Armed Wife Fires One Shot to Save Husband From Gunman at Massachusetts Home

A licensed Massachusetts gun owner fired one shot to protect her husband from an armed man who allegedly pursued him at gunpoint. Stock image; not the people or firearm involved. iStock.com/[Dmitri Toms]

An armed wife saved her husband from a gunman who allegedly brought a social-media dispute directly to the couple’s Springfield, Massachusetts, home, according to prosecutors who ruled the fatal shooting lawful.

The fatal encounter occurred July 5 on Fairfield Street in Springfield. After reviewing witness statements, surveillance footage, 911 recordings, physical evidence, and electronic communications, Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni determined that the woman acted lawfully in self-defense and defense of another.

WWLP reported that the Hampden District Attorney’s Office announced on July 14 that no criminal charges would be filed. The case is now considered closed.

Social-Media Dispute Reaches Couple’s Doorstep

According to the district attorney, the confrontation began with a dispute on social media involving people who knew one another.

Investigators determined that 35-year-old Robert Murchison of Springfield traveled to the home of the married couple. Once on the homeowners’ property, Murchison allegedly initiated a physical altercation with the husband. The situation then escalated from a fistfight into a deadly-force encounter.

“Murchison then produced a handgun and pursued the male while pointing the firearm at him,” the district attorney’s office reported.

The husband’s wife witnessed the armed pursuit and recognized that her husband faced an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. Authorities described her as a licensed firearm owner. She drew her firearm and discharged one round, striking Murchison and stopping the threat. Murchison died from the gunshot wound.

There was no reported barrage of uncontrolled gunfire. The woman fired one shot when an armed attacker was allegedly chasing her husband with a handgun pointed at him.

Evidence Supported the Homeowners’ Account

Following the shooting, the husband and wife immediately called police and fully cooperated with investigators.

That cooperation was backed by considerably more than the couple’s version of events. Investigators reviewed statements from the people involved, an account provided by an independent eyewitness, Ring-camera footage, 911 recordings, physical evidence recovered at the scene, and text and social-media messages exchanged before the confrontation.

According to the district attorney, that evidence “clearly establishes” that the woman acted lawfully.

The DA’s office said she used her firearm only after Murchison came to the couple’s home, initiated a physical confrontation with her husband, drew a handgun, and created an immediate deadly threat.

Under Massachusetts law, deadly force can be justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect herself or another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

“After reviewing all available evidence, the District Attorney determined that his office could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner’s actions were unlawful,” prosecutors stated.

No charges will be filed against the woman.

A Firearm Made the Difference

This case presents another straightforward example of why the right to keep and bear arms includes the ability to protect not only yourself but also the people you love.

The woman did not go looking for a confrontation. According to investigators, the confrontation came to her home. She did not initiate the physical altercation, and she did not introduce a firearm into the dispute. She acted only after an armed man allegedly pointed a handgun at her husband and pursued him.

At that moment, she did not have the luxury of waiting for police to arrive, investigators to collect evidence, or prosecutors to determine who was legally at fault. Her husband faced an immediate threat, and she had seconds to act.

Because she was armed, she was able to intervene.

Her conduct after the shooting matters as well. The couple called 911 immediately, remained at the scene, cooperated with authorities, and provided investigators with the information necessary to determine what happened. Independent evidence then supported their account.

A social-media argument should never have reached the point of an armed confrontation at a private home. But when it did, a lawfully armed woman was prepared to protect her family. She fired one shot, stopped an imminent threat, and saved her husband from a man who prosecutors say was pursuing him at gunpoint.

That is precisely what the right of armed self-defense looks like when a deadly threat arrives at your doorstep.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/xdnYrf6
via IFTTT

PSA Resumes Virginia Rifle and Magazine Shipments After Statewide Injunction

Palmetto State Armory resumed shipping affected rifles and standard-capacity magazines to Virginia on July 21 after a statewide injunction blocked enforcement of the new ban. IMG Travis Pike

With the statewide injunctions against Virginia’s “assault firearms” and magazine ban now firmly in place, major retailers like Palmetto State Armory (PSA) and others have resumed shipping previously restricted items to customers in the Commonwealth.

The latest development came with the injunction in the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed case Santolla v. Katz, which took effect yesterday, July 21st. This marks the second court order blocking enforcement of the controversial new law, originally scheduled to take effect on July 1.

