Oregon redrew the entire eastern mule deer map for 2026 — not a tweak, a full replacement. If you hunted eastern Oregon deer last year and plan to apply for the same tags this spring, read carefully before you assume anything carries over.

"ODFW essentially deleted most previous mule deer hunts and replaced them with new ones. If you are planning to apply for the same area you hunted in 2025, you need to verify the new hunt that covers your preferred ground before the application deadline."

This is the kind of change that catches people off guard in March when draw results come back wrong. The unit you've been building points for may now be split into two or three areas — or reclassified entirely for a different weapon type or species. Pull up that interactive map at myodfw.com before you put in your application.

"Of the 22 identified herds, 14 are classified as 'extreme concern' and 5 at 'very high concern.'"

That's 19 of 22 herds in serious trouble. The tag cuts make sense in that context — but it also means eastern Oregon mule deer hunting is genuinely in a rough stretch, not just bureaucratic caution. A 171,700 animal estimate with that many herds flagged is not a population that's quietly recovering.

"It is unlawful to hunt, locate, or scout, for the purpose of hunting any wildlife with infrared, including thermal, or any other 'night vision' sight or equipment except trail cameras."

The specific callout that a thermal device attached to a scope is illegal even when powered off is worth noting. If you run a thermal for coyotes or cats and then switch over to big game hunting the same day, that device needs to come off the gun — not just get switched off. OSP seized 14 thermal units in one bust in Clackamas County last December, so they're clearly paying attention to this.

If you've hunted eastern Oregon mule deer in the last few years — what area were you in, and have you figured out yet which new Deer Hunt Area covers your ground?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Nevada's draw system has enough moving parts to trip up experienced hunters, and 2026 added a few new wrinkles worth knowing before you submit anything.

"Moose and Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep tags are available to residents only in 2026."

Non-residents who've been stacking bonus points for either of those species just had their plans reshuffled. Worth a call to NDOW before you assume last year's strategy still applies.

"If you skip applying for a species for two consecutive years when a season is available, you forfeit all accumulated points for that species."

This is the kind of rule that quietly wrecks a decade of patience. If you're sitting on points for something you've been putting off, that clock is running whether you're paying attention or not.

"Miss that deadline and you're locked out of all big game tags for one year — unless you pay a $50 fine and complete the questionnaire at www.ndowlicensing.com before the close of the 2026 main draw period."

The harvest reporting deadline bites people every single year — not because they're dishonest, just because January 31 sneaks up after the holidays. Set a phone reminder now and save yourself a year of waiting.

"Bonus points reset to zero when you draw or purchase a tag."

The squaring formula makes those accumulated points genuinely powerful, so drawing on a unit you're lukewarm about can cost you more than just a tag fee. It's worth being selective about which five units you list and in what order.

Anyone here hunting Nevada big game this year — what species are you in the draw for, and how many points are you sitting on going into 2026?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Utah made some real changes for 2026, and a couple of them will catch people flat-footed if they don't pay attention before the season opens.

"The most important factors that drive population size are the survival rates of adult does, fawn production and fawn survival. The way we hunt buck deer in Utah doesn't drive deer populations, but what happens with deer populations drives how we hunt buck deer." — DWR Big Game Coordinator Mike Wardle

Worth letting that sink in for anyone who grumbles about antlerless permits or herd management decisions. The buck harvest is downstream of everything else — doe survival, fawn recruitment, winter severity. Biologists catching heat from hunters about permit numbers are usually pointing at the right data.

A hunting or fishing license or free digital access permit registration will be required to enter Utah Wildlife Management Areas, with the requirement expanding statewide by July 2028.

This one affects more than just hunters. If you've been using Utah WMAs for a dog walk or shed hunting and never thought twice about a license, that's changing — though the free digital permit option keeps it from being a hard barrier. The phased rollout gives people time, but 2028 will be here fast.

Late report (submitted after 30 days from hunt end): $50 fee. No report at all: Ineligible to apply for big game and antlerless hunts for one year.

The first year of mandatory reporting had no financial teeth — this year it does. If you hunted Utah in 2025 and let your harvest survey slide, you can still fix it with the $50 fee before it costs you your 2026 application eligibility. That's not a complicated fix, but you have to know it exists. The e-tagging option through the Utah Hunting and Fishing app auto-completes the survey on harvest — for anyone who's hunted with paper tags their whole life, that alone is worth the five minutes to set up before you leave the trailhead.

Anyone run into issues with the new utahdraws.com vendor yet, or successfully used the e-tag system in the field? Curious whether the app holds up in spotty canyon service.

