Hegseth Puts Warfighting Skills at the Center of Military Promotions.

Pete Hegseth makes it clear that he wants a “Department of War”…not merely a new name, but a military led by warriors who can command effectively in combat.

The U.S. Secretary of War recently announced that colonels and Navy captains seeking promotion to one-star rank will face a new Joint Warfighter Evaluation to assess their ability to wage war across services.

The initiative puts battlefield leadership at the center of his promotion agenda.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on Tuesday the military this year will start evaluating colonels and Navy captains for one-star positions as part of a new process.

“While the backbone of our military is our NCOs (noncommissioned officers) and our petty officers, victory depends on the commanders who lead them. America needs warfighters who can master a chaotic battle space,” Hegseth said in a video posted on X.

The Joint Warfighter Evaluation (JWE) follows Hegseth’s May memo to begin assessing service members’ ability to wage joint warfare as part of promotion and advancement considerations for officers and senior noncommissioned officers.

Hegseth in the video acknowledged tasking Stuart Scheller, who currently serves as the secretary’s senior adviser of personnel and readiness, and his team a year ago to challenge “generations of promotion assumptions.”

 

Hegseth said he envisioned something like the Louisiana Maneuvers. The U.S. Army held these large-scale war games in 1940–1941, culminating in massive mock battles in Louisiana in September 1941 to prepare the rapidly expanding Army for World War II.

The exercises tested commanders, battlefield tactics, tanks, communications, and logistics while giving inexperienced officers practical experience directing large formations. They helped shape the Army’s wartime approach to mechanized and combined-arms warfare and showcased leaders such as Dwight D. Eisenhower and George S. Patton.

Continue reading “”

Suppressor Sales Surpass 1.1 Million So Far in 2026.

The Big Beautiful Bill will probably be looked back upon as one of the most important moves by the second Trump administration, and part of that is the Hearing Protection Act, which killed the $200 tax stamp on suppressors.

While suppressors, also called “silencers” by some, aren’t as expensive as some NFA items might be, the tax stamp added a significant cost to the products, thus artificially making them out of reach for many people.

Couple that with the hassles of paperwork and having to hand all that information directly to the feds, and there wasn’t a lot of reason for many to pony up the money to have a legal suppressor.

Now, that’s gone, and what happened?

Pretty much what you’d expect.

American gun owners are stocking up on sound suppressors.

National Firearms Act (NFA) registrations rose 129 percent year over year in September, according to a report released by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) on Monday.

The group, which obtained Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) records through a Freedom of Information Act request, said suppressors–officially labeled silencers by the agency–were the NFA items primarily driving that surge, and they’ve already topped 1.1 million for the year–about 22 percent of the 4.9 million suppressors on the ATF’s books.

The group also told The Reload that more than 100,000 additional suppressor registration applications are pending and attributed much of the increased demand to a silencer tax cut Republicans passed last year.

“This is the direct result of NSSF working with Congress and the Trump administration to remove burdensome tax stamp fees previously required to obtain a suppressor at retail,” Mark Oliva, NSSF’s managing director of public affairs, said in a statement. “Americans are showing that when barriers are removed to lawful firearm and firearm accessory ownership, they will make that investment, in this case, to preserve their hearing.”

The shifting legal ground underlying the NFA may actually lead to even more suppressor sales over the rest of the year. With a federal judge enjoining enforcement of registration requirements for suppressors and some other NFA items for many Americans in August, and the Department of Justice officially declining to appeal this month, the ATF is poised to announce new regulations this week and the barrier to legally owning the devices is about to drop again.

Sales could climb further before the year ends.

The DOJ and ATF issued their guidance on Friday afternoon, and it’s about as good as we could have hoped for. NSSF wants Congress to formalize this arrangement so that this is statute, not just policy, which I get. An alternative would be for the Supreme Court to rule similar to the lower court, thus essentially codifying it for everyone, but that’s the cheap way out. Congress needs to act and get this done once and for all.

