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

Illinois has been a testing ground for gun legislation that eventually finds its way onto other states' desks. This one's worth paying attention to.

"The real-world impact would be severe. It would place a massive financial burden on ammunition manufacturers, and there is no realistic way for individuals to comply."

That last part is the piece that gets me. Think about a single range session — 200 rounds of 9mm through your carry gun, maybe a brick of .22 through a trainer. Under this framework, every one of those rounds needs a traceable serial number tied to your ID. The paperwork burden alone would kill casual shooting as a hobby.

The tech angle is what really sinks this for me. The article notes microstamping markings were readable on just over half of expended cases, with degradation after 1,000 rounds. My carry gun has well past that through it — and that's the point. By the time the system would actually matter, the evidence it's supposed to preserve is already worn smooth.

And then there's the brass problem. Any of us who shoot outdoors or at a public range knows spent cases end up everywhere. I've picked up other people's .45 brass by accident just tidying up a bay. The idea that serialized brass couldn't be planted at a crime scene isn't naive — it's dishonest.

California's response from manufacturers after their microstamping law took effect tells you where this ends up: fewer new handgun models available to buyers, no accountability improvement, and the existing law-abiding owners left holding the compliance cost. Illinois would get the same result with an added registry on top.

Idaho isn't insulated from this. Bills like HB 4414 get refined and reintroduced elsewhere — that's how this process works. What fails in committee one session becomes the template for the next.

Have you ever bought ammo in a state with additional purchase restrictions — background checks, quantity limits, ID requirements — and how much did it actually affect what you could get or how you bought it?

---

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

The DC Court of Appeals just ruled magazine bans unconstitutional — and the District's response is essentially to argue that following the Constitution would be too disruptive.

"On the District's logic, states could ban two-round or even one-round magazines... [and] could just directly outlaw the semi-automatic firing mechanism because, by itself, that is a harmless component of a firearm."

That quote is the whole case right there. Once you accept the government's framing that components can be banned based on whether they're "strictly necessary," there's no logical floor. Your carry gun's striker, your bolt carrier group, your detachable magazine — all fair game under that theory.

The only real "uncertainty" is whether DC police keep arresting people for carrying standard-capacity magazines in a jurisdiction where a court just said that's constitutionally protected. The US Attorney's office has already stopped pursuing those charges. DC's own AG, however, is still prosecuting them.

Two different prosecutors in the same city running two different policies on the same constitutional question — while citizens are actively getting charged. That's not a gray area, that's the government refusing to read a ruling it doesn't like.

The historical point in the article is worth sitting with. When lever-actions hit the market with 15-round tube magazines, nobody panicked and banned them. Capacity restrictions aren't some ancient safety tradition — they're a post-1960s invention that got retroactively dressed up as one. If you've ever tried to explain this at your local gun shop counter and gotten blank stares, now you have the court's own language to back it up.

For those of you who travel with a standard-capacity pistol — the kind you carry every day in Idaho without a second thought — a ruling like this is a reminder of how fast the math changes the moment you cross a state line. What 15 rounds looks like in your holster at the range here looks like a felony somewhere else.

What's your experience been navigating magazine capacity laws when traveling through restrictive states — do you swap to compliant mags, leave the gun home, or just map your route around the problem?

---

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

Background checks are built on an assumption most people never question — that the records feeding the system are actually complete. Turns out, for roughly four decades, Los Angeles County's courts weren't submitting felony convictions to the California DOJ. Not some of them. A lot of them.

"The court has identified approximately 380,000 instances with convictions where the case's ADR was not successfully reported to the DOJ."

That's not a glitch — that's the system not working for forty-plus years across the most populous county in the country. Every NICS check run against one of those names returned clean, because there was nothing to return. Any dealer in any state, including Idaho, would have seen the same result.

The part that should bother you: there's no announced plan to cross-reference those 147,000 felony convictions against actual firearm purchase records. They're transmitting the data now, which stops new gaps from forming — but what happened during the gap is apparently not anyone's urgent problem.

California built one of the most involved gun purchase processes in the country and the foundation it rested on had a 147,000-case hole in it. That's worth sitting with the next time someone cites NICS denial rates as proof the system is working.

Curious whether anyone here has actually had a NICS check come back delayed or denied for a records issue — either on a purchase or when helping someone at the counter — and what the resolution process looked like.

---

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

Permit transparency in New Jersey sounds like a contradiction in terms, but there was actually a functioning dashboard tracking application data — until January 20th, when it apparently got quietly unplugged during the transition to a new administration.

"While the prior administration was producing some of this information, the Sherrill Administration is either dragging its feet or is choosing to sweep this under the rug."
— NRA-ILA

The part that should bother everyone — not just New Jersey residents — is what the data actually showed before it went dark. Black applicants were being denied at more than double the rate of white applicants, mostly for subjective reasons that Bruen already said aren't legitimate grounds for denial. That's not a statistical blip — that's a permitting system doing exactly what Bruen was supposed to stop.

