Understanding the New Gun Dealer Rule: A Simple Breakdown
Eric Blandford, better known as Iraqveteran8888, recently discussed a big change in gun laws. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has a new rule that changes the definition of who is considered a gun dealer. This rule could affect many gun owners, and not in a good way.
What’s New with the ATF Rule?
The ATF’s rule says that now, almost anyone who sells guns aiming to make a profit can be considered a gun dealer. Before, selling guns was the main job of a dealer. But now, even selling just one gun requires a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which requires a lot of extra paperwork and hassle.
What This Means for Gun Owners
This change is tricky because if you try to sell a gun, maybe to get some extra cash or because you don’t need it anymore, you could get caught up in these new rules. Just putting an ad online or having a price tag on your gun at a show could flag you as a dealer.
The Legal and Practical Implications
From a legal standpoint, this adjustment in definition creates a precarious situation for ordinary citizens. The rule places the burden of proof on the accused, presuming them to be dealers unless they can demonstrate otherwise. In a twist of legal logic, the mere act of advertising or marketing a firearm could thrust an individual into the realm of gun dealership.
For the everyday gun owner, the implications are stark. Selling a firearm to liquidate personal assets or due to financial necessity could unexpectedly align them with regulatory scrutiny. This is not merely a bureaucratic hurdle but a profound infringement on personal freedoms and property rights.
People’s Reactions and Fighting Back
Many gun owners and groups are upset about this and think it’s too controlling. They believe this rule could lead to bigger issues like universal background checks or worse. That’s why some are planning to challenge this rule in court to try to stop it.
Eric points out that these new rules seem more about controlling gun owners than keeping people safe. He worries that simple acts like selling a gun could now open up gun owners to unnecessary government oversight. These regulations are less about public safety and more about control. By complicating the simple act of selling a personal firearm, the ATF could be paving the way for a more monitored and less free society where gun ownership is significantly tethered by governmental oversight.
Final Thoughts: Stay Alert and Involved
It’s important for gun owners to keep up with these changes and understand what they could mean for their rights. The definition of a gun dealer might sound small, but it has big implications for the Second Amendment rights. Staying informed and ready to act is crucial for keeping these rights protected.
Subscribe to Iraqveteran8888 where Eric continues to keep an eye on these developments and shares updates, helping the community understand and respond to these changes. As this discussion goes on, remembering our rights and staying involved is key.
The POF 5PK makes a great suppressor host. IMG Jim Grant
A firm date and time for the oral arguments in the Texas silencer case, Paxton v. Dettlebach, has been set. A Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel will hear oral arguments on May 1, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in New Orleans, 600 Camp Street. Seating for the public will be limited.
The three-judge panel consists of Judge Edith H. Jones, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1985, Judge Edith Brown Clement, appointed by H.W. Bush in 1991, and Judge Cory T. Wilson, appointed by Donald J. Trump in 2020. From the case records:
The above referenced case has been scheduled for oral argument on 05/01/2024. It will be held in New Orleans -West Courtroom at 9:00. The Oral Argument session number is 41.
The West Courtroom is on the second floor, room 265. Here are court instructions for attending oral arguments. Attending Oral Arguments:
The courthouse doors open at 8:00 a.m. on argument days. Visitors must show photo identification and pass through security screening. Attorneys and their staff may bring electronic devices into the courthouse. All electronic devices must be turned off in the courtroom unless being used by counsel, with all sounds muted, during argument of their case to retrieve documents previously downloaded to the device. A wireless Internet access point is available in the library for use with personal electronic devices (Room 106 – see librarian for password).
Fifth Circuit Rule 34.7 provides that no cameras, tape recorders, or other equipment designed for the recording or transmission of visual images or sound may be present during oral argument. All visitors attending oral arguments must turn off cell phones, laptop computers, and similar electronic devices when in the courtroom. You may not blog, tweet, or otherwise transmit contemporaneous or live transcription or observations from the courtroom.
Food and beverages may not be brought into the courtrooms.
Public seating in the courtrooms is on a first-come, first-seated basis, and the amount of gallery seating in each courtroom varies widely.
Recording of the Oral Arguments is not allowed in the Fifth Circuit. A Live link to the arguments is available. It is only available while the arguments are proceeding. A recording of the Oral Arguments is released by the court after 5:00 p.m. on the day of the arguments.
As mentioned in the previous AmmoLand article, the arguments before the three-judge panel are whether the State of Texas, represented by AG Ken Paxton, has standing in this case or if any of the three individual Texas residents who wish to make their own silencers, without paying the federal $200 tax or placing federally mandated serial numbers on them, have standing.
The District Court ruled the plaintiffs did not have standing. It is a major step forward for the standing arguments to be heard by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
From the map, easy parking does not appear to be close to the courthouse. If I were in New Orleans, I would attend the oral arguments in person. 20 minutes of arguments are allocated to each side. Watching the attorneys and the judges can sometimes give hints as to how they may rule. Listening to the live stream is the next best thing to being there.
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.
Opinion Claims Against NRA Dismissed – No Fines, Penalties or Relief Against NRA Following DCAG Lawsuit
Court Gavel
Fairfax, VA – The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) has announced a legal victory in a high-profile governance matter brought by the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia (DCAG).
Filed by the DCAG on August 6, 2020, in obvious coordination with a lawsuit brought by the Attorney General in New York, the suit alleged that the NRA misused tens of millions of dollars of NRA Foundation funds. In response, the NRA challenged the claims as politically motivated and stated that it acted appropriately at all times.
On April 16, 2024, the NRA and NRA Foundation entered into a consent order, whereby the DCAG dismisses all claims against the NRA. The order contains no adverse finding against the NRA and no allegations regarding the use of funds of the NRA Foundation. There are no fines or penalties whatsoever against the NRA.
Discovery proved that all funds received from the NRA Foundation were applied exclusively in furtherance of its charitable programs and that there was no misuse of funds.
“This is further proof of the NRA’s commitment to good governance,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “The NRA confronted this political attack – and emerges from this lawsuit strong, secure, and vindicated. The NRA and NRA Foundation are fully committed to pursuing their world-class firearms education, training, and safety programs.”
