Just a Reminder: You’re All Gun Dealers Now According to the ATF! ~ VIDEO

Understanding the New Gun Dealer Rule: A Simple Breakdown

Eric Blandford, better known as Iraqveteran8888, recently discussed a big change in gun laws. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has a new rule that changes the definition of who is considered a gun dealer. This rule could affect many gun owners, and not in a good way.

What’s New with the ATF Rule?

The ATF’s rule says that now, almost anyone who sells guns aiming to make a profit can be considered a gun dealer. Before, selling guns was the main job of a dealer. But now, even selling just one gun requires a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which requires a lot of extra paperwork and hassle.

What This Means for Gun Owners

This change is tricky because if you try to sell a gun, maybe to get some extra cash or because you don’t need it anymore, you could get caught up in these new rules. Just putting an ad online or having a price tag on your gun at a show could flag you as a dealer.

The Legal and Practical Implications

From a legal standpoint, this adjustment in definition creates a precarious situation for ordinary citizens. The rule places the burden of proof on the accused, presuming them to be dealers unless they can demonstrate otherwise. In a twist of legal logic, the mere act of advertising or marketing a firearm could thrust an individual into the realm of gun dealership.

For the everyday gun owner, the implications are stark. Selling a firearm to liquidate personal assets or due to financial necessity could unexpectedly align them with regulatory scrutiny. This is not merely a bureaucratic hurdle but a profound infringement on personal freedoms and property rights.

People’s Reactions and Fighting Back

Many gun owners and groups are upset about this and think it’s too controlling. They believe this rule could lead to bigger issues like universal background checks or worse. That’s why some are planning to challenge this rule in court to try to stop it.

Eric points out that these new rules seem more about controlling gun owners than keeping people safe. He worries that simple acts like selling a gun could now open up gun owners to unnecessary government oversight. These regulations are less about public safety and more about control. By complicating the simple act of selling a personal firearm, the ATF could be paving the way for a more monitored and less free society where gun ownership is significantly tethered by governmental oversight.

Final Thoughts: Stay Alert and Involved

It’s important for gun owners to keep up with these changes and understand what they could mean for their rights. The definition of a gun dealer might sound small, but it has big implications for the Second Amendment rights. Staying informed and ready to act is crucial for keeping these rights protected.

Subscribe to Iraqveteran8888 where Eric continues to keep an eye on these developments and shares updates, helping the community understand and respond to these changes. As this discussion goes on, remembering our rights and staying involved is key.

Read Related: ATF Unveils New Change to the Definition of a Gun Dealer

from https://ift.tt/iezG67P
via IFTTT

Oral Arguments Set for Texas Silencer Case

The POF 5PK makes a great suppressor host. IMG Jim Grant

A firm date and time for the oral arguments in the Texas silencer case, Paxton v. Dettlebach, has been set. A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on May 1, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in New Orleans, 600 Camp Street. Seating for the public will be limited.

The three-judge panel consists of Judge Edith H. Jones, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, Judge Edith Brown Clement, appointed by H.W. Bush in 1991, and Judge Cory T. Wilson, appointed by Donald J. Trump in 2020. From the case records:

The above referenced case has been scheduled for oral argument on 05/01/2024. It will be held in New Orleans -West Courtroom at 9:00. The Oral Argument session number is 41.

The West Courtroom is on the second floor, room 265. Here are court instructions for attending oral arguments. Attending Oral Arguments:

The courthouse doors open at 8:00 a.m. on argument days. Visitors must show photo identification and pass through security screening. Attorneys and their staff may bring electronic devices into the courthouse. All electronic devices must be turned off in the courtroom unless being used by counsel, with all sounds muted, during argument of their case to retrieve documents previously downloaded to the device. A wireless Internet access point is available in the library for use with personal electronic devices (Room 106 – see librarian for password).

Fifth Circuit Rule 34.7 provides that no cameras, tape recorders, or other equipment designed for the recording or transmission of visual images or sound may be present during oral argument.  All visitors attending oral arguments must turn off cell phones, laptop computers, and similar electronic devices when in the courtroom. You may not blog, tweet, or otherwise transmit contemporaneous or live transcription or observations from the courtroom.

