Holloway v. Katz: Virginia Gun Ban Lawsuit Argues Banned Arms Are Militia Arms

Holloway v. Katz challenges Virginia’s SB 749 / HB 217 gun and magazine ban under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. IMG Duncan Johnson

While four Second Amendment-based cases challenging Virginia’s semiautomatic gun and magazine ban are on hold pending a decision by a three-judge panel on whether they should be consolidated, another case, taking a different approach, is still “scheduled to be argued next Wednesday, June 17th at 9am,” Counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth T. Cuccinelli stated in a June 10 “Non-client specific case update” email.

The Holloway v. Katz complaint (see embedded document, below), filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania, asks for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against SB 749 / HB 217 because  the “ban provisions of the Act  violate the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia.”

That’s where the important difference from the other challenges comes in:

“Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13. Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a “well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That guarantee is self-executing. It necessarily presupposes that the body of the people may acquire and possess the arms with which they must be trained. The General Assembly cannot, consistent with that guarantee, prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.”

Simply put, as noted in the Statement of Facts, “The weapons banned by the act are the arms of the citizen militia.”

Along with the update email came a welcome bonus.

“The Commonwealth Attorney Defendant in our case, Ryan Mehaffey, filed a blockbuster brief in our case arguing that WE should get our preliminary injunction,” Cuccinelli informed. “It’s a good piece of work and a very pleasant surprise.  I’ve attached it for your reading pleasure (merged in the embed below).

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

While Mehaffey was named in the complaint because he is the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Spotsylvania County, it should be noted he is one of the brave Virginia prosecutors who has gone on record saying he will not enforce the ban. (While his brief is, indeed, “a good piece of work” his contention that “a sawed off shotgun is not protected because it does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” is historically arguable, as is what some of us might see as overreliance on limiting small arms to those that “are lawfully in common use today,” which suggests bans on machineguns and limiting developing technologies to the standing army would be consistent with Founding intent instead of potentially rendering the Second Amendment moot. That said, the brunt of Mehaffey’s brief is outstanding and educational.)

“I will let you all know if I hear anything about consolidation or our case schedule,” Cuccinelli advised his email recipients. “If you don’t hear from me, that means we’re still on the schedule above.”

Gun owners who agree that this unique and innovative approach merits pursuing and want to support the case can donate via Rights Watch.

Also see:

• Virginia Judge Stays Crump v. Katz Hearing as July 1 Gun Ban Deadline Looms
• Ignoring Core Purpose Makes 2nd Amendment More Vulnerable to Infringements: The Militia Aspect, Part 1, Part 2

Virginia Judge Stays Crump v. Katz Hearing as July 1 Gun Ban Deadline Looms

---

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/pq6uNrn
via IFTTT

Democrats’ HEAR Act Would Turn Millions of Lawful Suppressor Owners Into Felons

The HEAR Act would not merely ban future suppressor sales. It would ban possession by ordinary citizens and create a federal buyback program for already registered suppressors. IMG Duncan Johnson

Democrats in Congress are not just trying to stop future suppressor sales. They are trying to criminalize suppressor ownership itself.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey Democrat, has reintroduced the so-called Help Empower Americans to Respond Act of 2026, better known as the HEAR Act. The bill is being sold to the public as “gun safety” legislation aimed at “silencers,” but the text tells a much more serious story.

This is not simply a sales ban. This is a suppressor confiscation bill.

Watson Coleman’s press release says the HEAR Act would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearm suppressors or silencers. That last word is the key: possession.

The bill does not merely say that ordinary Americans could no longer buy new suppressors. It says they could no longer lawfully possess the ones they already own.

Americans did exactly what the federal government told them to do to legally obtain suppressors. They went through the National Firearms Act process, filed paperwork, submitted fingerprints, and photos. They waited for ATF approval. Some even paid the old $200 tax when it still applied. They registered their property with the federal government.

Now, a Representative from a state that bans suppressor ownership wants to ban commonly owned safety equipment nationwide.

The HEAR Act would amend federal law to make it unlawful for a person to “import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess” a firearm silencer or firearm muffler in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. The exceptions are narrow and predictable: government agencies, law enforcement, campus law enforcement, nuclear facility security, and certain licensed manufacturers or importers for testing or experimentation. Ordinary citizens are not on that list.

