Don’t give up if a replacement firing pin is unavailable from your catalog suppliers. Instead, use these tips to solve the problem.

Here are all the items tested in Gun Tests magazine from 2011 back through 1999.

The group Media Matters for America hates NRA. Few organizations have more strongly proclaimed their disdain for our right to keep and bear arms and self-protection, says the NRA-ILA.

Lethal Force Institute’s Massad Ayoob gives a lesson on what to do if you are stopped with firearms in your vehicle. These essential tips will teach you how to safely interact with police when carrying a firearm while driving. (3:47).

Gun Reports - News

Bill to Protect Traditional Ammunition Grows

(GunReports.com) -- Legislation to clarify the longstanding exemption of ammunition and ammunition components under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 now has more than 100 co-sponsors in the U.S. House of Representatives, the National Shooting Sports Foundation reports.

This recognition is a major milestone. Known as the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, this bi-partisan legislation was introduced at the NSSF Congressional Fly-In by Reps. Jeff Miller and Mike Ross in the House and Sens. Jon Tester and John Thune in the Senate, following continued attacks by anti-hunting groups to ban traditional ammunition (ammunition containing lead-core components) under the TSCA.

As co-sponsorship continues to grow in the House, NSSF is now renewing its focus in the Senate, where the bill has 19 co-sponsors.

Reader Comments

I usually consider myself a fan of state's rights, but when states implement ludicrous legislation like California's lead projectile ban, micro-stamping laws, and so on, they are begging for even more federal intervention. That we need to consider legislation to "protect" our "traditional" ammunition is insane, and directs our legislators efforts away from actual, serious problems.

Comment by: PVB | August 4, 2011

There may be a really simple solution to things like CA's bans. Gun and ammo manufacturers have to simply decide to stop accepting purchases from the state or doing any business there at all. A vendor has a right to decline a particular customer. How long would CA continue with those stupid laws if they couldn't even arm their own police and troopers? I think 'not long' - or the drug gangs would own the state inside of two years. And plain citizens would be smuggling millions of $$ worth of stuff into the state annually anyway, without the state knowing about any of it, meaning the state would lose any ability to control or derive revenues from citizens' purchases.

Comment by: david b | August 4, 2011

David - As far as I know, only Ronnie Barrett has shown the intestinal fortitude for that measure.

Comment by: PVB | August 4, 2011

Too bad for the rest of them then, but even in our favorite industries the shareholders have to make theirs, so many companies won't be able to make that decision. And the really weird thing is that if they did, they'd probably be forced to increase their supplies to the adjacent states over and above what they used to sell in the offending state. Absence makes the heart grow fonder, and scarcity raises demand.

Comment by: david b | August 4, 2011

What all 2nd Amendment advocates must always understand and convey when discussing arms, is that "arms" is defined as a component; i.e. the weapon and the ammunition, "arms" cannot exist without both.

Now that the "individual right to KEEP & BEAR" has been affirmed by SCOTUS, in addition to all of the legal cases "testing" the "limits" of that blanket decision, the NRA should focus their actions to include "protecting" the complete "arms".....AND ensure that ALL legal "attacks" on ammunition are completely stopped.

As for "states rights" and limiting ammunition, again, the constitutional definition of "ARMS" can exist only when the "ability to bear;" i.e. loaded and functional is present (not disassembled or locked, as SCOTUS debated)...thus, "States Rights or TRUMPED by the US Constitution!"

As for Ronnie Barrett, he “made a fool” out of CA. Freedom Arms “refuses” to sell in MA, though they were not as ‘theatrical” as Ronnie.

Maybe there is a direct correlation between “size of ones gun and testicular fortitude?”

Comment by: DAVID D | August 4, 2011

David D - in "states rights" context, my point was not intended to be limited to 2A issues, as there are plenty of other California required peculiarities that drive up the costs of manufacturing, such as requiring labels indicating "This product is known to contain an element known to the state of California to cause" some kind of health issue. I wish all companies would boycott those irrational standards, but there is too much money on the table. Nonetheless, these continued, unnecessary infringements on our civil liberties, regardless of how "well intentioned" they are, cause many of us who would consider ourselves strict constitutionalists to look for a federal solution. That federal solution, which becomes needed to slap the errant state back into line, in turn increases the mass of the bureaucratic leviathan currently causing most of our problems. Conundrum, Catch-22, whatever you want to call it, the scenario is lose-lose for we citizens. In other words, I'm glad somebody is working to protect our already Constitutionally protected right to arms, but we're dancing with the Devil to a certain extent. Not sure if I'm making sense....

Comment by: PVB | August 4, 2011

An update / review. CA lead bullet restriction. The Condor necropsy indicated lead poisoning(it was shot). The CA legislature instead of firing the Vet. Who was making a political statement. Went along with this BS and said no lead bullets in the Condor area. The CA Fish and Game said we can't just control one or 2 areas. So all of CA is banned lead bullets. The NSSF and NRA should have sued CA F&G.

Comment by: Zippy06 | August 4, 2011

From the view of an outsider who lived in SoCal briefly, a big part of the problem with the Condor "vet with an agenda" is that California has far too many socially inclined politicians who look for any excuse to ban guns they can. Thus, they could care less if the study was flawed as it supports their agenda as well.

Comment by: PVB | August 5, 2011

Having lived in CA for some time, it is not just socially inclined politicians........."the people" are the problem. You have a state that is approaching 50% immigrant and 1st generation, mostly from countries where "arms" were only allowed in the hands of undemocratic governments, e.g. in Mexico, the PRI was the only party for 75 years.

Accordingly, there is no historical and cultural "understanding" that firearm ownership is MORE American than apple pie.

Of course this "majority immigrant" stste fosters other probles too; e.g. "weak" demagoguic politicians instead of direct and strong leaders who, quite frankly, "scare" the immigrants. "Arnie" was a "known" immigrant, had he not been an famous actor he would not get elected to a School Board. In Texas or Georgia Barbara Boxer could not get elected "dog catcher."

The Federal government should have sued CA for banning "lead" bullets on 2nd Amendment grounds......they STILL SHOULD!

Comment by: DAVID D | August 5, 2011

David D - That's an interesting insight you have about the culture. I'm more accustomed (personal experiences in the eastern have of the US) to immigrants of European and Eastern European descent - with VERY different attitudes about guns. I suppose if you came from a place where historically only bandits and government thugs had guns, and citizens were the prey for both, you might just fear them and not see their protective value. I have to think about this a while.

Comment by: david b | August 5, 2011