During “The Briefing,” an FFL compliance event hosted by FastBound, several high-ranking officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attended, including ATF Director Robert Cekada, who answered industry questions.

Most attendees wanted guidance on transfers of suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs). Director Cekada could not give specifics, but he offered hints about what is coming down the pike.

The biggest question is when the ATF will release the guidance. According to Cekada, the rule is not done, but it is close. He highlighted that the ATF is only one stakeholder involved in the new guidance. The other two are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House. AmmoLand sources believe the White House is delaying the guidance’s release. According to the director, he believes the guidance will be released in the next couple of weeks.

Breaking News: ATF’s Guidance on NFA Coming Soon!

During The Briefing, an industry event for FFLs in Dallas, Texas, AmmoLand reporter John Crump asked ATF Director Robert Cekada what guidance was given to IOIs during inspections when they encountered suppressors that had been… pic.twitter.com/Iuk5bBrKta

— AmmoLand News (@AmmoLand) September 24, 2026

The goal of the guidance is to cover as many Americans as possible while protecting the gun owners covered by it from future anti-gun administrations.

The ATF will most likely not expand the injunction to a universal level. The guidance will address several big questions and issues. With more than 2.3 million suppressors sold this year, according to former NFA Chief Steve Albro, the need for guidance is immense.

One issue the guidance will address is the transfer of SBRs and SBSs. Currently, although these items are protected under the Silencer Shop Foundation case, an ATF Form 4 is required to transfer them because of the Gun Control Act (GCA) attorney general notification requirement. The guidance will “fix” that carve-out, which seems to imply that SBRs and SBSs can be transferred on a Form 4473 alone.

Cekada was clear that these items, and long guns in general, are not an issue. At the Briefing, Cekada called out groups whose goal is to demonize these guns.

Another issue the guidance will address is interstate travel with covered NFA items. The regulation will cover those situations. Also, 15 states require buyers of some covered items to comply with federal law. According to Cekada, the guidance may address that issue, although ATF Chief Legal Counsel Robert Lieder clarified that the ATF cannot force these states to take the bureau’s advice.

AmmoLand asked Director Cekada about guidance for industry operations inspectors (IOIs) on how to handle dealers they find transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 during an inspection. Cekada was adamant that a federal firearms licensee (FFL) found to be transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 will not be cited for violations. Former NFA Chief Albro later echoed this, saying the ATF’s policy is to presume all suppressors transferred via a Form 4473 were legally transferred.

One interesting topic that was brought up was forced reset triggers (FRTs). Cekada said some FRTs are true FRTs, but some on the market are machine guns, and he declined to name the specific FRTs the ATF thinks might be machine guns. He said the ATF has to look at how the trigger mechanism works but will go by the statutory definition of a machine gun.

Throughout the meeting, the ATF discussed changes to Form 4473. Those changes are still in progress. Things like the “County” box will be eliminated. According to Lieder, the ATF is making changes to the forms to comply with court rulings such as the Supreme Court’s Hemani case, which invalidated the firearms prohibition on marijuana users. The new Form 4473 will not be out until after the holiday season.

Mr. Lieder also covered the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion letter on sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to 18- to 20-year-olds. Lieder says the ATF is working on its systems to allow those transfers. The ATF was not informed that the letter would be issued.

Although the ATF will allow transferring handguns to these young adults, the ATF is likely to keep the age for transferring machine guns and destructive devices at 21. The ATF will release guidance in the coming weeks, according to Lieder.

The ATF will continue working on NFA rules dealing with suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. He wanted to make it clear they are not working on these rules despite the injunction. The goal of these rules is to backstop the current injunction in case something changes in the future. It is basically trying to future-proof against a future anti-gun administration. During this discussion, someone asked whether the ATF has plans to make the injunction “fairer” to those not covered. Lieder said their goal is to try to make any guidance as fair as possible without exceeding its power.

Mr. Lieder sees the biggest threats to the Second Amendment as private regulations and lawsuits. He highlighted monopolies and duopolies like common carriers and ride-share companies. He highlighted Waymo calling the police on a rider for having a gun. He also pointed to state lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

Another hot topic was internet sales. According to Lieder, the industry is split. They are still considering comments from the rulemaking process, but he said those transfers are already legal under the law. The roadblock was ID verification, which is no longer an issue.

Another rule was hinted at but not confirmed: changes to “sporting purposes.” Lieder said they have been researching the law and might be reaching out for comments soon. These statements point to the rulemaking process, although nothing was confirmed.

Overall, the ATF answered many questions throughout the day, though some remain.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

Buried well into the text of a federal court ruling striking down Delaware’s ban on so-called “ghost guns” is a paragraph which literally guts an argument made by gun prohibitionists about unserialized firearms being a greater threat to public safety.

“Indeed, there is no record evidence here that untraceable or self-manufactured guns pose any danger that serialized or traditionally manufactured guns do not,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, a 2018 Donald Trump appointee. “If anything, the evidence tends to show that law-abiding citizens commonly use these types of firearms for self-defense.”

Judge Noreika quoted from another ruling, which stated, “The presence or absence of serial numbers on firearms has no effect on their functionality…”

The notion that somehow firearms pose a greater public safety risk appears to be an invention of the gun control crowd and their allies in Congress and state legislatures, whose ultimate goal is registration, and it’s tough to register an unserialized firearm.

As former talk radio host John Carlson repeatedly stated during his years at Seattle’s KVI-AM, “There are only two reasons to register firearms, to tax them and/or to take them.”

Another ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge James O. Browning recently struck down New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period. A spokesperson for Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told The Source she will “almost certainly” appeal the ruling.

Two New Mexico residents, Paul Ortega and Rebecca Scott, with support from the National Rifle Association, sued over the waiting period. The Browning ruling applies to them, but it might lend some influence to an ongoing challenge of Maine’s relatively new waiting period.

The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation have just submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant review of a case known as Beckwith v. Frey. The case challenges Maine’s 72-hour waiting period, and opens with a compelling recount of the Berlin Township, New Jersey case of Carol Bowne. On June 3, 2015, after waiting 42 days with no action on her application for a gun permit—which state law required to have been acted upon within 30 days—Bowne was brutally murdered in her own driveway by ex-boyfriend Michael Eitel, against whom she had a no-contact order. The slaying and foot dragging by police made embarrassing national news.

As noted by a subhead in the NRA/SAF amicus brief, “Waiting Periods Are a Historical Anomaly, and Firearms Were Readily Available Even in the Founding Era.”

A ruling against Maine’s waiting period would have an impact on similar laws in other states—the wait in California and Washington is ten days, for example—making this case one of widespread importance.

Add to this expanding pattern of pro-rights rulings and briefs involving Second Amendment issues is the 2-1 Fifth Circuit panel decision that the federal ban on interstate handgun sales is unconstitutional. This ruling was reported by Ammoland News just days ago, and readers are reminded that—as was noted four years ago after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s century-old arbitrary “may issue” gun permit scheme—the finding that a law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean it is suddenly in violation, it was always in violation, and it is likely supporters of such laws know it. But here, as elsewhere, anti-gunners have been getting away with treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right.

Until now, that is.

Interestingly, the Delaware ruling got the attention of a radio talk host out in distant Washington state, where Democrat lawmakers have also passed legislation banning so-called “untraceable firearms,” or “ghost guns.” According to the report in Seattle Red, “a…review of the opinion shows Washington enforces nearly every provision (Judge) Noreika threw out, and the judge flagged the legal hurdle a challenge here would face.”

While the Delaware decision has no immediate or direct impact on Evergreen State gun laws, it sends a signal that, after more than 200 years—the Second Amendment might be growing some teeth.

This brings the discussion around to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s letter to Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other officials about the state’s laws on purchase permits and carry permits, which can delay someone from exercising their rights to keep and bear arms for 30 to even 60 days, as noted by Valley News in Fargo, N.D. As Dhillon stated in a post on ‘X,’ “A right delayed is a right denied. Minnesota cannot deny Americans the right to purchase commonly owned firearms with weeks-long waiting periods. The @CivilRights Division’s Second Amendment Section will challenge these violations of fundamental rights!”

NEWS: The Trump Justice Department is putting Minnesota on notice over firearm-purchase delays, arguing that residents in Minneapolis and St. Paul can be forced to wait too long before taking possession of commonly owned guns.

In a Sept. 17 letter to Gov. Tim Walz and the mayors… https://t.co/PKgOUy4XqJ

— MDBayNews (@MDBayNews) September 17, 2026

Successful legal action against Minnesota on these issues would also have an impact on similar restrictions in other states, again including California and Washington. The problem is a blue state issue. Where Democrats are in control, such laws have been popping up.

This is something grassroots Second Amendment activists are using to remind their lethargic gun-owning friends and neighbors to vote Nov. 3. A heavy turnout of “gun voters” could definitely tilt some elections and prevent anti-gunners from gaining or keeping power.

The time to turn the tide is fast approaching, and the fight over Second Amendment rights is not a spectator sport.

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Even after a buyer clears a background check, Maine makes the dealer hold the firearm for three days. The First Circuit upheld that delay without requiring the state to justify it against America’s history of gun laws.

A woman facing a stalker went to a Maine gun store after police suggested she buy a firearm for home defense. According to the petition now before the Supreme Court, she selected a gun, arranged training, passed her background check immediately and paid. She still went home without it. Maine required the dealer to hold the firearm for 72 hours; because the store closed Sunday and Monday, she could not pick it up until Tuesday.

That is what a government-mandated “cooling-off” period looks like to someone who needs to defend herself now.

On September 22, the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear Beckwith v. Frey, the challenge to Maine’s firearm waiting-period law. Their brief targets a ruling with implications far beyond a three-day delay: The First Circuit held that laws regulating the acquisition of firearms do not directly regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text.

If a court can place acquiring a gun outside that text, the government can burden gun ownership at the counter while claiming it has left the right to “keep and bear” arms untouched.

Maine’s Clock Runs After the Background Check

Maine law generally bars a seller from delivering a firearm until 72 hours after reaching a purchase agreement. The clock runs concurrently with a required background check, but an instant approval does not end the wait. The statute exempts certain sales, including sales to law enforcement officers, corrections officers, specified security personnel and dealers, as well as certain family transactions and sales for which no background check is required. It contains no general exception for a buyer who has cleared a check and faces an immediate threat. Sellers face civil fines for violating the delivery rule.

As AmmoLand reported when the First Circuit ruled in April, a federal district judge had preliminarily blocked the law after finding the challengers likely to prevail. The appeals court vacated that injunction and sent the case back. It did not decide whether Maine could identify a historical tradition supporting a mandatory delay. Instead, it characterized the wait as a condition on the commercial sale of firearms, presumptively lawful unless plaintiffs show it is “abusive” toward Second Amendment rights.

SAF and the NRA argue that this “abusive” threshold lets judges decide how much of an infringement they will tolerate before the government ever has to account for history. Bruen rejected judicial interest balancing in Second Amendment cases. A buyer cannot keep a gun the state refuses to let the dealer deliver.

The History Maine Never Had to Defend

The SAF–NRA brief also challenges an argument Maine made below: that ready access to firearms is a modern development, so historical buyers effectively faced built-in waits caused by travel, limited inventory or production time. The groups point to newspaper advertisements offering stocked firearms for sale, including muskets in 1745, pistols in 1792 and thousands of muskets in 1806. A buyer’s travel time or a mail-order shipping delay was never the equivalent of a law ordering a local dealer to withhold a gun already available for sale.

Those advertisements show firearms being offered in quantity; they do not document every individual transaction. The legal question is whether Maine can identify a historical tradition of imposing a mandatory delay on peaceable purchasers otherwise eligible to take possession. The First Circuit never required the state to answer it.

Other courts have confronted that question more directly.

In Ortega v. Grisham, the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period implicated the Second Amendment and rejected the state’s historical defense. A federal judge subsequently ruled for the two purchasers in that lawsuit, but AmmoLand reported that the resulting injunction protects those plaintiffs, not every New Mexico buyer.

Colorado’s three-day waiting period is also under challenge. AmmoLand documented a concrete consequence this summer: the existing wait moved the practical deadline to begin certain purchases ahead of the effective date of Colorado’s new restrictions on specified semiautomatic firearms. A delay on paper can close a real window to take possession.

The Supreme Court has not granted review in Beckwith. Maine’s response to the petition is due September 28. The justices now have an opportunity to decide whether a state can force a lawful buyer to wait after clearing a background check—and whether a lower court can avoid Bruen’s historical test by calling acquisition merely a step that happens before keeping and bearing arms.

The Second Amendment does not begin three days after a background-check approval. A right that depends on the government’s clock is a right the government controls.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

The Glock 19 has spent decades proving itself as one of the most useful compact pistols ever made. It is large enough to shoot well, small enough to conceal, and backed by a long record of reliability. For the past few months, I have carried the new Glock 19 Gen 6 as my everyday carry pistol, and the more time I spend with it, the more I appreciate what Glock changed.

The Gen 6 is still unmistakably a Glock. It is not a radical redesign, and it does not need to be. Instead, Glock addressed many of the complaints shooters have raised over the years without abandoning the simplicity that made the pistol successful.

The Glock 19 Gen 6 remains a compact, striker-fired 9mm with a 15-round standard magazine and a 4.02-inch barrel. Unloaded, without a magazine, it weighs 20.11 ounces. Those numbers place it squarely between today’s micro-compacts and full-size defensive pistols.

Now that I’ve carried the Glock 19 Gen 6 for a few months, been to the range multiple times, and put about 500 rounds through the pistol, here are some of my thoughts.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	19 Gen 6 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Glock 19 Gen 6 9mm Luger 4.0'''' Bbl (3)15rd Mag Ors Black	Brownells.com	$ 620.00
	GLOCK 19 Gen 6 Optic Ready 9mm Pistol With Aimpoint COA - 4.02" - 3x 10rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 1053.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 Austria 4.02" 9mm Luger (3)15rd O.R Handgun, Black - P61950203	Palmetto State Armory	$ 689.99 $ 620.99
	Glock 19 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 15rd Pistol, 4.02" Threaded Barrel, Black	Bereli	$ 735.00

Glock 19 Gen 6 Specifications

Specification	Glock 19 Gen 6
Caliber	9×19mm
Operating System	Glock Safe Action
Standard Capacity	15 rounds
Barrel Length	4.02 inches
Overall Length	7.28 inches
Height With Magazine	5.04 inches
Overall Width	1.35 inches
Weight Without Magazine	20.11 ounces
Weight With Empty Magazine	22.58 ounces
Weight With Loaded Magazine	29.10 ounces
Factory Trigger Pull	26 N (approximately 5.8 pounds)
Optics System	Gen 6 Optic Ready System
Factory MSRP	$745

Returning to a Compact Carry Gun

After carrying subcompact pistols for several years, I wanted to return to a true compact. The smaller guns are convenient, but the Glock 19 gives me more grip, more controllability, and a better overall shooting platform without becoming difficult to conceal.

The right holster makes the difference. I have been carrying the Gen 6 in a Safariland Incog XS IWB holster, and the combination has worked very well. I have carried it around the 12 o’clock appendix position and closer to 3 o’clock on my waist. In either position, the pistol remains comfortable and reasonably easy to conceal.

The Gen 6’s integrated beavertail has caused some shooters to break out the Dremel, but I have no desire to remove it. I installed beavertail backstraps on my older Glocks, so incorporating one directly into the frame is a positive change for me. It has not created any noticeable problems while carrying inside the waistband.

Glock Perfects the Grip

The updated RTF6 grip texture may be my favorite texture Glock has produced. It provides positive control without feeling unnecessarily abrasive. Even during the middle of a hot Florida summer, with sweat working against my grip, the pistol remained planted in my hand.

Just as importantly for a concealed-carry gun, the texture has not shredded any of my shirts. Glock found a useful middle ground between a slick factory frame and the overly aggressive stippling jobs that can chew through clothing and skin.

The factory trigger-guard undercut also makes a meaningful difference. On older, unmodified Glock 19 frames, my pinky tended to sit half on and half off the grip. The Gen 6 undercut allows my hand to ride higher, giving my pinky enough room to sit fully on the pistol. It sounds like a minor change, but it improves both comfort and control.

Glock also added an extended thumb rest that many shooters will simply call a gas pedal. It provides a useful index point for the support-hand thumb and helps slightly with recoil control. On the opposite side, it creates a defined shelf for the trigger finger while operating a weapon light or waiting to fire. That is a practical improvement that most shooters will enjoy on the range as well as in a duty scenario.

A Better Optics System

Glock’s new Optic Ready System is an improvement over the older MOS arrangement. Gen 6 pistols include three adapter plates covering several popular red-dot footprints, with the optic screws passing through the plate and directly into the slide.

I have been carrying and shooting the Glock 19 Gen 6 with a Leupold DeltaPoint Pro mounted using the factory polymer adapter plate. The combination has worked without issue so far, and the DeltaPoint Pro has held zero through both range use and daily carry.

The decision to use polymer plates will undoubtedly concern some shooters, and the aftermarket is already responding with metal alternatives. That concern is understandable on a defensive pistol, but so far, I have had no issues. My DeltaPoint Pro has remained secure and held zero, but the factory polymer interface is something I intend to watch.

More importantly, the Gen 6 system is simpler and cleaner than the previous MOS setup. For shooters who intend to mount a red dot, and that now includes a large percentage of handgun owners, the new Optic Ready System is one of the strongest reasons to choose the Gen 6.

Changes Without Losing the Glock Feel

The redesigned trigger face is another improvement, although the trigger itself does not feel like a drastic departure from previous generations. It still feels like a Glock trigger. The new face simply makes it easier for me to locate the sweet spot and apply consistent pressure through the break.

One other spot that will look suspiciously familiar is the sights. Love them or hate them, they work. It would have been a nice upgrade to get suppressor height sights from the factory that would work with red dots. I think that would have added to the cost, and for most owners, sights are something they ultimately look to upgrade or change at some point based on their preferences. If you like the old school Glock sights, you are in luck; they remain unchanged on the Gen 6 pistols.

That describes the Gen 6 as a whole. Glock did not replace the Glock 19 with something unfamiliar. The company refined the pistol in the places that matter: grip texture, frame geometry, trigger reach, optics mounting, and shooter interface.

The Best Glock 19 Yet?

The Glock 19 Gen 6 answers many of the requests Glock owners have made for years. It fits my hand better, provides better control, carries comfortably, and arrives ready for an optic.

For armed citizens who want one pistol capable of serving as an everyday carry gun, home-defense handgun, and range pistol, the Glock 19 remains difficult to beat. The Gen 6 does not reinvent “perfection.” It brings the design closer to delivering on the slogan.

In my opinion, this is the best version of perfection Glock has released yet.

Have you carried or fired the Glock 19 Gen 6? Has the new frame convinced you to upgrade, or are you sticking with an earlier-generation Glock? Let us know below.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

If you’ve joined the red dot revolution on pistols, welcome to a faster, clearer, and (let’s be honest) more forgiving way to shoot. Whether it’s a concealed carry gun, a home defense setup, or a weekend range toy, adding a red dot is one of the best upgrades you can make.