There is no broad grandfather clause for the hunter who bought a suppressor to protect his hearing. No exception for the homeowner who keeps one mounted to a defensive rifle so he does not destroy his family’s hearing during a home invasion. There is no carveout for the competition shooter, firearms instructor, veteran with hearing damage, or gun owner who simply followed the law.

Instead, the bill gives the Attorney General 90 days to establish and implement a nationwide suppressor “buy-back” program for people “seeking to comply” with the new law.

That is political language for surrender your property or become a criminal.

As a reminder for anyone unfamiliar with the word “buyback.” The government cannot “buy back” something it never owned in the first place. These suppressors were bought by private citizens with their own money after completing a federal approval process. Many buyers waited months or years under the old system. Others rushed into the market after Congress reduced the NFA transfer tax on suppressors to $0. Gun owners saw that reform as a step in the right direction. Anti-gunners saw it as a reason to panic.

Watson Coleman’s release attacks Republicans for trying to roll back suppressor restrictions and complains that gun-rights advocates succeeded in eliminating the $200 tax. That is the real political context here. Gun owners won a fight over the tax, so now Democrats are responding with a bill that would wipe out lawful ownership altogether.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Huxwrx Flow 45 M Multi-Caliber Suppressor W/ Booster Assembly	Bereli	$ 708.00
	Huxwrx Flow 762 Ti Rifle Suppressor - FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1185.00
	HUXWRX Flow 7.62 TI Suppressor with Muzzle Device - Black.	Primary Arms	$ 1299.00
	Huxwrx Flow 556k Suppressor W/ Flash Hider, 5.56/17hmr/5.7, Black (BLEM)	Bereli	$ 979.00

Suppressor ownership has exploded because Americans want practical hearing protection.

ATF’s own updated NFA data showed more than 6.1 million silencers registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record as of May 4, 2026. The American Suppressor Association’s May 2026 Suppressor Commercial Market Analysis, reviewed by AmmoLand News, put the figure at approximately 6.14 million registered suppressors and reported that the number had grown by more than 1.7 million since January 2025. That is not some obscure criminal tool or an uncommon item to possess. That is millions of registered suppressors owned by Americans who went through one of the most intrusive firearm-purchase processes in the country.

The gun-control argument still depends on the Hollywood myth that suppressors make firearms whisper-quiet. They do not. Suppressors reduce sound. They do not eliminate it. Anyone who has actually shot suppressed firearms knows they remain loud, especially with supersonic ammunition. Their real-world value is hearing protection, recoil reduction, better communication on the range, and safer shooting conditions for hunters, instructors, competitors, and defensive gun owners.

But anti-gun politicians do not want to debate reality. They want scary words.

Watson Coleman called suppressors “tools of murder” and claimed they have “no legal application.” That statement is absurd on its face. Millions of suppressors are legally registered in the United States. Suppressors are legal for civilian ownership in most states. They are used every day by law-abiding Americans for hunting, training, sport shooting, and personal defense.

If they had “no legal application,” the federal government would not have spent decades approving, taxing, and registering them.

The most dangerous part of the HEAR Act is not just what it bans. It is what it proves about registration.

For years, gun owners have warned that registration leads to confiscation. Anti-gun politicians and their media allies sneered at that warning. They called it paranoia. They insisted that registration was just about safety and accountability.

Now comes a bill aimed directly at a category of already-registered items, with no grandfather protection for ordinary citizens and a federal surrender program attached.

The bill also amends 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), meaning suppressors possessed in violation of the new ban would be subject to federal seizure and forfeiture.

Because suppressors are registered with ATF, the government already has records showing who lawfully acquired them. The Form 4 process ties the item, serial number, transferee, and registration record together. The government knows who bought them and where they live. That makes enforced confiscation the next step.

There are not enough votes in the current Congress. But gun owners should not miss the lesson. The policy goal is now written down in black and white: ban possession, force surrender, and criminalize refusal.

The HEAR Act is also a warning to every gun owner who has ever been told, “Nobody is coming for your guns.” They are not even hiding the playbook anymore.

Today it is suppressors. Tomorrow it will be magazines, semi-automatic rifles, homemade firearms, braces, ammunition, or whatever else the gun-control lobby decides to rebrand as unacceptable.

