An elderly Buckhead couple says a violent home invasion shattered the calm of their Garden Hills neighborhood Monday night after a man forced his way into their home and threatened to kill them.
David and Mary Hubert told Atlanta News First that they have lived in the house for more than 20 years and had never experienced serious crime in the area before the incident. Their quiet evening changed suddenly when a man barged into the lower level of their home around 7 p.m. while the couple was watching movies on different floors.
Police later arrested 36-year-old Ramon Darden, who now faces charges including burglary and criminal trespass.
“Get Out of My House”
David said the intruder suddenly appeared inside the home and confronted him. Shocked to find a stranger standing in his house, David told the man to leave.
Instead of leaving, the suspect became aggressive, cursing and behaving erratically.
Recognizing the danger, David moved quickly. He locked himself inside a room and called 911, staying on the phone with Atlanta police while officers responded to the scene.
Mary Reaches for “Sweet Jane”
Upstairs, Mary Hubert heard the commotion unfolding below. She immediately reached for a handgun she keeps close by, her .38 caliber pistol that she affectionately calls “Sweet Jane.”
Mary grabbed the revolver from under her pillow and moved into a defensive position, hiding while watching the hallway using reflections from the bathroom mirrors so she could see if the intruder approached.
While David remained locked down on the phone with dispatchers, the suspect reportedly wandered through the house for a period of time, moving room to room. David said the man appeared to be smoking and even turned family photographs face down while roaming the home.
For more than an hour after police arrived, David still had not been able to reach Mary and did not know where she was inside the house. But he told reporters he wasn’t worried about her ability to defend herself.
“I know she’s capable of defending herself,” he said. “They had better hope they get me and not Mary.”
Police Arrest Suspect
Atlanta police eventually located and arrested the suspect inside the home and cleared the scene. The couple said they are grateful to law enforcement and thankful they both survived the ordeal.
Authorities believe the suspect may have entered through an unlocked side door near the garage, something the homeowners say they have since corrected.
Stories like this illustrate a simple reality: when someone breaks into your home and threatens your life, the first line of defense is the person already there.
David created time and distance by locking himself in a room and calling the police. Mary prepared to defend herself with “Sweet Jane” if the intruder came upstairs.
In this case, the firearm never had to be fired. But it served the purpose millions of Americans rely on every day, a tool that gives law-abiding citizens a fighting chance while waiting for help to arrive.
And for David and Mary Hubert, that preparation may have made all the difference between a terrifying story and a tragic one.
Gun Control in Iran was Failing Even Before our First Strike. iStock-1270593317
Iran had some of the strictest and most repressive gun-control laws in the world, under the Ayatollah.
Since they lack a constitution, Iranians have no right to own firearms.
Civilian firearms were regulated by the legislature, which took orders directly and indirectly from the Ayatollah.
For an Iranian civilian to legally purchase a handgun, a license was needed from the Iranian government. Officially, the process included a permit from local police, a criminal records check, military service checks, a psychological exam and successful completion of state safety training and testing. It was estimated that only 3% to 7% of all applications were approved.
Only this small number of licensees were legally allowed to purchase and possess ammunition.
In May 2025, longtime Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered even harsher criminal sentences for unlicensed firearm possession and for the use of digital platforms to arrange private sales.
Pezeshkian, it should be noted, was a member of a three-man council that tried, at least technically, to govern Iran. Earlier this month, Pezeshkian told his country that “bloodshed and revenge are Iran’s legitimate right and duty.” His current status is not known.
Pezeshkian’s most recent anti-gun laws threatened anyone involved with an “illegal” firearm, not just the owner. They targeted gun dealers, gunsmiths and anyone who offered training in firearm tactics. Penalties were severe—up to 15 years in an Iranian prison. Military weapons drew the stiffest penalties. The government could also seize the personal property of anyone that was accused.
Pezeshkian even targeted air guns with his new laws. Air gun owners were forced to turn in their arms or face severe sentences.
Online gun sales
Last year, Iran International, a London-based Iranian news agency, which covers the country with “fearless journalism,” investigated online firearm sales, which are thriving in Iran.
