New York lawmakers announce gun safety actions in response to proposed federal rollbacks

BY Natalie Mooney Onondaga County

PUBLISHED 7:04 PM ET Aug. 03, 2026

It could soon become easier to legally purchase a firearm in the United States. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed a slew of changes to gun safety regulations in what it’s calling a “New Era of Reform.”

In response, New York lawmakers are working to ensure certain protections stay on the books.

What You Need To Know

• This spring, the ATF proposed 30 changes to gun safety regulations, including allowing for the complete online sale of firearms
• 
  
• In response, Gov. Kathy Hochul last week announced gun safety actions, including legislation that would keep gun sales in person in New York
• 
  
• The ATF’s proposal is undergoing public comment

As it stands, firearm buyers shopping online have to order from a licensed gun store and do their identification verification and paperwork in person before being able to pick up their purchase.

Timothy Nelson sells guns at Intimidator Sports in Onondaga County. It’s a role he takes seriously.

“I don’t want nobody to get hurt with something that I sold ‘em, you know?” Nelson said. “There’s a lot, a lot of responsibility that comes with it.”

Nelson said that meeting his customers in person makes it harder for firearms to get into the wrong hands.

“You can get a pretty good feel for somebody, what they’re going to do with it, what they need it for,” Nelson said. “And it’s up to us, the onus is on us, to make sure that we’re comfortable with them.”

Nelson said a purchase denial is not uncommon.

“We contact our sheriffs when that happens, or ATF, and tell them, ‘hey, we denied this customer, you may have approved it, but we denied it and here’s the reasons why,’” Nelson said.

But federal firearm regulation rollbacks could allow the entire firearm purchasing process to take place online — something that worries both Nelson and anti-violence advocates like Clifford Ryan.

“To be able to gauge that person and... kind of probe for, you know, what their intent is as far as that’s concerned is very important,” Ryan said.

In response to the proposed rollbacks, Gov. Kathy Hochul says New York is prioritizing enforcement and education efforts and will introduce legislation that would require firearm sales to be done in person.

Ryan, who started the nonprofit OG’s Against Violence after his son was shot and killed, says he supports Hochul’s actions.

“It’s a pretty trying time for a family, and it’s one of the reasons why I support any gun laws that are put in place that can help deter something such as the tragedy that we faced,” he said.

The ATF says these new rules would reduce the burden on law-abiding citizens and modernize what’s described as an outdated purchasing process.

But Nelson argues the current process, though arduous, is necessary to help ensure legal weapons aren’t used for illegal purposes.

“It’s time-consuming,” Nelson said, “But that’s OK, it works out for everybody in the long run.”

The ATF’s proposed changes have not been made official yet. That proposal is still in the public comment period phase, which ends Aug. 6.

Armed Citizen Used a Suppressed Pistol to Save Lives at Twin Falls In-N-Out

Ammoland Inc. Posted on August 3, 2026 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

Jordan Salinas did not know that a Saturday lunch stop at an In-N-Out Burger would place him in the path of a mass murderer. But when rifle fire erupted outside the crowded Twin Falls, Idaho, restaurant, Salinas had something most of the people trapped there did not: a firearm, training, and the willingness to move toward the threat.

Salinas, 35, has come forward as the armed citizen who returned fire at a 24-year-old Chad Williams during the August 1 attack. An off-duty Idaho State Police trooper also engaged Williams.

Twin Falls Police Chief Matthew Hicks said their return fire helped drive Williams away from the restaurant and prevented additional casualties. Twin Falls County Sheriff Jack Johnson went further, saying the two defenders “without a doubt saved many lives.” Williams later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Three innocent people were killed and seven others wounded

According to Salinas’ detailed account to the Idaho Statesman, he and his girlfriend were heading out for a horseback-riding date when they stopped at the recently opened restaurant for lunch. Salinas initially saw people rushing out of the building and thought there might be a kitchen fire. Then he heard the unmistakable rhythm of gunfire. His response, he said, became “automatic” and “mechanical.”

Salinas drew a suppressed FN Five-seveN pistol from a shoulder holster and moved toward the shooting. Video from the scene shows him advancing cautiously behind signs and other available concealment while searching for the source of the gunfire. Near the drive-through, Salinas saw Williams shoulder a rifle and fire toward vehicles.

