Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 2 minutes

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

Check-In at LAS

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

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

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

Arrival in New Orleans

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

More from USA Carry:

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

Final Thoughts

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

A Tough Lesson Worth Talking About

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

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

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

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

Takeaway

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

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

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

Price

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

Front Sight

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

Slide Serrations

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

Optic Mounting System

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

Back Strap

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

Magazine and Packaging

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

More from USA Carry:

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

My Take

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

Defense of Others Under Pennsylvania Law

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

More from USA Carry:

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

Takeaway

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

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

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

What’s in the Day 32 prize stack

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

Why Day 32 matters as a single package

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

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

The amplifying gear in the stack

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

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

How to enter

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

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

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

Where Day 32 fits in the 100 Days of Silence campaign

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

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

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

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

How the Registry Worked

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

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

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

The 2007 Memo

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

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

Conflicting Testimony

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

Why the State Attorney Did Not Prosecute

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

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

The City’s Response

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

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

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

Why This Case Matters Beyond Jacksonville

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

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

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

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

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

The St. Paul Precedent

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

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

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

The Push For Statewide Action

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

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

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Question

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

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

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

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

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

The First Lawsuit: McDonald v. Katz

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

The Second Lawsuit: Black v. Hook

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

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

The DOJ Is Lurking

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

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

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) May 15, 2026

Why Both Tracks Matter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

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

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

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

Tickets

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

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

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

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

Speakers and Live Q&A Panels

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

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

What You Actually Get From Being There

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

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

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

2026 Sponsors

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

If You See Me, Say Hi

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

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

Plan Your Trip

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

See you in Niles.

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

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner in Hopkins County, TX, shot and killed an intruder after he broke the front door glass and reached inside the home.
• Ring doorbell footage captured the incident where the intruder, identified as Buck Clary, attempted to break in.
• Clary was pronounced dead at a local medical facility; the case is under active investigation by the Sheriff’s Office.
• Texas law, under the Castle Doctrine, allows homeowners to use deadly force against intruders without a duty to retreat.
• Homeowners should know their state’s self-defense laws before encountering a situation like this.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

HOPKINS COUNTY, TX — A homeowner in northern Hopkins County shot and killed an intruder who smashed the glass on his front door and reached inside the home, according to the Hopkins County Sheriff’s Office.

Deputies and investigators responded to the residence on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, after reports of a shooting. Ring doorbell footage at the home captured the encounter. The video shows a man, later identified as Buck Clary, striking the glass front door and yelling. Clary then broke a portion of the glass and reached his arm inside the home. The homeowner fired through the door, striking Clary.

Hopkins County EMS transported Clary to a local medical facility, where the Justice of the Peace pronounced him dead. The Sheriff’s Office says the case remains under active investigation.

More from USA Carry:

• Memphis Walmart Argument Erupts in Gunfire, Victim Shot Three Times
• Jewelry Store ‘Smash and Grab’ Ends with 2 of 4 Suspects Shot Dead
• Houston Homeowner Shoots Intruder After Suspect Crashes Car and Smashes Way Into Home
• Jewelry Store Employee w/ CCW Shoots Two In Robbery Attempt
• Gun Store Owner Halts Nighttime Smash & Grab from Inside His Store

Texas is a Castle Doctrine state. Under Texas Penal Code Sections 9.31 and 9.32, the use of force, including deadly force, is presumed reasonable when an intruder is unlawfully and forcibly entering a person’s occupied home. The law explicitly removes any duty to retreat when defending a residence. A homeowner who fires on someone breaking through the door of his own house is in nearly the strongest legal position Texas law provides.

The Ring footage is what carries this case. A man yelling, smashing glass, and pushing his arm through a residential front door has already communicated his intent. The homeowner had no way to know Clary’s mental state, his motive, or what he planned to do once inside, and Texas law does not require him to find out. The legal threshold was crossed the moment the glass broke.

The takeaway for armed homeowners is the same in every Castle Doctrine state. The moment to know your state’s law is not after a stranger has reached his arm through your front door. It is now. Read the statute, understand the language, and have the conversation with your family before someone forces it on you.

Read the original story: Texas Homeowner Fatally Shoots Intruder Through Front Door After He Smashed Glass and Reached Inside

Key Takeaways

• The US House passed Congressman Thomas Massie’s NICS Data Reporting Act, requiring the DOJ to publish demographic data on firearm purchase denials.
• The bill aims to shed light on who receives denials under the federal background check system, highlighting potential civil rights issues.
• NICS has issued over 5 million denials since 1998, yet there have been fewer than 1,000 federal prosecutions, raising questions about accuracy.
• Massie’s argument emphasizes racial disparities and the need for transparency in NICS denials to address potential civil rights violations.
• The bill now heads to the Senate, gaining traction as a rare unanimous vote on a gun-related issue.

Estimated reading time: 5 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — The US House of Representatives unanimously passed Congressman Thomas Massie’s NICS Data Reporting Act on Tuesday, sending the Senate a bill that would force the Department of Justice to publish demographic data on every person the federal background check system has denied for a firearm purchase.

The bill, HR 2267, cleared the House on a unanimous voice vote on May 12, 2026. It was introduced in March 2025 by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-4), with co-sponsors Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA-6) and Rep. Victoria Spartz (R-IN-5). The House Judiciary Committee had previously approved it by voice vote with no opposition.

The operative section is short. It requires the Attorney General to send the House and Senate Judiciary Committees an annual report on every person determined ineligible to buy a firearm under the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The report must include race, ethnicity, national origin, sex, gender, age, disability, average annual income, and English language proficiency, where that information is available. The first report would be due one year after the bill becomes law.

The bill does not change who is prohibited from buying a firearm. It does not change how NICS works. It does not stop the FBI from denying a sale. All it does is require the federal government to show its work.

Why This Matters

To understand why a transparency bill matters this much, start with what a NICS denial actually means.

When the FBI denies a NICS check, the agency is telling that person they are legally prohibited from owning a firearm. Trying to buy a gun when you are already prohibited is itself a serious federal crime that carries up to ten years in prison. So when a denial is accurate, a felony has just been committed in front of federal investigators, on camera, with a paper trail.

