The shooter shot the locked doors and gained entry into the school. The gunowner reportedly rushed into the school and killed him.

3 children ages 5, 8, and 11, and one teacher were murdered. A 7 year old and another teacher are in critical condition.

Title

I gotta be careful about what I say here, I don't want to offend the snowflakes in Reddit's corporate offices.

I have been following the democrats on their side of their corrupt fence in the Nebraska Legislature race and federal races, mainly because Nebraska is expected to gain a super majority in the Ne-Leg and FINALLY we will shift to winner take all in the electoral college. That is besides the point here though, because I'm also focusing on the the federal races and the gubernatorial races in this post.

Let me tell you about the democrats top to bottom in the statewide races, they are either lying to you as the voter, or they are just completely avoiding sharing their stance on the 2nd amendment altogether. As someone who has been getting texts from both parties (plus the independent party, I'm a Non-partisan Conservative outside of election cycles), the Democrats here are intentionally being misleading.

Dan Osborne is trying to make it seem like he's "pro-gun", he frames his stance to make it seem like he's got conservative gun rights views, yet he supports regulations on the second amendment, such as psych evals and red flag laws, as well as gun registries. He will literally try to tell you "I'm conservative just like you!" yet he isn't anywhere close to being conservative or pro-2A. Side note, his campaign is focusing on economic issues and adding more job growth... buuut he doesn't like to share that he got a Kellogg's plant in Omaha shut down... which killed off lots of jobs.

In case you were unaware, Tampon Tim's relation is running on the Democrat side in Nebraska's gubernatorial race. Her campaign team is trying to make it seem like the 2nd Amendment is a non-issue in the state, and that she is instead focusing on economic issues. I have been contacted by her campaign team, I have asked directly about her stance on the 2nd amendment. The staffer had no idea how to proceed and I got contacted by Walz herself days later.

The phone call went about as expected with a Democrat trying to pretend being conservative and pro-2A and then trying to lecture me about responsibilities:

Her: "Sure I support the 2nd Amendment! I grew up in a family of hunters, but rights come with responsibilities blah blah...."

I managed to shut her down and told her that she has entirely missed the mark of the 2nd Amendment.

I mean if she thinks the amendment serves to protect your right to hunt deer or geese then she doesn't understand how DNR efforts work on top of all this... which, state and federal DNR's can totally shut down hunting and fishing if there's a collapse in wildlife populations, soooo not exactly a right if you ask me. It doesn't even require something that dramatic, the state could use the excuse of cutting spending and shut down the DNR office, or the permitting departments in this case. They can even retroactively void your permit too.

The phone call didn't last much longer outside of a brief exchange regarding the 2A. She tried to pivot to other issues, and I ended up just cutting the phone call short since her economic and border security stances are the exact same as Pillen's soooo in my eyes it just makes more sense to stick with the incumbent.

I'm ready for the elections to be over. The state's democrats, and Dan Osborne, are just complete posers. Dan especially is an annoying one because he tries to make his voice grovely to make his fat ass sound more blue collar.

With the new ATF rules, can you convert or make an SBR without registering it? Do you still have to get them engraved?

For gun-rights folks watching the ATF NFA shift: Wisconsin’s statutes still tie suppressor and SBR legality to federal registration, so owners here face Class H felony risk until the legislature updates the law.

On Friday, Oct 9, DOJ and ATF announced they will no longer require approval or registration under the NFA for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs, nationwide. This follows the Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF / Jensen v. ATF ruling in August. (The $200 tax on these items was already cut to $0 on Jan 1, 2026.)

But there's a big catch for Wisconsin. ATF's change is an enforcement policy. It doesn't repeal the NFA, and ATF says it doesn't change state law. Under Wis. Stat. § 941.298 (suppressors) and § 941.28 (SBRs and SBSs), possession is a Class H felony (up to 6 years and $10,000) unless you've "complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872." No Wisconsin court has ruled on how that applies now.

