Gregory Kielma • November 23, 2023
Boy This is One Mad Judge
Federal Judge: There’s No Constitutional Right to Buy a Gun
By TTAG Contributor -November 22, 202387
From the NRA-ILA
Honest people can disagree with the Founders’ decision to enshrine the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights. They cannot, however, pretend that decision never happened. For much of the 20th Century, however, gun control activists tried to convince the public that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” had nothing to do with the right of individuals to keep and carry guns for their own self-protection.
That charade – never convincing to anyone who could read – has been debunked by the U.S. Supreme Court no less than four times in the last 15 years. But Second Amendment denialism remains an active strain of the firearm prohibition effort, as demonstrated by a federal judge in Colorado who ruled last week that whatever the provision means, it does not include the right to buy a gun
That decision came in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenged Colorado’s three day waiting period for firearm purchases. Proponents of the law undoubtedly knew it was in trouble after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified how lower courts are to analyze challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment.
Bruen stated: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This test likely spells doom for Colorado’s waiting period, as laws of that type were completely unknown to the generation that adopted the Second Amendment.
Faced with this reality, Judge John L. Kane – appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1977 – decided to stretch reason to the breaking point by deciding the right to possess a firearm doesn’t include the right to acquire one.
The court began its analysis by acknowledging that the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller meant “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But then Judge Kane went on to insist: “purchase and delivery are one means of creating the opportunity to ‘have weapons.’ The relevant question is whether the plain text covers that specific means. It does not.”
Oregon gun store counter assault rifle AR-15
According to this “reasoning,” a state could completely ban the sale and delivery of firearms without implicating the Second Amendment. This would imply a right to have something, but not to obtain it through the most obvious and ordinary means.
Of course, it’s true that the Second Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving guns. But it’s also true the First Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving newspapers. Nevertheless, any judge insisting a ban on newspaper sales would not implicate the First Amendment prohibition on “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” would in doing so disgrace himself and ruin his professional and intellectual credibility.
Perhaps recognizing this, Judge Kane hedged his bets by offering a number of alternative theories about why Colorado’s waiting period did not infringe the Second Amendment.
First, he theorized, “Even if purchasing a firearm could be read into the terms ‘keep’ or ‘bear,’ receipt of a firearm without any delay could not be, as the Founders would not have expected instant, widespread availability of the firearm of their choice.” Judge Kane attempted to bolster this argument by pointing to “expert” testimony that indicated firearm purchases at the time of the founding were not as convenient, prompt, or accessible as they are today.
But even these “experts” acknowledged this was because technology, production, and marketing were circumstantially more primitive in those days, not because legislators made a deliberate choice to delay firearm purchases. Of course, virtually nothing that involved the delivery of a good was as efficient and accessible to the founding generation as it is in modern times. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that it will not tolerate “frivolous” arguments that 18th Century technological limitations delineate the scope of constitutional rights in the present day, including in a Second Amendment case that dealt with stun guns.
Next, Judge Kane pointed to language in Heller that he claimed rendered “presumptively lawful” any regulation on “the conditions or qualifications” of the “commercial sale of firearms.” He then argued: “Colorado’s Waiting-Period Act regulates only the sale, and specifically sellers, of firearms. … The Act does not apply to anyone who does not ‘sell a firearm.’”
Putting aside the fact that the disputed issues in Heller had nothing to do with firearm sales, much less mandatory waiting periods, Judge Kane was again resorting to frivolous formalism in attempting to stake his reasoning on the distinction between sellers and purchasers. Colorado’s waiting period imposes an arbitrary and de facto impediment on the purchase of guns, thereby implicating the rights of buyers at least as much as sellers.
Dragonmans gun store range
Returning to the First Amendment, no one would take seriously an argument that a person’s First Amendment right to access information was not implicated just because a particular restraint applied to a publisher or bookseller and not the reader himself.
Meanwhile, the language Judge Kane invoked to argue the Supreme Court allows firearm sales to be regulated cuts against his primary ruling by suggesting the Supreme Court considers such sales as the default starting point under the Second Amendment.
