Buckeye Firearms Association

BFA urges passage of SB 214 to remove suppressors from ordnance definition

SHummel — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

Now that a federal judge in Texas on Aug. 5 has ruled that the remaining required registration of short-barreled rifles and suppressors in the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional without a monetary tax, it's up to the Ohio House of Representatives to pass Senate Bill 214 to remove suppressors from the list of dangerous ordnances in Ohio law.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kyle Koehler (R-Springfield) and backed by Buckeye Firearms Association, proposes revisions to the Ohio Revised Code, eliminating suppressors and mufflers from the definition of dangerous ordnance and removing language that mandates suppressor registration under the NFA.

The Senate passed the bill in March, and the Ohio House leadership has assured BFA that the bill would be passed as soon as it reconvenes from summer recess.

BFA has testified multiple times in favor of SB 214, most recently June 9 before the House Public Safety Committee.

From the testimony of Jim Samuel, BFA's legislative affairs director:

Anyone who shoots or hunts frequently has likely experienced some degree of hearing loss. And noise complaints frequently plague outdoor ranges. This is why suppressors can be a useful tool to promote hearing safety and reduce noise pollution. ... Senate Bill 214 is a straightforward yet important piece of legislation that simply removes suppressors and mufflers from a list of dangerous ordinances in the code … . It seeks to treat suppressors as the safety accessory they are.

Sean Maloney, BFA's legal counsel, wrote an article for AmmoLand, titled Ohio’s Unfinished Suppressor Reform Leaves a State-Law Trap for Gun Owners, describing the need to pass SB 214, pointing to a ruling in a similar case, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.

Maloney wrote, in part:

For years, Second Amendment advocates have pointed to an incongruity in Ohio law: a firearm suppressor is classified as “dangerous ordnance.” Ohio Revised Code § 2923.11(K)(5) expressly includes “[a]ny firearm muffler or suppressor” in that definition. The same definition that separately includes explosives, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, and other military-type weapons. A suppressor is not itself statutorily classified as an explosive, but Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance framework nonetheless places it in a legal category far removed from an ordinary firearm accessory.

That classification has serious consequences. Under R.C. 2923.17(A), a person generally may not knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous ordnance. A violation is a felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2923.17(D).

For ordinary civilian suppressor owners, the principal statutory protection is found in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5): the exemption for owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record under 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Ohio also provides a separate, limited hunting-related provision through R.C. 2923.17(C)(8) and R.C. 1533.04. But for the ordinary owner outside those narrow circumstances, Ohio law ties lawful possession to federal NFA registration. …

Until the House acts and the legislation becomes law, Ohio suppressor owners remain subject to a statutory structure that turns federal registration status into the central protection against a state felony charge. That is a problem Ohio lawmakers can and should fix (and) not leave Ohio gun owners one federal policy change away from a state-law felony trap.

Dean Rieck, BFA's executive director, said it is imperative that the House pass SB 214 without delay.

"This bill has strong bipartisan support," Rieck said. "In March, it passed the Senate committee 5-0 and the full Senate 31-1, which is rare for a firearms-related bill in Ohio. When there's that level of agreement about legislation, a bill should move swiftly."

BFA joined a lawsuit filed in February 2026, Roberts v. ATF, and asked the courts in April to strike down NFA rules on suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

As BFA noted when the case was filed, until the passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, the NFA had imposed a $200 excise tax ("tax stamp") on suppressors and on short-barreled rifles and required a tax-enforcement registration requirement on those items.

Trump's bill included both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act and would have eliminated the NFA tax and registration. At the time, BFA joined a long list of organizations nationwide in signing an open letter to two U.S. House of Representatives committees, insisting that Congress eliminate unjust restrictions imposed by the NFA.

The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. As the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration requirement for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

BFA maintains a list of gun-related bills in the current state legislative session, including where we stand on them. See our Legislation page.

Joe D. "Buck" Ruth, a pen name for Scott Hummel, is a longtime small-game hunter and gun owner who spent nearly three decades in the news industry. He is the website and social-media manager for Buckeye Firearms Association.

How does punishing 6-year-old for gun-shaped sandwich keep schools safe?

SHummel — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by NRA-ILA

As the new school year gets underway, many parents are starting the annual check of school supply lists, bus routes, and lunch-packing routines. However, some parents might be wondering whether the lunch or school supplies they send with their child might become a disciplinary issue.

Reports have begun surfacing that a Georgia 6-year-old was suspended after reportedly biting his sandwich into an “L shape” and pointing it at another student. The student “was previously suspended for pointing a bottle of water at another student and making gun noises and also punished for drawing a pilgrim shooting a turkey …”

The child’s family argues that the punishment ignores the child’s age and autism, which reflects how some school policies can lose sight of common sense. Certainly, expecting a 6-year-old autistic child to grasp any complex implications of pointing his “L-shaped sandwich” at another student as he is still learning the difference between imaginative play and real world is absurd. It is also precisely why our society does not prosecute 6-year-old children.

Coming up: Attend Ohio firearm training and special events

This is not a first-of-its kind report, unfortunately. In recent years, schools have made headlines after students faced disciplinary consequences for firearm-shaped food items or toys. Recall that a Maryland 7-year-old was suspended for allegedly biting his breakfast pastry into a firearm shape while at school. A 5-year old in Pennsylvania was suspended for bringing a Hello Kitty bubblegun to school. And in perhaps the nadir of these accounts, a 3-year-old deaf boy named Hunter was told by his school that signing his own name was a violation of the school district’s “weapons” policy.

While school administrators unquestionably have an important responsibility to assess genuine threats and address disruptive behavior, this necessarily involves the use of sound judgement in distinguishing between serious safety issues and innocent childhood behavior.

The concerns extend beyond isolated incidents and even beyond the classroom. Administrators appear to be treating imagination as suspect, reflecting a broader cultural tendency to view even an imaginary reference to firearms as inherently dangerous. That mindset matters in reinforcing notions that any association with firearms or hunting, even when rooted in innocent childhood play, artwork, or family tradition, should be viewed negatively. A young child drawing a pilgrim hunting a turkey with a firearm simply should not be marked for the record as a safety concern or behavioral issue.

The parents of the Georgia 6-year-old were not only baffled by their first grader’s suspension but also noted that the young child is now internalizing the school’s overreaction.

“There were definitely times when he would come home and say, ‘I’m a bad kid’ and that’s really hard to hear as a mom,” the boy’s mother told a media outlet.

School administrators, more than anyone, should understand that children at that age are still developing their ability to understand abstract concepts, and there is a danger in stigmatizing versus teaching in those moments.

Headlines like these have unfortunately become a predictable aspect of the back-to-school tradition. What they point to is the need for policies grounded in reality rather than symbolic gestures. NRA has pursued such reforms through a variety of means, from grant programs to improve the safety infrastructure of schools to so-called Pop-Tart bills that give school officials more flexibility in responding to supposed violations of weapons policies posing no risk of harm.

For children’s sake, the best lesson schools can teach is that not every deviation from opaque bureaucratic dictates deserves harsh punishment and that common sense can be an indispensable part of education. Unfortunately, many of America’s schools are still a long way off from learning even that elementary lesson.

SCOTUS update: Gun ban lawsuits paused nationwide

SHummel — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Sportsmen's Alliance

Major news from the courts: Judges across the country have officially hit the pause button on lawsuits challenging semi-automatic firearm and magazine bans.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s historic decision to review Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut), lower courts are staying active litigation. They are waiting for the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling on whether popular semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s are protected by the Second Amendment.

Don't miss this: BFA-sponsored defensive firearms training slated Oct 17 in Brookville

“Stays are a tool that courts have to conserve judicial resources,” said Michael Jean, litigation counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “The stay allows courts to press pause on the case while other actions that impact the case get resolved. Here they are staying cases until the Supreme Court answers the underlying questions in the case — whether semi-automatic rifles and so-called ‘high-capacity magazines’ are protected by the Second Amendment and why they are protected by the Second Amendment. Once those questions are answered by the Supreme Court, the lower courts won’t have to answer them. They will only have to determine if the bans before them are factually and legally distinguishable from the Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut bans currently before the Supreme Court.”

To ensure the voice of hunters and gun owners is heard at this critical juncture, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation will file an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” brief, explicitly arguing that semi-automatic bans directly harm sportsmen and requesting that the Supreme Court strike them down as unconstitutional.

Where firearm and magazine ban lawsuits stand

Virginia success: State and federal courts stayed Virginia’s lawsuits, but the crucial statewide preliminary injunction remains in place. Virginia’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and “high-capacity” magazines is still blocked and unenforceable.
New Jersey freeze: The Third Circuit stayed its own ruling. New Jersey’s 1990 ban and 10-round magazine restrictions remain fully active while the Supreme Court holds the state’s petition.
California paused: The Ninth Circuit officially stayed the landmark Miller v. Bonta “assault weapons” ban case. California’s restrictions remain in effect for now.
Washington State deferred: The Supreme Court is holding the Gator’s Custom Guns “high-capacity” magazine ban challenge in limbo until the final Viramontes decision.

