Traditional recipes

Oklahoma Gun Range Gets Liquor License

Oklahoma Gun Range Gets Liquor License

A new gun range in Oklahoma City has been approved for a liquor license, allowing beer and wine to be sold on site

An artist's rendering of what Wilshire Gun will look like on the outside (bar not pictured).

In today’s “what were they thinking?” news, we have Oklahoma shooting range, Wilshire Gun, set to open soon, that has been approved by Oklahoma City for a liquor license. Yes, that’s right. People will now be able to get drunk and shoot guns, legally, all in the same place. The owners of Wilshire Gun claim that customers will only be able to get a drink at the attached bar/café after doing a round of shooting, and not before or during.

"Any misconceptions or joking aside, beer and bullets, guns and alcohol, they do not mix," co-owner Jeff Swanson told the local Fox News station. “Once your order a drink, your driver's license is scanned and you are red-flagged and you're not allowed into any of the shooting facilities either as a spectator and certainly not as a shooter for the remainder of the day.”

Wilshire claims that it will be the first facility of its kind in Oklahoma. But despite the precautions being put into place, representatives from Oklahoma’s Alcohol Beverage Law Enforcement Agency are concerned that somehow, people will get around the safety precautions.

Here’s to hoping that beer and bullets stay separate in the state of Oklahoma.

Joanna Fantozzi is an Associate Editor with The Daily Meal. Follow her on Twitter @JoannaFantozzi


City-owned gun range gets liquor license

The Nebraska Liquor Control Commission issued the license Thursday afternoon.

At least 15 dead, hundreds of homes destroyed after central Africa's Mount Nyiragongo eruption

Hundreds of homes and buildings near Mount Nyiragongo in the Democratic Republic of Congo have been destroyed, buried by lava that spewed from the volcano when it erupted on Saturday night. A government spokesman on Sunday said at least 15 people are dead, including nine who were killed in a traffic accident as they tried to flee the area and four others who died while trying to escape from a prison. It is expected that the death toll will rise once authorities reach the hardest-hit areas, BBC News reports. UNICEF said 150 children were separated from their families during the chaos, and another 170 are feared missing. Thousands of people tried to outrun the volcano, escaping with whatever they could carry from their homes. Tom Peyre-Costa of the Norwegian Refugee Council in Goma told the BBC the lava was moving "pretty slow," but it "didn't stop. . It started burning the houses." He added that already, there are humanitarian groups on the ground working to help people who have lost their homes. Nyiragongo is a more active volcano, and earlier this month, the Goma Volcano Observatory issued a report warning that seismic activity there had increased. The last time the volcano erupted was in 2002, leaving 250 people dead and 120,000 homeless. More stories from theweek.com21 runners killed after sudden, dramatic weather change during mountain race in China5 riotously funny cartoons about GOP resistance to the January 6 CommissionWhy Emily Wilder got fired and Chris Cuomo didn't

Myanmar's Suu Kyi makes first in-person court appearance

Myanmar’s ousted leader Aung San Suu Kyi appeared in court in person Monday for the first time since the military arrested her when it seized power on Feb. 1, Myanmar media reported. One of her lawyers, Min Min Soe, told The Associated Press by phone that Suu Kyi was able to meet with her defense team before her hearing began at a special court set up inside the city council building in Naypyitaw, the capital. The lawyers also met with Win Myint, who was president in the government that Suu Kyi led as state counsellor, and a defendant on some of the same charges she faces.

AdPlace A Bag On Your Car Mirror When Traveling

Brilliant Car Cleaning Hacks Local Dealers Wish You Didn’t Know

US intelligence found researchers at Wuhan lab were hospitalised shortly before coronavirus outbreak, report claims

