Category: Gun Schtuff

Low Round Count Pistol Drills: Sharpen your skills without emptying your wallet.

The price of ammunition continues to rise, and our lives keep getting busier and busier. Range time is more and more scarce, which makes the efficient use of your time and ammo on the range a very good thing indeed. To help with those goals, I’ve collected a few practice drills which sharpen your pistol skills without wasting your time or emptying your wallet.

Continue reading “”

2,374,172 firearm background checks were initiated with the FBI last month, bringing the total for 2024 so far, to 22,746,273. It appear that the noted ‘ball through the python’ rate caused by the combination of COVID and SloJoe is returning to a more or less “normal” rate.

 

Gun Made Launches The Largest Online Search Engine For Guns and Ammunition

Gun Made just launched the largest online search engine for firearms and ammunition, connecting consumers to more than 4,000 gun stores across the United States. The coolest thing about this search engine is it provides gun buyers with real-time inventory so they can not only check the price, but see if a nearby brick-and-mortar store has the gun in stock. Gun Made tracks over 500 million items so consumers can locate in-stock products on shelves anywhere in the country, including right in their own backyard with a simple ZIP code search for local inventories.

Gun Made also plans to expand the search engine’s capabilities by the end of the year to include firarms parts and accessories as well. The sheer volume of tracking necessary to bring this information to your computer, tablet, or phone browser is remarkable, however, Gun Made has faced the challenge head-on, making it the first website in the firearms industry to provide this capability.

Continue reading “”

Despite Democrats’ Best Efforts, a New Generation Discovers the Joys of Shooting

Colorado’s lurch to the left over the past couple of decades has led to repeated attacks on lawful gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms, but despite their best efforts, Democrats haven’t managed to destroy a culture of responsible gun ownership.

In fact, in Lake County, Colorado, interest in the shooting sports has led to the creation of the county’s first ever high school trap shooting team.

The team was formed after students expressed interest in having a local trap shooting program. One of those students was senior Raymond Harvey, who previously had to travel to Buena Vista to participate in the sport.

“I started attempting to get a team up here my freshman year,” Harvey said in sharing his determination in bringing the sport to Leadville. “I contacted the athletic director at the time. Then we got a new athletic director, and I worked with Jake, and we finally got a team up here.”

Now, trapshooting is an official club sport at Lake County High School and counts as an extracurricular just like football or any other sport. [Head Coach Jake] Farber said the team is also integrating with 4-H and partnering with the Amateur Trapshooting Association (ATA) and the Scholastic Clay Target Program for special events.

It’s great to see another high school embrace shooting sports, and it’s even better that the push came from students like Raymond Harvey.

“Trap shooting is one of the fastest-growing female sports,” Josh Homer said. “It’s great because it’s a nice integrated sport where males and females compete right next to each other and still have a great time.”

He also emphasized that trap shooting is the safest high school sport.

“Year after year, it ranks as the safest, with very few accidents,” Josh Homer said. “We really emphasize firearm safety and proper conduct.”

Students interested in joining don’t need their own firearm. The Ascent Opportunity Development Division (AODD), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, provides shotguns for participants who don’t have their own. The provided gun is a single-shot break-open model to ensure safety. If a student decides to purchase their own firearm, AODD can assist in choosing the right one.

Who could be opposed to this? Even gun control activists should be okay with high school trap teams. After all, Tim Walz an out-and-proud trap shooter and hunter, and that didn’t stop virtually every gun control group in the country from endorsing him and self-proclaimed gun owner Kamala Harris. If there’s any gun-related activity that groups like Giffords, Brady, and Everytown find acceptable, it has to be trap shooting, right?

Wrong.

“The NRA’s influence concerns Kris Brown, president of Brady, the national gun-violence prevention group. “I look at anything funded by the National Rifle Association with a jaundiced eye, because about 30 years ago they stopped talking publicly about any risks associated with firearms,” she said. “In this country, suicide with a firearm is at a 40-year high, and that is particularly true with teenagers.”

Brown claims not to have a problem with the shooting sports, but if there’s any involvement by the NRA or other Second Amendment groups then there’s an issue. I’m honestly surprised that Brady and other anti-gunners haven’t complained more about 4-H’s shooting sports programs, but maybe we just need to give them a little more time.