The NRA Foundation supports a wide range of public programs focused on firearms safety and training, law enforcement education, hunter safety, and youth. Its Eddie Eagle GunSafe program has taught gun safety to more than 32 million children.
The NRA will continue to administer the NRA Foundation’s programs.
The order in no way limits the NRA Foundation’s ability to amend its articles, bylaws, or other organizational documents.
“This outcome is a resounding win for the NRA and for the NRA Foundation, too. Both remain positioned to meet their respective goals and mission,” says William A. Brewer III, counsel to the NRA. “The result should bring an abrupt end to allegations against NRA board leadership. The resolution also supports the NRA Foundation as it pursues the highest of ethical and organizational standards – so donors can give with confidence, as always.”
Responding to the DCAG
The DCAG wasted little time in pedaling a false narrative about the settlement. NRA attorneys summed up statements from DCAG Brian Schwalb in two words: distorted and untruthful.
“The statements falsely say the DCAG lawsuit filed in August 2020 caused the NRA to repay loans to the NRA Foundation,” says Brewer. “The commitment to repay the final loan in question came in January 2020. The DCAG ‘spins’ the settlement in avoidance of the facts: the DCAG long ago abandoned any claims of wrongdoing against the NRA. Even by DC standards, this is rank political gamesmanship – an after-the-fact justification for a failed lawsuit by these officials.
FACT: The DCAG’s statement that the NRA used NRA Foundation funds for an “unchecked piggy bank” is contradicted by the public record, the settlement agreement, and the DCAG’s own experts. See Plaintiff’s Response to NRA’s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts dated July 7, 2023, at p. 14 (admitting that it is “[u]ndisputed” that “[n]either of the District’s experts opined that the NRA did anything wrong or illegal.”).
FACT: The settlement contains NO findings or admissions the NRA Foundation misused funds, or that its monies did not support its charitable programs.
FACT: The NRA utilized NRA Foundation grants and loans for proper purposes and acted appropriately at all times. The District never even alleged – much less proved – that the NRA ever violated the Nonprofit Corporations Act.
FACT: The NRA executed an agreement to repay the NRA Foundation for a final fair-market loan in January 2020 – months before the DCAG filed its lawsuit.
FACT: Although the District in its lawsuit sought extraordinary remedies, such as a constructive trust, long-term monitorship, and substantial revisions to its Bylaws, the District abandoned these remedies because the facts did not support them.
FACT: In the face of these facts, the DCAG settled its lawsuit – abandoning all claims against the NRA and NRA Foundation.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The lawsuit by the State of Texas, challenging the federal requirement to pay taxes and register homemade silencers, is moving forward in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for April 29, 2024. The case is now known as Paxton v Dettelbach.
On February 24, 2022, Ken Paxton, the Texas Attorney General, filed suit against the acting head of the ATF, then Marvin Richardson. The lawsuit was required by Texas law. HB 957 became law in Texas on September 1, 2021. On July 15, 2022, Paxton, acting for the State of Texas, amended the lawsuit to include arguments mandated by the Supreme Court ruling in the Bruen case, published on June 22, 2022. On July 18, 2023, Judge Pittman of the District Court dismissed the case with the claim the State of Texas had no standing. Standing is a controversial method which federal courts often use to dismiss cases they do not wish to adjudicate. From the previous AmmoLand article :
The guidance from our high court on standing continues to be “a morass of imprecision.”1N.H. Rt. to Life Pol. Action Comm. v. Gardner, 99 F.3d 8, 12 (1st Cir. 1996). At best, standing is now “unsettled in nature [and] beset with difficulties.” Thompson v. Cnty. of Franklin, 15 F.3d 245, 247 (2nd Cir. 1994). But luckily for this Court, though no one can pinpoint the height of the doctrine’s “amorphous” bar, it is easy to determine that these Plaintiffs have fallen short of it.
The issue presented to the appeals court is whether the State of Texas and/or the individual appellants have standing before the courts. The question is, does Texas have an interest in protecting the constitutional freedoms of its citizens? Does Texas have an interest in challenging federal restrictions on the State’s application of law passed by the State of Texas? Do individual citizens who are required to pay federal taxes and who must undergo a lengthy process to exercise their right to arms, have a concrete injury which can be brought before the courts? From the Appellants brief:
Before a Texan may make a firearm suppressor for non-commercial, personal use in Texas, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (“NFA”), as amended, requires him or her to apply for permission from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“BATFE”) and pay a $200 tax (refunded if permission is denied). If permission is granted, the firearm suppressor still cannot be made unless it has a serial number, and the firearm suppressor is registered in a national database.This case warrants oral argument because it raises issues of exceptional constitutional importance: Do Texans have standing to challenge the constitutionality of those statutory requirements before applying for permission and paying the tax, and does Texas also have standing to vindicate its quasi-sovereign interests in its citizens’ health and safety? Oral argument will assist the Court in evaluating these questions.
The Biden administration put forward arguments claiming the District Court was correct in ruling the individuals in the lawsuit and the State of Texas do not have standing. The Biden administration states they are willing to present oral arguments if the court requires it.
Oral arguments are currently scheduled for April 29, 2024. Other courts have ruled that a deprivation of constitutional rights, for however short a duration, constitutes irreparable harm. The relationship of the States to the Federal government is an area of law that has been given short shrift since Progressive judges took over the federal courts after the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration in the 1930s, extending by the Truman administration until President Eisenhower was elected in 1952.
The scheduling of oral arguments in the case is a positive sign. It indicates the three judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is taking the issues seriously.
The issue of whether silencers are arms covered by the Second Amendment is being litigated in the State of Illinois, which categorically bans the possession of silencers.
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.
Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (dba 80 Percent Arms) Settles Legal Dispute With California
Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, Inc. (BMG) has successfully resolved our prolonged legal dispute with the State of California, initiated in August 2021 in San Francisco by Chesa Boudin, the former SF District Attorney who was later ousted by San Francisco voters in a 2022 recall election. The state wrongfully alleged that 80% frames and receivers sold by our company were firearms. This case has now come to a close after intense litigation. Our refusal to disclose customer data, even in the face of substantial legal costs to keep customer data private, underscores our dedication to privacy.
