The George H.W. Bush-era ban on personal carry for service members is gone. Hegseth signed the memo this week, and it flips the default from "no, unless justified" to "yes, unless documented otherwise." "Effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones. Unless you're training or unless you are a military policeman, you couldn't carry, you couldn't bring your own firearm for your own personal protection onto post." That's a pretty stark way to describe a policy that's been sitting there for thirty years. Active duty guys I've talked to at the range over the years found it genuinely bizarre — carry legally off-post, then lock it up the moment you cross the gate. The Brady org's counter that bases were never "truly" gun-free zones is technically fair — MPs are armed, armories exist — but that's a thin distinction when you're a non-MP servicemember and your personal carry piece is sitting in a storage locker. The suicide concern they raised is legitimate and shouldn't be waved off, but it's also a separate policy conversation from the carry access question itself. The real variable here is what happens at the commander level. A presumption of approval with a paper trail requirement sounds clean on paper, but "how consistently that paperwork requirement gets enforced across 750-plus installations" is exactly the right thing to watch. One base could run this like a shall-issue system, the next one makes the documentation process painful enough that nobody bothers to ask. Any veterans here who carried personally off-post during their service — did the gate-to-storage requirement ever actually affect how you thought about your daily carry setup, or did you just leave the gun at home? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Body armor bans don't get nearly enough attention in the broader Second Amendment conversation. New York made it illegal for civilians to buy armor — not carry a gun, not own a suppressor, not load hollow points. A vest. Passive protection that doesn't threaten anyone. "Finding a Founding-era precedent for banning civilians from owning defensive equipment is a steep hill to climb—New York will have to locate one, or the law falls." That's the whole game under Bruen. The burden shifted — New York has to produce the historical analogue, not FPC. I'd genuinely like to see what argument they bring, because I can't think of a single colonial-era law that banned a citizen from protecting his own body. "This case isn't really about body armor. It's a stress test of how broadly Bruen applies." That's the part worth watching. If a court applies the historical-tradition standard to defensive equipment and strikes it down, that reasoning doesn't stay in New York. It becomes a template — and there are plenty of states with defensive-equipment restrictions that have never been seriously challenged. Worth noting the article is clear-eyed about timeline — summary judgment, opposition briefs, oral arguments, then almost certainly an appeal. This doesn't resolve in a news cycle. Could be years before it means anything on the ground. For those of us who carry, body armor is one of those things that rarely comes up at the gun shop counter — but if you've ever thought about wearing a plate carrier during a range trip or keeping one at home, the legal landscape around that equipment varies more than most people realize. Have any of you looked into body armor for home defense or range use, and did the laws in your state factor into that decision at all? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Connecticut is trying to ban a category of firearm that doesn't formally exist yet. That's worth paying attention to — not just for people in Hartford, but for anyone watching how anti-gun legislation gets constructed. The core issue here is that auto switches are already illegal under federal law. Full stop. So the state is essentially saying "the accessory is already illegal, but we're also going to ban the gun it attaches to." That's a different kind of argument, and it has legs if courts let it stand. "The bill represented a violation of the Second Amendment on gun rights." — Connecticut Republican committee members The Bruen test is the real battlefield here. You can't just point to a modern public safety concern — you have to show historical tradition. Banning a common handgun platform because of an illegal aftermarket part is a stretch, and I'd expect a lawsuit before the ink dries on the governor's signature. The sleeper issue is how "convertible" gets defined in the bill's actual language. If the definition is written loosely — and these bills often are — a standard Glock 17 could qualify just because an aftermarket switch could physically attach to it. That's not a hypothetical. That's how you ban 70% of the polymer pistol market with one sentence. Other states are watching this framing. If it survives a legal challenge, you'll see similar bills introduced in California, New York, and Washington within a session or two. The "convertible pistol" category is a template, not a one-off. For anyone who carries a Glock or similar platform — which is most of you — this is worth tracking even if you're nowhere near Connecticut. Have you seen auto switch seizures or incidents at your local range or in your area, and do you think host-firearm bans are a reasonable response to an already-illegal accessory? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Short article, one quote — but the underlying legal theory here is worth understanding even if you're carrying in Idaho. New York tried to make gun permit applicants hand over three years of social media history as a "character and conduct" check. A federal court just permanently enjoined that provision after the state decided not to fight it. "New York's demand that applicants surrender three years of their private social media history was a blatant invasion of privacy and a massive government overreach. Forcing the state to abandon this requirement was a victory not only for the Second Amendment, but for the First and Fourth Amendments as well." Three amendments in one ruling is notable. The practical read: conditioning a carry permit on disclosing your private online speech hits the First, demanding account histories without a warrant hits the Fourth, and the whole thing is a back-door attack on the Second. New York apparently ran the math and decided this was a losing position — which tells you something about how thin the legal justification actually was. Idaho's permit process is about as clean as it gets — fingerprints, background check, done. But case law built in federal courts doesn't stay in New York. If a state legislature ever floats something like "social media review for permit applicants," the door to argue against it just got heavier to open. Has your state's permit process ever asked for anything that felt like it was fishing for reasons to deny rather than just verifying eligibility? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Minnesota is trying to ban ghost guns at the state level, and the bill goes further than most people probably expect. "The ability to 3D print a firearm or order a gun-building kit online makes it far too easy for dangerous individuals to get their hands on a gun, and that's a serious problem." — Attorney General Keith Ellison The rhetoric is familiar, but the actual bill text is where it gets interesting — they're not just targeting unserialized guns, they want to criminalize sharing the digital files used to print them. That's not regulating a firearm, that's regulating information, and that's a First Amendment fight nobody has fully won or lost yet. The ATF already tried the federal regulatory route on ghost guns and got slapped down by the Fifth Circuit. Minnesota is running a state criminal statute instead — different legal pathway, same destination. Whether that survives a constitutional challenge is genuinely unclear, and that uncertainty is exactly why this is worth following even from Idaho. The file distribution piece is the one to watch. Once a state successfully criminalizes a CAD file, that template is sitting there ready for the next legislature to copy. Idaho's not immune to that kind of legislative drift just because we're not the ones moving it right now. For those of you who build — whether that's an 80% lower on the bench or printing parts for a project gun — what's your read on the serialization requirement specifically? Is that a line you'd be okay with, or does mandatory serialization on a home build change the calculation for you? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Virginia just banned the sale of AR-15s and most common semi-automatic rifles, effective July 1. If you travel there with your rifle or plan to buy anything in that state, the rules changed. "Senate Bill 749 makes it illegal to import, sell, or buy any semi-automatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and at least one of five features — threaded barrel, flash suppressor, pistol grip, forward grip, or folding/collapsible stock." Read that feature list and count how many of your rifles it covers. Mine would be zero for zero — meaning all of them. This isn't a niche regulation targeting some obscure configuration; it's a description of nearly every modern sporting rifle on the market. "The bill's sponsor, state Sen. Saddam Salim, cites the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting as motivation — a massacre committed with handguns, not rifles." That detail isn't buried — it's right there in the article, and it matters. The stated justification for the law doesn't match the law itself. That kind of disconnect is exactly what courts look at when they're weighing legislative purpose. "Given that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that a significant majority of the States allow possession of those rifles, petitioners have a strong argument that AR-15s are in 'common use' by law-abiding citizens and therefore are protected by the Second Amendment under Heller." — Justice Brett Kavanaugh When a sitting Supreme Court justice — even in a dissent — telegraphs where he thinks the legal analysis lands, lawyers pay attention. Three other justices have been even more direct. The VCDL filing a challenge before the bill even passed tells you the legal groundwork was already laid. The circuit split is the real story here. Some circuits are striking down these bans under Bruen, others are upholding them — and that inconsistency is exactly what pulls a case to the Supreme Court. Virginia's law, once challenged, just adds another entry to that queue. Have you changed anything about how you travel with long guns through states with shifting laws — different storage, different route planning, different rifles you bring along? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

The argument in Brown v. ATF is one of the more interesting legal moves I've seen in a while — and it hinges on something Congress already did, not something courts have to invent. "The NFA's tax on most firearms is dead, and so is the excuse that kept this unconstitutional and immoral scheme alive." That's FPC President Brandon Combs, and the bluntness aside, the logic is straightforward: the Supreme Court upheld the NFA in 1937 specifically as a tax. Congress zeroed out those taxes in 2025. So what's left standing on? That's the question this case is asking a federal court to answer. The brief also takes direct aim at the NFA's suppressor and short-barreled rifle restrictions as independent Second Amendment violations — arguing those restrictions were always unconstitutional, regardless of how the tax question resolves. This is the track that matters most to most of us. The tax argument is the procedural crowbar, but the SBR and suppressor argument is the one with real-world weight at the range and on the cleaning bench. If that argument gains traction, it's separate from however the taxing power question resolves. Worth keeping the timeline honest here — this is a district court ruling, and whatever happens gets appealed. The DOJ's posture under the current administration is the wild card nobody can fully read yet. A favorable ruling here doesn't empty your Form 4 wait, but it builds upstream pressure in a way that's hard to ignore. Anyone have an SBR or suppressor currently sitting in NFA jail waiting on paperwork? Curious whether this has changed how you're thinking about new stamp purchases — hold off and wait, or keep submitting and see what shakes out. Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

The USPS handgun mail ban has been legally dead for decades — we just didn't have a ruling saying so until now. DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel finally put it in writing, and the reasoning is worth understanding. "For too long, law-abiding gun owners have been forced to navigate expensive, burdensome workarounds involving federal firearms licensees, just to ship a handgun—even for perfectly lawful purposes." Anyone who's had to ship a pistol back for warranty work knows exactly what this looks like — finding an FFL willing to receive it, coordinating schedules, paying transfer fees on both ends, and waiting. For a gun you already own. That system existed because the law said it had to, and now DOJ is saying the law couldn't constitutionally say that. "OLC applied the Bruen historical tradition test and found nothing. No founding-era analog." This is Bruen working as advertised. The government had to show a historical tradition supporting this ban, went looking, and came back empty. That's a meaningful data point for every other restriction that's never been held up to that same light. The catch — and it's a real one — is that OLC opinions aren't court rulings. USPS hasn't rewritten its regulations. UPS and FedEx have their own rules that this doesn't touch. Don't ship anything differently yet. Watch for the actual regulatory change before you treat this as settled. Has anyone here dealt with the FFL shipping workaround recently — warranty return, gunsmith out of state, anything like that? Curious what the actual cost and hassle looked like on your end. Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Wyoming's 2026 session closed with a split decision worth understanding. Two bills signed, one vetoed — and the one that got killed is the interesting part. "This bill was about drawing a line in the sand. It was about ensuring that if the federal government chooses to pursue a path of unconstitutional firearm restrictions, they must do so without the help of Wyoming's resources." That's the crux of the whole SAPA debate nationwide. Sanctuary status without enforcement teeth is essentially a strongly worded letter. The civil lawsuit provisions were what gave individual gun owners standing to actually do something when the state crossed its own line. The veto reasoning is where this gets worth digging into. Gordon cited Printz v. United States as making the bill redundant — but Printz only stops the feds from conscripting state officers. It doesn't stop Wyoming officers from volunteering their resources to federal operations. SAPA was aimed at exactly that voluntary participation, and the governor's letter conflated the two. That's either a misread or a convenient one. The cartel and smuggling argument fares even worse. The bill's text used the word "solely" and explicitly excluded anyone not lawfully present in the US. Bringing up cross-border smuggling as a reason to veto it is like refusing to post speed limit signs because someone might still speed. Worth noting: roughly three-quarters of the Wyoming Legislature passed SF0101. That's not a close vote. When that kind of supermajority runs into a single veto, the resistance isn't coming from the voters — it's coming from institutional law enforcement that doesn't want anything complicating their federal working relationships. That's a real political force, and it rarely shows up in the headline. HB0096 dropping the carry age to 18 and HB0098 making Red Flag enforcement a state crime aren't nothing — any Wyoming officer now has criminal exposure for participating in a confiscation order. That's the kind of provision that actually changes behavior on the ground. For those of us watching these sanctuary frameworks develop across the West: how much does the enforcement mechanism matter to you, or is the symbolic/legal posture of sanctuary status enough on its own? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Idaho's constitutional carry law gets cited constantly in gun store conversations — usually with more confidence than the speaker actually has. The details matter, and a few of them surprised me when I dug in. "Idaho is one of the most permissive carry states in the country -- but 'permissive' doesn't mean 'anything goes,' and federal law still applies regardless of what Boise says." Worth repeating every time someone acts like Idaho's permitless carry is a blanket pass. I've heard guys at the range act like the state statute erases their federal disqualifiers. It doesn't. The prohibited persons list in this piece is long — and it includes people who'd be surprised to find themselves on it, like anyone currently charged (not convicted, charged) with something punishable by more than a year. "The practical payoff is reciprocity. Several states -- including Delaware, Minnesota, Nevada, Washington State, and Wisconsin -- recognize Idaho's enhanced permit but not the standard permit." If you cross state lines with any regularity, this is the reason to sit through the 8-hour enhanced course. Sixty or seventy bucks and a Saturday morning is a small price for not having to reconfigure your carry every time you drive to a match in another state. I did mine a few years back — the live-fire requirement alone makes you actually think about what you're doing, which isn't a bad thing. "Under Idaho Code § 18-3302(25), private property owners, employers, and businesses can restrict firearms on their premises. But violating a posted or communicated prohibition isn't a standalone firearms offense -- it's a potential trespass issue." This is the one most people get wrong in both directions. Idaho doesn't give posted signs the criminal weight that some other states do — but that doesn't mean you can ignore them without consequence. Getting trespassed from a business while carrying is its own can of worms, and it's not a fight worth having over a coffee shop with a sticker on the door. "In the exercise of the right of self-defense or defense of another, a person need not retreat from any place that person has a right to be." Clean language. No ambiguity about the retreat question. The piece is right to add the caveat though — how a statute reads and how a specific case plays out in front of a jury are two entirely different things. If you ever have to use your gun, the statute is the starting point, not the finish line. Get an attorney. For those of you who carry regularly across state lines — do you hold an enhanced permit specifically for reciprocity, or do you just research the laws state by state and adjust your setup accordingly? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Boise Gun Club Editorial Team

Long article on Texas gun law — worth breaking down because the "permissive state" reputation gets people into trouble faster than a strict-state reputation would. Complacency is its own hazard. When state and federal law conflict, federal wins. The federal layer never goes away. This is the one that bites people hardest. A guy at the range tells you he's good because Texas cleared him — doesn't mean the feds agree. The Lautenberg Amendment alone has surprised more than a few people who thought an old misdemeanor domestic charge was behind them. It's not. A felon who legally possesses a handgun at home under Texas law can still face federal prosecution. I've heard this exact scenario debated at a gun shop counter at least twice. State law has a five-year clock — federal law doesn't have a clock at all. If you're advising a buddy on this, the only correct answer is "talk to a lawyer," not "you're probably fine." Constitutional carry didn't eliminate gun-free zones — it just reorganized them. The prohibited places list in § 46.03 is longer than most people carrying under permitless carry have ever read. Third-degree felony for a polling place — most carriers have no idea that's on the list. Spend ten minutes with that statute before you ever leave the house with a gun. Open carry done right keeps the gun holstered. Open carry done wrong gets you arrested. The disorderly conduct angle doesn't get enough airtime. The holster requirement for open carry exists precisely because brandishing and carrying aren't the same thing — and the line between them is whether you're making people reasonably alarmed. That's a judgment call made by an officer on scene, not you. Discussion question: For those of you in Texas — have you actually read through the § 46.03 prohibited places list, and was there anything on it that caught you off guard when you first went through it? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Spent some time digging through the 2026 Idaho nonresident draw changes, and there's enough here that affects people in this community — both residents with out-of-state hunting buddies and any of you who've hunted other states and understand how draw systems work — that it's worth laying out. The draw uses a pure random number system. Idaho Fish and Game does not use preference points or bonus points. Every applicant gets one random number assigned, and tags flow from the lowest number to the highest until quota is exhausted. There's no advantage to applying multiple years in a row, and no points carry over. Pure random is a clean system in one sense — nobody burns years of preference points chasing a unit — but it also means your buddy from out of state can't build toward anything. Every year is a cold start. If you've got nonresident friends who've been hunting Idaho for years expecting to just log on and grab a tag like they used to, that conversation needs to happen now. You cannot apply for the draw without first purchasing a valid 2026 Idaho hunting license. For nonresidents, that's a Nonresident Hunting License at $185. That fee is nonrefundable — if you don't draw, you don't get it back. That's $185 just to enter the lottery. Not the tag — the application. The article makes a fair point that the license has real utility beyond the general draw, but let's be honest: most guys calling about an Idaho elk trip aren't planning to pivot to a returned tag sale or a moose application when they strike out. Know what you're buying before you buy it. If you drew a tag in the first period, you cannot apply in the second period for that same species — even if you chose not to claim the tag. This one will catch people. You draw, you decide the timing doesn't work, you let the tag expire — you still can't re-enter for that species in the second period. That's the kind of rule that only matters once, right up until it matters to you. In some units, specific transport restrictions apply to how you can move carcasses and parts across county or state lines. Don't assume it's fine because you followed Idaho's rules — your home state or destination state may have its own CWD import restrictions. CWD transport rules are the thing most hunters blow off until a game warden is standing at a check station asking questions. If you're packing out a deer from Units 1, 14, 23, 24, or 32A and you're headed back to Oregon or Nevada or wherever — don't assume Idaho compliance covers you on the other end. For those of you who've drawn nonresident tags in other states that run draw systems — how many years did it take before you actually connected, and did the draw format (random vs. preference points) change how you planned your applications? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Spent some time going through a solid breakdown of Idaho gun law for 2026 — worth discussing because this state gets a lot of things right, but there are still places where people trip up without realizing it. No law may impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. That's baked into the state constitution — not just statute, not just policy. This is why you'll never see a permit-to-purchase or ammo background check pushed through at the state level here. Worth knowing the difference between a law that can be repealed next session and language that requires a constitutional amendment to touch. Idaho recognizes every other state's valid concealed carry permit. Inbound reciprocity is as open as it gets. But the table showing outbound recognition is what matters for Idaho residents who travel — your standard license gets you into roughly 15 states, your enhanced gets you into around 38. That gap is real, and an 8-hour course plus live-fire qual is a low bar for the coverage you gain. If you don't have your enhanced yet and you cross state lines carrying, you're doing the math wrong. When another state honors your Idaho permit, their laws govern while you're there — their magazine limits, duty-to-notify rules, and prohibited places all still apply. This is where people get comfortable and then get surprised. Your Idaho carry habits don't travel with you. Colorado's prohibited places list, Oregon's mag restrictions if they ever get enforced, duty-to-inform states — all of that lands on you the moment you cross the line. Check current agreements before you leave, not a map someone posted to a forum in 2023. What's one thing you wish you'd known before carrying in another state for the first time — something the reciprocity agreements don't spell out but you learned the hard way? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Idaho is genuinely one of the easier states to navigate NFA ownership — no extra paperwork, no state registry, no city-level nonsense layered on top of what ATF already puts you through. But there are a few things in this piece worth stopping on, because they affect decisions you might be making right now. Beginning January 1, 2026, the federal $200 NFA tax stamp is eliminated for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), Any Other Weapons (AOWs) and similar categories. The $200 stamp is gone for most NFA items — but the Form 4 process isn't. You're still doing the paperwork, still waiting on ATF, still need approval before you take possession. The financial barrier drops; the line doesn't disappear. Worth knowing before you walk into your dealer expecting a same-day pickup. Senate Bill 1349 proposes to create two new sections of Idaho Code that would legalize civilian machine gun ownership in Idaho, but only if specific federal-level "trigger events" occur first. This is a contingency bill — it doesn't do anything today. It's essentially Idaho saying "we're ready to move if federal law changes." The Idaho Freedom Foundation's federalism critique