But—and it’s a big but—a red dot is only as good as its zero.

If you just slap it on and call it a day, you’re basically setting yourself up for failure. Getting a proper zero isn’t rocket science. It just takes a little understanding and a few adjustments to your red dot.

So… What’s the Best Distance to Zero a Red Dot Pistol?

Spoiler alert: It depends.

Here’s a quick look at the three most common choices:

• 10 Yards: It’s fast, easy, and great for concealed carry guns and home defense
• 15 Yards: Best overall balance between all three
• 25 Yards: Best for competition use and requires a hold-over at closer self-defense ranges

10-Yard Zero: The “Real World” Carry Gun Standard

Most self-defense shootings happen within 7–10 yards. At 10 yards, a properly zeroed dot means if you need to make a life-or-death shot, you can just press the trigger without second-guessing where to hold.

If you’re stretching it out to 25 yards, expect a little “holdover.” In simple terms, you might need to aim a hair higher if you’re trying to hit dead center at a distance. But at self-defense ranges? You’re golden. 

Regardless, with a 10-yard zero, if you hold the center of the A-Zone, you’ll hit inside the A-Zone out to 25 yards. 

15-Yard Zero: The “Do-It-All” Distance

If you’re running a gun for both carry and occasional competition or drills, 15 yards is arguably the sweet spot.

The bullet’s flight stays super flat out to about 70 yards. Translation? You won’t have to adjust much—if at all—when shooting at different distances. It’s forgiving, flexible, and keeps your brain power focused where it belongs: the target…or threat

25 Yard Zero

If you’re a competition shooter or you just like the idea of ringing steel plates at 50 yards and beyond with your carry pistol, the 25-yard zero is your friend.

Some serious USPSA and IDPA shooters set a 25-yard zero so they can nail longer shots without major dot adjustments. At close distances, though, they know they’ll have to hold a little high.

This isn’t ideal if you never plan to shoot past 10-15 yards. For pure concealed carry? It’s not ideal either.

How I Zero My Red Dots

Before I ever hit the range, I boresight my new red dot at home.

I use a 9mm bore laser that loads into the chamber like a normal round.

I pace off 10 yards in my house or garage, bring my pistol up in a normal shooting stance, and make my adjustments right there until the pistol red dot and the laser are stacked on top of each other.

It’s not a final zero, but it gets me damn close.

Confirm at 10 Yards

At the range, I use a standard cardboard IPSC target and put my focus on the a-zone.

Shooting offhand (I don’t fight using a bench rest), I fire slow, careful shots.

Once I can put three rounds into the center of the a-zone, I’m good. If they’re off, adjust, shoot again.

Verify at 15 and 25 Yards

Moving back to 15 yards, then 25 yards. Look for elevation and windage drift.

Tiny errors at 10 yards become big misses at 25 if you don’t catch them early.

Bonus

Once you’ve completed the zeroing process, a good drill to practice is the Achilles Heel Tactical DOPE Drill.

Final Thoughts: The Best Zero Is the One That Makes You Fast and Accurate

At the end of the day, there’s no one-size-fits-all answer (although I prefer 10 yards). What matters is consistency and confidence.

Pick a zero distance based on where you’ll actually fight or compete. Then zero and confirm at different distances.

The guy with a 10-yard zero who trains will beat the guy with a “perfect” 25-yard zero and no trigger time — every single day of the week.

About Scott Witner

Scott Witner is a former Marine Corps Infantryman with 2ndBn/8th Marines. He completed training in desert warfare at the Marine Air Ground Combat Center, Mountain Warfare and survival at the Mountain Warfare Training Center, the South Korean Mountain Warfare School in Pohang, and the Jungle Warfare school in the jungles of Okinawa, Japan. He now enjoys recreational shooting, trail running, hiking, functional fitness, and working on his truck. Scott resides in Northeastern Ohio.

Port St. Lucie’s police chief called the shooting self-defense. The driver faces no criminal charges. He had a gun when he needed one, a fact that now puts this case at odds with Uber’s policy prohibiting delivery workers from carrying firearms while using its app.

Parking Dispute Turns Into an Armed Confrontation

Officers responded at about 3:43 p.m. to a Pollo Tropical at 1365 NW St. Lucie West Boulevard. Police identified the delivery driver as Isaiah Davis, 25, and the other man as Christopher Harris, 37. According to Niemczyk, the encounter began over a parking spot. Harris followed Davis into the restaurant as Davis went to collect an order, then followed him outside.

Exterior surveillance footage showed Harris pushing Davis and advancing as Davis backed away, according to police. Witnesses reported seeing Harris with a knife shortly before Davis fired. Niemczyk told WPBF that Harris pulled a knife after shoving the driver. Davis fired a single round, striking Harris in the chest.

Harris returned inside the restaurant, where bystanders provided aid and called 911. He was flown to HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital with injuries police described as non-life-threatening. Investigators said one knife had been removed from his waistband while people were helping him; they found another in his front pocket. Police detained Davis at the scene and recovered his firearm during their investigation.

The surveillance video, witness statements and physical evidence led detectives to identify Harris as the primary aggressor. Harris faces attempted aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and felony battery based on a prior battery conviction. Police said he would be booked into the St. Lucie County Jail after his release from the hospital. No charges were pending against Davis in the reports reviewed.

Police See Self-Defense; Uber Prohibits Carry

Niemczyk was direct about the driver’s actions. “It’s self-defense,” he told WPBF, adding that Davis had tried to avoid the confrontation while Harris pursued him. The chief said the shooting also fit Florida’s stand-your-ground rule. The driver was backing away from a man who advanced on him with a knife.

The armed citizen had the means to stop a threat that retreat had not ended. Davis fired once, ending the threat and police say the evidence supports his account. That is the practical value of the right to bear arms: it belongs to someone earning a living as an Uber driver as surely as it belongs to anyone else.

But Uber’s firearms policy prohibits passengers, drivers and delivery partners from carrying while using its app, to the extent permitted by applicable law. It says a person who violates the rule may lose access to the platform. There is no indication in the reporting that Uber has removed Davis or decided what action, if any, it will take.

Police have answered the criminal question for now: Davis faces no charges. Uber still has an policy that would have disarmed a worker when a knife-wielding aggressor came after him. A company policy could have left him defenseless at the moment he needed his gun.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

The AR-15 did not exist in 1791. Neither did the modern handgun, the electric stun gun, or the internet. That has never meant the Bill of Rights protects only the technology Americans had when it was ratified.

Yet with the Supreme Court preparing to hear two challenges to bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, that is effectively the argument being offered against gun owners. Law professor Rory Little says a few words in District of Columbia v. Heller could keep modern rifles outside the Second Amendment. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley took issue with that reading this week. The text of Heller gives him good reason to do so.

The cases are Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated for one hour of argument on December 2. They ask whether the Second Amendment protects possession of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles in the face of bans imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut. AmmoLand has covered the cases and the Justice Department’s support for the challengers. Little’s argument raises another question gun owners should watch: Can a court erase protection for a modern arm by treating 1791 as a cutoff date?

What Heller Actually Says

In a SCOTUSblog column, Little focuses on Heller’s discussion of weapons “in common use at the time.” He reads “at the time” as the founding era. Because semiautomatic rifles did not exist in 1791, he argues that the federal government’s brief supporting the challengers changes Heller’s rule when it asks whether AR-15s are in common use today.

But Heller did not leave that question to guesswork. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion expressly rejected the notion that the Second Amendment protects only arms that existed in the eighteenth century. It said the right extends, at least presumptively, to bearable arms that did not exist at the founding. The opinion compared that principle to the First Amendment’s protection of modern communication and the Fourth Amendment’s application to modern searches.

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” – Justice Scalia, OPINION OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER

The Court’s reference to arms “in common use at the time” appears in its discussion of the historical distinction between common arms and “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Reading those words as a permanent 1791 equipment list clashes with the opinion’s own explicit treatment of later inventions. It would also make the government’s ability to prohibit a firearm depend on how long ago someone designed it, even when ordinary Americans possess it for lawful purposes today.

The Supreme Court has already confronted that exact founding-era argument. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had upheld a stun-gun ban in part because stun guns were not in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision and said the rationale conflicted with Heller. A right to keep and bear arms cannot be frozen at the technology available to the founding generation.

The Rifle Ban Cases Put Common Use Before the Court

The Justice Department’s brief argues that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that governments cannot criminalize possession of a rifle so widely kept for lawful purposes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh likewise wrote in a 2025 statement concerning the Court’s refusal to hear an earlier rifle-ban challenge that those facts give owners a strong Heller argument. Neither filing decides Viramontes or Grant. The justices will hear the merits in December.

Gun owners should reject the premise that improvements in firearms design reduce the scope of a constitutional right. The Second Amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Heller recognized that right as an individual one, and Caetano made clear that its protection does not end with the inventions of 1791. When the justices consider bans on America’s most popular rifle, they should apply that principle to the arms Americans actually own.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Santa Clara County’s former second-in-command admitted two felony bribery counts tied to concealed-carry permits, iPads and San Jose Sharks tickets. Ordinary applicants were left waiting.

Former Santa Clara County Undersheriff Rick Sung pleaded guilty on September 21 to two felony counts of soliciting bribes in the county’s concealed-carry permit scandal. The permits his office rarely issued to ordinary residents had become bargaining chips for people with money and connections.

One count involved a promised donation of 200 iPads from Apple to the Sheriff’s Office. The other involved access to a luxury suite and San Jose Sharks tickets for then-Sheriff Laurie Smith and her guests. Sung was Smith’s second-in-command. His plea concludes an eight-year corruption investigation that produced six criminal convictions, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office.

Under the negotiated disposition, Sung must permanently surrender his California peace officer certification and perform 400 hours of community service. Reporting on the agreement says he may later ask the court to reduce the felonies to misdemeanors and dismiss the charges after completing the required terms. He will not be able to work again as a California peace officer.

Ordinary Applicants Waited While Insiders Got Permits

The contrast could hardly be sharper. In a separate 2024 prosecution arising from the same investigation, the DA said testimony established that nearly all first-time carry-permit applications submitted by members of the public in 2018 and 2019 were completely ignored. Meanwhile, prosecutors said, then-Captain James Jensen arranged for an executive-protection company to donate as much as $90,000 in exchange for permits for its personnel. A jury convicted Jensen of bribery and conspiracy.

The iPad and Sharks-suite allegations against Sung were distinct transactions in the broader investigation. Prosecutors said the iPad promise was tied to permits for Apple security personnel. The suite case concerned a businessman’s permit and access to his box at the Sharks’ arena.

Sung’s earlier trial did not convict him: jurors deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Apple security chief Thomas Moyer was acquitted in the iPad case. Sung’s conviction comes from his own guilty plea ahead of a retrial, not from a jury verdict against the other defendants.

Smith resigned in 2022 before a civil jury found that she had engaged in misconduct in office. She was not criminally charged in this permit scheme. Those distinctions matter. The proven point here is already damning enough: the man who served immediately below the sheriff has admitted felony bribery solicitation involving permits that ordinary residents struggled to obtain.

The Problem With Government Permission to Carry

For gun owners, this is what discretionary “may-issue” licensing looks like when officials control who gets to exercise a right. An applicant seeking to carry a handgun for self-defense could be ignored while people with access to the sheriff’s office found a path through. A constitutional right should never depend on whether its holder can deliver campaign money, gadgets or hockey tickets.

AmmoLand raised concerns about the Santa Clara permit investigation in 2019. The later trial evidence put sworn testimony behind the disparity between the public’s applications and permits steered to connected applicants.

The scandal belongs to the pre-Bruen licensing era. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rejected discretionary “proper cause” requirements for public carry. Sung’s criminal plea does not itself change California’s current carry laws or decide any Second Amendment lawsuit.

It does, however, show why gun owners keep scrutinizing the systems that replaced overt discretion. AmmoLand has covered the challenge to Santa Clara County’s costly permit process and the Justice Department’s separate lawsuit over San Jose’s $1,591 municipal permit fee. Those are separate legal disputes; neither is resolved by Sung’s plea.

The right to bear arms belongs to the people. Santa Clara’s old system gave officials the power to treat it as a favor.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

SIG SAUER’s new P385 introduces a separate 9mm pistol platform with a modular fire control unit and a trigger shoe featuring what SIG calls a patented, flush-faced Trigger Block. That trigger is one of the first things experienced SIG owners will notice: the standard factory P320 and P365 triggers do not have a comparable trigger-face safety. Five versions are planned.

The P385 also accepts standard P320 magazines, according to SIG, while offering different grips, two approaches to compensation and a recoil system built into the grip module. SIG unveiled the MACH3D, COMP, FULL, CARRY and COMPACT at its SIG NEXT event, with store availability planned for this fall and early winter.

A Different Trigger for SIG’s New Pistol

On the P385-COMP product page, SIG calls the new fire control unit specific to the P385 platform and describes its patented Trigger Block design as providing a consistent trigger feel, crisp break and tactile reset. SIG’s feature image shows the central block sitting flush with the face of the trigger shoe.

The trigger-face block is a notable departure for shooters accustomed to the P320 and P365. It functions as a passive trigger safety: the central portion must be depressed before the trigger can move rearward. That is distinct from the optional manual thumb safety, which SIG says will be available on every P385 model. SIG’s product description does not provide a mechanical diagram or establish how this design performs in independent safety testing. The new trigger deserves scrutiny on its own terms, especially from owners who have followed the debate over the P320.

SIG has not said the new P385 FCU can be installed in a P320 or P365. The expressly stated crossover is the P320 magazine. Owners should not assume the FCUs, slides, grip modules or holsters interchange just because the pistols share magazines.

MagStraps, Recoil Dampening and the P385-COMP

According to the P385-COMP product page, interchangeable MagStraps change grip circumference in small, medium and large sizes and allow a change in grip length from a 17-round to a 15-round flush-fit configuration. Laser-cut ReActive texturing covers the grip for added contact and control.

The company also gives a more useful explanation of its SIG Recoil Dampening System, or SRDS, than it did in the launch release: SRDS is integrated into the grip module and is intended to reduce shock transferred to the shooter. On the COMP, it works alongside an integrally compensated Nitron slide and a low bore axis. SIG says the combination reduces muzzle movement and helps the shooter recover the sight picture during rapid fire. The COMP has a 4-inch precision barrel, a SIG-LOC Pro optic-ready slide with aggressive serrations, fully ambidextrous controls and textured thumb supports. SIG says the slide release is shielded to help prevent shooter-induced malfunctions.

Those are SIG’s design and performance claims, not results from an AmmoLand range test. The company’s release claims at least 20 percent less muzzle rise, depending on the P385 model, but does not identify a comparison gun or test conditions. SIG separately claims more than 30 percent less muzzle rise from the MACH3D compensator.

Five P385 Models, Two Compensator Designs

The P385-COMP and P385-MACH3D are the two compensated guns in the launch lineup. The COMP uses an integrally compensated slide over its 4-inch barrel. The MACH3D has a MACH3D compensator-equipped 4-inch barrel. SIG’s booklet lists one 17-round and two 21-round magazines with each; the COMP product page also lists a configuration supplied with three 10-round steel magazines.

The uncompensated P385-FULL has a 4.7-inch barrel. The P385-CARRY uses a 4-inch barrel. Each is listed with one 17-round and one 21-round magazine. The P385-COMPACT also has a 4-inch barrel, but uses a shorter MAGSTRAP grip and ships with two 15-round magazines. In other words, SIG’s listed Compact configuration shortens the grip, not the barrel.

All five models are listed as SIG-LOC Pro optic-ready, with fully ambidextrous controls. SIG says buyers will have black or coyote brown versions and a choice of a model with or without a manual thumb safety. The supplied announcement and product material do not give a complete price list, dimensions or unloaded weights for the lineup.

For existing SIG owners, the most consequential questions are how the flush-faced Trigger Block feels and functions in actual use, how much SRDS changes the recoil impulse, and will the new trigger makes it way to the older P320? P320 magazine compatibility is already confirmed. We will test the rest at the range when we get a P385 in for testing!

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

PMC Bronze is the kind of 9mm shooters buy by the case because it runs reliably and does not cost defensive-ammo money. Ammunition Depot has a 1,000-round case of PMC Bronze 9mm 115-grain FMJ marked down to $254.49. Use code ALand5 at checkout, and the price drops to $241.77—or about 24 cents per round.

That is a solid price for new-production, brass-cased range ammunition from a well-established manufacturer.

Top Features

• 1,000-round case: Twenty 50-round boxes for training, classes, and competition practice
• 115-grain FMJ: Standard-weight 9mm load that runs well in most pistols and pistol-caliber carbines
• Reloadable brass cases: Boxer-primed and non-corrosive
• 1,150 FPS advertised velocity: Full-power performance for regular range use
• Consistent production: PMC manufactures its ammunition components in-house and inspects cartridges throughout production

Why Shooters Love It

PMC Bronze has earned a following as dependable, straightforward range ammunition. It feeds well, shoots consistently, and gives gun owners factory-new brass cases without charging premium defensive-ammo prices.

At roughly 24 cents per round with the AmmoLand coupon, this case makes sense for shooters who actually train. One thousand rounds gives you enough ammunition for several serious range sessions without mixing loads or chasing down individual boxes before every trip.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $299.99
• Your Price with Code Aland5: $241.77

Buy 1,000 Rounds of PMC Bronze 9mm at Ammunition Depot—Use Code ALand5!

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PMC Bronze 9mm Luger Ammo 115gr FMJ 300 Round Battle Pack	GunMag Warehouse	$ 84.99
	PMC Bronze 9mm Luger 124 gr Full Metal Jacket - Box of 50	Primary Arms	$ 16.99
	PMC Bronze 9mm 115gr FMJ Ammunition 300 Round Sealed Battle Pack - 9A-BP	Palmetto State Armory	$ 106.99
	PMC - Bronze - 9mm - 115 Grain - JHP - Retail / 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 393.02

Before you buy, read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer 

Classic American firepower is on sale. The Springfield Armory 1911 Defender Mil-Spec .45 ACP package is now available for $599.99, down from $799.99, giving shooters a rugged, GI-inspired Government-size 1911 at a working man’s price. This bundle also includes three magazines, a pistol case, and a dual pistol bag, making it a ready-to-go setup for the range or home defense.

Top Features

• Classic 5″ Government-Size 1911 chambered in powerful .45 ACP
• GI-Style Controls & Trigger for authentic 1911 handling
• Fixed Combat 3-Dot Sights for fast target acquisition
• Lowered & Flared Ejection Port for improved reliability
• Bonus Gear Included – 3 magazines, pistol case, and dual pistol bag

Why Shooters Love It

The 1911 platform has been trusted by American shooters for more than a century, and this Springfield Defender Mil-Spec keeps that legacy alive with modern reliability. With its full-size 5-inch barrel and .45 ACP chambering, it offers excellent accuracy, manageable recoil, and serious stopping power. The included accessories make this package especially attractive for shooters who want a dependable 1911 without spending custom-gun money.