Throughout this challenging period, BMG has consistently upheld its principles, dedicating over 2.5 million dollars toward legal expenses aimed at safeguarding customer information from the State of California. To further ensure our customers’ confidentiality and to end ever-climbing litigation expenses, a settlement of $500,000 was reached to end this abusive litigation.
Resuming California Sales and Advocacy
We are pleased to announce that, following this settlement, we will resume offering products to our customers in California that comply with current state and federal laws. We continue to vigorously defend Second Amendment rights, with our case, VanDerStok et. al. v. Garland, set to be heard by the Supreme Court of the United States this October.
About Blackhawk Manufacturing Group
Blackhawk Manufacturing Group, dba 80 Percent Arms, is a leader in pro-Second Amendment legal actions against overregulation and the preeminent manufacturer of 80% lowers and jigs. We’re committed to upholding the highest standards of quality and service in the industry.
Thank you for standing with us and we look forward to serving the community of builders for years to come.
Lawmakers in at least three state capitals are considering laws to repeal state preemption statutes.
The other day, I was speaking to an Australian, attempting to explain to him how American Progressives view simple solutions to rampage school shootings, such as allowing armed military and police veterans to protect schools, as they do in Israel, to be “Off the table.”
This hypothetical exchange between a “Naive Progressive” and an “Old Hand Progressive” was the result:
Naive Progressive:
I am concerned about Trump talking about allowing teachers with police and military experience to be armed to protect schools. Should we get ahead of this by adopting it as our policy, and requiring them to be highly regulated? Then they could become part of the government, and on our side.
It undermines our hard fought for creation of gun free zones in schools. We have the Supreme Court on our side there! We have managed to extend gun free zones to a thousand feet from the boundary of every school! It makes the carry of guns illegitimate in nearly every city in the nation. We are building from that base to extend gun free zones to parks, day care centers, public buildings. It is far too important a goal to undermine with a policy that allows non-police to be armed in schools. Can you understand the terrible danger to impressionable minds when students know their role models are carrying guns to defend them?
It subverts the important principle that defense through the use of force is not legitimate. If we are to disarm the people, they must be convinced that using force is never the answer. Only the government can be trusted with armed force. Using force in self defense creates the illusion: some peoples’ lives are more valuable than others. More guns is always the wrong answer. Only the government has the wisdom to know who should be protected and who should not.
What if one of these “school protectors” got lucky, and stopped a school shooting? We already have problems with that. I can tell you, confidentially, there have been one or two bizarre cases. They are appropriately downgraded and ignored by most of the media, most of the time. But if many schools had armed protectors, the examples would be harder and harder to suppress. The rubes are notoriously gullible. What if there was video of an armed old white man stopping a school shooter? It could destroy decades of progress.
Consider the message it sends about the military and police. We have made gains in showing how police and military veterans are not to be trusted. This undercuts that important goal. The current military and police are notorious bastions of toxic masculinity and racism. Retired military and police are much worse! To allow them to carry weapons shows they are trusted in an unequivocal way. It sends exactly the wrong message.
Retired military and police tend to be old white men. They cannot be trusted to be politically correct. Retired police and military are the last people we should allow to be armed.
Mass murder in schools is one of the strongest points we have to push to increase gun safety by disarming the people. The emotions are strong. The optics are great. If we allow the NRA to win on this front, it will be immeasurably harder to pass sensible gun safety laws.
To obtain a Progressive government, we have to “break a few eggs”. The lives of a few mostly white school children are minuscule compared to the hundreds of thousands of lives we will save by disarming the population.
In a sense, the whole planet is at stake. If Progressive values are undercut, billions will die from climate change. Only strong, centrally manged world government can manage climate change in an effective way. The toxic masculinity of the United States stands in the way of saving the planet. The Second Amendment is a manifestation of that toxic masculinity.
From a long term view, a few pampered, white, first world children are a small price to pay for saving the planet.
This is the way those of the Progressive, Leftist, or Cultural Marxist persuasion look at the issue. A few lives today are a small price to pay for obtaining Leftist power. Once they are in power, everyone will become much better off …. even if they have to kill a few million people in the process.
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.
Mistrial for Border Rancher Accused of Shooting Illegal Immigrant
Border rancher George Allen Kelly, 75 years old, was on trial, charged with the death of an illegal alien who had been deported numerous times. The body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea (48) had been found in the mesquite about 115 yards from the rural home of George Allen Kelly and his wife, Wanda. The husband and wife had retired to Arizona in 2002 after careers as a state fisheries biologist and a school teacher in Lincoln, Montana.
On January 30, 2023, George Allen Kelly called Border Patrol and said he heard a shot and that he might have to return fire. Investigators come out. They don’t find anything. Late in the evening, Kelly finds the body of Gabriel Cuen Buitimea about 115 yards from the house. He calls Border Patrol again. The authorities investigate. They put the body in a freezer. Because the authorities put the body in a freezer, the exact time of death could not be determined by the medical examiner.
There was no ballistic evidence to connect Kelly’s rifle to the body. Several spent shell casings were found on the Kelly’s porch. No bullet was ever recovered. Butimea’s body was wearing tactical boots, tan pants, a hoodie sweatshirt, and a camouflage top. He had a two-way radio in one pocket. A picture on his phone, in those clothes, showed him with binoculars, but no binoculars were found with the body.
One of the detectives investigating the case went to Mexico to interview a person who claimed to be with Buitemea at the time he was shot and killed. Daniel Ruiz Ramirez, shown on a court evidence slide as being from Honduras, was a key witness for the prosecution.
Both Daniel Ruiz Ramirez (Varela) and Gabriel Cuen Buitimea had long records of illegal border crossings. His testimony had several inconsistencies, conducted through a translator. Ramirez has been reported as an Honduran citizen and as a citizen of Ecuador in different media reports. Ruiz spoke at the trial through interpreters.
Investigators found texts sent between Kelly and a friend which showed Kelly’s frustration with all the illegal activity he was having to deal with. Some of the texts implied a willingness to use his rifle.
When the county prosecutor decided to charge Kelly with first-degree murder, the case went viral. As evidence accumulated, the prosecution reduced the charge to second-degree murder.
