Big Win in Pennsylvania on Fourth Amendment Violation

Without the Second Amendment, the rest are vulnerable. Even with it, rights are usurped all the time. A recent Fourth Amendment win pulls into focus just how fragile everything is.

It’s a slippery slope when rights start to get violated. Especially when it comes to our protections of having our persons and papers secured, right to not self-incriminate, and right to an attorney. It’s a simple formula to follow and remember when dealing with the authorities: “I want to invoke my Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights.” Or in other words: you can’t look/come in here, I’m telling you nothing, and I want my lawyer. But what happens when a governmental body creates a law that violates those protections from warrantless and suspicion-less searches?

Pennsylvania attorney Josh Prince with the Civil Rights Defense Firm, P.C. had a client in this very circumstance. According to a post on Prince’s website, “Bristol Borough enacted an ordinance permitting their enforcement officers/inspectors, on a biennial basis, to inspect – absent any form of warrant or any form of suspicion of wrongdoing – any building, and the apartments within, where the apartments are rented or leased out.”

When Prince’s client refused the Borough to gain entry to his property, “the Borough sent a letter to … (him), expecting him to capitulate, and threatening fines for non-compliance. …” The penalties that Prince’s client was facing included a fine up to $1,000.00 per day as well as potential incarceration.

“(Prince) attempted to amicably resolve the matter, by the Borough agreeing not to enforce the unconstitutional ordinance against his clients, the Borough’s attorney responded back that the only amicable resolution would be for Josh’s clients to comply with the Borough’s ordinances,” Prince’s post noted.

After filing for an emergency injunction in Katz, et al. v. Bristol Borough, et al., Katz was granted some of the relief he sought. Prince obtained “an emergency, ex-parte preliminary injunction, precluding enforcement of Bristol Borough’s warrantless and suspicion-less searches of his clients’ buildings and apartments” and a future hearing was scheduled for a permanent injunction.

One hiccup Prince noted about the proceedings was the bond that his client was required to post. It was said that the judge ordered a $5,000.00 bond to be posted. While it might be customary to ask for someone similarly situated to post bond, Prince said that usually would run from anywhere between $1.00 and $100.00 — not $5,000.00. He’s hopeful that the court will not hold onto the bond for long.

The fact that Prince was able to secure the injunction as swiftly as he did may point at how the court views the merits of the case. “Because emergency injunctions are issued ex-parte (i.e. without the other side being heard), they are virtually unheard of, except in dire circumstances, where a clear violation of the law or constitution will occur, absent immediate court action,” Prince’s post explains.

When it comes to constitutional rights and liberties, they’re all closely connected. What of the Second Amendment right if one is having their Fourth usurped? Once one thread begins to unravel or break, it won’t be long until all is lost. Kudos to Prince on this monumental win.

Ruger Moves Corporate HQ from CT to Gun-Friendly North Carolina

Reports indicate that Ruger has shifted its headquarters from the state where it was founded to one more closely aligned with the Second Amendment.

Famously founded in 1949 in a small red barn in Southport, Connecticut, by William B. Ruger and Alexander McCormick Sturm, the now publicly traded firearms giant has moved its headquarters to Mayodan, North Carolina. The move, which was official in January, was confirmed by the Hartford Business Journal this week.

Ruger has long had a footprint in the Tar Heel State, with Bill Ruger attending the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in the 1930s before he went to work for the U.S. arsenal at Springfield Armory in World War II. The company announced its 191,000 sq. ft. manufacturing plant at Mayodan in 2013. Since then, Ruger has added a 224,000 sq. ft. distribution center next to the plant, making Mayodan the largest of its operational hubs. When the company acquired Marlin Firearms in 2020, it moved the assets and assembly line from Huntsville, Alabama, to Mayodan.

Other Ruger plants include Newport, New Hampshire; Prescott, Arizona; Earth City, Missouri; and Hebron, Kentucky.

When it comes to gun rights, North Carolina doesn’t have permitless carry – although it has been approved in past legislative sessions – but the state does have a robust “shall-issue” concealed carry scheme with over 900,000 permits in circulation in 2025. Importantly, North Carolina does not have mandatory gun lock laws, a ban on “assault weapons,” or “red flag” gun seizure laws, all of which Connecticut residents suffer.

