Need Assistance?: Call (817) 393-4000
Account   |   Login

YOUR CART
0 items - $0.00
 

AR-15 Rifles, Pistols & Tactical Gear | Gun Store in Roanoke, TX

Premium firearms, optics, and tactical gear for professionals and enthusiasts.

 

Need To Know

HR 1005, the NICS Review Act, and the shadow of a federal gun registry

Posted on:

I run background checks for a living. I’m Lance Rankin, owner of Western Sport, an FFL here in Roanoke, Texas, and every gun that leaves my counter goes out the door only after a NICS check. So when a bill proposes changing how long the government keeps that check data, I read it. HR 1005, the NICS Review Act introduced by Representative Carolyn Maloney, is one of those bills.

How NICS retention works today

Here’s the part most buyers don’t know. When your background check comes back as a proceed, federal law requires the FBI to destroy the identifying record of that approved check within 24 hours. The permanent record of your purchase is the paper Form 4473, and that stays in my bound records at the shop, not in a government database. That 24-hour destruction rule is the firewall between a background check system and a purchase registry. It’s there on purpose.

What HR 1005 would change

The bill would stretch that retention window from 24 hours to a minimum of 90 days. Read that again: 90 days is the floor, not the ceiling. The text sets no maximum retention period at all, and that omission is the whole problem. A database of approved gun buyers held for 90 days is troubling. A database with no legal requirement to ever delete it is a federal firearms purchase registry in everything but name.

Why gun owners flinch at the word registry

Some folks roll their eyes at registry concerns. I’d point them at history. In jurisdiction after jurisdiction, here and abroad, registration lists have been the tool that made later confiscation programs workable. You can’t come collect what you can’t locate. That’s not paranoia, it’s paperwork, and it’s why federal law has prohibited a national firearms registry for decades. Any bill that chips at the 24-hour rule deserves a hard look regardless of how modest it sounds.

How it compares to HR 127

If you followed HR 127, the bill that proposed registering every firearm in the country, past and future, HR 1005 looks tame by comparison. It only touches future purchases, and only through the background check pipeline. But the direction of travel is the same: government retention of who bought what. The narrower framing makes it more politically viable, not less consequential.

Where this stands and what to do

As of this writing, HR 1005 is a proposal, not law, and most bills like it die in committee. Check its current status on congress.gov before you repeat anything from this post, and read the bill text yourself. It’s short, and firsthand beats secondhand every time. If it moves, your representatives hear from lobbyists constantly; a call or letter from an actual constituent still counts for something. The gun rights organizations that track legislation full time are worth supporting for exactly this reason.

Meanwhile, the system we have keeps working the way I described. If you want to understand what actually happens to your information when you buy a gun, I wrote up how FFL dealers and transfers work and what to expect buying a gun in Texas. And if you’d rather ask a person than read a post, call me at the shop, 817-393-4000. I’m happy to walk anyone through what the paperwork does and doesn’t track. Fewer myths make for better arguments on both sides.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPinterest

When your gun safe locks you out: lessons from a dead electronic lock

Posted on:

A gun safe has exactly one job that matters more than keeping other people out: letting you in. I’m Lance Rankin, gunsmith and owner of Western Sport in Roanoke, Texas, and I want to walk through a lockout story that’s a perfect cautionary tale, because the same thing could happen to a lot of the safes sitting in Texas closets right now.

The safe that wouldn’t open

The safe in question was a Liberty Lincoln L-15 Deluxe, a genuinely good unit that had done its job without complaint for years. The owner kept ammunition in the safe and firearms stored separately, a sensible arrangement. Then came a planned hunting trip, and the Sargent & Greenleaf electronic lock, chosen for its convenience, quit. Fresh batteries didn’t help. Punch in the code and the lock gave a single click, but the bolts never moved.

The owner checked the wiring and got nowhere. A locksmith diagnosed it as a failed lock mechanism, most likely the circuit board. No amount of new batteries fixes a dead board.

