Key Takeaways

• Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and 24 states filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review Beckwith v. Frey regarding Maine’s 72-hour waiting period for firearms.
• The petitioners argue that the waiting period restricts the ‘keeping’ of arms under the Second Amendment, potentially meeting the criteria set by the Bruen decision.
• Both amicus briefs claim that Maine cannot justify its law under historical firearm regulation, stating that waiting periods are anomalies without Founding-era precedent.
• The coalition believes that if such laws do not touch the Second Amendment’s text, they bypass historical scrutiny altogether, undermining the Bruen decision.
• The Supreme Court has not decided whether to take the case, which will be tracked as developments occur.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen and 24 other states filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on September 28, 2026, urging the justices to hear Beckwith v. Frey, a challenge to Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on taking possession of a firearm. An amicus brief is a filing from someone who is not a party to the case but wants the Court to hear their argument anyway. This one lands in docket No. 26-258 and follows a September 22 amicus brief from the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association of America on the same side.

The petitioners, Andrea Beckwith and others, are asking the Court to review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit that went against them, reported at 171 F.4th 560. The request is a petition for a writ of certiorari, which is the formal way of asking the Supreme Court to take up a lower court’s ruling, and the Court grants only a small fraction of them. Aaron M. Frey, Maine’s attorney general, is the respondent, sued individually and in his official capacity. The justices have not yet said whether they will take the case.

Both briefs aim at the same spot. Under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, a Second Amendment case runs in two steps. First, does the plain text of the amendment cover what the person wants to do? If it does, the government then has to prove the law fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state carries that burden, not the citizen. The Montana coalition’s lead argument is that a cooling-off law clears step one because a delay on when a buyer may take possession of a firearm is a restriction on the “keep[ing]” of arms, and its brief points to what it calls the predicate-act canon and property cases to show the text covers the act of taking possession. SAF and NRA make the companion point: the Court should grant review to confirm that the plain-text analysis is “not meant to be a difficult hurdle for plaintiffs to meet.”

That threshold is the whole fight. If a law that stands between a buyer and the firearm he has chosen does not even touch the Second Amendment’s text, the state never has to open a history book to defend it. Push enough laws to the wrong side of that line and the history-and-tradition test Bruen built stops mattering, because nothing ever reaches it. That is what 25 states and two national gun rights organizations are asking the Court to fix.

The briefs do not stop at the threshold. The Montana coalition argues that even at step two, Maine cannot justify its cooling-off law under the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. SAF and NRA argue that waiting periods are a historical anomaly and that firearms were readily available even in the Founding era. If that history holds up, Maine is defending a law with no Founding-era ancestor, and that is the kind of law Bruen tells the government it cannot sustain.

For a Maine resident who decides they need a firearm for self-defense, 72 hours is not a paperwork detail. It is three days of being unarmed after concluding they should not be. A serious self-defense mindset means planning ahead so that day never arrives with an empty holster, but the state should not be the reason it does. Maine gun owners who want the rest of the state’s rules can find them in my Maine concealed carry guide.

More from USA Carry:

• A Stalking Victim Passed Her Background Check, Paid for the Gun, and Went Home Unarmed. Maine’s 72-Hour Wait Is Now at the Supreme Court.
• Minneapolis Mayor Frey Signs Sweeping Gun Ordinance That State Law Says He Cannot Enforce
• SAF and NRA Ask the Supreme Court to Kill Maine’s Firearm Waiting Period After the First Circuit Ruled Buying a Gun Isn’t “Keeping” or “Bearing”
• Maine’s 72-Hour Gun Wait Survives Court Challenge as First Circuit Reverses Lower Court Ruling
• Federal Court Blocks Maine’s 72-Hour Waiting Period for Firearm Purchases

These are the arguments of the petitioners’ supporters, not a ruling. Maine has not had its say in these filings, and the Court can decline the case without a word of explanation.

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

Bill data from the U.S. Congress via api.congress.gov (public domain).

Read the original story: Montana, 24 States, SAF and NRA File Briefs Urging Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Maine’s 72-Hour Gun Waiting Period

Key Takeaways

• The ATF holds over 1.4 billion pages of records from out-of-business firearms dealers, with 92% digitized as images.
• Gun Owners of America claims this represents an illegal gun registry, while the ATF denies this assertion.
• The records include names and firearms details, but ATF states they cannot search personal information due to how files are indexed.
• Both sides acknowledge the content of the records, but disagree on the implications of ATF’s indexing choices.
• The full digitization of the archive raises concerns about what information can potentially be searched and accessed.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has told Congress it is holding 1,414,088,513 pages of records from firearms dealers that have gone out of business, and 92 percent of those pages now exist as digital images.

The figure comes from ATF’s written response to Rep. Michael Cloud, which Gun Owners of America posted on Facebook. GOA calls the archive an illegal gun registry. ATF, in the same letter, says it is nothing of the kind.

The count sits in a chart on page 4 of the letter, dated as of May 19, 2026. ATF reports 912,184,571 images in its Enterprise Content Management system, another 397,009,542 in its Digital Reel system as converted microfilm and microfiche, and 104,894,400 pages still in hardcopy waiting to be scanned. Add the two digital categories together and 1,309,194,113 of the 1,414,088,513 pages are already electronic, which is where GOA’s 92 percent comes from. ATF notes that for its purposes an image equals a single one-sided page, so this is a page count, not a count of individual transactions.

The chart answers what the letter labels Issue 7. Rep. Cloud had asked about the Out of Business Records Imaging System and wanted counts for ATF’s other databases that hold firearms purchaser information, naming the Multiple Sales System, Access 2000, and the Firearm Recovery Notification Program. ATF gave the out-of-business number and, on the other databases, wrote that it was reiterating its responses from a letter dated April 14, 2023. No new counts for those systems appear on the page.

ATF’s defense of the archive is built on how the images are stored. The letter says the scanning process uploads out-of-business records as “non-searchable, static images,” that the files are indexed by federal firearms license number, and that in limited cases a secondary index may point to firearm descriptors such as a serial number. A trace request, ATF says, starts with the FFL number and follows a firearm’s chain of distribution from manufacturer or importer through wholesalers and retail dealers to the buyer, and a search may be narrowed by serial number or document type such as an A&D book or a Form 4473. The letter states that ATF does not use optical character recognition or similar technology to capture purchaser names or other personally identifiable information and therefore cannot search the records by an individual’s name. ATF describes this as taking “proactive measures” to stay compliant with the prohibitions against a national firearms registry.

GOA reads the same page differently. It says the data includes the names and addresses of gun owners along with the make, model, and serial number of their firearms, and it sets the 1.4 billion figure against federal law, which it quotes as: “No rule or regulation … may require that… any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions… be established.”

Both sides are describing the same stack of paper. A Form 4473 carries the buyer’s name and address, and ATF’s own letter lists 4473s among the document types in the archive, so GOA is not wrong about what is on the pages. ATF’s answer is not that the information is absent. It is that ATF has chosen not to extract it and cannot currently search for it. That is a description of how the agency has configured its software, not a limit written into the files themselves. A static image that is not searchable today is one processing decision away from being searchable tomorrow, and the letter makes clear that decision rests with ATF.

More from USA Carry:

• GOA’s “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Under Fire as Gun Control Groups and DOJ Defend National Gun Registry
• Homeowner Defends Himself from 4 Attackers with AR-15, Killing Two
• California Open Carry
• New York Lawmakers Introduce Bill Requiring Graphic Warning Images in Gun Stores
• Robber Pulls Knife, Victim Pulls Gun, Robbers Run Off

The digitization figure is the part I would watch. Anyone who has worked through their state’s concealed carry permit requirements knows how much paperwork follows a gun owner around, but 1.3 billion pages of dealer records in a federal repository is a different scale, and the remaining 104,894,400 hardcopy pages are on a conveyor toward the same system. Once that conversion finishes, the archive will be fully electronic, and every question about what can be searched, and by whom, will turn on ATF’s indexing choices and nothing else.

I will continue tracking ATF’s responses to Rep. Cloud and any further congressional questions about how these records are indexed and searched.

Read the original story: ATF Confirms to Congress It Holds 1,414,088,513 Firearm Transaction Records, 92 Percent of Them Digitized

Before the links start: some of them are affiliate links. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, and I may earn a commission on a few other links too. It doesn’t change what you pay. CCW Safe sponsors my channel, and I’m also a member.

The Bag

It’s a Vertx Urban Ghost 10L Sling. This is what I grab unless I need to bring my laptop. My 14-inch laptop doesn’t fit. An iPad does, and that’s about the limit.

The layout is simple. A pocket for a water bottle or coffee. A front pouch. A main compartment. A small lined slot up top where I keep sunglasses.

The bottom of the bag is the concealment compartment. It’s loop-lined, so a holster with hook Velcro on the back sticks right in. In the video it’s empty. I was carrying on my body.

What’s on My Body

Right now that’s a Springfield Armory Hellcat Pro with a Holosun SCS Carry green optic. I carry it in a PHLster Enigma with the Sport Belt, and I’m pretty sure the large wedge.

Front Pouch

This one opens wide. First thing out is a SureFire Stiletto Pro. I always carry a light.

Next to it is a Leatherman Skeletool CX. I’ve carried one of these for more years than I can count. The knife opens one-handed, which is a must for me. It has pliers and a bit driver, and there’s a slot in the other handle for a hex bit. There’s a carabiner and bottle opener on it too, though I don’t think I’ve ever used the carabiner.

Riding with it is a RAE Gear sheath made specifically for the Leatherman bit system. It holds the Leatherman Bit Kit and the Leatherman Ratchet Driver, so I’ve got a full set of bits and a ratchet without carrying a separate tool roll.

I don’t usually carry a spare magazine on my body. If I’ve got the bag, a spare goes in it. Mine sits in a NeoMag Gen 2 magnetic holster I’ve had for years. The magnet keeps the mag put, and it slides out fast when I need it.

Also in there: a pen and some hand sanitizer. The small top compartment holds my keys, with an AirTag on the ring, and a ChapStick.

Main Compartment

The main compartment opens like a clamshell. There’s a sleeve that fits my iPad, or I’ll throw a Kindle in instead.

I always have a notebook with me. It’s a Traveler’s Notebook, the Midori one, with a few inserts: one for journaling, one that’s mostly to-do lists, and one for lists I need to refer back to. The pen is The Burwell from The James Brand.

And then there’s the medical.

Medical

My kit is a Velocity EDC Panel from Live The Creed. It’s a tear-away panel with Velcro on the back, and there’s a loop field at the bottom of the main compartment where it fits just about perfectly. If I switch bags, I grab the whole panel and move it.

Here’s what’s on it: a tourniquet in the back sleeve, trauma shears, a vented chest seal, QuikClot hemostatic gauze, a SWAT-T that can double as a pressure dressing, extra gauze, compressed z-fold gauze, and a pair of gloves.

Live The Creed’s site shows the panel as sold out as I write this. I’ve linked it anyway in case it comes back, and there’s a link for the trauma supplies in the gear list below.

The one thing that isn’t in the bag

My CCW Safe membership. They’re a sponsor of mine, and I’m a member. If you’re going to carry concealed, you need some kind of self-defense coverage, and CCW Safe is who I chose.

What sold me is knowing somebody is going to have my back from the start of an incident and see it all the way through to the end. They offer individual and family plans, along with plans for law enforcement, first responders and military. If you don’t have coverage yet, go look at the plans and get some.

Full gear list

• Vertx Urban Ghost 10L Sling
• Springfield Armory Hellcat Pro
• Holosun SCS Carry-GR
• PHLster Enigma with Sport Belt and large wedge
• SureFire Stiletto Pro
• Leatherman Skeletool CX
• Leatherman Bit Kit
• Leatherman Ratchet Driver
• RAE Gear sheath for the Bit Kit and Ratchet Driver
• NeoMag Gen 2 Magnetic Magazine Holster
• Kindle
• Traveler’s Notebook
• The James Brand Burwell pen
• Live The Creed Velocity EDC Panel
• Trauma kit supplies
• CCW Safe

Read the original story: What’s in My EDC Bag: Everything I Carry, Pocket by Pocket

Key Takeaways

• The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear Pratt v. Westbrook on October 7, addressing the suitability standard for issuing carry licenses.
• Holyoke Police Chief David Pratt denied Randy Westbrook’s application based on past, unconvicted charges, raising questions about subjective judgment.
• Westbrook’s legal team argues this standard violates due process and lacks clear definitions for ‘suitability.’
• The case’s outcome could impact current Massachusetts gun laws, which have similar suitability language.
• The Second Amendment Foundation claims the suitability standard allows for improper discretion and requires objective criteria for licensing.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

HOLYOKE, MA — The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court will hear oral arguments on October 7 in Pratt v. Westbrook, the case asking whether the “suitability” standard that lets a Massachusetts police chief deny a license to carry can survive the Second Amendment. Randy Westbrook applied for a license to carry in 2023. Holyoke Police Chief David Pratt turned him down as “unsuitable” over two sets of criminal charges from more than a decade earlier.

When the Second Amendment Foundation filed its amicus brief in this case, a friend-of-the-court filing from a group that is not a party but wants the judges to hear its argument, I covered it in Charges From Over a Decade Ago, Never Convicted, Still Denied: SAF Takes a Police Chief’s Carry Denial to Massachusetts’ Highest Court. What has changed is that the SJC has now put the case on its calendar, as reported by CommonWealth Beacon, whose account also lays out the path the case took to get there.

The charges Pratt relied on, per CommonWealth Beacon, were an assault and battery charge involving Westbrook’s pregnant girlfriend and charges tied to a vehicle stop that turned up 17 baggies of powder and crack cocaine. Neither set of charges ended in a conviction, according to SAF. Under the statute in force in 2023, a licensing authority could not issue a license to an applicant found unsuitable “based on reliable, articulable and credible information” that the person’s behavior indicates they “may create a risk to public safety or a risk of danger to self or others.” That is the language on trial. This is not a question of whether Westbrook is a prohibited person. It is a question of whether a chief can read a decade-old arrest record and decide, on his own judgment, that a man “may” be a risk.

