Published: 8:15 ET, Feb 18 2025 | Updated: 14:12 ET, Feb 18 2025
On February 17, 2025, a tragic shooting occurred at the Harris Teeter grocery store located at 545 Radford Lane in Crozet, Virginia. The incident resulted in the deaths of two individuals: 43-year-old Peter L. Martin of Crozet, who was pronounced dead at the scene, and 68-year-old Diane G. Spangler of Afton, who succumbed to her injuries after being transported to UVA Medical Center.
The shooter, identified as 28-year-old Justin M. Barbour of Crozet, arrived at the store’s parking lot around 1:33 p.m. Within approximately one minute, he began firing, discharging 28 rounds in 20 seconds. The killer, Justin Barbour, 28, whipped out a gun and opened fire in the parking lot before being stopped by the good Samaritan, who was exiting the store and heard the gunfire, engaged Barbour with their personal weapon, resulting in Barbour’s death at the scene.
Investigations revealed that Barbour had no prior connection to either victim or to the location of the shooting. He did not have a criminal history but had previous interactions with law enforcement between 2014 and 2025, including a mental health-related call in December 2024 and a response from Albemarle County’s Human Services Alternative Response Team in January 2025. During these interactions, Barbour exhibited a calm demeanor, and there were no indications of violence or self-harm reported to police.
The community has been deeply affected by this event. In response, Peter Martin’s family has initiated efforts to support his surviving daughters, emphasizing the profound personal impact of the tragedy.
Colion Noir interview with Morgan, an Army Veteran: He Was Unarmed During A Mass Shooting Because Of A Gun Free Zone
I recently had written to my U.S. Congressman about the upcoming HR 38 Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and HR 645 National Constitutional Carry Act, telling him how I would want him to vote on these two bills on the HR 645 he sent me a letter stating that he thought that it should be handled by the State’s not by the Federal Government.
March 26, 2025
Dear Mr. Thorn,
Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 645, the National Constitutional Carry Act. This bill was introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) on January 23, 2025. It has since been referred to the House Judiciary Committee for further review.
The National Constitutional Carry Act ensures the protection of Americans’ Second Amendment right by prohibiting any state or local government from imposing civil or criminal penalties on an individual eligible to possess a firearm in a public setting. The bill also invalidates any standing state or local statute, regulation, or law that prohibits an individual from carrying a firearm in public.
I adamantly oppose any regulations or laws that would make firearms or ammunition less accessible or more difficult to obtain for all law-abiding Americans. For this reason, I have co-sponsored several pieces of legislation relating to the protection of our Second Amendment rights. I’ve previously co-introduced the Stopping Unconstitutional Background Checks Act, which prohibits federal funds from being used to expand the licensing requirements for individuals attempting to obtain a firearm. Regulating a legal hobby the same as a federally licensed gun store is extreme government overreach and infringes on the rights of law-abiding Americans. I also cosponsored H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which amends federal law to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed firearm across state lines. A qualified individual must be eligible to possess a firearm under federal law, carry a government-issued photo ID, and carry a valid concealed carry permit.
Safe and responsible firearms ownership is part of America’s foundational document, the Constitution, and continues to contribute to individual and public safety. While I am a supporter of constitutional carry and have advocated for laws that protect and strengthen this right, constitutional carry is largely a matter of state law and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the Florida Legislature. I am an opponent of the federal government infringing on state rights and taking matters out of the hands of our duly elected state legislators. Should you want to discuss the matter of constitutional carry further, I encourage you to contact your state legislators by visiting www.myfloridahouse.gov and http://www.flsenate.gov. Meanwhile, I have and will continue to vote to defend the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. The longtime head of the Florida NRA, Marion Hammer, said “The NRA has no better friend than Daniel Webster.”
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. To stay updated on what’s happening in Washington, sign up for my weekly Webster Wire. Thank you for allowing me to serve as your U.S. Representative.
Your servant,
Daniel Webster Member of Congress
I thought that maybe he could be right, so I researched the Constitutional Carry law for each of the states and sent him my investigation on this topic. What I found was very surprising.
