Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court will decide if the AR-15 and similar rifles are protected under the Second Amendment in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.
• Lower courts previously ruled that these rifles are not protected, sparking appeals from gun rights advocates.
• Cook County has defended its ban on these rifles, labeling them as weapons of war.
• The Court’s decision is expected by next year, potentially impacting states with similar bans.
• This case represents a significant moment for Second Amendment rights as it challenges longstanding regulations.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court agreed on June 30 to decide whether the AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. For millions of law-abiding owners, this is the case we have waited more than a decade to see.

The justices granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County, the FPC and Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Cook County, Illinois. They consolidated it with Grant v. Higgins, a SAF and Connecticut Citizens Defense League challenge to Connecticut’s rifle ban. The two cases will be argued together, with one hour set aside for argument.

The question in front of the Court is direct. It is whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to keep commonly owned semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15. Lower courts have spent years dodging that question. Now they cannot.

The Illinois case started in 2021. Cutberto Viramontes and fellow plaintiffs, backed by FPC and SAF, sued over a Cook County ordinance that bars roughly 125 rifles by name, including the most popular rifle in America. The county first passed its ban in 1993 and has expanded it since.

The Seventh Circuit sided with the county. The Second Circuit did the same in the Connecticut case. Both appeals courts concluded these rifles fall outside Second Amendment protection. The petitioners argue the opposite, that an arm owned in the millions by peaceable citizens cannot be called “dangerous and unusual.”

Cook County is defending the ban. State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke, who took office in December 2024 and inherited the litigation, said her office will keep fighting to uphold it. She called the banned firearms weapons of war. That is the same tired label used to justify stripping a constitutional right from responsible people.

More from USA Carry:

• YouTube Prankster Shot While Filming Stunt at Virginia Mall
• Snake No Match for Gun As Man Attempts to Rob Store with Five-Foot Snake
• What is EMP and How Would it Affect Us?
• Supreme Court Asked To Hear NY Concealed Carry Case
• Supreme Court Strikes Down New York’s “Proper Cause” Needed for Concealed Carry Permits

The timing is hard to miss. The Court agreed to hear the case days before the nation marks its 250th year. FPC framed the grant as the end of the beginning, not the end of the fight.

This grant did not come from nowhere. Last year, in Snope v. Brown, the Court declined a similar challenge, but Justice Kavanaugh signaled the AR-15 question would reach the Court within a Term or two. That prediction just came true.

Arguments are expected in the fall, with a decision likely by the end of the term next year. A ruling for the petitioners would reach every state that bans common rifles by name, by feature, or by political label.

I will be tracking this case through briefing, oral argument, and the final decision. This is the fight of the decade for the Second Amendment, and I will cover every step.

Read the original story: Supreme Court Takes Up the Case That Could Strike Down Assault Weapon Bans Nationwide

Key Takeaways

• Understanding minimum standards is crucial, as they set the baseline for performance in self-defense with firearms.
• Minimum standards are not about acceptability but about getting started; they represent the first step towards proficiency.
• Every gun and carry method adheres to minimum standards, which apply universally across the board.
• An example of a minimum standard is completing 5 rounds in 5 seconds at 5 yards into a 5″ target, emphasizing the importance of on-demand performance.
• Choose your standard based on logic and hold yourself accountable to it for continuous improvement.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

It is important that we understand these two concepts, and how they intertwine with each other. Hopefully, if you are carrying a gun for self-defense, and especially if carrying a gun professionally, you have set for yourself a minimum standard. Where that line should, or needs to be placed, is a discussion for another day. We are just talking concepts for now.

What a Minimum Standard Is

Minimum standards are not standards of acceptability, they are standards of not so bad to be rejected. It is like the bottom floor of a building. We are in the door, but only in the door. If all we do is stay one step inside the door, we aren’t doing enough to actually make the building useful.

Imagine, you need to go to the wild world of Walmart to pickup some groceries. You get to the parking lot, manage to park your vehicle of choice mostly between the lines, walk up to the automatic sliding doors, take one step inside the door, and then stop. Are you really accomplishing what you are there for? No. But, you are positioned to accomplish it, you just have to go do it. That is a minimum standard. The first step of a thousand step journey. Keep going.

The Catch (There Always is One)

Now here is the trick (you knew there was one), minimum standards apply to every gun, from every carry method. It doesn’t matter if it is a 2011 from a duty holster, or a J-frame from a pocket holster, the minimum standard applies across the board. All guns, all carry methods.

An Example

A common minimum standard is 5 rounds, in 5 seconds, at 5 yards, into a 5” target. It is attributed to Gila Hayes. If you do the math, that is a 2 second draw, and 0.75 splits if you want to shave it down to exactly 5 seconds. Really though, you need a little breathing room, so let’s say 0.70 splits.

A variation of this is the 5^5 as adapted by Claude Werner. The addition is that instead of shooting it once, you shoot it five times in a row. We have written about that variation of the drill HERE.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida Bill HB 133 Aims to Lower Minimum Age for Firearm Purchases from 21 to 18
• Florida Bill HB 759 Seeks to Lower Minimum Firearm Purchase Age to 18
• Armed Citizen Draws from the Drop and Wins
• A Suggested Training Track for Concealed Carriers
• Robber Demands Money; Get’s Shot Instead

What is On Demand Performance

This gets us to on demand performance. Something that you can do over and over and over again, regardless of level of preparation, or condition of circumstance. On demand means you can shoot the standard cold, regardless of how cold. In the rain, in the snow, in the sun. Basically, anywhere you would (or wouldn’t) eat green eggs and ham.

This is how these two things go together. The minimum standard is not something you should need to work up to. It isn’t something I shoot at the end of a range session to see if I make it. It is something I shoot at the beginning of a range session, preferably without even touching my gun beforehand. Shoot the ammo that is in it, then replace the ammo with fresh carry ammo at the end of the practice session.

Choose Your Standard

So, go choose your standard. Base it in some type of logic. There are plenty of suggestions on this website. Then hold yourself to the standard.

Read the original story: Minimum Standards and On Demand Performance

Key Takeaways

• An argument at a Popeye’s escalated into a shooting when a group followed Xavion Broussard home and opened fire.
• Broussard returned fire, wounding the driver and a passenger in the pursuing vehicle.
• No charges have been filed yet, and the investigation remains ongoing.
• In Louisiana, no permit is required for carrying a firearm due to constitutional carry laws.
• Driving home while being followed can endanger loved ones; it’s safer to go to a police station or a public place.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

ABBEVILLE, LA — An argument at a fast food restaurant ended in gunfire after a carload of people followed one of the customers home and opened fire, leaving two of them shot by the man they had chased, Abbeville Police say.

As reported by KLFY, officers first responded around 4:28 p.m. on Tuesday, June 23, to a Popeye’s on Veterans Memorial Drive for a report of customers fighting. They found Xavion Broussard and a woman, Anayla Williams, in a verbal argument. The manager asked that everyone be removed, and both parties left separately. No one was arrested at the restaurant.

About an hour later, around 5:30 p.m., police were called to the 600 block of Hawthorne Street for a shooting. Investigators say video footage showed Broussard’s vehicle being followed to Hawthorne, where his grandmother lives.

According to police, occupants of a silver Chevrolet Malibu got out of the car and opened fire on Broussard. He returned fire, striking the driver and a rear-seat passenger. The Malibu fled and was later found on the 1500 block of Graceland, where Acadian Ambulance transported the two wounded to a hospital.

No one has been charged in the shooting itself as of this writing, and police say the investigation is ongoing.

It is not clear whether anyone involved held a concealed carry permit. In Louisiana, that question carries little weight. Since July 4, 2024, the state has been a constitutional carry state. Any adult who can legally possess a firearm may carry one, concealed or open, with no permit required. The absence of a permit tells us nothing about whether a person was carrying lawfully.

The detail that stays with me is the pursuit. Police say the Malibu followed Broussard from the restaurant to a private home. If you ever realize you are being followed, driving to where you live, or where your family lives, is one of the worst choices you can make. You bring the threat to the people you love and onto ground the other side has now seen.

More from USA Carry:

• Irresponsible Gun Owner: Woman Pulls Gun in Popeyes Drive-Thru
• Concealed Carrier Shoot and Kills Would-Be Robber; Mother Asks Why
• Man Getting Beaten by Five Draws, Shoots One Ending Assault
• Argument Over Place in Fast Food Line Leads to Woman Drawing Her Gun
• Manager of Food Bank Holds Car Theft Suspect for Police

Better options exist. Drive to a police station, a fire station, or a busy, well-lit public place. Call 911 and stay on the line so officers know your location and your direction of travel. Do not pull into the driveway and assume the problem will pass. A car that has tailed you for blocks is not lost.

I carry because I accept responsibility for my own protection, and part of that responsibility is not painting a target on my own front door. A firearm is the last resort, not a substitute for distance, awareness, and a phone call that puts the law on your side before anything happens.

The account police have released so far describes people who chased a man down and got out shooting first. If that holds up, it is the textbook setup for a lawful defensive response. The investigation is open and no official determination has been made, so I will let the evidence and the prosecutors do their work before calling it anything more than what police have said it is.

Read the original story: Popeye’s Argument Spills Into Gunfire After Pursuers Chase Man To Grandmother’s House

Key Takeaways

• The Tennessee Court of Appeals is reviewing the constitutionality of two firearm laws, which a trial court declared void.
• The going armed statute criminalizes carry with intent to be armed and affects self-defense rights, prompting legal challenges.
• A three-judge panel found the laws unconstitutional, applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision criteria.
• The state argues procedural issues, claiming the case belonged in circuit court and that the rulings overstepped boundaries.
• The Tennessee appeal continues as both statutes remain enforceable, though the case is expected to reach the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

JACKSON, TN — The fight over whether Tennessee can keep treating ordinary firearm carry as a crime reached the state Court of Appeals on June 23, where judges heard arguments over two statutes a trial court has already declared void.

At the center of the case, Stephen L. Hughes, et al. v. Bill Lee, et al., are two laws. The first is the “going armed” statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a), which makes it an offense to carry a firearm “with the intent to go armed.” The second is the parks statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), which criminalizes carrying in public parks, greenways, playgrounds, civic centers, and other government property.

The going armed statute is the broader problem. On its face it reaches anyone carrying a firearm to be ready for self-defense, anywhere in the state, including inside their own home. The only relief is a set of affirmative defenses that a person has to raise after being charged. That structure treats a core exercise of the right to bear arms as a crime first and a defense second.

A special three-judge panel saw it the same way. On August 22, 2025, Chancellor Michael Mansfield, Judge M. Wyatt Burk, and Judge Lisa Nidiffer Rice unanimously declared both statutes “unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.” The plaintiffs were Tennessee residents Stephen Hughes, Duncan O’Mara, and Elaine Kehel, joined by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation. The defendants were Governor Bill Lee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, and several state and county officials sued in their official capacities.

The panel applied the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Once a citizen’s conduct falls within the text of the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical tradition that supports the regulation. The panel found the state could not carry that burden for a law that criminalizes everyday carry.

Important context for anyone tracking this: the trial ruling is not in effect. The panel issued only declaratory relief, having earlier concluded it could not enjoin a criminal statute. Then, on September 30, 2025, the Court of Appeals stayed the ruling while the state’s appeal proceeds. Both statutes remain enforceable today. Tennessee carry law has not changed.

