Instead of giving a taxpayer-funded boost to citizen disarmament lobby propaganda efforts, CDC could better promote public health by showing how it improves when good people are able to protect themselves and bad people are kept away from them. (Amnesty International/Facebook)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- ‘After Ending COVID, CDC Pivots to Banning Guns,” FrontPage Mag reports. The story critiques the appearance of CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky in an “exclusive” CNN interview, where she claims “Something has to be done” about guns.
Where have we heard that before? Outside of every time the media gloms on to a high-profile atrocity, more often than not in a “gun-free zone,” by “prohibited person” criminals with records as long as your arm, and/or bizarre whack jobs who gave everyone who knew them the creeps?
Walensky, of course, protests her going “pedal to the metal” has nothing to do with citizen disarmament:
“She said she doesn’t want people to think she is trying to take away their guns.”
At the risk of being redundant, where have we heard that before? Of course that’s what it’s all about. They just realize they can’t do it all at once so they have to do it in increments, securing the concession du jour before moving on to their next objective – all the while complaining about an unreasonable gun lobby that refuses to compromise for the public good.
“Let’s agree, we don’t want people to die,” Walensky pleads. “Let’s just agree there.”
I’m listening.
“What can we do to stop people from dying, and what can we do to stop people from being injured?” she asks.
How about if government stops making it harder for good people to protect themselves and keeps people who have proven they hurt others away from potential victims? What else is there to talk about?
Oh, more infringements? This business of bringing gun owners to the table to be part of the discussion is hardly new.
Years of experience have shown gun owners that the “national conversation on guns” antis claim they want to have always ends with them trying to take away more rights, dictate terms, propagandize in the media, and marginalize and cancel opposition with name-calling, conflation, and lies. That it’s being resurrected again is part of (yet another) well-funded Astroturf effort to make it look like the only ones who won’t join in are hateful right-wing extremists.
By once more involving CDC in the agenda/junk science propaganda effort, Director Walensky is actually going “old school.”
“We need to revolutionize the way we look at guns, like what we did with cigarettes. Now it [sic] is dirty, deadly, and banned,” Dr. Mark Rosenberg, former Director of the CDC’s National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, told The Washington Post in 1994, proving the agenda was to eviscerate the Second Amendment and providing, for many, the final straw against paying the help to undermine our rights.
That created another opportunity for the antis to lie, whining how evil gun lobby-beholden Republicans had forbidden CDC to do any gun research. In fact, the prohibition was limited to using tax funding to advocate for and promote gun control, which is very different.
As a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Walensky is ideologically in tune with Deborah Prothrow-Stith, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, who at least had the honesty to admit:
“My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns — and cannot imagine why anybody would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns would be banned.”
What Walensky is bringing back – and that gun owners have no choice but to help finance – is morally akin to the “bullet fee” of communist Chinese and Iranian notoriety, where family members were charged by the government for the bullet used to execute their relative. We’re in essence being forced to help pay for our own disarmament.
Meanwhile, as FrontPage notes, CDC will continue to posture for public health while ignoring real threats, “like filling the country with illegal aliens carrying COVID-19 and other diseases,” and making it easier for the government to disarm “law-abiding” citizens as it releases more violent criminals back onto the streets in the name of “social justice.”
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.
Chicago Inspector General Claims That ShotSpotter Does Not Work
CHICAGO, IL –-(Ammoland.com)- Was David Chipman the vice president of marketing for a company that sold a system to cities around the country that didn’t work?
ShotSpotter is an acoustic gunshot detection technology. Microphones are placed around cities on light poles and use an artificial intelligence (AI) software package to listen for gunshots. When the system detects the gunfire, it will triangulate the sound to locate the shooter. A human at the ShotSpotter monitoring center reviews the report. If they believe the alert is real, they will notify the local police department’s dispatch center. The dispatch center will notify units to respond to the location of the detection.
Anti-gun politicians and advocates, like Chicago’s Mayor Lori Lightfoot, hail the system as “a lifesaver.”
The Chicago Mayor just renewed the cities contract with the company for another three years. The system isn’t cheap. The city of Chicago paid ShotSpotter $33,000,000 over the last three years. But according to the Chicago OIG’s report, the city wasted that money on a system that doesn’t work.
The report states: “police responses to ShotSpotter alerts rarely produce evidence of a gun-related crime, rarely give rise to investigatory stops, and even less frequently lead to the recovery of gun crime-related evidence during an investigatory stop.”
Rhonda Ezell of Chicago Gun Matter, and lead plaintiff in the landmark case of Ezell v. The City of Chicago, has one of the microphones outside her home. She agrees with the OIG’s findings. She believes that the city has wasted the taxpayer’s money on a system that doesn’t work.
“ShotSpotter is a 33-million-dollar investment to detect, track, and record actual events,” Ms. Ezell told AmmoLand. “Yet, criminals continue to go free because CPD isn’t reporting a crime.”
