Category: Gun Schtuff

If You Haven’t Heard, Suppressor Sales are Booming

By Salam Fatohi

America’s gun buyers are quietly making big noise when it comes to their shooting preferences. They are buying items regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) in huge numbers. That includes suppressors, short-barrel rifles (SBRs) and short-barrel shotguns (SBSs).

These figures aren’t in the hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands. The number is creeping up toward 1 million for this year alone, according to data provided to NSSF from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). And there are still seven months of purchasing data to collect this year.

That data shows over 845,000 suppressor applications were submitted and 768,000 were approved from January through May this year. Those totals include both Form 1 applications to manufacture suppressors and Form 4 applications to possess a suppressor either as an individual or in a trust with several parties.

In fact, NSSF reported a 177 percent increase in NFA checks in June 2026 over the previous year. That number jumped to 166,677 last month compared to 60,147 last June.

Table: Top-5 States for NFA Checks in June 2026

The Reasons

NSSF noted in January that 2026 could be the “Year of the Suppressor.” That prediction is turning out to be spot-on accurate. There are a couple reasons driving these figures.

Undoubtedly the One Big, Beautiful Bill, signed into law in the summer of 2025, turned an increasing interest in suppressors by gun owners into an all-out frenzy. A provision in that law, by deeming the required tax stamp as paid, in effect reduced the tax to $0 from $200.

Without the $200 tax added to the cost of each suppressor, buyers are finding it an easier investment to make. Turns out, when government gets out of the way of exercising rights, law-abiding citizens will want to exercise those rights even more.

Another reason for the dramatic rise in suppressor applications is that the ATF’s NFA Division is approving them in a matter of days, not months. NSSF worked diligently starting back in 2013 to ensure that ATF’s NFA Division had the budgetary resources needed to institute electronic form processing, or eForms.

Continue reading “”

NICS: Over 1.1 Million Guns Sold in June, NFA Saw 177 Percent Jump

In the lead-up to America’s 250th, the Second Amendment was well exercised, according to the latest data for last month’s gun sales.

According to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, 1,886,539 background checks were processed in June 2026. That was a 1.2 percent decrease from the FBI NICS figure of 1,909,294 in June 2025.

However, that figure covers several types of checks, not just those done for gun sales.

The firearms industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, distills the raw NICS numbers to remove gun permit checks and rechecks to yield the true number of checks done for over-the-counter sales. The adjusted figure for June 2026 stands at 1,123,006, a downright decent 11.7 percent increase compared to the June 2025 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,004,986.

Two big causes for the increase in those numbers were pending “assault weapon” bans in Rhode Island and Virginia that were set to take effect in July.

“Virginia saw a 241 percent increase over the same month last year, with 123,699 background checks for the purchase of a firearm,” Mark Oliva, public affairs officer with the NSSF, told Guns.com. “Likewise, Rhode Island had a 201 percent increase over June 2025 with 7,815 background checks completed.”

NFA transfers way, way up

In an update of what is shaping up to be the story of the year when it comes to firearms industry growth, the number of NFA items transferred nearly tripled when compared to last year, with June 2026’s figure of 166,677 transfers being a remarkable 177.1 percent jump compared to June 2025’s much more pedestrian 60,147.

This is no doubt due to the recent zeroing out of the circa 1934 taxes on the making and transfer of suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

Arizona’s Democrat Governor Signs Range Protection Bill Into Law

Milton Friedman once said that he didn’t believe that the solution to all our political problems is to simply to elect the right people. Instead, he claimed “the important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”

For Arizona gun owners, Gov. Katie Hobbs is hardly the right person for the job. She has used her veto power to block numerous pro-2A reforms during her time in office, including campus carry legislation and a measure blocking the use of industry-specific Merchant Category Codes for gun stores this year.

So it’s downright shocking that Hobbs has now signed HB 2763 into law. The bill, authored by State Rep.Quang Nguyen, puts some added protections in place for state-owned shooting ranges like the Ben Avery facility in Phoenix. Under the bill, the range could not be closed or shut down unless such a move receives the approval of the Arizona legislature, not just the the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, which oversees the range’s day-to-day operations.

In a press release, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms chairman Alan Gottlieb praised Nguyen for his work in protecting the world-class facility.