The first injunction stemmed from the high-profile Crump v. Katz lawsuit, brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and this reporter as lead plaintiff. That ruling was issued just six days before the law’s intended start date, providing immediate relief to Virginia gun owners.

Virginia, we’re back!

A temporary injunction is now in effect and PSA is resuming shipments! pic.twitter.com/4ZfIsIajem

— Palmetto State Armory (@palmettoarmory) July 21, 2026

Virginia Attorney General Seeks to Pause the Cases

In Santolla v. Katz, the presiding judge was compelled to issue an updated clarification after Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones appeared to suggest that the law could still be enforced in certain circumstances. This move underscored ongoing attempts by state officials to limit the scope of the protections granted by the courts.

Initially, AG Jones petitioned the Supreme Court of Virginia for a stay of both injunctions. However, that strategy shifted dramatically following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in two pivotal cases: Viramontes v. Cook County, challenging Chicago-area “assault weapons” restrictions, and Grant v. Higgins, contesting Connecticut’s broad ban on semi-automatic rifles.

Recognizing the national momentum building against such bans, Jones withdrew his stay request. He now advocates allowing the injunctions to remain while seeking to pause the underlying Virginia cases until the Supreme Court rules in the consolidated federal matters. Plaintiffs across all related lawsuits have strongly opposed any further delays, arguing that Virginians should not have their constitutional rights held in limbo.

Gun Owners Can Buy Again in Virginia

With legal clarity established that the bans will not be enforced in the foreseeable future, firearms manufacturers and retailers have responded swiftly. Companies like PSA now confidently ship semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines—those holding more than 15 rounds—to Virginia addresses. Most brick-and-mortar gun stores have resumed open sales of these popular items.

Some retailers, relying on the initial Crump v. Katz injunction against the Virginia State Police, never halted sales in the first place. This return to normal commerce has been welcomed by law-abiding gun owners, who view these firearms as essential tools for self-defense, sporting purposes, and protection of civil liberties.

The developments in Virginia represent a significant domino in the broader national fight against “assault weapon” bans. On July 31, New Jersey State Police will cease enforcing that state’s prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s landmark 10-5 en banc decision in Cheeseman v. Platkin on July 17. Applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the court determined that these restrictions lack historical analogues and unconstitutionally burden the rights of law-abiding citizens.

For the first time in years, New Jersey residents will regain access to the AR-15 platform—the most popular rifle design in America. Online retailers are expected to announce shipping resumption to the Garden State shortly, now that a clear timeline exists.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Billet 13.7" .308 Mid-Length 13" Sabre Rail w/ B5 Sop-Mod Furniture & JMAC GFHCE-R Pin/Weld	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1369.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 13.7" .308 Mid-Length 13" Sabre Rail w/ Magpul SL-S Furniture & JMAC GFHCE-R Pin/Weld	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1319.99
	PSA "Sabre" Forged 14.5" 5.56 FN CHF CL 13.5" Geissele MK14 Pin/Weld with Sabre Furniture Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1299.99
	PSA "Sabre" Billet 14.5" .223 Wylde M4 13" Knurled Slant Rail with 3 Prong, B&T, 1/2"-28 Rifle & Sabre Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1099.99

Supreme Court Could Reshape the National Firearms Market

These victories in Virginia and New Jersey are poised to open the firearms market to millions of new customers. By this time next year, many Second Amendment advocates and industry analysts predict that “assault weapons” bans nationwide could effectively collapse. The Supreme Court’s anticipated decision in Viramontes (expected around June 2027) is widely viewed as likely to affirm that commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and their magazines are protected under the Second Amendment.

A favorable ruling could trigger a massive surge in sales in states like California, New York, Illinois, and others with similar restrictions—potentially rivaling or exceeding the record-breaking demand seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This shift carries profound implications. Economically, it revitalizes manufacturers, retailers, and related businesses while restoring consumer choice. Constitutionally, it reinforces the principle that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use for lawful purposes,” as articulated in landmark precedents.

More Than a Victory for the Firearms Industry

For gun owners in affected states, it ends years of uncertainty and overreach, allowing them to exercise their rights without fear of arbitrary state prohibitions. Critics of the bans argue they disproportionately punish responsible citizens while failing to address criminal misuse, a point bolstered by decades of data showing that law-abiding owners are not the source of gun violence.

