FPC Wants Court to Allow Nonresident Carry in Colorado

Colorado is a prime example of what happens when you let too many Californians move into a state. They take over and start wanting the same terrible laws they left California over. If only there was some way to stop them.

One issue in Colorado that predates the current sorry state of affairs is that if you’re a nonresident, you can’t carry a firearm at all unless your state recognizes Colorado’s permits. Luckily, open carry is still legal…unless you’re in Denver.

That’s why Denver is being sued, and why the Firearms Policy Coalition has made an important ask of the court.

From a press release:

Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Hoffman v. City and County of Denver, asking the federal court to immediately block enforcement of the Colorado and Denver gun carry ban regime as to Plaintiff Gene Hoffman and similarly situated peaceable nonresidents, and require Colorado to allow them to obtain carry licenses on the same terms as Colorado residents.

The State of Colorado generally requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun but refuses to issue those permits to nonresidents. Instead, the State recognizes permits from another state only when that state recognizes Colorado permits.

Denver separately bans open carry, so peaceable people from outside those states can be left with no lawful way to carry a handgun at all while in Denver. And because federal law generally prohibits firearm possession within 1,000 feet of a school unless the person has a license issued by the state where the school is located, Colorado’s refusal to issue permits to nonresidents creates a massive labyrinth of prohibited areas throughout the State where affected travelers can be effectively disarmed—or risk federal prosecution and imprisonment simply for carrying a firearm.

Colorado law also reserves certain carry privileges in public university and government-building parking areas for permit holders.

“Colorado and Denver cannot turn their borders into a police-state checkpoint where peaceable people are forced to surrender their rights.

The right to bear arms throughout the United States belongs to the People—not only Colorado residents. Colorado and Denver have created an insane regime that completely disarms peaceable Americans simply because they live somewhere else, and we’re asking the court to put an end to it now.

FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward and eliminate all of these unconstitutional and immoral residency-based bans,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

FPC’s motion argues that the case should be straightforward under the Supreme Court’s binding precedents—the Second Amendment protects the People’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, and that protection does not disappear when someone crosses a state line.

As the filing explains, “the Second Amendment, like every guarantee in the Bill of Rights, ‘has the same meaning in all parts of the United States.’”

The historical record makes Colorado’s position even worse. Far from supporting residency-based disarmament, early American laws often gave travelers more protection to carry arms, not less.

The motion identifies colonial laws requiring people traveling away from home to carry arms and later laws expressly exempting travelers from carry restrictions.

The motion also argues that Colorado’s discrimination against nonresidents violates the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects Americans from being denied fundamental privileges simply because they come from another state.

I mean, they ain’t wrong.

About any of it.

Continue reading “”

Woman uses shotgun to defend family members from two men fighting her family members

TOLEDO, Ohio (WTVG) – Two brothers were arrested in the early morning hours of October 6 after a fight with one of the men’s girlfriend’s family.

Dazeon Hersey, 19, and Juawan Hersey, 21, face multiple charges after police responded to a home on Pinewood where they found a woman holding a shotgun, defending her family from the men.

Juawan was living at the home with his girlfriend at the time.

Units forced entry and placed the men under arrest.

Dazeon faces charges of Domestic Violence, Assault, Obstruction and Resisting Arrest.

Juawan is charged with Domestic Violence, Assault and Using Weapons While Intoxicated.

A lot of police these days seem to be simply be out to arrest and charge whoever they can, for whatever they can.

Supreme Court Turns Away ‘Knock-And-Talk’ Case Backed by Gun Rights Groups

The Supreme Court denied cert to dozens of cases on Monday, and while we’ve talked about a few of those denials already, there’s at least one more that’s worth discussing.

Reel v. North Carolina wasn’t really a Second Amendment case, but a number of 2A organizations signed on to an amicus brief urging the Court to hear the challenge brought by Quashan Reel against the state of North Carolina.

The underlying issue in Reel involves the “implied license” that permits a “visitor to approach the home by the front path, knock promptly, wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) leave.” As Reel’s cert petition explained:

Police rely on this “implied license” to conduct untold thousands of so-called “knock-and-talk” investigations each year under the theory that entering the curtilage of the home to conduct a “knock and talk” does not implicate the Fourth Amendment.

But this Court in Jardines also instructed that an officer’s purpose in entering the curtilage of the home has constitutional relevance. If police “enter the protected premises of the home in order to do nothing but conduct a search,” they have conducted a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

The question Reel posed to SCOTUS was this: When police enter the curtilage of the home to conduct a “knock-and-talk” investigation with the purpose of gathering incriminating evidence against the homeowner, do police conduct a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment?

