Category: Born again Cynic!

1986 VS 2026: Guns And Ammo Pricing (I beg to differ on a few things but it’s up to you to decide! Grumpy)

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 12, 2026
No Comments on 1986 VS 2026: Guns And Ammo Pricing (I beg to differ on a few things but it’s up to you to decide! Grumpy)

The price of guns and ammo has always been unstable. Inflation, political changes, new laws, international conflicts, supply chain issues, and changing public opinion on gun ownership all contribute to this volatility. As Ecclesiastes 1:9 says, there’s nothing new under the sun.

In some ways, the story is surprising. While the prices of most goods, such as homes, cars, and fuel, have skyrocketed, some types of ammunition have actually become more affordable in real terms. At the same time, firearms themselves have seen significant price increases, often caused by regulation, higher demand, and manufacturing changes.

Let’s take a closer look at the changes and economic factors behind the pricing to understand the full story.

The Big Picture: Then vs. Now

Before diving into firearms specifically, it’s important to understand the broader economic backdrop.

1986 vs 2026: Cost of Living Comparison

Median Household Income

1986: $24,900
2026: $84,000 (Projected)

Cost of the Average New Home

1986: $111,900
2026: $445,000

Price of the Average Used Home

1986: $92,000
2026: $398,000

Average New Car Costs

1986: $12,650
2026: $49,000

Price of Gas (Per Gallon)

1986: $0.93
2026: $3.50

At a glance, most major life expenses have increased roughly 3x to 4x over 40 years. This sets a baseline expectation: if guns and ammo followed the same trend, we’d expect similar increases.

But they didn’t, at least not evenly across the board.

The 1980s: A Different America for Gun Owners

Handgun ammo prices were higher in the 1980’s due to lower volume and demand.

To fully understand firearm and ammunition pricing in 1986, you have to look beyond the numbers and into the broader cultural and economic environment of the 1980s.

This was a fundamentally different era, both politically and culturally, especially when it came to guns.

A Strong Economy with Different Priorities

Under President Ronald Reagan, the 1980s were a time of economic growth, lower inflation, and higher consumer confidence after the 1970s were a time of trouble.

Some important things about the decade were:

Lower cost of living in general
Wages were going up compared to the cost of living
The U.S. economy had higher manufacturing
Supply chains were less globalized

People who bought guns more often saw them as useful tools rather than risky or politically charged purchases.

Gun Culture in the 1980s

In 1986, gun ownership looked very different from what it does today.

The typical firearm owner was:

A hunter
A rural homeowner
And/or a recreational shooter

Self-defense was part of the equation, but it wasn’t nearly as dominant as it is today.

Popular firearm categories reflected this:

Revolvers like the S&W Model 19
Bolt-action rifles like the Remington 700
Shotguns like the Remington 870

Semi-automatic pistols, like the Glock 17, were just gaining traction in the U.S. market.

The Rise of the “Wonder Nine”

The “Wonder 9” Glock 17 began entering the U.S. consumer market in 1986.

The mid-1980s marked the early adoption of high-capacity 9mm pistols, often called “Wonder Nines.”

The introduction of the Glock 17 into the U.S. market was particularly significant:

Polymer frame construction (revolutionary at the time)
Higher magazine capacity than revolvers
Lower manufacturing cost

Law enforcement agencies began transitioning away from revolvers, a shift that would later drive massive civilian demand for 9mm pistols and ammunition.

This shift is one of the key reasons why 9mm ammo became so dominant (and eventually so affordable) by 2026.

Regulation Was Present, But Less Visible

Although gun laws existed in 1986, they weren’t as central to public discourse as they are today.

The passage of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) reflected a moment where:

Gun owners pushed back against federal enforcement practices.
Lawmakers sought to clarify and standardize regulations.

At the same time, the Hughes Amendment quietly introduced one of the most significant long-term pricing distortions in firearms history by freezing the supply of transferable machine guns.

No Internet, No Instant Panic Buying

In the 1980’s, you could buy guns and ammo in stores, over the phone, or by mail order.

One of the biggest differences between 1986 and 2026 is how fast information, and fear, spread.

In the 1980s, there were:

No online retailers
No social media
No real-time news cycle

As a result:

Buying patterns were more stable
Shortages were less frequent
Prices were less volatile

Contrast that with today’s market, where a single news event can trigger nationwide demand spikes within hours.

Ammo Was Expensive Because Volume Was Lower

Another overlooked factor is that ammunition production in the 1980s was far less optimized than it is today. There were:

Fewer large-scale production facilities
Less automation
Lower civilian consumption of high-volume calibers

Economies of scale didn’t exist in the same way they do now.

Why the 1980s Still Matter Today

The 1980s laid the groundwork for many of today’s firearm market dynamics:

The shift from revolvers to semi-autos
The rise of the 9mm as the dominant caliber
The regulatory framework shaped by FOPA
The early stages of modern firearm manufacturing

Understanding this era helps explain why some prices rose steadily, others stagnated, and a few, like 9mm ammo, actually dropped over time.