“OK, this is the guy,” Salinas recalled thinking.

He raised the pistol with both hands and fired. It was the first time, he told the Statesman, that he had pointed a firearm at a living target.

“He did not like it when bullets started firing both ways,” Salinas said.

Williams had been firing on people who could not effectively resist him. Once an armed citizen and an off-duty trooper began returning fire, the equation changed. The killer withdrew from the restaurant area. Salinas stopped engaging when responding officers arrived, recognizing that his role was finished and police were taking control.

Trained Because “It Could Happen Here”

Salinas is a healthcare worker and the full-time caregiver for his brother, who uses a wheelchair. He told the Statesman that he began taking firearms training more seriously after the 2021 Boise Towne Square mall shooting. That attack taught him an uncomfortable lesson: killers seek vulnerable people and supposedly safe public places.

A wheelchair user and the caregiver standing beside him could be precisely the kind of “soft targets” an attacker might select. Salinas therefore trained in the Idaho desert, practicing not merely how to fire a handgun but how to observe, orient, decide, and act under pressure.

“Everyone says, ‘It’s not going to happen here,’” he told the Statesman. “But what if it does?”

On Saturday, it did.

The Suppressed FN Five-seveN

The handgun Salinas carried was reportedly an FN Five-seveN equipped with a suppressor. A widely circulated copy of an October 2024 Facebook training post attributed to Salinas identified the pictured setup as an FN Five-seveN USG fitted with a Tactical Solutions Axiom suppressor and firing Vanguard 55-grain subsonic 5.7x28mm ammunition. That older post does not establish which ammunition or suppressor Salinas used during the August 1 confrontation.

Salinas’ earlier training post ended with words that now appear painfully prophetic:

“Train like your life depends on it. Because God forbid, one day it might.”

Salinas said he experienced no fear during the engagement. His training narrowed his attention to the immediate problem.

“There’s a task that needs to be done, and we’re the ones who need to do it,” he told the Statesman.

After his identity became public, Salinas posted on Facebook that the response had been overwhelming. He thanked family, friends, and strangers for their prayers and support, while directing attention back toward the victims and their families. He said he would provide a fuller account when he was able.

The right to keep and bear arms exists for moments exactly like this one. The Second Amendment does not promise that police will always arrive before innocent people are murdered. It protects the pre-existing right of the people to possess and carry the means of defense themselves.

Salinas and the off-duty trooper were already there. They were armed. They acted immediately.

When bullets began traveling in both directions, the killer retreated—and lives were saved.

74-Year-Old Homeowner Shoots Alleged Repeat Burglar at Window

Ammoland Inc. Posted on July 23, 2026 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

A 74-year-old North Carolina homeowner will not face charges after shooting a man police say repeatedly tried to force his way into the residence through a window.

The July 12 defensive shooting in Gastonia offers a straightforward lesson about armed self-defense: Cameras can document a crime, alarms can warn that someone is outside, and locked doors can slow an intruder down. When those barriers begin to fail, however, a firearm may be the only thing standing between a vulnerable homeowner and the person forcing his way inside.

According to the Gastonia Police Department, 57-year-old Cedric Ford attempted to enter the home of Donald Bolynn shortly after 7 a.m. Surveillance footage released by police reportedly shows Ford testing the front door, attempting to open a window, and using his body to try to force the door open. He then returned to the window and continued trying to gain entry.

Bolynn told WBTV that he suffers from several health problems and has difficulty hearing. Nevertheless, the pounding outside was loud enough to get his attention.

“Got up off the couch and come to the front door and looked out. I didn’t see nothing,” Bolynn said.

The homeowner then spotted a man at the window.

“That’s when I got my gun and shot,” Bolynn said.

Bolynn fired a single round through the window, striking Ford in the chest. Police have not disclosed what type of firearm the homeowner used. Investigators said Bolynn did not initially realize that he had hit the man, but he knew the gunshot had stopped the attempted entry.