Since 1998, NICS has issued about 5.1 million denials. If those denials were accurate, you would expect a wave of federal prosecutions to follow. Instead, the Crime Prevention Research Center estimates that fewer than 1,000 of those 5.1 million denials have ever resulted in federal prosecution, and fewer than 450 in a conviction. That is a rate well under one in ten thousand.

There are really only two ways to explain that gap. Either the federal government is ignoring millions of felonies happening at gun counters across the country, or the denials themselves are mostly wrong.

The simplest way to think about it is a home security alarm. If your alarm went off 5 million times and the police only confirmed actual break-ins fewer than 500 times, you would not conclude your alarm is working perfectly. You would conclude it is wrong almost every time it triggers. That is roughly the picture with NICS denials.

This bill would force the federal government to show who is on the receiving end of all those denials. The data has never been published in this form. If the reports come back and reveal that people with common Hispanic or Black last names are denied at significantly higher rates because shared surnames produce false matches, that is a civil rights problem the federal government has quietly run for almost three decades. If the data shows that lower-income Americans or non-native English speakers are denied disproportionately, that is a problem too. Right now none of that is visible. Both sides of the gun debate are arguing about a black box.

More from USA Carry:

• Bill to Lower Handgun Purchase Age to 18 Reintroduced by Rep. Thomas Massie
• Gun Rights Journalist Sues New Jersey State Police Over Denied Carry Permit Records Request
• Virginia Lawmakers Unanimously Block $500 Suppressor Tax in Finance Subcommittee Vote
• What To Do If Your Concealed Carry Permit Application Is Denied
• NM County Eliminates Policy Prohibiting Employees from Carrying on County Property

Massie’s Argument

Massie made the civil rights case directly on the House floor. He pointed out that families within racial and ethnic groups often share first names and surnames, and the NICS system has a documented history of false matches that disproportionately hit people who happen to share names with prohibited persons. Without data, he said, neither Congress nor gun owners can prove or fix the problem. He credited Dr. John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center for the research that backed up the bill.

The Second Amendment is the only constitutional right where a federal agency can deny you outright based on a database query, and right now no one has to tell you why, how often the database is wrong, or who it is wrong about. HR 2267 starts to fix that.

Next Step

The bill now moves to the Senate. A unanimous House vote on a gun-related bill is rare, and a transparency mandate that does not touch anyone’s prohibited-person status will be hard to oppose on the merits. I will be watching the Senate calendar and will update USA Carry readers as it moves.

Read the original story: House Unanimously Passes Massie’s NICS Transparency Bill After 5.1 Million Denials and Almost Zero Convictions

Key Takeaways

• A man shot and killed a married couple at a Las Vegas grocery store after ambushing them.
• Two strangers, Merconie Clark and Darius Alston, bravely tackled and subdued the shooter, preventing further harm.
• The suspect, Alejandro Estrada, faced charges including two counts of murder and aggravated stalking with a deadly weapon.
• Police praised the civilians’ courage, highlighting their quick response in the face of danger.
• Estrada’s children were not present during the incident, but he had a history of issues related to child support.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

LAS VEGAS, NV — Two unarmed strangers tackled and disarmed an armed man at a Las Vegas Smith’s grocery store on Tuesday after he ambushed his ex-girlfriend and her new husband and shot them both to death, according to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

The shooting was reported just before 11:30 a.m. at the Smith’s at 9750 S. Maryland Parkway. Responding officers found three civilians subduing the suspect near the pharmacy drive-thru exit and took him into custody without further incident. Officers entered the store and located the victims, Victor Frias Rosas and Amanda Frias Rosas, a married couple who both worked at the store. Both were pronounced dead at the scene.

Police identified the suspect as Alejandro Estrada, 43. According to a police report cited by the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Estrada and Amanda Frias Rosas had previously dated and shared two children. Court records show Estrada was the subject of an active child support case and was facing a June 1 contempt hearing for failing to consistently pay $342 a month in child support. Two weeks before the shooting, Estrada told his roommate he believed he was going to jail over the unpaid support and was making arrangements to quit his job and leave town.

Doorbell footage cited in the police report shows Estrada leaving his home around 6:45 a.m. Tuesday. He arrived at the Frias Rosas home around 11:00 a.m., where investigators later found the master bedroom ransacked, a surveillance camera torn off the wall, and a bullet-shattered rear sliding glass door. Estrada then walked to the grocery store and, according to police, closed in on the couple as they turned into aisle four before shooting them multiple times.

As shoppers ran, two men who had never met before decided to stop him. Merconie Clark, 49, a Southern California truck driver, had stopped in for supplies before picking up an Amazon load. Darius Alston, 28, a barber at the next-door Diamond Cutz Barbershop and a 2016 Liberty High School graduate, had been helping the mother of his children shop with their two young kids.

Clark said he heard shots, ducked for cover, and then heard a second volley. A Smith’s employee pointed out the shooter as he walked through the store. “I don’t know what happened,” Clark said. “I just walk over towards him, and he pulls out his gun, and we start wrestling for the gun.”

Alston had taken his children outside and returned briefly for his girlfriend’s phone when he saw Clark struggling with the shooter. “Now Clark’s life is in danger. So now I go to help Clark out,” Alston said. He struck the suspect and helped pin him to the ground while Clark pulled the firearm away. Clark credited Alston with saving his life.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Shoots At Attackers in Walmart Wounding One…But Was She Justified?
• 86-Year-Old Man Shoots Alleged Scammer in Self-Defense Incident
• Was This Defensive Shooting An Attack or An Ambush?
• Colorado Activist Registers a Potato as a Suppressor — Exposing ‘Ludicrous’ Federal Firearms Rules
• Husband and Wife Ambushed, Fatally Shot Despite Carrying Concealed

When Estrada was arrested, police recovered a .45-caliber handgun, a 9mm semi-automatic carbine, and several loaded magazines for both firearms. He has been charged with two counts of murder, eight counts of discharging a firearm within a structure or vehicle in a prohibited area, and one count each of burglary and aggravated stalking with a deadly weapon. Justice of the Peace Suzan Baucum found probable cause for the charges and ordered him held without bail. Clark County District Attorney Steve Wolfson told reporters the death penalty is “on the table.”

LVMPD Homicide Lt. Robert Price said the civilians who stopped Estrada showed “tremendous courage.” Estrada was hospitalized with non-life-threatening injuries. The couple’s children were not at the store at the time of the shooting.

