NRA-Backed Plaintiffs Seek Full 3rd Circuit Review of New Jersey’s Sweeping Gun Permit Restrictions

Trenton, NJ – The National Rifle Association announced that plaintiffs in Siegel v. Platkin have filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the full court to overturn a panel decision that upheld large portions of New Jersey’s post-Bruen carry law.

The challenge—brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individual plaintiffs—targets the state’s near-total list of “sensitive places” and its requirement that applicants for a carry permit produce written references from four “reputable” non-relatives.

Background: From Bruen to Trenton’s Response
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense, Governor Phil Murphy condemned the ruling as “dreadful” and promised to take “actions” to limit its impact. The legislature quickly passed Chapter 131, a sweeping law that made it a crime to carry in 26 broad categories and 115 subcategories of locations—ranging from beaches and parks to museums, bars, and even libraries.

The law also imposed new hurdles for permit holders: a $50 “victims-fund” tax, a $150 application fee, a $300,000 mandatory insurance requirement, and the four-reference rule that forces applicants to find non-relatives willing to vouch for their “reputation.”

Continue reading “”

No charges filed after shooting leaves one dead in Buncombe County

No charges will be filed after a shooting left one person dead in Buncombe County, North Carolina, on Wednesday.

Around 6 p.m., deputies with the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office responded to a domestic disturbance call at a home on Kreston Drive in the Bear Creek community.

When deputies arrived, they found 55-year-old William Jennings Bryan Clay III dead.

According to authorities, it was determined that deadly force was used in self-defense and in self-defense of others within the home.

“This case highlights how the dedication of BCSO personnel to impartial fact finding empowers those who act lawfully in self-defense,” Captain Chris Stockton said. “This incident has forever changed the lives of several community members. Again, our hearts go out to them as they navigate this complex time.”

No other information has been released.

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges Constitutionality of National Firearms Act

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

The groups Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three people: John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or “Any Other Weapon” to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The One Big Beautiful Bill removed the tax on these arms but kept the registration requirement.

The newly filed suit seeks to completely remove the affected arms from the NFA, eliminating the remaining registration requirements for gun silencers, short-barreled rifles, or barreled shotguns.

“With the tax now set to $0, the remaining registration requirements for these arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Completely removing them from the NFA is now a must, and this suit aims to eradicate the barriers to the exercise of the Second Amendment. SAF is already a plaintiff in its own lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these elements of the NFA, and now our sister organization the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is joining the fight as a plaintiff with our financial backing in this companion case.”

Continue reading “”

GOA, Partners Request Summary Judgement on NFA Provisions

We’re kind of in a special time right now. While the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act didn’t land quite like we wanted, with the new fiscal year, we can buy short-barreled rifles and suppressors without the $200 tax stamp.

The problem, though, is that we still need NFA paperwork, and those products will still be entered into the NFA database.

That’s a database whose stated existence isn’t about registering scary devices to keep them out of naughty hands. It’s about making sure whoever has them has paid the tax.

And the fact that there’s not a tax on these items anymore means there shouldn’t be a registration requirement.

While Congress insisted on leaving that in, unfortunately, Gun Owners of America and its partners have filed a lawsuit to try and fix the issue. Now, they’ve just filed a motion for summary judgment in the case.

From a press release:

Yesterday [October 7th], Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).

GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment.

With the filing of this motion for summary judgment, GOA and GOF now expect the Trump Administration to take an official position on untaxed firearm registration and file a response on or before November 6, 2025.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“The National Firearms Act’s onerous registration requirements for untaxed firearms are a relic of a taxing scheme that no longer exists.  These provisions violate the Constitution by exceeding Congress’s authority and infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.  We urge the Court to strike down these unconstitutional restrictions and protect the rights of our members, supporters, and millions of gun owners nationwide.”

John Velleco, GOF’s Executive Vice President, issued the following statement: 

“The NFA is the strictest federal gun control law in the nation’s history. Even so, NFA-regulated weapons have proliferated in recent years, quickly becoming favored tools of the home defender, hunter, and hobbyist alike.  This lawsuit takes aim at FDR-era restrictions that never should have been passed in the first place. We look forward to taking a big step towards restoring the Founders’ original vision for American gun owners.”

