Key Takeaways

• Gun Owners of America and others filed a motion against Virginia State Police for restarting background checks despite a court order blocking them.
• The court had permanently barred the enforcement of Virginia’s universal background check law, citing it violated the constitution.
• The state police claim a new statute allows the checks, but plaintiffs argue its emergency clause is invalid, making it not effective until July 1, 2026.
• The contempt motion seeks to hold Col. Jeffrey S. Katz accountable for ignoring the court’s injunction and demands clarification of his actions.
• The issue underscores the tension between state agencies and court orders, particularly regarding Second Amendment rights.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

LYNCHBURG, VA — Gun Owners of America, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Gun Owners Foundation asked a Virginia court Thursday to hold the head of the Virginia State Police in contempt after the agency restarted universal background checks that a judge had permanently blocked seven months earlier.

The motion for a rule to show cause was filed May 28 in the Circuit Court for the City of Lynchburg. It names Col. Jeffrey S. Katz, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, in his official capacity. Individual gun owners Raul Wilson and Wyatt Lowman are plaintiffs alongside the three organizations.

Here is what happened. On October 29, 2025, the court entered a final order that permanently barred the state police from administering or enforcing Va. Code 18.2-308.2:5, Virginia’s universal background check requirement for private firearm sales. That injunction has been in force ever since.

Then, on the afternoon of May 27, the agency flipped the system back on. According to the filing, counsel for Katz from Attorney General Jay Jones’ office emailed the court and the plaintiffs to say the state police “has resumed conducting background checks earlier this afternoon, pursuant to the newly enacted statute(s).” Dealers who logged into the VCheck system saw the private sale function switched back on, and the state police website was updated to say private sale checks were once again available.

The “newly enacted statute” is HB1525, the gun control bill Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed April 23. The measure, patroned by Del. Garrett McGuire, D-Fairfax, raises the age to buy handguns and certain other firearms from 18 to 21 and restores universal background checks. Spanberger added an emergency clause meant to make the law effective immediately instead of on July 1.

🚨BREAKING🚨

GOA along with @VCDL_ORG and @GunFoundation filed a motion against Virginia for violating a court order which previously halted universal background checks in the state.

Gov. Spanberger and AG Jay Jones think they're above the law. They're not.

See you in court! pic.twitter.com/ElfktKUFHA

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 28, 2026

BREAKING: The Virginia Attorney General's office just informed us that the Virginia State Police intends to enforce Universal Background Checks for private sales IN DIRECT DISREGARD OF THE COURT ORDER HALTING ENFORCEMENT!@GunOwners and @VCDL_ORG's motion for contempt of court…

— Philip Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) May 28, 2026

But the plaintiffs say that emergency clause is worthless. Under Article IV, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, an emergency clause requires a four-fifths vote in each chamber. HB1525 never came close. The Senate passed it 21-18 and the House 63-36. Without a valid emergency clause, the plaintiffs argue, the law does not take effect until July 1, 2026, which means there is nothing on the books right now that displaces the court’s injunction.

There is more, and it is what makes this look deliberate. The state police knew about the order. In April, Katz’s own office told firearms dealers that HB1525 conflicted with the court order and that the department would not run private sale background checks until that conflict was resolved. On April 23, plaintiffs’ counsel sent a letter reminding the state police that the injunction remained in effect and warning that they would seek contempt if it was violated. And on May 4, the attorney general filed his own motion asking the court to dissolve the injunction, which is itself an admission that the order was still binding.

Then, without waiting for the court to rule on that motion, the state police started enforcing anyway.

More from USA Carry:

• U.S. House Oversight Committee Makes Case for Contempt of Congress in “Fast and Furious” Investigation
• Federal Government Defends Gun Registration Using “Necessary and Proper” Clause
• Virginia Senate Advances Gun Bill Mandating Confiscation of Standard Capacity Magazines
• Do You Need To Keep Your Concealed Carry Permit On You At All Times?
• Homeowner Kills Man to Possibly Prevent Car From Being Stolen

That is the heart of the contempt claim. A court order has to be obeyed until a court lifts it, not until the losing side decides it has found a workaround. The filing asks the court to order Katz to appear in person and explain why he acted, whether he was acting on someone else’s direction and from whom, and why he should not be held in contempt.

The plaintiffs did not hold back publicly either. Gun Owners of America said Spanberger and Jones “think they’re above the law” and signed off with a promise to see them in court. VCDL president Philip Van Cleave said the attorney general’s office had told the league the state police intended to enforce the checks in direct disregard of the court order. For his part, Jones has defended the underlying policy, saying in May that “background checks save lives.”

My take is that this is not a close call. When a court permanently enjoins a state agency from enforcing a statute, that agency does not get to restart enforcement just because the legislature passed a fresh version of the same scheme. That is doubly true when the supposed trigger, the emergency clause, was never validly adopted in the first place. The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of law-abiding 18-to-20-year-old adults does not disappear because Richmond is in a hurry to undo a court loss.

The court has not yet ruled on the motion. I will be following this one closely and will report what the Lynchburg court does next.

Read the original story: Gun Owners of America Moves to Hold Virginia State Police Chief in Contempt After Agency Restarts Banned Background Checks

The May 29 prize package — verified ARV of $3,660.97 — is built around a takedown rimfire host, a multi-caliber rimfire suppressor, the NFA process handled by Silencer Central, full reloading components, tactical medical training, optics, and digital maintenance tracking.

Why Day 43 matters as a single package

Three things make this giveaway day worth covering separately from the rest of the 100 Days of Silence campaign:

1. The host firearm is a serious pack rifle. The Magnum Research MLR-22 SwitchBolt ($911 MSRP) takes the AR-platform familiarity of the Magnum Lite series and pairs it with a takedown design that breaks the rifle into a backpack-fittable package. Switch-bolt mechanism. 17-inch barrel. Threaded for direct-thread suppressors.
2. The suppressor is the multi-caliber rimfire standard. The BANISH 22 ($899 MSRP) handles .22 LR, .22 WMR, .17 HMR, and .22 Hornet from the same can — a single suppressor that follows the shooter across every rimfire host in the safe. Titanium internals. User-serviceable. Full-auto rated for rimfire.
3. The paperwork is handled. Silencer Central, the anchor sponsor of the entire 100 Days of Silence campaign, runs the ATF Form 4 process on the winner’s behalf and ships every prize in the stack — the rifle, the suppressor, the powder, the optic, the dispenser, the training seat — directly to the winner’s front door. No FFL transfer to schedule. No paperwork to interpret. No follow-up trips.

The supporting gear in the stack

The MLR-22 and the BANISH 22 anchor the package, but the rest of the stack is purpose-built around the same suppressed-rimfire use case:

• 10 lbs of Hodgdon-family powder (~$500 value, winner’s choice across the Hodgdon, IMR, and Winchester lines). The reloading-powder market leader since 1947. Match-grade consistency lot-to-lot.
• RCBS MatchMaster Powder Dispenser (Model 98941, $774.99). Precision-grade electronic powder dispenser. ±0.04 grain accuracy. Bluetooth integration with the RCBS app for load tracking.
• The Ranch TX 1-Day Tactical Medical & Trauma Response Course ($1,050 ARV). Hemorrhage control, tourniquet application, immediate-response medical decisions, casualty movement. Filmed location for the “Cost of Silence” documentary. Hosts Police Week 2026.
• Armorer App Premium ($49.99). Round-count tracking per firearm, cleaning schedules, parts-service intervals, zero records, range notes.
• Blackhound Optics Genesis 1-4×24 FFP MOA ($369.99). True 1× on the low end for fast close-range engagement. First-focal-plane MOA reticle for accurate ranging and holdovers to 400+ yards. Personally donated by James Nicholas (The XDMAN).

How to enter

The entry window opens at 6:00 a.m. Central Time on Friday, May 29, 2026 and closes at 10:00 p.m. Central Time the same day. Entry is free at popularsuppressors.com/100-days-of-silence/.

Eligibility is open to U.S. residents 21 years of age or older in suppressor-eligible states. Excluded: CA, DE, HI, IL, MA, NJ, NY, RI, and DC. NY, FL, CA, and RI are ineligible to participate or win. Full Official Rules are linked from the campaign page.

If a reader wins, Silencer Central handles the ATF Form 4 process and the entire prize stack ships directly to the winner’s front door — no FFL transfer required.

Where Day 43 fits in the 100 Days of Silence campaign

Silencer Central’s 100 Days of Silence is a 100-day giveaway campaign running April 17 through July 25, 2026. One suppressor is given away every single day to a verified U.S. adult, age 21 or older, in a suppressor-eligible state. Silencer Central anchors the campaign; PopularSuppressors.com hosts it. Day 43 is the May 29 Friday tentpole — an eight-sponsor coordinated build around a complete suppressed-rimfire platform.

Coverage of every product in the stack is live at popularsuppressors.com/100-days-of-silence/, across the Brand Avalanche Media network of sites (PopularSuppressors, PopularEDC, Guns & Gadgets Daily, Popular Outdoorsman, Freedom’s Lodge, Current Homesteading, and Popular BBQ).

As a media partner, USA Carry is amplifying the Day 43 prize stack to our concealed-carry permit holders and defensive shooters. USA Carry is not a prize sponsor — we don’t contribute prizes and have no commercial interest in the outcome. We’re covering Day 43 because the package is the kind of complete, single-day suppressed-rimfire build that our audience would want to know about.

USA Carry is a media partner of Silencer Central’s 100 Days of Silence campaign. USA Carry is not a prize sponsor and does not contribute prizes; we have no commercial interest in the outcome.

Read the original story: Day 43 of the 100 Days of Silence Brings a Complete Suppressed-Rimfire Build — Here’s the $3,660.97 Prize Stack

Key Takeaways

• Governor Ned Lamont signed a law banning convertible pistols, making it a Class D felony to sell or advertise them in Connecticut.
• The new law includes semiautomatic pistols that can be converted to machine guns but exempts certain designs like hammer-fired pistols.
• The firearm industry association plans to challenge the law in court, arguing it punishes law-abiding citizens instead of criminals.
• Critics claim the law violates the Second Amendment by banning a widely used class of firearms for self-defense.
• Gun sales spiked in Connecticut before the law takes effect, indicating a rush to purchase striker-fired pistols.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HARTFORD, CT — Governor Ned Lamont signed Connecticut’s ban on so-called convertible pistols into law Wednesday, and the firearm industry’s trade association is already promising to take it to court.

The measure is now Public Act 26-41. It started as Lamont’s own bill, House Bill 5043, which he introduced back in February as a Governor’s bill. The House passed it 86-64 on April 22, with every Republican and 15 Democrats voting no. The Senate cleared it in an overnight vote earlier this month, which I covered when the bill landed on Lamont’s desk.

The new law makes it a Class D felony to sell, import, distribute, or advertise a “convertible pistol” in Connecticut, punishable by up to five years in prison. It takes effect October 1, 2026. It does not criminalize guns already owned or sold before that date, but it shuts off future sales of an entire class of handgun.

Here is what counts as a convertible pistol under the law: any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted into a machine gun by hand or with a common household tool through a pistol converter. The law carves out hammer-fired pistols and striker-fired designs with a shielded trigger bar. In plain terms, the target is the striker-fired handgun. The Glock and the many pistols built like it are among the most common defensive handguns in the country.

That is the core problem. The state is not banning a crime. The machine gun conversion devices that lawmakers keep pointing to, the so-called switches, are already illegal under both state and federal law. Possessing or installing one is a federal felony under the National Firearms Act, carrying up to 10 years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The criminals using them are already breaking the law. This new statute reaches past those criminals and lands on the law-abiding buyer who simply wants a reliable, widely sold handgun to protect themselves and their family.

NSSF, the firearm industry trade association, says it will challenge the law. Lawrence G. Keane, the group’s senior vice president and general counsel, said the measure punishes the law-abiding instead of the criminals misusing these devices, borrowing a line from Democratic strategist James Carville: “it’s the criminal, stupid.” Keane argued the ban collides with the Supreme Court’s Heller decision and accused Lamont of knowingly trampling the Second Amendment.

More from USA Carry:

• Connecticut HB 5043 Passes Senate in Overnight Vote, Glock-Style Pistol Ban Now Sits on Governor Lamont’s Desk
• [WATCH] Handyman Vows to Leave Portland after Beating from Antifa Mob
• Maryland Legislature Passes Bill Banning Machine Gun Convertible Pistols, Including Some Glocks, Sends It to Governor
• Newsom Signs Law Banning Sale of Most Glocks in California, Targeting ‘Convertible Pistols’
• NSSF Vows Legal Action if Maryland Governor Signs Striker-Fired Handgun Ban

He is right on the constitutional question. The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, not a privilege the legislature gets to trim down to the gun designs it finds acceptable. Heller is clear that the government cannot ban an entire class of arms that Americans overwhelmingly choose for lawful self-defense. A striker-fired pistol is about as “in common use” as a firearm gets.

Connecticut residents saw this coming. Gun sales surged across the state as buyers rushed to pick up striker-fired pistols before the October cutoff. That is what these bans reliably produce, a run on the very guns the state is trying to push off the shelves, and a lawsuit waiting on the other side.

NSSF has not filed yet, and it is unlikely to be the only group challenging the law. I will be following the litigation closely and will report on the filing and Connecticut’s response as the case moves forward.

Read the original story: Gov. Lamont Signs Connecticut Glock-Style Pistol Ban Into Law. NSSF Vows to Fight It in Court

Key Takeaways

• A man, Zachary Fisher, crashed into his ex-girlfriend’s car and confronted the people inside with a gun.
• The situation escalated into a physical altercation, prompting a passenger to fire a single shot in self-defense.
• Police view the incident as an act of self-defense, with Fisher later dying from his injuries.
• The investigation continues, with evidence still being analyzed.
• The shooting highlights the importance of the right to carry for defense in violent situations.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

AUSTINTOWN, OH — A man who crashed into his ex-girlfriend’s car, climbed out with a gun, and advanced on the people inside was stopped with a single shot. Police are now calling it self-defense.

Austintown police released the details Tuesday about the May 13 shooting at New Road and Laurie Drive. Chief Valorie Delmont said the case began as a domestic situation and ended with a dead attacker.

As reported by WKBN, Zachary Fisher, 30, was driving when his vehicle crashed into a car driven by his ex-girlfriend. She had two children in the vehicle, along with a man in the passenger seat.

After the crash, Fisher got out with a gun in his hand. Police say he got into a physical altercation with his ex-girlfriend, then moved toward the passenger side where the man was sitting.

The passenger fired once. Delmont’s release said he acted “in an effort to protect himself and the others,” and the single shot incapacitated Fisher.

Officers tried to give Fisher first aid before an ambulance arrived. He later died at St. Elizabeth Health Center.

