Better video

Oregon concealed carry license laws challenged by gun rights group

The lobbying group Gun Owners of America filed suit against the city of Salem and Marion County on Friday, challenging Oregon’s concealed handgun carry license laws.

The lawsuit targets restrictions that bar certain out-of-state residents from obtaining permits in Oregon and the state’s refusal to recognize permits from other states.

Cynthia Ladd, the group’s Oregon director and an Arizona resident, is the plaintiff.

In a sworn declaration filed in federal court, Ladd wrote that she’ll be visiting the state Capitol in Salem and meeting with legislators in the next 90 days as part of her lobbying work and wishes to carry a concealed handgun for self-defense in the city. But her Arizona concealed gun permit is not recognized and she can’t apply for one in Oregon.

The state, though, adopted a law in 2021 that bans guns from the Oregon Capitol, even those who have concealed handgun licenses. The city of Salem also prohibits unlicensed possession of loaded guns in the city.

The suit alleges that Ladd is “a typical, law-abiding American citizen with ordinary self-defense needs, who cannot be dispossessed of her right to bear arms in public for self-defense in Oregon simply due to her nonresident status.”

The city of Salem declined comment, citing the pending litigation, according to Robert B. Layne II, the city’s spokesperson.

To obtain an Oregon concealed handgun license, an applicant must be a resident of Oregon, or a non-resident who lives in a bordering state, including Washington, Idaho, Nevada or California.

Non-residents who live in a state bordering Oregon can apply for a concealed carry license to an Oregon county sheriff’s office that borders their state. Oregon county sheriffs, though, have discretion on whether to process non-resident applications, and many restrict them strictly to people who work or own property in their county.

Ladd’s lawsuit is one of a number of similar suits that have targeted residency barriers and out-of-state restrictions on concealed carry gun permits.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen found New York’s concealed carry laws unconstitutional. It stated that gun-control provisions had to comport with the text and “historical tradition” of the Second Amendment. Since then, state and local governments have had to show their own gun regulations are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Some states recognize many permits, others only a few, and others, like Oregon, only recognize their own permits granted for residents.

On Friday, the Liberty Justice Center petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to reject the state of Minnesota’s law that requires a long-haul trucker who has concealed gun carry permits in Florida and Georgia to also obtain a license from Minnesota if he wants to carry a gun there.

Supreme Court Orders New York City to Defend Stun Gun Ban in ‘Caetano 2.0’

Six months ago, AmmoLand warned that the Second Circuit appeared ready to preserve New York City’s stun gun ban by claiming the challengers had not supplied enough evidence that electronic arms were in “common use.”

That is exactly what happened.

Now, the Supreme Court has ordered New York City to respond in Calce v. New York City, giving the justices an opportunity to stop lower courts from using that evidentiary maneuver to evade the Second Amendment.

The Court’s official docket shows that New York City waived its right to respond on August 6. On September 8, the Supreme Court requested a response anyway. The city’s brief is due October 8.

The order does not mean the Court has agreed to hear the case or ruled against New York City. It does mean the petition will not be rejected without the justices first receiving the city’s defense of a ban that should have been dead after Caetano v. Massachusetts.

Second Circuit’s Attempt at an Escape Route

In March 2025, AmmoLand’s Dean Weingarten reported that U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos had placed the “common use” burden on the challengers. Ramos held that stun guns and Tasers were not presumptively protected because the plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence showing the arms were commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

When the Firearms Policy Coalition appealed, AmmoLand reported that the organization argued the ruling “[flew] in the face of the Second Amendment” because electronic weapons plainly fall within the ordinary meaning of “arms.”

Following the Second Circuit’s March 2026 oral argument, AmmoLand examined Mark Smith’s analysis of the case. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, described Calce as a layup under Caetano. AmmoLand nevertheless warned that the panel appeared interested in a narrow procedural ruling that would leave the ban intact without directly declaring stun guns unprotected.

On April 13, the Second Circuit did exactly that.

Second Circuit Says Citizens Failed to Prove Their Rights

In a summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for New York City.

The panel held that the plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing that stun guns and Tasers are in common use for lawful purposes at the first stage of the Bruen analysis. It then faulted them for failing to introduce sufficient admissible evidence in the district court.

That allowed the city to win without proving that its ban is consistent with America’s historical tradition of arms regulation.

This is not a minor procedural dispute. It determines who must prove what when the government bans an entire category of arms.

Under Bruen, once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers a person’s conduct, the government must justify its restriction using history. But if a hostile court inserts “common use” into the plain-text inquiry, it can force citizens to prove that an arm is popular enough before the government carries any constitutional burden.

The government can then ban an arm, suppress its ownership, and argue that the resulting lack of ownership proves the arm was never protected. That is a constitutional Catch-22 created by the infringement itself.