The same politicians who claim suppressors are too dangerous for ordinary Americans still carve out exceptions for government agents. That tells you what they really believe. The problem is not the device. The problem is civilian ownership.

Gun owners should treat the HEAR Act as more than another doomed anti-gun press release. It is a preview of where the gun-control movement wants to go when it has power.

Registration first. Confiscation later. Felony charges for anyone who refuses.

ASA Report: Suppressor Demand Explodes After $200 Tax Stamp Drops to $0

---

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/lMmfXFk
via IFTTT

Will a Texas Democrat Replace a Gun Control RINO in the U.S. Senate?

With the ballots counted in the Republican run-off elections at the end of May, the race is on to become Texas’s new junior U.S. Senator.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ended John Cornyn’s quarter-century incumbency, taking 63.8% of the run-off votes.

In reality, Cornyn ended his time in office all by himself when he sold out to Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and helped send the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to Joe Biden in 2022.

Paxton comes with a bit of baggage, so gunners and 2A advocates are paying close attention to Texas State Representative James Talarico, the Democratic Party nominee.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Va - Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Value Pack 5bx/Cs	Brownells.com	$ 43.99
	WINCHESTER 9MM LUGER 115 GRAIN FMJ (1,000 Rounds) + Winchester Silvertip 9mm Luger 115 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point (200 Rounds)	Bereli	$ 389.00
	Winchester 9mm 124 Gr FMJ / Winchester Ranger T-Series 9mm 147 Gr JHP 150 Rounds in Heavy Duty Ammo Can Bundle	Ammunition Depot	$ 99.99 $ 77.99
	Winchester 9mm 115gr Full Metal Jacket Ammo - Box of 200	Primary Arms	$ 54.99

On Monday, June 8, Talarico had a conversation with Houston attorney Dan Cogdell. Among the topics was Talarico’s position on gun control:

“So, um, and then you mentioned guns. I am a believer in the Second Amendment. I don’t pick and choose between the Bill of Rights.

“I believe in the Second Amendment just as much as I believe in the first. We have a right to bear arms, to protect ourselves, our families. We have a right to own weapons for sport or for hunting.

“But like any freedom in the Bill of Rights, it’s not absolute. Um, you have a freedom of speech, but you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded building.¹ Um, you have a freedom to assemble, to protest, but you you need a permit uh before you go, you know, start a rally on a street corner somewhere.²

“The same is true for our Second Amendment. We’ve got to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. We’ve got to make sure that we’ve got safe storage laws and and background checks so that we’re keeping everybody safe.

“My my granddad, my grandpa Talarico, taught me how to shoot in Harper, Texas on his ranch. And the thing he emphasized the most was safety. How to how to operate a firearm safely.

“And so I think that’s a common value that we all share in this conversation is how do we how do we defend and protect the Second Amendment while also keeping everyone safe. And it’s going to be a balance.

“Uh, but right now, we have we have extremes on this issue. We have people on the left who are trying to take away people’s guns and we have people on the right uh like the NRA, that don’t want to see any regulations. And so what I’m looking for is kind of a middle path, a common sense path to defend our constitutional rights and also protect our safety.”

When he was campaigning for the nomination, Talarico had a “town hall” meeting on YouTube channels Twobilee and Jubilee. He added in the obligatory mention of Uvalde but, like most Democrats, neglected to mention the scandalous law enforcement response.

So Talarico talks the talk. In fact, he tries to hit every Democrat talking point. But does he really walk the walk?

In the 2018 midterm elections, Talarico was elected to the first of four terms as a member of the Texas House of Representatives. That was the 86th session of the Texas Legislature and gun rights and gun control were hot topics. The session included the first big push for constitutional carry (I wrote a white paper supporting James Stickland’s HB 357).

Talarico authored three gun-related bills in that first session. All three died in committee.

The 87th Session was the one in which both constitutional carry and Second Amendment Sanctuary bills became law. The 88th Session was the first after Uvalde. Both sessions had lots of gun control bills introduced, but Talarico didn’t author any of them.

His final gun-related bill was HB 5025, which would have prohibited the carrying of guns and other weapons in public libraries. Like his earlier bills, HB 5025 died in committee.

