The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) pistol brace rule that would see millions of Americans become felons overnight was dealt another devastating blow in a Texas District Court. Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the state of Texas successfully won a preliminary injunction (PI) against the new regulation.
“For these reasons, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction, (Dkt. No. 16). Defendants are ENJOINED from enforcing the Final Rule
against the private Plaintiffs in this case, including its current members and their resident family members, and individuals employed directly by the State of Texas or its agencies. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect pending resolution of the expedited appeal in Mock v. Garland,” the order reads
The victory comes one week after the Firearms Policy Coalition successfully secured a preliminary injunction from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for its members against the ATF overreach.
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has also secured a preliminary injunction from a District Court in the same Circuit.
Late Wednesday, the ruling on the injunction was clarified to include all SAF members, meaning that members of three of the most prominent gun rights groups are now exempt from the pistol brace rule for the time being.
ATF Legal Shortcomings
Instead of arguing that the Plaintiffs would not be likely to succeed on the merits of the case or that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparably harmed by the new rule, the government relied on attacking the standing of the Plaintiffs. The ATF tried to argue that they believed that GOA and GOF did not have a traditional membership and therefore lacked standing to bring a suit against the pistol brace rule. GOA’s lawyers responded that GOA did offer a traditional membership option.
The government responded that it was unaware that GOA had a traditional membership, and it would be unfair for the court to consider that GOA had a membership because the government would not have time to respond!?
Many legal experts saw this as a “Hail Mary” by the ATF’s council. Since a panel of three judges in the Fifth Circuit Court already decided that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case and would suffer irreparable harm in Mock v. Garland, attacking standing is likely the only path the government saw could lead to victory in the case.
Even though GOA won a substantial victory against the ATF, the gun rights group was not completely satisfied. They had asked the court for a nationwide injunction for its members and all Americans who owned or wanted to own a pistol equipped with a brace, not just its members. The group vowed to keep fighting back against draconian regulations enacted by the ATF without oversight from Congress.
With the FPC injunction in Mock v. Garland and the GOA injunction in Texas v. ATF along with the SAF injunction, millions of Americans are now protected from ATF overreach turning the new rule into a paper tiger.
The ATF will likely appeal the District Judge’s decision, but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is openly hostile towards the ATF, making Fiat law through the rule making process, in Cargill v. Garland, which challenged the ATF’s bump stock rule, the Fifth Circuit ruled by a margin of 13 to 3 that the government overstepped its power by violating the rule of lenity and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).
There are two other cases in other circuits. The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) is suing in the Sixth Circuit, and a group of private citizens is suing in the Eleventh Circuit.
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.
Alaska Limits Government Emergency Power and Protects Right to Arms
The Alaskan Legislature passed HB 61 on May 17, 2023. HB 61 ensures the right to keep and bear arms will not be abrogated by executive or local government fiat during a declared emergency. The Alaskan House voted to pass the bill 26 to 12 on May 5th. The Senate passed the bill 17 to 3 on May 16. The House concurred with the Senate version on May 17. HB 61 is awaiting signature by Governor (R) Mike Dunleavy. This correspondent has not found any statement by Governor Dunleavy for or against HB61. While the lopsided votes in the House and Senate would make signing the bill appear automatic, the bill limits executive power more than legislative power. Here is a part of HB61, as sent to Governor Dunleavy showing Legislative Intent:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the legislature that this Act does not affect the ability of the state or a municipality to exercise its duties under AS 29.35.145.
* Sec. 2. AS 44.99 is amended by adding new sections to article 5 to read:
Sec. 44.99.510. Infringements on the right to keep and bear arms; disaster.
(a) During a disaster emergency declared under AS 26.23.020, the governor, a state
agency, or a municipality may not issue or adopt an order, proclamation, regulation,
ordinance, or policy
(1) forbidding the possession, use, or transfer of a firearm, a firearm part, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal use;
(2) ordering the seizure or confiscation of a firearm, a firearm part, a firearm accessory, ammunition, or other weapon for personal use;
One of the reasons such laws have been promoted was the egregious disarmament of innocent people in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.
The use of “emergencies” to do what cannot be done in ordinary circumstances has a very long pedigree in politics. Rahm Emanuel said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
During the Cold War, this correspondent recalls reading U.S. Civil Defense documents. One of the policies was that any people entering public fallout shelters would be disarmed. Many states have “emergency powers” laws that allow the executive to ignore the Bill of Rights during emergencies. Governors have used their emergency power to shut down gun stores and ammunition sales during “emergencies”. Governor Northam of Virginia declared an emergency and banned the carry of weapons during Lobby Day in 2020. Overseas, there are several examples of people being forbidden to be armed in declared emergencies, such as the Philippines or Venezuela, or as this correspondent experienced in Panama under the Noriega regime in the 1980s. Such declared emergencies often stretch into years and become permanent policy, with or without legislation. In these declared emergencies, state agents are not disarmed.
“Emergencies” are exactly the time when citizens should be armed. It is when the population is most vulnerable, when criminals are emboldened, and when the government’s ability to maintain order is least effective.
The concept behind the structure of the United States is the people are the source of governmental power. This is a basic, but not sole, reason for the Second Amendment. Times of emergency are exactly when the armed population of the United States, severally or only one state or location, need to exercise their power and right to maintain public order. There is a long tradition in the United States of communities spontaneously forming local militias to maintain order.
Several states have repealed or reformed laws that give the government power to prevent people from being legally armed or able to purchase firearms or ammunition during an emergency. Texas passed HB1500 in 2021, forbidding state or local governments from prohibiting the sale or carry of firearms during a declared emergency. Some California measures closing gun shops and ranges during Covid were found to be unconstitutional.
To those who preach faith in the power of unlimited government, preventing the government from infringing on fundamental rights is a bad idea. They claim the government is never going to do anything bad to us, so don’t restrict governmental power. While they worship government power, they claim Second Amendment supporters worship guns.