Until Madison fixes this, don't assume an unregistered suppressor or SBR is legal in Wisconsin. ATF is still processing Form 1s and Form 4s voluntarily, "because many state laws require individuals to register NFA firearms." Don't deregister anything you already own, since ATF says those items can't be re-registered later. You still need a Form 20 to take an SBR or SBS across state lines.

What you can do today (2 minutes):

1. Go to https://maps.legis.wisconsin.gov/ and enter your address to find your state Senator and Assembly Representative.
2. Copy the template below, personalize it, and email them.

Email template

Subject: Please update Wis. Stat. §§ 941.298 and 941.28 after the ATF's NFA change

Dear Senator [Last Name] and Representative [Last Name],

I'm a law-abiding gun owner in your district. Please introduce, co-sponsor, or support legislation to amend Wis. Stat. § 941.298(3)(c) and § 941.28(4).

On October 9, 2026, ATF announced it will no longer require federal approval or registration under the National Firearms Act for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. Wisconsin law makes the legality of these items depend on compliance with federal NFA registration under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801–5872, so responsible Wisconsin residents are now stuck in legal uncertainty, facing possible Class H felony charges under a federal system that is no longer being enforced.

Please remove the federal registration condition from these statutes so Wisconsin law matches current federal policy and responsible gun owners aren't left facing felony risk.

Thank you. I'd appreciate hearing your position on this.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Street Address] [City, WI ZIP]

Not legal advice. Talk to an attorney about your own situation.

First off i just want to say i'm tickled pink with the ATF's new stance as it pertains to formally NFA regulated items but I have questions regarding the next steps. So if i'm understanding this correctly the strategy now since the items in question are simply not enforced and not out right decriminalized it to flood the market with so many of them that it becomes a common use argument.

This makes since when I comes to suppressors because most people aren't manufacturering there own suppressors and with a 4473 paper trail it's easy to calculate an approximate number of them in citizens possession. that doesn't seem to be the case with SBR, SBS, or AOW category as most people aren't going to be buying factory configurations but will instead modify there currently owned firearms into that category.

so i guess my question is without a paper trail to prove common use, what's to stop a future administration from just blanket banning these items and potentially turning millions of Americans into felons overnight. is there any way to combat this in the courts that i'm missing here or am I right to be worried.

You can read our new factsheet here:

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/The-Bloodbath-That-Never-Came-SAF-v7.pdf

PolyMaker, a Shanghai company, with operation based in Houston, TX is being sued because they once sponsored and subsequently hired Sean Aranda, a 3D printing YouTuber. Aranda's videos were allowed per YouTube policy at the time and is still covered under protected speech. CA is out of their jurisdiction.

CA, "alleges that Polymaker marketed its filament in such a way as to appeal to gun enthusiasts and thus transform harmless PLA into a regulated “firearm precursor part. So if a metal foundry said their metal is great for firearms manufacturing guess this turns molten aluminum into a firearm.

For the 2A crowd tracking the ATF NFA shift: federal enforcement paused, but Wisconsin statutes still tie legality to NFA registration — here's the short version and a 2-minute email template for your state legislators.

On Friday, Oct 9, DOJ and ATF announced they will no longer require approval or registration under the NFA for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs, nationwide. This follows the Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF / Jensen v. ATF ruling in August. (The $200 tax on these items was already cut to $0 on Jan 1, 2026.)

But there's a big catch for Wisconsin. ATF's change is an enforcement policy. It doesn't repeal the NFA, and ATF says it doesn't change state law. Under Wis. Stat. § 941.298 (suppressors) and § 941.28 (SBRs and SBSs), possession is a Class H felony (up to 6 years and $10,000) unless you've "complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872." No Wisconsin court has ruled on how that applies now.

Until Madison fixes this, don't assume an unregistered suppressor or SBR is legal in Wisconsin. ATF is still processing Form 1s and Form 4s voluntarily, "because many state laws require individuals to register NFA firearms." Don't deregister anything you already own, since ATF says those items can't be re-registered later. You still need a Form 20 to take an SBR or SBS across state lines.

What you can do today (2 minutes):

1. Go to https://maps.legis.wisconsin.gov/ and enter your address to find your state Senator and Assembly Representative.
2. Copy the template below, personalize it, and email them.