Customer Testimonials

I have wanted a 1911 milspec ever since it got out of the Navy. So a few years back I got a Remington R1 and had nothing but issues with it since day one. So when I bought this one, Springfield, expected lesser, but similar results. The Springfield 1911 Defender Mil-Spec was one of the smoothest shooting handguns I own. I was sooo pleasantly surprised and how smooth the trigger and recoil was. I was able to shoot consistent groups mag after mag. zero stovepipes, or misfires. Looking forward to shooting tis 1911 many more times.

Excellent Pistol Decent Price. very well made. executed quality zero scratches no tooling marks . shoot great. zero regrets. excellent purchase. overall a very happy Customer. thanks,Palmetto State Armory. fast shipping. great Customer service. Buy this 1911 you will loved and you won’t be disappointed. thanks again PSA.

Pure solid 1911! No goofy firing pin block. . but goofy plastic trigger however that is easily fixed. Good buy if you want a decent 1911 or just a base gun to build on.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $799.99
• Sale Price: $599.99
  • You Save: $200 (25% off)

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Springfield M1 Garand En-Block Clip 30-06 Springfield - Springfield M1 Garand Magazine 30-06 Springfield 8rd Steel B	Brownells.com	$ 4.99
	Springfield Armory Handguard Clip Fits Springfield Armory M14/Springfield Armory M1A, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 13.99
	Springfield Armory Magazine For Springfield XD-M Elite 10mm - 15 Round Stainless Steel	Ammunition Depot	$ 36.49
	Springfield Hellcat 3.8" Threaded Barrel and Compensator Kit	GunMag Warehouse	$ 149.99

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

Palmetto State Armory has bundled a Vortex SPARC AR 2 MOA red-dot sight with ten Magpul PMAG Gen M2 MOE 30-round magazines for $139.99. Purchased at the listed individual prices, the optic and magazines would cost $192.99. This bundle knocks $53 off that total—a savings of approximately 27%.

For new AR-15 owners, this is an ideal combination. You get a proven, uncomplicated red-dot sight for your rifle and ten dependable magazines to fill out your range bag, chest rig, or storage cabinet.

Top Features

• 2 MOA Crisp Red Dot – Fast target acquisition up close, precise at distance
• 50,000-Hour Battery Life – Set it and forget it reliability
• Night Vision Compatible – Lowest two settings support NV use
• 10x Magpul PMAG Gen M2 MOE (30rd) – Proven polymer mags with anti-tilt followers
• Impact-Resistant Construction – Built for hard use on AR-15 platforms

Why Shooters Love It

The SPARC AR is designed specifically with modern sporting rifles in mind. Its 2 MOA dot is easy to pick up during fast, close-range shooting while remaining fine enough for accurate shots at typical carbine distances.

Vortex rates the optic for up to 50,000 hours of runtime on its lowest setting. It uses a widely available AAA battery and includes a multi-height mount, allowing shooters to configure it for an appropriate AR-15 sight height. It is also backed by Vortex’s well-known unlimited lifetime warranty.

This is not an expensive duty optic pretending to compete with military-grade equipment. It is an affordable, straightforward red dot for range rifles, training carbines, and general-purpose AR builds.

Ten PMAGs Add Real Value

The ten included magazines are Magpul’s 30-round PMAG Gen M2 MOE models. These polymer AR-15 magazines use anti-tilt followers and have earned a strong reputation for durability and reliable feeding.

At the listed value of $123 for the magazines, most of the bundle price is already accounted for before considering the optic. That makes this an especially attractive deal for anyone who needs both an optic and additional magazines.

Unbeatable Price

• Vortex SPARC AR: $69.99
• 10x Magpul PMAGs: $123.00
• Combined Value: $192.99
• Daily Deal Price: $139.99**
  • You Save: $53.00**

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Magpul PMAG GEN 2 MOE AR-15 .223/5.56 30 Round Magazine (50 Pack Case)	The Mag Shack	$ 649.99 $ 474.99
	Magpul PMAG GEN M3 AK-47 7.62x39 30 Round Magazine (10 Pack)	The Mag Shack	$ 239.99
	Magpul PMAG GEN M3 AR-10 .308/7.62x51 25 Round Window Magazine (10 Pack)	The Mag Shack	$ 199.99
	Magpul PMAG GEN M3 AR-10 .308/7.62x51 20 Round Magazine (10 Pack) - Black	The Mag Shack	$ 229.99 $ 189.99

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

New Hampshire school officials have formally admitted that they violated former student Jack Harrington’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his pickup truck after learning that he lawfully owned a handgun.

The admission resolves Harrington v. Crawford, a federal lawsuit supported by the Second Amendment Foundation. In a stipulated declaratory judgment, Hillsboro-Deering School District Superintendent Jennifer Crawford and Hillsboro-Deering High School Principal James O’Rourke agreed that the April 24, 2025, search of Harrington’s truck and glove box was unconstitutional.

The agreement also states that the search failed to satisfy the lower “reasonable suspicion” standard used for ordinary school searches and that Harrington had committed no illegal or unlawful conduct that justified it.

Most importantly for gun owners, the judgment recognizes that exercising the Second Amendment cannot become the government’s excuse to disregard the Fourth.

“A search of a student’s person, property, or vehicle based solely on the exercise of a constitutional or legal right,” including the right to keep and bear arms, would violate the Fourth Amendment, the agreement states.

Lawful Gun Ownership Became the Excuse for a Search

Harrington was an 18-year-old senior when school officials pulled him from class and questioned him about a handgun he lawfully owned and possessed away from school property.

The controversy began after an assistant coach overheard Harrington discussing an earlier traffic stop with another student. Harrington had lawfully stored his Glock 43 in his truck’s glove box during that off-campus encounter. The coach did not report hearing Harrington say that he possessed the firearm at school.

Nevertheless, the conversation was relayed through school employees until administrators treated Harrington’s lawful gun ownership as grounds to search his truck on campus.

As AmmoLand previously reported, officials brought Harrington into a small office where a uniformed and visibly armed school resource officer stood near the only door. Harrington repeatedly denied having a firearm at school and refused permission to search his vehicle. His parents likewise refused consent over the phone.

School officials searched the truck anyway. They found no firearm because Harrington’s handgun was safely stored at his family’s home.

“Maintaining safety on school grounds is a laudable goal,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said. “But the Constitution demands that school officials have, at minimum, reasonable suspicion to search a student’s property. Critically, choosing to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights cannot be interpreted as a waiver of your rights under the Fourth Amendment, nor can it create reasonable suspicion of a crime.”

“Anything Above Zero” Was Not Reasonable Suspicion

The agreement delivers the answer to the extraordinary position revealed during the case’s discovery phase.

In August, Assistant Principal Brian McGinn testified that a possibility “above zero”, even a one-percent chance, could support reasonable suspicion. O’Rourke reportedly acknowledged that his asserted suspicion rested on “speculation or guess.”

That theory would have placed every student known to hunt, shoot competitively, visit a gun range or live in a gun-owning household under permanent suspicion. The stipulated judgment rejects it as applied to Harrington: the search did not meet the Supreme Court’s reasonable-suspicion standard under New Jersey v. T.L.O.

The Constitution does not permit government officials to transform lawful conduct into evidence of a crime. A citizen does not surrender one enumerated right by exercising another.

“Publicly acknowledging that you’re a gun owner does not justify endless harassment or subject you to invasive searches,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “Simply choosing to exercise your rights under the Second Amendment does not imply that you may do something criminal with a firearm and does not create reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed.”

A Clear Victory, With a Defined Scope

The stipulated judgment is a substantial victory for Harrington and SAF, but it should not be confused with a nationwide appellate precedent issued after a contested ruling. Crawford and O’Rourke agreed to the declaration as part of a settlement, and the document says it does not bind them or the school district in matters involving different students under different facts.

The agreement also states that Crawford and O’Rourke acted with a good-faith belief that their conduct complied with the law and out of concern for student and staff safety. The terms of the parties’ separate settlement agreement were not included in the publicly available judgment, and the federal action is dismissed with prejudice.

Those limitations do not erase what the officials formally conceded in Harrington’s case: the search was unconstitutional, reasonable suspicion was absent and Harrington did nothing illegal to justify it.

Lawful gun ownership is not evidence of wrongdoing, and the Second Amendment is not a waiver of the Fourth.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

A public records request was filed Monday with the Summit County Agricultural Society and the Summit County Executive’s Office / Law Department to determine if citizen disarmament protocols mandated for Summit County Fair attendees were also followed for vendors and their set-up crews and vehicles allowed fairgrounds access through gates without passing through the public entrance enclosure.

Do they get scanned? Do their vehicles and equipment that enter the grounds for set-up, maintenance, and tear-down get searched?

As AmmoLand reported in August, because Ohio State law allows armed citizens on fairgrounds but prohibits firearms in their buildings and enclosures, the Summit County Fair took it a step further and constructed an entrance building that attendees are required to pass through, effectively banning guns in the entire property except for parking lots. The intent of the records request is to determine if the same rules are imposed on all visitors — that is, are we all treated the same way?  — and if requiring disarmament of personnel who are not admitted through the main entrance is compliant with Ohio law.

Records were requested for:

• The reasons the decision was made to route fair visitors through an enclosure that would ensure they were disarmed, including the data used and communicated among Fair decision-makers showing the legal possession of firearms endangers the public and creates a compelling official interest to prohibit admission of lawfully armed attendees.
• Any official handbooks, policy packets, instruction sheets, or informational guidelines distributed to vendors, suppliers, contractors, maintenance personnel, and agricultural workers regarding the rules, logistics, and entry procedures for bringing vehicles or heavy equipment onto the fairgrounds.
• Any written protocols or instructions provided to gate personnel or event staff regarding the routing and processing of vehicles or equipment that—by nature of their size or contents—cannot utilize the standard visitor entrance security scanners or bag checks.

To ensure legal exemptions were not used to deny the request, the following caveat was included:

I am not requesting tactical law enforcement response plans, security vulnerabilities, or confidential emergency layouts that would trigger an exemption under the “Security Record” provision of R.C. 149.433.

The longtime solution, of course, is for Ohio’s Republican majority legislature to earn their “A” ratings and put a stop to this nonsense. As Buckeye Firearms Association Executive Director Dean Reick remarked about Ohio law when asked about the Fairground enclosure ban:

 “We’ll continue working on it because it’s ridiculous to allow someone to legally carry while they walk past the Ferris wheel but ban it in the barn with the butter cow.”

Summit County, with its enclosed entrance, allows neither.

Note that since my longtime attorney filing Freedom of Information Act requests on my behalf has left private practice and is no longer available to represent me, I am filing this records request on my own, albeit, full disclosure, I did use Google’s AI to help formulate the language. It’s not the first time I’ve gone solo on such requests and have had some successes without a lawyer in the past, albeit I am currently in discussions with another Second Amendment-savvy lawyer about future representation for federal requests.

The complete public records request is available here. Responses will be shared when available.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

A divided Ninth Circuit has reversed another Second Amendment victory, allowing Hawaii to defend two unusual firearm-acquisition restrictions without showing that either one is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.

In a 6–5 en banc decision in Yukutake v. Lopez, the court reversed a permanent injunction against Hawaii’s 30-day handgun-permit deadline and its requirement that certain newly acquired firearms be physically presented to police for inspection.

The ruling reaches beyond Hawaii. Instead of applying the text-and-history test required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority treated the provisions as presumptively constitutional because Hawaii placed them inside a “shall-issue” system. The court then required the gun owners—not the government—to prove the restrictions were being used toward “abusive ends.”

That turns Bruen’s burden on its head.

Hawaii’s Permit Deadline and Police Inspection Rule

Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa challenged two provisions of Hawaii law. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e) provides that a permit to acquire a pistol or revolver becomes void unless it is used within 30 days. If the permit expires before the buyer obtains the handgun, the applicant must restart Hawaii’s permitting process.

Section 134-3 requires certain firearms to be registered and brought to police for inspection within five days. It applies to private transfers, specified self-manufactured or 3D-printed firearms, and firearms brought into Hawaii.

Both laws were more burdensome when the lawsuit began. The handgun permit originally expired after ten days, while virtually all firearms acquired under the permitting system had to be brought to police. Hawaii extended the deadline to 30 days and narrowed the inspection mandate while the litigation was pending.

A federal district court struck down the provisions in 2021. A divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in March 2025, holding that acquiring firearms is protected by the Second Amendment and that Hawaii had failed to justify its restrictions. The Ninth Circuit then vacated that opinion and reheard the case en banc.

Majority Creates a Shall-Issue Safe Harbor

Writing for the majority, Judge John Owens relied heavily on footnote nine of Bruen. That footnote explained that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down New York’s discretionary “may-issue” carry law should not be understood as invalidating objective “shall-issue” public-carry systems.

The Ninth Circuit stretched that limited discussion of carry permits into a broader presumption covering Hawaii’s firearm-purchase system.

The majority did not decide whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct or require Hawaii to produce historical analogues. Instead, it asked whether Yukutake and Kikukawa had shown that the requirements effectively denied ordinary citizens their rights.

The majority called the 30-day expiration period a “reasonable deadline” and described taking a firearm to police as a “brief administrative visit.” It concluded that both were merely “modest, procedural burdens” that did not materially prevent the plaintiffs from acquiring firearms.

The court acknowledged that delays, exorbitant fees or other requirements could become unconstitutional, but did not explain where that line lies.

That leaves anti-gun states with an obvious strategy: place new acquisition obstacles inside an ostensibly objective licensing system and force gun owners to prove that the accumulated burdens practically deny the right.

Five Judges Say the Majority Misread Bruen

Judge Ryan Nelson wrote the principal dissent, joined fully by Judges Daniel Bress and Lawrence VanDyke and mostly by Judges Bridget Bade and Danielle Forrest.

Nelson explained that footnote nine addressed public-carry permits—not every rule attached to buying, possessing or registering a gun. Hawaii’s provisions operate after the state has investigated and approved the purchaser; they are not eligibility requirements.

“Never has a single footnote in a Supreme Court opinion been so misread by so many lower courts to deny so many Americans their constitutional rights,” Nelson wrote.

The dissent concluded that acquisition is protected because citizens ordinarily cannot “keep” arms without first obtaining them. Bruen therefore requires Hawaii to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting its restrictions.

Hawaii did not do so. No historical analogue automatically voided an approved citizen’s permit after 30 days. Colonial militia inspections ensured militiamen possessed serviceable arms for public duty; they did not force citizens to bring privately acquired guns to police for tracking.

Judge Forrest agreed that the laws violate the Second Amendment but would have narrowed the district court’s statewide injunction under Trump v. CASA so it protected only Yukutake and Kikukawa.

VanDyke: Bruen Has Made Things Worse in the Ninth Circuit

Judge VanDyke issued a separate dissent condemning the Ninth Circuit’s resistance to Supreme Court precedent. He noted that the district court struck down Hawaii’s restrictions under the weaker, pre-Bruen intermediate-scrutiny standard. The en banc majority then used Bruen—which rejected interest balancing—to reverse that victory.

“If our court’s takeaway from Bruen is that Bruen changed the law to make it harder to mount a successful Second Amendment challenge, then somebody has seriously lost the plot,” VanDyke wrote.

VanDyke proposed bright-line protections for arms in common use and against modern restrictions adopted by only a few jurisdictions. He predicted that Yukutake will eventually join other Ninth Circuit Second Amendment decisions reversed by the Supreme Court.

Another Ninth Circuit Reversal of a Gun-Rights Win

Second Amendment Foundation attorney Kostas Moros, who represented SAF, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center as amici, criticized the decision for reversing Bruen’s burden and reviving interest balancing under the undefined label of “abusiveness.”

Thread on Yukutake, the Ninth Circuit’s latest en banc reversal of a 2A panel win.

The laws at issue are Hawaii rules requiring (1) a narrow window of time to buy a gun after getting a purchase permit; and (2) a post-purchase inspection of that purchased gun at a police… https://t.co/45c2ZGEgqv pic.twitter.com/reaqUA4PNo

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 22, 2026

The majority itself admitted that lower courts disagree over how Bruen’s footnote nine fits with the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test. It concluded by expressing hope that the Supreme Court will eventually clarify which interpretation is correct.

The justices should take that invitation. A state cannot evade Bruen by fastening novel purchase and registration burdens onto a licensing system, declaring that system “shall-issue,” and demanding that citizens prove the resulting obstacles are abusive. The Second Amendment commands the government to justify its restrictions—not the people to beg a court to recognize when enough infringement is finally enough.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Connecticut is now facing a second federal challenge to its new “convertible pistol” ban—and this lawsuit goes directly after the premise that the state may prohibit common handguns because criminals can illegally modify them.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems, and Connecticut retailer Blue Trail Range filed National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 21. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the challenged portions of House Bill 5043 before they take effect October 1.

The case follows GLOCK’s lawsuit challenging the same Connecticut law, but the two cases approach the ban from different directions. GLOCK argues first that its redesigned Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 pistols do not fall within Connecticut’s definition. NSSF and Shadow Systems make the more fundamental argument: Connecticut cannot ban the future sale of common, unmodified handguns merely because a criminal could attach an already-illegal machinegun conversion device.

Connecticut is punishing the handgun and the law-abiding gun owner instead of the criminal who illegally converts it.

Connecticut Targets the Gun, Not the Illegal Switch

Gov. Ned Lamont signed HB 5043, now Public Act 26-41, in May after it cleared the legislature. AmmoLand warned while the bill was moving through Hartford that its so-called “convertible pistol” language was aimed at GLOCK-pattern handguns and other pistols using a cruciform trigger bar.

Effective October 1, the law makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer, or expose for sale a covered “convertible pistol” manufactured on or after that date. A conviction can carry up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

Connecticut defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be altered by hand or with a common household tool so it can be converted into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law provides an escape clause for a pistol with a non-removable piece molded into the frame that shields the trigger bar.

This is not a general possession ban, and the lawsuit does not challenge Connecticut’s authority to prohibit an illegally converted pistol. It challenges the state’s attempt to close the lawful market to unmodified semiautomatic handguns.

Machinegun conversion devices, often called switches, are already illegal under federal and Connecticut law. Federal law treats the device itself as a machine gun even when it is not installed. Connecticut can prosecute those who possess or install them. It cannot use those crimes as an excuse to deny peaceable citizens access to common defensive arms.

Shadow Systems Gives the Challenge Real-World Stakes

Shadow Systems manufactures American-made GLOCK-pattern pistols built around the cruciform-trigger design. According to the verified complaint, the company shipped more than $204 million in products to retailers nationwide from 2021 through August 2026, overwhelmingly cruciform-trigger handguns. During the same period, it sold more than $530,000 in those handguns into Connecticut.

