The NFA Changes--Is It A Trap?

While the ATF's guidance indicating that it would no longer be enforcing certain NFA provisions is a welcome change, we all know that it could change on a political whim. So what happens if we get that SBR or sound suppressor using a standard 4473 form and a few years down the road a new administration changes its mind? Will we face criminal prosecution for having relied on the ATF's new guidance? In the video below, Washington Gun Law President and attorney William Kirk discusses the case law that suggests that we should be protected from prosecution based on reliance on the ATF's pronouncement.  

 VIDEO: "Are Gun Owners Stepping Into an NFA Trap?"
Washington Gun Law (13 min.)

Wow: ATF Applies Suppressor, SBR Ruling Nationwide

From Weekly Shooting News: "ATF Extends Jensen Ruling on Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs Nationwide." Gun owners have been waiting for the ATF to release its guidance concerning the application of the Jensen ruling which found that the NFA's regulation of sound suppressors, short barrel rifles and shotguns, and any-other-weapons was unconstitutional as to the plaintiffs in that case. Well, that guidance has been issued and its a boon to gun owners. From the article:

Here are some of the highlights:

• As of today, ATF is extending the ruling nationally, beyond the named plaintiffs and their members. In other words, law-abiding Americans no longer need a Form 1 to make a suppressor, SBR, SBS or AOW and they no longer need a Form 4 to transfer one. These items will be covered by the Gun Control Act, meaning 4473s and NICS background checks. 

• There are 15 states with laws on the books that require Form 1 and Form 4 processing by ATF for these items. ATF will continue to process these for people living in those states so that they can continue to make and own those items. 

• The serial number engraving requirement for home made suppressors, SBRs, SBSs or AOWs is no [sic] waived. 

• Keep in mind that the Gun Control Act and other provisions of the NFA are still in place. That means the GCA’s restrictions on interstate travel with SBRs and SBSs are still there. You’ll have to continue filing a Form 20 when you want to cross state lines with those.  

An additional note as to SBR and SBS weapons. Concealed Carry notes:

The GCA bars dealers from selling SBRs and SBSs unless the Attorney General specifically authorizes it. The NFA approval process used to satisfy that. Since that process is no longer required, ATF says there’s currently no mechanism to authorize those sales. ATF is writing new rules and forms, and until they exist, it won’t enforce that restriction. So for now, a dealer can transfer an SBR on a 4473. That could change once the new rules land… so now is the time to buy a SBR to be sure.

Here is the ATF's news release which links to the letter and FAQ on this subject. 

Flock Cameras And The Surveillance State

    Flock Cameras and similar seem to invite abuse. For instance, the Daily Mail reports on a man who recently won a lawsuit against the Bexar County Sheriff, in Texas, for violating his right against an unlawful seizure. The man was subjected to a 76 minute stop and search of his vehicle. The deputy who stopped him claimed that the reason for the stop was that the vehicle had crossed the center line, which was later disproven by dashcam footage. The deputy ultimately admitted that he made it up as an excuse to search the man's car. But this is where it gets interesting:

And through the lawsuit, the Houston resident would discover the real reason he was pulled over: A series of Flock surveillance cameras had caught him making a one-day trip to the US-Mexico border. An anonymous law enforcement agent had flagged it as suspicious.    

    A separate article from Slay News, "Florida Officials Discover Mysterious Network of Flock AI Surveillance Cameras with Unknown Operators," is more unsettling. The article relates that after Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ordered all Flock surveillance cameras to be removed across the state, St. Lucie County moved ahead with the request. According to their records and the permits that had been issued for Flock cameras, there were 52 in the county. But a sweep discovered another 14 being operated without permits. Three of these turned out to be operated by the Sheriff's Department (which raises its own issues of why the department had failed to get the necessary permits) but the remaining 11 are still unaccounted for--the county has no idea who operates them. Per the article:

    Flock offered to help review the cameras.

    A company spokesperson told The Washington Post that Flock often handles permits “where required, but permitting requirements vary by jurisdiction and are not necessary in every location.”

    The company said it had contacted St. Lucie County and was “happy to work with them directly to review the cameras in question and address any discrepancies.”  

In other words, we will never know who was operating those cameras or why. 

Anti-Gun Groups Want To Turn Your Pastor Into Your Enemy

From Shootings News Weekly: "Anti-Gun Orgs Urge Clergy to Use Red Flag Laws to Grab Their Congregants’ Guns." The article relates:

In September, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions published a tract titled “Extreme Risk Protection Orders: A Clergy Resource Guide” (extreme risk protection orders are the gun control advocates’ preferred term for red flag gun confiscation orders). The document was authored alongside groups including Faiths United to Prevent Gun Violence, Faith Leaders for Ending Gun Violence, and Jewish Women International.  

By their fruits, you shall know them.  

More On The Proposed Restrictions On Air Rifles

The Truth About Guns has more about the proposed restrictions on air rifles: "California Congressman Introduces Federal Bill To Redefine Many Air Guns As ‘Firearms’." The legislation proposed by U.S. Rep. Kevin Mullin, D-California (of course!) would classify almost all air rifles as "firearms" and subject to the same regulations. The so-called "lethal air gun" in the proposed law include those that would shoot:

A .177 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 800 feet per second; a .22 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 500 feet per second; a .25 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 450 feet per second; and any metallic pellet above .25 caliber.  

The bill is being called, for now, Garrett’s Law, "named for one of his constituents’ late sons who committed suicide with an air gun," while struggling with mental health issues during the pandemic--i.e., someone who had mental health issues because he was forced into de facto house arrest by the same idiots now proposing this bill. And to take the stupidity even further, Mullin suggests that if Garrett hadn't been able to order the air rifle online, he would not have committed suicide. As if all the other multitude of ways that people kill themselves wouldn't have been available. But now we are all supposed to be punished because one person misused a product?

