USA Carry Podcast

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A newly submitted Senate amendment aims to reverse a key victory for gun owners: the elimination of the $200 tax on National Firearms Act (NFA) items. Senate Amendment 2973, introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), would raise the tax on NFA-regulated firearms such as suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns to $4,709 — even though Congress recently reduced the same tax to $0 in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB). How the NFA Tax Was Lowered to $0 The reduction was part of a carefully structured reconciliation effort that unfolded over months. Lawmakers originally intended to include the full Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and SHORT Act in the OBBB, which would have fully removed suppressors and other NFA items from regulation. However, because reconciliation rules limit what types of provisions can be included, particularly under the Senate’s Byrd Rule, much of the original repeal language was excluded. Instead, the House and Senate agreed on a strategy to zero out the NFA tax via a tax-focused provision. This change was upheld by the Senate Parliamentarian and supported by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who declined to override the Parliamentarian’s rulings throughout the process. The bill passed both chambers, and President Donald Trump signed it into law on July 4, 2025. The result: the $200 NFA tax — in place since 1934 — was eliminated for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapon” as defined in the statute. The New Amendment’s Proposal Sen. Murphy’s amendment, submitted on July 22, 2025, would: Raise the transfer and making tax on NFA items from $0 to $4,709 Impose a $55 tax on actions currently exempt under the code Strike specific tax-related language from Section 4182 of the Internal Revenue Code Take effect 90 days after enactment The amendment is attached to H.R. 3944, the 2026 appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs. As of now, it remains tabled and unscheduled for debate. Why It’s Unlikely to Move Forward There are significant barriers preventing Amendment 2973 from gaining traction: It directly conflicts with existing law signed just weeks ago that zeroed out the NFA tax It lacks support from House Republicans, who control the chamber and already approved the OBBB with the tax cut in place It was submitted without co-sponsors or committee support, and is unlikely to pass budget rules governing reconciliation amendments The removal of the NFA tax was a major step toward restoring affordability and access for law-abiding Americans. Though full repeal of the HPA and SHORT Act remains the goal, eliminating the tax itself removes one of the most significant financial barriers to ownership. The introduction of Amendment 2973 — seeking to increase the tax by more than 2,200% over the original amount — highlights just how fragile these wins can be. But based on current legislative dynamics, this amendment is not expected to advance. Still, its introduction underscores the importance of staying engaged in the legislative process and defending recent Second Amendment victories. Read the original story: Sen. Murphy Pushes $4,709 NFA Tax Just Weeks After Congress Voted to End It

Have you ever watched gun fail videos on YouTube and been appalled at the stupidity of some gun owners? One of the most tragic incidents occurred in 2019 when a man whose restored WWII Army jeep was on display at a show left a loaded, Condition 0 1911 in the jeep and allowed children to climb around in it. An 8-year-old found the gun and shot his mother with it, killing her. Fortunately, not all irresponsible incidents are that serious, but there is no need for irresponsible behavior of any kind. Guns and gun ownership are constantly in the public eye and the crosshairs of the anti-2A crowd, and it is our duty as gun owners not only to maximize the safety of ourselves and those around us but to present an accurate picture of what a responsible gun owner looks like to the world. That should not be all that difficult to do, but it can be easy to get in a hurry and forget something important. Here are some reminders of the things we should avoid to neither look like nor be an irresponsible gun owner. Not Taking Safety Seriously This is one of the worst things a gun owner can do. There are far too many tragic stories of people shooting themselves or someone else because they were careless. These people not only cause suffering, they give all legal gun owners a black eye that the media and the anti-2A types will capitalize on shamelessly.  4 Rules of Firearm Safety: Watch What Happens When You Don’t Follow Them Some of the worst offenses are: Not Checking to Ensure the Gun is Unloaded Never assume the gun is unloaded, even if someone tells you it is. Whether you pick it up or it is handed to you, check for yourself. Finger on the Trigger Nothing makes responsible gun owners more nervous than seeing someone else handling, pointing, or loading a gun with their finger on the trigger. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire. Anything less brands you as an irresponsible gun owner and a safety hazard. Pointing the Gun at People or Things This is a major rule of gun safety: never point a gun at anything you do not intend to shoot. Even if someone does everything else wrong and has a negligent discharge, if the gun is pointed in a safe direction, the harm will be minimized. Taking Your Gun Out to Show Off/Letting Friends Handle It Casually BBQ guns aside, pulling your gun out to show it off or look cool is not smart. Neither is handing it to a friend to casually check out, especially if they are not experienced with guns. All sorts of things can go wrong, ranging from a nervous bystander seeing it and freaking out to someone getting shot. Keep it in the holster where it belongs until you need it. Not Knowing Your State Gun Laws  Gun laws are ridiculously complicated and many are inconsistent as well. Magazine limits, prohibited locations, and transport laws can all vary considerably. It’s on you to know the state and local laws for where you live or anywhere you travel.  Posting Your Gun on Social Media  I know some people will disagree with me on this one, and that’s fine. You can do your own thing. Posting on gun forums is one thing, but to me, posting photos of your guns on social media platforms like Facebook is asking for trouble, especially if you add comments like “We don’t call 911.” Irresponsible postings can be used against the gun owner community as a whole, and you, in particular, in the event you are involved in a defensive shooting. Using Alcohol or Drugs While Handling a Firearm This one should go without saying, but let’s go back to those gun fails videos. How many of the stupid people in those videos are obviously drunk? It is just as great a sign of poor judgment as driving under the influence and can turn deadly in the blink of an eye. Letting Someone Shoot a Gun You Know They Can’t Handle I don’t know about you, but it makes me angry when I see a video of someone letting a skinny young girl or youngster shoot a shotgun or a .50 AE handgun. It is dangerous, and it gives the shooter a very negative experience. Show some responsibility and ensure anyone you let shoot a gun is ready for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B8Q1SbLptI Leaving Your Gun Unsecured/Unattended Only leave a gun unsecured or unattended under very specific circumstances. For example, my wife and I live in a house with no children, so we have guns on our nightstands and a few other places where we both know where they are. But if we lived in a situation where children, or even other adults, were around, we would handle things differently. An unattended gun where someone who shouldn’t have it can reach it is irresponsible and a ticking time bomb. Not Using a Holster Holsters secure your weapon, cover the trigger, and keep it in place. Shoving a gun down your pants like some gangsta’ is taking a chance of losing it or having it go off. The same is true for sticking one in your pocket, or in a purse or backpack. Stories of guns going off in pockets and purses abound. Leaving Your Gun in the Car Leaving a gun in your car is an invitation to arm a criminal. In some places, having a gun stolen from your vehicle will actually get you charged with a crime. If you must leave your gun in your car because you are going somewhere it is illegal to take it, use a car safe or some other method of securing it so that it cannot be stolen. Not Respecting Range Etiquette Most everyone has stories of people they saw at the range who either made them nervous or else made fools of themselves. Every range has rules, and they may differ. Know what they are and follow them. Show respect, be safe, and if there is an RSO, follow their commands. They are trying to ensure everyone has an enjoyable and safe range day. Gun Shops Etiquette: The Dos and Don’ts Carrying a Firearm Without Proper Training  Just owning a gun, or even having a concealed carry permit, does not mean you are an expert. This is especially true for first-time gun owners. Proper training will teach you how to handle your gun safely and effectively. Training can be expensive, so if you cannot afford formal training, try asking for some guidance at a range or gun shop. Most experienced gun owners are more than happy to assist a newbie. Just be sure the person you are talking to knows what they are doing. Not Keeping Records of Your Firearms I understand that some people may not like keeping a record of their guns for reasons of their own, and again, that’s fine. I keep a record of all my guns just in case they are stolen or lost in a fire. It is not in the same place as my guns, and I still have the option of deciding what I disclose to whom. But in the event a gun is stolen somehow, I want to be able to give the police its serial number. Not Using Proper Eye and Ear Protection When I was a kid, no one used ear and eye protection. Fortunately, I never had any incidents that could have damaged my eyes, but I’m sure the tinnitus I developed after the military and my time in Iraq started on the family farm, shooting shotguns at tin cans and rabbits. Using proper protection is good for you, and it sets a good example for others. Summary Guns are both fun and practical tools that can literally save your life. They are powerful and deadly, but they do not do anything all by themselves; they rely on a human being to make them work. You are that human being. Respect them and use them responsibly, and you will not only be safer, but you will set a good example of what a responsible gun owner is. Read the original story: How Not to Look Like an Irresponsible Gun Owner

