Key Takeaways

• Weather limits outdoor shooting, making indoor ranges a valuable alternative.
• Indoor ranges present challenges such as distractions, restrictions on drawing from the holster, and target limitations.
• Rangemaster 7-Yard Standards and Justin Dyal’s Double Add One provide effective drills that can be done indoors.
• The Eastridge Drill offers a diagnostic tool for shooters to identify skill areas needing improvement.
• These drills require minimal ammunition and can be achieved using a shot timer with par times, making them accessible and effective.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

There are plenty of reasons the outdoor range isn’t always available. Weather, hours of operation, work schedules, or simply not having the time to make the drive all push shooters indoors. The indoor range earns its place in a serious shooter’s training plan, and I am fortunate to have three within 15 minutes of where I live.

The Indoor Range Challenge

Indoor ranges come with challenges though, especially if the goal is to do more than just plink at a paper target with no real goal or learning objective in mind. Other shooters on the line make the use of timers difficult, often indoor ranges do not allow drawing from the holster, and some ranges have limitations on the type of targets that are allowed. Working around those limitations for the performance driven shooter can be a challenge, so here are some drills, or more accurately shooting standards, that can serve well enough on the indoor range.

All of these drills can use the same type of target, just scored a bit differently. Since some ranges frown on silhouette type targets, NRA B-8 repair centers, or other similar bullseye targets like the FBI-IP1, or the printable B-8 repair centers online can be used.

Rangemaster 7-yard Standards

First up, the Rangemaster 7-Yard Standards.

The target is scored with actual point value. So, a hit in the 10 ring is worth 10 points, a hit in the 9 ring is worth 9 points, etc. With this drill, any hits outside of the 7-ring count as 0 points.

This is a 15-round drill, so the maximum score would be 150. The goal is score 90% (135), but you shoot what you can. If you are below 90%, then you know where you need to work. The 10-ring on a B-8 is only a 3.36” diameter circle, so that is some real deal shooting if you are pulling off a 150-point score or close to it.

For the string of fire that has you draw, if that is not allowed on your range choice, start from low ready and reduce the par time by 1 second.

Justin Dyal’s Double Add One

Next up in the batter’s box, Justin Dyal’s Double Add One. We aren’t taking any prisoners with these drills, and this one might lull you into a sense of security early on, but it turns into a real smoker by the end. The idea behind the drill is for each string, double the distance, and add one second to the par time. Each string of fire is 2 rounds. It breaks like below.

It is a quick 10 rounds drill, but on a B-8 or similar target, those 10- and 20-yard strings of fire will make you earn it. Total points possible is 100, 90% is a decent score. Since this is a par time drill, just like the 7 Yard Standards, it makes it easier to manage the timer on an indoor range. Just keep the shooting between the beeps, and you are good. No need to tracking the actual time for each string.

More from USA Carry:

• Four Go-To Practice Targets And Where To Get Them
• CCW and Practice in an Indoor Range
• Shooting Drills and Tests for the Indoor Range
• A Plan for Practicing on Indoor Ranges
• Shotgun Drills for the Indoor Range

The Eastridge Drill

Last up we have the Eastridge drill, or the 2.5 Second Standards. Technically, this drill is meant to be shot on an IDPA target. If you have an IDPA target, great, but really all you need is an 8” torso zone, and 4”-6” head zone. If you want to shoot this drill using B-8’s, you stack two vertically. The bottom B-8 is the “torso” and you need to stay inside the 8-ring. The top B-8 is the “head zone” and you need to keep it in the black (5.5”). That will be close enough for this kind of government work.

Every string has the same par time, 2.5 seconds (you probably already figured that out), and start position is user’s choice. If you want to make it “easy”, start from a true low ready, defined as the muzzle below the base of the target or target stand. Medium mode is from open carry, hard mode is from concealment. But, seeing as how most indoor ranges don’t allow drawing from the holster, I suppose we shoot it from low ready. The course of fire breaks down as below.

Fortunate for us, this drill doesn’t have an official scoring rubric. As I understand it, the idea is less about score and more about being a diagnostic tool to find skill areas that need attention. But, if you want to throw a scoring system at it, you can. There are a few different roads you could take for scoring, but I will leave that up to you.

If your indoor range won’t allow for 25-yard shooting, just cut that string of fire from the drill. There is still plenty of good work to be done with the other strings of fire.

The Wrap

You can shoot all of these drills with less than a box of ammunition. As long as you have a shot timer that can do par times, you are all set. These drills will be a good stretch for most shooters, and all from the comfort of an indoor range on that cold winter day. See you on the range.

Read the original story: Performance Driven Drills for the Indoor Range

Key Takeaways

• The NRA and affiliated groups argue in a joint amicus brief that the federal lifetime firearm ban for nonviolent felons violates the Second Amendment.
• The brief cites historical precedents, claiming that disarmament laws targeted dangerous individuals, not nonviolent offenders.
• It emphasizes that the term ‘peaceable’ refers to those who do not engage in violent behavior, even if they have committed nonviolent crimes.
• The Atkinson case may set a precedent for future challenges to Section 922(g)(1) as it applies to nonviolent felons.
• If the Seventh Circuit rules for Atkinson, this important issue could reach the Supreme Court for a definitive ruling on firearm possession rights.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

The National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and FPC Action Foundation have filed a joint amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit arguing that the federal lifetime firearm ban for nonviolent felons under 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment.

The brief was filed on May 7, 2026 in Atkinson v. Blanche, Case No. 26-1356, an appeal from the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff, Patrick Atkinson, is challenging the federal prohibition on firearm possession by anyone with a felony conviction, even where the underlying offense was nonviolent. The brief was authored by Joseph G.S. Greenlee, Counsel of Record for the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

The Core Argument

The amici brief makes a clean and historically grounded argument. Under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government has the burden of justifying any modern firearm regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The brief argues that the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession by nonviolent felons fails that test.

The brief states the principle directly:

“America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation allows for the disarmament of demonstrably dangerous persons, disaffected persons posing a threat to the government and persons with a proven proclivity for violence. But there is no historical tradition of disarming peaceable citizens. Rather, peaceable citizens, including nonviolent felons and other ‘unvirtuous’ persons, were expressly permitted and often required to keep and bear arms.”

Why “Presumptively Lawful” Doesn’t End the Analysis

One of the central legal points in the brief addresses a phrase often cited by lower courts to uphold the felon-in-possession statute. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court called prohibitions on firearm possession by felons “presumptively lawful.” Lower courts have repeatedly used that language to dismiss Second Amendment challenges to Section 922(g)(1) without conducting the historical analysis Bruen requires.

The amici brief argues that this approach misreads what the Supreme Court has actually said. The brief notes that Bruen specifically applied its text and history test to a regulation Heller had deemed presumptively lawful. When New York attempted to characterize its proper-cause requirement for concealed carry permits as a “sensitive place” law, the Court did not stop there. It consulted the historical record and found no historical basis for the regulation.

The brief argues the same standard applies here. “The Court has never articulated an exception for the ‘presumptively lawful’ regulations,” the brief states. Therefore, “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons must be historically justified.”

The Historical Record on Disarmament

The bulk of the brief is a detailed historical examination of who could and could not be disarmed in colonial and founding-era America. The picture that emerges is consistent and clear. Disarmament was reserved for people considered dangerous, not for people who had broken the law nonviolently.

In colonial America, every ban on firearm possession was discriminatory, applying to Blacks, American Indians, Catholics, Puritans, and Antinomians. The brief acknowledges these laws cannot establish a constitutional tradition because both Bruen and United States v. Rahimi made clear that discriminatory laws cannot serve as historical analogues for modern regulations. But even those discriminatory laws were rooted in concerns about danger, not violation of nonviolent statutes.

In the founding era, disarmament focused on enemies of the government during armed conflict. Loyalists were disarmed during the Revolutionary War because they were taking up arms against the colonies, not because they had been convicted of nonviolent offenses. After Shays’s Rebellion, those who had borne arms against the Massachusetts government were disarmed for three years and then permitted to reclaim their firearms.

The brief details three proposals from state ratifying conventions that addressed who could be barred from possessing arms. New Hampshire’s, the only one approved by a majority of its convention, provided that “Congress shall never disarm any Citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual Rebellion.” Samuel Adams’s Massachusetts proposal would have ensured that “the said constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” Pennsylvania’s “Dissent of the Minority” proposed an amendment allowing disarmament only “for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals,” and the historical record indicates this referred to violent crimes and insurrectionists.

In every case, the disarmament tradition focused on dangerousness, not nonviolent legal violations.

What “Peaceable” Meant in 1789

The brief makes a particularly strong argument from founding-era dictionaries. Heller relied on Samuel Johnson’s, Thomas Sheridan’s, and Noah Webster’s dictionaries to interpret the text of the Second Amendment. Those same dictionaries are decisive on what “peaceable” meant.

Johnson’s 1773 dictionary defined “peaceable” as “1. Free from war; free from tumult. 2. Quiet; undisturbed. 3. Not violent; not bloody. 4. Not quarrelsome; not turbulent.” Sheridan’s 1789 dictionary defined “peaceable” as “Free from war, free from tumult; quiet, undisturbed; not quarrelsome, not turbulent.” Webster’s 1828 dictionary defined “peaceable” as “Not violent, bloody or unnatural.”

Being peaceable, the brief argues, is not the same as being law-abiding. The law may be broken nonviolently. A person who commits a nonviolent offense remains peaceable in the founding-era sense and therefore retains the protection of the Second Amendment.

Nineteenth-Century Restrictions Continued the Pattern

The brief surveys 19th-century arms restrictions and finds the same pattern. Discriminatory bans on slaves and freedmen are not valid analogues. Restrictions on tramps were grounded in danger and were upheld specifically because tramps were considered “dangerous,” “a public enemy,” and “a thief, a robber, often a murderer.” Restrictions on persons of unsound mind and intoxicated persons addressed people considered unable to exercise the right safely.

Throughout the period, the brief notes that officials and commentators recognized the right of peaceable citizens to keep and bear arms. The brief quotes a 1840 source: “a free citizen, if he demeans himself peaceably, is not to be disarmed.”

Felons Were Required to Keep Arms

Perhaps the most striking historical evidence in the brief is that nonviolent offenders in the colonial and founding periods were not just permitted to own firearms after their convictions, they were required to.

The brief notes that no individual in early America was disarmed because the law they violated was classified as a felony. Upon completing their sentences, offenders not only had full Second Amendment rights, they were required by state and federal militia acts to keep and bear arms.

The federal Uniform Militia Act of 1792 included exemptions for elected officials, post officers, stage drivers, ferrymen, inspectors, pilots, and mariners. It contained no exemption based on prior incarceration or crimes committed. Freemen previously convicted of crimes virtually always possessed arms in the colonial and founding eras.

The brief also documents specific laws protecting criminals’ arms. In 1786 Massachusetts, when estate sales were held to recover funds stolen by corrupt tax collectors and sheriffs, it was forbidden to include arms in the sales. Connecticut, Maryland, and Virginia all enacted laws exempting arms from civil action recoveries, which the brief notes “undoubtedly benefited some unvirtuous persons.” The federal Uniform Militia Act of 1792 specifically exempted militia arms from “all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.”

More from USA Carry:

• New Jersey Concealed Carry Decision Heading to Debate in Supreme Court
• SAF, NRA File Brief Challenging Pennsylvania Ban on 18-20 Year Old Carry
• Alabama Senate Establishes Lifetime Concealed Carry Permit
• 26 States and DOJ Back Challenge to California’s Ammunition Background Check Law
• DOJ Backs FPC in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Ban on Commonly Owned Pistols

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the question of who can be permanently stripped of that right by a single conviction has implications well beyond Patrick Atkinson’s case. The federal lifetime ban under Section 922(g)(1) currently applies to anyone convicted of any crime, state or federal, punishable by more than one year in prison. That definition sweeps in tax violations, regulatory offenses, drug possession, fraud, and a wide range of other nonviolent conduct.

A person convicted of a nonviolent offense in their youth currently loses their Second Amendment rights for life under federal law. They cannot defend themselves or their families with a firearm. They cannot pass through a state where firearm possession is otherwise legal. They cannot help their spouse or children learn to shoot. The lifetime ban applies even to people who served their sentences decades ago, never reoffended, raised families, paid taxes, and reintegrated into society in every other respect.

The amici brief makes the case that this regime has no foundation in the historical tradition of the Second Amendment. The framers’ generation did not impose lifetime firearm prohibitions on people who had committed nonviolent offenses. They imposed disarmament on people who were actually dangerous, and even then, often for limited periods.

The Broader Litigation Landscape

The Atkinson case is part of a growing wave of post-Bruen challenges to Section 922(g)(1) as applied to nonviolent offenders. Federal appellate courts have split on the question. The Third Circuit, in Range v. Attorney General, ruled in favor of a man convicted of a nonviolent food stamp offense decades earlier, finding the lifetime ban unconstitutional as applied to him. Other circuits have reached different conclusions.

The Supreme Court has not yet directly addressed the application of Section 922(g)(1) to nonviolent felons under the Bruen framework, although several cert petitions on the question have been filed.

The Atkinson case offers the Seventh Circuit an opportunity to apply Bruen’s text and history test to one of the most consequential federal firearm prohibitions in modern law. If the Seventh Circuit follows the Third Circuit’s lead and rules in favor of Atkinson, the issue will likely reach the Supreme Court.

What Comes Next

The Seventh Circuit will hear argument and issue a ruling. The amici brief is one of several being filed in support of Atkinson. The federal government, represented by the Acting Attorney General and the ATF Director, will defend the application of Section 922(g)(1) to nonviolent offenders.

Read the original story: NRA, FPC, and FPC Action Foundation File Amicus Brief Arguing Federal Lifetime Gun Bans on Nonviolent Felons Violate the Second Amendment

Key Takeaways

• The Pennsylvania Senate advanced two bills: SB 357 for constitutional carry and SB 822 for enforcing state firearm preemption laws.
• SB 357 would allow permitless concealed carry, making Pennsylvania the 30th state to recognize this right.
• SB 822 empowers gun owners to sue local governments for violating state laws, ensuring enforcement of firearm preemption.
• Both bills aim to strengthen Second Amendment rights and protect against local restrictions on gun ownership.
• Gun owners are urged to advocate for these bills as they move to the House and await the Governor’s decision.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

HARRISBURG, PA — The Pennsylvania State Senate took two significant steps on the same day to expand and protect the rights of Pennsylvania gun owners. On May 6, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported out SB 357, the Commonwealth’s constitutional carry bill, and the full Senate passed SB 822, a bill putting real teeth behind Pennsylvania’s existing state firearms preemption law.

Together, the two bills represent the most significant pro-Second Amendment legislative effort in Pennsylvania in years. SB 357 would make Pennsylvania the 30th state to recognize permitless concealed carry. SB 822 would give gun owners and pro-2A organizations the power to sue local governments that violate state preemption, recovering attorney fees and damages.

SB 357: Constitutional Carry

SB 357, sponsored by Sen. Cris Dush, would establish constitutional carry in Pennsylvania. The bill was reported favorably out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 9-5 vote on May 6, 2026, and received first consideration the same day. It now awaits a full Senate floor vote.

The heart of the bill is direct. A person in Pennsylvania who is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law would have an “affirmative, fundamental and constitutional right” to keep and bear firearms, including carrying openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, without a Pennsylvania carry license.

The bill also makes the License to Carry Firearms optional rather than mandatory. Pennsylvania residents who want to keep their LTCF for reciprocity in other states or to streamline firearm purchases would still be able to obtain one. Those who simply want to exercise their constitutional right to carry would no longer need government permission to do so.

A particularly important provision of SB 357 is the repeal of Pennsylvania’s special Philadelphia carry restriction. Current law treats Philadelphia differently from the rest of the Commonwealth by restricting carry on public streets or public property in the city unless the person is licensed or otherwise exempt. SB 357 would remove that city-specific carve-out and apply the same carry standard statewide.

Pennsylvania currently lags behind 29 other states that have enacted some form of constitutional carry. SB 357 would bring the Commonwealth into alignment with the growing national consensus that law-abiding adults should not need a permit to exercise a constitutional right.

The Risk of Amendments

Pro-gun groups including Pennsylvania Gun Rights, the state affiliate of the National Association for Gun Rights, are urging supporters to contact senators and demand SB 357 pass the full Senate without anti-gun amendments.

That warning is not theoretical. Constitutional carry bills in other states have been weakened by amendments imposing training mandates, expanding lists of disqualifiers, expanding sensitive place restrictions, carving out specific localities, or adding other provisions designed to dilute the underlying protection. Pennsylvania gun owners who want real constitutional carry should be paying attention as the bill moves to the floor.

SB 822: Putting Teeth Behind Preemption

SB 822, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Langerholc, addresses a different but related problem. Pennsylvania already has a state firearms preemption law that prohibits municipalities from enacting their own gun control ordinances inconsistent with state law. The problem is enforcement.

Local governments, most notably Philadelphia, have for years passed and enforced ordinances that violate the state preemption statute. Gun owners and pro-2A organizations have been forced to spend significant resources challenging these ordinances in court, and even when they win, they often have no way to recover attorney fees or damages from the municipality.

SB 822 changes that. The bill creates a cause of action allowing gun owners and pro-2A organizations to sue local governments that violate state firearms preemption. It allows for the recovery of attorney fees, court costs, and damages. The result is that local politicians who enact unconstitutional firearms ordinances would no longer be doing so on the public’s dime while gun owners foot the legal bills.

The Pennsylvania Senate passed SB 822 by a 30-20 vote on May 6, 2026. The bill was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 7. It now needs House passage and the governor’s signature to become law.

More from USA Carry:

• Preemption Laws and the Use of Firearms and Ammo
• Stopping Firearms Preemption Violations by Local Government Officials across Florida
• Pennsylvania Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Lone Star State Opens The Door To All Licensed Carriers After SB 706 Becomes Law
• 11 Critical Training Basics That Concealed Carriers Often Neglect

Why Both Bills Matter Together

These two bills are different in their mechanics but complementary in their effect. SB 357 protects the individual right to bear arms by removing the permit requirement for lawful carry. SB 822 protects that same right from being chopped into pieces by local governments that ignore state preemption.

Without SB 357, Pennsylvania remains stuck behind the growing number of states that recognize permitless carry. Without SB 822, local governments such as Philadelphia can continue to enact and enforce ordinances that contradict state law, forcing law-abiding gun owners to either comply with unlawful ordinances or pay out of pocket to challenge them.

Together, the two bills would represent the most meaningful expansion of Pennsylvania gun rights since the 2011 amendment to the state’s Castle Doctrine.

Why This Matters for Pennsylvania Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of law-abiding Pennsylvanians to keep and bear arms for self-defense should not depend on whether they can afford the time, fees, and bureaucratic process required to obtain a permit. Twenty-nine states have already determined that permitless carry is the proper recognition of that right. Pennsylvania has every reason to join them.

The Philadelphia carve-out in current law is also worth specific attention. There is no constitutional principle that allows a state to recognize a fundamental right in 67 of its 67 counties except for one city. The fact that Pennsylvania currently does so is a holdover from a different legal era and a different understanding of the Second Amendment. Heller, McDonald, and Bruen have made clear that the right to keep and bear arms is fully protected against state and local government infringement. SB 357 brings Pennsylvania law into alignment with that constitutional reality.

SB 822 is in many ways even more important for the long-term protection of gun rights. A constitutional right that local governments can violate without consequence is a right in name only. Allowing gun owners to sue and recover their costs is the structural fix that makes preemption real. It changes the cost-benefit analysis for local politicians considering an unlawful ordinance from “we might lose in court someday” to “we will pay the gun owners’ legal bills if we lose.”

What Comes Next

SB 357 needs a full Senate floor vote. If it passes, it moves to the House. SB 822 has already passed the Senate and is now in the House Judiciary Committee. Both bills will need House passage and either Governor Josh Shapiro’s signature or a veto override to become law. Governor Shapiro has previously expressed opposition to permitless carry, which means a successful veto override is the more likely path for SB 357.

Pennsylvania gun owners who want to weigh in have several avenues. Calls and personalized emails to state senators and representatives carry more weight than form messages. The National Association for Gun Rights, NRA-ILA, Firearms Owners Against Crime, and other Pennsylvania-focused pro-2A organizations have action alerts and contact information available online. Pennsylvania residents can find their state representative and state senator at palegis.us.

