NodeBB

Short article, but the case facts alone are worth talking through before we even get to the legal question. For anyone who hasn't followed this one — a man involuntarily committed by a Missouri court in 2023 drove from Wisconsin to Kentucky with eight firearms, body armor, a gas canister, and Fort Knox apparently on his itinerary. A storage unit search turned up 15 more guns plus improvised explosives. That's the fact pattern the Second Amendment argument had to clear. "The government may legally detain (and so effectively disarm) those who have been adjudicated a present risk to public safety due to their mental illness. And Laykovich does not dispute that he falls within this group." The court's narrowness here is actually the important part. This ruling doesn't settle the harder questions — old hospitalizations, minor commitments from decades back, procedural differences between states — it just says that if a judge formally found you dangerous, the disarmament holds. Those edge cases are still in play. What I think matters most for people in this forum is the distinction the article makes between a formal court adjudication and informal flagging. Those are very different things under this ruling, and that line is where future litigation is probably headed. Has anyone here dealt with navigating NICS denials tied to mental health records — either personally or helping a family member? Curious how that process actually plays out when someone believes their record is wrong or outdated. Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Karen Miles just swept five Ladies titles at the National Sporting Clays Championship in San Antonio — same weekend, same competitor, five different events. That doesn't happen often enough to have a playbook for it. "Winning at Nationals is always special, but to come away with five Ladies championship titles is something I'm incredibly proud of. Success at this level requires confidence in your preparation, your equipment and your ability to execute when it matters most." The preparation part is worth sitting with. FITASC and the Main Event alone demand different mindsets — FITASC's strict gun-down presentation versus the rhythm of a standard sporting clays course. Add in the K-Cup and the Winchester Ladies Cup Pro and you're talking about someone who showed up dialed in across formats, not just hot on one station. B&P will run this in every catalog they print for the next three years, and honestly, that's their right — five titles in one weekend is real proof, not a press release dressed up as results. What's the most versatile sporting clays shooter you've seen come through a local registered shoot — someone who adjusted between presentations without losing their rhythm? 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

FPC and the NRA are back in federal court in Pennsylvania, and this one's worth paying attention to — especially if you've got kids in that 18-20 window who are serious about self-defense. "At 18, you can vote, get married, sign contracts, and serve in the military — but Pennsylvania says you can't even apply for a license to carry a gun in your own car or on a street in Philadelphia." That's not rhetorical. That's the practical reality for an 18-year-old driving through Philly at night — legally disarmed by a licensing system he can't even enter. Open carry might be technically legal outside the city, but the moment he gets in a car or crosses into Philadelphia, he's got no legal path forward. "Pennsylvania has to show a historical tradition of disarming 18-to-20-year-olds — a tradition FPC says doesn't exist." Bruen flipped the burden here, and that's the whole ballgame. Pennsylvania doesn't get to say "we've always done it this way" — they have to show it was done that way in 1791. Given that the Third Circuit already ruled against the state on the emergency open carry version of this same fight, Pennsylvania is essentially trying to win a rematch with a worse hand. The patchwork of active cases — Minnesota, Illinois, Georgia, Louisiana — signals this isn't just one lawsuit. It's a coordinated push to get circuit courts on record before this lands at the Supreme Court. If you've got a range-ready 19-year-old in your household, where do you stand on them carrying — and does your state's age restriction change how you approach that conversation? 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