Two of the many purposes of such bills are to show the drastic nature and fundamental flaws of laws that allow governments to disarm innocent Americans. Those who wish the people disarmed claim nothing bad will happen, they claim disarming the people is for the people’s own good. They claim disarmament will never happen while ignoring actual bans and confiscations that have happened.
This correspondent has no doubt those who wish to destroy the Republic, the rule of law, and the Constitution will continue to work hard to accomplish those things. They have gained control of the administrative state, the executive branch, and half the Congress. Enacting laws at the state level, to preserve the power and spirit of resistance, is good policy.
One of the primary purposes of an armed population is the confidence in the power of the people an armed society creates.
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.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, hails Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte for signing legislation to protect the financial privacy of purchases with credit cards at firearm retailers. Gov. Gianforte signed the Montana 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act to prohibit the use of a special Merchant Category Code (MCC) for credit card purchases and prevent personal financial information from being shared by financial institutions.
“Governor Gianforte is fulfilling his duties and responsibilities to protect the Second Amendment rights of Montanans against ‘woke’ activists intent on creating a back-door gun registry through the use of this special MCC,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President, and General Counsel. “Americans exercising their right to legally purchase firearms and ammunition should never be threatened by private financial service providers or government authorities to having their name and financial data being added to a government-accessible watchlist simply for exercising their Second Amendment rights. Governor Gianforte is ensuring that Montanans won’t be held captive by the radical ‘woke’ antigun agenda that seeks to weaponize credit cards in gun owners’ wallets against them. Gun owners should worry about what’s in their wallet, not who’s in their wallet.”
Gov. Gianforte signed the Montana 2nd Amendment Financial Privacy Act (SB 359) that prohibits financial institutions from requiring a firearm retailer-specific code that is different from that of other sporting goods or general merchandise retailers.
In late 2022, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) announced it would create a unique MCC, at the behest of Amalgamated Bank which has been described as the Left’s Private Banker, that would allow credit card companies to monitor transactions at firearm retailers. Credit card companies suspended plans to implement the use of unique firearm retailer MCCs after significant opposition by NSSF and several state governments.
Montana joins North Dakota, Florida, West Virginia, Mississippi, and Idaho in enacting laws to protect firearm purchasers’ privacy when using credit cards at firearm retailers. Legislation similar to these state laws is pending in Congress.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a legal challenge of New Jersey’s “sensitive places” concealed carry statute have filed a response to the state’s motion for a stay in the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The case is now known as Koons v. Platkin.
Second Amendment Foundation is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society, and four private citizens.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Renee Marie Bumb granted a preliminary injunction, and the state filed a motion to stay the order pending appeal.
Second Amendment Foundation opposes the stay, arguing the state “did not meet its burden before the district court, and it cannot meet it in this Court. Thus a stay pending appeal should be denied.”
“The state is struggling with all its might,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “in a stubborn effort to retain a literal stranglehold on the rights of New Jersey citizens. We’re challenging the ban on legal carry in parks, on beaches, and at recreation facilities, publicly owned museums and libraries, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, entertainment facilities, airports (before TSA security), public transportation hubs, and the presumptive ban on private property.
“There is no established historical tradition that could justify the restrictions included in the new law. New Jersey simply cannot criminalize licensed concealed carry virtually everywhere in the state by designating everything as a ‘sensitive area,’ nor should it be allowed to continue enforcing these restrictions pending appeal.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the state is playing a game of chicken with the Supreme Court and the Second Amendment.
“The state is burdened with showing the carry restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation, and we don’t see how that is possible,” Kraut said. “The state has not provided any evidence of Founding era restrictions like it wants to enforce today, and is essentially trying to stall the inevitable for as long as possible.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Those paying attention to official D.C. already know that Joe Biden’s political strategy involves portraying his political rivals, as not just wrong on policy or facts but as altogether illegitimate.
Now, recently revealed documents from an “anti-terrorism” grant program administered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illustrate the mutually reinforcing feedback loop between the Biden White House and its collaborators in academia. As those documents indicate, the administration uses taxpayer funds to support “educational” and “training” programs that portray the opposing political party – and various mainstream groups like the NRA that champion causes popular with Republicans – as gateways to violent radicalization.
financial assistance to eligible applicants to develop sustainable, multidisciplinary, targeted violence and terrorism prevention capabilities in local communities, to pilot innovative prevention approaches, and to identify prevention best practices that can be replicated in communities across the country.
The Obama/Biden Administration launched the TVTP program in 2011, supposedly as a response to Al-Qaeda trying to recruit and radicalize American citizens. More recently, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — a staunch Biden political ally – called the program “high priority” in an internal memo.
Among TVTP’s 2022 Fiscal Year awards was $352,109 to the University of Dayton Human Rights Center to implement its project, “Preventing Radicalization to Extremist Violence through Education, Network-Building and Training in Southwest Ohio (PREVENTS-OH).” Proponents of the project claimed it would:
raise awareness of the radicalization to violence process and establish a local prevention framework to counter it, develop and implement modules on the risks of and protective factors for radicalization to violence related to media literacy and online critical thinking for students, and improve civic engagement and build intergroup trust by conducting community dialogues on sensitive topics related to domestic violent extremism and developing local dialogue facilitation capacities.
What is now gaining attention, however, are the materials the University of Dayton Human Rights Center used to illustrate and substantiate the type of “education” it would seek to provide with the awarded funds. Those materials came to light thanks to an investigative effort launched by the Media Research Center Free Speech America project.
The University’s grant application, according to mediareports, referenced materials from a PREVENTS-OH seminar presented in 2021 and entitled “Extremism, Rhetoric, and Democratic Precarity.” Speakers at the seminar included a DHS official and University of Cincinnati researcher Michael Loadenthal, whose professional biography recounts his accomplishments in “protest campaigns” for far-Left causes, including “anarchist” and “anti-capitalist” movements.
