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.

David Codrea.

“The government, through the ATF, has a strong interest in promoting the safe use of firearms by the public, and in this particular case, in discouraging unregulated manufacture of forced reset triggers that allegedly infringe Rare Breed’s patents,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives asserted in a Monday filing in United States District Court.

Following this up, Len Savage wrote to the head of the ATF. You can see his memo here.

The answer to this is simple. They have no legal and legitimate interest. But here’s what’s happening if I remember correctly.

They got RBT to agree to maintain records of sales (individuals, names, bank accounts, etc.) in perpetuity. That means they know exactly where to go to claim the triggers as their own.

They still don’t like forces reset triggers. They never will because it assists rate of fire. Unfortunately for them, the law says nothing about rate of fire.

Shriver was an interesting character for sure. He used a combination of pistols, revolvers, shotguns, and even a .444 Marlin.

Link.

In What Colors Can Deer See (and also here), we discussed cammo and colors deer can see. ODL follows up its own reporting with even more.

The University of Georgia’s Deer Lab has been on the cutting edge of most of this research, and Outdoor Life recently caught up with Blaise Newman, a PhD student at UGA who is studying how deer vision influences their behavior. Her research in the Deer Lab is being sponsored by Sitka gear, and it looks specifically at how whitetail deer use their eyes to avoid predation as they move through different landscapes.

“What I focus on is understanding how deer’s vision helps them meet their ecological needs—how their physiology helps them meet their basic needs and functions,” Newman says. “Sitka funded this project in an effort to advance everything we know about deer vision. As a camo company, it makes sense. They want to know how they can make their camouflage less detectable by deer.”

Hunters used to believe that deer were unable to see color, and that they only viewed the world in shades of gray. We can now say with certainty that deer can see color— just not in the same way that humans do because their eyeballs are physiologically different than ours.

BLUF, don’t worry about red and orange. Do worry about lack of pattern that just becomes a one-color blob. Don’t wear blue.

Apparently, this dummy believes in stupid Disney movies and is risking getting gored by this elk and losing his life.

YT Short.

Source.

Because America is stupid.

Meanwhile, we can no longer build aircraft carriers.

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.

So this is a formal admission to violating federal law since there is not supposed to be a digitized version of that information. Drag them to jail.

— CaptainsJournal (@BrutusMaximus50) August 27, 2026

Source.

Why do Americans protected by the 2nd Amendment still need to get permission and approval from the ATF to have a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches, or a particular brand of stock, or a suppressor that, in most cases, doesn’t silence a firearm at all but simply makes shooting it easier on a person’s hearing?  Why, for 92 years, have citizens had to pay for a tax stamp and send their fingerprints to the government for guns that should be considered a constitutional right?

This is largely due to the National Firearms Act of 1934, passed under the highly overrated Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration.  The law became a permanent annoyance to every gun owner in the US and a lucrative revenue stream for federal agencies; at least, until now.

Finally, after nearly a century, the law is being erased.  But how?

The legality of the NFA relies heavily on the existence of a $200 tax stamp.  The government did not ban covered items outright in order to avoid a clash with 2nd Amendment protections.  Instead, they added a tax to various firearms and related accessories, then made the processing of the tax and approval on the purchases an arduous affair.  Until the Trump Administration stepped in, NFA approval on any particular item could take up to a year.

This clunky process was deliberately designed to dissuade citizens from purchasing certain firearms and attachments.  For people suspicious of government lists, the fingerprinting and applications made them not want to bother.  Possession of any of the items covered under the NFA is considered a serious federal crime with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

However, when Congress passed Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” in 2025, this included a provision which lowered the NFA transfer tax to $0.  With the tax stamp gone, the legal loophole which made the NFA possible was eliminated.  Now, an army of legal challengers have brought their case to federal courts to remove the NFA entirely, and they have succeeded (for the most part).

Expectations within the gun community were reserved (gun rights advocates have long waited for this moment and remain anxious that the DOJ will try to ruin the party with an appeal).  But, this does not seem to be the case.  Trump’s DOJ missed the first 7-day deadline for an appeal.  They also have another 60-day deadline, but reports suggest that the DOJ has no intention of interfering with the court’s ruling.