Republicans have pushed the ‘lab leak’ theory throughout Covid-19 pandemic

Dad of 4-Year-Old Slain in Dallas Apologizes for Leaving Kids

via Trevor GernonThe father of the 4-year-old boy kidnapped from his bed and dumped dead on a Dallas street says he will never forgive himself for leaving his son and his twin brother with a friend while he skipped town under a cloud of legal problems.Trevor Gernon released a recorded statement on his sister’s YouTube account both apologizing for not taking care of his son Cash and asking the public not to be too hard on him.Gernon said that when he moved to Dallas, he moved in with an old friend, Monica Sherrod, and when he moved back to Houston “after an unsuccessful job hunt amongst other things,” he decided they would be better off with her.“I felt it was in the boys’ best interest to not disrupt their routine,” he said of Cash and his brother, Carter, who was not harmed and is now with his mother.“They were comfortable, they were around other kids, and from what it appeared, Monica was a trustworthy person. This choice I made with best of intentions has resulted in a most horrific outcome.”On May 15, an intruder was caught on a baby monitor camera sneaking into Cash and Carter’s bedroom at Sherrod’s home and lifting the still-sleeping boy from his bed.Two hours later, a passer-by found the child’s body tossed on the street. Police said he had been stabbed.Darriynn Brown, 18, who has some nebulous ties to Sherrod’s family, was charged with kidnapping and burglary, but police are waiting for the results of forensic tests to make a decision on murder charges. Investigators have not released a motive, and Brown’s mother has said she believes her son is being framed.Sherrod told reporters that Gernon left town after being ordered by a court into rehab. CrimeOnline obtained court records showing several outstanding charges against Gernon in Harris County.Gernon referenced his legal issues, saying in the recording, “I have to fear for my freedom, as it is the goal of some to see me go to jail rather than grieve the loss of my little boy.” He did not disclose his location or legal status.Crying at times, he did take responsibility for failing to protect the twins.“I have paid the most ultimate and painful price for my poor judgment and I have to live with this devastation every single day,” he said.“I will never forgive myself. If I could, I would go back and do everything different. This is a nightmare that doesn’t go away once I open my eyes in the morning. We just don’t understand how this could happen to such a bright and cheerful kid.”Addressing the boys’ mother, Melinda Seagroves, he added, “I am so sorry that I failed to keep him safe. That is my job as his dad and I was not able to do that and I’m sorry.”As The Daily Beast reported, Gernon has racked up a string of arrests over the years, serving 68 days in county lockup for a 2018 assault on his father during an argument over a credit-card bill.The Strange New Turn in the Case of 4-Year-Old Cash GernonFollowing his indictment on felony drug possession charges last November, he failed to appear for a March 29, 2021, hearing and thus forfeited a $10,000 bond payment. There is now an open warrant out for his arrest.Johnny Flanagan, whose son gave Gernon a job at his shop until they had a falling-out, told The Daily Beast: “He’s one of these guys that kind of goes whichever way the wind blows, you know, and he’ll do good for several months and then do bad for several months and you know, just up and disappear.”In the recording, Gernon pleaded for mercy in the court of public opinion.“I’m barely getting through a day that doesn’t take me to a dark place,” he said. “I hope you all could understand how fragile we all are and how quickly things can turn upside down…“I would hope that we can all cooperate and band together to make sure Cash gets the justice he deserves.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Get our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Pandemic Notebook: A 5th Grader’s Education in Chickens and Ducks

Right now I have a splinter on my finger from building a duck fence, cuts on my hands and arms from duck and chicken claws and bruises on my hands from duck bites. Taking care of birds is hard work, but I like it. I have been going to school online since the coronavirus pandemic […]

Mickelson magic! Lefty secures PGA Championship to become oldest to win golf major

He joins Lee Trevino and Nick Faldo in the record books with six major victories with his win on the Ocean Course in South Carolina.

Priti Patel: Britain must replace ‘broken’ immigration system with ‘firm but fair’ approach

