More Anti-Gun Groups Fabricating Mass-Shooting Data

More Anti-Gun Groups Fabricating Mass-Shooting Data iStock.com/monsitj-958626050

There were 648 mass shootings in 2020, according to the Gun Violence Archive. Everytown claims there were 636, but the FBI says there were 50. Four additional groups have their own data. None of it agrees.

Clearly, the gun-ban industry has figured out that by offering mass shooting data sets – regardless of their accuracy – it will increase mentions by the legacy media. In fact, the more wildly inflated their numbers, the more likely their group will be cited in news stories, which leads to increased fundraising.

There are two reasons for the large discrepancies in the groups’ findings: how they define a mass shooting and how they gather the data. The Gun Violence Archive has the least realistic definition and the shoddiest collection methods. The GVA defines a mass shooting as any time four or more people are even slightly wounded by gunfire. The group doesn’t rule out shootings that evolve from a domestic dispute or those that are gang-related. The GVA gathers data from spurious sources, such as social media and cable TV news. As a result, the GVA leads the pack in terms of media mentions. They have even been cited by the Biden-Harris administration.

Most Americans would be shocked at the type of incidents these groups classify as mass shootings. Most understand what comes to mind when you hear the term – a deranged monster stalking the halls of a school, shopping mall, or house of worship, randomly executing innocent people. Most do not picture two gang members shooting it out over turf, a maniac turning a gun on their family members, or a drug deal gone bad.

What follows is an examination of the groups that promote mass shooting data, starting with the FBI, which many consider the only trustworthy data repository.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI says there were 50 mass shootings in 2020. They use what has been called the “gold standard” of mass shooting definitions.

According to their new report titled: “Active Shooter Incidents in the United States in 2020,” the FBI defines active shootings as:

• Shootings in public places
• Shootings occurring at more than one location
• Shootings where the shooter’s actions were not the result of another criminal act
• Shootings resulting in a mass killing
• Shootings indicating apparent spontaneity by the shooter
• Shootings where the shooter appeared to methodically search for potential victims
• Shootings that appeared focused on injury to people, not buildings or objects

Shootings were excluded from the FBI’s list if they were the result of:

• Self-defense
• Gang violence
• Drug violence
• Contained residential or domestic disputes
• Controlled barricade/hostage situations
• Crossfire as a byproduct of another ongoing criminal act
• An action that appeared not to have put other people in peril

Everytown for Gun Safety

Everytown says there were 648 mass shootings in 2020. According to their website, Everytown acknowledges there were problems with their original definition but then admits they use the same definition as the Gun Violence Archive.

“When Everytown began tracking mass shootings after the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary, there was no common definition of a mass shooting. In earlier versions of this report, Everytown defined a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people were killed, excluding the shooter. Since then, research and news coverage of these tragic events has expanded greatly, but the question of how to best define a mass shooting remains unsettled. Different definitions result in different counts of mass shooting incidents—ranging from roughly a dozen per year to nearly two mass shootings every day—and encompass different causes of gun violence,” Everytown’s website states. “We now define a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot and wounded or killed, excluding the shooter. In this report, Everytown adopts a definition informed by the common understanding of mass shootings increasingly accepted by most US residents and chosen by many major news outlets and the Gun Violence Archive, the source of much of the data in this report.”

USA Today, Associated Press, and Northeastern University.

USA Today, Associated Press, and Northeastern University say there were 42 mass shootings in 2020. These groups admit their definition is much narrower than the GVA’s, and includes additional information, such as descriptions of the weapons used.

“Over the past decade, USA TODAY, along with Northeastern University and The Associated Press, has been tracking all mass killings in the United States. When it comes to gun violence, our database is narrower than some tracking sites, such as the Gun Violence Archive, that include shootings that injure large numbers of people but kill no one. However, our database is broader in other ways. It includes every mass killing since 2006 from all weapons in which four or more people, excluding the offender, were killed within a 24-hour time frame. The database also includes dozens of variables on each incident, offender, victim, and weapon,” the groups state.

The Gun Violence Archive

The Gun Violence Archive says there were 648 mass shootings in 2020. The GVA says mass shootings “have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.”

In a previous interview with the Second Amendment Foundation, GVA’s co-founder and executive director, Mark Bryant, defended his group’s overly broad and all-inclusive definition.

“It doesn’t parse,” he said. “It gives an accurate picture of the number of times more than four people were shot, whether in a drive-by or a shooting at a rap concert or a country music concert.”

If his higher numbers are misleading the public or being misinterpreted by journalists, it’s not his fault, Bryant claimed. He believes his numbers are fair. “I do, but I think it’s also up to the journalist and the reader to have a better understanding of what the data says. When a journalist uses the mass-shooting numbers as their lead, they’re not looking at the whole situation.”

Bryant deflected blame for the media’s overhyping and misuse of his data.

“If the numbers are misleading, the journalist didn’t do their homework, you could make that argument,” he said. “The media zeroes in on it, not us. At one point we wanted to take mass shootings out of the loop, but the phone started ringing on a daily basis. It’s important to me that we’re not misinterpreted. We’re not anti-gun. Look at our staff, over half are gun owners. I intentionally do not hire from the (Gun Violence Prevention) community. I want researchers – period. We wanted to have an honest set of data, and you can use it how you want.”

---

Related: There Were 77 School Shootings In January – Or Were There?

---

Bryant’s claims that he is not anti-gun don’t hold up. He has lobbied for stricter gun control.

In 2018, he coauthored a guest column for the Los Angeles Times titled: “Op-Ed: We have all the data we need: Stronger gun laws would save lives.” The column was coauthored with Devin Hughes, founder of GVPedia, which, according to its website, is a “project created to provide ready access to academic research and high-quality data on gun violence.”

