O.F. Mossberg & Sons, Inc. has announced that it has been awarded a contract for approximately $11.6 million dollars to supply the U.S. Army with additional Mossberg® 590A1™ pump-action shotguns.
First adopted by multiple branches of the U.S. Military in 1987, the Mossberg 590® proved its reliability and durability by successfully completing the rigorous MIL-SPEC 3443E testing protocol, then company said in a press release. The Mossberg 590A1 also features a heavy-walled 18.5-inch barrel; metal trigger guard; metal safety selector switch; and parkerized finish. It is chambered for 3-inch magnums.
The 590A1 has an OAL of 39.5 inches, has a 13.87-inch length of pull, ghost ring sights and a 6+1 capacity.
Following its adoption, the U.S. Military requested a purpose-built variant capable of withstanding sustained, high-volume use in the most demanding environments. That requirement led directly to the development of the Mossberg 590A1 — a strengthened, mission-ready evolution of the original 590 platform.
“Mossberg is honored to receive an additional contract from the U.S. Department of Defense for the battle-proven 590A1 shotgun,” said John MacLellan, Mossberg’s Vice President of Sales and Marketing. “This award reflects our long commitment to supplying rugged, mission-capable firearms built to exacting standards — and reinforces our pledge to provide timely solutions that support the safety and effectiveness of U.S. service members.”
Mossberg 590A1 shotguns are based upon the time-tested Mossberg 500 pump-action platform, with non-binding twin action bars; positive steel-to-steel lock-up; and an anti-jam elevator for smooth, reliable operation; dual extractors; anodized aluminum receiver for added durability, and universally-recognized, ambidextrous top-tang mounted safety.
Looking at national background check data for November, Americans picked up well over a million firearms last month, yet again. While million-plus sales numbers have become the new normal in recent years, November’s figures reflect a nearly 7-percent decrease compared to the same time in 2024.
It’s worth keeping in mind that last November was part of a volatile election cycle with gun rights on the ballot. No doubt that drove many sales. For 2025, the NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System figure comes to a total of 1,408,230.
That’s a drop from November 2024, which saw NSSF-adjusted numbers set at 1,514,773 checks. The unadjusted numbers show an even stronger drop. Total unadjusted FBI NICS figures for November 2025 came to 2,005,667. You can compare that to the unadjusted FBI numbers for November 2024, which came to 2,509,368.
Overall, unadjusted checks reflect a 20.1-percent decrease year over year.
Still, November’s adjusted figures topped October’s numbers of 1,299,312, thanks in part to surging background checks during Black Friday week. That peak sales week saw some 530,156 checks for firearm sales, with Black Friday itself showing 165,183 checks.
Total gun sales were almost certainly higher than the NICS-marked background checks would suggest. Currently, 28 states have at least one pre-qualified permit that can serve as an alternative to background checks. Additionally, total NICS numbers cannot reflect all peer-to-peer sales, which do not require a background check in some states.
Regardless, if we hop into our time machine, it seems even this 2025 decline is still within the new normal of increased interest in gun ownership nationwide. Pre-COVID figures for November 2019, which were considered a big boom back then, came to just 1,105,335 checks.
That makes this November’s “slump” a whopping 27.4-percent increase over the old 2019 “boom.”
More than 165,000 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background checks were conducted on Black Friday 2025.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reported there were precisely 165,183 NICS checks conducted on Black Friday 2025 and a total of 530,156 conducted during the “the week leading up to, and including” Black Friday.
NICS checks are those conducted at retail for the sale of a firearm. The checks began in 1993 and are conducted by the FBI, which uses the information a would-be gun buyer provides on gun transfer Form 4473.
Once a would-be gun buyer passes the NICS check, he is able to buy a firearm.
It is important to remember that more than one gun can be transferred after a successful check is conducted on an individual, as the check is done on the person not the firearm(s). This means 165,183 checks could actually translate into 200,000+ or 300,000+ guns sold, or even more.
In 2017, under the direction of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York launched a coordinated campaign to cripple the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of its defense of the Second Amendment and protected speech. New York’s Department of Financial Services contacted banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA and delivered an unmistakable message: Continue associating with the NRA, and the state would investigate, cite, and regulate your business into oblivion. Coming from the state’s top financial regulator, the warning carried real weight – exactly as intended.
