Form 4 wait times used to be the running joke at the NFA counter — "buy it now, pick it up sometime around your next birthday." That's genuinely not the case anymore. "While no citizen should have to wait any amount of time to procure their lawfully purchased firearms and firearm products, the reduction in ATF Form 4 processing times from roughly 150 days to around 18 days today is a meaningful improvement." Hard to argue with that math. If you've got a can on order right now, 18 days changes the whole calculus on whether NFA items are worth the hassle — especially for newer shooters who never survived an 18-month wait. "Individual Form 4s now average six days. Trust Form 4s still run 26 days. Electronic Form 1s (permission to manufacture an NFA item) average 59 days — more than three times the Form 4 baseline." Worth knowing before you fill out paperwork. If you're on a trust — which a lot of us use for shared household access — your wait is still four times longer than an individual transfer. And if you're thinking about building on a Form 1, 59 days is still two months in limbo. The headline average hides some real variation depending on how you're filing. The SAF lawsuit angle is the one I'm watching. If a court rules there's no legal basis for registration when there's no longer a tax attached, Form 4 times for suppressors and SBRs become irrelevant. That's a bigger shift than any processing efficiency the ATF can claim credit for. For those of you who've bought NFA items — what's your recent actual experience been, and are you filing individual or through a trust? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

The DOJ filing against California on the same day AB 1127 took effect is the kind of aggressive timing that tells you this wasn't a reactive move — someone had this ready. "California lawmakers cannot ban the most popular type of handgun in America." That line from Acting AG Blanche cuts to the Bruen argument fast. The whole post-Bruen framework says restrictions have to trace back to historical tradition — and there's no historical precedent for banning a firearm because a criminal might attach a separate illegal device to it later. What's easy to miss in the coverage is that the DOJ isn't just fighting AB 1127 — they're going after California's handgun roster itself. If that challenge succeeds, it cracks open the California dealer market to guns that have been locked out for years. That's a much bigger deal than one bill. Anyone here have experience buying or selling in California recently, or dealt with the roster limitations when moving there? Curious how much it actually affects what you can get through a dealer versus private transfer. Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

The ATF and Illinois just shook hands on FRT seizures, and it's worth understanding what that actually means before the headline does the thinking for you. "Several federal courts have pushed back on the ATF's FRT classification. The Fifth Circuit, in particular, has been skeptical that a trigger device operated by the shooter's finger on every shot can legally qualify as a machine gun under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b)." That's the whole ballgame right there. If your finger is still making contact and completing a separate trigger cycle every shot, the statutory definition of a machine gun gets shaky fast. The ATF's 2022 classification always felt like it was outrunning the actual legal standard, and the Fifth Circuit apparently agrees. "This agreement affects redistribution inside Illinois only — it has no direct legal effect on owners in other states." So this is essentially Illinois doing Illinois things. If you're in Idaho and you've been following the FRT litigation, nothing about this week's news changes your situation — the federal classification still stands and the court cases that actually matter are still grinding through the system. The real number to watch is whether a circuit split develops and forces SCOTUS to weigh in. That outcome — not a state AG's press release — is what could actually settle the machine-gun classification question for everyone. Have you been following the federal FRT cases, and do you think the statutory definition argument has legs if it gets to the Supreme Court? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

New York is making a move to lock in their current gun sales setup before a federal rule can change it — and the reasoning behind it deserves a closer look. "These changes proposed by the ATF prioritize gun industry profits over human lives." — Marianna Mitchem, Everytown for Gun Safety Nobody in that quote explains the mechanism. The proposed ATF rule still requires identity verification and a background check — the same NICS check you clear when you buy a pistol over the counter at your local gun shop. The location of the retail transaction doesn't change that. "Hochul frames this as aligning gun sales with ammunition sales, which New York already requires to be purchased in person." The article points out what that comparison actually reveals — New Yorkers already drive to Pennsylvania or Vermont for ammo to get around that rule. Extending a workaround-prone restriction to handguns doesn't close a loophole, it just adds friction for people who follow the law. The piece ends on a point worth sitting with: if a background check is what makes a sale legal, it doesn't need a storefront to function. This legislation isn't closing a gap in the background check system — it's preserving a restriction by statute before anyone can demonstrate that removing it changes nothing about safety outcomes. Worth watching whether California and Illinois pick up the same playbook before the ATF rule is finalized. For those of you who've bought online and transferred through an FFL — has that process ever felt less rigorous to you than a straight over-the-counter purchase, or is it functionally identical from where you're standing? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Pennsylvania hunters just got a small but real win out of Saturday's Game Commission meeting. The post-Thanksgiving opener stays put — no surprises there — but the season extension policy is the detail worth paying attention to. "Seasons that previously ended on Saturdays will now be extended through the following Sunday." One extra morning doesn't sound like much until you've driven four hours to deer camp and punched out Saturday evening with an unfilled tag. That Sunday morning sit could be the difference between eating tag soup and actually putting venison in the freezer. The Commission kept the calendar predictable, which matters for anyone who's already burned PTO and booked a cabin around that post-Thanksgiving window. No scrambling to rework plans. Worth noting — full season-date specifics haven't been published yet, so don't build your hunt schedule around assumptions. Pull up the Pennsylvania Game Commission's site and verify the actual dates before you commit to anything. For the Pennsylvania hunters here — does that Sunday extension change how you'd plan a multi-day trip, or is it more useful for local guys who can just roll out opening a couple miles from home? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Colorado just added a permission slip between you and a semiauto purchase. If you're across the border and thinking about stopping at a gun shop while you're down there, this affects you starting Saturday. "It seems overbearing, and it seems very tedious. You have to know what the next step is. You have to find the next step. There's no guided path for this." — Jeremy Manson, General Manager, Spartan Defense Armory and Training When the guy running the shop — who went through the process himself just to help his customers — describes it as having no guided path, that's not a complaint from someone who hates paperwork. That's a warning. Expect confusion at the counter and longer waits even after the background check clears. The discretionary denial piece buried in there is the part that should raise eyebrows. A sheriff can reject your eligibility card application if they personally believe you pose a danger — no conviction required, just their judgment. That's a significant amount of authority sitting between a law-abiding buyer and a legal purchase, and how consistently that gets applied is going to vary county to county. Idaho's constitutional carry setup looks a lot better from this side of the state line. But if you have family or friends in Colorado who are trying to navigate this before the deadline, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife portal is open and their firearms safety line is 303-291-7143. Anyone here made a purchase at a Colorado shop recently, or know dealers down there dealing with the backlog already? Curious what the actual wait times are looking like at the counter right now. Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Interesting development. What's your take on this? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett