Gun Owner Shot After Defending Home

A really tragic set of circumstances just happened in Aurora, Colorado. A gentleman who was the victim of a home invasion, and was armed and killed the intruder, was later killed by the police who came to assist him.

What happened?

The victim had subdued the intruder and was well within his right to use deadly force under the Castle Doctrine. He picked up the phone, called 911, asked for an ambulance, and requested for law enforcement to arrive on-scene.

He did everything right, and when the police arrived, the homeowner was still armed. The reports aren’t exactly clear on whether or not he had the gun in his hand or if it was on his hip, but in any event, he was armed and the police felt he did something threatening to the extent that they used deadly force, and shot and killed him.

So, what can we learn from this?

We’ve talked in-depth about what to do after the bang, and you can refer back to one of our previous videos about how to call 911, and what to do. More importantly, you need to consider what you do after you call 911. When the police arrive, they don’t know who is the good person and who is the bad person. All they have is a report from their NDT inside of their patrol car that there’s a shooting and there’s potentially somebody that’s dead, and they’re left with the issue of sorting out who is the victim and who is the criminal.

Sometimes these things happen at night, and you might not be fully dressed. Don’t worry about getting dressed. If the police show up and you’re naked, guess what? They’ll be able to see that you don’t have any firearms on you.

If you have a moment or two before law enforcement arrives, find a safe location to secure your firearm. Just put it away—put it in a drawer and leave it there. That way, when the police arrive, you can tell them, “Hey listen, I’m so and so, the homeowner, the good guy, I’m the one that called you. My firearm is in ____.” You should expect to be handcuffed. They’ll probably put paper bags over your hands until they can do a gunshot residue test.

Once they do that (and they’ll do that fairly quickly), they’ll figure out that you are the good guy or girl, and you’ve done nothing wrong. Hopefully, the police will not overreact in your case as well. If you have any questions about this, or anything else, feel free to call my office. It’s always a pleasure to talk to you about this or anything else.

What Could Happen When We Repeal Stand Your Ground

It seems like every few months there is another story in the news about a politician or organization calling for the repeal of “Stand Your Ground” laws. A recent real-life situation demonstrates how precarious your right to self-defense can be without these essential protections.

Imagine a world where the decision to save your own life leads you to a prison sentence, even if the judge believes you acted in self-defense. A distance of a few feet, and a strict interpretation of the law, is all it took for one unfortunate Connecticut man.

Jeffery Sumpter was working as a clerk at a Dunkin’ Donuts when he was assaulted by three juvenile perpetrators. While the chaotic attack started in the store, it quickly spilled into the parking lot, where Jeffery stabbed one attacker in the leg. Little did Jeffery know that in this fateful moment, his act of self-defense would turn into a felony.

We all know self-defense laws vary from state to state, but on top of that, WHERE you defend yourself can be the difference between walking free or ending up behind bars. A minority of states, including Connecticut, impose a general duty to retreat in public before resorting to the use of deadly physical force. Thankfully, most states have what have been termed “Stand Your Ground” laws. These laws do not require an individual to retreat from a threat if they are in any place where they are legally allowed to be. The fact is, Sumpter did not get this protection because in Connecticut, the only two places where a person under attack does not have a duty to retreat are INSIDE of their home or place of work.

When Sumpter went outside of the store and into the parking lot, he was no longer in his place of work when he used deadly physical force in self-defense. In the eyes of the prosecutor, and ultimately the judge, Sumpter should have fled from his attackers. At the moment he stabbed one of his attackers, the tables turned, and he went from defender to defendant. He was charged, convicted, and sentenced to 18 months incarceration, followed by three years of probation.

If you live in a state that is fortunate enough to have a Stand Your Ground law, be vigilant about it, because if it is ever repealed, this could happen to you.

North Carolinians Closer to Constitutionally Guaranteed Right to Hunt and Fish

Should hunting and fishing be constitutionally guaranteed rights?

Both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly think so.

On June 25, Senate Bill 677 was passed 92-23 by the North Carolina House. The bill had previously passed 44-4 in the Senate.  The amendment will now be on the ballot in November for North Carolina voters to decide its fate.

