Ammunition Depot has Remington UMC .223 55gr FMJ in a 500-round case for $269.99, and when you stack code ALand5, your price drops to $256.49. That brings your cost down to just over 51 cents per round for reloadable brass—something we’re seeing rise in price right now.
Top Features
500-round case for stocking up at a better per-round cost
55 grain FMJ load built for range use and training
Brass-cased and reloadable for added long-term value
3,240 fps muzzle velocity for solid .223 training performance
Made in the USA with premium powders and components
Why Shooters Love It
If you are looking for brass-cased .223 range ammo from a known brand, this Remington UMC case deal is a strong buy. It gives AR-15 shooters a full 500 rounds of 55 grain FMJ ammo at a lower per-round cost, making it a practical option for training days, drills, and general stash building.
SIG Sauer P365 XMACRO Comp 9mm pistol with Safariland IncogX IWB holster for concealed carry. img Duncan Johnson
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) secured a significant expansion of its recent federal court victory over the U.S. Postal Service’s firearm carry ban, with a judge clarifying that the injunction now applies not only to current members but also to individuals who join the organization in the future.
The development marks another setback for the federal government, which had already failed in its effort to pause the ruling while the case moves through the appeals process. Now that the court has confirmed that the injunction applies to a growing class of FPC and SAF members, the case’s practical impact has widened considerably.
At the center of the dispute is the federal prohibition on carrying firearms in post offices under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), along with related U.S. Postal Service regulations. Plaintiffs successfully argued that the ban is unconstitutional as applied to its members under the framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That decision requires the government to demonstrate that modern firearm restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
In granting the original injunction, the court found that the government failed to establish that post offices qualify as “sensitive places” in the historical sense required by Bruen. Following that ruling, the Department of Justice attempted to both stay the injunction and limit its scope to a narrow group of individuals. The court rejected those efforts, allowing the injunction to remain in effect.
The latest clarification goes even further, confirming that the injunction is not limited to a fixed set of plaintiffs or a snapshot of the groups’ membership at the time the lawsuit was filed. Instead, it extends to all current members and anyone who joins SAF and FPC going forward. That distinction transforms the ruling from a narrowly confined victory into one with expanding real-world implications.
“The truly shocking thing here is that even after a United States District Judge declared this law unconstitutional, the government responded by saying ‘yeah but we want to continue enforcing it against almost everyone,’” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are heartened by today’s ruling and that the court was not persuaded by the government’s argument. Applying the injunction to all current and future SAF members is consistent with well-settled case law and being included in injunctions like these are one of the best reasons to be a SAF member.”
Gottlieb’s remarks reflect SAF’s broader position that the government’s litigation strategy was aimed at minimizing the impact of the court’s ruling. By attempting to restrict the injunction to a static list of individuals, the Department of Justice sought to preserve enforcement of a policy the court had already found constitutionally deficient.
“This is a huge win for current and future SAF members nationwide,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “There was never a constitutional justification to disarm people who simply need to go to the post office. Despite the government’s attempt to continue to enforce this unconstitutional law against as many people as possible, the court today followed the law and confirmed that all current and future SAF members are covered by the injunction against the enforcement of this ban. If you’re not already, this is a great time to become a SAF member.”
The court’s clarification ensures that the number of individuals protected by the injunction is not fixed but grows alongside the membership of gun rights groups. While the ruling still applies on an “as-applied” basis rather than as a nationwide prohibition on enforcement, it creates increasing pressure on higher courts to address the issue more broadly.
The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which is also a plaintiff in the case, echoed SAF’s position while emphasizing the broader constitutional stakes. In its own statement, FPC confirmed that the court rejected the Department of Justice’s attempt to weaken the ruling, noting that the injunction will continue to apply to “present and future members” of the organization.
FPC President Brandon Combs welcomed the decision, stating, “We are delighted that the law and common-sense prevailed in this important fight to secure the right to carry throughout the United States. The Trump Administration should stop trying to redline the Constitution and end their war on appropriate judicial relief.”
The inclusion of both SAF and FPC members under the injunction underscores the growing impact of the decision and highlights a unified front among major Second Amendment organizations challenging federal gun-free zone policies.
