USA Carry

SEATTLE, WA — A Seattle man shot an intruder early Friday morning after the suspect broke into an apartment building and attempted to force entry into his home, where the man’s wife and 2-year-old child were present.

The incident occurred around 1:00 a.m. at an apartment complex in the 100 block of 21st Avenue. Officers from the East Precinct responded to reports of a shooting and arrived to find a 28-year-old man suffering from a gunshot wound to the upper leg. As officers rendered aid, they identified him as a suspect in multiple attempted burglaries within the building.

According to police, the suspect had forced his way into the complex by breaking through an exterior door. He then attempted to enter several apartments before arriving at a third-floor unit, where he began yelling and kicking at the door.

Inside the apartment, a 31-year-old man was with his wife and young child. He told officers he gave the suspect multiple verbal warnings. When the intruder forced open the door despite those warnings, the resident fired a single shot through the door, striking the suspect in the leg.

Medics transported the suspect to Harborview Medical Center with non-life-threatening injuries. He was later arrested for burglary.

This case highlights how issuing verbal warnings before using force can demonstrate a clear attempt to avoid violence. The resident’s decision to fire came only after the suspect ignored those warnings and forced entry, presenting an immediate threat to his family. His actions appear to align with lawful self-defense in response to a forcible home intrusion.

Read the original story: Home Invader Shot After Ignoring Verbal Warnings from Father Protecting Wife and 2-Year-Old

PLANT CITY, FL — A man was fatally shot during a confrontation at the Speed Lane Travel Center early Friday morning. The incident occurred at approximately 2:15 a.m. at 501 County Line Road.

As reported by WFLA, officers from the Plant City Police Department responded to reports of a shooting with injuries. Upon arrival, they discovered a man with gunshot wounds lying near a vehicle. Despite life-saving efforts, the individual was pronounced dead at the scene.

Witness statements and security footage indicate that a verbal dispute began inside the gas station and escalated outside. During the altercation, the deceased reportedly advanced toward another individual while wielding a knife. In response, the other individual fired a single shot, striking the man.

The shooter remained at the scene and cooperated fully with law enforcement. Based on initial evidence, authorities have determined that the shooting falls within the protections of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law. The investigation is ongoing.

This incident highlights how the presence of a weapon, such as a knife, can dramatically escalate a situation. Florida law allows individuals to use deadly force if they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. When faced with an armed aggressor, the legal right to defend oneself becomes critically important.

Read the original story: Florida Man Brings Knife to Gun Fight; Doesn’t End Well

KANSAS CITY, MO — A confrontation at a Kansas City liquor store on Monday evening resulted in the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Donovan Booker. Another individual, 18-year-old Jeremiah Williamson, has been charged in connection with the incident.

As reported by the Kansas City Star, the incident occurred around 6 p.m. at Liquor Xpress, located at the intersection of East 9th Street and Prospect Avenue. Upon arrival, officers found Booker suffering from gunshot wounds; he was transported to a local hospital, where he was later pronounced dead. Another man at the scene reported to police that he had shot Booker in self-defense. Williamson was also present at the scene.

According to court documents, the man who claimed self-defense stated that he was inside the store with his girlfriend when Booker allegedly attempted to grab a pistol from his pocket. A struggle ensued, during which Booker reportedly instructed Williamson to “Hurry up and shoot him.” Williamson then allegedly drew a firearm from his waistband. The man managed to regain control of his weapon and fired at Booker, fearing for his safety and that of his girlfriend.

Prosecutors have charged Williamson with second-degree murder, first-degree attempted robbery, and armed criminal action. Under Missouri law, individuals can be held accountable for felony murder if someone is killed during the commission of a felony in which they are participating. If convicted, Williamson could face a sentence ranging from 10 to 30 years in prison.

This incident highlights the critical importance of maintaining situational awareness, especially in locations that are commonly targeted for quick, opportunistic crimes such as liquor stores. Environments with limited exits, high foot traffic, and cash-based transactions can escalate rapidly if a threat emerges. For those who choose to carry a firearm, it is essential not only to understand the legal framework surrounding self-defense but also to remain alert to behavioral cues and potential danger. Consistent training, mental preparedness, and a clear grasp of one’s surroundings can be vital in responding effectively and lawfully during a high-stress confrontation.

Read the original story: ‘Hurry up and shoot Him!’ Teen’s Last Words Before Being Shot Dead by Armed Citizen in Chaotic Kansas City Liquor Store Clash

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

LOS ANGELES, CA — The Los Angeles Police Department has announced a public outreach initiative to help residents recover firearms lost during the Palisades Fire. Since January, LAPD officers have recovered approximately 500 firearms from the fire zone and are now seeking to return them to their rightful owners.

Residents who believe they lost a firearm in the Palisades Fire are asked to contact the LAPD Gun Recovery Unit by emailing [email protected]. Individuals will need to provide proof of residential address and a description of the firearm to initiate the recovery process.

