Eye on the Target - TARGETHING - Talking Guns

Live over the airwaves Salem Radio that is a Q&A related to personal protection, the 2nd amendment, guns, the shooting sports industry. Recorded live on SALEM at 5:00 pm est. Listen to the Podcasts, catch us live, or email in your questions to be covered on the next show. Radio@Targething.com. Our discussions include guns, pepper spray, defensive techniques, concealed carry, NRA, firearms, safety and a variety of others as the show is led by the originating topic and the questions asked by our listeners. Amanda Suffecool, Rob Campbell work to make the show lively and topical. Enjoy - Amanda

91326 hr2 09/14/2026

91326 hr2 This hour of Eye on the Target Radio focuses almost entirely on the changing legal landscape surrounding the National Firearms Act (NFA), particularly the recent elimination of the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs). Amanda and Rob explain that the NFA actually covers six categories—SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons”—but that the current legal fight is concentrated on the first three. They describe the elimination of the tax as part of a broader strategy to dismantle or peel back portions of the NFA rather than simply abolishing the entire law at once. They also discuss how the NFA's rules have become complicated over decades, particularly concerning firearms that can be configured as either pistols or rifles, where the order of assembly or configuration can determine whether a firearm is legally classified one way or another. Historical examples, including the Thompson/Center Contender and Remington XP100, illustrate how manufacturers and shooters have had to navigate these complicated definitions. The hosts also discuss the origins of the $200 NFA tax, explaining that it was deliberately set at a prohibitive level in 1934—it was roughly comparable to the price of a new Ford at the time. They reference the Supreme Court's 1937 decision concerning Congress's taxing authority and explain that the tax was originally intended to discourage possession of certain firearms rather than simply raise revenue. The conversation then turns to the remaining NFA categories, especially destructive devices and “any other weapons,” and whether firearms and explosives may eventually need to be treated separately under the law. Amanda and Rob speculate that the continuing litigation could force further clarification of these categories, while emphasizing that the current legal changes are part of a much larger process rather than the NFA simply disappearing overnight. A major portion of the program is devoted to explaining why people should be cautious about claims on social media that the NFA has suddenly “gone away.” Amanda points out that gun shops are understandably reluctant to begin transferring suppressors until they know exactly how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) expects dealers to document the transactions. John Comerford of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), who joins the show, strongly reinforces that message. He tells listeners not to rely on social-media personalities for legal advice and instead to use established organizations and trusted sources. He explains that although a court order has eliminated certain NFA requirements for the parties covered by the injunction, dealers still need ATF guidance about how to remove NFA items from their inventories when the traditional Form 4 process is no longer being used. The ATF also does not generally provide individual legal advice, leaving dealers in a difficult position while the government works through the implications of the court rulings. Comerford explains the litigation strategy in greater detail. The NRA is involved with a coalition that includes the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, American Suppressor Association, individual gun owners, dealers, and other organizations. He discusses the Jensen litigation in Texas and the NRA's separate Brown case in Missouri, explaining that the Texas injunction currently provides relief to the named plaintiffs, certain commercial customers, and members of the organizations involved. This means that an individual does not necessarily need to join an organization simply to purchase a suppressor from a dealer who is already covered by the court's order. Comerford explains that a dealer connected to a covered organization or distribution network can provide a layer of protection for its customers. He nevertheless encourages people to support the organizations litigating these cases and says that having multiple layers of legal protection can be valuable while the situation remains unsettled. The discussion becomes especially practical when Comerford explains how the new process may work. In states where state law does not independently require NFA registration, the basic background-check requirement remains; what has changed is the federal tax and, for covered transactions, potentially the method of transfer. He emphasizes that claims that “there is no background check anymore” are misleading. The hosts explain that some states have their own laws that duplicate or reference the federal NFA requirements, creating another layer that must be addressed. Comerford identifies states such as Georgia, Montana, Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon as examples where suppressors may be legally possessed but where the precise mechanics of transferring them under the new federal situation still need clarification. He says the NRA is working with state legislators, including in Ohio, to address state-law language and expects suppressors to be addressed first, with SBRs and SBSs potentially following. The interview also clarifies an important distinction between suppressors and SBRs. Comerford says the current relief does not automatically mean that an existing SBR can simply be transferred using a standard Form 4 replacement process or that every NFA category is immediately treated the same way. There are still provisions of the Gun Control Act involving Attorney General approval, and potential methods for dealing with those requirements are still being developed. He urges customers to be patient and, particularly, to be respectful toward firearms dealers. Dealers are trying to comply with federal and state requirements while protecting their businesses, employees, and customers, and they cannot simply act on whatever an online influencer claims is now legal. Amanda and Rob then look ahead to what the changes could mean for the firearms industry. They imagine a future in which manufacturers can once again produce compact, full-powered rifles and firearms that historically resembled “trapper” or “saddle” guns without the same federal restrictions. They discuss short-barreled Winchester rifles, pistol-and-stock configurations, Western-style firearms, and historical examples from movies and American firearms history. The conversation about the old Maxim suppressor, which used leather washers that had to be oiled and replaced, provides another historical perspective. The hosts contrast these early suppressors with modern designs and argue that today's technology is substantially different from what existed when the NFA was enacted. The hosts repeatedly return to the idea that the current changes are the result of a long-term legal strategy that began, in their view, with the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision and subsequent litigation. They describe the process as gradually removing individual pieces of the regulatory structure rather than expecting one court decision to eliminate everything at once. Comerford agrees that multiple lawsuits are necessary because the ultimate goal is to obtain permanent Supreme Court precedent rather than rely solely on temporary relief that could potentially be reversed by a future administration. He explains that the NRA wants the Missouri case to produce broader relief and hopes that additional decisions will expand the number of people covered. The larger objective is a definitive ruling that would provide greater stability regardless of future changes in political control. Finally, the episode emphasizes patience, reliable information, and continued participation in the organizations involved in the litigation. Amanda encourages listeners to follow the NRA's website and mobile app for current information rather than relying on social-media rumors. The program presents the NFA situation as a rapidly developing legal and regulatory issue in which federal court decisions, ATF procedures, state laws, dealers, manufacturers, and individual gun owners all intersect. The overall message is that significant changes are underway, but the practical rules are still being worked out, so gun owners should verify the law applicable to their particular state and circumstances before acting. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42895440

91326 hr1 09/14/2026

91326 hr1 The latest episode of Eye on the Target Radio focuses heavily on what Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell see as a series of important victories and potential turning points for Second Amendment rights. They begin by discussing the impact of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, particularly its requirement that modern firearm restrictions be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They express frustration with courts and governments reaching back to obscure English laws from the 1300s to justify contemporary restrictions, arguing that American constitutional rights should be evaluated within the American historical context. The hosts believe the Bruen framework is beginning to produce significant changes and that more challenges are moving toward the Supreme Court. A major topic is Eschler v. Noble, a Massachusetts case challenging restrictions that prevent 18- to 20-year-olds from possessing handguns and certain semiautomatic firearms. The case is particularly notable because the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, and Firearms Policy Coalition joined forces rather than pursuing separate litigation. Although the groups recently lost in Massachusetts, Amanda and Rob characterize the loss as potentially beneficial because it creates an opportunity for an appeal. They point out that the Fifth Circuit has reached a different conclusion about the constitutional status of 18-year-olds, holding that adults beginning at age 18 are part of “the people.” The resulting disagreement between courts could ultimately help propel the issue to the Supreme Court. The hosts emphasize how inconsistent the legal treatment of 18-year-olds can be. At 18, Americans can vote, serve on federal juries, enlist in the military and potentially receive a military firearm, marry, purchase a home, sign contracts and leases, obtain a passport, attend college and take on substantial financial obligations. Yet federal law generally prevents an 18-year-old from purchasing a handgun from a federally licensed dealer, while allowing the purchase of long guns. Amanda expects the 18-to-21 issue eventually to reach the Supreme Court, although she believes the timing could be several years away. They also discuss the practical legal problem that individual plaintiffs may age beyond the relevant age range before litigation reaches the Supreme Court, raising questions about how organizations might maintain standing through changing memberships. The discussion then turns to frames and receivers, 80-percent lowers, and so-called “ghost guns.” The hosts explain how the ATF has repeatedly changed or expanded its interpretations concerning what constitutes a firearm frame or receiver. They point to the inconsistency in how different firearms are treated, noting that the lower receiver of an AR-15 is generally the regulated component while the upper receiver of an FN FAL is treated differently. They question why particular components became the serialized, regulated portion of firearms and argue that the regulatory definitions have created substantial confusion. According to the discussion, Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation are now among the principal parties continuing to challenge the federal frame-and-receiver regulations after other lawsuits encountered procedural problems such as lack of standing. The hosts describe a recurring pattern in which challengers are denied because they supposedly lack standing, while regulatory changes can eliminate the underlying controversy before a case is resolved. They say courts have recently found portions of the ATF's approach unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and impermissibly vague under the Fifth Amendment. Amanda and Rob speculate about the broader implications: if certain unfinished receivers cannot constitutionally be regulated in the way the government has attempted, the ultimate consequences could extend beyond “ghost guns” and potentially affect the broader system of firearm serialization and registration. The hosts repeatedly encourage listeners to support Second Amendment organizations, arguing that membership can become important in establishing standing for future litigation. They specifically mention the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and state-level organizations. Amanda notes that courts increasingly appear willing to extend decisions to current and future members of organizations rather than requiring every protected individual to have joined on a particular date. They view this coordinated litigation strategy as evidence that Second Amendment organizations are becoming increasingly effective and note that the number of simultaneous cases has grown dramatically. Another significant topic is firearm-rights restoration. The hosts describe the reopening of a federal process that has effectively been unavailable since 1992 because there was no functioning mechanism or funding for processing applications. They explain that the Department of Justice intends to reopen the process gradually, handling applications in stages. They stress that restoration will not necessarily be available to everyone with a disqualifying history and discuss distinctions involving the seriousness and circumstances of past offenses, including different categories of drug-related conduct. They identify the Office of the Pardon Attorney as playing a role and encourage people who may qualify for restoration to monitor DOJ announcements and application procedures. The episode also covers a significant development involving firearms and the U.S. Postal Service. Amanda and Rob discuss the longstanding prohibition surrounding firearms on postal property, noting that restrictions dating back to the early 20th century may have been based more on administrative interpretation than on an actual statutory prohibition. They describe litigation by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition and a subsequent DOJ position indicating that the supposed prohibition was not actually grounded in law as previously understood. The hosts predict that signage and policies at post offices will gradually change, even if the development receives little mainstream media attention. They use the issue as an example of how rights can be restricted for so long that people eventually assume the restriction has always been legally required. That theme leads into a broader discussion about how people become accustomed to restrictions. The hosts compare firearm regulations with changes in everyday life, explaining that people may not recognize a lost freedom if they never personally experienced the freedom in the first place. Amanda recalls being able to purchase a firearm from a hardware store before 1968 with remarkably little paperwork, contrasting that experience with today's regulatory environment. They argue that recent court victories and regulatory reversals may represent the beginning of a gradual restoration of rights that many younger people have never known. Finally, Amanda and Rob discuss firearms imports, ammunition availability, tariffs and international trade. They recall an era when Americans could readily purchase inexpensive military-surplus firearms and ammunition imported from countries around the world. They discuss how restrictions and trade conflicts involving China, Russia, Ukraine and other countries reduced access to inexpensive ammunition and firearms such as SKS rifles and Mosin-Nagant rifles. They contrast inexpensive surplus ammunition with more costly American-made ammunition and note that some foreign calibers are now produced only periodically, creating shortages and higher prices. They do not expect Chinese firearms imports to return soon given the broader U.S.-China relationship. The episode closes with the larger message that changes in Second Amendment law are occurring rapidly, and the hosts urge listeners to pay attention to individual victories because, in their view, the cumulative effect could eventually produce much broader restoration of firearm rights. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42895430