Police Unravel Alleged Drive-By Story

The investigation took an unusual turn after the shooting. At approximately 7:17 a.m., Ford and his girlfriend, identified by police as 47-year-old Sanja Stallings, called 911 from a nearby QuikTrip. They allegedly told officers that Ford had been wounded in a drive-by shooting involving an unknown person in a white vehicle.

Ford was transported to a hospital for treatment. Police, however, began finding evidence that did not support the reported drive-by.

Gastonia’s Flock gunshot-detection system reportedly registered a shot near the Ware Avenue residence at approximately 7:14 a.m. Investigators then obtained surveillance footage showing the attempted entry. Police said the evidence established that Ford had been shot while trying to break into Bolynn’s home–not by someone firing from a passing vehicle.

Ford was taken into custody after leaving the hospital. Police initially announced charges of attempted first-degree burglary and felony obstruction of justice against Ford. Stallings also faces a burglary charge. Additional charges remained subject to review by the Gaston County District Attorney’s Office, according to local reporting.

The charges are allegations, and Ford and Stallings are entitled to the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty in court.

Investigators also said Bolynn had reported multiple burglaries and robberies during the preceding month that allegedly involved Ford and Stallings. That history gives important context to the homeowner’s predicament. This was not simply an older man startled by an unexplained noise. Police say he had already reported repeated crimes involving the same two people now accused in the attempted break-in.

North Carolina Law Protects the Homeowner

Gastonia police announced that Bolynn would not be charged for firing the shot.

That decision is consistent with North Carolina’s statutory protection of people defending their homes. Under North Carolina General Statute §14-51.2, a lawful occupant is generally presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily harm when another person unlawfully and forcibly enters—or is in the process of entering—the home.

The law also presumes that someone unlawfully and forcibly entering a residence intends to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. Those presumptions are rebuttable and subject to specific exceptions, but the statute recognizes a fundamental reality: A homeowner cannot be expected to wait until an intruder is completely inside and attacking before defending himself.

Bolynn was 74 years old, had health limitations, and was inside his own home. The man outside was allegedly working his way through the window after failing to get through the door. No reasonable homeowner should have to gamble that such a person means no harm.

Cameras Record Crimes—Firearms Stop Them

Bolynn appears to have done several things right. His doors were locked. His home had surveillance cameras. He had previously reported alleged crimes to police. Those measures helped investigators reconstruct what happened and reject the supposed drive-by account.

But none of those precautions could physically protect him once someone allegedly began coming through the window.

A defensive firearm can give an elderly or physically limited person the ability to resist an attacker who might otherwise overpower him. Guns are often called “equalizers” because they prevent age, size, strength, and physical condition from automatically deciding who wins a violent confrontation.

That is what the right to keep and bear arms looks like when it matters most, not as an abstract political argument, but as a 74-year-old man refusing to become helpless inside his own home.

California CCW Holder Stops Knife Attack, Exposes SB2’s Gun-Free-Zone Failure

Ammoland Inc. Posted on July 21, 2026 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

A knife-wielding man charged through a crowded California restaurant on Sunday, terrifying customers and employees before reportedly turning the blade toward a lawful concealed carrier.

The armed citizen did what responsible gun owners are supposed to do. He ordered the man to drop the knife. When the man allegedly charged him instead, the permit holder fired, ending the threat. He then stayed at the scene and cooperated with investigators.

If the preliminary account from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department holds up, this appears to be a textbook defensive gun use. It may also expose the dangerous absurdity of California’s latest effort to make lawful public carry practically impossible.

Knife-Wielding Man Charges Armed Customer

Deputies were called to Lucille’s Smokehouse Bar-B-Que in Cerritos at approximately 2:12 p.m. on July 19 following reports of a man armed with a knife.

According to ABC7’s account of the LASD investigation, the man entered the restaurant and ran through the kitchen and service areas, frightening workers and diners. LASD said a customer who was “lawfully armed and possessed a valid concealed carry permit” confronted him and ordered him to put down the knife.

The command reportedly did not stop him. Investigators say the knife-wielding man charged toward the customer, who then fired.

Deputies found the man suffering from an apparent gunshot wound and lacerations. Paramedics pronounced him dead at the scene. The concealed carrier remained at Lucille’s and cooperated with homicide investigators. No arrest, citation, or charging decision involving the armed citizen had been announced as of publication.