The structural problem here is that Platkin's original directive was an administrative order, not a law. One new AG and it evaporates. A.222 would codify the reporting requirement so it can't just get shelved whenever the political winds shift. That's the whole point of the bill — you don't get to memory-hole data about constitutional rights violations just because a new administration finds it inconvenient.

For those of us in states with functioning shall-issue or constitutional carry, this might feel distant. But disparate denial rates based on subjective criteria in a permit system is the kind of thing that ends up cited in federal litigation that affects all of us.

Has anyone here dealt with permit transparency issues in Idaho — whether getting denial data, tracking processing times, or pushing back on a county sheriff dragging their feet on applications?

---

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

Lake City is a name every shooter who's bought bulk .223 or 7.62x51 knows, even if they don't realize it. A lot of the brass you're tumbling in your media separator right now probably came from there. This bill would put that pipeline at risk.

"Commercial utilization enables the Army to ensure the readiness of not just the machinery needed to produce ammunition but also the funds for the necessary skilled labor to keep the plant in peak operation so there are no gaps in military readiness."

That's not spin — that's how surge manufacturing actually works. You can't mothball a production line for a decade and then spin it up overnight when a conflict starts. The civilian market is what keeps the lights on and the machinists sharp.

"Warren's framing calls it taxpayer-funded fuel for gun violence. The Army calls those commercial sales a readiness asset."

These two positions can't both be right, and the Army's argument has the weight of logistics behind it. Cutting Lake City's commercial output doesn't get rifles off the street — it just makes the next ammunition shortage look like a spring 2020 fever dream by comparison.

The contractor-eligibility clause is the part that should raise eyebrows. A company selling .308 to Sportsman's Warehouse could lose its Pentagon contracts? That's a pressure lever that doesn't need to pass into law to do damage — the uncertainty alone changes how companies plan their commercial divisions.

Have you noticed your preferred bulk ammo getting harder to source lately, and do you think pressure on Lake City's commercial sales is already affecting the shelf count at your local gun shop?

---

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

The DOJ just stopped defending the century-old ban on shipping firearms through USPS — calling it likely unconstitutional — and three state AGs immediately filed to take over the defense. New York, New Jersey, and Delaware don't want to let that go quietly.

"Those interests are no longer represented by the Federal Defendants, which no longer offers any defense of this critical public safety law on the merits."
— AGs of New York, New Jersey, and Delaware, Monday brief

A Pennsylvania woman needs to get a handgun to her father across the state and her only legal option is a six-hour round trip — because she can't use USPS, UPS, or FedEx without an FFL involved. Three AGs from neighboring states think that's fine. Worth sitting with that for a second.

The Bruen analysis here is interesting. The 1927 law was written to slow mob gun shipments during Prohibition — not exactly the kind of historical tradition the Founders were encoding. Courts have been skeptical of exactly this kind of post-hoc "safety" justification when the actual history is "we were trying to slow Al Capone."

For anyone who's had to coordinate a transfer, you know how this plays out in practice — you're paying FFL fees and burning time for a transaction that should be as simple as shipping a rifle scope. The law isn't stopping bad actors. It's just adding friction for people doing everything right.

Have you ever had a transfer situation where the shipping restrictions made a simple transaction into a whole production — and how'd you end up handling it?

---

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

Preemption laws don't get much attention until you're the guy who didn't realize the city limits moved and suddenly you're "in violation." Ohio is trying to fix exactly that situation, and it's worth paying attention to even if you don't live there.

A gun owner following Ohio state law shouldn't become a criminal because he drove through the wrong city.

That sentence right there is the whole argument. If you carry regularly, compete across county lines, or run to the range with standard-capacity mags, the current patchwork isn't a theoretical problem — it's a live one.

Cities that oppose preemption often argue local conditions justify local rules. But that argument cuts both ways — it also means rural gun owners living near city limits can get caught up in urban ordinances that were never meant for them.

This is the part that gets overlooked in these debates. It's not just about city folks wanting stricter rules — it's about the guy who farms outside the city limits and doesn't realize his commute now puts him in legal jeopardy. That's a real person who didn't change anything about his behavior.

Have you ever been caught off guard by a local ordinance that conflicted with state law — either in Ohio or somewhere else you were traveling through?

---

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

Most shooters know Sellier & Bellot as the blue-box 9mm they grab at Sportsman's when everything else is picked over. Few know it's part of Colt CZ Group — and fewer still are paying attention to what that company just did.

Nitrocellulose is the unglamorous foundation of the entire ammunition industry, and right now NATO countries are scrambling to secure it. No nitrocellulose, no powder, no rounds.