Based on everything we’ve seen, James Talarico will be a faithful gun-grabber if Texas voters send him to the Senate in November.

The silver lining in Talarico’s victory is the fact he knocked outspoken loose cannon Jasmine Crockett out of the running.

One thing Ken Paxton will need to counter Democrat claims is Texas’s outcomes after constitutional carry went into effect in September 2021.

According to data from the FBI and the Texas Department of Public Safety, the state’s violent crime rate is down 13 percent, the aggravated assault rate dropped about nine percent, and the murder rate plunged 26 percent. These are all better than the national improvements.

1. Nonsense! There is nothing to prevent you from yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, especially if there is actually a fire. There are unpleasant consequences only if your alarm is a joke or intended to create a panic and then only after you’ve done it.

2. Once again, this is a false equivalency. If you own a piece of property large enough to hold a demonstration, you don’t need a a government permit. It’s only when your group wants to use public property, like a park or street, that a permit might be required, and that’s so the permitting authority can allocate resources, such as cordoning off the area or providing police services.

The right to keep and bear arms is the only Enumerated Right a citizen has to get government permission before it can be exercised. With all the other rights, the assumption is that you won’t misuse or abuse the right (innocent until proven guilty). When it comes to Second Amendment rights, the assumption is that you will .

ATF Reform Package Sends Everytown Into Full Gun-Control Meltdown

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

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

Delaware Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Gun Ban on Adults Under 21

The Delaware Supreme Court heard arguments in a major challenge to HB 451, the state law restricting firearm ownership and possession by adults ages 18 to 20. iStock-2200672379

On June 10, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments in DE Department of Safety and Homeland Security, et al. v. Birney, et al., a dispute over whether Delaware can stop adults under 21 from buying or owning most firearms. The justices convened for a case that gun rights advocates treat as a defining test of how far state constitutional protections stretch for young adults.

The fight began with House Bill 451, which then-Governor John Carney signed on June 30, 2022. The law raised the minimum age to purchase, own, possess, or control most firearms in Delaware from 18 to 21.

A 1968 federal statute already blocked anyone under 21 from buying handguns, but HB 451 reached further—covering rifles and broadening the handgun rules to include ownership and possession—while carving out exceptions for shotguns and muzzle-loading rifles, as well as for active-duty military, law enforcement, and concealed-carry permit holders. It also required hunters between 18 and 20 to stay under the direct supervision of a person 21 or older.

Gavin J. Birney, a Delaware hunter who wanted to buy a firearm before turning 21, challenged the measure right after Carney signed it. The Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the NRA’s state affiliate, joined him along with the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club. After the Court of Chancery dismissed the matter, the Kent County Superior Court took it up.

On August 29, 2025, Superior Court Judge Reneta L. Green-Streett granted summary judgment for the challengers and struck down HB 451’s age restrictions, finding that they clashed with Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, which provides that “a person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use.”

She concluded that “at a minimum, some provisions of HB 451 infringe on the right of a subsection of adults, aged 18 to 20,” leaving intact the parts of the law that don’t touch that age group.

The state appealed, which flipped the caption and put the Department of Safety and Homeland Security in the lead as appellant. The challengers filed a cross appeal, signaling they want broader relief than the trial court delivered.

Gun rights organizations believe the case goes beyond one hunter. They argue that Article I, Section 20 protects more than the federal Second Amendment because it spells out defense of self, family, home, and state alongside hunting and recreation.

In their lawsuit, the challengers said lawmakers passed HB 451 “in defiance” of both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Delaware Supreme Court, courts that had already recognized a fundamental right to self defense.

The DSSA’s complaint described the statute as turning young adults into “criminals—felons—for exercising one of their most exalted rights.” DSSA president and executive director Jeff Hague called the law “downright despicable” and said the group went to court “to vindicate those rights and to put an end” to unconstitutional gun rules.