The company says none of its current popular cruciform-trigger models contains the molded shielding feature Connecticut demands. Complying would require substantial time and money to redesign pistols lawful buyers already choose for their safety, reliability, and familiarity, with no guarantee that Connecticut would not move the goalposts again.

Shadow Systems has already seen what a state-level ban can do. The complaint alleges that California’s similar law forced the company out of that market, costing it nearly $3.8 million in annual revenue, or approximately 11 percent of its business.

Blue Trail Range supplies the retailer side of the case. The Wallingford range and gun store says cruciform-trigger handguns and accessories represent a substantial part of its business. When the pistol a customer trusts disappears from the shelf, some buyers simply walk away.

Those injuries are not theoretical. Unless the court intervenes, Connecticut dealers must begin navigating felony exposure on October 1.

Connecticut’s Ban Has No Limiting Principle

The complaint alleges that more than 500,000 cruciform-trigger handguns are manufactured for the American market annually. NSSF members producing these pistols include GLOCK, Shadow Systems, Ruger, Palmetto State Armory, Derya, and Beretta through Stoeger.

These are ordinary semiautomatic handguns used for self-defense, training, competition, and recreation. Exactly the class of arms the Supreme Court described in District of Columbia v. Heller as the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”

NSSF’s historical argument is straightforward. Americans have long prohibited dangerous modifications without banning the underlying firearm. A criminal can use a hacksaw to create an illegal short-barreled shotgun, but that does not give government authority to ban ordinary shotguns. The historical response to trap guns was likewise to punish the unlawful act, not outlaw the firearm.

The same principle applies here. The existence of an illegal aftermarket switch does not transform an unmodified semiautomatic pistol into a machine gun.

If Connecticut may ban a common handgun because someone can illegally convert it, there is no meaningful limit. As the Supreme Court recognized in Staples v. United States, virtually any semiautomatic firearm can be converted through internal modification. Connecticut’s logic could become the excuse for banning virtually every semiautomatic firearm in America.

Even the Second Circuit Used the GLOCK 17 as the Counterexample

The lawsuit also turns Connecticut’s own appellate precedent against the state.

In National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, the Second Circuit upheld Connecticut’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles. But it contrasted those firearms with popular semiautomatic handguns “like the Glock 17,” emphasizing that Connecticut residents could still possess them.

HB 5043 now attacks precisely the type of handgun the Second Circuit used as its example of an ordinary protected arm. The state cannot rely on the continued availability of GLOCK pistols to defend one gun ban and then turn around and prohibit future sales of those pistols under another.

The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a preliminary injunction or, alternatively, a temporary restraining order. They want the court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and stop Connecticut’s prosecutors from enforcing them while the case proceeds. NSSF announced the emergency challenge on September 21.

Connecticut already has the authority to prosecute illegal machinegun conversion. What the Second Amendment does not permit is collective punishment of every lawful manufacturer, dealer, and gun owner because criminals refuse to obey laws that were already on the books.

The switch is illegal. The criminal conversion is illegal. The common semiautomatic handgun is not, and Connecticut has no constitutional authority to pretend otherwise.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

President Donald Trump has ordered federal agencies to reverse the bureaucratic presumption that public land can be closed first and opened to hunters only after they fight through Washington’s red tape.

Trump’s September 17 executive order, “Reinvigorating America’s Hunting Heritage,” declares that federally managed land should generally be open to hunting unless officials can justify a particular closure based on local resource conditions. It also directs agencies to protect the use of traditional lead ammunition and tackle, improve access to difficult-to-reach public land, and help recruit a new generation of hunters.

The order recognizes a truth hunters already understand: Sportsmen are not enemies of conservation. Hunters, anglers, and firearm owners finance wildlife management through license purchases and excise taxes, while contributing their own time and money to habitat restoration and responsible game management.

“It is therefore the policy of my Administration to reinvigorate, protect, and expand America’s hunting heritage to benefit our people and our land,” the order states.

Federal Land Should Be Open Unless a Closure Is Justified

Within 180 days, the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and War must propose changes to policies or regulations that restrict hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, and other outdoor recreation on lands under their jurisdiction.

The most consequential instruction is that agencies should generally allow hunting unless a specific closure is justified by local resource conditions. National parks are excluded, as are national monuments except for two locations addressed separately in the order.

Interior has 90 days to allow hunting of species not listed under the Endangered Species Act within Castle Mountains National Monument in California and Craters of the Moon National Monument and Preserve in Idaho. Trump determined that properly managed hunting would not endanger the historic and scientific objects those monuments protect.

The order also directs agencies to improve access to landlocked and difficult-to-reach federal property through voluntary easements, land exchanges, cooperative agreements with state and local governments, and other measures that respect private-property rights. Federal officials must also consider the construction, repair, and maintenance of infrastructure needed for recreation and wildlife management.

Trump’s Order Protects Traditional Ammunition

Of particular importance to gun owners, Trump directed the responsible agencies to propose changes permitting the use of traditional lead ammunition and fishing tackle.

Lead-ammunition restrictions can turn an ordinary hunt into a more expensive proposition by forcing hunters to purchase costlier alternatives that may be less available. The order rejects the idea that unelected federal officials should be able to steadily price hunters out of public lands through sweeping administrative restrictions.

Agencies were also told to authorize assistive technology on access trails and at hunting locations, encourage qualified volunteers to help control invasive species and manage wildlife populations, and streamline the process for authorizing seasonal migratory-game-bird hunting.

Building the Next Generation of Hunters

Trump’s order addresses the long-term survival of America’s hunting culture as well. The Education and Labor departments have 90 days to clarify that federal education funding may be used for school archery and hunter-education programs.

Interior must identify additional opportunities to help states recruit young hunters and veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs must prioritize qualifying hunting and fishing opportunities through its Adaptive Sports Grant Program.

The order also encourages states to expand Sunday hunting and directs federal land managers to work with state wildlife agencies on predator management, invasive-species control, prescribed fire, habitat improvement, water development, grazing, and other tools intended to increase game populations. Separate provisions support state programs that donate harvested venison to schools, food banks, and the Emergency Food Assistance Program.

The executive order does not instantly open every acre of federal property or erase every restriction. Many of its provisions require agencies to propose or implement changes over deadlines ranging from 60 days to one year. Its direction, however, is unmistakable: Public land belongs to the American people, hunting is a legitimate and valuable use of that land, and federal bureaucrats should have to justify shutting hunters out—not force hunters to justify being there.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Going to the range without a plan is like going to the gym without a plan. You show up, do some bicep curls, wander around, and ultimately make no progress. Without a plan, you’re wasting ammo, time, and not learning anything. One of the easiest ways to make a plan is to turn to drills. There are many drills out there, and today, we are bringing you the five best beginner drills.

Beginner Drills – How To Plan

A drill is a shooting exercise that prescribes nearly every element of your shooting. It describes your distance, your accuracy standards, the time you have to accomplish the drill, how many rounds are fired, and more. Most importantly, it has a time and accuracy standard.

A time and accuracy standard gives you a goal to meet. If you can’t meet these goals, you’ll be able to identify your weaknesses and, hopefully, improve your shooting skills continually. Shooters should never dive too deep or too fast. Attempting the FAST Drill as a new shooter can be a recipe for disaster.

To avoid throwing new shooters into the pool’s deep end and seeing if they sink or swim,, I wanted to provide five basic, safe drills. These are still challenging and provide an excellent tool to advance your shooting skills.

With that in mind, as a new shooter, it’s always wise to dry these drills dry first. Dry being ammo-free, just walk through them at your pace and ensure you understand exactly what you’re doing. Take your time, maintain the basics of grip, sight picture, and basic manipulations, and only go as fast as you can safely.

Dot Torture

• Range – 3 to 5 Yards
• Time – None
• Equipment Required – Two magazines, one magazine pouch, and a holster.
• Ammo – 50 rounds

Dot Torture is a training classic built around handguns and one ammo box. This drill gains its name from the target you’re required to use. The target has ten 2-inch dots. The target can be printed and found easily online. Each dot has an assigned task that ranges from five shots of slow fire to drawing, reloading, and more. Dot torture isn’t a single drill but a combination of several beginner drills that provide an all-around shooting workout.

There is no time standard, and the range depends on your comfort level and skill. I always advise starting at three yards and working your way back. This can be a great way to test some basic skills in a fairly low-pressure scenario. Plus, it eats exactly fifty rounds, which is perfect for new shooters with a single box of ammo.

The 10-10-10 Drill

• Range – 10 Yards
• Time – 10 Seconds
• Extra Equipment Required – Shot Timer
• Ammo – 10 Rounds

The 10-10-10 Drill is one of my favorite beginner drills. It’s a bit of a yardstick for new shooters. The drill uses a basic B8 target, which is a very traditional Bull’s eye you can find anywhere or even print one at home. The name explains the entirety of the drill. You’re firing ten rounds in ten seconds at ten yards.

Your goal is to hit nothing ten on the B8 target, but that’s something most people have to work towards. You’ll have to find the right balance of accuracy and time, and new shooters who tend to go too fast tend to miss fast. This drill works your ability to hold a consistent grip, track your sights, and control recoil, all very important skills to master.

The Failure To Stop Drill

• Range – 5 to 7 Yards
• Time – 3 Seconds
• Extra Equipment Required – Shot timer
• Ammo – 3 rounds

The Failure to Stop Drill is one of the oldest formal shooting drills, and with age comes adaptability. The drill is insanely simple. The shooter starts in the low or high ready position, and at the beep, they shoot two rounds to the chest quickly and then fire one well-aimed headshot. Different par times have been used historically, but I like 3 seconds for beginners.

This is a practical shooting drill that can be simple. You need a target with a chest and head portion. You can use any silhouette target, but I like to use a B8 for the chest and a 3×5 index card for the head. This gives you smaller targets and demands more accuracy. Being able to quickly place effective rounds on target is a critical defensive skill, and that’s what the Failure to Stop drill teaches.

Doubles Drill

• Range – 5 Yards
• Time – None
• Extra Equipment Required – None
• Ammo – 2 rounds per run

The doubles drill is a super simple drill that’s very popular with competition shooters. It requires you to fire two shots rapidly, and the goal is for those two shots to be as close as possible. You’ll start in the ready position and fire two rounds rapidly, aiming for them to be on top of each other.

We are attempting to control recoil and get the gunight back on target after our second shot is fired. You can use anything as a target, but smaller targets demand better control. A B8 works great because I want the shots in the X ring, and I can easily measure how far off I am. Focus on your recoil control, and you’ll also be exposed to firing quickly, which can be stressful, but this is a controlled effort.

The Five Shot Red Dot Drill

• Range – 5 Yards
• Time – None
• Extra Equipment Required – Shot Timer, extra magazine
• Ammo – 5 Rounds Per Run

This drill uses a red dot but can be done with iron sights. You don’t have a time requirement, but you should use a shot timer to record your times to examine if you’re getting quicker or slowing down. You should aim to go faster without sacrificing accuracy. Our target will be an 8-inch circle, which means you can use a B8.

Traditionally, this is fired from the holster, but beginners should start at a low readiness. At the beep of a shot timer, you’ll aim and quickly fire five rounds into the 8-inch circle. Your goal is to properly track your sights and keep all five rounds into the target. This means you’ll need to exercise proper recoil control, too, another very valuable skill.

After you fire the fifth round, you’ll conduct a reload and get the gun right back to the ready position. As far as beginner drills go, they are practical efforts that keep you trying to get faster and faster.

Beginner Drills and You

Beginner drills should offer very simple goals. We want to see an accuracy standard, a time standard, or both. The goals should be clear, and you should be working on specific skills. Until your skill level grows, you should avoid complicated skills like drawing, multiple positions, and even one-handed manipulations.

Drills offer clear goals that ensure you get the most from your range time.

About Travis Pike

Travis Pike is a former Marine Machine Gunner, a lifelong firearms enthusiast, and now a regular guy who likes to shoot, write, and find ways to combine the two. He holds an NRA certification as a Basic Pistol Instructor and is the world’s Okayest firearm’s instructor.

The PSA Sabre Enhanced Mixtape Vol. 1, “The Black Album,” is not a basic AR pistol with a catchy name slapped on the box. This is a purpose-built .300 Blackout pistol set up for shooters who want a compact platform with upgraded controls, a fast-twist barrel, suppressor-host features, and premium parts already installed.

At $999.99, this Sabre pistol comes in well below what many shooters would spend piecing together a similar build with a Maxim Defense CQB brace, Radian controls, Microbest chrome BCG, two-stage trigger, adjustable gas block, and Plan B-compatible muzzle device.

Top Features

• 8-inch .300 Blackout barrel with fast 1:5 twist rate
• Adjustable gas block for tuning different ammo and suppressor setups
• Sabre Plan B-compatible flash hider installed with Rocksett
• Microbest full-chrome BCG with Sprinco springs and OCKS fasteners
• Maxim Defense CQB pistol brace with H1 buffer and spring
• Radian Raptor LT charging handle and Radian Talon 45/90 safety
• Sabre Enhanced ambidextrous receiver set with flared magwell

Why Shooters Will Like It

This is the kind of .300 Blackout pistol that makes sense for shooters who do not want to buy a base gun and immediately start swapping parts. PSA packed it with upgrades that matter: ambidextrous controls, a quality BCG, a real two-stage trigger, a compact brace, and an adjustable gas block for tuning.

The 8-inch barrel and 1:5 twist make it especially interesting for the .300 BLK crowd, where compact size and suppressor compatibility are often the whole point.

Unbeatable Price

• Your Price: $999.99

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

The Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 Sport remains one of the most popular .22 LR rifles for inexpensive training, recreational shooting and introducing new shooters to AR-style controls. Palmetto State Armory has this range-ready bundle marked down to $399.99, including three 25-round magazines and a carry case.

The package delivers nearly everything needed for a full day at the range without the expense of feeding a centerfire AR-15.

Top Features

• AR-style ergonomics & controls — Familiar M&P platform for easy transition and training.
• Magpul M-LOK 10″ slim handguard — Add optics, lights, grips or bipods without fuss.
• Comes with 3× 25-round mags + carry case — Ready-to-shoot package; great value for range time.
• Magpul MBUS folding sights — Rugged, removable backup sights that fold out of the way for optics.
• Lightweight, low-cost shooting — .22 LR economy lets you practice more for less.

Why New Shooters Love It

The M&P 15-22 Sport pairs the look, feel, and controls of an AR platform with cheap, pleasant-to-shoot .22 LR. It’s ideal for training, family range days, and hours of plinking without the ammo bill of a centerfire—so you can build skill and have fun without breaking the bank.

What Customers Say

• “Great gun for a great price… twenty-two shells are a lot cheaper to shoot than 5.56.” — Kenneth S.
• “Ran flawlessly for 150 rounds — a ton of fun and perfect for first-time shooters.” — Joel P.
• “Excellent value. Endless fun at the range.” — multiple buyers

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $600.00
• Your Price: $399.99
• Click Here to Buy Now!

Live Inventory Price Checker

	M&P 15-22 Sport M-Lok 22 Long Rifle Semi-Auto Rifle - M&P 15-22 M-Lok 22lr 16.5" Threaded Bbl (1)25rd Muddy Girl	Brownells.com	$ 489.99
	Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 PC Sport .22 LR 18" - AR-15 Rifle	Primary Arms	$ 739.99
	Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 Dot Sight .22 LR 16.5" - AR-15 Rifle	Primary Arms	$ 489.99
	Smith & Wesson M&P 15-22 22LR Magazine - 25 Round (FDE Polymer)	Ammunition Depot	$ 25.49

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

Gun Owners of America is challenging the Trump administration’s defense of NICS Monitoring, arguing that ATF Director Robert Cekada’s description of the program leaves out its most dangerous feature: The FBI built a system capable of notifying federal agencies when legally eligible Americans attempt to buy firearms.

Cekada disclosed that only 61 ATF NICS alerts remained active as of September 17. That number sounds small when compared with the millions of firearm background checks conducted each year. It also counts only ATF alerts—not the full reach of the FBI system.

In a detailed response posted on X, GOA accused Cekada of making two false statements and three misleading statements about the program. The organization says federal records uncovered thousands of past NICS Monitoring alerts established by agencies including the U.S. Marshals Service, Secret Service, and Army.

Unfortunately, there are 2 false statements & 3 misleading statements in @ATFDirectorRC‘s post about the FBI’s warrantless “NICS Monitoring” program

1⃣ “[NICS Alerts] are NOT used to monitor lawful gun purchasers.” FALSE.

Think about what this means: If a person passes… https://t.co/N6qABbO0H6

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 18, 2026

GOA did not claim that thousands of those alerts remain active today. The more important point is that neither Cekada nor FBI Director Kash Patel has disclosed the current number of alerts across every agency using the system.

Passing NICS Does Not Make a Buyer a Criminal

Cekada claimed NICS alerts are not used to monitor lawful firearm purchasers. That assertion collapses under the program’s basic operation.

When a person passes NICS and the dealer is authorized to proceed, the government has determined that the buyer is not prohibited from receiving the firearm. If the FBI then sends investigators a real-time notification about that approved transaction, the government is monitoring a lawful gun buyer.

Suspicion does not change the buyer’s legal status. An investigation is not a conviction, a prohibition, or a warrant. The Second Amendment does not become optional because an agent opens a file and wants to know whether an American buys another gun.

As AmmoLand News reported, the Brady Act authorized NICS to determine whether a proposed firearm transfer would violate the law. Congress simultaneously prohibited federal officials from using that system to create a registry of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions involving people who are not prohibited.

NICS Monitoring turns that supposedly limited eligibility check into a federal tripwire. Investigators select a person first. The FBI then watches for future background checks and alerts the requesting agency when the person attempts another firearm transaction—even if the transaction is approved.

That is surveillance of lawful conduct, no matter what label the government puts on it.

“61 Alerts” Number Is Not the Whole Program

Cekada’s disclosure provides useful information about ATF’s present use of NICS alerts. It does not establish the size of the broader FBI program.

GOA says ATF is only one of several agencies that have used NICS Monitoring. Its response identifies the Marshals Service, Secret Service, and Army among the federal entities that established alerts in the past. Until the FBI discloses a systemwide accounting, Americans do not know how many people are currently being monitored, which agencies requested the alerts, or how long the resulting purchase information is retained.

ATF has narrowed its own policy since the program was exposed. That is not the same thing as abolishing the system. A future anti-gun administration would inherit the machinery needed to watch the firearm purchases of disfavored Americans in real time.

Gun owners have already seen where that road leads. GOA says the Biden administration used NICS Monitoring against people because they spent what agents considered too much money on firearms, bought the same models as their roommates, were connected to January 6, or were suspected of violating California’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

The Trump administration should not defend a surveillance power simply because its current officials promise to exercise more restraint than Biden’s appointees did.

The Program Became Public Only After AmmoLand Exposed It

Cekada also claimed NICS Monitoring was not secret because ATF published a policy governing its use in 2025. That formulation rewrites the timeline.

AmmoLand first exposed NICS Monitoring in April 2021 after receiving a leaked internal ATF document. AmmoLand provided the document to GOA, which then pursued the paper trail through Freedom of Information Act requests and litigation.

