ROTC Cadet Stops Terror-Linked Suspect at Old Dominion University

Gun-Free School Zone Act Challenge: Ninth Circuit Reverses Montana Indictment, iStock-1432295648

A deadly terrorist-linked shooting at Old Dominion University on Thursday has reignited questions about campus gun bans after an attacker opened fire inside an ROTC classroom before allegedly being stopped by a cadet who confronted him with a knife.

The attack occurred on March 12, 2026, inside Constant Hall on the Old Dominion University campus in Norfolk, Virginia. Authorities say the suspect, identified as 36-year-old Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, entered the classroom and asked whether it was an ROTC class. When someone confirmed it was, he opened fire.

A retired military officer, who was instructing the class, was shot and later died from his wounds. Two ROTC cadets were also injured during the attack but survived.

The violence was reportedly stopped by ROTC cadets who rushed the attacker and fatally stabbed him during the struggle, preventing further bloodshed. Officials say the cadet’s actions likely saved lives.

Terror-Linked Suspect

The suspect had a concerning history long before Thursday’s attack. Jalloh was a former member of the Army National Guard who had previously pleaded guilty in 2016 to attempting to provide material support to the Islamic State terrorist organization. He was sentenced to 11 years in federal prison in 2017 and was released inexplicably early in December 2024.

Federal authorities are now investigating the shooting as a possible act of terrorism.

The attacker is reported to have specifically targeted the ROTC class, raising further concerns about motive and whether the military affiliation of the victims played a role in the attack.

Anti-Gunner’s Immediately Blame the Gun

Since the attack, Norfolk’s Commonwealth Attorney Ramin Fatehi has blamed guns for the shooting at Old Dominion. The question is: what law would have prevented today’s incident?

Jalloh was a felon in possession of a firearm; he was previously charged with helping a terrorist organization. Reports say Jalloh was a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Sierra Leone in West Africa who was later radicalized. He was convicted to 11 years in prison for working with a terrorist organization and was then released from prison early.

The real question should be why he was out on the street at all.

Most importantly, ODU maintains a strict weapons policy that bans firearms as well as certain knives from civilian possession on campus. Students and teachers are effectively disarmed, while violent criminals can walk onto campus without a second thought about a campus ban.

Fatehi and other anti-gunners will look over all those facts and blame firearms and the cult of the gun.

Norfolk’s Soros-funded Commonwealth Attorney Ramin Fatehi blames Republicans and the “cult of gun absolutism” for the shooting at Old Dominion.

The suspect is reportedly a previously convicted supporter of ISIS. pic.twitter.com/Q2aYdcJUDI

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) March 12, 2026

ODU’s Weapons Ban

Like many colleges and universities across the country, Old Dominion maintains strict restrictions on firearms and other weapons on campus.

Under university regulations and the Virginia Administrative Code, the possession or carrying of weapons by anyone other than police officers is prohibited in academic buildings, residence halls, administrative offices, and university events.

The policy applies even to individuals who legally possess firearms or hold concealed carry permits. In practical terms, this means the campus functions as a gun-free zone.

Criminals, of course, do not obey such rules.

Carry Everywhere

AmmoLand readers know the only option is to carry everywhere that you can and always be prepared. The events at ODU and many other incidents highlight the insanity of gun-free zones and the necessity of armed citizens. The ROTC cadets who confronted the attacker did so at enormous personal risk, using the only means available during the chaotic moments of the attack. Their actions stopped the shooter before additional victims could be killed.

The incident highlights a hard truth about so-called gun-free zones: while they disarm law-abiding citizens, they do nothing to stop determined attackers.

When violence erupts, the first line of defense is often not law enforcement arriving minutes later, but the people already on the scene.

On Thursday at Old Dominion University, one of those people stepped forward. Because of that decision, the death toll was likely far lower than it might have been.

