Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that United States District Court Judge George L. Russell, III has issued a preliminary injunction against Maryland’s ban on firearm carry in locations selling alcohol, private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration. The opinion in Novotny v. Moore can be viewed at FPCLaw.org.
“As for the other statutes cited by State Defendants, they are not similar to SB 1’s restriction on locations selling alcohol because they do not impose a ‘comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense,’” explained Judge Russell in his order. “Those historical statutes prevented only intoxicated individuals from carrying firearms, while SB 1 bans all people present at locations selling alcohol from carrying.”
“We’re elated that the Court has seen the error of Maryland’s ways and has prevented the state from enforcing certain provisions of its law prohibiting peaceable carry permit holders from carrying their arms in a vast number of locations around the state,”
…said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Of course, the Court did not grant our motion in full, and is allowing the state to enforce restrictions on some locations that still do not fall within our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. On that front, FPC is evaluating its next steps.”
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 to restore the Second Amendment and other natural rights can also make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation.
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. FPC’s efforts are focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and adjacent issues, including freedom of speech, due process, unlawful searches and seizures, separation of powers, asset forfeitures, privacy, encryption, and limited government. The FPC team are next-generation advocates working to achieve the Organization’s strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs.
FPC Law (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s first and largest public interest legal team focused on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Second Amendment litigation and research space leader.
YouTube “prankster” Tanner Cook of the “Classified Goons” YouTube Channel receives treatment for a gunshot wound.
A jury on Thursday found a food delivery driver not guilty of aggravated malicious wounding of a YouTuber in a DC suburban mall’s food court.
On April 2, 2023, while Alan Colie was picking up food in Dulles Town Center in Sterling, Virginia, for his DoorDash job, a group of twenty-somethings, led by YouTube “prankster” Tanner Cook of the “Classified Goons” YouTube Channel, approached him.
Mr. Cook, 21, took out his phone and stuck it inches from Mr. Colie’s, 31, face, and the phone started broadcasting the phrase “Hey dips—, quit thinking about my twinkle.” Colie asked Cook to stop, but Colie refused. Mr. Colie tried to retreat, but the group followed him and continued getting into the man’s face. Colie once again told the group to stop and tried to flee the scene, but the group stepped in front of him and stuffed the phone into his face.
Colie claims he was becoming fearful and once again tried to leave, but the group prevented him from leaving. Cook stuck the phone back into Colie’s face. Mr. Colie pushed Cook’s phone away and, for a third time, told the group to stop and leave him alone.
The group again followed Colie and cut off his retreat. According to the delivery driver, he was in fear of mortal harm. Instead of Colie trying to retreat this time, the licensed concealed carrier pulled his firearm and fired one shot, hitting Cook in the abdomen. The Loudoun County Sheriff’s Department (LCSO) found Cook outside the mall and treated his injuries. Loudoun County Fire Rescue (LCFR) transported Cook to the hospital, where surgeons rushed him into surgery to remove the bullet.
The County Sheriff’s Office found Colie in the food court and placed him in custody. The man had placed the gun on the floor and laid face first. The man didn’t attempt to flee the scene or resist arrest. The LCSO spent the rest of the day searching the mall. This reporter, who lives in the area, was the first to report the happenings on X, formerly Twitter, after receiving the play-by-play from someone at the mall.
Shooting at Dulles Town Center. One shooter down. Second one still in the mall. Cops following trail of blood
Colie was charged with aggravated malicious wounding, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and, discharging a firearm within a building. Colie would plead not guilty to all the charges because he claimed that he feared for his life. He would be held without bond until his trial.
Cook is known to police and the surrounding community for his “pranks” that many consider harassment. He has told women that someone was following them and then had a friend stalk them through a parking lot late at night. In another incident, Cook pretended to throw up on an Uber driver.
In her bid to convince the jury that Colie wasn’t attacking in self-defense, Prosecutor Eden Holmes tried to downplay the seriousness of Cook’s actions. A person can only be found guilty of aggravated malicious wounding if there was no provocation by the wounded that reasonably arouses fear or anger.
“They were playing a silly phrase on a phone,” Holmes said in her closing statement. “How could the defendant have found that he was reasonably in fear of imminent bodily harm?”
The jury got to view the video of the incident and then deliberated for three hours before sending a note to the judge saying they were divided on whether Colie acted in self-defense. The judge urged the jurors to keep deliberating.
After two more hours, the jury returned a not-guilty verdict on the counts of aggravated malicious wounding and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. The jury would find Colie guilty of discharging a gun inside a building, a class six felony.
His attorney, Adam Pouilliard, said the conviction of discharging a gun inside a building is inconsistent with the law because of the acquittal on self-defense grounds. He asked the judge to set aside the guilty verdict. The judge said she would hear arguments on the motion next month and then decide. Until then, Colie will remain in custody.
For his part, Cook is still making YouTube “prank” videos and has no plans to stop.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist; he has written about firearms and interviewed people of all walks of life. Mr. Crump lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Who thinks the reason Gabby endorses politicians is because she cares about “hunters, sport shooters, and collectors? (Congresswoman Veronica Escobar/Facebook)
“Congress overwhelmingly passed a bill to protect federal funding for school hunting and archery courses after the Biden administration interpreted the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to prohibit money from going toward shooting sports activities,” Just The News reported Thursday. “Republican Reps. Mark Green of Tennessee and Richard Hudson of North Carolina introduced the “Protecting Hunting Heritage and Education Act” last month, and it passed the House on Tuesday in a 424-1 vote, with the lone “Nay” coming from Texas Democrat Rep. Veronica Escobar.”