ABC7 reported, citing a sheriff’s department source, that the incident may have begun before the man entered the restaurant. He allegedly drove a stolen truck into the shopping center, abandoned it near a Starbucks, and apparently stabbed himself with the knife before running into Lucille’s. Authorities have not released his identity or explained what prompted the bizarre and dangerous episode.

California’s Unconstitutional SB2 Tried to Disarm the Citizen Who Stopped the Threat

There is an ugly catch. Lucille’s serves alcohol.

The restaurant advertises beer, wine, cocktails, and happy-hour drink specials. That potentially placed the armed customer on the wrong side of California Penal Code §26230(a)(9), even though he possessed a valid CCW permit and apparently was not the aggressor.

The provision, enacted through Senate Bill 2, prohibits licensed concealed carry in a building, on property, or even in a parking area controlled by an establishment where alcohol is sold for consumption on the premises. The statutory language is not confined to nightclubs or businesses primarily devoted to alcohol. A family restaurant offering beer or wine can fall within the ban, and nothing in that subsection requires the permit holder to be drinking.

In other words, California law apparently expected this vetted, licensed citizen to leave his defensive firearm locked in his vehicle. The man with the knife, unsurprisingly, paid no attention to Sacramento’s designation of the restaurant as a “sensitive place.”

California gun-rights attorney Kostas Moros told AmmoLand News that the facts remain preliminary but that the incident could provide a stark real-world example of what is wrong with the restriction.

“We are still waiting to learn more about this case. The initial reporting makes it sound like a legitimate self-defense and defense of others shooting, but of course, initial impressions can change as the facts develop. Assuming the initial reporting is accurate and this individual indeed acted heroically to stop a dangerous situation, then it exemplifies the unconstitutionality of California Penal Code section 26230(a)(9), which bans carry at every place that sells alcohol for consumption on the premises, even for those who are not drinking. The law is not limited to bars or nightclubs; a restaurant that offers beer and wine comes within its scope too. SAF is fighting this law in its litigation against California, May v. Bonta.”

Whether the shooting was justified and whether the customer was legally permitted to carry inside Lucille’s are separate questions. California could conclude that the citizen lawfully defended himself and others while still treating his possession of the firearm at the restaurant as a violation.

So far, LASD’s description of the customer as “lawfully armed” suggests investigators may not be eager to pursue that contradiction. But the department has not explained whether that phrase means the customer’s presence with the gun complied with §26230(a)(9), whether he possessed some separate exemption, or simply that he legally owned the firearm and held a valid permit.

May v. Bonta Challenges California’s Expanding Gun-Free Zones

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners filed May v. Bonta in 2023 to challenge SB2’s sprawling list of prohibited places. A federal district court initially blocked California from enforcing several of those restrictions, including the ban covering restaurants that serve alcohol.

A Ninth Circuit panel later reversed that portion of the preliminary injunction. California’s Department of Justice subsequently notified law enforcement agencies and local prosecutors that the restaurant and bar restriction became enforceable on January 23, 2025. The DOJ bulletin expressly included “bars and restaurants that serve alcohol.”

The litigation recently resumed following the Supreme Court’s June decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down Hawaii’s requirement that licensed carriers obtain express permission before entering private property open to the public. The Supreme Court did not directly decide the constitutionality of banning carry wherever alcohol is served, leaving that fight for May and related litigation.

SB2 Targeted the Wrong Person

The Cerritos shooting cuts through California’s rhetoric about “sensitive places.” Declaring a restaurant gun-free did not prevent a bloody, knife-wielding man from running through its kitchen and dining area. It only purported to disarm the law-abiding customer who was present when the threat arrived.

No one should race ahead of the investigation or pretend every unanswered question has been settled. But if LASD’s account is accurate, this citizen exercised restraint, issued a clear command, fired only when charged, and then cooperated with police. Those are the actions of a responsible gun owner acting in self-defense.

California officials should treat him accordingly. If a law can turn the citizen who stopped a knife into an offender merely because the restaurant pours beer, then the citizen is not the problem. The law is.