Delmont said the investigation is continuing and her department is consulting the Mahoning County Prosecutor’s Office. For now, she said, the incident is being viewed as an act of self-defense. Some of the evidence is still being analyzed.

More from USA Carry:

• Content Creator Meetup Goes Sideways in Houston: Driver Shoots Passenger Who Allegedly Tried to Rob Him
• 8 Passengers Subdue Man Who Put Flight Attendant into Chokehold
• Defensive Tactics in Vehicles: Maximizing Safety and Efficacy
• Texas Woman Shoots Ex-Boyfriend After He Kicks In Door And Attacks Her
• Veterans Tackle Man With Box Cutter On Frontier Flight, On Veterans Day

An armed man chased down the mother of two kids, wrecked her car, and came at the people inside with a gun already in his hand. The passenger did not have the luxury of waiting to see what happened next. He had seconds, and he used one shot to end a deadly threat before it reached the back seat.

That is the entire reason the right to carry exists. When a violent person decides someone is going to die, the only thing that reliably closes the gap is a defender who is ready and able to act. One shot stopped the threat and very likely saved an entire family.

Read the original story: Armed Passenger Stops Ex-Boyfriend’s Attack on Mom and Two Kids, Austintown Police Call It Self-Defense

Key Takeaways

• In Biloxi, a neighbor confronted a naked man on his porch after a homeowner called for help.
• The situation escalated into a violent attack where the neighbor shot the attacker, who then overpowered him and took his gun.
• Police found the neighbor with facial injuries, and the attacker was later discovered dead on shore.
• The incident highlights the unpredictable nature of approaching strangers and the need for caution in such situations.
• A handgun does not guarantee safety, and weapon retention is crucial during a confrontation.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BILOXI, MISS. — A neighbor in Biloxi answered a homeowner’s call to check on his porch Saturday night and ended up in a fight for his life. He shot the attacker multiple times, lost his gun mid-fight, and survived with facial injuries. The naked man who attacked him walked away, returned to the water, and was found dead on shore hours later.

According to WXXV News 25 and the Biloxi Police Department, the call chain started around 8:00 p.m. on May 23, 2026. A homeowner in the 11000 block of Woolmarket Lake Road watched on his Ring doorbell as a naked white male climbed out of the Biloxi River, walked up his stairs, and stepped onto his porch. Other people in the area were calling 911 about the same man.

The homeowner was not there. He called a next-door neighbor and asked him to go check on the house.

When the neighbor walked up and asked if the man needed help, police say the man charged him and started swinging.

The neighbor drew and fired multiple rounds, hitting the attacker. The man kept coming. He took the neighbor’s gun, walked off the property, and went back into the water.

Heavy flooding made the scene hard to reach. Officers were transported in by boat. They found the neighbor with facial lacerations and bruising. Investigators reviewed video from the home’s security system, which recorded the encounter. Rescue boats searched the water, and the attacker’s body was found on shore around 2:00 a.m. Sunday, May 24, 2026.

The neighbor did what most decent people might do. A friend asked him to check the house. He walked over, saw a stranger on the porch, and led with “do you need help.” That is the assumption many bring to a porch encounter, the assumption that words will work.

They did not. Once that man was on top of him swinging, the neighbor was facing an imminent threat of serious bodily harm, and drawing and firing was lawful, justified, and exactly what the Second Amendment, a fundamental civil right, exists to protect.

More from USA Carry:

• Father Shoots Daughter’s Attacker, Then Gets Shot as Suspect Wrestles Gun Away
• Homeowner Shoots Naked Neighbor That Broke Into His Home
• Naked Man Confronting Children Shot and Killed by Homeowner
• Homeowner Shoots 1 of 2 Attackers After Being Pepper Sprayed
• Backyard Target Practice on Christmas Allegedly Kills Oklahoma Woman, Man Charged with Manslaughter

Here is the part every armed citizen needs to sit with. The neighbor put rounds on target. The attacker kept fighting, closed the gap, and took the gun. The only reason this is not a story about a Good Samaritan murdered with his own firearm is that the attacker chose to walk back to the river instead of turning the weapon on him. That is not a margin anyone should plan around.

A handgun is not a magic wand. Pistol rounds do not reliably stop a determined attacker, and once you are in grappling range with a weapon out, your gun becomes the thing the other person is trying to take. Retention is a skill, and it is not optional.

It is also worth saying out loud that walking up on an unknown person, even with good intentions, puts you inside that person’s reach before you know what you are dealing with. If a friend called me and asked me to check on his porch while a naked stranger was standing on it, my next call is 911, not the front steps. Distance, cover, and time are free. Closing that gap is what turned this into a fight.

I am glad the neighbor is alive. The lesson he paid for in stitches and bruises is one the rest of us get for free if we are willing to learn it.

Read the original story: Biloxi Neighbor Shoots Naked Attacker Multiple Times, Gets Disarmed Mid-Fight Before Man Walks Back Into the River

Key Takeaways

• A North Memphis homeowner held an intruder at gunpoint until police arrived after catching him climbing through a window.
• Police found 33-year-old Simeon Pratcher uninjured on the floor when they responded to the call.
• Pratcher believed the home was empty, leading to his arrest on aggravated burglary charges.
• Holding an intruder at gunpoint carries risks, but the homeowner acted in self-defense and complied with police commands.
• Tennessee law allows deadly force if a person believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent harm, justifying the homeowner’s actions.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MEMPHIS, TENN. — A North Memphis homeowner caught an intruder climbing through their window early Tuesday and held the suspect at gunpoint until police arrived, according to the Memphis Police Department.

Officers responded to a shots fired call on Eldridge Avenue just after 1 a.m. When they got inside, they found 33-year-old Simeon Pratcher face down on the bedroom floor with the homeowner standing over him with a firearm.

Officers told the homeowner to put the gun down and then checked Pratcher for injuries. He was not wounded.

Pratcher told police he came through the window because he thought no one was home. He thought wrong. He was arrested without incident and charged with aggravated burglary and possession of burglary tools, Action News 5 reported.

I read stories like this constantly, and the pattern almost never changes. Burglars pick homes they believe are empty. They are not looking for a confrontation. The moment an armed homeowner becomes part of the equation, the entire situation flips.

More from USA Carry:

• Man’s Car Stolen After He Leaves It Running, Leading to Shootout in North Memphis
• Two Recent Incidents Where Open Carry Guns Were Stolen: Is Open Carry Worth the Risk?
• Memphis Robbery Suspect Wielding Two Guns Opens Fire After Brother Tries to Defend, Injuring Teen
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Claimed She Wanted to Buy His House at 5AM
• Armed Customer Returns Fire at Memphis Gas Station Shooting, Suspect in Critical Condition

This homeowner did the right thing being armed and ready in their own house at 1 a.m. Whether to hold a suspect at gunpoint or simply order them back out the window is a personal judgment call, and I do not second-guess anyone who makes that decision in real time. It is worth saying out loud that holding someone at gunpoint carries real risk. The suspect can still fight or try to close the distance. Responding officers walking into the scene also do not always know who the threat is at first glance, which is why complying with officer commands the instant they are given matters as much as the original decision to draw. This homeowner did exactly that.

Tennessee law backs the homeowner here. Deadly force is lawful when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to stop an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. A stranger crawling through a bedroom window in the middle of the night is precisely the kind of moment the law contemplates.

Pratcher is now facing felony charges. The homeowner is unharmed and back in their own home. That is exactly the outcome a lawfully armed citizen makes possible.

Read the original story: Memphis Burglar Said He “Thought No One Was Home.” The Armed Homeowner Proved Him Wrong.

Key Takeaways

• A dog inside a parked pickup accidentally fired a loaded shotgun, injuring a woman at a red light in Scottsbluff.
• Police discovered a damaged truck with a shotgun improperly left loose in the cab, which led to the incident.
• Under Nebraska law, it is illegal to have a loaded shotgun in a vehicle on a public highway, which was violated in this case.
• The injured woman’s condition was not life-threatening, and she received medical treatment after the incident.
• The article emphasizes the importance of safe firearms handling and holding individuals accountable for negligence.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SCOTTSBLUFF, Neb. — A loose dog and a loaded shotgun made for one of the strangest negligent discharges I have ever covered. On Saturday, a dog inside a parked pickup at a Scottsbluff convenience store set off a shotgun that had a live shell in the chamber. The blast tore through the passenger door and sent a pellet into a woman who happened to be sitting at a red light with her arm out the window.

Scottsbluff police were dispatched to the Short Stop at 2002 Avenue I just after noon. The first call came in as a BB gun. By the time officers got there, they were looking at a truck with an attached camper, a blown-out passenger-side door panel, and damage consistent with a shotgun pattern.

According to KNOP News2, the truck owner had pulled in and his passenger was standing right outside the front passenger door. A dog in the back seat moved from one side of the cab to the other. That movement alone was enough to trip the trigger on a loaded shotgun sitting inside the vehicle.

At that same moment, a woman was stopped at the light on Avenue I with her arm resting on the window frame. One pellet struck her in the upper right arm. Police say her injury was not believed to be life-threatening, and a family member drove her to Regional West Medical Center for treatment. The case remains under investigation.

More from USA Carry:

• Nebraska Concealed Carry Permit Information
• To Shoot Or Not To Shoot — That Is The Question These Officers Faced
• Nebraska to become the 27th state to pass Constitutional Carry
• Flying with Guns: Episode 36 – Southwest from Las Vegas to Atlanta
• Flying with Guns: Episode 55 – Delta from New Orleans to Salt Lake City

Set the cartoon-level absurdity aside for a second. This was preventable in every way that matters. A loaded shotgun should not be loose in the cab of a vehicle. It should not be sitting where a dog can step on it. And under Nebraska law, it should not have been loaded at all while the truck was on a public highway.

Nebraska Revised Statute 37-522 makes it unlawful to have or carry “any shotgun having shells in either the chamber, receiver, or magazine in or on any vehicle on any highway.” A violation is a Class III misdemeanor with a minimum fifty-dollar fine. One point I want to make clear for permit holders: Nebraska’s concealed handgun permit does not cover this. The permit applies to handguns. A loaded long gun in the cab is on its own legal track, and that track ends at 37-522.

I support the right to keep and bear arms as much as anyone reading this. The Second Amendment is a civil right, and I treat it that way. But that right does not exempt any of us from the basic rules of safe firearms handling. Treat every gun as loaded. Keep the muzzle in a safe direction. Know what is on the other side of your target. And do not store a loaded shotgun loose in a vehicle where a dog, a kid, a pothole, or a sliding bag can fire it.

The woman at the traffic light did nothing wrong. She paid for somebody else’s choices, and that is the part of this story that is not funny at all.

Read the original story: Dog Steps on Loaded Shotgun in Parked Truck, Shoots Woman Stopped at Nebraska Traffic Light

Key Takeaways

• Maryland has banned popular handguns, including many Glock models, through Senate Bill 334, which takes effect on January 1, 2027.
• In response, major gun rights groups filed a federal lawsuit against the ban, claiming it violates the Second Amendment.
• The law targets semiautomatic pistols labeled as ‘machine gun convertible,’ despite existing laws against illegal modifications like switches.
• Opponents argue that the ban unfairly punishes lawful gun owners instead of addressing criminal misuse of firearms.
• The case highlights important constitutional issues surrounding gun ownership and could set a significant precedent beyond Maryland.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BALTIMORE, MD — Maryland just banned one of the most popular handguns in America, and gun rights groups sued before the ink was dry.

Gov. Wes Moore signed Senate Bill 334 into law on Tuesday. Within minutes, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed a federal lawsuit to stop it.

The law targets what it calls a “machine gun convertible pistol.” That label covers any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar. In plain terms, that sweeps in nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol sold today, along with popular models like the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, the Ruger RXM, and many Shadow Systems handguns.

Starting January 1, 2027, no one in Maryland will be able to manufacture, sell, buy, receive, or transfer those firearms. A violation is a misdemeanor punishable by up to three years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

Here is the part that should bother every law-abiding gun owner. The state did not ban these pistols because of anything the guns actually do. It banned them because a criminal can illegally attach an illegal device, a so-called switch, to turn one into a machine gun.

Those switches are already illegal. They are banned under federal law and under Maryland law, and the conversion is already a serious crime. Maryland’s answer was to go after the gun instead of the criminal.

More from USA Carry:

• Maryland Concealed Carry Permit Information
• NSSF Vows Legal Action if Maryland Governor Signs Striker-Fired Handgun Ban
• FPC Just Asked the Supreme Court to End Maryland’s Carry Bans, and the List of Banned Places Is Staggering
• Court Battle Over Guns at Post Office Heats Up as SAF & FPC Fights ‘Unconstitutional’ Government Tactics
• Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Limit USPS Gun Ban Ruling, Expands Protection to SAF and FPC Members

I keep coming back to the analogy SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut used. He called the law “as foolish as banning hops and barley to prevent drunk driving.” That lands because it is exactly right. You do not stop the misuse by punishing millions of peaceable people who never misuse anything.

The lawsuit, filed as National Rifle Association v. Moore in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, makes a straightforward constitutional argument. Handguns are in common use for lawful purposes. The Supreme Court said so in Heller, and it said so again in Bruen. Arms in common use cannot be banned, and Glock-pattern pistols are among the best-selling handguns in the country, so the math is not close.

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford said Moore had “banned one of the most popular handguns in America” with a single signature. FPC President Brandon Combs was blunter, calling the ban “immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical.”

The Second Amendment is not a policy suggestion. It is a fundamental civil right, and the right to keep an arm necessarily includes the right to acquire one. A ban on buying a constitutionally protected handgun is a ban on the handgun itself. Naming only one popular category does not save it.

The defendants are Gov. Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and Maryland State Police Secretary Michael Jackson, who the Senate confirmed to lead the agency in February. The plaintiffs are represented by Nicole J. Moss and her colleagues at Cooper & Kirk, and they are asking the court to declare the ban unconstitutional and block enforcement.

SB 334 was sponsored by state Sen. Sara Love. It cleared the legislature this spring and takes formal effect October 1, 2026, with the sales and transfer ban kicking in on the first day of the new year.

Current owners are not required to surrender anything. But once the law is live, you cannot sell or transfer your pistol to anyone outside a narrow list of exceptions, which includes immediate family, inheritances, certain gunsmith repairs, and law enforcement.

I will be tracking this case closely as it moves through the District Court, including the state’s response and any push for a preliminary injunction. This one matters well beyond Maryland.