That pressure stems from a fundamental tension in constitutional law. Courts are generally reluctant to allow government policies to remain enforceable against some citizens while being barred against others based solely on organizational membership. As the group’s membership expands, so too does the class of individuals shielded from enforcement of the post office carry ban, raising the stakes for appellate review.
The case is widely expected to continue through the federal court system, with the Department of Justice appeal pending. That process could ultimately bring the issue before a federal appellate court and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court, where the scope of “sensitive places” under Bruen remains one of the most actively contested areas of Second Amendment law.
MASSIVE 2A WIN JUST NOW in 2A challenge to Federal Post Office gun ban. Federal Court grants relief to all current and future members of @gunpolicy and @2AFDN in challenge to gun bans in US Post Office. There does NOT appear to be any geographic limits of scope of relief to…
— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) March 17, 2026
For now, the gun rights groups not only secured a favorable ruling on the merits but have also successfully defended that ruling against efforts to delay or narrow it. The latest clarification represents a meaningful expansion of the decision’s reach, reinforcing the organization’s broader litigation strategy of challenging location-based firearm bans that lack historical support.
As the case moves forward, it is poised to become a key battleground in defining the limits of government authority to designate gun-free zones. With the injunction now covering both current and future SAF and FPC members, the outcome will carry growing significance for gun owners across the country.
Modern polymer-framed 9mm handguns—common firearms sold by FFL dealers now at the center of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court battle over warrantless searches. iStock-2187744341
The Second Amendment Foundation and its co-plaintiffs are back before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Schmidt v. Paris, pressing their challenge to a state regulatory scheme that forces firearms dealers to surrender basic constitutional protections to obtain and keep a Pennsylvania license to sell firearms.
At issue is a Pennsylvania State Police regulation, 37 Pa. Code § 33.116, and a Montgomery County policy tied to it. SAF says the scheme requires dealers to submit to warrantless inspections and, in practice, exposes them to detention, questioning, document demands, and potential license consequences for refusing to cooperate. SAF is joined by Shot Tec and private citizen Grant Schmidt, the same plaintiffs named in the original challenge filed in 2023.
In the new filing, SAF argues Pennsylvania law never authorized the State Police to create this kind of warrantless-search regime in the first place. The brief argues the Uniform Firearms Act contains no legislative grant for such inspections and argues that Section 33.116 cannot lawfully create powers the General Assembly never delegated.
SAF’s brief also attacks the scope of the inspection policy itself. The filing says there is “no basis under Section 33.116 for the seizure of the license holder or a representative for one to two hours” or for compelling answers to investigators’ questions, noting that the regulation “only speaks of an ability to ‘inspect,’ not to seize, interview, examine, or otherwise interrogate.” The same section of the brief says the challenged policy demands records such as ATF Form 4473s, multiple-sale reports, and acquisition-and-disposition records that are not required by the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act or its regulations.
That detail matters because SAF is not only making a Second Amendment argument. The reply brief repeatedly frames the case as a Pennsylvania constitutional fight over unlawful searches, seizures, compelled statements, due process, and improper delegation of power to an executive agency. SAF also argues the government cannot force someone to waive constitutional rights as the price of obtaining a business license.
The brief puts a fine point on that claim through plaintiff Grant Schmidt, who wants to operate as a home-based firearms dealer. According to the filing, Schmidt is being forced to choose between abandoning that business plan or accepting a licensing process that “forces him to waive his constitutional rights to be free from searches.” The brief says Schmidt anticipates losing about $50,000 per year if he cannot move forward with the home-based business.
That home-based angle is one of the most significant facts in the case. SAF’s own case summary says the Pennsylvania system would allow officials to conduct warrantless searches of licensed dealers’ businesses, including operations run from private residences, while also permitting seizure of licensees or employees for up to two hours and compelling them to answer questions and produce documentation.
SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack made that point directly in the foundation’s press statement, saying, “Selling guns in accordance with state and federal law does not require that a seller waive their other constitutional rights,” and adding that the searches are “particularly egregious when you consider that many FFL dealers run their business out of their private residence.”