Why this matters to sportsmen

This nationwide legal freeze is a massive tactical shift. Anti-gun states cannot easily advance new restrictions in court, and gun-rights advocates are positioned for a definitive, nationwide victory at the highest level. The Supreme Court’s upcoming decision will set a single, clear constitutional standard. This ruling could permanently strike down these unconstitutional bans in every state.

Republished with permission from Sportsmen's Alliance.

Federal district judge in Texas: NFA registration scheme on SBRs, suppressors unconstitutional

SHummel — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Second Amendment Foundation

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on Aug. 5 ruled that the remaining registration scheme for short-barreled rifles and suppressors in the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional in Jensen v. ATF, a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase certain classes of firearms, including silencers and short-barreled rifles, to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), purportedly drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. Through the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, however, the tax on these arms was eliminated but the registration requirement was left in place. SAF and its partners have filed three lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power is no longer justifiable.

“The basis for each lawsuit challenging the NFA registration scheme is the same — without the tax, the remaining requirements for the affected arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF executive director Adam Kraut. “And today the first court to rule on the issue has agreed with us. We’re eager to continue this fight and leave major portions of the NFA in the dustbin of history. A big win is a great way to kick things off.”

SAF itself is a named plaintiff in NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is backing two additional challenges — Roberts v. ATF (which includes Buckeye Firearms Association) and this case, Jensen v. ATF. Plaintiffs in Jensen are SAF sister organization — Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom, and three individuals.

“The removal of the $200 tax in the One Big Beautiful Bill offers the best opportunity to remove the NFA registration requirements that we’ve had in almost a century,” said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president. “We are thrilled the court ruled in our favor and look forward to other jurisdictions following suit in our remaining NFA cases. This ruling will set a precedent we can now argue in courts across the country to allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights without fear of being placed on some government registry.”

Republished with permission from Second Amendment Foundation.

Zero tax, zero justification: Can Congress finish job on NFA?

SHummel — Tue, 11 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by John Crump, AmmoLand

Could reconciliation be used to dismantle the rest of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) after the ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)? That is the question many in the gun community are asking after a significant legal victory that has already hollowed out large portions of the nearly century-old law.

Last summer, Congress passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (OBBB) that lowered the tax stamp fees for short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), suppressors, and any other weapons (AOWs) from $200 to $0. The fee reduction called into question the constitutionality of the NFA’s regulation of these items. Under the U.S. Constitution, a tax must have a genuine revenue-generating purpose. With the Supreme Court already having ruled that the NFA is a tax law, the OBBB spurred numerous lawsuits, including one involving Buckeye Firearms Association.

By eliminating the revenue stream for these categories, Congress effectively removed the constitutional foundation that has long justified the NFA’s registration and transfer restrictions.

A federal judge gutted zero-tax NFA scheme

In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, a federal district court judge in Texas ruled that the $0 tax stamp fee made the NFA unconstitutional as applied to SBRs, SBS's, suppressors, and AOWs. The ruling applies only to the named plaintiffs, including GOA, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), Silencer Shop, SilencerCo, and others.

Still, the ATF cannot determine who is and isn’t a member, so as a practical matter, the law is unenforceable against a large and growing class of gun owners and businesses.

California restaurant: Good guy with gun stops bad guy with knife

The judge also said the ruling applies to all current and future members of the plaintiff organizations. The judge stayed the decision for seven days to give the government time to appeal and request a longer stay, leaving the immediate future of enforcement uncertain while the case moves through the appellate process.

Because of the victory, many are wondering if the strategy that dismantled the majority of the NFA could be used to put the final nail in the coffin of the controversial law. When the tax was zeroed out for SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, and AOWs, the $200 tax stamp remained on machine guns and destructive devices, thereby insulating those items from the lawsuits. That deliberate carve-out preserved the legal justification for the most heavily restricted categories under the NFA and left a clear path for further legislative action.

Boebert’s bill targets remaining NFA taxes

In May, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) introduced H.R.8921, the Freedom from Taxes Act of 2026. The bill would change the tax stamp fee for machine guns and destructive devices from $200 to $0. It has been referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means and could be rolled into reconciliation. Doing so would subject the remaining NFA categories to the same constitutional challenge that succeeded against SBRs, SBS's, suppressors, and AOWs.

