Buckeye Firearms Association

Gunsmiths played essential role in winning Revolutionary War

shummel — Fri, 30 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by David Vergun, Pentagon News, U.S. Department of War

During the American Revolutionary War, gunsmiths were essential to the patriot cause, providing, repairing and maintaining firearms for the Continental Army, Navy, Marine Corps and state militias.

In the heat of battle, black powder residue called fouling, broken flints, or mechanical failures would often render a significant percentage of a unit's muskets useless after just a few shots.

A flash in the pan occurred when the priming powder in the external pan ignited, but the spark failed to travel through the main charge in the barrel. This resulted in the gun making a puff of smoke but not firing.

URGENT: Every gun owner in the US needs Ohio voters to show up for Husted

Flints typically lasted for only 20 to 30 shots before they became too dull to produce a spark. The hammer would strike the steel, but no spark would fall into the powder.

Black powder is highly sensitive to moisture. Even high humidity could turn the powder into useless sludge. The flint would spark, but the damp powder would fail to catch fire.

The heavy spring that drives the hammer forward was under immense tension. If it snapped, the hammer would simply hang loose, making the weapon completely inoperable.

Sear spring failure is the smaller internal spring holding the hammer at half-cock safety or full-cock, ready to fire. If it broke, the gun might fire prematurely or fail to stay cocked.

The wooden stock was thinnest at the wrist where the soldier grips it. Dropping the gun or using it too forcefully in a bayonet charge often caused the wood to splinter or snap entirely.

Broken hammers were often a weak point and could shear off at the neck after repeated use.

If the gun's firing mechanism broke, it was still an effective 5-foot spear with the bayonet affixed.

A gunsmith was as much a craftsman as a manufacturer. They had to be capable carpenters, blacksmiths and engravers to produce their rifles. A single rifle could take weeks or even months to make, depending on the desired quality and access to needed materials. Wood was plentiful in the dense forests of Colonial America, but materials like steel and the proper tools had to be obtained from cities or even Europe.

In most cases, a master gunsmith would have several apprentices who would spend years learning the trade. Once they were deemed sufficiently trained, usually after completing a weapon entirely by themselves, the apprentice would craft a set of their own tools based on the master's and set up their own shop.

The most difficult, but most valued, step was rifling the barrel. Rifling is spiral grooves inside the barrel. It increases the ball's range and accuracy. While this was done by hand with a specialized drill at first, later gunsmiths were aided by the invention of rifle-boring machines, which greatly eased the process.

Until the Industrial Revolution of the late-1800s, the gun manufacturing process remained largely the same. The advent of interchangeable parts increased gun manufacturing as pieces could be made individually and replaced as needed. Parts could also be swapped, meaning a person could have two barrels for the same gun and switch them as they needed.

Prior to this, if a gun was damaged, the gunsmith would often need to spend days crafting a replacement piece specifically for that weapon.

Now parts are stamped from sheets of metal or cast into molds that can be used repeatedly. This ability to produce intricate, delicate mechanisms from tiny, machined parts enabled the invention of automatic firearms.

Modern soldiers carry spare parts, cleaning kits, firing pins and other supplies. Revolutionary War soldiers carried almost nothing for repairs except extra flints.

A modern armorer maintains and repairs firearms with factory-provided parts, ensuring the unit's weapons meet technical standards for combat readiness.

A gunsmith is a skilled artisan capable of everything an armorer does, as well as custom fabrication and machining.

This U.S. Department of War article can be found at war.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/4484699/gunsmiths-play-essential-role-in-winning-revolutionary-war.

Every gun owner in the US needs Ohio voters to show up for Husted

shummel — Thu, 29 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

A last-minute TV ad push by a third-party Senate candidate who claims to be the true conservative could prove costly for the country.

The candidate makes false claims about Republican Sen. Jon Husted's position on firearm laws. Don't buy into the ad. It is BS. Husted is endorsed by Buckeye Firearms Association with an A rating and has been a reliable gun-rights leader.

Fall election: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements

Some staunchly pro-gun Ohio voters might see the commercial and think they'd like to make a statement by voting third party, believing the vote is a throw-away.

We get it. We've all been there at one point, checking the box for a candidate we know has no chance just to let a milquetoast candidate know we're paying attention. And if Ohio had ranked-choice voting like that third-party candidate prefers, it might be worth the risk.

But in this case, a vote for the third-party candidate would be very risky. In fact, it could be devastating for gun rights nationwide by handing the U.S. Senate over to anti-gun zealot Chuck Schumer. That in turn could cost us a Supreme Court nominee.

The race between Husted and Brown is very tight, and ANY pro-gun votes away from Husted would amount to a vote for Brown, a Democrat who frequently showed his disrespect for the Second Amendment by pushing nonsense gun laws and would be a loyal Schumer soldier.

Brown has an "F" rating from both BFA and the NRA and has proven himself to be anti-gun with support for red flag laws, assault weapons bans, magazine restrictions, universal background checks, storage requirements, and more anti-constitutional laws.

Like it or not, this Senate race is binary, and if you are truly pro-gun, we and the entire country are counting on you to vote for Jon Husted for U.S. Senate and keep Sherrod Brown fired.

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.

Standing-room-only crowds show for statewide pro-gun candidates' bus tour

shummel — Wed, 28 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Linda Walker

As the Ohio campaigns continued working the circuit, I, as Buckeye Firearms Association president, attended two campaign stops on the Republican Bus Tour.

The first stop bright and early Monday morning, Oct. 26, was at Champs Pizza in Thornville, Perry County. When I arrived, it was literally standing room only inside Champs. I would estimate a crowd of over 200 people. Attendees heard from Ohio’s Republican candidates for statewide offices. Remarks began with GOP Chairman Alex Triantafilou. We heard from the two candidates for Ohio Supreme Court, Colleen O’Donnell and sitting Justice Dan Hawkins. We also heard from the following candidates: Frank LaRose for Ohio auditor, Robert Spraque for secretary of state, and Jay Edwards for Ohio treasurer.

Pro-gun candidates: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements

Ohio Senate President Rob McColley, candidate for our next lieutenant governor, was well received, and he introduced Ohio’s next governor, Vivek Ramaswamy. As usual, Vivek had the crowd cheering. When the speaking ended, all of the candidates went out into the crowd to mingle and speak with the attendees.

Tuesday was a new morning on the campaign bus tour. They started the day in Licking County, at Vance Outdoors in Hebron. On this stop, Keith Faber, candidate for attorney general, joined the others mentioned above, minus LaRose and Edwards. Once again, a standing-room-only crowd gave a rousing welcome to our candidates. And again, there appeared to be about 200 supporters in attendance.

Vivek noted that the last time he was in Vance Outdoors (in Obetz), he was with Buckeye Firearms Association when we announced our endorsement for him earlier this year. He spoke about the importance of the Second Amendment and why our Founders put it in place — to protect the people from the tyranny of the government.

All of the candidates in attendance were our endorsees for this election. Special endorsees present were Congressman Troy Balderson, State Rep. Thad Claggett, and candidate for Perry County Common Pleas Court, Steve Carr. Although not a candidate this election cycle, Sen. Tim Schaffer was also there to greet people.

Linda Walker is president of Buckeye Firearms Association, chairman of Buckeye Firearms Association PAC, and a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association, where she sits on the Legislative Policy, State & Local Affairs Subcommittee, Women’s Policies, and Grassroots Development committees. She is an NRA-ILA FAL Frontlines Activist Leader, an NRA certified instructor, and the 2009 recipient of the NRA "Sybil Ludington Women's Freedom Award.” She is co-founder and co-host of the NRA Women’s New Energy Breakfast. Linda Walker was also a co-chair of President Trump’s “Gun Owners for Trump” national advisory board in both 2016 and 2020.

