frontlines

Federal Judge Strikes Down New York Body Armor Ban, Rules Armor Protected by Second Amendment

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 22, 2026 by John Crump

A federal district court judge in the Western District of New York has struck down the Empire State’s ban on body armor, finding it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The case, Heeter v. James (1:24-cv-00623, U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York), is a Second Amendment challenge to New York’s body armor purchase and sale restrictions. On October 21, 2026, Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, struck down the ban as applied to ordinary law-abiding civilians, and denied the defendants’ cross-motions.

The complaint was filed by Benjamin Heeter, Joseph Wurtenberg, and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The plaintiffs sued officials, including Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Police Superintendent Steven G. James, and district attorneys for Erie and Monroe Counties.

The suit was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging the ban violates the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Individual plaintiffs stated they intended to purchase body armor for personal safety (e.g., crime or unrest) but refrained because of the threat of enforcement.

New York’s Body Armor Ban and the Challenge Against It

The New York State law was passed in early 2022 with an effective date of July 6, 2022. It came after a neo-Nazi carried out a mass shooting at a Buffalo, New York, grocery store while wearing body armor. Because of the attack, New York State passed a slew of anti-gun laws.

The relevant provisions in this case are primarily N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 and 270.22, plus General Business Law § 396-eee. They generally prohibit people who are not “engaged or employed in an eligible profession” from purchasing or taking possession of body armor (defined as personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire). Eligible professions include police officers, peace officers, military personnel, and others the Department of State designates (e.g., certain security, emergency, and related roles). Sellers are restricted from transferring body armor to non-eligible buyers.

First-offense purchase violations are typically Class A misdemeanors (escalating to Class E felonies for subsequent offenses). A separate provision (§ 270.20(1)) criminalizes wearing body armor while committing certain violent felonies with a firearm; the ruling does not affect that provision.

The law is the first of its kind in the nation.

How Heeter v. James Reached Summary Judgment

The plaintiffs filed the complaint on July 1, 2024, and amended it shortly after to include plaintiffs Mark Braiman (Cazenovia / Madison County resident), Joseph Wurtenberg (Fairport / Monroe County resident), and defendants William G. Gabor (District Attorney for Madison County) and Sandra Doorley (District Attorney for Monroe County). The amended complaint updated the party descriptions and standing allegations so each individual plaintiff (Heeter, Braiman, and Wurtenberg) alleged a desire and intention to buy body armor but was deterred by the threat of enforcement in their respective counties. The legal claims, the description of the ban (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 & 270.22 and Gen. Bus. Law § 396-eee), and the constitutional theory remained essentially unchanged.

On June 2, 2025, Braiman voluntarily dismissed his claims, and the claims against Gabor were also dismissed. That left Heeter, Wurtenberg, and FPC as the remaining plaintiffs, with the original state defendants plus Keane and Doorley.

The court denied New York State’s motions to dismiss in a November 8, 2024 decision, finding standing (including for the individual plaintiffs’ pre-enforcement challenge and FPC’s associational standing). Cross-motions for summary judgment followed in 2026, with extensive briefing, amicus participation, and oral argument in late August 2026.

Judge Rules Body Armor Is Protected by the Second Amendment

The court denied the defense’s motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs’ motion. Judge Sinatra held that the ban on law-abiding residents outside eligible professions from purchasing and selling body armor violates the Second Amendment.

Under the Bruen framework, the plaintiffs must prove the conduct falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court said body armor qualifies as an “arm.” The court relied on District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), which cited founding-era dictionaries defining “arms” to include “weapons of offence, or armour of defence” and “any thing that a man wears for his defence.” The Second Amendment extends prima facie to bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding.

The court rejected arguments that armor was obsolete or rare in 1791 as incompatible with Heller’s textual analysis and noted that modern body armor is far more common today than many founding-era arms were then.

New York Fails the Bruen Historical Tradition Test

Once the plain text is implicated, the burden shifts to the state to show the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation. New York failed.

The state identified no post-ratification American laws banning civilian purchases of body armor. English history (royal proclamations, the Statute of Northampton) was deemed insufficiently analogous or probative under Bruen and Rahimi. Those earlier measures often targeted public wearing of armor to terrify the public, not a categorical prohibition on law-abiding people acquiring defensive armor for self-defense (including at home). Existing laws already address criminal misuse of body armor.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ requested relief (declaratory and injunctive) as to the civilian purchase/sale ban for non-eligible persons and denied the defendants’ cross-motions. It found no genuine issues of material fact requiring trial on the constitutional question. Judge Sinatra stayed the effect of his judgment for 14 days to give the defense time to appeal.

New York State is expected to appeal to the Second Circuit and ask the court to stay Judge Sinatra’s decision. The Second Circuit is made up of 9 judges appointed by Democrats and 6 judges appointed by Republicans.

Oregon School Shooter Violated Existing ‘Common Sense Gun Laws’

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 19, 2026 by Dave Workman

The 16-year-old perpetrator who opened fire with what some reports indicate was a shotgun at the Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, violated several “common sense gun laws” before he was stopped by a legally-armed private citizen, whose actions are now being hailed by a wide range of people, including a national gun rights leader and Oregon’s far-left Democrat governor.

Three students, ages 5, 8, and 11, were killed, along with a teacher at the school. Two other people were wounded, a student and another teacher.

But Oregon’s Democrat U.S. Senator Ron Wyden was quick to reflexively “shoot from the lip” with a statement declaring, “My heart goes out to the innocent victims of today’s horrific shooting at Silver Rail Elementary School and their loved ones now facing the awful consequences of yet another school shooting in America. The best way to honor these victims is to at long last pass common-sense gun laws that reduce the risks of more children, parents, teachers and staff forced to live in fear of similar nightmares for their schools.”

Wyden should have done some homework before circulating that statement. According to author and researcher Dr. John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), “Only 25 of the 197 school districts in Oregon ban staff from carrying guns, and the attack occurred in one of those 25 school districts. The CPRC hired McLaughlin & Associates completed a survey in August that showed voters by a 51.4% to 35.7% margin support armed teachers, parents with children in K-12 support by an even larger 57.3% to 30.2% margin.”

The teenage killer brought a gun into a “gun-free” school. He had already fired that gun at a motorist outside of the school. Then, he opened fire inside the school building. He committed four homicides before being shot dead by the armed citizen who saw him enter the school and—as described by Bend Police Chief Mike Krantz during the first press briefing—”The suspect was shot by a community member who saw the suspect enter the school and pursued him and engaged him.”

All of those offenses fall within the left’s definition of “common sense” gun laws, and none of those laws, or any of the other gun control measures adopted by Oregon lawmakers in recent years prevented the perpetrator from entering the school.

The teen gunman reportedly fired at door locks in order to gain entry into the school, which immediately went into lockdown. It’s not clear how far he was able to get inside before the armed citizen intervened and stopped the rampage. So far, there is no established motive for the attack.

It was noticeable that authorities, including Gov. Tina Kotek, seemed determined to identify the heroic Samaritan as a “community member” rather than simply as an armed citizen, as if the mention on of a citizen being legally armed in public is to be avoided. To her credit, during the first press briefing, Kotek recognized the armed citizen’s timely intervention, stating, ” To the community member who heroically intervened to stop further loss of life, your actions carry a heavy emotional burden and I just want you to know my thoughts are with you as well.”

After all, Bend is located in east-central Oregon along the Deschutes River and there are a lot of armed citizens in that community. It is the county seat of Deschutes County, on the east side of the Cascade Mountain range. Bend is home to Nosler, Inc., the family-owned company founded by the late John Nosler in 1948 and now led by his grandson, which is a giant in the reloading industry. Gun owners in this part of Oregon are as common as fir and pine trees.

Even KGW News in Portland called the unidentified hero a “bystander” and “community member,” and referred to the individual with politically correct “they” and “their” pronouns.

That rule may apply to Oregon officials, but Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, was not the least big squeamish in his assessment of the tragedy.

“Once again,” Gottlieb said, “an armed citizen with a concealed carry license has intervened in a tragic incident, bringing it to an end and preventing further loss of innocent lives. We are heartbroken that three children and a teacher died in this horrendous event, but we are gratified that a local resident had the tool, and the courage, to take quick action.”

“When the need arose,” he said, “an armed citizen was fortunately there to immediately respond. We can all be proud that such people are our neighbors and friends.”

Appearing Friday morning on Fox News, Rob Chadwick—now a training advisor for the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) and former head of the Tactical Training Unit at the FBI Academy in Quantico—described the Bend hero as a “responsibly armed citizen.”

The incident uncomfortably reminds anti-gunners that gun control laws do not prevent such tragedies, whether at a school, shopping mall big box store or any other place where a determined person, regardless of age, will stage an attack.

It also underscores the importance and value of an armed citizenry, and once again reminded the country that a good guy with a gun is the best defense against a bad guy with a gun.

