Man shot, killed during attempted robbery in Tuscaloosa

TUSCALOOSA, Ala. (WBRC) – A man is facing murder charges in Tuscaloosa after an attempted robbery turned deadly Saturday night.

Tuscaloosa Police said they were informed of a shooting victim being taken to DCH Regional Medical Center at around 7:30 p.m.

Investigators learned the shooting happened in the parking lot of Magnolia Apartments at 5621 Highway 69 South where they processed scene and spoke with witnesses.

Police said Kurtae’vious Earl Tyson, 22, of Oxford, and Daronte Collins, 22, of Oxford, attempted to rob a 25-year-old Tuscaloosa man. Shots were fired during the incident, leading to Tyson being shot and critically injured.

He later died from his injuries.

Daronte Collins has been charged in connection with the shooting death of Kurtae’vious Earl Tyson

Collins was charged with felony murder, first-degree robbery, attempted murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. He is being held in the Tuscaloosa County Jail without bond.

Lynnwood, WA jewelry store owner shoots at suspects during attempted robbery

Lynnwood police responded to a reported armed robbery with shots fired at 12:26 p.m. at 6501 196th Street Southwest.

There, officers found a pickup truck rammed into the front entrance of Medina Jewelers, where multiple armed suspects tried to rob the store.

Surveillance video captured the suspects driving three vehicles in circles around the parking lot. Then, the truck barrels into the store, sending glass flying and store employees running.

A group of masked suspects jumped from the other cars and ran inside through a gap in the glass, with one holding what looked like an axe.

The store owner then grabbed his gun and fired shots at the group, sending them running without taking anything. The suspect driving the truck then gets out, appearing hunched over while waiting for the getaway car.

Police said it’s unknown if any of the suspects were struck by gunfire.

What they’re saying:
“Oh my God, it sounded like a total crash,” said Julie Baumgartner, a neighbor. Baumgartner was watching a movie next door in her apartment when the robbers struck.

“I mean glass breaking loudly, very loudly, that’s what made me look out my living room window right away and I saw the truck inside the jewelry store,” she said.

Police are searching for the cars the suspects fled in: a black BMW SUV and a silver Toyota or Infiniti sedan. Police said the black BMW struck a parked vehicle while fleeing and may have visible damage to the front passenger side.

“It was broad daylight and a pretty rare occurrence for us,” said Commander Joe Dickinson with Lynnwood Police.

Dickenson said they’re still working to learn if the suspects had a gun, and says it’s fortunate that no employees of the jewelry store were hurt.

“You had several witnesses that were out and about, several pedestrians walking around, all of a sudden a car crashing into a building and shots ringing out is cause for alarm,” said Dickinson.

“It’s just sad, because they’re just really nice people,” said Baumgartner. “I’m glad there wasn’t any customers in there that got hurt, because they would have, the way the truck went into the building.”

Deconstructionism, Class Warfare, and Islamic Terrorism.

Many in the West express concerns about the tenets of Islam in general, and Islamic terrorism in particular. Is Islam philosophically compatible with rule of law and equality under the law, and with peaceful coexistence between Muslim and non-Muslim societies? Why do different Muslim groups answer this question differently?

To the modern left these questions have no place in civil discourse. Why?

Addressing the first question seems straightforward: examine the Koran and Hadiths to discern what they say on the related issues. But this assumes that texts have meaning that remains constant over time. To leftists, religions and other institutions evolve, and their respective scriptures do not present obstacles because language also evolves. Recent changes within the Christian churches are regarded as evidence of this viewpoint. It doesn’t matter what Islamic writings say, because they will adapt to the march of history, which progresses in one direction. The Age of Aquarius is inevitable, and like the colossal ship in Spaceballs it brakes for nobody.

The second question assumes that differences over religious interpretation explain why some Muslims condone and/or conduct unprovoked attacks against the non-Muslim world and others do not, and how such factors as culture and history shape these differences. This line of inquiry runs afoul of politically correct notions of class. Entire classes are inherently at war with one another even if many of their members aren’t actively participating. Classes are either victim or oppressor, nothing in between. Conflicts between the two originate differently, depending on the instigator’s identity.

Conflict originating from a victim class is triggered by factors external to that class. Muslims are a victim class, therefore jihadist attacks are not unprovoked, they are reactions to the conduct of members of oppressor classes, mostly Westerners.

