Gregory Kielma • August 5, 2024
Courts Attack Second Amendment, Right to Buy Firearms
Courts Attack Second Amendment, Right to Buy Firearms
By
Larry Keane
There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruentest is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.” Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.
That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.
Right to Buy
The most recent example comes from New Mexico, where a federal district court judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the state’s seven-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the “ancillary right to acquire firearms.”
That might come as news to an individual facing imminent threat to their safety or even their life. A woman who is the victim of domestic violence who considers purchasing a firearm to protect herself and her family could argue that the state’s seven-day waiting period is a seven-day ban on her ability to lawfully keep and bear arms when she knows there’s a threat to her life.
That wasn’t the worst of it. The same judge concluded that the waiting-period law is presumptively constitutional” given that the first waiting period laws were enacted in the 1920s – long after U.S. Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment adopted. The judge even pointed to past, discriminatory laws that restricted the sale of firearms to slaves, freedmen and Native Americans. It is astonishing that a federal judge relied on racist laws that have been repudiated by the courts and American society to justify a gun control law.
However, that’s not what the Supreme Court held in the Bruen decision. That test, the Court said, is that gun control laws must have a “history and tradition” consistent with when the Second Amendment was signed into law in 1791 at the nation’s founding.
Court Concerns
It would be tempting to dismiss this judge’s decision as a “one-off” aberration. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. A 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explicitly said that there is no Second Amendment right to purchase a second handgun within a 90-day window of purchasing a previous handgun.
“The question thus becomes whether a waiting period before the purchase of a second handgun is conduct covered by the text of the Second Amendment. It is not,” the court ruled in its opinion of Knight v. City of New York.
What the court is saying is that the government can ration the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right, in this case, to just once every 90 days. This would be unthinkable if a court ruled that a law-abiding American could only exercise their rights to free speech or attend a church, mosque of synagogue of their choosing every three months. The federal court here is relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right, that Justice Clarence Thomas has warned about.
That line of thinking wasn’t limited to New York. The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont upheld the state’s waiting-period law, in Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs v. Birmingham this year, by claiming there’s no Second Amendment right to legally purchasing a firearm.
“The Court finds that the relevant conduct – acquiring a firearm through a commercial transaction on-demand – is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” wrote Judge William Sessions III. He quizzically added, “Plaintiffs may keep and bear arms without immediately acquiring them.”
That defies logic. It is impossible to legally keep and bear anything without the ability to lawfully purchase it first.
In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled against Rocky Mountain Gun Owners seeking to enjoin a three-day-waiting period law signed by Gov. Jared Polis. In this decision, the federal court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t explicitly say anything about legally acquiring a firearm.
“From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period – the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay – is not covered,” the decision reads, adding, “To ‘keep,’ under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, ‘having weapons’ indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.”
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in 2023 in U.S. v. King that there is no right to buy and sell firearms. In fact, Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. clearly states that it is a factor he didn’t – and wouldn’t – consider, writing, “…the Court looks at the Second Amendment’s plain text; it does not consider ‘implicit’ rights that may be lurking beneath the surface of the plain text.”
“Even if the Court assumed that there is an implicit right in the Second Amendment to buy and sell firearms in order to keep and bear arms, that is not the same thing as a right to buy and sell firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms,” Judge Leeson wrote. “In other words, the Second Amendment does not protect the commercial dealing of firearms.” Of course, while Heller said commercial regulations could be presumptively valid, it never suggested that the buying and selling of commonly used “arms” could be banned.
Governors Knew in 2020
Juxtapose that with governors who, just four years ago, quickly reversed their policies to order firearm retailers to close their doors during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. New Jersey’s Gov. Phil Murphy reversed course from his initial ordering of gun stores to be closed. He recognized that denying the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain a firearm is denying them the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Pennsylvania’s former Gov. Tom Wolf did the same, even after Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court denied a challenge to the order. The quiet about-face was in light of what could have become a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.
