Mother with baby fatally shoots suspected home invader in Joliet

JOLIET, Ill. (WLS) — A mother with a baby fatally shot a suspected home invader in the south suburbs on Friday night, police said.

Joliet police said officers responded to a report of a home invasion in the 7000-block of Hadrian Drive around 10:30 p.m.

Police said the woman, armed with a gun, heard someone break into her home. That’s when she took her child and hid in a bedroom closet on the second floor.

Police believe that when the suspect entered that bedroom, the woman opened fire, striking him in the head. The suspect was pronounced dead on the scene.

Responding officers found the woman and her child in the adjacent bedroom, police said.

The suspect was wearing gloves and had a screwdriver at the time. The woman did not know who he was, and his identity has not yet been released.

Supreme Court Being Asked to Hear Magazine Capacity Case

California’s magazine capacity limitation law from 2000 has been under fire for several years. In 2016, the law was supersized, completely banning magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Formerly petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States, Duncan v. Bonta was granted, vacated, and remanded to the lower court in the wake of NYSRPA v. Bruen. The National Rifle Association-backed case has returned to SCOTUS and they’ve filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on August 15, 2025.

Named plaintiffs Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, and Christopher Waddell are joined by California Rifle and Pistol Association in this challenge. The petition was filed by the powerhouse firm Clement & Murphy, with Paul D. Clement and Erin E. Murphy listed as the counsels of record.

“Since 2000, California has prohibited the manufacture, import, sale, and transfer of ‘large-capacity magazines,’ defined by the state as ‘any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.’ In 2016, the state banned the possession of such magazines, and required any lawfully possessed magazine to be surrendered, permanently altered, or destroyed,” the National Rifle Association said in a release. “This lawsuit was filed before the possession ban took effect, alleging that it violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.”

In the petition, Clement and Murphy laid out the history of the case, asserting that “it should have been easy to see that California’s ban on feeding devices that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the Second Amendment.”

For the district court, that was indeed easy to see. But the Ninth Circuit would have none of it. The court bypassed the ordinary panel-review process, reconvened an en banc panel that now consisted mostly of judges not in active service, granted “emergency” relief to the state over the dissent of most of the active judges on that panel, and ultimately held that California’s sweeping and confiscatory ban on some of the most common arms in America does not even implicate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin of the NRA weighed in on the filing. “Tens of millions of Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of the magazines that California bans,” said Hamlin. “The Supreme Court should take this case to vindicate the rights of Californians and reaffirm that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning common arms.”

In the filing, they further argue that the 9th Circuit erred in their decisions. They state that the 9th’s decision can’t “be reconciled with this Court’s precedents or the constitutional traditions.” And, they observed that the circuit court professed “surface-level adherence to Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi” but “ultimately cast those decisions aside, pawning off interest-balancing as careful consideration of constitutional text and historical tradition.”

On behalf of the litigation arm of the Association — the NRA Institute for Legislative Action — Executive Director John Commerford said that: “After nearly a decade of litigation, two en banc decisions, and a prior remand from the Supreme Court, this case is more than ready for the Court’s review.” Commerford continued, “the people of California have endured long enough” and that “it’s time to restore their constitutional rights.”

The frenzy of post-Bruen grant, vacate, and remands that occurred in 2022 are coming home to roost. Snope v. Brown out of Maryland was one such GVRed case that was denied certiorari when represented to the High Court. Snope did not deal with magazine capacity restrictions, but rather so-called “assault weapons.”

The magazine question in Duncan, which affects Heller-protected handguns, could be the stepping stone SCOTUS uses to get back to the topic of semi-automatic rifle prohibitions.

A New Jersey case, also NRA backed — ANJRPC v. Platkin — was also in the batch of punted cases. Like Duncan, it concerns magazine capacity and is sitting at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a post-argument state. (ANJRPC has been consolidated with two semi-automatic rifle ban challenges and that might be an interesting twist in the prevailing days).

Will the High Court pick Duncan v. Bonta as the case to settle the debate on magazine capacity restrictions? Possibly. Or, is it more likely the justices wait out for an opinion from the Third Circuit on the New Jersey case in hopes that there’s a split? We’ll be watching the Supreme Court’s calendar when the session starts to see if Duncan makes the cut.