They won’t, though. Not before the midterms, at least, and if those go the way the media say they’re going to go — which I’ll believe when it happens, because I’ve heard this song and dance a few times already — the lame duck Congress might do it out of spite.

I’m fine with this.

And now, suppressors are becoming “in common use,” which might not be the standard I approve of, but I’ll still take it. If that happens, though, there’s nothing the anti-gunners will be able to do.

Aw, darn.

FPC Pushing 15 NFA Mandate States to Suspend Enforcement, Repeal Their Now Antiquated Laws.

If you were doing other things — working, playing, turning money into noise at the range — you may have missed the news that ATF made yesterday [OCT 9TH ed.] afternoon. After two months of trying to figure out the new lay of the land in the wake of the Jensen ruling regarding suppressors (and SBRs, SBSs and AOWs), ATF released new guidance as to how they’ll enforce the National Firearms Act going forward.

The Jensen ruling (and DOJ’s decision not to appeal it) has created a complex patchwork of makers, dealers and gun owners who were and weren’t covered by the ruling’s injunction. If you bought a can made by SilencerCo or B&T, no Form 4 needed any more. If you wanted to buy suppressor made by someone else, you could…if you’re a GOA or FPC member. Or you could buy one from Palmetto State Armory or Silencer Shop, both of which were named plaintiffs in the case.

You can probably see the issue from both a compliance and an enforcement perspective. What we had was a fraught, confusing situation for FFLs and individuals who wanted to take advantage of the ruling, but didn’t want to inadvertently wind up a test case in federal court.

So yesterday, ATF released new guidance on how they will be enforcing the NFA under Jensen. And they’ve done it in the most expansive way we could have hoped for. In effect, ATF has applied the ruling to everyone, nationwide.

If you’re a law-abiding person who can own a firearm, you can saunter into your local gun store, pick up a silencer or a short-barrel rifle (or both!), fill out a 4473, pass your background check and walk right out with it. Easy-peasy.

UNLESS, of course, you live in one of 15 states (see the list below) which have laws on the books that require NFA registration of any can, SBR, SBS or AOW you buy or make. You’ll still have to go through the NFA song and dance with all of the paperwork, fingerprints, and a wait time for ATF processing.

The new guidance has taken those people into account, however, and the agency will continue to process Form 1’s and Form 4’s for the people in those states who want to buy the covered products.

In the mean time, the Firearms Policy Coalition has wasted no time going to work to try to convince those 15 states to get their acts together and suspend their enforcement of their NFA mandate laws and start the process of repealing them.

This, from FPC . . .

Following the historic end to the NFA’s unconstitutional federal registration scheme for untaxed firearms and suppressors, Firearms Policy Coalition announced today that lawyers for the organization sent letters to the attorneys general of 15 states that still tie the legality of silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or other covered arms to compliance with the federal National Firearms Act registration process. FPC is asking those states to immediately stop enforcement while lawmakers repeal the laws for good.

The effort follows FPC’s major victory in Silencer Shop/Jensen v. ATF, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the federal government could no longer use Congress’s taxing power to sustain the NFA’s making, registration, and transfer requirements for firearms Congress made subject to a $0 tax. The court enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions as to the plaintiffs and others covered by its judgment.

The basic problem was fatal to the government’s regime: Congress eliminated the tax, and with it the constitutional basis the government had relied on for the machinery built to collect that tax.

That should have been the end of it. But in 15 states, it wasn’t. Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin still have laws that tie the legality of some NFA-classified arms to compliance with federal registration requirements.

For people covered by the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction or otherwise able to act without federal enforcement under ATF’s new policies, those laws can still require compliance with a federal process the court has enjoined, leaving them unable to fully benefit from the federal victory without risking violation of state law.

“The states that require compliance with this unconstitutional and now-defunct federal scheme should immediately end enforcement and repeal their laws as soon as possible,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We certainly hope they will put liberty and their citizens first, and we stand ready and willing to partner with them to protect the rights of their citizens. But no matter what, one way or another, FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until people can exercise their rights without fear of arrest or prosecution, full stop.”