The strategy worked. Financial institutions and insurers quickly distanced themselves from the NRA, leaving the organization unable to secure even basic corporate services in the state. If that sounds like an obvious First Amendment violation, that’s because it is. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that government “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against third parties to suppress disfavored speech are flatly unconstitutional.
Because that rule remains as clear today as it was in 1963, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously for the NRA last term. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, put it plainly: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” When regulators use the power of their office to pressure private actors into isolating or punishing a speaker, they violate the First Amendment just as surely as if they had censored the speech directly.
This case sits squarely at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments. The NRA’s policy views related to the Second Amendment, its speech, its advocacy, and its expression are all protected by the First Amendment. A government that can strangle a gun-rights group through financial coercion can use the same tools to silence pro-life organizations, religious ministries, parental-rights groups, or anyone else who falls out of political favor. That is why the ACLJ fights not just for the substance of constitutional rights, but also against government efforts to punish those who speak about them.
That unanimous ruling should have ended the matter. It should have allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to proceed so a jury could determine the full extent of the constitutional violations. But the Second Circuit had other ideas. In defiance of both the Supreme Court’s clear command and the First Amendment itself, the court held that New York’s officials were entitled to qualified immunity – meaning the case had to be dismissed.
Qualified Immunity Was Never Meant to Shield Deliberate Speech Suppression
Gun Owners of America has been challenging the Department of Justice over a troubling program where American gun buyers are seeing their purchases monitored by the ATF. There’s no due process involved at all, either. All it takes is for a law enforcement officer to say he suspects someone of not being an ideal citizen, and suddenly, they’ll get a notification whenever that person has a NICS check performed.
Just how bad are things? We don’t know.
It seems GOA knows, but they’re not talking. It’s not because they don’t want to. They’re not allowed to. They’re under a gag order that prevents them from telling what they know.
Unsurprisingly, others have an issue with that.
However, as this video from GOA tells us, what’s surprising is who is standing with them on this.
The fact that we’re being monitored for exercising our Second Amendment rights is far from new information. That doesn’t make it a good thing, only that it’s nothing new.
But for groups like Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vox, NPR, and Politico, among others, to stand with gun owners and have a problem with the gag order is very, very new.
As noted in the video, many of these organizations are generally very hostile toward the Second Amendment and Second Amendment organizations like Gun Owners of America.
Yet this isn’t a gun issue. Not really.
Sure, the underlying surveillance is very much a relevant issue for gun rights supporters, but the fact that Gun Owners of America isn’t allowed to speak about information that was given to them, inadvertently, by the Biden Department of Justice, is troubling for anyone in the media. After all, we get information from a variety of sources. Not all of that information was intended for public consumption, which is often the point. It betrays troubling behavior by the government that’s hidden under various laws pertaining to classified material.
And the courts have traditionally understood that and sided with the free press on such things most of the time.
If GOA is unable to speak with material handed to them directly by the DOJ, even if it wasn’t intentional, then what about a reporter who finds out that the government is funding an illegal arms trafficking network via drug sales in our inner cities? Just to name one completely random and not at all historical example.
Will Reuters get slammed with a gag order because a source gives them information on how the CIA is arming cartels so they can fight a different cartel? Again, a hypothetical, though this one is actually one I pulled out of my fourth point of contact.
That’s what this stand is truly about, of course, and I get that. It’s even fair that they’d side with GOA over their personal interests above and beyond any potential intrinsic desire to stand for rights as a whole. They’re not suddenly going to be pro-gun. This is about them and only them. In fact, I doubt they give a damn about the monitoring effort at all.
But politics is said to make strange bedfellows. It seems so do gag orders.
Oklahoma City, Okla. — The firing of Stephanie Dilyard, a former 7-Eleven clerk in Oklahoma, has ignited widespread debate over self-defense rights and corporate policies.
Dilyard, 25, was terminated after using her personal firearm to shoot Kenneth Thompson, 59, who she claims attempted to strangle her when she refused a counterfeit bill.
Despite being protected under Oklahoma’s self-defense law, 7-Eleven cited a violation of company policy as the reason for her dismissal.
The incident has drawn significant public attention, with many criticizing 7-Eleven for prioritizing protocol over employee safety.
Attorney Noble McIntyre commented, “It’s unfortunate she didn’t shoot him twice,” highlighting the tension between self-defense rights and employment policies.
McIntyre noted that Oklahoma is an at-will employment state, allowing employers to terminate workers for almost any reason, provided it doesn’t violate public policy.
