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.

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.