SAF founder Alan Gottlieb added that the regulations are “nothing more than an attempt to thwart the Second Amendment rights of Pennsylvanians.” Those statements track the broader theory advanced in the court filing: that this is not routine oversight, but government leverage used to condition a firearms license on the surrender of other rights.
The case already produced a notable lower-court ruling. In August 2025, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court granted declaratory relief in favor of the plaintiffs on their claim that Sheriff Sean Kilkenny’s inspection policy violated the non-delegation doctrine and permanently enjoined that policy in its then-current form. At the same time, the court noted that its ruling did not forever bar inspections of licensed gun dealers, only that any such inspections would have to stay within the authority actually delegated by the General Assembly and PSP.
AmmoLand has covered this controversy since the beginning, including earlier reporting on SAF’s original 2023 lawsuit challenging the warrantless search scheme and a later special report on how Montgomery County’s inspection push took shape. Readers who want the foundation’s own case background can also review SAF’s case page for Schmidt v. Paris.
For Pennsylvania gun dealers, especially kitchen-table FFLs and home-based operators, the stakes are obvious.
If SAF prevails, the court could further cabin state and county officials’ ability to use licensing as a back door around warrant requirements. If the state wins, regulators may argue they can keep conditioning a firearms dealer’s livelihood on advance consent to government entry, questioning, and inspection demands. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s handling of Schmidt v. Paris will decide how far that power can go.
Six Seconds and Forty Yards: Armed Citizens Who Saved Lives iStock-1175500022
On December 29, 2019, Jack Wilson ended a church shooting in six seconds with a single shot. The next day, Michael Bloomberg, the godfather of gun control, commented, ”I wasn’t there. I don’t know the facts — that somebody in the congregation had their own gun and killed the person who murdered two other people. But it’s the job of law enforcement to have guns and to decide when to shoot. You just do not want the average citizen carrying a gun in a crowded place.”
In the six seconds from his first shot to the moment he took his last breath, the would-be mass shooter gunned down two church members.
What if Bloomberg had had his way and the church had relied solely on police for protection?
White Settlement is a small city northwest of Fort Worth, Texas. The West Freeway Church of Christ is about two miles from police headquarters.
Think about all the moving parts involved in responding to an emergency call. How many minutes would the killer have had before having to face Bloomberg-approved defenders?
On July 17, 2022, Elisjsha Dicken, firing from 40 yards away, took out a would-be mass shooter at Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana. Some in the media were critical of Dicken —who complied with Indiana carry laws — because he violated the mall’s no-guns policy.
It was less than a minute from the time the mall killer opened fire until the time he collapsed, mortally wounded. It was still enough time for him to murder three people in the food court.
Greenwood Park Mall security personnel are not armed. However, the mall does hire off-duty police. It was unclear whether any of the moonlighting officers were working or where they might have been at the time of the attack.
How many more minutes would have been needed for an armed officer to engage the shooter?
Put another way, how many more people would have been sacrificed to gun control’s totally warped value system?
All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders.
Criminal homicide―a.) Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: the willful (non-negligent) killing of one human being by another. Deaths caused by negligence, attempts to kill, assaults to kill, suicides, and accidental deaths are excluded. The program classifies justifiable homicides separately and limits the definition to: (1) the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty; or (2) the killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen. b.) Manslaughter by negligence: the killing of another person through gross negligence. Deaths of persons due to their own negligence, accidental deaths not resulting from gross negligence, and traffic fatalities are not included in the category manslaughter by negligence.
The FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) uses code 09 to identify homicides. Code 09 is subdivided into three distinct offenses:
09A includes murder and non-negligent manslaughter. These are always criminal offenses and they’re what most people consider to be ‘gun violence’.
09B covers the range of negligent manslaughters, which may or may not be criminal offenses, depending on the circumstances and the filing of charges.
09C identifies justifiable homicides. These are further divided into those committed by law enforcement and those committed by private citizens in self-defense or defense of others. Justifiable homicides are never criminal offenses.
Gun control advocates lump these all together. In their view, deadly force used to stop a violent attack is the same as deadly force used to commit murder.