Firearm Prices: How Much Have Guns Increased?

Firearm prices have generally increased over time, but not always at the same pace as housing or vehicles. Here’s a direct comparison of some popular models:

Gun Price Comparison (1986 vs 2026)

Firearm Type	1986 Price	2026 Price
Glock 17	$249	$649
Colt 1911	$499	$1,199
S&W Model 19	$349	$1,119
Ruger 10/22	$79	$349
Colt AR-15 Carbine	$499	$1,099
Remington 700	$179	$499
Remington 870 Shotgun	$149	$499

What This Tells Us

Most firearms increased between 2x and 4x, which roughly tracks inflation and general consumer goods trends. However, some models, particularly revolvers and classic designs, have increased more sharply due to:

Collector demand
Reduced production volumes
Higher labor costs
Premium brand positioning

Semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 platform have remained comparatively accessible, largely due to mass production and market competition in the modern era.

Ammo Prices: A Very Different Story

Unlike firearms, ammunition pricing tells a much more complex (and surprising) story.

Ammo Price Comparison (1986 vs 2026)

Ammo Type	1986	2026
12-Gauge 00 Buck (25 Shells)	$4.00	$19.99
.22LR (100 rounds)	$5.49	$13.99
.223 Rem (20 rounds)	$11.99	$12.99
.308 Win (20 rounds)	$15.99	$19.99
9mm (50 rounds)	$22.50	$10.00
.38 Special (50 rounds)	$16.99	$28.99
.45 ACP (50rounds)	$12.99	$22.99

The Biggest Surprise: 9mm Got Much Cheaper

In 1986, a box of 9mm cost $22.50, or about $0.45 per round.

In 2026, it averages $10.00 per box, or $0.20 per round.

Even without adjusting for inflation, that’s a dramatic decrease. When adjusted for inflation, 9mm is significantly cheaper today than it was in the 1980s.

Why Did Ammo Prices Diverge?

Several key factors have influenced the price of guns and ammo:

Globalized manufacturing
Improved production efficiency
Mass civilian adoption of certain calibers (especially 9mm)
Military and law enforcement standardization

At the same time, less common calibers (.38 Special, .45 ACP) have become relatively more expensive due to lower production volume and niche demand.

The 1986 Turning Point: Firearm Owners’ Protection Act

In 1986, the Hughes Amendment banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic firearms.

One of the most important legislative milestones affecting firearm pricing was the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), signed into law in 1986.

What FOPA Did

FOPA was designed to protect gun owners from overly aggressive enforcement of federal gun laws. It:

Limited ATF inspection powers
Protected interstate firearm transport
Clarified definitions for dealers vs private sellers

However, it also included a critical last-minute amendment:

The Hughes Amendment

The Hughes Amendment banned civilian ownership of newly manufactured fully automatic firearms after May 19, 1986.

Impact on the Price of Guns and Ammo

The Hughes Amendment created a fixed supply of transferable machine guns, which led to explosive price increases over time.

While this didn’t directly affect semi-automatic firearms like AR-15s, it demonstrated how regulation can instantly reshape market pricing.

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban & Its Aftermath

Another major event was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which was in effect until 2004.

Key Effects

Restricted certain rifle features (flash suppressors, collapsible stocks, etc.)
Limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds
Created a divide between “pre-ban” and “post-ban” firearms

Impact on the Price of Guns and Ammo

“Pre-ban” rifles and magazines skyrocketed in value
Manufacturers adapted by producing compliant models
After its expiration in 2004, prices normalized, and supply increased

This period showed how temporary legislation can create artificial scarcity and price volatility

Panic Buying & Political Cycles (2008–2024)

The Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) records that U.S. prices have risen by roughly 200% since 1986.

From the late 2000s onward, firearm and ammo prices became increasingly tied to political events.

Key Demand Surges

2008 Election of Barack Obama
2012 Sandy Hook shooting
The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and civil unrest
2020–2021 election cycle

Each of these events triggered waves of:

Panic buying
Ammo shortages
Price spikes

During peak shortages, 9mm prices temporarily ranged from $0.80 to $1.00 per round, far above historical norms.

Long-Term Effects

While prices eventually stabilized, these cycles:

Increased baseline demand
Expanded the gun-owning population
Encouraged stockpiling behavior

It’s easy to see why firearm prices have remained elevated even after the supply recovered.

Manufacturing Evolution: Why Some Guns Stayed Affordable

Modern firearm manufacturing has changed dramatically since 1986.

Key Advancements

CNC machining and automation
Polymer frame technology (popularized by Glock)
Modular platforms like the AR-15
Global sourcing of components

These innovations allowed manufacturers to:

Reduce costs
Increase output
Maintain competitive pricing

This is the main reason why rifles like the AR-15 remain widely available and relatively affordable compared to other goods.

Cultural Shifts in Gun Ownership

A major shift in American gun culture happened in the 2000’s with the demographics of gun owners changing.

In 2026, owning a gun is very different from owning one in 1986.

