Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

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

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

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

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

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

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

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

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

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

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

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

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 & 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

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