When a ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control Measure Depends on the Fantasy of Competent Government.

In a stunning admission, a Los Angeles County Superior Court has revealed that it failed to report hundreds of thousands of criminal case outcomes to the California Department of Justice—including roughly 147,000 felony convictions.

Let that sink in.

For four decades, criminal records simply weren’t entered into the background check system.

  • No alerts
  • No safeguards
  • No accountability

Just a broken government system quietly failing while politicians demanded…more gun control.

A System That Only Works If Everything Goes Right

Here’s the part they don’t want to talk about…the entire background check system depends on perfect data entry, flawless coordination, and bureaucratic competence at every level of government. And as this case proves—that’s a fantasy.

Because when records aren’t reported:

  • Felons slip through the cracks
  • Background checks return incomplete or inaccurate results
  • And the system politicians claim “keeps us safe” simply doesn’t work

Even federal officials admit the system only functions if it receives “complete, accurate, and timely information” from thousands of agencies nationwide. Clearly, that’s not happening.

The History They Don’t Want You to Know

The federal background check system—known as NICS—was created by the Brady Act in 1993 and went live in 1998.

Since then:

  • Hundreds of millions of background checks have been run.
  • Millions of Americans have been delayed or denied.
  • Tthe system still relies on error-prone government databases.

In fact:

  • Only about 1% of transactions are denied.
  • Many denials are later overturned on appeal.
  • Tens of thousands of justified denials occur each year, but only a tiny fraction are ever prosecuted.

So let’s be clear…this system overwhelmingly burdens law-abiding citizens while failing to consistently stop criminals.

The Real Purpose: A Backdoor Gun Registry

Continue reading “”

Marines Green Light Optics for Pistol Qualifications

M17 Romeo on an M17 MHS pistol

The Romeo M17 sight (NSN: 1240-01-713-9795), seen attached to an M17 MHS handgun, is a mil-spec, fully enclosed and gas-purged red dot reflex sight with a distortion-free glass aspheric lens. It is submersible to depths up to 35 meters. (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)

The nation’s 911 force is now officially authorizing pistol quals with a red dot optic, provided it is one very specific system.

On March 13, Marine Administrative Message (MARADMINS) 104/26 updated that the service’s Marksmanship Program will include the paragraph, “Marines are authorized to use unit funded Using Unit Responsibility Item, M17 Romeo red dot optic, National Stock Number 1240-01-713-9795 for Combat Pistol Program (CPP) qualifications.”

In short, so long as the SIG M17 Romeo sight is used – which was designed specifically for the P320-based M17 and M18 9mm Modular Handgun System – and it is bought with unit funds, the country’s premier amphibious warfare force can run red dots in qualifications.

Completely U.S. made and constructed of forged 7075 aluminum with a beryllium copper flexure arm (more on that in a minute) the Romeo M17 has an extremely low deck height so that armorers can reuse standard iron sights, has 15 illumination settings (including three for use with Gen 3+ night vision), beats drop and submersion tests, and, importantly, has an integral loaded chamber gas deflector shield that keeps the MHS from gassing up the lens after 10-15 rounds.

SIG Sauer M17 MHS pistol with Romeo M17 MRD sight
The Romeo M17 is a hoss. This installed example we saw dropped from 10 feet onto concrete at SIG’s plant in Oregon earlier this year with nothing but cosmetic damage to the housing. SIG explained to Guns.com that the Romeo M17 has surpassed 100,000 rounds in testing without loss of zero or parts breakage.  (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)
SIG Sauer Romeo M17 MRD sight flexure arm
That magical Romeo M17 flexure arm. (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)
SIG Sauer Romeo M17 MRD sight flexure arm
Installed near the base of the Romeo M17, the arm provides a backbone – so to speak – for the sight, cutting down on the number of parts that can fail. That, combined with the unique mounting process used on the sight that gives it six points of contact with the pistol host, makes it so tough. (Photo: Chris Eger/Guns.com)

Marines deployed with the Fleet have already been seen with red dot-equipped M17 Romeo-equipped M18s and Surefire X300 white lights.

M17 Romeo on an M18 MHS pistol
A U.S. Marine with Maritime Special Purpose Force, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (Special Operations Capable), fires an M18 pistol during a qualification range aboard San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock USS Fort Lauderdale (LPD 28), while underway in the Caribbean Sea, Feb. 22, 2026. (U.S. Marine Corps photo)
M17 Romeo on an M18 MHS pistol
An inset of the above image, clearly showing the M17 Romeo on an M18 MHS pistol. (U.S. Marine Corps photo)

The Marines adopted the M18 in 2019, ordering 35,000 of the SIGs to not only replace legacy Beretta M9s but also the Colt M45A1 CQB .45ACP railgun and the M007 Glock.

