Biden’s Proposed Rule Will Eliminate Private Gun Sales

Biden’s Proposed Rule Will Eliminate Private Gun Sales IMG iStock-1182677191

President Joe Biden and the Department of Justice announced a proposed rule to change who will need a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell firearms.

The long-awaited rule was hailed by anti-gun groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, and Brady United as a way of closing the “gun show loophole” and the “internet loophole.” Anti-gun organizations claim this is a step towards universal background checks, a centerpiece of the Biden Administration’s anti-gun policy.

The proposed rule is powered by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which was a law championed by Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX). The BSCA changed the law’s wording to describe who the federal government considers a gun dealer. The bill altered the language of Section 921(a) of Title 18, United States Code. The BSCA changed the definition of someone “engaged in the business” of selling guns from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to the ambiguous statement of “to predominantly earn a profit.” Now, the Biden Administration is exploiting that change through the upcoming rule. At the time, some Republicans who backed the law blew off the concerns that an anti-gun administration would exploit the language. The change read:

(22) The term `to predominantly earn a profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, that proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.

The new rule will also affect those that sell multiples of the same type of firearms. This section means that anyone who liquidates a collection of Glock pistols must acquire an FFL before they can liquidate the guns. Many people collect certain guns, and this would prevent the legal transfer of those firearms without an FFL.

Unlicensed sellers who sell through “online auctions” would be required to obtain an FFL under the proposed rule. This section is a targeted shot at sites like Armslist.

These websites do not sell firearms and currently do not have to get an FFL. The new rule seems to change that. This has long been a goal of the Biden Administration, which has put out false narratives about online gun sales, such as buyers not having to go through background checks for guns purchased online. The rule reads:

“In addition, it clarifies the term “dealer,” including how that term applies to auctioneers, and defines the term “responsible person.” These proposed changes would assist persons in understanding when they are required to have a license to deal in firearms.”

“These examples are provided to clarify for unlicensed persons that firearms dealing requires a license in whatever place or through whatever medium the firearms are purchased and sold, including the Internet and locations other than a traditional brick and mortar store.”

Armslist is specifically called out in the rule. Armslist is a firearms version of “Craigslist List.” Armslist has been the target of anti-gun groups for years who keep launching and losing lawsuits against the website. Many think this is a concerted effort to hurt the website’s business by stating up to 25% of people selling on the site will require an FFL under the proposed rule. The rule reads:

“To better estimate both online and offline sales, ATF assumed, based on best professional judgment of FIPB SMEs and with limited available information, that the national online marketplace estimate above may represent 25 percent of the total national firearms market, which would also include in-person, local, or other offline transactions like flea markets, State-wide exchanges, or websites within each of the 50 States.”

The rule would make it so that anyone who rents a table at a gun show will be assumed to be in the business of selling firearms, meaning that private citizens will no longer be able to sell their firearms at any gun show. Also, if someone advertises their firearms for sale, they could be assumed to be in the business of selling firearms, which will shut down most private sales. The rule reads:

“Based on this decades-long body of experience, the proposed rule provides that, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, a person is presumed to have the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” when the person: (1) advertises, markets, or otherwise promotes a firearms business (e.g., advertises or posts firearms for sale, including on any website, establishes a website for selling or offering for sale their firearms, makes available business cards, or tags firearms with sales prices), regardless of whether the person incurs expenses or only promotes the business informally;94 (2) purchases, rents, or otherwise secures or sets aside permanent or temporary physical space to display or store firearms they offer for sale, including part or all of a business premises, table or space at a gun show, or display case;95 (3) makes or maintains records, in any form, to document, track, or calculate profits and losses from firearms purchases and sales;96 (4) purchases or otherwise secures merchant services as a business (e.g., credit card transaction services, digital wallet for business) through which the person makes or offers to make payments for firearms transactions;97 (5) formally or informally purchases, hires, or otherwise secures business security services (e.g., a central station-monitored security) system registered to a business,98 or guards for security99) to protect business assets or transactions that include firearms; (6) formally or informally establishes a business entity, trade name, or online business account, including an account using a business name on a social media or other website, through which the person makes or offers to make firearms transactions;100 (7) secures or applies for a State or local business license to purchase for resale or to sell merchandise that includes firearms; or (8) purchases a business insurance policy, including any riders that cover firearms inventory. 101 Any of these nonexclusive, firearms-business-related activities justifies a rebuttable presumption that the person has the requisite intent to predominantly earn a profit from reselling or disposing of firearms.”

By requiring more people to get FFLs, it will prevent a lot of Americans from selling guns. The secondary market has been an excellent way for those less fortunate to acquire the means of protection. Those who choose to get an FFL will be subject to unannounced warrantless inspections. These inspections have been used to revoke gun shop’s FFLs under the Biden Administration’s zero-tolerance policy.

FFL revocation is up between 350% and 500% and is currently at a 17-year high. The amount of record keeping, cost, and hostile environment created by the ATF could mean that many will not get an FFL to sell their firearms, which could be part of Biden’s plan.

The government’s argument is most criminals do not get their guns from gun dealers. That fact is true, but most criminals do not get firearms from legal transactions. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally through such means as theft, which means this rule will not prevent criminals from getting firearms.

“The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that “88.8 percent of firearm offenders sentenced under §2K2.1130 [of the United States Sentencing Commission GuidelinesManual (Nov. 2021)] were [already] prohibited from possessing a firearm” under 18U.S.C. 922(g). These individuals would thus have been flagged in a background check,would have therefore been prohibited from buying a firearm from a licensed dealer after their first offense, and would not have been able to commit the subsequent firearms offense(s) if their seller had been licensed.”

There will be an exception for gifting firearms between family members. Although this type of transfer only makes up a small portion of transfers. There will be a 90-day comment period once the proposed rule is posted to the federal registry. After the comment period, a final rule will be unveiled.”

AmmoLand News is currently reaching out to those Republicans who backed the BSCA to get comments.

ATF – Definition of “Engage… by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

---

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.

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

Habitual Freedom Hater Misleading the Public on Guns …Once Again

Opinion

iStock

David Hemenway, a Professor of Health Policy at Harvard University’s Injury Control Research Center, has been a proud proponent of anti-gun “research” for many years. Rather than relying on criminologists and experts in law enforcement to diminish violent crime where firearms are used, Hemenway long-ago jumped on the anti-gun bandwagon of trying to frame the discussion about gun-control from an approach of addressing it as a “public health” issue—as if there is some sort of vaccine that could be developed to stop violent criminals from being violent criminals.