After the Superior Court win, Hague told Spotlight Delaware, “We believe that all the laws that they passed back in 2022 are unconstitutional, and this just affirms our beliefs from three years ago.” He welcomed the result yet voiced frustration that the case had “been in limbo for a number of months,” landing just days before the 2025 hunting season opened.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Va - Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Value Pack 5bx/Cs	Brownells.com	$ 43.99
	WINCHESTER 9MM LUGER 115 GRAIN FMJ (1,000 Rounds) + Winchester Silvertip 9mm Luger 115 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point (200 Rounds)	Bereli	$ 389.00
	Winchester 9mm 124 Gr FMJ / Winchester Ranger T-Series 9mm 147 Gr JHP 150 Rounds in Heavy Duty Ammo Can Bundle	Ammunition Depot	$ 99.99 $ 77.99
	Winchester 9mm 115gr Full Metal Jacket Ammo - Box of 200	Primary Arms	$ 54.99

Across Delaware’s gun litigation, advocates lean on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which requires the government to show that a firearm rule fits “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The DSSA’s attorneys argued “there is no historical tradition of banning arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” noting that nearly every young adult in the Founding era was expected to own and carry firearms.

The DSSA treats HB 451 as one piece of a 2022 regulatory scheme, and it is simultaneously challenging Delaware’s semiautomatic weapons ban, large capacity magazine limits, and permit to purchase law. The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition have brought up related cases, with the SAF warning that Delaware’s laws have “literally criminalized ownership of these popular arms” and that “each day these laws remain in effect means one more day when Delaware citizens are deprived of their rights.”

Now the dispute reaches the state’s highest court. The record holds opening, answering, and reply briefs on both the appeal and cross appeal, plus an amicus brief from the Giffords Law Center backing the state. If the justices affirm, HB 451’s age limits stay struck down. If they reverse, the ban on purchases and possession by 18- to 20-year-olds returns.

Either way, the ruling will stand as a closely watched marker for how state constitutions shape gun rights for young adults.

Gun Owners Sound Alarm Over New Jersey Glock Subpoenas

Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms

---

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/NV5l8mE
via IFTTT

California Father Shoots, Kills Armed Intruder During Break-In

A San Jacinto homeowner shot and killed an armed intruder after hearing screams and gunfire coming from inside his home, according to authorities. IMG Duncan Johnson

A California father’s fight to protect his family is another reminder that when violence comes crashing through the door, the fastest response is a good guy with a gun.

According to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Office, deputies responded at 10:23 p.m. on Friday, June 5, 2026, to the 1300 block of Heron Way in San Jacinto after a report of an assault with a deadly weapon. What investigators found was the aftermath of a terrifying home invasion and a defensive shooting that may have saved innocent lives.

Investigators say the homeowner had been visiting a neighbor when he heard screaming and gunfire coming from his residence. He ran back home and found an unknown man inside, armed with a shotgun.

That is the moment every gun owner hopes never comes. But if it does, there is no time to wait for a police response, and in California, you had better hope you already passed the required background checks and waiting periods. The homeowner armed himself and confronted the intruder.

According to the sheriff’s office, the suspect fired multiple rounds at the homeowner during the confrontation. The homeowner returned fire, striking the suspect. No additional injuries were reported, and the homeowner was not injured.

KTLA reported that the homeowner was a father trying to save his teenage daughter after the intruder broke into the home.

The suspect was later identified as 45-year-old Ismael Martinez of San Jacinto. Investigators also learned that before the home invasion, Martinez had allegedly assaulted his 52-year-old girlfriend with a knife. She was found in a vehicle near the scene in the 1300 block of South Kirby Street and taken to a local hospital, where she was listed in stable condition.

Sheriff’s officials said there is no indication Martinez or his girlfriend had any connection to the home on Heron Way. Based on the information released so far, this was not a known dispute at that address. It was a violent, shotgun-armed stranger inside a home.

This is exactly why the Second Amendment matters. Anti-gun politicians talk about “common sense,” but there is nothing common sense about making good people helpless when evil walks through the door. California has spent decades punishing lawful gun owners with waiting periods, rosters, ammunition restrictions, carry barriers, and endless red tape. Criminals do not care.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Va - Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Value Pack 5bx/Cs	Brownells.com	$ 43.99
	WINCHESTER 9MM LUGER 115 GRAIN FMJ (1,000 Rounds) + Winchester Silvertip 9mm Luger 115 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point (200 Rounds)	Bereli	$ 389.00
	Winchester 9mm 124 Gr FMJ / Winchester Ranger T-Series 9mm 147 Gr JHP 150 Rounds in Heavy Duty Ammo Can Bundle	Ammunition Depot	$ 99.99 $ 77.99
	Winchester 9mm 115gr Full Metal Jacket Ammo - Box of 200	Primary Arms	$ 54.99

When seconds mattered in San Jacinto, the armed homeowner was the first responder.