Virginia “Assault Firearms” Ban Passes Legislature, Heads to Governor’s Desk

---

from https://ift.tt/mhgMUa9
via IFTTT

North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un Tests “New” Pistols at Range

Photos released by state media in North Korea recently showed dictator Kim Jong Un standing at a shooting range with senior officials, personally test-firing a newly produced pistol from one of the country’s light-munitions factories. The images, first reported by international outlets including the Associated Press and CBS News, quickly circulated around the world.

But what caught the attention of many observers was not just the handgun itself. Standing next to Kim and firing the same pistol was his teenage daughter, widely believed to be Kim Ju Ae. Her appearance at the range continues a pattern of increasingly public appearances at military demonstrations, missile launches, and weapons inspections that analysts believe could signal she is being introduced as a future successor to the regime.

According to North Korean state media reports, Kim visited a factory responsible for producing pistols and other light arms for the country’s military and security forces. During the visit he reportedly inspected production lines and then moved to an indoor range where he fired the newly produced handgun at targets.

The official report praised the pistol as a successful design and described Kim as expressing satisfaction with its performance. State media also quoted him calling for expanded production capacity and modernization of small arms manufacturing facilities to better equip the country’s armed forces.

The images show Kim and his daughter wearing similar jackets as they fire the pistols side by side, with military officials observing. The daughter is clearly seen shooting the handgun in several photos. Both the father, the daughter, and the generals are seen closing one eye while firing the pistols. Notably, they did not provide eye protection for their glorious leader.

North Korea has a long history of copying or adapting foreign handgun designs.

One of the most common service pistols historically used by the regime is the Type 68, a locally produced clone of the Soviet Tokarev TT 33. Chambered in the powerful 7.62×25 cartridge, the Tokarev pattern pistol has been used by numerous communist states since World War II.

Another domestic design is the Type 70 pistol, introduced around 1970. This handgun appears to borrow heavily from European designs such as the Walther PP and the FN Model 1910. It is typically chambered in .32 ACP and issued to officers and security personnel.

More recently, North Korea has produced a pistol often referred to as the Baek Du San. This handgun strongly resembles the Czech CZ 75 design, a popular double action service pistol that has been widely copied around the world.

Because the regime rarely releases technical specifications, most of what the outside world knows about these firearms comes from captured examples or close analysis of propaganda photos.

The handgun Kim fired during the factory visit has not yet been officially identified. State media simply described it as a “new pistol” that recently entered production.

The available photos show a modern-looking semi-automatic handgun, but the images are not clear enough to confirm its design lineage. It could be an updated version of an existing domestic pistol or an entirely new pattern. There is no apparent slide cut for a red dot optic. Modernization might still be a few decades behind in this instance.

Analysts who study North Korean weapons will likely continue scrutinizing the images for clues about the slide shape, controls, and overall profile in hopes of identifying its origins. For now, the regime appears content to let the pistol remain something of a mystery while focusing attention on the broader message of modernization.

While the photos of Kim and his daughter shooting pistols may resemble a typical range day in the United States, the reality inside North Korea could not be more different.

Private firearm ownership is essentially nonexistent in the country. The regime maintains strict control over all weapons, and ordinary citizens have no legal ability to own firearms for self defense, hunting, or sport shooting.

Guns in North Korea exist almost exclusively in the hands of the state. Military personnel, police, and internal security forces carry them as tools of government authority rather than as instruments of personal liberty.

That stands in sharp contrast to the American tradition of civilian gun ownership protected by the Second Amendment. In the United States, firearms ownership is rooted in the idea that individuals possess the right to defend themselves and ultimately preserve their freedom.

In North Korea, firearms symbolize the exact opposite. They represent the power of the regime over its population.

Ultimately, the range photos serve several purposes for the North Korean government. They showcase a supposed improvement in domestic weapons production. They reinforce the image of Kim as a hands-on military leader. And they continue introducing his daughter to the world as someone closely tied to the country’s military establishment.

But for observers in the free world, the images also highlight a stark truth. In North Korea, guns are tools of the state.

