First off, happy Fourth of July! We’re a few days late, but a few days is nothing compared to 250 years, right? I hope everyone returned to work from the long weekend with all their fingers attached and their eyebrows unsinged.

It has been a few months since I last had the opportunity to put one of these together. It has not been for lack of desire, but rather a lack of time. My weekdays have been consumed by a commute, while my weekends have been spent doing contract design work for a client. On top of that, there have been several significant events in both Marc’s life and my own.
First, Marc’s family lost their home in a devastating house fire. Thankfully, he and his family escaped unharmed, but they lost virtually everything except the clothes on their backs. They are now beginning the long process of rebuilding their home and putting life back together. We continue to keep them in our prayers.
On a more positive note, my wife and I purchased our first home in rural Vermont, situated on nearly eight acres. We are incredibly grateful for the opportunity and equally grateful to have completed what I believe was my twenty-third move since 2008. The property is both rural enough and large enough that we will finally be able to set up a few dedicated areas for shooting and product testing. It also gives us the opportunity to do a bit of homesteading, something I have always wanted to pursue.
Unfortunately, while doing yard work shortly after the move, I lifted a rock and managed to tear my left distal biceps tendon.
The injury required surgery and comes with roughly a ten-week recovery period. Fortunately, I retained the use of both arms, but my dominant left arm is currently confined to a splint that severely limits my mobility. Case in point, I am typing this newsletter one-handed, which is every bit as slow as it sounds.
The move also means rebuilding my workshop from scratch. Benches, presses, tooling, and equipment all need to be unpacked, organized, and set back up. With the injury slowing things down, that project is looking more and more like a fall and winter endeavor.
Despite all of that, the firearms industry certainly has not slowed down over the past few months. There has been no shortage of new products, legislative developments, and court cases worth discussing. So, with one good arm and plenty to catch up on, let’s get into it.
Website Updates
There are no major website updates to report at this time.
We have several articles that were in progress but were put on hold as we worked through a long commute, a move, and the other life events mentioned above. I plan to revisit those projects and get them published over the coming weeks.
Unfortunately, the house fire also destroyed inventory we had been setting aside for a future web store. As a result, that project is now on indefinite hold while Marc and his family focus on rebuilding and getting back on their feet. In the meantime, we will be taking some time to evaluate what direction we would like to take things moving forward.
Time at the Bench
Reloading is Like Packing
My time at the bench over the last few months has consisted mostly of packing it all up.
You never truly realize how many reloading widgets, gadgets, tools, and half-finished projects you own until you have to put every single one of them into a box. Somewhere along the way, I apparently accumulated an impressive collection of odds and ends that seemed important enough to keep but not important enough to actually use.
One thing I discovered is just how many lot-end bullets I have accumulated over the years. Every caliber seems to have a small container with one or two lonely stragglers rattling around in the bottom. Not enough to work up a load, not enough to justify keeping, yet somehow not enough to throw away either.
At this point, they mostly serve as reminders of load developments long finished, rifles long sold, and projects that seemed incredibly important at the time. Like many things in a reloading room, they tell a story, even if they no longer serve much practical purpose.
My HK Pistol Obsession
In the meantime, I have continued fanning the flames of my desire for more HK pistols, specifically my appreciation for the Mark 23, USP, and their descendants.
At the moment, I own a VP40, VP9, HK45CT, and of course a Mark 23. However, I’d like to expand the collection. The USP series remains high on the list, and I would also like to spend some time exploring the P30 line.
I recently picked up a copy of AGI’s Armorer’s Course for USP pistols so I can study the platform in greater depth. As an engineer, that is often where ideas begin. You study a design long enough and eventually you start wondering, “What if I changed this?” or “What happens if I try that?” Who knows where that process may lead.
I am somewhat surprised by the lack of gunsmithing literature dedicated to HK pistols. At the same time, many of the people most familiar with these firearms encountered them through military or law enforcement service rather than through recreational shooting or competition.
Then again, that is part of what attracts me to them. They are built like tanks, fit my hands well, and I have always found them to be excellent shooters.
I believe everyone should have a firearm, or perhaps a family of firearms, that they know intimately, shoot well, and genuinely enjoy. For me, the HK pistols developed over the last three decades have become that niche.
Industry and Legislative News
It has been a happening place over the last few months here’s a few highlights.
Virgina

Several new gun control laws are slated to take effect on July 1st. Among them is a sweeping new ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The package includes many of the measures we have become accustomed to seeing from Democratic lawmakers: universal background checks, magazine capacity restrictions, bans on certain firearm features, and additional regulations surrounding the manufacture of homemade firearms. In short, supporters were successful in advancing virtually their entire legislative agenda.
If anyone has looked at a map recently, it is hard not to notice the growing political divide across the country. We often joke about living in “free America” or “occupied America,” but behind the humor lies a genuine concern about what the nation may look like ten or twenty years from now.
In states where these restrictive gun laws have been enacted, numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging their constitutionality. Many gun owners believe that even if the United States Supreme Court ultimately strikes down assault weapon bans or rules that detachable magazines are protected components of an arm under the Second Amendment, some states may be reluctant to fully comply with those decisions.
Whether those concerns prove justified remains to be seen. The Supreme Court does not possess a direct enforcement arm of its own and has historically relied upon the executive branch, lower courts, and the broader legal system to ensure compliance with its rulings.
In the current political environment, I worry that we may be moving toward a future in which states increasingly pursue conflicting legal and political paths. If that trend continues, the divisions we see today may become even more pronounced, leaving us a more fragmented country than the one we know today.
As a last-minute update, some of Virginia’s new firearms restrictions have been temporarily blocked after lawsuits brought by Gun Owners of America and other plaintiffs resulted in a preliminary injunction preventing portions of the legislation from taking effect. The ruling is already being appealed to the Virginia Supreme Court, and the legal landscape remains highly fluid. At the moment, Virginia firearm owners are left navigating considerable uncertainty while the courts determine the laws’ ultimate fate.
3D Printers and Ghostly Firearms
New York State has passed legislation that would require manufacturers of 3D printers to incorporate software safeguards intended to prevent users from manufacturing, or “printing,” firearms. (This is pending a committee feasibility review, so best case this dies a silent death.)

At first glance, this sounds simple enough. In practice, however, it places the burden on 3D printer manufacturers and software developers to determine the design intent behind the objects their customers are creating. Presumably, such a system would rely on some combination of pattern recognition and artificial intelligence to identify design features associated with firearms and prevent those parts from being produced.
The problem is that many mechanical devices share characteristics with firearms without actually being firearms. Springs, housings, brackets, rails, receivers, and countless other components may have similarities in geometry or function. The distinctions are often nuanced, context-dependent, and not easily identified by software.
Furthermore, consumer-grade 3D printing is limited to a relatively narrow range of materials, most commonly plastics. While hobbyists have pushed the boundaries of what is possible with 3D-printed AR-15 lowers, Glock-pattern frames, and similar projects, producing a durable and reliable firearm typically requires the integration of traditionally manufactured metal components. What emerges often looks quite different from what most people picture when they think of a firearm.
The printers and manufacturing equipment capable of producing fully functional firearm components from metal are generally far beyond the reach of the average hobbyist. Industrial additive manufacturing systems remain extraordinarily expensive and are primarily used in commercial and industrial settings.

More importantly, there is a broader question that should be asked whenever new legislation is proposed: Will the law meaningfully reduce criminal misuse while minimizing burdens on law-abiding citizens and legitimate uses of the technology?
Existing laws already regulate the manufacture and sale of firearms, prohibit possession by certain individuals, and criminalize the use of firearms in the commission of crimes regardless of how those firearms were made. Any proposal seeking to impose new restrictions should be supported by clear evidence demonstrating that the expected benefits outweigh the costs and unintended consequences.
Good public policy should be driven by data, analysis, and measurable outcomes rather than assumptions about what a technology might someday enable.
