<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Legal &amp; Legislative]]></title><description><![CDATA[Firearms laws, regulations, and legislative updates]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//category/9</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 May 2026 20:49:05 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://boisegunclub.com/forums//category/9.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 06:50:22 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[SAF Sues ATF Over Ghost Gun Rule]]></title><description><![CDATA[Short article, so let's keep it tight. The ghost gun rule fight is back in court, and SAF is pushing for a clean ruling — no trial, just a decision on whether ATF had the authority to rewrite the definition of "firearm" in the first place.

"Self-manufacturing firearms for personal use is a time-honored tradition that countless citizens still practice, and one that is entirely legal under federal law."

That's the crux of the whole argument. Building your own firearm — whether it's a 1911 from an 80% frame on your workbench or a precision rifle you machined yourself — has never required a serial number or a transfer. The ATF didn't like that, so they tried to change the definition of what counts as a firearm to reach further upstream into the parts.
What's interesting here isn't just the ghost gun angle — it's the statutory overreach question. If the ATF can redefine "firearm" to include precursor parts, what stops them from redefining other terms in the GCA to expand their reach elsewhere. That's the thread worth watching.
Anyone here built a firearm from an 80% or from scratch — and has the 2022 rule changed how you think about that project or what parts you source?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/674/saf-sues-atf-over-ghost-gun-rule</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/674/saf-sues-atf-over-ghost-gun-rule</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 06:50:22 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Colorado Ghost Gun Law Gets Partial Trim]]></title><description><![CDATA[Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/673/colorado-ghost-gun-law-gets-partial-trim</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/673/colorado-ghost-gun-law-gets-partial-trim</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 06:50:14 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Army Corps Firearms Ban Targeted]]></title><description><![CDATA[Lucky Peak comes up here because it's a perfect example of the problem. That reservoir is Army Corps land, and if you've ever camped there with a sidearm, you were technically in violation of federal regulations — probably without knowing it.

"An individual who is lawfully carrying a firearm should not be forced to disarm simply because they crossed an invisible federal line."

That's not a hypothetical edge case. The Corps shares borders with BLM, state land, and private property all over the backcountry. There's no signage telling you which side of a trail you're on, and the legal exposure flips without warning. That's a real problem for anyone doing serious time in the backcountry with a carry gun.
The piece points out that NPS and BLM have both deferred to state law since 2009 — fifteen-plus years ago. USACE just never followed, and apparently nobody made them. The Trump administration drafted a rule to fix it in the first term and didn't finish it either. So here we are again, with a letter creating political pressure and rulemaking still somewhere in a queue.
The remote Corps land angle matters too. If you've ever been ten miles in on a trail that borders a Corps reservoir, you already know there's zero law enforcement presence out there. The self-defense argument isn't abstract — it's just honest.
For those of us in Idaho who carry and spend time on federal land, this is worth following. The fix is apparently simple. The groundwork is done. It just needs to actually get done.
Anyone here camp or hunt on Corps land regularly — Lucky Peak, Dworshak, Anderson Ranch? Curious whether you've been paying attention to the land boundary question or just carrying and hoping for the best.

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/672/army-corps-firearms-ban-targeted</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/672/army-corps-firearms-ban-targeted</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:53:33 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[NJ Carry Permits Explode Post-Bruen]]></title><description><![CDATA[Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/671/nj-carry-permits-explode-post-bruen</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/671/nj-carry-permits-explode-post-bruen</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:53:23 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ohio Lets Gun Owners Bill Back]]></title><description><![CDATA[Ohio just passed something worth watching — the state Senate voted to let residents collect legal fees from local governments when a court finds a local gun ordinance unconstitutional or in conflict with state preemption law.
That last part matters. Preemption isn't new in Ohio or here in Idaho. What's new is giving it actual teeth.

"Preemption laws already exist in Ohio — and in Idaho, for that matter. The problem has always been enforcement. A city passes a magazine ban or storage mandate that clearly violates state preemption. A resident wants to challenge it. Attorney fees run $10,000–$50,000 or more. Most people walk away. The ordinance stays on the books."

That's the gap nobody talks about. The law says the city can't do it. The city does it anyway. You'd be right in court — and broke getting there. Most people don't have $30k sitting around to prove a point, even a correct one.

"This isn't really about winning lawsuits — it's about deterrence. If Columbus or Cleveland knows they'll be writing a check every time an unconstitutional ordinance gets challenged, the calculation on passing one changes before it ever reaches a vote."

