FPC is challenging Louisiana’s refusal to issue concealed handgun permits to otherwise eligible adults between 18 and 20. iStock.com/[Rdlamkin]The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has sued Louisiana over its ban (La. R.S. § 40:1379.3(C)(4)) on concealed carry permits for residents aged 18-20.
FPC filed Pool v. Hodges on July 22, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs are 19-year-old Ella Pool, 18-year-old Christian McDuffie, and FPC. The lawsuit names Louisiana State Police Superintendent Col. Robert P. Hodges as the defendant.
Louisiana is a “constitutional carry” state, meaning a permit is not required to carry a handgun. Although 18- to 20-year-olds can carry guns in the state under its permitless carry law, federal law (the Gun-Free School Zones Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)) prohibits them from carrying a firearm within 1,000 feet of an elementary or secondary school. Louisiana has a parallel 1,000-foot restriction. Both of these laws exempt people with a state-issued concealed carry permit from the prohibition.
Because 18- to 20-year-olds cannot obtain a Louisiana permit, they are not eligible for the exemption. With more than 1,300 schools in the state, the resulting unmarked 1,000-foot buffers create a dense, overlapping web of “invisible gun-free zones” covering roads, thoroughfares, and large portions of daily travel routes, especially in cities. The plaintiffs argue it is nearly impossible for an 18- to 20-year-old to lawfully carry while traveling without the permit they are forbidden to hold.
Additionally, Louisiana provides civil immunity for justified use of force or self-defense to licensed carriers (La. R.S. § 9:2793.12(B)). Adults under 21 carrying under constitutional carry do not receive this protection. That could mean that someone under 21 who legally defends themself with a firearm could still be sued in civil court, which has happened in multiple cases across the country.
Reese Puts Louisiana in a Difficult Position
The complaints assert that the age-based permit ban violates the Second Amendment. They heavily rely on New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen for their arguments. A Bruen analysis consists of two steps.
The first step is to look at the plain text of the Second Amendment. The named plaintiffs are aged 18 and 19. Because they have reached the age of majority in the United States, the plaintiffs reference the Fifth Circuit’s binding decision in Reese v. ATF (FPC’s earlier case), which held that peaceable 18- to 20-year-old adults are part of “the People” protected by the Second Amendment and struck down the federal ban on handgun and handgun-ammunition sales to that age group.
They want to carry handguns, which are bearable arms. Since the conduct is covered by the plain text, it is presumptively protected.
“The Fifth Circuit has already made it crystal clear that peaceable 18- to 20-year-old adults are among ‘the People’ protected by the Second Amendment and enjoy the same right to keep and bear arms as every other adult. Yet Louisiana denies them access to the permits they need to fully exercise their right to bear arms in public, trapping them in a sprawling maze of invisible gun-free zones created and enforced through state and federal law. That is not constitutional carry—it is blatant constitutional infringement. We filed this lawsuit and moved for summary judgment to end this unconstitutional restriction and force Louisiana to treat adults like adults. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until every immoral and unconstitutional restriction on the right to keep and bear arms is eliminated throughout the United States,” explained FPC President Brandon Combs.
In step two of a Bruen analysis, the burden shifts to the state. The state must provide historical analogues to prove that the state law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. With the Supreme Court rejecting the use of racist gun laws, the state will have a tough time justifying its ban on concealed carry permits for young adults.
In addition to relying on Bruen and Rahimi, the plaintiffs also cite two parallel victories against age-based carry restrictions. One case was out of the Eighth Circuit (Worth v. Jacobson), and one from the Third Circuit (Lara). The latter case was denied.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
Lawfully armed visitors may carry in outdoor areas of the Ohio State Fair, but the fair’s firearms policy bars them from entering buildings while armed. iStock-1295573667
“Welcome to the Ohio State Fair!” the official website declares, announcing the dates of admission from July 29 to August 9. “Discover the Ohio State Fair, a favorite family tradition since 1850! Come for the Midway, featuring exhilarating rides, and unleash all the fair flavors on your tastebuds with your favorite goodies from one of the amazing food vendors!”