ChatGPT Refused AmmoLand Gun Deal Post One Day After Everytown’s AI Report

Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 16, 2026 by Duncan Johnson Editor in Chief

One day after Everytown for Gun Safety published recommendations for restricting firearm-related assistance from AI chatbots, ChatGPT refused to help build an AmmoLand Daily Deal post for an H&R T48 rifle.

The September 29 refusal came just five days after ChatGPT had completed an ammunition deal article for AmmoLand. It also occurred on the date listed on OpenAI’s updated Commerce Policies, which exclude firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories from its shopping experiences.

AmmoLand’s experience matches the timeline highlighted by Lee Williams in his October 14 report about an Ohio gun shop encountering similar refusals. It gives this publication its own firsthand example of AI restrictions disrupting work involving lawful firearms commerce.

From Writing Daily Deals to Refusing Them

On September 24, ChatGPT helped produce an AmmoLand Daily Deal article and SEO package for US Cartridge 9mm subsonic ammunition, it had also helped build many deals for firearms, optics and ammunition in the past. The work included checking the offer, calculating the price per round, and preparing the article. On September 29, an H&R T48 rifle deal request received a different response.

“I can’t write an affiliate sales post, purchase CTA, or price comparison promoting the sale of this rifle.” ChatGPT replied.

When challenged, the chatbot said: “I can’t write an affiliate sales post, purchase CTA, or price comparison promoting the sale of this rifle. I can help with a neutral AmmoLand product overview of the H&R T48, including verified specifications, what distinguishes the configuration, and an SEO package without purchase links or sales language.”

During the exchange, it acknowledged that the published policy did not specifically prohibit drafting firearm affiliate articles. Nevertheless, it maintained the refusal based on its interpretation of weapons procurement.

AmmoLand was requesting publishing assistance for an article about a commercially available firearm. The chatbot had previously performed the same general type of work. Those refusals prompted this editor to move Daily Deal production away from ChatGPT and to Grok.

AmmoLand has used AI since 2022 for SEO work, fixing website code and errors, identifying broken links, and general quality control. We continue to use AI tools to find high-quality deals from our affiliate partners and create visually impactful feature images. AI is also increasingly integrated into the web-based tools we use every day. These tools have become a practical part of running a firearms news publication, which makes restrictions on ordinary, lawful work a business issue with consequences for how we serve our readers.

Ohio Gun Dealer Describes a Similar Reversal

In his report at The Gun Writer, Williams described a similar experience involving Hesseling & Sons Firearms & Gunsmithing in Lima, Ohio.

Co-owner Gennifer Hesseling told Williams she had used ChatGPT for marketing copy and advertising campaigns. Earlier this month, she requested help promoting incoming gold-plated Desert Eagle pistols. The chatbot refused.

“I was not selling anything illegal,” Hesseling told Williams. “I was asking my chatbot to assist with sales of lawful products.”

Hesseling said the business had relied on the service for more than a year. She switched to Grok, but said rebuilding her marketing workflow required substantially more time.

Her account and AmmoLand’s experience show the practical consequences: a business incorporates a service into its operations, receives useful assistance, and then encounters refusals when requesting work the service previously performed.

Everytown’s Push to Shape Firearm Information

AmmoLand examined Everytown’s campaign in its October 5 article, Everytown Pushes AI Gun Restrictions That Could Censor Lawful Firearms Information. Dean Weingarten warned that the proposals could restrict lawful firearms information and incorporate Everytown’s positions on gun ownership and storage into chatbot responses.

Everytown’s September 28 report urges AI companies to refuse specified firearm-related information, review conversations involving firearms and indications of violence or self-harm, and strengthen law-enforcement referral procedures.

Its recommendations also include providing information about red-flag orders and alternatives to firearms for home defense. Everytown further calls for companies to give greater weight to information it describes as vetted or evidence-informed. everytownresearch.org

Those recommendations raise a question gun owners should take seriously: Whose views will determine which firearms information an AI system provides, discourages, or refuses?

An organization committed to restricting gun ownership is seeking influence over tools people increasingly use for research and business. Those organizations would prefer that they are the only voice heard on the subject so that they can continue to spread their anti-gun rhetoric.

What the Policies Establish—and What Remains Unanswered

OpenAI’s Commerce Policies explicitly exclude firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories from its shopping experiences. Those restrictions cover lawful product categories, including magazines. The policy concerns shopping listings and merchant participation. openai.com

Its broader Usage Policies, effective October 29, 2025, prohibit weapons “development, procurement, or use,” including conventional weapons. The published policies do not clearly explain how that language applies to every dealer advertising request or publisher’s affiliate article. openai.com

The chronology is clear: Everytown published September 28. OpenAI’s commerce page carries a September 29 update date. On September 29, ChatGPT refused AmmoLand’s rifle deal request.