“In one 17,000-member channel, a vendor offered a Glock 17 pistol for 280 million rials ($340), a Makarov for 240 million ($290), and a Turkish-made Colt .45 for 360 million ($440). For higher-end buyers, a Kalashnikov was listed at 1.7 billion rials ($2,070), including a video showing it wrapped in cloth beside two full magazines,” the online magazine reported.
Security was tight on the websites. Payments were made via cryptocurrency, and purchased firearms were left in hidden locations. One seller used a shopping mall. After payment was made, the buyer had two hours to retrieve their purchases.
“The dealers who actually deliver have networks,” a source in Tehran told the website. “They use trusted people. Some even have police protection.”
The website found that while some of the sellers were questionable, there were enough legitimate ones to keep gun sales thriving.
Takeaways
Iranian civilians certainly have a legitimate need to arm themselves. It is difficult to understand the horrors they face under the current Islamic regime. They can be arrested, jailed and tortured on mere suspicion. Their security forces can shoot them dead on the street for no reason without any fear of a legal response.
While a $440 Turkish-made Colt .45 doesn’t provide the firepower required to save its owner from dozens of Iranian security forces armed with AKs, at least it offers the owner the ability to take a few with them.
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.
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.
Go out and vote! The fate of the Second Amendment and the Republic as a whole are at stake. iStock-1271805899
In 2024,Brandon Herrera, also known as the online personality The AK Guy, came very close to winning a runoff primary against Representative Tony Gonzales in the Texas Republican primary for District 23. The Texas Congressional District 23 extends over a vast, mostly rural area of west Texas. In the initial multi-candidate primary, Herrera won 24.6% of the vote. In the 2024 runoff, Herrera won 49.4% of the vote, very close to an upset victory. Texas District 23 is considered a “safe” Republican district. In the general election of 2024, Gonzales received 180,720 votes to Democratic candidate Santos Limon, who received 109,373 votes, according to Ballotpedia. Whoever wins the runoff Republican primary in 2026 is very likely to be the Republican Congressman in the House of Representatives from Texas District 23.
In 2026, Gonzales was embroiled in a scandal involving the suicide of a married woman staffer. Some racy texts were allegedly sent to her by Gonzales. In the initial primary in 2026, Herrera obtained about 1.6% more votes than Gonzales, in a field of four candidates. Kens5.com reported, as of 5:40 p.m. on March 4, 2026, these results:
43.33% Brandon Herrera 23,830 votes
41.73% Tony Gonzales 22,949 votes
8.49% Keith Barton 4,668 votes.
6.46% Francisco ‘Quito’ Canseco 3,551 votes.
There were about 55,000 total votes in the 2026 primary. It is close to the number cast in the 2024 primary race, about 57,600 votes. In the runoff primary election of 2024, fewer than 30,000 votes were cast. In the initial primary of 2024, Gonzales had 25,988 votes. In the initial 2024 primary, Herrera received 24.6% of the vote, or 14,201 votes. In the initial primary in 2026, Herrera almost doubled his vote total, while Gonzales dropped almost three thousand votes. If that dynamic holds for the 2026 runoff, Gonzalez is in trouble.
In the initial primary of 2024, 54.9% of the votes were against Tony Gonzales. In the initial primary of 2026, 58.3% of the votes were against Tony Gonzales. After the bruising in the initial runoff of 2026, the U.S. House Ethics Committee opened an investigation into the allegations of an affair. From tpr.org:
The U.S. House Ethics Committee announced Wednesday that it has opened an investigation into Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Republican from Texas CD-23, following allegations involving his conduct toward a former staff member in his congressional office.
In a statement, the committee said it voted to create an investigative subcommittee to examine whether Gonzales may have violated the House Code of Official Conduct or other applicable rules.
According to the committee, the inquiry will focus on allegations that he may have engaged in sexual misconduct involving an employee in his office and whether he may have unfairly granted special favors or privileges.
Gonzales is facing a primary challenge from Brandon Herrera, who pushed him to a runoff in the 2024 primaries. The two were separated by less than 400 votes in the runoff in 2024.