Report: People back gun control until they’re asked to fund it

shummel — Tue, 27 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Dave Workman, AmmoLand

There’s an interesting report in Health Affairs Scholar that adds a new dimension to the adage that “money talks and B.S. walks.”

According to the authors — Robert Zeithammer, Supriya Kapur, Diana Silver and James Macinko — “While support for firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues is widespread, even modest implementation costs significantly reduce public backing.” It is an interesting read, and the authors deserve credit for broaching a subject which has gotten very little attention. Simply put: “How much are you willing to pay for the restrictive ‘feel good’ law you want to impose?”

The UCLA Anderson Review looked at the report and summed it up: Setting an annual tax of, say, $100 per taxpayer “seems to erode backing for restrictions on guns in alcohol-serving establishments.” In other words, people are keen about gun control so long as they don’t have to pay for it.

Amusingly, the UCLA Anderson Review observes, “The results suggest voters, given a price for a law, can be stingy, even in matters of public safety.”

Gun control support weakens when taxpayers foot the bill

The discussion by Zeithammer and his colleagues focuses on a question about prohibiting firearms in establishments where alcohol is served. Regulations vary from state to state—in Washington, for example, people cannot carry firearms into areas of an establishment posted off-limits to anyone under age 21, because alcohol is served, yet someone can remain in the dining area and possibly have a cocktail, even if they’re discreetly packing, or if others at their table are drinking—while the authors note, “A recently published analysis of the current legal landscape found 10 different types of alcohol-related firearm laws, with nearly every state having passed at least 1 of these types of laws.”

WATCH: Vivek Ramaswamy has a message for BFA supporters

Related: Ramaswamy, McColley field dozens of questions from hunters, anglers

The Anderson Review article notes, “These restrictions vary widely. Texas, for example, prohibits guns in establishments that get at least 51% of their revenue from alcohol sales, while New Mexico bans concealed firearms in any premise where alcohol is consumed.”

The notion of adding a cost-per-taxpayer to restricting guns in bars — and the reaction to it — may open up a broader conversation about gun control. Gun control supporters evidently get less enthusiastic about enforcing the laws they push when they have to specifically dig into their wallets to pay for it.

A $100 tax changes attitudes toward firearm restrictions

As noted in the study abstract, “Results show that when no enforcement costs are included, a majority of the respondent sample weighted to voting-eligible Americans (56%-74%, depending on the restricted group and venue size) supports firearm restrictions, with support exceeding 65% for restrictions in large venues. However, introducing a $100 annual cost reduces support: significant majority support remains only for restricting combinations of felons, intoxicated people, or those with alcohol-related convictions and only in large venues.”

Husted vs. Brown: Ohioans' gun rights are on the ballot - show up and vote!

How’s that for a strategy to cool the verbal jets of gun prohibitionists? For each restrictive law they force on gun owners, they get billed for their enthusiasm.

While this may initially seem humorous to Second Amendment activists, Zeithammer, Kapur, Silver and Macinko have actually cracked open a “Pandora’s Box” of sorts, which amounts to an uncomfortable revelation: Gun control supporters aren’t so willing to “put their money where their mouth is.” The four researchers may have done a major public service.

Their research also sought reaction to prohibitions on guns in theaters and other “large venues.”

What the gun control study reveals about public opinion

There are three key points in the Health Affairs Scholar report:

While a majority of respondents favor firearm restrictions in alcohol-serving venues, support is stronger for larger venues and varies modestly by the targeted population.
Introducing even modest individual costs (eg, $100 annually) substantially reduces majority support, highlighting the importance of cost framing in legislative proposals.
Support is more strongly associated with gender and political affiliation (highest among women across political parties) than firearm ownership status.

The Anderson Review article includes a link to the Brady Campaign website, where one reads this claim: “Every year, gun violence kills over 40,000 people and wounds over 75,000 others in the United States. Gun violence costs the United States $557 billion annually — equivalent to 2.6% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product. That’s more than twice what the Department of Education spent to educate US youth in FY 2022 ($235.74 billion). Every year, gun violence costs taxpayers $12.62 billion — or $273,904 per firearm death and $25,150 per nonfatal firearm injury.”