A federal judge ordered former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to allow firearm retailers there to reopen. The judge ordering the injunction wrote, “The exigencies surrounding this viral pandemic both justify and necessitate changes in the manner in which people live their lives and conduct their daily business. However, this emergency – like any other emergency – has its constitutional limits. It would not justify a prior restraint on speech, nor a suspension of the right to vote. Just the same, it does not justify a ban on obtaining guns and ammunition.”
Divorcing the right to freely approach the gun counter at a firearm retailer and the right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous slope. Firearms are legal products, available for anyone to freely purchase who is over the age of 18 for long guns or 21 for handguns, provided that individual is purchasing the firearm for him or herself and can pass the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Conditioning that right – whether through waiting periods which are an attempt to delay the exercise of that right – or by unmooring the right to legally purchase a firearm is a violation of the rights that belong to the people.
Imagine a court ruling that the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to buy a book. Or a law that said you can only buy a newspaper after waiting seven days. Or a law that limits how many books you can buy in a month. Or a law in which the government decides which books you are allowed to buy and read? Obviously, no one would tolerate such laws. So why is it acceptable for Second Amendment rights? The answer, sadly, is that despite the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions, because some legislative bodies and judges treat the Second Amendment as a “second class right.”
Why Some Virginia Lawmakers Push for Strict Gun Laws and Bans By Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms 01-19-2026 Debates over firearm legislation in Virginia have intensified in recent years, with several lawmakers proposing sweeping restrictions on gun ownership, magazine capacity, and permitting requirements. While these proposals are controversial and often opposed by responsible gun owners, it’s important to understand the motivations driving them. Knowing the “why” behind these efforts helps gun owners stay informed, engaged, and prepared to advocate for their rights. 1. Rising Concerns About Public Safety and Gun Violence Many Virginia legislators argue that stricter gun laws are necessary to address concerns about public safety. Bills such as SB1109, introduced in 2025, aim to tighten handgun purchase regulations and expand background checks, reflecting a belief that limiting access will reduce misuse. Supporters claim these measures are intended to prevent firearms from falling into the hands of individuals who may pose a risk. 2. A Push for More Comprehensive Vetting Several proposals focus on expanding the vetting process for firearm permits. These include: • Mandatory fingerprinting • More extensive background checks • Reviews of criminal history and mental health records These measures are framed as efforts to ensure only “qualified” individuals can obtain permits. While many responsible gun owners already exceed these standards through training and safe practices, lawmakers argue that uniform statewide requirements are necessary. 3. Influence of Gun Control Advocacy Groups Organizations that support firearm restrictions have become increasingly active in Virginia. Groups promoting “evidence based” gun violence prevention policies advocate for licensing systems, storage mandates, and magazine bans as ways to reduce crime and accidental shootings. Their messaging often influences legislative priorities, especially in districts where voters favor tighter regulations. 4. Political Shifts in Key Regions Urban and suburban areas of Virginia — particularly Northern Virginia — have grown rapidly and tend to elect representatives who support stricter gun laws. These lawmakers often cite constituent pressure to pass bans on certain firearms or accessories, such as the proposed magazine ban highlighted in recent legislative discussions. 5. A Belief That Restrictions Will Reduce Crime Some legislators believe that limiting access to certain firearms or magazines will reduce violent crime. For example, proposals to raise penalties for violent offenders using firearms are framed as crime reduction strategies. While critics argue that these laws target lawful gun owners instead of criminals, supporters maintain that restrictions are part of a broader public safety strategy. Kielma’s Parting Shot Virginia’s push for strict gun laws is driven by a combination of political pressure, advocacy influence, public safety concerns, and shifting demographics. Whether or not these laws are effective is a separate debate — but understanding the motivations behind them helps responsible gun owners stay informed and engaged. Gregg Kielma