Just prepare, if lawfully armed, to walk back to your car when any of that food and drink works its way through your system, and not alone if you bring your kids. And take even more time if you take a Park & Ride shuttle.
True, but “the spokesperson for the State Highway Patrol said Wednesday that there is a catch. Lt. Nathan Dennis said this is no different than in years past, but firearms are permitted outside only. Fair patrons are not permitted to bring guns inside any structures, including barns, food establishments and concert venues.”
The Ohio State Fair bans firearms inside enclosed buildings under state laws R.C. 2923.126 and R.C. 2923.1212. These statutes authorize property owners and persons in control of land to post conspicuous signs prohibiting firearms and concealed carry on the premises. The Ohio Expositions Commission, which operates the Ohio Expo Center and State Fair, utilizes this authority to restrict firearms inside all enclosed buildings and structures, regardless of whether the weapons are carried openly or concealed. While fairgoers are permitted to carry firearms in outdoor areas, anyone entering a building must either return their firearm to their vehicle or be turned away.
“Last year, we got an opinion from [State Attorney General Dave] Yost on agricultural societies saying that they are public subdivisions and must allow carry in the same way. The opinion only dealt with outdoor areas,” Dean Rieck, Buckeye Firearms Association Executive Director advised AmmoLand when asked about the restrictions. “We are additionally working on modifying Section 2923.126(B)(7) of the ORC to include fairs, festivals, and other public events in the list of areas where carry cannot be prohibited.
“We’ll continue working on it because it’s ridiculous to allow someone to legally carry while they walk past the Ferris wheel but ban it in the barn with the butter cow,” Rieck added.
It’s not only ridiculous, but it’s also unconstitutional by any standard, particularly using the text, history, and tradition criteria the Supreme Court established in the Bruen decision. But that said, even if rational basis, intermediate scrutiny, or strict scrutiny means-end evaluation tests were to be invoked, just common sense says it should still fail, because the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and there’s no compelling state interest that says guns are okay on one side of a door but need to be banned for public safety on the other.
It’s even more inexcusable considering Ohio is known as a Second Amendment friendly state, “earning” an “F” grade from Giffords. Add to that “The Republican Party controls the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and both chambers of the state legislature.” What’s the hold up” Are they ensuring multiple “gun-free zones” and allowing the rights of their core constituents to be infringed because they’re afraid Democrats won’t vote for them?
To borrow an agricultural idiom, make hay while the sun shines. And put some fire in gun owner bellies before the “pivotal” midterms.
Barring that, it’s worth exploring what legal options are available, from an armed attendee having standing to file a lawsuit to DOJ Civil Rights Division AAG Harmeet Dhillon weighing in.
It’s also worth noting that the group that is exempt from having to disarm in buildings and bathrooms has a long history of public endangerment that continues.
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.
Gastonia police say surveillance footage captured Cedric Ford attempting to enter Donald Bolynn’s home before the 74-year-old homeowner fired one defensive shot. iStock.com/[SyncRapeephat]A 74-year-old North Carolina homeowner will not face charges after shooting a man police say repeatedly tried to force his way into the residence through a window.
The July 12 defensive shooting in Gastonia offers a straightforward lesson about armed self-defense: Cameras can document a crime, alarms can warn that someone is outside, and locked doors can slow an intruder down. When those barriers begin to fail, however, a firearm may be the only thing standing between a vulnerable homeowner and the person forcing his way inside.
According to the Gastonia Police Department, 57-year-old Cedric Ford attempted to enter the home of Donald Bolynn shortly after 7 a.m. Surveillance footage released by police reportedly shows Ford testing the front door, attempting to open a window, and using his body to try to force the door open. He then returned to the window and continued trying to gain entry.
Bolynn told WBTV that he suffers from several health problems and has difficulty hearing. Nevertheless, the pounding outside was loud enough to get his attention.
