DES MOINES, IA — Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds signed Senate File 106 into law on May 6, 2025, authorizing the lawful possession of loaded firearms while operating or riding snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) under specific conditions.

Previously, Iowa law required that firearms transported on snowmobiles or ATVs be unloaded and stored in a carrying case. SF 106 removes those restrictions, now permitting the carry of a loaded firearm—whether concealed or not—when on land that the person owns, possesses, or rents, provided the individual’s conduct is otherwise lawful. Additionally, the law allows for the carry of a loaded pistol or revolver, even on land not owned or controlled by the person, again provided the activity remains lawful.

The bill also maintains the prohibition on discharging a firearm from a moving snowmobile or ATV. However, nonambulatory individuals are allowed to discharge a firearm from a stationary snowmobile or ATV while lawfully hunting.

Key provisions of SF 106 include:

The legislation passed both chambers with strong majorities: 93-3 in the House and 42-8 in the Senate.

This new law aligns Iowa with other states that have similarly modernized their firearm transportation laws to reflect responsible gun ownership and to support hunters and rural residents who rely on off-road vehicles.

This change is a win for lawful gun owners, particularly those in rural areas who often travel their own property by ATV or snowmobile. By eliminating unnecessary restrictions, Iowa’s legislature has taken a step toward recognizing the practicality of carrying a loaded firearm while off-roading, particularly for self-defense in remote areas. The law strikes a balance by keeping discharge prohibitions intact except for nonambulatory hunters, maintaining safety while affirming Second Amendment rights.

Read the original story: New Iowa Law Lets Gun Owners Carry Loaded Firearms on Off-Road Vehicles, ATVs and Snowmobiles Without a Permit

RALEIGH, NC — In a significant advancement for Second Amendment rights in North Carolina, the House passed House Bill 674, known as the “Firearms Liberty Act,” on May 7 with a 70-42 vote. The legislation introduces lifetime concealed carry permits, streamlines renewals for lapsed permits, expands options for firearm storage during domestic violence protective orders, and enhances school safety protocols with defensive devices in biometric safes.

The bill now moves to the Senate after clearing its third reading in the House.

The bill allows North Carolina residents to apply for a concealed carry permit with no expiration date. While current law only provides for five-year permits, this option enables permit holders to avoid repetitive renewals while still subject to revocation if disqualified.

HB 674 extends the grace period for lapsed concealed carry permits. If a permit has been expired for fewer than 180 days, the applicant is no longer required to retake a firearms safety course. Sheriffs may also waive the training requirement for renewals up to one year after expiration.

The legislation also addresses the rights of gun owners under domestic violence protective orders. Individuals ordered to surrender firearms may now transfer those firearms to a qualified federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) after 15 days, rather than storing them exclusively with the sheriff. This provision ensures that lawful owners maintain property rights while complying with court orders.

FFLs entering into private “safety hold agreements” with firearm owners—where the firearm is voluntarily held for safekeeping—will now have protection from liability, provided there is no gross negligence. This provision encourages responsible gun ownership by offering a safe, voluntary method for temporarily storing firearms during times of crisis or concern.

The act authorizes trained school employees to access non-lethal defensive devices—such as chemical sprays or electronic incapacitation tools—secured in biometric safes on school property. These tools may only be used in response to a justified threat and are subject to annual training requirements set by the Center for Safer Schools in conjunction with state law enforcement training bodies.

HB 674 reflects a thoughtful and responsible approach to gun rights and public safety. By introducing lifetime concealed carry permits and reducing bureaucratic hurdles for law-abiding citizens, the General Assembly has reaffirmed its commitment to supporting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Simultaneously, the bill incorporates meaningful safeguards—especially in the areas of domestic violence and school safety—ensuring that enhanced gun rights do not come at the cost of public wellbeing.

Empowering responsible gun owners while improving security infrastructure, this legislation is a strong model for balancing liberty and safety.

