President Trump’s ATF Pick Clears Senate Hearing Easily

Robert Cekada, President Donald Trump’s pick to run the ATF, appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. (Photo courtesy United States Senate).

New York state native turned Floridian Robert Cekada spent just over two hours Wednesday along with four judicial candidates testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

By all accounts, Cekada passed the test, and he will likely become the next Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Mr. Cekada has had an extensive career protecting Americans at the state and federal level,” Grassley said. “He served a decade as a police officer, receiving numerous awards. He has also spent two decades at the ATF. He knows how to lead the Bureau because he’s worked tirelessly throughout the chain of command.”

Grassley noted that his committee has received dozens of letters endorsing Cekada for the ATF leadership position, and that Cekada worked closely with his office after an ATF whistleblower revealed ATF’s misclassification scheme and other improper practices.

“Mr. Cekada worked closely with my staff to bring this resolution forward, to make sure no more taxpayer dollars were wasted,” Grassley said. “I commend his fine leadership and aggressive actions to find a solution for this brave whistleblower, and I encourage him to allow more whistleblowers to come forward, to help him understand what’s going on in the Bureau.”

Cekada started his law enforcement career in 1992 as a cadet for the New York City Police Department, where in 1999 he became a detective assigned to the department’s Organized Crime Control Bureau. He has also worked as an officer in Florida, until he joined the ATF in 2005, as a special agent in the Baltimore Field Division. His rise up ATF’s chain of command was swift. In May of last year, he became the ATF’s Deputy Director—it’s number two position.

Cekada’s testimony

Senator Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, introduced Cekada to the committee.

“I’ve had the opportunity to get to know Rob, who is in my view the consummate lawman,” Moran said. “He’s worked beats in New York City, rose through the ranks, and believes in enforcement of law and public safety.”

Moran testified that the ATF is now an agency that insures violent criminals are jailed. He quoted former Attorney General William Barr, who described the ATF as a “can-do agency,” which is worthy of support.

“Robert Cekada is a great nominee to be the next director of the ATF,” Moran said. “I hope you find him favorable to serve in this capacity.”

Cekada testified that his parents fled from communist Yugoslavia in 1966 and became American citizens in 1973.

“They are no longer with us,” Cekada said. “They believed deeply in what this country represents.”

He told the Senate committee that his entire career has focused on “keeping people safe.”

“ATF’s dire mission is public safety. If confirmed, my foremost concern will be making sure ATF supports President Trump’s mandate to make America safer by remaining relentlessly focused on violent crime.”

Legitimate gun owners, Cekada stressed, can stop worrying about the ATF.

“ATF’s mission is not a burden to lawful gun owners or to undermine the Second Amendment,” he said. “The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional guarantee, and I am committed to protecting and preserving it. Effective law enforcement and respect for civil liberties are not competing goals. They are inseparable obligations. I am equally committed to supporting the men and women of the ATF. They deserve clear mission focus and strong leadership.”

Senators’ questions

Senator Grassley led the committee in questioning Cekada.

“What are your top priorities for the Bureau, if confirmed?” he asked.

“The top priorities for the ATF will remain violent crime, illegal use of firearms, explosives and the illegal use of arson,” Cekada said in response. “We will modernize critical systems, forms and licensing systems, which are over 25 years old and unnecessarily burden people, and we will follow President Trump’s Second Amendment order to review all of ATF’s rules to make sure we don’t infringe upon Americans unnecessarily.”

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois told Cekada he had heard that two-thirds of ATF agents, 1,178 of 2,500, had been assigned to enforce immigration.

Cekada said the actual number was around 75 to 100.

“The remainder focus of fighting violent crime throughout the country on a daily basis,” Cekada said. “I support using agents to fight violent crime, specifically fighting gangs.”

Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah asked about restrictions in place on suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns.

“From the ATF’s perspective, the ATF is bound by law,” Cekada said. “If Congress moves suppressors out of the (Gun Control Act), the ATF would be supportive of that decision.”

Senator Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, brought up the Memphis Safe Task Force, which has cut crime in the city by 50-percent.