Britain's immigration system is too confusing and needs to be replaced with one that is fair but firm, the Home Secretary will say on Monday. It comes after Priti Patel revealed on Sunday that the immigration legislation and rules were 500 pages long and that the Home Office was in the process of simplifying them. She said Monday's announcement was based on the "digitalisation of our borders, but also the simplification of our immigration laws". Ms Patel told Trevor Phillips on Sunday that the digitalisation of borders would enable the department to "upstream checks", which she said was "important in terms of criminality". She will use her keynote speech at a conference to pledge a wholesale reform of the UK's "broken" immigration system by implementing a "fully digital border" within five years. She will also launch a US-style Electronic Travel Authorisation (ETA) which requires visitors to the UK to obtain an electronic permit before travelling. The Home Office said it would make the border more secure, with automated checks to prevent foreign criminals travelling to the country while enabling the Government to count who is coming in and going out. ETAs will be required by anyone without a visa or immigration status, although they will not be needed by Irish citizens, with ministers promising that the system will be operational by the end of 2025. During her speech, Ms Patel will say anything less than "wholesale reform" of the immigration system would not meet the demands of the public. She will say: "They want a new system that works for the law-abiding majority and against those who hope to abuse our hospitality and generous spirit. The immigration system is broken, but this country isn't. We can't fix the system overnight, but we will fix it." The Home Secretary will stress that the system will need to reflect "the values and wishes of the vast majority of Britons of all colours and creeds" and will add: "They simply want an approach to immigration that is fair but firm." It comes after the Government set out plans in the Queen's Speech earlier this month to toughen laws to deny refugee status to any asylum-seekers who have passed through a safe country before reaching the UK. The proposal was condemned by the United Nations refugee agency and charities who said it would be a betrayal of Britain's historic tradition of providing protection to people fleeing persecution. On Sunday, Ms Patel defended the plan, saying many asylum-seekers arriving in the UK had been smuggled by people traffickers. She said: "People that are being smuggled, they should be claiming asylum in the first safe country that they travel through – more often than not these are EU member states – rather than taking the risk of coming to the United Kingdom." However, Nick Thomas-Symonds, the shadow home secretary, said the Conservatives had had 11 years to fix a system that they "broke". "Clearly people who have no right to be in this country shouldn't be here, but what we have seen from the Home Office is utter incompetence on this," he said. "What we don't want to see is the Government deflecting blame for their own failure when it's their incompetence, their management and mismanagement of the Home Office that has been the problem."

Olympic gymnast comes out of 9-year retirement to compete in US Classic after having two kids and ahead of her 33rd birthday

32-year-old Chellsie Memmel, a 2005 world all-around champion and a 2008 Olympic Games silver medalist, retired from the sport in 2012.

Man killed while walking home to his apartment, SC police say

No arrests have been made and investigators are trying to determine the motive for the deadly shooting.

Liz Cheney has no issue with restrictive voting laws stemming from Trump's false claims of election fraud

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) doesn't see a connection between former President Donald Trump falsely claiming the 2020 presidential election was rigged and GOP legislators across the United States passing restrictive voting laws. Earlier this month, Cheney was ousted from her Republican leadership position after repeatedly criticizing Trump and his claims, saying he was hurting democracy. During an interview with Axios on HBO that aired Sunday, her assertion that there is no link between Trump and the voting laws was met with pushback from journalist Jonathan Swan, who reminded Cheney that last month, Georgia Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan (R) said Rudy Giuliani's false allegations of election fraud motivated lawmakers in his state to pass a law that makes it harder for voters to request and drop off absentee ballots and limits ballot drop boxes. "I think everybody should want a situation and a system where people who ought to be able to vote and have the right to vote can vote, and people who don't shouldn't," Cheney responded. Swan interjected, asking Cheney what problems Georgia, Texas, and Florida are trying to solve, since there hasn't been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. Each state is different with its own laws, Cheney said, and "what we can agree on is that what is happening right now is really dangerous." Cheney told Swan she will think about "sitting on the inaugural platform in January of 2001, watching Al Gore. . I'm sure he didn't think he had lost. We had fought this politically very, very intense battle. And he conceded. He did the right thing for this nation. That is one of the one of the big differences between that and what we're dealing with now and the danger of Donald Trump today." More stories from theweek.com21 runners killed after sudden, dramatic weather change during mountain race in China5 riotously funny cartoons about GOP resistance to the January 6 CommissionWhy Emily Wilder got fired and Chris Cuomo didn't

CDC probes rare reports of heart inflammation in young vaccinated people

An advisory panel for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating a few reports of heart inflammation in young adults following their inoculation from two-dose mRNA vaccines.Why it matters: Although the CDC says reports of myocarditis, or heart inflammation, have not exceeded expected rates, the condition can lead to rapid or abnormal heart rhythms and even sudden cardiac death. Stay on top of the latest market trends and economic insights with Axios Markets. Subscribe for freeDetails: The few reports of inflammation following vaccination have largely been reported in young adults and adolescents, with symptoms typically seen within 4 days of receiving the shot, the panel said. Cases of inflammation have been reported more often in men than women and more often following the second vaccine dose. Where it stands: The Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is the only coronavirus vaccine cleared for children by the Food and Drug Administration's emergency use authorization and the CDC's advisory panel. The vaccine is available for 12-to 15-year-olds.Like this article? Get more from Axios and subscribe to Axios Markets for free.