is fair: the bill waits for federal permission rather than asserting state authority outright. Whether that's smart politics or a missed opportunity probably depends on how you read the current legal landscape around the Hughes Amendment. Idaho has full firearms preemption under Idaho Code § 18-3302J... no county, city, agency, board, or other political subdivision may adopt or enforce any law, rule, regulation, or ordinance which regulates in any manner the sale, acquisition, transfer, ownership, possession, transportation, carrying or storage of firearms. This one matters if you're in Boise or any other city that occasionally gets ideas. What's legal statewide is legal in your city — period. That's not true everywhere, and it's one of those things worth knowing cold before some local ordinance discussion starts getting traction at a city council meeting. Taking an NFA item across state lines requires prior ATF approval — specifically, a completed ATF Form 5320.20. This catches people every year. You're headed to a match in Nevada with your suppressor, or visiting family in Utah with your SBR, and you haven't submitted the 5320.20. The rules differ slightly between item types, so read that section carefully before any road trip. The range day isn't worth the federal headache. With the $200 stamp going away for suppressors and SBRs, are you planning on adding anything to your safe this year — and if you've already been through the Form 4 process before, what was the part that caught you off guard the first time? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Been thinking about Idaho firearms law lately — had a conversation at the LGS counter last week where somebody thought their Idaho CWP was basically a lifetime free pass on background checks. Worth laying out what the actual rules are, because there's more nuance than most people realize. "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition." — Idaho Constitution, Art. I, § 11 That's baked into the state constitution — not a statute some legislature can quietly amend. When you pick up a rifle at a dealer, the only paperwork touching your hands is the federal 4473. No state form, no registry, no Idaho agency involved. That's not an accident. Federal law exempts persons who have been issued state permits to purchase or possess firearms from background checks if those permits were issued: 1) within the previous five years in the state in which the transfer is to take place; and 2) after an authorized government official has conducted a background investigation, including a search of the NICS database. This is the one most CWP holders either don't know about or don't think to use. Hand your permit to the dealer instead of waiting on NICS, and you walk out faster — assuming your permit is current and was issued within five years. Handguns only, and it doesn't wipe out your prohibited status if something changed after your permit issued. Worth knowing if you're standing at the counter on a busy Saturday. If you sell a gun to someone you know is a felon, you've committed a federal crime regardless of Idaho's lack of a universal background check law. Private sales come up constantly at matches and gun shows, and I still hear people treat "no state requirement" like it means no liability at all. The buyer being prohibited makes the transfer illegal on your end too — Idaho's permissive framework doesn't change that federal exposure one bit. Know who you're selling to. For those of you with an enhanced CWP specifically — the carve-out allowing carry on public college campuses is something a lot of people don't realize exists, but the dormitory and posted-entertainment-facility exceptions are real and worth knowing before you walk onto a university campus assuming you're covered everywhere. Discussion question: For those of you who carry in Idaho — do you bother maintaining your CWP for the NICS exemption and reciprocity, or have you dropped it since permitless carry came in? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Suppressors come up constantly around here — at the counter at Sportsman's Warehouse, on the range when someone shows up with a can on their 10/22, and especially in those half-informed conversations where someone swears their buddy told them there's a loophole. Worth laying out what's actually true for Idaho owners and anyone thinking about getting into the NFA game. "The resolution says suppressor restrictions enacted in the 1930s 'put the hearing health of gun owners at risk.'" The Idaho legislature isn't wrong on the merits here. I've watched guys double-stack foam plugs under muffs at an indoor range for years because the noise is genuinely damaging — and a suppressor would still leave them at jackhammer-level decibels. Calling it a hearing safety issue isn't spin, it's just accurate. "These aren't the things that you see in the movies in Hollywood, where the dramatic assassin goes in and silently deals death with a firearm. This simply reduces the noise so it does not cause potential damage to your hearing. But it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor." Sen. Lakey said what every shooter already knows but apparently needs to keep being said out loud to legislators. A suppressed .308 at a prairie dog shoot is still loud enough to get your attention from 200 yards away — nobody's sneaking up on anything. This is one of those situations