In America, they remain tools of the people.

The 2nd Amendment: America’s Timeless Equalizer for the Weak & Vulnerable

Texas Gun Club Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging 1986 Machine Gun Ban

---

from https://ift.tt/ASHCs6i
via IFTTT

New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases

The legal fight over so-called “large capacity” magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle restrictions may be heading straight toward the U.S. Supreme Court. A new round of filings from some of the nation’s most experienced constitutional litigators has added serious momentum to that possibility.

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner explains the significance of newly filed supplemental briefs in two major Second Amendment cases. Those filings argue that a fresh appellate court ruling has created the kind of legal conflict the Supreme Court typically requires before stepping in.

Attorneys representing gun owners in Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz have now filed supplemental briefs at the Supreme Court pointing to a critical development.

The filings cite the recent decision in Benson v. United States, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the District’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

That decision directly conflicts with rulings from other courts that have upheld similar bans. In particular, the federal Ninth Circuit previously allowed California’s magazine ban to stand in Duncan v. Bonta, while the Washington Supreme Court upheld its state’s restrictions in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz.

This disagreement between courts is known as a “split of authority,” and it is one of the primary triggers that pushes the Supreme Court to grant review. When different courts interpret the Constitution in conflicting ways, the justices often step in to settle the matter once and for all.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Ruger SR-556/AR-556 223/5.56/300 Blackout 10 Round Magpul PMAG Magazine (Black)	Ammunition Depot	$ 18.99
	Magpul PMAG Minus 10 Round Limiter for 223/5.56 Magazines - Reduces Mag Capacity	Ammunition Depot	$ 13.99
	Magpul PMAG GEN 2 MOE AR-15 30 Round Magazine (5 Pack) & 100 Rounds of PMC Bronze .223 Remington FMJ 55gr Ammo	The Mag Shack	$ 126.25 $ 94.99
	Magpul PMAG D-60 AR-15 .223 / 5.56 60-Round Polymer Drum Magazine	GunMag Warehouse	$ 119.99

According to the new briefs, that moment may have arrived.

The ruling in Benson did more than simply strike down Washington D.C.’s magazine restrictions. The court issued a detailed opinion explaining that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are commonly owned and widely used for lawful purposes.

Under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The D.C. court concluded that bans on commonly owned magazines do not meet that test.

In other words, the court found that these magazines fall squarely within the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment.

That conclusion directly contradicts rulings from courts that have treated magazine bans as constitutionally permissible.

The stakes are particularly high for residents of states like California, New Jersey, and now Virginia, where restrictions on magazines holding more than 10 rounds remain in place.

If the Supreme Court declines to review Duncan v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could leave millions of law-abiding Americans in legal limbo. Gun owners who legally purchased standard capacity magazines during previous injunction periods could once again face the possibility of becoming criminals simply for possessing common firearm accessories.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs argue that this is precisely why the Supreme Court should act now. With a final judgment already issued in the Ninth Circuit and a direct conflict between courts now on the books, the legal conditions for Supreme Court review appear to be in place.

The magazine cases also intersect with a broader constitutional fight: bans on semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15.

The Supreme Court has so far declined several opportunities to take up challenges to these restrictions, but some justices have signaled that the issue is likely to reach the Court soon.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh previously wrote that the Court should address bans on commonly owned rifles in the near future. Many Second Amendment advocates believe that resolving the legality of magazine bans could naturally lead the Court to examine rifle bans as well.

After all, both issues revolve around the same fundamental question: whether governments can prohibit arms that are widely owned by ordinary Americans for lawful purposes.

The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions every year, but accepts only a small fraction. However, cases that involve clear constitutional questions and conflicting appellate rulings often rise to the top of the list.

If the justices grant certiorari in either Duncan v. Bonta or Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz, the Court could soon deliver one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings since Bruen.

Such a decision would not only determine the fate of magazine bans but could also shape the legal future of AR-15-style rifles and other commonly owned firearms.