FPC’s proposal gives the states a direct path forward: make an immediate commitment to non-enforcement so people are protected now, then work through the legislative process toward full repeal of state laws separately regulating these categories of arms.

For this critically-important effort, FPC retained Holtzman Vogel partner David P. Johnson to lead the attorney-general outreach. Johnson, who focuses on state attorney general matters and litigation, was previously the Policy Director and General Counsel to the Republican Attorneys General Association and worked closely with Republican attorneys general and their offices to advance policy priorities.

“This effort to secure an immediate commitment to non-enforcement is a common-sense way to protect people while these laws work through the legislative process toward what should be their full repeal. We truly hope this reasonable request will be met with consideration for the People and the rights at stake so that we will not need to litigate. As long as these states are taking meaningful steps to address this issue, we will gladly work with them as partners to address these legal issues. But our responsibility is to protect the People and their rights, and we will do what is necessary to fulfill it,” said attorney and FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski.

The Federal Fight Is Not Over

Also today, following the federal injunction, ATF announced an important nationwide change in its enforcement position. As a matter of enforcement discretion, ATF will no longer enforce many of the NFA’s making, registration, transfer, possession, and related restrictions for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and other covered $0-tax arms—even against people who are not covered by the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction. In its guidance, ATF also expressly acknowledged the state-law problem, noting that state laws may continue to require federal compliance or registration even where federal enforcement has ceased.

Notably, ATF’s nationwide policy rests on executive enforcement discretion. ATF itself warns that enforcement could resume if circumstances change—including if the Department rescinds the policy, the injunction is overturned or dissolved, or Congress imposes a new tax. Its guidance further states that federal law does not automatically grandfather unregistered arms if enforcement later resumes.

That is why FPC is not leaving the People’s liberty dependent on the discretion of a future administration. Instead, FPC is continuing multiple federal efforts—including Brown v. ATF, which FPC is a party to, and the FPC-backed Roberts v. ATF—to secure durable, nationwide relief from the NFA’s remaining unconstitutional restrictions. Brown and Roberts challenge the NFA under both Congress’s enumerated powers and the Second Amendment.

One Fight. Three Fronts.

FPC’s strategy is straightforward: end the federal regime, eliminate state laws that depend on it, and directly attack state bans on constitutionally protected arms wherever they exist.

At the federal level, FPC is pressing forward toward durable nationwide relief.

At the state level, today’s 15-state initiative attacks laws that still tether the People to the federal NFA registration system.

And where states independently ban the arms themselves, FPC is attacking those prohibitions head-on.

That includes cases like FPC v. Davenport, FPC’s challenge to New Jersey’s ban on short-barreled rifles. The case builds on FPC’s en banc Third Circuit victory in Cheeseman v. Davenport, where the court held New Jersey’s semiautomatic-rifle ban unconstitutional—a decision FPC says also materially strengthens its SBR challenge.

FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County case is now before the United States Supreme Court, where FPC is challenging a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Oral argument in the landmark Second Amendment “hardware” case is set for December 2, 2026.

“Jensen is not a one-off lawsuit—it is one part of a broader strategic plan,” Combs said. “That plan has already killed federal NFA registration for these untaxed arms. We are fighting to make that victory permanent and nationwide, and now we are working to eliminate the state laws that try to keep those restrictions alive. At the same time, our arms-ban cases are attacking the bans themselves. FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until all of these unconstitutional and immoral restrictions are eliminated throughout the United States.”

FPC thanks its Grassroots Army members and supporters for making this important work possible. Individuals who want to join FPC and support its lawsuits and other programs to restore liberty can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

[Representative text of the letter sent by Holtzman Vogel attorneys David Johnson and Daniel Bruce is below:]

Dear [Attorney General]:

We write on behalf of our client, Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), regarding recent federal court developments with significant and immediate implications for firearms law in your State. In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-056 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026) (consolidated with the FPC-backed Jensen v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-227), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that various provisions of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) are unconstitutional because they no longer comport with Congress’s taxing power. This decision has created an urgent legal question for law-abiding firearms owners, firearms manufacturers, and law enforcement officials and legal officers in states, including yours, with laws that condition the legality of certain firearms on compliance with the NFA: Must state residents still comply with unconstitutional, enjoined federal regulations to exercise their right to keep and bear the arms under state law? In order to protect your citizens’ rights, we respectfully request your Office’s attention and offer FPC’s partnership in crafting a prompt resolution.