Read the original story: Pennsylvania Senate Loads Up Two Pro-Gun Bills: SB 357 Constitutional Carry Clears Committee, SB 822 Preemption Enforcement Passes Floor

Key Takeaways

• A North Philadelphia homeowner shot a woman trying to break into their home through a back window, and police consider the shooting self-defense.
• The woman did not heed the homeowner’s warning to stop and was pronounced dead at the hospital shortly after.
• Inspector Pace stated the investigation is ongoing, with the occupants and neighbors cooperating.
• Pennsylvania law supports a homeowner’s right to use deadly force against an unlawful intruder, especially during a forced entry.
• This case highlights the importance of home defense planning and caution before using force in self-defense situations.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

PHILADELPHIA, PA — A homeowner in North Philadelphia shot and killed a woman who was attempting to break into their home through a back window on Sunday afternoon. The homeowner is believed to be licensed to carry, and police say the shooting appears to have been an act of self-defense.

As reported by CBS News Philadelphia, the shooting happened on the 2300 block of North Cleveland Street at approximately 1:15 p.m. on Sunday. Philadelphia Police Department Inspector D.F. Pace said the woman was attempting to break through the back window of a home occupied by two people and a dog.

Pace said one of the people inside, who police believe is licensed to carry, warned the woman to stop. She refused. That is when the homeowner shot her.

The woman was transported to Temple University Hospital where she was pronounced dead just before 2 p.m. Her identity has not been released.

The Police Assessment

Inspector Pace told CBS News that the early read on the encounter is self-defense. He acknowledged the investigation is still in its early stages.

“There’s still some unanswered questions,” Pace said. “Once those questions are answered, the police, in conjunction with the district attorney’s office, will make a determination as to whether those folks will face any charges. But at this point, it does not appear that will be the case.”

The two people inside the home have been cooperating with the investigation. Police have also been interviewing neighbors on the block.

More from USA Carry:

• Intruder Shot Multiple Times As Soon As He Broke In Through Back Window
• Texas Man Tracks Down Stolen Truck, Shootout Leaves Victim and One Suspect Wounded, Another Dead
• Don’t Worry About Ballistics – Concealed Carry With What You Like
• Oklahoma City Homeowner Shoots Alleged Robber, Suspect in Critical Condition
• Pennsylvania Concealed Carry Permit Information

Why This Incident Matters for Armed Citizens

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of a homeowner to defend themselves against a violent intruder is at the very heart of what that right protects. A person attempting to break through a back window of an occupied home in the middle of the day is committing a violent act, and the legal framework of every state in the country recognizes the right of the occupants to respond.

Pennsylvania law on the use of force in defense of habitation is well established. Under 18 Pa.C.S. Section 505 and Section 507, a person is presumed to have a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary when an intruder is unlawfully and forcefully entering a dwelling. The presumption applies when the person against whom deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering or has unlawfully and forcefully entered a dwelling. Once that presumption attaches, the legal analysis tilts heavily in favor of the homeowner.

Pennsylvania is also a state where lawful concealed carry is recognized through a permit system. Philadelphia residents who hold a Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms have the same right to be armed inside their own home as any other lawful Pennsylvania gun owner. The fact that the homeowner is reportedly licensed to carry signals that this was a lawful gun owner who acted within the framework the state of Pennsylvania already recognizes.

The Broader Lesson

For armed citizens, this case is a textbook example of why home defense planning matters before a threat ever arrives. A person attempting to break through a back window is not a guest, not a confused stranger, and not someone who can be reasoned with from across the room. The decision tree narrows dramatically when an intruder is forcing entry into an occupied home, and the homeowner’s options are determined in large part by what they have prepared for in advance.

The fact that the homeowner verbally warned the suspect before firing also matters. While Pennsylvania law does not require a homeowner to warn an intruder forcing entry into their dwelling, the warning likely strengthens the self-defense analysis by demonstrating the homeowner gave the intruder an opportunity to disengage. The intruder chose to continue. That decision was not the homeowner’s responsibility.

For armed citizens, that approach is consistent with how good defensive shooting instructors teach the use of force. A clear verbal command before firing, when the situation allows for it, communicates to the attacker, to any witnesses, and to any future jury that the homeowner was not eager to use force and gave a reasonable person a chance to stop.

Read the original story: North Philadelphia Homeowner Shoots and Kills Woman Trying to Break In Through Back Window, Police Say

Key Takeaways

• The DOJ has filed a lawsuit against Colorado’s ban on large capacity magazines, following another suit against Denver’s AR-15 ban.
• The lawsuit argues that magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment and are in common use by law-abiding citizens.
• The DOJ uses Colorado’s own previous stipulations, highlighting that banned magazines are widely owned and used lawfully.
• The case could set a precedent for challenging magazine bans in other states if the DOJ prevails in this lawsuit.
• The outcome may influence federal enforcement against state restrictions on firearms, reshaping Second Amendment rights enforcement.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

DENVER, CO — The United States Department of Justice has filed its second federal lawsuit in 24 hours challenging Colorado firearms restrictions, this time targeting the state’s ban on so-called “large capacity” magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

The complaint was filed on May 6, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado as Case No. 1:26-cv-01950, United States of America v. State of Colorado and Colorado Department of Public Safety. The lawsuit comes one day after the DOJ filed United States v. City and County of Denver, previously covered by USA Carry, which targets Denver’s local AR-15 ban. Both cases are being prosecuted by the DOJ Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section under Acting Chief Barry K. Arrington and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon.

The Magazine Ban Being Challenged

The lawsuit targets Colorado Revised Statutes Section 18-12-302, which makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to sell, transfer, or possess a “large capacity magazine” within Colorado. The statute defines that term as any fixed or detachable magazine, box, drum, feed strip, or similar device capable of accepting more than 15 rounds of ammunition, along with restrictions on shotgun magazines.

The DOJ’s complaint refuses to use the state’s terminology. The filing explicitly states that “The Magazine Ban uses politically charged rhetoric to describe the arms it bans,” and notes that magazines holding more than 15 rounds “are, in fact, standard capacity magazines for many popular firearms, including the AR-15 rifle, the most popular rifle in America.”

The complaint refers to the items as “Banned Magazines” rather than “large capacity magazines” throughout, signaling the same direct rhetorical pushback the Denver complaint applied to the term “assault weapon.”

Magazines Are Arms Under the Second Amendment

The DOJ’s legal argument is structured around two pillars from the Heller and Bruen decisions. First, that magazines are protected arms under the Second Amendment. Second, that they are in common use today by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes.

On the first point, the complaint cites the predicate-act canon of statutory interpretation, the doctrine that when a constitutional right authorizes a certain act, it implicitly authorizes whatever is necessary to perform that act. The DOJ also cites Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence in Luis v. United States and federal appellate decisions including Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, which directly held that magazines are arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment because they are necessary for semiautomatic firearms to function as designed.

The complaint puts it plainly. Semiautomatic pistols and rifles cannot function as designed without a magazine.

Colorado’s Own Stipulations Used Against the State

The complaint deploys a powerful tactical move. It quotes back to Colorado the stipulations the state itself entered into in two prior cases, Colorado Outfitters Association v. Hickenlooper (2013) and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Hickenlooper (2013).

In those cases, when defending the magazine ban, the State of Colorado stipulated to facts that now form the basis of the federal challenge. Among those stipulations:

• More than 300,000,000 firearms are lawfully owned in the United States
• A significant percentage of privately owned firearms are semiautomatic, most of which use detachable box magazines
• The number of lawfully owned semiautomatic firearms in the United States that use magazines like those banned by Colorado is in the tens of millions
• Several million AR-15 platform rifles have been lawfully purchased in the United States and are used for lawful purposes
• In states without magazine restrictions, AR-15 platform rifles are usually sold with 30-round magazines, and the majority of AR-15 owners use 20 or 30 round magazines
• Many full-sized 9mm semiautomatic pistols, including the Glock 17, are sold at retail with magazines holding more than 15 rounds
• The number of magazines like those banned by Colorado in the United States is in the tens of millions
• In Colorado alone, the number of such magazines is in the millions
• Prior to the effective date of the magazine ban, magazines like those banned were not unusual in Colorado

The DOJ’s argument writes itself. Colorado has already admitted under oath that the magazines it banned are in common use by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense. Under Bruen, that admission is fatal to the state’s ability to defend the ban, because there is no historical tradition of banning arms in common use.

The 448 Million Number

The complaint also cites the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Detachable Magazine Report covering 1990 through 2021, which estimates at least 448 million magazines with capacity exceeding 15 rounds in the United States.

That number puts the common use question to rest. With 448 million such magazines in circulation, the items the State of Colorado has chosen to criminalize are owned by roughly two for every adult American.

The Civil Rights Statute Strategy

As with the Denver lawsuit, the DOJ is bringing this case under 34 U.S.C. Section 12601, the federal statute that allows the Attorney General to sue local governments for patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct by law enforcement officers.

The complaint argues that Colorado State Patrol officers and Colorado Bureau of Investigation agents are under a statutory duty to enforce the magazine ban, that they have routinely done so since 2013, and that they will continue to do so unless enjoined. Those enforcement actions, the DOJ contends, deprive Colorado residents of their Second Amendment rights and constitute a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct under federal civil rights law.

The relief sought includes a declaratory judgment that Colorado and the Department of Public Safety are governmental authorities under the statute, that their officers’ enforcement of the magazine ban constitutes a pattern or practice depriving people of constitutional rights, and a permanent injunction barring continued enforcement of the ban.

This @CivilRights Division’s Second Amendment Section is firmly protecting every law-abiding citizen’s right to carry.

These rights do not protect themselves, & @TheJusticeDept & this administration will ensure that the Second Amendment is NOT a second-class right! pic.twitter.com/450MSBlc19

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) May 6, 2026

Dhillon: First Time DOJ Has Defended Citizens’ Second Amendment Rights

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the Second Amendment Section as part of the Civil Rights Division, addressed the broader strategy in a recent video posted to X.

“This is the first time, however, in American history, that the United States Department of Justice is on the side of the citizens in enforcing the Second Amendment,” Dhillon said. “I’m so excited and proud to be at the helm of that, with the full support of acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who himself is an enthusiastic supporter of Second Amendment rights, goes to gun events with me, and others here at the DOJ.”

Dhillon noted that the DOJ has now sued Denver four times for what she described as illegal bans on lawfully permitted firearms, and that the Department is also tracking the Wolford v. Hawaii case currently before the Supreme Court, which challenges Hawaii’s restrictive concealed carry framework.

“These rights do not protect themselves, and that’s true of all of our civil rights,” Dhillon said. “We will eventually get to whatever jurisdiction you want to complain about in my DMs and my mentions on X. We will get there.”

That public commitment, paired with two lawsuits in two days targeting one state, signals that this is not a one-off action but the beginning of a sustained federal enforcement campaign against state and local firearms restrictions deemed inconsistent with Heller, McDonald, and Bruen.

More from USA Carry:

• Colorado Constitutional Carry Bill Advances
• DOJ Sues City of Denver Over Assault Weapons Ban, Calls Local Ordinance a Civil Rights Violation Under Second Amendment
• 26 States and DOJ Back Challenge to California’s Ammunition Background Check Law
• Resident Shoots Intruder Under Colorado’s “Make My Day” Law; Will Not Face Charges
• Armed Security Guard Halts Hammer-Wielding Intruder in Colorado Springs

Why This Matters

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and federal civil rights enforcement is precisely the legal architecture designed to defend constitutional rights against state and local governments that violate them. The DOJ’s use of 34 U.S.C. Section 12601, a statute historically associated with police accountability, to enforce Second Amendment rights is a significant doctrinal step.

For armed citizens nationwide, the Colorado magazine ban lawsuit has implications that extend well beyond Colorado. Twelve states currently have some form of magazine capacity restriction, including California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, Washington, Oregon, and the District of Columbia. If the DOJ prevails in Colorado, the legal architecture established in this case provides a template for federal action against any of those states.

The use of Colorado’s own stipulations is also a significant teaching moment for state-level gun control advocates. Stipulating to factual realities in earlier cases, including the common use of banned items, can become evidence the federal government uses to invalidate the very laws those stipulations were intended to defend.

What Comes Next

The State of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Public Safety will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint. The case will proceed through motions practice and, eventually, to merits briefing or summary judgment.

Under Bruen, Colorado will bear the burden of demonstrating a historical analogue from the founding era for banning magazines holding more than 15 rounds. Given that the relevant historical period featured no comparable regulation and that magazines as a technology did not exist in the same form, that burden will be difficult to carry.

USA Carry will continue tracking both Colorado lawsuits and any additional DOJ filings as they develop.

The full text of the complaint is available on the Department of Justice website.

Read the original story: DOJ Files Second Colorado Lawsuit in 24 Hours, Targets State’s 15-Round Magazine Ban as Civil Rights Violation

Key Takeaways

• A robbery attempt in Sacramento ended with the victim disarming the suspect at gunpoint and holding him until police arrived.
• The incident occurred on Adriatic Sea Way; the victim suffered minor injuries during the struggle but successfully apprehended the attacker.
• Self-defense experts caution against disarming an armed assailant, emphasizing the danger involved in such actions.
• This case highlights the importance of mindset; the victim acted decisively rather than froze in fear.
• Law-abiding citizens in California face strict laws for concealed carry, yet they deserve the right to defend themselves effectively.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

SACRAMENTO, CA — A would-be robbery victim turned the tables on his attacker Tuesday morning in the Natomas area of Sacramento, disarming the suspect at gunpoint and holding him until officers arrived, according to the Sacramento Police Department.

As reported by FOX40, Sacramento Police officers responded to reports of a suspect with a gun around 8:15 a.m. in the 4100 block of Adriatic Sea Way. The suspect had attempted to rob the victim at gunpoint, but the victim disarmed him during the encounter and apprehended him on the scene.

The suspect was detained and the firearm was recovered. The victim sustained minor injuries from the struggle.

No further information about the suspect’s identity, the victim, or the specific circumstances of the encounter has been released by Sacramento Police at this time.

• Sacramento: Long Wait for Concealed Weapon Licenses
• Man Shot by Homeowner After Threatening to Kill During Break-In Attempt
• California: Sacramento County Freezes New CCW Permit Applications, Cites Budget Cuts
• Sacramento Mass Shooting Suspect Released Early From Prison 1 Month Prior To Shooting That Left 6 Dead
• California Lawmakers Want Background Checks for Gun Barrels — What’s Next, Springs and Screws?

This is an extraordinary outcome and not a tactic to take lightly. Disarming an armed attacker is one of the most dangerous things a person can attempt. The vast majority of self-defense instructors will tell you that a gun in the hands of an attacker who is committed to using it is not something you train to take away unless you have no other choice. The fact that this victim succeeded does not make it a recommended response.

What this case does illustrate is the value of mindset. The victim chose to act rather than freeze. He recognized that compliance was not the path he was willing to take, and he found an opportunity in the encounter and seized it.

For armed citizens, the takeaway is that the most powerful weapon any person carries is their own decision to fight. A firearm gives that decision more options and better outcomes, but the underlying willingness to defend yourself is what matters most. California is one of the more restrictive states for lawful concealed carry, and law-abiding residents who want to carry must navigate a may-issue framework that has become more friendly to applicants since the Bruen decision but still includes significant hurdles.

The broader point stands. Criminals do not follow firearms laws. The suspect in this case had a firearm despite whatever California law required. The victim, whether or not he was lawfully armed, had to handle the situation himself in the seconds it was happening. Law-abiding Californians deserve every legal avenue available to defend themselves, including the right to carry a firearm for personal protection.

Read the original story: Sacramento Robbery Victim Disarms Suspect at Gunpoint, Holds Him Until Police Arrive

Key Takeaways

• A father in Garland shot and killed a carjacker while his family was inside the vehicle, in what police deem self-defense.
• The suspect had crashed into multiple cars and attempted to forcibly enter several vehicles before reaching the family’s car.
• Despite not having a weapon, the suspect’s aggressive behavior justified the father’s response, according to Texas self-defense laws.
• The incident highlights the importance of responsible armed citizens being prepared for violent encounters.
• Law enforcement supports the father’s actions, illustrating the recognition of lawful self-defense in such high-stakes situations.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

GARLAND, TX — A father in Garland shot and killed a man who attempted to carjack his vehicle Sunday afternoon while the rest of his family of eight, including a baby, was still inside. Garland police do not expect to file charges and have characterized the shooting as self-defense.

According to FOX 4 News reporting and statements from the Garland Police Department, the incident happened in a parking lot near Highway 66 and Dairy Road on Sunday, May 3, 2026. The encounter was captured on surveillance video.

The Suspect’s Behavior Before the Shooting

Garland Police Department Lt. Pedro Barineau told FOX 4 that the suspect first crashed his vehicle into two other cars in the area. After the crash, the suspect exited his vehicle and immediately began physically trying to get into other vehicles in the parking lot.

Tatiana Starks, who manages Garland Smoke and Vape in a nearby shopping center, witnessed the suspect’s behavior firsthand. She told FOX 4 she heard the initial crash, then saw the man attempting to break into multiple vehicles at a gas station and recorded cell phone footage of his behavior.

“You could definitely tell that he was not in his right state of mind,” Starks said. “He like tried to get in several different cars.”

Starks stopped recording when the suspect began walking across the street toward her, making direct eye contact and moving with intent. The suspect then moved on and approached the family’s vehicle.

The Carjacking Attempt

The family of eight was unaware of what was happening until the suspect reached their car. Surveillance video shows the suspect, wearing a peach colored shirt, confronting the father, who was wearing a white shirt.

The suspect entered the driver’s seat of the family’s vehicle and attempted to drive away with family members still inside, including a baby. The father struggled with him for nearly a full minute. Throughout the struggle, the carjacker remained behind the wheel attempting to take the vehicle while the father fought to stop him.

After roughly a minute of struggle, the father, who was outside the vehicle near the passenger side door, shot the carjacker in the driver’s seat. The suspect was transported to a hospital and pronounced dead.

No one in the family was injured.

The Police Assessment

Lt. Barineau told FOX 4 that the shooting appeared to be self-defense.

“It seemed to be self-defense,” Barineau said. “It kind of all happened really fast.”

Police did not recover any weapons from the suspect at the scene. Lt. Barineau emphasized that this did not change the analysis.

According to FOX 4, police say that while the suspect did not have a weapon, he was absolutely using force to try to steal multiple vehicles, and at the moment of the shooting, the father had no way of knowing whether the suspect was armed.

Investigators are still working to identify the deceased suspect.

More from USA Carry:

• Chicago Woman with CCW Takes On Four Carjackers
• Concealed Carrier Wounded in Shootout w/ Five Carjackers
• BREAKING: ATF Pistol Brace Rule VACATED!
• Homeowner Uses Firearm to Stop Man in Front-End Loader Destroying Vehicles and Attempting to Ram Their Home
• Supreme Court Nominee Has Problematic Second Amendment History

Why This Case Matters for Armed Citizens

This is why we carry. This is exactly the scenario that responsible armed Americans prepare for, and the outcome here is the best one available given the circumstances.

A man behaving erratically had already crashed into multiple cars and was actively attempting to break into vehicles in a parking lot in broad daylight. He approached a family of eight in their own car, forced his way into the driver’s seat, and tried to drive off with the children, including a baby, still inside. The father had to make decisions in real time about how to stop a stranger from driving away with his family.

The legal standard for the use of deadly force in Texas is reasonable belief of imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. A stranger attempting to drive off with your children at high speed, while you are physically attached to the vehicle in a struggle, meets that standard by any reasonable reading. The fact that the suspect did not turn out to be armed is legally irrelevant. What matters is what the father reasonably believed in the moment, and what a reasonable person would have believed faced with the same circumstances.

A child being forcibly transported away from a parent at the hands of a stranger acting erratically is an active kidnapping in progress. The threat of serious bodily harm to those children was not theoretical.

The Pro-2A Context

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of a parent to defend their children against a violent attacker sits at the absolute core of what that right protects. There is no waiting for police in a situation like this one. The carjacker was already in the driver’s seat. The vehicle was already being stolen. The family was already being moved.

Texas is a strong castle doctrine and stand your ground state. Texas Penal Code Section 9.32 recognizes the right to use deadly force to protect oneself or another person against unlawful deadly force, including in situations involving aggravated kidnapping or robbery. A carjacking with people still inside the vehicle squarely fits the framework the law contemplates.

For armed citizens, the takeaway is the timeline. The struggle lasted nearly a full minute. That is an eternity in a violent encounter, and it speaks to how committed the suspect was to taking the vehicle. It also illustrates why armed citizens should think carefully about how they are armed when out with their families, where they keep their firearm relative to where they are, and what their plan is if a sudden encounter requires them to act quickly outside the vehicle.