Everytown Data Shows Washington Gun Homicide Rate Rose 33% Despite Tougher Laws

Ammoland Inc. Posted on July 15, 2026 by Dave Workman

Has Everytown for Gun Safety unintentionally just acknowledged that increasingly strict gun control laws adopted in Washington state since 2014 have delivered less than stellar results?

Take a careful look at statistics and comments posted on Everytown’s data page, EveryStat and reach your own conclusion.

The Evergreen State has become something of a test tube for all manner of gun control schemes. A November 2014 citizen initiative (I-594) started the piecemeal shift with its “universal background check” mandate, although there were exemptions for immediate family members. The law took effect in December 2014 and the following year, 2015, was the first full year of its effectiveness.

Washington’s Decade-Long Gun-Control Experiment

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2015, Washington state recorded 209 total homicides, of which 141 involved firearms. In 2016, the number of homicides dipped to 195, again according to FBI data, but in 2017, the number of Evergreen State homicides jumped to 228 and in 2018, it spiked to 232.

In 2018, Washington voters approved Initiative 1639, an even tougher gun control law regulating so-called “assault weapons” and adding restrictions on purchasers. Also, the Democrat-controlled legislature has adopted a string of strict gun policies which, if one believes social media, have caused many gun owners in the state to relocate to Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Tennessee, Arizona or some other rights-friendly jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, the number of homicides in Washington dropped again in 2019 to 194, but in 2020, the number shot right back up again, dramatically.

KING in Seattle reported 302 homicides in 2020.

The Tacoma News Tribune reported 327 murders in 2021.

The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) reported 394 murders in 2022.

For the following year, 2023, WASPC reported 376 slayings, a decrease of 5.8%, but still well above pre-gun control numbers.

Seattle’s KING reported 312 murders in 2024, the most recent year for which data is available.

Here’s how EveryStat reported things: “The rate of gun deaths has increased 12% from 2015 to 2024 in Washington, compared to a 15% increase nationwide. This means that in 2024 there were 197 more gun deaths than in 2015.”

EveryStat also noted, “In Washington, the rate of gun suicide increased 4% and gun homicide increased 33% from 2015 to 2024, compared to a 16% increase and 14% increase nationwide, respectively.”

And, yet, Everytown contends, “After passing a slate of new gun safety laws in the past decade, Washington is among the top 10 states in terms of gun law strength.”

There were other observations. “In an average year, 950 people die by guns.” Notice how the firearm is blamed, instead of the person pressing the trigger.

Recent data provided to Ammoland News by the Washington Department of Licensing revealed the number of active concealed pistol licenses remained steady through May and June, with a slight bump last month. At the end of May, the agency reported 691,336 active CPLs, and at the end of June, the number had crept up to 691,443 active licenses.

Washington’s Rifle Ban Faces a Supreme Court Reckoning

In 2023, former Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee signed legislation banning so-called “assault weapons.” While people who already owned modern semiautomatic rifles were not affected, no new guns may be manufactured, imported or sold in the state. Inslee did not run in 2024, and he has been succeeded by fellow Democrat Bob Ferguson, the former attorney general who has repeatedly bragged he has never lost a case to the “gun lobby.”

However, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of gun ban cases in the fall, the future of Washington’s gun ban is in question, even though this state’s ban is not part of the high court’s review, set for hearing during the October 2026 session. Washington is among 10 states with such bans, and if the high court rules banning such firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, those states—all controlled by Democrats—will have to adjust their laws, although the more likely course of action—based on recent past history following the 2022 Bruen ruling—will find those states scrambling to dance around the Court decision.

Historic FBI data has always shown that rifles of any kind, including semi-autos, are used in a fraction of all homicides. Indeed, more people are murdered every year with knives, or are beaten or bludgeoned to death, than are killed with rifles.

One fact routinely overlooked or simply ignored by the gun prohibition lobby and their allies in the Washington legislature is the number of convicted felons arrested in Seattle and elsewhere in the state for illegal possession of a firearm. Type in the phrase “Seattle police arrest felon with gun” and see what pops up on your search engine. We used Google, and immediately saw reports from March 3, April 12, April 27, and May 19. Clearly, none of these suspects obeyed any Washington gun laws, and none of the state’s strict Democrat-adopted gun laws prevented them from obtaining firearms.