The OIG looked at 50,000 records over a 17-moth time frame and discovered that 91% of the reports of gunfire turned up nothing. Only 9% of the calls showed up any evidence of a crime being committed. A car backfiring and fireworks have fooled the system. Leaders in the community believe it gives the police an excuse to stop, detain, and humiliate residents of Chicago’s predominantly minority inner-city areas. The OIG’s report backs this claim.
The report reads: “If the Department is to continue to invest in technology which sends CPD members into potentially dangerous situations with little information––and about which there are important community concerns–– it should be able to demonstrate the benefit of its use in combatting violent crime. The data we analyzed plainly doesn’t do that. Meanwhile, the very presence of this technology is changing the way CPD members interact with members of Chicago’s communities. We hope that this analysis will equip stakeholders to make well-informed decisions about the ongoing use of ShotSpotter technology.”
The OIG also worries that the ShotSpotter system could put the responding officer and the general public in danger. The police would be walking into a situation with no awareness of what is happening on the scene.
The report states: “There are real and potential costs associated with use of the system, including … the risk that CPD members dispatched as a result of a ShotSpotter alert may respond to incidents with little contextual information about what they will find there—raising the specter of poorly informed decision-making by responding members.”
ShotSpotter was also used to jail Michael Williams for a year. During last year’s unrest, Williams was arrested for the murder of a man that someone shot. The only evidence that the grandfather killed the man was that ShotSpotter said it triangulated the fatal shooting to Williams’s car as it was seen driving through an intersection on a CCTV system.
The system actually detected the gunshot a mile away from where Williams drove through the light. A ShotSpotter analyst altered the data to point to Williams’s car. A judge threw out the case for lack of evidence.
ShotSpotter only picked up two shots, and there was no physical evidence of Simmons shooting at the police officers. In fact, Rochester, New York refused to test Simmons’ hands and clothes for gunshot residue when he insisted he never fired at the officers. The police asked the company to find seven shots. ShotSpotter claimed after reanalyzing the audio. There were indeed seven shots fired.
Police charged Simmons with attempted murder even though police could not find any casings or any bullets. Simmons refused to plea bargain and pled innocent. His lawyers requested the audio files from ShotSpotter, but the audio files mysteriously disappeared, and all backups also went missing.
A jury acquitted Simmons on the murder charges. A judge later overturned his conviction for possession of a gun. The judge pointed to ShotSpotter’s unreliability. ShotSpotter claims to be 97% accurate.
ShotSpotter is used in over 100 cities across the country. Still, some cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, and San Antonio, Texas, have canceled their contracts with the company because they believe it just doesn’t work.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
NORMING is a deliberate insidious strategy designed to transform culture by changing society’s expectations about what is patriotic, proper & expected. iStock-1042738282
Canada – -(AmmoLand.com)- Canadians are involved in a culture war. Traditional Canadian values such as self-reliance, personal responsibility, and patriotism are under attack. One tactic our opponents use is “norming.”
Norming is part of a deliberate strategy designed to transform culture by changing society’s expectations about what is proper and what is expected.
Norming may sound like academic bafflegab, but it is a powerful tool when marshaled by the cultural elite, who dominate the mainstream media, the entertainment industry, Silicon Valley, the K-12 education establishment, and the universities. Hearing the same “progressive” values echoed in the media every day has power. Since the cultural elite reject traditional values, it is no accident that Canada has been transformed and will continue to be unless more people decide to stand up.
Generations of Canadians grew up with firearms. As recent as the early 1990s, surveys found around one-third of homes reporting they owned a firearm. Almost all gun owners report owning their guns for hunting or sport shooting. After decades of demonizing guns and gun owners, epitomized by firearms licensing and long-gun registration, firearms ownership has continuously declined.
Currently, just one-sixth of homes hold a licensed firearms owner. The actual numbers of firearms owners may be higher, but, given negative public norms, firearms owners are understandably discreet. Ownership numbers will continue to decline as firearms owners age out and are not replaced by younger hunters and sport shooters. In Canada, it’s often just too much trouble to go through the hoops of legal ownership for a sport that has been stigmatized.
Continued civilian ownership of weapons requires a strong personal self-defense norm, not a sport norm.
Yet the problem is that in Canada, self-defense has effectively been demonized by progressives.
Carrying a weapon for self-defense is illegal across the country – only handfuls of people are allowed to carry weapons (concealed or open) besides police. If guns can’t be used for protecting oneself or one’s family, why own it? It becomes an affectation, even a hindrance.
If ownership isn’t crucial and valued, it becomes easy for the government to disarm civilians by banning guns.