That sequence supports questions about what happened and what appears to be a private company working as the puppet for an anti-gun group. It does not establish that Everytown directed OpenAI’s decisions or that the firearm-shopping exclusion first appeared that day. AmmoLand’s refusal, however, is a concrete event in that timeline.

Lawful firearms businesses and publishers deserve clear answers about restrictions affecting their work. Gun owners should also challenge the premise that ordinary firearms commerce belongs behind a digital barrier of censorship created by a freedom-hating group like Everytown.

The right to keep and bear arms deserves respect throughout the tools Americans use to learn, communicate, and conduct business. Artificial intelligence should respect that right as well.

Everytown Pushes AI Gun Restrictions That Could Censor Lawful Firearms Information

Gun Controllers Predicted a Bloodbath. Murders Fell as Gun Rights Expanded.
Ammoland Inc. Posted on October 12, 2026 by Duncan Johnson Editor in Chief

Gun control groups and anti-gun politicians warned that restoring the right to carry, ending ATF’s bump-stock ban and rolling back NFA restrictions would make America more dangerous. A new Second Amendment Foundation factsheet collects 85 of those statements–and places them beside crime figures showing murders falling sharply.

According to SAF’s compilation, estimated U.S. murders dropped approximately 36% between 2022 and 2025. The 2025 murder rate tied the FBI’s historical low. Texas and Florida recorded substantial murder-rate declines after adopting permitless carry. Even the broad mass-shooting count cited in the report fell after the Supreme Court struck down the bump-stock ban.

The October 2026 factsheet, The Bloodbath That Never Came, was prepared by Kostas Moros, SAF’s director of legal research and education. Its central question deserves an answer: Why should Americans keep surrendering constitutional rights to people whose sweeping predictions of disaster run against the crime trends that followed?

National Numbers: Three Years of Falling Murders

SAF’s chart tracks revised FBI national murder and nonnegligent-manslaughter rates: 6.6 per 100,000 residents in 2022, 6.0 in 2023, 5.1 in 2024 and 4.1 in 2025.

The estimated number of murders declined 9.1% in 2023, 13.7% in 2024 and 18.1% in 2025. From 2022 to 2025, the total fell from 21,923 to 14,085.

SAF describes the 2025 reduction as the fastest recorded decline in murders. It also reports a 9.3% reduction in violent crime that year, identifying it as the largest drop since FBI national estimates began in 1936.

AmmoLand previously examined the FBI’s 2025 crime report and the murder rate, tying its historical low. SAF now adds a detailed record of what opponents of gun rights said would happen during this period.

Bruen: 39 Statements About the Danger of Restoring Carry Rights

When the Supreme Court decided NYSRPA v. Bruen on June 23, 2022, it struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for carrying a handgun. Ordinary Americans would no longer have to persuade officials that their need for self-defense was sufficiently special.

As AmmoLand’s analysis of Bruen explained, the right to bear arms extends outside the home. The anti-gun lobby responded with warnings of death, destruction, and blood in the streets.

Brady declared that the ruling would “assuredly result in more gun violence immediately.” Everytown’s Eric Tirschwell predicted more people would be intimidated, wounded and killed. David Hogg said the decision would kill young people and argued that a person carrying for protection puts everyone around them at risk.

The political response was equally sweeping. New York City Mayor Eric Adams warned against the city becoming the “Wild West.” Then-Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh predicted more deaths and more dangerous neighborhoods. California Attorney General Rob Bonta asserted that “more guns in more places make us less safe.”

SAF also includes a November 2022 filing by New York defendants in Antonyuk v. Hochul, warning that an injunction threatened a substantial increase in firearm injuries and deaths.

Against those statements, the report places three consecutive annual declines in national murders.

The local results are striking as well. New York City recorded 688 shooting incidents in 2025, its lowest recorded total, while murders fell from 382 to 305. Baltimore recorded 133 homicides, its lowest total in nearly 50 years. New Jersey shooting victims declined from 924 in 2023 to 559 in 2025, reaching a record low for the third consecutive year.

Officials portrayed restored carry rights as a public danger. The broad outcomes they warned about moved in the opposite direction.

Permitless Carry: 17 Warnings, With Declines in Texas and Florida

SAF’s permitless-carry section covers statements concerning Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and other states.

Then-Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg offered an especially direct prediction in September 2021: “I just think more guns — more access — necessarily means more shootings and more killings.”

Texas permitless carry took effect that month. According to Texas Department of Public Safety figures cited by SAF, the state’s murder rate fell from 7.1 per 100,000 in 2021 to 5.2 in 2024—a 27.3% decline.

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams labeled permitless carry “criminal carry.” Shannon Watts used the same label when discussing Indiana. Other statements warned of accidental shootings, suicides, stolen firearms and chaos.

Florida drew its own barrage. GIFFORDS accused lawmakers of making violence worse through permitless carry. Moms Demand Action volunteer Gay Valimont warned that putting more guns in more places would bring more tragedies.

AmmoLand covered Florida’s passage of permitless concealed carry, which took effect in July 2023. SAF reports that Florida’s murder rate fell 18.8% in 2024, the first full year afterward, and that all seven index offenses declined.

The state-specific outcome comparisons in this section concern Texas and Florida. They should not be presented as separate statistical findings for every state mentioned.

Bump Stocks: 11 Warnings After Cargill

The Supreme Court’s June 14, 2024 decision in Garland v. Cargill struck down ATF’s attempt to classify bump stocks as machine guns.

AmmoLand’s coverage explained why ATF exceeded its statutory authority. The case concerned the statutory definition of a machine gun, rather than a Second Amendment ruling. That distinction did little to restrain the rhetoric.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned of “deadly consequences.” Sen. Martin Heinrich declared that innocent Americans would die because of the decision. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said: “This decision will put blood on our streets.”

SAF compares those warnings with an 18.1% decline in national murders in 2025, the first full year after Cargill.

It also cites Gun Violence Archive figures showing mass-shooting incidents falling from 659 in 2023 to 503 in 2024 and 407 in 2025. The 2024–2025 decline was approximately 19%, with 2025 recording the fewest incidents since 2018.

Those figures use GVA’s broad definition: four or more people shot, excluding the shooter. They are not a count limited to public mass murders, nor a count of incidents involving bump stocks. Even under that intentionally broad measure, the national total fell.

NFA Taxes and Litigation: 11 Statements Recycling the Same Fear

SAF’s NFA section follows the July 2025 legislation zeroing specified taxes, effective in 2026, and the later court rulings and DOJ decisions.

Everytown President John Feinblatt portrayed the tax reduction as a gift to the gun industry that would endanger police and communities. GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown warned of deadly consequences, later calling an NFA ruling a dangerous step backward.

By October 2, 2026, Brown was invoking Al Capone and organized crime to attack the DOJ’s decision against appealing. Anti-gun accusations, as usual, lack any factual substance.

The factsheet reports that the preliminary murder rate among reporting agencies fell 20.8% in January–July 2026 compared with January–July 2025. That period covers the first months of the zero-dollar tax.

It does not cover the consequences of the later NFA judgments and appeal decisions. The 2025 decline likewise occurred in the year the tax legislation was signed, before the tax change took effect.

Readers can follow AmmoLand’s coverage of the subsequent ATF NFA guidance for the separate question of what federal relief means for gun owners.

DOJ Grant Cuts and Forced-Reset Triggers: Seven More Warnings

The report also examines reactions to Trump-era DOJ and ATF actions, including violence-intervention grant cuts and the forced-reset-trigger settlement.

In April 2025, GIFFORDS’ Paul Carrillo predicted an immediate surge in violence from removing intervention workers. The organization followed with a warning that violent crime would spike unless DOJ reversed its cuts.

After the FRT settlement, Brady President Kris Brown said the administration would be directly responsible for deaths when the technology was used in a shooting. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison warned against more lethal firearms on the streets.

AmmoLand reported the government’s retreat in the forced-reset-trigger litigation, including the agreement to return confiscated triggers.

SAF places this collection of warnings beside the reported 9.3% national violent-crime decline in 2025 and a Council on Criminal Justice finding that homicides fell 21% across 35 large cities, representing 922 fewer victims.

Those broad figures do not isolate the effects of particular grants or triggers. They do challenge the sweeping picture of a country descending into greater violence.

A Documented Record–and a Demand for Accountability

SAF says every entry reproduces verified wording. Sixty-four of the 85 entries cite primary sources, including official releases, government statements, court documents and the speakers’ own posts. The remaining 21 cite news outlets directly quoting the speakers.

The report uses revised FBI estimates for its annual comparisons. Its preliminary 2026 figures concern reporting agencies, and its projected annual rate of approximately 3.2 per 100,000 is SAF’s extrapolation—not an official FBI annual estimate. Applying the decline to the 2025 reporting-agency rate instead produces approximately 3.4.