The state’s appeal leans almost entirely on procedure. Edwin A. Groves Jr. argued for the State that the case was filed in the wrong court, contending a chancery court cannot rule on criminal statutes and that the suit belonged in circuit court. He also argued the panel was wrong to strike the laws on their face when, in his view, some applications are valid, and that the panel granted relief beyond the named plaintiffs.

Judge Andy D. Bennett, who asked most of the questions, pressed that first point. The Tennessee Supreme Court itself appointed this three-judge panel under the state’s three-judge-panel statute. Bennett questioned how the high court could appoint a panel to hear a case it had no power to decide.

John I. Harris III argued for the plaintiffs that this is a civil action over a fundamental civil right, not a criminal proceeding, and that the panel had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory ruling. On the merits, he argued that the state’s “fringe” examples, such as grenades or people already barred from owning guns, did not save the laws. Those same edge cases were present in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, and the Supreme Court still reached the core of each challenged restriction.

More from USA Carry:

• Wisconsin Senate Panel Approves Permitless Carry
• Iowa House Panel Removes Restrictions on Gun Ownership, Proposes Further Change
• Minnesota Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Concealed Carry Q&A Digest – March 19, 2018
• Concealed Carry Map Update | July 1, 2021

There is a notable concession underneath all of this. In its own filings, the state acknowledged that the statutes have unconstitutional applications. That is a striking position for the government to defend laws it admits sweep in protected conduct.

One newer wrinkle came up at argument. A judge asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision the prior week in United States v. Hemani, handed down June 18, affected the case. The state said it did not, because Hemani was an as-applied challenge raised as a defense in a criminal prosecution, not a facial challenge like this one. On that narrow point the distinction holds, though Hemani is one more sign of how seriously courts are now taking Bruen’s command.

The Court of Appeals did not rule from the bench. A decision will come later, and whichever way it goes, this case is a strong candidate to reach the Tennessee Supreme Court. The stakes are plain. Tennessee bills itself as a constitutional-carry state, yet it is in court defending a law that makes being armed for self-defense a crime by default. I will continue tracking this case through the appellate process.

Read the original story: Tennessee Fights to Revive Two Gun Laws a Court Already Called Unconstitutional

Key Takeaways

• Episode 63 details a flight from Las Vegas to Cleveland for GunCon 2026.
• The check-in process at LAS involved declaring firearms and completing a declaration form.
• Upon arrival in Cleveland, the bag arrived without issues at the carousel.
• Overall, the airport experience reflected consistency across different locations.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 63 was filmed June 16th, flying Southwest from Las Vegas to Cleveland for GunCon 2026. First time through Cleveland’s airport, and the process held up just like everywhere else.

Check-In at LAS

Declared firearms. Condition 1 case inside a regular piece of luggage, same as usual. Agent asked about lithium ion batteries, electronics, e-cigarettes, and portable chargers — none. She added my information to the declaration form, I filled out the rest and signed the back, and put it in my FedEx sleeve.

She gave me my gate, B12, with boarding starting at 11:45, then told me to stand by the flagpole for about 15 minutes to see if TSA needed access. They didn’t, so I headed to my gate.

More from USA Carry:

• GunCon 2026: I’ll Be There June 20 in Niles, Ohio With 60+ Brands and Top 2A Voices
• Ohio Mother Grabs Gun After Seeing Son Being Pulled by Teens in Driveway
• Amazon Driver Delivers Fatal Shot to Suspect in Failed Carjacking Attempt
• Armed Citizen Stops Attack by Ex-Boyfriend; Not the Protection Order
• Boyfriend Shoots, Kills Dog Attacking His Pregnant Girlfriend

Arrival in Cleveland

First time at this airport for me. Bag came out on the carousel without any issues. Checked everything over and was on my way.

Final Thoughts

New airport, same process. Sixty-three episodes in and it still holds up wherever you fly.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 63 – Southwest from Las Vegas to Cleveland (GunCon 2026)

As reported by NBC6, officers responded to three separate scenes after the shooting: a CVS pharmacy, a Marathon gas station, and the Garden Vista apartments near Northwest 47th Avenue and 183rd Street.

The confrontation started before 1 p.m. Miami Gardens Police said a man allegedly battered his ex-girlfriend and was then confronted by her brother.

A third man stepped in during the altercation, police said. That is when the aggressor pulled a gun and fired multiple rounds at the two men.

The third man drew his own firearm and fired back, striking the attacker, according to police. The wounded man fled and was later found at the CVS with a gunshot wound.

Paramedics took him to a hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, officials said. The man he had fired on was taken to another hospital as a precaution.

Residents told NBC6 the gunfire erupted at the apartment complex. A worker at a nearby business, Dayhant Cadiz, said he heard the shots: “Boom, boom, boom, clicking the trigger multiple times.”

Police have not announced charges or released the names of anyone involved, and the case remains under investigation. But the sequence officers describe is one we see often: a man turned a domestic dispute into gunfire, and someone else with a firearm was there to end it before anyone was killed.

Read the original story: Armed Bystander Returns Fire, Drops Attacker Who Opened Up on Two Men in Miami Gardens, Police Say

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge allowed the NRA to join the Second Amendment lawsuit against New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law.
• The plaintiffs argue that the law violates the Supreme Court’s Bruen test regarding historical firearm regulation.
• The lawsuit is consolidated with another case challenging the same law, highlighting its constitutional issues.
• State lawyers tried to exclude the NRA, but the judge found their delay arguments unconvincing and efficient to add the NRA to the case.
• The plaintiffs feel optimistic due to previous rulings against similar laws, asserting New Jersey’s law may also be unconstitutional.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

CAMDEN, N.J. — A federal magistrate judge has cleared the way for the National Rifle Association to join the Second Amendment lawsuit against New Jersey’s one-gun-a-month law, adding the country’s largest gun-rights group to a case the state has been defending since 2024.

In an opinion and order filed June 22, U.S. Magistrate Judge Matthew J. Skahill granted a motion by the existing plaintiffs to amend their complaint and bring the NRA in as a co-plaintiff. He decided the question on the papers, without oral argument.

The challenge targets N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:58-3(i), which bars residents from buying more than one handgun in any 30-day period. The plaintiffs argue the limit cannot survive the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, which forces the state to prove a gun law fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The plaintiffs who filed the motion are Matthew Struck, Daniel Francisco, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Their suit, Struck v. Platkin, was consolidated last June with a parallel case, Benton v. Platkin, brought by Christian Benton, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners Foundation. Both cases raise the same constitutional attack on the same law.

The case name is a holdover. It dates to when Matthew Platkin was attorney general. Platkin left office in January, and New Jersey’s defense now belongs to Attorney General Jennifer Davenport. Patrick Callahan, the state police superintendent named alongside him, retired at the end of 2025, and Acting Superintendent Jeanne Hengemuhle now holds that post.

State lawyers fought to keep the NRA out, arguing the plaintiffs waited too long. The deadline to add parties had passed in July 2025, months before the November motion. Skahill rejected that argument.

The court found the delay was driven by the NRA’s own timing, not any lack of diligence. The group did not retain the plaintiffs’ counsel until mid-October 2025, and the plaintiffs moved to add it about a month later. The judge found good cause for the late amendment and no real prejudice to the state.

More from USA Carry:

• Mother Cleared After Pulling Gun Outside York School as Prosecutors Say She Acted in Self-Defense
• Federal Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey Hollow Point Ban as Plaintiffs Seek Court Ruling to Strike Down Ammunition Restriction
• Missouri Bill to Lower Concealed Carry Age to 18 Passes House
• Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional
• EXONERATED: Concealed Carry Holder Who Fatally Shot Aggressor Inside Florida Walgreens Cleared of Charges Under Stand Your Ground Law

Skahill also pointed out that bringing the NRA into this case is more efficient than forcing it to file a separate, identical lawsuit. Folding the group in conserves the court’s resources and avoids duplicative litigation.

The order is narrow. It decides who gets to be in the case, not whether the law is constitutional. That fight is still ahead.

The plaintiffs have reason for confidence. The Ninth Circuit struck down California’s nearly identical one-gun-a-month limit in Nguyen v. Bonta, a ruling both groups have leaned on, and the NRA argues New Jersey cannot meet its historical burden either, noting that founding-era Americans routinely bought handguns in pairs. FPC President Brandon Combs called New Jersey’s ban “unconstitutional, full stop” when the group moved to add the NRA.

I will keep tracking Struck v. Platkin as it heads toward a ruling on the merits.

Read the original story: Federal Court Clears the NRA to Join the Fight Against New Jersey’s One-Gun-a-Month Law

Key Takeaways

• FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson criticizes Virginia State Police for delaying background checks, calling it a rights violation.
• Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon claims the DOJ is monitoring the situation and may take legal action against Virginia’s gun laws.
• Gun-rights advocate Philip Van Cleave argues that delays aren’t intentional but are due to high demand and increased sales under new regulations.
• Virginia’s new gun control law is set to take effect, prompting a rush to buy firearms, even as legal challenges arise.
• The surge in gun purchases overwhelms the background check system, leading to delays for law-abiding individuals.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

RICHMOND, VA — The chairman of the Federal Trade Commission says the Virginia State Police are stonewalling gun buyers, and a top Justice Department official says Washington is watching.

Andrew Ferguson, who chairs the FTC and once served as Virginia’s solicitor general, posted Saturday that he visited a Virginia gun dealer and found the State Police “delaying background checks en masse.” He called it one of the most flagrant rights violations he has seen and accused the agency of helping disarm Americans.

Just visited my neighborhood gun dealer in Virginia. The Virginia State Police @VSPPIO is delaying background checks en masse in one of the most flagrant violations of our rights that I've seen. This is outrageous. Our police are aiding radical leftists to disarm Americans.…

— Andrew Ferguson (@AFergusonFTC) June 28, 2026

We are all over this and other gun-grabbing nonsense nationally. Stay tuned! https://t.co/Vf4kZOMnWR

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) June 28, 2026

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general who runs the DOJ Civil Rights Division, replied within hours that her office is “all over this” nationally. The division has already signaled interest in Virginia’s gun-control push and hinted at suing over the state’s new firearm ban.

Here is the part the post leaves out.

The most prominent gun-rights voice in the state is not convinced the delays are deliberate. Philip Van Cleave, president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said plainly that he is “not convinced that the delays are intentional.” He pointed instead to a wave of buying that has buried the system.

I don’t want to be unfair to the Virginia State Police. I’m not convinced that the delays are intentional. What has happened is gun sales have exploded every place I go. Every gun store is packed. Gun shows are packed. I just don’t think VSP and their computer system is geared…

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

The numbers back him up. NICS checks in Virginia this May ran about double last May’s total, and dealers report lines out the door. By one estimate from Bearing Arms, sales are running three to four times above normal as buyers grab firearms they expect to lose.

Why the rush? Virginia’s “assault firearm” and magazine ban, SB749, was set to take effect July 1. A Lancaster County judge blocked it statewide on June 25 in Crump v. Katz, the case I have been following since gun owners filed it. But Attorney General Jay Jones is appealing and seeking an emergency stay, and the injunction binds only the State Police, not local prosecutors. Buyers in much of the state still had every reason to act before Wednesday.

More from USA Carry:

• CCW Applications Surge, Leaving 6,000 in Limbo in a Pennsylvania County
• Increased Wait Times for CCW Permits in Western North Carolina
• Mistakes to Avoid for the First-Time Gun Buyer
• Brewer Vetoes Arizona Bill Allowing Guns on Public Property
• Senate Democrats Push “No Check, No Sale” Gun Bill That Could Stall Legal Purchases Indefinitely

That surge is the likeliest cause of what Ferguson saw at the counter. A foreseeable spike met an agency that, by every appearance, never staffed up for it.