Loadenthal’s presentation on “Digital Communities of the Modern Far-Right” included a graphic entitled “The Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization.” At the base of the pyramid of these supposed “radicals” were mainstream political, media, and non-governmental organizations, including the NRA, the Heritage Foundation, Fox News, the Christian Broadcasting Network, and even the Republican Party itself! The next level (supposedly representing a further progression toward violent radicalization) featured MAGA supporters, Breitbart News, Prager University, and the pro-police organization Blue Lives Matter. Above them on the third level was the Nazi Party itself. And above that on the top level were militia groups that advocate for racism and violent political change.
Other presenters at the 2021 PREVENTS-OH seminar, according to the MRC, suggested that individuals who oppose controversial policies promoted by the Biden Administration are ripe for infiltration by radicals. One speaker even suggested that current GOP presidential contender and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis might try to engineer a second Holocaust.
DHS, in a statement to the media, emphasized that the 2021 PREVENTS-OH seminar was not funded, organized, or hosted by DHS, and DHS did not endorse the “The Pyramid of Far-Right Radicalization.”
Nevertheless, a DHS official was present at the event where that material and those narratives were presented. And the organization that hosted the event presenting those views to the public was the same organization receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayer funding through a TVTP grant for Fiscal Year 2022.
Moreover, although PREVENTS-OH scrubbed its own website of references to the 2021 seminar, according the Media Research Center, references to it are still archived on the Internet.
Patriots, however, are now on notice that the runaway Biden administration will do whatever it can to use the levers of official power against them to consolidate his own authority and to suppress any opposition. Their best hope is to wrest his hands away from those levers in the 2024 presidential election.
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
DeSantis signed a permit-less carry bill in April that removes requirements for:
-background checks
-instruction
-training+oversight
Until our leaders have the courage to stop bowing down to the NRA and enact common sense gun safety this kind of senseless violence will continue. https://t.co/iX6ryxsPwv
BELLEVUE, WA – California Gov. Gavin Newsom should button his lip instead of trying to blame a new permitless carry law signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis for a Memorial Day shooting in Florida when the law is not yet in effect, especially when shootings continue in the Golden State, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.
“Gavin Newsom’s moronic effort to chastise DeSantis for signing Florida’s permitless carry law shows a level of foolishness I didn’t think was possible,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.
“Maybe Newsom was so busy railing against DeSantis he didn’t notice three weekend shootings in Oakland, a triple-shooting Saturday in Garden Grove or shooting incidents in Fresno that left one man dead and another man wounded.
“For a man serving as chief executive of a state with horribly restrictive gun laws that haven’t curbed the violence, Gavin Newsom has nothing to brag about,” he continued. “California’s gun laws didn’t prevent two mass shootings in January of this year, or the Mojave shooting last month. The laws didn’t stop the Isla Vista murders in 2014, or San Bernardino in 2015. Ten people were killed in San Jose in May 2021. Maybe Newsom wasn’t in town in April 2022 when six people were murdered in a mass shooting in Sacramento.”
“Look at any violent crime chart and California always exceeds Florida in the number of homicides,” Gottlieb added. “Newsom can bask in the warm glow of symbolism provided by Everytown for Gun Safety, which incredulously claims California gun policies save lives, even if the numbers disagree. Facts don’t matter to the gun ban crowd.”
Newsom was fact-checked on his assertion the Memorial Day shooting at Hollywood, Florida was because of laws DeSantis signed. Those laws haven’t yet taken effect, so they had nothing to do with Monday’s incident.
“Maybe Newsom is pointing a finger at Florida and DeSantis in an effort to distract public attention from his failures in his own state,” Gottlieb said. “More people are leaving California and heading to Second Amendment-friendly states such as Florida and Texas. Maybe all of those people just want to live in a state that allows them the ability to defend themselves and fight back.”
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 anti-gun extremists at Giffords and March for Our Lives are running a joint operation to try to convince students in law school to sign a pledge to never represent anyone within “the gun industry or gun lobby.” And while some have accurately pointed out this campaign is little more than an effort to try to limit available “legal talent” to an entire lawful industry—an industry that makes products specifically protected by the Second Amendment—there may be another way to look at this campaign.
One could wish it success.
You see, if young, future lawyers are incapable of understanding the Constitution and, especially, the Second Amendment, cannot put their personal feelings aside to defend a client that has not violated the law, and are willing to decide which clients are “acceptable” based on how a small but vocal segment of society views them, then perhaps it is good to identify them before they become entrenched in a reputable law firm.
The Giffords/March campaign is simply an extension of their shared extremist agenda of vilifying lawful gun manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners for the actions of violent, often mentally deranged individuals. And they want to identify future attorneys who share this twisted world view.
Again, maybe this is a good thing.
The campaign professes:
“Law students have the power to determine their own futures when choosing an employer and should feel empowered to seek one that reflects their core values. Firms make decisions about clients based on a number of factors, including potential consequences that could result from the firm accepting a matter. Law students have a unique power to help firms realize that work on behalf of gun industry clients can impact a firm’s ability to recruit the next generation of lawyers.”
Nothing in that statement is particularly groundbreaking, as law students have always had “the power to determine their own future when choosing an employer.” That’s always been the case. But the notion that lawyers sympathetic to the anti-gun cause, fresh out of law school, “have a unique power to…impact a firm’s ability to recruit the next generation of lawyers” seems a bit silly.
Some, however, might be concerned about the availability of quality candidates, and the Giffords/March list may help to quickly eliminate demonstrably unqualified candidates. After all, unless a law firm is dedicated to promoting anti-gun policies, why would it want attorneys that would leverage their future on their ability to ignore any part of the Constitution with which they disagree, or ignore any client they do not entirely agree with?
In fact, one of the justifications of this anti-gun crusade for young lawyers is that attorneys “must act with commitment and dedication to the interest of [their] client and with zeal in advocacy upon the client’s behalf,” as quoted from the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. The obvious implication is that, if young attorneys simply don’t like lawful gun manufacturers, then they cannot do their job very well if tasked with defending them in court.
