Key Takeaways

• Todd Green’s passing in 2016 reminds us of missed training opportunities with influential instructors.
• Several notable instructors have died, leaving the community with regrets about lost training chances.
• Aging instructors like Dave Spaulding and Tom Givens are reducing their training schedules, making future opportunities limited.
• This current generation of instructors holds vital historical context in firearms training that is irreplaceable.
• To avoid regret, seize training opportunities now as they may become scarce.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

In March of 2016, Todd Louis Green, who went by ToddG online, passed away after a hard fight with cancer. This past March, 10 years since his passing, has brought this lesson to mind. I missed training with him by a year or so. He was scheduled to teach a class in Oklahoma a year or two prior, and ended up canceling most of his road courses to pursue treatment. Todd was the guy behind pistol-training.com, and even though I had not trained with him in person, was influential in both my shooting and writing journey. Being able to attend one of his classes would have likely been even more influential in the level of performance I could bring to shooting. Missing that opportunity because I was slow to the punch is a regret of my training journey. 

The Years Past

If you have paid attention to the training industry for the past 15-20 years, you will note several instructors that have passed well before they should have. We, as a community, losing the opportunity to train with them. Todd Green is one that I regret not training with when I had the chance quite a bit. William Aprill, Paul Gomez, James Yeager, and Pat Rogers are others that the training community have missed due to their passing. 

The Years Ahead

There is also a cadre of industry leaders that are aging out of the training game. The ones I mentioned earlier, all those notable instructors passed, some rather unexpectedly. We don’t necessarily get the grace of seeing those things coming. But, if we are paying attention, we do see the more senior members of the instructor community drawing closer to retirement, and once they retire the opportunity to train with them is often lost. Names like Dave Spaulding, Tom Givens, Clint Smith, Mas Ayoob, John Farnham, and Ken Hackathorn. Ken has been retired for a few years now. Dave is technically already retired, although he has been dabbling here and there still. Tom Givens has announced he is starting to reduce his training load, and Clint Smith has stepped away from Thunder Ranch, although has maintained that he will continue to teach.

More from USA Carry:

• Meet the Emissary | Springfield Armory’s New 1911
• The Compact Grip: Shooting Pistols with a Compromised Grasp
• What I Learned From a USPSA Grand Master With Zero Match Experience
• A Basic Checklist and Suggestions to Help Your Handgun Grip
• The 30 Super Carry: Innovation or Insignificant?

Bridging the Gap

This particular generation of instructor I think is incredibly important. They bridge an important gap in firearms training history, from the early days of places like Gunsite and the birth of the modern technique, to the current era of firearms training. They possess a historical context that cannot be easily replicated, if at all. Much of the commercial training industry that we enjoy now, was built off the backs of these instructors.  We would be wise to carefully consider where our training dollars get spent, and make those decisions understanding that we may soon lose opportunities to train with the people who have helped to build and mature this industry. They say that wisdom is learning from the experience of others, without having to experience the regret that may come from that experience. So, take it from me, a guy who has missed training with people he would have liked to. If you have the means, don’t miss the opportunities, because they may be getting fewer and fewer.

Read the original story: Footsteps of Giants

Key Takeaways

• The NRA and two out-of-state gun owners sued Denver, claiming they cannot carry handguns legally in the city.
• The lawsuit targets Colorado laws that deny out-of-state carry permits and Denver’s ban on open carry.
• One plaintiff, Greg Howeth, faced denial for a permit due to lack of a Colorado ID despite having training and a clean record.
• The second plaintiff, Zackary Dougherty, could not submit a permit application as the online form restricted non-residents.
• The plaintiffs argue that historical laws supported visitors’ rights to carry, and recent court decisions favor out-of-state Second Amendment rights.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

DENVER, CO — The National Rifle Association and two gun owners from other states sued Denver and the state of Colorado on August 12, 2026. Their claim is short and blunt. If you live somewhere else and you come to Denver, there is no legal way to carry a handgun to protect yourself. Not hidden under a jacket, not out in the open. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The two men suing are Greg Howeth of Maui County, Hawaii, and Zackary Dougherty of Greenville County, South Carolina. The NRA joined the case for its members who live outside Colorado and say they would carry in Denver if they were allowed to. The suit targets two Colorado laws, Colorado Revised Statutes 18-12-203 and 18-12-213, and part of Denver’s own city code, section 38-117. The people named as defendants are the City and County of Denver, public safety director Al Gardner, police chief Ron Thomas, city attorney Miko Brown, Sheriff Elias Diggins, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, and state public safety director Stan Hilkey. They are sued because of the jobs they hold, not for anything they did personally.

Two rules stack on top of each other here. States handle out-of-state carry permits in two ways. Some states sign agreements with each other. Others skip the agreement and simply decide on their own to honor permits issued elsewhere. Colorado does not accept the permits these men carry. That closes the concealed door. Then Denver’s city code bans carrying a gun openly, which closes the other one. My reciprocity maps show which states honor which permits.

Howeth’s part of the case is worth walking through. The complaint says he is a U.S. citizen, over 21, with no criminal record and no mental health history that would bar him from owning a gun. He holds a Utah permit. He owns a second home in Weld County, Colorado. He took the training Colorado requires and got a certificate from an approved instructor saying he passed. He applied to the Weld County Sheriff’s Department on or about May 26, 2026.

Two days later he got a phone call from the woman who handles permits for the county, then an email. He was denied. The reason given, according to the complaint, was that he does not have a Colorado ID.

Training finished. Certificate in hand. Clean record. A house in the county. Denied over the state printed on his license.

The complaint says he carries legally at home in Hawaii and in the more than 30 states that honor his Utah permit, and that he carries openly in parts of Colorado outside Denver where that is allowed. It also says the Hawaii permit he already holds took a tougher background check, more mental health screening, more class time, and a live-fire test at least as hard as Colorado’s. He flies into Denver International Airport to see family and to get to his second home, and he stops in the city to eat, shop, and run errands.

Dougherty never even got a denial. On April 19, 2026, he tried to apply through the Denver Police Department’s online permit form. The complaint says the form would not let him hit submit, because he is not a Colorado resident. He lived in Loveland until August 2025, his employer is still there, and he has friends in Denver. He carries legally in South Carolina, trains with his handgun, and shoots in competitions.

Most of the complaint is history, and it cuts the opposite way from what you might expect. The plaintiffs list dozens of old laws, some from the 1600s and 1800s, that restricted carrying weapons but let travelers carry anyway. An 1813 Kentucky law exempted anyone “travelling on a journey.” City rules in Dallas, San Antonio, San Francisco, Memphis, Indianapolis, and Boise did the same thing. Arkansas courts explained why: a traveler faces dangers on the road that a man does not face among his own neighbors, so he gets to be armed. The point the plaintiffs are making is that visitors used to get more protection, not none.

The complaint also points to recent rulings. Judges in California and New York have struck down limits on carry by out-of-state visitors. A federal court blocked Hawaii’s version by agreement of both sides. Massachusetts’ highest court threw out the part of that state’s permit system that let an official deny a nonresident a permit at his own discretion, even when the applicant was otherwise qualified and law-abiding. And a court in Washington, D.C., held that people who live elsewhere still have Second Amendment rights when they are there. The plaintiffs quote a line from this year’s Supreme Court decision in Wolford v. Lopez: “the Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States.”

What they want from the court is a ruling that these laws, working together, violate the Second Amendment, and an order telling Denver and the state to stop enforcing them that way. They are asking for that on behalf of every out-of-state visitor in the same spot, not just the two of them. They also ask for damages and attorney fees. Their lawyers are Matthew Larosiere and Alan Beck.

More from USA Carry:

• Shots Fired at US Capitol Visitors Center; Officer Injured
• Woman With VA Concealed Carry Permit Arrested After Self-Defense in Maryland — SAF Urges Supreme Court Review
• DOJ Sues City of Denver Over Assault Weapons Ban, Calls Local Ordinance a Civil Rights Violation Under Second Amendment
• Resident Startled by Intruder After Returning Home at 1 AM, Fatally Shoots Suspect
• Texas Set to Recognize All Valid Out-of-State Handgun Licenses Starting September, Pending Governor’s Signature

None of this has been decided. These are claims in a lawsuit. Denver and the state have not filed a response, no judge has ruled, and the way the complaint describes these laws is the plaintiffs’ description of them.

What stands out to me is how ordinary these two men are. One owns a home in the state and did the training the state asks for. The other lived in Colorado a year ago and still works for a Colorado employer. Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing the rules everywhere you go, and if the complaint is right about Denver, the rule there is that a trained, screened, law-abiding American crosses the city line and has no lawful way to defend himself.

Read the original story: Denied Over the State on His Driver’s License: NRA Sues Denver, Says Visitors Have No Legal Way to Carry a Gun There

Key Takeaways

• A man is in critical condition after being shot by a woman’s son during an assault in a restaurant parking lot in Indianapolis.
• The incident occurred at Carrabba’s Italian Grill after the son witnessed his mother being abused.
• The son cooperated with police, providing his account of the event without trying to flee.
• Police have not made any arrests or filed charges; the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office will determine the next steps.
• Details about the circumstances leading to the shooting remain unclear, including the level of threat the son perceived.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

INDIANAPOLIS, IN — A man is in critical condition after police say a woman’s son shot him during an assault in a restaurant parking lot on the city’s south side.

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department was called just before 7 p.m. Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2026, to Carrabba’s Italian Grill at 4690 Southport Crossing Drive, a restaurant off East Southport Road near the I-65 interchange, as reported by WRTV.

Investigators believe the man had been abusing a woman in the parking lot. Police say her son arrived. He shot the man. The man was critically injured.

Officers at the scene did not identify anyone involved. The woman, her son, and the man who was shot all remain unnamed.

The son stayed at the scene and cooperated with police, according to IMPD. He gave investigators his account in the first minutes instead of leaving them to reconstruct it from witnesses and camera footage, and he presented himself as a cooperative witness rather than a fleeing suspect.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and defense of another person is measured by that same standard: what the defender reasonably perceived in the moment he acted. That is the standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. Police have not described what this son saw when he pulled into that parking lot, how far the assault had gone, or whether the man was armed.

More from USA Carry:

• Indianapolis Resident Turns Tables in Home Invasion, Fatally Shoots Intruder with His Own Gun
• Man Attacks Two Women, Stabs One Gets Shot and Killed By The Other
• Domestic Violence Situation Leads to Woman Shooting Man in Neck
• Woman Killed, Three Injured in Indianapolis Shootout Between Neighbors Over Fireworks Dispute
• 22-Year-Old That Stopped Mass Shooting Was Carrying Under Indiana’s Constitutional Carry Law

No arrest has been announced and no charges have been filed. IMPD says the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office will determine whether any criminal charges are appropriate, which is the correct order of operations. Police document the scene and describe conduct. Prosecutors decide.

He was there for his mother. Police say a man was attacking her in the open, at dinner hour, in a parking lot off a busy interstate interchange, and it had not stopped on its own. Nobody can say how far it was going to go if her son had not pulled in when he did.

Read the original story: Woman’s Son Shoots Man Investigators Say Was Assaulting Her in an Indianapolis Carrabba’s Parking Lot at 7 P.M.

Key Takeaways

• A 16-year-old got shot in New Orleans East after pointing a gun at a man walking to his car.
• The incident occurred early Tuesday morning on Morrison Road in the Pines Village neighborhood.
• The man responded by drawing his firearm and firing at the juvenile, hitting him in the buttock.
• Both juveniles fled the scene but were later apprehended by police.
• No charges have been announced against the man who fired his weapon.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

NEW ORLEANS, LA — A man walking out to his car in New Orleans East shot a 16-year-old early Tuesday after one of two juveniles climbing out of the vehicle pointed a gun at him, according to the New Orleans Police Department.

The shooting happened shortly before 2 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 11, 2026, in the 6300 block of Morrison Road in the Pines Village neighborhood, as reported by WVUE.

The man told police he was walking to his car when he saw the passenger door standing open and two juveniles climbing out of it, according to the NOPD. One of them pointed a gun at him.

He drew his own firearm. He fired. One of the two was hit.