The Prime Minister considers it a vote-winning strategy to prohibit hundreds of thousands of “military-style” firearms held by responsible men and women. The progressive ‘norm’ of civilian disarmament surrounds Canadians and is undermining traditional rights and freedoms. Canadians have long owned firearms for hunting, sport shooting, pest control, and defending ourselves and our families, but the traditional values that support our lives have been steadily undermined by a decadent progressive culture that undermines self-reliance and honors victimhood.
Self-Defense
The outcome of this culture clash is still unknown as the new progressive norm will not allow for self-defense. Progressives prefer promises of government protection to personal responsibility. In contrast, all major world religions consider defense of oneself or one’s family against violent attack morally permissible, even obligatory.
Early in the 20th Century, when restrictive firearms laws were first introduced in both the UK and Canada, politicians felt it necessary to insist in Parliament that the laws would not interfere with the right to self-defense. Later, the politicians abandoned their promises.
In Canada, it is technically still legal to use deadly force in self-defense. However, the police and courts strongly discourage its use by setting a variety of legal and financial roadblocks making this option realistically out of reach for most people. Firearms become useless, even an encumbrance so that citizens are easily disarmed.
In jurisdictions that respect individual rights, authorities can often decide quite quickly if a case involves legitimate armed self-defense. If so, the firearm is quickly returned to the owner, who is not charged. This situation of uneven treatment of self-defenders by authorities is now occurring in various American jurisdictions governed by progressives, but in a more vicious manner that is creating backlash and organized resistance.
Self-defense and the Courts
In Canada, authorities push the new norm of passivity in the face of aggression. Individuals who use violent force to stop a criminal attack in Canada are arrested and charged with serious crimes, their firearms are confiscated and they are jailed. This may not cause problems for gangbangers, but it does for law-abiding citizens.
Frequently, law-abiding firearm owners face charges worse than those of the criminals who attacked them. An effective legal defense costs tens of thousands of dollars, takes multiple years, and very likely may not succeed.
The cases of Ian Thomson and Gerald Stanley illustrate the challenges faced by Canadians who legitimately use firearms to defend themselves or their families. After three men tried to burn down his home while he was inside it, Ian Thomson shot at them with a legally owned gun.
The government even charged him with “unsafe” storage because it was possible for him to retrieve his legally stored firearm in time to shoot at his attackers!
Thomson required more than 2-1/2 years to win his freedom. Similarly, with Gerald Stanley, who faced a murder charge in 2016 for defending himself against a carload of drunks. Stanley managed to convince the jury in 2018 that his gun went off ‘accidentally’ while attempting to discourage the aggressive drunks on his remote property. The government forced these law-abiding citizens to fight years of expensive court battles to finally vindicate their actions.
The Canadian Supreme Court is currently considering an interesting case of defensive gun use. Peter Khill shot and killed an intruder in self-defense in 2016. After he was found “not guilty,” his acquittal was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal after the government appealed the decision. In response, Mr. Khill appealed his case to the Supreme Court and it heard his case early in 2020. The court has reserved its decision.
The basic facts of the case are straightforward. Mr. Khill, was asleep at about 3:00 a.m. when he was awakened due to a loud banging. From the window, he could see his pickup truck parked in the driveway. Believing that somebody might be in the truck, Mr. Khill perceived a potential threat to himself and his wife and went outside with his loaded shotgun to investigate the noise.
Mr. Khill said in a loud voice, “Hey, hands up.” The intruder began to rise and turn toward Mr. Khill. As he turned, Mr. Khill fired a shot. He immediately racked the shotgun and fired a second shot. Both shots hit the intruder in the chest and he died almost immediately. Mr. Khill believed the intruder’s hand and arm movements indicated that he had a gun and was turning to shoot Mr. Khill. Mr. Khill believed that he had no choice but to shoot.
Now What?
Will the Court support defensive firearm use or will it conform to the progressive norm that discourages private firearm ownership and use? Will this be another step along the slippery slope to total firearms confiscation in Canada? Whatever the court decides, Canadians have long ago given up the fight. Firearms owners are a demonized minority opposed by the government and the elites. Over the past one hundred years, Canadians have gradually compromised away the right to defend themselves against violent attacks.
Americans have watched as the Canadians lost the battle. Canadians have been snookered with lies and deceit to abandon their rights. Do not compromise with the statists. Doing so means losing your freedom.
Gary Mauser, PhD
I am a Professor Emeritus with the Institute for Canadian Urban Research Studies and Beedie School of Business, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia, Canada. I have published extensively in academic journals on firearms and crime and testified as an expert witness on criminal justice issues before the Senate of Canada and the Canadian House of Commons. In addition, I have submitted expert testimony to the Supreme Court of Canada. Among other places, my articles have appeared at The Epoch Times, Toronto Sun, and the Vancouver Province. For insightful analyses, see my posts at:
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On 11 September 2015, Liberty Activist Michael Picard was protesting a Connecticut speed trap when he was accosted, his property illegally seized, and three Connecticut State Troopers conspired to violate his rights and charge him with disturbing the peace. This correspondent wrote about the situation in 2016. Here is how Picard described the situation back then.