9626 hr2 09/07/2026

9626 hr2 The episode of Eye on the Target Radio opens with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing New York’s efforts to restrict 3D-printed firearms and the publication of firearm-design files online. They focus on the conflict between New York officials and Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson, who argues that firearm designs—including numerous military-specification drawings—are already widely available. The hosts question how effectively New York could regulate information that is distributed over the internet, arguing that once a technology or design becomes known, attempts to suppress it may simply encourage further innovation. They use examples ranging from homemade rail guns to the historical development of computers and military technology to illustrate their broader point that people continually improve and miniaturize existing inventions. The conversation then turns to military firearms technology and the engineering challenges involved in increasing projectile speed and ammunition efficiency. Amanda and Rob discuss rail guns, caseless ammunition, aircraft weapons, and the recoil forces generated when large guns are fired from airplanes and ships. They describe how military engineers have had to account for everything from an aircraft’s ability to remain airborne while firing a cannon to the movement of ships firing heavy naval guns. This leads into a broader discussion of technological innovation, with the hosts emphasizing that inventions rarely remain static because subsequent generations find ways to make them smaller, faster, more efficient, or otherwise improve them. They also point to the mechanical fire-control computer aboard the USS Maine as an example of how sophisticated firearms technology existed long before modern electronics. Amanda and Rob return to the dispute between Cody Wilson and New York Governor Kathy Hochul, with the hosts expressing doubt that New York can effectively prevent firearm-related information from being distributed online. They portray the case as another example of the difficulty governments face when attempting to regulate technology and suggest that Wilson could face substantial financial costs even if he ultimately prevails. The hosts then expand the discussion beyond firearms, arguing that technological ownership itself is becoming increasingly complicated. They compare digital video games, modern vehicles, and John Deere tractors, noting their concern that consumers may technically purchase a product while manufacturers retain control over software, repairs, features, or continued access. They see this as particularly troubling when applied to firearms, where they question whether consumers would trust a technologically dependent “smart gun” that could potentially malfunction or become disabled through software or subscription-based systems. The hosts also discuss the tradeoff between older, mechanically operated firearms and newer technology. They point out that modern firearms have benefited from decades of engineering improvements, while acknowledging that electronic systems could theoretically reduce moving parts and improve speed or precision. They use examples such as electronic firing systems, modern striker-fired pistols, older Mauser designs, and vintage trap guns to illustrate how mechanical improvements accumulate over time. Their larger argument is that innovation tends to solve problems created by earlier designs, and that attempts to regulate particular firearm characteristics often lead manufacturers and users to develop alternative configurations that accomplish essentially the same purpose. A later segment shifts to a Houston story involving a 74-year-old woman dealing with squatters on her property. According to the discussion, she initially contacted police without receiving assistance and eventually confronted the squatters while carrying an unloaded firearm in an effort to make them leave. Amanda and Rob criticize the decision to bring an unloaded gun into a potentially dangerous confrontation, while also expressing frustration with laws and policies they believe can make it difficult for property owners to remove squatters. They discuss the unusual idea of hiring someone to make life so unpleasant for squatters that they voluntarily leave, using the story to highlight what they see as the increasingly complicated relationship between property rights, law enforcement, and self-protection. The second major portion of the episode is devoted to firearms history, particularly James Paris Lee and the development of detachable box magazines. The hosts explain that Lee, who had originally trained as a watchmaker, developed rifles for Remington and the U.S. Navy and pioneered a workable detachable magazine system. They trace the evolution of his designs into the British Lee rifles and eventually the Lee-Enfield, discussing changes in ammunition, smokeless powder, magazine capacity, sights, bolt operation, and production methods. They emphasize that the Lee-Enfield became an exceptionally efficient military rifle, capable of rapid fire despite being bolt action. The discussion also compares the Lee system with the Mauser 98, which the hosts describe as one of the strongest and most influential bolt-action designs, particularly because of its locking lugs and safety features. The historical discussion continues with the engineering of military rifles and how designers dealt with increasingly powerful ammunition. Amanda and Rob compare the Lee-Enfield, Springfield Krag, Mauser 98, and Japanese Type 99, including examples of extreme pressure testing and failures that demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of different actions. They emphasize how firearms designers learned through experimentation because they lacked modern computer simulations and had to physically test their designs. The segment concludes with the hosts noting that the day of the broadcast marked the anniversary of James Paris Lee’s patent for the detachable box magazine, which they consider a fitting reason to devote so much of the program to the subject. Finally, the hosts connect Lee’s invention and the broader history of firearms innovation back to the modern AR-15. They explain that firearm development is characterized by people modifying existing designs to overcome limitations or regulations, using examples from the 1994 assault-weapons law and California restrictions. They then begin a detailed history of Armalite, explaining that the company originated as a firearms-design division associated with Fairchild Aircraft and benefited from aerospace manufacturing expertise. They trace the development of the AR-10, its relationship to the .308 cartridge, the AR-7 survival rifle, and the eventual development of the AR-15. The hosts also discuss government weapons testing, the AR-10’s failure to win the military competition that selected the M-14, and later Armalite designs such as the AR-17 shotgun. They close by noting that the AR-15’s history is likely to become increasingly important as the Supreme Court considers the rifle’s legal status, predicting that much more historical information about Armalite and its development will surface before the scheduled oral arguments. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42804230

9626 hr1 09/07/2026

9626 hr1 The episode of Eye on the Target Radio opens with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing the transition from cap-and-ball firearms to fixed ammunition, using the example to compare technological transitions with modern changes such as gasoline, electric, and hybrid vehicles. The conversation then turns to major Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court. The hosts discuss the Court’s decision to hear two consolidated AR-15 cases, Grant v. Higgins and Vera Montez v. Cook County, with oral arguments scheduled for December 2, 2026. They note that numerous organizations, individuals, and congressional Republicans have already filed amicus briefs and express the view that the AR-15 has become so widespread that arguments against its common use are increasingly difficult to sustain. They highlight Representative Andrew Clyde’s statement that the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” language applies regardless of the firearm involved, presenting his position as representative of the pro-Second Amendment argument. The discussion next focuses on a Hawaii case involving firearm restrictions for people under 21. The hosts criticize Hawaii’s position that individuals between 18 and 21 should not be allowed to possess firearms at all, contrasting it with states that permit ownership but restrict purchases. They discuss the judge’s reliance on what she described as “founding era common law” concerning the maturity and judgment of people under 21 and question whether that historical evidence actually supports the restriction under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework. Amanda and Rob argue that the disagreement among courts and states may ultimately create the kind of legal conflict that requires Supreme Court review. They also express frustration with what they see as government efforts to regulate firearms rather than directly addressing violent criminals and gangs, arguing that society should place greater emphasis on individual responsibility and actual criminal conduct. A major portion of the second half concerns President Donald Trump’s pardons of four people convicted in Second Amendment-related cases. The hosts discuss Tate Adamiak, who received a lengthy sentence under NFA rules after possessing firearms that had reportedly been demilled and later restored to functioning condition. They also discuss George Peterson, who was prosecuted for possessing a homemade suppressor, and Shane Cox and Jeremy Kettler, whose Kansas case involved a state law asserting that certain firearms-related items made and retained within Kansas were outside federal regulation. The hosts emphasize that none of the four men had used a firearm to commit a violent crime; rather, their convictions concerned possession or manufacture of items that authorities considered subject to federal restrictions. They view the pardons as a significant development for the Second Amendment community and question whether the changing federal administration is signaling a broader shift in how the ATF and Department of Justice handle firearms cases. The hosts then consider the broader issue of executive power versus congressional action. They argue that many recent firearms-policy changes have come through presidential actions, agency decisions, or court cases rather than permanent legislation, leaving open the possibility that a future administration could reverse them. Amanda specifically says she plans to ask Harmeet Dhillon about the relationship among the White House, DOJ, and ATF and why so many favorable developments appear to be occurring at once. They suggest that the appointment of a new ATF leadership structure may also be contributing to the changes. The episode concludes with several “news of the week” stories, including a convenience-store robbery involving a cap-and-ball pistol, an incident aboard an airplane in which a disruptive passenger was restrained with duct tape by passengers including a former police officer and firearms instructor, and a Texas bank robbery reportedly stopped by an armed bystander. These stories lead to a broader discussion about the legal risks faced by ordinary citizens who intervene to protect others. Amanda and Rob argue that people who act to stop violence can potentially face legal consequences themselves and compare this with Good Samaritan protections available to people providing first aid. They ultimately return to a broader theme of wanting a more civil society in which citizens can responsibly intervene when necessary without automatically being treated as criminals. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42804210

83026 hr2 08/30/2026

83026 hr2 The discussion focuses on the changing legal status of the National Firearms Act (NFA), particularly the removal of the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs). Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell explain that the NFA actually covers six categories—SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons”—and emphasize that eliminating the tax does not automatically eliminate every NFA requirement. They discuss how complicated the rules have become over the decades, using examples such as the Thompson Center Contender and Remington XP100 to illustrate how firearm configurations and even the order in which components are assembled could determine whether something was legally considered a pistol or rifle. They also discuss the original $200 NFA tax, explaining that Congress deliberately set it at roughly the cost of a new automobile in 1934 to make regulated firearms prohibitively expensive. The hosts then turn to the current litigation challenging the NFA and stress that the situation is much more complicated than headlines and social-media posts suggest. They explain that court decisions concerning suppressors and other NFA items currently provide relief only to certain plaintiffs, organizations, dealers, and customers covered by the relevant injunctions. John Comerford of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) joins the program to provide clarification. He strongly cautions listeners against relying on social media for legal advice and says they should instead consult trusted organizations such as the NRA-ILA. Comerford explains that the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, American Suppressor Association, state associations, dealers, and individual gun owners have been working together on several lawsuits. In the Texas case involving Silencer Shop’s foundation, the court ruled that the government could not enforce the NFA's tax-related requirements when the tax was effectively zero, but the injunction is limited to qualifying plaintiffs, members of the named organizations, and certain commercial customers. A major issue is the uncertainty facing firearms dealers. Comerford explains that even when a court order permits a suppressor transfer using a standard Form 4473, dealers still need guidance on how to remove the NFA item from their inventory and records with the ATF. The ATF has not yet provided all the necessary instructions, leaving many dealers understandably reluctant to begin transferring suppressors under the new system. The hosts emphasize that customers should be patient and respectful toward dealers rather than pressuring them based on something they saw online. Comerford also explains that SBRs and SBSs present additional complications because provisions of the Gun Control Act require Attorney General approval, meaning the court ruling concerning the NFA tax does not automatically make every SBR or SBS transfer a simple 4473 transaction. The discussion also examines differences among states. Some states allow suppressors and are positioned to take advantage of the federal changes, while other states have incorporated NFA requirements into their own statutes. Comerford describes states such as Ohio, Georgia, Montana, Michigan, and Oregon as examples where suppressors are generally obtainable, while noting that state laws still have to be examined individually. He says NRA-ILA is working with Ohio legislators to address state-law language so that Ohio can take advantage of the federal changes. The hosts note that Ohio appears likely to address suppressors first and potentially deal with SBRs and SBSs separately. They also emphasize that the federal changes do not eliminate background checks; rather, the goal is to remove the special NFA tax and associated process where the courts and laws permit it. Finally, Comerford explains the broader legal strategy. The NRA's Missouri case, Brown v. ATF, is intended to obtain a broader scope of relief, potentially including NRA members and millions of additional gun owners. He stresses that multiple lawsuits are important because the ultimate objective is to establish durable Supreme Court precedent rather than rely on temporary relief that could change after an election. The hosts frame the NFA litigation as part of a longer-term strategy that accelerated following the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision. They argue that gun-rights organizations are gradually challenging different pieces of the regulatory structure rather than attempting to eliminate the entire system at once. The overall message is that significant changes are underway, particularly regarding suppressors, but gun owners should not assume that the NFA has simply “disappeared.” The legal situation remains state-specific and subject to further court decisions and government guidance, making reliable sources such as NRA-ILA more important than social-media commentary. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42613350

83026 hr1 08/30/2026

83026 hr1 The discussion focuses on the evolving legal status of the National Firearms Act (NFA), particularly the recent elimination of the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs). Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell explain that the NFA actually covers six categories—SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons”—and emphasize that eliminating the tax did not automatically eliminate all of the paperwork and regulatory requirements. They describe the change as part of a broader, strategic effort to dismantle portions of the NFA, particularly following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision. The hosts also discuss how confusing firearm classifications have historically been, using examples such as the Thompson/Center Contender and Remington XP100 to illustrate how barrel length, configuration, and even the order in which firearm components were assembled could affect legality. The program then turns to the constitutional and historical arguments surrounding the NFA. Amanda notes that the Supreme Court’s 1937 decision in Sonzinsky v. United States upheld Congress’s taxing authority and therefore the constitutionality of the NFA’s $200 tax. At the time, however, the $200 charge was deliberately designed to be prohibitive because it was roughly comparable to the price of a new automobile. The hosts speculate that destructive devices and certain other weapons may eventually need to be separated from the firearms portions of the NFA, particularly because explosives raise different legal and practical questions. They also discuss historical firearms such as short-barreled “trapper” rifles, stocked pistols, and early suppressors, contrasting older technology with modern suppressors and suggesting that changing regulations could lead manufacturers to produce many firearm configurations that were previously restricted. A major portion of the segment is devoted to warning listeners not to assume that a court decision eliminating the NFA tax means they can immediately purchase or transfer NFA-regulated firearms without restrictions. The hosts explain that dealers have been reluctant to transfer suppressors while waiting for guidance from the ATF and DOJ. John Comerford of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) joins the program and strongly advises gun owners to rely on trustworthy organizations rather than social-media posts or online influencers. He explains that several Second Amendment organizations—including the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and American Suppressor Association—have been involved in litigation challenging the NFA’s requirements. Comerford explains that the Texas litigation resulted in an injunction preventing enforcement of the NFA’s tax-related requirements for the plaintiffs, their commercial customers, and members of the organizations involved in the case. This does not mean that every gun owner nationwide is automatically covered. A particularly important distinction is between individual standing and dealer-level protection. If a dealer is covered by the court order—for example, through participation in the relevant plaintiff organizations or distribution networks—customers purchasing through that dealer may receive the benefit of the injunction. Comerford stresses that dealers are trying to remain compliant while the government determines how the court ruling interacts with ATF inventory records, Form 4473 procedures, and other federal requirements. The conversation also distinguishes suppressors from SBRs and SBSs. Comerford explains that the court ruling concerning the NFA tax does not necessarily eliminate every requirement applicable to SBRs. Some SBR requirements arise from the Gun Control Act, including an Attorney General approval requirement, meaning that simply eliminating the NFA tax does not automatically make every SBR transferable without additional paperwork. The hosts therefore caution listeners against assuming that social-media claims about “free” or immediate NFA transfers are accurate. Dealers may need additional ATF guidance before they can safely change their procedures. State law is another major complication. The federal court decisions do not automatically invalidate state-level NFA restrictions. Comerford identifies several categories of states: states where suppressors can generally be obtained under the new federal framework, states whose laws explicitly incorporate NFA requirements and therefore need legislative or legal changes, and states where certain NFA items remain prohibited regardless of the federal developments. Ohio receives particular attention because state legislators are reportedly considering legislation to bring state law into alignment with the changing federal situation. The discussion suggests that suppressors may be addressed first, with SBR and SBS provisions potentially handled separately. Finally, Comerford describes the broader litigation strategy. The goal is not merely to obtain a temporary or narrowly applicable injunction, but ultimately to establish permanent Supreme Court precedent that protects the rights at issue regardless of future changes in political control. He explains that multiple lawsuits are important because they create several avenues toward Supreme Court review and broader relief. The hosts conclude by emphasizing that the legal process will take time and that gun owners should remain patient, support organizations litigating the issue, and monitor reliable sources such as the NRA-ILA rather than relying on viral social-media interpretations. The overall message is that the NFA is being challenged and partially dismantled, but the process is complicated, varies by state and firearm type, and should not be interpreted as an immediate nationwide elimination of every NFA requirement. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42613330