Now that the bill has passed the House, it has been referred to the Senate’s Rules and Operations Committee as of May 8. If approved in committee, it will move to the Senate floor for a vote. If passed without amendment, it would proceed to the governor’s desk for signature. However, if the Senate makes changes, the bill would return to the House for concurrence. Key provisions—including the lifetime permit option and biometric school safety measures—are set to take effect in late 2025 and early 2026, pending final legislative approval.

Read the original story: North Carolina House Approves “Firearms Liberty Act” Offering Lifetime Carry Permits and New School Safety Measures

ST. PAUL, MN — The Minnesota Department of Public Safety has officially expanded its concealed carry permit reciprocity to include 33 states, significantly increasing recognition of out-of-state permits. This move follows the outcome of Worth v. Jacobson, a federal court case that struck down Minnesota’s age restriction preventing 18- to 20-year-olds from obtaining a carry permit.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2023 that the age restriction violated the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the state’s appeal in April 2025, leaving the ruling in place. As a result, Minnesota has updated its reciprocity policies to recognize permits from states that issue to 18- to 20-year-olds, aligning with constitutional standards.

The newly updated list includes:

This update ensures that law-abiding permit holders traveling to Minnesota from these states are recognized under the law. It also affirms the rights of peaceable young adults aged 18–20 to carry under the same legal protections as older adults.

For those looking to understand how Minnesota’s changes affect national reciprocity, the updated interactive concealed carry reciprocity maps offer a comprehensive and user-friendly way to view which states recognize each other’s permits. The map has already been revised to reflect Minnesota’s expanded recognition and is a valuable tool for travelers and concealed carriers nationwide.

This change is a win for responsible gun owners who rely on uniform recognition while traveling and a reminder of how court decisions can reinforce constitutional rights for all adults, regardless of age.

Read the original story: Minnesota Expands Concealed Carry Reciprocity to 33 States Following Court Ruling

FORT WORTH, TX — A group of Texas gun owners backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is asking a federal court to strike down parts of the Texas Penal Code that prohibit the carrying of firearms in specific public venues. The lawsuit, Ziegenfuss v. Martin, currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenges three separate carry bans covering establishments that derive 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales, racetracks, and sporting events.

At the heart of the case is the claim that Texas Penal Code § 46.03 unlawfully infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens by banning licensed carry in common public areas that are neither secured by law enforcement nor historically considered “sensitive places.” Plaintiffs Charles Ziegenfuss, David Montgomery, Brian Robinson, and FPC argue that these restrictions go beyond what the Constitution allows in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

As of April 29, 2025, both sides have filed motions for summary judgment, and the court has taken additional steps to ensure a thorough constitutional review. On April 22, Judge Mark Pittman ordered the appointment of an amicus curiae—a neutral third party—to defend the challenged Texas carry restrictions, suggesting that the court sees significant constitutional questions in play. The plaintiffs, while not objecting to the appointment, have requested the opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the amicus and to object to any specific appointee. The defendant in the case has also been updated to Freeman Martin, replacing Steven McCraw in his official capacity as Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

The court has set a May 14, 2025, deadline for opposition briefs from both sides, followed by reply briefs due by May 28. These filings will complete the summary judgment phase, after which the judge could issue a ruling without a trial. Depending on the court’s findings, Texas could be enjoined from enforcing the carry bans at bars (51% alcohol establishments), racetracks, and sporting events, or the bans could be upheld as consistent with historical firearm regulation.

Regardless of the outcome at the district court level, the case is positioned for further appellate review. Either party could appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the constitutional issues at stake—particularly regarding what qualifies as a “sensitive place” under Bruen—could make the case a strong candidate for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case is one of several post-Bruen lawsuits challenging state and local laws that restrict firearm carry in public spaces. At issue is the interpretation of what qualifies as a “sensitive place,” a category the Bruen Court described narrowly to include areas like courthouses, polling places, and legislative buildings. Texas’ inclusion of places such as bars and sports venues in that category is now under judicial scrutiny.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could set a major precedent within the Fifth Circuit and beyond, weakening state authority to broadly ban carry in crowded or commercial areas. It would also bolster ongoing efforts to roll back similar restrictions in other states, including New York, New Jersey, and California, where expanded sensitive-place laws have already triggered lawsuits.

