Key Takeaways

• California’s ban on magazines over 10 rounds has faced legal challenges, highlighted by two conflicting federal appeals court decisions.
• The Ninth Circuit upheld the ban, arguing that large-capacity magazines are not covered by the Second Amendment, while the Third Circuit ruled against similar restrictions in New Jersey by asserting that magazines are indeed ‘arms.’
• The case Duncan v. Bonta has emerged as a significant point of contention in these rulings, potentially heading to the Supreme Court.
• Both circuits disagree fundamentally on whether the magazine’s capacity impacts its classification under the Second Amendment, raising important constitutional questions.
• As of now, the Supreme Court has not decided whether to hear Duncan v. Bonta, and California’s restriction remains valid during this period.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — On August 3, 2026, the lawyers challenging California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds filed a short brief at the U.S. Supreme Court with one message for the justices: another federal appeals court has now struck down an identical limit, and it refused in writing to follow the Ninth Circuit decision that went against them.

The case is Duncan v. Bonta, No. 25-198, brought by Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell and the California Rifle & Pistol Association against California Attorney General Rob Bonta. California Penal Code § 32310 makes it a crime to possess what § 16740 defines as a large-capacity magazine, meaning any feeding device that can accept more than 10 rounds. Violation carries a fine and up to a year in jail. Residents who already owned those magazines when the ban took effect had four choices: remove them from the state, sell them to a licensed dealer, turn them in for destruction, or permanently alter them to hold 10 rounds or fewer.

Three pieces of legal vocabulary carry this story, so here they are in plain English. A supplemental brief is a short filing that tells the Court about something that happened after the main papers were submitted. En banc means the case was reheard by an expanded set of judges on the appeals court instead of the usual panel of three. A circuit split is what you get when two federal appeals courts answer the same constitutional question in opposite directions, and it is one of the strongest reasons the Supreme Court agrees to hear a case at all.

Start with what the Ninth Circuit did. Sitting en banc in Duncan v. Bonta, No. 23-55805, that court upheld California’s ban on March 20, 2025 and gave two independent reasons. The first was that the magazines are not covered by the Second Amendment at all. Writing for the majority, Judge Susan Graber concluded that “[l]arge-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself.” The second reason was that even if the text did reach them, the ban falls “neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm,” a tradition the court built from founding-era gunpowder-storage rules, trap-gun bans and 19th century restrictions on Bowie knives, slungshots and concealable pistols.

That ruling drew sharp dissents. Judge Patrick Bumatay, joined by Judges Sandra Ikuta, Ryan Nelson and Lawrence VanDyke, wrote that the magazines California bans “are the most common magazines in the country,” that by conservative estimates “more than a hundred million” of them exist, and that they “should be more accurately termed ‘standard-capacity magazines.'”

Then came July 17, 2026. The Third Circuit, sitting en banc in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450 and 24-2506, reversed a district court and held that New Jersey’s restriction on magazines over 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment. The court divided badly, with four judges in dissent and several more writing separately, but the opinion of the court by Judge Freeman went directly at the reasoning California had won on in the Ninth Circuit.

The Third Circuit held that magazines are arms, capacity included. “The text of the Second Amendment covers all magazines, not just magazines that New Jersey considers ‘standard capacity,'” the court wrote, and “it cannot be that a magazine that can hold ten rounds is an ‘Arm[]’ covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment but a magazine that can hold eleven rounds is not.” It then addressed the Ninth Circuit’s theory by name: “The State urges us to adopt the Ninth Circuit’s view that LCMs are not arms but accessories of weaponry, referred to as ‘accoutrements’ in the Founding era.” Its answer was blunt. “There are a few problems with this reasoning.”

On history, the two courts landed just as far apart. The Third Circuit found the magazines to be in common use for lawful purposes, pointing to roughly 24 million AR-15s and similar sport rifles in circulation, over 100 million 30-round AR-15 magazines, and adopting a line from the D.C. Circuit: “There may well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use but, if so, the record is devoid of evidence as to what that capacity is; in any event, that capacity surely is not ten.” And it threw out the gunpowder analogy the Ninth Circuit had relied on, noting in a footnote that named Duncan directly that “gunpowder-storage laws are not ‘relevantly similar’ to the LCM Provisions simply because both restrict quantities of ammunition,” because those laws were fire-safety measures rather than responses to firearm violence.

Nobody on either court is pretending this is a small disagreement. Judge Shwartz, dissenting in New Jersey along with Judges Krause, Restrepo and Smith, wrote plainly that with the majority’s ruling “our Court is now an outlier.”

That is the state of play the August 3 brief put in front of the justices, and the timing matters. On June 30, 2026 the Supreme Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidating them on the question of “[w]hether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” Magazines are not that question. The Third Circuit said so itself, explaining that its decision “resolves a question the Supreme Court has not committed to addressing: the constitutionality of a law restricting possession of magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.” If the justices want to settle the magazine issue, Duncan is the case in front of them.

What stands out to me is how deep the disagreement runs. These two courts did not merely weigh the same history and come out differently. They disagree about whether the object in question is an arm in the first place. One court says the magazine in your rifle is an accessory the government may prohibit outright. The other says capacity has nothing to do with whether the Second Amendment covers it, and that treating the tenth round as protected and the eleventh as unprotected makes no sense. Those two positions cannot both be the law of a single country. The Third Circuit quoted the Supreme Court’s own recent language in Wolford v. Lopez on exactly that point, that “the Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States” and that “local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate” it.

The practical stakes are as ordinary as the hardware. Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, whose organization filed an amicus brief on September 12, 2025 urging the Court to take the case, described what is at issue as “standard-capacity magazines for handguns and rifles.” An amicus brief is a filing from an organization that is not a party but wants the Court to consider a particular argument. SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education, Kostas Moros, said in that release that the Ninth Circuit ruling “defies the Supreme Court’s precedents in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi by wrongly concluding that magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment’s plain text.” Gottlieb’s phrase describes what ships in the box with a large share of the defensive firearms sold in this country. A serious carry mindset is built on training with the gun you actually own, and in California the state has decided which version of that gun its residents are permitted to own. Anyone carrying there already works through California’s concealed carry permit system long before reaching any question about what can legally go in the magazine.

More from USA Carry:

• Second Amendment Court Cases To Watch In 2023
• Justice Department Gives California Six Days to Drop Glock Ban or Face Federal Suit
• Federal Courts Split on Post Office Gun Ban as Connecticut Judge Upholds Carry Restriction
• Split Decision in Gun Rights Case: Maryland Law Upheld in Most Places, Rejected on Private Property Carry
• Two Federal Courts, Two Weeks Apart, Split on Whether Silencers Are Protected Arms

Where this stands is narrow and worth stating plainly. A cert petition is a request, not a result. The Supreme Court has not said whether it will hear Duncan v. Bonta, California’s magazine restriction remains in force while the petition is pending, and both appeals court rulings came from divided courts with substantial dissents.

I will continue tracking Duncan v. Bonta as the Supreme Court decides whether to take it up.

Read the original story: Appeals Courts Now Split on 10-Round Magazine Bans, and California’s Is the Case Asking the Supreme Court to Step In

Key Takeaways

• A coalition of gun owners and organizations filed a motion to block California’s ban on Glock pistols, set for a hearing on September 4, 2026.
• The case, Jaymes v. Bonta, challenges California’s AB 1127 law, which prohibits the sale of certain semiautomatic pistols defined as machinegun-convertible.
• The plaintiffs argue that the ban infringes on Second Amendment rights, given that Glock pistols qualify as ‘arms’ under the law.
• California’s handgun roster has already faced scrutiny, with plaintiffs asserting that the state fails to justify its new restrictions on firearms sales.
• The sales ban took effect July 1, 2026, and the ongoing legal battle impacts retail availability for handgun buyers in California.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

SAN DIEGO, CA — A coalition of gun owners, retailers and Second Amendment organizations asked a federal judge on August 4, 2026, to block California’s ban on the commercial sale of Glock and Glock-style pistols, and the judge has set a hearing for September 4.

The motion for a preliminary injunction was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California under case number 20-cv-2190-DMS-DEB, with Lana Rae Renna as the first-named plaintiff. The defendants are California Attorney General Robert Bonta and Allison Mendoza, director of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. The Honorable Dana M. Sabraw is set to hear argument at 1:30 p.m. on September 4, 2026. A preliminary injunction is simply a court order pausing a law while the case is litigated, so plaintiffs are not asking the judge to strike the statute yet. They are asking him to stop it from operating in the meantime.

The plaintiff group is deep. Individual Californians including Danielle Jaymes, Laura Schwartz, Michael Schwartz, Robert Macomber, Clint Freeman, John Klier, John Phillips, Cheryl Prince and Darin Prince are joined by retailers PWGG, L.P., North County Shooting Center, Inc., and Gunfighter Tactical, LLC, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the National Rifle Association.

The law at issue is AB 1127, authored by Assemblymember Gabriel and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2025, as Chapter 572. Read the enrolled text and the mechanics are narrower than the shorthand suggests, and broader in effect. On and after July 1, 2026, a licensed firearms dealer may not sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer or deliver any semiautomatic “machinegun-convertible pistol,” which the bill defines as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter. A “pistol converter” is defined as a device that replaces the backplate at the rear of the slide, interferes with the trigger mechanism, and thereby lets the pistol fire more than one shot with a single function of the trigger.

Note what the statute does not require. It does not require that a converter be present. The trigger for the sales ban is the geometry of the pistol itself, and the cruciform trigger bar is a defining feature of the Glock design and of pistols built on that platform. AB 1127 separately expands California’s definition of “machinegun” to include a machinegun-convertible pistol that is actually equipped with a converter, which folds it into the existing prohibition on manufacturing, selling, possessing or transporting a machinegun, a violation punishable as a felony. So the conduct everyone agrees is criminal was already criminal. What the new law adds is a ban on the retail sale of the unmodified pistol.

Dealer penalties escalate. A first violation draws a fine, a second draws a fine that may result in suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license and removal from state centralized lists, and a third is a misdemeanor that must result in revocation and removal.

The Second Amendment Foundation announced the challenge on October 13, 2025, three days after the signing, as Jaymes v. Bonta, and said it was joined by the NRA, FPC, a licensed retailer and two individual plaintiffs. SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack tied the new law directly to California’s handgun roster. “Prior to AB 1127, Gen 3 Glock, and similar handguns built on the Glock platform, were available for commercial sale because they were grandfathered onto California’s handgun roster,” Sack said. “California is already subject to an injunction because the California Handgun Roster unconstitutionally bans handguns in common use for lawful purposes. Rather than heed the demands of the Second Amendment and their own courts, California lawmakers have responded by doubling down and expanding their handgun ban. We’ll see them in court.”

“Just as we’ve done in numerous other cases in the state, we will vigorously defend this unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment rights of Californians,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

The August motion was filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(d), the rule that lets a party bring in claims about events that happened after the original complaint was filed. In plain terms, the roster case was already on the docket, the state passed a new restriction while that case was pending, and the plaintiffs are litigating the new restriction inside the existing case rather than starting over.

The argument itself follows the familiar two-step. Plaintiffs contend Penal Code section 27595 implicates the Second Amendment because Glock pistols are “arms” covered by the plain text, and that once the text is implicated the burden shifts to California to show its ban fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, which plaintiffs say the state cannot do. That is the framework the Supreme Court set out in Bruen. Plaintiffs also argue the remaining preliminary injunction factors favor them and ask the court to waive bond or require only nominal security, which is the money a party normally has to post to cover the other side’s losses if the injunction turns out to have been wrongly granted.

The sales ban took effect July 1, 2026. The motion to halt it was filed August 4. That means Californians walking into a gun store today are already living under the restriction the court will take up on September 4, and every week that passes is a week a common, widely owned handgun platform cannot be bought at retail in the state. That is not an abstraction for the shooter deciding on a first defensive pistol. It is a shrinking counter. Californians already work under one of the tightest firearms regimes in the country, and my California concealed carry guide covers the permit side of that picture.

More from USA Carry:

• Texas Set to Recognize All Valid Out-of-State Handgun Licenses Starting September, Pending Governor’s Signature
• Louisiana’s 2025 Second Amendment Sales Tax Holiday Set for September 5–7
• Homeowner Kills Man to Possibly Prevent Car From Being Stolen
• North Carolina House Reschedules Veto Override Vote on Freedom to Carry Bill to September 22
• SAF Files for Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois Carry Ban

The fair caveats matter here. Everything above from the plaintiffs’ side is argument, not fact found by a court. California has not yet had its say on this motion in anything I can review, and Judge Sabraw has not ruled on any of it. The state will get its opportunity to defend the statute, and the September 4 hearing is where that happens.

I will continue tracking the motion for preliminary injunction and the September 4 hearing before Judge Sabraw in the Southern District of California.

Read the original story: California Banned Glock Sales on July 1. On August 4, SAF, NRA and FPC Filed to Stop It

Key Takeaways

• Lt. Bill Benjamin, an off-duty police lieutenant, was shot in the leg during a confrontation with a 53-year-old man, Lamont Johnson, who died in the exchange.
• The incident occurred after Johnson allegedly knocked on the door of a woman’s home where Benjamin was present.
• Police are investigating the shooting as a potential self-defense case, with IMPD handling the criminal investigation and Lawrence police conducting an administrative review.
• The circumstances surrounding the shooting, including whether Johnson made it inside the home and who fired first, remain unclear; no charges have been announced yet.
• The tragic event highlights the legal standard for justifying deadly force, which requires an imminent threat of serious harm.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

INDIANAPOLIS, IN — An off-duty Lawrence Police Department lieutenant who retired from IMPD as a deputy chief was shot in the leg Friday night at a home on the east side of Indianapolis, and a 53-year-old man was killed in the same exchange of gunfire.

Lt. Bill Benjamin was inside the home with a woman who lives there when her ex-boyfriend allegedly showed up and began knocking on the door just after 10 p.m., as reported by WTHR. A confrontation escalated. Both men fired. Lamont Johnson, 53, died. Benjamin was shot in the leg and remains hospitalized.

Benjamin rose to deputy chief at IMPD before retiring in 2012 and now works as an officer in the Lawrence Police Department’s investigations division. A woman involved in the incident described him to WTHR as a friend.

