‘National Security’ Excuse Takes War on Guns to Dangerous New Level

With his NSC proxies out there equating gun owners with terrorists ready to inflict “mass casualty attacks” on American soil, this is starting to sound more like Joe’s Plan to End Gun Owners.

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “We share Biden’s view that the level of U.S. gun violence is a ‘national embarrassment,’” an April 22 Politico opinion piece declares. “But as National Security Council veterans who have specialized in counterterrorism—with direct experience involving far-right American terrorism, burgeoning jihadism, and Northern Irish extremism in the 1990s—we also see a new threat rising, one that has the potential to change the urgency of the debate: the growing, and heavily armed, American militia movement, which made a show of force on January 6.”

The writers are Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson, Clinton and Obama-administration operatives with globalist bona fides, that is, violence monopoly apparatchiks now exploiting their career “intelligence” credentials to further the disarming of their countrymen. Their expertise with spook agency propaganda and disinformation is evident from the start, as the only “heavily armed” actors making “a show of force on January 6” were government enforcers: despite media excuse-making, none of the supposed “militia” members identified in the Capitol were reported to have firearms.

Four of the people who died, two from heart attacks and one from amphetamine intoxication, were protesting that election fraud allegations had been dismissed without a thorough and transparent evaluation of evidence. The only citizen from among them who died from gunfire was a female veteran. Her Capitol Police killer, who the government has refused to even identify, got a pass on excessive force. The one LEO who died, a Trump supporter, incidentally, expired from “natural causes” (initially falsely reported to have been due to being smashed in the head with a fire extinguisher but that later turned out to look like wishful thinking on the part of the DSM).

“Increasingly, as militias acquire and stockpile weapons, they’re turning guns from a public-health concern into a threat to national security,” the wonks offer, relying on their readership believing widely-spread “gunquack” hysteria that there actually is a public health crisis. There’s not.

What they’re doing here is an old trick probably best described by novelist Thomas Pynchon:

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.”

“These groups, with transnational ties, also enjoy easy access to high-power, high-capacity, small-caliber semiautomatic weapons—many of which can be converted to fully automatic,” Simon and Stevenson hyperventilate:

“The concern isn’t that these weapons will somehow enable militias to challenge the U.S. military on the battlefield, which they certainly will not. It is that they make mass casualty attacks against political or cultural adversaries both easy to carry out, and easy to frame as inspirational events of the kind that mobilize insurrection.”

For being such sought-after foreign policy subject matter experts, they must not have heard of Afghanistan. Either that or it’s no wonder this country continues to find itself neck-deep in interminable foreign entanglements with desk-bound eggheads like these doing the advising. And you’d think by now at least one of the millions of NRA members would have carried out one of those “mass casualty attack” rampages they want everyone to fear (instead of being prepared to survive).

What they’re doing here is a naked, political smear job, journalistic malpractice based on lies, libel, and hate. They’re equating patriotic Americans intent on preserving the rule of law, not of men, with lawless, mass-murdering terrorists. Here’s a hint: Those who believe in the Second Amendment believe in the whole Bill of Rights and in due process. Based on their actions, indiscriminate killers, like the evil maniac who slaughtered defenseless people in New Zealand, do not, and their genocidal collectivist bent is more in line with the track record of Simon and Stevenson’s Team Totalitarian.

It’s also curious that these Deep State cheerleaders sought to compare Constitutionalists to Sinn Féin. It’s fair to ask how “independent” individuals can be when those who would lead their rebellion are steeped in Marxist goals.

Influencers from the NSC weighing in on “gun control” take things up more than a notch, to the point of adding a chilling new dimension to the government’s options. They are creatures of the White House, and their goals are its goals.

We’ve already seen how NSC accountability can be denied by the White House from the stonewalled efforts to investigate Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking.” The Obama administration refused to allow the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Senate Judiciary Committee to question former National Security Council North American Affairs Director Kevin O’Reilly. He was the “official” who was not in any “need-to-know” loop, but who nonetheless was provided with GRIT (Gun Runner Impact Team) information by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division’s special agent in charge, who sent it to him with the CYA disavowal: “You didn’t get these from me.”

This was an operation resulting in untold numbers of people killed. And the NSC functionary didn’t have to talk to the representatives of the people because he was untouchable, protected from on high.

Unelected bureaucrats can no doubt feel pretty powerful knowing they can get away with all that and no one will call them on it. Powerful enough to put together a secret kill list targeting Americans without due process, as a panel reporting to the Obama administration did with an alleged “key” Al Qaeda operative.

Yeah, well, he was probably a terrorist, so that’s different, right?

So how are these NSC flacks now very publicly portraying armed Americans who will not go gentle into that good night?

And naturally, the media is doing its part to spread narrative talking points:

“MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace … likened President Trump and millions of his supporters to domestic terrorists while fondly reminiscing about the days when American citizens overseas were killed by drone strikes during the global war on terror.”

Is anybody else getting a bad feeling about this?

---

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.

The post ‘National Security’ Excuse Takes War on Guns to Dangerous New Level appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3xyaFqR
via IFTTT

Pants On Fire: Biden’s Bogus Gun Control Claim Up in Smoke

Joe Biden has been caught in another canard about guns. (Screen snip, Biden-Harris campaign.)

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- When Joe Biden declared during his address to Congress and the country—as quoted by The Hill—that, “We need a ban on assault weapons and high capacity again. Don’t tell me it can’t be done. We did it before and it worked,” he evidently didn’t count on people listening who knew better.

One of those people was the National Review’s David Harsanyi, and he quickly blew the whistle on Biden’s prevarication.

“Biden is insinuating that once the Federal Assault Weapons Ban sunsetted in 2004,” Harsanyi writes, “gun violence skyrocketed. It simply wasn’t so. The rate of gun homicide continued falling for more than a decade after the ban ended, even though gun ownership exploded.”

At approximately 56 minutes and 40 seconds into his speech, Biden also repeated the canard—off script according to the official White House transcript—“From the very beginning, there were certain guns, weapons that could not be owned by Americans.”