This is a bit of a test for the Trump administration.

They’ve already done more for the Second Amendment than any previous administration in my lifetime, but there have also been some cracks that I don’t like seeing. The DOJ has defended a few questionable gun control laws, for example. Here, they can make a clear position on the matter, and one that should make perfect sense in the long run. The registration is about a tax that no longer applies to suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

If the DOJ does the right thing here and agrees with GOA and its allies, then what we’ll see is a world where you can walk into a gun store, buy a suppressor with just a NICS check, then take it home without any further paperwork than you would buying a single-shot .22.

I’d say that’s how it should be, but it’s not. We shouldn’t even have to go through that, but it would at least be far more acceptable than the current status quo, where you go to the ATF with hat in hand and ask, “Mother, may I?”

That’s not how our rights should work. We should be able to buy what we want, when we want.

But this is just the first step in a process of getting to that point. The Department of Justice can help with that, but even if they don’t, there’s a long road ahead, and we can and should follow the process to the very end. We need this killed throughout the country and done so in a way that leaves no ambiguity, so states figure they can do their own registries on these devices.

Good luck to the plaintiffs on this one.

Louisiana Man Shot While Trying to Set House on Fire With Someone Inside

LIVINGSTON PARISH, LA (KPEL) —The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office responded to a residence in the Albany area after receiving reports of a shooting.

Deputies arrived on scene around 3 pm Tuesday, where they discovered a man who had been shot suffering from a leg wound. He was brought to a local hospital where he recieved treatment and has been confirmed to be in stable condition.

The other individual was detained for questioning, and investigators learned that the wounded individual was attempting to set a home on fire by pouring gasoline on the floor, with someone inside.

At that point, the individual who was initially detained by police fired a shot, striking the other individual to prevent him from starting the house fire.

Our investigation points to the shooter acting in self-defense.

Wednesday afternoon, the Livingston Parish Sheriff’s office confirmed that he was active and that the shot fired was an attempt to prevent a house fire.

During our investigation, it was learned prior to being shot, the person with the gunshot wound had poured gasoline on the house floor & was attempting to set it ablaze with someone inside. The shot was fired in an attempt to stop that from happening.

The wounded individual now faces an Attempted Aggravated Arson charge. The Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office says the investigation is ongoing.

The identity of both individuals involved has not been released at this time.

All our liberties are due to men who, when their conscience has compelled them, have broken the laws of the land. —William Kingdon Clifford

Cocoa Extract Supplements Could Reduce Aging-Related Chronic Inflammation.

An extract made from cocoa beans may help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease by reducing age-related inflammation, according to a recent study by an international team of researchers.

The scientists behind the study expanded on previous research suggesting that flavanol-rich food and drink, such as chocolate, significantly reduced death by cardiovascular disease.

Found in cocoa beans and other foods such as green tea, apples, and grapes, flavanols have long been associated with a variety of health improvements, including a role in reducing damage caused by excess inflammation.

Inflammation worsens with age in a process commonly referred to as ‘inflammaging‘, and is associated with a host of age-related health problems (from chronic pain to Alzheimer’s disease).

If cocoa supplements can reduce that inflammation, the potential benefits are significant.

“Our interest in cocoa extract and inflammaging started based on cocoa-related reductions in cardiovascular disease,” says Howard Sesso, an epidemiologist from Brigham and Women’s Hospital in the US.

“We wanted to see whether multi-year cocoa extract supplementation versus a placebo could modulate inflammaging – and the data suggests it does.”

Continue reading “”

13 arrested, four police officers injured in violent Boston Common protest: ‘Completely despicable.’

Thirteen people were arrested Tuesday night in connection with a pro-Palestinian protest that turned violent on the Boston Common and left four police officers injured, including some with broken bones, according to officials.

Protesters “turned on police” at approximately 6:50 p.m. when they began to move from the Common to the area of Tremont and Winter streets, Boston Police said.

“At that time, protesters turned on police, kicking a marked cruiser, assaulting officers, blocking traffic, and setting off devices causing red smoke in the air,” Boston Police spokesman Sgt. Det. John Boyle said in a Tuesday night statement.