This is the part of the supply chain nobody thinks about until shelves go bare. We all felt the 2020-2022 squeeze — not just on loaded ammo but on powder, primers, the whole upstream mess. Colt CZ just bought their way into the step before powder manufacturing. That's not a small move.

The U.S. commercial market has felt what happens when propellant inputs get pinched; Colt CZ is structurally betting that won't happen to them again.

If you run S&B through your guns — and a lot of us do at range day prices — this actually matters to you. Vertical integration at the raw material level is the only real hedge against the kind of allocation chaos that had reloaders hoarding Varget like it was gold. Whether that stability flows down to commercial shelf stock is the real question.

As part of the same transaction, Colt CZ also picked up a 51% stake in Synthesia Power — the energy infrastructure at the complex where nitrocellulose is produced. Owning the power supply for your own chemical plant is not a small detail.

That's a level of supply chain thinking most firearms companies have never attempted. They're not just buying capacity — they're buying control over the conditions that capacity depends on.

During the last big ammo drought, what did you actually run out of first — loaded ammo, components, or specific powders — and how long did it take your local shop to get back to normal?

---

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

Ammo pricing pressure has been building for a while, and Winchester just put hard numbers to what a lot of us have been feeling at the counter. Their Q4 2025 results make for pretty uncomfortable reading.

Winchester's Q4 2025 earnings nearly evaporated, dropping from $42 million to just $600,000 compared to the same quarter a year earlier. That's not a typo.

A $41 million quarterly collapse is the kind of number that forces decisions — and those decisions don't stay inside the boardroom. They end up on the shelf tag at your local gun shop. When a manufacturer this size bleeds that badly, price increases aren't a maybe, they're already written.

The post-COVID ammo surge created a glut of inventory in the distribution channel. Manufacturers like Winchester cut prices to keep product moving. That worked until the raw material costs made it unsustainable.

This is exactly what happened. Retailers were sitting on pandemic-era stock and discounting to move it — which felt great if you were buying, but it was masking what copper, brass, and propellant were actually costing. That math is done now. The window where you could grab quality centerfire at lower-than-normal prices is closing, and it's not coming back soon.

If you reload, watch brass and propellant pricing closely — those inputs are under the same cost pressure hitting Winchester.

The reloading bench doesn't insulate you from this — it just delays it. Powder and brass are sourced from the same markets. If you've been putting off stocking up on Varget or H4350, or you're low on brass for a caliber you shoot heavy, now is a better time to act than six months from now.

---

Curious where everyone's at on this — have you already noticed price creep at your local shops or distributor, and are you adjusting your buying habits heading into 2026?

---

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

Two things collided this week in a way that should make every permit holder stop and think — because they can't both be true at the same time.

"The administration that spent last week urging the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii's carry restrictions spent this week arguing a lawful gun owner deserved to die for carrying at a protest."

That's not a partisan shot — that's just the timeline. You can't file a brief defending public carry rights on Monday and then have your FBI director go on TV Friday to say a legally armed man had it coming. Pick a lane.

FBI Director Kash Patel said on Fox News: "You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple."

Except it's not that simple — and it's not Minnesota law. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the NRA, and GOA all called this out directly. When the groups that normally carry water for an administration are publicly correcting its top law enforcement official on basic firearms law, that's worth paying attention to. Especially if you carry and think your permit means something.

University of Minnesota Law professor Megan Walsh, who specializes in the Second Amendment, put it plainly: "He was lawfully carrying a firearm, and that is not any license to kill someone."

The weapon had already been removed before the shots were fired. Whatever you think about the broader circumstances, that's the detail that matters — and it should matter to anyone who carries daily, because the principle at stake is whether lawful carry itself can be used to justify force against you.

The Wolford ruling this summer will likely extend Bruen further into everyday carry situations — stores, restaurants, parking lots. That's a real win on paper. But a legal right that gets you shot in the street for exercising it isn't much of a right.

Here's what I want to know from folks who carry regularly: Has the Pretti situation changed how you think about carrying at public events — protests, rallies, anything with a law enforcement presence — even where it's clearly legal to do so?

---

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

PRS season is spinning up, and if you're planning to shoot any ranked matches this year, membership registration is already open across all three series — PRO, Regional, and Rimfire.

Without one, you can still shoot PRS-affiliated matches, but your scores won't count toward any regional or national standings.

That's the part guys miss. You show up, shoot a solid match, feel good about your andex — and none of it appears anywhere. Paying the entry fee but skipping the membership is like reloading ammo and forgetting to seat the primer.

Don't wait until the week of your first match to buy in. Some regional match hosts require proof of membership before you can register for the event itself.

This one will bite you. Match slots in the region fill fast, and if you're scrambling to sort out your membership the same week registration opens, you're probably watching from the waitlist. Sort this out now, while there's nothing else urgent on the calendar.