Then (1986):

Mostly hunters and hobbyists who shoot for fun
Revolvers and bolt-action rifles were the most common
Localized trap & skeet shooting clubs
Laws about carrying guns in public were limited

Now (2026)

More people are buying guns for the first time
More states are allowing concealed carry
People are increasingly interested in guns for personal defense
More people are getting into competitive shooting sports

The move toward self-defense and everyday carry has led to a huge demand for:

Small handguns
9mm bullets
Training and accessories

The high demand for 9mm ammo is one of the main reasons it has gotten cheaper.

Real Affordability: Are Guns Cheaper or More Expensive Today?

When you compare raw prices, guns are clearly more expensive in 2026. But affordability depends on context.

Gun Example: Glock 17

1986: $249
2026: $649

That’s about a 2.6x increase, while home prices increased nearly 4x.

Ammo Example: 9mm

1986: $0.45/round
2026: $0.20/round

That’s quite a decrease in nominal cost, and an even larger drop when adjusted for inflation.

Recap on the Price of Guns and Ammo

Firearms: Moderately more expensive, but roughly in line with inflation
Ammo (common calibers): Often cheaper than ever
Ammo (less common calibers): More expensive due to lower demand

Final Thoughts: 40 Years of Change

The evolution of gun and ammo prices from 1986 to 2026 reflects more than just inflation; it tells a story about legislation, culture, and technology.

Historical Takeaways:

The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act permanently reshaped parts of the firearms market
Political events and media cycles have driven repeated demand spikes
Technological advancements have kept some firearms affordable
Mass adoption of 9mm has made it cheaper than ever

Perhaps the most interesting guns and ammo takeaway is this:

While nearly everything else in life has become dramatically more expensive, shooting, at least with common calibers, has become more accessible in many ways.

At the same time, regulatory pressure and cultural shifts ensure that firearm pricing will remain sensitive to political and social forces for years to come.

Points of Contention by T.L. Davis

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 9, 2026
No Comments on Points of Contention by T.L. Davis

There’s a couple of issues where I might run into opposition among the readership and that’s all right, we can disagree and one might even enlighten the other. No harm, no foul.

First of all: data centers. I’ve already registered my complaints against them, not theoretical, political complaints, but issues that directly affect myself and my property.

So I question the need for the vast amount of the data centers being built and the incredible amount of debt being racked up to get them into place before the public has a say in their construction.

As a capitalist, it’s hard to deny that corporations that buy land have a right to build on that land whatever they want. However, a corporation should not be able to buy a parcel of land straddling a river and block the river with a damn to generate electricity, if it floods land they don’t own.

In a typical situation the corporation could do whatever it wanted and the people could explore their options once they found their property or rights being damaged. This is the same argument for the second topic: Flock cameras and government operated cameras of all sorts.

In a privately owned store, a person has a right to install security cameras to provide evidence of a crime committed against it. The hard drive of which would probably be purged to make room for more recent recordings, so that there is no ability of the government to subpoena months and months of footage, but could use that recent footage to provide evidence of a crime committed within the establishment.

The problem arises when these cameras rely on the cloud to store the footage. This is where Flock cameras and their ilk run afoul of the 4th Amendment rights of those who are not suspected of crimes, but simply moving throughout the area.

Cameras connected to WiFi or use cloud storage (data centers) are eminently hackable. In fact, one source claimed that while the police departments were accessing the Flock cameras (sometimes illegally), others of a non-law enforcement nature were too. This provides other security services, like private investigators, the ability to gather information to be used in a divorce proceeding.

Maybe, it would allow for groups to monitor and target individuals. How advantageous would that be to someone planning a terrorist attack or assassination?

The cumbersome nature of having to follow someone around to gather information in a divorce proceeding, or to plan a terrorist attack exposes those doing the surveillance and prohibits these activities to a rarified few. The expansiveness of it, the ease with which it can be obtained is the danger.

Once a camera is available to the cloud, it is no longer a security camera, but a surveillance camera and that’s where I find fault with both the Flock camera and the data centers available to house that data. The question to me still comes back the amount of the data centers.

People say, “we’ve had data centers for decades. What’s the problem? You’re being manipulated by the CCP.” I was never a fan of those data centers either, because what need is there, but to store information gathered through internet connections, cell transmissions and other modes of expected private communication?

The connection between data centers and AI seems rather tenuous and a bit of a distraction designed to allow for the surveillance state while seeming to inspire economic activity and beneficial use.

The data centers represent, to me, the ability to store data surreptitiously accumulated through passive spying on all human communication. When there were only a few, the limited number defeated the ability to store enough to impinge on individual rights of privacy to a great degree.

Not completely, but it was at a much better ratio than when there are 5,000 data centers and more being built all the time. The admonition that it’s necessary to keep up with China falls a little flat when China has 385 data centers and the US has 3,600-5,000.

Localities and states are sold on the idea of high-paying jobs in construction and operation, increased tax revenue and an invigorated economy. From a government perspective, there’s no downside. The people have to pay more in electricity. So, what? The people have to pay higher property taxes due to the imagined “invigorated economy.” So, what?