What stopped this attack was raw civilian courage. It takes something rare to hear gunshots and run toward them instead of away. Clark and Alston had no firearm, no badge, and no obligation to do anything but leave. They closed the distance anyway, and likely saved every other shopper in that store from whatever came next. Just one day earlier on Memorial Drive in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a state trooper and a civilian Marine veteran made the same call when an active shooter opened fire on rush-hour traffic. People like these are the reason attacks like this end in minutes instead of hours.

Read the original story: Las Vegas Bystanders Tackle Shooter After He Ambushed Ex-Girlfriend and Her New Husband Inside Smith’s

The New England FAC is being sponsored by the United States Concealed Carry Association. New England’s own Charlie Cook, host of Riding Shotgun With Charlie, will emcee.

Scheduled speakers include attorneys Cameron Atkinson, Kevin Wynosky, Jason Guida and Frank Soccoccio, plus attorney and Connecticut lawmaker Doug Dubitsky. Second Amendment Foundation attorney Bill Sack will also appear. Additionally, Massachusetts State Sen. Peter Durrant, Maine Rep. Rachel Henderson, and Massachusetts Rep. Jeff Turco are scheduled. Other speakers will include JR Hoell, Toby Leary, Joe LoPorto, Laura Whitcomb, Greg Wilkes, Michael O’Neil, and Dr. John Lott, founder and CEO at the Crime Prevention Research Center. Cam Edwards and Jared Yanis will be sending video messages.

New England organizations participating in the conference include the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, Civil Rights Coalition, Gun Owners of Maine, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, and Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action will be represented.

“We’re excited about the upcoming New England FAC and bringing together some of the best and brightest from the region and country,” said conference chair and CCRKBA Director Holly Sullivan. “We’re hopeful that our conference will energize patriots to continue the fight as well as help educate on the issues, tactics, and challenges we’re dealing with in the Northeast.”

“The great list of speakers we’re having at the New England conference should make for a lively, educational, and meaningful event,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We’re grateful to have such a robust talent pool of speakers and volunteers participating in this event.”

The cost to attend the New England Firearms Advocacy Conference is $25.00 and includes a one-year membership to CCRKBA. For more information, visit CCRKBA.org/fac

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

Read the original story: New England Firearms Advocacy Conference Speakers Announced

Key Takeaways

• A Massachusetts State Trooper and a civilian Marine veteran confronted an active shooter on Memorial Drive, potentially preventing further casualties.
• The shooter, Tyler Brown, injured two individuals before being engaged by the trooper and the Marine veteran in a brief but intense exchange of gunfire.
• Massachusetts authorities reported that Brown had a criminal history and illegally possessed the assault-style rifle he used during the incident.
• The civilian Marine’s actions were crucial, showing how armed citizens can complement law enforcement in active shooter situations.
• The event highlights the debate about the Second Amendment and the importance of the right to carry firearms for self-defense in urgent cases.

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

CAMBRIDGE, MA — A Massachusetts State Trooper and an armed civilian Marine veteran ran toward an active shooter who had opened fire on civilian vehicles on Memorial Drive Monday afternoon, ending what authorities described as a rampage that had already injured two people and put dozens more at risk.

As reported by the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office and Massachusetts State Police at a Monday evening press conference, the incident began with a 911 call from Boston Police around 10:06 p.m. — corrected at the briefing to early Monday afternoon. Boston Police reported that an individual believed to be in possession of a rifle and acting erratically had crossed into Cambridge.

By the time State Police and Cambridge Police were responding, an active shooter situation was already underway on Memorial Drive. The suspect, identified as Tyler Brown of Boston, was walking down the center of Memorial Drive carrying what authorities described as an assault-style rifle, firing erratically at vehicles in traffic. Two men in separate vehicles were struck. Both were transported to Boston hospitals with life-threatening injuries.

The Response

According to Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan, a Massachusetts State Trooper arriving on scene and a civilian Marine veteran licensed to carry a firearm both chose to advance toward the gunman rather than seek cover.

“Both that trooper and that civilian, rather than going in one direction, went towards the suspect with their weapons to try to end that situation,” Ryan said. “Both the civilian and the trooper fired their weapons and that suspect was struck multiple times in the extremities.”

The trooper’s cruiser was struck by a bullet to the front driver’s-side post during the encounter. As people fled from their vehicles, some attempting to take cover underneath their cars, the trooper and the civilian closed the distance and engaged.

Approximately 50 to 60 rounds were fired during the incident. The entire encounter, from the first shots to the suspect being incapacitated, lasted only minutes.

After the suspect was down, both the trooper and Cambridge police officers transitioned from a tactical response to medical aid. They treated Brown on scene before he was transported to a Boston hospital, where he is in intensive care being treated for gunshot wounds to the extremities.

The Suspect

Brown was reportedly under the supervision of either the Massachusetts Probation Department or Department of Parole at the time of the incident. He will be charged with two counts of armed assault with intent to murder, weapons possession charges, and additional charges as the investigation develops. Authorities have not yet disclosed his criminal history or how he obtained the firearm.

At least a dozen vehicles were damaged on Memorial Drive, including the trooper’s cruiser, a Lexus, a Jeep, a US Postal Service vehicle whose driver was on duty at the time, and one of the victim vehicles, which was a ride-share. No connection has been identified between Brown and any of the victims.

The Marine Veteran

The District Attorney’s office and Massachusetts State Police are protecting the identity of the civilian Marine veteran at his request as he processes what happened. According to Ryan, he was in traffic on Memorial Drive when Brown began walking down the center line firing at cars. Rather than flee or hide, he closed the distance with the trooper and engaged the suspect.

His decision is the entire reason this story is being told as a closed incident rather than an ongoing manhunt with many more casualties.

More from USA Carry:

• Traveling for Memorial Day? Don’t End Up On TSA’s Twitter!
• Arizona Trooper’s Life Saved By Armed Citizen
• How a Marine Stopped This Kidnapping
• Illinois Father Exchanges Gunfire with Thieves Attempting to Steal His Range Rover and Maserati as His Five Daughters Sleep Inside
• What is the Best Truck Gun?

Why This Matters for Armed Citizens

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and Monday afternoon on Memorial Drive is the clearest possible example of why the right to carry a firearm matters in everyday life. A licensed civilian carrier was on the scene when an active shooter opened fire on rush-hour traffic. He had a firearm. He had the training to use it. He chose to act.