But Judge Kane wasn’t finished, and proposed yet another reason why Colorado’s waiting period is consistent with the Second Amendment, even if he were wrong about everything else.
Again, while acknowledging – as the parties themselves agreed – that waiting periods for firearm purchases were unknown in American law until well into the 20th Century, he still found them consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This was because, he said, “our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” and “the Waiting-Period Act and the intoxication laws both work to prevent individuals in a temporary impulsive state from irresponsibly using a firearm.”
Judge Kane was dismissive of plaintiffs’ attempts to point out the obvious distinction that intoxication speaks to the condition of a particular individual in a particular moment, while the waiting period broadly applies to firearm sales generally, regardless of the buyer’s condition or state of mind. His response to this fundamental difference was that the intoxication laws affected all intoxicated persons, some of whom also might not have behaved irresponsibly with a firearm.
Judge Kane’s final gambit was to suggest that the Supreme Court had indicated a general openness to shall-issue licensing schemes for carrying firearms, so long as they were not directed to “abusive ends.” This, he said, was analogous to the waiting period, because both require a “defined requirement” to be met before exercise of the right, and plaintiffs had not proven the waiting period was abusive.
Judge Kane offered no limiting principles for what sorts of laws purportedly aimed at impulsive or irresponsible behavior or that imposed “defined requirements” prior to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms might be permissible under the Second Amendment. But it’s difficult to understand how his reasoning would be distinguishable from the “interest-balancing” the Supreme Court specifically rejected in Bruen, which likewise focused on why the government purported to be acting, not on whether such actions were well-established in American history.
There is perhaps no legal rule so clear and unequivocal that it cannot be purposely misconstrued by a judge who is more interested in his preferred outcome than in actually following the law. But if the Polis case shows anything about Bruen’s historical test, it’s that it makes spotting such judges easier than ever.
This article originally appeared at nraila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
Welcome to My New Outdoor Firearms Range: A Place Built for Learning, Safety, and Confidence Gregg Kielma 03/087/2026 Opening a new firearms range isn’t just about building a place to shoot—it’s about creating an environment where people feel safe, supported, and genuinely empowered. That’s exactly what I set out to do with my outdoor range here in Parrish, Florida. Set on a quiet stretch of farm pasture, the private range offers a calm, rural backdrop that helps students focus, breathe, and learn without pressure or distraction. This space was designed with purpose. Every lane, every berm, every piece of equipment reflects my commitment to responsible firearm ownership and high quality instruction. Whether someone is touching a firearm for the first time or refining advanced skills, the range gives them room to grow at their own pace. What makes this range special isn’t just the setting—it’s the philosophy behind it. My teaching approach centers on safety, avoidance, and sound decision making. Students learn not only how to shoot, but how to think, evaluate, and stay in control. The goal is always the same: build confidence through competence. The outdoor environment also allows for more realistic, practical training. Students experience natural light, real-world conditions, and the kind of spatial awareness that simply can’t be replicated indoors. It’s a place where people can slow down, ask questions, and get hands on guidance tailored to their needs. Most importantly, this range is personal. It’s built on my belief that education saves lives, that responsible ownership matters, and that every student deserves a safe, welcoming place to learn. I’m proud to open these gates to the community and look forward to helping more people become confident, capable, and responsible firearm owners. If you’re ready to train in a supportive environment that puts safety and skill first, I’d be honored to work with you. Gregg Kielma
Florida Marijuana Laws & Firearm Ownership (2026) Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training & Firearms 03/08/2026 As a firearms instructor in Florida, I spend a lot of time helping people understand the law—not the rumors, not the social media myths, but the real legal landscape. One of the most confusing areas today is the intersection of marijuana use and firearm ownership. Florida allows medical marijuana, and recreational legalization efforts continue to gain traction, but federal law has not caught up. That creates a legal conflict every responsible gun owner needs to understand. Florida Law vs. Federal Law: The Core Conflict Florida’s medical marijuana program is fully legal under state law. Nothing in Florida statutes prohibits a medical marijuana patient from owning or possessing a firearm. But federal law is a different story. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” is prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm. Marijuana—whether medical or recreational—remains illegal federally, even with recent federal discussions about rescheduling. A January 2026 legal analysis confirms that even if marijuana is moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, the federal firearm prohibition still applies unless Congress changes the law. Recent Court Rulings: Progress, But Not Final Florida saw major movement in 2025 when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that medical marijuana patients may have a valid Second Amendment claim to own firearms. This was a significant step forward for patients’ rights. However, the ruling did not eliminate the federal prohibition. The case may still reach the Supreme Court, and until a final nationwide decision is issued, the federal ban technically remains in place. What This Means for Florida Gun Owners in 2026 1. Purchasing a Firearm Anyone buying a firearm from an FFL must complete ATF Form 4473. The form directly asks whether the buyer uses marijuana. • Answering “yes” results in a denied purchase. • Answering “no” while using marijuana is a federal felony. • The form explicitly states that marijuana is illegal federally regardless of state law. 2. Possessing a Firearm Florida law does not prohibit medical marijuana patients from possessing firearms. Federal law still technically does. In practice, §922(g)(3) is usually enforced when another crime is involved, but the risk remains. 3. Recreational Marijuana Efforts Florida’s push for recreational legalization continues, with a revised initiative aimed at the 2026 ballot. Even if recreational marijuana becomes legal in Florida, federal firearm restrictions would still apply unless federal law changes. My Professional Guidance as a Firearms Instructor At Tactical K Training and Firearms I teach that responsible ownership starts with understanding the law as it exists today—not how we wish it worked. Here’s my advice to students and clients: • Do not lie on Form 4473. • Understand that state legality does not override federal firearm law. • Stay informed—the legal landscape is shifting, and court decisions in the next few years may finally resolve this conflict. • If you are a medical marijuana patient, be cautious about purchasing or possessing firearms until federal law or the courts provide clear, final guidance. Kielma's Parting Shot • Florida allows medical marijuana and does not restrict firearm ownership for patients. • Federal law still prohibits marijuana users from possessing or purchasing firearms. • Court rulings in 2025–2026 show momentum toward restoring gun rights for medical marijuana patients, but nothing is final yet. • Recreational legalization efforts for 2026 do not change federal firearm rules. • Responsible gun owners should stay informed and avoid federal violations. Gregg Kielma
Domestic Violence and Firearms in Florida By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training & Firearms 03/08/2026 Domestic violence is one of the most dangerous and unpredictable situations a family can face. As a firearms instructor, I emphasize that responsible gun ownership is rooted in safety, legality, and prevention. Understanding how Florida and federal law treat firearms in domestic violence cases is essential for every gun owner in our state. Why Domestic Violence and Firearms Matter Domestic violence incidents are emotionally charged, fast moving, and often escalate without warning. When firearms are present, the risk of serious injury or death increases dramatically. Florida lawmakers have recognized this reality, and in recent years the state has moved toward stronger protections for victims — including clearer rules on firearm surrender when a court issues a protective injunction. Federal Law: Firearm Prohibitions in Domestic Violence Cases Under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), a person is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition if they are subject to a qualifying protection order. This applies when: • The order was issued after a hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard • The protected party is an intimate partner (spouse, former spouse, co parent, or cohabitant) • The order includes language restraining threats, harassment, or violence Federal law also prohibits possession after a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction. These federal restrictions apply in Florida regardless of state statutes. Florida Law Today Florida historically did not require officers to remove firearms at the scene of a domestic violence incident, nor did it have a state level prohibition for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Instead, Florida relied heavily on federal law and background checks to prevent prohibited persons from purchasing firearms. However, the landscape is changing. New for 2026: HB 729 — Mandatory Firearm Surrender After a Final Injunction Florida’s 2026 legislative session introduced HB 729, a major step toward strengthening victim safety. Under this bill: • When a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence is issued, the respondent must surrender all