One might consider him simply misguided, or perhaps he has just bought into what many on the far left do whenever faced with something they wish to control; frame it as a “public health” crisis.

But with Hemenway, it may be that he just hates guns and law-abiding gun owners, and all of his “research” he claims supports his radical theories is guided predominantly by confirmation bias. And who better to offer support for the theory that this particular anti-gun researcher just hates guns and gun owners than Hemenway himself?

A recent interview with Hemenway was posted by the online outlet Undark (undark.org/2023/08/18/interview-treating-gun-violence-as-a-public-health-crisis/), a relatively obscure digital magazine with ties to any number of media outlets that hold extreme anti-gun views. Publishing partners include outlets that have shown anti-gun bias, such as HuffPost, Mother Jones, NPR, Salon, and Slate. It should come as no surprise that Undark would give Hemenway a platform for his anti-gun views.

The piece opens by announcing its bias, referring to “gun violence” in the opening sentence. “Gun violence” is one of the most popular terms created by anti-gun extremists, as it is so hard to define and, at the same time, so malleable in its application.

Then, Undark purposefully leads the next sentence with the distressing proclamation, “More Americans died as a result of gun violence in 2021…that (sic) in any other year on record,” before noting that the more telling rate of firearm-related fatalities is still lower today than during the 1970s. Unbiased researchers are more concerned with rates than raw numbers, which should tell you what you need to know about the folks at Undark.

Leading up to the interview, Dan Falk, the article’s author, makes the same false claim that countless other anti-gun advocates have made for decades, alleging the 1996 Dickey amendment prevented the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) “from using federal money to conduct research into gun-related violence.”

That has never been true.

Although tax dollars should never be used to promote the erosion of our right to arms—a right protected under the Constitution—there are untold billions of dollars available from the private sector to fund such activity. Billionaires Michael Bloomberg and George Soros are just two prominent names that have funneled hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars of their personal wealth into anti-gun efforts, including research. In fact, Hemenway himself has benefitted financially as a Senior Soros Justice Fellow.

So, seeing how Falk exhibits his own anti-gun bias, you can just imagine how the interview would go.

Hemenway starts with what you would expect from a shill for the gun-ban movement: complaining that the United States has “lots, lots more guns” than other countries, lamenting that too many are handguns, then claiming “we have all these military weapons that are easy for anyone to get.”

It is true that Americans own more guns than other countries (thank you, Second Amendment!), and that a great many of them are handguns. But those in the hands of law-abiding gun owners—the vast majority of our guns—are not the problem. Furthermore, since Americans enjoy a relatively established right to self-defense—something that may not be so easily said about many other countries—it should not come as a surprise that so many guns owned are handguns, considering they are the most popular type of firearm (although certainly not the only suitable option) lawfully purchased for people concerned about defending themselves against violent attack.

As for those “military weapons that are easy for anyone to get,” that is an intentionally disingenuous claim.

While Hemenway is conflating semi-automatic firearms with the usually fully automatic firearms issued by the military, the simple truth is that rifles of all types are rarely used in crime, let alone whatever limited subset Hemenway would describe as “military weapons.”

Then, when asked about his “public health approach to combating gun violence,” Hemenway makes some curious references to objectives he seems to have that he believes will address obesity. He mentions an apparent desire to make access to food he considers unhealthy more difficult and “make it harder” for people “to be couch potatoes.” Maybe he can achieve the food aspect by banning certain foods of which he doesn’t approve, much like he wants to ban certain types of guns, although he’d likely rather ban them all.

How he intends to “make it harder” for people “to be couch potatoes” is a bit more of a mystery, but since people tend to get exercise when they are out using their firearms in any number of legal ways—whether it be hunting, at the range, walking a sporting clays course, or training—his goal of getting rid of guns seems counterproductive.

Hemenway also makes some odd references to how hospitals treat people who have been shot. He’s clearly referring to people who are already involved in criminal activity when he talks about a theoretical hospital staffer’s response to someone who comes in with a gunshot wound.  He imagines someone saying, “Oh, someone came in for a shooting; what can we do to make sure to help them so that it’s less likely that they will go back and get shot, less likely that they will retaliate and shoot somebody else?”

The obvious answer is to try to get that person to give up the criminal lifestyle not impose more restrictions on law-abiding gun owners who do not contribute to such hypothetical situations, but that hardly seems like an appropriate job to add to the list of things doctors and nurses must do.

He goes on to talk about working with women’s groups in Boston to educate them about the illegality of straw purchases. While that seems innocuous enough, there is already an explanation that such actions are illegal whenever anyone goes to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer. It’s put in writing on the forms one must fill out to make a lawful purchase—along with an explanation of potential penalties for violations—and most licensed gun dealers are trained to be on the lookout for obvious straw purchases.

Hemenway then talks about suicide, but as it is ingrained in his psyche to lie about guns, he claims “evidence…that a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide in the home is overwhelming.” Anti-gun advocates like Hemenway have been trying for decades to convince Americans that owning a gun increases the risk of suicide, seemingly ignoring the myriad factors that contribute to someone taking their own life just so that they can blame guns.

But gun control does not reduce suicide, and anti-gun researchers have regularly been caught manipulating their research to try to prove otherwise.

To his slight credit, Hemenway does mention a colleague who has worked with gun shops, ranges, and firearm instructors to raise suicide awareness. That seems a laudable approach but a far cry from the type of government restrictions, including banning firearms, Hemenway seems to embrace.

Psychiatrists may also want to take note of Hemenway’s views, as he makes a casual, passing reference to what he seems to perceive as malpractice for any psychiatrist who does not approach a patient who owns guns in a manner Hemenway (not a trained psychiatrist) does not approve.

Finally, Hemenway, an economist and “researcher” one would expect to use facts and reason, is given the opportunity to summarize what he feels is the state of things in America as they relate to guns. The interviewer even leads him to discuss statistics, referring to the “datasets and policy based on evidence,” then asking, “So, is it working?”

But here’s where Hemenway makes clear he just doesn’t like guns or gun owners.