Reconciliation would be the only realistic way to dismantle the remaining portions of the NFA as long as the filibuster exists in the Senate. Because of the filibuster, a supermajority of senators (60 votes) is needed to pass most bills. A bill passed through reconciliation is exempt from the filibuster, meaning only a simple majority is required to pass. The Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has already approved the lowering of the tax stamp fees for SBRs, SBS's, suppressors, and AOWs, so it would be difficult to walk back that decision with respect to machine guns and destructive devices. Precedent on the budget impact of zeroing out these fees already exists, strengthening the case for treating machine guns and destructive devices the same way.

Jason Smith, Republican leadership hold keys

The bill would need the support of House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (R-Missouri) before it could be included in reconciliation. Rep. Smith has already publicly stated support for the court’s decision in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. With Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, Democrats would not be able to stop the bill if leadership chooses to move it.

Since the Freedom from Taxes Act of 2026 could be passed through reconciliation, the only remaining question is whether the Republican Party has the backbone to push through a bill that proves they walk the walk and don’t just talk the talk. Completing the process would eliminate the last major revenue justification for the NFA and force a broader constitutional reckoning with a law that has restricted law-abiding gun owners for more than ninety years.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.

BFA-sponsored defensive firearms training slated Oct 17 in Brookville

SHummel — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Defensive firearms training, sponsored by Buckeye Firearms Association, is scheduled for 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, Oct. 17, at Mushin Safety & Security Training, 10288 Amity Road, Brookville, Ohio.

REGISTER NOW

This is not a high-volume shooting class. Instead, the focus is on developing speed, accuracy, and confidence through deliberate, practical instruction.

The course follows a crawl, walk, run training model, making it an excellent fit for beginner, intermediate, and advanced shooters alike. Whether you're looking to build a solid foundation or refine your existing skills, you'll be challenged at your own pace.

Meet Forrest Sonewald, course instructor.

The event will include a break for a working lunch, so plan to bring a sack lunch. Participants should arrive at least 15 minutes early.

A portion of your tuition benefits Buckeye Firearms Association.

Topics covered

Safe firearm handling and manipulation
Drawing from the holster (where appropriate)
Improving speed and accuracy
Efficient target engagement
Shooting under realistic time constraints
Building confidence through structured drills

Gear requirements

Modern defensive pistol
At least two magazines
Mag pouch
Sturdy gun belt. This is NOT a Sunday go-to-meeting belt. This is a rugged belt designed to support the weight of a firearm, a holster, and other carry accessories.
Strong side holster (IWB, OWB, or Appendix). No shoulder, cross-draw, or middle-of-back styles. Please note that holsters are NOT to be collapsible (i.e., Uncle Mike's-style cloth holsters), and students must be able to holster their firearm using their dominant hand only.
NO OFF-BODY CARRY for this class.
Ammo: 300 rounds
ELECTRONIC hearing protection. Students must be able to clearly hear and understand instructors/instructions.
Eye protection
Weather-appropriate clothing, including boots. We shoot rain or shine!
Concealment clothes appropriate for climate and conditions
Billed hat or ball cap
Lunch, snacks, and plenty of hydration. Our training areas can get HOT!
Notepad and pen to take notes

Facility Information

Please note that firearms are NOT allowed while in the classroom.

Don't forget to bring a sack lunch, snacks, and drinks.

Restroom facilities are on-site.

On-site parking is available.

Use Google Maps or Waze to GPS

Course tuition and range fee

The course is $175 per person, and the range fee is $20, payable to Mushin SST on the day of class.

What previous participants have said

"First of all I can't remember having that much fun. You guys put on an awesome program. Could you email me a copy of the syllabus." The class syllabus is emailed to all registrants after the class.

"I had a wonderful time (even though I did get completely soaked as did most of the others) but, like you said, we did dry out later in the day. I want you to relay to Forrest, that he is the absolute best firearms instructor I have ever had. I have trained with Forrest at 3 different sessions and he makes learning fun because, he always injects humor into his teachings. I always learn something new from him."

California restaurant, where good guy with gun stops bad guy with knife

SHummel — Fri, 07 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Rob Morse, SlowFacts

An armed attacker entered a restaurant in Cerritos, California. A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a knife. That simple description covers an interesting story.