The Connecticut legislature is nearing a ban on Glock-style firearms this year, which would include the new and popular Ruger RXM. Connecticut has a state ban on binary triggers and bump stocks.

Further, Connecticut has a gun industry liability law that is somewhat at odds with the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, allowing controversial “predicate exception” lawsuits against gun industry members when it comes to the sale or marketing of firearms.

In terms of NFA items such as suppressors, machine guns, and short-barreled firearms, North Carolina had more than 252,000 registered in 2024, one of the highest totals in the country and nearly three times the number in Connecticut (93,297).

Although North Carolina has had a Democratic governor since 2017, he has been balanced by a majority-Republican legislature that has no sign of turning blue in the near future. Of North Carolina’s 14 members of Congress, 10 are from the GOP, as are both of its current U.S. Senators, Tom Tillis and Ted Budd. By comparison, all of Connecticut’s lawmakers on Capitol Hill in Washington are Dems, including some very rabid anti-gun champions such as Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal.

Ruger isn’t the only gun company to leave Connecticut in recent years for more 2A climes, as Stag Arms moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming, while PTR Industries shifted to South Carolina. Mossberg, whose headquarters are in North Haven, Connecticut, makes most of its guns at a facility in Eagle Pass, Texas.

Second Amendment Must be Safeguarded Against Overreach

Hearing Wrap Up: Second Amendment Must be Safeguarded Against Overreach

House Oversight Committee | May 14th, 2026

WASHINGTON—Today, the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement held a hearing on “Privacy Protections & the Second Amendment: Examining ATF’s Relationship to the Tiahrt Amendment” During the hearing, members discussed the history and purpose of the Tiahrt Amendment and the consequences of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ prior failures to abide by it. The hearing also examined the ATF’s track record protecting Second Amendment rights.

Key Takeaways:

ATF has been working to rebuild trust after having a long history of failing to consistently uphold the Second Amendment and Americans’ liberties.

Robert Cekada, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified that “[Effective] law enforcement and respect for civil liberties are inseparable obligations, and that is why ATF has entered a new era of reform to rebuild trust with the industry, the federal firearms licensees, lawful gun owners and the public while still prioritizing our efforts on public safety. Some of the specific actions I have taken include establishing a senior industry partnership advisor position to address industry concerns and foster proactive engagement with the regulated community, revoking the enhanced regulatory enforcement policy, sometimes referred to as a zero tolerance policy, and replacing it with a new policy that emphasizes fairness and transparency while recognizing that FFLs are often the first line of defense against gun crime. And I also implemented regulations reforms last month, where ATF issued 34 notices of final and proposed rulemaking following the comprehensive review that was conducted in compliance with the executive order on protecting the second amendment rights, the aim is simpler, clearer regulations that do not compromise public safety.”

In recent years, ATF has violated the Tiahrt Amendment – which prevents ATF from sharing firearms trace data – by releasing protected data as part of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) disclosures.

Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement Chairman Clay Higgins (R-La.) noted in his opening statement that “Despite Tiahrt’s obvious importance to police and public safety, recent history has shown that ATF has flagrantly disregarded the law. Some violations of Tiahrt have seemed unintentional, associated with accidental data disclosures while responding to FOIA requests. However, other violations clearly stem from the political and ideological opposition some ATF unelected bureaucrats have for the law. There are several glaring recent examples, particularly during the Biden Administration. To begin, the Biden ATF assisted gun control groups in creating a map of gun shops, including those owned by Members of Congress, by providing Tiahrt-protected data as part of a FOIA request. ATF’s release of this data was a clear violation of federal law and intended to help anti-Second Amendment groups.”
ATF under the Biden Administration undermined the Tiahrt Amendment by assisting gun control groups in creating a map of gun shops using trace data.
ATF also inadvertently released Tiahrt-protected data as part of an unrelated 2022 FOIA request.
Congress must examine ways to rein in ATF’s erroneous and inconsistent application of law to prevent infringement of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and to ensure safety, privacy, and fairness for all Americans.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Targets D.C. AR-15 & Suppressor Bans as Second Amendment Civil Rights Violations

The Trump Justice Department just sharpened its attack on Washington, D.C.’s gun-control regime, and this time the target is bigger than a single bad law.