However, as far back as June 30 of last year, Politifact was calling Biden out on this assertion. Several historians and even the Biden campaign were contacted. Here’s what Politifact wrote at the time: “The campaign was unable to come up with an example of a law banning private ownership of cannons, and historians of the period doubt that any existed. To the contrary, there are documented instances of privateers, or privately owned vessels, setting sail with cannons during the period.”

“We rate the statement False.”

Biden’s assertion that he does not want to “become confrontational” is a head-shaker because it is precisely what he is doing by calling for a ban on an entire class of firearms which, incidentally, are routinely mischaracterized as “weapons of war.” The so-called “assault weapons” he wants banned are semiautomatic modern sporting rifles and they are the most popular long gun in America today. Millions of them are privately owned, meaning they are “in common use,” by people who have harmed nobody, or the crime statistics would show it.

Check any FBI Uniform Crime Report over the past several years and one thing immediately becomes clear. Rifles of any kind—including semi-autos—are used in a fraction of all homicides. More people are murdered in any given year with knives or blunt instruments than with rifles, according to the data. One might ask, why is Biden so insistent on a ban?

Perhaps the answer is found in an April 4, 1996, Washington Post column authored by the late Charles Krauthammer.

“Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction,” he observed. “Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”

Another point Harsanyi makes in his National Review article is that during the period when homicides were declining, gun ownership soared.

This is hardly the first time Biden has been caught in a fib about firearms. Earlier this month, he earned two “Pinocchios” from Washington Post Fact-Checker Glenn Kessler, which was also reported by AmmoLand News.

The push may be on in Biden’s administration to enact more gun control laws because of the Supreme Court’s announcement it will review a challenge to New York’s carry permit law. The anti-gun community is fearful of a floodgate opening on Second Amendment cases with a presumably conservative majority ready to eradicate restrictive gun control laws. This is one reason Capitol Hill liberals have been talking about packing the Supreme Court.

Some states are already acting in response to Biden’s executive actions on guns. In Idaho, a House panel earlier this week “approved legislation intended to head off a half-dozen executive actions from President Joe Biden,” the East Idaho News reported. The state passed legislation back in 2014 preventing enforcement of federal actions “that infringe upon Second Amendment rights,” the newspaper said.

This new legislation would prevent enforcement of Biden’s executive actions, and it has already been passed by the State Senate.

The president can make any claim he wishes about not being confrontational, but clearly the “confrontation” has already started, and he’s not going to help the issue by repeating falsehoods.

RELATED:

• SCOTUS to Hear NY Right-to-Carry Case; Stage Set for Gun Law Upheaval
• Biden’s Nose Keeps Growing as WaPo Gives 2 New ‘Pinocchios’ on Guns

---

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.

The post Pants On Fire: Biden’s Bogus Gun Control Claim Up in Smoke appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2QKGhZB
via IFTTT

The Case for More Guns, Learn to Think Like The Sheep Who Chose to Be Unarmed

Courtesy Dean Weingarten

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- People in the gun culture often express amazement about people who want them disarmed. They ascribe the desire to hostility and malice. It may be true for a minority of those who actively wish for a disarmed population.  A significant number, likely a majority, have made a voluntary decision to be unarmed.

It is important to know your opponent and to understand their motives.

Three years ago, this correspondent wrote an essay on how to understand people who want a disarmed population. It was popular but did not appear on AmmoLand News at that time.

I have updated the essay for current conditions.

There Is An Easy Way To Understand People Who Wish You To Be Unarmed.

It takes a little discipline. You may have a little mental discomfort, but it is not particularly difficult.  For the ability to understand the other side, assume you have deliberately chosen to be unarmed.

Choosing to be armed is more difficult. It requires action. It requires training. It requires an investment in money and time. You think about unpleasant realities and plan for unpleasant possibilities. You devote time and money to be armed. A higher level of responsibility is required.

Once you internalize the decision to be unarmed, arguments on the other side become understandable. The voluntarily unarmed people we are attempting to understand are those who have moved from the decision to be unarmed, to the policy statement “guns are bad”.

Guns are Bad

Armed people have a power advantage over unarmed people. People do not want others to have a power advantage over them. It makes them uncomfortable. To prevent this, the voluntarily unarmed often want everyone else to be unarmed.

It is why many who are voluntarily unarmed dislike concealed carry but violently abhor open carry. Open carry presents them with a reality they cannot easily ignore. It destroys their comfortable fantasy.

People more easily accept information that reinforces what they already believe. It is a form of selection bias. If you choose to be unarmed, you easily accept the news that validates your choice. If authority figures tell you your decision to be unarmed makes you safer and more virtuous, you want to happily accept that as true.

If a politician proposes restrictions on gun owners and gun buyers, you appreciate their efforts. You do not own a gun. You do not intend to own a gun. Such proposals cost you nothing. The costs are born by other people, people who made a different choice. Armed people.

Restrictions on armed people appear to be positive because you believe fewer guns means you will be less likely to have a personal conflict with an armed person.  You are unconcerned with whether the proposed restriction is stupid, draconian, ineffective, or unjust. To a deliberately unarmed person, the cost is zero. Any reduction in the number of guns is seen as a reduction of risk to you.

One of the costs you avoid by choosing to be unarmed is any necessity to learn about firearms, firearms technology, and the dynamics of armed conflict. When people who are knowledgeable point out technical mistakes in proposed legislation, discussion, or articles, it strikes you as meaningless babble. Semi-automatic, automatic, who cares? You are not interested in guns, so the technical distinctions seem unimportant.

Remember, you have voluntarily decided to be unarmed. If you admit arms are effective in preventing crime, or might be necessary for any defense, you might need to re-evaluate your assumptions.  Re-evaluating assumptions about reality is painful for most people.

This explains attempts to minimize crime, minimize the dangers of wild animals, minimize government ineffectiveness in emergencies. It explains why so much effort is expended to discredit the number of times firearms are used for self-defense and to prevent crime.  It explains the insistence that government can never become tyrannical.

It is difficult for an unarmed person to disarm an armed one.  Because you fear those who are armed, you need a champion to disarm them. Your champion is the government.  To believe the government is your champion, you assume the government is benevolent; the government is concerned with your safety; the government will be there to protect you in need. This mindset is easier to maintain if you believe the need for a protector is minimal. Many voluntarily unarmed people put significant effort in an attempt to minimize the need for armed protection.

The purpose of learning to think like someone who made the decision to be unarmed is to understand how to persuade those who have adopted the mindset, or who may be deciding to be unarmed or not. It is easier to persuade them if you understand the mindset.

Deciding to be unarmed depends on a perceived high cost to be armed, and a perceived low cost to being unarmed.

Many people who once were voluntarily unarmed have been persuaded and see the advantages of being armed.

Making the Case

There are several effective methods to persuade the undecided and voluntarily unarmed. The methods show the benefits of being armed for the individual and society, and the costs of being unarmed. They work on both emotional and logical levels.

An important part of persuasion is to present yourself as polite and reasonable. On the Internet, you are speaking to the world. Being polite and reasonable does not mean you have to agree.  It is not hard to show people their misconceptions in kind ways. It helps persuade those who are reading but not participating.

One strong way to change the cost-benefit ratio for deliberately unarmed people is to show armed citizens make them safer. Show how armed or legally armed-people make them more safe rather than less safe.  Show how armed people work to prevent crime, rather than to cause it.

Examples of people who used firearms to prevent crime can be used to good effect. Show them how people who are legally armed are more law-abiding than police. Show legally armed people have stopped mass murder.  Show were armed people have saved police lives.

The voluntarily unarmed do not need to become armed to see advantages in having legally armed people about. Legally armed people become another force to preserve order, in addition to the police.

Another method is to lower the personal fear of firearms. This is very effective. Invite them to go shooting. Make this a pleasant experience.  Have them shoot a .22, using hearing protection or a suppressor. Have the target up close, so it is hard for them to miss. A great many people change their opinion about firearms after a trip to the range.

It is one of the reasons those who wish to disarm us work hard to make it difficult to shoot legally. There are no public ranges in Chicago open to ordinary people.

You can reduce the perception of the cost of an armed population by showing them facts about firearm accidents. Tremendous strides have occurred to reduce fatal firearms accidents. The rate of fatal gun accidents has been reduced by 94%in the last 90 years. Show them fatal gun accidents involving young children are extremely rare, less frequent than fatal accidents involving bicycles or glass tabletops.

Explaining the uncertainty of the future can help them become aware of potential future needs for firearms. They may want to be armed in the future. Use historical examples. You do not have to go far. Consider rooftop Koreans, or shop owners in Ferguson, Missouri.

This shows them the benefit of keeping their options open. Explain how changes in society or their personal situation may make the ownership of a firearm more important or useful. People often become more aware of the need for defense when they become parents or homeowners.

The surge in new gun owners shows how effective this motivation can be.

The desire to be armed is rooted in human nature, #ad in the desire to protect ourselves, those we love, our possessions, and our society.

Many who are voluntarily unarmed took the road of least resistance. If they can be gently persuaded to consider and reflect on their choice, they can change their mind.

The other side of the cost-benefit ratio is worthwhile. People who have chosen to be unarmed should be educated that disarming others is not cost-free.  Increased distrust in society, increased black markets in arms, increased risk of armed resistance, and low-level warfare can increase their personal risk.

Society becomes fragmented and divided. Everyone becomes far less secure. Attempting to disarm society carries serious risks for those pushing the disarmament as well as those society attempts to disarm.  Draconian gun restrictions have not reduced murder rates or the number of illegal guns.

In a society with 470 million privately owned guns, and gun sales at record levels, It will either take societal upheaval or many generations to disarm the American population if it is possible at all. Those who are unarmed will be vulnerable.

Very few choose to obey a law to register guns.  For fear of sparking serious unrest, the 90-98% who do not comply are not subject to house-to-house searches.  The media attempt to convince people that guns are useless when social cohesion breaks down.  Have you seen movies where guns, lying about, are ignored while the hero picks up a club, or runs away? They are common on the net, but not very popular.

You can tell them how strict gun control is seen by a large percentage of the population as violating basic human rights, the Constitution, and the rule of law. Most people can understand how bad it is for a country to lose trust in the rule of law. Look at Chicago, Venezuela, the U.S. Virgin Islands. In all those areas, the rule of law has broken down.  This is a powerful argument, which is why those desiring an unarmed population spend so much time misrepresenting and attacking the Second Amendment.

Explain the physical limits of gun control. Show how people with minimal technology make guns with ease; explain that gunpowder, priming, and bullets were all made in households and small shops by 1880. People today still use those techniques. They are supplemented by easily obtained and inexpensive machine tools, chemical equipment, and even 3D printing.  The information is available to anyone with a computer.

The gun culture and Second Amendment supporters have physics, chemistry, facts, human nature, and the Constitution on their side.

Those who wish a disarmed population can win if they suppress and control the flow of information. Those who oppose Second Amendment rights necessarily oppose free exercise of the First Amendment.

Compared to nearly the entire rest of the world, people in the United States have retained the ability to choose to be legally armed or unarmed. Most people in the USA want to keep the option. Nearly all the rest of the world does not have it.

---

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.

The post The Case for More Guns, Learn to Think Like The Sheep Who Chose to Be Unarmed appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3ua9T0O
via IFTTT

Intruder Attacks Homeowners with a Hammer- Armed Citizen Stories

At Home, at Work, and on a Date – More Self Defense Gun Stories

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- We start with this news report from ABC13 in Houston, Texas.

You are at home on a Saturday night. It is after 10 when you hear unusual sounds from the back of your house. You go to the backdoor to see what is going on. That is when a man with a hammer breaks through the backdoor. He attacks you with the hammer as well as attacking the other person living in the home with you. You run to get your gun. You come back and shoot your attacker. Now he stops his attack.

