General Firearm Articles - USA Carry

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.

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. 

Some of the worst offenses are:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 of the biggest names in the ammo world, analyzing verified scores from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) and Trustpilot. The results show clear differences in customer satisfaction—and one company came out on top.

This independent comparison used a weighted score system based on BBB and Trustpilot data, including:

Here are the results:

Ammunition Depot stood out not just for its high ratings, but also for the consistency across both review platforms.

According to the report:

These numbers gave Ammunition Depot the highest overall score in the report.

Whether you’re buying for training, self-defense, or long-term preparedness, trust in your ammo source is critical. While price and inventory play a role, reliability and customer satisfaction are equally important—especially when buying online.

Verified reviews and BBB records offer insight that flashy websites and ad copy can’t. They show how a company actually performs when something goes wrong, or when a customer needs help.

Online ammo buyers have more choices than ever, but not all retailers are created equal. This latest third-party review data shows that Ammunition Depot currently leads the pack in terms of trust and customer satisfaction.

Ammunition Depot is a current USA Carry sponsor. This article’s rankings are based entirely on publicly available third-party data (Trustpilot, BBB) and were confirmed independently.

Read the original story: Who Do Gun Owners Trust Most for Ammo? Here’s What the Data Shows

WASHINGTON, DC — The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced a major policy shift on Friday, rolling back its controversial “zero-tolerance” stance toward Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) during compliance inspections. The updated national policy aims to promote fairness, consistency, and a renewed emphasis on public safety while respecting the rights of lawful gun dealers.

Replacing the 2021 Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement policy, the new guidance instructs ATF investigators to use discretion in evaluating inspection results, distinguishing between clerical errors and willful misconduct. This marks a significant departure from the prior policy, which critics say often led to license revocations over minor mistakes.

“This update is about getting it right and making sure we’re focused on public safety,” said ATF Acting Director Daniel Driscoll. “Under the previous policy, some licensees were being penalized for simple mistakes such as forgetting to put their license number on forms. This new guidance gives our investigators the discretion to tell the difference between an honest mistake and a real threat to public safety.”

Under the revised policy, investigators are instructed to consider mitigating factors such as self-reporting, corrective actions taken by the licensee, and overall compliance history. Rather than an automatic revocation for any violation, the policy now provides a framework that includes education, warnings, or administrative action only when appropriate.

Key changes include:

The update underscores a more balanced approach to industry oversight, reflecting a shift toward partnering with rather than penalizing responsible dealers. ATF maintains that its inspections remain a crucial tool in preventing illegal firearms trafficking by identifying patterns of concern such as straw purchases and missing inventory.

This policy adjustment appears to be a step toward restoring trust between federal regulators and the lawful gun industry. For many FFLs, the previous enforcement approach created uncertainty and fear of losing their livelihood over what were often administrative oversights.

The change affirms that law-abiding gun dealers are not adversaries, but allies in the broader mission of enhancing public safety and protecting constitutional rights.

Read the original story: FFLs Can Make an Honest Mistake Now: ATF Replaces Biden’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a historic and tightly contested vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1—the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”—by a single vote, 215-214. Included in the bill is the full removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA), eliminating the $200 tax and federal registration process that have long restricted suppressor ownership in the United States.

The provision, based on Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, removes suppressors from the NFA’s definition of a firearm, and sets the transfer and making tax at $0. If signed into law, this change would make suppressors available through the standard NICS background check system—no more tax stamps, no more ATF registration, and no more months-long wait times.

Final House Vote Breakdown:

Every Yea vote came from Republican lawmakers. Democrats voted in unanimous opposition. Two Republicans broke ranks and voted Nay, one voted “Present,” and another did not vote—making the narrow victory possible by just a one-vote margin.

Gun rights groups hailed the vote as a landmark win. The American Suppressor Association (ASA) called it a “HUGE WIN for suppressors, 2A rights, and freedom!!” Gun Owners of America (GOA) also applauded the outcome, crediting Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) for championing the effort in the House and securing its inclusion via the reconciliation process.

“Eliminating the suppressor registration and tax is a major step forward for liberty and safety,” said Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA. “Gun owners have one less unconstitutional hurdle to worry about—but we’re not done.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) echoed the sentiment, calling it a “monumental victory for Second Amendment rights.”