In a First Amended Complaint filed May 14, 2026, the United States argues that the District of Columbia, its Metropolitan Police Department, and Acting Police Chief Jeffrey Carroll are violating the Second Amendment by enforcing local laws that ban AR-15-style rifles and suppressors. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, asks a federal judge to declare those bans unconstitutional and block D.C. from enforcing them.

This is not another private citizen begging the courts to recognize what the Constitution already says. This is the United States government suing the District of Columbia and saying, in plain terms, that D.C.’s gun laws deprive Americans of their civil rights.

That is a major shift.

For decades, anti-gun politicians have treated the Second Amendment like a second-class right. They have banned commonly owned rifles, criminalized ordinary gun parts and accessories, buried lawful owners in registration schemes, and then acted shocked when Americans objected. D.C. has long been one of the worst offenders. This amended complaint puts that record directly in the federal government’s crosshairs.

The filing opens with the point gun owners have been making since Heller: the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right, not a privilege handed out by politicians. DOJ cites Heller, McDonald, and Bruen to argue that law-abiding Americans have the right to possess and use arms that are in common use for lawful purposes.

That is where D.C.’s AR-15 ban runs into trouble. D.C. does not simply say, “AR-15s are banned,” at least not in the clean way some states do. Instead, the District uses its registration scheme to get the same result. Under D.C. law, a person may not possess a firearm unless it is registered with the police. Then D.C. refuses to issue registration certificates for so-called “assault weapons,” a category that includes AR-15-platform rifles.

The result is the same: possess an AR-15 in D.C., and you are treated like a criminal.

The complaint correctly attacks the loaded phrase “assault weapon” for what it is: political language, not a serious firearms term. The AR-15 is not exotic or rare. It is not some strange military artifact sitting outside the American firearms tradition. It is the most popular rifle platform in the country.

DOJ’s amended complaint leans hard into that reality. The complaint cites estimates that Americans own 20 to 30 million AR-15s. It also points to Justice Kagan’s recent observation that the AR-15 is “the most popular rifle in the country.” It then cites Justice Kavanaugh’s statement in Snope v. Brown, where he noted that because millions of Americans own AR-15s and most states allow them, challengers have a strong argument that AR-15s are protected under Heller’s common-use test.

If the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, then D.C. cannot ban the most popular rifle in America just because anti-gun politicians dislike it. The Constitution does not allow local officials to veto ordinary rifle ownership with scary language and a registration trap.

The complaint also lays out why Americans own AR-style rifles. DOJ cites surveys showing they are used for recreational target shooting, home defense, hunting, defense outside the home, and competition. In other words, the exact kind of lawful purposes the Second Amendment protects.

The filing also undercuts the usual gun-control narrative that AR-15s are uniquely tied to crime. DOJ notes that FBI homicide data from 2019 showed only 364 homicides with rifles of any kind, compared with 6,368 with handguns, 1,476 with knives or cutting instruments, 600 with hands, feet, or other personal weapons, and 397 with blunt objects.

Anti-gun politicians do not want Americans to see those numbers. The numbers wreck the narrative.

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING NEWLY PASSED ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN VIRGINIA

BELLEVUE, Wash. — May 14, 2026 — Following closely on the heels of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signing new gun control legislation into law, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging the commonwealth’s new bans on “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines.

Gov. Spanberger signed into law a ban on so-called “assault firearms” declaring that “…any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The law further defines an “assault firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle chambered in any caliber besides .22 rimfire or one that contains a litany of common features such as a collapsing stock, pistol grip, threaded barrel or more. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. The new laws go into effect on July 1.

“It’s wild that lawmakers who each take an oath to uphold the Constitution insist on passing bills purposefully designed to gut it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The firearms and magazines banned in this law aren’t bizarre and unusual outliers, they’re among the most commonly owned guns and magazines in the country. They’re owned in the tens of millions by peaceable Americans who use them overwhelmingly lawfully. Virginia has now joined the minority of radical states to ban these constitutionally protected firearms, and in so doing, joined the club of states we’re suing over it.”

As noted in the complaint, “The firearms that Virginia bans as ‘assault firearms’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic firearms. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic firearms, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use. Regardless of any new category of arms created by state lawmakers, they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual.” SAF is joined in McDonald v. Katz by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Virginia lawmakers lied to their constituents and to themselves when they said these laws weren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A new sales and transfer ban is a ban that’s just one generation removed. On July 1, anyone turning 18 in Virginia will find out that the rights enjoyed by their predecessors don’t apply to them. These bans are an afront to the Constitution and an insult to the intelligence of Virginians who were fed lies and misrepresentations by their elected officials. We’re excited to fast track this case to the Supreme Court.”

When Self-Defense Shapes Probable Cause- Third Circuit Raises the Stakes in Kendig v. Stolar

In a significant Fourth Amendment decision, the Third Circuit held in Kendig v. Stolar, 2026 WL 1145264, that law enforcement may, in certain circumstances, be required to include known affirmative-defense evidence in probable cause affidavits submitted in support of arrest warrants.

Case Snapshot

This case arose after Corey Kendig shot and killed a man during a late-night altercation outside a Pennsylvania bar. Kendig claimed that he acted in self-defense after being outnumbered, attacked first, and placed in a chokehold during the confrontation. Surveillance footage and witness accounts supported portions of that account. Despite those facts, the affidavit of probable cause submitted by the investigating trooper did not include any information suggesting Kendig may have acted in self-defense.

Kendig was charged with homicide and related offenses but was ultimately acquitted by a jury. He later filed a Section 1983 action alleging false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, arguing that the investigating officer omitted material exculpatory information from the warrant affidavit.

The Holding and Its Limits

The Third Circuit agreed that affirmative-defense evidence can, in some cases, be relevant to probable cause. The Court adopted a middle-ground rule, holding that officers must disclose affirmative-defense evidence when a reasonable officer would “conclusively know” that the defense negates the mens rea of the offense or otherwise excuses the conduct. Applying Pennsylvania law, the Court emphasized that self-defense negated the mental-state elements of the crimes Kendig was charged with, homicide and aggravated assault.

The Court pointed to several allegedly omitted facts, including evidence that Kendig was outnumbered, that another individual initiated the confrontation, that Kendig was placed in a chokehold, and that witnesses described the decedent and his companions as violent and intoxicated.

Despite announcing the above rule, the Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the trooper on qualified-immunity grounds. The panel concluded that, at the time of the arrest, neither the Third Circuit nor a robust consensus of other courts had clearly established a constitutional requirement that officers include affirmative-defense evidence in warrant affidavits.

Why This Matters

The practical takeaway is clear: officers and prosecutors should expect increased scrutiny of affidavits that omit known exculpatory information bearing on self-defense claims. While Kendig does not impose a blanket requirement to include every potentially favorable fact, it makes clear that law enforcement cannot ignore affirmative defenses that are plainly apparent from the evidence. The decision provides defendants with a potentially important roadmap for challenging arrests and prosecutions based on incomplete probable-cause affidavits.

‘Unprecedented Threat’: IED Discovered Near Dam Considered Critical National Infrastructure

On Tuesday, during routine repair and maintenance at the Converse Reservoir dam in Mobile, Alabama, the divers assessing the dam discovered an improvised explosive device (IED). This is serious and should have gotten more attention than it is currently receiving.

The multi-agency effort included the Mobile County Sheriff’s Office, FBI Bomb Squad, Mobile Police Department Explosive Ordinance Detail, ALEA Bomb Squad and the Daphne Search and Rescue Team.

The Converse Reservoir dam at Big Creek Lake is the municipal reservoir for the County of Mobile. It is the sole water supply for the region, and the main source of drinking water for the city of Mobile and other municipalities. According to the Partners for Environmental Progress, the reservoir provides approximately 60 million gallons of water per day.

The fact that the threat was an IED — something engineered for a specific level of detonation and damage — indicates planning and specific targeting. With the recent IED attacks in New York and the rise of threatened and attempted domestic terrorism incidents across the nation, the fact that an IED was placed in the midst of critical infrastructure is concerning.

WATCH:

Five federal and local agencies is a great deal of manpower deployed for one explosive device. The fact that not much information is being given indicates there may well be more to this story than is being revealed. From what the director of Mobile Area Water and Sewer System (MAWSS) is saying, they are treating this unprecedented threat seriously.

“Our top priority is keeping your drinking water safe,” said Bud McCrory, MAWSS director. “This is an unprecedented threat, and we are fortunate that this device was discovered before it could cause serious damage to our water supply or harm to individuals. We are grateful for the professionalism and competency of our law enforcement partners – as well as the quick thinking of our contractors and divers – in identifying this device and safely destroying it.”

The reservoir and dam are federally designated critical infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has been made aware of the incident.

There have been legal battles going on with MAWSS and fishermen, citizens, and advocacy groups over public access to this waterway. Dependent upon the level placed on this threat and what an investigation uncovers, this could weigh in the direction of restricting the public from the reservoir area. Either way, one hopes that Homeland Security and federal infrastructure security officials are addressing this unprecedented threat and reassessing protections for similar sites nationwide. My first thought is drone surveillance and more consistent security sweeps of the dam’s infrastructure.

New Jersey may have slipped up while defending its ammo ban

Attorneys for the state of New Jersey may have made a significant error while trying to fend off a Second Amendment challenge to the state’s ban on civilian possession of hollow-point ammunition in most circumstances.

The state prohibited civilians from carrying the rounds, which are almost universally used by law enforcement, in public as part of a 1978 overhaul of its criminal code, the only state to maintain such a restriction. In a lawsuit filed in February 2025 by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations on behalf of Heidi Bergmann-Schoch in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the groups sought to have that prohibition thrown out as a violation of the Second Amendment.

“New Jersey must show a broad and enduring historical tradition, circa 1791, denying Americans’ right to carry a firearm, loaded with ammunition used by all other Americans in other states, outside the home for self-defense,” the initial complaint said. “Because New Jersey cannot make such a showing, the challenged restrictions violate the Second Amendment.”

“By invoking the international law of war and the practices of the U.S. military, Defendants hoist themselves with their own petard,” a reply brief filed Thursday adds. “Defendants’ sources prove that HPBs do not cause ‘unnecessary suffering,’ nor are they restricted for use in warfare. Rather, HPBs were originally developed for hunting, and are widely used by military and police units, and tens of millions of American citizens – nationwide.”

Hollow-point ammunition has been widely used by law enforcement and civilians for personal protection and other lawful purposes for decades. In a 1994 video interview, Massad Ayoob, a police officer who was an expert witness in the use of lethal force in self-defense, explained why hollow-point rounds were preferred for personal protection.

“I think the history both of military battle and police gunfight shows us that hard ball round that is, jacketed round nose, for jacketed round nose round, the nine-millimeter is justly infamous as an impotent man stopper and the .45 [ACP] is justly famous as, eh, being a pretty good man stopper,” Ayoob said in the interview, going on to note that both rounds tended to “perforate” – that is to exit the body of the target and potentially harm bystanders.

Continue reading “”

 Muskets like those from 1776 are mostly exempt from today’s gun laws

HALIFAX, N.C. (AP) — With 165 grains of black powder in the barrel, a .75-caliber Brown Bess flintlock musket like the ones the redcoats carried in 1776 can hurl a lead ball at a velocity of around 1,000 feet (305 meters) per second.

Imagine what that can do to a human body. Now, imagine that it’s almost completely exempt from gun regulations.

How can that be? Well, under federal and most state laws, many antique or replica guns aren’t technically considered firearms. In most places, even convicted felons can own them.

“I suspect the average judge would be surprised to find that out,” says Second Amendment scholar and gun-rights attorney Dave Hardy, himself the proud owner of two Civil War-era long guns.

Continue reading “”