It’s fair to point out that this is yet another piece of evidence that the Giffords gun grab group is exploiting sport shooters with false promises if it does not condemn Escobar’s betrayal of one of their core strategies – appealing to foolish “Fudds” who think if they have theirs it’s safe to throw other gun owners under the bus.
“We are proud to endorse Veronica Escobar for the US House of Representatives,” Giffords declared when promoting the incumbent in her last campaign. “Giffords was proud to endorse Veronica and we look forward to working with her in Washington,” they added after she had won.
Left unsaid is how any gun owner suckered into supporting Giffords Gun Owners for Safety should feel, especially since they signed up under the promise:
“We can prevent gun violence while also supporting the Second Amendment. Gun Owners for Safety unites hunters, sport shooters, and collectors who want commonsense gun laws.”
Escobar’s “Nay” vote also doesn’t square with the way Giffords presents its “Senior Advisor” Ryan Busse:
“Ryan is an environmental advocate who served in many leadership roles for conservation organizations, including as an advisor for the United States Senate Sportsmen’s Caucus and the Biden presidential campaign. He remains a proud outdoorsman, gun owner, father, and resident of Montana.”
What they don’t want to admit is the Second Amendment isn’t about duck hunting. And the Giffords Astroturf group is but the latest in a long line of Democrat attempts to mask their citizen disarmament agenda by presenting apparatchiks with shotguns as “reasonable” gun owners (think of “Sportsmen and Sportswomen for Biden,” and going back years before that of the phony American Hunters and Shooters Association).
“The Nazi Weapons Law (18 March 1938) forbade importation of weapons under substantially the same test. Section 25(1) of that Law proclaimed: ‘It is forbidden to manufacture … and to import: Firearms which fold-down, break-down, are collapsible, or are speedily dismantled — beyond the common limits of hunting and sporting activities.’ Section 21 of the Nazi Law (and its enforcing regulations) employed the ‘sporting use’ exception also where they permitted licensed persons to carry ‘firearms, designed for — and usually used for — the hunting of fair game.’”
But don’t think for a minute that Giffords is going to stop supporting Escobar and prioritize political promises to hunters over a clear political “winner.” She wiped out her Republican challenger last election, 63.5% to 36.5%. And as long as we’re talking percentages, her district is “66.8% Persons with language other than English spoken at home” and “23.5% Foreign-born population.”
Why is that relevant?
Look at her (and the Democrats’) wider agenda, made undeniably clear by the Obama administration:
“Speaking at the United States Conference of Mayors on Friday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said the approximately 11 million people who are in the country illegally have ‘earned the right to be citizens.’”
Fast forward to the present and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer:
“The only way we’re going to have a great future in America is if we welcome and embrace immigrants — the DREAMers and all of them — because our ultimate goal is to help the DREAMers — but get a path to citizenship for all 11 million, or however many undocumented, there are here.”
“We must overturn this evil and finally enact #ImmigrationReformNow for the 11 million undocumented individuals in our country and those seeking safety at our doorstep.”
What does she mean by “immigration reform now”? Literally, “Citizenship for all.” Including those on their way here.
That will — when left unchecked (which is happening daily at the border with more “surges” on the way) — as all credible polls and real-world experience show us, overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners. Escobar’s numbers bear that out. And that in turn will result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass whatever anti-gun edicts they want while confirming judges who will uphold those edicts –and reverse gains made to date.
Change the composition of the Supreme Court and say “Goodbye” to Bruen, just a Democrat supermajority away from the dustbin of suppressed history. Newsflash to naysayers and to “gun rights leaders” ducking the issue: This has everything to do with that “single issue.”
This is another case of the greater agenda taking precedence over fraudulent promises, and it’s not like political power player Giffords is worried about a handful of gun owners stupid enough to believe their hunting BS in the first place.
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.
SCOTUS Consider Challenge to Ammunition Background Check, iStock-919659512
A case challenging the ammunition background check in New York is headed to a conference in the Supreme Court on Friday, October 6.
The case, Gazzola v. Hochul, was brought by two New York-based gun shops to challenge the Empire State’s ammunition background checks and the yearly inspection of gun shops by the New York State Police. The new law was passed during a special session in 2022 called by Governor Kathy Hochul. During the same session, New York passed restrictions on concealed carrying of a firearm in public places.
The special session was a response to the Supreme Court decision in New York Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen. New York’s “shall issue” Sullivan-era law was ruled unconstitutional in that case. The laws passed during the special session led to lawsuits challenging the “sensitive area” provisions in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). One of these lawsuits was Antonyuk v. Hochul.
The plaintiffs claim that New York State exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the new law, acquiring yearly inspections of gun stores by State Police and background checks for ammunition.
The plaintiff tried to get a preliminary injunction from the District Court and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Before the law was enacted, the plaintiffs asked Supreme Court Justice Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor to intervene. The Justice declined the plaintiffs’ emergency petition.
When a plaintiff files an emergency petition with SCOTUS, it is assigned to the Justice that oversees the Circuit where the case resides. Justice Sotomayor was assigned to oversee the Second Circuit. Because Sotomayor refused the emergency petition, it opened the door for another Justice to accept the petition.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, the author of the Bruen decision, decided to take up the petition, and now the full Supreme Court bench will decide whether it will hear the case on Friday, October 6. Just because it is being brought to the conference doesn’t mean that SCOTUS will hear the case. The Justices could decide to let the case play out in the lower courts.
AmmoLand News spoke to the attorney for the plaintiffs, Paloma A. Capanna, about the case. Ms. Capanna said she is looking forward to the Justices discussing the case. She hopes that SCOTUS will take it up and believes the law is unconstitutional.