“Got up off the couch and come to the front door and looked out. I didn’t see nothing,” Bolynn said.
The homeowner then spotted a man at the window.
“That’s when I got my gun and shot,” Bolynn said.
Bolynn fired a single round through the window, striking Ford in the chest. Police have not disclosed what type of firearm the homeowner used. Investigators said Bolynn did not initially realize that he had hit the man, but he knew the gunshot had stopped the attempted entry.
Police Unravel Alleged Drive-By Story
The investigation took an unusual turn after the shooting. At approximately 7:17 a.m., Ford and his girlfriend, identified by police as 47-year-old Sanja Stallings, called 911 from a nearby QuikTrip. They allegedly told officers that Ford had been wounded in a drive-by shooting involving an unknown person in a white vehicle.
Ford was transported to a hospital for treatment. Police, however, began finding evidence that did not support the reported drive-by.
Gastonia’s Flock gunshot-detection system reportedly registered a shot near the Ware Avenue residence at approximately 7:14 a.m. Investigators then obtained surveillance footage showing the attempted entry. Police said the evidence established that Ford had been shot while trying to break into Bolynn’s home–not by someone firing from a passing vehicle.
Ford was taken into custody after leaving the hospital. Police initially announced charges of attempted first-degree burglary and felony obstruction of justice against Ford. Stallings also faces a burglary charge. Additional charges remained subject to review by the Gaston County District Attorney’s Office, according to local reporting.
The charges are allegations, and Ford and Stallings are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty in court.
Investigators also said Bolynn had reported multiple burglaries and robberies during the preceding month that allegedly involved Ford and Stallings. That history gives important context to the homeowner’s predicament. This was not simply an older man startled by an unexplained noise. Police say he had already reported repeated crimes involving the same two people now accused in the attempted break-in.
North Carolina Law Protects the Homeowner
Gastonia police announced that Bolynn would not be charged for firing the shot.
That decision is consistent with North Carolina’s statutory protection of people defending their homes. Under North Carolina General Statute §14-51.2, a lawful occupant is generally presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm when another person unlawfully and forcibly enters—or is in the process of entering—the home.
The law also presumes that someone unlawfully and forcibly entering a residence intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. Those presumptions are rebuttable and subject to specific exceptions, but the statute recognizes a fundamental reality: A homeowner cannot be expected to wait until an intruder is completely inside and attacking before defending himself.
Bolynn was 74 years old, had health limitations, and was inside his own home. The man outside was allegedly working his way through the window after failing to get through the door. No reasonable homeowner should have to gamble that such a person means no harm.
Cameras Record Crimes—Firearms Stop Them
Bolynn appears to have done several things right. His doors were locked. His home had surveillance cameras. He had previously reported alleged crimes to police. Those measures helped investigators reconstruct what happened and reject the supposed drive-by account.
But none of those precautions could physically protect him once someone allegedly began coming through the window.
A defensive firearm can give an elderly or physically limited person the ability to resist an attacker who might otherwise overpower him. Guns are often called “equalizers” because they prevent age, size, strength, and physical condition from automatically deciding who wins a violent confrontation.
That is what the right to keep and bear arms looks like when it matters most, not as an abstract political argument, but as a 74-year-old man refusing to become helpless inside his own home.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Justice Department says Act 9113 restricts standard-capacity AR-15 rifles and criminalizes commonly owned magazines in violation of the Second Amendment. iStock.com/[SolidMaks]The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to block the U.S. Virgin Islands from enforcing its new restrictions on standard-capacity magazines and the transfer of commonly owned firearms, arguing that the Third Circuit’s recent Cheeseman decision has already exposed those provisions as unconstitutional.
The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to block core provisions of the U.S. Virgin Islands’ newly enacted “assault weapon” and magazine ban, arguing that the Third Circuit’s landmark Cheeseman ruling has already settled the constitutional question.
In a July 22 motion, DOJ attorneys targeted two provisions of Act 9113: the territory’s ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds and its prohibition on selling or transferring firearms “manufactured to hold” more than 15 rounds.
The filing came just five days after the en banc Third Circuit struck down New Jersey’s bans on semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, formerly known as the Cheeseman case.
Because the U.S. Virgin Islands falls within the Third Circuit, the DOJ argues that territorial officials cannot enforce essentially the same unconstitutional restrictions under a different numerical cutoff.
“Nothing more need be said,” DOJ attorneys wrote. “ANJRPC squarely holds that this is unconstitutional.”
Act 9113 Targets AR-15s and Standard Magazines
Gov. Albert Bryan Jr. signed Act 9113 on June 24. The legislation’s stated purpose includes defining and prohibiting so-called “assault rifles” and banning what lawmakers call “large-capacity magazines.”
The law prohibits the possession, receipt, purchase, sale, importation, or transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. It also prevents owners from selling or transferring firearms manufactured to accept more than 15 rounds.
That second provision reaches directly into the market for AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles. As the DOJ points out, these rifles commonly leave the factory with 20- or 30-round magazines.
“Accordingly, the USVI bans standard-capacity AR-15 rifles,” the motion states.
The territory may not be confiscating every previously owned AR-15 on its effective date, but blocking future sales and transfers remains a ban. It prevents new gun owners from acquiring affected rifles and traps existing owners with property they cannot freely sell or transfer.
That is how politicians attempt to eliminate commonly owned firearms over time: grandfather yesterday’s owners while closing the market to the next generation.
The distinction between Act 9113’s treatment of firearms and magazines makes the law particularly punitive.
According to the DOJ, the act grandfathers firearms owned when the law was passed. It does not extend the same protection to magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
That leaves a Virgin Islands gun owner who already possesses a standard 20- or 30-round magazine with what the government calls a “Hobsons’ choice”: destroy a constitutionally protected arm or keep it and risk arrest and incarceration.
This is not a speculative threat. The filing points to June 12 testimony from Virgin Islands Assistant Police Commissioner Sean Santos Sr., who reportedly told lawmakers that VIPD “wholeheartedly agrees” with Act 9113 and intends to use its provisions as enforcement guidelines.
When the police agency responsible for enforcing a criminal prohibition says it intends to enforce it, gun owners should not have to risk prison before a court recognizes their injury.
Third Circuit Already Rejected the Numbers Game
The Virgin Islands selected 15 rounds as its limit, while New Jersey chose ten. Neither number has a constitutional foundation.
In the Third Circuit’s en banc Cheeseman decision, the court held that semi-automatic rifles are protected “Arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment. It also recognized that magazines are protected because they are necessary components of modern firearms.
The court rejected the idea that legislators can define constitutional protection by arbitrarily selecting a magazine capacity.
A ten-round magazine does not enjoy constitutional protection while an otherwise identical 11-round magazine falls outside the Second Amendment. Likewise, the Virgin Islands cannot make a 15-round magazine lawful while transforming a common 20- or 30-round magazine into contraband.
The Cheeseman record established that Americans possess more than 100 million 30-round AR-15 magazines. That is common use by any honest measure.
Under Heller, the government cannot ban arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens. To fall outside the Second Amendment’s protection, an arm must be both dangerous and unusual. Standard AR-15 rifles and 30-round magazines may be politically unpopular with gun-control activists, but they are plainly not unusual.
The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Acquire Them
The DOJ also attacks Act 9113’s restriction on selling and transferring firearms manufactured to accept magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
Quoting the Tenth Circuit’s decision in Ortega v. Grisham, the government argues:
“Common sense dictates that the right to bear arms requires a right to acquire arms.”
That principle follows from the original understanding of the Second Amendment. The government cannot claim to respect the right to keep and bear arms while banning the transactions through which ordinary citizens acquire them.
The First Amendment would mean little if officials could prohibit citizens from obtaining printing presses or religious texts. The Second Amendment is no different. A right to possess an arm necessarily includes the ability to acquire that arm.
Act 9113 attempts to accomplish indirectly what the Constitution prohibits the territory from doing directly. By blocking future sales and transfers, the law seeks to gradually remove standard-configuration AR-15s from lawful civilian circulation.
DOJ Seeks Relief in Its Existing Virgin Islands Case
The July 22 filing is a second motion for a preliminary injunction in United States v. Government of the Virgin Islands. It is not a separate lawsuit or an amended complaint.
The Justice Department filed the original case in December 2025 against the territorial government, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks. That complaint challenged alleged abuses in the territory’s firearm-licensing system, including warrantless home inspections, mandatory bolted safes, excessive delays, and a discretionary “proper reason” carry requirement.
As AmmoLand reported when DOJ filed the case, the government accused territorial officials of reducing the right to keep and bear arms to a “virtual nullity.”
DOJ now argues that VIPD’s intended enforcement of Act 9113 is “only the latest chapter” in a years-long pattern or practice of Second Amendment violations.
The government relies on 34 U.S.C. §12601, which authorizes the Justice Department to seek equitable relief against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of federally protected rights. According to the filing, an enacted law represents official government policy, and VIPD’s enforcement of that policy falls within the statute.
DOJ Asks the Court to Protect Magazines Holding Up to 30 Rounds
The Justice Department is asking the court to prohibit the Virgin Islands from:
Enforcing any ban on possessing, receiving, purchasing, selling, importing, or transferring magazines holding 30 rounds or fewer.
Enforcing any ban on selling or transferring a firearm merely because it was manufactured to hold more than 15 rounds.
The motion does not explain why the requested protection ends at 30 rounds. The most likely reason is that the Third Circuit specifically cited evidence establishing that 30-round AR-15 magazines are overwhelmingly common. That limited request should not be mistaken for a concession that magazines holding more than 30 rounds fall outside the Constitution. It reflects the factual record the Third Circuit already accepted and gives the district court a straightforward basis for immediate relief.
The DOJ says other provisions of Act 9113 are also unconstitutional and will be addressed “in due course.” It has asked the court to hear its latest motion during the oral arguments already scheduled for August 19.
The judge has not yet ruled. But Act 9113 presents the same basic constitutional defects the Third Circuit identified in New Jersey: it targets commonly owned rifles, criminalizes standard magazines, and uses legislative labels to make ordinary arms sound unusual.
The Virgin Islands cannot evade Cheeseman by replacing New Jersey’s ten-round limit with a 15-round limit. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use, not merely the reduced-capacity substitutes politicians are willing to allow.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
A licensed Massachusetts gun owner fired one shot to protect her husband from an armed man who allegedly pursued him at gunpoint. Stock image; not the people or firearm involved. iStock.com/[Dmitri Toms]An armed wife saved her husband from a gunman who allegedly brought a social-media dispute directly to the couple’s Springfield, Massachusetts, home, according to prosecutors who ruled the fatal shooting lawful.
The fatal encounter occurred July 5 on Fairfield Street in Springfield. After reviewing witness statements, surveillance footage, 911 recordings, physical evidence, and electronic communications, Hampden District Attorney Anthony Gulluni determined that the woman acted lawfully in self-defense and defense of another.
WWLP reported that the Hampden District Attorney’s Office announced on July 14 that no criminal charges would be filed. The case is now considered closed.
Social-Media Dispute Reaches Couple’s Doorstep
According to the district attorney, the confrontation began with a dispute on social media involving people who knew one another.
Investigators determined that 35-year-old Robert Murchison of Springfield traveled to the home of the married couple. Once on the homeowners’ property, Murchison allegedly initiated a physical altercation with the husband. The situation then escalated from a fistfight into a deadly-force encounter.
“Murchison then produced a handgun and pursued the male while pointing the firearm at him,” the district attorney’s office reported.