The math of an active shooter event is brutal. From the moment the first shot is fired to the moment law enforcement can locate, close on, and stop the shooter, every second is filled with potential casualties. Police response in Cambridge was fast, and the trooper who arrived first acted with extraordinary courage. But the civilian Marine was already there, in traffic, when Brown began firing. The seconds the civilian saved by engaging immediately rather than waiting are seconds in which fewer rounds were sent into civilian vehicles.

This is the case for armed citizenship distilled into a single afternoon. A trained, licensed, law-abiding adult with a firearm and the right mindset can do what no police force can do, which is be present at the moment violence begins. That is not a substitute for law enforcement. It is a complement to it.

Massachusetts is one of the more restrictive states in the country for lawful concealed carry. The civilian who acted Monday navigated that framework, qualified for a license to carry, and chose to be armed in daily life. That choice ended an active shooter event in minutes.

A Note on the Weapon

Authorities have not yet released details about how Brown obtained the rifle described as an assault-style weapon. Massachusetts has one of the most restrictive assault weapons bans in the country, and any rifle Brown possessed was likely unlawful for him to possess regardless of the law. A person under supervision by the probation or parole system is also a prohibited person under federal law for firearm possession.

The bill that District Attorney Ryan referenced during the press conference, which would create a new offense for firing a weapon with reckless disregard for serious bodily injury, is a policy response to incidents like this one. There is no reason to think the proposed legislation would have stopped Brown. He was already committing multiple felonies the moment he loaded the rifle and stepped onto Memorial Drive.

The honest takeaway is the same one that comes up in every active shooter analysis. Laws restrict the law-abiding. Criminals make their own decisions. What ends an active shooter event is someone with the means, the training, and the willingness to confront the shooter. Monday afternoon, two such people happened to be in the right place at the right time.\

Read the original story: Marine Veteran and State Trooper Stopped a Cambridge Active Shooter With 50 to 60 Rounds Already Fired

Check-In at SLC

Walked up and declared firearms. Agent asked to see the locks before I closed everything up — just confirming they were secure. Standard. He also asked about lithium batteries and electronic devices. Nothing unusual.

Signed the declaration form, noted the date, and slipped it into the FedEx sleeve on my Pelican case. He handed me a copy of my bag tag.

Then he said to give her 10 minutes and he’d give me a thumbs up if I was good to go. I set a 10-minute timer and waited. TSA never came out and I headed to security.

Arrival in Las Vegas

Bag came out on the carousel at LAS. Picked it up, checked the Pelican, locks were intact.

Final Thoughts

Nothing out of the ordinary. Declared, waited, picked up the bag. Same process, different airline.

Read the original story: Flying with Guns: Episode 56 – Frontier from Salt Lake City to Las Vegas

Key Takeaways

• Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon predicts the Supreme Court will rule AR-15 style rifles legal for all law-abiding Americans.
• The DOJ has filed lawsuits against Denver and other jurisdictions to challenge local bans on AR-15 rifles, using a civil rights statute.
• Dhillon emphasizes that circuit splits often prompt Supreme Court review, and the DOJ aims to create favorable rulings to support the AR-15 issue.
• President Trump expressed support for Dhillon’s prediction and the DOJ’s strategy on Truth Social, reaching millions of followers.
• The potential ruling could affect millions in states and localities with current AR-15 bans, solidifying the Second Amendment rights.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

WASHINGTON, DC — Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who oversees the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division and its new Second Amendment Section, predicts the Supreme Court will eventually rule that AR-15 style rifles are legal for all law-abiding Americans to own and operate. President Donald Trump amplified the prediction on Truth Social, sharing the interview with his audience on May 6, 2026.

As reported by Just the News, Dhillon made the prediction in an interview with John Solomon following the DOJ’s lawsuit this week against the City and County of Denver over its ban on AR-15 style rifles, which I covered earlier this week.

The Prediction

“I think there is going to be a ruling eventually from the Supreme Court that AR-15s are legal for all law-abiding citizens to own and operate,” Dhillon told Just the News. “We intend to make sure they do that.”

Dhillon walked through the legal logic behind her prediction. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Smith and Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos that the AR-15 is the most commonly owned and operated rifle in the United States. Heller and Bruen established that firearms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes are constitutionally protected.

“That leads to the inexorable conclusion that the AR-15 is presumptively legal all over America,” Dhillon said. “And denial of the right to own it and, in fact, criminalization of that in Denver, is something that is long overdue to be updated.”

More Lawsuits Coming

Dhillon made clear that Denver is not the end of the line. The District of Columbia has a similar ban, and the DOJ has already sued the District over related issues. She said the Department is actively looking for additional jurisdictions to challenge.

“We intend to make sure that citizens of Denver have the same rights as citizens of the rest of America. And we do have other cities like this,” she said. “We will be absolutely looking for other opportunities. And there are other types of issues as well.”

The legal strategy appears coordinated. The Second Amendment Section is using 34 U.S.C. Section 12601, the federal civil rights statute traditionally used to investigate police departments engaged in unconstitutional patterns of conduct, and applying it to local firearms bans deemed inconsistent with Heller and Bruen. Last week, the DOJ filed a second lawsuit against the State of Colorado over its 15-round magazine ban using the same framework, which I covered as well.

The Circuit Split Argument

Dhillon also explained why she believes the AR-15 issue is ripe for the Supreme Court.

“There is kind of a Circuit split on this issue. So the Fourth Circuit has some bad precedent on this issue, and we intend to create some good precedent in some other circuits in addition to what’s already there. And then I think it would be right for the Court.”

Circuit splits are one of the most reliable triggers for Supreme Court review. When federal appellate courts disagree on a constitutional question, the Supreme Court frequently steps in to resolve the disagreement. The DOJ’s lawsuit strategy is, in part, a deliberate effort to create favorable rulings in friendly circuits that will deepen the existing split and pressure the Court to take the issue.

More from USA Carry:

• DOJ Files Second Colorado Lawsuit in 24 Hours, Targets State’s 15-Round Magazine Ban as Civil Rights Violation
• DOJ Sues City of Denver Over Assault Weapons Ban, Calls Local Ordinance a Civil Rights Violation Under Second Amendment
• Man Uses App to Track His Stolen Car, Fatally Shoots 12-Year-Old Suspect
• Resident Startled by Intruder After Returning Home at 1 AM, Fatally Shoots Suspect
• 26 States and DOJ Back Challenge to California’s Ammunition Background Check Law

Acting AG Blanche on the Lawsuit

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche praised the Denver legal strike in connection with the broader campaign.