Food and beverages may not be brought into the courtrooms.

Public seating in the courtrooms is on a first-come, first-seated basis, and the amount of gallery seating in each courtroom varies widely.

Recording of the Oral Arguments is not allowed in the Fifth Circuit. A Live link to the arguments is available. It is only available while the arguments are proceeding.  A recording of the Oral Arguments is released by the court after 5:00 p.m. on the day of the arguments.

As mentioned in the previous AmmoLand article, the arguments before the three-judge panel are whether the State of Texas, represented by AG Ken Paxton, has standing in this case or if any of the three individual Texas residents who wish to make their own silencers, without paying the federal $200 tax or placing federally mandated serial numbers on them, have standing.

The District Court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing. It is a major step forward for the standing arguments to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

From the map, easy parking does not appear to be close to the courthouse. If I were in New Orleans, I would attend the oral arguments in person. 20 minutes of arguments are allocated to each side.  Watching the attorneys and the judges can sometimes give hints as to how they may rule. Listening to the live stream is the next best thing to being there.

---

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/s7vwJGF
via IFTTT

NRA Scores Legal Victory in Dispute with DC Attorney General

Opinion
Claims Against NRA Dismissed – No Fines, Penalties or Relief Against NRA Following DCAG Lawsuit

Court Gavel

Fairfax, VA – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has announced a legal victory in a high-profile governance matter brought by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (DCAG).

Filed by the DCAG on August 6, 2020, in obvious coordination with a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General in New York, the suit alleged that the NRA misused tens of millions of dollars of NRA Foundation funds. In response, the NRA challenged the claims as politically motivated and stated that it acted appropriately at all times.

On April 16, 2024, the NRA and NRA Foundation entered into a consent order, whereby the DCAG dismisses all claims against the NRA. The order contains no adverse finding against the NRA and no allegations regarding the use of funds of the NRA Foundation. There are no fines or penalties whatsoever against the NRA.

Discovery proved that all funds received from the NRA Foundation were applied exclusively in furtherance of its charitable programs and that there was no misuse of funds.

“This is further proof of the NRA’s commitment to good governance,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “The NRA confronted this political attack – and emerges from this lawsuit strong, secure, and vindicated. The NRA and NRA Foundation are fully committed to pursuing their world-class firearms education, training, and safety programs.”

The NRA Foundation supports a wide range of public programs focused on firearms safety and training, law enforcement education, hunter safety, and youth. Its Eddie Eagle GunSafe program has taught gun safety to more than 32 million children.

The NRA will continue to administer the NRA Foundation’s programs.

The order in no way limits the NRA Foundation’s ability to amend its articles, bylaws, or other organizational documents.

“This outcome is a resounding win for the NRA and for the NRA Foundation, too. Both remain positioned to meet their respective goals and mission,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The result should bring an abrupt end to allegations against NRA board leadership. The resolution also supports the NRA Foundation as it pursues the highest of ethical and organizational standards – so donors can give with confidence, as always.”

Responding to the DCAG

The DCAG wasted little time in pedaling a false narrative about the settlement. NRA attorneys summed up statements from DCAG Brian Schwalb in two words: distorted and untruthful.

“The statements falsely say the DCAG lawsuit filed in August 2020 caused the NRA to repay loans to the NRA Foundation,” says Brewer. “The commitment to repay the final loan in question came in January 2020. The DCAG ‘spins’ the settlement in avoidance of the facts:  the DCAG long ago abandoned any claims of wrongdoing against the NRA. Even by DC standards, this is rank political gamesmanship – an after-the-fact justification for a failed lawsuit by these officials.

