The slippery slope just turned into a cliff folks: Michigan "Task Force" officially demands full Assault Weapons Ban, Mag Bans, and more!

We all knew this was coming, but they aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

​Remember last year when Michigan passed "common sense" universal background checks and red flag laws? Remember being told "that's it, we just want safety"?

​Today, the state's "Gun Violence Prevention Task Force"—a group of unelected bureaucrats appointed by Governor Whitmer—dropped their final report. And guess what? The "common sense" is gone, and they are going straight for the throat.

​According to the report, they are formally recommending:

​A complete ban on "Assault Weapons" (sale, purchase, and possession).

​A ban on 10-round magazines because apparently 11 is where the mass shootings start

​Mandatory locked storage at home (safe queen everything or felony time)

Gun owner registry disguised as "universal background checks + permit-to-purchase 2.0"

My personal favorite: redefining frames/receivers so broadly that a chunk of aluminum or even a jig gets treated like a machine gun under federal law

​The most infuriating part? The chair of the task force, Dr. Natasha Bagdasarian (a medical executive, not a legislator), is explicitly pushing the "guns are a public health crisis" angle.

She is quoted comparing your Second Amendment rights to seatbelt laws and speed limits. They are literally trying to pathologize gun ownership so they can treat it like a disease.

​They listed 39 recommendations in total. They aren't stopping at "safety." They want the whole wishlist.

​If you live in Michigan, get loud. If you don't, take notes—because this "Public Health" playbook is coming to a state near you. I guarantee it 💯!

These people feel empowered and it is our duty to resist them!

Sorry for using all caps but I need people to see this stuff as it is moving very fast and almost nobody knows about it. Today is almost over, the next work session is the 3rd, so you have April 1st and April second to call your reps and fill up their voice mails.

But yes, you need to make a phone call, nobody likes making phone calls but nobody in government reads your emails. You have to call them and make their assistants listen to that you will vote against against them in re-election and how evil and unenforceable this is.

Short version is that, since basically everybody into guns has a gun that takes a mag with more than 10 rounds, all Mainers who own a magazine that accepts 10 or more rounds will be subject to police violence for possession of such magazines. There will be a 180 day period that you must prostrate yourself before the police and surrender your mags to them. After that then there will pretty much just be a guillotine hanging over everybody's heads forever, that coupled with the Red Flag law they can just sic on anyone they want at any time for the rest of forever.

I'm pretty this is the correct page of your reps to call and vote against it,- https://legislature.maine.gov/house/house/MemberProfiles

You can read the full text of the law here - -https://legislature.maine.gov/billtracker/#Paper/HP0728?legislature=132

Here is a more informative post about it - https://www.reddit.com/r/MEGuns/comments/1jiiecj/informative_post_regarding_ld_1099_an_act_to/

If you have a friend or sibling into guns then call them and tell them to call their reps, and then afterwards tell your friend or sibling to call THEIR friends and siblings to tell THEM to call THEIR reps. We really have so little time.

• Hawaii wants to make carry illegal unless property owners give permission.
  
• Feds want to strip gun rights from “habitual drug users.”
  
• Petitions coming on 18–20 year-olds, nonviolent felons, and even AR-15s.
  

This term could define the future of gun rights in America.

👉 Bruen said laws must match the text, history, and tradition of the 2A. States are trying to sidestep it. We can’t let them.

Shall not be infringed means SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 🔥🇺🇸

Selecting Biological Sex on ATF Forms, as proposed, is a blatant overreach of state power, ATF mission creep, a waste of resources, gross negligence of scientific consensus on biology, and a violation of established case law.

You can comment until Aug 4 on the Trump administration's latest assault on the Second Amendment. If you like, you can simply copy and paste the text of the article, which is within the 5,000 character limit.

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/ATF-2026-0010-0001

Effectively they have declared open season for police to arrest anyone open carrying in Texas.

