NodeBB

admin

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

admin

Legislation moves fast. What's your read on where this is heading?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

admin

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

admin

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

admin

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

admin

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

admin

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

admin

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

admin

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

admin

Worth keeping an eye on. How do you think this plays out practically?

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

NodeBB

administrators

Posts

Member List