M2

Concur all. I have shot a YHM Turbo-K RB at Quiet in the Capitol, an annual free suppressed-only shooting event hosted by Capitol Armory in the Austin area to "test-fire firearms equipped with suppressors from many major manufacturers, speak with industry representatives, and compare products before purchasing" a couple of years back, and thought it was perfect for my needs. Suppressors being part of the NFA is ridiculous, I don't think even SBRs/SBSs belong on that list. In fact, none of it does; but suppressors have nothing to with organized crime (the original alleged purpose of the Act) nor did it increase accountability and traceability for "particularly powerful or concealable weapons." The GCA of 1968, in response to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert F. Kennedy, is equally idiotic. There is NO definitive proof that either Act reduced gun crime. The biggest drivers of the decline in gun-related crime appear to be improved policing, the end of the crack era that fueled much of the violence in the 1980s and early 1990s, demographic shifts and other social changes such as the increased incarceration of repeat violent offenders rather than any single gun-control law. But back to the point, once the ATF pulls its cranium out of its fourth point-of-contact, I will be likely be running to my favorite LGS to pick up two supressors as quickly as I can. I've put it off for far too long, and the removal of a Form 4 will be the catalyst of my next spending spree!

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition!" ~~ Rudyard Kipling

I went by my local gun shop on Monday and as they still haven't received guidance from the ATF on the ruling, they are still requiring a Form 4 for suppressors. The owner, a bud, recommended waiting a week or so until said guidance is received. Many FFLs are doing the same. However, another bud randomly walked in while I was there and bought his first suppressor. He was in an out in about an hour, they took care of all the application requirements and it was approved while he waited. This caused two dilemmas for me, am I OK with the ATF having a record of my NFA item via the Form 4, or do I wait until all that is needed is a 4473 which stays with my local gun store unless they close shop. The second is do I buy my first suppressor (yes, I am lagging on this due to the NFA registration) for a .22 (which I am more likely to use) or my 5.56 hopefully-soon legal SBR (if Form 1s follow suite on the same ruling)? I have debated getting a suppressor for years, mainly due to the NFA documentation. I had a bad experience when the ATF allowed pistol braces to be registered without the $200 tax stamp (before the Big Beautiful Bill nullified that). They screwed up my paperwork and I just forgot about that until I got a rejection notice in the mail two years later. I was not going to refile at that point as the brace worked for my needs and I didn’t want to go through that headache again even though I knew it would be easier the second time around. At this point, I’m just going to wait. I know there will be a mad run on suppressors once the ATF puts out its guidance, but I’m in no rush. Much like my SBR, it’s a nicety but not anything I absolutely must have; and I can be patient...

DOJ Says Lawful Gun Owners Can Carry in Post Offices For decades, gun owners have generally been told that carrying a firearm into a U.S. Post Office is illegal. The Justice Department now says that isn't what federal law actually says. In a significant legal opinion issued August 12, 2026, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel concluded that federal law permits otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense inside post offices that are generally open to the public. Even more importantly, DOJ concluded that the U.S. Postal Service cannot enforce its separate regulation that purports to ban firearms on postal property without a self-defense exception. There are some important limitations here, and this isn't the same thing as the Supreme Court striking down the post office gun ban. But this is a major change in the federal government's position… (Full story at title link)

There's one across the street from my office!

The decision does not apply to everyone nationwide for the time being. It applies to the specific plaintiffs in the consolidated cases Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF, along with certain affiliated entities. From the Silencer Shop Foundation case: Silencer Shop Foundation Gun Owners of America (GOA) Gun Owners Foundation Palmetto State Armory SilencerCo Weapons Research B&T USA Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) From the Jensen case: Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA) Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) FPC Action Foundation Hot Shots Custom, LLC The injunction also includes these plaintiff states: Alaska Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Louisiana Montana North Dakota Oklahoma South Carolina South Dakota Texas (God bless!!) Utah West Virginia Wyoming The ruling concerns NFA registration and approval requirements for: Suppressors (silencers) Short-barreled rifles (SBRs) Short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) "Any Other Weapons" (AOWs) in certain portions of the case. It does not eliminate NFA regulation of machine guns or destructive devices. However, the sources I found do not say that every person residing in those states are automatically covered simply because they live there! One legal analysis specifically notes that coverage depends on whether a person falls within a protected category under the injunction, such as a member, customer, agency, or other covered party. In short, the organizations directly affected are current and future members and customers of GOA, Gun Owners Foundation, TSRA, FPC Action Foundation, CCRKBA, Silencer Shop Foundation, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, B&T USA, FRAC, and Hot Shots Custom, plus their members and customers as specified by the injunction.