“ATF is a proud partner of the Memphis Safe Task Force,” Cekada said. “Our small team is a significant contributor. We have the ability to use crime gun intelligence. ATF is not driving around neighborhoods or going through people’s homes looking to burden families with our enforcement actions.”

Senator Corey Booker, D-New Jersey, like Senator Durbin, falsely believed that most of Cekada’s ATF agents were assigned to the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration.

As proof, Booker mentioned a news article he had read in the Trace—a notoriously anti-gun online group paid for by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Booker said the Trace story quoted a former ATF agent named Hamilton. He had the story placed into the Senate record.

“I have no clue about who this Mr. Hamilton is, but I challenge his statement,” Cekada said. “We do have only about 100 people working immigration enforcement.”

California’s Democratic Senator Adam Schiff asked if ATF is seeing a trend with “ghost guns,” which Cekada said the ATF now refers to as “privately made firearms.”

Cekada said his agents have seen privately made firearms and auto-sears, but they are primarily found in jurisdictions with strict firearm restrictions. ATF’s laboratory located in Maryland has found a way to identify them based on their polymers.

Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley touted some of the country’s strongest Second Amendment protections found in his home state, which came under fire during the Biden Administration.

“Biden’s DOJ asked a sheriff for a list of his CCW holders,” Hawley said. “Why do you need records of CCW holders in Missouri? Can you commit that under your leadership ATF will go in a different direction than the last administration? That you’ll focus your law enforcement resources on criminals? As opposed to law abiding citizens who have rights under both the federal and state constitutions.”

“Senator, I can assure you that under my watch the ATF has been 1,000-percent successful in going after people who have committed violent crimes. We’re not here to burden the American citizen who has a complete right to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, and we will not do that in the future if I am so confirmed,” Cekada said. “Unlike some prior ATF directors, I will still be a sworn law enforcement officer. I’ve done this job from a ground level police officer to a task force officer with the Attorney General. I’m not telling people to go out and make the cases. I’ve made the cases myself. I know what it takes. Because we’re a small agency, I’ve worked with every ATF agent that’s out there making cases. We all know each other. We know to stay focused on violent criminals. That’s what you pay us for, and we will continue to do that.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

ATF Registers a Potato as a Suppressor | VIDEO

The Federalist Raises the Supreme Court Conundrum

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/UD45bZP
via IFTTT

ATF Warns of Hoax Homeland Security Letter ‘Suspending Second Amendment’

Is the intent to sow mistrust between the administration and gun owners, and to do so before the midterms?

“Federal authorities say they are investigating a report about a bogus letter purportedly written by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to at least one Vermont gun store claiming the U.S. Government was temporarily suspending the Second Amendment right to have guns,” the Vermont Daily Chronicle reported Monday.

It goes beyond Vermont. A version of the letter targeted to Houston-area Federal Firearms Licensees is embedded below.

“Constitutional rights are a privilege for American citizens, not a guarantee,” the purported “Notice of Enhanced Protection Policies for Homeland Security Agents,” dated Jan. 26, begins. Citing its purpose “to better safeguard the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during upcoming deployment actions,” it declares, “the United States Government is instituting a temporary suspension of the rights granted by the Second Ammendment [sic] of the United State Constitution.”

Not knowing how to spell “Amendment” is a major clue. It then mandates the FFL and employees to:

• [I]mmediately provide a full inventory and record of any and all firearms located on site, along with a log of any personnel with access to said firearms. Failure to comply or providing an inaccurate account may subject you to criminal prosecution.
• Declare firearms being caried and surrender them. “Failure to do so in a timely manner will be interpreted as a deliberate act of domestic terrorism, which may result in both prosecution and aggressive response by government officers.”
• Display the notice “until rescinded,” noting “Removal … will be considered destruction of government property and will result in prosecution.”

This is obviously a clumsy attempt at stirring the pot and creating divisions between the administration and Second Amendment supporters. That it follows high-profile events in Minneapolis and ill-conceived statements by administration officials disparaging armed citizens makes looking into who is behind this spreading effort and their political motivations worth investigating, including if the intent has anything to do with sowing distrust before the midterms.

