New York Gun Laws and How They May Change

Gregg Kielma, FFL, Firearms Instructor, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and Gunsmith. I'm truly saddened by the University's stance on honoring Charlie Kirk . Can someone explain how this wonderful man of God, political person and advocate for good, who debated reasonably with people that differ with him can do this? Can someone tell me why he is so bad? Why? He stood for everything that was good, nothing more nothing less. He encouraged people of the opposite opinion to sit down with him and talk about it. And he's assassinated for it? Charlie Kirk was an angle walking among us. I rejoice knowing he is with now with God. Shame on Utah Valley University. The shame is immense on the board, facility and students that purpurate this narrative. Lastly Kielma says, please take a look below at how DEI effect our universities, culture and our young people. Community members are speaking out against a proposal to establish a Charlie Kirk memorial at Utah Valley University, saying it would glorify a divisive political figure whose views run counter to the school’s values of diversity and inclusivity. They’re calling on UVU and local leaders to reject the plan. If you agree no memorial should be built, sign the petition. In Utah Valley, as passionate members of the community, we're deeply troubled by any proposal to establish a memorial for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University (UVU). Our concerns arise from profoundly disagreeing with his political views, which we believe do not represent the values of diversity, equity and inclusion. Charlie Kirk is a controversial political figure known for his divisive rhetoric. His organization, Turning Point USA, has been criticized for promoting messages that some consider homophobic, transphobic, and racist. Many in our community feel that glorifying such a figure with a memorial could send the wrong message to our students, staff, and residents. UVU prides itself on being a diverse and inclusive institution that fosters an environment of learning and growth for all students, regardless of their background. Erecting a memorial for Charlie Kirk would undermine these core values and might alienate students who represent different political, racial, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, we urge the administration of UVU and the community of Orem, UT , to reconsider and reject any plans to honor Charlie Kirk with a memorial. We want to ensure that our university remains a welcoming space for everyone, and recognizing Charlie Kirk in such a way contradicts this mission. Let us stand together to maintain the integrity and dignity of our educational environment where all voices are heard and respected. Please sign this petition if you agree that no memorial should be erected for Charlie Kirk at UVU.

How do gun shops prevent customers from threatening staff with firearms? What precautions are in place? Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms Gun stores, my location, have strict safety rules: clients are never allowed access to both guns and ammunition simultaneously. If someone wants to test a firearm's action, only inert snap caps are used. Ammo and guns remain physically separated at all times. Any attempt to load a gun inside the store is met with immediate intervention, and persistent unsafe behavior can result in my staff drawing their own weapons. Visitors to my gunsmith shop and location are required to ask permission to bring an unloaded and cased, firearm into my property. Any personal firearm coming into the shop must be unloaded and secured in a case or box. Drawing or presenting a loaded or holstered weapon without warning can result in being confronted. At my location I generally permit responsible carrying but prohibit reckless actions such as waving barrels or handling unloaded guns unsafely. Florida law requires specific signage if stores wish to ban carry, but responsible behavior is always expected for service or fitting firearms. Every action should be handled very over carefully.