What we know

The guy with a knife stole a truck from a young woman. He damaged the truck and dumped it in a shopping center and then ran into a nearby restaurant — into the kitchen and food-preparation area. The attacker, who was already bleeding from a self-inflicted knife wound to his neck, threatened the restaurant staff. The staff ran out the back door of the kitchen and also ran out of the kitchen and into the dining area.

One of the customers sitting in the dining area was a gun owner. He had his California permit to legally carry his personal firearm concealed in public, and he was armed that day — inside the restaurant. He defended himself and other innocent parties.

The defender stood up and presented his firearm, shouting, “Stop! Drop the knife!” The attacker turned toward the defender and advanced with the knife in his hands. The defender shot the attacker. The attacker stopped advancing and fell to the ground. The defender stopped shooting. The defender remained at the scene and gave a statement to the police.

Let’s take a closer look at what happened.

This was the middle of the afternoon on a weekday.
The defender stood up rather than retreating to a position of concealment and cover. That was the first rung on the use-of-force ladder. He said, "I’m here and I see you."
The defender presented his firearm. Now both the attacker and the defender had weapons in their hands.
The defender issued a verbal challenge — “Stop!”
The attacker initiated the conflict by closing the distance to the defender.
The defender recognized an immediate, lethal, and unavoidable threat. Read those three terms carefully. All three must be present to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense. The defender did not have time to think and evaluate. He did have time to recognize a situation he had already considered and classified.
The defender used lethal force to stop the threat. The armed defender stopped using lethal force when it was no longer justified to do so. That could happen before the first shot, or after he fired every shot in the gun’s magazine.
The defender wore the mantle of innocence. He stayed at the scene. He holstered his firearm. He called the police or asked someone else to do so. He gave a statement to the police and cooperated in collecting evidence of what happened.

There is a lot more we want the good guy to do. Unfortunately, those sorts of details aren’t covered in most news sources. Let’s speculate about what we might want to do.

Most attackers who use a weapon against innocent people are high or drunk. Don’t expect sane behavior from a crazy person.

Ask people to stay down. You don’t know if the attacker is a crazy person acting alone or part of a robbery team. It might not be safe to stand and move around.

Here in Ohio: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements for the Ohio General Election

Can you take the knife or gun away from the wounded attacker without exposing yourself to danger? There are entire class segments devoted to how to secure a weapon that was used in a crime. When in doubt, leave that to the police.

Ask if anyone else is hurt and needs assistance. Is there a cook who was cut and is lying on the floor of the kitchen? Was one of the restaurant customers hurt when they dove for the floor? Was anyone else hurt by the shot you fired? The emergency response system might need to roll several teams if there are a number of injured victims.

Ask everyone to call 911. That gives the 911 system a list of cell phone numbers that were in the restaurant when the attack happened. Also, ask a particular staff member in the restaurant to call 911 and then stand next to you when they are on the line with the dispatcher. Since someone was shot, you want to ask for both police and emergency medical services.

If at all possible, you want to put your gun away before the police come through the door.

Do what the police tell you to do. It is their scene, and they are responsible for what happens after they arrive.

Have a lawyer to call. Your lawyer will write out your official statement. His job is to be accurate and complete. He will explain why the use of lethal force was the safest course of action. At the scene, the most you can do is make sure the police don’t overlook obvious evidence. Once that is done, then be quiet and let your lawyer tell your story.

Despite its anti-gun politics, there are many millions of gun owners in California. California citizens in the Democrat-controlled coastal counties might have a difficult time securing a carry permit. Citizens who live in inland counties have a much easier time, and their permits are good in every county. Armed defense like this occurs thousands of times every day.

Rob Morse writes about gun rights at his SlowFacts blog and hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society podcast.

Armed civilian used suppressed pistol to save lives at Idaho In-N-Out

SHummel — Thu, 06 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by AmmoLand Editor Duncan Johnson

Jordan Salinas did not know that a Saturday lunch stop at an In-N-Out Burger would place him in the path of a mass murderer. But when rifle fire erupted outside the crowded Twin Falls, Idaho, restaurant, Salinas had something most of the people trapped there did not: a firearm, training, and the willingness to move toward the threat.

Salinas, 35, has come forward as the armed civilian who returned fire at a 24-year-old Chad Williams during the Aug. 1 attack. An off-duty Idaho State Police trooper also engaged Williams.

Twin Falls Police Chief Matthew Hicks said their return fire helped drive Williams away from the restaurant and prevented additional casualties. Twin Falls County Sheriff Jack Johnson went further, saying the two defenders “without a doubt saved many lives.” Williams later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Three innocent people were killed and seven others wounded.

