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

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

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

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

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

Knife-Wielding Man Charges Armed Customer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SB2 Targeted the Wrong Person

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington’s Decade-Long Gun-Control Experiment

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

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

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

KING in Seattle reported 302 homicides in 2020.

The Tacoma News Tribune reported 327 murders in 2021.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington’s Rifle Ban Faces a Supreme Court Reckoning

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

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

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

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

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

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

Armed Florida Mom Shoots Alleged Intruder Threatening Her Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, April 2, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heeter v. James Challenges New York Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment

Ammoland Inc. Posted on March 30, 2026 by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

New York’s ban on body armor is now facing a direct constitutional challenge that goes right to the heart of the Second Amendment.

In Heeter v. James, an ongoing 2024 federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, plaintiffs Heeter and Firearms Policy Coalition are challenging New York’s body armor ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that the law has criminalized the purchase and acquisition of defensive gear that falls within the plain text of the right to “keep and bear Arms.”

As the motion puts it, “body armor is commonly owned for self-defense and other lawful purposes,” and New York’s law therefore cannot survive under District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The filing opens by stating that New York’s law “prohibits the purchase, acquisition, or sale of any ‘protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire,’ by anyone who is not a member of several ‘eligible professions.’” In other words, ordinary law-abiding New Yorkers are barred from buying body armor unless the state has decided their job title is important enough. The plaintiffs say that violates the rights of citizens with “ordinary self-defense needs,” the same kind of language the Supreme Court used in Bruen when it rejected New York’s old carry regime.

The motion leans heavily on Heller’s discussion of the word “arms,” reminding the court that the Supreme Court itself said the term included not only “weapons of offence,” but also “armour of defence.”

From there, the plaintiffs walk through historical dictionaries, legal dictionaries, Blackstone, the Assize of Arms, and the Statute of Winchester to argue that armor has long been understood as part of the class of protected “arms.” The filing says the historical record “confirm[s] that the Supreme Court was correct” and that “‘Arms’ encompasses body armor.” That is the foundation of the whole case. If body armor is an arm, then the Second Amendment is implicated from the start.

According to the plaintiffs, New York expanded the definition of body armor through the Concealed Carry Improvement Act so broadly that it now covers “any product that is a personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire,” including steel plates, bulletproof backpacks, and “inconspicuous garments” like bullet-resistant sweatshirts and flannels. This is not a narrow restriction aimed at criminals wearing armor while committing violent felonies. It is a broad ban on defensive products that ordinary people may want for their own protection.

The plaintiffs back that up with real examples. One named plaintiff, Heeter, says he wants to buy body armor for lawful purposes, “including to protect himself in the event of civil unrest similar to the riots of 2020.” Another, Wurtenberg, wants armor for his late-night commute through downtown Rochester and to incorporate into his range gear “to prevent accidental injury.”

Neither man is in one of the state’s favored “eligible professions,” so both are barred from acquiring body armor, even though the motion says they seek it only for lawful self-defense and safety purposes.

The motion also takes aim at the state’s claim that body armor is somehow outside ordinary constitutional protection because criminals have used it. New York reportedly justified the ban in part by pointing to the body armor worn by the Buffalo mass murderer. But the plaintiffs argue that argument collapses under scrutiny. The filing cites FBI data and says that “less than 5% of perpetrators in mass-shooting incidents from 2000 to 2019 wore body armor.” That is a devastating statistic for the state’s narrative.

The plaintiffs then drive the point home by noting that handguns are used in crimes far more often than body armor, yet handguns remain unquestionably protected under the Second Amendment. A criminal misuse argument cannot erase constitutional protection for an item commonly used by law-abiding people.

And that is another major piece of the motion: common use.