Read the original story: NRA, SAF, and FPC Hit Maryland With Federal Lawsuit Over New Glock Ban

Key Takeaways

• Springfield Armory launched three 1911 models equipped with the Aimpoint COA, enhancing their COA-equipped lineup.
• The models include the 1911 DS Prodigy 4.25″ COA, 1911 TRP COA, and 1911 Operator COA, all featuring factory-milled optics for easy use.
• The A-CUT mounting system offers a secure, low-profile attachment for the Aimpoint COA optic, enhancing durability and quick access to sights.
• The Aimpoint COA optic boasts sealed optics with various brightness settings, making it versatile for different conditions.
• Next steps involve testing the Prodigy at the range to provide a full review based on real performance data.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

I’ll be honest: I’m a striker-fired guy. Glocks, the Echelon, polymer-framed duty pistols. That’s the world I’m comfortable in and the platform I’ve spent the most time running. So when Springfield Armory’s new Aimpoint COA-equipped 1911 lineup landed and I asked for the 1911 DS Prodigy version, I was excited to spend time with something a little outside my usual wheelhouse. As I’ve gotten more and more into USPSA, 1911s have been something that has piqued my interest.

This one is fresh out of the box for me. I haven’t put rounds through it yet, but I wanted to get the word out on what Springfield just dropped, because it’s a meaningful expansion of their line of COA-Equipped pistols, and then walk you through what I’m planning to do with it.

What Springfield Just Launched

Springfield Armory has added three new pistols to its Aimpoint COA-equipped line. If you’ve been following along, the COA partnership first showed up on the Echelon 9mm. That was Springfield’s first crack at building a gun around the closed-emitter Aimpoint optic. This new wave moves the concept onto the 1911 platform in a big way.

The three new offerings are:

• 1911 DS Prodigy 4.25″ COA, 9mm: the double-stack Prodigy I’m running
• 1911 TRP COA, .45 ACP: a 5″ railed, fully-featured TRP
• 1911 Operator COA, .45 ACP: a 5″ duty-grade Operator

All three ship from the factory milled with Aimpoint’s A-CUT interface and arrive with the Aimpoint COA red dot already installed. That “factory-milled and pre-mounted” detail is the whole point here. You’re not paying a gunsmith to cut a slide, and you’re not fussing with adapter plates.

The A-CUT mounting system

What makes this setup different from a typical optics-ready slide is how the COA actually attaches. Instead of bolting an optic to a flat-milled surface, the A-CUT uses a full-length dovetail that’s locked in by a front hook and a rear wedge. That wedge-locking design pushes lateral recoil forces down into the dovetail itself rather than loading up the mounting screws, which is how Springfield and Aimpoint are getting their durability and zero-retention claims. It also sits the optic very low, low enough to co-witness with the iron sights, so you can pick the dot up fast and still have irons right there as a backup.

The Aimpoint COA optic

The COA is a closed-emitter sight, meaning the optical window is fully sealed. There’s no exposed emitter to get fouled by rain, dust, lint, or whatever else finds its way into a carry gun. It runs a 3.5 MOA dot housed in a 7075-T6 aluminum body, and it’s rated for more than five years of runtime on a single CR2032. You get four night-vision settings and eight daylight settings, a 15x15mm lens, and submersion down to 25 meters, all in a package that weighs just 1.7 ounces. The battery compartment is set up for quick access without pulling the optic off, which means re-zeroing isn’t part of a battery swap.

One thing worth pointing out for value shoppers: the COA carries a $617 MSRP on its own. Bundled onto any of these three pistols, Springfield says you’re coming out close to $200 ahead versus buying the gun and optic separately. That’s a real consideration when you’re pricing out an optics-ready build.

The specs, gun by gun

1911 DS Prodigy 4.25″ COA (9mm), MSRP $1,955 This is the one I’ve got. The Prodigy takes the classic 1911 and reworks it around a double-stack magazine, so you get 18+1 capacity with the two included 18-round Mec-Gar mags, a serious jump over a traditional single-stack 1911. The polymer grip module mounts to a forged steel frame, and you get a 4.25″ forged stainless match-grade bull barrel, an ambidextrous safety, and a Picatinny rail. It runs 32.5 oz, 7.8″ long, 5.75″ tall. SKU PH9117COA.

1911 TRP COA (.45 ACP), MSRP $2,424 The TRP is the high-end pick of the bunch. It’s a 5″ .45 in black Cerakote with a forged slide and frame that are hand-selected for fit, an accessory rail, 20-LPI checkering for grip, top slide serrations to cut glare, VZ Hydra G10 grips, and a two-piece extended and flared magwell for fast reloads. Ships with two 8-round mags. It’s the heaviest at 39.2 oz, 8.6″ long, 5.5″ tall. SKU PC9125LRCOA.

1911 Operator COA (.45 ACP), MSRP $1,623 The Operator is the no-nonsense duty-grade option. It’s a 5″ .45 with a forged frame and slide in black Cerakote, VZ G10 grips, an ambi safety, forward cocking serrations, and two 8-round mags with bumper pads. At 42 oz it’s actually the heaviest of the three, measuring 8.6″ long and 5.25″ tall. SKU PO9230COA.

In Springfield’s own words, the goal was to pair “the rugged and durable Aimpoint COA closed-emitter optic with these dedicated A-CUT pistols.” Across the three guns, you’ve got coverage from a high-capacity 9mm carry/competition crossover up through traditional full-size .45s.

More from USA Carry:

• Glock Unveils New A-CUT Optic Models with Pre-Installed Aimpoint Red Dots
• FIRST LOOK: Springfield Armory 1911 DS Prodigy
• Springfield Armory Announces Six New Models Of The Respected TRP 1911
• ICE Drops SIG P320s, Moves to Glock 19s for Duty Use Amid Civilian Market Pullback
• Glock COA Pistols Pulled from Civilian Market — Rumors Tie Move to P320 Troubles

A Holster Surprise from KSG Armory

KSG Armory sent over their Lexington IWB holster cut for a 1911, and they were up front that they weren’t sure it would actually fit the Prodigy. They hasn’t tested it yet so I asked them to send one out for me to test.

It fits perfectly. No modifications, good retention, the gun sits right where it should. That opens up a real possibility for me: actually carrying this thing. I’m not there yet. I want to put in the reps first. Coming from striker-fired guns, I need to get genuinely comfortable with the 1911’s manual of arms, the thumb safety, and the overall handling and manipulation before I’d trust it for daily carry. But the holster being squared away means that, when I get there, I’m ready.

What’s Next

The video short on the Prodigy is already done, and the real work starts now: getting it to the range. I’ll be running it soon to start the testing process, so there’s more content coming on how it actually shoots, how the COA holds up, and how a striker-fired shooter adapts to a double-stack 1911. Once I’ve got enough rounds downrange to form a real, honest opinion, I’ll put out a full review. Not a first-impressions guess, but a verdict built on trigger time.

If you want to catch all of that as it drops, the range footage, the testing updates, and the review, follow USA Carry on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and X. That’s where the new content lands first.

Stay tuned.

Read the original story: Springfield Armory Puts the Aimpoint COA on the 1911 DS Prodigy 4.25″

Key Takeaways

• The Minnesota appeals court struck down the state’s ban on binary triggers, citing a violation of the Single-Subject Clause.
• Lawmakers included the ban in an unrelated omnibus bill, which the court deemed unconstitutional.
• The court ruled to sever the binary-trigger provision while allowing the rest of the bill to stand.
• The ruling serves as a warning to legislators about adhering to the single-subject rule in future bills.
• Binary triggers remain legal in Minnesota, but the broader implications regarding legislative process are still open for debate.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

ST. PAUL, MN — A Minnesota appeals court has struck down the state’s ban on binary triggers, and the reason is one every gun owner should understand. The Legislature did not lose on the Second Amendment. It lost because it tried to sneak the ban into a bill where it did not belong.

On May 26, 2026, the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled in Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus v. Walz that the binary-trigger ban violates the Minnesota Constitution’s Single-Subject Clause. That clause says no law shall embrace more than one subject, and that the subject must be expressed in the law’s title. The court affirmed the lower court ruling that the ban cannot stand, and it remains enjoined and unenforceable across Minnesota.

Here is how this happened. On the final day of the 2024 legislative session, lawmakers passed a sprawling omnibus bill titled “An act relating to the operation and financing of state government.” Buried inside that bill was a provision redefining “trigger activator” to include binary triggers, which let a firearm fire one shot on the pull and a second on the release. That provision effectively criminalized owning or using them.

A binary trigger ban has nothing to do with the operation and financing of state government, and the state did not really argue otherwise. According to the opinion, the state conceded at a hearing that the binary-trigger provision was not germane to the subject in the bill’s title, and effectively conceded that it violated the Single-Subject Clause. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus sued in February 2025, and the district court, with Judge Leonardo Castro, agreed.

The state appealed anyway, raising two arguments the appeals court rejected. First, it claimed single-subject challenges are political questions that courts should not decide. The court noted the Minnesota Supreme Court has long treated these challenges as something courts can and do rule on, and the state itself admitted that argument was really one for the Supreme Court. Second, the state asked the court to adopt a so-called “codification rule” from Iowa, which would have treated the lawsuit as too late once the ban was folded into the statute books. The court declined, explaining that creating new policy like that is a job for the Supreme Court or the Legislature, not the Court of Appeals.

I want to be straight about the one place the Caucus did not get everything it wanted, because the win has a limit worth understanding. The Caucus argued the entire omnibus bill should be thrown out, not just the binary-trigger piece. The court said no. Following Minnesota Supreme Court precedent, it ruled that when one provision violates the Single-Subject Clause, the remedy is to sever that provision and leave the rest of the law intact. So the binary-trigger ban is dead, but the rest of that giant bill survives.

What makes that part interesting is that the judges clearly sympathized with the bigger argument. The opinion quotes the district court saying that if there has ever been a bill without a common theme, where all bounds of reason and restraint seem to have been abandoned, this is it. The appeals court wrote, plainly, “We share that concern.” A companion case decided the same day listed the bill’s wildly unrelated contents, everything from abortion and assisted living facilities to binary triggers, traffic cameras, Uber and Lyft driver pay, vaccines, and veterinary licensing, all stuffed under one vague title. The judges all but said the whole thing looks unconstitutional, but felt bound by precedent to sever rather than scrap it.

More from USA Carry:

• North Carolina Castle Doctrine and Parking Lot Provision in Omnibus Bill Threatened
• Federal Government Defends Gun Registration Using “Necessary and Proper” Clause
• Virginia Senate Advances Gun Bill Mandating Confiscation of Standard Capacity Magazines
• Minneapolis Mayor Frey Signs Sweeping Gun Ordinance That State Law Says He Cannot Enforce
• Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling

One more honest note. This opinion is nonprecedential, meaning it does not bind future courts the way a published ruling would. The win is real and the ban is enforceably dead, but the broader fight over how far the Single-Subject Clause reaches is still open, and the state could seek review at the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The Caucus is treating it as a clean victory on the question it raised. “This is a complete victory on the question we asked the court to decide,” said Bryan Strawser, Chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. He argued that anti-gun officials tried to slip a firearms ban into a bill where it did not belong, and that two courts have now said no.

Rob Doar, President of the Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, framed it as a shot across the bow. He called the ruling a warning to any legislator who treats the single-subject rule as optional, and said that if lawmakers try the same maneuver again, his group will be back in court.

That is the real takeaway here. This was not a ruling about whether the state can regulate a particular trigger. It was a ruling about how laws get made, and a reminder that gun control measures slipped quietly into unrelated megabills can be challenged on the process alone. For now, binary triggers remain legal in Minnesota. I will keep tracking whether the state takes this to the Supreme Court.

Read the original story: Minnesota Tried to Bury a Binary Trigger Ban in a Massive Omnibus Bill. A Court Just Killed It.

Key Takeaways

• Episode 58 recounts flying Frontier Airlines from New Orleans to Las Vegas, highlighting a fun interaction at check-in.
• The check-in process included declaring firearms, signing forms, and discussing policies with the airline agents.
• The agent recognized the author from TikTok, marking a first for such an encounter at the counter.
• Upon arrival in Las Vegas, the author’s luggage arrived safely and intact, showcasing a smooth travel experience.
• Good agents simplified the process, making it a memorable check-in among 58 episodes.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 58 was filmed May 14th, flying Frontier from New Orleans to Las Vegas. First time being recognized at the counter and a fun interaction came out of it.

Check-In at MSY

Walked up, declared firearms, and got into the process. Signed the declaration form, and I put it in the Fedex sleeve attached to my Pelican case that was inside my Samsonite bag.

During the conversation he brought up Spirit, where he used to work. Different process over there — and not always the right one. They’d sometimes ask what kind of firearm you were traveling with, which isn’t something airlines are supposed to do, and would make you open the case at times. He wasn’t sure of Frontier’s policy but his co-workers did and they handled it correctly.

That’s when he recognized me from TikTok — said I’d made a couple of his coworkers go viral. First time that’s happened at the counter.

The female agent next to him asked if the camera was recording. When I said yes, she waved at it.

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

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 44 – Frontier Airlines from MSY to LAS (First Time Flying Frontier)
• Homeowner Charged with Murder After Teen Fatally Shot During Alleged Break-In That Friends Say Was TikTok Prank
• California Law Enforcement Abused State Database to Improperly Vet Concealed Carry Applicants
• Houston Man Charged with Murder After Killing 11-Year-Old in TikTok Door Kick Challenge Incident
• Flying with Guns: Episode 54 – Southwest from Houston to New Orleans

Arrival in Las Vegas

Bag came out on the carousel at LAS. Pelican was inside the Samsonite, locks intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Good agents make the process easy. These two knew the policy, kept it moving, and made for one of the more memorable check-ins in 58 episodes.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 58 – Got Recognized from TikTok

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

MARLIN, TX — A family living under one roof woke before dawn on May 21 to a relative stabbing the children inside, and by the family’s account, it ended when one of the victims grabbed a gun and shot the attacker.

According to the Marlin Police Department, officers responded at about 4:45 a.m. to a disturbance in the 1200 block of Fushie Street. Marlin officers and Falls County Sheriff’s Office deputies found three people with stab wounds, one of whom had also been shot. All three were taken to local hospitals in stable condition. A suspect was found with a gunshot wound and pronounced dead at the scene.

The official release from Chief Hommel keeps it brief and does not say who fired the shot. KWTX filled in the rest through interviews with the family, and that is where this becomes a defensive story.

According to KWTX, a family member said all four people involved lived in the home together, and that the suspect was the cousin of the children’s mother. She said the suspect started stabbing two victims who were under 18, and that one of the other victims was able to defend the juveniles by shooting and killing the attacker. That shooter, she said, was a daughter in the family who was herself one of the wounded.

The mother of the juveniles told KWTX both of her kids are now in stable condition, though her son was originally taken to the ICU. A neighbor across the street said a male juvenile came to his door that morning covered in blood, asking for help, and that he called 911. Marlin City Manager Jason Creasy confirmed two of the victims were juveniles and said the investigation is ongoing.