Police say the shooting is preliminarily being called a self-defense shooting. IMPD is handling the criminal investigation. Lawrence police are running a separate administrative investigation, which looks only at whether Benjamin violated his department’s policies, rules or procedures, not at whether he broke the law. That second review is standard practice any time an officer fires a weapon.

The detail carrying the most weight is who was outside the door. Police describe an ex-boyfriend who showed up uninvited, at night, at the home where the woman lives, and started knocking.

More from USA Carry:

• Elderly Father, 85, Shoots and Kills Son, 40, in Self-Defense After Brutal Beating With Metal Rod
• Indiana Constitutional Carry Goes Into Effect Today | What You Need to Know
• 19-Year-Old Arrested with Illegally Modified Glock in Dual Carjacking and Shooting Spree
• SAF Files for Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois Carry Ban
• Pregnant Woman Thwarts Attack, Shoots Intruder In Shoulder

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and it is the standard this shooting will be measured against. For now the defensive framing belongs to the police account, not to the record. Prosecutors make the final determination once IMPD finishes its work.

Johnson is dead and cannot give his account, which puts more weight than usual on physical evidence and on the accounts of the people who were inside. IMPD has not said who fired first, what was said at the door, or whether Johnson made it inside the home. No charging decision has been announced.

Read the original story: Ex-Boyfriend Knocks on an East Indianapolis Door Just After 10 p.m. and Is Shot Dead, Off-Duty Officer Hit in the Leg, Police Preliminarily Call It Self-Defense

Key Takeaways

• On August 1, a shooting outside an In-N-Out Burger in Twin Falls left three dead and seven injured; the shooter, Chad Williams, died from a self-inflicted wound.
• Private citizen Jordan Salinas and an off-duty Idaho State Police trooper confronted the shooter, pushing him away from a crowded area, which likely prevented further casualties.
• Salinas described the chaotic scene and emphasized that armed civilians can effectively intervene, while also highlighting the importance of community members aiding others during crises.
• Five injured individuals remained hospitalized, with two in critical condition; the investigation continues into Williams’s actions and motive, with FBI assistance.
• Salinas noted that you don’t need a weapon to help during emergencies, as many civilians assisted in ensuring the safety of others.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

TWIN FALLS, ID — A 35-year-old private citizen and an armed off-duty Idaho State Police trooper opened fire on a man who was shooting a rifle at people outside an In-N-Out Burger on Blue Lakes Boulevard on Saturday, August 1, and Twin Falls Police Chief Matthew Hicks says their shots pushed him away from the crowd. Three people were killed and seven were wounded. The suspect, 24-year-old Chad Williams, died at the scene from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound.

The private citizen, Jordan Salinas, described the encounter in an interview as reported by ABC News, which also carried Hicks’ account of the response from a Sunday news conference.

Police were called to reports of gunfire at about 2:29 p.m. Hicks said 911 dispatchers could hear screams and gunfire in the background of the calls. He called it one of the most chaotic instances a law enforcement officer could face in a career, and he noted why: the restaurant sits next to a busy shopping area where potentially hundreds of people were nearby when the shooting started.

Salinas said he and his girlfriend had just pulled into the parking lot. People were pouring out of the building. Neither of them understood what was happening at first, and he said they both thought it might be a kitchen fire. Then the shooting registered for what it was.

“It was like a switch,” he said. “Like, okay, you know, green light.”

He drew a suppressed FN Five-Seven from a shoulder holster and moved toward the shooting while hundreds of people ran the other way. He took cover behind the In-N-Out sign near the road. Video of the incident shows him firing repeatedly at the shooter.

“I peeked around the right-hand side of that sign closest to the road, and that’s when I saw the individual with his rifle pointed at the vehicles,” Salinas said.

“He seemed unusually comfortable aiming that rifle at those cars,” Salinas said. “As soon as some rounds started coming at him, everything changed immediately. All that bravado he had immediately crumbled.”

Salinas also pointed to something armed citizens should sit with. He said the biggest factor was that the shooter did not know where he was when the first rounds came at him. Cover and an unknown angle bought time, and time was the only thing that mattered to the people still running through that parking lot.

An armed off-duty Idaho State Police trooper also engaged the suspect. “We believe these actions drove the suspect from the scene and prevented further casualties,” Hicks said.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, to yourself or to another person, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. A man standing in a crowded shopping center firing a rifle and taking aim at passing vehicles is that threat in its plainest form, and the police account describes two men who put themselves between him and everyone else who was still exposed. What police have characterized is the effect of their intervention: the suspect left the scene, and the chief believes fewer people were hurt because of it.

Five of the wounded were still hospitalized Sunday, two of them in critical condition, according to Hicks. Lynsi Snyder, president of In-N-Out Burger, said in a statement posted to social media that one of the company’s employees was among those killed. “In-N-Out will be mourning with the families and praying for them as they tread through a very painful season,” Snyder said.

Investigators believe Williams acted alone, and a motive remains under investigation. Police said his family is cooperating. The FBI is assisting the investigation, and authorities are still asking anyone with information or video to come forward.

More from USA Carry:

• Three Dead Outside a Twin Falls In-N-Out, Armed Bystander Engaged the Shooter With a Suppressed Pistol Causing Him to Retreat
• Maryland Court Rules Carrying a Gun Alone No Longer Justifies a Police Stop
• Newly Licensed Concealed Carrier Accidentally Shoots Self in Theater
• Your Miranda Right to Silence Might Now Get You Into Trouble
• Concealed Carrier Acquitted Of Murder After Shooting Ex-Wife’s Boyfriend During Attack

One more thing from Salinas is worth repeating, because it is the mindset piece that gets lost every time a story like this breaks. He emphasized that you do not need a weapon to be useful. He said dozens of people sprang into action to move others to safety and to render first aid, alongside the first responders, and that all of it together got more people home.

“My goal was to try to help as many people get home as possible,” he said, “to be with their families, to be with their friends.”

Read the original story: “It Was Like a Switch”: The 35-Year-Old Who Fired Back at the Twin Falls In-N-Out Shooter Speaks Out

Key Takeaways

• A store clerk in north St. Louis shot a man after he tried to force his way behind the counter at McNeal’s Superette.
• The suspect fought with police officers upon their arrival and was arrested before being taken to a hospital for treatment.
• Police plan to seek robbery charges against the suspect, who had been shot prior to the altercation with the clerk.
• The layout of the workspace is crucial for those working behind a counter; awareness of positioning can affect decision-making in dangerous situations.
• Details about the suspect’s armament and the clerk’s account remain unknown, which are critical for understanding the incident.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

ST. LOUIS, MO — A store clerk in north St. Louis shot a man who forced his way toward a secured area behind the counter Thursday morning, and police say the man fought with officers before they got him into custody.

According to police, the man walked into McNeal’s Superette in the 5900 block of Lillian around 10 a.m. and caused a disturbance, then tried to force his way behind the counter, as reported by First Alert 4. The clerk shot him.

Officers arriving at the market ran into a second problem. Police said the suspect fought with the officers who tried to take him into custody. They arrested him and took him to a hospital for treatment.

That struggle tells you something about the man the clerk was dealing with. He had already been shot and he still went at uniformed officers.

Police said they will seek robbery charges against him.

The counter is the whole story here. A clerk working a small neighborhood market stands in a narrow strip of floor with a wall of merchandise on one side and a register on the other. There is no retreat available and no distance to create. When a stranger commits to forcing his way through that barrier into the one space the clerk cannot leave, the clerk is not defending a cash drawer. The money is irrelevant. A person is closing on him inside a box.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. I want to be straight about what is not known: police have not said whether the man was armed, and the clerk’s own account of what he saw and heard has not been released. Those details usually decide these cases.

More from USA Carry:

• Armed Citizen Shoots and Kills Carjacker In St. Louis
• Flying with Guns: Episode 43 – Southwest from MSY to LAS
• Armed Citizen Shoots Teen Who Allegedly Pointed Gun and Opened Fire at St. Louis Gas Station
• Homeowner Shoots Himself While Defending Against Home Invader
• Flying with Guns [Episode 22] – Slight Hiccup at Check-In

The clerk has not been identified, and no charging decision or self-defense determination involving him has been announced. Missouri prosecutors will review the shooting like any other.

For anyone who works a counter for a living, the lesson is the layout of your own workspace. Know where you are pinned, know where the barrier is, and decide in advance what it means when someone starts coming over it. That decision is mindset, and it gets made long before a Thursday morning.

Read the original story: St. Louis Store Clerk Shoots Man Who Tried to Force His Way Behind the Counter During 10 A.M. Disturbance

Key Takeaways

• The North Carolina House did not schedule an override vote for SB 50 on August 3, correcting an earlier article’s error.
• SB 50 remains in ‘Unfinished Business,’ with no action taken since April 6, 2026.
• Rep. Keith Kidwell states that four Republicans will not support the override, concerned about voting risks pre-election.
• The House plans to reconvene in November, with a deadline of December 31, 2026, to act on SB 50 before it expires.
• Kidwell doubts the House will gather the needed votes before the year ends, leaving the future of SB 50 uncertain.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

RALEIGH, NC — On August 1 I published an article reporting that the North Carolina House had put the SB 50 veto override back on its calendar for Monday, August 3 at 10 a.m. That was wrong. No override vote was scheduled for that day, and none happened. This article corrects it.

Here is how I got there. SB 50 does appear on the House calendar for August 3. It is printed under the heading “Unfinished Business, Reconsideration of Vetoed Bill.” I read that as a scheduled vote. It is not. That is a standing entry. It prints on the House calendar every session day because the veto message on SB 50 is still pending before the chamber and has never been disposed of. The bill has been sitting in that block since the summer of 2025.

I did check the bill history on the General Assembly’s own site, and it did not show what I expected. Every time the House genuinely scheduled this vote, the record left a pair of actions: withdrawn from calendar, then placed on calendar for a specific date. That pattern repeats eleven times between July 2025 and April 2026. The last entry is dated April 6, 2026, placing the bill on the calendar for April 21, 2026. Nothing follows it. No action ever placed SB 50 on the calendar for August 3. I saw that gap and assumed the history had not caught up yet.

There was a second tell I missed. The August 3 House calendar listed no other bills at all. A chamber convening to take up the only outstanding veto override in the building does not arrive with an otherwise empty calendar.

Rep. Keith Kidwell contacted me directly after the article published and told me SB 50 would not see an override vote. He agreed to go on the record about where the override actually stands.

Kidwell puts the number of Republicans who will not vote for the override at four. Public reporting has named two: Reps. William Brisson of Bladen County and Ted Davis Jr. of New Hanover County, both of whom voted against the bill on final passage and neither of whom is seeking reelection.

On why the vote never gets called, Kidwell said House leadership is unwilling to bring the bill to the floor until after the November elections, “because they’re more worried about losing seats than they are about doing what’s right.” He added that he sees the calculation backwards: “if Republicans did what they were sent to do when elected we would likely win more seats.”

That reading matches what the House did in June. On June 24 the chamber overrode Gov. Josh Stein’s vetoes on the DEI and immigration enforcement bills by identical 71 to 47 margins. SB 50 was not among them, which left it as the only veto override in the House still awaiting action.

The arithmetic explains the caution. An override requires three fifths of members present and voting, not three fifths of all 120 seats. That means absences matter as much as yes votes, and it means every member who shows up has to go on record. For Republicans in competitive districts, a recorded vote carries risk in both directions.

Kidwell says the House intends to return in November, and he laid out the deadline plainly: “They have until 12/31/26 to pass SB50. Then it dies.” He is right. This General Assembly’s term ends with the calendar year. A new one is sworn in in January 2027, and anything left unfinished starts over as a new bill.

More from USA Carry:

• Lawful Police Commands and the Use of Deadly Force
• North Carolina Eliminates Permit Requirement for Handgun Purchases
• Hawaii Firearm Permits at Record High Level in 2011
• New Mexico Senate Approves Bill Restricting Common Rifles and Magazines Over 10 Rounds
• Flying with Guns: Episode 37 – MSY to LAS

He is not optimistic about the window. “I doubt if they will get all 4 of the Republicans that are not votes to come around.”

Kidwell has his own history with this issue. He was the lead sponsor of House Bill 5, the NC Constitutional Carry Act, filed January 29, 2025. It received a favorable committee report on March 19, 2025 and was sent to the House Rules Committee, where it never moved again. Senate Bill 50 had been filed on February 4, 2025, and it passed the Senate on March 20, 2025, the day after HB 5 was referred to Rules. SB 50 became the vehicle.

Where that leaves things: the Senate overrode the veto 30 to 19 on July 29, 2025. The House has not voted, is not scheduled to vote, and by the account of a member of its own caucus will not vote before November. The window closes December 31.

I will track this one through the end of the year and report what the House does with the time it has left.

Read the original story: I Got the ‘Freedom to Carry NC’ SB 50 Story Wrong. A NC House Republican Told Me What Is Actually Happening

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in Rochester shot and killed an intruder in his house around 4:30 a.m. on August 3.
• The intruder entered through the rear of the house and was found dead in the kitchen shortly after shots were fired.
• Police reported no prior connection between the homeowner and the intruder, who was on parole for a previous burglary.
• The homeowner had experienced multiple burglaries recently and legally owned the handgun used in the shooting.
• Authorities stated the shooting appears justified, and no charges have been filed yet.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

ROCHESTER, NY — A homeowner on Avery Street was asleep around 4:30 a.m. Monday, Aug. 3, when someone came in through the rear of his house. He was armed with a legally owned, legally registered handgun. The intruder was found dead in the kitchen.

Rochester Police Capt. Frank Umbrino said officers were sent to the home near Emerson Street after a neighbor called 911 reporting gunshots coming from a nearby house, as reported by Democrat and Chronicle. Within minutes, the homeowner called police himself to say he had shot a man who broke into his residence.

The homeowner told investigators he was awakened when someone entered through the back of the house, Umbrino said. He fired. Officers located the intruder in the kitchen, where he was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police said there is no indication the homeowner knew the man. The intruder was on parole for a previous burglary and was known to law enforcement, according to Umbrino. His name has not been released pending notification of his family.

Umbrino also said the homeowner had been burglarized several times in recent weeks.

