WASHINGTON, D.C. — A newly submitted Senate amendment aims to reverse a key victory for gun owners: the elimination of the $200 tax on National Firearms Act (NFA) items. Senate Amendment 2973, introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), would raise the tax on NFA-regulated firearms such as suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns to $4,709 — even though Congress recently reduced the same tax to $0 in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB).

The reduction was part of a carefully structured reconciliation effort that unfolded over months. Lawmakers originally intended to include the full Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and SHORT Act in the OBBB, which would have fully removed suppressors and other NFA items from regulation. However, because reconciliation rules limit what types of provisions can be included, particularly under the Senate’s Byrd Rule, much of the original repeal language was excluded.

Instead, the House and Senate agreed on a strategy to zero out the NFA tax via a tax-focused provision. This change was upheld by the Senate Parliamentarian and supported by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who declined to override the Parliamentarian’s rulings throughout the process. The bill passed both chambers, and President Donald Trump signed it into law on July 4, 2025.

The result: the $200 NFA tax — in place since 1934 — was eliminated for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapon” as defined in the statute.

Sen. Murphy’s amendment, submitted on July 22, 2025, would:

The amendment is attached to H.R. 3944, the 2026 appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs. As of now, it remains tabled and unscheduled for debate.

There are significant barriers preventing Amendment 2973 from gaining traction:

The removal of the NFA tax was a major step toward restoring affordability and access for law-abiding Americans. Though full repeal of the HPA and SHORT Act remains the goal, eliminating the tax itself removes one of the most significant financial barriers to ownership.

The introduction of Amendment 2973 — seeking to increase the tax by more than 2,200% over the original amount — highlights just how fragile these wins can be. But based on current legislative dynamics, this amendment is not expected to advance. Still, its introduction underscores the importance of staying engaged in the legislative process and defending recent Second Amendment victories.

Read the original story: Sen. Murphy Pushes $4,709 NFA Tax Just Weeks After Congress Voted to End It

TRENTON, NJ — A coalition of Second Amendment organizations and individual plaintiffs has filed a federal lawsuit against New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin and State Police Superintendent Patrick Callahan, challenging the state’s complete ban on the possession of firearm suppressors. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

Filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the complaint (Case No. 25-13527) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to overturn the state’s criminal prohibition on suppressors, also known as silencers. Plaintiffs include the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the American Suppressor Association, and several New Jersey residents, all of whom are legally eligible to own firearms.

Under current New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. § 2C:39-3(c)), suppressors are listed as prohibited weapons. Possession of a suppressor is a fourth-degree crime, punishable under state statute. While suppressors are regulated at the federal level under the National Firearms Act, they are lawful to possess in 42 states and registered by millions of Americans.

The plaintiffs argue that suppressors are not only in “common use” but are also essential for safe and effective firearm handling. According to the complaint, suppressors reduce hearing damage, mitigate recoil, improve training, enhance self-defense effectiveness, and decrease noise pollution — particularly for shooters training in residential or rural areas.

The lawsuit highlights that suppressors do not make gunshots silent, contrary to Hollywood portrayals. “They are loud, but they reduce decibel levels to safer thresholds,” the suit states, referencing data from the CDC and National Hearing Conservation Association that endorse suppressors for hearing protection.

Three named plaintiffs — all New Jersey residents — detail how the ban harms their safety and quality of life. One, a retired Marine and firearms instructor with service-related hearing loss, explained that he would use suppressors to protect what remains of his hearing if allowed. Another plaintiff, a veteran paramedic with the FDNY, cited occupational hearing damage as a key reason for seeking to use suppressors. A third owns a federally registered suppressor but is unable to store or use it at his home in New Jersey.

The lawsuit also points to recent legal developments, including a 2025 brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice in another suppressor case (Peterson v. Garland), in which the government acknowledged that a total ban on suppressors would be unconstitutional.

Citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiffs argue that New Jersey cannot justify its ban under the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Suppressors, they contend, are neither “dangerous” nor “unusual” — the legal threshold for restrictions on arms under Supreme Court precedent.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Hartman & Winnicki, P.C., and Cooper & Kirk, PLLC. They seek a ruling that would declare New Jersey’s suppressor ban unconstitutional and permanently block its enforcement.