Giffords and other hoplophobe gangs like to link justifiable homicides to stand your ground (SYG) laws, which they call ‘licenses to kill’ and racist because of the ratio of Black offenders and White defenders.
Of course, these are the same fine people who brought us Jim Crow laws and are doing their level best to make legally armed self-defense unaffordable for much of the population. They would likely be upset to learn that black Americans are one of the fastest-growing demographics among gun owners.
There are numerous factors affecting the higher offender and victimization rates, especially among young black males, but stand-your-ground laws and constitutional (permitless) carry aren’t among them.
It’s not politically correct, WOKE, or whatever else they’re calling repression of dissenting views these days. However, truth has one distinct advantage: It’s true.
The one (and only) thing the gun-grabbers did get right is the increase in justifiable homicides.
FBI UCR/NIBRS* statistics for the 29 years from 1996 to 2024 do show an increase in the total number of justifiable homicides.
However, what the control freaks missed was that the number committed by private citizens soared while the law enforcement share shrank.
Historically, the majority of justifiable homicides were the result of law enforcement action. No surprise there: Police are almost invariably armed and have broader authority to use lethal force.
A similar dynamic may be at work here.
Beginning with Alaska in 2003, 28 states have joined Vermont and no longer require a license or permit to carry a concealed handgun. Tens of millions of American adults now have the choice to be their own first responders.
And this is a very good thing. Since 1996, nearly 8,800 Americans have refused to become victims or to rely on the government.
If this is a problem for Giffords, Everytown, or Democrats, they have only their own screwed-up value system to blame.
* UCR is the FBI’s former Uniform Crime Reporting system. NIBRS replaced the UCR in 2020.
Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.
Armed Virginia Gun Owners Rally at Capitol as Magpul Distributes PMAGs. iStock-513753478
Hundreds of Virginia gun owners gathered outside the Virginia State Capitol last weekend to protest a slate of sweeping gun-control bills recently passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature and now awaiting action from Governor Abigail Spanberger. The rally drew widespread attention after footage showed armed citizens demonstrating peacefully outside the Capitol while activists distributed standard-capacity AR-15 magazines donated by Magpul.
Video from the event was documented by independent journalist Ford Fischer and circulated widely on X. The footage showed demonstrators openly carrying rifles and handguns while listening to speakers warn that the legislation heading to the governor’s desk would criminalize some of the most common firearms and accessories owned by law-abiding Americans.
For many attendees, the protest was about more than a single bill. Activists say Virginia lawmakers advanced an aggressive anti-Second Amendment agenda during the closing days of the legislative session, sending multiple firearm restrictions to the governor for consideration. Among them is SB 749, which would ban the future sale of certain semi-automatic rifles while also imposing new limits on magazine capacity. Other measures, including SB 27 and HB 21, would create new “responsible conduct” standards for firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers—an approach critics say is designed to open the door to politically motivated lawsuits against the firearms industry.
The most widely shared moment from the rally involved the distribution of Magpul PMAGs outside the Capitol. Volunteers handed out boxes of the polymer 30-round magazines to demonstrators attending the event. According to individuals present, the magazines were donated by Magpul and distributed as a direct response to legislation targeting standard-capacity magazines.
2) Under the anticipated Virginia law, sale of 30-round magazines would be illegal beginning this summer.
Magpul donated boxes of 30-round AR-15 magazines which were distributed to the crowd for free, whose possession would theoretically be grandfathered in. pic.twitter.com/EkNlNEEj9X
For anyone familiar with the AR-15 platform, the symbolism was obvious. PMAGs are among the most widely used rifle magazines in the United States and have become the industry standard for AR-pattern rifles. Tens of millions are already in circulation across the country among civilian gun owners, competitive shooters, law enforcement agencies, and military personnel. Handing them out at the rally served as a visual reminder that lawmakers are attempting to ban items that are already in widespread lawful use across the country.
That reality has become central to modern Second Amendment litigation following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires gun regulations to be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm ownership. Gun-rights advocates argue that bans on standard-capacity magazines fail that test because such magazines are owned by millions of Americans and are standard equipment for modern sporting rifles.