Garland Police Department’s quick assessment that this was self-defense, with no charges expected, also matters. It illustrates that lawful self-defense, properly executed, is recognized by responding law enforcement when the facts support it. The father’s decision to fight to protect his family was the right one.

Read the original story: Texas Father Shoots and Kills Carjacker During Nearly Minute-Long Struggle With Family of Eight Inside Vehicle

Key Takeaways

• The DOJ has filed a lawsuit against Denver, claiming its assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment and civil rights laws.
• The lawsuit challenges the ban on carrying and possessing semiautomatic rifles, including popular models like the AR-15.
• The DOJ argues that AR-15s are commonly used and protected under the Second Amendment, citing significant ownership numbers.
• The lawsuit aims for declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement of the ordinance against AR-15 style rifles.
• This case reflects a shift in federal views on local gun laws, potentially setting a precedent for future challenges.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

DENVER, CO — The United States Department of Justice has filed a federal lawsuit against the City and County of Denver and the Denver Police Department, alleging that Denver’s local “assault weapons” ban violates the Second Amendment rights of city residents and constitutes a pattern or practice of civil rights violations under federal law.

The complaint was filed on May 5, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado as Case No. 1:26-cv-01929, United States of America v. City and County of Denver, Colorado, et al. The case is being prosecuted by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division through its newly active Second Amendment Section, headed by Acting Chief Barry K. Arrington. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon leads the Civil Rights Division.

The Ordinance Being Challenged

The lawsuit targets Denver Revised Municipal Code Chapter 38, Article IV, Section 38-121(c), which makes it unlawful “to carry, store, keep, manufacture, sell, or otherwise possess assault weapons within the City and County of Denver.”

The ordinance defines “assault weapon” broadly to include any semiautomatic pistol or centerfire rifle with a fixed or detachable magazine capacity of more than 15 rounds, any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding stock or magazine capacity of more than six rounds, any combination of parts designed to convert a firearm to those configurations, and any firearm modified to those configurations.

The ordinance covers some of the most popular semiautomatic rifles in America, including the AR-15 and similar platforms.

The DOJ’s Constitutional Argument

The complaint opens with the constitutional foundation. The Second Amendment “protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes,” citing District of Columbia v. Heller. Under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and the government must justify its regulation by demonstrating it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The DOJ argues Denver’s ordinance fails both prongs of that test.

On the first prong, the complaint argues that AR-15 rifles are bearable arms and the ordinance therefore implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment. The ordinance is presumptively unconstitutional from the outset.

On the second prong, the DOJ argues that there is no historical tradition of banning arms in common use, and that AR-15 style rifles with standard capacity magazines are unambiguously in common use today. The complaint marshals significant evidence on this point.

The Numbers Behind “Common Use”

The complaint cites National Shooting Sports Foundation data showing at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles in circulation as of 2021. Approximately 2.8 million AR-style rifles entered the market in 2020 alone, accounting for roughly 20 percent of all firearms sold that year.

Various studies cited in the complaint estimate that between 16 million and 24.6 million Americans own or have owned AR-style rifles. The most commonly reported reasons for owning AR-style rifles include recreational target shooting (66 percent), home defense (61.9 percent), hunting (50.5 percent), defense outside the home (34.6 percent), and competitive sports shooting (32.1 percent).

The complaint also notes that Justice Elena Kagan recently wrote that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country” in Smith and Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives itself described AR-15 style rifles as “one of the most popular firearms in the United States” in 2022 federal rulemaking.

On the magazine capacity question, the complaint cites NSSF data showing at least 448 million magazines with capacity greater than 15 rounds in circulation in the United States. The DOJ also cites Colorado’s own prior court stipulations that AR-15 platform rifles are usually sold at retail with 30-round magazines and that the majority of AR-15 owners use magazines with 20 or 30 round capacity.

More from USA Carry:

• Resident Startled by Intruder After Returning Home at 1 AM, Fatally Shoots Suspect
• Man Uses App to Track His Stolen Car, Fatally Shoots 12-Year-Old Suspect
• Boulder, CO Ban on Firearms in Parks in City Buildings & Parks Passes First Vote
• 26 States and DOJ Back Challenge to California’s Ammunition Background Check Law
• Wisconsin DOJ Releases Concealed Carry Recognized Permit List, Training Requirements, and Application Process

Why “Assault Weapon” Is Treated as a Loaded Term

The complaint is direct about the political nature of the ordinance’s terminology. The DOJ writes that “assault weapon” is “not a technical term used in the firearms industry” but rather “a rhetorically charged political term developed by anti-gun publicists,” citing Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in Stenberg v. Carhart.

That framing matters. It signals that the DOJ is not just challenging the ordinance on outcome but also on the terminology itself, treating the ban as a fundamentally political rather than technical regulation.

The Civil Rights Statute

The DOJ is bringing this action under 34 U.S.C. Section 12601, the federal statute that allows the Attorney General to sue local governments engaged in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives people of constitutional rights.

This is the same statute the DOJ has historically used to investigate and reform police departments accused of patterns of excessive force or unconstitutional practices. Applying it to a Second Amendment violation is a notable and aggressive use of federal civil rights enforcement authority.

The complaint argues that Denver Law Enforcement Officers are under a duty to enforce the ordinance, that they have routinely done so for years, and that they will continue to do so absent a federal injunction. Those enforcement actions, the DOJ contends, deprive Denver residents of their Second Amendment rights and therefore constitute a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct.

What the DOJ Is Asking the Court to Do

The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the DOJ is asking the court to declare that Denver and the Denver Police Department are governmental authorities under Section 12601(a), that Denver Law Enforcement Officers are law enforcement officers under that same provision, that enforcement of the ordinance constitutes a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers, and that the effect of that pattern or practice is to deprive Denver residents of their Second Amendment rights.

The DOJ is also asking for a permanent injunction barring Denver and its agents from enforcing the ordinance to the extent it bans possession of AR-15 style rifles with standard capacity magazines. The injunction would require Denver to adopt policies and procedures to remedy the unconstitutional conduct and to implement systems that identify and correct future conduct depriving people of constitutional rights.

Why This Matters

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the DOJ filing this lawsuit signals a significant shift in how the federal government views local assault weapon bans. The case is being prosecuted by a dedicated Second Amendment Section within the Civil Rights Division, an office that did not meaningfully exist under the prior administration in this configuration.

This is the federal government using the same legal infrastructure historically deployed against police departments engaged in patterns of constitutional violations and applying it to municipal gun bans. The implications are significant. If this lawsuit succeeds, the Department of Justice will have established a template that can be used against any similar ordinance in any city in the country.

For armed citizens, this is also a clear signal that the executive branch is now treating the right to keep and bear arms as a civil right on the same footing as other constitutional rights protected by federal civil rights enforcement. That framing is overdue, and it changes the political and legal calculus for cities considering similar ordinances going forward.

The Broader Legal Landscape

The Denver case fits into a growing body of post-Bruen litigation. The Tenth Circuit recently ruled in National Association for Gun Rights v. Polis that Colorado’s state-level ban on possession of unserialized firearm parts implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text. The Supreme Court has heard or considered cases this term touching on multiple Second Amendment issues, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s statement in Snope v. Brown noted there is a “strong argument that AR-15s are in common use.”

The Tenth Circuit, where this case will be heard at the appellate level if it gets there, is also where USA Carry recently reported on the ghost gun ruling involving Colorado state law. The court has shown increasing willingness to engage seriously with Second Amendment claims under the Bruen framework.

What Happens Next

The City of Denver and the Denver Police Department will have an opportunity to respond to the complaint. The case will likely proceed through motions practice, possibly including a motion to dismiss from the city, before reaching the merits.

If Denver chooses to defend the ordinance, the city will bear the burden under Bruen of demonstrating a historical analogue from the founding era for banning AR-15 style rifles. Given the DOJ’s evidence that AR-15 style rifles are owned by tens of millions of Americans and are unambiguously in common use, that burden will be difficult to carry.

Read the original story: DOJ Sues City of Denver Over Assault Weapons Ban, Calls Local Ordinance a Civil Rights Violation Under Second Amendment

Key Takeaways

• Connecticut’s ban on ‘convertible pistols’ has passed both legislative chambers and awaits the governor’s signature, set to take effect on October 1, 2026.
• HB 5043 classifies the possession and sale of convertible pistols as a Class D felony, targeting Glock-style pistols capable of being converted to machine guns.
• Supporters cite a rise in illegal Glock switch seizures as justification, while critics argue existing laws already prohibit such conversions.
• Gun sales surged in Connecticut as residents rushed to purchase Glocks before the legislation takes effect.
• Litigation against the ban is likely, as it raises constitutional concerns regarding the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

HARTFORD, CT — Connecticut’s “convertible pistol” ban has cleared both chambers of the General Assembly and now sits on Governor Ned Lamont’s desk awaiting his signature. The Connecticut Senate passed HB 5043 by a 22-11 vote in the early morning hours of Tuesday, May 6, 2026, after a debate that began around 3 a.m. and stretched until roughly 8:30 a.m.

The Connecticut House had previously passed the bill 86-64 on April 22, 2026. Every House Republican and 15 Democrats voted against the measure. The bill was introduced by Governor Lamont himself on February 5, 2026, as a Governor’s bill pursuant to Joint Rule 9. He has publicly stated his intent to sign the legislation.

If signed, the ban takes effect on October 1, 2026.

What the Bill Actually Does

According to the bill text, HB 5043 makes it a Class D felony to import into the state, distribute in the state, sell, give, advertise, offer to sell, transfer, expose for sale or transfer, or possess with intent to sell or transfer any “convertible pistol.”

The bill defines a “convertible pistol” as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with a common household tool into a machine gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, often referred to as a “Glock switch.” The cruciform trigger bar is a hallmark of Glock’s design and is used by similar pistols from manufacturers like Shadow Systems and others.

The bill excludes hammer-fired pistols and certain shielded designs, but the practical target is clear: Glock-style striker-fired handguns, among the most common defensive pistols in America today.

A Class D felony in Connecticut carries penalties of up to five years in prison and fines up to $5,000.

The legislation also redefines unfinished frames and receivers as firearms to address so-called ghost guns, and strengthens existing state bans on bump stocks. Current owners of covered pistols are not required to surrender or destroy their firearms, but transfers and sales going forward would be heavily restricted.

The Stated Rationale and Why Critics Aren’t Buying It

Supporters of the bill, including Governor Lamont, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Democratic legislative leaders, framed the legislation as a response to the rise in seized “Glock switch” devices. According to ATF data cited during legislative debate, seized switches jumped from 658 in 2019 to 5,816 in 2023, a 784 percent increase. Hartford police seized 51 modified Glocks between 2023 and 2024.

The stated goal is to pressure manufacturers like Glock to redesign their pistols so they cannot accept conversion devices. Lamont noted that Glock already sells a modified version in Germany that is harder to convert.

The argument falls apart on close inspection. Machine gun conversion devices are already illegal under both Connecticut state law and federal law. The National Firearms Act has classified auto-sears as machine guns since they were invented, and the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 banned civilian possession of newly manufactured machine guns. Possession of a Glock switch carries up to 10 years in federal prison.

Anyone willing to break federal machine gun law is unlikely to be deterred by an additional state-level felony for owning the host pistol. As the Connecticut Citizens Defense League put it in their opposition testimony, “Making the host pistol illegal does not add a penalty to the criminal who is already willing to commit a felony.”

Republicans Pushed Back Hard

The legislative opposition was vocal and unified. Sen. Rob Sampson said during Senate debate that the bill bans “perfectly lawful firearms” even though Glock switches and illegal conversions are already prohibited.

Rep. Craig Fishbein offered one of the more direct rebuttals during House debate. “‘Shall not be infringed’ still appears in the U.S. Constitution. I own firearms capable of being converted. None of them have been converted into machine guns.”

Rep. Doug Dubitsky raised the broader logical concern that has alarmed Second Amendment advocates nationally. If the rationale of banning any firearm capable of illegal modification is accepted, that rationale could logically extend to virtually any semiautomatic handgun, since aftermarket conversion devices exist or could be designed for nearly all of them.

That concern is not hypothetical. The bill’s language defines “readily converted” loosely enough that future regulators could expand the definition to capture additional pistol designs as new conversion devices appear on the illicit market.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of law-abiding Americans to own firearms in common use for lawful purposes sits at the very center of what that right protects. Glock-style striker-fired pistols are among the most popular defensive handguns in the country, used by tens of millions of civilians, police officers, and military personnel. They are the textbook definition of arms in common use under the standard set by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The legal vulnerability of HB 5043 is significant. The Heller decision held that arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes cannot be banned. The Bruen decision in 2022 further required modern firearm regulations to point to a historical analogue from the founding era to survive Second Amendment scrutiny. There is no founding-era tradition of banning a class of common defensive handguns based on the theoretical possibility that criminals might illegally modify them.

California passed similar legislation in 2025, AB 1127, which immediately drew federal lawsuits from pro-gun groups. New York, Illinois, and Maryland are pursuing or have pursued similar measures. Litigation against the Connecticut law, if signed, is virtually certain.

The deeper concern for armed citizens is the precedent. A bill that bans a popular defensive pistol because of what criminals might do to it represents a fundamental inversion of how American firearms law has historically worked. Punishing law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals who are already breaking federal law sets a precedent that can be applied to virtually any firearm.

More from USA Carry:

• Connecticut Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Pennsylvania Castle Doctrine Bill Headed to Governor’s Desk
• Connecticut Alert: Magazine Ban and Castle Doctrine
• Homeowner Sends Masked Intruders Fleeing After They Use Hidden Key to Enter Connecticut Home, Juvenile Suspect Shot
• Ohio Bill Reducing Training Requirements from 728 hrs. to 24hrs. Heads to the Gov. Desk

A Surge in Connecticut Gun Sales

In a development that mirrors what happens nearly every time a state moves to ban a class of firearms, Connecticut gun dealers reported a sharp surge in Glock sales as HB 5043 moved through the legislature. Rich Sprandel, the owner of Blue Line Firearms and Tactical in Monroe, told CT Mirror in late April that he had seen sales increase substantially since the sale ban legislation was introduced.

The bill’s grandfather provision allows current owners to keep firearms they already possess, which has driven Connecticut residents who carry Glocks or who had been considering one to make their purchases before the October 1 effective date.

What Comes Next

Governor Lamont has stated his intent to sign HB 5043. The National Association for Gun Rights has launched a public veto campaign urging Connecticut residents to contact the Governor’s office and demand a veto. The governor’s office contact information is available at portal.ct.gov/governor.

If Lamont signs the bill as expected, the law takes effect October 1, 2026. Litigation challenging the constitutionality of the ban is virtually certain and will likely follow the path of the California challenge to AB 1127, which was filed almost immediately after that bill was signed in 2025.

Connecticut residents who want to acquire a Glock or other covered pistol legally should be aware that the window may be closing quickly. After the effective date, future sales, imports, and transfers of these handguns within Connecticut will become Class D felonies absent a successful court challenge.

Read the original story: Connecticut HB 5043 Passes Senate in Overnight Vote, Glock-Style Pistol Ban Now Sits on Governor Lamont’s Desk

This is not a list of pink AR-15 charms. This is a list of gear, training, and protection that makes carrying easier, safer, and more effective.

1. POM Pepper Spray

Not every encounter calls for a firearm. POM Pepper Spray is a pocket-sized less-lethal option that gives the carrier in your life a tool for the in-between moments. Think parking lots, dog walks, hotel hallways, or any situation where deploying a firearm would not be reasonable but a problem is still developing.

POM units are small enough for a keychain or purse pocket, simple to deploy, and built with a flip-top safety to prevent accidental discharge. They also come in a range of colors and patterns if you want to personalize the gift.

2. Carey Concealment Holster

A great holster is the difference between a carrier who actually carries every day and one who leaves the firearm in a drawer. Cheap holsters are uncomfortable, print badly, and slowly train people out of carrying entirely. A purpose-built holster is a gift that keeps showing up every time she puts it on.

Carey Concealment is a great option, with kydex that holds up to daily wear and a build quality that earns its place on a belt. Their Airframe Appendix Holster ($59.99) is a great starting point for appendix carriers, with a wing attachment that tucks the grip in tight to eliminate printing, the DCC Monoblock belt clip for serious retention, and a wide range of firearm models, optic compatibility, and color options. They also offer the Mach 2 Premium Appendix, the Mach 1 Micro Appendix for smaller pistols, the Camber for strong-side IWB carry, the Camber for traditional 4 to 5 o’clock carry, and OWB options for range work and open carry. Every holster comes with a limited lifetime guarantee.

3. CCW Safe Membership

Carrying concealed is a serious responsibility, and a self-defense incident can produce legal costs that wipe out a family’s savings even when the carrier did everything right. A CCW Safe membership is the kind of gift that nobody wants to need and everyone is grateful to have.

CCW Safe covers attorney fees, expert witnesses, court costs, and other legal defense expenses tied to a self-defense incident. Memberships start at modest annual rates and scale up based on coverage tier and family inclusion. Giving someone the peace of mind of legal protection on top of physical protection is a Mother’s Day gift that quietly says “I take what you’re doing seriously.”

4. Ammunition From Ammunition Depot

You can never have too much ammo. Whether the carrier in your life is feeding a daily carry gun, building a stash for range practice, or rotating fresh defensive rounds into the magazine, ammunition is a gift that gets used and appreciated.

Ammunition Depot carries a wide selection of training ammo and quality defensive loads from major manufacturers, with competitive pricing and reliable shipping. Buying in bulk on training ammo is a practical way to support more range time, and a box of premium hollow points alongside it makes for a complete gift package.

5. Staccato HD C3.6

This is the splurge anchor of the list. The Staccato HD C3.6 is built specifically for concealed carry, with a 3.6-inch barrel, aluminum frame with a shortened grip module, ambidextrous controls, active firing-pin block, Staccato’s HD HOST optic-mounting system, and Glock pattern magazine compatibility. It delivers the precision and shootability the brand is known for in a package optimized for daily carry.

The Standard Package starts at $2,299, the Preferred Package at $2,499, and the Premium Package at $2,799. If you do go with a Staccato as the gift, the factory engraving service ($124.99) is a great way to make it personal with custom icons or text on up to three slide locations.

This is a high-end gift for the person in your life who has been eyeing a Staccato for a while and never quite pulled the trigger themselves.

6. A Concealed Carry Bag

Many women carry off-body, and the right bag is a serious upgrade over an improvised pocket or generic purse. Two strong options worth considering this Mother’s Day:

The Howitzer Viscusi Aegis Bag is part of Howitzer’s collaboration with professional shooter Michelle Viscusi. It’s a thoughtfully built concealed carry bag with a dedicated firearm compartment, organized layout for everyday gear, and styling that reads as a regular bag rather than a gun bag.

The Savior Equipment Obscura CCW Sling Bag takes a different approach with a low-profile sling silhouette that pulls forward quickly for one-handed access. It includes a dedicated CCW compartment, hook and loop interior for holster and accessory placement, and a build that holds up to daily use.

Either one is a meaningful upgrade for someone who has been wedging a firearm into a generic purse and hoping for the best.

7. Mountain Man Medical Kit

If you carry a firearm, you should carry the means to stop bleeding. Most violent encounters that involve gunfire involve gunshot wounds, and a tourniquet plus pressure dressing in the right hands can save a life in the minutes before paramedics arrive. That goes for the carrier, their family, or anyone else they may end up helping.

Mountain Man Medical builds purpose-built trauma kits in a range of sizes and configurations, from compact pocket-sized kits to full IFAKs for the home or vehicle. Their kits ship with quality components rather than the cheap knockoff tourniquets that fail when they’re needed. Pair the kit with a basic Stop the Bleed class for the full educational angle.

8. A Quality EDC Flashlight

A pocket-sized light is one of the most useful pieces of EDC gear out there, and most people don’t own a good one. It earns its place in a pocket every single day, not just on the nights something goes wrong.

Three strong options at different price and style points:

Surefire Stiletto Pro — A flat, pocket-friendly rechargeable light with multiple output modes and Surefire’s reputation for legitimately tough construction. The flat profile rides in a pocket without the cylindrical bulge of traditional lights.

Streamlight Wedge XT — Pink — Compact, flat, rechargeable, and finished in pink for the carrier who wants their gear to match the Mother’s Day theme. The Wedge series is one of the best-selling pocket lights on the market for good reason.