Westbrook challenged the denial in a suit funded by the Gun Owners’ Action League. His lawyers argue the statute is “vague, overbroad” and violates due process because it never defines what makes a person unsuitable or how an applicant could fix it. A Holyoke District Court judge agreed, citing Bruen, the 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down “good reason” carry licensing in states like New York and Massachusetts, and declared the suitability standard unconstitutional. The chief and the attorney general’s office appealed, and a Hampden County Superior Court judge reversed. Westbrook appealed again, and the SJC agreed to take the case. Neither lower court decision was available to me, so that sequence rests on CommonWealth Beacon’s reporting rather than the opinions themselves.

The stakes run past one applicant in Holyoke. CommonWealth Beacon notes that the sweeping 2024 Massachusetts gun law carries nearly identical suitability language, so a ruling against this level of discretion would reach the rules on the books today, not just the version Pratt applied in 2023. Anyone applying for a Massachusetts license to carry right now is applying under a suitability test the SJC is about to examine.

SAF’s brief, filed September 2 with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Law Center, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, argues that the suitability statutes hand licensing officials exactly the kind of discretionary “appraisal of facts, exercise of judgment, and formation of an opinion” that Bruen’s footnote 9 said has no place in a shall-issue system, meaning one where the official checks objective boxes and issues the license. Attorney Jason Guida served as local counsel pro bono. SAF also contends that the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Rahimi and United States v. Hemani require that any disarmament of a person never convicted be temporary and tied to current dangerousness, two limits SAF says the Massachusetts statute lacks.

“Bruen already resolved this question,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. In his view, an official may verify objective criteria like prohibited-person status and completed training, but may not decide whether an applicant “may” pose a risk based on old, unproven allegations. “Massachusetts’ suitability standard is textbook subjective discretion, and it cannot stand.”

SAF founder Alan M. Gottlieb put it plainer: “Americans who have never been convicted of a crime should not have to live indefinitely under the threat of a subjective veto over a fundamental right.”

More from USA Carry:

• Charges From Over a Decade Ago, Never Convicted, Still Denied: SAF Takes a Police Chief’s Carry Denial to Massachusetts’ Highest Court
• Woman Fatally Shoots Child’s Father During Alleged Assault in Tulsa Apartment
• Massachusetts Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Second Amendment Foundation Files Suit Against Massachusetts
• DOJ Backs FPC in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Ban on Commonly Owned Pistols

Those are the arguments of an amicus, not the record, and the SJC has ruled on nothing yet. Pratt and the attorney general will make their case for the statute on October 7. But the question the court agreed to answer is the one that matters for every applicant in the state: whether “may create a risk” is an objective standard or a chief’s opinion given the force of law.

I will continue tracking Pratt v. Westbrook through the October 7 arguments and the SJC’s decision.

Read the original story: October 7 Is the Date: Massachusetts’ Highest Court Will Hear the Holyoke Man Denied a Carry License Over Decade-Old Charges That Never Led to a Conviction

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — A 73-year-old Army Vietnam War veteran shot a masked intruder inside his Sunset District home early Saturday after the man grabbed him and knocked him to his hands and knees on the second floor, the homeowner said.

The break-in happened shortly after 5 a.m. on 22nd Avenue near Lincoln Way, along the edge of Golden Gate Park, as reported by CBS News Bay Area. A neighbor’s surveillance footage showed the suspect walking back and forth on the block about 40 minutes before the break-in, which the station described as appearing to case the area. The homeowner, who withheld his name out of concern for his safety, said the man drilled a hole into the wooden first-floor door to unlock it and force his way inside.

“A professional burglar cut his way into my home,” he said, pointing at the hole.

He was asleep on the third floor when strange noises from the floor below woke him. He grabbed his handgun and went downstairs to investigate. On the second floor he came face to face with a man dressed in all black, wearing a hoodie and a face mask. The man was not alone. He had a large dog with him, a husky the veteran estimated at 60 pounds.

Most trainers will tell you to hold a defensible position and let the noise come to you rather than going down to meet it. He went down anyway. The reason he is here to describe it is that he did not go down empty-handed. The gun was where he slept, and it was in his hand before he ever saw the intruder.

The man grabbed him. The veteran fell to his hands and knees. He fired one round.

“I shot him because physically I felt really threatened. He had already made a deep intrusion into my home,” he said.

A 73-year-old man on the floor, a masked stranger standing over him, a 60-pound dog in the room. That is the threat, and it was already on top of him when he pulled the trigger. He did not fire at a shape in the dark or at a man carrying a television out the door. He fired at the man who had just put him on the ground.

He believes the round struck the intruder in the buttocks. The man ran. He left the dog behind. Blood-stained shoe prints outside the home led toward Golden Gate Park, and the abandoned husky can be heard barking in a neighbor’s security video. The homeowner said he believes Animal Control has the dog now. He came away with minor scrapes to his hands and knees.

A short time later, San Francisco police detained an injured man three miles away near Geary Boulevard and 47th Avenue in the Outer Richmond. Paramedics took him to San Francisco General Hospital, where police said he is recovering from non-life-threatening injuries. Police said they were working to confirm that the man at the hospital is the burglary suspect. No name has been released and no charges have been announced. The account of what happened inside the house is the homeowner’s own, and no charging decision on the shooting has been announced.

One round did what it needed to do. The attacker disengaged and ran, and the trail he left behind did a good share of the police work for them. The veteran did not chase him down the stairs or out into the street. He stayed home, scraped up and shaken.

“Our neighbor is really something special. I’m glad that he was able to do this. But it doesn’t surprise me,” said next-door neighbor Michael, who declined to give his last name. “He’s definitely got a heroic side to him. He’s a real, true vet.”

San Francisco police report overall burglaries are down 22 percent compared with the same period last year. Neighbors said Saturday’s break-in is a reminder that the Sunset is not immune. “It’s unusual. But the Sunset is not free of crime,” Michael said. A citywide trend line does nothing for the man whose door is being drilled at 5 a.m. The only number that matters at that moment is one door, one house, and whether the person inside is ready.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Shoots Attacker in Buttocks
• Heated Confrontation at Atlanta Apartment Ends with Man Shot in the Butt
• Home Invaders Shot By 12-Year-Old Defending Elderly Resident
• Tulsa Resident Shoots Burglary Suspect in the Butt During Confrontation at Apartment Complex
• CA Man Facing Gun Charges After Shooting Knife Attacker in Self-Defense

The veteran said he is still trying to process what happened and is grateful he was not seriously hurt.

“I had a little help from a friend, just a little friend,” he said. “But I’m just kind of really shook up still.”

Read the original story: 73-Year-Old San Francisco Vietnam Veteran Shoots Masked Intruder in the Buttocks After He Drilled Through His Door and Knocked Him to His Hands and Knees at 5 A.M.

Key Takeaways

• California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Senate Bill 948, changing the firearm safety certificate from a written test to a four-hour class with live fire.
• The training must occur within a year before applying for a certificate starting Jan. 1, 2029, and includes safety instruction and range exercises.
• The bill also extends the reporting window for firearm importers from 60 to 180 days and requires them to certify possession of a safety certificate.
• Current gun owners are not affected, but new residents moving to California with firearms will need to complete the new training requirement.
• While the training can enhance safety, critics argue that it functions as a cost barrier to exercising a constitutional right.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

SACRAMENTO, CA — Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed Senate Bill 948, and with it California’s firearm safety certificate stops being a written test and becomes a four-hour class with live fire on a range.

Earlier this year I covered California Bill Mandates 8-Hour Firearm Course to Buy a Gun and for New Residents Bringing Guns Into the State. Two things have changed since then. The course requirement was cut in half, from eight hours to four, in the version that reached the governor’s desk, and the bill is now law. Newsom approved SB 948 on Sept. 26, 2026, and the Secretary of State chaptered it the same day as Chapter 465, Statutes of 2026. The bill was introduced Feb. 2, 2026, by Sen. Arreguín with Sen. Richardson as coauthor. It passed the Assembly Aug. 24, cleared the Senate Aug. 25 and was enrolled Aug. 27. It amends Penal Code sections 27560, 28235 and 31615 and adds section 31640.5.

Under existing California law, anyone who purchases or receives a firearm must hold a firearm safety certificate, and a dealer who transfers a firearm to someone without one commits a misdemeanor. Getting the certificate has meant passing a Department of Justice test covering topics like the laws on carrying and handling firearms and the responsibilities of ownership.

SB 948 keeps the test and adds a classroom-and-range requirement on top of it. On or after Jan. 1, 2029, an applicant must have completed, within the prior year, a training course of at least four hours that includes instruction on firearm safety and handling and live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range. The Department of Justice is authorized to write regulations spelling out the details.

The certificate is a purchase requirement, not a carry permit. California’s concealed carry permitting runs on its own track with its own training rules, and nothing in SB 948 changes that. It also does not order every current gun owner in the state back to class. The course attaches to the certificate application, which means it lands on people acquiring a firearm on or after the 2029 date and, under a second part of the bill, on people moving into the state with guns they already own.

That second part is the piece I expect most out-of-state readers to miss. Existing law gives a personal firearm importer 60 days after bringing a firearm into California to file a report with the Department of Justice describing the owner and the gun. SB 948 stretches that window to 180 days. Starting Jan. 1, 2028, the importer must also certify under penalty of perjury that they hold a valid firearm safety certificate or qualify for an exemption. The bill prohibits bringing a firearm into the state without obtaining a certificate within 180 days, with exceptions the bill specifies, and makes a violation an infraction. Leaving required information off the report is also an infraction. The bill strips out the existing provision that deemed an importer to have complied once certain requirements were met.

So a new resident who moves in with a lawfully owned handgun will, after 2029, need to find and pay for a four-hour course with range time before the state considers them in compliance, on a 180-day clock.

I spend most of my time telling people that training and mindset matter more than the gear they buy. A four-hour block with live fire is not a bad thing on its own; plenty of new owners would benefit from exactly that. The problem is the direction the requirement runs. This is a precondition on acquiring a firearm at all, enforced by a misdemeanor for the dealer and infractions for the newcomer, with the details left to a state agency to write later. Training you seek out builds competence. Training you must buy to be allowed to exercise a right functions as a cost of entry, and the bill’s own text acknowledges the money side by letting the department seek additional appropriations if it decides existing fees will not cover implementation.

More from USA Carry:

• Two Robbers Met By a Barrage of Bullets; All They Got Were Death Certificates
• Newsom Signs Law Banning Sale of Most Glocks in California, Targeting ‘Convertible Pistols’
• Second Amendment Groups Challenge Newsom’s “Backdoor Glock Ban” in Court
• Justice Department Gives California Six Days to Drop Glock Ban or Face Federal Suit
• Washington D.C. Concealed Carry Permit Information

The bill includes a severability clause, so if a court strikes one part, the rest stands. The importer certification requirement takes effect Jan. 1, 2028, the training requirement Jan. 1, 2029, and the Department of Justice still has to publish the regulations that define what a qualifying course looks like.

I will continue tracking SB 948 as the Department of Justice writes those rules and as the 2028 and 2029 dates approach.

Read the original story: Buying a Gun in California After 2029 Will Mean Four Hours of Class and a Trip to the Range Before the Certificate

Key Takeaways

• House Bill 3320 would require firearm manufacturers in Illinois to obtain a state license by January 1, 2028, or face hefty penalties.
• The licensing fees will reflect the public health costs associated with firearm injuries and deaths.
• The bill establishes a fund to assist victims of firearms, financed by the collected fees from manufacturers.
• An amendment proposes a broader regulatory framework that ties fees to the number of crimes associated with a manufacturer’s firearms.
• Both HB 3320 and its Senate counterpart have not yet passed and are currently in committee but have significant support.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SPRINGFIELD, IL — House Bill 3320, the Responsibility in Firearm Legislation Act, would bar any firearm manufacturer from operating in Illinois without a state license beginning January 1, 2028, and would set the total collected from those licenses at whatever the state calculates as the “public health costs and financial burdens from firearm injuries and deaths.”

The bill, introduced by Rep. Kevin John Olickal, creates the licensing program inside the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation. A manufacturer operating in Illinois without that license after January 1, 2028 is subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000,000 per month. A retailer who sells an Illinois consumer a firearm made by an unlicensed manufacturer is subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. The Department may impose other civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation, and the Attorney General may enforce the Act.

The fee structure is the part worth reading twice. This is not a charge calibrated to the administrative cost of licensing a regulated business. The bill says the sum of all firearms manufacturer license fees shall be equal to the public health costs and financial burdens from firearm injuries and deaths in Illinois. Whatever number the state assigns to those injuries and deaths becomes the invoice, split among the companies that lawfully manufacture a lawful product.

Proceeds go into a new RIFL Fund in the state treasury. From that fund, the Department would run a financial assistance program for victims of firearms, administered through a contracted program administrator, with rules the Department writes and an exemption from certain state taxes. The Illinois State Police would report certain information to the Department. The bill also makes conforming changes to the State Finance Act and the Illinois Income Tax Act.

The 2026 version goes further than the bill as introduced. House Amendment 3, filed in March, would replace the underlying bill with a broader regulatory structure built around an independent RIFL Agency and a governing board that would license manufacturers and determine how much each company must pay. Under that amendment the agency would calculate fees partly by counting firearms linked to a manufacturer that were recovered in connection with firearm injuries or deaths, according to NSSF. A manufacturer’s bill would rise with crimes committed by people it never sold to, years after the gun left its control.

Neither bill has passed its chamber. HB 3320 was re-referred to the House Rules Committee on March 27 after the substantial amendments were proposed earlier that month, and the Senate companion, SB 2279, was re-referred to the Senate Assignments Committee on May 22, per NSSF. Rules and Assignments are the committees where Illinois bills sit between votes, and sitting there is not the same as being dead. NSSF notes both bills have attracted significant Democrat cosponsorship in their chambers and that Gov. JB Pritzker has voiced support for the effort.

