Archive for the 'Firearms' Category

Good. It is a stupid rule anyway.

I remain convinced that it should be possible to simply swap out the Fifth Circuit for the SCOTUS. I have long advocated for that.

🚨BREAKING🚨

The Fifth Circuit just struck down the unconstitutional federal ban on purchasing handguns across state lines.

“The Ban sullies the plain text of the 2A & is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation, dating back to the founding era.” pic.twitter.com/1yLcSokXNT

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

Source.

The consolidated cases in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins will deal with whether assault weapons bans, which typically outlaw the purchase of AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles, are constitutional under the Second and 14th amendments. The two cases are over laws in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut, but are similar to laws in various other states that will be affected by the high court’s eventual ruling. A brief filed to the Supreme Court arguing the laws are unconstitutional warns that broadly banning popular modern firearms, such as AR-15 style guns, would be incompatible with federal law and set Second Amendment rights back hundreds of years.

“Advances in firearms have always been part of the American experience,” said the brief filed by the National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, and Independence Institute, noting how modern semiautomatic firearms are the latest iteration of weapons the founders wanted to protect with the Second Amendment.

“To hold that Americans’ most popular firearm is in fact not an ‘Arm’ at all defies reason,” a brief filed by several pro-gun groups, led by Gun Owners of America, said. “AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles ‘fall squarely’ within the Second Amendment’s basic definition of ‘Arms.’ That is all that is needed for the bans under review to be ‘presumptively unconstitutional.’”

The Trump administration threw its weight behind the bid to strike down “assault weapons” bans, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that the laws are flatly unconstitutional. The Department of Justice brief asserts that the bans do not comport with the country’s history and tradition of firearm regulation and violate the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“The AR-15 rifle is unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Sauer wrote. “Today, AR-15s are lawful at the federal level and in 40 States. The overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners possess those rifles for the lawful purposes to which they are adapted, such as self-defense in the home, hunting, and target shooting. A ban on possessing such rifles thus violates the Second Amendment.”

There it is again, that phrase: “In Common Use.” I don’t care if there’s only a single AR-15 extant in the world. The 2A forbids the banning of it.

And leave it to the FedGov to use that argument rather than the militia argument we’ve discussed before. Finally, the article doesn’t even bring up that issue – I don’t think Jack Birle did a very good job with this article.

Lol. The Roman Catholic Church weighs in asking the court to inveigh against these weapons. As if I have some reason to care what the RCC says about anything. However, a lot of the justices are catholic so there’s that. Hopefully they’ll see through this. The RCC has also weighed in on AI. That’s like asking me what I think about colorectal surgery. Can’t they just shut up?

David Codrea.

“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia…  lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.”

Yes. Exactly. The entire premise that they get to regulate arms because they too much resemble military weapons turns the second amendment on its head. It is precisely those arms which are protected by the 2A.

Besides, not only is the above correct, but I have previously pointed out the subterfuge of trying to distinguish between military and civilian weapons.

This notion of military style weapons is and always has been a misdirect and a bald and stupid emotional appeal. There is no such thing as a non-military style weapon. Every weapon was at one time a military style weapon, from rocks to spears and then to knives and swords and then on to bows and then to muskets, bolt action rifles, and semiautomatic and fully automatic rifles.

The U.S. Marine Corps used Benelli shotguns for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan, and I can prove it …

Door gunners used revolvers in Vietnam, and I can prove it …

MACV-SOG used revolvers and Marlin .444 lever action rifles in Laos, and I can prove it.

And bolt action rifles are still in use today with snipers …

This is about disarmament. This isn’t about military versus civilian weapons. There is no distinction.

I proved my case. The correct answer is not in doubt. I am right. Everybody knows I’m right. I enjoy being right. I am so right that there is no further purpose in arguing about it.

But being right doesn’t necessarily mean much when the politics of the court gets in the way.

Firearms News.

The result is something few people would have predicted twenty years ago: a lever-action rifle that can comfortably coexist alongside AR-15s and modern carbines at the range. Models chambered in .357 Magnum hold a considerable number of rounds and provide impressive muzzle velocities. They are very easy to hit with, fast cycling and loads of fun. On the flip side are the .45-70 Governments and .444 Marlins big-bores which hit hard putting large diameter and heavy payloads on target. In-between are the traditional .30-30 Winchester and similar cartridges which slay white-tailed deer just as well today as they did 100 years ago.