“The Constitution is not a suggestion, and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Blanche said. “Denver’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms. This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the liberties of law-abiding citizens.”

Dhillon credited the political leadership for clearing the runway.

“I want to thank the president for setting the tone at the beginning of his administration and having an executive order that made clear that the Second Amendment is a first class right in the United States, and Pam Bondi and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche have fully backed that up.”

Trump’s Truth Social Post

President Trump shared the Just the News article on Truth Social on Tuesday morning, May 6, 2026, putting the story in front of millions of followers and signaling clear White House support for Dhillon’s prediction and the DOJ’s litigation strategy. The post drew more than 5,000 ReTruths and 21,000 likes.

Why It Matters

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, and the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. The combination of unanimous Supreme Court recognition that AR-15 style rifles are in common use, the Heller and Bruen frameworks protecting arms in common use for lawful purposes, and a coordinated DOJ litigation campaign now actively building circuit-level precedent, points toward a Supreme Court ruling that would settle the question once and for all.

If Dhillon is right, the seven or so states and several dozen localities with AR-15 bans on the books would all find themselves on the wrong side of a Supreme Court ruling. The practical effect for tens of millions of Americans who currently live under those bans, or who have to navigate around them when traveling, would be significant.

I’ll keep tracking the DOJ’s litigation campaign and the eventual Supreme Court showdown.

Read the original story: AAG Harmeet Dhillon: Supreme Court Will Eventually Rule AR-15s Are Legal for All Law-Abiding Americans

Key Takeaways

• Delaware’s Senate will discuss Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 300, establishing state licensing for firearm dealers.
• The bill mandates security measures, background checks, and penalties, adding costs for small dealers and potentially leading some to exit the market.
• Gun rights groups view the bill as a threat to firearm dealers and as a step towards creating a state-level firearms registry.
• The state cites data linking regulations to lower firearm homicide rates, but critics argue existing laws already address these issues.
• If passed, this model may influence similar legislation in other states seeking stricter firearms regulations.

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

DOVER, DE — Delaware’s Senate Executive Committee is scheduled to hear Senate Substitute 1 for Senate Bill 300 on Tuesday, May 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Senate Chamber. The legislation would create a new state licensing regime for every firearm dealer in Delaware, layering state-level requirements on top of the existing federal Firearms License framework.

The bill is sponsored by Sen. David Sokola, with Rep. Christopher Gorman as additional sponsor and co-sponsorships from Sens. Lockman and Townsend and Reps. Bolden, Griffith, Morrison, and Romer. It was formally introduced on May 8, 2026.

What the Bill Does

SS 1 for SB 300 requires every firearm dealer operating in Delaware to obtain a new state license under a newly created Chapter 9B of Title 24, in addition to whatever federal licensing they already maintain. The bill establishes statutory factors that disqualify a person from holding a license or serving as a “responsible person” for a license holder, sets heightened security requirements at dealer locations, centralizes recordkeeping and reporting, requires background checks for contractors and volunteers with access to firearms, mandates training, and authorizes recurring inspections by the Delaware State Police. It also creates civil penalties and license revocation procedures for violations.

The license fee structure is set at a flat $300 for an initial license and $250 for renewal. Background checks for licensees and responsible persons are required every two years. License renewals are due December 31 of each year. The Delaware State Police is given general investigative authority over Chapter 9B violations, along with the Delaware Department of Justice.

Implementation is phased in beginning July 1, 2028.

What Gun Rights Groups Are Calling It

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and other Second Amendment organizations have flagged SS 1 for SB 300 as both an FFL killer bill and the infrastructure of a firearms registry, packaged together in a single piece of legislation.

The FFL killer concern is the operating cost issue. The combination of state licensing on top of federal licensing creates duplicate compliance burdens for small dealers, many of whom already operate on tight margins under ATF oversight. The bill’s heightened security requirements, background check obligations for contractors and volunteers, training mandates, recurring DSP inspections, and renewal cycles add real operating costs. For a small home-based FFL or a small sporting goods dealer, those costs can be enough to force exit from the firearm business entirely.

The registry concern is structural. SS 1 for SB 300 requires Delaware firearm dealers to centralize their recordkeeping and reporting through the Delaware State Police. Firearm trace information is required as part of every license renewal application and is provided to the General Assembly through DSP biennial reports. Combined with the licensing infrastructure that knows every dealer, the inspection regime that audits every dealer, and the centralized reporting that pulls trace data on every firearm sold, what emerges is the functional infrastructure of a state-level firearms registry, even though the bill does not use the word “registry.”

A firearms registry is precisely what the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 prohibited at the federal level. Federal law explicitly bars the ATF from establishing any system of registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, with the limited exception of firearms specifically regulated under the National Firearms Act. SS 1 for SB 300 builds a state-level system of dealer-mediated recordkeeping that captures most of what a true registry would, by simply routing the data through the state licensing system rather than calling it a registry directly.

The combined effect, gun rights groups argue, is that Delaware would have fewer dealers and a centralized state database of firearm transactions flowing through the dealers who remain. That is the policy outcome a real registry would produce.

The State’s Stated Rationale

The bill’s synopsis cites several pieces of evidence to justify the new framework. The Johns Hopkins University Center for Gun Violence Solutions data showing firearms are used in 78 percent of Delaware homicides. A Journal of Urban Health study finding in-state trafficking was 64 percent lower where strong dealer regulations exist. A 20-year American Journal of Public Health study finding state licensing and inspection requirements were independently associated with lower firearm homicide rates. ATF data showing dealer inspections occur on average only once every nine years.

The synopsis also cites data compiled by Brady United showing 6,626 firearms recovered in Delaware by law enforcement between 2017 and 2021. Half were recovered within three years of retail purchase, which the synopsis describes as indicative of potential trafficking. Sixty-seven percent of the recovered firearms were sourced from in-state Delaware dealers.