These government entities claim that the tax revenue from the data centers will reduce or eliminate property taxes. I’ll believe that when I see it. What I do suspect is initially some of the increased tax revenue might be used to offset some property taxes, if just to reduce opposition, but surely that will be obliterated when the counties get used to that increased income and come looking for more.

When it comes to terrorist activity, I can’t imagine a more beneficial weapon against the West than it’s own technology. A terrorist cell able to track a specific individual or target by hacking the Flock cameras and others, while never leaving the mosque, exposing themselves to observation and suspicion, seems to be a gift.

I know I’ll lose this argument. Americans are too addicted to convenience to deny themselves the advantages of perpetual spying.

They already take their personal surveillance devices with them wherever they go. They see, especially in the entertainment industry, the advantages of AI as a cost-reduction practice, despite the fact that anything coming out of AI already stinks, looks and feels too easy to give it value by the consumer, who rightfully thinks to himself: “Why should I pay to watch something I could create myself for $25 and share with my friends?”

The concept of using AI in warfare is too compelling to deny it simply because there’s a downside. “There’s good and bad in everything.” Yes, but the surveillance state we’re building will not be constrained to the military or law enforcement. It can and will be used by political and terrorist organizations. It’s being used right now by individuals in law enforcement to track romantic interests, romantic rivals and social enemies and we shrug.

A local police officer was just fired for using the Flock system over 100 times to track a romantic interest. How often is it happening where there is no consequence, where no one is monitoring?

On the other hand, a person who had been destroying Flock cameras, several of them, was arrested and put before a grand jury and subsequently set free, because they would not indict him. If the majority are willing to allow this, those having a stake in the privacy of the individual have a right and a duty to prevent it. The state can make whatever law they want, but people can reject it and refuse to indict.

All of the usual methods of operating a republic are gone. The constitution is ignored; radical judges are frustrating the will of the people to have legitimate elections and to deport illegal aliens; a surveillance state is being erected using our own taxes; our resources are being devoured against our interests and no one in congress is listening to our pleas for sanity. This is a classic example of when the people have to fend for themselves and do what is right, not just what is legal.

Born again Cynic! EVIL MF

The moment when it is pretty clear to me that this nation is going to die soon!

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 7, 2026
No Comments on The moment when it is pretty clear to me that this nation is going to die soon!

Yeah I know! There have always been evil and crazy folks out there, Also there has never been in short supply of them especially in my former state of California.

BUT

The “woman / mother” freely admitted in court under oath. ” Yeah I killed them with my bare hands” and these folks are basically cheering her for offing her small children?

Of course if it had been a man or an animal. Hopefully the mob would be forming for the “Necktie” Party outside the cell. Also the guards would go out on an extended coffee break.

BUT because she’s an “oppressed and has some mental problems” woman. Well she gets a get out of jail card.

THE BOTTOM LINE

Anybody out there want to bet that she gets off in the next trial. If the DA has the balls to try again. As I am willing to bet a nickel or two that

A. Will be no trial

B. If there is a trial she will get off and She is then named Mother of the Year by Planned Parenthood.

C. She shows up on the TV Show “The View” as the brave woman who took a hands on position to her problems.

Grumpy

PS It’s a bad day to quit drinking! Also how about this little nugget of info?

Lindsay Clancy supporters donating to her parents’ fundraiser have raised more than $1 million with contributions rolling in almost every minute amid a newly increased target.

On Friday, the fundraiser shared an update after Clancy’s trial collapsed stating that its new goal is $3 million. They are supporting a woman who has confessed to killing her own children. That should shake you to your core.

Born again Cynic! California Paint me surprised by this

California Passes Conditional Ban on 3D Printers Without Firearm-Blocking Software by John Crump

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 5, 2026
No Comments on California Passes Conditional Ban on 3D Printers Without Firearm-Blocking Software by John Crump

A 3D printer producing an unfinished semi-automatic handgun frame on its build plate. — California AB 2047 could require 3D printers sold in the state to inspect digital files and block print jobs involving firearms or machine-gun conversion devices. Credit: AI-generated editorial image created for AmmoLand News.

California has passed AB 2047, the California Firearm Printing Prevention Act, and the bill is now on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The measure, authored by Assembly Member Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, would eventually require consumer 3D printers sold or transferred in the state to include “firearm blocking technology” intended to identify and stop print jobs for firearms and certain illegal parts, including machine-gun conversion devices. After weeks of amendments, the Legislature sent the enrolled bill to the governor in the closing hours of the 2026 session. Newsom has until the end of September to sign or veto it.

The version that reached his desk is far narrower than the bill that first cleared the Assembly in May. The Senate stripped several of the most aggressive enforcement tools after lawmakers and industry groups argued they were technologically infeasible or overbroad. Gone are the original criminal misdemeanor for disabling the software, the $25,000-per-violation civil penalties, the mandatory manufacturer self-attestation process, and a public roster of “compliant” models.

The final text keeps an exemption for printers used exclusively to make entertainment-industry props and lets the California Department of Justice create additional exceptions by regulation. It also shields people who share digital firearm files solely to test or develop blocking software.