SAF expressly states that it does not argue gun rights reforms caused crime to decline. It credits Rob Romano, known as @2Aupdates, with helping inspire the compilation through his work highlighting failed gun control predictions.

The report labels its entries “predictions proven wrong.” The strongest supported conclusion is more specific: The broad increases in violence repeatedly forecast by gun control advocates did not materialize in the aggregate trends presented. Murder totals alone do not settle every separate claim about injuries, accidents or suicides.

Gun owners do not need to overstate the evidence. The documented contrast is damaging enough.

Gun Rights Are Not Conditional on Anti-Gun Predictions

The Second Amendment protects a right that government has spent generations restricting. Restoring it should never require approval from organizations dedicated to keeping those restrictions in place.

Americans do not have to prove that carrying a handgun lowers the national murder rate before they may defend themselves. Nor should lawful ownership of suppressors, short-barreled firearms or accessories depend on another round of speculative warnings from Brady, Everytown or GIFFORDS.

For gun owners, these victories are steps toward full restoration. The goal remains ending unconstitutional infringements, including repealing the NFA.

SAF’s factsheet gives lawmakers and readers a record to consult the next time someone claims another gun rights victory will unleash a bloodbath.

The warnings were loud. The murder declines were substantial. The organizations demanding that Americans surrender their rights owe the public an explanation.

Gun rights victories require gun owners willing to fund and sustain the fight. Join the Second Amendment Foundation, support Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the National Rifle Association, and get involved with your state’s gun rights organization.

Memberships, donations and calls to lawmakers help carry this fight from the courtroom to the legislature. The goal is full restoration of the right to keep and bear arms, including repeal of the NFA.

If you want these victories to last—and the remaining infringements removed—put your support behind the organizations doing the work.

Armed Airbnb Guest Shoots Home Invasion Suspect During Fort Lauderdale Robbery Attempt
Ammoland Inc. Posted on September 28, 2026 by Duncan Johnson Editor in Chief

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. – A defensive gun use stopped an attempted armed robbery at an Airbnb. A man staying at the rental home shot one of two alleged intruders after they entered while he was inside, according to Fort Lauderdale police.

The September 24 break-in happened around 6 p.m. at a home in the 800 block of Northwest 19th Avenue. Investigators said the men entered while the guest was inside, and an altercation followed. The guest fired, striking 18-year-old Dareon Pubien in the upper torso. Pubien fled on foot; officers found him nearby and took him to a hospital for surgery. Police said Friday that he was in critical but stable condition.

Police also arrested 25-year-old Sean Thompson, whom they identified as an accomplice. Both men face charges of attempted felony murder and home invasion with a firearm, according to local reports. Pubien was still hospitalized when those reports were published; police said he would be taken to jail after his release. Detectives are investigating the guest’s shooting as self-defense.

A Defensive Gun Use While Renting

The man did not own the house. He was staying there when the intruders came in. A law-abiding American gun owner does not surrender the right to defend his life when he checks into a short-term rental. An armed robbery is not a threat that can wait for police to arrive, regardless of whether the deed bears his name or someone else’s.

Florida’s home-protection statute expressly covers a person in a dwelling or residence where he has a right to be. It defines a residence to include a dwelling where someone lives temporarily or visits as an invited guest. Under the statute’s conditions, a person may use deadly force when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or a forcible felony. The law also sets out a presumption of reasonable fear when someone unlawfully and forcibly enters a dwelling and the defender knows or has reason to know that is happening.

The Fort Lauderdale incident puts that right in concrete terms. A guest confronted by armed men inside the place he is staying cannot count on someone else arriving in time to end the threat. In this case, the armed guest was able to fight back.

What Investigators Have Said

Fort Lauderdale police described the incident as an attempted robbery and are investigating the shooting as self-defense. The department had not announced a final finding in the local reports published Friday. Investigators were also working to determine whether the Airbnb was targeted or the invasion was random.

A neighbor told local reporters he heard multiple shots, but that account does not establish how many rounds the guest fired or whether anyone else fired. Police have not publicly identified the guest or specified what firearm he used.

The reported sequence needs no embellishment: Men police say were armed entered an occupied rental to commit a robbery; the guest fought back with a firearm; one alleged intruder was wounded; and two suspects face serious charges. This private citizen did not have to submit to an armed home invasion because he happened to be away from his own house.