“I can say without fear of contradiction that protecting the Ben Avery shooting range and similar facilities around the Grand Canyon State is of paramount importance to Arizona gun owners,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Future generations of Arizona hunters, competitors and recreational shooters will benefit from this bill’s passage.

“The Citizens Committee takes this opportunity to congratulate Rep. Nguyen for his tireless efforts to guide HB 2763 through the legislature and finally to the governor’s desk,” he added. “We’re disappointed that not a single Democrat lawmaker in either the House or Senate voted in support of this legislation, while we are proud of Rep. Nguyen and his Republican colleagues, led by House Speaker Steve Montenegro, who passed this important measure despite that partisan opposition.

“It should be noted that Rep. Nguyen has appeared at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, which is co-sponsored by the Citizens Committee, and I am personally grateful for his dedication to Arizona gun owners,” Gottlieb observed. “I have come to know him as a lawmaker who can be counted on to defend the Second Amendment and the rights protected by Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona constitution, adopted way back in 1912 when Arizona achieved statehood. He can rightfully be proud of this achievement.”

It’s astounding to me that Nguyen’s bill couldn’t get a single Democrat to vote in support. After all, you don’t normally see lawmakers turn down the opportunity to exercise power.

It’s even more amazing that Hobbs signed HB 2763 given its lack of support among Democrats in the legislature.

With a six-seat majority in the state House and a four-seat majority in the state Senate, Republicans are now in a position to thwart any effort by AZ Game and Fish Commission leaders to shutter the shooting complex, at least in the short term. It’s still up to gun owners in Arizona, however, to ensure that the legislature remains as supportive of the Second Amendment as it is right now, and to replace Hobbs this November with a governor who will sign every single pro-2A measure that gets to her desk instead of selectively doing the right thing when it suits her political agenda.

Two Federal Courts, Two Weeks Apart, Split on Whether Silencers Are Protected Arms

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit ruled that silencers qualify as ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
  • This split creates a significant circuit disagreement, potentially beneficial for suppressor owners.
  • The Fifth Circuit emphasized that if a device aids self-defense, it qualifies as an arm, while the Ninth Circuit viewed silencers as optional accessories.
  • Both cases upheld convictions due to non-ideal test circumstances, illustrating the complexities of the registration process.
  • The split may encourage the Supreme Court to address the definition of suppressors and their status under the Second Amendment.

NEW ORLEANS, LA — Two federal appeals courts just looked at the same question weeks apart and gave opposite answers. The question was simple. Is a silencer an “arm” the Second Amendment protects?

On June 18, the Fifth Circuit said yes. On June 3, the Ninth Circuit said no. That disagreement is now a real circuit split, and it may be the best thing to happen to suppressor owners in years.

I covered the Ninth Circuit loss earlier this month in United States v. DeBorba. Now the Fifth Circuit has answered back.

Start with the win. In United States v. Comeaux, a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that silencers are protected “Arms.” Brennan James Comeaux had been convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act after deputies searched his home and he admitted making the devices. He challenged the charge on Second Amendment grounds.

Earlier rulings had ducked the core question, assuming silencers might be arms without deciding it. Judge Jerry E. Smith decided it. “They are,” he wrote.

His reasoning tracks the Constitution. Silencers cut noise and recoil, reduce muzzle blast, and improve accuracy and follow-up shots. Those functions make a gun safer and more effective for lawful self-defense. Because a silencer facilitates armed self-defense, it falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The government’s argument that a silencer is not necessary to fire a gun did not move the court. Under Bruen, an arm does not have to be necessary. It only has to facilitate self-defense.

Now compare that to the Ninth Circuit. In DeBorba, the same kind of NFA charge produced the opposite holding. That panel called silencers “optional accessories,” lumped them in with slings and scopes, and ruled they are not arms because a gun fires without one. Same statute, same Supreme Court precedent, completely different result.

This is the heart of the split. The Fifth Circuit asks whether a device facilitates self-defense. The Ninth Circuit asks whether a device is strictly necessary to make a gun go bang. One test protects the modern tools gun owners actually use. The other lets a court carve away any feature it decides is optional, and there is no obvious stopping point once scopes and sights are on the table.