Unfortunately, many modern policy debates appear to be driven more by emotion, perception, and political expediency than by objective analysis. Legislators are often under pressure to demonstrate that they are “doing something” about a problem, even when the effectiveness of the proposed solution remains uncertain. In those situations, individual liberties can become secondary considerations rather than primary ones, and that should concern citizens regardless of their political affiliation.
Trump Slump 2.0

Sadly, we are seeing many smaller firearms companies, and a few larger ones, struggling financially. It is a difficult time to operate in an industry that depends heavily on discretionary spending.
During President Trump’s first term, what many referred to as the “Trump Slump” was really the bursting of a bubble. The firearms industry experienced nearly eight years of exceptional growth during the Obama administration.
The popularity of the AR-15 platform was in full swing, driven in part by the expiration of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban in 2004 and the widely publicized possibility that similar restrictions could return. We also saw the continued expansion of concealed carry as more states adopted permissive carry laws. Manufacturers introduced numerous successful products and, for a time, it seemed that everything that could be produced would sell.
Large portions of the industry were also preparing for a Hillary Clinton victory in 2016. Retailers, distributors, and manufacturers stocked up on firearms and ammunition in anticipation of a post-election buying surge that never materialized. When Trump won, demand declined sharply and inventories swelled. What had been a reliable source of growth suddenly became a burden. Companies of all sizes, from small machine shops to industry giants such as Remington, found themselves in financial trouble. The industry that emerged a few years later looked very different from the one that entered 2016.
Today we appear to be entering another transformative period, although for very different reasons.
The COVID years provided a lifeline to an industry that had spent much of the previous four years fighting declining demand. Between stimulus payments, reduced travel and entertainment spending, and unprecedented social and political uncertainty, consumers had both the money and the motivation to spend. Firearms, ammunition, and related products benefited tremendously.
From 2020 through 2022, the combination of increased disposable income and renewed concerns over future firearms restrictions fueled a significant surge in sales. Many companies interpreted that growth as a return to the long-term expansion experienced during the Obama years and invested accordingly.
However, the environment began to change. Supply chain disruptions, inflation, rising interest rates, and global instability placed increasing pressure on both businesses and consumers. By the time President Trump returned to office in 2025, the economic landscape was very different than it had been a decade earlier. Consumers found themselves facing higher housing costs, food costs, transportation costs, and debt payments, all of which reduced the amount of money available for hobbies and recreational purchases.
At the same time, manufacturers faced rising costs of their own. Material prices increased, supply chains became less predictable, tariffs affected sourcing decisions, and key industrial inputs became more expensive. Copper, steel, aluminum, and tungsten carbide all experienced pricing pressures that directly impacted the cost of producing firearms, ammunition, tooling, and components.
Fundamentally, this is a different challenge than what we saw during Trump Slump 1.0, but the result is similar. Companies that expanded during the COVID boom are now attempting to adjust to a market that is growing far more slowly than many anticipated.
We hear about the larger companies because their struggles make headlines, but for every well-known company facing difficulties there are likely several smaller businesses quietly fighting the same battle.
Here is a short list of companies that have recently announced layoffs, entered receivership, sought bankruptcy protection, undergone financial restructuring, or otherwise reported significant financial challenges. The circumstances surrounding each company are different, and inclusion on this list does not necessarily indicate bankruptcy or impending closure.
- Aero Precision
- Stag Arms
- Ballistic Advantage
- VG6 Precision
- Sturm & Ruger
- Sugarbush Armory
- Big Rock Sports
- Umbrella Armory
- Watchtower Firearms
- SCCY Industries
- Atlanta Arms
Whether this downturn ultimately resembles the post-2016 correction or becomes something more severe remains to be seen. The firearms industry has always been cyclical, experiencing periods of rapid growth followed by painful contractions. The companies that survive are typically those with manageable debt, diversified product lines, and the ability to adapt when market conditions change.
What concerns me is not that a few companies are struggling. Every industry has winners and losers. What concerns me is the growing number of companies across different segments of the firearms market that are reporting layoffs, restructuring debt, seeking bankruptcy protection, or closing their doors altogether. Manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and ammunition companies all appear on that list.