Background

The NFA, enacted in 1934, imposed a tax on the transfer and making of certain regulated firearms—including silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.” To facilitate collection of this tax, Congress erected a regulatory framework requiring registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, submission of applications with fingerprints and photographs, local law enforcement notification, and prior ATF approval. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c), (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f), (i); 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d), 479.84(a)–(d).

On July 4, 2025, Congress enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (2025), which, effective January 1, 2026, reduced the federal transfer and making taxes to $0 for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.”  Critically, Congress left the NFA’s entire regulatory apparatus—registration, application, approval, and recordkeeping—fully intact despite eliminating the revenue.

On August 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the challenged NFA regulatory provisions are unconstitutional. Because a $0 tax raises no revenue—the “essential feature of any tax”––the regulatory provisions can no longer be sustained under Congress’s taxing power, the sole constitutional basis on which the NFA was enacted. The court entered a party-specific injunction barring the ATF and DOJ from enforcing the challenged provisions (26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c), (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f), (i); 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d), 479.84(a)–(d)) against untaxed firearms held by the plaintiffs. Additional challenges are progressing in other circuits. See, e.g., the FPC-backed cases of Brown v. ATF, No. 4:25-CV-1162 (E.D. Mo.) and Roberts v. ATF, No. 2:24-CV-091 (E.D. Ky.).

The Problem

This creates a problem for many states, such as yours, that have enacted firearms statutes that condition the lawful possession, transfer, and/or making of NFA-regulated items on compliance with the federal NFA registration requirements. These provisions make it lawful for a person to possess NFA-regulated items only if that person has complied with the NFA’s registration, application, and approval requirements.

The Silencer Shop Foundation/Jensen decision has fundamentally disrupted this framework. The federal government is prohibited from enforcing the NFA’s registration, application, and approval requirements as to the covered plaintiffs. And the court held that those provisions are facially unconstitutional. Yet your State’s law still requires compliance with those facially unconstitutional federal procedures as a prerequisite to lawful possession under State law.

The Department of Justice recently notified Congress that it does not intend to appeal the decision. Letter from D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, to Sen. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Sen. J. Comm. (Sept. 24, 2026), Silencer Shop Foundation, No. 6:26-CV-056 (ECF No. 145-1). And the trend of litigation nationally suggests other challenges, see Brown, No. 4:25-CV-1162; Roberts, No. 2:24-CV-091, will reach the same or a substantially similar result. Accordingly, this issue is likely to persist until state legislatures act.

The result is an untenable legal limbo. Through no fault of their own, law-abiding citizens face state criminal exposure for possessing items they have a constitutionally protected right to possess and that the federal government is barred from regulating under the current statutory framework. Such uncertainty will chill law-abiding citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. And worse, it will also inevitably lead to confusion for state and local law enforcement officials who must determine whether to enforce state laws that incorporate unconstitutional federal registration, application, and approval requirements. This would not only put peaceable people at risk, but it would also inevitably lead to the expense of litigating challenges to your State’s laws in civil and criminal cases. Thus, FPC encourages your Office to take action now to begin addressing this critical issue.

Proposed Solutions

FPC respectfully proposes the following two urgent, prioritized solutions to protect citizens’ constitutionally protected rights, liberty, and property:

    1. Immediate Non-Enforcement Guidance. We request that your Office immediately cease enforcement of applicable State laws and issue a formal statement, opinion, or memorandum to State and local law enforcement and prosecutors directing them to not enforce your State’s NFA-tethered provisions for possession, making, or transfer of untaxed NFA items—silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons”—without federal registration and approval under the unconstitutional provisions. Such guidance would safeguard citizens’ constitutionally protected rights, provide clarity for law enforcement, avoid the expenditure of State resources on prosecutions premised on State laws tied to unconstitutional federal requirements, reduce your State’s legal exposure, and serve as a prudent interim measure while the State legislature acts. 
    2. Permanent Legislative Fix. We further urge your Office to develop an appropriate legislative proposal and work with your State’s Legislature to permanently untether lawful acquisition, possession, use, and disposition of affected arms from the unconstitutional, enjoined federal registration requirements. A full repeal of such State requirements is encouraged to show your State’s commitment to its citizens’ constitutionally protected rights.