For lawful Texas gun owners, the case represents a direct challenge to the scope of the state’s carry restrictions. Plaintiffs argue that they have been forced to disarm when visiting otherwise lawful public venues, even when they are not consuming alcohol or engaging in any unlawful conduct. These bans, they contend, impose undue burdens on their right to self-defense in everyday environments.

The Firearms Policy Coalition emphasized that public carry should not be criminalized based on arbitrary classifications. “The government cannot designate common public places off-limits to peaceable, armed citizens just because it disapproves of where people gather,” FPC wrote in a statement. If successful, the suit could affirm that the right to bear arms truly extends to “all places where people may lawfully be,” not just those the government deems acceptable.

Read the original story: Texas Lawsuit Could Blow Hole in Gun-Free Zone Laws Across the Country

Nobody wants to kill anyone. Taking a human life is a scary and traumatic thing that has moral and legal ramifications. These concerns may influence someone to fire a warning shot in the hopes it will scare the attacker away without the need to injure or kill another human being. But is firing a warning shot actually effective and a good idea?

Movies and TV shows frequently depict police and good guys firing a warning shot, then aiming at their adversary and saying something pithy like, “The next one goes in you.” This gives some people the idea that a warning shot will end the assault without them having to shoot anyone. That is a laudable outlook, but like the old gun culture folk tale that all you have to do is rack the slide on a pump action shotgun and the bad guy will run away, it is not always true. While there are certainly cases where a warning shot has stopped an assault or made the criminal run away, there are many more cases where they did not have the desired effect.

There are numerous solid reasons why police do not fire warning shots. While it is true that the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) changed its stance on warning shots to endorse them in 2017, they still stated that “warning shots are inherently dangerous.” They go on to say:

“…warning shots must have a defined target and can be considered only when deadly force is justified and when the officer reasonably believes that the warning shot will reduce the possibility that deadly force will have to be used.” 

 Their position on the topic can be overruled by local law enforcement agencies, and most officers still will not fire a warning shot for several reasons.

When I was working in Iraq, it quickly became obvious that the locals loved to shoot their guns in the air. They shot them off for weddings, celebrations, when they were angry, or to intimidate potential opponents. There was constant gunfire in Baghdad, and anywhere else lots of armed locals gathered. As a result, there were a lot of bullets falling out of the sky. I heard them coming down when I was out at night, and we literally had spent bullets lying on the walkways and porches of the fortified villas I sometimes lived in. During my time there, spent bullets went through a truck hood, the roof of someone’s sleeping quarters right over his bed, and hit a client who was walking in the compound at Camp Victory, fortunately only in the top of his buttock.

The fourth rule of safe gun handling states, “Always be sure of your target and beyond.” Essentially, you are responsible for every bullet that leaves the muzzle of your gun, no matter the circumstances. How can you be sure you are shooting in a safe direction, especially if you are in a house or, worse, an apartment complex?

You are always reacting in a defensive situation because the bad guy has the initiative. Every shot you fire takes time, maybe not a lot, but it does take time. If your assailant is pointing a gun at you, harming someone else, or charging at you with a knife, shifting off target and firing a warning shot puts you even further behind the power curve than you already are. 

Firing a warning shot is intended to scare the attacker away or at least dissuade them from assaulting you out of fear for their own safety. Unfortunately, warning shots can have the opposite effect. For example, if you are not the intended victim of the assault, a warning shot could draw the attacker’s attention to you. Now you are the intended victim, and you are still faced with the decision to shoot or not. Another issue is that the attacker may be on drugs or mentally ill. In both cases, a warning shot may have no effect and may even make them angrier and more homicidal. Warning shots can also escalate the situation by making the bad guy feel threatened enough to pull the trigger on their own gun. Finally, firing a warning shot may make the attacker feel that you will not actually shoot them, encouraging them to continue their assault because they think you are too scared or uncertain to stop them.

There is a lot of emphasis put on ammunition capacity when selecting an EDC or home defense gun. Some give you as many as 17 or 19 rounds, while others are so compact they may only hold 6 or 7. Derringers, something I do not recommend for self-defense, only hold 2. Firing a warning shot expends one of those rounds, and while you may think you still have plenty left, you have no real idea of how the encounter is going to go, so why take the chance? Some statistics indicate that as many as 47% of defensive encounters involve more than one assailant.

