I have a job offer in Oklahoma, coming from Texas, and am just curious to hear from the oklahoma gun owners what its like to be a gun enthusiast in OK? Ive looked up the laws and they seem pretty 2A friendly, but outside of that whats the culture like? Is there any public land shooting or good LR scene?

Thank you all.

Fifth Circuit

1. Besides US v. Peterson (5th Circuit 24-30043), I found another suppressor case: US v. Comeaux (5th Circuit 24-30307). The latter actually uses the Bruen standard, unlike the Peterson case, which used the interest-balancing standard. In the Comeaux case, the district judge David C. Joseph, who got appointed by Trump, denied the motion to dismiss on 2A grounds by saying that they are "dangerous and unusual" because of the potential criminal misuse due to the suppressor's features, and the historical legislative record on the state level that reflects the public's negative perception of suppressors after they were patented in 1908.

Judge Joseph erred on two reasons:

a. He did not undergo the full Bruen analysis. He skipped over the text and didn't use the historical analysis on why suppressors were historically considered unusual (in reality, per the American Suppressor Association, there are 3.15 million suppressors in circulation). Rather, he used interest balancing to point out the potential criminal misuse of suppressors due to their features to conclude that they are "unusual."

b. While it is true that the suppressors got regulated quite quickly on state level besides the federal level when the suppressors came out in the early 1900s, those regulations came way later after 1791. See Defendant's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.

2. Besides US v. Simien (who violated 18 USC § 922(n) for having a gun while on probation after pleading guilty to a charge of aggravated robbery besides § 922(o)), there's another full auto case titled US v. Wilson (5th Circuit 24-10633).

Background: in the government's response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss, Wilson and his friends bought a pistol from a private seller for $300, only for the former group to realize that the pistol was fake. Wilson got an extended magazine from his car, loaded it in his own pistol, and confronted the seller about the fake firearm. After 20 seconds, Wilson pulled out his pistol and shot and killed the private seller, which he claimed that he was acting in self-defense (this is argument is untenable because in the picture, it seems that the private seller is not going towards Wilson).

In the motion to dismiss, Wilson said that Hollis v. Lynch is no longer good law as the 5th Circuit panel claimed that machine gun possession wasn't covered by the Second Amendment as machine guns were dangerous and unusual and hence not in common use (i.e. they stopped at step one of the old two step approach).

Judge Pittman, however, denied the motion to dismiss. In denying the facial challenge, Pittman says that the numbers (176,000 privately owned machine guns and 740,000 total machine guns) are too insignificant for machine guns to be in common use. Here, Pittman used the numbers to claim that they are unusual, but that's mainly because of the laws enacted to restrict them. However,

[R]elying on how common a weapon is at the time of litigation would be circular to boot. Machine guns aren't commonly owned for lawful purposes today because they are illegal; semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines are owned more commonly because, until recently (in some jurisdictions), they have been legal. Yet it would be absurd to say that the reason why a particular weapon can be banned is that there is a statute banning it, so that it isn't commonly owned. A law's existence can't be the source of its own constitutional validity.

-Friedman v. Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406, 409 (7th Cir. 2015). Wilson then pleaded guilty, but has filed an appeal. I'm not sure if he will be appealing the conviction or only the sentence.

Eighth Circuit

The case here is US v. Wendt (8th Circuit 24-2458). The indictment claims that Bradley Eugene Wendt, a former Police Chief for the City of Adair in Iowa and an FFL-SOT dealer, has abused his police chief position by writing false "law letters" that falsely stated that those full autos were purchased for official police use or for demonstration for evaluation for potential future purchase. In reality, the Adair Police Department wasn't interested in and wasn't considering purchasing those machine guns, and Wendt intended to get those full autos for personal use, enjoyment, and profit. For example, Wendt purchased 3 H&K MP7A2 machine guns for $2,080 each, then sold them for a price that is an order higher than the purchase price, one of which was sold on GunBroker.com! Wendt at one point twice tried to buy the M134 minigun, but the ATF denied it both times because the ATF thought that it was unsuitable for local law enforcement use. Besides the false statements, he was charged under § 922(o) for possessing an M60 machine gun.

Wendt filed a motion to dismiss. Besides statutory issues on the exemptions for § 922(o), Wendt claimed that the statute violated 2A as applied to the local law enforcement. Here, he claims that Founders intended the local governments and the state militia to have such arms. In other words, if the machine gun possession by the City of Adair isn't protected, then so is that by the local law enforcement agencies, the National Guard, and even the military. He claims that the 8th Circuit case US v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2008) has foreclosed the claim that individual machine gun possession is protected.

The district judge denied the motion to dismiss on the fact that the indictment said that Wendt acquired those machine guns "for his personal use, enjoyment, profit, and gain", not for the police, so the judge decided to apply the Fincher case, and claimed that Fincher is good law. In reality, that Fincher said that machine guns are "dangerous and unusual" is basically an ipse dixit.