TRENTON, NJ — A coalition of Second Amendment organizations and individual plaintiffs has filed a federal lawsuit against New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and State Police Superintendent Patrick Callahan, challenging the state’s complete ban on the possession of firearm suppressors. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the complaint (Case No. 25-13527) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn the state’s criminal prohibition on suppressors, also known as silencers. Plaintiffs include the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the American Suppressor Association, and several New Jersey residents, all of whom are legally eligible to own firearms. Under current New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c)), suppressors are listed as prohibited weapons. Possession of a suppressor is a fourth-degree crime, punishable under state statute. While suppressors are regulated at the federal level under the National Firearms Act, they are lawful to possess in 42 states and registered by millions of Americans. The plaintiffs argue that suppressors are not only in “common use” but are also essential for safe and effective firearm handling. According to the complaint, suppressors reduce hearing damage, mitigate recoil, improve training, enhance self-defense effectiveness, and decrease noise pollution — particularly for shooters training in residential or rural areas. The lawsuit highlights that suppressors do not make gunshots silent, contrary to Hollywood portrayals. “They are loud, but they reduce decibel levels to safer thresholds,” the suit states, referencing data from the CDC and National Hearing Conservation Association that endorse suppressors for hearing protection. Three named plaintiffs — all New Jersey residents — detail how the ban harms their safety and quality of life. One, a retired Marine and firearms instructor with service-related hearing loss, explained that he would use suppressors to protect what remains of his hearing if allowed. Another plaintiff, a veteran paramedic with the FDNY, cited occupational hearing damage as a key reason for seeking to use suppressors. A third owns a federally registered suppressor but is unable to store or use it at his home in New Jersey. The lawsuit also points to recent legal developments, including a 2025 brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in another suppressor case (Peterson v. Garland), in which the government acknowledged that a total ban on suppressors would be unconstitutional. Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiffs argue that New Jersey cannot justify its ban under the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Suppressors, they contend, are neither “dangerous” nor “unusual” — the legal threshold for restrictions on arms under Supreme Court precedent. The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., and Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. They seek a ruling that would declare New Jersey’s suppressor ban unconstitutional and permanently block its enforcement. If successful, the case could set a precedent impacting similar laws in the few remaining states that continue to prohibit suppressor ownership. New Jersey has not yet filed a response to the complaint. The case is Padua et al. v. Platkin et al., No. 25-13527, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Read the original story: Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON, DC — In a bold move to safeguard Second Amendment rights, Congressman Tony Wied (WI-08) introduced the Freedom from Improper Regulation and Enforcement (FIRE) Act on July 17, 2025. The proposed legislation would ban federal, state, and local governments from restricting firearm magazine capacity, effectively eliminating a patchwork of regulations that limit magazine size across different jurisdictions. The FIRE Act prohibits any federal agency from implementing magazine capacity restrictions and blocks state and local governments from enacting or enforcing such laws. The bill has already gained support from several House Republicans, including original cosponsors Reps. Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Mike Collins (GA-10), Dave Taylor (OH-02), Sheri Biggs (SC-03), and Russ Fulcher (ID-01). “For too long, the federal government has infringed on Americans’ Second Amendment rights while maintaining a confusing, inconsistent system that lacks a uniform national standard and invites legal disparity,” Wied stated. “The FIRE Act ensures that law-abiding gun owners can access magazines of any size, no matter where they are in the United States. It’s well past time we take the Founding Fathers’ words ‘shall not be infringed’ seriously.” The bill is a direct response to a wave of state and local laws that restrict so-called “high-capacity” magazines, often defined as those holding more than 10 rounds. These laws vary by jurisdiction and firearm type, creating legal uncertainty for gun owners traveling across state lines. A 2024 report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) revealed that of the 973 million detachable magazines produced between 1990 and 2021, approximately 718 million held more than ten rounds. This data, including production during the 1994–2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, underscores that magazines with capacities above ten rounds are the industry standard, not the exception. “The Fire Act protects law-abiding gun owners and keeps state and local governments, as well as future administrations, from infringing on your Second Amendment rights,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany. Rep. Dave Taylor added that the bill “will not only enshrine Americans’ right to self-defense, but it will also remove confusion about permissible magazine capacities.” The legislation has been endorsed by major national gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford noted, “Because Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of magazines that hold over 10 rounds, bans on such magazines violate the Second Amendment.” GOA’s Aidan Johnston emphasized that the bill is a “common sense solution to ensure gun owners are not criminalized for owning a mere firearm accessory.” NSSF Senior Vice President Lawrence Keane stated, “Gun control activists and lawmakers in states who push restrictions on magazine capacity are doing so in direct conflict with the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.” The FIRE Act reinforces that a citizen’s right to self-defense should not be limited by arbitrary magazine capacity restrictions. While the path to passage remains uncertain in the Senate, the FIRE Act adds significant momentum to ongoing legislative efforts to strengthen federal protections for lawful gun ownership. The introduction of the FIRE Act reflects a broader push to restore consistency to firearm laws and prevent legal jeopardy for responsible gun owners who carry what the industry defines as standard-capacity magazines. As support grows, it signals a continued commitment among lawmakers to reaffirm the unambiguous protections of the Second Amendment. Read the original story: Congressman Introduces FIRE Act to End Magazine Capacity Restrictions Nationwide

A potentially precedent-setting gun rights case returned to federal court last month, when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in Baird v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s effective ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. I hadn’t been tracking this case until recently, but after diving into the details, it’s […] Read the original story: California Sued Over Open Carry Ban in Baird v. Bonta — Ninth Circuit Hearing Could Change Everything

REDBY, MN — A suspected intruder was fatally shot after forcing entry into a home in the Redby District on July 9, 2025, according to the Red Lake Department of Public Safety. Red Lake Dispatch received a 911 call from a homeowner reporting that a male subject had kicked open the front door to their residence. The caller advised that the suspect was shot immediately after making forced entry into the home. Officers arrived at the scene to find individuals inside the residence attempting life-saving measures on the wounded intruder. Red Lake EMS also responded but pronounced the man dead at the scene. Authorities have not released the identity of the deceased. The Red Lake Department of Public Safety is leading the investigation with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. In home defense situations, this incident underscores the importance of secure entry points and being mentally and physically prepared to act decisively when confronted with an immediate threat. While the occupants’ attempt to perform life-saving measures on the intruder is commendable, it is not generally advisable. There have been many instances where attackers regain consciousness and resume their assault. Homeowners should prioritize securing the scene and ensuring their own safety until law enforcement arrives. Additionally, it is critical to understand local laws governing self-defense and the use of deadly force inside the home. Read the original story: Forced Entry Turns Fatal: Homeowner Shoots Man Who Kicked in Front Door

ALTOONA, PA — Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a nearly century-old law that prohibits ordinary Americans from mailing handguns through the United States Postal Service. The suit, filed on July 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, argues that the 1927 statute violates the Second Amendment and lacks historical justification under the legal framework established by recent Supreme Court rulings. At the center of the case is 18 U.S.C. § 1715, a law enacted during the Prohibition era that bans the mailing of pistols, revolvers, and other concealable firearms by individuals who are not federally licensed firearms dealers or government agents. While USPS continues to transport handguns daily for law enforcement and FFL holders, law-abiding private citizens like Shreve face felony penalties — including up to two years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine — for attempting to do the same. Shreve, a lawful gun owner from Blair County, Pennsylvania, seeks to mail a Bersa Thunder handgun as a gift to her father in eastern Pennsylvania. Because private carriers such as UPS and FedEx do not permit non-FFLs to ship handguns, her only remaining option would be USPS — which federal law prohibits. The plaintiffs argue that such restrictions are inconsistent with the original public understanding of the Second Amendment and cannot survive under the constitutional scrutiny laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, and United States v. Rahimi. These cases emphasized that firearm regulations must be rooted in the Nation’s historical tradition, which plaintiffs argue this 1927 ban is not. The 25-page complaint alleges that:• There is no Founding-era tradition of banning the mailing or shipment of firearms by law-abiding citizens.• The law creates an unjustifiable distinction between government agents, FFLs, and private individuals.• Modern controls, such as those under the Gun Control Act and Brady Act, already regulate firearm transactions without a complete mailing ban. GOA and GOF, representing millions of supporters nationwide, contend that the current USPS policy is not only outdated but also infringes on Americans’ ability to transfer firearms lawfully for self-defense purposes. “This Prohibition-era relic is arbitrary and unconstitutional,” GOA said in a public statement. “Americans should not be treated as criminals for mailing a handgun to a family member within the same state.” The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to strike down the ban and prevent future enforcement. It is another in a series of legal efforts to roll back federal firearm restrictions that lack historical support under Bruen-style analysis. This lawsuit also highlights the practical difficulties that everyday gun owners face in complying with firearm laws — especially when transporting handguns between family members for lawful purposes. Gun rights organizations have long argued that Second Amendment protections extend beyond simple possession to encompass necessary means of exercising that right, including transportation and transfer. As courts increasingly apply text-and-history scrutiny to gun regulations, this USPS handgun ban will now face a constitutional test of its own. Read the original story: Feds Allow Agencies to Mail Guns — But Ban You? GOA Says Enough

REDMOND, WA — A late-night confrontation over a suspected car theft escalated into a defensive shooting outside a business near the 15800 block of Redmond Way on July 6, according to Redmond Police. The incident unfolded around 11 p.m. when an employee from a nearby establishment spotted an adult male allegedly attempting to steal his vehicle. The employee confronted the suspect, who reportedly responded with aggression and advanced toward him. In response, the employee, who was legally carrying a handgun, fired a single shot, striking the suspect once. The suspect was transported to Harborview Medical Center for treatment. Authorities confirmed no other injuries occurred and no additional shots were fired. The employee remained at the scene and is cooperating fully with investigators. Redmond Police emphasized that the case remains under active investigation. Social media responses to the police department’s post reflect a broad consensus of support for the employee’s actions, with many praising his calm response and legal use of a firearm. Comments ranged from praise for responsible gun ownership to reminders about the risks involved in such confrontations. One user noted, “Sounds like they properly used the firearm to eliminate an immediate threat without taking a life,” while another pointed out, “An insurance claim might have been the better way.” While the employee may have acted lawfully in self-defense, this incident underscores the inherent dangers of directly confronting criminal suspects. Even when legally armed, intervening in crimes carries significant risks — including the potential of facing armed suspects, unseen accomplices, or escalation into deadly force. I often advise calling police and observing from a safe distance, especially in property crimes like vehicle theft. Firearms should only be used when there is a clear and immediate threat to life or serious bodily harm. Read the original story: Redmond Employee Shoots Alleged Car Thief in Self-Defense After Late-Night Confrontation

CHEYENNE, WY — House Bill 0172, known as the Wyoming Repeal Gun-Free Zones Act, officially went into effect on July 1, 2025, removing most location-based restrictions on concealed carry across the state. Here’s what gun owners and the public need to know now that the law is active: Where You Can Carry Under this law, individuals lawfully carrying concealed weapons in Wyoming may now carry in: Government meetings (city councils, county commissions, legislative sessions)   Public state buildings (including Capitol and state offices) unless specifically exempted   Public airports, in areas not barred by federal regulations   Public K–12 schools, colleges, universities, and athletic events on public property — but only for individuals with a valid Wyoming concealed carry permit   Additionally, Wyoming’s permitless carry law allows residents to carry concealed without a permit—and they too may carry into most government buildings as specified. Where Carry Remains Prohibited Despite widespread expansion, several sensitive locations remain off-limits: Courthouses, jails, and law enforcement facilities   Health and human services facilities, including treatment centers   Facilities with explosive or volatile materials   Federal restrictions, such as secure airport zones and federally managed spaces   Private property, where the owner has posted a lawful gun prohibition   Courthouses and law enforcement buildings are explicitly exempt. Public school employees and volunteers must adhere to school district rules and training if carrying on school grounds. Enforcement and Penalties A misdemeanor offense awaits anyone who knowingly denies entry to a lawful concealed carrier into an authorized location, punishable by up to 1 year in jail and/or a $2,000 fine . The State Building Commission enacted emergency rules on June 17; permanent rules were adopted by July 9 to usher the expanded access into effect. School District Rules Districts may allow staff and volunteers to carry in schools and on campuses, but must establish training: Minimum 16 hours live-fire and 8 hours scenario training, plus annual 12-hour recertification. If a district takes no action, permit-holders may still carry per state law. Rural schools may receive exemptions from training requirements  . Local boards must update signage and policies by the start of the school year. In Practice: Early Rollout As of July 1, most state government buildings have removed “no guns” signs, replacing them only where restrictions remain. Some districts, such as Teton County, have implemented new door decals and safety protocols for school carry; others are still finalizing training and signage. Final Take With HB 0172 now law, Wyoming has largely eliminated gun-free zones in public spheres, giving law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons increased freedom and responsibility. Exceptions remain for highly sensitive and federally regulated spaces. A misdemeanor penalty ensures compliance from institutions, and structured training—especially for school personnel—adds checks and balances. HB 0172 is fully active, with clear rules, exceptions, and enforcement mechanisms. Law enforcement and local officials are now implementing the practical aspects of the law. Read the original story: Concealed Carry Expanded: Wyoming Officially Ends Most Gun-Free Zones

BLACK BEACH, WY — A late-night camping trip turned violent on July 5 when an attempt to stop an intoxicated man from driving ended in gunfire, leaving two people injured at a remote site between Black Beach and Cottonwood campgrounds in Natrona County. According to the Natrona County Sheriff’s Office, deputies responded to reports of shots fired around 10:30 p.m. Upon arrival, they found that a group of campers had tried to intervene when one of their companions, who was visibly intoxicated, attempted to leave the area by vehicle. As tensions escalated, the intoxicated man retrieved a rifle and pointed it at another camper. That individual, fearing for his life, drew a handgun and fired in self-defense. The shot struck the man with the rifle in the leg. A woman standing nearby was also hit in the leg by a single round, possibly as a result of crossfire or an errant bullet. Both injured parties were transported to the hospital with serious but non-life-threatening injuries. Deputies quickly secured the scene and confirmed there was no continuing threat to the public. The man who fired the handgun was detained during the initial investigation and later released. All individuals involved have been interviewed, and the case remains under active investigation. This incident is a stark reminder that alcohol and firearms are a dangerous combination. The group acted responsibly by attempting to prevent an intoxicated individual from driving, but the presence of a firearm in the hands of someone under the influence dramatically raised the stakes. In situations involving potential threats of deadly force, lawful defensive actions may be necessary—but ideally, tragedies like this can be avoided with sober judgment and secure firearm storage. Read the original story: Armed Camper Defends Himself After Intoxicated Man Aims Rifle During Dispute Over Driving While Drunk