If successful, the case could set a precedent impacting similar laws in the few remaining states that continue to prohibit suppressor ownership.

New Jersey has not yet filed a response to the complaint.

The case is Padua et al. v. Platkin et al., No. 25-13527, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Read the original story: Gun Rights Groups Sue New Jersey Over Silencer Ban: Say It’s Unconstitutional

WASHINGTON, DC — In a bold move to safeguard Second Amendment rights, Congressman Tony Wied (WI-08) introduced the Freedom from Improper Regulation and Enforcement (FIRE) Act on July 17, 2025. The proposed legislation would ban federal, state, and local governments from restricting firearm magazine capacity, effectively eliminating a patchwork of regulations that limit magazine size across different jurisdictions.

The FIRE Act prohibits any federal agency from implementing magazine capacity restrictions and blocks state and local governments from enacting or enforcing such laws. The bill has already gained support from several House Republicans, including original cosponsors Reps. Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Mike Collins (GA-10), Dave Taylor (OH-02), Sheri Biggs (SC-03), and Russ Fulcher (ID-01).

“For too long, the federal government has infringed on Americans’ Second Amendment rights while maintaining a confusing, inconsistent system that lacks a uniform national standard and invites legal disparity,” Wied stated. “The FIRE Act ensures that law-abiding gun owners can access magazines of any size, no matter where they are in the United States. It’s well past time we take the Founding Fathers’ words ‘shall not be infringed’ seriously.”

The bill is a direct response to a wave of state and local laws that restrict so-called “high-capacity” magazines, often defined as those holding more than 10 rounds. These laws vary by jurisdiction and firearm type, creating legal uncertainty for gun owners traveling across state lines.

A 2024 report by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) revealed that of the 973 million detachable magazines produced between 1990 and 2021, approximately 718 million held more than ten rounds. This data, including production during the 1994–2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, underscores that magazines with capacities above ten rounds are the industry standard, not the exception.

“The Fire Act protects law-abiding gun owners and keeps state and local governments, as well as future administrations, from infringing on your Second Amendment rights,” said Rep. Tom Tiffany. Rep. Dave Taylor added that the bill “will not only enshrine Americans’ right to self-defense, but it will also remove confusion about permissible magazine capacities.”

The legislation has been endorsed by major national gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation.

NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford noted, “Because Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of magazines that hold over 10 rounds, bans on such magazines violate the Second Amendment.”

GOA’s Aidan Johnston emphasized that the bill is a “common sense solution to ensure gun owners are not criminalized for owning a mere firearm accessory.”

NSSF Senior Vice President Lawrence Keane stated, “Gun control activists and lawmakers in states who push restrictions on magazine capacity are doing so in direct conflict with the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.”

The FIRE Act reinforces that a citizen’s right to self-defense should not be limited by arbitrary magazine capacity restrictions.

While the path to passage remains uncertain in the Senate, the FIRE Act adds significant momentum to ongoing legislative efforts to strengthen federal protections for lawful gun ownership.

The introduction of the FIRE Act reflects a broader push to restore consistency to firearm laws and prevent legal jeopardy for responsible gun owners who carry what the industry defines as standard-capacity magazines. As support grows, it signals a continued commitment among lawmakers to reaffirm the unambiguous protections of the Second Amendment.

Read the original story: Congressman Introduces FIRE Act to End Magazine Capacity Restrictions Nationwide

A potentially precedent-setting gun rights case returned to federal court last month, when a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in Baird v. Bonta, a challenge to California’s effective ban on openly carrying a loaded firearm in public. I hadn’t been tracking this case until recently, but after diving into the details, it’s clear this isn’t just another legal skirmish—it’s a serious challenge to how California (and potentially other states) regulate open carry. While I don’t personally open carry, I believe it should be legal, and this case could end up shaping how far that right extends under the Second Amendment.

Plaintiff Mark Baird originally filed the case in 2019, arguing that California’s law prohibiting the open carry of loaded firearms in public violates the Second Amendment. The state does technically allow for open carry licenses in counties with fewer than 200,000 residents, but the lawsuit contends that these are inaccessible in practice.