* * *

FPC and its counsel stand ready to serve as resources and partners to your Office to address this issue, including analyzing the impact of the unconstitutionality of the NFA’s provisions on your State’s firearms law and providing model statutory language for permanent legislative solutions. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response and to working together in service of the people of your State.

Respectfully,

/s/

David Johnson 

/s/

Daniel Bruce 

It’s almost like this AI sees us as an enemy, and like Skynet and all the other fictional AI wants to kill us.

A teen used AI to plan a hiking route. It trapped him on a cliff.

A teenage hiker in Canada recently became another cautionary tale about the perils of overtrusting artificial intelligence. After relying on an AI-generated route to ascend Crown Mountain in British Columbia, the 16-year-old found himself stranded on a steep cliffside near a climbing route known as the “Widowmaker.” The wayward traveler’s position was so precarious, that it took roughly three hours to coordinate a proper rescue plan.

“The boy was very scared. He definitely feared for his life,” search manager Paul Markey told North Shore News earlier this month.

The teen’s position near Widowmaker’s final headwall prevented helicopter pilots from safely steering close enough to retrieve him. Instead, an onsite crew reached the hiker using a rope belay system, equipped him with additional protective gear, and then moved him to a better extraction location. As luck would have it, responders had also just completed a rescue certification training session earlier that day not far from the lost teen’s predicament.

“It put him into a situation which was beyond his abilities, so things could have gone sideways pretty quickly,” Markey added.

Despite major advancements in the industry, many popular AI products are still liable to produce results with unreliable, misleading, or outright false information. Generative AI has suggested hungry users add glue to thicken pizza sauce, claimed that snakes are mammals, and advised fixing a broken turn signal with something called “blinker fluid.”

This isn’t the only AI-related hiking mishap, either. Barely a month before the Crown Mountain incident, a trio became stranded near Mount Shasta in California after using Google Gemini to help plan their trip. Among other issues, Gemini suggested they pack less food and water than they actually needed, turning a normally eight-hour excursion into a multiday emergency.

Instead of relying on AI options, rescue officials like Markey suggest using well-tested hiking route apps like AllTrails, CalTopo, and Gaia GPS.

Everytown Pumps Another $10 Million of Michael Bloomberg’s Cash Into the 2026 Midterms.

The midterm elections are just a little more than three weeks away and major gun control groups are backing up the Brink’s truck to dump sizeable sums into political races to buy more influence and put anti-Second Amendment politicians into office.

With the balance of power in Washington, D.C., teetering on a pinhead, any dollars going to candidates for U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate races are going to have an impact on what the policy landscape looks like in the coming new congressional term. Gun control activists are going all in.

“For nearly two years, a MAGA House has rubber-stamped the Trump administration as it tore up federal gun safety laws, and flipping these eight seats is how we put a stop to it,” said Everytown for Gun Safety President John Feinblatt, in a statement announcing his group’s recent investment. Everytown, of course, is the gun control activist group founded and funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who himself is no stranger to spending 3- or 4-comma amounts to buy more gun control.

Everytown’s Newest Windfall

Axios reported that Everytown has made a significant investment in several congressional races to buoy gun control-supporting candidates and to flip seats from Republican to Democrat. The current U.S. House of Representatives Republican margin only sits at four seats, 218-214. That means flipping even three of the eight seats targeted by the Everytown cash dump would flip control of the House.

The Everytown spending splurge totals at least $10 million and every single one of the eight candidates included in the strategy is a former Moms Demand Action volunteer with a known track record of supporting those groups’ strict gun control demands.