You can see why Second Amendment groups like Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, and Tennessee Firearms Association took an interest in this case. If police can use these “knock-and-talks” to conduct searches of homes, then gun owners, particularly those who reside in places where there’s hostility towards our right to keep and bear arms, can easily be targeted and become the victims of warrantless searches.

Reel’s case stemmed from a police investigation into his activities in 2020. Police in High Point, North Carolina suspected him of dealing narcotics, and parked a patrol car near his home. When a woman walked up to Reel’s front door officers followed, and when the door was closed after allowing her inside, the officers forced the door open and broke inside, where they discovered marijuana and pills.

The officers claimed they smelled marijuana when the door was opened, which gave them probable cause and exigent circumstances to search without a warrant. But if police were already conducting an investigation into Reel’s activities, then the alleged ‘knock and talk’ was nothing more than a pretext to search Reel’s home in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Quoting again from the amicus brief:

The conduct of the police challenged here by Petitioner illustrates how the “implicit license”recognized by this Court has been abused in practice.

Here, the officers did not “approach the home by the front path,” did not “knock promptly,” did not “wait briefly to be received,” or receive an “invitation to linger longer,” and then, did not “leave.” Instead, they forced their way in immediately behind an invited guest, without ever “knocking and talking” at all.

When “knock and talk” is expanded to cover such behavior, and then combined with “exigent circumstances,” the Fourth Amendment’s protections of the home are dramatically weakened.

The court below largely ignored every word this Court has written on principles of relevance here, and it is not alone. Many other federal and state courts have sanctioned all manner of police efforts to expand this rule, granting increasingly abusive intrusions into the home and its curtilage.

The front path rule, the duration limitation, the time of day, and other limitations that apply to other visitors have been stretched beyond any understanding of the original rule.

Accordingly, these amici agree with Fourth Amendment scholars that additional guidance is now required from this Court to prevent further abuses.

These amici urge this Court to grant certiorari to adopt a clear and enforceable rule, that “the right of a police officer to conduct a ‘knock and talk’ is no greater than a Girl Scout has to approach a house to sell cookies.”

The Girl Scout reference comes from the Supreme Court’s decision in an earlier case where the Court held that if “Girl Scouts and trick-or-treaters” have a “knock and talk” implied license, the police should also be granted such a license.

The Girl Scouts don’t have any right to barge into your home just because they can see an empty cookie jar on the kitchen counter when you open the door. Trick-or-treaters don’t have the right to go search your refrigerator just because you offer them candy on your porch. There are limits to that implied license, at least if you’re not wearing a badge.

We don’t know why the Court denied cert to Reel, but this does seem to be an issue that the justices should address. The circumstances that led to Reel’s home being searched are far beyond the limits of the “implied license” SCOTUS has recognized, and these practices will continue in jurisdictions around the country until the Court makes it clear that they must stop. That won’t happen in this case, but I appreciate GOA, GOC, and TFA for taking an interest in this issue and urging the Court to step up and deal with these abuses.

From her quoted statements, she wants to make it less dangerous for her gangs.

Minnesota: Somali Democrat Mayor Pushes Gun Ban as Fix for Somali Gang Crime

St. Louis Park Mayor Nadia Mohamed (D), the first Somali-American elected mayor in Minnesota, suggests the solution to Somali gang gun violence is to ban firearms.

A clip of Mohamed expressing her support for a gun ban has made the rounds on social media.

Bearing Arms quoted part of her comments wherein she dismissed criticism of the Somali gangs as “rhetoric” that is “irresponsible” and turned to gun control as a solution:

A crime is a crime is a crime is a crime. But what the rhetoric you are pushing, at best is irresponsible, at worst is dangerous. So you may be wondering, hey Mayor, how can we solve for this then? How can we have conversations that are effective, that can actually get something done? And the answer is easy.

Ban guns.

On October 4, 2026, Breitbart News pointed to reports indicating alleged Somali gang-related gunfire broke out at Eden Prairie High School in a Minneapolis suburb Friday around 9:00 p.m.

A news release from the Eden Prairie Police Department said two Somali males were injured during the shooting, one of whom was 17 and the second of whom was 18. The injuries they sustained were not life-threatening.