In today’s crowded online ammo market, finding a reliable and reputable source can be a gamble. With countless retailers vying for your business, it’s easy to get burned by poor customer service, slow shipping, or questionable business practices. That’s why third-party reviews and verified ratings matter more than ever. A recent report looked at some […] Read the original story: Who Do Gun Owners Trust Most for Ammo? Here’s What the Data Shows

KEITHVILLE, LA — A workplace dispute turned violent Friday morning in Caddo Parish, leading to a justified self-defense shooting, according to local authorities. Around 11 a.m. on June 27, deputies from the Caddo Parish Sheriff’s Office responded to reports of a shooting in the 3200 block of Stagecoach Road. Upon arrival, deputies learned that 37-year-old Joseph Whitaker had been shot in the upper body following an altercation with a co-worker. According to investigators, the incident began as a verbal disagreement between the two men. The shooter, whose name has not been released, attempted to de-escalate the situation and avoid confrontation by entering his truck to leave. However, Whitaker reportedly followed him to the vehicle and began striking him in the head. In response to the unprovoked physical assault and fearing for his life, the man drew his firearm and fired two rounds at Whitaker, striking him. Whitaker was transported by private vehicle to Willis Knighton South in Shreveport and later transferred to Ochsner LSU Health for treatment of non-life-threatening injuries. The shooter left the scene immediately after the incident but returned shortly afterward when deputies arrived. Following an investigation, authorities determined the man acted in lawful self-defense. Whitaker was later issued a summons for simple battery. This case highlights the critical importance of attempting to de-escalate volatile situations whenever possible. The defender in this incident made a clear effort to disengage and retreat, which significantly bolstered his legal standing. Also, it’s lawful to leave the scene if you are still in fear for your life—but you must call 911 immediately to report the shooting and your location. Prompt notification demonstrates you’re not fleeing wrongdoing, and cooperating with authorities strengthens your self-defense claim. Read the original story: Louisiana Man Shoots Co-Worker in Self-Defense After Co-Worker Repeatedly Strikes Him in the Head

ELKHORN CITY, KY — A home invasion turned violent in the Elkhorn City community of Pike County on the evening of June 30 when an armed intruder reportedly attempted to shoot a homeowner and a woman inside the residence. Kentucky State Police responded to the incident on West 5th Street following a 911 call and discovered a man had been shot during the confrontation. According to investigators, 44-year-old George Standifur of Elkhorn City entered a private residence while armed and made threats toward the occupants. Family members told troopers that Standifur first attempted to shoot the male homeowner in the head, but the firearm malfunctioned. The homeowner then retrieved his own firearm and shot Standifur in the leg. Despite being wounded, Standifur allegedly turned his gun toward a woman in the home and attempted to fire again, but the weapon again failed to discharge. The family managed to force him out of the house and called 911. Standifur fled the immediate scene but was found nearby in an alley still in possession of a firearm. Kentucky State Police troopers engaged in several hours of negotiations before safely taking him into custody. He was transported to a local hospital where he was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Standifur has since been charged with Attempted Murder, Wanton Endangerment 1st Degree (Police Officer), Terroristic Threatening 3rd Degree, Resisting Arrest, Disorderly Conduct 2nd Degree, Menacing, and Alcohol Intoxication in a Public Place. He is currently lodged at the Pike County Detention Center. This case highlights the importance of preparedness and the critical nature of firearm functionality in self-defense situations. The homeowner’s quick response and ability to protect his family from a potentially deadly threat likely prevented a tragedy. Read the original story: Homeowner Shoots Armed Intruder After Suspect’s Gun Misfires During Alleged Attack

Washington, DC – In a fast-moving turn of events, Congress has moved forward on the massive reconciliation One Big Beautiful Bill, but key pro-2A reforms have faced a Senate Parliamentarian blockage setting the stage for a fierce fight ahead. Below are two must-watch videos embedded to help explain what just went down and what comes next. Jared from Guns and Gadgets delivers a concise and impactful update on the latest developments as the bill returns to the House. He highlights Representative Andrew Clyde’s strong push to reinsert the original pro-2A provisions stripped by the Senate Parliamentarian. Clyde presented a compelling argument during the Rules Committee hearing, using actual NFA tax stamps to demonstrate how the $200 tax and the registration requirement are inseparably linked. Jared emphasizes the significance of Clyde’s amendment and the potential to reignite the fight for full repeal as the bill heads back to the Senate. Brandon Herrera takes a broader approach in his video, unpacking both the political and legal dynamics of the situation. He explains how the original pro-2A provisions made it through the House and were strengthened in the Senate before being struck down by the Parliamentarian, whom he criticizes sharply. He also outlines a potential silver lining: if the tax is reduced to zero while registration remains, it could weaken the legal foundation of the NFA and open the door to a constitutional challenge. Despite the setback, Brandon urges continued pressure on lawmakers, emphasizing that past activism has worked—and that this is no time to back down. What Actually Happened? The Senate passed the bill by a 50–50 margin, with Vice President Vance casting the tie-breaking vote. However, Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that removing silencers and short-barreled firearms entirely from the NFA violates the Senate’s Byrd Rule, which limits non-budgetary items in reconciliation bills. In response, Senate Republicans pivoted to a compromise—reducing the $200 tax stamp on these items to $0 while still maintaining NFA registration and controls. Why This Matters and What’s Next Historic-ish Gain? Dropping the $200 tax stamp is a meaningful step but falls short of full deregulation. The NFA’s registration framework remains intact, including background checks and other hurdles. Political Leverage Parliamentarian rulings only apply to reconciliation. Now, the amended bill returns to the House Rules Committee where Clyde’s amendment hopes to reinstate full HPA/SHORT provisions, sending the bill back to the Senate. Legal Implications Leaving registration on the books despite removing the tax opens a constitutional challenge. Clyde notes that courts previously upheld the NFA as a “tax,” tying registration to taxation. Zeroing the tax could invite a judicial challenge to the system. What You Can Do Contact House members, especially Rules Committee reps, urging support for Clyde’s amendment to restore full NFA repeal language. Push Senate GOP leaders to publicly overrule or remove the parliamentarian holding leaders accountable to pro-2A voters. Stay informed and engaged. Activism drove gains so far and pro-2A pressure could force another round of debate in D.C. We’ve seen the power of grassroots pressure: wins in committee, the House, and Senate momentum. Though the parliamentarian’s intervention is a setback, it’s not a dead end. Full repeal remains possible, and this “half measure” creates legal leverage and buying time. That’s how real reform takes shape from the halls of Congress to the courts. Read the original story: NFA Tax Removed but Fight Continues as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ Heads Back to House