Here are the words of Michael Picard:
Back on Friday, September 11th, 2015, in West Hartford, CT, I was illegally detained, frisked and searched, and my gun, permit and camera were seized, I was threatened with arrest for interfering (apparently, freedom of speech passes for interfering), and the Connecticut State Police fabricated a story, on camera, to trump up the charges because they needed to charge me with something (“Let’s give him something.”) to cover their ass (“Gotta cover our ass.”), charging me with “creating a public disturbance” for legally open carrying my firearm and “negligent pedestrian” for legally holding up a sign on public property, as well as being threatened with arrest (again) if I did not pay the fine. I was detained for 40 minutes and charged for nothing more than legally open carrying and holding up a sign on public property. I never touched my gun once and I am a legal gun owner. My lawyer and I went to the first court appearance back on Thursday, January 14th, 2016, where the prosecutor offered a $25 fine, in lieu of the original $300 fine, to make the case go away. I rejected the deal because I did nothing wrong. As of now, the prosecutor has not dropped the case despite having video evidence of police misconduct. The trial date has been set for Monday, April 25th, 2016, at 9:30am, at the New Britain courthouse (20 Franklin Sq., New Britain, CT).
Picard filed a lawsuit against the State Troopers on 15 September 2016.
All three officers involved in the incident have retired after being cleared by Internal affairs. From ctinsider.com:
Barone, who is now retired, and the other two state police troopers, Patrick Torneo and John Jacobi, now also retired, were exonerated of any wrongdoing by a state police internal affairs investigation, the lawsuit said.
Picard sued in 2016 claiming the encounter violated his First Amendment free speech rights and Fourth Amendments rights against the unlawful seizure of property. A federal court judge agreed in September to allow the Fourth Amendment portion of the lawsuit to move forward to a trial.
Over five years after the lawsuit was filed, on January 21, 2020, there was a settlement. Michael Picard settled for $50,000. From acluct.org:
Complete video footage of the incident, as gathered by Picard’s camera while it was on top of Torneo’s cruiser and with closed captioning added, is available here [warning: this link will take you to YouTube, a third-party website].
In 2020, the lawsuit was settled. According to the settlement agreement, the State of Connecticut agreed to pay Picard approximately $1,800 for every minute that the defendants detained him (a total of $50,000), in exchange for his dismissing the lawsuit.
“In a free society, it is normal and necessary for people to protest the government, including police. If police violate people’s fundamental right to peacefully protest, those police employees should be held accountable. In addition to the human costs of poor police behavior, there can also be financial costs for taxpayers. I hope my story sends a message to police departments that they cannot ignore the constitution without consequences,” said Picard after the settlement.
While the officers involved may have been concerned about the lawsuit, they were cleared by internal affairs, in spite of the evidence against them. They suffered little personal loss. After five years of litigation, one can only wonder how much of the $50,000 went to Picard’s lawyer fees and court costs.
There may be a cumulative, positive, effect. In November of 2018, Basel Soukaneh was stopped, arrested, and searched in Waterbury, Connecticut. He filed a lawsuit for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
On 6 August 2021, the United States District Court, District of Columbia, ruled the officer did not have qualified immunity in the incident. The court case has been covered in a recent AmmoLand article.
Police are being shown, by the courts, an armed citizen is not a legal cause for them to violate citizens’ rights. Much of the positive effect can be attributed to the digital revolution and the ubiquity of recording devices.
Police in cities, in the United States, has a long history of being enforcers for the political bosses of their city.
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.
Governor Roy Cooper, who is no friend to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, also ignores the recommendations of law enforcement. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Governor Roy Cooper, who is no friend to the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, also ignores the recommendations of law enforcement. Today, he vetoed House Bill 398, NC Sheriffs’ Association-backed legislation to repeal the pistol permit in favor of the federal NICS background check. This is the second piece of pro-Second Amendment legislation Gov. Cooper has vetoed this year, the first being a self-defense bill.
The pistol purchase permit was created before modern, computerized background checks existed. The federal NICS checks that licensed firearms dealers conduct are often completed in minutes. North Carolina’s court system finished furnishing mental health involuntary commitment records to NICS in 2019, ensuring that it can do thorough checks. Repealing the pistol purchase permit ensures that law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without this unnecessary obstacle and fee that is also a burden on law-enforcement resources.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org and your email inbox for further updates.
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 Federal Government proves once again it can’t be trusted with import data. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The federal government has rarely made a habit of covering itself in glory, but in recent weeks it seems determined to engender mistrust among the American public. In only the last month, three fresh examples of the federal government’s inability to secure sensitive data have come to light. These examples of official incompetence have once again made clear that the federal government cannot be trusted with gun owner data.
Federal bureaucrats and gun control advocates have made clear that they want the government to maintain more information on firearms and firearm owners. ATF routinely whines about how the out-of-business dealer records (4473s) housed at the National Tracing Center have not been converted into a digitized searchable format. ATF director nominee and paid gun control lobbyist David Chipman has called for the federal registration of tens of millions of commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms.
Gun rights advocates understand that the collection of gun and gun owner data facilitates firearm confiscation. In addition to several notable instances in foreign countries, registration records were used to confiscate firearms in New York City in 1991 and 2013. Prominent U.S. politicians such as President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) have all called for gun confiscation. National Council to Control Handguns (now Brady) Chairman Nelson “Pete” Shields acknowledged registration as a prerequisite to handgun confiscation.
However, the ever-present threat of confiscation is not the only compelling argument against the government collecting data on guns and gun owners. The federal government’s impotence in safeguarding data is a constant threat to gun owner privacy.
In June, NRA-ILA directed gun owner attention to an Internal Revenue Service leak of the private tax returns of several wealthy Americans. The incident proved that political actors within the federal government will break the law by leaking sensitive information in order to advance an ideological goal. Given the political debate surrounding firearm ownership, gun owners could expect similar malicious treatment were the government empowered to collect firearm data.
The latter half of summer has only bolstered this thesis.
On August 16, a security researcher posted an item to Linkedin.com in which he explained how he “discovered a terrorist watchlist containing 1.9 million records online without a password or any other authentication required to access it.”
According to the researcher,
The watchlist came from the Terrorist Screening Center, a multi-agency group administered by the FBI. The TSC maintains the country’s no-fly list, which is a subset of the larger watchlist. A typical record in the list contains a full name, citizenship, gender, date of birth, passport number, no-fly indicator, and more.
As NRA-ILA and the American Civil Liberties Union have repeatedly pointed out, the terrorist watchlist is rife with inaccuracies and inclusion on the list occurs without due process and bears little relation to the threat an individual might pose. Expressing a similar understanding, the security researcher noted, “The terrorist watchlist is made up of people who are suspected of terrorism but who have not necessarily been charged with any crime. In the wrong hands, this list could be used to oppress, harass, or persecute people on the list and their families.”
On August 21, Fox News reported that the State Department was hit by a cyber attack. According to the news outlet’s source, “The State Department is the latest to fall victim to a cyber-attack and notifications of a possible serious breach were made by the Department of Defense Cyber Command.”
Fox News was not provided information on the extent of the breach. However, Fox reported that “news of the breach comes just weeks after a Senate Homeland Security Committee report rated the department’s overall information security program as a “D” – the lowest possible rating within the federal government’s model.”
Also in mid-August, reports began to surface that during the U.S. pullout of Afghanistan sensitive data may have fallen into the Taliban’s hands. Some fear that included in this potential data trove is information that would help the Taliban identify and retaliate against individuals who assisted U.S. and Coalition forces.
Thousands of Afghans struggling to ensure the physical safety of their families after the Taliban took control of the country have an additional worry: that biometric databases and their own digital history can be used to track and target them.
The news outlet went on to explain,
After years of a push to digitise databases in the country, and introduce digital identity cards and biometrics for voting, activists warn these technologies can be used to target and attack vulnerable groups. “We understand that the Taliban is now likely to have access to various biometric databases and equipment in Afghanistan,” the Human Rights First group wrote on Twitter on Monday. “This technology is likely to include access to a database with fingerprints and iris scans, and include facial recognition technology,” the group added.
The Taliban have seized U.S. military biometrics devices that could aid in the identification of Afghans who assisted coalition forces, current and former military officials have told The Intercept. The devices, known as HIIDE, for Handheld Interagency Identity Detection Equipment, were seized last week during the Taliban’s offensive, according to a Joint Special Operations Command official and three former U.S. military personnel, all of whom worried that sensitive data they contain could be used by the Taliban. HIIDE devices contain identifying biometric data such as iris scans and fingerprints, as well as biographical information, and are used to access large centralized databases.
The news organization also explained,
the U.S. didn’t only collect information about criminals and terrorists; the government appears to also have been collecting biometrics from Afghans assisting diplomatic efforts, in addition to those working with the military. … The federal government has collected biometric data from Afghans despite knowing the risks entailed by maintaining large databases of personal information, especially given recent cyberattacks on government agencies and private companies.
The federal government has consistently proven itself incompetent in securing confidential data. The only way to ensure that gun owners do not fall victim to this malice or ineptitude is to continue to restrict the federal government’s ability to collect and compile gun owner information.
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
ATF has shown its determination in the past to get things to fail no matter what they had to add to them to make their case. (Screenshot: ATF “Test” Results Letter)
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “Discovery in the above case rendered these gems of ATF groupthink … Imagine what the discovery is going be like in the trigger case????” Historic Arms LLC firearms designer Len Savage posted on an AR15.com thread talking about the Rare Breed Trigger case. “It will not be pleasant for ATF as I suspect their own internal emails will damn them.”