82326 hr2 08/24/2026

82326 hr2 The discussion focuses on the rapidly changing legal status of the National Firearms Act (NFA), particularly suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs). Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell explain that the NFA actually covers six categories—SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons”—but recent legislative and court actions have concentrated on the first three. They describe the elimination of the $200 NFA tax as part of the 2026 budget legislation as a strategic step toward dismantling portions of the NFA rather than immediately eliminating all of its requirements. The hosts also discuss the confusing history surrounding firearms that can be configured as either pistols or rifles, including Thompson/Center firearms and Remington’s XP-100, illustrating how complicated NFA and firearm classification rules have become. They note that the original $200 tax was deliberately designed in the 1930s to be prohibitively expensive, roughly equivalent to the price of a new Ford, and was upheld as constitutional under Congress’s taxing authority. A major point of the program is that the NFA has not simply disappeared nationwide. Several lawsuits are challenging the remaining requirements, and court decisions currently provide relief only to particular plaintiffs, organizations, businesses, and customers covered by those cases. John Comerford of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) joins the program to explain the situation. He urges listeners not to rely on social-media posts or online influencers for legal advice because the rules are complicated and changing quickly. He explains that the NRA is involved in multiple lawsuits alongside organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and American Suppressor Association. In the Texas case involving the Texas State Rifle Association and Silencer Shop Foundation, a judge ruled that the $0 tax and associated NFA requirements cannot be enforced against the parties covered by the injunction. However, the relief is not automatically universal. Covered dealers and their customers can benefit from the ruling, while individuals seeking to manufacture or modify certain firearms themselves may need additional legal protection or membership-based standing. Comerford emphasizes that dealers are currently in a difficult position because the court ruling does not automatically provide ATF with a mechanism for removing an NFA item from a dealer’s inventory. Dealers therefore need guidance from the ATF and Department of Justice before confidently switching from the traditional Form 4 process to a standard Form 4473 transfer. This explains why many gun shops have temporarily stopped transfers while their attorneys and compliance personnel determine exactly what the ruling permits. The hosts stress that customers should be patient and respectful toward dealers rather than demanding immediate transfers based on something they saw online. Comerford also clarifies that the ruling does not mean background checks have disappeared; where a suppressor is transferred under the new process, the ordinary background-check requirements still apply. The conversation then turns to the differences among states. Some states allow suppressors and are generally positioned to take advantage of the federal changes, while others have their own laws that independently incorporate NFA restrictions. Comerford describes states such as Georgia, Montana, Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon as places where suppressors can generally be possessed, although the exact transfer procedure is still being worked out. Other states have laws that may continue to impose restrictions even if the federal NFA requirements are weakened. Ohio receives particular attention because state lawmakers are already considering legislation dealing with suppressors, and the hosts believe the state may address suppressors first and then separately address SBRs and SBSs. The broader message is that federal changes do not automatically erase state-level restrictions. The hosts also discuss the practical possibilities created if SBR and SBS restrictions ultimately disappear. Rob points out that historically there were compact rifles, pistol-and-stock configurations, and other firearms designed for use in tight spaces, while Amanda imagines future SHOT Shows featuring firearms that previously would have fallen under SBR or SBS restrictions. They connect these possibilities to the broader legal trend that began with Bruen in 2022, arguing that successive court decisions are gradually challenging longstanding firearm regulations. They also contrast modern suppressors with early Maxim designs, noting how dramatically suppressor technology has improved over the decades. Comerford explains that the NRA's ultimate objective is not merely to win temporary relief but to establish durable Supreme Court precedent. The organization hopes its Missouri case, Brown v. ATF, will eventually provide broader relief, potentially covering NRA members and millions of additional gun owners. Multiple lawsuits are important because the ultimate goal is to bring the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court and obtain a permanent constitutional ruling rather than relying on a temporary court order or favorable political administration. He also warns that legislation can theoretically be reversed by a future Congress, making lasting judicial precedent particularly important. Overall, the episode presents the NFA changes as an ongoing legal and legislative process rather than a completed repeal. The $200 tax has been reduced to zero, but the practical consequences depend on court orders, state laws, ATF procedures, dealer compliance, and the outcome of continuing litigation. The hosts repeatedly encourage listeners to obtain information from reliable organizations such as the NRA-ILA rather than assuming that social-media claims accurately describe what they can legally buy or possess. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42531845

82326 hr1 08/24/2026

82326 hr1 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio focuses heavily on the changing legal landscape surrounding the National Firearms Act (NFA), particularly the removal of the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell explain that the NFA actually covers six categories—short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons”—and emphasize that the recent legislation only directly addresses the first three. They discuss how the $200 tax, originally intended to be cost-prohibitive when enacted in 1934, was effectively reduced to zero, raising questions about whether the remaining NFA paperwork and registration requirements can still be enforced. The hosts also review the confusing history surrounding firearms that can be configured as pistols or rifles, including the Thompson/Center Contender and Remington XP-100, illustrating how complicated NFA and firearms regulations have become over the decades. A major portion of the discussion concerns the ongoing court challenges to the NFA. Amanda explains that several cases are moving through the courts following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, with numerous states either already permitting suppressors and other NFA items under the new circumstances or having state laws that duplicate federal NFA requirements. The hosts stress that headlines suggesting “the NFA is gone” are misleading because the practical situation depends heavily on the state involved and on the specific firearm or NFA category. They note that some states continue to prohibit suppressors regardless of federal developments, while others are working to update their statutes. Ohio is presented as a state likely to address the issue legislatively, with a suppressor-related bill already moving through the legislature and possible future action concerning short-barreled rifles and shotguns. The episode then brings in John Comerford of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), who provides a more detailed explanation of the litigation and what gun owners should expect. Comerford strongly advises listeners not to rely on social-media posts or online influencers for legal advice, noting that the situation is complicated and rapidly developing. He explains that the NRA is involved in several lawsuits alongside organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, American Suppressor Association, and state-level groups. In the Texas litigation, the court issued an injunction stating that the zero-dollar tax and associated NFA requirements could not be enforced against the plaintiffs, their commercial customers, and members of the named organizations. Comerford stresses that the relief is therefore not automatically nationwide or available to every gun owner. A particularly important point is the distinction between individual gun owners and firearms dealers. Comerford explains that, under the existing injunction, a customer purchasing a suppressor from a covered dealer may receive the benefit of the court's relief even if the individual customer is not personally a member of one of the plaintiff organizations. Dealers can obtain coverage through participating distribution networks or by becoming business members of qualifying organizations. However, dealers still face unresolved administrative questions about how to remove an NFA item from their inventory and properly document the transaction with the ATF. This uncertainty is why many gun shops are temporarily refusing to complete transfers until the government provides clearer guidance. Comerford repeatedly asks gun owners to be patient and respectful toward dealers because dealers are trying to remain compliant while also protecting their businesses. The discussion also clarifies that suppressors and short-barreled rifles are not necessarily in the same legal position. Comerford says the current court relief primarily addresses suppressors, while short-barreled rifles involve additional requirements under the Gun Control Act and may require further legal or administrative action. He cautions listeners against assuming that they can simply walk into a gun store and acquire an SBR under the same procedure as a suppressor. The hosts similarly point out that the ATF has not necessarily provided all the forms, procedures, or guidance needed to make the new system function smoothly. Even the standard Form 4473 raises questions about exactly how certain newly treated items should be documented. Another important distinction involves state law. Comerford describes states where suppressors can be purchased under the existing framework, states that specifically incorporate federal NFA requirements into their own laws, and states where suppressors remain prohibited. In states such as Ohio, Georgia, Montana, Michigan, and Oregon, he says suppressor ownership remains possible, although the exact transfer procedure is still being clarified. In states whose statutes incorporate NFA registration or compliance requirements, the federal change does not automatically eliminate those state restrictions. The NRA and other organizations are therefore working on state-level legislative fixes as well as federal litigation. The broader strategy described by Comerford is to use multiple lawsuits to gradually dismantle the NFA restrictions and ultimately obtain a definitive ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court. He explains that a favorable district-court injunction is useful but can be limited in scope, whereas a Supreme Court decision could establish permanent nationwide precedent. The NRA's Missouri case, Brown v. ATF, is presented as one potential vehicle for expanding the relief to a much larger group of gun owners, including NRA members. Comerford emphasizes that multiple legal challenges are necessary because the ultimate objective is durable case law rather than a temporary victory dependent on the political administration in power. The hosts and Comerford also connect the litigation to broader political strategy. They argue that the recent changes resulted from a combination of legislative action, court challenges, advocacy organizations, and election results. Comerford warns that if political control changes in the future, Congress could potentially attempt to restore the tax and thereby restore some of the associated requirements unless the courts have established lasting constitutional precedent. His message is therefore that gun owners should remain politically engaged, support organizations pursuing the litigation, and continue paying attention rather than assuming the battle is already finished. Overall, the episode portrays the NFA changes as a significant but incomplete dismantling of federal restrictions rather than the immediate abolition of the NFA. Suppressors are the area where the legal changes appear most advanced, while SBRs, SBSs, destructive devices, and other NFA categories remain subject to additional questions. The central advice from Amanda, Rob, and John Comerford is to avoid relying on sensational social-media claims, consult trustworthy organizations and knowledgeable dealers, understand the laws of one's individual state, and recognize that the legal and administrative process will take time. The episode closes by directing listeners toward the NRA app and NRA-ILA for continuing updates as the lawsuits and legislative changes develop. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42531815

81626 hr2 08/17/2026

81626 hr2 This episode focuses on the rapidly changing legal status of National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations, particularly the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs). Amanda Suffecoo,l and Rob Campbell explain that the NFA contains six major categories—SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, machine guns, destructive devices, and certain “any other weapons”—but that the current legal fight is primarily centered on the first three. They describe the removal of the $200 tax through the “Big Beautiful Bill” as part of a broader strategy to gradually dismantle portions of the NFA. The hosts also discuss how complicated historical firearm classifications became, using examples such as the Thompson Center Contender, Remington XP100, and older firearms that could be configured as either pistols or rifles. They emphasize that the complicated rules surrounding barrel lengths, stocks, and firearm configurations have often created confusion for manufacturers, dealers, and owners. The discussion then turns to the constitutional and legal history behind the NFA. Amanda references the 1937 Supreme Court case Sonzinsky v. United States, which upheld Congress’s taxing authority and was used to support the constitutionality of the NFA. They explain that the original $200 tax was deliberately intended to be prohibitive because it was roughly comparable to the cost of a new automobile at the time. The hosts speculate that destructive devices and explosives may eventually need to be separated from firearm regulations because of the distinction between “arms” and explosives under the Second Amendment. They also describe the current litigation as the next stage in a process that accelerated following the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision. Amanda notes that multiple states and organizations are involved in challenges to the NFA provisions and stresses that the legal situation varies considerably from state to state. A major theme is that the NFA has not simply disappeared nationwide. Amanda warns listeners against assuming that headlines or social-media posts mean they can immediately walk into a gun shop and acquire an NFA item without the previous procedures. Some dealers have temporarily stopped transfers while they wait for clarification from the ATF and their attorneys. The hosts explain that the ATF has indicated it does not provide legal advice, leaving dealers uncertain about how to handle inventory and paperwork. They specifically caution listeners to be patient and respectful toward firearms dealers because dealers must protect their businesses and remain compliant while the government determines how existing procedures will work under the new legal circumstances. Ohio receives particular attention because the hosts say legislation is already moving through the state legislature concerning suppressors, with additional legislative work potentially necessary for SBRs and SBSs. The central interview is with John Comerford of NRA-ILA, who explains the litigation strategy and repeatedly urges listeners not to rely on social media for legal advice. He describes a coalition involving the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, American Suppressor Association, gun shops, individual NRA members, and others. Comerford discusses several lawsuits, including the Texas Jensen litigation and the Missouri Brown v. ATF case. He explains that the Texas injunction currently provides relief to particular plaintiffs, their commercial customers, and members of the named organizations rather than automatically applying to every American. According to Comerford, this distinction is especially important for dealers: if a dealer is covered by the injunction—for example, through a qualifying relationship with one of the organizations or commercial entities—customers purchasing through that dealer may also receive the benefit of the court's relief. Comerford also clarifies that suppressors and SBRs/SBSs do not necessarily have identical legal situations. He says suppressors are the clearest area affected by the Texas ruling, while SBRs and SBSs still involve additional requirements under the Gun Control Act and therefore cannot simply be treated as though the entire NFA has vanished. He explains that some dealers are already transferring suppressors using the ordinary Form 4473 process, while others are waiting for ATF guidance. There is also uncertainty about exactly how dealers should document the removal of NFA items from their inventories because existing ATF systems were designed around the previous NFA transfer process. Comerford says additional guidance is expected but had not yet arrived at the time of the interview. The interview also addresses standing and membership in Second Amendment organizations. Comerford distinguishes between a customer purchasing through a covered dealer and an individual attempting to manufacture or modify an NFA item personally. He explains that customers generally do not need individual membership in an organization if they are purchasing through a dealer covered by the injunction, although supporting organizations remains important. Individual membership can become more relevant in situations such as personally manufacturing an item or modifying a firearm in a way that raises questions about NFA classification and marking requirements. He describes the legal protections as potentially being “stacked,” with dealers and individuals potentially having different layers of protection. Another important part of the discussion concerns state laws. Comerford describes states where suppressors are generally available but whose statutes incorporate NFA compliance language, creating uncertainty now that the federal tax has been reduced to zero. He distinguishes these from states that prohibit suppressors outright. He says there are also states where the laws need to be reviewed by attorneys general or legislatures before the federal changes can be fully reflected at the state level. Ohio is highlighted as a state where lawmakers appear interested in updating the law, initially concerning suppressors and potentially later addressing SBRs and SBSs. The overall message is that federal changes do not automatically erase state restrictions. Finally, Comerford explains that the litigation strategy is larger than obtaining a temporary injunction. The NRA and its coalition partners want broader relief and ultimately want the issue to reach the U.S. Supreme Court so that there is permanent, nationwide case law rather than a temporary situation that could potentially be reversed by a future administration or Congress. He says the Missouri case could potentially expand the number of people covered by the relief, including NRA members. He also stresses the importance of elections and political control because, in his view, Congress could potentially restore the tax and associated requirements in the future if the political balance changes. The episode therefore presents the current NFA developments not as a completed victory, but as an evolving legal and legislative process involving federal courts, state legislatures, the ATF, firearms dealers, advocacy organizations, and ultimately potentially the Supreme Court. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42455415