The detail I keep coming back to is access. This homeowner went from asleep to a stranger inside his house in the space of a few seconds, and the handgun was close enough to reach in the dark. That is the entire question a home defense plan has to answer. A gun locked in a safe on the other side of the house is a gun you may never get your hands on. Wherever you keep yours, it needs to be reachable from where you sleep, secured the way your household requires, and in the same place every single night so you are not searching for it while someone is already inside.

More from USA Carry:

• Rochester Bar Security Officer Shoots, Kills Ejected Man Who Retrieved a Handgun From His Car and Came Back Waving It at a Crowded 1:30 A.M. Bar
• Three Rochester Cops Shot in Domestic Violence Ambush; Suspect Killed After Shootout
• Covid-19 Early Released Utah Parolee Breaks Into Home Ties Up Woman
• Rochester Resident Wounded While Defending Family in Fatal Home Invasion Shooting
• Bullet Flies Through Kitchen During Neighbors Home Invasion

Police said the homeowner has a valid New York state pistol permit and that the handgun was legally owned and legally registered.

“At this point, it appears to be a justified shooting,” Umbrino told reporters at the scene. No charges have been filed. The Monroe County District Attorney’s Office will review the case once the investigation is complete, and prosecutors make the final determination. The homeowner has not been publicly identified.

Read the original story: Rochester Homeowner Wakes to Someone Coming In the Back Door at 4:30 A.M., Fatally Shoots Intruder in His Kitchen

Key Takeaways

• Three people died and two were wounded in a shooting outside In-N-Out Burger in Twin Falls, Idaho.
• Police confirmed the attacker is dead and stated the FBI is assisting with the investigation.
• A bystander, possibly named Jordan Salinas, engaged the shooter with a handgun, although details about his involvement remain unverified.
• Two surviving victims received medical treatment, and officials lifted a shelter-in-place order after determining there was no ongoing threat.
• The FBI opened a tip line for anyone with footage or information, as investigators continue searching for a motive.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

TWIN FALLS, ID — Three people were killed and at least two more were wounded Saturday afternoon in a shooting outside the In-N-Out Burger in Twin Falls, Idaho. Police say the attacker is dead. Video from the scene shows an armed bystander engaging the shooter in the parking lot with a handgun fitted with a suppressor.

A Twin Falls Police Department spokesperson confirmed the three deaths and at least two injuries, as reported by NBC News. Police later confirmed the attacker was dead and the threat over, put the attack at around 4 p.m. local time, and said the FBI was assisting, as reported by ABC7 Eyewitness News.

Police have not identified the bystander. The name circulating is Jordan Salinas, along with a Facebook profile attributed to him that shows him training with firearms, though the account has not been verified as his. No agency has said whether his rounds struck the attacker or how the attacker died.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Acquitted Of Murder After Shooting Ex-Wife’s Boyfriend During Attack
• Rule 4 in Real Life: The Danger of Hitting Bystanders
• MMA Fighter Shannon “The Cannon” Shoots Man with Knife in Self-Defense After Parking Spot Confrontation
• Stoeger’s Double Defense Twins
• Bystander Injured in Shootout Between Burglary Suspects and Concealed Carry Holder on Chicago’s South Side

The two surviving victims were taken to St. Luke’s Magic Valley Medical Center. Officials issued a shelter-in-place order while tactical units swept the area and lifted it after determining there was no ongoing threat, though major routes stayed closed, including the Perrine Bridge. Today, Twin Falls PD posted that the FBI had opened a digital media tip line at fbi.gov/twinfallsshooting, asking anyone with photos, video or dashcam footage to submit it because “even small details may help investigators.” In-N-Out said it was “heartbroken” and that its “prayers go out to our customers, associates and all of their families.” Investigators are still working to determine a motive.

What stays with me is the direction he moved. A man was shooting people in a burger restaurant parking lot at four in the afternoon on a Saturday, and everyone in that lot was running the other way. Whatever the investigation eventually says about whose rounds landed where, a man with a pistol on his hip closed distance on that threat instead of leaving it to work through the crowd unopposed. I think he saved lives. That is mindset, and it was built long before Saturday.

Read the original story: Three Dead Outside a Twin Falls In-N-Out, Armed Bystander Engaged the Shooter With a Suppressed Pistol Causing Him to Retreat

Key Takeaways

• An off-duty Utah Highway Patrol sergeant, Jeremy Matthews, engaged in a gunfight at a liquor store after witnessing a road rage incident.
• Matthews drew his concealed handgun when a man chased another into the store, firing shots and causing chaos.
• Despite being off duty, Matthews reacted quickly due to his law enforcement training and held the shooter at gunpoint after the incident.
• Prosecutors identified the shooter as Tyler Traveon Mhaka, who injured another person during the confrontation.
• Matthews had his weapon on him, demonstrating the importance of having access to it at all times, especially in emergency situations.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

TAYLORSVILLE, UT — An off-duty Utah Highway Patrol sergeant who had stopped to buy drinks before heading out of town for the weekend ended up in a gunfight inside a state liquor store, drawing his concealed handgun on a man prosecutors say chased another driver into the building and shot him after a road rage confrontation.

The shooting happened at the state liquor store near 4455 S. 2700 West, as reported by KJZZ. Sgt. Jeremy Matthews, now a lieutenant with the Utah Department of Corrections, said he had just clocked out and walked in for a quick stop when he heard loud popping noises behind him.

“I was probably in the store maybe a minute at the most,” Matthews said. “It was probably a lot quicker than that.”

He turned around. One man was running into the store. Another was chasing him with a gun, firing rounds into the building toward Matthews and toward the man he was chasing.

“It took me a second to kind of orient what it was,” Matthews said.

That second is worth sitting with, because it is the same second every armed citizen is going to spend. Matthews had years of law enforcement training behind him and he still described needing a beat to process what was happening, because he was off duty and in off-duty mode. “Sometimes when you’re just off duty, you’re just like everybody else,” he said. Mindset is not something you switch on when the shooting starts. It is what closes that gap before it costs you.

Once he recognized the threat, Matthews drew his concealed carry weapon and fired several rounds. Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day.

The shooter ran for the exit. Matthews followed him out, ordered him to the ground, and held him there.

“I just kind of held him at gunpoint and called in for some extra officers to come in and help,” he said.

Asked whether he thought he was dealing with an active shooter, Matthews said he never got that far in his head. “The biggest thing was I knew who the threat was and that the threat had to be dealt with,” he said.

More from USA Carry:

• Taylorsville Homeowner Wounded in Head During Shootout with Intruder, Suspect Arrested
• Skilled Marksmanship… It’s Just “Plane” Simple
• West Virginia State Police and Wyoming Highway Patrol Upgrade to New Smith & Wesson® Pistols
• Nebraska Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Road Rage Incident Ends in Fatal Shooting After Highway Crash in South Carolina

According to prosecutors, 23-year-old Tyler Traveon Mhaka drove into the liquor store parking lot at a high rate of speed during a road rage incident with another person, followed that man into the store, and fired a gun, striking him three times. KJZZ reported at the time that two people, including the suspect, were injured in the shooting, and that Matthews was later honored for his actions.

What stands out to me is that Matthews had exactly what he needed on his body, not in a duty bag, not locked in a car, not left at the office because the shift was over. He had clocked out for the weekend. The gun was still on him. Minutes later it was the only thing standing between an armed attacker and everybody else in that store, and the man carrying it had trained enough that his first move after the shooting stopped was to hold the suspect and call for on-duty officers instead of walking away from it.

Read the original story: Off-Duty Utah Highway Patrol Sergeant Drew From Concealment and Traded Fire With Road Rage Suspect Inside a Taylorsville Liquor Store

Key Takeaways

• A delivery driver shot a teenage boy during an attempted carjacking in Richmond’s East End.
• Police found a shot car on Fairfield Avenue after responding to calls about shots fired.
• The driver claims self-defense, and no charges have been filed against him so far.
• Witnesses heard multiple gunshots and described a chaotic scene with police presence.
• Delivery drivers face risks while working, often in unfamiliar areas and vulnerable situations.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

RICHMOND, VA — A delivery driver shot a teenage boy who he says tried to take his car in Richmond’s East End near Fairfield Court, and so far no charges have been placed against the driver.

Richmond police responded to a shots fired and attempted carjacking call at 10:30 a.m. in the 2800 block of Fairfield Avenue and found a car that had been shot, as reported by CBS 6. Crime Insider sources told the station the delivery driver fired several rounds at the teen during the alleged carjacking attempt.

The teenage boy was found near the rental office of an apartment complex on the Henrico side of Fairfield Avenue. Investigators recovered rounds near the vehicle and a short distance down the road from where the car was loaded onto a flatbed truck.

More from USA Carry:

• Father Forced to Shoot Armed Son in Self-Defense
• Robbery Victim Turns the Tables, Shoots Both Assailants
• Concealed Carrier Fires 16 Rounds at Fleeing Robbers After Being Pistol-Whipped and Girlfriend is Shot
• 15-year-old Student’s Courageous Act Thwarts Planned School Shooting
• Houston Pizza Delivery Driver Fatally Shoots Armed Robber

A neighbor who declined to show her face on camera described what she heard from upstairs in her bedroom. “I was upstairs in my bedroom and I heard a loud boom, boom, boom, boom, boom about six or seven times, and I came downstairs and looked out the window and I saw all these police cars and I saw a guy walking, pacing back up and down the sidewalk,” she said. Sources say the man pacing on the sidewalk was the driver of the car. She said she has lived in the area just under two years, that a baby across the street was killed last year, and that she now tells her family to avoid contact and confrontation with anyone in and around the neighborhood. “Yeah, I’m a mom of three, and I’m ready to move already,” she said.

Delivery drivers are exposed by the nature of the job. Predictable stops, hands full, attention split, in and out of the vehicle dozens of times a day, often on blocks they do not know. This one was armed while doing honest work, and if the account holds up he was able to defend himself instead of finding out what a stranger was willing to do to him.

Read the original story: Richmond Delivery Driver Fires Several Rounds at Teen During 10:30 A.M. Carjacking Attempt, No Charges Placed

Key Takeaways

• A federal appeals court overturned New Jersey’s bans on semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines on July 17.
• New Jersey requested to hold the court’s mandate to keep enforcing the bans until its appeal to the Supreme Court is resolved.
• To secure the pause, New Jersey must convince the court that the Supreme Court might take the case and may reverse the ruling.
• The state argues it faces permanent harm if the bans lapse, as it could lead to a flood of firearms into New Jersey.
• New Jersey’s long-standing laws faced scrutiny, with the state claiming the 36-year-old status quo justifies delay in enforcement.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

TRENTON, NJ — A federal appeals court threw out New Jersey’s bans on semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines on July 17. Two weeks later, the state asked that same court for permission to keep enforcing both laws anyway. The request was filed July 31, 2026 by Solicitor General Jeremy M. Feigenbaum for Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc., et al. v. Attorney General of New Jersey.

Here is how that is even possible. A ruling does not take effect the day it is announced. It takes effect when the court issues what is called the mandate, the paperwork that actually turns the decision loose. The full court entered its judgment on July 17. The mandate was set to issue on August 7, and that is the day the bans would have stopped being enforceable. New Jersey asked the court to hold the mandate back, and simply filing that request freezes the clock until the judges rule on it. The state’s appeal to the Supreme Court is not even due until October 15 at the earliest, and the pause it wants would last until the justices are finished with the case.

The state does not pretend it won. “The State is mindful that a majority of this en banc Court has already held that some of its statutes violate the Second Amendment,” the motion reads, before arguing that the court has paused its own rulings plenty of times before, including when it ruled against the party doing the asking. The filing lists fifteen such orders going back to 2010.

To get the pause, New Jersey has to convince the Third Circuit of three things (the standard comes from a case called Nara v. Frank): that the Supreme Court will probably take the case, that five justices might reasonably flip the ruling, and that the state gets permanently hurt in the meantime if the bans lapse.

On the first two, the state leans on where the Supreme Court already is. The justices have agreed to decide in Viramontes v. Cook County whether Americans have the right to own “AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles,” and they are holding petitions in NAGR v. Lamont, Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington until it is settled. New Jersey also points out that the Third Circuit is the outlier here, since the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth and D.C. Circuits have all upheld bans like these. “That nearly thirty appellate judges across the ideological spectrum agree with the State’s arguments suggests at least a ‘reasonable possibility’ that five Justices would ultimately do the same,” the motion says.

The third piece is the harm claim. New Jersey says it is permanently injured the moment it cannot enforce its own laws, citing Supreme Court language that a blocked state “suffers a form of irreparable injury.” Then it argues the practical version: that rifles and magazines would pour into the state and be nearly impossible to claw back if the justices later side with New Jersey. “Law enforcement would not know who now possesses such weapons in New Jersey, and thousands of individuals may be subject to criminal exposure for continuing to possess weaponry they understood to be lawful when initially purchased,” the filing says.

The filing attaches exhibits to back that up. One names three New Jersey dealers, SC Arms, Urban Tactical Firearms and RTSP, selling standard capacity magazines within hours and days of the July 17 decision. Another collects ads from shops including Palmetto State Armory promising sales the moment the mandate issues. Thousands of those sales, the state warns, would be “a bell state and local law enforcement could not soon un-ring.”

Look at what the state is calling harm. The injury is that New Jersey residents will walk into licensed gun shops and buy rifles and magazines a federal appeals court just said they have a constitutional right to own. The “criminal exposure” the state warns those buyers face is a risk New Jersey created and New Jersey would enforce, now recycled as a reason to keep a struck-down law alive. Anyone who has worked through New Jersey’s gun laws will recognize the shape of that argument.

The fairness argument is sharper still. New Jersey passed these laws in May 1990. The plaintiffs did not sue until 2018 and 2022, and at one point they asked that their own case be put on hold while the Supreme Court decided NYSRPA v. Bruen, with the bans still in force the whole time. So, the state argues, the “36-year-old status quo” can hold a little longer. The delay by the people whose rights were restricted becomes the reason to keep restricting them for another year.

The Second Amendment Foundation, which has two related cases at the Supreme Court, described the July 17 decision as the full appeals court striking down key parts of New Jersey’s bans and splitting with other circuits on both the rifle and the magazine questions. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the ruling confirms that the arguments in SAF’s Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases “are valid and well-reasoned.” NRA-ILA, which says the case is an NRA case, likewise announced that the court struck the state’s “assault firearm” and “large capacity magazine” bans.

More from USA Carry:

• Thirteen Senators Demand Trump Administration Stop Enforcing Biden Pistol Brace Rule
• Federal Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey Hollow Point Ban as Plaintiffs Seek Court Ruling to Strike Down Ammunition Restriction
• New Jersey Concealed Carry Decision Heading to Debate in Supreme Court
• Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional
• Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s Semiautomatic Rifle and 10-Round Magazine Bans as Unconstitutional

To be fair to the process, asking a court to hold its ruling while you appeal is routine, the Third Circuit grants those requests regularly, and the judges have not ruled on this one. The Supreme Court has not said whether it will hear New Jersey’s appeal, and it may just park the petition behind Viramontes. What is not in dispute is that six circuits went one way, the Third Circuit went the other, and the justices are going to settle it. In the meantime, nothing about how you carry in the state has changed, and the New Jersey carry rules still apply as written.

I will continue tracking this case as the Third Circuit rules on the request and the Supreme Court takes up Viramontes this fall.

Read the original story: A Federal Court Threw Out New Jersey’s Rifle and Magazine Bans. The State Is Asking to Keep Enforcing Them Anyway

Key Takeaways

• The Fifth Circuit Court dismissed a lawsuit challenging Texas laws on firearm notices in public establishments.
• Plaintiffs argued the required signs are burdensome and amount to compelled speech, but the court found their claims lacking for standing.
• Texas law allows property owners to bar firearms with effective notice, either through signs or verbal communication.
• Court clarified that owners don’t have to post state-mandated signs, and any warning gives them the right to refuse entry to armed customers.
• The ruling doesn’t change property owners’ rights to keep guns off their property, focusing instead on the aesthetics of communication.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HOUSTON, TX — The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed an Everytown for Gun Safety-backed lawsuit that challenged the Texas law governing how private property owners open to the public keep firearms off their premises. The vote was 13-3.

The plaintiffs were a Unitarian church and a Houston coffee shop, and their complaint was about signs. They argued the notice Texas requires is burdensome, ugly and intimidating, and that being made to post it amounted to compelled speech. The court’s opinion catalogues the ways those claims are, in its words, “deficient for standing purposes.”

The underlying law is worth understanding on its own terms, because it affects every person who carries in the state. Texas carry law lets a private property owner bar firearms from the premises if that is what the owner wants. What the statute requires is effective notice. That can be given in writing, using language and posting requirements the state specifies, or it can be given out loud.

That second option is the part the lawsuit ran into. The opinion explains that no property owner is compelled by the criminal statutes to post the state’s prescribed signage at all. An owner may post whatever warning he or she desires, or no printed warning, and may still simply advise an armed customer to leave. If that person refuses, police may arrest and charge the person as a trespasser. The court describes the challenged statutes as provisions that “were designed to accommodate property owners’ constitutional right to refuse access to gun toters while protecting the rights of licensed gun owners to carry open or concealed firearms.”

There is a flip side the opinion spells out. A licensed carrier has a statutory defense to the trespass statute if the owner never gave notice, orally or through the prescribed written form. Notice is what triggers the criminal exposure. Absent notice, the carrier has a defense.

More from USA Carry:

• Machetes No Match for Shotgun as Georgia Homeowner Stops Two Robbery Suspects With Single Blast
• News Reports on Man Killed by CCW Holder But There May Be More to the Story
• Don’t Tip Your Hand: How to Avoid Revealing Your CCW
• Trump DOJ Abandons Appeal, Letting Court Win Against Federal Post Office Gun Ban Stand
• Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against SIG SAUER as Officer Admits P320 Did Not Fire on Its Own

Set the litigation aside for a second, because the practical rule for armed citizens does not change either way. Notice is notice. A sign is one form of it. A person telling you to leave is another, and it carries the same weight. If a property owner or an employee tells you to go, you go, immediately and without argument, and you sort out your feelings about it in the parking lot. Refusing turns a lawful carry into a trespass charge, and no carry mindset worth having ends with you standing your ground over a cup of coffee.

What strikes me about this case is who brought it and what they were asking for. A church and a coffee shop already had the authority to keep guns off their property. They had it before the suit, they have it now, and nothing about this ruling takes it away. The fight was over the aesthetics and burden of how that authority gets communicated, funded by a national gun control organization, and the practical effect of winning would have been to make the line between lawful carry and criminal trespass harder for a carrier to see, not easier.

Read the original story: 13 Judges to 3: Fifth Circuit Tosses Everytown-Backed Challenge to Texas Gun Signs

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. Department of Justice has given Montgomery County a deadline to confirm that it will not enforce its new firearms ban in places of worship.
• The ban, which prohibits firearms within 100 yards of places of worship, could violate the Second Amendment according to the Justice Department’s letter.
• The letter also argues that the ordinance infringes on First Amendment rights by treating religious conduct differently than secular gatherings.
• The Silver Spring Jewish Center has filed a lawsuit against Montgomery County, claiming that the ordinance is more restrictive than existing laws and violates constitutional rights.
• The outcome hinges on whether state authority conflicts with federal constitutional protections regarding the right to bear arms.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

SILVER SPRING, MD — The U.S. Department of Justice gave Montgomery County, Maryland, until noon Friday to confirm in writing that it will not enforce its new ban on firearms in places of worship, or face a federal lawsuit without further notice. That deadline has now come and gone, and there is no public word on whether the county sent the confirmation or whether the Justice Department has filed. The demand came in a July 30, 2026 letter from R. Jonah Geissler, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, addressed to County Executive Marc Elrich, County Attorney John Markovs, Police Chief Marc Yamada, and Sheriff Maxwell Uy.

The letter targets Expedited Bill No. 23-26, which the county council passed on July 21, 2026, and Elrich signed on July 27. As an expedited bill, it took effect immediately. The ordinance generally prohibits possession of firearms in or within 100 yards of a place of public worship, and it applies even to people who hold a valid Maryland carry permit and who have the express permission of the property owner to be armed inside the building. That last part is what the Justice Department fixed on. This is not a fight over a business owner posting a no-guns sign. It is the county overriding a house of worship that wants armed congregants on its own property.

The county’s 100-yard ordinance around places of public assembly has already been through Maryland’s courts. In Engage Armament LLC v. Montgomery County, the Maryland high court’s opinion holds that the county did not exceed its authority under Criminal Law § 4-209(b)(1)(iii) when it regulated firearms in or within 100 yards of parks, places of worship, schools, libraries, courthouses, and similar places of public assembly. The same opinion holds the county went too far in reaching hospitals, community health centers, childcare facilities, government buildings, and mere gatherings of people. That opinion is a state-law ruling about the county’s power under Maryland statute. The Justice Department’s letter is a federal constitutional argument, and it points the other way.

Geissler’s letter argues the ordinance violates the Second Amendment. It leans on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, which recognized the right to carry a firearm for self-defense outside the home, and on Wolford v. Lopez, in which the letter says the Supreme Court last month struck down Hawaii’s law banning carry onto private property held open to the public without the owner’s express consent. On that reasoning, the letter states, a ban on firearms in a place of worship even with the owner’s express permission fails Bruen’s history-and-tradition test because the nation has no tradition of banning firearms in places of worship.

The letter makes a second argument under the First Amendment. It cites Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah for the rule that government may not single out religious conduct for burdens it does not impose on comparable secular activity. The ordinance, the letter says, sweeps “place of worship” into its definition of “place of public assembly” while leaving out comparable secular gatherings at community centers, homes, and other locations. Finally, the letter invokes 34 U.S.C. § 12601(a), which makes it unlawful for a governmental authority to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives people of their constitutional rights, and it warns that enforcing the ban in places of worship would violate that statute.

The core of the letter is a line the Justice Department chose to state plainly: “History teaches us that houses of worship are vulnerable to armed attacks and congregants are particularly in need of the ability to defend themselves. By disarming religious congregants during worship, Montgomery County infringes on such congregants’ ability to defend against such attacks.” That is the whole argument compressed into two sentences. The people the ordinance disarms are the ones sitting inside the target.

The letter set a hard deadline. It demanded written confirmation by email no later than noon EDT on July 31, 2026, that the county will not enforce the ordinance’s firearm ban in places of worship absent the property owner’s own explicit prohibition. If that assurance did not arrive, the letter states, “we will file a lawsuit without further notice.” As of this writing, the deadline has passed. Neither the county nor the Justice Department has said publicly whether that email was sent, and no DOJ filing has been announced. Either the county stood down in writing, or a federal complaint is coming. There is no third option the letter leaves open.

The county is already in federal court over this ordinance either way. On July 30, 2026, the same day the DOJ letter went out, the Silver Spring Jewish Center, an Orthodox synagogue, and Rabbi J. Menashe Shapiro filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Case No. 8:26-cv-02962, against Montgomery County, Elrich, Yamada, and State’s Attorney John McCarthy. The complaint brings four claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983: free exercise of religion, the Establishment Clause, the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, and equal protection. Attorneys with the New Civil Liberties Alliance represent the synagogue; Rabbi Shapiro is representing himself. The complaint calls the county’s ban more restrictive than the Hawaii law the Supreme Court struck down in Wolford, and it situates the ordinance against a string of recent attacks on Jewish targets, including the shooting at the Capital Jewish Museum close to home.

The facts in the complaint show what the ordinance actually shuts down. After the October 7 attacks, the synagogue organized a volunteer armed Security Team drawn from its own members, many of them former military, every one of them licensed through Maryland’s carry-permit process. The team trains together at least quarterly and members train individually on a biweekly basis. The complaint says the synagogue has faced real threats: a visibly Jewish member was attacked just outside the building in October 2024, and in the early morning of June 9, 2026, someone tried and failed to get inside. The building is in use from roughly 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily, with six weekday prayer services, and the complaint says hiring paid armed guards for those hours, which the ordinance would still allow, would be prohibitively expensive. The Ban makes the volunteer team illegal overnight.

Rabbi Shapiro’s claim shows the reach of the 100-yard rule. He holds a Maryland Wear and Carry permit and, per his religious obligations, walks to synagogue on the Sabbath and holidays. The complaint says the only path between his home and his synagogue passes within 100 yards of two public schools, two private schools, two parks, and three other houses of worship, every one a “place of public assembly” under the ordinance. Under the ban he cannot legally carry a firearm on his own walk to prayer. The complaint also grounds the claims in religious law itself, asserting that Jewish law requires Jews to provide for their own and communal self-defense personally rather than outsource it, which is why the free exercise claim is not an add-on. The ordinance does not just burden carry rights; the plaintiffs say it forces them to choose between communal worship and a religious duty of self-defense.

More from USA Carry:

• Armed “Guardian Angel” Intervenes with Family Being Harassed
• Important Deadline Approaching: Pistol Brace Rule Compliance
• Washington’s Firearm Insurance Bill Fails to Advance, but Could Return in 2026
• Florida Governor Signs Bill Allowing Armed Volunteer Security Teams at Places of Worship Into Law
• Concealed Carry in Church and Houses of Worship

Here is the simplest way I can put it. There are two separate questions in play. The first question is whether Maryland law gives the county the power to pass this kind of ordinance. The state court said yes. The second question is whether the U.S. Constitution allows it. That question is still open, and both the Justice Department and the synagogue say the answer is no. Winning the first question does not win the second. The county can have every bit of authority Maryland law gives it and still lose in federal court. For an armed Maryland resident, the practical stakes are direct. A valid Maryland carry permit means little at the synagogue door if a county ordinance strips it away the moment you cross the property line, even with the congregation’s blessing.

I will continue tracking whether Montgomery County answered the Justice Department’s demand, whether DOJ files as promised, and the Silver Spring Jewish Center’s suit as it moves through the federal court in Maryland.

Read the original story: State Court Upheld the 100-Yard Ban. The DOJ Says the Second Amendment Says Otherwise, and Its Deadline Has Expired

Key Takeaways

• Virginia State Police seek to dismiss the gun ban lawsuit Crump v. Katz, arguing lack of standing by the plaintiffs.
• The motion claims the plaintiffs cannot sue and that the gun ban is constitutional under Virginia law and the Supreme Court’s Heller decision.
• The law, effective July 1, makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to handle ‘assault firearms’ and restricts magazine capacity to 15 rounds.
• Gun Owners of America has already secured a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the bans as litigation continues.
• The case is part of a broader fight against the gun ban, which includes challenges from multiple organizations and lawsuits.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

LANCASTER, VA — The Virginia State Police want the gun ban lawsuit in Lancaster County thrown out before it goes any further. Colonel Jeffrey S. Katz, sued in his official capacity as Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, has filed a Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer in Crump v. Katz, the challenge to Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and magazine bans pending in the Circuit Court for the County of Lancaster.

The filing’s first move is not about guns at all. It is about who is allowed to sue. The motion contends that the organizational plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation, “lack standing to bring this action on behalf of third parties, and none of the Plaintiffs has standing to bring this action against Defendant Jeffrey S. Katz.” Standing, in plain terms, is a plaintiff’s ticket into the courthouse. Before a court will even consider whether a law is unconstitutional, the people suing have to show the case is truly theirs to bring: that they have real skin in the game, that the defendant is the one causing them harm, and that a ruling in their favor would actually fix it. Katz’s lawyers argue the gun rights groups cannot make that showing on behalf of their members, and the motion quotes Virginia case law saying a lawsuit filed by someone without standing is a “legal nullity.” In other words, if the court agrees, the case would be treated as if it never legally existed.

But the standing attack is only the filing’s opening move. The motion also includes a demurrer, which is a fancy way of saying the complaint fails even on paper: even if everything the plaintiffs allege were true, the argument goes, it would not add up to a valid legal claim. And beyond that, the Commonwealth defends the ban itself. It makes three arguments. First, that Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution protects the militia as a group, not each Virginian’s individual right to own these guns. Second, that the banned rifles are “dangerous and unusual” weapons that are not in common use, which under the Supreme Court’s Heller decision would put them outside the Second Amendment’s protection. Third, that bans like this fit the way firearms have historically been regulated in this country. So this is not just a lawyer’s technicality play. Richmond is telling the court two things at once: these plaintiffs cannot sue, and even if they could, the ban is constitutional anyway.

