GOA’s Injunction Against ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule Extended Until Case Is Settled

The MCX pistol with folding brace is super compact and easy to carry. IMG Jim Grant

Gun Owners of America’s (GOA) preliminary injunction against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule on pistol stabilizing devices (Final Rule 2021R-08F) has been extended until the conclusion of the case.

The case, State of Texas v. ATF, was bought by GOA, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the state of Texas to challenge the ATF rule that reversed years of determinations surrounding pistols equipped with stabilizing devices. The ATF’s new rule reclassified most pistols with stabilizing braces to short-barreled rifles (SBRs), meaning the firearms would be regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). It required owners of these guns to register the firearms with the ATF, submit to additional background checks, hand over passport pictures, and provide fingerprints.

If the gun owners don’t want to register the pistol, the ATF gives them four choices. The first choice is to turn over the pistol to law enforcement. The second is to install a barrel greater than 16 inches. The third is to remove the brace and make it so it can never be installed again. The final choice is to destroy the firearm.

The rule set off a flurry of lawsuits asking for a nationwide injunction before the June 1, 2023, effective date. Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) would get an injunction in a Texas District Court. Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) would get their injunction from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. GOA’s injunction would also come from a Texas District Court—none of the injunctions applied to all gun owners. Only the members of the organizations were covered. The injunctions were issued before the cut-off date.

The injunctions would be used as stop gaps until later to give the courts time to rule on the cases. Judge Drew B. Tipton has now decided to extend the preliminary injunction until the case is settled. A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” to maintain the status quo. Several factors have to be considered for an injunction to be issued.

The first and most important factor is the likelihood of the plaintiffs to succeed on the merits of the case. Judge Tipton cited the ruling in Mock v. Garland, where the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by pulling a bait and switch with the Proposed Rule and the Final Rule.

The ATF presented a rule with a form (ATF Form 4999) with a point system to determine if a brace would turn a pistol into an SBR. When the Final Rule was unveiled, the point system was gone. All braces currently on the market would turn any pistol into an SBR if equipped. The rule bore no resemblance to the Proposed Rule.

“The first inquiry is whether a Plaintiff that has standing has established a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits. Id. The Fifth Circuit has already decided “that the Final Rule fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA.” Mock, 75 F.4th at 578. Because that holding pertained to the ATF’s rulemaking process, any plaintiff challenging the Final Rule on APA grounds in the Fifth Circuit has the same likelihood of success. Therefore, Plaintiffs have a substantial likelihood to succeed on the merits of their logical-outgrowth claim,” Judge Tipton wrote in his 29-page decision.

The judge also believes the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if the Court doesn’t issue an injunction. Judge Tipton pointed out that the plaintiffs would be forced to comply with ATF’s rule if no injunction is issued, meaning they would have to get rid of or modify their firearms.

“The ATF gave affected gun owners until May 31, 2023, to register their stabilizing braces. 88 Fed. Reg. at 6570. Because that deadline has now passed, complying with the Final Rule would require the private Plaintiffs to do one of four things: (1) permanently modify their weapon to remove it from the scope of the NFA, (2) dispose of or ‘alter’ their stabilizing brace so that it can never be reattached, (3) turn over their weapon to the ATF, or (4) destroy their weapon completely,” the order reads.

The final factor in a preliminary injunction is the balance of equities and public interest. In this stage, the judge explores the harm to the plaintiff if an injunction is not issued. The judge also looks to the harm caused to the defendant if an injunction is issued. The judge will then look at the public interest.

The judge ruled that the plaintiff would experience harm immediately without an injunction. He said the ATF’s harm is more administrative and speculative. Judge Tipton also ruled that “there is no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.”

“The Court finds that the balance of equities tips in Plaintiffs favor because the Final Rule’s effect on Plaintiffs is immediate and imminent while the effect on Defendants, especially the ATF, is more administrative and speculative. Defendants’ arguments of harm to the public are unavailing,” the judge wrote.

The judge kept the scope of the ruling just to GOA members. This decision means that all GOA members will be protected from ATF enforcement actions over braced pistols for the foreseeable future. Even though there is no all-encompassing order enjoining the ATF from taking enforcement action against anyone who owns a pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace, the scale of the current injunctions means millions of Americans are protected from ATF action. Since none of the groups are required to share their membership rolls with the ATF, many believe the rule is currently unenforceable.

The ATF Final Rule on the classification of pistols equipped with stabilizing braces is not dead yet, but it is on life support.

GOA’s Injunction Against The ATF’s Pistol Brace Rule Extended Until The Case Is Settled 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/GNH5njE
via IFTTT

Et tu, Justice Amy Coney Barrett? No, Justice Barrett is NOT a Traitor to 2A ~ VIDEO

Opinion

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions to enter stays in the “ghost gun” cases in favor of the Biden Justice Department has some Second Amendment supporters questioning Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s commitment to enforce the constitutional right to bear arms.

To discover whether her position on the right to bear arms has changed for the worse, we should discuss how the Supreme Court works and the judicial philosophies of the conservative justices on it.

The Ghost Gun Cases

Recently, the Second Amendment movement suffered setbacks before the Supreme Court on emergency applications from Merrick Garland’s Department of Justice in the VanDerStok/Blackhawk cases arising from federal courts in Texas. Both cases challenge a new ATF rule, sometimes called the “ghost gun” rule, that regulates the sale of parts of frames and receivers and weapons parts kits.

On August 8, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay of the lower court’s orders vacating (“vacatur”) the Biden administration’s so-called “ghost gun” rules. This had the effect of allowing these regulations to become binding law. The Supreme Court’s order noted that four of the justices would have allowed the district court’s vacatur decision to stand, namely, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Therefore, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett sided with the liberals to stay the vacatur in favor of the Biden Administration.