81626 hr1 08/16/2026

8926 hr2 08/10/2026

8926 hr2 The episode of Eye on the Target Radio comes directly from the SHOT Show floor and centers largely on Amanda Suffecool and Rob Cambell's interview with musician and Second Amendment advocate Ted Nugent. Nugent describes how criticism of his gun ownership and hunting pushed him to become an outspoken advocate for the Second Amendment, conservation, hunting, fishing, trapping, and personal preparedness. He argues that carrying a firearm is part of being prepared to protect oneself and one's family and says that Americans should understand their responsibility to defend their constitutional rights. Nugent also emphasizes questioning authority, demanding accountability from elected officials, and being willing to speak openly about constitutional rights rather than remaining silent because of professional or social pressure. A significant portion of the interview focuses on Nugent’s political views and his strong support for Donald Trump. Nugent portrays Trump as an unconventional political figure who challenges established institutions and media narratives, comparing Trump's willingness to confront opponents with his own outspoken personality. He argues that America has suffered from excessive bureaucracy and government waste and believes Trump is attempting to reverse some of those problems. Nugent also expresses frustration that people he believes have acted improperly in government have not been sufficiently held accountable. The discussion becomes increasingly partisan and confrontational as Nugent criticizes Democrats, the media, academia, and cultural movements he considers harmful. Throughout the conversation, however, his central message remains that Americans should question authority, defend their constitutional rights, and take personal responsibility rather than relying entirely on government. After Nugent leaves, Amanda and Rob reflect on the experience of interviewing him at SHOT Show. They describe him as an extremely energetic and charismatic personality who attracted crowds wherever he went and required an entourage to keep him moving between scheduled appearances. They emphasize that his enthusiasm and willingness to speak forcefully about the Second Amendment, hunting, conservation, preparedness, and self-reliance made the interview memorable. Amanda particularly highlights Nugent’s belief that people should learn to hunt, harvest, and process their own food so they are not completely dependent on grocery stores or other systems during a crisis. They also recall seeing other celebrities and prominent figures, including Lou Ferrigno and Joe Mantegna, gathered at the NRA booth, illustrating the unusual concentration of well-known personalities at SHOT Show. The hosts then turn to the NRA's board-election process and encourage members who receive ballots to actually participate. They point out that only a relatively small portion of NRA members return their ballots and stress that members should carefully read the candidate information, follow the ballot instructions, sign the paperwork, and avoid voting for more candidates than permitted because an improperly completed ballot can be rejected. They also discuss the importance of involvement in Second Amendment organizations and political participation more generally, echoing Nugent’s argument that gun owners and hunters cannot simply complain about government policy without participating in elections and civic organizations. The episode closes by encouraging listeners to remain engaged and by promoting the Realize Firearms Awareness Coalition, a Portage County nonprofit focused on educating people about the historical intent of the Second Amendment, constitutional rights, responsible gun ownership, and firearms education, particularly for women and future generations. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42372950

8926 hr1 08/10/2026

8926 hr1 In this episode of Eye on the Target Radio, Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell begin with a lively discussion about artificial intelligence and its attempt to identify the most influential modern firearms designers. Rob is particularly critical of the AI-generated list because it overlooks major figures such as Bill Ruger, J.D. Jones, Roy Weatherby, and other designers and cartridge innovators whose contributions had a lasting impact. The conversation develops into a broader look at firearms history, including the fact that many concepts considered innovative today were actually developed decades ago but were difficult or impossible to manufacture with the technology available at the time. They discuss early automatic pistols, the evolution of firearms design, and Dick Casull's experimental work with the .454 Casull and early "triplex" ammunition loads. The hosts decide that the subject deserves a future show examining influential designers, wildcat cartridges, successful innovations, and designs that failed. The program then moves into political and voting issues, beginning with a proposed income-tax increase in Toledo, Ohio. Amanda and Rob question the city's plan to use the additional revenue not only for police staffing and a police academy but also for outside violence-prevention organizations. They argue that taxpayers should be given clear information about exactly where their money will go and whether funded organizations have measurable results. The hosts encourage listeners to pay close attention to similar funding efforts in their own communities and emphasize the importance of registering to vote, researching candidates, and examining voting records rather than simply voting based on party affiliation. They also discuss claims involving non-citizens appearing on voter rolls, using New Jersey as an example, and argue that maintaining accurate voter-registration records is an important responsibility for state governments. The second major topic is firearm confiscation connected to restraining orders and divorce proceedings. Amanda and Rob discuss a case in Peoria, Illinois, in which firearms were seized following a temporary restraining order and subsequently sold without the owner's consent. They argue that this raises serious questions about due process and property rights, particularly when firearms can be taken before the owner has been convicted or found guilty of a crime. Drawing on personal experiences from the gun-store business, they describe firearms being returned by law enforcement damaged, missing parts, or marked with case numbers. The hosts contend that similar treatment would be unacceptable for other valuable property and suggest that the Peoria case could become an important Second Amendment lawsuit, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. They advise people anticipating divorce or separation to understand the applicable laws and, where legally permitted, arrange for firearms to be stored securely by a qualified third party rather than risk having them seized or improperly handled. In the final segment, Amanda and Rob turn to the National Firearms Act of 1934 and its treatment of machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other regulated firearms. They review the history of the $200 NFA tax stamp, explaining that the amount was enormous when originally enacted but became relatively insignificant as inflation reduced its real value. They then discuss recent legislation eliminating the federal tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns and a lawsuit seeking to challenge the continued registration requirements for items that are no longer subject to the tax. Their central question is whether registration can still be justified when the tax that originally provided the stated basis for the system has been removed. The conversation also covers past amnesty programs, the registration of items such as firearms equipped with pistol braces, and the difficulties faced by families who may unknowingly possess historically significant but federally regulated firearms inherited from relatives or returning military veterans. The hosts conclude by emphasizing how complicated and confusing the NFA system has become and express interest in seeing how the legal challenges develop. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42372885

8226 hr2 08/03/2026

8226 hr2 In this episode of Eye on the Target Radio, Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell begin by discussing what they view as encouraging developments at the federal level, particularly a change in direction at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They argue that the agency appears to be placing greater emphasis on serving lawful gun owners while focusing enforcement efforts on violent criminals. The hosts express optimism about a renewed commitment to constitutional rights and discuss how shifting priorities within federal agencies could affect firearm owners across the country. They also touch on recent leadership changes and speculate about how these developments might influence future firearms regulations and enforcement. The conversation then turns to several legal and legislative issues affecting gun owners. Amanda and Rob discuss ongoing efforts to strengthen protections for interstate firearm transportation under the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA), arguing that law-abiding travelers should not risk prosecution simply for stopping overnight, refueling, or responding to emergencies while passing through states with restrictive firearm laws. They also examine proposed legislation that would allow lawful concealed carry on more federal lands and facilities, criticizing what they see as confusing regulations that can unintentionally turn responsible gun owners into lawbreakers. Throughout the discussion, the hosts emphasize the importance of clear, consistent firearm laws that respect constitutional protections while reducing legal uncertainty for travelers and permit holders. In the second half of the program, the hosts examine several recent court cases and lawsuits involving the Second Amendment. They discuss litigation concerning firearm carry in post offices, questioning the limited scope of some judicial rulings and arguing that constitutional protections should apply equally to all citizens rather than only to the parties involved in a lawsuit. Amanda and Rob also criticize firearm-related legal actions pursued by states such as Connecticut, contending that taxpayer-funded lawsuits continue despite repeated constitutional challenges. They conclude by highlighting positive grassroots efforts to introduce new shooters to firearms through supervised educational events, particularly programs aimed at women, before discussing a lawsuit challenging Louisiana's concealed carry permit restrictions for adults between the ages of 18 and 20. The hosts argue that while these young adults are legally permitted to carry under constitutional carry, denying them permits creates unnecessary legal complications, and they express hope that the courts will resolve the inconsistency in favor of equal Second Amendment protections. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42295955

8226 hr1 08/03/2026

8226 hr1 In this episode of Eye on the Target Radio, Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell focus on the role of armed civilians in stopping violent attacks, using the active shooter incident in Twin Falls, Idaho, as their starting point. Rather than concentrating on the attacker's identity or equipment, they criticize the rush by news outlets and social media users to spread AI-generated images and speculative details before verified information is available. They argue that artificial intelligence and the race to be first often create misinformation, with inaccurate descriptions of suspects and firearms quickly becoming accepted as fact. Using publicly available information, they discuss how online speculation contrasted with what was later learned about one of the armed civilians who intervened, emphasizing the importance of waiting for confirmed facts before drawing conclusions. The hosts then broaden the conversation to the topic of armed civilian intervention, arguing that defensive gun uses are more common than many people realize but are frequently underreported or omitted from national discussions. Amanda references research she says documents numerous cases where legally armed citizens stopped violent crimes, while noting that many incidents receive little media attention because no shots are fired or the event ends quickly. They highlight several well-known examples, including Stephen Willeford at the Sutherland Springs church shooting, Jack Wilson at the West Freeway Church of Christ shooting, Elijah Dicken's intervention in Indiana, and Jack Albarado's response during the Uvalde school shooting. The hosts contend that these individuals demonstrate how ordinary citizens can make a difference during violent emergencies and believe many additional stories never receive widespread recognition. After the break, Amanda and Rob discuss the mindset and responsibilities of concealed carry holders, emphasizing that the ideal outcome is to carry a firearm for a lifetime without ever needing to use it. They describe the "day that nothing happened" as the ultimate success for responsible gun owners but acknowledge that increasing numbers of trained concealed carriers also increase the likelihood that someone capable of responding will be present during a violent incident. The hosts stress that intervening in an active shooter situation requires an honest assessment of one's skill, training, legal responsibilities, and the safety of family members or bystanders. They note that an armed citizen may become a target for both the attacker and responding police, making intervention a serious personal decision rather than an obligation. They conclude by expressing gratitude toward civilians who choose to intervene despite those risks. The final portion of the program examines several recent shootings in Seattle and St. Louis, with the hosts arguing that gang violence and repeat offenders—not lawful gun owners—are the primary drivers of these incidents. They criticize officials for delaying public information following the Seattle shooting while awaiting a press conference with elected leaders and argue that public safety information should be released immediately rather than held for media events. Amanda and Rob also discuss a fatal St. Louis case involving a rideshare driver caught in crossfire, using it to illustrate the dangers posed by illegal firearm possession among teenagers and gang members. The conversation concludes with criticism of local zoning restrictions that they believe unfairly limit gun shops and shooting ranges, referencing both a Texas community that attempted to prohibit firearm retailers through unpublished zoning amendments and their own experiences challenging local zoning regulations. They argue that citizens should closely monitor local government actions and remain engaged when policies affect constitutional rights. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42295940