Rather than talk research and numbers (not that we would trust his “research” anyway), he simply complains, “No, things have gotten worse in the United States. More people are carrying guns, there are more military weapons out there, gun ownership rates have increased a little bit. A lot of bad things are happening.”

In other words, law-abiding citizens carrying firearms is bad, as is the fact that more law-abiding Americans are becoming responsible gun owners. And, of course, he had to throw in the lie again about “military weapons.”

This is unsurprising, coming from a man whose Wikipedia entry attributes the following quote to him:

“The gun is a great equalizer because it makes wimps as dangerous as people who really have skill and bravery, and so I’d like to have this notion that anyone using a gun is a wuss. They aren’t anybody to be looked up to. They’re somebody to look down at because they couldn’t defend themselves or couldn’t protect others without using a gun.”

---

About NRA-ILA:

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

from https://ift.tt/sUf2DQz
via IFTTT

There Is Real Danger When Democrats Are In Charge

Opinion

iStock-969890630

When leftist agendas and careers trump public safety.

Recent fires in Lahaina on the Hawaiian Island of Maui painfully illustrate the practical effect of the Liberal or Communist philosophy currently embraced by Democrats.

The dear religion of environmentalism/collectivism absolutely requires that:

1. Plant growth can never be “disturbed.” Plants must grow as they will and never be cut back, trimmed, or controlled in any way
2. Water is “sacred” and must be distributed only according to leftist principles, even when desperately needed to fight fires.
3. Citizens must be treated like herds of livestock. People must never be allowed to make their own decisions.

The results of this enforced lunacy were devastating!

Downed power lines (not “global warming”) ignited fires in uncut grass, which provided plenty of fuel. Only the blind didn’t see this coming.

Water was not allowed to flow to firefighting efforts, as that would be “unfair.”

For reasons still a “secret,” the few outbound roads were blocked by local authorities, preventing desperate people from escaping flames. As a result, hapless people burned to death while in their cars and their homes. A few among the audacious survived only by ignoring authorities and driving through/around roadblocks.

We still don’t have an accurate body count and probably never will, as local “authorities” are now feverishly trying to cover up their own criminal incompetence.

Lessons (re)learned:

Where Democrats are in charge, agendas, and career protection always come first! Leftist politics does not attract respectable, honorable people, as we see. Never has! Only the disreputable, sleazy, amoral gravitate toward leftist politics.

Gone are the days when “authorities” valued the safety of individual lives and property. The entire “system” is now set up only to protect and promote leftist political agendas/political careers and nothing else. In fact, you will probably be arrested for trying to protect your own property, even your life.

When bad events happen (natural and manufactured), politicians will always take extreme measures to protect themselves. Conversely, you are forgotten and on your own, as we see.

You may or may not get accurate, useful information in real-time. What you’re guaranteed to get is useless excuse-making and blame-shifting. Never believe anything coming from the lips of politicians until it has been officially denied!

Accordingly, you’ll have to assess the situation as best you can by all means available, including direct observation. When it is your judgment that evacuation is necessary, don’t hesitate; don’t delay, and don’t wait for “permission.” You may have to disregard “advice” and/or “orders.”

As always, individual perpetration, independent thinking, and self-sufficiency are critical! The clueless, dependent, unprepared, ill-equipped, unarmed, and gullible don’t get to die of old age!

“It seems that readers who want fiction to be like life are considerably outnumbered by those who would like life to be like fiction.” ~ Sarah Caudwell

/John

---

About John Farnam & Defense Training International, Inc

As a defensive weapons and tactics instructor, John Farnam will urge you, based on your beliefs, to make up your mind about what you would do when faced with an imminent lethal threat. You should, of course, also decide what preparations you should make in advance if any. Defense Training International wants to ensure that its students fully understand the physical, legal, psychological, and societal consequences of their actions or in-actions.

It is our duty to make you aware of certain unpleasant physical realities intrinsic to Planet Earth. Mr. Farnam is happy to be your counselor and advisor. Visit: www.defense-training.com

John Farnam

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

Biden Administration Brief on Rahimi Case about Due Process and Restraining Orders

Biden Administration Brief on Rahimi Case about Due Process and Restraining Orders

On August 14, 2023, the Biden administration submitted its brief to the Supreme Court in the case of USA v. Rahimi. In essence, the brief argues the government of the United States of America has the authority to remove fundamental, enumerated constitutional rights, particularly the right to keep and bear arms, with civil restraining orders because the Second Amendment only applies to “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” From the brief by the Biden administration:

In particular, this Court’s precedents have recognized that Congress may disarm individuals who are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 635.

The phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” is dicta. It was not part of the findings in the cases mentioned. The Biden administration jumps to this conclusion:

Many aspects of Second Amendment doctrine rest on the premise that the Amendment protects only law-abiding, responsible citizens.

It has always been understood if a person performs criminal acts of sufficient severity, their rights can be restricted by being arrested and incarcerated. This is the argument that Judge Ho makes in the Rahimi case, when under appeal at the Fifth Circuit, in a concurring opinion:

Arrest and incarceration naturally entail the loss of a wide range of liberties—including the loss of access to weapons. See, e.g., Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 762–63 (1969) (“When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape.”); State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18, 21 (1842) (Ringo, C.J.) (“Persons accused of crime, upon their arrest, have constantly been divested of their arms, without the legality of the act having ever been questioned.”).

Judge Ho then states people may be arrested and lose their rights for criminal acts. This is not the case with civil law:

18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) disarms individuals based on civil protective orders—not criminal proceedings. As the court today explains, there is no analogous historical tradition sufficient to support §922(g)(8) under Bruen.

Moreover, there are additional reasons why disarmament based on civil protective orders should give us pause. Scholars and judges have expressed alarm that civil protective orders are too often misused as a tactical device in divorce proceedings—and issued without any actual threat of danger. That makes it difficult to justify § 922(g)(8) as a measure to disarm dangerous individuals. 

In order to overcome the obvious problems with using civil law to remove fundamental constitutional rights, the Biden administration cites a number of examples that are not particularly convincing. These include examples of groups of people who would not swear allegiance during war. The Biden administration lists several examples where people can be denied rights if they are not “peaceable.”  They claim “peaceable” is a synonym for “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.

The question is: does a judge have the authority to determine if a person is not “peaceable,” “law-abiding,” or “responsible” without finding a person actually guilty of a serious crime? May they do so when there is no serious adversarial presentation of evidence? The Biden administration brief claims this has been the case throughout history.

The Biden administration, starting on page 37, also cites recent cases that challenge the Gun Control Act of 1968 mass elimination of Second Amendment rights for groups of people, including users of marijuana and felons, apparently to convince one or more justices the Bruen decision is bad, because of the consequences of finding much federal gun law to be unconstitutional.

The submission cites numerous laws enacted after 1900. From the brief:

The tradition of disarming unfit persons continued into the 20th century. In the 1930s, Congress disqualified violent criminals, fugitives from justice, and per-sons under felony indictment. See Federal Firearms Act, ch. 850, § 2(d)-(f), 52 Stat. 1251. Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618, § 102, 82 Stat. 1220. In the 1980s, Congress disqualified noncitizens who are unlawfully present in the United States and persons who have been dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces. See Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 99-308,§ 102(5)(D),100 Stat. 452. And in the 1990s, Congress disarmed persons subject to domestic-violence protective orders, see Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 110401(c),108 Stat. 2014,and domestic-violence misdemeanants, see Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, Div. A, Tit. I, Sec. 101(f) [tit. VI, § 658(b)(2)], 110 Stat. 3009-372.

Yes, those categories have been added very late in history, long after the time allowed to determine the intent of the Second Amendment.

The problem with the Rahimi case is Rahimi is not a sympathetic defendant. As much as we may dislike it, some justices are swayed, some of the time, on the specifics of a case that are not germane to the constitutional issues. Progressives have used this approach repeatedly to pass laws that otherwise could never have been passed. It is the principle of the emotional appeal. The famous quote by Rahm Emanuel seems to apply:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.”

The Biden administration is working hard to make the case about domestic violence rather than about eliminating fundamental Constitutional rights without due process.

The brief contains a great deal of means-ends emotional arguments about domestic abusers. It is a variant of the “guns are bad, so more guns are worse” argument.

The Biden administration brief presents the argument as if there is no harm in taking someone’s fundamental constitutional rights, with minimal legal process. This is a longstanding argument in favor of governmental power, especially during the long ascendancy of progressive ideology.

The Biden administration brief does not mention laws that forbid selling guns to slaves or Indians or the laws that took guns from Catholics. They leave that dirty work to Amici briefs.

The Biden administration references highly biased papers that claim more guns are bad, particularly in domestic violence situations.  This is the basis for the emotional appeal. Those who support a strong Second Amendment should submit data to counter the claim that the Lautenberg amendment saves lives. According to FBI UCR data viewed by this correspondent, intimate partner homicides dropped significantly from 1976 to 1996. The Lautenberg amendment was implemented in 1997. From 1997 to 2019, intimate partner homicides remained essentially flat. The raw data indicate the Lautenberg amendment has been a failure at reducing intimate partner homicides.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

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

Scientific American Still More About Political Propaganda Than Objective Truth

It looks like Scientific American has mastered what they call “among the most sophisticated accomplishments of the human mind.” Just remember that art is not science. (Scientific American/Facebook)

“Mass Shootings Will Keep Spiraling Upward without Big Changes in Gun Laws,” a Monday Scientific American citizen disarmament advocacy piece masked as knowledge clamors. “[D]espite the grip that gun politics have on U.S. lawmakers—a sharp break is needed from ‘business as usual’ gun laws to derail the exponential increase in mass-shooting murders.”

The writer behind this dire warning is Theodore Modis, “a physicist, strategist, futurist and international consultant [and] founder of Growth Dynamics, an organization specializing in strategic forecasting and management consulting.” In other words, he’s got street cred with decision makers, promulgated by Scientific American, which claims a monthly “reach” of over 9 million readers:

“We’re in the top 10 among MRI measured publications for readers with college degrees and #4 in postgraduate education [and] Our readers, vs. readers in competitive publication websites, are 4-6 times more likely to influence business spending across many key areas.”

That’s a lot of influencers being influenced. Incorrectly.

While Modis presents authoritative-looking graphs to create the appearance that his “findings” reflect a theory derived from observation, experimentation, and testing of evidence, it’s fair to wonder how much of that will be offset by a disclaimer admission at the end of his article:

“This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.”

So, it’s not “science.” It’s not “knowledge.”

With that in mind, let’s examine Modis’ opinions, starting with his historical assessment:

“In subsequent decades both laws and wartime partly suppressed gun death numbers for some time, while relaxation of gun controls led to increases,” he declares.

Without qualifying his assessment of what caused the documented increases with, you know, proof, this is the old correlation equals causation logical fallacy. Because the other indisputable factor that has consistently increased since the National Firearms Act is “gun laws,” at the national, state, county, and municipal levels, not to mention innumerable, arbitrary and changing-with-the-political-winds “rules” imposed by unelected ATF bureaucrats usurping undelegated powers.

Modis is aware of the progression, though. Recalling the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, he notes laws historically “came in response to an upward deviation of gun deaths.” That’s also known as “blood dancing,” wherein gun prohibitionists in politics and the media stand ever ready to exploit sensationalist mass killings under the Rahm Emanuel axiom that “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

“Most likely the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act signed into law by Biden on June 25, 2022, and possibly other similar legislation will reverse the overall gun death trend,” he surmises in an astounding leap from pretend science to outright wishful thinking/calculated deception.

How? What metrics were used to conclude “most likely”? And why doesn’t this feel like rain?

“Mass shootings,” however, are a different “species,” Modis asserts, where “Gun-control measures have little impact.”

So, what’s his “solution”?

“[U]nprecedented action is required,” Modis asserts:

“This may entail substantial changes to the American Constitution, or its interpretation, or wider weapons bans than the one that expired in 2004. Without actions of this magnitude, we must anticipate ‘business as usual,’ with the curve persisting exponentially as projected.”

Yeah, uh, how about “No”?

Absent from all Modis’ calculations are any considerations for hardening preferred targets in “gun-free zones” like schools. There’s also no acknowledgment that per the gun prohibitionists themselves, “two-thirds of mass shootings [are] linked to domestic violence” and, per the Journal of Women’s Health, “In the United States, intimate partner violence (IPV) against women disproportionately affects ethnic minorities. Further, disparities related to socioeconomic and foreign-born status impact the adverse physical and mental health outcomes as a result of IPV, further exacerbating these health consequences.”