I am not going to tell you the State Police are running a secret disarmament scheme, because the evidence is not there. What the evidence shows is a government that passed a sweeping ban, set off a buying panic, then left lawful Virginians waiting while the system it controls fell behind.

This is the same pattern Virginia gun owners have watched all spring. Thirteen commonwealth’s attorneys and counting have refused to enforce the ban. Courts have blocked it. And now the demand created by Richmond’s own law is choking the checkpoint every dealer sale has to clear.

I will keep tracking the appeal in Crump v. Katz and whether the Justice Department moves from posts to filings.

Read the original story: FTC Chairman Accuses Virginia State Police of Stalling Gun Buyers as Pre-Ban Surge Swamps the System

Key Takeaways

• Firearms Policy Coalition filed a brief in Roberts v. ATF challenging the National Firearms Act (NFA).
• The plaintiffs argue the NFA is unconstitutional since Congress zeroed out taxes on certain firearms, claiming the registration scheme lacks a valid tax basis.
• The DOJ defends the NFA by linking it to a different tax but the plaintiffs counter that it’s a misinterpretation.
• The brief emphasizes that suppressors and short-barreled rifles are common arms, arguing the government cannot force registration without historical precedent.
• FPC President Brandon Combs describes the NFA as an outdated and authoritarian law lacking constitutional grounding.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

COVINGTON, KY — Firearms Policy Coalition is pushing a federal judge to gut the heart of the National Firearms Act, and on June 24 the group filed the brief that could decide the case.

The filing is a reply brief in Roberts v. ATF, an FPC-backed lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. It answers the Trump Justice Department’s defense of the NFA and asks the court to rule for the plaintiffs on summary judgment, which means a decision on the law without a full trial.

The plaintiffs include T.J. Roberts, Zachary Cockrell, Meridian Ordnance, Buckeye Firearms Association, the Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and the American Suppressor Association Foundation. They are represented by David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and Nicholas Varone of Cooper & Kirk.

The core argument is clean. Congress built the NFA in 1934 on its power to tax. When the One Big Beautiful Bill Act zeroed out the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” on January 1, the tax those registration rules were built to collect stopped existing. With no tax left, FPC’s brief argues the registration scheme is “unmoored from any congressionally imposed tax” and cannot stand.

The DOJ’s main answer is that the registration paperwork actually props up a different tax, the annual special occupational tax that dealers and manufacturers pay. The plaintiffs call that a tortured reading of the statute. The firearm registration rules were written to collect the making and transfer taxes, they argue, while a separate business registration covers the dealer tax. Under the government’s logic, FPC warns, Congress could tax bakeries and then require every person who bakes bread at home to register with the federal government.

More from USA Carry:

• CCW Threat Assessment – What’s Your Biggest Priority?
• Florida Open Carry Bill – Stuck and Gutted
• GOA’s “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Under Fire as Gun Control Groups and DOJ Defend National Gun Registry
• SAF Files Summary Judgment Motions in ATF Frame Rule Case and NFA Registration Challenge
• SAF Files Second Lawsuit to Strike Down NFA Regulations After Congress Kills $200 Tax

The government also claims the Commerce Clause independently saves the law. The brief pushes back hard, saying Congress wrote the NFA solely as a tax and that the registry does not regulate any interstate market the way federal drug or wheat controls did in the cases the DOJ leans on.

Then there is the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs argue suppressors and short-barreled rifles are plainly “arms” in common use today, pointing to more than 6.4 million registered suppressors and over 1.1 million registered short-barreled rifles on ATF’s own books. They say the government cannot show any historical tradition of forcing Americans to register protected arms, and that the NFA is a registration regime, not the kind of shall-issue licensing the Supreme Court left room for in Bruen.

The brief lands one sharp point against the DOJ. The same government calling suppressors dangerous in Kentucky is suing in Washington, D.C. to strike down that city’s suppressor ban as a Second Amendment violation.

FPC President Brandon Combs called the NFA “a relic of a darker era and an authoritarian scheme without a constitutional foundation.”

The plaintiffs have asked for oral argument. I’ll be tracking the court’s ruling and will report it as soon as it lands.

Read the original story: With the Tax Stamp Dead, FPC Tells Federal Court the NFA’s Gun Registry Has to Die With It

Key Takeaways

• A Columbus resident shot and killed David R. Young after an altercation near his front door on June 22.
• Police found Young outside the home, but he did not survive the injuries sustained during the struggle.
• No arrests or charges have been made as detectives continue to gather evidence and interview witnesses.
• Authorities have not classified the shooting as self-defense; the case will go to the Bartholomew County Prosecutor’s Office for review.
• The investigation remains open, and a forensic autopsy has been scheduled.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

COLUMBUS, IND. — A Columbus resident told police he shot and killed a man who attacked him near his own front door, and days later no arrest has been made.

It happened just after 9 a.m. on Monday, June 22. According to the Columbus Police Department, officers and other first responders were called to a home in the 3000 block of Wedgewood Drive, near Taylor Road and 25th Street, for a reported shooting. The caller told dispatch he had shot a man after being attacked.

Officers found the man who had been shot outside the home and began rendering aid. He did not survive. The caller stayed at the scene and cooperated with arriving officers.

The Bartholomew County Coroner’s Office identified the deceased as David R. Young, 44, of Columbus. Investigators say Young was known to the people who lived at the home and that he drove himself there that morning. Police say an altercation broke out near the front door, and Young was shot during the struggle.

More from USA Carry:

• Driver w/ CCW Shoots Attacker After Being Punched
• Ohio Concealed Carry Permits in 2024: New Data Highlights Impact of Constitutional Carry
• Concealed Carrier Defends Himself; Shoots and Kills Armed Robbery Suspect
• Ohio House Bill 68 Would Expand Concealed Carry Access and Restore Firearm Rights for Nonresidents
• Security Guard Fatally Shoots Armed Man During Party Altercation in Owensboro, Kentucky

As of now, no arrests have been made and no charges have been filed. Detectives are still interviewing witnesses and collecting evidence, and a forensic autopsy has been scheduled.

I’d point out what the record does and doesn’t say. Police have not called this self-defense, and the prosecutor has not ruled. What the department has confirmed is a resident who reported being attacked, fired, and then stayed put and called it in himself. At the close of the investigation, the findings go to the Bartholomew County Prosecutor’s Office, which will decide whether the shooting was legally justified.

Read the original story: Columbus Man Says He Shot Intruder Who Attacked Him at His Front Door

Key Takeaways

• The Forest Pines HOA in South Carolina banned firearms in shared spaces, raising concerns among residents about their self-defense rights.
• Residents question the legality and authority of the HOA to impose such a ban, especially since South Carolina permits constitutional carry.
• Under state law, HOA restrictions on firearms require specific signage to be legally enforceable, which the HOA has not provided.
• Attorney Brad Richardson advises residents to push for changes in the board rather than pursue legal action.
• Residents should not assume the HOA’s email notice has legal weight without proper signage and should be aware of their rights.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HORRY COUNTY, SC — A homeowners association on the Grand Strand has told residents they can no longer carry a firearm across most of their own community’s shared property, and gun owners there are right to be asking whether the rule actually holds up.

As reported by WMBF News, residents of Forest Pines Condominiums received an email informing them that firearms are no longer allowed in the community’s shared spaces.

The rule comes from CAMS Management, and it reaches well past the pool. It bars both carried and concealed firearms at the pool, clubhouse, mail kiosks, sidewalks, and parking areas. Firearms are still permitted inside residents’ homes and while traveling to and from their vehicles.

That carve-out is the tell. A resident can keep a firearm at home and walk it to the car, but the moment she steps onto a shared sidewalk or crosses the parking lot, the association says she is out of bounds.

One resident pushed back on exactly that. She said she understands keeping firearms away from the pool, but not being disarmed on the sidewalk or at the mailboxes. If she is out walking at night and someone tries to rob her, she asked, “if I get mugged, are they now financially responsible?” because the rule told her she could not protect herself.

She also questioned whether the HOA has the authority to do this at all, noting that she owns her home rather than rents it.

Here is where the law actually lands. South Carolina has been a constitutional carry state since March 2024, when H.3594 took effect, and adults who are not otherwise prohibited can carry openly or concealed without a permit. But that same framework lets private property owners and employers say no on their own premises.

Attorney Brad Richardson told WMBF that an association can place restrictions like these as long as it follows the law, and that people who buy into an HOA agree to live under its rules. He drew one firm line, saying he would object if a board tried to bar firearms “anywhere on the property, including your own dwelling.” His advice for residents who disagree was the ballot, not the courthouse: vote in a new board.

The catch in South Carolina is how a private ban becomes real. Under state law, a property owner has to post a “NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED” sign meeting specific size and placement requirements before carrying is treated as prohibited on the premises. Right now, by WMBF’s reporting, no such signs are posted anywhere around the community’s shared spaces.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida AG to Port St. Lucie HOA: Drop the Gun Ban by June 1 or We Enforce the Law
• Sheriff’s Deputy Shoots and Kills Carjacker That Ran Down Grandpa, Missed Grandson
• Intruder Fatally Shot During Struggle Over Firearm in South Carolina Home
• Waffle House Employee Fights Off Armed Attackers, Refuses to Pursue Charges
• South Carolina Open Carry

So the association has announced a ban by email while skipping the one step that gives a ban legal weight in this state. A line in a management notice is not the same thing as lawful, enforceable notice, and residents are entitled to ask about the difference.

I have seen this play out before. Last month I covered a Port St. Lucie HOA that tried to ban firearms across its common areas, and Florida’s attorney general gave the board a deadline to back off or face enforcement. The statutes differ from state to state, but the pattern repeats. An association votes itself a gun-free neighborhood, mails a letter, and assumes residents will treat that letter like a law.

CAMS Management did not respond to WMBF’s request for comment.

If you live under an HOA and a notice like this lands in your inbox, do not assume it binds you the way a statute would. Know your state’s actual law, look for the signage that law requires, and remember that a board you can vote out is not a legislature. I will keep tracking how this one resolves, including whether the association posts compliant signage or the state takes an interest.

Read the original story: South Carolina HOA Bans Carry on Its Sidewalks and Parking Lots, but Skips the Sign South Carolina Law Requires

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge ruled that Jackson County’s ban on handgun purchases by those under 21 violated the Second Amendment.
• U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips cited prior rulings, stating the right to buy a firearm links to the right to own one.
• The court issued a partial summary judgment favoring plaintiff Leonard Wilson Jr., who was unable to buy a handgun due to the ban.
• Jackson County repealed the ordinance after the suit was filed, replacing it with a measure applying only to minors.
• This ruling aligns with trends in several circuits recognizing that adults aged 18 to 20 retain their Second Amendment rights.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

KANSAS CITY, MO — A federal judge has ruled that Jackson County’s short-lived ban on handgun purchases by adults under 21 violated the Second Amendment.

In an order dated June 24, U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff Leonard Wilson Jr., finding that Section 1 of the county’s former gun ordinance ran afoul of the Constitution. Wilson was 18 when the suit was filed. He wanted to buy a handgun and ammunition from his uncle, who was willing to sell, and the two had already agreed on a price.

