggle. Retaining control of your firearm during a physical attack is a critical and often overlooked aspect of concealed carry training. Retention techniques and situational awareness in transitional spaces like parking lots and store entrances can make a life-or-death difference.

The right to carry a firearm for personal protection is a fundamental civil right. Situations like this one illustrate why that right matters for ordinary people going about their daily lives.

Read the original story: Mall Robbery Turns Violent as Suspects Try to Disarm Victim – One Ends Up Shot, All Three Arrested

Episode 50 was filmed on March 25, flying Southwest Airlines from Las Vegas back to New Orleans. Like most of the flights in this series, the process was quick, smooth, and exactly what you want when traveling with declared firearms.

Check-In at LAS

I walked up to the counter, greeted the agent, and said I was declaring firearms. I was using my usual setup: a locked Condition 1 hard-sided case packed inside a piece of luggage.

The agent walked through the standard questions—confirming the firearm was unloaded and that any ammunition was properly stored in its original packaging and under the 11-pound limit. After that, I filled out and signed the declaration form, and he handed my ID back.

Once everything was squared away, I closed up the bag and the agent asked if I knew where to go next. As usual, that meant heading to the flagpole area and waiting about 15 minutes in case TSA needed to inspect the case.

I set my timer and waited. No one came out, so I headed through security.

Arrival in New Orleans

After landing at MSY, I went to baggage claim. Since the hard-sided case was packed inside regular luggage, my bag came out on the carousel with the rest of the checked baggage.

I grabbed it, checked to make sure everything looked as it should, and was on my way.

More Flying with Guns:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 46 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 47 – Southwest from MSY to LAS
• Flying with Guns: Episode 40 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 48 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 49 – Southwest from MSY to LAS

Final Thoughts

Episode 50 is another example of how consistent the process becomes once you’ve done it enough times. Declare the firearm, answer the standard questions, complete the form, and give TSA a few minutes just in case they need access.

No issues, no delays—just another smooth trip flying with declared firearms.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 50 – Southwest from LAS to MSY

Key Takeaways

• Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation achieved a legal victory as New York drops its social media disclosure requirement for concealed carry permits.
• The settlement permanently blocks the enforcement of the law requiring applicants to submit three years of social media history.
• Officials aim to ensure that the PPB-3 application no longer requests social media information from applicants.
• Critics labeled the original requirement as an invasion of privacy and a violation of multiple amendments.
• GOA and GOF will continue to challenge other restrictions under New York’s post-Bruen concealed carry law.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

NEW YORK – Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation have announced a formal legal victory after New York state agreed to permanently drop its social media disclosure requirement for concealed carry permit applicants.

The settlement, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York, comes in the case Antonyuk v. James, No. 1:22-cv-986-GTS-PJE. State defendants have consented to a permanent injunction against enforcement of N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(1)(o)(iv), the provision that required applicants to submit three years of social media account history as part of the licensing process.

This follows an earlier federal court ruling that blocked the requirement, which I covered previously. The new settlement makes that prohibition permanent and places a direct obligation on the Superintendent of the New York State Police to ensure the PPB-3 application form no longer asks applicants for social media information.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, framed the law as a deliberate effort to suppress lawful carry. “New York’s ‘Concealed Carry Improvement Act’ is a smokescreen. This law has never been about improving concealed carry for law-abiding citizens but instead is a calculated effort to disarm as many New Yorkers as possible,” Pratt said.

John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, called the original requirement a multi-amendment violation. “New York’s demand that applicants surrender three years of their private social media history was a blatant invasion of privacy and a massive government overreach,” Velleco said. He added that the victory extends beyond the Second Amendment, protecting First and Fourth Amendment rights as well.

The litigation is not over. GOA and GOF will continue challenging other provisions of New York’s post-Bruen concealed carry law, including restrictions on carrying in public parks, zoos, and establishments licensed to serve alcohol under N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-d and § 265.01-e.

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act was passed in 2022 following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which struck down the state’s “proper cause” licensing standard. Critics have argued the law replaced one unconstitutional barrier with several others.

For law-abiding gun owners, this outcome is a reminder that constitutional rights cannot be conditioned on surrendering personal information that has no bearing on legal eligibility. The right to armed self-defense is a fundamental civil right, and cases like this one continue to push back against government overreach at the application stage.