This is the part that actually changes behavior. Fee-shifting flips the risk. Now the city attorney has to think about what happens when they lose — not just whether they can outlast a challenger financially.
Idaho's preemption is solid on paper. But there's no equivalent fee-shifting mechanism here. If Ohio's version holds up and produces results, don't be surprised if ISAA or similar groups start pushing for the same language in the next session.
Have you ever run into a local ordinance in Idaho — city, county, park district, whatever — that seemed to conflict with state preemption? Curious whether that's actually happening on the ground here or if it's more of a theoretical problem so far.

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/670/ohio-lets-gun-owners-bill-back</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/670/ohio-lets-gun-owners-bill-back</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:53:12 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ohio Lets Owners Sue Rogue Cities]]></title><description><![CDATA[Ohio's preemption law has been on the books for years — but preemption without enforcement is basically a strongly worded suggestion. Columbus apparently knew that.

"Hopefully [this] will help localities like Columbus understand that they're going to have to pay a cost for doing this."

That's a politician being unusually direct about what's actually happening — city officials making a deliberate calculation that ignoring state law costs them less than following it. When the answer to that calculation becomes punitive damages, the math changes fast.
Idaho's had similar preemption fights, and the pattern is always the same: a city passes something it knows won't survive a challenge, banks on nobody having the money or patience to fight it, and waits. A bill like this flips that. The city is now the one who has to calculate whether the ordinance is worth the exposure.
What's the closest your city or county has come to passing something that conflicted with state firearms law — and did anyone actually push back on it?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/669/ohio-lets-owners-sue-rogue-cities</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/669/ohio-lets-owners-sue-rogue-cities</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:53:02 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Illinois Transit Carry Ban Stands]]></title><description><![CDATA[Illinois gun owners just had the courthouse door closed on them. SCOTUS declined to hear Schoenthal v. Raoul this week, which means the appeals court ruling upholding Illinois' transit carry ban is now the law of the land — and there's no more runway on that specific case.

"We are very disappointed by the Court's decision, especially since law-abiding public transportation riders in Illinois are less safe as a result of the law."

That's not just a press release line — that's the practical reality. A permit holder who goes through the training, the background check, and the whole process is now legally disarmed the moment they step onto a bus or train. The people who don't bother with permits aren't changing their behavior at all.
The semi-auto conversion ban angle is worth watching too. The ISRA's Pearson makes a fair point — if the legal standard becomes "any firearm that could be machined into something else," you've just described almost every gun in your safe. That kind of language in legislation has a way of expanding in ways the drafters claim they didn't intend.
Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day is Wednesday, April 15 in Springfield if anyone has travel in mind. Showing up matters more than posting about it.
If you carry in Illinois or travel through it — how are you thinking about the transit piece? Do you just leave the gun in the car, or does this change how you plan a trip into Chicago entirely?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/668/illinois-transit-carry-ban-stands</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/668/illinois-transit-carry-ban-stands</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:52:55 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Connecticut Bans Convertible Pistols]]></title><description><![CDATA[Connecticut is going after the gun itself now, not just the illegal accessory that goes on it. That's a meaningful shift in how these laws are being written.

"What this bill does is it makes regular, lawful, useful, constitutionally protected handguns that are used for lawful purposes for self-defense, for target shooting, for marksmanship, for training—makes those illegal."

That's not hyperbole — if the cruciform trigger bar language is as broad as reported, you're talking about banning the sale of standard Glock-pattern pistols in the state. The gun that's sitting in half the holsters at any given IDPA match, the one behind more gun store counters than anything else.

"Connecticut already bans possession of the conversion devices themselves under the 2018 rapid-fire accessories law. This bill goes a step further by targeting the host firearm's design—arguing that a gun capable of accepting an illegal accessory is itself a regulatory problem."