The husband’s wife witnessed the armed pursuit and recognized that her husband faced an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury. Authorities described her as a licensed firearm owner. She drew her firearm and discharged one round, striking Murchison and stopping the threat. Murchison died from the gunshot wound.
There was no reported barrage of uncontrolled gunfire. The woman fired one shot when an armed attacker was allegedly chasing her husband with a handgun pointed at him.
Evidence Supported the Homeowners’ Account
Following the shooting, the husband and wife immediately called police and fully cooperated with investigators.
That cooperation was backed by considerably more than the couple’s version of events. Investigators reviewed statements from the people involved, an account provided by an independent eyewitness, Ring-camera footage, 911 recordings, physical evidence recovered at the scene, and text and social-media messages exchanged before the confrontation.
According to the district attorney, that evidence “clearly establishes” that the woman acted lawfully.
The DA’s office said she used her firearm only after Murchison came to the couple’s home, initiated a physical confrontation with her husband, drew a handgun, and created an immediate deadly threat.
Under Massachusetts law, deadly force can be justified when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect herself or another person from an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.
“After reviewing all available evidence, the District Attorney determined that his office could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the homeowner’s actions were unlawful,” prosecutors stated.
No charges will be filed against the woman.
A Firearm Made the Difference
This case presents another straightforward example of why the right to keep and bear arms includes the ability to protect not only yourself but also the people you love.
The woman did not go looking for a confrontation. According to investigators, the confrontation came to her home. She did not initiate the physical altercation, and she did not introduce a firearm into the dispute. She acted only after an armed man allegedly pointed a handgun at her husband and pursued him.
At that moment, she did not have the luxury of waiting for police to arrive, investigators to collect evidence, or prosecutors to determine who was legally at fault. Her husband faced an immediate threat, and she had seconds to act.
Because she was armed, she was able to intervene.
Her conduct after the shooting matters as well. The couple called 911 immediately, remained at the scene, cooperated with authorities, and provided investigators with the information necessary to determine what happened. Independent evidence then supported their account.
A social-media argument should never have reached the point of an armed confrontation at a private home. But when it did, a lawfully armed woman was prepared to protect her family. She fired one shot, stopped an imminent threat, and saved her husband from a man who prosecutors say was pursuing him at gunpoint.
That is precisely what the right of armed self-defense looks like when a deadly threat arrives at your doorstep.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Palmetto State Armory resumed shipping affected rifles and standard-capacity magazines to Virginia on July 21 after a statewide injunction blocked enforcement of the new ban. IMG Travis Pike
With the statewide injunctions against Virginia’s “assault firearms” and magazine ban now firmly in place, major retailers like Palmetto State Armory (PSA) and others have resumed shipping previously restricted items to customers in the Commonwealth.
The latest development came with the injunction in the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed case Santolla v. Katz, which took effect yesterday, July 21st. This marks the second court order blocking enforcement of the controversial new law, originally scheduled to take effect on July 1.
The first injunction stemmed from the high-profile Crump v. Katz lawsuit, brought by the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and this reporter as lead plaintiff. That ruling was issued just six days before the law’s intended start date, providing immediate relief to Virginia gun owners.
— Palmetto State Armory (@palmettoarmory) July 21, 2026
Virginia Attorney General Seeks to Pause the Cases
In Santolla v. Katz, the presiding judge was compelled to issue an updated clarification after Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones appeared to suggest that the law could still be enforced in certain circumstances. This move underscored ongoing attempts by state officials to limit the scope of the protections granted by the courts.
Initially, AG Jones petitioned the Supreme Court of Virginia for a stay of both injunctions. However, that strategy shifted dramatically following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant certiorari in two pivotal cases: Viramontes v. Cook County, challenging Chicago-area “assault weapons” restrictions, and Grant v. Higgins, contesting Connecticut’s broad ban on semi-automatic rifles.