firearms, ammunition, and concealed carry licenses to local law enforcement. • Law enforcement agencies must create standardized procedures for collecting, documenting, storing, and returning firearms. • Firearms may be transferred to a third party if the respondent chooses. • Firearms are returned only when the injunction is vacated or expires. • Penalties increase for repeat violations of protective injunctions. This bill was filed in response to real tragedies where abusers ignored court orders to surrender firearms, with deadly consequences. HB 729 aims to close that enforcement gap. Other Domestic Violence Reform Efforts in Florida Florida’s 2026 legislative session has seen a surge of domestic violence–related bills, reflecting rising concern statewide. Lawmakers are considering: • Electronic monitoring for high risk offenders • Enhanced penalties for violating injunctions • Address confidentiality protections for victims • Improved enforcement mechanisms for protective orders Advocates describe domestic violence in Florida as a “deadly epidemic,” and these reforms aim to reduce repeat victimization and improve early intervention. What This Means for Florida Gun Owners As responsible firearm owners, we must understand: 1. A domestic violence injunction can immediately affect firearm rights. Even temporary orders may restrict possession under federal law. 2. Final injunctions now trigger mandatory firearm surrender under HB 729. This is a major shift in Florida’s enforcement structure. 3. Violating an injunction — including firearm possession — carries serious criminal penalties. 4. Firearm rights may be restored only after the injunction is lifted and all legal conditions are met. 🔹 My Perspective as an Instructor At Tactical K Training and Firearms, I teach that firearms are tools of defense — not intimidation, anger, or control. Domestic violence is never a “private matter.” It’s a public safety issue, and the law reflects that. If you or someone you know is navigating a domestic violence situation, firearms must be handled with extreme caution and full legal compliance. Safety comes first, always. Kielma’s Parting Shot Domestic violence and firearms intersect at one of the most critical points of personal safety. Florida’s evolving laws — especially HB 729 — show a clear trend toward stronger protections and clearer enforcement. As gun owners, we have a responsibility to stay informed, stay compliant, and promote a culture of safety and respect.
Why a Convicted Felon Cannot Legally Own a Firearm By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training and Firearms 03/08/2026 Firearm ownership in the United States is both a constitutional right and a serious personal responsibility. With that responsibility comes a clear legal framework designed to keep firearms in the hands of safe, lawful, and responsible citizens. One of the most important parts of that framework is the federal prohibition on firearm possession by individuals convicted of certain crimes—most commonly, felonies. Understanding why a convicted felon cannot legally own or possess a firearm helps every gun owner appreciate the balance between individual rights and public safety. The Legal Foundation: Federal Law Is Clear Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison—what we commonly call a felony—is prohibited from: • Possessing a firearm • Purchasing a firearm • Receiving a firearm • Transporting a firearm This applies to all firearms, whether modern or antique, and includes ammunition as well. The law is strict, and violations are aggressively prosecuted. A felon found in possession of a firearm can face up to 10 years in federal prison, with even harsher penalties if the offense involves violence, drugs, or prior convictions. Why the Law Exists The purpose of this prohibition is straightforward: to reduce the risk of future violence and protect the public. Felony convictions typically involve conduct that demonstrates a disregard for the law or a threat to community safety. By restricting firearm access, federal law aims to: • Prevent repeat violent offenses • Reduce gun-related crime • Maintain safer communities • Ensure firearms remain in responsible hands This isn’t about punishing someone forever—it’s about preventing foreseeable harm. Firearm Ownership Requires Trust Owning a firearm is not just a right; it’s a privilege earned through responsible behavior. Lawful gun owners demonstrate: • Respect for the law • Safe handling and storage • Sound judgment under stress • A commitment to protecting—not endangering—others A felony conviction breaks that trust in the eyes of the law. Until that trust is restored through legal channels, firearm possession remains off-limits. Restoration of Rights: It Is Possible While federal law prohibits felons from possessing firearms, some individuals can have their rights restored through: • A full pardon • Expungement • Restoration of civil rights by the state where the conviction occurred However, this process is complex, varies by state, and must be completed before any firearm possession becomes legal. Attempting to “guess” or assume rights have been restored is dangerous—one mistake can lead to a federal felony. Anyone seeking restoration should consult a qualified attorney who specializes in