As these cases progress, the landscape for firearm ownership continues to evolve toward greater recognition of individual liberties. Virginia’s successful defense of its residents’ rights, led in part by local advocates and organizations like the NRA, VCDL, and GOA, serves as a model for other states. The coming months promise further legal clarity and a renewed emphasis on the foundational role of the Second Amendment in American society. Gun owners and industry stakeholders alike are watching closely as the momentum builds toward a potential nationwide resolution.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/CyQ6lUz
via IFTTT

How a Gun-Control Nonprofit Uses Public Shaming to Target the Firearm Industry

The Highland Park Peace Project publicly labels businesses “enablers” when they provide services to firearm manufacturers targeted by the organization. iStock.com/[Daniel Tadevosyan]

Illinois keeps fighting to preserve its so-called “assault weapons” ban as challengers press it through the courts, but one Highland Park organization has decided judges will not settle the matter and has carried the fight into the marketplace through public shaming, a report from the Chicago Tribune explains.

The Highland Park Peace Project, or HP3, runs an expanding online database that files hundreds of businesses under “heroes” or “enablers,” a grade that turns on whether a firm deals with the five firearm manufacturers that build the rifles the group calls assault weapons. Those five are Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Bushmaster, Daniel Defense, and SIG Sauer. The “enablers” it singles out extend well past firearms dealers to online retailers such as Amazon, plus banks, accountants, and law firms that supply, resell for, or contract with the named brands.

Daniel Perlman, an HP3 co-founder, was present at the July 4, 2022, Highland Park parade when a gunman killed seven people and wounded dozens more. His private equity career shaped the strategy, which borrows from how some public pension funds pull money out of holdings they consider “socially or morally at odds with their organization.”

From Gun Makers to Banks, Lawyers and Retailers

Perlman told the Chicago Tribune, “It has created transparency; what we’ve created has now allowed corporations and consumers to ask for accountability.” Each listing, he says, gets checked against bankruptcy records, court documents, and annual reports, and every targeted company receives a letter first, giving it a chance to challenge the classification. Businesses that walk away from the manufacturers, Salesforce and REI among them, collect the “hero” designation.

By Perlman’s telling to the Chicago Tribune, the point is not to demonize but to choke off the “millions of dollars into the pockets” of companies arming civilians with assault weapons. He calls the database “apolitical” and stresses that HP3 stays out of legislative battles, aiming instead to “change behavior.” That posture of neutrality is precisely where gun rights supporters balk, since the enterprise operates inside a fiercely political dispute and uses economic pressure against lawful companies that manufacture and sell arms protected by the Second Amendment.

HP3 Calls Its Economic Pressure Campaign “Apolitical”

Nearby critics have not minced words. Michael Danforth, a Republican on the Lake County Board whose career spans weapons importing and firearms law, branded the campaign “misguided” and fueled by “hatred for gun manufacturers.” The database, Danforth told the Tribune, swings a “broad brush” and pins guilt on the wrong shoulders, since treating a company as “somehow a bad guy … that’s just foolishness.” In his words, “They may mean well at the end of the day, but they’re attacking the wrong people.” He also refused the ethical premise driving the whole effort. “These companies made firearms, made tools, that somebody went out with criminal intent and killed someone with … that’s not the manufacturer’s fault,” he said, urging that as Americans recall horrors like Highland Park, Uvalde, and Littleton, “we should honor their memory, but we shouldn’t blame the manufacturers.”

The pushback reaches well past Lake County. Colion Noir, one of the Second Amendment movement’s best-known commentators, fired back with a rebuttal, casting the method as weaponized shame against our constitutional rights. Noir ridiculed how far the list reaches, noting it can sweep in a company for an act as ordinary as “delivering pizza to a warehouse.”

Supreme Court Rifle-Ban Cases Raise the Stakes

The timing is what makes it bite, given Perlman’s own concession that the database serves as a backstop should the courts rule against his side. He has warned that today’s Supreme Court would likely toss an assault weapons ban that reached its docket, and the calendar supports him. On June 30, 2026 the justices agreed to hear challenges to Cook County’s ban and a comparable Connecticut statute, with argument likely in the fall, an outcome that could dismantle the statewide Illinois ban.

