Current News

  • NRA Foundation Dispute Revives Questions About Wayne LaPierre’s Possible Comeback

    NRA Foundation Dispute Revives Questions About Wayne LaPierre’s Possible Comeback

    Fresh friction inside the National Rifle Association surfaced this week after two separate reports highlighted a growing divide tied to the NRA Foundation. Together, the developments have renewed speculation that former Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre could try to re-enter the organization’s orbit.

    The flashpoint is a widening internal disagreement that appears to involve how the NRA and its affiliated charitable arm are aligning—or failing to align—at a sensitive moment for the group. The coverage suggests the split is not simply procedural, but part of a larger struggle over direction, governance, and who ultimately holds influence.

    Those tensions carry added weight because the dispute arrives alongside discussion of LaPierre’s potential return. LaPierre, who previously served as the NRA’s Executive Vice President, is described as disgraced, and the idea that he could regain a role—formal or informal—has become a central concern raised by the week’s reporting.

    From a libertarian-leaning perspective, the episode underscores how internal power struggles can distract from what many members and supporters expect: disciplined stewardship, transparency, and focus on core mission work rather than factional battles. When leadership questions dominate headlines, they can pull attention away from advocacy priorities and member trust.

    For now, the main takeaway from the week’s developments is that old divisions inside the NRA have not fully cooled, and the dispute involving the NRA Foundation is accelerating those unresolved conflicts. As the situation unfolds, supporters of the Second Amendment and civil-society watchdogs alike will be watching whether the organization moves toward reform and stability—or whether the conditions for a LaPierre comeback continue to take shape.

  • NSSF Applauds Senate Introduction of the FFL Protection Act (S. 4671)

    NSSF Applauds Senate Introduction of the FFL Protection Act (S. 4671)

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) welcomed the introduction of new legislation in the U.S. Senate aimed at protecting federally licensed firearms dealers. The organization said the proposal reflects a bipartisan effort and highlighted what it views as an important step for lawful commerce in the firearms industry.

    The bill is titled the FFL Protection Act and carries the designation S. 4671. According to NSSF, the measure was introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and it has bipartisan backing.

    NSSF framed its support around the role that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) play in the legal sale and transfer of firearms. From the organization’s perspective, clear and consistent rules are essential so that licensees who follow the law are not put at risk by shifting enforcement approaches.

    The announcement emphasized that the legislation is now before the Senate as S. 4671. NSSF’s response focused on the act’s intended effect of safeguarding FFLs, which it described as a central part of maintaining a lawful and orderly marketplace.

    By praising the bill’s introduction, NSSF underscored its interest in seeing Congress address concerns tied to the federal licensing system. The group’s statement positioned the measure as a policy development it believes would support compliant firearms retailers and the broader legal framework they operate within.

  • NSSF Applauds Senate Introduction of the FFL Protection Act (S. 4671)

    NSSF Applauds Senate Introduction of the FFL Protection Act (S. 4671)

    The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) welcomed the introduction of new legislation in the U.S. Senate aimed at protecting federally licensed firearms dealers. The organization said the proposal reflects a bipartisan effort and highlighted what it views as an important step for lawful commerce in the firearms industry.

    The bill is titled the FFL Protection Act and carries the designation S. 4671. According to NSSF, the measure was introduced by U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and it has bipartisan backing.

    NSSF framed its support around the role that Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) play in the legal sale and transfer of firearms. From the organization’s perspective, clear and consistent rules are essential so that licensees who follow the law are not put at risk by shifting enforcement approaches.

    The announcement emphasized that the legislation is now before the Senate as S. 4671. NSSF’s response focused on the act’s intended effect of safeguarding FFLs, which it described as a central part of maintaining a lawful and orderly marketplace.

    By praising the bill’s introduction, NSSF underscored its interest in seeing Congress address concerns tied to the federal licensing system. The group’s statement positioned the measure as a policy development it believes would support compliant firearms retailers and the broader legal framework they operate within.

  • Hazel Park Shooting at Short-Term Rental: Concealed Pistol License Holder Released, City Halts New Rental Permits

    Hazel Park Shooting at Short-Term Rental: Concealed Pistol License Holder Released, City Halts New Rental Permits

    Hazel Park police say a fatal shooting at a short-term rental property on May 29, 2026, has resulted in the release of a 21-year-old man who was initially taken into custody. Investigators concluded the man, who is licensed to carry a concealed firearm, acted in self-defense during an incident that unfolded at a party.

    According to the investigation, the person who died was a 20-year-old man from Detroit. Police allege he pointed a gun at someone attending the gathering while attempting to steal a watch, escalating the situation into a life-threatening confrontation.

    Authorities determined that the 21-year-old concealed carry holder responded to that threat and that the shooting met the standard for self-defense based on the information reviewed by investigators. After being detained while police sorted out what happened, he was later released.

    The case also triggered swift action from city government regarding the property where the party was held. City Manager Ed Klobucher revoked the short-term rental’s license tied to that location, citing the seriousness of the event.

    In addition, Klobucher imposed a citywide pause on issuing new short-term rental licenses. The move effectively freezes expansion of that type of rental in Hazel Park while the city reassesses how these properties are regulated and monitored following the May 29 incident.

  • Wayne LaPierre’s Appeal Fails, Leaving $4 Million Restitution Bill as NRA Foundation Split Push Grows

    Wayne LaPierre’s Appeal Fails, Leaving $4 Million Restitution Bill as NRA Foundation Split Push Grows

    Wayne LaPierre, for decades the most recognizable leader of the National Rifle Association, will still be on the hook for millions of dollars after an appellate court declined to overturn an order requiring him to repay the organization. The ruling keeps in place a restitution obligation totaling about $4 million owed back to the NRA.

    The appeal loss lands as the NRA continues to grapple with the consequences of the internal conflict that escalated during LaPierre’s tenure. Even with the court decision settled for now, the broader struggle inside the gun-rights organization has not cooled, and attention has shifted to disputes over money, control, and the direction of affiliated entities.

    A major flashpoint is the NRA Foundation, a related arm of the organization that is now at the center of an effort to separate it from the NRA entirely. Allies connected to LaPierre are involved in the push, which would effectively attempt to move the foundation’s substantial resources out from under the NRA’s control.

    That proposed separation has intensified the already bitter power struggle within the broader NRA ecosystem. Supporters of the split frame it as a structural change for the foundation, while critics view it as an attempt to wall off a large pool of assets at a time when the NRA is facing major financial and governance pressures.

    For the NRA and its members, the situation combines two simultaneous fights: the legal aftermath of restitution tied to the former leader and a high-stakes internal contest over whether a key affiliated institution—and its fortune—will remain connected to the parent group. With the appeal resolved against LaPierre, the battle now increasingly centers on what happens next with the foundation and who ultimately controls the resources intended to support the organization’s mission.

  • Tennessee Deputies, TBI Review Fatal Shooting After Sword-Armed Intruder Confrontation in Dandridge

    Tennessee Deputies, TBI Review Fatal Shooting After Sword-Armed Intruder Confrontation in Dandridge

    Authorities in Jefferson County are examining a deadly self-defense incident that unfolded in Dandridge, Tennessee. The case is being handled as a review by the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation also involved.

    The shooting happened on Riverfront Circle. Investigators say a homeowner used a firearm during a confrontation with a person described as an aggressor who had a sword.

    According to the information released, the encounter ended with the armed individual being shot and killed. Officials have characterized the situation as a homeowner stopping an active threat posed by someone armed with a bladed weapon.

    After the shooting, law enforcement conducted an extensive forensic examination at the scene. Detectives also carried out initial interviews as part of the early fact-finding process.

    Following the on-site work and preliminary questioning, the person who fired the gun was allowed to leave custody. At this stage, no immediate criminal charges have been filed while the Sheriff’s Office and TBI continue their review.

  • Pennsylvania Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Harrisburg “Lock Up Your Safety” Storage Bill

    Pennsylvania Gun Owners Urged to Oppose Harrisburg “Lock Up Your Safety” Storage Bill

    A new push in Harrisburg is drawing criticism from gun-rights advocates who say it would penalize responsible Pennsylvanians while doing little to address violent crime. Opponents have labeled the proposal the “Lock Up Your Safety” bill, arguing it effectively mandates government-approved firearm storage in the home.

    Supporters of the right to keep and bear arms contend that mandatory storage requirements can slow or prevent lawful self-defense, particularly during emergencies when seconds matter. From this viewpoint, the policy risks turning ordinary citizens into targets by making it harder to access a firearm quickly when confronted with a home invasion or other immediate threat.

    Critics also warn that such rules invite enforcement problems and legal exposure for law-abiding people. They argue that once storage methods are dictated by statute, accidental noncompliance could become a criminal issue, even when no harm has occurred. In their view, this shifts the focus from prosecuting criminals to regulating the private conduct of peaceful residents.

    Gun-rights activists are urging Pennsylvanians to contact state lawmakers in Harrisburg to oppose the measure. They frame the issue as both a practical concern—ensuring families can defend themselves—and a constitutional one—preventing state government from imposing broad restrictions on how firearms may be kept inside the home.

    The debate is unfolding in the Pennsylvania Capitol as advocacy groups mobilize supporters to speak up quickly. Opponents of the proposal say the legislature should prioritize policies aimed at violent offenders rather than expanding regulations that primarily affect citizens who already follow the law.