However, he emphasized that Oklahoma’s stand-your-ground law supports Dilyard’s right to defend herself.
Ed Blau, a criminal defense attorney, explained the company’s stance, stating, “7-Eleven as a corporation, they do not want all of their employees packing heat while working all over the country. That presents a tremendous liability risk for them.” Blau suggested that Dilyard might face challenges in pursuing a wrongful termination lawsuit, as the company’s policy was clear.
The case raises questions about the responsibility of employers to ensure the safety of their employees.
Blau noted, “If an employee of a convenience store such as 7-Eleven is injured or even killed while working and that store did not provide either adequate safety measures or security, that store could be held liable for putting their employee in an unsafe space.”
As the debate continues, Dilyard remains resolute, stating she would make the same decision again to ensure she returns home to her children.
The story has sparked a broader conversation about employee safety and corporate accountability, with many calling for 7-Eleven to reconsider its policies.
Buried deep in a feature about three left-tilting college guys who have started a company which builds speed loaders for AR-15 magazines is a revealing observation about Democrats and why there may never be a rational conversation about the Second Amendment.
The feature, published in the Minnesota Reformer, focuses on Sid Allen, his fledgling company MangaBerry West, and his colleagues Riley Dahlberg and Tarik Alduri. All three of these guys are still in their 20s. According to the story, “Allen is the president, and Dahlberg vice president, of the St. Cloud College Democrats even though they are left of the party establishment on most issues.”
But one has to read almost to the end to reach the red meat.
“Despite being in favor of higher taxes for more robust social services,” the story says, “which is at the core of Democratic identity, the MangaBerry West guys said they’ve been told by Democrats that they aren’t real Democrats because of their support for gun rights.”
At another point in the feature, Alduri was quoted observing, “I think it’s sad that we have gotten to this point where the left thinks that they’re not allowed to own guns in order to stay aligned Democratic Party.”
Minnesota is home to Gov. Tim Walz, a former “A”-rated politician who did such a 180-degree shift on guns he’s almost persona non grata at the National Rifle Association. It’s a state where extremist Democrat gun control measures are currently held in check by the virtually even split in the legislature between Democrats and Republicans.
This year has seen tragedies linked to guns. There was the murder of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark. She served as House Speaker until January of this year and was a leader in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor party (DFL), which is the state Democrat party.
Then came the attack at the Annunciation Catholic Church, which left two students dead and 21 others wounded.
As KMSP Fox9 News is reporting, Democrat state Sen. Judy Seeberger, who is reportedly a gun owner, is talking about gun control in the 2026 legislative session. She, along with others in her party, wants a ban on so-called “assault weapons.”
This is where MangaBerry’s Alduri acknowledged his understanding of capitalism and how the gun ban Democrats want would “be a massive hit to our business.” At some point, idealism invariably collides with reality.
Also, if court rulings ultimately undo many if not most restrictive gun control laws around the country because they violate the Second Amendment, it will mean Democrats, as described by the MangaBerry West crew, will have to acknowledge their prejudices and admit gun owners have rights, too.
According to national background check data, Americans picked up over a million firearms last month, again.
October saw no less than 2,289,774 background checks logged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That is on par with the 2,298,383 checks done in October 2024.
After the National Shooting Sports Foundation crunched the data to remove gun permit checks and rechecks, the adjusted figure for likely retail sales stood at 1,299,312, which remains on par with the October 2024 NSSF-adjusted NICS tally of 1,302,857.
It should be noted that last October was on the cusp of the 2024 general election cycle, putting Presidents Biden and Trump, along with a swath of congressional, state, and local candidates, on the ballot amid concerns over gun control and political violence.
Firearms industry experts told Guns.com that the data is telling.
“October’s figures of nearly 1.3 million background checks for the sale of a firearm at retail are an encouraging sign that America’s desire to exercise Second Amendment rights remains strong,” Mark Oliva, public affairs officer with the NSSF, told Guns.com via email. “Historically, firearms sales during the fall hunting seasons are robust, and October’s figures hold true to that trend. Firearm manufacturers continue to produce the high-quality tools that today’s gun buyers have come to expect, and these figures bear that out.”
Henry Repeating Arms is no stranger to innovation, but their latest achievement has set a new industry benchmark. The company’s Lever Action Supreme Rifle (LASR) has been named 2025 Rifle of the Year by Guns & Ammo magazine, one of the most respected publications in the firearms world.