While the rally focused heavily on the proposed firearm and magazine bans, another controversy emerging from the legislative session has further angered gun owners. As the Virginia session came to a close, lawmakers passed SB 727, legislation that would outlaw the carrying and transportation of many common firearms on public property. However, the bill includes language explicitly exempting members of the legislature from its own restrictions.
The text of the bill states that “the provision of this section shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly,” effectively allowing lawmakers to carry firearms in situations where ordinary citizens would be prohibited from doing so.
That exemption drew sharp criticism from the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. In a statement released after the session, Executive Director John Commerford accused Virginia Democrats of hypocrisy for advancing restrictions that do not apply to themselves.
“Rules for thee but not for me, that’s the mantra the radicals in Richmond and anti-gun politicians across the country live by,” Commerford said. “Whether it’s exempting themselves from extreme gun-control measures, or spending exorbitant amounts of money on armed security while their constituents are left disarmed and helpless, these political figures are once again showing they care more about their own self-interests than the safety of the people they have been elected to represent.”
For many gun owners attending the rally, the exemption reinforced their belief that the legislation is less about public safety and more about restricting the rights of ordinary citizens while political elites remain protected.
Virginia has long been a battleground state in the national fight over gun policy. The Commonwealth has a deep firearms culture rooted in hunting, competitive shooting, and defensive training. When lawmakers in Richmond have attempted to pass sweeping gun restrictions in the past, the response from gun owners has often been immediate and visible.
This latest protest appears to follow that pattern. The presence of armed citizens exercising their right to open carry outside the Capitol served as a reminder that Virginia’s gun-owning community remains highly engaged in the political process.
Now the focus shifts to Governor Spanberger. The bills passed by the legislature—including restrictions on semi-automatic rifles, magazine capacity limits, and new regulatory pressure on the firearms industry—are currently awaiting her decision. If she signs the measures into law, legal challenges are widely expected to follow.
Across the country, similar firearm and magazine bans are already being fought in federal courts, with gun-rights organizations arguing that such restrictions violate the constitutional protections reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. Many observers believe Virginia could soon become the next major battleground in that ongoing legal fight.
For now, the images from Richmond have already become a powerful symbol in the debate. Armed citizens gathered outside the Capitol while boxes of standard-capacity PMAGs were handed out to the crowd—a scene that for many gun owners perfectly captured what they see as the growing divide between lawmakers pushing new gun restrictions and the millions of Americans who continue to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
On the morning of April 10, 1986, the U.S. House of Representatives chamber buzzed with exhaustion and political scheming. Lawmakers had been debating the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), a bill long championed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a corrective to decades of alleged Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) overreach. The legislation promised to ease interstate gun sales, protect travelers carrying guns across state lines, narrow the definition of who needed a dealer’s license, and raise the bar for prosecuting technical violations from “knowing” to “willful.” It was set to pass overwhelmingly.
Then New Jersey Democrat Rep. William J. Hughes rose. As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Hughes offered a last-minute amendment. It would make it unlawful for any private citizen to “transfer or possess a machinegun” manufactured after the bill’s effective date. Only those already legally registered under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) would be grandfathered. The amendment, numbered H.Amdt.777, was brief and sweeping: it added subsection (o) to 18 U.S.C. § 922.
Presiding over the Committee of the Whole was New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel. He called for a voice vote. “All in favor say ‘aye,’” Rangel intoned. Ayes echoed. “All opposed, ‘no.’” The nays shouted louder according to multiple eyewitness accounts and later video analysis circulating in gun rights circles. Yet Rangel declared, “The ayes have it.” Republicans immediately demanded a recorded vote. Rangel pressed forward. The amendment was recorded as having passed by voice vote. Minutes later, the full FOPA package passed the House by a vote of 292-130. On May 19, President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 99-308 into effect.
Thus, the Hughes Amendment was born, the single most reviled provision in modern firearms law among Second Amendment advocates. Forty years later, in 2026, it remains the iron curtain separating civilians from newly manufactured machine guns.