“We’re as interested as anyone to see what the court will say in response to the emergency application,” Capanna said. “I only wish I could be a fly on the wall. It would be amazing to be able to eavesdrop on a Friday case conference and know the full extent of the discussion.”
For her part, Governor Hochul confused Gazzola v. Hochul with the Antonyuk case. She claimed that Justice Thomas was bringing the matter to conference to try to dismantle New York’s concealed carry provisions, but Gazzola only deals with inspections and ammunition background checks. It does not touch things such as what the state deems sensitive areas. The Governor did take a shot at the Justices.
“They’re dead set on placating their donors, supporters, and we’re the ones left to clean up,” Hochul said. “In the meantime, everyone should know that the current law remains in the state, and we are ready for any other efforts to thwart our own efforts, the state’s efforts and responsibility is to protect our citizens.”
SCOTUS will decide the next step on October 6. In the meantime, the law remains in place.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist; he has written about firearms and interviewed people of all walks of life. Mr. Crump lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Right before the people who deny responsibility opened fire on an unarmed citizen complying with their commands… (Screenshot from “Firing Squad at 5 A.M./NCRenegade)
Jason Kloepfer, a Cherokee County North Carolina man shot multiple times in December by the Cherokee Indian Police Department SWAT team, filed a response Monday to County Attorney Darrell Brown’s motion to dismiss defamation charges based on qualified immunity.
The plaintiff’s response is the latest legal move in a story AmmoLand News has been providing exclusive reports on since January when claims about the shooting by Cherokee County Sheriff Dustin Smith were directly contradicted by a video Kloepfer recorded of the incident that the sheriff’s office was apparently unaware of when it issued a press release at the center of the defamation claim.
Instead of being confrontational, forcing officers to shoot him, Kloepfer emerged from his trailer as ordered with hands raised when the SWAT team opened fire with a hail of bullets, severely wounding the man and narrowly missing his wife standing directly behind him.
That report was followed with two in February, the first documenting a lack of major media coverage and presenting key questions left unanswered in the sheriff’s attempts to absolve himself and his department of any responsibility for events he set in motion. The second posting is a time-lined transcript of the Calls for Service Report and Dispatch Recording, highlighting the dangers of SWATting based on unproven allegations. Those reports were followed in April with a follow-up article that showed a new SWAT shooting video taken seven hours after the initial one and featuring State Bureau of Investigation officers, and then raised conflict of interest concerns over the District Attorney recusing herself.
Earlier this month, a new report documented a contradiction between Sheriff Smith’s public claim that he was not at the scene of the shooting and a court filing by the Cherokee Indian Police defendants claiming, “It is admitted that Sheriff Smith was present at the scene of the Property at all times that these Defendants were present at the Property on December 13, 2022.”
With that as a backdrop, Kloepfer’s assertions against the County Attorney’s Motion to dismiss reject his claims, citing precedents, arguing qualified immunity does not apply because “Defendant Brown published a press release he knew or should have known to be false to ‘control the narrative’ about misconduct in a malicious and corrupt manner that constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice,” and that “Defendant Brown (and all CCSD Defendants) waived any defense of governmental immunity for the official capacity claims against the Sheriff based on the state law claims by the purchase of insurance.”
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.
If you’re an ATF agent who supports the Constitution and has never violated your oath of office, the time to start looking for a new job is now.
An agency-wide comeuppance is coming. It is only a matter of time.
The next administration will not look kindly upon your current role as Joe Biden’s anti-gun enforcers. The people will see to that. Americans have long memories, you see, and we are keeping track of your civil rights abuses – each and every one.
If you’re lucky, the ATF will only be abolished. Still, there is a growing number of law-abiding Americans – including many in law enforcement – who believe criminal charges should be filed against you, your leadership, and their co-conspirators in the Biden-Harris administration. This is what happens when you knowingly follow illegal orders, like warrantless search and seizures, multiple civil rights violations, theft of personal property, and a host of other unforgivable crimes.
The best part is that now every unconstitutional “rule” ATF proposes is met with a bevy of federal lawsuits from pro-gun organizations. ATF’s constant misdeeds have created a hivemind of sorts among the country’s Second Amendment watchdogs.
Rampant Criminalization
The Biden-Harris administration weaponized the ATF right from the start. One of their goals is to criminalize possession of commonly owned firearms and firearm accessories, in order to turn millions of law-abiding Americans into felons who are unable to vote. The best example is ATF’s pistol-brace fiasco.
For over a decade, the ATF had no problems with pistol braces and even issued several official letters stating that braced pistols were not short-barrel rifles and did not need to be registered under the NFA. But after Biden weaponized the agency, the ATF changed its mind, of course.
Biden and ATF created an unconstitutional mechanism whereby ATF can now criminalize anything they want, and Biden will use his veto power to block Congress from stopping the overreach. Our only recourse is the courts, and that process can be both lengthy and expensive and offers no guarantee of success. There are some who claim that an ATF rule is not a law, but anything that can land you in federal prison for a decade is law-like enough.
Every official involved in ATF’s criminalization schemes needs to be held accountable.
A History of Violence
ATF has shown a complete disdain for the sanctity of human life. In addition to the scores of lives lost at Waco, a Deputy U.S. Marshal and Randy Weaver’s wife and son were killed during ATF’s Ruby Ridge disaster. Their “Fast and Furious” scheme resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and hundreds [if not thousands] of Mexican nationals, who were killed with the weapons ATF allowed to “walk” straight into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. Sadly, the agency appears to have learned nothing from these deaths.