Olight Arkpro Series Flat EDC Flashlight — Olight’s take on the flat EDC format with strong output, multiple color options, and rechargeable convenience at a competitive price point.

9. A Local Range Membership

Gear is great. Skill is better. A range membership at her local indoor or outdoor range is a gift that pays off every time she walks through the door for a year. Memberships typically include unlimited range time, member discounts on ammo and rentals, guest privileges, and often access to private classes or member-only events.

If she’s already a member somewhere, consider a private lesson voucher or a women’s-focused training class instead. Time on the trigger with a good instructor produces more growth than any piece of gear.

10. Dry Fire Training Tools

Dry fire is the most underused training method in the concealed carry world. It costs nothing to do, can be practiced safely at home, and builds real skills in trigger control, sight alignment, draw, and reload mechanics. The right gear makes it work.

Snap Point USA Dummy Rounds are weighted to feel like real ammunition and built for safe dry fire practice without damaging firing pins. Drop them in magazines for malfunction drills and use them to train reload mechanics. A pack of dummy rounds is the foundational dry fire purchase.

Scaled Dry Fire Targets scale full-size USPSA and IDPA targets down to dry fire distance, giving you a realistic sight picture in a hallway or living room. A pack of scaled targets turns any room into a deliberate practice space.

Together, these two items run well under $100 and unlock unlimited home practice for the carrier in your life.

11. Shooters Global SG Timer 2

A shot timer is what turns range time and dry fire into real feedback. It measures draw time, splits, transitions, and total stage time, which gives the shooter objective feedback rather than a vague sense of “that felt fast.” Anyone serious about improving their pistol shooting eventually buys a shot timer, and getting one as a Mother’s Day gift skips the wait.

The Shooters Global SG Timer 2 is one of the most refined shot timers on the market, with a clean interface, Bluetooth connectivity to the Shooters Global Drills app, dry fire mode for at-home practice, and a rechargeable battery. The dry fire mode is particularly valuable because it lets the carrier in your life run the same drills at home that they’d run at the range, with the timer giving honest feedback every rep.

This is the gift for the person who is past the basics and ready to take their shooting seriously.

A Final Thought

The best Mother’s Day gift for a concealed carrier is one that makes carrying easier, safer, or more effective. A great holster gets worn every day. Pepper spray rides in a pocket without taking up space. A trauma kit sits in a purse or bag until the day it matters. Training and dry fire tools build skills that compound over years.

Whatever you pick, the underlying message is the same. You take her safety seriously, you take her commitment seriously, and you want her to have the gear and training to back up the responsibility she’s chosen to carry.

Happy Mother’s Day from USA Carry.

Read the original story: 11 Mother’s Day Gifts for the Concealed Carrier in Your Life

Key Takeaways

• Episode 55 details a Delta flight from New Orleans to Salt Lake City, highlighting the smooth check-in process.
• Firearms were declared at MSY, and the bag was securely packed with a declaration slip added.
• Upon arrival, Delta kept the bag in a locked office, and zip ties on firearms were noted as part of their procedure.
• Travelers should carry a cutting tool to remove zip ties easily upon bag pickup.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

Episode 55 was filmed May 1st, flying Delta from New Orleans to Salt Lake City. Smooth check-in, and a small Delta-specific detail at pickup worth knowing about.

Check-In at MSY

Walked up and declared firearms. Agent confirmed right away, had me set the bag up. Everything had shifted around inside, but I got it sorted — Pelican hard-sided case inside a regular piece of luggage with the FedEx sleeve attached. I put the declaration slip in once I signed it. Done.

Bag was already prepaid, so check-in moved fast. Before I headed out, the agent mentioned my bag would be waiting in a locked office in Salt Lake City — not the carousel.

Set a 15-minute timer and waited just in case TSA needed access. They didn’t.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carry Permit Holder Stops Knife Attack
• Salt Lake City Man Charged with Murder After Fatally Shooting Bicycle Theft Suspect in the Back
• Should Concealed Carry in College by Staff and Students be Allowed?
• Concealed Carrier Shoots and Kills Gunman Shooting at Passing Vehicles
• Man Opens Fire In Nightclub Shot By Employee Of Club

Arrival in Salt Lake City

Headed to the Delta office to pick up the bag. Showed my tag number and drivers license, they pulled it, and I was good to go.

One thing worth noting: Delta zip ties the bags containing firearms. That’s their procedure. I carry trauma shears when I fly — they’re TSA-compliant — so I cut it right there and was on my way.

Final Thoughts

Every airline does something a little different at pickup. Delta uses a locked office and a zip tie. Now you know. Carry something to cut it with is up to you.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 55 – Delta from New Orleans to Salt Lake City

Key Takeaways

• A convicted felon armed with a handgun unlawfully entered four occupied homes in Jacksonville, making threats to residents before encountering police.
• The suspect pointed his firearm at responding officers, which resulted in them returning fire and killing him on the scene.
• The incident underscores the importance of home defense and the responsibility of citizens to protect themselves against armed intruders.
• The situation illustrates that police response takes time, emphasizing that homeowners must be prepared to act in an emergency.
• This event serves as a powerful argument for Second Amendment rights, reflecting the necessity of armed self-defense in critical situations.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

JACKSONVILLE, FL — A convicted felon armed with a handgun kicked in the doors of four occupied residences in Jacksonville’s Holiday Hill area Monday night, made threats to residents inside, and was only stopped after he pointed his handgun at responding officers and they returned fire.

According to a press briefing by Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office Sheriff T.K. Waters and Undersheriff Shawn Coarsey on May 5, 2026, patrol officers were dispatched to the 8200 block of Rigel Road around 11:30 p.m. Monday in response to an armed criminal mischief call.

The Suspect’s Path Through Four Occupied Homes

The suspect, identified by JSO as a Black male in his 30s and a convicted felon in both Florida and Texas, kicked in the doors of four separate residences in a short span of time. According to Undersheriff Coarsey, the suspect was armed with a handgun and made contact with residents inside two of the homes, made statements to them, and then exited and moved to the next residence.

Every one of the four homes was occupied at the time. Children were inside at least one of the residences, according to Coarsey.

The suspect made one statement to a resident that the Undersheriff specifically noted at the briefing.

“This is it. This is my last day,” the suspect told one of the residents, according to Undersheriff Coarsey.

To JSO’s knowledge, nothing was stolen. The crime that took place at each home was an armed burglary in which the suspect entered, threatened the occupants with a firearm, and left.

The Confrontation With Officers

Officers from JSO District 2 responded to the calls. They were standing outside one of the residences speaking with a victim when the suspect approached them on foot.

“They were standing outside one of the residences, speaking to the person that lived there,” Coarsey said. “The body cam shows and there’s surveillance video that shows that suspect approached those officers. He walked between two vehicles that were parked like in a driveway. It’s hard to tell where he came from. It was dark from the area that he came from.”

As the suspect closed on the officers, the resident they were speaking with reportedly recognized him and said “There he is right there.”

The suspect raised his handgun and pointed it at the officers. They ordered him to drop the gun. He did not. Four officers fired their weapons, killing the suspect at the scene.

The Undersheriff said the entire encounter from approach to gunfire was a matter of seconds.

“It was very quick. Yeah, it was very quick. He surprised them. And thankfully, he didn’t get a shot off and injure anyone.”

The four officers involved in the shooting were identified as Officer R. Vazquez, Officer G. Comayagua, Officer J. Pallint, and Officer A. Schmidt. No officers were injured. The State Attorney’s Office is conducting an independent investigation, after which JSO will conduct its own internal review. This is the eighth officer-involved shooting of the year for JSO.

The suspect has been identified by investigators but his name has not been released pending next of kin notification.

More from USA Carry:

• 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
• Carjacking Attempt Foiled: Florida Man Shoots Two of Four Gunmen
• Suspect Shot in the Face After Firing Shotgun into Crowd in Jacksonville
• Florida Man Shoots Intruder After Walking In on Home Invasion at Jacksonville Apartment

Why We Carry and Why Home Defense Matters

This is why we carry guns. This is why responsible Americans keep firearms in their homes for self-defense.

A convicted felon, prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm, had a handgun anyway. He kicked in the doors of four homes occupied by sleeping families. He pointed that handgun at residents inside their own bedrooms and living rooms. He told one resident that this was his last day, a statement that suggests he was prepared for the night to end in violence regardless of how it played out.

Four families faced an armed criminal forcibly entering their home in the middle of the night, and the only thing that ultimately stopped him was four officers with firearms returning fire when he pointed his gun at them.

Think carefully about the timeline. The suspect kicked in his first door. The residents called police. Officers were dispatched and responded. By the time officers arrived and began speaking with victims, the suspect had already moved through multiple homes and was approaching from the dark with his handgun raised. The window between the first 911 call and the suspect ending up in a fourth home was filled with families who had to handle that initial encounter on their own, with whatever they had at hand.

For armed citizens, this case reinforces a hard truth that gets repeated for a reason. The police cannot teleport. Even an excellent law enforcement response to an in-progress armed burglary takes minutes, and seconds matter when an armed felon is inside your home pointing a gun at you. The first line of defense in your home at 11:30 at night is you.

The Pro-2A Case in One Incident

This incident is the entire pro-Second Amendment argument distilled into a single night.

A criminal who was already prohibited from owning a firearm had one anyway. Laws that disarm law-abiding people do nothing to disarm people like him. He was undeterred by the fact that his actions were felonies in every state in America. He was undeterred by the fact that there were people inside the homes he was kicking in. He was undeterred until he pointed a firearm at four officers who had firearms of their own.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right precisely because of nights like this one. The right of a homeowner to be armed inside their own residence, ready to defend themselves and their family against a violent intruder, is not a hypothetical. It is the practical answer to the question of what a family should do when a stranger kicks in their door at 11:30 at night with a handgun in his hand and threats coming out of his mouth.

Every family in those four Jacksonville homes had to make decisions in real time, with no warning, in the middle of the night. Some of them had children in the house. None of them knew if the suspect was going to come back. None of them knew if the next person to kick in their door would.

Building a serious home defense plan is not paranoia. It is recognizing that incidents like this one happen, and that the time to prepare is before they do. That includes thinking through how you would secure your home, how you would communicate with family members, where your firearm is stored, how you would access it under stress, and what your state’s law allows in defense of yourself and your family inside your own home.

Read the original story: Convicted Felon Kicks in Doors of Four Occupied Jacksonville Homes With a Handgun, Stopped Only When Police Arrive

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the case of Patrick Adamiak, who is serving 20 years in prison on firearm-related charges.
• Adamiak’s charges stemmed from demilled items and non-firing replicas, raising questions about the classification practices of the ATF.
• A confidential informant, who had charges of his own, played a role in Adamiak’s arrest and tried to get him to procure a machine gun, which Adamiak never did.
• There’s a grassroots campaign for a presidential pardon for Adamiak, highlighting the lack of functional evidence and no prior criminal record.
• The Adamiak case serves as a warning for gun owners regarding ambiguous ATF classification practices, showing how lawful items can be reclassified as illegal.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari in the case of Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, the former active-duty U.S. Navy Master-at-Arms serving 20 years in federal prison on machine gun and destructive device charges that gun rights advocates have argued for years are based on demilled equipment, non-firing replicas, and unfinished parts that are still openly sold online today.

The case, Patrick Tate Adamiak, Petitioner v. United States, presents three questions to the Court, one of which is a Second Amendment challenge. The cert petition was filed on April 10, 2026, and is now under consideration by the justices.

Who Tate Adamiak Is

Adamiak enlisted in the U.S. Navy at age 17 and rose to E-6 Master-at-Arms, the Navy’s military police rating. He had received orders to report to Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training, an opportunity reserved for some of the most physically and mentally capable service members in the fleet. Instead of arriving at BUD/S, he is in a federal prison in New Jersey, with a scheduled release date of 2042.

According to extensive reporting by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project, Adamiak operated a small online business called Black Dog Arsenal, where he sold roughly $10,000 a month in military gear and gun parts. He was one of GunBroker’s top 500 dealers. He had no prior criminal record.

The Charges and What Was Actually Recovered

Federal prosecutors charged Adamiak with possessing and transferring unregistered machine guns and possessing unregistered destructive devices. The government’s headline-grabbing announcement at the time of his June 2023 sentencing claimed he was “obtaining illegal machine guns” and that ATF agents had “recovered 25 additional unregistered firearms” during a search of his home.

A closer look at what was actually seized, as documented by SAF’s reporting, raises serious questions about every charge.

The “machine gun” possession charges were based on items that included a non-firing toy STEN submachine gun replica made by Spanish manufacturer Denix, which Adamiak had paid $75 for and which is still sold online today. They also included four 80 percent unfinished M240 side plates that were stripped pieces of cut steel, never assembled, and never finished. ATF’s expert witness, who was hired in November 2020 and testified at Adamiak’s trial as his first court appearance, classified those four plates as four machine guns.

The “destructive device” charges included two inert RPG tubes that had holes drilled into them and had been stripped of their internal parts. Adamiak had purchased one of them for $40 at a flea market while stationed in California. ATF examiners patched the hole, installed a trigger group from a real RPG, and test-fired a single training round to classify them as destructive devices. The judge who oversaw the trial wrote that Adamiak “did not possess all parts of destructive devices,” which by ordinary statutory standards should have ended the charges. The fake RPGs are still sold today without any FFL or paperwork required.

Other charges involved flare launchers, which are still sold today without any FFL or paperwork, and demilled MG42 kits that had been cut once with a saw rather than the three torch cuts ATF guidance has historically required. Adamiak purchased the MG42 kit through a Federal Firearms Licensee on GunBroker, assuming that an item being sold by a licensed dealer on a major firearms platform was legal to own.

Former senior ATF official Daniel G. O’Kelly testified at trial about the legal definition of firearm receivers under the Code of Federal Regulations and was credited with saving Adamiak from an additional 10-year sentence on a related charge involving 977 MAC receiver flats, which the prosecution had argued were 977 separate machine guns. O’Kelly testified that the flat pieces of stamped metal did not legally qualify as firearm receivers under federal law.

The Confidential Informant

The investigation that led to Adamiak’s arrest began with a confidential informant working off charges of his own. According to SAF’s reporting, the informant was a former machine gun shop owner who had been raided by ATF, charged with felon in possession, and was paid approximately $8,000 for his role in the Adamiak case alone. The informant repeatedly asked Adamiak to procure a machine gun for him over the course of months. Adamiak never did. He did sell the informant a shroud through GunBroker, along with various legal parts and components.

The Cert Petition and the SAF Amicus Brief

Adamiak’s cert petition was filed on April 10, 2026. The Second Amendment Foundation has now filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to grant review. The case raises significant questions about the ATF’s classification practices, the boundaries of the National Firearms Act, and the application of Bruen and Heller to the regulation of firearm parts and components.

Cert petitions face long odds in any case. The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions each year and grants only a small fraction. Building amicus support is one of the primary ways legal advocates signal to the Court that a case raises issues of broad national importance worth taking up.

The Pardon Push

Running parallel to the legal effort is a grassroots campaign asking President Trump to grant Adamiak a full presidential pardon. The campaign has been amplified by firearms commentators including Mike “Mrgunsngear” of the Mrgunsngear Channel, whose recent post on the case is embedded below.

The pardon argument rests on several key points. Adamiak had no prior criminal record. There were no victims associated with the case. None of the items cited as evidence were functional, complete, or operable as charged. Every item that formed the basis of his conviction is still legally available for purchase online today. No illegal weapons were recovered from his residence. The case appears to hinge on classification interpretations rather than any actual criminal conduct.

A presidential pardon would not vacate the conviction in the legal sense, but it would restore Adamiak’s rights, free him from prison, and send a clear signal that this kind of prosecution will not stand under the current administration.

More from USA Carry:

• Jelly Roll Receives Full Pardon from Tennessee Governor Bill Lee for Drug, Robbery Convictions
• New Jersey Concealed Carry Decision Heading to Debate in Supreme Court
• Petition to Remove Ohio’s Concealed Carry Notification Law
• SAF and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Strike Down Ban on Marijuana Users Owning Firearms
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court to Reject Federal Gun Ban on Marijuana Users

How Readers Can Help

For readers who want to support Adamiak’s case, the campaign has provided several points of contact.

To electronically contact the Acting Attorney General, readers can use the Department of Justice contact form at justice.gov/contact-us.

To mail letters, the campaign has provided two addresses:

Mr. David Warrington
White House Counsel
Office of White House Counsel
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Pardon Attorney
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530

The current U.S. Pardon Attorney is Ed Martin, who can be reached at USPardon.Attorney@usdoj.gov.

A sample letter circulated by the campaign reads:

I am writing to respectfully request a full presidential pardon for Patrick 'Tate' Adamiak. Mr. Adamiak's case represents a profound miscarriage of justice that warrants immediate review and corrective action. He is a former active-duty U.S. Navy sailor who served his country honorably and had received orders to report to Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL (BUD/S) training, an opportunity reserved for only the most capable and dedicated service members. Despite his exemplary record and commitment to service, Mr. Adamiak was investigated and prosecuted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the prior administration. The circumstances of this case raise serious concerns: Mr. Adamiak had no prior criminal record. There were no victims associated with this case. None of the items cited as evidence were functional or complete. All items in question remain legally available for purchase online. No illegal weapons were recovered from his residence. This case appears to hinge on classification interpretations rather than any actual criminal conduct. The prosecution of a service member, absent criminal intent or harm, undermines confidence in the fairness and consistency of federal enforcement. Mr. Adamiak remains deeply patriotic and has expressed a continued desire to serve his country. His future, reputation, and opportunity to contribute have been unjustly taken from him. A presidential pardon would not only restore justice for Mr. Adamiak, but also send a clear message that fairness, proportionality, and common sense remain guiding principles of our legal system. I respectfully urge you to review this case and recommend clemency. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Why This Case Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the Adamiak case illustrates how a federal regulatory agency can convert ambiguous classification questions into 20-year prison sentences when prosecutors and ATF examiners are willing to push the boundaries of what counts as a firearm.

For everyday gun owners, parts builders, and collectors, this case is a warning. ATF’s reclassification practices have produced moving targets on items ranging from pistol braces to forced reset triggers to receiver flats. Items that were lawful when purchased can become unlawful by reinterpretation. Items that look like one thing on a website can be classified as something else entirely once an ATF examiner gets hold of them.

The case also fits into the broader regulatory reform context. The ATF has recently announced a 34-rule reform package under Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, which targets several of the most aggressive classification rulemakings of the previous administration. The Adamiak case is, in many ways, exactly the kind of outcome that reform package is designed to prevent going forward. The question is what happens to the people already serving prison time under the old framework.

Read the original story: Active-Duty Navy Sailor Serving 20 Years Over Demilled Parts and Replicas as SAF Pushes Supreme Court for Review

Key Takeaways

• A home invasion on Walker Avenue resulted in the suspect being shot and killed by the homeowner.
• Jackson Police received calls about a domestic disturbance and a home invasion early Sunday morning, with one female victim hospitalized.
• The investigation continues; the homeowner is in custody, while police have not disclosed the suspect’s identity.
• Police note an increase in homicides linked to domestic violence and emphasize the need to understand underlying causes.
• Armed citizens should prepare for violent threats and know their rights under Mississippi law regarding self-defense.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

JACKSON, MS — A suspect who kicked in the door of a home on the 3900 block of Walker Avenue early Sunday morning was shot and killed by the homeowner during the home invasion, according to the Jackson Police Department.

Speaking at a press briefing, JPD spokesperson Sabrina Banks said officers initially received a call around 3 a.m. in reference to a domestic disturbance at the 3900 block of Walker Avenue. Upon arrival, officers learned that a female had been shot at the location and had been transported to a local hospital.

A second call to the same address came in shortly afterward in reference to a home invasion. When officers responded, they learned that a suspect had kicked in the door at the location and had received at least two shots to the upper body. The suspect died at the scene.

Police said the homeowner is in custody for questioning as the investigation continues. Banks said the suspect’s identity was not being released because next of kin had not yet been notified. No one else was injured in the incident.

The investigation remains ongoing. Anyone with additional information is asked to call the Jackson Police Department at 601-960-1800.

A Pattern of Domestic Violence

During the briefing, Banks acknowledged that Jackson has seen an uptick in homicides this year and offered context about the pattern.

“Although we may be having an uptick in homicides, what we’re noticing is that they’re domestic violence related. They’re not random. It doesn’t seem to relate to anything like gang violence, carjackings. The last three of the four of them have been domestic violence.”