On October 16, 2023, the Supreme Court ordered another stay in favor of the Department of Justice against a Fifth Circuit decision to enjoin through a preliminary injunction Biden’s “ghost gun” rules. (NOTE: a vacatur is a different, but similar, remedy to an injunction in that they both prevent or limit an administrative agency’s authority to enforce a regulation). This time, the Supreme Court’s order did not specify which justices agreed with the stay, but, presumably, it would have included Justice Barrett, given her earlier ruling on vacatur.

Maybe It’s Not About the Second Amendment After All

The Supreme Court’s “stay” decisions in the “ghost gun” cases have led some to label Justice Barrett a traitor to the Second Amendment. Now, I have no personal knowledge of Justice Barrett’s thinking here. However, I am highly skeptical of any claim that Justice Barrett will not defend our fundamental rights under the Second Amendment. There are several non-traitorous reasons why Justice Barrett may have allowed the “ghost gun” regulation to remain in effect while the litigations are pending.

Let’s just keep in mind who the jurist, Amy Coney Barrett, is. She was elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals largely because of a dissent she wrote in a case called Kanter v. Barr. Kanter addressed whether a nonviolent felon could possess a firearm under the Second Amendment, which has come to be known colloquially as the “Martha Stewart question.”

Then-judge Barrett, in her dissent, explained why nonviolent felons do indeed possess a right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment and Heller. When she authored her dissent, her recognition of a distinction between violent and nonviolent felons was arguably a more robust and aggressive pro-Second Amendment stance than what had been articulated then by many of its staunchest supporters.

This caused a great stir in the legal community. Has Justice Barrett gone from being a powerful Second Amendment ally to a squish in such a short period of time? I don’t think so.

Beyond her work as a Seventh Circuit judge, Justice Barrett supported NYSRPA v. Bruen, which upheld the right to carry firearms outside the home. She joined in full Justice Thomas’s excellent majority opinion and wrote a short concurring opinion indicating that the time of the Founding is likely the most relevant time period for interpreting the Second Amendment, which is correct. Again, if Justice Barrett was not a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, it is unlikely that she would have been such a strong voice in Bruen, which was decided less than two years ago.

Legally, Federal Administrative Procedure Act Cases Are NOT Second Amendment Cases

So, when it comes to the VanDerStok and Blackhawk applications for an emergency stay by the Department of Justice, why did Justice Barrett decide the way she did?

First, Justice Barrett does not decide legal cases in the same way that a left-wing judge does, that is, as a partisan legislator cloaked in a black robe. She does not come to a case with a predetermined outcome in mind, but rather, she wants to hear all the facts and law to decide the case correctly.

In my view, a major factor at play here is the concern that she (and likely the other conservative justices on the Supreme Court) do not want to bless or approve of decisions by the lower federal courts that vacate nationwide laws and regulations. Suppose Justice Barrett voted to allow ATF’s “ghost gun” regulation to remain in effect. In that case, it is likely that she did so to send a message to the lower, “inferior” courts that they cannot strike down federal laws with impunity. If you recall, rogue district court judges plagued President Trump’s administration by, for example, declaring virtually all of his executive actions involving illegal immigrants unconstitutional. Justice Barrett may simply want to clamp down on such activity.

The second thing we need to consider is the so-called “shadow docket.” There are times when emergency applications are made to the Supreme Court, and the Court must decide an issue without the benefit of full briefing and oral argument. Because the Court wants to get the case right, it prefers to have a matter fully litigated, with a final judgment on the merits before it gets involved. This gives the Court the benefit of a complete record before the case even hits its docket. Additionally, if they grant certiorari, they then receive additional briefing from both sides as well as from amici, and with the benefit of oral argument.

In contrast, with an emergency application in a pending case yet to be fully decided by the lower courts, the appeal process to the Supreme Court is expedited and is decided on a much more limited record. The Supreme Court doesn’t like to get involved in such “interlocutory appeals” because rushing decisions increases the risk of erroneous decisions. An erroneous outcome is more likely to occur on an emergency application where the Court doesn’t have the benefit of a complete and final factual record, full-blown legal briefing, and oral argument. As a result, it is not unusual for the government to get the benefit of the doubt. In other words, if there is a question about a challenged regulation and its legitimacy, the Supreme Court tends to defer initially to the executive branch, the head of which swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. Thus, whether it is Donald Trump or Joe Biden in office, the Supreme Court generally defers to the executive in emergency situations.

Whether such institutional deference is warranted is a matter of debate, but it’s our current reality.

Another reason Justice Barrett may have decided to stay the vacatur and injunctions in the Blackhawk/VanDerStok cases is because they involved commercial relationships instead of obvious Second Amendment implications. These cases ultimately address regulations over the sale of frames and receivers or parts thereof. From Justice Barrett’s (and the rest of the Court’s) point of view, the issue in these cases is likely less about the Second Amendment and more about questions of commercial law and the federal Administrative Procedural Act. Under federal administrative law, what regulatory powers does ATF have under its authorizing statutes passed by Congress? Because the Court does not involve itself as much in regulated commercial transaction problems that businesses and government regulators can resolve in the lower courts, it will often defer to the government in the short run and simply allow the case to proceed.

Take Heart, Second Amendment Supporters,

Despite its initial victories in these early innings, the Department of Justice should not take much comfort here. In my view, once these “ghost gun” cases are finalized and then appealed to the Supreme Court in the normal course, the ATF’s regulations may still be declared unlawful. Yes, the delay is frustrating (and perhaps to some companies financially devastating), but if and when these cases are heard on the merits, I am confident that there will be at least five votes against the ATF, including Justice Barrett.

To close, I do not believe that Justice Amy Coney Barrett will abdicate her duties to respect, uphold, and enforce the Second Amendment.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube, is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. His Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen and in U.S. v. Rahimi.

His most recent book is DISARMED: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms.

from https://ift.tt/s45069w
via IFTTT

Middle East Apologists & Denialist Will Say: Don’t Believe Your Lying Eyes

Opinion

Predicting the Future!