Tactical K Training and Firearms Outdoor Range I'm someone who owns a 9mm handgun, is it worth getting a budget AR-style rifle for home defense? What's best for YOU and YOUR Family? Gregg Kielma Firearms Instructor Kielma suggests reading the article below and then making a good decision with the Tactical K Training and Firearms Staff before you invest. Continues Kielma, to answer this question I get asked all the time, maybe for you, however, not for me. My home defense firearm is a 12g shotgun for several reasons. Case Study: The infamous FBI Miami Massacre that kicked off the rush to “better” ammo and gear could have been resolved with the ammo and gear on scene that day earlier than it was. It was resolved with 4 shots from a 12-gauge shotgun. Every agent there that day had what he needed to do the job, and the job was eventually done with it. Better tactical judgment, decisions, and marksmanship were the real problems, not an “ammunition failure”. Case Study: Same for the North Hollywood shootout. The bad guys did not have armored faces, arms, hands, legs, and feet. The LEO could have done better with what they used earlier than with what they had later. Case Study: Two, local PDs best and brightest, skilled in action pistol and MMA, armed with the newest gear were both killed by a man off his meds with a relic WWII surplus revolver. What they have does not matter as much as what you do with what you have. I feel safe protecting my home with a shotgun as my first resource and handgun as the other option. I keep both close by, so I don’t need to spend valuable time fumbling around to keep my home safe. I have a plan. My judgment, training, and experience keeps my family safe along with my firearms of choice and the firearms and ammo I use. Kielma continues, training and your plan are crucial for home and self-defense. The type of firearm is used is paramount. We offer outdoor training to develop the skills needed to defend yourself family and friends at our outdoor range. Call me to schedule a day and time to train to be comfortable and the best you can be when armed.

Do concealed carriers carry with a round in the chamber? Gregg Kielma Firearms Instructor Says Gregg Kielma Firearms Instructor, Gunsmith, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and FFL. I get asked this question all the time. Please take a look at my thoughts on carrying a round in the chamber and ready to fire when needed. Please stay safe and situationally aware. Questions? Please respond or give me a call. I'm 6' tall and always carry with a dedicated IWB holster that fits well and stays concealed. I would encourage any competent shooter to always carry a round in the chamber, if you ever need to use your tool, and that’s exactly what it is, your firearm is just a tool, you’ll come to thank me later. Among concealed carriers, the decision to carry a firearm with a round in the chamber is a significant consideration involving both safety and readiness. Many reputable firearms training organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), and Tactical K Training and Firearms advocate carrying with a round chambered to enable a faster response in critical self-defense situations. Law enforcement and Tactical K Training and Firearms defensive shooting courses commonly teach that carrying this way reduces the time and motor skills needed to make a firearm ready under stress, which can be crucial during emergencies. Safety remains paramount, and carrying with a round chambered should only be practiced by individuals who have received proper firearms training, are confident in their handling skills, and use a high-quality, well-fitting holster that fully covers the trigger guard. According to available safety data, accidental discharges among responsible concealed carriers are rare when best practices and safe carrying methods are followed. However, some individuals choose not to carry a round in the chamber, especially those who are new to firearms or still building confidence in their skills. This decision is often based on personal comfort levels, concerns about accidental discharges, or the desire for additional practice before adopting this method. Both approaches are valid, and individuals are encouraged to make informed decisions based on their training, experience, and comfort with their equipment. Continuing education, regular practice, and a commitment to safety are essential for all concealed carriers, regardless of their chosen method.

Bill Would Repeal Gun-Free School Zones Act Mark Chesnut Following the recent shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which resulted in two children dead and 17 others injured, a U.S. congressman is proposing to abolish the law that allows only criminals to be armed near public schools. On August 29, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced the “Safe Students Act,” H.R. 5066, which would repeal the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990,” (GFSZA) and eliminate that law’s one-size-fits-all federal ban on guns in school zones. According to Rep. Massie, enactment of the “Safe Students Act” would make it easier for state and local governments and school boards to set their own firearms policies unambiguously. “Gun-free zones are ineffective and make our schools less safe,” Rep. Massie said in a news release announcing the measure. “Since 1950, 94% of mass public shootings have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns. Banks, churches, sports stadiums and many of my colleagues in Congress are protected with firearms. Yet children inside the classroom are too frequently left vulnerable.” In fact, statistics support Rep. Massie’s argument. Recent data shows a 200% increase in targeted school shootings in the United States since the act was enacted, and a 327% rise in shootings on or near school campuses during the same period. Rep. Massie’s bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in 2007, repeals GFSZA, a law that makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended act.