More from USA Carry:

• 3 Reasons The 1911 Is A Great Carry Gun
• ‘Move Back to America’: Montana Governor Slams Colorado Gun Ban, Woos Firearm Makers to Flee
• Illinois Getting Closer to Having Concealed Carry
• Christmas Comes Early for Illinois Concealed Carry Advocates
• Washington’s Firearm Insurance Bill Fails to Advance, but Could Return in 2026

A manufacturer does not choose who criminally misuses its product, and it does not retain control of a firearm after lawful distribution and retail sale. HB 3320 would make those downstream events part of the price of doing business in Illinois, and a cost that large does not stop at the factory door. It lands on the counter price of the handgun an Illinois resident buys to carry under the state’s concealed carry permit system, on top of the training, the fees, and the wait the state already requires. A law that raises the price of the tool raises the price of the right.

I will continue tracking HB 3320, SB 2279, and House Amendment 3 through the 104th General Assembly.

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

Read the original story: Illinois Wants Gun Makers to Pay the State’s Entire Firearm Injury Bill for the Right to Sell There

Key Takeaways

• On September 11, a Philadelphia resident fought off a man who forced entry into his home near 20th and Morris Streets.
• Surveillance footage showed the suspect lurking around the area before he attempted the break-in.
• The victim managed to fend off the suspect, who fled the scene empty-handed.
• This incident highlights the importance of being vigilant at home, where threats can occur unexpectedly.
• Philadelphia Police have released the video and are searching for the suspect, who is wanted for robbery and home invasion.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

PHILADELPHIA, PA — A Philadelphia resident fought off a man who forced his way through the front door of a home near 20th and Morris Streets on the morning of September 11, and the suspect ran off with nothing, according to the Philadelphia Police Department.

Police say surveillance video picked up the suspect at about 6:20 a.m., skulking around the 20th and Morris area in the 17th District, peering into homes and walking the alleyways. He kept that up for roughly ten minutes. Then, in the department’s words, he “spotted his prey putting out the trash and moved in.”

The suspect forced his way through the front door. A struggle followed. The victim fought him off. He fled the house empty handed, police say. The release does not say whether the victim was injured.

Ten minutes on camera, checking windows, working the alleys. That is not a crime of opportunity that fell out of the sky. He was selecting, and the moment he picked is one nearly everyone reading this has every week: hands full, attention on a trash can, a door at your back. That is the window a predator waits for, and this one waited for exactly that.

This is not a defensive gun use story. As far as the record shows, the resident met a man coming through the front door with nothing but the decision to fight, and won. That decision is the whole point of every mindset piece I write. The gun is a tool. Willingness to fight back the instant the threat is real is what makes any tool useful, and this resident had that without one.

More from USA Carry:

• Intruder Shot Multiple Times As Soon As He Broke In Through Back Window
• North Philadelphia Homeowner Shoots and Kills Woman Trying to Break In Through Back Window, Police Say
• Woman Fires 13 Rounds in Self-Defense Against Two Home Invaders
• Philadelphia Man Shoots Two Armed 13-Year-Old Suspects Attempting to Steal His Car
• Concealed Carrier Exchanged Gunfire with 16-Year-Old During Robbery Attempt, Both Shot

This is the reason I carry. It is also another good case for carrying at home. Most people picture the threat somewhere else, a parking lot, a gas station after dark. This one came at 6:20 in the morning, on the front step, in the middle of a chore. Home is where the guard drops and the pistol goes in a nightstand. There are situations where you will have time to get to a nightstand safe. A man coming through the door while you are standing outside with a trash bag is not one of them. I know most people who carry every day outside the house do not carry inside it. This is a good example of why that is worth rethinking.

The Philadelphia Police Department released the surveillance video on September 25 and has the man listed as a wanted suspect for robbery and home invasion. As of that release, he had not been identified or arrested.

Read the original story: Philadelphia Resident Fights Off Suspect Who Cased the Block for 10 Minutes, Then Forced Through the Front Door at 6:20 A.M.

Key Takeaways

• The U.S. has sued Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul over a 30-day waiting period for handgun purchases.
• The lawsuit challenges provisions that require a wait for gun possession and a permit to purchase, affecting over 93% of Minnesotans.
• The complaint alleges police often exceed the 30-day deadline for permit processing with no penalties.
• The government seeks a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against enforcing the waiting period and permit provisions.
• Key legal arguments cite Second Amendment rights and past court cases questioning the constitutionality of similar regulations.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

MINNEAPOLIS, MN — The United States has sued the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and the City of St. Paul in federal court over the state’s 30-day waiting period and permit-to-purchase system for handguns and AR-15 style rifles. The 13-page complaint, captioned United States v. State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and City of St. Paul, Case No. 0:26-cv-04123, was filed September 24 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and is signed by Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon.

Last week I covered the notice letter in DOJ Gives Minnesota Until Sept. 23 to Negotiate or Face a Federal Suit Over 30-Day Handgun Purchase Waits That Stretch to Nearly 60, which gave the state until 5:00 p.m. ET on September 23 to say whether it wanted to talk. That deadline came and went. The complaint hit the docket the next day. What was a three-page threat is now a filed case with a case number, three named defendants, and a specific list of what the government wants the court to order.

The complaint attacks two provisions that work together. Under Minn. Stat. § 624.7132 Subd. 4, a Minnesotan without a carry permit cannot take possession of a handgun or a regulated rifle until 30 days after a transferee report is delivered to the local chief of police or sheriff. The alternative is a permit to purchase under Minn. Stat. § 624.7131, which requires an application to the chief of police where the buyer lives, and the statute gives the chief up to 30 days to act on it. That permit is good for one year, so the complaint describes the result as an annual 30-day wait for anyone who simply wants a gun at home. Either path, the complaint says, means up to 30 days before a purchase.

Carry permit holders are exempt from all of this, and the complaint uses that exemption against the state. Citing Census figures and the BCA’s 2025 Permit to Carry report, it puts Minnesota’s population at 5,830,405 and its permit holders at 375,551. That means more than 93 percent of Minnesotans are subject to the wait. The complaint is explicit that this case is not about public carry at all. It is about a person who wants a handgun in the home, which the complaint, quoting Heller, calls the place where the need for self-defense is most acute.

Paragraph 20 is the factual core. The complaint alleges that approvals from the Minneapolis and St. Paul chiefs of police commonly exceed the 30-day statutory limit, and that some applicants have been forced to wait nearly 60 days. There is no statutory penalty for a department that misses the deadline and no remedy for the applicant when it happens. A deadline with no penalty and no remedy is a suggestion, and the complaint treats the resulting delays as the cities’ own conduct, not just the state’s.

The legal vehicle is 34 U.S.C. § 12601, part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That statute makes it unlawful for a governmental authority to engage in a “pattern or practice” of conduct by law enforcement officers that deprives people of constitutional rights, and it authorizes the Attorney General to sue for declaratory and injunctive relief to stop it. In plain terms, it is the same law the Justice Department has historically used to go after police departments for systemic misconduct. Here the alleged pattern is police doing exactly what state law tells them to do: processing permit-to-purchase applications and enforcing the 30-day wait. The complaint quotes Michigan v. DeFillippo for the proposition that police enforce laws until those laws are declared unconstitutional, and argues that when Minneapolis and St. Paul officers enforce these provisions, they act as agents of all three defendants.

On the Second Amendment merits, the complaint runs the test from Bruen as clarified this year in Wolford v. Lopez. Step one asks whether the law applies to the people, concerns arms, and restricts keeping or bearing them. If so, the law is presumptively unconstitutional and the burden shifts to the government to show a historical tradition of similar regulation. The complaint argues that acquiring a firearm is part of keeping one, citing Ezell from the Seventh Circuit, Nguyen v. Bonta from the Ninth, and Ortega v. Grisham from the Tenth, so step one is met. It then argues Minnesota cannot carry its burden at step two, pointing to Ortega, where the Tenth Circuit struck down a seven-day waiting period, and Nguyen, where the Ninth Circuit found a 30-day limit between purchases had no historical analogue.

More from USA Carry:

• DOJ Gives Minnesota Until Sept. 23 to Negotiate or Face a Federal Suit Over 30-Day Handgun Purchase Waits That Stretch to Nearly 60
• Store Employee Draws On Armed Robbers, Chases Them & Shoots One
• Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling
• Minneapolis Mayor Frey Signs Sweeping Gun Ordinance That State Law Says He Cannot Enforce
• Majority of Minneapolis City Council Intends to Dismantle Police Dept.

The government asks for two things. First, a declaratory judgment, meaning a court ruling that states the law: that the state and both cities are governmental authorities under Section 12601, that their officers are law enforcement officers under the statute, and that enforcing these provisions is a pattern or practice that deprives Minnesotans of their Second Amendment rights. Second, a permanent injunction under Rule 65, meaning a court order barring the defendants from enforcing the waiting period and permit-to-purchase provisions at all.

The complaint is signed by Dhillon, Deputy Assistant Attorney General R. Jonas Geissler, Second Amendment Section Chief Barry K. Arrington, and trial attorneys Mark K. Hellie, Keith W. Gaines, and Peter J. Abernathy, with U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen and Civil Chief David W. Fuller for the District of Minnesota. I will continue tracking United States v. Minnesota, including any response from the state and the cities and any motion for a preliminary injunction.

Read the original story: United States v. Minnesota: DOJ Sues the State, Minneapolis, and St. Paul in Federal Court Over 30-Day Handgun Waits That Stretch to Nearly 60

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in South Austin shot and killed a 24-year-old intruder who entered his bedroom early Wednesday morning.
• Police found the intruder, Dmario Antonie Jones, outside the home with gunshot wounds; he died at 4:10 a.m.
• The homeowner has cooperated with the investigation and faces no charges at this time.
• APD classifies this incident as Austin’s 43rd homicide of 2026; this label is standard until further investigation.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

AUSTIN, TX — A South Austin homeowner shot and killed a 24-year-old man who broke into the house and made his way into the bedroom early Wednesday morning, according to the Austin Police Department.

Officers responded to a burglary call in the 200 block of Virtus Bend at 3:51 a.m. on September 23 and found Dmario Antonie Jones with apparent gunshot wounds. Officers located him in the home’s front yard with “obvious trauma to his body,” Officer Aaron Townsend said, as reported by CBS Austin. Austin-Travis County EMS attempted life-saving measures. Jones was pronounced dead at 4:10 a.m.

APD’s preliminary investigation lays out the sequence in three steps. Jones entered the residence. He proceeded into the bedroom. The homeowner shot him during the commission of the burglary, police say.

Homicide detectives interviewed the homeowner, who APD says has been fully cooperative with the investigation. That puts the homeowner’s account on the record from the first hours and gives detectives a cooperating witness instead of an open question about who did what. The homeowner has since been released, and no charges have been filed at this time, according to the release.

More from USA Carry:

• Licensed Concealed Carry Holder In Chicago Forced To Defend Himself From Inside Vehicle
• Armed Driver Shoots and Kills Teen Who Pointed CO2 Rifle in Juneau, Alaska
• Three Killed in Austin Target Shooting, Suspect Arrested After Carjacking and Police Chase
• Austin Homeowner Shoots and Seriously Wounds Intruder
• Austin Woman Shoots, Kills Violent Intruder

APD is investigating this as Austin’s 43rd homicide of 2026. Homicide, in this context, is a classification, not an accusation. It means one person died at the hands of another, and every death like this gets that label until the investigation sorts out what it was. The homeowner has not been publicly identified. No charging decision has been announced, and prosecutors make that call, not the officers who wrote the release.

The one thing I will draw from this is about mindset. The homeowner had a firearm within reach at 3:51 in the morning. That is a decision made long before a burglar reaches the bedroom door, and it is the only reason the homeowner had an option at all when he got there. No amount of gear fixes a gun that is in another room or locked in a safe in a closet when the intruder is in this one.

Read the original story: Austin Homeowner Shoots and Kills 24-Year-Old Burglar Who Made It All the Way Into the Bedroom During 3:51 A.M. Break-In

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

BUCHANAN COUNTY, MO — A Buchanan County homeowner shot a man in the groin early Sunday after confronting him inside his home at 2:49 a.m., and the man is now in custody facing a burglary charge.

According to a probable cause statement, as reported by KQ2, Thomas D. Davis, 44, of St. Joseph, unlawfully entered a home in the 3300 block of Scott Street in northwest Buchanan County around 2:49 a.m. Sunday, Sept. 20.

Once inside, Davis allegedly took items from a counter. He was on his way out when the homeowner confronted him.

The homeowner believed Davis was armed with a firearm. He fired one round. It struck Davis in the groin. Davis ran from the house.

The items on the counter are not what this comes down to. What matters is a homeowner, in the dark at 2:49 in the morning, face to face with a stranger he believed had a gun. Whether Davis actually had one is not addressed in the report. The law does not require a homeowner to wait and find out. It asks whether his belief that he faced an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm was reasonable under the circumstances, and a stranger inside your home before 3 a.m. who you believe is armed is about as far from a borderline call as this gets. He fired once and the threat left. That is the mindset I want to see: stop the threat, then stop shooting.

Officers located Davis in a nearby alley. He was taken to Mosaic for treatment and released into police custody. The homeowner identified him as the man who had been inside the house.

More from USA Carry:

• Employee Fatally Shoots Tire Shop Owner Before Owner’s Son Defends Himself and Stops the Threat
• Three Rochester Cops Shot in Domestic Violence Ambush; Suspect Killed After Shootout
• Road Rage Incident Turns Violent: Female Concealed Carrier Shoots Male Attacker in Groin
• Why Your Spouse and Children Need Their Concealed Carry Permits
• Chicago CCL Holder Defends Himself Against Another Armed Man in Alley

Davis told authorities he had taken Xanax and had no recollection of entering the home. That may end up being part of his defense. It means nothing to the man standing in his own house at 2:49 a.m. Intent is not visible in the dark. A homeowner has to respond to what a stranger is doing, not to what that stranger will remember later.

Davis faces a charge of second-degree burglary and was scheduled for an initial appearance before Judge Rebecca Spencer at 8:15 a.m. Tuesday, Sept. 22. The charge is an allegation, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted. The report does not indicate any charges against the homeowner or any prosecutorial determination on his actions.