Former Trump adviser Jason Miller ordered to pay $42,000 legal fees for failed defamation suit

Following a failed defamation case, Mr Miller must cover journalist’ legal fees according to recently revealed court documents

‘Hung out to dry’: Young journalist fired by AP speaks out against her dismissal

‘I am one victim to the asymmetrical enforcement of rules around objectivity and social media that has censored so many journalists,’ Emily Wilder says

Former Dodgers All-Star Matt Kemp among handful of veterans on Team USA roster

Matt Kemp is among a handful of former major leaguers playing for Team USA, which can secure a spot in the Tokyo Olympics by winning a qualifying tournament.

Indian Olympic wrestler Sushil Kumar arrested in murder case

Sushil Kumar is accused of being involved in the murder of fellow wrestler Sagar Dhankhar.


Gun Trusts

A Gun Trust is a way to avoid the transfer process described above. The Trust is an entity you create that holds the title to your firearms. You can name multiple trustees, who then share the right to possess and use the firearms covered by the Trust.

Since the Trust stays in effect after your death, the executor of the estate isn’t involved, and the firearms don’t have to go through probate.

Trusts are not intended to circumvent the law. However, some gun owners believe a Trust might help get around any future laws prohibiting transfer or inheritance of certain weapons.

While a simple Revocable Living Trust generally ends once your assets are distributed after your death, a Gun Trust can be designed to last for multiple generations, and it must take federal and state gun laws into account. To create a Gun Trust, it’s essential to work with an attorney very familiar with the laws governing the use, possession, and transfer of weapons in your state. For example, you wouldn’t want to name a trustee who is prohibited by law from possessing the firearms, for example.

Gun Trusts are useful for people who want to share the use of their weapons with others during their lifetime. But recent ATF rules have removed some of the advantages of a Gun Trust for inheritance purposes. Carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages before setting up a Trust don’t fall for aggressive lawyers’ sales pitches without doing your own research and/or getting a second opinion.


How to Get Your Federal Firearms License

This article was co-authored by our trained team of editors and researchers who validated it for accuracy and comprehensiveness. wikiHow's Content Management Team carefully monitors the work from our editorial staff to ensure that each article is backed by trusted research and meets our high quality standards.

There are 25 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page.

wikiHow marks an article as reader-approved once it receives enough positive feedback. This article received 20 testimonials and 97% of readers who voted found it helpful, earning it our reader-approved status.

This article has been viewed 552,503 times.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stipulates that if you engage in the business of buying and selling guns, you're required to obtain a Federal Firearms License (FFL). The process of obtaining one might seem intimidating, but it's actually straightforward as long as you meet some eligibility requirements. With a little bit of preparation and paperwork, you can easily get your Federal Firearms License in about 2 months.


Related wikiHows


SAFETY FIRST

  • ALWAYS keep weapons pointed in a safe direction
  • ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot
  • ALWAYS keep weapons unloaded until ready to use
  • ALWAYS wear eye and ear protection

BEFORE GOING DOWN RANGE

  • "All commands come from The Range Safety Officer." Patrons may not proceed down range or handle firearms without authorization from the Range Safety Officer on duty.

Patrons must have their firearms registered on the installation prior to visiting the range.

  1. Please visit the Visitor Control Center (VCC) without the firearm to fill out the form.
  2. VCC will issue a form listing the firearm.
  3. Have the form in their possession at the gate.
  4. Declare the unloaded firearm at the gate per instructions from the VCC.
  5. Present form to range staff at sign in.

The Visitor Control Center (VCC) is located at T6701 Sheridan Road, Fort Sill.

Procedures to Register Firearms

Common Access Card (CAC) Holders:

Registration of firearms by active duty military and Common Access Card (CAC) holders will be valid throughout the service member's tour of duty at Fort Sill unless otherwise canceled or for a period of no longer than 3 years.

Non-Common Access Card (CAC) Holders:

Non-Common Access Card (CAC) holders will be authorized for 1 year for those that have an annual membership to the Family and MWR Rod and Gun Club, and have a one-year access pass to the installation. The weapons registration shall be valid for 1 year from the date of registration unless otherwise canceled, and if the civilian/retiree remains in good standing with the Family and MWR Rod and Gun Club.

Reserve the Rod & Gun Range outside of normal business hours. +1 (580)595-1875

Thur-Fri: 10 a.m. - 3 p.m.

Reserve and payment needed one week in advance.

Fee is $50 for a two hour reservation

  • No guest limit.
  • Includes the use of a room with tables and chairs if needed. Payment required one week in advance and must be made on site at the range office - No online reservation process.

Daily Rates Listed daily rates are for non-members only.