• FACT: The DCAG’s statement that the NRA used NRA Foundation funds for an “unchecked piggy bank” is contradicted by the public record, the settlement agreement, and the DCAG’s own experts. See Plaintiff’s Response to NRA’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts dated July 7, 2023, at p. 14 (admitting that it is “[u]ndisputed” that “[n]either of the District’s experts opined that the NRA did anything wrong or illegal.”).
• FACT:  The settlement contains NO findings or admissions the NRA Foundation misused funds, or that its monies did not support its charitable programs.
• FACT:  The NRA utilized NRA Foundation grants and loans for proper purposes and acted appropriately at all times. The District never even alleged – much less proved – that the NRA ever violated the Nonprofit Corporations Act.
• FACT:  The NRA executed an agreement to repay the NRA Foundation for a final fair-market loan in January 2020 – months before the DCAG filed its lawsuit.
• FACT: Although the District in its lawsuit sought extraordinary remedies, such as a constructive trust, long-term monitorship, and substantial revisions to its Bylaws, the District abandoned these remedies because the facts did not support them.
• FACT:  In the face of these facts, the DCAG settled its lawsuit – abandoning all claims against the NRA and NRA Foundation.

---

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

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

Texas Challenge to Federal Tax on Homemade Silencers Scheduled for Oral Arguments

The lawsuit by the State of Texas, challenging the federal requirement to pay taxes and register homemade silencers, is moving forward in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 29, 2024. The case is now known as Paxton v Dettelbach.

On February 24, 2022, Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, filed suit against the acting head of the ATF, then Marvin Richardson. The lawsuit was required by Texas law. HB 957 became law in Texas on September 1, 2021. On July 15, 2022, Paxton, acting for the State of Texas, amended the lawsuit to include arguments mandated by the Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, published on June 22, 2022. On July 18, 2023, Judge Pittman of the District Court dismissed the case with the claim the State of Texas had no standing. Standing is a controversial method which federal courts often use to dismiss cases they do not wish to adjudicate. From the previous AmmoLand article :

The guidance from our high court on standing continues to be “a morass of imprecision.”1N.H. Rt. to Life Pol. Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1996). At best, standing is now “unsettled in nature [and] beset with difficulties.” Thompson v. Cnty. of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 247 (2nd Cir. 1994). But luckily for this Court, though no one can pinpoint the height of the doctrine’s “amorphous” bar, it is easy to determine that these Plaintiffs have fallen short of it.

The issue presented to the appeals court is whether the State of Texas and/or the individual appellants have standing before the courts. The question is, does Texas have an interest in protecting the constitutional freedoms of its citizens?  Does Texas have an interest in challenging federal restrictions on the State’s application of law passed by the State of Texas? Do individual citizens who are required to pay federal taxes and who must undergo a lengthy process to exercise their right to arms, have a concrete injury which can be brought before the courts? From the Appellants brief:

Before a Texan may make a firearm suppressor for non-commercial, personal use in Texas, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”), as amended, requires him or her to apply for permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“BATFE”) and pay a $200 tax (refunded if permission is denied). If permission is granted, the firearm suppressor still cannot be made unless it has a serial number, and the firearm suppressor is registered in a national database.This case warrants oral argument because it raises issues of exceptional constitutional importance: Do Texans have standing to challenge the constitutionality of those statutory requirements before applying for permission and paying the tax, and does Texas also have standing to vindicate its quasi-sovereign interests in its citizens’ health and safety? Oral argument will assist the Court in evaluating these questions.

The Biden administration put forward arguments claiming the District Court was correct in ruling the individuals in the lawsuit and the State of Texas do not have standing.  The Biden administration states they are willing to present oral arguments if the court requires it.

Oral arguments are currently scheduled for April 29, 2024. Other courts have ruled that a deprivation of constitutional rights, for however short a duration, constitutes irreparable harm. The relationship of the States to the Federal government is an area of law that has been given short shrift since Progressive judges took over the federal courts after the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, extending by the Truman administration until President Eisenhower was elected in 1952.

The scheduling of oral arguments in the case is a positive sign. It indicates the three judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is taking the issues seriously.

The issue of whether silencers are arms covered by the Second Amendment is being litigated in the State of Illinois, which categorically bans the possession of silencers.

---

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/8fywQMi
via IFTTT

Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (dba 80 Percent Arms) Settles Legal Dispute With California

Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (dba 80 Percent Arms) Settles Legal Dispute With California

Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (BMG) has successfully resolved our prolonged legal dispute with the State of California, initiated in August 2021 in San Francisco by Chesa Boudin, the former SF District Attorney who was later ousted by San Francisco voters in a 2022 recall election. The state wrongfully alleged that 80% frames and receivers sold by our company were firearms. This case has now come to a close after intense litigation. Our refusal to disclose customer data, even in the face of substantial legal costs to keep customer data private, underscores our dedication to privacy.