GOA says federal agencies delayed or ignored records requests, and ATF later obtained a protective order restricting the organization from releasing certain documents that the agency had inadvertently produced without its intended redactions. GOA is appealing that order.

A government program does not become retroactively public because officials acknowledged and narrowed it after a whistleblower, a news organization, a gun-rights group, and members of Congress dragged it into the light.

End NICS Monitoring

GOA’s rebuttal leaves the administration with questions that cannot be answered by comparing 61 ATF alerts with millions of annual background checks.

What statute authorizes the FBI to monitor the approved firearm transactions of non-prohibited Americans? What judicial authorization is required before the government watches someone exercise an enumerated right? How many alerts remain active across every participating agency?

The administration should answer those questions, preserve the records for congressional investigation, notify the Americans who were monitored, and shut the program down.

NICS was sold as a point-of-sale eligibility check. It should never have existed as a federal permission slip for exercising the Second Amendment, but even the Brady Act did not authorize the FBI to convert it into a prospective gun-buyer surveillance network.

Narrowing an unconstitutional abuse does not cure it. NICS Monitoring must be abolished.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

ANJRPC and Knife Rights are challenging New Jersey laws that criminalize carrying common non-firearm arms in preparation for self-defense.

New Jersey was forced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen to recognize the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns in public for self-defense. Yet the state still threatens those same citizens with prosecution if they carry a baton, defensive knife, larger pepper-spray canister, or another non-firearm arm because they anticipate needing to protect themselves.

That upside-down regime is the target of a new federal lawsuit filed by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Knife Rights, and four individual New Jersey residents.

The complaint, filed September 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, names Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and Acting State Police Superintendent Jeanne Hengemuhle as defendants in their official capacities. The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 1:26-cv-12401.

New Jersey Criminalizes Preparing for Self-Defense

The lawsuit challenges N.J.S. 2C:39-5(d), which makes it a fourth-degree crime to possess an “other weapon” under circumstances “not manifestly appropriate” for its lawful uses. New Jersey defines “weapon” broadly enough to include purpose-built arms and ordinary objects capable of inflicting serious injury.

The state does not categorically outlaw every baseball bat, hammer, or screwdriver. The problem is what happens when someone carries an otherwise ordinary object in anticipation of using it for lawful self-defense.

The complaint points to State v. Kelly, a 1990 New Jersey Supreme Court decision involving a mother who carried a carpet cutter because she feared encountering a former boyfriend who had repeatedly beaten her. He attacked her as she anticipated, and she used the cutter to stop the assault.

Although the court recognized that spontaneously grabbing a weapon during an immediate attack could be lawful, it held that Kelly’s “anticipatory self-defense” did not excuse possessing the cutter beforehand. In other words, New Jersey punished her for preparing to survive an attack she had good reason to expect.

The Second Amendment Protects Arms, Not Just Guns

The plaintiffs argue that this rule cannot survive New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which confirmed that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry arms in public for self-defense.

The constitutional text says “Arms,” not “firearms.” Knives, impact weapons, stun guns, Tasers, defensive sprays, and other bearable weapons therefore cannot be pushed outside the Second Amendment merely because they do not fire a cartridge.

The complaint also challenges New Jersey’s restrictions on specifically named arms, including switchblades, gravity knives, daggers, billies, blackjacks, metal knuckles, and slingshots. It alleges that these weapons are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes and are neither “dangerous and unusual.” Under Heller and Bruen, the state bears the burden of justifying its restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation.

The four individual plaintiffs show the irrationality of New Jersey’s approach. Three already hold New Jersey handgun carry permits but say they risk arrest if they carry lower-force alternatives such as collapsible batons or defensive knives. The fourth, Wendy Copenhaver, says she could qualify for a carry permit but presently prefers pepper spray in public. State law limits her to one pocket-sized unit containing no more than 0.75 ounces.

“New Jersey treats the means of self-defense as the crime itself,” ANJRPC President Kathy Chatterton said. “This is a law that enables criminals and disables victims.”

Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter said the state’s restrictions “cannot stand in the post-Bruen era.”

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the challenged provisions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, along with temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against their enforcement. No court has yet ruled on those requests.

The right to bear arms belongs to the people, not to a government that decides which defensive tool a peaceful citizen must use. New Jersey cannot concede the right to carry a handgun while criminalizing less-effective alternatives chosen for the same constitutionally protected purpose.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Connecticut cannot tell gun dealers whether GLOCK pistols specifically redesigned to resist illegal machinegun conversion devices will become illegal to sell on October 1. Now GLOCK is asking a federal court to answer the question before dealers risk felony prosecution.

GLOCK filed its 31-page complaint Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Glock, Inc. v. Griffin challenges House Bill 5043, enacted as Public Act 26-41, and names the officials responsible for enforcing it.

The company also filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the law takes effect.

GLOCK Says Its Current Pistols Are Not Covered

GLOCK first asks the court to declare that its Slimline, V Series, and Gen 6 pistols do not fall within the statutory definition and may continue to be imported, advertised, and sold.

Connecticut defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic handgun with a cruciform trigger bar that can be “readily altered” and “readily converted” into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law does not define “readily altered,” “readily converted,” or “readily removed.”

According to the complaint, GLOCK’s Models 42, 43, 43X, and 48 are too narrow to accept known machinegun conversion devices. Its V Series and Gen6 pistols use a “triple block” consisting of reinforced rear frame rails, steel domes in the slide, and a modified slide-cover plate.

GLOCK says a July 8, 2025, ATF report found that the system prevented the installation and operation of every conversion device tested on a Gen6 G19. ATF reportedly determined that the hardened steel bracket molded into the frame was not easily altered.

Since December 1, 2025, GLOCK says it has stopped manufacturing, importing, and selling new Gen5 and earlier standard-width pistols for the American civilian market, replacing them with V Series and Gen6 models. Slimline pistols remain in production.

In other words, Connecticut’s law may block the sale of pistols already redesigned to defeat the devices lawmakers claimed to be targeting.

State Police Allegedly Admitted They Did Not Know

GLOCK says company representatives met with seven members of the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and two State Police firearms-unit representatives on August 27. Using sample pistols, GLOCK explained why its current commercial models should fall outside the ban.

During that meeting, the State Police representatives allegedly acknowledged that dealers were asking whether new GLOCK pistols would be banned—and that the unit did not know the answer.

GLOCK then asked the chief state’s attorney and the other enforcement officials for a position. None provided one before the lawsuit was filed.

That uncertainty leaves Connecticut’s 659 FFLs, including 35 GLOCK Stocking Dealers, facing a Class D felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The complaint also notes that approximately 85 percent of Connecticut law-enforcement agencies issue GLOCK pistols. Public Act 26-41 contains no exception allowing covered pistols manufactured after October 1 to be imported or sold to police agencies, potentially interfering with approved-model purchases and warranty replacements.

GLOCK Raises Second and First Amendment Claims

If the court will not declare the current models outside the law, GLOCK asks it to strike down the ban as unconstitutionally vague and contrary to the Second Amendment. The company argues there is no historical tradition of banning commonly owned semiautomatic handguns because criminals can illegally modify them using devices already prohibited under state and federal law.

GLOCK also raises a First Amendment claim because the statute criminalizes “advertising” without defining the term. Truthful website listings, manuals, buyer’s guides, or dealer-counter materials could therefore be swept into a felony prohibition.

Connecticut wrote a criminal law broad enough that even the police unit overseeing firearm dealers allegedly cannot explain what it bans. The Constitution does not permit the state to leave citizens and businesses guessing where lawful commerce ends and a felony begins.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

One of the Gun Control Act of 1968’s core restrictions just fell in federal court: the federal ban on Americans directly buying handguns across state lines.

In a 2–1 decision issued September 18, the Fifth Circuit held that the combined operation of three provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 violates the Second Amendment. It reversed the dismissal of Elite Precision Customs v. ATF and rendered judgment for Firearms Policy Coalition, Texas gun dealer Elite Precision Customs, and individual plaintiffs Tim Herron and Freddie Blish.

The conclusion of the 17-page opinion could hardly be clearer: “The Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

This is a direct rejection of the federal government’s attempt to treat the lawful acquisition of a handgun as something outside the Second Amendment.

How the Federal Interstate Handgun Ban Works

The case challenged 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), and 922(b)(3), along with an ATF regulation that tracks those restrictions.

Together, the provisions prohibit an FFL from directly transferring a handgun to a resident of another state and restrict unlicensed interstate transfers. Congress created an exception for qualifying rifle and shotgun sales, but no comparable exception for handguns.

A lawful buyer can purchase a handgun from an out-of-state dealer only by having it shipped to another FFL in the buyer’s home state. That second dealer must agree to participate, normally charges a transfer fee, and adds another delay before the buyer can take possession.

Elite Precision Customs said it would sell handguns directly to nonresidents if federal law allowed it. Blish, an Arizona resident, and Herron, a New Mexico resident, would buy from the Texas dealer. Herron said intermediary dealers typically charge him $30 to $40 and delay the transfer.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that system for what it is: a government-mandated workaround for a transaction the government has categorically forbidden.

The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Buy Them

The majority opinion, written by Judge Jerry E. Smith and joined by Judge Kurt Engelhardt, relied on the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision in Reese v. ATF. That case held that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to purchase them.

That principle controls here. A person cannot keep a handgun the government forbids him from acquiring. Congress cannot evade the Second Amendment by criminalizing the seller or inserting a government-licensed intermediary.

The restriction does not escape constitutional scrutiny merely because the government leaves another, more expensive route open. It eliminates an entire class of otherwise lawful handgun purchases. It is a purchase ban—not an ordinary condition on commercial sales.

The holding reinforces AmmoLand’s recent coverage of the Justice Department’s conclusion that the federal under-21 handgun ban is unconstitutional. It also answers the dangerous reasoning adopted by the First Circuit in Beckwith v. Frey, which placed acquisition outside the Second Amendment.

Excluding acquisition from the Second Amendment turns the right into an empty promise.

Another Government History Lesson Falls Apart

Once the court determined that the Second Amendment covers handgun purchases, the burden shifted to the government to establish a representative historical tradition supporting its ban. It failed.

The government offered 18 colonial and early American laws. The majority sorted them into wartime measures, restrictions on trade with foreign sovereigns or Indian tribes, and early consumer-protection laws covering matters such as defective firearms and gunpowder quality.

None established a Founding-era tradition of prohibiting peaceable Americans from buying handguns across state lines within the same country.

The court also rejected reliance on a 1652 law from Dutch-controlled New Amsterdam. Its full text has been lost, its enforcement is unknown, and it arose outside the English legal tradition that produced the Bill of Rights.

The same problem confronts modern handgun-rationing schemes. As AmmoLand reported in the challenge to New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month law, governments keep assembling unrelated gunpowder, licensing, and Native American trade laws and calling the pile a historical tradition.

The Government Cannot Charge a Toll for a Right

The opinion also questions the added fee imposed by the mandatory FFL-to-FFL process, comparing such costs with unconstitutional burdens imposed on voting, marriage, and the press.

That concern fits directly with AmmoLand’s recent coverage of taxes designed to make firearms and ammunition more expensive. The problem does not disappear because the government calls the burden a transfer fee, tax, or administrative charge. A government that cannot ban a right should not be allowed to place a tollbooth in front of it.

Fifth Circuit Rejects the Second Circuit

The decision creates a direct circuit split. In United States v. Vereen, the Second Circuit upheld the same federal ban by relying on historical restrictions involving the movement of firearms across colonial borders.

The Fifth Circuit said that approach stretched the historical record beyond what it could support. Colonial borders and trade with separate sovereigns are not interchangeable with commerce between American citizens.

Judge Catharina Haynes dissented in a single paragraph, saying she agreed with the district court that the challenged provisions were constitutional.

What the Decision Means for Gun Buyers

The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, but the opinion does not provide immediate operating instructions for gun dealers. It should not be read as an invitation to walk into any gun store in another state and demand an over-the-counter handgun transfer while federal procedures remain unsettled.

The government may seek rehearing or Supreme Court review, and dealers will need clear guidance on how the judgment affects enforcement and their licensing obligations.

The constitutional holding, however, is unmistakable. State lines do not erase the right to keep and bear arms. The federal government cannot convert an unconstitutional handgun-purchase ban into a permissible regulation merely by forcing Americans to find another dealer, pay another fee, and wait longer to exercise a right the Constitution commands shall not be infringed.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Taurus is expanding beyond its established handgun, rifle and PDW lines and into the suppressor market with three additively manufactured titanium models covering rimfire, pistol-caliber carbine and centerfire-rifle use.

Announced September 18, the new TTX Suppressor Series marks Taurus’s first entry into the suppressor business. The lineup includes the TTX22 for rimfire and small-caliber firearms, the TTX9C for fixed-barrel 9mm platforms and the TTX30 for centerfire rifles. Taurus developed each model to complement firearms already in its catalog: the TX22 pistol, RPC carbine and Expedition bolt-action rifle.

All three suppressors use a titanium monocore, Cerakote C-Series finish and direct-thread mounting. Taurus also lists every model as full-auto rated and claims sound reduction of up to 30 decibels.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Taurus TX22 .22 LR 16-Round Magazine	GunMag Warehouse	$ 23.49
	Taurus TX22 Competition Optic Ready .22 LR Rimfire Pistol - 5.4" - 3x 10rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 499.99
	Taurus TX22 .22LR 16 Round Magazine, Black - 358-0017-01	Palmetto State Armory	$ 34.99 $ 24.99
	Taurus TX22 .22LR 16 Round Magazine	The Mag Shack	$ 25.99 $ 23.49

TTX22 Covers Rimfire Through 5.7×28mm

The Taurus TTX22 carries an MSRP of $299.99 and weighs only 3.71 ounces. It measures 5.5 inches long and one inch in diameter, with a standard 1/2×28 direct-thread attachment.

Taurus lists the TTX22 for .22 LR, .22 WMR, .17 HMR and 5.7×28mm. That gives the can substantially more utility than a .22 LR-only design and makes it an obvious match for the company’s TX22 line. At its listed weight, it should add little bulk to a rimfire pistol or rifle.

This is likely the model with the broadest immediate appeal. Rimfire suppressors are accessible, ammunition is relatively inexpensive and the TX22 already has a large following. Taurus now has a natural suppressor to offer the same customers who already buy its threaded-barrel rimfire pistols.

TTX9C: Built for Fixed-Barrel 9mm Platforms

The TTX9C has an MSRP of $599.99. It is seven inches long, 1.5 inches in diameter and weighs 11.5 ounces. It also uses a 1/2×28 direct-thread mount.

Taurus rates the TTX9C for 9mm, .380 ACP, .32 ACP and .22 LR. The company specifically designed it for pistol-caliber carbines, personal-defense weapons and other fixed-barrel hosts, including the Taurus RPC. Because it is intended to operate without a booster assembly, buyers should not assume it is configured for a conventional tilting-barrel handgun.

For an RPC owner, however, the TTX9C creates a simple factory-aligned combination: direct thread the can onto the carbine and avoid buying a separate muzzle device or mounting system.

TTX30 Covers Blackout Through .300 Win. Mag.

The TTX30 also carries a $599.99 MSRP. It measures 7.5 inches long and 1.75 inches in diameter, weighs 14.31 ounces and attaches by a 5/8×24 direct thread.

Taurus lists compatibility with .300 Blackout, .308 Winchester, 7.62×39mm, 6.5 Creedmoor and .300 Winchester Magnum. That puts the TTX30 in the general-purpose rifle category, with potential applications ranging from .300 Blackout carbines to hunting and precision rifles.

More Competition Is Good for Gun Owners

Taurus says the TTX suppressors were designed around gas-flow management, recoil reduction, thermal control and point-of-impact consistency. Additive manufacturing permits internal geometry that would be difficult to produce with conventional machining, while titanium keeps weight under control.

The remaining questions concern real-world sound performance, back pressure, durability, point-of-impact shift and availability. Those answers will come only after production suppressors reach dealers and independent testers.

Still, Taurus entering the market is good news. Suppressors are common-sense hearing-safety devices that never belonged under the National Firearms Act. More manufacturers, more competition and more affordable options can only help normalize their ownership.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

For a long time, I never quite understood the logic behind combining a compact slide with a full-sized frame. Plenty of manufacturers have leaned into this “crossover” trend, but the appeal eluded me. When Springfield Armory sent over the Echelon 4.0FC, I expected a high-quality, modular firearm that would handle exactly like the standard Echelon 4.0.

Springfield Armory Echelon 4.0 FC

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Springfield Armory Echelon 4.0FC 9mm - 4" Barrel 10rd CA Compliant 4 Mags	Ammunition Depot	$ 774.00
	Springfield Armory Echelon 4.0FC 9mm Luger Pistol 4" Barrel 18+1 Round Black Aimpoint COA	MidwayUSA	$ 1119.00
	Springfield Armory(R) - EC9409BFCLC-U - Echelon 4.0FC 9mm Luger 4" Semi Auto 10+1 Black Pistol	Ammunition Depot	$ 637.00
	Springfield Armory(R) - EC9409BFC15PAC - Echelon 4.0FC Gear Pac 9mm Luger 4" Semi Auto 15+1 Black Pistol	Ammunition Depot	$ 735.00

I was wrong. The Echelon 4.0FC handles differently than its predecessors, and in ways I didn’t anticipate. Before diving into the range performance, let’s break down the gun piece by piece.

The Build: Modular by Design

The 4.0FC (Full-sized Carry) mating of a compact slide to a full-sized frame provides a unique silhouette. Out of the box, the gun includes two magazines: a flush-fitting 17-round magazine and a slightly extended 20-round version.

One of the innovative features of the Echelon series is the Variable Interface System (VIS) for optics mounting. This system has already seen a bit of copy/paste by other manufacturers and for good reason.

It allows users to mount a multitude of optics directly to the slide without the need for a plate system. Instead of fixed recoil bosses, the VIS uses a series of removable pins to accommodate different footprints, including:

• RMSc
• RMR
• Leupold DPP

For those running ACRO or Docter footprint optics, an optional plate system is available. Because the VIS allows most optics to sit so low, you can typically co-witness with the standard iron sights.

At the heart of the gun’s modularity is the Central Operating Group (COG). This is a self-contained, serialized chassis system. It is easily removable, allowing you to drop the entire firing mechanism and slide into different grip modules.

For instance, a 4.0FC owner could move their COG and slide into a compact grip module for a smaller footprint. Springfield even offers small, medium, and large variants of their frames to ensure a perfect fit for any hand size.

Ergonomics and Controls

The Echelon is one of those rare handguns that is fully ambidextrous. Unlike many “ambi” guns, where you have to swap the magazine release to the other side, the Echelon’s release is truly ambidextrous out of the box. While some ambi releases can feel stiff, the Echelon’s are remarkably smooth. The slide release is also accessible from both sides.