Youth shooting sports programs are apolitical in nature, but the anti-gunners still view them as a gateway to Second Amendment activism. They can’t stand the idea of kids learning how to be safe and responsible with firearms while also having a truly great day at the range. But while they complain about the NRA and other groups promoting youth shooting sports, the programs themselves keep growing in popularity… even in those places where responsible gun culture is under sustained assault.

Opening Arguments Begin in ‘Ghost Gun’ Challenge

While so-called ghost guns get a lot of hype in the media, the reality is that they account for only a tiny fraction of those firearms used in illegal acts. However, because they’ve grown in supposed popularity–probably because of media hysterics cluing bad guys in that these are a thing–they’re the worst thing ever.

When the Biden administration took steps to try to regulate these firearms, the usual suspects in the media and anti-gun activism celebrated it.

However, such a decree was never going to go unchallenged. Today, opening arguments begin in that case. (Arguments begin at 11:00 AM Eastern; you can watch them here.)

Among those party to the challenge is the Second Amendment Foundation, which sent a press release about today’s opening statements.

On Tuesday, Oct. 8, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to ATF’s regulation expanding what constitutes a “firearm.”

Arguments will begin at 11 a.m. EST and will be broadcast live here.

SAF is joined in the case by Defense Distributed and Not an LLC (doing business as JSD Supply). SAF and its partners are represented by attorneys Charles R. Flores and Josh Blackman of Houston, and SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.

In April 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) published its Final Rule amending the regulatory definition of the term “firearm” to encompass precursor parts that, with enough additional manufacturing operations, would become functional firearms frames and receivers, but in their current state were non-functional objects.

In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects” the ATF’s Final Rule directly contradicted Congress’ definition of “firearm” set forth in the Gun Control Act of 1968. The ATF’s re-definition of “firearm” in the Final Rule establishes a practical ban on the private manufacture of firearms – a constitutionally protected tradition.

In December 2022, SAF filed to intervene in an existing lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas known as VanDerStok v. Garland. The case challenges the lawfulness of ATF’s regulatory re-definition of a “firearm” under the Administrative Procedures Act. SAF scored a major victory in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated significant portions of the Rule. The Biden Department of Justice now seeks to resurrect the rule before the Supreme Court.

For more information about the case, visit saf.org. To listen to the arguments live, click here or follow SAF’s X page for live updates.

The key takeaway is that the argument will be that the ATF exceeded it’s regulatory authority by trying to redefine what is and isn’t a firearm. This is what the ATF did with bump stocks when they opted to redefine them as machine guns. The Supreme Court ruled they had no such authority, so it’s unlikely this will be any different.

That’s bad news for the anti-gun side because the reason Biden went the executive order route and had the ATF act unilaterally was because there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in Hades that Congress was going to pass any bill trying to accomplish what the ATF tried.

Yet that’s not a valid reason to try and go around Congress like this and redefine things differently than Congress did.

Had there never been a law that specifically defined a firearm, they might could have gotten away with it. One could argue that the lack of definition would put the onus for defining what is and isn’t a gun on the ATF. The problem is that they did define it. The ATF has to work within that definition, not make up their own because they really don’t like that people do things they don’t approve of.

The Vanderstock case is likely to be another smackdown of the ATF’s overreach, much like what we saw in Cargill.

Analysis: The First Crack Forms in Federal Machinegun Ban

For the first time, a federal judge has ruled the Second Amendment protects civilian machinegun possession.

On Wednesday, US District Judge John W. Broomes dismissed charges against a Kansas man for possessing a fully automatic .300 blackout AR-15 and Glock 33 handgun. He ruled that the federal ban on possessing or transferring machineguns (with limited exceptions) was unconstitutional as applied to the defendant.

“To summarize, in this case, the government has not met its burden under Bruen and Rahimi to demonstrate through historical analogs that regulation of the weapons at issue in this case are consistent with the nation’s history of firearms regulation,” Judge Broomes wrote in US v. Morgan.

In many ways, the decision is the epitome of what some gun-rights advocates hoped the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision and the new test it laid down would bring to bear on America’s gun laws. The 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA), which marked the first time the federal government regulated machineguns by requiring registration and a $200 tax stamp, has rankled a vocal section of activists. The same is true of the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, a provision of which known as the Hughes Amendment—18 USC § 922(o)—functionally banned civilian ownership of automatic weapons manufactured after its enactment.