A lunch stop turns into a gunfight

According to Salinas’ detailed account to the Idaho Statesman, he and his girlfriend were heading out for a horseback-riding date when they stopped at the recently opened restaurant for lunch. Salinas initially saw people rushing out of the building and thought there might be a kitchen fire. Then he heard the unmistakable rhythm of gunfire. His response, he said, became “automatic” and “mechanical.”

Salinas drew a suppressed FN Five-seveN pistol from a shoulder holster and moved toward the shooting. Video from the scene shows him advancing cautiously behind signs and other available concealment while searching for the source of the gunfire. Near the drive-thru, Salinas saw Williams shoulder a rifle and fire toward vehicles.

“OK, this is the guy,” Salinas recalled thinking.

Here in Ohio: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements for the Ohio General Election

He raised the pistol with both hands and fired. It was the first time, he told the Statesman, that he had pointed a firearm at a living target.

“He did not like it when bullets started firing both ways,” Salinas said.

Williams had been firing on people who could not effectively resist him. Once an armed citizen and an off-duty trooper began returning fire, the equation changed. The killer withdrew from the restaurant area. Salinas stopped engaging when responding officers arrived, recognizing that his role was finished and police were taking control.

Trained because 'it could happen here'

Salinas is a health care worker and the full-time caregiver for his brother, who uses a wheelchair. He told the Statesman that he began taking firearms training more seriously after the 2021 Boise Towne Square mall shooting. That attack taught him an uncomfortable lesson: Killers seek vulnerable people and supposedly safe public places.

A wheelchair user and the caregiver standing beside him could be precisely the kind of “soft targets” an attacker might select. Salinas therefore trained in the Idaho desert, practicing not merely how to fire a handgun but how to observe, orient, decide, and act under pressure.

“Everyone says, ‘It’s not going to happen here,’” he told the Statesman. “But what if it does?”

On Saturday, it did.

The suppressed FN Five-seveN

The handgun Salinas carried was reportedly an FN Five-seveN equipped with a suppressor. A widely circulated copy of an October 2024 Facebook training post attributed to Salinas identified the pictured setup as an FN Five-seveN USG fitted with a Tactical Solutions Axiom suppressor and firing Vanguard 55-grain subsonic 5.7x28mm ammunition. That older post does not establish which ammunition or suppressor Salinas used during the Aug. 1 confrontation.

Salinas’ earlier training post ended with words that now appear painfully prophetic:

“Train like your life depends on it. Because God forbid, one day it might.”

'There’s a task that needs to be done'

Salinas said he experienced no fear during the engagement. His training narrowed his attention to the immediate problem.

“There’s a task that needs to be done, and we’re the ones who need to do it,” he told the Statesman.

After his identity became public, Salinas posted on Facebook that the response had been overwhelming. He thanked family, friends, and strangers for their prayers and support, while directing attention back toward the victims and their families. He said he would provide a fuller account when he was able.

The right to keep and bear arms exists for moments exactly like this one. The Second Amendment does not promise that police will always arrive before innocent people are murdered. It protects the pre-existing right of the people to possess and carry the means of defense themselves.

Salinas and the off-duty trooper were already there. They were armed. They acted immediately.

When bullets began traveling in both directions, the killer retreated — and lives were saved.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.

Canadian bank discriminates against US gun companies while courting business

SHummel — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Larry Keane, NSSF

It should be no surprise that a Canadian bank would be in lockstep with that country’s disdain for lawful firearm ownership. After all, Canada is bent on confiscating lawfully owned firearms from owners who did nothing to violate the law.

The outlook for personal freedoms in Canada is decidedly murkier after Canada’s ill-advised crackdown on protests against the government that led to arrests of hundreds in 2020. It seems the stereotype of Canadian “nice” isn’t holding up these days.

That’s especially true when it comes to the firearm industry.

Here in Ohio: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements for the Ohio General Election

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC), the largest bank in Canada, holds CA$2.325 trillion (or $1.76 trillion U.S. dollars) in total assets. The RBC has a market capitalization of approximately $291 billion U.S. dollars. It’s a top global financial institution, ranked as the eighth-largest bank worldwide and fifth largest in North America by market capitalization. RBC serves 17 million clients across Canada, the United States and 27 other countries, employing over 101,000 people around the globe.

RBC operates through subsidiaries in the United States, with City National Bank, which includes First American Equipment Finance, operating 79 branches in 11 U.S. states (primarily focused on commercial and private banking), RBC Wealth Management at 195 offices and RBC Capital Markets with 55 offices.