“Over HALF of Mass Shootings are GANG VIOLENCE (Proven),” the National Association for Gun Rights claims (noting that overlap does not necessarily contradict the two-thirds domestic violence claim), and they provide an interesting compilation of reported incidents to back their hypothesis up. Meanwhile, the position of self-appointed media arbiters (who come up with their own definitions different from the FBI’s and use complicit media to hide inconvenient truths) is to spread the narrative that “Gang-related shootings tend to not fit that definition.”

They must, you see, because otherwise, word might spread that, as economist and author John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center demonstrates, “Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a small set of urban areas, and even in those counties, murders are concentrated in small areas inside them…”

That, in turn, would indicate what this country really has is a select Democrat constituency problem, and the solution has nothing to do with changing the Constitution or trying to disarm tens of millions of citizens whose ability to coexist peaceably with firearms is consistent and observable day after day and year after year.

As long as we’re on the subject, it would be remiss to ignore the Number One historical perpetrator of mass casualties that Modis also manages to completely ignore, governments that have imposed a monopoly of violence. It might also help, if he’s seriously proposing a ban on  semiautos, to flesh out the resources, efforts, manpower, and time he estimates that would take, and what he figures the casualty count would be if, say, just three percent of gun owners said “No.” And don’t forget it would still have no impact on the current violent criminal population that has avoided the “background checks” and other prior restraint indicators that confiscation targets would be assigned from.

The sad truth is this is nothing new for Scientific American. Back in 2018, we saw another hit piece, this time on “white men stockpiling guns.” Consider that a piece of a larger agenda, “world government… to stave off climate catastrophe.”

Did I mention that Modis claims Greek and Swiss nationalities?

And gun-grab advocacy is nothing new for popular “science” publications. We’ve also seen the “respected” journal Nature forced to issue a rare (and incomplete) “correction” when they repeated a false accusation against me for objecting to an anti-gun “researcher” creeping on gun show dealers and attendees. And plenty more examples of agenda over truth — in all fields of science — can be readily found.

Such thinly disguised propaganda not about science. It’s about promoting an unchallengeable state and smearing anyone advocating for individual freedom as a fascist, a hater, an extremist, a domestic terrorist, and as a legitimate target for “authority” to take out. But don’t take my word for it.

Meet Holden Thorp, “Editor-in-Chief, Science Family of Journals, Professor of Chemistry and Medicine at George Washington University, who realized his rabid and public anti-gun psychopathy had gotten the better of him when he tried to delete his real sentiments only to learn the internet is forever:

“The @NRA and everyone who supports them should burn in hell.”

That’s the goal. But first, they’ve got to blind with “science,” and then deal with the critical mass of gun owners who still see clearly.

---

About David Codrea:

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

from https://ift.tt/xJNwn0Z
via IFTTT

A Silly Argument: The Second Amendment Insurrectionist Purpose

A Silly Argument: The Second Amendment Insurrectionist Purpose

U.S.A. — One of the silliest arguments about the purposes of the Second Amendment is put forward this way. The newly formed Constitutional government would never have created an amendment with the purpose of destroying the government just created. Here is an example from the far-left eugeneweekly.com:

That newly created narrative included the supposed purpose of arming citizens in order to enable them to rebel against the very constitutional government which the Founders were establishing with its checks and balances. This despite the Founders having defined treason as taking up arms against that very government.

But this glaring contradiction persisted and found a home within the halls of the Supreme Court, whose collective wisdom may have suffered from the influx of unreported gifts by billionaires to a number of justices weighing in on the question.

The writer does not appear to have read the history of the Revolutionary War, the Federalist Papers, the arguments surrounding the Bill of Rights, the rudiments of the political theories the Constitution is based on, or the Constitution itself. Knowledge of any one of these fields provides ample refutation of the argument above.

One of the principle causes of the Revolutionary War was the attempt by the Government of England, specifically the King, to disarm the American colonists. The proximate start of the war resulted from an attempt by the Crown to confiscate privately and publicly owned weapons, resulting in the battles of Lexington and Concord. During the war, a British minister proposed disarming all the colonists in perpetuity. Having just defeated a government bent on their disarmament, the successful revolutionaries were not about to grant such power to the newly formed government of the Constitution.

During the argument about ratification of the Constitution in the Federalist Papers, those who were concerned about the centralization of power in the federal government demanded more checks and balances on the newly formed government.  From gun quotations of the founding fathers:

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”

– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

– James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

The Bill of Rights was ratified in December of 1791. It was demanded by the anti-federalists as a check on the powers of the new federal government. It enhanced the existing checks and balances of the Constitution. The people who demanded the Bill of Rights were not those who created the Constitution. They were those who warned of the centralization of power in the Federal government. The Bill of Rights was proposed by the anti-federalists and enthusiastically passed by the states with the overwhelming support of the people. It was not those who proposed and wrote the Constitution who demanded, passed, and ratified the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment. It was those who were leery of centralized power who demanded more restraints on the power of the new government. There is no contradiction in this action.

The political theories the Constitution is based on are those of Natural law and Natural rights, theories the founders avidly agreed with and supported.

The Second Amendment is a direct product of the theory of Natural Law, which holds no one, including the government, has the right to take a person’s life or property without due process. Because evil exists in the world, and many are willing to illegitimately take life or property, or to destroy communities, the means to defend your life, property, or community is protected. The right to life fundamentally includes the right to effective means to defend your life.  The  American revolutionaries understood the flaw in the English Bill of Rights, as put forward by Sir William Blackstone. When they created their distinctly American version of the right to arms, they made it far more powerful and restrictive than the English law which had failed them. St. George Tucker was a prominent revolutionary. As a legal scholar, he rose to the highest level of importance in the early United States. Tucker explained the difference of the treatment of the natural right to arms in England v. the new United States:

“The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defense suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st. 2 c. 2, and its indeed, a public allowance under due restrictions, of the natural rights of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

Blackstone was explaining the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which provided: “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defense suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.”

Tucker added his own analysis in two footnotes:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to the C.U.S. Art. 4 and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.”

The Constitution itself belies the idea the founders would not have included a means to defend against a government that might become tyrannical. The checks and balances in the Constitution are a basic defense against such tyranny. There is no contradiction in including the protection of another basic defense. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not created by the Constitution, it is protected by it as an additional defense against  a government which may become tyrannical. The founders were well aware of the history of governments accumulating power to themselves and turning against the people.