More from USA Carry:

• The 6 Best Ban-State Carbines
• Ohio Mother Grabs Gun After Seeing Son Being Pulled by Teens in Driveway
• Mother Forced to Shoot and Kill Son After Repeated Assaults by Him
• Armed Citizen Chased Down Stabbing Suspect; Shoots Him in Self-Defense
• Domestic Violence and Home Carry Considerations

I want to be careful with the parts that come from family rather than police. The defensive account, who shot whom and why, comes from relatives relayed through local news, not from the official statement. But the confirmed facts and the family account fit together cleanly. Someone in that house was attacking the others with a knife, multiple people were stabbed, and the attack stopped when the attacker was shot.

If that account holds, this is defense of others in its rawest form. A knife is a deadly weapon, and someone actively stabbing children is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Meeting that with a firearm to make it stop is exactly what the right to defend yourself and your family exists for.

The detail that stays with me is that the person who fired was reportedly one of the victims, bleeding from her own wounds, and that the attacker was her own relative. That is the hardest version of a defensive encounter there is. She did not get to think it through. She was being stabbed alongside the kids, and she did the one thing that would end it.

There are no winners in something like this. A family member is dead, children are recovering from stab wounds, and the person who ended it has to live with having killed a relative to save the others. The family has asked for privacy and for the community’s thoughts and prayers while investigators work, and that is the right place to leave it.

Read the original story: A Relative Was Stabbing Children When a Texas Woman Grabbed a Gun and Stopped Him Cold

Key Takeaways

• The Indiana Supreme Court dismissed the City of Gary’s lawsuit against gun manufacturers, ending a 25-year legal battle.
• This decision followed the passage of House Enrolled Act 1235, which restricts such lawsuits to the State of Indiana.
• The law retroactively applied to Gary’s case, preventing it from continuing after two decades of appeals.
• The Indiana attorney general, Todd Rokita, will not file similar lawsuits on behalf of cities, solidifying the ruling’s impact.
• Gun-control advocates expressed concern over access to courts, while the firearms industry celebrated the decision as a victory.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

INDIANAPOLIS, IN — The last surviving lawsuit from the gun-control movement’s first wave of city cases against the firearms industry is over. On May 21, the Indiana Supreme Court denied the City of Gary’s petition to transfer its case against Smith & Wesson and other gunmakers, letting stand a December Court of Appeals ruling that ordered the suit dismissed. The vote was 4-1, with Justice Christopher Goff the only member who would have taken the case. Chief Justice Loretta Rush signed the order.

That ends a fight Gary started in August 1999. The city sued a long list of manufacturers, distributors, and dealers, including Smith & Wesson, Glock, and Beretta, claiming their sales and marketing practices created a public nuisance and fed straw purchases that drove local crime. Gary sought money damages and a court order forcing changes to how the industry does business. The suit survived three trips through the appellate courts over more than two decades.

What finally stopped it was not a jury or a ruling on the merits. It was the legislature. In 2024, lawmakers passed House Enrolled Act 1235, now codified as the Reservation Statute, which provides that only the State of Indiana may bring or maintain this kind of action on behalf of a city or county. Representative Chris Jeter introduced the bill in the House. Then-Governor Eric Holcomb signed it on March 15, 2024, and lawmakers made it retroactive to August 27, 1999, three days before Gary filed.

The trial judge, John Sedia of Lake Superior Court, upheld the law but refused to apply it backward to a case that had already run for a quarter century, calling that a manifest injustice. The Court of Appeals reversed him on every point. It held the statute is a general law that applies to every political subdivision in the state, not special legislation aimed at one city. It found no violation of separation of powers or the Open Courts Clause. And it held that Gary, as an agent of the state, had no vested right in a lawsuit that never reached a final judgment.

The panel was blunt about what it was doing. “Unfair as it may appear, the legislature can legally do exactly what it did,” the December opinion reads. The court sent the case back with instructions to dismiss it.

The practical effect is the part worth understanding. Under the new law, the only official who can sue gunmakers on a city’s behalf is the Indiana attorney general. That is Todd Rokita, who pushed for the dismissal and has made clear he has no interest in filing a suit like Gary’s. He called the decision the end of the city’s “relentless campaign to harass the firearms industry.”

More from USA Carry:

• 3-Year-Old Shoots 2-Year-Old Brother with Pistol He Found in Mom’s Purse
• Concealed Carrier Playing Pokémon Go Shoots Back
• Texas Woman Shoots Burglar After Refusing to Leave
• Suit Filed To Stop A One Handgun A Month Law In Virginia
• Florida Homeowner Warned Intruder to Leave—When He Refused, He Shot Him in Self-Defense

The industry treated it as a landmark. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm trade group, described Gary’s effort as a “losing lawfare strategy to abuse the courts,” arguing the city was trying to win through litigation what it could not win in the statehouse. I have watched these municipal suits fall one by one since the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act passed in 2005, and Gary’s was the last one standing from that original group.

Brady, the gun-control group that represented Gary for two decades, conceded the loss. President Kris Brown said the result should alarm anyone who wants access to the courts and asked, “What are the gun industry defendants so afraid of?” The group says lawmakers passed a series of state and federal laws over 25 years to shut suits like this down.

There is not much road left. The case returns to Lake Superior Court for dismissal. Any further appeal would have to go to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the questions Gary lost on are matters of Indiana constitutional law, which makes that a steep climb. For now the answer in Indiana is settled. A city cannot sue the firearms industry on its own, and the one official who can has said he will not.

Read the original story: Indiana Supreme Court Ends 26-Year Lawsuit Against Firearm Manufacturers

Key Takeaways

• A man in Eugene reported an intruder shooting at his home and shot back, resulting in two individuals wounded.
• Police, including SWAT and Crisis Negotiation Team, responded heavily to the situation, which is still under investigation.
• The incident highlights that owning a gun does not guarantee safety during a home invasion.
• Training and preparation are crucial; knowing how to act in chaos can make a significant difference.
• Having a home defense plan can provide options while dealing with an intruder, emphasizing that survival may not equate to coming away unscathed.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

EUGENE, OR — A man called police early Tuesaday to report someone had broken into his home and was shooting, and that he was shooting back. When officers arrived, they found two people with gunshot wounds. That is most of what we actually know, and I want to be upfront about that before I get to why this one is worth talking about anyway.

According to the Eugene Police Department, officers responded at 1:07 a.m. on May 19 to a report of shots fired at a home in the Churchill area, in the 1600 block of Oak Patch. The caller said an intruder broke in and was shooting, and that he returned fire. Officers found two individuals wounded and gave emergency medical aid until Eugene Springfield Fire took over and transported them to a hospital.

The response was heavy. SWAT, the Crisis Negotiation Team, a drone team, the Violent Crimes Unit, and the Forensic Evidence Unit were all on scene. That tells you police were securing an active and serious situation before sorting out exactly what happened. The case is still under investigation.

Here is what we do not know, and I am not going to pretend otherwise. We do not know for certain who the two wounded people were. We do not know whether one of the wounded was the homeowner or whether both were intruders, though the way the police report is worded, with the caller saying he was shooting back, it sounds like one was the resident and one was the intruder. Commenters online have offered some details, including claims about where a wounded person ended up and who was hurt, but none of that is confirmed by police, and I am not going to repeat it as fact. The department has asked anyone with tips to call 541.682.5111.

So why write about it at all? Because even with the thin facts, this scenario points to something every armed citizen should sit with. If we assume the basic version is accurate, that a resident was attacked in his own home and fired back, the takeaway is sobering. He may have done everything within his rights, and still ended up shot. Being armed did not make this clean, and it may not have made him the clear winner.

That is the part that gets lost in a lot of online cheering. Having a gun is not a guarantee. A defensive encounter in your home at one in the morning is chaos. You are woken from sleep, your vision has not adjusted, you may not know how many people are in your house or where they are, and rounds are already being fired. The idea that you will simply draw and prevail is a fantasy that gets people hurt.

More from USA Carry:

• Violent Counter Protestor Detained At Gunpoint By Armed Citizens
• Duck N Go Market Clerk Pulls Own Gun, Shoots Armed Robber in Self-Defense
• Austin Homeowner Shoots and Seriously Wounds Intruder
• Victim Wounded, 1 Suspect Dead After Shootout in an Attempted Burglary
• Police Fatally Shoot School Shooting Suspect Who Killed 2, Wounded 7

This is exactly why training matters more than hardware. Buying a gun is the easy part. Knowing how to move in your own home in the dark, how to use cover, how to identify a threat before pressing the trigger, and how to manage the adrenaline dump that turns your hands clumsy, those are skills, and skills require reps. I would rather see someone own one pistol they have trained with seriously than a safe full of guns they have never run under stress.

A home defense plan matters just as much. The goal of a plan is to buy time and distance, because time and distance are what give you options. That means thinking through the boring stuff before you ever need it. Where do your loved ones go, and how do you account for them so you are not pointing a gun at a family member. What is your safe room, and can you lock down to a single defensible position rather than clearing your house like you are in a movie. How do you call for help while staying behind cover. Where do reinforced doors, lighting, and a phone within reach fit in. Every layer you add is a layer that slows an intruder and gives you more time to make good decisions.

None of that is a criticism of whoever defended themselves in Eugene. I do not have the facts to judge what happened, and neither does anyone in a comment section. It is simply the lesson this kind of incident should drive home. The most prepared response still might not go the way you imagine, and the answer to that is not more firepower. It is more training, a real plan, and a clear-eyed understanding that surviving a fight is not the same as walking away from it unscathed.

The investigation is ongoing, and the facts may look different once police finish their work. I will leave the conclusions to them.

Read the original story: An Oregon Man Fired Back at an Intruder. By the Time Police Arrived, Two People Were Down.

Key Takeaways

• A homeowners association in Port St. Lucie attempted to ban firearms in common areas, but faced pushback from the Florida Attorney General and local police.
• The HOA’s rule, passed in December 2025, broadly restricted firearms on its property, affecting many areas and people.
• The Attorney General’s letter pointed out the rule violates Florida law, specifically Section 790.251 regarding the right to bear arms.
• The Port St. Lucie Police Department clarified that HOA rules are not enforceable as laws or ordinances, emphasizing support for residents’ rights.
• This situation illustrates that HOA rules, while written, may not be lawful or enforceable against state statutes.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

PORT ST. LUCIE, FL — A homeowners association tried to ban firearms across its common areas. Within days, both the Florida Attorney General and the local police chief made clear the HOA had badly overstepped.

Here is what happened. The Tradition Community Association in Port St. Lucie adopted a rule its board passed by unanimous written consent on December 5, 2025. The rule states that “no person shall carry or possess any firearm or other weapon, whether open or concealed, on any Common Area owned or maintained by the Association.” On May 11, 2026, the association mailed residents a letter spelling it out, noting the ban “applies even if you do have a ‘concealed carry’ license for your weapon.”

The reach was broad. By its own terms the rule covered the Town Hall, Town Square, gazebo, splash pad, tot lot, dog park, parks, trails, stormwater areas, and other common areas. It applied to owners, tenants, guests, invitees, and contractors alike. The rule did carve out a few exceptions, including lawful carry while passing through internal streets and sidewalks, firearms inside private vehicles, and law enforcement.

Then the state stepped in. On May 21, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier sent the association’s president a letter telling him the rule violates Florida law. He pointed to Section 790.251 of the Florida Statutes, which bars a private employer from expelling a customer or invitee for exercising the right to keep and bear arms.

The AG’s reasoning is worth understanding, because it is more specific than a general appeal to the Second Amendment. The association is a not-for-profit corporation with employees, including a general manager, property manager, and maintenance staff. Under the statute, that makes it a private employer. Its employees who are licensed to carry cannot be fired or punished for exercising that right, and anyone visiting the common areas counts as an invitee who cannot be expelled for it either. He also cited longstanding Florida case law that an HOA cannot adopt arbitrary rules unrelated to residents’ health, happiness, and enjoyment.

More from USA Carry:

• Virginia Governor Signs Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill, Concealed Carriers Rejoice
• Minneapolis Mayor Frey Signs Sweeping Gun Ordinance That State Law Says He Cannot Enforce
• Criteria for Selecting Your Holster: A Review of the Alien Gear In-the-Waistband Holster
• Illinois Assault Weapons Ban Is Creating 100’s of Thousands of Law-Abiding Felons
• Supreme Court Asked To Hear NY Concealed Carry Case

Uthmeier gave the association until June 1, 2026, to certify in writing that it will not enforce the rule. If it refuses, he wrote, his office will take action to enforce the law, citing the state’s authority to go after a corporation acting beyond its powers. He closed the letter bluntly: “This is not New York or California. In Florida, the right of the people to keep and bear arms ‘shall not be infringed.'”

The local police were just as direct. The Port St. Lucie Police Department issued a statement from Chief Leo Niemczyk clarifying that the HOA letter “is not a law, ordinance, or official directive” from the department or the city. PSLPD said it enforces Florida state law, not private HOA policies, and that while associations may set certain policies for their properties, those policies “do not constitute criminal violations and will not be enforced by PSLPD.” The chief added that the department fully supports the constitutional rights of residents, including those protected under the Second Amendment.

I think this is an important case to watch, and not just because the gun owners came out ahead. It is a clean illustration of something a lot of people get wrong. A private association can write almost anything into a rule, but writing it down does not make it lawful or enforceable. Florida has specific statutory protections that an HOA board cannot simply vote around, and a community association is not a government with the power to create gun-free zones across an entire neighborhood.

It also shows the limit of these paper policies. Even setting the statute aside, the police made clear they were never going to treat a violation of the HOA rule as a crime. The worst the association could realistically do is pursue its own internal civil measures, and the AG’s letter calls even that into question.

If you live under an HOA and get a notice like this, the move is not to panic and it is not to assume the rule binds you the way a law would. It is to know your state’s actual statutes. In Florida, residents had strong protection on their side, and it took the Attorney General about ten days to say so in writing.

The association has until June 1 to respond. I will keep tracking how this one resolves, and whether the state follows through if the HOA digs in.

Read the original story: Florida AG to Port St. Lucie HOA: Drop the Gun Ban by June 1 or We Enforce the Law

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner shot an intruder who assaulted him in his home, with police confirming no public threat exists.
• The resident’s actions were justified due to the immediate threat presented by the intruder, regardless of any potential medical condition.
• Witnesses claim the intruder had Alzheimer’s or dementia, complicating the emotional aspect of the incident.
• The incident highlights the legal right to defend oneself against imminent threats, despite the tragic backdrop.
• The investigation is ongoing, and the facts will clarify once the district attorney reviews the case.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

MIDWEST CITY, OK — A homeowner shot and killed a man who entered his home and began assaulting him early Thursday morning. The basic facts here are not complicated, even if the backstory is sad.

According to the Midwest City Police Department, officers responded to a shooting on Lloyd Drive at about 7:30 a.m. A male subject entered a neighbor’s residence unannounced and started assaulting the resident. The resident shot him. The man was taken to a local hospital and pronounced dead.