Read the original story: Missouri Homeowner Fires One Round, Hits Suspected Burglar in the Groin During 2:49 A.M. Confrontation Inside His Home

Key Takeaways

• ATF Director Robert Cekada announced that guidance on transferring suppressors and short-barreled firearms under the NFA will be released soon.
• The White House may be delaying the guidance, which impacts how gun shops handle transfers amidst the ongoing injunction.
• Cekada reassured that dealers transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 will not face violations, easing concerns for FFLs.
• The guidance aims to cover interstate travel with NFA items and clarify the transfer process for SBRs and SBSs on Form 4473.
• Changes to the Form 4473 and updated NFA rules are in progress, with further guidance expected in the coming weeks.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — ATF Director Robert Cekada told a room full of federal firearms licensees that the agency’s guidance on transferring suppressors and short-barreled firearms under the NFA injunction is not finished, but it is close, and he expects it to be released in the next couple of weeks.

Cekada made the remarks at “The Briefing,” an FFL compliance event hosted by FastBound, as reported by AmmoLand. He said ATF is only one of three stakeholders in the guidance. The other two are the Department of Justice and the White House. AmmoLand’s own sources believe the White House is the one holding up release.

That timeline matters because the counter has been frozen for weeks. Gun Owners of America told its members on August 25 that it won its challenge to the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements on August 5, and that gun shops across the country were refusing to transfer unregistered suppressors and short-barreled firearms until ATF said something. GOA’s Erich Pratt wrote that he ran into it at his own local shop. Some FFLs were proceeding, GOA said, while others held off out of fear of consequences. Cekada’s remarks came seven weeks after the date GOA gives for the ruling, and they are the first public signal from ATF on when direction is coming.

The single most useful thing Cekada said was about inspections. AmmoLand asked him directly how industry operations inspectors should treat a dealer they find transferring suppressors on a Form 4473. Cekada was adamant that an FFL doing so will not be cited for a violation. Former NFA Chief Steve Albro later echoed him, saying ATF’s policy is to presume every suppressor transferred on a 4473 was legally transferred. For the dealer who has been holding cans in the safe because he did not want to bet his license on his reading of an injunction, that is the answer he has been waiting for, and it came from the director’s mouth in front of the industry. Albro also put a number on the stakes: more than 2.3 million suppressors sold this year.

An injunction, in plain terms, is a court order telling the government to stop enforcing something against the people covered by the order. Cekada said the guidance is meant to cover as many Americans as possible while protecting the gun owners it does cover from future anti-gun administrations. AmmoLand reports ATF will most likely not expand the injunction to a universal level.

Short-barreled rifles and shotguns get their own fix. AmmoLand reports those items are covered by the injunction, but dealers have still been running them on a Form 4 because the Gun Control Act separately requires notifying the attorney general of the transfer. The guidance will “fix” that carve-out, in AmmoLand’s telling, which the outlet reads as SBRs and SBSs moving on a 4473 alone. Cekada said these guns, and long guns generally, are not an issue, and he called out groups whose goal is to demonize them.

The guidance is also expected to address interstate travel with covered NFA items. Cekada said it may address the 15 states that require buyers of some covered items to comply with federal law, though ATF Chief Legal Counsel Robert Lieder clarified that ATF cannot force those states to take the bureau’s advice. If you live in one of those states, the federal guidance may not settle your question.

Several other items surfaced during the day, per AmmoLand. Lieder said ATF is still working on NFA rules covering suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs, not to undercut the injunction but to backstop it in case a future administration tries to change course. Form 4473 is being revised: the “County” box goes away, changes are being made to comply with court rulings including the Supreme Court’s Hemani decision on the marijuana-user prohibition, and the new form will not be out until after the holiday season. Lieder said ATF is updating its systems to allow handgun and handgun ammunition sales to 18- to 20-year-olds following a DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion the bureau was not told about in advance, with guidance in the coming weeks, while machine guns and destructive devices are likely to stay at 21. On forced reset triggers, Cekada said some on the market are true FRTs and some are machine guns under the statutory definition, and he declined to name which.

More from USA Carry:

• 20 Websites to Visit if You Want to be a Better Shooter
• Advising First Time Gun Buyers: Some Suggestions
• DHS Declares Firearms and Ammo Retailers and Shooting Ranges are “Essential Businesses”
• Suppressors, SBRs and the NFA: Are Changes Coming to Firearm Regulation?
• NRA, FPC, SAF Tell Sixth Circuit the NFA’s Short-Barreled Rifle Registry Is Unconstitutional

Until the document is actually out, call your dealer before you drive over. Ask whether the shop is transferring on a 4473 now or waiting for the paper. The director has said a shop that transfers now will not be cited. Whether your dealer is willing to take his word for it before it is in writing is his call, and after years of watching ATF punish paperwork mistakes, plenty of them will wait the couple of weeks.

I will continue tracking ATF’s guidance and will cover the document itself when it is released.

Read the original story: ATF Director Says Suppressor and SBR Transfer Guidance Could Land Within Weeks, and Dealers Moving Cans on a 4473 Will Not Be Cited

Key Takeaways

• An elderly homeowner in Montrose shot an intruder who forced his way into his home on Wednesday afternoon.
• The homeowner warned the stranger to leave but he continued to advance, prompting the homeowner to retrieve a .38-caliber handgun.
• The intruder was taken to the hospital in critical but stable condition after being shot.
• The incident occurred during daylight hours, raising concerns about the intruder’s intentions.
• Witnesses reported the homeowner gave multiple commands before using his weapon, facing a direct threat.

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

HOUSTON, TX — An elderly homeowner shot a stranger who broke down his front door and forced his way into a Montrose home Wednesday afternoon, according to Houston police.

Houston Police Department officers were called to a home on Hawthorne Street around 1:05 p.m. for a possible home invasion, as reported by KENS 5. The caller reported that a man had broken down the front door and entered the residence, and initial information indicated a shot had been fired.

An HPD officer at the scene told KHOU 11 the man appeared to be a stranger to the homeowner. The homeowner, described as an elderly man, repeatedly told him to stop and to leave the home. He did not.

The homeowner retrieved a .38-caliber handgun. He shot the man. The man was taken to a hospital in critical but stable condition, according to the officer.

More from USA Carry:

• Residents Disarm and Wound Intruders During Charleston Home Invasion Attempt
• Virginia Homeowner Confronts Then Shoots Man Trying To Break In Through Window
• Father Shoots Kills Strange Man In Daughter’s Bedroom
• Elderly Woman Fires One Shot to Stop Intruder Threatening to Kill Them
• Elderly Man Shot with Own Gun by Intruder

The officer’s word was “eventually.” The homeowner did not fire the moment the door gave way. He gave commands, more than once, and went for the revolver only after a stranger who had already broken into his house refused to obey them. An elderly man facing an intruder who has forced entry in broad daylight and will not stop advancing on verbal commands is facing a threat to his own body, and every warning he issued that went unheeded made that threat harder to read any other way.

The midday timing matters too. This was not a burglar expecting an empty house at 3 a.m. This was 1 in the afternoon, with the occupant home, and the man came through the door anyway.

Read the original story: Elderly Houston Homeowner Shoots Stranger Who Broke Down His Front Door in 1 P.M. Home Invasion After Repeated Orders to Leave

Key Takeaways

• The Justice Department sued San Jose over its $1,600 firearm carry license fee, claiming it’s the highest in the nation.
• Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon provided a deadline for negotiation, which San Jose missed before the complaint was filed.
• The Department argues that exorbitant fees violate the Second Amendment rights to carry firearms for self-defense.
• Dhillon emphasized that such high fees unfairly limit the rights of ordinary citizens and do not reflect the true costs of obtaining a firearm.
• The lawsuit aims to uphold constitutional rights and invites other gun owners facing similar issues to file complaints.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SAN JOSE, CA — The Justice Department filed suit against the City of San Jose and the San Jose Police Department on September 16, 2026, over the nearly $1,600 the city charges for a license to carry a firearm, a fee the Department says is the highest in the nation.

Earlier this month I covered the notice letter in “Constitutional Rights Aren’t for Sale”: Harmeet Dhillon Puts San Jose on a Six-Day Clock Over Its $1,591 Carry Permit Fee, when Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon told the city it had until September 15 to say whether it wanted to negotiate before a complaint was filed. What has changed is that the deadline came and went, and the complaint landed the next day.

The Department’s press release does not soften the numbers. It puts San Jose’s application fee at nearly $1,600 per license and says no other jurisdiction in the country charges more. New York, Washington, D.C., Boston, and Chicago, the release says, all charge a small fraction of what San Jose does. Nobody thinks of those four cities as easy places to get a carry license, and San Jose still towers over every one of them.

The legal argument is short. The Department says the Supreme Court has already held that “exorbitant fees” violate the Second Amendment because they deny ordinary citizens their right to carry a firearm for self-defense, and it puts San Jose’s fee squarely in that category. That is the same line the September letter drew from Bruen, the 2022 decision that let states keep their permit systems and charge for them but warned that a fee could not be used to price people out of the right. For readers sorting through California’s concealed carry rules, the license at issue here is the one San Jose issues through its police department, and as I reported in September, the letter’s second claim was aimed at that department because its officers are the ones enforcing the fee schedule. The complaint names both the city and the department.

Dhillon’s statement on the filing did not bother with case citations. “All law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. This right is not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but a fundamental element of our republic,” she said. “You don’t need a law degree to recognize that charging a fee several times higher than the cost of the firearm itself is illogical, and an unconstitutional attempt to impede Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

She is right about the arithmetic. A fee several times the price of the pistol comes due before the applicant has spent anything on the pistol, the holster, or the range time that actually matters. Training and mindset are what make a carrier safe and competent. A fee schedule does neither. It decides who gets in the door based on the size of their bank account.

More from USA Carry:

• It Now Costs $1,591 Just to Apply for a Carry Permit in San Jose, and That’s Before Training
• “Constitutional Rights Aren’t for Sale”: Harmeet Dhillon Puts San Jose on a Six-Day Clock Over Its $1,591 Carry Permit Fee
• San Jose Wants You Pay $25/Year to Exercise Your 2nd Amendment Rights…and Get Liability Insurance
• 9 to 5 Self-Defense: How to Stay Safe in the Office
• Two California Smash and Grab Robberies, Two Very Different Outcomes

The suit was brought by the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section, which the release says enforces the Second Amendment, the Police Pattern or Practice Act at 34 U.S.C. § 12601, and Executive Order 14206. The pattern-or-practice statute is the law that lets the Department sue a police agency over a pattern of violating people’s constitutional rights. The release also invites any gun owner who believes a state or local government has infringed the right to keep or bear arms to file a complaint through the section’s page at justice.gov.

I will continue tracking the Justice Department’s suit against San Jose as it moves forward.

Read the original story: The Six-Day Clock Ran Out: Justice Department Sues San Jose and Its Police Department Over Nearly $1,600 Carry Permit Fee It Calls the Highest in the Nation

Key Takeaways

• The Ninth Circuit reversed a previous injunction blocking parts of Hawaii’s handgun purchasing regime in Yukutake v. Lopez.
• The court found that Hawaii’s 30-day purchase deadline and police inspection requirements fit within a shall-issue licensing framework.
• Under Bruen, the government typically carries the burden of justifying gun laws; however, the court shifted this burden to gun owners in this case.
• Critics argue the Ninth Circuit misapplied Bruen, extending its principles beyond concealed carry permits to Hawaii’s unique laws.
• Hawaii’s requirements remain stringent, necessitating buyers to navigate various regulations even after purchasing a handgun.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

HONOLULU, HI — The full Ninth Circuit on September 22, 2026, reversed a district court injunction that had blocked two pieces of Hawaii’s handgun purchasing regime, sending Yukutake v. Lopez back to the lower court for further proceedings. Judge John B. Owens wrote the opinion. Judges Ryan D. Nelson, Danielle J. Forrest and Lawrence VanDyke each filed dissents.

En banc means the case was reheard by a large panel of the full court rather than the usual three judges, and that is the whole story here. Plaintiffs Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa challenged Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e), which gives a buyer only a narrow window to acquire a handgun after receiving the required permit, and § 134-3, which requires the buyer to complete a form about the firearm and, in certain circumstances, physically bring the gun to a police station for inspection. District Judge J. Michael Seabright granted the plaintiffs summary judgment, found both provisions facially unconstitutional, meaning invalid in every application and not just as applied to these two men, and permanently enjoined them. According to the Second Amendment Foundation, the plaintiffs then won again before a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel before the full court voted to rehear it. SAF’s amicus brief, a friend-of-the-court filing, described the requirements as a 30-day purchase deadline and a police inspection within five days.

The injunction predated the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision. Bruen tells courts to run a two-step inquiry: does the Second Amendment’s text cover the conduct, and if so, can the government justify the law with historical tradition. The en banc court instead leaned on footnote 9 of Bruen, reading it as an apparent carve-out that treats objective, non-abusive shall-issue licensing regimes as presumptively constitutional. Hawaii, the court noted, is shall-issue for firearm permits, meaning an applicant who meets the requirements gets the permit. The court wrote that the circuits have converged on one principle since Bruen: non-abusive shall-issue laws comport with the Second Amendment. With that framing in place, the court held that Hawaii’s regime survives.

In plain terms, that flips who has to prove what. Under Bruen the state carries the burden of justifying a gun law with history. Under this reading, once a court labels a law part of a shall-issue system, the gun owner has to prove the system is being run abusively.

Kostas Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education at SAF, made exactly that point in a thread on X the afternoon the opinion dropped. “See how they reverse the burden? Bruen was emphatic that the burden is on the government. The Ninth Circuit uses one footnote to reverse that whenever they can characterize a law as ‘shall-issue,’” he wrote. He was blunter about the mechanism: “Based on the summary, the Ninth Circuit seems to be doing the thing where it just says any ‘shall issue’ system is fine, so long as it isn’t ‘abusive.’ And of course, the judges get to determine if it is abusive (interest balancing, yay!).” Interest balancing is the judge-weighs-the-tradeoffs test the Supreme Court threw out in Bruen.

Moros also argued the footnote is being stretched far past its text. At most, he wrote, the Supreme Court was talking about the concealed carry permit regimes it referenced in that footnote, and “the Hawaii laws at issue are unique in the country.” He says the ruling runs against what the Court “just said in Wolford,” a separate Hawaii carry case the Supreme Court agreed to hear last October, where in his reading the Court reaffirmed that the analysis does not work this way. He noted one more pattern: “As is often the case when it is sued by Alan Beck, Hawaii changed the law to make it a little less abusive, and that seems to have paid off.”