In their column, Bryant and Hughes called for more anti-gun legislation, stating: “More guns mean more crime and more death. Gun possession significantly increases your risk of being killed by someone you know. A gun in the home doubles your risk of homicide and triples your risk of suicide. The presence of a gun increases the lethality of domestic violence. Areas with higher gun ownership see a significant increase in burglary. And states with higher levels of gun ownership experience higher rates of firearm fatalities.”

Bryant told the Second Amendment Foundation he also supports restricting standard-capacity magazines.

“I think magazine capacity is an issue that should be addressed. You don’t need 30-round mags or a 60-round drum,” he said. “While they are great ‘get off’ tools, they’re part of a hobby, not part of the Second Amendment.”

Mother Jones

Mother Jones magazine says there were 12 mass shootings in 2020. They use a very strict, very narrow definition:

• The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
• The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
• The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).
• Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
• We included a handful of cases also known as ‘spree killings’— cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.

Violence Prevention Project

The Violence Prevention Project says there were seven mass shootings in 2020. They focus on “mass public shootings” as defined by the Congressional Research Service:

“A multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms—not including the offender(s)—within one event, and at least some of the murders occurred in a public location or locations in close geographical proximity (e.g., a workplace, school, restaurant, or other public settings), and the murders are not attributable to any other underlying criminal activity or commonplace circumstance (armed robbery, criminal competition, insurance fraud, argument, or romantic triangle).”

“Any cut point is arbitrary, but this remains a widely agreed-upon standard,” the Violence Prevention Project states. “Further, the number of deaths is the strongest predictor of media coverage, which we use to help build our database.”

Mass Shooting Tracker

The Mass Shooting Tracker did not have 2020 data available. Their data for 2024 states that there have been 73 mass shooting so far this year, which resulted in 126 people killed and 240 wounded.

Their data, the group says, is “compiled by an independent all-volunteer group based out of Reddit.” This group disputes the FBI’s definition.

“The current FBI definition of mass murder, commonly accepted by the media as a proxy for ‘mass gun violence,’ is three or more people murdered in one event. We believe this does not capture the whole picture. Many people may survive a shooting based on luck alone. Some may be left with lifelong disabilities and trauma, but the mainstream definition of mass gun violence does not account for this,” the group states, adding, “Our definition is this: a mass shooting is an incident where four or more people are shot in a single shooting spree. This may include the gunman himself, or police shootings of civilians around the gunman.”

Takeaways

The Mass Shooting Tracker had zero media mentions in the past 30 days. Mother Jones and Everytown were each mentioned twice. Mass shooting data sets from USA Today, The Associated Press and Northeastern University were mentioned three times by media outlets. The Violence Prevention Project data garnered 10 media mentions. However, the Gun Violence Archive was mentioned more than 30 times over the past month, along with scores of posts on Facebook and X.

It is crystal clear that when it comes to coverage of mass shootings, the more inflated the data, the more the legacy media will lap it up.

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/ZSr0cOL
via IFTTT

ATF eForms System Shut Down Claims Budgeting Concerns

ATF eForms System Shut Down Claims Budgeting Concerns

Earlier in the week, AmmoLand News received a concerning tip from an anonymous source about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) eForms system being shut down for the foreseeable future. This tip came through our anonymous tip box and was also given to YouTuber DLD After Dark by a second source and passed on to AmmoLand. Without verification, we were unable to share the information with the public.

EForms is the system that the ATF uses to process National Firearms Act (NFA) applications for things like silencers and short-barrel rifles. The majority of NFA applications are submitted through the eForms system, which replaced paper forms. The vast majority of gun shops that sell NFA items are dependent on the eForms system to process forms.

Since being informed of the pending shutdown, the eForms system went offline exactly when our sources predicted it would. AmmoLand News was able to verify the information with a third party that this wasn’t an unscheduled outage and was planned by the ATF. The vendor responsible for eForms received notification that the system would be taken offline for “Congressional budgeting concerns.”

Although the email cited Congressional budgeting issues, it did not specify them. Currently, the government is facing a shutdown, but a deal for a continuing resolution (CR) has been reached, and the ATF is currently operating under the old resolution that isn’t due to expire until Friday. This fact leads many to wonder why the ATF decided to shut down the system.

EForms applications have been going through incredibly fast lately, leading many to wonder if the speed of approval was the ATF trying to clear out the backlog of applications before the system was taken offline. The ATF has been mum about the increased speed of approvals and why that hasn’t always been the case since eForms was launched. Excitement over the speed has turned to dread since the system was taken offline.

Form 4 submissions are coming back fast!
These are not LE submissions, just standard E Forms!
Stop by BGV to get yours started!#cans #suppressor #form4 #firearms #guns #quiet #Silencer #silencershop pic.twitter.com/z1PVn9vuZP

— The Gun Vault (@TheGunVault2010) February 26, 2024

Congress specifically earmarks funding for the ATF’s eForms system to speed up the approval process of NFA) applications. By shutting down the system, it appears that the ATF is ignoring the wishes of Congress and breaking the law. To many, this shows a government agency that is out of control and doesn’t seem to be held accountable for its actions.

“The recommendation assumes that within the resources provided, ATF will prioritize funding for the National Firearms Act Division to improve firearms licensing processing timelines,” Congress wrote. “The Committee is concerned about the large number of pending applications awaiting processing by ATF. In 2013, ATF established eForms, an electronic filing process, to reduce submission and processing times as well as data entry processing backlogs. The Committee is aware ATF is currently developing ATF Form 4 into eForms and encourages ATF to prioritize funding for this continued development within the funds provided. Completing the modernization of the processing system and automating ATF Form 4 applications is critical and will free up additional resources for improved customer service and prevent backlogs from continuing to mount.”

AmmoLand News reached out to the ATF for comment, but our request was not returned by the time of writing. This situation is a fast-developing story with many moving parts. When more information becomes available, AmmoLand News will bring it to you.