Outside The Waste Band Holster. Open Carry Understanding Brandishing or Improperly Exposing a Firearm By Gregg Kielma_ Tactical K Training and Firearms 01/19/2026 I always field questions during training classes about brandishing a firearm in public, what are the consequences and how will it impact my life, my career or my family’s life? Let’s take a LOOK: My Thoughts Brandishing — or improperly exposing a firearm — is one of the most misunderstood areas of firearms law. Many gun owners assume that if they don’t point a gun at someone, they’re safe from legal trouble. The law takes a much broader view. Knowing what qualifies as brandishing is essential for every responsible gun owner. What “Brandishing” Actually Means Across most jurisdictions, brandishing refers to displaying a firearm in a threatening, intimidating, or aggressive manner. Importantly, the firearm does not need to be pointed at anyone for the act to be considered brandishing. According to legal sources: Even unintentional exposure can lead to accusations if someone feels threatened. • Brandishing is the act of displaying a firearm “to intimidate, threaten, or cause fear in another person”. • It includes “displaying, waving, or showing a weapon in a manner that is threatening or intended to intimidate”. • The key elements often include: o Another person is present o The display is aggressive or alarming o The intent (or perceived intent) is to cause fear What Brandishing Is Not: Context matters — and perception matters even more. If a reasonable person would feel threatened, the situation can escalate quickly. • Simply carrying a firearm in a lawful manner • Printing or accidental brief exposure while concealed carrying • Displaying a firearm in a non-threatening context (e.g., holstering at a range, cleaning at home) Potential Legal Consequences Brandishing is treated as a serious offense because of its potential to escalate into violence, even when no shot is fired. Depending on the state and circumstances, consequences may include: Criminal Charges • Misdemeanor or felony charges • Arrest and potential jail time • Heavy fines Loss of Firearm Rights • Suspension or revocation of concealed carry permits • Possible long-term loss of firearm ownership rights Civil Liability • Lawsuits from individuals who felt threatened • Financial damages for emotional distress or other claims Long-Term Impact • Criminal record • Loss of employment opportunities • Damage to reputation and credibility Why This Matters for Responsible Gun Owners I teach in my classes responsible firearm ownership and marksmanship, it matters. It’s about judgment, restraint, and understanding the law. Brandishing charges often arise from emotional reactions, poor decision-making, or misunderstandings that could have been avoided with proper training. A responsible gun owner should always: • Keep the firearm concealed unless legally justified to draw • Avoid escalating confrontations • Understand state-specific laws • Prioritize de-escalation, avoid, escape and as a last resort defend. Be the reasonable person. Always have a plan. Kielma’ Parting Shot Brandishing or improperly exposing a firearm is a serious legal matter with consequences that can follow a person for life. Education, awareness, and disciplined behavior are the best tools to prevent these situations. When gun owners understand the law and act responsibly, they protect not only themselves but the entire firearms community. Gregg Kielma
Wanda Kielma, Office Boss: A Life Defined by Strength, Service, and Steadfast Values Wanda Kielma i s a woman whose life reflects resilience, dedication, and a deep commitment to the people around her. Known for her unwavering work ethic and her ability to bring calm, order, and compassion into any environment, Wanda has earned the respect of colleagues, friends, and family alike. Raised with strong values and a clear sense of responsibility, Wanda built her reputation through decades of consistent service and leadership. Whether managing complex tasks, supporting others through challenges, or stepping into roles that demanded reliability and integrity, she has always been the person people could count on. Wanda’s professional life is marked by diligence and loyalty. She approaches every responsibility with a level of care that sets her apart—never cutting corners, never compromising her standards, and always putting people first. Her ability to balance firmness with kindness has made her a trusted presence in every setting she enters. Beyond her work, Wanda is the heart of her family . She is the steady voice of reason, the quiet force that keeps things moving forward, and the person who shows up—every time, without fail. Her strength is not loud or boastful; it’s the kind that’s built through years of perseverance, sacrifice, and love. Those who know Wanda describe her as grounded, dependable, and deeply principled. She leads not through titles or recognition, but through example. Her life is a reminder that true character is revealed in the everyday choices we make and the way we treat the people around us. In a world that often celebrates the flashy and the temporary, Wanda Kielma stands out for all the right reasons: her integrity, her humility, and her unwavering commitment to doing what’s right. Her legacy is one of quiet strength—and the countless lives she has touched along the way. Our God is Great Wanda Amen….Love you for everything you have done for the past 40 plus years....
Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms Who I Am and Why I Teach: A Personal Message from me, Gregg Kielma Owner of Tactical K Training and Firearms to You, My Family, Friends, Clients and Students Running Tactical K Training isn’t just a business for me — it’s a responsibility I take seriously. Every day, I meet people who want to become safer, more capable, and more confident in their own lives. My job is to give them the tools, the knowledge, and the mindset to do exactly that. I’ve spent years working with firearms, optics, equipment, and real-world defensive concepts. Over time, I’ve learned that skill alone isn’t enough. What matters most is judgment — knowing when to avoid, when to de-escalate, when to escape, and only as a last resort, how to defend yourself or your family. That philosophy guides everything I teach. My approach is simple: clear instruction, real world context, and respect for the responsibility that comes with firearm ownership. I don’t teach fantasy scenarios or “tactical cosplay.” I teach practical, lawful, life preserving skills that ordinary people can use under stress. Whether I’m helping someone mount their first optic, refine their dry fire routine, or understand Florida’s self-defense laws, my goal is always the same — empower them to make smart, safe decisions. I believe in building a community of responsible gun owners who value safety, education, and continuous improvement. That’s why I write articles, update my website, and stay engaged with students long after their class ends. Training isn’t a onetime event. It’s a mindset. If you train with me, you’ll get honesty, professionalism, and instruction tailored to your experience level. You’ll also get someone who genuinely cares about your growth and your safety. I’m proud of the work we do here, and I’m grateful for every student who trusts me to guide them. Stay safe, stay prepared, and keep learning. — Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training & Firearms
Tactical K Training and Firearms: Trust and Integrity What a Responsible FFL Dealer Looks Like: A Reflection on me Gregg Kielma, Tactical K Training and Firearms and How I Run My Business Gregg Kielma 01/18/2026 As someone who works closely with firearm owners, students, and members of our community, I’ve had the privilege of seeing firsthand what true responsibility in the firearms industry looks like. If you want an example of what a responsible Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer should be, you don’t have to look any further than Tactical K Training and Firearms and my staff. I don’t just hold an FFL — I embody the professionalism, integrity, and commitment to safety that the license represents. My Relentless Commitment to the Law One of the defining traits of a responsible FFL dealer is unwavering respect for federal, state, and local regulations. I approach compliance with the same seriousness I bring to every aspect of my work. We Always Ensure: • Every background check is completed thoroughly • Every form is accurate and properly maintained • Every ATF requirement is followed to the letter For myself, this isn’t about paperwork — it’s about protecting the community and upholding the trust placed in me as a licensed dealer. A Teacher at Heart: I’m a USCCA Firearms Instructor I understand that responsible firearm ownership begins with education. I don’t simply transfer firearms; I guide people through the process with patience, clarity, and genuine care. My clients understand: • Safe handling and storage • Legal responsibilities • Appropriate firearm selection • The importance of ongoing training I believe this approach ensures that every customer walks away not just with a firearm, but with the knowledge and confidence to own it responsibly. A Guardian of Community Safety As a responsible FFL dealer, I have to be very vigilant — and I take that responsibility seriously. I know the warning signs of straw purchases, suspicious behavior, and questionable intent. I’m not afraid to slow down, ask questions, or refuse a sale when something doesn’t feel right. That kind of integrity protects everyone. Professionalism You Can Trust As the owner of Tactical K Training and Firearms, we set a high standard in every part of our work. We value: • Honesty • Transparency • Respect • Secure handling and storage • Ethical business practices This professionalism builds trust — not just with clients, friends or family, but with the broader community that relies on responsible dealers to uphold the highest standards. A Positive Force in the Firearms Community When an FFL dealer operates with integrity, it strengthens the entire firearms ecosystem. My work supports lawful ownership, promotes education, and reinforces the culture of responsibility that keeps our communities safe. I’d like people to remember that the firearms industry is at its best when it is grounded in ethics, safety, and service. Gregg Kielma