The court did not need a long historical analysis to get there. Judge Phillips held that the outcome was dictated by the Eighth Circuit’s 2024 decision in Worth v. Jacobson, which struck down a Minnesota law barring 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms. Adults in that age range, the appeals court held, are part of “the people” the Second Amendment protects.

Phillips also rejected the county’s claim that the right to buy a firearm is somehow separate from the right to own one. A person cannot possess a firearm without first acquiring one, she reasoned, so a government that cannot ban possession cannot ban the purchase either. She pointed to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Reese v. ATF, which held that the right to keep and bear arms “surely implies the right to purchase them.”

The ordinance at the center of the case has a telling backstory. Jackson County passed Ordinance No. 5865 in November 2024, overriding a veto from County Executive Frank White Jr. Section 1 banned anyone under 21 from buying a handgun or handgun ammunition. Section 3 barred adults 18 to 20 from possessing a “semiautomatic assault rifle,” a term the ordinance never bothered to define.

The sponsor, First District Legislator Manny Abarca, was candid about the plan. According to the complaint, Abarca said the legislature wrote the ordinance knowing it would be challenged, “hoping for a court battle.” White had warned in his veto that the measure was unlawful and would stick taxpayers with the bill for defending a law unlikely to survive.

Then-Attorney General Andrew Bailey sued in June 2025, joined by Wilson, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners Foundation. Bailey called the right to keep and bear arms inalienable when he announced the action. He has since left state office to serve as co-deputy director of the FBI, and Catherine Hanaway now leads the Missouri Attorney General’s Office.

The county did not wait for a courtroom defeat. About three and a half weeks after the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, Jackson County repealed Ordinance 5865 and replaced it with a measure that applies only to minors. Because Wilson was already an adult, the case narrowed to his claim for nominal damages.

More from USA Carry:

• Second Amendment Foundation Fights to Extend Under-21 Handgun Ban Victory Nationwide
• Jackson Homeowner Fires at Suspect Fleeing Police Who Attempted to Enter Home
• Jackson Home Invasion Ends in Gunfire as Woman Returns Home, Thankfully Armed
• Jackson Homeowner Shoots and Kills Suspect Who Kicked in Door in Pre-Dawn Home Invasion
• Why You Need to Practice the “Bill Drill” More Often

That timing shaped what the court could decide. Phillips granted Wilson summary judgment only on Section 1, the handgun purchase ban. She deferred ruling on Section 3, the so-called assault rifle provision, finding Wilson likely lacked standing because he never bought such a rifle and described only a “some day” intention to do so. She also questioned whether the State of Missouri still has standing now that only Wilson’s damages claim remains.

The judge gave Wilson and the State 21 days to answer those questions, and she vacated the pretrial conference and bench trial that had been set for this summer.

Even with those issues open, the core holding is clear. A federal court has now added Jackson County’s ordinance to the growing pile of age-based gun restrictions falling under Bruen and Worth. Courts in the Fifth, Eighth, and Third Circuits have all recognized that 18-to-20-year-old adults do not surrender their Second Amendment rights at some arbitrary age line.

I will keep tracking this case as Wilson and the State respond to the court’s standing questions and the remaining claims are resolved.

Read the original story: Federal Judge Rules Missouri County’s Under-21 Handgun Ban Violated the Second Amendment

Key Takeaways

• Iowa Supreme Court overturned a felony firearm ban for Eric Martin Schadl, citing strict scrutiny from Amendment 1A.
• The court ruled that the State failed to justify the indefinite firearm prohibition as narrowly tailored to a compelling interest.
• Schadl, who had no reoffending history in fourteen years, faced an unjustified lifetime firearm ban due to a past misdemeanor.
• The ruling is specific to Schadl’s case, but it requires prosecutors to prove narrow tailoring in future firearm restriction cases.
• Dissenting justices believe the right to bear arms doesn’t extend to convicted domestic abusers, urging the legislature for clearer restoration paths.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

DES MOINES, IA — The Iowa Supreme Court has thrown out a felony conviction built on a lifetime firearm ban, ruling that the indefinite prohibition could not survive the strict scrutiny that Iowa voters wrote into the state constitution in 2022.

In a 5-2 decision filed June 26, the court reversed Eric Martin Schadl’s conviction under Iowa Code section 724.26(2)(a) and ordered the case dismissed. The statute makes it a class “D” felony for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence to possess a firearm, with no expiration date.

Schadl’s predicate conviction was a 2010 misdemeanor domestic abuse assault. He went fourteen years without reoffending. In July 2024, after a report that he had firearms in his home, he admitted to owning a .22 caliber rifle and acknowledged the old conviction. He entered a conditional guilty plea, drew a suspended five-year sentence and a $1,025 fine, and appealed.

The win rests on Amendment 1A, the provision Iowans ratified in 2022 declaring the right to keep and bear arms a fundamental individual right. Its key command is short. “Any and all restrictions of this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

That standard mattered, because it decides who carries the burden. Writing for the majority, Justice McDermott held that under strict scrutiny the State, not the defendant, must prove a firearm restriction is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest and uses the least restrictive means. The court refused to apply a watered-down version of the test, warning that diluting strict scrutiny in one area weakens it everywhere.

The State conceded a compelling interest in public safety. Where it failed was tailoring. In the district court, the State responded to Schadl’s motion to dismiss with a single page and never even named strict scrutiny as the governing standard. On appeal it tried to fill the gap with social science papers on domestic-abuser recidivism that no expert had vouched for and the trial court never saw.

The court was not persuaded. It noted research showing recidivism risk for domestic abusers drops sharply over time, with a notable decline near the fifteen-year mark. Against a man fourteen years removed from a single misdemeanor, with no evidence he remained a danger, the majority found the indefinite ban “seriously overinclusive” and not narrowly tailored.

More from USA Carry:

• Court to Reconsider Maryland Assault Weapons Ban, Urged to Use “Strict Scrutiny”
• Bill to Lower Handgun Purchase Age to 18 Reintroduced by Rep. Thomas Massie
• Concealed Carry Pistol: Criteria, Comparisons, and My 9mm Choices
• Armed Carjack Attempt Foiled as Brave Woman Accelerates to Safety in Oakland
• How To Dress Professionally And Still Be Able To Fight

The court also pointed to less restrictive options the legislature could have chosen, including a fixed prohibition period or a restoration process like the one Iowa already offers for people disqualified on mental-health grounds.

The State’s fallback argument, that a discretionary pardon from the governor could restore Schadl’s rights, got no traction. The majority called the pardon power completely discretionary and inadequate as a substitute for the narrow tailoring strict scrutiny demands.

The ruling is narrow in an important way. The majority upheld the statute on its face, meaning the law itself stands. It fell only as applied to Schadl, on the specific record the State built, or failed to build. Going forward, prosecutors defending the indefinite ban will have to prove narrow tailoring case by case rather than lean on the bare fact of an old conviction.

Justices McDonald and Oxley dissented. They argued that the scope of the right, as understood when voters approved Amendment 1A in 2022, never extended to convicted domestic abusers, and that long-standing firearm laws already on the books should not be picked apart one defendant at a time.

In a concurrence, Justice Mansfield urged the legislature to create a clear path for restoring firearm rights after a conviction, which would let the State avoid the kind of satellite litigation this case produced.

I’ll be tracking whether Iowa lawmakers respond with a restoration statute, and how prosecutors adjust their approach to section 724.26(2)(a) in the wake of this decision.

Read the original story: One Old Misdemeanor, a Lifetime Gun Ban, and the Iowa Ruling That Just Ended It

Key Takeaways

• A Northeast Memphis man shot an intruder attempting to steal his television, leaving the suspect in critical condition.
• The shooting occurred in the Greenbrook at Shelby Farms apartments after the tenant encountered the masked intruder.
• Police found stolen items including a PlayStation 5 and game controllers, and the tenant’s gun was later retrieved from his residence.
• The tenant fired four shots, which may raise legal questions since self-defense justification shifts when the threat flees.
• Tennessee’s new deadly force law does not permit deadly force for property defense; it only applies to imminent threats of serious harm.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MEMPHIS, TENN. — A Northeast Memphis man opened fire on a masked intruder he caught trying to carry his television out of his apartment, police say, leaving the suspect hospitalized in critical condition.

It happened around 3:15 p.m. in the 6600 block of West Quailbrook Cove at the Greenbrook at Shelby Farms apartments, after a shots-fired call brought officers out.

As reported by News Channel 3, the tenant told officers he found a man dressed in all black and wearing a ski mask trying to take his TV. The tenant said the intruder turned, looked at him, and reached into a bag as if to pull something out.

That is when the tenant drew his gun and fired. A masked stranger inside your home, reaching into a bag for an unknown object, is exactly the kind of imminent threat self-defense law is built around.

Police say the intruder then took off running from the rear of the apartment, dropped his bag, and kept going toward the complex. Officers found shell casings on the rear patio. They later took the suspect into custody near the 6400 block of Macon Road and sent him to a hospital in critical condition. His identity has not been released.

Police recovered a PlayStation 5, several pairs of shoes, and game controllers believed taken from the apartment. The tenant told officers the gun he used was back at his residence.

More from USA Carry:

• Michigan Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Who Broke Into Attached Apartment and Assaulted Tenant Before Trying to Enter Home
• 72-Year-Old in Wheelchair Defends Himself Again Tenant Attack
• Apartment Tenant Shoots 13 Rounds at Robbers Impersonating Maintenance Workers
• Apartment Resident Attacked By Intruder In Building Forced To Defend Himself
• Georgia Resident Confronts Burglar Watching TV, Shoots Him in Self-Defense

One detail worth noting for anyone who carries. The tenant fired twice when the suspect reached into the bag, then twice more as the man ran. Self-defense protects you against an imminent threat, and that protection is strongest in the first exchange. Once a threat turns and flees, the legal ground shifts fast. We do not have every detail here, and prosecutors will weigh all of it, but it is a useful reminder that the justification can end the moment the danger does.

It is also worth clearing up one piece of confusion in some of the coverage. Tennessee’s new deadly force law takes effect July 1, and a few reports have framed it as a green light to use deadly force to defend property. It is not. The law broadens when a resident can justify force tied to crimes like burglary and robbery, but the core threshold did not move. Deadly force remains lawful only against an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse.

No charges have been filed against the tenant, and the case remains under review.

Read the original story: Memphis Tenant Shoots Masked Burglar Caught Hauling His TV Out the Door

Key Takeaways

• The Delaware House passed a controversial gun dealer licensing bill, referred to as the ‘FFL killer’ bill, on June 25.
• The bill requires all firearm dealers in Delaware to obtain a new state license, resulting in additional regulations and compliance costs.
• Although some provisions were removed, the bill still imposes significant burdens on small dealers, risking their ability to operate.
• The NRA-ILA urges residents to ask Governor Meyer to veto the bill, arguing it duplicates existing federal laws and does not effectively curb criminal conduct.
• Governor Meyer’s decision remains uncertain, with a deadline for public input before the session ends on June 30.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

DOVER, DE — The Delaware House passed Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 300 on June 25, sending the dealer licensing measure that gun rights groups call the “FFL killer” bill to Governor Matt Meyer for his signature or veto.

I covered this bill last month when it was still sitting in the Senate Executive Committee. It has now run the full legislative gauntlet. The Senate passed it in May, the House Administration Committee advanced it in June, and the full House cleared it this week. The only step left is the governor’s desk.

