Five Things to Watch as Viramontes and Grant Head to the Supreme Court

“The Court granted two AR-15 cases instead of one so no legislature can moot its way out of a ruling — and from here, several things will tell us whether this becomes the emphatic Heller vindication the law demands.” — Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois, No. 25-238, out of the Seventh Circuit, and consolidated it with Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, out of the Second Circuit, for one hour of argument. Between them, these cases will decide whether Cook County’s ordinance and Connecticut’s statute banning AR-15s and related semi-automatic rifles can survive the Second Amendment. I have already written about why the Court took two cases instead of one. This piece is the roadmap: the key things to track as these cases move toward argument and decision.

Will Anyone Try to Moot This Out?

The first question is whether Cook County or Connecticut tries what New York did in 2020. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, 590 U.S. 336 (2020), not to be confused with NYRSPA v. Bruen, the New York City and New York state rewrote the challenged transport rule the moment cert was granted, and the Supreme Court dismissed the case as moot. Justice Kavanaugh, concurring in the per curiam, agreed the case was moot but warned:

“And I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”

Roughly two years later, the Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Kavanaugh’s prediction was vindicated. But mootness will not work this time. No legislature is going to legalize AR-15s to escape a ruling it dislikes, and the Viramontes complaint pleaded nominal damages — a claim that survives repeal of the ordinance itself. In short, the escape hatch that closed New York’s case is not available here.

Where Does the Trump Justice Department Stand?

The second question is whether Solicitor General D. John Sauer files an amicus brief in support of the Second Amendment, and on what theory. There is no federal statute analogous to either ban, so the federal government has no institutional client to protect and no reason not to side with the Second Amendment claimants. I expect an amicus brief, and I expect Sauer or Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris to seek argument time. This administration’s civil-rights posture — Harmeet Dhillon at the Civil Rights Division, and Barry Arrington now the acting head of the Department’s Second Amendment section — has been substantively strong.

The one caution I would flag is United States v. Hemani, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), where the Solicitor General sought certiorari on a poor fact pattern and lost 9-0 in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch, with 2A attorney Erin Murphy arguing the winning side. That was bad strategy that happened to end well for Team 2A. It should not be repeated here, and I see no structural reason it would be.

Whose Amicus Brief Gets Read Most Carefully?

Every brief filed with the Supreme Court gets read, but the Justices read certain ones more carefully — those filed by counsel they know. I expect Paul Clement and Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy PLLC to file an amicus, and their brief will carry weight regardless of their ultimate client here.

Beyond that, expect three genres of legal briefs:

• methodology briefs discussing Heller’s role against Bruen’s;
• social-science briefs noting that handguns, which cannot be banned under Heller, account for the overwhelming majority of firearm homicides while long guns of all types account for a small fraction;
• and history briefs invoking the historical weapons such as the Brown Bess musket, the Kentucky long rifle, and Founding-era fowling pieces to show that long guns, including rifles, were the Founding era’s most common form of arm.

When Will We Hear Argument, and When Will We Get a Decision?

Based on my own count of this term’s merits docket, Viramontes and Grant sit at roughly twenty-second and twenty-third in the sequence of grants for October Term 2026. Chief Justice Roberts’s practice has been to schedule about nine arguments per monthly sitting. On that trajectory, my projection is that argument falls in the first week of December. A decision, given the argument date and the stakes, should not arrive before the final week of June 2027.

Heller, Bruen, and the Brice of Unanimity

Both cert petitions cite my Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy article, What Part of “In Common Use” Don’t You Understand?: How Courts Have Defied Heller in Arms-Ban Cases—Again, for the proposition that arms-ban cases are governed by Heller’s common-use standard, not a freestanding historical inquiry under Bruen. The anti-gun movement’s real objective is to relitigate that methodology, because it cannot carry the historical burden on suppressors, magazines, or AR-15s under Heller as written. Justice Kagan, writing for a unanimous Court in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280 (2025), described the AR-15 as “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” Justice Sotomayor, dissenting in Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), called such rifles “commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.” My read is that the more liberal Justices already accept the factual premise.

My concern is a different one: a 9-0 result bringing all three of the Court’s liberal Justices into the majority might be purchased at the price of softening the Heller-Bruen methodology or adding unhelpful dicta to the Court’s opinion to secure their votes. A 6-3 decision that keeps that methodology intact would serve the Second Amendment better in every case that follows. Of course, the history of the future has yet to be written so who knows what will happen.

Finally, one sober note belongs here.