Both juveniles ran from the scene on foot. Officers apprehended them a short time later, police said. The wounded 16-year-old was shot in the buttock and taken to a hospital for treatment. His condition has not been disclosed.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Exchanged Gunfire with 16-Year-Old During Robbery Attempt, Both Shot
• Concealed Carrier Not Charged After Shooting 16-Year-Old; Police Say It Was In Self-Defense
• Fort Worth Robbery Attempt Ends Fatally After Gun Discharges During Struggle
• Home Invasion Leaves Homeowner Wounded, Juvenile Suspect Shot in Head
• Homeowner Sends Masked Intruders Fleeing After They Use Hidden Key to Enter Connecticut Home, Juvenile Suspect Shot

By his account, the gun was already up and on him before his hand ever reached his own. That is drawing from the drop. Pressing a trigger on a gun that is already pointed will always be faster than drawing and then pressing a trigger, and no amount of range time rewrites that math. The only real answer is seeing the problem early enough that you are never standing in that spot.

The wound location deserves a straight word. A round that lands in the buttock can mean the person was turned away when it hit. The NOPD account does not say the juveniles were running when the man fired, and it does not break the sequence down any finer than a gun pointed at him and a shot that followed. No charging decision against the man who fired has been announced. People move fast in an exchange that lasts a second or two, and one wound location is not a timeline.

Read the original story: New Orleans Man Shoots 16-Year-Old in the Butt After Teen Points Gun at Him During 2 A.M. Car Break-In

Key Takeaways

• A man named Douglas A. Flagg was shot while attempting to break into a home in Mackay, Idaho, at 3:16 a.m. on August 11.
• Flagg received medical treatment and was later released from the hospital after the incident.
• He was arrested on August 13 and faces felony charges including aggravated assault and attempted burglary.
• The sheriff’s office has not identified who fired the shot or whether the homeowner was injured.
• Custer County’s sparse population means emergency responses can be delayed in critical situations.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MACKAY, ID — A Grace man was shot while trying to force his way into a home in the Mackay area at 3:16 in the morning, and two days later he was arrested on felony charges, according to the Custer County Sheriff’s Office.

Dispatchers took a 911 call at about 3:16 a.m. on August 11 from a 47-year-old man at the home reporting a shooting, as reported by KIFI Local News 8. Deputies responded to the residence while Mackay Ambulance crews staged nearby until the scene was secured.

Investigators identified the man who was shot as Douglas A. Flagg of Grace. Deputies say Flagg was shot while attempting to force his way into the home. He was treated at the scene, transported to a hospital for further care, and later released.

Deputies say Flagg and the homeowner knew each other. The sheriff’s office has not released the nature of that relationship or what led up to the confrontation.

Knowing the person on the other side of your door does not tell you anything useful at 3:16 in the morning. What matters is the conduct. Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. What deputies describe is a man forcing his way into an occupied home in the middle of the night, and the people inside had seconds, not minutes, to read it.

Flagg was taken into custody on August 13 on an outstanding warrant stemming from the August 11 incident. He has been charged with felony aggravated assault, attempted burglary, and malicious injury to property. Those charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted.

More from USA Carry:

• Idaho Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Convicted Felon Kicks in Doors of Four Occupied Jacksonville Homes With a Handgun, Stopped Only When Police Arrive
• Homeowner Shoots, Kills Burglar Breaking In Through Window
• Apartment Resident Fatally Shoots 14-Year-Old During Late-Night Disturbance in Albuquerque
• Las Vegas Man Shoots Carjacker In Head as He Attempts to Drive Off

The sheriff’s office has not identified who fired the shot, has not said whether anyone inside the home was hurt, and has not announced any charging decision involving the resident. Prosecutors make that final call, not deputies and not me.

This is also a reminder of where the Mackay area sits. Custer County is wide, thinly populated central Idaho, and a call that goes out at 3:16 a.m. gets answered by whoever is on shift and however far away they happen to be. Nobody inside that house was waiting on help that could arrive in ninety seconds.

Read the original story: Idaho Man Tries to Force His Way Into an Occupied Mackay Home Before Dawn, Ends Up Shot and Charged

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in Leesburg, FL, shot and killed an uninvited man who attempted to force entry into his home on August 9.
• The altercation occurred after the man arrived while his ex-girlfriend was visiting, leading to a physical confrontation.
• The Lake County Sheriff’s Office has not disclosed whether the deceased was armed or specifics of the altercation, as the investigation is ongoing.
• Deadly force is examined under the standard of imminent threat of death or serious harm, which the investigation will evaluate.
• No arrests have been made, and neither the homeowner nor the deceased has been identified as the investigation continues.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

LEESBURG, FL — A homeowner shot and killed a man who deputies say showed up unannounced Sunday night, fought with him, and then tried to force his way into the house, according to the Lake County Sheriff’s Office.

Deputies were called to a reported shooting near Highland Drive, inside a mobile home community, shortly after 9 p.m. on Sunday, August 9, and the sheriff’s office says the man had arrived unannounced at a home where his ex-girlfriend was visiting, as reported by WESH.

The man “became involved in a physical altercation with the homeowner and attempted to force his way into the residence,” LCSO said. “During the incident, the homeowner discharged a firearm, striking the male subject.” The man was pronounced dead at the scene.

That is also the argument for carrying on your body at home. A fight at your front door does not give you time to walk to a bedroom and open a drawer. The gun you have on you is the only one that exists in those seconds.

What the sheriff’s office has not said matters just as much. LCSO would not say whether the man who died was armed, or what exactly happened during the altercation, and said the investigation is in its early stages. Asked directly whether the shooting is being investigated as a self-defense case, the agency said only that it is an active investigation.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day, and it is the standard detectives from the LCSO Criminal Investigations Bureau will be measuring this against: where the fight began, how far the man got, and what the homeowner could reasonably perceive in the moment he pulled the trigger.

More from USA Carry:

• Emergency Preparedness and Planning For Self-Defense
• Sheriff: Man Killed in Domestic Shooting at Residence He Was ‘Legally Prohibited From Visiting’
• How I was Almost Mauled by a Pack of Dogs
• Intruder Shot after Breaking into Ex-Girlfriend’s Home
• Man Shot Dead After Breaking Into Ex-Girlfriend’s Boyfriend’s Home in Nashville

The visiting ex-girlfriend explains why the man came to that address. It does not explain why the homeowner fired. Those are two separate questions, and only the second one decides whether the shooting was lawful. The sheriff’s office has released nothing about prior contact between the two, and I will not fill that blank in.

No arrests have been made. Neither the homeowner nor the man who died has been identified, no charging decision has been announced, and prosecutors, not deputies, make the final determination on whether a shooting was justified.

Read the original story: Man Dead After Trying to Force His Way Into Home Where His Ex-Girlfriend Was Visiting

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in Richmond, NY, confronted two intruders he saw on his security feed, using a shotgun to intimidate them.
• He shot out the tires of their car before the suspects surrendered and exited the house with their hands up.
• Deputies arrested the suspects, Alexandria Mosher and Dominick Wood, for second-degree burglary after finding stolen items in their possession.
• The homeowner has not been charged, as prosecutors will ultimately decide based on the situation.
• The case highlights New York’s justification statute regarding the use of deadly force, clarifying that property protection does not allow for lethal actions.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

RICHMOND, NY — A homeowner who watched two people walk into a house he owns on a live security feed drove over with a shotgun, shot out the tires on the car parked in the driveway and held both suspects at gunpoint until Ontario County sheriff’s deputies arrived Sunday night, August 9.

The account comes from Ontario County Undersheriff Michael Rago, as reported by WHAM, which detailed the surveillance alert, the 911 calls, the arrests, and the undersheriff’s remarks about New York’s use-of-force law.

“He was receiving live surveillance footage of two individuals entering a property that he owns,” Rago said. “He lives close by, and while he remained on the phone with the 911 center, he responded to the location.”

Rago said the homeowner arrived to find a vehicle parked discreetly on the property and lights flickering inside the house. He grabbed a shotgun. He called out to whoever was inside. He shot out the tires on the car.

The people inside gave up almost immediately.

“At that time, we actually received a 911 call from one of the occupants in the residence, stating that they were in there and that they were going to cooperatively exit with their hands up,” Rago said.

Deputies arrived and took Alexandria Mosher, 19, and Dominick Wood, 22, both of Lima, into custody. According to the sheriff’s office, both were found in possession of items from inside the home. Each was charged with second-degree burglary and released following arraignment. Those charges are allegations, and both are presumed innocent unless convicted.

The homeowner, who has not been publicly identified, has not been charged. As with any case like this, prosecutors make the final determination.

Rago used the case to make a point about New York’s justification statute, and it is worth reading twice.

More from USA Carry:

• Armed Customer Returns Fire at Memphis Gas Station Shooting, Suspect in Critical Condition
• Suspect Shot by Homeowner During Attempted Tire Theft in Los Angeles Driveway
• Employee Fatally Shoots Tire Shop Owner Before Owner’s Son Defends Himself and Stops the Threat
• Store Owner Shot in Shoulder After Firing at Officer He Mistook for Burglar
• Missouri Homeowner Shoots Intruder Dead During Break-In, Before Police Could Arrive

“A word to the wise is to understand Article 35 and when and when you can and can’t use deadly physical force,” he said. “This wouldn’t be considered deadly physical force. It was ‘so to say,’ threatened, but was not, you know, obviously utilized.”

Deadly physical force in New York, and in every other state, is reserved for an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to a person. Property does not get you there. Rago’s read is that flattening tires and covering two people who walked out with their hands up did not cross that line, and nobody was hurt on either side of it.

Read the original story: New York Homeowner Watches Two Burglary Suspects on His Live Security Feed, Shoots Out Their Car’s Tires and Holds Them at Gunpoint Until Deputies Arrive

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging a New York law banning the sale of Glock and Glock-style handguns.
• The law criminalizes the sale or transfer of pistols deemed ‘convertible’ into machineguns, carrying severe penalties.
• SAF argues this law targets lawful sellers rather than actual criminals and highlights issues with the definition of ‘convertible pistol.’
• The case gained support from the NRA and other firearms groups, addressing the cruciform trigger bar controversy.
• New York has not yet responded to the lawsuit, and updates will follow as the case progresses in court.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation announced on August 14, 2026, that it and its partners have filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York challenging a New York law that bars the sale and transfer of Glock and Glock-style handguns.

The law at issue makes the transaction itself the crime. According to SAF’s announcement of the filing, the updated statute provides that “…any dealer in firearms or gunsmith who…sells, transfers, disposes of, or transports or ships as merchandise a convertible pistol shall be guilty of a class D felony.” SAF says the law also directs the Superintendent of the New York State Police to publish an annual list of machinegun convertible pistols, and that anyone who violates it on or after May 31, 2027, faces up to seven years in prison and a fine of $5,000 or more.

The mechanical question is where this gets interesting, and SAF says it is the heart of the case. Glock and Glock-style pistols are built with a cruciform trigger bar, a part that gun control advocates claim makes them easy to illegally convert into machineguns. SAF says Glock’s original 1982 patent covered that component, and that when the patent expired in 2020, many other manufacturers began producing pistols built the same way. Because a factory stock Glock or Glock-style pistol has a cruciform trigger bar, SAF says it meets New York’s new definition of a “convertible pistol” and will be illegal to sell or transfer once the law takes effect.

“Not to be outdone by their West Coast gun-grabbing counterparts in California, New York lawmakers made providing some of the most common handguns in America to law-abiding New Yorkers punishable by seven years in prison,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, who added that “it was also New York that was already smacked down by the Supreme Court for infringing on the right to carry in NYSRPA v. Bruen.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb tied the argument to who actually gets punished. “Making someone a criminal for selling or transferring a handgun merely because someone can illegally convert those firearms into something they are not is absurd,” Gottlieb said. “It’s already illegal to convert these pistols into machineguns and the conversion itself requires possession of other illegal items, but lawmakers persist in focusing on the handgun and not the criminals who will continue committing crimes with or without this new law in place.”

More from USA Carry:

• Connecticut HB 5043 Passes Senate in Overnight Vote, Glock-Style Pistol Ban Now Sits on Governor Lamont’s Desk
• Gov. Lamont Signs Connecticut Glock-Style Pistol Ban Into Law. NSSF Vows to Fight It in Court
• Maryland Legislature Passes Bill Banning Machine Gun Convertible Pistols, Including Some Glocks, Sends It to Governor
• Newsom Signs Law Banning Sale of Most Glocks in California, Targeting ‘Convertible Pistols’
• Court Battle Over Guns at Post Office Heats Up as SAF & FPC Fights ‘Unconstitutional’ Government Tactics

SAF says the National Rifle Association, the Firearms Policy Coalition, two private citizens and a licensed firearms dealer joined it in the case, and that the same cruciform trigger bar issue is being litigated elsewhere, including in SAF’s Renna case.