Here is the frustrating part the two cases share. Both men still lost, and both courts leaned on the same crutch to get there.

Continue reading “”

BREAKING: 5th Circuit Rules Suppressors Protected by Second Amendment

LOUISIANA — On Thursday, June 18, 2026, the 5th Circuit for the Western District of Louisiana ruled suppressors are bearable arms protected by the Second Amendment. This historic ruling means no state in the Fifth Circuit can ban suppressors, and we’re one step closer to the Supreme Court reaching the same conclusion.

The court ruling states, “Peterson left open the question whether silencers are Second Amendment ‘Arms.’. 161 F.4th at 339. They are. Under the Second Amendment, “Arms” comprises “weapons of offence,” “armour of defence,” and “anything that a man wears for his defence, . . . takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 581 (citation modified). To “bear arms,” in sum, means to “wear, bear, or carry . . . for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person.” Id. at 584 (ellipses in original). Silencers fit that definition.”

Ruling

We are neither surprised, not amused.

Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms

The Ninth Circuit just handed gun control lawyers another gift, and it came from exactly the kind of case Second Amendment advocates should dread.

In United States v. João Ricardo DeBorba, the court upheld a stack of federal gun convictions against a man who was unlawfully in the United States, had claimed U.S. citizenship on firearm-related paperwork, was subject to domestic violence no-contact orders, and was caught with firearms, ammunition, and an unregistered suppressor.

Bad cases still make law, and this one may do real damage. The most dangerous part of the ruling is not simply that DeBorba lost. Given the facts, that outcome was hardly surprising. The problem is that the Ninth Circuit went out of its way to say that suppressors, also called silencers, are not “arms” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

The court treated suppressors as optional firearm accessories and said they are not covered because they are not necessary to the ordinary operation of a firearm. In other words, because a gun can technically fire without a suppressor, the court says a suppressor falls outside the Second Amendment.

A suppressor is not some decorative range toy. It protects hearing, reduces blast, improves communication, helps training, and makes shooting safer for the shooter and those nearby. Hunters use them. Instructors use them. Competitive shooters use them. Ordinary Americans use them. In much of the civilized world, suppressors are treated as basic safety equipment, not criminal contraband.

The Second Amendment does not protect only a stripped-down firearm in its most primitive form. It protects the right to keep and bear arms in a way that is useful, effective, and practical. Optics help a shooter hit what he is aiming at. Magazines feed the firearm. Lights help identify a threat. Suppressors help protect hearing and allow safer training and defensive use.

Constitutional attorney and AmmoLand contributor Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner hammered that point in his video breakdown of the decision. Smith argued that the court ignored the broader meaning of “arms” under Bruen, where an arm includes an instrument that facilitates armed self-defense. As Smith put it, the key is not whether an item is absolutely necessary, but whether it helps facilitate the protected right.

Continue reading “”

The Push by Democrats to Ban One of the Commonly Owned Handguns in the US

Gun control advocates are trying a new tactic. Instead of trying to ban all handguns, some Democrat states are trying to ban one of the most commonly owned handguns – Glocks, which they claim can be easily converted into machine guns.

This week, Maryland’s Democrat Governor Wes Moore and Connecticut’s Democrat Governor Ned Lamont joined California by signing into law a ban on the manufacture, sale, purchase, and transfer of guns with a cruciform trigger bar. A cruciform trigger bar is a vital internal component of semi-automatic pistols—most notably Glock and Glock-style firearms. Named after its cross-like shape, it connects the trigger to the firing mechanism and plays a crucial role in the firearm’s safety and discharge sequence.

Legislatures in Illinois and New York are among the states actively considering bills to ban these firearms.

Lawsuits by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation were immediately filed against Maryland’s new law. In landmark rulings starting with the District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects “bearable arms” that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The Court specifically contrasted these with “dangerous and unusual” weapons, stating that outright bans on common-use firearms (such as handguns) are unconstitutional.

New Jersey is now in a discovery process to subpoena Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) across the state for records involving Glock pistol sales to New Jersey residents.