    Not unsurprisingly, the legislation is being supported by GIFFORDS and March For Our Lives Foundation (another gun control group). Because the greatest fear of liberals is that somewhere, someone is doing something fun and wholesome. 

Dems Going After Air Rifles

The Mr. Gunsngear channel is reporting that Dems have introduced a bill in Congress that would regulate air rifles and other similar items using a gas to discharge a pellet or slug. It appears to be aiming for those large enough to be used to hunt anything larger than a squirrel. Similar bills have also popped up in some state legislatures. Not sure how this passes the Heller test since pneumatic rifles have been around and used since the 16th Century.  

VIDEO: "New Law Introduced To Ban Pellet Guns - Seriously 👀"
Mrgunsngear Channel (7 min.)

Gun & Prepping News #100

Some links that may be of interest: 

• "Mexico’s Government Funds Gun Grabbing Group"--Battleswarm Blog. Noting that "[t]he organization, Global Action on Gun Violence, has documented connections to Democratic lawmakers. It featured Rep. Dan Goldman in a gun-trafficking discussion⁠ promoted in its May and June 2025 newsletters and endorsed legislation backed by prominent Senate Democrats."
• "Evaluation of Defense Shooting Skills"--The Tactical Wire.  Rich Grassi explains:

    If your only assessment is the state qual course and you do that 1-to-4 times a year, does that really make you qualified? It does check a box, but it’s a minimum standard. The scoring area is vastly larger than it should be, the time you’re allowed is too long and, on the whole, judgement and discretion are never evaluated. 

    So how would a different shooting course help? 

    It’s an attempt to measure basic needed skills with a time constraint as well as allowing the instructor to evaluate gun handling – a critical aspect of the job. 

    The 5x5 classifier can be downloaded as a pdf here. It doesn’t have to be the IDPA 5x5 classifier, that’s just an example. 

• "Practice on the Indoor Range"--The Shooting Wire. The author goes over what he did when he wasn't able to use his regular outdoor range:

    The first trip saw use of the Ruger Mark IV Target; 5.5” bull barrel, metallic sights, the rear adjustable for elevation and windage. The gun has Hogue, Inc. “G-Mascus Green” G10 stocks in place of the factory stocks. Otherwise, there are no modifications.

    The ammunition I selected, based on concerns about indoor ranges and lead ammunition, was CCI CLEAN-22.  While it’s geared more to prevent barrel fouling and making a suppressor easier to clean, I reasoned that it could be a bit more healthy than uncoated lead projectiles. 

    I’m still careful to make use of hand cleaning wipes that are made to remove contamination of this sort. 

    Using a B-8 repair center for each segment, I’d shoot a pair of stages right-handed, replace the target and shoot a pair left-handed. 

    When trying to learn a physical skill like shooting, it’s good to work “mirror image” to get back to being a complete duffer and to iron out bad habits. 

• "The 'Lost' Art of Revolver Reloading"--Guns Magazine. Brent Wheat not only gives detailed instructions on how to do speed reloads for revolvers, but also explains why to use the left hand to hold the revolver when doing so. The article also covers the different between speed reloads (i.e., when speed matters like in combat or competition and using speed loaders), tactical reloads (i.e., removing spent cartridges and replacing them from speed strips or loose rounds), and an administrative reload (when time is not a concern). Explaining why to use the left hand to hold the revolver:

    A revolver cylinder is a floppy thing when it isn’t locked into the frame. On a square range, with your feet planted and your hands working exactly as you command, it’s not much of a problem. But a defensive reload may happen while you’re moving, running, fighting or ‘merely’ trying to keep your balance on a loose, slippery or uneven surface. I can also guarantee you’ll be dealing with an adrenaline dump that might leave your hands shaking like a toy poodle on meth. Now you’ve got to line up a half-dozen fresh cartridges with a cylinder that is moving around at the end of your arm.

     You might be able to get a finger into the cylinder opening to stabilize it — or you might not, because keeping a semblance of a firing grip makes it awkward. Worse, the cylinder could even relatch itself while you’re trying to get everything lined up.

    This is also why the support-side reload was traditionally taught to police officers back in those days when we rode dinosaurs on patrol. It wasn’t because somebody decided it was the fashionable way to reload a revolver; instead, hard-won trial and error proved the technique provided a more stable platform for manipulating the gun under less-than-ideal circumstances.

• "Minimizing Defensive Shotgun Recoil"--Shoot-On.  The tips include (i) using reduced recoil rounds (although the author specifically recommends against using mini-shells); (ii) using a stock that properly fits you and has a recoil pad; (iii) use a gas-operated shotgun; and (iv) adding a recoil reduction system to your stock.
• Going from something with heavy recoil with something quite a bit less: "The Defensive .32 ACP – The Ammo"--The Truth About Guns. A couple tips. First, the author advises avoiding hollow-point ammunition for a couple reasons: (i) if the bullet expands, it will slow it down enough that you lose too much penetration; and (ii) the shorter overall length makes it more likely you will experience "rim lock". Second, he recommends sticking to European ammunition, explaining:

    The American SAAMI standard for .32 ACP specifies a maximum average pressure of 20,500 PSI. The European CIP standard is higher, at roughly 23,200 PSI. That doesn’t mean every European load is automatically hotter, but it does give European manufacturers more room to load the cartridge toward that higher pressure limit.

    If you’re using a European pistol designed for European .32 ACP, it might malfunction with the weaker American stuff. With that said, my various European-designed surplus .32s haven’t had any problems with American-spec .32 ACP from Remington or Aguila.  

    There is another reason I like the European-loaded .32 ACP. It has a much more aggressive bevel near the rim and a deep groove for the extractor. The aggressive bevel acts more like a ramp, helping prevent rimlock and improving extraction. 