The award was announced as part of Guns & Ammo’s rigorous annual evaluation process, which includes field testing, performance analysis, in-store availability, and value assessments. Out of every rifle released in 2025, Henry’s LASR came out on top.
Recently, Everytown for Gun Safety hosted a 3D Printed Firearms Summit in New York City with the goal being to “build cross-sector collaboration and chart actionable strategies to stem the tide of 3D-printed firearm (3DPF) related violence.” The gathering of gloom is seemingly a leftover from the Biden-Harris administration, which convened similar confabs of gun control absolutists. One positive note is that these kinds of anti-gun “summits” must now be funded with Everytown’s own money rather than by taxpayers through Biden’s defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
Media hype ahead of the summit warned, “We’re at the start of a new public safety crisis and there is no time to waste,” and “3D-printed firearms are the new frontier in the fight against gun violence.” Everytown is apparently measuring this crisis by “recovery data from twenty U.S. cities submitted exclusively to Everytown” according to their Facebook post. Exclusive crime-related data given just to Everytown may raise its own kinds of red-flags to consider.
While 3D printing is a newer and developing technology, homemade firearms, or PMFs — privately made firearms — are not. Since the birth of our nation, citizens have enjoyed the right to create their own privately made firearms. A review of the basic facts on PMFs would have made for a helpful presentation at the summit.
As far as federal law is concerned, individuals can legally make firearms for personal use without a license as long as the person isn’t prohibited from possession of firearms, the firearm is detectable, and the firearm isn’t made or sold for profit. Firearms and related items that are illegal under federal and/or state law, however, are still illegal. Items that are already regulated by federal and/or state law are still regulated.
Firearms continue to be heavily regulated regardless of how they are manufactured. Articles referring to 3D printed firearms are a mishmash of terms interchanging 3D printed firearms with “ghost guns” and undetectable firearms. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, to name just a few, continue to govern firearms produced by 3D printing.
The mere absence of a serial number does not make a gun undetectable and if 3D printers were capable of producing undetectable firearms, such guns would already be illegal to manufacture and possess anywhere in the country.
The changes are aimed at “maximizing member dollars, streamlining operations, and investing in critical programs that best serve NRA members and ensure the long-term strength of the organization,” a press release from the NRA reads.
The NRA has more than 5 million members and is one of the top Second Amendment advocacy organizations in the United States.
“The NRA is listening and anticipating our members’ needs,” NRA President Bill Bachenberg told the Washington Examiner in a statement. “NRA 2.0 is re-focusing on its core missions of protecting our God-given Second Amendment rights, gun safety and training, supporting our Clubs & Associations and shooting competitions.”
Bachenberg became the NRA’s 69th president in May, replacing attorney Bob Barr. He suggested that the reorganization will make the NRA more efficient.
“We are flattening the organizational structure, redeploying staff, and exploiting technology to better manage the day-to-day activities of the Association,” Bachenberg said. “By knocking down the current vertical silos and creating cross-functional teams, there will be less duplication, stronger member services, and better communications.”
<
The organization will also “merge its Membership, Marketing and Advancement Divisions into a single department,” with “new data-driven techniques to increase revenue.”
Staff will be affected by the reorganization, according to the NRA.
“These necessary changes will, unfortunately, impact staff,” the release from the NRA reads. “The NRA’s leadership did not make these decisions lightly but must realign resources to ensure America’s largest and oldest gun rights organization remains strong and ready to address the fight ahead.”
NRA CEO Doug Hamlin said a “leaner NRA” is needed so that the organization can fend off its adversaries.
“The NRA has delivered on its promise to provide a pro-gun President, Congress, and Supreme Court for our members,” Hamlin said.
“These successes have not gone unnoticed by our adversaries, who are doubling down on election spending, lawfare, and new programs to push their radical gun-grabbing agenda,” he added. “To ensure we are prepared for the fights ahead, we must create a leaner NRA that focuses on stretching every member dollar to best protect your right to keep and bear arms.”
It was derisively called “Clinton’s Big Ditch.” after the New York governor who pushed through the financing and drove the impossible idea of building a 363-mile canal connecting the Great Lakes with New York City.
DeWitt Clinton tried to get financing from Congress for his project, which Thomas Jefferson called “madness.” However, President James Madison believed that using federal dollars for a state project was unconstitutional and refused to sign the bill authorizing congressional funds.