Continue reading “”

An update on this:

Wife Tells 911, ‘My Husband Had to Shoot’ After Alleged Intruder Killed

Transcripts of a 911 call about a homeowner shooting an alleged intruder earlier this month have been released, and at one point the homeowner’s wife says, “My husband had to shoot.”

Breitbart News reported the September 7th incident in which an alleged intruder, identified as 37-year-old David Lee Jr., was shot and killed by a Mobile, Alabama homeowner.

Now, FOX 10 TV has acquired and published 911 calls from that night, one of which was from a business owner and the second of which was from the wife of the homeowner who shot Lee.

The first call came in after a business owner saw Lee on his property around 9:13 p.m. The unidentified business owner told 911 that Lee “was just climbing at the top of our barbed wire getting in when I saw him.”

He noted that Lee allegedly made his way up some stairs, only to fall off after unsuccessfully trying to enter a window.

Minutes later, the 911 call from the wife of the Mobile homeowner came in, and she told the dispatcher that a person whom they did not know was trying to get into their home. She then said, “My husband is armed and he is trying to get the person to leave. He is knocking at our window.”

The sound of the window breaking could be heard and then a gunshot, and the dispatcher asked if Lee was making his way through the house. The wife responded, “No! My husband had to shoot.”

Lee died at the scene.

This wasn’t on my radar, but good to know it’s been – sort of – resolved.

UPDATE: Washington Reverses, Says NRA-Certified Instructors Can Teach

The Washington State Patrol (WSP) appears to have reversed course on allowing certified National Rifle Association firearms instructors to provide safety training as part of the upcoming permit-to-purchase training requirement, TGM has learned.

The problem was first reported by TGM here.

In an email to subscribers of a list of potential instructors Monday, WSP Commander Kevin Baird advised, “The email sent September 11, 2026 regarding NRA sponsorship of firearm safety training resulted from a misunderstanding of the terminology used and how the statute is written.

“I’m pleased to report that the NRA Executive Director, Josh Savani, reached out to me on Friday to clarify the NRA’s position. Based on that clarification, independent NRA-certified instructors may provide the firearm safety training required under RCW 9.41.1132 and RCW 9.41.070.

“However,” Baird continued, “as with all other training providers, WSP must still review and certify the training curriculum to ensure it includes all elements required by law. Those requirements include:

RCW 9.41.1132(1):

(a) Basic firearms safety rules;

(b) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;

(c) Firearms and suicide prevention;

(d) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;

(e) Safe handling of firearms;

(f) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers and locations where firearms are prohibited;

(g) State laws pertaining to the use of deadly force for self-defense;

(h) Techniques for avoiding a criminal attack and how to manage a violent confrontation, including conflict resolution; and

(i) Live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range that include a demonstration by the applicant of the safe handling of, and shooting proficiency with, firearms.

“We have not yet begun reviewing individual curricula,” Baird wrote. “That process will begin once we have processed the majority of the training-provider applications.

“My apologies for the confusion created by the previous email,” he said. “We are working to provide information as quickly and transparently as possible while developing the processes and procedures necessary to implement this significant undertaking. As someone described it to me last week, ‘we are building the airplane while flying it.’ We appreciate your patience and understanding as we work through these implementation details.”

Last week’s announcement created a furor, drawing longtime gun rights activist—and NRA-certified firearms instructor—Jane Milhans into the fray. She singlehandedly brought the problem to NRA’s attention, initiating a scramble on both ends, with NRA exchanging information with Baird.

The situation also drew attention from TGM, Ammoland News and radio host Jason Rantz writing about it at Seattle-Red.

As reported last week, an exchange of messages regarding whether NRA-certified instructors would be okayed to provide the necessary safety instruction required by the new state law, RCW 9.41.1132, ignited the controversy.

A message sent last week by WSP to members of a ListServ P2P group, which stated, “RCW 9.41.1132 (3) states (bolding added for emphasis): ‘The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, tribal, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training.

“We reached out to the NRA to determine if an NRA Certified Trainer would be considered to be ‘sponsored’ by the NRA thereby meeting the requirement of ‘a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training’.

“The answer they provided is: NO. They said because these individuals are neither employees nor contractors, and the NRA is not involved in scheduling, promoting, etc. of the classes, the NRA would not be considered as sponsoring any classes for them.”

This was the original message that set off the communications flurry resulting in Monday’s reversal.

“While NRA-certified instructors are not employees or contractors of NRA,” Savani explained, “holding a current certification does entitle an instructor to certain rights and privileges that could be seen to make them ‘sponsored’ for purposes of RCW 9.41.1132(3). For example, NRA certified instructors are permitted to use NRA trademarks in promotion of their NRA training courses. We do not allow use of our marks lightly, and use of these marks puts NRA’s imprimatur on any of our courses being taught by a certified instructor.”