A Seventh Circuit panel upheld the Illinois assault weapons ban on July 9, 2026 in a 2-1 decision in Barnett v. Raoul. A Trump-appointed judge writing the majority opinion concluding the law is “consistent with the principles that underpin our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation” — yet the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on June 30, 2026 in two related cases. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision in Viramontes and Grant could overturn or substantially undermine the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning.

There sits the real worry. Should the courts confirm the right to own these rifles, HP3 intends to poison the commercial waters around them, using fear of exposure to accomplish what neither lawmakers nor lawsuits can guarantee. A privately run database that brands routine business dealings as a share in bloodshed is no neutral scorecard. It signals where the next battle over gun rights will be waged.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/tz20Yws
via IFTTT

SAF, NRA & FPC Move to Block Maryland Glock Ban Before It Takes Effect

SB 334 targets factory-stock Glock and Glock-style pistols even though machine-gun conversion devices are already illegal under state and federal law.

SAF, NRA and FPC are asking a federal judge to block Maryland’s SB 334 restrictions on Glock and Glock-style pistols before January 1, 2027. IMG Ryan Hodges

Maryland says it wants to stop illegal Glock switches. Instead of limiting itself to the criminals who possess and use those devices, the state passed a law that will prevent ordinary citizens from acquiring some of the most common self-defense handguns in America.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Maryland gun dealer Atlantic Guns, and two Maryland residents filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on July 20 in Bathras v. Moore.

The plaintiffs want a federal judge to block Maryland Senate Bill 334 before its handgun restrictions become enforceable on January 1, 2027. No judge has ruled that the law is unconstitutional yet; this is the coalition’s argument for stopping it while the lawsuit proceeds.

Maryland Bans the Pistol, Not Just the Switch

SB 334 prohibits a person from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, purchasing, receiving, or transferring what Maryland calls a “machine gun convertible pistol.” A violation can bring up to three years in prison, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.

The law defines that category as a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted into a machine gun by replacing the slide’s backplate with a pistol converter. It also covers a pistol with a blocking tab if the tab can be removed with a common household tool.

Factory-stock Glock pistols use a cruciform trigger bar. So do many Glock-pattern pistols produced by companies such as Palmetto State Armory, Ruger, and Shadow Systems. The plaintiffs contend there is a substantial likelihood that virtually all of these pistols will fall under the ban.

An unmodified Glock is not a machine gun. It fires one round for each pull of the trigger. A Glock switch, also called a pistol converter or auto sear, is a separate device that can illegally convert it to automatic fire.

Federal law already treats the device itself as a machine gun, with illegal possession carrying up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Maryland also prohibited rapid-fire activators, including switch/auto-sear devices. This lawsuit does not challenge either prohibition.

“This case is about whether Maryland may ban Glock and Glock-style handguns,” the plaintiffs wrote, based on what criminals might convert them into.

Supporters point to a real increase in criminal use. ATF reported that conversion-device recoveries traced by the agency increased from 658 in 2019 to 5,816 in 2023. But an increase in crimes involving an already-illegal device does not automatically give Maryland the power to ban the lawful handgun onto which a criminal might install it.

Maryland can prosecute the switch, the illegal conversion, and the violent crime. SB 334 instead reaches the unmodified pistol when a law-abiding buyer tries to acquire it or its owner tries to transfer it.

“You Can Keep What You Already Own” Misses the Point

SB 334 does not generally order current owners to surrender their pistols. Existing owners can keep them and may transfer them to certain immediate family members. Other narrow exceptions principally benefit law enforcement, the military, and gunsmiths.

Gun-control advocates will undoubtedly point to that grandfathering provision and claim Maryland has not really banned Glocks. That misses the point.

After January 1, an ordinary Maryland resident generally will be unable to acquire a covered pistol. Existing owners will lose most of their ability to sell, trade, or transfer their property inside the state. Federal law also prevents a resident from simply buying a handgun elsewhere and bringing it home.

The right to keep and bear arms cannot mean that the government may freeze ownership at whatever level politicians choose and prohibit the next generation from acquiring the same protected arms.