Firing warning shots may have legal consequences you never even thought of. In some localities, a warning shot may be considered as the use of deadly force, even if no one was hit. This is especially problematic if the other guy did not fire a shot. Under those circumstances, you would be the only one to use a firearm, and if you had time to fire a warning shot, a jury might conclude that you were not under threat of imminent death or serious injury when you fired.

Even if you are not charged with the use of deadly force, you could be charged with illegally discharging a firearm. It may sound crazy, but it has happened. You could also face criminal charges and/or a civil action if your warning shot hits an unintended target, such as another person, someone’s vehicle, or something critical like a home or even a gas line. A warning shot may also be used against you in court if you are charged as a result of the encounter, with an anti-self-defense prosecutor using it to portray you as trigger-happy and looking for a fight. Does that sound far-fetched? It, too, has happened.

 People sometimes fire warning shots when the assailant is running away to scare them enough to keep running and never come back. This has even more problems than firing an initial warning shot. Along with all the issues already discussed, a person running away is no longer a threat, so you have no legal basis for continuing to shoot.

The second rule of safe gun handling is, “Never let the muzzle cover anything which you are not willing to destroy.” That being the case, you should not point your gun at a violent assailant unless you are willing to shoot to defend yourself or your family. If you are not, you may want to reconsider carrying a gun. Drawing a gun and holding it carelessly or pointing it at the ground or in the air tells a criminal that you are not committed to using it. On the other hand, drawing a gun and aiming with firm determination is often all that is necessary to induce the bad guy to retreat.

The 2021 National Firearms Survey found that 31.1% of all gun owners who responded to the survey said that they had used their firearm in self-defense at least once. Of those who had used a gun to defend themselves, no shots were fired 81.9% of the time. Of that percentage, displaying a gun caused the attacker to withdraw 50.9% of the time, and simply telling someone they had a gun ended the incident 31% of the time. To put that in perspective, most criminals will flee as soon as they know their intended victim is armed. If the bad guy sticks around even after they know you are armed, it’s a reasonably safe bet that they intend to do you harm. In that case, a warning shot is unlikely to make any difference.

The reasons why people fire a warning shot are well-intentioned. In most cases, they do not want to harm anyone, although in a few cases, they may lack the commitment to follow through. However, given the many issues that may arise from firing a warning shot and the fact that most armed defensive encounters end with no shots being fired, warning shots are not a good idea under the vast majority of circumstances. You may have no choice except to draw and fire quickly, and if you do have time for another option, it is better to present a determined attitude that clearly says you are prepared to defend yourself.

Read the original story: The Problem with Warning Shots

TALLAHASSEE, FL — A comprehensive firearm bill that enhances carry rights for correctional probation officers and expands waiting period exemptions for certain firearm purchasers, including military servicemembers, has been officially enrolled and is now awaiting the governor’s signature.

House Bill 383, titled “Purchase and Possession of Firearms by Law Enforcement Officers, Correctional Officers, Correctional Probation Officers, and Servicemembers,” passed both chambers of the Florida Legislature with strong bipartisan support. The House approved the bill in a 111-0 vote, while the Senate followed with a 33-3 vote. The legislation is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2025, pending the governor’s approval.

The bill makes several notable changes to Florida Statutes:

In addition, the bill expands exemptions from Florida’s mandatory three-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of firearms. Exemptions now include:

The bill treats servicemembers the same as concealed carry license holders for the purposes of bypassing the waiting period, regardless of whether they are purchasing a handgun or a long gun.

This legislation is part of Florida’s ongoing effort to streamline firearm regulations for those serving in public safety or national defense roles, providing both clarity and increased recognition of their responsibilities.

From a Second Amendment standpoint, this bill underscores the principle that the right to keep and bear arms should not be subject to unnecessary delays or restrictions. While this legislation specifically addresses law enforcement, correctional officers, and servicemembers, it highlights the broader need to ensure that all law-abiding citizens are treated equally when exercising their constitutional rights.