For those who have not been following that story, ATF issued a cease-and-desist order to Rare Breed Triggers over its FRT-15 Trigger, claiming it is a machinegun. The company says it will not comply with the order and has filed a lawsuit.
The previous case Savage was referring to was when ATF classified one of his submitted designs as a machinegun but had to make some major “modifications” to do it:
“ATF has a long history of using zip ties to make machine guns…See for yourself,” he wrote elsewhere in the thread, providing links to an ATF response letter revealing how they arrived at that conclusion, with the “help” of zip ties, duct tape, and chain.
This was a revelation of ATF “testing” procedures I first covered on my The War on Guns blog in 2008, presenting correspondence with ATF’s Firearms Technology Branch, and noting:
In addition to going through contortions to declare his property a machine gun and then refusing to return it, they’ve assigned his design submissions to an agent whose testimony Savage challenged.
With that criteria, given enough added parts that are not part of the submitted design, I know a lot of people who could turn a banana into a machine gun.
Because Savage chose to fight back – and to not hold back on how ridiculous he found ATF’s methods to be – and because that had been the way he had dealt with in-your-face ATF absurdities in other cases, it’s clear that retaliation and “getting” him back was the Bureau priority.
But don’t take my word for it. Take what’s been documented in ATF internal correspondence.
“Let me say that when we testify in court, we testify that the database is 100 percent accurate. That’s what we testify to, and we will always testify to that. As you probably well know, that may not be 100 percent true.”
“I almost feel bad for that dude sometimes,” Violent Crime Analysis Branch’s Daniel L. Pinckney wrote about Savage in an email to NFA Branch Specialist Ernest A. Lintner. “Almost.”
As an aside, it’s clear from multiple emails that Pinckney bore a personal animosity to Savage, and from the tone of this and subsequent statements, it’s not unreasonable to infer an unfulfilled “You will respect my authoritah!” undercurrent going on.
“He is setting up a good case for a retaliation case though,” Pinkney had to admit. “The more he testifies as an ‘expert’ against ATF, and the more he gets hammered by FTB for anything he submits, the better his case gets for a civil suit at some point.”
“I wonder sometimes if we don’t ‘manufacture’ a firearm in the process of getting it to work,” Lintner acknowledged. “That is if someone in the public were to be caught with that rig, would we want them charged with manufacturing? I bet yes.”
“I remember seeing the pictures once before. I do think Len is an ass, and he deserves everything he has brought on himself, but if we/they have to stoop to that level to reject one of his projects, does it make us any better than him?” Pinckney responded, again showing personal hostility toward a citizen standing up for his rights against what the analyst knew, legally and morally, to be wrong. “If anything the zip ties, chain, and metal plate should be the illegal conversion device. ” [He actually ended his email with a smiley face icon.]
“I agree – if we alter course one way or the other based on who submits it, then the tail is wagging the dog – and in a case like this one manufacturer could use the agency to damage or wreck marketplace competitors,” Lintner replied.
“The emails shown are an internal commentary of what was going down,” Savage tells me. “Pickney and Lintner were equivalent to baseball commentators in that they were not playing the game or calling the shots, but they were reporting on the ball in play with color commentary.
“It shows the cold, callous math of folks who depend on the Department of Just-Us for a paycheck,” Savage notes. “They were just calling it as they saw it.”
It also shows how the “us vs. them” worldview results in a “team player” mentality and hostility toward “the other side,” even among functionaries not directly involved. It’s not hard to imagine those whose “professional judgments” are being publicly challenged, and whose careers can be affected by “losses,” are even more vested in winning at all costs (and resentful of vocal challengers).
Rare Breed Triggers’ Lawrence DeMonico has not been shy about standing up for himself in no uncertain terms, and in doing so has exposed the Bureau’s decision-making as political and worse. You can bet those he won’t just roll over for are taking that personally.
Savage is right. Discovery should produce some revealing examples of that.
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.
“Do as I say, not as I do!” The unofficial motto of a senile man allowing millions of dollars in military equipment to fall into the hands of terrorists while lecturing Americans on keeping guns out of bad people’s hands. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Before being declared the winner of the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden was unabashed in his support for restricting Second Amendment rights. A lengthy section of his campaign website described his ambitions for new gun control, with headings such as “Keep guns out of dangerous hands” and “Make sure firearm owners take on the responsibility of ensuring their weapons are used safely.” Specific policies he supported included “legislation requiring firearm owners to store weapons safely” and legislation to require gun owners “to inform law enforcement if their weapon is lost or stolen.”