The Defendant's argument in his motion to dismiss is factually flawed, but the judge applied a case that's no longer good law. If the 8th Circuit affirms Fincher and applies it to Wendt, that can foreclose future solid 2A challenges against the Hughes Amendment.

Make no mistake, this is what the gun control lobby is after nation wide

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H4885

Let me preface this by saying I'm totally against universal background checks. I just want to hear your thoughts on an Idea I had.

I was browing liberalgunowners today and most of them seem to think UBC is not an issue. I think if republicans found a way to have them without further infringing on our rights that they could take away a major fear mongering talking point of the left.

What do you think would happen if on every state ID/DL they had an endorsement that showed if you were not a prohibited person. Once you become a prohibited person you would lose that ID and be issued one without the endorsement.

I don't want this to become an illegal registry so It would have to be something that everyone, gun owner or not, had to have. In return we could eliminate the 4473 that we already know is being used to create an illegal registry.

I don't think anything involving background checks could ever reduce crime but I think republicans offering this solution would at least expose the other side as wanting control and a defacto registry. We could also be the ones to say that the other side won't address gun violence if the idea gets shot down.

Want to hear any drawbacks or ways that this could be twisted to be used against us politically or legally.

Edit since I dont think I was clear: My Idea is EVERYONE has an indication on their license whether or not they are prohibited. This is used INSTEAD of a background check (like in some states where you have a CCL). It would be like having your ID checked buying cigarettes at the gas station.

Looking for some guidance. About 14 years ago, I was admitted to a state run rehabilitation facility (SC) for drug addiction and alcoholism and deemed "mentally incompetent." I'll admit, I was young and my life was at a low point during this period. Unbeknownst to me, my right to bear firearms was going to be revoked for going to this facility for 28 days. I'm not a convicted felon and I've never had any violent or domestic crimes.

Fast forward several years, I'm a productive member of society, local business owner and have been heavily involved in my recovery community for the last 7+ years. I've recently discovered that I'm not allowed to legally purchase a firearm due to the circumstances described above.

Does anyone here have any similar experience or guidance on how to navigate this?

Mark Baird's reply brief was filed this evening. His appeal is now fully briefed. We don't know if there will be an oral argument in his appeal. There is no time limit for the Court of Appeals to issue its decision.

The appellate briefs are linked on my website.

Ruling here.

Long story short, judge says that laser sights are accessories (which is true) and hence not necessary or integral to the operation of a firearm and not "arms." The "necessary or integral" argument is essentially interest balancing and the alternative means statement. From what I know, this was done in the Ocean State Tactical case.

Personally, if one wants to challenge accessory bans like the suppressor ban, one should say this: banning or regulating accessories is essentially and respectively a ban or regulation on firearms with accessories, like how California's assault weapon feature ban bans rifles with offending parts like the flash suppressor (not the parts like the flash suppressor itself, but the end result is the same).

What does the potential of Harris being elected mean for pro2A causes?

Amicus brief here.

Long story short, amici emphasize how to properly apply the Bruen test (and how SCOTUS did so in Rahimi). Specifically, amici point out the errors made by the district judge:

1. The district judge improperly took on the "unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach" by sneaking in interest balancing, when in reality, school shootings fall under the category of criminals using weapons to harm people in the public, which is a "general societal problem that has persisted since the 18th century." In reality, school attacks that have occurred in the past date back to the French and Indian War, yet the district judge used the fact that frequency of school shootings (aka attacks) has increased. Amici rebuts the argument by pointing out that this has also occurred in other public places like parks and grocery stores. If such an argument is upheld, that can spread to uphold every public place to the point that the right to bear arms is totally destroyed.
2. The district judge, who properly found the rather limited tradition of historical school restrictions applied mostly to students on school grounds, took an extraneous step of citing the buffer zones around polling places to justify those around schools.
3. Even if the number of polling place buffer zone laws is sufficient (it's not), those laws aren't relevantly similar to 18 USC § 922(q)(2)(A) in terms of the burden. The polling place buffer zones only applied on election days, while § 922(q)(2)(A) applies 24/7 every year.

The brief also cites that while "sensitive places" are bad if not constitutionally justified, buffer zones are even worse because a law-abiding citizen legally carrying a gun in an urban environment may not necessarily know when he or she has entered a school zone. Specifically, it inserted a picture of Dallas with a lot of schools, meaning that nearly the entire city is a "sensitive place" due to the buffer zone. It also points out how the exception of CCWs won't help much, as it's for residents only, not for non-residents like Allam, who is from New York, and how an "unpermitted" person in a constitutional carry state can be harmed.

Hi there,

Has anybody (buyers and dealers) been having problems with dealing with background checks (NICS and/or state background checks) when doing gun transactions today due to CrowdStrike?

So we having a psr vs lucas ufc fight and shoot off???

While I agree MAC (Military Arms Channel) can be annoying and snobby af, what’s the deal with the MAC hate? Did he do something that’s anti-2A?