72626 hr2 07/27/2026

72626 hr2 In this episode of Eye on the Target Radio, Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discuss what they describe as significant changes within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), arguing that recent leadership appears more receptive to gun owners' concerns. They begin by examining how online firearm sales could reshape the gun industry, suggesting that if federal paperwork requirements for firearm transfers were reduced or moved online, many traditional gun shops could struggle to survive, with online retailers, auction sites, and general sporting goods or hardware stores taking a larger share of the market. The hosts also reflect on how experienced gun shop owners are becoming less common, changing the way new firearm owners receive information and customer service. The discussion then turns to proposed changes to the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA). Amanda explains that the ATF has opened a public comment period on revisions intended to clarify protections for people transporting firearms through states with restrictive gun laws. The hosts criticize past interpretations by some courts and law enforcement agencies that narrowly defined "traveling," arguing that ordinary stops for fuel, overnight lodging, emergencies, or medical care should not strip travelers of federal protections. They express optimism that recent court decisions and a changing legal climate may encourage agencies and judges to apply firearm laws more consistently with constitutional protections. After the break, Amanda highlights the proposed Federal Lands Lawful Carry Act, which seeks to address inconsistencies involving concealed carry on federal property. Although firearm carry is generally permitted on many federal lands, visitors can still inadvertently violate federal law by entering facilities such as visitor centers, ranger stations, or restrooms located within parks. The hosts argue that these technical restrictions can turn otherwise law-abiding citizens into accidental criminals and hope Congress will simplify the rules while preserving restrictions for sensitive government buildings such as courthouses. The program next revisits litigation involving firearms in post offices. Amanda explains that after the Second Amendment Foundation successfully challenged the federal prohibition on carrying firearms in post offices, the legal outcome has created uncertainty over exactly who benefits from the ruling. The hosts question whether the decision applies only to members of the organizations involved in the lawsuit or to all lawful gun owners, criticizing the complexity of the legal process and arguing that citizens should not have to navigate confusing court rulings simply to determine whether they are obeying the law. The conversation then shifts to Connecticut, where the hosts criticize Attorney General William Tong's office for seeking pro bono legal assistance to pursue additional firearm-related litigation. They contrast the state's ability to recruit volunteer attorneys with the difficulty firearm owners and gun-related businesses often face in finding legal representation when defending themselves against lawsuits or regulatory actions. Amanda argues that several states continue pursuing increasingly restrictive firearm policies despite repeated legal setbacks, while Rob notes that court decisions have begun pushing back against some of those efforts. In the final portion of the show, Amanda gives a shout-out to a women's shooting event in Detroit that introduces first-time shooters to firearms through safety instruction and supervised live-fire experiences. She and Rob praise the program for creating a welcoming environment that encourages women to return with friends and family, helping reduce intimidation for newcomers and promoting responsible firearm ownership. They conclude by discussing a lawsuit filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition challenging Louisiana's concealed carry permit restrictions for 18- to 20-year-olds. While those young adults may lawfully carry under the state's constitutional carry law, they cannot obtain concealed carry permits needed for reciprocity and certain school-zone exemptions. The hosts argue that this creates an unfair legal trap and express hope that the lawsuit will resolve the inconsistency before the plaintiffs age out of the affected age group. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42222015

72626 hr1 07/27/2026

72626 hr1 The episode opens with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing how an AI-generated list of the most influential modern firearms designers sparked an unexpectedly passionate debate. Rob argues that the list overlooked many significant innovators, including Bill Ruger, Roy Weatherby, J.D. Jones, and numerous early firearms and cartridge designers whose contributions shaped the industry but are often forgotten. Their conversation expands into the evolution of firearms technology, explaining how many seemingly "new" concepts actually originated decades ago but only became practical with modern manufacturing techniques such as CNC machining. Rob also shares historical anecdotes about designers like Dick Casull, whose experimental "triplex" powder loads helped create the powerful .454 Casull cartridge, illustrating how innovation has always driven firearm development. The hosts conclude that the discussion deserves a future show devoted entirely to influential gun designers and wildcat cartridge pioneers. After a commercial break, the hosts shift to Ohio politics, criticizing a proposed Toledo income tax increase that city officials say is needed to fund police staffing while also directing money toward violence-prevention organizations. Amanda argues that taxpayers deserve transparency about where the money will be spent and expresses concern that some funding could support anti-gun advocacy groups rather than law enforcement. The discussion broadens into voter participation, emphasizing the importance of registering to vote and researching candidates' records rather than simply casting ballots without understanding the issues. They also discuss reports regarding non-citizens appearing on voter rolls and encourage listeners to stay informed about election processes in their own states. The program then examines firearm confiscation related to restraining orders, using a case from Peoria, Illinois, where a divorcing gun owner allegedly had firearms seized and later sold while still under a temporary restraining order. Amanda and Rob argue that confiscating and disposing of firearms before a person has been convicted raises significant constitutional questions and predict the case could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Rob recounts experiences from his time operating a gun shop, describing firearms that were returned damaged or missing parts after being held by police. The hosts advise firearm owners facing divorce or restraining orders to arrange for lawful third-party storage to protect their property while complying with legal requirements, and they criticize what they see as inconsistent treatment of firearms compared to other valuable property. In the final segment, Amanda and Rob discuss the National Firearms Act (NFA) and the historical purpose of its tax stamp system. They explain the distinction between the traditional $200 tax stamp and the $5 "Any Other Weapon" classification before turning to recent legislative changes that eliminated the tax stamp for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. The hosts discuss a lawsuit arguing that if the tax has been removed, the federal registration requirement should no longer exist because the NFA was originally defended as a tax measure rather than a gun control law. They also revisit past ATF amnesty periods, registration efforts involving pistol braces, and stories of unregistered war souvenirs passed down through families, emphasizing the confusion surrounding federal firearms regulations. The hour concludes with speculation about future legal challenges to the NFA and encouragement for listeners to follow developments closely. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42221995

71926 hr2 07/20/2026

71926 hr2 The discussion begins with concerns about government surveillance and privacy, centering on a credit card merchant category code created for firearm-related purchases. Hosts Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell argue that even if current officials choose not to enforce such tracking, future administrations could use the information to monitor lawful gun owners. They express concern that records of firearm purchases, training, range memberships, and related spending could be compiled into government databases, emphasizing that the existence of such laws or tracking mechanisms creates long-term privacy risks regardless of who currently holds office. The hosts broaden the conversation by discussing government authority during emergencies, using the Boston Marathon bombing manhunt as an example. They criticize the suspension of cellular service and warrantless neighborhood searches, arguing that measures justified as being "for your own good" can become dangerous precedents that erode constitutional rights. They compare these actions to intrusive homeowners associations and caution that temporary emergency powers can normalize government overreach into citizens' private lives. Later, Amanda and Rob examine the Firearms Policy Coalition lawsuit challenging the prohibition on carrying firearms inside U.S. post offices. They explain that the Department of Justice recently chose not to continue appealing a favorable lower-court ruling, leaving questions about whether the decision protects only members of specific gun-rights organizations or applies more broadly. The hosts also discuss the historical origins of post office firearm restrictions, the phrase "going postal," and how past criminal acts often resulted in laws that primarily affect law-abiding gun owners rather than criminals. They view the case as another indication that courts are increasingly siding with Second Amendment advocates. The program then turns to the Supreme Court's decision to hear two AR-15 cases, prompting a discussion of Virginia's legal arguments that AR-15-style rifles are not constitutionally protected because they are supposedly "unusual." Amanda and Rob strongly disagree, noting that tens of millions of AR-15s are owned throughout the United States and that even Supreme Court justices have previously acknowledged the rifle's widespread popularity. They argue that the firearm clearly meets the legal standard of being in common use for lawful purposes and criticize continued attempts by states to restrict it despite existing precedent. The hosts also reflect on cosmetic differences between firearms, joking about ornate engravings, wooden stocks, and customized rifles while emphasizing that appearance has little bearing on constitutional protections. In the final segment, the conversation shifts to ongoing challenges against the National Firearms Act and other firearm regulations. Amanda and Rob express optimism that recent court decisions and the elimination of the NFA's $200 tax stamp for certain items will ultimately lead to suppressors and short-barreled rifles being removed from NFA regulation altogether. They also discuss a new lawsuit challenging Illinois' 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases, arguing that such delays have no historical basis under the Supreme Court's Bruen framework and can leave individuals defenseless when facing immediate threats. The episode concludes with the hosts expressing confidence that Second Amendment litigation is steadily moving in favor of gun-rights advocates and that additional legal victories are likely in the coming years. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42147080

71926 hr1 07/20/2026

71926 hr1 The episode opens with hosts Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell chatting about the unusually hot weather and smoky conditions affecting much of the United States before recognizing July 19 as the birthday of Samuel Colt. That leads into an extended discussion of Colt’s contributions to firearms history, including his early percussion revolvers, the popular pocket models, and the evolution of loading mechanisms and cartridge firearms. Rob explains the origins of several historic firearm designs and patents, including the so-called “King’s Patent,” while the hosts reflect on how many important inventors have been forgotten despite shaping modern firearms. The conversation then shifts to current Second Amendment issues, with the hosts arguing that gun-rights supporters have steadily regained legal ground since the expiration of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban and especially following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. They discuss the recent Wolford case involving Hawaii’s restrictions on carrying firearms in so-called sensitive places and criticize efforts by gun-control advocates to distribute "gun-free zone" signs to businesses after losing in court. Amanda and Rob argue that many concealed carriers choose where to spend their money based on whether businesses welcome lawful firearm owners, sharing personal stories about refusing to patronize businesses displaying gun prohibition signs. A significant portion of the program focuses on politics and voter participation. The hosts stress that elections have major consequences for firearm policy and encourage listeners to verify their voter registration, participate in elections, and persuade other gun owners and sportsmen to vote. They discuss competitive congressional districts, particularly in Ohio, argue that voter apathy is a greater threat than opposition, and highlight efforts by organizations to mobilize hunters and firearm owners ahead of upcoming elections. Along the way, they also mention a newly introduced short-barreled M1 Carbine from Magnum Research and preview an upcoming visit to the Tommy Gun warehouse. Later, Amanda and Rob praise what they see as renewed public engagement by the NRA, particularly its legal strategy and increased communication regarding lawsuits and Second Amendment advocacy. They describe the challenge of keeping up with the constant stream of firearms-related news and explain how they sift through legal developments to identify the most important stories for their audience. The hosts close by discussing proposals to expand, or "pack," the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that adding justices could influence constitutional rulings for decades because modern justices tend to serve much longer than in the past. They contend that the composition of the Court, together with voter participation, will have long-lasting effects on Second Amendment rights and broader constitutional issues, emphasizing that civic engagement remains essential. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42147065

71226 hr2 07/13/2026

71226 hr2 The program centers on an extended interview with attorney Alan Beck following his successful argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wolford case, which challenged Hawaii's restrictive concealed-carry laws. Beck explains that after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision expanded concealed carry rights, Hawaii and several other states responded by enacting laws that effectively made permits useless by designating most public locations as off-limits. A major focus of the case was Hawaii's so-called "vampire rule," which required concealed carriers to obtain affirmative permission before entering any private business open to the public while armed. Beck describes how the rule created impossible situations, such as requiring permission before pulling into a gas station parking lot at night, and argues that businesses were unfairly forced into political debates by having to post signs either allowing or prohibiting firearms. Amanda and Beck compare the restriction to requiring permission to exercise other constitutional rights, emphasizing why the Supreme Court ultimately struck down the law. The discussion broadens into Hawaii's unique legal and historical background, with Beck explaining that the state's restrictive firearm policies partly stem from its history as an independent monarchy before statehood. He describes the Wolford victory as the culmination of fifteen years of litigation aimed at restoring Second Amendment rights in Hawaii, noting that the ruling gives concealed carry permits practical value while signaling to the state that future constitutional challenges can and will reach the Supreme Court if necessary. Looking ahead, Beck predicts that the Court is likely to strike down bans on AR-15 rifles in states such as Illinois and Connecticut, arguing that the justices accepted those cases because they believe lower courts have misapplied the Second Amendment. He also identifies the next major constitutional battleground as defining what qualifies as a legitimate "sensitive place" where firearms may be restricted. After the interview, hosts Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell shift to federal firearms regulation and discuss what they view as a changing relationship between the firearms community and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). They examine proposed revisions to the federal firearms license (FFL) transfer process, explaining that the agency withdrew a proposed rule not because it intended to become more restrictive, but because industry feedback suggested improvements to the language before implementation. The hosts describe this as an example of regulators working collaboratively with firearms dealers to modernize electronic recordkeeping and streamline lawful transfers, while acknowledging that firearm owners in more restrictive states continue to face far greater regulatory burdens than those in states like Ohio. The conversation then turns to state-level legal battles, including a Florida case involving firearm preemption laws. The hosts discuss a county fair that attempted to prohibit lawful firearm carry despite state law protecting it, noting that the courts sided with the citizens and required the county to pay legal costs. Amanda views the ruling as another victory for state preemption laws, while Rob argues that meaningful accountability is still lacking because the public ultimately pays for unsuccessful legal challenges rather than the officials responsible for pursuing them. Their differing perspectives highlight the tension between celebrating courtroom victories and seeking stronger consequences for government officials who knowingly enact policies that violate existing law. In the final segment, Amanda and Rob discuss how they believe gun-control advocacy organizations are changing their political strategy. Rather than focusing solely on outright firearm bans, they argue that many groups are increasingly framing proposals as public health or violence-prevention initiatives and embedding firearm-related provisions within larger budget bills to increase their chances of passage. They also discuss activist organizations that train members in skills such as de-escalation, emergency medical care, firearm safety, self-defense, and crowd management. Rob argues that understanding how organized groups coordinate and direct large crowds is an often-overlooked but valuable skill, while Amanda emphasizes that recognizing these organizational techniques can help people better understand public demonstrations and social movements. The episode concludes with encouragement for listeners to remain engaged, continue following legislative developments, and stay informed as legal and political debates surrounding the Second Amendment continue to evolve. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42052315