The idea the people who formed the new Constitution would reject their recent experience in the Revolutionary War, reject the commitments to create a Bill of Rights, and reject the historical importance of the individual right to keep and bear arms, because they feared arms in the hands of the people, is ridiculous.  The idea the new government chose to limit itself is false. It was the people who opposed the centralization of power who forced the Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution, as additional protections against a potential future tyranny.

Those who claim there should be no limitations on governmental power push such silliness to centralize more and more power in the hands of the government.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

from https://ift.tt/rgd9cOG
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Blasts ATF for its ‘Heavy-Handed Exercise of Revocations’

Federal Judge Blasts ATF for its ‘Heavy-Handed Exercise of Revocations’, iStock-697763642

Reggie Wilson, owner of Wilson Gun Works & Design in Sapphire, North Carolina, makes benchrest-quality precision hunting and competition rifles, which are guaranteed to shoot half-inch groups at 100 yards. His motto is “We build one rifle at a time.”

Wilson is a machinist by trade in nearby Fletcher. Building high-end rifles is his side business. Over the years, his bolt-guns have taken impressive trophies and game, and his customers rewarded him with accolades and devotion.

According to court documents, during an inspection in March 2022, ATF Inspector Shawn Cook “cited Wilson Gun Works with multiple violations of the Gun Control Act (GCA).”

The ATF alleged that Wilson transferred two handguns on December 30, 2021, to his stepdaughter, a Florida resident, without conducting a background check. The agency also claimed Wilson did not report he had sold “multiple pistols to an unlicensed person.”

On March 17, 2022, ATF issued a notice to revoke Wilson’s Federal Firearm License, stating that they believed Wilson had violated the GCA. Wilson requested a hearing, which was held on July 26, 2022. During the hearing, court documents show that Wilson admitted that he “personally transported the firearms to (his stepdaughter) in Florida and completed the ATF Form 4473 there. Because the transfer did not occur in North Carolina at the licensed premises, Wilson Gun Works also violated 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(1)(A) and 27 C.F.R. § 478.100(a). (Id.).”

Based on the violations, ATF revoked Wilson’s FFL on September 27, 2022, concluding that Wilson had “willfully violated the GCA.” On November 16, 2022, Wilson appealed to federal court, seeking “judicial review of the ATF’s decision.”

The case, WILSON GUN WORKS AND, DESIGN, LLC, Petitioner, v. STEVE ALBRO, Director of Industry Operations Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice, Respondent, was assigned to United States District Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr., an Obama appointee, who is best known for striking down North Carolina’s gay marriage ban in 2014.

In his order, Judge Cogburn had no choice but to rule in favor of the ATF, stating: “Here, the Court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Petitioner violated the GCA. Thus, under Section 923(f)(3), the ATF was authorized to revoke Petitioner’s license.”

However, it is what the judge said after announcing his decision that should serve as a strong warning to the ATF.

“Finally, the Court notes that Mr. Wilson, who sold firearms as a side business, sold the guns to his own stepdaughter. Nothing in the record indicates that Mr. Wilson’s conduct of selling two guns on one occasion to his own stepdaughter affected public safety or hampered the ATF’s ability to reduce violent crime, which is of course one of the purposes of the GCA. Of course, the ATF has been delegated the authority to revoke the license of a licensee who has willfully violated any provision of the GCA, even if the revocation seems a heavy-handed punishment in response to the violation at issue. Still, this sort of heavy-handed exercise of revocations, as opposed to warnings or suspensions, foments antipathy for government agencies,” Judge Cogburn wrote.

Contacted Tuesday, Wilson did not yet know he had lost the appeal. He was also unaware of the judge’s comments.

“It doesn’t do me any good,” he said.

ATF’s decision to revoke Wilson’s FFL was affirmed, and he became the latest casualty – one of hundreds – of Joe Biden’s war on gun dealers.

A GiveSendGo account has been established to help Wilson with his legal fees.

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

---

About Lee Williams

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

from https://ift.tt/IVtjM2x
via IFTTT

FPC Statement on Committee Passage of Newsom’s Anti-2A Amendment Push

FPC Statement on Committee Passage of Newsom’s Anti-2A Amendment Push, iStock-602335156

Firearms Policy Coalition issued the following statement regarding California Governor Gavin Newsom’s “28th Amendment” convention proposal, SJR-7, to deny the fundamental rights of all peaceable Americans passing its first committee hearing:

The California State Senate’s Committee on Public Safety has voted to pass Governor Newsom’s tyrannical push to spread the California-style disarmament agenda across the nation.

That Newsom is willing to offer this route to impose his immoral policies on the entire nation is an ironic recognition that the tide of history has turned against him and a genuine admission that his failed policies cannot withstand court scrutiny.

Governor Newsom’s unabashed pursuit to stifle the rights of countless peace-loving Americans presents a stark awakening for those who stand against authoritarianism and undue state aggression.

Firearms Policy Coalition will continue to restore the rights of the People in court, just as it has done in its lawsuits challenging California’s handgun roster and discriminatory fee-shifting regime, New Jersey’s Bruen response bill, and Illinois’ “assault weapon” ban.

For all those across the nation who seek to liberate themselves from the grips of state violence, Firearms Policy Coalition extends its heartfelt appreciation for your support.

And to all tyrants, like Gavin Newsom and his legislative co-conspirators, that push these immoral and unjust policies, we say simply this: “Fuck you. No.”

Individuals who would like to join the FPC Grassroots Army and support important pro-rights lawsuits and programs like these can sign up at JoinFPC.org. Individuals and organizations wanting to support charitable efforts in support of the restoration of Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/mlC7Q0u
via IFTTT

ATF Inspector Seizes Gun Store Records Without A Warrant

ATF Police Raid IMG instagram.com/atfhq/

A Florida-based Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Industry Operations Inspector (IOI) seized a federal firearms licensee’s (FFL) completed ATF Form 4473s and bound book to take off-site to make copies violating federal law. The IOI would return the documents a week later.

Last week, Kiloton Tactical joined a coalition of FFLs led by Eric Blandford of the Iraqveteran8888 YouTube channel and vowed to sue the ATF over the Biden Administration’s zero-tolerance policy for FFLs. The lawsuit has now been filed with the illegal actions of the IOI front and center in the complaint.