firearms law. Why This Matters for Responsible Gun Owners Understanding these laws protects you as well. As a lawful gun owner, you must avoid: • Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person • Allowing a prohibited person access to your firearms • Storing firearms in a way that a prohibited person could reasonably access them Even accidental violations can carry serious consequences. Kielma’s Parting Shot: A Commitment to Safety and Responsibility At Tactical K Training and Firearms, we emphasize that responsible ownership begins with knowledge. Knowing who can—and cannot—legally possess a firearm is part of that responsibility. These laws aren’t meant to punish; they’re meant to protect. They help ensure that firearms remain tools of defense, sport, and personal empowerment—not instruments of further harm. Responsible gun owners stay informed, stay compliant, and stay committed to safety. That’s the standard we uphold, and the standard we teach. Gregg Kielma
Plains man sentenced to 7 years in prison for illegal firearm possession Thursday, March 5, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Montana MISSOULA – A Plains man who was prohibited from owning firearms was sentenced today to 84 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release, Acting U.S. Attorney Tim Racicot said. Graham Anthony Bowden, 49, pleaded guilty in November 2025 to one count of prohibited person in possession of a firearm and two counts of possession of an unregistered silencer. U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy presided. The government alleged in court documents that in the fall of 2024, law enforcement officers encountered Bowden in several instances in which they either observed him to be armed with a firearm or with firearms accessories. Based in part on those incidents, a federal search warrant was obtained to search Bowden’s residence, which was a camper parked on the property of Bowden’s friend. Also on the property was a freestanding home belonging to Bowden’s friend. Agents located eight firearms belonging to Bowden, along with two silencers and assorted ammunition. Law enforcement interviewed Bowden and he admitted he owned the firearms had been meaning to register them. Bowden acknowledged he had signed paperwork related to his California convictions that prohibited him from possessing firearms but said he thought his rights had been automatically restored at some point. Bowden produced no paperwork to support that assertion. Bowden also admitted to possessing the two silencers, saying one came with a firearm he purchased and that the other was a blank. Bowden said he didn’t know suppressors were federally controlled and needed to be registered. The silencers were not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. On January 6, 2012, Bowden was convicted of six counts of robbery in the second degree with a firearms enhancement in Orange County Superior Court of California and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was paroled from custody in 2020. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Lowney prosecuted the case. The ATF, Plains Police Department, and Sanders County Sheriff’s Department conducted the investigation. Contact Keri Leggett Acting Public Affairs Officer keri.leggett@usdoj.gov
Convicted Felon with a Machinegun and Fentanyl Pleads Guilty Wednesday, March 4, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Georgia MACON, Ga. – A Georgia man with prior drug convictions admitted he was intending to distribute fentanyl and other drugs when officers found him illegally in possession of three firearms, including a machinegun. Rodricas Montreal Jacks, 39, of Sparta, Georgia, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon before U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell on March 3. Jacks is facing a maximum of 15 years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for June 2. There is no parole in the federal system. “Repeat felony offenders possessing the most dangerous weapons and distributing the deadliest drugs in our communities will be held accountable at the federal level, where there is no parole,” said U.S. Attorney William R. “Will” Keyes. “We appreciate the dedication of our law enforcement partners to make our communities safer for all residents and working with us to ensure justice.” According to court documents and statements referenced in court, Jacks was on probation for a felony drug distribution conviction when he failed to comply with his community service as directed by the Court and failed two drug tests. As a result, law enforcement conducted a search of his residence on Nov. 3, 2022, and found a machinegun plus two firearms in the house, including a firearm that was stolen. Officers also located fentanyl and marijuana, which he intended to distribute, along with multiple digital scales, small plastic bags and a large amount of cash. Officers also discovered suspected crack inside his car. This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. The Georgia Department of Community Supervision investigated the case with assistance from the Ocmulgee Drug Task Force and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Assistant U.S. Attorney Hannah Couch is prosecuting the case for the Government.