New York has not yet answered and no judge has ruled. I will continue tracking the case as it moves through the Western District of New York.

Read the original story: Seven Years in Prison for Selling a Factory Stock Glock: SAF, NRA and FPC Sue New York Over Its Glock-Style Handgun Ban

Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department’s opinion states that carrying a firearm into a post office for self-defense is permissible under certain conditions.
• Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 930, prohibits firearms in federal facilities but has exceptions for lawful carrying purposes.
• The opinion suggests that self-defense qualifies as a lawful purpose, countering previous narrow interpretations of the law.
• The Postal Service’s regulation against firearms lacks an exception for self-defense, making it potentially unenforceable for law-abiding citizens.
• This opinion is an internal legal interpretation and not a court ruling, meaning it does not bind the judiciary.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel says the federal law that makes it a crime to bring a gun into a federal building does not apply to a law-abiding person who walks into a post office carrying for self-defense. The opinion, titled Application of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to Post Offices, is dated August 12, 2026. It is addressed to the Attorney General and signed by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit.

Here is the law in question. Under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), knowingly bringing a firearm or other dangerous weapon into a federal facility can bring a fine, up to a year in prison, or both. A post office counts as a federal facility because the building is federally owned or leased and federal employees work there. The opinion puts the number at almost 31,000 retail post offices nationwide as of fiscal year 2025.

But the same statute carries exceptions. The one that matters to ordinary citizens is 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3), which says the ban does not apply to “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

The Department reads that exception as having two parts. The carrying has to be lawful, and it has to be for a lawful purpose.

On the first part, the opinion says the exception does not help anyone federal law already bars from having a gun. It lists convicted felons, people convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, people who have been committed to a mental institution, and people in the country illegally. It also says the exception may not cover someone carrying without a license in a state that requires one. That is why your state’s carry licensing rules still decide whether any of this does you any good at the counter.

On the second part, the opinion says carrying for self-defense into a building open to the public is about as clear a lawful purpose as there is. It points to the Supreme Court’s statement in Heller that the inherent right of self-defense is central to the Second Amendment right.

That is a reversal for the Department. The opinion acknowledges that in past court filings, government lawyers argued the phrase “other lawful purpose” should be read narrowly, shaped by the one example the statute gives, which is hunting. The opinion also says it disagrees with district courts that read the exception to require the reason for carrying to be tied to the federal building itself, and it notes that at least one district court has landed the other way from the conclusion it reaches.

The Postal Service’s own rule gets handled separately. That rule, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), bars anyone on postal property from carrying firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, openly or concealed, except for official purposes. The opinion notes the rule has no self-defense exception written into it at all. Its conclusion is that the rule is unlawful as applied to law-abiding citizens carrying for self-defense in post offices open to the public, and that the Executive Branch may not enforce either the statute or the rule against such a person.

What stands out to me is the history the opinion walks through, because it is the argument armed citizens have been making for years. Congress in 1792 answered violence against the mail by making mail robbery punishable by death. It did not ban carrying inside a post office. No federal restriction on guns in post offices existed at all until the Executive Branch wrote one for federal buildings in 1964, then one for post offices specifically in 1972.

The opinion also names the disarm-at-the-door problem outright. Someone forced to leave a gun outside is left vulnerable for as long as he is unarmed, and he may be leaving a firearm where an aggressor, or a child, can find it. Anyone who has sat in a post office parking lot deciding what to do with a holstered pistol worked that out a long time ago.

Now the limits, because they matter as much as the conclusion.

First, this is a legal opinion from inside the executive branch. It is not a court ruling. It tells federal prosecutors how the Justice Department reads the law. It does not bind a judge.

Second, the opinion treats the statute and the postal rule differently, and that difference is deliberate. On the statute, the Department never says § 930(a) is unconstitutional, because it does not have to. Congress already wrote the “other lawful purposes” exception into the law, so the Department can simply read the statute to allow self-defense carry and stop there. Lawyers call that constitutional avoidance, which just means you decide the narrow question in front of you and leave the constitutional one alone. The postal rule offers no such off-ramp. There is no exception inside it to work with, so there is no way to read it narrowly, and that is why the Department goes further and says the rule cannot be enforced. It rests that on Congress passing a later and more specific law that narrowed the Postal Service’s authority over its own property, and, failing that, on the constitutional problems the opinion spells out.

More from USA Carry:

• Are You Illegally Carrying Concealed at the Post Office?
• USPS Pushes New Firearm Mailing Rule That Gun Owners Say Defies Court Ruling
• USPS May Start Delivering Handguns — But Would You Trust Them With Your Gun?
• Armed Good Samaritan Foils Armed Robbery of Mailman
• Tennessee Fights to Revive Two Gun Laws a Court Already Called Unconstitutional

Third, the opinion draws its own borders. It does not address post offices closed to the public. It does not address other federal buildings. It does not cover weapons that are illegal to own in the first place. Federal courthouses fall under a separate part of the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 930(e), and nothing here touches them. And state law still decides whether your carry is lawful to begin with.

I will continue tracking how the Justice Department and the Postal Service put this into practice, and what happens the first time a court is asked to weigh in.

Read the original story: Justice Department Says You Can Carry for Self-Defense in a Post Office, and the Postal Service Ban Cannot Be Enforced

Key Takeaways

• Gun Owners of America members acquired suppressors in Texas without NFA registration due to a federal court injunction.
• This injunction allows transfers of suppressors and short-barreled firearms without the usual paperwork in certain states.
• Silencer Shop is a key player in this legal change and provides insights into state-level NFA compliance requirements.
• 27 states have no NFA compliance, allowing immediate suppressor purchases; 15 states still require the Form 4 under state law.
• The situation highlights ongoing legal battles, with potential appeals from the government still possible.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

LEANDER, TX — Just after midnight on August 13, 2026, two Gun Owners of America members took possession of suppressors at a Texas storefront without registering them under the National Firearms Act of 1934. GOA says the transfers are the first of their kind since that law took effect.

Yesterday I covered the setup: GOA telling the Attorney General that Silencer Shop would hand Brandon Herrera and Wes Virdell suppressors with no Form 4 and no registry entry. What has changed is that the deadline came and went and the transfer happened. According to a press release from Gun Owners of America, Herrera and Virdell acquired the suppressors at Silencer Shop’s new storefront in Leander, Texas, immediately after midnight. Silencer Shop is the lead plaintiff in the underlying litigation. Representative Andrew Clyde of Georgia’s ninth district and GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt were both present.

GOA says the transfers were possible because a federal court order currently enjoins the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from enforcing NFA registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled firearms and, in the organization’s words, “any other weapons.” An injunction is a court order that blocks an agency from enforcing a rule while a case is still being litigated. It is not the same thing as a statute disappearing from the books.

Silencer Shop put out its own video explaining what the order does and does not do, and the company is blunt about where the protection comes from. It says the injunction took effect at 12:01 a.m. on August 13, that the court order covers Silencer Shop customers because Silencer Shop is a plaintiff in the case, and that the coverage extends to buyers at Powered by Silencer Shop dealers who got their inventory from the company. The relief runs through the plaintiff, not through the product.

The part armed citizens need to read carefully is the state split. Silencer Shop says there are 27 states with no NFA compliance requirements at the state level. In those states, the company says a suppressor or an any other weapon purchase is a 4473 and a standard NICS background check, and the buyer takes it home that day like any other firearm. No Form 4, no registration, no ATF wait time.

The 27 states with no state-level NFA compliance requirement:

• Alabama
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• Florida
• Idaho
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Minnesota
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• New Hampshire
• New Mexico
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Vermont
• Virginia
• West Virginia
• Wyoming

Then there are 15 states that write the Form 4 requirement into their own state law. Buyers there still go through the federal paperwork because their own legislature put it there, and a federal injunction against the ATF does not erase a state statute.

The 15 states that still require the Form 4 under state law:

• Alaska
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Georgia
• Michigan
• Mississippi
• Montana
• Nevada
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Washington
• Wisconsin

Silencer Shop says it is working to change those laws, and that in the meantime it will keep handling the paperwork for customers in those states the way it always has.

Eight states are not on either list because suppressors are banned outright under state law:

• California
• Delaware
• Hawaii
• Illinois
• Massachusetts
• New Jersey
• New York
• Rhode Island

That leaves 42 states where these items are legal at all, which is the same 42 the company cites, split 27 and 15.

Silencer Shop also corrected something it said in an earlier video. Short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns were included in the court’s orders, but the company says they still require a Form 4 in all 42 states where they are legal. The reason is that the Gun Control Act is a separate law from the National Firearms Act, and the Gun Control Act requires approval from the Attorney General for short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The Form 4 is currently the only form that grants that approval. Silencer Shop says it is working to get a new form added for those cases. So the headline result here is a suppressor result, not a short-barrel result.

The company also says plainly that the government can still appeal, and that its customers are covered by the court’s protections while the case proceeds.

More from USA Carry:

• GOA’s “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Under Fire as Gun Control Groups and DOJ Defend National Gun Registry
• Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional
• Two Federal Courts, Two Weeks Apart, Split on Whether Silencers Are Protected Arms
• Day 64 of the 100 Days of Silence Is a Complete Suppressed 9mm Build — Here’s the Nearly $4,000 Prize Stack
• Day 32 of the 100 Days of Silence Brings the Suppressor-Host Pistol and the Form 4 Service Together — Here’s the $4,171 Prize Stack

The legislative path here started in Congress. GOA has said the House Rules Committee amended H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, to include Section 2 of the Constitutional Hearing Protection Act, and the organization publicly backed Section 112029 of the bill as removing suppressors from the National Firearms Act. GOA announced the House vote on May 22, 2025, and NRA-ILA reported that President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law. GOA credits Clyde’s work and the President’s signature for the change and says the provision is what made its lawsuit possible.

That is the practical shape of this. Two men walked out of a Leander gun shop with suppressors and no registry entry, and whether that experience is available to you depends on who you buy from and which of the three lists your state lands on.

Read the original story: 27 States Walk Out Same Day, 15 Still File the Form 4: The Full State List After the Midnight Suppressor Injunction

Fire control parts are not accessories. Glock builds three safeties into the pistol, and every one of them depends on parts you are pulling out and putting back. Since starting USA Carry, my main focus has been on concealed carry. And I just never wanted to take a chance on messing something up and causing an ND or worse.

So I left it alone. The trigger was fine. The gun ran. That felt like enough.

Competition changed that. Working on my Echelons, swapping triggers, getting comfortable with fire control parts, all of it lowered the barrier. Apex reached out and sent me one of the new Apex Evo 6 Trigger Kit for Glock Gen6 Pistols, and I decided my G17 Gen 6 was the gun to learn on.

I watched Apex’s installation video first. It looked straightforward. It was.

Installing the @apextactical EVO 6 Trigger Kit in my @GLOCKInc 17 Gen 6

First time installing a Glock trigger. Apex’ install video was straightforward and easy to follow. It took me about 17 mins but that including doing some cleaning while I had the gun apart. pic.twitter.com/UFEsBor6Aq

— USA Carry (@USACarry) August 13, 2026

What the kit actually is

The Apex Evo 6 Trigger Kit is a direct drop-in replacement for the factory polymer trigger, trigger bar, and connector. Per Apex, it includes the Apex Action Enhancement Trigger, a Gen 6 specific Evo 6 trigger bar, the Apex Performance Connector, and the Apex Competition Striker Spring.

Apex lists trigger pull weight between 3.8 and 4.8 pounds depending on whether you run the factory striker spring or the competition spring. The kit is designed for a linear, rolling break. Apex is explicit that it will not give you a defined wall at the striker release point.

It fits Gen 6 G17, G19, and G45 models only. Not Gen 1 through Gen 5, not slim frames, and not clone frames.

Pricing starts at $145, with a choice of Classic or Type 3 trigger aesthetics and color options. Apex manufactures in Arizona.

One quirk worth knowing: Apex says early kits ship with a trigger body marked “G5.” That is intentional. The trigger body is shared between Gen 5 and Gen 6, and the trigger bar is the only difference. Later production will be marked “G 5/6.”