Under a 1986 federal law, it is already illegal for ordinary civilians to manufacture or convert a firearm into a machine gun. Twenty-six states have similar laws. There is no evidence that law- abiding gun owners are converting their handguns, and even the advocates for these laws focus on only the threat from criminal gangs. Indeed, all 43 murders in the 20 U.S. attacks involving “Glock switches” that the Crime Prevention Research Center—which I head—has identified since the beginning of 2021 occurred during gang fights.

Over 65 percent of police departments in the U.S. issue or authorize Glock handguns for officers. In 2025, Glock had three of the six most popular semi-automatic handguns sold in the United States, with Sig having two of the top six.

These states argue that Glock knowingly designed and marketed pistols that criminals can easily convert into illegal machine guns using so-called “Glock switches.” They contend that Glock has known about the problem for years, ignored repeated warnings from law enforcement, and still refused to redesign its pistols to make those conversions more difficult.

Glock rejects the claim that its pistols are uniquely or unusually easy to convert. The company argues that its semiautomatic operating system does not differ fundamentally from those used in many other modern semiautomatic pistols. Glock pistols use a fairly conventional short- recoil, locked-breech design common throughout the handgun industry. Glock also maintains that criminals—not the manufacturer—bear responsibility for illegally modifying firearms with already-prohibited conversion devices.

Moreover, a Glock switch creates a firing mechanism fundamentally different from that of a true, fully automatic machine gun. A military-style machine gun uses an integrated fire-control system specifically engineered for automatic fire. By contrast, a Glock switch disrupts the pistol’s existing trigger-bar and reset mechanism. The device forces the trigger bar out of engagement and causes the pistol’s short-recoil action to cycle uncontrollably. Once the trigger is pulled, the firing continues until the gun exhausts its ammunition.

That crude method creates serious reliability and safety problems. Because the switch bypasses the pistol’s normal timing and reset functions, the firearm can discharge before the slide and chamber fully close and lock. As a result, the modification creates a real risk of catastrophic malfunction, including damage to the firearm and potentially serious injury to the shooter.

Common damage includes a destroyed or blown-open magazine, cracked or split receiver or upper, damaged or missing bolt, firing pin, extractor, ejector, operating springs, and stock.

Flying brass shards or case fragments can slice skin (hands, arms, face, cheek) or embed in tissue. Real incidents include a shooter’s thumb being sliced open “like a box cutter” with powder burns, or brass embedding in a shoulder, causing bleeding. Fragments can strike the face or eyes.

But others besides the shooter can also be harmed. “The problem about that is when you pull the trigger, you can’t stop it, the gun, the bullets are going to go and what we’re seeing is young people and adults can’t control their gun. … ” warned Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff Leon Lott. “You may hit a lot of innocent people, you may even hit people that’s on your team because you can’t control that gun.”

These laws don’t target criminals who are already breaking federal and state laws by illegally owning and using guns, let alone using illegal conversion devices; the laws are targeting millions of law-abiding Americans who own one of the country’s most common handguns. If courts allow states to ban Glocks because criminals can illegally modify them, no semiautomatic firearm will be safe from the same argument. The real solution is to prosecute the gangs and criminals using Glock switches—not to outlaw firearms that police and citizens have relied on safely for decades.

Trump DOJ: ‘Large Capacity Magazines’ Are ‘Actually Standard Issue Magazines’

Assistant AG for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon noted “large capacity magazines” are “standard issue magazines” during an appearance Tuesday on NEWSMAX’s Carl Higbie Frontline.

She made this point while explaining why the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Denver’s “assault weapons” ban and Colorado’s ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

Breitbart News noted that the DOJ filed its suit against Denver on May 5, 2026, and then filed a suit against Colorado’s magazine ban the following day, May 6, 2026.

Dhillon told Higbie, “In the case of Denver, they have this fake term called ‘assault weapons’ and they use that to slant the public against [the] most commonly owned rifle in the United States…the AR-15.”

She continued, “The Supreme Court has made clear that commonly owned weapons that are used by law-abiding citizens for legal purposes are presumptively legal under the Second Amendment.”

 

Is ATF’s ‘Sporting Purposes’ Test A Dead Infringement Walking?

One of the oldest regulations that has impacted the ability of law-abiding gun owners to purchase firearms of their choice could be off the books soon.

