John Kloehr

OK, correction accepted. I shoot in a lot of sports. So 4X, not 8X. Observation remains. Not sure there is a fix or a fix is even needed, just reflecting on how there seems to be guidance to avoid P traps and this one has a higher penalty. As a shooter, I would prefer the lesser P trap (it it even is one, read and follow the instructions) to the comparative miss trap in these scenarios. Either way, I'll shoot it and take my lumps.

FPC letter to DOJ: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/15027/attachments/original/1786656734/2026.08.13_Ltr._to_Govt.pdf?1786656734 " ... Plaintiffs request that the Government provide clarification on the following questions. This is an initial list and we anticipate that there may be need for ongoing dialog on these issues. 1. Will the Government be providing guidance to regulated entities and individuals on how it plans to ensure compliance with the injunction? 2. If the Government will be providing guidance, what form will it take, and when will it be provided? 3. Does the Government intend to continue enforcing the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities or individuals who are not covered by the injunction? 4. If so, what will the Government do to ensure that it does not seek to enforce the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities and individuals across the country who are covered by the injunction? 5. If the injunction is later stayed, modified, dissolved, or otherwise made ineffective, how will the Government treat NFA items made or transferred while the injunction was in effect? I look forward to receiving the Government’s response. Due to the time-sensitive nature of this issue, we respectfully request a response by August 21. "

Just as observation from a beginner and in no way criticism,. Scenario 1 could maybe be characterized as a P trap, but could also be a fair stage. Hey, If I do that brain fart, it is not really very much of a trap since the instructions are clear. +5 seconds. Next shooter. Scenario 2 by comparison is a miss trap. +40 seconds, next shooter. Not to put it on an MD as I am responsible for my performance qs the shooter, I would ask stages not be written to multiply a penalty 8 times. Considering everything I have seen about avoiding P traps (only 5 seconds, maybe just deal with it), the huge difference in penalty compared to scenario 2 with 40 seconds for shooting it exactly the same does give me pause.

From (with my bold): https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260812/what-does-the-texas-nfa-decision-mean-for-you " The case is two separate cases that were consolidated (Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the NRA-supported case Jensen v. ATF). The distinction is somewhat important because the injunction applies in slightly different ways to the different groups of parties. The SSF parties are B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the States of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and several individuals. The Jensen parties are the Texas State Rifle Association (NRA’s Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several individuals. " Since the NRA organizational plaintiff is the Texas affiliate, the injunction applies to members of that affiliate.

True, I have not looked up the specific date and what courts it may file in. The DOJ let the 1 week deadline to appeal and extend the stay. I consider this short deadline from the court as a signal to the government to decide quickly, don't delay any challenge. DOJ still has plenty of time to file a challenge. I'm interested in hearing when any of the 15 covered states start transferring silencers (and maybe other arms?) without a Form 1 or 4. And for Silencer Shop to start shipping without them. And a clear DOJ statement would definitely be helpful. For silencers and also for SBSs, SBRs, and AOWs. And being clear for who and where. I'm sure my local can pusher's phone is ringing off the hook today. There might be a can shortage for a while until enough legally unregistered cans flood the market.

And more confusion. It seems some are suggesting while the 5th ruling invalidates the registration component under tax legislation (NFA 1934) for silencers, SBSs, SBRs, and AOWs, it may only extend to suppressors under the GCA of 1968. Not sure if FUDD or real or the source of the concern. Also keep in mind some states still have laws requiring registration or possession restrictions. In positive news, the test transfer did take place just after midnight. This was a carefully constructed transfer dotting all Is and crossing all Ts for all parties involved. Also while not definitive (not direct from DOJ and ATF), there is this from a credible source: Since we are discussing government, not appealing is not as strong a statement as not intending to enforce against anyone (lawful) anywhere (under federal law).

I'm coming to understand the slight difference as to designation (or not) of targets for a type of firearm, so a P vs 8 misses. But this is a very narrow case. Good for understanding the principle of it, but dang, I'm thinking about joining the group who wants to lynch the stage writer. Perhaps not so much of a P trap but a miss trap. If anything, I request mercy of a stage writer to consider this discussion and write it so it is just a P and not 8 misses.