On the flip side, conflict originating from an oppressor class is triggered by structural failures permeating that class for which all members are responsible. The big glowing neon Exhibit A is the academic treatment of white people, as illustrated by this typical instructional material

If one assumes class warfare to exist and defines its factions as described in the above paragraphs, the only possible resolution is unconditional surrender on the part of the oppressor class – its structural failures must be destroyed. In the case of Marxism, this involves eliminating private ownership of property, without which nobody can individually own means of production and therefore the bourgeoisie can no longer exist as a class. One would think that the leftist solution to racial conflict is to eliminate all the characteristics that the learned lefty academics associate with “whiteness.” Citing another Instapundit article, the National Museum of African American History and Culture composed a useful list a few years ago; I’m not sure what that outfit would replace those qualities with. Leftists likewise place sole burden on Western appeasement to resolve Western conflicts with Muslims and other non-Western groups.

Jihadists also think in terms of class warfare, but they define the classes and the victory conditions differently, and Western appeaseniks refuse to pay attention.

It was the Lord who put into my mind that fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because He comforted me with rays of marvelous inspiration from the Holy Scriptures.
– Christopher Columbus

Hegseth Puts Warfighting Skills at the Center of Military Promotions.

Pete Hegseth makes it clear that he wants a “Department of War”…not merely a new name, but a military led by warriors who can command effectively in combat.

The U.S. Secretary of War recently announced that colonels and Navy captains seeking promotion to one-star rank will face a new Joint Warfighter Evaluation to assess their ability to wage war across services.

The initiative puts battlefield leadership at the center of his promotion agenda.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Tuesday the military this year will start evaluating colonels and Navy captains for one-star positions as part of a new process.

“While the backbone of our military is our NCOs (noncommissioned officers) and our petty officers, victory depends on the commanders who lead them. America needs warfighters who can master a chaotic battle space,” Hegseth said in a video posted on X.

The Joint Warfighter Evaluation (JWE) follows Hegseth’s May memo to begin assessing service members’ ability to wage joint warfare as part of promotion and advancement considerations for officers and senior noncommissioned officers.

Hegseth in the video acknowledged tasking Stuart Scheller, who currently serves as the secretary’s senior adviser of personnel and readiness, and his team a year ago to challenge “generations of promotion assumptions.”

 

Hegseth said he envisioned something like the Louisiana Maneuvers. The U.S. Army held these large-scale war games in 1940–1941, culminating in massive mock battles in Louisiana in September 1941 to prepare the rapidly expanding Army for World War II.

The exercises tested commanders, battlefield tactics, tanks, communications, and logistics while giving inexperienced officers practical experience directing large formations. They helped shape the Army’s wartime approach to mechanized and combined-arms warfare and showcased leaders such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton.

Continue reading “”

Suppressor Sales Surpass 1.1 Million So Far in 2026.

The Big Beautiful Bill will probably be looked back upon as one of the most important moves by the second Trump administration, and part of that is the Hearing Protection Act, which killed the $200 tax stamp on suppressors.

While suppressors, also called “silencers” by some, aren’t as expensive as some NFA items might be, the tax stamp added a significant cost to the products, thus artificially making them out of reach for many people.

Couple that with the hassles of paperwork and having to hand all that information directly to the feds, and there wasn’t a lot of reason for many to pony up the money to have a legal suppressor.

Now, that’s gone, and what happened?

Pretty much what you’d expect.

American gun owners are stocking up on sound suppressors.

National Firearms Act (NFA) registrations rose 129 percent year over year in September, according to a report released by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) on Monday.

The group, which obtained Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) records through a Freedom of Information Act request, said suppressors–officially labeled silencers by the agency–were the NFA items primarily driving that surge, and they’ve already topped 1.1 million for the year–about 22 percent of the 4.9 million suppressors on the ATF’s books.

The group also told The Reload that more than 100,000 additional suppressor registration applications are pending and attributed much of the increased demand to a silencer tax cut Republicans passed last year.

“This is the direct result of NSSF working with Congress and the Trump administration to remove burdensome tax stamp fees previously required to obtain a suppressor at retail,” Mark Oliva, NSSF’s managing director of public affairs, said in a statement. “Americans are showing that when barriers are removed to lawful firearm and firearm accessory ownership, they will make that investment, in this case, to preserve their hearing.”

The shifting legal ground underlying the NFA may actually lead to even more suppressor sales over the rest of the year. With a federal judge enjoining enforcement of registration requirements for suppressors and some other NFA items for many Americans in August, and the Department of Justice officially declining to appeal this month, the ATF is poised to announce new regulations this week and the barrier to legally owning the devices is about to drop again.