Several GoFundMe accounts were started. GoFundMe removed a number that took down the fundraisers set to aid George Allen Kelly.
Fox News Digital confirmed that GoFundMe removed multiple fundraisers set up to help 73-year-old George Alan Kelly.
GiveSendGo has proved to be less political and more reliable than GoFundMe, which defunded both Kyle Rittenhouse and the Canadian trucker. Here is the statement at the Give SendGo fundraising site. From GiveSendGo.com:
My name is Wanda Correll Kelly. George Alan Kelly (I call him “Alan”) is my husband of 53 years. Alan is a man devoted to his family, animals, and home. In his 75 years, he has been an upstanding member of his community and, more importantly, a rock to our family. He is a humble person with simple needs. He likes socks. He is an animal lover. Alan and I are living a nightmare. He has been accused of a serious crime, killing a Cartel member on our property and he is innocent. We are private people and are horrified about some of things being said about him in the media. We need funds for his legal defense and other related expenses that have arisen as a result of this terrible situation. Please help keep Alan home with me.
GOFUNDME has taken down all fundraising sites for George. I chose Spotfund as they allow freedom of speech.
As the trial proceeded, what Kelly told investigators and what the words meant were disputed. It appears some of Kelly’s statements were contradictory.
The Epoch Times reports a defense attorney said one juror was a hold out for conviction, and could not be persuaded, resulting in a hung jury.
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.
Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin is the top law enforcement officer in the state, and he is ultimately responsible for safeguarding the lives and civil rights of the more than 3.5 million Arkansans who call The Natural State home.
After the ATF shot and killed 53-year-old airport executive Bryan Malinowski in his home during a botched SWAT raid, Griffin had questions about the ATF’s use of force, which Malinowski’s family and most everyone else said was excessive. Griffin publicly called on ATF to release the videos from their bodycams, stating “information from a camera helps fill the vacuum of conspiracy and all this other stuff.”
“Look, this is bizarre that there’s just been silence. I understand there’s a state investigation going on with it, but there’s nothing about this footage that should stop it from being released,” Griffin told the local media.
However, a story published recently revealed that ATF agents wore no bodycams on March 19 during their fatal raid, and since then, Griffin – not unlike the ATF agents he called out for their lack of transparency – has gone silent about the killing. Now, Griffin lets his spokesman field questions about ATF’s raid.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project requested an interview with Griffin one week ago, but Griffin’s communication director, Jeff LeMaster, said this was not possible.
“The AG is not available for a phone or video-conference interview, but you are welcome to send us written questions that we will respond to,” LeMaster wrote in an email April 16.
Reluctantly, SAF sent Griffin 15 questions.
Elected officials prefer written questions far more than live interviews because they can order their staff to research the answers. LeMaster admitted as much, telling SAF last week that he sent the written questions to several lawyers within the Attorney General’s Office. Written questions also make it more difficult to pose follow-up questions – a vital part of any interview – and they allow public officials to pick and choose only the questions they are willing to address. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the Attorney General’s Office did.
Here are the questions SAF sent to Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin and the answers LeMaster sent back, which he said are attributable to him, not the Attorney General.
Is the Attorney General aware Malinowski’s killing has become a national issue, especially among gun owners?
“Yes, and the Attorney General is deeply concerned. That’s why he was the first elected official to call on the ATF to turn over the bodycam footage.”
If it is proven that the ATF agent who shot and killed Malinowski used excessive/improper force, will the Attorney General’s Office prosecute?
“The Office of Attorney General does not have original prosecutorial jurisdiction under Arkansas law.”
If it is proven that the ATF agent who shot and killed Malinowski violated his civil rights will the Attorney General’s Office prosecute?
“The Office of Attorney General does not have original prosecutorial jurisdiction under Arkansas law. If it involves federal laws, that would be up to the U.S. Attorney to prosecute.”
Has the Attorney General’s Office formally requested the bodycam footage and/or any documents from ATF?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
Has the Attorney General’s Office reviewed ATF’s search warrant affidavit? If so, what is your impression of the allegations presented in the document?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
Should less-lethal tactics have been used, such as contacting Malinowski at the airport, pulling him over, performing a callout at his home or simply waiting for him to answer the door?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
Did ATF use excessive force during this raid?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
Has the Attorney General’s Office been in contact with the Arkansas State Police Criminal Investigations Division, which is investigating Malinowski’s death?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
Does the Attorney General believe Malinowski knew he was trading gunfire with federal agents, or is it more likely he believed he was defending himself and his wife from armed home invaders?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
What is the Attorney General’s opinion of using a SWAT-type raid to investigate a process/licensing crime, such as failure to obtain a federal firearm license?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
What does the Attorney General intend to do to protect Arkansans from federal agents using dangerous raid tactics such as those ATF used at Malinowski’s home?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
Has the Attorney General considered asking the U.S. Attorney for a moratorium on federal raids until questions about ATF’s March 19 raid are answered?
“We have no information to provide on this.”
What advice does the Attorney General have for federal agents who may be contemplating a similar raid at an Arkansan’s home?
“Federal law enforcement agencies have thorough policies governing their approach to serving warrants. Those policies should be followed.”
What advice does the Attorney General have for Arkansans if they encounter an ATF SWAT team about to raid their home?
“Arkansans should cooperate with law enforcement to ensure the safety of all involved.”
What was the Attorney General’s initial reaction when he learned an Arkansan with no criminal history was shot and killed in his home by ATF agents?
“Like a lot of Arkansans, the Attorney General had and still has many questions about the raid, and he looks forward to more information being published soon.”
Takeaways
Malinowski’s killing can be blamed on ATF’s leaders who are obsessed with flexing their SWAT teams and have never once cared about the sanctity of human life. Unfortunately, these leaders have demonstrated they are incapable of learning from past mistakes – Ruby Ridge, Waco, Fast & Furious and now Little Rock, to name a few.
Unless elected officials are willing to take a stand and hold ATF accountable, the raids will continue, the excessive force will continue, and the killings won’t stop. Every law-abiding gun owner in the country is at risk, especially if they sell a gun.
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.
“While the U.S. has many vital national interests … becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them.”
So Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis volunteered in response to a questionnaire that Fox News reporters posed to declared and potential Republican presidential candidates.