Want a machine gun? These states might soon make buying one easier Joseph MacKinnon March 06, 2026 Lawmakers in West Virginia and Kentucky have introduced bills that would enable state police departments to procure and sell machine guns. Republican lawmakers in West Virginia and Kentucky are working on making it easier for Americans to acquire fully automatic firearms — a move that might catch on in other red states. Machine guns — defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as a firearm that can fire "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" — are heavily regulated in the United States. While such weapons can be privately owned, Americans are greatly limited in what they can buy and must jump through numerous hoops to seal the deal. 'This is our constitutional right.' Per the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, civilians are barred from possessing a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986. Limited supply means a higher price — Silencer Central says that prospective buyers should expect to spend a minimum of $6,000 to $10,000. Interested American buyers at least 21 years of age, neither a felon nor a fugitive, and living in a state without a machine gun ban must pass an AFT background check, pay a one-time $200 transfer tax, and get approval from the government in order to take possession. Once those hurdles are cleared, they can take the machine gun home but fire it only on closed target ranges. In West Virginia, Republican state Sens. Chris Rose and Zack Maynard recently introduced legislation that would establish within the West Virginia State Police an office of public defense that would oversee the procurement and sale of machine guns to "qualified members of the public," namely any citizen presently eligible to purchase and possess firearms under West Virginia and federal law. The Cowboy State Daily reported that the new office would be authorized to transfer newer machine guns to state residents. Blaze News and Tactical K Training and Firearms has reached out to state Sen. Rose for clarification about whether out-of-state American citizens would be able to acquire a machine gun from the proposed authority.
DOJ Pam Bondi Scranton Man Sentenced To 12 Years For Possession Of A Machine Gun Tuesday, February 24, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Naim Mustafa House, age 28, of Scranton, Pennsylvania, was sentenced on February 24, 2026, to 144 months’ imprisonment by United States District Judge Karoline Mehalchick for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a machine gun. According to United States Attorney Brian D. Miller, on July 8, 2024, Scranton Police Officers initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle that House was a passenger. House fled on foot and was found hiding under a rear porch of a residence. During a search incident to arrest, police found marijuana packed for resale on his person and inside his backpack found 30 additional grams of marijuana and a Glock 7, 9mm handgun equipped with a device to transition the firearm from a semiautomatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm. The firearm also had an extended magazine containing 10 rounds of ammunition. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Scranton Police Department investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorney Jenny P. Roberts prosecuted the case.
Brazilian National Unlawfully in the United States Sentenced for Selling 14 Firearms Without a License Thursday, February 26, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Massachusetts Defendant sold AR-15 style rifles and large capacity magazines BOSTON – A Brazilian national unlawfully residing in Worcester has been sentenced to prison for selling firearms without a license. Joao Vitor Dos Santos Goncalves Pimenta, 21, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Richard G. Stearns to 27 months in prison. The defendant is subject to deportation upon completion of the imposed sentence. In August 2025, Goncalves Pimenta pleaded guilty to one count of engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license. Between July and September 2024, Goncalves Pimenta sold 14 firearms without the required license in exchange for cash. The firearms included pistols and AR-15-style rifles and large capacity magazines. United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Thomas Greco, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Boston Field Division; Michael J. Krol, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in New England; and Patricia H. Hyde, Acting Field Office Director, Boston, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations made the announcement today. Valuable assistance was provided by the Massachusetts State Police and the Revere Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael J. Crowley and John Reynolds of the Organized Crime & Gang Unit prosecuted the case
Gregg Kielma A Message of Gratitude Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms 2/28/2026 To everyone, my friends, family and new friends that do not know me, who have never known me and trusted me with your firearms training—thank you. To show my appreciation, I am having a pig roast at my outdoor range where you trained. The new range is located at the same location and will be ready for use in April. NOTE: I have to count on the front-end loader company to show up. The date of the pig roast will be in the early part of May. Please keep checking back to the website for more information or feel free to call me. Whether you were brand new to shooting, sharpening advanced skills, training with family, or preparing for real world responsibility, you chose to spend your time with me on the range. That trust is something I never take lightly. Every class, every question, every moment of growth reminds me why I do this. You’ve helped build a community centered on safety, responsibility, and confidence—and I’m grateful for every one of you. Thank you for attending. Thank you for learning. Thank you for trusting me with something so important. I’m honored to be part of your journey. More training, more growth, and more safe, responsible gun ownership ahead. Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms 941 737-6956