BISMARCK, ND – We recently received a question from a reader that prompted a deeper look into North Dakota’s reciprocity laws for concealed carry. Specifically, the question was whether North Dakota recognizes non-resident concealed carry permits from other states. The answer, as it turns out, is more complicated than it should be. The Initial Concern A reader reached out to point out a potential error in our concealed carry reciprocity maps, stating: “North Dakota does not recognize a CCL license/permit from another state unless there is reciprocal reciprocity and the licensee actually resides in that other state.” This sparked an immediate review of North Dakota’s laws, and I found conflicting information. Conflicting Laws in North Dakota Code On the North Dakota Attorney General’s official website, the reciprocity section clearly states: “North Dakota will honor a valid concealed carry license/permit (resident and non-resident) issued by a state that has agreed to recognize a North Dakota license.” However, House Bill 1293 passed by the 67th Legislative Assembly in 2021 includes this language: “An individual may carry a firearm concealed under this chapter if the individual qualifies for reciprocity under section 62.1-04-03.1 and the individual has the equivalent of a class 2 firearm and dangerous weapon license from the state in which the individual is a resident.” So which is it—resident permits only, or both resident and non-resident permits? Direct Clarification from the ND Attorney General’s Office To clear this up, I contacted the North Dakota Attorney General’s office directly. Here’s a portion of the response I received from the Concealed Weapon Licensing Unit: “I believe there is some contradiction in our reciprocity between 62.1-04-02(3) and 62.1-04-03.1. 62.1-04-03.1 appears to allow individuals who possess non-resident concealed licenses from other states with reciprocity to carry in our state. However, 62.1-04-02(3) says they must be a resident of the other state. We may look at amending one of these statutes in an upcoming session…” They went on to clarify that due to the rule of lenity—a legal principle requiring that unclear criminal statutes be interpreted in favor of the defendant—they do not believe someone could be prosecuted for carrying under a valid non-resident permit in North Dakota. They also reminded us that anyone with a valid driver’s license or ID can legally carry under the state’s permitless (constitutional) carry law. Why We Updated Our Reciprocity Maps Given this explanation, we’ve updated our reciprocity maps to show that North Dakota accepts both resident and non-resident permits from states with reciprocity agreements. While the legal text is still in conflict, the Attorney General’s office has made it clear they do not consider carrying on a non-resident permit to be a criminal offense under current law. We’ve also added a note below the map linking to this article to provide transparency about the change and ensure our readers understand the nuances behind North Dakota’s policy. What to Know Before Carrying in North Dakota If you have a valid permit from a state with a reciprocity agreement with North Dakota, you are currently not at risk of prosecution, whether it’s a resident or non-resident permit. If you are a resident of North Dakota or possess a valid ND driver’s license or ID, you can carry under the state’s permitless carry law (with some restrictions). Expect updates in future legislative sessions that may formally clean up the contradictory language in the statutes. I’ll continue to monitor this issue and update our content if any laws are amended or policies shift. If you ever spot something that doesn’t look right on our reciprocity maps or in any of our guides, reach out to us—we investigate and verify every tip that comes in. Stay safe and stay informed. Read the original story: Does North Dakota Accept Non-Resident Carry Permits? Here’s What We Found Out

HIALEAH, FL — A heated argument between groups of UPS employees escalated into a shooting outside a Hialeah shipping facility, resulting in one man being wounded and facing felony charges. The incident occurred Thursday at the UPS facility located at 969 East 56th Street. According to Hialeah Police, two groups of employees became involved in a verbal confrontation after their work shifts. During the argument, one individual reportedly threatened to summon a friend who was armed. <script type="text/javascript" charset="UTF-8" src="https://nbcmiami.com/portableplayer/?CID=1:10:3647515&#038;videoID=2436199491533&#038;origin=nbcmiami.com&#038;fullWidth=y&#038;autoplay=true"> Shortly thereafter, Anthony Oliver Ernest, 21, arrived at the scene. Witnesses reported that Ernest approached the scene with his hand inside a bookbag, leading one of the involved men to perceive a threat. That man ran to a nearby vehicle occupied by family members. When Ernest continued his approach, the man’s brother, fearing for their safety, opened fire, striking Ernest in the leg. Police arrived to find Ernest hiding in a car with a gunshot wound. He was transported to a local hospital for treatment. Following an investigation, Ernest was charged with aggravated assault with a firearm. No other injuries were reported, and the individual who fired the shot has not been charged, with authorities determining the action was taken in self-defense. This incident underscores the importance of de-escalation and the legal right to defend oneself from a credible threat. Individuals carrying firearms should always prioritize avoidance and retreat when possible, but the law supports self-defense when faced with imminent danger. Read the original story: UPS Employee Argument Ends in Gunfire; One Man Charged

RALEIGH, NC — As expected, Governor Josh Stein has vetoed Senate Bill 50, the Freedom to Carry NC bill, which would have allowed law-abiding North Carolinians 18 and older to carry concealed handguns without a permit. The move sets up a major showdown in the state legislature over constitutional carry and the fundamental right to self-defense. In his veto message, Governor Stein claimed the bill would &#8220;make North Carolinians less safe&#8221; and criticized the removal of permit training requirements and the lowered age to carry. He also argued that the bill would make law enforcement&#8217;s job harder. Law enforcement officials allied with the Governor echoed those claims. Orange County Sheriff Charles Blackwood called the permitting process an &#8220;enhancement&#8221; to the Second Amendment, while Durham County Sheriff Clarence Birkhead praised Stein for &#8220;putting public safety first.&#8221; Opponents of the bill, including gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and its affiliates, cheered the veto. They cited polling and disputed studies to paint constitutional carry as dangerous—arguments that ignore the experience of the 29 other states that already have similar laws in place. This is not the end. Constitutional carry supporters understand what’s at stake: our right to defend ourselves should not depend on government approval. This bill was a step toward aligning North Carolina with the majority of the country, and the fight is far from over. What’s Next To override Governor Stein’s veto, the General Assembly needs a three-fifths majority in both chambers of those present and voting: House: 72 votes needed (currently 71 Republicans and 49 Democrats) Senate: 30 votes needed (currently 30 Republicans and 20 Democrats) That means a successful override will require full attendance from Republicans and likely some bipartisan support. The next few days and weeks will be critical as the General Assembly determines whether to bring the bill back for an override vote. Take Action: Contact your state representative and senator – urge them to support the override of the Governor’s veto on SB 50. Reach out to undecided or swing legislators – especially those who previously voted in favor of the bill or represent pro-2A districts. Make your voice heard – post, share, and talk to your community. The fight for constitutional carry in North Carolina is not over. To find your legislator and contact info, visit: https://www.ncleg.gov/FindYourLegislators Freedom isn’t granted by a permit. It’s time to finish what we started. Read the original story: Governor Stein Vetoes Freedom to Carry NC Bill, Override Fight Looms

RIALTO, CA — A domestic disturbance turned deadly in Rialto on June 27 when a 29-year-old man was fatally shot after allegedly stabbing one family member and attempting to stab another during a violent incident at a residence on North Spruce Avenue. Police responded to a 9-1-1 call at approximately 1:13 p.m. and discovered multiple injured individuals at the scene. The suspect, a 29-year-old male resident of Rialto, was found with a gunshot wound inside the home. Officers administered life-saving measures until paramedics arrived. He was transported to a local trauma center, where he was pronounced dead at 2:04 p.m. According to investigators, the suspect had stabbed a 31-year-old female family member and physically assaulted a 57-year-old male family member. He then attempted to stab another woman, aged 61, when a 40-year-old male relative intervened with a firearm, shooting the suspect to prevent further harm. The injured woman was treated at a hospital for non-life-threatening injuries and later released. The 40-year-old man, also a Rialto resident, remained on scene and is cooperating fully with law enforcement. No arrests have been made as the investigation continues. The case will be reviewed by the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s Office. The identities of the involved parties have not yet been publicly released pending notification by the Coroner’s Office. Thankfully, someone in the home had the means to stop the threat before it turned even more tragic. While it’s heartbreaking to be forced to defend yourself against a family member, the armed relative did what he had to do to protect others in immediate danger. His quick response likely saved lives and put an end to a violent assault that was escalating rapidly. Read the original story: Domestic Dispute Turns Deadly as Man Stabs Relative, Shot by Family Member