Throughout this challenging period, BMG has consistently upheld its principles, dedicating over 2.5 million dollars toward legal expenses aimed at safeguarding customer information from the State of California. To further ensure our customers’ confidentiality and to end ever-climbing litigation expenses, a settlement of $500,000 was reached to end this abusive litigation.

Resuming California Sales and Advocacy

We are pleased to announce that, following this settlement, we will resume offering products to our customers in California that comply with current state and federal laws. We continue to vigorously defend Second Amendment rights, with our case, VanDerStok et. al. v. Garland, set to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States this October.

---

About Blackhawk Manufacturing Group

Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, dba 80 Percent Arms, is a leader in pro-Second Amendment legal actions against overregulation and the preeminent manufacturer of 80% lowers and jigs. We’re committed to upholding the highest standards of quality and service in the industry.

Thank you for standing with us and we look forward to serving the community of builders for years to come.

from https://ift.tt/k7yjhWU
via IFTTT

Why Progressives Refuse to Support School Protectors

Lawmakers in at least three state capitals are considering laws to repeal state preemption statutes.

The other day, I was speaking to an Australian, attempting to explain to him how American Progressives view simple solutions to rampage school shootings, such as allowing armed military and police veterans to protect schools, as they do in Israel, to be “Off the table.”

This hypothetical exchange between a “Naive Progressive” and an “Old Hand Progressive” was the result:

Naive Progressive:

I am concerned about Trump talking about allowing teachers with police and military experience to be armed to protect schools. Should we get ahead of this by adopting it as our policy, and requiring them to be highly regulated? Then they could become part of the government, and on our side.

Old Hand Progressive:

That sounds plausible. It is not politically correct. Remember, the issue is never the issue. The issue is always the revolution. You have to look long term. The idea of allowing armed teachers to defend schools works against us in many important ways.

It undermines our hard fought for creation of gun free zones in schools. We have the Supreme Court on our side there! We have managed to extend gun free zones to a thousand feet from the boundary of every school! It makes the carry of guns illegitimate in nearly every city in the nation. We are building from that base to extend gun free zones to parks, day care centers, public buildings.  It is far too important a goal to undermine with a policy that allows non-police to be armed in schools.  Can you understand the terrible danger to impressionable minds when students know their role models are carrying guns to defend them? 

It subverts the important principle that defense through the use of force is not legitimate. If we are to disarm the people, they must be convinced that using force is never the answer. Only the government can be trusted with armed force. Using force in self defense creates the illusion: some peoples’ lives are more valuable than others. More guns is always the wrong answer. Only the government has the wisdom to know who should be protected and who should not.

What if one of these “school protectors” got lucky, and stopped a school shooting? We already have problems with that. I can tell you, confidentially, there have been one or two bizarre cases. They are appropriately downgraded and ignored by most of the media, most of the time. But if many schools had armed protectors, the examples would be harder and harder to suppress. The rubes are notoriously gullible.  What if there was video of an armed old white man stopping a school shooter? It could destroy decades of progress.

Consider the message it sends about the military and police. We have made gains in showing how police and military veterans are not to be trusted. This undercuts that important goal. The current military and police are notorious bastions of toxic masculinity and racism. Retired military and police are much worse! To allow them to carry weapons shows they are trusted in an unequivocal way. It sends exactly the wrong message. 

Retired military and police tend to be old white men. They cannot be trusted to be politically correct. Retired police and military are the last people we should allow to be armed.

Mass murder in schools is one of the strongest points we have to push to increase gun safety by disarming the people. The emotions are strong. The optics are great.  If we allow the NRA to win on this front, it will be immeasurably harder to pass sensible gun safety laws.

To obtain a Progressive government, we have to “break a few eggs”. The lives of a few mostly white school children are minuscule compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives we will save by disarming the population.