Recognizing the national momentum building against such bans, Jones withdrew his stay request. He now advocates allowing the injunctions to remain while seeking to pause the underlying Virginia cases until the Supreme Court rules in the consolidated federal matters. Plaintiffs across all related lawsuits have strongly opposed any further delays, arguing that Virginians should not have their constitutional rights held in limbo.
Gun Owners Can Buy Again in Virginia
With legal clarity established that the bans will not be enforced in the foreseeable future, firearms manufacturers and retailers have responded swiftly. Companies like PSA now confidently ship semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines—those holding more than 15 rounds—to Virginia addresses. Most brick-and-mortar gun stores have resumed open sales of these popular items.
Some retailers, relying on the initial Crump v. Katz injunction against the Virginia State Police, never halted sales in the first place. This return to normal commerce has been welcomed by law-abiding gun owners, who view these firearms as essential tools for self-defense, sporting purposes, and protection of civil liberties.
The developments in Virginia represent a significant domino in the broader national fight against “assault weapon” bans. On July 31, New Jersey State Police will cease enforcing that state’s prohibitions on semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines, following the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s landmark 10-5 en banc decision in Cheeseman v. Platkin on July 17. Applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the court determined that these restrictions lack historical analogues and unconstitutionally burden the rights of law-abiding citizens.
For the first time in years, New Jersey residents will regain access to the AR-15 platform—the most popular rifle design in America. Online retailers are expected to announce shipping resumption to the Garden State shortly, now that a clear timeline exists.
Supreme Court Could Reshape the National Firearms Market
These victories in Virginia and New Jersey are poised to open the firearms market to millions of new customers. By this time next year, many Second Amendment advocates and industry analysts predict that “assault weapons” bans nationwide could effectively collapse. The Supreme Court’s anticipated decision in Viramontes (expected around June 2027) is widely viewed as likely to affirm that commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and their magazines are protected under the Second Amendment.
A favorable ruling could trigger a massive surge in sales in states like California, New York, Illinois, and others with similar restrictions—potentially rivaling or exceeding the record-breaking demand seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This shift carries profound implications. Economically, it revitalizes manufacturers, retailers, and related businesses while restoring consumer choice. Constitutionally, it reinforces the principle that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use for lawful purposes,” as articulated in landmark precedents.
More Than a Victory for the Firearms Industry
For gun owners in affected states, it ends years of uncertainty and overreach, allowing them to exercise their rights without fear of arbitrary state prohibitions. Critics of the bans argue they disproportionately punish responsible citizens while failing to address criminal misuse, a point bolstered by decades of data showing that law-abiding owners are not the source of gun violence.
As these cases progress, the landscape for firearm ownership continues to evolve toward greater recognition of individual liberties. Virginia’s successful defense of its residents’ rights, led in part by local advocates and organizations like the NRA, VCDL, and GOA, serves as a model for other states. The coming months promise further legal clarity and a renewed emphasis on the foundational role of the Second Amendment in American society. Gun owners and industry stakeholders alike are watching closely as the momentum builds toward a potential nationwide resolution.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
The Highland Park Peace Project publicly labels businesses “enablers” when they provide services to firearm manufacturers targeted by the organization. iStock.com/[Daniel Tadevosyan]Illinois keeps fighting to preserve its so-called “assault weapons” ban as challengers press it through the courts, but one Highland Park organization has decided judges will not settle the matter and has carried the fight into the marketplace through public shaming, a report from the Chicago Tribune explains.
The Highland Park Peace Project, or HP3, runs an expanding online database that files hundreds of businesses under “heroes” or “enablers,” a grade that turns on whether a firm deals with the five firearm manufacturers that build the rifles the group calls assault weapons. Those five are Smith & Wesson, Sturm, Ruger & Co., Bushmaster, Daniel Defense, and SIG Sauer. The “enablers” it singles out extend well past firearms dealers to online retailers such as Amazon, plus banks, accountants, and law firms that supply, resell for, or contract with the named brands.