I like lever action rifles, but for me it’s just as much the fact that you can’t put a .444 Marlin or 45-70 Government into a modern semiautomatic firearm and expect it to function reliably. On the east coast, you’re not likely to need more than these two can give you to take down game animals. We rarely get a shot beyond about 150 yards.

As best as I am aware, this is the first split we’ve seen on AR bans. They make it clear that although the SCOTUS has granted certiorari to an AR ban case, they aren’t waiting for them.

It seems strange that this split would come from the third circuit. But here it is.

It’s a long-winded read and I haven’t gone through it all, but my first glance makes me happy that there is a circuit split, but disappointed that the militia angle was downplayed so much.

CMMG.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CMMG, INC. statement regarding law enforcement sales to restricted states with LE exemptions.

Our country’s founders made a bold stance 250 years ago, a position of opposition to the overbearing restrictions placed onto them. They put their lives, their reputations, their possessions and their futures on the line. The Rights so boldly listed in that Declaration were listed and penned specifically to announce our freedoms and liberties. Over time, those words seem to have faded and our liberties have eroded slowly.

At this time, CMMG would like to renew our statement on sales of products to states that restrict the freedom of it’s citizens. Simply put: CMMG will only fulfill state and local government agencies and officers to the same configurations as they restrict to their own citizens. We do not have 2 classes of citizens in the country; we are ALL subject to the constitution. CMMG will fulfill orders in restricted areas if the Chief of Police or Sheriff of that respective department makes a public and written statement refusing to enforce those unconstitutional restrictions on the citizens in that jurisdiction. This includes firearms, parts, magazines and suppressors. If a state cannot trust us with equipment, we cannot and will not trust them.

They do make it clear in the comments that this doesn’t include fully automatic firearms. They have to maintain their FFL in order to be a company that does what they do.

But if the other large manufacturers would follow suit this become something special.

And I want to be able to carry an Ohio Ordnance HCAR, full auto, 30-06, anywhere I want to go. We all have our "wants."

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) June 25, 2026

American Rifleman: Rifles.

Shooting Illustrated: Shotguns.

Honestly, I take a fairly simple approach. I have never seen much that good ole’ Hoppes #9 can’t get clean. I do follow Ernest Langdon’s procedure and use mineral spirits on shotguns (except for walnut, of course).

I think much of this has to do with what works for you.

Source.

Shares of Sturm, Ruger & Company (NYSE:RGR) climbed about 5% on Wednesday after Beretta Holding S.A. revealed plans to launch a tender offer for up to 20.05% of the company’s shares at $44.80 per share. Ruger stock had closed Tuesday at $40.74.

The Italian firearms manufacturer said the proposal is part of a broader effort to obtain beneficial ownership of as much as 30% of Ruger’s outstanding shares through the tender offer. The offer price represents roughly a 20% premium to the stock’s 60-day average price.

Beretta has asked Ruger’s board to grant an exemption from the shareholder rights plan, or poison pill, that the company adopted on October 14, 2025. The tender offer would only move forward if the exemption is approved by March 31, 2026.

“We are not seeking control of Ruger,” Beretta General Manager Robert Eckert wrote in a letter addressed to Ruger’s board. “Our strong desire and hope was, and remains, to enter into a strategic collaboration with the Company.”

Beretta described itself as a potential strategic partner rather than a direct competitor, noting that its U.S. business is largely concentrated in shotguns, ammunition, and optics. The company said it currently employs nearly 700 people across nine U.S. entities.

The proposed tender offer follows what Beretta said were unsuccessful discussions with Ruger’s management concerning board composition and executive compensation. The company had previously put forward a minority slate of director nominees.

According to Beretta, Ruger’s board halted negotiations on March 16, prompting the decision to proceed with the tender offer. The firm emphasized that even if it reaches a 30% ownership stake, it would not amount to control or grant veto authority over corporate decisions.

Okay. Then I don’t understand the point of any of this. Perhaps someone with a finance degree can explain why any of this is beneficial to Beretta.

I don’t think Beretta trash-talking Ruger is the way to win friends and influence people, regardless of how corporations do it in Europe.

I like Ruger. I also like Beretta. I hope this passes away without harm to either company, branding, financial or otherwise.

And I’m not sure why any gun manufacturer would believe that you don’t need a slide release.