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Montana hunting regs don't usually change this dramatically in a single cycle. Between the legislature, the commission's December meeting, and a complete overhaul of how you buy a license, 2026 is genuinely different — not "read the fine print" different, but "your whole plan might be wrong" different.

"It's true, some of these changes will reduce revenue coming to FWP from license sales, but when it comes down to it, this is about protecting the resource, not revenue." — FWP Director Christy Clark

That's a direct statement from a fish and wildlife director, and it's not one you hear often. Dropping the resident deer license cap from eight to three is a real conservation commitment — the kind of thing that gets hunters mad at the counter and vindicated ten years later when the herds come back.

"Something has to be done. We have a lot of overcrowding." — Commission Chair Lesley Robinson

If you've glassed eastern Montana mule deer country in the last few years, you already know what she's talking about. More tags, more trucks, more pressure — and the deer numbers show it. The private-land-only restriction on most Mule Deer B licenses is going to redirect a lot of hunters, which means some pressure just moves rather than disappears. Worth thinking about when you're scouting new ground.

The 2025 Montana Legislature passed a law that implements a Nonresident Shed Hunting License for Montana's Wildlife Management Areas (WMA). Additionally, this new law prohibits nonresidents from picking up antlers on WMAs for the first seven days they are open to the public in the spring.

A helicopter. Someone landed a National Guard helicopter on private land to collect antlers. That's apparently what it takes to get shed hunting legislation passed — which tells you something about how seriously people are taking that pursuit now.

The archery let-off change is the one that'll sneak up on competitive archers who also hunt. No cap on let-off percentage means bows that were previously tournament-only are now legal in the field. If you've been shooting a high-let-off setup at 3D matches and keeping a separate hunting rig, that distinction just went away in Montana.

For those of you who cross the border to hunt elk or deer up there — has the nonresident fee increase changed how you're planning your seasons, or are Montana tags still worth it compared to drawing odds in other western states?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Wyoming's 2026 regulation changes are worth paying attention to if you hunt across the border — or if you're one of those guys who's been stacking points for years waiting on a moose or goat tag.

"For the 2026 season the license split for moose, bighorn sheep, bison, and mountain goat is set at 90% resident / 10% nonresident."

The bighorn split was already at 90/10 — that wasn't new. What changed is they draped that same framework over moose, bison, and mountain goat all at once. If you're a nonresident who's been banking points on a Wyoming moose tag, your math just got harder.

"SF0051 amends W.S. 23-1-302(h) to allow resident landowners to qualify for up to two hunting licenses per eligible species each calendar year."

One tag to two tags per species is a real shift for landowners — and the article flags a transferability component that isn't fully spelled out in the available sources yet. That detail matters a lot depending on whether you lease ground or know someone who owns it. Read the enrolled bill text before you assume anything about how those tags can move.

"One bill potentially caps how many landowner licenses flow into limited quota areas. The other lets landowners claim more licenses per species. How the Commission applies both in practice will be worth watching when season proposals are finalized."

SF0025 and SF0051 are pulling in opposite directions, and the Commission is going to have to reconcile them on the ground. If you guide on private ground in a limited quota unit, you're not going to know what you're actually working with until the Commission publishes those limits — and that's not a comfortable place to be when clients are asking what they can book.

Anyone here been building Wyoming points on moose or goat? Curious where nonresidents stand at this point and whether the 90/10 change actually moves the needle on expected draw odds or if those tags were already effectively out of reach.

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Alaska's regulatory situation right now is genuinely complicated, and if you've got a trip up there planned for fall 2026, you need to understand both tracks — federal preserve rules and state residency requirements — because either one could affect your hunt.

"In early 2026, the DOI proposed a new rule that would rescind the regulations imposed in 2015, 2017, and 2024, and restore the regulatory framework that governed these lands before those changes took effect."

A decade of federal layering on top of state authority, potentially unwound in one rulemaking. If you've been passing on certain harvest methods on preserve land because federal rules preempted what Alaska's Board of Game allowed — that picture could look different by fall. But it's still a proposal, so don't plan your trip around it yet.

"Applying that same framework to hunting licenses would mean that people who currently qualify for a resident hunting license might not qualify under the new standard."

The PFD standard is one of the stricter residency tests in the country — you have to have been there the full prior calendar year with intent to stay. If you're the guy who moved to Anchorage in March and figured you'd grab a resident license by August, HB 93 closes that window. Long-term Alaska residents probably don't feel this at all. It's the edge cases — part-year people, recent arrivals — who need to pay attention.