71226 hr1 07/13/2026

71226 hr1 The episode opens with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing creative home design, prompted by a conversation about a friend receiving an antique artillery-model Luger pistol. That leads into an extended discussion about designing concealed gun rooms and secure storage areas within a home. They explore ideas such as hidden safe rooms behind Murphy doors or disguised entrances, the advantages and shortcomings of commercial vault doors, structural security beyond simply installing a heavy door, emergency exits, ventilation, and balancing accessibility with secrecy. They also compare how differently people perceive and remember house layouts, joking that while some people could never recognize a hidden room, others instinctively map every space they enter. The conversation then shifts to major Second Amendment litigation. Amanda previews an interview with attorney Alan Beck regarding the recent Supreme Court decision in the Wolford v. Lopez case involving Hawaii's "sensitive places" restrictions. The hosts discuss how states such as New Jersey and Chicago are already attempting to preserve their own gun-free zone laws despite the ruling, arguing that many states continue relying on historical laws from the late 1800s instead of the Founding Era history required under the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. They review the progression from Heller to McDonald to Bruen, arguing that Bruen finally forced lower courts to take the Second Amendment more seriously after years of resistance. From there, Rob and Amanda speculate about the future of National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations. They express optimism that restrictions on machine guns, suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns will continue to be challenged in court, discussing the possibility that future purchases could require only a standard background check rather than tax stamps or extensive paperwork. They also examine practical issues surrounding registered NFA firearms, including inheritance, lost registration records, and the complications owners face decades after purchasing regulated items. Another segment focuses on an unusual diplomatic story from the recent NATO summit in Turkey. The hosts describe how Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan reportedly presented engraved .357 Magnum revolvers, complete with ammunition and cleaning kits, to attending world leaders as commemorative gifts. They discuss Turkey's growing firearms industry, the quality of Turkish-made firearms, and the diplomatic complications created by presenting handguns to leaders from countries where civilian handgun ownership is heavily restricted. They humorously review how various leaders handled the gifts, with some placing them in museums, some dealing with customs issues, and others having the firearms deactivated to comply with their domestic laws. The discussion expands into the long tradition of political figures and dignitaries exchanging commemorative firearms as gifts. The final portion of the program returns to current legal developments surrounding the Second Amendment. Amanda and Rob discuss California's new restrictions on Glock-style handguns, the Department of Justice's legal challenge to those laws, and their expectation that additional Supreme Court cases will continue expanding protections recognized under Bruen. They also touch on ongoing litigation involving AR-15s, age-based firearm restrictions, state efforts to resist recent court rulings, and the broader trend of increasing legal victories for gun-rights advocates. The episode concludes with broader reflections on firearm imports, inexpensive ammunition, historical rimfire cartridges, and the possibility that future legal challenges could eventually remove longstanding import restrictions and encourage innovation within the firearms industry. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/42052310

70526 hr2 07/06/2026

70526 hr2 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio focuses on several current issues affecting gun owners, firearms regulation, and Second Amendment advocacy. The hosts Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell begin by discussing a provision in New York's 2027 state budget that requires 3D printers and other computer-controlled manufacturing equipment to include technology capable of detecting and blocking files used to produce firearms or firearm components. They argue that the legislation extends far beyond hobbyist 3D printers, potentially affecting CNC machines, industrial manufacturing equipment, and countless businesses that rely on computer-controlled machining. The hosts question how such a system could realistically distinguish lawful manufacturing from prohibited activity, contend that the requirement raises constitutional concerns involving the First, Fourth, and Second Amendments, and suggest it could discourage manufacturing investment in New York while further accelerating business departures from the state. The discussion then shifts to legal and political developments surrounding firearms terminology and federal regulation. The hosts reference comments attributed to Justice Clarence Thomas regarding the historical emergence of the term "assault weapon," arguing that the phrase originated as a political rather than technical term. They discuss how language influences public opinion and compare it to other politically charged terminology. Attention then turns to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), where the hosts note what they view as a more favorable stance toward gun owners under the agency's current leadership. They criticize previous ATF enforcement practices against federally licensed firearms dealers over paperwork errors and discuss a newly proposed ATF rule concerning the National Firearms Act (NFA). Listeners are encouraged to participate in the public comment period, while the hosts speculate that suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns may eventually be removed from NFA regulation, though they acknowledge that certain highly destructive weapons may continue to warrant separate regulation. Later in the program, the hosts examine a report criticizing Everytown for Gun Safety, describing allegations that the organization reused older reports, relied heavily on self-referential citations, and selectively presented data to support its conclusions about so-called "assault weapons." They then discuss a recent case involving firearms stolen from checked airline luggage at Portland International Airport, where an Apple AirTag reportedly helped authorities locate a baggage handler accused of stealing multiple firearms. The hosts use the incident to encourage travelers to place tracking devices inside locked firearm cases when flying. The show concludes on a positive note by recognizing Sharnetta Sams, a firearms instructor, engineer, and leader within A Girl & A Gun, who was featured prominently in the Baltimore Sun for her work promoting firearms education and responsible gun ownership. Throughout the episode, the hosts intersperse sponsor messages and public service announcements promoting firearm safety, secure storage, self-defense training, and Second Amendment educational organizations. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41969680

70526 hr1 07/06/2026

70526 hr1 The episode opens with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing recent developments affecting Second Amendment issues, beginning with lighthearted conversation before turning to major legal news. They explain that recent Supreme Court decisions, particularly the Wolford case and the marijuana-related ruling, are expected to have broad implications for firearms law, including potential revisions to federal firearm purchase forms and future court challenges. Looking ahead, they highlight the Supreme Court's decision to hear Grant v. Lamont, a challenge involving Connecticut's AR-15 ban, which they describe as one of the most significant Second Amendment cases since the Bruen decision. The hosts emphasize the years of work by advocacy organizations, particularly praising Holly Sullivan of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League for her leadership in advancing the case and arguing that its outcome could reshape how courts view commonly owned firearms nationwide. The discussion then shifts to ongoing federal and state policy battles. Amanda and Rob examine reports surrounding possible changes to federal firearm purchasing procedures, including speculation about proposals that would allow licensed dealers to ship firearms directly to buyers' homes after background checks. While they note widespread media attention surrounding Donald Trump Jr.'s investment in the online retailer GrabAGun, they stress that many reported details remain speculative and encourage listeners to monitor official ATF announcements rather than relying on rumors. They also compare firearm purchasing requirements with voting identification debates, arguing that government standards for identity verification should be applied consistently across different rights. A major portion of the program focuses on actions taken by the U.S. Department of Justice under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon. The hosts describe lawsuits challenging firearm restrictions in both Virginia and California, arguing that the DOJ is actively contesting state laws it believes violate constitutional protections. They discuss California's handgun roster, restrictions affecting Glock-style pistols, and broader legal arguments concerning the Second Amendment under the Bruen framework. According to the hosts, California's refusal to modify its regulations prompted broader federal litigation that now challenges multiple aspects of the state's firearm laws rather than a single policy. The conversation also examines Virginia's recently enacted gun control measures. Amanda and Rob describe how the DOJ sought to halt implementation of several new restrictions, including bans affecting commonly owned firearms, and note that some provisions have already been delayed or temporarily blocked by courts. They explain that the ATF accelerated processing of firearm-related applications for Virginia residents before new restrictions took effect and discuss how lawsuits, injunctions, legislative amendments, and differing enforcement decisions by local officials have created legal uncertainty throughout the state. Throughout the discussion, they argue that ongoing litigation will ultimately determine the constitutionality of these measures. Toward the end of the episode, the hosts broaden the discussion to emerging legislative trends in other states, particularly New York, where proposed regulations involving 3D printers and CNC machines are described as another front in the broader debate over so-called "ghost guns." They caution listeners that many firearm-related policy changes are being incorporated into larger budget bills and encourage gun owners to remain informed about legislation in their own states. The episode concludes by emphasizing that the legal landscape surrounding firearm rights is changing rapidly, with multiple high-profile lawsuits, Supreme Court cases, and Department of Justice actions likely to shape Second Amendment law for years to come. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41969650

62826 hr2 06/29/2026

62826 hr2 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio begins with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell reflecting on the show's origins as a firearms call-in program and discussing Rob's long-standing interest in collecting and researching historic firearms. Rob shares stories from gun auctions, explaining how specialized knowledge and reference books can help collectors identify rare firearms and avoid costly mistakes. The conversation then shifts to national politics, where they discuss President Donald Trump's recent remarks supporting nationwide right-to-carry legislation. The hosts argue that constitutional rights should not end at state borders and criticize media coverage and opponents who claim expanded concealed carry would lead to increased violence. They contend that decades of concealed carry experience across many states have not produced the widespread violence critics predicted and compare the United States' approach to firearms with the United Kingdom's strict gun control policies and historical disarmament before World War II. Later in the program, Amanda and Rob revisit ongoing legal challenges to firearm restrictions affecting adults between the ages of 18 and 20. They explain how lawsuits in states such as Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, Ohio, and California have been slowed by lengthy court delays, sometimes allowing plaintiffs to "age out" of eligibility before their cases are decided. The hosts argue that these procedural delays effectively deny constitutional rights and discuss the importance of timely judicial review. They also highlight a newly introduced AR-15 from One Horse Firearms that comes factory-equipped with a forced reset trigger, suggesting that factory-installed components may offer legal and reliability advantages over aftermarket modifications. The final portion of the show centers on the realities and legal consequences of armed self-defense. Amanda and Rob stress that carrying a firearm is intended for protecting oneself in life-threatening situations rather than acting as a hero. They revisit several self-defense incidents, including a Michigan case in which a man spent months in jail after using his firearm during a violent assault despite surveillance footage supporting his actions, and another case involving a concealed carry permit holder who intervened when a man armed with an axe threatened others. These stories serve to illustrate the legal scrutiny that often follows defensive gun use, even when it appears justified. The hosts also criticize what they view as activist judges and politically motivated prosecutions that discourage lawful self-defense. The episode concludes with a discussion of congressional investigations into the former White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and its alleged relationships with gun-control advocacy organizations. Amanda and Rob argue that these investigations are necessary to determine whether government resources were improperly used to support anti-gun initiatives and express hope that officials found to have acted improperly will be held accountable. They also discuss broader concerns about government spending, enforcement priorities, and regulatory agencies before ending on a patriotic note, encouraging listeners to celebrate the Fourth of July and America's 250th birthday while looking forward to future discussions on Second Amendment issues. Throughout the broadcast, the program includes recurring advertisements and public service announcements promoting firearms safety, training opportunities, educational organizations, and products for responsible firearm ownership. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41900070

62826 hr1 06/29/2026

62826 hr1 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio focuses on several recent Second Amendment developments, particularly major U.S. Supreme Court decisions and their broader legal implications. Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discuss the Court's unanimous decision in the Hermani case involving marijuana users and firearm rights, arguing that the ruling reinforces constitutional protections while potentially undermining red flag laws by emphasizing due process before constitutional rights can be restricted. They also revisit the Bruen standard of evaluating firearm laws based on the nation's historical tradition, criticizing attempts by some judges and legal commentators to weaken that framework. The hosts examine the Supreme Court's 6-3 ruling in the Wolford case from Hawaii, which struck down the state's requirement that private property owners explicitly grant permission before lawful concealed carriers could enter. They explain that the Court instead held that carrying is presumed lawful unless a property owner specifically prohibits firearms, viewing the decision as another significant expansion of Second Amendment protections. The conversation also explores reactions to the Court's rulings, including criticism from dissenting justices and media commentators who relied on post-Civil War laws—particularly discriminatory Black Codes—to support their arguments. Amanda and Rob argue that such laws should not be considered valid historical precedent under the Bruen test and contend that the Second Amendment protects all Americans equally regardless of race. They discuss how incremental court victories can gradually expand nationwide rights through continued litigation and stress the importance of appellate review so favorable decisions apply beyond a single judicial circuit. Throughout the show, they express optimism that recent Supreme Court decisions will continue reshaping firearm law in favor of broader constitutional protections. Later in the program, the hosts shift to ongoing litigation in California, praising Justice Department official Harmeet Dhillon for challenging the state's proposed restrictions on Glock pistols and its longstanding handgun roster. They explain that multiple lawsuits are targeting California's firearm regulations and criticize the slow pace of the courts, noting that one handgun roster case has remained undecided for more than 1,100 days after oral arguments. The discussion concludes with California's legal battle over firearm restrictions for adults aged 18 to 20. Amanda and Rob argue that if 18-year-olds are legally recognized as adults for contracts, military service, and criminal responsibility, they should likewise enjoy full Second Amendment rights. As in most episodes, the legal discussions are interspersed with advertisements and public service announcements promoting firearms safety, training opportunities, educational organizations, and products related to responsible firearm ownership. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41900020