None of this changes the fact that a Hawaii buyer still faces a clock and a police station after the sale. SAF founder Alan Gottlieb called these restrictions unique and burdensome, with no parallel in other states. Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing those steps cold before you set foot in a gun shop, because in Hawaii the paperwork does not end when you walk out with the box.

More from USA Carry:

• Handguns On Board Boats: Federal, State, & International Considerations
• Hawaii Concealed Carry Permit Information
• DC High Court Strikes Down Magazine Ban Over 10 Rounds in Major Second Amendment Ruling
• Five Tips for Being Better at Appendix Carry (AIWB)
• Florida AG Admits Error, Says Only Dangerous Felons Should Lose Gun Rights

Moros reads the split as 6-5 while noting he had not yet read the dissents, and he took what he could from it: “Progress! We usually lose by more than that.” SAF’s amicus brief had already warned the court that its habit of granting en banc rehearing to overturn Second Amendment victories undermines public confidence in the judiciary. This opinion is that habit in action. A district judge and a three-judge panel both read Bruen and struck these laws. It took the full court and a footnote to put them back.

I will continue tracking Yukutake v. Lopez as it heads back to the district court.

Read the original story: Two Lower Courts Struck Hawaii’s Handgun Purchase Deadline and Police Inspection Rule. The Full Ninth Circuit Just Put Them Back.

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in Italy shot a burglar and now fears imprisonment, expressing panic over the situation.
• Italian self-defense laws differ significantly from those in the U.S., lacking broad castle doctrines or stand-your-ground presumption.
• In Italy, even justified self-defense actions can lead to criminal charges, making the legal outcome uncertain for the homeowner.
• The case highlights the importance of understanding local self-defense laws for firearm owners, as they impact the aftermath of using a weapon.
• The homeowner’s panic reflects the emotional turmoil faced by anyone forced to use a firearm against another person.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

BALDISSERO D’ALBA, ITALY — A 35-year-old homeowner who shot and killed a burglar inside his home in the early hours of Sunday now says he fears he will end up in prison, telling reporters, “I shouldn’t have fired, I was panicking.”

The shooting happened in Baldissero D’Alba, a town near Cuneo in northern Italy, as reported by ANSA. The man made his comments publicly on Monday, saying he is afraid of facing the same fate as an earlier defender he referred to only as Roggero.

That fear is the whole story here, and it is one American gun owners should sit with rather than dismiss. This man defended himself inside his own home, and his first instinct afterward was not relief. It was dread about a courtroom.

Italy does not treat self-defense the way most American states do. There is no broad castle doctrine and no stand-your-ground presumption that a homeowner is justified simply because an intruder broke in. A defender there can shoot an armed intruder in his own home and still spend months or years answering to prosecutors over whether the force was proportionate. That is the reality this 35-year-old is now living, and it is why he is invoking a prior case by name.

What I keep coming back to is the phrase he used about himself: panicking. That is an honest word, and it describes the internal state of nearly everyone who has ever been forced to use a firearm against another human being. The difference is the legal ground you stand on when the adrenaline drains and the questions begin. In much of the United States, a homeowner who fires on an intruder is presumed to have acted lawfully unless the facts say otherwise. Where this man lives, the presumption can run the other way.

More from USA Carry:

• The Why and Who of Gun Manufacturers
• Northern Marianas Concealed Carry Permit Information
• New Year’s Resolutions for Gun Owners
• Judge Rules USPS Gun Bans Unconstitutional At “Ordinary” Post Offices
• Do I Get Involved in What Is Happening in Front of Me?

I am not going to characterize the intruder, the sequence, or the justification beyond what has been confirmed, because the reporting available to me is thin and the investigation is early. What is clear is that a man is dead, the homeowner who fired is not celebrating, and the outcome of his case is genuinely uncertain.

For anyone who carries or keeps a firearm for defense, this is a reminder that the law you live under shapes everything that happens after the trigger. Know it cold, wherever you are.

Read the original story: Italian Homeowner Who Shot and Killed a Burglar Says He Fears Prison: I Shouldn’t Have Fired, I Was Panicking

Key Takeaways

• Hillsboro-Deering School officials admitted the unconstitutional search of student Jack Harrington’s truck in a federal judgment.
• The search occurred after officials learned Harrington owned a legally carried handgun, despite no evidence of illegal conduct.
• The judgment stressed that exercising Second Amendment rights cannot justify unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.
• SAF emphasizes the importance of maintaining constitutional rights, highlighting that lawful gun ownership cannot create reasonable suspicion for searches.
• Harrington’s case illustrates the significance of knowing and standing firm on one’s rights, which led to a favorable federal judgment.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

HILLSBORO, NH — The superintendent of the Hillsboro-Deering Cooperative School District and the principal of Hillsboro-Deering High School have signed onto a federal judgment declaring that their April 24, 2025 search of student Jack Harrington’s pickup truck was unconstitutional. The stipulated declaratory judgment in Harrington v. Crawford, Case No. 1:25-cv-407, was filed September 17, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Stipulated means both sides agreed to it. Declaratory means the court is formally stating what the law required, not awarding damages.

I covered this case earlier when the Second Amendment Foundation filed its reply brief: SAF Reply Brief Says New Hampshire School Searched an 18-Year-Old’s Truck Solely Because He Lawfully Owns a Handgun. What has changed is that the fight is over. Superintendent Jennifer Crawford and Principal James O’Rourke, named as defendants in their official capacities, have put their names on a court document that says the search was illegal. SAF announced the result on September 22, 2026.

The backdrop, according to SAF, is simple. Harrington owns a handgun that he sometimes carries in his truck, in full compliance with federal and New Hampshire law. He never brought it to school, which he knew was prohibited. Once school officials learned he owned a firearm, they questioned him. He repeatedly refused to consent to a search. His parents, reached by phone, refused as well. The school searched the truck anyway. Nothing was found. The gun was at his home.

Those refusals are what made this case clean. With consent off the table, the search had to stand on its own legal footing, and the district now admits it had none. The complaint, filed October 15, 2025, carried a single count: violation of Harrington’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

The judgment’s first three points are the admissions. The search of the truck and its glove box was unconstitutional. It did not meet the “reasonable suspicion” standard the Supreme Court set for school searches in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). In plain terms, schools do not need a warrant or probable cause to search a student, but they do need specific facts suggesting the student broke a law or a school rule. The district concedes it did not have that. And the judgment states outright that Harrington did not engage in any illegal or unlawful conduct on April 24, 2025 or at any other time that justified the search.

The fourth point is the one with reach beyond a single parking lot. The parties agreed that a search of a student’s person, property, or vehicle based solely on the exercise of a constitutional or legal right, including the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, would be an unconstitutional search under the Fourth Amendment. The judgment spells out that the right to keep and bear arms encompasses the right to carry, store, or transport a handgun in a vehicle or in its glove box. A school district put that language in a federal court filing under its own signature.

“Maintaining safety on school grounds is a laudable goal,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “But the Constitution demands that school officials have, at minimum, reasonable suspicion to search a student’s property. Critically, choosing to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights cannot be interpreted as a waiver of your rights under the Fourth Amendment, nor can it create reasonable suspicion of a crime.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb went at the practical consequence of the school’s theory. “If that were the case, then lawful gun owners like Mr. Harrington would not just be subject to search of their property on one day – but every day – unless and until they prove that they have sold their constitutionally protected property to the satisfaction of school officials,” he said. “The Constitution prevents precisely that outcome and worked exactly as designed in this case.”

More from USA Carry:

• SAF Reply Brief Says New Hampshire School Searched an 18-Year-Old’s Truck Solely Because He Lawfully Owns a Handgun
• Dealing With A Violent Incident in Your Neighborhood
• Austin Mass Shooting Leaves 14 Injured; Police Search for 2 Suspects
• 10 Things to Never Be Cheap About
• New Hampshire Concealed Carry Permit Information

The district got two things in return. The judgment states that Crawford and O’Rourke acted at all relevant times on a good faith belief that their actions complied with the law and out of concern for the safety of students and staff, and it says the judgment does not bind the defendants or the district with respect to different students under different facts and circumstances. The parties also entered a separate settlement agreement, and the judgment does not describe its terms.

The part I want carry-minded readers to take from this is what Harrington did before any lawyer got involved. He kept his gun off campus. He kept it legal. And when officials with authority over his daily life pressed him to open his truck, he said no, and kept saying no. That is the mindset. Knowing where your rights begin is half of it. Being willing to stand on them when it costs you something is the other half, and it is the half that produced a federal judgment saying a school cannot treat gun ownership as grounds for a search.

Read the original story: Hillsboro-Deering School District Admits in Federal Court That Searching a Student’s Truck Because He Owns a Handgun Violated the Fourth Amendment

Key Takeaways

• The Second Amendment Foundation and NRA filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to review Beckwith v. Frey, challenging Maine’s 72-hour firearm waiting period.
• Petitioners argue that waiting periods infringe on Second Amendment rights by delaying the exercise of constitutional rights.
• The case highlights a split among federal appeals courts regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment and acquisition rights.
• SAF contends that historical context shows that waiting periods are an anomaly and lack support from founding-era traditions.
• The outcome could set a precedent affecting various purchaseside restrictions for firearm buyers.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court on September 22, 2026, urging the justices to hear Beckwith v. Frey, the challenge to Maine’s 72-hour firearm waiting period. An amicus brief is a filing from a “friend of the court,” an outside party with a stake in the outcome that is not one of the litigants. The case is docketed as No. 26-258 and names Maine Attorney General Aaron M. Frey as the respondent.

Andrea Beckwith and the other petitioners are asking the Court for a writ of certiorari, which is simply the order the Supreme Court issues when it agrees to review a lower court’s decision. I covered the petition itself in A Stalking Victim Passed Her Background Check, Paid for the Gun, and Went Home Unarmed. Maine’s 72-Hour Wait Is Now at the Supreme Court. What is new is that two of the largest gun rights organizations in the country have now put their names behind that request, with SAF’s Konstadinos Moros as counsel of record and Joseph Greenlee of NRA-ILA joining him on the brief.

The law at issue, LD 2238, requires a 72-hour wait between the agreement to buy a firearm and the moment the dealer can actually hand it over. The First Circuit upheld it, and the way it got there is the whole fight. According to SAF’s announcement, the appeals court held that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of a firearm do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text at all, and that such laws are constitutional unless the plaintiffs prove they are “abusive” toward Second Amendment rights.

Here is why that matters in plain terms. Under Bruen, the analysis has two steps. First, does the law burden conduct the Second Amendment’s text covers? If yes, the government has to justify the law with historical tradition. There is no step where a judge weighs how badly the law hurts you against how much good it does. The First Circuit’s approach skips the history requirement entirely by saying buying a gun is not “keeping” or “bearing” one, and then lets waiting periods stand unless a court first decides the delay crossed some line into abuse. SAF argues that is the interest-balancing Heller and Bruen already threw out, wearing a new label.

“A waiting period delays the exercise of a constitutional right, and that is enough to implicate the Second Amendment,” Moros said. “The First Circuit told plaintiffs they have no claim unless a judge first decides the delay is ‘abusive.’ That is merely interest-balancing by another name. If courts can dodge history by saying acquisition is not ‘keeping’ or ‘bearing,’ Bruen becomes optional.”

The brief also leans on a split among the federal appeals courts, which is one of the classic reasons the Supreme Court agrees to take a case. Per SAF, the Fifth Circuit recently held that there is no middle ground at Bruen’s first step: conduct either implicates the plain text or it does not, and how heavy the burden is generally does not matter at that stage. That is the Elite Precision Customs v. ATF decision the brief cites, handed down September 18, 2026. SAF also points to the Tenth Circuit, whose Ortega v. Grisham ruling the brief cites, as having recognized that acquiring a firearm is a necessary predicate to keeping and bearing it. Put those next to the First Circuit and you have federal courts reading the same constitutional text in opposite directions, which is exactly the kind of disagreement only the Supreme Court can resolve.

The second half of the brief goes to history. Its heading argues that waiting periods are a historical anomaly and that firearms were readily available even in the Founding era. If that holds, then even a court that reaches Bruen’s second step should have trouble finding a tradition that supports making a lawful buyer cool off for three days.

“Waiting periods have real-life consequences for anyone wishing to purchase a firearm for self-defense,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Maine’s law, and the First Circuit’s theory that buying a gun is only an ‘ancillary’ right, treats self-defense as a privilege the government may slow-walk. That’s not the way constitutional rights work, no matter how lawmakers in the state feel about the Second Amendment.”

To be clear, this is a brief supporting a petition, not a ruling. The Court has not decided whether to hear the case, and Maine will get to argue that the First Circuit had it right.

More from USA Carry:

• A Stalking Victim Passed Her Background Check, Paid for the Gun, and Went Home Unarmed. Maine’s 72-Hour Wait Is Now at the Supreme Court.
• Concealed Handgun License No Longer Needed in Maine
• Maine’s 72-Hour Gun Wait Survives Court Challenge as First Circuit Reverses Lower Court Ruling
• Is Full-Auto Overrated? A Modest Proposal
• Maine Bills Seek Improvement in Carry Laws

The part of this that goes beyond Maine is the acquisition question. If buying a gun sits outside the Second Amendment’s text, then every purchase-side restriction, from waiting periods to permit-to-purchase schemes to dealer regulations, gets to skip the history test that Bruen made mandatory. That is a much larger door than a 72-hour delay. It also lands on the person who has the least time to spare, the one buying a firearm because a threat just showed up in their life. A serious carry mindset means knowing the purchase and permit rules where you live before you need them, which is why I keep my state-by-state concealed carry permit information current, but no amount of planning helps the buyer who did everything right and still walked out empty-handed.