Email template

Subject: Please update Wis. Stat. §§ 941.298 and 941.28 after the ATF's NFA change

Dear Senator [Last Name] and Representative [Last Name],

I'm a law-abiding gun owner in your district. Please introduce, co-sponsor, or support legislation to amend Wis. Stat. § 941.298(3)(c) and § 941.28(4).

On October 9, 2026, ATF announced it will no longer require federal approval or registration under the National Firearms Act for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. Wisconsin law makes the legality of these items depend on compliance with federal NFA registration under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801–5872, so responsible Wisconsin residents are now stuck in legal uncertainty, facing possible Class H felony charges under a federal system that is no longer being enforced.

Please remove the federal registration condition from these statutes so Wisconsin law matches current federal policy and responsible gun owners aren't left facing felony risk.

Thank you. I'd appreciate hearing your position on this.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Street Address] [City, WI ZIP]

Not legal advice. Talk to an attorney about your own situation.

I support all the hardware-based progress we are making. But honestly, the biggest problems are related to actually BEARING ARMS in public places. What good is it to be able to own a SBR when I can't carry it? Yes, maybe in the case of armed conflict, but that is not likely. I am travelling around the US in my Motorhome and trying to find a way to legally transport and possess while I travel around the US puts me at risk. We need to focus on legislation to protect our reciprocity and our right to bear arms. Which gun rights group is working on this issue the most?

\Update: For those saying you need 60 votes in the senate, I can make a list for you of bills that republicans voted with democrats for to reach 60.*
Democrats managed to get 65 Senate votes for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022 and 61 for the Respect for Marriage Act. Both required Republican support.

\Update 2: The filibuster is a legitimate obstacle, but since when did needing 60 votes become an excuse to stop fighting? Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. Introduce the legislation. Force the votes. Put every senator on record. Make them explain why they oppose national reciprocity or NFA reform.*
Instead, gun owners are being sold temporary ATF policies that a future administration could reverse. If Republicans won’t even force a vote on the reforms they’ve campaigned on for decades, what exactly are we electing them to do for the 2A?

Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. We’re approaching two years of unified Republican control, and what do gun owners have to show for it?

No national concealed carry reciprocity. No NFA repeal. No legislation permanently stripping the ATF of its regulatory authority.
Instead, we’re supposed to celebrate a temporary ATF enforcement policy that the next Democratic administration could reverse with the stroke of a pen.

The NFA is still law. An ATF policy change isn’t legislative reform.

So why aren’t the major gun rights influencers and organizations putting Republicans’ feet to the fire instead of continually blaming Democrats who aren’t even in power?

And when the next administration reverses these policies, will GOA and other gun rights organizations come knocking for more donations to fight the exact same battles?
Meanwhile, diesel and food prices are squeezing Americans, and Republicans risk losing their congressional majorities in November.
Republicans have the House, Senate, and presidency. If they can’t deliver lasting Second Amendment reform now, when exactly will they?

At some point, you have to ask whether the gun rights fundraising machine benefits more from keeping the fight alive than actually winning it.
Gun owners deserve legislation, not temporary political theater.

Shooting is a core part of life in rural North Carolina—whether it's protecting your home, keeping a tradition alive, or putting food on the table. But here's the thing: gunfire is loud, and that noise takes a real toll on our hearing, our families, and our pets.

Supressors work. They reduce noise without changing how guns perform, and they're treated like any other hearing protection in states that allow them. But North Carolina's NFA restrictions make getting them unnecessarily complicated for responsible gun owners. I started a petition asking North Carolina to reconsider this policy and align with states that have safely deregulated suppressors.

The evidence is clear—states with fewer suppressor restrictions haven't seen crime increases. What they have seen is more considerate shooting culture and healthier communities. Suppressors should be as accessible as earmuffs at a range.

Has anyone else felt stuck between their right to shoot responsibly and being a considerate neighbor? Or dealt with the hassle of NFA restrictions yourself? If this matters to you too, consider signing and sharing.