CHICAGO, IL — A concealed carry license holder opened fire on two armed robbers Tuesday morning in the West Loop after witnessing them assault and rob a woman at gunpoint, according to the Chicago Police Department. The incident occurred around 8:45 a.m. in the 1100 block of West Hubbard Street. A 38-year-old woman was reportedly standing outside when two armed male suspects approached, demanded her belongings, and struck her in the head. They made off with her possessions. Nearby, a 41-year-old man with a valid Illinois concealed carry license saw the robbery unfold and chose to intervene. According to police, the man confronted the suspects, who then pointed their firearms at him. In response, the man drew his own weapon and fired shots. None of the individuals involved were struck by the gunfire. The suspects fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan bearing stolen New Jersey license plates. The woman declined medical attention, and no other injuries were reported. No arrests have been made as of this writing, and area detectives continue to investigate. This incident highlights both the potential value and inherent danger of armed intervention in violent crimes. The concealed carry holder acted with courage and possibly prevented further harm to the victim. However, confronting two armed suspects carries extreme risk—particularly when they still have the tactical advantage. According to the sequence of events shared by police, the man approached the suspects, prompting them to aim their weapons at him. Only then did he draw and fire. This scenario could easily have ended differently had the suspects chosen to shoot first. In such situations, the moment a gun is raised at you may be too late to react effectively. This is not to criticize the man’s decision—he made a split-second call under pressure—but it underscores the importance of scenario-based mental preparation for concealed carriers. Armed citizens must constantly run through these kinds of situations mentally: What would I do here? What are the risks? What is the safest and most effective way to intervene, if at all? Being armed does not guarantee safety. It is a tool that requires judgment, restraint, and preparation. When confronting multiple armed suspects, tactical retreat, calling 911, or providing a description may sometimes be the wisest course of action unless there is an imminent and unavoidable threat to life. Read the original story: Armed Citizen Fires at Robbers After Woman Pistol-Whipped &amp; Robbed in Chicago, Suspects Flee Unharmed

BATON ROUGE, LA — In a major win for Second Amendment advocates, Louisiana has officially enacted House Bill 407, removing residency restrictions for concealed handgun permits. Signed by Governor Jeff Landry, the new law—effective August 1, 2025—enables non-residents to apply for and receive Louisiana concealed carry permits. This legislation is a direct result of the Firearms Policy Coalition’s lawsuit, Mate v. Wescott, which challenged the state’s previous residency limitations on permit issuance. Since July 4, 2024, Louisiana has recognized permitless carry, also known as constitutional carry, allowing law-abiding adults—including non-residents—to carry a concealed handgun without a permit. However, carrying under constitutional carry does not grant access to certain restricted areas where permits are required by either federal or state law. Most notably, a permit issued by the state where a school zone is located is required under federal law to legally carry a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school zone. Additionally, Louisiana has designated specific “firearm-free zones”—such as certain government buildings and posted locations—where carrying is only allowed if you possess a valid Louisiana concealed handgun permit. Non-residents carrying under constitutional carry do not meet this requirement. HB 407 closes that gap by allowing eligible non-residents to apply for and obtain a Louisiana permit, enabling legal carry in these otherwise restricted zones. Under the new law, any eligible adult, regardless of residency, can apply for a Louisiana concealed carry permit—granting them additional legal protections not covered under constitutional carry alone. This includes enhanced reciprocity benefits and the ability to carry in areas off-limits to permitless carriers. The Firearms Policy Coalition celebrated the passage of the bill, with FPC President Brandon Combs stating, “We are thrilled that Louisiana has made this critical change to improve access to the right to bear arms.” He also urged lawmakers in Washington to advance H.R. 38, a bill that would establish national reciprocity for concealed carry permits. For those who travel frequently or maintain property or family connections in multiple states, this reform is especially significant. While non-residents could already carry under constitutional carry, they previously had no way to obtain a Louisiana-issued permit. For example, I split my time between Nevada and Louisiana, and having a Nevada resident permit allows me to legally carry in Louisiana because the state honors it. However, this new law provides the option to obtain a Louisiana permit as well—something previously unavailable to non-residents. You can verify reciprocity status using our&nbsp;concealed carry reciprocity maps. With the passage of HB 407, non-residents who meet eligibility requirements will soon be able to apply directly for a Louisiana concealed carry permit—an important option for those looking to stay compliant with&nbsp;federal school zone laws,&nbsp;state-defined firearm-free zones, or expand their&nbsp;reciprocity coverage. Those interested in applying or learning more can visit our Louisiana concealed carry permit information page for up-to-date application procedures and eligibility requirements. Read the original story: 2A Victory: Louisiana Opens Concealed Carry to Non-Residents!

OKLAHOMA CITY, OK — In a unified move to support Second Amendment rights, 24 state attorneys general, led by Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond and West Virginia Attorney General John B. McCuskey, have formally urged Congress to pass H.R. 38, the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” The letter, dated May 21, 2025, was addressed to House and Senate leadership and outlines strong support for nationwide concealed carry reciprocity for law-abiding citizens. The letter argues that the measure respects state sovereignty while protecting constitutional liberties. H.R. 38 would allow individuals permitted to carry concealed handguns in their home state to do so in any other state that allows concealed carry, without violating local laws. The bill applies strictly to law-abiding citizens and explicitly excludes individuals prohibited from firearm possession under federal law, including felons, domestic abusers, and those with adjudicated mental illness. The attorneys general refuted several common criticisms of the bill. Contrary to claims that the bill infringes on state rights, the letter clarifies that H.R. 38 does not override any state’s authority to set its own concealed carry issuance criteria, designate off-limits areas, or regulate the conduct of armed individuals. It also permits private property owners to ban firearms if they choose. In addressing concerns from law enforcement, the officials pointed out that constitutional and permitless carry are already in effect in the majority of states. They cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s&nbsp;Terry v. Ohio&nbsp;decision as evidence that officers retain the authority to investigate suspicious behavior by armed individuals, ensuring public safety remains intact. Another major point addressed was the disparity in licensing standards among states. The letter argued that some states deliberately obstruct lawful carry through excessive fees and long wait times, rather than using those processes to screen for dangerous individuals. The attorneys general cited examples in New York and Los Angeles, where past corruption and federal investigations undermined claims of superior safety screening. Ultimately, the group argued that H.R. 38 would enhance public safety by ensuring that responsible citizens are not criminalized for legally carrying across state lines. &#8220;Criminals do not wait for permission to carry guns,” the letter states. “H.R. 38 is not for them. It is for honest and law-abiding citizens who deserve to have the means to protect themselves.” The letter concludes with a call to action for Congress to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and ensure consistent legal protections nationwide. The attorneys general who signed the letter represent Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming, in addition to Oklahoma and West Virginia. By championing H.R. 38, these attorneys general are reinforcing a central Second Amendment principle: the right to self-defense should not vanish at state borders. Reciprocity would protect lawful carriers from inadvertently breaking unfamiliar laws while traveling, without sacrificing local control over gun safety standards. Ensuring consistency in how rights are recognized across states aligns with the Constitution and provides peace of mind to responsible gun owners nationwide. Read the original story: 24 Attorneys General Unite and Demand Congress Pass National Concealed Carry Law

CHICAGO, IL &#8211; A concealed carry holder in Chicago ended a robbery spree last night. When the attacker went after his fourth victim, he learned the hard way that not everyone is an easy target. The final intended victim was a 36-year-old man who was unloading his car. The 18-year-old armed robber demanded the victim&#8217;s belongings, and the good guy with a gun fired 4 or 5 shots, striking the assailant in the chest, thigh, and head. The offender did not survive, and he was driving a Toyota that belonged to a man he robbed at gunpoint about 20 minutes earlier. After robbing the first individual and taking his vehicle the 18-year-old robbed two women before going after his fourth and final victim which was the man with the CCL.The women&#8217;s belongings were found in the stolen Toyota according to CWBChicago. Although there are not many details, this individual successfully put the majority of his rounds on target, which effectively stopped the attack and ended the crime spree. This is the 18-year-old who was shot and killed last night while trying to carjack someone. https://t.co/25WfXAgdVP pic.twitter.com/qsSCHE4zs4&mdash; Goofies Of Chicago (@Chicago_Goofies) June 12, 2025 I believe this puts the number of self-defense shootings in Chicago at eight this year. Carjackings and robberies can happen anywhere, including in front of your home, so you can never let your guard down. Read the original story: Carjacker, 18, Shot Dead by Armed Citizen After Robbing Three People During Chicago Crime Spree