That kind of American footprint and market capital would lead some to believe that RBC would be on the leading edge of understanding rules that ban financial services discrimination in the United States. Those people would be wrong.

U.S. gun business not welcome

Nate Treadaway, CEO of Vigilant Gear LLC, tagged NSSF in a LinkedIn post, writing, “Should I be surprised that a Canadian based bank ‘restricts’ lending (aka discriminates) to the firearms industry? Probably not. But, for the love of God, don’t solicit me first and then tell me you won’t do business because our industry. Shame on him. Shame on RBC. Shame on First American.”

Treadaway wasn’t done.

“PS — No, I don’t need any lending services today so please don’t solicit me with your lending proposals. I get 5-6 a week, but this one made it though [sic] my spam filter and thought I’d hear him out. Lesson learned,” he added.

Treadaway isn’t a “Johnny-come-lately” to the firearm industry. Previous to his role at Vigilant Gear, he was CEO of BPI Outdoors and, prior to that, president and CEO of Blackpowder Products Inc. He has been in the firearm industry for nearly two decades. He has seen the devastating effects of Operation Choke Point and what happened when banking discrimination was privatized by corporate banks. He was at the helm of these companies when they had to navigate the Biden administration weaponizing the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to spy on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights by legally purchasing firearms and ammunition.

They should know

So imagine his frustration when RBC’s subsidiary First American Equipment Finance reached out wanting to do business with Treadaway but spurns any business that has to do with firearms or ammunition. After all, President Donald Trump signed the executive order “Guaranteeing Free and Fair Banking for All Americans.” That’s the order that scrapped “woke” banking discrimination that denied financial services to the firearm and ammunition industry.

The Treasury Department’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), published a Final Rule that eliminated “reputational risk” from their supervisory programs that regulate banking and financial services in the United States. The rule prohibits the agencies from requiring, instructing or encouraging an institution to close customer accounts or take other actions on the basis of a person’s or entity’s political, social, cultural or religious views or beliefs, constitutionally protected speech or solely on the basis of politically disfavored but lawful business activities perceived to present reputation risk.

RBC may be a Canadian-based bank but that doesn’t mean they get to ignore the rules governing financial services in the United States if they want to do business here. RBC maintains an Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policy that bars investment in RBC’s Vision Funds. In fact, RBC screens to include and exclude certain businesses “stemming from a certain principle or set of values.” That includes “Weapons.”

This isn’t the first time that RBC has gotten itself in the crosshairs of discriminating against firearm businesses and U.S.-government policies that banned their discriminatory practices.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, when he was the state attorney general and led the Louisiana State Bond Commission, pushed to disqualify RBC — along with five other national banks — from his state’s pre-approved financial institutions that could compete for $275 million in state bonds because of their discriminatory policies against firearm businesses.

Reuters reported that RBC was scrutinized by the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Texas office for illegal discrimination that violated the state’s laws that forbid the practice aimed at firearm businesses, as well as the state’s oil and gas industry. NSSF supported Texas’ Firearm Industry Nondiscrimination (FIND) Act and praised Texas Gov. Greg Abbott when he signed it into law.

Not the only ones

It’s clear that RBC knows that discriminating against and denying financial services to the firearm industry based on “woke” policies violates the rules not just at the state level, but also the federal level. It’s a head-scratcher, then, why they’d be asking Treadaway’s Vigilant Gear to consider them as a business partner. It’s no less confusing than when NSSF reported that Ramp, another financial services partner, was courting business with Arizona-based Davidson’s, Inc., after they denied financial services to West Virginia’s Kent Cartridge Company.

That saga isn’t over. Just last week, West Virginia’s Attorney General (AG) JB McCuskey fired off letters to BILL Holdings Inc., First Internet Bank of Indiana, and Ramp, three financial service providers that allegedly denied services to Kent Cartridge.

NSSF cautioned that AG McCuskey was looking into the allegations and now he’s warning the financial service providers of the potential consequences of violating West Virginia’s FIND Act.

“The bottom-line takeaway here should be crystal clear. West Virginians cherish the right to bear arms. And their elected representatives have enshrined into law protection against discrimination aimed at firearms manufacturers, distributors, and retailers by banks and other financial institutions,” AG McCuskey wrote in the letters. “Accordingly, this Office will zealously investigate — and, when warranted, pursue legal action — to effectuate that protection and vindicate the policy choice West Virginians have made. That choice reflects an obvious desire that their fundamental right to bear arms not be unduly burdened or inhibited.”