Protesters scuffle with officers at Chicago anti-ICE demonstration

Eight men and five women were placed under arrest. No one had been booked as of shortly before 9 p.m.

Four police officers were injured in connection with the incident. Two officers were taken to local hospitals for treatment. Police have preliminary reports of officers with broken bones, but all injuries are considered non-life-threatening, Boyle said.

“Another night of violence against police officers in Boston tonight,” said Larry Calderone, president of the Boston Police Patrolmen’s Association.

“Our officers were attacked, assaulted and sent to the hospital with injuries. Completely despicable and totally unacceptable. We were outnumbered and understaffed for the event,” he continued.

Continue reading “”

Man dead after shooting near Sayre, police say
Not much in this news item. More below

Man Shoots Wife’s Ex-Husband in Self-Defense While Being Violently Beaten With Picture Frame

SAYRE, PA — A deadly altercation unfolded Friday afternoon in a Sayre home when a man was forced to defend himself against a violent and prolonged assault by his wife’s ex-husband, resulting in a fatal shooting.

According to the Athens Township Police Department, officers responded to a report of gunfire at 210 Vista Drive at approximately 3:40 p.m. on October 3, 2025. Upon arrival, officers found 59-year-old John J. Kraus suffering from gunshot wounds. He was transported by Greater Valley EMS to Robert Packer Hospital, where he later died from his injuries.

Police say the incident began when 57-year-old David Hancock and his wife—Kraus’s ex-wife—were visiting Kraus’s mother at the residence. Both were inside the home by invitation.

Without warning or provocation, Kraus reportedly attacked Hancock in the living room, slamming him to the floor and knocking over furniture. Witnesses stated that Kraus pinned Hancock and repeatedly punched him in the head and face. Kraus then grabbed a nearby picture frame and continued striking Hancock, breaking the frame and glass in the process.

Despite being severely injured and bleeding from the head, Hancock remained pinned under Kraus. Hancock told police he believed Kraus intended to kill him, prompting him to draw his legally concealed firearm and shoot Kraus twice in self-defense.

Responding officers observed Hancock bleeding heavily from the head and holding a blood-soaked shirt to his injuries. He was also treated at Robert Packer Hospital.

Police confirmed that Hancock and all witnesses remained on scene and fully cooperated with the investigation. The case remains under review, but initial findings suggest the use of deadly force was consistent with Pennsylvania law, which permits such action when a person reasonably believes it is necessary to protect themselves from death or serious bodily injury.

Thankfully, Hancock was armed and able to draw his concealed handgun while under a brutal and sustained attack. Although Kraus was unarmed in the conventional sense, he used an improvised weapon—a picture frame with glass—to repeatedly strike Hancock in the head while pinning him to the floor. The force and nature of the assault, combined with Hancock’s visible injuries, highlight why Pennsylvania law permits the use of deadly force in self-defense when faced with an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. This case serves as a stark reminder that a deadly threat does not require a firearm—violent intent and the means to cause serious injury can justify a defensive response.

I wonder why their Supreme Court didn’t simp0ly throw the whole case out of court and dismiss the charge. Of course, we have to remember that lawyers live on ‘billable hours’ and judges are mostly lawyers too.

Self-defense law applies to bedrooms, Arizona Supreme Court says

Arizona law allows anyone to protect themselves from an uninvited person entering their home, and according to the Arizona Supreme Court, that also includes bedrooms.

A Pima County jury found John Brown guilty of attacking a neighbor with a microphone stand after the neighbor and his girlfriend entered his room. Though Brown lived with his girlfriend, the two had separate rooms. His girlfriend had invited the neighbor, someone Brown had previously gotten into a fight with. Brown left the two of them alone and locked himself in his bedroom. His girlfriend broke open the lock, and the neighbor tried to enter the room when Brown attacked him.

At trial, Brown asked that the jury be educated on state law that allows a person to claim self-defense if they attack someone entering their residential structure uninvited. The judge denied the request, ruling that his bedroom was not a “residential structure” and that the neighbor had been invited over to the home by another person living in the home.