Investigators are still speaking with witnesses and people connected to those involved. The department says there is no threat to the public, and once the investigation is complete, the case will be referred to the Oklahoma County District Attorney’s Office for review.

The key fact is the assault. This is not a story about someone shooting a person for simply being on their property. The intruder entered the home and physically attacked the resident. Deadly force is justified against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and being attacked inside your own home is exactly that kind of moment. The homeowner did what he had to do to defend himself.

Where it gets sadder is in the comments under the police department’s own post. Several neighbors and people who say they knew the man told a fuller story. They claimed he had Alzheimer’s or dementia, that he had once owned the home next door and let a friend live there, and that in his condition he may have believed he was returning to his own house. One said the two men were close. Another said she pulled public property records and found him listed as the former owner.

I cannot confirm those claims. They are not in any police statement or news report I have found, and the case is still open. But there is no reason to dismiss them either, and if they are accurate, it is genuinely tragic for the man and his family.

More from USA Carry:

• Chicago Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Charged at Him in Middle of Night, Family Says Man Had Alzheimer’s
• Homeowner Shoots and Kills Intruder Who Charged at Him Inside Chicago Home
• North Philadelphia Homeowner Shoots and Kills Woman Trying to Break In Through Back Window, Police Say
• Concealed Carrier Shoots Neighbor’s Knife-Wielding Son Who Was Having a “Mental Episode”
• Florida Sheriff After Homeowner Shoots Intruder: “Expect to Get Shot”

Here is the thing though. It does not change what the homeowner was facing. When a person breaks into your home and starts attacking you, you do not have the luxury of diagnosing them first. You do not know their medical history in that moment. You know someone is in your home and putting hands on you, and you have seconds to react. Whether the attacker knew where he was or not, the resident still had every right to protect himself.

Both of those things can be true at once. It can be a heartbreaking situation for the man who died and his loved ones, and the homeowner can still be completely justified in defending his life. One does not cancel out the other.

The comment section split the way these always do. Plenty of people kept it simple. “Gotta protect your home.” Others wanted folks to slow down and consider the dementia angle before piling on. Both sides have a point, but neither changes the legal and practical reality of what happened in that house.

The takeaway for those of us who carry is a steady one. You defend against the threat in front of you based on what is happening, not based on who the person is or why they are there. That is what the law asks, and it is what the moment demands. The aftermath can be sad and complicated, and you can still have done the right thing.

The facts are limited for now, and the case is with investigators and the district attorney. Worth letting that play out before anyone draws hard conclusions.

Read the original story: Neighbors Say the Man Had Alzheimer’s. It Doesn’t Change What the Homeowner Faced.

Key Takeaways

• The Firearms Policy Coalition challenges Maryland’s public carry restrictions in the Supreme Court case Novotny v. Moore, citing the aftermath of the Bruen decision.
• Maryland’s new Gun Safety Act aims to limit carry locations instead of issuing permits, creating numerous restricted areas.
• The Fourth Circuit upheld most location bans, raising concerns about the interpretation of the right to carry, especially in ‘crowded’ places.
• Historically, the petition argues that permitting people to carry firearms was common and not restricted to secured areas, contrary to Maryland’s approach.
• This case could shape national carry rights, as it addresses conflicts in how ‘sensitive place’ laws are applied following Bruen.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Firearms Policy Coalition took Maryland to the Supreme Court, and the petition lays out exactly how far a state will go to keep people from carrying after Bruen.

On May 20, 2026, FPC filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Novotny v. Moore, asking the justices to strike down a long list of Maryland’s public carry bans. FPC is joined by three of its members, Maryland Shall Issue, and the Second Amendment Foundation. The petitioners are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper & Kirk, along with Mark W. Pennak.

Here is the backdrop. When the Supreme Court decided Bruen in 2022, it forced Maryland to start issuing carry permits instead of denying them on a “good and substantial reason” standard. Maryland’s response was the Gun Safety Act of 2023, Senate Bill 1. Rather than control who gets a permit, the state went after where you can actually go with one.

The petition is blunt about the strategy, and Maryland more or less admitted it below. As long as the state could keep permits scarce, there was little need for broad location bans. Once Bruen made permits easier to get, that changed. Same goal, new method.

So look at where a permitted Marylander still cannot carry. The challenged bans cover mass transit and transit facilities, public demonstrations and anywhere within 1,000 feet of one, state parks and state forests, four kinds of healthcare facilities, “places of amusement” like museums, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, and casinos, anywhere that sells alcohol for on-site consumption, government buildings, and school grounds. On top of that, Maryland flipped the default on private property open to the public, presuming carry is banned unless the owner says otherwise.

Add it up and the question the petition raises is simple. If the right to carry “in public” does not include government-owned land, places where people eat and drink, or where they gather for recreation, then what is left of the right at all?

The case ran through the courts in 2023 and 2024. The district court blocked a few pieces, including the private property default rule and the bans on carry at places serving alcohol and at demonstrations. Then in January 2026 the Fourth Circuit went the other way. It upheld nearly every location ban Maryland enacted, striking down only the private property “vampire rule.” That mixed result is what FPC is now asking the Supreme Court to fix.

What stands out in the petition is how the lower courts got there. To uphold each ban, the Fourth Circuit leaned on a grab bag of justifications: places owned by the government, places frequented by children, places that serve an educational purpose, places of “social gathering,” and above all, “crowded” places. The petition points out that the crowding rationale is exactly what the Supreme Court rejected in Bruen, which warned that letting a state ban guns wherever a crowd might form would gut the right to carry entirely.

More from USA Carry:

• Two More States Go Shall Issue, Removing ‘Good Cause’ When Applying – Maryland & Massachusetts
• Texas Lawsuit Could Blow Hole in Gun-Free Zone Laws Across the Country
• Maryland Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Fort Wayne’s Public Transit System to Permit Holders to Carry Guns
• Petition to Remove Ohio’s Concealed Carry Notification Law

That concern was not FPC’s alone. Judge Agee, sitting on the Fourth Circuit panel, agreed with the majority on some points but split off on the parks, forests, transit, demonstrations, amusement, and alcohol bans. He wrote that the majority grossly misread Bruen by pinning its analysis on a smattering of mid-to-late 1800s laws instead of the understanding of the right at the Founding in 1791. On the half-million-plus acres of Maryland state forest where the state still allows regulated hunting, Agee called the idea that the Founders would treat that wilderness as a gun-free “sensitive place” what it is, which is hard to take seriously.

The petition argues the right history points the other way. From the colonial era through the Founding, there was a tradition of permitting and sometimes requiring people to carry firearms in crowded places of public assembly, including a 1770 Georgia law that required men to carry guns to places of public worship. The narrow historical exception was for genuinely secured places, the kind with armed guards and magnetometers, like a courthouse. Not for everywhere a person might want to grab a meal or walk through a park.

FPC President Brandon Combs framed the stakes plainly:

“When the Supreme Court held that states must issue carry licenses, Maryland simply banned carry everywhere people actually go instead. Same result, different method,” he said. “That’s not following the law, that’s open defiance of the Supreme Court, and we’re going to make them answer for it. We will end these carry bans in Maryland and throughout the United States.”

This one matters well beyond Maryland. The courts of appeals are split on how to handle these post-Bruen “sensitive place” laws, and a ruling here would set the rule for the whole country. Maryland filed its own petition in April defending its position, so both sides are now at the Supreme Court’s door.

The government’s response is due about a month after the petition is docketed. I will keep tracking this one as it moves, because how the justices handle it will shape carry rights far past state lines.

Read the original story: FPC Just Asked the Supreme Court to End Maryland’s Carry Bans, and the List of Banned Places Is Staggering

Key Takeaways

• A father defended himself and his son from a charging grizzly bear while hunting in Idaho on May 16.
• The father initially used his sidearm, then switched to his hunting rifle, killing the bear at close range.
• Idaho Fish and Game determined the father acted in self-defense, deeming it a justified response to the imminent threat.
• Grizzlies are protected by law, emphasizing the importance of a thorough investigation in such incidents.
• The article advises carrying bear spray and firearms, as both provide vital layers of protection in bear country.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

ASHTON, ID — A father and his young son were sitting at the edge of a meadow on the evening of May 16, hunting black bears, when a grizzly stepped out and changed everything.

The bear started across the meadow and picked up their scent. According to Idaho Fish and Game, it turned and headed straight for the two of them. The hunters tried to alert the grizzly to their presence, hoping it would break off. Instead it charged.

The father fired at the charging bear with his sidearm, then switched to his hunting rifle and killed it within 5 yards of where he was standing. Five yards. That is how little room he had left.

He called the Fremont County Sheriff’s Office as soon as he could and reported what happened. Idaho Fish and Game responded and investigated. After a thorough review, the agency determined the man acted in defense of life, since he and his son were being charged from close range. The incident happened on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest near Cave Falls Road, outside Ashton.

A few years ago, I went out to Colorado with a few buddies to bow hunt for elk. I carried my Glock 20 the whole time, and I caught some grief for it. One of them staying it was took heavy to carry around the whole time. We were in bear country, we were carrying bows, and there was no version of that trip where I was going to be out there without a sidearm.

More from USA Carry:

• Tow Truck Driver Gets Into Shootout After Man Brandishes Gun
• “Surprised” Hunters Forced To Shoot Grizzly Bear During Attack
• Hunter Kills Grizzly Bear As Third Bruin In Recent Weeks Is Shot In Self-Defense
• Shed Hunter Faces Off with Charging Grizzly, Drops It with One Shot
• Fisherman Defends Himself from Grizzly Attack; Authorities Investigate Series of Recent Incidents

Sure enough, I was up in a tree stand and a bear came into view. It started working its way toward me, and my stomach dropped the way yours would. Then it turned off and I never saw it again. Nothing happened. But I will tell you, in that moment, knowing the 10mm was right there on my hip changed how I felt entirely.

Fish and Game points out that grizzlies are protected under both state and federal law, which is exactly why the investigation mattered here and why the defense-of-life finding is the right call. The agency notes grizzlies turn up across the Greater Yellowstone area and parts of northern Idaho, and occasionally as far south as the Grangeville area and into the Salmon Region.

If you are heading into grizzly country, the agency’s reminders are worth following. Carry bear spray and keep it accessible. Hunt with partners and tell each other your plans. Watch for fresh sign and speak up if you see it. Get meat out fast, and hang meat, food, and garbage well away from camp and off the ground. Make noise in thick cover and near creeks, because most attacks come from surprising a bear up close.

Bear spray belongs on that list. But spray and a firearm are not an either-or. They are layers. This father had a layer left when the distance ran out, and because of it, he and his boy went home.

Read the original story: A Grizzly Charged a Father and His Young Son. He Stopped It at 5 Yards.

Key Takeaways

• The podcast discusses flying with firearms, addressing common fears and regulations.
• TSA rules and airline policies can be confusing, but travelers can simplify the process with the right knowledge.
• Understanding local laws and reciprocity at your destination is crucial when traveling with a firearm.
• The mindset during check-in can prevent conflicts; it’s about reaching your destination smoothly.
• The goal of the video series is to show that flying with guns can be routine and manageable.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

I sat down with Kent Brown, President of CCW Safe, on the CCW Safe Podcast to talk through something I do almost every week: flying with firearms.

You can watch the full conversation above. Here is a quick look at what we covered and why it matters.

I split my time between Nevada and Louisiana, so I am at the airline counter with guns in my bag just about every week. Last year, I started filming the check-in process and posting it. That turned into a series now over 50 episodes, and the comments keep telling me the same thing. People are nervous about doing this for the first time.

That nervousness is the whole reason Kent wanted to have this talk. Traveling with a firearm sounds complicated. You have TSA rules, then a separate set of airline rules, and the agent in front of you may or may not know either one.

It is actually pretty simple once you understand the pieces. On the podcast we break down what TSA actually requires versus what airlines tack on, why a lock on every locking point matters, how the declaration form works, and what really happens to your bag after you hand it over.

We also got into the moments that throw people. What do you do when an agent asks for your keys to inspect the case? How do you handle an airline employee who is confidently wrong about their own policy? I have lived through both, and the answer is almost never to win the argument.

More from USA Carry:

• Kent Homeowner Shoots Armed Intruder During Pre-Dawn Home Invasion, Suspects Flee on Foot
• ‘I Gotta Protect My Family’: Homeowner Defends Household During Late-Night Break-In
• CT Town Considers Arming and Training Teachers, Faces Criticism from Governor
• Flying with Guns [Episode 22] – Slight Hiccup at Check-In
• Flying with Guns [Episode 23]

Kent made a point I keep coming back to. The same mindset that keeps a check-in smooth is the same one that keeps a tense encounter from getting worse. Being right is not the goal. Getting where you are going is the goal.

We spent real time on the part people skip, which is knowing the law where you land. Getting the gun there legally is only half of it. Before I book a flight I check reciprocity and the carry laws at my destination, and sometimes that decides which airport I even fly into.

Kent also asked how I got into carrying in the first place. I told a story I do not tell often. I will leave that one for the episode.

I am a CCW Safe member myself, and one reason that matters when you travel is that the coverage follows you across state lines. If flying with a gun makes you anxious, watch the episode. My goal with the video series, and with this conversation, is to show you how routine it can be.

Thanks to Kent and the CCW Safe team for having me on.

Read the original story: I Fly With Guns Almost Every Week. Here’s What I Told CCW Safe About Doing It Right.

Key Takeaways

• A federal appeals court struck down New York’s ‘Private Property Provision,’ banning carry on open public property without owner consent.
• The court ruled this provision unconstitutional, stating it does not align with historical firearm regulations.
• However, the court upheld the ‘Public Parks Provision,’ affirming regulations against firearms in urban parks as constitutional.
• FPC celebrated the decision but indicated the fight against public park carry bans continues.
• Carry rules in New York remain complex; individuals should stay informed about current regulations before carrying.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

NEW YORK, NY — A federal appeals court just struck down one of New York’s most aggressive post-Bruen carry restrictions, handing a major win to the Firearms Policy Coalition. But the same ruling left another gun ban standing, and both halves matter.

On May 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its decision in Christian v. James, an FPC case brought alongside FPC member Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation. The court affirmed a permanent injunction against New York’s “Private Property Provision,” the rule critics call the “vampire rule.”

That provision flipped the normal default on its head. It made carrying a firearm a felony on any private property open to the public unless the owner posted clear signage allowing guns or gave express consent. In plain terms, a licensed New Yorker could be charged with a class E felony for walking into a grocery store, a gas station, or a pharmacy, simply because the owner had not affirmatively opted in. Carry was banned everywhere by default.

Judge Joseph Bianco wrote for the majority, holding the provision unconstitutional as applied to property open to the public because the State could not show it fits within the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the test Bruen requires.

The State threw ten historical statutes at the court. The panel rejected every one. Most of the colonial and founding-era laws targeted unlicensed hunting on private farms, not gun violence on property open to the public. That left New York leaning on an 1865 Louisiana law and a near-identical 1866 Texas law. Here is where the ruling gets pointed. The State itself conceded these were, in its own words, often enacted by racist legislatures and codified prejudices that existed at the time. The court refused to treat racially motivated, selectively enforced laws as a legitimate historical analogue.

The majority also nailed the real-world effect. Because most owners never bother to post signs, a rule like this effectively bans carry on nearly all private property, leaving the right meaningless for anyone who actually plans to enter a store.

Now the other half. The same panel upheld New York’s “Public Parks Provision,” rejecting the plaintiffs’ facial challenge. The State assembled more than sixty regulations from across more than twenty states, spanning roughly 1858 to the early 1900s, that banned firearms in urban parks. Starting with Central Park in 1858, the majority found a long, unbroken tradition and concluded the provision is constitutional at least as applied to urban parks. The court declined to rule on rural parks, since the plaintiffs raised that argument too late.

More from USA Carry:

• Would You Stake Your Life on A Novelty Handgun?
• Court Battle Over Guns at Post Office Heats Up as SAF & FPC Fights ‘Unconstitutional’ Government Tactics
• Federal Judge Rejects DOJ Attempt to Limit USPS Gun Ban Ruling, Expands Protection to SAF and FPC Members
• S&W Introduces the M&P FPC Folding Carbine
• DOJ Backs FPC in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Ban on Commonly Owned Pistols

Judge Steven Menashi concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed the vampire rule is unconstitutional and would have gone further, but he broke with the majority on parks. The founding generation knew public parks like Boston Common and did not ban carry in them, he argued, and the understanding of the right in 1791 should govern, not a tradition that emerged in the late nineteenth century. As he put it, evidence of tradition unmoored from original meaning is not binding law.

FPC is celebrating the win while signaling the parks fight is not over. “The FPC Grassroots Army put a stake in the heart of New York’s ‘vampire rule’ carry ban today,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We’ll keep fighting in this and other cases to eliminate unconstitutional bans on carry in public parks so people can defend their lives in these public places.”

The case now heads back to the district court for a final order. The vampire rule is dead as to businesses open to the public. The park ban survives for now, and with the Supreme Court already weighing a nearly identical Hawaii law, this issue is far from settled.

If you carry in New York, do not get ahead of the law. The injunction covers private property open to the public, but the state’s other sensitive-location restrictions remain in force. Know the current rules before you carry anywhere.

Read the original story: Federal Court Drives a Stake Through New York’s “Vampire Rule,” But Won’t Touch the Park Ban

Key Takeaways

• Episode 57 recaps a smooth flight from Las Vegas to New Orleans with Southwest Airlines.
• At LAS, the author declared firearms, filled out the declaration form, and waited by the American flag for TSA access.
• The bag arrived intact at MSY, and the locks on the Pelican case were secure.
• The process remains consistent: Declare, wait, and pick up the bag.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 57 was filmed May 6th, flying Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans. Easy process start to finish.

Check-In at LAS

Walked up and declared firearms. I had two hard-sided cases this trip — my Pelican case inside a piece of luggage, and a second hard case that was empty. Mentioned it at the counter so there was no confusion.

Agent handed me the declaration form, I filled it out and slipped it into the FedEx sleeve on the Pelican case. Straightforward.

He told me to wait 10 minutes by the American flag. I do 15 as a rule, so I waited my usual 15 just in case TSA needed access. They didn’t.

Arrival in New Orleans

Bag came out on the carousel at MSY. Picked it up, checked the locks on the Pelican — all intact. On my way.

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 46 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 40 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 48 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 50 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 42 – Southwest from LAS to MSY

Final Thoughts

Fifty-seven in and it stays the same. Declare, wait, pick up the bag.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 57 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans

Key Takeaways

• A Clarksville homeowner shot an intruder who forced his way into her townhouse, believing he was her husband.
• The incident highlights the importance of verifying identities before opening doors to unknown individuals.
• The intruder, who lived in the same complex, is in critical condition after being shot.
• The homeowner acted in self-defense, following Tennessee’s Castle Doctrine, which protects the use of force in home invasions.
• This case serves as a reminder that personal safety measures are crucial, as locks and alarms can sometimes fail.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CLARKSVILLE, TN — An armed Clarksville homeowner shot a man from her own townhouse complex after he forced his way inside when she opened the door believing it was her husband, according to the Clarksville Police Department.

The incident happened around 1:40 a.m. at Trenton Village Townhomes on 2740 Trenton Road. Officers responded after receiving reports of a shooting and learned that the woman had been awakened by her dogs barking. She heard someone at the front door and assumed her husband was trying to get inside. She unlocked and opened the door. An unknown man then entered the townhouse, and a struggle began. The woman was armed and fired her weapon.

The intruder suffered multiple gunshot wounds and was flown to Nashville by AirEvac for treatment. He is currently in critical condition. Detectives and crime scene investigators later determined that the man involved lived in the same townhouse complex as the woman who shot him.

Police say all involved parties are cooperating with investigators and that there is no threat to the public. The case remains an active and ongoing investigation. Detective Adair of the Clarksville Police Department is asking anyone with information or additional video footage to call (931) 648-0656, extension 5188.

More from USA Carry:

• Father Shoots Attacker Who Held Gun to His Partner’s Head and Threatened Their Children Inside Tennessee Walmart
• Small Castle Doctrine: Home Defense for Apartment Dwellers
• Armed Citizen Stops Robbery Attempt; Gets Free Breakfast
• Wisconsin Mayor w/ Expired CCW Drops Gun AGAIN in Restricted Building
• Man Picks Up What He Thought Was a Prop Gun; Shoots Performer at Zombie Experience

A Tough Lesson Worth Talking About

Before I get to the takeaway, let me be clear about one thing. Nothing about this is on the homeowner. A man took advantage of her, forced his way into her home, and met an armed woman who was prepared to defend herself. She is the reason her own story ends with her still alive.

But there is a lesson here worth talking about, and it would be a waste not to. At 1:40 a.m., when dogs are barking and someone is at the front door, the default assumption should never be that it is your spouse. Verify before you open. A phone call, a text, a glance at a doorbell camera, or a question through the door before unlocking costs you ten seconds and almost certainly changes how this case ends.

The door is a barrier. The lock is a barrier. The longer those barriers stand between you and an unknown person, the more time you have to evaluate, retreat, position, or call 911. Once the door is open, the situation is in someone else’s hands.

The detail that makes this case worth a closer look is that the intruder lived in the same complex. He almost certainly knew her routine, knew her husband’s routine, and may have been watching for exactly this kind of opportunity. The threat that finds you is often the one that already knows where you live.

Takeaway

Thankfully, this Clarksville homeowner was armed and capable. She had a backup plan when the front door stopped being a barrier, and it worked. That is the entire reason we talk about being armed at home. Locks, alarms, cameras, and doors all eventually fail or get bypassed. The last line of defense is the person inside.

Tennessee Code Annotated Section 39-11-611 establishes the right to use force, including deadly force, when a person reasonably believes such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury. Tennessee’s Castle Doctrine provides a presumption of reasonableness when an intruder unlawfully enters an occupied dwelling. The homeowner in this case fits squarely within that framework.

Read the original story: Armed Clarksville Woman Shoots Intruder From Her Own Townhouse Complex After Opening Front Door at 1:40 A.M.

Key Takeaways

• The Echelon Alpha 4.0C is the most affordable Echelon model yet, priced at $599 compared to $720 for the standard version.
• It features a plain white front sight, clean straight slide serrations, and includes only a medium back strap.
• Despite cost-cutting, it retains the same optic mounting system as other Echelon models, ensuring compatibility with accessories.
• You receive a stainless steel magazine, though the packaging differs from the standard Echelon products, which may not matter for many users.
• The Alpha 4.0C provides a gateway into the Echelon ecosystem, making it accessible for those hesitant due to price.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

Springfield Armory just dropped the Echelon Alpha 4.0C, and I got hands on with one ahead of the launch. The short version is that this is the most affordable entry into the Echelon ecosystem to date. MSRP is $599. The standard Echelon 4.0C currently runs $720. That gap is the entire reason this gun exists, and Springfield got smart about where they trimmed to make it work.

I broke this all down in my latest video. Here is what is actually different on the Alpha 4.0C compared to the standard Echelon 4.0C.

Price

$599 MSRP versus $720 for the standard Echelon 4.0C currently on the market. Street price will land lower than that.

Front Sight

The U-dot rear sight is the same setup you get on the rest of the Echelon family. The front sight on the Alpha is a plain white dot instead of the tritium front sight that ships on the other Echelons. This is one of the easiest places to cut cost without changing how the gun shoots.

Slide Serrations

The standard Echelon 4.0C has those distinctive Springfield slide cutouts forward and rear of the ejection port. On the Alpha 4.0C you get clean straight slide serrations. They are still deep and grippy enough to run the gun without any issue, just without the more involved machining. Different look, same function.

Optic Mounting System

This is where Springfield did not cut corners. The Echelon Alpha 4.0C uses the same Variable Interface System for optics that the rest of the Echelon family uses. The pin and screw kit is in the box.

Back Strap

Standard Echelons ship with small, medium, and large interchangeable back straps. The Alpha 4.0C ships with just the medium. For most adult-sized hands the medium is what you would have settled on anyway, and if you need a different size, Springfield sells the others separately.

Magazine and Packaging

You get one stainless steel magazine in the box instead of the black-coated magazines that ship with the other Echelons. The box itself is white instead of black, and the carry bag that ships with the standard Echelons is gone. I throw those boxes and bags away anyway, so that one does not bother me at all.

More from USA Carry:

• Springfield Armory Echelon Compact Review
• Getting My Springfield Echelon Compact Ready for USPSA
• I Carried a SIG P365XL—But Today, I’m Out
• Our Top Picks For 9mm Concealed Carry Pistols
• Springfield Armory Releases the 911 in 9mm [Shot Show 2019]

My Take

If you have been around USA Carry for any length of time, you already know I am a big fan of the Echelon. I have been running my Echelon full size in USPSA competition since I started last year, and I just started carrying an Echelon 4.0C Comp. The Echelon is a well-thought-out modular system that lets you dial it in for your specific use case.

The Alpha 4.0C makes that ecosystem accessible to a much wider audience. If you have been on the fence about getting into the Echelon line because the price was a stretch, this is the gun that solves that. You give up tritium up front, two back straps, a magazine coating, and some slide cosmetic detail. You keep the action, the optic mounting system, the ergonomics, and everything that actually makes the gun run.

If you have been waiting for a reason to get into the Echelon ecosystem, the Alpha 4.0C is that reason.

Read the original story: Springfield Armory Echelon Alpha 4.0C vs. Echelon 4.0C

Key Takeaways

• A Philadelphia man shot an intruder during a home invasion after hearing his neighbor scream for help.
• The intruder, who forced entry into the apartment, attacked the mother before her neighbor intervened.
• Pennsylvania law permits the use of force to defend others, aligning with the neighbor’s actions in this case.
• The mother believes she and her daughter would have been killed if the neighbor hadn’t acted swiftly.
• This incident illustrates the effectiveness of the Second Amendment in protecting families in danger.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

PHILADELPHIA, PA — An armed Philadelphia man shot and killed an intruder early Monday morning after hearing his upstairs neighbor screaming for help during a forced-entry home invasion in the Rhawnhurst neighborhood, according to 6ABC.

Police told 6ABC that a man believed to be in his 40s forced open the front door of a second-floor apartment around 1:00 a.m. on the 1600 block of Griffith Street. The apartment was occupied by a single mother and her 14-year-old daughter, both of whom were asleep. The intruder went directly to the daughter’s bedroom.

The mother, identified only as Evelyn, told reporters she heard a commotion and at first assumed one of her cats had knocked something over. When she got up to investigate, she found a man she did not recognize inside her daughter’s room. She confronted him, and a violent struggle followed. She suffered injuries to her hand and collarbone before she was able to scream for help.

Her downstairs neighbor heard her, armed himself, and went upstairs to confront the suspect. The struggle moved into the basement of the building. Police said the intruder was holding a stick. The neighbor ordered him to drop it, and when he refused, the neighbor shot him once in the chest.

The intruder was rushed to a hospital and pronounced dead. Investigators noted the front door had been forced open and reported a suspicious vehicle parked outside the home. Homicide detectives are continuing to investigate, and 6ABC reports that police have not yet announced whether any charges will be filed. Evelyn told reporters she believes the intruder would have killed her and her daughter if her neighbor had not stepped in.

Defense of Others Under Pennsylvania Law

Pennsylvania law explicitly authorizes the use of force to defend a third person. Under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 506, a person can use the same force to protect someone else that the other person would have been legally allowed to use in their own defense. The mother in this case was being attacked by an armed intruder who had forced his way into her home in the middle of the night. Her right to use deadly force in self-defense is well established under Pennsylvania’s Castle Doctrine at 18 Pa.C.S. Section 505, and the neighbor’s right to act on her behalf tracks that framework directly.

More from USA Carry:

• Pizza Shop Employee’s 14-Year-Old Son Shoots Robber in the Face
• Apartment Resident Fatally Shoots 14-Year-Old During Late-Night Disturbance in Albuquerque
• Why Your Business Needs Firearms Training and Small Unit Tactics
• Armed 14-Year-Old Suspect and Intended Victim Shot During Botched Robbery in Missouri
• North Philadelphia Homeowner Shoots and Kills Woman Trying to Break In Through Back Window, Police Say

Takeaway

This is what the Second Amendment looks like when it works the way it is supposed to. A neighbor heard a woman and a child in danger, chose to close the distance rather than wait for police, gave the intruder a chance to drop his weapon, and stopped him when he refused. A mother and her 14-year-old daughter went to bed in an apartment that was supposed to be safe. They are both alive this morning because their downstairs neighbor was capable, willing, and lawfully armed.

The first line of defense for any family is the family itself. The second is the people who live closest to them.

Read the original story: Armed Philadelphia Neighbor Kills Stick-Wielding Intruder Attacking Mother in 14-Year-Old Daughter’s Room

What’s in the Day 32 prize stack

The May 18 prize package — verified ARV of $4,171.99 — is built around the host pistol Heckler & Koch engineered specifically as a suppressor platform, the suppressor that mounts to it without a gunsmith, and the Form 4 service that gets the entire stack delivered to the winner’s front door.