During an April 29 press conference announcing that three major regulations imposed by the Biden administration were slated to be axed, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said that the Justice Department was also reviewing the “sporting purposes” test regulations initially implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the Gun Control Act of 1968. For about 20 years, the regulation was primarily used to restrict handgun imports through the so-called “factoring criteria” outlined on Form 4590 before it was used to target modern semiautomatic rifles that anti-Second Amendment groups labeled as “assault weapons” following a 1989 mass shooting in Stockton, California.

“ATF is studying right now to determine which rifles are generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes,” Blanche said during the press conference. “That’s going to be an ongoing effort over the next several months and we’re going to see that through.”

In 1989, the ATF ultimately blocked the importation of semiautomatic rifles that bore a superficial resemblance to military-issue assault rifles like the AK-47, FN FAL, Heckler and Koch G3 and the Steyr AUG. Nine years later, in 1998, the agency tightened the ban to include rifles capable of accepting standard magazines used in the military-issue rifles and their semi-automatic-only clones.

Anti-Second Amendment agitators and organizations often use the term “assault weapons” in order to gain support for banning semi-automatic firearms with features that give them a cosmetic similarity to firearms capable of fully-automatic operation. Fully-automatic firearms are already heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934.

However, that test may not be around for long in light of the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. In 2008, 40 years after the “sporting purposes” test was used to restrict firearms imports, the high court issued its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia, in which it declared that self-defense is a lawful purpose for owning a firearm.

“The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right,” former Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. “The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.”

The Supreme Court has since struck down other laws on Second Amendment grounds in McDonald v. Chicago and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Constitutional attorney Stephen Halbrook, one of the foremost Second Amendment scholars, told the Daily Caller News Foundation that those rulings could be a death knell for the “sporting purposes” test, which was used to ban the importation of modern semiautomatic rifles in the late 1980s and 1990s.

“Limitation of the import of firearms to those the government decides are particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes violates the Second Amendment,” Halbrook said. “In 1989 and again in 1998, the government arbitrarily decided that firearms previously considered sporting were no longer sporting.”

Halbrook also outlined how the ban could be taken down via litigation.

“A licensed importer would apply to ATF to import several specific semiauto rifles and include documents in support demonstrating that they are (per Heller) in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense,” Halbrook told the DCNF. “After the permit is denied, the importer and persons wishing to purchase the rifles would be plaintiffs in a civil suit claiming denial of Second Amendment rights.”

ATF and the Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment from the DCNF.

Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts, Good News for Those Who Build Guns

What used to be a fringe hobby in the firearms world, building or customizing your own guns, is increasingly popular.

So, Wyomingites welcome a ruling by the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Second Amendment could apply to the buying, selling and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers.

AR-15 style rifles in particular can be built or customized to owners’ liking, using parts and accessories that can be purchased over-the-counter or ordered online.

“It’s like Barbie dolls for men. It’s all about accessorizing,” firearms enthusiast Nic George of Sheridan told Cowboy State Daily.

Court Rules On Colorado Case

At issue is whether the purchase, exchange and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers fall solely under state commercial regulations, or has Second Amendment implications.

The 10th Circuit Court on April 23 ruled the latter, Casper Attorney Ryan Semerad told Cowboy State Daily.

Continue reading “”

Ruger Moves Corporate HQ from CT to Gun-Friendly North Carolina

Reports indicate that Ruger has shifted its headquarters from the state where it was founded to one more closely aligned with the Second Amendment.

Famously founded in 1949 in a small red barn in Southport, Connecticut, by William B. Ruger and Alexander McCormick Sturm, the now publicly traded firearms giant has moved its headquarters to Mayodan, North Carolina. The move, which was official in January, was confirmed by the Hartford Business Journal this week.

Ruger has long had a footprint in the Tar Heel State, with Bill Ruger attending the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in the 1930s before he went to work for the U.S. arsenal at Springfield Armory in World War II. The company announced its 191,000 sq. ft. manufacturing plant at Mayodan in 2013. Since then, Ruger has added a 224,000 sq. ft. distribution center next to the plant, making Mayodan the largest of its operational hubs. When the company acquired Marlin Firearms in 2020, it moved the assets and assembly line from Huntsville, Alabama, to Mayodan.