---

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. Mr. Crump has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. He 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/vZBeoTS
via IFTTT

Did Gun Control Laws Leave Couple Helpless Against Real ‘Pirates of Caribbean’?

Evil complicates simplicity. And laws against armed self-defense complicate it further.

“Caribbean authorities say missing American couple is feared dead after 3 prisoners hijacked yacht,” USA Today reported Sunday. “An American couple who went missing while sailing off the coast of Granada is feared dead after their catamaran yacht was hijacked by three escaped prisoners, authorities said.”

The yacht Simplicity, “found ‘anchored and abandoned’ off a beach on the island of St. Vincent,” bore “chilling evidence of a violent struggle.” What’s not clear is what chance the couple, described by their sailing association as “veteran cruisers” who were “warm hearted and capable,” would have stood in a physical confrontation against what the Royal Grenada Police Force reveals to be three desperate, proven violent escapees, one with multiple rape, attempted rape, and indecent assault charges. They were all much younger men than the couple, he 66 and she 71, who, according to other reports, had been married 27 years.

One thing could have equalized the situation, but that’s complicated by law, which all too often gives criminals the advantage.

Per “Firearms on the Boat: The Legal Issues Surrounding Carrying Weapons for Defense in International Waters”:

Thus a vessel flying the American flag (legally) in international waters may carry any firearm allowed by U.S. federal law as well as legal ammunition to go with it.

The short of it is that a vessel entering the protected waters (coast) of a nation becomes subject to the laws of that nation once it does so.

That first assertion is not quite true, as there are states with more restrictions than federal law, so it makes a big difference which port of origin you start from. And where you’re going to.

“Many countries in the Caribbean do not allow possession of firearms or ammunition unless you have a local permit and, if arrested while traveling, the United States Embassy will not be able to secure your release,” ATF warns on its “Traveling with Firearms” page.

“Do not enter Grenada with firearms or ammunition without prior express consent from the government of Grenada.”

Even if one can obtain permission, additional restrictions apply.

“A person shall not carry any firearm or ammunition in a public place unless at the time when he carries such firearm or ammunition he has about his person a licence, certificate or permit granted by the appropriate authority, authorizing him to carry such firearm or ammunition in such a place as determined by the Minister, a Firearm User’s (Special) Permit authorizing him to carry such firearm or ammunition in such place on such occasion,” the Royal Grenada Police Force declares.

The same goes for their reported port of destination, Antigua:

Do not enter Antigua and Barbuda with firearms or ammunition without prior express consent from the Antigua and Barbuda government. Penalties for possession, use, or trafficking in illegal drugs or firearms are severe. Convicted offenders can expect long jail sentences and heavy fines.

Unfortunately, a search for the keyword “firearms” on the sailing association website and an outline of topics covered in their “safety at sea” seminar show self-defense and protection against modern-day cutthroats is not something these folks have put much thought into. And that’s a shame because if you think about the discipline and dedication it takes to sail your own vessel to far-off ports, there’s probably no group better suited to ensuring their own survival when the nearest help is hours and more away.

That does not appear to be the case here, as one friend of the couple admits, “We would leave the boat for the day, and leave the door unlocked. We felt safer in a lot of the Caribbean Islands than we did in parts of the United States, and they were the same way.”

That attitude, put bluntly, is self-defeating and foolish.

“The Caribbean stands out as one of the most violent regions in the Americas, registering some of the worst murder rates,” Statista notes. “Besides violent deaths and financial crime, Caribbean states also suffer from concerning levels of property crimes, such as robberies, burglaries, and car thefts.”

We don’t know what transpired on the Simplicity from the time three desperate predators spotted her until the time they had secured her and sailed her away. Being the type of people they were said to be, the victims may have thought their attackers were in trouble and tried to help. What we do know is a couple who by all accounts were sweet and loving fell victim to brutal savagery and were unable to do anything about it — even if they put up a hell of a fight, the odds against them, without an equalizer, were too great.

Imagine seeing someone you love in mortal terror and agony and being unable to do anything about it because you can’t even help yourself. This is what the Giffords, and Bradys, and Demanding Moms of the world would have us all reduced to by force of “law.”

We can’t help these poor people. What we can do is help ourselves, to be aware of our surroundings, to be aware of the risks in places we consider traveling to, and to take necessary precautions and make preparations should those risks suddenly, and without warning, find us. That means, when we can, not just be armed but be prudent, alert, competent, and trained.

And that means equipping ourselves to fight off political predators with everything we’ve got.

---

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/LYuk8P3
via IFTTT

Judge Grants Summary Judgment Against Ca Law Denying Restored Gun Rights

 AdobeStock_128873236

A federal judge in California has granted summary judgment to three individuals in a lawsuit challenging that state’s Penal Code which permanently denies Second Amendment rights to people who have had felony convictions vacated, set aside, or dismissed, and their rights to possess firearms fully restored. The case is known as Linton v. Bonta.

U.S. District Judge James Donato in the Northern District of California wrote, “After multiple hearings and several rounds of briefing, and in light of the guidance provided by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen…the Court concludes that California has violated the Second Amendment rights of the individual plaintiffs. Consequently, summary judgment is granted in favor of (Chad) Linton, (Paul McKinley) Stewart, and (Kendall) Jones on their as applied Second Amendment claim.”

The case was originally filed in December 2018. They are represented by attorney George Lee of Seiler Epstein, LLP in San Francisco. The challenge was originally brought by SAF, the Calguns Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and Firearms Policy Foundation, and the three individuals. In his opinion, Judge Donato dismissed all the institutional plaintiffs.

SAF continues to support the case.

According to SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “The three individual plaintiffs were all convicted of non-violent felonies in other states decades ago. None of the convictions involved a weapon, drugs, or violence, in the ordinary meaning of the word. Each of the plaintiffs had their conviction vacated, set aside, or dismissed, and their right to possess firearms restored by the jurisdiction in which they were convicted. Linton legally acquired firearms in California on prior occasions, and Jones was a career law enforcement officer in California with special training and certification as a firearms instructor.