The competition striker spring is not a carry part

This matters, so I want to be direct about it.

Apex states plainly that the Competition Striker Spring is a reduced force spring intended for competition and range use only, and that it is not intended for duty, carry, or self defense. I installed it because my Gen 6 G17 is a range and competition gun. It is not what I carry.

If you are installing this on a defensive pistol, install the trigger, bar, and connector and leave the factory striker spring in place. You still get the improved feel. You do not give up striker energy on a gun that has to work when it counts.

Apex made the spring easy to identify. It has a pair of closed coils about halfway down its length.

The install

You need one tool: a Glock armorer’s tool, or a 3/32 inch pin punch.

Field strip the pistol, then push out the sear housing pin and the trigger pivot pin. The rear pin comes out easily. The front one fights you a little because of spring load on the takedown lever. Pull the locking block, the slide lock lever, and then the sear housing and trigger bar assembly.

Swapping the parts is simple. The connector presses in at the bottom, not the top, and it is supposed to sit at a slight angle rather than flush.

The trigger bar has to seat under the saddle in the sear housing. Apex’s video shows the exact angle to bring the bar in on. Watch that part twice before you do it.

Grease the contact point between the trigger bar and the connector. Apex calls that the most important lubrication point in the Glock fire control system, and it applies to every generation.

The striker spring swap is the part that deserves respect. Wear safety glasses. There is real energy in that spring and in the spring cups. Apex uses the slide itself as a fixture to hold the striker while you compress the spring, which is a clean trick.

One more thing from their video: the striker goes back in clean and dry. No oil, no grease.

Function checks

Apex walks through all three Glock safety systems after installation, and you should not skip any of them. Trigger safety blocking the trigger body against the frame. Drop safety, verified by pressing down on the cruciform and confirming it does not drop. Striker block, verified by confirming the striker face does not protrude into the breech unless the block is depressed.

All three checked out on mine.

Where I landed

The difference in feel over the stock Gen 6 trigger was obvious the first time I pressed it on the bench. Shorter take up, smoother travel, and a much shorter reset.

Total time was 17 minutes including cleaning the gun while I had it disassembled, and I am not a gunsmith. Apex recommends installation by a competent gunsmith, and that is the right disclaimer for them to make.

Next step is live fire. Range report coming.

Read the original story: I Finally Opened Up a Glock: Installing the Apex Evo 6 Trigger in My Glock 17 Gen 6

Key Takeaways

• Flying with firearms can lead to confusion at check-in counters due to inconsistent airline policies.
• Pew Policies Travel Tags provide quick access to important travel information via a QR code on each tag.
• These tags summarize policies, include links to reciprocity maps, and are easy to carry with luggage.
• The tags do not guarantee compliance but help shift the conversation from your word to documented rules.
• To win a set, simply comment ‘Give me one’ on the associated video post, or purchase them online.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

UPDATE: After publishing this article, we partnered with Pew Policies to have USA Carry branded versions sold from the USA Carry Store. All links now point there. Get yours today!

If you fly with firearms, you already know the problem. You do everything right, you get to the counter, and the agent tells you something that is not actually the policy.

A set of Pew Policies Travel Tags showed up in my mailbox the other day, and after looking them over I asked about doing a giveaway. So I’m giving away four sets.

What the tags actually do

The concept is simple. Each tag has a QR code on the back. Scan it and you land on a single page with everything you need for interstate travel with a firearm.

First link on the page my USA Carry Reciprocity Maps. Then an NFA travel form. Then the individual policies for the airlines, plus TSA’s rules, all one tap away.

That matters at the ticket counter. If you’re declaring a firearm and the agent doesn’t know their own airline’s policy, you can pull it up in seconds instead of arguing from memory.

The tags come from Pew Culture, and the company maintains the policy page as airline rules change. They’re sold through a handful of retailers as a two pack for $35.99, and mine came with attachment hardware for a hard-sided case or luggage, plus a few stickers.

It won’t make anyone read it

I want to be honest about the limits of a tag, because I’ve lived this.

Anyone who has watched my Flying with Guns series has seen the check-in counter conversations where I had the actual policy pulled up and the person across the counter did not want to look at it. In the video above I pulled up TSA’s own website and offered to let an agent read it. The response was that they believed me, but that it had to be a “TSA-Approved” lock anyway. She also didn’t know the difference between a TSA-Approved lock and a TSA-Recognized lock.

It doesn’t. TSA’s national firearms guidance is explicit that locked cases that can easily be opened do not qualify for checked baggage, and that passengers may use any brand or type of lock, including TSA-recognized locks.

That is the whole point. Having the policy in your hand doesn’t force compliance from the other side, but it changes the conversation from your word against theirs into a document on a screen. Sometimes that is enough. Sometimes a supervisor gets called. Either way you’re better off with it than without it.

More from USA Carry:

• The PHLster Pocket Emergency Wallet Review
• Check-In and Flying With Your Guns & Ammo | Step by Step
• Mossberg Maverick 88 Shotgun Review
• Gun Ownership, Violence, Mental Health & Inherited Traits
• Flying with Guns [Episode 22] – Slight Hiccup at Check-In

The rest is still on you

The tag is a reference tool, not a permission slip. TSA’s requirements don’t move: the firearm has to be completely unloaded and packed in a locked hard-sided case before you get to the airport, only you retain the key or combination, and you take it to the airline ticket counter and declare it rather than bringing it anywhere near a screening checkpoint.

Bringing a firearm to a checkpoint carries a civil penalty of up to roughly $15,000, costs you PreCheck eligibility for at least five years, and can be referred for federal prosecution. Airlines are also free to impose requirements beyond TSA’s, which is exactly why a quick reference to the specific carrier’s policy is useful.

How to win a set

I worked out four sets to give away.

Leave a comment saying “Give me one” on the video anywhere I posted it. YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, wherever you saw it.

In about a week I’ll draw four random winners and ship a set to each as soon as the tags reach me.

If you don’t want to wait on a drawing, you can pick up a two pack here: Pew Policies Travel Tag 2-Pack at the USA Carry Store.

Read the original story: Pew Policies Travel Tags Put Every Airline’s Firearm Policy One Scan Away, and I’m Giving Away Four Sets

Key Takeaways

• The NRA has joined the litigation against Colorado’s permit-to-purchase law for semiautomatic firearms.
• Gun Owners of America tracked Senate Bill 25-003, which they claim effectively bans semiautomatic firearms in Colorado.
• The bill requires buyers to pay fees, complete training, and enter a state registry before purchasing semiautomatic firearms.
• GOA linked this bill to other measures, including restrictions on gun shows and age limits for ammunition sales.
• The author will continue to follow the legal challenge to Colorado’s permit-to-purchase law and provide updates.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

DENVER, CO — The National Rifle Association has entered the litigation over Colorado’s permit-to-purchase requirement for semiautomatic firearms, according to an August 12 announcement from NRA-ILA headlined “NRA Joins Legal Fight Against Colorado’s Permit-to-Purchase Law for Semiautomatic Firearms.”

Gun Owners of America tracked the measure through the Colorado legislature as Senate Bill 25-003, and in a March 25, 2025 state alert GOA reported that the bill had cleared the Colorado House of Representatives the previous day by a vote of 36 to 2, and that because it had been amended repeatedly on its way through the House it had to go back to the Senate for a concurrence vote on those amendments. GOA described the bill as a semiautomatic firearms ban that “morphed into a permit-to-purchase FOID scheme.”

That morphing is the whole story of how these bills get sold. GOA characterized SB 25-003 as a nearly full semiautomatic firearms ban with a compliance door cut into it, and described the door this way: pay fees, take state-approved tests, and enter what GOA calls a registry. Under GOA’s account of the bill, a buyer either completes hunter safety education or holds a Colorado concealed handgun permit and then takes an additional four hours of coursework before entering the registry. A buyer with neither is looking at twelve hours of coursework first.

Strip away the acronyms and permit-to-purchase means one thing. The default answer is no. You do not walk in as a law-abiding adult, pass the background check, and walk out. You apply, you pay, you sit through state-approved instruction, you get entered into a state-held list, and then the state decides you may exercise a right you already had. Understand that I am about as pro-training as a person can be. Training is the entire point of a serious carry mindset, and I would rather every gun owner in America put in more hours than the law would ever ask of them. Training you choose is a discipline. Training the state converts into a gate you must pass before you may buy is something else, and calling it safety education does not change which one it is.

More from USA Carry:

• Michigan House Committee to Consider Repeal of Handgun Permit-to-Purchase and Registration
• Handgun Actions: The Pros and Cons of Each Type
• Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s Semiautomatic Rifle and 10-Round Magazine Bans as Unconstitutional
• Colorado Constitutional Carry Bill Advances
• Colorado Legislature Advances Semiautomatic Firearm Restrictions with SB25-003

SB 25-003 also did not travel alone. In that same alert, GOA flagged House Bill 25-1238, which it said would heavily restrict gun shows and gun show participants, and House Bill 25-1133, which it said would prohibit ammunition sales to anyone under 21, both of which GOA reported were still moving through the Senate at the time. I could not verify the final disposition of either measure from the sources available to me, so I am reporting only that GOA identified them as part of the same 2025 package.

I will continue tracking the challenge to Colorado’s permit-to-purchase law and will update this article once the court filings are available.

Read the original story: Fees, State-Approved Coursework, Then Permission to Buy: NRA Joins the Legal Fight Over Colorado’s Permit-to-Purchase Law for Semiautomatic Firearms

Key Takeaways

• A concealed carry holder in South Shore shot a man attempting to break into her home early Tuesday morning.
• The 30-year-old man removed a screen from the woman’s window, prompting her to fire one shot, injuring him in the arm.
• Emergency responders arrived after a neighbor called 911, while the man later sought treatment at a hospital and was in good condition.
• Police classify this incident as a burglary attempt and emphasize the potential threat posed by the situation.
• Charges against the 30-year-old suspect are pending as police continue the investigation.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

CHICAGO, IL — A 49-year-old concealed carry holder shot a man who pulled the screen off a window of her South Shore home during a burglary attempt early Tuesday morning, Chicago police said.

The 30-year-old man walked up to the home in the 1500 block of East 73rd Street around 4:50 a.m. and opened the screen while standing on the front porch, according to CPD, as reported by CWB Chicago. The woman was inside. She armed herself and fired one shot, striking him in the arm.

A neighbor called 911 to report a man lying on the ground across the street from the home, screaming that he had been shot. He was gone by the time officers arrived. Moments later he walked into Jackson Park Hospital on his own for treatment, and police said he was in good condition. The woman was not injured.

Police are describing this as a burglary attempt, and that characterization is doing real work. This was not a knock at the door or a man wandering the block. Someone worked the screen off a window of a house at ten minutes to five in the morning, which is the point at which an entry is underway rather than being considered.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and that is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. A stranger opening a window on an occupied home in the dark gives the person on the other side no way to know what comes through it next, and no time to find out. The screen is not what mattered here. What mattered is that a man was making a hole in an occupied house at 4:50 a.m. and there was a woman standing behind it.

More from USA Carry:

• Chicago Park Robbery Attempt Leads to Shooting as Victim Tries to Disarm Suspect
• Teen Defends Home With Handgun; Fires Warning Shots; Shoots Man In Leg
• Disparity of Force? Chicago Woman Fatally Shoots Man in Her Home During Argument
• Chicago Drive-By Shooting: Five Wounded, One Dead; CCW Fires Back
• Homeowner Fires Shot After Telling Man Who Pried Open His Screen Door To Leave

The detail I keep coming back to is that she had her firearm and got to it in time. She did not have to cross the house in the dark to another room, or work a lock while listening to a window frame come apart. That is the mindset piece, and it is the whole margin between having options at that hour and having none.

Police said charges against the 30-year-old man were pending. Neither he nor the woman has been publicly identified, an allegation is not a conviction, and Cook County prosecutors, not the responding officers, make the final determination on any charging decision arising out of the shooting. The account above is the police department’s.

Read the original story: 49-Year-Old Chicago Concealed Carry Holder Shoots Burglary Suspect Who Pulled the Screen Off Her Window at 4:50 A.M.