Trump has previously endorsed Gonzales, but during Friday’s flurry of endorsements, the congressman’s name and district were noticeably absent.
Ballotpedia shows Herrera with $868,569 in funds raised according to the Federal Elections Commission, as of February 11, 2026. According to the Texas Tribune, Herrera has raised 2.3 million in campaign funds as of March 4. The Tribune claims Herrera has more funds available than does Gonzales. According to San Antonio Today, Kyle Rittenhouse campaigned for Brandon Herrara in a door-knocking campaign on March 2, a day before the initial primary election.
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.
House Republicans in the Michigan Legislature have introduced a package of bills designed to make Michigan a Constitutional Carry state. iStock-1327766990
A group of Michigan House Republicans has unveiled a package of five bills aimed at making the Great Lakes State the 30th state in the nation with a so-called “Constitutional Carry” law, eliminating the need for a concealed pistol license.
The package includes House Bills 5653, 5654, 5655, 5656, and 5657, and the effort faces stiff opposition.
WWMT News is quoting Rep. Jay DeBoyer, one of the sponsors, noting, “For the government of the state of Michigan to tell that that we have to be qualified under the guise of their rules in order to protect ourselves is a far cry from what the constitution provides for us.”
“Over the past few decades,” Rep Joe Fox explained during a press conference, “there has been a sharp increase in the number of CPL applications across our nation. Clearly, government overreach is encouraging Americans to secure their Second Amendment right to carry a firearm and to utilize that firearm, especially for self-defense…Constitutional carry states tend to experience a reduction in violent crime following the enactment of these constitutional carry laws.”
Another member of the group, speaking at a press briefing Tuesday, was Rep. Jim DeSana, who observed, “When we exercise other First Amendment rights like our right to speak, we do not have to get a permit or permission from the government to speak. When we exercise our right to worship, we do not have to go get a permit or permission to go worship.
“The right to self-defense and the right to bear arms is the ultimate right in America, “ DeSana added. “It protects your life.”
Twenty-eight Republicans are backing this bill package, and they acknowledge they have a tough fight ahead with a Democrat governor in Lansing.
Gun control advocates, however, are not so keen on the legislation. Jonathan Gold, president of the Michigan chapter of the Giffords Gun Owners for Safety group, part of the Giffords gun prohibition lobbying organization, argued to WWMT that permitless carry would make people less safe.
Gold, described as a firearms instructor, supports the permit system as is, with instruction on state laws and gun safety.
But Republican Rep. DeBoyer countered, “For the government of the state of Michigan to tell that that we have to be qualified under the guise of their rules in order to protect ourselves is a far cry from what the constitution provides for us.”
As in other states where Constitutional Carry laws have already been passed, Michigan would still retain its CPL structure to provide the means for Michigan residents to carry in other states with reciprocity agreements. Currently, more than 845,000 Michiganders are licensed to carry, according to the Michigan State Police.
The introduction of this legislation package comes on the heels of a political flap created by the anti-gun mayor of Grand Rapids. Late last month, Mayor David LaGrand declared during a community forum, “I think as a community we have to start having some shaming around gun possession. I think if you’ve got a gun, you should be ashamed of yourself. I really do.”
His remarks, captured on video, sped across social media, forcing LaGrand to issue a “clarification” two days later in which he attempted to justify his animosity towards gun owners and the Second Amendment. He said experience as a former prosecutor, seeing the aftermath of violent crime involving firearms, shaped his “personal frustration.”
LaGrand’s comments were met with disdain from gun owners and Second Amendment advocates. In a blistering rebuttal, the National Rifle Association stated, “Gun owners and many of LeGrand’s fellow Michiganders, on the other hand, are rightfully incensed at the mayor’s dismissive, ignorant, scolding attitude toward their rights, their culture, and their choices.”
State Rep. Fox told WJBK News, “This and many other bills that we are doing in the House, I would call them practice for the future. We are about making a statement that there is a right way to do things and a wrong way to do things, and we would like to keep putting forth what we see as the right way. And this aligns with the Constitution.”
Currently, there is an ongoing effort to also pass Constitutional Carry in North Carolina, where the governor is also a Democrat, Josh Stein.
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
A belt-fed M60-style machine gun similar to the firearm referenced in the Eighth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Brad Wendt. The court overturned Wendt’s conviction for illegal machine gun possession while leaving fraud convictions intact. iStock-1019603648
In a closely watched decision released on March 3, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a split ruling in United States v. Brad Wendt. The court unanimously affirmed Brad Wendt’s convictions for making false statements to the ATF and conspiracy to defraud the agency, but reversed his conviction for illegal possession of a machine gun. The 2-1 decision spotlights deep divisions over the scope of federal machine-gun prohibitions when applied to law-enforcement officers and provokes significant questions about vagueness, statutory interpretation, and Second Amendment protections.
Judge David Stras, in a concurrence, went further, arguing that Wendt’s possession of the department-owned weapon was never criminal at all. Judge Jane Kelly dissented only on the possession count, warning that the majority’s vagueness analysis strayed into hypotheticals not before the court.
Brad Wendt’s story reads like a cautionary narrative at the intersection of small-town policing and the firearms industry. Since 2013, Wendt owned and operated two federal firearms licensees (FFLs) in Anita and Denison, Iowa, under the name BW Outfitters. In 2016, he obtained Special Occupational Tax (SOT) status, allowing legal dealing in machine guns, highly restricted weapons whose civilian possession has been effectively frozen since 1986 under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).
On July 2, 2018, Wendt was sworn in as Chief of Police for Adair, Iowa, a town of fewer than 800 residents with only two full-time officers. As chief, Wendt gained authority to issue “law letters” on official Adair Police Department letterhead. These letters authorized transfers of machine guns either for “official use” by the department or for “demonstration” to help the agency decide on future purchases.
Between July 2018 and July 2022, Wendt authored approximately 90 such letters. Prosecutors alleged, and the jury found, that many were fraudulent. Wendt purchased machine guns with his personal funds, registered them to the tiny police department, and then resold them at massive markups. One example: Heckler & Koch MP7A2s bought for $2,080 each and sold for $25,000 apiece. Over time, he profited roughly $79,660 from guns registered to Adair.
He also wrote demonstration letters for other FFL-SOTs, including Robert Williams and Jonathan Marcum, knowing the Adair department had zero interest in the weapons. Marcum later pleaded guilty to related charges.
The scheme culminated on April 16, 2022, when BW Outfitters hosted a commercial “machine gun shoot” in Woodbine, Iowa, 57 miles from Adair. Wendt attended off-duty, out of uniform. His business supplied ammunition, and at least eleven machine guns, including a U.S. Ordnance M60 registered to the Adair Police Department. Civilians paid to shoot; law-enforcement attendees shot for free. Undercover ATF agents were present.
A federal jury convicted Wendt on nine counts of false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2)), one count of conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 371), and one count of illegal machine-gun possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)). He received a below-Guidelines 60-month sentence, a $50,000 fine, and forfeiture of fifteen firearms.
On appeal, Wendt challenged jury instructions on the false-statement counts and the sufficiency of evidence for possession. The panel unanimously rejected his arguments on the § 1001 convictions.
Judge L. Steven Erickson, writing for the majority, held that the district court’s instructions accurately tracked the statutory elements and the specific false representations Wendt made in his law letters. Wendt had certified that the guns were for “official use” and “not for resale” or that demonstrations were sought for potential future purchase by Adair; statements the jury found knowingly false.
Erickson dismissed Wendt’s request for a “Harra-style” ambiguity instruction, noting that, unlike the complex banking guidance in United States v. Harra, the ATF regulations here were unambiguous: transfers must be for genuine official use or legitimate demonstration.
The court also upheld the Guidelines calculation, confirming the district court properly associated the false-statement counts with the firearms guideline under USSG § 2B1.1(c)(3).
The real fireworks came on Count 20, the standalone § 922(o) possession charge involving the M60 at the Woodbine shoot.
Section 922(o) bans machine-gun possession except for transfers or possession “by or under the authority of” a government agency (§ 922(o)(2)(A)). Erickson concluded that this “public authority” exception is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Wendt.