The Counterpoint

The cited data leaves out an important consideration. Federal firearms law already prohibits straw purchases, trafficking, illegal possession, and dealer violations. The ATF already inspects dealers, even if the cadence is not as frequent as the agency would like. Layering a parallel state regulatory regime on top of federal law does not address the underlying criminal conduct, which is already illegal. It does, however, add cost and compliance burden to the law-abiding small businesses that make up most of Delaware’s firearms retail sector.

The cited statistic that 67 percent of recovered crime guns were sourced from in-state dealers is also worth examining carefully. That figure measures the original retail point of sale, not the conduct of any individual dealer. A firearm that was lawfully sold in Delaware in 2019, stolen from its owner in 2020, and used in a crime in 2023 still counts as a Delaware dealer source under this measurement. It says little about whether any dealer behaved improperly.

The ATF’s own recently announced 34-rule reform package targets many of the same concerns from a different angle, with proposed rules clarifying the definition of “willfully” for FFL enforcement, modernizing recordkeeping, and removing the previous administration’s zero-tolerance dealer revocation policy that drove many small dealers out of business. Delaware’s bill moves in the opposite direction.

More from USA Carry:

• Coming Back Around – Springfield Loaded Black SS Target 1911 Review
• Delaware Concealed Carry Permits up 56% from 2014 to 2015
• Delaware’s Controversial Permit-to-Purchase Law Set to Take Effect November 16
• Delaware Ban on Private Transfers at Gun Shows Needs Defeated
• Armed 80-Year-Old Fights Back After Getting Pulled Out of His Vehicle

The Constitutional Question

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right. The Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen have made clear that state and local governments cannot impose firearm regulations that burden the right to keep and bear arms without a historical analogue to founding-era regulation.

State licensing schemes that go beyond federal requirements have not yet been directly tested at the Supreme Court under Bruen. There is no clear founding-era tradition of state-level dealer licensing on top of federal requirements, and the practical effect of pricing small dealers out of business creates a real burden on the underlying right to acquire firearms.

Why This Matters Beyond Delaware

Delaware is a small state, but the legislative model SS 1 for SB 300 establishes is the kind of framework that gets exported. If the bill passes and survives initial legal challenges, expect to see similar legislation introduced in other states with Democratic legislative majorities and supportive governors. The state-licensing-on-top-of-federal-licensing model has been a long-running goal of national gun control organizations, and Delaware would be one of the first states to implement a comprehensive version of it.

How to Participate

Public comment is being accepted both in person and virtually at Tuesday’s hearing. Members of the public planning to provide public comment can sign up using the Senate Executive Committee webinar registration link at legis.delaware.gov. Written comments may be submitted to SenateExecutive@delaware.gov and will be accepted up to 24 hours after the meeting adjourns. All written public comments become part of the official record.

The meeting will be livestreamed at legis.delaware.gov.

Delaware residents who want to weigh in have a narrow window. Once the bill clears committee, it heads to the Senate floor.

I’ll keep an eye on the bill as it moves through the Senate.

Read the original story: Delaware Bill Would Build a Firearms Registry and Drive Small FFLs Out of Business, Senate Executive Committee Hears It Tuesday

Key Takeaways

• A homeowner shot a masked intruder in northwest Harris County on May 6, 2026, during a confrontation inside his home.
• The suspect, who had entered the house, followed the homeowner outside where a second altercation occurred. He was shot during this encounter.
• Texas law permits the use of deadly force in self-defense when imminent threats exist, which justified the homeowner’s actions.
• The incident highlights the importance of having firearms readily accessible for home defense situations.
• Everyone in the family was unharmed, emphasizing a successful home defense outcome.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

HOUSTON, TX — A homeowner in northwest Harris County shot and killed a masked, gloved intruder who had broken into his home in the early morning hours of Tuesday, May 6, 2026, according to the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.

As reported by HCSO Sgt. Pinkins in a statement at the scene, deputies were dispatched to a weapons-related call at approximately 5:45 a.m. in the 16,900 block of Spring Cypress. When they arrived, they found an unidentified male on a walking trail behind a residence. The suspect was wearing a mask and gloves and had a gunshot wound. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

According to Sgt. Pinkins, the homeowner told deputies he woke up and discovered the intruder inside his residence. The two got into an altercation that moved from inside the home out to the street. The homeowner returned to the residence, and the suspect followed him back. A second altercation broke out in the backyard. During that second confrontation, the homeowner retrieved a handgun and shot the suspect.

The suspect then fled, leaping over the back fence onto the walking trail where deputies later located him. Three adults and two juveniles, ages 12 and 13, were inside the home at the time. None of the family members were injured.

Homicide detectives and crime scene investigators were processing the scene and interviewing everyone involved as of the morning briefing.

More from USA Carry:

• Charlotte Homeowner Opens Fire On Intruder Who Forced Way Inside Before Dawn
• Tips for Winter Concealed Carry
• 5 Types Of Gloves Perfect For Concealed Carry
• Strategies for Concealed Carry in the Winter
• Woman Shoots Masked Armed Man Approaching Her Outside Her Home

The Takeaway

A masked and gloved intruder inside a home before dawn is not there to introduce himself. Whatever his ultimate intent was, the gear alone tells you he came prepared to commit a crime and prepared not to be identified. A homeowner who finds someone like that inside his residence is facing exactly the kind of imminent threat the law of self-defense was written for.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.32 allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is immediately necessary to protect against another’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, and Section 9.42 extends that protection to defense of habitation. With a wife, husband, and two kids in the house, the homeowner had every legal and moral basis to act.

A few details from this one are worth pausing on for anyone thinking through their own home defense plan. The encounter moved between three different locations: inside the house, out to the street, and then back to the backyard. The homeowner did not have his firearm on him during the first altercation and had to retrieve it. That delay extended the encounter and gave the intruder a second opportunity to engage him. For armed citizens, keeping a defensive firearm accessible at night is the single most consistent recommendation from instructors who teach home defense for a reason. Walking your home in the middle of the night without your firearm is walking into an unknown.

Everyone in the family walked away unharmed. The intruder did not. That is the outcome a serious home defense mindset is built to produce.

Read the original story: Houston Homeowner Shoots and Kills Masked, Gloved Intruder Found Inside His Home Before Dawn

The draft was released as part of the broader 34-rule reform package the agency announced under Executive Order 14206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, which I covered last week.