Perhaps this is simply another correction. Perhaps it is the beginning of a broader consolidation within the industry. Time will tell. Either way, the market that exists today is very different from the one many companies planned for during the height of the COVID-era boom.
Firearms and Pot (United States v. Hemani)

On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in United States v. Hemani, finding in favor of Ali Hemani. The Court held that the federal government’s prosecution of Hemani under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances, was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Specifically, the Court found that the government could not automatically disarm and prosecute an individual solely because he was an unlawful user of a controlled substance without demonstrating that such a restriction was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
This is a significant victory for individual liberty, particularly for individuals who use substances such as marijuana that may be legal under state law while remaining illegal under federal law. Importantly, the Court’s reasoning is not limited solely to marijuana. While the ruling specifically addresses the federal government’s interpretation and enforcement of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(3), it continues the Court’s broader effort to evaluate firearms restrictions through the historical-tradition framework established in Bruen.
The Court was careful to note that its decision was narrow. It did not address prohibitions on firearm possession by addicts, persons who are presently intoxicated, convicted felons, or other categories listed elsewhere within 18 U.S.C. §922(g). Nevertheless, the decision raises important questions about the extent to which the government may deprive individuals of their Second Amendment rights based solely upon membership in a particular class or category of persons rather than based upon individualized evidence of dangerousness.
For reference, the relevant categories identified in 18 U.S.C. §922(g) are listed below:

Of particular interest was Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion. While agreeing with the Court’s ruling, Justice Thomas questioned whether Congress’s use of the Commerce Clause to support many federal firearms prohibitions has become overly expansive. He suggested that courts should revisit whether Congress possesses the constitutional authority to regulate the mere possession of a firearm based solely upon the fact that the firearm crossed state lines at some point in the past.
Whether future courts will extend Hemani’s reasoning to other portions of §922(g) remains to be seen. However, it is not difficult to imagine future challenges involving non-violent felons under §922(g)(1), individuals dishonorably discharged from military service under §922(g)(6), or other categories where the government seeks to deprive individuals of their Second Amendment rights without individualized findings of dangerousness. The Supreme Court did not decide those questions in Hemani, but the debate surrounding them is unlikely to end here.
Florida and the Age of Majority

There is a growing national divide over the age of majority, that point at which society recognizes an individual as an adult.
For most purposes, that age is 18. Once you have completed eighteen trips around the sun, congratulations: you can vote, join the military, sign legally binding contracts, and get married. Under certain circumstances, you can even be legally emancipated before reaching adulthood. Yet despite all of that, society still treats you as an adult in some situations and a child in others. You have entered the world of what I can only describe as “adult with training wheels.”
Yet there are still a number of things that remain off limits until age 21. You cannot purchase alcohol, buy cigarettes in many jurisdictions, or purchase a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. In some states, you cannot purchase certain firearms at all until age 21. In others, you cannot obtain a concealed carry permit or legally carry a handgun in public until reaching that age.
In Florida, that may soon change.
In the case of Jaylen Tyrus Eubanks v. State of Florida, a three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mr. Eubanks and struck down Florida’s prohibition on concealed carry by otherwise law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20. The court concluded that individuals in that age group are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that Florida failed to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting such a restriction.
The court relied heavily on prior Supreme Court decisions, including District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, and United States v. Rahimi. In doing so, the court continued the now familiar post-Bruen analysis, requiring governments to justify firearm restrictions through historical tradition rather than modern policy arguments.
Frankly, I believe we need to decide what the age of majority actually is.
Having a tiered system where individuals spend three years as “adult-lite,” trusted with some of the most significant responsibilities in society while simultaneously being denied other rights and responsibilities, strikes me as intellectually inconsistent.
I am not arguing that the age of majority must remain 18, nor am I arguing that it should be raised to 21. Rather, I believe we should collectively decide where that threshold exists and apply it consistently. Once an individual crosses that line, they should receive both the full benefits and the full consequences of adulthood.
Anything else creates a system where adulthood becomes less a clearly defined legal status and more a collection of exceptions, carve-outs, and political compromises.