For gun owners across the country, the next few months could determine whether the Supreme Court is finally ready to resolve one of the most contentious constitutional battles in modern American law.

---

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

Texas Gun Club Files Federal Lawsuit Challenging 1986 Machine Gun Ban

Texas Gun Club Files Lawsuit Challenging Federal Machine Gun Ban iStock-2249759468

In a major legal challenge that might reshape federal firearms policy, the Temple Gun Club and three of its members filed a lawsuit yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The complaint directly attacks the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the federal statute that has prohibited the possession and transfer of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, for more than three decades.

The case, Temple Gun Club, Inc. et al v. Bondi et al, was assigned to Judge Reed O’Connor. The plaintiffs are the Temple Gun Club (TGC), a nonprofit organization established in 1963 with more than 1,000 members focused on firearms education, safety, and competitive shooting, along with individual members Jeffrey Howard, Jason Armstrong, and Clark Miracle.

Jeffrey Howard, TGC’s president, is a retired U.S. Army Sergeant Major with 26 years of military service. Jason Armstrong is a retired firefighter and licensed gunsmith. Clark Miracle is a Fort Worth resident and firearms enthusiast. All three individuals state that they have no felony or violent misdemeanor convictions and currently own semi-automatic firearms that could be converted to full-automatic capability, but federal law prevents them from completing such conversions or acquiring post-1986 machine guns.

Named as defendants are U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Daniel Driscoll, and ATF Special Agents in Charge Brian Garner (Dallas Field Division) and Michael Weddel (Houston Field Division), each sued in their official capacities. The plaintiffs maintain that these officials are responsible for enforcing § 922(o), which carries criminal penalties of up to 10 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine for violations.

The prohibition at issue originated as a floor amendment during the 1986 debate over the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA). Sponsored by Representative William Hughes, the amendment was introduced with little committee review or recorded debate. It passed by voice vote and was described by its sponsor as uncontroversial. The final law grandfathered in machine guns already registered with the ATF before the May 19, 1986, cutoff date. It allowed continued possession by government agencies, but it closed the registry to new civilian-owned machine guns.

This created a closed market for legal, transferable pre-1986 machine guns. Prices for these firearms have risen dramatically over the decades, with many models now selling for tens of thousands of dollars, far beyond the reach of most gun owners.

The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF), which is supporting the litigation, described the lawsuit as an effort to vindicate law-abiding citizens’ rights to possess machine guns for lawful purposes, including personal defense, recreation, and training. The plaintiffs emphasize that they seek only to own and use such firearms safely and responsibly, consistent with their long-standing involvement in the shooting sports community.

The complaint’s primary claim is that § 922(o) exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers under Article I of the Constitution. The plaintiffs argue that the federal government lacks general police power to criminalize mere possession of firearms within state borders. They claim that the statute cannot be justified under the Commerce Clause because it lacks a jurisdictional hook tying the prohibited conduct to interstate or foreign commerce.

Citing Supreme Court decisions such as United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, the plaintiffs assert that possessing a machine gun for personal use is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce. They further argue that the ban is not a proper exercise of congressional authority under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

Although the complaint centers on enumerated-powers arguments, it also invokes the Second Amendment, suggesting that § 922(o) impermissibly burdens the core right to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes.

The plaintiffs note that ATF regulations make it effectively impossible to obtain approval for post-1986 machine guns through standard registration processes (Form 1 for making or Form 4 for transferring). They highlight that hundreds of individuals are prosecuted each year under the statute, creating a credible and ongoing threat of enforcement.

The Temple Gun Club asserts organizational standing, arguing that the ban directly harms its mission and its members’ ability to engage in firearms-related activities. The individual plaintiffs claim personal injury from being denied the ability to possess modern machine guns.

This lawsuit occurs amid heightened examination of federal firearms regulations. Recent court decisions, particularly in the Fifth Circuit, have questioned broad interpretations of federal authority over gun possession. The plaintiffs urge the court to reconsider earlier appellate rulings that upheld § 922(o) under the Commerce Clause.