It didn’t work in Vermont, where the targeted FFL, Green Mountain Sporting Goods,  immediately smelled a rat and contacted ATF, which issued a statement that it is “aware of an obviously fraudulent letter” and encouraging “questionable correspondence” to be reported.

There was a similar response to the Houston letter, with this email accompanying it:

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: “atffflalert@atf.gov” <atffflalert@atf.gov>

Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 at 12:23:02 PM EST

Subject: ATF FFL ALERT – FFL NOTICE HOAX

This is an important message from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. We are aware of the “Notice of Enhanced Protection Policies for Homeland Security Agents” placed on an FFL’s door. We have confirmed with HSI this notice is a hoax. ATF is committed to working with our FFL partners. If you have any questions, please contact your local ATF office. See attached for an example of the hoax.

It remains to be seen if anyone in the FFL community will be dumb enough to fall for this. If any gun store has the fake notice posted, perhaps that’s an indication it’s not a safe place to entrust with business or personal data. There’s also no word at this time on what DHS and the FBI intend to do about this should they be able to identify the perpetrator(s).

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/D3AH8ZO
via IFTTT

Democrats Push Ammo Sales Ban while Courts Question Similar State Restrictions

Democrats Push Ammunition Sales Ban While Federal Courts Question Similar State Restrictions. img Duncan Johnson

Congressional Democrats have revived legislation that would effectively eliminate online ammunition sales nationwide, introducing the measure just weeks before federal courts prepare to reconsider constitutional challenges to similar state restrictions already facing judicial scrutiny.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) unveiled the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act on January 20, 2026, alongside Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD). Filed as H.R. 7166, the legislation would mandate that federally licensed ammunition dealers verify photo identification in person for every internet purchase. The proposal, which resurrects earlier Everytown-backed measures from Watson Coleman, includes an additional surveillance component requiring vendors to report any sales exceeding 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days directly to the U.S. Attorney General.

“Public safety must come before convenience for an unregulated market,” Watson Coleman declared in her statement.“Americans send us to Washington because it is our job to protect them, not mourn them.”

The legislation arrives as federal courts wrestle with precisely these questions in Rhode v. Bonta, a nearly decade-long constitutional challenge to California’s ammunition background check system. The case, supported by the National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association, attacks the Golden State’s first in the nation point-of-sale background check regime that voters approved through Proposition 63 in 2016.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI Blazer Brass 9mm 115 Gr FMJ 1000 Rounds (Loose Packed in a Box)	Ammunition Depot	$ 307.49 $ 235.00
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - JHP - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 487.44
	CCI Blazer 9mm 115gr FMJ Aluminum Case Ammunition, 50 Round Box - 3509	Palmetto State Armory	$ 14.99 $ 12.99
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - FMJ - Bulk Pack - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 324.29

California’s framework, which took effect July 1, 2019, requires ammunition purchasers to complete background checks through one of four avenues, each involving fees ranging from $5 to $31 and unpredictable delays spanning minutes to days.

Constitutional challenges to this measure achieved significant success through two levels of federal courts. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez permanently enjoined enforcement of California’s ammunition background check requirements on January 30, 2024, concluding they “have no historical pedigree” and “violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms.” The decision found that tens of thousands of law-abiding gun owners faced annual rejections based on technical errors in California’s background check system.

A three judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed this ruling on July 24, 2025, in a 2 to 1 decision. Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the panel concluded that California’s ammunition background check regime “meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms” and therefore implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text. The panel determined that California failed to demonstrate the regulation’s consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

However, California successfully petitioned for en banc review, which the Ninth Circuit granted on December 1, 2025. This order vacated the three judge panel’s ruling and scheduled oral arguments for the week of March 23, 2026. The en banc review means the entire appeals court will reconsider the case, creating uncertainty about whether the constitutional protections recognized by the panel will survive.

In a striking development, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief on January 5, 2026, supporting the plaintiffs’ challenge to California’s ammunition regime.