The bill creates a new state license that every firearm dealer in Delaware must hold on top of the federal Firearms License they already maintain. It layers on heightened security requirements, mandatory training, background checks for contractors and volunteers with access to firearms, recurring Delaware State Police inspections, and civil penalties up to license revocation. The requirements phase in beginning July 1, 2028.

The bill changed on its way through the General Assembly. The Senate substitute dropped the tiered fees that scaled with sales volume and set flat fees instead, $300 for an initial license and $250 to renew. It also removed the provision requiring dealers to report firearm trace information to the Attorney General, along with the Attorney General’s annual report. That is the language critics had flagged as registry infrastructure. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action stopped calling it the “Firearms Registry” bill once that provision came out.

What did not change is the part that matters most to small dealers. The licensing mandates, the inspections, and the compliance costs are still in the bill. For a home-based FFL or a small sporting goods shop running on thin margins, a duplicate state regime on top of existing ATF oversight can be the difference between staying open and closing the doors.

The NRA-ILA is now urging Delaware residents to ask Meyer to veto the bill and protect the state’s licensed dealers. The group’s position is that the legislation duplicates federal law and does nothing to stop the criminal conduct it claims to target.

More from USA Carry:

• Delaware Concealed Carry Permits up 56% from 2014 to 2015
• Delaware Bill Would Build a Firearms Registry and Drive Small FFLs Out of Business, Senate Executive Committee Hears It Tuesday
• Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine Bill Headed to Governor’s Desk
• Delaware’s Controversial Permit-to-Purchase Law Set to Take Effect November 16
• Ohio Bill Reducing Training Requirements from 728 hrs. to 24hrs. Heads to the Gov. Desk

That criticism holds up. Straw purchases, trafficking, illegal possession, and dealer violations are already federal crimes. The ATF already inspects dealers. Adding a parallel state bureaucracy does not change what is already illegal. It adds cost to the law-abiding businesses that make up nearly all of Delaware’s firearms retail trade.

The contrast with the federal direction is hard to miss. The ATF’s own recently announced 34-rule reform package moves to ease enforcement pressure on dealers, including rolling back the previous administration’s zero-tolerance revocation policy that pushed many small FFLs out of business. Delaware is moving the opposite way.

A veto is a long shot. Meyer has signed gun-control legislation before, and the General Assembly’s Democratic majorities backed this bill through both chambers. But the bill is not law yet, and the window to weigh in with the governor’s office is open. Session ends June 30 so the time to act is now. The NRA-ILA has set up a Take Action page that lets Delaware residents contact Governor Meyer directly and urge him to veto SB 300. You can use it here: https://speak4.app/lp/6u011nzm

I’ll track what Meyer does with it and update when he acts.

Read the original story: Delaware’s “FFL Killer” Bill Clears the House and Lands on Governor Meyer’s Desk

Key Takeaways

• The ATF clarified that routine stops during interstate travel with a firearm remain federally protected.
• Proposed rule addresses gray areas in 18 U.S.C. 926A regarding transport and necessary activities while traveling.
• It safeguards not just firearms but also ammunition and accessories as long as they are legal at both starting and ending locations.
• Travelers must store firearms unloaded and in a locked container during breaks where they cannot secure them.
• The proposed rule is still subject to public comment until August 4, 2026, before becoming final law.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The ATF wants to make clear that stopping for gas, grabbing food, or spending the night in a hotel does not strip you of federal protection when you cross state lines with a firearm.

The agency published a proposed rule on May 6 clarifying the scope of 18 U.S.C. 926A, the federal safe harbor for transporting firearms between states. The rule spells out that the routine, necessary parts of a trip count as “transport” and stay protected even when you step away from your vehicle.

ATF is proposing to clarify protections for the interstate transportation of firearms by lawful owners. The update would formally recognize that routine travel activities, such as overnight stops, refueling, vehicle maintenance, emergency stops, and medical needs, are part of… pic.twitter.com/GXEs57d7tg

— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) June 26, 2026

Under current law, you are entitled to move a firearm from any place you can legally possess it to any other place you can legally possess it, as long as the gun is unloaded and not accessible from the passenger compartment. The problem has always been the gray area in between. Courts in the Third Circuit narrowed 926A to the point where a traveler stranded overnight could be arrested for doing nothing wrong.

That actually happened. In Revell v. Port Authority, a Utah man missed a connecting flight, was forced to collect his checked firearm and stay overnight in New Jersey, and was arrested the next morning despite declaring the unloaded gun. The court admitted he was stuck through no fault of his own and still ruled against him.

More from USA Carry:

• Firearm Policy Changes Progress in Iowa Legislature With Focus on Vehicles and School Property
• Woman Shoots Man That Attacked and Chased Her to Grocery Store Parking Lot
• SAF Challenges Interstate Handgun Sales Ban
• Concealed Carrier Shot Trying to Stop Armed Robbery at 7-Eleven
• 7-Eleven Clerk Turns Tables on Armed Robber

The proposed rule targets exactly that outcome. It states that protected transportation “includes reasonably necessary activities incidental to interstate travel.” That covers overnight lodging, stops for food and fuel, vehicle maintenance, emergencies, medical treatment, and switching between your car and a plane.

It also addresses what travels with the gun. The rule extends protection to ammunition, magazines, optics, sights, stocks, grips, holsters, slings, and similar accessories. The catch is that each item still has to be legal under federal law and legal in both the state where the trip starts and the state where it ends. The rule does not override a destination state’s magazine limit.

During any break where you cannot secure the firearm in your vehicle, such as an overnight hotel stay, the rule requires it to be unloaded and stored in a locked container so it and the ammunition are not readily accessible.

ATF Director Robert Cekada, confirmed by the Senate in April, signed the proposal. It is part of the agency’s broader “New Era of Reform” rulemaking push.

This is a proposed rule, not final law. The public comment period runs through August 4, 2026, and comments can be submitted at regulations.gov under RIN 1140-AA73. I will be tracking where this lands once the comment window closes.

Read the original story: ATF Moves to Protect Gun Owners From Arrest During Interstate Travel Stops

Key Takeaways

• President Trump announced support for national right-to-carry legislation during a rally in Pennsylvania.
• He received applause after confirming the administration is ‘working on’ this issue.
• Two main proposals exist: the National Constitutional Carry Act, which allows unpermitted carry, and H.R. 38, which mandates reciprocal recognition of concealed carry permits across states.
• Trump’s remarks indicate potential Republican support for advancing gun rights legislation, but no specific bill was named.
• The outcome remains uncertain as the administration has yet to commit to backing either proposed legislation.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MACUNGIE, PA — President Donald Trump told a Pennsylvania crowd this week that his administration is “working on” national right-to-carry, the clearest signal yet that the issue has the White House’s attention.

Trump made the comment Tuesday at the Mack Trucks facility in Macungie. He recognized NRA President Bill Bachenberg in the audience and credited the organization for standing behind him.

The president said Bachenberg had asked whether he would back national right-to-carry legislation. Trump put the question to the crowd, which answered with loud applause.

“National right to carry. Yeah, we’re working on it,” Trump said.

He treated the cheering room as his own polling operation, joking he did not need to pay anyone for numbers to know where his supporters stand.

Trump did not name a specific bill, and he did not say whether his team is drafting new legislation or pushing measures already on the table. That leaves two main vehicles in play.

Sen. Mike Lee of Utah introduced the National Constitutional Carry Act earlier this year. As described by its sponsor, the bill would let any American who can legally own a firearm carry without a permit, while barring states from imposing licensing requirements, fees, or criminal penalties on otherwise lawful carry. Anyone already prohibited under federal law would stay prohibited.

More from USA Carry:

• Hearing Scheduled for H.R. 822, the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011
• Important Right-to-Carry Reform Bills to be Heard in Oregon Senate Committee
• National Right-to-Carry Bill Under Attack
• National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Bill Reintroduced
• President Trump Signs Executive Order to Protect Second Amendment Rights

On the reciprocity side, Rep. Richard Hudson’s H.R. 38 would require states to honor concealed carry permits issued elsewhere, the way a driver’s license works across state lines. That bill has drawn dozens of co-sponsors but has not moved.

The distinction matters. Reciprocity forces states to recognize permits they did not issue. Constitutional carry removes the permit requirement altogether. Both expand where law-abiding citizens can lawfully carry, and Trump’s remark did not lock in either one.

For me, the takeaway is simple. A carry permit should not lose its meaning the moment you cross a state line, and the right to defend your own life does not stop at a border on a map. Hearing a sitting president say it out loud, standing next to the NRA’s president, is worth something.

It is also just a statement. Words at a rally are not a signature on a bill. But the politics are lining up, and Republican majorities already have the bills written.

I’ll keep tracking where this goes, including whether the administration puts its weight behind Lee’s bill, Hudson’s, or something new.

Read the original story: Trump Says He’s “Working On” National Right-to-Carry After NRA President Presses Him in Pennsylvania

Key Takeaways

• A Virginia judge has blocked the state’s new assault firearm ban, issuing a preliminary injunction that prevents enforcement while the case goes on.
• The injunction applies to the entire state, allowing licensed dealers to sell firearms while it remains in effect, but local law enforcement may still enforce laws.
• Plaintiffs, including John Crump and several gun organizations, argue that the ban violates the Virginia Constitution’s right to bear arms.
• The state plans to appeal the ruling, asserting that the ban is necessary for public safety despite the judge’s decision.
• This case is part of a broader legal challenge to SB749, with other cases pending decisions in various jurisdictions.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

LANCASTER, VA — A Virginia judge has blocked the state’s new “assault firearm” ban statewide, six days before it was set to take effect on July 1.

Lancaster County Circuit Court Judge John S. Martin granted a preliminary injunction Thursday in Crump v. Katz, barring the Virginia State Police from enforcing the ban while the case proceeds. He read the ruling from the bench. The injunction runs through December 31, 2026, or until the court issues a final order, according to Courthouse News.

This is the lawsuit I have been following since gun owners filed it one day after Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed SB749 into law. The plaintiffs are Second Amendment journalist John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and the Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation. The defendant is Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. Jeffrey S. Katz, sued in his official capacity.

The case turns on the Virginia Constitution. The plaintiffs argued SB749 violates Article I, Section 13, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. The Commonwealth took the remarkable position that the provision is a collective, militia-tied clause rather than an individual right, which would leave Virginians with less protection under their own constitution than they have under the Second Amendment. Judge Martin was not willing to let the ban take effect while that argument plays out.

There is also a wrinkle on who is carrying the case. According to plaintiff John Crump, who described the ruling on a livestream, the judge found GOA and VCDL lacked standing but that Crump, as a gun owner directly hit by the ban, did. The written order is not public yet, so I am treating that as preliminary until it spells out the court’s reasoning, which Van Cleave expects as soon as tomorrow.

The scope of the ruling matters as much as the result. The Commonwealth asked the judge to limit the injunction to Lancaster County. He refused. The state then asked him to stay his own order. He refused that too. The injunction now applies to the Virginia State Police across the entire Commonwealth, effective immediately.

Read that part carefully, though. The order runs against the State Police, and since dealer sales clear through the State Police background check system, licensed dealers across Virginia can sell these firearms again while the injunction holds. That is why this is being reported as a block on the sales ban. What the order does not do is bind local commonwealth’s attorneys or local police. That gap is real enough that the plaintiffs in a separate Washington County case argued the same day for a broader injunction reaching all law enforcement, not just the State Police. Until a court closes that gap, a local prosecutor who wants to charge someone over a private transfer is not bound by Thursday’s ruling.