Read the original story: GOA, GOF Secure Permanent Victory as New York Drops Social Media Requirement for Concealed Carry Permits

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition filed a federal lawsuit against the National Park Service’s ban on carrying firearms in park buildings.
• The lawsuit, Zimmerman v. Bondi, challenges federal law 18 U.S.C. Section 930(a) and park superintendent regulations on carry restrictions.
• Lead plaintiff Gary Zimmerman argues he must disarm to access park facilities, facing inconvenience during visits.
• The case relies on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen, which mandates justifying firearm restrictions based on historical precedent.
• A ruling favoring the plaintiffs could allow millions of visitors to carry firearms in national park facilities for self-defense.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

FORT WORTH, TX – The Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a federal lawsuit on March 27, 2026, challenging the ban on carrying firearms inside buildings operated by the National Park Service, including visitor centers, ranger stations, and fee collection facilities.

The lawsuit, Zimmerman v. Bondi, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It targets 18 U.S.C. Section 930(a), the federal law that prohibits knowingly possessing a firearm in a federal facility, as applied to buildings within national parks. The suit also challenges a regulation that allows individual park superintendents to impose additional carry restrictions within their parks.

According to the SAF press release, more than 300 million people visited the National Park System last year, and all of them were prohibited from carrying a firearm inside specific park buildings. That includes campers who must disarm before entering a visitor center or ranger station to obtain a camping permit.

Who Is Suing and Why

The lead plaintiff is Gary Zimmerman, a Fort Worth, Texas resident, NRA-certified firearms instructor, and license-to-carry instructor certified in multiple states. He holds an active carry license in ten states and visits national parks frequently with his wife, including nearly annual trips to Big Bend National Park and multiple visits to Arches and Canyonlands.

According to the complaint, Zimmerman is forced to disarm each time he enters a federal facility inside a national park, typically securing his firearm in a safe in his vehicle. He visited Mammoth Cave National Park last August and was required to disarm while entering facilities to obtain permits and during a cave tour. The complaint notes that these facilities do not provide security screening to ensure no one else is carrying a firearm inside.

Zimmerman plans extended national park road trips this year and next, intending to visit parks including Yellowstone, Glacier, Zion, Acadia, and Great Smoky Mountains. He states he would carry at all of these locations if the law permitted him to do so.

More from USA Carry:

• Shots Fired at US Capitol Visitors Center; Officer Injured
• Female Homeowner Shoots Man Who Broke In with Axe
• Court Battle Over Guns at Post Office Heats Up as SAF & FPC Fights ‘Unconstitutional’ Government Tactics
• Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Limit USPS Gun Ban Ruling, Expands Protection to SAF and FPC Members
• S&W Introduces the M&P FPC Folding Carbine

The Legal Argument

The lawsuit rests on the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that the government must justify firearm restrictions by demonstrating they are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs argue the government cannot meet that burden for national park facilities.

The complaint points out that Bruen specifically warned against expanding the category of sensitive places to cover any location that is crowded or generally protected by law enforcement. The plaintiffs argue that national park visitor centers and ranger stations do not provide the kind of comprehensive government security that historically justified carry restrictions in places like courthouses or legislative assemblies.

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut stated that law-abiding Americans should not be forced to choose between accessing national parks and exercising their constitutional right to carry for self-defense. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb called the restrictions an attempt by ideologues to work around the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. FPC President Brandon Combs said the right to bear arms does not stop at the park entrance gate.

What This Means for Gun Owners

This lawsuit arrives at a significant moment in Second Amendment litigation. Federal courts are actively working through the boundaries of the sensitive places doctrine, and the question of where the government can lawfully ban firearms remains unsettled. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could open national park facilities to lawful carry for millions of visitors each year.

The right to carry for self-defense is a fundamental civil right that the Supreme Court has confirmed extends to public spaces. Forcing a law-abiding citizen to disarm before entering a ranger station to pick up a camping permit, while providing no security in return, is exactly the kind of restriction that Bruen was designed to prevent. This case is worth watching closely.