Why a good safe is hard to get back into

Here’s the irony that makes these situations expensive. Everything you paid for when you bought a quality safe now works against you. The Lincoln has a hardened steel door, shielded bolt work, and relockers, which are spring-loaded devices that permanently lock the bolts if the safe detects an attack. Those features are why a burglar with a crowbar gets nowhere. They’re also why your locksmith bill climbs.

Cutting in with a torch or grinder was ruled out fast. Heat and sparks around stored ammunition is a bad idea, and you’d wreck the safe and possibly its contents. The working solution was precision drilling into the lock mechanism to disengage the bolt, done carefully enough not to trip a relocker. Set one of those off mid-job and the project gets considerably longer and more expensive. This is skilled work, and you pay skilled-work prices for it.

Electronic versus mechanical locks

I sell safes with both lock types, so let me give you the honest trade-off. Electronic keypads are faster, easier in the dark, and simpler to recode. That speed matters if the safe holds a defensive gun. But a keypad is a battery, a circuit board, and a solenoid, and any of the three can die without warning. A traditional mechanical dial is slower and less convenient, and it will still be turning long after the electronics in a keypad have given up. Plenty of mechanical locks outlast the safes they’re bolted to.

Neither answer is wrong. A bedside pistol safe argues for electronic speed. A big storage safe you open twice a month is a fine candidate for a dial. What’s wrong is not thinking about failure at all when you buy. My guide on choosing a gun safe goes deeper on locks, fire ratings, and sizing.

What to do before your lock fails

A few habits that would have made this story shorter and cheaper:

  • Change keypad batteries on a schedule, once a year, with quality alkaline batteries. Don’t wait for the low-battery beep.
  • Keep the override key or written combination somewhere secure and separate from the safe, like a lockbox at a relative’s house or a bank deposit box. Not taped to the back of the safe.
  • Find a safe-qualified locksmith before you need one. Not every locksmith drills safes, and the good ones book out.
  • If your keypad starts acting flaky, slow to respond, random error beeps, needing two tries, treat that as a warning. Get the lock serviced or replaced while the door still opens.
  • Don’t store the only defensive firearm in the house behind a lock you haven’t tested lately. A safe that won’t open during a break-in is worse than useless, a point I hammer on in my home invasion guide.

The bottom line

Buy a quality safe, but treat the lock as a wear item, because that’s what it is. If you’re shopping for a safe or want a second opinion on the one you’ve got, call me at 817-393-4000 or email [email protected]. I’d much rather help you pick the right lock now than commiserate about a drilling bill later.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPinterest

Can one gummy disarm you? The Supreme Court takes on THC and gun rights

Posted on:

There’s a Supreme Court case in progress that I’ve been watching closely, because it sits at the exact spot where my work lives: the intersection of federal gun law and what customers actually do on the weekend. I’m Lance Rankin, owner of Western Sport, an FFL in Roanoke, Texas. The question in front of the Court is blunt: can the federal government permanently take away your gun rights because you use marijuana, even occasionally, even in a state where it’s legal?

The case

The defendant is a Texas man whose home was searched by the FBI. Agents found a legally purchased Glock 9mm and some cannabis, and the government charged him under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the statute that bars “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms. Marijuana remains a Schedule I substance federally, so in the government’s view, state legalization is irrelevant. Use marijuana, lose the gun. Simple as that, they argue.

If you’ve ever bought a gun from me, you’ve met this statute already. It’s the marijuana question on ATF Form 4473, the one with the bold warning that state legality doesn’t matter. Answering it falsely is a federal felony. I’ve had to have that awkward conversation at the counter more times than you’d think.

How the argument went

Under the Bruen decision, a modern gun regulation has to line up with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. So the government reached for founding-era treatment of “habitual drunkards” as its historical anchor, and the justices didn’t seem to be buying it.