Pro-2A Group Sues Oregon Over Out-Of-State Permit Recognition

A pro-Second Amendment group filed a lawsuit against Oregon on behalf of one of its lobbyists, accusing the state of leaving no way for non-residents to carry firearms for personal protection.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the group’s Oregon state director, Cynthia Ladd, sued the city of Salem, Oregon, and Marion County, Oregon, Sheriff Nick Hunter Friday in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, demanding that the state’s ban on non-residents carrying firearms be ruled a violation of the Second Amendment. In the complaint, it noted that for over four-fifths of Americans, there was no option to carry firearms in the state.

“Oregon seems to believe that your constitutional rights come with a residency requirement, but the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Law-abiding gun owners should not lose their right to carry a firearm for self-defense simply because they cross a state line.”

Oregon does not recognize any other state’s concealed carry permit, according to the National Rifle Association.

A similar case centered on out-of-state residents could be considered by the Supreme Court. Liberty Justice Center filed a petition on Aug. 24 asking the high court to hear Johnson v. Jacobsen, regarding Minnesota’s refusal to recognize a long-haul truck driver’s concealed carry permits from Florida and Georgia.

Attorneys for the state of Massachusetts failed to convince a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that accused the state of delaying the processing of carry permits for out of state residents. In an Aug. 28 ruling, Chief United States District Judge Denise Casper of the District of Massachusetts, an Obama appointee, allowed the litigation to proceed

In June, the Supreme Court narrowed the applicability of a federal law prohibiting users of marijuana roughly a week before it issued its ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, a ruling that struck down Hawaii’s “vampire rule” targeting concealed carry.

Winchester Bags $788 Million Army Ammo Contract

Oxford, Mississippi-based Olin-Winchester pulled down a nearly billion-dollar contract from the Pentagon last week to supply the Army with small arms ammunition.

The $788,361,894 “firm-fixed-price, fixed-price-with-economic-price-adjustment, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity” contract is for unspecified quantities of 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, and .50 caliber BMG ammunition.

While Winchester currently holds the contract to manage the Army’s Lake City Ammunition Plant in Independence, Missouri, the latest award allows work locations to be determined with each order, meaning the company could potentially fill orders from its Oxford or East Alton, Illinois plants. Oxford-made “WMA” headstamp M855 NATO Green Tip ammo is popular on the consumer and surplus market, while historic East Alton cases carried a “WCC” headstamp.

Winchester also recently purchased the new 185,000 sq. ft. Ammo, Inc., production facility in Manitowoc, Wisconsin.

The company also makes M1152 Ball, M1153 Special Purpose, and M1156 Drilled Dummy Inert 9mm ammo for the military’s Modular Handgun System (M17/M18) program.

The contracting agency was the Army Contracting Command at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, and it has an estimated completion date of Sept. 10, 2031.

Home Invader’ Is the One Species Most States Still Don’t Protect.

A lot of folks in Arizona love and embrace the Second Amendment. After all, one doesn’t need a permission ship to bring your heat in the Copper State. In Saint David, a 67-year-old man learned that a bedroom window isn’t a senior citizen discount lane.

Last week, a homeowner with two small children inside heard suspicious noises and checked his cameras. He saw a strange old man breaking out a window and trying to climb inside. Mr. Homeowner fired upon the would-be intruder.

The 67-year-old won’t make his 68th birthday party. Meanwhile the kids inside the home didn’t miss breakfast and remained uninjured and unmolested.

 

After being shot, the intruder abandoned his attempt to climb through the window, but he didn’t get far.  Cops found him “unresponsive” outside the window. Medics tried, but failed.

 

For some do-gooders, the excuse menu writes itself. Maybe he was a mental case. Or drunk. Possibly stoned. Perhaps just a confused neighbor. Maybe he just had a poor life coach.

None of it gives anyone a climbing permit to bust a window and force entry into a home in the middle of the night (or any other time). One with children. Age isn’t a free pass. “He lived nearby” isn’t an invitation. If your plan includes break-glass-and-force-entry, you’ve chosen to be the one species that most states don’t protect.

This was a father standing between a bad dude and two little children. Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels says we need to wait for the full investigation. Fine. The part already on the table doesn’t require a sĂ©ance to figure out. Occupied house. Broken window. Stranger coming through.

Fox10Phoenix has it:

An Arizona homeowner allegedly shot and killed a suspected intruder early Sunday morning, according to the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office.

Deputies were notified of a potential burglary in progress at a Saint David home in the early morning hours on Aug. 30.

The homeowner said he was inside with his family, including two small children, when he heard what sounded like a window being broken. When he checked his home security system, someone was seen outside, the man told officials.

After entering the main living area, the resident said he saw a shadow near the window, as if someone were trying to get into the home.

That doesn’t sound like it requires much more of an investigation.