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Challenges to “So-Called” Assault Weapon Bans
Just as I was preparing to publish this update, the announcement came down. I debated whether to include it here or wait until the next edition, but ultimately decided it was too significant to ignore. This is almost certainly a story we will revisit as oral arguments are heard and the case progresses over the coming months.

The Supreme Court has announced that it will hear two cases challenging the constitutionality of assault weapon bans. The Court’s eventual decision is likely to shape the future of firearm law in the United States for years to come. A ruling in favor of the challengers could establish important constitutional precedent that would invite additional legal challenges to similar laws nationwide. Conversely, if the bans are upheld, legislatures that have been reluctant to pursue similar restrictions may view the decision as judicial support for doing so at the state and possibly federal level.
Nothing about this case should be viewed as predetermined. If recent rulings are any indication, the Court’s conservative majority does not always vote as a unified bloc, and predicting outcomes has become increasingly difficult. We may gain insight into the Justices’ thinking during oral arguments this fall, but court watchers will undoubtedly begin speculating long before the opinions are released, likely in June 2027.
It is difficult to overstate how closely the firearms industry will be watching this case. Whatever the outcome, the decision has the potential to become one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings in decades.
New Guns and Gear
Federal PEAK 6.5mm Creedmoor

Federal has released a new load for the 6.5 Creedmoor that makes use of its proprietary PEAK case technology. They claim it delivers performance approaching that of the 6.5 PRC from your standard 6.5 Creedmoor rifle. They accomplish this by increasing chamber pressure to approximately 80,000 psi. This is made possible largely through the use of a steel alloy case rather than traditional brass. The marketing push is clear: Federal sees this as a game changer. I remain skeptical.
Given how sensitive large companies like Federal are to liability, this is a surprising move. By putting this ammunition on the market, they are effectively betting that any rifle chambered and proofed for 6.5 Creedmoor can safely handle substantially higher operating pressures. This represents a departure from the industry’s normal philosophy, where companies typically go out of their way to prevent higher-pressure cartridges from being chambered in firearms that were not originally designed for them. Think of the relationship between the .38 Special and .357 Magnum, or the .44 Special and .44 Magnum. It seems Federal is placing much of that responsibility on firearm manufacturers to determine whether their rifles are suitable for these increased pressures. It’s a bold strategy.
Setting aside the liability aspect, I am not entirely sold on the utility of such a cartridge. It brings me back to the question of, “How much gun is too much?” Hunters have long been sold on the appeal of magnum cartridges. The .300 Winchester Magnum, .300 Remington Ultra Magnum, .300 PRC, .300 Norma Magnum, and countless others all promise greater velocity and energy. But has the widespread adoption of cartridges like the 7mm Remington Magnum actually resulted in meaningfully more successful harvests than something like the 7mm-08? I am not convinced it has. At some point, additional performance offers diminishing returns while the tradeoffs continue to grow.
PEAK ammunition is positioned as a premium offering for the 6.5 Creedmoor. Higher operating pressures inevitably mean increased bolt thrust, greater stress on locking lugs, accelerated throat erosion, louder muzzle blast, and increased recoil, particularly in lightweight mountain rifles. None of those are free. I also question how many shooters will actually feed their rifles a steady diet of this ammunition given its premium price. More likely, it will be reserved for hunting while conventional 6.5 Creedmoor loads handle the bulk of practice and range time.
Whether PEAK ultimately proves successful will depend on whether shooters believe the additional velocity justifies the increased cost and wear. There is certainly room for innovation in ammunition design, and Federal deserves credit for pursuing a different approach. Personally, I remain unconvinced that pushing a standard 6.5 Creedmoor rifle to well beyond traditional magnum pressures is a better solution than simply choosing a cartridge that was designed to deliver that level of performance from the outset.
H&K VP9CC
Heckler & Koch has released a new compact concealed carry pistol based on the successful VP9 platform. It is nice to see HK incorporate an optics-ready slide, and they have also equipped the pistol with tall sights that are suitable for co-witnessing with a red dot. The grip has been slimmed down, many of the sharper edges have been rounded off, and the overall package is aimed squarely at the concealed carry market. The pistol can also be purchased with a Vortex Defender optic already installed from the factory. Magazine capacity is respectable for this class of handgun at 10+1, while an extended magazine increases capacity to 12+1.