A person of ordinary intelligence, Erickson wrote, would not have fair notice that a police chief lacks authority to transport a department-registered machine gun to a law-enforcement-friendly shooting event even if off-duty and sponsored by his private business. The statute and ATF regulations provide no guidance on off-duty status, geographic limits, uniform requirements, or commercial context.
Citing United States v. Vest, Erickson noted that the exception invites arbitrary enforcement: the government could, in theory, charge an officer with leaving a gun in a patrol car during a meal break but not during official duties. The rule of lenity resolved the remaining ambiguity in Wendt’s favor.
Accordingly, the court vacated the possession conviction, remanded for vacatur of the special assessment, and left Wendt’s 60-month sentence intact (the counts ran concurrently).
Judge Stras concurred in the judgment but on wider grounds. He argued Wendt’s conduct was lawful under both § 922(o)(2)(A) and the separate exemption in § 925(a)(1), which protects firearms “imported for, sold or shipped to, or issued for the use of” any state or local government from most federal prohibitions.
As police chief, Wendt possessed actual and implied authority under Iowa law to manage and transport department weapons even off-duty and outside city limits. Iowa Code § 724.6(1)(c) expressly allows certified peace officers to “go armed anywhere in the state at all times.”
Stras further invoked the doctrine of constitutional avoidance and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. Historical analogues show sheriffs and peace officers have long carried “dangerous” weapons without restriction. There is no tradition of prosecuting officers for possessing government-issued arms.
“Federal law recognizes a broad exception to the machine-gun ban for any held by state or local governments,” Stras wrote. “The point is that, even though Wendt criminally misled the ATF… he did not illegally ‘possess [the city’s] machinegun.’”
UPDATE
The 8th Circuit vacated a conviction for “illegal possession of a machinegun” in a case where GOF & @gunowners filed an amicus brief.
The court held that Chief Wendt lawfully possessed the firearm “under the authority of” the State of Iowa at a community shoot. pic.twitter.com/OTh2RnyV01
— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) March 3, 2026
Judge Kelly concurred in the false-statement holdings but dissented on possession. She argued that Wendt’s specific conduct off-duty, 57 miles away, at a for-profit event where civilians paid to shoot a police-registered gun, fell plainly outside any reasonable reading of “under the authority of” the Adair Police Department.
The jury had already rejected Wendt’s “government authority” defense after proper instructions. Kelly warned against hypothetical vagueness analysis: “We do not speculate about possible vagueness in hypothetical situations not before the Court.”
The decision is a clear win for Wendt on the most serious count but leaves his fraud convictions and 60-month sentence intact. More broadly, it spotlights persistent ambiguity in federal machine-gun law when law-enforcement officers wear multiple hats.
For FFL-SOTs and police departments, the ruling illustrates the perils of “law letters.” False certifications about official use or demonstration intent remain prosecutable even if the underlying possession might be protected.
Gun-rights advocates will celebrate Stras’s concurrence for its textualist and historical analysis, potentially allowing passage to further challenges against § 922(o) as applied to government actors. Some critics may worry that the vagueness holding creates uncertainty for prosecutors nationwide.
Legal observers note the Eighth Circuit’s inclination to engage Bruen analysis even in a non-Second Amendment facial challenge. With machine-gun cases increasingly reaching appellate courts post-Bruen, today’s opinion adds a significant data point.
Wendt’s case now returns to the Southern District of Iowa for ministerial cleanup. Whether the government seeks en banc review or Supreme Court review remains to be seen, particularly given the circuit split potential created by Stras’s broader reasoning.
For now, Brad Wendt is no longer a convicted illegal machine-gun possessor. But the federal government’s successful prosecution of his fraudulent scheme acts as a stark reminder that even small-town police chiefs cannot treat public authority as a blank check for private profit.
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.
I Voted sticker on a Ruger Mini-14 223 carbine with Nikon P223 scope. IMG Jim Grant
One of the most closely watched Republican primaries in the country has turned into a political earthquake in South Texas. Gun-rights activist and firearms manufacturer Brandon Herrera has forced incumbent Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-TX) into a runoff election in Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, signaling deep dissatisfaction among grassroots conservatives and Second Amendment voters.