  • Philadelphia Frankford Royal Farms Shooting: Licensed Concealed Carrier Not Arrested After Surveillance Shows Self-Defense

    Philadelphia Frankford Royal Farms Shooting: Licensed Concealed Carrier Not Arrested After Surveillance Shows Self-Defense

    A fatal shooting unfolded late Sunday night at a Royal Farms convenience store in Philadelphia’s Frankford neighborhood, ending with a 22-year-old man dead after a confrontation inside the store. Police reviewed video from the business and treated the incident as a self-defense case involving an armed citizen.

    Investigators said the person who fired the shots was 21 years old and legally carrying a concealed firearm. According to authorities, store surveillance footage captured the older man pointing a gun at the 21-year-old, triggering a rapid, close-range exchange in which the younger man drew his own weapon and fired.

    After examining the video evidence, police did not take the 21-year-old into custody. The decision was tied directly to what investigators described as clear footage showing the younger man responding to an immediate lethal threat rather than initiating the violence.

    The shooting has renewed attention on the reality that violent encounters can erupt without warning in ordinary places like convenience stores, and that the first person to present a firearm can instantly turn a routine stop into a life-or-death emergency. From a pro–self-defense perspective, the case underscores why many law-abiding people choose to carry: the ability to meet force with force when there is no time to wait for help.

    Officials continued to treat the surveillance recording as key evidence as the incident moved forward under the standards that govern defensive gun use. The central facts described by investigators remain that a 22-year-old man was shot and killed, a 21-year-old licensed concealed carrier fired the fatal shots, and police declined an arrest after video showed the deceased man aiming a gun at the shooter first.

  • Oregon Initiative Petition 28 Would Criminalize Hunting and Ranching, Putting Conservation Funding at Risk

    Oregon Initiative Petition 28 Would Criminalize Hunting and Ranching, Putting Conservation Funding at Risk

    Oregon could see sweeping changes to long-standing outdoor and agricultural practices if a proposed ballot measure advances. The proposal, known as Initiative Petition 28 (IP 28), is described as a plan to dramatically overhaul state law in ways that would upend how Oregonians interact with wildlife, livestock, and natural resources.

    Under the initiative’s approach, activities that have traditionally been legal and widely practiced would be treated as criminal conduct. The measure would make ranching, hunting, fishing, trapping, recreational shooting, and most forms of animal husbandry illegal, redefining everyday rural and sporting life as something subject to prosecution rather than regulation.

    The reach of the proposal would extend beyond private landowners and sportsmen. The scope described for IP 28 would also implicate institutions and communities that rely on animal care and lawful harvesting, including the Oregon Zoo, fishermen, and tribal groups, pulling a wide range of Oregonians into the consequences of a single legal rewrite.

    From a conservative and libertarian perspective, a ballot initiative that turns broad categories of ordinary work and recreation into crimes represents an aggressive expansion of state power into personal choice, property rights, and cultural tradition. Rather than focusing on targeted enforcement against abuse, this kind of blanket criminalization risks treating responsible citizens as offenders while creating uncertainty for communities built around farming, outdoor recreation, and resource-based livelihoods.

    Supporters of hunting and recreational shooting also warn that the stakes go beyond lifestyle and tradition, pointing to potential downstream effects on conservation funding. When policies discourage or eliminate lawful hunting and shooting-related activity, the funding structures connected to those activities can be weakened, raising concerns about how wildlife management and habitat priorities would be supported going forward if established revenue streams are disrupted.

  • Trump Administration Pushes More Access to Federal Lands for Hunters and Anglers

    Trump Administration Pushes More Access to Federal Lands for Hunters and Anglers

    Federal public lands are being emphasized as a resource meant to be used by the people who own them: Americans. The message coming from the Trump administration is that outdoor recreation—especially hunting and fishing—should be easier to pursue, not fenced off by red tape or limited access.

    Supporters of expanded access argue that millions of acres managed by the federal government exist for more than paperwork and policy debates. They point to a renewed focus on making it simpler for outdoorsmen and women to reach places to hunt, fish, and explore, with fewer practical barriers standing between the public and the landscapes held in trust for them.

    For hunters, that emphasis translates into planning and participation. The idea being promoted is straightforward: schedule that long-considered hunting trip, and don’t limit the season to familiar ground. With public lands highlighted as more reachable, sportsmen are encouraged to look beyond their usual spots when mapping out the year.

    Waterfowl hunters, in particular, are urged to start preparing early and consider different destinations for the fall duck season. Rather than returning automatically to the same marsh or refuge each year, the push is to scout additional options and identify new places to go afield.

    Underlying the broader initiative is a public-ownership principle often embraced by conservatives and libertarians alike: land held by the federal government is not the property of bureaucracies, but of the citizens. The administration’s approach is framed as an invitation to reclaim that practical reality by getting outside, using public ground, and keeping America’s outdoor traditions active and accessible.