This is the part worth paying attention to from Idaho. If that legal theory holds — that a common design feature becomes a liability because an illegal attachment exists for it — you're looking at a template that could work its way into other state legislatures. Manufacturers and distributors don't make separate product lines for every state forever. At some point it affects what's on shelves nationally and what it costs.
The Heller "common use" challenge seems inevitable if this gets signed, and it should be a strong one. But litigation takes years and attorney fees, and in the meantime the effective date is October 2026.
Has the cruciform trigger bar language shown up in any other state bills you've seen this session — or is Connecticut running a one-off here?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/667/connecticut-bans-convertible-pistols</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/667/connecticut-bans-convertible-pistols</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:52:45 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Republicans Push Army Corps Gun Ban]]></title><description><![CDATA[Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/666/republicans-push-army-corps-gun-ban</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/666/republicans-push-army-corps-gun-ban</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:52:35 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Virginia Bans &#x27;Assault Firearms&#x27; on Vibes]]></title><description><![CDATA[Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/665/virginia-bans-assault-firearms-on-vibes</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/665/virginia-bans-assault-firearms-on-vibes</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:52:23 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Switchblade Ban Struggles in Court]]></title><description><![CDATA[Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/664/switchblade-ban-struggles-in-court</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/664/switchblade-ban-struggles-in-court</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:52:12 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[NFA Registration Fight Heats Up]]></title><description><![CDATA[Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/663/nfa-registration-fight-heats-up</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/663/nfa-registration-fight-heats-up</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:52:01 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Benitez Retires, 2A Docket Reshuffles]]></title><description><![CDATA[Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/662/benitez-retires-2a-docket-reshuffles</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/662/benitez-retires-2a-docket-reshuffles</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:51:50 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[SAF Takes Gun Liability Fight to SCOTUS]]></title><description><![CDATA[The PLCAA was supposed to be the answer to this exact problem. Congress passed it in 2005 specifically because plaintiffs were using litigation costs — not verdicts — as the weapon. Force enough depositions, discovery, and legal fees on manufacturers and distributors, and you don't need to win in court. You just need to keep them there long enough.

"Congress passed the PLCAA to stop coordinated litigation campaigns designed to bankrupt the firearms industry through meritless lawsuits."

New York's move here is pretty transparent — relabel the same strategy as a "public nuisance" and argue it's outside federal preemption. The Second Circuit bought it. If SCOTUS doesn't take this up, that framing becomes a template that doesn't stay in New York.
The part that should get your attention is buried at the bottom: California, Illinois, and Massachusetts are watching. A cert denial leaves that blueprint sitting on the desk of every state AG who wants to make gun manufacturers radioactive to investors without ever having to pass a law that voters can push back on. That's the actual threat — not one state's statute, but a litigation strategy that scales.
Whether SCOTUS grants cert is the only thing that matters right now. The Court turns down the vast majority of petitions, and a pass here means the Second Circuit ruling stands as settled law in that circuit.
Has anyone here dealt directly with a distributor or local gun shop owner who's talked about what this kind of legal environment actually does to their business decisions — stocking certain products, dropping certain manufacturers, that kind of thing?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/661/saf-takes-gun-liability-fight-to-scotus</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/661/saf-takes-gun-liability-fight-to-scotus</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:51:39 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ATF Rule Targets Trans Gun Buyers]]></title><description><![CDATA[Short article, so I'll keep this tight — but the underlying issue deserves attention from anyone who believes the 4473 process shouldn't be weaponized against lawful buyers.

"Either they disclose a mismatch and get flagged, or they risk a false-statement charge on a federal firearms form. Both paths expose the buyer to federal scrutiny."

A false statement on a 4473 is a federal felony. Most people at the counter don't fully appreciate that — I've watched guys at gun shops treat that form like a DMV questionnaire. Building a rule where there's no compliant path through isn't a regulation, it's a trap.

"The Bruen standard (2022) requires any gun regulation to have a historical analog from the founding era. There is no founding-era precedent for denying arms to people based on gender identity documentation."

Bruen cut both ways and this is one of them. If FPC or SAF picks this up for a pre-enforcement challenge, that historical-tradition requirement is a real problem for the rule's defenders. Hard to find a 1791 analog for documentation mismatches that didn't exist until the modern administrative state invented them.
Whatever you think about the politics here — any rule that creates an inescapable paperwork felony for a class of legal buyers sets a precedent worth watching closely. The mechanism matters more than who it's aimed at right now.
Has anyone submitted comments during an ATF rulemaking period before — and did you feel like it actually moved the needle, or is it mostly building a record for litigation?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/660/atf-rule-targets-trans-gun-buyers</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/660/atf-rule-targets-trans-gun-buyers</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:51:28 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Ohio Punishes Cities Restricting Guns]]></title><description><![CDATA[Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/659/ohio-punishes-cities-restricting-guns</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/659/ohio-punishes-cities-restricting-guns</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:51:18 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ATF Watches Ghost Guns, Glock Switches]]></title><description><![CDATA[Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/658/atf-watches-ghost-guns-glock-switches</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/658/atf-watches-ghost-guns-glock-switches</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:51:07 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[SAF Asks SCOTUS: Kill Suppressor Tax]]></title><description><![CDATA[Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/657/saf-asks-scotus-kill-suppressor-tax</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/657/saf-asks-scotus-kill-suppressor-tax</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:50:56 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Lawsuit Targets National Park Gun Bans]]></title><description><![CDATA[If you've ever carried through Craters of the Moon or pulled into the Yellowstone south entrance from Idaho, you already know the drill — carry on the trail, holster up before you walk through any door with a federal roof on it.