What remains is a delayed, contingent mandate. Beginning no later than July 1, 2027, the DOJ must check quarterly whether ASTM International has published industry standards for firearm-blocking technology on 3D printers. If ASTM issues qualifying standards, the department then has 24 months to publish its own written guidance or regulations describing minimum performance requirements. One year after those state standards appear, it would become unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or transfer a 3D printer in California that lacks compliant blocking technology. If ASTM has not published standards by July 1, 2029, the department is relieved of further duties under the act, and the sales restriction may never take effect.

The bill does not operate in a vacuum. California already prohibits unlicensed people from using a 3D printer or CNC mill to manufacture a firearm under Penal Code § 29185. Separate statutes restrict machines whose “sole or primary function” is to make guns and create civil liability for distributing “digital firearm manufacturing code” to unlicensed persons. AB 1263 and related 2025–26 measures further expanded definitions of firearm manufacturing machines and accessories effective January 1, 2026. AB 2047 tries to move one step upstream by making the printer itself refuse certain files.

California is not the first state down this path. New York enacted a similar blocking-technology law earlier this year. Sacramento modeled AB 2047 on that approach, then made the California version more conditional after the Senate rewrite.

Critics say the concept still fails on both technology and law. 3D-printing companies, the ACLU of California, Hollywood prop shops, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and gun-rights groups argue that detection algorithms are easy to evade with slightly modified files, offline machines, older printers already in circulation, or out-of-state purchases. They also raise First Amendment concerns about treating design files as something the state can force hardware makers to censor, and they warn that unreliable software would burden schools, small businesses, and hobbyists. Several analyses noted that the Senate rewrite left the actual sales ban hanging on a private standards body that may never act.

Supporters, including Everytown for Gun Safety and the bill’s author, frame AB 2047 as a response to recovered 3D-printed guns and unfinished frames. They describe it as a way to cut off a pipeline for untraceable weapons before a file becomes a firearm.

Even if Newsom signs the bill, nothing changes at the store counter tomorrow. The mandate is years away, if it arrives at all. The practical fight now is whether ASTM writes a standard the state can adopt—and whether software that must inspect every print job can ever work well enough to survive both evasion and a courtroom.

Born again Cynic! Darwin would of approved of this! Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom

The Berlin Trap That is Still Destroying Africa Today

Post author By Grumpy
Post date September 2, 2026
No Comments on The Berlin Trap That is Still Destroying Africa Today

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! Well I thought it was funny!

Reality sure can be a B*tch at times huh?

Post author By Grumpy
Post date August 28, 2026
No Comments on Reality sure can be a B*tch at times huh?

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Born again Cynic! California Gun Fearing Wussies

California Guts Its 3D Printer Gun Bill — On Purpose by TTAG News Contributor

Post author By Grumpy
Post date August 27, 2026
No Comments on California Guts Its 3D Printer Gun Bill — On Purpose by TTAG News Contributor

California still wants to regulate 3D printers because people can use them to make firearms without the state’s blessing. Its vehicle is AB 2047, a bill originally designed to force printer makers to build in technology capable of detecting and blocking gun files.

But after a round of amendments, the bill has been substantially watered down. What started as a mandate is now more of a regulatory tripwire — one that may never actually be triggered.

From Mandate to Maybe

Introduced in February by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D-Orinda), AB 2047 originally would have required 3D printers sold or transferred in California to include state-approved “firearm blocking technology” — hardware or software designed to prevent the machine from printing files identified as firearms or firearm components.

The amended version doesn’t actually establish that standard.

Instead, beginning no later than July 1, 2027, the California Department of Justice would check quarterly to see whether ASTM International — the private standards organization involved in additive manufacturing, the industry’s term for 3D printing — has published standards for firearm-blocking technology.

If ASTM does, DOJ gets 24 months to develop guidance or regulations based on those standards. Per the bill, those rules would establish “minimum performance standards” necessary to safely, fairly and effectively implement the technology statewide.

And if ASTM hasn’t published anything by July 1, 2029?

The bill says DOJ “shall not be required to make any further determinations under this section.”

In other words, no ASTM standards, no California regulations under AB 2047.

At least for now.

Passing the Buck

The amended bill flips the original structure on its head.

Instead of California lawmakers deciding what firearm-blocking technology must do, they wait for an outside standards organization to establish the technical foundation. If that happens, DOJ gets to turn it into regulations.

Politically, that’s convenient.

Lawmakers get to vote for “doing something about ghost guns” without having to explain how the technology is actually supposed to work. If the eventual regulations are expensive, ineffective or technologically impossible, DOJ owns the details.

The legislators simply created the machine and walked away.

Legislating by handing the hard decisions to unelected regulators is an interesting move for a political class that spends so much time warning everyone about threats to democracy.

There’s Another Problem: Does This Technology Even Work?

That’s the bigger question hanging over AB 2047.

The blocking software envisioned by proposals like this would somehow have to recognize firearm-related geometry while allowing the countless ordinary objects that contain identical or similar shapes.