That’s true, but if anything, such a viewpoint would be indicative of a young attorney a respectable law firm would not want in its stable of lawyers. If an attorney cannot effectively represent one lawful industry based on that attorney’s myopic, anti-gun views, what’s to stop that same attorney from ineffectively representing another client because of some sort of perceived fault—whether real or imagined—with that client?
The far left of the political spectrum has spent the last several years trying to divide the nation on any number of fronts, and there is little to indicate that campaign will subside. When it comes to attacking the firearms industry, their efforts have been supported by most in the mainstream media, and, of course, by the man currently occupying the White House. If the anti-gun extremists—a distinct minority of our nation—are able to convince some young, impressionable future attorneys to refuse to do the job they are trained to do, and other radical movements can do the same, then the only segment of society that will be truly harmed is the legal profession.
Sure, some young law school graduates may voluntarily remove themselves from the candidate pool of many prestigious law firms, but there will be plenty of more competent candidates to take their place. Whether they are passionate about the Second Amendment or simply have a better understanding of the basic principles of our legal system than their radically anti-gun counterparts, these young attorneys will prove to be a better fit in any law firm that has not sold its soul to the anti-gun extremists at Giffords/March.
So, the campaign may be thumbing its nose at the concept of justice being blind. It may also be willing to sacrifice the Sixth Amendment—which, among other things, recognizes the right to legal counsel—on the altar of those who worship destroying the Second Amendment. But, in the end, it may result in a fairly accurate list of the least qualified potential attorneys coming out of law school.
Hopefully, the anti-gun extremists at Giffords/March make the “Bad Lawyers” list available as a public service.
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
Time is running out for Congress to vote on Congressman Andrew Clyde’s Resolution H.J. 44.
In a move to curb what most agree is a “rogue” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Representative Andrew Clyde has appealed to fellow GOP representatives to back H.J. Res. 44, a resolution against the forthcoming ATF pistol brace rule. Clyde maintains that this regulation, which stands to reclassify millions of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), is an overreach by the ATF.
Speaking to Breitbart News on May 23, 2023, he stated, “The ATF has gone rogue here, and they need to be reined in, and this is one of the ways that we’re going to do it.”
As per the details of the rule, owners of AR-pistols with stabilizer braces could find themselves unwittingly in violation of the law when the rule goes into effect on June 1, 2023. It compels gun owners to either register their firearms with braces under the National Firearms Act (NFA), dismantle the brace rendering it irremovable, or hand their guns over to law enforcement. This imminent change has sparked a series of lawsuits and significant criticism from Congress.
With the vote on H.J. Res. 44 possibly occurring as late as May 31, Clyde is urging Republicans who have remained inactive to unite in the effort to stop the ATF rule.
He believes the resolution’s passage will not only move the legislation to the Senate but also signal to courts across the country where Congress stands on this issue.
“House passage of H.J. Res. 44 sends a very strong message that this is Congress’s intent. So in court cases against the rule, that are ongoing already, judges will know where Congress stands,” Clyde said.
The ATF’s pistol brace ban is nothing more than backdoor gun control.
It’s up to Congress to rein in this rogue agency.
We must pass my bill, H.J.Res. 44, to block the ATF’s unconstitutional rule BEFORE it takes effect next week. https://t.co/TgMJyMwtZP
While Clyde is gathering supporters in Congress, Congressman Paul A. Gosar voiced his criticism of the ATF’s proposed rule in an article published on May 27, 2023, at Americanthinker.com.
Gosar argued that the rule is a radical infringement on the Second Amendment, turning law-abiding citizens into de facto felons for their past legal purchases. He pointed out the lack of evidence linking the use of pistol braces to increased gun violence. He questioned the enforcement of the rule, fearing it could place law enforcement officers in a position of potential conflict with peaceful civilians.
Gosar, like Clyde, supports H.J. Res 44 and calls for its vote before the deadline. He asserts that the resolution’s popularity, as demonstrated by its 188 cosponsors, surpasses that of any other resolution scheduled for a vote in the same week. He ended his critique by appealing to colleagues to consider the consequences of their inaction, highlighting the potential erosion of trust between Second Amendment supporters and Congress.
The resolution initially brought to the House Judiciary Committee in April 2023, cleared the committee with a 23-15 vote and now faces the hurdle of Congressional approval. If it passes, it is unlikely to gain President Biden’s signature given his previously stated opposition to gun rights. Nonetheless, proponents of the resolution, like Clyde and Gosar, believe its passage would shine a light on the ATF’s overreach, setting the stage for future action should Republicans gain more power.
By Fred Riehl and AI tools. Note: This article was generated using AI technology and may contain some automated content aggregation and analysis.
Gun Control in Florida Costs Lives, iStock-884197090
U.S.A. — On May 24, 2023, a three-judge panel of the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, which includes Broward County, found the circuit court judge, Michael I. Rothschild, to have egregiously misread Florida law. The three-judge panel, consisting of judges Artua, Ciklin and Conner, unanimously found loading and openly carrying a firearm in a person’s own yard is not use of deadly force and is protected conduct under both Florida law and the Second Amendment of the US Constitution.
Richard Burns engaged in a verbal confrontation with a five-man tree-cutting crew in his front yard. A crew member made sexually suggestive gestures toward his fiancee. Another crew member threatened his dogs with a chainsaw. Burns demanded the crew leave. When they refused, he retrieved a handgun from the home. He was in his front yard when he chambered a round. He held the handgun at his side while again demanding the tree-cutting crew leave his front yard. The State of Florida charged Burns with aggravated assault. Burns asked the circuit court to apply immunity from prosecution, citing Florida Stand Your Ground Law. The circuit court refused. Burns then appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District. The appeals court found for Richard Burns. Selected quotes from the opinion are shown below.