Sex Field Reduced to Two Options

The draft removes the “Non-Binary” option that was added under the previous administration. Buyers will now choose Male or Female, with instructions to select the sex they were assigned at birth. This change tracks with broader federal policy under Executive Order 14206 rather than functioning as any kind of restriction on who can purchase a firearm.

Question on Buyer Intent Rewritten Around Straw Purchases

The current form asks whether the buyer is the “actual transferee/buyer” of the firearm. The wording has long confused buyers and FFLs, since federal law has never prohibited buying a firearm as a gift for someone who is legally allowed to own one. The current language has been read by some buyers to mean exactly that.

The draft rewrites this question to specifically address straw purchases, which are the actual federal violation. The new question asks the buyer to indicate the purpose of the transfer with clear options: a transfer for the buyer themselves, a purchase the buyer is making with their own money as a gift for someone who is not a prohibited person, picking up a firearm being given as a gift or reward, or picking up a firearm that has been repaired for someone who is not a prohibited person.

The change should reduce confusion at gun counters across the country and protect family members and friends who have always been legally able to buy firearms as gifts.

Question 21b Removed

The current question 21b asks the buyer whether they intend to “sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed” on the form. Selling a privately owned firearm is not illegal in most circumstances, and this question has long led some buyers to believe the act of future resale was itself prohibited. The draft removes this question entirely. The intent of the question is now folded into the rewritten straw purchase language.

Marijuana Question Updated

Question 21f, the marijuana question, has been one of the more controversial sections of the current form. The current language sweeps in any marijuana use, including state-legal medical marijuana, as a federal disqualifier. That has put millions of state-legal marijuana cardholders in the position of either committing a federal felony by checking “no” or declining to attempt a firearm purchase at all.

The draft revises the question to remove references to medical marijuana and focus on recreational marijuana use. This change tracks with the federal rescheduling of marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance, which made clear that the federal classification of the drug is shifting in a less restrictive direction.

The Supreme Court has also signaled trouble for the federal prohibition on regular marijuana users possessing firearms in recent litigation, which makes the ATF’s revision of the form a natural step rather than a surprise.

Firearm Type Section Streamlined

The current form has the buyer specify whether the firearm is a long gun, handgun, or other, then has the FFL fill in the type of firearm separately. The two fields have produced mismatched paperwork errors that ended FFL careers under the previous administration’s zero-tolerance enforcement policy. The draft removes the redundant checkbox section. The new form also adds checkboxes at the top for “Firearms handler check only” and “Private party transfer only,” giving FFLs cleaner ways to handle non-purchase transactions.

The Big One: Direct Shipping

The most significant change in the draft is on page three. The new form includes an option for “Non-over-the-counter transactions,” which corresponds to the ATF’s separately published Non-Over-the-Counter Transfer rule. That rule allows FFLs to ship firearms directly to a buyer’s door rather than requiring the buyer to physically pick up the firearm at a gun shop, provided the FFL and buyer are in the same state.

This is the change the Second Amendment community has been talking about most. For buyers in rural areas or in states where the nearest FFL is not particularly close, direct shipping eliminates a meaningful logistical hurdle. It also brings firearms transactions in line with how nearly every other consumer good is purchased and delivered in 2026.

The Non-Over-the-Counter rule was published in the Federal Register earlier this week, and the Form 4473 draft adds the corresponding section to make compliance straightforward for FFLs participating in direct shipping transactions.

Why It Matters

A shorter form means fewer paperwork errors. Fewer paperwork errors mean fewer FFL revocations driven by minor administrative mistakes, which were a major focus of the previous administration’s zero-tolerance policy against gun dealers. A simplified straw purchase question reduces buyer confusion and keeps lawful gift transactions clean. A revised marijuana question recognizes that millions of state-legal medical marijuana patients should not be permanently disarmed under federal law. Direct shipping is a long-overdue modernization.

The draft is not yet final. Public comment periods are part of the ATF’s rulemaking process, and the Form 4473 revision will go through that process before it takes effect.

I’ll keep an eye on the comment period and the final published form as the rulemaking progresses.

Read the original story: New Form 4473 Draft: Sex Field Reduced to Male and Female, Marijuana Question Updated, Direct Shipping Added

Key Takeaways

• A Raleigh woman shot her ex-boyfriend in self-defense after he vandalized her car and fired shots at her home while her family was inside.
• The man returned to her apartment after an earlier incident where he fired shots into the air.
• She fired back, hitting him without realizing; he was later found by police and taken to the hospital.
• Authorities released her without charges, indicating a clear self-defense case under Tennessee law.
• The incident highlights the dangers after ending relationships with unstable partners and the importance of having a safety plan.

Estimated reading time: 3 minutes

MEMPHIS, TN — A Raleigh woman shot her ex-boyfriend in self-defense early Wednesday morning after he returned to her apartment for a second time that day, vandalized her car, and fired multiple rounds at her home while her sister and 10-year-old child were inside.

As reported by WREG, the woman, who asked to remain anonymous, said she broke up with the man about a week ago after he cheated on her, and he had been angry ever since. The first incident happened earlier in the day at her apartment on Westline Drive. The man banged on her door, and when she did not answer, he fired several shots into the air and left.

He came back a short time later. This time he vandalized her car. When she yelled at him to stop, he fired at her. One bullet went through her window and into the living room wall. Another hit an exterior wall. She shared photos of the damage with WREG.

She returned fire and said she did not realize until police detained her that she had hit him. The man drove himself to his sister’s house on Emerson Avenue, where officers found him being loaded into an ambulance around 5:30 a.m. His white Nissan Altima was still running with the driver’s side door open in the driveway.

Officers found 9mm and .40-caliber shell casings at Westline Drive. Inside the man’s Altima, police recovered a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson shell casing. The vehicle was towed.

The woman was questioned for several hours and released without charges. Memphis Police have not released the man’s condition or any charges he may face.

More from USA Carry:

• Armed Brother Saves Sister from Violent Ex-Boyfriend in Alabama Apartment
• Brave 14-Year-Old Fends Off Intruders w/ Two Kitchen Knives
• Burglary Victim Shoots Then Kidnaps Suspect to Find His $10,000
• PSA: Stop Shooting Guns in the Air; 10-Year-Old Hit By Falling Bullet
• Armed Customer Returns Fire at Memphis Gas Station Shooting, Suspect in Critical Condition

The Takeaway

This is a textbook example of how dangerous the period right after leaving an unstable or unfaithful partner can be. The woman ended the relationship a week earlier. He responded by escalating to gunfire at her home where her sister and a child were sleeping. The pattern is well documented and worth taking seriously.