As for the original question, the answer is ‘No, Everytown nor any other gun prohibition lobbying group has acknowledged—nor would they ever admit—that their gun control schemes have lived up to expectations, or legislative sales pitch.”

The truth is that anti-gunners deny they’ve failed to deliver, and instead juggle the data or simply develop lockjaw, same as when a legally-armed citizen intervenes in a criminal incident and saves lives by taking out the criminal or crazy person trying to harm innocent people. Their silence is, as usual, deafening.

Armed Florida Mom Shoots Alleged Intruder Threatening Her Children

Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 17, 2026 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

A Florida mother did what any parent hopes they never have to do. She armed herself inside her own home and fired one shot at a man deputies say entered uninvited, threatened her and her children, and refused repeated orders to leave.

According to the Flagler County Sheriff’s Office, the incident happened around 1:50 p.m. Sunday at a home on Big Bear Lane in Palm Coast. The homeowner, identified by Fox 35 Orlando as Courtney Price, called 911 and reported that she had shot a man who had entered her residence.

When deputies arrived, they found blood evidence at the scene, but the man and his vehicle were already gone. Investigators later identified the suspect as Michael McDonald, 33, of Palm Coast.

Deputies say McDonald was known to the homeowner, but arrived uninvited and unexpected. According to the sheriff’s office, McDonald lifted open the garage door, left the garage, banged on a back window, and then entered the home through the front door. Once inside, deputies say he aggressively confronted the mother and her two children in the foyer and made threats.

Deputies say she repeatedly ordered McDonald to leave and warned him that she would shoot. When he continued advancing toward her, she fired one round, striking him in the arm.

McDonald then fled in a silver Kia SUV. Deputies later found the vehicle at a hospital, where they conducted a felony stop and detained him. He was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. The homeowner and her two children were not injured.

Fox 35 reported that Price said the incident unfolded quickly after McDonald entered the home and began demanding money. “I did what I had to do to protect my children and myself,” she told the station. She also said she was not trying to kill anyone, but was trying to get him out so that she and her children were safe in her own house. Price also told Fox 35 that it was her first time using the firearm.

That is the reality of armed self-defense. It is not a talking point. It is a mother with children behind her, an aggressive, threatening man allegedly advancing toward her, and only seconds to decide whether she and her family will be victims. The necessity for armed self-defense also comes when you might least expect it, even inside your own home. Price was able to arm and defend herself. Hopefully, in the future, she will go to the range and train with her firearm.

Flagler County Sheriff Rick Staly did not mince words. “Florida is a stand your ground state and when someone invades your home and threatens you and your family, they will likely be shot,” Staly said in the sheriff’s release. “I strongly support the 2nd Amendment, and this is proof why we have the stand your ground law.”

New York Passes Law Mandating Non-Existent Technology to Block 3D-Printed Guns
Ammoland Inc. Posted on June 3, 2026 by John Crump

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill into law that effectively outlaws 3D-printers over concerns that they “might” be used to print guns.

The law requires all 3D printers to have technology installed that prevents the printing of firearms. This non-existent technology would scan printable files for guns and gun parts. Any printer that cannot scan for such items would be banned in the Empire State. Since no 3D printer can currently do that, the law is a de facto ban on the technological marvel that has revolutionized rapid prototyping by increasing the speed and lowering the cost of designing.

The state does not define what the technology will look like. It could be hardware, software, or a combination of the two. If a company doesn’t come up with a solution to satisfy New York State, it could face a civil penalty of $ 5,000 per product sold. Most products are produced overseas, so collecting fines from 3D printing companies could be almost impossible. The retailers will bear the fines.

The new law creates a working group of experts in additive manufacturing technology and artificial intelligence (AI). The group will also include members of anti-gun groups, though it isn’t clear how they would help, as they have no expertise in the technology. The group will develop minimum censorship standards for 3D printers. The goal will be to fit the law into existing technology.

One idea is to use AI to scan files to look for “signatures” that match firearms or gun parts. Since no 3D printer can run a local large language model (LLM), the printer would need to be always online and use an ecosystem such as Bambu Labs cloud printing. That would require all files to be uploaded to Bambu Lab’s servers in China before a user can print. This raises national security concerns by forcing users to upload files to servers run by a global adversary.