DeSantis defined what he saw as a truly imperiled U.S. “vital interest.”
“We cannot prioritize intervention in an escalating foreign war over the defense of our own homeland, especially as tens of thousands of Americans are dying every year from narcotics smuggled across our open border and our weapons arsenals critical for our own security are rapidly being depleted.”
Republican colleagues and potential rivals for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination came down on DeSantis with both feet, with Sen. Lindsey Graham reintroducing the “domino theory” of Vietnam days:
Vladimir Putin is “not going to stop. He’ll go to Moldova, into the country of Georgia, and he’s looking at the Baltic States or NATO. So the likelihood of a big war between America and Russia comes from letting him get away with destroying the Ukraine, because he’ll keep going.”
But, on reflection, is not DeSantis right?
Russia and Ukraine have each lost more than 100,000 dead and wounded in this war. Whatever its strategic objective in starting the war, Russia is now battling to hold onto territorial gains in Crimea, the Donbas, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, about a fifth of all Ukrainian national territory prior to 2014.
Both nations have testified, by the magnitude of their sacrifices, to their belief that what is at stake in the war is vital to them.
But what have we Americans sacrificed?
We have sent billions of dollars but squabbled over whether to send advanced artillery pieces, Abrams tanks and F-16s to the Ukrainians.
This hesitancy testifies to our true “vital interest” in this war. It is to stay out, and avoid being sucked in, as we have in previous wars, lest we get into a clash with Russia that could become World War III or a nuclear war.
By what we have done in Ukraine, and what we have refused to do, the U.S. and NATO testify to the stakes they truly see involved. And those interests are transparently not vital to the United States. How could they be?
In 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt first extended formal recognition to the USSR as Stalin was carrying out the genocidal Holodomor in which millions of Ukrainians perished from forced starvation.
If a genocide of the Ukrainian people did not constitute a U.S. vital interest then, when did whose flag, Russian or Ukrainian, flies over the Donbas or Crimea become a vital interest? It never was so considered during a 40-year Cold War.
What are we to make of Graham’s contention that Ukraine is the first bite of the apple for Putin, that Moldova, Georgia and the Baltic republics, all three of which — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — have NATO war guarantees, are next on Putin’s menu?
But Putin has already invaded and defeated Georgia in the war over South Ossetia in 2008 — and then withdrew. As for the Baltic republics, a Russian attack on any of them would risk retaliation and war with NATO.
Why should we think that Putin’s Russia, horribly bloodied in Ukraine, would be looking for a clash with a 30-nation NATO alliance led by the United States so Moscow could occupy an Estonia of 1 million people that Russia willingly gave up over three decades ago?
But Graham’s scenario of a Moscow on the march after a victory in southeastern Ukraine does raise questions about whether our present foreign policy, including NATO war guarantees, are truly protecting U.S. vital interests.
As stated, the transparent U.S. vital interest in the Ukraine war is to stay out of it and avoid the risk of a military clash with Russia that could lead to a wider war, a world war and a nuclear war.
The bottom line for both the USSR and U.S. in the Cold War was to avoid a hot war. And, for over four decades, Deo gratias, we succeeded.
Yet, since that Cold War ended, the U.S. has made NATO allies out of six Warsaw Pact nations and three Baltic nations that are former republics of the USSR. And Graham is talking about the U.S. confronting Moscow on behalf of three more — Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia.
Why?
When did these ex-Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet republics become nation-states whose independence and defense are U.S. “vital interests” worth guaranteeing at the risk of war with a nation with 6,000 nuclear weapons?
Recently, Turkey and Hungary gave their blessing to the admission of Finland to NATO. Finnish membership would obligate the U.S. to treat as an attack upon our own country, a Russian incursion into Finland, which shares an 830-mile border with Russia.
Why should a Russian-Finnish border war, which has occurred before in history, automatically become a casus belli for the United States, 5,000 miles away?
Mark Smith, a constitutional attorney and host of the “Four Boxes Diner” on YouTube, recently discussed the significant constitutional and legal questions arising from the Supreme Court’s consideration of a case involving former President Donald Trump.
This case, which deals with the scope of presidential immunity, has broader implications for the interpretation of executive power and, indirectly, the Second Amendment rights. Here, we delve deeper into the interconnectedness of this case with broader constitutional doctrines and what it might mean for the future of presidential authority and individual rights.
Presidential Immunity and the Balance of Powers
Presidential immunity is a doctrine designed to ensure that while in office, and possibly thereafter, presidents can perform their duties without the constant threat of litigation. This immunity, however, is now under scrutiny in the courts due to actions taken by Trump during his presidency, specifically related to the events of January 6, 2021. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could redefine the boundaries of executive power, influencing how future presidents can act and be held accountable.
The Special Prosecutor’s Authority
One of the pivotal aspects of the case that Smith highlights is the legitimacy of the special prosecutor, Jack Smith. The argument, as presented, questions whether Jack Smith had the proper authority to prosecute, given that he was neither nominated by a president nor confirmed by the Senate. This challenges the foundation of his actions against Trump, potentially nullifying the proceedings if the Court finds in favor of this argument.
Implications for the Second Amendment
While the case directly concerns presidential immunity, its outcomes could ripple through various facets of American law, including the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment, protecting an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, often intersects with federal authority and constitutional interpretations. A broad or restricted interpretation of presidential powers might influence future legislative and judicial attitudes toward gun ownership and individual rights.
The Supreme Court’s approach to this case will be closely watched for several reasons. Firstly, it will clarify the extent to which former presidents can be held liable for actions taken while in office. Secondly, it will test the balance of powers among the three branches of government. The questions and comments from the justices during the proceedings will provide insight into their views on these fundamental constitutional issues.
Broader Constitutional Context
This case is more than just about Donald Trump’s legal liabilities; it’s about how the highest law of the land is interpreted and applied. The decisions made here will likely impact how future administrations are conducted, the legal liabilities of those in the highest office, and how other constitutional rights, such as the Second Amendment, are understood in the context of overarching presidential powers.