This 19-page document examines state Constitutional Carry laws and provides an in-depth comparison of firearm purchase and concealed carry permit requirements in three selected states. I then conducted the same analysis for states without Constitutional Carry laws.
Despite the existence of Constitutional Carry in some states, many still impose their own regulations on purchasing, carrying, and using firearms—some even stricter than federal laws.
Meanwhile, states without Constitutional Carry laws often have even more restrictive policies, making firearm ownership and carry rights significantly more burdensome.
The Second Amendment states: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed1.” and the states are infringing on our Constitutional Rights.
I asked him whether this was truly what the people wanted or if he simply believed it was the better option. I also requested any poll data he had on his constituents’ opinions.
In the context of the Second Amendment, “Shall not be infringed” means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be violated or diminished, ensuring that this fundamental right remains protected.; ↩︎
This year’s 2025 Legislative session, Florida state lawmakers have been busy filing hundreds of different bills.
Among these, several are aimed at changing up state laws involving gun ownership, pushed by Republicans and Democrats alike. These bills involve topics like age limits, storage requirements, and harsh crackdowns on gun sales.
To become law, these bills require the approval of both the state Senate and House, as well as a signature from Gov. Ron DeSantis.
We must all make our voices heard and help shape Florida’s government based on the will of its constituents. One way to do this is by sharing your message, just as I have done below.
Here is my letter about how I want our Governor and my Representative to vote on these issues
To Governor Ron DeSantis and my State Representative Josie Tomkow,
This is how I want you to vote on the following Gun bills.
HB15 – Vote NO
I would want a better option of not restricting CCW/P citizens to be able to carry anywhere. This way the criminals would be stopped getting firearms from vehicles, because of the restriction this is like saying you want a gun. All you have to do is go to a parking lot, there is plenty available in the vehicles.
I sent you a letter earlier that we should do the same thing Wyoming is doing removing gun-free zones. Also, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police.
See the report: https://thefederalist.com/2025/03/11/study-concealed-carriers-do-a-better-job-of-stopping-active-shooters-than-police/
HB53 – Vote NO
You will be placing an unnecessary burden on law-abiding citizens by requiring an additional background check and its associated fee for every ammunition purchase.
This legislation is a reaction to a single tragic incident. While the event was terrible, it should not be used as justification to impose broad restrictions that unfairly impact all responsible citizens.
HB491 Vote YES if not NO- with the below changes
I agree with this bill, if it removed the exceptions – I go back to my statement about removing gun-free zones altogether for CCW/P citizens
HB759 Vote YES
Young men as young as 18 have been called to serve in the military, bearing arms to defend our country since before the ratification of the Constitution. Yet, they are deemed incompetent to purchase a firearm for personal defense. If they are truly incapable of responsible firearm ownership, then by the same logic, no one under 21 should be allowed to enlist in the Armed Forces.
HB1019 Vote NO
That would mean that if I wanted to pass down a firearm to a family member in my will, there would be no way to conduct a background check on both parties. Private transfers or sales would no longer be possible, despite the fact that such transactions have historically been allowed without issue.
Gun manufacturers have been providing gun locks with their firearms for years, even without a legal mandate.
Home gun manufacturing has been practiced since before the Constitution was written. There were no licensing requirements for building firearms, nor any mandates for serial numbers to be engraved on them.
Gun enthusiasts have been creating 3D-printed firearms as a way to test their skills and refine their gunsmithing abilities. While many early attempts result in failure, they continue learning and improving their techniques.
H6003 Vote NO
This would grant local governments the authority to establish their own gun-related regulations, covering aspects such as sales, ownership, possession, storage, and taxation.
HB6025 Vote NO
Just look at California it became a looter haven – until law abiding citizen (with Arms) took actions to protect what they had left for themselves and others, there was not enough police to go around to protect them- and the citizens deterred looter.
SB188 Vote NO
If a person has a CCW/P permit, there should be no need to further restrict them, as they have already undergone thorough vetting. Restricting them only creates unnecessary complications, such as forcing them to temporarily leave their firearm in a vehicle, where it becomes vulnerable to theft.