More recently, the administration promised to crack down on gun dealers in the U.S. that “are supplying firearms that show up at crime scenes” and to coordinate with state officials that “take their own steps to shut down dealers that fail to live up to their obligations” to prevent diversion to criminal elements.
Judged by these standards, the Biden administration’s disastrous handling of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan should forever disqualify him from lecturing the rest of the country on “keeping firearms out of dangerous hands.” His bungling of that effort ensured that not just firearms but some of America’s more sophisticated military technology is now available to terrorists and other enemies who are and will continue to use them against Americans, American interests, and American allies.
Whatever one might think of America’s military presence in Afghanistan, it seems axiomatic that reasonable efforts should always be undertaken to ensure that our very own military materiel and armaments are secured against diversion to hostile forces.
It is becoming increasingly clear as the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan continues that none of these safeguards were adequately achieved.
The U.S. recognized government of Afghanistan collapsed almost immediately as American forces withdrew. Afghan President Ashraf Ghani and other senior government officials fled the country, and military and police forces offered little resistance as the Taliban quickly established itself as the de facto governing authority.
It was the Taliban which the U.S. toppled from power in Afghanistan following the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and the revelation that the fundamentalist Islamic group had sheltered and enabled Osama bin Laden in his preparation for the most devastating terrorist attack ever on American soil. Their rule had been marked by brutal treatment of anyone who diverged from the Taliban’s religious orthodoxy, with particular emphasis on the subjugation of women.
The New York Times reported that the Afghan military, which the U.S. had spent two decades and $83 billion trying to establish as an effective force, collapsed in days, rather than months or years as U.S. military planners had hoped. Many simply gave up, the paper stated, “with the cause for which they risked their lives appearing increasingly to be lost.”
The Washington Post acknowledged that the Taliban easily “captured many millions, perhaps billions, of dollars worth of U.S. military equipment that had once belonged to Afghan forces.” The haul included not just state-of-the-art small arms but more advanced equipment including armored personnel carriers, drones, helicopters, and night-vision equipment.
As the NRA has already reported, on the other hand, the Taliban do not trust ordinary Afghanis with weapons and have already started going door-to-door seizing personally held firearms, ostensibly because Taliban rule will replace the need for personal self-defense.
Yet media and NGO reports indicate that atrocities and war crimes are underway by victorious Taliban forces. These allegedly include executing surrendering Afghan troops, torturing and killing ethnic minorities and government loyalists, persecuting Christians, forcing girls and young women into sexual slavery, and even setting a woman on fire for “bad cooking.”
These activities (and perhaps future terrorist attacks and collaborations with other terrorists groups) are being enabled in part by armaments the Biden administration did not adequately secure before pulling U.S. forces out of the country.
Indeed, one of the horrors that has defined Biden’s incompetent leadership over the fiasco were images of Afghan citizens so panicked by the thought of being left to the Taliban’s depredations that they clung to the outside of departing U.S. aircraft until, inevitably, they fell to their deaths.
Joe Biden has therefore forfeited any credibility or moral authority on the issue of what ordinary Americans should do with their constitutionally protected arms.
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
IL: Kyle Roider found Not Guilty by Self Defense after 2.5 Years in Jail iStock-1055138108
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- Madison Lammert of the Republic Times has reported Kyle Roider spent two and a half years in Monroe County jail before a jury found him not guilty of all charges. Lammert has reported extensively on the case.
The jury was out for only three and a half hours before they returned the verdict at about 6 pm on 20 August 2021. Roider had been held without bail since January of 2019. The trial was delayed, in part, due to COVID19 fears.
The case involved drug use, a possible love interest, a failure to notify the police of the shooting, and digital recovery of data from phones.
Roider and the person killed, Steven Becker, were in Kyle’s home at the time, on Church Street in Waterloo, Illinois.
Kyle Roider had numerous misdemeanors before the incident. None of them were violent. He had not lost his right to bear arms. He has had mental issues but was found fit to stand trial. He had medication for schizophrenia.
Becker was found dead in Roider’s basement with gunshot wounds to his head and his right leg two days after the shooting.
Roider’s attorney, T.J. Matthes, argued that his client acted in self-defense after Becker attacked Roider with a knife.
The jury deliberated for three hours before returning its verdict.
“There were a lot of rumors going around about what happened,” Matthes said. “Kyle wanted all along to get a chance to tell his story. He told his story at the trial — he told the truth, the entire truth.”
After two and a half years in jail, Roider told his story to the jury. He was cross-examined. The answers he gave seemed plausible. When asked why he did not leave the house, if he felt threatened, he said: “Because it was my house.”
Both prosecutors and the defense created scenarios for what happened that day. The prosecutor claimed the evidence to clinch the deal was Roider failed to contact the police and report the shooting.
Roider said he was not capable of processing what had happened. After the body was found, Roider surrendered to the police. He always claimed the shooting was in self-defense.