A printer doesn’t inherently know whether a particular hole, tube, spring, cavity or other geometry is destined to become part of a firearm, a household object, a prototype or something else entirely.

Even the federal Justice Department has gone looking to the 3D-printing industry for help with the problem.

Then there’s the First Amendment.

The California Senate’s own committee analysis raised questions about restricting what a printer can produce and the unsettled issue of whether computer code constitutes protected speech. California is already fighting on similar ground in its lawsuit involving websites that distribute 3D gun files.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation has also blasted the proposal, arguing that it would effectively build censorship into the printer itself.

That’s what makes AB 2047 more interesting than another California “ghost gun” bill. The state isn’t merely trying to regulate what someone manufactures. It’s attempting to regulate what a general-purpose machine is allowed to process.

The Clock Is Running

AB 2047 cleared the Assembly in May and has since moved through the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety committees.

It now faces the Senate floor — and a deadline.

The Legislature has until August 31 to pass bills this session. If the Senate approves AB 2047 without further amendments, it heads to Gov. Gavin Newsom. If senators change it again, it goes back to the Assembly for concurrence.

That doesn’t leave much time.

Then again, this is California and we’re talking about gun control. Finding time has rarely been the problem.

The Bottom Line

On its face, the amendments look like a win for 3D-printer manufacturers, hobbyists and anyone else who doesn’t particularly like the idea of government-approved software deciding what their machine is allowed to print.

But this isn’t a clean escape.

California hasn’t abandoned firearm-blocking technology. It has outsourced the trigger.

If ASTM never produces the standards, AB 2047 could amount to little more than bureaucratic homework. If ASTM does, however, California DOJ already has the legislative framework it needs to start turning those standards into rules.

The bill deserves to die, teeth filed down or not. A law that outsources its technical trigger to a private standards organization and leaves the actual requirements to regulators is questionable lawmaking before we even get to whether the underlying technology works.

But this is California, in the closing days of the legislative session, with a super majority that rarely lets a gun-control bill expire quietly.

The smart bet isn’t that AB 2047 dies.

It’s that California passes the framework now and waits for someone else to pull the trigger.

All About Guns Born again Cynic! California Paint me surprised by this

Gee good luck Grumpy on getting a CCL but if you are part of the Elite….

Post author By Grumpy
Post date August 27, 2026
No Comments on Gee good luck Grumpy on getting a CCL but if you are part of the Elite….

Fresno mulls letting prosecutors carry concealed firearms after stabbing rocks California

Nina Joudeh

Fresno County officials are pushing to let prosecutors carry concealed firearms after a shocking daylight stabbing of a senior deputy district attorney last week.

Supervisor Garry Bredefeld is working with Sheriff John Zanoni and DA Lisa Smittcamp on an ordinance allowing them to be armed on county property, according to Your Central Valley.

The proposal is expected to go before the Fresno County Board of Supervisors in the coming weeks.

“All of our law enforcement — whether they’re prosecutors, the sheriffs or the police officers — get up and work to make this community safe,” Bredefeld said. “The least we can do is make sure they have the means to protect themselves.”

The push comes after a senior deputy district attorney was stabbed three times in the back Thursday while outside Courthouse Park in Downtown Fresno.

Smittcamp questioned the county’s current restrictions Friday, noting that she is prohibited from carrying a firearm on county property despite her position.

“I am the chief law enforcement official in the county of Fresno … if I want to carry a weapon on county property I can’t under a current ordinance,” Smittcamp said. “Kind of ridiculous … people like Mr. Crawford are empowered by the weakness of the criminal justice system.”

Supervisors Nathan Magsig and Luis Chavez also backed the proposed change, according to the outlet, with Chavez calling it “long overdue.”

“I know for a fact that prosecutors have received death threats,” Chavez said. “We need to start recognizing our prosecutors as part of our public safety family.”

Magsig said the change would require the county to work with state officials. Bredefeld said he was not optimistic the attack would change lawmakers’ attitudes in Sacramento.

Dustin Crawford, 42, allegedly approached the prosecutor and others while they were outside Courthouse Park shooting a campaign commercial.

Crawford allegedly recognized the group before singling out the prosecutor and stabbing him three times in the back.

Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Born again Cynic! EVIL MF War

Politicians Are Scum By Will Dabbs, MD

Post author By Grumpy
Post date August 16, 2026
No Comments on Politicians Are Scum By Will Dabbs, MD

The “Honorable” Andrew J. May

This is Congressman Andrew J. May. He was a card-carrying loser.

This is hands-down the most eventful election cycle of my lifetime. As I sit typing these words, one candidate was shot, and the other left the race because of senility … all in the course of eight days. I like to think of myself as a fairly creative guy, and even I could not make this stuff up.

One might be forgiven for believing the situation hopeless. Regardless of what side of the political fence upon which you might reside, everyone would likely acknowledge that our current crop of politicians comes with a spot of baggage. It’s enough to render a brother demoralized and wistful for the good old days.