You and the other occupant of the home retreat and call police. Emergency Medical Services take the three of you to the hospital for treatment.

Comments

The defender did a number of things that helped him save his life and the life of his housemate. He owned a gun for self-defense. That made a huge difference when he faced an attacker who was swinging a hammer at him. Also, the homeowners locked their back door. That forced the intruder to make noise by smashing his way into their home. The defender heard that forced entry. Rather than ignore the noise, the homeowners took action. Later, the defender got his firearm and protected himself and the other occupants of the home. Both of the occupants retreated and called 911. They stayed at the scene and gave a brief statement to the police.

These news articles always leave out many of the details we want to know. If we’re going to investigate a problem then let’s bring the tools we might need to solve it. If I go unarmed and an attacker is hitting me and my family with a hammer, then I’d hate to have to turn away from my family so I could get my gun. That is a decision we can avoid by planning ahead.

Let me say that another way. A plan is as important as any of the physical tools you might use in your defense. Each family needs a plan of their own.

If you’re living alone, then you can retreat to your bedroom. I assume you’re carrying a loaded firearm on your body if you’re out of bed. If not, then you should go get your gun. Once you’re armed then you can lock your door, get your phone, and call the police. Get behind the bed with your gun pointed at the locked door. I almost forgot, but you want to turn on the lights so you can see what is going on and identify any threat before your finger heads towards the trigger. Once you’re in that situation, you now have a very high chance of surviving an attack.

Things are more complicated if there are other people living in your home with you. Two unrelated adults may decide for each of them to simply defend themselves. They can each retreat to their rooms and each call the police.

We can’t take that simple approach if there are people in the home who rely on us. Those dependents could be young children, aged parents, or infirmed adults. Most of us will defend other innocent people in our home. I don’t know if the adult in your house should move to the children’s room or if the children should retreat to yours. You have to decide what plans are the best fit for your situation.

Use your resources. Teenagers and young adults can, and should, be part of the safety plan. The best situation is to have at least two armed adults who are working together. Now, one of you can keep their eyes on the bedroom door while the other armed adult calls 911.

If you store guns around your home, then try to dial 911 on your cell phone while you’re pointing an (unloaded) gun at the bedroom door. Holsters are wonderful tools because they let us use both hands while retaining control of our handgun.

There is a reason we want to retreat if we can. We don’t know who is waiting for us outside our door. We don’t know how many people are there. We don’t know how they are armed. We don’t know their state of mind. I don’t want to leave my bedroom to face an unknown number of armed strangers who could be hiding somewhere in my home. In the original story, both of the occupants of the home had to go to the hospital after being attacked by a single man who came through the door swinging a hammer.

It is hard to defend the people you love if your arm is broken. That is why investigating a noise in your home while you are unarmed and alone is a bad plan. Rather than depend on luck, we want to take the course of action that will work almost all the time.

There are millions of new gun owners in the US who are thinking about their defense for the first time. They know a loaded gun left on a bedside table isn’t safe. They know an unloaded gun isn’t very useful. These new gun owners are still learning about rapid-access-bedside safes. Now is the time to talk to your family and plan for success.

If that is a hard sell at home, then here is a suggestion that might make it easier. You can invite your roommates to a defense-in-the-home class. Let the instructor walk them through their first safety plans.

A good plan includes a little of everything. If you’re an experienced gun owner, then when was the last time you and your family walked through their safety plans together? Maybe there are new people living in your home who need firearms training. You also need a lawyer to call.

Rob Morse highlights the latest self-defense and other shootings of the week. See what went wrong, what went right, and what we can learn from real-life self-defense with a gun. Even the most justified self-defense shooting can go wrong, especially after the shot. Get the education, the training, and the liability coverage you and your family deserve, join USCCA.

---

About Rob Morse

Rob writes about gun rights at Ammoland, at Clash Daily, and on his SlowFacts blog. He hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast. Rob was an NRA pistol instructor and combat handgun competitor.

The post Intruder Attacks Homeowners with a Hammer- Armed Citizen Stories appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3ubZwdc
via IFTTT

New Survey Affirms More Americans Support Gun Rights & NOT Gun-Control ~ VIDEO

New Survey Affirms More Americans Support Gun Rights Than Want Gun Control

BELLEVUE, WA – -(AmmoLand.com)- A new Washington Post-ABC News survey revealing support for Second Amendment protection has risen by 9 percent, while support for new gun control laws has declined 7 percent, shows Americans are waking up to the importance of gun ownership, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“This public awakening to the importance of protecting the right to own a firearm may be largely due to the energetic advertising campaigns we, and our sister organization, the Second Amendment Foundation, have been conducting over the past three months,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

“We have reached scores of millions of Americans with more than 1,000 TV spots, and at least 9 million more people through digital advertising, and tens of millions more via email and text messaging.”

The new poll follows two other important surveys this month—by Rasmussen Reports and McLaughlin & Associates—that show a majority of American voters prefer enforcement of existing gun laws over adoption of new gun control measures. The McLaughlin survey, commissioned by SAF, revealed more than 72 percent of Americans support the right to keep and bear arms. Over 73 percent agree the Second Amendment is one of our most important and cherished rights protected by the U.S. Constitution, Gottlieb noted.

“It may have come as a surprise to the Washington Post and ABC News to see increasing support for gun rights,” Gottlieb observed, “but it appears our public education effort is working. We’ve been warning Americans about the serious threats from the Biden-Harris administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners against their constitutional rights, and the people have listened.”

He said next week, between CCRKBA and SAF, the organizations will be running 115 spots on more than a dozen national networks including CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Fox Business, One America News Network, Destination America, Bloomberg, BBC America, the Investigation Discovery Channel, American Heroes Channel, SYFY (Science Fiction), TLC (The Learning Channel), TruTV, DirecTV, The Weather Channel, HLN, Dish TV, CNBC, the Outdoor Channel, and Sportsman Channel.

“These surveys show Americans are getting wise to failures of gun control and the importance of gun ownership at a time when the far Left wants to defund and disband police agencies, and the Biden-Harris administration wants to ban guns and erode the Second Amendment,” Gottlieb said. “We’re standing in their way.”