Glocks Are Commonly Used Handguns

The plaintiffs’ constitutional argument begins with District of Columbia v. Heller, which called handguns the “quintessential self-defense weapon.” Under Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, arms in common lawful use are protected, and the government must justify a restriction through the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Glocks are not exotic weapons. They are ordinary semiautomatic handguns widely owned by Americans and carried by law enforcement agencies across the country, including the Baltimore Police Department. The motion notes that Glock manufactured more than 500,000 pistols for the domestic market in 2021 alone, not counting imports.

If common use means anything, it includes Glock pistols.

Maryland’s theory is that the pistols are so easy to convert that they may be treated like machine guns. The plaintiffs respond that potential conversion is not actual conversion. An ordinary shotgun can be made into an illegal short-barreled shotgun with a hacksaw, while other semiautomatic firearms can also be illegally modified to fire automatically.

The criminal modification does not erase the lawful character of the original firearm.

Maryland’s Bianchi Problem

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown’s pre-signing review relied on Bianchi v. Brown, the Fourth Circuit decision that upheld Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Brown argued that a court could classify readily convertible pistols as unusually dangerous and poorly suited to self-defense.

Even Brown’s constitutional review letter was far from a ringing endorsement. He acknowledged that the outcome is uncertain and that a judge could find SB 334 to be a “back door ban” on a firearm in common use.

The plaintiffs are now turning Bianchi against Maryland. When the Fourth Circuit upheld the rifle ban, it distinguished the prohibited rifles from ordinary defensive handguns. The court specifically referred to the Glock 19 as a “commonly used handgun” and treated handguns as proportionate to the need for self-defense.

Maryland was happy to rely on that distinction when it helped preserve the state’s rifle ban. It now faces the difficult task of explaining why the same Glock 19 should be treated like a machine gun when the state wants to prohibit its future sale.

Gun-Rights Groups Seek an Injunction

The individual plaintiffs are David J. Bathras Sr., a Maryland Glock owner who wants additional models, and Roslyn Mickens, a licensed firearms instructor who also wants to acquire Glock and Glock-style pistols. Atlantic Guns says the law will prevent it from continuing to stock and sell a substantial category of popular handguns to Maryland customers.

The plaintiffs argue that they are likely to win because SB 334 restricts the acquisition of protected arms and Maryland cannot produce a historical tradition supporting the ban. They also contend that the loss of a constitutional right—even temporarily—is irreparable harm.

“Anti-gun politicians will constantly tell you that ‘no one is coming for your guns,’” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “And then they pass bills like this that bans the most commonly owned handgun in America. Both can’t be true. Maryland’s Glock ban, and those like it that have popped up around the country, are a thinly veiled attempt to ban all guns, one chunk of the market at a time. But the law is overwhelmingly on our side. The Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment protects handguns, as they are the ‘quintessential’ firearm of choice for self-defense, and Glock-style pistols are massively popular and commonly used in Maryland and around the country.”

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb described the law as an effort to hold lawful owners, manufacturers, and sellers responsible for criminal misuse.

“Laws like this strip peaceable Americans from access to constitutionally protected arms and seek to bully and hold liable lawful manufacturers and sellers for the criminal misuse of firearms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This law is the equivalent to banning free speech in the hopes of preventing fraud. It’s bad policy and unconstitutional. We look forward getting it tossed.”

Maryland does not have a constitutional blank check to ban an ordinary handgun because somebody might illegally alter it.

A factory semi-automatic Glock is not a machine gun. Potential criminal misuse is not a loophole in the Second Amendment. If Maryland can ban one of America’s most common handguns on that theory, nearly any firearm capable of unlawful modification could be next.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/WmKCkg9
via IFTTT

New Jersey Democrats Attack Third Circuit After AR-15, Magazine Ban Defeat

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and Senate President Nicholas Scutari condemned the Third Circuit’s landmark Second Amendment ruling in the Cheeseman case. IMG Duncan Johnson

New Jersey’s political leadership is responding to a historic Second Amendment defeat not by explaining the Founding-era tradition the state failed to produce, but by attacking the federal judges who enforced the Constitution.

On July 17, the full Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 10-5 that New Jersey’s prohibitions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment. Days later, Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and state Senate President Nicholas Scutari condemned the decision and promised that Trenton’s fight against gun owners would continue.