Chief Justice John Roberts Refuses to Clarify the “Historical Tradition” Test in Second Amendment Litigation

Pro-Second Amendment groups, industry leaders, and attorneys often argue that getting the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling that strengthens the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms is a glacially slow, systematic, and intricate process.

That is, unfortunately, true. But why?

It’s true because the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has orchestrated a judicial review process designed not only to slow the review of Second Amendment cases but also to indefinitely impede the review of the most significant cases.

As Chief Justice, he sets the tone and theme of the Court. It’s simplistic to think of Roberts as just one of nine Justices with equal say in the handling of cases that come before the Court on a petition for review.

Yes, he has one vote to grant or deny review of a case, as do each of the other eight Justices, but he has a profound say concerning the cases to be voted on. See, e.g., the article in “Legal Clarity.”

“The Chief Justice influences the Court’s docket, the list of cases the Court will hear. While any four justices can vote to grant certiorari and hear a case, the Chief Justice’s vote can hold outsized influence in this selection process.”

Continue reading “”

“A professional soldier understands that war means killing people, war means maiming people, war means families left without fathers and mothers. All you have to do is hold your first dying soldier in your arms, and have that terribly futile feeling that his life is flowing out and you can’t do anything about it. Then you understand the horror of war. Any soldier worth his salt should be antiwar. And still there are things worth fighting for.”
-General H. Norman Schwarzkopf Jr.

You don’t have to be right. You just have to be reasonable.

‘Bloodied’ man shouted for help before allegedly breaking into another home, getting shot

An alleged intruder is in critical condition after kicking in the door to a Houston, Texas, home Monday night and being shot numerous times by the homeowner.

ABC 13 reported two people were running down the road, one wearing a mask and the other bleeding from the head. The bleeding man eventually kicked in the door to a home and the homeowner shot him.

Click2Houston noted that police are unsure if the man who was bleeding was trying to flee from an assault or some other incident. He was allegedly “going door to door, knocking and trying to get help” prior to forcing entry and being shot.

Houston Police Department Lt. J.P. Harlicka said, “Either he was shot or hit in the head with something or assaulted or something, but he had blood on his head. He went to several doors knocking.”

The second man, who was “wearing a black hoodie, jumpsuit, and mask, ran away” and has yet to be found.

Why do you think I call them ‘bureaucraps’?

Why is ATF Still Leaving Its Options Open for Prosecuting Owners of Braced Pistols?

The saga of ATF’s enforcement of the National Firearm Act’s “short barreled rifle” provisions against braced pistols has been a roller coaster ride of shifting interpretations. NRA-ILA has been keeping up with, reporting on, and advocating for reform the entire time. It seemed we had reached a low point with the publication of the rule Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces” during the Biden-Harris administration. Yet NRA, along with other pro-Second Amendment groups, successfully challenged that rule in court, and its enforcement was enjoined against NRA members, as well as other plaintiff groups in similar suits. Eventually, the rule was vacated in its entirety. Unfortunately, that did not provide the lasting relief many had hoped.

Last year, we reported on ATF audaciously claiming, in the waning days of the Biden-Harris administration, that all braced pistols were subject to the NFA. It then quickly walked backed that position as “overbroad.”

But then NRA exposed the ongoing prosecution of Taylor Taranto for possession of an unregistered SBR, based on allegations concerning a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 pistol with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace. Taranto moved to have the charge dismissed. In its opposition to the motion, filed during the Biden-Harris administration, the government claimed:

Although the rule is stayed (and, now, vacated), ATF is not barred from continuing to enforce the underlying statute as it always has: by making case-by-case determinations about whether particular braced firearms constitute “rifles” under the statute. And of course, because the rule reflects ATF’s best understanding of the statute, those determinations will naturally tend to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule.

We reported on that case in February of 2025, and the SBR charged against Taranto was dismissed, “in the interest of justice,” under the Trump administration that April. The dismissal of Taranto’s NFA charge followed an April 7, 2025, announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice and ATF of a “comprehensive review of [the] stabilizing brace regulations.” This was supposed to include “consultations with stakeholders, including gun rights organizations, industry leaders and legal experts,” with the goal of ensuring the resulting policies are “constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

In the meantime, though, ATF continued to resist attempts by litigants in cases remaining against the rule to obtain final judgments on the rule’s illegality, claiming the issue was rendered moot by the final judgement in the case vacating the rule. This, the agency claimed, rendered the rule “formally nullified and revoked[.]”

A March 16 government filing in the ongoing case of Texas v. ATF has now renewed concerns that the agency reserves the right to continue bringing felony prosecutions under the NFA for possession of unregistered braced pistols. The passage in question is meant to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims that there are still live issues in the case that deserve a final judgment on the merits, rather than dismissal on mootness.

Continue reading “”