With nearly all votes counted in the March 3 Republican primary, Gonzales and Herrera each captured enough of the vote, leaving neither candidate above the 50-percent threshold required to win outright under Texas election law.
The result sends the race to a May 26 runoff, where Republican voters will decide whether to renominate the incumbent or replace him with one of the most recognizable gun-rights voices in the country.
For many gun owners, the race has become a referendum on the direction of the Republican Party—and whether Congress will have members willing to unapologetically defend the Second Amendment.
A Challenge From the Gun Rights Grassroots
Herrera is not a traditional political candidate. Known to millions online as “The AK Guy,” Herrera built his national reputation producing firearms content on YouTube while running a firearms manufacturing business in Texas.
In recent years, he has become a prominent voice in the gun-rights community, frequently testifying against gun-control legislation and speaking at pro-Second Amendment rallies.
Herrera first challenged Gonzales in 2024 and nearly pulled off a political upset. In that race, the incumbent narrowly survived the runoff with just 50.6 percent of the vote, defeating Herrera by only a few hundred ballots.
That razor-thin margin convinced many grassroots activists that the district, long considered safe for establishment Republicans, was ready for a more aggressive defender of the right to keep and bear arms.
Herrera returned in 2026 with a larger campaign infrastructure and a growing coalition of gun owners, younger voters, and anti-establishment conservatives.
Why Gonzales Is Under Fire
Rep. Tony Gonzales, first elected to Congress in 2020, represents one of the largest congressional districts in the country, stretching across hundreds of miles of southern Texas along the U.S.–Mexico border. But his relationship with the conservative base in the district has been strained for years.
The Texas Republican Party formally censured Gonzales after he supported the bipartisan gun-control package passed following the 2022 Uvalde school shooting.
For gun owners, that vote crossed a line.
Herrera and his supporters have repeatedly argued that Gonzales sided with Washington moderates rather than defending the constitutional rights of Texans.
That vote, along with his track record on other issues, has made Gonzales a frequent target of grassroots criticism and a prime target for a primary challenge.
A Primary Dominated by Controversy
The race became even more volatile in the final days of the primary.
Reports surfaced alleging that Gonzales had an affair with a former congressional aide who later died by suicide, a controversy that prompted calls from some Republicans for the congressman to step aside. Gonzales has denied wrongdoing and characterized the allegations as politically motivated attacks.
Despite the scandal dominating headlines, Gonzales still managed to remain competitive in the primary, setting up the high-stakes runoff against Herrera.
What the Runoff Means for Gun Owners
For Second Amendment advocates, the Texas 23rd District race represents something bigger than a typical primary.
It reflects a growing divide inside the Republican Party between the political establishment and grassroots activists who want stronger resistance to gun-control legislation.
Herrera’s candidacy also represents a new type of political figure emerging from the firearms community: individuals who built their reputations through online platforms and industry involvement rather than traditional political careers.
That dynamic has energized younger gun owners who see Herrera as a candidate willing to challenge Washington rather than compromise with it.
The Road to May
The May 26 runoff will determine who becomes the Republican nominee in a district that historically leans GOP but remains politically competitive due to its geography and demographics.
Texas’ 23rd District stretches from the suburbs of San Antonio west across the Big Bend region toward El Paso, covering vast rural areas and several border communities.
Because neither candidate cleared 50 percent in the primary, the two top finishers now face a head-to-head showdown.
For Gonzales, the runoff is a fight for political survival.
For Herrera, it represents another opportunity to finish what he nearly accomplished in 2024—unseating an incumbent and sending a new voice for gun owners to Washington.
One thing is certain: the battle for Texas’ 23rd District is no longer just a local race. It has become one of the most closely watched tests of grassroots gun-rights activism in American politics.
Anti-Gun States Rush to Save Federal Handgun Mailing Ban, iStock-1357038188
In a dramatic new chapter of Shreve v. United States Postal Service, a trio of anti-gun states has stepped into the legal fight over the federal ban on mailing handguns. This fight was reignited earlier this year, when the U.S. Department of Justice formally concluded that the nearly 100-year-old prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 1715 is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected arms.
