Category: A Victory!
On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment.
CQ Almanac noted that the ban on interstate handgun sales was put in place via the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. The ban was then fleshed out and expanded in the Gun Control Act of 1968 which was signed into law by Democrat President Lyndon Johnson.
The Fifth Circuit surmised: “The government’s theory of the Ban’s historical justification centers on its contention that ‘when it enacted the Omnibus Crime Control Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 [which contains all of the provisions comprising the Ban], Congress sought to address concerns about public safety and that individuals deemed dangerous might evade state laws designed to ensure only law-abiding citizens could acquire firearms by purchasing them outside the jurisdiction.’”
But the government’s theory did not survive the Bruen (2022) test.
By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.
The Firearms Policy Coalition, a plaintiff in the case, noted that the Fifth Circuit “held that the constitutional right to keep firearms necessarily includes the right to purchase them” and a prohibition against buying a handgun in a state outside one’s state of residence interferes with that right.
The First Circuit ruled, “The Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation, dating back to the founding era, under that Amendment.”
Categories
POTUS Rescinds Lead Ammo Ban
For years, deer hunters across parts of the Midwest had to study cartridge case dimensions before heading into the woods. Straight-wall cartridges like the .350 Legend and .450 Bushmaster grew popular in no small part because they gave rifle hunters legal alternatives in states that heavily restricted traditional bottleneck cartridges.
That landscape keeps changing.
Michigan, Indiana, and Iowa now give hunters considerably more flexibility than their old regulations allowed — though the rules, and when they changed, differ in each state.
Michigan Drops the Limited Firearms Deer Zone
Michigan made the biggest change for the 2026 season.
The Michigan Natural Resources Commission eliminated the Limited Firearms Deer Zone in the Lower Peninsula. Beginning September 12, 2026, hunters can use all legal firearms across the Lower Peninsula — including bottleneck-chambered rifles.
Michigan defines a legal rifle during applicable firearm deer seasons as one firing any caliber larger than .22 rimfire.
For hunters who spent years selecting cartridges specifically for the zone, that’s significant. Straight-wall cartridges are still legal; they’re just no longer required simply because you’re hunting the southern Lower Peninsula.
One capacity restriction is worth remembering for AR-platform and other semi-auto hunters: a semi-automatic rifle or shotgun can’t hold more than six shells in the barrel and magazine combined.
(Michigan DNR 2026 deer regulations: https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/managing-resources/laws/regulations/deer)
Indiana Standardizes Rifle Rules
Indiana took a different approach.
The state now permits centerfire rifles firing a bullet at least .219 inch, or 5.56mm, in diameter on both public and private land.
That public-versus-private distinction matters because Indiana previously maintained different rifle-cartridge restrictions depending on where you hunted. Senate Enrolled Act 280, passed in 2025, eliminated that distinction.
The state still prohibits full-metal-jacket bullets for deer and limits hunters to carrying no more than 10 cartridges for each such rifle while hunting deer.
In practical terms, Indiana hunters now follow a much simpler standard: centerfire, .219-inch bullet diameter or larger, with an appropriate hunting projectile. Meet the diameter and it’s a legal rifle — which puts a common AR-15 in 5.56 or .223 on the table, loaded with expanding bullets.
Iowa Is Still Different
Then there’s Iowa.
Iowa allows both straight-wall and necked-down cartridges during its youth/disabled and first and second shotgun seasons — but that doesn’t mean you can grab your .308 or 6.5 Creedmoor and head for the stand.
The cartridge must fire an expanding bullet measuring from .350 through .500 inch and generate at least 500 foot-pounds of muzzle energy.
That makes cartridges such as the .35 Whelen, .350 Legend, .358 Winchester, .450 Bushmaster and .45-70 Government legal options.