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

Read the original story: SAF and NRA Ask the Supreme Court to Kill Maine’s Firearm Waiting Period After the First Circuit Ruled Buying a Gun Isn’t “Keeping” or “Bearing”

Key Takeaways

• Episode 70 was filmed while traveling with a declared firearm from New Orleans to Las Vegas.
• At check-in, the agent confirmed compliance by checking for no loaded weapons or ammunition before handing over a declaration form.
• USA Carry Travel Tags provide quick access to airline firearm policies and reciprocity maps via a QR code.
• Upon arrival in Las Vegas, the rifle case was retrieved from the Southwest office with locks intact.
• The process remains consistent: declare, fill out the form, wait, and pick up the case, regardless of contents.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

Episode 70 was filmed September 21st, flying Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas. Two checked bags, the large Pelican rifle case with just one pistol in it, and a heads up at the counter about the locks.

Check-In at MSY

Declared firearms. The agent asked what I had, and it was one pistol in the rifle case. That got a look, but there’s a reason for it. I was flying the rifle case out to Las Vegas so I’d have room to bring some other guns back with me. He confirmed no loaded weapon and no live ammunition, then handed me the declaration form. I borrowed a pen, gave him my ID, and filled everything out. I asked for my PNR and flight number, he gave me both, and the form went in the case.

He also let me know to listen for a page instead of counting strictly on the wait. That comes up with non-TSA locks. If they need inside, they need me. I set my 15-minute timer anyway and waited. No page came, so I headed through security.

USA Carry Travel Tags

Used the wait to talk about the USA Carry Travel Tags. There’s a QR code on the back that pulls up the USA Carry reciprocity maps and every airline’s firearm policy.

The use case is simple. You’re at the counter declaring, the agent isn’t sure of their own policy, and you either scan it yourself or hand it over and let them scan it. It pulls the policy up in seconds.

They come in a pack of two with the luggage attachments for $35.99. I finally have them in hand and they’re in stock and shipping now. Order at store.usacarry.com.

Arrival in Las Vegas

The rifle case doesn’t come out on the carousel. I waited for someone to walk it out to the Southwest office at LAS, showed my ID, and they handed it over. Locks intact. On my way.

Final Thoughts

Seventy episodes in. Declare, fill out the form, wait, pick up the case. Same process every time, whether the case is full or has one pistol rattling around in it.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 70 – Southwest from New Orleans to Las Vegas

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

ANTON CHICO, NM — A 22-year-old man allegedly stole a work truck from a gas station off Interstate 40, chased his 18-year-old ex-girlfriend roughly 40 miles across Guadalupe County, and opened fire on the highway Saturday before her mother’s boyfriend fired back and subdued him, according to New Mexico State Police.

State police announced they are investigating the shooting and carjacking in a post on X. The sequence that follows, including the suspect’s identity, the times, the vehicles, and the charges, was detailed by state police and reported by KOAT.

It started around 11:10 a.m. at the Phillips 66 Milagro station off I-40, about 35 miles west of Santa Rosa. Riel Gonzales, 22, got into a heated argument with his ex-girlfriend. She left him there and drove off in a black BMW.

Gonzales then allegedly took a red work truck from a driver who was pumping gas and went after her toward Anton Chico, about 40 miles north.

He eventually found the BMW at the residence where she had left it and drove off in it. Her mother came to pick her up. As the two women left, they found Gonzales waiting on NM 119 near Anton Chico. Shots were fired. The vehicles collided.

The mother’s boyfriend responded to the location and saw the crash. Gonzales fired on him. He fired back. He subdued Gonzales and held him there until officers arrived and took him into custody.

More from USA Carry:

• Ex-Boyfriend Shot Dead During Break-In Attempt at Ex’s Apartment
• GunTuber Brandon Herrera Moves Toward Congress After Rep. Tony Gonzales Drops Re-Election Bid
• Brandon Herrera Announces Second Run for Congress to Challenge Rep. Tony Gonzales in TX-23
• Concealed Carry Permit Holder Stops Knife Attack
• Running With Your Gun

Both Gonzales and his ex-girlfriend suffered gunshot wounds to their arms and were taken to an area hospital. Police have not said who fired the round that struck her, and neither report says whose round hit Gonzales.

Gonzales was booked into the Colfax County Detention Center on a probation hold and charged with car theft, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and criminal damage of property. The probation hold means he was already under court supervision when he allegedly stole the truck. The charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted. No charging decision involving the mother’s boyfriend appears in either report.

Read the original story: Mother’s Boyfriend Returns Fire on Armed Ex-Boyfriend Who Stole a Work Truck and Chased 18-Year-Old 40 Miles Across New Mexico

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

PORT ST. LUCIE, FL — A 25-year-old food delivery driver shot a man who followed him out of a Pollo Tropical, shoved him, and kept coming with a knife while the driver backed away, according to the Port St. Lucie Police Department. The man he shot is the one facing charges.

The department’s initial Facebook post confirmed only an active investigation at the Pollo Tropical on NW St. Lucie West Boulevard, an isolated incident with no threat to the public. The rest of the account, as reported by WPTV from police, puts the shooting at around 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, Sept. 19, outside the restaurant at 1365 NW St. Lucie West Boulevard.

The driver walked in to pick up a delivery order. Christopher Harris, 37, followed him inside. Police said Harris did not appear to place or pick up an order of his own. When the driver left, Harris followed him back out.

That sequence is the part I want every carrier to sit on for a second. A stranger who follows you into a business with no reason to be there, and then follows you out of it, has already told you what kind of encounter this is. Noticing it before the parking lot is the mindset piece, and it is the piece nobody can buy off a shelf.

Outside surveillance footage showed Harris pushing the driver and advancing toward him while the driver backed away, according to police. Witnesses reported seeing Harris with a knife just before the shooting.

The driver fired one round. It struck Harris in the chest. Harris went back inside the restaurant. Bystanders began providing aid and called 911.

Officers responding to reports of gunfire found Harris with a gunshot wound to the upper torso. He was airlifted to HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries. While he was receiving medical attention, a knife was removed from his waistband. Police said a second knife was later found in his front pocket. Two blades on one man closing distance on someone who is retreating is a threat of serious bodily harm by any reading, and the driver did not have to wait to find out which one Harris intended to use.

The driver, who was not identified, was detained at the scene while detectives investigated and recovered the firearm. Based on evidence, witness statements, and surveillance footage, detectives determined Harris was the primary aggressor in the confrontation. Florida does not require a person to retreat before using force, but the driver did anyway, and he did it on camera. That footage left detectives very little to sort out about who started this and who was trying to get away from it.

More from USA Carry:

• Florida AG to Port St. Lucie HOA: Drop the Gun Ban by June 1 or We Enforce the Law
• Driver Shoots Two Men After They Allegedly Followed Him, Blocked His Vehicle, and Attacked Him in Harris County, TX
• DOJ Backs FPC in Lawsuit Challenging Massachusetts Ban on Commonly Owned Pistols
• Pizza Delivery Driver Gets Off Multiple Shots, Putting Carjacker Into Critical Condition
• Houston Pizza Delivery Driver Fatally Shoots Armed Robber

Harris faces charges of attempted aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and felony battery. He will be booked into the St. Lucie County Jail when he is released from the hospital. The charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted. Police said no criminal charges are pending against the shooter at this time.

A man on a delivery run gave ground as long as he could. When the man with two knives kept coming, he fired once and stopped.

Read the original story: Police Say Port St. Lucie Delivery Driver Backed Away From Man With Knife Before Firing; Aggressor Faces Felony Charges

Key Takeaways

• GLOCK, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Connecticut’s ban on ‘convertible pistols’ on September 21, 2026, seeking to halt enforcement.
• The lawsuit claims the definition of ‘convertible pistols’ is vague and unclear, creating confusion for dealers and buyers.
• GLOCK argues the law infringes on Second Amendment rights by banning lawfully made handguns, while Connecticut asserts the law is to prevent sales of guns convertible to fully automatic weapons.
• Connecticut Attorney General William Tong plans to defend the law, emphasizing its importance for public safety.
• This case adds to ongoing federal litigation concerning other Connecticut firearms bans, highlighting broader legal challenges to gun regulations.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

HARTFORD, CT — GLOCK, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 21, 2026, asking a federal judge to stop the state from enforcing its new ban on “convertible pistols.” The company filed the complaint together with a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which are court orders that would freeze enforcement of the law while the case is decided.

The suit names the Connecticut State’s Attorneys and the Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection as defendants, according to GLOCK’s announcement. It seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning a ruling that the law is unlawful and an order barring the state from enforcing it. The law at issue is Connecticut 2026 HB 5043, now Public Act 26-41.

GLOCK’s first argument is not about the Second Amendment. It is about the words on the page. The complaint maintains that the statute’s definition of “convertible pistols” is vague, ambiguous and unclear as to whether GLOCK pistols manufactured after October 1, 2026 can be sold in Connecticut. A criminal statute has to tell a dealer, a buyer and a police officer what is banned before it punishes them for it. According to GLOCK, this one does not.

The company says it tried to get an answer before it went to court. Customers, dealers and law enforcement agencies were asking GLOCK what the statute meant for them, and GLOCK says it sought clarification from the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General and the State’s Attorneys, to no avail. When the offices that will prosecute under a law decline to say what it covers, the people who have to comply with it are left with one option, and GLOCK took it.

The second argument is the constitutional one. GLOCK contends the law infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Connecticut residents by prohibiting an entire class of lawfully made and sold handguns. The company says it is suing to gain clarity for Connecticut citizens and to safeguard the right of law-abiding citizens to choose the handguns they keep and bear for self-defense. These are GLOCK’s allegations, and the court has not ruled on any of them.

Connecticut Attorney General William Tong has already signaled the state will fight. In a statement released by his office, Tong described the statute as prohibiting the sale and importation of handguns that can be readily converted into fully automatic machine guns. “Connecticut’s commonsense gun laws are lawful and lifesaving. I will aggressively defend Connecticut against efforts to erode those commonsense laws that keep people safe on our streets and in our schools, houses of worship and businesses,” Tong said.

Set the two descriptions side by side and the dispute is plain. The state says it is banning handguns that can be readily converted into machine guns. GLOCK says the state cannot tell it whether its own pistols built after October 1 fall inside that definition. This is a design GLOCK says has been favored by military and law enforcement agencies worldwide since Gaston Glock brought the polymer-framed pistol to the United States in 1986, built with three internal safeties. Forty years on, according to the company, its legal status in one state is an open question that the state’s own lawyers would not close.

This is not the only Connecticut firearms ban in federal litigation. The Second Amendment Foundation has the state’s “assault weapons” rifle ban before the Supreme Court in Grant v. Rovella, and in January it filed a reply brief urging the Court to take the case and decide that AR-15-style rifles are in common use and therefore protected. SAF’s position there is that the Supreme Court has already said a firearm in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned. GLOCK’s complaint targets a different gun, but a ban on an entire class of commonly sold handguns runs into the same question.

More from USA Carry:

• Maryland Legislature Passes Bill Banning Machine Gun Convertible Pistols, Including Some Glocks, Sends It to Governor
• Connecticut Concealed Carry Permit Information
• Connecticut Alert: Magazine Ban and Castle Doctrine
• Homeowner Sends Masked Intruders Fleeing After They Use Hidden Key to Enter Connecticut Home, Juvenile Suspect Shot
• Seven Years in Prison for Selling a Factory Stock Glock: SAF, NRA and FPC Sue New York Over Its Glock-Style Handgun Ban

For anyone who carries or plans to buy a Glock under a Connecticut pistol permit, the question of what this statute actually reaches is now in front of a federal judge. Part of a serious carry mindset is knowing what your state’s law says about the gun you carry, and right now the manufacturer of that gun says the state will not tell you.

I will continue tracking this case, including any ruling on GLOCK’s request for a temporary restraining order.

Read the original story: Glock Sues Connecticut in Federal Court to Block ‘Convertible Pistol’ Ban After State Officials Wouldn’t Say Whether Its Handguns Are Legal to Sell

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

GROVETOWN, GA — A 26-year-old man shot his older brother in the upper leg Friday afternoon after repeated warnings and a round fired into the floor failed to stop an attack that had already injured their mother and his 4-year-old daughter, according to the Grovetown Police Department.

The call came in at about 3:36 p.m. on Friday, as reported by WRDW. Officers arrived at a home on Lory Lane and found Matthew Simmons, 34, with a gunshot wound to the upper leg. They put a tourniquet on him and started first aid until Grovetown Fire Department personnel and EMS arrived.

Police say the preliminary investigation shows Matthew Simmons began physically assaulting his brother, D’Andre Simmons, 26, inside the residence without provocation. Their mother, Tonya Simmons, 55, tried to intervene and he struck her too. D’Andre Simmons’ 4-year-old daughter was in the same room and was hit as well, leaving a small laceration on her arm.

D’Andre Simmons retrieved his handgun during the attack, police say. He gave multiple warnings to stop. He fired a shot into the floor. His brother kept punching. He then fired a round that struck Matthew Simmons in the upper leg. Even with a bullet in his leg, Matthew Simmons kept striking his brother before he finally stopped.

I do not recommend warning shots, and I say that knowing police describe this one as part of a string of warnings that went ignored. Every round has to land somewhere. A bullet fired into the floor of an occupied home can skip, penetrate, or fragment, and there was a 55-year-old woman and a 4-year-old in that room. The warning shot also spent time and ammunition while the attack continued. If the situation justifies pulling the trigger, it justifies aiming at the threat.

Matthew Simmons kept hitting his brother after taking a round to the leg. A handgun wound does not switch a person off, and one round is not a guarantee of anything. You shoot to stop the threat, and you keep working the problem until it actually stops. That is a mindset point, not a gear point.

Deadly force is justified only against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and an unarmed attacker can present that threat. Whether he does depends on the specific facts. What the department describes is a man who kept swinging through repeated verbal warnings, through a shot into the floor, and through a gunshot wound to his own leg, in a room with a child who was already bleeding. Police have not announced a formal self-defense determination, and prosecutors will have the final say on charges, but the department says no charges are currently anticipated against D’Andre Simmons.

D’Andre Simmons dialed 911 and stayed on the line until officers arrived. That put his account on the record within minutes and gave investigators a cooperative witness at the scene instead of a shooter they had to go find.