“Since January, LAPD officers have been working through the painstaking process of recovering and rendering approximately 500 firearms safe,” said LAPD Chief of Detectives Alan Hamilton. “We recognize that these firearms may hold significant sentimental value to their owners, whether as family heirlooms, historical pieces, or personal mementos, and we are doing our best to reunite them with their owners.”

The recovery operation, conducted in collaboration with local agencies and cleanup crews, uncovered hundreds of firearms, many heavily damaged by fire. Due to the extent of the damage, identification has proven difficult in many cases, but LAPD assures the public that all recovered firearms are being handled with care and respect throughout the process.

Residents who wish to officially report their firearm as lost property may do so in person at any LAPD Community Police Station or online at LAPDonline.org.

The LAPD emphasized its commitment to community recovery efforts and its intent to uphold the highest standards of professionalism in returning property lost in the fire.

This process also serves as a reminder of the responsibilities associated with lawful firearm ownership. Situations such as natural disasters highlight the importance of secure storage and documentation. The LAPD’s initiative to reunite gun owners with their firearms is an encouraging step in maintaining accountability while respecting Second Amendment rights.

Read the original story: Lost Your Gun in the Palisades Fire? LAPD Opens Recovery Process for 500 Firearms Found

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

SYRACUSE, NY — A 43-year-old man who fatally shot another driver during a road rage incident in downtown Syracuse will not face criminal charges after an Onondaga County grand jury determined he acted in lawful self-defense.

As reported by Syracuse.com, the incident occurred on April 23 near the intersection of West Street Arterial and West Fayette Street. Video evidence reviewed by the grand jury showed that 61-year-old Ezell Hicks Jr. exited his vehicle, retrieved a large chef-style knife, and advanced toward the other driver’s car with the knife raised. The shooter, who remained inside his vehicle, fired three shots from a 9mm handgun through the open window when Hicks was within five feet of the driver’s side door.

The shooter and a passenger stayed at the scene and cooperated with police. The firearm used was legally owned, and the shooter has no law enforcement background. Due to credible threats uncovered during the investigation, the District Attorney’s office has declined to release the shooter’s name, reversing an earlier decision to do so.

This case highlights the importance of understanding self-defense laws, particularly the justification for using deadly force when faced with an immediate threat. Remaining in the vehicle and responding only when confronted with a weapon was a critical factor in the grand jury’s decision. Lawful gun owners should be aware of their rights and responsibilities to ensure their actions are legally defensible.

Read the original story: Driver Who Shot Man Charging at Him with Chef’s Knife CLEARED by Grand Jury in Syracuse Road Rage Killing

HOUSTON, TX — An attempted armed robbery at a southeast Houston donut shop ended with the suspect fatally shot by the store owner early Thursday morning.​

As reported by KHOU 11, the incident occurred around 6:15 a.m. at Snowflake Donuts, located on Winkler Drive near the Gulf Freeway. According to Houston Police Department Detective Socrates Trujillo, a man wearing dark clothing and armed with a firearm entered the shop and attempted to rob the business. The store owner, who was also armed, responded by shooting the suspect. Police arrived shortly after and found the suspect deceased inside the store. 

Investigators recovered the suspect’s firearm at the scene, and the cash register was found open. Detective Trujillo noted that the donut shop is typically busy during morning hours, serving customers heading to work or school, and emphasized that the situation could have resulted in injuries to innocent civilians.​

The store owner is not currently facing any charges; however, the case will be presented to a grand jury for review. Authorities are working to determine the suspect’s identity and whether the incident is connected to other recent robberies in the area. Surveillance footage from the store and nearby businesses has been collected for further investigation.​

This incident highlights the importance of preparedness and situational awareness for business owners. While the use of deadly force is a last resort, individuals have the right to defend themselves when faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Proper training and understanding of self-defense laws are crucial for responsible firearm ownership.​

Read the original story: Robbery Turns Deadly at Snowflake Donuts as Store Owner Shoots Armed Suspect

HENRY COUNTY, IN — A suspected home intruder was shot in the face early Friday morning after he allegedly attempted to break into a home in Henry County.

As reported by 95.3 MNC, the incident occurred just before 2 a.m. at a residence in the 9300 block of South 175 East. The homeowner told dispatchers that a man was banging on his windows and doors, trying to get inside. Not a whole lot of details have been released, but what we can say is that it sounds like the homeowner realized a man was trying to break in. He apparently armed himself but didn’t leave the security of his home to investigate like happens in many incidents we report on. He stayed inside and did not use lethal force until the man broke a window and attempted to crawl in. It appears to be a clear-cut case of self-defense.

The Henry County Sheriff’s Department says the man was shot when he tried to enter the home through a broken window. Deputies arrived to find him lying on the porch. He was flown to a hospital and is reported to be in critical but stable condition. His name has not yet been released.

Authorities confirmed that the homeowner is cooperating with the investigation. No charges have been announced.

This incident highlights the importance of staying secured inside during a potential home invasion. Waiting to confront a threat only when it crosses the threshold, as this homeowner did, aligns with the principle of using deadly force only when facing an immediate threat of serious harm.

Read the original story: Homeowner Shoots Intruder in Face During Attempted Break-In in Henry County