Even so, California acted to permanently deny them of the right to possess or own firearms, solely on the basis of their original convictions.”

“This is a huge victory,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It could amount to a first major step to create an avenue for other people with similar circumstances to return to lives of full citizenship. We’re delighted with Judge Donato’s ruling. This is just one more example of our mission to win firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

---

Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

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

ATF Whistleblower’s Book Gives Unique Insights into Fast and Furious ‘Gunwalking’

The Deadly Path gives inside information that should have Americans demanding answers from their representatives and real accountability for those who made the deaths inevitable.

“Pete Forcelli did what members of the U.S. Congress encourage government employees to do: he spoke up when he saw misconduct within the federal government,” the synopsis for The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels, reads. But choosing to be a whistleblower almost cost Forcelli, a since-retired ATF deputy assistant director, his job, his possessions, and his reputation as a law enforcement official.

The book holds a special interest for me. As the “blogger” who, along with the late citizen journalist Mike Vanderboegh, first reported on the connection between the slaying of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “walking” guns to Mexico, Forcelli was one of the subjects of our reporting.

In The Deadly Path, Forcelli reintroduces us to many of the other characters and scenarios we covered in our attempts to get corporate media and Congress to investigate for themselves.

Two of the names giving superlative reviews of the book are people Mike, and I worked with. They are Jay Dobyns, a whistleblower in his own right who ATF tried to destroy, and William LaJeunesse of Fox News, one of a handful of true investigative reporters who made their own unique revelations and consistently “got it right.” Experience has taught me that neither is inclined to say anything they don’t mean because that’s not who they are – if they tell us something is good, I believe them.

If it was like pulling teeth to get media and representatives of Congress interested in looking into “gunwalking” evidence, it was even harder for Forcelli to get the U.S. Attorney in Phoenix to prosecute bad actors, in some cases declaring some suspects were off limits to investigators. Ask yourself what legitimate motive could federal prosecutors have not to go after a criminal smuggling grenades to cartel recipients with every legal tool at their disposal, and why are the principals behind those decisions still in decision-making capacities today within the Justice Department?

Written with Keelin MacGregor, “an editor and first-time author who grew up in the publishing industry, reading manuscripts from an early age,” Forcelli conveys his disbelief, his growing frustration, and his outrage that clear violations of law were taking place with the complicity of the people who were supposed to help him stop them. And when he ultimately had to do the right thing and come forth, those in power and protecting their own interests tried to throw him under the bus.

The result: Untold numbers of people were dying in Mexico along with two American officers, Terry and Department of Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Jaime Zapata.

“May they both Rest In Peace, and may this book provide their families with some answers that I so wholeheartedly believe that they deserve,” Forcelli writes in his dedication.

Because so many answers are still outstanding, and because so many of the people responsible for initiating, executing, stonewalling over, and covering up Fast and Furious have never truly been held to account, those families deserve so much more from our elected officials.

The Deadly Path reopens a case so many on the wrong side of justice have an incentive to forget, bury, and deny. The best way to keep that from happening is to renew interest and for more to learn the truth. If that speaks to you as it does to me, get a copy for yourself, available for purchase on March 5. And if you want to go the extra mile, ask your local library to make sure it stocks copies.

Also Read my interview with Peter Forcelli.

---

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/KpTlxHV
via IFTTT

NRA Claims a Win, in New York Trial Verdict Against Its Own Top Executives

Official Statement from the National Rifle Association

NRA Spinning the NYAG v. NRA Verdict

A jury verdict in a high-profile New York trial confirms what the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) contended all along – that it was victimized by certain former vendors and “insiders” who abused the trust placed in them by the Association.

The jury found no cause to remove NRA General Counsel and Secretary John Frazer, the remaining NRA employee who is an individual defendant in the action.

NRA officials set a confident tone today following the verdict in the New York Attorney General v. NRA lawsuit. In August, 2020, the NYAG filed a “dissolution lawsuit” against the NRA, along with claims against four individual defendants: former EVP Wayne LaPierre; Frazer; former CFO Wilson Phillips; and former Chief of Staff Joshua Powell.

The NYAG originally sought to put the NRA out of business. She had claimed the actions in question led “to the loss of more than $64 million in just three years.” But the allegations by the NYAG that survived to the jury-verdict stage were starkly diminished relative to their complaint: as jury deliberations approached, the government was forced to drop half of its whistleblower allegations for lack of evidence, along with a number of conflict-of-interest claims.

During a 24-day jury trial, the NRA established the NYAG cannot prove self-dealing or bad faith by the NRA Board of Directors. The NRA disputed key allegations in the NYAG’s complaint – namely, that any governance issues at the NRA are “persistent.” As importantly, the NRA established that it adopted new policies and accounting controls, displaced vendors and “insiders” who abused the Association, and accepted reparations for costs determined to be excess benefits. Most of these corrective measures – part of an internal investigation ignited by the NRA Board – were adopted before the NYAG filed her lawsuit.

The NRA’s commitment to good governance was on full display during the trial proceedings.

“We appreciate the service of the jury and the opportunity to present evidence about the positive direction of the NRA today,” says NRA President Charles Cotton. “NRA members should be heartened by the NRA’s commitment to best practices, and we will continue to amplify our compliance record in the pivotal next phase of these proceedings. To the extent there were control violations, they were acted upon immediately by the NRA Board beginning in summer 2018.”

Of particular importance, the six-person jury found that of 16 related-party transactions of which the NRA was accused, the NRA Audit Committee was found to have properly reviewed and ratified 14 of them. However, the six-person jury rendered a verdict that found the NRA failed to properly administer the organization and its assets, and that it violated whistleblower protections of New York Nonprofit Law.