Clarence Thomas: The Second Amendment Assumes a Right—It Does Not Grant One

Ammoland Inc. Posted on September 16, 2026 by Duncan Johnson Editor in Chief

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas needed only a few sentences to expose the fundamental error behind most modern gun-control arguments: The right to keep and bear arms does not come from government.

Speaking with Senator Ted Cruz on the Verdict podcast, around minute 29, Thomas explained that the Constitution established the federal government, but it did not create the individual rights government was formed to protect.

“The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” Thomas told Cruz. “It assumes a right. It doesn’t grant a right.”

The exchange was recently highlighted in a video published by Colion Noir. It is a short statement, but it draws a clear line between the American understanding of liberty and the permission-based system demanded by the gun-control lobby.

Americans do not receive the right to own or carry firearms from Congress, a state legislature, a licensing official or a judge. The right existed before those institutions. The Second Amendment tells the government what it may not do: infringe upon it.

Rights Come Before Government

Thomas made the statement while discussing why the Declaration of Independence remains essential to understanding the Constitution.

The Declaration establishes that rights come from God—or “nature’s God”—rather than from government. Individuals possess those rights first and then delegate limited authority to a government created to protect them.

If government grants a right, government can redefine, ration or revoke it. That is the theory behind firearm licensing systems, “may-issue” carry laws, discretionary permitting, bans on commonly owned firearms and endless lists of supposedly acceptable gun owners.

Under the Founders’ understanding, however, government is not the grantor. It is the party being restrained.

Thomas summarized the difference during the full interview with Cruz: Either citizens receive their rights and benefits from government, or citizens already possess their rights and government receives its authority from them.

Only the second view is compatible with the American constitutional system.

Thomas’s Point Is Already Part of Second Amendment Law

Thomas was not introducing a new legal theory. He was explaining in plain English what the Supreme Court has already recognized.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing individual right. It did not manufacture a new privilege in 1791 or limit arms to government-organized militia service.

Thomas later wrote the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that ordinary, law-abiding Americans have the right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense.

Bruen also rejected the interest-balancing tests lower courts had used to uphold virtually any gun restriction placed before them. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers an individual’s conduct, that conduct is presumptively protected. The government must then prove that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That burden follows naturally from Thomas’s explanation. Citizens do not have to prove that they need their rights. Government must justify its attempt to interfere with them.

The Court reinforced that principle in its 2026 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, again describing self-defense as the Second Amendment’s central concern and rejecting judge-created interest balancing.

Reconstruction Shows Why Armed Citizenship Matters

Thomas also connected the right to bear arms with Reconstruction and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Following the Civil War, newly freed Black Americans faced intimidation, beatings, lynchings and murder from former Confederates and white-supremacist organizations. Thomas explained that the Radical Republicans understood that citizenship meant little if freedmen could not defend themselves from violent marauders.

The right to bear arms was not an abstract political theory. It was the practical means by which vulnerable Americans could protect their lives and families when authorities could not—or would not—protect them.

That history also destroys the gun-control movement’s effort to portray the Second Amendment as an obsolete privilege belonging only to militias or rural sportsmen. Armed self-defense was an indispensable civil right for Americans whose government repeatedly failed them.

Thomas closed the gun discussion with a story involving former Justice Stephen Breyer. After Breyer described a hypothetical confrontation with a machete-wielding robber and asked what Thomas would be doing on his porch, Thomas answered that he would be “cleaning my guns.”

The remark was humorous, but the underlying principle was not. Self-defense begins with the individual because criminals do not wait for government permission, police response times or licensing decisions.

Thomas’s podcast comments are not a new Supreme Court ruling or a prediction about any pending case. They are something equally valuable: a direct explanation of the principle that should govern every Second Amendment dispute.

The government did not give Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution commands the government to leave that right alone.

New Survey Estimates 180,000 Defensive Gun Uses Against Animals Each Year

Ammoland Inc. Posted on August 31, 2026 by Dean Weingarten

Gun owners do not carry firearms only because violent criminals exist. Bears, mountain lions, feral dogs, rabid animals and other four-legged threats do not care about gun-control politics—and they do not wait for police or animal-control officers to arrive.

A newly published national firearms survey from Georgetown University professor William English estimates that Americans use firearms defensively against animal threats roughly 180,000 times every year.

English’s new 2026 National Firearms Survey is a detailed, 75-page follow-up to his widely cited 2021 work. The survey began with 51,398 American adults and identified 16,688 respondents as gun owners through a two-stage validation process.