Banks said the focus needs to shift toward identifying triggers for domestic violence related homicides and understanding the root causes of interpersonal violence in the community.

Why This Matters for Armed Citizens

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of a homeowner to defend themselves against a violent intruder forcibly entering their home is one of the clearest applications of that right.

A door being kicked in at three in the morning is the textbook definition of an imminent violent threat. There is no time to call for help, no time to negotiate, and no way to know what the intruder intends once they are inside. Mississippi law, like the law of most states, recognizes that a person inside their own home does not have to retreat from a violent attacker who has forcibly entered.

The investigation in this case is still active, and police have not released full details about the relationship between the parties involved or the precise sequence of events. What is clear is that a suspect chose to kick in a door, ended up inside the home, and was met with effective defensive force.

More from USA Carry:

• Federal Court Blocks Maine’s 72-Hour Waiting Period for Firearm Purchases
• Packers Lineman Rasheed Walker Arrested at LaGuardia After Declaring Firearm in Checked Bag
• Jackson Homeowner Fires at Suspect Fleeing Police Who Attempted to Enter Home
• Jackson Home Invasion Ends in Gunfire as Woman Returns Home, Thankfully Armed
• Home Invasion Turns Fatal When Resident Fires on Intruders in Jackson, MS

For armed citizens, the takeaway is the same one that comes up again and again. Have a plan before the worst night of your life arrives. Know how you would react if your door came down at three in the morning. Know where your firearm is. Know who might be in the house. Know your state’s law on the use of force in defense of yourself and others. Mindset and preparation matter as much as the firearm itself.

The Jackson Police spokesperson’s broader point is also worth attention. Domestic violence is the leading factor in violent incidents inside the home in many jurisdictions, including Jackson. For people leaving difficult or abusive relationships, building a serious safety plan, including the lawful means of self-defense, is a legitimate and often necessary response.

Read the original story: Jackson Homeowner Shoots and Kills Suspect Who Kicked in Door in Pre-Dawn Home Invasion

Key Takeaways

• A Nashville homeowner shot an intruder who demanded money in his bedroom on Saturday night.
• The suspect, Derick Mercer, 45, was identified after the shooting and is recovering in a hospital.
• Mercer faced charges of aggravated burglary and unlawful gun possession due to his felony status.
• The case underscores the importance of self-defense rights and having firearms accessible in emergencies.
• Criminals often disregard laws, highlighting the need for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves effectively.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

NASHVILLE, TN — A Nashville homeowner shot an attempted burglary suspect who entered his bedroom wearing a medical mask and demanded money on Saturday night, according to the Metro Nashville Police Department.

As reported by WSMV, officers responded to the 100 block of Southwood Park Place near Nashville International Airport just after 10:30 p.m. Saturday for reports of a shooting.

According to police, a 56-year-old man was watching television in his bedroom when a masked intruder entered the room and demanded money. The suspect was later identified as 45-year-old Derick Mercer.

The homeowner grabbed his firearm, which was sitting next to him. Police said Mercer jumped across the bed and grabbed for the gun. During the struggle, a shot was fired, striking Mercer in the chest.

Mercer was found injured in the parking lot of the apartment complex and was transported to a hospital for treatment. He declined to interview with detectives.

Police said the homeowner told them he knew Mercer and that Mercer had been at his home earlier that day, but he did not realize it was Mercer who entered his bedroom at the time of the incident.

When Mercer is released from the hospital, he will be charged with aggravated burglary and unlawful gun possession by a convicted felon, according to MNPD.

More from USA Carry:

• UC Merced Hero Changes Position on Concealed Weapons, Says He Wishes He’d Had One
• CA Homeowner with CCW Holds Two Burglary Suspects at Gunpoint Until Cops Arrive
• Calguns Foundation Sues Merced County, Sheriff Mark Pazin Over Unlawful Carry Application Policies
• Robber Demands Money; Get’s Shot Instead
• Shooting at Nashville School Leaves Six Dead, Including Three Students

Why This Matters for Armed Citizens

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of a law-abiding person to defend themselves against a violent intruder is at the core of what that right protects. A masked man entering a bedroom and demanding money is exactly the kind of imminent threat the law of self-defense is designed to address.

The fact that the homeowner had a firearm within reach is what made the difference. Once an attacker is already inside the bedroom, there is no time to retrieve a firearm from a safe across the house or in another room. Armed citizens who keep a firearm accessible while at home should think carefully about how that access is managed, balancing speed of access with safety from unauthorized handling.

This case also highlights a hard truth. The suspect was a convicted felon and prohibited from possessing a firearm. He was prohibited from being inside that apartment without permission. None of those restrictions stopped him. Laws restrict the law-abiding. Criminals make their own decisions, and the only thing standing between a violent attacker and his victim in those moments is the victim’s ability to defend themselves.

Read the original story: Nashville Man Watching TV in Bed Shoots Masked Intruder Who Demanded Money

Key Takeaways

• A suspect is in critical condition after a homeowner shot them during an alleged robbery in southwest Oklahoma City.
• Police are investigating the incident but have not disclosed details about the parties involved or the circumstances of the shooting.
• The case highlights the importance of self-defense rights and the castle doctrine in Oklahoma, which allows homeowners to defend against intruders.
• Preparedness for home defense is crucial, including planning and understanding use-of-force laws in one’s state.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK — A suspect is in critical condition after being shot by a homeowner during an alleged robbery in southwest Oklahoma City on Friday night, according to police.

As reported by News 9, the incident happened near Southwest 44th Street and South Pennsylvania Avenue.

Police have not released additional information about the homeowner, the suspect, or the specific circumstances inside the residence at the time of the shooting.

The case remains a developing story, and further details are expected to be released as the investigation continues.

More from USA Carry:

• Oklahoma Open Carry
• Don’t Worry About Ballistics – Concealed Carry With What You Like
• Texas Man Tracks Down Stolen Truck, Shootout Leaves Victim and One Suspect Wounded, Another Dead
• Chicago Shooting: Armed Woman Defends Family From Alleged Domestic Threat
• Oklahoma Burglar Shot by Homeowner After Breaking In Back Door

Why This Matters for Armed Citizens

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the ability of a law-abiding homeowner to defend themselves against a violent intruder sits at the very heart of what that right protects. A robbery inside a home is not a property dispute. It is a violent crime committed against people, and the people inside the home have every legal and moral right to stop it.

Oklahoma is a strong castle doctrine state. Under Oklahoma law, a homeowner who reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm from an intruder unlawfully entering or attempting to enter their home is presumed to be acting in lawful self-defense. The legal framework recognizes that no one should be required to retreat from a violent attacker inside their own house.

For armed citizens, cases like this one are a reminder that home defense planning matters before a threat ever arrives. Knowing the layout of your home, having a plan for family members, securing your firearm in a way that lets you access it quickly while keeping it out of reach of children, and training under realistic conditions all matter when seconds count. Equally important is understanding the use-of-force law in your state so that you can articulate your reasonable belief in the moment after.

Read the original story: Oklahoma City Homeowner Shoots Alleged Robber, Suspect in Critical Condition

Key Takeaways

• The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District proposes Board Policy 3515, allowing qualified staff to carry concealed handguns voluntarily.
• Participants must have an Alaska Concealed Handgun Permit, complete training, and undergo assessments; the Superintendent has the approval authority.
• The policy aims to address long law enforcement response times in rural areas, serving around 19,421 students.
• Opinions on the policy vary; some support trained staff carrying firearms, while others express concern about teachers’ roles and the timing of the proposal.
• The policy includes multiple safeguards, such as mandatory training and psychological evaluations, making it a more protective framework.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASILLA, AK — The Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District is considering a proposed Board Policy 3515 that would allow qualified teachers, board members, and contracted individuals to voluntarily carry concealed handguns on school property.

According to reporting by the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, the school board first discussed the proposal at its April 15, 2026 meeting. The item was tabled and is scheduled to return to the board on May 6.

What the Policy Does

Participation is strictly voluntary. To qualify, an applicant must hold a valid Alaska Concealed Handgun Permit, complete required training, pass a physical assessment and psychological evaluation, and submit to initial and random drug and alcohol screenings.

The Superintendent has final authority to approve or deny applications and may revoke authorization at any time. Authorized participants will receive a stipend for the additional duty.

Required training includes live handgun qualification, scenario-based active shooter training, and trauma and emergency medical response training, totaling between 8 and 40 hours annually. The employee provides their own firearm and equipment. District funds cannot be used to purchase handguns or ammunition.

Authorized employees must keep the firearm on their person, properly holstered and fully concealed at all times. Storing a firearm in a school building overnight is prohibited.

Why Mat-Su Is Considering It

The district covers a large area with rural communities where law enforcement response times can be long. The board argued that evolving safety risks require more proactive measures, particularly in remote areas. The district serves approximately 19,421 students across 49 schools.

The Board Conversation

According to the Frontiersman, board member Brooks Pitcher spoke in favor of the policy. School nurse Virginia St. John voiced opposition, citing the professional mandate to “do no harm” and concerns about the role shift for teachers.

“We’re asking our teachers to be educators, mentors, and now a tactical first responder,” St. John said.

Mother Dena McCarg said she supports having trained staff ready to react to threats but raised concerns about ongoing training requirements. Public commenter Katie Stiegel questioned the timing during a tense fiscal year for the district.

Superintendent Dr. Randy Trani told the board the policy was developed after consultation with other states and districts, the district’s insurance provider, and legal counsel. Board member Ole Larson moved to table the policy, and it will return on May 6.

More from USA Carry:

• Students in Grades 6–12 Can Now Learn Firearm Safety in Michigan Schools After New Law Signed
• Florida Governor Signs Bill Allowing Armed Volunteer Security Teams at Places of Worship Into Law
• Suspect and Volunteer Both Fire Warning Shots at Each Other During Confrontation at Church
• Five Problems Concealed Carriers Have That Other People Don’t
• We Fight Two Fights: Second Amendment Rights are Lost without Political Action

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the question of whether trained, vetted, and willing teachers should be permitted to carry concealed firearms in schools is one of the most important debates in American school safety policy.

When a violent attack begins inside a school, the most decisive factor in how many people get hurt is how quickly an armed defender can confront the threat. In rural districts where law enforcement may be 15 to 30 minutes away, the gap between attack and effective response is filled by whoever happens to be inside the building.

The proposed Mat-Su policy is also a model of layered safeguards. It is voluntary, requires an existing CHP, adds psychological and physical evaluations, drug and alcohol testing, mandatory training, and law enforcement coordination. Compared to current policy, the proposed framework is more protective, not less.

Alaska is one of the most permissive states in the country for lawful gun ownership and carry. Allowing willing, qualified educators to carry concealed at school is consistent with how most adult Alaskans already live.

Read the original story: Alaskan School District Considering Voluntary Concealed Carry Program for Qualified Teachers and Volunteers

TALLAHASSEE, FL — Florida’s bill allowing armed volunteers to provide security at places of worship is now state law. Governor Ron DeSantis signed CS/SB 52, the Security Services at Places of Worship Act, on April 24, 2026, where it was filed as Chapter 2026-46 in the Laws of Florida. The new law takes effect July 1, 2026.

I previously reported on the bill’s passage through both chambers of the Florida Legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support before it was sent to the governor’s desk. Filed by Senator Don Gaetz, the legislation closes a long-standing legal gap that had prevented Florida churches from organizing armed volunteer security teams without first navigating a professional security guard licensure framework that was never designed for unpaid congregants.

What the New Law Does

The law amends section 493.6102 of Florida Statutes by adding subsection (16), creating an exemption from Chapter 493’s licensure requirements for unpaid volunteers who provide armed security services at places of worship. Before SB 52, Florida law required anyone performing security services to hold a Class D security license, and anyone performing armed security services to hold a Class G statewide firearm license. Those licenses involve formal training hours, fingerprinting, fees, and renewals tied to commercial security work.

The exemption created by SB 52 allows unpaid volunteers to provide armed security on the premises of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other place of worship without holding those professional licenses, provided three conditions are met.

According to the enrolled bill text, the volunteer must hold a valid Florida concealed weapon or firearm license issued under s. 790.06. The security services must be provided exclusively on the premises of the church or ecclesiastical or denominational organization, including any property owned or leased by the organization for worship, education, or religious activities. The volunteer must not receive any compensation for the services.

The law also leaves the decision entirely in the hands of each individual place of worship. Every congregation can decide for itself whether organizing a safety team is appropriate.

The View From Inside the Sanctuary

WINK News spoke with leaders at a Fort Myers church about how the new framework will work in practice. Eddie Hardin, who helps lead worship at the church, told WINK that protection is part of the mission.

“I do believe that even in a place of worship, the parishioners have the ability to be protected too,” Hardin said.

He added that times have changed and churches have had to adapt, saying it has become necessary so that people can feel comfortable in their place of worship without having to worry about their lives.

James Howard with Trinity Security Allies, an organization that trains church security teams nationwide, told WINK the law fills a real gap.

“It gives church volunteers the right to kind of call themselves security teams without having to go through the training necessary to be a security guard,” Howard said.

Howard also emphasized that the licensure exemption does not change a volunteer’s legal responsibilities under Florida’s use of force laws.

“We have to follow the state law of use of force, and that’s where we work with that, because we have the right to protect us or other people, which is always what we’ve been doing,” Howard said.

Hardin acknowledged that the presence of firearms in a sanctuary makes some people uncomfortable. He said he understands that reaction, but the goal is making sure everyone is protected.

More from USA Carry:

• Arkansas Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Suspect and Volunteer Both Fire Warning Shots at Each Other During Confrontation at Church
• Florida Bill Allowing Armed Church Volunteers Now Heads to Governor After Near-Unanimous Votes
• We Fight Two Fights: Second Amendment Rights are Lost without Political Action
• Concealed Carry in Church and Houses of Worship

Why This Matters

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and the people in their care does not stop at the door of a church, synagogue, mosque, or temple. Faith communities in the United States have unfortunately become high-profile targets of violence, and waiting for first responders to arrive is not a serious safety plan when a determined attacker is already inside the building.

Florida’s new law recognizes a practical reality. Most churches do not have the budget to hire full-time licensed security guards. What they often do have is a cadre of trained, license-holding congregants who already carry concealed in their daily lives. SB 52 lets those congregants serve their congregations openly and lawfully without first having to obtain a Class D or Class G commercial security license that was never designed for unpaid volunteers in the first place.

The structure of the law also addresses common questions about armed church security. The concealed weapon license requirement ensures every volunteer has already passed a background check and met state training and competency requirements for lawful carry. The voluntary nature of the program leaves authority where it belongs, with the leadership of each individual place of worship.

Use of Force Still Applies

The licensure exemption is not a license to act as a private police force. Volunteers exercising the SB 52 exemption are still bound by the same Florida use of force laws that apply to every other armed citizen.

That means the legal standard for the use of deadly force remains an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to oneself or another. It means the legal standard for non-deadly force remains the reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful force. The volunteer is, in legal terms, a citizen with a concealed carry license inside a building they have permission to be in.

This is part of why James Howard’s training framework matters. Knowing the law of self-defense, knowing what de-escalation actually looks like, knowing when to draw and when to keep the firearm holstered, and knowing how to work as part of a team rather than as a solo actor are all skills that go beyond the threshold required for a Florida concealed carry license. Churches taking advantage of SB 52 are well advised to seek out training resources designed specifically for church security teams.

The Pro-2A Context

Florida has been one of the more protective states for lawful gun owners in recent years, with permitless carry taking effect in 2023 and a series of subsequent reforms expanding lawful carry options. SB 52 fits squarely in that pattern. It removes a state-imposed licensing barrier that prevented faith communities from doing what every other group of friends, family members, or organizational members can do under Florida law, which is provide for their own physical safety.

The bipartisan support for SB 52 is also worth noting. The bill cleared the Senate 39-0 and the House 111-1. That kind of consensus is rare on firearms-related legislation in any state, and it suggests that Florida lawmakers across the political spectrum recognized the practical case for letting churches choose their own security model.

What Churches Need to Do

Under the new exemption, the operational requirements are straightforward. The volunteer must hold a valid Florida concealed weapon or firearm license under s. 790.06. The volunteer must be unpaid for the security services. The services must be provided exclusively on the premises of the church or denominational organization, including property the organization owns or leases for worship, education, or religious activities.

The statute does not require a written security plan submitted to or approved by the sheriff’s office. It does not require the church to register volunteers with any state agency. The bill simply removes Chapter 493’s private security industry licensing requirements from the picture for unpaid volunteers meeting the criteria above.

Churches are still wise to establish internal policies, written protocols, and ongoing training. Those are best practices rather than statutory requirements. Organizations like Trinity Security Allies and similar national groups offer curriculum that goes well beyond basic concealed carry, covering topics such as crowd management, medical response, threat assessment, and team tactics in a sanctuary environment.

What Comes Next

The new exemption takes effect on July 1, 2026. Between now and then, churches that want to establish formal teams will be working through their own internal preparations.

I will continue tracking the rollout of the law as the July effective date approaches.

The full text of CS/SB 52 is available on the Florida Senate website at flsenate.gov.

Read the original story: Florida Governor Signs Bill Allowing Armed Volunteer Security Teams at Places of Worship Into Law

Key Takeaways

• The 10th Circuit ruled that Colorado’s ban on unserialized firearms implicates the Second Amendment, sending the case back to the district court.
• Plaintiffs challenged Colorado Senate Bill 23-279, arguing it criminalizes lawful possession and manufacture of firearms parts.
• The court emphasized that firearm possession regulations apply beyond commercial transactions, impacting private transfers as well.
• Colorado must now justify SB 23-279 under the Bruen historical analogy test, complicating its legal defense.
• The ruling is significant for gun owners, as it affirms their rights to modify and possess firearms parts without onerous restrictions.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

DENVER, CO — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has ruled that Colorado’s ban on possessing unserialized firearms and firearm parts directly implicates the Second Amendment, sending a high-profile gun rights case back to the district court for further analysis under the modern Bruen framework.

The 2-1 decision in National Association for Gun Rights v. Polis was issued on April 23, 2026. The ruling reverses key portions of a lower court decision that had denied gun rights plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against Colorado Senate Bill 23-279, the state’s so-called ghost gun law signed by Governor Jared Polis in June 2023.

The Plaintiffs and the Law

The case was brought by three individual plaintiffs, Christopher Richardson, John Howard, and Max Schlosser, along with two organizational plaintiffs, the National Association for Gun Rights and Rocky Mountain Gun Owners. They sued Colorado in January 2024.

Colorado SB 23-279 prohibits the purchase, sale, transfer, and possession of unserialized firearms, firearm frames or receivers, and firearm parts kits. It also bans the 3D printing of frames and receivers without a license. Multiple violations are felony offenses. The law contains an exception when an owner obtains a serial number from a licensed firearm dealer who performs a background check.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Gallagher, a Biden appointee, denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2024. The plaintiffs appealed.

What the 10th Circuit Actually Held

The three-judge panel issued a mixed decision. Judge Joel M. Carson wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Allison H. Eid. Both are Trump appointees. Senior Judge Paul J. Kelly Jr., a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote a separate partial dissent.

On the manufacturing ban, the panel ruled against the plaintiffs on standing grounds. The court interpreted the Colorado statute to apply only to 3D printing of frames and receivers, not to assembling firearms from parts kits. Because the plaintiffs said they intended to build firearms from kits rather than print them, the panel held the manufacturing ban did not actually prohibit their intended conduct.

The bigger ruling came on the possession ban. The district court had dismissed the plaintiffs’ challenge by treating the possession prohibition as a “condition or qualification on the commercial sale of firearms,” a category that the Supreme Court’s Heller decision identified as presumptively lawful.

The 10th Circuit rejected that framing.

The court wrote that “Although Plaintiff Richardson purchased his firearm parts kit from a commercial seller, he would risk violating C.R.S. § 18-12-111.5(1)(a) even if he had received this firearm parts kit as a gift from a friend. This provision has nothing to do with the commercial nature of the prior transaction. Because a regulation of firearm possession is not a condition or qualification on the commercial sale of firearms, the district court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on this basis.”

In plain English, owning a part you got as a gift, inheritance, or any non-commercial transfer has nothing to do with commercial sales, so the law’s reach extends well beyond the narrow exception the lower court tried to apply. That brings the possession ban squarely within the Second Amendment’s plain text.