HARRISBURG, PA — Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday announced this week that a new reciprocity agreement has been finalized with Virginia, officially allowing Virginia concealed carry permit holders to lawfully carry in Pennsylvania. While Virginia has long honored all valid out-of-state concealed carry permits—including Pennsylvania’s—Pennsylvania had not previously recognized Virginia permits, creating a one-way arrangement that this agreement now corrects. The agreement, reached in cooperation with Virginia Attorney General Jason Miyares, makes Virginia the 30th state with which Pennsylvania holds a mutual concealed carry reciprocity agreement. “Shortly after taking office, I asked my staff to review opportunities to maximize reciprocity agreements with willing states, and ensure all existing and future agreements protect and respect standing law and constitutional rights,” AG Sunday stated. “Our research of law in both states revealed nothing conflicting that would disallow permit holders to carry in both states.” Pennsylvania’s legal team initiated contact with the Virginia State Police in early April to renew and update the Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) outlining “mutual recognition of a license to carry a firearm issued by the Commonwealth and a license or permit to carry a firearm issued by another state.” Under the agreement, concealed carry license holders from both states are permitted to carry a concealed handgun on their person or in their vehicle while visiting the other state, so long as they meet the following criteria: Must be at least 21 years of age Must carry valid photo identification Must present a valid concealed carry permit when requested by law enforcement Must not have had a permit previously revoked The agreement applies specifically to handguns. This move represents a step forward for lawful gun owners and ensures that responsible Virginians traveling to Pennsylvania are now equally protected under the law. It also underscores the continued efforts by pro-2A officials to expand lawful carry rights across state lines. At USACarry.com, our Concealed Carry Reciprocity Maps have already been updated to reflect this change. These maps are essential tools for staying informed on where your permit is honored, helping concealed carriers remain compliant and confident as they travel. While Virginia had long done its part in respecting out-of-state permits, Pennsylvania’s decision to reciprocate ensures a more balanced and fair treatment of lawful concealed carriers. This agreement is a welcome correction to a previously lopsided arrangement and a strong win for Second Amendment rights. Read the original story: Concealed Carry Expanded: PA and VA Finalize Firearm Reciprocity Agreement

If you’ve seen the viral clip floating around where Indiana State Representative Jim Lucas says “I’m carrying right now,” you’ve probably also seen the meltdown that followed. Headlines screamed about him “brandishing” a firearm in front of students. Social media exploded with outrage. And, as always, the anti-gun crowd clipped the moment out of context to make it look like a threat. But here’s what&nbsp;really&nbsp;happened. On January 30th, 2024, Rep. Lucas was having a calm, face-to-face conversation with high school students from Burris Laboratory School in Muncie. The students were at the Indiana Statehouse in Indianapolis for a “Students Demand Action” event — a group that advocates for more gun control. The discussion? Civil. Respectful. Honest. Lucas was engaging with the students, not berating them. He was answering questions — and when asked if he carried a firearm, he replied simply and factually: “I’m carrying right now.” He then briefly revealed the legally holstered handgun on his hip — no threats, no escalation, no drama. Except, of course, in the minds of people who&nbsp;want&nbsp;it to be dramatic. Because facts don’t trend — outrage does. That’s why the internet clipped the moment and ran with a narrative: “He threatened children.” The full video, which we’ve embedded above, tells a completely different story. One of the most powerful lines in the exchange? “People who want to kill you don’t care about your feelings.” That’s not bravado. That’s the hard truth. Lucas wasn’t there to intimidate students. He was there to tell them something they might not hear in an echo chamber: bad guys exist. Gun laws don’t stop them. And being armed — trained and prepared — isn’t about ego. It’s about survival. And if that makes someone feel uncomfortable? Well… that’s kind of the point. ⚖️ But Was It Brandishing? Let’s talk legal definitions for a second. Under&nbsp;federal law, “brandishing” means displaying a firearm&nbsp;in a threatening or intimidating manner. It’s about intent — waving it around or using it to scare someone. Indiana law doesn’t even use the word “brandishing,” but it&nbsp;does&nbsp;prohibit&nbsp;pointing a firearm at someone, which Lucas clearly didn’t do. brandish (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person. He simply opened his jacket to reveal a legally carried, holstered handgun. No threats. No pointing. No coercion. Source: 18 USC § 924(c)(4) This entire incident is the perfect example of how Second Amendment supporters are mischaracterized every day. Context gets erased. Nuance gets ignored. Legal, responsible carry gets painted as “dangerous,” while actual violence — committed by criminals who&nbsp;don’t&nbsp;follow laws — somehow gets less scrutiny. So watch the full clip. Share it. So the next time someone throws around the word “brandishing,” remind them what it actually means —&nbsp;a threatening or aggressive display of a firearm. What happened here? Not even close. Read the original story: &#8220;People That Want To Kill You Don&#8217;t Care About Your Feelings&#8221;

RICHMOND, VA — A robbery attempt at a local restaurant ended in gunfire Thursday night when an employee shot and killed an armed suspect who entered the business wearing a mask and carrying a firearm. According to Richmond Police, the incident occurred around 9:30 p.m. at Sugar’s Crab Shack on Chamberlayne Avenue, just across from the Fourth Police Precinct. The suspect, identified as 37-year-old Dominique Epps of Henrico County, entered the restaurant with apparent intent to rob the establishment. An employee confronted Epps and exchanged gunfire with him, fatally shooting the suspect. Epps died at the scene. The employee, whose name has not been released, remained on-site and cooperated fully with investigators. Richmond Police Chief Rick Edwards stated that no charges have been filed against the employee at this time, describing the shooting as likely an act of self-defense. “That doesn’t mean that that won’t change later,” Chief Edwards said. “But at this point, we are still conducting our investigation, and it seems to be a use of self-defense.” Surveillance footage from nearby businesses, including the Military Retiree’s Club next door, helped document the moments following the shooting. Earl Reid, president of the Military Retiree’s Club, noted the frequency of incidents in the area and stressed the importance of being able to protect oneself. “I’m sorry that somebody lost their life and it had to be that way, but you also got to protect yourself,” Reid told CBS 6. Attempting an armed robbery directly across the street from a police precinct baffled many. “You couldn’t pick a worse spot unless you tried the courthouse,” one neighbor remarked. Chief Edwards alluded to the suspect’s poor planning, suggesting a lack of regard for the area’s law enforcement presence. If your employer does not prohibit carrying a firearm at work, it’s worth considering whether you’re prepared to defend yourself in a life-threatening situation. This incident highlights the value of being armed and trained—especially in high-risk environments like late-night businesses. Always stay within the law, ensure your carry practices comply with workplace policies, and make regular training a priority so you can respond with confidence and competence if the unthinkable happens. Read the original story: Masked Gunman Killed by Employee During Attempted Robbery at Sugar’s Crab Shack