After being found guilty, the judge sentenced Brown to five years in prison. Brown appealed the ruling, and after losing the appeal, he asked the Arizona Supreme Court to review the case.

Five out of six justices disagreed with the Pima County court’s decision not to let the jury consider the residential self-defense argument.

In an opinion written by Justice James Beene, the court decided that the way the state law is written, Brown’s bedroom should have been considered a residential structure.

Three things make any space a legally recognized residential structure, according to the justices:

The space must be a structure, movable or immovable, permanent or temporary, and adapted for human residence. It should be enclosed and have sides and a floor.
The structure also must be a place for lodging, meaning that it is a place where someone can rest or sleep.
The structure also needs to be separately securable, meaning that the entry point can be locked or secured.

Beene explained that Brown’s room fit all these points, and because he locked the room, it could be said that any person breaking into the room was uninvited.

The Arizona Supreme Court vacated Brown’s verdict and sent the case back to Pima County Superior Court for a new trial.

If it was never clear you, by now it should be that government, as a whole and no matter the fundamentals of how and why it was formed (cf. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights), has always been really hesitant to give free and unfettered access to the implements that make it so much easier for the unwashed masses to do away with a tyrant goobermint that sees them as mere peons.

Federal Judge Says Gun Law Unconstitutional, But Allows Feds to Largely Keep Enforcing It

Five years ago, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on handgun sales to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In late 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays dismissed the complaint, ruling that young adults have no Second Amendment right to purchase the most common firearm for self-defense, but that decision was overturned by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January of this year.

Since then, the plaintiffs and the DOJ have been arguing over the scope of the relief that should be granted, given that the appellate court found the law in question is unconstitutional. That alone should have favored a judgment from Summerhays that covered as many 18-to-20-year-olds as possible. Instead, on Tuesday, Summerhays rendered a judgment that leaves the unconstitutional law in place for almost everyone.

In a press release, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the “practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals.”

“What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition is similarly incensed, stating in a release:

Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.

To be clear: FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will.

Our legal team is already taking action to urgently address this appalling order. We will commence appellate proceedings as necessary to protect our members and effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in our favor. Further updates will be provided as the case proceeds.

The descriptions of Summerhays’ judgment aren’t hyperbolic. Here’s the text of the order so you can see for yourself.

The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.

The Court hereby declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and their attendant regulations, are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its Director, the Attorney General of the United States, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert with them and who have actual notice of this Judgment are hereby enjoined, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), from enforcing the provisions referenced in paragraph 3, to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

Within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs identified at paragraph 2(b) shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.

Summerhays’ order basically parrots the judgment proposed by the DOJ, which is another problem. President Donald Trump’s executive action to protect the Second Amendment states, in part, that:

… the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
     (b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
…
(v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;

The judgment proposed by the DOJ (and accepted by Summerhays) is completely contrary to Trump’s order for the DOJ to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Donald Trump wasn’t in office when oral arguments in Reese v. ATF took place before the Fifth Circuit last fall, and had only been in office for ten days when the Fifth Circuit overturned Summerhays’s original decision and declared the ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

Trump issued his executive order on protecting the Second Amendment in early February, and DOJ decided not long after that it would not appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. That was in accordance with the president’s order, but at some point between February and July, when the DOJ submitted its proposed judgment to the court, the agency adopted a position that runs counter to Trump’s executive action.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the proposed judgment was written, at least in part, by attorneys within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which has been taking historic actions to protect the right to keep and bear arms. In just the past couple of months the division has weighed in against “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans and sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed carry permits. It’s bizarre, then, to see the DOJ take the position that, even though this law is unconstitutional, it can continue to enforce it against virtually everyone except the named plaintiffs in Reese.

We’ll be talking more about this case with FPC”s Brandon Combs on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, and I encourage you to tune in and check out what he has to say. Thankfully, this isn’t the only case dealing with young adults and their 2A rights in the legal pipeline, and the Supreme Court has the opportunity to grant cert to similar challenges coming out of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits later this fall. There’s a clear split in the appellate courts on the issue, and hopefully SCOTUS will soon provide young adults the relief denied to them by Summerhays.