The panel also reversed on the purchasing prohibition. The plaintiffs alleged they wanted to continue purchasing firearm parts kits, including from private individuals. The district court had dismissed that challenge as not ripe. The 10th Circuit disagreed, finding the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the law’s reach into private transfers.

The case now returns to the district court for further analysis under the historical analogue test from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Colorado will have to justify SB 23-279 by pointing to a historical tradition of similar regulation from the founding era.

What This Ruling Does Not Do

It is worth being precise about what the 10th Circuit did and did not decide. The court did not rule Colorado’s ghost gun law unconstitutional. It did not strike down any portion of SB 23-279. What it did rule is that the Second Amendment’s plain text is implicated, which is a threshold question that determines whether the state has to justify the law at all.

For Colorado, that is a meaningful setback. Under the Bruen framework, once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue, the burden shifts to the state to show that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. There is no clear historical analogue for serialization requirements on privately made firearms before the modern era, which puts Colorado in a difficult position on remand.

Casper attorney Ryan Semerad told Cowboy State Daily that the practical effect for citizens is significant. If charges are brought against someone in connection to firearms parts, they could now possibly challenge the case based on their Second Amendment rights. Prosecutors can no longer argue that such cases have nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the right to keep and bear arms has always included the ability of law-abiding citizens to acquire, own, and modify their firearms.

Building or customizing your own firearms is not a fringe hobby. It is one of the oldest American firearms traditions, predating the founding of the country. The right to manufacture firearms privately is part of that tradition. The federal government has never required private individuals to serialize firearms made for personal use, and the ATF’s own regulations explicitly exempt private individuals from marking requirements when they make a firearm for personal use or occasionally sell or transfer one.

Modern AR-15 and bolt-action rifle building is essentially modular firearm ownership. A serialized lower receiver, purchased through a licensed dealer with a background check, is the regulated piece. Beyond that, owners can configure barrels, stocks, sights, and accessories to match their use case. One serialized lower can host multiple upper receivers chambered in different cartridges, effectively giving an owner several rifles in one.

State-level bans on the possession of unserialized parts criminalize ordinary, lawful conduct that millions of Americans engage in every day. The 10th Circuit’s ruling pushes back on the idea that states can simply categorize firearms parts out of the Second Amendment by labeling them as commercial regulations.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida CCW Shoots and Kills Would-Be Robber
• ATF Stabilizing Brace Comments End, September 8th!
• What is Your Safe Distance to Engage the Threat: The 21-Foot Rule
• Trump DOJ Keeps Biden’s Ghost Gun Rule in Place, Defying White House’s Own Second Amendment Executive Order
• Colorado Constitutional Carry Bill Advances

Context: The Federal Picture

The Colorado case is unfolding alongside a parallel federal fight over the ATF’s 2022 Frame and Receiver Rule. That rule, finalized under the Biden administration, expanded the federal definition of “firearm” to include unfinished frames, receivers, and certain parts kits.

In Bondi v. VanDerStok, decided in March 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the ATF’s federal rule was not facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. The Court’s ruling was narrow and preserved as-applied challenges, sending those cases back for further proceedings.

On April 27, 2026, the Second Amendment Foundation and Defense Distributed filed a motion for summary judgment in Defense Distributed v. Blanche, the renamed continuation of the federal challenge. That motion presses constitutional rather than statutory arguments against the federal rule.

I. have also reported on the ATF’s recently announced 34-rule reform package under Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights. The agency’s frames and receivers regulation has been a moving target in 2026, with the Department of Justice initially signaling a rewrite, then signaling retention of the existing rule, then signaling rewrite again.

The Build-Your-Own Gun Community

For Wyoming and other Western state gun owners, the 10th Circuit ruling has direct practical implications. The 10th Circuit’s jurisdiction covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming, and parts of Yellowstone National Park in Idaho and Montana. The reasoning the court applied to Colorado’s law would apply equally to similar legislation in any of those states.

Modular firearm building has grown from a niche pursuit into a mainstream activity. The combination of accessible parts, online resources, and improved manufacturing has made it possible for ordinary gun owners to assemble custom rifles and pistols at reasonable cost. State laws that criminalize possession of common parts threaten that entire ecosystem.

What Comes Next

The case returns to U.S. District Judge Gordon Gallagher for further proceedings on the possession and acquisition challenges, this time with the threshold Second Amendment analysis settled by the 10th Circuit. Colorado will need to come forward with historical analogues to defend the law under Bruen.

The plaintiffs may seek a renewed preliminary injunction at the district court. Whatever the district court decides on remand will likely be appealed again, and the case could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.

I will continue tracking the case through the next phase of litigation.

The full text of the 10th Circuit opinion in National Association for Gun Rights v. Polis, Case No. 24-1209, is available at the 10th Circuit’s website.

Read the original story: 10th Circuit Hands Gun Owners a Win in Colorado Ghost Gun Case, Rules Possession of Unserialized Firearms Implicates Second Amendment

Key Takeaways

• Thirty Arkansas State Senators signed a bipartisan letter to President Trump, requesting a DOJ investigation into the ATF’s actions leading to Bryan Malinowski’s death.
• The letter highlights serious concerns about the execution of a search warrant at Malinowski’s home, noting that he posed no threat and was killed during a pre-dawn raid.
• Senators call for an evaluation of ATF’s tactics, their compliance with law enforcement standards, and the absence of body camera footage during the operation.
• The case raises broader questions about gun owner rights, as Malinowski perceived a violent home invasion rather than a federal operation.
• The senators emphasize that an independent investigation is essential for restoring public confidence in law enforcement accountability in Arkansas.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

LITTLE ROCK, AR — Thirty members of the Arkansas State Senate have signed a bipartisan letter to President Donald Trump formally requesting that the Department of Justice open an independent investigation into the actions of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that resulted in the death of Bryan Malinowski, the Executive Director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport, during the execution of a federal search warrant at his Little Rock home.

The letter, dated April 22, 2026, was led by Senator Mark Johnson of District 17 and was sent to the White House along with copies to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and the entire Arkansas Congressional Delegation. The signatories include Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester, Senate Majority Leader Blake Johnson, Senate Minority Leader Greg Leding, and Senate Majority Whip Breanne Davis, among 26 others. According to Senator Johnson, the signatures represent proportional representation of both the majority Republican and minority Democratic caucuses.

“This is not a Republican or a Democrat effort. This is an Arkansas effort,” Johnson said at a press conference announcing the letter. “I think that the people of Arkansas want to know what happened fully and find the truth.”

The Incident

On March 19, 2024, ATF executed a pre-dawn search warrant at the residence of Bryan and Maria Malinowski in Little Rock. According to the senators’ letter, Mr. Malinowski was the Executive Director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport and the highest paid municipal employee in the city, earning more than $260,000 annually.

The ATF investigation concerned allegations that Mr. Malinowski had occasionally sold firearms at weekend gun shows without a Federal Firearms License. The letter notes that he made no efforts to conceal his conduct. According to the senators, ATF’s own search warrant affidavit documented only ten firearm sales associated with Mr. Malinowski, including sales to undercover ATF agents and firearms later recovered during unrelated law enforcement encounters. None of the firearms were used in violent criminal activity, and the letter states that ATF possessed little or no evidence that Mr. Malinowski earned a profit from these transactions.

The letter further states that ATF was aware before the operation that Mr. Malinowski had no criminal history, no known propensity for violence, and no prior negative interactions with law enforcement.

Despite this, ATF executed the warrant using a pre-dawn dynamic entry. According to the letter, agents knocked and announced on an exterior insulated glass storm door and initiated a forced entry only 28 seconds later, while the occupants were asleep in a rear bedroom of the home. During the entry, agents deviated from their operational plan, including failing to lead with a ballistic shield marked “POLICE.” Available recordings contain no audible police announcements after the forced entry began.

Awakened by the sound of the breach, Mr. Malinowski retrieved a handgun and encountered an armed silhouette entering his home. He fired toward the intruder’s feet. An ATF agent immediately returned fire, striking Mr. Malinowski in the forehead and killing him. According to the letter, Mrs. Malinowski was standing only inches behind him.

Conflicting Narratives

The senators’ letter raises significant concerns about the public statements ATF made after the shooting. According to the letter, ATF publicly characterized Mr. Malinowski as a “significant gun trafficker” who knowingly fired on law enforcement officers.

The letter argues those public statements conflict with ATF’s own search warrant affidavit and with statements made by agents to the Arkansas State Police indicating that they did not expect Mr. Malinowski to be dangerous and anticipated a routine warrant execution.

“Subsequent testimony before our legislative committee by law enforcement officers suggested that Mr. Malinowski intentionally chose to fire on officers performing lawful duties, an assertion that directly contradicts earlier statements in the factual record known before this raid,” Johnson said at the press conference.

Issues of Serious Concern

The letter outlines six specific issues the senators believe warrant federal investigation.

First, threat assessment. ATF identified no exigent circumstances, no criminal history, and no credible risk of violence prior to deploying high-risk tactics.

Second, choice of tactics. The use of a pre-dawn dynamic entry, normally reserved for dangerous suspects, appears irreconcilable with the known facts of the case.

Third, execution failures. Agents deviated from the operations plan, failed to properly identify themselves, and failed to provide adequate notice to the occupants.

Fourth, alternative enforcement options. The letter notes that comparable cases involving suspected unlicensed firearm sales are frequently handled through warning or cease and desist letters rather than tactical raids.

Fifth, body worn camera compliance. According to the letter, neither ATF nor Little Rock Police Department officers utilized body worn cameras during the operation, despite departmental policies absolutely requiring their use.

Sixth, potential political motivation. Questions remain as to whether the timing and aggressiveness of the operation were influenced by the impending rollout of ATF’s then-final rule redefining “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. That rule has since been targeted for rescission as part of the ATF’s recently announced 34-rule reform package.

The Body Camera Issue

Senator Johnson specifically highlighted the body camera failure during the press conference.

“Neither the ATF nor the Little Rock Police Department officers utilized body-worn cameras during the operation, despite departmental policies absolutely requiring their use,” he said.

That detail matters. Body camera footage would have provided an objective record of what was said, what was announced, and how the entry unfolded. Its absence has left investigators, the Malinowski family, and the public dependent on competing narratives from the agencies involved.

Johnson also said that when the Little Rock Police Chief was called to testify before a state legislative committee, he declined to answer questions on advice from the Little Rock City Attorney. “He stonewalled us,” Johnson said.

Civil Litigation Has Stalled

According to the letter, a civil action has been filed on behalf of the Malinowski estate, but the federal government has moved to dismiss the case by invoking sovereign immunity, the absence of a Bivens remedy, and qualified immunity for individual agents. If those defenses succeed, they would foreclose a full judicial examination of the underlying facts.

“The cognizable issues that can be raised in that litigation are a mere subset of the universe of issues raised by this incident,” the letter reads. “We are concerned about much more than what happened at the front door of the Malinowski home two years ago. We need to know who is ultimately responsible for making those decisions. We need to know if this can happen again.”

The senators argue that civil litigation, given the federal government’s immunity defenses, is unlikely to provide comprehensive transparency or accountability. They state that an independent DOJ investigation is the only viable mechanism for establishing a complete factual record in a timely manner.

Formal Request

The letter formally requests four specific actions from the Department of Justice. First, an independent investigation into ATF’s motivation, planning, authorization, and execution of the March 19, 2024 search warrant. Second, an assessment of compliance with DOJ policies, constitutional standards, and accepted law enforcement practices. Third, an evaluation of whether systemic failures in training, supervision, or oversight contributed to the incident. Fourth, public reporting of findings sufficient to restore confidence in federal law enforcement accountability within the State of Arkansas.

“The loss of an Arkansas citizen’s life during the investigation of alleged regulatory violations demands nothing less,” the letter concludes.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the response of a homeowner to an armed entry into his bedroom in the pre-dawn hours sits at the very heart of what that right protects. Bryan Malinowski awoke to the sound of his door being breached, encountered an armed silhouette inside his own home, and reached for a firearm to defend himself and his wife. By the senators’ account, he had no way of knowing the silhouette was a federal agent.

For armed citizens, this case is the textbook nightmare scenario. A lawful gun owner with no criminal history, no propensity for violence, and no warning that he was the subject of a federal investigation, responds to what any reasonable person would perceive as a violent home invasion. The fact that the intruder turned out to be a federal agent does not change what Malinowski perceived in the moment. It only changes the legal aftermath.

The broader policy question raised by the senators is also worth careful attention. ATF’s own affidavit reportedly documented ten firearm sales, several of them to undercover agents conducting the investigation. The senators note that comparable cases are frequently handled through warning letters or cease and desist correspondence. The choice to use a pre-dawn dynamic entry against a person with no criminal history, no propensity for violence, and a six-figure municipal job is precisely the kind of operational decision that the senators are asking the DOJ to examine.

More from USA Carry:

• Getting Intimate with Violence: Part 2
• Intruder Shot after Breaking into Ex-Girlfriend’s Home
• Is Pennsylvania the Next State To Go Constitutional Carry?
• West Virginia Passes Constitutional Carry Bill, Overriding Gubernatorial Veto
• Workplace Mass Shooting in Bryan, Texas; Suspect in Custody

The Bipartisan Signal

The full list of signatories, in addition to Senator Mark Johnson, includes Justin Boyd, Ronald Caldwell, Alan Clark, Steve Crowell, Breanne Davis, Tyler Dees, Jonathan Dismang, Jim Dotson, Jane English, Scott Flippo, Ben Gilmore, Kim Hammer, Bart Hester, Jimmy Hickey Jr., Ricky Hill, Missy Irvin, Blake Johnson, Greg Leding, Matt McKee, John Payton, Clint Penzo, Jim Petty, Terry Rice, Jamie Scott, Brad Simon, Matt Stone, Dan Sullivan, Clarke Tucker, and David Wallace.

The letter was also copied to U.S. Senators John Boozman and Tom Cotton, and U.S. Representatives Rick Crawford, French Hill, Steve Womack, and Bruce Westerman.

According to Johnson, the response from the Arkansas Congressional Delegation has been positive. He singled out Congressman Steve Womack of the Third District for specific thanks, saying Womack indicated he would help ensure the letter reached the appropriate people in the administration.

What Comes Next

The letter has been sent. The next step is whether the Department of Justice opens the requested investigation. With Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche having recently announced ATF’s 34-rule regulatory reform package under Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, the political environment for a serious review of ATF tactics may be more favorable than it has been in recent memory.

I will continue tracking the case as it develops.

Read the original story: 30 Arkansas State Senators Demand DOJ Investigation Into ATF Raid That Killed Bryan Malinowski

Key Takeaways

• As of April 2026, the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record has nearly 6 million suppressors registered, marking significant growth since 2025.
• The elimination of the $200 NFA tax stamp and procedural reforms at the ATF have accelerated suppressor registrations in 2026.
• In the 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court recognized that items in common use, like suppressors, should not be banned.
• Litigation is underway challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, especially concerning the regulation of suppressors.
• The surge in suppressor sales and registrations indicates a shift in legal and cultural attitudes towards suppressor ownership.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The American Suppressor Association is reporting that the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record now contains nearly 6 million suppressors, a number that has grown so quickly in 2026 that it is reshaping the legal conversation around the National Firearms Act itself.

According to the American Suppressor Association, as of April 10, 2026, there were 5,998,065 suppressors registered in the NFRTR. ASA noted that figure “has likely surpassed 6 million” since that date. The growth in 2026 alone is staggering. ASA stated that the number of suppressors registered between January 2026 and April 10, 2026, is almost as many as all the suppressors registered between 1934 and 2010 combined, a span of 76 years.

The data tells the story of a market that has changed beyond recognition. In 2000, there were just 83,627 suppressors registered nationwide. By 2010, that number had climbed to 223,761. In January 2025, ASA reported approximately 4.4 million suppressors in the registry. By January 5, 2026, the figure was 5,776,685. By April 10, the total was just shy of 6 million.

What Changed in 2026

Two things triggered the 2026 surge. The first was the elimination of the $200 NFA tax stamp on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, which took effect on January 1, 2026, as part of the budget reconciliation bill signed into law in 2025. Machine guns and destructive devices were excluded from the tax repeal and remain subject to the $200 tax.

The second is the procedural reform happening at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF processed approximately 150,000 eForms on January 1, 2026, alone, compared to a typical pre-2026 daily volume of around 2,500. By the time SHOT Show wrapped on January 23, ASA Executive Director Knox Williams reported that more than 260,000 eForms had been processed that month.

The pace did not slow down. According to ATF data published in February, the agency had received 464,746 Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 applications since January 1, 2026, with 325,075 already processed at an average turnaround time of about 10 days. ASA reported that Form 4 transfer applications for suppressors alone hit 240,270 in that period, which is a 394 percent increase over the 2025 monthly average.

Guns.com confirmed in late April that more than one million NFA forms had been processed in 2026, with the suppressor registry passing the 6 million mark.

The “Common Use” Question

The number matters because of a Supreme Court doctrine that has direct implications for the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act itself.

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned outright. In the 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts decision, the Court applied that standard to roughly 200,000 stun guns and ruled they qualified as being in common use.

Suppressors now outnumber that benchmark by a factor of approximately 30. With nearly 6 million registered, suppressors are in the hands of more law-abiding Americans than there are residents of 33 individual states.

The 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision added a second test. Modern firearm regulations now have to point to a historical analogue from the founding era to survive Second Amendment challenge. Suppressors were not regulated at all until 1934, and there is no clear pre-1934 American legal tradition of restricting noise reduction devices on firearms.

The implication is straightforward. A heavily regulated item that nearly 6 million Americans lawfully own, with a regulatory framework that lacks any historical analogue from the founding era, is on increasingly thin constitutional ice.

Where the Registry Stands

According to ATF data published earlier this year, the breakdown of the 5,776,685 suppressors registered as of January 5, 2026, was as follows. Legal trusts and corporate entities held the largest share at 1,973,702. Individual citizens held 1,891,352. Federal Firearms Licensees and Special Occupational Taxpayers had 1,461,118 in their inventories. Government, military, and law enforcement users held 443,872.

Setting aside the FFL and SOT inventories, that means American civilian ownership outnumbers government, military, and law enforcement suppressor possession by nearly 9 to 1.

The Litigation Landscape

ASA has not been waiting on the legislature alone. The ASA Foundation, joined by the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the Firearms Policy Coalition, has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act itself.

That suit is one of several active cases testing whether suppressors and other NFA items can survive constitutional scrutiny under the modern Heller, Caetano, and Bruen framework. Other litigation, including challenges related to Silencer Shop and various plaintiffs, is also pending in federal courts.

The argument is not complicated. If 6 million civilian suppressors do not constitute common use, no number ever will. And if there is no historical analogue for restricting them, the Bruen test is not satisfied.

The Regulatory Reform Picture

I recently reported on the ATF’s 34-rule reform package, which was announced under Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights. Several items in that package directly affect suppressor owners.

The proposed rules include streamlining interstate transport procedures for NFA firearms, authorizing joint spousal registration of NFA firearms, removing the Chief Law Enforcement Officer notification requirement for NFA applications, and eliminating redundant marking requirements for NFA firearms makes. The agency also proposed clarifying firearm possession obligations during common carrier travel, an item with direct implications for suppressor owners who travel with their property.

Together, these rule changes would meaningfully reduce the friction of lawful suppressor ownership. Combined with the elimination of the $200 tax stamp, the NFA framework is being squeezed from multiple directions at once.

More from USA Carry:

• Iowa Castle Doctrine and Emergency Powers Reform Bills
• Nevada Passes Concealed Carry Reform
• Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional
• Firearm Instructors
• HR 1093 BATFE Reform Act of 2011

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right. The right of law-abiding Americans to own and use firearms accessories that protect their hearing and the hearing of their families, neighbors, and pets is a logical extension of that right.

Suppressors do not silence firearms. They reduce muzzle report by an average of 20 to 35 decibels, bringing the sound of a gunshot down from levels that cause permanent hearing damage to levels that are loud but survivable. The CDC has reported that millions of Americans suffer hearing loss, and recreational shooting is a known contributor.

The fact that nearly 6 million Americans have voluntarily navigated a federal registration process, paid the historical tax, submitted fingerprints and photographs, passed a background check, and waited months for approval to own one of these devices is itself the answer to the question of common use. Americans are voting with their Form 4s, and they are voting overwhelmingly in favor of safer shooting.

What Comes Next

Industry estimates suggest 2026 could see suppressor sales doubling over 2024 and 2025 numbers as the elimination of the $200 tax stamp pulls in buyers who had been priced out or simply discouraged. Several manufacturers are projecting 25 to 50 percent annual growth.