With respect to other individual defendants, the jury found Mr. LaPierre and Mr. Phillips violated their statutory obligations to discharge the duties of their position in good faith and with care. The jury found the monetary harm suffered by the NRA for each individual was $5.4 million and $2 million, respectively. (Defendant Powell reached a settlement with the NYAG prior to the start of the jury proceedings.)

The jury decision paves the way for the second phase of the proceedings – a bench trial before Justice Joel M. Cohen where the judge is expected to rule on any final remedies against defendants.

In the final analysis, individual defendants could face financial awards payable to the NRA. No money damages will be awarded against the Association.

The NRA’s case focused on its compliance efforts, and the organization’s commitment to good governance following summer 2018 whistleblower complaints and the substantial evidence that it was the victim of fraud by a number of its vendors. When the NRA Board was alerted to these facts, it led an investigation into spending allegations and determined that certain individuals participated in transactions that ran afoul of NRA policies and procedures. Trial testimony confirmed the NRA Board was unaware of the arrangements in question.

In furtherance of its governance reforms, the NRA terminated a string of vendors, including Ackerman McQueen/Mercury Group, Associated Television, International, Under Wild Skies, and a travel consultancy. It cancelled consulting arrangements with certain NRA board members, adopted a new whistleblower policy in 2020, and recently hired a new compliance manager.

“A parade of NRA witnesses and independent experts established that the NRA was the victim of actions that were pursued in secrecy and not in the interests of the Association – by former vendors and fiduciaries,” says NRA counsel William A. Brewer III. “In any event, the NYAG’s case focused on the past and the NRA lives in the present. It was the NRA that ultimately established the record being pursued by the NYAG. Our client looks forward to phase two of these proceedings – emboldened by its record of good governance.”

Although it was not a matter before the jury, the NRA effectively demonstrated that the NYAG’s lawsuit was motivated by political animus. As a candidate for NYAG in summer 2018, Letitia James called the NRA a “terrorist organization” and “criminal enterprise.” She vowed to pursue the NRA if elected, and quickly did so upon taking office in 2019.

[But Look Over Here] Other New York Actions: Defending Free Speech

Against the backdrop of the NYAG trial, the NRA is preparing for another case involving New York government officials. On March 18, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in the NRA’s First Amendment case against former financial regulator Maria T. Vullo.

In a May 2018 lawsuit, the NRA alleged that Vullo, at the behest of former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, took aim at the NRA and conspired to use the regulatory power of the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS) to “financially blacklist” the NRA – coercing banks and insurers to cut ties with the Association to suppress its pro-Second Amendment speech. The NRA argues that Vullo’s actions as DFS superintendent were meant to silence the NRA – using “guidance letters,” backroom threats, and other measures to cause financial institutions to “drop” the Association.

The NRA’s First Amendment claims withstood multiple motions to dismiss. But in 2022, after Vullo appealed the trial court’s ruling, the Second Circuit struck down the NRA’s claims.

On February 7, 2023, the NRA petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Second Circuit decision. On November 3, 2023, the Court granted review on the following question: Does the First Amendment allow a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government’s own hostility to the speaker’s viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker’s advocacy?

Since that time, more than 190 individuals and organizations have filed 22 amicus briefs in support of the NRA’s legal position. If successful, the NRA ultimately aims to prove Vullo, Cuomo and others conspired with James to penalize the NRA for its protected speech. Such developments could help the Association resurrect First Amendment claims against James, as well as unseal materials from an earlier discovery phase of the case.

“The NRA is eager to break the seal on facts surrounding an unprecedented weaponization of power against the NRA and its speech,” says Brewer. “There is little question former and current public officials were conspiring with Everytown and others to financially damage and politically suppress the NRA. Their actions harmed democracy and the rule of law – and letting relevant facts and documents remain secret does, too.”

Read Related:  ‘Every single NRA Board member who hasn’t openly spoken up should resign immediately’

---

About National Rifle Association:

The National Rifle Association is America’s longest-standing civil rights organization. Together with our more than five million members, we’re proud defenders of history’s patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.

from https://ift.tt/qVClHs5
via IFTTT

Whistleblower Answers Questions About ATF/DOJ Fast and Furious Malfeasance

Former ATF Agent Peter Forcelli IMG CSPAN Video c4354559

“ATF whistleblowers sound alarm on Biden admin proposal that effectively bans private gun sales,” Fox News reported in early February. “Watchdog group says alleged ATF proposal would ‘go after law-abiding citizens for private’ gun sales.”

One of the names in the story was familiar, Pete Forcelli, a retired ATF deputy assistant director turned “whistleblower” and author of The Deadly Path: How Operation Fast & Furious and Bad Lawyers Armed Mexican Cartels, scheduled to go on sale March 5, and available now for pre-order. AmmoLand will post my review of this book as a follow-up to this report.

The name was familiar because both my colleague, the late Mike Vanderboegh, and I had written about Forcelli’s testimony back in 2011. It was the story of a man smuggling grenades across the border to the Mexican cartels the Department of Justice did not want to prosecute, and when it got exposed, tried throwing agents under the bus.

“Three hours ago the Wall Street Journal ran this, a story that David and I were aware of for about a week but were asked not to mention,” Mike wrote on his Sipsey Street Irregulars blog. “David will have his own story out tomorrow morning. Note that DOJ is still trying to cover up by blaming the agents. Note also that they are retaliating against Pete Forcelli.”

Mike and I were not only ready to go with it (albeit unwilling to burn a source and post under a requested embargo), but after the mainstream press has been on it for days now, there was only one place hosting the letter (other stories only talked about it) from the attorney for the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association to Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa detailing not just the setup for the grenade operation, but also, and importantly, about the retaliation his ATF agent-client was subjected to by DOJ management for testifying at a House Oversight Committee hearing.

The column I wrote at the time is now only retrievable via the Internet Archive, so not only is formatting a mess, but it may take forever to load, and many of the internal links no longer work, including the slideshow where the letter was posted. Fortunately, I saved the file and now have a copy posted at my War On Guns Placeholder site, where it can be accessed and downloaded and hopefully noticed by someone with the resources to renew investigations.

With that as a backdrop, I was delighted when AmmoLand Editor-in-Chief Fredy Riehl asked me to interview Forcelli and review his book, especially since so many of the characters appearing in its pages were DOJ and ATF functionaries Mike and I had written about, some many times. I found Pete, which is what he encouraged me to call him, to be approachable and forthright.

He pledged from the start that no questions would be off limits. Once more, the paradox arose as when Vanderboegh and I, both Second Amendment red meat absolutists, developed trust and respect for men you’d think we’d be mortal enemies with. There’s no other way to explain it than to say while we hoped the guys who trusted us with information they freely provided would come to accept “shall not be infringed,” they each shared qualities as men that we came to respect and admire: Personal courage and willingness to put their all on the line against the baddest of the bad, a sense of duty and honor, and utter candidness with no façade.

So Vanderboegh and I were both gratified when Fast and Furious whistleblower John Dodson trusted our recommendation to speak with Sharyl Attkisson for her historic and Murrow Award-winning CBS News interview and coverage, which ultimately resulted in management deciding she was now a liability to their agenda. I was genuinely honored when Jay Dobyns, the man who infiltrated the Hells’ Angels and lived to tell about it, made a special trip to meet me and hear me speak. And I mourned the passing of the agent Vince Cefalu, a driving force behind the CleanUpATF website, where allegations of “walked guns” first appeared, a man who never was afraid to call someone he didn’t respect something I can’t repeat here, and whose words to me under his autograph on RatSnakes meant a lot about sentiments going both ways.

With preliminaries out of the way, here’s the Forcelli interview. I started with the question I figured most readers rolling their eyes at my last paragraph would probably want me to ask.

---

DC: Thank you for agreeing to answer all questions put in front of a readership that views “shall not be infringed” as a “hands-off” mandate to government. So let me get the toughest question out of the way first: An observation that Second Amendment advocates are going to make is to challenge the constitutionality of ATF and the “gun laws” it enforces to even exist in the first place, especially now considering the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision invalidating laws not supported by text, history, and tradition in the time of the Founders. How do you respond?

PF: I understand their view and I know that I’ll never be able to change the minds of some folks who think that all folks who work for ATF are evil people who don’t support the Second Amendment. I grew up in a pretty bad neighborhood in Yonkers, New York. The area was very ethnically diverse, and my family was one of about a half-dozen white families left there. The neighborhood had a luncheonette and a gun store—Agramonte Arms—which were among the last of the businesses owned by the same folks who were there when my family moved in. I practically grew up in that gun store and the folks who worked there treated me like family.  I always liked guns, although I’m sure I don’t know as much about them as some of your readers or some of my colleagues at ATF, who could tell you where a gun was made by the proof marks stamped onto it.  I never grew up wanting to be an ATF Agent.  I grew up wanting to be a cop and, hopefully, one day, a homicide detective. I became a cop in New York City at age twenty, and by age twenty-seven, I was a detective. New York had some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and while I did not agree with them, I saw that the New York criminal justice system was a joke. Criminals pled their cases down; few really violent people went to prison, and those who did rarely stayed there very long. My last state murder case that went to trial was the murder of a four-year-old boy named Joseph Dauphin. After trial, his killer was sentenced to four years in a New York Prison.

In 1997, I was assigned to a federal task force and was assigned to work with ATF on a case against a group called “Sex, Money, Murder,” which was a faction of the Bloods street gang. The first guy we locked up was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to four years in prison. The leader, who was among 51 members we charged, was sentenced to life-plus 105 years in solitary confinement at the Supermax. It was this result that led me to join ATF, not any sort of desire to infringe on the rights of honest Americans who own guns. I think most people who join ATF do so for similar reasons. I worked with DEA Agents, and many were good guys, but their work was largely wire-tap-driven. I hate wiretaps, and I think they’re overused and often abused. I worked with FBI Agents in the task force, too. Some were really good guys, but a lot of them were pompous, arrogant, tight-asses who were almost cult-like in their organizational pride for “The Bureau.” I couldn’t survive that environment. For the most part, the ATF Agents were regular folks who just wanted to put violent people in prison. During my time with ATF, I only know of two who I’d describe as anti-gun: Dave Chipman and Mark Jones (there are a few Mark Joneses – but only one of them fits this bill).  You’d be surprised about how many ATF Agents have a love-hate relationship with the agency. They love the mission of going after armed, violent criminals, but they hate the politics of the agency.

DC: A recurring media meme is that Operation Fast and Furious was a “botched gun sting.” If no attempt was made to track guns once they’d “walked” across the border, how was that not deliberate, with involved ATF personnel and management knowing full well a portion would end up being recovered at violent crime scenes? And how did that not serve the purposes of those demanding stricter gun laws here?