More from USA Carry:

• New York Senate Advances Bill Requiring 10-Day Waiting Period for All Firearm Purchases
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against Massachusetts
• 13 Virginia Prosecutors Now Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban
• Virginia Concealed Carry Permit Information
• SAF Files for Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois Carry Ban

VCDL President Philip Van Cleave confirmed the injunction reaches both the assault firearm ban and the law’s prohibition on publicly carrying those firearms. The fate of the magazine restriction, the 15-round cap that was also set to hit July 1, is not yet clear. Van Cleave said he expected to know more soon. I will update readers once the written order spells out the full scope.

Van Cleave was confident about what comes next. “We expect the Commonwealth to appeal and we expect to prevail,” he said.

The Commonwealth is not done. Attorney General Jay Jones, in a statement posted by his office, called the ruling disappointing and said the state will “urgently file a motion to stay this ruling and appeal this temporary injunction.” He repeated the administration’s line that the ban keeps Virginians safe.

Gov. Spanberger’s office stood by the law, saying the governor believes firearms built to inflict maximum casualties do not belong near schools, families, or on Virginia streets.

House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore welcomed the decision, calling it “welcome, but not unexpected” given the constitutional warnings Republicans raised during the session.

Crump v. Katz is one of several state and federal challenges to SB749. A separate Spotsylvania County case, Curtis v. Katz, was denied a preliminary injunction last week, and an NRA-affiliated case in Washington County was argued the same day as the Lancaster ruling with no decision yet from the bench. The Virginia Supreme Court has convened a three-judge panel to decide whether the state cases should be consolidated.

For now, the broadest gun ban Virginia has passed in a generation is on hold. The state will run to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Virginia to try to undo it before July 1. I will track every step of the appeal and report what the higher courts do.

Read the original story: Virginia Judge Blocks Spanberger’s Assault Firearm Ban Statewide Days Before It Takes Effect

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of gun owners, striking down Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’ in Wolford v. Lopez.
• This ruling states that Hawaii cannot automatically prohibit carrying firearms on private property open to the public without explicit permission.
• The decision reinforces Second Amendment rights, rejecting Hawaii’s argument for a regional exception based on local customs.
• The ruling also sets a precedent that may challenge similar carry laws in other states like California and New York.
• While Hawaii’s default rule was struck down, its list of ‘sensitive places’ remains in effect for now.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court today handed gun owners a second straight win, striking down Hawaii’s so-called “Vampire Rule” in a 6-to-3 decision in Wolford v. Lopez.

I have been waiting on this one. The ruling, written by Justice Samuel Alito, holds that Hawaii cannot presume carry is forbidden on private property open to the public unless the owner first gives express permission. The Court found that default violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Here is what the law actually did. Most states let you lawfully carry into a business open to the public unless the owner posts a sign saying otherwise. Hawaii flipped that. Under Act 52, a permit holder committed a misdemeanor by carrying into a store, gas station, restaurant, or pharmacy unless the owner had affirmatively said yes, in writing, verbally, or by posted signage. Carrying without that permission carried up to a year behind bars.

The practical effect was a near-total carry ban. One judge below noted the law presumptively barred carry on more than 96 percent of the publicly accessible land in Maui County.

The Court did not buy it. The majority held the rule “hobbles what the Second Amendment protects,” forcing peaceable people to seek permission before walking into the businesses they visit every day.

The Court also shut the door on Hawaii’s regional-exception argument. Justice Alito wrote that the Second Amendment “cannot give way to ‘the spirit of Aloha’ in Hawaii” any more than it bends to local attitudes anywhere else.

The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief urging exactly this outcome, joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus.

More from USA Carry:

• Federal Court Drives a Stake Through New York’s “Vampire Rule,” But Won’t Touch the Park Ban
• Hawaii Concealed Carry Permit Information
• ‘Lawful Carry Is Dangerous’: Prosecutors Urge Supreme Court to Let States Ban Guns by Default
• First Hawaii Concealed Carry Permit Issued In Oahu After Bruen
• Hawaii Firearm Permits at Record High Level in 2011

“This law was nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to disarm peaceable citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut put the principle plainly, arguing the burden belongs “on the proprietor, not the private citizen,” the same way we all live with “no soliciting” signs.

The case was brought by three Maui County residents, led by Jason Wolford, and the Hawaii Firearms Coalition. The Firearms Policy Coalition and the California Gun Rights Foundation also backed the challengers, as did the federal government, which filed a brief and shared argument time on their side.

One important point of clarity, since I am already seeing it muddied online. This decision struck Hawaii’s private-property default rule. It did not touch Hawaii’s separate list of “sensitive places” like beaches, bars, parks, and schools, which were not before the Court. Those provisions stand for now, and the fight over them continues elsewhere.

The reach goes well past Hawaii. Four other states, California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland, adopted similar default rules after Bruen, and several were already blocked in lower courts. With this precedent in hand, those copycat statutes are squarely in the crosshairs, and I will be tracking the follow-on litigation closely.

Read the original story: Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule,’ Restoring Carry on Property Open to the Public

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner shot a burglary suspect while his family was inside the house in Medford, Oregon.
• Police responded to reports of a break-in on Gilman Road and safely evacuated the family.
• The suspect, Nathan Roberson, 21, had a gunshot wound and was taken into custody.
• Roberson is under police custody awaiting treatment and has not been formally charged.
• The article emphasizes the importance of being armed for home defense, especially with a family present.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MEDFORD, ORE. — A homeowner opened fire on a man trying to break into his house Sunday night while his family was still inside, and the suspect ended up in custody with a gunshot wound.

As reported by KOBI5 (NBC5), the Medford Police Department responded to a reported burglary in progress on the 800 block of Gilman Road at about 10:47 p.m. on June 21. The caller told dispatch that someone was trying to force entry and that the homeowner had fired shots.

The family inside got out safely and met responding officers at a spot away from the house. Officers then set up a perimeter.

With help from drone operators, police located and made contact with the suspect, 21‑year‑old Nathan Roberson, who was still inside the residence. Roberson was found with a gunshot wound.

More from USA Carry:

• Neighbor Fatally Shoots Intruder Beating Elderly Man Inside Medford Apartment
• Resident Fatally Shoots Knife-Wielding Intruder During Attempted Break-In in Medford, OR
• Oregon Apartment Resident Shoots Axe-Wielding Intruder Trying to Break Through Door
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Claimed She Wanted to Buy His House at 5AM
• Pawn Shop Employee Get Into Gunfight with Robbers, Hits One That is 14-Years-Old

He was taken into custody without further incident and brought to a local hospital for treatment. He remains in police custody while being treated. According to MPD, Roberson is from out of state and had been staying at a nearby hotel.

Roberson has not been formally charged. MPD says the Jackson County District Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case for charges, and the investigation is ongoing.

Here is the part that matters to me. A family was asleep in their own home when a stranger tried to force his way in. The threat in that moment is not to the furniture or the television. It is to the people inside. When seconds count, police are minutes away, and the only person standing between an intruder and that family was the homeowner. He got his family out and he had the means to answer the threat himself. That is exactly why I carry, and exactly why I keep a firearm within reach at home. I have a 10 year old in the house, so mine stays in a quick access safe on the nightstand, locked but ready in seconds. Secured and accessible are not opposites, and at 10:47 at night you want both.

Read the original story: Medford Homeowner Shoots Intruder Who Broke In While Family Was Home

Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department warns California to drop the Glock ban or face a lawsuit.
• California’s Glock ban takes effect July 1, limiting sales of many pistols.
• The DOJ argues this ban violates Second Amendment rights, as handguns are crucial for self-defense.
• California’s enforcement of handgun roster requirements is also under scrutiny for being unconstitutional.
• The federal timeline is tight, with California needing to respond by June 30.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Justice Department put California on notice this week: drop the Glock ban or get sued.

On June 24, Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, sent Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta a formal notice of suit. She gave the state until 5 p.m. Eastern on June 30 to say whether it will negotiate. If California does not respond, the United States may file its complaint without further notice.

Tick tock! On July 1, CA plans to impose an unconstitutional “Glock Ban.”
Today, I notified @CAGovernor & @AGRobBonta to drop the unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ rights to purchase legal firearms before the ban goes into effect, or we will sue. Stay tuned! pic.twitter.com/xhGmRt4VPz

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) June 24, 2026

The timing is no accident. The law in question, Penal Code section 27595(a), takes effect July 1. That is the day after the deadline.

Californians know this statute as the “Glock Ban.” It came out of Assembly Bill 1127, which Newsom signed last October. Starting July 1, licensed dealers cannot sell what the state calls a “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” In plain terms, that sweeps in nearly every Glock and Glock-style pistol built around a cruciform trigger bar.

The DOJ’s position is simple. Handguns are the arms Americans most often choose to defend themselves, and the Supreme Court said in Heller the government cannot ban them. California is banning the sale of the most popular handgun in the country.

Dhillon did not stop at AB 1127. The notice also targets California’s handgun roster, the list a pistol must appear on before a dealer can sell it. To make the roster, a handgun needs a chamber-load indicator, a magazine-disconnect mechanism, and, until recently, microstamping. Those demands are why no new handgun made the roster between 2013 and 2023.

More from USA Carry:

• Newsom Signs Law Banning Sale of Most Glocks in California, Targeting ‘Convertible Pistols’
• Second Amendment Groups Challenge Newsom’s “Backdoor Glock Ban” in Court
• Second Amendment Court Cases To Watch In 2023
• CZ Pistols Face California Compliance Review: Temporary Sales Suspension Recommended
• Taurus Optics Ready Option Revolvers Are Now California Approved!

A federal judge has already taken aim at those requirements. In Boland v. Bonta, the court held the roster’s feature mandates unconstitutional and ordered them enjoined. The judge wrote that Californians have a right to acquire current-generation handguns to protect themselves and should not be stuck with decade-old models to stay safe.

That injunction is stayed while the state appeals, so the roster rules remain in force for now. California also pushed its microstamping mandate out to January 1, 2028. The DOJ argues the provisions are unconstitutional regardless.

Here is the part worth watching. Dhillon is not only calling the laws unconstitutional. She is treating California’s enforcement of them as a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct, the same kind of claim the federal government brings against rogue police departments. The authority she cites is 34 U.S.C. section 12601.

The demands are blunt. The state must stop enforcing the laws, acknowledge they are unconstitutional, and agree to a court-enforceable consent decree permanently barring California from passing similar restrictions. The letter also orders state officials to preserve every record tied to the matter.

This is separate from the lawsuit gun-rights groups already filed. The NRA, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation sued over the same law last fall in Jaymes v. Bonta. Now the federal government is lining up its own case behind them.

I have said before that California treats the Second Amendment as a privilege the state hands out rather than a right the Constitution secures. A ban on selling America’s most common handgun is that mindset in action. It is good to finally see the Civil Rights Division turn the tools built for civil-rights enforcement toward defending this one.

The clock is running. California has until June 30 to blink, and the law is set to hit July 1. I will be tracking what the state does next and whether the United States follows through.