Not so fast. While I do long for the purity and patriotism of wartime 1940s America, it seems that electing flaming idiots is a timeless problem. Back in 1943, one particularly ambitious moron killed a whole pile of U.S. submariners.

Everybody hates politicians. Andrew May was the reason.

The Guy

Andrew J. May was born in 1875 in Kentucky. A natural politician, May served as county attorney for Floyd County, Ky. from 1901 through 1909. Using that experience as a springboard, he landed a judgeship and, eventually, a seat in the U.S. Congress.

Congressman May hooked his wagon to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was an ardent proponent of the New Deal. May was instrumental in passing the Social Security Act as well as the GI Bill of Rights. He was the primary author of the Peacetime Selective Service Act, which laid the foundation for the sweeping draft that was required to feed the massive American war machine during the early part of WWII. Up until this part in our tale, the Honorable Andrew J. May did indeed seem like an effective servant of the people.

I’ve known a handful of federal lawmakers, a couple of whom I saw in action up close. You cannot do that job for long and stay normal. They’re all disconnected from reality. Eventually, you start believing your own press releases. It is a hop, skip and jump from there over to pure, unfettered narcissism. Andrew May leapt in with both feet.

Never Trust a Politician with Anything Important

In 1943, Congressman May was head of the Military Affairs Committee. In this capacity, he toured American military installations across the Pacific Theater. Along the way, he was privy to a great deal of very sensitive information.

With the entire world at war, details regarding weapons’ capabilities were closely guarded secrets. Then, as now, public servants tended to flaunt both their positions and their access. In this case, the results were fairly catastrophic.

By 1943, the fortunes of American submarines in the Pacific were going swimmingly. Loss rates were low, and attacks on Japanese shipping were taking a vicious toll. One of the reasons for this success was that American subs could dive really, really deep. Back then, our boats could operate at least 400 feet below the surface, markedly deeper than their Japanese counterparts.

The Japanese could not imagine that Yankee submarines would be so much more capable than their own. As a result, when Japanese destroyers attacked U.S. submarines, they would set their depth charges to detonate fairly shallow. American skippers knew if they could just get deep enough, they would be relatively immune to Japanese attack. Then, Congressman May got home from his trip and scheduled a press conference.Congressman May undertook a fact-finding tour of military

installations in the Pacific during the height of WWII. He then
came home and blabbed all the classified details to the press

Stupidity Has a Face

During the course of his press event wherein he outlined all that he was doing to support the war effort, Congressman May casually mentioned that the reason American subs were doing so well was that they were running underneath Japanese depth charges. The meat of his conference made the wire services and spread across the country. Japanese spies took note and sent this information to their handlers back home. It was a simple thing to reset their depth charges to go off a little deeper. The Japanese began bagging U.S. submarines.

Vice Admiral Charles Lockwood, commander of the US submarine fleet in the Pacific, said, “I hear Congressman May said the Jap depth charges are not set deep enough. He would be pleased to know that the Japs set them deeper now.”

By war’s end, May’s idiocy had directly resulted in the sinking of 10 American submarines and the deaths of some 800 U.S. sailors.American submarines fared well in the Pacific during the early part of WWII. Then Congressman May explained to the Japanese what they needed to do to kill them.

It Gets Even Better

When he wasn’t busy drowning Americans, Congressman May was using his position to make money on the side. May used his influence to obtain war production contracts for his friends Murray and Henry Garsson.

Despite having no experience producing munitions, the Garsson brothers began churning out such stuff as 4.2-inch mortar shells, many of which were found to have had defective fuses. These fuses often resulted in premature detonations that ultimately claimed the lives of a further 38 U.S. soldiers. In exchange for these sweet military contracts, Congressman May accepted a bunch of good old-fashioned bribes.

Once word got out about May’s body count, his constituency threw him out. After losing reelection, May was tried in federal court on charges of bribery and convicted after less than two hours’ worth of deliberation. May served a nine-month prison sentence. The Garssons went to jail as well.

Despite his malfeasance, May remained well-connected. In 1952, President Harry Truman granted him a full pardon. However, voters were apparently smarter than is the case today. Andrew May failed to resurrect his political career and spent the rest of his days working in private practice as a lawyer. He died in 1959 at the age of 83 as the only man in human history personally responsible for the sinking of 10 submarines.

Born again Cynic! Cops EVIL MF Grumpy's hall of Shame If I was in Charge Paint me surprised by this Some Scary thoughts You have to be kidding, right!?!

‘What about Tate?’ Dave Adamiak, Tate’s father, is nearing his wit’s end. by Lee Williams

Post author By Grumpy
Post date August 16, 2026
No Comments on ‘What about Tate?’ Dave Adamiak, Tate’s father, is nearing his wit’s end. by Lee Williams

by Lee Williams

Dave Adamiak, whose son Patrick “Tate” Adamiak has 17 more years left to serve in federal prison, is confused, perplexed and nearing his wit’s end.

While he appreciates all the support his son’s case has drawn—there are hundreds of videos and stories chronicled on his “Freedom for Tate” website—Tate remains is prison.