The Court’s composition between now and June 2027 is not guaranteed, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death in 2020 and Senator Lindsey Graham’s recent passing both remind us. That reality does not change the analysis above, but it is worth keeping in view. After all, it is Supreme Court lore that the Justice Alito concurrence in Caetano v. Mass. in 2016, which found that stun guns fall under the Second Amendment’s text, was originally destined to be the Court’s majority opinion—until Justice Scalia passed away earlier that year.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

---

from https://ift.tt/RNVW3Ya
via IFTTT

Armed Phoenix Neighbor Shoots Man Stabbing Two Women

Phoenix police say an armed neighbor shot a man who was actively stabbing two women at an apartment complex near 16th and Colter streets. iStock.com/[Pratchaya]

An armed Phoenix resident reportedly stopped a potentially deadly knife attack after hearing a disturbance at a neighboring apartment and finding a man stabbing two women.

The violent confrontation unfolded shortly after midnight on Saturday, July 18, at an apartment complex near 16th and Colter streets, just north of Camelback Road in Phoenix, Arizona.

According to local reporting, a 40-year-old man arrived at the apartment uninvited and began attacking a 27-year-old woman with whom he had previously been romantically involved. When a 30-year-old female relative attempted to intervene, the attacker allegedly stabbed her as well.

A 26-year-old neighbor heard the commotion and responded while the attack was still underway. Police say the armed neighbor shot the man once as he continued stabbing the two women.

When officers arrived, they found the alleged attacker near the bottom of a stairwell suffering from a gunshot wound. A knife was reportedly recovered near him. Emergency personnel attempted to save the man, but he was pronounced dead at the scene.

The two women were found inside the apartment with multiple stab wounds and were transported to a hospital in serious or life-threatening condition.

Armed Neighbor Intervenes During Ongoing Attack

Based on the reporting, the neighbor fired while the attacker was still stabbing the women. Deadly force is generally reserved for stopping an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury. A man actively driving a knife into two people presents exactly the kind of immediate, potentially lethal danger that leaves little time for deliberation.

The neighbor reportedly had only seconds to process what was happening, determine who posed the threat and act before either woman suffered additional wounds.

The armed citizen was initially detained as officers worked to understand the chaotic scene. Police later released him from custody pending the completion of the investigation. No charges against him had been announced in the latest public reporting.

Investigators have not publicly identified the armed neighbor, the deceased attacker, or either of the wounded women.

A Firearm Allowed a Bystander to Stop a Knife Attack

This incident provides another example of a private citizen reportedly using a firearm to defend other people. Trying to physically disarm an active knife attacker is extraordinarily dangerous. Even a physically capable person can suffer fatal wounds within seconds when attempting to close the distance against an assailant armed with a blade.

The neighbor’s firearm gave him the ability to confront the reported attacker without first placing himself within arm’s reach of the knife.

That does not make armed intervention simple or risk-free. Anyone entering a violent confrontation must identify the threat, consider the position of innocent people, understand what lies beyond the target and stop firing when the danger ends. Those responsibilities are substantial. So are the consequences of doing nothing while two people are being stabbed.

The available facts indicate that the neighbor’s intervention ended the attack before responding officers reached the women.

When Seconds Count, the Armed Citizen Was Already There

Police officers responded to the apartment and began securing the scene, treating the wounded and gathering evidence. Their work will determine whether the available facts support criminal charges.

However, officers could only respond after someone called for help. The armed neighbor was already close enough to hear the attack and act while the women were still in immediate danger.

That is the reality behind many defensive gun uses. Law enforcement can not be everywhere at once, no amount of policing or state surveillance can prevent a violent crime from happening. An attack like this one can begin and end before the first patrol car arrives.

In this case, a private citizen reportedly had the means and willingness to stop a man who was stabbing two women.

The investigation will decide the final legal outcome. Based on the facts Phoenix police have released so far, the neighbor’s armed intervention may have prevented an already brutal attack from becoming even worse.

---

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/SdR87sk
via IFTTT

Burchett Bill Aims to Stop Flock Cameras From Tracking Americans — Including Gun Owners

An AI-generated illustration depicts automated license-plate readers monitoring traffic near the U.S. Capitol, highlighting the privacy and Fourth Amendment concerns raised by H.R. 9800. AI-generated illustration created with OpenAI for AmmoLand News

Representative Tim Burchett (R-TN) has introduced legislation that would ban federal agencies from purchasing, deploying, operating, accessing, or contracting for Flock Safety’s automated license plate reader cameras and similar mass-surveillance technologies, systems he has described as unconstitutional.

The Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act (H.R. 9800) was introduced on July 21, 2026, and referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The bill prohibits federal agencies from acquiring or using automated surveillance systems that identify, track, or record individuals through automated license plate recognition (explicitly including Flock Safety cameras), facial recognition technology, biometric identification (fingerprint, iris, retina, voice, gait, or other biological characteristics), or any technology that captures, analyzes, or retains a person’s image, likeness, or other personally identifiable information for the purpose of persistent or mass surveillance. It further bars state, local, and tribal governments from using federal funds for the same systems. Any data collected in violation of the prohibition must be deleted within 30 days and is inadmissible in any court or administrative proceeding.

Burchett has framed the measure as a straightforward Fourth Amendment issue. Law enforcement needs tools, he has said, but “taking our constitutional rights is not on the table.”

Rapid Rise of Flock Safety

Flock Safety, founded in 2017 by Garrett Langley and Matt Feury, has grown into one of the most ubiquitous private surveillance networks in the United States. The company sells solar-powered and pole-mounted cameras primarily to police departments, homeowner associations, businesses, and municipalities. As of mid-2026, the network has surpassed 100,000 cameras operating in more than 5,000 communities across all 50 states. Independent mapping projects such as DeFlock have counted roughly 96,000 units, while earlier 2026 reports placed the figure closer to 75,000–80,000. Company and media estimates indicate the cameras scan more than 150 million vehicles daily, or roughly 20 billion plate reads per month.

Flock is currently valued at approximately $8.4 billion after raising nearly $1 billion in venture capital, with Andreessen Horowitz among its lead investors. The business model relies on recurring subscription revenue rather than one-time hardware sales. Typical small-to-mid-size deployments run $25,000–$90,000 annually; larger municipal contracts can exceed $200,000.

The system records license plate numbers, vehicle characteristics, time, and location of every pass. That data feeds into a centralized cloud platform searchable by connected agencies, often across jurisdictional lines. Privacy advocates argue this creates a de facto national location-tracking database without warrants, individualized suspicion, or meaningful oversight, precisely the kind of “Big Brother” infrastructure warned about in George Orwell’s 1984.

Documented Abuses and Lack of Safeguards

The technology’s rapid expansion has been accompanied by repeated misuse. Officers have used Flock searches to stalk romantic partners and ex-partners. Documented cases include a Kansas police chief who queried his ex-girlfriend’s vehicle 164 times over four months; a Florida officer who ran his girlfriend’s plate 70 times in seven months and then staked out her workplace; Orange City, Florida, officer Jarmarus Brown, who searched an ex-girlfriend’s plate at least 69 times in the summer of 2024; and Milwaukee officer Josue Ayala, charged with misconduct after conducting 179 searches over two months targeting a woman he was dating and her former partner.

In every publicly reported instance, the victims themselves discovered the surveillance. AmmoLand News has found no cases in which internal audits flagged the abuse first. This pattern is unsurprising: Flock’s platform has long lacked robust role-based access controls or automated alerts for anomalous search patterns. Once an officer has credentials, the system provides near-unfettered ability to query the nationwide network.

Security Failures

Independent researchers have exposed serious vulnerabilities. Security researcher Jon Gaines documented 51 findings across Flock’s Falcon and Sparrow license-plate cameras and Raven gunshot-detection microphones; 22 received official CVE designations. One notable issue: pressing a specific button sequence on the rear of certain cameras activates a diagnostic Wi-Fi hotspot, which is often still protected by the default password “security.” From there, root access can be obtained in under 30 seconds, enabling an attacker to extract footage, install malware, steal credentials, or manipulate data.

YouTuber and researcher Benn Jordan discovered that some of Flock’s Condor cameras were exposing live video feeds and roughly a month of archived footage to the open internet with no login required. Viewers could watch playgrounds, parking lots, and streets in real time and even delete recordings. Flock confirmed the misconfiguration and said it had been remediated.

Lawmakers have also noted that credentials for at least 35 Flock customer accounts appeared on Russian cybercrime forums, prompting questions about why the company has not enforced multi-factor authentication more aggressively.

Flock’s public response has emphasized that many of the hardware flaws require physical access to a device plus specialized knowledge, that none of the disclosed issues compromise customers’ core public-safety functions, and that the company owns and maintains the cameras, so end users need to take no action. The company points to its commitment to CISA’s “Secure by Design” principles and its registration of vulnerabilities in the MITRE CVE database. Critics, including analysts at Footnote4a and independent security experts, counter that the company systematically downplays risk and that physical access to widely deployed outdoor cameras is far from theoretical. Most independent assessments disagree with Flock’s characterization of the threat level.