• "The Shaw .350 Legend: A Custom AR With a Hometown Touch"--The Truth About Guns. An interesting build for an AR intended for deer hunting, including some product recommendations and using a wood butt stock and pistol grip.  
• "5.11 Tactical Double Pistol Case Review: Protecting Your Investment"--Gat Daily.  The author relates:

    ... It’s designed to carry two handguns along with spare magazines and accessories. The case is 8.75 inches high, 11 inches long, and 3.5 inches deep, which makes it big enough for full sized service pistols. It’s still relatively compact though and would fit inside a patrol bag, ruck or larger range bag. The case is made from 1050D nylon and is fully padded to help protect your firearms during transport.

    Each pistol has its own zippered compartment, and there are three elastic magazine loops on the outside of each compartment. 5.11 uses lockable YKK zippers that open on three sides so the case lays flat on the shooting bench, making it easy to get to your gear. Reinforced grab handles are provided for carry There’s also a name tape panel on the outside, although its a smooth strip so I don’t really know how that works. Maybe write on it with a paint pen? The double pistol case is available in gray or black and has an MSRP of only $40. It’s on sale for $30 on 5.11’s site at the time I’m writing this. 

• "How to Disappear | Modern Escape & Evasion"--Bone Tactical.  He has fifteen (15) rules or tips for disappearing. The first two of these:

    First, assess your situation. Who are you getting away from—and why? Is it an abusive ex, online harassment, a business rebrand, or you just need a hard reset? Rank the threat: capability, reach, motivation, resources, and timeline. If it’s criminal danger, consider involving an attorney and—where appropriate—law enforcement or a victims’ advocate group. If it’s reputational heat, you’re playing a different game. Hopefully you won’t have multiple governments and organized crime after you like I did but stay tuned for the full playbook either way. Step one is to identify the problem before you try to solve it.

    Second, assess your resources and skills. Disappearing means transition, and transitions incur costs. Cash buys time. Skills buy options. Can you work with your hands? Build? Fix? Cook? Drive? Speak another language? The more value you can offer quietly and locally, the less you need to advertise yourself to survive. If money is tight, lean on skills. If skills are thin, learn fast.

He also has some warnings of how people mess this up, including:

Let’s talk about mistakes that get people burned. Breaking routine to chase fun in high-signal places. Oversharing because loneliness bites. Letting anger write checks your freedom can’t cash. Reconnecting with the same crowd that caused the problem. Slipping back into old usernames, old numbers, old patterns. The little compromises add up. Don’t feed the trail. 

• "How Long Can You Store Water? The Ultimate Safety Guide"--SHTF Preparedness. According to the author, "[c]ommercially bottled water, when sealed and kept in a cool, dark place, can remain safe almost indefinitely, while stored tap water is typically recommended to be rotated every 6 to 12 months." But the type of material for the storage container, the environment that the water is stored in, and handling (or mishandling) can effect how long it can be stored. For instance, if a water container is opened, there is always the risk of introducing contaminants which might encourage bacterial or algae growth. 
• "How to Stay Warm Indoors When the Power’s Out (& It’s Freezing Outside)"--More Than Just Surviving. Obviously, if you have alternate methods of heating, you will have an easier time than someone with more limited options. For instance, I have both a large kerosene heater and a carousel fireplace in a relatively small house, so I know from experience that I can keep my home comfortable even in the coldest of weather if, for some reason, the central heating fails. But what if you don't have these advantages? The primary point from the article is forget about trying to heat your entire residence, but instead focus on keeping a small area warm:

    If everybody’s in one room with the door closed and that room has got as many blankets, jackets, coats, pets, and whatever else you have at home to keep y’all as warm as possible, you’re going to have a lot easier of a time trying to stay warm by comparison to trying to heat multiple rooms.

    When it comes to sleeping, you don’t need to share a bed if you don’t want to, but if it’s not something you mind, why not? If you’re not into sharing a bed, drag extra mattresses or sofa cushions into your room of choice and have everyone sleep separately, but by being in the same room, you’re making sure none of your individual bodies’ heat production is going to waste – it’s helping to keep the room warm.

And if you don't have alternative heating methods, the author recommends that you go further and set up a tent in your "warm room" to further make it easier to keep an area warm. He also recommends staying in sub-zero rated sleeping bags and lining your tent with Mylar emergency blankets. He has some other tips, so be sure to read the whole thing. 

• Civilizational collapse: "You Don’t Realize How Far L.A. Has Fallen Until You Come Back"--PJ Media. An excerpt:

    I wrote in January about how, after moving out of L.A., where I lived for the first 30 years of my life, I've been able to see the city's decline more clearly whenever I go back for family visits or appointments every few months. I noted that "just as friends who haven’t seen your kids for a while recognize how much they’ve grown — much more than you, who are with them every day — whenever I drive into Los Angeles once every couple of months, the deterioration of the city is more evident. Many parts truly feel third-world."

    In that article, I focused on L.A.'s homelessness crisis, which can be seen under freeway underpasses, in city parks, and even in reports of homeless people getting into strangers' cars to sleep. This is not only visually disturbing but also anxiety-inducing. You never know how dangerous a homeless person might be, whether high on meth or suffering from severe mental illness. 

[snip]

    Comedian Bridget Phetasy, who recently returned to Los Angeles after years away, described a similar sensation to the one I feel upon returning: "It's like when you see someone and they've, you know, lost a lot of weight and they don't see it because they see themself every day and you see them and you're like, whoa. Right. That's how it feels."

    Phetasy used the word "unsettling" to describe "how much commercial real estate is empty." And she chose as an example a place where I spent many a happy day in both my childhood and young adulthood: Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade. The three pedestrian-only blocks were a favorite destination for so many in the '90s who wanted to catch a movie, grab dinner, shop, or watch street performers. 

    A California Post report earlier this year noted that the Promenade’s vacancy rate is now 25% and that the popularity of the destination began to decline because of the homelessness crisis, then fell further during COVID and the looting inspired by the “Summer of Love” following George Floyd’s death. 