Gun-free zones essentially signal to criminals that no one present can stop them. If certain locations must prohibit firearms, CCW permit holders should be treated similarly to law enforcement—security could temporarily hold their weapon and return it upon departure, ensuring that no firearms are left unattended. However, even this approach risks creating another location with no deterrent for criminals.
SB814 Vote NO
The policy bans individuals from storing firearms—rather than merely possessing them—at school-sponsored events or on school property. This includes storing them in a vehicle, effectively requiring attendees to leave their firearms at home. As a result, law-abiding citizens are left vulnerable to potential threats from the moment they leave their homes until they return.
SB 1338 Vote NO
This policy infringes on our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, restricting firearm possession to our homes or designated storage facilities like shooting ranges.
By this logic, it also limits our ability to transport firearms altogether. Millions of civilian versions AR-15s—often mislabeled as “assault weapons”—are commonly used for competition shooting, recreational target practice, and hunting.
A true “assault weapon” is a firearm capable of firing multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger—also known as a “machine gun.” In contrast, civilian versions of the AR-15 are semi-automatic, meaning they fire one round per trigger pull.
Thank you for your time,
Dr. Cecil W Thorn
Below is the link to find your state representative and the link to Governor DeSantis
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals 3-judge panel ruled that suppressors are not firearms but an accessory and are not protected by the 2nd Amendment and the Department of Justice (DOJ) responded the same that a suppressor is not a firearm but an accessory.
Yet the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA) says A suppressor is legally defined as a “firearm” under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).
Key Legal Definitions
26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(7) – Classifies a suppressor as a “firearm” under the NFA.
26 U.S.C. § 5845(f) – Defines a suppressor as “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.”
The National Firearms Act (NFA) was signed into law on June 26, 1934, in response to violent crime during Prohibition.
Suppressors were classified as “firearms” under the NFA in 1934, meaning they required registration, a tax stamp, and ATF approval to own.
The original tax stamp was $200 (the same cost today, but in 1934, it was meant to be a prohibitive cost).
Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24)) (which defines suppressor parts as “firearms”) – Includes all parts intended for suppressor assembly.
he Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 was signed into law on October 22, 1968, following the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
This law expanded the definition of “firearm” to include any combination of parts that can be assembled into a suppressor, effectively making individual suppressor components subject to regulation.
These existing laws clearly define suppressors as “firearms,” as stated and recorded in the National Firearms Act (NFA) and other legal frameworks. Given that no legislation has been passed to reclassify them as accessories, how can the Court and the Department of Justice suddenly assert that suppressors are accessories?
Hearing Protection Act (HPA) in 2017 and 2025
Objective:To remove suppressors from regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), reclassifying them under the Gun Control Act (GCA)
Status: As of March 2025, the HPA has been introduced but has not passed into law. continuing the effort to pass the bill after it failed to progress in prior sessions.
Summary
While there have been attempts through both the courts and legislation to reclassify suppressors as accessories, these efforts have not resulted in a change in their classification to date. Suppressors remain regulated under the NFA, requiring registration and a tax stamp for legal ownership.
If we allow the government to arbitrarily reclassify items as mere accessories, where does it end? Today, it’s suppressors—tomorrow, it could be scopes, red dots, and magazines. Do you see where this is headed?
Write to the President and the Attorney General to express our dissatisfaction with the direction this is heading. Let them know we expect them to take action to stop this and uphold our Second Amendment rights.
With everything happening in the United States—immigration issues, government corruption, attacks on our Second Amendment rights, and a struggling economy—it’s more important than ever for We the People to take a stand. We can no longer sit back and believe that there’s nothing we can do. It’s time for us to actively voice our concerns and make our desires known to those in power. Our involvement and engagement are crucial for shaping the future of our country.
Find and contact elected officials
Get the names and contact information for the people who represent you on the federal, state, and local levels.
“You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.
Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.”
We need to eliminate gun-free zones because they leave innocent people defenseless. Police cannot always respond immediately, and tragedies could have been prevented if law-abiding citizens with concealed carry permits were present. Many of the worst mass shootings, especially in schools, have occurred in these so-called “gun-free” areas.
