The person who has had more experience of hardships can stand more firmly in the face of problems than the person who has never experienced suffering. From this angle, then, some suffering can be a good lesson for life.
Tenzin Gyatso, the Dalai Lama
July 26, 2026
‘And do you have a permit for your AR, sir?’
by Lee Williams
It’s hard not to smile or even giggle a little bit when you see how badly President Donald Trump is scaring the country’s paid anti-gun community, especially when you combine the President’s efforts with those of the United States Supreme Court.
No one is feeling this pro-gun heat more than the youngsters working at the Trace, the propaganda arm of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control empire, who want the public to believe it’s an actual newsroom comprised of actual journalists—a fiction they’ll go to great lengths to maintain.
The Trace kids are extremely busy trying to stop this Second Amendment tidal wave that’s washing across the entire country. They realize that they’re losing, so they’re rabidly coming up with new ideas to counter our coming freedom—and some of their ideas are absolutely crazy.
Two Tracers just released this tome: “New Jersey Just Lost Its Assault Weapons Ban. Here’s Why That Matters for the Rest of the Country.”
The story’s last line is bedeviling. It’s not a quote or taken from any report. It’s completely attributable to the story’s two anti-gun authors:
“If the Supreme Court strikes down assault weapons bans nationwide next year, states could try other strategies, including putting semiautomatic rifles behind a permitting process,” they actually wrote.
Can you actually imagine that?
The highest court in the country says you can legally possess ARs in every state and U.S. Territory, but then some blue state suddenly requires you to obtain a state permit—regardless of the Supreme Court decision?
Do they think that might actually work?
It’s a Second Amendment right, right?
It would be like requiring state permits before allowing someone to read a book or scour the internet, which are rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The Trace is redefining desperation.
I’m picturing five-gallon pails of Zoloft, Prozac and Xanax scattered throughout their newsroom, each with a “help yourself” label.
It actually gets even worse. They’ve actually run out of legitimate sources.
The two authors wrote this:
“It’s unclear whether rescinding the bans will cause an increase in gun violence — or mass shootings in particular. Assault weapons have been used in most of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and studies have found that assault weapons, combined with high-capacity magazines, may increase the death count in mass shootings,” the story claims.
The link takes you to another hilarious medical study, which falsely claimed that “state assault weapons bans are associated with fewer fatalities.” The study based its findings on one particular source: “Data were abstracted from the Gun Violence Archive, an independent online database of US gun violence incidents.”
We’ve nearly written volumes about the faulty data from the Gun Violence Archive—so much so that it’s hard not to laugh every time some academic clod uses it in their “research.” Suffice it to say, the GVA said there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses actual data and doesn’t make stuff up.
The two authors actually supported using the GVA’s faulty numbers.
“The Trace uses the Gun Violence Archive’s definition of mass shooting, which includes shootings resulting in four or more injuries or deaths, excluding the shooter,” they wrote.
Trace history
The Trace calls itself “The only newsroom dedicated to covering gun violence.” Its staff refer to themselves as journalists, rather than anti-gun activists who are paid by Bloomberg to write propaganda.
Since the Trace was founded about a decade ago, scores of newspapers, websites and other legacy media outlets have fallen victim to this ruse. What’s left of Gannett’s flagship newspaper, USA Today, has collaborated with the Trace multiple times, and has even allowed Trace activists to produce and edit content, which appeared in the newspaper under a joint byline.
“We have partnered with more than 170 national and local media organizations,” the Trace boasts on its website. “We’re always looking to start new partnerships.”
The Trace is nothing more than the propaganda arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, which is also funded by Bloomberg.
Both nonprofits share the same president, John Feinblatt. In fact, Feinblatt is also listed as the two nonprofits’ principal officer. Federal tax documents show that the Trace and Everytown also use the same phone number, 646-324-8250.
Both nonprofits were incorporated in Delaware, which is known for its stringent corporate privacy laws.
Takeaways
Now that New Jersey-compliant ARs are a thing of the past, and California-compliant ARs may soon follow, we should take a minute to relax, but only one minute, no more.
The Trace and its followers will certainly come up with more whacky ideas, but they live in states whose judges support whacky behavior, especially if it harms the Second Amendment.
We remain in a constant battle for our civil rights, and anything can still go wrong at any time, according to Murphy’s Law.
“I learned that Murphy is alive and well. He’s in every drawer, under every rock and on top of every hill.”
Col. Charlie Beckwith said that. He should certainly know.
Well, he’s 98 – 99% ‘there’.
The AR-15 and the Second Amendment
By David Deming
There is late news from the US Supreme Court. Last June 30, the Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidating challenges to gun bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois. After years of frustration and denials, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to review and decide if state and local bans on semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, are constitutional.
Many of us can remember a time when the federal courts altogether ignored the Second Amendment and would not concede that it guaranteed any individual right whatsoever. That changed in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), when the Supreme Court unambiguously concluded that there is an individual right to “keep and bear arms,” and that this right is not established but protected by the Second Amendment. Subsequent cases have clarified and strengthened Second Amendment case law. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court held that the Second Amendment restrains not only the federal government, but also state and local governments.
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Court declared that the Second Amendment refers to all modern arms (including stun guns), not just weapons in existence in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Second Amendment there is a right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In Bruen, the Supreme Court also did away with interest-balancing tests and established a history and tradition standard for evaluation of Second Amendment claims.
Under Bruen, any restriction on gun rights must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Because the US has almost no history of firearm regulation prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the unavoidable implication is that almost all gun control laws will eventually be found to be unconstitutional.
Unfortunately, inferior courts, including US District and Appeals Courts, have largely failed to follow Supreme Court guidance or precedent. In Bianchi v. Brown (2024), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles on the grounds that “they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.” In Bevis v. Naperville (2023), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines” are not protected by the Second Amendment because they “are much more like machineguns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense.”
This is utter nonsense. There is no objective definition of what is meant by “military style,” nor is the semi-automatic AR-15 even in use by any military force anywhere in the world. Armed forces use select-fire weapons capable of fully automatic operation. If this sort of reasoning had been applied during the late eighteenth century, citizens would not have been able to own either muskets or rifles and unable to fulfill their obligation of militia service. Furthermore, the Second Amendment is not limited to arms useful for “self-defense.” Indeed, a plausible reading of the militia clause implies that only military weapons are protected! And there are several circumstances in which the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are ideally suited for self-defense. In 2017, a homeowner in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, used an AR-15 to decisively stop three home invaders. The shooting was ruled a justifiable act of self-defense.
The fact that arms bans remain in effect in several states and municipalities tells us that the Supreme Court has yet to provide clear and unambiguous guidance on specifically what types of weapons fall under the umbrella of the Second Amendment. In Heller the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “in common use,” for lawful purposes, while precluding “dangerous and unusual weapons.” From this, inferior courts, as described above, have concocted the fiction that only weapons in common use for self-defense are protected, not those suitable for sporting activities or militia service. But Heller never concluded that the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment were those useful for self-defense.
In Caetano, Justice Alito emphasized that the phrase “dangerous and unusual” from the text of Heller is a conjunctive test. For an arms ban to be constitutional, a weapon must be both “dangerous” and “unusual,” not just “dangerous.” It should therefore be beyond cavil that any ban on AR-15s is unconstitutional. Not only are they in common use, the AR-15 is the single most popular centerfire rifle sold and possessed in the US. Approximately 20-30 million AR-15s are in civilian hands.
And what are we to make of the term “dangerous” in Heller’s proscription? All guns are obviously dangerous. Kitchen knives are dangerous. Common objects and tools of all types can be dangerous. Baseball bats (which we provide to small children without hesitation) and hammers can be used to murder. So can bricks, sticks, stones, and hands and feet. FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics indicate that every year more murders are committed by means of “hands, fists, and feet,” than rifles of all types, including AR-15s. For the term “dangerous” to have intelligible validity there must be context. “Dangerous” can only mean the danger inherent in a weapon of mass destruction such as a nuclear bomb or poison gas, not an ordinary firearm.
Sometimes I read the comment on social media that all gun laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. I disagree. Anyone who makes this assertion has not considered the consequences. If all gun laws are unconstitutional, the concomitant but absurd implication is that prisoners in jail will be allowed to have weapons. Even from the founding era of the US, it has been common practice to disarm violent felons and people with severe mental illnesses.
In these exceptional instances a person must be afforded due process of law before losing their rights. And I do not believe that the Second Amendment covers weapons of mass destruction that really are “dangerous” and would ordinarily never be owned by an individual. I have no problem with ordinary people possessing machine guns, mortars, hand grenades, or any small arm routinely issued to an infantryman, but individuals should not be in possession of nuclear weapons.
Eventually I do believe that the Supreme Court will rule the National Firearms Act of 1934 to be unconstitutional, and we will have the right again to own machine guns, as we did prior to 1986. The Supreme Court is not there yet, but overturning bans on AR-15s in common use is an important step on the path.
David Deming is a geophysicist and professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma.