That a person’s home is his or her “castle” is one of the most basic tenets of our jurisprudence. However, for Richard Burns …, charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon for openly carrying and loading his firearm in the yard of his own home, the “castle” our law entitled him to protect was relegated to a defenseless dungeon. We conclude that the trial court erred in denying his motion for immunity from prosecution pursuant to Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. We therefore grant his petition for writ of prohibition because he is legally entitled to immunity from prosecution on the aggravated assault charge.
Richard Burns did not point his handgun at anyone.
[T]he trial court denied Burns’ motion on grounds that his “menacing” act of chambering a round in the firearm, coupled with the display of the weapon without pointing it at anyone, constituted an unjustified threatened use of deadly force. The trial court determined that, because Burns was not in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm at the time of the incident, his actions were not justified under the circumstances. We disagree
The mere display of a firearm is not the use of deadly force.
The display of a firearm constitutes non-deadly force as a matter of law. See, e.g., Cunningham v. State (Fla. Ct. App. 2015) (recognizing that “the mere display of a gun is not deadly force as a matter of law”); see also Howard v. State (Fla. Ct. App. 1997) (“[E]ven the display of a deadly weapon, without more, is not ‘deadly force.'”).
The trial court completely misread the appeal court precedent in the Little case.
Moreover, the trial court’s reliance on our decision in Little, in support of its conclusion that Burns’ actions amounted to a threatened use of deadly force, was entirely misplaced.
The Second Amendment bars unjustified federal or state intrusion on the right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Central to this right, as the Supreme Court explained in Heller, is “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” The federal constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment stands as a barrier between the individual and any unjustified federal or state intrusion upon that right.
Florida law against open carry does not apply to a person’s home or place of business.
Florida grants to all persons who have not been legally disqualified from owning, possessing, and using firearms not only an individual state constitutional right “to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves,” but also the statutory right “to own, possess, and lawfully use” weapons, including firearms, at a person’s “home or place of business” without the restrictions against the open carrying of weapons or
firearms imposed…
Even outside a person’s home property or place of business, open carry is partially protected.
In other words, Florida provides a statutory right to openly carry a weapon or firearm while on one’s home property or place of business. Even when one is not at his or her home property or place of business, it is not unlawful in Florida to “briefly and openly display” a lawfully carried firearm “to the ordinary sight of another person,” so long as the firearm is not being “intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner” when the display of the firearm is “not in necessary self-defense.” These statutes recognize that a firearm is not just a collector’s item that is stored out-of-sight indefinitely. For a firearm to be useful for self-defense, it must be readily available and loaded, neither of which can be effectively and safely done if the firearm cannot be taken out of concealment or storage and openly displayed while being loaded and held.
Richard Burns had the right to display his firearm in anticipation of possible use, even if he were not on his home property.
Once Richard Burns told the tree-cutting crew to leave, and they refused, they became trespassers. The trespass and the threat to his dogs both justified his actions.
In addition, after Burns asked the tree-cutting crew to leave his property, and they refused to immediately do so, they became trespassers, justifying his legal right to use non-deadly force, including his constitutional and statutory right to openly carry or display his loaded firearm, to assist him in not only terminating the trespass, but also in preventing the reasonably perceived tortious and criminal interference with his dogs, which are his personal property.
Conclusion: The trial court ordered to dismiss the charges against Burns.
Openly carrying or displaying a firearm, and loading it by advancing a bullet in its chamber for it to be ready for use if needed, does not constitute the unjustified or threatened use of deadly force as a matter of law. Moreover, Burns had a lawful right to openly carry his firearm on his home property. Thus, Burns is entitled to immunity from prosecution for his non-deadly use of his firearm during the incident with the tree-cutting crew. See § 776.032(1), Fla. Stat. (2020) (granting “immun[ity] from criminal prosecution” for any use or threatened use of force “permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031” (emphasis added)). We therefore grant Burns’ petition for writ of prohibition and direct the trial court to grant his motion to dismiss, thereby discharging him from further criminal prosecution on the aggravated assault charge.
The case may be appealed by the State of Florida. This opinion is straightforward. In some jurisdictions, the mere display of a firearm has been, at times, viewed as an aggravated assault. This opinion is a step promoting the commonsense concept of the practical need for defensive display of firearms in situations where deadly force is not immediately required.
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 right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to obtain arms. Arms can be obtained in several ways. Those include: making your own arms; buying your arms from someone else; having your arms given to you; finding arms that have been lost or discarded; and stealing arms that belong to someone else.
The most common method of obtaining arms is to buy them. The right to buy arms is clearly included in the right to keep and bear arms as an ancillary right necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear them. Ancillary rights necessary to preserve the right to keep and bear arms have been recognized by the Supreme Court and inferior courts as necessary to maintain the right to keep and bear arms.
It follows, therefore, requiring a permit to purchase arms is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Under the Supreme Court decision in Bruen, if a statute implicates an action protected under the Second Amendment, the State has the burden of proving, with the historical record, such infringements were common and accepted just before and after the ratification of the Second Amendment; or, to a lesser extent, shortly after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. Occasional statutes or local laws or laws of short duration are not sufficient to establish a law as common and accepted. Laws which affected only a small percentage of the population are unlikely to meet the historical test. Governments in the late colonial and early republic era had the same concerns with disarming dangerous individuals as do governments today. They could have enacted laws requiring a permit to purchase firearms. The lack of such laws is evidence they were not widely viewed as acceptable infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, protected by the Second Amendment.
There was no lack of laws against stealing. Prohibition of stealing is in the DNA of Western jurisprudence and culture, deriving from the biblical commandment not to steal. Laws against the theft of arms are not infringements on Second Amendment rights.
Some judges have claimed there is historical support which allows the requirement of a permit to purchase arms or the carry arms. Chief Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the Federal District Court, D. of New Jersey, in her opinion issued [embedded below] on May 16, 2023, implies the requirement to obtain a permit to obtain and carry arms is acceptable in American history.
Judge Bumb treats a permit to purchase and a permit to carry as essentially the same. The “why” of the law is to disarm dangerous people; to a lesser extent, it is to prevent dangerous people from having arms.