Houston straw purchasing ring charged with smuggling firearms to North Korea Friday, January 9, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of Texas Alleged ringleader was illegal alien from China with expired U.S. visa HOUSTON – Seven people have been charged for their alleged roles in a firearms trafficking scheme, announced U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei. The indictment alleges Chinese national Shenghua Wen, 39, whose U.S. visa expired in 2013, served as the ringleader. He has now made his appearance in Houston federal court. Also charged are Chinese nationals Sifu Zhao, 24, Yiyang Wu, 40, and Mingtong Tan, 27, who all resided in Houston; Jin Yang, 60, Ontario, California; Max Mingze Li, 36, Houston; and Richard Arredondo, 51, a U.S. citizen who resided in Mexicali, Mexico. According to the indictment returned Oct. 8, 2025, Wen and his girlfriend, Yang, purchased a gun store and directed the purchase of specific firearms and their sale to straw purchasers, such as Zhao, Tan, Wu, Mingze Li, and Arredondo. Wu also allegedly recruited one straw purchaser into the ring and transported pistols to a second Houston gun dealer for sale to others. Between 2023 and 2024, the group obtained approximately 170 firearms and several thousand rounds of ammunition that were destined for North Korea, according to the indictment. The charges allege Wen recruited Zhao and Tan to act as straw purchasers. They, along with Mingze Li and Arredondo, allegedly bought firearms on Wen’s behalf. Some of the firearms were later transported to another Houston firearms dealer for resale to members of the ring, according to the charges. Wen and Yang are charged with conspiracy and conspiracy to commit firearms trafficking which carry respective terms of five and 15 years in prison, upon conviction. Wen could also receive an additional five years if convicted on any of the seven counts of aiding and abetting false statements to a federal firearms licensee. Mingze Li, Arrendondo, Wu, Zhao and Tan each face one count of conspiracy and varying counts of aiding and abetting false statements to a federal firearms licensee with possible five-year maximum terms of imprisonment on all counts, upon conviction. All charges also carry as possible punishment a maximum $250,000 fine. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted the investigation with assistance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Homeland Security Investigations and Houston Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorney John Ganz is prosecuting the case. An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct, not evidence. A defendant is presumed innocent unless convicted through due process of law. Updated January 9, 2026
Ohio Man Arrested and Charged for Firearms Dealing, Unlawful Possession of Firearms and Ammunition Wednesday, January 14, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Massachusetts BOSTON – An Ohio man has been arrested and charged in connection with multiple sales of firearms transported from Ohio to Massachusetts. Ruben Joel Sanchez Jr., 31, was charged with one count of engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license and one count of being a felon in possession of firearms and ammunition . Sanchez made an initial appearance in federal court in Boston on Jan. 9, 2026. According to the charging documents, beginning at least as early as June 2025 through January 2026, Sanchez engaged in the business of unlawful trafficking in firearms. In June 2025, Sanchez, who is not licensed to deal in firearms, sold three firearms to an individual in exchange for $4,000. On Jan. 8, 2026, Sanchez was recorded and observed selling four additional firearms to the same individual in return for $8,500. When Sanchez was arrested at the scene, an AR-style pistol equipped with a loaded, 100-round drum; a rifle equipped with a loaded, 100-round drum; a loaded pistol equipped with an extended magazine; and an additional loaded pistol were recovered. The charge of felon in possession of firearms and ammunition provides for a sentence of up to 15 years in prison, three of supervised release and a fine of up to $ 250,000. The charge of unlawful trafficking in firearms provides for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $ 250,000. Sentences are imposed by a federal district court judge based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and statutes which govern the determination of a sentence in a criminal case. United States Attorney Leah B. Foley and Thomas Greco, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorney Julissa Walsh of the Major Crimes Unit is prosecuting the case. The details contained in the charging documents are allegations. The defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. Updated January 14, 2026