62126 hr2 06/22/2026

62126 hr2 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio opens with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi and its implications for firearm ownership by marijuana users. Amanda argues that the ruling represents a significant constitutional development because it challenges the long-standing practice of broadly denying firearm rights to individuals based solely on marijuana use. The hosts discuss the practical difficulties of determining impairment, noting that alcohol intoxication can be measured in real time while marijuana testing often detects prior use rather than current impairment. Amanda believes the ruling could have broader implications beyond firearms, potentially affecting workplace drug testing, employment policies, and other constitutional-rights questions where governments or employers rely on evidence of past drug use rather than present impairment. The discussion also explores whether similar legal reasoning could eventually influence restrictions on firearm possession by individuals who have consumed alcohol but are not currently impaired. The hosts then examine the broader constitutional arguments surrounding the decision. Amanda quotes a statement from Women for Gun Rights, which compares the treatment of marijuana users to the public demonization of AR-15 rifles. The argument presented is that constitutional rights should not be restricted based on political narratives or generalized assumptions about danger. Amanda and Rob speculate that future litigation will be necessary to define the practical limits of the ruling, especially regarding impairment standards and how government agencies enforce existing firearm prohibitions. A related issue emerges when Amanda discusses the case of a mother whose child brought a firearm to school and shot a teacher. According to the hosts, one of the charges against the mother stemmed from allegedly lying about marijuana use on a federal firearms purchase form. Amanda wonders how cases like that may be affected if firearm-purchase questions regarding marijuana use are eventually changed or removed. The hosts predict that courts will continue addressing the legal consequences of past prosecutions that relied on those provisions. After a series of sponsor messages and public-service announcements, the conversation shifts to a lawsuit challenging Michigan’s firearm licensing and registration requirements. Amanda explains that Michigan requires individuals to obtain government approval before purchasing certain firearms and that records associated with the process effectively create a registry. She argues that such systems conflict with federal policies intended to prevent the creation of national gun registries. Rob questions where the line should be drawn between state authority and federal constitutional protections. Amanda supports legal challenges brought by the NRA, contending that constitutional rights should not vary dramatically from state to state. The hosts discuss concerns that multiple state-level registration systems could eventually be combined into a larger database, even if no formal national registry exists. The discussion expands to include criticism of proposals to repeal restrictions on federal firearm registries. Amanda expresses concern that removing federal barriers could lead to centralized databases tracking firearm ownership nationwide. The hosts debate how firearm records are maintained, joking about the enormous quantity of paper records generated by firearm transactions over decades and questioning the practicality of managing and preserving such information indefinitely. Later in the program, Amanda turns to California, highlighting restrictions imposed by officials in Contra Costa County on concealed-carry permit holders. According to the discussion, local authorities have attempted to limit the types of handguns and accessories that permit holders may carry, including restrictions involving single-action handguns and certain firearm accessories. Amanda argues that these policies conflict with the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision because she sees no historical precedent for such limitations. She praises the efforts of the Second Amendment Foundation in challenging these restrictions through litigation and encourages listeners to support organizations involved in Second Amendment legal battles. The hosts then discuss a Florida case involving several teenagers carrying firearms while riding bicycles, one of whom died after being shot. Amanda uses the story to argue that additional firearm regulations often fail to stop individuals who are already violating existing laws. The conversation broadens into a lighthearted exchange about education, mathematics, engineering, and metallurgy. Amanda reflects on technical subjects she learned years earlier and jokes that some seemingly obscure engineering concepts have proven more useful in her life than portions of her formal mathematics education. Returning to self-defense topics, Amanda describes an incident in Massachusetts where both a civilian and a state trooper intervened during a violent encounter. The civilian reportedly exhausted the ammunition he was legally permitted to carry under state restrictions before the threat was fully neutralized. Amanda uses the incident to criticize magazine-capacity limits and other firearm restrictions, arguing that such laws may place law-abiding citizens at a disadvantage during emergencies. The final major segment focuses on a self-defense story involving a woman in Alaska who was attacked by a bear while gathering mushrooms. Amanda recounts how the woman, carrying a compact Glock 43 pistol, encountered a bear that had attacked one of her dogs. The bear charged at close range, and the woman fired multiple shots with her small 9mm handgun. According to the story, the bear eventually retreated, allowing the woman and her dogs to escape. Amanda emphasizes how remarkable the encounter was, noting that many people would consider the firearm underpowered for bear defense. The hosts conclude that the woman’s preparedness likely saved her life and discuss the broader importance of carrying effective defensive tools when traveling in remote wilderness areas. The episode closes with a lighter discussion about the growing popularity of toy guns, dart blasters, and similar products. Amanda and Rob compare modern toy guns with the cap guns and cowboy-themed toys of their childhoods. They lament that contemporary toy-gun designs often resemble science-fiction props rather than realistic western-style toys and speculate that children’s interest in toy firearms may eventually translate into interest in recreational shooting and firearms education later in life. The conversation ends on a nostalgic note as Amanda recalls dressing up with toy holsters and cap guns as a child, /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41719375

62126 hr1 06/22/2026

62126 hr1 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio begins with Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discussing their experience at GunCon 2026 in Niles, Ohio. They describe the event as a well-organized gathering that combines media access, vendor demonstrations, VIP experiences, and public attendance. The hosts were impressed by the large turnout and the opportunity attendees had to interact directly with firearms industry personalities, content creators, and manufacturers. A major highlight was an appearance by Vivek Ramaswamy, who answered Second Amendment-related questions from attendees. Amanda and Rob praised him for providing detailed answers rather than political talking points. They specifically noted his rejection of government-funded or government-mandated firearms training programs, arguing that private organizations and existing industry programs are better suited to provide firearms education. The discussion then turns to the firearms community's culture of mentorship. Amanda argues that experienced gun owners are often eager to introduce newcomers to shooting sports, frequently volunteering their time, equipment, ammunition, and expertise to help others learn safely. The hosts contrast this welcoming attitude with the misconception that firearms ownership requires extensive formal government involvement. They emphasize that most gun owners are enthusiastic about sharing knowledge and encouraging responsible participation in the shooting community. Moving back to GunCon, Amanda and Rob describe the appeal of the event as a place where attendees can meet online personalities and firearms reviewers they normally only see through YouTube, social media, or podcasts. They mention several well-known content creators and discuss some of the more interesting firearms and products they encountered. Among the highlights were a suppressed M1 Carbine that impressed them with its quiet operation and handling characteristics, as well as an unusual knife-gun combination that incorporated a small revolver into the handle of a folding knife. They found the design novel and intriguing, although they acknowledged that it raised practical questions about usability and accuracy. After several sponsor and public service announcements, the hosts transition into a discussion of firearm restrictions imposed by homeowners associations. Amanda references a Florida HOA that attempted to ban firearms before backing down following pressure from state officials. She then discusses a South Carolina HOA that implemented restrictions on firearms in common areas, including pools, clubhouses, sidewalks, and parking lots. The hosts criticize the policy as impractical because residents would effectively be unable to transport firearms between their homes and vehicles. Amanda argues that HOA leadership can significantly influence community policies and encourages gun owners living in such communities to become involved in HOA governance. Both hosts contend that firearm bans create an environment that may attract criminals by signaling that residents are unlikely to be armed. The program next examines recent developments concerning concealed carry rights for adults aged 18 to 20. Amanda explains that many states still impose restrictions on younger adults despite recognizing them as legal adults for numerous other purposes. She highlights actions in Florida and West Virginia that expand carry rights for individuals in this age group. Florida’s legal developments involve court rulings finding restrictions unconstitutional, while West Virginia lowered the age requirement for permitless concealed carry from 21 to 18. Amanda views these developments as further extensions of the legal reasoning established after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision and argues that constitutional rights should apply equally to adults regardless of whether they are 18 or 21 years old. The conversation then shifts to concerns about artificial intelligence and the reliability of information generated by AI systems. Amanda recounts examples discussed within the firearms media community in which AI-generated research allegedly produced inaccurate or fabricated information. She argues that AI-generated summaries should always be verified through original sources and cites a story involving firearms journalist Mark Walters as an example of why users should not automatically trust AI outputs. Drawing on her engineering background, Amanda compares reviewing AI-generated information to reviewing work produced by a new employee: the results may appear convincing but still require careful verification and critical thinking. Later in the episode, the hosts discuss what they view as a series of legislative proposals from gun-control advocates. Amanda argues that many recent proposals are unlikely to survive constitutional scrutiny under the Supreme Court’s current Second Amendment framework. One proposal would create a federally managed database of gun-violence-prevention research overseen by the CDC. Amanda expresses skepticism, arguing that such a database could selectively promote certain research while ignoring other studies. She references criminologist John Lott and claims that existing crime data have sometimes been revised in ways that affect public perception of trends. The hosts also discuss proposals involving mandatory mental-health evaluations for owners of certain semiautomatic rifles. Amanda criticizes the concept as both impractical and constitutionally questionable. She raises concerns about who would conduct the evaluations, who would pay for them, and how such requirements could be administered fairly. The conversation expands into broader concerns about privacy, social media monitoring, and government oversight of lawful gun owners. The final major topic focuses on suppressors and ongoing debates surrounding their regulation. Amanda references statements from lawmakers who characterize suppressors as tools primarily associated with criminal activity. The hosts reject that characterization, arguing that suppressors function more like hearing-protection devices that reduce noise rather than eliminate it. They emphasize that suppressors do not make firearms silent, comparing them to automobile mufflers that reduce but do not eliminate engine noise. Amanda views proposals such as suppressor buyback programs as examples of legislation driven more by misconceptions from popular culture than by practical realities. Throughout the episode, Amanda and Rob repeatedly return to themes of individual responsibility, skepticism toward government regulation, support for firearms education, and the defense of Second Amendment rights. The show combines reports from GunCon, commentary on current legal and political developments, criticism of gun-control proposals, and discussions of firearm culture, training, and community engagement. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41719360

61426 hr2 06/15/2026

61426 hr2 In this episode of Eye on the Target Radio, Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell open the show with Amanda describing her experience at the A Girl & A Gun Drift Academy, a specialized training event designed to teach women not only firearms skills but also vehicle-based self-defense and emergency driving techniques. Amanda explains that participants learned how to draw and deploy a firearm from inside a vehicle, exit a vehicle safely while armed, protect passengers, and avoid accidentally pointing a firearm at others during stressful situations. The training included shooting into and out of vehicles, understanding how bullets behave when passing through windshields and doors, and practicing tactical vehicle exits. Amanda emphasizes that the training provided practical, hands-on lessons that are difficult to replicate through videos or classroom instruction alone. A significant portion of the discussion focuses on the driving component of the academy. Amanda describes exercises in which participants drove on a racetrack in close formation, practiced controlling vehicles on wet skid pads, and learned how to maintain control during slides and loss-of-traction situations. She notes that participants from northern states who had experience driving in snow generally adapted more quickly to the skid-control exercises. The academy also included lessons on vehicle ramming, defensive driving, and executive protection concepts, helping students understand how a vehicle can be used as a tool for escape and survival during dangerous situations. Amanda repeatedly characterizes the event as one of the most educational and memorable training experiences she has attended. After a commercial break featuring advertisements for firearms training organizations, safety programs, and educational resources, the hosts discuss GunCon Ohio, an event that combines aspects of a gun show, educational conference, and industry gathering. They explain that GunCon attracts firearm manufacturers, advocacy organizations, podcasters, trainers, and Second Amendment activists. Amanda notes that attendees can participate in panel discussions, meet industry figures, and interact with organizations such as the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and Second Amendment Foundation. The hosts encourage listeners to attend, emphasizing the opportunity to meet like-minded individuals and learn more about firearms, advocacy, and current issues affecting gun owners. The conversation then turns toward legal and political issues involving firearms. Amanda and Rob discuss ongoing challenges to firearm regulations around the country, including disputes involving the Department of Justice and state-level gun-control measures. They mention efforts by the Department of Justice to challenge restrictions in places such as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Minnesota, arguing that some state and local firearm regulations conflict with constitutional protections. The hosts describe these developments as evidence that federal officials are becoming more willing to challenge state-level restrictions than in previous years. The hosts also review several court cases involving the Second Amendment. One discussion centers on the Hawaii case known as Wolford, which concerns restrictions that effectively require permission before carrying firearms on private property. Amanda notes that recent rulings in New York and Maryland found similar restrictions unconstitutional, and that the Department of Justice has supported challengers seeking to overturn Hawaii’s law. The hosts express optimism that future court decisions may further expand protections for firearm owners and concealed carriers. Another legal topic involves a South Carolina self-defense case that reached the state Supreme Court. Amanda recounts the story of an 18-year-old store clerk who confronted a shoplifter. According to the discussion, the confrontation escalated from verbal warnings to the use of a taser, then a machete, and ultimately a firearm when the suspect continued advancing. The legal dispute centered on whether the clerk, the store owner, and the business itself could be held liable for the shooting. Amanda argues that the case demonstrates the importance of self-defense immunity laws and serves as an example of how individuals may be forced to escalate defensive measures when less-forceful options fail. The episode also includes broader discussions about politics and public policy. Amanda and Rob examine the effects of population distribution on elections and representation, arguing that large urban centers often dominate political decision-making while rural communities have less influence. They compare political trends in the United States to developments in Canada, where they believe firearm restrictions are gradually reducing participation in shooting sports. The hosts express concern that demographic and political changes could eventually lead to diminished firearm rights if gun owners fail to remain politically active and engaged. Later, the hosts discuss a congressional race in New York involving two Democratic candidates. Amanda argues that although one candidate presents herself as more supportive of the Second Amendment, both ultimately support measures such as assault-weapons bans, expanded background checks, and red-flag laws. The hosts contend that voters often receive only abbreviated campaign messages and may not fully understand candidates’ positions unless they research them more carefully. They use the race as an example of what they view as the importance of political literacy and informed voting. The final major topic focuses on civics education and public understanding of government. Amanda and Rob express concern that many Americans lack basic knowledge about how government functions, the roles of elected officials, and the constitutional system. They argue that schools devote less attention to civics than in previous generations and suggest that this contributes to confusion about public policy and constitutional rights. The hosts reflect on historical figures, the importance of reading history and foundational documents, and the need to educate future generations about government, citizenship, and the Constitution. They conclude that a stronger understanding of civics would help citizens make better-informed decisions and participate more effectively in public life. Overall, the episode combines practical self-defense training, firearms advocacy, legal developments, political analysis, and civic education. Amanda and Rob consistently emphasize preparation, personal responsibility, constitutional rights, and the importance of staying informed about legal and political issues that affect firearm ownership and individual freedoms. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41643940