Lacking the gift of prophecy, I’m going to make predictions anyway:

Israel’s offensive operation(s) in Gaza, maybe Lebanon, will be spectacularly successful, though casualties will be significant. Many Hamas members and others will be DRT (dead right there).

As it goes on, spineless Euroweenies, anti-Jewish elements at the UN, and weak-kneed Democrats (many also overtly anti-Jewish) in this country will start urging Israel to stop the war before it is finished.

The scenario is predictable:

• First, we’ll hear that Hamas’ invasion of Israeli sovereign territory last Saturday and their subsequent murder of over a thousand innocent Israelis, almost all non-combatants (including many minor children, even infants), as well as the forced abduction of over one hundred hostages, “wasn’t all that bad!”
• Next, we’ll hear that it was all “greatly exaggerated.”
• Finally, we’ll hear that “it never really happened!”

This is precisely what happened when the full extent of the Holocaust (1935-1945) was revealed in post-WWII Europe.

This is why Eisenhower insisted that his liberation of Nazi death camps in 1945 be filmed because he said himself that no one would ever believe it otherwise.

Eisenhower was right!

Many will deny it ever happened, even today. Many others contend that “it really wasn’t all that bad.”

Fortunately, the War in Europe was finished, and the truth came out for all who wanted to hear it. I’ve little doubt that we’re going to see the same thing in 2023!

Don’t allow amoral leftist sleaze to blur the truth.

We know they’ll try!

“How about a shot of truth in that ‘denial cocktail?’” ~ Jennifer Salaiz

/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/yOorJFZ
via IFTTT

Speaker Johnson Passes First Difficult Test on Second Amendment

New Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R) has passed his first Second Amendment test. He immediately and forcefully stated that mass murder does not override the Constitution, and contrary to Democratic policy, emotion should not be used to enact laws that would never be acceptable in a quiet and reasoned debate. The statement was made in an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox.

For those who prefer text, here is the quote from Mediaite.com:

“The end of the day, the problem is the human heart,” Johnson replied. “It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons. At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves and that’s the Second Amendment. And that’s why our party stands so strongly for that.”

He added, “This is not the time to be talking about legislation. We’re in the middle of that crisis right now.”

Just after a mass murder is committed with a firearm, politicians are most vulnerable to manipulation by pressure from the old dominant media. At this point, the old dominant media and the Democratic administration are parts of the same leftist ideology. They immediately push the false narrative that the cause of mass murder is the Second Amendment and firearms ownership in the USA. House Speaker Johnson did not accept the false assumptions. He gently corrected them:

“The end of the day, the problem is the human heart,” Johnson replied. “It’s not guns, it’s not the weapons.

The Biden administration immediately struck back with a false representation of what Speaker Johnson said. From politico.com:

In a statement, White House spokesman Andrew Bates said the administration “absolutely” rejected “the offensive accusation that gun crime is uniquely high in the United States because of Americans’ ‘hearts.’”

There are at least three lies in the White House statement.

• Lie #1. Speaker Johnson talked about “gun crime”.  He did not. In fact, he said it was not about weapons.
• Lie #2. “gun crime” is uniquely high in the USA. It isn’t. Many countries in the world have far higher rates of crime committed with firearms than the United States. Brazil has a homicide rate with guns, which is over four times as high as the United States. Brazil has about 1/16th as many firearms per person as the USA.
• Lie #3. Speaker Johnson did not single out “Americans’ hearts. He spoke of “the human heart”. This is an important philosophical difference between the left and conservatives. Conservatives believe there is a basic human nature. Leftists, generally, since Marx, do not.

Speaker Johnson stands in contrast to former Speaker Paul Ryan. Here is a statement made by former Speaker Paul Ryan a few days after the Las Vegas mass murder on October 1, 2017. Ryan’s comments were made on October 7th. From the jsonline.com:

In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting, U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan says he’s open to a vote in Congress on what is known as a “bump stock,” a device that can be attached to a semi-automatic rifle that allows it to mimic a fully automatic one.

The Janesville Republican made his remarks on MSNBC’s Hugh Hewitt talk show, which aired Saturday.

“I didn’t even know what they were until this week, and I’m an avid sportsman,” Ryan said of bump stocks. He added: “Fully automatic weapons have been banned for a long time. Apparently, this allows you to take a semiautomatic, turn it into a fully automatic, so clearly that’s something we need to look into.”

Speaker Paul Ryan killed the Hearing Protection Act on October 3rd, two days after the mass murder in Las Vegas. Earlier, it appeared the act had an excellent chance of passage. Ryan had delayed the act when the dedicated leftist had attacked Congressional Republicans and almost killed Representative Scalise. It appeared to this correspondent as an excuse at the time.

Time will tell how effective Mike Johnson will be as House Speaker.

---

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/VL9657o
via IFTTT

Exploitation, Incomplete Advice Follow Maine Mass Shooting

The Maine rampage is being predictably exploited by anti-gunners including Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom. (iStock-884203988_

In the aftermath of the Lewiston, Maine rampage, which left at least 18 people dead and another 13 injured, anti-gunners—including Joe Biden, Gavin Newsom, and March For Our Lives—are exploiting the mayhem to either push an agenda or raise money, and reporters at one prominent newspaper offer advice on what to do if caught in an active shooter situation.

Suspected killer Robert Card was found dead about 48 hours after the shooting, as noted by the Daily Mail and other news agencies. His body was at the rear of an industrial tractor trailer about 10 miles from the initial shooting scenes, a bowling alley and restaurant. Two guns were reportedly found next to the body. As reported by CNN, authorities believe the gun he used had been purchased legally in mid-July, before he was hospitalized for mental health evaluation, thus refuting suggestions a 72-hour “waiting period” might have made a difference. The CNN report says the purchase was made 10 days prior to reports he had been “hearing voices” and making other concerning remarks.