The combination of registration data approaching 6 million, the ASA Foundation lawsuit challenging the NFA’s constitutionality, the ATF’s regulatory reform package, and the elimination of the tax stamp puts suppressors in a different legal and cultural position than they have occupied at any point in the last 92 years.

The American Suppressor Association posed the question directly. How do you say “common use” without saying it?

The numbers say it for them.

Read the original story: Nearly 6 Million Suppressors Are Now Registered in the U.S. — How Do You Say “Common Use” Without Saying It?

MANKATO, MN — A jealous ex-boyfriend with a violent criminal history broke into a Mankato woman’s townhome Sunday afternoon, fatally shot her new boyfriend, and then beat her so severely that he forced her into the bathtub to bleed out, prosecutors say. He was a prohibited person who never should have had a gun in the first place.

According to the Mankato Department of Public Safety, officers responded to a 911 call at approximately 1:36 p.m. on Sunday, April 26, 2026, after a caller reported hearing what sounded like gunshots in a neighboring residence on Castle Pines Drive. Officers approached an open door at 700 Castle Pines Drive and heard what they believed to be another gunshot from inside. They entered immediately and apprehended the suspect, identified as 44-year-old Joseph David Bulfer of Fairmont, Minnesota.

Inside the bedroom, officers found 52-year-old Mankato resident Joshua Robert Downey deceased with multiple gunshot wounds. In a bathroom they located 37-year-old Rosalyn Marie Rode, who was transported to Mayo Clinic Health System in Mankato for treatment.

The Mankato Department of Public Safety was assisted at the scene by the Blue Earth County Sheriff’s Office, Minnesota State Patrol, Lake Crystal Police Department, North Mankato Police Department, and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

The Criminal Complaint

According to CBS News, the criminal complaint provides a chilling account of what happened inside the home. Rode told investigators that she and Bulfer had briefly dated before she broke up with him in December. She then started dating Downey, and she told investigators Bulfer “could not handle that.”

CBS News reported that Rode and Downey were watching a movie together when Rode heard the door open and someone running up the stairs. Bulfer allegedly opened the bedroom door and shot Downey multiple times. Investigators say evidence shows he fired at least 20 rounds in the bedroom.

According to the criminal complaint cited by CBS News, Bulfer then forced Rode into the bathtub “so he could drain her blood.” She managed to call 911 while in the tub. The dispatcher overheard a man, later identified as Bulfer, tell her, “You just caused [a man] to die” and “Do you want me to pull the trigger?”

When officers reached the upstairs hallway, Bulfer walked toward them with his hands up. He told them one victim was in the bathroom and another “is f***ing dead,” before saying, “I apologize for the inconvenience. Didn’t mean to get you out here today.”

Bulfer Was a Prohibited Person

This is where the story becomes a clear case study for armed citizens. Bulfer’s criminal history spans decades. According to court records, he has prior convictions for threats of violence, first-degree burglary, and domestic assault by strangulation. CBS News also reported additional convictions for violating orders for protection, property damage, and disorderly conduct.

Bulfer is now charged with second-degree murder, attempted second-degree murder, first- and second-degree assault, three counts of first-degree burglary, and a firearms possession violation. That last charge tells the story. Under federal and Minnesota law, a person with felony convictions and convictions for domestic assault by strangulation cannot legally possess a firearm. Bulfer was prohibited. He had one anyway.

More from USA Carry:

• Man Getting Beaten by Five Draws, Shoots One Ending Assault
• Florida AG Admits Error, Says Only Dangerous Felons Should Lose Gun Rights
• DOJ Sues LA County Sheriff Over Alleged CCW “Slow-Walk,” After 3,982 Applications Yield Just 2 Approvals
• Woman Shoots and Kills Boyfriend After He Broke-in and Assaulted Her
• Can You Be Married To A Felon And Be A Concealed Carrier?

Why This Is a Case for Armed Self-Defense

Two unarmed people were watching a movie together in their own home on a Sunday afternoon. A man who had no legal right to possess a gun forced his way inside and used one anyway. One of those people did not survive. The other survived only because she was able to call 911 from a bathtub while her attacker beat her.

This is the answer to anyone who argues that strict gun control laws keep dangerous people from getting guns. Bulfer was already prohibited. Multiple convictions, including violent ones, already barred him from possession. None of that stopped him.

It is also the answer to anyone who argues that armed citizens are unnecessary because police will arrive in time. Officers responded to this scene quickly and entered without hesitation. They are the reason Rosalyn Rode is alive today. But the murder of Joshua Downey happened before they could get there. That is the reality of violent crime. The window of opportunity for self-defense closes in seconds, and law enforcement, no matter how dedicated, often arrives to investigate rather than intervene.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right that exists precisely for moments like this one. The right of a law-abiding adult to be armed and prepared in their own home is not theoretical. It is the difference between being a victim and being able to fight back.

The Domestic Violence Pattern

The pattern in this case is one that armed citizens, advocates, and law enforcement have warned about for years. The most dangerous moment for a victim of an abusive relationship is often the moment they leave. Rode broke off her relationship with Bulfer in December. She started dating someone new. He could not accept that, and he came for her with a gun.

For people in similar situations, the takeaway is direct. If you have left an abusive or controlling relationship, the threat does not always end at the door. Building a serious self-defense plan is a legitimate response to a real risk. That includes situational awareness, home security, communication with people you trust, and, for those who choose it, the lawful means to defend yourself with a firearm.

Mindset matters as much as gear. Being mentally prepared for the possibility that an estranged partner might escalate to violence is the foundation. Training and the right tools come next.

Read the original story: Mankato Murder Highlights Why Armed Citizens Carry: Prohibited Felon Broke Into Home, Killed Woman’s New Boyfriend, Beat Her in Bathtub

Key Takeaways

• A Quincy man was found to have acted in lawful self-defense after shooting during a confrontation in a TJ Maxx parking lot.
• The judge acquitted Alan Pacheco of charges directly tied to the shooting but convicted him on a felony gun charge due to lack of a concealed carry license.
• Pacheco shot and injured Terrance Horton after being attacked by Horton and another man while he was in his vehicle.
• This case highlights the conflict between self-defense rights and strict state firearm laws that can penalize lawful gun owners.
• Armed citizens should be aware of local storage and carry rules, as they can impact both self-defense and legal outcomes.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

QUINCY, IL — An Adams County judge has ruled that a Quincy man acted in lawful self-defense when he shot a man twice in a TJ Maxx parking lot in July 2024, but the same ruling convicted him of a felony gun charge that could still land him in an Illinois prison.

As reported by Muddy River News, Associate Judge Holly Henze found 23-year-old Alan Christopher “Chris” Pacheco not guilty on all three charges directly tied to the shooting itself. Pacheco was acquitted of two counts of aggravated discharge of a firearm and aggravated battery with a firearm. An attempted murder charge had already been dismissed on the first day of the bench trial after the prosecution rested. The judge found Pacheco guilty only on aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, because Pacheco had a valid Firearm Owners Identification card but did not hold an Illinois concealed carry license.

Sentencing is scheduled for June 17.

The Incident

The shooting happened around 2:27 p.m. on Saturday, July 6, 2024, in the parking lot of TJ Maxx at 6210 Broadway in Quincy’s Prairie Crossing Shopping Center. Quincy Police, the Adams County Sheriff’s Department, and Illinois State Police all responded after a 22-year-old man was found on the ground with apparent gunshot wounds.

According to testimony presented at trial, Pacheco and his girlfriend DeJia Hankins were shopping at TJ Maxx when Hankins recognized Islam Woodson, a man with whom Pacheco had a prior dispute dating back to a 2023 incident at a local restaurant. Woodson was in the store with another man later identified as 22-year-old Terrance D. Horton.

Pacheco approached the two men inside the store. A verbal altercation followed. Per Pacheco’s testimony, one of the men was handling a shoulder bag and implied a firearm was inside. Pacheco testified the man was “moving it towards his front, and he was saying that I didn’t want to have nothing to do with what he had in there.”

Pacheco and Hankins disengaged and continued shopping before leaving the store. Once outside, Pacheco said the men’s vehicle blocked his car from backing out of the parking space. Horton and Woodson then approached the driver-side window, leaned in, and began punching Pacheco, according to the defense’s account presented at trial.

Pacheco grabbed his Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun, which he had stored between the center console and the driver’s seat. He fired multiple shots, striking Horton twice. Pacheco initially left the scene with Hankins, then returned to the shopping center to surrender to police.

Horton was transported to Blessing Hospital and was reported to be in stable condition. Both Horton and Woodson were charged with felonies in connection with the incident.

Why the Self-Defense Finding Mattered

Judge Henze’s ruling explicitly recognized that Pacheco acted reasonably to defend himself. The defense had argued throughout the trial that Pacheco was the target of a coordinated attack inside his vehicle by two men who blocked him in and then assaulted him through the open window with his girlfriend in the passenger seat.

Defense attorney Ryan Schuenke summed up the defense’s framing in his closing arguments. “This is for us to put ourselves in Mr. Pacheco’s situation with his girlfriend in the car and decide, in that moment, if he was about to suffer great harm and did act reasonably to defend himself.”

Pacheco was a valid FOID card holder, the firearm was legally owned, and his only prior record was a traffic ticket. He was a full-time student at John Wood Community College studying to become an electrician and worked full time as an electrical contractor.

By every measure that matters in a self-defense analysis, Pacheco was a law-abiding gun owner who used force against an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. The judge agreed.

The Charge That Stuck

The conviction came down to one factor that had nothing to do with the shooting itself. Illinois requires a concealed carry license to carry a loaded, accessible handgun in a vehicle. A FOID card alone is not enough. Because Pacheco’s loaded handgun was stored between the center console and the driver’s seat rather than in a locked container, his possession of that firearm in the car violated state law.

His defense attorney’s post-verdict statement to Muddy River News laid the situation out in plain terms. “If it (the gun) had been in a locked box, it would have been not guilty on everything. But we don’t know what would have happened if he didn’t have the ability to grab it and take the action he did to defend himself. He’s guilty of one thing to protect himself from the other.”

That single sentence captures the trap Illinois law set for Pacheco. If the firearm had been locked away in compliance with state requirements for FOID-only transport, he would have been acquitted on every charge. But if the firearm had been locked away, he likely could not have reached it in time to defend himself when two men blocked his car and began punching him through the window.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Shoots Three of Four Attackers, Fatally Wounding Two
• Tulsa Homeowner Fatally Shoots Attacker, Injures Another After Group Assault
• Mother Cleared After Pulling Gun Outside York School as Prosecutors Say She Acted in Self-Defense
• Illinois Getting Closer to Having Concealed Carry
• Armed Defender’s Dilemma Lesson 3: Legal Consequences — What Really Happens After a Self-Defense Shooting

The 2A Lesson for Armed Citizens

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right. The right of a law-abiding citizen to be armed and able to defend themselves and the people they love against violent attackers is the entire point of that protection.

Pacheco’s case illustrates how restrictive state firearms laws can punish lawful self-defense even when the use of force itself is found to be justified. He did everything the criminal use-of-force analysis required. He faced an imminent threat of serious bodily harm. He used proportional force. He returned to the scene and cooperated with police. A judge agreed his actions were reasonable under the law.

And he is still facing potential prison time on a felony conviction.

This is a strong argument for the constitutional carry movement. In states that recognize the right of law-abiding adults to carry without first obtaining a permit, Pacheco walks out of court a free man. In Illinois, where the state requires a separate concealed carry license on top of a FOID card and dictates how a firearm must be stored in a vehicle, the same act of justified self-defense produces a felony record.

For armed citizens who travel through or live in restrictive states, the lesson is to know the storage and carry rules cold. Storage requirements that lock a firearm away from immediate access can directly affect whether you can defend yourself when seconds matter, and they can also affect whether you walk out of a courtroom free after a justified shooting.

Read the original story: Illinois Judge Rules Quincy Man Acted in Self-Defense in TJ Maxx Parking Lot Shooting, but Gun Storage Conviction Could Send Him to Prison

Key Takeaways

• The ATF released a significant regulatory reform package that rolls back previous overreach, featuring 34 proposed and finalized rules.
• Key changes include rescinding the controversial Stabilizing Brace Rule and the Engaged-in-the-Business Rule, addressing compliance with court decisions.
• The package aims to modernize compliance procedures, reduce burdens on NFA owners, and clarify long-standing ambiguities in regulations.
• ATF actions align with statutory text and recent judicial decisions, ensuring better adherence to the law for gun owners and dealers.
• Public comments will be essential for finalizing the proposed rules, allowing stakeholders to influence the regulations moving forward.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has released the full breakdown of its landmark regulatory reform package, and the details represent the most significant rollback of ATF regulatory overreach in recent memory.

I reported earlier that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada had announced 34 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rules following a comprehensive review conducted in compliance with Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights. The full package has now been published, and it is even more substantive than the initial announcement suggested.

The 34 actions break down as 26 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, 6 Final Rules, 1 Direct Final Rule, and 1 Interim Final Rule. The agency has organized the package into five categories: Modernize, Reduce Burden, Clarify, Repeal, and Align.

The Headlines: Stabilizing Brace Rule and Cargill Compliance

The most significant items in the package are in the Repeal category. The ATF is rescinding the 2023 Stabilizing Brace Rule through a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. That rule, finalized under the previous administration, reclassified millions of pistol-braced firearms as short-barreled rifles subject to the National Firearms Act and triggered a wave of litigation and confusion among lawful owners.

The ATF is also issuing an Interim Final Rule to rescind the 2024 Engaged-in-the-Business Rule, which dramatically expanded the definition of who qualifies as a firearms dealer and required Federal Firearms License registration. That rule had been challenged in court for sweeping in private sellers who did not meet the historical understanding of the term.

A separate Final Rule revises the machine gun definition to align with the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill. The agency is also issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to remove the Youth Handgun Safety Act notification requirement.

Modernizing the Compliance Framework

Several actions address how Federal Firearms Licensees actually operate in 2026. The ATF is proposing to modernize Form 4473 and firearm transfer record regulations, authorize electronic recordkeeping for FFLs, establish defined retention periods for FFL transaction records, and authorize the FFL eZ Check System for license verification through a Direct Final Rule.

The agency is also proposing to modernize remote identification and non-over-the-counter transfer procedures. For licensed dealers who have been carrying paper bound books and dealing with verification calls for decades, this represents a substantial step toward bringing federal firearms recordkeeping into the digital era.

Reducing Burden on NFA Items and Lawful Transport

The Reduce Burden category contains several items NFA owners and travelers will want to read carefully. The ATF is proposing to streamline interstate transport procedures for NFA firearms, authorize joint spousal registration of NFA firearms, and remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer notification requirement for NFA applications.

The CLEO notification removal is particularly notable. That requirement has long been a point of friction for NFA applicants in jurisdictions where local law enforcement is uncooperative or hostile to lawful suppressor and short-barreled firearm ownership.

The agency is also proposing to update interstate firearm transport protections under the Firearm Owners Protection Act, modify machine gun transfer requirements for dealer sales samples, and update Special Occupational Taxpayer fee obligations by location. A Final Rule eliminates the triplicate submission requirement for plastic explosives import applications.

Clarifying Long-Standing Ambiguities

The Clarify category addresses 12 separate areas where the existing regulatory framework has produced confusion or inconsistent enforcement. The proposed changes include clarifying the importation definition for Foreign Trade Zones and Customs Bonded Warehouses, import standards for dual-use firearm barrels, the regulatory status of training rounds under the Gun Control Act, and the establishment of a conversion process for temporary to permanent firearms imports.

Other clarifications cover firearm possession obligations during common carrier travel, mental health-related firearms prohibition definitions, Brady Act state permit exception standards, the business premises definition for FFLs, straw purchase prohibition language, and the definition of “willfully” for FFL enforcement purposes.

The clarification of “willfully” matters significantly. That single word governs whether a paperwork mistake by a licensed dealer becomes a license-ending federal violation. Tightening that definition can directly reduce the number of FFLs lost to administrative errors that were never intended to subvert the law.

The package also includes a proposed clarification of biological sex designation requirements on ATF forms and one to eliminate redundant marking requirements for NFA firearms makers.

More from USA Carry:

• FN Announces the ALL-NEW FN High Power
• ATF Announces 34 Rulemakings and Final Rules in Sweeping Regulatory Review Under Trump’s Second Amendment Executive Order
• ATF Stabilizing Brace Comments End, September 8th!
• Florida House Passes Constitutional Carry Bill, A Step Closer to Permitless Carry
• California DOJ Updates CCW Instructor Qualifications, Expands Training Options

Aligning With Statutes and Court Decisions

The Align category brings ATF regulations into agreement with statutory text, judicial decisions, and partner agency actions. A Final Rule codifies NICS background check requirements for NFA firearm making applications. Another Final Rule updates ATF import regulations following Commerce and State Department actions.

A proposed rule updates the Proscribed Countries List under the Arms Export Control Act, and another aligns ATF terminology with the U.S. Munitions List. A Final Rule implements Patriot Act provisions governing contraband tobacco trafficking, and another updates National Firearms Act tax remittance provisions.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and federal firearms regulation has been the source of significant friction for law-abiding gun owners and licensed firearms dealers for decades. A coordinated package of 34 separate regulatory actions, structured around modernization, burden reduction, clarification, repeal, and alignment, signals a top-down rebuild of how the agency interacts with the regulated community.

Three things stand out about this package. First, the agency is rescinding two of the most controversial rulemakings of the previous administration directly. Second, the agency is moving meaningful items toward Final Rule status rather than only proposing them, which means real changes are already taking effect. Third, the burden reduction items addressing NFA transfers, spousal registration, CLEO notification, and interstate transport directly address pain points that gun owners and FFLs have raised for years.

The ATF describes this as “the first in a series” of regulatory updates. More are expected to follow.

What Comes Next

Notices of Proposed Rulemaking go through a public comment period before they can be finalized. That gives gun owners, Federal Firearms Licensees, manufacturers, and other stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in on the specifics of each rule. Public comments matter, and the comment record is part of the legal foundation that defends a final rule against future court challenges.

I will continue tracking individual rules in this package as they move through the formal process. Gun owners and FFLs who want to engage on specific rules should monitor publication in the Federal Register and submit comments during the open windows.

The full package is available on the ATF website at www.atf.gov.

Read the original story: ATF Releases Full List of 34 Rulemakings: Stabilizing Brace Rule Rescinded, Bump Stock Definition Updated, and Form 4473 Modernized

Key Takeaways

• Constitutional carry in North Carolina hinges on the House’s decision to override Governor Stein’s veto of Senate Bill 50.
• SB50 would allow law-abiding citizens 18 and older to carry concealed without a permit while keeping the existing permit system.
• Speaker Destin Hall indicates a potential path forward for an override vote on SB50 amid ongoing negotiations.
• Opposition groups argue against removing the training requirement, emphasizing public safety and the minimum age for carrying without a permit.
• Supporters of SB50 should actively contact their representatives to push for the override of the veto.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

RALEIGH, NC — Constitutional carry in North Carolina is closer to reality than many gun owners may realize, and the final hurdle is now sitting in the hands of the North Carolina House of Representatives.

Senate Bill 50, the “Freedom to Carry NC” Act, has been pending a House override vote since Governor Josh Stein vetoed the legislation on June 20, 2025. The North Carolina Senate already overrode the veto on July 29, 2025, with a 30-19 vote. The House has not yet taken up its own override vote, but new comments from Speaker Destin Hall suggest that may be changing.

Paul Valone, President of Grass Roots North Carolina, told ABC11 in an April 28 report that Speaker Hall sees a path forward for bringing SB50 to the House floor for an override vote. “We actually had an extensive discussion with Speaker (Destin) Hall just last week on that topic. And Speaker Hall sees that there is a path forward to bringing Senate Bill 50 to the floor for an override vote,” Valone said.

That comment matters. After nine months of the override sitting in procedural limbo, with the bill placed on the House calendar and withdrawn more than a dozen times since last summer, leadership is now publicly signaling movement.

How North Carolina Got Here

I covered SB50 when it was first filed on February 4, 2025, by Senators Danny Britt, Warren Daniel, and Eddie Settle. The bill would eliminate the requirement for a concealed handgun permit, allowing law-abiding citizens 18 and older who can legally own a firearm to carry concealed without first obtaining government permission. The existing permit system would remain in place for those who want one for reciprocity purposes or to streamline firearm purchases.