Daniel Perlman, an HP3 co-founder, was present at the July 4, 2022, Highland Park parade when a gunman killed seven people and wounded dozens more. His private equity career shaped the strategy, which borrows from how some public pension funds pull money out of holdings they consider “socially or morally at odds with their organization.”
From Gun Makers to Banks, Lawyers and Retailers
Perlman told the Chicago Tribune, “It has created transparency; what we’ve created has now allowed corporations and consumers to ask for accountability.” Each listing, he says, gets checked against bankruptcy records, court documents, and annual reports, and every targeted company receives a letter first, giving it a chance to challenge the classification. Businesses that walk away from the manufacturers, Salesforce and REI among them, collect the “hero” designation.
By Perlman’s telling to the Chicago Tribune, the point is not to demonize but to choke off the “millions of dollars into the pockets” of companies arming civilians with assault weapons. He calls the database “apolitical” and stresses that HP3 stays out of legislative battles, aiming instead to “change behavior.” That posture of neutrality is precisely where gun rights supporters balk, since the enterprise operates inside a fiercely political dispute and uses economic pressure against lawful companies that manufacture and sell arms protected by the Second Amendment.
HP3 Calls Its Economic Pressure Campaign “Apolitical”
Nearby critics have not minced words. Michael Danforth, a Republican on the Lake County Board whose career spans weapons importing and firearms law, branded the campaign “misguided” and fueled by “hatred for gun manufacturers.” The database, Danforth told the Tribune, swings a “broad brush” and pins guilt on the wrong shoulders, since treating a company as “somehow a bad guy … that’s just foolishness.” In his words, “They may mean well at the end of the day, but they’re attacking the wrong people.” He also refused the ethical premise driving the whole effort. “These companies made firearms, made tools, that somebody went out with criminal intent and killed someone with … that’s not the manufacturer’s fault,” he said, urging that as Americans recall horrors like Highland Park, Uvalde, and Littleton, “we should honor their memory, but we shouldn’t blame the manufacturers.”
The pushback reaches well past Lake County. Colion Noir, one of the Second Amendment movement’s best-known commentators, fired back with a rebuttal, casting the method as weaponized shame against our constitutional rights. Noir ridiculed how far the list reaches, noting it can sweep in a company for an act as ordinary as “delivering pizza to a warehouse.”
Supreme Court Rifle-Ban Cases Raise the Stakes
The timing is what makes it bite, given Perlman’s own concession that the database serves as a backstop should the courts rule against his side. He has warned that today’s Supreme Court would likely toss an assault weapons ban that reached its docket, and the calendar supports him. On June 30, 2026 the justices agreed to hear challenges to Cook County’s ban and a comparable Connecticut statute, with argument likely in the fall, an outcome that could dismantle the statewide Illinois ban.
A Seventh Circuit panel upheld the Illinois assault weapons ban on July 9, 2026 in a 2-1 decision in Barnett v. Raoul. A Trump-appointed judge writing the majority opinion concluding the law is “consistent with the principles that underpin our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation” — yet the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari on June 30, 2026 in two related cases. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision in Viramontes and Grant could overturn or substantially undermine the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning.
There sits the real worry. Should the courts confirm the right to own these rifles, HP3 intends to poison the commercial waters around them, using fear of exposure to accomplish what neither lawmakers nor lawsuits can guarantee. A privately run database that brands routine business dealings as a share in bloodshed is no neutral scorecard. It signals where the next battle over gun rights will be waged.
About José Niño
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
![1911-style semi-automatic pistol and hollow point ammo. iStock.com/[SyncRapeephat]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Pistol-Semi-Auto-Defensive-Ammo-iStock-1322793776-600x400.jpg)
![Magpul PMAG 30 Round magazines. iStock.com/[SolidMaks]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Magpul-Pmag-Magazine-iStock-2253799988-600x400.jpg)
![Armed woman protects her husband during a home-defense encounter iStock.com/[Dmitri Toms]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Woman-Handgun-Self-defense-iStock-2283690624-600x400.jpg)