The Adaptive Grip Texture covers almost the entire grip. It is aggressive enough for a secure hold but remains comfortable when carried against the body. The grip itself feels svelte and ergonomic, featuring a deep undercut at the trigger guard and a slight beavertail to encourage a high, controlled purchase on the weapon.

While the ergonomics are excellent, I’d personally love to see an additional knuckle carve-out on the trigger guard for the support hand. However, since the grip modules are relatively inexpensive, that is a modification “Mr. Dremel” and a file can easily handle. The package is rounded out by a flat-faced trigger with a safety dingus and a standard accessory rail.

Range Performance: Speed and Precision

To truly understand the 4.0FC, I shot it side-by-side with a full-sized Echelon. I discovered that while the smaller, lighter slide makes the gun feel a bit “snappier,” it actually feels like it shoots flatter.

My sights returned to the target faster, which measurably shortened my splits. At seven yards against an 8-inch circle, I moved from .23-second splits to .20-second splits by swapping from the full size to the 4.0FC. I even managed a .18-second split, though the second shot drifted just outside the circle. (Note: These were shot from a ready position without draw or movement.)

The sights seem to rock back into place with less jarring. My theory is that the shorter slide moves faster and, due to its lighter weight, doesn’t produce as much wobble at the end of its cycle.

Combining that fast slide with the leverage of a full-sized grip creates a very controllable platform. The larger grip also makes it easier to achieve a master grip before the draw, and for high-level shooters, the shorter barrel could potentially allow for a faster rotation upward during the draw.

Reloads and Manipulation

The longer grip is a massive benefit during reloads. I didn’t have to worry about the fat of my hand getting in the way of the magazine well. Even when reloading from a front pants pocket (having forgotten my mag pouch), I was able to jam the magazine in and go. The magazines drop free with authority, almost as if they want to escape the gun the moment you hit the large, accessible release.

I did occasionally run into an issue pinning down the slide lock with my thumb. This is a common occurrence for me with most modern handguns outside of a USP or 1911. While I wish the slide lock were slightly larger, the aggressive serrations on the front and rear of the slide make it very easy to sling-shot the action manually.

Accuracy and Reliability

In terms of precision, the 4.0FC is more than capable:

• 15 Yards: Created a tight, 2ish-inch group.
• 25 Yards: Went 7-for-8 on a reduced-size IPSC target.
• 50 Yards: Initially went 6-for-8 on an IPSC steel silhouette, then 8-for-8 after a slight adjustment to the red dot.

The trigger pull is light and smooth with a very distinct wall. While some have complained about a mushy reset, it didn’t bother me; I don’t ride the reset, so it didn’t impact my performance.

During a 500-round test using remanufactured 9mm, I experienced two malfunctions. Both were failures to fire. Upon inspection of the second round, the primer was fully indented, leading me to believe these were ammunition-related issues rather than a fault of the gun.

One interesting note: I noticed a significant amount of carbon blowing back onto the optic lens. I’m not certain if this was a result of the cheap ammunition or the gun’s porting/timing, but there was a notable amount of fouling.

Final Thoughts

The Springfield Armory Echelon 4.0FC is another successful result of the partnership between Springfield and H.S. Produkt. This experience has genuinely made me see the appeal of the crossover configuration and has forced me to rethink my assumptions about what kind of gun I carry.

The real beauty here is the modularity. While the 4.0FC officially releases on January 20th, the ability to eventually swap between a full-sized duty frame and a compact frame for deeper concealment makes this a highly versatile system.

About Travis Pike

Travis Pike is a former Marine Machine Gunner, a lifelong firearms enthusiast, and now a regular guy who likes to shoot, write, and find ways to combine the two. He holds an NRA certification as a Basic Pistol Instructor and is the world’s Okayest firearm’s instructor.

.45 ACP is not cheap plinking ammo, so when a solid name-brand load drops under 50 cents per round, it is worth grabbing. This Winchester USA White Box .45 ACP 230-grain FMJ is the basic range ammo most .45 shooters actually use. It is brass-cased, reloadable, Boxer-primed, and built for practice, training, and keeping your 1911 or other .45 ACP pistol fed.

A 500-round case is normally listed at $299.99, but the sale price is $237.25. Use code ALand5 and it drops to $237.49, which puts you right around 48 cents per round. For .45 ACP in 2026, that is a deal worth paying attention to.

Top Features

• 500 rounds of .45 ACP — 10 boxes of 50 rounds
• 230-grain FMJ bullet — classic range load
• Brass-cased and reloadable — good option for handloaders
• Non-corrosive Boxer primers — modern, range-friendly ammo
• 835 FPS muzzle velocity — solid training load for 1911s and other .45 ACP pistols

Why Shooters Love It

This is not match ammo, defensive ammo, or anything fancy. It is Winchester White Box .45 ACP FMJ, and that is exactly why people buy it. The customer reviews are mostly short and practical: buyers talk about it running well, shipping fast, and being good range ammo for the money. One reviewer said he ran about 500 rounds through an FNX with no problems, and another used it for a two-day class with “no misfires, no bad feeds.”

That is the real appeal here. If you need .45 ACP for range work, training, or keeping your 1911, Glock 21, FNX-45, or other .45 fed, this is a known, reliable load at a price that makes sense. The product has a 4.8-star rating across 15 reviews, with 14 of those being 5-star reviews, but the fair read is that buyers like it for basic reliability and value, not because it does anything exotic.

At $237.49 with code ALand5, this is the kind of deal that makes sense if you actually shoot your guns instead of letting them sit in the safe.

Unbeatable Price

• Regular Price: $299.99
• Sale Price: $237.25
• Price With Code ALand5: $237.49
  • Final Cost Per Round: ~ $0.48 per round

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 45 Auto/ACP 230gr PDX1 Ammunition 20rds - S45PDB	Palmetto State Armory	$ 35.99
	Winchester - 45 ACP - 230 Grain - FMJ - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 449.39
	Winchester 45 Cal 230gr JHP Copper Jacket 500/Box	Ammunition Depot	$ 146.49
	Winchester 45 Caliber (451 Diameter) Bullets 230 Grain Full Metal Jacket Case of 1500	MidwayUSA	$ 404.99

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

An Illinois concealed-carry license holder shot a masked, armed robbery suspect who reportedly approached him while he was pumping gas at an Orland Park Shell station. It is a textbook example of why the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm in public—not merely the right to keep one locked away at home.

The confrontation unfolded at approximately 9 a.m. on September 15 at the Shell station at 15100 Harlem Avenue. According to the Orland Park Police Department’s account, reported by CBS Chicago, officers responded after receiving 911 calls reporting gunfire in the parking lot.

Surveillance video shows a man dressed in black, wearing a mask and carrying a handgun, walking toward a driver who was standing beside his Acura and pumping gas. As the armed man approached, the intended victim reached behind his waistband, drew his own handgun and fired.

The suspect fell near the pumps before getting back up and attempting to flee. Police found him elsewhere in the parking lot with a gunshot wound to his cheek. Fire personnel treated him before transporting him to a hospital, where police said his condition was stabilized.

The armed citizen was not injured. Police confirmed that he possessed a valid Illinois Concealed Carry License.

A man was shot this morning after allegedly attempting to rob a CCL holder at a gas station near 151st Street and Harlem Avenue in Orland Park, Illinois. pic.twitter.com/9qGVBmWzhl

— Goofies Of Chicago (@Chicago_Goofies) September 15, 2026

Suspect Allegedly Had Stolen Gun and Stolen Vehicle

Police identified the suspect as 20-year-old Christopher Brown of Michigan City, Indiana. Investigators said both the handgun Brown allegedly carried and the vehicle he reportedly used to reach the gas station had been stolen in Michigan City.

Brown was placed under police guard at the hospital and charged with attempted armed robbery, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, possession of a stolen firearm, aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon while under 21, and aggravated unlawful possession of a weapon without a Firearm Owner’s Identification card or concealed-carry license.

Those allegations expose the central fraud behind Illinois gun control. The intended victim went through the state’s licensing machinery before carrying his defensive firearm. The accused robber, meanwhile, allegedly arrived in a stolen vehicle with a stolen gun and ignored the laws against robbery, theft, unlawful possession and carrying without government permission.

Carry Is Part of the Second Amendment

The citizen was engaged in one of the most ordinary activities imaginable when the threat appeared: pumping gas in broad daylight. He did not choose the time, location or terms of the encounter. Criminals do that. Their victims must react with whatever time and tools they have available.

Police responded and reportedly apprehended the wounded suspect, but no officer could have intervened during the seconds in which the armed confrontation unfolded. That is not a criticism of police. It is reality and precisely why Americans retain the individual right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment does not end at a homeowner’s front door. The right to “keep and bear Arms” includes carrying a weapon for self-defense wherever an ordinary citizen may lawfully go. A right limited to possessing an unloaded firearm at home would be useless to the motorist attacked at a gas pump, the shopper confronted in a parking lot or the worker traveling after dark.

This defensive gun use ended with the intended victim unharmed, the accused robber in custody and no innocent bystander reported injured. Police said their investigation concluded before the case was presented to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, which approved charges against Brown. Those charges remain allegations unless proved in court. Authorities announced no charges against the concealed carrier.

Gun-control advocates routinely portray armed citizens as a threat to public safety. The Orland Park surveillance video tells a different story: when an allegedly armed criminal selected his victim, a lawfully armed citizen refused to remain defenseless.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

The Justice Department sued San Jose and its police department on September 16, alleging that the city has put a $1,591 price tag on the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

That figure is only San Jose’s municipal application fee. It does not include state charges, fingerprinting, mandatory training, or the applicant-funded psychological evaluation imposed by the San Jose Police Department.

Under the city’s system, a first-time applicant pays $318 up front and another $1,273 when the license is issued. The federal complaint argues that the charge is not a legitimate administrative fee but an abusive financial barrier designed to make lawful carry impractical for middle-class residents and impossible for many lower-income citizens.

The Second Amendment does not protect only those with enough disposable income to satisfy anti-gun officials. The right to bear arms belongs to “the people,” not merely the people who can afford San Jose’s toll.

San Jose Made Carry a Rich Man’s Right

California law permits local licensing authorities to recover the reasonable cost of processing concealed-carry applications. According to DOJ, however, the San Jose resolution establishing the $1,591 charge does not attempt to justify that amount.

The complaint compares San Jose with jurisdictions that are hardly known for respecting gun rights. San Francisco charges $144. Washington, D.C. charges $75, Boston charges $100, Chicago charges $150, and Philadelphia charges $20. Even New York City’s three-year license costs $340.

DOJ does not concede that every one of those fees is constitutional. The comparisons show just how far outside the norm San Jose has gone.

The Supreme Court expressly warned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that a nominally “shall-issue” licensing system can still violate the Second Amendment when “exorbitant fees” deny ordinary citizens their right to carry. A city cannot replace the discretionary “proper cause” test struck down in Bruen with an equally effective wealth test.

Psychological Testing Adds Another Infringement

The financial barrier is not San Jose’s only attack on the right to bear arms. SJPD also forces applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation and pay the evaluator before receiving a permit. According to DOJ, California law does not require that examination, and San Jose’s municipal code does not authorize it. The police department imposed it through its own policy.

That turns a pre-existing constitutional right into a privilege granted only after a government-approved psychologist decides an applicant is “worthy” to exercise it. The Second Amendment contains no psychological-test exception, and it gives police departments no authority to demand a mental-health permission slip from peaceable citizens before allowing them to bear arms.

The policy compounds that constitutional abuse by leaving applicants responsible for an unspecified fee charged by an “authorized psychologist.” DOJ alleges that applicants receive no advance notice of the cost or assurance that it reflects only the licensing authority’s reasonable expense. After Bruen stripped anti-gun officials of their discretionary “proper cause” test, San Jose appears to have rebuilt the same gatekeeping system through wealth and psychological screening. The label changed; the unconstitutional presumption did not. San Jose still treats citizens as disqualified from exercising the right to bear arms until they pay the government’s price and prove otherwise.

DOJ Expands Its Second Amendment Civil-Rights Campaign

The legal vehicle is as important as the dollar amount. DOJ sued under 34 U.S.C. §12601, which authorizes federal action against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. Because SJPD administers and enforces the licensing system, DOJ argues that collecting the fee constitutes unlawful police misconduct.

This is not an isolated theory. AmmoLand has documented DOJ’s growing use of federal civil-rights authority against government gun-control schemes. The department challenged years-long carry-permit delays in Los Angeles, sued Montgomery County over its sprawling 100-yard carry ban, and targeted California’s Glock ban and handgun roster. DOJ has advanced the same civil-rights theory against Washington, D.C.’s bans on AR-15s and suppressors.

That is the correct principle: gun rights are civil rights. Officials enforcing unconstitutional gun laws are not merely making questionable policy choices; they are depriving Americans of a right secured by the Constitution.

DOJ seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction barring San Jose from charging abusive licensing fees and requiring corrective policies. The case is United States v. City of San Jose, California, et al., No. 5:26-cv-10508, in the Northern District of California.

For now, this remains a complaint, not a judgment or injunction. San Jose’s requirements remain in effect unless the city changes course or the court intervenes. But the message from DOJ is unmistakable: a government cannot claim to respect Bruen while pricing ordinary citizens out of the right it protects.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that the federal government cannot constitutionally threaten gun dealers with prison for selling handguns to law-abiding adults between 18 and 20 years old.

In a 49-page opinion issued September 17, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser determined that applying 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) to young adults violates the Second Amendment. Those provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibit federally licensed dealers from selling handguns or handgun ammunition to anyone under 21.

The opinion’s conclusion is direct: The statutes “may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers” who sell handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults between 18 and 20.

That is a major constitutional admission from the federal government. An American does not become one of “the people” protected by the Bill of Rights on his 21st birthday.

Adults Under 21 Are Part of “The People”

The opinion applies the constitutional test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and refined by subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

First, the government must determine whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the proposed conduct. The OLC concluded that it plainly does.

Adults between 18 and 20 are members of “the people.” Handguns are protected “arms” and remain the most commonly selected firearms for personal defense. The right to keep and bear arms also necessarily includes the ability to acquire one. Congress cannot avoid the Second Amendment by criminalizing the seller instead of the buyer.

Nor is access to private transfers or gifts an adequate substitute for being allowed to purchase from an FFL. Not every young adult has a relative willing to provide a handgun, and several states restrict private transfers. A constitutional right cannot depend on finding someone else willing and legally able to exercise it on your behalf.

The OLC’s conclusion tracks the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Reese v. ATF. The Fifth Circuit likewise held that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” and that the government failed to identify a comparable Founding-era restriction.

The Founders Armed 18-Year-Olds

The historical evidence is devastating to the federal ban.

According to the opinion, 249 of more than 250 colonial and early state militia laws required militia service by men between 18 and 20. The Militia Act of 1792 enrolled citizens beginning at age 18 and required them to provide themselves with a musket, firelock or rifle.

The same generation that ratified the Second Amendment did not treat these young Americans as a dangerous and disarmed underclass. It required them to possess arms and stand ready to defend their communities and the country.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment makes the government’s modern position even less defensible. At 18, an American may vote, serve on a jury, enter binding contracts, face adult criminal punishment and be required to register for the draft. The government cannot recognize someone as a full citizen whenever it demands responsibility from him, then revive childhood when he wants the means to defend himself.

OLC Rejects the “Infancy Doctrine” Excuse

The opinion systematically rejects the historical arguments courts have used to preserve under-21 gun bans.

The most important is the common-law “infancy doctrine.” At the Founding, people under 21 were generally considered legal minors, and many of their contracts were voidable. Gun-control advocates have tried to transform that general rule of contract law into a historical tradition of firearm prohibition.

A federal judge recently used that theory to uphold Hawaii’s sweeping ban on firearm acquisition by adults under 21.

The OLC opinion explains why the analogy fails. The infancy doctrine protected dependent minors from unscrupulous merchants. It did not prohibit firearm purchases, did not criminalize merchants and did not prevent cash transactions. A minor could enter a contract and later choose to void it. Under the federal handgun ban, an FFL who completes the sale can face loss of his license and up to five years in prison.

The two legal regimes target different people for different reasons and operate in fundamentally different ways. A rule allowing a minor to obtain a refund is not a historical analogue for imprisoning a gun dealer who sells a handgun to a legal adult.

The opinion also rejects late-19th-century sales restrictions as too late and too scattered to establish the original meaning of a right ratified in 1791. Most applied to legal “minors,” not adults as that status is defined today. College rules were similarly inadequate because they governed students, generally on campus, rather than disarming every adult under 21 throughout the country.

A Major Victory, but Not Yet a Repeal

The opinion is not a Supreme Court decision, injunction or act of Congress. Sections 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) remain printed in the U.S. Code, and the document does not itself explain when or how ATF will change its instructions to FFLs. Dealers and young adults should wait for clear implementation guidance rather than risk becoming a test case.

State restrictions also remain a separate problem. The opinion lists numerous states with their own under-21 purchase laws, and it does not purport to repeal them. Federal courts remain divided, with the Fifth Circuit striking down the federal restriction while other courts have upheld similar bans.

That division has consequences beyond academic debate. AmmoLand recently reported on 19-year-old Martinez Long, who lawfully stopped a gunman inside a Michigan mall but was prosecuted because the state would not issue him a concealed-pistol license. Age restrictions do not stop violent criminals from carrying guns. They leave peaceable adults disarmed and create crimes out of conduct protected by the Constitution.

The DOJ has now acknowledged the obvious: Adults between 18 and 20 are not partial citizens. They are part of “the people,” and the Second Amendment protects their right to acquire the quintessential weapon of self-defense.

Congress may have enacted the federal handgun restriction in 1968 under the banner of public safety, but Bruen does not permit the government to balance away an enumerated right. Without a historical tradition supporting the ban, the constitutional command controls: “shall not be infringed.”

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

According to sources in Congress and verified by CBS News, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not appeal the decision in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A United States District Court in Texas decided the case last month. The judge ruled that the National Firearms Act (NFA), as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs), is unconstitutional. The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act eliminated the $200 tax on those devices and therefore removed the requirement to register them with the ATF, provide fingerprints, and submit photos.

“Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power,” Judge Wesley Hendrix wrote. “And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”

NFA UPDATE

Read the full report from @CBSNews about President Trump’s personal decision NOT to appeal GOA’s victory in Silencer Shop v. ATF

“President Trump ordered @TheJusticeDept not to appeal a court ruling that loosened restrictions on firearms known as ‘gangster… https://t.co/QlW4uxNXFy

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 18, 2026

A tax must have a revenue-generating purpose, and the NFA is a tax, as the United States Supreme Court confirmed. Since the tax stamp fee was $0, it no longer generated revenue. The government argued that the special occupational tax (SOT) paid by federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to the ATF fulfilled the tax role, but the court rejected that argument. Judge Hendrix stayed his decision for seven days to give the government time to appeal.

The decision applied to current and future Gun Owners of America (GOA) members, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) members, Silencer Shop customers, Palmetto State Armory (PSA) customers, B&T customers, and SilencerCo customers.