Good News For Shooters In The 5th Circuit

"Fifth Circuit Rules Federal Interstate Handgun Sales Ban is Unconstitutional" reports Shooting News Weekly. The ban was there to protect states, like New York, which had strict gun control laws, from people going to a free state, buying a firearm, and bringing it back. But for decades we've heard these same gun control states complain that it doesn't work. This ruling conflicts with one from the 2nd Circuit, so it sets up a conflict that could help it be heard by the Supreme Court--assuming it is appealed, that is.

Gov't No Like Spicy Talk!

 An article at The Truth About Guns discusses the federal prosecution of a YouTuber going under the nom-de-plume "Dugan Ashley" in part because Ashley published videos on how to make explosives and some terrorist supposedly used them (although even that is questionable) to make an explosive device that failed to explode. There is, of course, no evidence that Ashley knew the terrorist or had ever directly communicated with him. As the author of the article points out, the issue here is: "Can the government treat publicly posted technical videos as a felony because a terrorist later downloaded them?"

So the government is now going to say what we can and can't say? If some assassin learned a bit about shooting from a YouTube video or article, is that YouTuber going to face prosecution? What if our hypothetical assassin attended a shooting class? Is the instructor now criminally liable? Because that is where a case like this leads should the government prevail. 

And let's be honest. The whole purpose of this prosecution is to chill speech. It is the inevitable result of living in police state. 

NFA Injunction Takes Effect

From The Truth About Guns: "DOJ Lets the Stay Expire — Silencer Shop’s NFA Injunction Takes Effect." From the article:

    At 12:01 a.m. Central on August 13, the seven-day stay on Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF ran out — and the Department of Justice let it. No emergency motion to the Fifth Circuit. No request to extend the pause. Nothing.

    For the first time in more than 90 years, a federally licensed dealer legally transferred a suppressor to a private buyer with no tax stamp, no Form 4, and no entry in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

    Gun Owners of America, Silencer Shop, and two buyers; YouTuber turned congressional candidate Brandon “The AK Guy” Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell closed the deal minutes after the stay lapsed.

    GOA called them the first unregistered suppressor purchases from Silencer Shop in the NFA era, and argued both men were covered twice over: as GOA members and as Silencer Shop customers. 

The article warns, however: "This is where readers need to slow down before doing anything stupid. The injunction is broad, but it is not nationwide amnesty." 

• The relief covers suppressors and AOWs bought through Silencer Shop or its dealers — not every gun store in America.
• It applies only in the 27 states without state laws mirroring the NFA. Fifteen states will still require ATF registration, and suppressors remain flat-out banned in others.
• SBRs and SBSs are covered by the ruling — but a separate law still stands. Hendrix’s order struck the NFA registration and approval requirements as applied to short-barreled rifles and shotguns too. The catch is the Gun Control Act: 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) independently bars a dealer from transferring an SBR or SBS without ATF sign-off, that provision sits outside the enjoined NFA sections, and an approved Form 4 is currently the only paperwork ATF offers to satisfy it. The tax is $0, and the NFA hook is gone, but a Form 4 is still required for short-barreled long guns, which is why Silencer Shop launched with suppressors and AOWs only.
• State and local law still remains regardless of this potential win.

There are more details in the article, so be sure to read the whole thing. The Mr. Guns 'n' Gear channel also goes into more detail:

VIDEO: "Breaking: The Biggest 2nd Amendment Win Ever - What You Need To Know"
Mrgunsngear Channel (26 min.)

Federal District Court Rules Portions Of NFA Illegal

From Shooting News Weekly: "US District Court in Texas Rules That With $200 Tax Gone, NFA Registration is Unconstitutional." Since the justification for the NFA was that it was to collect taxes, the removal of the $200 tax stamp on certain NFA items, such as SBRs and sound suppressors, left Congress without Constitutional authority to regulate those items. However, the ruling only applies to the plaintiffs in the case and would not extend to NFA items that are still, in theory, taxed. The Mr. Guns & Gear channel has more:

VIDEO: "Breaking: The NFA Ruled Unconstitutional - What You Need To Know"
Mrgunsngear Channel (15 min.)

Shilo Hendrix Found Guilty Of Using Racial Slur

MPR News reports: "Rochester jury finds woman who hurled racial slurs at a Black child on a playground guilty." Guilty of what? One count of disorderly conduct toward Sharmake Omar, the man who filmed her; but she was acquitted on a second charge of disorderly conduct for her conduct toward the kid that stole her baby's food. "She was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, was placed on probation and ordered to complete community service," the article relates. Since she isn't facing jail time unless she violates probation, it is doubtful she will appeal the case, which is probably what the judge is counting on since the conviction rests on very shaky Constitutional grounds as this article from FIRE explains: "Shiloh Hendrix’s conviction can’t be squared with the First Amendment."

    Unless the trial record contains some critical fact absent from public reporting, that conviction cannot stand under the First Amendment.

    The video merely shows a heated verbal exchange between Hendrix and Omar. No threats. No violence. Nothing beyond words. However much offense they caused, that simply does not justify the government imprisoning, fining, or otherwise punishing the speaker. A public argument does not become a crime because a speaker used a particular word.

    The jury reportedly was instructed on the quaint “fighting words” doctrine. Although still technically an exception to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court recently threw cold water on “fighting words,” observing it “has not upheld a conviction under the fighting-words doctrine in 80 years.” That case was 1942’s Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, involving a man who had choice words for a police officer. It’s a good thing the fighting-words exception has been sharply limited and arguably erased by the Court’s subsequent speech-protective decisions. Violent individuals shouldn’t have a veto over what others can say.