If the plaintiffs prevail, the decision could invalidate the 1986 machine gun ban nationwide, possibly allowing law-abiding citizens to register and possess newly manufactured or converted full-automatic firearms. Such an outcome would dramatically expand civilian access to these weapons and likely reduce prices for transferable pre-1986 models as the market expands.

The case is filed in the Northern District of Texas, where plaintiff Clark Miracle resides, and invokes federal-question jurisdiction. The plaintiffs seek a declaration that § 922(o) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied, a permanent injunction barring enforcement against them, and an award of costs and attorney fees.

As proceedings begin, the lawsuit is expected to draw notable attention from both gun rights and anti-gun organizations. It represents one of the most direct constitutional challenges to the post-1986 machine gun prohibition in recent years. It could set the stage for appellate review in a circuit increasingly receptive to Second Amendment and enumerated-powers arguments.

West Virginia Senate President Kills Machine Gun Bill

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/JZY92Pr
via IFTTT

California Bill Would Force 3D Printers to Block Gun Files With State-Approved Detection Technology

California Bill Would Force 3D Printers to Block Gun Files With State-Approved Detection Technology. iStock-demaerre 586694292

California lawmakers introduced Assembly Bill 2047 on February 17, 2026. The measure, sponsored by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would require many 3D printers sold or transferred in California to use state-approved ‘firearm blocking technology’ designed to detect and stop print jobs involving firearms or certain firearm-related parts. As of March 11, 2026, the bill has been referred to the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, with a hearing scheduled for March 24.

The bill adds Title 21.1 (commencing with Section 3273.631) to Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code and Section 29187 to the Penal Code. At its core, AB 2047 defines “firearm blocking technology” as hardware, firmware, or other integrated measures that ensure a 3D printer will not proceed with any print job unless the underlying file, such as an STL or other computer-aided design format, has been scanned by a certified “firearm blueprint detection algorithm” and cleared as non-firearm-related.

The “firearm blueprint detection algorithm” is described as software that evaluates 3D-printing files to determine whether they could program a printer to produce a firearm, illegal firearm parts, or related items such as firearm precursor parts or machine gun conversion devices (MCD). “Illegal firearm parts” include precursors and conversion components as defined in the Penal Code.

Under the proposed law, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) would play a central role in implementation. By July 1, 2027, the DOJ must investigate existing firearm blueprint files and detection algorithms, then publish performance standards for both algorithms and “software controls processes” designed to prevent evasion of detection. Certification applications would open, with certifications issued starting January 1, 2028. The department would maintain a public list of certified algorithms and processes and have the authority to revoke certifications if standards slip.

By March 1, 2028, the DOJ would publish guidance for manufacturers on equipping printers with compliant blocking technology, including standards for integration, whether through direct firmware embedding (where files are evaluated before printing begins) or pre-print software limitations (restricting inputs to proprietary slicers that incorporate detection).

Manufacturers would need to submit self-attestations for each 3D printer make and model by July 1, 2028, confirming the use of certified algorithms and controls, along with testing to meet standards. The DOJ could voluntarily verify these attestations. Starting September 1, 2028, the department will publish and update a public list of compliant printer models quarterly.

The prohibitions kick in on March 1, 2029: No person could sell, offer for sale, or transfer a non-compliant 3D printer in California. Retailers would have an affirmative defense if they checked the DOJ’s list and confirmed the model before completing a transaction.

Exemptions provide relief for certain users. The requirements would not apply to printers made and sold exclusively to state-licensed firearms manufacturers, to the State of California, or law enforcement for official purposes, or to companies in aerospace, biomedical, automotive, chemical, or mechanical engineering fields (or government contractors) when those printers are not offered on the consumer retail market.