Read the original story: Justice Department Gives California Six Days to Drop Glock Ban or Face Federal Suit

Key Takeaways

• PHLster Holsters launched the Enigma Micro on June 23, designed for small pistols like the Ruger LCP II and Glock 42.
• The Micro is a beltless concealed carry rig, allowing for secure, adjustable carry without the bulk of traditional holsters.
• Its innovative CamWing design offers on-body adjustability for concealment, ride height, cant, and retention while wearing it.
• Each holster comes custom molded to your chosen gun, along with a lifetime warranty and resources for setup and tuning.
• Founder Jon Hauptman emphasizes the Micro’s focus on users who prioritize safety and functionality in their everyday carry.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

PHLster Holsters released the Enigma Micro on June 23, a beltless concealed carry rig built specifically for the small pistols a lot of people now carry as their primary gun.

It is available now at phlsterholsters.com for $150, fully assembled and ready to wear out of the box.

The Micro fits three of the most popular pocket-size pistols at launch: the Ruger LCP II and LCP Max, the Glock 42, and the Smith & Wesson Bodyguard 2.0. The Carry Comp and Performance Center versions of the Bodyguard 2.0 are not covered by the Micro and stay on the Enigma Express lineup. Each holster ships custom molded to the gun you choose.

Like the original Enigma, the Micro carries securely against the body without a gun belt. It is the same beltless approach the original Enigma is known for, and it lets people carry under clothing a traditional belt holster cannot handle.

What makes the Micro different is on-body adjustability. PHLster says it is the first holster of any kind that lets you tune concealment, ride height, cant, and retention while you are wearing it.

The piece doing that work is a patent-pending part PHLster calls the CamWing. It is a small tapered wing that presses the holster into the body as the belt tightens, which gives a tiny holster a real concealment wing without adding bulk.

PHLster founder Jon Hauptman framed the launch around the people who carry these guns out of necessity, not convenience. He said the company built the Micro to take those carriers “as seriously as they take their own safety.”

That line gets at the whole point of the product. For some people a pocket .380 is a backup gun. For a lot of others it is the most gun they can fit into their day, given their body, their clothing, their job, or their routine. The Micro is aimed squarely at that second group.

More from USA Carry:

• Carrying a Tourniquet: Considerations and Strategies
• Draw and Reholster Techniques When the Gun is Below the Waistband
• Summer Concealed Carry: How to Stay Armed in the Heat
• Car Holsters Put to the Ultimate Crash Test in PHLster’s “PHLiesta” Experiment
• STOP Printing and START Concealing your Gun

Key features include a new Enigma faceplate, ultra-low-profile custom hardware, adjustable ride height and cant, PHLster’s ComfortScape molding on each holster, and both single and two-point leg leashes. Every Micro comes with PHLster’s lifetime warranty and access to the company’s free setup guides, video library, and live tune-up classes.

I have carried Enigmas since the original launch, so this one had my attention the moment it dropped. I own a Bodyguard 2.0 that I have only ever run in a pocket holster, never on my waist. PHLster sent me a Micro to put through its paces. I am out of town until July 3, so the real testing starts when I get home, and I will report back once I have lived with it for a while.

What I keep coming back to with this company is how much thought goes into the design. PHLster brings real innovation to a category that does not see much of it, and the Micro looks like another example of solving a problem most makers ignore.

Read the original story: PHLster’s New Enigma Micro Is Here: Beltless Carry for the LCP, Glock 42, and Bodyguard 2.0

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation and partners are appealing a court ruling that limits a handgun sales ban relief to certain members.
• They argue the federal court’s decision in Reese v. BATFE violates the Second Amendment for adults ages 18-20.
• The district court’s judgment only protects members in the Fifth Circuit and as of January 27, 2026, which the groups contest.
• They claim the government could have sought Supreme Court review but chose not to, thus undermining broader relief.
• The appeal maintains that gun rights should not be restricted by state boundaries and that all affected adults deserve full protection.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

NEW ORLEANS, LA — The Second Amendment Foundation and two partner organizations have asked the Fifth Circuit to expand a court victory that struck down the federal ban on handgun sales to adults under 21, arguing the relief they won is being withheld from most of their members.

In an opening brief filed June 22, 2026, as announced by the Second Amendment Foundation, the groups challenged how a federal district court applied last year’s ruling.

The dispute traces back to Reese v. BATFE, where the Fifth Circuit held in January 2025 that the federal prohibition on licensed handgun and handgun ammunition sales to 18-to-20-year-olds violates the Second Amendment. The court found that adults in that age range are part of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.

The government chose not to ask the Supreme Court to review that decision.

On remand, the district court entered judgment for the plaintiffs but sharply narrowed the remedy. It limited the injunction to members living within the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana), and only to those who were members as of the date judgment was entered on January 27, 2026.

SAF and its partners, Firearms Policy Coalition and the Louisiana Shooting Association, argue both limits are unsupported by law and leave the government free to keep enforcing an unconstitutional ban against the vast majority of their members.

More from USA Carry:

• Gun Rights Groups in Nevada Celebrate Legislative Victories
• Things You Need To Know About Concealed Carry Today
• SAF Scores Victory In California Non-Resident Carry Case
• A Victory for Oregon Universities’ Students, Staff and Faculty
• [BREAKING] Illinois Gun Ban – Federal Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction

The brief contends the government tried to make the win “a victory in name only.” It leans on the long-settled principle that courts should grant a prevailing party complete relief, not a remedy carved down to a fraction of those harmed.

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said, “There is no doubt adults in this age range are part of ‘the People.'”

The groups also point out that the government, unlike private litigants, is not bound by this loss in any way that would justify limiting who benefits from it. If the government wanted to contain the nationwide reach of the ruling, they argue, it could have sought Supreme Court review and chose not to.

A related case, West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. ATF, challenges the same federal law and is awaiting word on whether the Supreme Court will take it up.

A court victory that protects only some law-abiding adults in three states is no real victory, and the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at a circuit boundary. I will continue tracking this appeal as the Fifth Circuit weighs whether to restore the full relief these young adults are owed.

Read the original story: Second Amendment Foundation Fights to Extend Under-21 Handgun Ban Victory Nationwide

Key Takeaways

• A woman used pepper spray on her ex-boyfriend after he broke into her home and attacked her.
• When pepper spray failed, she shot him three times, resulting in critical injuries.
• The incident highlights the importance of having multiple self-defense tools, like pepper spray and firearms.
• Pepper spray may not always stop an attacker, making it necessary to have a backup plan.
• No charges have been filed against the woman for her actions in self-defense.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

FORT WORTH, TEXAS — A woman pepper sprayed and then shot her ex-boyfriend after he broke into her home and began attacking her, striking him three times.

Officers responded to a report of gunshots at the 5500 block of Hidden Creek just after 7 a.m., as reported by WFAA. When they arrived, police found the incident had been a domestic situation where the man entered the woman’s home without permission and began assaulting her.

The woman deployed pepper spray against her attacker first. When that did not stop him, she drew her firearm and fired, striking him three times. He was transported to the hospital with critical injuries. No charges have been reported against the woman.

More from USA Carry:

• Woman Shoots Two Early Morning Burglars Then Gets Pepper Sprayed
• Suspect Uses Pepper Spray in Carjacking, Victim Responds with Gun
• Intruders w/ Pepper Spray Demanded Money & Valuables; Got This Instead…
• Vape Shop Employee Shoots Armed Robber During Attempted Robbery in Fort Worth
• Fort Worth Homeowner Shoots Alleged Intruder During Attempted Break-In

What stands out to me about this case is the layered approach to self-defense. I carry pepper spray alongside my firearm, because they are different tools for different situations. There are moments where pepper spray is the appropriate response and a firearm is not, and having that option gives you a way to meet a threat without escalating to lethal force when it is not warranted.

But this incident is also a reminder of something you have to be prepared for: pepper spray does not always work. Some people fight through it. Some are impaired by drugs or alcohol and barely react. The spray did not stop her attacker here, and she had to escalate. Luckily she had a firearm to defend herself with when the less-lethal option failed. That is exactly why I do not treat pepper spray as a replacement for a firearm. It is a complement to one. If you carry less-lethal tools, you should also have a plan and the means for when they do not end the threat.

Read the original story: Fort Worth Woman Pepper Sprays, Then Shoots Ex-Boyfriend Who Broke In

Key Takeaways

• Filmed Episode 62 on June 12th, flying Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas with an easy check-in.
• Handled firearms declaration smoothly with TSA, confirmed no lithium batteries were present.
• Emphasized the importance of self-defense coverage with CCW Safe while waiting at the airport.
• Arrived in Las Vegas, retrieved luggage, and checked firearm case locks without issues.
• Overall, the travel process was smooth and as expected.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 62 was filmed June 12th, flying Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas. Easy check-in, bag on the carousel.

Check-In at MSY

Declared firearms. I was traveling with my Condition 1 16″ 3 Pistol Case #179 inside a regular piece of luggage. Agent asked about lithium batteries, vapes, and power banks — none. Handed me the declaration form and a pen. When I mentioned the sleeve she said it would work wonderfully. Put it in, and I was good to go.

Set my 15-minute timer and waited just in case TSA needed access.

A Word About CCW Safe

While I was on my 15-minute wait I talked about something worth mentioning here too. If you carry concealed, you need self defense coverage. My choice is CCW Safe. I cover defensive gun use incidents nearly every day and I know what the aftermath looks like. Having someone in your corner from the moment something happens — walking you through the process, picking up the phone on the emergency line — is reassuring. I’ve seen their team respond firsthand and they don’t hesitate. If you carry, you should have coverage.

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 48 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 42 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 54 – Southwest from Houston to New Orleans
• Flying with Guns: Episode 49 – Southwest from MSY to LAS
• Flying with Guns: Episode 57 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans

Arrival in Las Vegas

Bag came out on the carousel at LAS. Opened it up, checked the locks on the Condition 1 case — intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Smooth process. Same as it should be.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 62 – Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas

Key Takeaways

• Layzon Breland, 26, was shot multiple times in his home after an altercation with an armed man.
• Breland tried to escape upstairs but was followed and shot, despite returning fire.
• Yasim McDonald, 27, was identified as the shooter and faces charges of criminal homicide and tampering with evidence.
• Rapid DNA tests linked McDonald to blood found at the scene, and he remains in custody pending a preliminary hearing.
• Breland’s mother has set up a fundraiser to cover his funeral and memorial costs.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

COOLBAUGH TOWNSHIP, PA — A Monroe County man died inside his own home last week after another man forced his way in and chased him upstairs at gunpoint, according to Pocono Mountain Regional Police.

Police say Layzon Breland, 26, of Tobyhanna, was shot multiple times, including a fatal wound to the head, in the upstairs bedroom of his Chelsea Circle home on June 18. Officers were dispatched just before 8 p.m. and found him gravely wounded. He died at the scene despite efforts to save him.

Investigators say the confrontation began outside, with a physical fight between Breland and another man in the front yard. Breland tried to retreat into the house. The other man forced the front door back open and came in after him, now armed with a handgun, police say.

Breland ran upstairs to his bedroom to get away. According to police, the armed man followed him up the stairs and started firing. Breland grabbed a handgun of his own and fired back. Both men were struck. Breland did not survive.

There is nothing triumphant about this story. A young man is dead. But the detail I keep returning to is that Breland had to reach for a firearm stored in his bedroom while an armed attacker was already coming up the stairs after him. Those few seconds are everything.

This is about as clear a case as I can point to for carrying on your person instead of leaving a gun in a nightstand or a drawer across the room. A firearm you have to run to is one you may never reach. The one you are carrying is the one that is actually there the moment someone forces his way through your door.

The man who fled left a blood trail running from the bedroom, through the house, and out to the street, investigators say. Roughly half an hour later, a white vehicle dropped a wounded man at a hospital in Scranton.