Key Takeaways

• Gun Owners of America has set a deadline for the DOJ and ATF regarding firearm silencer transfers following a court injunction.
• The injunction allows a Texas dealer to transfer silencers without filing Form 4 or seeking ATF approval after August 13, 2026.
• The court ruled that current NFA provisions exceed Congress’s powers as they are based on a tax that raises no revenue.
• The government must respond by 5:00 p.m. Eastern on August 12, or the transfer will be considered lawful, marking a historic event since 1934.
• The ruling only applies to the plaintiffs and their members, and the government may still appeal.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

SPRINGFIELD, VA — Gun Owners of America has put the Department of Justice and the ATF on the clock. In a letter dated August 12, 2026, GOA notified Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada that at midnight, a federally licensed dealer in Texas will transfer two firearm silencers to two named customers without filing a Form 4, without seeking ATF approval, and without entering either silencer in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

The letter is on Gun Owners of America letterhead, was posted publicly by GOA, and is signed by Brandon Herrera, Wes Virdell, and Silencer Shop CEO Dave Matheny, with signature timestamps from the night of August 11.

Here is what it rests on. On August 5, Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a permanent injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. BATFE, No. 6:25-CV-056-H, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174125 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026). GOA quotes the court finding that the “challenged NFA provisions rise and fall on the taxing power,” and that because Congress “invoked the Taxing Clause” rather than its power to regulate interstate commerce, those provisions “exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”

🚨BREAKING🚨

GOA, @SilencerShop, @TheAKGuy, & @WesVirdellTX have officially notified ATF & DOJ of our intent to transfer suppressors tonight, at 12:01AM CDT on 8/13/26, without complying with the currently enjoined requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934. https://t.co/iyr4teQtN9 pic.twitter.com/iYEbbcryMo

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 12, 2026

The argument behind that is simple enough to explain at a gun counter. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was sold to Congress as a revenue measure, a tax on making and transferring certain firearms, and the registration paperwork existed to collect it. In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025, Congress zeroed out the making and transfer taxes on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and any other weapons, then left every page of the paperwork in place. The plaintiffs argued that a tax raising no revenue is not a tax, and that nothing was left holding the paperwork up.

Per the letter, the court permanently enjoined the ATF, the Justice Department, Blanche, Cekada, and anyone acting in concert with them from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs, and extended that relief to “members, and customers, both current and future.”

Hendrix then stayed his own order for seven calendar days, which gave the government a window to act. GOA writes that the Justice Department has not appealed. That puts the injunction in force at midnight Central on August 13, and that is the deadline the letter is built around.

What happens then is specific. Silencer Shop, a federal firearms licensee, intends to transfer one silencer to Herrera and a second to Virdell, both transactions inside Texas, on business premises the public copy of the letter redacts. The parties say they will follow state law, the Gun Control Act, and the associated ATF regulations. What they will not do is file the Form 4, ask ATF to approve the transfers, or register either silencer. GOA states that both men are law-abiding Texas residents eligible to possess firearms, that both are GOA members and Silencer Shop customers, and that they are therefore “covered twice over” by the injunction. Virdell holds a current Texas License to Carry.

Herrera is the Republican nominee for the U.S. House in Texas’s 23rd Congressional District. Virdell is the state representative for Texas House District 53. GOA notes that both are endorsed by President Trump.

The last section of the letter is the part that matters most. GOA writes that neither ATF nor DOJ has issued any guidance on the Texas injunction, and gives the government until 5:00 p.m. Eastern on August 12 to say in writing that the transfers would be unlawful or that it intends to keep enforcing the challenged provisions anyway. If the government says nothing, the letter states, then what happens at midnight is “the very first lawful commercial transfer of a silencer since June 26, 1934” without complying with the terms of the NFA.

More from USA Carry:

• Brandon Herrera Announces Second Run for Congress to Challenge Rep. Tony Gonzales in TX-23
• GunTuber Brandon Herrera Moves Toward Congress After Rep. Tony Gonzales Drops Re-Election Bid
• GOA’s “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Under Fire as Gun Control Groups and DOJ Defend National Gun Registry
• Two Federal Courts, Two Weeks Apart, Split on Whether Silencers Are Protected Arms
• Day 64 of the 100 Days of Silence Is a Complete Suppressed 9mm Build — Here’s the Nearly $4,000 Prize Stack

Now the caution. This is one district court, and by GOA’s own description the relief runs to the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers, not to every suppressor owner in the country. The government has conceded nothing publicly and still has appellate options. Until the opinion and the government’s position can be read directly, nothing here is a green light to change how you handle your own paperwork.

I will continue tracking the injunction, the Justice Department’s response to the 5 p.m. deadline, and what happens at midnight.

Read the original story: Midnight Deadline: GOA Tells the Attorney General That Silencer Shop Will Hand Brandon Herrera and Wes Virdell Suppressors With No Form 4 and No Registry Entry

Key Takeaways

• A mother shot her ex-boyfriend after he broke into her home while she was on the phone with 911.
• The incident occurred at 2:15 a.m. when the man, identified as James Cameron, forced entry into the house.
• The mother reported the break-in, and first responders found the man dead inside with no injuries to her three children.
• Investigators noted signs of previous violence, supporting the mother’s claim of an imminent threat when she fired her weapon.
• The mother holds a valid Ohio concealed handgun license, highlighting the discussion around self-defense rights.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

HARRISON TOWNSHIP, OH — A 33-year-old mother shot and killed her ex-boyfriend early Wednesday after he kicked in the front door of her Fairport Avenue home and smashed a window while she was on the phone with 911 and her three children were inside, according to the Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office.

Deputies were called to the house around 2:15 a.m. after the woman told dispatchers her ex-boyfriend was trying to force his way in, as reported by CBS Pittsburgh, which identified the 34-year-old man as James Cameron.

Dispatchers stayed on the line and heard the woman yelling at the man, and then heard what investigators believed was a muffled gunshot. Seconds later she came back on the phone and told dispatch she had shot her ex-boyfriend and was leaving the house with her three kids.

First responders found the man dead inside the home. The children were there when the shooting happened and were not physically injured.

Investigators also observed signs of physical violence that had reportedly occurred during the evening before the shooting, according to the sheriff’s office. That is important investigative context, and it is not why she fired. Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and what is described here is a man coming through a kicked-in door and a broken window at two in the morning into a house with a mother and three children in it. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day.

More from USA Carry:

• Homeowner Shoots Intruder During Second Burglary After Firearms Stolen in First Break-In
• Tenn. Homeowner Fatally Shoots One Home Intruder, Sends Another Two Fleeing Through a Window
• Texas Woman Shoots Ex-Boyfriend After He Kicks In Door And Attacks Her
• Multiple 911 Calls Go Unanswered As a Man Break Down Door; Family Member Stops The Threat
• Concealed Carrier Shoots and Kills Gunman Shooting at Passing Vehicles

The sheriff’s office said the woman holds a valid Ohio concealed handgun license. If you want the details on how those permits work in Ohio, I keep a state guide on Ohio concealed carry updated.

What stands out to me is that she was already on the phone with police when the door came in. She did everything the internet tells you to do. She called. She warned him. It did not stop him, and the help she called for was still minutes away. The gun in her hand was the only thing standing between an intruder and three kids, and that gap between the 911 call and the deputies arriving is the entire reason people carry.

Read the original story: Ohio Mother Shoots and Kills Ex-Boyfriend Who Kicked In Her Door at 2 A.M. With Her Three Children Inside the House

Key Takeaways

• A federal appeals court allowed Hawaii to enforce its gun ban at many public places, effective August 10.
• The case, Wolford v. Lopez, addresses Hawaii’s Act 52, which restricts carrying guns on private property without permission.
• While the private property rule remains blocked, permit holders can no longer carry in places such as beaches and parks.
• Gun Owners of America argues that the restrictions under Act 52 limit permit holders’ ability to carry in most public spaces.
• The court’s ongoing decisions mean the legal landscape for permit holders may continue to change.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

HONOLULU, HI — Hawaii permit holders lost ground on August 10. A federal appeals court cleared the state to start enforcing its gun ban at beaches, parks, playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. One piece of the law is still on hold: the rule that made private property off limits unless the owner said otherwise.

The case is Wolford v. Lopez. In 2023 Hawaii passed Act 52, which banned guns from a long list of places and banned carrying onto private property without the owner’s permission. Gun owners sued, and a judge put parts of the law on hold while the case moved forward. Hawaii appealed. The Ninth Circuit sided with the state on the private property rule in 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court took up that one question and told the Ninth Circuit it got that part wrong, and the August 10 opinion is the appeals court’s answer.

The answer was short. Judge Susan Graber wrote that the private property rule stays blocked and that “our analysis as to all other aspects of Hawaii’s law is unaffected.” The hold on two other parts of the sensitive-place law was lifted. Hawaii can enforce those parts again.

Here is what that means walking out the door. According to the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, permit holders can no longer carry in bars, restaurants serving alcohol, beaches, parks, playgrounds, state and county recreational facilities, or the parking areas that serve only those places. The coalition says the block is still in place for banks and financial institutions, bank parking areas, some shared government parking lots, and Hawaii’s private property rule.

Winning the private property rule is real. Under Act 52, a permit holder needed permission to carry onto anyone else’s property, which closed nearly every storefront in the state by default. But beaches, parks, playgrounds and restaurants with liquor licenses are not edge cases in Hawaii. Those are the places people actually spend their time. What was legal last week is not the standard today, and mindset is not only what you do in a fight. It is knowing which doors your permit still opens before you leave the house.

Gun Owners of America has been making this point about Act 52 for a while. Writing in October 2025, GOA’s John Velleco said permit holders who completed the training, passed the background check and followed every rule were shut out of almost everywhere under the law, and that a Hawaii carry permit “may as well be used to discard chewed-up gum.”

More from USA Carry:

• Hawaii Concealed Carry Permit Information
• 13 Virginia Prosecutors Now Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban
• ‘Lawful Carry Is Dangerous’: Prosecutors Urge Supreme Court to Let States Ban Guns by Default
• Supreme Court Strikes Down Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule,’ Restoring Carry on Property Open to the Public
• First Hawaii Concealed Carry Permit Issued In Oahu After Bruen

Nothing here is final. The court is still deciding what to pause while the lawsuit runs its course, which means the map can move again. The person absorbing that is the vetted, trained, background-checked permit holder who has to track every shift and get it right with a firearm on their hip.

I will continue tracking Wolford v. Lopez as the case goes back to the district court.

Read the original story: Beaches, Parks and Bars Are Off Limits Again: Federal Court Clears Hawaii to Enforce Most of Its Carry Ban

Check-In at LAS

Declared firearms. Agent confirmed locked and unloaded right away. Condition 1 case inside my big piece of luggage, same setup as usual.

The bag came in eight pounds overweight. Had a feeling it would be. The fee was $100 on top of what I’d already paid, and the agent even offered an alternative — buy a $25 duffle bag there and offload some weight. I appreciated the option but just paid the fee and kept it moving.

Signed the back of the declaration form, confirmed no ammunition, and mentioned the sleeve. I put the form in the FedEx sleeve on the case. Answered the usual questions about lithium batteries, power banks, and vapes — none. She pointed me to the flagpole at the end of the counter, and I set my 15-minute timer. TSA didn’t come out.

Arrival in New Orleans

Bag came out on the carousel at MSY. Checked the locks on the Condition 1 case — intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

I hadn’t flown in about a month, which is why there were no new episodes the last couple of weeks. Back to the every-Tuesday schedule now. And if you pack heavy, know your airline’s overweight fee before you get to the counter. It’s $100 on Southwest, and sometimes a cheap duffle bag is the smarter play.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 66 – Southwest from Las Vegas to New Orleans

Key Takeaways

• A delivery driver shot and killed a suspect during an attempted robbery in Miami Gardens.
• The surviving suspect, Jabari Joshua Thomas, faces felony murder and armed robbery charges.
• Witnesses reported multiple gunshots, and neighbors provided accounts of the incident.
• The driver claimed self-defense and holds a concealed carry permit, while police initially detained him but did not charge him.
• The felony murder charge allows Thomas to be held responsible for the death, despite not firing the fatal shot.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MIAMI GARDENS, FL — A delivery driver fatally shot one of two men who tried to rob him while he was in the middle of dropping off food Thursday, and the surviving suspect is now facing a murder charge for the death of the man he allegedly showed up with.

