Firearm Laws & Litigation Articles - USA Carry

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

JACKSONVILLE, FL — A Jacksonville city councilman has alleged that private security personnel under the city’s direction maintained an unauthorized registry of citizens legally carrying concealed firearms into municipal buildings, potentially violating Florida law and the U.S. Constitution.

Councilman Nick Howland (R-At Large, Group 3) disclosed that private security stationed at City Hall and the Yates Building—the latter housing the Tax Collector and Property Appraiser’s Offices—had allegedly kept written records of individuals who entered with lawfully concealed firearms. According to Howland, this documentation included personal details such as names, contact information, and the type of firearm carried.

This is chilling—and it should outrage every law-abiding Floridian.

The Deegan Administration has kept a registry of individuals who lawfully carry personal firearms into City Hall—a blatant violation of state law and likely the Constitution. Florida is a “no registry” state for… https://t.co/M1ZMx7rxQm

Florida statute explicitly prohibits any government entity or person from maintaining a list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or their owners. The law includes significant penalties for non-compliance, including civil fines up to $5 million and potential third-degree felony charges for individuals found in violation.

Councilman Howland claims the practice began in July 2023—the same month Mayor Donna Deegan took office. While the mayor’s office asserts the policy may predate her administration, it has not directly denied the existence of the registry. Instead, a spokesperson stated that the city is reviewing policy directives from prior leadership and confirmed that it had complied with a subpoena from the State Attorney’s Office.

“The Deegan Administration has kept a registry of individuals who lawfully carry personal firearms into City Hall—a blatant violation of state law and likely the Constitution,” Howland wrote in a social media post. “This reckless move exposes taxpayers to serious legal liability.”

Though Howland stated the State Attorney’s Office is investigating the matter, the office itself declined to confirm the existence of any formal inquiry.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has since weighed in, calling the allegations a “serious breach of Florida law” if proven true. “Government gun registries are antithetical to the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” Uthmeier said via social media. He also pledged to ensure accountability if any laws were broken.

This incident is likely to heighten concerns among gun owners in Florida, a state with strong preemption laws designed to prevent local governments from enacting firearms regulations that conflict with state law. Since July 1, 2023, Floridians have been permitted to carry concealed firearms into government buildings, provided they are otherwise legally allowed to do so.

While the full scope and intent behind the alleged registry remain unclear, this case underscores the importance of ongoing vigilance and enforcement of Florida’s firearms preemption statutes. Florida’s “no registry” law is a critical safeguard for gun owners, ensuring that legally armed citizens are not subjected to unwarranted scrutiny or surveillance by local authorities.

Read the original story: Jacksonville Mayor’s Office Accused of Overseeing Alleged Illegal Firearm Registry

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

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

SACRAMENTO, CA — California lawmakers are advancing a controversial new bill, SB 704, that would treat firearm barrels like complete firearms, requiring all sales and transfers to go through a licensed dealer with a background check. The legislation, introduced by Senator Jesse Arreguín (D), is the latest in a series of proposals that expand regulatory control over individual gun parts — this time targeting components that have never been considered firearms on their own.

Under SB 704, beginning July 1, 2026, firearm barrels could no longer be sold or transferred privately or online without going through a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would mandate in-person transactions, require a background check, and compel dealers to document the sale, including the purchaser’s information and date of transfer. Any violations would be classified as misdemeanors.

California already regulates frames, receivers, and precursor parts, but barrels have traditionally been unregulated. Critics of the bill argue that this is a deliberate strategy to gradually choke off the ability of law-abiding gun owners to repair or customize their firearms — a form of indirect gun control through component-level restrictions.

Second Amendment supporters are sounding the alarm. The National Association for Gun Rights warned that the bill is part of a broader agenda to “target the secondary market” and “ban online sales” by imposing regulation on basic gun parts that pose no threat on their own. Many see this as a continuation of efforts to clamp down on homemade and 3D-printed firearms by regulating every part that could possibly be used in a build, no matter how benign.

A bill has been filed in California that would require background checks for gun barrels.