BGC hosts and supports PRS-affiliated events locally, so if you've been thinking about getting into precision rifle competition — or you shot a match last year and want your scores to actually count this time — getting the right membership tier sorted before your first match is the whole job right now.

What series are you running in 2026 — Regional, PRO, Rimfire, or mixing it up — and what pushed you toward that tier?

---

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

SHOT Show dropped a lot of product this week, and as usual there's a mix of "finally" and "who asked for this." A few things actually caught my attention as things that'll matter at the range or on your hip — not just in a glass case.

The grip has been redesigned with better contours, a grooveless front strap, undercut trigger guard, and thumb rests that mimic what gunsmiths have been doing for years in their shops.

Glock basically looked at what every grip stippler and custom shop has been charging $150–300 to do, and baked it into the factory gun. If this holds up in practice, a lot of Gen5 owners are going to be mildly annoyed.

Engineers told media the low cost wasn't achieved by outsourcing or cutting corners.

That's the kind of thing you say when people are already skeptical — which means the skepticism is warranted. A 5-lb single-action trigger and a Delta Point Pro cut at $549 is either a genuinely good value or a warranty claim waiting to happen. Put a few thousand rounds through one first before you bet your carry setup on it.

The 7mm Backcountry gets three new loads built around the Peak Alloy case for high velocity from shorter barrels — specifically useful with suppressors.

Between this and Federal's new subsonic rifle line, both ammo companies came in hard on suppressor-friendly offerings. If you've been running a can or thinking about getting one, the ammo side of that equation keeps getting easier.

What's on your list from SHOT 2026 — and is there anything here you'd actually put money down on before reading a round-count review from someone who isn't a sponsored shooter?

---

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

Florida's gun law picture has changed a lot in the last three years. Constitutional carry in 2023, open carry in 2025 — and now the Legislature is still pushing. Worth keeping an eye on where this is heading.

Rep. Tyler Sirois (R-Merritt Island), the bill's sponsor, framed it differently: the 2018 age restriction was a reaction to a tragedy, not a constitutional policy, and 18-year-olds who are legally adults shouldn't be denied a right the Constitution protects.

Hard to argue with the logic. You can sign a contract, vote, join the infantry, and get handed an M4 at 18 — but buying a rifle at a Florida gun store requires waiting three more years. The inconsistency has always been the weakest part of the 2018 law.

The pattern is consistent: House passes it, Senate ignores it. That's been the outcome since 2023.

Four sessions in a row now. At some point the House vote stops being a push for change and starts being a campaign document. The more interesting development is the AG saying he won't defend the age floor if the NRA takes it to SCOTUS — that's the thread worth pulling.

For guys who frequent Idaho ranges, this might feel like background noise from another state — but federal case law on purchase age cuts both directions and lands everywhere.

Discussion question: Anyone here remember buying their first long gun at 18, or did you run into age restrictions at your local shop — and did it actually change anything about how you started shooting?

---

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

Been carrying and watching guys carry the P320 platform since it showed up at every gun counter in America. The Pretti shooting in Minneapolis has this conversation going again, and it's worth paying attention to — especially if one lives in your safe right now.

The 2020 Hartley settlement covered refunds for prior repair costs and a lifetime warranty against cartridge failures. It did not cover personal injury claims from gunshot wounds, and it did not address unintentional discharge allegations.

That's a settlement that solved a paperwork problem while the actual liability question walked out the door untouched. If you're a P320 carrier who assumed the 2017 upgrade plus the class action settlement put this to bed, that gap matters — especially if you're ever on the wrong end of an incident.

In April 2025, Sig Sauer successfully lobbied the New Hampshire legislature for a law shielding the company from P320 liability lawsuits.

A manufacturer lobbying for legal protection from its own customers isn't a great look — and when you hear that at the gun shop counter, it tends to quiet the room. The legal remedy being the only remedy is already a problem. Shrinking that remedy further just moves the stakes onto the individual carrier.

There's no federal agency with authority to compel a firearms manufacturer to issue a recall — unlike cars, toys, or power tools. Every recall or safety notice you see from a gun manufacturer is voluntary.

This is the part that doesn't get said enough. When your truck has a brake issue, NHTSA can force a fix. When your carry gun has a discharge complaint history north of 100 allegations, the manufacturer decides whether to act — and how far. That's the environment you're operating in every time you strap on a firearm, P320 or otherwise.

If you've got a pre-August 2017 P320 and haven't done the Voluntary Upgrade Program, that's a free fix and there's no reason to sit on it. Beyond that, the holster fit point is real — full trigger guard coverage isn't optional on this platform, and I've seen plenty of kydex rigs at matches that didn't meet that bar.

For those of you who carry or have carried a P320 — has the discharge history ever factored into your decision to keep it, replace it, or change your holster setup?

---

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

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 →