Justice Gorsuch pointed out that John Adams and James Madison drank regularly by modern standards, and pressed the government on what “habitual drunkard” even means and whether it could possibly stretch to occasional marijuana use. He asked directly whether one medically recommended gummy in Colorado could permanently disarm someone under the government’s theory, and noted that the government’s own flirtation with rescheduling marijuana cuts against treating it as grounds for lifetime disarmament.

Justice Barrett asked whether taking a spouse’s lawfully prescribed medication would make someone an “unlawful user,” and observed that a drug’s schedule doesn’t tell you whether a particular person is dangerous. Justice Jackson pushed for actual historical evidence that founding-era society disarmed substance users as inherently dangerous. By most accounts, the government struggled to give clean answers to any of it.

Why it matters

Hundreds of challenges to 922(g)(3) are pending in lower courts, all waiting on this ruling. A win for the defendant, even a narrow one, would force courts to apply real constitutional scrutiny to substance-based gun bans instead of rubber-stamping them. And with a growing number of states legalizing cannabis in some form, the collision between state law and federal gun law affects millions of otherwise law-abiding people who may not even realize they’re committing a federal crime.

My practical advice hasn’t changed and won’t until the law does: as of this writing, marijuana use and gun ownership do not legally mix under federal law, period, no matter what any state says. Don’t gamble your rights on a case that hasn’t been decided. A ruling is expected by late June, and the breadth of it will determine how much actually changes, so check the current status before acting on anything in this post. And for questions about your own situation, talk to an attorney who knows both federal and state firearms law. I’m a gunsmith, not a lawyer.

If you’re navigating a purchase and want the process explained straight, my guides on buying a gun in Texas and how FFL transfers work cover the ground, or call me at the shop at 817-393-4000. I’ll keep following this one, because the answer changes what happens at my counter every single day.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPinterest

Before we talk gun control, five things worth considering

Posted on:

Every time there’s a tragedy, the gun control debate starts back up before the facts are even in. I’m Lance Rankin. I own Western Sport, a gun shop in Roanoke, Texas, so you know where I stand, and you can weigh my bias accordingly. But I’d ask anyone, on any side of this, to think through five practical points in the gun control debate before we start restricting people who’ve done nothing wrong.

1. Lock the doors first

It sounds almost too simple, but in incident after incident, the shooter walked in through an unsecured entrance. A propped door, an unlocked side entrance, an unmonitored front office. Controlled access points, decent locks, and monitored entryways aren’t glamorous policy, and nobody gets on cable news for proposing them. They’re also the cheapest, least controversial safety measure available, and we still haven’t finished doing it.

2. Put trained, armed people inside the building

After the major school attacks of the past few decades, law enforcement doctrine changed completely. The old approach was to contain and wait. The new approach is immediate engagement, because every minute an active threat goes unopposed costs lives. That lesson points somewhere uncomfortable for some people: the fastest response comes from someone already inside the building. Whether that’s a school resource officer, trained administrators, or teachers who volunteer and qualify, an armed defender on site beats one who’s four minutes out. Four minutes is an eternity.

3. Look hard at where the money goes

Hardening schools costs real money. Access control, security staff, training, cameras. Then look at what we spend securing buildings and interests overseas, and ask why the school down the street still has a broken lock on the east door. I’m not making a foreign policy argument. I’m making a priorities argument. Protecting kids at home is a direct, measurable investment, and it shouldn’t be the budget line that gets cut first.

4. The first responder is whoever’s already there

We call police and paramedics “first responders,” but that’s not quite accurate. They respond after someone calls them. The actual first responder to any emergency is whoever is standing there when it happens. Usually that’s an ordinary citizen. This isn’t a knock on law enforcement. It’s just arithmetic and geography, and it’s the reason I take my customers’ training questions as seriously as their purchase questions. If you’re thinking about your own household, my home invasion guide is a sober place to start.