It also raises serious First Amendment issues. By restricting what the printer can print, the law is making the final arbiter of what speech is allowed. This restriction is exactly what the First Amendment was trying to prevent. This is a level of censorship that will surely be challenged in court.

“This is ultimately asking tools not to work for the creator and go through a filter, a censorship filter,” said Rory Mir, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s director of open access and tech community engagement.

The law also raises Fourth Amendment concerns. By requiring every file to be scanned, New York State is creating a surveillance state where, in order to buy a 3D printer, one must invite the government into one’s home to monitor their activities. This creates a system akin to the one in George Orwell’s “1984,” where New York State acts as Big Brother.

Even if the technology is developed, the law’s targets are usually power users. People who print guns are technically savvy. There is already custom firmware for printers. It isn’t a stretch to assume that almost as soon as blocking technology is developed, the user community would develop a workaround, whether that is custom software or replacing boards inside a printer.

The law admits that it isn’t currently possible to block 3D-printed guns and firearms parts. It says if the regulation is “not technologically feasible,” the law states, it will report its finding and “no regulations shall be required to be promulgated … until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.”

The law reminds many gun owners of micro-stamping. A technology that is still not possible, but has been on the books for a decade. In the end, this is a law to appease the anti-gun groups that have given millions to Democrats.

by: Gabriella Baiano|
Posted: May 28, 2026 / 12:37 PM EDT
Updated: May 28, 2026 / 04:09 PM EDT

BUFFALO, N.Y. (WIVB) — Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz’s veto of a youth hunting bill was overridden by the county legislature on Thursday in an 8-3 vote.

The bill allows 12- and 13-year-olds to hunt deer with guns with an experienced adult mentor. It first passed in the legislature with a 7-3 vote on April 30.

Poloncarz vetoed the bill earlier this month, raising concerns over safety and hunting accidents in other states. He vetoed a similar bill in 2021.

“I’m pleased that my fellow legislators held firm to override Mark Poloncarz’s veto,” lead sponsor Erie County Legislator Frank Todaro said. “The data is clear. There is no indication that this law puts our young people at risk. They were already allowed to hunt smaller game. This simply allows them to hunt big game with adult supervision.”

“The legislators were steadfast in support of the youth hunting law. I’m glad they didn’t allow last-minute maneuvering to change their vote,” Legislator Chris Greene said.

Legislators Lawrence Dupre (D-Buffalo), Taisha St. Jean Tard (D-Buffalo) and Jeanne Vinal (D-Amherst) voted against the bill.

According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, a statewide pilot program was established in 2024 that would permit minors to hunt deer “with a crossbow, rifle, shotgun, or muzzleloading firearm.”

Gun rights platforms, lawsuits lead NY governor's race this week

Emily Barnes  New York State Team  April 10, 2026, 3:01 a.m. ET

New York Governor's Race This Week is a weekly column by USA TODAY Network-New York reporters highlighting aspects of the 2026 campaign to lead the Empire State.

A national gun violence protection organization co-founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords endorsed Gov. Kathy Hochul and her running mate on Thursday, April 9.

GIFFORDS, which was founded after the Congresswoman was shot during a political event in Arizona in 2011, publicly announced its support for the incumbent and her choice for lieutenant governor, former New York City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams.

“Throughout their careers, both Governor Hochul and Speaker Adams have proven their commitment to building safer communities and fighting gun violence, making them the leaders that New York needs right now. It is a privilege to support New York’s first all-women ticket, and I am proud to endorse both of these champions in the fight to save lives,” Giffords said.

“I know Governor Hochul and Speaker Adams will always stand up against gun lobby interests, prioritize community-based solutions and continue the fight for commonsense gun laws in New York. I look forward to continuing to partner with both as we work to keep children and families safe from New York City to Buffalo and beyond.”

Hochul said she's "deeply honored" to receive the organization's support.

"From the moment I stepped into office, I have made it my mission to keep every New Yorker safe — and we’ve made real progress, getting more than 10,000 illegal guns off our streets, cracking down on ghost guns, and working alongside Gabby Giffords to tackle gun violence," Hochul said.

