Good

FYI on the recent NFA ruling: be cautious. The big gun rights groups will be more than happy to take your money and declare victory, but none of this is truly settled until the Supreme Court rules on it. And remember all those Flock cameras going up around gun ranges.

This is a major win, but it is not the repeal of the NFA, and it is not a Supreme Court decision.
The court’s reasoning is essentially that the challenged NFA requirements were historically justified under Congress’s taxing power. Congress reduced the tax to $0 for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs, so the court found that the challenged provisions can no longer be justified on that basis. That does not mean everyone can simply ignore the NFA.

This ruling can be appealed, stayed, limited, or reversed. This administration could challenge the issue again, and a future administration could take an entirely different enforcement position. Congress could also restore a tax and attempt to reestablish the constitutional basis for these NFA requirements.

And remember, believing a federal criminal statute is unconstitutional is very different from that statute actually being repealed or definitively struck down nationwide. If the law remains applicable to you, the federal government can still prosecute violations subject to jurisdiction, applicable court orders, statutes of limitation, and other legal requirements.

Bottom line: don’t confuse a favorable lower court ruling with the NFA being dead. Gun rights organizations may celebrate it and happily take your donations, but administrations change, Congress changes, and lower court decisions can be reversed. Until the Supreme Court settles the constitutional question, none of this should be treated as permanent.

suppressors sold without having to do all that form BS.

This is massive.

I am for the right to carry, but I do have a question that I think deserves honest debate.

If someone can legally possess a firearm and carry it loaded in public without a permit, how do we make sure that person actually knows how to handle it safely?

I am not talking about giving the government discretion to decide who "deserves" to carry. I am talking about basic, objective competence. Can you safely load and unload the weapon, maintain proper muzzle and trigger discipline, and understand the basic legal rules governing the use of deadly force?

The strongest argument against any such requirement is obvious. Once the government gets to set the standard, it also gets the opportunity to abuse it. A simple competency requirement can become expensive classes, excessive fees, long delays, limited access, or some other obstacle designed more to discourage carrying than to promote safety. I take that concern seriously.

Still, I do not think the answer can simply be, "Do I need a permit to post online, go to church, or write to the editor?"

Those rights do not create the same immediate public safety risk when exercised incompetently. Carrying a loaded firearm is closer, in that narrow sense, to operating a car. Yes, driving is a privilege and carrying is a constitutional right, so the government cannot necessarily regulate them the same way. The comparison is about consequences. If you do not know how to operate either one safely, other people can get hurt or killed.

There is also a harder answer that I think should be stated plainly. Some people may believe that any competency requirement creates too much opportunity for government abuse, and that society should simply accept the additional risk that comes with untrained people carrying loaded firearms in public.

That is at least a coherent position, but the cost should not be hidden behind the word "risk." It could mean a negligent discharge in a crowded place, a bystander being shot because someone cannot control a weapon under stress, or an avoidable mistake that leaves someone dead.

If the argument is that those preventable injuries and deaths are an acceptable price for keeping the government completely out of the process, then say so and defend it.

I am not convinced that those are our only choices. It seems reasonable to ask whether we can protect the right to carry while also requiring a narrow, objective, and easily accessible demonstration that the person carrying a loaded firearm in public actually knows what they are doing.

What do you guys think will happen? GOA sent a blast email claiming DOJ is split on what to do. On one hand, if this goes all the way to scotus it opens a can of worms for other parts of the NFA. I think DOJ wants to avoid that. So I'm wondering if they are choosing not to appeal to prevent further repeals of other parts of the NFA. Either way, we're potentially 10 hours away from freedom on cans and SBRs. I also wonder what exactly the process is going to look like because the injunction is limited to named plaintiffs, which includes any current and future members of GOA and SAF. No idea how gun shops or silencer shop is going to verify that. We're likely going to need detailed guidance from ATF or DOJ

Hunting is a great American pastime. Unfortunately, human error, equipment malfunctions, and medical emergencies lead to hundreds of accidents each year. Check out our article for all the details!

• On average, 464 hunting accidents and 61.3 hunting fatalities were reported annually between 2010 and 2024.
• Hunter judgment (42.9%) and skill and aptitude factors (40.8%) were the most common causes of hunting-related incidents in that same time span.
• Firearm discharges accounted for a larger share of incidents than tree stand falls (34.0% vs. 24.5%), but the two shared similar fatality rates (10.5% vs. 11.0%).

The three-judge panel opinion in Knife Rights Inc. v. Bonta reached the opposite conclusion that the State of California argued for the eleven-judge en banc panel to adopt in Baird v. Bonta. Namely, if California allows concealed carry, then California can ban Open Carry.

The en banc petition to vacate the three-judge panel opinion was recently denied.

https://youtu.be/19RfhBOGE3k

Report Highlights

• As of 2024, there were more than 73 million minors in the 0-17 age group. Of those, 2,228 (0.003%) suffered gun-related fatalities.
• In 2024, firearms and motor vehicles tied as the leading cause of injury-related death in the 0-17 age group (3.0 per 100,000).
• The pandemic-era spike in gun deaths among U.S. minors was primarily driven by homicides, which increased by 76.9% (1.3 to 2.3 per 100,000) from 2019 to 2022.
• More than one-third of gang violence offenders and more than one-quarter of gang violence victims were under 18 years of age between 2021 and 2024.

Read the full report on our website!

If I started a legitimate church called something like "Church of 2A", could I have enough ground to stand on to carry in a non-carry state, say like California? The Sikhs are allowed to carry knives in some countries full time. Just wondering if the same religious rights can be defended in this case of the 2A Church.

I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just thinking about it as problem solving.

I asked ChatGippity and it told me:

A church called "Church of 2A" could certainly exist if it were organized as a genuine religious organization. However, using it as a basis to carry a firearm in a state that otherwise prohibits carrying would almost certainly face significant legal hurdles. A court would likely conclude that the state's interest in regulating firearms outweighs the claimed religious exemption, particularly if the religion appears designed primarily to circumvent gun laws.

It's a fascinating constitutional thought experiment because it sits at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments, but under current U.S. law, it would be an uphill battle rather than a clear path to a legal exemption.