Rumors are swirling that Trump was personally involved in the DOJ decision to support the removal of the NFA by refusing to appeal.  Reportedly, according to Rep. Andrew Clyde who has been leading the charge on the legal fight, Trump has confirmed that there will be no further DOJ challenges to the NFA decision.

So what does this mean?  The federal government will be issuing guidance over the next 60 days on how FFL holders and gun shops can proceed with the transfer of items listed in the NFA.  At first, coverage is limited to the plaintiffs involved in the court ruling (and their customers), however, the DOJ has the power to nationalize the court’s decision, effectively making the NFA null and void for everyone everywhere (this is now a likely outcome).

This means, suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and other items could be purchased without tax stamps, fingerprinting and wait times.  A basic background check (Form 4473) will remain in place.  It may take another couple of months, but it appears that the NFA is effectively dead thanks to the Trump Administration.  Gun owners had to suffer for nearly a century, but the long battle is ending.

Meanwhile, the Hughes Amendment is still a problem, preventing the sale or transfer of machine guns made after 1986.  But it’s all about winning one fight and moving on to the next, and the end to the NFA is an epic accomplishment; one which most gun owners never thought they would see in their lifetime.

This is good news but I live in a non-free state where there has to be a Form 4 to purchase a suppressor. So we’ll see if the DOJ does away with such a form for suppressors or if my state undoes this requirement.

As for the Hughes Amendment abomination, I think FRTs have largely made that irrelevant.

Stephen Halbrook.

Jonathan Goldstein, Adjunct Professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School, has published a comprehensive analysis of the power of Congress to “grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water,” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 11.  Historically, this meant that private citizens could possess cannon and ships and could wage war at sea on enemies approved by Congress.

“You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed,” President Joe Biden quipped in 2022.  Well, actually you could, and you still can.  Cannon were never restricted until included in the revision of the National Firearms Act in 1968, which taxes and requires registration of “destructive devices,” defined as weapons that expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel of which has a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, excluding sporting arms.

According to Heller, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”  The Marque and Reprisal Clause was adopted in the original Constitution prior to ratification of the Second Amendment, and it has an interesting history of its own.

For fresh insights into the obscure Marque and Reprisal Clause, see Prof. Goldstein’s new article “The Militia of the Sea: The Marque and Reprisal Clause as Textual Proof of Private Heavy-Arms Ownership at the Founding.”  Here’s the Abstract:

Courts and litigants increasingly say the Second Amendment reaches only the weapons one person can carry. The Constitution refutes that twice, in a single Article.

Article I, § 8, cl. 11 lets Congress “grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” That is a license to send a private citizen to war at sea in his own ship, with his own cannon, for profit. A license presupposes what it licenses. The Clause takes a privately owned, cannon-armed fleet as given; nothing in the Constitution creates it. Two clauses later, Article I, § 10 forbids a state to “keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace” without the consent of Congress. The Framers made a sovereign ask permission to keep a warship. They made the shipowner ask no one.

Under Article I, the only power over private armed force at sea that Congress received was power over the commissioning of that private force on behalf of the United States. Congress did not give permission for the ship owner to arm the ship with cannon. The Founders who ratified the Constitution’s Article I in 1788 and the Second Amendment three years later in 1791 did not appear troubled that private parties owned heavily armed ships. Indeed, they took the widespread ownership of such heavily armed ships as a given, so much so that Congress principally concerned itself not with the private ownership of significant armaments, but rather with the transformation of that private ownership into a lawful use on behalf of the federal government itself.

With textual support from a documented record of roughly 1,700 Revolutionary-era privateering commissions — granted per voyage, in the years before the Constitution was ratified — this Article refutes the modern categorical claim that heavy arms were never “arms.”

This idiotic legislation (the NFA) is the reason I know an FFL who was contracted by the U.S. Navy to build a precision 20mm rifle for use at sea. As if 50 caliber is the only think the founders would have ever allowed a citizen to own.

It’s disgusting to me, and it should be to you too.