But, “what’s the point,” asked Sen. Floyd McKissick. The Democrat from Durham cast one of the four votes against SB 677 in the Senate.

“The problem is those rights are not being threatened or challenged,” he said soon after the Senate’s vote. “I suppose we’ll next need a Constitutional Amendment to protect our rights to eat, sleep, and use the bathroom.”

The bill’s Republican sponsors disagreed.

They are Sens. Danny Britt, Robeson County; Norman Sanderson, Pamlico County; and Tom McInnis, Anson County. They said in a joint statement that the constitutional protection would be a hedge against future threats from anti-hunting-and-fishing organizations.

The sponsors said they are following the example of 21 other states that amended their constitutions to protect outdoor pursuits.

“North Carolinians deserve to have their voices heard when it comes to protecting the hunting and fishing rights that have always been part of our heritage and way of life,” the sponsors said in their statement.

The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CFS) reports 1.63 million hunters and anglers call North Carolina home. They spend $2.3 billion each year to pursue their passions, which supports 35,088 jobs.

But, according to the CFS, North Carolina sportsmen and women have reason to worry about future threats from groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.

“Anti-hunting organizations would lead the public to believe that hunting, fishing, and harvesting wildlife are only a privilege subject to social pressures and prevailing public sentiments, rather than an inherent right,” the CFS reported.

“Currently,” CFS added, “21 states have enacted legislation that protects the right to hunt and fish. Though there has been little resistance in several of the states that have recently passed ballot initiatives, others have met considerable resistance and, in one instance, defeat.”

That state was Arizona where, in 2010, Proposition 109—similar to North Carolina’s SB 677—was shot down after the HSUS managed to convince voters that the measure would give the Legislature exclusive authority over wildlife issues and prevent citizens “from initiating statutory petitions.”

But SB 677 states, in part, that, “The people have a right, including the right to use traditional methods, to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to laws enacted by the General Assembly and rules adopted pursuant to authority granted by the General Assembly to promote wildlife conservation and management and preserve the future of hunting and fishing.”

“As sporting traditions are increasingly threatened, right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife constitutional amendments are important to protect our outdoor heritage,” said John Culclasure, the foundation’s Appalachian states manager.

He added that “every state adjacent to North Carolina” is among the 21 states that amended their constitutions to protect hunting and fishing.

The bill’s sponsors are optimistic voters will approve the constitutional amendment in November.

In their joint statement, they said, “We’re confident voters will agree that this amendment will help ensure North Carolina remains a sportsman’s paradise for future generations.”

— Bill Miller, Contributor, U.S. & Texas LawShield blog

Hunting and fishing laws are constantly changing, as it can be seen in North Carolina. Maximize your U.S. LawShield membership with HunterShield. With this additional coverage, you’ll have 24/7/365 emergency access to Independent Program Attorneys experienced in hunting and fishing laws. Join now by logging into your Member Portal.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Announces His Retirement

This afternoon US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, aged 81, announced his upcoming retirement from the court after having served more than thirty years on the nation’s highest court. His retirement will be effective at the end of July.


The White House already has a short list of 25 possible candidates to replace the retiring Justice and may announce Justice Anthony Kennedy’s replacement as soon as July.


What do you think this will mean for gun rights in the United States?


Are you optimistic for a future with a stronger Second Amendment?


Let us know in the comments below.


More and More Texas School Districts Allow Armed Staff on Campus

After the recent school shootings in Parkland, Florida, and Santa Fe, Texas, Texas school districts are putting a major focus on increased school safety procedures during the summer break. One option many districts are turning to is arming teachers.

Back in 2013, Texas enacted its Protection of Children Act Program that allows individual school districts to have armed individuals on campus.

School Marshals

One provision of the act allows a district to opt into the School Marshal Program and designate one staff member for every 200 students to be armed on campus, following intensive law enforcement style training and psychological testing. School Marshals that have regular, direct contact with students, however, are not allowed to carry a gun. Instead, they are permitted to have a secured gun within ready access only in a circumstance that would permit the use of deadly force.