RALEIGH, NC — Senate Bill 50, titled&nbsp;Freedom to Carry NC, continues to advance in the North Carolina House. On June 3, 2025, the bill was reported favorably and re-referred to the House Rules, Calendar, and Operations Committee after narrowly clearing the House Judiciary 2 Committee earlier that day by a 6–5 vote. The legislation would allow law-abiding U.S. citizens 18 and older to carry concealed handguns without a permit, while preserving the existing concealed handgun permit system for those who want it for reciprocity or personal preference. The bill also increases penalties for certain firearm-related crimes and establishes a scholarship fund for children of first responders who are killed or disabled in the line of duty. During the committee hearing, supporters pointed to longstanding efforts to bring constitutional carry to the state. Rep. Carson Smith (R-Pender) stated, “I appreciate y’all bringing this before us, and there’s been a willingness in the House for the past several years to make this happen.” Sen. Danny Britt (R-Robeson), one of the bill’s sponsors, explained that, “a lot of things change around here from session to session… we believe now that this is necessary to get this done,” according to reporting by The Carolina Journal. Opposition to the bill remains strong, particularly among Democrats who voiced concerns over public safety. Rep. Deb Butler (D-New Hanover) said, “I don’t understand why in the world we would do this… For the life of me, I don’t understand it, and I certainly cannot support the bill.” The bill has drawn support from gun rights organizations like Grass Roots NC, while groups advocating for stricter gun control, such as Moms Demand Action, continue to oppose the measure. Constitutional carry simply recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves without being forced to obtain government permission to exercise a constitutional right. With 29 other states already enacting similar laws, North Carolina would be aligning itself with the majority of the country. Criminals, by nature, do not follow permitting requirements, leaving law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage when forced to navigate unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles. This bill removes that barrier for responsible gun owners while maintaining strong penalties for those who misuse firearms. Governor Signals Veto Governor Josh Stein has indicated he is likely to veto the bill if it reaches his desk. Speaking to reporters, Stein said, “My standard reviewing any piece of legislation is, will this make us safer? If it doesn’t make us safer – and the previous version certainly did not – I cannot support it,”&nbsp;The Carolina Journal&nbsp;reported. Contrary to Governor Stein’s concerns, this bill would enhance public safety by allowing more law-abiding citizens to carry concealed and be prepared to defend themselves and others if faced with a threat. When responsible individuals are armed, it serves as a deterrent to criminals who prefer unarmed victims. Expanding legal concealed carry ensures that more citizens have the ability to respond immediately in dangerous situations, rather than waiting for law enforcement to arrive. What’s Next Senate Bill 50 now awaits consideration in the House Rules Committee. If it clears that stage, it will move to the House floor for two additional votes. After passing the House, the bill would head to Governor Stein for final consideration. Overriding a potential veto will be challenging. Senate Republicans hold a supermajority, but House Republicans are one seat short. Any override effort will require full attendance and some bipartisan support to meet the required three-fifths majority in both chambers. If ultimately enacted, the law would take effect December 1, 2025, making North Carolina the 30th state to adopt constitutional carry. Read the original story: North Carolina’s ‘Freedom to Carry NC’ Bill Advances in House, Faces Possible Veto

LAS VEGAS, NV — A simple ATM stop nearly turned deadly for 22-year-old Bryson Chen, who was shot and robbed for $40 while withdrawing cash late at night. The shooting occurred March 10 on North Las Vegas Boulevard near Cheyenne Avenue, according to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). Chen was driving home from work when he pulled over to withdraw $40 for gas. As he made the transaction, a suspect approached him from behind, pulled a gun, and demanded money. “In the corner of my eye, I see the person walking up behind me, and that’s when he pulled out the gun,” Chen told KLAS 8 News Now. Chen tossed his wallet and the cash toward the suspect, but the gunman fired anyway, striking Chen in the abdomen. The bullet passed through his body, requiring two surgeries. Fortunately, Chen survived. LVMPD is still searching for the suspect, described as a Black male, 16-20 years old, 5’8” to 5’10”, with dreadlocks and glasses. He was last seen wearing black pants with a red bandana in his back pocket and a black hoodie. This incident is one of several unsolved shooting cases being handled by LVMPD’s Violent Gun Crime Unit. Lessons in Situational Awareness and Risk Avoidance Carrying a firearm is one part of personal protection, but equally important is avoiding high-risk situations when possible. Visiting a standalone ATM late at night, alone, creates vulnerabilities. There are often safer alternatives: Use drive-thru ATMs during daytime hours. Get cashback while shopping at stores. Avoid making cash withdrawals when alone after dark. Bad actors exploit predictable behaviors. Situational awareness and risk management help reduce exposure to threats before they occur. Why We Carry — But Also Why We Plan Ahead Incidents like this reinforce why many choose to carry firearms for personal defense. But carrying is only part of the equation. Avoiding dangerous situations in the first place is always safer than having to respond to a violent threat. A better plan would have been getting cash earlier, using other withdrawal methods, or delaying the withdrawal until a safer time. LVMPD asks anyone with information to contact their Violent Gun Crime Unit at (702) 828-7815 or Crime Stoppers at 702-385-5555 or online at crimestoppersofnv.com. Read the original story: Las Vegas Man Shot and Robbed for $40 at ATM — Why Situational Awareness Matters

LAS VEGAS, NV — What began as a minor fender bender quickly escalated into a fatal self-defense shooting Monday evening on the westbound 215 Beltway near Jones Boulevard, according to Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD). Police say the incident started when one driver rear-ended another vehicle. The driver who caused the accident got out of his car to check on the other motorist and assess the situation. As he approached, the other driver unexpectedly jumped out of his vehicle armed with a knife and immediately began chasing him. The unarmed driver ran around his car several times attempting to evade the armed attacker before managing to re-enter his vehicle, where he retrieved a firearm. The knife-wielding suspect then began stabbing the tires and slashing at the vehicle while the armed driver exited and ordered him to back away. The suspect then lunged toward him with the knife, prompting the man to fire multiple shots and strike the attacker. The shooter remained at the scene and reportedly attempted to render aid until emergency responders arrived. Despite these efforts, the suspect was pronounced dead on scene. The man who fired the shots cooperated fully with police at the scene and, based on available information, has since been released after speaking with investigators. In a press conference, police stated they believe this was a self-defense shooting, which appears consistent with the details currently available. No other individuals or vehicles were struck by gunfire. This incident offers several important reminders for armed citizens. First, the defender was forced to return to his vehicle to retrieve his firearm. Fortunately, he was able to access it in time, but carrying on-body greatly reduces response time during a sudden life-threatening attack. A vehicle is not a holster, and a gun stored in the glovebox or mounted inside the car may not always be reachable when seconds count. Additionally, while the attempt to render aid reflects a willingness to help, it may not always be the safest course of action when dealing with a potentially still-dangerous attacker. The primary focus should always be ensuring personal safety until law enforcement secures the scene. Read the original story: Las Vegas Driver Shoots Knife-Wielding Attacker After Rear-End Road Rage Incident Turns Violent

CHICAGO, IL — A road rage incident escalated into gunfire Tuesday night on Chicago’s Northwest Side, resulting in a car crashing into an apartment building but causing no injuries, according to Chicago police. The confrontation took place around 9:45 p.m. in the 7700 block of West Belmont Avenue in the Dunning neighborhood. Authorities say a 23-year-old man was driving eastbound on Belmont Avenue when he became involved in an apparent road rage incident with the driver of a white Honda sedan traveling in the same direction. According to police reports, the driver of the Honda produced a firearm and began shooting at the 23-year-old. The targeted driver, who holds a valid concealed carry license, returned fire with his own weapon in self-defense. Amid the exchange of gunfire, the suspect lost control of the vehicle, crashing into a nearby apartment building. The crash caused property damage but no injuries were reported. Following the collision, the suspect fled the scene on foot and remains at large. The suspect’s vehicle was left at the scene, riddled with bullet holes. Area Five detectives are currently investigating the incident, and no arrests have been made. Surveillance footage from a family living in the building captured the sounds of gunfire, while witnesses recorded parts of the incident on their cell phones. One video shows a man exiting the crashed Honda and running away. This incident underscores the importance of staying calm in traffic disputes. Road rage situations can escalate quickly and unpredictably, especially when firearms are involved. As outlined in our article on&nbsp;road rage prevention, it is always best to avoid confrontation and disengage from aggressive drivers whenever possible. Carrying a firearm for self-defense is a serious responsibility, and situational awareness can be key in avoiding life-threatening encounters. Read the original story: Chicago Concealed Carrier Fires Back in Road Rage Shootout, Suspect Crashes Into Apartment Building and Flees on Foot