CNN also sensationalized its report, quoting unidentified sources, by asserting, “The powerful rifle was a Ruger SFAR chambered for high-powered 308 ammunition, according to the sources.” It is widely known that the .308 Winchester is a cartridge used for deer, bear and elk hunting across the U.S.

Predictably, Maine Democrats reportedly are going to pursue tougher gun laws. According to the New Hampshire Bulletin, Maine State Rep. Lori Gramlich (D-Old Orchard), a member of the legislature’s “gun safety caucus,” signaled her intentions, erroneously suggesting the Second Amendment is about hunting.

“I respect that people hunt,” she reportedly stated. “But last time I checked, you don’t hunt with an assault weapon – those are not hunting tools, those are weapons of death and weapons of war. And I personally don’t see any reason for those weapons to be on the street in the hands of citizens.”

President Biden quickly began pushing his long-standing gun control agenda, Newsom tried to blame the shooting on Republicans in the Maine Legislature for blocking a waiting period bill—despite the fact that Democrats control both houses of the legislature and occupy the governor’s office—and the Washington Post discussed the “Run, Hide, Fight” strategy while avoiding any mention of being armed and taking out the shooter. While advice from some experts is included in the article, there is not a single reference to incidents in recent memory in which armed private citizens fatally shot the bad guys.

The closest the WaPo comes is this: “Attack. If your only option is to directly attack a shooter, choose what you’ll use as a weapon and aim for vital areas such as the head, eyes, throat and midsection. Be aggressive and don’t quit.”

There was no reference to the May 2022 incident in Charleston, W.Va., when an armed female bystander intervened in a shooting incident involving a 37-year-old man “with an extensive criminal history” who was armed with a rifle.

Nor was there a mention of the July 2022 incident at the Greenwood Park, Indiana mall where Elisjsha Dicken fatally shot a would-be mass killer who had already murdered three people in the food court area. Dicken fired ten shots and connected with eight of them, according to WTHR News. That killer was also armed with a rifle.

For his part, President Biden trotted out the same “solutions” he has offered in the past: ban so-called “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines,” adopt “universal background checks,” mandatory “safe storage” without defining what that is, and—absurdly because it would have nothing to do with the Maine tragedy—repeal the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

In the wake of yet another tragedy, I urge Republican lawmakers in Congress to fulfill their duty to protect the American people.

Work with us to pass a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, enact universal background checks, and more. pic.twitter.com/8qakUrkZcK

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) October 26, 2023

Newsom’s self-insertion into the story almost immediately left egg on his face. As noted by Politico, the anti-gun California governor “slammed Maine Republicans on social media for rejecting a gun control bill that would have required a 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases” while possibly hoping most people would overlook the fact that “Democrats have control of both Maine’s House and Senate.”

Republicans in Maine rejected a bill this year that would have required a waiting period for firearm purchases.

They seriously could not fathom waiting 72 hours to buy a gun.

Maine also does not…
– Ban assault weapons
– Require permits to carry a gun in public
– Require… https://t.co/18IoTtYRsY

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) October 26, 2023

A waiting period would not likely have prevented the shooting. NBC News reported—while other media do not appear to have followed up—that the suspect, Robert Card, legally purchased the semi-auto rifle allegedly used in the shooting “this year,” though there was no approximate date included in the single-paragraph note appearing in NBC’s minute-by-minute coverage.

Politico noted the June rejection of the bill “was bipartisan, failing in the House 73-69 with 65 Republicans and seven Democrats voting against and in the Senate 24-11 with all 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting against.”

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms came out swinging against Biden and Newsom and their attempts to exploit the tragedy. CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb blistered both Democrats, calling their efforts “deplorable political posturing.”

“Biden, Newsom and other gun prohibitionists are dragging out the same tired agenda which they have always proposed,” Gottlieb said. “They have simply repackaged it with the events in Lewiston, Maine, which is a disgusting exploitation of a horrible crime. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.”

Speaking for the Second Amendment Foundation, which he founded almost 50 years ago, Gottlieb added, “As expected, the gun prohibition crowd—including President Joe Biden—immediately started banging the drum for more restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens who have harmed nobody…The knee-jerk demands from anti-gunners, from Joe Biden on down, to penalize honest citizens amounts to a disgusting exploitation of a horrible tragedy for which one person alone is responsible. Disarming gun owners has never helped prevent a crime in the past, and it certainly won’t prevent tragedies in the future.”

Likewise, Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League, released a statement asserting, “From all accounts, this was entirely preventable. The families of the victims, and indeed the entire nation, should be furious at the systemic failure that led to this atrocity.

“According to reports, the killer may have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility and released even after admitting that he wanted to cause serious harm,” Wallace said. “This automatically made him a prohibited person from possessing a gun. The fact that he was released is simply unconscionable.”

Possibly the most egregious and callous exploitation comes from the March For Our Lives group. In an email blast Thursday, the group claimed to be “grieving the loss” of lives but remembered to include a click command at the end of their lament to allow readers to make a financial donation.

Interestingly, a couple of points in the message are worthy of attention for their bizarre content:

“There are laws that protect shady cops who kill unarmed Black folks.

“There are laws like Stand Your Ground and concealed carry that turn neighbors into violent agitators.”

Perhaps to make his own political hay in the midst of this story, Maine Democrat Congressman Jared Golden, who previously voted against his party’s gun control measures, “came out in support of an assault weapons ban on Thursday,” according to CNN.

Golden, who represents Maine’s Second District, stated during a press conference, “I have opposed efforts to ban deadly weapons of war. The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure, which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles.”

Only time will tell if this about-face on firearms will hurt him if he runs for re-election in 2024.

---

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/tfYLXVp
via IFTTT

The Bloody Failed Experiment of Gun-Free “Death” Zones

Opinion
Dan Wos, Author of – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host of The Loaded Mic

Istock

After watching senseless killings in Gun Free Zones time and time again, logical-thinking people start to consider the fact that deaths occur in these locations because people can’t defend themselves when under attack. Mainstream media, in coordination with the Democrat party, is highly tuned in to this awareness and works effortlessly to counteract that thought process through an endless stream of propaganda, rhetoric, and gun-blaming.