Other Ruger plants include Newport, New Hampshire; Prescott, Arizona; Earth City, Missouri; and Hebron, Kentucky.

When it comes to gun rights, North Carolina doesn’t have permitless carry – although it has been approved in past legislative sessions – but the state does have a robust “shall-issue” concealed carry scheme with over 900,000 permits in circulation in 2025. Importantly, North Carolina does not have mandatory gun lock laws, a ban on “assault weapons,” or “red flag” gun seizure laws, all of which Connecticut residents suffer.

The Connecticut legislature is nearing a ban on Glock-style firearms this year, which would include the new and popular Ruger RXM. Connecticut has a state ban on binary triggers and bump stocks.

Further, Connecticut has a gun industry liability law that is somewhat at odds with the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, allowing controversial “predicate exception” lawsuits against gun industry members when it comes to the sale or marketing of firearms.

In terms of NFA items such as suppressors, machine guns, and short-barreled firearms, North Carolina had more than 252,000 registered in 2024, one of the highest totals in the country and nearly three times the number in Connecticut (93,297).

Although North Carolina has had a Democratic governor since 2017, he has been balanced by a majority-Republican legislature that has no sign of turning blue in the near future. Of North Carolina’s 14 members of Congress, 10 are from the GOP, as are both of its current U.S. Senators, Tom Tillis and Ted Budd. By comparison, all of Connecticut’s lawmakers on Capitol Hill in Washington are Dems, including some very rabid anti-gun champions such as Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal.

Ruger isn’t the only gun company to leave Connecticut in recent years for more 2A climes, as Stag Arms moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming, while PTR Industries shifted to South Carolina. Mossberg, whose headquarters are in North Haven, Connecticut, makes most of its guns at a facility in Eagle Pass, Texas.

New Jersey may have slipped up while defending its ammo ban

Attorneys for the state of New Jersey may have made a significant error while trying to fend off a Second Amendment challenge to the state’s ban on civilian possession of hollow-point ammunition in most circumstances.

The state prohibited civilians from carrying the rounds, which are almost universally used by law enforcement, in public as part of a 1978 overhaul of its criminal code, the only state to maintain such a restriction. In a lawsuit filed in February 2025 by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations on behalf of Heidi Bergmann-Schoch in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the groups sought to have that prohibition thrown out as a violation of the Second Amendment.

“New Jersey must show a broad and enduring historical tradition, circa 1791, denying Americans’ right to carry a firearm, loaded with ammunition used by all other Americans in other states, outside the home for self-defense,” the initial complaint said. “Because New Jersey cannot make such a showing, the challenged restrictions violate the Second Amendment.”

“By invoking the international law of war and the practices of the U.S. military, Defendants hoist themselves with their own petard,” a reply brief filed Thursday adds. “Defendants’ sources prove that HPBs do not cause ‘unnecessary suffering,’ nor are they restricted for use in warfare. Rather, HPBs were originally developed for hunting, and are widely used by military and police units, and tens of millions of American citizens – nationwide.”

Hollow-point ammunition has been widely used by law enforcement and civilians for personal protection and other lawful purposes for decades. In a 1994 video interview, Massad Ayoob, a police officer who was an expert witness in the use of lethal force in self-defense, explained why hollow-point rounds were preferred for personal protection.

“I think the history both of military battle and police gunfight shows us that hard ball round that is, jacketed round nose, for jacketed round nose round, the nine-millimeter is justly infamous as an impotent man stopper and the .45 [ACP] is justly famous as, eh, being a pretty good man stopper,” Ayoob said in the interview, going on to note that both rounds tended to “perforate” – that is to exit the body of the target and potentially harm bystanders.

Continue reading “”

Are Submachine Guns Really Becoming a Thing of the Past?
Well, when you can get an AR in 5.56 NATO that’s not much larger than a Subgun in 9mm, or even .45 ACP…

The sad death of the sub-machine gun

These iconic, sometimes crude, weapons are increasingly rare on today’s battlefields

There’s a tendency when looking back at the weapons we first carried into battle to remember them with a certain affection. Mine was a sub-machine gun: compact, purposeful and, at the time, entirely suited to the environment in which I expected to fight – in a tank.

With its stubby barrel, distinctive curved magazine and folding stock, my little Sterling was perfect for the confined, unforgiving interior of an armoured vehicle. Folded down, it could be stowed almost anywhere – behind charge bins, tucked into corners, ready when needed, invisible when not. It was, in every sense, a practical tank soldier’s tool.

In those days, the logic behind the sub-machine gun was sound. Close quarters demanded speed, volume of fire and manoeuvrability. If you were forced to dismount under fire, or if the enemy got too close to your vehicle, you needed something you could use instantly. The SMG did exactly that. It wasn’t elegant, but it didn’t need to be. It was brutally effective within its limits.

In the hands of resistance fighters during the dark years of the Second World War, weapons such as the Sten gun became instruments of defiance. Crude and often hastily manufactured, yet devastatingly effective in ambush and close-quarter engagements, they allowed irregular forces to strike with speed and then vanish into the shadows. There is little chivalry in that kind of warfare, but there is resolve; and the sub-machine gun, in that context, became almost symbolic of that resolve.

Unsurprising then, that it also became associated with organised crime. Tommy gun-wielding 1920s gangsters found much to admire in its qualities: concealability, controllable automatic fire, and an unmistakable capacity for intimidation. It is a reminder, if one were needed, that tools of war are morally neutral; their character is entirely defined by those who wield them.

Yet if there is a moment when the sub-machine gun achieved something approaching professional reverence, it was during the 1980 Iranian embassy siege in London. When the SAS executed their assault – swift, decisive, and meticulously controlled – they did so armed with the MP5, a weapon that had, by then, refined the sub-machine gun concept to its zenith. What unfolded over those brief, violent minutes was not chaos, but choreography: precise entries, disciplined fire and an almost clinical application of force.


SAS troopers carry MP5 sub-machine guns as they enter the Iranian Embassy to end a six day siege in Central London, 1980 Credit: PA

But modern soldiers are no longer facing lightly equipped adversaries. The widespread adoption of advanced body armour, incorporating hardened ballistic plates, has fundamentally altered the dynamics of small-arms engagements. Pistol-calibre rounds, the lifeblood of the SMG, simply lack the velocity and energy required to defeat that protection reliably. In operational terms, that’s critical. A weapon that cannot neutralise a threat when it must is not just limited, it’s potentially dangerous to the man carrying it.

Range, too, has become a defining factor. Contemporary engagements rarely conform to the tight, urban or trench-bound distances of the early 20th century, despite recent reminders from conflicts such as those in Ukraine that close combat has not disappeared. Even there, however, the anticipated resurgence of the sub-machine gun has not materialised in any meaningful way. Soldiers require flexibility, the ability to engage at 50 metres or 300 metres without changing weapon systems. The SMG, by design, cannot offer that.

Continue reading “”

Over 1 Million NFA Forms Processed So Far This Year, 6 Million Suppressors on File

It seems that the feds have had to wade through a year’s worth of National Firearms Act forms just in the first four months of 2026.

In the wake of zero-dollar tax stamps for suppressors and short-barreled firearms becoming a reality on New Year’s Day 2026, the ATF’s NFA Division has since processed a million forms as of April 23. The American Suppressor Association told Guns.com via email that over half of those are for Form 4 applications for suppressor transfers.

Of note, for 2024, the most recent year available, the NFA Division processed 1,373,305 forms. The Division only broke a million forms in a single year for the first time in 2011. Going further back, in 2001, only 311,892 forms of all types were processed.

The big takeaway, however, is the growth in suppressor numbers over that period.

“As of April 10, 2026, 5,998,065 suppressors were registered in the NFRTR, a number that has likely surpassed 6 million as of today,” advised ASA last week. “The number of suppressors registered between Jan. 2026 and April 10, 2026, is almost as many as ALL the suppressors registered between 1934 and 2010 (76 years).”

Below is a chart of selected historical suppressor registration numbers going back to January 2000.

Note that suppressors were rare before the past couple of decades, with just 83,627 cans registered nationwide in 2000 and 223,761 in 2010. (Chart: ASA)

Looking a whole lot like “common use” to me. Just saying.

History Shows Pistols Were Common in Revolutionary America

Pistols were commonly owned in America at the time of the Revolution. Clayton Cramer & Joseph Edward Olson lay out extensive evidence in their paper.

Numerous people claim that pistols were not common during the American Revolution. This is done to imply concealed arms were not included in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Clayton Cramer and Joseph Edward Olson published a paper outlining extensive evidence of pistol ownership at the time of the American Revolution. The paper was published in the Willamette Law Review on June 3, 2008, pages 699-722.

In early America, pistols were distinguished from guns or firearms. The distinction between pistols and guns, and by extension firearms, persisted in common usage until 1828. One of the most telling pieces of evidence showing the commonality of pistols is the accounting of the weapons turned in to General Gage after the battles of Lexington and Concord occurred on April 19, 1775.

On April 23, 1775, General Gage offered to allow Boston residents to leave if they surrendered their arms. Boston, through the selectmen, voted to accept the offer. By April 27, the people had delivered over 3,400 weapons. From the paper:

 As an incentive, General Gage offered passes to leave Boston to all who turned in their weapons, because no weapons or ammunition were allowed to leave Boston. On April 27th, the people delivered to the selectman 1778 fire-arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses.

Aside from the bayonets, pistols accounted for over 25% of the weapons turned in. This was probably an undercount, because pistols are easier to hide than the other weapons. After telling the Bostonians the weapons would be returned to them, General Gage confiscated them some months later.

The paper goes on to show numerous examples of pistols being offered for sale, pistols in estates, pistol powder for sale, and remnants of pistols found from the era.

In addition, at least one law exempted pistols from the regulation of long guns, the opposite of what is generally seen today.  Boston banned people from leaving unattended loaded firearms in buildings because of fire hazards. There was no law banning the carry of loaded firearms. The usage of the time separated firearms from pistols. The ban may not have included a prohibition on leaving loaded pistols in houses. Pocket pistols were mentioned in an account from 1772. There were many concealable arms during the revolutionary period. No evidence of laws against the carry of concealed weapons has been found from this period.

The paper is worth reading for any Second Amendment supporter. It shows handguns were in common use at the time of the revolution, and into the early Republic. Clayton Cramer is well known for his meticulous historical research.

Pistols, while not as common as long guns during the American Revolution, were common and readily used.  The story of Samuel Whittemore during the battle of Lexington and Concord is an illustration.

From warhistoryonline.com:

Samuel Whittemore learned of the British attack and armed himself with his prized sword and pistols, grabbed his trusty musket, and went to defend his home. By this point, Whittemore was at least 78, possibly as old as 80. He found a position to hide and observe the British advance and when they got close enough he revealed himself and shot one of the soldiers at nearly point blank range. With no time to reload Whittemore drew his pistols and killed two more soldiers.

Whittemore was shot, clubbed, and bayonetted at least 13 times. Against all odds, he survived and lived for two more decades.

Modern handguns were estimated to account for 27% of the privately owned firearms in the United States in 1945, according to figures in Gary Kleck’s highly acclaimed book, Point Blank. As America has become more urban, handguns have become more popular.  In 2023, handguns made up 54% of the firearms added to the private stock in the USA that year.

5.7 Million Suppressors Registered: ATF Data Shows Massive Growth in Ownership

According to the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the number of silencers/suppressors registered in the United States of America was 5,776,685 as of the time the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) responded at the SHOT Show in January of 2026.

This correspondent obtained information from the ATF on January 22, 2026. At that time, it was stated that the information had already been released and that over 150K National Firearms Act (NFA) applications had been approved through January 2026.

The graph of registered silence numbers was created using cumulative January counts from 2011 to 2026. When numbers were unavailable for January, linear interpolation was used to estimate the January number. Each year had at least one reference number. 2017 had three reference numbers, none of them for January.

Cumulative Registered Silencers National Firearms Act by YearImage by Dean Weingarten

The number of registered silencers has been growing at about 22.6% per year.  That rate is roughly equivalent to doubling every 3.2 years.  If such a rate continues, there will be about 50 million registered silencers ten years from now.

It is unlikely there will be 50 million registered silencers ten years from now. This correspondent believes the registration requirement will be removed well before 10 years. It could be removed within two years, given the lawsuits now in play. 50 million silencers in the hands of American gun owners, ten years from now, is plausible.

Continue reading “”