Intruder killed, homeowner injured in East Fort Worth shooting

FORT WORTH, Texas – A shootout inside an East Fort Worth home Saturday afternoon left one man dead, and a resident hospitalized with gunshot wounds, police said.

What we know:

The shooting happened at 3:30 p.m. on Misty Glenn Court, located near Interstate 30 and East Loop 820.

According to Fort Worth police, a resident returned home to find an intruder inside the house. A physical fight broke out between the two men, and both drew firearms and shot at each other. Both men were struck during the gunfire.

The intruder died at the scene. The Tarrant County Medical Examiner’s Office has identified him as 29-year-old Darius Levy.

The resident who lives in the home was taken to a local hospital for treatment. Information on his condition was not immediately available. His identity has not been released.

Investigators said Levy had an active protective order filed against him connected to another resident of the home, but not the resident involved in the fatal shooting.

Neighbors reported hearing an altercation coming from the home shortly before the gunshots rang out.

What’s next:

Detectives are continuing to investigate the incident. No formal charges have been announced.

Liberalizing concealed carry laws won’t lead to a return to the Wild West – though it wouldn’t be bad if it did. … in 19th Century cattle towns, homicide was confined to transient males who shot each other in saloon disturbances. The per capital robbery rate was 7% of modern New York City’s. The burglary rate was 1%. Rape was unknown. — David Kopel

Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated. I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential. I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it. —Elon Musk

The DOJ’s Surprising Response to two Machine Gun Cert Petitions

The United States typically does one of two things in response to a cert petition. It either files a short response in opposition that is either boilerplate, or it does not file a response. The end result is the same, the cert petition is denied.

In the case of Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher, Petitioner v. United States1 a justice (probably Justice Thomas) requested a response. The Question Presented to the Justices to decide is “Whether the federal statute that prohibits the possession of machineguns, 26 U.S.C. 584, violates the Second Amendment.”

Instead of the government’s typical boilerplate response saying that the petition should be denied, the government’s response was, in relevant part:

“Petitioner contends…that the federal statute prohibiting the possession of a machinegun, 18 U.S.C. 922(o), violates the Second Amendment. He requests…that this Court hold his petition for a writ of certiorari pending the resolution of Viramontes v. Cook County, cert. granted, No. 25-238 (June 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, cert. granted, No. 25-566 (June 30, 2026), which present the question whether bans on the possession of AR-15 rifles violate the Second Amendment. The government agrees that Viramontes and Grant could affect the proper disposition of this case and that the petition should accordingly be held pending the resolution of those cases.”

The other machine gun case is Jamaion Wilson, Petitioner v. United States.2 The two Questions Presented are:

“First, whether the Fifth Circuit’s continued reliance on Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2016) and refusal to require the government to prove a historical tradition of firearm regulation under this Court’s Second Amendment framework conflicts with N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)?

Second, should the Court hold this petition pending the outcome of Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), given lower courts’ determinations that for Second Amendment purposes, AR-15’s are indistinguishable from M16 machineguns?”

The government did not respond to the first question and waived any further response to the cert petition unless the Court requests a response.

To the best of my knowledge, the government has never before requested that a machine gun cert petition be held.

I have no doubt that the Supreme Court does not want to decide the questions presented. However, given that the government has asked the Court to hold the cases, they will be held. And once we have a decision in the two “assault rifle” ban cases next year, the Court will GVR the petitions, which is to say they will Grant the petitions, Vacate the decisions of the lower courts, and Remand them back to the lower courts for a do-over consistent with its decision in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgens.

Given that Fisher is out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wilson is out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit will do what it always does (reaffirm its prior decision) and the Fifth Circuit will conduct a good-faith rehearing of its prior decision.

Both petitions have been distributed to the Long Conference on September 28, 2026. A decision in Viramontes and Grant will likely be published in June of 2027.

DOJ Says Lawful Gun Owners Can Carry in Post Offices

For decades, gun owners have generally been told that carrying a firearm into a U.S. Post Office is illegal.

The Justice Department now says that isn’t what federal law actually says.

In a significant legal opinion issued August 12, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that federal law permits otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense inside post offices that are generally open to the public.

Even more importantly, DOJ concluded that the U.S. Postal Service cannot enforce its separate regulation that purports to ban firearms on postal property without a self-defense exception.

There are some important limitations here, and this isn’t the same thing as the Supreme Court striking down the post office gun ban. But this is a major change in the federal government’s position.

Continue reading “”

1945 –
Even after the Commander of the First Imperial Guards Division, Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori, is killed for refusing to join the conspirators, who then issue false orders in his name, an attempted coup d’état against the Japanese government fails by early morning, when the vast majority of the Imperial Guards remain loyal to Emperor Hirohito.
The leaders of the failed coup commit suicide.
After signing the surrender document the previous night, the Imperial War Minister, General Korechika Anami commits suicide by seppuku.
The recording of Hirohito’s surrender announcement –The Jewel Voice Broadcast– is aired as scheduled.

Plaintiffs in NFA Challenge Press DOJ for Clarification After Injunction Takes Effect

As of Thursday, certain people could buy suppressors and short-barreled long guns without a Form 1 from the ATF. While the tax stamp died, we still had to have those products registered with the feds to avoid breaking out in handcuffs. However, a federal court ruled that with the tax gone, the registration is unconstitutional, and a temporary stay in that ruling’s impact expired at midnight Wednesday. Thursday was a brand new world.

At least, it’s one on paper.Right now, no one seems to know precisely what the hell any of it means. The people covered are numerous, but the people who aren’t covered are also numerous. Some gun stores aren’t covered, but individuals are. Then there are affiliated groups that have an exemption because they’re affiliated with a plaintiff organization, even if they weren’t part.