The plaintiffs argue that body armor is “in common use for lawful purposes,” which, under Heller and Bruen, is a major constitutional marker. They cite market data showing tens of millions of dollars in civilian body armor sales, a robust civilian market, and more than 70 manufacturers serving that demand. The motion says American civilians spent $41.9 million on body armor in 2022, and cites additional estimates showing civilian expenditures continued rising in 2023, 2024, and 2025. It also stresses that body armor is legal in 49 states, making New York the outlier, not the rule. As the brief puts it, “New York is the first state to ban body armor for law-abiding citizens.” That is exactly the kind of modern outlier status that has become increasingly hard to defend in the post-Bruen world.

The most effective part of the filing may be its treatment of danger. The state’s best chance in a case like this is to argue that body armor can be banned as “dangerous and unusual.” The plaintiffs say that argument fails on both halves.

First, they say body armor is not dangerous. “It is exclusively defensive,” the motion argues. It does not fire a projectile, does not slash, stab, bludgeon, or explode. Its only function is to protect the wearer. The filing even notes that the Transportation Security Administration allows airline passengers to carry body armor in their bags. It cites case law recognizing that “wearing body armor is not an inherently threatening act” and can instead be “an act of self-defense.” That is hard to get around. New York is trying to treat protective equipment as though it were some uniquely menacing weapon, but the plaintiffs’ point is simple and powerful: armor protects, it does not attack.

Second, the plaintiffs argue body armor is not unusual. Quite the opposite. They say it is common historically, common today, common across the country, and common in civilian commerce. The motion points to historical militia laws requiring certain citizens to furnish armor, to widespread availability of bullet-resistant vests by the Civil War era, and to modern ownership and sales trends.

The filing sums it up this way: body armor is “common categorically,” “common numerically,” and “common jurisdictionally.”

The filing also spends time showing that the law is not just some dead statute sitting on the books. According to the motion, New York officials celebrated the ban, state police warned there would be “zero tolerance” for violations, and the law has already been enforced through arrests. The plaintiffs say the legal market for body armor in New York has effectively been wiped out because sellers face both criminal penalties and civil fines if they sell to someone outside the approved professions. That matters because it shows the injury here is concrete and ongoing. This is not a hypothetical challenge brought against a dormant law. It is a live fight over a ban that the state intends to enforce.

At bottom, the plaintiffs are asking the court to apply the Second Amendment the way the Supreme Court said it must be applied. Once conduct falls within the plain text, the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical tradition that justifies the regulation. The motion argues New York cannot do that here because “there exists no American tradition” of banning the purchase, transfer, or possession of defensive armor by ordinary citizens. It says there were “no American legislative body” restrictions of that kind from the Founding through well after Reconstruction, and that no pre-1900 American armor bans existed at all. If that historical claim holds, New York is standing on very thin ice.

The plaintiffs’ conclusion: “the Court should grant judgment in Plaintiffs favor, declare the Body Armor Ban unconstitutional, and enjoin its enforcement.”

New York will almost certainly argue that body armor is different from weapons, that the state has a strong public-safety interest, and that armor can embolden criminals in violent encounters. But this motion is serious, direct, and grounded in the same constitutional framework that has already knocked down a growing list of modern gun-control laws.

If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ central premise that body armor is part of the protected class of “arms,” New York is going to have a very difficult time explaining why ordinary citizens can be barred from buying purely defensive equipment that is legal in the other 49 states.

The next step is now in the hands of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, where the judge will decide whether New York’s body armor ban can survive under Heller and Bruen. After the state files its response, the court will determine whether the law can be struck down on summary judgment or whether the case needs to move further. A win for the plaintiffs would block enforcement of one of the most aggressive body armor laws in the country. A win for New York would only push the constitutional fight into its next round. Either way, Heeter v. James is now a case gun owners and civil-liberties advocates should be watching closely.

New York Agrees to Stop Requiring Social Media Disclosures for Gun Permits

Jake Fogleman

March 17, 2026  5:26 pm

New York will no longer enforce a controversial provision of its strict requirements for concealed carry permit applicants, according to a new settlement agreement.