The $10 million total in new Everytown campaign spending matches a $10 million “seed” donation plan that the gun control group GIFFORDS announced less than one month ago. GIFFORDS’ spending included U.S. Senate races in Michigan and U.S. House races in Virginia and New Jersey. This new spending by Everytown is a much larger expanded map.

According to Axios, the Everytown $10 million will be split between JoAnna Mendoza of Arizona, Pia Dandiya of Florida, Christina Bohannan, Sarah Trone Garriott and Lindsay James of Iowa, Christina Hines and state Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet of Michigan and Paige Cognetti of Pennsylvania.

U.S. House Democrats’ main super PAC, the House Majority PAC, praised the Everytown announcement, which would help Democrats take the majority in next year’s new Congress and make House Democrat Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) the new Speaker of the House. Mike Smith, who leads House Majority PAC, stated, “Every seat on this map is a chance to put a check on a Trump administration and a MAGA House that have spent two years putting the gun lobby ahead of American families.”

If You Thought $10 Million Was A Lot

As if there were any way to do so, Second Amendment supporters cannot forget the impact billionaire gun control and defund the police funder George Soros and his son Alex are having on the political landscape. Their collective bank accounts are seemingly bottomless and they are making it known, too, in the final weeks before Election Day.

NSSF has reported time and time again on the political bankrolling the elder Soros has done, how his son, Alex, has continued that effort and on the terrible consequences innocent Americans feel as a result of the politicians who have received their support.

If you thought the new Everytown spending would raise eyebrows, you better be sitting for the Soros news. According to Fortune, George Soros, his son and the family organizations are all dumping a whopping $102 million into Democracy PAC, a Soros organization super PAC that backs candidates who support more gun control, soft-on-criminal prosecutors and defund the police advocates in communities all across the country.

“About half that sum [$102 million] came from Geosor Corp, a private investment company owned by Soros. The other half came from the Fund for Policy Reform, a nonprofit that’s part of Soros’ Open Society Foundations, which supports progressive organizations and whose board is chaired by his son, Alex Soros,” Fortune reported.

This election cycle is notable as it’s the first full cycle after the elder Soros transferred control of his political spending to the younger Soros. Alex, unsurprisingly, backed Kamala Harris in 2024 and urged Democrats to unite behind her.

Altogether, these are just simply massive totals for gun control candidates to receive in the final stretch of the midterm elections.

Protect the Backstop

Voting-aged Americans who support their Second Amendment rights to purchase and possess firearms need to get and stay active ahead of Election Day. NSSF’s Protect Liberty Political Action Committee is doing all it can to boost federal candidates who will preserve and protect liberty, freedom and the Constitutional rights of all Americans, especially the Second Amendment.

Protect Liberty PAC is an independent-expenditure-only political committee and can accept unlimited personal and corporate contributions from companies in or outside of the industry, so long as they do not have federal contracts. Protect Liberty PAC will also expressly advocate for the election or defeat of specific candidates and that advocacy will be completely independent of any candidate or political party.

If you are able to donate to Protect Liberty PAC to boost pro-Second Amendment, pro-firearm industry candidates, please click here to join the fight. Every single donation will matter and will have a positive impact to protect your rights.

Voters shouldn’t risk their rights; they should #GUNVOTE to ensure the right people are there to act to protect their Second Amendment rights.

AI Surveillance Can Already Build a Gun List and We Need to Stop It

I teach women to shoot. That means I spend a lot of time at ranges. When I pull into a parking lot to train, I expect cameras on the building. I do not expect networked artificial intelligence aimed at the driveway, reading every plate that comes and goes. But that is what happened at Eagle Sports Range in Cudahy, Wisconsin.

A woman filmed several Flock Safety cameras pointed inward at the entrance, not at the street, so they could capture every vehicle entering the lot. The video went viral. The range’s general manager, Saad Jaber, said in an interview that the cameras were installed back in 2023 after break-ins at other Milwaukee area ranges. The intent was security. By February, the range asked Flock to take them down over privacy concerns. Flock cited a contract and Jaber said he had not realized they were locked in. After the video spread, the range pulled the cameras itself. “To heck with this contract, we’ll deal with that later on,” he said. Then the line that should stick: “We own our privacy, but when that privacy gets infringed, then what are we doing? What kind of nation are we going to become?”