South Glens Falls homeowner shoots alleged intruder
State Police said the homeowner shot the person around 4:30 a.m. Tuesday on Main Street

SOUTH GLENS FALLS — A homeowner allegedly shot someone breaking into their Main Street home early Tuesday morning.

Troopers responded at 4:39 a.m. for a reported home invasion, where they learned someone entered the occupied home at 46 Main St. before being shot by the homeowner, State Police said. No one else was injured.

The suspected intruder was taken to Albany Medical Center Hospital for treatment of the gunshot wound, which troopers believe is non-life-threatening. State Police spokeswoman Trooper Stephanie O’Neil said the person has remained in police custody at the hospital. No one had been charged with a crime as of Tuesday afternoon.

O’Neil declined to comment on whether the shooting was justified, noting it remains under investigation.
New York does not have a “stand your ground” law, meaning in the state, a threatened person has a duty to retreat to safety before using deadly force in self-defense against a crime. That changes, however, if a person is in their own home and is not the initial aggressor or if there is a reasonable belief someone is attempting to break in to commit a crime such as a burglary.

Kip Dare, owner of barbershop Kipper’s Clippers across the street from the home where the shooting occurred, said he arrived to work around 9 a.m. Tuesday.

“As I round the barbershop, I see the yellow tape,” he said. “When you see the yellow tape, you know it’s not good.”

Dare said he didn’t know the residents, who rent, well, but had cut the hair of an employee of a family-run water sprinkler business at the home.

Troopers said the investigation is ongoing and a large number of police remain in the area. Two State Police cars remained around the taped-off home as late as 1 p.m. Tuesday.

The CDC Corrects its Post on Defensive Gun Uses

At the request of gun-control activists such as Mark Bryant, founder of the Gun Violence Archive, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed its defensive gun-use data in May 2022. Bryant had complained that gun-rights advocates frequently cited the estimates to “stop [gun-control] legislation,” In July 2026, the Trump administration restored the post as it originally appeared before the CDC removed it and has now corrected an error in the original version. This was the CDC’s original post.

Gun control organizations, such as Michael Bloomberg’s The Trace were outraged, with titles such as “Inflated Claim About Guns and Self-Defense Returns to CDC Website.” The “inflated” claim was that the range of defensive gun uses ranged from 60,000 to 2.5 million.

The 60,000 estimate is from an earlier NCVS. The problem is that 2013 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report warns the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates are “difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” The report noted that estimates from national surveys as cited by Kleck ranged from about 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive gun uses per year.

The CDC has now corrected the information that had been posted and eliminated the lower estimate of defensive gun uses that the NAS report had noted was problematic..The NAS report didn’t make it clear that the 500,000 number was just for handguns, and the top estimate from the NAS report was 3.7 million. But this is a big improvement over what had originally been put up at the CDC website.

What was in the 2013 National Academies of Sciences report.

 

Anti-Gun Orgs Urge Clergy to Use Red Flag Laws to Grab Their Congregants’ Guns.

It’s often been said that gun control is really about people control. Understanding this, the megalomania that anti-gun advocates exhibit in their never-ending pursuit to control others displays a zealotry often associated with religious fundamentalism. It should come as little surprise, then, that gun control orgs are now trying to enlist clergy in their fight against natural rights, by encouraging religious leaders to promote and utilize red flag gun confiscation orders.

In September, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions published a tract titled “Extreme Risk Protection Orders: A Clergy Resource Guide” (extreme risk protection orders are the gun control advocates’ preferred term for red flag gun confiscation orders). The document was authored alongside groups including Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence, Faith Leaders for Ending Gun Violence, and Jewish Women International.

Another author was the Presbyterian Office of Public Witness, which the document described as “the public policy information and advocacy office for the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA).” The “progressive” PCUSA currently hosts the guide on its website. Texas Democratic U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico, who has put his version of religion at the forefront of his campaign, trained at a PCUSA seminary.

Astute gun rights supporters will know that the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health bears the name of billionaire gun control financier Michael Bloomberg. For his part, Bloomberg appears to believe he can dictate terms to the divine.

In a 2014 interview with the New York Times announcing the creation and financing of anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety, Bloomberg expressed confidence that his efforts to direct the lives of other people would earn him his eternal reward. The piece noted,

Pointing to his work on gun safety, obesity and smoking cessation, [Bloomberg] said with a grin: “I am telling you if there is a God, when I get to heaven I’m not stopping to be interviewed. I am heading straight in. I have earned my place in heaven. It’s not even close.”