The agreement was filed on Monday in the Northern District of New York in the case Antonyuk v. James. It bars the state from enforcing its social media disclosure requirement–at least against the plaintiffs in the case.

“The State Defendants consent to the entry of an injunction against their enforcement of N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(l)(o)(iv), which requires applicants for a concealed carry license to provide ‘a list of former and current social media accounts of the applicant from the past three years to confirm the information regarding the applicants character and conduct as required in’ N.Y. Penal Law § 400.00(l)(o)(ii), against any Plaintiff,” the settlement agreement reads. “The Superintendent shall ensure that the PPB-3 license application form does not include language requiring social media information.”

The settlement chips away at New York’s trend-setting Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). It’s another victory for gun-rights activists who’ve fought the law in court after it was passed back in 2022. However, many of the CCIA’s restrictions remain in good standing as other legal challenges continue to work their way up the federal court system.

The law, adopted shortly after the Supreme Court held the state’s previous concealed carry legal regime violated the Second Amendment in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, imposed new hurdles on carry permit applicants and designated dozens of public locations off-limits to lawful gun carry. It also inspired similarly impacted states like New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Hawaii to follow suit with Bruen-response laws of their own—each of which has been hotly contested in court over the last few years.

Monday’s settlement agreement stipulates that the injunction against New York’s social media disclosure requirement will remain in place unless and until the state legislature repeals it outright. The deal further resolves that portion of the lawsuit without a ruling on the merits.

Under the terms of the deal, the individual plaintiff who challenged the requirement is dismissed from the suit. Meanwhile, the remaining plaintiffs agreed not to raise future challenges to the social media requirement.

New York state did not concede that the provision is unconstitutional, and the agreement will carry no precedential effect for other legal challenges.

At the same time, the bulk of the lawsuit will proceed. The remaining plaintiffs will continue to challenge other parts of the CCIA, including the law’s extensive list of “sensitive locations” where carrying a firearm is prohibited. Those include places such as public parks, public transportation, theaters, and establishments that serve alcohol.

The battle over the law’s restrictions has ping-ponged around the federal court system ever since US District Judge Glenn Suddaby first blocked most of them in a November 2022 ruling. The Second Circuit eventually reversed most of that injunction while keeping in place Suddaby’s order blocking the social media requirement and a few other restrictions. The Supreme Court has twice declined to get involved in the case, first doing so in 2024 when it granted, vacated, and remanded the challenge back to the Second Circuit to be reconsidered in light of its US v. Rahimi decision. When the plaintiffs again asked the High Court to review the Second Circuit’s essentially unchanged second ruling, the Court flatly denied the petition last April.

The case now remains in Suddaby’s court for an eventual decision on the merits of the Second Amendment challenge.

Monday’s settlement agreement is not the first time New York has tactically retreated from one of the CCIA’s restrictions in the face of legal scrutiny. After multiple rulings against the state’s total ban on guns in places of worship—including in Antonyuk—New York lawmakers quietly amended the CCIA in May 2023 to exempt “persons responsible for security” from the ban.

Furthermore, though it has declined to involve itself directly in the status of New York’s gun carry restrictions, the Supreme Court will soon issue a decision on the legal fate of a Hawaii gun-carry restriction that mirrors New York’s law. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court will determine whether lawmakers can ban by default licensed gun carry on private property accessible to the general public, such as retail stores and restaurants. New York became the first state in the country to enact such a policy when it adopted the CCIA in 2022.

The Court heard oral arguments in Wolford in January and is expected to issue a decision by the end of June.

Blakeman Accepts Republican Nomination for Governor, Pledges to End Hochul’s Tax Hikes and Restore Affordability and Public Safety

February 11, 2026

Garden City, NY — Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman today accepted the Republican nomination for Governor of New York, delivering a sweeping indictment of Kathy Hochul’s record and pledging to fix Hochul’s affordability and public safety crisis.