After Baird filed the lawsuit in April 2019, the case moved slowly. On December 8, 2022, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller denied his motion for a preliminary injunction and dismissed part of the case. Baird appealed shortly after, filing with the Ninth Circuit on January 3, 2023. In April 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a rare procedural rebuke of Judge Mueller’s handling of the case and agreed to hear the appeal, which was argued before a three-judge panel on June 24, 2025 in Seattle.

The Ninth Circuit hearing was held on June 24, 2025, in Seattle, Washington. While the case originated in California, the Ninth Circuit regularly holds hearings in different cities throughout its jurisdiction, including Seattle.

Attorney Amy Bellantoni, representing plaintiff Mark Baird, emphasized that the challenge is both facial and as-applied. A facial challenge argues that a law is unconstitutional on its face, while an as-applied challenge argues that it is unconstitutional in the way it’s applied to a specific person or situation. In this case, the argument is that the law itself is overly broad, and also that the way it’s enforced against Baird violates his rights—even in a rural county where open carry licenses are supposed to be available.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke was especially critical of the state’s claim that California’s laws constitute a “licensing regime” rather than a ban. He questioned that framing sharply, saying:

“It’s a mischaracterization … it’s like saying ‘you can’t drive a car in the wilderness, but don’t worry — you can apply for a license to ride a camel.’”

Later in the hearing, Deputy SG Aaron Pennekamp admitted:

“There isn’t any record evidence of any open carry licenses having been issued.”

This admission struck at the heart of the plaintiffs’ case—that the law may appear to allow open carry, but functionally acts as a statewide ban.

The court is expected to issue a written opinion by the end of August 2025.

If the panel sides with Baird, California could request what’s called an en banc review, where a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges (usually 11) would re-hear the case. This happens when a losing party argues that the panel’s decision conflicts with precedent or raises exceptionally important legal questions. Failing that, the state could petition the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the case.

This case has the potential to be a major development in Second Amendment litigation—but that’s not guaranteed. If Baird wins and the Supreme Court gets involved, it could set a nationwide precedent for open carry rights. On the other hand, if the panel sides with California and the Supreme Court declines to review the case, its impact could remain limited to states in the Ninth Circuit.

Either way, Baird v. Bonta is shaping up to be a pivotal case worth watching.

Read the original story: California Sued Over Open Carry Ban in Baird v. Bonta — Ninth Circuit Hearing Could Change Everything

REDBY, MN — A suspected intruder was fatally shot after forcing entry into a home in the Redby District on July 9, 2025, according to the Red Lake Department of Public Safety.

Red Lake Dispatch received a 911 call from a homeowner reporting that a male subject had kicked open the front door to their residence. The caller advised that the suspect was shot immediately after making forced entry into the home.

Officers arrived at the scene to find individuals inside the residence attempting life-saving measures on the wounded intruder. Red Lake EMS also responded but pronounced the man dead at the scene.

Authorities have not released the identity of the deceased. The Red Lake Department of Public Safety is leading the investigation with assistance from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

In home defense situations, this incident underscores the importance of secure entry points and being mentally and physically prepared to act decisively when confronted with an immediate threat. While the occupants’ attempt to perform life-saving measures on the intruder is commendable, it is not generally advisable. There have been many instances where attackers regain consciousness and resume their assault. Homeowners should prioritize securing the scene and ensuring their own safety until law enforcement arrives. Additionally, it is critical to understand local laws governing self-defense and the use of deadly force inside the home.

Read the original story: Forced Entry Turns Fatal: Homeowner Shoots Man Who Kicked in Front Door

ALTOONA, PA — Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and Pennsylvania resident Bonita Shreve have filed a federal lawsuit challenging a nearly century-old law that prohibits ordinary Americans from mailing handguns through the United States Postal Service. The suit, filed on July 14 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, argues that the 1927 statute violates the Second Amendment and lacks historical justification under the legal framework established by recent Supreme Court rulings.