America’s longest canal up to that point was 27 miles. Clinton was proposing the construction of a canal 13 times larger, much of it through wilderness, using Irish immigrant labor and, most astonishingly, without any trained engineers.
The original engineers were largely self-taught locals who designed and constructed the canal despite having never seen one before. According to History.com, they included “a few inexperienced surveyors and at least one local math teacher. ” The two chief engineers were Benjamin Wright and James Geddes, “lawyers by trade who learned how to survey by prosecuting land disputes.”
Only in America.
Construction began in 1817. Eventually, 9,000 strong backs, working with shovels, picks, and axes, dug the 363 miles of canal with 18 aqueducts and 83 locks to compensate for elevation changes en route.
The canal opened the Midwest to the East Coast, and the payoff was immediate.
Within a few years, shipping rates from Lake Erie to New York City fell from US$100 per ton to under $9. Annual freight on the canal eclipsed trade along the Mississippi River within a few decades, amounting to $200 million – which would be more than $8 billion today.
Commerce drove industry and immigration, enriching the canal towns of New York – transforming villages like Syracuse and Utica into cities. From 1825-1835, Rochester was the fastest-growing urban center in America.
By the 1830s, politicians had stopped ridiculing America’s growing canal system. It was making too much money. The hefty $7 million investment in building the Erie Canal had been fully recouped in toll fees alone.
The Erie Canal not only transformed America, but, by allowing for the export of massive amounts of Midwestern farm products to Europe, American farmers drove a large number of small farmers in Europe out of business. Many of them made their way to America.
Historian Daniel Walker Howe wrote in his book, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, “The small capitalist farmers of North America hacked away at the economic base of the ruling landed classes in Europe more destructively than all the revolutionaries on the continent.”
The Erie Canal’s success set off a canal-building boom. Most were failures, but several were hugely successful, like the Ohio and Erie Canal and the Champlain Canal. Abraham Lincoln, like most politicians in the Midwest, was a big supporter of canals. Canals represented connections. Until the age of the railroad, canals were the only means of getting farm products from the prairie to larger markets.
By lessening the commercial and political isolation of prairie farmers, the canal helped to populate the prairies by connecting them with Eastern markets. And by linking Americans living west of the Appalachian mountains to the Hudson River, it created New York City as a financial center. One day in 1824, Howe writes, there were 324 ships in New York harbor. One day in 1836, there were 1,241. Through the city’s port, America exported grain and revolution.
In 1986, New York’s U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, speaking in Buffalo, speculated that America’s 19th-century tsunami of immigration was “in considerable proportion” a result of “the huge wave of agricultural exports that began to reach Europe once the railroads reached our Middle West.”
The Erie Canal was hugely disruptive. Sleepy New York villages and towns like Syracuse and Rochester became major metropolitan centers. The flood of wealth injected into the nation by the Erie Canal proved to be very unsettling. It set off a religious revival that included the Second Great Awakening, a reaction to the economic dynamism and social reform movements of the 19th century.
In two decades, more freight was moving down the Erie Canal than was being floated down the Mississippi River from the Midwest to New Orleans. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Erie Canal created modern America, but it’s hard to imagine America today without it.
As is pointed out below, the SpaceX Falcon rocket will do more launches and carry more payload to orbit this year than the Space Shuttle did in its entire history https://t.co/a0GzXBMRcL
A Domain Name System (DNS) resolution problem affected AWS cloud hosting, resulting in an outage that impacted more than 1,000 web-based products and services and millions of people.
Perhaps one of the most avoidable breakdowns came via people’s beds. The reliance on the Internet for smart bed products from Eight Sleep resulted in people being awoken by beds locked into inclined positions and sweltering temperatures.
As spotted by Dexerto, the AWS outage caused smart mattress covers from Eight Sleep to malfunction. These “Pod” mattress covers connect to a physical hub, and users can set the covers to temperatures between 55° and 110° Fahrenheit via a companion app. Eight Sleep also sells smart mattress bases that let people control their bed’s elevation with the app. As of this writing, the Pods’ MSRPs range from $2,449 to $3,249, and the base has a $1,950 MSRP. Eight Sleep also sells its Autopilot feature through an annual subscription that starts at $199. Autopilot is supposed to help automatically set Eight Sleep devices to users’ optimal sleeping conditions. Pod purchases require a one-year subscription to Autopilot.
