Interesting development. What's your take on this?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Interesting development. What's your take on this?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Interesting development. What's your take on this?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Thirty million AR-15-style rifles in circulation, and we've never had a definitive ruling on whether the Second Amendment actually covers them. That gap is about to close.
"Cook County's best historical argument leans on old gunpowder-storage laws — fire-prevention rules aimed at keeping cities from burning down, not banning rifles with adjustable stocks or muzzle brakes."
That's the whole problem with "assault weapon" bans in one sentence. They've always been built on borrowed logic — cherry-picked historical analogies that don't hold up when you actually read them. A folding stock and a pistol grip have nothing to do with fire safety in 1800s Chicago.
"The most commonly owned rifle in America doesn't fit that description no matter how a state legislature describes it."
This is the Heller "dangerous and unusual" carve-out collapsing under its own weight. You can't call something unusual when it's the most common rifle platform in the country. The AR I run at the Boise 3-Gun matches is a standard piece of equipment — same as the one hanging on the wall at half the gun shops in the Treasure Valley.
"Four justices have already signaled they think these bans are unconstitutional, and two more have shown they're willing to scrutinize the kind of political hand-waving that usually props up 'assault weapon' laws."
That's a meaningful number before oral argument even starts. This isn't a close call from a legal standpoint — Bruen already shifted the burden onto the states, and Connecticut and Cook County are showing up with fire ordinances.
If this ruling goes the way the text and precedent point, do you own an AR platform — and has living in Idaho versus a ban state ever actually affected what you bought or how you set it up?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Interesting development. What's your take on this?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Interstate carry reciprocity has always been a gamble, but this case puts a face on exactly why — a long-haul trucker who's done everything right in two states and still can't legally carry through Minnesota.
"A right that vanishes at a state line isn't much of a right for anyone who travels for a living."
That's not just a trucker problem. Anyone who's ever mapped out a road trip with a carry gun knows the feeling of checking and re-checking state reciprocity lists the night before. One wrong turn through the wrong state and your valid permit means nothing.
"Johnson's petition leans on the post-Bruen framework, arguing Minnesota can't justify refusing recognition of an out-of-state permit without pointing to a historical tradition of states voiding each other's carry licenses — a tradition that, by most accounts, doesn't exist."
This is where Bruen gets interesting beyond the headlines. The historical-analogue test isn't just about who gets to carry — it potentially reaches the whole reciprocity patchwork. If there's no historical precedent for states canceling each other's carry permissions at the border, Minnesota has a real problem defending its position.
"Getting the Supreme Court to actually hear a case is a long shot... and even if they do, a decision could be a year or more away."
So don't shelve your reciprocity map yet. Until there's a ruling, the legal exposure for traveling permit holders is exactly what it's always been — real, and entirely dependent on which line your GPS routes you across.
For those of you who regularly cross state lines with a carry gun — whether that's for work, hunting, or just visiting family — how do you actually manage the reciprocity patchwork, and has it ever changed how you planned a route or which gun you brought?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
The ghost gun rule fight and the ATF breach happened the same week, and that's not a comfortable combination to think about.
"The rule never drew a clear line for when a block of material becomes a gun — it handed ATF a checklist of factors and let the agency decide case by case. Guess wrong, and you're a felon."
That's not a law, that's a trap. When the standard for a felony conviction is "the agency will know it when they see it," nobody running a lathe in their shop has any real legal footing — and that's exactly how vague rules get used.
"ATF is sitting on paperwork covering roughly a billion guns and owners, including records from gun shops that shut down years ago. Every one of those files is a target for the next attacker."
This is the part that should concern every shooter, not just builders. You sold a rifle in 2009 through a shop that closed in 2015. That 4473 is still somewhere in a pile — physical or digital — and apparently not as secure as we'd been told. The breach being "contained" doesn't change what the stockpile represents.
The ruling itself is real but limited — it covers the plaintiffs, the DOJ can appeal, and the underlying registry question isn't resolved. One win in Texas doesn't clean up the mess.
How many of you have actually thought about your paper trail — transfers, 4473s over the years, shops you bought from that are long gone — and what it would mean if that data ended up somewhere it shouldn't?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Bear hunting doesn't come up much in these threads, but a few of you have mentioned chasing tags out of state, and Wisconsin's system is worth understanding — especially if you've got family up there or you're burning preference points in the drawing.
"The DNR issued 15,245 bear licenses this year out of more than 34,000 applicants — long odds that pushed another 106,000 hunters to buy preference points just to improve their shot in future drawings."
That's a brutal ratio. More than two applicants for every tag issued, and another 106,000 people essentially paying to wait. If you're used to Idaho's draw system, Wisconsin's demand makes it look relaxed by comparison.
"Hunters need to know their specific zone cold before they ever step into the woods — running a hound in the wrong window, or baiting during a dogs-only stretch, is how a legal hunt turns into a citation."
This is the part that gets people. The zone regulations aren't just slightly different from each other — some zones have no dogs at all, and the timing windows for bait versus hounds in the dog zones are short and specific. Read the wrong summary and you're in trouble.
Anyone here drawn a Wisconsin bear tag, or been on a hound hunt out there as a non-licensed participant? Curious how the preference point accumulation actually plays out in practice — whether the wait is genuinely years or closer to a decade in the pressured zones.
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Interesting development. What's your take on this?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett
Interesting development. What's your take on this?
Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett