Virginia gun owners are getting a clear look at how far the Commonwealth is willing to go to defend its new ban on so-called “assault firearms” and standard-capacity magazines.

In Crump v. Katz, plaintiffs John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation are seeking a preliminary injunction against SB749, Virginia’s newly enacted restriction on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

The defendant, Colonel Jeffrey Katz, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, has now filed his opposition. The brief does more than argue that SB749 should remain in effect while the case moves forward. It takes direct aim at the idea that Virginia’s own Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Virginia’s central argument is that Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution is not an individual Second Amendment-style right at all. According to the Commonwealth, Section 13 is a “collective, militia-tethered right,” meaning the right to keep and bear arms is tied to militia service rather than individual self-defense.

The state leans heavily on the wording of Section 13, which says:

“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Virginia’s argument turns on the word “therefore.” The Commonwealth claims that because the right-to-arms language is joined to the militia language by “therefore,” the right is merely a consequence of the militia clause and not a free-standing guarantee for individual citizens.

The brief also argues that the right-to-bear-arms clause was added in 1971, not at the Founding, and that the court should look to the 1971 ratification history rather than simply applying modern Second Amendment doctrine. The Commonwealth points to legislative debates from that period, claiming sponsors said the language created “no additional rights” and would not interfere with gun control laws.

That is the legal path Virginia wants the court to take: separate Article I, Section 13 from the Second Amendment, treat it as narrower than the federal right, and then conclude that SB749 does not violate it.

The state also pushes back against the plaintiffs’ reliance on federal cases such as Heller and Bruen. Virginia admits those cases may be informative, but says they do not control the meaning of the Virginia Constitution. In the Commonwealth’s view, state courts do not have to treat Section 13 as coextensive with the Second Amendment.

That is a major claim. If accepted, it would leave Virginia gun owners with far less protection under their own Constitution than they have under the federal Second Amendment.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Sabre AR-15 "M4A1" FN CHF CL 16" Upper w/ Quad Rail and Vertical Grip	Palmetto State Armory	$ 819.99
	PSA Sabre AR-15 "M4A1" CHF CL 14.5" P&W Upper w/ Quad Rail & Vertical Grip	Palmetto State Armory	$ 719.99
	PSA Sabre AR-15 "M4A1" CHF CL 14.5" P&W Upper w/ Surefire Warcomp, Quad Rail and Vertical Grip	Palmetto State Armory	$ 719.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Upper Forged 18" 6.5 Creedmoor Mid-Length 15" Knurled Slant Rail w/ Sabre Compensator	Palmetto State Armory	$ 769.99

The Commonwealth then argues that even if the court applies a Bruen-style test, SB749 still survives because the banned firearms and magazines are supposedly outside the scope of protected arms.

Virginia says “large-capacity” magazines are not “arms” at all. The brief calls them accessories, not weapons, because a magazine does not fire a projectile by itself. The state argues a firearm can still function for self-defense without a magazine over 15 rounds, so those magazines do not receive constitutional protection.

That argument should sound familiar. Anti-gun states have been using the same “accessory, not arms” theory to defend magazine bans around the country. The problem is obvious: a modern semi-automatic firearm depends on magazines to function as designed. Treating the magazine as constitutionally irrelevant is just a convenient way to regulate around the firearm itself.

Virginia also claims that so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines are not in common use for lawful self-defense. The brief argues that AR-15-style rifles are “weapons of war,” not ordinary defensive arms, and says they are more like M16s than handguns.

The Commonwealth cites federal appellate decisions upholding similar bans and relies on expert declarations claiming AR-style rifles and larger magazines are disproportionately tied to mass shootings and dangers to law enforcement. It also argues these firearms are “dangerous and unusual,” a category the government says falls outside constitutional protection.

The state does not simply say SB749 is a modest regulation. It argues that some of the most popular semi-automatic rifles in America are not protected arms, that magazines over 15 rounds are accessories, and that Virginia’s own right-to-arms provision does not protect individual gun owners in the way the Second Amendment does.

Virginia’s opposition also argues that SB749 fits within a historical tradition of regulating dangerous weapons. The brief points to laws involving trap guns, Bowie knives, machine guns, and older magazine restrictions. That is the state’s attempt to satisfy Bruen while also telling the court Bruen should not really drive the state constitutional analysis.

If the court accepts Virginia’s argument, the state could claim Article I, Section 13 offers little independent protection for individual gun owners. The Commonwealth could then treat the right to arms as something tied to a government-recognized militia purpose, while dismissing modern semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines as too dangerous for ordinary citizens.

Gun owners should be watching closely. The preliminary injunction motion is set to be heard this Friday, June 12, 2026, and the court’s ruling could determine whether SB749 is blocked before it takes effect or whether Virginia gun owners are forced to live under the new restrictions while the case continues.

For gun owners, this is not just a procedural hearing. It is the first major test of whether Virginia courts will treat the state’s right-to-arms provision as a real protection for individual citizens or allow the Commonwealth to narrow it into a militia-only guarantee while banning some of the most commonly owned rifles and magazines in America.

Virginia Judge Blocks State Police From Enforcing Universal Background Checks

GOA, VCDL, John Crump Sue Over Virginia Assault Weapons Ban

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

The Department of Justice just put Philadelphia on notice over the way the city handles carry permits, and gun owners should be paying attention.

On Tuesday, the DOJ announced that it has opened a civil rights investigation into the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Police Department to determine whether officials have been using a vague “good cause” standard to cancel licenses to carry legal firearms.

The Trump Justice Department is asking whether Philadelphia has been denying and revoking carry permits to law-abiding citizens based on bureaucratic discretion instead of clear, constitutional standards.

The investigation will be handled by the Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section, the DOJ office created to enforce the right to keep and bear arms as a real constitutional protection, not a second-class right. The notice letter, sent by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon to Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker, says the investigation concerns possible violations of the federal pattern-or-practice law that prohibits state and local governments from engaging in law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of rights protected by the Constitution or federal law.

DOJ says it will evaluate Philadelphia Police policies and practices regarding both the issuance and revocation of licenses to carry firearms. It will also examine how PPD enforces Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act. The review will be conducted under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

Philadelphia may now have to explain exactly how its carry-permit system works.

“I have directed the Civil Rights Division, through our Second Amendment Section, to defend law-abiding citizens from local authorities who infringe the right to safely carry legal firearms,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “Law-abiding Americans, regardless of where they live, should not have to worry that their city will revoke their means of self-defense.”

A carry permit is not just a laminated card. For many citizens in states without Constitutional carry, it is the difference between being able to lawfully defend themselves and being forced into helplessness by government policy.

Pennsylvania law contains “good cause” language for revocation of a license to carry firearms. It also requires written notice and a specific reason when a license is revoked. However, after Bruen, vague discretion is constitutionally suspect when it allows government officials to deny or cancel carry rights based on subjective judgment rather than objective legal disqualification.

If the federal government concludes that Philadelphia is abusing discretion in its permit system, other anti-gun cities will be put on warning. The days of treating the Second Amendment as optional paperwork may be ending.

DOJ was careful to say it has not reached any conclusions yet. The department says investigators will review relevant information, speak with city and police officials, and talk to people who have interacted with PPD. If DOJ finds no pattern or practice of violations, it will close the investigation. If it finds reasonable cause to believe violations are occurring, it will issue findings and seek a remedy with the city.

Should Philadelphia refuse to fix any unconstitutional practices, the Attorney General can sue in federal court.

Under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and its Second Amendment Section have started treating the right to keep and bear arms like the civil right it is, going after states, cities, and local agencies accused of using bureaucracy, delay, registration bans, permit games, and bans on commonly owned firearms to sidestep the Constitution. The same section has already targeted Los Angeles County over concealed-carry permit delays, the Virgin Islands over permitting abuses, Washington, D.C., over its continued restrictions on semi-automatic firearms, Denver over its so-called “assault weapons” ban, and Colorado over its ban on standard-capacity magazines.

Now Philadelphia is on the list, with Dhillon’s letter making clear that local officials do not get to hide unconstitutional gun-control practices behind vague discretionary standards.

For gun owners, the larger message is simple: the federal government is finally using civil-rights enforcement tools to defend the right to carry.

The Second Amendment does not stop at Philadelphia’s city limits. It does not disappear because a police department prefers fewer armed citizens. It does not yield to vague standards, anti-gun politics, or bureaucratic gamesmanship.

A city cannot make lawful carry depend on permission-slip politics. It cannot turn “good cause” into a blank check for revocations. And it cannot treat the right of armed self-defense as something the government may rescind whenever it becomes inconvenient.

The Supreme Court said the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. Now, the DOJ is asking whether Philadelphia actually got the message.

Discrimination Against Black Lions on Gun Licenses a Threat to All Gun Owners

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Plaintiffs in a major Second Amendment challenge have accepted a Rule 68 offer of judgment from Florida officials, clearing the way for a federal court to declare the state’s three-day firearm waiting period unconstitutional and permanently enjoin its enforcement beyond the time required for a background check.

Because the defendants saw the writing on the wall after years of post-Bruen litigation, they made the offer on June 5, and the plaintiffs took it the same day. The Notice of Acceptance was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in the case Mitchell James Dunn et al. v. Mark Glass et al. The judgment will now be entered in favor of the plaintiffs on all claims.

It’s a clean win with no trial and no drama. The declaratory relief spells it out: Florida’s waiting period under § 790.0655 and the related constitutional provisions burden the right to keep and bear arms without any historical tradition to support an arbitrary delay unconnected to background checks. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has already concluded that the provisions violate the Second Amendment, and the other defendants are bound by that conclusion.

“Every government office, including mine, exists to protect your God-given rights as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution,” Uthmeier said. “That’s why we’re settling a landmark federal case that declares Florida’s 3-day firearm purchase waiting period unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”

Every government office, including mine, exists to protect your God-given rights as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

That’s why we’re settling a landmark federal case that declares Florida’s 3-day firearm purchase waiting period unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. https://t.co/9ZSZjhTO3m

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) June 5, 2026

But the state didn’t just lose on paper. Once the final judgment is entered, defendants and everyone acting with them are permanently enjoined from requiring retailers to hold firearms longer than it takes to complete a background check. They have seven days to notify all relevant state agencies and law enforcement that enforcement has stopped.

So, what does this actually mean for gun buyers walking into a Florida store? If your NICS check clears in a day or even a few hours, the dealer can complete the sale and let you leave with the firearm. No more forced three-day hold.

Retailers won’t have to turn customers away or schedule second trips just to follow a rule that no longer exists. This development represents a significant change in the legal landscape.

Consequently, firearm purchasers and dealers in Florida are no longer subject to the arbitrary three-day waiting period. The acceptance filing asks for exactly what the offer contained: judgment on all claims, the specific declaratory and injunctive relief, and ten thousand dollars in attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs explicitly waived damages because the point was always to stop the unconstitutional enforcement, not to collect money.

The certificate of service shows how fast it moved. Defendants served the offer by email through counsel on June 5. Plaintiffs accepted the same day by email. Then the notice was filed electronically, so every lawyer on the case got immediate notice through the court’s CM/ECF system.

This outcome rewards the work of the individual plaintiffs, the two Florida gun stores, and the NRA, along with their attorneys from Mountain States Legal Foundation and the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action. It also puts other states on notice that similar waiting periods without historical grounding are vulnerable.

If you’re a gun owner or dealer in Florida, one less unconstitutional obstacle just disappeared between you and your rights. The background check still happens. The extra mandatory wait does not.

Gun Owners Sound Alarm Over New Jersey Glock Subpoenas

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.

“The hat a Michigan third grader wore for her school’s ‘Great Kindness Challenge’ in 2022 featured an image of an AR-style rifle and the phrase ‘come and take it,’” USA Today reported Wednesday. “The Supreme Court on June 8 declined to review lower court rulings that the school did not violate the student’s free speech rights by prohibiting the hat.”

“In the Michigan student’s unsuccessful appeal, her lawyers argued school officials provided no evidence that the hat was disruptive because their real motivation was to silence a viewpoint with which they disagreed,” the report – a rare story from USA Today/Gannett Publications that does not kneejerk attack the right to keep and bear arms – elaborates. “Rather than take the opportunity to convey to a bright, politically aware 8-year-old that her voice and thoughts matter, school officials instead told her to sit down and shut up − presumably because they personally don’t like the Second Amendment or the rights it protects,” it goes on to quote lawyers for the student’s father.

It’s emblematic of the bullying that teachers and administrators subject any student to who deviates from the anti-gun propaganda being used to indoctrinate young minds and manipulate developing political beliefs and attitudes. It typically stays below the radar until events bring it to the fore, such as adult-organized, publicized and funded student walkouts against guns, or on a more up-close, personal, and ludicrous level, suspensions over LEGO guns and the like.

And now, with the advent of the (“gun-free”) United States Semiquincentennial celebrations, and the opposition by all who view them as opportunities to disparage President Donald Trump (and anyone who believes in the America First principles he campaigned on), they’ll have another opportunity to attack children who believe the nexus between the right to arms and freedom merits being recognized.

Freedom 250 has announced its American Heroes Student Art Contest, noting the eligibility of “Any student in grades 3–12 who is a legal resident of any of the 50 states or 6 U.S. territories is eligible to enter.”

“Participating students should create and submit an original, handmade two-dimensional artwork and a 200-word artist statement (100 words for elementary students),” the submission requirements state. And while the “heroes” to be honored come from a pre-selected list (which is arguably a presumptive and un-American bit of censorship), it’s not hard to see why submissions for legendary names like Daniel Boone, “Buffalo Bill” Cody, Davy Crockett (talk about “Come and take it”!), Audie Murphy, or Alvin York would appropriately include guns in the design. Noting actor and former NRA President Charlton Heston is also on the list, a “From my cold dead hands” poster would seem a natural.

“With the help of a parent, guardian, or teacher, submit your artwork onto the ArtCall Submission Platform with a high-resolution photo or digital scan, along with the artist statement,” the rules further instruct.

Teachers have been known to report students over perceived off-campus gun concerns before, even when no cause for them existed. Cases in point:

• 4th grader suspended for having a BB gun in his bedroom during virtual learning
• What Teachers Spy in Homes over Zoom Winds Up in Court (Visible guns, Trump banners get students in trouble)
• 12-year-old suspended in Colorado over toy gun seen in virtual class

We could go on, but the point is made. Who thinks the envisioned Heston poster would result in anything other than a world of hurt if a prohibitionist teacher or administrator got wind of it?

Now imagine such an entry actually winning an award:

“Up to 168 first-place awardees (up to 1 student from each age group category representing 56 each state and territory) and their designated parent/guardian will receive a travel and lodging allowance to travel to Washington, D.C., July 7-9, 2026, to attend a Student Art Exhibition and Award Ceremony at the Great American State Fair, recognizing state, regional, and overall winners.”

That would certainly seem to be an achievement worth their school’s recognition, approval and praise. Who thinks that’s how  a win would be treated in a “deep blue” school district?

By taking a pass on the “Come and Take It” hat challenge, the Supreme Court has left the greater portion of “our Posterity” in public schools at the mercy of the Randy Weingarten-types for “approved” ideologies on guns and more.

Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms

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.

If you’ve been waiting to stock up on affordable .223 for training and range days, this is the move. Ammunition Depot has 1,000 rounds of PMC Bronze .223 Rem 55gr FMJ BT marked down to $441.27 when you use code ALand5 at checkout.

Top Features

• 55 Grain FMJ Boat-Tail – Reliable feeding & consistent accuracy
• 2900 FPS Muzzle Velocity – Solid performance in AR-15 platforms
• Reloadable Brass Casings – Boxer-primed & range-friendly
• Precision Made Cartridge (PMC) – Fully in-house component production
• Available in 20rd Box, 120rd Bundle, or 1,000rd Case

Why Shooters Love It

PMC Bronze has earned its reputation as dependable, no-drama range ammo. It runs clean, cycles reliably, and delivers repeatable accuracy for drills, competition prep, and high-volume practice. At this price point, it’s hard to beat for stacking deep without overpaying.

With code ALand5, the case drops to under $0.44 per round — a strong buy in today’s market.

Customer Feedback

Never had an issue with anything PMC good for training and duty.

Great ammo for practicing with. We ran through half of the ammo with no issues whatsoever.

Ammo functions well and is as accurate as the person firing it.

Unbeatable Price Breakdown

• MSRP: $499.99
• Sale Price: $462.69
• Final Price w/ Code ALand5: $441.27
  • You Save: $60.43 off MSRP
  • Only: ~$0.44 per round

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PMC Bronze .223 Remington Ammo 55gr FMJBT 20 Rounds	GunMag Warehouse	$ 9.49
	Pmc Bronze .25 Acp Handgun Ammunition - Bronze 25 Auto 50gr Full Metal Jacket 50/Box	Brownells.com	$ 21.99
	PMC Bronze 9mm 124 Gr FMJ / PMC SFX 9mm 124 Gr StarFire HP 150 Rounds in Heavy Duty Ammo Can Bundle	Ammunition Depot	$ 99.99 $ 63.89
	PMC Bronze .40 S&W 165gr Jacket Hollow Point Ammo - Box of 50	Primary Arms	$ 34.99

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

Still the Best Price on 9mm Today! – This Will Sell Out!

If you’ve been waiting for a cheap way to stock up on range ammo, this Sportsman’s Select Remanufactured 9mm 115-grain FMJ deal is worth a look. Ammunition Depot lists the 1,000-round bulk option at $199.99, and with code ALAND5 at checkout, the price drops to $194.74, bringing it in at under 20¢ per round for brass-cased 9mm target ammo. The load uses a 115-grain FMJ bullet in remanufactured brass and is a budget-friendly practice option built for high-volume range sessions.

Top Features

• 200 rounds of 9mm 115-grain FMJ – perfect for high-volume range days.
• Quality remanufactured brass casings for consistent performance.
• Made in the USA with care and precision.
• Clean-feeding design ensures smooth cycling in most 9mm pistols.
• Bulk packaging = less waste and better value.

Why 9mm Shooters Love It:

This Sportsman’s Select 9mm FMJ ammo is the sweet spot for budget-conscious shooters who demand reliability. The 115-grain load delivers reduced recoil and solid accuracy—ideal for extended range time, new shooter training, or just plinking for fun.

History of 9mm Luger, The Most Prolific Centerfire Pistol Round ~VIDEO

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $239.99
• Your Price: $194.74
• Click Here to Buy Now!

Live Inventory Price Checker

	9mm 115gr Fmj Ammo Can 500 Rounds - 9mm 115gr Fmj Ammo Can 500ct	Brownells.com	$ 147.99
	Hornady Ready Defense 150rd Ammo Can, 50rds Critical Defense JHP 9mm 115gr. 100rds 9mm 115gr FMJ - 90272	Palmetto State Armory	$ 99.99 $ 79.99
	Magtech 9mm 115gr FMJ Steel Case Ammo - Box of 50	Primary Arms	$ 9.99
	Federal C9115A500 9mm 115gr FMJ Training 500 Rounds Bulk	Bereli	$ 140.00

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

The en banc Ninth Circuit heard argument in Baird v. Bonta, and California’s position came through loud and clear: the state believes it can criminalize open carry so long as it leaves gun owners with a government-permission slip for concealed carry.

Mark Baird is challenging California Penal Code sections 25850 and 26350, which restrict the open carry of firearms. A Ninth Circuit three-judge panel previously ruled that California’s open-carry ban in counties with more than 200,000 people violated the Second Amendment. California then sought rehearing en banc, and the full court has now taken up the fight.

Baird’s attorney, Amy Bellantoni, opened by asking the court to reverse the district court and enter judgment for Baird.

“The district court never addressed the threshold constitutional defect in this case,” Bellantoni argued. That defect, she said, is California’s “criminalization of presumptively protected conduct” under the Second Amendment.

She told the court the challenged statutes “criminalize presumptively protected conduct protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms.” When asked whether concealed carry is also protected, Bellantoni answered that the conduct at issue is public carry, while making clear that this case is focused on open carry.

“I would say it’s presumptively protected because the plaintiff’s proposed conduct is to carry in public,” she said.

California’s lawyer, Samuel Harbert, predictably, took the opposite approach. He argued that Bruen allows states to regulate the “manner of carry” so long as they do not ban public carry altogether.

California’s argument is that the state is not destroying the right to bear arms because licensed concealed carry remains available.

“Far from prohibiting public carry altogether,” Harbert argued, “California law allows for licensed concealed carry in every county across the state.”

That answer did not go unchallenged. Judge Nelson asked how many concealed carry licenses California has issued.

“For concealed carry? I’m not sure, Your Honor,” Harbert answered.

California wants the court to accept its limited “shall-issue” concealed carry license as a substitute for open carry, but its lawyer could not tell the court how many people are actually getting licenses.

The court also spent considerable time on the procedural posture of the case. Judges pressed Bellantoni on whether Baird was bringing a facial challenge, an as-applied challenge, or something in between. Bellantoni emphasized that the case is not a challenge to one sheriff’s licensing decision, but a challenge to criminal statutes as they apply to open carry.

“This is not a licensing challenge,” she said. “This is a challenge to criminal statutes.”

California argued that Baird is seeking facial relief, which would trigger a tougher standard. Harbert said California views the test as the Salerno “all applications” standard. That issue could give the en banc court an off-ramp if it wants to avoid directly admitting that California’s historical argument is weak.

The strongest part of Baird’s case came in history. Bellantoni argued that even if Bruen allows one form of carry to be regulated, the historical tradition supports restrictions on concealed carry, not open carry.

“There’s no longstanding tradition of affecting or infringing on or regulating the open carriage of weapons,” she told the court.

That is the problem California cannot get around. The historical record goes against the state. Old laws and cases disfavored concealed carry because it was seen as stealthy. Open carry was the accepted mode of bearing arms. California is now trying to flip that tradition upside down.

Judge Lee pressed California hard on that point. He noted that “open carry was not regulated at all in the founding era or post-14th Amendment,” while concealed carry was restricted. He later pointed out the obvious distinction: “One was regulated, one was not.”

California’s response was to broaden the level of generality. Harbert argued that under Rahimi, courts should not look for a perfect historical twin but should instead identify a broader principle. The broader principle California wants is that governments historically regulated the manner of carry.

That kind of argument is exactly how anti-gun states try to water down Bruen. If the government can define the historical tradition broadly enough, almost any modern restriction can be squeezed into some vague category of “regulation.”

When asked whether California treats open carry and concealed carry as essentially interchangeable, Harbert answered, “I think that is the practical consequence of our view.”

California does not have a founding-era tradition of banning peaceable open carry. Instead, it wants the court to say concealed carry is good enough, and therefore open carry can be criminalized.

California also leaned on public safety. Harbert argued that modern firearms are “far more dangerous,” “more accurate,” and “more fast-loading.” He also argued open carry creates problems for police responding to shootings because officers must quickly determine “who the bad guys are and who the good guys are.”

Bellantoni rejected that kind of interest balancing on rebuttal.

“The Supreme Court has been very clear that the interest balancing took place at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified,” she said. “This Court respectfully cannot consider public safety concerns.”

In closing, Bellantoni noted that open carry went unregulated in California for 117 years after statehood.

“That just leaves us with no protected right at all if the government can just flip-flop on exactly what the right means,” she argued.

If the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and the historical record protects open carry rather than banning it, then California should not be allowed to criminalize open carry by pointing to concealed carry as a government-approved substitute.

California’s entire theory depends on stretching Bruen beyond what the Supreme Court actually said. The state insists Bruen, through footnote 9, allows a government to “lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry,” so long as another form remains available. But that language came in the context of historical restrictions on concealed carry and modern shall-issue licensing, not a green light for states to criminalize open carry.

Baird’s counsel correctly pointed out that the historical examples discussed in Bruen involved concealed weapons, which were viewed as stealthy and dangerous, while open carry was treated as the protected and accepted mode of bearing arms.

California’s reading turns that history on its head. It takes a discussion about concealed-carry restrictions and converts it into permission to ban open carry, even though the state could not identify a comparable historical tradition of banning peaceable open carry. That is not applying Bruen; it is rewriting it.

The case is now submitted. The Second Amendment Foundation, watching the argument live and posting a thread on X, was not optimistic. SAF’s thread suggested the vote count may be “maybe 3 votes for Baird, 4 at very best,” calling it a “likely loss.” That is only a prediction, not a ruling, but it tracks the danger in this case. The Ninth Circuit may use the facial-challenge issue or California’s broad “manner of carry” theory to uphold the ban.

If that happens, the transcript will still clearly show the issue. Baird had the history. Under Bruen, that should matter. Whether the en banc Ninth Circuit will let it matter is the question gun owners are now waiting to see answered.

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead 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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Barrett Firearms is pushing the U.S. Army’s MK 22 sniper system into the next phase of battlefield flexibility with a new 6.8x51mm caliber conversion kit now under development and evaluation.

The Tennessee-based firearms maker said in a company release that the independently funded project is aimed at giving warfighters the ability to run the Army’s high-pressure 6.8x51mm cartridge through the already fielded Barrett MRAD MK 22 Advanced Sniper Rifle system. If successful, the conversion would pair the proven modular sniper platform with the same next-generation cartridge family used in the Army’s M7 rifle and M250 automatic rifle programs.

The new caliber conversion kit is being developed to support the high-pressure, high-performance 6.8x51mm cartridge used across the U.S. Army’s next-generation small arms platforms, including the M7 Rifle, M250 Automatic Rifle and M157 Fire Control system. The conversion kit is intended to provide increased flexibility for warfighters seeking to employ the enhanced terminal performance characteristics of 6.8x51mm ammunition within the in-service MK 22 sniper system.

Barrett is conducting testing and evaluation activities focused on maturing the barrel kit and magazine configuration necessary for reliable and effective employment of the 6.8x51mm cartridge in the MK 22 platform. The development effort is being independently funded and executed by Barrett to ensure the capability is available should operational requirements emerge for the enhanced performance offered by both general purpose and special purpose 6.8x51mm ammunition types.

In addition to operational ammunition variants, the MRAD MK 22 6.8x51mm conversion kit is also being designed to function effectively with reduced-range training ammunition, supporting both combat capability and training flexibility.

“Barrett remains focused on ensuring the warfighter maintains a decisive capability advantage through continued innovation and adaptation of proven sniper systems,” said Ryan Krantz, Vice President of Business Development & Sales for Barrett. “As ammunition technology and battlefield requirements evolve, Barrett is committed to remaining the leader in long range by delivering adaptable, mission-ready solutions for the Department of War.”

Further details regarding the Barrett MRAD MK 22 6.8x51mm caliber conversion kit will be released as testing and evaluation activities continue.

The MK 22 was selected because it gave the Army a modular sniper rifle that could adapt to different missions and calibers. Barrett’s 6.8x51mm conversion kit appears to be the next logical step in that same direction. If the testing proves out, the Army could gain another way to extend the usefulness of a sniper system it already owns, while giving precision shooters access to the same next-generation cartridge family being pushed across other Army small-arms programs.

For now, Barrett is doing what smart firearms manufacturers do: building the capability before the government officially needs it. Whether the Army ultimately adopts the kit or not, the move shows that 6.8x51mm is no longer just a rifle and automatic-rifle cartridge. It may also become part of the future of precision long-range fire.

Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. — Isaiah 2:4

He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. — Luke 22:36

Does your church advocate against your right to arms? Perhaps your church doesn’t directly call for citizen disarmament, but what about the denominational hierarchy? How about its most respected scholars?

American culture has displayed opposing trends on this topic for years, even as crime had been falling from the record levels of the 1980s and early ‘90s. That decline briefly reversed during the combined craziness of the Covid scare and the George Floyd “Summer of Love,” then resumed its downward trajectory.

Nonetheless, it is now routine for churches and other houses of worship to post security teams to defend their flock. Even as individual congregations arm up, the largest Christian denominations in the country are among the loudest voices calling for stricter gun control laws. The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, American Baptist Churches USA, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, all have official positions supporting gun control laws, as does the Union of Reformed Judaism, along with many smaller denominations and independent churches.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, has mostly steered away from any broad gun control advocacy. Several resolutions have been introduced, but none has passed, though there has been strong support from some quarters. The Presbyterian Church in America is more conservative than the PCUSA, and does not advocate for gun control. The non-denominational Churches of Christ are independent, but are very uniform in doctrine and practice. Those congregations generally either don’t take a position on guns or are supportive of individual rights. That fellowship includes the West Freeway Church of Christ, where Jack Wilson shot an attacker who had shot two church members. In the video of that horrific event, at least seven guns can be seen being drawn by congregants.

So where does your church stand? If you don’t know, you should find out.

If your local church leadership supports your rights, but the national organization doesn’t, are you and your local leaders actively pushing back against the national organization’s position? Are you actively working to educate your church leaders about the fallacy of gun control laws, and the doctrinal error of pacifism and disarmament?

Regardless of where your local and national church leadership falls on the question of self-defense and individual arms, I highly recommend that you get a copy of “A Time to Kill” by my friend Greg Hopkins and share it with your church leaders, or better yet, get them their own copies. Greg digs into scripture and shatters the myth of Judaeo-Christian pacifism.

If your church leadership insists on advocating against your rights, it’s time to start looking for a new church. And like when dealing with businesses that post “No Guns” signs, I encourage that you don’t just go away mad, but that you make it a point to make sure their leadership knows why you’re leaving and going to their “competition.”

It’s no surprise that many of the same churches that are considered doctrinally liberal, are in the forefront of those advocating for firearms restrictions. This is especially true regarding churches that have embraced women in their clergy, an issue which has divided many churches in recent decades.

The fact is, the gun control movement is dominated by people who know little to nothing about guns or righteous violence, predominantly women. That is also true of the pacifist movement within broader Christianity. Both movements get support and assistance from some men, primarily soft men who have never had to, or wanted to, stand against violence, or occasionally, stronger men who have been broken by war or the pain and grief of not being strong enough to save a loved one.

The combination of technical ignorance, excessive empathy, and an irrational fear and loathing of violence – and those who engage in it, whether justified or not – is at the heart of much of what’s tearing down our country. If a person in a position of influence or control thinks that being understanding and caring is all that’s required to stop evil, if they don’t understand the value of righteous violence and the importance of good men and women (like Jean Assam) willing and able to wield it for the protection of innocents, and if they have no concept of the tools and technology those good people need in order to accomplish their mission, things are not going to go well.

Gun control groups are composed of phobic individuals. Their phobias include hoplophobia (irrational fear of weapons), cainophobia (irrational fear of violence), and androphobia (irrational fear of men or masculinity). The commonality is irrational fear, with emphasis on irrational. These phobic individuals are as eager to proselytize their doctrine of fear as Christians are anxious to fulfill Jesus’s Great Commission. They are actively recruiting like-minded people in your church. They’re weaponizing compassion and fear, and they’re contributing to the destruction – not only of liberty and security, but of Western civilization itself.

The only way to block this pernicious corrosion is for good, strong men – and the wise women who love them – to stand up, take control, and refuse to tolerate this nanny-state nonsense.

Don’t withdraw. Don’t walk away. Don’t surrender. Stand and fight.

Reject religious “leaders” who think turning the other cheek means being passive in the face of violence. Reject public school policies that insist on punishing your kid for defending against a bully. Reject the idea that “violence is never the answer,” because you know damn well that sometimes violence is the only answer.

And when one of them quotes Isaiah 2:4 at you, demanding that you “beat your swords into plowshares,” remind them that Isaiah was talking about the end times, after the Messiah establishes His earthly kingdom, not a symbolic gesture to make yourself defenseless. On the other hand, it was the Messiah himself who instructed his followers in Luke 22:36 to sell their cloak to buy a sword.

You are your and your family’s “first responder,” so be strong, share your conviction, stay calm, and carry on.

Armed Citizens Stop Alleged Florida Church Kidnapping

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a dedicated political activist and the director of The Firearms Coalition, following in the footsteps of his father, Neal Knox. In 2024, Jeff was elected to the NRA Board of Directors, underscoring his lifelong commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. The Knox family has played a pivotal role in the ongoing struggle for gun rights, a legacy documented in the book Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, authored by Jeff’s brother, Chris Knox.

Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition is a network of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. The Coalition supports grassroots efforts by providing education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective on the gun rights movement. For more information, visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Bear spray proponents claim bear spray can be deployed faster than handguns, rifles, or shotguns. This is not obvious or certain. The claim is simply made and assumed to be true.

It is not true.

The truth is all four systems can be reasonably fast *if* the users train and practice with the system.

This correspondent believed handguns to be the fastest method. An experienced trainer in Canada showed bear spray could be practically as fast as holstered handguns.

A reasonably fast response is to access and use a defense against bears system in under two seconds. Very fast is to effectively utilize the system in a fraction of a second.

Holstered bear spray and handguns can be about the same speed. Rifles and shotguns, with a chambered cartridge, held at the ready, are faster.

All four systems, when trained and practiced with, held at the ready, are very fast.  None of the four systems is fast if the user is not trained, has not practiced, and/or keeps the system in a location or state where it cannot be used quickly.

All four systems can meet both standards with a little training and practice if good carrying/ holstering systems are used.  In practice, this is harder to do with long guns, because using both hands is nearly essential. Unless a person is dedicated as a guard, there are often times when at least one hand is occupied with other tasks. The temptation to set a long gun against a tree or wall, or inside a tent, or to sling it over the back is great. Bureaucracies may insist on carrying a long gun without a cartridge in the chamber. Handguns and bear spray overcome this by being compact and light enough to use a holster.

With about a half day’s practice and training, the time to draw and use either system can be reliably reduced to under two seconds. 

This correspondent was skeptical about the potential speed of bear spray draw and use. The Internet was searched for actual data. Data became available from Dave Evert. Dave Evert spent 23 years teaching the Bear and Cougar Encounter Courses and 14 years of teaching the Western Canada Wilderness Handgun Course, both of which he developed. Dave taught hundreds of students to quick draw and employ bear spray in under two seconds. From Dave:

But having watched perhaps a few hundred employees doing this, I can say that some were able to pivot, draw, ready to spray in one second; more of them in 1.5 seconds and all of them within 2 seconds.  Some were phenomenal.

Dave emphasizes that this requires a proper holster for the bear spray. His students practiced with an inert training spray, a necessity for such practice. Dave insisted his students carry two canisters of bear spray in a specific cross-draw configuration because it gives redundancy and the potential to deter a persistent bear. Dave highly recommends a sharp fixed blade knife be carried opposite the bear spray (4-6 inch thick sharp blade, with a guard and non-slip handle) as a last line of defense.

The holsters for the bear spray are flap-type, which require two hands to draw quickly. One hand to retract the flap, the other to draw the spray. Dave is currently using a Kodiak holster. Dave says it is important for the holster not to be a tight fit, or it will take two hands to extract the bear spray.

Dave also recommends handguns for bear defense. In Canada, bureaucratic burdens make obtaining a carry permit for animal defense in the wild extremely difficult. Few are able to navigate the system and obtain an Authority to Carry (ATC). The law has this provision for people whose work requires them to be in the wild. The law has been interpreted by the bureaucracy in such a way as to make it impractical for most people to comply.

Dave’s experience with bear spray is the same experience that firearms instructors have noted for decades. It takes novices an afternoon of practice and training to draw and hit a target at close range in under 2 seconds. With consistent practice, most can achieve 1.5 seconds. Dedicated practice can bring the time to under a second. The same times can be achieved with long guns using tactical slings, if carried with a cartridge in the chamber.

Practice is required, just as with handguns and with bear spray. In practice, it is important to keep your eyes on the target, not on the weapon in the holster.

Dave Evert had similar experiences with training for handguns. The choices were much reduced in Canada because the bureaucracy insisted on regulating both the choices of handguns and of holsters.  Dave, as his individual choice, prefers a chest holster for a handgun.

The Gunsight academy week-long course fits into the “consistent practice” category for handguns.  The standard is to draw and shoot two rounds to the chest in 1.5 seconds at 5 yards. Draw and shoot 2 rounds to the chest in 2 seconds at 10 yards.  This is achieved by most students in a week long, intense course.

How much time a person has to react is seldom controlled by the actions of the bear or other animal. The limit is almost always situational awareness. Much of situational awareness is the willingness to accept the reality of dangerous situations and the need to act rather than saying to yourself, “this cannot be happening”. Do not ignore warning signs.  Training helps people become more aware of their surroundings.

In defense against bears, where there is less danger of hitting other people, if you perceive a dangerous situation, draw your weapon. This will cut a second off of your reaction time. With all four weapons (if long guns are carried with a cartridge in the chamber) this means most people can employ them effectively in less than a second, if you practice just a bit. With consistent practice, this becomes “muscle memory” and the time becomes a fraction of a second. With your weapon in your hands and ready for use, this gives you precious fractions of a second to evaluate and choose the correct response.

Bear spray is much more affected by wind, temperature, and precipitation than firearms. Wind and very cold temperatures limit the effectiveness of bear spray by reducing the range from roughly 30-44 feet to 5-7 feet in most conditions, except when the wind is blowing toward the threat. Such is the result found by Tom Smith in his paper on bear spray limitations. Tom Smith is a noted bear spray proponent and author of the bear spray studies.

Firearms are effective to distances where a bear is not considered an immediate threat (beyond 100 feet), according to Stephen Herrero, in Bear Attacks Their Causes and Avoidance, p. 243:

 To give a bear a reasonable chance to stop and to give yourself reasonable safety, the person expert with firearms should perhaps wait until a charging grizzly is from 50 to 100 feet away or even closer. 

Stephen Herrero is also a co-author with Tom Smith of the original Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska paper.

Bear spray does not reach 50 to 100 feet unless the wind is from you to the bear.  Tom Smith admitted the original bear spray study, authored by him and Stephen Herrero, showed bear spray is not particularly effective at stopping charging grizzly bears (interview with Wes Siler for Outside). Wes recently expanded on this with another article, “Bear Spray is a Placebo“. Wes was a bear spray enthusiast who changed his mind.

Recent research on the effectiveness of bear spray and firearms, using data collected by Smith and Herrero and Internet searches, has more than doubled the original sample of 72 incidents where bear spray was used. The expanded data set is now 231 incidents where bear spray was present , and 173-186 times when bear spray was used, depending on the way the incidents are scored in the statistical analysis in the paper. This is the most extensive data set collected on bear spray used against bears to date.

Of the 231 times bear spray was present, bears were successfully deterred 67.1% of the time. From page 122 of the paper, based on 155 successful uses:

67.1% of incidents where bear spray was present it was used successfully to deter the bear

When the firearm type was identified, the results were strikingly similar.

P. 13:

When present, rifles successfully deterred bears in 68% (n = 156) of encounters, shotguns 72% (n = 28), and handguns 71% (n = 50) of the time.

When rifles were present bears were successfully deterred 68% of the time, based on 156 successful uses.

When shotguns were present bears were successfully deterred 72% of the time, based on 28 successful uses.

When handguns were present bears were successfully deterred 71% of the time, based on 50 successful uses. Note the small number of incidents where handguns were used.

This shows that the mere presence of a weapon is not enough. It has to be available. The training and practice of the user is of high importance.

The slight difference between weapon types indicates that the problems of access are very similar. It is a problem of training and self-discipline, not weapon type. The numbers above show that the opinion that bear spray is easier to use is not supported by the data. In the latest research, the author makes this clear by inserting a caveat about bear spray. The current paper restates the claim from previous claims, p. 30, bold added:

In contrast to firearms, bear spray, when properly carried (i.e., holstered in an easily accessible location), is more readily deployed and requires less skill and accuracy than all firearm types, thus contributing to their higher overall success rate than that of firearms. (Smith & Herrero 2018, Smith et al. 2007, and Herrero & Higgins 1999).

The data does not support the claim. As shown above, sufficient speed and accuracy can be found with any of the systems, given a few hours of training and practice. Without the training, all systems fail due to human factors, not the limits of the weapons system. Speed of draw and deployment takes about the same amount of training for bear spray, handguns, and long guns if a cartridge is kept chambered in long guns. Extreme speed and accuracy are seldom required for firearms to be successfully deployed in defense against bears. Two seconds is almost always sufficient for the first shot. In the vast majority of the cases examined by this correspondent, the victims had more than two seconds of warning. They often claimed they had no time to react. Their actions demonstrated they had more than two seconds they did not use to draw their weapons or come to a ready state.

They failed because they did not have a weapon, or they failed to deploy the weapon. In a few cases, there were weapon malfunctions. This can happen with all weapon systems. The data shows it happens a little more often with bear spray than with rifles, shotguns, or handguns.  The total success percentages are all very close.

The major differences between handguns and bear spray become apparent in two ways. First, when success rates are compared, the systems are used, not just present. Second, in the number of fatalities.

This correspondent and colleagues have collected all the documented cases where handguns have actually been used in defense against bears.  If readers know of any others, we welcome the additions. The current number is 173 incidents in North America where only handguns were used. There were three failures for a 98% success rate and no fatalities. There were 39 incidents where people were injured, and handguns were present and used. In 21 of those incidents, the injury occurred before the handgun was fired.

In the latest bear spray data, there are 175 incidents where bear spray was used  in North America. There were 17 incidents where bear spray failed when used. (P. 122). There were five incidents where there were fatalities.  There were 41 incidents where there were human injuries.  It is unknown how many injuries occurred before the bear spray was sprayed.

The criteria for failure in the bear spray studies is essentially the same as in our study about handguns. The major exception is this:  bears are killed with handguns, stopping their behavior. Bear spray does not kill bears.

The bear spray data collection for the latest paper ended in 2020. The handgun data collected by this correspondent and others has been updated to January of 2025.

There have been five more people killed in four incidents where bear spray has been sprayed in defense against a bear between 2020 and 2025. The recent case where Anthony Pollio was killed by a bear in Glacier National Park, will likely make the total six more in North America, for a total of 12 worldwide, 11 in North America.

Fatalities are scrupulously investigated and reported. They avoid the problems of inherent selection bias. Worldwide, one incident has been documented where a .22 rimfire handgun was fired in defense against a polar bear. The person was killed by the bear. There will be others, but once in 130 years is not bad.

While the numbers are small, the message is clear: Bear spray works about 90% of the time. Handguns work about 98% of the time.

Bear spray is not faster to deploy or easier to use. All the methods take about the same time to learn to use effectively.  An afternoon’s worth of training is effective. A minute a day of practice improves response time by a half second or more in a week or two.

Do not practice with a loaded handgun outside of a safe place to shoot.

Do not practice drawing an active can of bear spray. 

The chances of being killed by a bear while using bear spray are much higher than that of being killed by a bear while using a handgun. 

There have been three incidents where handguns alone were used in defense against a bear, and a person was wounded by gunfire. All three were self-inflicted. All three said the injury from the handgun was less than the injury prevented by shooting the bear. 

LaPierre Appeal Fails: NRA Members Win Back Millions, But Trust Still Must Be Rebuilt

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

The EOTech EXPS2-0 68 MOA Holographic Sight is on sale at Palmetto State Armory for just $499.99, down from $799.99. That is a straight $300 savings on one of the most recognizable rifle optics on the market. This is a PSA Daily Deal, so don’t expect it to sit around long.

Top Features

• 68 MOA Ring / 1 MOA Dot Reticle – Fast up close, precise when you need to tighten up.
• Quick-Detach Lever – Locking QD mount makes install and removal simple.
• Side Button Controls – Easier to run with a magnifier mounted behind it.
• Compact EXPS Design – Saves rail space and allows iron sight co-witnessing.
• 1,000-Hour Runtime – Runs on a single CR123 battery.

Why Shooters Love It

The EXPS2-0 is the optic a lot of shooters picture when they think of an EOTech. The big ring draws your eye fast at close range, while the 1 MOA center dot gives you a finer aiming point than a lot of standard red dots. Add the QD mount, side controls, and compact footprint, and it is a strong fit for AR builds, magnifier setups, and serious range rifles.

Unbeatable Price

• Regular Price: $799.99
• Current PSA Price: $499.99
  • You Save: $300.00
  • Discount: 38% Off

Live Inventory Price Checker

	EOTech EXPS2-0 Holographic Weapon Sight 68 MOA Circle with 1 MOA Green Dot Reticle - Black	GunMag Warehouse	$ 649.99
	EOTECH EXPS2-0 Holographic Weapon Sight	Primary Arms	$ 554.25
	EOTECH EXPS2-0 Holographic Sight W/ Green 68 MOA Ring 1 MOA Dot Reticle - QD Level, Black	Bereli	$ 769.00
	EOTech EXPS2-0 68 MOA Holographic Sight, Matte Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99 $ 529.99

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

Limited Time Deal

The Daniel Defense DDM4V7P 10.3” 5.56 NATO AR Pistol is on sale now at Palmetto State Armory for $1,199.99, marked down from $1,399.99. That’s a $200 savings on a compact, hard-use AR pistol from one of the most respected names in the rifle world.

Top Features

• 10.3” CHF 5.56 NATO barrel — HP/MPI tested, 1:7 twist, government profile
• MFR 9.0 M-LOK rail — Lightweight, slim, and ready for lights, grips, and accessories
• SB Tactical SBA3 brace — Adjustable fit with ambidextrous QD sling point
• GRIP-N-RIP charging handle — Ambidextrous and easy to run under pressure
• 7075-T6 receivers — Type III hard-coat anodized upper and lower

Why Shooters Love It

The DDM4V7P gives shooters a compact 5.56 platform that is easy to maneuver, quick to shoulder with the SBA3 brace, and built with Daniel Defense’s proven components. At just 5.34 pounds, it is light enough to move fast but still gives you the rail space, controls, and barrel quality serious AR shooters expect.

This is the kind of AR pistol that works well as a compact defensive setup, suppressor host, truck gun, or range gun for anyone who wants premium parts without building from scratch.

Daniel Defense DDM4 v7 Pistol – is this Premium AR Worth the $$$? ~ VIDEO

Unbeatable Price

• Regular Price: $1,399.99
• Sale Price: $1,199.99
  • Total Savings: $200.00
  • Discount: About 14% Off

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Daniel H9 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Daniel H9 9mm Luger 4.28'''' Bbl (1)15rd Mag Black	Brownells.com	$ 880.00 $ 839.99
	Daniel Defense DDM4V7 AR-15 16" CMV 5.56 Upper Receiver w/ MFR 15" Picatinny Handguard	GunMag Warehouse	$ 1244.99
	Daniel Defense DANIEL H9 9mm 15 Round Magazine	The Mag Shack	$ 24.99
	Daniel Defense DD5 V4 Hunter Rifle 6.5 Creedmoor - 18" - Kryptek Camo	Primary Arms	$ 3099.00

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

In today’s firearms market, it’s almost impossible to imagine a time before Glock. When polymer-framed semi-automatic pistols were not the norm.

Modern shooters can choose from an enormous variety of calibers, modular grip frames, optics-ready slides, and specialized features tailored for military service, law enforcement, self-defense, and recreational use. But turn the clock back to the mid-1980s, and the handgun landscape looked entirely different.

From the early 19th century onward, the revolver was America’s dominant handgun. Beginning with black-powder six-shooters and continuing through Samuel Colt’s 1873 “Peacemaker,” revolvers earned a reputation for mechanical reliability, cost-effective manufacturing, and cultural significance. These traits kept revolvers relevant well into the 20th century, even as many European nations transitioned to semi-automatic pistols. Law enforcement agencies continued issuing revolvers through the 1980s—typically short-barreled Smith & Wesson models chambered in .38 Special or .357 Magnum. While these guns lacked the ammunition capacity of contemporary semi-automatics, their simplicity and reliability kept them in police holsters for decades.

Manufacturers still built most semi-automatic pistols around traditional hammer-fired designs. They often featured heavy steel frames, blued finishes, and wood grips. Gunmakers treated them as finely machined mechanical tools—often beautifully crafted, but rooted in long-established design conventions. Companies such as Colt, SIG Sauer, Beretta, and Smith & Wesson dominated the market. Yet shifting law enforcement needs, evolving military requirements, and the unconventional thinking of an Austrian engineer would soon disrupt the handgun world forever.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock G17 Gen6 Full Size 4.49" 9mm Luger 17rd Handgun w/ Aimpoint 3.5 MOA Red Dot - P61750B03DC8A3	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1199.99 $ 1059.99
	Glock G17 V 9mm 17rd Pistol, 4.49" Glock Marksman Barrel (GMB)	Bereli	$ 550.00
	Strike Industries Extended Magazine Plate for Glock G17 (9mm)/Glock 22 (.40 S&W) Double Stack Pistol Magazines - EMP-G9&40	Palmetto State Armory	$ 22.99 $ 19.99
	Odin Works +5 Pistol Magazine Base for Glock G17 Compatible - Black	Primary Arms	$ 37.05

An Outsider Challenges the Industry

By the late 1970s, the Austrian Army realized it needed a replacement for its aging World War II-era Walther P38. The new pistol needed to exceed the P38’s performance while meeting strict criteria: higher ammunition capacity, a maximum weight of 28 ounces, a light and consistent trigger pull, and a total parts count of no more than forty. These requirements pushed far beyond the standards of most handguns of the time.

Enter Gaston Glock. At the time, Glock operated a small manufacturing business in Vienna. Using a secondhand Russian metal press, the company produced brass door and window fittings before securing military contracts for field knives and bayonets. During visits to the Austrian Defense Ministry, Glock overheard discussions about the military’s search for a new service pistol. He instantly recognized an opportunity. But what did a curtain rod manufacturer know about designing firearms? Nothing—and that was precisely where Glock found success.

Unlike traditional firearms manufacturers, Glock was not constrained by decades of design convention or industry assumptions.

Glock later explained, “That I knew nothing was my advantage.”

Glock approached the challenge with methodical intensity. He purchased and disassembled a variety of modern handguns—including the Beretta 92F, SIG Sauer P220, CZ 75, and Walther P38—to study their strengths and weaknesses. In May 1980, he invited several firearms experts to his vacation home in Velden, Austria, and asked a simple question: “What would you want in a pistol of the future?” Their insights helped shape a revolutionary handgun design.

Rather than relying on traditional manufacturing techniques, Glock focused entirely on meeting the Austrian military’s performance requirements.

Simplicity, durability, light weight, and reliability became the guiding principles behind the pistol.

Glock’s use of a polymer frame became one of the pistol’s most significant innovations. Having worked with high-strength polymer materials while producing handles and sheaths for his military knives, Glock recognized the material’s potential for firearms manufacturing. Polymer construction dramatically reduced weight and manufacturing cost compared to the steel-framed pistols dominating the market.

Glock also broke from convention with his “Safe Action” trigger system. Instead of an external hammer and manual safety, the pistol used a striker-fired mechanism and a trigger-mounted safety lever. This design reduced snagging during the draw and lowered the chance of accidental discharges caused by drops or improper handling.

Development moved remarkably fast. Within a year, Glock produced a working prototype. On April 30, 1981, he filed a patent application for the seventeenth iteration of his design, which Glock simply named the Glock 17.

The Austrian Trials

The Glock 17’s unconventional design immediately drew skepticism. A polymer-framed pistol with no manual safety, no external hammer, and a striker-fired system seemed radical—especially coming from a manufacturer with no firearms pedigree.

During the Austrian trials, Glock’s pistol competed against established giants including Heckler & Koch, SIG Sauer, Beretta, Fabrique Nationale, and Steyr. The tests were grueling. Testers subjected each handgun to heat, ice, sand, mud, and a 10,000-round endurance test. Officials also evaluated the pistols on weight, capacity, and parts count.

The Glock 17 excelled in the tests. It malfunctioned only once during the firing trial and weighed just 23 ounces, making it the lightest pistol in the competition. The polymer frame and rolled-steel slide held up to abuse far better than skeptics expected.

Although the Glock lacked traditional aesthetic appeal, its utilitarian design perfectly matched the Austrian military’s requirements. Impressed by its performance and low manufacturing cost, the Ministry of Defense ordered 20,000 Glock 17 pistols in 1983. What began as a military contract would soon reshape the global handgun market.

Glock Comes to America

Winning the Austrian trials was only the beginning. To reach its full potential, Glock needed to break into the American market.

While on a business trip in 1984, Austrian-American firearms salesman Karl Walter first encountered the Glock 17 and became intrigued by its design. At the time, many U.S. police departments still relied on revolvers, and Walter quickly recognized the Glock as a modern solution to growing law enforcement challenges.

Walter and American gun writer Peter G. Kokalis soon arranged a meeting with Gaston Glock. The conversation proved fruitful, and their partnership led to the establishment of Glock’s U.S. operations in Smyrna, Georgia, in 1985.

However, Glock’s introduction to the American market proved rocky from the start. Media outlets fueled fears about the “plastic gun,” claiming it could evade X-ray machines and pose a significant threat to aviation security. Congressional concern soon followed. Ultimately, authorities debunked the claims—but the controversy generated massive publicity. Ironically, the negative attention benefited Glock enormously. Millions of Americans suddenly became familiar with the strange Austrian pistol made largely from polymer. Law enforcement agencies took notice, and civilian shooters did too.

The Shift in Police Sidearms

The 1980s saw a sharp rise in violent crime in the United States. Drug trafficking, gang violence, and heavily armed criminals created increasingly dangerous encounters for police. Many departments realized their six-shot revolvers were becoming outmatched.

The turning point came with the infamous 1986 FBI Miami shootout, which left two agents dead and five wounded. Several agents armed with revolvers found themselves badly outgunned during the firefight. The incident accelerated the nationwide shift toward higher-capacity semi-automatic pistols.

The Glock 17 arrived at exactly the right moment. Lightweight, simple, durable, and offering 17+1 rounds, it provided a practical and affordable solution for agencies seeking modern sidearms. The Miami Police Department became one of the first major adopters, ordering 1,100 pistols. Soon, departments across the country followed.

From Duty Holster to Household Name

As Glock pistols spread through American law enforcement, their reputation grew. Shooters appreciated their reliability, simplicity, and ease of maintenance. The pistol’s distinctive appearance and rising popularity also made it a fixture in American pop culture.

Glock reached full pop culture status in Die Hard 2: Die Harder when Bruce Willis’ character John McClane shouted at an airport security guard, “That punk pulled a Glock 7 on me! You know what that is? It’s a porcelain gun made in Germany. Doesn’t show up on your airport X-ray machines, here, and it costs more than you make in a month!”

Nearly every detail in the quote was wrong—but the Glock name had officially entered the American lexicon. Soon, Glocks appeared in action films, television dramas, and rap lyrics. The brand became synonymous with the modern semi-automatic pistol.

Meanwhile, civilian shooters embraced the platform as well. Competitive shooters, instructors, and concealed carriers valued its durability and modularity. A massive aftermarket industry emerged, offering custom sights, triggers, holsters, and slide modifications. By the late 1990s, Glock had become one of the dominant handgun platforms in America.

The Polymer Revolution

Glock’s success did more than create a popular handgun—it changed the direction of the entire firearms industry. Before Glock, shooters viewed polymer-framed pistols with skepticism, and most manufacturers treated striker-fired systems as unconventional. Glock proved that a lightweight, durable, high-capacity polymer pistol could not only compete with traditional steel designs, but often outperform them. Combined with Karl Walter’s aggressive marketing strategy and excellent timing, Glock quickly became one of the most recognizable names in the global firearms industry.

Competitors across the industry soon followed. Smith & Wesson, SIG Sauer, Springfield Armory, FN, Walther, and numerous others introduced their own polymer-framed striker-fired pistols, many heavily influenced by Glock’s design philosophy. To this day, Glock’s design remains one of the most influential handgun developments of the modern era. Modular polymer-framed, striker-fired pistols now dominate the handgun market, and Glock pistols remain among the most widely carried law enforcement sidearms in the world.

Glock didn’t invent every concept found in the Glock 17, but the company combined proven ideas into a simple, reliable, affordable package that redefined consumer expectations.

Sources Referenced:

Barrett, Paul M. Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun. New York: Crown Publishers, 2012.

NEW GLOCK Gen 6 Review | The Future of Perfection

About Ryan Hodges

Ryan is an outdoorsman and firearms enthusiast with over a decade of experience in the industry. He holds a B.A. in History with a concentration in Public History from Roanoke College and was an intern at the Cody Firearms Museum in Cody, Wyoming where he contributed to exhibit development and public education initiatives. He later worked with Taylor’s & Co. in Winchester, Virginia for 9 years, building expertise in historical and reproduction firearms.

An avid hunter and shooter based in Northern Virginia and the West Virginia panhandle, Ryan has a deep appreciation for the intersection of history, firearms, and the natural world. His primary area of focus is 19th-century American firearms, particularly those used during the Civil War and the era of westward expansion. Through his writing, he aims to educate and engage readers by connecting the historical significance of firearms with their enduring legacy in the field today.

The office of New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport is reportedly sending subpoenas to firearms dealers across the state demanding records of Glock pistol sales to Garden State residents over the past ten years.

The National Rifle Association revealed this effort last month in an alert from the organization’s Institute for Legislative Action. Somehow, NRA suggested, the subpoenas are connected to a lawsuit New Jersey filed against Glock more than a year ago, under the state’s public nuisance law.

That lawsuit was filed by former New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin, alleging “multiple violations of the State’s firearms industry public safety law through the knowing manufacture, sale, and distribution of its namesake pistols, which can easily be configured to fire automatically as illegal machine guns…”

NRA suggested the effort to get those records would be to “make these transactions a matter of public record.” As a result, the identities of gun owners would then become available to the media.

“This is being done solely for the purpose of harassing and doxxing residents who purchased the most popular pistol in America,” NRA said.

“Subpoenaing law-abiding firearm dealers to help build a state gun registry is unconstitutional and utterly outrageous,” said John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, in the alert. “If New Jersey believes it can trample the Second Amendment and federal law with impunity, they are gravely mistaken. The NRA will not stand idly by while progressive politicians attempt to implement this dangerous, Orwellian scheme to dox, track, and harass honest, law-abiding Americans, and we are prepared to take any action necessary to protect the rights of New Jersey gun owners.”

Ammoland News spoke with Glassboro, NJ gun dealer Wayne Viden, proprietor at Bob’s Little Sport Shop, which has been a family-owned operation for more than 60 years. He goes along with the theory that this is an effort to make gun owner information part of the public record.

“We have not gotten a subpoena, yet,” Viden told Ammoland in a telephone interview. “The only thing I know is what I’ve read (from NRA).”

However, he said the scenario clearly suggests NRA’s doxxing theory is correct, because “New Jersey already has that information” about handgun purchases. The only reason for this information to be added to any legal action would be for the purpose of placing it in the public domain.

Viden recalled how New York gun permit holders’ identities were revealed by a newspaper article many years ago. It created a firestorm.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	G19 Gen 6 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun W/Aimpoint Coa - G19 Gen6 9mm Luger 4''''bbl (3)10rd W/Aimpoint Coa	Brownells.com	$ 1053.00
	G19 Gen 6 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun W/Aimpoint Coa - G19 Gen6 9mm Luger 4''''bbl (3)15rd W/Aimpoint Coa	Brownells.com	$ 1053.00
	Glock P61950201 19 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 10rd Pistol	Bereli	$ 699.99

New Jersey’s lawsuit against Glock is not the only such action. Minnesota also sued Glock last year, as did the City of Seattle. At issue is the complaint that Glock pistols can be illegally converted to fire fully-automatic with the insertion of a device called a “Glock switch.”

California-based attorney Kostas Moros discussed the implications of this move by New Jersey recently in a 2,600-word essay in which he accused the state of waging “lawfare” against Glock, Inc.

“The state is claiming the over 40-year-old design of the gun is too easy to illegally convert into a machine gun,” Moros writes. “Other states have filed similar lawsuits, and some like California have now banned the sale of Glocks, which are the most popular handguns in the country. These efforts are a way to coverup the failures of leadership in antigun states.”

A few lines later, Moros explains, “For many people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights, their status as a gun owner remains an intensely private matter. Americans have a variety of reasons for wanting to keep their gun ownership to themselves. For some who live in high crime neighborhoods, they may fear that the very firearms they own for self-defense could be an enticing target for burglars when they are not home. Others may not want their friends, family, or local community to know they own firearms because they fear the potential social ostracism that may occur in the places where gun ownership remains controversial.

“Whatever their reasons for secrecy,” Moros writes, “our historical tradition supports the idea that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their status as gun owners.”

In his summation, Moros observes, “Americans have always had the implicit right to keep their status as a gun owner confidential, often even from the federal government itself. That right has been subject only to narrow exceptions.”

In early May, Davenport’s office issued a press release about guns and the state’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law, announcing “the launch of a multi-year public awareness campaign to raise awareness about the life-saving potential of New Jersey’s Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) law that allows for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose a danger of causing bodily harm to themselves or others. New Jersey’s ERPO Act of 2018 serves as a mechanism to seek the temporary suspension of firearms access for at-risk individuals.”

There was nothing in the release about subpoenas for gun dealer records.

Last year, after Glock moved to dismiss the New Jersey lawsuit, Superior Court Judge Lisa M. Adubato rejected the motion.

Great American State Fair to Celebrate Freedom by Suspending Second Amendment

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.

In 2022, I went to the San Diego County Gun Owners’ Gun Prom with a friend. I got to meet lots of people at the event, many of whom I’ve had on the show at some point. I’m sure I met Alisha Curtin then. She’s been part of Gun Owners Radio for a few years now. I did a PitStop interview with her, which is already posted, and I got to film this interview where we get into things a little more with her. This was her first SHOT Show, and she had a great time!

Alisha was raised in the San Diego area and met her husband in high school. At 17, she enlisted in the Army’s delayed entry program. The week before she was supposed to ship off for boot camp, she re-evaluated the situation with her boyfriend and thought it was leading places just 4 months into dating. Just before SHOT Show, they celebrated their 29th wedding anniversary!

Her husband is in law enforcement, and with a firearm in the home, he wanted her to be familiar with it. She really enjoyed it, but for him, shooting was just work. Eventually, she found that she was going to shoot and take training with her lady friends. Around 2012, she bought her own gun, a S&W .40 cal! Fortunately, it was a gun she rented, knew what she was getting into, and liked shooting.

During her pre-firearms career, Alisha was a high school teacher, covering biology, chemistry, forensic science, and criminal justice. The path to becoming an instructor was interesting. She was taking courses, and another instructor took her in, said she would be good at this, and mentored her. Then a range approached her and asked about having her teach courses at their facility. Instructing was a part-time gig until the virus that shall not be named happened. The gun laws were changing, and it seems like a good time to make a change.

As an instructor, she mostly works with women. Many times a woman takes a lesson and brings her husband’s gun or buys a gun the store suggests she buys. But that often isn’t a great choice for the ladies, something like a J-frame snubby. The thought is if a woman isn’t strong enough to rack a slide, then she’s going to have issues shooting a revolver in double action.

Her business is called San Diego Concealed Carry. There are a couple of ranges where she teaches. In California, to become a CCW instructor, there are three paths: the NRA path, the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS) path, and the Police Officer Standard of Training (POST). She’s got all three of them. She also has all of the USCCA certifications.

Certified with NRA, USCCA, and others, she offers several courses. Of course, there are CCW courses, the California DOJ initial and renewal courses, introduction-to-firearms courses, youth courses, self-defense training, and court-mandated courses, too. She keeps very busy and is well-versed in California gun laws and statutes.

Besides everything else she does, Alisha was going to events hosted by San Diego County Gun Owners. I will say that, having been to one of their events, they draw in huge numbers of attendees! In 2021, the capacity at Gun Prom was 999. If there were 1,000 people, they would need “special requirements’, if you remember. At one event, Michael Schwartz, head of SDCGO, and Alisha got to talking. He had some changes with Gun Owners Radio and asked her to be a co-host of the show. I’ve got to say, it’s been a weekly listen for me for a number of years now, and I highly recommend it to everyone. She has her own segment called Curtin Call, where she talks about training.

Females are the largest growing demographic of firearm owners. It’s fantastic that the ladies can take courses with someone like Alisha. It’s also good that she can more than hold her own with the fellas, too. I’m sure she even shows a few of them up!

Favorite quotes:

• “I had a good time. I liked it, I enjoyed it. But for him it was work.”
• “It’s a big investment. You want to make sure it’s the right gun for you.”
• “Men, in general, do not  understand the things a woman needs in a firearm.”

New Jersey Glock Subpoenas Are Part of Nationwide Push Against America’s Most Popular Pistol

About Riding Shotgun With Charlie

Riding Shotgun With Charlie isn’t about firearms. It is about having an intimate conversation with 2 people talking. You’re the fly on the rearview mirror. Many of the passengers are involved in the firearm community.

This is a more intimate conversation than a phone, radio, or Skype interview. You get to see the passengers. And you’ll see where the road and the conversation take you!

www.ridingshotgunwithcharlie.com.

Limited Time Deal

Glock’s newest 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 $620.00, 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.

NEW GLOCK Gen 6 Review | The Future of Perfection

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $749.99
• Sale Price: $620.00
  • You Save: $129.99 (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	$ 169.99
	Glock 19/26 9mm Magazine - 15 Round (Polymer FDE)	Ammunition Depot	$ 24.49
	Glock Barrel Thread Protector 1/2"-28 Thread for Glock 17 Gen 5, Glock 19 Gen 5, Glock 34 Gen 5 nDLC Black	MidwayUSA	$ 14.79
	Glock Gen 4 Glock 19 9mm 15-Round Factory Magazine	GunMag Warehouse	$ 24.99

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

Limited Time Deal

Palmetto State Armory has CZ-82 Used Surplus C&R 9x18mm Makarov Pistols marked down to $179.99 on this classic pistol. Limited-time deal. Surplus pistols, conditions of wear may vary.

Top Features

• Cold War Czech military surplus with proven durability
• 12-round capacity (50% more than standard Makarov pistols)
• All-steel frame for longevity and recoil control
• DA/SA trigger with ambidextrous controls
• C&R eligible – ideal for collectors with a Curio & Relic license

Why Shooters Love It

The CZ-82 is widely regarded as one of the best surplus pistols ever issued, combining excellent ergonomics, real military heritage, and surprising accuracy. For shooters and collectors alike, this pistol offers a rare blend of history, shootability, and value that’s increasingly hard to find under $300.

CZ-82 Surplus Pistol for the Communist Collection | VIDEO

Customer Testimonials

• “I was actually very impressed by the overall condition, and it would certainly fit within the description of Good/Very Good. Some finish wear on the slide, but no cracked grips, bore looks great, and relatively clean inside. These are surplus pistols and the condition will vary between each one, I guess that’s what makes it so much fun!”
• “Bought 2, one was in very good condition, relatively low finish loss, 2nd pistol can be rated “good” lots of flacking off the slide. Mechanically they shoot very straight, Remember it shoots 9 X 18 Makarov, not 9mm!”
• “Arrived in G to VG condition. Cleaned up nicely. Havent had a chance to shhot it yet, its been too cold.”

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $399.99
• Current Price: $179.99
  

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CZ-USA CZ P-01 (Low Capacity) 9mm Pistol, Blk - 01199	Palmetto State Armory	$ 878.99 $ 798.99
	CZ A01-C Custom 9mm Pistol - 2x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 2419.99
	CZ-USA CZ 75 B (Low Capacity) 9mm Pistol, Blk - 01102	Palmetto State Armory	$ 878.99 $ 798.99
	CZ 75 Shadow 2 DA/SA 9mm Pistol - Blue Grips - 17 Round	Primary Arms	$ 1224.99

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

The Florida Legislature has passed a bill including tax holidays for firearms accessories, and hunting, fishing, and camping supplies. Firearms silencers/suppressors are included as firearms accessories. If Governor DeSantis signs the bill, most of the act will take effect on July 1, 2026. The sales tax holiday for firearms, ammunition, and listed firearm accessories would run from September 1 through December 31, 2026.

The Florida Legislature passed HB 7031E, as amended by the Conference Committee Report, YEAS 29 to NAYS 6, on May 29, 2026. The bill passed the House a couple of hours earlier, 88 YEAS to 11 NAYS. The bill is a major taxation bill for Florida.  Earlier bill materials discussed a separate firearm-accessory exemption, but the enrolled bill places the firearm, ammunition, and firearm-accessory language in Section 43, the hunting, fishing, and camping sales tax holiday.

The firearm accessories are for pistols, rifles and shotguns which fire projectiles using an explosive charge.  According to the NRA, whether suppressors/silencers would be included in the bill was uncertain until the vote on May 29. An amendment had included them in the bill, but those tax holidays could have been stripped from the bill before the final vote.  They were not. If Governor DeSantis signs the bill, the items will be exempt from taxes in Chapter 212 of the Florida Statutes during the holiday period.

Firearms, ammunition, and listed firearm accessories are included in the hunting, fishing, and camping sales tax holiday, which runs from September 1, 2026, through December 31, 2026.

The accessories include:

• Firearm Barrels.
• Firearm cases or range bags.
• Firearm charging handles.
• Firearm pistol grips.
• Firearm handguards.
• Firearm holsters.
• Internal firearm parts and components.
• Firearm magazines or other ammunition feeding devices or carriers.
• Firearm shooting mats, rests, or bipods.
• Firearm shooting chronographs.
• Firearm sights or optics.
• Firearm slides or cylinders.
• Firearm slings.
• Firearm stocks or braces.
• Firearm cleaning kits.
• Firearm suppressors or silencers.
• Firearm triggers.

Alert readers may find some parts of firearms that are not covered.

The Hunting, fishing and camping sales tax holiday is not so generous. It only lasts from September 1 through December 31 of 2026.  This tax holiday covers complete firearms as well as ammunition for firearms, bows, crossbows, arrows, bolts, quarrels, quivers, releases, sights or optics, and wristguards.

Fishing and camping supplies are included in the tax holiday, but limited in the price of the items covered.  The price listed is the maximum cost of the item to qualify for the tax holiday:

• Rods and reels: individually, $75, as a set $150.
• Tackle boxes or bags: $30.
• Bait or fishing tackle: $10 or less if sold individually, or $20 or less if multiple items are sold together.
• Camping supplies: $200 for a tent
• Sleeping bags, portable hammocks, camping stoves and collapsable camping chairs: $50 or less.
• Camping lanterns and flashlights: $30.

Florida’s general state sales tax rate is 6%. Many counties impose a discretionary sales surtax, currently ranging from 0.5% to 1.5%, while some counties impose no surtax. The tax holidays apply to the entire sales tax, not just the state portion of the sales tax.

The Florida tax bill has to be sent to Governor DeSantis for signature. Major tax bills are seldom vetoed.

New York Passes Law Mandating Non-Existent Technology to Block 3D-Printed Guns

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Wayne LaPierre’s attempt to undo the New York judgment against him has failed. On June 2, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment against LaPierre.

The court upheld an order requiring him to repay more than $4.3 million plus prejudgment interest directly to the NRA. It also upheld a 10-year ban preventing LaPierre from holding any fiduciary position as an officer or director of the NRA, or any entity under the NRA’s direct control.

LaPierre appealed the December 2024 judgment after a jury found that he violated his fiduciary duties to the NRA. But according to the appellate court, he did not challenge the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, nor did he challenge the jury’s findings. Instead, he raised legal arguments over whether the statute allowed monetary damages, whether any settlement with the NRA over the amount owed needed court approval, and whether the 10-year ban was proper.

The appeals court rejected all three arguments.

On the money issue, LaPierre argued that New York’s Not-for-Profit Corporation Law did not authorize the damages imposed against him. The court disagreed, holding that forcing an officer to “account for” his conduct includes more than merely explaining what happened. It can also mean a reckoning of funds and responsibility for harm caused. On settlement, the court upheld the requirement that any agreement between LaPierre and the NRA over the amount owed must receive court approval.

On the 10-year ban, the court said LaPierre’s resignation did not make the issue moot. He resigned on the eve of trial, but the court said the jury’s findings showed he would have been removed for cause had he not left. The appellate panel also noted that while LaPierre claimed he had no plan to return, he still argued that he should be allowed to do so. That door is now shut for ten years, although further appeals are possible.

Letitia James was wrong to target the NRA for political destruction. The state of New York has a long record of hostility toward the Second Amendment, and the NRA’s separate Supreme Court win in NRA v. Vullo proved that government officials cannot use regulatory threats to choke off gun-rights groups from banks, insurers, and financial services because they dislike their political speech.

But the LaPierre case is a different lane. This was not a Second Amendment merits case. It was a nonprofit governance case about fiduciary duty, waste, and whether NRA leadership put the organization and its members first. The answer, according to the jury and now the appeals court, was no.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 16" .308 Mid-Length 15" Sabre Lock Up Rail w/ MOE SL-S Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1249.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 16" .308 w/ 15" Sabre QD Rail & B5 SOPMOD Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1199.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Billet 18" 6.5 Creedmoor Rifle w/ 15" Knurled Slant Rail & Magpul SL-S Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1399.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 18" .308 w/ 15" Knurled Slant Rail & B5 CPS Stock	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1349.99

AmmoLand has covered this fight for years, and the consistent theme has been simple: the NRA’s members are the NRA. Not Wayne LaPierre, or the boardroom. Not the vendors, or the consultants. The members.

The people who mail in $25 because they believe in the Second Amendment deserve an organization that fights for them. They deserve leadership that treats member money like sacred trust, not personal privilege. They deserve transparency and accountability. And they deserve an NRA strong enough to fight the gun control lobby without being dragged down by the baggage of the LaPierre era.

The anti-gun left would love to use this case to smear every NRA member as corrupt. That is garbage. NRA members did not create this mess. They were the victims of it. They were the ones who kept showing up for the cause while insiders burned trust, drained resources, and handed New York a loaded political weapon.

The question now is whether NRA 2.0 is real or just a slogan.

AmmoLand contributor and current NRA Board Member, Jeff Knox, has been saying this plainly for years. NRA 2.0 cannot be a slogan slapped on top of the same culture.

It has to mean real board oversight, real financial controls, real transparency, and real accountability to members. The NRA is not a private club for executives, consultants, and old-guard board factions. It is supposed to be a member organization dedicated to defending the right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA is still needed. Anyone who says otherwise is not paying attention. GOA, SAF, FPC, CCRKBA, NAGR, state groups, local clubs, and independent gun-rights activists are all doing vital work. But the NRA remains a major institution, with history, infrastructure, training programs, political reach, and a name that still terrifies the people who want to disarm America.

That is why cleaning house matters. A weak NRA helps the gun control lobby. A corrupt NRA helps the gun control lobby. An NRA that cannot earn back the trust of its own members helps the gun control lobby. The people who want magazine bans, semi-auto bans, carry bans, waiting periods, gun-owner registries, and eventually confiscation would love nothing more than for the NRA to stay distracted by internal rot.

LaPierre’s loss at the Appellate Division should be treated as one more step in ending that chapter.

Millions are owed back to the NRA. LaPierre is barred from returning to a fiduciary role for ten years. The old excuses are dead. The members who kept the faith through scandal, lawfare, and media attacks deserve an organization worthy of their support.

The anti-gun left tried to use the LaPierre scandal to kill the NRA. They failed. Now the NRA has to prove that the reformers, whistleblowers, and rank-and-file members did not fight this battle for nothing.

“I Am the NRA”: The Membership Demands a Better NRA

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport recently sent subpoenas to firearms dealers across the state demanding customer records for lawful Glock pistol sales to New Jersey residents over the past ten years. Gun rights groups are calling the move an unconstitutional attack on privacy that has nothing to do with the state’s legal theory and everything to do with exposing gun owners to public harassment.

The subpoenas appear to stem from the state Attorney General’s Office’s 2024 public nuisance lawsuit against Glock, Inc., but the demand for individual customer records goes well beyond what that lawsuit’s legal theory would seem to require. The state claims that Glock’s design, which has remained largely unchanged for over 40 years, is too easy to illegally convert into a machine gun using aftermarket switches. Other states have filed similar lawsuits, and some, like California, have now banned the sale of Glocks entirely.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action argues that the records are completely unconnected to the state’s case theory. The NRA-ILA points out that since New Jersey’s pistol permitting system already operates as a de facto handgun registry, the Attorney General can produce those records from the office’s own database without subpoenaing FFLs.

The critical distinction involves how subpoenaed records are treated under New Jersey law. Unlike registry records, which are exempt from public disclosure, subpoenaed documents become a matter of public record. The NRA-ILA argues this “is being done solely for the purpose of harassing and doxxing residents who purchased the most popular pistol in America.”

John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, did not mince words in a legislative alert. “Subpoenaing law-abiding firearm dealers to help build a state gun registry is unconstitutional and utterly outrageous,” Commerford said. “If New Jersey believes it can trample the Second Amendment and federal law with impunity, they are gravely mistaken. The NRA will not stand idly by while progressive politicians attempt to implement this dangerous, Orwellian scheme to dox, track, and harass honest, law-abiding Americans, and we are prepared to take any action necessary to protect the rights of New Jersey gun owners.”

The Second Amendment Foundation reached the same conclusion through a different analytical path. Kostas Moros, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education, suggested in a detailed thread on X that the only explanation for the subpoenas, given the state’s existing registry infrastructure, is that the AG’s office wants to make gun owner records publicly accessible.

“It is not immediately clear why New Jersey needs these records, given the state already maintains a de facto registry for handguns through its pistol permitting system,” Moros wrote. “It could be that the Attorney General wants to make these records public, as under New Jersey law and in a small nod towards respecting privacy, firearm registration records are exempt from public disclosure under the state’s laws.”

Moros argued that regardless of the AG’s actual motive, the subpoenas constitute an “unconstitutional attack” on gun owner privacy and one that runs counter to the historical tradition the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision requires gun regulations to fit within.

“For many people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights, their status as a gun owner remains an intensely private matter,” Moros wrote. “Americans have a variety of reasons for wanting to keep their gun ownership to themselves… Whatever their reasons for secrecy, our historical tradition supports the idea that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their status as gun owners.”

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	G17 Gen 6 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun W/Aimpoint Coa - G17 Gen 6 9mm Luger 4.49''''bbl (3)17rd W/Aimpoint Coa	Brownells.com	$ 1053.00
	G17 Gen 6 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun W/Aimpoint Coa - G17 Gen 6 9mm Luger 4.49''''bbl (3)10rd W/Aimpoint Coa	Brownells.com	$ 1053.00
	Glock P61950201 19 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 10rd Pistol	Bereli	$ 699.99

The New Jersey subpoenas fit into a broader pattern of state attorneys general in restrictive gun law states using litigation against firearm manufacturers as a vehicle to access information about individual gun owners. The mechanism varies from subpoenas to public nuisance suits to civil discovery, but the result tends to be the same. Lawful gun ownership becomes a matter of state interest beyond what existing registration regimes already capture.

This coordinated approach extends beyond litigation. Maryland recently passed SB 334, a bill banning the sale or transfer of “machine gun convertible pistols” that can be converted with illegal switches. Governor Wes Moore signed the legislation on May 26, 2026, with the Act taking effect October 1, 2026 and the ban on commercial activity beginning January 1, 2027. New York had already enacted a similar Glock ban through its 2026-27 state budget, and Connecticut enacted parallel legislation the same day as Maryland, with Governor Ned Lamont signing Substitute House Bill 5043 on May 26. The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation have since filed a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland’s law, arguing it effectively bans nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market.

For New Jersey gun owners who purchased a Glock at any point in the last decade, the practical exposure is real. Records identifying individuals as Glock owners, made public under New Jersey’s open records law, would be searchable, indexable, and effectively permanent. Whether the AG’s office actually intends to make the records public or whether the subpoena is a procedural step that will not result in disclosure remains the central unanswered question.

However, after public pressure from gun-rights groups and media coverage, the Attorney General’s Office reportedly narrowed or clarified the demand, stating through counsel that it was not seeking customer-identifying information and would accept aggregate sales data.

The NRA-ILA, SAF, and other gun rights organizations are signaling they will challenge the subpoenas before any disclosure happens. Whether affected FFLs comply, resist, or seek protective orders will shape what comes next in what has become a multi-front battle over America’s most popular handgun.

CPRC: Murders Committed With “Glock Switches” Are Very Rare

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

The May 2026 National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) numbers are in. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) adjusted background check numbers show expanding firearm sales, even as the total number of background checks conducted through NICS continues to drop. In May, the drop was almost 11 percent from May 2025.

From NSSF:

The May 2026 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,105,758 is an increase of 3.2 percent compared to the May 2025 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,071,685. For comparison, the unadjusted May 2026 FBI NICS figure of 1,780,230 reflects a 10.9 percent decrease from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 1,998,440 in May 2025.

The 2026 adjusted background check numbers are designed to be highly correlated to actual sales numbers. They are not the same because NICS checks serve multiple purposes. The adjusted numbers exclude checks conducted specifically for firearms permits and permit renewals. They do not adjust for multiple firearms sold with a single NICS check, or for firearms sold without a separate NICS check, such as those in states where possession of a permit can substitute for a NICS check. Most private sales do not involve a NICS check.

After a slight January decline, NSSF-adjusted NICS checks rose year over year in February, March, April, and May 2026.  This is four months of increases in adjusted NICS checks compared to the same four months in 2025.

The NSSF has started tracking, by month, NICS checks conducted for Form 1 and Form 4 applications to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). There have been significant increases in NFA numbers since the Trump administration removed the $200 tax on suppressors and SBRs. In April, the numbers were up 130%. In May of 2026, the numbers were up over 100%.

From the NSSF:

Top-5 States for NFA Checks in May:

• Texas – 21,377
• Virginia – 12,550
• Florida – 10,418
• Georgia – 6,352
• North Carolina – 5,921

The May 2026 NFA figure of 146,551 is an increase of 100.4 percent compared to the May 2025 figure of 73,138.

The increase in numbers shows how much the exercise of Second Amendment rights has been infringed upon in previous years. Although the tax has been removed, numerous infringements remain. People who wish to comply with the National Firearms Act (NFA) are required to submit fingerprints, photographs, and wait for approval by the ATF before making or purchasing a piece of safety equipment, such as a suppressor. They are required to go through the same procedure for short-barreled rifles or short-barreled shotguns.

Several lawsuits are in progress challenging the constitutional validity of the continued bureaucratic infringements. Some states are moving to protect suppressor owners.

Firearms sales thrive during times of uncertainty. The conflicts being waged overseas in Ukraine and the Persian Gulf are likely contributors.

Removing the $200 tax on NFA has helped. If current lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the continued infringements in the NFA succeed, there will be a boom in the sales of suppressors and SBRs. The Second Amendment is a very popular part of the Bill of Rights. The economy is doing pretty well. If peace is reached in the Middle East, prosperity is likely to follow.

Virginia Judge Blocks State Police From Enforcing Universal Background Checks

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

The 5.7×28 and compact are two words that do not belong in the same sentence. When it was first developed, the 5.7 was intended to replace the 9mm Luger cartridge in both pistols and PDW platforms. This long, bottlenecked round was intended to be lighter in recoil and better against an armored target. As such, the FN Five Seven pistol that came with the cartridge had to be substantial in size to feed the cartridge. Since then, more makers have come online to produce 5.7 pistols, but all of them are more than service-sized and ill-suited for everyday carry. In 2025, Palmetto State Armory took a stab at a carry 5.7 with their PSA Rock Compact.

Palmetto State Armory Rock and Rock Compact

The 5.7’s chief assets are low recoil and high capacity in a personal defense context, but pistols and ammunition selection were limited and expensive. That is, until mainstream American brands like Ruger and Smith & Wesson put their industrial weight behind the round. Competition drives down prices, and Palmetto State Armory saw that as an opportunity to release its 5.7 Rock in 2022. It is a full-size 23-round pistol that came at a shockingly low price tag for a 5.7. The threaded and optic-ready Rock has been a fallback handgun for me when I introduce new shooters to pistols more powerful than .22 rimfire, simply because it is a hoot to shoot. The PSA Rock Compact shops off some barrel and grip to give us an option that is a little more friendly for carry.

This version of the Rock Compact has a sniper green polymer frame and a matching cerakoted 416 stainless steel slide. The frame itself has the same subdued grip texture as the original. The grip has a hand-fitting palm swell, as well as an undercut beavertail and trigger guard for a high purchase. Controls include a reversible magazine release and a non-ambi slide release. A short Picatinny rail rides on the dust cover for ready installation of a small weapon light.

The slide features prominent drift adjustable iron sights as well as forward and rearward cocking serrations. The slide is cut for a direct Shield mount but comes adapter plates for Doctor and RMR footprint optics.

The Rock series is a striker action handgun with a trigger that comes with a conventional trigger shoe safety. The trigger pull weight on this example breaks at only 3 3/4 lbs. with only a pinch of mush.

The Rock Compact ships with a soft case and two magazines. MSRP is $469.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA 5.7 Compact Rock Complete Optic Ready Pistol, Non-Threaded Barrel, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 499.99 $ 469.99
	PSA 5.7 Compact Rock Complete Optic Ready Pistol, Non-Threaded Barrel, Sniper Green	Palmetto State Armory	$ 499.99 $ 469.99
	PSA 5.7 Compact Rock Complete Optic Ready Pistol, Non-Threaded Barrel, Flat Dark Earth	Palmetto State Armory	$ 499.99 $ 469.99
	PSA 5.7 ROCK COMPLETE PISTOL, Optics Ready, Non-Threaded Barrel, Sniper Green	Palmetto State Armory	$ 529.99 $ 469.99

Shooting Impressions

I put close to 1,000 rounds through my original PSA Rock, and I had no issues beyond its very first magazine. As such, I was confident the compact would be no different.

In hand, the Rock Compact has the same blemish free built quality as the original and is a wieldier handgun overall. Although the Compact only holds 21 rounds of 5.7, the double-stack double-feed magazines are just as easy to load. This is done by pressing the rounds directly into the magazine follower, like you would expect a rifle magazine to work. Initially, the last round was tough to get in. But after a few rounds downrange, the magazine springs were supple enough to go fully loaded.

Accuracy

The 5.7’s trading of blast for recoil and its inherently flat trajectory make it an easy round to shoot at distance from the right platform. The Rock Compact happens to be one of those platforms. For most of the shooting, the Compact was paired with the excellent Vortex CCW Defender Green Dot, which mounts directly to the slide.

At ten yards, I could hold five shots inside one inch, offhand. The ammunition tested included: Hornady V-Max 40 grain, Speer Gold Dot 40 grain hollow points, FN SS109 27 grain lead-free, and Federal American Eagle 40 grain FMJ. All held that inch standard, but this particular handgun held consistent 3/4 inch groups with the Federal load.

I took the Rock Compact out to fifty yards. The dot made it easy to keep a 4-inch group out to 50 yards, where the other ammunition ran in the 5-6 inch range.

Handling

Recoil with the 5.7 is minimal, even in this trimmer package. It is the equivalent of shooting a .22 Magnum and the red dot scarcely jumps off target at all. Your hand is in one piece, but your eyes might be dazzled by the flash as you touch off a shot.

In the hand, the Rock Compact affords a full firing grip and easy reach of the controls, even with my shorter thumbs. The magazine release works with a decisive press, however the slide release was stiff to use when locking the slide to the rear on an empty pistol. The generous scalloping of the beavertail and trigger guard make it easy to further quash what little recoil 5.7 generates. Having come off a 5.7 hiatus, I was more surprised by how long the Rock Compact cycles. Although it happens in the blink of an eye, the Rock’s cycling of the long 5.7 round and its delayed blowback action is something of a marvel to behold.

Reliability

The PSA Rock Compact is mostly a boring shooter from an accuracy and handling perspective. The trip from zero to 200 rounds was marked by a half-dozen failures to extract between the FN SS109 and Hornady V-Max loads across the first few magazines out of the pistol. On disassembly, there did not appear to be any ingress on the breach face or under the extractor. The issue shot itself free as the pistol coasted to the end of its run without further issue.

The PSA Rock Compact: A 5.7 For Carry?

Palmetto State Armory has long adopted the Toyota strategy of building brand consciousness by giving value at a price point the stagnant competition will struggle to match. In the world of 5.7 pistols, PSA has certainly brought that niche back down to earth with their Rock lineup. The only limiting factors are the few but growing selection of holster options and the stigma around the 5.7 round itself. While the 5.7 will never be the next micro compact, the PSA Rock Compact is a practical and good shooting option that is practical for everyday work.

From Armor to Answer: How the 5.7x28mm Was Built to Beat 9mm’s Limits

About Terril Hebert:

Terril Hebert is a firearm writer native to south Louisiana. Under his motto—Guns, Never Politics—he tackles firearm and reloading topics both in print and on his Mark3smle YouTube channel, where he got his start. He has a soft spot for ballistics testing, pocket pistols, and French rifles. When he is not burning ammo, he is indulging his unhealthy wildlife photography obsession or working on his latest novel. Scourge of God was published in 2017.”

Limited Time Deal

Stock up on dependable 5.56 NATO from a name American shooters trust. Right now, a full 1,000-round case of Winchester USA M193 55gr FMJ is available for $624.99, and with code ALand5 your price drops to just $521.07! About 52¢ per round for true M193 spec ammo made at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.

Top Features

• True M193 Spec Performance – 55gr FMJ built to military M193 ball standards.
• Lake City Production – Manufactured at the legendary Lake City Army Ammunition Plant.
• High Velocity – Up to 3,240 fps for a flat trajectory and consistent accuracy.
• Brass Case & Boxer Primed – Reloadable brass with non-corrosive primers.
• Bulk Case Savings – 1,000 rounds per case (10 boxes of 100).