Read the original story: New Florida Law Expands Concealed Carry Rights for Off-Duty Officers and Military Members

ELIZABETH CITY, NC — A tragic shooting at Elizabeth City State University (ECSU) during the school’s annual Viking Fest left one person dead and several others injured. The incident occurred early Sunday near the center of campus, prompting a lockdown and emergency response from multiple law enforcement agencies. The investigation remains active, and authorities have not yet released details about the suspect.

Shortly after the shooting, The Chronicle published an article titled “Shooting at HBCU as lawmakers consider ending concealed carry permits”, attempting to tie the criminal act to North Carolina’s pending constitutional carry legislation. This framing is deeply flawed. The article uses the incident to criticize House Bill 5 and Senate Bill 50—two proposals that would allow law-abiding adults who are legally permitted to own firearms to carry concealed without a government-issued permit. But these proposed changes have absolutely nothing to do with the kind of criminal violence that occurred at ECSU.

The article claims that these bills would “eliminate all safeguards currently in place” and “ease access to firearms.” That is incorrect. The proposed laws do not change who can buy or own a firearm. Federal and state laws still prohibit felons, domestic abusers, and other restricted individuals from possessing guns. Constitutional carry simply removes the requirement for a concealed handgun permit for those already legally eligible to carry. It does not eliminate background checks for firearm purchases, nor does it give criminals new access to weapons.

Calling the current permit system a “safeguard” is also misleading. North Carolina already allows open carry without a permit, meaning anyone legally allowed to possess a firearm can carry it visibly. The only difference with constitutional carry is that those same legal gun owners wouldn’t need an additional permit to carry concealed. If the law doesn’t stop someone from carrying openly, why require a separate process to conceal the same firearm?

Linking a violent act committed by a yet-unidentified individual—whose legal eligibility to possess a firearm is unknown—to legislation that applies only to lawful gun owners is both irresponsible and misleading. It confuses the public conversation about gun rights and distracts from the real issue: enforcing laws that already prohibit criminals from accessing firearms in the first place.

More than half the states in the country have adopted some form of permitless carry without seeing spikes in violence attributable to those laws. North Carolina’s bills follow this national trend, aiming to affirm the right of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves without unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles.

Read the original story: Shooting at ECSU Unrelated to Constitutional Carry Debate, Yet Media Ties the Two

CHARLESTON, WV — Governor Patrick Morrisey signed into law three major bills aimed at strengthening protections for the firearms industry and reinforcing Second Amendment rights in West Virginia. The legislation, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, addresses negligent marketing claims, prohibits discrimination against firearm businesses by financial institutions, and protects firearms rights during declared emergencies.

House Bill 2067, known as the West Virginia Firearms Marketing Clarification Act, limits the ability to bring negligent marketing lawsuits against firearm manufacturers and sellers. Under the new law, claims can only proceed if specific, strict criteria are met, such as direct targeting of prohibited persons, encouragement of unlawful use, and a clear violation of explicit firearm-specific statutes. Courts are required to summarily dismiss cases that do not meet these standards, narrowing the interpretation of the “predicate exception” under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

House Bill 3342, the Firearms Industry Nondiscrimination Act (FIND Act), prohibits financial institutions doing business with the state from discriminating against firearm-related businesses or trade associations. The law ensures that lawful firearm commerce cannot be targeted through discriminatory financial practices unless justified by traditional business reasons or compliance with regulatory directives. It also establishes civil remedies and allows the Attorney General to act against violators.

Senate Bill 270 amends state emergency management laws to prevent government officials from suspending or restricting firearms rights during declared emergencies. The legislation designates firearms businesses, including manufacturers, retailers, and shooting ranges, as essential services. It also prohibits the confiscation, restriction, or forced closure of these entities during emergencies except under narrowly defined circumstances involving direct criminal activity.

The new laws will take effect in early July 2025.

NSSF®, the Firearm Industry Trade Association, praised Gov. Morrisey’s leadership in a press release, calling the new laws essential to safeguarding lawful commerce in arms and protecting citizens’ constitutional rights.