The sheriff’s office said the homeowner was taken to the San Jacinto Sheriff’s Station for further investigation. No arrests have been made, and the case will be submitted to the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office for review. That is standard after a deadly defensive shooting, but it is still a reminder that surviving the attack is only the first fight.

The facts released so far tell a simple story. A homeowner heard screams and gunfire. He ran toward danger. He found a shotgun-armed intruder inside his home. The intruder fired at him. The homeowner fired back and stopped the threat.

Gun owners should take the lesson seriously. Violence can arrive without warning, even in your own home.

In San Jacinto, a firearm in the hands of a homeowner stopped a violent intruder. That is why we fight to protect the right to keep and bear arms.

California Homeowner Shoots Knife-Wielding Intruder, Later Identified as Wife’s Ex-Boyfriend

Florida Officials Agree to Judgment Against 3-Day Gun Waiting Period

---

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/K7NDJLd
via IFTTT

When it Comes to School Safety, the Missouri Rangers Beat Fairy Godmothers Every Time

Missouri SB 905 would create trained Missouri Rangers to help protect schools, students, and staff across the state. iStock-2171689382

On May 28, Republican lawmakers sent Senate Bill 905 to Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe. This is a purely Republican bill: Not one Democrat in either chamber voted for the bill; not one Republican voted against it.

Introduced by David Gregory, a state senator from Chesterfield, SB905 would create a new category of school protection officer: The Missouri Ranger.

The Missouri Ranger bridges the gap between armed teachers/staff and school resource officers, who are sworn officers employed by a law enforcement agency and assigned to a school district or campus.

Missouri Rangers, who may be district employees or volunteers, must complete 160 hours of training. The curriculum will be set by the Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) and must include state and federal constitutional and statutory law; firearms training; close quarter combat; de-escalation; active shooter training; defensive tactics; and bomb and arson instruction.

Since it’s fairly common for school protection jobs to be filled by retired law enforcement officers or retired military, Ranger candidates must pass a physical fitness test prior to being admitted for the training program. For those 35 and younger, the test includes doing 40 pushups in less than one minute and running 1.5 miles in under 12 minutes and 30 seconds. The POST Commission will establish tests for candidates older than 35.

“You have to be in physical fitness superior to a Marine,” Gregory said. “Once you pass that fitness test, we then put the rangers through pretty serious training modeled after U.S. Air Marshals.”

After completion of the training, Rangers receive a certificate, a badge, and are vested with limited police powers, including arrest. Their authority is limited to school district property, including buses. They also get the same qualified immunity as regular law enforcement officers.

The school district makes the final decision whether a Ranger will be armed or unarmed, what weapon will be carried, and whether the weapon will be carried openly or concealed.

Of course, the Democrats were having none of this.

“The answer to guns in schools is not more guns in schools,” said state Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs. A St. Louis Democrat, Fuchs prefers mental health support for students.

This is profoundly stupid.

There is a world of difference between a gun in the hands of a school protective officer and a gun in the hands of a teenage gang member or drug dealer. This fact is often missed by those afflicted with acute hoplophobic myopia, such as Rep. Fuchs.

There’s an even bigger difference between the majority of school shooting incidents and mass shootings in schools. These last are the ones Democrats and gun-control freaks in general use to scare the public and traumatize our children.

According to the K-12 School Shooting Database*, there were 3,195 school shooting incidents nationwide from 1970 through 2025. In these incidents, there were 3,308 victims with fatal and non-fatal injuries. Nineteen incidents could be considered mass shootings with a total of 368 injuries and deaths.

The deaths would all be classified by the FBI as either NIBRS Code 09A (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) or 13A (aggravated assault). The CDC uses the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition; (ICD-10) Classes X93, X94, and X95, assault with handgun, long gun, and other firearms, respectively.

These are all criminal offenses. Moreover, they are the only types of injury involved. This is the grand total of “gun violence.”