PF: I never understood why some folks in the media called it a “botched gun sting,” just like I never understood why folks called it a “program.” It was a case that spiraled out of control and had absolutely nothing to do with “Wide Receiver,” which was another disaster, but they weren’t linked or part of a program. “Fast and Furious,” which, as you know, was actually called Jacob Chambers et. al, should have been a simple, straw purchase case. The straw purchasers should have been charged early on, and if they were, the gun that killed Brian Terry would have never crossed over the counter of the gun store. Instead, they decided to let the straw purchasers continue to purchase firearms, knowing that the guns were turning up in Mexico because they somehow believed that the traces from Mexico could somehow tie this case into a bigger conspiracy and result in the takedown of a cartel-driven firearms network. The guns crossing the border was deliberate, in that they knew the guns were being traced from locations in Mexico, but they continued to let the sales continue—EVEN AFTER several FFLs said they didn’t want to sell to these straw buyers anymore. Agents from that group and Emory Hurley, the lead prosecutor in the case, met with the FFLs and told them to keep selling to them (ironically, some of those folks are being sued by Mexico for doing exactly what they were told to do by ATF and the USAO).  What is most confusing to me is that for years, we were told that once the firearm crossed the border, the Corpus Delecti (body of the crime) crossed the border the case couldn’t be prosecuted, and then overnight, the same prosecutors are quarterbacking this case, and the guns are purposefully being allowed to cross the border?  It was astounding to me.  I was not privy to what was said at the meetings about the case specifically in either Phoenix or DC, but in the general supervisory meetings that I did attend, there was discussion about how “Operation Fast and Furious” was a justification for the implementation of “Demand Letter #3”—The multiple sale form requirement for rifle purchases in Border States.  Pretty appalling, huh?  Brian Terry dead. Jaime Zapata dead. Countless Mexicans dead. But they implemented a form…

DC: FFLs were pressured to allow what they knew to be “straw purchases” to go through, even over objections at times. You admit in the book how much they’re “needed and depended on.” Care to comment on how ATF’s current “zero tolerance” crackdown on them stifles any “partnership” incentive they have to cooperate beyond what is required?

PF: Just like the old men that worked at Agramonte Arms where I grew up, the FFLs in Phoenix were good people (except one you’ve read about in my book). They called us EVERY time they suspected a straw purchase or a crime was taking place. Ninety percent of the cases in my group came from them.  Of course, there were straw purchases that would occasionally happen that we weren’t called, and sometimes those guns would get smuggled to Mexico, but a straw purchase is an act of deception as well as a crime, and unlike the media, we never blamed the dealers for what they DIDN’T know.  When they called us, we responded and did what cops do.  We stopped the straw buyers, asked probative questions and seized the illegally purchased guns and recommended charges.  ATF’s zero-tolerance crackdown on FFLs is an absolute betrayal of trust, in my opinion, akin to leaving a man behind.  Former ATF Director B. Todd Jones and then Acting Director Tom Brandon used to publicly say, “The FFLs are our first line of defense in the war on gun violence.”  Once they left, the agency fell into the hands of people who were more concerned with activism and less concerned with what most ATF Agents cared about—putting criminals in jail. The current Director, Steve Dettelbach, is a tool for the gun control lobby. He does not have the confidence of the rank and file. For the first time, ATF is having a retention issue as agents leave for other agencies and that scares me.  Who replaces the agents that joined for the right reasons?  Most agents are pro-gun. Will the new ones share those views?

DC: You talk in your book about developing credible evidence only to have U.S. attorneys deny doing anything with it and forbidding further use of intelligence sources.  Why do you believe they did that?

PF: Now, this is the question for the ages. I wish, after reflecting on this for over a decade, that I knew the answer to this question. Besides Phoenix, I have worked with U.S. Attorney’s Offices in New York, South Florida, Puerto Rico, and the USVI.  All were a little different, and some were more aggressive than others, but what I saw in Phoenix shocked me (as you’re seeing in the book). I can only say that I believe that office had a culture of laziness and ineptitude, primarily in its Gun Unit.  We used to joke that they were more afraid of courtrooms than they were of criminals.  After Brian Terry’s death, that joke wasn’t as funny to us.

DC: Before Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder was the catalyst for exposing “gunwalking,” the Justice Department made a big media deal announcing significant stimulus money for Project Gunrunner to ostensibly stop firearms trafficking to Mexico. What is your sense that Phoenix ATF management was pressured/motivated to encourage guns to “walk” to produce results and win recognition, favor, and career advancement from HQ?

PF: Again, this is where politics get muddy.  Project Gunrunner was funded due to a push from Senator Bingaman from NM, partially after he sent staff to observe our work at both the “Crossroads of the West” gun show and responding to those calls from FFLs. (Crossroads management, like the FFLs we dealt with there in Phoenix, were good Americans, concerned with public safety—solid folks). That funding was then used to create many offices and to hire ATF Agents. The Yuma ATF office, for example, was created with Gunrunner money but had NO role in Operation Fast and Furious or any of that nonsense.  Blaming Gunrunner was a way for the left to try to say that “Operation Fast and Furious” was somehow tied to “Wide Receiver” and, therefore, was really Bush’s fault.  Phoenix VII, which conceptualized, started, and ended “Fast and Furious,” didn’t even exist until Obama was president. Obama was the captain of the ship; he just didn’t want to own the mistake, so they pointed fingers back in time.

DC: It’s evident from former Attorney General Eric Holder’s contempt of Congress charge that official coverup and stonewalling went to the very top. How high up did the actual operational direction of Fast and Furious go before it was exposed?

PF: The true “operational control” remained in Phoenix, but there was awareness all the way up to Holder, and I have been told (back then) the White House. How much and what they knew, I can’t accurately say because even in Phoenix, those of us who weren’t involved in that case didn’t know they were walking guns until after Brian Terry was murdered and John Dodson called Grassley’s Office.  Most of the agents in Phoenix initially thought John was full of shit because what those folks were doing was so taboo that we just couldn’t fathom that it was happening and that both Bill Newell and George Gillett condoned it.  It was like a shockwave hit the field division, and the reactions were visceral.

DC: What can you tell us about ATF’s Mexican attaché and Mexican law enforcement being deliberately left out of the information loop on “gunwalking”?