In a sense, the whole planet is at stake. If Progressive values are undercut, billions will die from climate change.  Only strong, centrally manged world government can manage climate change in an effective way. The toxic masculinity of the United States stands in the way of saving the planet. The Second Amendment is a manifestation of that toxic masculinity.

From a long term view, a few pampered, white, first world children are a small price to pay for saving the planet.

This is the way those of the Progressive, Leftist, or Cultural Marxist persuasion look at the issue. A few lives today are a small price to pay for obtaining Leftist power. Once they are in power, everyone will become much better off …. even if they have to kill a few million people in the process.

---

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/4xJijeK
via IFTTT

Mistrial for Border Rancher Accused of Shooting Illegal Immigrant

Mistrial for Border Rancher Accused of Shooting Illegal Immigrant

Border rancher George Allen Kelly, 75 years old, was on trial, charged with the death of an illegal alien who had been deported numerous times. The body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea (48) had been found in the mesquite about 115 yards from the rural home of George Allen Kelly and his wife, Wanda. The husband and wife had retired to Arizona in 2002 after careers as a state fisheries biologist and a school teacher in Lincoln, Montana.

On January 30, 2023, George Allen Kelly called Border Patrol and said he heard a shot and that he might have to return fire. Investigators come out. They don’t find anything. Late in the evening, Kelly finds the body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea about 115 yards from the house. He calls Border Patrol again. The authorities investigate. They put the body in a freezer. Because the authorities put the body in a freezer, the exact time of death could not be determined by the medical examiner.

There was no ballistic evidence to connect Kelly’s rifle to the body. Several spent shell casings were found on the Kelly’s porch.  No bullet was ever recovered. Butimea’s body was wearing tactical boots, tan pants, a hoodie sweatshirt, and a camouflage top. He had a two-way radio in one pocket. A picture on his phone, in those clothes, showed him with binoculars, but no binoculars were found with the body.

One of the detectives investigating the case went to Mexico to interview a person who claimed to be with Buitemea at the time he was shot and killed.  Daniel Ruiz Ramirez, shown on a court evidence slide as being from Honduras, was a key witness for the prosecution.

Both Daniel Ruiz Ramirez (Varela) and Gabriel Cuen Buitimea had long records of illegal border crossings.  His testimony had several inconsistencies, conducted through a translator.  Ramirez has been reported as an Honduran citizen and as a citizen of Ecuador in different media reports.  Ruiz spoke at the trial through interpreters.

Investigators found texts sent between Kelly and a friend which showed Kelly’s frustration with all the illegal activity he was having to deal with. Some of the texts implied a willingness to use his rifle.

When the county prosecutor decided to charge Kelly with first-degree murder, the case went viral. As evidence accumulated, the prosecution reduced the charge to second-degree murder.

Several GoFundMe accounts were started. GoFundMe removed a number that took down the fundraisers set to aid George Allen Kelly.

Fox News Digital confirmed that GoFundMe removed multiple fundraisers set up to help 73-year-old George Alan Kelly.

GiveSendGo has proved to be less political and more reliable than GoFundMe, which defunded both Kyle Rittenhouse and the Canadian trucker. Here is the statement at the Give SendGo fundraising site. From GiveSendGo.com:

My name is Wanda Correll Kelly.  George Alan Kelly (I call him “Alan”) is my husband of 53 years.  Alan is a man devoted to his family, animals, and home.  In his 75 years, he has been an upstanding member of his community and, more importantly, a rock to our family.  He is a humble person with simple needs.  He likes socks.  He is an animal lover.   Alan and I are living a nightmare.  He has been accused of a serious crime, killing a Cartel member on our property and he is innocent.  We are private people and are horrified about some of things being said about him in the media. We need funds for his legal defense and other related expenses that have arisen as a result of this terrible situation.  Please help keep Alan home with me.

From spotfund.com:

GOFUNDME has taken down all fundraising sites for George.  I chose Spotfund as they allow freedom of speech.

As the trial proceeded, what Kelly told investigators and what the words meant were disputed. It appears some of Kelly’s statements were contradictory.

The Epoch Times reports a defense attorney said one juror was a hold out for conviction, and could not be persuaded, resulting in a hung jury.

---

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/le6oHZw
via IFTTT