At minimum, any state laws will still apply. As a conjecture, that person might have to transfer it from himself to himself either before or after the move but not bringing the item into a place where state law requires registration, even if that registration is federal... Yes, very messy. Over the long haul, depending on how the near future plays out, yes. And I have no intention of being a test case. Should a future government pass legislation setting the tax anywhere between $1 and whatever $200 was worth in 1934, the Supremes might rule it constitutional as an exercise under tax power. And registration would return with it. Separate suits are now testing federal authority under the commerce clause, this case is still limited to the question as to a registration requirement if the tax is $0, and only if it is $0. The rest of the law remains on the books even if it does nothing until the tax returns. If the ATF does not file an appeal or ask for an extension of the stay, then the planned transfers can go forward. Should the ATF then file an appeal within the remainder of the 60 days, then SCOTUS could pause the ruling. But by then, the "freedom week" or as I like to call it, the cat is out of the bag... Before closing out this post, I want to address my understanding of the situation regarding "nationwide protection" as presented by @Blackwater 53393. Looking at a section of the (heavily edited) ruling (with my bold): " Before getting into the analysis, the Court adds a disclaimer: As it turns out, the dispute over whether the plaintiffs brought facial claims, as-applied claims, or both is somewhat tangential. As explained below, the plaintiffs prevail on their enumerated-powers claims no matter how they are understood, and the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims are abandoned. " Pause and consider. This is not a 2A ruling, this is a tax power question. Continuing in the ruling: " More importantly, because the Court tailors its remedy to the parties ... it effectively grants as-applied relief no matter how the plaintiffs’ claims are categorized. That approach—compelled by historical principles of equity and the Supreme Court’s decision in CASA— ... “[S]uccessful facial challenges invalidate the regulation altogether, whereas successful as-applied challenges result in injunctions that protect only the plaintiff.” ... With that understanding, successful pre-CASA facial challenges—which naturally show that a law is unconstitutional in any circumstance—often resulted in universal injunctions that provided relief to parties not before the court. Post-CASA, a court may grant equitable relief only to the parties “‘actually or constructively before it,’” ... Thus, under CASA, even a successful facial challenge will most often result in essentially as-applied relief ... " And this is exactly why the ruling applies only to the companies, organizations, and individuals before the court, and only in the jurisdiction of that court. And the author of this opinion is clearly expressing his frustration in limiting a ruling which would have been universal and applied to the rest of us. Looking forward, the Supreme court did not prohibit universal injunctions, it clearly states there is an available class mechanism for universal relief. In the earlier immigration cases which resulted in the CASA decision (June 2025), those classes were not declared in advance. Same for this case which started within days of the CASA ruling. A class was not declared, tested, validated... So relief is limited to the actual parties. I expect future cases to include more groundwork to establish classes before proceeding to merits, though this will slow a case down by months. In other related news, from: https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3717 " Rep. Clyde and his colleagues urge the DOJ to not appeal the ruling, which marks the most significant victory for the Second Amendment since the NFA was enacted in 1934. “We recognize the Department has a seven-day window under the court's order to seek relief at the appellate level, but we urge the Department not to appeal. An appeal would prolong regulatory uncertainty for law-abiding gun owners and businesses and would consume DOJ resources defending a position that this Congress and now a federal district court has said cannot stand. We ask that the Department decline to appeal, to seek rehearing, or to otherwise attempt to cabin or narrow this ruling.” The lawmakers further urge the DOJ to immediately take steps to apply the court’s ruling nationwide and make its outcome permanent via rulemaking. “Immediate application of the ruling nationwide is necessary to avoid the untenable alternative in the interim: a split enforcement regime in which the DOJ applies these requirements to one gun owner while declining to apply them to his neighbor, solely because one person happens to be a customer of Silencer Shop or a member of Gun Owners of America. Administering that kind of regime would require the DOJ and ATF to maintain two parallel tracks for identical conduct depending on the applicant's affiliations. That is not a workable or defensible way to administer a national regulatory program, even for the period before a rule can be finalized.” "