Pennsylvania is fighting a legal battle it already lost once, and apparently learned nothing from it. "Pennsylvania already lost in the Third Circuit when it tried to deny 18-to-20-year-olds their right to carry firearms, but the Commonwealth still insists on treating peaceable adults as second-class citizens." The Third Circuit ruled against them, the Supreme Court sent it back, and the Third Circuit ruled against them again. Pennsylvania looked at that outcome and kept the licensing ban anyway. That's not a legal strategy — that's just running out the clock on young adults who can't carry in their own vehicles. "Federal law already bars under-21s from buying handguns from licensed dealers — a separate fight entirely — but it doesn't touch their right to carry one they lawfully possess. Pennsylvania's licensing scheme goes further than federal law by making lawful carry nearly impossible for this age group in the places they're most likely to need it." This is the part that gets me. A 19-year-old can legally own a handgun — say, one passed down from a parent — and the moment he puts it in his car to drive across Philadelphia, he's facing a felony. The right exists on paper. The ability to exercise it has been stripped out. That's not a gray area, that's a straight-line contradiction. The Bruen history-and-tradition test has already done the heavy lifting here. There's no 18th-century tradition of singling out 18-to-20-year-olds for a separate licensing tier — because there wasn't one. Pennsylvania's lawyers are going to have a rough time at the district court level. If you're 18-20 and carrying in a state with similar restrictions, how are you navigating the gap between what the courts say your rights are and what the law actually lets you do day to day? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Florida's waiting period case just got stranger than it needed to be. The state's own attorney general already threw in the towel — said the law can't survive Bruen's historical-tradition test — and the judge still won't let it die. "So a law every named defendant has already conceded violates the Constitution may now get defended in court by outside gun-control groups who were never sued and have no statutory duty to enforce it." That's a remarkable thing to read twice. The people actually responsible for enforcing the law don't want to defend it — so the court is essentially recruiting a defense team from the sidelines. Whatever you think about waiting periods, that's a strange way to run a constitutional proceeding. "For someone buying a gun for self-defense after a threat, that's not paperwork. That's the government holding the means of defense hostage for 72 hours after admitting it has no historical basis to do so." This is the part that matters most to anyone who's ever helped a friend through a genuine threat situation. The 72 hours doesn't feel abstract when someone's scared and the background check already cleared. The law's own enforcers agree it's unconstitutional — and the clock still runs. If you've ever been in Florida and dealt with the waiting period — or helped someone navigate a situation where timing actually mattered — how did that play out? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Camdyn Powers just won her seventh national title at the PRS Rimfire Ladies National Championship, and if you've ever shot a .22 LR past 200 yards in variable wind, you know that number means something. "This was my ninth national finale, and it remains one of my favorite matches. Winning the 2026 PRS Rimfire Ladies National Championship is an incredible way to finish the season." Nine finals appearances, seven wins. That's not variance — that's someone who actually figured out how to read conditions in rimfire, which is a different skill set than your centerfire work. A .22 LR losing steam at distance will drift on you in ways a 6mm Creedmoor just won't. The article notes K&M kept the stages straightforward and let the wind do the sorting — which is exactly how a match should work. Too many precision rimfire setups try to paper over boring stage design with gimmick props. Variable wind on honest positional stages is the honest test, and finishing 14th overall across 1,147 seasonal competitors while winning the ladies title tells you the margin she's operating at. If you've spent any time behind a rimfire precision rig — doesn't matter if it's a dedicated chassis gun or just a 10/22 with a decent glass — you know wind calls at distance feel almost unfair compared to centerfire. You're asking a slower, lighter bullet to punch through the same air. Anyone here running rimfire precision matches, either locally or out of state — what's your read on wind doping at distance with .22 LR? Curious whether you're making separate wind charts or just transposing from your centerfire data. Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