    Even if the “fighting words” doctrine still has a pulse, it’s very hard to see how it applies to Hendrix’s comments. The doctrine is, at most, confined to a tiny category of face-to-face insults that, under the circumstances, are likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. But courts have made clear that even the most taboo racial slurs are not fighting words per se. And, as the video shows, Omar solicited Hendrix — who was walking away while carrying her child — to repeat the slur so he could capture it on video and shame her. She did so and then continued walking away. Nothing about the interaction suggests Hendrix’s words were likely to provoke an immediate violent response.

What this case is really about is punishing an uppity white woman. If the races had been reversed and she had been calling out "cracker" at a white kid, the prosecutor would have laughed at the mere suggestion that a criminal offense had occurred. 

    But perhaps the deeper lesson here is that we need to deport people like Omar. The kid's father obviously wasn't that upset about the incident. So why was Omar following a white woman around in a park and filming her? Had he been filming her before this incident? Or did he manufacture this whole incident in order to make money (he has raised over $40,000 on SpotFund)? 

Shiloh Hendrix Trial Begins

You may remember Shiloh Hendrix. She is the young mother who confronted a black kid who stole apple sauce from her baby bag--food she had brought along for her baby. But she used the "n-word"; and although blacks constantly use it in reference to each other, no white is allowed to use it. Thus, as the article notes, Hendrix has been "charged with three counts of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor charge with a maximum of 90 days in jail."  

    Hendrix, who has pleaded not guilty, appeared on Monday in Olmsted County District Court as jury selection got underway for her trial. 

    The jury will decide whether her behavior was unlawful and likely to cause violence, or if her words are protected under the First Amendment.   

This is in reference to the "fighting words" doctrine in which it has been held that words, made face-to-face, “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are not protected speech under the Constitution. You can read more about this doctrine in this article from the Freedom Forum: "What Are Fighting Words? Definition, Examples and More."

3rd Circuit Strikes Down N.J. Assaut Weapon & Mag. Ban

Ammoland reports: "Major 2A Victory: Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s AR-15 & Magazine Bans." From the article:

Sitting en banc [i.e., the whole court rather than a three judge panel as normal], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled July 17 in Cheeseman v. Davenport, formerly Cheeseman v. Platkin, that New Jersey’s so-called “assault firearm” ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to every semiautomatic rifle covered by the law. The court also struck down the state’s prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

 No word on whether New Jersey will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    The article also explains the importance of this decision to other "assault weapon" ban cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear:

    The national importance of this ruling is difficult to overstate. Other federal appellate courts have upheld semiautomatic-rifle or magazine bans by treating commonly owned rifles as military weapons, minimizing lawful possession, or stretching late historical regulations beyond recognition.

    Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s dissent acknowledged exactly what the majority accomplished. She complained that the ruling makes the Third Circuit “the only Court of Appeals in the Nation to afford constitutional protection to AR-15s and LCMs.”

    That admission identifies the real story. There is now a clean federal appellate split over whether the government may ban AR-15-style rifles and commonly owned magazines.

    The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the consolidated Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases, which ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Third Circuit has now given the justices a detailed roadmap grounded in Heller, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford.

The article warns against immediately treating the laws as void: "New Jersey gun owners should not treat the publication of the opinion as an immediate green light to disregard existing statutes. The appellate mandate, further district-court proceedings, and any request by the state for a stay must still be watched closely."

Gun & Preppings News #90

 Some links that may be of interest: 

• "Pistols in America Across 250 Years"--Guns & Ammo. With the quote of the day: "Free men own guns, and there’s perhaps no better symbol than a handgun to distinguish an American from another person living elsewhere in the world."
• "Reducing Violent Crime Isn’t Complicated, You Just Have to Want to Do It"--Shooting News Weekly. The author mentions the general points: "Governments must make crime riskier by increasing arrests and convictions, imposing longer prison sentences, and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves." But he also points out:

Nor is it a coincidence that the record influx of illegal immigrants during the Biden administration coincided with a sharp increase in violent crime. It is equally unsurprising that crime has fallen as deportations have increased. Deportation records show that 70 percent of illegal immigrants deported during the Trump administration had either criminal convictions or pending criminal charges in the United States. Even those who avoid arrest understand that any contact with law enforcement could lead to deportation, giving them a strong incentive to stay off the police’s radar and avoid committing additional crimes.

• "Holding Zero: A Case Study of Your Scope's Nemesis"--Rifleshooter Magazine. The author notes:

The inability to get a rifle sighted in can come from several sources. Your rifle could have a problem. Or it just may not like the loads you’re feeding it. It could—(shocking thought!)—even be you, the shooter, that’s inconsistent. However, scope and scope mounting-system issues are frequently the culprit, and that’s what we’re here to explore in this article. 

And:

    Good bases and rings do hold quality scopes precisely in place. Not just for a while, but as hundreds, even thousands of shots create mini earthquakes.

    However, some scopes just won’t hold zero, and some bases and rings just won’t hold tight. Usually, that’s because they’re either cheap (let’s call it what it is), or they’ve been improperly mounted. Either is extremely frustrating. Both must be resolved before the rifle can perform properly.

    What causes scopes, scope rings, or bases to come loose? There are a variety of possibilities, but the most common ones are recoil—when a scope is mounted improperly—and vibration. As in, vibration in the belly of an airplane, or the rifle case mounted to your ATV, or behind the seat of your pickup. 

• And on the topic of precision shooting: "AR-15 Precision Long Range Shooting Basics"--AR Build Junkie.  An interview of Former Army Ranger sniper team leader, Ryan Cleckner, who is also the author of Long Range Shooting Handbook. There are also links to a few videos on long range shooting. And for those interested into getting into precision shooting with an AR, Cleckner says: "With long-range ARs, I would only worry about the barrel and the trigger.  Even if you have a budget AR and you just want to upgrade some parts and you put a decent quality barrel on it and a nice trigger, you are going to be fine." He has some more advice on upgrading an AR, so be sure to read the whole thing.

• Something that may be of interest to those of you with military surplus rifles: "Barrel Harmonics: How Shooting With a Bayonet Attached Affects Accuracy"--Shooting News Weekly. The author explains:

    Any person with knowledge and experience shooting precision rifles — or just shooting rifles precisely — knows that when a shot is fired, the barrel flexes and then returns to its original state in a fraction of a second. That’s called “barrel harmonics.” There are plenty of super slo-mo videos online that demonstrate this. 

    During a precision rifle course our instructor had us deliberately take shots with our bolt-action precision rifles and then stick them through a section of chainlink fence with the barrels purposely resting on the fence to see if our point of impact changed. Spoiler alert, the impacts were off dramatically. Our ½-size steel silhouette targets were around 200 yards away if memory serves. 

He then tested the shift caused by mounting bayonets on an AR15 and an AK style rifle: specifically, a Springfield Armory SA-16 (a semi-auto clone of the M16A2) and a Century Arms BFT-556 (a 5.56mm AK 74 style rifle). With the bayonet mounted, the SA-16 went from a 0.68 inch 5-shot group at 25 meters to 2.3 inches; and the group printed about 3 inches above point of aim. The BFT-556 had a 2.36 inch group at 25 yards without the bayonet; and, according to the author, the group size showed only a 0.5 inch different with the bayonet mounted, and the group only moved 1.5 inches higher. The author concludes:

    When we do our rifle ballistics math and extrapolate how a one-inch group at 100 yards translates to 2 inches at 200, etc., a 3-inch rise in impact between 25 and 50 yards translates to 6 inches of rise at 100 and a full 12 inches at 200. Being 12 inches off at 200 yards could definitely translate to missed targets.

    To be fair, we wouldn’t likely fix bayonets if we knew we were engaging targets beyond 100 yards. The cold steel of a bayonet is intended for up close and personal work. In a close quarters battle environment like the jungle or a MOUT situation, we expect targets to easily be inside of 100 yards.

    It’s safe to say that adding bayonets to fighting rifles negatively affects accuracy in longer distance shooting. However, for CQB situations, having a chunk of lethal steel affixed to the end of your barrel wouldn’t have such a negative effect on accuracy as to preclude its use. Just be sure to take it off — or take it into account — before engaging anything at greater distances.  

• "Unbreakable? Not Quite: Common AK Failure Points"--The Firearm Blog. Not surprisingly, these include the extractor claw and spring, fire control group springs, recoil springs, firing pin issues, bolt wear, rivet problems, cracked trunnions, gas block wear, ejector wear, and corrosion. I will comment from experience that there are many nooks and crannies where water can collect in an AK which are hard to reach with a rag to absorb the water. I would recommend that when returning from the field using an air compressor and/or hair dryer to blow out the water and dry the weapon. 
• "A Reliable, Affordable AR-Style Shotgun: The Tokarev TT-12 PRO"--Shooting Wire. What caught my attention about this was the author's assertion that this shotgun was reliable. Oh, and the price: an MSRP of $399, but the author claims that the street price is running about $250. 
• "Concealed Carry Corner: Concealing On A Motorcycle"--The Firearm Blog.  An excerpt:

The big difference between carrying in a regular car and a motorcycle is the fact that you're exposed to the outside world and elements while on a motorcycle, so there aren't many places to just outright hide your handgun. Not only do you have to worry about keeping your handgun concealed, but you also have to keep in mind that moving around and leaning on your bike can cause different strain on your holster than what's typically normal for carrying concealed. When going at highway speed, it's common for shirts to ride up in the wind without a heavier vest to keep things in place. It's important to think about where your handgun is positioned and if there's a chance of it being exposed at higher speeds when on the highway. 

•  "Pocket Pistols Are Dead: Here's Why You're Wrong"--Handguns Magazine. The author notes:

As we have laid out, you have 4 extremely general categories of pistols to choose from for CCW. So, if you’re choosing one of the extremes in a pocket pistol, how is it relevant in 2026? Maybe your occupation doesn’t allow for a pistol on your waist - not necessarily in a legal sense - but potentially because you are in a trade like carpentry, plumbing, etc., where your waist already has a toolbelt taking up all of the real estate around your waist. So, you need to resort to more creative methods of carry like your pocket.

He also explains:

    The primary scenarios where a pocket pistol may be a good application for you would be formal attire, hot weather, or extenuating circumstances at your job. We have already painted the picture for your job. You might have a carpentry belt around your waist, work in an office where a hip-carried firearm could be accidentally brandished, or other instances that demand your pistol should reside in your pocket.

    Another opportunity to pocket carry is while donning a suit and tie. Professional wear is often tight-fitting and doesn’t take into account the possibility for concealed carry. So, if you force it, it can be tremendously uncomfortable as well as open the door for scaring your co-workers or friends who have delicate sensibilities.

    Finally, there are the oppressively hot times in the summer where you’re only wearing a thin T-shirt and shorts. This type of clothing gives you a cooling factor in hotter temps but doesn’t lend itself well to carrying a firearm.

• Speaking of pocket pistols: "Phlster Introduces Enigma Micro For Pocket Pistols"--The Firearm Blog.
• "Big Woods Bucks x Henry Repeating Arms Long Ranger Big Woods Carbine"--The Firearm Blog.  Henry has produced an 18.5" barrel version of their .308 Long Ranger lever action rifle intended for hunting in dense woods. It still uses a 4-round detachable box magazine. 
• Since these are a type of insurrection, I believe it is a topic to which preppers should pay attention: "The Scourge of Teen Takeovers"--City Journal.  Key point:

    Police officers, district attorneys, and sheriffs offer a different explanation for the teen takeovers: they are the consequence of a decades-long demonization of the criminal-justice system.