Federal hate crime charge sought in Charlotte stabbing The Center Square Alan Wooten (The Center Square) – When a federal charge was levied this week against Decarlos Brown Jr. in the killing of Iryna Zarutska on a Charlotte light rail, authorities said more charges were possible. North Carolina’s chapter of the largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization in the nation has formally requested federal prosecutors charge Brown with a hate crime. “We join calls for the U.S. attorney to investigate the murder of Iryna Zarutska as a possible hate crime given video footage that appears to show the perpetrator commenting on her race and gender after brutally attacking her,” the North Carolina chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said in a statement. “Whenever someone commits similar acts of violence while engaging in racist or bigoted rhetoric, law enforcement should automatically investigate a bias motive.” Zarutska, 23, was killed while aboard the Lynx Blue Line light rail train about 10 p.m. Aug. 22 alongside Camden Road near the East/West station, according to the Charlotte Area Transit System video. Brown, arrested a 15th time in as many years, is charged with first-degree murder on the state level and charged on the federal level with committing an act causing death on a mass transportation system. While in the local news immediately, the story went viral over the weekend and into this week when Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police released video from the transit system. Congressional proposals are in the works; state Republicans in the U.S. House have requested the chief judge in the district remove the magistrate signing off on cashless bail for Brown in January; and a probe of safety and budget for the transit system is underway by the state auditor. CAIR-North Carolina said, “Video footage from the incident reportedly shows the alleged attacker, Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr., pacing through the train and twice saying, ‘I got that white girl.’” The Center Square has not confirmed the comments. Video released by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police is from cameras aboard the Charlotte Area Transit System light rail train. General Assembly leaders planned a noon press conference connected to the stabbing. CAIR-North Carolina said, “As we condemn Ms. Zarutska’s horrific murder and call for a hate crime probe, we also condemn those using this crime to resurrect racist talking points about the Black community. This selective outrage is dangerous, hypocritical, and racially motivated, especially given that white supremacists fall silent about other stabbings, mass shootings, hate crimes, financial crimes, rapes, and various other misconduct committed by people of all races and backgrounds. Our society must secure justice for victims of crimes, not turn them into pawns for extremists.”

Armed Citizens: Not Just an American Concept Monday, September 15, 2025 Please Support NRA-ILA We frequently post stories about law-abiding citizens who, by exercising their rights protected under the Second Amendment, bring an end to violent criminal assaults. We covered two instances earlier this year in Michigan, one involving an attack at a Walmart and another at a church. We’ve also covered reports that show the benefits of armed citizens. Of course, most of what we cover takes place here in the United States, where we have the benefit of our Founders recognizing and safeguarding our inherent right to self-defense through the protections of the Second Amendment. Occasionally, we will report on other countries that appear to be moving in the right direction when it comes to recognizing the benefits of law-abiding citizens being able to defend themselves and others. We’ve recently seen this in Argentina, Finland, and Poland, and hope to see it elsewhere. Israel has seen a mix of good and bad when it comes to gun control. In March, we reported Iranian-linked hackers were able to penetrate Israel’s databases containing sensitive gun owner data and leaked the information online in early February. This exemplified just one of the numerous problems NRA has long pointed out with registration schemes involving law-abiding gun owners. Restrictions on law-abiding citizens possessing and carrying firearms are generally more restrictive in Israel than in most states here in the U.S., but their firearm laws have fluctuated over the years based on perceived internal and external threats. While the 1970s and ‘80s saw firearm ownership in Israel as somewhat ubiquitous, the ‘90s brought increased restrictions. In 2018, however, Israel began loosening some restrictions. In 2023, following the unprecedented terrorist attacks of October 7, Israel began loosening restrictions again. While the country continues to face threats, Breitbart recently reported that “a number of civilians” helped an off-duty Israeli soldier end a terrorist attack on vehicles and pedestrians near a bus stop in Jerusalem’s Ramot Junction. Although six innocent lives were lost, the casualties could have been far greater had the two terrorists responsible for the attack not been killed. According to The Times of Israel, “Police said that a soldier and a number of civilians who were present at the scene fired at the terrorists and killed them.” The paper also noted that National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, commenting on the policy he spearheaded to put more arms in the hands of civilians, said, “Weapons save lives.”

“Sensitive Places” Embolden Criminals and Threaten the Law-abiding Monday, September 15, 2025 Please Support NRA-ILA A beyond horrific murder flashed before our eyes in recent weeks, and a nation collectively mourned Iryna Zarutska after the sickening attack that took her life on a public train in Charlotte, North Carolina. It was yet another stark reminder that evil strikes quickly, and it can happen at any time, in any place (particularly when, as in the case of the Charlotte suspect, the legal system appears incapable or unwilling to incapacitate repeat offenders). Because of that very fact, the law-abiding citizens who choose to carry firearms for self-defense in public are again left frustrated by imaginary boundaries that continue to limit their ability to defend themselves. Firearm prohibitionists argue, “The presence of guns make places more dangerous.” Wrong. Bad people make places more dangerous. And some places may be more likely to attract or accommodate bad people than others, not the least of which are public transportation facilities, including subway stations, bus stops, etc. If citizens cannot count on courts or policymakers to prioritize their safety, they are left to their own devices when situational awareness is simply not enough. Rules that restrict an individual’s right to bear arms for self-defense advantage criminals, and as public officials dither, lives are in danger. NRA has often reported on the safety ills of the NYC subway system, even documenting that it was deemed contractually too dangerous for former New York Giants Quarterback, Eli Manning. Recall that in the landmark United States Supreme Court decision Heller v. District of Columbia, it was noted that the Second Amendment’s protection of an individual right to keep and bear arms did not cast doubt on the validity of “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” However, Justice Clarence Thomas in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen later warned that the expansion of “sensitive places” beyond historical precedents is unconstitutional: [E]xpanding the category of “sensitive places” simply to all places of public congregation that are not isolated from law enforcement defines the category of “sensitive places” far too broadly. [New York’s] argument would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment and would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense...” Justice Thomas’s warning continues to be ignored. Just last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled in Schoenthal v. Raoul, a case out of Chicago in which NRA-ILA filed an amicus brief, that broad limits on self-defense can continue. The Chicago Transit Authority and Illinois state law prohibit carrying firearms on public transit. The Seventh Circuit, in reversing an earlier district court ruling, held that the Second Amendment “does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws-consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation—that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms.” Not only is carrying firearms in public for self-defense clearly covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms on public transit, even though forms of it existed in the Founding era. The Seventh Circuit essentially admitted as much, when it asserted: “We are in the project of comparing regulations, not places.” Then, “reasoning” from mid to late 19th Century bans on places like “ball[s] and fandango[es],” the court came up with a broad rule that firearm prohibitions in “in crowded and confined places” are presumptively permissible. This tendency of courts to stretch historical analogies on “sensitive places” far past their breaking point is leaving far too many people in vulnerable locations to be victimized. Judge Kolar writes that the “sensitive places doctrine tells us that the appropriate balance allows for temporary restrictions in scattered discrete places where the risk is simply different…” The risk on public transit is indeed different. These places are inherently more dangerous and call for even more accommodation for self-defense rights. No one in the Founding era thought the solution to robberies of stage coaches and trains was to ban passengers from carrying guns. Judge Kolar is concerned about the people’s representatives being able to ensure “public transportation systems remaining free from accessible firearms,” yet the people’s representatives are doing precious little to ensure the transportation systems remain free of violent criminals. Public transportation in Chicago, in fact, is about as “insensitive” a place as exists in public life. According to a 2024 study done by the Illinois Policy Institute, over 1 in every 100,000 Chicago Transit Authority rides resulted in a crime. That’s about 1 crime every 3 hours, considering 765,566 rides per weekday on average. About 45% of all crimes reported at CTA stations result in an arrest, according to analysis of city data, meaning criminals have a better than even chance of getting away with their predations. And those are just the crimes that get reported. Many more do not, as few victims expect justice. Daily there are headlines nationwide featuring the safety hazards of public transit. Attacks are often random. Carrying a gun on Chicago public transportation is illegal, but so are assaults, thefts, and harassment. Gun owners are obeying the law, but Chicago criminals are not. Violence prevention and mental healthcare sometimes pose complex questions, but the self-defense part of the equation is simple: the need can arise wherever a person happens to be. Rulings like the one from the Seventh Circuit demonstrate the continued work needed to fend off ever-expanding “gun-free zones” that, like the may-issue permitting condemned by the Supreme Court, make carry the exception, rather than the rule. Simply put, “sensitive places” show an insensitivity to the Second Amendment and the lives of the people it is meant to protect.