Miami Gardens police identified the surviving suspect as Jabari Joshua Thomas, who was taken into custody and charged with felony murder and armed robbery, as reported by NBC 6, with neighbor accounts of the shooting as reported by CBS News Miami. The department’s identification of one of the suspects was also posted by ABC Miami.

Neighbors described hearing a burst of gunfire. “I heard like a few gunshots around four or five just bah bah bah,” Luis Ordonez told CBS News Miami. He later said he saw a lot of blood and believed the man on the ground had been hit three times.

Ordonez’s sister, Isabel Ordonez, gave the account of what the driver told the people who came outside. “He said he was actively trying to deliver food, and the guy came up to him trying to rob him, and his first instinct was to shoot,” she told NBC 6. She told CBS News Miami that the driver said he was actively being robbed and that he had a concealed carry permit.

Local reporting also says police detained the driver and let him go without an arrest or a charge, and that he went around asking residents in the area whether they had video that could show it was self-defense. I understand that instinct completely, and I would want that footage too. But collecting evidence is not the job of the person who just fired. Detectives canvass for cameras, and they are better at it than you will be with adrenaline still dumping. Say what you need to say, ask for a lawyer, and let the investigation do the rest.

More from USA Carry:

• Armed Bystander Returns Fire, Drops Attacker Who Opened Up on Two Men in Miami Gardens, Police Say
• Off-Duty Officer Shoots Burglar Dead Responding to Son’s Call From Home
• Ex-Police Chief Warns Open Carry Could Get You Shot – The Real Record Tells A Different Story
• Ten Skills That Crossover To Concealed Carry
• Miami Clubgoer Disarms Attacker and Another Blocks Getaway, Leading to Quick Arrest of Armed Robbers

The felony murder charge against Thomas is the part worth slowing down on. Under a felony murder theory, a participant in a violent felony can be charged with a killing that happens during that felony even though someone else, in this case the intended victim, fired the fatal shot.

Delivery drivers are soft targets by the nature of the work. The route is public, the arrival is announced, the hands are occupied, and the driver may be somewhere he has never been before. Mindset is most of the defense there: reading the approach, keeping distance, and knowing before you ever step out of the car what you will do if two people move on you at once.

Read the original story: Miami Gardens Delivery Driver Shoots and Kills Would-Be Robber Mid-Delivery, Surviving Suspect Charged With Felony Murder

Key Takeaways

• A man, Rodney Lewis Jr., kicked in the door of his ex-girlfriend’s home searching for her new boyfriend.
• The new boyfriend shot Lewis multiple times, resulting in Lewis’s death at the scene.
• The incident occurred around 9:30 p.m. on August 5 and is classified as domestic violence.
• The ex-girlfriend suffered a leg injury but is not in critical condition; a child in the house was unharmed.
• Police are investigating the case for potential self-defense, and no charges have been filed yet.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

SHREVEPORT, LA — A man kicked in the front door of his former girlfriend’s home Wednesday night to look for her new boyfriend, and the new boyfriend shot him dead inside the house, according to Shreveport police.

Shreveport Police and Fire responded to a shooting and a medical emergency on Thurgood Circle, near Curtis Lane and Henry Street, around 9:30 p.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 5, as reported by KSLA, which also carried the Caddo Parish Coroner’s Office identification of the man killed and the account investigators gave of how the confrontation started.

The coroner’s office identified him as Rodney Lewis Jr., 26. He died after being shot multiple times inside the home.

Investigators say Lewis went to the home of his former girlfriend, who is also the mother of his child. When he got there, he found that her new boyfriend had arrived shortly before him.

Lewis then allegedly tried to force his way in. Police say he kicked in the front door to search for the other man. The new boyfriend fired several shots. Lewis died at the scene.

Police are classifying the ongoing investigation as a domestic violence incident. What prompted Lewis to go to the house that night has not been released.

More from USA Carry:

• At the Range: Range Bag Essentials
• Man Shot After Climbing Into 2nd-Floor Apartment Bedroom in Midnight Break-In
• Homeowner Fatally Shoots Juvenile During Alleged Vehicle Break-In in Shreveport
• Boyfriend Shoots, Kills Girlfriend’s Ex After He Breaks In a Second Time
• Woman Shoots and Kills Boyfriend After He Broke-in and Assaulted Her

The woman was struck once in the leg and taken to a local hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. A child was also inside the home and was not hurt. Nobody is suggesting the shooter meant to hit her. Whether a round went through a wall, through Lewis, or simply missed is something the investigation will have to sort out, and the source material does not say. But that is the piece worth talking about. Sheetrock does not stop bullets, and a forced entry at night gives you no time to think about what is behind your target. Knowing where the people you love are standing in your own house is something you work out long before somebody kicks the door in.

No charges have been filed. The Shreveport Police Department says the case is being investigated as a possible self-defense incident, and the investigation remains open. The man who fired has not been publicly identified, and prosecutors make the final determination on whether the shooting was legally justified.

Read the original story: He Kicked In the Door Looking for Her New Boyfriend. Unfortunately for Him, the New Boyfriend was Armed

Key Takeaways

• A man was denied alcohol sales due to lack of ID, leading to a confrontation at a Holiday gas station.
• After being asked to leave, he returned armed with a shotgun and threatened others.
• Two armed bystanders who previously escorted him out shot and killed him in self-defense.
• The incident occurred on August 7, 2026, and remains under investigation by police.
• Authorities have not released the identities of the individuals involved.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

RIVERTON, UT — A man who was refused an alcohol sale for having no ID left a Holiday gas station, circled the lot, and came back armed with a shotgun before two armed bystanders shot and killed him Friday afternoon, according to the Riverton Police Department.

Officers responded to the Holiday gas station around 4:30 p.m. on Friday, August 7, 2026, for reports of a shooting, as reported by ABC4 Utah. Police say the man walked into the store and tried to buy alcohol, could not produce identification, and was refused service.

He started arguing with the clerk. Two bystanders stepped in and got him to leave the store, police say.

He did not stay gone. Police say he left the building, circled the parking lot, and came back through the door with a shotgun. The two bystanders who had just walked him out were also armed. They fired. He was struck and killed at the scene.

“It’s a difficult situation. Obviously, this individual also has family,” Riverton Public Information Officer Nate Slack said, adding that the incident is actively under investigation.

More from USA Carry:

Police have not released the man’s identity and say they are still working to confirm it. The two bystanders have not been named.

What stands out to me is the order these two did things in. Faced with a belligerent stranger arguing at the counter, they used the least amount of force that would work and talked him out the door. Nobody got hurt in that first encounter. He is the one who changed that. He went and got a shotgun and brought it back inside, and at that point the only people in a position to stop him were the two who had just walked him out. There was a clerk behind that counter and whoever else was in the store. Two armed customers being there is the reason this ended with one person dead instead of more.

Read the original story: Refused a Beer Without ID, He Returned With a Shotgun. Two Armed Customers Were Waiting.

Key Takeaways

• A Loomis armored car driver was attacked with bear spray by three suspects during a delivery outside a cash store in Houston.
• The driver fired multiple shots in response, wounding two teenagers, aged 15 and 16, who later sought medical attention.
• Police tracked the getaway vehicle using Flock camera footage, leading to several arrests related to the robbery attempt.
• All suspects in custody are presumed innocent, and charges are pending against them.
• The driver remained unharmed, and no money was stolen during the incident.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

HOUSTON, TX — A Loomis armored car driver making a delivery outside a check cashing store on Bellaire Boulevard was sprayed with bear spray by three suspects Tuesday afternoon and fired multiple shots, wounding two teenagers, according to the Houston Police Department.

Officers were sent to the 5500 block of Bellaire Boulevard in the Gulfton area around 2:30 p.m. on reports of a shooting in progress and an attempted robbery, as reported by ABC13 Houston, which also carried HPD’s account of how the robbery attempt unfolded and how investigators tracked the getaway car.

Police said the Loomis driver pulled up to an Ace Cash Express location to make a delivery and noticed a truck idling nearby. Three suspects got out and came at him. One of them sprayed him with bear spray.

The driver fired. The suspects ran.

That is the whole encounter, and the sequence is what matters. Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. What is described here is a man outnumbered three to one in an open parking lot, hit in the face with a chemical agent designed to stop a charging bear, at the exact moment his vision and his ability to defend himself were being taken away. The cash in the truck is why the suspects were there. It is not why he fired.

Two of the suspects turned up a short time later at a nearby urgent care facility with injuries, police said. They are 15 and 16 years old, and both were taken to Texas Children’s Hospital for surgery.

The case broke open on camera. HPD Lieutenant Larry Crowson said a Flock camera next to the shopping center captured a white Mercedes that police believe was the getaway car, and officers used the plate to track the vehicle to north Houston within hours.

“Officers tracked that vehicle up to the north side, off Tidwell, found it at a car wash, on Tidwell,” Crowson said. “There were several people trying to get blood off the backseat of the car, tampering with evidence there. Those people are detained.”

In all, Crowson said HPD arrested six or seven people, and investigators believe they have everyone involved in the attempted robbery. Charges are pending.

Everyone taken into custody is under arrest, not convicted, and each of them is presumed innocent. The driver has not been publicly identified, and no charging decision involving him has been announced. Prosecutors make that call, not police and not me.

More from USA Carry:

• Man Attempts Armored Truck Robbery, Gets Shot in Chest by Guard
• Pizza Delivery Driver Gets Off Multiple Shots, Putting Carjacker Into Critical Condition
• Houston Pizza Delivery Driver Fatally Shoots Armed Robber
• Concealed Carrier Puts Pizza Down; Shoots Armed Robber Dead
• Situational Awareness: The Point of Criminal Focus

What stands out to me is how little time he had. Bear spray is not a nuisance. It is an incapacitating chemical weapon, and it was used by one of three people closing on a lone courier in daylight on a busy commercial strip. He had seconds, blind or going blind, to decide what was happening to him.

The driver was not hurt. No money was taken.

Read the original story: Sprayed With Bear Spray During a Cash Delivery, Loomis Driver Opens Fire on Three Robbery Suspects, Sending Two to Children’s Hospital

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation announced a settlement on August 6, 2026, resolving claims regarding concealed carry permit applications in California.
• The case highlighted various obstacles, including processing delays, nonresident exclusions, and automatic eligibility bans related to restraining orders.
• AB 1078, approved in October 2025, ensures qualified nonresidents can apply for CCW permits, changing the previous restrictions.
• The settlement requires the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to comply with a 120-day processing timeline for CCW applications.
• SAF continues to advocate for Second Amendment rights and monitors compliance to prevent rollback of gains achieved through litigation.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

LOS ANGELES, CA — The Second Amendment Foundation announced on August 6, 2026 a settlement resolving the remaining claims in California Rifle and Pistol Association v. LASD, its challenge to how the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department handled concealed carry weapon permit applications. According to SAF, the settlement follows the department’s representation that it is now processing CCW applications within the 120-day period required by California permit law.

SAF filed the case with the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and several individual plaintiffs. It was not a single-issue lawsuit. It went after a stack of separate obstacles at once: multi-year processing delays, the total exclusion of nonresidents from the licensing system, automatic eligibility bans triggered by restraining orders, and the cumulative cost of getting a permit at all.

The nonresident piece produced what SAF calls the first ruling in the country confirming that the right to carry does not stop at state lines. The court issued a preliminary injunction, meaning an order that forces a change while the case is still being litigated rather than after final judgment, requiring California to begin issuing CCW permits to qualified nonresidents. SAF says that relief was later made permanent when the Legislature passed AB 1078, which essentially codified the terms of the injunction. That matters to anyone who travels armed, because recognition of an out-of-state permit and the ability to apply for a local one are two different doors, and my concealed carry reciprocity maps show how few of them California has ever opened.

AB 1078, authored by Assemblymember Marc Berman, was approved by the Governor and filed with the Secretary of State on October 10, 2025 as Chapter 570. The bill amends a long list of Penal Code sections, including 26150 and 26155, the statutes that govern who may issue a carry license and under what conditions. Reading the enrolled text, one provision lines up directly with another of SAF’s claimed wins: the bill exempts from the licensing prohibition applicants who were previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other court order that was issued without notice and an opportunity to be heard. In practical terms, a temporary order entered before you ever got to speak, and later dissolved, no longer functions as an automatic bar.