"You can carry on the trail; holster it at the door."

That's not a hypothetical for Idaho shooters. Grand Teton, Yellowstone, City of Rocks — these aren't abstract locations. If you're carrying during a family park day, you're making that exact choice every time you need to use a visitor center bathroom.

"SAF is betting the feds can't produce one for 'no guns in the gift shop.'"

That's the crux of the whole Bruen argument in one line. The government's going to try to dress up a ranger station bookstore as a courthouse analogy, and that's going to be a stretch to make in front of a federal judge — especially in Texas.
Don't expect this to change your summer plans. Federal litigation grinds slow, and whatever the district court decides, it heads to the Fifth Circuit either way. But the Bruen framework is doing exactly what it was designed to do here — forcing the government to justify restrictions with history instead of policy preference.
For Idaho specifically, this case matters more than it might in a state without this much federal park land. A favorable ruling — even years from now — changes the practical reality of carrying in some of the most-used public land we have access to.
Have you ever been caught off-guard by the building ban in a national park — either talked to a ranger about it, or just made the decision to leave your gun in the car rather than deal with the liability?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/656/lawsuit-targets-national-park-gun-bans</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/656/lawsuit-targets-national-park-gun-bans</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:50:45 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Bruen Unlocks New Jersey Carry]]></title><description><![CDATA[New Jersey just crossed 88,000 new carry permits since Bruen dropped in 2022. For context, they issued 667 in the three years before that decision. That's not a policy shift — that's a dam breaking.

"When you look at this from the perspective of the rest of the country, the real question is: Where has New Jersey been?"
— Scott Bach, Executive Director, Association of New Jersey Rifle &amp; Pistol Clubs

Exactly right, and that question applies to a dozen other states still dragging their feet. The "justifiable need" standard was never about public safety — it was about keeping carry permits as a privilege for people with connections or credible enemies. Most people don't qualify for either.

"The Bruen decision forced the door open; it didn't knock the building down."

This is the part worth sitting with. New Jersey still requires live-fire qual, use-of-force training, a Firearms Purchaser ID with references and mental health screening, and you have to permit a specific handgun you already own. That's a heavier process than Idaho's enhanced permit, and they're still under 1% of residents carrying. The door opened — the hallway is still narrow.
The real reason Idaho shooters should care isn't New Jersey's permit numbers. It's that the same legal framework being tested there is working its way toward suppressor regulations, magazine restrictions, and carry laws in states that border ours. Courts are still chewing on Bruen applications in multiple circuits — what gets decided in the 3rd Circuit affects the arguments made in the 9th.
For those of you who've traveled to or through restricted states — how much has Bruen actually changed what you're willing to carry when you cross state lines?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/655/bruen-unlocks-new-jersey-carry</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/655/bruen-unlocks-new-jersey-carry</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:50:34 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[ATF Private Sale Rule Blocked]]></title><description><![CDATA[The ATF's private sale rule has been sitting in legal limbo for a while now, and this week the Trump DOJ made it official by dropping the appeal of the injunction blocking it. If you sell guns privately in Idaho, this is worth understanding.

"This Biden-era rule was a blatant attempt to violate our Constitution and criminalize law-abiding Americans for engaging in lawful private firearm sales."
— Texas AG Ken Paxton, April 24, 2026

Paxton's going to Paxton, but the legal argument underneath that statement has actually held up in court — twice. The rule created vague criteria around "repetitive" sales and profit intent that nobody could clearly define, which is exactly the kind of thing that turns a law-abiding guy selling three hunting rifles out of his safe into someone who unknowingly needed a dealer's license.
The practical situation right now: if you're in Idaho, private party transfers are unchanged. No FFL, no background check required between two individuals — same as it's always been here.
That said, the article flags that "likely" isn't "done." The case still has to run through district court for a permanent ruling, and the legal landscape can shift. Worth keeping an eye on if you do any volume of private buying and selling at gun shows or through local classifieds.
Have you changed anything about how you handle private sales over the last couple years — either out of caution while this was working through courts, or did you not give it a second thought?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/654/atf-private-sale-rule-blocked</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/654/atf-private-sale-rule-blocked</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:50:23 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Arkansas Legislators Demand ATF Raid Answers]]></title><description><![CDATA[Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/653/arkansas-legislators-demand-atf-raid-answers</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/653/arkansas-legislators-demand-atf-raid-answers</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 00:50:13 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Supreme Court Lets Illinois Transit Ban Stand]]></title><description><![CDATA[The Illinois transit carry ban just got a lease on life from SCOTUS — not because the Court ruled in favor of it, but because they didn't say anything at all.