The law at the center of the fight was signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger in May and took effect July 1. According to the Second Amendment Foundation, it makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer an “assault firearm,” defined to cover semiautomatic rifles chambered in anything besides .22 rimfire or rifles carrying a list of common features, and it bans magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

Crump v. Katz has already survived one attempt to knock it off course. Gun Owners of America reported on July 6 that a three-judge panel denied the Commonwealth’s bid to consolidate the lawsuits challenging the new laws, finding the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden. GOA says its case has already produced a preliminary injunction blocking the State Police from enforcing the gun and magazine bans while the litigation continues, and that Attorney General Jay Jones is asking the Supreme Court of Virginia to undo that injunction. GOA also counts at least 15 Commonwealth’s Attorneys who have publicly said they will not enforce the bans.

The Lancaster County case is one front in a wider fight. NRA-ILA announced on June 29 that it secured a statewide preliminary injunction against the “assault firearm” and magazine bans in its own challenge. SAF is backing former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s state court case, Curtis v. Katz, which argues the ban violates the Virginia Constitution’s Militia Clause by preventing able-bodied Virginians from acquiring the arms their militia service would require. SAF is also a named plaintiff in its own federal challenge, McDonald v. Katz. The common thread in the case names is no accident. Katz sits as the defendant across these suits because his agency is the one that would enforce the bans.

To be clear, the motion is just that, a motion. The court has not ruled on it, these are the Commonwealth’s arguments and nothing more, and the plaintiffs will get their chance to answer. Nothing in the filing changes the preliminary injunction that GOA says is currently blocking enforcement.

More from USA Carry:

• Lawsuits Hit Virginia’s New Assault Firearm Ban Within 24 Hours of Spanberger’s Signature
• Virginia Judge Blocks Spanberger’s Assault Firearm Ban Statewide Days Before It Takes Effect
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against Massachusetts
• 13 Virginia Prosecutors Now Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban
• Trump DOJ Abandons Appeal, Letting Court Win Against Federal Post Office Gun Ban Stand

What stands out to me is how much the Commonwealth is throwing at this one case. Consolidation failed. The injunction fight went against the Commonwealth, per GOA, and the appeal of it is still pending. Now the response brief argues everything at once: that the plaintiffs cannot sue, that the complaint states no claim, and that the ban is constitutional under both the Virginia Constitution and Heller. Virginians should keep the two halves of the state’s gun laws straight while this plays out. The carry side has not changed, and my Virginia concealed carry guide covers those rules. What is in flux is what rifles and magazines Virginians can lawfully buy, and in Lancaster County that question now runs through standing, the demurrer, and the merits all at the same time.

I will continue tracking Crump v. Katz as the Circuit Court for the County of Lancaster takes up the Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer.

Read the original story: Virginia State Police Move to Dismiss GOA and VCDL Gun Ban Lawsuit, Attacking Standing and Defending the Ban on the Merits

Key Takeaways

• Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich signed Expedited Bill 23-26E, updating the county’s firearms ordinance after a court ruling.
• The new law maintains restrictions on carrying firearms near schools, parks, and other public places, while removing some areas from the restricted list.
• The bill revises ghost gun provisions, allowing transport through restricted areas under state law but maintaining certain prohibitions for minors.
• Supporters call the legislation a balanced approach to public safety, while critics point out its complexities for lawful gun owners.
• Legal challenges regarding Maryland’s carry restrictions continue affecting both state and county regulations.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

ROCKVILLE, MD — Montgomery County Executive Marc Elrich signed Expedited Bill 23-26E into law Monday, rewriting the county’s firearms ordinance after the Supreme Court of Maryland found that parts of it exceeded the county’s authority. The rewrite keeps the county’s prohibition on carrying firearms within 100 yards of schools, parks, libraries, polling places, houses of worship, and legislative assemblies.

Elrich announced the signing himself, saying he joined Councilmember Dawn Luedtke, Police Chief Marc Yamada, and community partners “to sign updated firearm safety legislation that preserves the strongest local protections allowed under MD law.” The specifics of what changed, as reported by WUSA9, show a county trimming its restricted-places list only as far as the court forced it to, and keeping everything else.

The Supreme Court of Maryland ruled in April that the county could continue regulating firearms near certain locations but went too far when it extended restrictions to places such as hospitals, childcare facilities, and some government properties. Those locations are now out of the county’s definition of a public assembly area. The new law also creates a limited exemption allowing firearms to be transported through restricted areas in compliance with state law, including for concealed carry permit holders traveling on public highways.

The bill also revises the county’s ghost gun provisions. Per WUSA9, the county repealed a prior restriction on the purchase, sale, transfer, or transport of unserialized firearms in the presence of minors, while continuing to prohibit transferring ghost guns, undetectable guns, and certain firearm-making materials to minors, and barring the storage of ghost guns where children can get to them.

“Our commitment to public safety has not changed,” Elrich said at the signing. Luedtke, the bill’s lead sponsor, called it “a commonsense, balanced approach in Montgomery County’s local law to keep guns out of sensitive community spaces.”

Here is what that balance looks like from the other side of the ledger. For Maryland concealed carry permit holders, a 100-yard radius around every school, library, park, house of worship, and polling place in a county as built up as Montgomery turns a lawful carry route into a mapping exercise. Carrying legally in Maryland already demands a compliance mindset, and this ordinance adds another layer of map-reading to it. The person a location ordinance actually reaches is the permit holder who reads county code before leaving the house, not the person already carrying illegally on the way to commit a crime that was illegal before the vote.

More from USA Carry:

• DOJ Drops Appeal, Clearing the Way for ATF to Rewrite “Engaged in the Business” Rule
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder During Second Burglary After Firearms Stolen in First Break-In
• MD Homeowner Fatally Shoots Home Invader While On 911 Call
• Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder in Spring, TX After Being Rushed, Attempted Lifesaving Measures
• Charges Dropped Against Man That Shot a Woman in Self-Defense

The county ordinance also sits on top of a state carry regime that is itself under legal attack. The Second Amendment Foundation describes SB1, signed by Governor Wes Moore in May 2023, as implementing “an expansive new ban on areas where a person could lawfully carry a handgun,” and SAF’s lawsuit challenging those location bans, Novotny v. Moore, remains active in the Fourth Circuit. That case targets state law, not this county ordinance. Separately, NRA-ILA announced in May that a cert petition was filed in an NRA-supported challenge to Maryland’s “sensitive places” carry restrictions, which puts Maryland’s list of banned locations squarely in front of the Supreme Court.

I will continue tracking Expedited Bill 23-26E and the challenges to Maryland’s carry restrictions as they move through the courts.

Read the original story: Montgomery County, MD Rewrites Gun Ordinance After Court Loss, Keeps 100-Yard Carry Ban Near Schools, Parks, and Churches

Key Takeaways

• Corey Beaddles, a 32-year-old man, was shot and injured during a reckless driving incident while allegedly assaulting a woman in his vehicle.
• Police discovered the overturned vehicle on July 13, 2026, and found Beaddles with a gunshot wound and the woman unharmed.
• Beaddles faces several charges, including assault, reckless driving, and attempted malicious wounding.
• Details on how Beaddles was shot remain unclear, and police have not confirmed whether the woman acted in self-defense.
• Authorities urge anyone with information to contact the Lynchburg Police Department or Crime Stoppers.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

LYNCHBURG, VA — A 32-year-old Campbell County man was shot and his vehicle overturned after police say he was driving recklessly while assaulting a woman inside the car on the evening of July 13, 2026.

Around 8 p.m., the Lynchburg Police Department and Lynchburg Fire Department responded to a report of an overturned vehicle in the 1300 block of Martin Street, as reported by WDBJ. First responders found a man and a woman, the only two occupants of the vehicle.

The man, identified by police as Corey Beaddles, 32, was suffering from an apparent gunshot wound, according to investigators. He was taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. The woman was checked for injuries by medics at the scene.

Police say they determined that just before the crash, Beaddles was driving recklessly while reportedly assaulting the woman. He was shot during the incident, according to police, who have not released specifics about how the shooting unfolded. Officers say they found a gun at the scene, are not seeking anyone else believed to be involved, and that there is no ongoing threat to the community.

Beaddles is charged with assault and battery, reckless driving, abduction and attempted malicious wounding. Those charges are the state’s account of what the woman was facing inside that vehicle.

More from USA Carry:

• 91-Year-Old CPL Defends Self from Robber
• Armed Neighbor Stops Woman That Crashed into Parked Car then Opened Fire on Victims
• Ohio Homeowners Attacked By Driver After Single Car Crash
• Chicago Concealed Carrier Fires Back in Road Rage Shootout, Suspect Crashes Into Apartment Building and Flees on Foot
• Tennessee Homeowner Arrested after Firing Back at Thieves: A Case of Protecting Property or Reckless Endangerment?

What police have not revealed is how, or by whom, Beaddles was shot. Did the woman have her own gun and use it to stop the assault? Good on her. Did Beaddles bring a gun into that car and she got hold of it? Good on her. Did he produce a gun, the two struggled over it, and he took the round? Good on her. Every one of those scenarios tells the same story: a woman under violent attack in a moving car, facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and the threat stopped. But those are possibilities, not findings. Police have not detailed the sequence, the charges against Beaddles are allegations rather than a resolved account of the shooting, and no self-defense determination or charging decision regarding anyone else has been announced.

Anyone with information is asked to contact the Lynchburg Police Department or Crime Stoppers at (888) 798-5900. Tips can be submitted anonymously online at p3tips.com, via the P3 app, or by texting CVCS to 738477.

Read the original story: Virginia Man Shot While Allegedly Assaulting Woman During Reckless Car Ride That Ended in a Crash

Key Takeaways

• Eight Second Amendment organizations filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court of Maryland to hear Darius Duvall’s case regarding his handgun arrest despite having a valid D.C. permit.
• Duvall was arrested in Maryland for carrying a loaded handgun, which violated state law as Maryland does not recognize out-of-state permits.
• The organizations argue that historically, travelers were given exceptions to carry firearms, which Maryland’s laws currently neglect.
• The case raises questions about whether Maryland laws align with historical traditions regarding gun carry rights for travelers.
• The Supreme Court of Maryland has yet to decide on Duvall’s petition for certiorari, which seeks to challenge his conviction.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

ANNAPOLIS, MD — Eight Second Amendment organizations, the Second Amendment Foundation, Maryland Shall Issue, the National Rifle Association, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Cato Institute, filed an amicus brief on July 23, 2026, urging the Supreme Court of Maryland to take up Darius Duvall v. State of Maryland. The question underneath it is simple to state: can Maryland arrest and convict a man for carrying a handgun when he holds a valid District of Columbia carry permit?

The facts come from the Appellate Court of Maryland’s opinion. On November 21, 2021, Duvall was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for speeding in Prince George’s County. The officer smelled burnt cannabis and a faint odor of alcohol, and after backup arrived, Duvall and the driver were asked to step out. A search of the vehicle turned up a loaded handgun in the pocket of a jacket in the rear seat. Duvall told the officer he had a permit for it. He did. She found the carry permit, issued by Washington, D.C., in his wallet. Because it was not a Maryland permit, she arrested him.

Sit with that sequence. He disclosed the gun. He produced a government-issued license proving he had been vetted and cleared to carry it. And the encounter still ended in handcuffs, because the license came from the wrong side of a state line. A Prince George’s County jury went on to convict him of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun in a vehicle and of carrying a loaded handgun, both under § 4-203 of Maryland’s Criminal Law Article. He had moved before trial to quash the arrest and suppress the evidence, arguing the arrest violated the Second Amendment. The trial court denied the motion, and on May 21, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed in an unreported opinion. His petition for certiorari now sits with the Supreme Court of Maryland, the state’s highest court.

Here is the permit-recognition piece in plain terms. In the states, recognition happens two ways. Some states sign formal reciprocity agreements with each other. Others honor out-of-state permits on their own, with no agreement in place at all. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show which states do which. Maryland does neither. It recognizes no other jurisdiction’s carry permit, so a D.C. license, however valid, counts for nothing once you cross into the state.

The groups’ argument is that this is nothing new, and that history already settled it in the traveler’s favor. For most of American history, when states and cities restricted carrying firearms, they wrote in exceptions for people traveling from out of state. According to SAF’s announcement of the filing, that traveler’s exception shows up in colonial-era laws, in early nineteenth-century statutes from Kentucky, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama, and after the Civil War in states including Nevada and California, with more than 80 historical examples compiled. Maryland, by contrast, has no traveler exception at all, and the brief says that puts the state outside the historical tradition.

“History is clear: travelers from other states were given greater leeway to carry arms than residents,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Maryland’s modern scheme, which forces law-abiding adults who already hold permits from their home jurisdictions to jump through redundant and costly hoops or risk arrest, has no analogue in our nation’s historical tradition. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Bruen, Wolford, and Hemani require states to respect that tradition. The Court should grant the petition and put Maryland on the right side of the Second Amendment.”

To be clear about where this stands: Duvall was convicted, the conviction was affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Maryland has not decided whether it will hear the case. A petition for certiorari is a request, not a right. The appellate opinion is unreported, which means it cannot even be cited as precedent in Maryland’s own courts.

More from USA Carry:

• Maryland Concealed Carry Permit Information
• NRA, SAF, and FPC Hit Maryland With Federal Lawsuit Over New Glock Ban
• TSA Stops Armed Traveler at Philly Airport — Let This Be a PSA for Responsible Travel
• National Groups Weigh in on Maryland Concealed Carry Case
• NSSF Vows Legal Action if Maryland Governor Signs Striker-Fired Handgun Ban

Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing the law of every state you enter, because right now the map, not your permit, decides whether you are a licensed citizen or a criminal case number. This petition asks whether that map has to answer to history. The amici say more than 80 old statutes already answered it.

I will continue tracking Duvall v. State of Maryland as the Supreme Court of Maryland decides whether to grant review.

Read the original story: Valid D.C. Permit, Two Maryland Convictions Anyway: Eight 2A Groups Urging Maryland’s Highest Court to Hear Duvall Carry Case

Key Takeaways

• A driver fatally shot another man during a road rage incident in Hancock County; he will not face charges.
• The Dodge driver aggressively approached the Volkswagen, threatening bodily harm and challenging the driver to get his gun.
• Multiple witnesses supported the Volkswagen driver’s claim of self-defense, noting the Dodge driver’s hostile behavior.
• The Volkswagen driver called 911 immediately after the shooting, providing his account and cooperating with investigators.
• The Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office concluded that the Volkswagen driver acted within Indiana’s self-defense law.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

HANCOCK COUNTY, IN — A driver who fatally shot a man during a July 21 road rage confrontation will not face criminal charges, the Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office announced in a statement detailing an investigation built on multiple witness statements, video recordings, forensic evidence, and physical evidence from the scene and both vehicles.

According to the prosecutor’s statement, the encounter began between roughly 3:30 and 4:00 p.m. as a Volkswagen Jetta carrying a male driver and a female passenger traveled from Marion County into Hancock County. A Dodge Journey driven by an adult male began following at an extremely close distance, less than one foot behind by witness estimates, and possibly as close as six inches. There is no evidence the Jetta’s occupants knew the Dodge driver or had ever interacted with him before that drive.

Traffic controls in a construction zone in western Hancock County brought both vehicles to a stop. What followed happened within a matter of seconds. The Dodge driver got out, aggressively approached the Volkswagen, and threatened bodily harm to its driver. He began walking back toward his own vehicle. Then he turned and came back.

The Volkswagen driver stepped out armed with a handgun and warned him: “I wouldn’t do that. Don’t do that. Go back to your car.” The man kept advancing. The Volkswagen driver fired several shots, striking him in the front and side of his body. The Dodge driver retreated to his vehicle, where he died. The prosecutor’s statement notes there is no evidence the Volkswagen driver ever left the immediate area of his own car or approached the Dodge.

One witness, as reported by WTHR, described the Dodge driver as “very hostile” and told police he heard him taunt, “Oh, you gonna get your gun? You afraid? You gonna get your gun? Well, come on, get out.” The same witness added, “If I was put in that predicament, if I was the guy in the Volkswagen, I would have been scared for my life.”

The prosecutor’s office laid out its reasoning plainly: “The evidence in this case establishes that the Dodge driver followed the Volkswagen at an extraordinarily close distance; exited his vehicle and initiated the confrontation; aggressively approached the occupied Volkswagen; threatened bodily harm; challenged the Volkswagen driver to retrieve a firearm and exit the vehicle; briefly turned toward his own vehicle; and then renewed his approach despite repeated verbal warnings to stop and return to his vehicle.”

Everything in that summary points one direction. The Dodge driver followed. The Dodge driver initiated. The Dodge driver advanced, past repeated verbal warnings and a clear way out: go back to your car. Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. A hostile man threatening bodily harm and closing distance despite repeated commands to stop is that threat.

There are still things in this one worth thinking through, and raising them is not second-guessing a man the prosecutor determined acted within Indiana’s self-defense law. The Dodge driver challenged him to get his gun and get out of the car. Within seconds, he had done exactly that.

Which raises a question neither account answers: how did the Dodge driver know there was a gun in that Jetta to taunt him about? Did the Volkswagen driver, who may well have been fearing for his life by that point, tell him he was armed? Neither source says. But if that is what happened, announcing you have a gun is not something I would recommend, especially when the goal is to de-escalate the situation. Telling a hostile man you are armed can land as a challenge instead of a warning, and here the taunt that came back was an invitation to go get it and come outside. All of it unfolded in a matter of seconds, and a car between you and a threat is its own layer of protection that goes away the moment you step onto the pavement. If you carry, this is the kind of encounter to run through in your head long before it happens, because the mindset decisions, when to stay behind the wheel and when the threat forces your hand, get made well before a Dodge Journey shows up six inches off your bumper.

After the shooting, the Volkswagen driver called 911 himself and reported that he had shot someone. That call put his account on the record from the first minutes and gave investigators a cooperative witness instead of a fleeing suspect.

Neither driver has been publicly identified in the prosecutor’s account. After its review of the witness statements, video, and forensic evidence, the Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office determined the Volkswagen driver acted within Indiana’s self-defense law and will not face charges.

Read the original story: Road Rage Aggressor Ignores Repeated Warnings to Back Off, Indiana Prosecutor Rules Driver Acted in Self-Defense

Key Takeaways

• A security guard fatally shot a man inside Emperor’s Gentleman’s Club after the man forcibly entered a closed area and attacked him.
• The incident occurred in Tampa around 12:15 a.m. on July 24, resulting in the man’s death from upper body trauma.
• The guard remained at the scene, and police have not made any arrests so far.
• Authorities are investigating the situation, reviewing surveillance footage, and interviewing witnesses.
• The legality of the shooting hinges on the disparity of force, as prosecutors will determine if it was justified self-defense.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

TAMPA, FL — A security guard in his early 60s fatally shot a man in his early 20s inside Emperor’s Gentleman’s Club early Friday after the man forced his way into a section of the building that was closed to the public and repeatedly struck him, according to the Tampa Police Department.

The guard remained on the scene, and, as reported by WFLA, no arrests have been reported in connection with the shooting.

Officers responded to the club at 5718 E. Adamo Drive just before 12:15 a.m. on July 24 after reports of shots fired. They found an adult male in his early 20s with upper body trauma. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Based on the preliminary investigation, police say the man had been ejected from one portion of the club. Moments later, he pushed past venue employees and entered a separate portion that was closed to the public. That is where the security guard made contact with him.

A physical altercation followed. The man struck the guard again and again, police say. The guard fired. The man did not survive.

More from USA Carry:

• Security Guard’s Heroic Act Stops Potential Strip Club Mass Shooting
• Sacramento Security Guard Fatally Shoots One Suspected Burglar, Wounds Another at Marijuana Dispensary
• Security Guard Shoots Another Security Guard Because Of Pat Down
• Security Guard Fatally Shoots Armed Man During Party Altercation in Owensboro, Kentucky
• Rochester Bar Security Officer Shoots, Kills Ejected Man Who Retrieved a Handgun From His Car and Came Back Waving It at a Crowded 1:30 A.M. Bar

Legally, this one may come down to disparity of force. Deadly force is justified against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and an attacker does not have to be armed to present one. Repeated blows can meet that standard when the mismatch between attacker and defender is severe enough. Whether they did here is not a call I can make from a preliminary release. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and it always turns on the specific facts.

Neither man has been publicly identified. Detectives are still processing evidence, reviewing surveillance video, and interviewing witnesses, and no charging decision has been announced. Police describe the guard as the man being struck when he fired, but the final call on whether this was lawful self-defense belongs to prosecutors, not to a preliminary release.

Read the original story: Tampa Strip Club Security Guard Fatally Shoots Man Who Forced His Way Into a Closed Section and Repeatedly Struck Him, Police Say

Key Takeaways

• A father fatally shot his son during a domestic dispute in Foley, Alabama, on July 23.
• Police believe the father acted in self-defense and in defense of other family members present.
• There will be no criminal charges pursued as all parties are cooperating and acting lawfully.
• The incident highlights that deadly force is justified when facing an imminent threat, regardless of familial ties.
• The father’s identity remains undisclosed, and the case will be reviewed by a grand jury.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FOLEY, AL — A 60-year-old father fatally shot his 35-year-old son during a domestic dispute at a home on Ghost Horse Drive on Thursday evening, July 23, and the Foley Police Department says it believes he was acting in defense of himself and other family members who were in the home.

As reported by NBC 15, officers responded to a domestic disturbance call at the residence at approximately 5:16 p.m. and made contact with everyone involved when they arrived. One person was dead at the scene. Following an initial investigation, police confirmed the incident stemmed from a domestic dispute between family members and that the 35-year-old was shot by his 60-year-old father.

Police say that at this time they believe the father was acting in defense of himself and the other family members present. No criminal charges are being pursued at this time. Everyone involved is cooperating fully with detectives, which puts their accounts on the record from the first hours of the investigation, and police say all are believed to have acted lawfully. The department also emphasized this was an isolated incident with no ongoing threat to the community.

There is nothing to celebrate in this one. A 35-year-old man is dead, and his father has to live with having pulled the trigger. But the legal standard does not change because the threat shares your last name. Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and police say they believe he was acting in defense of himself and other family members present. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and it applies inside your own family just as it does against a stranger coming through the door.

More from USA Carry:

• Tennessee Father Fatally Shoots Son in Defense During Violent Domestic Altercation
• Florida Father, 75, Fatally Shoots 47-Year-Old Son in Apparent Self-Defense During Home Dispute
• 66-Year-Old Texas Man Intervenes in Domestic Disturbance, Fatally Shoots Armed Aggressor
• Son-in-Law Fatally Shoots 71-Year-Old Man During Argument in Mustang, OK Home
• Rapper Lil Durk’s 10-Year-Old Son Shoots Stepfather During Domestic Dispute

Part of a serious defensive mindset is accepting that the threat you may one day face will not always be a stranger. Nobody wants to imagine defending themselves from their own child. Police say that is exactly the position this 60-year-old man was in, with other family members present.

The father has not been publicly identified, and the police account is the only account available right now. The determination that he acted lawfully is an initial one from investigators, not a final ruling, and the case will be presented to a grand jury for review. The grand jury has the last word.

Read the original story: 60-Year-Old Foley Father Fatally Shoots His 35-Year-Old Son During Domestic Dispute, Police Say He Was Defending Himself and Family

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge upheld Connecticut’s laws that prevent adults under 21 from obtaining pistol permits or possessing handguns, ruling they don’t violate the Second Amendment.
• The decision came in the case Success v. Bondi, and the judge found the plaintiffs lacked standing and the laws align with historical firearm regulations.
• The judge also affirmed the constitutionality of federal laws restricting handgun sales to those under 21.
• This ruling contrasts with the Fifth Circuit’s finding that the federal purchase ban for this age group is unconstitutional, creating a legal split.
• Connecticut plans to maintain its gun safety protections, and further developments in related cases are expected as they progress.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HARTFORD, CT — A federal judge has upheld Connecticut’s laws barring adults under 21 from obtaining pistol permits or possessing handguns, handing a loss to the Second Amendment Foundation, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and two Connecticut residents who challenged the restrictions.

In Succow v. Bondi, U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala ruled that Connecticut’s age-based handgun restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment. Attorney General William Tong announced the decision in a July 27, 2026 press release, calling it “a major victory for commonsense gun safety and for Connecticut families.”

The lawsuit was brought by CCDL, SAF, and residents Zachary Succow and Samuel Towne, who argued that Connecticut’s prohibition on adults under 21 obtaining pistol permits or possessing handguns violates their constitutional rights. The case went through a two-day bench trial, and Judge Nagala ruled for the state on every major issue. She found that Succow lacked standing to bring the challenge, and she held that Connecticut’s laws are consistent with the nation’s history of regulating the ability of under-21-year-olds to obtain and carry handguns.

The ruling did not stop at state law. Judge Nagala also upheld the constitutionality of the federal laws restricting the sale of handguns to buyers under 21.

That last part matters. Those are the same federal restrictions at the center of the fight SAF has been waging in the Fifth Circuit. Last year, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit held that the federal ban on firearm purchases by adults under 21 is unconstitutional, and the Department of Justice declined to ask the Supreme Court to review that decision. SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Louisiana Shooting Association are still litigating the scope of that win in FPC v. ATF, formerly Reese v. ATF, after the district court limited the injunction to organization members inside the Fifth Circuit’s three states. SAF filed its opening brief on that question in June.

“There is no doubt adults in this age range are part of ‘the People,’ and it’s high time the government stopped fighting the inevitable,” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said in that June release on the federal case.

What stands out to me is how cleanly the courts have split. Inside the Fifth Circuit, the federal purchase ban has been declared unconstitutional. In Connecticut, a district judge has now blessed both the state restrictions and the federal ones. A sister case SAF is supporting, West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. ATF, challenges the same federal law and is pending a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. When lower courts give opposite answers to the same constitutional question, that is exactly the kind of conflict the Supreme Court exists to resolve.

More from USA Carry:

• Federal Judge Rules Missouri County’s Under-21 Handgun Ban Violated the Second Amendment
• Federal Courts Split on Post Office Gun Ban as Connecticut Judge Upholds Carry Restriction
• Federal Court Clears the NRA to Join the Fight Against New Jersey’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
• Federal Judge Vacates ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” Rule Nationwide, and It Applies to Everyone
• Second Amendment Foundation Fights to Extend Under-21 Handgun Ban Victory Nationwide

“We will continue to fight the reckless attempts to weaken Connecticut’s gun safety protections,” he said in the release.

As of this writing, I have not seen a public response from SAF or CCDL to the Succow ruling. Given that SAF has, in Gottlieb’s words, been fighting the under-21 purchase ban for “more than half a decade,” I would not expect this to be the end of the road. I will continue tracking Succow v. Bondi, the Fifth Circuit scope appeal, and the pending Supreme Court petition as they develop.

Read the original story: Federal Judge Upholds Connecticut’s Under-21 Handgun Ban, Rejecting SAF and CCDL Challenge on Every Major Issue

Key Takeaways

• The NRA has notified the State of Maine of its intent to sue over conservation funding deficiencies.
• This notice serves as a warning that litigation may follow unless Maine addresses the identified issues.
• Hunters and shooters significantly contribute to conservation funding through license fees and firearm taxes.
• Maine faces a decision: remedy the deficiencies or face a legal battle with the NRA.
• Further updates will follow regarding the NRA’s complaint or Maine’s response.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

AUGUSTA, ME — The National Rifle Association has put the State of Maine on formal notice of its intent to sue over conservation funding deficiencies. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action announced the move on July 23, 2026.

The NRA-ILA announcement is where this stands right now. A notice of intent to sue is typically the formal warning that comes before a complaint ever gets filed. It puts the state on record that litigation is coming unless the underlying problem gets fixed. Beyond the fact of the notice itself and the conservation funding issue at its center, specifics had not been made available at the time of this writing.

Hunters and shooters bankroll an enormous share of conservation in this country through license fees and the excise taxes they pay on firearms and ammunition. When the NRA tells a state its conservation funding has deficiencies serious enough to justify a lawsuit, the people with the most skin in the game are the same people buying the licenses and the ammunition. Whatever the specific deficiencies in Maine turn out to be, that is the audience with a direct stake in how this gets resolved.

More from USA Carry:

• Man With Knife Crosses Traffic, Attacks Food Truck Before Being Shot
• The Media Just Discovered the ATF’s Ship-to-Home Gun Rule. Here’s What They’re Getting Wrong.
• Active-Duty Navy Sailor Serving 20 Years Over Demilled Parts and Replicas as SAF Pushes Supreme Court for Review
• SAF Sues the Only County in America That Bans Red Dots, Lights and 1911s for Permit Holders
• ATF Moves to Protect Gun Owners From Arrest During Interstate Travel Stops

A notice of intent is not a lawsuit. It is a fork in the road. Maine can address whatever the NRA has identified, or it can force the fight into a courtroom. Which path the state takes is the next thing to watch.

I will continue tracking this matter and will report when the NRA files its complaint or Maine responds.

Read the original story: NRA Puts Maine on Formal Notice of Intent to Sue Over Conservation Funding Deficiencies

Key Takeaways

• A 29-year-old man, Marcus Driggins Jr., died after a shooting during a child custody exchange at a Cleveland police station.
• The incident started with a verbal altercation between Driggins and two women, believed to be linked to the child’s custody.
• After a confrontation in the parking lot, shots were fired, hitting Driggins multiple times; he was later pronounced dead.
• Police have not confirmed who fired the shots, and charges have not yet been announced; investigations are ongoing.
• The shooting raises questions about safety during custody exchanges, even in police-protected areas.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CLEVELAND, OH — A 29-year-old man is dead after a shooting in the parking lot of the Cleveland Division of Police 5th District station early Wednesday morning, and police say it all started with a child custody exchange.

As reported by WOIO, citing a release from the Cleveland Division of Police, the shooting happened around 12:48 a.m. at the station at 881 East 152nd Street. Investigators believe a custody exchange was scheduled to take place in the parking lot when a verbal altercation broke out between a man, believed to be the child’s father, and two adult women, one of whom is believed to be the child’s mother.

According to police, the argument ended and everyone left the area in separate cars. That should have been the end of it.

It wasn’t. Shortly after, the parties crossed paths again while driving on a nearby street. The two women tried to return to the 5th District station, for reasons police say remain under investigation. As they drove toward the district, police believe the man intentionally rammed their car. The women made it into the parking lot. His car hit theirs again.

The women got out with the child. They tried to reach the station entrance. The man got out of his car and approached them. Shots were fired. He was hit multiple times.

One of the women went inside the district building and notified officers, who came out, detained her, and rendered aid to the man. He was taken to University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center in what EMS described as very critical condition, and he was pronounced dead there. The Cuyahoga County Medical Examiner identified him as Marcus Driggins Jr., 29, of Cleveland. The hospital reported his death as a suspected homicide, which at this stage is a classification, not a legal conclusion. Detectives recovered a firearm at the scene.

Police have not said who fired, no charges have been announced, and neither woman has been publicly identified. The Cleveland Division of Police Homicide Unit is conducting interviews and collecting evidence to determine what led to the shooting, and prosecutors will make the final determination on whether the shooting was lawful.

More from USA Carry:

• Houston Homeowner Fatally Shoots Suspected Burglar Upon Return Home
• Tulsa Gas Station Fight Ends With Man Fatally Shot in Head
• Illinois Concealed Carrier Cleared in Fatal Self-Defense Shooting Over Parking Spot Dispute Outside Bar
• Convenience Store Owner Shot in Parking Lot Gunfight After Confronting Shoplifters Outside the Store
• Chicago CCL Holder Returns Fire in Pre-Dawn Bus Station Shooting Incident

Think about the sequence police are describing. A car driven into another vehicle, twice, is not a traffic dispute. It is a weapon. If the police account holds, two women with a child were rammed once on the street, rammed again inside the lot of a police station, and then approached on foot by the man who had just done it. Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and it is the standard investigators will measure this shooting against. Whether the facts meet it here is exactly what the Homicide Unit is working to establish.

The location deserves its own word. A police station parking lot is exactly where custody exchanges between hostile parties are supposed to happen, and for good reason. What stands out to me is that even that choice was not enough on its own. According to the police account, these women were trying to enter the police station when he approached them. Proximity to help is not the same thing as help. That is a mindset point worth sitting with. Doing the exchange at the station is a smart layer of protection, but it is only a layer, and the seconds between a parking lot and a locked lobby door belong to you alone.

Read the original story: He Rammed Their Car Twice Outside a Police Station. Minutes Later, He Was Shot in the Parking Lot.

Key Takeaways

• A man falsely reported being shot in a drive-by, but police found he was shot while breaking into a home.
• The homeowner, 74-year-old Donald Bolynn, will not face charges for shooting Cedric Ford, who was attempting a burglary.
• Bolynn was concerned about previous burglary attempts during the last month, adding context to the shooting incident.
• Ford, who suffered a gunshot wound, has been charged with attempted first-degree burglary after the investigation.
• This case remains under investigation, with further charges pending against Ford and his accomplice, Sanja Stallings.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

GASTONIA, NC — A man who told police he was shot in the chest during a drive-by was actually shot by a 74-year-old homeowner while trying to break into the man’s house, according to the Gastonia Police Department. The department announced that 57-year-old Cedric Ford and his girlfriend, 47-year-old Sanja Stallings, now face burglary-related charges, and the homeowner will not be charged.

The homeowner is 74-year-old Donald Bolynn, as reported by WBTV, which also obtained his home surveillance video showing a man banging on the front door and prying at a window. Bolynn told the station he lives with several health issues and does not hear well, but the banging was intense enough that he knew someone was outside. “Got up off the couch and come to the front door and looked out. I didn’t see nothing,” he said. Then he saw a man at the window. “That’s when I got my gun and shot,” Bolynn said.

Here is how it started, according to the department’s account. On Sunday, July 12, 2026, at approximately 7:17 a.m., officers responded to the QuikTrip on West Franklin Boulevard for a report of a man with a gunshot wound. They found Ford suffering from a single gunshot wound to the chest. Ford and Stallings told officers an unknown person in a white vehicle had shot Ford near South Washington Street and Overman Avenue and fled.

That story did not survive the investigation. Detectives canvassing the area learned Ford and Stallings were suspects in a robbery reported on Ware Avenue on July 2. Working with the department’s Real Time Crime Center, investigators used Flock Safety’s audio detection system, part of a network of 158 gunshot detection receivers across the city, and it flagged a gunshot at approximately 7:14 a.m. within roughly 100 feet of that same Ware Avenue address.

Detectives went to the house and found the other half of the story. Police say Ford was attempting to break into the residence at approximately 7:13 a.m. when the homeowner fired a single round through a window, striking him. Bolynn told investigators he did not know he had hit anyone. He did know the break-in attempt stopped. After being shot, Ford drove himself and Stallings to the QuikTrip, where they called 911 and waited for help. Investigators determined the couple’s drive-by account was false.

There is a backdrop here worth noting. Police say Bolynn had reported being the victim of multiple burglaries and robberies within the previous month involving these same suspects. That history is investigative context, and it explains why detectives shifted their focus to Ware Avenue so quickly. It is not why the shot was justified. The justification is what was happening at 7:13 that morning: a man forcing his way into the home of an elderly, disabled resident who cannot hear well and had nowhere to go. That is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the person inside, not a property dispute. It is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and police say Bolynn will not face charges.

More from USA Carry:

• Scranton Man Charged With Homicide After Pocono Homeowner Dies in Bedroom Gunfight
• Don’t Bring a Knife to a Gunfight: 58-Year-Old San Antonio Man Learns the Old Saying the Hard Way
• Nashville Man Watching TV in Bed Shoots Masked Intruder Who Demanded Money
• North Philadelphia Homeowner Shoots and Kills Woman Trying to Break In Through Back Window, Police Say
• Intruder With Knife Ends Up Held at Gunpoint by North Carolina Homeowner, Police Say

Think about his position for a second. Seventy-four years old, hard of hearing, living alone with health issues, and by his own account he could not even see the threat at first. He got up, looked, saw a man at his window, and fired once. One round ended the attempt. Normally I would say shooting through a door or window may not be the best choice, since you cannot always confirm the threat on the other side. But reviewing the surveillance footage, you can see the man forcibly trying to break into the home, and the homeowner will not face charges.

Ford was hospitalized for the gunshot wound. Upon his release, he was arrested and charged with attempted first-degree burglary and felony obstruction of justice. Stallings was arrested and charged with first-degree burglary. Those charges are allegations, and neither has been convicted. The case remains under investigation, and police say additional charges related to the attempted burglary and the false report are pending review by the Gaston County District Attorney’s Office.

Read the original story: North Carolina Homeowner, 74, Won’t Face Charges After Shooting Man Police Say Was Prying at His Window at 7 A.M.

Key Takeaways

• New Jersey Assembly Bill A3560, the ‘New Jersey Safe Storage of Firearms Act,’ mandates storing firearms unloaded and in secure containers when not in use.
• The bill aims to enhance gun storage regulation following legal setbacks regarding New Jersey’s existing gun laws.
• It introduces penalties for violations and appropriates $500,000 for a public awareness campaign on gun storage.
• Sponsorship comes from Democratic Assembly members, emphasizing a 300% increase in firearm ownership since 2020 and gun violence as a public health crisis.
• The bill raises questions about the definition of ‘in use,’ particularly concerning home defense situations and the practicality of its storage requirements.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

TRENTON, NJ — New Jersey Assembly Democrats have a mandatory gun storage bill sitting in committee, and its lead sponsor says it is next in line. Assembly Bill A3560, the “New Jersey Safe Storage of Firearms Act,” was introduced January 13, 2026, and referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. The text is blunt. A legal owner must store any firearm “not in use” unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container, and must store ammunition separately from the firearm. The bill also repeals the state’s existing law governing a minor’s access to firearms, directs the Attorney General to run a public awareness campaign on storage, and appropriates $500,000 to do it. Per the bill’s own synopsis, it establishes penalties for violations.

The timing is not a coincidence, as reported by POLITICO. Last week the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals struck down New Jersey’s 36-year-old ban on so-called assault weapons and its prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds. Gov. Mikie Sherrill, who campaigned on expanding the state’s gun restrictions, responded by saying she is going to “keep testing the courts.” Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald, A3560’s lead sponsor, called the storage bill “the next thing I’m looking to do.” Versions of it have been kicking around the statehouse since 2021 without ever reaching a floor vote.

The bill is a partisan effort, sponsored by Greenwald and Assemblyman Michael Venezia with seven Democratic co-sponsors. Its legislative findings section makes the case in the Legislature’s own words: it claims firearm ownership in New Jersey surged more than 300 percent in 2020, cites 2018 unintentional death figures, and leans on medical associations that have declared gun violence a public health crisis. Those are the bill’s assertions, and they tell you exactly how its authors think about the guns in your home.

The sponsors will point to the carve-out. Subsection b of the storage mandate says nothing in the section prevents an owner authorized under N.J.S.2C:39-6 from lawfully keeping or carrying a firearm about their place of business, residence, or premises. That language is in the text, and it matters.

But read the mandate again, because “not in use” is doing an enormous amount of work. The bill never answers the question every armed citizen will ask first: is the handgun on my nightstand at 2 a.m. “in use”? If the state’s answer is no, then the default legal condition of a home defense gun in New Jersey becomes unloaded, locked in a container, with the ammunition stored somewhere else entirely. Anyone who has trained for a break-in knows what those extra steps cost when you are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Seconds, in the dark, under stress. Storage decisions are serious. But they belong to training and mindset, weighed against each household’s real circumstances, not to a one-size mandate written in Trenton.

More from USA Carry:

• Koons Plaintiffs Tell Third Circuit: The Supreme Court Just Gutted New Jersey’s Carry Restrictions
• Supreme Court Takes Up the Case That Could Strike Down Assault Weapon Bans Nationwide
• 13 Virginia Prosecutors Now Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban
• Federal Court Clears the NRA to Join the Fight Against New Jersey’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
• Virginia Legislature Passes Bill Banning Sale and Purchase of “Assault Firearms” and Magazines Over 15 Rounds

The larger pattern is worth naming too. The courts just told New Jersey that a 36-year-old centerpiece of its gun laws violates the Second Amendment, and the governor’s stated response is to keep passing laws and keep testing the courts. A3560 is the first test case. It has failed to reach a floor vote for five years, and now it has a governor’s momentum and a majority leader’s promise behind it.

I will continue tracking A3560 as it moves through the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

Read the original story: New Jersey Loses Its Assault Weapons Ban in Court, So Lawmakers Dust Off a Five-Year-Old Bill Targeting How You Store Your Guns

Key Takeaways

• Gun Owners of America filed a federal lawsuit challenging U.S. Virgin Islands’ restrictions on nonresident gun ownership.
• The lawsuit claims the territory doesn’t allow nonresidents to bear arms, even with valid licenses from other jurisdictions.
• Plaintiff Sean Dale Henry holds a Florida license but can’t apply for a carry license in the USVI due to residency restrictions.
• Gun Owners of America argues that the Second Amendment applies to all Americans, including nonresidents traveling to the territory.
• The case questions the legality of the USVI’s law restricting nonresidents’ rights to carry firearms after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

CHARLOTTE AMALIE, VI — Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and individual plaintiff Sean Dale Henry filed a federal lawsuit on July 20, 2026, challenging the U.S. Virgin Islands’ refusal to let nonresident Americans keep or bear arms anywhere in the territory. Henry v. Brooks was filed in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, and names Virgin Islands Police Department Commissioner Mario Brooks, in his official capacity, and the Government of the Virgin Islands as defendants.

The complaint alleges the USVI provides no avenue at all for Americans without a “bona fide residence or place of business” in the territory to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. According to the filing, 23 V.I.C. § 452 generally bans nonresidents from bearing arms even if they are licensed by another jurisdiction, 14 V.I.C. § 2253 prohibits open carry, and 23 V.I.C. § 454 limits carry licenses to five narrow categories that leave ordinary nonresidents with no way to even apply.

Here is the reciprocity piece in plain terms. In the states, permit recognition happens two ways. Some states sign formal agreements with each other. Others simply honor out-of-state permits on their own, no agreement needed. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show exactly which states honor which permits. The Virgin Islands does neither. The complaint alleges that shortly after the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision recognized a right to carry in public for self-defense, the territory repealed its limited concealed carry reciprocity law. Since then, the filing says, the USVI does not recognize the firearm license of any state or territory.