To date, there has been no formal move to secure his release—despite the kind words of more than a few elected officials.

Adamiak’s family sent a pardon request to Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Justice Department Pardon Attorney Edward J. Martin Jr., along with nearly 2,000 signatures of supporters, who all believe Tate should never have been charged with a crime.

Tate’s name remains on President Donald Trump’s pardon list, unlike hundreds of others. In addition to 301 pardon denials, the Pardon Attorney has said that 5,908 clemency applications were also rejected.

His 20-year prison sentence, too, has received scorn, even from ATF Director Robert Cekada.

Cekada believes Adamiak was mistreated and massively over-sentenced.

“On the facts of this case, the sentence Mr. Adamiak received is excessive. Mr. Adamiak had no prior criminal history. He dealt with these weapons as curios. We have no evidence that he intended to use the weapons unlawfully or that he was part of a criminal organization. The extremely high sentencing guidelines likely reflect the paradigmatic cases of individuals possessing destructive devices, such as grenade launchers, and normally involve terrorism or organized criminal activity. No such conduct was present here. For me, unlawful possession of National Firearms Act items sentences approximately in the three-to-five-year range are common,” he told me just over a month ago.

Cekada is not alone. Six Republican lawmakers sent their own letter to Blanche and Martin seeking Adamiak’s release.

Congresswoman Jen Kiggans along with Congressmen Eli Crane, Eric Burlison, Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S., Rob Bresnahan, Jr., and Daniel Webster were very clear as to their intent:

“We, the undersigned Members of Congress, respectfully request that you work with President Donald Trump to give fair consideration to a commutation request for Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak. We believe that certain inconsistencies in the regulatory framework applied in his case as well as the broader enforcement environment at the time warrant careful review and consideration for executive clemency,” the lawmakers wrote.

The Representatives were extremely clear about Adamiak’s innocence, stating he had “maintained a well‑documented interest in military history and the lawful collection of historic artifacts, replicas, and training devices.”

“The items of concern in his case were inert collector pieces, nonfunctional replicas, and training aids that were incapable of firing,” the letter states.

**Patrick “Tate” Adamiak as he was processed into the Western Tidewater Regional Jail on June 16, 2026. (Photo courtesy Western Tidewater Regional Jail).**

For reasons that neither he nor his family understand, Adamiak remains housed in the Western Tidewater Regional Jail in Suffolk, Virginia—a county jail and a dangerous hellhole with none of the amenities of a federal prison.

On the day he first arrived at Tidewater, two guards pepper-sprayed an inmate for little or no reason, rammed his head into a metal door, and then dragged him through the jail until his neck and hand were broken. The jail’s medical staff said the inmate was “unlikely to regain limb control.”

The two guards were later fired and charged with malicious wounding; a Class 3 felony in Virginia involving intentional injury with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill. They each face up to 20 years in prison and $100,000 in fines.

Attempts to contact Adamiak in this facility were unsuccessful.

Case history

Adamiak, who at the time was an active-duty Navy E-6, was arrested and charged by the ATF during the height of the Biden Administration’s war on guns, gun owners, gun rights and the Second Amendment.

Adamiak had been accepted to attend BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training). Had the ATF left him alone, he would likely be leading a Navy SEAL platoon.

After ATF agents kicked down his doors, they found nothing illegal or even suspected of being illegal. As a result, the ATF brought in a specialist, ATF Firearm Enforcement Officer Jeffrey R. Bodell, who discombobulated the actual items that the agents had found—all of which are still sold legally online, most do not even require an ID—and turned them into machineguns and destructive devices.

Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing a machinegun for a toy STEN submachinegun found during the search warrant. He paid $75 for the non-firing Spanish replica—or toy—which was made by Denix and is still sold online. Bodell inserted a real STEN barrel and receiver, neither Bodell nor his assistant could make it fire more than one round at a time. Despite their hard work, the toy STEN would not even accept a real magazine. Still, Bodell officially ruled that the toy was a machinegun.

Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing two destructive devices, two inert RPGs that had holes drilled into their receivers and were stripped of internal parts. ATF’s “expert” added parts from real RPGs until they would fire a single subcaliber 7.62x39mm round. As a result, he classified the RPGs as destructive devices. The inert RPGs are still legally sold today without an FFL or any other paperwork.

Takeaways

Adamiak and his father are very concerned about an upcoming hearing, which is scheduled for next month before Arenda L. Wright Allen, the federal judge who oversaw his trial and sentenced Adamiak to serve 20 years in prison.

They both doubt Judge Allen will give Tate a fair hearing. She has already precluded his attorney from rehashing much of anything from the trial. Adamiak could actually receive even more time behind bars.

Every day seems to be a constant battle, Dave Adamiak said. While Tate receives verbal support, nothing official is ever done.

Dozens of politicians have said Adamiak should never have been charged, yet he remains in prison.

“What about Tate?” Dave Adamiak asked. “It appears he’s been swept under the rug after all the traffic about his case. Everyone seems to know about it, but nothing is ever done. He’s still in prison—for nothing illegal. He broke no law. He did nothing wrong.”