Trump’s DOJ Will Participate in Oral Arguments in Illinois Semi-Auto Ban Case Monday, September 15, 2025 Please Support The NRA-ILA Within six months of the landmark United States Supreme Court decision of NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), Illinois disregarded the Court’s clear directives and enacted into law H.B. 5741, the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA). PICA banned certain semi-automatic rifles and other so-called “assault weapons,” “high capacity” magazines, and other devices, and required existing owners to register with the police as a condition of their continued lawful possession. An NRA-backed lawsuit, Caleb Barnett et al. v. Kwame Raoul et al., was quickly filed in federal court to challenge the law as unconstitutional. Citing the Bruen decision, the complaint in the case points out that “[a]lmost no other state in the union has ever tried to adopt such an extreme measure — and for good reason, as no less an authority than the Supreme Court has already recognized that semiautomatic rifles ‘traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful’ … All of that dooms any effort to claim that prohibiting these ubiquitous arms is consistent with ‘the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms.’” In the last two years, the case has moved between the federal district court in Illinois (which preliminarily enjoined the bans as a likely violation of the Second Amendment), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (which reversed), and back to the district court after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case at its early stage of the litigation. After the district court again ruled that the bans are unconstitutional and entered a permanent injunction against their enforcement, the State appealed to the Seventh Circuit, which stayed the district court’s ruling pending its latest decision in the case. Notably, in June the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a 34-page amicus brief in the Seventh Circuit on behalf of the United States and in support of the plaintiffs-appellees. The brief represents a stark and welcome contrast to the position of the previous administration with respect to Second Amendment rights. While President Biden’s gun control wish list included banning “assault weapons,” “high capacity” magazines, a background check mandate for all gun sales, and a repeal of the PLCAA, for instance, the brief cites, among other authorities, an April 2025 memo from the U.S. Attorney General that begins, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” (The brief also cites a paper co-written by Joseph Greenlee, now Managing Director of the Office of Litigation Counsel at NRA-ILA.) Since then, the DOJ has filed an unopposed motion, now granted, to participate in oral argument before the Seventh Circuit, noting the federal government’s interest in protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans and its belief that “its participation in oral argument will be helpful to the Court.” The argument would be limited to five minutes of time that has been ceded by the plaintiffs-appellees. While we’ll have to wait until September 22, the date on which oral arguments are scheduled to be held, to find out exactly what the federal government has to say, its amicus brief provides some helpful indications. Because PICA bans arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes – including AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines – it is “flatly unconstitutional” under the Supreme Court’s test for Second Amendment challenges. The brief also explains how the Seventh Circuit misapplied the Supreme Court’s test the last time it ruled on this case, and urged the court to affirm the district court’s permanent injunction. In addition to signaling a momentous shift in how the federal government views the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, the DOJ’s participation is particularly meaningful because similar bans are being litigated in other states: for instance, an NRA-supported challenge to New Jersey’s prohibitions on so-called “assault firearms” and magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds is scheduled to be argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, en banc, in mid-October.