However, if one follows the links, one winds up at another report, from the Harvard Medical School in 2022, which refers to “research by Zirui Song, associate professor of health care policy in the Blavatnik Institute at Harvard Medical School and associate professor of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital.”

This report also notes, “In his newest paper, published Sept. 27 in JAMA, Song reported that the overall economic cost of firearm injuries in the United States has been estimated at $557 billion annually, or 2.6 percent of gross domestic product.”

It’s an estimate, which Brady passes off as gospel.

And for the sake of argument, one might observe that “gun violence” doesn’t kill anyone. People misusing firearms are responsible for those fatalities, not the firearms, themselves.

Should gun control advocates have to explain the cost?

But the discussion is now launched, courtesy of the four researchers. Should every proposed gun control law include a cost-per-taxpayer for implementation, so that supporters understand how much money their ideas might pull from their checkbooks?

It could spawn an entirely new debate that puts a price tag on anti-gun activism.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.

Ramaswamy, McColley field dozens of questions from hunters, anglers

shummel — Mon, 26 Oct 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy and his running mate for lieutenant governor, Rob McColley, participated in a sportsmen and 2A tele-town hall recently to discuss significant issues related to the Second Amendment and those of utmost concern to hunters, anglers, and trappers.

Before taking questions from sportsmen and women across Ohio, Vivek and Rob engaged in discussions with a panel of experts, including Fred Zink (Ottawa County), a world champion goose caller and founder of Zink Calls, AvianX Decoys, and other ventures; Eric Delbert (Franklin County), an active police officer, owner of L.E.P.D. Gun Shop, Range & Training Center and the host of the OnTarget radio program; and Mike Rex (Athens County), the past-president and current secretary of Buckeye Big Bucks and the record-holder for the most big bucks in the Ohio record books.

WATCH: Vivek Ramaswamy has a message for BFA supporters

Mike Rex initiated the discussion by posing a question about the expansion of public hunting lands. In advance of the meeting, he surveyed over 50 sportsmen, who unanimously agreed that Ohio’s limited public hunting land is a major issue. He explained the top reason people give for why they stop hunting is their lack of access to land. Vivek, who is endorsed by Buckeye Firearms Association for Ohio governor in the 2026 fall election, expressed his commitment to expanding public hunting lands, viewing it as an investment in the future. He then turned to his running mate, who, as Ohio Senate president, played a pivotal role in leading the effort earlier this year to secure $25 million to acquire over 10,000 acres of new public land in southern Ohio.

Fred emphasized the significance of Lake Erie to Ohio’s fishing, tourism, wildlife, and economy. He raised the continued need to address harmful algal blooms (HABs) and other threats to clean water in our rivers, wetlands, and watersheds while being accountable to taxpayers and sportsmen. Vivek reaffirmed his commitment to the H2Ohio program and expressed his dedication to collaborating with farmers, sportsmen, and other key stakeholders to ensure the program’s effectiveness and efficient allocation of funding. He also pledged to explore long-term funding sources beyond the state budget bill, a commitment he made to Ohio outdoorsmen and women.

Eric delved into recent actions in federal courts and announcements from the ATF director, which have raised concerns about some Ohioans’ Second Amendment rights. He highlighted the need to address specific changes related to suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. As he has done before, Vivek reiterated his unwavering support for the Second Amendment and his commitment as a strict constitutionalist. He referenced BFA-endorsed Rob McColley’s efforts in the Senate to advance legislation on these topics and both expressed their determination to see these reforms passed in 2027, unless they are fully addressed during the upcoming lame-duck legislative session.

Over a hundred sportsmen and women participated in the discussion, and Vivek and Rob answered more than a dozen questions from the audience — unlike Ramaswamy's opponent, Amy Acton, who won't debate or answer tough questions, or even allow anyone to record audio or video of her speeches. These questions ranged from age restrictions on firearms ownership to qualifications about the future leadership of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Jim Samuel, BFA's legislative-affairs director, moderated the discussion and expressed his admiration for the depth of Vivek's and Rob’s responses to the issues raised and was convinced that this team is the right one to lead Ohio into the future.

Ohio AG Wilson urges lawmakers to clarify suppressor, SBR firearm laws

shummel — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 17:09:19 +0000

Ohio Attorney General Andy Wilson today (Oct. 23) asked state legislators to clarify Ohio’s firearm laws after a recent announcement by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to a news release from Wilson's office.

Buckeye Firearms Association has been working with lawmakers on that very topic.

In a letter to Senate President Rob McColley and House Speaker Matt Huffman, Wilson cites the ATF’s Oct. 9 announcement that it will no longer require individuals to obtain its approval under the National Firearms Act of 1934 before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or firearm suppressors.

Ohio law currently prohibits the creation, possession, or use of these items without ATF approval.

Wilson warns that confusion surrounding the ATF announcement could lead otherwise law-abiding firearm owners to unknowingly break Ohio law, according to the release.

“Under current Ohio law, Ohioans wishing to own or use a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or firearm suppressor must register those items with the federal government or face the risk of criminal prosecution," Wilson said in the release. "If that reflects the policy of this legislature, so be it. If, on the other hand, the legislature sees these registration requirements as archaic remnants of an overly restrictive past, it is time to eliminate them from Ohio law.”

Buckeye Firearms Association has been working diligently with legislators to update state laws on both issues, as well as other pro-gun legislation.

BFA-backed Senate Bill 214, which has passed the Senate and is expected to pass the House soon and advance to the governor's desk with bipartisan support, would address the suppressors issue.

A combination of other BFA-backed bills that are less advanced would address short barrels.

"BFA has been working closely and effectively with Speaker Huffman and President McColley to remedy these issues," said Jim Samuel, BFA's legislative-affairs director. "BFA was actively involved at the federal level to do away with the unconstitutional NFA mandates and even signed on to letters and a lawsuit to that end. Likewise, we're making progress at the state level and are confident Ohio will not be left behind."

Husted vs. Brown: Ohioans' gun rights are on the ballot - show up and vote!

shummel — Fri, 23 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Sean Maloney

Ohio gun owners face a clear choice in the election for U.S. Senate. But they must show up and vote like it matters. Because it does.

On one side is Democrat Sherrod Brown, a career politician with an F rating from the NRA and Buckeye Firearms Association. On the other is Jon Husted, who carries an A rating and a proven record of defending the Second Amendment, as well as BFA's endorsement.

WATCH: Vivek Ramaswamy has a message for BFA supporters

This isn’t about vague talking points. It’s about Brown’s actual voting record in the Senate.

Here’s what Brown has done:

Voted YES for the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act — the most significant federal gun control bill in nearly 30 years — which incentivizes red-flag gun confiscation laws that can take firearms from citizens without a full trial.
Voted YES to ban commonly owned semi-automatic rifles.
Voted YES to ban standard-capacity magazines used by millions of law-abiding Americans for self-defense and sport.
Supported “universal” background checks that would criminalize private transfers between friends, family, and neighbors.
Voted NO on national concealed-carry reciprocity that would allow Ohioans to carry in other states.

That’s not “common sense.” That’s a systematic effort to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens while criminals ignore every new law.

Republican Jon Husted has taken the opposite approach. As Ohio House Speaker, Husted led major concealed-carry reforms — even overriding a veto to expand the rights of gun owners. He has stood with the Second Amendment instead of against it.

The race is close. In a contest this tight, motivated gun owners can decide the outcome. History shows that when Second Amendment voters turn out, they move close races. When they stay home, anti-gun politicians win.

This is not the time to sit it out.

The choice is simple.

If you believe the government should not be able to confiscate firearms through red-flag laws without full due process…

If you believe law-abiding Ohioans should not be treated like criminals for owning standard magazines or semi-automatic rifles and that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, then you need to vote.

Vote early if you can. Otherwise, vote on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Vote for Jon Husted for U.S. Senate.

Gun owners have the numbers to make the difference in Ohio. The only question is whether we use them.

Don’t let Sherrod Brown’s anti-gun record return to Washington.

Show up. Vote your rights. Vote Husted.

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, cofounder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He also serves as legal counsel for Buckeye Firearms Association. Republished with permission.

Geauga County Fairgrounds removes 'no swords' sign

drieck — Thu, 22 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

A year of consistent effort paid off when Geauga County fairgrounds officials finally removed signs banning swords from the property.

It’s the latest victory for Jeff Corbett, who previously persuaded University Heights, Ohio, to remove four illegal no-gun signs from city-owned Purvis Park in 2018. His latest effort is another reminder that citizens can successfully challenge government policies that appear to violate Ohio law.

Here is Jeff’s account of how he got the signs removed.

On September 1, 2025, I emailed BFA Executive Director Dean Rieck for advice after reading that the Ohio Attorney General had ruled that county fairs cannot ban firearms on fairgrounds. I noticed that the Geauga County fairgrounds had signs at its entrances prohibiting swords, even though the county fair hosts a pirate show each fall. The fair’s 2024 online code of conduct also prohibited the “possession or use of weapons or fireworks.”

Using Google Street View, I confirmed that the restrictive signs, including the “No Swords” prohibition, had appeared by May 2025 but were not there in May 2023.

I asked Dean to consult with his legal team. The response he shared with me indicated that carrying a sword is legal in Ohio when done in a non-threatening manner and outside restricted locations. I also contacted Knife Rights, Inc., which informed me that swords are covered by Ohio’s knife and firearms preemption law.

In October, I sent the fair board a letter politely asking it to explain why its policies and signs appeared to contradict state law. When I received no response for several months, I sent another letter in January 2026. I made both requests in a civil, non-threatening manner and simply asked for an explanation.

The board finally responded to my second letter, referring to my first and confirming that it had received it. Officials said they were reviewing the attorney general’s guidance and would update their signs and policies as appropriate.

Several months later, I checked the fairgrounds’ website and discovered that its policies had indeed changed. The new rules prohibited weapons in posted buildings and prohibited harmful objects carried with the intent to harm or intimidate others. However, the signs at the entrances remained.

In July, I emailed the fairgrounds again and followed up with a phone call. This time, I received a response promising that the signs would be updated in time for the fair over Labor Day weekend 2026. They followed through, and the “No Swords” signs came down.

Like the Purvis Park battle in 2017-2018, this was a yearlong effort. My advice to others is simple: Be courteous but persistent when working to remove illegal no-gun or no-weapons signs.

This is another example of how ordinary citizens can effect change (see Cuyahoga Falls man sues Akron over gun prohibition at city park). Most cities and other political subdivisions really do want to comply with the law, but they don’t always keep up with changes to the Ohio Revised Code. Pointing out apparent violations to the right people, remaining polite and professional, and sticking to the facts works in nearly every case (see Ordinary Ohio citizen calls out illegal Cincinnati festival gun ban — and wins!).

Federal bill: Garrett's Law would treat 'lethal air guns' as firearms

shummel — Wed, 21 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by NRA-ILA

A new bill introduced in Congress proposes to regulate “lethal air guns” as firearms under the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended (GCA). Yet the risk of fatalities and criminal misuse from air guns cannot compare and does not justify the immense regulatory burden the bill would impose.

Considering all the federal gun control laws already on the books, the bill would create crimes out of thin air, with no corresponding public safety benefit.

Gun control advocates like to have it both ways. On the one hand, they will often insist they are interested only in “evidenced-based gun safety measures.” On the other, they will willingly heap any degree of bureaucracy on gun ownership, no matter how disproportional, if it might under any imaginable scenario “save just one life.”