Particular Threat to Gun Owners

For Second Amendment supporters, the implications extend beyond general privacy. License-plate readers can systematically log vehicles arriving at and departing from gun stores, gun shows, and shooting ranges. Anti-gun jurisdictions could treat frequent visits as indicators of “high-risk” behavior. Flock does not control how agencies interpret or act on the data it provides; it simply enables continuous, warrantless monitoring of lawful activity.

This is not hypothetical. In one documented case, Flock cameras were used to track vehicles near a residence where Amazon packages had been stolen. Police confronted an innocent woman whose vehicle had merely passed the location, initially refusing to accept her explanation. Similar false positives and overreach have occurred elsewhere.

The addition of complementary technologies multiplies the risk. SignalTrace, marketed by Leonardo US Cyber and Security Solutions (the American arm of Italian aerospace and defense giant Leonardo S.p.A., which is majority-owned by the Italian government), is designed to clip onto existing ALPR poles and hardware—including infrastructure already used by Flock customers. SignalTrace passively captures Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, RFID, and other wireless signals emitted by phones, smartwatches, earbuds, vehicle systems, and even pet microchips. It builds what the company calls an “electronic fingerprint” of devices that travel together, allowing law enforcement to track individuals even when a plate is obscured, swapped, or unreadable.

Flock has stated it has no contractual relationship with SignalTrace. That claim is narrowly true but incomplete: once the sensors are attached to the same poles and the data streams are available to the same agencies, the practical distinction collapses. Data retention policies for SignalTrace appear less restrictive than some of Flock’s stated limits, raising the possibility of longer-term archival for future queries. The National Rifle Association (NRA) has publicly flagged the combination of Flock-style ALPRs and SignalTrace as a direct threat to gun-owner privacy, noting that RFID tags common on firearms packaging or inventory systems could further link purchases to movement patterns.

Flock has also expanded into aerial surveillance. In 2024, it acquired drone startup Aerodome in a deal reported to be more than $300 million, and now offers its own NDAA-compliant “Alpha” drone capable of reading license plates from as far as 2,000 feet. The drones integrate directly into Flock OS, the company’s real-time crime center platform, creating a single interface that fuses fixed cameras, LPR data, gunshot detection, and live aerial video. Skydio drones can also feed into the same platform, producing a competitive yet interoperable ecosystem of ground and air sensors.

Competitive Landscape and Lobbying Muscle

Flock is not alone. Motorola Solutions (via its Vigilant Solutions acquisition) remains the largest traditional ALPR player and pairs plate readers with in-car systems and body cameras. Rekor Systems focuses on software analytics for third-party cameras. Axon has won large citywide contracts. Verkada offers broader security platforms that include dual plate-and-video cameras. Other competitors include Genetec, PlateSmart, Innova Systems, ELSAG (also under Leonardo), Perceptics, and Jenoptik. Flock’s advantage has been aggressive pricing and direct sales to HOAs and smaller municipalities that legacy vendors historically ignored.

That commercial success is backed by significant political spending. Flock Safety spent $920,000 on federal lobbying in 2025 and another $230,000 in the first quarter of 2026 alone. Motorola Solutions spent more than $2 million in the same period. The combined influence of these companies and their trade associations creates a formidable barrier to legislation that would restrict their products.

Constitutional Stakes

H.R. 9800 is a direct response to the reality that private companies, with the cooperation of thousands of local agencies and the passive acceptance of federal grant programs, have constructed a persistent location-tracking network covering the majority of the American public. The Fourth Amendment was written to prevent precisely this kind of general, suspicionless surveillance. When the same infrastructure can be paired with device-signal collection and aerial platforms, the risk to both privacy and Second Amendment rights becomes acute.

The bill is narrowly drawn: it does not ban state or local agencies from using their own funds to buy these systems, nor does it prohibit traditional investigative tools used with warrants. It simply stops the federal government from buying, funding, or accessing the technology and requires that any data obtained in violation be destroyed and kept out of court. That is a modest but necessary first step.

The bill has been referred to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee and currently has no cosponsors. Whether Congress will advance the measure against determined industry opposition remains to be seen. For gun owners and anyone who values the right to move freely without continuous electronic tracking, the stakes could not be clearer.

---

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/nO1QkJG
via IFTTT

Louisiana Lets 18-Year-Olds Carry Guns but Denies Them Permits

FPC is challenging Louisiana’s refusal to issue concealed handgun permits to otherwise eligible adults between 18 and 20. iStock.com/[Rdlamkin]

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has sued Louisiana over its ban (La. R.S. § 40:1379.3(C)(4)) on concealed carry permits for residents aged 18-20.