The situation at the range today has changed. Ordinary closed-circuit cameras remained and controlled by the business remain. Honestly, no one can fault the range. Basic CCTV is not the same thing as an AI system. These systems that can log license plate numbers, make, model, color, and bumper stickers, then feed them into a searchable network law enforcement can query across jurisdictions. Flock boasts of its system developing a “vehicle fingerprint” and their system works. The scratch you got when your garbage can hit your truck; the funny sticker that your daughter gave you for Father’s Day, or even the license plate frame that came from the dealership become unique identifiers.

Now, incorporate a searchable database where users can ask directed questions “for investigative purposes” and there you have a weapon. Ironically, the system marketed on safety has the potential for the exact opposite. At this point, you have all likely seen the headlines about police officers abusing access to these databases to track, surveil, harass and even stalk spouses and ex-partners. For example, an officer in the same area as the Eagle Sports Range in Milwaukee was charged after searching a romantic partner’s plate 124 times and another person’s plate 55 times without authorization. Scary huh? What is more alarming is the potential for governments to do the same thing.

We have seen how successful the laws preventing any “national firearms registry” have been. Even the director of the ATF has admitted that enough data already exists to serve as a de facto registry (even if they paid to have it non-searchable). With the use of integrated AI systems, bureaucrats no longer need to rely on Form 4473s digitally cataloged since the civilian version of circumventing laws under the guise of public safety. Select cameras installed at dedicated range entrances and it becomes safe to assume that the only people being logged are people who shoot. Now prompt the system to list which license plates, or individually identifiable faces/bodies have been to that range or gun store, and you have a practical list of gun owners. Get access to financial purchase records and instantly, you’ve got a detailed list of many gun owners and the capability to even predict individual weapon proficiency and capabilities.

When people start to notice the potential for exploitation, things change. Recently Flock Safety announced modifications: a shorter default retention window, case codes, audit tools, and limits on what outside agencies can search for. Sounds better, right? Those are product features from a private company. They are not a legal limit on what an AI surveillance network can become once the data exists. Senate hearings have already looked at the scale of these systems and the weakness of relying on vendors and agencies to police themselves.

This is the part gun owners should not treat as someone else’s problem. Artificial intelligence does not have to ban guns to undermine the Second Amendment. It only must make lawful training and lawful purchases continuously visible. Frequency of range visits becomes a data point. A sticker becomes a classifier. A private camera installed for theft prevention becomes an input into a system that can be queried, shared, and misused. People notice. Some train less. Some avoid the range. That is a chilling effect produced by software, not by a statute.

Gun owners are an early, obvious target because the locations are discreet and the activity is politically sensitive. They will not be the last. The same architecture can sort church parking lots, political rallies, medical clinics, or any other place a government later decides is worth watching. Once the capability is cheap and networked, the restraint is political, not technical. That is why a diplomatic accord between the U.S. and China is the right move, not a ban on innovation and not a race to deploy first.

During the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR did not trust each other. They still negotiated pauses and limits on the most dangerous systems while verification rules were written. The Limited Test Ban Treaty and the early strategic arms talks were not acts of friendship. They were acknowledgments that unconstrained development of powerful technology, in the hands of rival states, was more dangerous than a negotiated slowdown. AI surveillance is in that category, and we should be doing the same.

License-plate readers are an early, narrow application. The underlying capability is pattern recognition at scale, tied to identity, movement, and behavior, deployable by governments and by companies that partner with them. China is already building domestic systems with far fewer restraints. The U.S. is scattering commercial AI cameras across roads, parking lots, and private businesses, then discovering the contracts and the sharing rules after the poles are up. A race to see who can surveil faster does not protect American rights. It normalizes the tools both governments will use.