There is much which is positive in Judge Bumb’s opinion. Finding there is a historical acceptance of requiring a permit to carry, or even purchase, a firearm is an unfortunate misreading by Judge Bumb. From page 10 of the Opinion:
That said, this Court finds that most of the new legislation’s firearm permitting requirements are consistent with the Second Amendment. This Nation has historically disarmed dangerous individuals or those who could endanger the public’s safety if allowed to have a firearm. The new legislation adheres to that historical tradition because it aims to keep firearms out of the hands of New Jerseyans who could threaten the public’s safety.
Judge Bumb recognizes the inherent infringement of permit laws but claims permits are an acceptable infringement. From the opinion:
Page 35:
Chapter 131’s permit process implicates the right to armed self-defense in public because an
individual must first obtain a Carry Permit to carry a handgun in public for self-defense, otherwise, the individual exposes him- or herself to criminal liability. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-5(b).
Page 37:
Bruen left open the possibility of constitutional challenges to “shall issue” statutory laws because “any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends.”
Page 38:
In any event, based on the State’s historical materials and the Court’s own research, this Court finds this Nation has a historical tradition of disarming dangerous individuals and those who endanger the public safety.
Judge Bumb relies on colonial laws from 1692 and later, which allowed public officials to disarm people who were found to be dangerous, such as a New Hampshire colonial law allowing a person to be disarmed if they refused to take an oath of allegiance or a Massachusetts law which allowed officials to disarm people who rode about to “terrify the public”. There were laws to prevent slaves from carrying or keeping arms without permission of the owner. A 1664 law of colonial New York which required a slave to obtain permission from his master to carry arms outside his master’s property. Similar laws existed in 1704 in Virginia, and for “free negros, mulattos or [I]ndians” to have guns after obtaining a license. North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia had laws prohibiting slaves from carrying guns in public without permission from their owners. In 1832 Delaware had a law allowing “free negros and mullatos” to carry firearms with a license.
Such laws were relatively rare. They applied to groups of people who were not considered part of the body politic. They required the permit only for particular groups of people, not the whole body of the people.
After the Civil war, a few jurisdictions required a permit to carry a pistol. They include local ordinances in Jersey City, in 1871 and the City of New York, in 1881. From these sparse underpinnings, Judge Bumb creates this finding. From page 57:
This Court finds that Chapter 131’s reputable persons endorsement and in-person interview requirements are “narrow, objective, and definite standards guiding licensing officials” to “ensure only those bearing arms in [New Jersey] are, in fact, law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Bruen, 142 S.
Such permits are a prior restraint on the right to keep and bear arms.
There is an enormous difference in the “how” of the law. The early laws required the State to determine a person was dangerous before they were disarmed. In the early situation, most people were presumed to be allowed to possess and carry arms. Only small numbers of people are considered to be dangerous and disaffected. In the latter situation, which New Jersey is promoting, everyone is presumed to be dangerous and are not allowed to be armed until the state says they may. This is a retreat to monarchical law. Significantly, Colonial or early Republic States could have required everyone to apply for a permit before purchasing arms. No state passed such a general requirement. It is telling they did not do so.
The New Jersey law requires a person to prove they are not dangerous before they are allowed to be armed. The change in the burden of proof is huge. The New Jersey law equates the entire body of the people as dangerous and disaffected until shown to be otherwise. Disarming people who are already armed is significantly different from preventing people, who are not armed, from becoming armed. Only people who were not considered part of the body politic (slaves and free Negros or mullatos, or Indians) in slave states were presumed to need permission to be armed. The vast majority of the polity were not required to ask for or obtain permits. Only those who were not considered to be reliable were required to obtain permits.
The requirement to obtain a permit to own or carry arms puts ordinary, law-abiding people in the same category as slaves or those who are presumed to have no allegiance to Constitutional government.
Significantly later, some jurisdictions required people to obtain a permit to purchase a pistol, such as Michigan in 1911 and North Carolina in 1919. Those statutes are too late to be relevant in Second Amendment jurisprudence.
In the philosophy of the founding, the majority of the people were to be trusted with political power, such as the vote and the right to keep and bear arms. Only suspect minorities were required to apply for permits to own or carry arms. In the Progressive era, majorities of voters were to have their opinions and choices shaped by experts. They were not to be consulted in most decisions.
Judge Bumb explains the Supreme Court has not delivered an opinion on whether “shall issue” carry laws are constitutional under the Second Amendment. She allows the issue is one which is yet to be adjudicated. Judge Bumb compares a permit to purchase or carry a firearm with a permit to have an event protected by the First Amendment. It is a precarious comparison. One is for a group of people where significant costs may accrue to the local government. Another is for an individual where the local government has no need to even know they are armed. The administrative costs are all created by the law requiring a permit, not costs created by the permit holder.
Over the last 100 years, infringements on the exercise of Second Amendment rights have created bureaucracies and a mythology of the usefulness or necessity of government power to dole out those rights to a favored few. That era is over for most of the United States. Recently, the requirement of permits to purchase handguns was repealed in Nebraska and North Carolina.
If the Republic can be maintained for a few more years, the words “shall not be infringed” have a good chance of being honored as they were meant when written.
Final Opinion in RONALD KOONS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATTHEW PLATKIN
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.
A shocking new poll shows 88% of Democrats think “controlling gun violence” is more important than protecting gun rights. (Dave Workman)
A new national survey shows 60 percent of poll respondents—including an alarming 88 percent of Democrats—think it is more important to control gun violence than it is to protect gun rights.
According to a report in The Hill, the newly-released NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll shows the highest preference for gun control over gun rights in the past ten years. Shockingly, 40 percent of people who own guns “report feeling the same,” The Hill said.
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, reacted quickly.