All a person or store needed to do was join GOA, and the need for NFA paperwork on suppressors and AOWs disappeared. For SBRs and SBSs, a member could build them without an ATF Form 1, but transfers still required a Form 4 because the Attorney General must be notified. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Texas), Texas State Rep. Wes Virdell, and Brandon Herrera joined GOA at Silencer Shop headquarters for the first Form 4473 suppressor transfer after the stay was lifted.

The government did not appeal, and the court lifted the stay. Although the court lifted the stay, the DOJ did not give up its right to appeal.

The DOJ debated whether to appeal behind closed doors. As AmmoLand News first reported, two camps existed inside the Justice Department. One side wanted to keep fighting in court. The other wanted the department to drop all defense of the NFA. As the debate raged inside the DOJ, the White House phone lines blew up. Gun owners and advocacy groups pushed President Donald Trump not to appeal the decision. Members of Congress also urged the White House not to appeal.

Now, President Trump himself has stepped in. The president has ordered the DOJ to stand down, meaning there will be no appeal.

Anti-gun groups frame the decision as a return to the days of “Al Capone” and treat the items as “gangster weapons,” without acknowledging that the firearms used by those gangsters, such as Thompson submachine guns, are still regulated under the NFA. These groups also frame the ruling as if ordinary gun laws now give criminals new tools. The White House has pushed back against this characterization by pointing out that people who were restricted from owning firearms before the ruling are still restricted now.

“Anyone who would have been prohibited from buying a firearm under the old structure is still prohibited from buying a firearm under the structure that now exists after the federal district court’s decision,” a White House spokesperson said. “All federal criminal statutes imposing additional charges or penalties for the unlawful possession of a firearm remain in place and will continue to be enforced by federal law enforcement.”

Some people have used the court ruling to avoid charges. Cameron Ty’quiz Silmon was charged with having an unregistered suppressor and a machine gun. He joined the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) Action Foundation, and Gun Owners of America (GOA). Because those parties are protected through the injunction, the charges for an unregistered suppressor were dismissed for Silmon. He is still facing other charges. That move cut a decade off his potential prison sentence.

Now that it is clear the decision will not be appealed, gun owners will look to the ATF for long-awaited guidance. The ATF has been slow to issue any, arguing that it is trying to get it right to protect gun owners and their property from a future, less friendly ATF.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

FBI Director Kash Patel has now confirmed what AmmoLand News first exposed five years ago: the federal government uses the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to monitor firearm purchases by Americans who are legally eligible to buy guns.

That program is not merely troubling, overbroad, or vulnerable to abuse. It violates the law as Congress wrote it.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act authorized NICS to answer a limited question for a federally licensed firearm dealer: Is this prospective buyer legally prohibited from receiving a firearm? Congress simultaneously prohibited federal officials from turning that system into a registry of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions involving non-prohibited Americans.

The FBI nevertheless turned NICS into a warrantless investigative tripwire. Federal agents can select an American for surveillance, monitor that person’s future background checks, and receive an alert when he attempts to exercise his Second Amendment rights. No conviction, charge, or warrant is required. The government’s suspicion becomes enough to transform a lawful firearm purchase into an investigative event.

The FBI is using the machinery of the Brady Act to violate the Brady Act—and to monitor Americans for exercising a constitutional right.

The FBI Finally Admitted NICS Monitoring Exists

During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s September 15, 2026, oversight hearing on the FBI, Sen. Ted Cruz asked Patel a direct question.

“GOA discovered a secret FBI program called NICS Monitoring, used to track firearm purchases of Americans who were legally eligible to buy a gun but were suspected of a crime. Is that right?” Cruz asked.

“Yes,” Patel answered.

The answer lasted one word, but it confirmed the central finding of an investigation the federal government had spent years obscuring through redactions, litigation, and carefully worded policy changes.

Cruz credited Gun Owners of America, whose Freedom of Information Act work and litigation forced additional records into public view. That work deserves credit. But the original disclosure came from AmmoLand investigative journalist John Crump.

On April 26, 2021, Crump published “Leaked Document Shows ATF Spying on Gun Buyers Through NICS,” based on an internal ATF document leaked to AmmoLand. AmmoLand provided the document to GOA, which pursued the paper trail.

The people targeted by the program were not prohibited persons. ATF could ask the FBI to monitor someone suspected of possible firearms trafficking, straw purchasing, or another potential violation. If approved, FBI personnel would watch for subsequent NICS activity and alert ATF when the person attempted another firearm transaction.

The buyer would not be notified. The purchase could be approved. The subject could remain entirely eligible to possess firearms.

That is not a background check. It is surveillance.

FBI and ATF Directors Defend the Surveillance Program

Two days after Patel’s Senate admission, ATF Director Robert Cekada publicly defended NICS Monitoring. In a September 17 post on X, Cekada insisted that the program is “NOT a secret” because he published a policy narrowing ATF’s use of NICS alerts in April 2025.

Cekada also supplied numbers the government had not previously made central to its defense. He said NICS processed 14.6 million lawful firearm purchase or transfer checks during 2025, while ATF had used 343 NICS alerts since the revised policy took effect. According to Cekada, 61 ATF NICS alerts remained active as of September 17, 2026.

“Keep that in perspective!” Cekada wrote. He claimed every alert was tied to a documented federal investigation involving suspected straw purchasers, firearms traffickers, or other serious federal crimes. He further claimed the alerts are not used to monitor lawful gun purchasers or enforce state gun-control laws.

Patel then endorsed Cekada’s defense. In his own September 17 post, the FBI director called NICS Monitoring a “PUBLIC program narrowly tailored to illegal firearm traffickers and serious violent federal crimes.” Patel added that the FBI would “always back the Second Amendment.”

Those statements do not answer the statutory problem. They confirm that the surveillance machinery remains operational, that hundreds of alerts have been approved under the revised policy, and that 61 people were still being monitored when Cekada wrote his post.

The claim that the program is public today also rewrites its history. AmmoLand exposed the internal monitoring process through a leaked document in 2021. Cekada’s public policy was issued four years later, after reporting, FOIA litigation, and congressional scrutiny forced the program into daylight. Publishing a narrowed policy in 2025 did not retroactively make the earlier surveillance public.

More importantly, Cekada’s claim that the alerts are not used to monitor lawful gun purchasers cannot be reconciled with Patel’s testimony. Cruz specifically described a program used to track firearm purchases by Americans who were legally eligible to buy guns but suspected of a crime. Patel answered, “Yes.”

Government suspicion does not convert a non-prohibited person into a prohibited person. When the FBI watches for an eligible American’s future NICS activity and alerts ATF after an approved transaction, it is monitoring a lawful gun purchaser. That remains true even if agents have opened an investigation and even if the government believes the buyer may someday be charged with a crime.

Cekada’s comparison between 14.6 million checks and 343 alerts is legally meaningless. The Brady Act contains no small-percentage exception. If the FBI lacks statutory authority to use NICS as a prospective surveillance system against non-prohibited people, the program does not become lawful because the government uses it selectively.

The Brady Act Does Not Authorize This Program

The Brady Act directed the attorney general to establish NICS so firearm dealers could determine whether transferring a gun to a prospective buyer “would violate” federal or state law. That is the system’s assigned function: determining legal eligibility for a particular transaction.

Congress also understood the danger of giving the federal government real-time information about Americans purchasing firearms. Section 103(i) therefore imposed an explicit limitation:

No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may use the system to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a firearm.

The limiting language is not ambiguous. The exception applies to prohibited persons. NICS Monitoring targets people who are not prohibited.

The program creates an individualized federal system for watching firearm owners and reporting their future firearm transactions. Calling that process an “alert” instead of registration does not change what it does. The government selects a citizen, associates his identity with NICS surveillance, and uses the system to learn when he initiates another firearm purchase.

That is precisely the abuse Congress prohibited in the Brady Act’s enacted text.

Enforcing Brady’s Limits Is Not Defending the Brady Act

None of this should be mistaken for a defense of the Brady Act. The law was anti-gun when Congress passed it in 1993, and it remains anti-gun today.

Brady imposed a federal permission system between a citizen and the lawful acquisition of a firearm. It forces an American exercising an enumerated constitutional right to submit identifying information to the FBI and wait for the government to approve the transaction. A right that depends on a federal database returning the correct answer is being treated as a privilege—and the government has repeatedly proven that its databases produce delays, false matches, and erroneous denials.

Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text or the Nation’s historical tradition supports requiring a peaceable American to obtain federal preclearance before purchasing a commonly owned firearm from a dealer. There was no nationwide background-check bureaucracy in 1791, no federal waiting period, and no centralized government checkpoint recording the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.

The fact that the FBI violated Brady’s statutory limits does not make the underlying law constitutional. It makes the government’s conduct even more indefensible.

Federal officials took an anti-gun law that already burdened lawful firearm acquisition and expanded it beyond what Congress authorized. Turning the resulting database into a surveillance tool against people who successfully passed the government’s own test.

Gun owners do not have to support the Brady Act to demand that the FBI obey its restrictions. In fact, NICS Monitoring proves why Second Amendment advocates opposed creating a centralized federal gun-purchase checkpoint in the first place. Once the government built the machinery, federal agents found a way to use it for more than Congress publicly promised.

The answer is not merely to administer Brady more carefully. NICS Monitoring must be abolished, and the constitutionality of the federal permission system itself must be confronted.

The FBI Cannot Rewrite the Law Through Regulation

The FBI will undoubtedly point to language in 28 C.F.R. §25.9. The regulation permits information in the NICS Audit Log that indicates a violation or potential violation of law to be shared with appropriate authorities.

But that exception does not authorize the government to choose an investigative target first and then prospectively search for every approved transaction connected to that person.

There is an enormous difference between encountering evidence of a crime during an authorized NICS operation and using NICS to monitor someone because an investigator hopes a future lawful purchase might become useful. Under NICS Monitoring, the transaction does not generate the suspicion. The government’s prior suspicion causes agents to watch the transaction.

The regulation itself says identifying information from an allowed transaction must be destroyed within 24 hours. It also says allowed-transfer information may be accessed directly only by the FBI for auditing the use and performance of NICS, subject to limited exceptions. Most importantly, it repeats the statutory prohibition against using NICS to register firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions involving non-prohibited people.

No FBI regulation can enlarge the authority Congress granted. The executive branch cannot write itself a surveillance power that the statute expressly denies.

Buying a Gun Is Not Probable Cause

GOA’s federal court filing over the records states that the FBI and ATF were monitoring more than 1,000 people. It describes monitoring requests based on anonymous tips, financial information, concern that a man might use a shotgun during riots, and even the lawful habit of purchasing firearms, tinkering with them, and later reselling them at a loss.

Those examples expose the constitutional outrage at the center of the program.

Buying several firearms is not probable cause. Spending thousands of dollars at a gun store is not probable cause. Owning the same model of firearm as another person is not probable cause. Traveling, associating with other gun owners, or selling guns from a personal collection is not probable cause. Most importantly, buying a firearm is not probable cause.

These are lawful activities protected by the Second Amendment. An agent’s suspicion is not a warrant, a criminal charge, or a judicial finding. Yet NICS Monitoring allows that suspicion to turn the exercise of a constitutional right into a secret federal alert.

Americans would never tolerate a federal system that notified investigators whenever a disfavored person bought a Bible, attended a political meeting, or visited an attorney. The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and purchasing a firearm cannot constitutionally be treated as evidence of criminality.

Congress Must End NICS Monitoring

ATF restricted the program in 2025, requiring higher-level approval, written justification, and monitoring periods of 30, 60, 90, or 180 days. It also said alerts should concern suspected federal firearms violations rather than primarily enforcing state gun laws. Those changes did not make NICS Monitoring lawful. They formalized it.

Requiring more signatures before violating a statute does not cure the violation. Limiting unlawful surveillance to 180 days does not make it constitutional. Calling the program a “valuable investigative technique” cannot overcome the text enacted by Congress.

Congress should abolish NICS Monitoring. Then identify every American subjected to it, determine which agencies received alerts, and disclose how approved transactions were used. Records must be preserved for congressional and criminal investigation—not destroyed to conceal who authorized the program. Officials who knowingly violated the statutory restrictions should face consequences.

The history matters because it demolishes the government’s excuses. Congress did not forget to address firearm-owner surveillance when it passed the Brady Act. It expressly prohibited that infringement. The FBI ignored that command and turned a supposedly limited eligibility check into a tool for watching lawful Americans.

Patel’s admission settles the factual question. The remaining question is whether Congress will enforce the law against the agency that violated it.

The law-abiding gun owner will not tolerate federal law enforcement’s unlawful claim of authority to infringe on the Second Amendment right.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Moving from iron sights to a red dot on a handgun can be challenging for a lot of shooters. It’s not an easy process by any means. It’s a radical change that won’t deliver results on day one. In fact, you might find yourself shooting slower, with less accuracy at first. Don’t give up! To help you learn to make the most of your red dot, we have a series of red dot drills.

A red dot makes it easier to shoot faster, straighter, and further, but to see those results, you have to train. Train, practice, and optimistically seek professional instruction. The red dot drills I’m listing here are aimed at beginners and to help you transition from iron sights to a red dot.

I have five that should help you conquer your red dot-equipped handgun.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Holosun HS507C X2 MRS Red 2 MOA Dot / 32 MOA Circle Open Reflex Sight	GunMag Warehouse	$ 232.99
	Holosun - HS507C X2 - 1x - 2 MOA Dot & 32 MOA Circle - Black - Red Dot Pistol Sight	True Shot Ammo	$ 364.99
	Holosun HS507C X2 MRS Red 2 MOA Dot with 32 MOA Circle Open Reflex Sight	The Mag Shack	$ 309.99
	Holosun HS507C-X2 Reflex Red Dot Sight 1x Selectable Red ACSS VULCAN Reticle Solar/Battery Powered Matte Black	MidwayUSA	$ 324.99

Handgun Red Dot Drills 101 – The Presentation

Many of our drills will focus on learning to see the red dot as soon as you draw and get on target. That’s the biggest speed bump most shooters are going to have when moving from iron sights to red dots. Most shooters will draw and fail to see the dot. The window might be on the target, but the dot is often high.

For that reason, we are going to do a simple presentation red dot drill. Start with your gun holstered with a B8 target at seven yards. You’ll need one round per run. It’s not generally too demanding. A shot timer isn’t necessary, but can be useful as a go signal.

The drill is simple: draw and present the firearm. Fire one shot on target. Keep your arms extended and gun oriented towards the target. We want to go slow and perfect the presentation. As you draw and your hands meet on your gun, you should be able to see the front sight in your vision with the barrel pointing upward.

Push the gun out, and as the gun orientates and levels, your eyes should find the dot. In fact, the dot should be on the target before you’ve fully pressed the gun outward. As you extend the gun completely outward, the dot shouldn’t leave the target.

After you fire your shot, keep your arms extended, and I want you to observe where the reticle sits. With a proper grip, your dot should settle back to the point you fired. This is necessary for consistency and to fire that accurate follow-up shot.

Repeat this drill, going a little faster every time.

The Reversal

Another great way to get better at finding your dot is to work the draw and presentation in reverse. Start with the firearm extended and the dot on target, then reverse the presentation, breaking it down step by step. This is a great drill to do dry, but can be done with live ammo as well.

Start in the ready position, on target. I use a B8, but you can use anything. With the dot on target, fire a shot, and then break the position down. Pull the weapon inward to the pre-presentation position, but try and keep the dot on target until the gun dips below your eyesight.

From there, you can reverse the draw and reholster the firearm. Now you can draw and do a presentation drill. Then, repeat the process: start in the ready, fire a shot, and then break the form down, constantly looking for that dot.

There are variants of this red dot drill that can be done from the low ready or other similar ready positions. Start on the target, then break it down to your ready position.

Repeat this drill and its variants until you can get the dot on target as soon as you can get the gun on target.

Taped Up Mozambique

Another big issue shooters have with red dots is forgetting that it’s a target-focused shooting method. A lot of shooters have had ‘front sight focus’ drilled into their heads for decades. That’s a hard habit to break. This red dot drill helps you transition to a target-focused shooting method.

Tape some blue painter’s tape and cover the front lens with it. You shouldn’t be able to see through the optic. The tape forces you to focus on the target. If you focus on the dot, all you’ll see is the blue tape.

Set up a man-sized target; a silhouette of any kind works. I’m partial to the FBI Q target. Take a position seven to ten yards from the target and start holstered or in a low ready position. We can sneak some presentation practice into this simple target-focus red dot drill.

At the signal, present your gun and fire two rounds to the chest quickly and efficiently, then transition to the headshot. Make sure you keep a target focus. If the target looks blurry, you are doing it wrong. With a target focus, the tape is a non-issue. The dot will bounce all over your target and be superimposed over your vision.

The Mozambique drill allows you to shoot quickly and with precision in one drill. It will show you the accuracy and speed capabilities of a dot when you focus on the target.

The Return To Target

For the next drill, you can ditch the tape, or keep it. It’s up to you. What you will need is one round and a two-inch dot target. I typically use a Dot Torture drill for this target. It gives me ten two-inch dots, so it’s perfect for this red dot drill. Shoot this red dot drill at three to five yards.

You can start in any position, and this is not a timed drill. Take your time and get your red dot centered on the 2-inch dot. What we’ll do now is fire one round and recover. What you should see is your dot streak and likely ‘leave’ the window as the weapon recoils rearward and upward.

As the gun and you recover from recoil, observe where your red dot rests. Optimistically, you want the dot to return back to the 2-inch dot. With a good grip and proper stance, it should return quickly and be somewhere in that dot. If your dot isn’t returning to the dot, your grip or stance needs to be worked on.

There is plenty of debate among shooters on the best way to grip a gun. I prefer a semi-tight grip with my hands pressing together against the grip. My arms are not fully extended, but bent slightly at the elbow. Picture trying to open a pickle jar; you aren’t going to try and lock out your elbows to open the jar.

Bring the gun in a little bit. Get that solid grip of your choice and practice until the red dot recovers back to the two-inch target.

War Hogg Tactical Five-Shot Red Dot Drill

We’ve covered a lot of basics, but our last red dot drill goes a little faster. This drill comes courtesy of Rick Hogg at War Hogg Tactical. We’ll need fifteen rounds per run, a shot timer, and a B8 target. If you don’t have a B8, a standard paper plate will work as well. You’ll start from the holstered position, so bring your holster of choice.

We are going to start at five yards. At the signal, draw and fire five rounds into the target. Note your time and misses. With this drill, you’ll want to check the time for each shot and record the time for each shot.

Now repeat the drill at seven yards, and once more at ten yards. At each range, you’ll review your shot timer and time for each shot fired. The goal isn’t to make a particular time, but to observe the data the five shots provide you. You’ll be able to see how fast you can draw and how fast you’re recovering after each shot.