A diplomatic accord akin to an arms treaty would not freeze every useful application of machine learning. Ideally, it would pause further development and deployment of high-risk AI surveillance and identification systems, by both Washington, D.C. and Beijing, long enough to write enforceable safeguards. Short retention that cannot be waived in a sales contract. Warrants for queries that are not tied to a specific crime. Hard limits on nationwide and cross-border sharing. Independent audits. A bright line against using these systems to build lists of people engaged in lawful activity, including firearm ownership and training. Verification matters here the way it mattered with missiles. A pause without inspection is a press release.

Businesses like Eagle Sports Range should not be left to discover, after installation, that a “security” product is feeding a network they do not control. Customers should not have to learn about it from a viral video. Policymakers should not wait for the next misuse case to decide that artificial intelligence aimed at lawful Americans needs rules written before the next expansion, not after.

Eagle Sports Range chose its customers over a contract. The larger choice is the same. Security technology can keep improving. It should not be allowed to quietly assemble records of who exercises a constitutional right while Washington, D.C. and Beijing sprint to see who can do it more efficiently.

A temporary, verified halt is how serious countries slow “progress” to allow for putting guardrails on a technology that is already veering off the highway. If you cherish your personal privacy, to include your right to keep and bear arms, you need to be involved at the local, state, and federal levels in defending your rights and freedoms; not just from the threats posed by dumb gun laws, but from the dangers posed by unchecked artificial intelligence and mass surveillance.

ATF issues guidance on National Firearms Act transfers for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, and certain other firearms

WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives today released an Open Letter and Frequently Asked Questions explaining how it will treat ownership, transfer, and transportation of the National Firearms Act firearms for which Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes in the One Big Beautiful Bill.

The guidance follows an announcement by Attorney General Todd Blanche that the Department of Justice will not appeal an August decision made by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which held that certain provisions of the NFA were unenforceable. In that decision, the court enjoined enforcement of those NFA provisions only for the plaintiffs in the suit; however, using the Department’s enforcement discretion, the Attorney General in his announcement made the policy decision to apply the guidance to everyone, and not only to those covered by the injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-cv-056 (N.D. Tex.).

“The direction from the President, Congress, and the courts is clear,” said ATF Director Rob Cekada. “ATF is now following suit with our enforcement posture while continuing to ensure we remain focused where we are needed the most: combatting violent crime in American communities.”

Under ATF’s guidance, ATF will not enforce the requirements for individuals to apply and receive ATF approval before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors (silencers), and certain other concealable firearms known in the law as “any other weapons.” ATF also will not enforce the NFA’s registration, tax-stamp or related requirements for those covered items. The $200 tax remains in place for machine guns and destructive devices. The NFA requirements apply in full to those weapons.

The guidance does not supersede state and local laws that restrict NFA firearms. Because many state laws require individuals to register NFA firearms, ATF will continue to process NFA applications that are submitted. The guidance also does not affect the Gun Control Act’s requirement to obtain ATF approval before transporting short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns in interstate commerce. Individuals may obtain that approval by filing a Form 20, whether or not the item is registered under the NFA.

Under the guidance, licensed dealers must still complete Form 4473s, run NICS background checks, keep records, and follow all other Gun Control Act requirements. Those engaged in the business are required to pay any special occupational tax. Individuals must also continue to comply with state law, which may be more restrictive.

ATF urges anyone with questions to closely read the frequently asked questions, available at atf.gov. Licensees and members of the public with questions may contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at FIPB@atf.gov.

BREAKING: Huge News for Gun Owners As DOJ and ATF Release Guidance and FAQ for NFA Items

The Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives have released the long-awaited guidance for gun owners and firearm industry members in response to the federal injunction on NFA registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “Any Other Weapons.” While the scope of the injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix applies only to the plaintiffs (along with their members and customers) in the Jensen and Silencer Shop cases, the guidance released by the ATF on Friday applies “to everyone, and not only to those covered by the injunction.”

A FAQ released by the DOJ and ATF explicitly lays out the changes that are now in effect.

Continue reading “”