“This is a stunning revelation,” Gottlieb said. “While we have always advocated for safer communities and have supported citizen initiatives aimed at locking up criminals, it is appalling that such an overwhelming percentage of Democrats are so willing to throw the Second Amendment under a bus to achieve some false sense of security.”
The poll was released on the one-year anniversary of the deadly attack on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, where responding police waited in the hallway while the killer was shooting.
While 88 percent of Democrats give gun control a higher priority than protecting the right to keep and bear arms, 67 percent of Republicans think just the opposite.
They think protecting rights is more important. Fifty-five percent of Independents also think controlling so-called “gun violence” is more important than protecting gun rights.
This is nothing new for Democrats. A look back at similar polling by The Economist/YouGov shows that in April of last year, showed only 9 percent of Democrats think the right of people to own guns is more important than protecting people from “gun violence,” while 57 percent prioritize protecting people, and 29 percent think both are equally important.
Thirty-nine percent of Republicans, on the other hand, said protecting the right to keep and bear arms is more important. In comparison, only 10 percent thought protecting against violence took priority, and the plurality (49%) said protecting both is important.
Jump ahead to November of last year, and a similar survey found 63 percent of responding Democrats gave more importance to protecting people from violence while the same 9 percent stuck to their gun rights. Thirteen percent of Republicans thought protecting gun rights was more important. In comparison, 29 percent felt protecting people from violent crime had the edge, but 47 percent of GOP respondents still said protecting both were important.
According to the Marist Poll, “More than one in four Americans (27%) say banning the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons would be the most impactful in reducing gun violence in the United States. 17% think mental health screenings for all gun buyers would make the most difference. Background checks for gun purchases at gun shows and other private sales (13%), red flag laws (12%), and allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom (10%) follow. A notable 20% of Americans do not think any of these options would have an impact.”
On a somewhat brighter note, the Marist Poll revealed that 58 percent of survey participants support “stand your ground laws,” which eliminate a “duty to retreat” before acting in self-defense. Forty percent disapprove overall, and the political breakdown once again shows Democrats in an unfavorable light. A whopping 81 percent of Republicans and 57 percent of Independents approve of “stand your ground” laws, but 60 percent of Democrats do not approve.
Perhaps equally gratifying to the gun rights community is the revelation that “a growing proportion of Americans (35%) also say their first reaction to a mass shooting is more people need to carry guns.” The last time this question came up, in 2019, support for armed citizens was at 25 percent.
Why are such poll results important? Increasingly, public opinion polls suggest people think rights are subject to such surveys. Even MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow understands the difference between rights and privileges.
“The thing about rights is they’re not actually supposed to be voted on,” Maddow reportedly has stated. “That’s why they’re called rights.”
Politicians all the way up to Joe Biden seem to shape their positions on guns based on poll results, whether it is the support for so-called “universal background checks” or bans on so-called “assault weapons.”
Regarding the new poll, CCRKBA’s Gottlieb said he is equally disappointed that many Independents and even some Republican poll respondents were also willing to prioritize controlling crime over protecting individual rights.
“The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our Bill of Rights and most state constitutions for a reason,” Gottlieb noted. “If we don’t protect all of our rights vigorously, pretty soon we will end up with none of them.”
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.
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- I’m hearing too many rumors over pistol brace criminalization to ignore this distinct and real possibility. I’ve lost my perspective somewhat on what ‘regulations’ some agencies are willing to enshrine. With each significant question I’ve faced in my life, I’ve pondered two things. First, whom do I seek to serve with my actions? Second, who ultimately, are the beneficiaries of the intended outcome? I seriously doubt these are the kinds of ethical quandaries ATF considers with their regulations. Simply translated, our pistol braced weapons might well be on the chopping block.
If perfectly legal pistol braces and being slated for criminalization, there are some obvious things to consider. First and foremost is pushback on our part. I’m a decent and moral American, as are you. At every turn when our ‘rulers’ seek to wave a magic wand and make our goods and actions illegal, we should voice our thoughts. Send letters, write emails, make calls to ATF, and flood your elected officials in the House and Senate with those same communications with your outrage. It is vital to offer them the expectation they’ll act on your behalf. Why? Because you vote and their action or inaction on this will influence your next ballot. There are no shortages of advocacy groups you can join to help in this fight. The fight comes first, always. Our plight is continual and if you’re not part of the solution, by definition you’re part of the problem. So, get on board.
However, there is always the possibility our efforts may not come to fruition. ATF may attempt making legal pistol brace owners criminals. Thus, we’re always wise to have a contingency at the ready. We may face a really tough choice on what to do with an AR or AK style “pistol” or anything utilizing a pistol brace. We should explore those options and consider them fully.
I own and operate Controlled Chaos Arms. While I have a manufacturing FFL, I’m considered a ‘dealer’ for the purposes of ATF business when it comes to a Form 4, which is a transfer of an NFA item. As a dealer, I can transfer from my inventory an NFA weapon to you an individual, trust, or corporation through this Form 4 submission. However, as the owner of your pistol, you can register this yourself through an ATF process called the Form 1.
I’ve been thinking about this long and hard. In the case that the pistol brace goes the way of the dodo bird, we have some choices to consider. As it appears you could dismantle the weapon and wait to see what happens. You could sell, destroy, or be done with that arm brace component. Another option would be to register it as an SBR (Short Barreled Rifle) with ATF through the Form 1 process and remit your $200 per weapon (serial number). Or… You could attach a vertical grip to your former pistol, rendering it an AOW (Any Other Weapon), and remit your $200 as well.
Why? Because ATF defines a pistol as ‘designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand’ and when you add a second vertical grip the ATF claims that the weapon is now designed to be used by two hands. Amazing huh? The addition of a piece of aluminum or plastic to an existing pistol makes it something completely different. We need more ATF regulations and definitions, don’t we? (#rollingeyes) There is a bright side to the AOW route though, as the TRANSFER of an AOW is $5, not $200. But to MAKE either the SBR or AOW it’ll cost your $200 smackers for the tax stamp.
How does one Form 1 a weapon?