The Senate passed SB50 on March 20, 2025, after tabling more than a dozen amendments aimed at narrowing or weakening the legislation. The House followed on June 11, 2025, passing the bill 59-48 after rejecting an additional amendment. The bill was ratified the next day and presented to the governor on June 13.

Governor Stein vetoed the bill on June 20. The Senate overrode the veto less than six weeks later on July 29 by a 30-19 margin.

The Math in the House

Under North Carolina rules, a successful override requires a three-fifths majority of the chamber. Republicans hold a comfortable majority in the House, but the override math is tight because two Republicans voted against SB50 on the original second reading on June 11. To override the veto, House leadership needs every other Republican plus one additional lawmaker.

That is why the calendar dance has gone on for so long. Placing the bill on the calendar requires the speaker to be confident the votes are there. Withdrawing it preserves the override option for another day. The repeated calendar movement on SB50 reflects ongoing whip counts and negotiations rather than a stalled bill.

The most recent calendar action placed SB50 on the House calendar for April 21, 2026. According to Valone’s comments to ABC11, Speaker Hall now believes a path exists.

What SB50 Would Actually Do

The bill would not change who can legally possess a firearm in North Carolina. Anyone prohibited under federal or state law from owning a firearm would still be barred from carrying one. Felons, fugitives, and other prohibited persons remain prohibited.

What changes is the requirement that law-abiding citizens obtain government permission before exercising a constitutional right. As Senator Eddie Settle said in a statement to ABC11, “SB50 is simply our 2nd amendment right for law-abiding citizens to enjoy their freedom to carry, without Government interference. The bill is not complicated and should not be made so. SB50 offers concealed carry without a permit to anyone who would otherwise qualify for a permit if they applied, and they will be able to carry in all the same places as if they had a permit.”

The bill also keeps the existing concealed handgun permit system available for North Carolinians who want one for reciprocity in other states or to streamline firearm purchases.

The Opposition Is Organizing

Anti-gun groups are not letting this final stretch pass quietly. North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, Giffords, and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions held an event in Raleigh on April 28 specifically focused on stopping the House override.

Their argument focuses on the elimination of the training requirement and the lowered minimum age, which would drop from 21 to 18 for carry without a permit.

Paul Valone offered a direct response to the training argument. “What other constitutionally guaranteed freedom are you required to seek mandatory training for? Are you required to seek mandatory training for voting, for example? I would think that that would be at least as important as your Second Amendment rights.”

That framing matters. The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and no other constitutional right requires a government-mandated training course and an $80 fee before a citizen can exercise it. Twenty-nine states have already enacted some form of constitutional carry, and the constitutional, statistical, and practical case for North Carolina becoming the 30th has only grown stronger.

More from USA Carry:

• North Carolina Eliminates Permit Requirement for Handgun Purchases
• GOA Defends H.R. 38 in Letter to Speaker Johnson: ‘Second Amendment Not Just for Police’
• Governor Stein Vetoes Freedom to Carry NC Bill, Override Fight Looms
• Combatives Association Summit: A Close-Quarters Combat Three-Day Event
• North Carolina House Postpones Veto Override Vote on Freedom to Carry Bill, Gun Rights Advocates Urge Continued Pressure

Why This Moment Matters

The North Carolina House is the last institutional barrier between the state and constitutional carry. If the House overrides Governor Stein’s veto, SB50 becomes law and joins North Carolina to the growing majority of states that recognize the right of law-abiding citizens to carry concealed without first asking permission.

If the override fails, gun owners in North Carolina will continue navigating a permit system for a constitutional right that other states have already determined does not require government licensing. The training and education piece is also still available to anyone who wants it. Nothing in SB50 prevents a North Carolinian from voluntarily completing a firearms safety course, and gun owners who want one for reciprocity can still obtain a North Carolina concealed handgun permit.

What North Carolina Gun Owners Can Do

If you live in North Carolina and you support SB50, this is the moment to be active. Contact your state representative directly. Identify yourself as a constituent. Be specific that you are asking them to vote yes on the override of Governor Stein’s veto of SB50.

Calls and personalized emails carry more weight than form messages. If your representative is one of the Republicans who voted against the bill on second reading, that contact is even more important.

You can find your North Carolina state representative at ncleg.gov.

I will continue tracking SB50 through the override process. I covered the bill when it was filed, and I will be there when it reaches the finish line.

Read the original story: Constitutional Carry in North Carolina Hangs on a Single House Vote as Speaker Hall Sees a Path Forward

Key Takeaways

• The ATF announced 34 proposed rulemaking and final rules as part of a significant regulatory update following a firearms regulations review.
• This initiative aims to rebuild trust with the firearms industry, using feedback from stakeholders to address long-standing concerns.
• Clearer rules will help gun owners understand transfers, manufacturing, and recordkeeping, benefiting lawful ownership.
• Details of the actions remain pending, and the public can comment on proposed rules to influence their outcomes.
• The release marks a considerable regulatory reset under Executive Order 14206 aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is rolling out 34 Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rules in what the agency is calling a landmark regulatory release, the first in a series of updates planned in the wake of a comprehensive review of existing firearms regulations.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and recently confirmed ATF Director Robert Cekada are announcing the package together. The review was conducted in compliance with Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights.

According to the ATF, the regulatory review took into account industry and expert feedback as well as concerns raised by Federal Firearms and Explosives Licensees. The agency has framed the effort as part of a 2025 commitment to rebuild trust with the firearms industry and the broader community of stakeholders it regulates.

The release is being described as the first in a series. Additional regulatory updates are expected to follow as the agency works through the items identified during its review. The announcement is being livestreamed by the Department of Justice at www.justice.gov/live.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the federal agency that regulates firearms has been a frequent point of friction for law-abiding gun owners and licensed firearms dealers for years. A coordinated review of 34 separate regulatory items, conducted under an executive order specifically aimed at protecting Second Amendment rights, represents the most significant top-down regulatory reset the ATF has undertaken in recent memory.

Federal Firearms Licensees have raised concerns for years about inconsistent enforcement, ambiguous rules, and shifting interpretations that put their licenses and livelihoods at risk. A regulatory framework that takes industry feedback seriously and is rebuilt with the actual operating realities of dealers and manufacturers in mind is a meaningful shift.

For individual gun owners, regulatory clarity matters too. Rules that govern transfers, NFA items, manufacturing definitions, and recordkeeping all flow downstream into what a lawful gun owner can do, buy, build, or sell. When those rules are clear and grounded in the constitutional text, ordinary Americans benefit.

More from USA Carry:

• ATF Stabilizing Brace Comments End, September 8th!
• Bondi’s DOJ Launches 2nd Amendment Task Force to Overhaul Federal Gun Regulations
• Don’t Worry About Ballistics – Concealed Carry With What You Like
• Texas Man Tracks Down Stolen Truck, Shootout Leaves Victim and One Suspect Wounded, Another Dead
• President Trump Signs Executive Order to Protect Second Amendment Rights

What Remains to Be Seen

The agency has not yet released the full text of all 34 actions, and the practical effect on gun owners and the industry will depend on the specifics. Notices of Proposed Rulemaking go through a public comment period before they are finalized, which gives stakeholders an opportunity to weigh in.

I will continue tracking this release as the individual rules are published. Gun owners and Federal Firearms Licensees who want to influence outcomes should plan to engage during the comment periods on the proposed rules.

Read the original story: ATF Announces 34 Rulemakings and Final Rules in Sweeping Regulatory Review Under Trump’s Second Amendment Executive Order

Key Takeaways

• Episode 54 documented a flight from Houston to New Orleans on April 20th, with a minor check-in issue that resolved quickly.
• At HOU, the check-in process differed slightly; however, the agent assisted despite routing misunderstandings.
• I utilized a FedEx shipping sleeve for my declaration form, making the process smoother for the agent.
• My baggage arrived promptly in New Orleans, and the Lifepod remained secure after inspection.
• Each airport has unique procedures, yet the essential flow of the process remains the same.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

HOUSTON, TX – Episode 54 was filmed April 20th, flying Southwest from Houston to New Orleans. Check-in had a small wrinkle at the start, but it worked itself out. Bag came out on the carousel as usual.

Check-In at HOU

I got my baggage tag first, then headed to the drop-off area like I usually do in New Orleans and Las Vegas. The agent let me know I was supposed to go to the help desk instead — different airports route it differently. She checked me in anyway, so no harm done.

I filled out the declaration form she handed me and slipped it into the FedEx shipping sleeve attached to my Vaultek Lifepod. She commented on the Fedex sleeve and said I did all the work for her. That’s the idea. Asked if I needed to go anywhere after and she said no — just reminded me that next time it’s over at the help desk.

Set a 15-minute timer on the way out, waited just in case TSA needed access. They didn’t.

More from USA Carry:

• Flying with Guns: Episode 48 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 42 – Southwest from LAS to MSY
• Flying with Guns: Episode 43 – Southwest from MSY to LAS
• Flying with Guns: Episode 53 – Southwest from New Orleans to Houston (NRA Annual Meeting)
• Flying with Guns: Episode 49 – Southwest from MSY to LAS

Arrival in New Orleans

Bag came out on the carousel at MSY, same as always. Picked it up, checked that the Lifepod hadn’t been tampered with. It hadn’t. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Every airport does it a little differently. You get your baggage tag, you find the right counter, you go with the flow. The process stays the same even when the routing doesn’t.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 54 – Southwest from Houston to New Orleans

Key Takeaways

• A social media meetup in Northwest Harris County ended in gunfire when one man shot the other in self-defense.
• The driver of a Tesla shot the passenger after he allegedly attempted to rob him at close range.
• Both men are in their early 20s, and the passenger is in critical condition following surgery.
• Texas law supports self-defense in cases of imminent threats, which may apply to this incident.
• The situation highlights the risks of meeting strangers from social media, particularly in vehicles.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HOUSTON, TX — A meetup between two social media content creators in Northwest Harris County ended in gunfire Tuesday morning when one man pulled a gun on the other and was shot in self-defense, according to Harris County Sheriff’s deputies.

The shooting happened in the Kleinbrook area, where deputies closed the road around 11 a.m. while investigators worked the scene. Both men involved are in their early 20s.

According to information given to deputies, the driver of a white Tesla picked up the other man so the two could make social media content together. The passenger told deputies the person he had just picked up was actually the one who pulled a gun and tried to rob him, but the account deputies are working from indicates the driver pulled his own firearm after the passenger drew on him and shot the passenger.

A bullet hole was visible in the passenger side window of the Tesla. Investigators recovered two handguns at the scene.

Video from the scene reportedly showed the wounded passenger running from the vehicle in dark clothing before collapsing on the road. The driver, wearing white, was seen running up to him moments later.

The wounded man was transported to a hospital in critical condition and went into emergency surgery, according to the latest hospital update available at the time of reporting. The driver was not shot but was taken to the hospital as a precaution.

No charges have been filed. Detectives plan to present the evidence gathered at the scene to the Harris County District Attorney’s Office, which will decide what charges, if any, are brought.

• Creator of USA Carry Launches Firearm Politics
• Concealed Carrier Defends Himself During Private Sale Meetup
• 8 Passengers Subdue Man Who Put Flight Attendant into Chokehold
• Veterans Tackle Man With Box Cutter On Frontier Flight, On Veterans Day
• Defensive Tactics in Vehicles: Maximizing Safety and Efficacy

The Self-Defense Angle

Texas law recognizes the right to use force, including deadly force, against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. A person who draws a firearm on another person inside a vehicle at close range presents exactly that kind of threat. If the facts support what deputies have described, the driver’s response would fall within the legal framework that protects lawful self-defense.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the ability to be armed in everyday situations is precisely what allows a person to meet a sudden violent threat with effective defensive force. A close-quarters robbery attempt inside a vehicle leaves very few options. Being armed and trained turned a one-sided ambush into a survivable encounter.

A Lesson in Situational Awareness

This incident also raises a broader point worth thinking through. Meeting strangers in person from social media or online platforms always carries a measure of risk, and that risk goes up sharply when the meetup happens inside a vehicle, in an unfamiliar area, or with someone whose identity has not been verified.

Picking someone up in your own car gives that person physical access to you at extremely close range. There is no buffer of space, no easy exit, and no easy way to scan for threats. Anyone who carries should think hard about the environments they choose to put themselves in, because no firearm replaces a sound decision made before things go wrong.

The investigation in this case is ongoing. We will update the story as more information becomes available.

Read the original story: Content Creator Meetup Goes Sideways in Houston: Driver Shoots Passenger Who Allegedly Tried to Rob Him

Key Takeaways

• House Republicans rejected the proposed ATF budget increase and suggested a $285 million cut instead.
• The FY 2027 budget request sought $1.652 billion for ATF, but the House bill sets funding at $1.3 billion.
• The bill includes riders that limit ATF’s operations and ties funding to processing times for National Firearms Act applications.
• A smaller ATF budget and restrictive riders represent a significant win for gun owners, as they push back against agency expansion.
• The bill still requires approval from the full House and Senate, and gun owners should voice their opinions to Congress as negotiations continue.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — House Republicans have rejected the proposed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives budget increase included in the FY 2027 President’s Budget request and instead countered with a $285 million reduction, according to bill text and statements from Gun Owners of America.

The President’s Budget request had sought $1.652 billion in Salaries and Expenses funding for the ATF, with 4,827 total positions and 4,749 full-time equivalents. The request included $33.4 million in technical and base adjustments and $33.6 million in program enhancements.

The House appropriations bill, dated April 24, 2026, sets ATF Salaries and Expenses funding at $1.3 billion. That figure represents a significant rollback from the agency’s recent enacted levels and a direct rejection of the larger figure the administration requested.

🚨BREAKING🚨

House Republicans just REJECTED President Trump’s proposed ATF budget INCREASE & countered with a $285 million budget DECREASE.

There are also many pro-gun riders, including a prohibition on NFA enforcement against $0 suppressors & short barreled firearms. https://t.co/B0cGehLLRY pic.twitter.com/8nxL7rvGMV

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) April 29, 2026

Pro-Gun Riders Included in the Bill

Beyond the funding cut, the House bill carries several policy riders that constrain how the ATF can operate. The legislation prohibits the use of any appropriated funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c) for individuals, while allowing such funds to be used for corporate applications.

The bill also bars the use of any funds, from this or any other Act, to transfer the functions, missions, or activities of the ATF to other agencies or departments.

A key processing benchmark is built into the funding structure as well. Under the bill, no more than 40 percent of the funds made available under the Salaries and Expenses heading may be obligated unless National Firearms Act application processing times stay within 120 days for paper applications and 60 days for electronic applications. That provision creates direct financial pressure on the agency to clear NFA backlogs that have frustrated lawful suppressor and short-barreled firearm owners for years.

More from USA Carry:

• Court Reinstates Illinois Ban on Concealed Carry, Leaving Transit Riders Unarmed After Federal Decision
• South Dakota Rep Lashes Out After Campus Carry Bills Fail: “I Didn’t Know I Was in Minnesota’s Education Committee!”
• New Mexico Senate Approves Bill Restricting Common Rifles and Magazines Over 10 Rounds
• Why I’ve Abandoned Open Carry
• Flying with Guns: Episode 43 – Southwest from MSY to LAS

Context From Recent Years of ATF Funding

The ATF’s enacted appropriations have hovered in a high range in recent years, with figures including $1,484 million, $1,531 million, $1,625 million, and $1,672 million across the FY 2022 through FY 2026 window. Gun Owners of America has stated that Congress has cut a total of $162 million from the ATF’s budget since FY 2024.

The proposed $1.3 billion figure in the FY 2027 House bill would mark a substantial step further down from those levels and would represent the lowest enacted ATF funding in several budget cycles if it becomes law.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the federal agency tasked with regulating firearms has been a consistent point of friction for law-abiding gun owners for decades. Funding levels are policy. A smaller ATF budget, paired with riders that limit the agency’s reach and force action on NFA processing times, is a meaningful win for gun owners who have watched the agency expand its rulemaking footprint in recent years.

The 40 percent obligation cap tied to NFA timelines is particularly notable. Suppressor and short-barreled rifle owners have endured wait times that have stretched for many months at various points. Tying agency spending authority to faster processing turns a long-running complaint into a budgetary lever, and that is a structural change that benefits anyone who lawfully participates in the NFA system.

The prohibition on transferring ATF functions to other agencies also closes off one path that had been floated as a workaround for restructuring federal firearms regulation. By locking the agency’s mission in place while reducing its funding and constraining its priorities, the House is signaling a clear preference for a smaller, more constrained ATF rather than an expanded one.

What Happens Next

The bill is part of the FY 2027 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations process and still has to clear the full House and move through the Senate before reaching the President’s desk. Funding levels and riders frequently change as negotiations progress between the chambers.

Gun owners who want to see this version preserved would do well to make their views known to their members of Congress as the bill advances.

Read the original story: House Republicans Reject Trump’s ATF Budget Increase, Counter With $285 Million Cut and Pro-Gun Riders

Key Takeaways

• An off-duty New York State Trooper shot a 17-year-old armed carjacking suspect at a Yonkers gas station after the suspect attempted to stab her.
• The suspect stole the Trooper’s vehicle but crashed it and fled on foot before police arrested him nearby.
• The Trooper fired one shot, hitting the suspect in the left arm and torso; the suspect received treatment for non-life-threatening injuries.
• The case highlights the importance of the right to bear arms for off-duty officers and private citizens facing imminent threats.
• Gas stations are common locations for armed encounters, so maintaining situational awareness is crucial for safety.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

YONKERS, NY — An off-duty New York State Trooper shot an armed carjacking suspect Sunday afternoon at a Yonkers gas station after he attempted to stab her and took control of her vehicle, according to the Yonkers Police Department.

The incident happened at approximately 12:45 p.m. on Sunday, April 26, 2026, at the Mobil gas station at 838 Kimball Avenue. The off-duty Trooper called Yonkers police for assistance after the shooting.

Investigators said the Trooper had just finished refueling her personal vehicle when the suspect approached her, brandished a knife, and entered the driver’s seat. The Trooper fired one round from her off-duty firearm, striking the suspect in the left arm. The round continued into his torso.

The suspect then accelerated the vehicle toward the rear of the gas station, drove through a shed and fence, and came to rest in the parking lot of the adjacent apartment building at 1296 Midland Avenue. He then fled the stolen vehicle on foot toward Midland Avenue.

Yonkers Police Officers located the suspect a short distance away at the entrance to 1328 Midland Avenue and took him into custody without further incident. A knife was recovered from the suspect at the time of his arrest.

Medical personnel rendered aid at the scene, and the suspect was transported to an area hospital. He was treated for non-life-threatening gunshot wounds and remains in stable condition.

Under New York State law prohibiting the identification of minors charged with a crime, the suspect can only be identified as a 17-year-old male resident of Yonkers. He is awaiting arraignment and will be charged with Robbery in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Degree, Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the 4th Degree, and Menacing in the 2nd Degree.

The Yonkers Police Department’s Detective Division Major Case Squad is leading the criminal investigation, while an internal review is being conducted by the New York State Police. Because the Trooper was the victim of the crime, no further identifying information about her will be released. She is identified only as a female off-duty NYS Trooper assigned to Troop NYC.

More from USA Carry:

• Arizona Trooper’s Life Saved By Armed Citizen
• Off-Duty CPD Officer Engages in Shootout with Attempted Carjackers on Chicago’s Far South Side
• Homeowner Fatally Shoots Knife-Wielding Intruder in 2nd Home Defense Shooting
• Nebraska Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Armed Woman Draws Pistol And Stops Knife Attack In Her Home

Why This Case Matters

This incident is a clear example of why the right to bear arms does not stop when a uniform comes off. An off-duty law enforcement officer faced an imminent threat of serious bodily harm from a suspect armed with a knife at close range inside her own vehicle. Her ability to access a firearm at that moment likely changed the outcome.

The same principles apply to private citizens. A knife at contact distance is a deadly weapon, and a suspect who has already committed to using one against another person represents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Lawful defensive force in that scenario is recognized under the law.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right that protects the ability of every law-abiding American to be prepared for moments like this one. Whether a person carries because of their profession or because they choose to take responsibility for their own safety, the underlying principle is the same. Being armed and trained gives a person a fighting chance when a violent attacker decides they are the target.

Gas stations remain one of the most common environments for armed encounters because they bring strangers into close contact in semi-private spaces. Situational awareness while fueling, keeping doors locked, and maintaining a clear line of sight in every direction are habits worth practicing every time.

Read the original story: Off-Duty New York State Trooper Shoots Knife-Wielding Carjacker at Yonkers Gas Station