After a brief respite, the ATF has started raiding again, using it’s highly armed but poorly trained SWAT teams. If the ATF is allowed to continue treating law-abiding gun owners and gun dealers like enemy combatants, it’s only a matter of time before more innocent American lives are lost.
Keep in mind that no one at ATF has ever been held criminally responsible for the agency’s mass killings….yet.
Good Riddance
In a perfect world, ATF would be disbanded. It’s not as though they will be missed by the law enforcement community. As we have previously reported, most of ATF’s criminal charges are filed administratively after the fact, after another law enforcement agency has made an arrest. Of course, the ATF takes credit for the arrest, the investigation, and the subsequent prosecution. It is rare for the agency to initiate a major case on its own. When they do, innocent lives are usually lost.
The country’s Second Amendment community almost did David Chipman a favor when we blocked his nomination to lead the ATF. The little rodent of a man will be sipping boxed Chardonnay while ATF’s current director, Steve Dettelbach, will undergo congressional hearings, if we’re lucky, and criminal investigations if justice prevails.
To be clear, ATF and the Biden-Harris administration are violating the civil rights of millions of Americans. They need to be held accountable by Congress and the courts. Of course, none of this will happen while Biden occupies the White House. But Americans have long memories, and ATF’s abuses are something we will never forget and certainly never forgive.
Once Biden shuffles off into history, change will come. The ATF has never focused on getting guns out of the hands of criminals because they’re solely focused on persecuting the law-abiding. Soon, the law-abiding will be back in control, and ATF will be held accountable for four long years of strict obedience to the Biden-Harris administration’s illegal orders.
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.
Professional gun control advocates have always had a seat at the table in the Biden White House. Now, however, they will not only sit at the table but determine its menu, set it, and compile the guest list for it. This comes under a new initiative launched by Joe Biden last Friday to establish an Office of Gun Violence Prevention, to be overseen by none other than Kamala Harris. But while the effort is supposedly being run by the White House “to reduce gun violence,” its real purpose is to employ professional gun control advocates and amplify their propaganda and agenda with taxpayer dollars.
There are different ways to look at this effort.
One is to dismiss it as a publicity stunt and a way to appease the always demanding, never satisfied gun control lobby, which is a key constituency of the Biden-Harris Administration. After all, the new office has no congressional authorization, no dedicated congressional appropriation, no policy-making or enforcement authority, and no clearly defined reason for being, other than a vague mandate to “coordinate” the administration’s efforts on guns.
The appointment of Harris as its nominal head is perhaps telling, as she has a dismal favorability rating (including with Democrats), a reputation for speaking incoherently, and precious little success in shepherding consequential legislation through Congress. Even the administration’s collaborators in the press can’t seem to settle on a consistent narrative about her, sometimes portraying her as a liability to the Biden ticket and the party and sometimes trying to rehabilitate her image. Harris’ “oversite” portfolio also includes “stemming the migration on the southern border,” where the situation has only gotten worse from national sovereignty, human rights, and law enforcement standpoints. Besides unchecked illegal immigration that strains infrastructure and social services (leading even the Democrat mayor of New York City to characterize is as an existential crisis for the city), America’s porous border promotes smuggling of contraband and persons, often with deadly consequences. If there is a more disliked and ineffectual politician in D.C. than Kamala Harris, it’s hard to imagine who it is.
But it would be foolish to dismiss the fact that the office’s creation represents a new milestone in an ever-expanding gun control infrastructure that encompasses the legacy media, academia, the digital technology sector, and significant portions of institutional medicine and the entertainment industry. Meanwhile, the executive branch itself is increasingly being weaponized against gun owners and the gun industry in the form of persecutory rulemakings and enforcement policies. Having a dedicated office of fulltime zealots to interface with this infrastructure could indeed go a long way toward provoking the generational change in hearts and minds necessary to disrupt long-established freedoms, traditions, and legal regimes. The U.S. is currently undergoing its own Cultural Revolution, of sorts, and our Second Amendment rights are not immune to its effects. The newly-created office, if competently administered, could help nudge that process along.
But what is clear is that Biden is determined to use the White House’s own (apparently vast) budget to employ professional gun control advocates at the public’s expense.
Previously, the most blatant and egregious example of this was its nomination of a “senior policy advisor” and paid shill for the gun control lobby to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which enforces federal firearm laws.
The effort to nominate David Chipman to that role fortunately went down in flames, thanks to your NRA’s all-out opposition.
But the deputy directors of the new office include Robert Wilcox, who will also serve as special assistant to the president. Wilcox previously worked as the senior director of federal government affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety. There, his salary was underwritten by billionaire anti-gunner Michael Bloomberg. In his new role, however, it will be paid with YOUR federal taxes. Wilcox as an anti-gun lobbyist pushed such radical policies as banning America’s most popular rifle, the AR-15; banning private firearm transfers; holding law-abiding firearm dealers accountable for the acts of criminals; and limiting the capacity of magazines used in self-defense firearms. Wilcox is not just another policy wonk or expert bureaucrat whose job is to serve the public at large. He is an activist dedicated to the destruction of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. And now money coming out of YOUR pocket will fund his life’s work.
Chipman’s appointment was subject to Senate approval. Wilcox’s is not. But it is just as clearly a thumb in the eye to hardworking Americans who are struggling to get by in Joe Biden’s economy and who believe in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
What can best be hoped for Biden’s new antigun office is what can often best be hoped for other unnecessary and politically-charged appendages to the federal bureaucracy: that it spend money while doing and accomplishing nothing. Your NRA will be monitoring its operations carefully and will report on any noteworthy developments.