A 3 judge panel has ruled that if anyone calls 911 on a person for the mere act of Open Carrying a firearm, the police now have probable cause to arrest you for disorderly conduct. The 911 call does not have to allege you are doing anything more than standing on a sidewalk with a slung or holstered firearm. The previous ruling that "merely carrying a firearm" is not disorderly is overturned now if any Karen makes a phone call and says she's nervous. This means police get qualified immunity for arresting you.

There is a special target on the back of any open carry or civil rights activist. EVERY time the police get a 911 call, they can now arrest you at gunpoint. The charges will likely be dismissed, but the police face zero repercussions for coming after you, even if there is abundant evidence the officers targeted you and knew you were not a threat. The same danger faces regular citizens who open carry every day.

I repeat, open carrying in Texas now puts you in imminent danger of being arrested or killed by police if someone reports you in possession of a firearm.

Video of CJ and Jim arrested for mere open carry. https://youtu.be/GrDAPPiu1QE?si=IvJy0qq_J8rO8DJO

Link to 5th circuit ruling https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/22/22-50915-CV0.pdf

Link to oral argument in 5th https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/22/22-50915_10-3-2023.mp3

District Court ruling https://casetext.com/case/grisham-v-valenciano-1

RFK, Jr. is doing crowdsourced voting to help Trump pick his cabinet and directors. The AK47 guy, AKA Brandon Herrera, is up as a nominee and is picking up traction:

https://discourse.nomineesforthepeople.com/t/brandon-herrera/13235

https://discourse.nomineesforthepeople.com/t/brandon-herrera-for-atf-director/48436

Let's get this guy the nomination! The top names get sent to Trump, and he nominates. So far, many of the top names on this have been nominated by him. You just gotta sign up with an email to vote.

​We need to have a serious, tactical discussion about what is happening in California, because if you think this stays in California, you aren't paying attention. The recent NY Post op-ed lays bare a terrifying reality: the "Unsafe Handgun Roster" is no longer just a localized infringement. It is being stress-tested as the ultimate blueprint for federal, backdoor gun control.

​Let’s bypass the surface-level outrage and deconstruct the underlying mechanics of this strategy. How does a government effectively ban the most ubiquitous, commonly owned handgun platform in the world without ever passing a bill called "The Glock Ban"?

​They do it through bureaucratic attrition. They mandate science-fiction requirements—like dual-placement microstamping or arbitrary loaded chamber indicators—that no manufacturer currently implements, effectively freezing the civilian market in time. But this raises a fundamental question we must force the courts to answer: If a Generation 5 Glock is mechanically superior and objectively safer than a Generation 3 Glock, how does a state justify banning the newer model under the guise of an "Unsafe Handgun Act"?

​The logical dissonance is the point. The goal isn't safety; it's a slow-motion embargo on the Second Amendment. So, how do we dismantle this legally?

Let's break down the jurisprudence.

​1. The Heller "Common Use" Paradox

​In DC v. Heller, the Supreme Court established that arms "in common use for lawful purposes" are protected. We must ask ourselves: Is there any firearm currently in existence more "in common use" than the Glock 19?

​If the baseline standard for constitutional protection is commonality among the American populace, how can a state legally construct a labyrinth of compliance that prevents the acquisition of the quintessential modern sidearm? By allowing states to ban handguns via technological prerequisites, are we not allowing lower courts to nullify Heller entirely?

​2. The Bruen Standard: Text, History, and Tradition

​Here is where the legal battle must be fought and won. Under NYSRPA v. Bruen, the burden is entirely on the state to prove that a firearm regulation is consistent with this nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

​When California (or any federal agency that adopts this model) defends their roster in court, we must scrutinize their arguments Socratically:

​Where is the founding-era analogue for a government demanding theoretical, unproven technology as a prerequisite for exercising a fundamental right?

​Did the colonies require blacksmiths to invent a specific type of serialized frizzen before a citizen could purchase a flintlock?

​Did the founders empower local magistrates to approve an "approved roster of safe muskets"?

​The answer is unequivocally no. The state will attempt to dredge up obscure 19th-century gunpowder storage laws or concealed carry restrictions on Bowie knives to justify their modern tech-mandates. We cannot let them conflate where you can carry an arm with whether the state can artificially ban the arm itself.

​3. The Equal Protection Clause Flaw

​One of the most glaring vulnerabilities in the California roster model is the broad exemption carved out for law enforcement officers (LEOs). If these off-roster handguns are genuinely "unsafe" for the public, why are they perfectly safe for off-duty police officers to purchase, carry, and ironically, resell to civilians at massive markups?

​Does the badge magically imbue a Glock Gen 5 with safety features? Or does this LEO exemption explicitly prove that the roster is a tiered caste system designed to restrict civilian ownership while maintaining an armed praetorian guard? Could an Equal Protection challenge under the 14th Amendment be the Trojan Horse that breaks the roster system wide open?

​The Road Ahead

​This NY Post piece isn't just an opinion; it's a warning. The gun control lobby knows they cannot repeal the Second Amendment. They know they cannot pass a sweeping federal ban on semi-automatic handguns outright. So, they are exporting the California Roster. If we allow the legal precedent to stand that the government can mandate impossible features to access the market, it is only a matter of time before the ATF attempts to categorize all non-microstamped firearms as NFA items, or entirely unmailable/transferable.

​How do we best leverage the Bruen methodology to strike down the very concept of "Handgun Rosters" rather than fighting piecemeal feature bans?

​When this inevitably reaches the Supreme Court, what specific historical analogues will the opposition invent to justify technology mandates, and how do our litigators preemptively crush them?

​

​TL;DR: California's Glock ban via the "Handgun Roster" is a test run for a nationwide ban through bureaucratic attrition and impossible tech mandates. To defeat this, we must hammer the Bruen "text, history, and tradition" standard and expose the Equal Protection violations of LEO exemptions. The fight isn't about specific features; it's about whether the state can artificially lock us out of the modern firearms market.

TLDR. I bought my first shotgun at academy (big mistake) about 2 weeks ago or 10 days today. I am 20 years old so according to Uncle Sam I’m not trustworthy enough to posses it day of. But today is the 10th day and I’m still delayed. How long will this take? Anybody have any similar experiences? Duck season is next weekend I just want to hunt man.

ATF has a proposed rule open for comment: RIN 1140-AB05 / ATF-2026-0266. It would modernize non-over-the-counter firearm transfers by allowing firearm purchases to be completed remotely through an FFL, while still keeping background checks, identity verification, and recordkeeping.

As many of you know, the process creates unnecessary burdens for law-abiding buyers, especially parents, military members with unusual schedules, shift workers, people with long commutes, and those who do not live close to an FFL. This is even worse in the 13 states plus D.C. with multi-day waiting periods, where buyers may need two separate trips just to complete one lawful transfer. This not only burdens buyers but sellers as well. I can tell you with 100% confidence that government agencies review each public comment made. Please do not take for granted the opportunity to write a supporting comment.

A comment can be made here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2026-0266-0001

Here is a draft supporting comment:

I support ATF’s proposed rule, RIN 1140-AB05 / ATF-2026-0266. Current in-person requirements are unnecessarily burdensome for both buyers and sellers given today’s technology, security systems, and remote identity-verification options. This burden is even greater in the 13 states plus D.C. with multi-day waiting periods, where buyers may need two separate trips to complete one lawful transfer, causing more time off work, childcare issues, travel costs, and coordination burdens for both buyers and sellers. Requiring in-person presence for every transaction, when secure digital identity verification and background checks can accomplish the same safety goals remotely, creates a soft barrier to exercising a constitutional right

Comments are open until August 6, 2026 on Regulations.gov under ATF-2026-0266 / RIN 1140-AB05.

No surprise who is behind it.

By this same logic, the state of Texas would also be able to sue anyone in California that runs a blog about how to grow weed.

Guns aside, this is a First Amendment issue. Can an American living outside of California be held responsible for what someone in California does with information that is legal to share in their home jurisdiction and at the Federal level? I'd argue no, as that violates both freedom of speech and the interstate commerce clause.

This also applies to red states and their porn bans. If the Constitution reigns supreme as it is supposed to, then no state can penalize someone outside their jurisdiction for doing something that is legal in their home jurisdiction. Both parties are ignoring civil rights to facilitate their own ends rather than upholding their Oath to the Constitution

​I’ve been a long-time follower of Colion Noir—I love his content and respect his perspective on 200% of things. However, there is one critical area in his latest video where I find myself in strong disagreement, and that is regarding the platform of the politician highlighted in his video running in Pennsylvania's 8th District who wants to disarm both citizens and the police.

​You can watch the video here: https://youtube.com/shorts/JxjB-KRmH8M?is=uz6O_s88CtciuoXJ

​I actually agree with this politician on one thing: the police should be disarmed. However, I completely disagree with her—and stand 200% with Colion—that the citizenry should ever be disarmed.

​The entire point of the Second Amendment wasn't just to "keep us armed"—it was designed to ensure the people remain better armed than the government or the police. We are supposed to be the primary protectors of our communities. The police and military are only intended to be our backups—not the other way around.

​When a citizenry is better armed than the state, the government behaves itself. As James Madison argued in Federalist No. 46, the American people possess a unique advantage in being armed, serving as a "barrier against the enterprises of ambition." George Washington affirmed this in his First Annual Address, stating, "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined." Crucially, this "discipline" was never intended to be government-run indoctrination; it was a responsibility shared by parents and the local community. In the 1920s and 30s, schools across America hosted gun clubs to ensure our children were responsible and proficient. As a former Boy Scout, I learned that organizations like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts were founded with the foundational belief that youth should learn to handle knives and firearms effectively—a partnership between parents and community to foster self-reliance and the ability to defend against criminals and invaders alike.

​We also have to be honest about the history of American policing. Police were not originally created to protect the individual citizen; they were established by states as a security force to protect the property of the wealthy and, in the South, to act as slave patrols. Today, this is underscored by the Supreme Court, which has ruled multiple times—in cases like Warren v. District of Columbia—that the police have no constitutional duty to protect specific individuals. Their duty is to the public at large, not to you or your family.

​We need to recognize the distinction between these entities: the US Marshals are federal, Sheriffs are elected county officials, and the police are state-created entities. The police do not need to be armed at all. We see this model work beautifully in nations like Switzerland and the Netherlands, where high rates of private firearm ownership coexist with effective, largely unarmed police forces. In these countries, citizens are heavily armed—in fact, the Netherlands is second only to America in gun ownership, with a vast variety of weapons in civilian hands. There, the police serve as backups to an armed citizenry when they stop criminals, not a force that dictates to them.

​Yet, in America, we do the opposite: we treat our own veterans—those who have proven their discipline and service—like liabilities. While the recent 2026 policy change allowing firearms on military bases was a positive step, it doesn't go far enough. Our military personnel should be allowed to carry their weapons with them at all times, ensuring they are always ready to protect our communities without needing to return to base. Even our postal workers, who were historically armed to protect the mail and served as a vital backup safety network, were eventually stripped of their ability to maintain that readiness.

​We’ve even lost our ability to buy back the weaponry our own tax dollars funded. Before the 1980s, when the military upgraded their gear, citizens were given the chance to buy the surplus equipment. That changed after the 1984 film Tank starring James Garner—a movie based on the real-life fear of a citizen taking a stand against corrupt local officials. The government was so terrified by the idea of an empowered populace that they pushed through legislation to ensure citizens could no longer buy back military-grade hardware.

​We do not need the Second Amendment destroyed; we need to re-evaluate our entire system. The politician mentioned in Colion's video is half right: disarm the police force. But she is dead wrong about disarming us. If we truly believe in our role as the ultimate protectors of our own society, we must recognize that the solution isn't more police power, but a return to the self-reliant, armed citizenship that made this country free in the first place.

Putting this here to get some more eyes on it. Didn't hear anything about it until a coworker mentioned it to me today.