Found, from two weekends ago…

Kentucky Attorney Defends Himself Against Masked Intruders

An attorney living in an upscale suburb of Louisville, Kentucky is speaking out after his home was invaded over the weekend, forcing him to fire a shot in self-defense.

The armed citizen spoke to Louisville television station WDRB about his encounter with the intruders last Saturday evening, though he understandably wanted to remain anonymous while recounting his run-in with the masked men.

“I was in bed at 6:30, believe it or not, and the dog started barking. … They were barking in an unusual manner,” he said. “So I reached into the drawer of the table next to my bed and pulled out my .44 Magnum pistol and I went out the entrance to the bedroom.”

That’s when he came face-to-face with two masked intruders in the middle of his home.

“And I said, ‘What’s going on?’ And they turned around and took off, and I tried to shoot ’em,” he said. “I missed but I tried.”

The suspects escaped through a back door, jumped over a rear railing and disappeared into a wooded area near a nearby park. A man walking his dogs told the homeowner he was nearly run over by the men, who were speaking Spanish and fled the scene in a waiting SUV.

The homeowner believes the suspects were part of an organized group — possibly a transnational burglary ring — that carefully scoped out the home in advance.

“Until I talked to the police and then I got a better idea of their M.O., I knew they watched for houses they thought were vacant,” he said. “There’s no doubt they had my house under surveillance for a period of time … to establish there was nothing going on inside.”

He said the suspects were dressed in dark sweat suits and wore masks. They didn’t steal anything, but he believes they were targeting high-end valuables that can’t easily be traced.

“They go to the master bedroom and steal property — money, jewelry, clothes, shoes, things that are of value but are not readily identifiable,” he said. “They don’t take guns, because guns have serial numbers and can be traced.”

The armed citizen says that after speaking with others in the neighborhood, he believes that this crew has been operating in the area for at least two years and is responsible for the theft of at least $100,000 in belongings.

He’s also using his own experience to encourage others to “have a plan” if their home is invaded, including having “some kind of protection” as well as keeping doors locked and equipping their home with an alarm system.

Those are all smart suggestions, but I would also add that in some states, the armed attorney might not have been able to access his pistol before the masked intruders walked in to his bedroom. Gun control activists love to impose one-size-fits-all storage requirements on firearm owners that require them to keep their guns locked up at all times unless they’re actively being carried or are “under the control” of an authorized user, even if there are no kids in the home.

Kentucky, thankfully, doesn’t have a mandate like that in place, but if he lived in a state like Massachusetts or New York he would have been required to keep his pistol locked up while he slept or else face fines or even time behind bars. I’m all in favor of gun owners storing their firearms in a way that they’re off limits to young children or any other household member who doesn’t need access, but this incident is a chilling reminder that mandating how firearms must be stored can put residents at risk if intruders decide to pay them a visit.

Police: Man fatally stabbed Elkton teen in self-defense; no charges warranted

ELKTON [Maryland] — Police and prosecutors have elected not to file criminal charges against a one-armed man who fatally stabbed a 14-year-old boy on the street of an Elkton neighborhood last month — concluding that he acted in self-defense while attacked by the teen and several companions — including one who struck the victim multiple times with a shovel.    [Ya think?]

Cecil County State’s Attorney James Dellymer provided that update Thursday afternoon during a press conference at the Railroad Avenue headquarters of the Elkton Police Department, which has been conducting the ongoing investigation.

On Tuesday, two days before the press conference, police privately told the mother of Jordin Collins — the teen who was fatally stabbed — they had concluded self-defense and that they would not be filing charges against the stabber, a man in his 30s with an amputated left arm. Authorities are identifying him only as “Ty.”

Not surprisingly, a bill has earlier been filed in the state legislature to increase the ration of gun buys to 3 a month.

Final Judgement from 9th Circuit Strikes Down California Gun Rationing Law

The most left-leaning federal appeals court in the nation on Thursday closed the coffin lid on California’s controversial “one-gun-per-month” law.

In June, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling and struck down the limit as not in line with the right to keep and bear arms. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, challenged California’s 2019 ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle inside a 30-day period.

The same court this week issued a mandate that the judgment takes effect as of Aug. 14. The state had until Aug. 6 to request a rehearing in the case, but did not file, effectively waving a white flag on defending the law. 

The case was filed by six individuals and supported by a variety of pro-gun groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition, the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The gun rights groups characterized the win this week as a historic precedent.

“Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in an email to Guns.com. “Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.”