"Congresswoman Giffords and I share the belief that commonsense gun safety laws save lives. Together, with the hard work of our partners across New York, we’ve made real progress in reducing violence and keeping families safe — with shootings dropping 60% since I took office in 2021 — but we know our work isn’t finished."

Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, Hochul's Republican challenger in New York's governor race, has differing views about gun rights. In a March 5 letter sent to second amendment supporters in New York, the gubernatorial candidate said he will issue an executive order to create a New York Constitutional Enforcement Task Group when he's elected "to vigorously defend the rights of law-abiding New Yorkers."

The group would review existing state regulations and enforcement policies; direct state agencies to align New York's enforcement practices with constitutional requirements; recommend reforms and coordinate with outside organizations to defend these objectives when necessary.

"This will not be a symbolic effort," Blakeman said in the signed letter. "It will be structured, deliberate, and results driven. You may rely on this commitment as a guarantee of immediate executive action when I am elected governor."

HYDE-SMITH, EZELL SIGN AMICUS BRIEF TO SCOTUS OPPOSING NEW YORK ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW

Thursday, April 2, 2026

HYDE-SMITH, EZELL SIGN AMICUS BRIEF TO SCOTUS OPPOSING NEW YORK ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE FEDERAL FIREARMS LAW

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) and U.S. Representative Mike Ezell (R-Miss.) are among 77 lawmakers who have signed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Second Circuit ruling and uphold the Second Amendment by preventing New York from bypassing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

Signed by 22 U.S. Senators and 55 U.S. Representatives, the brief argues that a New York state public nuisance law improperly undermines protections established by Congress in the PLCAA, which generally shields gun manufacturers and sellers from lawsuits when criminals misuse firearms that were legally sold. The New York law allows lawsuits against gun industry members based on broad claims that they contributed to conditions endangering public safety.

“Our brief is part of the ongoing work to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens from leftist states run by anti-gun activists. These states shouldn’t be allowed to erode the constitutional protections established by Congress by law,” said Senator Hyde-Smith, author of the Gun-owner Registration Information Protection (GRIP) Act.

“Law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and that right should not be undermined by backdoor attempts to target lawful manufacturers,” said Congressman Ezell. “The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ensures firearm manufacturers are not held liable for the criminal actions of others. Efforts to bypass that law threaten both the Second Amendment and the stability of an industry that supports American jobs and constitutional freedoms. I stand with my colleagues in urging the Supreme Court to uphold federal law and protect the rights of responsible gun owners.”

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Representative Russell Fry (R-S.C.) led the amicus brief, which supports the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s petition seeking certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Read excerpts from the amicus brief below and the full brief here.

“The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures law-abiding and peaceable American citizens the right to keep and bear arms. But no one besides accomplished gunsmiths could exercise that right if a citizen could not lawfully purchase a firearm because the firearm industry had become insolvent. Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to prevent that outcome by placing firearm manufacturers on equal footing with other American manufacturers. Under the Act, so long as a firearm is properly made and properly transferred into commercial channels, a manufacturer is generally not liable if a criminal later misuses that firearm in the commission of a crime. In particular, the PLCAA forecloses the imposition of liability under flexible and indistinct common-law standards that provide firearm manufacturers with no notice of the precise conduct that is required or to be avoided. Indeed, that was the statute’s core purpose.

“The State of New York is unhappy with any impediments to its ability to bankrupt lawful arms manufacturers based on the actions of New York criminals whom the State is unable or unwilling to control. In the State’s view—adopted by the Second Circuit—the PLCAA is a paper tiger that any state legislature may tame by simply codifying vague and unpredictable common-law standards and explicitly applying the new code provisions only to the firearms industry.

“The State and the court below are too clever by half. This case presents an issue of exceptional importance with regard to the states’ ability to circumvent the preemptive force of federal legislation. The PLCAA is not a mere Kabuki feint designed to encourage its own circumvention. Rather, the Act was designed to, and does, preempt efforts to impose hazy common-law liability standards whether or not codified by a state legislature to target the firearms industry. This Court should intervene now before the Second Circuit’s decision, directly or through its influence, further undermines the Second Amendment and congressional will.”