According to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1)(A), FFLs must maintain records such as a bound book and copies of the ATF Form 4473, which Kiloton Tactical did maintain. During an inspection, an IOI is able to look over records for policy violations but does not have the authority to inspect the documents off-site. This action is expressly prohibited by 27 CFR § 478.23(cd).

The statute reads: “The inspections and examinations provided by this section do not authorize an ATF officer to seize any records or documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law. If an ATF officer seizes such records or documents, copies shall be provided to the licensee within a reasonable time.”

At the time of the seizure, no wrongdoing was suspected. The IOI insisted he was within his legal rights to remove the documents from the store. The IOI’s deviation put him at odds with federal law.

The ATF’s IOI handbook doubles down on forbidding an IOI from removing records from a business. The ATF has been slow to release the IOI handbook to the public, and when they finally did, the document was heavily redacted. AmmoLand News acquired an unredacted copy of the guide from our sources inside the ATF. Every IOI is responsible for knowing the policies laid out in the handbook, but the ATF employee ignored page 10 of the handbook, which expressly prohibits IOIs from making any seizures.

IOI Manual Forbiding Seizures

Later in the same guide, the ATF states that all inspections should be done at the FFL’s location. There is no exception for carrying out an inspection of records off-site. The IOI in question violated the ATF’s own policies and violated federal law. To many, this is just another example of a lack of training for ATF employees. Others believe that ATF employees think they are above the law due to a culture of government overreach.

Page 46 Of The IOI Manual

The Biden administration has empowered the ATF to shut down gun stores for small clerical errors. President Joe Biden claims the new zero-tolerance policy only affects “rogue gun dealers,” but in practice, many more small gun stores are being targeted. FFL revocations are up between 350% and 500%, rising to a 17-year high.

IOIs no longer have the discretion to determine whether a violation is willful. Instead of revocation being the last option, it is becoming the default action by the ATF over minor errors. The zero-tolerance policies have significantly impacted the firearms market, decreasing the number of gun stores across the country and ending the livelihood of not only the stores’ owners but also the employees of the businesses.

One organization that has sounded the alarm against the ATF overreach is Gun Owners of America (GOA). GOA has a lawsuit of its own in North Dakota against the zero-tolerance policy. GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt has pledged to help the FFL Coalition’s efforts in any way possible.

“The ATF is out of control, and both Congress and the Courts have an obligation to rein them in! GOA fully supports the FFL Coalition’s efforts to halt the weaponization of the ATF, and thus protect honest gun dealers around the country,” Pratt told AmmoLand News. “Left unchecked, Biden’s Zero Tolerance policy will cripple the gun industry and make it virtually impossible for law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms and exercise their rights.”

The actions of the IOI show the agency’s problems are systemic and highly politicized, leaving us with one solution: defund the ATF.

ATF Inspector Seizes Gun Store Records Without A Warrant by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/RB8EK2i
via IFTTT

ATF Sends Out New Letters Trying To Seize Forced Reset Triggers

ATF Police Raid IMG ATFHQ Instagram

Rare Breed Triggers LLC has battled the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over its FRT-15 trigger for the past few years, and American gun owners have been caught in the crossfire. The ATF has once again sent out letters to the owners of the triggers demanding they turn them over to the government for destruction.

Rare Breed Triggers claims its FRT-15 is a semi-automatic trigger, but the ATF claims it is a machinegun conversion device. According to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), any item designed to convert a firearm to a machine gun is treated as a machine gun itself. According to the ATF, the device is regulated by the NFA, and since no machine guns made after April 1986 can be added to the registry, the ATF claims no one can legally own an FRT-15 trigger.

An FRT-15 trigger is a forced reset trigger. A forced reset trigger causes the trigger to reset after every shot, increasing the rate of fire for a firearm. The ATF claims the forced reset triggers fire automatically by a single function of a trigger. Rare Breed Triggers claim that since the shooter pulls the trigger with each shot, it does not fall under the federal definition of a machine gun.

Both sides have been fighting in court since Rare Breed Triggers was served with a cease-and-desist letter in July 2021.  The ATF could not wait until the court cases were settled before attempting to recover triggers from consumers. In August of 2022, the ATF field office agents started showing up at the doors of buyers of FRT-15 triggers purchased from a GunBroker seller known as Rifleremedy2000.

The ATF collected FRTs from one of Rare Breed Trigger’s manufacturers and confiscated triggers from Big Daddy Unlimited (BDU), which sold a similar product called the Wide Open Trigger (WOT).

Last spring, the ATF made efforts to recover WOTs purchased from BDU. AmmoLand News could not determine how the ATF got a list of WOT owners, and the ATF isn’t speaking up. One thing is clear: the ATF would not stop until it could confiscate as many triggers as possible. The springtime operation targeted a different set of customers than the earlier operations.

Now, the ATF is starting a new purge of forced reset triggers, including the FRT-15 and the WOT sold directly from Rare Breed Triggers.

The ATF’s latest tactic is a letter campaign demanding gun owners turn over their forced reset triggers purchased from Rare Breed Triggers. All the letters AmmoLand News has examined reference “Red Beard Treasures.” Red Beard Treasures is an alias for Rare Breed Triggers. The ATF claims that Rare Breed Triggers shipped from the pseudonym to obfuscate the source of the triggers from the government. Rare Breed Triggers claims it used the Red Beard Treasures moniker to prevent would-be thieves from knowing what was in the packages.

AmmoLand News has not found any letters referencing packages marked as shipped from Rare Breed Triggers. Rare Breed Triggers claims the United States Postal Service (USPS) turned over customer information without a warrant. This incident wouldn’t be the first time a shipping company turned over information. Stamps.com turned over information on “Buy, Build, Shoot” kits sold by Polymer80. Although AmmoLand News cannot verify that the customers receiving letters had their information turned over to the ATF by the USPS, all evidence seems to point in that direction.

The ATF has not taken any enforcement actions against any forced reset trigger owners. For now, the ATF seems just to be happy taking possession of the triggers. Only time will tell if/when the ATF will start taking enforcement actions against trigger owners.

There are currently two cases involving Rare Breed Triggers. The government is suing the company in Brooklyn, New York, and Rare Breed Triggers is suing the ATF in Texas.