On the delays themselves, SAF says a preliminary injunction against LASD’s multi-year wait times, combined with pressure from a parallel U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit filed after this case, led the department to bring its processing times into compliance with state law. That is the entire point of a statutory deadline. A 120-day requirement that an agency can quietly ignore for two or three years is not a shall-issue system, it is a permit denial with extra steps.

More from USA Carry:

• DOJ Sues LA County Sheriff Over Alleged CCW “Slow-Walk,” After 3,982 Applications Yield Just 2 Approvals
• Concealed Carrier Shoots and Kills Knife-Wielding Man Who Charged Him Inside Cerritos Barbecue Restaurant
• Town Settles Suit Over Gun Questioning
• Important Deadline Approaching: Pistol Brace Rule Compliance
• Washington’s Firearm Insurance Bill Fails to Advance, but Could Return in 2026

SAF also points to reforms in the City of La Verne, which subsidized its psychological examination requirement and modestly reduced related fees after being sued over the total cost of obtaining a permit. The organization says the broader fight over high fees continues in its lawsuit against Santa Clara.

“This case was ambitious from the start, tackling several different obstacles Californians and visitors faced when trying to exercise their Second Amendment right to carry,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “While we settled the remaining claims against LASD once they demonstrated compliance with the statutory timelines, the broader impact of the litigation is clear: California residents and nonresidents alike now have more Second Amendment freedoms thanks to the diligent work of SAF and its partners. We will continue monitoring to ensure these gains are not rolled back.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut framed the result as leverage rather than a finish line. “Lawmakers and officials in California have long treated the Second Amendment as a second-class right, and this settlement proves we will not stop until those who wish to trample our constitutional rights are held accountable,” he said. “Litigation remains one of the most effective tools we have to force compliance with the Constitution when government agencies refuse to do so on their own.” Kraut said the work to secure full recognition of the right to carry, including true interstate reciprocity, continues.

Two caveats belong on the record. The settlement remains subject to final approval by the Los Angeles County Claims Board, the county body that has to sign off before the agreement is final, and the parallel Department of Justice lawsuit against LASD is not resolved by it. The terms described here come from SAF’s announcement, and no LASD statement or signed court order was available to me at the time of writing.

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

Read the original story: 120 Days, Not Years: SAF Settles Its LASD Lawsuit After the Department Says It Now Meets California’s Concealed Carry Deadline

Key Takeaways

• A road rage incident in Eight Mile involved Clifton DuBose Jr., a Prichard sanitation worker, who pointed a gun at another driver.
• DuBose faces five felony counts for shooting into an occupied vehicle after he initiated the confrontation.
• The woman’s return fire injured DuBose, who is now hospitalized and charged as the aggressor.
• City policy prohibits non-police employees from carrying firearms while working, raising concerns about DuBose’s license status.
• DuBose has worked for Prichard for over five years and faces an unrelated domestic violence charge from a prior incident.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

PRICHARD, AL — A road rage confrontation in the Eight Mile community ended with a Prichard sanitation worker shot, hospitalized, and facing five felony counts after investigators say he pointed a gun at another driver and that driver’s girlfriend fired back.

The Mobile County Sheriff’s Office said Tuesday that Clifton DuBose Jr., 54, will be charged with five counts of shooting into an occupied vehicle as soon as he is released from the hospital, as reported by WALA.

Investigators allege the altercation started on Jarrett Road and that DuBose pointed a gun at the back of the other driver. The man’s girlfriend fired two shots. DuBose fired back, striking the back window of the Honda. DuBose was wounded during the exchange.

More from USA Carry:

• Running With Your Gun
• Content Creator Meetup Goes Sideways in Houston: Driver Shoots Passenger Who Allegedly Tried to Rob Him
• Apartment Tenant Shoots 13 Rounds at Robbers Impersonating Maintenance Workers
• 3 Situations, 3 Concealed Carry Choices — Are You Ready?
• Armed Passenger Stops Ex-Boyfriend’s Attack on Mom and Two Kids, Austintown Police Call It Self-Defense

The Sheriff’s Office said it is charging DuBose because investigators determined he was the aggressor. That determination came from working the sequence, who escalated first and who produced a firearm. The woman who fired has not been publicly identified, and the sheriff’s office announced charges only against DuBose. Prosecutors make the final call on every shooting, including this one.

Two other threads run alongside the criminal case. Prichard Mayor Carletta Davis told WALA that city policy prohibits non-police employees from carrying firearms while on the job, though she said she did not have further details about the incident, including DuBose’s license status. The Sheriff’s Office said Wednesday that it had inaccurately reported the day before that DuBose’s driver’s license was suspended or revoked. A spokeswoman said the license expired in June 2023 and that it appears he did not renew it. According to the Sheriff’s Office, DuBose has worked as a sanitation worker in Prichard for more than five years. A city spokeswoman said each department runs its own background checks and that the frequency of those checks may differ. DuBose also faces a third-degree domestic violence charge from a warrant issued in Chickasaw in November, tied to an alleged incident on Christmas Eve 2024.

Read the original story: Passenger Fires Two Shots in Alabama Road Rage After Sanitation Worker Points Gun at Driver’s Back

Key Takeaways

• A man on Seale Street was shot during an attempted robbery at gunpoint in Mobile, AL.
• The victim drew his weapon but was shot before he could react effectively, illustrating a timing problem in such confrontations.
• Alabama law permits deadly force against imminent threats, but the tactical approach to handling such situations is crucial.
• The police investigation is ongoing, with no suspect identified or arrested, and the details of the encounter remain limited.
• Despite the danger, the armed citizen survived the encounter, emphasizing the unpredictable nature of such incidents.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

MOBILE, AL — A man walking on Seale Street Monday evening was confronted by a stranger who tried to rob him at gunpoint, pulled a gun of his own, and was shot before the other person fled the area, according to the Mobile Police Department.

Officers were called to Eoline Street around 6:50 p.m. on Aug. 3 for a report of a shooting, according to an MPD news release as reported by WKRG News 5. They found a man there with a non-life-threatening gunshot wound.

Investigators determined the man had been walking on Seale Street earlier in the evening when a person he did not know attempted to rob him at gunpoint, police said. The man then pulled out his gun. The other person shot him. Then that person left the area.

That is the entire encounter as police describe it, and it is worth reading twice. The robber’s gun was already out and already pointed. Alabama law, like every other state’s, permits deadly force against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and a stranger holding a gun on you at close range in a robbery is not a borderline case. The legal question here is not the interesting one. The tactical question is.

What stands out to me is the timing problem. Drawing against a gun that is already aimed at you means you are starting a race you did not get to begin. The other person only has to close a hand; you have to clear a garment, establish a grip, present, and aim. That gap is why so much of serious training is spent on movement, on using cover and vehicles and doorways, on hands and distance, and on reading a situation before it collapses to arm’s length. Mindset is the part of this nobody sees in the police release. Deciding in advance what you will do when someone already has the drop on you is the work, and it has to happen long before a stranger steps out on a sidewalk.

I am not second-guessing the man who was shot. I was not there, I do not know what was said, how close the two were, or what he believed was about to happen to him if he did nothing. People do get robbed at gunpoint and comply and are shot anyway. He made a decision in a fraction of a second under a gun, and he is alive.

More from USA Carry:

• What’s In Your Emergency Bag? 16 Things That Need To Be There…
• Defensive Vehicle Tactics: A Reality Check
• Armed Ex-Boyfriend Kicks in Woman’s Door, Who Then Shoots Him, Sending Him to the Hospital
• Virginia Homeowner Confronts Then Shoots Man Trying To Break In Through Window
• Resident Fatally Shoots Intruder with Shotgun After Pursuit into Bedroom at Mobile Home Park

Police did not say whether the man fired his own weapon, and the release as reported does not indicate the other person was hit. No suspect has been identified or arrested in the available reporting, the wounded man was not named, and the investigation remains open. Anything about the robber, including a description, is still unstated.

A man carrying a firearm on a Mobile street got the worst possible version of the encounter every armed citizen thinks about, and he survived it.

Read the original story: Mobile, AL Man Robbed at Gunpoint Draws His Own Pistol, But Doesn’t Win the Gunfight

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation filed a reply brief for Jack Harrington in the federal case Harrington v. Crawford regarding an unlawful search of his truck at school.
• Harrington legally owned a handgun but always removed it before school; school officials searched his truck based on third-hand information about his gun ownership.
• The briefing criticizes how officials interpreted reasonable suspicion as mere possibility, arguing it lacks the specific facts required for a legal search.
• SAF asserts that the school’s inability to prove consent invalidates the search, highlighting that Harrington repeatedly refused permission.
• The case raises significant questions about Fourth Amendment rights, illustrating that lawful gun ownership cannot justify unreasonable searches.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

HILLSBORO, NH — The Second Amendment Foundation filed a reply brief on August 5, 2026, in Harrington v. Crawford, a federal civil rights lawsuit over the search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s truck in the parking lot of Hillsboro-Deering High School. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Case No. 1:25-cv-407-JL-AJ, and names Jennifer Crawford and other school district officials as defendants.

SAF filed the suit in October 2025 on behalf of student Jack Harrington. According to the Second Amendment Foundation, Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes kept it in his truck in full compliance with federal law and New Hampshire gun law, but always removed the firearm from the vehicle before going to school. SAF says that once school authorities learned he was a gun owner, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees that ended with his truck being searched without his consent.

The reply brief makes three arguments. First, that school officials targeted Harrington for the search based solely on third-hand information showing only that he had lawfully exercised his Second Amendment rights off school property and outside school hours. Second, that such information falls far short of both probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Third, that the undisputed facts establish, as a matter of law, that he did not consent.

The most striking passage is about what the officials themselves thought the legal standard was. Reasonable suspicion is the lower of the two bars here. It requires specific, articulable facts pointing to wrongdoing, not a hunch. Yet the brief notes that the defendants concede in their own objection that it is “[u]ndisputed that McGinn testified that he believed a possibility that a firearm might be on campus supported reasonable suspicion and that reasonable suspicion exists when there is more than a zero percent chance.” SAF’s answer is one line: “Reasonable suspicion is not a mere ‘possibility’ or ‘anything above zero.'” The brief also states that the defendants do not dispute they cannot satisfy the probable cause standard at all.

That is the whole ballgame in one sentence of deposition testimony. If more than a zero percent chance is enough, then every gun owner in America is searchable at all times, because there is always a nonzero chance.

The brief also dismantles the chain of information that supposedly justified the search. The defendants’ theory leans on assistant softball coach Dean’s inference that a traffic stop Harrington described during what the filing calls the Bus Conversation happened right after he left school property. The problem, per the brief, is that Dean never told anyone that. Dean never spoke to any defendant. Wood, the only person Dean talked to, testified that what Dean reported contained no school connection whatsoever and that he passed nothing more along to McGinn. Reasonable suspicion is measured at the inception of a search, meaning by the facts actually known to the officials who ordered it at the moment they ordered it, not by what someone privately thought and kept to himself.

On consent, the brief lays out who carries the burden: “The burden lies with Defendants to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that valid, voluntary consent to the Search was given. Consent ‘coerced by threats or force, or granted only in submission to a claim of lawful authority’ is invalid. Moreover, the evidence of voluntary consent must be ‘unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.'” Preponderance of the evidence means more likely than not, and here it is the school’s job to prove it, not Harrington’s job to disprove it.

SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said the school had nothing to work with. “The school’s knowledge that Jack was a lawful gun owner outside of school did not justify their search of his truck,” Sack said. “They had no information to indicate he had ever brought the gun to school or had done anything illegal or against school policy whatsoever. The search they conducted could not have been supported by probable cause or even reasonable suspicion. Administrators ignored repeated insistent refusals by Jack to provide consent and now rest their hat on the fact that after telling him the search was going to happen regardless, he replied ‘okay.’ That is not consent in the eyes of the law. Jack’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated here.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb framed it as a citizenship question. “Being perceived as a lawful gun owner does not place you in a class of second-class citizens who are subject to search at any time,” Gottlieb said. “These school officials overstepped their authority here and we’re happy to help Mr. Harrington remind them of their duties under the Constitution.”

What stands out to me is the eighteen-year-old’s conduct. By SAF’s account he refused consent repeatedly and insistently, and only said “okay” after being told the search would happen with or without him. That is the correct play, and it is worth burning into your head before you ever need it. You do not physically resist, you do not argue your way into a second problem, and you do not stop saying no. Refusal preserves the issue for a court later; consent forfeits it. The reason this case is a live Fourth Amendment fight instead of a closed file is that Harrington kept saying no on the record.