We have warned that this was always the end goal.
Target the secondary market — driving up the cost of repairing and maintaining firearms in an effort to win through attrition.

The… pic.twitter.com/YgQ1ROYStj

Firearm barrels are not serialized. They cannot fire a round on their own, nor are they sufficient to construct a working firearm without a legally regulated frame or receiver. By requiring background checks for barrels, the state is blurring the line between sensible regulation and punitive overreach.

This bill also raises concerns about cost and compliance burdens for hobbyists and gunsmiths. It would make simple maintenance, such as replacing a worn barrel, subject to the same process as buying a new firearm. Gun owners in rural areas, who rely on online retailers and parts suppliers, would be disproportionately affected.

From a Second Amendment perspective, SB 704 is yet another reminder of how expansive and persistent California’s gun control efforts have become. The concern is not just about barrels — it’s about where this regulatory strategy ends. If barrels require background checks today, what’s next? Springs? Pins? Screws?

As of April 30, 2025, SB 704 remains in committee in the California Senate. It was last set for hearing on April 29 in the Senate Committee on Public Safety, following amendments made on March 26. The bill has not yet reached a floor vote.

If it passes out of committee, SB 704 will proceed through the legislative process toward a full Senate vote. If approved, it will then move to the State Assembly. Opponents are urging California gun owners to contact their legislators and voice strong opposition before it advances further.

Read the original story: California Lawmakers Want Background Checks for Gun Barrels — What’s Next, Springs and Screws?

EMPORIA, KS — The Kansas Supreme Court has ruled that Bass Pro Outdoor World and Beretta U.S.A. are immune from a product-liability lawsuit filed by Marquise Johnson, who was accidentally shot by a friend attempting to disassemble a Beretta handgun inside a vehicle.

The case, Johnson v. Bass Pro Outdoor World, involved a 2018 incident where André Lewis, believing a pistol could not fire without a magazine, pulled the trigger to disassemble his Beretta APX while sitting in a parked car. The handgun, which had a live round chambered, discharged and struck Johnson in the legs, leading to a partial leg amputation.

Johnson filed suit against the gun’s manufacturer, importer, and retailer—Beretta Italy, Beretta U.S.A., and Bass Pro—alleging that the handgun was defective for lacking a magazine disconnect safety and loaded-chamber indicator. The Lyon District Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), a federal law shielding firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability when their products are misused criminally or unlawfully.

The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed the district court, arguing that PLCAA immunity should only apply when a discharge is intentional. However, the Kansas Supreme Court reinstated the original decision, holding that the PLCAA bars Johnson’s lawsuit because the gun was discharged due to a “volitional act”—Lewis’ intentional trigger pull—that constituted a criminal offense under Kansas law.

While no charges were filed against Lewis, the Supreme Court found that his actions violated K.S.A. 21-6308(a)(3)(B), which criminalizes discharging a firearm on a public road and is classified as a strict-liability crime, requiring no criminal intent.

The Court rejected Johnson’s claim that a lack of intent exempted the act from PLCAA protections. The ruling emphasized that the federal statute does not require intent to discharge the weapon, only that a volitional act (like pulling the trigger) causes a discharge that constitutes a crime.

This decision reinforces a key principle behind the PLCAA: firearm manufacturers and retailers are not liable when their lawfully sold products are later used in criminal conduct, even if unintentionally. The Court also underscored that even if the gun’s design had shortcomings, federal law recognizes the act of criminal misuse as the sole proximate cause of injury in such cases.

This ruling aligns with similar interpretations in other jurisdictions and affirms the legal insulation provided to the firearms industry when its products are used contrary to their intended operation, whether through ignorance or carelessness.

From a Second Amendment perspective, this decision underscores the strength of federal protections for lawful gun manufacturers and sellers, reaffirming that responsibility for unsafe handling lies with the individual, not the industry. The ruling preserves the critical balance that allows Americans to access firearms for lawful purposes while protecting manufacturers from liability when users act unlawfully or irresponsibly.

Read the original story: Bass Pro and Beretta Cleared After Friend’s Negligent Discharge Leaves Man Amputated in Car Shooting

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