Hunting and Fishing Ban Fails to Make November Ballot
Election officials say it failed two rounds of signature verification.
Initiative Petition 28, an animal rights measure that sought to criminalize hunting, fishing, ranching and pest control in Oregon, has failed to make the November ballot after state election officials say it failed two rounds of signature verification.
Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read’s office announced the disqualification late Friday afternoon.
The IP 28 campaign submitted 142,784 signatures on July 2. To qualify for the ballot, the petition needed 117,173 verified signatures. That would require 82% of the submitted signatures to be valid. On two rounds of testing, the Elections Division said, sample batches of signatures failed to meet that threshold. (WW reported the first failure on July 16.)
The Elections Division said that just 104,262 of the submitted signatures, or 73.25%, were valid.
The initiative petition, submitted by a Portland substitute teacher, would have classified any killing of an animal in Oregon except in self-defense as a Class A misdemeanor. That would have effectively outlawed hunting, fishing, slaughtering livestock for meat, or killing rats or other pests.
As the initiative, backed by large contributions from animal rights groups, moved closer to the ballot, it became a political liability for Oregon Democrats, who denounced it but still saw Republicans try to tar them with it as election season ramped up.
Shortly after the Elections Division announcement, Gov. Tina Kotek issued a statement saying she was “relieved” by the petition’s failure.
“Efforts to criminalize activities like hunting and fishing are wrong for Oregon,” Kotek said. “I know from conversations with Oregonians across the state that this measure would have done nothing to help them. This is a win for tribal leaders, family farmers, ranchers, and every Oregonian who cares about protecting our lands and wildlife.”
State Sen. Christine Drazan (R-Canby) denounced the initiative and suggested she would buttress Oregon against future attempts. “The people behind IP 28 will be back, and so will the next extremists with another extreme idea,” she said in a statement. “Oregon has paid the price for bad ballot measures before, and we can’t afford to make that mistake again.”
Sorry, Gun-Grabbers, We’ve All Seen Where Those ‘Common Sense’ Proposals Lead.
Khary Penebaker describes himself in his X profile as a “Speaker. Advocate. Father. I build things and fight for what matters. Gun violence prevention is personal. Sneakerhead. Round Earther.”
Good to know.
He also ran as a Democrat — very unsuccessfully against a well-established incumbent — for a congressional seat in Wisconsin back in 2016.
Now, after a string of spectacular defeats for the cause of civilian disarmament in America, he seems to have decided that the best strategy is to go back to gun control default settings first principles, trying to sell whoever will listen to him on just a few basic “common sense” ideas that will obviously save lives and of course everyone can get behind that. Because we all just want to be safe. Right?
What guys like Penebaker seem to forget is that this is 2026. Some of us out here live in states where the “common sense” types have been in full control for years. Decades even. That means we know that what he’s selling is a steaming load of bullshit.
California, for instance, has (and this is just off the top of my head):
1. Bans on most common handguns
2. Bans on common rifles unless they have stupid compliance “features” (and now they want to ban those too)
3. Concealed carry permit application fees as high as $2,000 in total expense…and that’s aside from the significant time investment involved including a police interview, a two-day training course, Livescan fingerprinting, gathering personal references, and sometimes even a psych exam in some counties
4. An 11% tax on sales of guns and ammo
5. A 10-day waiting period to buy a gun, even if you already own other guns
6. Bans on carry in many types of public places, even if you went through all the trouble to get an expensive, time-consuming carry permit
There are tons more restrictions, hurdles, and roadblocks the books. Those are just a few examples.
Maybe those on the gun control side, people like Penebaker, would be a lot more successful selling this stuff in 2026 if it were actually true that all they want is a few things like background checks, safe storage, and red flag laws. Maybe.
Byut that isn’t true. It never was. We’re not stupid. We know what’s down that road. We’ve seen what blue states have done and are still doing, even now. Time to re-think your strategy, Khary.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.
After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community.
It covers the surface of society with a network of small, complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd.
The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting.
Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.
— Alexis de Tocqueville
July 25, 2026
Don’t DSA the USA, Protect Liberty to Stop Communism
There’s a dark mood creeping into American politics that has even the most die-hard gun control politicians worried. Democrats, typically (but not always) aligned with gun control, are facing the prospect of their political party turning their gaze to complete control.
Enter the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA).
These candidates for political office aren’t your grandfather’s Democrats or even limousine liberals. They can’t even honestly call themselves socialists. They’re cosplaying communists who are shredding any pretense of respect or admiration for the U.S. Constitution.