The brief’s language is remarkable in its directness, stating that California’s laws “do not pass even the ‘laugh test'” and the system “evoke[s] a convoluted board game, not a serious attempt to further a legitimate purpose.” The DOJ argues that the regulation is “designed to burden the exercise of the right to bear arms” and that “a firearms regulation that seeks to frustrate the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is a per se violation of the Second Amendment.”

Additionally, a coalition of 26 states filed an amicus brief supporting the challenge, contending that both the background check and anti-importation requirements “burden the fundamental right to armed self defense by interfering with ammunition purchases” and are “unprecedented in our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

This creates a remarkable situation where Democratic legislators propose federal adoption of a state system that the federal executive branch actively opposes in litigation. The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act would nationalize precisely the type of regulatory scheme that federal courts have concluded violates the Second Amendment.

Currently, six states maintain ammunition background check or dealer transfer requirements for direct-to-consumer sales. California and New York operate point of sale systems, while Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require background checks.

The constitutional vulnerability of ammunition background check requirements under the Bruen framework presents formidable obstacles to both California’s existing regime and proposed federal legislation. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on historical tradition and its rejection of interest balancing tests have fundamentally altered Second Amendment jurisprudence, making novel restrictions like point of sale ammunition checks difficult to defend.

Despite its sponsors’ stated concerns about public safety, H.R. 7166 faces insurmountable political obstacles in the current Congress. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio, who has consistently prioritized Second Amendment protections. Republicans hold a narrow 218 to 213 majority in the House.

For gun rights advocates, the simultaneous introduction of H.R. 7166 and the pending Rhode v. Bonta decision represents a defining moment in Second Amendment jurisprudence. If federal courts continue recognizing that ammunition access is inseparable from the constitutional right to bear arms, legislative attempts to impose burdensome restrictions on lawful purchasers may finally face the constitutional scrutiny they have long evaded.

Alex Pretti Shooting Proved the Left Is Lawless — and the Right Is Getting Weak on the Second Amendment

Gun Grabber Propaganda Makes Americans Less Safe (Again)

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/Mh37wWx
via IFTTT

Recollections of Decades-Old Crime Omit Key Details about Assailant

Left unexplored is how the attacker and the victim both favor citizen disarmament.

Mary Jo Buttafuoco is in the news again. Almost 34 years after being shot in the face with an illegally possessed and carried .25 caliber handgun by “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fisher, a teenage mistress of her cheating husband, the story has been resurrected, and no doubt brought to the attention of a new audience, with the January release of a biopic on Lifetime.

The point here is not to repeat a story we can find elsewhere, nor to heap judgment on Fisher, who went on after her prison sentence to exploit her notoriety in the “adult” film industry. Still, her mindset is relevant to understanding the anti-gun political advocacy she went on to promote.

“What I’ve learned over the years is that Amy Fisher is a narcissist — and narcissists don’t change,” Buttafuoco told Fox News Digital. “It’s always been about her. She doesn’t care one iota about what she’s done. It’s also inexcusable for any adult man to take advantage of a teenager. In that sense, she was a victim, but it doesn’t excuse what she did afterward.”

“People are angry at me because I’m a millionaire,” Fisher, who had described Buttafuoco as “a nonentity” and claimed “no sympathy” for her victim, told Steppin’ Out magazine. “But guess what? So is Mary Jo! She made more millions off of what I did than what I made.”

With that as a backdrop, in between capitalizing on her notoriety through selling her story and her sex tapes, Fisher served a brief stint as an opinion columnist, where she advocated for the government disarming those of us who haven’t shot innocent people in the face.

From my Aug. 2005 GUNS Magazine column “Look Who’s Demanding Gun Control”, also featuring anti-gun statements by the suppliers of guns and ammunition to the Columbine killers, and profiles of a Million Morn March Washington DC rally sponsor who paralyzed an innocent man with an “illegal” handgun, and a Million Mom March chapter president found in possession of illegal drugs and a handgun with its serial number filed off by police investigating a series of drive-by shootings:

“Assault weapons were designed for military use,” [Fisher] declared in support of extending the federal ban, even though none of the weapons affected have select-fire capabilities. “If a law-abiding citizen has such a yearning to possess one of these weapons, then let that person join the Marines.”