Pods have on-device buttons for controlling the temperature without a phone, but the devices require an Internet connection for the adjustments to work. That limitation led to disturbing wake-up calls during the AWS outage as Eight Sleep smart beds became uncontrollable.
I woke up too hot in the middle of the night last night and kept double-tapping like a maniac to adjust the temp[erature] down since I wasn’t getting any haptic feedback. I only found out why after I got up in the morning.
It would be somewhat understandable that Autopilot stops working because Eight Sleep’s backend is down but not being able to even adjust the temperature locally is ridiculous and completely unacceptable for such a high-end (and expensive) product.
A person on X wrote: “Would be great if my bed wasn’t stuck in an inclined position due to an AWS outage. Cmon now.”
Some users complained that malfunctioning devices kept them awake for hours. Others bemoaned waking up in the middle of the night drenched in sweat.
Even more basic features, such as alarms, failed to work when Eight Sleep’s servers went down.
Eight Sleep will offer local control
Eight Sleep co-founder and CEO Matteo Franceschetti addressed the problems via X on Monday:
The AWS outage has impacted some of our users since last night, disrupting their sleep. That is not the experience we want to provide and I want to apologize for it.
We are taking two main actions:
1) We are restoring all the features as AWS comes back. All devices are currently working, with some experiencing data processing delays.
2) We are currently outage-proofing your Pod experience and we will be working tonight-24/7 until that is done.
On Monday evening, Franceschetti said that “all the features should be working.” On Tuesday, the company started making an offline mode available that works over Bluetooth when Eight Sleep’s servers are down, The Verge reported today.
“During an outage, you’ll still be able to open the app, turn the Pod on/off, change temperature levels, and flatten the base,” Eight Sleep co-founder Alexandra Zatarain told the publication.
Eight Sleep users will be relieved to hear that the company is making their products usable during Internet outages. But many are also questioning why Eight Sleep didn’t implement local control sooner. This isn’t Eight Sleep’s first outage, and users can also experience personal Wi-Fi problems. And there’s an obvious user benefit to being able to control their bed’s elevation and temperature without the Internet or if Eight Sleep ever goes out of business.
For Eight Sleep, though, making flagship features available without its app while still making enough money isn’t easy. Without forcing people to put their Eight Sleep devices online, it would be harder for Eight Sleep to convince people that Autopilot subscriptions should be mandatory. Pod hardware’s high prices will deter people from multiple or frequent purchases, making alternative, more frequent revenue streams key for the 11-year-old company’s survival.
After a June outage, an Eight Sleep user claimed that the company told him that it was working on an offline mode. This week’s AWS problems seem to have hastened efforts, so users don’t lose sleep during the next outage.
In mid-July, two gun-rights groups and an individual plaintiff wishing to mail a handgun to her father filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that the federal ban on mailing firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment. This federal restriction dates to 1927—as the complaint notes, it was the first federal gun control law[1] and pre-dates the National Firearms Act by almost a decade. The lawsuit, which is still in its early stages, implicates tricky questions surrounding legislative intent and how historical tests can account for technological innovation.
Filed on July 14, the Pennsylvania case is captioned Shreve v. United States Postal Service. The plaintiffs ask the court to strike down 18 U.S.C. § 1715, which provides that “[p]istols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service.” The law contains exceptions for guns mailed in connection with military or law enforcement service and for “customary trade shipments” in which firearms are conveyed from manufacturers to dealers. The statute only applies to the United States Postal Service. Knowing violations of the ban constitute a federal crime.
Shreve, a Pennsylvania citizen, would like to mail a handgun to her father as a gift and is permitted to do so under state law. The two organizational plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, each assert standing because “some of the[ir] members . . . also wish to use the U.S. Postal Service to mail their lawfully owned handguns and other concealable weapons for private, lawful purpose.” The plaintiffs assert that they cannot use private courier services—such as UPS or FedEx—because “private common carriers have prohibited the practice [of mailing guns] for several years.”
The plaintiffs in Shreve argue that the conduct of mailing firearms is protected because, “if the Second Amendment’s plain text did not cover such ancillary acts as shipment or receipt, the government could ban these acts outright, crippling Americans’ access to firearms.” They emphasize that, while “the U.S. Postal Service traces its lineage to 1775, . . . at no point did the Founders ever criminalize the mailing of handguns as the challenged statute does now.” The complaint further argues that exceptions to the federal ban—including for official weapons shipped by government agencies, commercial transactions, and long guns—belie any purported public safety objective. Plaintiffs frame the 1927 statute largely as a response to “anti-gun media sensationalism” that “did little – if anything – to curb violent crime.” Thus, the complaint concludes, the law “is inconsistent with Founding-era historical tradition [and] violates the Second Amendment.”