Third Circuit Delivers a Major Second Amendment Victory

As AmmoLand previously reported, the en banc Third Circuit expanded a lower court’s narrow ruling involving Colt-manufactured AR-15s to cover the full class of semiautomatic rifles supported by the record.

The court also struck down New Jersey’s magazine restrictions, holding that magazines are protected “Arms” because they are necessary for many modern firearms to function as intended.

According to the Third Circuit’s opinion, approximately 24 million AR-15s and similar rifles are in circulation, along with more than 100 million 30-round AR-15 magazines. New Jersey offered no competing data capable of making those commonly owned arms “unusual.”

The court’s conclusion was direct: “Bans on weapons in common use for lawful purposes are unlawful.”

New Jersey Officials Attack the Ruling

Davenport responded through the New Jersey Attorney General’s official X account, calling the decision “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect.”

She argued that other federal appeals courts have upheld similar restrictions, blamed AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines for mass shootings, and said New Jersey would continue treating so-called gun violence as a public-health crisis.

“We are considering our options,” Davenport added.

Statement By Attorney General Davenport on Decision in ANJRPC v. Attorney General. pic.twitter.com/nBMRkOWwSz

— Attorney General Jennifer Davenport (@NewJerseyOAG) July 17, 2026

Scutari went further. In a July 20 statement, the Democratic Senate president called the ruling a “misguided, calculated attack on public safety.”

He credited New Jersey’s gun-control regime with helping the state achieve a low firearm-death rate, although his statement offered no evidence tying that rate specifically to the state’s rifle and magazine bans.

Scutari then reached for the anti-gun movement’s favorite label, declaring that “weapons of war have no place in a civil society.” He invoked school shootings, grocery-store attacks and murdered first responders before promising that New Jersey would continue fighting decisions like this one.

It was an emotional political statement. It was not an answer to the constitutional problems with New Jersey’s law.

Public-Safety Claims Do Not Override the Constitution

Neither Davenport nor Scutari addressed the central reason the state lost: New Jersey failed to identify a sufficiently comparable historical tradition permitting the government to prohibit an entire class of commonly owned arms.

Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government cannot defend a gun restriction by “simply posit[ing] that the regulation promotes an important interest.” Once the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the government must establish that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

New Jersey tried to compare its bans with historical gunpowder-storage regulations and laws restricting the manner in which certain weapons could be carried. The Third Circuit rejected those comparisons. Limiting how gunpowder was stored to reduce accidental fires is not comparable to criminalizing possession of a semiautomatic rifle or a magazine containing more than ten rounds.

Nor could limited historical restrictions on carrying weapons justify a modern possession ban inside the home.

That is the part Trenton’s political leadership keeps avoiding. No matter how many times politicians call an AR-15 a “weapon of war,” the label does not transform a semiautomatic rifle owned by millions of law-abiding Americans into an unprotected arm.

The Circuit Split Is Headed Toward the Supreme Court

Davenport and Scutari are broadly correct that other federal appeals courts have upheld similar prohibitions. Those courts upheld laws within their own jurisdictions—not New Jersey’s statute—and the Third Circuit has now created a direct split over whether commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines may be banned.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Those consolidated cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, including the AR-15. The question accepted by the Court does not expressly cover magazine restrictions, leaving the magazine portion of the Cheeseman ruling especially important.

New Jersey could seek a stay or ask the Supreme Court to review the decision, but neither Davenport nor Scutari has announced a specific filing. Gun owners should therefore wait for confirmation concerning the appellate mandate, any stay and further district-court proceedings before changing their conduct.

Trenton may dislike the ruling, but constitutional rights do not depend on whether New Jersey politicians consider them reasonable. The state had its opportunity to justify these bans under the test required by the Supreme Court. It failed.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/S45aUv0
via IFTTT

California CCW Holder Stops Knife Attack, Exposes SB2’s Gun-Free-Zone Failure

A California CCW holder reportedly stopped a knife-wielding man who charged him inside Lucille’s Smokehouse Bar-B-Que in Cerritos. California’s SB2 attempted to prohibit the armed citizen from carrying there. iStock-1175500022

A knife-wielding man charged through a crowded California restaurant on Sunday, terrifying customers and employees before reportedly turning the blade toward a lawful concealed carrier.