Those activists view the federal regulations, enacted for the first time more than 140 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment, as incompatible with the Bruen standard because it prioritizes Founding-era approaches to weapons regulation when evaluating modern regulations. They see the ultimate liberalization of machinegun, suppressor, and short-barreled rifle regulations as the natural apotheosis of courts faithfully applying the Bruen test to America’s modern gun-control regime.

But court after court to address the question in recent years has rejected the idea the Second Amendment protects machineguns, largely based on the Supreme Court’s own words. Most often, they cite a section of the majority opinion in DC v. Heller that discusses the idea that fully automatic M-16s, which are functionally identical to the rifle at issue in Morgan, “may be banned.”

“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in Heller. “Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

Broomes interrogated this reliance on Heller’s brief discussion of M-16 rifles and reached a different conclusion on how much it binds courts confronting an explicit challenge to the federal ban on new machineguns.

Continue reading “”

ATF Requested Stay Denied in Force Reset Trigger Case

Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor for the Northern District of Texas denied the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) request for a stay on his ruling that blocked the ATF from taking enforcement actions over force reset triggers (FRT).

Earlier, Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority when it determined that FRTs were machine guns in the National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland. FRTs use the bolt carrier group (BCG) of an AR-15-style firearm to reset the trigger of the gun. This reset allows the shooter to increase the rate of fire of a firearm. The ATF claimed that since the rate of fire approaches that of a machine gun, it made the device a machine gun conversion device. Under federal law, any device that converts a semi-automatic firearm to a machine gun is itself a machine gun.

Machine guns are defined under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The actual law doesn’t reference a fire rate when determining a machine gun. According to the law, a machine gun fires multiple rounds with a single function of the trigger. An FRT doesn’t work that way. A firearm equipped with an FRT expels one round per trigger function. The ATF made the same argument about bump stocks in the Cargill case, but the Supreme Court ruled against the government and stated that bump stocks were not machine guns.

The statute reads: “For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.”

The plaintiffs claim that since an FRT requires that the user pull the trigger between each round, it could not be considered a machine gun. In the past, the ATF tried to use Chevron deference to change the meaning of a law, but because of the recent Supreme Court opinion in the Loper Bright Enterprises case, Chevron deference is dead. Chevron deference says when a law is unclear or ambiguous, the agency of authority has the final say as to the law’s meaning. This decision stripped the ATF of using Chevron deference in this case, even though it probably would not have been successful.

The ATF tried to use Chevron deference in the Cargill case, but SCOTUS rejected that tactic, stating that the definition of a machine gun is not unclear or ambiguous. Chances are high that the court would come to the same conclusion in this case. The ATF claimed that not issuing a stay would cause irreparable harm to public safety. The judge rejected the argument, saying that the only people charged with having an FRT were also charged with other crimes, so possessing an FRT was only an “add-on” crime. He also stated he did not believe that the defense was likely to succeed on the merits of the case.

The judge extended the time frame the ATF has to return the approximately 11,884 Rare Breed Triggers FRT-15s and Wide Open Triggers (WOT) it had confiscated from owners. Initially, Judge O’Connor gave the ATF 30 days to return all the triggers it confiscated from gun owners. The ATF went door to door to seize the triggers from owners but stated it could not return them in 30 days. The judge increased the time of the deadline by five months. The ATF now has six months to return all the triggers to their owners.

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendants’ Motion to Stay Judgment Pending Appeal (ECF No. 104),” the order reads. “The Court grants Defendants an additional SIX (6) MONTHS to comply with the affirmative obligation, which SHALL be completed by February 22, 2025. This extension does NOT apply to the Individual Plaintiffs or members of the Organizational Plaintiffs who specifically request the return of their FRT devices and provide sufficient documentation to the ATF. ATF shall return those as soon as is practicable following the specific request.”

The ATF is appealing the judge’s decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, although since this is the same court that ruled against the ATF in Cargill, it seems like a long shot that they will side with the ATF. The arguments in both cases are almost identical.

U.S. Government Appeals Pistol Brace Decision to 5th Circuit

After nearly three months of silence, the U.S. Government has now appealed the June 13, 2024, pistol brace decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The appeal was announced on August 12, 2024. The case is Mock v. Garland, and it was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The ATF pistol brace rule targets stabilizer braces attached to AR pistols, claiming the braces turn AR pistols into short barrel rifles (SBRs). And since SBRs are regulated under the National Firearms Act (1934), the ATF issued its rule on AR-pistol braces to stop what it saw as a way around SBR regulations.

Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction against the AR pistol brace rule on November 8, 2023.

Kacsmaryk observed that the “court is not insensitive to the ATF’s concerns over gun industry gamesmanship and attempts to circumvent the rules on SBRs.” But he followed that acknowledgement by quoting Bruen (2022), noting that the government may not justify the passage and/or existence of a regulation by “simply [positing] that the regulation promotes an important interest.”

In a decision dated June 13, 2024, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the ATF’s AR pistol brace rule, saying it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The U.S. Government has now appealed the pistol brace decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Breitbart News pointed out the Fifth Circuit decided against another ATF rule–a ban on bump stocks–on January 6, 2023. The court did so in light of the ATF’s arbitrary recategorization of bump stocks as “machine guns.”

Second court crushes Biden’s assault on AR-style pistols.

Today [the 9th]  another federal court rejected President Joe Biden’s war on guns, ruling against his effort to require 3 million to 7 million owners of AR-style pistols to register and pay a $200 tax on their firearms or face prison.

In the latest blow to liberal gun control politicians and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s plan, claiming it was likely to get tossed by the Supreme Court.

For now, the millions of users of guns equipped with “pistol braces” can keep them without fear of being fined or jailed.

The court said the ATF rule was poorly written and vague and gave the agency too much leeway to go after owners of the popular firearms.

Continue reading “”

ATF Moves to Halt Forced Reset Trigger Ruling, Appeals Decision

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is arguing in a new filing that it cannot meet a federal court’s order to return the forced reset triggers (FRTs) they collected when they effectively banned the devices last year.

Last month, U.S. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor ordered the vacatur of an ATF rule classifying FRTs—a rapid-fire trigger device—as regulated machinegun parts. O’Connor further ordered the ATF to return, within 30 days, any FRTs it seized from manufacturers, resellers, or individual owners while its rule was in effect.

The ATF has since filed motions challenging O’Connor’s ruling, including appealing the ruling up to the U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals and requesting a stay of the lower court’s decision.

Arguing their motion to stay O’Connor’s ruling, the ATF said it would be difficult to meet the requirement to turn over any seized FRTs within 30 days.

“ATF does not know the identities of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claimed members,” the federal agency wrote in its Aug. 1 filing, referring to the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights.

“Thus, ATF has no ability to determine who must be returned devices under the Order,” the ATF’s legal filing continues. “And even if an individual approaches ATF and self-identifies as an Organizational-Plaintiff member, ATF does not have the means to verify the accuracy of that representation, or whether they were, in fact, a member at the time the complaint was filed, as is necessary to receive relief.”

O’Connor’s order for the ATF to return seized FRT’s didn’t stipulate that the agency should only return the devices to the organizational plaintiffs. Rather, his ordered simply directed all of the seized devices be returned.

“The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision,” O’Connor’s July 23 instruction states. Continue reading “”

July Gun Sales Up, NICS tops 1 Million Each of Last 60 Months in a Row

All signs point to Americans continuing to reach for their wallets when it comes to practicing the right to keep and bear arms

Last month was the fifth highest July on record in terms of federal background checks for likely over-the-counter gun transfers since the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System was established over 20 years ago.

The unadjusted figure of 2,021,235 checks conducted through NICS last month is 1.7 percent higher than the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 1,987,650 in July 2023.

Crunching the numbers for last month by the National Shooting Sports Foundation to remove gun permit checks and rechecks, the adjusted figure stands at 1,064,790, which is a 4-percent bump compared to the July 2023 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,023,903.

But perhaps the biggest piece of news when looking at last month’s NICS figures is that July 2024 marks the 60th consecutive month – five solid years – that has exceeded 1 million adjusted background checks in a single month.

And with America headed into a contentious election cycle where one side is on record advocating strict gun control and the other is kind of dialing it in when it comes to gun rights, you can likely expect those figures to keep on climbing.

Should You Suppress a Home-Defense Gun?