"For hunting on federal preserve lands specifically, you need to layer in the current federal rules on top of state regulations, since federal land can carry additional restrictions or requirements."

This is the part that trips people up. State regs are the floor, not the ceiling, on federal land. Until that DOI rule is finalized and published, the 2024 federal framework is still what governs on preserve acreage — regardless of what Alaska's Board of Game says is legal.

Anyone here hunt Alaska national preserve land regularly — Wrangell-St. Elias, Denali, Gates of the Arctic? Curious how much the federal overlay has actually changed what you could legally do out there over the past ten years, and whether this rollback would matter in practice for how you run those hunts.

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Arizona's 2026 reg changes aren't dramatic on the surface, but a couple of them have real long-term implications if you hunt the state or know people who do.

"If you pulled your regs booklet before February, you're working from an outdated document."

This catches people every single year in every state — you grab the PDF in December, save it to your phone, and then hunt off stale information. The Article 4 stuff on live wildlife possession and transport isn't the section most deer hunters care about, but if you do any falconry or rehab-adjacent work, this is exactly the kind of amendment that creates a legal problem you didn't know you had.

"States that codify hunting rights at the statutory (or constitutional) amendment level make it harder for future legislatures or ballot initiatives to chip away at those rights."

HB2497 is worth watching even if you're not an Arizona resident. The ballot initiative route has been used to gut hunting seasons in other states, and once that language is embedded in voter-approved measures it's extremely hard to unwind. Locking hunting rights into statute doesn't make them bulletproof, but it raises the cost of attacking them. Idaho hunters should be familiar with how this fight works — it doesn't stay in one state.

"A private-land landowner permit system would give qualifying private landowners a mechanism to permit deer harvest on their own ground outside of or in addition to the standard draw."

This one has teeth. Draw systems are already brutal in Arizona — anyone who's put in for an Arizona elk tag knows you can go a decade without drawing. A landowner permit carve-out changes the access calculus in a meaningful way, and depending on how AZGFD structures the rulemaking, it could either open doors for access agreements or lock more ground behind outfitter-only arrangements. The devil is entirely in the details they haven't written yet.

"Shed hunting regulations can vary by area and time of year, particularly in units with sensitive winter range."

If you're heading into Arizona for shed season, call the regional AZGFD office before you go. This is one of those regs that doesn't get much ink but has caught people off guard — especially in units with late-season winter range closures meant to protect elk and deer that are already stressed. Not the kind of citation you want to explain back home.

For anyone who hunts Arizona or has tried to draw tags there — how has the draw system treated you over the years, and does a landowner permit option sound like an improvement or just a new way to price out the average hunter?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Colorado's 2026 regulation changes are a mixed bag — some additions, some closures, and at least one that has nothing to do with seasons but will absolutely affect your gun purchases later this year.

"Starting August 1, 2026, Colorado requires completion of a firearms safety course before purchasing or transferring a Specified Semiautomatic Firearm (SSF)."

This is the kind of thing that'll blindside someone mid-transaction at an FFL. You show up expecting a same-day transfer, your dealer runs the paperwork, and then the conversation gets awkward. If you're in Colorado and eyeing a semi-auto purchase in the back half of 2026, call your dealer before you drive across town and ask whether your specific firearm triggers this requirement. Don't assume it doesn't.

"The Colorado Parks and Wildlife Commission approved a regulation change that eliminates OTC bull elk hunting licenses in the Gunnison Basin. You now have to apply for a license to hunt bulls there."

Anyone who's built a multi-year hunting plan around Gunnison Basin access just had their math scrambled. OTC availability was a fallback option — now it's a draw like everything else. If that basin was your Plan B, you're currently without one.

"For elk: CPW is requiring mandatory submission of CWD test samples — specifically the heads — from all elk harvested during rifle seasons in specific hunt codes. Missing that requirement isn't a paperwork inconvenience — it's a regulatory violation."

The asymmetry here — no mandatory testing for deer, mandatory head submission for certain elk rifle codes — is exactly the kind of split rule that gets hunters in trouble. Pull your specific hunt code and verify before your season opens, not after you've already packed out.

For anyone who's hunted Colorado elk recently — have you run into much variance in how CPW field personnel are handling CWD submission compliance at check stations, or is enforcement pretty consistent unit to unit?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

The nonresident deer and elk draw change is the kind of thing that sneaks up on out-of-state buddies who've been running the midnight tag-grab for years. If you know anyone who hunts Idaho from out of state, they needed to hear about this six months ago.