School districts do not reveal the identity of its School Marshals for security reasons, or whether there are any Marshals on campus at all. Therefore, the number of school districts that participate in the School Marshal Program is uncertain.

Guardian Plan

Another provision in the act allows schools to authorize greater access to firearms on campus. Under the Guardian Plan, a district can grant anyone, including employees, permission to carry firearms on campuses through a contract. A guardian basically is there for mainly dealing with school shootings, whereas the Marshal has more of a law enforcement position.

According to Dax González, a spokesperson for the Texas Association of School Boards, few districts chose to go the route of a School Marshal and instead opted for the more flexibility provided by the Guardian Program. The best estimate is that between 20 and 50 districts utilize the Marshal Program.

The Association revealed, as of February 2018, approximately 172 school districts allowed a teacher, coach, or other individuals to carry a concealed weapon while at work. In addition to districts utilizing the School Marshal or Guardian Program, about 150 districts have their own police departments, and more than 250 districts without police have school resource officers.

Since the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in February of this year, another 45 school districts have opted to allow staff to carry a firearm, bringing the total number to 217, roughly 20 percent out of all the school districts in the Lone Star State. González said the number “may continue to grow as districts continue to revise policies” in the aftermath of the May 18 shooting at Santa Fe High School near Houston that left 10 dead.

As a School Marshal or Guardian, you protect yourself and your students. We defend your freedom. Join U.S. & Texas LawShield, the authority in legal defense for self-defense.

Original article can be found here.

Pocatello Victim Acts in Self-Defense

Pocatello shooting, self-defense, neighbor

A shouting match escalated when Bryan Huff grabbed a steel pipe and charged at his neighbor in his yard. The Pocatello neighbor shot Huff in self-defense.

The victim fired a pistol twice at Huff. Pocatello police report that one of the shots hit Huff in the arm. The victim threw the gun after shooting and the two men started fighting. The man then pinned Huff down to the ground.

In the meantime, a woman associated with Huff retrieved the thrown gun and ordered the man to release Huff.

The victim complied, and everyone went back into their respective homes. Pocatello police report they received dozens of 911 phone calls from multiple people in the neighborhood.

Police arrived and located Huff and the victim. Huff was taken to Portneuf Medical Center by Pocatello Fire Department ambulance for treatment. Police officers interviewed everyone involved in the incident.

One witness said the disagreement between the man and Huff began because of a dog that belongs to one of the men.

Huff is charged with felony aggravated battery. The maximum penalty for the charge is five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The victim’s name has not been released. Police report he will not be charged because he acted in self-defense on his property.

You are more likely to be attacked by someone you know than a stranger. If you must act in self-defense, you shouldn’t have to worry about paying for an attorney. You defend your life. We defend your freedom. Join U.S. LawShield, the premier legal defense for self-defense program in the nation.

Original article can be found here.

217 School Districts Allow Staff to Carry Guns in Texas

217 Texas Independent School Districts firearms

After the deadly high school shooting in Florida, 217 school districts in Texas have adopted policies that allow staff members to carry firearms. That is an increase of almost 50 districts between February and May.

As reported in the Corpus Christi Caller Times, “In February, 172 school districts reported adopting such policies to the Texas Association of School Boards. As of May, that number was at 217, said Dax González, TASB’s division director for governmental relations.”

González predicts that the number of districts adopting similar policies may continue to grow as “districts continue to revise policies.”

With 1,023 independent school districts in Texas, these 217 districts represent a growing trend to allow staff members to carry firearms at schools.


Give your kids the same protection you have with U.S. LawShield by adding Minor Children coverage when you sign up.


Original article can be found here.
Image Courtesy of Wikipedia.

Federal Bureau of Investigation Sued for Denying Americans’ Right to Bear Arms

gun store, gun shop, NICS, background check, NCIS, shotgun, us lawshield, Federal Bureau of Investigation


Federal Bureau of Investigation Sued for Denying Americans’ Right to Bear Arms


The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Attorney General, et al. have been served with a lawsuit according to a press release dated June 5th, 2018. The lawsuit alleges that the FBI actively refused to process background check appeals for  National Instant Criminal Background Check System(NICS) denials during 2016. This was only recently discovered through a freedom of information act request that uncovered this unconstitutional denial of due process.