---

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

The post New Survey Affirms More Americans Support Gun Rights & NOT Gun-Control ~ VIDEO appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2PFicD2
via IFTTT

Anti-Gun Lobbying Group Expects & Demands Action for Helping Elect Dems

March For Our Lives wants something from congressional Democrats and they’re not subtle about it. (U S Capital Building Congress), iStock-1154438278

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- An official with the gun prohibition lobbying group “March for Our Lives” has acknowledged his group expects action on gun control for having worked to elect an anti-gun Congressional majority and president.

Quoted by Politico, Max Markham, identified as the March for Our Lives policy director, reportedly stated;

“We didn’t work so hard in 2018 and in 2020 to elect a progressive Congress and White House to see nothing.”

As noted by Politico reporter Nicholas Wu, “Democrats control all of Washington, and their frustrated base wants to get something done by any means necessary, filibuster be damned.”

What would be the reaction from the establishment media if an official with a gun rights organization said the same thing in the event of a Republican election victory?

Remarks by two House Democrats during a press event in front of the Capitol as they called upon the Senate to end the filibuster while pushing for D.C. statehood essentially confirmed Markham’s observations.

Rep.Cori Bush (D-MO), according to Fox News, asserted Democrats were elected to Congress “with a mandate to transform this society” and that Republicans are blocking legislation including “common-sense gun control,” whatever that might be.

Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO) insisted Americans don’t care about Senate rules, but what they do care about is “ending gun violence” and other policies, Fox News reported.

The Politico story centered on anti-gun Democrat Senator Chris Murphy, who has crusaded for restrictive gun control in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook school shooting more than eight years ago. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was also quoted for observing at a gun control rally at the National Mall that “We will have (gun control) legislation because of Murphy’s persistence.”

But thanks to the Senate’s 60-vote requirement to pass such legislation, it may be easier said than done. This is obviously frustrating House anti-gunners.

Politico noted in its report, “Many influential gun control groups are pressing for changes to the filibuster before anything else, seeing the Senate’s 60-vote threshold to pass most bills as the main obstacle to progress.”

“The Fix Our Senate coalition calling for the elimination of the filibuster includes gun control groups like Brady: United Against Gun Violence and March for Our Lives,” the Politico report continued. “A spokesperson for the bigger coalition, Eli Zupnick, said there was ‘no chance of meaningful gun safety legislation’ with the legislative filibuster intact.”

National Rifle Association Under Siege

This is happening against the backdrop of a National Rifle Association under siege [some say for good reason]. An ongoing trial in federal bankruptcy court in Dallas—reported by the New York Times—has turned into something of a spectator sport. The Times recently portrayed testimony provided by NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre as an admission he had kept the NRA’s filing for bankruptcy earlier this year “secret from almost all its senior officials, including its general counsel, chief financial officer, and top lobbyist. He also did not inform most of the N.R.A.’s board.”

In the same story, the Times said NRA “has been enmeshed in scandal for the last two years, with revelations of lavish spending by the N.R.A. and its contractors — on Zegna suits and luxurious trips Mr. LaPierre took to places like Lake Como in Italy and the Atlantis Resort in the Bahamas. Other benefits included chartered jets for him and his family and vacations on a contractor’s yachts, which were named Illusions and Grand Illusion.”

Bloomberg News covered testimony from Judge and AmmoLand News contributor, Phillip Journey, a member of the NRA Board of Directors, in which the former Kansas lawmaker said NRA under LaPierre, “essentially operates as a kingdom rather than a corporation.” The testimony was also reported by the Wall Street Journal.

NRA is trying to end its incorporation in New York State and reincorporate in Texas. New York Attorney General Letitia James sued NRA last August in federal court, seeking to dissolve the organization, which was incorporated in the Empire State in 1871.

This publicity may suggest to some the NRA is in disarray and distracted. That impression is shared in a USA Today Op-Ed in which Ross K. Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers and member of the newspaper’s Board of Contributors lamented that gun control is “a lost cause.”

“The brief flicker of hope that somehow the financial problems of the National Rifle Association, and the profligate spending of members’ dues by one its top executives, might stifle the effectiveness of the opposition to even the most modest efforts to control firearms or reduce their lethality became an iridescent dream,” Baker wrote, “and seemed to prove that the organization itself was never much of a factor in blocking gun-control legislation.”

That may have been a “brief flicker” indeed. Fox Business is reporting the organization is preparing to spend up to $2 million in a push back against Joe Biden’s campaign to ratchet down on gun rights. Biden had promised gun control action during the 2020 campaign, and now he appears ready to deliver. NRA obviously intends to thwart him.

According to the Fox Business story, NRA will target at least a dozen states with television and digital advertising, mailings, outreach, and town halls. That doesn’t suggest NRA is distracted but is instead focused on a strategy.

As reported previously by AmmoLand News, two other gun rights organizations—the Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms—have already launched national television advertising efforts on more than a dozen networks. SAF pushed the “2A First Responders” project while CCRKBA has focused on House legislation and will refocus on Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s latest attempt to ban so-called “assault weapons.”

So, instead of rolling over, gun rights groups are coming out swinging.

The gun prohibition lobby’s expectations of congressional action on guns is now facing serious speed bumps, and what may have seemed like a window of opportunity to place further limits on Second Amendment rights may be gradually closing as politicians are already looking ahead to 2022 and the mid-term elections. If Republicans can recapture Capitol Hill, it could stop the Biden-Harris gun control agenda cold, and send a message to the gun prohibition lobby they will remain a “frustrated base” for the increasingly left-tilting Democrats.

RELATED:

• Dems Rush to Pass D.C. Statehood in Power Grab that Could Threaten 2A
• Biden’s Nose Keeps Growing as WaPo Gives 2 New ‘Pinocchios’ on Guns
• Biden-Harris Admin. Announces ‘Initial Actions’ on Guns

---

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.