The armed citizen did what responsible gun owners are supposed to do. He ordered the man to drop the knife. When the man allegedly charged him instead, the permit holder fired, ending the threat. He then stayed at the scene and cooperated with investigators.

If the preliminary account from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department holds up, this appears to be a textbook defensive gun use. It may also expose the dangerous absurdity of California’s latest effort to make lawful public carry practically impossible.

Knife-Wielding Man Charges Armed Customer

Deputies were called to Lucille’s Smokehouse Bar-B-Que in Cerritos at approximately 2:12 p.m. on July 19 following reports of a man armed with a knife.

According to ABC7’s account of the LASD investigation, the man entered the restaurant and ran through the kitchen and service areas, frightening workers and diners. LASD said a customer who was “lawfully armed and possessed a valid concealed carry permit” confronted him and ordered him to put down the knife.

The command reportedly did not stop him. Investigators say the knife-wielding man charged toward the customer, who then fired.

Deputies found the man suffering from an apparent gunshot wound and lacerations. Paramedics pronounced him dead at the scene. The concealed carrier remained at Lucille’s and cooperated with homicide investigators. No arrest, citation, or charging decision involving the armed citizen had been announced as of publication.

ABC7 reported, citing a sheriff’s department source, that the incident may have begun before the man entered the restaurant. He allegedly drove a stolen truck into the shopping center, abandoned it near a Starbucks, and apparently stabbed himself with the knife before running into Lucille’s. Authorities have not released his identity or explained what prompted the bizarre and dangerous episode.

California’s Unconstitutional SB2 Tried to Disarm the Citizen Who Stopped the Threat

There is an ugly catch. Lucille’s serves alcohol.

The restaurant advertises beer, wine, cocktails, and happy-hour drink specials. That potentially placed the armed customer on the wrong side of California Penal Code §26230(a)(9), even though he possessed a valid CCW permit and apparently was not the aggressor.

The provision, enacted through Senate Bill 2, prohibits licensed concealed carry in a building, on property, or even in a parking area controlled by an establishment where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises. The statutory language is not confined to nightclubs or businesses primarily devoted to alcohol. A family restaurant offering beer or wine can fall within the ban, and nothing in that subsection requires the permit holder to be drinking.

In other words, California law apparently expected this vetted, licensed citizen to leave his defensive firearm locked in his vehicle. The man with the knife, unsurprisingly, paid no attention to Sacramento’s designation of the restaurant as a “sensitive place.”

This is very interesting, because it appears to be a lawful self-defense shooting by a CCW permit holder here in Cerritos (about 15 minutes from me actually).

However, this restaurant serves alcohol…meaning he may have violated SB2.

If California is stupid enough to…

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) July 20, 2026

Kostas Moros: Cerritos Shooting Exposes SB2’s Unconstitutionality

California gun-rights attorney Kostas Moros told AmmoLand News that the facts remain preliminary but that the incident could provide a stark real-world example of what is wrong with the restriction.

“We are still waiting to learn more about this case. The initial reporting makes it sound like a legitimate self-defense and defense of others shooting, but of course, initial impressions can change as the facts develop. Assuming the initial reporting is accurate and this individual indeed acted heroically to stop a dangerous situation, then it exemplifies the unconstitutionality of California Penal Code section 26230(a)(9), which bans carry at every place that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises, even for those who are not drinking. The law is not limited to bars or nightclubs; a restaurant that offers beer and wine comes within its scope too. SAF is fighting this law in its litigation against California, May v. Bonta.”

Whether the shooting was justified and whether the customer was legally permitted to carry inside Lucille’s are separate questions. California could conclude that the citizen lawfully defended himself and others while still treating his possession of the firearm at the restaurant as a violation.

So far, LASD’s description of the customer as “lawfully armed” suggests investigators may not be eager to pursue that contradiction. But the department has not explained whether that phrase means the customer’s presence with the gun complied with §26230(a)(9), whether he possessed some separate exemption, or simply that he legally owned the firearm and held a valid permit.

May v. Bonta Challenges California’s Expanding Gun-Free Zones

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners filed May v. Bonta in 2023 to challenge SB2’s sprawling list of prohibited places. A federal district court initially blocked California from enforcing several of those restrictions, including the ban covering restaurants that serve alcohol.