Why Day 32 matters as a single package

Three things make this giveaway day worth covering separately from the rest of the 100 Days of Silence campaign:

1. The host pistol is new. The HK VP9A1 X Tactical OE w/ Vortex VTX (SKU 81001364, MSRP $1,479) is HK’s first factory-direct optic-installed striker-fired pistol. The OE configuration ships from HK’s Newington, New Hampshire facility with the Vortex VTX enclosed-emitter red dot installed in the slide cut and factory-zeroed. Four-point-seven inch hammer-forged threaded barrel. Suppressor-height sights. Nine HK adapter plates. No gunsmith. No aftermarket parts. The pistol arrives ready.
2. The suppressor is the model that proves the host concept. The BANISH 9 ships with a 1/2×28 BANISH Micro Booster that mounts directly to the HK’s factory-threaded muzzle. Fourteen precisely engineered baffles. 7075-aluminum main tube and front cap. Titanium internals. Full-auto rated for 9mm supersonic and .300 BLK subsonic. Thirty-four decibels of measured sound reduction — what BANISH calls the quietest 9mm suppressor on the market. $999 MSRP.
3. The paperwork is handled. Silencer Central, the anchor sponsor of the entire 100 Days of Silence campaign, runs the ATF Form 4 process on the winner’s behalf and ships every prize in the stack — the pistol, the suppressor, the gift card, the knives, the steel target — directly to the winner’s front door. No FFL transfer to schedule. No paperwork to interpret. No follow-up trips.

The amplifying gear in the stack

The HK and the BANISH 9 anchor the package, but the rest of the stack is purpose-built around the same use case:

• $500 Crossbreed Holsters gift card. The Springfield, Missouri family-owned holster company founded by the late Mark Craighead in 2005 — the company that introduced the hybrid Kydex-and-leather concealed-carry holster to the American market. Five hundred dollars covers the IWB for daily carry, the OWB for the range, the pocket holster for the second pistol, and the belly band for the gym.
• Shooting Targets USA Triple Threat Torso & Signature Stand (TTTSS-375, $739.99). Three-eighths-inch SR500 abrasion-resistant steel — specified above the AR500 baseline. 18″ × 30″ torso silhouette. U.S. Patent D1,030,942 on the Signature Stand. Manufactured in King, North Carolina by the Tactical Rifleman steel-target company.
• WeKnife Corwyn WE24088-3 ($380). Bohler M390 stainless blade. 6AL4V titanium frame with Aluminum-Foil Carbon Fiber inlay. Caged ceramic ball-bearing pivot. Frame lock. Limited lifetime warranty. The folder that belongs in a working week’s carry rotation, not a safe.
• CIVIVI Mini Shakan C20052F-1 ($74). Nitro-V stainless blade. Ripple-pattern aluminum handle. Button-lock mechanism. 1.94 ounces — the EDC folder a carrier actually puts in their pocket on a Tuesday.

How to enter

The entry window opens at 10:00 a.m. Central Time on Monday, May 18, 2026 and closes at 10:00 p.m. Central Time the same day. Entry is free at popularsuppressors.com/100-days-of-silence/.

Eligibility is open to U.S. residents 21 years of age or older in suppressor-eligible states. Excluded: CA, DE, HI, IL, MA, NJ, NY, RI, and DC. NY, FL, CA, and RI are ineligible to participate or win. Full Official Rules are linked from the campaign page.

If a reader wins, Silencer Central handles the ATF Form 4 process and the entire prize stack ships directly to the winner’s front door — no FFL transfer required.

Where Day 32 fits in the 100 Days of Silence campaign

Silencer Central’s 100 Days of Silence is a 100-day giveaway campaign running April 17 through July 25, 2026. One suppressor is given away every single day to a verified U.S. adult, age 21 or older, in a suppressor-eligible state. Silencer Central anchors the campaign; PopularSuppressors.com hosts it. Day 32 is the May 18 tentpole — the highest-value single-day prize package the campaign has run to date.

Coverage of every product in the stack is live at popularsuppressors.com/100-days-of-silence/, across the Brand Avalanche Media network of sites (PopularSuppressors, PopularEDC, Guns & Gadgets Daily, Popular Outdoorsman, Freedom’s Lodge, Current Homesteading, and Popular BBQ).

This article is published as part of USA Carry’s media-partner role in Silencer Central’s 100 Days of Silence campaign. USA Carry is a media partner, not a prize sponsor — we do not contribute prizes to the giveaway and have no commercial interest in the outcome.

Read the original story: Day 32 of the 100 Days of Silence Brings the Suppressor-Host Pistol and the Form 4 Service Together — Here’s the $4,171 Prize Stack

Key Takeaways

• Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a $5 million civil lawsuit against Jacksonville over an illegal firearm registry maintained from July 2023 to April 2025.
• The lawsuit claims Jacksonville violated Section 790.335 of the Florida Statutes by knowingly keeping records of privately owned firearms.
• The complaint details a chain of approval among officials, highlighting a 2007 memo warning against such a registry.
• Conflicting testimonies complicate the case, with city officials disputing who approved the policy and whether there was criminal intent involved.
• This lawsuit is significant as it tests the enforcement of penalties against local governments for maintaining firearm registries under Florida law.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

JACKSONVILLE, FL — Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a $5 million civil lawsuit against the City of Jacksonville on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, escalating the case I covered in March over the illegal firearm registry the city maintained at two government buildings between July 2023 and April 2025.

The complaint, filed in Duval County Circuit Court, alleges Jacksonville violated Section 790.335 of the Florida Statutes, which prohibits any state or local government from knowingly and willfully keeping a list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or their owners. The state is seeking the full $5 million civil penalty the law authorizes when a city’s leadership is found to have known about or been complicit in the registry.

What is new since my March piece is detail. The complaint names individual city officials, lays out a documented chain of approval, and points to a 2007 city legal memo that explicitly warned Jacksonville officials they could not do exactly what they later did.

How the Registry Worked

Between July 2023 and April 2025, private security personnel at the entrances to Jacksonville City Hall and the Yates Building, which houses the tax collector and property appraiser, recorded the names, ages, state-issued ID numbers, and firearm types of anyone entering while carrying. The logs were kept in two binders. According to the lawsuit, the practice began after Mike Soto, the city’s facilities manager in the public works department, learned that Florida’s permitless carry law was taking effect on July 1, 2023.

Soto drafted a request on July 3, 2023, asking the city’s Office of General Counsel for a legal interpretation of the new constitutional carry law. He also emailed his proposed security changes to then-Deputy Chief Administrative Officer Dr. Charles Moreland. The lawsuit alleges Moreland approved the policy on or around July 13, 2023, with one modification removing a proposed cap on how many firearms a visitor could bring into a city building. Soto then instructed the private security contractors to begin using the logs. The first entries appeared on July 20, 2023.

The registry ended in April 2025 after a resident attempted to enter a city building while lawfully carrying, refused to provide the information requested by security, was unlawfully denied entry, and filed a complaint.

The 2007 Memo

The most damaging new fact in Uthmeier’s complaint is that the city was on written notice for nearly two decades before any of this happened. According to the suit, Jacksonville’s own Office of General Counsel issued a legal memo in 2007 addressing whether the city could restrict concealed carry permit holders from entering city buildings with firearms. That memo made clear that any policy addressing concealed weapons in city buildings could not include the creation or maintenance of a gun registry.

Uthmeier’s argument is direct. If the city had a written legal opinion from its own attorneys on the books that explicitly prohibited this practice, then when city management approved the gun logbook in 2023, that approval was made with full institutional knowledge that Florida law prohibited it. That is precisely what the $5 million penalty provision in Section 790.335 was written to punish.

Conflicting Testimony

The investigation conducted last year by State Attorney Melissa Nelson produced two competing accounts. Soto told investigators that he sent Moreland the proposed policy and later got verbal approval over the phone, including the specific carve-out that visitors could not be limited in how many firearms they brought inside. Moreland told investigators that he never opened the file Soto sent, has no memory of any conversation about a logbook, and would have raised concerns and consulted city legal staff if he had known the policy involved a written gun registry.

That dispute is now headed to court. Resolving who actually approved what, and whether the approval rose to the level of knowing complicity by city management, is at the center of whether Florida can collect the full $5 million.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida Attorney General Moves to Sue Jacksonville Over Illegal Firearm Registry, City Faces $5 Million Fine
• Carjacking Attempt Foiled: Florida Man Shoots Two of Four Gunmen
• Suspect Shot in the Face After Firing Shotgun into Crowd in Jacksonville
• Secretary of War Signs Memo Ending Gun-Free Zone Policy on Military Bases, Restoring Second Amendment Rights for Service Members
• Florida Man Shoots Intruder After Walking In on Home Invasion at Jacksonville Apartment

Why the State Attorney Did Not Prosecute

Nelson declined to file criminal charges last year. Her report concluded that the registry violated Florida law, but that the policy was the work of a single manager, was not approved by any senior official, and that there was no evidence of criminal intent. Uthmeier disagreed with that interpretation in a March 2 letter to Nelson’s office, calling her statutory analysis unable to withstand scrutiny. He has now backed up that disagreement with a lawsuit.

Uthmeier does not have authority to bring criminal charges where the State Attorney has declined. He does have explicit statutory authority under Section 790.335 to bring a civil action and seek the $5 million penalty, which is what he has done.

The City’s Response

Mayor Donna Deegan’s office reissued the statement it gave when Uthmeier first announced his investigation. “As we have stated from the very beginning, the records will show that Mayor Deegan and her leadership team were unaware of this action taken by an individual employee concerned about building security, and that the practice was immediately ended once it became known.”

The lawsuit does not name Deegan personally. Whether she personally knew about the policy may not matter legally. The statute allows the penalty when the registry was maintained “with the knowledge or complicity of the management of the governmental agency,” which the complaint alleges was met through Moreland’s role as Deputy Chief Administrative Officer at the time of approval. A deputy CAO sits squarely within “city management” under any normal reading of that term.

Deegan was more direct in her own remarks. “This seems, as I’ve said before, we’re in silly season now. We’ve got elections coming up in November and again in March, and he’s running. And I expect this to continue unabated until after the election season.”

Why This Case Matters Beyond Jacksonville

This is the first time Florida has actually pursued the $5 million penalty under Section 790.335. The statute has been on the books since 2004. It was written specifically to make sure no local government in Florida could quietly build a list of who in town owns a firearm. Until this case, the penalty provision had never been tested in court.

If Uthmeier wins, every city and county in Florida will know exactly what the cost is of maintaining a firearm registry. If he loses, the preemption statute loses most of its teeth, and the next city that wants to start logging gun owners will know it can probably get away with it as long as the policy can be pinned on a “rogue” manager.

The Second Amendment is treated as a fundamental civil right under Florida law, and the prohibition on local gun registries exists for a simple reason. Once a list of lawful firearm owners exists, that list is a target. It can be stolen, leaked, subpoenaed, or weaponized politically against the people on it. The Jacksonville registry was small, just over 140 entries covering more than 100 individuals, but the principle is not about the number. It is about whether the government can quietly build a list of you because you exercised a constitutional right walking into a building you have every right to enter.

I will be tracking this case in Duval County Circuit Court and will update USA Carry as the city files its response and the case progresses.

Read the original story: Florida AG Files $5 Million Lawsuit Against Jacksonville Over Illegal Gun Registry, Citing 2007 City Memo That Warned Against It

Key Takeaways

• Mayor Jacob Frey signed the Safe Firearms Act in Minneapolis, despite state law preempting such regulations.
• The ordinance bans assault-style weapons, high-capacity magazines, and unserialized ghost guns but cannot be enforced until state preemption is lifted.
• Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus plans legal action against the ordinance, arguing it’s unlawful without state authority.
• The ordinance serves as a political move to pressure the Minnesota Legislature for statewide gun control action.
• Minneapolis’s ordinance raises Second Amendment concerns, as it targets common firearms owned by many Americans.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

MINNEAPOLIS, MN — Mayor Jacob Frey signed a sweeping new firearms ordinance into law on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, that the Minneapolis City Council had unanimously passed the previous week. There is just one problem with it. Minnesota state law preempts the City of Minneapolis from doing what the ordinance does, and the city has openly acknowledged that most of it cannot actually be enforced unless the legislature first repeals the preemption statute.

The ordinance, branded the “Safe Firearms Act” by its lead author, Council Member Aurin Chowdhury, contains bans on so-called assault-style weapons, ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, binary triggers, and unserialized “ghost guns.” It also includes restrictions on carrying firearms in certain public places and a set of safe storage requirements. The full 13-member City Council approved it on May 8, 2026. Frey signed it five days later at a City Hall press conference, calling it one of the “leading pieces of legislation in the entire country.”

The preemption problem is not a side note. It is the entire legal context for this story. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 624.717 and Section 471.633, local governments in Minnesota are barred from regulating firearms or ammunition. Cities may adopt ordinances identical to state law and may regulate the discharge of firearms within their jurisdiction. They cannot do more than that. The legislature has placed exclusive authority over firearm regulation with the state.

To work around that, the Minneapolis ordinance contains language stating it cannot be enforced unless state law changes. Frey was explicit about the strategy at the signing. “This is going to set us up so that if preemption is lifted, Minneapolis won’t need to act because we already did.”

The St. Paul Precedent

St. Paul passed a substantially similar ordinance last year. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus sued to invalidate it, and that case is currently pending in court with a trial scheduled for next year. The Caucus argued in St. Paul, and is again arguing in Minneapolis, that simply enacting an ordinance the city has no authority to enact is itself unlawful, regardless of whether the city ever tries to enforce it.

Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus Chair Bryan Strawser issued a statement before the Minneapolis vote. “The City of Minneapolis is attempting to make a political statement with an ordinance it has no legal authority to enact. Minnesota law clearly preempts the entire field of firearms regulation, and local governments cannot simply ignore state statute because they dislike the policy outcome.” General Counsel Rob Doar called the ordinance “facially invalid and immediately susceptible to legal challenge” in a letter to the council, adding that “no legislative gimmick, such as an indefinite effective date, can circumvent a statutory bar.”

The Caucus said after the signing that it is evaluating its legal options against Minneapolis.

The Push For Statewide Action

Frey and Chowdhury were not subtle about the second purpose of the ordinance, which is pressure on the Minnesota Legislature. The Minnesota Senate has already passed a statewide gun control bill along party lines that would include a ban on what the bill labels assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The bill has not advanced in the House, which Republicans control by a one-seat majority and which has not moved it through committee.

If the Minnesota House ever flips, or if state preemption is repealed, Minneapolis is essentially holding a ready-to-execute local ban that activates the moment state law allows it.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Question

• Store Employee Draws On Armed Robbers, Chases Them & Shoots One
• Majority of Minneapolis City Council Intends to Dismantle Police Dept.
• Pennsylvania Senate Loads Up Two Pro-Gun Bills: SB 357 Constitutional Carry Clears Committee, SB 822 Preemption Enforcement Passes Floor
• Preemption Laws and the Use of Firearms and Ammo
• Rioters Burn Parts Of Minneapolis While Some Citizens Arm Themselves To Protect Businesses Against Looters

The legal challenge in Minnesota will turn primarily on state preemption, which is the strongest argument against the ordinance and the cleanest path to striking it down. But the policy itself raises the same Second Amendment problems being litigated right now in Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, and several other states where similar bans are on the books or have just been enacted. The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that firearms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned. AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds are owned by tens of millions of Americans and are among the most common firearms and accessories in the country.