FPC filed Pool v. Hodges on July 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs are 19-year-old Ella Pool, 18-year-old Christian McDuffie, and FPC. The lawsuit names Louisiana State Police Superintendent Col. Robert P. Hodges as the defendant.

Louisiana is a “constitutional carry” state, meaning a permit is not required to carry a handgun. Although 18- to 20-year-olds can carry guns in the state under its permitless carry law, federal law (the Gun-Free School Zones Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) prohibits them from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school. Louisiana has a parallel 1,000-foot restriction. Both of these laws exempt people with a state-issued concealed carry permit from the prohibition.

Because 18- to 20-year-olds cannot obtain a Louisiana permit, they are not eligible for the exemption. With more than 1,300 schools in the state, the resulting unmarked 1,000-foot buffers create a dense, overlapping web of “invisible gun-free zones” covering roads, thoroughfares, and large portions of daily travel routes, especially in cities. The plaintiffs argue it is nearly impossible for an 18- to 20-year-old to lawfully carry while traveling without the permit they are forbidden to hold.

Additionally, Louisiana provides civil immunity for justified use of force or self-defense to licensed carriers (La. R.S. § 9:2793.12(B)). Adults under 21 carrying under constitutional carry do not receive this protection. That could mean that someone under 21 who legally defends themself with a firearm could still be sued in civil court, which has happened in multiple cases across the country.

Reese Puts Louisiana in a Difficult Position

The complaints assert that the age-based permit ban violates the Second Amendment. They heavily rely on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen for their arguments. A Bruen analysis consists of two steps.

The first step is to look at the plain text of the Second Amendment. The named plaintiffs are aged 18 and 19. Because they have reached the age of majority in the United States, the plaintiffs reference the Fifth Circuit’s binding decision in Reese v. ATF (FPC’s earlier case), which held that peaceable 18- to 20-year-old adults are part of “the People” protected by the Second Amendment and struck down the federal ban on handgun and handgun-ammunition sales to that age group.

They want to carry handguns, which are bearable arms. Since the conduct is covered by the plain text, it is presumptively protected.

“The Fifth Circuit has already made it crystal clear that peaceable 18- to 20-year-old adults are among ‘the People’ protected by the Second Amendment and enjoy the same right to keep and bear arms as every other adult. Yet Louisiana denies them access to the permits they need to fully exercise their right to bear arms in public, trapping them in a sprawling maze of invisible gun-free zones created and enforced through state and federal law. That is not constitutional carry—it is blatant constitutional infringement. We filed this lawsuit and moved for summary judgment to end this unconstitutional restriction and force Louisiana to treat adults like adults. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until every immoral and unconstitutional restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is eliminated throughout the United States,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs.

In step two of a Bruen analysis, the burden shifts to the state. The state must provide historical analogues to prove that the state law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. With the Supreme Court rejecting the use of racist gun laws, the state will have a tough time justifying its ban on concealed carry permits for young adults.

In addition to relying on Bruen and Rahimi, the plaintiffs also cite two parallel victories against age-based carry restrictions. One case was out of the Eighth Circuit (Worth v. Jacobson), and one from the Third Circuit (Lara). The latter case was denied.

---

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/6KjRFdo
via IFTTT

Ohio State Fair Building Gun Ban Fails All Tests for Constitutionality

Lawfully armed visitors may carry in outdoor areas of the Ohio State Fair, but the fair’s firearms policy bars them from entering buildings while armed. iStock-1295573667

“Welcome to the Ohio State Fair!” the official website declares, announcing the dates of admission from July 29 to August 9. “Discover the Ohio State Fair, a favorite family tradition since 1850! Come for the Midway, featuring exhilarating rides, and unleash all the fair flavors on your tastebuds with your favorite goodies from one of the amazing food vendors!”

Just prepare, if lawfully armed, to walk back to your car when any of that food and drink works its way through your system, and not alone if you bring your kids. And take even more time if you take a Park & Ride shuttle.

Why? WCMH NBC 4 Columbus tells us, “Concealed and open carry guns will be permitted at the Ohio State Fair.”

True, but “the spokesperson for the State Highway Patrol said Wednesday that there is a catch. Lt. Nathan Dennis said this is no different than in years past, but firearms are permitted outside only. Fair patrons are not permitted to bring guns inside any structures, including barns, food establishments and concert venues.”

It’s “the law”:

The Ohio State Fair bans firearms inside enclosed buildings under state laws R.C. 2923.126 and R.C. 2923.1212. These statutes authorize property owners and persons in control of land to post conspicuous signs prohibiting firearms and concealed carry on the premises. The Ohio Expositions Commission, which operates the Ohio Expo Center and State Fair, utilizes this authority to restrict firearms inside all enclosed buildings and structures, regardless of whether the weapons are carried openly or concealed. While fairgoers are permitted to carry firearms in outdoor areas, anyone entering a building must either return their firearm to their vehicle or be turned away.