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
Three years ago, 58% of Oregon voters approved Measure 110, a groundbreaking ballot initiative that eliminated criminal penalties for low-level possession of illegal drugs.
Last week, a group called the Coalition to Fix and Improve Ballot Measure 110 proposed two versions of an initiative aimed at reversing that reform, and recent polling suggests most Oregonians are open to the idea.
There are two main reasons for that reversal of public opinion, neither of which goes to the heart of the moral and practical case for decriminalization.
Oregonians are understandably troubled by the nuisances associated with public drug use, and they are dismayed that, despite Measure 110’s promise of more funding for treatment, opioid-related deaths have continued to increase.
The main idea behind Measure 110 was that consuming politically disfavored intoxicants should not be treated as a crime. Since drug use itself violates no one’s rights, it is hard to argue with that premise.
Eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession, however, does not require tolerating conduct that offends, incommodes, or alarms people.
Eliminating criminal penalties for drug possession, however, does not require tolerating conduct that offends, incommodes or alarms people who have an equal right to use sidewalks, parks and other taxpayer-funded facilities. That problem — which many major cities face, regardless of whether they routinely arrest people for drug possession — is distinct from drug use per se, just as disorderly alcohol-related conduct is distinct from drinking per se.
The alcohol comparison is instructive in another way. Even during Prohibition, which banned the production and distribution of “intoxicating liquors,” drinking was not a crime. The situation created by Measure 110 is analogous to all the dangers that criminalizing the drug supply entails.
Just as alcohol prohibition exposed drinkers to the potentially deadly hazards of bootleg booze, drug prohibition forces users to rely on black-market products of uncertain provenance and composition. Measure 110 did nothing to address that problem, which has led to record numbers of drug-related deaths across the country.
That trend was fostered by the proliferation of illicit fentanyl, a result of the economic incentives that prohibition creates, and by the government’s crackdown on pain medication, which drove nonmedical users toward substitutes that are much more dangerous because their potency is highly variable and unpredictable. It is therefore not surprising that opioid-related deaths kept rising after decriminalization in Oregon, which saw increases similar to those recorded in California and Washington, neighboring states where low-level possession remains a crime.
Advocates of recriminalization argue that the threat of jail encourages drug users to enter treatment. But there are reasons to doubt that forcing “help” on people who do not want it is an effective way of resolving the social and psychological issues underlying life-disrupting drug habits.
According to a 2016 systematic review, “evidence does not, on the whole, suggest improved outcomes related to compulsory treatment approaches, with some studies suggesting potential harms.”
The authors conclude that “given the potential for human rights abuses within compulsory treatment settings, non-compulsory treatment modalities should be prioritized by policymakers seeking to reduce drug-related harms.”
One danger of jailing noncompliant drug users is that incarceration raises the risk of a fatal overdose because forced abstinence reduces tolerance. According to a 2023 study, that risk is “markedly elevated” among people recently freed from prison, especially during the first two weeks after release.
Washington County District Attorney Kevin Barton, who supports recriminalization of drug use in Oregon, says he favors “mandatory diversion just like we have for drunk driving.” But drunk drivers have committed a crime that endangers other people, while Barton thinks drug users should be forced into treatment even when they have done nothing other than consume psychoactive substances that legislators have decided to ban.
Heavy drinkers are free to ruin their health and their lives as long as they do not injure or endanger others, and that was true even during Prohibition. But under the policy that Barton favors, all illegal drug users are equally subject to criminal penalties. Measure 110 rightly repudiated that morally indefensible distinction.
About Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.
Ruling in California Magazine Ban Bodes Well for Similar Cases, Lancer L5 Advanced Warfighter Magazine (L5AWM) AR-15 Magazines
When U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez handed down his 71-page ruling in the case of Duncan v. Bonta, the Second Amendment Foundation quickly contended it could have a direct impact on similar bans in other states, including the challenge of Washington State’s ban, signed into law last year.
“We are delighted with this ruling,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb in a prepared statement. “The decision affects Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson’s defense against a lawsuit challenging a similar ban in his state, which is also in the Ninth Circuit, as well as bans in other states. Ultimately, we expect this issue will have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.”
Judge Benitez’s remarks came before a federal judge in Spokane denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the magazine ban in Washington State in a case that was not brought by SAF. The case is known as Brumback v.Ferguson.
It was the second time Judge Benitez had to elucidate on California’s ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines,” and he was very careful to include detailed footnotes. Some California gun rights advocates attending last weekend’s Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix defined the ruling as “devastating.”
For example, Judge Benitez noted, “There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity and the 10-round limit has no historical pedigree and it is arbitrary and capricious. It is extreme. Our federal government and most states impose no limits and in the states where limits are imposed, there is no consensus. Delaware landed on a 17-round magazine limit. Illinois and Vermont picked limits of 15 rounds for handguns and 10 rounds for a rifles. Colorado went with a 15-round limit for handguns and rifles, and a 28-inch tube limit for shotguns. New York tried its luck at a 7-round limit; that did not work out. New Jersey started with a 15-round limit and then reduced the limit to 10-rounds. The fact that there are so many different numerical limits demonstrates the arbitrary nature of magazine capacity limits.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed, “This is the second time California has tried to defend this ban, and the second time Judge Benitez has ruled against the statute. California clearly does not get the message about the Second Amendment.”
Judge Benitez allowed California 10 days to file a notice of appeal, but he clearly drove a stake through the heart of a statute which—in the wake of the 2022 Bruen ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court—may be destined to end up in the cemetery of useless gun control laws.