    Asked how the Chicago Police Department would have responded to a stampede on the Magnificent Mile before that demonization took hold, a recently retired officer with over 30 years on the force replied: “We would have cleared the streets, arrested those breaking windows, looting stores, and assaulting passersby. We would have used pepper spray, fists, and batons to restore order—all of which we did during the Bulls riots [in 1992], the Democratic National Convention in 1996, NATO, and other localized disturbances that didn’t make the news.”

    But then, he says, “the bottom fell out. Officers were cast as the enemy by eight years of Obama.” After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, followed by those of Laquan McDonald in Chicago that same year and of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in 2015, “we were cleaning spit off our windshields on a daily basis. We were physically attacked more during those years than at any other point in our careers.” Officers feared being sued for lawful tactics that make for bad optics.

    The cops disengaged. “We drove by the dope sellers on the corner, asked no questions of the juveniles who were clearly up to no good, and ignored the cars running stop signs and weaving through traffic.” Better just to do your eight hours and go home.

    Another retired Chicago cop recalls asking his commanders in 2010 when mobs were storming downtown: Can we make arrests? He was told: just hold the line and move them around. Even were the officers to engage, the chance that the average detained teen would face serious consequences was already low.

    In the 1990s and early 2000s, officers had a protective attitude toward business; they took responsibility for the well-being of shopkeepers and their customers, says a Chicago sergeant still on the job. “It’s different now.”

    And then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd died while restrained by a Minneapolis officer. The country’s elites proclaimed that systemic racism had killed Floyd. Politicians and business leaders rushed to explain the ensuing firebombing of police cars and stations, the attempted murder of police officers, and the destruction of businesses as an understandable, even justifiable, reaction to police oppression.

    The post-Floyd race-riot era is largely coterminous with the Covid era: lockdowns began in late March 2020, and the riots erupted at the end of May. That overlap has allowed policing skeptics to attribute the crime spike that began in 2020 to Covid rather than to de-policing and de-prosecution. Those same skeptics now apply the argument to teen takeovers as well.

    The rest of the world again provides a useful benchmark. Other countries did not experience a comparable surge in crime beginning in 2020, just as they did not experience a wave of teen takeovers. The United States experienced both because police and prosecutors shied away further from imposing consequences on antisocial behavior.

    The juvenile-justice system was similarly emasculated in the twenty-first century, for much the same reason as the adult system: to avoid disparate impact. The Obama administration sued school districts for disparities in school-discipline rates between black students and white students. Suspensions and expulsions plummeted. Rather than being punished, insubordinate pupils were directed to “peace circles” and other forms of restorative justice.

    Outside the school bureaucracy, cities and states loosened their already-permissive rules for holding juveniles accountable for crimes. From 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected president, through 2021, the rate at which black male juveniles received final dispositions for violent offenses fell 67 percent, according to the National Center for Juvenile Justice. It is unlikely that this decline in adjudications reflected a 67 percent drop in violent crime among black juveniles, given victimization data and the reports of police officers. Instead, budding criminals were increasingly kept out of the juvenile system altogether, whether their misconduct occurred in schools or on the streets. Those who did enter the system encountered increasingly permissive rules.

Looks Like The Supreme Court Had A Busy Morning

• "Supreme Court rules Trump can turn back asylum seekers at US border in major immigration win"--New York Post. Liberals argued that the invaders should be deemed to have "arrived" in the U.S. for purposes of asylum laws when they reached the border, but SCOTUS held that the common meaning of "arrived" applies, not almost here. Justice Sonia Sotomayor once again showed why she should not be on the Court complaining that the decision "extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.” 
• "Supreme Court rules Trump can remove deportation protection from Haitians, Syrians"--New York Post.  It opens the door to more than 6,000 Syrians and 350,000 Haitians being deported. Most significant part, I think, was that SCOTUS is that when the applicable statute said there was no judicial review of decisions terminating Temporary Protected Status, it meant it--no more lower court meddling. 
• "Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotels"--New York Post. The law that was struck down was of the type called a "Vampire rule" requiring the gun owner ask permission before entering an establishment. "The high court’s 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments."

The College Fix: More Legal Scholars Now Agree With Trump On Birth-Right Citizenship

 Here's the article: "Growing numbers of legal scholars support Trump’s order on birthright citizenship." The key takeaway is that Trump was able to shift the Overton Window as to who is entitled to birthright citizenship. Trump's order "prohibits federal agencies from recognizing citizenship for children born in the United States after Feb. 20, 2025, if their mother is unlawfully present and the father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, or if the mother’s presence is temporary and the father lacks that status." 

Belgium's Gulag Archipelago

In 2012, the Institute For Public Affairs published an article entitled "The Soviet Origins of Hate-Speech Laws." It outlines how the initial efforts of Western countries to enshrine free speech into international law was opposed by the Soviet Union and other tyrannical countries which, over the years introduced restrictions on speech, often set out as restrictions on hate and discrimination. Yet, as the authors observe:

... But we must not take them at face value. The concept of ‘hate speech’ (and the concepts which are drawn from it, such as group defamation) was deliberately and explicitly political. Article 20 has its origins in a clash between two worldviews—that held by Western capitalist countries which supported individual rights and liberties, and that held by the Communist bloc, which did not.

It did not end with the declarations and agreements on human rights. Over objections from Western powers that it was inappropriate and unnecessary to use speech laws to legislate morality, the protections of speech under international law was whittled away. The article notes, for instance, that "[t]he same occurred during the drafting of the International Convention for the Elimination of all Racial Discrimination. Here the restriction on freedom of speech is even more strident. All signatories must ‘declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination.’"

    The article wraps up:

    In 1948, as the Soviet Union was trying to place restrictions on speech in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Gulag system held 2.2 million people. The year the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was approved by the United Nations, 1966, was the same year that two satirists, Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel, were put on trial, sparking the late Soviet dissident movement. ‘It is a sad reflection on Europe’, writes the Danish human rights advocate Jacob Mchangama, ‘that the increasing emphasis on criminalizing words that wound, offend, or hurt is the brainchild of the very totalitarian states with which Western European states were locked in an ideological battle during the Cold War.’ The human rights movement to restrict hate speech and racial discrimination was an ideological power play by the Communist Bloc that was looking for human rights law to approve the suppression of political dissent. The adoption of hate speech restrictions was not intended to liberate minorities (as so many contemporary human rights advocates claim), but to restrain democrats.