Conclusion
As we await the Supreme Court’s decision, it is crucial to understand the profound implications this case holds for the U.S. constitutional framework. It challenges us to consider how laws apply to those at the highest level of power and how these rulings affect the everyday rights of American citizens, including their Second Amendment rights. The outcome of this case could redefine the scope of presidential authority for generations to come.
Stay tuned as we continue to provide updates and analyses on this pivotal case, ensuring our readers are the most informed about the intersections of constitutional law and individual rights.
Gun voters presented a petition to Republican leadership demanding they move ‘constitutional carry’ bills.
Despite passing two committees in the NC House last year, House Bill 189, “Freedom to Carry NC,” continues to languish in the House Rules Committee after being pulled from the calendar for its floor vote at the last minute, reportedly due to Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger, who is reported to have said:
“We have passed a substantial bill dealing with some concerns about the Second Amendment. We have done away with the pistol purchase permit which was the number one goal of many of the gun rights groups for a long period of time. I just don’t know if there is a need for us to delve into additional issues dealing with guns.”
In an interview with Townhall Media’s “Cam & Co.,” Grass Roots North Carolina President Paul Valone recently responded:
“I guess it’s not a Bill of Rights anymore but a Bill of Needs, and the person who’s going to decide whether we ‘need’ Constitutional Carry or not is Phil Berger, self-appointed arbiter of needs.”
Republicans expect gun voter help in November: Will they get it?
Twenty-nine states have now passed constitutional carry, meaning that NC Republicans have fallen far behind their GOP brethren in other states. GOP candidates will undoubtedly seek support from Second Amendment voters in November. That is not necessarily assured, however, if Republicans forget, as the saying goes, “who ‘brung ‘em to the dance.”
GRNC volunteers present petition to Berger:
At a time which will be revealed to any member of the media who responds to this press release, GRNC volunteers will deliver many thousands of petitions, by hand truck, to Sen. Berger’s office.
Open letter sent to Sen. Berger
Dear Senator Berger:
Please accept my thanks for the work done by you and Senate Republicans in passing Senate Bill 41, “Guarantee 2nd Amend Freedom and Protections.” I confess, however, that I was taken aback when I heard you say the following: “We have passed a substantial bill dealing with some concerns about the Second Amendment. We have done away with the pistol purchase permit which was the number one goal of many of the gun rights groups for a long period of time. I just don’t know if there is a need for us to delve into additional issues dealing with guns.” [Emphasis added]
Your perception of “need” aside, I’m sure you agree that restoration of constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms should not be rationed. Over the decades, Americans’ rights – including the right to carry firearms for self-protection – have been steadily eroded. It was certainly not the Framers’ intention that a governmental permission slip be required to carry firearms, concealed or otherwise. House Bill 189, “Freedom to Carry NC,” is intended to restore the Framers’ ideals.
As I told Cam Edwards on Townhall Media’s highly popular “Cam & Co.”: “I guess it’s not a Bill of Rights anymore but a Bill of Needs, and the person who’s going to decide whether we ‘need’ Constitutional Carry or not is Phil Berger, self-appointed arbiter of needs.”
In passing constitutional carry, twenty-nine states have now done what North Carolina should have done long ago. That means North Carolina Republicans are now trailing the GOP in other states which have made significant inroads in restoring constitutional freedoms too long curtailed.
Although Republicans undoubtedly want support from gun voters in November, the reality is that North Carolina now falls within a distinct minority of “red” states which have failed to restore constitutionally guaranteed freedoms to their citizens, which may suppress critical voter turnout.
As you will see in the coming days, thousands of North Carolinians have already signed GRNC’s petition for passage of HB 189. I strongly urge you to use the opportunity, created by a supermajority that gun voters helped you secure, to join the twenty-nine other states that have now adopted some form of permitless or “constitutional” concealed carry by giving an immediate vote to HB 189.
Grass Roots North Carolina
Founded in 1994, Grass Roots North Carolina is an all-volunteer 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to preserving individual liberties guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with emphasis on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Lawyers Have the Right to Bear Arms in Courthouses iStock-1055138108
On April 18, 2024, the Supreme Court of Arkansas delivered a significant opinion impacting the restoration of the right to keep and bear arms. In particular, the court reaffirmed the right to bear arms is a fundamental constitutional right. The denial of the right is a harm that confers standing to those denied, and the procedural powers of the state judiciary, as a separate, constitutionally created branch of the state government, do not necessarily extend beyond the courtroom to the courthouse.
The issue was whether Arkansas state statute § 5-73-122 – b, as modified in 2017, violated the Arkansas state constitution. The state constitution grants separate powers to the state judiciary. Before 2017, the statute limited who could possess handguns in courtrooms. Officers of the court (lawyers) were allowed. Here is the relevant statute from 2015:
(b)(1) Any person other than a law enforcement officer, officer of the court, or bailiff, acting in the line of duty, or any other person authorized by the court, who possesses a handgun in the courtroom of any court of this state is guilty of a Class D felony.
The law was changed in 2017. It is significant the statute now adds courthouse as well as courtroom. Courthouses have many functions. Some of those functions are not administrated by the judiciary. Courthouses often house other administrative offices. Here is the current law (2024):
(b) However, a law enforcement officer, either on-duty or off-duty, officer of the court, bailiff, or other person authorized by the court is permitted to possess a handgun in the courtroom of any court or a courthouse of this state.
In 2020, a lawyer, Mr. Corbit, was prevented from bringing a firearm into the Pulaski County District Courthouse. The case became complicated. The Supreme Court ruled against him. Other attorneys joined the case in a second attempt. They abandoned the argument regarding courtrooms and limited their case to courthouses. The second case went to the Supreme Court again. Because the first case had gone to a conclusion with Corbit, he was precluded from bringing a second case. The other attorneys still had standing. From the Arkansas Supreme Court ruling:
When a plaintiff has alleged an intention to engage in a course of conduct affected with a constitutional interest, but proscribed by a statute, and there exists a credible threat of prosecution thereunder, he “should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as the sole means of seeking relief.” Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 188 (1973). It then becomes evident that the remaining appellants possess a vested and ongoing interest in the matter. Therefore, the circuit court erred when it barred their claims for lack of standing.
This is a critical understanding of “standing” for Second Amendment lawsuits. The credible threat of prosecution for exercising a right guaranteed by the Second Amendment is itself a significant and irrevocable harm.