⇑ [what utter hubris. I think he’s going to be surprised.] ⇑

The guide seeks to inject gun control directly into the clergy-congregant relationship. The document encourages faith leaders to leverage the trust their congregants place in them, noting, “faith leaders are often trusted confidants. You may be among the first to hear when someone is experiencing crisis…”

Of course, the danger that a pastor may work to have the government strip a person of a fundamental right based on a private conversation will prompt some congregants to forego potentially beneficial pastoral services entirely.

Continue reading “”

San Diego County Sues Filament Maker Over Its 2A Ties

There’s nothing illegal about selling plastic filament for 3D printers, even if some customers use that filament to manufacture firearms. But according to officials in San Diego County, there’s something legally actionable about a filament maker embracing the Second Amendment community and touting its products to people who print their own guns.

On Monday, San Diego County, aided by Giffords Law Center, filed suit against Polymaker LLC, accusing the company of violating California’s Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws by allegedly promoting it’s products to the 3D-printed firearms community. The county isn’t claiming that Polymaker sells guns, unfinished frames or receivers, or even a product that’s uniquely suited for making firearms. Instead, much of its case rests on what Polymaker has said and done while selling a lawful, general-purpose product.

According to the county’s complaint, Polymaker developed firearm-themed products, sponsored and worked with gun-printing influencers, offered technical advice about using its filament for firearm applications, and cultivated relationships with the broader 3D gun community. San Diego contends those activities helped facilitate violations of California’s restrictive laws governing privately manufactured firearms.

While this lawsuit implicates the Second Amendment, it raises substantial First Amendment questions as well. From the complaint:

To be clear, 3D printing filament is not inherently illicit and has many lawful, productive purposes, and this lawsuit does not seek to ban the sale of filament in California.

Rather, the People bring this lawsuit to hold Polymaker liable for its strategic business choice to design and market its filaments in order to profit from the illegal manufacture of 3D printed ghost guns in California.

These actions violate California law and reflect a conspicuous disregard for the public safety interests of Californians that those laws are designed to protect.

San Diego isn’t taking aim at what Polymaker sells. It’s suing over how the company talks about its products, who it talks to, and what those customers might legally do with them in much of the rest of the country, where California’s idiotic laws are not in place.

Nowhere in the complaint does San Diego allege that Polymaker is designing or marketing it’s filaments with California specifically in mind. Instead, the county heavily relies on California’s ridiculously broad definition of a “firearm precursor part,” which includes “any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article . . . that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled or converted.”

In support of its lawsuit, San Diego County points to the California DOJ’s designation of the Ghost Gunner “AR-00,” which is nothing more than a solid block of aluminum, as a “firearm precursor part” simply because it’s marketed as something that can eventually become a firearm frame or receiver.

While that might buttress San Diego County’s argument, it’s also a perfect illustration of just how expansive and open-ended California’s law is. Under San Diego’s theory, a company that produces a general-purpose product can be held liable for promoting one particular use because California prohibits that activity, even when the marketing isn’t specifically directed at Californians.

Punishing commercial speech directed at a nationwide audience because that speech promotes conduct that’s illegal in one state, even when the same conduct is perfectly lawful elsewhere, seems like a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment to me.

If California can turn a spool of plastic into a regulated “firearm precursor part” based largely on how it’s marketed, then this case isn’t just about what Polymaker sells. What the company says about its products, and even who it associates with and employs, are also fundamental parts of the county’s litigation, and you don’t have to be a Second Amendment supporter or a 3D-printing aficionado to be extremely concerned about where this theory can lead.

Homeowner shoots, kills man who broke into his Lytle home after disturbance, police say

LYTLE, Texas — A 36-year-old man was shot and killed after police say he ran from a disturbance and broke into a nearby home at random, where he cornered the homeowner late Sunday night.

Lytle Police said the incident began just after 10:30 p.m. Sunday in the in a home off Butch Cassidy Street in the Saddle Ridge Estates subdivision.

Police said the man was involved in a disturbance at one home and appeared aggressive and out of control, according to witnesses. He then ran from the house and broke into another residence just a couple of houses away.

Police said the man had no connection to the second home and appeared to have chosen it at random.

Once inside, police said the man cornered the homeowner. The homeowner then shot him to protect himself and his family.

 

The 36-year-old man died at the scene. His name has not been released.

Police also found a juvenile girl with knife wounds at the home where the initial disturbance occurred. She was taken to University Hospital. Her condition was not immediately released.

The Texas Rangers were called in to assist Lytle police with the investigation at both locations.