In theory.

It’s all very confusing, and the Second Amendment Foundation, which is one of those plaintiff organizations, is asking the DOJ for some clarification.

From a press release:

The plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF, a challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) supported by Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), today submitted a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking clarity in the case after a judge last week ruled the remaining registration scheme under the NFA was unconstitutional.

Last week, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the remaining registration scheme for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any other weapons (AOW’s) and suppressors under the NFA is unconstitutional and gave the government one week from the date of the ruling to file a stay pending appeal. The government failed to meet the judge’s deadline, and the permanent injunction went into effect earlier this morning. It should be noted, however, that the government has 60 days from the date of judgment to file an appeal.

“We share in the liberty community’s excitement in the receipt of this permanent injunction, and that the government did not seek to have the initial stay extended,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “With the massive first step of having these elements of the NFA struck down now in hand, we need guidance from the government on all the details that will come with law-abiding Americans seeking to avail themselves of this injunction.

To better help educate anyone covered under the ruling, Plaintiffs and their counsel determined the best path forward was to ask the ATF and DOJ directly about how the government plans to comply with the court’s judgment. We’re hoping for a speedy response so the public can better understand how this ruling affects them.”

The letter asks for a response to five separate questions:

  1. Will the Government be providing guidance to regulated entities and individuals on how it plans to ensure compliance with the injunction?

  2. If the Government will be providing guidance, what form will it take, and when will it be provided?

  3. Does the Government intend to continue enforcing the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities or individuals who are not covered by the injunction?

  4. If so, what will the Government do to ensure that it does not seek to enforce the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities and individuals across the country who are covered by the injunction?

  5. If the injunction is later stayed, modified, dissolved, or otherwise made ineffective, how will the Government treat NFA items made or transferred while the injunction was in effect?

“Plaintiffs met with counsel over the course of the day and felt the best move for their members, supporters and the public at large is to ask direct questions to the government as it relates to the ruling,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s much better to get answers straight from the source than to rely on second- and third-hand information online. We’re hopeful we receive a quick response from the government so the public will be better educated on what is – and is not – allowed under the injunction.”

I mean, let’s be real for a moment. These are all valid questions, because if the government is going to keep enforcing these unconstitutional rules against people who aren’t part of particular organizations, that’s a problem.

A big one.

First, there is the constitutional issue here. We know that the court ruled the registration of these items as unconstitutional, and the fact that the DOJ didn’t appeal before the deadline at least hints that they agree on some level. They’re fine with allowing at least some people to avoid this enforcement. While it’s an objective standard, it’s still a case of enforcing laws that, on some level, the DOJ seems to know are unconstitutional.

Then we’ve got the logistics of this.

As it stands, there are a lot of organizations that are plaintiffs in this case, and a lot of other groups are affiliated with those organizations. I doubt anyone can keep track of who is covered and who isn’t, at least not off the top of their head. That’s going to create problems for dealers who are trying to figure out just who is covered and who isn’t.

For example, in a statement yesterday, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms noted:

CCRKBA is joined by FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals. Our case is supported by our sister organization, the Second Amendment Foundation.

“In plain language,” Gottlieb explained, “if you are a current CCRKBA member, this is a good reason to keep your membership from lapsing. If you join CCRKBA as a new member, you are automatically covered under the language in Judge Hendrix’s ruling.

“We filed this lawsuit last year because it was the right thing to do,” he recalled, “and the Justice Department’s decision to not pursue the case clearly underscores just how right we were.”

Seems simple enough, but as noted on Thursday, the NRA is affiliated with the Texas Rifle Association, but that doesn’t mean NRA members are automatically covered, too.

Then we have the issue of states. My home state of Georgia was party to this, so does everyone in Georgia enjoy the protection? Does every dealer?

And then we’ve got the question of what happens if things shift back to how they were on Wednesday. What happens if I throw a short-barreled upper and a suppressor on my AR lower today, but the DOJ appeals and wins? How will that be handled? I didn’t break the law, but the items aren’t registered, and I shouldn’t be forced to register them after the fact, but I also shouldn’t be punished for obeying the law.

There are a lot of questions, and we deserve answers for them so no one gets jammed up for doing what they legitimately believe is legal based on what we know.

DFW Airport Dumps Islamic Foot-Washing Station Plan After Abbott Pushback

The Dallas-Fort Worth Airport has reportedly scrapped plans to install Islamic footwashing stations, Fox News reported.

The news follows Texas Gov. Greg Abbott directing a review of state grants that operate airports in Texas after Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport reportedly planned to build ablution facilities for Islamic washing rituals.

Abbott posted on X.

“Government-owned airports cannot favor one religion over all others.

DFW plans to install Islamic wudu washing facilities are illegal. I’ve directed a review of all state grants to both airports for possible revocation, and referred DFW & IAH to USDOT for investigation.”

Abbott said he referred DFW and the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston to the Department of Transportation for investigation.

“That is illegal. Both airports are government-owned facilities.3 Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit government from facilitating this sort of discrimination. Just as the government cannot favor the secular over the sacred, it also cannot favor one religious view of the sacred over all others in our “pluralistic society.”

 DFW Airport Authority Letter FINAL  by  scott.mcclallen 

“DFW was in the process of evaluating an internal proposal to add a set of ablution washing stations on the pre-security side of Terminal D, the international terminal. Like all proposed projects, the airport ultimately considers the operational benefits, customer service impacts, operational risks and costs before approving them,” the airport told Fox News.