It excludes common smaller-diameter bottleneck cartridges — the .308 Winchester, .30-06 Springfield, .270 Winchester and 6.5 Creedmoor — from those seasons. Note the reason: Iowa cares about bullet diameter and energy, not case shape. A bottleneck round that clears .350 (the .35 Whelen, for instance) is fine; a .308 isn’t, because it’s too small.
There’s another important distinction: this isn’t a new Iowa rule for 2026.
The framework allowing these rifles dates to legislation passed in 2020 and administrative rules effective in June 2021. Hunters may be hearing more about expanded Midwestern rifle options this year because of Michigan’s change, but Iowa has operated under its current rules for several seasons.
(Iowa DNR deer hunting page: https://www.iowadnr.gov/things-do/hunting-trapping/types-hunting-trapping/deer-hunting)
Straight-Wall Isn’t Dead
None of this means the Midwest’s straight-wall boom is over.
The .350 Legend, .450 Bushmaster, .45-70 and their kin still make plenty of sense for whitetail, particularly in timber and where shots are short. Plenty of hunters already own rifles chambered for them, know their holds, and shoot ammunition that performs.
The difference is that regulations increasingly give hunters more choice. Michigan effectively removed case geometry from the equation in the Lower Peninsula. Indiana uses a minimum bullet diameter requirement rather than restricting hunters to straight-walled cartridges. Iowa allows necked-down cartridges, but only inside a fairly specific caliber, projectile and energy envelope.
Three Midwestern states, three different sets of rules.
As always, check current state regulations before heading into the field. The fact that your deer rifle is legal on one side of a state line doesn’t mean it’s legal on the other.
Scott Witner
A lawsuit attempting to hold Smith & Wesson responsible for the crimes committed during the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting is now reaching beyond the firearm manufacturer and into the gun media.
Firearms reviewer and attorney James Reeves disclosed on X that he was served with a subpoena demanding years of records and analytics concerning Smith & Wesson and reviews he has produced.
The most troubling part for firearm journalists and content creators is how broadly Reeves says the subpoena defines advertising. According to Reeves, the plaintiffs’ definition includes “even unpaid organic social-media content.”
In other words, an independent review of a lawful firearm could be treated as corporate advertising merely because the reviewer received, tested, or discussed the product.
That is a dangerous theory with implications extending well beyond Smith & Wesson or the firearm industry.
Everytown Lawsuit Targets Smith & Wesson Marketing
The subpoena arises from Roberts v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., No. 22-LA-00000487, pending in the Circuit Court for Illinois’s 19th Judicial Circuit in Lake County.
The case was filed by Keely and Jason Roberts, individually and on behalf of their twin sons. The family attended the July 4, 2022, parade in Highland Park when murderer Robert Crimo III fired 83 rounds from a rooftop, killing seven people and injuring dozens more.
The Roberts family suffered horrific injuries. According to the complaint, Keely Roberts was shot through the foot, one son was struck by shrapnel, and the other suffered catastrophic injuries that left him unable to walk.
Those facts are tragic. They do not, however, make Smith & Wesson or independent firearm reviewers responsible for the deliberate actions of a murderer.
The 78-page First Amended Complaint—signed by attorneys from Everytown Law and several private firms—names Smith & Wesson, Budsgunshop.com, Red Dot Arms, Crimo, and Crimo’s father as defendants.
The lawsuit advances 11 counts, including alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, deceptive trade practices, negligence, battery, assault, and emotional distress.
Its central theory against Smith & Wesson is that the company unfairly marketed the semiautomatic M&P15 to adolescent and young adult men through military imagery, appeals to excitement and adrenaline, first-person-shooter aesthetics, and social-media influencers.
The complaint repeatedly describes the M&P15 as an “assault rifle” and a “weapon of war.” It alleges that Smith & Wesson’s marketing influenced Crimo’s decision to select the rifle for his attack. That is an allegation, not a finding by the court.
