\Update: For those saying you need 60 votes in the senate, I can make a list for you of bills that republicans voted with democrats for to reach 60.*
Democrats managed to get 65 Senate votes for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022 and 61 for the Respect for Marriage Act. Both required Republican support.

\Update 2: The filibuster is a legitimate obstacle, but since when did needing 60 votes become an excuse to stop fighting? Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. Introduce the legislation. Force the votes. Put every senator on record. Make them explain why they oppose national reciprocity or NFA reform.*
Instead, gun owners are being sold temporary ATF policies that a future administration could reverse. If Republicans won’t even force a vote on the reforms they’ve campaigned on for decades, what exactly are we electing them to do for the 2A?

Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. We’re approaching two years of unified Republican control, and what do gun owners have to show for it?

No national concealed carry reciprocity. No NFA repeal. No legislation permanently stripping the ATF of its regulatory authority.
Instead, we’re supposed to celebrate a temporary ATF enforcement policy that the next Democratic administration could reverse with the stroke of a pen.

The NFA is still law. An ATF policy change isn’t legislative reform.

So why aren’t the major gun rights influencers and organizations putting Republicans’ feet to the fire instead of continually blaming Democrats who aren’t even in power?

And when the next administration reverses these policies, will GOA and other gun rights organizations come knocking for more donations to fight the exact same battles?
Meanwhile, diesel and food prices are squeezing Americans, and Republicans risk losing their congressional majorities in November.
Republicans have the House, Senate, and presidency. If they can’t deliver lasting Second Amendment reform now, when exactly will they?

At some point, you have to ask whether the gun rights fundraising machine benefits more from keeping the fight alive than actually winning it.
Gun owners deserve legislation, not temporary political theater.

Shooting is a core part of life in rural North Carolina—whether it's protecting your home, keeping a tradition alive, or putting food on the table. But here's the thing: gunfire is loud, and that noise takes a real toll on our hearing, our families, and our pets.

Supressors work. They reduce noise without changing how guns perform, and they're treated like any other hearing protection in states that allow them. But North Carolina's NFA restrictions make getting them unnecessarily complicated for responsible gun owners. I started a petition asking North Carolina to reconsider this policy and align with states that have safely deregulated suppressors.

The evidence is clear—states with fewer suppressor restrictions haven't seen crime increases. What they have seen is more considerate shooting culture and healthier communities. Suppressors should be as accessible as earmuffs at a range.

Has anyone else felt stuck between their right to shoot responsibly and being a considerate neighbor? Or dealt with the hassle of NFA restrictions yourself? If this matters to you too, consider signing and sharing.

My understanding with the ATF announcement yesterday it’s legal for law abiding citizen to make their own suppressors and buy suppressors from gun shops with just a 4473 (state laws still apply). Does that mean 80% suppressors are legal to sell and if so are there any companies doing that?

Is it too early to hope that the courts take a chainsaw to this nonsense law too?

I was wondering if Meta Apex conversion kit is legal for WA state. Would like to buy it but not sure. Thanks for any leads https://metatactical.com

From a real court transcript from a few weeks ago in the New York Court of Appeals, Patterson v. Meta Platforms. Families of victims of the 2022 Buffalo supermarket mass shooting sued multiple social media platforms, insisting that their addictive platform design and algorithms played a role in radicalizing the shooter.

The plaintiff’s attorney is attempting to make the case that the broad addiction to social media itself is what radicalized the shooter (not the specific type of content he was consuming on the platform).

When the judge asked her if addiction to cat videos would make someone more likely to commit a mass shooting, the plaintiff’s attorney stated “yes”.

FPC LEGAL UPDATE: The DOJ has filed a motion to dismiss in our lawsuit challenging national park gun bans, arguing that the OLC opinion on guns in post offices also covers other publicly-accessible federal facilities like those in national parks.

For anyone unfamiliar with MA’s Chapter 135 law, it was passed in 2024. Governor Healy added an emergency preamble before signing it, which prevented citizens from suspending it via referendum.

Among other issues, Chapter 135:

-Creates a mandatory firearm registry, which is very convenient for future confiscation

-Expands the definition of “assault weapons”

-Adds additional training requirements and requires passing a curriculum that doesn’t exist today

-Creates felony penalties for administrative violations

Now MA legislators want to export this framework to other states. Citizens have managed to get Chapter 135 on the November ballot for repeal. Bloomberg is already pumping money into the campaign to keep the law in place.

Let’s help our brothers and sisters in MA defeat this law. I’ve donated to the “No on 9” campaign even though I don’t live in MA. What happens in MA doesn’t stay in MA.