Save 50% off your range fees when you purchase our Rod and Gun Club punch card. Each punch card is valid for one year.

Punch Card E1-E5 E6-E9, Retirees, Civilians, Law Enforcement
5 Visits $45 $55
10 Visits $75 $90
12 Visits $90 $100
15 Visits $105 $115

Group Reservations

Pistol Caliber Carbine Course

Check out the new pistol caliber carbine course at the Fort Sill Rod and Gun Club. You&rsquoll be able to hone your skill with a combination of steel, clay, and paper targets in multiple configurations.

Rod and Gun Club Yearly Membership

Become a Rod and Gun Club member today for access to the entire range, no visit limitation, and no more daily fee.


Oklahoma CCW Reciprocity List

  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • Colorado
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • New Mexico
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Oklahoma
  • Pennsylvania
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wyoming
  • California
  • Connecticut
  • Hawaii
  • Illinois
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Minnesota
  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • Oregon
  • Rhode Island
  • Wisconsin
  • Alabama
  • Alaska
  • Arizona
  • Arkansas
  • California
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Delaware
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Hawaii
  • Idaho
  • Illinois
  • Indiana
  • Iowa
  • Kansas
  • Kentucky
  • Louisiana
  • Maine
  • Maryland
  • Massachusetts
  • Michigan
  • Minnesota
  • Mississippi
  • Missouri
  • Montana
  • Nebraska
  • Nevada
  • New Hampshire
  • New Jersey
  • New Mexico
  • New York
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Rhode Island
  • South Carolina
  • South Dakota
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah
  • Vermont
  • Virginia
  • Washington
  • West Virginia
  • Wisconsin
  • Wyoming

How Reciprocity Works In Oklahoma

Any individual who has a permit to conceal carry in another reciprocal U.S. state is legally allowed to carry a firearm in Oklahoma. During their time in Oklahoma, they will be subject to the laws of the county and state.


Come to H&H’s Archery Pro Shop for the latest gear and accessories to pursue your archery passion. We carry the top brands in archery, offer top-notch bow services, have an indoor range and so much more.

Our Archery lane rental rate is $12 per person. Every lane rental is good for an entire day’s worth of shooting. View our Archery Range Rules, our Archery Department Page, and our Archery Facebook Page
Be sure to check out our Range Rules page.


Get a Medical Marijuana Card, Lose Your Second Amendment Rights

If you are a medical marijuana patient in one of the 16 states (plus the District of Columbia) that allow for it, you've got reason to believe lately that the government has it in for you.

You've got federal raids on the places where you can conveniently buy your medicine, the governor of Arizona trying to overturn in court her citizens' choice to institute a medical marijuana system, and Michigan's attorney general trying to make life as hard as he can for those using the system his state's voters approved by 63 percent in 2008. And while it isn't directly the government's fault, doctors are taking people off liver transplant waiting lists for using medical pot.

It isn't just that the government on both the federal and state level doesn't want you to be able to legally and conveniently obtain your medicine, if that medicine is pot. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) insists you inherently lose a key constitutional right merely by letting your state know you might want to take pot medicinally.

Merely having a state medical marijuana card, BATFE insists, means that you fall afoul of Sect. 922(g) of the federal criminal code (from the 1968 federal Gun Control Act), which says that anyone "who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance" is basically barred from possessing or receiving guns or ammo (with the bogus assertion that such possession implicates interstate commerce, which courts will pretty much always claim it does).

Nevada licenses medical pot users. Rowan Wilson, a Carson City-area woman who works as a medical technician in residential care homes, believes pot might be useful for her painful menstrual cramps. After going through a seven-month process to obtain a medical marijuana card, she attempted in October to purchase a gun from a gun dealer, Fred Hauseur, who was also a personal acquaintance.

The Form 4473 that the BATFE requires every gun purchaser to fill out asks, "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana&hellipor any other controlled substance?" Wilson, not considering herself an unlawful user or addict but aware, as she says in a deposition in the case, that BATFE "has set down a policy whereby it is presumed that any person holding a medical marijuana registry card is automatically considered an unlawful user of, or addicted to marijuana " left that line blank.

Hauseur, the dealer from whom Wilson was trying to buy a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum, knew Wilson, and knew she was a card holder. He also knew about the contents of a September 2011 memo sent out by BATFE to federally licensed gun dealers.