At the center of the case is 18 U.S.C. § 1715, a law enacted during the Prohibition era that bans the mailing of pistols, revolvers, and other concealable firearms by individuals who are not federally licensed firearms dealers or government agents. While USPS continues to transport handguns daily for law enforcement and FFL holders, law-abiding private citizens like Shreve face felony penalties — including up to two years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine — for attempting to do the same.

Shreve, a lawful gun owner from Blair County, Pennsylvania, seeks to mail a Bersa Thunder handgun as a gift to her father in eastern Pennsylvania. Because private carriers such as UPS and FedEx do not permit non-FFLs to ship handguns, her only remaining option would be USPS — which federal law prohibits.

The plaintiffs argue that such restrictions are inconsistent with the original public understanding of the Second Amendment and cannot survive under the constitutional scrutiny laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, and United States v. Rahimi. These cases emphasized that firearm regulations must be rooted in the Nation’s historical tradition, which plaintiffs argue this 1927 ban is not.

The 25-page complaint alleges that:
• There is no Founding-era tradition of banning the mailing or shipment of firearms by law-abiding citizens.
• The law creates an unjustifiable distinction between government agents, FFLs, and private individuals.
• Modern controls, such as those under the Gun Control Act and Brady Act, already regulate firearm transactions without a complete mailing ban.

GOA and GOF, representing millions of supporters nationwide, contend that the current USPS policy is not only outdated but also infringes on Americans’ ability to transfer firearms lawfully for self-defense purposes.

“This Prohibition-era relic is arbitrary and unconstitutional,” GOA said in a public statement. “Americans should not be treated as criminals for mailing a handgun to a family member within the same state.”

The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to strike down the ban and prevent future enforcement. It is another in a series of legal efforts to roll back federal firearm restrictions that lack historical support under Bruen-style analysis.

This lawsuit also highlights the practical difficulties that everyday gun owners face in complying with firearm laws — especially when transporting handguns between family members for lawful purposes.

Gun rights organizations have long argued that Second Amendment protections extend beyond simple possession to encompass necessary means of exercising that right, including transportation and transfer. As courts increasingly apply text-and-history scrutiny to gun regulations, this USPS handgun ban will now face a constitutional test of its own.

Read the original story: Feds Allow Agencies to Mail Guns — But Ban You? GOA Says Enough

REDMOND, WA — A late-night confrontation over a suspected car theft escalated into a defensive shooting outside a business near the 15800 block of Redmond Way on July 6, according to Redmond Police.

The incident unfolded around 11 p.m. when an employee from a nearby establishment spotted an adult male allegedly attempting to steal his vehicle. The employee confronted the suspect, who reportedly responded with aggression and advanced toward him. In response, the employee, who was legally carrying a handgun, fired a single shot, striking the suspect once.

The suspect was transported to Harborview Medical Center for treatment. Authorities confirmed no other injuries occurred and no additional shots were fired. The employee remained at the scene and is cooperating fully with investigators. Redmond Police emphasized that the case remains under active investigation.

Social media responses to the police department’s post reflect a broad consensus of support for the employee’s actions, with many praising his calm response and legal use of a firearm. Comments ranged from praise for responsible gun ownership to reminders about the risks involved in such confrontations. One user noted, “Sounds like they properly used the firearm to eliminate an immediate threat without taking a life,” while another pointed out, “An insurance claim might have been the better way.”

While the employee may have acted lawfully in self-defense, this incident underscores the inherent dangers of directly confronting criminal suspects. Even when legally armed, intervening in crimes carries significant risks — including the potential of facing armed suspects, unseen accomplices, or escalation into deadly force. I often advise calling police and observing from a safe distance, especially in property crimes like vehicle theft. Firearms should only be used when there is a clear and immediate threat to life or serious bodily harm.

Read the original story: Redmond Employee Shoots Alleged Car Thief in Self-Defense After Late-Night Confrontation

CHEYENNE, WY — House Bill 0172, known as the Wyoming Repeal Gun-Free Zones Act, officially went into effect on July 1, 2025, removing most location-based restrictions on concealed carry across the state. Here’s what gun owners and the public need to know now that the law is active:

Under this law, individuals lawfully carrying concealed weapons in Wyoming may now carry in:

Additionally, Wyoming’s permitless carry law allows residents to carry concealed without a permit—and they too may carry into most government buildings as specified.