They know that logical-thinking people are aware of their anti-gun fear campaign. Still, they also know that there is a good portion of Americans who can be easily manipulated into believing the anti-gun lies.

We wonder how, if they know that they are putting good people in danger with their false narrative, Gun Free Zones, and dangerous gun restrictions, they can continue this experiment in unnecessary loss of human life?

We ask this question, coming from a mindset that holds human life in high regard, which is why we can’t understand their motives. Our intent is to see that innocent life is protected, which is why we keep and bear arms. The gun grabbers’ intent seems to be keeping innocent life as vulnerable as possible. Without loss of life, and the vulnerability of American Citizens, the political left has no fuel to drive their anti-gun agenda.

The biggest culprit of unnecessary and preventable death is the Gun Free Zone. It is also becoming quite apparent that the Gun Free Zone is a valuable tool for gun restrictions. At a certain point, the gun-grabbers start to look foolish for continuing dangerous policies with no remorse, but the Gun Free Zone brings with it death, and an excuse to blame guns for human violence. This is the main driver for gun-restriction support.

Don’t believe me? Ask yourself why it is that left-wing media and politicians will start blaming firearms, with total disregard to the suffering families and loss of life before the victims are even removed from the scene.

There are several reasons for this immoral behavior, including the fact that a good portion of our Country values politics over morality.

This could be a result of the demonization of Judaism and Christian values in our society. It could also be the fact that there is a concerted effort to teach people to devalue human life if it doesn’t benefit them.

Since Joe Biden introduced the Crime Control Act, which included the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990, school killings have doubled and increased at twice the rate of increase every ten years. Gun Free Zones are not limited to school campuses and have been implemented both legislatively and socially into businesses across America. Governor Kathy Hochul is infamous for violating the Constitutional rights of New Yorkers by implementing “sensitive locations” legislation, which is a new and less demonized term for “Gun Free Zone.” When bad policy becomes obvious, bad policymakers rename them.

We have recently experienced a tragedy in Lewiston, Maine, where a man named Robert Card killed seven people. The act of violence was carried out inside the “Just In Time Bowling Alley,” located in Lewiston, Maine. According to The Crime Prevention Research Center, the bowling alley was a Gun Free Zone and had a sign on the front door that read, “We kindly ask that you refrain from bringing Firearms into this building, and we would appreciate it if you left them in your vehicle. Please keep our atmosphere family-friendly.”

Unfortunately, this anti-gun mindset puts innocent lives in danger. In an attempt to make their bowling alley “family-friendly,” they may have made it a deadly location. Will the owners of this facility change their policy and be held accountable for the loss of life? Don’t hold your breath. Will Democrats and the mainstream media recognize the fact that the owners of this business may have put their patrons in danger by disarming them before they entered the building? Probably not. Why? Because the anti-gun mindset that has permeated a portion of our population is more interested in their political positioning than they are the lives of their fellow citizens.

Too many of your fellow Americans on the political Left, want you disarmed. It would appear they are willing to achieve that result at any cost.

The 2nd Amendment is not a privilege. It’s your right.
Dan Wos,
Author – Good Gun Bad Guy
Host – The Loaded Mic

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Velocity Systems Scarab Light Plate Carrier	Brownells.com	$ 309.00
	AR Freeman Plate Carrier with Armor Package	AR500 Armor	$ 124.00
	Vism Larger Fast Plate Carrier w/2 11x14in Level III and PE Shooters Cut Hard Ballistic Plates Tan	Optics Planet	$ 569.99 $ 453.99
	velocity-systems-scarab-light-plate-carrier	U.S. EliteGear	$ 308.00

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

Dan Wos

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

Cheap Guns! 3 Firearms Turn-in Events on Nov 4th, 2023 , Albuquerque, Las Cruces, Espanola, NM

Long guns were turned in by individuals on October 21, 2023, in Dallas, TX, for $200 per gun.

New Mexico state police have announced a trio of gun turn-in events, known by the Orwellian propaganda term “buy back,” to be held on Saturday, November 4, 2023, from 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Espanola. Police state gift cards will be given out for any firearm, working or not, with a very generous amount of $300 for rifles, shotguns, or “assault weapons“, and a more pedestrian amount of $200 for handguns.  This correspondent has contacted the NM State Police but has not been given information about how much total monies have been allocated for these events at the time of this writing.

Events managed by police for individuals to turn in guns for gift cards have become popular again, as 1.6 trillion dollars pushed into the political environment has to be spent in some way.

From the New Mexico state police press release on Facebook:

New Mexico State Police Coordinate Gun Buy Back to Promote Gun Safety and Reduce Gun Violence

Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Espanola NM –
On Saturday, November 4, 2023, the New Mexico State Police are coordinating a Gun Buyback Event in Albuquerque, Las Cruces, and Espanola.

The events will take place on November 4, 2023, from 8:00 a.m. through 2:00 p.m. at the following locations:

Albuquerque, at Expo New Mexico at 300 San Pedro Gate 6 (south of Lomas), Las Cruces, at the Sportsman’s Warehouse at 2230 N. Telshor Blvd. Espanola, at Robert “Gordy” Vigil Regional Sportsplex at 2000 Industrial Park Rd.

People may anonymously hand in unwanted guns and firearms and receive Visa and/or American Express gift cards in return. No questions will be asked about who owns the guns or where they came from. Buybacks are intended to prevent unwanted or unneeded weapons from causing harm or being used to commit acts of violence.

Buyback Event details: $200.00 Visa and/or American Express gift card for handguns, $300.00 Visa and/or American Express gift card for rifles, shotguns, and assault weapons. Firearms may be functional or non-functional.