The post Anti-Gun Lobbying Group Expects & Demands Action for Helping Elect Dems appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3t1nruk
via IFTTT

Why the Brady Act Is Unconstitutional ~ Letter to the AmmoLand News Editor

Letter to the AmmoLand Editor
By reader Donald L. Cline. 2021

Why the Brady Act Is Unconstitutional ~ Letter to the AmmoLand News Editor

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- The Brady Act background checks have never prevented a crime nor criminal access to a firearm in the history of the Act and were never intended to: The Brady Act was and is intended to sucker citizens into waiving their RIGHT to keep and bear arms in exchange for a revocable government permission government has no lawful authority to issue or deny.

The object is to make us as helpless as the citizens of other so-called “western democracies” where governments claim their citizens have “rights,” but in fact their rights are but government-issued privileges, revocable at any time whenever the government deems it prudent or politically advantageous to do so.

By contrast, under our U.S. Constitution, our rights are beyond the reach of government at any level.

Secondly, the federal government is not delegated the Constitutional authority to license firearm dealers. The federal government is not delegated the Constitutional authority to demand we ask its permission before we may exercise a right. Asking permission to exercise a right converts the right into a revocable privilege which may be revoked at any time for any reason or no reason. Thus the Brady Act (and the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the NFA of 1934 and every gun control law ever legislated) is patently, egregiously, unConstitutional and null and void for want of Constitutional subject matter authority.

Thirdly, the federal requirement of completing a Form 4473 upon the purchase of a firearm from a dealer violates our 4th Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures in the absence of a warrant attesting under penalty of perjury probable cause of criminal conduct. Unlike the hapless citizens of other countries, we are not required to explain or justify ourselves to government in the absence of probable cause.

Fourthly, being compelled to ask government permission to exercise our right is a “taking” of the right without due process in violation of our 5th Amendment right to due process – and due process is not established other than by a criminal court trial founded upon probable cause of criminal conduct.

[Aside: This is the legal failure of “Red Flag Laws;” the victim is not a defendant in a criminal action; he is a respondent in an action at equity (i.e., a civil action based on contract), and under our form of government, rights cannot be abridged at equity except according to the terms of a contract, and we are not under contract to government.]

Fifthly, it is a long-standing doctrine of law that a citizen may not be compelled to waive any right in order to be allowed to exercise a right. This right is protected by the Ninth Amendment. We cannot lawfully be required to waive our 2nd, 4th, 5th, or 9th Amendment rights in order to exercise our right to keep and bear arms.

Sixthly, we cannot lawfully be required to waive our 10th Amendment right to be secure from the federal exercise of power not delegated to the federal government, and to be secure from the State exercise of power prohibited by any of the Bill of Rights, including but not limited to the 2nd Amendment. The State exercise of prohibited power also occurs when any State-created municipal or corporate entity enforces restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms on any premises open to the public.

Lastly, it has been claimed the argument the communists … er … Democrats … use to justify gun control legislation and enforcement is the Commerce Clause, for firearms and the parts used to manufacture them move in interstate commerce prior to reaching the dealer. This argument is absurd on its face on the grounds that the Bill of Rights supersedes the Commerce Clause: I.e., the Commerce Clause may authorize the regulation, even the restriction, of kumquats moving in Interstate Commerce, but no one has a RIGHT to kumquats. We have a RIGHT to keep and bear arms, and that includes the ancillary right to purchase, sell, trade, transfer, or otherwise commercially transact in personal arms and ammunition and accessories.

Letters to the AmmoLand Editor: Got something on your mind? Let us know, and you can see it here.

I will add the Commerce Clause excuse is absurd also because that theory could be used to eviscerate the entire Constitution, and that is not the purpose of the Commerce Clause.

Defining a town, city, or county as a Constitutional 2nd Amendment area is a very good first step. The next step should be defining the State as a Constitutional 2nd Amendment State, as it is already in most States by virtue of the State Constitution. The next step should be to prohibit federal licensing of firearm dealers within the State, and reject with extreme prejudice all federal attempts to maintain it. This will probably require a judicial decision, but even if the judicial decision goes against us, the fight will energize the people of the State into rejecting federal interference in our rights.

Somewhere in this process we should also mount a movement to establish a legislative resolution declaring the 17th Amendment null and void for want of ratification. Article V U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits any amendment depriving any State of its suffrage in the U.S. Senate without its Consent. The 17th Amendment was illegally declared ratified in 1913 by an openly communist SecState William Jennings Bryan under an openly communist President Woodrow Wilson even though ten States withheld their Consent. The object was to remove State oversight and constraint on the federal government, which was and is the wholly-owned subsidiary of the sovereign States.

That illegal action is directly traceable to the 2nd Bolshevik Revolution we are currently enduring.

Discussion, Q&A, etc., welcome.

~ Donald L. Cline

---

A free citizenry does not ask its governments’ permission to exercise a right. It does not register its exercise of a right. It does not waive any other right, such as the right to privacy, or the right to due process, or the right to be secure from being compelled to waive a right in order to exercise a right, in exchange for permission to exercise a right such as the right to keep and bear arms which government does not have the authority to issue or deny in the first place. It does not permit government to claim the exercise of a right is probable cause, or prima facie evidence, or even a suspicion, of a crime having been committed. It does not discuss, or negotiate, what rights it will or will not exercise with government or with any government functionary. In short, a free citizenry, founded in principles of liberty, does not give up its right to determine what kind of government receives its Consent to Govern. A free citizenry respects, honors, and protects the lawful rights of others, by force of arms if necessary, else liberty cannot be preserved for anyone. — Donald L. Cline

The post Why the Brady Act Is Unconstitutional ~ Letter to the AmmoLand News Editor appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3t4GrIw
via IFTTT

Judge Allows FPC Lawsuit Against California Handgun Roster Ban to Move Forward

Judge Allows FPC Lawsuit Against California Handgun Roster Ban to Move Forward iStock 884191010

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced that Southern District of California Federal District Court Judge Dana M. Sabraw denied in part California’s motion to dismiss in FPC’s challenge to the handgun “Roster” ban laws, Renna v. Bonta. The order can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

After the case was filed in November of 2020, the State of California defendants moved to dismiss the case. Following briefing on the motion, the Court ruled that some parts of the case could proceed. The Court began by determining whether the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Pena v. Lindley barred the claims made in the lawsuit, and found that “[t]o the extent Plaintiffs challenge those provisions [of the handgun roster] as unconstitutional here, their arguments are foreclosed by Pena and therefore rejected.” This result was expected, and those claims will be addressed on appeal.