That column in question has disappeared from the internet, so you’ll just have to take my word for it and the fact that my column claims have remained unchallenged for over 20 years. But here’s a corroborating report that substantiated her views on guns at the time:

“Amy Fisher to Begin Anti-Gun Campaign,” The Associated Press reported in 2003. “Amy Fisher, who set off a frenzy of tabloid headlines a decade ago when she shot her lover’s wife, celebrated the end of her parole by announcing her intention to work for causes aimed at keeping handguns away from minors.”

Making something that’s already illegal more illegal has been the siren call of “commonsense gun safety laws” that has thus far failed to provide a solution that actually works. All it ever does is create more infringements against peaceable citizens.

And proving that she’s not that deep a thinker herself, Fisher’s victim apparently shares her affinity for citizen disarmament.

“I think assault rifles should not exist,” Mary Jo Buttafuoco told Oxygen in 2018. “These are weapons of war. This is to inflict as much damage and pain and suffering in the shortest period of time. We don’t need them. At all.”

Whatever.

By all indications, Fisher tries to live a quiet life today under a different name. That’s fine, the purpose is not to pursue her or to make what has been a difficult life even more so, or to hold past actions and statements against her. Rather, with her story recalled by recent related publicity, the purpose here is to remind readers that, then and now, aberrant people aren’t constrained by the laws most of us strive to observe.

More laws against us have no effect on choices made by them.

The timeless truism is that the people most insistent on controlling us continually prove to be incapable or unwilling to control themselves.

Gun Grabber Propaganda Makes Americans Less Safe (Again)

The Federalist Raises the Supreme Court Conundrum

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/zqQKi6d
via IFTTT

New Mexico Legislature Debates Ban on Semi-Automatics and Magazines Over 10 Rounds

New Mexico Legislature Debates Ban on Semi-Automatics and Magazines Over 10 Rounds. img Jim Grant

The New Mexico legislature is considering what appears to be an unconstitutional bill, SB17. The bill creates considerable red tape and record-keeping requirements for gun dealers. It also bans the sale of numerous common firearms by simply requiring that dealers be forbidden to process background checks for those firearms. New Mexico requires dealers to run background checks for nearly all firearm sales.

Excerpts of the bill from nmlegis.gov:

A. Beginning on July 1, 2026, a dealer shall not sell or transfer any of the following firearms, ammunition or devices to a person who is not licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 923, nor shall a dealer process a background check pursuant to Section 30-7-7.1 NMSA 1978 for the transfer of any of the following firearms, ammunition and devices between parties that are not licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 923;

(1) a detachable magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition;… 

(4) a gas-operated semiautomatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine;

(5) a gas-operated semiautomatic firearm with a fixed magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition;

SB17 has seven sponsors as of this writing. There are six women and one man. Senators Micaelita Debbie O’Malley, Andrea Romero, Heather Berghmans, Charlotte Little, Patricia Roybal Caballero, and Peter Wirth. They are all members of the Democratic Party. Senator Peter Wirth is the Majority Floor Leader. Republicans in the New Mexico House are asking the federal Department of Justice for help.

From Sourcenm.com:

New Mexico House Republicans on Wednesday in a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice asked Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to carefully review SB17 and offer guidance on its constitutionality. 

“Among other provisions, SB17 would prohibit the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms in common use, ban magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and outlaw entire classes of firearms based on operating mechanisms rather than criminal misuse,” the letter, signed by 26 New Mexico House Republicans, says. “At a time when New Mexico faces one of the highest crime rates in the nation, SB17 does nothing to target violent offenders. Instead, it imposes sweeping bans on law-abiding citizens, firearm dealers and sportsmen.”

Both the Attorney General of New Mexico and the Administrative Office of the District Attorneys of New Mexico recognize that there will be legal challenges to the portions of the bill that ban the sale of firearms and magazines with more than 10 rounds.