Sales could climb further before the year ends.

The DOJ and ATF issued their guidance on Friday afternoon, and it’s about as good as we could have hoped for. NSSF wants Congress to formalize this arrangement so that this is statute, not just policy, which I get. An alternative would be for the Supreme Court to rule similar to the lower court, thus essentially codifying it for everyone, but that’s the cheap way out. Congress needs to act and get this done once and for all.

They won’t, though. Not before the midterms, at least, and if those go the way the media say they’re going to go — which I’ll believe when it happens, because I’ve heard this song and dance a few times already — the lame duck Congress might do it out of spite.

I’m fine with this.

And now, suppressors are becoming “in common use,” which might not be the standard I approve of, but I’ll still take it. If that happens, though, there’s nothing the anti-gunners will be able to do.

Aw, darn.

FPC Pushing 15 NFA Mandate States to Suspend Enforcement, Repeal Their Now Antiquated Laws.

If you were doing other things — working, playing, turning money into noise at the range — you may have missed the news that ATF made yesterday [OCT 9TH ed.] afternoon. After two months of trying to figure out the new lay of the land in the wake of the Jensen ruling regarding suppressors (and SBRs, SBSs and AOWs), ATF released new guidance as to how they’ll enforce the National Firearms Act going forward.

The Jensen ruling (and DOJ’s decision not to appeal it) has created a complex patchwork of makers, dealers and gun owners who were and weren’t covered by the ruling’s injunction. If you bought a can made by SilencerCo or B&T, no Form 4 needed any more. If you wanted to buy suppressor made by someone else, you could…if you’re a GOA or FPC member. Or you could buy one from Palmetto State Armory or Silencer Shop, both of which were named plaintiffs in the case.

You can probably see the issue from both a compliance and an enforcement perspective. What we had was a fraught, confusing situation for FFLs and individuals who wanted to take advantage of the ruling, but didn’t want to inadvertently wind up a test case in federal court.

So yesterday, ATF released new guidance on how they will be enforcing the NFA under Jensen. And they’ve done it in the most expansive way we could have hoped for. In effect, ATF has applied the ruling to everyone, nationwide.

If you’re a law-abiding person who can own a firearm, you can saunter into your local gun store, pick up a silencer or a short-barrel rifle (or both!), fill out a 4473, pass your background check and walk right out with it. Easy-peasy.

UNLESS, of course, you live in one of 15 states (see the list below) which have laws on the books that require NFA registration of any can, SBR, SBS or AOW you buy or make. You’ll still have to go through the NFA song and dance with all of the paperwork, fingerprints, and a wait time for ATF processing.

The new guidance has taken those people into account, however, and the agency will continue to process Form 1’s and Form 4’s for the people in those states who want to buy the covered products.

In the mean time, the Firearms Policy Coalition has wasted no time going to work to try to convince those 15 states to get their acts together and suspend their enforcement of their NFA mandate laws and start the process of repealing them.

This, from FPC . . .

Following the historic end to the NFA’s unconstitutional federal registration scheme for untaxed firearms and suppressors, Firearms Policy Coalition announced today that lawyers for the organization sent letters to the attorneys general of 15 states that still tie the legality of silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or other covered arms to compliance with the federal National Firearms Act registration process. FPC is asking those states to immediately stop enforcement while lawmakers repeal the laws for good.

The effort follows FPC’s major victory in Silencer Shop/Jensen v. ATF, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the federal government could no longer use Congress’s taxing power to sustain the NFA’s making, registration, and transfer requirements for firearms Congress made subject to a $0 tax. The court enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions as to the plaintiffs and others covered by its judgment.

The basic problem was fatal to the government’s regime: Congress eliminated the tax, and with it the constitutional basis the government had relied on for the machinery built to collect that tax.

That should have been the end of it. But in 15 states, it wasn’t. Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin still have laws that tie the legality of some NFA-classified arms to compliance with federal registration requirements.

For people covered by the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction or otherwise able to act without federal enforcement under ATF’s new policies, those laws can still require compliance with a federal process the court has enjoined, leaving them unable to fully benefit from the federal victory without risking violation of state law.

“The states that require compliance with this unconstitutional and now-defunct federal scheme should immediately end enforcement and repeal their laws as soon as possible,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We certainly hope they will put liberty and their citizens first, and we stand ready and willing to partner with them to protect the rights of their citizens. But no matter what, one way or another, FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until people can exercise their rights without fear of arrest or prosecution, full stop.”