Under the Supreme Court guidance as given in the Bruen decision on June 22, 2022. It is understood there were three “sensitive areas” where the right to bear arms could be limited when the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. As mentioned in an article by prominent Second Amendment scholars Dave Kopel and Stephen Halbrook, there were only three locations that were considered “sensitive places in 1791:
And the types of laws in place at the Founding tell us that sensitive places are limited, and they are areas where the government has taken on a particular responsibility for providing for the care and safety of individuals in the location. This is plainly true of legislative assemblies, court houses, and polling places.
Court houses are included. It appears the legislature has the authority to determine who may possess guns in courthouses. The Arkansas Supreme Court held the legislature had authorized attorneys to do so:
We further hold that attorneys, as officers of the court, are authorized by statute to possess handguns in courthouses. We reverse the circuit court’s denial of the petition for a declaratory judgment as it pertains to the remaining plaintiffs and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded they would address the issue of lawyers carrying weapons into courtrooms if the issue were to come up in a future case.
The most important part of this case is the recognition of standing for people who are threatened with criminal prosecution for exercising rights protected by the Second Amendment. In the Bruen decision, the Supreme Court made crystal clear the Second Amendment is a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights. It is to be afforded the same respect as other parts of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. The Second Amendment is not to be treated as a second class member of the Bill of Rights.
The secondary part of this is the normalization of the right to self-defense and the right to carry. When lawyers demand the right to carry where they work as a fundamental right, it is hard for them to argue that others should be denied the same right.
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.
Arkansas Republican Senators Tom Cotton and John Boozman are pushing for answers about ATF’s March 19th SWAT raid, during which Little Rock Airport executive Bryan Malinowski was shot and killed in his own home.
“The Department of Justice confirmed to us last night that the ATF agents involved in the execution of a search warrant of the home of Bryan Malinowski weren’t wearing body cameras. We will continue to press the Department to explain how this violation of its own policy could’ve happened and to disclose the full circumstances of this tragedy. Mr. Malinowski’s family and the public have a right to a full accounting of the facts,” the Senators said in a joint statement released Friday.
ATF has yet to comment officially about Malinowski’s killing other than to claim he fired first. But Malinowski’s family recently said in a statement that the 53-year-old airport executive likely did not know he was trading gunfire with federal agents. It is far more likely he believed he was defending himself and his wife from armed home invaders.
A yet-unidentified ATF agent shot Malinowski in the head with a carbine at least once. Malinowski lingered for two days before dying of his wounds.
A story published last week chronicled a host of less-lethal tactics ATF could have used during the raid — any one of which would have spared Malinowski’s life.
The Senators are not the only elected officials seeking answers from ATF. Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has serious questions, too.
“As someone who couldn’t be a bigger law enforcement supporter, when our government acts in a particular way that raises questions, we have an obligation to say something. My understanding, having looked at the ATF rules is that they generally require a bodycam when there’s a preplanned raid, right? Why? Well, because information from a camera helps fill the vacuum of conspiracy and all this other stuff. So, record it with a bodycam that’s required and then there’s policy that it shall be released as soon as possible,” Griffin said during an interview with local media last week.
A Justice Department memo titled “Use of Body-Worn Cameras by Federally Deputized Task Force Officers” recommends that local police officers assigned to a federal task force should use body cameras during “a planned attempt to serve an arrest warrant or other planned arrest; or the execution of a search warrant.”
If the cameras capture law enforcement actions resulting in “serious bodily injury or death,” the memo requires that the federal sponsoring agency and the U.S. Attorney should release the recordings “as early as possible.”
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.
Today, the United States Supreme Court granted review in Attorney General Merrick B. Garland v. Jennifer VanDerStok, a Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) lawsuit challenging President Joe Biden’s “frame or receiver” rule implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As a result, the high court will decide the fate of the rule in its upcoming October 2024 term.
“FPC and our members look forward to the end of President Biden’s unconstitutional and abusive rule. We are delighted that the Supreme Court will hear our case and decide this important issue once and for all,” said FPC founder and President Brandon Combs. “The Fifth Circuit’s decision in our case was correct and now that victory can be applied to the entire country.”
“This is an important day for the entire liberty movement. By agreeing to hear our case, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to put ATF firmly in its place and stop the agency from unconstitutionally expanding its gun control agenda. We look forward to addressing this unlawful rule in the Court’s next term,” said FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski, counsel for Plaintiffs.
Last November, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that portions of ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule are unlawful. This February, the federal government filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, arguing the Fifth Circuit wrongly ruled on FPC and FPCAF’s favor. FPC and FPCAF disagreed with the government’s reasoning but agreed the Supreme Court should hear the case to ensure that a final decision could be applied across the United States.
Plaintiffs in FPC’s VanDerStok case include FPC, two individual FPC members, and Tactical Machining, LLC. The parties are represented at the Supreme Court by Cooper & Kirk, Mountain States Legal Foundation, and FPCAF.
Individuals who want to support this and other cases can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org or make a tax-deductible donation to the FPC Action Foundation.
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit membership 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. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube.
FPC Action Foundation (FPCActionFoundation.org), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty through charitable legal action, public policy, education, and research 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 leader in the Second Amendment litigation and research space.
A settlement has been reached in the case of Washington, DC v. NRA Foundation. The case was set to go to trial on April 29 but was settled on April 17th, 2024.
The settlement agreement is very modest (embedded below), requiring the Foundation to create an Audit Committee to keep an eye on the organization’s books. Do annual training for directors and officers regarding their legal responsibilities to the Foundation, and institute stricter policies regarding conflicts of interest and any payments, grants, or loans to the NRA. It also requires some reporting to the court for a couple of years.