“This is a proactive measure to prevent tragedies involving guns. We want to help remove unwanted guns from our communities and reduce the risk of deadly accidents, homicides, and suicides” said Troy Weisler, Chief of the New Mexico State Police.

If this correspondent were a few hundred miles closer to this event, a number of older and inexpensive long guns would be made ready to be turned in. Magazines, scopes, and other accessories would be removed. Many long guns can be purchased for less than $200, and older long guns with problems may be worth less than $200. In the last few years, this correspondent has purchased a number of firearms for about $100.

Unfortunately, this is a gamble. The gamble being: will the gift cards run out before a person is able to turn in the guns for the money?

In Dallas, on October 23, the gift cards ran out in an hour, and only about the first ten vehicles in line received any gift cards. The first vehicle turning in shotguns had about 100 of them.  In Dallas, the government was offering $200 per long gun. In New Mexico, the government will be offering $300. If the government runs out of gift cards, as is likely, there will be many people in line who were determined to get rid of some guns.

When the gift cards are gone, that is when private buyers make great deals. In Dallas, a mint Colt SP-1 (pre-ban AR15) was purchased for $400. It may be worth $2,000 to $3,000 on the collector market.

The New Mexico Democratic Party government of Lujan Grisham is not known for its common sense or fiscal responsibility.  $300 is more than many long guns retail for new:

An image from Walmart on the 20th of September, 2023, shows five long guns under $200 and slots for two more.

If the gift cards last long enough, they will empty the gun stores of new and old guns with prices less than $200. If the gift cards are unlimited, this program could bankrupt the State of New Mexico!

---

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/cznZVj8
via IFTTT

NJ Gun Clubs Asks Lower Court To Resolve Mag Ban/Assault Firearms Ban Lawsuits

file

The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC) has asked the lower federal court to resolve its lawsuits challenging New Jersey’s magazine ban and assault firearms ban. ANJRPC filed motions for summary judgment and to exclude expert witness testimony in the combined cases on October 10, 2023.

Summary judgment is a request for the court to rule in favor of one party without a trial. If granted, ANJRPC’s motion for summary judgment would end the cases in favor of gun owners.

ANJRPC’s motion to exclude expert witness testimony is based on the argument that the State’s experts are attempting to substitute legal argument with irrelevant, inflammatory rhetoric.

See copies of the newly filed motions by clicking HERE and HERE.

The next step in the cases is for the State to respond to ANJRPC’s motions by November 3, 2023. Two further rounds of briefing are then scheduled to occur, concluding on December 22, 2023. Oral argument of the motions will then likely be held in early 2024, followed by an eventual decision by the court.

If the lower court rules against the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs on either of its motions, the cases will almost certainly be appealed to the middle-level federal appeals court.

Background

ANJRPC’s magazine ban lawsuit was given new life in 2022 when the U.S. Supreme Court returned it to the lower federal court for reconsideration in light of the Bruen decision. The Bruen decision held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

Since the Bruen decision, the magazine ban case has been tied up in a procedural tangle of court-ordered discovery. Discovery is the process of exchanging information between the parties in a lawsuit. In the magazine ban case, the discovery was recently completed.

In the meantime, ANJRPC filed a separate lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s assault firearms ban. The assault firearms ban prohibits the possession of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and high-capacity magazines.

The lower federal court consolidated the magazine ban and assault firearms ban cases in August 2023.

Significance

The outcome of ANJRPC’s lawsuits could have significant implications for gun owners in New Jersey and across the country. If ANJRPC is successful, the court could strike down New Jersey’s magazine ban and assault firearms ban, setting a precedent for other challenges to similar laws in other states.

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

Jury Finds Man NOT Guilty After Shooting YouTube Prankster

YouTube “prankster” Tanner Cook of the “Classified Goons” YouTube Channel receives treatment for a gunshot wound.

A jury last month 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

— John Crump (@crumpyss) April 2, 2023

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.

Prosecutor Eden Holmes tried to downplay the seriousness of Cook’s actions to convince the jury that Colie wasn’t attacking in self-defense. 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.

from https://ift.tt/36sEa21
via IFTTT

Judge Benitez Schools Historian on Playing Fast & Loose with the Facts

Judge Benitez Schools Historian on Playing Fast and Loose with the Facts, iStock-697763642

Progressive historians have used their position to justify unfettered government power for decades. Professor Saul Cornell has long taken the position the Second Amendment does not mean what it says. As an example of his rhetoric, he claims government policies encouraging gun ownership are proof of the legitimacy of government authority to ban guns. Laws and regulations encouraging people to exercise their right to arms are not a persuasive argument to show they had the authority to ban the exercise of the right.  From Professor Saul Cornell:

Without government direction there would have been no body of Minutemen to muster on the town greens at Lexington and Concord. If the Founders had imbibed the strong gun rights ideology that drives today’s gun debate we would all be drinking tea and singing, “God save our gracious Queen.”

Professor Cornell conveniently ignores that the British Government’s attempt at disarming American colonists (including the militias) at Lexington and Concord directly led to the Revolutionary War and the forming of the United States.

Professor Cornell submitted his thoughts in an amicus brief to Judge Benitez in the Miller v Becerra case. Judge Benitez did his job and objectively considered what Professor Cornell wrote. He found many factual errors. Judge Benitez found that Professor Cornell claimed, at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, Americans were:

“apprehensive about ‘the proliferation of especially dangerous weapons and the societal harms they caused’. In support he cites McDonald. McDonald says no such thing”

Benitez finds Professor Cornell’s claims regulating firearms and gunpower was at the very core of police power. Cornell cites three cases. The problem is they are about storing gunpowder safely as a fire hazard and say almost nothing about firearms. Professor Cornell cites a case about the potential to regulate a militia and discounts a case striking down a concealed carry law. Cornell routinely ignores cases that extol the American right to keep and bear arms. Judge Benitez closes his case on Professor Cornell with this statement:

The antebellum court decisions upon which professor Cornell rests, do not say what he contends they say. Perhaps he is to be forgiven because he is a historian rather than a member of the bar, but his opinions are not persuasive and are entitled to no weight.