Governor Morrisey stated, “As Governor, I will always support and defend West Virginians’ God-given constitutional rights. The bills I signed today further enshrine West Virginia’s strong support for the Second Amendment.”

These measures solidify West Virginia’s reputation as one of the most firearm-friendly states in the nation. By protecting lawful firearm commerce and ensuring constitutional rights are maintained even during emergencies, the state sets a strong example for others.

The passage of these bills reinforces the principle that responsible firearm ownership and lawful commerce should not be undermined by discriminatory practices or governmental overreach, especially during times of crisis.

Read the original story: West Virginia Governor Signs Sweeping New Laws Protecting Firearms Industry and Second Amendment

BISMARCK, ND — On April 23rd, North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum signed House Bill 1588 into law, enacting several significant enhancements to the state’s firearm carry and self-defense laws.

House Bill 1588, sponsored by Representative Ben Koppelman, revises a number of existing statutes concerning concealed carry and possession of firearms at public gatherings. One of the major changes eliminates the obligation for individuals carrying a concealed firearm without a permit to proactively inform law enforcement officers during in-person interactions, such as traffic stops, unless the officer specifically inquires about it.

The new law also reduces the penalty for unlawfully carrying a firearm at a public gathering. Previously considered an infraction, it will now be treated as a noncriminal offense, punishable by a $100 fee. Additionally, HB 1588 grants the State Board of Higher Education the authority to permit firearms on school properties and in university buildings, allowing greater flexibility in setting policies that could enhance security measures.

Other updates in the law include changes to the testing requirements for concealed carry licenses, raising the maximum fee a test administrator can charge from $50 to $100. Moreover, individuals carrying under the permitless carry provisions must still present a valid driver’s license or state-issued ID if requested by law enforcement.

The NRA has praised the passage of HB 1588, thanking Governor Burgum, Representative Koppelman, and Second Amendment advocates across North Dakota for their support in advancing the rights of law-abiding citizens.

This legislation marks an important step in respecting and strengthening the constitutional rights of North Dakotans. By streamlining the concealed carry process and clarifying obligations during law enforcement encounters, the state continues to promote responsible firearm ownership while protecting individual liberties.

Read the original story: North Dakota Governor Signs Major Gun Law: No More Duty to Inform, Public Gathering Carry Downgraded to $100 Ticket, and Campus Firearms Approved

BAINBRIDGE, GA — Taurus has officially announced the release of the new Taurus 58, a lightweight, high-capacity .380 ACP pistol designed specifically for everyday carry needs. The firearm blends modern materials with classic functionality, offering users a durable, easy-to-carry option without sacrificing reliability or performance.

The Taurus 58 features an impressive 15-round magazine capacity in the compact .380 ACP platform. Built on an aluminum frame, the pistol strikes a balance between strength and reduced weight, making it ideal for those who carry daily and prioritize comfort alongside dependability.

Incorporating a double action/single action (DA/SA) trigger system, the Taurus 58 provides shooters with versatility. The initial double action pull is deliberate and smooth, while subsequent single action shots offer a crisp and clean break. This system allows users to tailor their shooting experience to their preferred carry style.

Designed for ambidextrous use, the Taurus 58 includes a manual safety and decocker accessible from either side of the frame, ensuring convenient and safe operation for both left- and right-handed shooters. The pistol also features an integrated front sight and a drift-adjustable rear sight, offering reliable accuracy straight out of the box while allowing for personalized adjustments.

Consumers will have the option to choose between two finishes: a sleek black or a classic stainless steel, catering to a range of personal styles.

The Taurus 58 reflects the company’s continued commitment to innovation and addressing real-world carry needs. It offers a solid combination of capacity, shootability, and portability that should appeal to both new and seasoned concealed carriers.

With its user-friendly design and practical features, the Taurus 58 is set to become a strong contender in the everyday carry market. Taurus continues to focus on delivering firearms that prioritize safety, reliability, and comfort for responsible citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Read the original story: Taurus 58: 15+1 Capacity .380 ACP With DA/SA Trigger Built for Everyday Carry