More from USA Carry:

• Teen Shoots Mother’s Boyfriend in Throat During Assault Before Suspect Flees With Children
• Off-Duty Utah Highway Patrol Sergeant Drew From Concealment and Traded Fire With Road Rage Suspect Inside a Taylorsville Liquor Store
• Pregnant Mother Defends Herself and Children from Violent Ex-Partner, Father of Her Children, in Grovetown, Georgia
• 4-Year-Old Dead After Finding Gun In Car While Mom Was Shopping
• Grandmother Protects Grandchild, Shoots Repeat Auto Theft Suspect in Home Invasion

Matthew Simmons was stabilized by Grovetown Fire Department personnel and taken by Gold Cross EMS to a local hospital. Tonya Simmons and the child were checked and treated at the scene.

Police say charges are pending against Matthew Simmons and he will be taken into custody when he is released from the hospital. Those charges are allegations, and he has not been convicted of anything.

Read the original story: Georgia Man Fires Warning Shot, Then Shoots Brother in the Leg to Stop Attack on Him, Their Mother and His 4-Year-Old Daughter

Key Takeaways

• The DOJ, led by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, authorized a federal lawsuit against Minnesota’s handgun waiting periods.
• These waiting periods can extend up to 60 days, despite passing a background check, infringing on Second Amendment rights.
• The complaint targets the Minneapolis and St. Paul Police Departments for their systemic delays in gun purchase approvals.
• Dhillon expresses willingness to negotiate, requiring Minnesota to cease enforcement of these laws and acknowledge their unconstitutionality.
• Minnesota has six days to respond before the lawsuit proceeds; a complaint hasn’t been filed yet.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

ST. PAUL, MN — Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon has notified Gov. Tim Walz, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her that she has authorized a federal lawsuit over Minnesota’s waiting periods for buying handguns and certain rifles. The letter, dated September 17 and sent by email and certified mail, carries the caption “Notice of Suit: United States v. State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and City of St. Paul.” It gives the state until 5:00 p.m. ET on September 23 to say whether it wants to talk. After that, the letter says, “the United States may file its complaint without further notice.”

Dhillon posted the full letter on X. It runs three pages and reads like a complaint in outline form, with the statutes, the case law, and the settlement terms already laid out.

Here is the system the Justice Department is targeting. A Minnesotan who holds a carry permit under Minn. Stat. § 624.714 can buy a handgun without the extra wait. My Minnesota concealed carry page covers how that permit works. The letter notes that the vast majority of Minnesotans do not have one, and for them the state offers two paths. Under Minn. Stat. § 624.7132 Subd. 4, a buyer can file a Transferee Report with the local chief of police or sheriff and then wait 30 days before the purchase is allowed. Or, under Minn. Stat. § 624.7131, a buyer can apply to the chief of police for a Permit to Purchase, and the law gives the Minneapolis and St. Paul chiefs up to 30 days to grant it. That permit is good for one year under Subd. 6, which the letter says “amounts to an additional thirty-day waiting period each year for Minnesota citizens who merely wish to defend their home.”

“Regardless of whether a Minnesota citizen uses the Permit to Purchase process or the Transferee Report process, he or she is required to wait up to thirty days to be allowed to purchase a firearm,” Dhillon wrote. “That is assuming the chiefs of police act within the statutory deadline.” According to the letter, approvals in St. Paul and Minneapolis “commonly exceed the statutory limit of 30 days,” and “some citizens have been forced to wait nearly 60 days.” The wait applies even to buyers who have already cleared a NICS background check. A person who has proven he is not prohibited still cannot take his firearm home until the state’s clock runs out.

A month, sometimes two, sits between the day a Minnesotan decides he needs a handgun and the day the state lets him have it. The letter makes the point that this applies “even if a person desires to use a firearm solely for defense of his or her home.” For someone with a real threat outside the front door, that is not paperwork. Part of a serious defensive mindset is understanding that the right to keep a firearm means very little if the state can park you in a queue for sixty days after you have already passed the background check.

The legal argument leans on three cases. The letter cites Bruen for the proposition that the Supreme Court upheld shall-issue permit schemes but “immediately cautioned against abusive ‘regimes where… lengthy wait times in processing license applications… deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.’” It cites Ortega v. Grisham, a 2025 Tenth Circuit decision that invalidated a seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases, for the line that “[a]cquiring, purchasing, and possessing firearms is a necessary predicate to keeping and bearing them.” If a seven-day wait fell in the Tenth Circuit, a 30-day wait that routinely runs to 60 is a large target.

The complaint, as described, will make two claims. First, that the Report of Transfer and Transferee Permit schemes violate Minnesota residents’ Second Amendment rights “by imposing unnecessary and prejudicial delays that deny ordinary citizens their right to acquire lawful arms.” Second, that the St. Paul and Minneapolis Police Departments’ implementation of those policies “constitutes a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct that deprives persons of their constitutional rights.” The letter says the United States is authorized to bring that action under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. In plain terms, the department is treating the way these two police departments process gun purchase applications as systemic misconduct, not as a collection of individual slow approvals. Naming the two cities and their police departments as defendants, not just the state, aims the case at the desks where the delays actually happen.

Dhillon wrote that the department “will consider deferring the filing of the lawsuit for a short period” if the state enters pre-suit negotiations. The terms are not soft. Any resolution must, “at a minimum,” require Minnesota, Minneapolis, and St. Paul to “(1) immediately cease enforcement of the statutes identified above; (2) acknowledge the unconstitutionality of these statutes; and (3) agree to enter into a court-enforceable consent decree permanently enjoin the violation of citizens’ constitutional rights through these or any similar laws.” A consent decree is a settlement a federal judge signs and can enforce, so the state would be agreeing to a court order that outlasts the current administration in St. Paul. The “any similar laws” language is meant to close the door on rewriting the same wait under a new name.

The letter also serves as a document-retention notice, directing state officials, employees, and contractors to preserve emails, files, and other records relevant to the matter. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis City Attorney Kristyn Anderson, and St. Paul City Attorney Irene Kao were copied. The state is told to contact Barry Arrington, Chief of the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section, if it wants to negotiate.

More from USA Carry:

• Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling
• Store Employee Draws On Armed Robbers, Chases Them & Shoots One
• Bravo Concealment Torsion IWB Kydex Holster Review
• Minneapolis Mayor Frey Signs Sweeping Gun Ordinance That State Law Says He Cannot Enforce
• Majority of Minneapolis City Council Intends to Dismantle Police Dept.

No complaint has been filed yet, no judge has weighed in, and the letter gives Minnesota six days to choose between the negotiating table and the courtroom. The state and the two cities will have their say.

I will continue tracking the Justice Department’s action against Minnesota’s permit-to-purchase and transferee report statutes and will report when the deadline passes, a complaint is filed, or the state responds.

Read the original story: DOJ Gives Minnesota Until Sept. 23 to Negotiate or Face a Federal Suit Over 30-Day Handgun Purchase Waits That Stretch to Nearly 60

Key Takeaways

• President Trump ordered the Justice Department not to appeal a ruling against the National Firearms Act’s registration scheme for certain firearms.
• The court ruling, linked to the case Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, found the tax requirements unconstitutional after Congress zeroed the tax.
• The decision allows a permanent injunction, effective August 13, 2026, impacting only the plaintiffs and covered parties, not a nationwide repeal.
• The White House emphasized that existing federal gun laws remain enforced, prohibiting certain individuals from firearm purchases.
• Inaction by the government and the absence of a DOJ order complicate the legal landscape surrounding this ruling.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — President Trump has ordered the Justice Department not to appeal the August 5, 2026 federal court ruling that struck down the National Firearms Act’s registration scheme for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and the category the law calls “any other weapons.” If that holds, a decision out of a San Angelo courtroom becomes the law for the plaintiffs and everyone the injunction covers, with no appellate court ever weighing in.

The president himself made the call, several sources with knowledge of the matter said, and he told some Republican members of Congress in recent weeks that he would ensure DOJ did not contest the decision, as reported by CBS News. A Justice Department official told CBS the department intends to tell Congress it will not appeal, and a DOJ spokesperson said ATF “will issue guidance soon to implement the court’s order.” CBS also reported that the ruling came from U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, and that DOJ lawyers across multiple offices disagreed with the opinion, warned it is already hurting federal firearms prosecutions, and see the decision as a break from the department’s “duty to defend” laws Congress passed. No notice of appeal has been filed, and nothing in the record yet says one never will be.

The ruling is Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056-H, in the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF and decided on cross-motions for summary judgment, the stage where both sides agree the facts are settled and ask the judge to rule on the law. Congress passed the NFA in 1934 under its power to “lay and collect Taxes,” and for nearly 90 years the registration paperwork, fingerprints, and engraving were upheld as machinery for collecting that tax, going back to Sonzinsky v. United States in 1937. In 2025, Congress cut the transfer and making tax to zero for short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and a defined group of miscellaneous firearms. A tax that raises no money is not a tax, so the regulations built to collect it cannot stand on the taxing power. Because Congress never invoked any other power when it wrote those provisions, the court refused to prop them up under the Commerce Clause and enjoined them, ordering the government to stop enforcing them against the parties covered by the order.

The court did not touch the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs raised both claims and invited the judge to decide the enumerated-powers question alone if it gave them full relief. He did. A ruling built on how Congress structured a statute is a harder target on appeal than one built on contested Second Amendment history.

According to the Second Amendment Foundation, which backs the Jensen plaintiffs, the judge gave the government one week to seek a stay pending appeal. The government let the deadline pass, and the permanent injunction took effect the morning of August 13, 2026. That same day the Jensen plaintiffs sent DOJ and ATF a letter asking whether the government will issue compliance guidance, in what form and when, whether it will keep enforcing the enjoined provisions against people not covered by the order, how it will avoid enforcing them against people who are covered, and how it will treat NFA items made or transferred under the injunction if the injunction is later stayed, modified, or dissolved. SAF noted the government has 60 days from the judgment to appeal. Until that window closes, or DOJ says in a filing what it has so far said only to reporters, an item built or transferred under this injunction carries a risk the buyer cannot fully price.

Scope is the other open question. Gun Owners of America’s FAQ from August 24 reads the injunction as protecting the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members and customers. GOA lists the plaintiffs as Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and Brady Wetz. That is not a nationwide repeal, and GOA says so, adding that as of that date DOJ and ATF had issued no guidance. State and local law is a separate layer entirely, the same way carry rules change at every state line, which is why I keep state-by-state permit information current and why GOA tells its members to talk to an attorney before assuming any transaction is lawful.

The White House framed the ruling as leaving the rest of federal gun law intact. “Anyone who would have been prohibited from buying a firearm under the old structure is still prohibited from buying a firearm under the structure that now exists after the federal district court’s decision,” a spokesperson told CBS. “All federal criminal statutes imposing additional charges or penalties for the unlawful possession of a firearm remain in place and will continue to be enforced by federal law enforcement.”

More from USA Carry:

• Congress Zeroed the $200 Tax and Kept the Registry. A Federal Judge in Texas Just Ruled It Cannot Have Both
• GOA’s “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” Under Fire as Gun Control Groups and DOJ Defend National Gun Registry
• 26 States and DOJ Back Challenge to California’s Ammunition Background Check Law
• With the Tax Stamp Dead, FPC Tells Federal Court the NFA’s Gun Registry Has to Die With It
• Trump DOJ Keeps Biden’s Ghost Gun Rule in Place, Defying White House’s Own Second Amendment Executive Order

This outcome rests on inaction. Congress zeroed the tax. The government skipped the stay deadline. The president, according to CBS, told his lawyers to stand down. There is no signed order from DOJ, no ATF rule, and no appellate opinion anyone can point to. The mindset I would bring here is the one I bring to carry law in an unfamiliar state: probably legal is not the same as knowing it is.

I will continue tracking Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, the 60-day appeal window, and any guidance ATF issues to implement the order.

Read the original story: Trump Orders DOJ Not to Appeal Texas Ruling That Struck Down NFA Registration for Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs

Key Takeaways

• The DOJ announced that the federal ban on licensed dealers selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
• They concluded that 18-to-20-year-olds are included among ‘the people’ protected by the Second Amendment, similar to voting and jury duty.
• The regulations burden members of the political community and lack historical tradition backing the restriction on sales to this age group.
• While the opinion affects criminal penalties on dealers, it does not repeal existing laws or address state laws on carrying firearms.
• Dealers might be hesitant to proceed with sales to younger adults due to the change resting on DOJ’s opinion rather than legislative amendment.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The Department of Justice announced Friday, September 18, 2026, that its Office of Legal Counsel has concluded the federal ban on licensed dealers selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds is inconsistent with the Second Amendment and cannot be enforced to impose criminal penalties on those dealers.

According to the department’s press release, the opinion covers 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), the two provisions that generally prohibit federally licensed dealers from selling handguns or handgun ammunition to anyone under 21. DOJ says the Office of Legal Counsel found those statutes inconsistent with the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court has read it in District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and later decisions including Wolford v. Lopez. The opinion itself was not available for review at the time of writing; this account rests on the department’s own description of what it concluded.

The release says the Office of Legal Counsel determined that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” the Second Amendment protects. “Eighteen-year-olds may vote, serve on juries, be drafted, and face adult criminal penalties, including capital punishment,” Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser of the Office of Legal Counsel said in the release. “The Constitution protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. The Department of Justice may not constitutionally seek to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns to law-abiding adults who, in nearly every other relevant respect, are members of the political community.”

From there, the release walks the Bruen path. Because the restrictions burden the ability of members of “the people” to acquire commonly used arms, DOJ says they fall within the amendment’s plain text and are presumptively unconstitutional, meaning the burden shifts to the government to justify them. The department says the Office of Legal Counsel found no Founding-era history or tradition of barring legal adults from buying firearms to protect public safety. To the contrary, DOJ says, militia statutes of that period overwhelmingly required service beginning at 18 and required enrollees to furnish their own arms. Under Bruen, that is the whole test: if the conduct is covered by the text, the government has to show the restriction fits the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and the department says it could not find that tradition here.