Judge Benitez’s comments on Professor Cornell’s arguments can be found in the Miller v Becerra opinion, pages 58 – 62.

Professor Cornell has often been cited by those who desire unfettered government power and wish for a disarmed American population. In Miller v Becerra, where Professor Cornell has a chance to have a major impact, we see his arguments are based on mischaracterizations, bordering on, if not direct, falsehoods. They remind this correspondent of the Michael Bellesiles case. If one agrees with the Orwellian concept that political policy should drive the way history is viewed, a person could sympathize with professor Cornell. He has so little, verging on nothing, to work with to justify his preferred policies. It is easy to see why Judge Benitez reaches this conclusion:

his opinions are not persuasive and are entitled to no weight.

Second Amendment activists may wish to remember this evisceration of Professor Cornell’s arguments. These are the best arguments Professor Cornell has within the bounds of the Constitution.

---

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/vgidO9r
via IFTTT

Reports of Gun Smuggling to Mexico Recalls Fast and Furious Gunwalking Plot

“El Chapo” may be in custody, but the wholesale bloodshed continues as corrupt government officials and the media continue to blame “lax” U.S. gun laws for the carnage. (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement)

A weapons supplier to the Los Chapitos faction fighting a cartel war against the sons of Sinaloa cartel kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán has been sentenced to 15 years in federal prison, GazetteXtra reports. Alfredo Lomas Navarrete, a Culiacán cellphone store owner, “supplied ‘hundreds of weapons and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition’ to the cartel cell, known as the Valenzuela Drug Trafficking Organization. Prosecutors said many of the weapons — which included .50-caliber rifles, machine guns and grenade launchers — were acquired in California, Arizona and Nevada.”

“The majority of firearms trafficked into Mexico — including high caliber and assault weapons — are shipped from the United States,” claimed Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Sutton, further apportioning blame to “The rise of privately made firearms, or ‘ghost guns.’”

Left unexplored is how California, “A”-rated by Giffords for “the strongest gun safety laws in the nation and [being] a trailblazer for gun safety,” is a major source for cartel weaponry, particularly with its bans on .50 BMG rifles, “assault rifles,” and standard capacity magazines. More to the point: Where are the highly regulated by the National Firearms Act machine guns and grenade launchers coming from?

The intent here appears to be to once more blame “lax American gun laws” for Mexican cartel carnage and to assist in the deception; the report cites a 2013 University of San Diego/Brazilian think tank Igarapé Institute report, “The Way of the Gun: Estimating Firearms Traffic Across the U.S.-Mexico Border.” Conveniently, the report focuses on the civilian firearms market in this country and ignores the government corruption that accounts for actual military weaponry finding its way into cartel hands.

The conviction of Mexico’s top cop for being in the pocket of the Sinaloa cartel shows how embedded and systemic the corruption is. Add to that government-to-government military weapons transfers and a flow of the same coming in from Central America. As noted in my Firearms News article:

[M]any of the AKs are NOT of US origin. Models which are clearly Chinese and haven’t been U.S. imported in three decades which command prices of $1,800 – $3,500 here to collectors, are in very short supply. Also, many of the AKs are VERY worn and they are factory select-fire guns which means they came from somewhere else. Years ago, illegal AKs from decades of Central American wars could be purchased for less than $150 in Mexico – these guns come from elsewhere. As do other armaments.

Back in 2009, the Associated Press reported on cartel grenades coming into Texas from across the Mexican border, and “countless grenade attacks against police and rivals” happening there. While most, indeed, were of U.S. (and South Korean) origin, the only way they could have made their way into criminal hands was through homicidally minded official corruption.

But we’ve seen this all play out before, as noted in “Lies From Operation Fast and Furious ‘Gunwalking’ Resurrected in Mexican Lawsuit.” Curiously, that’s another factor the Igarapé Institute neglected to mention in its analysis.

And we’re seeing those same lies that led to the buildup to ATF’s lethally criminal “gunwalking ” plot repeat themselves in the media; case in point, as an aside in a recent report about a Mexican national working as an inspector for ATF in Tijuana who admitted to smuggling gun parts across the border:

“Nearly 70% of traced firearms used to commit crimes and seized in Mexico come from the United States, according to ATF.”

That used to be the claim the antis all made, but they started at “95 to 100 percent.”

So instead of being a flat-out lie, it’s now an insidious lie of omission because they don’t then inform:

No specific numbers on how many of those guns “recovered in Mexico and traced back to the United States” were, in fact, military purchases, but the State Department cables indicate a portion of the fewer than 12 percent of the traceable weapons actually came from the United States in gun shop/individual type purchases. Remember, that’s not 12 percent of the tens of thousands of weapons recovered – it’s only 12 percent of the weapons recovered that were traceable. It’s nowhere near the 12 percent figure that has been misquoted and used as evidence of the United States’ “horrific” problem of illegal gun sales.

It’s pretty obvious we’re being subjected to selective “reporting” exactly as the media was engaged in before a pair of obscure bloggers did the investigative journalism it refused to do. It’s also clear the manipulation is bordering on gaslighting with Opposite Day claims like:

“[M]oving the guns south is easier, since travelers entering Mexico face just a fraction of the scrutiny that northbound border-crossers face.”

That must be why there are upwards of 30M here illegally, while media apparatchiks tell anyone brain-dead enough to trust them that the open border is a “myth.”

That’s the real issue that needs to be addressed, and one that’s existential to the future of the Republic if it is to survive. It’s just too bad that none of our “gun rights leaders” dare to admit it and blindly refuse to acknowledge its effect on the “single issue.”