The pending legislation, dubbed “Garrett’s Law,” is of the latter variety. It is named after an individual who, according to the sponsor, was prohibited from possessing firearms but “legally purchased a lethal airgun online and used it to take his own life.”

Promo code BFA: Buckeye Firearms Association partners with Patriot Mobile

Tragic as that situation is, there is no way to determine whether the bill’s terms would have applied to the incident in question. The only information publicly available about the individual’s death appears to be the bill sponsor’s press release. That statement does not disclose how the individual died, what sort of air gun was involved, its caliber and muzzle velocity, or what legally prevented the individual from obtaining a firearm. It is also highly speculative to assume that, had the air gun had not been readily available, the suicide would not have occurred by some other means.

Fortunately, deaths from air guns are extremely rare, and self-inflicted fatalities from air guns even more so. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which currently regulates air guns, counted 39 “non-powder” gun deaths from 1990 through 2000, less than four a year. It is unknown how many of those, if any, were suicides. Moreover, recent trends in air gun related injuries appear to be favorable. One 2025 review showed rates of acute care visits related to non-powder firearms dropping from 7 per 100,000 in 2001 to 3 per 100,000 in 2021. Whatever happened with the individual for whom the bill is named, it does not appear to be a common or increasing occurrence demanding a sweeping legislative response.

Categorizing air guns as firearms would vastly expand the scope of the GCA, as well as the jurisdiction of the two primary agencies responsible for its enforcement: ATF and, through its administration of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, FBI. While there is no official count of the number of air guns sold per year in the U.S., estimates range as high as 3 million units.

All the rules that currently apply to federally licensed firearms manufacturers, importers, and dealers would apply to merchants of “lethal air gun[s]” under the bill’s terms. This category would include various calibers of air guns with specified muzzle velocities — for example, a .177 caliber air gun with a muzzle velocity of 800 feet per second. This designation alone would capture the most common, popular, and long-standing pump action models on the market. Yet also included would be any air gun “designated as a lethal air gun by the Attorney General, through rulemaking, as capable of causing death.” Death to whom, and under what circumstances, is not specified.

ATF would be responsible for licensing and inspecting all the affected companies and arresting prohibited possessors, and FBI would have to run background checks on all retail and interstate transfers. Transaction records, under current regulations, would have to be maintained indefinitely by both the merchants and, once those merchants discontinue business, by ATF.

Tens of millions of prohibited people under the GCA would suddenly be subject to felony penalties for possessing an air gun, including those who previously had lawfully acquired and owned them. Adults ages 18 to 20, moreover, would be ineligible to purchase at retail any air gun configured as a pistol or revolver. The costs and resources required to enforce this regime would be considerable, with essentially imperceptible benefits to public safety.

Tellingly, the bill received enthusiastic endorsements from national firearm prohibition organizations, including Giffords and March for Our Lives. This demonstrates that not just firearms but also any toy or sporting good that might lead to an interest in firearms is within their prohibitive agenda.

Whatever can be said about the public safety implications of firearms, there is no similar argument to be made for air guns. In terms of crime, lethality, and, yes, employment in suicide, they are so seldom implicated that no reliable annual statistics exist to track their misuse.

It is true that some states already treat air guns as firearms under at least some laws. But, to date, it does not appear that anyone has tried to claim these laws have resulted in fewer adverse events in those states than in states without such regulation. More likely, the laws simply serve as symbolic stands against gun ownership generally.

And that, at the end of the day, is what this federal legislation would represent, as well. Even by the typically overwrought standards of gun control, it is a massive overreaction to a phenomenon that is so rare as to escape routine tracking and measurement.

Air guns are a comparatively safe, low risk, and traditional way for neophytes to learn the fundamentals of marksmanship and safe gun handling. That is why they are so common in programs like Boy Scouts, 4-H, and scholastic rifle teams. True gun safety advocates should be heralding their use, not tying it up in additional red tape.