The memo says that "there are no exceptions in federal law for marijuana purportedly used for medicinal purposes, even if such use is sanctioned by State law&hellipany person who uses&hellipregardless of whether his or her state has passed legislation authorizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, is an unlawful user&hellipand is prohibited by Federal law from possessing firearms of ammunition&hellip..if you are aware that the potential transferee is in possession of a card authorizing the possession and use of marijuana under State law, then you&hellipmay not transfer firearms or ammunition to the person." And indeed, Hauseur did not.

Wilson thinks that this BATFE policy violates her Second Amendment rights. With the help of Nevada lawyer Chaz Rainey of Rainey Devine, she filed suit in October in federal district court in Nevada against Department of Justice chief Eric Holder, the BATFE, and its acting director and assistant director.

As the suit says, "Ms. Wilson has never been charged with or convicted of any drug-related offense, or any criminal offense&hellip.Indeed, no evidence exists that Ms. Wilson has ever been 'an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana&hellip.' Ms. Wilson maintains that she is not an unlawful user of or addiction to marijuana&hellip.Nonetheless, Ms. Wilson was denied her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms based solely on her possession of a valid State of Nevada medical marijuana registry card." The suit argues the BATFE policy also violated her Fifth Amendment right to due process since it presumes she is a prohibited drug user arbitrarily.

The federal government is expected to file a reply before the end of the year, and Wilson's lawyer Rainey says he hopes the Feds "don't engage in long drawn-out lengthy discovery process, deposing everyone involved." Rainey notes a case intersecting guns and drugs could roll either way—a pro-Second Amendment judge could be uncomfortable with the marijuana part, and a pro-medical marijuana judge uncomfortable with the gun part.

Rainey doesn't have experience in the gun law field, but he has some civil rights experience and has found other lawyers and activists in the Second Amendment field helpful in thinking the case through (although most of the bigger gun rights organizations don't like touching this pot-related case). Wilson had trouble finding a lawyer excited about the case—"some lawyers didn't want to touch a cannabis case, period." She finds the existence of any state registry of marijuana users troublesome on general medical privacy grounds. One of her reasons for shouldering the burden of plaintiff is that patients she encounters in her elderly care field are afraid to get a medical card and use pot because of the extra problems that arise—like losing gun possession rights.

While the BATFE has not yet announced any concerted program to go after people who may have had legally purchased weapons before getting a marijuana card, Morgan Fox of the Marijuana Policy Project says that it's common practice in medical marijuana-related busts that "if weapons are present, there will be gun charges added on as well."

Rainey expects the results of the initial trial to be appealed whoever wins, and is prepared to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. (Montana's Attorney General Steve Bullock has informed the BATFE that he thinks the policy oversteps federal bounds.)

As Independence Institute gun rights scholar David Kopel explains, some lower courts have decided that while the legal prohibition on felons owning handguns is not inherently unreasonable or unconstitutional, the application of that law to felons of certain types—say, nonviolent ones in the distant past—isn't always reasonable. While the Wilson case as filed is challenging the very constitutionality of classifying drug users as outside the pale of the Second Amendment, Rainey is also prepared, he says, to argue more narrowly that it is unreasonable to apply that category specifically to Wilson merely on the basis of her possessing the marijuana card.

"Taking it to the Supreme Court" isn't just outrageous hubris on Rainey's part. Since the 2008 Heller case and the 2010 McDonald case, the Supreme Court has opened up a new world of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Now we know that handgun possession in the home is a protected right. But the legality of other government gun regulations remains uncharted territory. In his Heller opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia made it explicit: ""The Second Amendment right is not unlimited…. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Many, many cases trying to set those new parameters are moving through the courts, slowly. As Alan Gura, the star Second Amendment lawyer who won both Heller and McDonald says, we need to wait to see where the Second Amendment is going. "We're just waiting for decisions in District Courts—in some cases, waiting for a very long time now. These things take a lot longer to get resolved than people would like…. I disagree with those who say that the Court is done for a while with the Second Amendment. I have no idea which case they'll take next, but the issue is not going away."

One very good district court decision came out this summer, also thanks to Gura. In Ezell v. Chicago, he challenged the city's ban on gun ranges. According to Chicago, a legal weapon permit holder needed to have a signed affidavit from a firearms instructor affirming that he or she completed a training course, including at least one hour of gun range training. Yet the city simultaneously banned gun ranges within city limits. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the range ban, and began laying out a complicated set of review standards for the Second Amendment that largely map existing First Amendment doctrine, where "a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of armed self-defense will require an extremely strong public-interest justification and a close fit between the government's means and its end." That leaves plenty of room for, well, judgment on the part of judges. The fate of any given challenge to gun regulations short of handgun bans can't be predicted precisely until we see more federal district court decisions and eventual Supreme Court rulings.