“Last year, we got an opinion from [State Attorney General Dave] Yost on agricultural societies saying that they are public subdivisions and must allow carry in the same way. The opinion only dealt with outdoor areas,” Dean Rieck, Buckeye Firearms Association Executive Director advised AmmoLand when asked about the restrictions. “We are additionally working on modifying Section 2923.126(B)(7) of the ORC to include fairs, festivals, and other public events in the list of areas where carry cannot be prohibited.

“We’ll continue working on it because it’s ridiculous to allow someone to legally carry while they walk past the Ferris wheel but ban it in the barn with the butter cow,” Rieck added.

It’s not only ridiculous, but it’s also unconstitutional by any standard, particularly using the text, history, and tradition criteria the Supreme Court established in the Bruen decision. But that said, even if rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny means-end evaluation tests were to be invoked, just common sense says it should still fail, because the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and there’s no compelling state interest that says guns are okay on one side of a door but need to be banned for public safety on the other.

It’s even more inexcusable considering Ohio is known as a Second Amendment friendly state, “earning” an “F” grade from Giffords. Add to that “The Republican Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature.” What’s the hold up” Are they ensuring multiple “gun-free zones” and allowing the rights of their core constituents to be infringed because they’re afraid Democrats won’t vote for them?

To borrow an agricultural idiom, make hay while the sun shines. And put some fire in gun owner bellies before the “pivotal” midterms.

Barring that, it’s worth exploring what legal options are available, from an armed attendee having standing to file a lawsuit to DOJ Civil Rights Division AAG Harmeet Dhillon weighing in.

It’s also worth noting that the group that is exempt from having to disarm in buildings and bathrooms has a long history  of public endangerment that continues.

Related Reading: Ohio County Fair ‘No Guns’ Signs Are Unacceptable Insults to Armed Patrons

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/bDKP6dO
via IFTTT

74-Year-Old Homeowner Shoots Alleged Repeat Burglar at Window

Gastonia police say surveillance footage captured Cedric Ford attempting to enter Donald Bolynn’s home before the 74-year-old homeowner fired one defensive shot. iStock.com/[SyncRapeephat]

A 74-year-old North Carolina homeowner will not face charges after shooting a man police say repeatedly tried to force his way into the residence through a window.

The July 12 defensive shooting in Gastonia offers a straightforward lesson about armed self-defense: Cameras can document a crime, alarms can warn that someone is outside, and locked doors can slow an intruder down. When those barriers begin to fail, however, a firearm may be the only thing standing between a vulnerable homeowner and the person forcing his way inside.

According to the Gastonia Police Department, 57-year-old Cedric Ford attempted to enter the home of Donald Bolynn shortly after 7 a.m. Surveillance footage released by police reportedly shows Ford testing the front door, attempting to open a window, and using his body to try to force the door open. He then returned to the window and continued trying to gain entry.

Bolynn told WBTV that he suffers from several health problems and has difficulty hearing. Nevertheless, the pounding outside was loud enough to get his attention.

“Got up off the couch and come to the front door and looked out. I didn’t see nothing,” Bolynn said.

The homeowner then spotted a man at the window.

“That’s when I got my gun and shot,” Bolynn said.

Bolynn fired a single round through the window, striking Ford in the chest. Police have not disclosed what type of firearm the homeowner used. Investigators said Bolynn did not initially realize that he had hit the man, but he knew the gunshot had stopped the attempted entry.

Police Unravel Alleged Drive-By Story

The investigation took an unusual turn after the shooting. At approximately 7:17 a.m., Ford and his girlfriend, identified by police as 47-year-old Sanja Stallings, called 911 from a nearby QuikTrip. They allegedly told officers that Ford had been wounded in a drive-by shooting involving an unknown person in a white vehicle.

Ford was transported to a hospital for treatment. Police, however, began finding evidence that did not support the reported drive-by.

Gastonia’s Flock gunshot-detection system reportedly registered a shot near the Ware Avenue residence at approximately 7:14 a.m. Investigators then obtained surveillance footage showing the attempted entry. Police said the evidence established that Ford had been shot while trying to break into Bolynn’s home–not by someone firing from a passing vehicle.

Ford was taken into custody after leaving the hospital. Police initially announced charges of attempted first-degree burglary and felony obstruction of justice against Ford. Stallings also faces a burglary charge. Additional charges remained subject to review by the Gaston County District Attorney’s Office, according to local reporting.