Why Sheriff Jones' 'They Call Me Jonesy' matters to 2A supporters

shummel — Tue, 20 Oct 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Sean Maloney, Second Call Defense

At a time when constitutional rights are routinely questioned, restricted, and treated as political bargaining chips, firearm owners are right to ask a basic question: Who in government truly has our backs?

For one answer from the front lines of law enforcement, Second Amendment supporters should consider Sheriff Richard K. Jones’s book, They Call Me Jonesy: Let’s Get Real About Saving America.

I know Sheriff Jones personally, and I can say without hesitation that the direct, plainspoken constitutional advocate Americans see on television, hear on podcasts, and read about in headlines is the same person you encounter in private. There is no political filter, no backroom double-talk, and no backing down when the pressure is on.

As Butler County’s longest-serving sheriff in history, Richard K. “Jonesy” Jones has built a national reputation for speaking plainly about border security, public safety, and, most important, his unapologetic defense of the Second Amendment.

A sheriff who trusts the people

Too many politicians praise gun rights during campaign season but then disappear when anti-gun legislation reaches the floor. Sheriff Jones has taken a different approach. Throughout his tenure, he has backed his words with action. He has supported trained, law-abiding citizens’ ability to protect themselves and others. He has offered concealed-carry and firearms training to teachers. He has also encouraged school boards to consider armed personnel and qualified staff as part of a serious school-safety strategy.

Promo code BFA: Buckeye Firearms Association partners with Patriot Mobile

“I’m encouraging school boards to put armed personnel in the school, plus teachers,” Jones said in 2022. “Not every teacher, or it can be a janitor; it can be someone who works in the school. It’s up to the school boards.”

That position reflects a reality that every responsible gun owner already understands: Law enforcement is indispensable, but officers cannot be everywhere at once. No deputy, police officer, or school resource officer can guarantee that he or she will arrive before a violent attack begins. Law-abiding citizens must retain the ability to take responsibility for their own safety, their families, and the defense of innocent life. That is not a radical idea. It is the practical meaning of self-defense.

In They Call Me Jonesy, Sheriff Jones addresses what it takes to preserve the American way of life when institutional leadership fails. At the center of that message is a basic truth: government derives its authority from the people, and the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental constitutional guarantee, not a political favor to be granted or withdrawn whenever it becomes inconvenient.

Why the message matters

Elections matter. The people Americans elect as sheriffs, prosecutors, legislators, governors, and national leaders substantially influence whether Second Amendment rights are respected, weakened, or actively challenged. We need public officials who respect the Constitution, recognize self-defense as a God-given right, and oppose unconstitutional gun control measures. We must also hold accountable those officials who seek to erode the rights of peaceful citizens while failing to protect them from violent criminals.

That is why local elections matter so much. A sheriff, prosecutor, state representative, or city official can have a more immediate effect on a citizen’s freedom and safety than many people realize. The difference between a public official who trusts law-abiding citizens and one who treats them as a problem can be profound.

Sheriff Jones’ message is a reminder that constitutional liberty is not preserved by slogans alone. It requires leaders willing to speak clearly, act decisively, and remember that their authority comes from the people they serve.

The bottom line

They Call Me Jonesy is not a sanitized political memoir designed to avoid controversy. It is a direct message for Americans who care about constitutional liberty, public safety, personal responsibility, law and order, and freedom.

I am not writing this to drive book sales. I am writing because its message deserves serious consideration. The book is worth reading not because it offers an easy answer to every problem facing America but because it raises questions every freedom-minded citizen should confront.

Who will stand for law-abiding Americans when their constitutional rights become politically inconvenient? Who will defend the public’s ability to protect itself when government fails to do so? And what responsibility do citizens have when elected officials refuse to honor the constitutional limits on their power?

For readers who want to examine Sheriff Jones’ views firsthand, They Call Me Jonesy: Let’s Get Real About Saving America is available for purchase (theycallmejonesy.com).

The point is not simply to read a book. The point is to read, think, engage, vote, and take seriously the responsibility of preserving the country — and the constitutional freedoms — we intend to pass on to the next generation.