Why Shooters Love It

Winchester’s M193 load is a staple for AR-15 owners who want reliable, full-power 5.56 NATO for training and range time. The 55-grain FMJ bullet combined with high velocity delivers excellent performance for drills, target shooting, and high-volume practice. When it’s produced at Lake City, shooters know they’re getting consistent quality and dependable function.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $624.99
• Sale Price: $548.49
• Price w/ Code ALand5: $521.07
  • Cost Per Round: ≈ $0.52

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 55 gr FMJ 5.56x45 M193 Ammunition 20 Rounds - WM193K	Palmetto State Armory	$ 11.99
	Winchester 5.56 NATO Service Grade 55 Grain M193 FMJ Ammunition + Lake City Ammo Can	Bereli	$ 565.00
	Winchester 5.56x45mm NATO M193 55gr FMJ Ammo - 20-Round Box	The Mag Shack	$ 11.99
	Winchester USA 5.56 55 Gr M193 FMJ (1000 Rounds)	Ammunition Depot	$ 709.99 $ 612.39

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

Limited Time Deal

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 $479.99 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.

The PA-15 From Palmetto State Armory – Bare Bone Necessity

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $519.99
• Sale Price: $479.99

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Custom 16" Mid-Length Pencil 5.56 NATO 1/7 Nitride 15" LtWt Rifle W/ PSA Custom 3.5lb Flatbow FCG, Chocolate Chip	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1199.99
	PSA Custom 5.56 16" Mid-Length Nitride 13.5" M-Lok Rifle W/ PSAC 3.5lb Flatbow FCG, Woodland Camo	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1099.99
	PSA Custom 11.5" 5.56 Nato 1/7 Nitride 12.5" Pistol W/ PSAC 3.5lb Flat FCG, MBUS, Sig Romeo 7s Red Dot - Nighthawk	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1399.99
	PSA Custom 10.5" 5.56 NATO Pistol W/ PSA Custom Flatbow FCG - Outlander	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1199.99

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

The Ninth Circuit just handed gun control lawyers another gift, and it came from exactly the kind of case Second Amendment advocates should dread.

In United States v. João Ricardo DeBorba, the court upheld a stack of federal gun convictions against a man who was unlawfully in the United States, had claimed U.S. citizenship on firearm-related paperwork, was subject to domestic violence no-contact orders, and was caught with firearms, ammunition, and an unregistered suppressor.

Bad cases still make law, and this one may do real damage. The most dangerous part of the ruling is not simply that DeBorba lost. Given the facts, that outcome was hardly surprising. The problem is that the Ninth Circuit went out of its way to say that suppressors, also called silencers, are not “arms” protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

The court treated suppressors as optional firearm accessories and said they are not covered because they are not necessary to the ordinary operation of a firearm. In other words, because a gun can technically fire without a suppressor, the court says a suppressor falls outside the Second Amendment.

A suppressor is not some decorative range toy. It protects hearing, reduces blast, improves communication, helps training, and makes shooting safer for the shooter and those nearby. Hunters use them. Instructors use them. Competitive shooters use them. Ordinary Americans use them. In much of the civilized world, suppressors are treated as basic safety equipment, not criminal contraband.

The Second Amendment does not protect only a stripped-down firearm in its most primitive form. It protects the right to keep and bear arms in a way that is useful, effective, and practical. Optics help a shooter hit what he is aiming at. Magazines feed the firearm. Lights help identify a threat. Suppressors help protect hearing and allow safer training and defensive use.

Constitutional attorney and AmmoLand contributor Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner hammered that point in his video breakdown of the decision. Smith argued that the court ignored the broader meaning of “arms” under Bruen, where an arm includes an instrument that facilitates armed self-defense. As Smith put it, the key is not whether an item is absolutely necessary, but whether it helps facilitate the protected right.

You do not lose constitutional protection for a tool just because you could technically function without it. A sling may not be needed for a rifle to fire, but it helps carry and control the rifle. A scope may not be needed to ignite a cartridge, but it helps the shooter see and aim. A suppressor may not be needed to make the gun go bang, but it absolutely helps the shooter use the firearm more safely and effectively.

The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning gives anti-gun courts a dangerous opening. Once judges decide that only the bare mechanical parts of a firearm count as “arms,” everything else becomes fair game for prohibition. That is how the right gets hollowed out piece by piece.

Smith’s second major point is just as important: this entire mess came from an awful defendant.

DeBorba entered the United States in 1999 on a tourist visa. According to the court, that visa expired in 2000, and he never regained legal status. He later applied for a Washington concealed pistol license and indicated he was a U.S. citizen. He also submitted ATF paperwork involving firearms and checked that he was a U.S. citizen. The court record also involved multiple domestic violence no-contact orders. Including one with a finding that he represented a credible threat to the physical safety of the protected person.

Then federal agents found firearms, ammunition, and a box marked “Tick Suppressor.”

This is the kind of case hostile courts love. It allows judges to write broad anti-gun language while pointing to an unsympathetic defendant. Law-abiding gun owners are then forced to live with the precedent.

Smith’s argument is that illegal immigration and poor enforcement can create legal disasters for American gun owners. When someone unlawfully in the country remains here for decades, lies about citizenship, gets tangled up in criminal cases, and then raises Second Amendment claims, the result can be ugly precedent that reaches far beyond that one defendant. That is what happened here.

The Ninth Circuit should have stopped at the “people” question. Smith argued that DeBorba, as an illegal alien, should not have been treated as part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. If the court had taken that route, it would not have needed to reach the broader suppressor issue at all.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Huxwrx Flow 45 M Multi-Caliber Suppressor W/ Booster Assembly	Bereli	$ 708.00
	Huxwrx Flow 762 Ti Rifle Suppressor - FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1185.00
	HUXWRX Flow 7.62 TI Suppressor with Muzzle Device - Black.	Primary Arms	$ 1299.00
	Huxwrx Flow 556k Suppressor W/ Flash Hider, 5.56/17hmr/5.7, Black (BLEM)	Bereli	$ 979.00

Instead, the court reached it and produced language that anti-gun lawyers will now cite against lawful suppressor owners.

That timing matters because of Sanchez v. Bonta, the separate Ninth Circuit case challenging California’s total ban on suppressors. Smith warned that Sanchez involved the much cleaner question of whether suppressors are protected arms and whether California can ban them outright. He noted that the case had already been argued before the Ninth Circuit and praised the pro-Second Amendment lawyering, pointing to Cooper & Kirk and attorney Pete Patterson. But before that better vehicle could produce a ruling, DeBorba gave the Ninth Circuit a bad-facts criminal case in which to declare that suppressors are not Second Amendment arms. As Smith warned, DeBorba may now be used to “foreclose the excellent arguments made in the Sanchez case.”

It would be so aggravating if the Sanchez panel went through the trouble to get Sanchez new counsel, A-list 2A lawyers volunteer, we redo briefing, the panel hears detailed arguments, and the ruling is pending…

…just to be superseded by some shitty criminal case (argued… https://t.co/U6EP0RPD0X

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) June 4, 2026

Gun owners are not just fighting statutes. They are fighting precedent. Every bad opinion becomes another brick in the wall that anti-gun judges build around the Second Amendment. When bad defendants bring broad constitutional arguments, courts hostile to gun rights rarely miss the chance to turn those cases into weapons against the rest of us.

Suppressors facilitate lawful firearm use, training, self-defense, and hearing protection. Treating them as constitutionally meaningless “accessories” is not faithful to the Second Amendment. It is judicial gamesmanship.

The Ninth Circuit’s DeBorba decision is a warning. Immigration enforcement, criminal law, and Second Amendment litigation do not exist in separate boxes. When the wrong defendant brings the wrong case in the wrong court, law-abiding gun owners can end up paying the price.

Bruen’s Text-and-History Test Spreads Beyond the Second Amendment

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

In a rare bit of good news from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the agency has proposed rolling back outdated import restrictions that have blocked firearms and ammunition from several former Soviet countries for nearly three decades.

The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2026, would update ATF’s list of “proscribed countries” for import restrictions and bring the agency’s regulations in line with the State Department’s current foreign policy list. More importantly for gun owners, collectors, importers, and the firearms industry, the rule would remove several former Soviet countries from ATF’s automatic denial list for permanent firearm and ammunition imports.

Those countries are Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.

The Russian Federation would remain restricted.

ATF is proposing updates to its import rules under the Arms Export Control Act. The plan would replace ATF’s fixed list of proscribed countries with a dynamic reference to the State Department’s list, keeping restrictions automatically aligned with State’s designations. It would… pic.twitter.com/OX1yQ0zuF9

— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) June 4, 2026

This is still a proposed rule. Importers would still have to go through ATF’s process, and the firearms would still have to satisfy the rest of the federal import scheme, including America’s long-abused “sporting purposes” restrictions. But the change would end a blanket ban that treated several countries as off-limits solely because of an old policy dating back to the 1990s.

For decades, American gun owners have watched the federal government use import law as a backdoor form of gun control. Instead of Congress voting to ban a firearm, bureaucrats can simply decide that a firearm does not meet an import test, comes from the wrong place, has the wrong configuration, or does not fit some made-up sporting-purpose standard that has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not say anything about “sporting purposes.” It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If I remember correctly, I believe it also says “shall not infringe.” But Washington has never let constitutional text get in the way of regulating gun owners.

This proposed rule does not fix all of that. Not even close. But it does chip away at one outdated import barrier.

According to ATF, the current list traces back to a 1997 policy adopted after the United States entered into a Voluntary Restraint Agreement with the Russian Federation in 1996. That list included Russia and several former Soviet countries. ATF is now acknowledging that, nearly 30 years later, the policy reflects outdated trade and security concerns.

Under the proposed change, ATF would move away from automatically denying import applications for most firearms and ammunition from the listed former Soviet countries. Instead, applications could be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. That would give licensed importers more flexibility and could eventually give American consumers more choices.

Imports have long played a major role in the American firearms market. From surplus rifles to AK-pattern guns, shotguns, pistols, ammunition, magazines, and parts, imported firearms have helped fuel the collecting, training, hunting, and self-defense markets in the United States. Many American gun owners got their start with affordable imports. Many collectors built entire collections around military surplus firearms that would be much harder, or impossible, to obtain under today’s regulatory climate.

Every time the government blocks lawful imports, the market gets smaller. Prices go up. Availability goes down. Collectors lose access to history. Shooters lose options. Small importers lose business opportunities. And once again, lawful gun owners pay the price for decisions made by people who are rarely affected by their own rules.

ATF’s proposal would also remove its outdated country list for broader defense articles and instead point to the State Department’s current list. The agency says that would reduce confusion and keep the government’s import restrictions aligned across departments. That part is mostly regulatory housekeeping, but the firearm and ammunition provision is the part gun owners will care about most.

Unfortunately for the AK purists, Russia remains restricted under the proposal. The terms of the Russian agreement remain in effect. Russian firearms and ammunition will continue to be treated differently. That means anyone hoping this rule brings back the glory days of cheap Russian ammo should pump the brakes.

For gun owners, the most realistic impact would not be a sudden flood of cheap AKs or ammunition. The proposed rule would give importers a chance to seek approval for firearms and ammunition that have been locked out under an outdated policy. Importers could bring in surplus Soviet-era firearms from these countries after they cleared ATF review.

Importing could also include Ukrainian-made Fort-500 pump-action shotguns, Fort pistols, Zbroyar sporting and precision rifles, and possibly civilian-configured Malyuk K-01 or K-02 rifles. Ammunition from these former Soviet countries, such as Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan, may be another possibility.

None of that means these products are automatically coming to American gun stores, but it would at least give importers a door to knock on instead of a federal “no” before the paperwork is even reviewed.

The comment period is open until July 6, 2026. Anyone who cares about firearm imports, ammunition availability, historical arms, and rolling back unnecessary federal restrictions should consider weighing in.

This proposed rule is not the end of the fight. It is one small move in the right direction.

After years of the federal government using every excuse imaginable to tighten the screws on gun owners, even a small step toward undoing bad policy is worth watching.

ATF Rolls Back Biden-Era Gun Rules in Major Reform Package

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

On May 31, 2026, before 11 a.m., a woman who had obtained a domestic violence injunction escaped kidnapping in a church parking lot. Two armed Samaritans intervened and prevented an armed man from dragging the woman away. In a news conference, Police Chief Leo Niemczyk identified the suspect as Jose Tsu Zamora, 64, who had been in a long-term prior relationship with the victim.

Zamora is a convicted felon who is reported to have said to the victim something to the effect of: If I can’t have you, nobody can. The suspect is reported as knowing the victim attended the church in Port St. Lucie and intercepted the victim as she exited a vehicle.

From cbs12.com:

Two male bystanders, who told police they were armed, intervened and confronted Zamora. Chief Leo Niemczyk with PSLPD credited the two bystanders for saving the woman’s life.

Several people are reported as seeing the attempted kidnapping. One man is seen confronting the suspect, seconds later, another runs into the scene. The video appears to show what may be a holster on the second armed Samaritan.

Before 1987, it would have been unlikely that two people in a church parking lot in Florida would have been armed and able to respond to a kidnapping by an armed man. The suspect was reported to have held a handgun against the victim’s side as the kidnapping was attempted.

In 1987, Florida passed a shall-issue concealed carry permit bill, which is credited with being the start of the shall-issue revolution in the United States. Another change since 1987 is the increase in the number of church security teams. News coverage has not mentioned whether the armed Samaritans were part of a church security team.

As of 2025, over 20 million concealed carry permits were active in the United States. In 29 states, no permit is needed for people to carry loaded handguns, either openly or concealed, in most public spaces.

John Lott and others have published peer-reviewed papers that show an increase in concealed carry permits is correlated with a drop in violent crime. Other academics dispute this finding. Papers sometimes claim to show a limited increase in very specific types of crime in particular states.

Most of the literature shows either a decrease in violent crime or no measurable change.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Remain Among America’s Most Law-Abiding Citizens

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Last month, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a strong warning to the Tradition Community Association in Port St. Lucie regarding its recently adopted firearms ban in common areas. The AG gave the homeowners’ association (HOA) until June 1 to respond in writing and confirm it would cease enforcement. In a positive development for gun rights advocates, the association quickly agreed not to enforce the ban.

In a formal letter sent to the association’s leadership, Uthmeier explained that the rule prohibiting firearms in shared spaces directly conflicts with Florida Statute 790.33, the state’s broad firearms preemption law. This statute makes it clear that the Florida Legislature occupies the entire field of firearms regulation, rendering local ordinances and private rules that impose stricter restrictions largely unenforceable when they infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The HOA’s policy applied to all residents, guests, and contractors. It banned both open and concealed carry in common areas, including parks, trails, recreation spaces, gathering facilities, and the town square. Critics described it as a de facto gun ban that lacked any force of law. Local law enforcement in Port St. Lucie publicly stated they would not enforce the HOA’s rule, reinforcing that it carried no criminal weight.

Florida Statute 790.33 not only preempts government entities but also protects employees, contractors, residents, guests, and prospective homebuyers from discrimination for lawfully carrying firearms. The rule had reportedly been passed without adequate notice to many community members. Some residents who carry for self-defense in their daily lives were caught off guard and concerned about being disarmed in areas where they and their families spend significant time.

Because the HOA promptly responded to the AG’s demand, Uthmeier’s planned next step — filing a lawsuit to block enforcement of the ban — became unnecessary. Florida maintains some of the strongest preemption laws in the nation, designed to prevent a patchwork of local and private restrictions that could undermine statewide Second Amendment protections. Had the case proceeded to court and the HOA lost, the association could have faced significant financial penalties, attorney fees, and other legal consequences.

AG Uthmeier noted that his office had received complaints from residents in other Florida HOAs with similar restrictive policies. He assured concerned citizens that the action against Tradition was only the beginning. “This is not New York or California,” Uthmeier has emphasized in public statements. “In Florida, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

On X, the Attorney General wrote: “Tradition Community Association agreed to stop enforcing its unlawful firearm ban in common areas. We are working with the Association to ensure this policy change is permanent and complies with FL law. For others who’ve reached out about their HOAs, don’t worry, we hear you.”

Tradition Community Association agreed to stop enforcing its unlawful firearm ban in common areas. We are working with the Association to ensure this policy change is permanent and complies with FL law.

For others who’ve reached out about their HOAs, don’t worry, we hear you. https://t.co/X031UjnGCf

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) June 4, 2026

Uthmeier has built a reputation as a vocal and active defender of Second Amendment rights. He has repeatedly stated that attorneys general have no duty to defend laws they view as unconstitutional. At the 2026 National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) SHOT Show, he addressed fellow AGs and reminded federal officials of this principle in relation to certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Compared to some previous Florida Attorneys General — including former AG Pam Bondi — Uthmeier has shown a willingness to move beyond rhetoric and take concrete action. His intervention in the Tradition case sends a clear message to HOAs across the state: attempts to disarm law-abiding residents in common areas will face swift pushback from the state’s top law enforcement officer.

While HOAs play a role in maintaining neighborhoods, they cannot override Florida’s strong protections for the right to bear arms. Uthmeier’s decisive response reinforces that in the Sunshine State, Second Amendment rights remain a priority.

New York Passes Law Mandating Non-Existent Technology to Block 3D-Printed Guns

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.

A Lynchburg judge on June 3, 2026, firmly rejected a request from the Virginia State Police (VSP) and Attorney General Jay Jones to dissolve an existing injunction blocking the enforcement of Universal Background Checks (UBCs) on private firearm sales.

The controversy dates back to the fall of 2025, when a Lynchburg court issued a landmark ruling blocking Virginia’s attempt to impose Universal Background Checks for private firearm transactions. The court order explicitly prevented the Virginia State Police from enforcing the law, determining that it violated Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia State Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Following the decision, the Virginia State Police immediately ceased processing background checks for private sales in compliance with the judicial injunction.

However, the political landscape shifted dramatically just a month later. Democrats secured the governor’s mansion and maintained control of both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly. Upon taking office in January 2026, the new Democratic majority moved quickly to advance an aggressive gun control agenda. Among the flurry of gun-related bills was legislation specifically designed to resume and mandate background checks for private firearm sales.

Democrats heavily criticized the earlier court ruling, repeatedly labeling it the “Lynchburg Loophole” in public statements and media appearances. Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the bill into law. While most newly enacted legislation in Virginia takes effect on July 1, the governor utilized an emergency clause to make this particular measure effective immediately upon signing.

Shortly after the bill became law, the Virginia State Police initially released a statement acknowledging that they would not enforce the new requirement due to the standing court order declaring such checks unconstitutional. This position held until May 27, 2026, when the VSP abruptly reversed course. The agency sent an email to all federal firearms licensees (FFLs) across the state, announcing that it would begin conducting background checks on private sales, a direct challenge to the existing court injunction. The VSP also notified major gun rights organizations, including the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), of its intent to enforce the law. The following day, the agency updated its official website to reflect this new policy.