One case already waiting at the Supreme Court for a decision about certiorari, however, has staked out the same territory as Wilson's suit: the area between the Second Amendment and a state's medical marijuana licensing system.

The case is Winters v. Willis, out of Oregon. It involves two consolidated cases in which Oregon sheriffs tried to deny a state concealed carry permit for weapons to citizens because they had Oregon medical marijuana cards, even though state law would otherwise compel issuance of the permit.

The Oregon Supreme Court agreed with the citizens (as did all the lower courts) that the sheriffs had no good reason to deny the carry permit, even if the possession of the marijuana card might, as the sheriffs insisted, mean that the permitted citizens would fall afoul of federal gun possession law, being (presumptively) drug users.

As the Oregon Supreme Court's May decision read in part:

it appears that the sheriffs also wish to enforce the federal policy of keeping guns out of the hands of marijuana users by using the state licensing mechanism to deny CHLs [concealed handgun licenses] to medical marijuana users. The problem that the sheriffs have encountered is that Congress has not enacted a law requiring license denial as a means of enforcing the policy that underlies the federal law, and the state has adopted a licensing statute that manifests a policy decision not to use its gun licensing mechanism for that purpose: State law requires sheriffs to issue concealed gun licenses without regard to whether the applicants use medical marijuana.

The sheriffs have appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which has not yet decided on whether to hear it, but the very fact the Court asked for reply briefs from both parties means the Court "at least thinks something is worth looking into there," says Kopel. While the Wilson suit in Nevada and this Oregon case both involve medical marijuana and guns, they don't address the same issues. Wilson's is a straight Second Amendment rights case involving how decisions are properly made as to when a citizen falls under one of the prohibited categories in Sect. 922 the Oregon case involves whether federal gun law properly pre-empts a state licensing scheme. The Oregon Supreme Court thought that the federal law's purpose regarding possession of firearms had no direct effect on the state law, which merely involved the concealment of firearms.

Even if the Supreme Court takes up Winters v. Willis and decides that the sheriffs can deny the CHLs, that would not settle whether denying gun possession rights to someone strictly for having a state medical marijuana card stands up to Second Amendment scrutiny. As Rainey sees it, "it's only good for us if Winters goes before the Supreme Court, regardless of the outcome" since a Winters loss for medical marijuana card holders would not necessarily guarantee a Wilson loss. One possible connection from this non-lawyer's perspective: Just as the Oregon CHL does not mean that you are in possession of a gun, a Nevada medical marijuana card does not mean you are using marijuana.

Second Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh of UCLA says regarding Wilson's case that "barring everyone from selling a weapon to her because she has a card denies her her Second Amendment rights without actually showing she is an illegal user. That is a plausible claim, but as to whether the Court will buy it, I'm not at all sure. Courts have been open to some Second Amendment claims but obviously they've been skeptical of most, so it's not clear to me how it will come out. But it is a credible claim. What remedy she might get, I assume, will be [not overturning the prohibition entirely but] a declaratory judgment that she is entitled to get a gun so long as there is no other evidence she is a marijuana user."

Kopel has enough doubts about the way courts react to cases that involve drugs that he isn't confident her case will succeed on Second Amendment merits. He offers instead that "the ideal solution would be, have a president who keeps his campaign promises. If Obama were keeping his campaign promises in the first place, he could have had his BATFE not write this new policy statement, and it is within their discretion to say that we interpret 'unlawful user' to not cover someone regulated and lawful under state law. But the Barack Obama who ran such a good campaign for president was apparently kidnapped and replaced with a body double who is a drug war nut."

Senior Editor Brian Doherty is author of This is Burning Man (BenBella), Radicals for Capitalism (PublicAffairs), and Gun Control on Trial (Cato Institute).


Binary Explosives

Binary explosives are pre-packaged products consisting of two separate components, usually an oxidizer like ammonium nitrate and a fuel such as aluminum or another metal. These components typically are not listed separately on the List of Explosive Materials and do not meet the definition of "Explosives" in 27 CFR 555.11. Therefore, ATF does not regulate the sale and distribution of these component chemicals, even when sold together in binary "kits." However, when the binary components are combined, the resulting mixture is an explosive material subject to the regulatory requirements found in 27 CFR, Part 555.