In the original complaint, filed back in August of 2020, at the same time New York Attorney General Letitia James filed her lawsuit against the NRA and several of its top executives, the DC AG summarized his accusations as follows:
“In recent years, the NRA has experienced financial problems related, in large part, to low membership and the NRA’s decision to continue to waste funds on improper, lavish spending. To plug financial holes caused by its own poor management, the NRA turned to the Foundation’s funds. Because the Foundation’s Board of Trustees and executives are dominated by the NRA, and the NRA had subverted the Foundation’s independence, the Foundation has allowed itself to be financially exploited through, among other things, unfair loans and management fee payments to the NRA. In allowing its funds to be diverted from charitable purposes and wasted to prop up the NRA in impermissible ways, the Foundation Board of Trustees has failed to provide meaningful oversight and failed in its fiduciary duties. Through this enforcement action, the District seeks injunctive relief sufficient to reform the Foundation’s lack of proper independent governance and a constructive trust over Foundation funds improperly wasted on the NRA.”
In his request for relief, the DC AG asked the court to impose a constructive trust over funds improperly diverted from the Foundation’s charitable purposes, modify the Foundation’s governance policies to ensure independence from the NRA, appoint an independent receiver to oversee Foundation operations, order mandatory training for Foundation board members and officers, and other remedies as the court sees fit.
The settlement agreement grants only a portion of these requests.
The request for the formation of a trust to oversee improperly diverted funds was probably the biggest potential threat, as such a trust could have compelled the Foundation to seek restitution for those diverted funds, which could have resulted in the Foundation being required to sue the NRA for millions of dollars. The agreement also side-stepped the request for a receiver to oversee the Foundation’s activities, opting instead to have the Foundation report certain activities to the court for the next two years. The settlement agreement does include a provision for mandatory annual training for directors and officers, but it does not address the issue of governance policies to ensure the independence of the Foundation Board from the NRA. Going forward, the Foundation Board will continue to be appointed by the NRA Board and be predominantly made up of members of the NRA Board.
All in all, the settlement agreement is almost completely toothless, and all of the provisions agreed to will be easily adopted.
In fact, it’s very likely that almost all of the provisions of this settlement agreement were agreed to or enacted shortly after the suit was filed back in 2020. That raises the question of why it took four years for the settlement to be reached. The District of Columbia elected a new AG in 2022 who seemed less interested in prosecuting this suit to the extent his predecessor had, so that might have played a role in the final settlement, though it still doesn’t explain why the settlement wasn’t reached until the eleventh hour.
A cynical person might think the NRA attorneys were creating delays and avoiding settlement talks until the last minute in order to maximize their billable hours. Surely that couldn’t have been a factor.
The settlement in DC does serve to clear the table some, leaving the NRA with only two major lawsuits to contend with.
Both suits involve the state of New York. It’s important not to conflate these two lawsuits, though. The first suit is a First Amendment suit filed by the NRA against a New York bureaucrat who threatened banks and insurance companies with increased regulatory scrutiny if they chose to do business with the NRA. A portion of this case was recently before the Supreme Court of the US. Now it goes back to the lower courts to be litigated further. The other case, and most pressing issue for the future of the NRA is, of course, New York’s suit against the Association. The first phase of that suit was concluded last month with broad findings of corruption, mismanagement, and failure to fulfill fiduciary obligations to protect NRA members’ assets. These findings applied to current and former executives and the NRA Board of Directors. The second phase of this suit is scheduled to begin in mid-July and will focus on questions of what the court should do to remediate the situation for the benefit of NRA members.
The NRA is obviously planning to argue – as they did in their statement in response to the New York jury verdicts against them – that they were the victims of “unscrupulous vendors and insiders” and that the “course corrections” they made in 2018, along with the hiring of a well-qualified Chief Compliance Officer, addresses all of the concerns raised in the first phase of the trial, negating any need for the court to take further action. I expect they’ve already begun working on some sort of settlement agreement to pitch in an effort to avoid going to trial again.
That argument would have been a reasonable approach four or five years ago (when I suggested it), but the events of the intervening years clearly demonstrate that the problems are still persistent.
While the primary culprits are no longer employed by the NRA, and the Board has severed ties with most of the offending vendors, the clean-up is woefully incomplete. Too many members of the Board were culpable in the corruption, and those who currently hold the reins of power within the Board are among the most complicit and culpable. There are also several executives still employed by the Association, pulling down big paychecks, who were up to their ears in the corruption. The members, potential members, former supporters, politicians, and the public will not be convinced to trust the NRA again until there are clear, major changes and everyone with any hint of complicity in the corruption is gone.
The judge could order the dissolution of the entire Board if he thinks that’s the best course, but that seems unlikely. It also looks unlikely that he will appoint a receiver or special master to oversee the Association while they get their ducks in a row. There’s a good chance that he will require some sort of regular reporting from the Association to ensure that they stay on the straight and narrow, but many members worried about true reform hope he’ll go much farther, insisting on a major overhaul of the Association, and removal of Directors, officers, and staff who failed in their fiduciary obligations.
What he’ll actually order or agree to in a settlement is anyone’s guess, but he’s expressed interest in hearing from NRA members, so perhaps a letter-writing campaign calling for him to remove the enablers and miscreants, and order a thorough reorganization of the Association, starting with a much smaller Board of Directors, would be in order.
Did You Bullet Vote?
Results of the latest Board of Directors election will be announced soon. Balloting closes on April 28, so if you received a ballot in your March magazine, be sure to vote and return it before the deadline. I’m on the ballot along with my friends and fellow reformers, Phil Journey, Rocky Marshall, and Dennis Fusaro. We’re asking NRA members to “bullet vote” only for the four of us, to give us better odds of winning seats. We’ll only be four votes on a board of 76, but at least we’ll have a better idea of what the Board and staff are doing, and we might get the chance to give our two cents to the judge.
Whether we win seats or not, we’ll be in Dallas for the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits May 16–19th 2024. I particularly look forward to the Members’ Meeting on May 18, where members will have a chance to have their voices heard. I hope to see you there.
Settlement Agreement DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Plaintiff, v. NRA FOUNDATION, INC., et al.,
About Jeff Knox:
Jeff Knox is a second-generation political activist and director of The Firearms Coalition. His father Neal Knox led many of the early gun rights battles for your right to keep and bear arms. Read Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War.
The Firearms Coalition is a loose-knit coalition of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs and civil rights organizations. Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, the organization provides support to grassroots activists in the form of education, analysis of current issues, and with a historical perspective of the gun rights movement. The Firearms Coalition has offices in Buckeye, Arizona, and Manassas, VA. Visit: www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