The report highlights how armed, responsible citizens have stepped in when no police officers were available, stopping shootings or even preventing them before they begin. States like Wyoming have taken the right approach by removing gun-free zones, ensuring that criminals no longer have guaranteed targets. These zones have become safe havens for those looking to cause harm, knowing there is no one there to fight back. It’s time we follow the example of other states and allow responsible citizens to protect themselves and others.
Contact your local, federal representatives as well as President Trump to remove the Gun-Free-Zones
Contact me below about anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.
The ATF is defying a court order by refusing to comply and instead making excuses, gathering additional information on those affected, and imposing unnecessary background checks before returning confiscated items.
These individuals legally purchased these items before the ATF reclassified them as machine guns. Since they were originally classified as non-machine guns at the time of purchase, no additional background checks should be required.
Below is a letter I wrote to President Trump regarding this issue. I encourage everyone to do the same.
The ATF has been resisting compliance with federal court orders regarding items it previously classified as machine guns. Now, the agency claims it must re-evaluate whether individuals who legally purchased these items before the classification change have the right to keep them. Additionally, the ATF is demanding documentation proving that these individuals were part of the organization involved in the legal case—essentially com and compiling a list of members, raising concerns about potential misuse of this information to target law-abiding Americans and infringe on their First Amendment rights.
As I have previously shared, the ATF has also been using AI and surveillance cameras to identify individuals on the streets who may be carrying firearms, as well as scanning for people with pending legal issues. These actions raise serious concerns about overreach and privacy violations.
These confiscated items must be returned immediately. Pam Bondi (DOJ) and Acting ATF Director Kash Patel must take action to resolve this issue without delay. These are individuals you appointed, but they have been silent and inactive on this matter. Their inaction is unacceptable.
Given the ATF’s repeated noncompliance with court rulings and its continued excuses for defying judgments, I believe the agency is beyond reform. It must be completely dismantled. I will be closely watching how you address this issue with Bondi and Patel, as I trust you have the power to ensure justice is served.
I wanted to bring to your attention Wyoming’s recent move to eliminate gun-free zones statewide—a bold step in restoring Second Amendment rights and ensuring the safety of law-abiding citizens.
Gun-free zones have consistently proven to be ineffective deterrents to crime, often leaving law-abiding citizens vulnerable while criminals ignore these restrictions. Wyoming’s decision to crush gun-free zones recognizes the fundamental right of self-defense and empowers individuals to protect themselves and others.
I strongly believe we should take similar action in Florida and push for legislation that removes these ineffective and dangerous restrictions. Protecting our constitutional rights and ensuring the safety of our communities should be a priority. I urge you to consider advocating for something like this measure and working toward making our entire state a no gun-free zone state.
Now, I do not agree with everything in the bill, but it may help us in Florida to make us a no-gun-free zone state as well.
“Your voice matters! Reach out to your representatives and stand for a safer future—let them know where you stand on the idea of a no-gun-free zone state.”
I am writing to urge all of us to oppose the Keep Americans Safe Act. While I understand the intent behind this legislation, history and research show that restricting magazine capacity does not reduce crime and only infringes upon the rights of law-abiding citizens.
The Urban Institute’s 2004 report, which examined the impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (in effect from 1994 to 2004), found no measurable reduction in violent crime as a result of magazine capacity restrictions. The report concluded that “the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” This study, along with crime data from 1990 to 2001, provides clear evidence that limiting magazine size does not deter criminals but does place unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners.
Restricting law-abiding citizens’ access to standard-capacity magazines puts them at a disadvantage for self-defense, especially in rural areas where law enforcement response times can be significant. Criminals do not adhere to magazine restrictions, leaving responsible Americans more vulnerable to attack.
What we don’t need is passing ineffective legislation that restricts constitutional rights, what we do need is to focus on enforcing existing laws, addressing mental health issues, and targeting violent offenders. Contact your representative to please vote NO on the Keep Americans Safe Act and stand up for the Second Amendment.
Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.
Contact me below about anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.