---

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/mWfViQN
via IFTTT

Oklahoma Lawmaker Wants Grand Jury to Investigate ATF Raid on FFL

ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/

If Oklahoma State Representative Justin “JJ” Humphrey gets his way, the ATF agents who raided his constituent’s home last June will all be arrested and charged with multiple state crimes as well as civil rights violations.

Humphrey, who has served as a law enforcement officer for more than 30 years, prepared a probable cause affidavit that he presented to the Oklahoma Attorney General, which outlines the crimes and civil rights violations he believes ATF agents committed when they sent a 12-man SWAT team to the Tuskahoma, Oklahoma home of Russell Fincher, a federal firearm licensee who also teaches high school and serves as a Baptist pastor.

“The Oklahoma Attorney General referred it to the U.S. Attorney General, but we want to get it to a state grand jury,” Humphrey said. “We don’t want the feds investigating the feds. Let’s get it before an Oklahoma grand jury.”

On June 16, more than a dozen ATF SWAT team members clad in tactical gear and bearing automatic weapons raided Fincher’s home, handcuffed him on his porch in front of his 13-year-old son even though Fincher fully complied with the agents’ orders, and then coerced him into relinquishing his Federal Firearm License. Fincher’s ordeal was chronicled in a story published in July.

“You tell all your FFL buddies we are coming for them,” ATF Special Agent Theodore Mongell told Fincher during the raid. Humphrey considers this a terroristic threat – a felony in Oklahoma.

ATF Agents disabled Fincher’s security cameras and then seized more than 50 of his firearms, which were valued at more than $60,000. They later offered to pay him $10 per gun. To date, Fincher has not been charged with any crime.

“I struggle with seeking charges against fellow police officers. However, it appears ATF is abusing their police powers and violating their oaths of office. I believe the ATF has committed crimes and violated Fincher’s civil rights and due process of law,” Humphrey wrote in the probable cause affidavit, which he also submitted to Pushmataha County Sheriff B.J. Hedgecock.

When he first began looking into the raid, Humphrey asked ATF for a copy of the search warrant. “They refused,” he said. “I’ve been an officer for 30-plus years. They were supposed to leave a copy of the search warrant at Russell’s home. It spells out their probable cause.”

Contacted on his cell Thursday, Agent Mongell wasn’t willing to discuss the raid or his probable cause.

“Sir, it’s gonna be the same info I’ve given you each time; I can’t give out any information on an ongoing federal investigation. I will forward it to my superiors.”

Mongell terminated the conversation after he was asked to comment about the likelihood he could face criminal charges.

“This is the end of the interview,” he said.

Russell Fincher. (Photo courtesy Russell Fincher.)

According to his affidavit, Humphrey believes the ATF agents violated the following state statutes:

• 21-1483. Extortion or attempted extortion.
• 21-1485. Obtaining signature by extortion.
• 21-1484. Extortion under color of official right.
• 21-1268. Making Terroristic Threats.
• 21-1993.Tampering with or disabling security or surveillance camera or security systems.

He also believes the agents violated Fincher’s civil rights, specifically the Second, Fourth, Fifth and Tenth Amendments.

“I may follow up by adding theft, since they took his guns and never filed a charge,” Humphrey said. “How do you seize his guns and then maybe charge him later, and then offer him $10 per gun? Talk about extortion. What gave them the authority to take all his guns?”

Humphrey has spoken with ATF supervisors several times about the raid.

“They were just cocky,” he said. “They told me I don’t understand the federal system. I told them I do understand it. Y’all can’t break the law.”

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/s98xAgc
via IFTTT

Biden & Newsom Exploit Maine Tragedy To Push Pet Anti-Gun Agenda

iStock-Meplezii_Ck

President Joe Biden and California Gov. Gavin Newsom have predictably reacted like vultures in the aftermath of the terrible mass shooting incident in Maine to push gun control schemes which would not have prevented the outrage, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms stated.

“Gov. Newsom is demanding adoption of a waiting period in Maine,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “and President Biden wants ‘universal background checks’ and safe storage laws, and both of them know none of these proposals would have prevented what happened Wednesday evening. They’ve pounced like craven political opportunists in hopes of using this tragedy to stir up public emotions in an effort to push gun restrictions they’ve been promoting for years.

“Biden has wanted to ban semiautomatic rifles for years,” Gottlieb continued, “when he knows rifles of any kind are involved in a fraction of murders, and he also knows there are millions of law-abiding owners of such firearms who have harmed nobody.

Why should honest citizens be penalized for the rampage of one clearly disturbed individual with documented mental health issues?

“The president also wants to repeal the federal law protecting gun manufacturers from junk lawsuits,” he added, “which has absolutely nothing to do with this case and he knows it. Joe Biden is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, which is what anti-gunners do every time there is a tragedy upon which they might capitalize. It is a disgusting process we have seen time and again.

“Meanwhile,” he noted, “media reports show many local residents immediately armed themselves, such as Lewiston Councilman Robert McCarthy, who told a CNN reporter ‘We locked the doors. We grabbed the guns.’ Other reports revealed local residents who did not have firearms said they wished they had guns. Biden’s gun control schemes would keep those people disarmed.

“This is deplorable political posturing,” Gottlieb stated. “Biden, Newsom and other gun prohibitionists are dragging out the same tired agenda which they have always proposed. They have simply repackaged it with the events in Lewiston, Maine, which is a disgusting exploitation of a horrible crime. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.”

Live Inventory Price Checker

	AR500 Armor(R) Level IIIA Hybrid 11" x 14" Soft Body Armor	AR500 Armor	$ 209.00
	Guard Dog Body Armor Versa Flexible Body Armor Plate 10x12in Level 3+ Black	Optics Planet	$ 279.99
	DFNDR Armor Level III+ Body Armor - 10x12	Rainier Arms	$ 600.00
	Voodoo Tactical Level IIIA Ballistic Body Armor Vest	Sportsman's Guide	$ 369.95

---

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

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

from https://ift.tt/NVt7YMl
via IFTTT