"You're paying for the chance to apply, not a guaranteed tag."

That's a brutal sentence if you're used to OTC tags. A non-refundable license fee just to enter a lottery is going to sting some people — especially the ones who drove up from Nevada or Utah expecting to grab a tag the same way they always did.

"The thermal and night vision bans aren't just about pulling the trigger after dark. They cover scouting and retrieval as well. If you're using a thermal to locate a downed animal during the restricted window, that's covered under the rule as written."

This is the one that'll catch people off guard. Using a thermal to recover a downed elk at last light isn't some high-tech advantage-seeking move — it's a meat recovery tool. The rule doesn't care. Worth knowing before August 1.

"Idaho would be in alignment with other western states like Alaska, Wyoming, Utah, Montana, and others that already have similar, even more restrictive, regulations on these technologies. Idaho is not breaking new ground here. We are honestly doing a little bit of catch up."

Fair point. Montana's been here for a while, and the sky hasn't fallen on their hunting culture. The HAT Working Group pulling 750 applicants and selecting 23 people across different backgrounds is at least a more serious process than most states bother with.

"Sportsmen and hunting organizations need a reasonable amount of time to absorb, analyze and respond to season setting proposals."

Sen. Foreman isn't wrong. The Commission sets deer and elk seasons and most hunters find out about changes the same way they find out about everything — from a forum post two weeks before the season opens. A mandatory 30-day comment window seems like a low bar to clear.

For Idaho residents still sorting out how the technology rules affect your 2026 setup — specifically the cellular camera question — have you already pulled your transmitting cameras off public land, or are you waiting to see where the legislature lands before making any changes?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

New Mexico made some real structural changes for 2026 — not just the usual fee tweaks. If you're planning a hunt down there, or even just watching how western states manage their wildlife commissions, there's more to pay attention to than the license costs.

"Only open (iron) or peep sights are allowed on muzzle-loading rifles when used during a muzzleloader hunt. Scopes, red dots, and all other optical sights are prohibited."

This is going to catch people. The whole reason a lot of hunters run a scoped inline is to get that earlier muzzleloader season window with less draw pressure — and New Mexico just closed that door. If your muzzleloader setup has a scope mounted, you're either pulling it off before you head out or you're hunting the wrong season. Not the kind of thing you want to sort out at a check station.

"Miss the deadline and all of your draw applications will be rejected. That's not a slap on the wrist — that's a full season lockout."

Mandatory harvest reporting with that penalty structure is serious business. Forget to file because you didn't draw — or because you hunted and came home empty — and you're done for the year across every species. Set a calendar reminder the day you buy your license, not the day the deadline shows up.

"Last session, New Mexicans spoke loud and clear they wanted a better wildlife management system, and we worked hard to deliver that in SB5. Passing this legislation is the last piece of the puzzle."

The commission independence piece matters more than most hunters will give it credit for. The people who set your season structures, bag limits, and unit boundaries now have some insulation from direct political removal. That's four years of rule-making cycles — 2027 through 2031 — with a commission that's harder to pressure out of a job mid-term. Whether that's good depends entirely on who's sitting on it, but the structure itself is more stable than it was.

"Nonresidents must also front the full cost of the tag at the time of application. If you don't draw, the tag fee is refunded — but the hunting license and application fees are not."

At $998 for a quality elk tag plus a $90 nonresident license plus application fees — before you even know if you drew — New Mexico is asking for a real commitment upfront. Stack that across two or three species applications and you're floating several hundred dollars with no guarantee of a tag. Worth knowing before you file.

Anyone here hunted a New Mexico muzzleloader elk season — what were you running for a setup, and does the iron-sights-only rule change whether you'd apply?

---

Read the full article in The Handbook → | By The Boise Gun Club Team

Quiet week at the Court — but not necessarily a good one if you've been watching those assault weapons petitions bounce around conference after conference.

"No action isn't a ruling. A cert denial doesn't mean the Court agrees with the lower courts. It means four justices couldn't agree the case was the right vehicle."

That distinction matters more than most people realize. Every time someone sees "SCOTUS declines AR-15 ban case" and assumes the bans are safe or that the Court is signaling approval, they're misreading the situation. Four justices couldn't agree on the vehicle — not the destination.

"Repeated passes on the assault weapons challenges, after Bruen raised the bar for gun regulations, is a pattern worth watching."