Read the original story: SAF and FPC File Lawsuit to Allow Concealed Carry Inside National Park Visitor Centers and Ranger Stations

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge in Connecticut upheld the ban on firearms in U.S. post offices, creating a split among federal courts on Second Amendment rights.
• Judge Oliver ruled the ban does not violate the Second Amendment, citing historical traditions of restricting firearms in crowded areas.
• The case was brought by David Nastri and We The Patriots USA, who argued for the right to carry firearms in post offices for self-defense.
• This ruling contrasts with a Texas decision finding the ban unconstitutional, potentially setting the stage for a Supreme Court review of the issue.
• The ongoing legal battle highlights complexities for armed citizens, as some retain injunction protection while others remain subject to the ban.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HARTFORD, CT – A federal judge in Connecticut has upheld the ban on carrying firearms inside United States post offices, creating a direct split among federal courts on a Second Amendment question that may ultimately need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.

As reported by The Reload, U.S. District Judge Vernon D. Oliver ruled on March 25, 2026 in Nastri v. Bondi, finding that the federal post office carry ban does not violate the Second Amendment. Judge Oliver concluded the ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of restricting firearms in crowded public spaces.

The ruling stands in contrast to decisions from federal judges in Texas and Florida, both of whom reached the opposite conclusion. Those courts found the ban unconstitutional under the standard established by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.

The Case and the Plaintiffs

The lawsuit was brought by David Nastri, a Connecticut attorney who has held a concealed carry permit for approximately 30 years, and We The Patriots USA, a nonprofit focused on constitutional rights. Nastri rents a post office box and visits his local post office once or twice a month. He argued he should be able to carry his firearm for self-defense during those visits without risking federal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. Section 930(a), the 1988 law that bans firearms in federal facilities.

Judge Oliver, a Biden appointee, acknowledged that post offices did not have firearm restrictions at the time of the founding. However, he argued that is not dispositive because dedicated postal buildings essentially did not exist then. Early post offices operated out of private homes, taverns, and general stores. The judge concluded that modern post offices, which see hundreds of millions of customer visits annually, are fundamentally different institutions.

How the Judge Reached His Conclusion

Judge Oliver relied heavily on a historical tradition of restricting firearms in crowded public spaces. He pointed to the 1328 Statute of Northampton in England, Founding-era statutes in Virginia and North Carolina, and Reconstruction-era laws in Texas, Missouri, and Tennessee that restricted firearms in public gatherings, markets, and places of assembly.

He concluded that today’s post offices, with an estimated 1.97 billion annual visits when adjusted for foot traffic that does not involve a transaction, qualify as the kind of high-traffic public spaces where such restrictions have historically been permitted. The ruling leaned on Second Circuit precedents from cases involving New York City’s restrictions on firearms in Times Square and the public transit system.

The plaintiffs’ attorney, Cameron Atkinson, sharply criticized the ruling, stating that courts are ignoring the framework established in Bruen and Heller. He said his team plans to appeal.

More from USA Carry:

• Split Decision in Gun Rights Case: Maryland Law Upheld in Most Places, Rejected on Private Property Carry
• Appeals Court Upholds Maryland Gun Ban
• JM Custom Kydex AIWB Holster Review
• Connecticut Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Connecticut Alert: Magazine Ban and Castle Doctrine

Where This Fits in the Broader Legal Fight

We previously covered the Texas ruling in this ongoing legal fight, where U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor found the post office carry ban unconstitutional and extended an injunction to all members of the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. That injunction currently prevents enforcement of the ban against covered members, though the case remains on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.

The Connecticut ruling now creates a formal circuit split. If the appeals courts in the Second and Fifth Circuits reach opposite conclusions, the stage could be set for the Supreme Court to take up the question and issue a definitive ruling.

What This Means for Armed Citizens

For now, the practical picture is complicated. FPC and SAF members in most of the country retain injunction protection from the Texas ruling, but that protection is not final and the case is still being litigated. Armed citizens outside those organizations remain subject to the federal ban in most jurisdictions.

The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for self-defense. That right does not stop at the parking lot of a government building. Courts that continue to chip away at that right by expanding the definition of sensitive places are doing exactly what Bruen warned against. The circuit split created by this ruling makes a Supreme Court showdown on post office carry more likely, and that fight is worth watching closely.

Read the original story: Federal Courts Split on Post Office Gun Ban as Connecticut Judge Upholds Carry Restriction