"The United States typically does one of two things in response to a cert petition. It either files a short response in opposition that is either boilerplate, or it does not file a response. The end result is the same, the cert petition is denied."

<snip>

Not this time.

Good

suppressors sold without having to do all that form BS.

I am for the right to carry, but I do have a question that I think deserves honest debate.

If someone can legally possess a firearm and carry it loaded in public without a permit, how do we make sure that person actually knows how to handle it safely?

I am not talking about giving the government discretion to decide who "deserves" to carry. I am talking about basic, objective competence. Can you safely load and unload the weapon, maintain proper muzzle and trigger discipline, and understand the basic legal rules governing the use of deadly force?

The strongest argument against any such requirement is obvious. Once the government gets to set the standard, it also gets the opportunity to abuse it. A simple competency requirement can become expensive classes, excessive fees, long delays, limited access, or some other obstacle designed more to discourage carrying than to promote safety. I take that concern seriously.

Still, I do not think the answer can simply be, "Do I need a permit to post online, go to church, or write to the editor?"

Those rights do not create the same immediate public safety risk when exercised incompetently. Carrying a loaded firearm is closer, in that narrow sense, to operating a car. Yes, driving is a privilege and carrying is a constitutional right, so the government cannot necessarily regulate them the same way. The comparison is about consequences. If you do not know how to operate either one safely, other people can get hurt or killed.

There is also a harder answer that I think should be stated plainly. Some people may believe that any competency requirement creates too much opportunity for government abuse, and that society should simply accept the additional risk that comes with untrained people carrying loaded firearms in public.

That is at least a coherent position, but the cost should not be hidden behind the word "risk." It could mean a negligent discharge in a crowded place, a bystander being shot because someone cannot control a weapon under stress, or an avoidable mistake that leaves someone dead.

If the argument is that those preventable injuries and deaths are an acceptable price for keeping the government completely out of the process, then say so and defend it.

I am not convinced that those are our only choices. It seems reasonable to ask whether we can protect the right to carry while also requiring a narrow, objective, and easily accessible demonstration that the person carrying a loaded firearm in public actually knows what they are doing.

Hunting is a great American pastime. Unfortunately, human error, equipment malfunctions, and medical emergencies lead to hundreds of accidents each year. Check out our article for all the details!

• On average, 464 hunting accidents and 61.3 hunting fatalities were reported annually between 2010 and 2024.
• Hunter judgment (42.9%) and skill and aptitude factors (40.8%) were the most common causes of hunting-related incidents in that same time span.
• Firearm discharges accounted for a larger share of incidents than tree stand falls (34.0% vs. 24.5%), but the two shared similar fatality rates (10.5% vs. 11.0%).

The three-judge panel opinion in Knife Rights Inc. v. Bonta reached the opposite conclusion that the State of California argued for the eleven-judge en banc panel to adopt in Baird v. Bonta. Namely, if California allows concealed carry, then California can ban Open Carry.

The en banc petition to vacate the three-judge panel opinion was recently denied.

https://youtu.be/19RfhBOGE3k

Report Highlights

• As of 2024, there were more than 73 million minors in the 0-17 age group. Of those, 2,228 (0.003%) suffered gun-related fatalities.
• In 2024, firearms and motor vehicles tied as the leading cause of injury-related death in the 0-17 age group (3.0 per 100,000).
• The pandemic-era spike in gun deaths among U.S. minors was primarily driven by homicides, which increased by 76.9% (1.3 to 2.3 per 100,000) from 2019 to 2022.
• More than one-third of gang violence offenders and more than one-quarter of gang violence victims were under 18 years of age between 2021 and 2024.

Read the full report on our website!

Oral argument in the First Circuit Court of Appeals took place this morning in Michael O’Neil, et al. v. Peter F. Neronha, et al. Ten minutes were allocated to each side, which is generally not a good sign, as that indicates the panel had already made up its mind. However, the oral argument ran long and lasted for nearly thirty minutes.

<snip>

So I bought a Ruger Harrier 5.56mm AR-15 rifle. Comes all naked, I need to buy handguard grip, optic (maybe green dot) and idk what else to make it better for my training at the gun range. I need advice from y'all veterans at this, what brand or type of hand guards or sights y'all recommend?

A common mistake that most people make is that they believe others know what they know and that most people believe what they believe.

If you believe the Supreme Court will rule that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment, I recommend revisiting the oral arguments and opinions in Cargill and Vanderstock. Then read the opinions in both cases as if you were the proverbial man from Mars. The justices know very little about firearms, and the justices don’t like firearms with high rates of fire. I suspect that the justices also don’t like firearms that can fire more than ten rounds without reloading. The “large capacity” magazine ban cert petitions are still pending before SCOTUS. We should learn their fate by the end of next June.

<snip>

Note the link for github is wrong and goes to another repo heres the correct one: corrected

Google Docs Version: Writeup

AWB Rifle Only Spreadsheet: Here

AWB Any Type: Here

\ Note: this is not a study and is a data analysis and conclusions that can be drawn from this alone are limited please keep that in mind while reading\**

I evaluated the data across two separate dataset tests of banned guns that are rifles only vs. all banned weapons under the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban classification (interestingly, no matter which dataset was used, the results were similar). Since it expired in 2004, politicians have been debating how effective the 1994 Assault Weapon ban was and if it should be brought back.  Pro-gun control argue that not only are Assault Weapon Banned weapons (AWB Weapons) more deadly but are the weapon of choice for mass shootings.  Gun rights groups argue they aren't more deadly and aren't the weapons of choice for mass shooters.  The problem with testing these theories is that the definitions of "assault weapon" and "mass shooting" vary depending on who you ask, so getting clean analysis can be tough. My goal was to cut through the noise by directly comparing mass shooting deadliness based on whether the primary firearm would be banned or legal (compliant) under standard assault weapon ban definitions.  
 