The switchblade rulings from this week are worth paying attention to — not because anyone here is losing sleep over interstate knife commerce, but because the legal reasoning is the same framework that's heading straight toward AR-15s at the Supreme Court. "Once what you want to do is shown to come within the text of the Second Amendment, the presumption is that the regulation is unconstitutional." That's the Heller/Bruen two-step working the way it was designed to work. Government has to prove historical tradition — not just wave at public safety. Two courts this week said the government couldn't clear that bar on switchblades and body armor. Same test, same standard, same problem for the other side in Viramontes. "However the Court rules on AR-15s will effectively steer how lower courts treat magazines, suppressors, automatic knives, and body armor going forward." This is why Viramontes matters beyond just the rifle question. If the Court draws a clean "common use" line and AR-15s fall inside it, you're looking at a decision that ripples through every subsequent case on the list — suppressors included. That's a long time coming for a lot of people in this state. "The world evolves, but the core fundamental rights never change." The First Amendment comparison is the strongest argument gun-rights lawyers have right now. Courts already extended speech protections to platforms that didn't exist in 1791. The Seventh Circuit's position that AR-15s are functionally comparable to machine guns has always been a stretch — and that's the reasoning the Supreme Court is about to examine directly. If the Court rules AR-15s are protected arms under common use, what's the one item on the current restricted list you think sees a legal challenge first? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Michigan's legislative balance is razor-thin right now, and the task force recommendations already sitting on the shelf make this election more consequential than most state races get. "Ban the sale, possession, manufacture or transfer of so-called 'assault weapons' — Prohibit 'large capacity' magazines outright — Raise the firearm purchase age to 21 and mandate waiting periods on every purchase" None of that is law yet, but the list is written and the people who could pass it are on the ballot. That's not a theoretical threat — that's a grocery list waiting on a checkout counter. "El-Sayed told a crowd in an April 2023 video that the Constitution should be amended so that 'instead of the right to bear arms, we change it to the right to have healthcare.'" He can't actually do that from a Senate seat — a constitutional amendment needs 38 states, not one senator — but the "Yes, but" buried later in this piece is the more important point. A Senate vote on judicial confirmations shapes how far Heller and Bruen reach in practice, which is where the real long-term damage or protection happens. "Republican U.S. Rep. John James has committed to signing permitless concealed carry legislation." Michigan currently requires a CPL for concealed carry. If you know anyone over the border who carries when they visit Idaho, they're navigating a very different legal landscape than we are here — and this race determines whether that changes. For Michigan gun owners reading this: have you seen the task force recommendations come up in local conversations, and do people around you actually understand what's already drafted and waiting? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

A father with kids at the school followed a shooter inside and stopped him. That's the whole story — and apparently a lot of Oregon residents read it the same way. "In the five days after the October 15 shooting, 204 people started applications. That's roughly double an entire quarter's worth of normal demand." That's not panic buying — that's people doing math. One armed citizen ended the attack, and now 204 of his neighbors are working through the process to put themselves in a similar position. Hard to argue with the logic. "The suspect was shot by a community member who saw the suspect enter the school and pursued him and engaged him." The police chief said that out loud, on the record. No hedging, no "we advise civilians not to intervene" follow-up. Kaylub Giamanco made a decision under pressure that nobody trains you for at the counter of an LGS — and it worked. "The restrictions didn't stop a prohibited 16-year-old from bringing a gun onto campus. An armed citizen did." This is the part that should end every policy argument — but won't. The law already said no. The gun-free zone already existed. The one variable that actually changed the outcome was a licensed father who was carrying that day. For those of you carrying regularly: when was the last time you thought seriously about what you'd actually do in a crowded, chaotic situation — school pickup, a parking lot, a store — and whether your current setup lets you respond the way Giamanco did? 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

This one's been making the rounds. Anyone have more context? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

New York just added two more layers to an already thick stack of gun laws. If you're in Idaho wondering why this matters, it's because the policy playbook Albany uses tends to migrate — and because some of our own members travel, hunt, or have family back east. "New York's ammunition background check system has been operational for several years now, and it hasn't exactly been a showcase for effective policy. Sportsmen and lawful buyers routinely report delays, denials, and outright system failures when trying to buy ammo — while the law has yet to produce evidence it's stopping actual crime." Think about that for a second — imagine driving to Sportsman's Warehouse and getting flagged or delayed buying a box of 9mm for your next range trip. That's the reality for New York hunters buying shotgun shells before a weekend trip. The friction is entirely on the legal buyer's end. "The new law widens that scope — meaning more law-abiding owners will have to keep a defensive firearm locked up and unloaded, even in situations where quick access matters most." This is the one that should bother anyone who thinks seriously about home defense. A locked, unloaded firearm in a quick-access scenario isn't a safety plan — it's a liability. There's a reason most serious trainers emphasize immediate access for your bedside gun. Anyone here have family or friends still living in New York who've dealt with the ammo background check system firsthand? Curious what the actual wait times and denial rates look like from someone who's run that gauntlet at the counter. 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