Think about what that leaves a visiting gun owner. No recognition of your permit. No open carry. No application process. Zero legal path.

Henry’s situation shows how that works in practice. According to GOA’s press release, he holds a valid Florida Concealed Weapon License, is a Federal Firearms Licensee, and meets every qualification for a USVI carry license except residency. He plans to travel to St. Thomas, and the law bars him from even applying.

“The Second Amendment doesn’t end at the shoreline,” said Luis Valdes, USVI Outreach Director for Gun Owners of America and National Co-Chair of Fuerza 2A. “Americans don’t lose their constitutional rights simply because they travel to a U.S. territory. The USVI has created a system where law-abiding citizens are categorically denied the ability to exercise a fundamental constitutional right based solely on where they live.”

The legal foundation here is not complicated. The complaint points out that Congress extended the Second Amendment to the Virgin Islands by statute, 48 U.S.C. § 1561, and it leans on Heller’s holding that the right “belongs to all Americans” and Bruen’s holding that it includes carrying in public for self-defense. The plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and per GOA, they are asking the court to require the territory to accept carry license applications from qualified nonresidents. GOA says the case builds on its earlier litigation that opened nonresident permit applications in California and New York.

To be clear, these are allegations in a complaint, and the court has not ruled on any of them. The territory will get its chance to answer.

More from USA Carry:

• No Permit Recognized, No Way to Apply, No Open Carry: GOA Lawsuit Challenges Virgin Islands’ Total Shutout of Nonresident Carry
• Now Everyone Can Pack in California — Out-of-Staters Finally Allowed to Apply for Concealed Carry Permits
• GOA Lawsuit Forces NYC to Allow Non-Residents to Apply for Concealed Carry Permits
• It Now Costs $1,591 Just to Apply for a Carry Permit in San Jose, and That’s Before Training
• It’s Official: West Virginia Adults 18 and Older Can Now Carry Concealed Without a License

What stands out to me is the completeness of the shutout. Most restrictive jurisdictions leave at least one door cracked open, a nonresident application, limited recognition, something. If the complaint’s description of USVI law holds up, this territory closed every door at once, and did it right after the Supreme Court said the right to carry in public belongs to all Americans. Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing the law everywhere you travel, and right now the law in the Virgin Islands tells a licensed, vetted, federally credentialed American that none of it counts the moment he steps off the plane. That is exactly the kind of scheme Bruen was supposed to end, and now a federal court gets to say whether it does.

I will continue tracking Henry v. Brooks as it moves through the District Court of the Virgin Islands.

Read the original story: No Permit Recognized, No Way to Apply, No Open Carry: GOA Lawsuit Challenges Virgin Islands’ Total Shutout of Nonresident Carry

Key Takeaways

• The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss its appeal against the federal ban on carrying firearms in post offices, confirming the previous court victory against the ban.
• Both the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition announced this development, highlighting that the government’s motion solidifies their win.
• The decision to dismiss the appeal is unusual for the Justice Department in Second Amendment cases and is significant for stakeholders.
• Despite the ruling, individuals should avoid changing their carry practices based solely on headlines until the full legal context is understood.
• The author will continue to monitor the case and update readers on the status of the federal post office carry ban.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss its own appeal in litigation over the federal ban on carrying firearms in post offices, a move that leaves a court victory against the ban in place.

Both the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition announced the development. SAF says the government’s motion to dismiss means its win against the post office carry ban stands. FPC framed the same move more bluntly, calling it the Trump DOJ abandoning its appeal of FPC’s victory over the ban.

Think about what that means. When the government appeals a ruling it lost, it is telling the court it believes the decision was wrong and worth fighting over. When it then files a motion to dismiss that appeal, it is walking away from that fight. The ruling it was contesting stays on the books, and the challengers keep their win. That is not a common posture for the Justice Department in a Second Amendment case, and it is worth paying attention to when it happens.

More from USA Carry:

• Court Battle Over Guns at Post Office Heats Up as SAF & FPC Fights ‘Unconstitutional’ Government Tactics
• Federal Court Clears the NRA to Join the Fight Against New Jersey’s One-Gun-a-Month Law
• Trump’s DOJ Drops Charge Claiming Braced Pistol Was an Illegal Short-Barreled Rifle
• Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Handgun Sales Ban for 18-to-20-Year-Olds
• Federal Court Dismisses Lawsuit Against SIG SAUER as Officer Admits P320 Did Not Fire on Its Own

Here is my caution, and it is the same one I give every time a court ruling makes headlines. Do not change where you carry based on a headline. Court decisions have specific parties, specific jurisdictions, and specific scope, and until the full picture of this ruling is clear, the smart move is to keep treating post offices exactly as you did yesterday. Knowing the actual legal landscape, not the headline version of it, is part of the preparedness mindset every armed citizen should bring to carrying every day.

I will continue tracking this case and the status of the federal post office carry ban, and I will update readers as the court filings and the scope of the ruling become clear.

Read the original story: Trump DOJ Abandons Appeal, Letting Court Win Against Federal Post Office Gun Ban Stand

Key Takeaways

• A 35-year-old man died after kicking in a door armed with a rifle and was shot by a male occupant inside.
• The incident occurred on Big Oak Lane, where deputies found the man suffering from a gunshot wound.
• The shooting raises questions about self-defense based on a reasonable belief of immediate threat.
• The investigation will determine if the shooting was justified, focusing on the circumstances of the forced entry.
• No identities have been disclosed, and the Miller County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office will make the final decision.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

BRUMLEY, MO — A 35-year-old man is dead after he kicked in the door of a home near Brumley while armed with a rifle and was shot by a man inside, according to the Miller County Sheriff’s Office.

Deputies responded to a residence on Big Oak Lane around 6:30 p.m. on Monday, July 13. Before they arrived, a woman told 911 dispatchers that her ex-husband had kicked in the door of the residence with a rifle, the sheriff’s office said. A male occupant inside shot him. Deputies found the 35-year-old suffering from a gunshot wound, and medical personnel pronounced him dead at the scene.

Think about what that 911 call describes. The door came apart. A man came through it with a rifle already in his hands. The man inside fired. By the account relayed by the sheriff’s office, the entire encounter was decided before a single deputy could get there. Big Oak Lane sits outside a small Miller County community, and in a place like that, help is a phone call and a drive away. The man inside that home was his own first responder, because he had to be.

I want to be careful with that account, because right now it is one account, a 911 call relayed through the sheriff’s office, and investigators will test it against the physical evidence and everything else they gather. But if the facts hold up as described, a rifle coming through a kicked-in door is exactly what the legal standard is built for: a reasonable belief that you are facing death or serious bodily harm right now, not later, not maybe. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and it is the question the investigation will ultimately answer here.

More from USA Carry:

• Missouri Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Who Kicked in Back Door
• Tulsa Man Grabs Gun After Camera Alert, Shoots Intruder Who Kicked In His Front Door
• Armed Philadelphia Neighbor Kills Stick-Wielding Intruder Attacking Mother in 14-Year-Old Daughter’s Room
• Jackson Homeowner Shoots and Kills Suspect Who Kicked in Door in Pre-Dawn Home Invasion
• Oregon Apartment Resident Shoots Axe-Wielding Intruder Trying to Break Through Door

The ex-husband detail matters here too, but it is worth separating what it explains from what it justifies. The relationship gives investigators context for why this man showed up at that door. It is not the basis for the shooting. If prosecutors ultimately find the man inside acted lawfully, it will be because of the rifle and the forced entry, the imminent threat in front of him, not the history behind it.

The usual cautions apply, and they matter. The deceased man’s identity had not been released as of the sheriff’s office announcement. The man who fired has not been publicly identified, and no charges or charging decision have been announced. The sheriff’s office says the incident remains under investigation, and once that investigation is complete, the case will be forwarded to the Miller County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office for review. Prosecutors, not deputies and not me, make the final determination on whether this shooting was justified. Until then, the defensive framing here rests on the sheriff’s account of that 911 call.

Read the original story: Man Shoots and Kills 35-Year-Old Who Kicked In the Door of a Missouri Home With a Rifle, Woman Told 911 the Intruder Was Her Ex-Husband

Key Takeaways

• Ammunition Depot partners with the NRA to enhance support for Second Amendment litigation across the U.S.
• The NRA has invested over $3 million in California litigation since 2021, including the case Rhode v. Bonta.
• Rhode v. Bonta currently awaits a decision from an 11-judge en banc panel after California appealed a ruling against ammunition restrictions.
• Ammunition Depot introduces a donation option at checkout to fund ongoing Second Amendment advocacy and litigation.
• This partnership highlights a shift where critical Second Amendment outcomes are increasingly determined in court rather than state legislatures.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BOCA RATON, FLA. — Ammunition Depot and the National Rifle Association have announced a new partnership aimed at expanding support for Second Amendment litigation across the country, and it comes with a number that has never been made public before.

According to figures provided by the NRA, the organization has spent more than $3 million supporting California Second Amendment litigation since 2021. That includes backing Rhode v. Bonta, the long-running challenge to California’s ammunition background check scheme in which Ammunition Depot has been a plaintiff for years.

I have covered Rhode closely, and this is where the case stands right now. A three-judge Ninth Circuit panel ruled in July 2025 that California’s ammunition restrictions are unconstitutional. California then petitioned for rehearing, and on December 1, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review, which vacated the panel’s decision. The 11-judge en banc panel heard oral argument on March 25, 2026, in Pasadena. A decision is still pending, and California’s restrictions remain in force while gun owners wait.

That is what makes the timing of this partnership significant. The case is at its most critical stage in nearly a decade of litigation, and the outcome will affect millions of law-abiding California gun owners who currently cannot have ammunition shipped to their homes and must pass a background check for every purchase.

As part of the partnership, Ammunition Depot is launching a voluntary contribution option at checkout. Customers can add a donation that will be remitted to the NRA and the NRA Institute for Legislative Action to support ongoing Second Amendment litigation and advocacy.

“Ammunition Depot has been in this fight for years,” said Daniel Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, who added that ammunition is essential to meaningfully exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

More from USA Carry:

• Man In Oregon Market Shoots Himself in Groin While Reholstering His Glock
• Best Place to Buy 9mm Ammo
• Magazine Ban and Licensing Rules Back in Play as D.C. Court Grants Benson En Banc Rehearing
• Your Home Defense Plan Should Start At Home Depot
• Good Samaritan fatally shot trying to prevent theft at Home Depot

Ammunition Depot has been one of the industry companies willing to stay attached to the case through years of appeals, even as California’s restrictions continued to limit how law-abiding customers could buy ammunition.

The NRA’s legal footprint extends well beyond California. According to information provided by the NRA, the organization is currently litigating 42 active cases and is involved in more than 70 legal matters nationwide, including cases it funds and amicus briefs filed in support of other litigation.

NRA Executive Vice President and CEO Doug Hamlin said NRA members and Ammunition Depot customers “share the same goal: protecting the right to keep and bear arms.”

I think the larger story here is the shift both organizations are betting on. The biggest Second Amendment outcomes right now are being decided in courtrooms, not statehouses. Litigation is expensive, it takes years, and it depends on plaintiffs and organizations willing to stay in the fight through setbacks like an en banc grant. A checkout donation option is a small mechanism, but it gives gun owners a direct line into funding the cases that will define their rights.

USA Carry will continue tracking Rhode v. Bonta and will report on the en banc decision as soon as the Ninth Circuit issues it.

Read the original story: NRA Reveals It Has Spent Over $3 Million Fighting California’s Ammo Laws as Ammunition Depot Launches Checkout Donations to Fund the Battle

Key Takeaways

• A Massachusetts woman shot an armed man who threatened her husband on their property, and the DA’s office ruled it as lawful self-defense.
• The incident began with a social media dispute, leading Robert Murchison to confront the couple physically and brandish a gun.
• The woman fired one shot that fatally struck Murchison, who posed an imminent threat to her husband.
• Investigators confirmed the couple’s account through various evidence, including witness statements and video footage.
• No charges will be filed against the woman, as her actions met the legal standard for self-defense under Massachusetts law.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

SPRINGFIELD, MA — A licensed Massachusetts gun owner fired a single round to stop an armed man who was pursuing her husband at gunpoint on the couple’s own property, and the Hampden District Attorney’s Office announced on July 14, 2026 that no criminal charges will be filed, ruling she acted in lawful self-defense and defense of another.

According to the district attorney’s office, the encounter began with a dispute on social media. That dispute led Robert Murchison, 35, of Springfield, to travel on July 5 to the Fairfield Street home of a man and woman known to him. Murchison started a physical altercation with the husband on the couple’s property. Then he escalated. He produced a handgun. He pursued the husband while pointing the firearm at him.

His wife was watching it happen. The DA’s office says she witnessed her husband facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. She fired one round. It struck Murchison, who died from the wound. The couple immediately called police and fully cooperated with investigators.

More from USA Carry:

• Wife Fatally Shoots Husband By Firing a Warning Shot Through the Door
• Wife Fatally Shoots Man Who Was Holding a Gun to Her Husband’s Head
• Tulsa Man Grabs Gun After Camera Alert, Shoots Intruder Who Kicked In His Front Door
• Armed Clarksville Woman Shoots Intruder From Her Own Townhouse Complex After Opening Front Door at 1:40 A.M.
• Texas Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Through Front Door After He Smashed Glass and Reached Inside

The evidence backed the couple’s account from every direction. Investigators reviewed the statements of the people involved, the account of an independent witness, Ring camera footage, 911 recordings, physical evidence recovered at the scene, and the text and social media messages exchanged before the incident. The DA’s office says that evidence clearly establishes she acted in lawful self-defense and defense of another, and only after Murchison arrived at the home, started a physical fight with her husband, and ultimately drew a firearm.

Under Massachusetts law, deadly force is justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to defend themselves or another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and this case shows what it looks like when the facts meet it cleanly. District Attorney Anthony D. Gulluni determined his office could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner’s actions were unlawful. No charges will be filed, and the matter is considered closed.

Read the original story: A Social Media Dispute Showed Up at Their Front Door. His Wife’s Single Shot Ended It.