FPC’s proposal gives the states a direct path forward: make an immediate commitment to non-enforcement so people are protected now, then work through the legislative process toward full repeal of state laws separately regulating these categories of arms.

For this critically-important effort, FPC retained Holtzman Vogel partner David P. Johnson to lead the attorney-general outreach. Johnson, who focuses on state attorney general matters and litigation, was previously the Policy Director and General Counsel to the Republican Attorneys General Association and worked closely with Republican attorneys general and their offices to advance policy priorities.

“This effort to secure an immediate commitment to non-enforcement is a common-sense way to protect people while these laws work through the legislative process toward what should be their full repeal. We truly hope this reasonable request will be met with consideration for the People and the rights at stake so that we will not need to litigate. As long as these states are taking meaningful steps to address this issue, we will gladly work with them as partners to address these legal issues. But our responsibility is to protect the People and their rights, and we will do what is necessary to fulfill it,” said attorney and FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski.

The Federal Fight Is Not Over

Also today, following the federal injunction, ATF announced an important nationwide change in its enforcement position. As a matter of enforcement discretion, ATF will no longer enforce many of the NFA’s making, registration, transfer, possession, and related restrictions for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and other covered $0-tax arms—even against people who are not covered by the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction. In its guidance, ATF also expressly acknowledged the state-law problem, noting that state laws may continue to require federal compliance or registration even where federal enforcement has ceased.

Notably, ATF’s nationwide policy rests on executive enforcement discretion. ATF itself warns that enforcement could resume if circumstances change—including if the Department rescinds the policy, the injunction is overturned or dissolved, or Congress imposes a new tax. Its guidance further states that federal law does not automatically grandfather unregistered arms if enforcement later resumes.

That is why FPC is not leaving the People’s liberty dependent on the discretion of a future administration. Instead, FPC is continuing multiple federal efforts—including Brown v. ATF, which FPC is a party to, and the FPC-backed Roberts v. ATF—to secure durable, nationwide relief from the NFA’s remaining unconstitutional restrictions. Brown and Roberts challenge the NFA under both Congress’s enumerated powers and the Second Amendment.

One Fight. Three Fronts.

FPC’s strategy is straightforward: end the federal regime, eliminate state laws that depend on it, and directly attack state bans on constitutionally protected arms wherever they exist.

At the federal level, FPC is pressing forward toward durable nationwide relief.

At the state level, today’s 15-state initiative attacks laws that still tether the People to the federal NFA registration system.

And where states independently ban the arms themselves, FPC is attacking those prohibitions head-on.

That includes cases like FPC v. Davenport, FPC’s challenge to New Jersey’s ban on short-barreled rifles. The case builds on FPC’s en banc Third Circuit victory in Cheeseman v. Davenport, where the court held New Jersey’s semiautomatic-rifle ban unconstitutional—a decision FPC says also materially strengthens its SBR challenge.

FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County case is now before the United States Supreme Court, where FPC is challenging a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Oral argument in the landmark Second Amendment “hardware” case is set for December 2, 2026.

“Jensen is not a one-off lawsuit—it is one part of a broader strategic plan,” Combs said. “That plan has already killed federal NFA registration for these untaxed arms. We are fighting to make that victory permanent and nationwide, and now we are working to eliminate the state laws that try to keep those restrictions alive. At the same time, our arms-ban cases are attacking the bans themselves. FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until all of these unconstitutional and immoral restrictions are eliminated throughout the United States.”

FPC thanks its Grassroots Army members and supporters for making this important work possible. Individuals who want to join FPC and support its lawsuits and other programs to restore liberty can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

[Representative text of the letter sent by Holtzman Vogel attorneys David Johnson and Daniel Bruce is below:]

Dear [Attorney General]:

We write on behalf of our client, Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), regarding recent federal court developments with significant and immediate implications for firearms law in your State. In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-056 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026) (consolidated with the FPC-backed Jensen v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-227), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that various provisions of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) are unconstitutional because they no longer comport with Congress’s taxing power. This decision has created an urgent legal question for law-abiding firearms owners, firearms manufacturers, and law enforcement officials and legal officers in states, including yours, with laws that condition the legality of certain firearms on compliance with the NFA: Must state residents still comply with unconstitutional, enjoined federal regulations to exercise their right to keep and bear the arms under state law? In order to protect your citizens’ rights, we respectfully request your Office’s attention and offer FPC’s partnership in crafting a prompt resolution.