The Court denied the State’s motion as to the new changes to the handgun “Roster” laws enacted last year, allowing those claims to proceed by finding that “Pena did not address the issue of the removal of handguns from the roster, and the enactment of AB 2847 postdates Pena.” The court also determined that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit. Citing FPC’s federal lawsuit against California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” the Court determined that the “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to establish standing and ripeness.”

In finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently allege that California’s Unsafe Handgun Act violates the Second Amendment, the Court noted that it “is not persuaded there is a ‘reasonable fit’ between the state’s asserted objective and the [AB 2847’s] three-for-one provision,” and that “Defendants offer no justification for why the statute requires the removal of three handguns for each new handgun added, instead of, for instance, a proportional one-to-one.”

“We are gratified that the Court has allowed the case to proceed to its ultimate resolution and we look forward to moving this important lawsuit forward very soon,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “Through this case, we seek to overturn the Ninth Circuit’s wrongly decided 3-judge panel opinion in Pena by a court competent to do so, vindicate the rights of our clients and all Californians, and strike down the unconstitutional handgun Roster.”

Individuals that are interested in becoming a member of the FPC Grassroots Army can become a member for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.

Firearms Policy Coalition and its FPC Law team are the nation’s next-generation advocates leading the Second Amendment litigation and research space. Some FPC legal actions include:

• A brief supporting certiorari in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which was granted by the U.S. Supreme Court
• A challenge to Tennessee’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Basset v. Slatery)
• A challenge to Maryland’s ban on handgun carry (Call v. Jones)
• A challenge to New Jersey’s ban on handgun carry (Bennett v. Davis)
• A challenge to New York City’s ban on handgun carry (Greco v. New York City)
• A challenge to Pennsylvania’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Lara v. Evanchick)
• A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
• A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
• Challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Calif. Att’y General)
• A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Becerra)
• A challenge to Pennsylvania’s laws completely denying the right to carry to individuals who were previously granted relief from prior non-violent convictions and are not currently prohibited from possessing firearms (Suarez v. Evanchick)

For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

---

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, and other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.

The post Judge Allows FPC Lawsuit Against California Handgun Roster Ban to Move Forward appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/2S5TDQn
via IFTTT

Kansas Veto Session Starts Next Week, Threatening Pro-Gun Bills

On Monday, the Kansas Legislature returns for a veto session, where they will consider overriding Governor Laura Kelly’s vetoes, which include two pro-gun bills. IMG NRA-ILA

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On Monday, the Kansas Legislature returns for a veto session, where they will consider overriding Governor Laura Kelly’s vetoes, which include two pro-gun bills. Please continue to contact your lawmakers and ask them to OVERRIDE Gov. Kelly’s vetoes of House Bill 2058 and House Bill 2089.

CLICK HERE TAKE ACTION!

Proposed by Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt, House Bill 2058 does the following:

• Recognizes all out-of-state concealed carry permits, and allows those who have been licensed to carry a firearm for self-defense, to do so lawfully in Kansas.  This legislation recognizes that visitors to Kansas should not be left defenseless simply by crossing a state line.
• Allows individuals who are 18 to 20 years of age to apply for a Kansas concealed carry permit.
• Authorizes the Attorney General to issue an alternative license to carry a concealed handgun, to qualified applicants, during a declared state of disaster emergency.
• Creates a Restoration of Rights process for individuals to reestablish the Second Amendment right to possess a firearm, upon expungement of certain convictions.

*****

Substitute House Bill 2089 directs the state Board of Education to establish grade-appropriate curricula guidelines to teach firearm safety to K-12 students, based on NRA’s Eddie Eagle GunSafe program, and/or the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks & Tourism’s existing Hunter Education In Our Schools. Individual school district boards are to have the choice whether they wish to provide gun safety education under these standards. This gives the flexibility to school boards and parents to decide what gun safety education is appropriate for their communities and school children. Developing these standards by drawing from proven, existing programs results in cost savings for the taxpayers.

Again, please contact your lawmakers and ask them to OVERRIDE Governor Kelly’s vetoes of House Bill 2058 and House Bill 2089.

---

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

The post Kansas Veto Session Starts Next Week, Threatening Pro-Gun Bills appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3aRRBKc
via IFTTT

Maine: Multiple Gun Bills Scheduled for Public Hearing

On May 3^rd, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will hold public hearings on numerous anti-gun and pro-gun bills. iStock-884203988

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On May 3^rd, the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee will hold public hearings on numerous anti-gun and pro-gun bills. It is critical that committee members hear from NRA members and Second Amendment supporters. Please act now! Contact members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee and ask them to SUPPORT NRA-backed LD’s 1052 and 1315, and to OPPOSE LD’s 976, 999, and 1454.

CLICK HERE TAKE ACTION!

Pro-Gun Legislation:

Legislative Document 1052 and Legislative Document 1315 prohibit the state and government officials from restricting the lawful carrying, sale, or use of firearms and ammunition during states of emergency, and also prevents them from closing gun stores and shooting ranges. The legislation also suspends the expiration date for concealed handgun permits during a state of emergency. Both of these important pieces of legislation will ensure that the Second Amendment is protected during trying times and declarations of emergency.

Anti-Gun Legislation:

Legislative Document 976 amends the definition of “machine gun” to include a weapon to which a bump stock is affixed, and penalizes possession of a machine gun as a Class D crime. This legislation is duplicative, unneeded, and is already covered under federal law. In 2018, the Department of Justice, through regulation, classified “bump-stock-type devices” as “machine guns” under the National Firearms Act, and regulated them accordingly.