There are some active suits in district courts under the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Will be a while before they bubble up to Supreme Court notice. These slice and dice some of the questions. One suit is only for SBRs and suppressors, Another is for SBSs and AOWs. Another suit covers all 4 items but raises a different legal argument. There may be suits in other districts, nothing I have tracked. While no split on the NFA tax/registration question, the 9th ruled earlier this year saying suppressors are accessories and not even subject to 2A protection. The case this ruling came out of did include a challenge to the $200 tax, the 9th declared this question moot when the OBBB passed. Not a clear split at this time, it does show some divergence when looked at under hardware questions. I am not aware of any other case challenging the registration component that is anywhere close to a ruling. Unless the ATF appeals to the Supreme Court or otherwise requests (and gets) extension of the stay, the order goes into effect. In the best outcome, the DOJ would concede the case and stop enforcing the registration requirements nationwide. The items would then default to a NICS check and form 4473. And law-abiding citizens could drill a hole in the end of their solvent traps, they just cannot sell those later without some other steps. This would be the same as any build from an 80% lower. Congress could also act and remove the registration language. An alternative court path is to refile asking for class status. This could result in a nationwide injunction. And finally, there would be the grind of filing suits in all districts, either winning all or creating a split for resolution by the Supreme Court.

Silencer shop, Brandon Herrera (The AK Guy running a a House seat), Wes Virdel (TX State House rep), and GOA announce first silencer transfers without Form 4. Brandon Herrera is also a SOT holder. The DOJ and ATF do have until close of business to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

There is no question reloading has big financial benefits in this sport long-term. As to the "academic" question... There is also the press, a tumbler, scale, dies, micrometer... Long list of little things. Then powder, unless from a local source, has that hazmat fee so look to buy more than needed soon. Plus it can be hard to find at times. Same for primers. While I have no wife asking me academic questions, where is the break-even point on rounds reloaded versus bought. My sense is it could be as low as 1,000 rounds. Have not added up what I have spent so far as I bought new gear and more than the minimum tools needed, my break-even will take maybe 3,000 rounds. At that time, I will still have lots of powder, primers, and used brass to last at least 5 years. I'll just be buying bullets once up and running. Using the info posted earlier, this will be 16 cents per round, a savings of well over a dollar. But before those savings mean anything, break-even is when the cost of equipment and supplies is less than the avoided commercial ammunition purchases.

A little off the topic of a workbench mat, but 3M has good adhesive products. As to a home-made sharpening stone, the 3M paper is also very good. Using both products, I do spray both surfaces. Then let it tack up before using the one and only chance to put it down flat. My flat surface is a thick glass piece. When I do wear out a sheet of sandpaper, a flat razor removes it in a couple minutes. For something like a rubber mat, I would get a bunch of sticks or slats to separate the mat from the bench before pulling one stick at a time for the final stick-down. Might be better if the mat is a bit bigger than the top, and trim the edges afterwards. There is no second chance for repositioning.

Marines? If so, thank you for your service! I'm coming up with 8 misses either way, I'll sleep on it.

The great thing about this case (besides me expecting him to prevail) is his only asking nominal damages, he really just wants the precedent declaring he was in the right. Nominal damages is typically $1. I'm sure lawyers fees are on top of that, though that total depends entirely on how hard and long the school district wants to fight.

It took me a long time to understand the miss concept. Consider this stage instruction: "Target order is 1 2 3 2 1, repeat." So this would be: 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 2 1 But the shooter shoots: 1 2 3 2 1 2 3 2 1 2 This is a single P (not 5), no misses (shooter hit the correct type of target). If shooter makes the same error with pistols and rifle, still just the one P (not 2 and not 10), still no misses. Really took me a long time to understand this. The only wrinkle in this thread is target type, which I read as "pistol and rifle targets" as they are used for both gun types Not stated, there were also presumably shotgun targets. With that wrinkle, I still come to the same conclusion. Shooter hit the correct type of targets. Guns were shot out of order. P. And just 1 for the stage, not 1 for each gun type. It was a different scenario but the same scoring confusion in a stage when I got a P, and it was I as the shooter asking about my misses. I was sure the spotters and TO were being too generous or had a brain fart with just a P, I was still sure some of my shots were misses.