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) claims the odds are that the bans would be upheld in the courts. DPS estimates a one-time cost of about $874,000 to build systems and recurring costs of about $1.6 million annually to enforce the provisions of the SB17. This correspondent did not find an estimate of the costs of defending the constitutionality of the bill in the courts.

The bill may face challenges based on the New Mexico state constitution.  From NM Const art II § 6:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) 

SB17 has not been voted on at present. The New Mexico Senate has 26 Democratic members and 16 Republican members. The House of Representatives has 44 Democratic members and 26 Republican members.

Gun control has not been a highly popular issue in the state. SB17 may be amended in committee.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/Lcebf7k
via IFTTT

NW Anti-Gun Lawmakers Target Gun Owners’ Wallets

Democrats in Oregon and Washington want to dig deeper into the wallets of gun owners.

Anti-gun-rights Democrats in Oregon and Washington have a new strategy to strangle the right to bear arms on both sides of the Columbia River, and it is squarely aimed at their wallets.

In Washington, Democrats in Olympia are looking at adding $100 to the nonrefundable fee for a concealed pistol license, jacking the cost up from $36 to $136, with the money ostensibly earmarked to fund a “juvenile firearm early intervention alternative account.” The measure, House Bill 2456, was already heard by the House Committee on Early Learning & Human Services, while alarmed critics say the legislation should be before the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee.

Under the bill’s language, “The nonrefundable fee, paid upon application, for the original five-year license shall be one hundred thirty-six dollars plus additional charges imposed by the federal bureau of 4 investigation that are passed on to the applicant. No other state or local branch or unit of government may impose any additional charges on the applicant for the issuance of the license.”

In neighboring Oregon, there’s a move on via House Bill 4145 which would raise the cost of a permit-to-purchase from the $65 maximum to $150. In an alert to its members, the Oregon Firearms Federation warned, “This bill doubles the time you must wait to receive a “permit” to attempt to purchase a firearm and jacks up all fees. This dramatic increase in fees is no doubt another example of Oregon’s Democrats’ compassion for low‑income Oregonians—people most likely to live in high‑crime areas.”

OFF is also unhappy by what it calls a “carve-out” for law enforcement and retired law enforcement.

Oregon’s legislation is an effort to get around problems with controversial Measure 114, which is now before the state Supreme Court, which may issue a decision at any moment whether the citizen initiative—passed narrowly by voters in 2022—is constitutional. Democrats do not care to wait. They want to pass restrictive gun control laws now.

Democrats have a virtual stranglehold on the respective capitols in Olympia and Salem, and they are also considering other measures, but hitting gun owners in their pocketbooks is definitely high on their list of “To Dos.”

In the Evergreen State, the number of active concealed pistol licenses is continuing its four-month decline. The state Department of Licensing advised Ammoland News this week that the number of CPLs has dropped to 701,456, which is down more than 11,500 from the count at the end of September 2025. There are likely many reasons for the decline—this seems to happen regularly, only to rebound later in the year—but there is also a lot of movement by gun owners out of the state. High taxes, and the related high cost of living, along with a slew of increasingly restrictive gun laws, has had an effect. Gun owners who have left the state for friendlier environs (Texas, Idaho, Montana, Florida, for example) frequently post messages on social media declaring, “I’m sure glad I left.”

Both Oregon and Washington have anti-gun governors and attorneys general, and the state supreme courts on both sides of the Columbia are very liberal, although three justices on Washington’s high court are calling it quits this year, opening the way for moderate or conservative candidates to run.

Meanwhile, Washington lawmakers are also looking at a so-called “safe storage” law. House Bill 1152 mandates “secure storage” in vehicles and residences. Republican State Rep. John Ley (18^th District) posted this message on the Washington Legislative Action Group’s Facebook Page:

“I am writing to provide an update on House Bill 1152, regarding secure storage requirements for firearms, which is rumored to be scheduled for a floor vote in the House next week.