“I am honored to receive this nomination to be your next Governor of the great State of New York,” Blakeman said. “Millions of New Yorkers rejected Kathy Hochul four years ago, and after four more years of soaring taxes, rising crime, and reckless spending, families simply cannot afford her failed leadership any longer.”

Blakeman cited more than $8 billion in tax hikes under Hochul, which has given New York the highest tax burden in the nation. He pointed to electric bills that are approximately 50 percent higher than the national average, as a result of the Hochul Administration’s 36 utility rate hikes, blocked energy infrastructure projects, and costly green energy mandates that have left nearly 70 percent of some utility bills going toward fees, delivery charges, and state-imposed costs.

He also sharply criticized congestion pricing, which charges drivers up to $27 to enter Manhattan. “In Hochul’s New York, you now pay a tax just to drive on a public road you already paid for,” Blakeman said. “And if she gets four more years, congestion pricing won’t stop in Manhattan — it will expand.”

Blakeman emphasized that while middle-class families, seniors, and small businesses struggle with rising costs, Hochul has prioritized billions in spending on hotel rooms, prepaid debit cards, and benefits for illegal migrants. “That is not right,” Blakeman said. “What Kathy Hochul spends on waste, Medicaid fraud, and benefits for illegal migrants who’ve been here for fifteen minutes, I will redirect to better schools, roads, hospitals, infrastructure, and meaningful tax relief for the people who built this state.”

On public safety, Blakeman slammed Hochul for siding with criminals over law-abiding citizens by signing laws that release dangerous inmates, erasing criminal records, weakening parole standards, refusing to repeal cashless bail, and failing to fix the “Raise the Age” law as youth crime rises. “Kathy Hochul has turned her back on the rule of law,” Blakeman said. “As Governor, I will stand with our police, not against them. I will fight to keep violent criminals and cop-killers behind bars, because the safety of our children and neighborhoods demands it.”

Blakeman contrasted Hochul’s record with his own as Nassau County Executive, where he stopped a $150 million tax hike, has not raised taxes, secured seven bond upgrades, and worked with law enforcement to make Nassau County the safest county in America. He hired more than 600 police and corrections officers and invested heavily in public safety. “Imagine bringing that level of fiscal discipline and commitment to safety to the entire state,” Blakeman said.

Blakeman also pledged to cut middle-class income taxes, roll back Albany’s “hidden taxes and mandates” driving up energy costs, defend Second Amendment rights, and protect girls’ sports by ensuring biological males cannot compete against female athletes.

Blakeman emphasized that service is personal to him. The son of two World War II veterans — his mother served in the U.S. Army and his father in the Merchant Marines — Blakeman has long advocated for veterans. As County Executive, he partnered with Tunnel to Towers to expand housing for homeless veterans. “No one who fought for America should ever be without a home,” Blakeman said.

Blakeman also reflected on his time as a Port Authority Commissioner during the September 11th attacks, when his nephew, Court Officer Tommy Jergens, was killed in the line of duty. “I’ve seen what happens when government fails, and I’ve seen what leadership matters,” he said. “Now my grandchildren are growing up here. This is their home. I refuse to accept that New York’s best days are behind us.”

Blakeman recognized his running mates, Joseph Hernandez for State Comptroller, Saritha Komatireddy for Attorney General, and Todd Hood for Lieutenant Governor. He praised Hernandez’s business background and personal story as a Cuban immigrant, Komatireddy’s experience as a federal prosecutor and national security leader, and Hood’s 22-year career in law enforcement and leadership within the New York State Sheriffs’ Association.

“Together, we will bring fiscal responsibility, accountability, and public safety back to New York,” Blakeman said.

Blakeman concluded by pledging to serve as “a governor for all people — regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, abilities, or lifestyle” and vowed to restore opportunity, affordability, and pride in the Empire State.

“We can fix this crisis. We can make New York affordable again. And we can make it safe again,” Blakeman said. “But it will take leadership that puts New Yorkers first. That’s the choice this November.”