Bruen changed what lower courts are supposed to do — require historical analogues for gun regulations — and some of them still haven't fully recalibrated. The circuit split on this is real, and at some point the Court has to take it up or lower courts will keep going in opposite directions. Idaho, New York, Illinois — people in each of those states are living under completely different legal realities right now.

The qualified immunity piece is worth a separate conversation. The doctrine itself isn't new, but the complaint from the dissent — that it's becoming an absolute shield — is something that cuts across political lines for a lot of gun owners who've also had their Fourth Amendment antennas up since Bruen.

For those who've been watching the assault weapons challenges work their way up — which specific case do you think is the cleanest vehicle if the Court finally decides to take one, and why?

---

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

The felon-in-possession cases coming out of the federal circuits right now are worth paying attention to, even when the facts make the defendant easy to dismiss.

"His disarmament is consistent with the history and tradition of Founding-era laws."

The court's reasoning here is blunt: founding-era governments executed people for felonies, so stripping gun rights is the lesser punishment implied by the greater. Hard to argue with the logic when the guy was shooting at an Uber.

"The non-violent felon question remains genuinely unsettled and is being actively litigated in multiple circuits."

This is the thread that actually pulls. A first-time drug possession conviction, a bad check charge, certain regulatory violations — all felonies under federal law. The Bruen framework cuts both ways, and there are cases working through the system right now where the "dangerous offender" logic doesn't hold nearly as clean. The Ninth Circuit will eventually have to answer this, which means it lands in our backyard.

Anyone here know someone who had their rights restored after a felony — either through state petition or presidential pardon? Curious how that process actually played out and whether they ran into walls trying to purchase again.

---

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

Short article, but it covers a case that touches everyone who's ever sat in suppressor jail waiting on a Form 4.

"Congress eliminating the tax doesn't moot this case. The non-tax regulations — registration, the approval process, the wait — are still fully enforced. Zeroing the stamp price is the easy part. The paperwork and federal permission structure is what SAF is actually fighting."

This is the part people are getting confused about at the counter. The $200 going away is nice, but you're still filling out the same stack of forms and waiting however many months for the government to decide you're allowed to have a tube of baffles. The real fight is the permission structure itself.

"A ruling on either question would have consequences well beyond suppressors — it would set the standard for how courts evaluate every other NFA-regulated item."

That's the sentence that should get your attention. Short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, machine guns — all of it runs through the same NFA framework. How SCOTUS frames the Bruen historical tradition test here could ripple into every other item on that regulated list.

If you own a suppressor or have one on order, how long was your wait — and has the Form 4 processing time changed at all since the tax went to zero?

---

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

Colorado just passed a law banning 3D-printed guns while leaving the files that produce them completely legal. That's not a typo.

"Since a positive debate would've only ended in a veto by one, we have decided to accept the cleanup and, next year, come back with a new administration in place."
— Sen. Tom Sullivan, D-Centennial

They're openly telling you this is phase one. The vote happened Monday — the real target is 2027 when Polis is gone. If you think this stops at hardware, you're not paying attention.

The distillery-without-the-recipe problem is real here. The CAD files for printable lowers, magazine bodies, Glock auto sears — all of it stays perfectly legal to download and share in Colorado. What changes is whether you can hit print. That's an enforcement gap you could drive a truck through, and the sponsors know it.

Worth noting that Polis has now twice pulled his own party's gun bills back from their most aggressive versions — not because he's pro-gun, but apparently because his legal team keeps flagging enforceability problems. That's actually a more interesting dynamic than the bill itself. A Democratic governor acting as the brake on Democratic gun legislation is a weird place for Colorado to be sitting.

If you're a Colorado shooter who prints your own components — even serialized ones — this bill changes your situation once Polis signs it. The procedural House vote is a formality at this point.

For everyone outside Colorado watching this: the digital-files angle is where this fight is actually headed nationally. Banning a plastic part is one thing. Banning a file that exists on servers in seventeen countries is something else entirely, and the courts haven't had a clean shot at that question yet.

For those of you who've followed the 3D-printed firearms space — either as builders, competitors running printed components, or just from a legal standpoint — what do you think actually happens when a state tries to ban the digital instructions themselves?

---

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

The gap between what you can do on the trail and what you can do inside the visitor center has been a friction point for years. SAF just decided to make it a federal case.

"Campers wishing to carry a firearm for self-defense in these parks are made to disarm before stepping foot inside a visitor center or ranger station to obtain a permit to camp. That's not a choice any law-abiding American should have to make."