Gun rights groups responded swiftly and forcefully. Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued a strong statement:

“Attorney General Jay Jones is attempting to resurrect Virginia’s unconstitutional ‘universal background check’ scheme after a court already struck it down and permanently blocked its enforcement statewide. That injunction is not a suggestion—it is a binding decision. Our letter makes clear that unless the issuing court or a higher court says otherwise, Virginia officials have no authority to enforce these checks. Any official who ignores that injunction and attempts to enforce this law anyway risks exposing themselves and their agency to serious legal liability.”

In response, GOA and VCDL immediately filed a motion for contempt against both the Virginia State Police and Attorney General Jay Jones. According to sources within the State Police, Jones’ office had advised them that the newly passed law superseded the prior court order, giving them authority to resume enforcement. A Lynchburg judge subsequently scheduled a hearing for June 3 to determine whether the injunction remained in effect.

At the June 3 hearing, which was attended by representatives from GOA and VCDL, the judge delivered a clear rebuke to the state. He affirmed that the injunction is still fully in place and emphasized that no new legislation can unilaterally supersede a court’s constitutional ruling against the Virginia State Police’s enforcement of background checks on private sales.

Following the judge’s decision, the VSP agreed to cease conducting background checks for private transactions and committed to updating its website accordingly to reflect the court’s order.

Neither the Virginia State Police nor the Attorney General’s office responded to AmmoLand’s request for comment on the ruling.

This case highlights the ongoing tension in Virginia between gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters. Universal Background Checks have long been a priority for Democrats, who argue they close loopholes and enhance public safety. Gun rights organizations counter that such measures infringe on constitutional rights, create bureaucratic burdens for law-abiding citizens, and do little to stop criminals who obtain firearms through illegal means.

The “Lynchburg Loophole” saga underscores the importance of judicial checks on legislative power and the enduring strength of Virginia’s constitutional protections for firearm ownership. As the state continues to be a battleground for gun policy, this ruling serves as a reminder that court injunctions carry significant weight and cannot be easily overridden by political majorities. Legal experts expect the issue may eventually reach higher courts, potentially setting important precedents for gun rights nationwide.

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead Right

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.

FN Herstal has introduced a new rifle platform called the FN ARKA, delivering the battle-proven guts of the SCAR with the familiar controls of the AR-15.

The FN ARKA is a new 5.56x45mm NATO rifle aimed at military, law enforcement, and special forces customers. It is not part of the FN SCAR family, and FN says it is not replacing the SCAR. Instead, the ARKA is meant to sit alongside the SCAR as another option for professional users who want SCAR-style reliability with the familiar handling of an AR-15-style rifle.

FN took the short-stroke piston operating system and mechanical DNA of the SCAR, then wrapped it in a rifle with AR-style ergonomics, ambidextrous controls, AR-compatible furniture, and modern accessory mounting options.

For American gun owners, the obvious question is simple: When do we get one?

For now, FN is presenting the ARKA as a defense and law enforcement rifle, not a commercial gun for the U.S. civilian market. If FN America ever brings a semi-auto ARKA to the commercial side, the rifle will get attention fast from SCAR fans, piston-gun shooters, and anyone looking for a new rifle that is not another AR-15.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	FN SCAR 17S NRCH Semi Automatic Rifle 7.62x51mm NATO 16.25" Matte Black Threaded Barrel Flat Dark Earth Frame Flat Dark Earth Pistol Grip 10+1-Round	MidwayUSA	$ 3849.00
	FN SCAR 17S Gen2 7.62x51mm 20rd Rifle,16.25" Barrel, FDE	Bereli	$ 3699.00
	FN SCAR-L AEG Battery Powered Airsoft Rifle & FNS-9 Airsoft Pistol 6mm BB Full-Auto/Semi-Auto Black Gray	MidwayUSA	$ 79.00
	FN SCAR-H AEG Battery Powered Airsoft Rifle 6mm BB Full-Auto/Semi-Auto Black	MidwayUSA	$ 65.00

SCAR Guts, AR Handling

The rifle uses the FN SCAR short-stroke gas piston operating system, including an adjustable gas regulator. Piston guns have a strong reputation among shooters for their reliability in dirty, hard-use, suppressed, or adverse conditions. FN is also pushing the ARKA’s strong locking system and overpressure safety, including performance in harsh conditions where mud, sand, water, and suppressor use can punish a rifle.

At the same time, FN clearly understands that AR-15 controls have become the default language of modern rifles. Millions of shooters, soldiers, cops, and professional end users already know that manual of arms. Instead of asking those users to fully retrain around a SCAR-style layout, FN built the ARKA around AR-style controls.

The rifle has a rear T-handle charging handle, forward assist, ambidextrous magazine release, ambidextrous selector, and a 100% ambidextrous bolt catch. FN also says the rifle can accept standard AR-compatible pistol grips and buttstocks. That is a smart move. Users can keep the feel they already know while getting a rifle that is mechanically different from a standard direct-impingement AR.

FN is launching the ARKA in three initial configurations. The standard rifle comes with a 14.5-inch barrel and can be ordered with either a short M-LOK handguard or a longer M-LOK handguard, giving users a choice between a lighter, more compact setup or more rail space for lights, lasers, grips, and other mission gear. FN is also offering a shorter CQC version with an 11.25-inch barrel and short M-LOK handguard for close-quarters work. All three are listed in black or FDE, with select-fire or semi-auto only trigger options depending on the customer and market.

FN says the rifle has optimized gas management and an adjustable gas system for suppressed use. The company also offers an FN-certified flow-through suppressor for the ARKA. That setup is designed to reduce backpressure, keep the gun cycling consistently, reduce fouling, and keep gas and debris from blasting back into the shooter’s face.

Suppressed rifles are becoming more normal for professional users, and civilian shooters have been moving that way for years despite the unconstitutional NFA registration scheme still standing in the way. A modern rifle that is not built with suppressor use in mind is already behind the curve.

Will American gun owners ever get one?

Unfortunately, for now, the FN ARKA is being presented as a military and law enforcement rifle. FN’s own defense product language makes that clear. There is no announced U.S. commercial version at this time. It seems unlikely that it will happen anytime soon but it is not impossible as a semi-auto version is currently available.

There is no mystery about what would happen if FN brought a semi-auto ARKA to the American market. It would immediately become one of the more talked-about piston rifles in the country. SCAR fans would want to compare it directly to the SCAR 16S. AR shooters would want to know whether it actually feels like an AR in the hands.

The price would almost certainly not be cheap. This is FN, and it is built around SCAR-derived engineering. Nobody should expect bargain-bin numbers. But FN buyers already understand that. The SCAR has never been a budget rifle, and that has not stopped people from wanting one.

The ARKA shows where FN thinks the modern fighting rifle is headed: ambidextrous controls, suppressor-ready gas systems, AR-compatible furniture, modular handguards, long service life, and familiar handling without giving up mechanical reliability.

For now, American civilians are on the outside looking in on one very interesting rifle.

Lima Six Review: 2,000 Rounds With a Belt-Fed AR-15 Upper

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

Limited Time Deal

CCI Blazer Brass 9mm has earned its place as one of the default range loads for American shooters who actually train. It is brass-cased, boxer-primed, reloadable, and built by CCI with the consistency shooters expect from a serious practice round.

Ammunition Depot has the 1,000-round case marked down to $299.99, but AmmoLand readers can use code ALand5 to drop the price to just $241.77 — about 27 cents per round. For anyone burning through 9mm at the range, this is the kind of bulk ammo deal worth grabbing before it disappears.

Top Features

• 1,000-round case — perfect for training, range days, and competition practice
• 115-grain FMJ — classic 9mm target load
• Reloadable brass cases — newly made and boxer-primed
• Clean-burning propellant — reliable CCI quality
• Made to SAAMI standards — consistent American-made range ammo

Why Shooters Love It

Blazer Brass 9mm is a go-to training round because it is affordable, consistent, and built by CCI, one of the most trusted names in ammunition. Whether you are working pistol drills, breaking in a new handgun, or filling ammo cans before prices move, this 1,000-round case is a smart buy for serious range time.

Note: Do not use this ammunition in firearms with ported barrels or ported recoil compensators.

Unbeatable Price

• Regular Price: $299.99
• Sale Price: $284.99
• Price With Code ALand5: $270.74
  • Cost Per Round With Code: About $0.27/round

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI VNT .22 WMR Ammo 30gr VNT 125 Rounds	GunMag Warehouse	$ 33.99
	CCI/Speer 0063 CCI TNT 22WMR 30 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point	Shooters Choice	$ 18.99
	Cci / Speer 22wmr 30 Grain Polymer Tip - 22 Wmr 30gr Polymer Tip 50/Box	Brownells.com	$ 19.99
	CCI Blazer Brass 9mm Luger Ammo 115 Grain FMJ - 50 Rounds	Primary Arms	$ 13.24

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

Limited Time Deal

Palmetto State Armory has the Beretta 92G Elite Combat LTT Langdon Tactical 5.1″ 9mm pistol marked down to $999.99 with FREE SHIPPING. That’s a serious price drop on a competition-ready Beretta/Langdon Tactical build that comes with premium parts already installed.

Top Features

• Langdon Tactical Upgrades – LTT slide, LTT frame, textured grip panels, and enhanced controls
• Toni System Compensator – Single-port comp on a threaded 5.1″ barrel for flatter shooting
• Optics-Ready Slide – Proprietary slide cut for micro red dot mounting
• High-Capacity Setup – Includes three 22-round magazines with Toni System +4 extensions
• Competition-Ready Extras – Magwell, fiber-optic front sight, chrome trigger, DLC-coated sear and hammer

Why Shooters Love It

The Beretta 92 platform already has a long track record, but this LTT Combat model brings it into modern range, match, and defensive use without forcing you to buy upgrades one piece at a time. The compensator, magwell, optics cut, upgraded trigger parts, and 22-round magazines make this a fast-shooting 9mm built for serious range time.

For shooters who like hammer-fired pistols and want something more refined than another polymer striker gun, this one brings a lot to the table at under a grand.

Unbeatable Price

• Regular Price: $1,299.99
• Sale Price: $999.99
  • w/ FREE SHIPPING

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Beretta Inox 92 Firing Pin Striker - Beretta 92 Inox Firing Pin Striker	Brownells.com	$ 3.99
	Beretta 92, M9, 90-Two, Cx4 Storm (with 92/96 Series Magwell) 9mm 20-Round Steel Blue	MidwayUSA	$ 49.74
	Beretta 92 / 96 Standard Wood Grips w/ Medallion	GunMag Warehouse	$ 64.99
	Beretta 92/96 Series Oval Checkered Wood Grips With Trident, Walnut - E00219	Palmetto State Armory	$ 71.99 $ 64.99

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

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS) have expanded a civil rights lawsuit, originally filed last November on behalf of New Jersey resident Elsid Aliaj, contesting the confiscation of his legally-owned firearms and ammunition, to now include two additional plaintiffs.

Joining the lawsuit are Garden State residents Martin Hroncich and Luis Rene De La Cruz Franco.

It is a case with considerable implications, as the outcome could significantly change how prosecutors and police handle situations involving law-abiding gun owners who happen to live with someone who may be prohibited from owning firearms. Beyond that, specifically in Aliaj’s case, it raises questions about conversing with someone to whom English may be a second language, and recognizing the emotional swings related to pregnancy.

According to the original complaint from last Nov. 3, the Fort Lee Police Department, “based on a report from the Englewood Police Department (“EPD”) that Aliaj’s wife (hereinafter referred to as “L.A.”) had been involuntarily admitted to New Bridge Medical Center for a mental health evaluation (in what turned out to be a language-related misunderstanding, resulting in L.A.’s discharge with a diagnosis of “Adjustment disorder with depressed mood Seven weeks pregnant”)—confiscated Aliaj’s firearms, ammunition, and related accessories from his home.” This happened on April 17, 2025.

At the time the original lawsuit was filed, the following November, authorities were still unwilling to return Aliaj’s firearms, “even though Aliaj is not under any legal, mental, or physical disability that would disqualify him from exercising his fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

Leap ahead six months. By now, the Aliaj case has gotten some attention and other people, according to a source close to the case, have come forward with similar allegations. Two such people are Hroncich and De La Cruz.

“Bergen County’s very clear policy is: If you live with a prohibited person, or even someone suspected of being prohibited, your rights can be taken away,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack, in a SAF release announcing the expanded case. “This took the form of permit denials and revocations, and outright gun confiscations. What we learned after filing this case on behalf of Mr. Aliaj is that the constitutional abuse he suffered was all too common in Bergen County. Additional individuals, including new plaintiffs Mr. Hroncich and Mr. De La Cruz, started coming out of the woodwork. Each had a similar story: their rights under the Second Amendment were taken from them purely as the result of concerns Bergen County officials had about loved ones of theirs.”

Sack also confirmed to Ammoland News that SAF and NJFOS are financially supporting the case, while not participating as plaintiffs. Aliaj is a SAF member.

The amended complaint was filed on June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage. Defendants are the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office, Prosecutor Mark Musella, along with the Borough of Fort Lee, the Borough of Paramus, and the Township of Rochelle Park.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik with Taylor Dykema in Houston, Texas.

As alleged in the amended complaint, “…Defendants have adopted, implemented, enforced, and maintained a series of related policies that together deprive individuals, including plaintiffs, under County Defendants’ jurisdiction, from exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment, not premised upon any allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are prohibited, but rather by association with a cohabitant who is so prohibited or otherwise disqualified, or by association with a cohabitant who County Defendants perceive to be so prohibited or otherwise disqualified.”

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, the situation in Bergen County, while alarming, is not unique.

“Cases like this confirm what we hear from SAF members in gun-grabbing states like New Jersey all the time: local officials do what they want, when they want, without any respect for the law or the Constitution,” Gottlieb said in a prepared statement. 

Sack, in a telephone conversation with Ammoland News, pointed to language in the amended Aliaj complaint, which states, “County Defendants have adopted, implemented, enforced, and maintained a series of related policies that together deprive individuals, including Plaintiffs, under County Defendants’ jurisdiction, from exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment, not premised upon any allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are prohibited, but rather by association with a cohabitant who is so prohibited or otherwise disqualified, or by association with a cohabitant who County Defendants perceive to be so prohibited or otherwise disqualified.”

That’s not all. The amended complaint further alleges:

• These Challenged Policies include at least the following: (a) Confiscation of firearms, ammunition, and related accessories based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications1 (the “Confiscation Policy”); (b) Compelled sales of firearms, ammunition, and related accessories based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Compelled Sale Policy”); (c) Revocation of Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (“FPIC”) or other firearms licenses or permits validly issued under the laws of New Jersey based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Revocation Policy”); (d) Denial of applications for FPICs or other firearms licenses or permits that would otherwise be validly issued under the laws of New Jersey based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Denial Policy”); and (e) Compelled production of cohabitant medical records based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Compelled Production Policy”).
• County Defendants routinely and illegally cite, invoke, or rely on the Duty to Warn Statute, the ERPO Act, or the Issuance Disqualifiers to disarm law-abiding firearms owners when the individual who is subject to disqualification is not the firearms owner, but rather, the owner’s cohabitant.
• County Defendants also routinely and lawlessly enforce the Challenged Policies based on nothing more than “the State’s concerns,” which are not codified in any law.

The amended complaint quotes “Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Law Enforcement Directive No. 2019-2” which states, in part:

“Under this Directive, whenever a Bergen County law enforcement agency receives information or a warning related to a threat of imminent, serious physical violence to self or others made by an individual suspected of suffering from a mental illness, whether that information comes from a mental health provider or any other source, the respective police department must ascertain whether the individual has been issued a firearms purchaser identification card (“FPIC”), any permit to purchase or possess a firearm, or whether the patient may possess or have access to any firearm . . . .

“Additionally, if the respective law enforcement agency determines that the individual possess a FPIC or permit to purchase or possess a firearm, or possesses or has access to a firearm, the law enforcement agency must attempt to secure the identification card, permit, and/or firearms either consensually or with a warrant if consent is denied, on the basis of the imminent threat of serious harm.”

The 35-page amended complaint demands a jury trial.

ATF Director Cekada Talks Gun Rights, Rule Rollbacks & Reform with Shermichael Singleton

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.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill into law that effectively outlaws 3D-printers over concerns that they “might” be used to print guns.

The law requires all 3D printers to have technology installed that prevents the printing of firearms. This non-existent technology would scan printable files for guns and gun parts. Any printer that cannot scan for such items would be banned in the Empire State. Since no 3D printer can currently do that, the law is a de facto ban on the technological marvel that has revolutionized rapid prototyping by increasing the speed and lowering the cost of designing.

The state does not define what the technology will look like. It could be hardware, software, or a combination of the two. If a company doesn’t come up with a solution to satisfy New York State, it could face a civil penalty of $ 5,000 per product sold. Most products are produced overseas, so collecting fines from 3D printing companies could be almost impossible. The retailers will bear the fines.

The new law creates a working group of experts in additive manufacturing technology and artificial intelligence (AI). The group will also include members of anti-gun groups, though it isn’t clear how they would help, as they have no expertise in the technology. The group will develop minimum censorship standards for 3D printers. The goal will be to fit the law into existing technology.

One idea is to use AI to scan files to look for “signatures” that match firearms or gun parts. Since no 3D printer can run a local large language model (LLM), the printer would need to be always online and use an ecosystem such as Bambu Labs cloud printing. That would require all files to be uploaded to Bambu Lab’s servers in China before a user can print. This raises national security concerns by forcing users to upload files to servers run by a global adversary.

It also raises serious First Amendment issues. By restricting what the printer can print, the law is making the final arbiter of what speech is allowed. This restriction is exactly what the First Amendment was trying to prevent. This is a level of censorship that will surely be challenged in court.

“This is ultimately asking tools not to work for the creator and go through a filter, a censorship filter,” said Rory Mir, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s director of open access and tech community engagement.