The charges are allegations, and Ford and Stallings are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty in court.

Investigators also said Bolynn had reported multiple burglaries and robberies during the preceding month that allegedly involved Ford and Stallings. That history gives important context to the homeowner’s predicament. This was not simply an older man startled by an unexplained noise. Police say he had already reported repeated crimes involving the same two people now accused in the attempted break-in.

North Carolina Law Protects the Homeowner

Gastonia police announced that Bolynn would not be charged for firing the shot.

That decision is consistent with North Carolina’s statutory protection of people defending their homes. Under North Carolina General Statute §14-51.2, a lawful occupant is generally presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm when another person unlawfully and forcibly enters—or is in the process of entering—the home.

The law also presumes that someone unlawfully and forcibly entering a residence intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. Those presumptions are rebuttable and subject to specific exceptions, but the statute recognizes a fundamental reality: A homeowner cannot be expected to wait until an intruder is completely inside and attacking before defending himself.

Bolynn was 74 years old, had health limitations, and was inside his own home. The man outside was allegedly working his way through the window after failing to get through the door. No reasonable homeowner should have to gamble that such a person means no harm.

Cameras Record Crimes—Firearms Stop Them

Bolynn appears to have done several things right. His doors were locked. His home had surveillance cameras. He had previously reported alleged crimes to police. Those measures helped investigators reconstruct what happened and reject the supposed drive-by account.

But none of those precautions could physically protect him once someone allegedly began coming through the window.

A defensive firearm can give an elderly or physically limited person the ability to resist an attacker who might otherwise overpower him. Guns are often called “equalizers” because they prevent age, size, strength, and physical condition from automatically deciding who wins a violent confrontation.

That is what the right to keep and bear arms looks like when it matters most, not as an abstract political argument, but as a 74-year-old man refusing to become helpless inside his own home.

---

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/I3cA05e
via IFTTT

DOJ Moves to Block Virgin Islands ‘Assault Weapon’ and Magazine Ban After Cheeseman

The Justice Department says Act 9113 restricts standard-capacity AR-15 rifles and criminalizes commonly owned magazines in violation of the Second Amendment. iStock.com/[SolidMaks]

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to block the U.S. Virgin Islands from enforcing its new restrictions on standard-capacity magazines and the transfer of commonly owned firearms, arguing that the Third Circuit’s recent Cheeseman decision has already exposed those provisions as unconstitutional.

The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to block core provisions of the U.S. Virgin Islands’ newly enacted “assault weapon” and magazine ban, arguing that the Third Circuit’s landmark Cheeseman ruling has already settled the constitutional question.

In a July 22 motion, DOJ attorneys targeted two provisions of Act 9113: the territory’s ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds and its prohibition on selling or transferring firearms “manufactured to hold” more than 15 rounds.

The filing came just five days after the en banc Third Circuit struck down New Jersey’s bans on semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, formerly known as the Cheeseman case.

Because the U.S. Virgin Islands falls within the Third Circuit, the DOJ argues that territorial officials cannot enforce essentially the same unconstitutional restrictions under a different numerical cutoff.

“Nothing more need be said,” DOJ attorneys wrote. “ANJRPC squarely holds that this is unconstitutional.”

Act 9113 Targets AR-15s and Standard Magazines

Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. signed Act 9113 on June 24. The legislation’s stated purpose includes defining and prohibiting so-called “assault rifles” and banning what lawmakers call “large-capacity magazines.”

The law prohibits the possession, receipt, purchase, sale, importation, or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. It also prevents owners from selling or transferring firearms manufactured to accept more than 15 rounds.

That second provision reaches directly into the market for AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles. As the DOJ points out, these rifles commonly leave the factory with 20- or 30-round magazines.

“Accordingly, the USVI bans standard-capacity AR-15 rifles,” the motion states.

The territory may not be confiscating every previously owned AR-15 on its effective date, but blocking future sales and transfers remains a ban. It prevents new gun owners from acquiring affected rifles and traps existing owners with property they cannot freely sell or transfer.

That is how politicians attempt to eliminate commonly owned firearms over time: grandfather yesterday’s owners while closing the market to the next generation.

Existing Rifles Grandfathered, Magazines Criminalized

The distinction between Act 9113’s treatment of firearms and magazines makes the law particularly punitive.

According to the DOJ, the act grandfathers firearms owned when the law was passed. It does not extend the same protection to magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

That leaves a Virgin Islands gun owner who already possesses a standard 20- or 30-round magazine with what the government calls a “Hobsons’ choice”: destroy a constitutionally protected arm or keep it and risk arrest and incarceration.