RBC could be facing the same scrutiny if it doesn’t wake up to the fact that “woke” financial discriminatory policies won’t be tolerated.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

DOJ withdraws appeal in challenge to post office firearms ban

SHummel — Tue, 04 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by NRA-ILA

Another significant victory has emerged in the ongoing effort to roll back unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms in places that millions of law-abiding Americans visit every day in every state in towns across the nation. This time, the challenge centers on one of the most familiar public institutions across the country: local post offices.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) voluntarily withdrew its appeal of a federal court decision that enjoined enforcement of the federal ban on carrying firearms at U.S. Postal Service facilities. This withdrawal is yet another meaningful shift in the Trump administration’s approach to defending the Second Amendment by not defending firearm regulations that lack historical support as required by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Here in Ohio: Guns allowed at Ohio State Fair but not in buildings; BFA's Rieck calls it 'ridiculous'

For decades, federal law and USPS regulations have broadly prohibited law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms on postal property. Unlike courthouses or other secure government facilities, neighborhood post offices are buildings that millions of Americans visit daily to conduct routine business as they go about their day. Yet federal regulations treated every post office as a categorical “gun-free zone” regardless of whether an individual possessed a state issued concealed carry permit or otherwise posed any type of threat to public safety. Of course, local post offices are not “gun free zones” in any meaningful way, as they do not screen for unauthorized weapons and count on criminals to follow the same “honor system” as law-abiding citizens.

NRA has been on the frontlines of this effort for years, including by filing an amicus curiae brief in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2024. Then, earlier this year, NRA, along with Gun Owners of America, jointly filed suit in federal court. NRA’s lawsuit argued that the ban violates the Second Amendment under the U.S. Supreme Court’s text and history framework as established by Bruen. That case held that the right to bear arms includes the right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense and that modern firearm restrictions must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

It is well known by now that Bruen fundamentally realigned the Second Amendment analytical framework lower courts, in disregard of earlier cases like District of Columbia v. Heller, were using. Thus, the government can no longer justify modern restrictions based solely on generalized public safety arguments or judicial interest balancing tests. Instead, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that a challenged regulation is supported by well-established historical restrictions that existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s adoption.

Applying that framework in the previous court case, the District Court concluded that the government failed to establish a historical tradition that supported a broad prohibition on carrying firearms at ordinary post offices. The court rejected the notion that simply labeling government property as a “sensitive place” is sufficient to extinguish the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.

The DOJ's decision to abandon its appeal is particularly significant and timely when viewed alongside the U.S. Supreme Court's most recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez. The Wolford decision helped reinforce the principle that government cannot broadly declare ordinary places off limits to law-abiding firearm owners without a well-established historical analogue.

While the DOJ’s dismissal consisted of just two short two sentences with no further explanation, those few words speak volumes in reflecting a broader trend within President Trump’s DOJ. In the past year alone, the Department has reconsidered several federal firearm restrictions previously defended by prior administrations.

Rather than automatically defend every existing firearm regulation, the Trump DOJ has shown a greater willingness to reevaluate whether longstanding restrictions can actually survive constitutional scrutiny under Bruen’s test.

Although the DOJ dismissal does not invalidate the regulation nationwide or create binding appellate precedent, it does represent an important acknowledgment that the restriction was unenforceable. While the federal prohibition technically remains on the books, the DOJ's decision to abandon its appeal is truly a victory for the long game as it leaves intact a federal court ruling that recognizes that the government failed to justify treating ordinary post offices as places where the Second Amendment simply ceases to exist.

For NRA and Second Amendment advocates, this is an important victory that reaches beyond post offices. It reinforces the fundamental principle that government restrictions on the right to bear arms are not entitled to the presumption of constitutionality simply because they have existed for decades. Decisions like this also underscore why NRA’s strategic and sustained Second Amendment litigation remains essential.

For future litigation, Bruen, Wolford, and DOJ's withdrawal collectively strengthen challenges to expansive “sensitive places” and “gun free zone” laws enacted by states and the federal government. The list of places where government officials claim Second Amendment rights do not apply continues to shrink, and this latest milestone to dismantle unconstitutional restrictions continues the momentum. Restrictions covering places such as parks, public transit, recreational facilities, or similar government office buildings will increasingly be measured against the same constitutional yardstick. And that yardstick now measures by history and not modern policy preferences that support disarming law-abiding citizens in locations they visit daily.