The civilian registry of transferable pre-1986 machine guns is frozen at roughly 240,000–250,000 units (exact figures fluctuate slightly with ATF reports and include samples held by manufacturers). Prices have exploded: a transferable MAC-10 that sold for $350 in the early 1980s now commands $15,000–$25,000. A select-fire M16 that once traded for under $2,000 routinely exceeds $30,000. Drop-in auto sears, once cheap conversion parts, have hit $28,000 or more. Legal ownership requires ATF Form 4 approval, fingerprints, photos, a $200 tax stamp, and often months of waiting, assuming your state even permits it.
The controversy is not simply economic. Gun rights organizations such as Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) call the amendment’s passage procedurally illegitimate, a “midnight special” rammed through when many pro-gun members had left the floor believing the bill was safely pro-Second Amendment. C-SPAN footage on that day, widely analyzed on sites like YouTube, shows Rangel gaveling through demands for a roll-call vote. Critics insist the “nays” clearly carried the voice tally. Official congressional records list only “passed by voice vote.” No recorded tally of individual lawmakers exists for the amendment itself, a fact that fuels accusations of parliamentary sleight of hand.
Hughes himself never hid his intent. A moderate Democrat with a record of supporting some gun control measures while backing environmental causes, he argued the amendment would prevent the proliferation of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands. Machine guns, he and his supporters contended, were weapons of war, not sporting arms. With Democrats holding the House majority and enough votes present that evening, the amendment sailed through without a recorded division that might have exposed the margin or forced absent members to take a stand.
The irony stood thick. FOPA itself was the product of years of NRA lobbying to undo what many viewed as the worst excesses of the 1968 Gun Control Act. That earlier law, passed in the emotional consequences of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, imposed dealer licensing, record-keeping, and interstate sale restrictions that critics said ensnared law-abiding collectors and hobbyists. ATF enforcement tactics, warrantless inspections, seizures without due process, and felony prosecutions for paperwork errors became legendary horror stories in gun magazines of the era. Senate passage of FOPA (S. 49) had been lopsided: 79-15 on July 9, 1985. In the House, Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO) used a rare successful discharge petition to force floor debate, substituting a strong pro-gun version for the Judiciary Committee’s watered-down bill.
Hughes had already tried multiple amendments that day, some tightening dealer definitions, others limiting interstate transport, most of which failed on recorded votes. The machine-gun ban was the one that stuck. NRA leadership, desperate to salvage the wider reforms after a seven-year legislative slog, chose not to wage an all-out floor fight. Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman later described a dinner conversation with then-rising star Wayne LaPierre: the decision was made to swallow the amendment to secure the rest of the bill. “He said, ‘I want to do it. I think we have to do it,’” Feldman recalled in a 2013 NPR interview. Years later, some NRA insiders regretted the choice, saying it haunted the organization as grassroots members viewed it as a betrayal.
President Reagan, a popular Republican president who once carried a .44 Magnum as governor of California, signed the bill without public comment on the Hughes provision. The law took effect immediately on May 19, 1986. The civilian supply of new machine guns slammed shut.
The economic consequences were foreseeable yet staggering. Supply fixed; demand unchanged. Collectors and investors bid up the finite pool of pre-ban transferable machine guns. What had been a niche market for devotees and Class III dealers became a high-stakes investment arena. Today, owning a transferable M249 SAW or a registered MP5 costs more than a new luxury car. Destroyed or worn-out guns permanently shrink the registry. Post-1986 “dealer samples” exist only for law enforcement and military, and even those are tightly controlled.
Anti-gun advocates hail the amendment as a quiet success. Gun violence researcher Robert Spitzer of SUNY Cortland told NPR in 2013 that the 1986 freeze was “a fairly small step” on top of the already burdensome 1934 NFA, which required $200 tax stamps (thousands in today’s dollars), fingerprints, and registration. He argued machine guns had never been common in civilian hands; the ban simply prevented any resurgence. Crime statistics back the rarity argument: ATF data and independent analyses show legally registered machine guns have been used in extraordinarily few violent crimes, and some studies cite near-zero incidents involving pre-1986 registered firearms by lawful owners. The weapons’ primary documented misuse has been by criminals converting illegal semi-automatics or using smuggled military surplus.