“I know many of you have expressed strong opposition to this bill, arguing that it places excessive, unconstitutional burdens on law-abiding gun owners rather than focusing on criminals. I hear your concerns regarding the implications of mandatory, in-home, and vehicle storage requirements, particularly how they may impact personal self-defense capabilities.

“While proponents argue this bill will reduce gun thefts and increase public safety, I understand the viewpoint that it criminalizes victims of theft and infringes upon Second Amendment rights.

“As this bill moves to the House floor for a vote, I want to ensure your voices are heard.

“How You Can Take Action:

“Submit a Comment: Please go to the Washington State Legislature website today and select “Oppose” for HB 1152. This is the most effective way to ensure all legislators see your stance…Call or email representatives immediately to voice your opposition before the floor vote.

“I am monitoring this legislation closely and will continue to advocate for the rights of responsible firearm owners.”

In the Pacific Northwest, embattled gun owners on both sides of the Columbia River could use a bunch of people like Rep. Ley.

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop

Trump DOJ Submits Brief in Massachusetts Handgun Roster Case

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/eE41ulX
via IFTTT

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop, iStock-945999932

It appears the anti-gun nonprofit 97Percent has returned, although there have been massive internal changes and it is much less now than it used to be.

We haven’t heard much from them since they plagiarized photos of top female shooters to gaslight the public into believing they were not an anti-gun group.

97Percent’s one-time executive director, Elizabeth Troye—once a senior advisor to Vice President Mike Pence—has been scrubbed from the group’s website.

In her place is Christopher Carita, an ex-cop who just last year was denied a disability pension by Fort Lauderdale’s Police and Firefighter Pension Board by a 4-3 vote. Apparently, a majority of the board members didn’t believe Carita was suffering from PTSD, because his application did not meet the criteria for being “service connected, permanent and total.”

Carita’s takeover appears to be solely to increase support for his current work, which is holding classes on “red flag” laws, which he calls Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or ERPOs.

Carita, it should be pointed out, is a huge ERPO proponent, even though they are only law in 21 states.

Other than advocating for Carita’s classes and workshops, 97Percent’s website has, for now, remained mostly the same.

97Percent took its name from a long-debunked Quinnipiac poll that falsely claimed 97% of Americans supported mandatory background checks. The group calls the remaining 3-percent “loud voices who have crowded out conversation and prevented collaboration between gun owners and non-gun owners.”

97Percent has never addressed the problems associated with polling gun owners, including our unwillingness to tell strangers there are firearms in our homes—especially over the phone. Instead, the group claimed it focuses on policies that both gun owners and non-gun owners support. Both sides, the group says, share the common goal of keeping our communities safe.

But even despite its new executive director, research has shown that 97Percent is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-gun organization, overseen by a board of hardcore anti-gun zealots.

Here are some of 97Percent’s activities:

1. 97Percent has supported an “assault weapon” ban.
2. 97Percent has supported a standard-capacity magazine ban.
3. 97Percent has supported a bump-stock ban.
4. 97Percent has supported expanded red-flag laws.
5. 97Percent has supported permits to carry firearms.
6. 97Percent has supported permits to purchase firearms.
7. 97Percent has supported permits to possess firearms.
8. 97Percent has supported the loss of Second Amendment rights upon conviction of a “violent misdemeanor.”
9. 97Percent has supported mandatory storage laws, which would lead to mandatory home inspections by police.
10. 97Percent has supported mandatory background checks, without acknowledging they would lead to mandatory firearm registration and the creation of a national gun registry.
11. 97Percent claims the Second Amendment is “overprotected.”
12. 97Percent claims “rapid fire guns” are not used for hunting or home defense but doesn’t define the term.
13. 97Percent claims popular semi-automatic firearms are “weapons of war.”
14. 97Percent claims constitutional carry results in increased homicide rates.
15. 97Percent’s advisory board is stocked with radical anti-gun extremists, including a former president of the Brady campaign.

Carita in charge

According to his group’s website, Carita claims he has “six years of experience in Threat Response and Extreme Risk Protection Order Implementation, and 10 years in Criminal Investigations in his 20-year law enforcement career.”