where getting your legal information from a neighbor or a forum post can land you in federal prison. If someone tells you that an Idaho-made can doesn't need a stamp, they are wrong. The Idaho Firearms Freedom Act stuff circulates every few years like a bad cold. I've heard it at the gun shop counter, I've seen it on forums, and it's dangerous misinformation every single time. Federal courts have been consistent — state statutes don't override NFA regulation, full stop. The penalty for getting this wrong is 10 years federal, not a fine and a slap. The HPA reintroduction by Crapo is the real story here if you care about where this is heading — 28 Senate co-sponsors and Idaho's own legislature formally on record is more momentum than we've seen in a while. But "more momentum than before" still isn't law, and the Form 4 wait is still very real. For those of you who've gone through the NFA process for a suppressor — was the wait time what actually held you back, or was it something else? Read the full article in The Handbook →

School zone law is one of those topics where people walk around confident they know the rules — and they're half right at best. The constitutional carry landscape in Idaho makes this worse, not better, because it creates the impression that carry rights are basically universal here. They are not, and school zones are exactly where that assumption gets expensive. The standard Idaho permitless carry framework does not come with a license, which means someone relying solely on constitutional carry — without an actual Idaho carry license in hand — does not get the benefit of that federal exception. This is one of the clearest practical reasons to get an actual Idaho carry license even if you're eligible to carry without one. I've had this exact conversation at the LGS counter a dozen times. Guys hear "constitutional carry state" and mentally file away "I don't need a permit." That's true for a lot of situations — and false for a 1,000-foot radius around every K-12 school in the country. The Enhanced CWL costs you a few hours and a range trip. The federal charge costs you a lot more. A firearm loose on the passenger seat in a school parking lot does not qualify. It needs to be actually secured — locked case, locked container, locked glove box, or locked trunk. "In the car" isn't enough. This matters on match days when routes take you near schools, and it absolutely matters for anyone who parks at or near a school for any reason. "In the car" is how people end up making a very bad day out of what started as picking up their kid. A student with a hunting rifle in his truck at an off-campus sporting event is in the same legal position as if he brought it to school grounds. This one catches rural families off guard — kids who drove themselves to a track meet, who hunt before school, who just didn't think about it. The prohibition follows the student to the school-sponsored activity, not just to the campus. Worth having that conversation with your teenagers before hunting season starts. College and university authorities may not regulate or prohibit the otherwise lawful possession, carrying, or transporting of firearms by concealed carry permit holders. Most people either don't know this or assume it can't be right. Idaho public universities cannot ban carry for Enhanced CWL holders — though dorms and large entertainment venues are carved out. Again, this protection runs to license holders, not permitless carry. The pattern here is consistent: the license is the ticket in multiple specific situations. If you've had to think through your carry setup around schools — drop-off routine, route to the range, events at school facilities — what did you actually change or decide when you looked at the real law versus what you assumed? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Been thinking about this one since I ran into a guy at a match last spring who was genuinely confused about whether his rights had been restored after finishing probation. He'd done everything right, completed his sentence, and just assumed he was clear. That assumption is exactly what this piece is warning against. You can be legal under one system and criminal under the other. That sentence should be printed on a card and handed to every person who walks into a gun store asking about restoration. State law says you're good, federal law says you're not — and the federal charge is the one that carries ten years. This isn't a technicality. It's the difference between carrying legally and catching a federal felony. A federal conviction under § 922(g) carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in federal prison, per multiple Idaho attorneys who cite this statute. People treat this like a gray area. It isn't. And the misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition is the one that bites people hardest — because they hear "misdemeanor" and think it's minor. Under federal law it's a permanent ban, full stop. I've heard guys at the LGS counter brush this off like it doesn't apply to them. It might. If you're at a party and someone hands you a gun to shoot in the air, pulling that trigger is the same crime as if you owned the gun. This framing is the most useful thing in the whole piece. "Possession" in a legal sense is a lot broader than most people picture it. Handling a firearm at a range, accepting one to look at, having one handed to you — if you're prohibited, all of it counts. Worth understanding before you're standing at the firing line. Have you ever had to walk someone through a prohibited person question — at the range, at a gun shop counter, or helping a family member — and what was the part they got most wrong about where they actually stood? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Age requirements for firearms in Idaho seem straightforward until you actually try to map them out — dealer vs. private sale, possession vs. purchase, city limits vs. outside them. There's enough nuance here to trip up a 19-year-old who just moved out of the house and thinks he's good to go because he passed hunter ed. Under Idaho Code Ann. § 18-3302(20), a county sheriff is authorized to issue a provisional license to applicants aged 18 to 21 who — except for the age requirement — would otherwise qualify for an enhanced license. A provisional license expires on the holder's 21st birthday, at which point the holder can reapply for an enhanced license using the renewal process. Most people I've talked to at the range have no idea the provisional license exists. If you've got a kid in college who wants to carry on campus legally, permitless carry won't cover him inside the buildings — the provisional is the actual path. Worth knowing before you send them off to Boise State. Per Idaho Code Ann. § 18-3308, it is a crime to sell or give to any minor under the age of 16 any gunpowder of any description or any shells or fixed ammunition of any kind — except shells loaded for use in shotguns and shells or cartridges for use in rifles of .22 caliber or smaller — without the written consent of the parents or guardian of the minor. That .22 and shotgun shell carve-out is practical — it covers the two most common youth hunting and pest control situations. But the line at 16 for everything else is one I've never seen discussed at the gun store counter, and I'd bet most clerks don't think about it when a 15-year-old comes in to buy 9mm for his dad. Outside city limits: Persons over 18 who are not otherwise disqualified from being issued a license may carry concealed without a permit. Inside city limits: Persons over 18 who are U.S. citizens or current members of the U.S. armed forces, and who are not otherwise disqualified, may carry concealed without a permit. The 2019 expansion is still something people get wrong. I've had the "you need to be 21 to carry in Boise" conversation more than once at the shop counter. You don't — but you do need to be a citizen or active military if you're inside city limits and under 21 without a provisional. For anyone in the 18-20 bracket reading this — have you actually looked into the provisional license, or have you just been relying on permitless carry and hoping the location rules don't apply to you? Read the full article in The Handbook →

Idaho doesn't have a red flag law. Full stop. That's the headline, and for most of you that's probably enough — but the mechanics of how these things work in other states are worth understanding, especially if you travel, compete, or have family in ERPO states. "ERPO laws, on the other hand, may be used to prevent harm when a person is suicidal, has not made a threat against a specific individual, or when they may be a danger to others broadly." — Giffords Law Center That's the key distinction most people miss when this topic comes up at the gun shop counter. A domestic violence order is about protecting a specific person from a specific threat — an ERPO is a broader net. Someone can have their guns pulled without ever naming a specific target or committing any crime. That's the part that makes gun owners uneasy, and reasonably so. "In all states, ERPOs are civil, not criminal, court orders. However, violation of an ERPO law may be a criminal offense depending on state law." — National ERPO Resource Center This is a detail worth sitting with. The order that takes your guns is civil — lower burden of proof, no public defender, no jury. But if you don't comply with it, you're suddenly in criminal territory. That's an asymmetry that matters if you ever find yourself in a state where these laws exist. The ex parte structure — where a judge can issue an emergency order before you've said a single word in your own defense — is the piece that drives the NRA's "say-so of someone else" argument. Whether you think that concern is overblown or dead-on probably depends on how much you trust the civil court system. Worth noting that Idaho's neighbors to the west (Oregon, Washington) and northwest (Idaho-adjacent Nevada) all have ERPO laws on the books, so if you're driving through or competing out of state, you're passing through ERPO territory whether you think about it or not. Idaho sits in an interesting middle ground right now — no ERPO law, but also no statute expressly prohibiting one like Montana, Wyoming, and Texas have passed. Six states have gone out of their way to slam that door shut legislatively. Idaho hasn't felt the need to do that yet, or hasn't gotten around to it — the article doesn't say which. For those of you who travel with firearms for matches or hunting: have you ever looked into the specific ERPO mechanics in states you regularly pass through or compete in, and did it change anything about how you handle your gear or documentation on those trips? Read the full article in The Handbook →