This is what George Orwell warned of in his novel, “1984.” They want complete and total control of the American government, including openly calling for abolishing of the U.S. Constitution, tearing down the balance of powers between the three branches of government, destroying of Department of War and most ominously, seizing the “resources and production.”
Make no mistake. Controlling the firearm and ammunition industry would be on the top of that list.
Who is the DSA?
The DSA has been making waves by striking out against Democratic candidates in primaries. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Most notably, disgraced former Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Graham Platner, the fabled “oyster farmer” whose scandal-ridden past finally crashed his run for office, is an avowed member of the DSA.
But Platner wasn’t democratic by any means. He was full-on Communist. That was uncovered in his previous online postings, which he attempted to delete. Holding his hand the whole way along was U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). That’s the same Sen. Sanders who honeymooned in Moscow in 1988, while the Communist Soviet Union was still in power.
Platner’s rise and inglorious immolation only emboldened members of the DSA. More candidates are on tickets in New York, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Florida, Michigan and Wisconsin. Democrats, who are notoriously anti-Second Amendment, are suddenly finding themselves having to defend against a communist flank in their own party.
That should concern everyone who believes the U.S. Constitution is the founding document that guides America’s form of government and protects Second Amendment rights. The DSA’s party platform essentially calls to tear it all down. They would burn it to rule over the ashes.
DSA Platform
The DSA’s platform includes abolition of the U.S. Senate (sorry, Sen. Sanders for losing your job), replacing the President of the United States and U.S. Supreme Court with an Executive and Judicial Branch that would be subordinate to what’s left of Congress.
That’s not reforming the U.S. Constitution. That’s complete annihilation of it. The first three articles of the U.S. Constitution set up the federal government’s Legislative, Executive and Judicial Branches. Each branch is co-equal and is a check and balance on the other.
The DSA would give their new form of government complete authority, with the Executive and Judiciary subservient to the authority of what’s left of the Legislative Branch. It’s spelled out in their platform where they call for “a new democratic constitution.”
The DSA platform also espouses seizing control of the means of production. The DSA’s Constitution & Bylaws state in Article II that “We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production…”
Further, in 2018, the DSA explicitly called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, stating, “… the only way to guarantee that we will dramatically reduce acts of violence involving guns is to remove guns from society…” The DSA called for adoption of a 28th Amendment, repealing the Second Amendment and the prohibiting of “manufacturing, transportation or importation in or into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of pump-action, semi-automatic or automatic firearms.”
That’s not just ending an individual right to keep and bear commonly-owned firearms (the DSA would “allow” individuals to maintain ownership of single-shot firearms), it means the DSA would seize control of the firearm and ammunition industry, since the DSA platform calls for “popular control of resources and production.”
That’s full-on communism, which is marked by brutal violence.
“The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; and freedom of the press.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
July 24, 2026
Crossing a State Line Shouldn’t Cost You Your Right to Self-Defense
Imagine a woman driving across state lines alone at night, fearful that her car might break down and leave her vulnerable. Or picture a truck driver hauling valuable cargo across the country. In states such as California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Oregon – five of the ten states that refuse to recognize concealed handgun permits from other states – these travelers can find themselves defenseless. Nine states also either deny non-residents permits altogether or make them extremely difficult to obtain.
Last week, President Trump again called for passage of national concealed carry reciprocity. The legislation would allow anyone legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun in their home state to carry across state lines, much as Americans use their driver’s licenses nationwide. The legislation would affect millions of law-abiding Americans.
Much of the gun-control debate centers on hypothetical risks. With reciprocity, however, we don’t have to speculate. With 21.5 million concealed handgun permit holders in the United States, we already know how they behave. In addition, most Americans already benefit from reciprocity. The average state recognizes permits from 30 other states, allowing permit holders to travel legally with their firearms.
Last year, when House Judiciary Committee passed national reciprocity along party lines, Democrats also opposed legislation that would allow current and retired law enforcement officers with at least ten years of service to carry firearms in facilities open to the public – including schools – while traveling across the country. Given their fear that allowing experienced current or retired law enforcement officers to carry would endanger public safety, it comes as no surprise that they also oppose allowing civilians to carry across state lines.
Congressional opponents of reciprocity warned that permit holders would commit crimes but cited no evidence to support that claim. The facts point in the opposite direction. Concealed handgun permit holders are extraordinarily law-abiding. States revoke their permits for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths – or even ten-thousandths – of one percent. Police officers rarely commit firearm crimes, yet permit holders lose their permits for firearm offenses at only about one-twelfth the rate that police are convicted of firearm related crimes.