Read the scope carefully. An Office of Legal Counsel opinion is the executive branch telling its own prosecutors how to read the law. DOJ’s release says the two sections may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns to law-abiding adults in that age group. It does not repeal 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) or (c)(1); only Congress can do that. It does not bind a court. And it says nothing about state law. Buying a handgun and carrying one are separate questions, and carry remains a state-by-state matter, so an 18-to-20-year-old should start with my concealed carry permit information by state before assuming anything changed on that front.

There is a practical wrinkle for dealers, too. The statute is still on the books, and an opinion issued by one Attorney General can be withdrawn by the next. A dealer weighing whether to complete a sale to a 19-year-old is being asked to rely on a prosecutorial judgment rather than a change in the law itself. Some will. Some will wait for a court or Congress to make it permanent.

This is not the department’s first move in this direction. In January, NRA-ILA reported that the Office of Legal Counsel had determined the 1927 prohibition on mailing handguns violates the Second Amendment. In April, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Adam Kraut attended the announcement of 34 proposed and final ATF rules by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada, and said afterward it was “refreshing to hear Acting Attorney General Blanche state that the Second Amendment will no longer be treated as a second-class right under the current administration.” Friday’s opinion goes a step beyond rule changes. It is the department saying a criminal statute on the books cannot constitutionally be used against the people it targets.

More from USA Carry:

• Red Flag Florida Case: Police Seize Man’s Guns & Ammo and Gun Rights Lost
• Flying with Guns Episodes 30 & 31: Spirit Airlines Check-In Goes Wrong One Day, Perfect the Next
• Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Handgun Sales Ban for 18-to-20-Year-Olds
• Third Circuit Strikes Down Pennsylvania’s Concealed Carry Age Restriction, 19 State Attorneys General Push Back
• 13 Virginia Prosecutors Now Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban

My view is that the age line the release attacks never made much sense from a training and mindset standpoint. The adults in that window are the same ones the country trusts with a rifle in uniform and with a ballot at home. Where they can lawfully buy a handgun, the responsibility to train with it and to carry it with a defensive mindset does not get lighter because they are young. If anything, it gets heavier.

I will continue tracking how ATF and licensed dealers respond to the opinion, whether any court weighs in on it, and what the full opinion says once I have reviewed it.

Read the original story: DOJ Says It Will Not Prosecute Dealers Who Sell Handguns to 18-to-20-Year-Olds, Calling Federal Ban Inconsistent With the Second Amendment

Key Takeaways

• Kostas Moros published a law review article arguing that special taxes on common firearms are unconstitutional, referencing the ruling in Bruen.
• The paper emphasizes historical firearm tax traditions, noting that pre-1900 laws targeted specific weapons rather than commonly used firearms.
• Moros criticizes modern legislatures for imposing taxes that effectively limit the right to bear arms, likening it to historical Jim Crow tactics.
• The article specifically addresses California’s and Colorado’s firearm taxes and their inconsistency with historical firearm regulation.
• SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut highlights the paper’s significance for litigators and its potential impact in opposing unconstitutional taxes on firearms.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

BELLEVUE, WA — Second Amendment Foundation attorney Kostas Moros published his second law review article today, arguing that special taxes aimed at common firearms and ammunition are unconstitutional under the historical test the Supreme Court set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The paper, Excising the Second Amendment: Why Taxes Targeting Common Firearms Are Unconstitutional, was released as Working Paper No. 2026-10 through the University of Wyoming College of Law Firearms Research Center. Moros is SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education. SAF announced the publication in a release today.

The argument is simple. Under Bruen, a modern gun regulation has to line up with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Moros went looking for that tradition on taxes and says it is not there. Before 1900, the few American laws that taxed weapons were limited to items like bowie knives and pocket pistols, weapons many people of the time treated as outside Second Amendment protection. Those laws were outliers concentrated in Southern states, and some applied only when the weapon was carried, not when it was purchased. Almost without exception, they left the prevailing combat and self-defense arms of the day alone.

Moros is direct about what the modern versions are for. A legislature that cannot ban a constitutional right outright can make exercising it progressively more expensive until ordinary people cannot afford it. He compares the tactic to laws used to suppress the rights of freed Black Americans during the Jim Crow era.

According to SAF’s release, the paper takes aim at California’s 11 percent tax on firearms and ammunition, which the state enacted in 2023 and openly called a “sin tax,” along with Colorado’s 6.5 percent tax, the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax, and National Firearms Act taxes to the extent they apply to commonly owned arms. The distinction that runs through the whole paper is between taxes that single out guns, ammunition and related items and taxes that apply generally to all goods. Only the first kind is in his crosshairs.

“A right that the government can price out of reach is not a right,” Moros said. “Under Bruen, the question is not whether a tax is good policy or whether the burden feels modest to a judge. Rather, the question is whether special taxes on common arms are consistent with our historical tradition. They are not. Legislatures that cannot ban guns outright should not be allowed to accomplish the same result with unconstitutional taxation.”

More from USA Carry:

• Do You Shoot More Than Paper?
• Concealed Carry Drills Test
• Two More States Go Shall Issue, Removing ‘Good Cause’ When Applying – Maryland & Massachusetts
• Colorado Constitutional Carry Bill Advances
• Congress Zeroed the $200 Tax and Kept the Registry. A Federal Judge in Texas Just Ruled It Cannot Have Both

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said Moros joined the organization a little over a year ago, leads its amicus program, and has authored more than 20 briefs since July of last year. “Hostile states are experimenting with new ways to make armed self-defense unaffordable, and his latest article lays out why those taxes fail under the Second Amendment,” Kraut said. “This research gives litigators and courts a historical roadmap to help fight these unconstitutional taxes in courtrooms across the nation.”

The practical point for gun owners is who these taxes actually hit. An 11 percent surcharge is a rounding error for someone buying a fourth safe queen. It is real money for a single parent in a rough neighborhood buying a first handgun and a box of ammunition to learn it with. The people a “sin tax” prices out are the people who most need to be able to defend themselves, and a paper that hands litigators the historical record to attack that is a useful piece of work.

Read the original story: SAF Attorney Kostas Moros Argues California’s 11% Gun ‘Sin Tax’ and Colorado’s 6.5% Levy Fail Bruen in New Law Review Article

Key Takeaways

• Gun Owners of America and others filed a lawsuit against Oregon for banning nonresidents from carrying handguns.
• The complaint argues that Oregon’s laws effectively create a total ban on carry for nonresidents due to permit restrictions.
• Oregon does not recognize out-of-state permits and tightly controls its own concealed carry license, restricting access to residents.
• Open carry exists theoretically, but local ordinances often prohibit it for nonresidents without a concealed carry license.
• The case leans on Second Amendment rights and seeks a court declaration that Oregon’s scheme is unconstitutional for nonresidents.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

EUGENE, OR — Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Arizona resident Cynthia Ladd have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Oregon’s refusal to let most nonresident Americans carry a handgun for self-defense while inside the state. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, Eugene Division, and names Marion County Sheriff Nick Hunter, in his official capacity, and the City of Salem as defendants.

The complaint lays out a three-part problem. Oregon bans concealed carry without a permit and recognizes no other state’s concealed handgun permit. Oregon then generally conditions its own Concealed Handgun License on residency. And Oregon lets cities and counties ban loaded firearms in public places while exempting only CHL holders, which the complaint says turns the state’s open carry allowance into a dead letter for nonresidents in much of Oregon. In GOA’s announcement of the filing, the group put it this way: “Apparently Oregon thinks your constitutional rights have a residency requirement. They don’t.”

Here is the reciprocity piece in plain terms. Across the country, states honor out-of-state permits in one of two ways. Some sign formal agreements with each other. Others simply choose to recognize other states’ permits on their own, with no agreement at all. My concealed carry reciprocity maps show which states do which. According to the complaint, Oregon does neither. A traveler with, in the complaint’s own example, a Texas License to Carry cannot use it to carry concealed in Oregon.

That leaves the Oregon CHL as the only path, and the complaint says that path is closed to most Americans. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.291(1)(c) requires an applicant to be a resident of the county where they apply. The only waiver, under § 166.291(8), lets a county sheriff issue to a resident of a contiguous state who shows a compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need. Ladd lives in Arizona, which does not border Oregon. Under the statute as the complaint describes it, she is ineligible to apply at all. My Oregon concealed carry guide covers how the CHL process works for those who do qualify.

Open carry is the piece that looks like an escape hatch on paper. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.250(3) says firearms carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed, so in theory a nonresident could carry openly without any license. The complaint argues that theory collapses in practice because §§ 166.173(1) and (2)(c) let a city or county regulate, restrict, or prohibit loaded firearms in public places, with an exception only for people licensed to carry a concealed handgun. Many Oregon localities have used that authority, the complaint alleges. The person who cannot get the license is the same person the local bans reach.

Put the three together and the complaint’s description of the result is a total nonresident carry ban in much of the state. No recognition of your permit. No application you are allowed to file. No open carry where the local ordinance says otherwise.

More from USA Carry:

• Are Concealed Carry Permits Transferable?
• 2A Victory: Louisiana Opens Concealed Carry to Non-Residents!
• Oregon Open Carry
• Oregon House Votes to Make Concealed Permits Private (Again)
• Oregon Concealed Carry Permit Information

The legal argument leans on the two cases you would expect. The plaintiffs cite Heller for the holding that the Second Amendment right “is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans,” and Bruen for the holding that it includes “a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense.” The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning a court declaration that the scheme is unconstitutional as applied to nonresidents and an order stopping its enforcement.

I will continue tracking Ladd v. Hunter as it moves through the District of Oregon.

Read the original story: Permit Rule, Residency Rule, Local Open Carry Bans: GOA Lawsuit Says Oregon Stacked Them Into a Total Nonresident Carry Ban

Key Takeaways

• A Bertie County homeowner held a burglar at gunpoint until deputies arrived, preventing further theft.
• The suspect, Carlton Moore, 44, was arrested for breaking and entering after being caught in the act.
• Moore is also linked to another break-in on the same road from the previous week, where stolen items were found at his home.
• He faces multiple charges, including breaking and entering and possession of stolen goods, and is in Durham County Jail.
• No shots were fired during the incident, showcasing the homeowner’s control over the situation.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

COLERAIN, NC — A Bertie County homeowner caught a man breaking into the house Tuesday morning and held him at gunpoint until deputies arrived, according to the Bertie County Sheriff’s Office. The arrest also closed the book on a second break-in on the same road from the week before.

Deputies were dispatched at 9:14 a.m. on Sept. 15, 2026, to a residence in the 200 block of Sally Freeman Road for a break-in in progress. By the time the call went out, the owner already had the suspect at gunpoint. When deputies arrived, they took Carlton Moore, 44, of Colerain, into custody.

The sheriff’s office put it plainly: the homeowner caught the suspect “in the act.” No shots were fired. The homeowner had the means to control the encounter and the discipline to hold it right there until deputies took over.

While working the scene, deputies developed Moore as the suspect in another break-in last week at a different home in the same 200 block of Sally Freeman Road. After taking him into custody, deputies searched his residence and found items stolen from that first home.

More from USA Carry:

• Missouri Homeowner Shoots Intruder Dead During Break-In, Before Police Could Arrive
• Homeowner Holds Intruder at Gunpoint for 47 Minutes Waiting for Police
• Florida Concealed Carrier Shoots a Criminal Off Deputy in Need
• Robber Shot by CCL Holder While Holding Friend at Gunpoint
• Robbery Victim Flees Scene After Shooting, Killing His Attacker

Two houses on one road in one week. Last week’s break-in was still unsolved when the homeowner interrupted this one. The difference between the two calls was not the road or the suspect. It was that this time, someone was home and ready.

Moore is charged with two counts of breaking and entering, two counts of larceny after breaking and entering, and two counts of possession of stolen goods. The sheriff’s office said he will be housed in the Durham County Jail. The charges are allegations, and he is presumed innocent unless convicted.

Read the original story: Homeowner Catches Break-In Suspect in the Act and Holds Him at Gunpoint Until County Deputies Arrive

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

ORLAND PARK, IL — A concealed carry license holder pumping gas at a Shell station on Harlem Avenue shot an armed man who police say was trying to rob him around 9 a.m. Tuesday, September 15.

The confrontation happened at the Shell station at 15100 Harlem Avenue, as reported by Hoodline. The license holder was at the pump when the armed suspect approached. He fired and struck the suspect, who was taken to a local hospital. His condition has not been released.

Fox Chicago reported the encounter was caught on a security camera and widely shared on Facebook. In the reporter’s description of that video, the man at the pump sees someone approaching and appears to put his firearm in his belt or pocket. The suspect is armed too and apparently announces a robbery. The man at the pump fires. The suspect runs.

And if you plan on carrying concealed, you should have self-defense protection like CCW Safe. The license holder in Orland Park did everything right, and he still spent his morning answering questions from detectives instead of driving home with a full tank. Knowing someone will have your back from the second you call them to the final verdict, and every step in between, is reassuring. That is why CCW Safe is who I personally use and trust.

That first move is the one I want people to notice. He saw the approach before any robbery was announced and got his gun to where he could reach it. A gas pump is one of the most predictable places for a stranger to close on you, with your hands busy, your attention on the nozzle, and your back to the lot. Awareness there is not paranoia. It is the mindset that gives you a chance to act instead of react.

More from USA Carry:

• Chicago Suburb Passes Ordinance Decriminalizing Ccl Prohibited Area Violations
• Armed Citizen Hops Into Car As It Is Being Stolen; Shoots Carjacker Multiple Times
• Road Rage Incident Leads To Self-Defense Shooting At Gas Station
• How to Stay Armed in Restricted States
• Shotgun Fun

Orland Park police said officers arrived, confirmed a bona fide shooting, and immediately contained the scene. No suspect was at large and there was no threat to the public, though the department described an elevated police response. The license holder is cooperating with investigators, according to Fox Chicago. That puts his account on the record from the first minutes and gives detectives a witness who stayed, not a shooter who left.

Illinois does not hand out carry licenses easily. The state requires a valid FOID card, a background check, a minimum age of 21, and 16 hours of approved training that includes live-fire qualification at 5, 7, and 10 yards.

Read the original story: Armed Robbery Suspect Picks the Wrong Customer at an Orland Park Shell Station and Ends Up in the Hospital