If you've ever hiked in grizzly country — or even just rolled into a backcountry trailhead solo — you understand the logic of carrying from the parking lot all the way through. The idea that you're squared away on the trail but a criminal the second you step inside to grab your permit is the kind of thing that makes no sense outside of bureaucratic inertia.

"How the court defines 'sensitive place' is the whole ballgame here."

This is the part worth watching closely. The Bruen framework flipped the burden — now the government has to produce historical evidence, not just assert public safety. Whether a National Park visitor center looks more like a courthouse or a post office to an 18th-century court is genuinely unsettled, and however this shakes out will echo into a lot of other federal facilities.

Anyone else run into this at a park visit — had to leave your carry gun in the truck before heading into a ranger station, or just skipped the visitor center altogether?

---

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

Maine's waiting period fight just got reset. The First Circuit put the 72-hour law back in effect after reversing a district judge who'd blocked it — and the reasoning is worth paying attention to if you care about where gun rights law is heading.

"The (law) briefly delays acquisitions of firearms from commercial dealers. But it does not prevent a law-abiding and responsible citizen from obtaining and then keeping or bearing a firearm after fulfilling the waiting period requirement."

That's the legal line courts keep drawing — burden versus infringement — and it's been holding up in most circuits. The district judge who blocked it called it "indiscriminate dispossession," which is the more honest description of what it actually feels like when you've already cleared a background check and still have to come back in three days.

The court also pointed out that 72 hours mirrors the maximum window federal law gives NICS to return a result. That's a clever anchor — Maine says it's just matching federal timing, not adding to it. Whether that framing holds at full trial is another question, but it's harder to argue against.

Idaho has no waiting period and nothing moving in the legislature right now — but these circuit decisions build the scaffolding that future cases get argued inside. If this reaches SCOTUS, the "burden vs. infringement" framework is what both sides will be swinging at.

Have you ever been in a state with a waiting period during a purchase? Curious how LGS staff handle that conversation when a buyer has already passed the background check and is just... waiting.

---

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

The postal service hasn't been allowed to move handguns since Calvin Coolidge was president. That's about to change if a new USPS proposed rule goes through — and the details are worth reading carefully before you form an opinion.

"The proposed rule allows unlicensed individuals to mail handguns, rifles, or shotguns to themselves or another person in another state for 'lawful activities.' No FFL required. No background check on the recipient. No log entry."

That phrase "or another person" is carrying a lot of freight. Every transfer I've run through an FFL — whether it was a private sale, an online purchase, or an estate transfer — had a 4473 at the end of it. That paper trail exists for a reason, and this rule sidesteps it completely.

"131 (3.2%) involved the U.S. mail — under the existing, more restrictive system"

So we already have mail-based gun trafficking under rules that are supposed to prevent it. Loosening those rules and then pointing to a low percentage isn't the reassurance they think it is — it's a baseline that's about to get tested.

The comment period is open right now. If you think this is a good idea, go say so. If you think it's going to make life harder for law-abiding owners when the inevitable misuse gets plastered across the news cycle, go say that instead. Either way, that's the actual lever available right now — not arguing about it after the rule is final.

For those of us who do private transfers, ship guns to gunsmiths, or move firearms between states for hunts or matches — has your experience with the current FFL-based transfer system been workable, or is there a legitimate inconvenience here that a smarter rule could actually solve?

---

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

Kentucky's governor just vetoed a bill that would have let 18-to-20-year-olds obtain a CCDW license in the state. The political framing around it is worth unpacking.

"While I believe in the Second Amendment, these pieces of legislation would allow minors under the age of 21 to carry concealed deadly weapons..."

Calling 18-year-olds "minors" isn't a legal position — it's a rhetorical one. An 18-year-old can sign a lease, enlist, and vote, but apparently the governor thinks the word "minor" is flexible enough to cover them when it's convenient.

"Blocking it doesn't prevent those adults from carrying at home or in their vehicles. It just keeps them from getting the license that opens reciprocity with other states."

This is the part most people miss. Kentucky already has permitless carry at 21+, so the veto doesn't stop 18-to-20-year-olds from being armed — it just locks them out of the licensing system that would give their carry any legal standing across state lines. A 19-year-old driving through Tennessee for work or hunting is the one who pays for this.

The override math in Frankfort looks reasonable on paper — Republican supermajority in both chambers — but whether leadership actually schedules the vote is a different question. Legislative calendars have a way of running out.

For those of you who travel and carry regularly: how much weight do you put on reciprocity when you're deciding where to go and how to plan around it — and does it change your thinking on whether 18-to-20-year-olds should have access to the licensing process?

---

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

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