    In the decade following the two conventions, Western countries adopted their own forms of racial discrimination laws which prohibited, to varying degrees, ‘hatred’ or ‘discrimination’. The United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Europe adopted prohibitions to protect racial or other groups. Of the major Western nations, only the United States now has no prohibition against hate speech.

Understanding the origin of hate speech laws and their purpose--to protect dictators and tyrants--is key to understanding the prosecution and conviction of former Belgian politician "Dries Van Langenhove of hate speech for a lecture in which he presented data and arguments about racial differences, migration and gender."According to the article:

Van Langenhove was found guilty on two counts under Belgium’s 1981 Anti-Racism Law: Incitement to hatred or violence against a group on grounds of nationality, so-called race, skin colour, origin or ethnic descent (charge A), and dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred (charge C). He was acquitted on the gender-related charge (B). 

And what were the grounds for this.

• "Van Langenhove argued that differences between groups are not primarily the result of structural racism but rather stem from inherent group differences, a perspective that was presented as part of a broader critique of multiculturalism and progressive policies."
• "He made the observation that people of colour generally are worse off than white people, something his political detractors also claim, though they disagree about the root causes."
• "Van Langenhove also linked mass migration to declining school standards, insecurity, prison overcrowding and strain on social security."
• "He dismissed the prevailing explanation of structural racism, stating: 'You can almost not blame them for thinking that way, because their most fundamental premises, their framework, that of egalitarianism. Once you start with that, you can’t build anything on it, because it’s already wrong from the start. These people are not equal, they are not equal and they will never be equal'."

This was too much for the judges presiding over the case:

    In its verdict, the court stated that Van Langenhove’s arguments were not merely controversial but crossed into criminal territory by promoting hatred and racial superiority.

    The judges wrote that “For an act to be punishable, it is not necessary for the defendant to have openly incited others to commit specific acts of hatred or violence… It is sufficient that others are incited to adopt a general attitude of intolerance or aversion towards the targeted group of persons.”  

    The judges acknowledged that political speech enjoys strong protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Belgian Constitution, but ruled that Van Langenhove’s remarks were criminal.

    They concluded he had the specific intent to incite hatred, dismissing his disclaimers (such as welcoming everyone to his youth projects regardless of background) as attempts to shield himself from prosecution. The court held that his overall message promoted a hierarchy of groups and attributed societal problems to the presence of certain populations. 

You will note that the court was not saying that Van Langenhove incited violence against immigrant groups, but incited his listeners to have thoughts and beliefs other than those approved by the government.

    But, again, the purpose of hate speech laws is not to protect people but to protect governments. In this case, to protect government programs and policies concerning immigration, criminal justice, and so on, from public criticism. The question that needs asking is why such a critique not allowed. Is it because there is some nefarious plot that requires Western nations to be overrun by migrants or is it more banal such as protecting politicians and government workers from losing their jobs? Or just a general practice of reflexively squashing dissent not matter what form it takes?

    Paul Joseph Watson also has some thoughts about this case in the video below. But as he notes, the prosecution was not required to prove that anything that Van Langenhove asserted was false. "Under the law, merely suggesting that increased diversity leads to anything other than wondrous benefits to society is a criminal offense. For Van Langenhov to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him to have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval regarding a group protected under the criteria of the anti-racism law. Yes, in Belgium, it's literally a crime to say that diversity isn't our greatest strength." 

 VIDEO: "He Said The Unspeakable"
m o d e r n i t y (7 min.)

1st Circuit: Illegal Aliens Don't Have 2nd Amendment Rights

From The Truth About Guns: "Appeals Court Rules That Illegal Immigrants Don’t Have Second Amendment Protections." The article explains:

The ruling revolved around a case involving the prosecution of Alberto Rebollar Osorio, a Mexican citizen who had been living in the U.S. illegally for 11 years when he was taken into custody during a traffic stop in Maine. He had a firearm in his vehicle and was subsequently indicted on a charge of possessing a firearm as an “alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”  

Applying the Bruen standard, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 8 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which bans illegal aliens from possessing firearms, fits within the history and tradition of this nation’s regulation of firearms rooted in English law and because it was enacted in the context of modern societal concerns about security risks posed by immigrants unlawfully living in this country. The court reasoned:

“The relevant history reveals a longstanding concern about sovereign control over individuals who, although owing a temporary and local allegiance to this country, which subjects them to laws like § 922(g)(5)(A), belong to groups presumed allegiant to a foreign power and have not formally recognized the government’s authority,” Chief Judge David Barron wrote in the court opinion. “And, we further explained there, § 922(g)(5)(A) fits within that tradition as a measure that aims to reduce the threat posed by a group similarly lacking a regulable relationship with the government.”   

They shouldn't have needed to go down that route. The text of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  As an illegal, Osorio is clearly not part of "the people". Unfortunately, past Supreme Court decisions have held illegals to be part of "the people" for other provisions of the Bill of Rights. 

    The 7th Circuit had previously also held that illegals do not have Second Amendment rights. As it should be. It is bad enough that the invaders are here, let alone that they be legally permitted to arm themselves.  

The Purpose Of An Organization is What It Does: Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown

Ammo Land reports that "Gun-Control Groups Tell Court Americans Have No Right to Body Armor," referring to arguments made by the Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown gun control groups supporting a New York law that would ban most citizens from purchasing body armor. The author remarks: "Calling armor dangerous because it can stop a bullet is a confession that the anti-gun movement is not merely interested in disarming citizens. It wants citizens easier to hurt."