The goal is to push your personal numbers down. You want to be better than your last time. This drill works brilliantly with a red dot because you can see your draw and presentation times, as well as your ability to recover and fire an accurate shot. It’s data-driven and allows you to document and diagnose your weak spots.

Seeing Red

Red dots on handguns are massively beneficial. After a little training and practice, it’s like a cheat code. For defensive purposes, it allows precision while remaining target-focused and keeping your situational awareness high. It’s the future of handguns, but if you’re not prepared to train, then it’s not for you. Train hard, train often, and be prepared.

About Travis Pike

Travis Pike is a former Marine Machine Gunner, a lifelong firearms enthusiast, and now a regular guy who likes to shoot, write, and find ways to combine the two. He holds an NRA certification as a Basic Pistol Instructor and is the world’s Okayest firearm’s instructor.

Need affordable .223 Remington ammo for range day? Sportsman’s Select Remanufactured .223 Rem 55 Grain FMJ is on sale now at Ammunition Depot. A 200-round bag is marked down from $104.99 to $80.90, but AmmoLand readers can use code ALAND5 to drop the price to just $76.85. That comes out to about $0.38 per round with the code.

Top Features

• 200 rounds per bag for extended range sessions
• 55-grain FMJ bullets ideal for target shooting and training
• Reloadable brass casings with Boxer primers
• 3147 FPS muzzle velocity and 1209 ft-lbs muzzle energy
• Made in America and built for high-volume shooters

Why Shooters Love It

For AR-15 owners and .223/5.56 shooters, ammo cost matters. Sportsman’s Select remanufactured .223 Remington gives shooters a practical way to train more without paying premium new-ammo prices.

This is a strong buy for range practice, recreational shooting, drills, and keeping your ammo cans stocked without draining your wallet.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $104.99
• Price With Code ALAND5: $76.85

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 5.56 NATO 62gr M855 Ball - Lake City Brass - Box of 150	Primary Arms	$ 112.49
	Winchester 5.56 Ammo 55 Gr FMJ 150rds - WM193150	Palmetto State Armory	$ 99.99
	Winchester 5.56 MM M855 62 FMJ Lake City 420RDs STRIPPER CLIP (GREEN TIP)	Bereli	$ 525.00
	Winchester 5.56 NATO M855 Green Tip 62 Grain FMJ (Case)	Ammunition Depot	$ 564.49

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

Italian-made surplus Berettas under $300 are the kind of deal that makes gun owners stop scrolling. Palmetto State Armory has the Beretta Model 84 BB .380 ACP LE trade-in pistol marked down to just $279.99.

These are ex-Italian Police pistols that went through inspection at the House of Beretta in Gardone, giving shooters a shot at a real-deal classic Beretta with 13-round capacity, DA/SA operation, and old-school metal-frame quality for less than the price of many budget polymer pistols.

Top Features

• Classic Italian-made Beretta — proven surplus pistol with serious collector appeal
• .380 ACP chambering — soft shooting, controllable, and easy to carry
• 13-round magazine capacity — more onboard capacity than many compact .380 pistols
• 3.8-inch barrel — compact enough for carry, large enough to shoot well
• LE trade-in surplus — ex-Italian Police pistols inspected and proofed by Beretta

Why Shooters Love It

The Beretta 84 BB is one of those pistols that blends old-school craftsmanship with real-world practicality. You get a steel-and-alloy classic from Beretta, chambered in manageable .380 ACP, with a 13-round magazine and the kind of surplus history that modern polymer pistols simply do not have.

At $279.99, this is a strong buy for collectors, Beretta fans, and shooters who want a quality DA/SA .380 without paying modern production prices.

As with any surplus firearm, condition can vary, but many buyers report receiving pistols that were cleaner and better than expected.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP / Regular Price: $599.99
• Sale Price: $279.99

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Beretta Px4 Storm 9mm 4 10+1 (Polymer) Pistol	Ammunition Depot	$ 639.99
	Beretta 92XI Gara 9mm Luger Pistol 5.1" Threaded Barrel 22+1 Round Gray Slide Red/Black Grip Gray Frame	MidwayUSA	$ 1420.99
	Beretta So4 So5 Silver Pistol Grip Escutcheon	Brownells.com	$ 72.99 $ 59.99
	Beretta 1301 MOD 2 Tactical Pistol Grip 12 Gauge Shotgun - FDE - 18.5" Barrel - QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS ONLY	Primary Arms	$ 1699.00

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

If you’ve been waiting for a budget-friendly AR-15 that still delivers solid performance, this BLEM PSA PA-15 16” Nitride M4 Carbine with a 13.5” M-LOK rail is one of the best values on the market right now. PSA’s daily deal drops the price to just $469.99 and includes free shipping, making this a great opportunity to grab a reliable rifle at a serious discount.

Top Features

• 16” 4150V Chrome Moly Vanadium Barrel – Durable nitride finish with a 1:7 twist rate ideal for modern 5.56 ammo.
• 13.5” Free-Float M-LOK Handguard – Lightweight rail for mounting lights, grips, and accessories.
• Carpenter 158 Bolt Carrier Group – Mil-spec steel bolt with a properly staked gas key for reliability.
• Forged 7075-T6 Upper & Lower Receivers – Hardcoat anodized and built to true AR-15 MIL-SPEC standards.
• Cosmetic Blem Discount – Minor finish marks only; function and reliability are unaffected.

Why Shooters Love It

Palmetto State Armory rifles have built a reputation for delivering dependable AR-15 performance at a price working gun owners can actually afford. This PA-15 platform is perfect for everything from range training to a defensive rifle setup. The free-float M-LOK rail and nitride barrel give shooters modern performance without the premium price tag.

Because this is a blemished model, the only compromise is cosmetic—most shooters report they can barely find the blemish, while enjoying a significantly lower price.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $519.99
• Sale Price: $469.99

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

Anti-gun politicians who cannot ban firearms outright have found another way to attack the right to keep and bear arms: make exercising it progressively more expensive.

Second Amendment Foundation attorney and Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos T. Moros takes direct aim at that strategy in his second law review article, Excising the Second Amendment: Why Taxes Targeting Common Firearms Are Unconstitutional.

Applying the historical test required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Moros argues that taxes singling out firearms, ammunition, and related products have no well-established analogue in America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

His conclusion reaches beyond California’s openly hostile 11% “sin tax” and Colorado’s 6.5% gun tax. It also challenges the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax and National Firearms Act taxes to the extent they apply to commonly owned arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Special taxes on firearms are unconstitutional. That includes state-level taxes like California’s “sin tax,” the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax, and the NFA’s taxes prior to their recent elimination.

Read my new paper on this topic at the link below! pic.twitter.com/cJWUzUd9PX

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 17, 2026

California’s Gun Tax Shows the Real Burden

Moros distinguishes special gun taxes from ordinary sales taxes that apply generally to consumer goods. The constitutional problem arises when lawmakers target firearms and ammunition for an additional financial penalty simply because they disapprove of armed citizens.

California demonstrates how quickly those government-imposed costs accumulate.

Using Moros’s hypothetical, a handgun that would ordinarily sell for $500 in Los Angeles rises to $584 after the federal and California excise taxes are included. Add California’s $37.19 background-check charge and the city’s 9.75% sales tax, and the buyer pays $678.13 out the door.

A first-time buyer who also needs California’s firearm safety certificate pays $703.13, approximately 28% more than the handgun would cost with only the generally applicable sales tax.

That burden falls hardest on working Americans who need an affordable firearm for self-defense. Constitutional rights do not belong only to those wealthy enough to absorb every tax and fee a hostile legislature dreams up.

History Does Not Support Taxing Common Arms

Moros’s historical survey found no widespread American tradition before 1900 of imposing special per-unit taxes on commonly possessed firearms.

Founding-era militia laws frequently required citizens to own arms and sometimes protected those weapons from seizure for unpaid debts or taxes. Import tariffs existed, but they applied to broad categories of goods and were intended to encourage domestic arms production—not discourage Americans from acquiring firearms.

The relatively few 19th-century laws that specifically taxed weapons generally targeted bowie knives, pocket pistols, and other arms many people of the period considered “dangerous and unusual.” Those laws were concentrated primarily in Southern states, sometimes applied only when the weapons were carried, and ordinarily left the prevailing military and self-defense arms untaxed.

Some Reconstruction-era taxes were even used to price newly freed Black Americans out of gun ownership. Those racist regional outliers cannot establish the representative national tradition Bruen requires.

Pittman-Robertson Is Not Exempt

The paper’s treatment of the Pittman-Robertson excise tax may be uncomfortable for some gun owners because the money supports wildlife restoration, hunter education, and public shooting ranges. But a popular use of the revenue does not cure an unconstitutional tax.

If the federal government imposed a special tax on newspapers to fund public libraries, the worthy destination of the money would not erase the First Amendment violation. The same rule must apply to the Second Amendment.

Moros does not argue that firearms can never be subjected to ordinary taxation. His position is that the government cannot single out a constitutional right for an additional financial burden.

“A right that the government can price out of reach is not a right,” Moros said.

That is the heart of the issue. Legislatures that cannot constitutionally prohibit Americans from buying common firearms should not be permitted to pursue the same objective through discriminatory taxation. The Second Amendment says the right “shall not be infringed.” It does not contain an exception for infringements disguised as taxes.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

For Indian River County voters, the 2026 congressional election looks very different from the race they watched just two years ago.

A sweeping mid-decade redistricting plan signed into law in May dramatically reshaped Florida’s congressional map, including the 9th District. The new boundaries move the district well beyond the Orlando-area constituency that Democrat Darren Soto has represented since 2017, placing a substantially different electorate at the center of the race.

That change has particular significance for voters in Indian River County, where firearm ownership, hunting, shooting sports, and constitutional gun rights are a huge part of the local political landscape.

The redrawn district is attracting national attention because it is considerably more Republican-friendly than the district Soto previously represented. The Associated Press described the new boundaries as part of a Republican-favoring map that transformed several Democratic-held congressional districts, including Soto’s, into substantially more competitive contests.

For voters concerned with the Second Amendment, that makes the race worth watching closely.

Indian River County is no longer on the sidelines.

The new CD-9 reaches into communities that were not part of Soto’s previous congressional constituency. Indian River County now has a direct stake in determining who represents the district in Washington.

That’s a significant change from the political map under which Soto won reelection in 2024.

Soto has argued that the new map improperly breaks apart communities he has represented, particularly the Puerto Rican community around Kissimmee. His congressional office has publicly criticized the redistricting, saying the new boundaries divide Central Florida communities.

Florida Republicans, meanwhile, see the new district as an opportunity to compete for a seat that previously favored Democrats. The Cook Political Report has characterized the new district as dramatically different from the previous configuration, noting that Soto substantially outperformed the Democratic presidential nominee in 2024 under the old lines. The result is a race in which geography has become a major part of the story.

Soto’s record on firearms has also changed. For Second Amendment voters, another part of the story is Soto’s flip-flopping on firearms policy.

Soto’s political history includes a period when he received favorable treatment from the NRA while serving in the Florida Legislature. His congressional record, however, has subsequently revealed a far different agenda.

The anti-gun group Giffords endorsed Soto in 2018 and described him as a supporter of expanded background checks and other gun restrictions. The group also called him a “gun safety champion.” The organization’s candidate profile identifies his support for expanded background checks, legislation concerning firearm access by people considered “dangerous,” restrictions involving so-called “assault weapons,” “large capacity” magazines, and the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Soto’s previously favorable NRA rating certainly does not describe his current congressional record. For voters whose primary concern is firearm policy, the more relevant questions are what a candidate currently supports, how that candidate has voted, and what legislation he says he would support in the future.

Here are Soto’s documented votes:

• Voted against the 2017 Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.
• Voted for the 2021 Bipartisan Background Checks Act. House Clerk
• Voted for the 2022 federal “Assault Weapons Ban.” House Clerk
• Voted for the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. House Clerk

Dan Green is the Republican nominee. He won the Republican primary on August 18th, 2026, and will face Soto in the general election on November 3rd. Green is an Indian River County Republican and a former U.S. Navy Reserve Officer.

The Republican side of the race has also gone through a crowded and closely watched primary. Seven Republicans competed for the opportunity to challenge Soto. AP reported that the contest was extremely close.

That closeness illustrates why it is risky to assume that the new district automatically guarantees a particular outcome.

The redrawn map changes the electorate. It does not eliminate the need for candidates to organize, communicate their positions and persuade voters.

For Indian River County Republicans and independent voters alike, the congressional race now presents a very different political environment from the one that existed when the old district lines were in place. So Why Should Gun Owners Be Paying Attention? Well, because Congressional elections can have direct consequences on firearm policy.

Members of the House vote on federal firearm legislation, appropriations, oversight measures, and legislation affecting agencies such as the Justice Department and ATF. That makes a congressional candidate’s position on firearms relevant even in a state such as Florida, where state law already provides broad protections for firearm ownership.

For gun owners evaluating candidates, useful questions include:

• What legislation has the candidate supported or opposed?
• What does the candidate say about the Second Amendment?
• How does the candidate approach background-check legislation?
• What is the candidate’s position on bans or restrictions involving particular firearms or magazines?
• What does the candidate say about federal regulation of firearms?
• Does the candidate’s current record match his campaign statements?

The answers to those questions would provide a much clearer picture than an old endorsement or party affiliation alone.

The larger story of Florida’s 9th District is not simply a contest between two candidates. It is a test of what happens when a familiar congressional district is fundamentally redrawn.

Soto remains the incumbent, but he is now running in territory that is considerably different from the constituency that sent him back to Congress in 2024. Florida’s new map created several Republican-favorable districts previously held by Democrats, and the 9th is among the most significant examples.

For Indian River County, that means the community is no longer merely watching a congressional contest unfold somewhere else in Central Florida. And for Florida’s firearms community, the race offers another reminder that congressional elections can matter just as much as Tallahassee races when it comes to the future of the Second Amendment.

As Election Day approaches, voters will have the opportunity to compare the candidates’ records and stated positions, including their positions on firearms, and decide which approach they want representing the newly configured 9th District in Washington.

For a district that has been transformed by redistricting, that comparison may be one of the most consequential parts of the campaign.

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

Patrick “Tate” Adamiak is finally home. The former Navy sailor, who received a full and unconditional pardon from President Donald Trump after spending roughly four years in federal prison, announced his return to his family Wednesday in a deeply personal statement thanking those who refused to let his case disappear.

“After four and a half years and the biggest fight of my life, I am home,” Adamiak wrote on X.

The accompanying photograph shows Adamiak standing with his family before an American flag and a Betsy Ross flag. It is a fitting image for a case that became a national warning about what can happen when federal gun regulators, prosecutors, and courts are allowed to stretch technical firearm laws beyond recognition.

After four and a half years and the biggest fight of my life, I am home.

I could not have done it without each and every person who stood beside me, spoke my name when I couldn’t speak for myself, shared my story, challenged what was wrong, and simply refused to give up on me.… pic.twitter.com/ukrNkzVizN

— Tate Adamiak (@TateAdamiak) September 17, 2026

Adamiak Thanks the Second Amendment Community

Adamiak credited his family, friends, attorneys, gun-rights organizations, journalists, and thousands of Second Amendment supporters who continued telling his story while he remained behind bars.

He specifically thanked his attorneys at Fudd Busters and Welch Wright Law, journalist Lee Williams, and Reps. Eli Crane, Eric Burlison, Jen Kiggans, Rob Bresnahan, Daniel Webster, and Paul Gosar. Each of those members of Congress supported efforts to bring his case before the administration.

Adamiak also thanked Trump for personally intervening and returning his freedom.

As AmmoLand previously reported, Trump granted Adamiak a full and unconditional pardon on September 4, ending a 20-year federal sentence arising from one of the most controversial ATF prosecutions in recent memory.

Adamiak was a Navy E-6 and Master-at-Arms with no prior criminal record. His case involved cut-up parts kits, separated grenade-launcher components, inert RPG-style training devices, and other firearm collectibles. Adamiak and his supporters maintained that he never sold a completed firearm or anything requiring a federal firearms license.

Nevertheless, federal prosecutors charged him with five counts involving alleged machineguns and unregistered destructive devices. A jury convicted him, and the court imposed a 20-year sentence.

A Pardon Corrected the Injustice—But Not the System

Adamiak’s prosecution demonstrated how the National Firearms Act’s technical definitions can become weapons in the hands of an aggressive federal agency.

The case was not about a violent crime, terrorist plot, or criminal organization. It was about whether demilled parts, disconnected components, and objects marked as inert could be transformed into regulated firearms through government testing and then used to put their owner in prison for decades.

The Fourth Circuit later found that two counts violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because they punished Adamiak twice over the same PPSh-41 item. One count was vacated, but the government still sought to preserve the full 20-year sentence. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in May.

Trump’s pardon accomplished what the federal courts refused to do: it returned Adamiak’s freedom.

But a pardon does not dismantle the federal machinery that made this prosecution possible. It does not repeal the National Firearms Act, restrain the ATF’s shifting classifications, or prevent another collector from becoming the next federal target.

That is why Adamiak’s homecoming message was not simply a celebration. He warned that his experience could happen to any law-abiding gun owner and reminded supporters that other Americans remain caught in similar battles.

“The work has just begun,” he concluded.

Adamiak is home, and that deserves to be celebrated. Now the Second Amendment community must make sure the government is never permitted to do this to another American.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Glock’s latest evolution of the compact fighting pistol is here — and right now, Palmetto State Armory has the Glock 19 Gen 6 4.02” 9mm Optic Ready pistol marked down to $620.99, a solid 17% savings off MSRP. If you’ve been waiting to upgrade your EDC or duty setup, this is your window.

Top Features

• Gen 6 Ergonomics – Palm swell and undercut trigger guard for a higher, more natural grip
• RTF6 Grip Texture – Enhanced traction without sacrificing comfort
• Optic Ready Slide – Built for today’s red dot carry setups
• Flat-Faced Trigger – Consistent finger placement and clean break
• Enhanced Slide Serrations – Deeper, angled cuts for confident manipulations

Why Shooters Love It

The Glock 19 has long been the gold standard for a do-everything 9mm — compact enough to conceal, large enough to fight with. The Gen 6 takes that proven platform and refines it with smarter ergonomics, better recoil control, and a purpose-built optic-ready system. Whether it’s EDC, range training, or duty use, this is a pistol you can trust.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $749.99
• Sale Price: $620.99
  • You Save: $129 (17% Off)

Live Inventory Price Checker

	9mm Luger Magazines For Glock(R) 19 - Magazine 9mm Luger 15rd For Glock 19 Black 10/Pack	Brownells.com	$ 216.99
	Glock 19/26 9mm Magazine - 15 Round (Polymer FDE)	Ammunition Depot	$ 24.49
	Glock Gen 4 Glock 19 9mm 15-Round Factory Magazine	GunMag Warehouse	$ 23.99
	USED LE Trade-in Glock 19 Gen4 4.02" 9mm 15rd Handgun w/ Night Sights - USD-GLK-19-4-N	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99 $ 449.99

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.