This is not a speculative threat. The filing points to June 12 testimony from Virgin Islands Assistant Police Commissioner Sean Santos Sr., who reportedly told lawmakers that VIPD “wholeheartedly agrees” with Act 9113 and intends to use its provisions as enforcement guidelines.

When the police agency responsible for enforcing a criminal prohibition says it intends to enforce it, gun owners should not have to risk prison before a court recognizes their injury.

Third Circuit Already Rejected the Numbers Game

The Virgin Islands selected 15 rounds as its limit, while New Jersey chose ten. Neither number has a constitutional foundation.

In the Third Circuit’s en banc Cheeseman decision, the court held that semi-automatic rifles are protected “Arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. It also recognized that magazines are protected because they are necessary components of modern firearms.

The court rejected the idea that legislators can define constitutional protection by arbitrarily selecting a magazine capacity.

A ten-round magazine does not enjoy constitutional protection while an otherwise identical 11-round magazine falls outside the Second Amendment. Likewise, the Virgin Islands cannot make a 15-round magazine lawful while transforming a common 20- or 30-round magazine into contraband.

The Cheeseman record established that Americans possess more than 100 million 30-round AR-15 magazines. That is common use by any honest measure.

Under Heller, the government cannot ban arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens. To fall outside the Second Amendment’s protection, an arm must be both dangerous and unusual. Standard AR-15 rifles and 30-round magazines may be politically unpopular with gun-control activists, but they are plainly not unusual.

The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Acquire Them

The DOJ also attacks Act 9113’s restriction on selling and transferring firearms manufactured to accept magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

Quoting the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Ortega v. Grisham, the government argues:

“Common sense dictates that the right to bear arms requires a right to acquire arms.”

That principle follows from the original understanding of the Second Amendment. The government cannot claim to respect the right to keep and bear arms while banning the transactions through which ordinary citizens acquire them.

The First Amendment would mean little if officials could prohibit citizens from obtaining printing presses or religious texts. The Second Amendment is no different. A right to possess an arm necessarily includes the ability to acquire that arm.

Act 9113 attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution prohibits the territory from doing directly. By blocking future sales and transfers, the law seeks to gradually remove standard-configuration AR-15s from lawful civilian circulation.

DOJ Seeks Relief in Its Existing Virgin Islands Case

The July 22 filing is a second motion for a preliminary injunction in United States v. Government of the Virgin Islands. It is not a separate lawsuit or an amended complaint.

The Justice Department filed the original case in December 2025 against the territorial government, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks. That complaint challenged alleged abuses in the territory’s firearm-licensing system, including warrantless home inspections, mandatory bolted safes, excessive delays, and a discretionary “proper reason” carry requirement.

As AmmoLand reported when DOJ filed the case, the government accused territorial officials of reducing the right to keep and bear arms to a “virtual nullity.”

DOJ now argues that VIPD’s intended enforcement of Act 9113 is “only the latest chapter” in a years-long pattern or practice of Second Amendment violations.

The government relies on 34 U.S.C. §12601, which authorizes the Justice Department to seek equitable relief against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of federally protected rights. According to the filing, an enacted law represents official government policy, and VIPD’s enforcement of that policy falls within the statute.

DOJ Asks the Court to Protect Magazines Holding Up to 30 Rounds

The Justice Department is asking the court to prohibit the Virgin Islands from:

• Enforcing any ban on possessing, receiving, purchasing, selling, importing, or transferring magazines holding 30 rounds or fewer.
• Enforcing any ban on selling or transferring a firearm merely because it was manufactured to hold more than 15 rounds.

The motion does not explain why the requested protection ends at 30 rounds. The most likely reason is that the Third Circuit specifically cited evidence establishing that 30-round AR-15 magazines are overwhelmingly common. That limited request should not be mistaken for a concession that magazines holding more than 30 rounds fall outside the Constitution. It reflects the factual record the Third Circuit already accepted and gives the district court a straightforward basis for immediate relief.

The DOJ says other provisions of Act 9113 are also unconstitutional and will be addressed “in due course.” It has asked the court to hear its latest motion during the oral arguments already scheduled for August 19.

The judge has not yet ruled. But Act 9113 presents the same basic constitutional defects the Third Circuit identified in New Jersey: it targets commonly owned rifles, criminalizes standard magazines, and uses legislative labels to make ordinary arms sound unusual.

The Virgin Islands cannot evade Cheeseman by replacing New Jersey’s ten-round limit with a 15-round limit. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use, not merely the reduced-capacity substitutes politicians are willing to allow.

---

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/um8JdXT
via IFTTT