You’ll need to mark the weapon permanently according to ATF specifications. Engraving, casting, stamping, or impressing of the information you’re required to mark the firearm comes with specifications. The depth of the engraving cannot be less than .003” deep. Additionally, the print size can’t be smaller than 1/16 inch. This means that if your cousin owns a laser in his print shop that is capable of making plaques for your golf outing winners, but can nearly be wiped off by a brush of your thumb from the side of your AK receiver, it won’t pass muster. I know lots of people who take their stuff into a laser engraver and it does not adhere to the strict guide put forth by ATF. Find some specifics on page 3 HERE.
If you have a weapon that someone else manufactured, you are simply the ‘maker’ of the NFA weapon. In which case you’ll need to label it accordingly along with your locale. Here’s an example:
Joe Blow
OR
Joe Blow Trust (when you’re using a trust instead of an individual filing)
AND
Town, State (state abbreviations are acceptable and common)
More information is required if you built up an 80% unit though or you have a weapon with no markings on it. You’re the manufacturer now in a sense, not the maker, so the engraving list gets longer. In addition to the markings above, you’ll need to add:
SN: 0001 (the “SN” serial number designation along with the number)
CAL: 9MM (the Caliber and number)
MODEL: AR-14 (There’s no reason this part can’t be fun)
Your information needs to be identical on the Form 1 and the weapon. I can’t stress this enough. I have a Type 07 Manufacturing FFL and I can assure you if you want problems with ATF a great way to achieve this silly goal is to have your form information vary from your markings. You need to mark the places where you’d find a standard marking on everything else. Don’t screw around and mark a pistol slide, or the top cover of an AK, or AR upper receiver. You want the frame, lower receiver, main receiver, etc. That’s the ‘gun’ as far as ATF is concerned and that’s the proper choice of items to mark. HERE is ATF info on marking.
One final note on markings… In Title I land, you’ll find no shortage of weapons marked “multi” these days. However, in NFA-ville, there is no such thing. NFA weapons are specifically marked, as this registration follows the weapon around forever. Any change from what the national registry reflection, will need to be communicated to ATF. So, you can’t put “multi” down for your caliber. If your caliber is 5.56mm, then mark your firearm as such, and your Form 1 should reflect that. If you change the weapon configuration from a 10.5” stick in 5.56 to a 10.5” in 300BO, you need to contact ATF and have the registry updated. They can advise at that time on marking, as I’ve had two customers tell me they were not advised to change their weapon markings and many others that did. The same goes for tech changes. If your weapon is a 5.56 with a 10.5” stick and you change to a 5.56 with a 12” stick, the barrel length and overall weapon length are now different from the specs in the national registry, thus an update from you is necessary. When you play in the NFA things are very specific and alterations are fine, but require communication from you.
Don’t shirk your responsibilities for this or you can be in real trouble.
Let’s go over how to submit your Form 1. You can download that document HERE if you like and fill it out in paper format. It looks like a pain in the rear end, but it really isn’t. After you do one or two, you’ll be an ace and won’t take issue with it. I’ve seen applications to become members of some churches that are more exhausting. Or, you can utilize the ATF eForms page and do the work through the internet. Always take a moment when using the internet to thank Al Gore for his invention. I know I do.
Once you arrive at the eForms page, you’ll need a User ID and password, so head to the bottom of the page and hit the green button where it says, “Register” to get started. Simply fill it out and begin. Here’s the skinny though… Unlike everyone else on the internet, ATF can’t make their portal work well and it is down weekly for maintenance. This is not me hacking on ATF for fun and profit. This is the truth. DO NOT ram and jam your way through screens. Once you have clicked a button, take a break as the system fires up the squirrels necessary to spin wheeled cages and make the magic happen. If you force your way through each field thinking repeated clicks on a button will help, you’re set up for disappointment. Also, do yourself a favor and don’t even bother to use the system on Wednesdays. Not a joke. Wednesday is quite literally scheduled weekly maintenance for that site and portal. You will accomplish little more than high blood pressure by an attempt at a Wednesday submittal. Granted, I haven’t actually attempted a Wednesday form submission for several months, but I’d be shocked to find it working since the framework and backend don’t appear to have been updated since Methuselah was knee-high to a grasshopper…
I’m told by customers the eForms fly through. My definition and theirs are quite different in terms of what “fly” means. I know with certainty there is no reason an eForm can’t take one business day to process. The rest of the world does it, so ATF can. But they don’t. So, my buddies are tickled when they see an eForm clear in a month or a little more. Paper Form 1 submissions are taking about 4 months as of the date of this article. When you compare this against Form 4 submissions from the 2016/2017 era, when I had some languish for a year and a half, this sounds pretty good. When I can import a belt-fed machine gun, have it chopped to satisfy DOJ, and get it transferred through customs and to me quicker than Joe Blow can register his new SBR or AOW, there’s a fundamental flaw in the system. But, that’s a squabble for a future article. Maybe sometime I should sit down with an ATF official and ascertain what the nature of the problems are on their end. Who knows, I might be able to help.
The instructions on the forms are pretty straight forward. You’re told how to fill out the documents with a long list of instructions and definitions. If you’re paper filing, the location to mail is at the top of the document under a thick black line. All you have to do is cough up the bucks, adhere to all your state and local laws, and remember I’m no lawyer – just a hell of a gun plumber, shower singer extraordinaire, and writer.
About Michael Ware:
Michael is a Christian husband and father to two children. He owns and operates Controlled Chaos Arms, a premier custom weapons shop in the Midwest. He serves as Chairman of the board of Directors at the Iowa Firearms Coalition. The pursuit of truth drives him in research and his writing.
Michael enjoys shooting, hunting, and fishing throughout the Midwest and Rockies. An avid outdoorsman and tireless supporter of all Second Amendment virtues, he can be found in his gun shop, in a tree stand with his kids, or on Capitol Hill lobbying in support of Freedom and Liberty at any given time.