More from USA Carry:

• Elderly Man that Shot Killed Unarmed Man Ruled Justifiable Homicide
• Homeowner Shoots Intruder Found in Daughter’s Bedroom
• Mother Arrested After Starting Argument at Miami-Dade McDonald’s, Gun ‘Discharges When Dropped,’ Injuring 15-Year-Old Daughter
• My 3 Favorite Tactical Flashlights
• Would-Be Intruder Shot by Apartment Resident

That man was identified as Yasim McDonald, 27, of Scranton. Police say he had a gunshot wound to the arm and matched the description witnesses gave. Detectives recovered a projectile from him consistent with the 9mm casings found in Breland’s bedroom.

The office of Monroe County District Attorney Mike Mancuso says rapid DNA testing linked McDonald to blood from the fleeing shooter’s trail, with a full forensic report still pending. The white Kia, rented by McDonald’s girlfriend the day before, allegedly showed dried blood and signs of an attempted cleanup.

McDonald has been charged with criminal homicide and tampering with evidence. The charges were approved by Assistant District Attorney Chad Martinez and filed after an investigation by Detectives Donald Scarfo and Zachary Scheetz. He was arraigned and remains in custody, with a preliminary hearing set for later this month. The charges are allegations, and McDonald has not been convicted.

Breland’s mother has set up a fundraiser to help cover funeral and memorial costs for her son.

Read the original story: Scranton Man Charged With Homicide After Pocono Homeowner Dies in Bedroom Gunfight

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation sued Contra Costa County over unique carry restrictions on firearms.
• The lawsuit challenges policies that prohibit attaching red dot sights and flashlights to handguns, as well as banning 1911-style pistols.
• Residents with valid CCW permits, Andrew Moore and James Treuel, filed the complaint due to fear of prosecution.
• The case argues that these restrictions lack historical tradition and violate the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision.
• SAF seeks a court declaration declaring these policies unconstitutional and is tracking the case in the Northern District of California.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

MARTINEZ, CALIF. — The Second Amendment Foundation has sued Contra Costa County over carry restrictions that, by the group’s account, exist nowhere else in the country.

The federal complaint, filed June 17 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenges Sheriff’s Office policies that bar concealed carry permit holders from attaching red dot sights or flashlights to their handguns. The same policies ban carrying single action only semiautomatic pistols built on the 1911 platform.

SAF is joined by two Contra Costa County residents, Andrew Moore and James Treuel. Both hold valid CCW permits issued by the county. Both say they have held back from setting up their carry guns the way they want, out of fear of prosecution or losing their permits.

The Sheriff’s Office spells the rule out on its own permit page. Its guidance states that “Firearms with attached laser sights, flashlights, red dots, and sighting systems are not acceptable.” A separate line bars any single action only firearm, including any semiautomatic handgun built on the Colt 1911 configuration.

I have a hard time reading those policies as anything but an outlier. Red dot sights and weapon lights are standard gear for millions of armed citizens, and they do exactly what defensive equipment should do. They help you see the threat and place your shots only on that threat, especially in low light.

The complaint rests on the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under Bruen, the government must point to a historical tradition that matches a modern restriction. SAF argues no such tradition exists for banning optics, lights, or the 1911.

“These are common, popular and safety-enhancing features,” said Kostas Moros, SAF’s director of legal research and education. He argued the restrictions cannot survive scrutiny under Bruen.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Shoots Suspect Who Tried to Run Him Down Using His Own Stolen Vehicle
• SAF Seeks Injunction Against NYC Gun Permit Regulation
• Some Thoughts on CCW in Schools
• Bystander Injured in Shootout Between Burglary Suspects and Concealed Carry Holder on Chicago’s South Side
• Armed Citizen Fires at Robbers After Woman Pistol-Whipped & Robbed in Chicago, Suspects Flee Unharmed

The suit also highlights a contradiction baked into state law. Because California CCW permits are valid statewide, a permit holder from any other county can legally carry a red dot, a weapon light, or a 1911 straight through Contra Costa County. Only the county’s own residents are boxed out.

The 1911 is hardly exotic. It served as the U.S. Army’s standard sidearm from 1911 to 1985 and remains one of the most popular handgun designs in the country. The complaint notes that several California agencies, including the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department SWAT team, Los Angeles County Sheriffs, and the Long Beach Police Department, have adopted Staccato 2011 pistols built on the same single action only design.

The lawsuit targets only the ban on single action only semiautomatic pistols. It does not challenge the county’s separate restriction on single action revolvers such as the Colt Single Action Army.

The named defendants are Contra Costa County, the Sheriff’s Office, and Sheriff David Livingston in his official capacity. SAF is asking the court to declare the policies unconstitutional, to enjoin their enforcement, and to award nominal damages and attorney’s fees.

The case is Second Amendment Foundation v. Contra Costa County. I will be tracking it as it moves through the Northern District of California.

Read the original story: SAF Sues the Only County in America That Bans Red Dots, Lights and 1911s for Permit Holders

Key Takeaways

• A man shot one of two armed robbers outside a convenience store in north Tulsa, leaving the suspect in critical condition.
• The robbers, one with a knife and one with a gun, targeted the man as he was near 36th Street North and Lewis Avenue.
• The man fired his weapon after being attacked, striking one robber in the head; the other suspect remains at large.
• Investigators are reviewing surveillance footage and the man is cooperating with authorities.
• This incident highlights the disparities in force during armed confrontations and the need for self-defense options.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

TULSA, OKLA. — A man who police say was targeted by two armed robbers outside a north Tulsa convenience store drew his own firearm Thursday evening and shot one of them, leaving the suspect in critical condition.

The Tulsa Police Department says two suspects, one armed with a knife and one armed with a firearm, tried to rob the man near 36th Street North and Lewis Avenue, as reported by News On 6.

Police say the man pulled his own gun and fired, striking one suspect in the head. That suspect ran across the street and collapsed, then was taken to a hospital in critical condition.

Investigators are still searching for the second suspect and reviewing surveillance footage from the store.

More from USA Carry:

• Tulsa Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attacker, Injures Another After Group Assault
• Woman Fatally Shoots Child’s Father During Alleged Assault in Tulsa Apartment
• Stop Using Crappy Holsters | Holster Fail During Draw in DGU Incident
• Tulsa Teen Grabs Gun, Kills Father Who Police Say Was Attacking His Mother
• Dropped Wallet Leads Tulsa Police Straight To Burglar Shot By Homeowner

The man who fired the shot is “cooperating with investigators,” according to TPD.

Two attackers, one with a blade and one with a gun, is exactly the kind of disparity of force that leaves a person no good options. This is a reminder that the ability to defend yourself does not get to choose its moment.

Read the original story: Tulsa Man Outguns Two Robbers, Drops One With a Shot to the Head

Key Takeaways

• The lawsuit Moser v. Nessel challenges Michigan’s pistol purchase permit system in federal court.
• Plaintiffs argue that the License to Purchase is redundant and unconstitutional, as it allows local agencies to deny permits without solid reasoning.
• Several individuals detail how they faced unjust denials from police departments despite passing federal background checks.
• The lawsuit also targets Michigan’s pistol records system, which plaintiffs claim acts as a de facto registry without proper regulations.
• This case could impact permit-to-purchase laws across multiple states if the court rules against Michigan’s system.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

GRAND RAPIDS, MICH. — The National Rifle Association and three Michigan gun rights groups have dragged the state’s pistol purchase permit system into federal court, and they picked a strong target.

The lawsuit, Moser v. Nessel, was filed June 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. It challenges Michigan’s License to Purchase, or LTP, the permit a resident without a concealed pistol license must get before buying a handgun.

Here is the core problem. A law-abiding adult can walk into a gun shop, pass the federal NICS background check, and still get turned away because a local police chief refused to sign off on a separate state permit.

The plaintiffs argue that permit is redundant, discretionary, and unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling.

Michigan lets a local agency deny an LTP on “probable cause” that the applicant would be a threat or would commit an offense with the gun. The complaint calls that a predictive, standardless judgment with no meaningful appeal.

The filing puts it bluntly, describing the statute as “shall issue” in form but “may issue” in operation.

The four individual plaintiffs show how that plays out.

Dean Moser says Troy police denied him over old “contacts” that were misrepresented. When he applied in Battle Creek, he says he was denied automatically based on Troy’s earlier decision. Neither department offered an appeal.

Thomas Overly was denied by Kentwood police. He went to the FBI, which confirmed he had no prohibiting record and issued him a federal identification number. Kentwood still refused to let him buy.

David Raney says the Kalamazoo County Sheriff’s Office turned him away before he could even fill out an application, telling him he was not a county resident.

Reagan Janson was denied by Walker police on “probable cause” because the department believed she had applied in other jurisdictions.

More from USA Carry:

• Michigan Open Carry
• Michigan Bills Could End Many Gun-Free Zones, Expanding Carry to Bars and Churches
• Lock Your Doors! Armed Robbers Walk Right In, Hold Owner at Gunpoint and Steal His Gun
• Michigan Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Who Broke Into Attached Apartment and Assaulted Tenant Before Trying to Enter Home
• Michigan Man Shoots Himself in Thigh While Testing a Holster

The suit also targets Michigan’s pistol records system. Every handgun sale gets reported to a statewide database run by the Michigan State Police, linking specific guns to specific owners. The plaintiffs call that a de facto registry with no historical pedigree, the exact kind of regulation Bruen put under the microscope.

The defendants include Attorney General Dana Nessel, Michigan State Police Director Col. James Grady II, and several cities, police chiefs, and a county sheriff who administer the permits.

The plaintiffs want the court to strike the licensing and registration provisions, block enforcement, and order the state to purge firearm ownership records tied to the plaintiffs.

I have said it before. A right you have to ask permission to exercise is not a right, it is a privilege. Michigan stacked a permission slip on top of a federal background check that already does the job, then handed local officials a discretionary veto with no appeal. That is the abusive, discretionary licensing Bruen warned against.

This case reaches past Michigan. Permit-to-purchase laws sit on the books in several states, and a federal ruling here could shape how courts treat all of them. I will be tracking Moser v. Nessel as it moves through the Western District.

Read the original story: NRA Takes Michigan’s Pistol Permit System to Federal Court Over ‘Discretionary’ Denials

The crash happened just before 6:30 p.m. at a home on Morenci Road, in a neighborhood near Hunt Highway and Coppermine Road. As reported by AZ Family, deputies with the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office found that an SUV driven by a 34-year-old man had plowed into the house, injuring a man and a woman inside.

Investigators said one of the residents shot and killed the driver after the crash. The driver has not been publicly identified.

The injured woman was taken to a Valley hospital. The male resident was taken into custody and interviewed by detectives, then released. He was later taken to a hospital for his own injuries.

A vehicle is a deadly weapon, and a driver who has already put one through your wall and injured the people inside gives a resident every reason to fear what comes next. Arizona law recognizes the right to answer a threat of death or serious physical injury with force, and a crash that violent, that sudden, and that close to your family is exactly the kind of intrusion that can put a person in fear for their life. Investigators have not announced a determination, and any charges would go to the county attorney for review. But detectives questioned the resident and let him walk the same night rather than booking him, which is not how things tend to go when deputies think someone is the aggressor.

The investigation is ongoing. The sheriff’s office said any potential criminal charges will be sent to the county attorney’s office for review once it is complete.

Read the original story: Resident Shoots, Kills Driver After SUV Slams Into San Tan Valley Home