Storage

All explosive materials, including mixed binary explosives, must be stored in locked explosives storage magazines as prescribed in the regulations found in 27 CFR, Part 555, Subpart K: Storage, unless they are in the process of being used, manufactured, transported, or physically handled in the operating process.

High explosives such as mixed theatrical flash powder must be stored in Type 1 or Type 2 magazines, or in Type 3 magazines for temporary attended storage.

Low explosives must be stored in Type 1, Type 2, or Type 4 magazines, or in Type 3 magazines for temporary attended storage.

Explosive materials may not be left unattended in Type-3 magazines (day boxes) and must be removed to Type 1, 2 or 4 magazines for unattended storage. For indoor storage, explosives magazines are not permitted in any residence or dwelling, and no more than 50 pounds of explosive materials may be stored in any single building. Storage regulations do not apply to binary explosives until they are mixed.

Manufacturing

Mixing binary components together constitutes manufacturing explosives. Persons manufacturing explosives for their own personal, non-business use only (e.g., personal target practice) are not required to have a federal explosives license or permit. However, individuals or companies must obtain a federal explosives manufacturing license if they intend to engage in the business of manufacturing explosives for sale or distribution, or for their own business use. Such business uses include manufacturing for use in commercial blasting applications, removing obstacles such as trees or rocks during construction, theatrical special effects, and for demonstration or product testing purposes.

Therefore, licensed manufacturers and dealers of pre-mixed binary explosives kits, such as those used to make exploding targets, including those who combine the components to make videos or photos for use in marketing, or to test the product, are subject to federal recordkeeping requirements and must maintain records of manufacture or acquisition, distribution, exportation, use, inventory and daily summaries of magazine transactions found in 27 CFR, Part 555, Subpart G: Records and Reports.

Transporting

The federal explosive laws, as amended by the Safe Explosives Act, prohibit anyone other than a licensee or permittee from knowingly transporting, shipping, causing to be transported, or receiving explosive materials. Persons not holding a current ATF explosives license or permit may not transport or ship explosive materials, even within their state of residence. Therefore, a person must obtain a federal explosives license or permit if they mix binary explosives and subsequently transport them to any other location, such as transporting exploding targets to a shooting range.

Compliance with Other Requirements

All persons making explosive materials are cautioned that there may be state or local requirements in addition to the federal explosives regulations. These requirements may apply whether a person is engaging in the business of making explosives under an ATF license or for personal non-business use. Transporting explosive materials on public roads may subject the person transporting the explosive devices to regulations under the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). All persons transporting explosive materials should consult with DOT prior to transporting explosives to ensure compliance with all applicable DOT requirements.

Prohibited Persons

Persons falling into certain categories are prohibited from possessing explosive materials under the federal explosives laws. While binary kits are not regulated by ATF, combining the binary components produces an explosive material subject to federal explosives laws and regulations. Therefore, a prohibited person may not possess mixed binary explosives, such as exploding targets or theatrical flash powder.

A prohibited person is any person who:

Is under indictment or information for, or who has been convicted of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year

Is a fugitive from justice

Is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance

Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to a mental institution

Is an alien (with some exceptions)

Has been discharged from the armed forces under dishonorable conditions or

Has renounced their United States citizenship.

Any person falling into any of the above categories is generally prohibited from possessing explosive materials. However, such persons may apply to ATF for relief from their federal explosives disabilities.

Safety and Security

ATF would like to remind those who manufacture, distribute, import, use, or store binary explosives of the vital importance of security safeguards for these materials. Whether the explosive materials are in the process of manufacture, in storage, or in use, we urge everyone to take all necessary measures to safeguard explosive materials and prevent them from falling into the hands of those who may use them in criminal or terrorist acts.

We encourage all persons involved with binary explosives to report any suspicious behavior or unusual activity surrounding these materials to ATF and to local law enforcement authorities. (Suspicious behavior may include a customer attempting to purchase large quantities of binary explosive materials while knowing little about the product, or a customer who acts nervously or behaves in an unusual manner.) Unlike regulated explosives materials, ATF does not require persons to report the theft of precursor or binary explosive components. However, we request that everyone voluntarily report any theft or loss of these chemical explosive precursors to the local law enforcement authority and to the United States Bomb Data Center at (800) 461-8841 (after hours, call the ATF 24-hour hotline at (800) 800-3855).