Legislative Document 999 requires background checks for private sales of firearms at gun shows or resulting from advertising, with limited exceptions. This bill requires individuals to pay for background checks through Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers and obtain permission before selling firearms to immediate or extended family, friends, and neighbors if the sale occurs at a gun show, or through an advertisement.

Legislative Document 1454 essentially ends the centuries-old practice of home manufacturing firearms for personal use. Law-abiding firearm enthusiasts should be free to engage in their craft free of government overreach, as all other types of craftsmen are. The bill does nothing to prevent prohibited persons from obtaining firearms, lacks any public benefit, and punishes law-abiding gun owners and enthusiasts for their legal interests.

Again, please act now! Ask members of the Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee to SUPPORT LD’s 1052 and 1315, and OPPOSE LD’s 976, 999, and 1454. NRA members and Second Amendment supporters are also encouraged to testify or submit written testimony. You must be signed-up to testify remotely, 30 minutes prior to the start of the hearing.

---

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

The post Maine: Multiple Gun Bills Scheduled for Public Hearing appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3gRxSyg
via IFTTT

Complaint Seeks Secret Service Compliance with Hunter Biden Gun FOIA Request

That’s all we’re asking. (United States Secret Service/Facebook)

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- A complaint was filed Thursday in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh, representing this correspondent as plaintiff, against the United States Secrets Service. The agency is charged with improperly withholding records it is required by Freedom of Information Act laws to produce regarding its role in the case of a gun belonging to Hunter Biden.

The story that Biden’s gun was taken by his brother’s widow, with whom he was having an affair, and thrown into a supermarket trash can, was first reported by The Blaze on October 29 of last year. The report also cited a “source with knowledge” claiming ATF and the Secret Service “visited the shop where Hunter Biden purchased the gun prior to any report being filed” and noted, “It was not immediately clear why the Secret Service would have properly been involved in the investigation since Hunter Biden’s last day of Secret Service protection was July 8, 2014.”

Two days later, I published a report on AmmoLand Shooting Sports News calling attention to a relevant point on a potential major “gun law” violation that had escaped public attention: Hunter Biden’s illegal use of controlled substances has been well documented since his discharge from the United States Navy in 2014, with subsequent reports of drug abuse in ensuing years. Yet if he purchased a gun through a dealer, he would have been required to fill out a Firearms Transfer Record (ATF Form 4473) and pass a background check, and one of the questions the form asks is:

“Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?”

Lying on the 4473 is a felony, punishable by up to 10 years. Being an unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm is punishable by up to five years. And authorities have pressed charges on Americans who are not the president’s son.

Biden was not president at the time of my initial report—but attempts to elicit a pre-election response from him and from the purveyors of “commonsense gun safety” resulted in crickets – from them and “the media.” It was not in their political interests to allow concerns for violations of laws they demand to be made “universal” to receive attention outside of the limited gun rights advocacy echo chamber and noting that, I said I would investigate the feasibility of a targeted FOIA request to find out more.

@bradybuzz @GiffordsCourage @Everytown @MomsDemand What is your position on being candid about drug use on a Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record? Care to make a statement before the election? https://t.co/Y5EVDlr6Uv

— dcodrea (@dcodrea) October 30, 2020

Attorney Stamboulieh filed the FOIA request on my behalf on November 24, 2020. I discussed it that same day with host Mark Walters on Armed American Radio’s “Daily Defense.” I posted the Secret Service’s January 27, 2021 response in March (we had given them delays far beyond the 20 business days response requirement and were still waiting on a response to a separate ATF FOIA request over the same incident):

“In response to your FOIA request, the Secret Service FOIA Office has conducted a reasonable search for all potentially responsive documents. The Secret Service FOIA Office searched all Program Offices that were likely to contain potentially responsive records, and no records were located.”

That position is not supported by a Politico report on March 25, 2021, referenced as a document attachment in my complaint:

“Sources: Secret Service inserted itself into case of Hunter Biden’s gun … Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact. The gun store owner refused to supply the paperwork, suspecting that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter’s ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime, the two people said.”

The claim of no knowledge is further disputed by Hunter Biden’s own account, documented in a New York Post report from March 26, 2021, citing data recovered from the hard drive of his damaged laptop that was left at a computer repair shop (this was also referenced as a document attachment in the complaint):

“Hunter Biden sent a text message that said the Secret Service responded after his handgun disappeared in 2018 — contradicting the agency’s assertion that it wasn’t involved, The Post has learned.”

Adding to the speculation that something we are not being told about is going on is an occurrence that is unprecedented for my experience with FOIAs: ATF finally responded to the request and replied with the same basic response:

“Please be advised that a search has been conducted in our N-Force and TECS databases. N-Force and TECS are the systems of records that contains all investigative files compiled by ATF for law enforcement purposes. Based on the information you provided to us, we were not able to locate any responsive records subject to the Freedom of Information Act.”

So they weren’t involved, either? Or are they saying they don’t have any documents subject to FOIA, not that there aren’t any? In any case, here’s the unprecedented part: Two days later, ATF informed us via email they were withdrawing the “no records” response. A final response has not yet been received at this writing.

As things stand now, the story is gaining new legs with Rep. Bob Good and 23 other House Republicans asking ATF Director nominee David Chipman to commit to investigating Biden’s gun purchase for potential felony charges. That makes for good press but it’s pretty weak tea, as he has made abundantly clear where his loyalties lie and all he has to say is “Sure” and then continue the Bureau’s tradition of stonewalling after he’s confirmed.

That his response has not been immediately forthcoming, and that “progressive” media outlets are trying to redirect the focus are both revealing. Hopefully, the following complaint will result in some answers many who have them don’t appear inclined to provide unless a court orders them to.

---

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.

The post Complaint Seeks Secret Service Compliance with Hunter Biden Gun FOIA Request appeared first on AmmoLand.com.

from https://ift.tt/3eNif8u
via IFTTT