Second Amendment purists reject the safety rationale. They point out that the Founding-era militia concept explicitly included the use of military arms. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision described machine guns as “dangerous and unusual” in dicta, but the post-2022 Bruen ruling, which demands historical analogues for gun regulations, has opened new legal paths.
In August 2024, U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Kansas dismissed charges against a man possessing unregistered machine guns, holding that the Hughes Amendment and broader NFA restrictions fail Bruen’s text-history-tradition test. The case is under appeal, but it represents the first significant federal crack. Other challenges percolate in conservative circuits. Gun rights groups argue the amendment lacks any founding-era parallel for banning an entire class of arms.
Repeal efforts have repeatedly failed. Bills introduced by Reps. Steve Stockman, Virgil Goode, and others died in committee. The NRA, once accused of softness on the issue, now routinely includes repeal language in its legislative scorecards. Groups like Gun Owners of America push harder, drafting model state legislation exploiting the amendment’s narrow exemption for transfers “to or by” a state. In the 2025–2026 legislative session, West Virginia and Kentucky lawmakers introduced bills creating state agencies to manufacture or transfer post-1986 machine guns to citizens, testing the federal loophole. None have yet succeeded, but the creativity underscores frustration.
The individual stories are poignant. Veterans who carried M16s in Vietnam could once buy civilian equivalents affordably. Today’s young enthusiasts face a de facto ban. Manufacturers stopped producing civilian-legal full-auto firearms decades ago. Innovation in the machine-gun space shifted entirely to military and law enforcement contracts. Collectors speak wistfully of the pre-1986 era, when a Class III dealer could order a new UZI or MAC-10 and have it delivered after paperwork was completed.
Politically, the Hughes Amendment crystallized the modern gun control divide. On one side, it is a sensible regulation of weapons of mass destruction. To the other, it is the clearest example of Congress using procedural trickery to erode constitutional rights. The absence of a recorded vote denies posterity any accountability no list of who voted to freeze the registry exists. Critics note that many pro-gun Democrats and Republicans had already left the floor after earlier votes, assuming victory on the core FOPA reforms.
In the decades since, the amendment has withstood constitutional challenges under pre-Bruen standards. Lower courts uniformly upheld it, citing Heller’s dicta and the government’s interest in preventing automatic-fire proliferation. But Bruen changed the analytical system. Scholars and litigators now argue that 18th- and 19th-century laws never banned an entire category of bearable arms outright. The NFA’s original 1934 tax-and-register scheme was upheld as a revenue measure, not a ban. The 1986 addition crossed into prohibition.
As of today, the registry remains closed. No new civilian machine guns roll off assembly lines. Prices continue their inexorable climb. A cottage industry of brokers, Class III dealers, and trust attorneys thrives on transfers. Meanwhile, illegal machine guns converted AR-15s with auto-sears or “Glock switches” appear in some urban crime scenes, but those are unrelated to the legal pre-1986 pool.
Rep. Hughes died in 2019 at age 87, his obituary noting environmental achievements and a long congressional career. The amendment bearing his name continues to serve as a symbol. Gun rights activists mark May 19 annually as a day of mourning. Repeal petitions circulate on the White House website. Conservative lawmakers introduce symbolic bills every Congress.
The deeper controversy transcends procedure. It touches the fundamental question of what arms the Second Amendment protects. If machine guns, the very arms carried by the militia in the founding era’s understanding, can be banned for civilians via a voice vote with no recorded dissenters, what precedent does that set for semi-automatic rifles, handguns, or any modern firearm? Supporters counter that public safety and the rarity of machine-gun crime justify the line drawn in 1986.
Forty years on, the Hughes Amendment remains one of the most consequential and contested pieces of firearms legislation in U.S. history. It changed a once-accessible class of firearms into multimillion-dollar collectibles. It exposed the weakness of legislative procedure when passions run high. And it continues fueling the national debate over the right to keep and bear arms in its most literal, military form.
Whether future courts or Congress will reopen the registry remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the voice vote heard around the gun world in April 1986 still echoes loudly today.