The broader principle matters just as much for adults who carry. Lawful gun ownership is not evidence of a crime. The brief’s core claim is that the only thing anybody actually knew about Jack Harrington was that he legally owned a firearm and legally had it in his vehicle away from school, and that this alone triggered an interrogation and a search. If that theory survives, the exercise of a constitutional right becomes the predicate for losing another one.

More from USA Carry:

• Maryland Court Rules Carrying a Gun Alone No Longer Justifies a Police Stop
• Did That Concealed Carry Class Prepare You for the Streets?
• Texas Dean Steps Down After University of Texas-Austin Allows Campus Carry
• Mass Shooting in Chicago – “One million shell casings,” an Officer Told 911
• Close Your Eyes to Improve Your Draw

These are the plaintiff’s arguments in a summary judgment brief, and the defendants dispute them. Summary judgment simply asks the judge to rule without a trial because the important facts are not genuinely in dispute. The court has not ruled on the motion, and nothing here has been decided.

I will continue tracking Harrington v. Crawford as it moves through the District of New Hampshire.

Read the original story: SAF Reply Brief Says New Hampshire School Searched an 18-Year-Old’s Truck Solely Because He Lawfully Owns a Handgun

Key Takeaways

• A federal judge ruled that the National Firearms Act’s registration provisions are unconstitutional due to the removal of the associated tax.
• The ruling impacts suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, but not machine guns or other weapons.
• Plaintiffs, including Gun Owners of America, argued the law exceeds Congress’s powers once the tax was eliminated.
• The decision does not grant a nationwide injunction but protects specific plaintiffs and their members from enforcement.
• The Justice Department has a week to appeal the ruling while the NFA process remains unchanged for gun owners.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

SAN ANGELO, TX — A federal judge ruled on August 5, 2026, that the National Firearms Act’s registration provisions for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a final defined group of miscellaneous firearms exceed Congress’s constitutional authority, because Congress erased the tax those provisions existed to collect. The ruling came on cross-motions for summary judgment in two consolidated cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division: the lead case, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056, and Jensen v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-227, which another judge in the district transferred in and this court consolidated with the lead case. Summary judgment means the court decided the legal question on the papers, without a trial, because the facts that mattered were not in dispute.

Here is the whole thing in plain terms. Congress does not have general authority to do whatever it likes. It has a list of specific powers written into Article I of the Constitution, and one of those is the power to lay and collect taxes. In 1934 Congress used that taxing power to write the NFA: pay a $200 tax to make or transfer certain firearms, and register the item with what is now the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The registration paperwork was defended as the machinery for collecting the tax, and in Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937), the Supreme Court upheld the law on that footing. Not because a federal firearms registry is otherwise within Congress’s power. Because it was a tax.

Then Congress zeroed the tax out. The One Big Beautiful Bill reduced the making and transfer tax to $0 for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons, while leaving the registration requirement standing. Gun Owners of America announced in July 2025 that it would sue the moment that change took effect, alongside Gun Owners Foundation, Palmetto State Armory, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Silencer Shop, and B&T USA, on exactly the theory the court has now adopted: take away the tax and the constitutional footing goes with it. I covered that same argument when the Firearms Policy Coalition put it in front of a federal court, in With the Tax Stamp Dead, FPC Tells Federal Court the NFA’s Gun Registry Has to Die With It. What has changed is that the argument is no longer just a filing. A judge has now agreed with it in writing, and FPC Action Foundation is one of the plaintiffs in this case.

The court agreed in blunt language. “Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power,” the opinion states. The government could not fall back on some other authority either. The court found “no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue,” and held that a statute Congress wrote as a tax cannot be rescued after the fact by a power Congress never claimed. The challenged provisions, the court concluded, “must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.” The fix, the court said, has to come from Congress, not from the bench.

Now the part that decides whether this touches you personally. The relief is a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the challenged provisions against the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers. It is not a nationwide strike-down. The court said federal courts lack the power to issue universal injunctions that reach parties who are not before them, which in practice means the ruling protects the states, organizations, businesses, and individuals in these two cases and the people who belong to or buy from them. That is why the plaintiff list is not trivia. Per the Second Amendment Foundation, the Jensen plaintiffs include the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, the Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom, and three individuals, and the lead case carries Silencer Shop Foundation’s name. The opinion itself describes the combined plaintiffs as a coalition of individuals, businesses, associations, and states.

There is also a carve-out. The court held that the Jensen plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to challenge the NFA’s regulation of “any other weapon,” the catch-all category, because they never established it from the start of the case. Standing is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury of their own before a court may hear their claim, and it is a threshold question, not a technicality a judge can waive. So AOWs stay under the NFA for now even for the winning parties.

Machine guns are not in this ruling either, and the reason is worth understanding. Congress zeroed out four categories of NFA tax and machine guns were not among them. The making and transfer taxes on machine guns still exist, which means the taxing-power justification the court found missing for suppressors and short barrels is still sitting there for machine guns. Later federal statutes restrict them on top of the NFA as well. Nothing here loosens any of that.

What the court declined to do matters too. The plaintiffs also argued the registration scheme violates the Second Amendment, and at the motions hearing they invited the court to skip that claim if it ruled for them on the question of federal power. The court took the invitation, writing that it “does not decide constitutional questions unnecessarily.”

That is not a consolation prize. This is a structural ruling about the limits of what Congress may do, and to me that makes it harder for the government to argue around than a Second Amendment ruling would be. There is no historical-tradition balancing test to fight over, no competing expert record on 1791 or 1868. Either the taxing power supports the regulation or it does not, and the court found that Congress itself removed the tax that made the answer yes for nearly 90 years.

The Second Amendment Foundation, which backed Jensen, called this the first court to reach the issue. “The basis for each lawsuit challenging the NFA registration scheme is the same,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in the group’s announcement. “Without the tax, the remaining requirements for the affected arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis. And today the first court to rule on the issue has agreed with us.” SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb said the ruling “will set a precedent we can now argue in courts across the country.” SAF is also involved in two other NFA challenges, Brown v. ATF and Roberts v. ATF, so a loss on appeal here does not end the argument.

The next move belongs to the Justice Department, and it is on a clock. The court stayed the effect of the final judgment for seven days to give the government an opportunity to seek relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if it wants it, according to the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. A stay means the ruling is on hold and nothing changes on the ground while the clock runs. So the choice in front of an administration that campaigned on the Second Amendment is a narrow one: appeal a ruling that says the registry lost its legal basis, or let it take effect for these plaintiffs.

Until that window closes and the appeal picture is clear, the practical answer for gun owners has not moved. The NFA process is the NFA process. A district court win is not permission to build or possess something you have not lawfully registered, and being wrong about whether you are covered is a felony question, not a paperwork question. This ruling also speaks only to federal power. It does not touch state restrictions on suppressors or short barrels, and it does not touch carry law, including Texas concealed carry law in the state where the case was decided.

More from USA Carry:

• With the Tax Stamp Dead, FPC Tells Federal Court the NFA’s Gun Registry Has to Die With It
• NRA, FPC, SAF Tell Sixth Circuit the NFA’s Short-Barreled Rifle Registry Is Unconstitutional
• 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

Still, the argument gun rights groups have made since the tax hit zero has now won once, in writing, in federal court. Nearly a century of registration authority rested on a $200 tax, Congress deleted the tax and kept the registry, and a judge said it cannot have it both ways.

I will continue tracking Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF, along with the remaining NFA registration challenges, as they move through the courts.

Read the original story: Congress Zeroed the $200 Tax and Kept the Registry. A Federal Judge in Texas Just Ruled It Cannot Have Both

Key Takeaways

• A man driving a Dodge aggressively followed a Volkswagen, leading to a confrontation in a construction zone.
• The driver of the Volkswagen shot Kevin Powell after repeated warnings, citing self-defense under Indiana law.
• Witnesses described Powell’s hostility and aggressive behavior before the shooting, indicating he posed an imminent threat.
• The prosecutor emphasized that the driver had no duty to retreat when fearing for his life, as established by the law.
• The incident highlights the importance of controlling escalating situations to avoid tragic outcomes.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

HANCOCK COUNTY, IN — A man on his way to work shot and killed a stranger who followed him bumper to bumper across a county line, got out of his vehicle in a construction zone, and kept advancing on him after repeated warnings to stop. The Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office has determined the shooting falls under Indiana’s self-defense law and will not file criminal charges.

The man who died was 37-year-old Kevin Powell of Indianapolis. The shooting happened on the afternoon of July 21, and the account below comes from the findings of the Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office and from Prosecutor Brent Eaton, as reported by Fox59.

Investigators said two vehicles, a Volkswagen Jetta and a Dodge Journey, had been traveling the same route from Marion County into Hancock County. Witnesses said the Dodge began following the Volkswagen at an extremely close distance, less than a foot off the other car’s bumper.

Traffic stopped in a construction zone. Powell got out of the Dodge and, according to the prosecutor’s findings, “aggressively approached the Volkswagen.” One witness said he told the Volkswagen driver, “You shouldn’t be driving on my road that fast, motherf*****.” A witness described his demeanor as “very hostile.”

Powell started back toward his Dodge. Then he turned around and came back. The Volkswagen driver stepped out of his car with a handgun. “I wouldn’t do that. Don’t do that. Get back in your car,” the driver told him, according to the prosecutor. Powell kept coming. The driver fired several shots, striking him more than once. Powell retreated to his vehicle and died of his injuries.

Witnesses later told police Powell had been heard saying, “Oh, you gonna get your gun? You afraid? You gonna get your gun? Well, come on, get out.” That taunt is the part that decides this case. A man who sees the firearm, says out loud that he sees it, and closes the distance anyway has announced what he intends to do.

The prosecutor’s office makes no mention of Powell ever being armed. “At every point the driver of the second vehicle was the aggressor and was intent on escalating the situation,” Eaton said. He said one independent witness told investigators, “If I was put in that predicament, if I was the guy in the Volkswagen, I would have been scared for my life,” and that “objective observers, without any connection to either party, said it was their opinion the driver of the Volkswagen would have been in fear for his life from the manner he was approached.”

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and nothing in that standard requires the attacker to be holding a weapon. That is the same standard armed citizens across the country carry under every day. Hands, size, a closing distance and a stated intent to do harm can all put a person in danger of death or crippling injury, which is why an unarmed aggressor and a lawful shooting are not a contradiction. The prosecutor’s office laid out the sequence it relied on: Powell followed at an extraordinarily close distance, got out and initiated the confrontation, approached an occupied vehicle, threatened bodily harm, challenged the driver to get his gun and come out, briefly turned back toward his own car, then renewed his approach despite repeated verbal warnings.

The other half of that finding is what the driver did not do. He never approached Powell. He stood at his own vehicle and told the man twice to stop and go back. “The law in Indiana is clear,” Eaton said. “If you are in fear for your life, you do not have a duty to retreat and you are able to use deadly force and that’s what happened here.”

More from USA Carry:

• Self-Defense or Excessive Force? Man Fatally Shoots Woman Attacking His Neighbor
• Boulder, CO Ban on Firearms in Parks in City Buildings & Parks Passes First Vote
• Ohio Pandemic Order for CCW License Now Expired
• Road Worker Shoots Alleged Carjacker During Violent Incident in Crisp County, GA
• Man Shoots Wife’s Ex-Husband in Self-Defense While Being Violently Beaten With Picture Frame

After the shooting, the driver stayed on scene and called 911. That put his account in front of investigators in the first minutes and gave them a cooperative witness rather than a man they had to go find.

The two men were strangers before the encounter, and Eaton was blunt about what that means. “You know it’s tragic, because it’s avoidable,” he said. “The driver of the second vehicle, there was no reason for him to get out of his car.” That is the mindset lesson sitting in plain sight. Everything before the moment of imminent danger is the part you can still control: you can let the gesture go, you can take the exit, you can stay behind locked doors and call it in. Powell chose to get out. The Volkswagen driver, who has not been publicly identified, was left with the fight he did not pick and no way to leave it.

Read the original story: Indiana Prosecutor: Driver Who Killed Unarmed Road Rage Aggressor Acted in Self-Defense, No Charges Filed

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

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

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

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