Just a year or two ago things were looking up for suppressors. With the Hearing Protection Act written and in the legislative works, a semi-friendly House of Representatives and Senate, and the White House seemingly friendly towards signing a bill, things seemed positive for getting suppressors out of NFA jail. No more tax stamps, photos, fingerprints, body probes, and year-long waits just to make your gun run quieter.

Then, politicians did the politician dance, meaning they didn’t do a damn thing except fundraise and stump for reelection. Now, the House has flipped and there’s a better chance that Alyssa Milano will become the new NRA President than the Hearing Protection Act passing before Wolf Blitzer takes an anchor job with the Blaze.

Even still, you can buy one, just like before, as long as you’re prepared to wait. So, today’s question is, with all that headache and waiting around just to get your hands on a suppressor, should you ever consider using one on a home defense firearm? As with anything else, there are pros and cons to consider. Here’s a list of things to ponder.

Continue reading “”

N.J.’s ban on AR-15 ‘assault’ rifles is unconstitutional, federal court rules

A federal court judge on Tuesday ruled New Jersey’s ban on AR-15 rifles is unconstitutional, a decision that could force the state to lift its decades-old prohibition on certain semi-automatic weapons.

The judge’s ruling was limited in scope — it applies only to one type of firearm, the Colt AR-15, and allows “for use of self-defense within the home.”

It marks the latest clawback of New Jersey’s famously strict gun laws following several recent pro-Second Amendment decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court.

The decision was hailed as a partial victory by gun rights advocates who challenged New Jersey’s ban, arguing in court papers the law “blatantly violates the fundamental rights of the state’s law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for self-defense and other lawful purposes.”

State Attorney General Matthew Platkin said Tuesday his office would appeal the ruling, arguing it “weaponizes the Second Amendment to undermine public safety.”

“The AR-15 is an instrument designed for warfare that inflicts catastrophic mass injuries, and is the weapon of choice for the epidemic of mass shootings that have ravaged so many communities across this nation,” Platkin said.

In a 69-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Peter Sheridan, a George W. Bush appointee, criticized “the Supreme Court’s pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are ‘off the table’ when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes.”

However, Sheridan wrote, he was bound by the higher court’s rulings in two cases, known as Bruen and Heller.

“This principle — combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation — necessitates the Court’s decision,” the judge wrote.

The judge’s ruling concerned dual challenges to New Jersey’s Assault Firearms Law, enacted in 1990, and a 2018 law signed by Gov. Phil Murphy that limited magazine sizes to 10 rounds.

While Sheridan ruled the AR-15 ban unconstitutional under the new Supreme Court rulings, he upheld the state’s large-capacity magazine ban under the same framework.

The Supreme Court’s ruling “forbade a complete prohibition on a class of gun ownership,” he wrote, noting that AR-15 rifles are commonplace in gun-friendly states.

But the judge’s ruling only applies to the Colt model because of the “variety of firearms regulated in the Assault Firearms Law and the nuances that each individual firearm presents” and because the evidence in this case concerned the AR-15.

The gun rights groups, including the New Jersey Association of Rifle and Pistol Clubs and the national Firearms Policy Coalition, filed notice appealing the judge’s ruling upholding the magazine ban, court records show.

“Bans on so-called ‘assault weapons’ are immoral and unconstitutional,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a statement Tuesday.

“FPC will continue to fight forward until all of these bans are eliminated throughout the United States.”

Supreme Court to hear disputes over ghost guns, veteran disabilities, pollution during new term

The Supreme Court will return from its summer recess in October and hear legal battles involving ghost guns, veteran disability claims and water pollution in the justices’ first sitting of the new term.

On Friday, the court released its October calendar, which includes four notable disputes:

Ghost guns

On Oct. 8, the justices will take up a dispute over ghost guns — firearms that can be assembled and lack serial numbers. It will be the second day for the justices after they return from a three-month recess to kick off the 2024-25 term.

The Biden administration asked the justices to review a case in which a federal appeals court struck down a regulation governing the sale of kits to make ghost guns, saying it stretched the definition of “firearm” found in the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Justice Department lawyers say ghost guns have turned into an end-run around federal gun control laws, allowing “anyone with access to the internet to anonymously buy a parts kit or partially complete frame or receiver that can be assembled into a working firearm in as little as 20 minutes.”

Gun rights advocates say if the government wants to regulate the sale of ghost guns, it must pass a new law, arguing the feds can’t stretch the 1968 legislation that far.