The K-12 SSD looked at 2,735 incidents and divided them into 17 ‘situations’ or root causes. Mass shootings made up slightly more than one-half percent of the situations while escalations of disputes, criminal activity, drive-by shootings, and vandalism accounted for more than 60% of the total.

Which is going to be more useful more of the time? An armed Missouri Ranger or “mental health support for students?”

Sounds like there is room for more guns — In the right hands.

Who has the right hands? As well-known author and Second Amendment champion Cam Edwards says, anyone “(I)n the right place; at the right time; willing and able to do the right thing.”

Compare this to Rep. Fuch’s strategy: Invoking fairy godmothers.

The mental health dodge is a favorite of gun control addicts, regardless of party. Whether it’s denying fundamental rights to young adults or relying on nonexistent mental health markers to quickly and conclusively identify a person’s potential for future violence, there’s gotta be someone singing “Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo” in the background as they turn pumpkins and mice into squash and roadkill or stigmatize people with legitimate mental health issues who live otherwise healthy, non-violent lives.

There are about 896,000 students enrolled in Missouri K-12 schools. Roughly 280,000 of them are enrolled in high school, which is where the majority of shooting incidents occur. Supplying the range of psychological/psychiatric services needed is going to be challenging from both personnel and budgetary viewpoints.

While we’re supposedly hoping to interdict wannabe mass shooters, the truth is that most injuries and deaths are the result of events that developed rapidly, sometimes within minutes. Disputes, gang and criminal activity, can quickly escalate. Drive-by shootings may or may not involve any planning. Mental health providers will have difficulty predicting and zero ability to stop mass shootings.

On top of everything else, Missouri is not socially homogeneous. The state includes St. Louis, which has one of the highest homicide rates of any city in the world. The murder rate in the Missouri part of Kansas City was more than twice as high as the Kansas side in 2025. On the other hand, Jefferson City, the state capital, had zero murders in 2024 and 2025.

If Missouri could exile St. Louis and Kansas City, the state’s murder rate would plunge by 53 percent.

So what’s the “mental health support” plan, assuming no assistance from the denizens of Fantasyland? Study it to death? Hum a few bars and fake it? Or do like they do with every gun control fail and ignore it?

I have seldom heard of it in the media or from the gun-grabbers, but the K-12 SSD includes 230 reports of school shootings that were averted.

The list even includes a 2023 intervention in Platte County, Missouri. An 18-year-old was planning to carry out a mass shooting with a higher body count than the 2007 slaughter at Virginia Tech, one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

How was this potential tragedy averted? By members of the public providing tips to authorities, followed up by quick action. Based on reports of the incidents, this was the case in virtually every one of the successful interventions.

Proof of this comes from a high-profile failure: The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018.

The state commission formed to investigate the incident blamed the deaths and injuries on the shooter, but blamed the Broward County Public Schools, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, and the FBI for allowing it to happen. The FBI received tips on two occasions but never even forwarded them to its Miami field office.

There’s nothing wrong with improving the quality and availability of mental health care in the United States. However, expecting it to prevent school shootings is unrealistic to the point of being delusional.

On the other hand, we know from experience that a good guy with a gun can end a mass shooting and the quicker the response, the better the outcome.

In addition, the opportunity for smaller school districts to have an armed, well-trained, and licensed law enforcement officer on a volunteer basis could provide an unmatchable measure of security for students, teachers and staff and assurance for parents and family members.

In Texas, we’ve had our School Marshal program since 2013. No problems, so far, but we still rely heavily on retired law enforcement officers. The Missouri Ranger program places an emphasis on attracting younger candidates with a higher level of physical fitness. This means they will likely be able to respond more quickly to threats.

Missouri citizens should urge Governor Kehoe to sign SB 905 without waiting until mid-July.

*Raw statistics sourced from the K-12 School Shooting Database copyright © 2025 David Reidman. Other statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI, Missouri State Highway Patrol, The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Kansas City (KS) Police Department, Kansas City (MO) Police Department. Analysis by the Second Amendment Society of Texas exclusively for AmmoLand.

Philadelphia Police Under DOJ Investigation Over Carry Permit Revocations

New Jersey Glock Subpoenas Are Part of Nationwide Push Against America’s Most Popular Pistol

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

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