The paper estimates approximately 2.2 million defensive firearm incidents annually. According to English, 8.4% of those incidents involved animal threats rather than criminal threats. Depending on which rounded annual estimate in the paper is used, that works out to approximately 176,000 to 185,000 incidents, or roughly 180,000 defensive gun uses against animals each year. That is not an insignificant category of armed self-defense.

When Ten Rounds May Not Be Enough

Several examples of verbatim responses regarding defensive firearm use directed at animals are included in Appendix H. These were specifically taken from responses where the respondents were asked:

“Have you ever been in a situation (including any referenced in earlier responses) in which it would have been useful for defensive purposes to have a firearm with a magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds? If so, please briefly describe that situation.”

There were 2,386 individuals who answered positively. Most of those are reported as giving a description of the situation. The paper quotes 33 responses to illustrate what was reported to them. Of the 33 responses, 7 involved defenses against animals, somewhat higher than the number reported in the overall survey. Here are three from the paper:

Going hunting a cougar came up on me and I fired 15 shots for it to go away

When a dog with rabies was attacking my livestock and would not go down even after several shots and reloading

We had an aggressive bear come onto our property and was going after animals. had a Glock 9mm had to use 2 clips

Defensive Gun Uses the News Never Reports

As a researcher and writer who has devoted considerable time to detailing the usefulness of handguns in defense against bears, it was gratifying to see William English include animal defenses as a significant, if not large, portion of the defensive use of firearms. One of the more common defenses against animals that this correspondent has observed in media reports is against aggressive, often feral dogs. This correspondent has had several close calls with aggressive dogs. On one occasion, a Glock 17 was drawn, but fortunately, it was not required to be fired.

Dogs are much more aggressive when acting as a pack. Attacking animals tend to be very sensitive to how confident the potential “prey” acts. The availability of a firearm increases the confidence of the person who has it, thus decreasing the chances of an attack. The more confident the person with the firearm is in their ability to use it, the less likely they are to use it.

At the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked counsel if the right to keep and bear arms:

“had nothing to do with the concern of the remote settler to defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that?”

The survey by William English definitively shows that defense against animal attack is not a dead letter. The estimate of 2.1 million defensive uses of firearms per year a conservative number in the survey. 8.4% of those would be about 176 thousand defensive uses against animals in the United States every year. Criminal uses of firearms where the person was victimized were about 1.8 per thousand since 2008. Defensive use of firearms against animals is about .54 per thousand, or nearly a third as many. Defensive uses of firearms in total are about 6.4 per thousand or 3.5 times as many as successful victimizations.

The stories that reach the headlines are when people are injured or killed. Bear attacks where people are injured make headlines. Attacks by rabid skunks, coyotes, foxes, or bobcats in rural areas may make local news. The common successful defenses, when no person has been injured, seldom make the news.

Cartridge firearms make humans the top-level predator on the planet. Nothing else comes close. When animals prey on humans where cartridge firearms are common, the animals are quickly killed. The defensive use of firearms against attacking animals is not controversial. Many people in urban centers are unaware that such defenses occur on a regular basis.

The well-designed and executed survey by William English goes a long way toward providing information for those ignorant of the phenomenon.

Report: Chicago Has More Murders in 2026 than All Major Cities in Pro-Gun Florida Combined
AWR Hawkins11 Aug 2026

A report from the Major Cities Chiefs Association shows that gun-controlled Chicago has more murders thus far this year than all major cities in pro-gun Florida combined.

The report was released August 5, 2026, at which time it indicated Chicago had 211 murders for the year.

By contrast, Florida’s major cities–Miami, Orlando, and Tampa–had a combined 29 murders during the same time frame.

Specifically: Eight murders in Miami, ten murders in Orlando, and eleven murders in Tampa.

The number of robberies in Chicago also eclipsed the total number witnessed in Florida’s major cities. There were 2,168 in Chicago versus a total of 385 in Miami, Orlando, and Tampa, combined.

Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) posted to X regarding the report: “Florida has a 50 year low crime rate. When you enact law and order policies and support law enforcement, the bad guys pay the price.”

On the other hand, Chicago, like all of Illinois, requires law-abiding citizens to acquire a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card simply to own a gun for home defense and subsequently mandates a second document, a concealed carry permit, in order to carry for self-defense. Additionally, there is a 72-hour waiting period on gun purchases, a red flag law, an “assault weapons” ban, a “high capacity” magazine ban, gun storage laws, a “Glock switch” ban, a bump stock ban, and regulations on firearms that Democrats refer to as “ghost guns.”

Moreover, Chicago has city-based controls and its seat, Cook County, has county controls that give Chicago even more 2A restrictions than other parts of the state.

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.