5. Don’t handicap the people on scene

Follow the logic through. Police arrive second or third, carrying rifles and handguns with standard capacity magazines, because those are the appropriate tools for stopping a violent threat. If that’s what the second responder needs, it’s hard to argue the actual first responder, the law-abiding citizen already on scene, should be limited to less. Magazine caps and bans on common defensive rifles fall hardest on exactly the person the rest of the system is too far away to help.

Where I land in the gun control debate

I sell firearms for a living and I run background checks all day, every day, so nobody wants dangerous people disarmed more than I do. But most of what gets proposed after a tragedy targets my customers, not the threat. Locked doors, trained defenders on site, honest funding priorities, and an armed, law-abiding public are measures that actually shorten the distance between a threat appearing and a threat being stopped.

If you’ve decided to take responsibility for your own household, do it right: get training, and pick equipment that fits you. The gun control debate will keep going either way; your safety plan does not have to wait on it. My guides on home defense handguns and setting up a home defense AR-15 are honest starting points, and I’m happy to talk it through at the shop. Call 817-393-4000 and ask for Lance.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPinterest

Hawaii’s ‘Aloha Spirit’ ruling heads to the Supreme Court

Posted on:

Lance Rankin here, owner of Western Sport in Roanoke, Texas. The video above is from Washington Gun Law, and it walks through one of the stranger Second Amendment cases in recent memory: the Hawaii Supreme Court’s ruling that the “Aloha Spirit” apparently outweighs the U.S. Constitution. That case, Wilson v. Hawaii, has been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief that lays out the stakes about as clearly as anyone could. This is my summary of their argument, with credit to Washington Gun Law for the breakdown.

What Hawaii’s court did

On February 7, 2024, the Hawaii Supreme Court held that there is no constitutional right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Not a narrow ruling about permits or sensitive places. A flat declaration that the right doesn’t exist outside your home, dressed up with language about the state’s “Aloha Spirit.”

The problem is that the U.S. Supreme Court has already answered this question. Heller and the cases that followed it recognize a right to carry a firearm outside the home for lawful purposes, including self-protection. A state court doesn’t get to disagree with that any more than I get to disagree with the tax code.

The Supremacy Clause argument

The SAF brief rests on the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law and federal court rulings controlling over state law and state courts. The way it works is simple enough that I explain it to customers at the counter: U.S. Supreme Court interpretations of constitutional rights set a floor. A state can protect rights more generously than the federal minimum if its own constitution allows. Washington State, for instance, gives its residents stronger protection against searches than the Fourth Amendment requires. What a state cannot do is dip below the floor.

Hawaii went below the floor and planted a flag there. If its court had read the right to carry more broadly than federal precedent, nobody would have a case. It read the right out of existence instead, and that’s the whole dispute.

Why this matters outside Hawaii

The SAF argues the Supreme Court should take the case not only for Hawaii’s citizens but to put other defiant lower courts on notice. New York, Illinois, and California have all passed laws that test the edges of Bruen-era precedent, but Hawaii is currently alone in refusing to recognize any public carry right at all. Let one state court get away with ignoring a direct Supreme Court holding and you’ve taught every other one that the precedent is optional. That’s bad for gun owners, and honestly it’s bad for anyone who ever expects a court to follow rules it dislikes.

Where it stands

As of this writing, the petition is in front of the U.S. Supreme Court and we’re waiting to see whether the justices take it, summarily reverse it, or let it sit. Court dockets move slowly and this post will age, so check the current status of Wilson v. Hawaii before you cite it in an argument. And if you want the full legal detail, go watch the Washington Gun Law video and read the SAF brief yourself rather than taking my word for it.

Here in Texas we have it considerably better. If you’re new to carrying, my guides on Texas constitutional carry and the Texas LTC cover what the law actually allows. Know the law where you live and where you travel. It’s part of the job of owning a gun.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPinterest

SUBSCRIBE FOR EXCLUSIVE INFO & SPECIALS