Violations carry serious consequences. Civil actions may be brought against sellers of non-compliant printers, with remedies including compensatory damages, injunctions, and, when pursued by the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney, penalties of up to $25,000 per violation. Prevailing plaintiffs would recover attorney fees and costs. On the criminal side, knowingly disabling, deactivating, uninstalling, or circumventing blocking technology with the intent to manufacture firearms would be a misdemeanor. Selling or transferring modified printers from the DOJ list would also constitute a misdemeanor. False attestations could trigger perjury charges under existing law.

This legislative effort arrives amid ongoing enforcement actions related to digital firearm files. In early February 2026, California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, filed a civil lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against the Gatalog Foundation Inc., CTRLPEW LLC, and associated individuals. The complaint alleges violations of state laws prohibiting the distribution of computer code and instructions that facilitate the unlawful manufacture of firearms and accessories using 3D printers, including designs for handguns, conversion devices, and prohibited magazines. The suit seeks injunctive relief and civil penalties, building on laws effective January 1, 2026, such as those from Assembly Bill 1263, which addressed aiding or facilitating unlawful firearm manufacturing via digital means.

Defendants in that case, including CTRLPEW, quickly countersued in federal court, arguing that restrictions on distributing code infringe on First Amendment protections for expressive speech, citing precedents like Bernstein v. United States. The litigation highlights tensions between regulating practical tools for firearm production and preserving access to information and technology.

AB 2047 shifts the focus from digital distribution to hardware mandates. Critics, including Second Amendment advocates and technology enthusiasts, contend that such requirements represent an unprecedented intrusion into personal manufacturing and innovation. They note that 3D printing serves countless legitimate purposes from custom prosthetics and prototypes to hobbyist projects and question the feasibility of reliable, evasion-proof detection algorithms. Concerns also arise over privacy, as constant file scanning could involve logging user activities, and over potential impacts on industries reliant on open-source or custom printing workflows.

Whether it becomes law will depend on committee reviews, amendments, and votes in the coming months.

Virginia “Assault Firearms” Ban Passes Legislature, Heads to Governor’s Desk

West Virginia Senate President Kills Machine Gun Bill

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/3rs4I2B
via IFTTT

Georgia Senate Bill Enhances Right to Self Defense

Georgia Senate Bill Enhances Right to Self Defense iStock-VasilevKirill 1053113926

In Georgia, Senate Bill 651 has passed the Senate 30 to 23 on March 6, 2026, and has been sent to the House. The bill amends the current statutes about the justification of the use of force and immunity from civil liability. From legiscan.com, here is the summary:

 A BILL to be entitled an Act to amend Article 2 of Chapter 3 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to justification and excuse in defenses to criminal prosecutions, so as to provide for an additional justification for use of force in defense of self or others; to amend Code Section 51-11-9 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to no duty to retreat and immunity in certain instances of threat or use of force, so as to extend immunity from civil liability in justified use of force cases to legal representatives and heirs of the person against whom force was used; to provide for related matters; to provide for an effective date; to repeal conflicting laws; and for other purposes.

The changes occur mostly in Section 2 of 16-3-24.2, which concerns immunity from prosecution and exceptions.  Section 2 of Code Section :

16-3-24.2.

(a) A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-20, 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, 16-3-24, or 17-4-20 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title.

Unlawful weapons are defined in the law and include sawed-off shotguns and rifles, and National Firearms Act weapons, including silencers, if they are not legally possessed under federal law. Georgia is a Constitutional Carry state, but some people are not allowed to carry certain weapons. They include children and felons. The changes are in paragraphs (b) and (c):

(b) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures to investigate the use of threats or force in instances set forth in subsection (a) of this Code section; provided, however, that such agency shall not arrest a person for using or threatening to use force unless a probable cause determination has been made that such force used or threatened was unlawful.

(c) A claim of immunity pursuant to this Code section may be made during arraignment or as a pretrial motion. When a prima-facie claim of immunity has been raised, such claim shall only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence.”