Short-Barreled Firearms Still in NFA

Despite the success with suppressors, GOA is urging lawmakers not to stop there. The organization is calling on the Senate to add provisions from the SHORT Act to repeal NFA restrictions on short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and brace-equipped pistols—firearms still heavily regulated under current federal law.

“Now, GOA is calling on the Senate to also protect short-barreled firearms,” said Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs. “The elimination of suppressor taxes and registration is massive—but the job’s not finished.”

What’s Next?

The bill now moves to the U.S. Senate, where it can pass through the budget reconciliation process with a simple majority of 51 votes. Advocates are urging gun owners to immediately contact their senators and demand the suppressor repeal stay intact—and that SBR deregulation be added.

The American Suppressor Association has launched a resource to help:

If passed by the Senate and signed into law, this would be the most significant rollback of federal gun regulations since the NFA was enacted in 1934. The clock is ticking, and continued grassroots pressure is essential to carry this win across the finish line.

Read the original story: House Passes Removing Suppressors from NFA by One Vote in 215-214 Decision, Urge Senate to Finish the Job

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A critical federal effort is underway to stop credit card companies and financial institutions from tracking lawful firearm and ammunition purchases using merchant category codes (MCCs) that single out gun retailers. Senate Bill 1715 and its House companion, H.R. 1181, known as the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, would prohibit the use of a firearm retailer-specific MCC — a system already exposed as a tool for backdoor surveillance of gun owners.

Introduced by Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN) and Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV), this legislation aims to ensure that Second Amendment rights are not quietly undermined by anti-gun activists leveraging financial infrastructure to monitor or deny lawful transactions. Both bills would make it illegal for payment card networks and processors to assign or require these targeted codes, which are currently used to categorize businesses for transaction tracking.

NSSF, the firearm industry’s trade association, praised the legislation, warning that MCCs have “already proven to be exploited by the federal government for political purposes and denying lawful credit card transactions.” Lawrence Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President and General Counsel, called the MCC policy an “Orwellian antigun scheme” and lauded Senator Hagerty for standing up to both government overreach and financial institutions trying to act as gatekeepers of constitutionally protected rights.

“Gun control proponents… have already admitted the use of a firearm retailer-specific Merchant Category Code is intended to monitor and approve or deny firearm and ammunition purchases,” said Keane. “No American should be concerned that banks or the federal government are employing this scheme to monitor the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.”

Senator Hagerty’s bill has already earned the support of 16 Senate co-sponsors, while Rep. Moore’s House version has gathered backing from over 100 lawmakers. The legislative push builds on a wave of state-level action — 20 states have now enacted laws banning firearm-specific MCCs, including Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Tennessee. Meanwhile, just three states — California, Colorado, and New York — have passed laws mandating the use of these invasive tracking codes.

This clear disparity across state lines has already led major card companies — including Visa, Mastercard, and American Express — to pause implementation of the firearm-specific MCCs, citing legal uncertainty and widespread opposition. Visa directly acknowledged that the backlash from states created “significant confusion” in the payments ecosystem.

And for good reason.

The MCC system cannot actually identify what was purchased — only where a purchase occurred. As Visa’s CEO pointed out, there is no way to distinguish between someone buying a rifle and someone buying camping gear at the same store. The code’s true purpose is not crime prevention, but rather political control and the gradual normalization of surveillance over a lawful and constitutionally protected industry.

Proponents of these federal bills understand exactly what’s at stake. Allowing credit card companies to monitor purchases at gun shops under the guise of safety is nothing more than a workaround to build unofficial watchlists and pressure banks into denying services to lawful firearm retailers and customers. These codes do not deter crime — they create a chilling effect on the exercise of rights.

With the introduction of the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act in both chambers, and a President who has pledged to defend the Second Amendment now in the White House, the opportunity has never been better to lock in federal protections that stop these codes from ever taking root.

The states have led — now it’s time for Congress to finish the job. These bills should be passed without delay to ensure that law-abiding Americans are not tracked, flagged, or targeted simply for exercising their constitutional rights.

The Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act is now under review in congressional committees:

To move forward, each bill will need to:

Gun owners and Second Amendment supporters are encouraged to contact their U.S. Senators and Representatives to express strong support for these bills. With broad grassroots backing and the momentum already established by 20 states, now is the time to ensure that this legislation reaches the President’s desk.

Read the original story: Credit Card Tracking of Gun Purchases Faces Federal Ban in New Pro-2A Legislation

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

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