“The Defendants and FBI in particular, is improperly shifting their burden to the individual to follow up with various courts or jurisdictions,” the press release explains. The government is basically using its vast and overwhelming power to discourage Americans from appealing the government’s errors when they attempt to claim their Second Amendment rights.


“This has been an ongoing issue with Defendants … [who were] improperly shifting the burden.” Numerous prior cases have been filed in various courts since 2016. “It is appalling that Americans should have to hire an attorney, go to court, and obtain a judgment to exercise a fundamental constitutional right” says Richard Hayes Independent Program Attorney with U.S. LawShield.


We can only hope that the FBI steps up their act and starts taking American’s civil rights, including the right to bear arms and the right to due process, much more seriously in the future.


U.S. LawShield® members enjoy hefty discounts on ammo at local gun shops and nationwide retailers as part of our Member Perks program. Sign up now to get started.

Original article can be found here.

Intuit Stops Processing Payments for Gun Companies Without Notice

intuit, payment, processor, stops, gun shop, gun dealer, payment

Intuit Stops Processing Payments for Firearms Companies Without Notice


A number of firearm and firearm-related businesses were cut off from their merchant services and credit card processor last week when Intuit stopped their service without warning or notice. This caused several merchants to rush to find another way to take credit and debit card payments.

This affected a number of small businesses who were left reeling after they found out the majority of businesses hit were firearms and Second Amendment related products such as coffee or pro-2A t-shirts.

In several cases, businesses learned that Intuit cut their service only after customers received refunds for merchandise and services they already received. This left many a business holding the bag for these unauthorized refunds.

A number of larger firearms wholesalers who sell only to other Federal Firearms Licensed(FFL) dealers had similar problems with Intuit claiming that it was a banking requirement that the customer be physically present to swipe their card in the store rather than allowing online ordering.

The stores selling firearms over the internet are required to ship the firearm to a local FFL who will perform a full and complete background check on the individual picking up the weapon before signing the weapon over to the buyer. This background check is the same one that is performed if the weapon was bought in the store without using any website or online dealer to purchase the weapon.


U.S. LawShield® members enjoy hefty discounts on ammo at local gun shops and nationwide retailers as part of our Member Perks program. Sign up now to get started.


Original article can be found here.



Local Judges Cannot Ban Concealed Guns Says Mississippi Supreme Court

Mississippi Supreme Court finds gun ban unconstitutional

On June 7, 2018, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that local judges of the 14th Chancery District acted unconstitutionally by issuing an order that banned people with enhanced concealed-carry licenses from taking guns into courthouses.

According to the Mississippi Constitution, only the Legislature “may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.” Because of this specification, the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Chancery District stepped outside their authority by issuing the ban.

An article by the Associated Press explained that, “The Legislature enacted a law in July 2011 saying that people with enhanced concealed-carry licenses may take guns into courthouses, but not into courtrooms. In November 2011, judges in the 14th Chancery District issued an order banning anyone other than law enforcement officers from having concealed guns in and around all parts of courthouses in the district in Chickasaw, Clay, Lowndes, Noxubee, Oktibbeha and Webster counties.

A resident with an enhanced concealed-carry license challenged the chancery judges’ ban.”

The resident that challenged the ban in the 14th Chancery District was firearms instructor Ricky Ward. The case name is Ward v. Colom, No. 2016-M-01072-SCT (Miss. 2018). He appealed to the judges because he noticed that the district courthouses “were all built many years ago and not designed to properly secure courtrooms.”

The case made it all the way to the Mississippi Supreme Court. The court ruled the general ban of firearms in all areas of a courthouse was unconstitutional. The court explained that it is the function of the legislature, not the judiciary, to make such restrictions. Two dissenting justices from the Mississippi Supreme Court found the ban of the 14th Chancery District constitutional. Two other justices partially dissented and stated that a narrower version of the ban may pass.


At U.S. & Texas LawShield®, our top priority is to keep you educated, informed, and empowered. Self-defense laws are complex and always changing. Stay up-to-date as a U.S. LawShield member. Join now.

Original article can be found here.