Background

The NFA, enacted in 1934, imposed a tax on the transfer and making of certain regulated firearms—including silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.” To facilitate collection of this tax, Congress erected a regulatory framework requiring registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, submission of applications with fingerprints and photographs, local law enforcement notification, and prior ATF approval. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c), (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f), (i); 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d), 479.84(a)–(d).

On July 4, 2025, Congress enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (2025), which, effective January 1, 2026, reduced the federal transfer and making taxes to $0 for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.”  Critically, Congress left the NFA’s entire regulatory apparatus—registration, application, approval, and recordkeeping—fully intact despite eliminating the revenue.

On August 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the challenged NFA regulatory provisions are unconstitutional. Because a $0 tax raises no revenue—the “essential feature of any tax”––the regulatory provisions can no longer be sustained under Congress’s taxing power, the sole constitutional basis on which the NFA was enacted. The court entered a party-specific injunction barring the ATF and DOJ from enforcing the challenged provisions (26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c), (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f), (i); 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d), 479.84(a)–(d)) against untaxed firearms held by the plaintiffs. Additional challenges are progressing in other circuits. See, e.g., the FPC-backed cases of Brown v. ATF, No. 4:25-CV-1162 (E.D. Mo.) and Roberts v. ATF, No. 2:24-CV-091 (E.D. Ky.).

The Problem

This creates a problem for many states, such as yours, that have enacted firearms statutes that condition the lawful possession, transfer, and/or making of NFA-regulated items on compliance with the federal NFA registration requirements. These provisions make it lawful for a person to possess NFA-regulated items only if that person has complied with the NFA’s registration, application, and approval requirements.

The Silencer Shop Foundation/Jensen decision has fundamentally disrupted this framework. The federal government is prohibited from enforcing the NFA’s registration, application, and approval requirements as to the covered plaintiffs. And the court held that those provisions are facially unconstitutional. Yet your State’s law still requires compliance with those facially unconstitutional federal procedures as a prerequisite to lawful possession under State law.

The Department of Justice recently notified Congress that it does not intend to appeal the decision. Letter from D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, to Sen. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Sen. J. Comm. (Sept. 24, 2026), Silencer Shop Foundation, No. 6:26-CV-056 (ECF No. 145-1). And the trend of litigation nationally suggests other challenges, see Brown, No. 4:25-CV-1162; Roberts, No. 2:24-CV-091, will reach the same or a substantially similar result. Accordingly, this issue is likely to persist until state legislatures act.

The result is an untenable legal limbo. Through no fault of their own, law-abiding citizens face state criminal exposure for possessing items they have a constitutionally protected right to possess and that the federal government is barred from regulating under the current statutory framework. Such uncertainty will chill law-abiding citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. And worse, it will also inevitably lead to confusion for state and local law enforcement officials who must determine whether to enforce state laws that incorporate unconstitutional federal registration, application, and approval requirements. This would not only put peaceable people at risk, but it would also inevitably lead to the expense of litigating challenges to your State’s laws in civil and criminal cases. Thus, FPC encourages your Office to take action now to begin addressing this critical issue.

Proposed Solutions

FPC respectfully proposes the following two urgent, prioritized solutions to protect citizens’ constitutionally protected rights, liberty, and property:

    1. Immediate Non-Enforcement Guidance. We request that your Office immediately cease enforcement of applicable State laws and issue a formal statement, opinion, or memorandum to State and local law enforcement and prosecutors directing them to not enforce your State’s NFA-tethered provisions for possession, making, or transfer of untaxed NFA items—silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons”—without federal registration and approval under the unconstitutional provisions. Such guidance would safeguard citizens’ constitutionally protected rights, provide clarity for law enforcement, avoid the expenditure of State resources on prosecutions premised on State laws tied to unconstitutional federal requirements, reduce your State’s legal exposure, and serve as a prudent interim measure while the State legislature acts. 
    2. Permanent Legislative Fix. We further urge your Office to develop an appropriate legislative proposal and work with your State’s Legislature to permanently untether lawful acquisition, possession, use, and disposition of affected arms from the unconstitutional, enjoined federal registration requirements. A full repeal of such State requirements is encouraged to show your State’s commitment to its citizens’ constitutionally protected rights.

* * *

FPC and its counsel stand ready to serve as resources and partners to your Office to address this issue, including analyzing the impact of the unconstitutionality of the NFA’s provisions on your State’s firearms law and providing model statutory language for permanent legislative solutions. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response and to working together in service of the people of your State.

Respectfully,

/s/

David Johnson 

/s/

Daniel BruceÂ