Montana is moving on suppressors before the federal picture settles — and that's worth paying attention to even if you're not a Montana resident. "Should Congress or a future administration tighten federal suppressor policy again, Montana residents would still have clear state-level protection for possession and use." This is the actual play here. It's not about what the ATF is doing right now — it's about building a floor that doesn't collapse the next time Washington changes direction. If Idaho ever ran a similar bill, I'd want to see the same logic baked in. "Suppressors reduce muzzle blast to safer decibel levels, something hunters and range shooters have pushed for years to normalize rather than tax and register like a controlled substance." Anyone who's shot next to an unsuppressed .300 Win Mag at a covered range knows exactly what this is about. We wear hearing protection, but it still isn't enough half the time — and the NFA process for a can that costs you $200 plus a year of waiting is genuinely absurd by any reasonable measure. Have you gone through the NFA process for a suppressor, and if so, did the wait time and paperwork actually change how you think about using one regularly? 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

Campaign promises aimed at gun owners are worth paying attention to — but they're worth scrutinizing a lot harder than most people do. "A pledge in a campaign video isn't law. Ohio gun owners watching this race should treat it as a starting point for scrutiny, not a guarantee — track specific bills, vetoes, and appointments once someone's actually in office." This is the part that gets lost every election cycle. A candidate can film a video in front of a gun safe wearing a hat and mean exactly none of it once they're signing budgets and making appointments. The record after the oath matters more than anything said before it. "Governors control far more than most gun owners realize — concealed carry enforcement priorities, state police rulemaking, judicial appointments that shape how Second Amendment cases get decided at the state level, and whether a legislature's pro-gun bills get signed or vetoed." That judicial appointment piece is the one I'd keep my eye on. Legislation can get clawed back, but a judge who sits for 20 years shapes outcomes long after any governor is gone. That's not a flashy campaign talking point, which is exactly why it matters. For anyone here who's been through a few Idaho governor's races — how much weight do you actually put on a candidate's Second Amendment pledges before the election, versus waiting to see what they actually do once they're in office? Read the full article in The Handbook → | By Steve Duskett

Short article, two quotes worth pulling here — this one has real stakes for anyone paying attention to what happens after an election. The Texas Senate race is shaping up to be the loudest gun-rights fight of the 2026 cycle, and it hinges on a clip from 2020 where the Democratic candidate said exactly what he thought about semi-automatic rifles and magazine limits. "Nearly half of Texas households have guns, and millions of law-abiding Texans own the very rifles and standard-capacity magazines he would ban. Gun owners will decide this election—and Talarico just gave them another reason to vote." — John Commerford, NRA-PVF Chairman That's not spin — that's math. If you're running in Texas and you're on record supporting a ban on the most common centerfire rifle in the country, you've handed your opponent a TV ad that basically writes itself. The other number worth sitting with: Everytown and Giffords outspent the NRA significantly so far this cycle, and a lot of that money is going toward state legislative races — not Senate, not Congress. That's the part most people scroll past. "Everytown's pivot to state legislatures matters too — that's where magazine bans, permit-to-purchase bills and red-flag laws actually pass, often with far less national attention than a Senate race." This is exactly how California's magazine ban and Illinois' permit-to-purchase law happened — quietly, at the statehouse level, while everyone was watching Washington. Your state rep and state senator matter more to your carry setup than most people realize. If you're in one of those five states they're targeting — Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin — do you know who's running for your state legislature this cycle? 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