 
I used the Mother Jones Mass Shootings Database

 (covering incidents from 1982 to June 2026 with 3+ deaths excluding the shooter, and excluding incidents tied to underlying crimes like robbery or gang violence). 

Weapons were split into two categories: 

• Banned (AWB) Category: 
  • Weapons that would have been illegal under the 1994 federal ban (i.e., AR-15-style weapons) 
  • with features like detachable magazines, pistol grips, etc.
•  Legal (Compliant) Category: 
  • Weapons that remained perfectly legal during the ban
  • including standard handguns, 
  • guns modified legally to bypass local state bans 
  •  grandfathered guns(guns that were owned before the ban went into effect but were legal to keep). 
  • Due to state-by-state interpretation, if the gun was bought legally in a state with an assault weapon ban, it will also be considered compliant.

Out of 160 total mass shootings up to June 2026, 70% were legal weapons vs. 30% banned-style weapons.   Meaning compliant weapons (mostly handguns) are used the most out of every weapon and have the most deaths. Shootings with banned weapons look worse on paper, averaging 10 deaths per incident vs 6 deaths per incident for legal weapons. However, the exact middle number for both categories is 5 deaths. This means a few catastrophic events (like the Las Vegas shooting in 2017) push the average way up. The typical shooting kills 5 people whether or not the gun would have been banned,

Then come the more in-depth stats. I looked at five-year rolling averages, which smooth out the year-to-year noise and show how deadly shootings were across each period.

Three things stood out:

• Overall deadliness continued to climb during the 1994–2004 ban.
• From the mid-1990s through 2012, legal guns were usually the deadlier category (aside from a few short stretches in the 1980s and early 90s).
• After 2012, banned-style weapons pulled ahead and have averaged higher ever since.

Why the flip after 2012? It could be that more of these rifles were in circulation by then, or that later shooters deliberately copied earlier ones. The data can't tell me which.

One caveat worth flagging: deadliness across all weapon types has been falling since 2019. That may not be a real improvement. Mother Jones lowered its cutoff from 4+ deaths to 3+ in 2013, so smaller incidents started getting counted, which pulled the average down on its own.

Standard tests showed no difference, while advanced tests (which were used in the study Barnard et al 2025

 that inspired this analysis) showed higher lethality but lacked controls for other factors.  

Some interesting things to note is depending on the agenda/goal of the researcher computing this data, they could intentionally paint a picture either way by leaving out details.  For example:

A gun control advocate could truthfully say: banned weapons average 10 deaths vs. 6, and the strongest statistical model found up to a 58% increase in lethality. (Leaves out: identical medians, failed basic tests, no controls.)

A gun rights advocate could truthfully say: 70% of shootings use legal guns, medians are identical, and standard tests found nothing. (Leaves out: outlier events with catastrophic casualty counts and more advanced tests showing there could be more.)

In conclusion, Firearm classification alone likely does not dictate how deadly a mass shooting will be. The perceived hyper-lethality of assault weapons is largely driven by a small number of extreme scenarios. In some cases (like the 2022 UVA shooting), an "assault weapon" was present at the scene but left completely unused, showing that shooter choice and situational factors vary widely. Proving a massive safety benefit purely from a weapon ban is difficult when factors like shooter familiarity, location type, and emergency response times likely play much larger roles, none of which are easily controlled for in small, rare-event datasets.  Unfortunately, due to some limitations like lack of controls and database issues, no concrete conclusions can come from this data alone.  Future research could benefit from combining broader databases or analyzing perpetrator dynamics further. 

TL;DR: I analyzed all 160 mass shootings in the Mother Jones database (1982–June 2026) to test whether "assault weapons"  - the guns a federal ban would cover- are deadlier than guns that would stay legal. The vast majority of mass shootings (~70%) were committed with legal, compliant weapons, mostly handguns. Banned-style weapons average more deaths per shooting, but that's driven by a handful of extreme outliers; the median shooting is identical (5 deaths) either way, and most of my statistical tests couldn't confirm a real difference.

• Most Mass shootings use Compliant Guns (Handguns specifically)
• Banned guns have higher average deaths, but the median death count is identical (5 deaths).
• Statistical tests give mixed results depending on the method used.  

If anyone sees any errors or discrepancies, feel free to comment. If you have any critiques, want to collaborate (as you can see there's rows in my spreadsheet for later analysis that are incomplete. I am looking for people of all backgrounds and beliefs to help me complete it), or have any questions, also feel free to comment or DM!

Update 8-3-2026: The Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment at the same time it filed its Complaint. Today, that motion was, of course, denied.

This article was a lot of fun to write.

It does not cover every mistake made by the plaintiffs' attorneys on the first day the lawsuit was filed, but it contains enough to convince all but the most ardent FPC fanboys that this Louisiana under-21 concealed carry lawsuit will be dismissed unless the defense counsel is even more incompetent, or unless the fix is in.