In January 2026, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), led by Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser, issued a memorandum concluding that the federal statute barring the mailing of pistols, revolvers, and other concealable firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s modern jurisprudence.
Section 1715, originally enacted in 1927 and later amended, generally prohibits mailing “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person,” with exceptions for military, law enforcement, and certain licensed entities. For decades, it has functioned as a categorical federal ban on ordinary citizens mailing handguns through USPS.
Applying the Supreme Court’s framework in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires firearm regulations to be consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the OLC concluded that the statute substantially burdens conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment and lacks sufficient historical analogues from the Founding era.
Importantly, the OLC opinion does not repeal the statute. Congress has not amended Section 1715. However, the executive branch has taken the position that it cannot constitutionally defend or enforce the ban against constitutionally protected arms. That marks a significant shift after nearly a century of federal enforcement.
Delaware, New Jersey, and New York Move to Intervene
Following DOJ’s decision not to defend the constitutionality of Section 1715 in the pending litigation, the states of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York have filed a motion to intervene as defendants in the case.
In their brief, the states argue that they have substantial sovereign and financial interests tied to the continued enforcement of the federal mailing restriction. They contend that if the statute is struck down, it could undermine aspects of their firearm regulatory systems and impose additional enforcement burdens on state authorities.
The states assert that because the federal government is no longer defending the statute’s constitutionality on the merits, their interests may not be adequately represented unless they are permitted to participate directly in the case.
In their motion, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York argue that invalidating Section 1715 would impose new burdens on their law enforcement agencies. They claim that if USPS begins accepting shipments of concealable firearms, states may face increased costs associated with enforcing their own firearm laws, particularly in jurisdictions with extensive licensing and transfer requirements.
According to the states, allowing individuals to use the mail to ship handguns could complicate enforcement of regulatory frameworks that rely heavily on controlled transfer points, typically involving federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs).
At the same time, federal law governing interstate firearm transfers through FFLs would remain in effect unless separately challenged. The core issue in Shreve is whether the federal government may categorically prohibit the mailing of constitutionally protected arms, not whether states may enforce otherwise valid and constitutional firearm regulations within their borders.
The states also argue that they have independent sovereign interests in maintaining regulatory systems built around background checks, licensing schemes, and purchase restrictions. They contend that without intervention, a federal statute affecting those systems could be invalidated without a full adversarial defense.
The unusual posture of the case underscores the stakes. The Department of Justice, the entity ordinarily responsible for defending federal statutes, has concluded that Section 1715 cannot survive Second Amendment scrutiny under Bruen. Delaware, New Jersey, and New York are now seeking to step into that role to defend the law themselves.
Section 1715 remains federal law. It has not been repealed by Congress, and USPS regulations implementing it have not yet been formally amended.
The DOJ’s position means the executive branch has declined to defend the statute’s constitutionality in court, but until a federal court issues a ruling or Congress acts, the statute remains on the books.
If the district court grants the states’ motion to intervene, they will become full participants in defending the statute. If intervention is denied, the case could proceed without a traditional defense of the ban’s constitutionality — an extraordinary scenario in federal litigation.
Should the court permit intervention, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York will be able to file briefs, participate in hearings, and shape appellate strategy if the case advances to the U.S. Court of Appeals and potentially the Supreme Court.
A ruling striking down Section 1715 on constitutional grounds would represent one of the most significant post-Bruen developments in Second Amendment jurisprudence. It would address not merely possession or public carry, but the federal government’s authority to restrict lawful methods of acquiring and transporting protected arms.
Despite the DOJ’s constitutional assessment, practical changes are not immediate. USPS has not yet revised its domestic mail policies, and Section 1715 remains enforceable until a court says otherwise.
However, the combination of the DOJ’s opinion and the states’ intervention effort sets up a high-stakes constitutional showdown. For gun owners, the case could determine whether the federal government may continue imposing a categorical mailing ban on handguns, or whether that nearly century-old restriction will fall under modern Second Amendment scrutiny.
AmmoLand will continue to monitor Shreve v. USPS and provide updates as this significant case moves forward.
UPDATE