Minneapolis passed an ordinance that bans what most American gun owners own. The city’s own legal position is that it cannot enforce that ban unless the state lifts preemption first. That is a strange position for a city government to take publicly, and it is the position that will be tested in court.

I will be tracking the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus challenge against both the St. Paul and Minneapolis ordinances closely, along with anything that happens at the state legislature during the remainder of the session.

Read the original story: Minneapolis Mayor Frey Signs Sweeping Gun Ordinance That State Law Says He Cannot Enforce

Key Takeaways

• Virginia’s new ‘assault firearm’ ban signed by Governor Spanberger has sparked two lawsuits within 24 hours.
• The lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the ban based on Supreme Court precedents, aiming for a broader review.
• ‘McDonald v. Katz’ targets federal authority while ‘Black v. Hook’ focuses on state constitutional claims.
• The law’s definition of ‘assault firearm’ includes a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons, impacting millions.
• The DOJ has indicated potential litigation against Virginia, highlighting the legal significance of these challenges.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

RICHMOND, VA — Two separate lawsuits were filed against Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and standard-capacity magazine ban within 24 hours of Governor Abigail Spanberger signing it into law, and the U.S. Department of Justice has signaled it intends to add a third.

Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749, along with its House companion HB 217, on Thursday, May 14, 2026. The law makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase, or transfer a long list of semiautomatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns the bill labels as “assault firearms,” along with any ammunition feeding device capable of holding more than 15 rounds. A conviction carries up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine, plus a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing, or transporting any firearm. The law takes effect July 1, 2026.

The chief patron in the Senate was Sen. Saddam Salim (D-Fairfax). Spanberger framed the signing as a public safety measure, saying in a statement that “firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets.” Critics, including the entire Republican delegation in the General Assembly and the U.S. Department of Justice, argue the law is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The First Lawsuit: McDonald v. Katz

Within hours of Spanberger’s signature, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and two private plaintiffs filed McDonald v. Katz in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division. The named plaintiffs are Justin McDonald, a Goochland County resident who owns an AR-15 and a Beretta A300 shotgun, and Anthony Groeneveld, a Prince William County resident who owns an AR-15 rifle and an AR-style pistol. Both are members of all three organizations.

The defendants include Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. Jeffrey Katz, plus the Commonwealth’s Attorneys and Sheriffs of Goochland and Prince William counties. The plaintiffs are represented by Cooper & Kirk PLLC and Whiteford Taylor & Preston, with David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William Bergstrom from Cooper & Kirk, alongside P. Thomas DiStanislao and Michael Brady from Whiteford.

The complaint is unusual in one important respect. It openly acknowledges that under existing Fourth Circuit precedent, Bianchi v. Brown and Kolbe v. Hogan, the relief the plaintiffs are asking for is foreclosed. The strategy is not to win at the district court. The strategy is to preserve the issue for the Supreme Court and “have those cases overruled by a court competent to do so.” Translation: this case is being teed up for a Supreme Court vehicle, and the plaintiffs want it there fast.

More from USA Carry:

• Virginia House Sends “Assault Weapons” Ban Back To Governor Spanberger Without Her Amendments
• Virginia Governor Returns SB749 With Amendments That May Broaden Semi-Auto Firearm Ban
• Concealed Carry Tips – Part 2
• Will Your Response Get You Killed?
• Mother Arrested After Starting Argument at Miami-Dade McDonald’s, Gun ‘Discharges When Dropped,’ Injuring 15-Year-Old Daughter

The Second Lawsuit: Black v. Hook

The next day, the National Shooting Sports Foundation announced it was funding a second, separate lawsuit filed in Virginia state court. Black v. Hook was filed Friday, May 15, 2026, in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County. The plaintiffs are two Virginia residents, Eric Black and Britton Condon, alongside three industry plaintiffs: Clark’s Gun Shop, Inc. (doing business as Clark Brothers), Optimus Arms LLC, and Hexmag USA LLC. The defendant is Scott C. Hook, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Fauquier County.

The state court complaint goes a step further than the federal one. It argues SB 749 violates not only the U.S. Constitution but also Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, and Article XI, Section 4, which protects the right of the people to hunt, fish, and harvest game. NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane was direct about the strategy. “The constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia expressly prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.”

The DOJ Is Lurking

In April, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the DOJ’s Second Amendment Section, sent Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones a formal letter warning that the Civil Rights Division would commence litigation if Virginia enacted SB 749. Less than an hour after Spanberger’s signature on May 14, Dhillon posted “See you in court!” on X. The DOJ has not yet filed, but the warning shot was on the record well before the bill became law, and based on Dhillon’s public stance, federal civil rights litigation against Virginia appears to be a matter of timing rather than possibility.

See you in court! 👉🏽👉🏽 👉🏽 pic.twitter.com/lL37OTUOXH

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) May 15, 2026

Why Both Tracks Matter

The two civil cases are pursuing different paths to the same goal. McDonald v. Katz is a federal lane challenge built to push past the Fourth Circuit’s hostile precedent and force the Supreme Court to weigh in. Black v. Hook is a state lane challenge that adds Virginia constitutional claims, including the state’s right-to-hunt provision, and gives Virginia’s own courts the first crack at striking the law down on grounds that do not require touching the Fourth Circuit at all.

The bill’s definition of “assault firearm” reaches far beyond AR-style rifles. It sweeps in most modern semiautomatic pistols with threaded barrels or a second grip, common semiautomatic shotguns with collapsible stocks or detachable magazines, and any firearm with a fixed magazine holding more than 15 rounds. NSSF estimates more than 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles are in circulation in the United States, and pleadings cite roughly 1 billion detachable magazines in private ownership, hundreds of millions of them above 15 rounds. Under Heller and Bruen, the Supreme Court has held that firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes are protected from outright bans. That is the legal hammer both lawsuits intend to drop.

The bill grandfathers anyone who already owns the now-banned firearms or magazines prior to July 1, 2026, but the legal market for new sales evaporates that day. A law-abiding Virginian who legally owns an AR-15 today cannot replace it, gift it outside their immediate family, or buy a similar one after July 1, except under a narrow set of exceptions.

I will be watching both cases closely, along with any move from the DOJ. There is a real chance this issue lands at the Supreme Court before the 2026 election cycle is over, and the answer will reshape Second Amendment law in a way no court has touched since Bruen.

Read the original story: Lawsuits Hit Virginia’s New Assault Firearm Ban Within 24 Hours of Spanberger’s Signature

SACRAMENTO, CA — A security guard at a Sacramento marijuana dispensary shot two suspected burglars during an early Friday break-in, killing one and leaving the other in critical but stable condition, according to the Sacramento Police Department as reported by ABC10.

Officers responded to the 8500 block of Thys Court, off Florin Perkins Road, just after 4:30 a.m. after receiving reports of a burglary in progress. Dispatchers also received separate calls reporting the sound of gunfire at the same location. When officers arrived, they found two men, each with at least one gunshot wound. Officers rendered emergency medical aid to one of the suspects at the scene, but he was pronounced dead. The second suspect was transported to a local hospital in critical but stable condition.

Investigators believe an on-duty security guard at the dispensary fired during the encounter. The guard remained at the scene and is cooperating with detectives. Homicide investigators, burglary detectives, and crime scene technicians have taken over the case. Police have not released the names of any of those involved and have not detailed exactly what unfolded in the moments before the guard opened fire.

Marijuana dispensaries are a particularly common target for organized burglary crews. Federal law still classifies cannabis as a Schedule I controlled substance, which prevents most banks from doing business with state-legal dispensaries. The result is significant amounts of cash and product kept on site overnight, often guarded by armed contractors who are routinely the first line of defense when a crew decides to hit one of these businesses before dawn.

More from USA Carry:

• Dispensary Employee Shoot at 5 Armed Masked Robbers; Hits 2
• Dispensary Owner Shoots Robber Armed with Knives
• Concealed Carrier Shoots Woman Who Opened Fire Outside a Marijuana Dispensary
• Security Guard Shoots and Kills Burglary Suspect Who Crashed Car Into West LA Dispensary
• Sacramento: Long Wait for Concealed Weapon Licenses

California is one of the most restrictive states in the country for civilian concealed carry, but licensed armed security guards working in a professional capacity are permitted to carry firearms while on duty under the state Bureau of Security and Investigative Services framework. That distinction is the entire reason this guard had a tool to defend himself with at 4:30 in the morning.

The Second Amendment is not a special privilege reserved for off-duty hobbyists. It is a baseline right that includes the people who choose to stand post between criminals and the rest of us, often for a paycheck that does not match the risk. The guard cooperating fully with investigators is exactly how this is supposed to go.

Read the original story: Sacramento Security Guard Fatally Shoots One Suspected Burglar, Wounds Another at Marijuana Dispensary

Key Takeaways

• Join me at GunCon 2026 in Niles, Ohio, from June 17-20, especially on the public show day, June 20.
• GunCon offers two ticket tiers: $50 for regular attendees and a sold-out VIP pass at $250.
• Expect real interactions with manufacturers, hands-on product experiences, and engaging Q&A sessions with industry leaders.
• Participating brands include over 60 sponsors, making it a prime opportunity to connect with the firearm community.
• Find me on June 20 for a chat, and get a free USA Carry patch or sticker while supplies last.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

NILES, OH — I’ll be at GunCon 2026 on June 20, and if you’re going to be there too, find me and say hi.

GunCon is an annual industry and consumer event hosted by Jon Patton and The Gun Collective. The 2026 edition runs June 17 through 20 in Niles, Ohio, with industry and VIP days filling the first part and the big public show day on Saturday, June 20. The format is straightforward. A curated room of manufacturers, top firearm content creators, and 2A organizations, with live Q&A panels, hands-on time with the latest products, giveaways at every booth, and lunch included with the ticket. No upcharges. No paid extras for the basics.

If you’ve ever come away from a major gun event feeling like the experience was designed to extract money from you at every turn, GunCon is built as the opposite of that.

Tickets

There are two ticket tiers, and one is already gone.

• GunCon Attendee, $50. Access to the public show day on June 20, all live Q&A panels, and lunch.
• GunCon VIP, $250 (Sold Out). Show day plus the exclusive VIP range day on June 19, a GunCon T-shirt, lunch, and VIP swag.

The general admission ticket is one of the best values in firearms events right now for what you actually get. Use code USACARRY at checkout to take 10% off, which brings it to $45. Tickets are limited because the space is intentionally limited, so I would not wait on this one.

Tickets are at https://guncon.regfox.com/guncon-2026.

Speakers and Live Q&A Panels

The speaker lineup is stacked. You’ll get Jon Patton from The Gun Collective, Shawn Herrin of We Like Shooting, Mrgunsngear, Tactical Considerations, Adam Kraut from the Second Amendment Foundation, Guns & Gadgets, John Commerford from NRA-ILA, Erich Pratt from Gun Owners of America, Travis White from FRAC, VSO Gun Channel, Kevin Dixie, Luke Cuenco, Tactical Advisor, Johnny B, Concrete Cowboy, firearm historian Ashley Hlebinsky, and Josh Wethington (MacBroz). Amber G. Johnson is the featured speaker.

The Q&A format means you can ask the questions you actually care about. For what these creators charge to consult or the access most attendees get to 2A leadership in a normal year, that piece alone is worth the ticket.

What You Actually Get From Being There

GunCon is not a giant cattle-call gun show with thousands of folding tables. It is purpose-built around three things the bigger shows are not optimized for.

• Real conversations with the people who make your gear. Brand owners, engineers, and product managers are on the floor. You can ask the questions that do not get answered in YouTube reviews.
• Hands-on time with what’s new. Manufacturers bring current and forthcoming products to the floor. You hold them, work the controls, ask about the design choices.
• Live Q&A with the creators and 2A leaders you already listen to. Each panel gives you direct access. Not a stage at a distance.

Every brand on the floor is also required to run a giveaway. Hit enough booths and enter every giveaway, and you can walk out with real gear.

2026 Sponsors

Jon has pulled together more than 60 brands and organizations for 2026. Here is the current list with links.

• 1st Phorm
• 3rd Coast Limited
• Aim Surplus
• Akos Arms
• American Suppressor Association
• Armslist
• Bersa
• Biofire
• Brigade Tactical
• Bucks Holsters
• BulArmory
• Caldwell
• Canik
• Century Arms
• Chestnut Mountain Manufacturing
• Derya
• DS Arms
• Extar USA
• FRAC
• Full Forge Gear
• Gideon Optics
• Gun Owners of America
• Herrington Arms
• Hi-Point Firearms
• Holosun
• Inland Manufacturing
• IWI
• Kelbly’s
• Kimber
• LayerX Suppression
• Mad Science Tactical
• Meligun
• Meprolight
• NeoMag
• NRA-ILA
• One Horse
• OpticsPlanet
• OTIS Smart Gun Care
• Patch Ops
• Phoenix Trinity Firearms
• Pyramyd Air
• ReCover Tactical
• Retro Rifle
• Riflespeed
• Rost Martin
• Samson Manufacturing
• Second Amendment Foundation
• Second Call Defense
• Shaw Custom Barrels
• SIG Sauer
• Stealth Arms
• Stuff & Things Inc
• T&K Suppressors
• Takedown Tool
• Tandemkross
• Tisas USA
• Unorthodox Suppression
• Warden Studio
• Wheeler Tools
• Wilftek
• XS Sights
• XTech Tactical
• YHM

If you have a brand you have been wanting to put hands on or talk to in person, this is the room to do it.

More from USA Carry:

• Browning Hi Power Standard 75th Anniversary [FIREARM REVIEW]
• Creator of USA Carry Launches Firearm Politics
• Content Creator Meetup Goes Sideways in Houston: Driver Shoots Passenger Who Allegedly Tried to Rob Him
• Check-In and Flying With Your Guns & Ammo | Step by Step
• No Charges Filed Against Hawaii Man Who Shot Suspect on Front Loader After Ramming Cars and Killing Three

If You See Me, Say Hi

I’ll be on the floor all day Saturday, June 20. If you read USA Carry, follow us on Facebook, Instagram or any other of my social accounts, or are running Armorer on your phone, come find me. I am happy to talk through anything from concealed carry to my run to USPSA classification to B class in eight months.

Find me on the floor and I’ll hand you a free USA Carry patch or sticker while supplies last. First come, first serve. When I run out, I’m out, so come say hi early.

Plan Your Trip

• Tickets: https://guncon.regfox.com/guncon-2026
• Travel info: https://guncon.net/guncon-travel-information/

See you in Niles.

Read the original story: GunCon 2026: I’ll Be There June 20 in Niles, Ohio With 60+ Brands and Top 2A Voices