A Ninth Circuit panel later reversed that portion of the preliminary injunction. California’s Department of Justice subsequently notified law enforcement agencies and local prosecutors that the restaurant and bar restriction became enforceable on January 23, 2025. The DOJ bulletin expressly included “bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.”

The litigation recently resumed following the Supreme Court’s June decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down Hawaii’s requirement that licensed carriers obtain express permission before entering private property open to the public. The Supreme Court did not directly decide the constitutionality of banning carry wherever alcohol is served, leaving that fight for May and related litigation.

SB2 Targeted the Wrong Person

The Cerritos shooting cuts through California’s rhetoric about “sensitive places.” Declaring a restaurant gun-free did not prevent a bloody, knife-wielding man from running through its kitchen and dining area. It only purported to disarm the law-abiding customer who was present when the threat arrived.

No one should race ahead of the investigation or pretend every unanswered question has been settled. But if LASD’s account is accurate, this citizen exercised restraint, issued a clear command, fired only when charged, and then cooperated with police. Those are the actions of a responsible gun owner acting in self-defense.

California officials should treat him accordingly. If a law can turn the citizen who stopped a knife into an offender merely because the restaurant pours beer, then the citizen is not the problem. The law is.

This is a developing story. AmmoLand News will update this report if investigators announce additional findings or a charging decision.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/xOm5uTK
via IFTTT

Bat Fails, Gun Ends Attack: Tulsa Homeowner Stops Alleged Robber

A Tulsa County homeowner reportedly fought an alleged robber with a baseball bat before firing one shot when the man charged again. iStock.com/[Oliver Peric]

A Tulsa County homeowner reportedly faced the nightmare gun owners prepare for: a man on his property threatening to kill him, following him into his home, fighting him at close range, and then charging him again.

The homeowner tried going inside. He fought back with a baseball bat. When neither ended the danger, he used the most effective defensive tool available to an ordinary citizen—a firearm.

According to the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office, deputies responded Wednesday night, July 15, to a shooting in the 5900 block of South 59th West Avenue.

The homeowner told investigators that 37-year-old Joshua Arenas came onto his property, “threatened to steal his truck, and told him he would kill him if he resisted.”

This was not a homeowner shooting somebody over a pickup truck. The reported death threat, pursuit into the residence, physical struggle, and renewed charge are what turned the encounter into a fight for survival.

Going Inside Did Not End the Threat

The homeowner turned toward his residence instead of pursuing Arenas. Arenas allegedly followed him inside.

Once inside, the homeowner grabbed a baseball bat and struck Arenas. The fight continued and eventually moved back outdoors. Even after being hit with the bat, Arenas allegedly remained aggressive.

“The struggle continued outside, where the homeowner said Arenas turned and charged at him again,” the sheriff’s office reported.

The homeowner fired one shot, striking Arenas in the thigh and ending the reported attack.

Arenas was transported to a hospital for treatment before being booked into the Tulsa County Jail on complaints of attempted robbery by force in the first degree, first-degree burglary, and assault and battery. “This is an arrest, not a conviction,” the sheriff’s office noted.

The Firearm Was Not the First Option—It Was the One That Worked

The sequence destroys the usual anti-gun narrative about armed homeowners looking for an excuse to shoot. The homeowner did not chase a fleeing thief or go looking for a fight. He did not open fire when Arenas first entered the property and started threatening to steal his property. He went inside his own home, and then attempted to defend himself with a less-lethal (less effective) improvised weapon, and fired only after Arenas allegedly charged again.

The gun was not his first response. It was his last effective option. One shot stopped a man whom retreat and a baseball bat had failed to stop.

Oklahoma Citizens Have No Duty to Run

Oklahoma law recognizes a citizen’s “right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.” Under 21 O.S. §1289.25, a person lawfully present has no duty to retreat and may use deadly force when reasonably necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or a forcible felony.

Because the shot occurred outside, authorities will consider more than the Castle Doctrine. The alleged death threat, entry into the residence, physical attack, and renewed charge will all matter. No public report says the homeowner was arrested, although prosecutors have not announced a final self-defense determination.

There is no guarantee that police will arrive before an attacker crosses the threshold. The Second Amendment guarantees something more practical: the citizen’s right to possess the means to fight back.

In Tulsa County, the homeowner reportedly used that right to survive.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/xna1kXe
via IFTTT