Gottlieb’s remarks about the Washington statute come on the heels of SAF’s decision to move its civil rights lawsuit against Ferguson out of federal court and into state court. That lawsuit alleges that Ferguson, an anti-gun Democrat who supported the ban on magazines and so-called “assault weapons,” has used his office “to target citizens simply because they do not share Mr. Ferguson’s personal beliefs.”
According to the lawsuit, “The Washington Supreme Court recently reprimanded Mr. Ferguson for this practice when it held unanimously that his office had improperly used the Washington Consumer Protection and Charitable Solicitations Acts to suppress constitutionally protected speech with which he disagreed. But Mr. Ferguson remained unrepentant, publicly stating he is proud that his improper investigation chilled the exercise of constitutional rights… Mr. Ferguson’s office has now set its sights on conservative activist Alan Gottlieb and a number of nonprofit and other entities he is associated with.”
The investigation appears to have come to at least a temporary halt in the aftermath of the initial federal filing.
“After much deliberation, we felt it was best to move this lawsuit to state court where the Washington Attorney General has already been held to account for abusing his office’s authority,” said SAF’s Kraut. “SAF has, and continues to, cooperate with the Attorney General’s Office by providing requested information, offering employees for depositions, and delivering updated documents before they are requested. We are ambivalent that the Washington Courts will put a swift end to the Attorney General’s continuing undue harassment stemming from his seeming desire to score cheap political points by copying one of his colleague’s tactics to bolster his otherwise unimpressive resume for his gubernatorial bid.”
Meanwhile, the California ruling has buoyed the spirits of gun owners whose rights have been under virtual siege for years, many activists indicated over the course of the Gun Rights conference. And it signaled good odds for another favorable ruling in a case known as Miller v. Bonta.
To fully understand Judge Benitez’s apparent perspective on the California magazine ban, one should read his footnote on Page 5 of the new ruling, which refers to his prior ruling against California’s law.
“As this Court explained in its prior decision, ‘[a]rtificial limits will eventually lead to disarmament. It is an insidious plan to disarm the populace and it depends on for its success a subjective standard of ‘necessary’ lethality. It does not take the imagination of Jules Verne to predict that if all magazines over 10 rounds are somehow eliminated from California, the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding only 10 rounds. To reduce gun violence, the state will close the newly christened 10-round ‘loophole’ and use it as a justification to outlaw magazines holding more than 7 rounds. The legislature will determine that no more than 7 rounds are ‘necessary.’ Then the next mass shooting will be accomplished with guns holding 7 rounds. To reduce the new gun violence, the state will close the 7-round ‘loophole’ and outlaw magazines holding more than 5 rounds determining that no more than 5 rounds are ‘suitable.’ And so it goes, until the only lawful firearm law-abiding responsible citizens will be permitted to possess is a single-shot handgun.’”
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.
Firearm found in man’s carry-on at Reagan National Airport Check Point on September 21, 2023
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers found a .22 caliber revolver in a man’s carry-on bag at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. The revolver appears to be a North American Arms Black Widow .22 Magnum with Boot Clip grips. These are some of the smallest repeating pistols made. They carry five shots of .22 magnum cartridges, as can be seen in the TSA photograph of the pistol, which was discovered on September 21, 2023. From tsa.gov:
A King George, Va., man was cited by police after he was stopped by Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officers with a loaded handgun at one of the checkpoints at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Thursday, Sept. 21. The .22 caliber pistol was loaded with five bullets and was packed in the man’s carry-on bag.
The gun was caught as the man entered the security checkpoint. The X-ray unit alerted the TSA to take a closer look and inspect the carry-on bag, which was opened by police for a closer inspection. Police confiscated the gun and cited the man on state charges. The man blamed his wife and told officials that she packed his carry-on bag and did not know that he already had his loaded gun inside.
More than 22 million people have concealed carry permits in the United States. Over half the states in the United States have restored permitless carry, where no permit is required to carry a loaded handgun, concealed or openly. Those states have a population of about 150 million people. Roughly 6.6% of the entire population have carry permits, or 8.5% of adults.
In 2022, there were 853 million passenger enplanements in the United States. Assuming 6.6% of them have carry permits, the number of times people who have carry permits traveled on airplanes in 2022 was 56.3 million.
In 2022, the TSA found 6,542 firearms at TSA checkpoints; 88% were loaded. The number of people with concealed carry permits who made a mistake and forgot firearms were in their carry-on, purse, or even in a jacket pocket was slightly more than 1/1000 of 1 percent. To put it another way, those who remembered to follow the rules were an astounding 99.999%
This is an astonishingly low error rate for human actions. The error rate would be even lower if we counted the 117 million adults who can legally carry without a permit.
When 99.999% of adults follow a rule, it is an incredible success. This rule is backed by armed agents with sophisticated detection systems and stiff penalties. The rule that requires airlines to allow firearms and ammunition in checked baggage helps. Nearly all responsible adults will choose a legal alternative if it is available.
When the rule for checked baggage was initiated, one or two checked bags were included in virtually all flights. It has become the norm for airlines to charge a fee for checked luggage. This has a chilling effect on people exercising their Second Amendment rights. As a reasonable compromise, checked baggage, which must be used to be able to exercise Second Amendment rights, should be available for free or heavily discounted, perhaps 20% of the normal rate, to those Americans who are exercising those rights.
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.
Michelle Lujan Grisham at a rally. By AFGE – #Handsoff Budget Rally, CC BY 2.0
After several weeks of the abject failure of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s (D) attempt to suspend constitutional rights in her state, there are a number of theories as to what, exactly, she was hoping to accomplish.
First, and foremost, though, it appears to have been little more than a PR stunt. She all but said as much.