So, a national police force like many countries have?!?

A pardon does not automatically force someone to testify, but it can reduce or eliminate their ability to refuse testimony based on self-incrimination for the offenses that were pardoned. Whether a particular witness can still invoke the Fifth depends on the scope of the pardon and the specific questions being asked. The complicating factors are that, like any presidential pardon, it covers only Federal crimes for conduct up to the date it was issued. In this case, that date is 20 Jan 2025 (Biden's last day in office). Fauci could still be prosecuted under state law rather than Federal law, Federal crimes outside the scope of the pardon, and future perjury or false-statement charges based on testimony given under oath. It will be up to the courts to decide whether he can invoke his Fifth Amendment rights or not. https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/silence-admission-could-fauci-be-prosecuted-bidens-pardon

Was anyone actually expecting this not to be a complete and utter shit show?!?

And “a loss of confidence and trust in their ability to effectively lead and command” is a bureaucratic formula that hides whether the commander actually failed to lead effectively or merely fell out of favor with their superiors! If a commander is relieved for poor judgment, toxic leadership, mission failure, or misconduct, a generic statement can make it difficult to determine whether the action was justified. Specific reasons help demonstrate that standards are being applied fairly. Military organizations improve when leaders understand what went wrong. A vague explanation like "loss of confidence" provides little guidance for subordinate commanders trying to avoid similar mistakes. Also, when people see leaders removed without explanation, they may suspect politics, favoritism or scapegoating. Transparent reasoning can increase confidence that decisions are based on performance and standards. Future leaders, historians, and researchers need more than a boilerplate phrase to understand why a command decision was made and what lessons should be learned. Some will argue that the public does not necessarily have a right to know every detail; but a better balance is needed between transparency and institutional learning, and privacy, fairness, and command discretion!

Required reading for my CGSC class, very insightful! Ricks argues that the U.S. Army's success in World War II was partly due to its willingness to relieve ineffective generals, while the postwar Army became increasingly reluctant to hold senior commanders accountable for poor performance. According to Ricks, this decline in accountability contributed to military shortcomings in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Marshall routinely evaluated commanders and removed those who could not perform under combat conditions. During WWII, dozens (not 600) to include 16 division commanders of generals were relieved, reassigned, or retired when they failed to meet standards. Marshall prioritized mission success over protecting careers, but it wasn't always due to leadership failures. One famous example was Maj. Gen. Terry Allen, commander of the 1st Infantry Division, who was relieved despite being an aggressive and popular combat leader because Army leadership felt a different type of commander was needed for future operations. Leaders such as Matthew Ridgway, George Patton and Maxwell Taylor are highlighted as officers who adapted to changing conditions and inspired subordinates. Ricks contends that many senior leaders in Vietnam remained in command despite poor results. The Army became focused on preserving institutional reputation rather than candidly assessing failures, and that promotion systems increasingly rewarded conformity and career management. Officers learned to avoid mistakes rather than take calculated risks, and advancement often depended more on navigating bureaucracy than demonstrating battlefield excellence. Early phases of the Iraq War exposed deficiencies in strategic planning and senior leadership. (Petraeus is presented as a notable exception, helping to develop and execute the 2007 Surge strategy) and again Ricks argues many senior commanders were not adequately held accountable for flawed assumptions and operational setbacks. Ricks also highlights that being successful at lower levels of command does not automatically prepare an officer to be a successful general officer, that senior leaders must understand politics, policy, coalition management and strategy, not just battlefield tactics.

Well done, Spain!!

To elaborate a bit on that... Millennials are now the largest voting generation, making up roughly one-third of eligible voters. Boomers and older generations no longer constitute a majority of the electorate. Gen Z's share is growing rapidly; about 41 million Gen Z Americans were eligible to vote in 2024. Combined, Gen Z + Millennials account for nearly half of all eligible voters.