Gun Media Named as Discovery Respondents
The complaint does more than attack Smith & Wesson’s advertising. It separately names Cybear Interactive, Watauga Group, and Clandestine Media Group as “respondents in discovery.” They are not listed as defendants.
The complaint contains only two paragraphs addressing these companies. It alleges that they may possess information “essential” to determining the parties or issues and asks that they answer interrogatories, produce records, and appear for depositions.
Reeves now says the plaintiffs have followed through by serving him with a subpoena seeking years of information concerning Smith & Wesson and his reviews.
AmmoLand reviewed the First Amended Complaint and Reeves’s public statement. The subpoena itself was not included with the documents reviewed, so its precise language and demands are being reported based on Reeves’s account.
According to Reeves, the requested material potentially reaches nearly any YouTube video discussing the M&P15 during the relevant period—even content produced independently and without payment from Smith & Wesson.
“If a manufacturer sends a journalist or creator a product to independently test, that does not magically transform the resulting review into advertising,” Reeves wrote.
That distinction should be obvious. A favorable firearm review does not become an advertisement merely because the manufacturer supplied a sample. Nor does a manufacturer control every conclusion, criticism, or demonstration published by an independent reviewer.
Treating journalism as advertising could allow plaintiffs to drag reporters and creators into litigation simply for covering firearms someone later misused.
Lawsuit Seeks Restrictions on Smith & Wesson Speech
The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages, but they also want the Illinois court to impose sweeping restrictions on Smith & Wesson’s marketing.
The requested injunction would prohibit Smith & Wesson from targeting AR-15-style rifle marketing at children and young adults and from using military branding, imagery, or references. It would also require age gates on social media, warnings in advertisements, and disclosure whenever an advertisement features actors.
The complaint relies heavily on the claim that Smith & Wesson created a misleading association between its M&P rifles and the United States military. It further alleges that marketing rifles with military themes encourages civilians to engage in unlawful military, militia, or paramilitary activity.
The argument effectively treats ordinary images of lawful rifle use, tactical training, or military heritage as evidence of wrongdoing. Now, based on Reeves’s description of the subpoena, plaintiffs appear prepared to apply that same theory to independent firearm coverage.
Another Attempt to Plead Around the PLCAA
Reeves characterizes the case as another attempt to circumvent the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
Congress enacted the PLCAA to prevent firearm manufacturers and sellers from being held civilly liable for harm caused by criminals who misuse lawful products. The law contains specific exceptions, including cases involving defective products, negligent entrustment, and knowing violations of laws governing firearm sales or marketing.
Gun-control organizations have increasingly attempted to fit their cases within those exceptions by framing traditional product advertising as consumer fraud or unlawful marketing.
Reeves compared the Roberts case to the litigation brought against Remington following the Sandy Hook murders. He also connected the subpoena to his work on proposed state legislation intended to clarify and reinforce protections against lawsuits based on third-party criminal misuse.
Regardless of how the Illinois court ultimately rules, the effort to classify independent reviews as advertising should concern every journalist and content creator.
The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. The First Amendment protects the right to speak, publish, and report about them. Anti-gun litigants should not be permitted to evade one constitutional protection by attacking the other.
Reeves advised firearm-media professionals who receive similar subpoenas not to ignore them—and not to delete records. That is sound advice. A subpoena is a legal demand requiring a serious and timely response.
It is also a warning that the gun-control lobby’s campaign against the firearm industry is expanding. The target is no longer limited to manufacturers and dealers. The people who review, explain, and report on lawful firearms are now being pulled into the fight.
============================================= For the Record my Blog “You will shoot your eye out.com has gotten ONE Penny from the Public or the Gun Industry. This is just a hobby of mine and should be protected by the 1st Amendment of the US Federal Constitution.
Also it should be noted that I am dirt poor! So to all the blood thirsty lawyers out there. I kind of doubt that you would make much money off of me! Grumpy
.jpg)
Does the word “Ghastly” come to your mind too? Grumpy