In the end, the jury found enough reasonable doubt to find Roider not guilty.
The case is similar to one recently reported from Madison, Illinois, where Corion Mosely was found not guilty by reason of self-defense. It was a jury trial that ended on 13 August 2021. Mosley had spent two years in the county lockup, without bond. There are differences.
Waterloo Illinois, where the Becker killing took place, is only 28 miles south of Madison, Illinois, where Corion Mosely killed Omarion Coleman. Madison, Illinois is in the heart of the St. Louis metropolitan area. Waterloo is a town of 11 thousand in a rural county.
There were eyewitnesses in the Mosely trial. There were none in the trial of Roider.
No weapons were found in the hands of either person killed; there was reasonable doubt if they had access to weapons.
In both cases, in a jury trial, after years in county jail, the men were found not guilty.
Jury trials are one of the significant protections against government power in the United States.
Juries have the power to override prosecutors, judges, and to nullify the law in particular cases if they believe the application of the law is unjust.
It does not appear the law was nullified in the above cases; there simply was a reasonable doubt about the interpretation of the events.
Important lessons:
Reporting a shooting to the authorities helps your credibility.
Do not alter evidence.
Avoid confrontations when possible.
Surviving the encounter, and the trial, may result in two years in jail, even when found not guilty.
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.
At Home and at Work, These Armed Citizens Save Lives – Self Defense Gun Stories
U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- You probably didn’t see these stories covered by the mainstream news media, but again last week, responsible gun owners defended themselves and the people they love. Self-defense instructor Tony Simon joins the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast to look at four new examples. Were these gun owners lucky, or did they have a plan? (22-minute audio)
It is just after midnight on a weekday. You’re at home with your roommates. A stranger breaks down the back door. Your roommates come out of their rooms. The intruder threatens and then attacks your roommates. You’re armed. You shoot the attacker. He turns and runs away. You stop shooting. You check on your roommates and call the police. Police arrest your attacker at the local hospital. You’re not charged with a crime.
You’re behind the counter at a convenience store. It is late at night when another customer comes inside. He says he has a screwdriver and will stab you if you don’t hand over the money. Lots of convenience stores in the area have been robbed recently. You’re armed tonight. You shoot your attacker. He turns away, so you stop shooting. You call the police.
Emergency Medical Services takes your attacker to the hospital with life threatening injuries. You give a statement to the police.
It is late Sunday night or early Monday morning. You’re at home asleep. You’re startled awake by a crashing sound. You grab your gun and leave your bedroom. Someone is trying to break into your house through the back door. You shoot him as he enters your house. Your dog rushes out the door and then bites the intruder’s ankle. Now the intruder turns around and tries to leave. You call your dog and then call 911.
Police find your intruder outside your home. He is taken to the hospital. One story says he was bitten by the dog. Another story says he was both shot and bitten. You give a statement to the police. Your intruder is charged with burglary.
You hear a crashing sound outside at night. A moment later, you hear shouts and gunshots. You go out on your front porch. You see a stranger standing next to a car wreck and the stranger is shooting at your neighbors. You’re armed. You present your handgun and shoot the attacker. She stops shooting so you stop shooting. You go to your neighbors and see how you can help. They are hurt, so you call 911. You holster your gun and give the police a statement when they arrive.
The stranger was driving much too fast for the neighborhood and crashed into your neighbor’s car that was parked on the street. She shot your neighbors when they came out to give her some help. One of your neighbors is dead. You are not charged.
The lawsuit begins by outlining the operation of Cook County’s unconstitutional ban, explaining that common, constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles are prohibited if they can accept a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds of ammunition and have certain characteristics like a pistol grip, muzzle brake, or a barrel shroud. And while the ban has “very limited exemptions for certain persons,” it still does not “allow typical law-abiding citizens to keep and bear these common firearms.”
“The rifles at issue in this case are the sorts of bearable arms in common use for lawful purposes that law-abiding people possess at home by the millions,” FPC’s complaint explains. “And they are, moreover, exactly what they would bring to service in militia duty, should such be necessary.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a declaration of law holding the ordinance to be unconstitutional, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the ban, an award of nominal damages against the County of Cook, attorney’s fees, expert fees, and costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.
This case joins other FPC lawsuits challenging bans on common firearms, including its challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the laws, the first such victory in United States history, as well as a challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” Massachusetts’ ban on common handguns, and dozens of others.
Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org.
For more on these cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.
FPC 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 challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta)
A challenge to California’s handgun roster, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)
A challenge to Minnesota’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Worth v. Harrington)
A challenge to Illinois’ ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Meyer v. Raoul)
A challenge to Georgia’s ban on handgun carry by adults under 21 (Baughcum v. Jackson)
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)
About Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. FPC Law (FPCLaw.org), the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, lead the Second Amendment litigation and research space.
” [He actually ended his email with a smiley face icon.]