“Christopher earned his Master of Public Health with a focus on violence prevention as a BAHI Fellow at Johns Hopkins University and currently advises at the National ERPO Center on implementation. He is also a DHS Master Trainer for Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management,” the website states.

During one of his training videos, Carita claimed his group has a “strong focus on bringing gun owners into policy discussions.”

However, Carita did not respond to phone calls, texts or emails sent via his website, so there’s at least one gun owner he doesn’t want to bring into any policy discussion. Also, his website’s “contact us” and “media inquiries” buttons have both been disconnected.

“Most gun owners agree ERPOs are good,” he said in the video. “An ERPO is a valuable tool—a court order that prevents someone from possessing or purchasing firearms.”

Most gun owners view them as just another way for the government to unconstitutionally seize their firearms. I don’t know one gun owner who actually believes “ERPOs are good.”

Carita addressed how ERPOs can change law enforcement’s longstanding traditional role.

“An ERPO is a shift for law enforcement, from pure enforcement to prevention,” he said in the video.

One Florida lawmaker recently proposed a bill that would repeal the Parkland-era red-flag laws throughout the state.

Carita has already written several anti-gun stories, which the traditional media has picked up. Just last year, he wrote how Florida’s open-carry ruling “put Florida law enforcement in a tough spot.”

He created a Florida Risk Protection Order working group on LinkedIn. Currently, it has nine members, including Carita.

Anti-gun board of directors  

Anyone who believes 97Percent is not an anti-gun group need only look at their board of directors, which has not changed much.

Board member Richard Aborn served as president of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and as president of Handgun Control Inc., which became the Brady Campaign. According to Aborn’s bio, “He was a principal strategist behind the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.”

Board members John Goodwin and Abra Belke were both federal lobbyists for the National Rifle Association, until they broke with the NRA. Goodwin has since become an anti-gun resource for the legacy media.

An official with the National Shooting Sports Foundation said board members Congressmen Steve Israel and Seth Moulton, “never stood to protect the Second Amendment rights. Just the opposite.”

Board member Ketch Secor, founder of the Old Crow Medicine Show band, published a guest essay in The New York Times titled: “Country Music Can Lead America Out of its Obsession with Guns.”

“It’s time for country music makers to use their platforms to speak candidly to their conservative audiences,” Secor wrote. “Our outrage needs to move from the green room to center stage.”

Board member Michael Wear served in the White House during President Barack Obama’s first term and was in charge of religious outreach for Obama’s re-election campaign. He is extremely anti-gun.

In 2021, after the Texas House passed a constitutional carry bill, board member Mark McKinnon took to Twitter.

“It’s not The Onion. The Texas House of Representatives just passed a legislation that allows people to carry guns WITHOUT a permit/license. So, they think it should be easier to carry a gun and harder to vote,” McKinnon posted.

In 2022, McKinnon coauthored a guest column that was published by The Hill, which actually claimed gun owners want more gun control.

Takeaways

As we said in a previous story, 97Percent leadership will never have a conversation with gun owners they claim they want as long as the group advocates for “assault weapon” bans, magazine bans, bump-stock bans, expanded red-flag laws, mandatory permits to purchase, carry and possess firearms, mandatory storage laws or expanded background checks.

As a result, 97Percent remains nothing but a second-rate anti-gun group, regardless of who’s in charge.

Larry Keane is the senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry’s trade association.

He and the NSSF are well aware of the group.

Said Keane: “This 97Percent group is nothing but a Trojan Horse pretending to be something other than what it is. It is a gun control group backed by gun control money, pretending to be something neutral, such as a gun owner group. But as we have pointed out in the past, they haven’t ever identified a single piece of gun-control legislation they feel should be appealed. They only want more gun control. This person is an ERPO champion, none of which have any due process. They are fooling nobody. It’s just an attempt to drive a wedge between gun owners and the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation, who truly represent the interests of gun owners.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

Despite Slick Marketing, LA-based Nonprofit 97Percent is 100-percent Anti-Gun

Trump’s Second Amendment support questioned after Minneapolis shooting

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/6hTGB9M
via IFTTT