She had a firearm. She knew how to use it. She returned fire when an attacker was actively shooting at her apartment from outside. Tennessee law recognizes the right to defend yourself and others in your home against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, and the facts here fit the standard squarely. The fact that police questioned her and then released her without charges is consistent with how a clear self-defense case should be handled.

For anyone leaving a relationship that has shown signs of instability, building a real safety plan is not paranoia. That includes situational awareness, knowing who has access to your home, communicating with people you trust, and, for those who choose it, the lawful means to defend yourself with a firearm. The right tool in the right hands is what kept this from being a much worse story.

Read the original story: Memphis Woman Returns Fire on Ex-Boyfriend Who Shot Up Her Apartment While Her Sister and 10-Year-Old Were Inside

Key Takeaways

• A 58-year-old man in San Antonio faces charges of aggravated assault after a confrontation with his neighbor escalated from rock-throwing to a knife attack.
• The neighbor shot him in self-defense, corroborated by witnesses and video evidence.
• Mendez previously had incidents involving aggressive behavior, including a detention for using an axe in public.
• Texas law allows the use of deadly force in self-defense when facing imminent danger, which applied in this case.
• The husband demonstrated restraint by attempting to talk first and only used his firearm when Mendez attacked.

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

SAN ANTONIO, TX — A 58-year-old San Antonio man has been arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon after a confrontation with his neighbor that escalated from rock-throwing earlier in the day to a knife being drawn that afternoon. The neighbor shot him once and told police he acted in self-defense.

As reported by KSAT 12, the incident happened on April 24 in the 300 block of East Young Avenue on the South Side. Joseph Eddie Mendez, 58, has been charged following his release from the hospital.

According to the arrest affidavit cited by KSAT, the trouble started that morning when the shooter’s wife called him at work to say Mendez was throwing rocks into their yard and yelling at her father. Later that afternoon, she called her husband again. This time Mendez was throwing rocks at her in the front yard.

When the husband returned home, he went next door to speak with Mendez. Mendez became upset, removed his shirt, and challenged the man to a fight. The affidavit states that Mendez then pulled a knife from his pocket and threw a punch. The husband drew his firearm and pointed it at Mendez. When Mendez reached back into his pocket while advancing on him, the husband fired a single round.

More from USA Carry:

• Concealed Carrier Stops Mass Shooting After Being Shot in the Head Himself
• Burglar Has Gun Taken by Homeowner; Shoots But Misses
• San Antonio Man Claims He Shot Himself Trying To Escape
• San Antonio Homeowner Shoots Suspect in Both Legs in Car Burglary Attempt; Police Seek Second Suspect
• Father and Son Open Fire on Armed Suspects During Car Burglary, Shooting One in the Face in San Antonio

Two witnesses corroborated the husband’s account. Cell phone video provided by the wife also matched what he told police. Body-worn camera footage from a responding officer showed a stainless-steel fixed-blade knife recovered from Mendez’s right pants pocket.

Mendez was transported to a hospital in critical condition. He has since recovered enough to be arrested and booked into the Bexar County Adult Detention Center. KSAT reports it remains unclear whether the husband will face any charges. According to the affidavit, investigators also found prior incidents involving Mendez, including a 2024 emergency detention and a March 2026 report of him holding an axe on a sidewalk.

The Takeaway

A knife at close range is a deadly weapon. The Tueller drill demonstrated decades ago that an attacker with a blade at 21 feet can close the distance and deliver a fatal stab faster than most people can draw and accurately fire a holstered firearm. By the time an attacker has produced a knife and is within striking range, the threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm is already there.

Texas Penal Code Section 9.32 allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes such force is immediately necessary to protect themselves against another person’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. The husband had a knife pulled on him, took a punch, and then watched the aggressor reach back into his pocket while continuing to advance. That fits the standard.

The cell phone video the wife was filming, the witness statements, and the body camera evidence all corroborated his account. The criminal justice system also appears to be treating this case the way the law intends. The original aggressor is the one facing the felony, not the husband who defended himself, his wife, and his father-in-law.

There is also a broader lesson here for anyone who finds themselves in a long-running dispute with a difficult neighbor. The husband’s response was measured. He went to talk first. He drew his firearm only when the aggressor had already produced a weapon and was advancing. That kind of restraint, paired with corroborating evidence from witnesses and video, is what keeps a lawful self-defense shooting from turning into a defendant in court.

Read the original story: Don’t Bring a Knife to a Gunfight: 58-Year-Old San Antonio Man Learns the Old Saying the Hard Way

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

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

The Indoor Range Challenge

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

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

Rangemaster 7-yard Standards

First up, the Rangemaster 7-Yard Standards.

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

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

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

Justin Dyal’s Double Add One

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

The Eastridge Drill

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

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

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

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

The Wrap

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

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

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

The Core Argument

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

The brief states the principle directly:

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

Why “Presumptively Lawful” Doesn’t End the Analysis

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

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

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

The Historical Record on Disarmament

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

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

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

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

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

What “Peaceable” Meant in 1789

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

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

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

Nineteenth-Century Restrictions Continued the Pattern

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

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

Felons Were Required to Keep Arms

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

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

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

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

The Broader Litigation Landscape

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

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

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

What Comes Next

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

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

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

SB 357: Constitutional Carry

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

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

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

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

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

The Risk of Amendments

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

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

SB 822: Putting Teeth Behind Preemption

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

Why Both Bills Matter Together

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

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

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

Why This Matters for Pennsylvania Gun Owners

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

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

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

What Comes Next

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

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

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

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

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

The Police Assessment

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

Why This Incident Matters for Armed Citizens

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

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

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

The Broader Lesson

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

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

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

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

Key Takeaways

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

Estimated reading time: 7 minutes

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

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

The Magazine Ban Being Challenged

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

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

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

Magazines Are Arms Under the Second Amendment

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

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

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

Colorado’s Own Stipulations Used Against the State

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

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

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

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

The 448 Million Number

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

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

The Civil Rights Statute Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) May 6, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from USA Carry:

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

Why This Matters

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

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

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

What Comes Next

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

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

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

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

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