"Law-abiding public transportation riders in Illinois are less safe as a result of the law."

Hard to argue with that. If you carry because you've thought through your personal defense situation, being told to disarm the moment you step onto a bus is exactly the kind of gap that gets people killed — and the permit holders who brought this case understood that.
The piece worth watching here isn't the Illinois outcome specifically — it's how courts are reading Bruen's "sensitive places" language. The district court said no historical analogue, no ban. The Seventh Circuit said crowded public spaces have always been treated differently. Both of those readings come from the same 2022 ruling, and that split is still unresolved at the federal level.
Idaho's clean right now — no transit restrictions, nothing moving through the legislature. But if the "crowded public space" reasoning keeps gaining traction in other circuits, that's not an argument that stays in Cook County. It's the kind of legal theory that travels.
SCOTUS declining cert here doesn't close the door — it just means this wasn't the case they wanted to use to clarify it. The right vehicle will eventually show up.
For those of you who carry daily: have you ever found yourself in a situation — Idaho or out of state — where you had to decide whether a space was legally off-limits and weren't sure of the answer?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/652/supreme-court-lets-illinois-transit-ban-stand</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/652/supreme-court-lets-illinois-transit-ban-stand</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:51:57 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Virginia Joins Popular Vote Compact]]></title><description><![CDATA[Virginia's electoral vote situation is getting attention, but buried near the bottom of this piece is the part that actually matters to us right now.

"Spanberger also signed a package of bills the same day that includes a ban on so-called assault weapons and restrictions on law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The popular vote bill is getting the headlines, but gun owners in Virginia are looking at the weapons ban as the more immediate practical concern."

The popular vote debate is a law school hypothetical until 48 more electoral votes come along. An assault weapons ban in Virginia is affecting people at the range, at the gun safe, and at the transfer counter right now. That's the story worth tracking.

"If the compact ever activates, a Virginia voter's presidential preference gets folded into a national tally rather than determining Virginia's electors directly."

The downstream effect here is what matters to gun owners specifically — presidential elections drive ATF policy, Supreme Court nominations, and the executive orders that show up in your FFL dealer's inbox. Anything that changes how that math works deserves attention, even if it's 48 electoral votes away from mattering.
For anyone in Virginia or neighboring states — how is the weapons ban language written, and what does it actually cover? That's the question that determines whether you're looking at a grandfather clause situation or something more aggressive.

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/651/virginia-joins-popular-vote-compact</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/651/virginia-joins-popular-vote-compact</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:51:47 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Virginia Bans AR-15s, DOJ Threatens Suit]]></title><description><![CDATA[Virginia just handed the rest of the country a preview of what aggressive state-level gun legislation looks like post-Bruen — and how fast the federal government can respond.

"Not only does it keep in place the de facto ban on some of the most common firearms in Virginia, it goes further and appears to create a ban on any firearm that can accept a magazine of more than 15 rounds."

Read that twice. We're not talking about some niche platform — we're talking about your GLOCK 17, your M&amp;P, your Smith 10/22 if someone gets creative with the language. Removing one word from the original bill turned a bad law into one that could theoretically touch almost everything in your safe.
The constitutional angle here is actually the more interesting story. The DOJ sent that warning letter before Spanberger signed anything. That's not a reaction — that's a signal that the federal government under the current administration is actively watching for exactly this kind of move and has the Bruen brief already written.
The "reasonable controls" liability language in the companion bills is the part that should make Idaho gun owners pay attention beyond Virginia's borders. That's the legal template that gets recycled across state legislatures. What passes in Richmond has a way of showing up in other states' committee hearings eighteen months later.
For those of you who've followed the Bruen litigation — where do you think a federal injunction actually lands if Virginia passes this in amended form, and does the DOJ threat change how the legislature votes?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
]]></description><link>https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/650/virginia-bans-ar-15s-doj-threatens-suit</link><guid isPermaLink="true">https://boisegunclub.com/forums//topic/650/virginia-bans-ar-15s-doj-threatens-suit</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[admin]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:51:38 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>