After receiving public opposition to her outlandish announcement of an unconstitutional 30-day ban on open and concealed carry of firearms in public places in Bernalillo County, followed quickly by numerous lawsuits and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcing the ban, part of Lujan Grisham’s response to the TRO was to state, “Over the past four days (since issuing the order), I’ve seen more attention on resolving the crisis of gun violence than I have in the past four years.”
So she apparently got the publicity she was craving.
Not only is her comment a bald-faced lie, though, it’s an admission of failure, as Lujan Grisham has been in office for the past four years, and her party has controlled both chambers of the New Mexico legislature over that same time period. If she hasn’t been able to enact the laws she thinks will address violent crime involving those who use firearms in an illegal fashion over the last four years, either she is bad at governing, or her ideas are simply wildly unpopular or complete failures at achieving their alleged goals.
Probably a bit of all of that, really.
For the past four years, there has been a great deal of “attention” in the legislature on Lujan Grisham’s notion that infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners will somehow stop violent criminals from being violent criminals. Just go to NRAILA.org, then scroll down and use the filter to select New Mexico and All Dates. There have been countless anti-gun bills introduced, and some have even passed to become law. None have proven to be capable of reducing the violent acts of criminals misusing firearms.
Speaking of the apparent unpopularity of her ideas, one cannot help but notice the lack of support for her PR stunt. Honestly, it’s a bit surprising, knowing just how radical the anti-Second Amendment community is.
Lujan Grisham, during her press conference announcing her attempt to suspend the rights of law-abiding gun owners, stated that she had spoken to the White House prior to enacting the order. She didn’t say what kind of feedback she received, but considering there have not been any comments from anyone in the Biden administration about her actions—actions that have received national coverage by many media outlets—it may be safe to presume the subject matter is as toxic to Biden as his son’s legal problems.
Anti-gun organizations have been equally mum. None of the groups that supported Lujan Grisham’s election—like Everytown/Moms Demand and Giffords—have issued a single statement in support of the governor’s stunt.
Normally, anti-gun organizations are eager to praise the actions of anti-gun politicians; especially when they are put in the national spotlight.
But so far, all we’ve heard are crickets.
Similarly, these groups tend to file amicus briefs in support of anti-gun efforts that are challenged in court. Again, nothing on the aforementioned groups’ websites mentions filing any briefs in support of Lujan Grisham.
In fact, New Mexico’s attorney general, Raul Torrez (D), has publicly stated he will not defend the governor’s order in court, noting that it is clearly unconstitutional. Torrez, it should be noted, was also endorsed by the anti-gun groups Giffords and Everytown/Moms Demand.
Even some of the most vocal, radical anti-gun individuals called out Lujan Grisham for overstepping her authority with the unconstitutional ban on the right to carry. Anti-gun US Representative Ted Lieu (D-Cal.) posted to X (formerly Twitter) that the order “violates the U.S. Constitution,” and that “(t)here is no such thing as a public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.” Anti-gun activist David Hogg, as if cutting and pasting from some damage control script sent out by “moderate” anti-gunners, used virtually the same language as Lieu about a “public health emergency exception.”
Then, the very weekend the order was first put into place, peaceful protestors in Albuquerque carried firearms in the city—both openly and, presumably, concealed—with not a single arrest made or citation issued.
Some of the more radical political operatives in the country may not have realized these were peaceful protests, as no riots took place, no businesses were looted or burned down, and nobody was assaulted. Nonetheless, they were the epitome of peaceful protests.
Thus far, her actions have resulted in numerous legal challenges, including one filed by NRA-ILA, and one TRO issued by a Biden-appointed judge. Yes, you read that right, the first of what will likely be numerous defeats for Lujan Grisham’s PR stunt was issued by a judge appointed by Joe Biden.
After the TRO was issued, the governor amended her order to narrow the unconstitutional suspension of the right to carry firearms to apply to “public parks or playgrounds” in the affected area. Of course, diminishing the area an unconstitutional order impacts does not make it less unconstitutional, it just has the potential to decrease the number of people who might be affected. Virtually every legal challenge to the order, even as amended, shall likely continue. We know ours will.
But if you need any more evidence that the governor was merely looking for attention, rather than actual solutions, again, just consider what she says.
When asked directly, during her own press conference announcing her action, if she thought criminals would obey the order, she said no, but thought it would send a message. She even openly admitted that she was issuing the order without having figured out how it would be enforced.
“Sending a message” may be one of the worst defenses of an unconstitutional law we’ve heard, but considering she admits her order will not affect criminals, it may be the only defense she has.
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
Federal Judge Denies Preliminary Injunction Against the Washington Magazine Ban, AC Unity 5.56mm AK magazine. IMG Jim Grant
Three days after Federal District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that California’s magazine ban was unconstitutional in Duncan v. Bonta, a Federal District Judge denied a preliminary injunction against Washington State’s identical ban.
The case, Brumback v. Ferguson, challenged Senate Bill 5078 (ESSB 5078), which banned the sale or transfer of standard compacity magazines holding more than ten rounds. Washington-based gun store Gimme Guns is joining Michael Brumback in the case. Mr. Brumback tried to purchase a 30-round magazine from two-gun stores but was denied the item because of the 2022 law prohibiting the transfer of standard compacity magazines. He would eventually go to Gimme Guns for a final attempt to acquire the magazine. Even though the gun store did have the magazines in stock, the store could not complete the sale without breaking the newly signed law.
In July of 2022, Mr. Brumback teamed up with Gimme Guns. Together, he and the gun shop sued the state in the Eastern District of Washington federal court, attempting to get a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the magazine ban.