“This legislation is a dramatic infringement on states’ rights,” claimed Emma Brown, executive director of the gun-control group Giffords, echoing a common criticism. Yet those same organizations routinely advocate federal gun-control laws that override state policy choices.
Opponents also claimed that national reciprocity would confuse travelers about which gun laws apply in each state and lead to more arrests. But reciprocity already exists across much of the country, and no evidence shows that out-of-state permit holders create such problems. Indeed, the same situation exists for drivers when they cross state lines: They are required to follow the driving regulations for the state they are in.
Critics also argue that permit standards vary from state to state. Yet no evidence shows that states with less restrictive permitting systems experience higher permit revocation rates.
Despite these fears, more than 86% of police chiefs and sheriffs support national reciprocity, and over 90% of rank-and-file officers support concealed carry laws. These officers see firsthand how concealed carry works in practice. They understand that police deter crime, but they also know they usually arrive after the crime has begun. Victims often must defend themselves first. Consistent with that experience, the overwhelming weight of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.
With tens of millions of Americans legally carrying concealed handguns over many decades, if opponents could identify even dozens of cases in which out-of-state permit holders created serious problems, their concerns would deserve careful consideration. They cannot. Such cases remain exceedingly rare. Americans do not need to guess whether gun-control advocates’ concerns are justified.
Carrying a firearm provides the greatest benefit to those who face the largest physical disadvantages – women and the elderly – and to those who face the highest risk of violent crime, including many poor black residents of high-crime neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, these groups have accounted for the largest percentage growth in permit ownership over the past decade. Between 2015 and 2024, permits held by women grew 112% faster than those held by men, while permits held by black Americans grew 284% faster than those held by whites.
Real life is not the movies. Most women cannot overpower several larger, stronger men, no matter how well trained they are. Men also generally possess greater upper-body strength and speed.
A firearm changes that equation. It gives women a far more effective means of self-defense. If an attacker has already closed the distance enough to seize a woman’s firearm, she is already in grave danger regardless.
Peer-reviewed research finds that allowing concealed carry reduces murder rates for both men and women. The reduction for women, however, is roughly three to four times larger than the reduction for men.
The House will likely pass national reciprocity, but it faces a steeper challenge in the Senate. Breaking the expected Democratic filibuster will require 60 votes, meaning at least seven Democratic senators must cross party lines. Those senators need only examine their own states’ experience. Six states represented by 12 Democratic senators – Arizona, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia – already recognize concealed handgun permits from every other state. None has seen a problem with reciprocity.
Police play an indispensable role in public safety. But around 700,000 officers cannot protect over 340 million Americans everywhere at once. Congress should ensure that law-abiding Americans do not lose their ability to defend themselves simply by crossing a state line.
Democrat Socialists of America think that since they’re not calling themselves ‘Communists’ that we don’t know they’re Communists.
New ATF Rule May Finally Stop NY and NJ From Harassing Law-Abiding Travelers With Guns.
Since Congress enacted the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, an American has enjoyed the right to travel with firearms “from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm,” provided he complies with the requirements of the relevant statue.
Well, at least he should have.
Some jurisdictions, mostly the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have continued to cause trouble for well-meaning gun owners attempting to travel with their firearms.
On February 7, 2025, President Donald Trump signed “Executive Order 14206 – Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” which tasked the U.S. Attorney General to . . .
…examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
As part of that effort, on May 6, ATF posted a notice of proposed rulemaking “Clarifying Interstate Transportation of Firearms Under the Gun Control Act,” which reworks the federal regulation implementing 18 U.S.C. § 926A to better reflect Congress’s intent to provide broad protections to traveling gun owners.
The new regulation does this in part by making clear that activity incidental to travel is covered under FOPA’s protection. These include activities such as,
…staying in temporary lodging overnight, transiting between modes of transportation, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, or medical treatment, picking up or discharging passengers, moving a firearm at the beginning of a journey from a fixed address to a vehicle for transportation or at the end of a journey from a vehicle to a fixed address, and any other activity incidental to the original transportation.
Also to be covered under the rule is “presenting the firearm or ammunition for inspection when required by a common carrier, the Transportation Security Administration, or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”
The rule also makes clear that transportation of ammunition, magazines, and other firearm components and accessories are covered under FOPA’s protection.
NRA’s comment supports the broad thrust of this rulemaking. It’s clear from the text of the rule that ATF has examined the problems that travelers through New York and New Jersey continue to experience and are seeking to alleviate them in line with Congress’ intent.
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
– Samuel Adams, in Phila. Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789
July 23, 2026