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/UvtEan4
via IFTTT

Legal Pushback Against Maryland County’s “Sensitive Places” Designation to Undermine Gun Rights

Istock

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms joined in an amicus brief to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals supporting a lawsuit against Montgomery County, Maryland, challenging county “sensitive places” designations.

Joining CCRKBA are the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition, Guns Save Life, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, and the Gun Owners Foundation. They are represented by attorneys C.D. Michel and Anna M. Barvir at Michel & Associates of Long Beach, Calif. The case is known as Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Montgomery County.

“Like other jurisdictions did in the aftermath of the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Bruen, Montgomery County is trying to dance around the high court’s intent by classifying ‘sensitive places’ as just about all public venues,” noted CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “In this case, the county has gone to extreme lengths by creating ‘sensitive zones’ which extend out 100 yards in all directions from so-called ‘places of public assembly,’ which neither follows the spirit nor the letter of the Bruen ruling.

“The result is essentially a ban on carrying firearms outside of the home,” he added. “The county is trying to prohibit people from exercising their right to bear arms. Like other gun control laws, this one is misguided because people with carry licenses or permits are actually among the most law-abiding group in the nation, yet Montgomery County wants to penalize them for exercising their rights guaranteed under the Constitution.”

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is currently involved in federal litigation challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

After the Supreme Court last year granted certiorari in that case, it was remanded back down to the appeals court for further review in line with guidelines set down in the Bruen ruling.

“State and local anti-gun governments are trying to be too clever by half when they adopt far-reaching ‘sensitive places’ designations,” Gottlieb said. “Such restrictions are supposed to be very narrow in scope, not the kind of wide-ranging areas with hundred-yard buffer zones thrown in. We’re delighted to be part of this amicus submission because this sort of nonsense has to stop.”

---

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.

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

Teacher’s Union Officials Go Anti-Gun, Florida Sheriff Sets Record Straight

While a national teachers’ union is interjecting itself into the story about a triple shooting (not on a school campus) in Florida, the Jacksonville sheriff is setting the record straight on guns. (iStock-884197090)

Three top officials with the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) including President Randi Weingarten, have gone full-anti-gun in reaction to a triple homicide last Saturday in Jacksonville, Florida, following what appears to have been a racially motivated attack at a Dollar General store—having nothing to do with education or school campuses—raising a question about why they even did it.

However, the top lawman in the community, Sheriff T.K. Waters, “dismantled the narrative that guns are to blame for the tragedy” during a press conference, Fox News reported. His remarks came about 13 minutes into a press briefing held Sunday and broadcast by the network.

Sheriff Waters’ comments were in stark contrast to Weingarten’s press release, in which she was joined by AFT Executive Vice President Evelyn DeJesus and Secretary-Treasurer Fedrick Ingram, according to a release from the organization.

In her remarks, Weingarten took a swipe at Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis for signing earlier this year a new law allowing permitless carry in the Sunshine State. She said this is “just one of a slew of policies taking the state in the wrong direction.”

But Sheriff Waters told reporters Sunday, “The story’s always about guns. It’s the people that [are] bad.”

“This guy’s a bad guy,” Waters continued. “If I could take my gun off right now and lay it on this counter, nothing will happen. It’ll sit there. But as soon as a wicked person grabs ahold of that handgun and starts shooting people with it, there’s the problem. The problem is the individual.”

The shooting received national attention because of the racial element, but there was a decidedly anti-gun sentiment in the AFT news release.

“We cannot keep doing the same thing and expecting a different result,” DeJesus said. “As long as both unfettered access to guns and racial animus are not only allowed to persist but encouraged by the highest level of elected officials in Florida, our kids, grandkids, parents, grandparents, friends and loved ones will continue to be terrorized by gun violence and racism run amok. As educators, we demand action to stop the madness, and we hold everyone who has been affected in our hearts.”

But Sheriff Waters repeatedly told reporters that Florida retailers who sold the guns did everything correctly and followed the law. There was, he said several times, nothing in the gunman’s background to flag a denial of sale.

According to Newsweek, the suspect—identified by authorities as 21-year-old Ryan Christopher Palmeter—was carrying a semi-auto rifle and handgun. He took his own life as law enforcement responded.

During the Sunday news update, Sheriff Waters said the guns were legally purchased, and the retailers who sold them did everything required by law.

“Now guns are a tool that people use to do horrible things,” the sheriff stressed. “But it’s the individuals that wield these things.”

The takeaway is that this comes down to a question of whose narrative is credible, the sheriff whose agency is investigating the murders or a trio at the helm of a national education organization apparently trying to insert themselves into a story.

Vox added some perspective to the unfolding drama, explaining how “every country has people with mental health issues,” but the difference in the U.S. is that private firearms ownership is “ingrained in politics, in culture, and in the law since the nation’s founding.” The reference is, of course, to the Second Amendment, which recognizes and protects the right of the people—individual citizens, according to the Supreme Court—to keep and bear arms.

The Vox story quoted Wake Forest University Prof. David Yamane, described as a man who “studies American gun culture.”

“America is unique in that guns have always been present, there is wide civilian ownership, and the government hasn’t claimed more of a monopoly on them,” Yamane told the news organ.

Another academic who spoke to Vox—Duke University Prof. Jeffrey Swanson—said other countries regulate handguns to “broadly limit access” to them, while in the U.S. “because of the way that the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment,” sidearms are more prevalent.

But in this case, Palmeter was also armed with a rifle, on the side of which he painted a Swastika, and it appears from different video snips he used that gun primarily.

While Sheriff Waters said detectives will continue their investigation until they can determine a motive—the killer left more than one “manifesto,” according to published reports—and academics weigh in with their observations, it was Waters who probably summed it up best.

Quoted by Newsweek, the sheriff stated during one of his media briefings, “Any loss of life is tragic, but the hate that motivated the shooter’s killing spree adds an additional layer of heartbreak. There’s no place for hate in our community, and this is not Jacksonville. As a member of this Jacksonville community, I’m sickened by this cowardly shooter’s personal ideology of hate.”

According to data from the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Division of Licensing, as of July 31, there were 2,564,955 active Florida concealed weapon licenses. Many of those are held by non-Florida residents. There has been no indication the Jacksonville killer had a carry license.

---

About Dave Workman

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

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