The law also raises Fourth Amendment concerns. By requiring every file to be scanned, New York State is creating a surveillance state where, in order to buy a 3D printer, one must invite the government into one’s home to monitor their activities. This creates a system akin to the one in George Orwell’s “1984,” where New York State acts as Big Brother.

Even if the technology is developed, the law’s targets are usually power users. People who print guns are technically savvy. There is already custom firmware for printers. It isn’t a stretch to assume that almost as soon as blocking technology is developed, the user community would develop a workaround, whether that is custom software or replacing boards inside a printer.

The law admits that it isn’t currently possible to block 3D-printed guns and firearms parts. It says if the regulation is “not technologically feasible,” the law states, it will report its finding and “no regulations shall be required to be promulgated … until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.”

The law reminds many gun owners of micro-stamping. A technology that is still not possible, but has been on the books for a decade. In the end, this is a law to appease the anti-gun groups that have given millions to Democrats.

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead Right

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.

Top Features

• Built to Suppress: 1:5 twist .300 BLK barrel + adjustable gas block for easy tuning
• Premium Internals: Full-chrome Microbest BCG, Sprinco springs, OCKS fasteners
• Ambi, Enhanced Receivers: Integrated trigger guard, flared magwell, thermal-fit upper
• Top-Tier Controls: Radian Raptor LT charging handle & Radian Talon 45/90 safety
• Compact & Capable: Maxim Defense CQB brace with H1 buffer for a short, balanced package

Why Shooters Love It

The Mixtape Vol. 1 was designed from the ground up as a serious suppressor host, delivering smooth cycling with subs or supers thanks to its 1:5 twist and adjustable gas. Add in Sabre Enhanced receivers and premium parts throughout, and you’ve got a compact .300 BLK pistol that feels purpose-built—not pieced together.

PSA Unleashes the Sabre-10A2 Super Sass .308 Rifle ~ VIDEO

Customer Testimonials

• “Best 300 Blackout I’ve ever had. Better than my Daniel Defense PDW. PSA nailed it with this one. Highly recommend!”
• “Phenomenal PDW. First thing, mounted a Holosun and also a Q Trash Panda.”
• “So far ran 500 rounds no problems but this is one of my favor shooters. Been shooting 300 yrds out and it dont disappoint.”

Unbeatable Price

• Current Price: $1,249.99

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA "Sabre" Billet 16" 5.56 Nitride 15" Sabre Timed Rail and Sabre Compensator with Magpul SL-S Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1049.99
	PSA "Sabre" Forged 20" .223 Wylde SS Nitride 18" Sabre Lock Up Rail and Sabre Furniture Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 969.99
	PSA "Sabre" Forged 14.5" .223 Wylde M4 13" Sabre QD Rail with Pin/Weld Sabre Compensator & Magpul SL Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 949.99
	PSA "Sabre" Forged 13.7" Mid-Length 5.56 with 13" Sabre QD Rail and JMAC GFHC-E Pin/Weld Sabre Furniture Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 949.99

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

At Ammunition Depot for a limited-time, you can pick up 1,000 rounds of Sportsman’s Select Reman .223 Remington for $389.49 after code ALand5 (about $0.40/rd). There are also options of 200 rounds.

Top Features

• 200 rounds per bag — shoot longer, reload less.
• Reliable 55 gr FMJ performance — great for AR-15s & 5.56 platforms.
• Made in America with reloadable brass casings.
• Consistent 3147 fps velocity for dependable range performance.
• Great value remanufactured ammo — saves you big vs. standard boxes.

Why Shooters Love It

High-volume shooters and range lovers swear by this Sportsman’s Select .223 reman because it delivers reliable cycles and consistent accuracy session after session without burning a hole in your wallet. Whether you’re training, plinking, or prepping for competition, this ammo keeps you shooting longer with less stress on your budget.

Customer Testimonials

• “Great ammo for the range—clean, reliable, and no misfires or jams. Excellent quality and performance!” – D. Ashley, Verified Buyer
• “Every round fired perfectly! High-quality ammo at a great price. I’ll definitely be buying more.” – R. Cox, Verified Buyer
• “Cycles smoothly, shoots well, and highly recommended for range practice. Great value and performance!” – T. Grabiec, Verified Buyer

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $424.99
• Current Price: $399.99
• Your Price w/ Code ALand5: $389.49
• Click Here to Buy Now

Sportsman’s Select Remanufactured 223 Remington 55 Gr $0.38 Each w/ Code ALand5

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PMC Bronze 223 Remington 55 Gr PSP Battle Pack - Up To 75 Years Shelf Life! (240 Rounds)	Ammunition Depot	$ 223.09 $ 167.89
	Sportsman's Select Remanufactured 223 Remington 55 Gr BTFMJ (200 Rounds)	Ammunition Depot	$ 104.99 $ 88.99
	Prvi Partizan .223 Remington SP 55 gr 20 Rounds Ammunition - PP223S	Palmetto State Armory	$ 16.99 $ 15.29
	Remington High Performance Rifle 55 gr Core Lokt PSP 223 Remington Ammunition, 20 Rounds - 28399	Palmetto State Armory	$ 21.99

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

Limited Time Deal

Palmetto State Armory has the Holosun ARO 2 MOA Red Dot with HM3X Magnifier Combo on sale for just $219.99, down from $399.99. That gets you a capable rifle optic setup with a crisp 2 MOA dot, 3x magnification on demand, Shake Awake technology, and long battery life, all at a price that is tough to ignore for anyone upgrading a range rifle, defensive carbine, or general-purpose AR.

Top Features

• 2 MOA red dot for fast, precise target acquisition
• Included HM3X magnifier lets you switch from 1x to 3x on demand
• Shake Awake technology helps preserve battery life and keeps the optic ready
• Up to 50,000-hour battery life on a CR2032 battery
• IP67 waterproof rating with durable aluminum housing for hard use

Why Shooters Love It

This Holosun combo gives rifle owners a lot of capability for not a lot of money. You get a solid 2 MOA red dot for close-range speed, plus a matching 3x magnifier for stretching things out, making it a practical setup for range use, defensive rifles, and general-purpose carbines. At this price, it is a strong value for shooters who want a dependable optic package without blowing their whole build budget.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP: $399.99
• Sale Price: $219.99

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Holosun ARO 2 MOA Red Reflex Sight w/ HM3X Magnifier	GunMag Warehouse	$ 264.99
	Holosun ARO 2 MOA Red Dot w/ HM3X Magnifier Combo - ARO-CORE-RD2 & HM3X	Palmetto State Armory	$ 399.99 $ 229.99
	BUNDLE DEAL: Holosun ARO-RDS Red Dot Rifle Sight and 200 Rounds of Ammo - PMC 223 55 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 211.47
	Holosun ARO Red Dot Sight Red Selectable Reticle with Picatinny Mount Solar/Battery Powered Matte Black	MidwayUSA	$ 199.99

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

People with concealed carry permits are among the most law-abiding groups in the United States. Police officers have crime rates far below the general population. People with concealed carry permits are more law-abiding than police officers.

The arrest rate for the overall adult population in the USA is about 2,100 – 2,200 per 100k in recent years.  The arrest rate for police officers has been about 170 per 100k. This may be low because no one officially tracks police arrests. Officials may be reluctant to charge police officers. The conviction rate for concealed permit holders is about 17.6 per 100k in Texas, according to an academic paper by John Lott, Moody, and Wang published in 2025. From the paper:

Of the 43,932 total convictions in the Texas DPS 2023 report, only 284 — or 0.6 percent — were convictions of LTC holders, a conviction rate of 17.6 per 100,000.

Convictions are not the same as arrests. Arrests for felonies tend to result in about 65% convictions. Arrests for misdemeanors result in about 45% convictions. A conviction rate is likely to be about half of the arrest rate.  If we double the conviction rate to approximate the arrest rate, concealed permit holders have less than one-fifth the arrest rate of police officers. The arrest rate for concealed carry permit holders is about 1.7% of the arrest rate of the general population.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) sums up how law-abiding permit holders are for convictions of firearm-related violations:

Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.

Minnesota tracks the number of carry permits that are revoked each year. A look at the Minnesota numbers shows that revocations of permits are close to the number of concealed permit convictions in Texas. The numbers and methodology may be significantly different in the two states. In 2024, the number of permit holders in Minnesota was about 400 thousand. The number of permit revocations was 47. That is a revocation rate of 11.5 per 100k in 2024.

The crime rates of permit holders are much, much lower than those of the general population and much lower than those of police officers.

Very few people believe disarming the police is a good idea. Police officers, even retired police officers, have the legal right to carry in most places where most people are prevented from carrying weapons. Police officers have the legal right to carry in all states and territories of the United States.

Congress created the LEOSA Act as a way to protect the public with more responsible armed people on the streets. They also created it as a way to protect police officers. The same logic applies to people with concealed carry permits. Those people are much less likely to break laws than even police officers are.

It is common sense to increase the number of such protectors. There are about 700 thousand sworn police officers. There are about another 500 thousand retired officers. There are over 20 million Americans with concealed carry permits.

NRA, FPC, SAF Sue Maryland Over Glock-Style Handgun Ban

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

A legal rebellion is brewing in Virginia. As Governor Abigail Spanberger’s new “assault firearms” ban prepares to take effect, a growing roster of the Commonwealth’s Attorneys has announced they will not enforce it. The reason why is simple: the ban is unconstitutional under both the Second Amendment and Virginia’s own state constitution. According to the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), 10 prosecutors have now planted their flags — and they are correct to do so.

The Prosecutors Honoring Their Oath

Here are the heroes, as compiled by VCDL: Leslie Fleet (Appomattox), Matthew Bass (Clarke), John Lumpkins Jr. (Goochland), Phillip Blevins (Smyth), Dayna Bobbitt (Patrick), Rob Cerullo (Powhatan), Justin Griffith (Pulaski), Kyle Kilgore (Scott), Ryan Mehaffey (Spotsylvania), and John Bell (Warren).

Editor’s Note: The number of prosecutors who have announced they will not enforce Virginia’s “assault firearms” ban has risen to 13.

Here is number 13. I know that another two are on the way and will be announced soon! Watch for the VA-ALERT.

Page County Commonwealth Attorney, Chapman L. Good, Sr., is standing with the Constitution!https://t.co/RAcjOVKzDa

— Philip Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) June 2, 2026

Prosecutors in Virginia swear an oath to the United States Constitution — the supreme law of the land — and also to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A statute that violates either one is verboten, and prosecutors may not enforce it. Doing so would be in violation of the oath every prosecutor takes. These ten Virginia prosecutors recognize this dynamic.

Why the Gun Ban Law Fails — Text First, Then Historical Burden

Virginia’s Article I, Section 13 guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and the Second Amendment declares the same. Under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), you begin with a linguistic analysis of those words — using founding-era dictionaries like Samuel Johnson’s and Noah Webster’s. Those sources teach us that “keep” means to possess, “bear” means to carry, and “arms” means any object that can be used offensively or defensively. Firearms are obviously weapons and AR-15s are obviously bearable arms under the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Banning the purchase and transfer of firearms necessarily implicates the text of the Second Amendment, because acquiring a gun is the prerequisite to keeping or bearing one. Once the plain text is implicated, the burden shifts — entirely — to the government.

In arm ban cases, the government bears the burden to show that the arm being banned is dangerous and unusual. That is a conjunctive test, spelled out in Heller and reinforced by Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016). Both prongs of the test must be met. The Supreme Court already engaged in the historical spade work in identifying the “dangerous and unusual” test as being the only historical tradition of firearms regulation that could justify an arms ban. The Court did this work and articulated the standard when deciding Heller in 2008 and, thus, finding that DC’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. Here, the semiautomatic rifles that Virginia’s statute bans are not unusual by any measure.

Nine SCOTUS Justices Have Already Conceded the Key Fact

In one form or another, every sitting Justice on the Supreme Court has acknowledged that semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15, are commonly owned by Americans for lawful purposes. We see evidence of this in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280 (2025), and in Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), the bump-stock case, where even the liberal justices referenced it. See also Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (distinguishing machine guns from semi-automatic firearms), and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (known as “Heller II”).

For a prosecution under Virginia’s assault firearms ban to succeed, the Commonwealth’s prosecutor bears the burden of demonstrating that the AR-style semi-automatic rifle owned by tens of millions law-abiding Americans is somehow unusual. The evidence runs overwhelmingly the other way. No prosecutor acting in good faith could meet that burden set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. End of story.

Virginia Criminal Code is also on the Side of the Prosecutors

Virginia’s statutes empower criminal prosecutors with the prosecutorial discretion to refuse to commence or even walk away from a criminal prosecution. Section 15.2-1627(B) of the Virginia Code says that a Commonwealth’s Attorney “may in his discretion” prosecute Class 1, 2, and 3 misdemeanors. The language “may in his discretion” means that a prosecutor may choose not to prosecute. The assault-firearms violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor in that HB217 creates “a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm, as that term is defined in the bill with some exceptions…”

Section 19.2-265.6 of the Virginia Code, enacted in 2020, provides that upon the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss a charge with the defendant’s consent, a court “shall grant the motion” unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the motion was the product of bribery or unlawful victim bias. That is not in play here since there are (presumably) no bribes and there are certainly no victims (since an AR-15 transfer ban is a victimless crime).

Between these two Virginia statutes, and the inherent authority prosecutors have in charging decisions, every one of these prosecutors stands on solid statutory ground.

Discretion Is Justice

Prosecutorial discretion has always been a part of our legal system. Prosecutors are supposed to do justice, and not merely prosecute statutes in a vacuum especially in cases where there are no victims. Instead, prosecutors should be laser-focused on convicting violent thugs — the murderers, rapists, robbers, and predators who commit crimes that are malum in se, evil in themselves. Banning a rifle sitting quietly in a closet is enforcing a malum prohibitum law: wrong only because a legislature arbitrarily said so.

Ironically, many of the anti-gun left have spent years refusing to enforce drug laws. Yet, the difference between Virginia’s assault firearms ban and the drug laws is obvious: there is no textual constitutional right to keep and bear cocaine. But there is a textual constitutional right to keep and bear arms in both the federal Constitution and in Virginia’s Constitution. That puts these ten prosecutors on far firmer legal and moral footing than prosecutors declining to charge drug offenses.

Our Founding Fathers anticipated a moment such as today’s attempt by a government to start disarming ordinary Americans. And that is one reason why our Founders enshrined the fundamental right to keep and bear arms into the Constitution, thus denying legislatures the authority to do so.

Virginia Defies Court Order: State Police Resume Unconstitutional Background Checks

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

Nearly everywhere I’ve gone for the last several years, I try to film an episode with someone. I’ve been going to the Great American Outdoor Show which is held in Harrisburg, PA, in the dead of winter and presented by NRA. Lizzie and I met at a Waffle House with some friends and did the show on the way to the GAOS. Yes, I’m surprised there was a WaHo close enough for breakfast. It was about 7 degrees outside when we met. And it was very windy!

Lizzie Jackovich is a volunteer with Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC). FOAC is led by Jim Stoker (RSWC #187) and Klint Macro (RSWC #069 & #201). They’re fighting all the time, like everyone else, with the anti-gun politicians. Lizzie is in it to make things better for her children and to make sure they don’t lose the Right to Keep & Bear under her watch. They’ve got two groups, the ILLEA, Institute for Legal, Legislation, and Educational Action  and their Political Action Committee. The “crime” part of FOAC isn’t “regular” crime; it’s the crime of the politicians they’re fighting.

For those who may be interested, the Pennsylvania carry permit is pretty easy to get. You need to fill out an application and give them a $20 bill. I went to central PA a few years ago to the Tommy Gun Warehouse, and I drove a bit further to get my PA permit while I waited. It took an hour.

Lizzie has a history of gun owners and shooters in her family. Her grandfather was a chief of police. Her dad became a police officer, too, but he had several careers. As a young man, her dad was a Marine sniper and very much into shooting and fishing. As a young girl, Lizzie was into archery, joined the boys teams, and embarrassed them.

When she was older, some things happened in her life. When the police were called, they would often tell her, “You’re safe now” or “It’s over, you’re ok.” But she didn’t feel that way. That made her decision. She knew about firearms, but not enough to know what she was doing. She knew to keep her finger off and in a safe direction. Her first shots were with a Desert Eagle, and that was a turn off, but then she went to a .22, and things were better. Finally, she settled on a 9mm.

Once she was comfortable shooting, she started thinking about carrying, and that was something new to learn. She took some courses with Klint, started to draw from the holster, and progressed through the program.  With her new skill and interest, she wasn’t sure about instructing, but she was taking friends and family to the range. But she knew she needed something, so she became an RSO through the USCCA. In the future, there could be some instructing for her. She could be a great advocate for female shooters. The hunger for learning and passing on is something Lizzie would enjoy.

We talk about some current events (from January 2026). It was hard to explain to folks that carrying two spare magazines isn’t excessive or out of the norm for some folks. I have come around to believe that you need at least one spare mag for malfunctions.

With the FOAC events, Lizzie started running the Gun Bash. It’s an event that raises funds by raffling and auctioning off firearms. It’s a day to spend with others who are like-minded and enjoy the shooting sports. They’ve also got the famous Wall of Guns! They hold these twice a year, and it’s all up to her!

There are lots of amazing volunteers working with groups all around the country. Lizzie was giving up a lot of time, in the cold weather, to spend at the Great American Outdoor Show. She was there all weekend. And I’m sure she’ll be back next year and the year after that.

Favorite quotes:

• “Act like your rights depend on it…because they do.”
• “That’s the whole point; get unafraid. When you stay comfortable, you don’t grow.”
• “It gives me so much purpose. I can’t think of a better organization to be giving my time and energy to.”

Discrimination Against Black Lions on Gun Licenses a Threat to All Gun Owners

About Riding Shotgun With Charlie

Riding Shotgun With Charlie isn’t about firearms. It is about having an intimate conversation with 2 people talking. You’re the fly on the rearview mirror. Many of the passengers are involved in the firearm community.

This is a more intimate conversation than a phone, radio, or Skype interview. You get to see the passengers. And you’ll see where the road and the conversation take you!

www.ridingshotgunwithcharlie.com.