Despite widespread expansion, several sensitive locations remain off-limits:

Courthouses and law enforcement buildings are explicitly exempt. Public school employees and volunteers must adhere to school district rules and training if carrying on school grounds.

With HB 0172 now law, Wyoming has largely eliminated gun-free zones in public spheres, giving law-abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons increased freedom and responsibility. Exceptions remain for highly sensitive and federally regulated spaces. A misdemeanor penalty ensures compliance from institutions, and structured training—especially for school personnel—adds checks and balances.

HB 0172 is fully active, with clear rules, exceptions, and enforcement mechanisms. Law enforcement and local officials are now implementing the practical aspects of the law.

Read the original story: Concealed Carry Expanded: Wyoming Officially Ends Most Gun-Free Zones

BLACK BEACH, WY — A late-night camping trip turned violent on July 5 when an attempt to stop an intoxicated man from driving ended in gunfire, leaving two people injured at a remote site between Black Beach and Cottonwood campgrounds in Natrona County.

According to the Natrona County Sheriff’s Office, deputies responded to reports of shots fired around 10:30 p.m. Upon arrival, they found that a group of campers had tried to intervene when one of their companions, who was visibly intoxicated, attempted to leave the area by vehicle.

As tensions escalated, the intoxicated man retrieved a rifle and pointed it at another camper. That individual, fearing for his life, drew a handgun and fired in self-defense. The shot struck the man with the rifle in the leg. A woman standing nearby was also hit in the leg by a single round, possibly as a result of crossfire or an errant bullet.

Both injured parties were transported to the hospital with serious but non-life-threatening injuries. Deputies quickly secured the scene and confirmed there was no continuing threat to the public. The man who fired the handgun was detained during the initial investigation and later released. All individuals involved have been interviewed, and the case remains under active investigation.

This incident is a stark reminder that alcohol and firearms are a dangerous combination. The group acted responsibly by attempting to prevent an intoxicated individual from driving, but the presence of a firearm in the hands of someone under the influence dramatically raised the stakes. In situations involving potential threats of deadly force, lawful defensive actions may be necessary—but ideally, tragedies like this can be avoided with sober judgment and secure firearm storage.

Read the original story: Armed Camper Defends Himself After Intoxicated Man Aims Rifle During Dispute Over Driving While Drunk

A body cam video from 2023 shows just how quickly things can spiral when emotions override judgment — especially when you’re armed.

In the footage, a man is confronted by police after being fired from his job. Instead of leaving the premises as requested, he insists on getting a “valid reason” for his termination. The officer calmly explains that Florida is an at-will employment state, meaning no reason is required to terminate employment — and refusing to leave is trespassing.

Unfortunately, the man continues to argue. When the officer attempts to detain him, he resists. A taser is deployed, and a brief struggle follows. During the takedown, the man admits to having a knife in his pocket and a concealed firearm on his person.

Whether the man was legally carrying under Florida’s permitless carry law, had a valid permit, or was carrying illegally due to a prior felony is still unclear. But that detail, while important, misses the larger point:

When you carry a firearm, emotional control becomes a non-negotiable part of the responsibility.

Concealed carry isn’t just about holsters, draw speed, or gear. It’s also about mindset. If you allow frustration, anger, or pride to dictate your actions while armed, you’re increasing the risk of a legal disaster — and possibly losing your gun rights entirely.

According to the video and reports, the man was charged with:

Bond was set at $40,000. If he’s convicted of a felony, he may lose his right to possess firearms under both Florida and federal law. Even a misdemeanor conviction could affect his ability to carry concealed in the future.

This video isn’t just shocking — it’s instructive. It’s a case study in what not to do. As concealed carriers, we owe it to ourselves and our community to be the calmest person in the room, especially when tensions run high.

You don’t just carry a gun. You carry responsibility.

Read the original story: When Emotions Take Over: A Concealed Carrier’s Arrest Caught on Camera