The VP9CC also gives HK a modern competitor to pistols like the Glock 43X, SIG P365 XL, and Springfield Hellcat Pro. For years, HK’s concealed carry lineup relied primarily on the P2000SK and P30SK. The VP9CC finally gives the company a purpose-built slimline striker-fired pistol that aligns with current market trends.
Also of note is that HK has officially marked the P2000 series of pistols as discontinued. That isn’t particularly surprising. The P2000, P2000SK, P30, P30SK, and P30L all occupied similar portions of HK’s lineup, and with the introduction of the CC9 earlier in 2026, there were simply too many models serving similar roles. Something had to give.
I own both a VP9 and a VP40. They shoot well and fit my hands exceptionally well. I am also a big fan of HK’s paddle-style magazine release, so I was disappointed to see the CC9 adopt a traditional push-button magazine release instead. My preference is still for a hammer-fired pistol over a striker-fired pistol. I simply prefer a traditional DA/SA trigger system, though that’s probably because it’s what I’ve spent most of my shooting career using. I’ve been eyeballing either a P30SK or a P2000SK as my next carry gun, but with the P2000 series now discontinued, I think that decision may have been made for me.
If you’re interested in checking out the VP9CC, the MSRP is $1,049 for the standard model and $1,399 for the version equipped with a Vortex Defender optic.
Ed Brown 1776 Commemorative 1911
The 1911 pistol is synonymous with America, and it is great to see a manufacturer like Ed Brown put together a pistol that captures the essence of the 1911 while celebrating the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding. I think they got it exactly right. While many companies pull out all the stops with elaborate engravings, custom finishes, and gold inlays, Ed Brown’s simple yet tasteful additions underscore the 1911’s true heart: a pistol designed for utility, chambered in its original chambering of .45 ACP.
Being an Ed Brown 1911, the pistol certainly doesn’t come cheap. It requires a $500 deposit, and the final price comes to $3,420. Personally, I’d take two of these over just about any modern 2011 on the market. Sometimes less flash and a little more history is exactly what a commemorative pistol ought to be.
H&R T48
I have a weakness for classic steel-and-wood rifles. The M1 Garand, the M14, the Lee-Enfield, even a modern sporting rifle wearing a set of WOOX furniture. So when I saw that Palmetto State Armory was producing a reproduction T48, or what most of the world simply knows as the FN FAL, I immediately bowed my head and accepted that medical bills are apparently going to be my financial future.
The T48 competed in the U.S. service rifle trials alongside the T44, which eventually became the M14. The AR-10 also participated in the testing, although it never advanced as far in the selection process. Ironically, while the United States chose the M14 before quickly pivoting to the M16 only a few years later, the FN FAL went on to become one of the most successful battle rifles in history. Adopted by dozens of nations, it earned the nickname “The Right Arm of the Free World,” despite never serving as the standard rifle of the U.S. military.
Palmetto State Armory acquired the Harrington & Richardson (H&R) brand during the Remington Outdoor Company bankruptcy proceedings. It has been great to watch them breathe new life into a historic American firearms manufacturer by producing faithful reproductions of several iconic firearms.
Deals to be Had
We are forgoing the Deals to Be Had section in this issue of Brass, Barrels, and Bureaucracy so we can focus our efforts on producing original content.
We are also considering a new direction for this section. Rather than simply highlighting discounts, we would like to use it to showcase American-made brands and products that align with our values: well-made products offered at an honest price.
If your company fits that description, we would be interested in working with you to help bring greater awareness to your products and your brand.
That is all we have this week.
If you have questions, comments, or ideas, we’d love to hear from you.
Jay – jay@theballisticassistant.com
Marc – Marc@theballisticassistant.com










































































