Congress recently passed the GENIUS Act, a measure designed to bring stability and accountability to the digital asset market by providing a legal framework for U.S. dollar–backed stablecoins. Lawmakers wanted to encourage innovation while protecting consumers and reinforcing America’s leadership in financial technology. While Congress debated how to make stablecoins safer and more transparent, one of the industry’s largest players was quietly writing its own rules, creating a system that treats lawful firearm purchases as a prohibited activity.
This is not consumer protection; it’s ideological enforcement. This is the same sort of financial discrimination that NSSF has fought against and is finally seeing changes with the Trump administration. For America’s firearm owners and retailers, Circle’s rules about how their cryptocurrency can be used should sound alarm bells.
Firearm ownership is a constitutional right. By imposing this blanket prohibition, Circle is effectively inserting its own political views into the marketplace and restricting lawful consumers and businesses from exercising their rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. This isn’t a question of public safety or financial integrity; it’s a matter of principle. And in this case, those decisions reflect clear political leanings. Circle’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy Allaire, is a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes. Federal Election Commission records show that Allaire has contributed thousands of dollars to Democratic state parties and members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), a staunch supporter of gun control legislation. While private citizens are entitled to their political opinions, those opinions should not dictate whether Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights within the digital economy.
Circle Responds
Circle provided NSSF with a statement attempting to clarify their position. It appears to [have] been a rushed statement given the grammatical error in the first sentence. Their statement came shortly after NSSF posted on X about Circle’s policy.
While it appears that Circle is willing to revisit its policies, as former President Ronald Reagan wisely said, “Trust, but verify.” The firearm industry has seen far too many examples of financial institutions and payment processors quietly introducing “risk management” policies that end up discriminating against lawful firearm businesses and owners. Circle’s statement is encouraging, but words alone are not enough. The proof will be in the policy changes – and in whether those changes ensure that Second Amendment commerce is treated fairly within the digital economy.
It’s official, Glock is relaunching most of its pistol lineup before the end of the year. I received an email this morning from Glock stating the following:
The GLOCK V Series is Coming
Yesterday, a retailer NOT affiliated with GLOCK Inc. made premature statements concerning the availability of certain GLOCK pistols.
The individuals making these representations are not authorized to speak for GLOCK.As part of GLOCK’s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product line to align with upcoming offerings.
Our dedication continues to be with maintaining the highest level of quality, reliability, and accessibility that you expect from GLOCK. The GLOCK V Series is here to establish a baseline of products while simplifying our processes.
Commercial models of the Glock V will include:
G17 V
G19 V
G19X V
G45 V
G26 V
G20 V MOS
G23 V
G23 V MOS
G21 V MOS
G44 V
And then there will be some that are distributor-exclusive:
G19C V
G45C V
G17C V
G19X V MOS TB
Note that compact models, such as the Glock 43, 43X, and 48 seem to be excluded from this relaunch. There is also no mention of many of the existing MOS models or of the recently released COA models.
Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. is introducing the first ever lever-action rifle chambered in 10mm Auto.
The Marlin® Trapper Series Model 1894™ in 10mm Auto is launching in conjunction with Hornady Manufacturing Company’s new LEVERevolution 10mm Auto ammunition. This first-of-its-kind lever-action rifle blends Marlin’s legendary craftsmanship with the versatility of 10mm Auto, setting a new standard for lever-action innovation.
Already known for its power and versatility as a semi-auto pistol cartridge, 10mm Auto delivers even greater performance when paired with a rifle-length barrel. The Trapper Series Model 1894 in 10mm Auto boasts an increased velocity of up to 250 fps compared to its pistol counterpart.
The Trapper Series Model 1894 is a short, quick-handling carbine rifle ideal for small-to-medium game hunting, self-defense and plinking, making it an excellent companion to your 10mm pistol. Like other models in the Trapper Series line, it features a cold hammer-forged, 16.17” threaded barrel and receiver-mounted Skinner Sight™ system that provides rapid target acquisition. Additionally, the stainless steel receiver, lever, magazine tube and barrel feature an attractive non-glare, satin finish.
In addition to the great features for which the Trapper Series line is known, this new model also has an upgraded fire control system. The sear is now e-nickel Teflon-plated and the sear notch geometry in the hammer has been improved to create a smoother and more consistent trigger feel. Plus, in response to consumer feedback, the sear and trigger system have been redesigned to eliminate the trigger “flop.”
Optimized for lever-action rifles, the LEVERevolution 10mm Auto ammunition features a 150 grain FTX bullet that delivers great accuracy, making it a great option for any hunter. While engineered for lever-actions, the round is a great choice for revolvers and semi-auto platforms as well.
This collaboration underscores Ruger and Hornady’s shared commitment to innovation, performance and delivering products that enhance the shooting experience for customers everywhere.
Five years ago Virginia Democrats enacted a “universal” background check law (along with several other gun control measures) after the took complete control of state government for the first time in several decades.
Now Gun Owners of America has won an injunction barring enforcement of that statute.
Twenty-Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge F. Patrick Yeatts issued his opinion on Thursday afternoon, declaring that there was no need to “embark on an analysis as to whether Virginia’s background check requirements comport with the “\’historical tradition of firearm regulation’ in the United States.
In exercising judicial restraint, the Court finds it improper to resolve the question of firearm regulation through the lens of Bruen. Instead, the inherent as-applied constitutional deficiencies of the Act require that the court strike the statute in its entirety.
Not to get too into the weeds here, but the statute in question originally imposed background check requirements on all gun purchasers over the age of 18. There’s a conflict, however: Virginia law allows 18-year-olds to purchase and possess handguns, while federal law does not. So, any 18-to-20-year-old attempting to buy a handgun, even from a private party, still had to go through a NICS check and would be denied.
Yeatts previously granted an injunction as it applied to those young adults, but today he ruled that the law must be thrown out in its entirety based on a prior case know as Ayotte. If you want to geek out on the legal underpinnings behind Yeatts’ decision you can read his opinion here, but the short version is that at the moment the background check requirement on private transfers seems to be null and void.
A note of caution, though. Because this wasn’t decided on Second Amendment grounds, Yeatts left open the door for lawmakers to remedy the technical deficiencies that led to him striking down the statute.
The Court also observes that it is feasible to create a system where all individuals are treated equally in obtaining a background check. For example, Nevada law requires all firearm sales and transfers, with limited exceptions, to go through a background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). The FFL conducts the background check through the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s (DPS)Point of Contact system. This system interfaces with the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) to determine the eligibility of the buyer to possess a firearm-regardless of age. While Virginia has not adopted such a system, whether due to cost or other reasons, Nevada demonstrates that it is possible to implement a uniform approach.
The statute as it stands, cannot remain intact. If the legislature wishes to rewrite the law to create a system that does not impose disparate treatment based on age, it may do so. At that time, a court might rightly address the question of whether it is constitutional to require a background check to obtain a handgun through a private sale. Now is not that time.
Nevada’s law prohibits sales of handguns to adults younger than 21, so running NICS checks on private party sales involving under-21s doesn’t create a conflict with state law. I don’t know if this was his intention or not, but it seems to me that Yeatts is essentially inviting the Virginia legislature to institute a ban on handgun sales to under-21s, although I’d argue that would absolutely create a system that imposes disparate treatment based on age.
If Democrats once again regain a governing trifecta in next month’s elections we may very well have to deal with an attempt to raise the age to purchase handguns, along with a host of other anti-2A actions. For now though, Gun Owners of America has succeeded in taking down Virginia’s “universal” background check law, and that’s good news for Second Amendment advocates across the Old Dominion.
California’s recent surge in gun control legislation, especially Assembly Bill 1127, which effectively bans Glock and Glock-style handguns, reveals a troubling pattern of the state enacting laws that conflict with the Second Amendment, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and established Supreme Court rulings. This relentless legislative push threatens the constitutional rights of California citizens and demands urgent corrective action.
The Second Amendment and Supreme Court Guidance
The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Landmark Supreme Court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that this right includes possessing firearms for lawful self-defense. The Court emphasized that the right to self-defense is central to the Amendment and that restrictions cannot apply to weapons “in common use.” California ignores this legal precedent.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court reaffirmed this position, ruling that gun regulations must reflect the historical understanding of the right at the time the Amendment was adopted. States must justify any restrictions based on this historical framework, especially when banning firearms like Glocks, which are essential tools for lawful self-defense.