61426 hr1 06/15/2026

61426 hr1 In this episode of Eye on the Target Radio, Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell discuss a wide range of topics centered on self-defense, firearms training, Second Amendment advocacy, and civic engagement. Amanda begins by sharing her experience attending the A Girl & A Gun Drift Academy, a three-day training event that combines firearms instruction with vehicle-based self-defense and emergency driving skills. She describes learning how to safely draw and use a firearm from inside a vehicle, exit a vehicle under stress, protect passengers, and even use a vehicle as a defensive tool. Participants practiced shooting through windshields and doors, escaping from overturned vehicles, controlling skids on wet surfaces, and maneuvering cars in close proximity to one another. Amanda emphasizes that the hands-on experience provided valuable lessons that cannot be fully learned through videos or classroom instruction. The conversation then shifts to upcoming firearms-related events, particularly GunCon Ohio, which Amanda describes as a blend of gun show, educational conference, and industry gathering. The hosts explain that the event will feature manufacturers, firearms organizations, podcasters, and panel discussions on Second Amendment issues. They note that organizations such as the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation are expected to participate, and that Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is scheduled to appear. Amanda encourages listeners to attend and engage with others who share an interest in firearms and constitutional rights. The hosts also discuss several current legal and political issues involving firearms. One topic involves ongoing Supreme Court discussions regarding firearm restrictions on marijuana users. Rob suggests that historical traditions and the Founding Fathers’ attitudes toward alcohol consumption may influence future court decisions. This leads into a broader conversation about how society often focuses on different health and safety concerns over time, from asbestos and lead paint to today's concerns about microplastics. The hosts use these examples to illustrate how public perceptions and regulatory priorities evolve from generation to generation. A major theme of the episode centers on public awareness of gun rights. Amanda recounts a dinner conversation with a highly intelligent friend who questioned why she dedicates so much time to Second Amendment advocacy, arguing that Americans already have access to firearms. Amanda explains that the exchange reminded her how many people are largely unaware of the political, legislative, and legal battles surrounding gun ownership. She observes that even educated individuals who closely follow current events may not fully understand the scope of ongoing efforts to restrict firearm ownership or the importance many gun owners place on protecting constitutional rights. The discussion expands to developments in Canada, where the hosts argue that firearm restrictions are gradually undermining competitive shooting sports. They describe concerns that younger participants may be unable to enter certain shooting disciplines due to restrictions on acquiring firearms, potentially causing those sports to disappear over time. Amanda and Rob compare these developments to political trends in the United States, arguing that large urban populations often dominate policy decisions while rural communities have less influence. This leads into a broader conversation about representation, elections, redistricting, and the long-term impact of demographic changes on firearm policy. Later in the program, the hosts discuss a New York congressional race in which two Democratic candidates express support for various gun-control measures. Amanda argues that although one candidate presents herself as more supportive of gun rights than the other, both ultimately favor significant firearm restrictions. The hosts contend that many voters only hear brief campaign messages and may not fully understand candidates’ positions without examining them in greater detail. The final portion of the episode focuses on civics education and political literacy. Amanda and Rob express concern that many Americans no longer understand the distinctions between state and federal government or the roles of elected officials at different levels. Amanda notes that she frequently encounters people who are unsure whether a particular issue should be addressed by state legislators, members of Congress, or federal agencies. The hosts also discuss declining attention spans, reduced reading habits, and the influence of smartphones on modern culture. Reflecting on the 1976 Bicentennial celebration, Amanda argues that Americans once received more exposure to history, civics, and patriotic education than they do today. She suggests that improving public understanding of constitutional principles, government structure, and American history would help citizens become more informed and engaged participants in the political process. Overall, the episode combines practical self-defense training experiences with discussions about firearms policy, constitutional rights, political awareness, and civic education. Amanda and Rob repeatedly emphasize the importance of preparation, personal responsibility, and staying informed about the legal and political issues that affect the Second Amendment and individual freedoms. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41643910

6726 hr2 06/08/2026

6726 hr2 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio featured hosts Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell, along with guest Charlie Cook of Riding Shotgun with Charlie, discussing a variety of Second Amendment issues, upcoming Supreme Court decisions, concealed carry rights, and grassroots advocacy efforts. The show blended legal analysis, personal experiences, and interviews with representatives from Women for Gun Rights, creating a wide-ranging discussion about the current state of gun rights activism in America. The opening segment focused heavily on several anticipated Supreme Court decisions expected before the end of the Court’s term. Amanda expressed excitement about the pending rulings, particularly those involving firearms rights. The hosts discussed the Wolford case, often referred to as the “vampire rule” case because it involves laws that effectively prohibit carrying firearms on private property unless owners explicitly invite gun owners to do so. Amanda explained that the case could have major implications for how states define “sensitive places” where firearms may be prohibited. The hosts argued that some states have expanded the definition of sensitive places so broadly that lawful concealed carry has become nearly impossible, and they hope the Court will establish a clearer, narrower standard. Another major topic involved the Supreme Court case concerning marijuana users and firearm ownership. The discussion centered on the inconsistency of federal law, which specifically prohibits firearm ownership by marijuana users while treating other legal and illegal substances differently. Amanda questioned why marijuana receives unique treatment on federal firearms forms and argued that the Court may be forced to address broader issues involving employment, driving regulations, workers’ compensation claims, and personal freedoms. Charlie shared a humorous story from his younger days when he innocently questioned a job interviewer about drug testing procedures and accidentally made himself look suspicious despite never having used drugs. The hosts agreed that any decision could have consequences far beyond firearms law and may require lawmakers to reconsider how impairment and substance use are measured and regulated. The conversation expanded into a broader discussion about individual liberty and personal responsibility. Charlie described his evolution from a traditional conservative perspective toward a more libertarian outlook, emphasizing that people should generally be free to make their own choices so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others. Amanda agreed, using the familiar analogy that one person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin. This led to a philosophical discussion about constitutional rights, self-defense, and accountability for one’s actions. Returning to the Wolford case, Amanda expressed particular interest because attorney Alan Beck, who is involved in the litigation, is someone she knows personally. She described him as a dedicated constitutional advocate and emphasized how significant the case could become for concealed carry permit holders nationwide. The hosts explained that several states have attempted to designate vast numbers of locations as sensitive places where firearms are prohibited, effectively undermining the practical exercise of carry rights recognized in recent Supreme Court decisions. They believe the Court’s ruling could help define constitutional limits on such restrictions. The discussion also touched on the reality of navigating complex carry laws. Charlie admitted that many gun owners face difficult decisions when entering locations with firearm restrictions, noting that ordinary people often encounter conflicting laws and regulations. Amanda emphasized that she has always tried to avoid becoming a legal test case, joking that she never wants a Supreme Court case named after her because that generally means someone’s rights were violated or a serious legal conflict occurred. The hosts reflected on how quickly ordinary citizens can become involved in landmark legal battles simply by exercising what they believe are their constitutional rights. Another significant topic involved the intersection of politics and firearms rights. Amanda noted that Supreme Court decisions unrelated to firearms can still affect the Second Amendment indirectly. She cited redistricting cases and election-related rulings as examples of decisions that may influence legislative control and ultimately determine the future of gun laws. The hosts discussed gerrymandering, congressional representation, and census-related debates, examining how political power and representation can affect firearm policy at both the state and federal levels. The second half of the program featured an interview recorded at the NRA Annual Meeting with representatives from Women for Gun Rights. Guests Tammy and Kate discussed the organization’s upcoming National Summit, which marks the group’s tenth anniversary. Historically, Women for Gun Rights focused on bringing state directors to Washington, D.C., for advocacy efforts, but this year the organization is opening participation to the public. The summit will include advocacy training, instruction on interacting with elected officials, a rally at the Capitol, and a celebratory gala. The guests explained that attendees will learn how legislation works, how to communicate effectively with lawmakers, and how ordinary citizens can become influential advocates for constitutional rights. Amanda reflected on her own experiences visiting Washington, D.C., describing the emotional impact of walking through historic government buildings and realizing that citizens have direct access to their representatives. The Women for Gun Rights representatives emphasized that advocacy becomes much less intimidating once people understand that elected officials are ordinary individuals who can be approached, questioned, and held accountable by their constituents. The interview also highlighted a significant organizational shift for Women for Gun Rights. Rather than simply encouraging supporters to follow their activities, the organization has created a formal membership structure with multiple participation levels. The new membership program is designed to increase engagement, strengthen financial support, and encourage members to become active participants in advocacy efforts rather than passive observers. The guests explained that the organization’s mission extends beyond firearms ownership to broader constitutional education, political engagement, and the development of women leaders within the Second Amendment movement. A substantial portion of the interview focused on the importance of women’s voices in firearms advocacy. The guests argued that women bring unique perspectives to policy discussions and noted that female-led advocacy organizations have historically been highly effective in influencing public opinion and legislation. They pointed out that women represent one of the fastest-growing demographics among firearm owners and consumers, making their involvement increasingly important within both the firearms industry and the political landscape. The guests also discussed the documentary project In Her Defense, an upcoming multi-part docuseries that tells the stories of women whose lives have been shaped by firearms ownership and self-defense issues. Some stories involve women who survived violent encounters because they had access to firearms, while others involve women who wished they had been armed when they faced danger. One guest shared her experience immigrating from Australia, where civilian firearm ownership is far more restricted, and described how living in the United States deepened her appreciation for individual liberty and personal responsibility. Another guest explained that she was once strongly anti-gun but changed her perspective after personal experiences and education exposed her to information that challenged her previous beliefs. The episode concluded with a discussion about outreach and coalition-building within the firearms community. The Women for Gun Rights representatives explained that they were spending time at the NRA convention networking with businesses, sponsors, and potential members. They stressed the importance of funding advocacy work and building partnerships that allow organizations to continue educating the public and defending constitutional rights. Amanda closed the segment by emphasizing that women are not merely participants in the firearms community but increasingly influential leaders, consumers, educators, and advocates whose voices are shaping the future of the Second Amendment movement. Overall, the episode combined legal analysis, constitutional discussion, personal storytelling, and advocacy-focused interviews. The central themes were the importance of upcoming Supreme Court decisions, the evolving legal landscape surrounding firearms rights, and the growing role of grassroots organizations—particularly women-led groups—in defending and promoting Second Amendment freedoms across the United States. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41579060

6726 hr1 06/08/2026

6726 hr1 This episode of Eye on the Target Radio featured hosts Amanda Suffecool and Rob Campbell, joined in-studio by Charlie Cook of Riding Shotgun with Charlie. The conversation began with reflections on a recent New England firearms advocacy conference organized by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The hosts praised the event for maintaining a strong regional focus on issues facing the New England states rather than allowing national figures to dominate the discussion. They emphasized how valuable it was for activists, advocates, and organizations from across the region to connect, compare strategies, and build relationships around shared legislative and cultural challenges. The discussion then shifted to innovative grassroots outreach efforts. Amanda highlighted an event hosted by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League where wild game harvested by local hunters was served to legislators and visitors at the state capitol. The hosts discussed how events like these help humanize gun owners and hunters, demonstrating the connection between firearms, conservation, food sourcing, and outdoor traditions. They suggested that displaying photos of the hunters and the firearms used to harvest the game could help further educate the public about responsible firearm ownership and hunting practices. From there, the conversation moved into hunting experiences and shooting skills. The hosts exchanged humorous stories about hunting, including discussions about bear hunting regulations and the challenges of bow hunting. Amanda described her own struggles with archery accuracy, joking that her arrows often landed nowhere near the intended target despite extensive practice. This led to a broader discussion about the realities of marksmanship, the importance of understanding one's equipment, and how different people develop shooting skills at different rates. One of the most entertaining segments involved Amanda recounting an old firearms training class where she repeatedly asked an instructor questions about body positioning and balance while shooting. Her repeated question—"Where do I put my butt?"—became an inside joke among the hosts and served as a launching point for a discussion about how shooting instruction has evolved over the decades. They compared older shooting stances and techniques with modern approaches, noting that many methods once considered standard have largely disappeared from contemporary firearms training. The hosts spent considerable time discussing point shooting versus sighted fire. They explored the value of becoming so familiar with a firearm that a shooter can instinctively align it with a target. Charlie shared his experiences transitioning from traditional iron sights to a pistol equipped with a red dot optic, describing the learning curve involved in trusting the optic rather than searching for the sights. The conversation emphasized the importance of repetition, practice, and developing natural firearm presentation skills regardless of the aiming system being used. Reloading ammunition became another major topic. Charlie discussed the economics of handloading and how the financial benefits depend heavily on the type of ammunition being produced and how much a shooter practices. Rob and Amanda noted that while reloading can save money over time, it often evolves into a hobby of its own. They also joked about the temptation to accumulate yet another specialized hobby within the shooting sports world. Competitive shooting and advanced firearms skills were recurring themes throughout the episode. The hosts discussed top-level competitors such as Jerry Miculek and Lena Miculek, marveling at their extraordinary speed, coordination, and technical proficiency. They described examples of Lena performing remarkable feats such as loading shotguns while moving, balancing on exercise balls, riding unicycles, and engaging targets with incredible precision. These stories led to a broader discussion about dedication, practice, and the enormous amount of work required to achieve elite-level performance. Amanda contrasted those accomplishments with her own admitted lack of balance and coordination. She humorously recounted her fear of heights, inability to skip, and discomfort on rooftops, all while expressing admiration for athletes and shooters who possess exceptional balance and body control. The hosts used these stories to emphasize that different people have different natural abilities, but dedication and training can still produce significant improvement. The conversation also explored the concept of natural shooters—people who seem to possess an innate ability to hit targets with little formal training. Rob recalled a foster brother who rarely shot but could consistently excel at shotgun sports whenever he picked up a firearm. The hosts reflected on how some individuals appear to have exceptional hand-eye coordination and target acquisition skills, while others must develop those abilities through practice and repetition. The final portion of the program focused on personal shooting journeys and family influences. Amanda shared stories about her grandfather, an accomplished trap shooter who competed extensively and introduced her to the sport at a young age. She recalled the physically demanding experience of shooting hundreds of trap targets as a child and the lessons her grandfather taught about lead, follow-through, and target tracking. Those experiences shaped her appreciation for shooting sports and influenced her later involvement in firearms education and advocacy. The hosts concluded by reflecting on how their respective paths into shooting evolved—from childhood plinking and hunting to firearms instruction, competition, collecting, and advocacy work. Throughout the discussion, they emphasized the value of continuous learning, mentorship, responsible firearm ownership, and the community connections that develop through participation in shooting sports and Second Amendment activities. The episode balanced serious discussions about training and advocacy with humor, personal stories, and an appreciation for the diverse ways people become involved in the firearms community. /episode/index/show/eottr/id/41579025

Eye on the Target - TARGETHING - Talking Guns

TOPICS