9mm Hollow Point Ammo Hollow Point vs. Regular Range Ammo and How a Hollow Point Actually Works By Gregg Kielma 01/18/2026 New students often ask me about my everyday carry. I use a Glock 19 loaded with 9mm, 124-grain hollow points that I reload myself using new brass. I always keep one in the chamber for quick access. If needed when I take it out of its holster it’s ready to fire I do not have to rack the slide. This, in my opinion, saves me precious time. This is my plan, yours maybe different. Let’s Take a LOOK at range ammo and hollow points. These are my Thoughts. 1. What is a “regular range ammo round”? FMJ is inexpensive, reliable, and ideal for training. It’s not designed for controlled terminal performance. Most shooters mean FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) when they say, “range round.” FMJ bullets have: • A lead core fully enclosed in a copper jacket • A solid, rounded or pointed nose • Minimal or no expansion on impact • Straight-line penetration through soft targets 2. What is a Hollow point? This expansion round increases stopping effectiveness and reduces the risk of over penetration. A hollow point (HP) — often a Jacketed Hollow Point (JHP) — has: • A cavity or hollow opening in the nose of the bullet • A jacket engineered to peel back or mushroom • A design purposefully built for expansion on impact 3. How a hollow point works (simple explanation): This controlled expansion is why hollow points are the standard for self-defense and law enforcement When a hollow point strikes soft tissue: 1. Fluid enters the cavity in the nose. 2. Pressure forces the bullet’s jacket and lead core to expand outward. 3. The bullet mushrooms, creating: o A larger wound channel o More energy transfer o Reduced penetration depth compared to FMJ 4. Key differences Range Ammo Hollow Point (JHP) Nose Design Solid Hollow Cavity On impact Minimal expansion Expands/mushrooms Penetration Often over penetrates Controlled, reduced Best use Training, target shooting Self defense Cost Low Higher 5. Why some ranges restrict hollow points Some ranges — especially indoor facilities — limit hollow points due to: • Backstop wear concerns • Ricochet management • Local policy or insurance requirements
Maplewood Man Admits Selling Machine Gun Conversion Devices Wednesday, January 14, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Missouri ST. LOUIS – A man from Maplewood, Missouri on Wednesday admitted selling nine machine gun conversion devices to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Tanario Darden, 23, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court in St. Louis to two felony counts: transporting prohibited weapons without a license and transferring machine guns. He admitted using his Instagram account to offer machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) for sale. MCDs, also known as switches or auto sears, convert a semi-automatic firearm into fully automatic weapon. MCDs are defined as a machine gun under federal law. ATF agents learned of the Instagram account in the spring of 2024 and an undercover agent contacted Darden. After arranging the sale via Darden, an intermediary delivered two MCDs on April 29, 2024. A different man delivered seven more on May 29, 2024. Darden is scheduled to be sentenced on April 15. The transporting prohibited weapons charge carries a potential penalty of up to five years in prison. The machine gun charge carries a penalty of 10 years in prison. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Szczucinski is prosecuting the case. Contact Robert Patrick, Public Affairs Officer, robert.patrick@usdoj.gov. Updated January 14, 2026
Ponca City Man Convicted of Possession of Unregistered Short-Barreled Shotgun Thursday, January 15, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Oklahoma OKLAHOMA CITY – DOYLE GLEN WILSON, 59, of Ponca City, has been convicted by a federal jury of possession of an unregistered firearm, announced U.S. Attorney Robert J. Troester. On October 7, 2025, a federal grand jury charged Wilson with possession of an unregistered firearm. Testimony presented earlier this week at trial showed that on July 11, 2025, officers with the Ponca City Police Department executed a search warrant at Wilson’s home while searching for a short-barreled shotgun used in an assault. Officers located the shotgun in a closet. Under federal law, possession of a short-barreled shotgun requires that the firearm be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Wilson had not registered the short-barreled shotgun found in his residence. On January 14, 2026, a federal jury found Wilson guilty of illegally possessing an unregistered firearm. At sentencing, Wilson faces up to 10 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $10,000. This case is the result of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Ponca City Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Gridley and Cole McFerren are prosecuting the case. Reference is made to public filings for additional information. Updated January 15, 2026