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Anti-gun Democrats in Washington state passed legislation to hike background check fees and silence pro-Constitution sheriffs. IMG iStock-1172423251
As the Democrat-controlled Washington Legislature wrapped up its 2026 session, two bills that anti-gunners supported while gun owners opposed were rammed through and sent to anti-gun Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson to sign, one hiking background check fees and the other a measure essentially designed to silence county sheriffs who publicly oppose gun control laws.
On the plus side, bills which died in committee include legislation which would have restricted possession of firearms in state or local public buildings, parks, playgrounds and county fairs, another measure limiting bulk purchases of firearms and ammunition, and a bill establishing so-called “safe storage” requirements for firearms in vehicles and residences.
However, House Bill 2521 allows the Washington State Patrol (WSP) to adjust its background check fees by setting “an amount reasonably calculated to cover the direct and indirect costs to the Washington state patrol incurred in administering the firearm background check program.”
Critics say the legislation “gives the WSP a blank check to charge whatever they want on a comprehensive background check. Now $18 per transaction will go up to possibly $35 now. This poll tax is a violation of Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution.”
The new fee bill is scheduled to take effect May 1, 2027, if Ferguson signs it, which is expected.
The other measure isn’t directly related to guns, but it definitely is linked to gun control. House Bill 5974 was supported by the billionaire-backed, Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, which openly acknowledged they wanted to rein in county sheriffs who had refused to enforce certain restrictive gun control laws over the past few years. In an unscientific poll of its viewers, Seattle’s KOMO News—the local ABC affiliate—showed a whopping 86 percent of respondents oppose the notion that a state board could be empowered to remove elected sheriffs. Several lawmen testified in opposition
Other gun control bills probably perished because Democrats got into an ugly battle over a far different piece of legislation, the so-called “millionaire income tax,” which Republicans uniformly opposed as a violation of the state constitution.
Lately, however, the state constitution hasn’t seemed to stall Democrats when they were pushing gun control legislation, despite specific language in Article 1, Section 24 which states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
Grassroots gun rights activists in the Evergreen State consider gun laws already passed in the state to be “impairments,” including bans on so-called “assault rifles” and “large-capacity magazines.” Those bans are being challenged in court, and the magazine ban case has made it to the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices have so far not accepted it for review. The case is known as Gators Custom Guns v. Washington. The case has been distributed for conference by the justices at least seven times.
HOWEVER, as offensive as gun laws have become in Washington, there are proposals at the far end of the country that also have gun owners in two states on edge.
In Connecticut, according to WFSB News, lawmakers are considering legislation seeking to ban certain pistols which can allegedly be converted to fire full auto at a rate of “up to 1,200 rounds per minute.” Gov. Ned Lamont supports the proposed ban because some pistols may be altered via a Glock switch (Glock is not named in the legislation), which is already illegal. Opponents, including the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), contend such a ban would only affect honest citizens. By no small coincidence, the president at CCDL is Holly Sullivan, who also serves on the Board of Directors of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which is based in Washington state.
House Bill 5043 has already had a public hearing. It discusses “convertible pistols” which are defined in the legislation as “any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with a common household tool into a machine gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter…”
Meanwhile, in neighboring Massachusetts, an arrest in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston got the attention of Jim Wallace, head of the Gun Owners Action League (GOAL) because a report on the bust by the Boston police contained a term he had never heard before: “Fully Automatic-Capable Firearm.”
Ammoland contacted the Boston police to ask about this. An officer in public information said he wasn’t sure where this term originated, but that it apparently was how the recovered firearm in the arrest was described that way in an officer’s report.
The gun, a Glock pistol, was fitted with a Glock switch. The suspect was facing multiple charges. Wallace is concerned the term could become the basis for even more legislation similar to that in Connecticut, seeking to ban such handguns because they *might* be converted illegally.
Considering the Connecticut situation, Wallace’s concerns are not without merit.
The common denominator in all three states is that their legislatures and governors’ offices are controlled by the same political party: Democrats.
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
Ammunition Depot has Remington UMC .223 55gr FMJ in a 500-round case for $269.99, and when you stack code ALand5, your price drops to $256.49. That brings your cost down to just over 51 cents per round for reloadable brass—something we’re seeing rise in price right now.