A preliminary injunction maintains the status quo while litigation is ongoing for a case. A judge will issue an injunction if they believe that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the case and will suffer irreparable harm.
On November 23, 2022, District Court Judge Mary Dimke heard arguments in the case. President Joe Biden appointed her to the bench in 2021. Many gun rights advocates behind the scenes were nervous when the judge was assigned. They believed it would be impossible for the plaintiffs to win because of the judge’s anti-gun stance. For the most part, President Biden-appointed judges have been terrible on gun rights issues. This judge made it clear that the plaintiffs would not have an easy path to victory.
“If the Court is to declare ESSB 5078 unconstitutional, it will not do so lightly. Injunctive relief is ‘an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief,’” the judge wrote.
The plaintiffs argue that banning magazines goes against the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment. Thanks to the landmark Supreme Court decision in the Bruen case, the courts no longer allow the states to use interest balancing in defending gun laws. The defendants argued that standard capacity magazines, which Washington State calls large capacity magazines, are dangerous and unusual and claimed under the Heller decision that the government can ban dangerous and unusual weapons.
The judge remained unconvinced that the Second Amendment covers magazines. Judge Dimke claimed neither side provided evidence that the Second Amendment protects the magazines. The judge reasoned that the burden of proof falls to the plaintiffs.
“At present, the evidence in the record is insufficient to establish that Plaintiffs are likely to prove that large capacity magazines fall within the Second Amendment right. The instant decision is primarily the result of Plaintiffs’ insufficient evidentiary showing and should not be read to preclude a contrary finding at a trial on the merits. It is pertinent to note, however, that no party, at this stage, has demonstrated a historical record adequately supporting their respective positions on the question of whether the Second Amendment covers large capacity magazines,” Judge Dimke wrote.
Judge Dimke also took issue with the plaintiffs’ evidence showing that magazines are “in common use today for self-defense.” The judge called the plaintiffs’ evidence “tenuous.” She said she would not consider “internet articles” as evidence, even though most journalism now solely exists online. The judge took the term “in common use” and added “for self-defense.” This wordsmithing isn’t the only “judicial jiu-jitsu” that the judge used. She also claimed that even if the plaintiff’s Constitutional rights are violated, it is not so clearly violated that the plaintiffs are entitled to relief.
“Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment right is not so clearly infringed during the pendency of this litigation to warrant the ‘extraordinary relief’ of a preliminary injunction,” the judge wrote.
Judge Dimke claimed since the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits of the case, she didn’t have to rule on any other factors needed for a preliminary injunction. However, the judge mentioned mass shootings, linked them directly to the magazine size, and claimed the law was in the public interest.
The judge didn’t rule out issuing injunctive relief if the evidence in the future warrants such a ruling. Even though Judge Dimke left the door open for a different decision in the future, the plaintiffs have a monumental task ahead of them.
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist; he has written about firearms and interviewed people of all walks of life. Mr. Crump lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Gabriel Metcalf is out of jail, but with a GPS ankle monitor, for which he must pay $9.50 daily or nearly $300 monthly.
In the Gun Free School Zone case in Billings, Montana, Gabriel Metcalf had pre-trial detention without bail changed to release on his own recognizance due to the facts and the excellent work done by his Federal Defender, Russell Hart. Judge Cavan realized Gabriel was not a threat and released him with some restrictions.
As Gabriel was about to be released, the Yellowstone Detention Facility administration told him he could not leave. Someone had discovered a warrant for his arrest. Russell Hart said something to the effect of: we have an order from the judge for his release.
The response was, you are a federal attorney. This is a local matter. You have no say in local matters. The warrant was said to exist but was not served until Saturday in court. At some point on Saturday, Gabriel was brought before a local judge, who approved of bail with restrictions. Gabriel was not supplied with a public defender at this point. If the defendant pleads “not guilty,” it is not required for an attorney to be present at the initial appearance. Law enforcement sources have verified this is considered a valid tactical timing decision.
One of the restrictions is for Gabriel to wear a GPS monitor. Metcalf is required to pay $9.50 per day.
The primary concern at the moment is for Gabriel to obtain adequate counsel for the local charge. The jail records show the local warrant, which was never served, was for misdemeanor assault from three years ago. This was an incident of one person’s word against another’s. The police were unaware of this warrant before Mr. Metcalf was charged with breaking the Gun Free School Zone law. With proper representation, many reasonable outcomes are possible. Even if convicted, which seems unlikely, Metcalf would not be prohibited from possessing firearms.
The record-keeping and communications systems in Billings seem to have significant weaknesses. The Billings Police Management publicly claimed they could do nothing for weeks because Gabriel was breaking no local laws. Apparently, all during this period, this old arrest warrant was available. During Gabriel’s month in pre-trial detention under the federal Gun Free School Zone Act, no one seemed to find this old warrant. Somehow, it was found just in time to prevent Gabriel from leaving the jail just as he was being released on his own recognizance for the federal charge.
David Carpenter, with a felony trial coming up, was not required to wear a GPS ankle monitor after only a few months without a reported problem. David had five misdemeanor convictions and is the person whom Gabriel and Vivian have the order of protection against.
Three hundred dollars a month is considerable when you are on the edge of paying your bills. Gabriel and his mother went into debt to survive, keep their home, and keep the utilities on when Vivian was ill with covid and pneumonia for two months, just before Gabriel’s arrest on the Gun Free School Zone charge. Gabriel had to care for her while she could not work.
Vivian, Gabriel’s mother, has set up a GiveSendGo site to help defend their home the Second Amendment and work to free Gabriel from this peculiar lack of a public defender and three-year-old charges.
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.