The claim of immunity is a bit like Florida law. If self-defense is claimed, charges may only be brought if there is probable cause to believe the use of force was unlawful. A claim of self-defense can only be overcome by “clear and convincing evidence“.

If a person is justified in threatening or using force, including deadly force, under Georgia law, they have no duty to retreat and shall not be held liable in civil actions. The bill adds this immunity to legal representatives and heirs of such persons:

“has no duty to retreat from the use of such force and shall not be held liable to the person against whom the use of force was justified, to any legal representative or heir of such person, or to any person acting as an accomplice or assistant to such person in any civil action brought as a result of the threat or use of such force.”

The explanation of the bill and the law above is based on a plain reading of the bill and the law. It is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/LzhsA9c
via IFTTT

NYPD Precinct Brags About Seizing “Illegal” Shotguns

There are two Americas: Ours and theirs

Today, our patrol officers responded to a radio run and removed these illegal firearms from our streets. Great work by our officers for their quick response and commitment to keeping our community safe! pic.twitter.com/Fze570oBo7

— NYPD 115th Precinct (@NYPD115Pct) March 7, 2026

The New York Police Department has lost its collective mind, especially at its 115^th Precinct, which is responsible for keeping a portion of Queens and LaGuardia Airport safe, sane and secure.

The commanding officer, Deputy Inspector David Cordano, recently posted a photo of two shotguns and about 60 shells on his precinct’s X page. The guns are nothing special: a semi-auto and an over-under. The shells include birdshot and slugs. But it’s Cordano’s caption that has me scratching my head.

“Today, our patrol officers responded to a radio run and removed these illegal firearms from our streets,” Cordano posted on X. “Great work by our officers for their quick response and commitment to keeping our community safe!”

Even though I haven’t had a badge in my billfold for quite a while, I still need to say this to Deputy Inspector Cordano: If you truly believe your community is actually put at risk by guns like these, you, sir, are ready for the rubber-gun squad.

NYPD’s 115th Precinct commander, Deputy Inspector David Cordano. (Photo courtesy NYPD).

His X post certainly raises more than a few questions:

• Why are these shotguns considered illegal?
• Why were they seized?
• How did these two shotguns make an entire precinct unsafe?
• How does someone like Cordano earn more than $212,000 per year and command an entire NYPD precinct?

Unfortunately, we may never get answers to these questions. Cordano did not respond to calls or messages left at his precinct seeking an interview.

Too blue

NYPD’s infamous CompStat report shows that the 115^th Precinct is a safe place to live or run a business. The precinct hasn’t had a recent murder. Robberies and burglaries are down too, as are grand larcenies.

Why, then, is NYPD so freaked out about a couple of shotguns? The answer is simple. The NYPD is the bluest police department in the bluest city of one of our bluest states.

I would bet that the vast majority of all NYPD officers never even touched a real firearm until after they joined the department and were sent to the range. After all, guns and gun owners are bad, right?

Look at the extreme lengths one had to take, in addition to all the money one needed to spend, just to obtain a permit to simply possess a firearm within city limits. For decades that hassle trebled or quadrupled if a civilian actually wanted to carry a concealed firearm legally.

This too-blue-flu has infected all the cops and especially their top brass. They are scared of modern firearms and modern firearm owners—petrified of them, in fact.

While things have only recently improved somewhat, when compared to a free city of a free state, New York City remains far below the curve. In fact, NYPD’s extreme anti-gun attitude only benefits the bad guys, because they have never once worried about permits or any other legal nicety. Not having to worry about whether their victims may be armed only empowers and benefits these criminals.

If you need proof, compare crime in the Big Apple to any free state. For example, look at Florida, where we’re still celebrating constitutional carry. We certainly have crime in Florida, and at times it can be bad. However, unlike New York City, law-abiding Floridians have the right and ability to fight back.

Besides, cops in a free state would never post pics of a couple shotguns. They’d be too busy returning them to their rightful owner.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/EU4VSIe
via IFTTT