PF:  ATF’s Attache was never told about what was happening with Fast and Furious. Originally, the attaché was a guy named Darren Gil.  He and Newell despised one another, and it didn’t help that if Operation Fast and Furious didn’t blow up in their faces that Bill Newell was said to be slated to replace him as the Attache.  They approved sending Bill down there as an SES, whereas Gil was a GS-15 employee.  Gil left Mexico and Carlos Canino was appointed to replace him temporarily.  Carlos is old school (he testified as a whistleblower in the second round of hearings).  Carlos was friends with the Mexican Attorney General, and he was telling her all along that the idea of walking guns was bullshit.  Like most of us, he didn’t believe it.  Carlos came up to Phoenix for the arrests in the “Fast and Furious” case and when he read the Operational Plan and saw that guns actually walked, he literally became physically ill.  He pulled me aside and flew off the handle. He wanted to strangle Newell because he told me “Pete. I’ve been telling the Mexican AG that this is bullshit and that ATF walks guns.  She’s a friend, and she respects us, and now I have to go and tell her that I was wrong.”  As for Mexico, they didn’t tell Mexico, and we even had a Mexican PGR prosecutor who had an office INSIDE of the Phoenix ATF Office that Newell arranged to bring up.  All they had to do was literally knock on his door.  He was eventually thrown out of the office space for misconduct unrelated to F&F.  It pertained to porn on his Mexican government-issued computer… No wonder zero people were prosecuted in Mexico for their role in running straw purchaser networks…

DC: Give us a synopsis of the Max Kingery grenade case and why the U.S. Attorney didn’t want to prosecute it even though you’d handed him irrefutable, solid evidence.

PF: When I inherited the Yuma Group from Rene Jacquez, Jean Baptiste Kingery had previously been referred for prosecution for straw purchasing a few guns, but that case was declined for prosecution by the Phoenix USAO—Tracy Van Buskirk and Emory Hurley.  We were tipped off that he was buying inert grenades at an Army Navy store by the storeowner who found him to be suspicious and when we looked into him we found out he was buying hundreds of grenade parts from many parts of the US. We worked that case for a long, doing extensive surveillance, interviewing family and associates, and finally determining that he was taking the inert grenade parts into Mexico and turning them into IEDs.  We met with Emory and Tracy several times and we believed we had enough to arrest him.  They disagreed, and unlike many of the gun smuggling cases we worked, there were no underlying state charges that we could seek through either the county or state attorney’s offices.  The only possible charge would have been a violation of the AECA if he crossed the border, or an NFA charge if he possessed ALL of the materials needed to make the grenades into live grenades in the USA.  Emory Hurley, the chief of the USAO gun unit, hated this case. He literally said, “The defense could easily say that their client in making those hilarious ‘complaint department-take a number’ novelty desk items” and then put that same language in an email to his boss. He further opined that the case had “No jury appeal.”  When Kingery got caught crossing into Mexico at the “San Luis Rio de Colorado” POE with 114 disassembled grenades hidden in his tire by a CBP x-ray machine, a bomb squad was called, and the port shut down in plain view of the Plaza Bosses, he was interviewed by my agents and HSI Agents (then still under ICE).  He gave a detailed confession, stating that he was making grenades for the Sinaloa cartel for years and taking the AK-47 variant and AR-15 platform rifles and converting them into machineguns in Mexico.  We were told by Emory to let him go and that they’d consider indicting him in a couple of weeks. It was the most disgusting thing I have seen to this day, in 35-plus years of law enforcement.  I even called prosecutors in NYC who were doing a case on the Sinaloans to see if they’d charge him, but they didn’t have venue—but they did say they would if we could find it.  We also called the folks in Mexico (both ATF and Mexican intelligence folks) who we worked with to see if they could charge him so we wouldn’t have to let him walk out the door. Kingery himself asked us to charge him, saying that the cartel knew he was arrested and he’d have difficulty explaining why he wasn’t charged.  We had no choice but to let him go and as you know the book goes into much greater detail on this and his eventual arrest.  Why Emory wouldn’t charge him?  God and Emory only know.

DC: What was the final straw for you to decide you had to become a whistleblower? And what was it about agency whistleblower protections built into the law that made you decide you needed the extra protection of the Senate?

PF: For nearly three years after my arrival in Phoenix, my agents worked with FFLs to stop a lot of guns that were headed to Mexico. Thousands of recoveries and many cases referred for prosecution, about 90% of which were declined or just sat waiting for a decision.  Not guns going to hunters, target shooters, or folks who wanted to exercise their right to bear arms, but cartel assholes who were butchering other human beings… All those declinations and then as a supervisor’s meeting, Bill Newell mentioned that the USAO was pissed off at John Dodson for blowing the whistle and contacting Grassley’s Office, adding I’d steer clear from Dodson if I were you. He’s probably going to get indicted.  That was the straw.  I didn’t even know John Dodson and wasn’t even sure if I had ever met him in passing, but the thought that dozens and dozens of criminals got a pass and they were even contemplating indicting John as a bridge too far.  Way too far.  That following morning, I called Grassley staffer Brian Downey.  I kept the Senate staffers close because I had met Jay Dobyns (ironically, the night I spoke to Downey), and I learned what he went through for blowing the whistle on some ATF managers.  I wasn’t only doing that. I blew the whistle on Federal prosecutors all the way up to the US Attorney himself and folks in Main DOJ.

DC: A lot of the “players” responsible for Fast and Furious, for turning a blind eye to it, and for retaliatory actions, have gone on to either retire or remain in place, with some of the notable ones even promoted. With the slayings of Brian Terry, ICE agent Jaime Zapata, and untold estimate hundreds of Mexican nationals using “walked” guns, how is it no one in authority responsible for engineering ongoing slaughter is behind bars?

PF: That’s a good question. I do know that the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General investigated them and they had the power to recommend charges, but that would require DOJ to prosecute the case.  People facing jail time speak up. It was easier to bury them in jobs elsewhere.  Some folks were actually fired, but the ones with the bloodiest hands remained—some are still there.

DC: The Arms Export Control Act mandates any person who willfully violates its provisions “shall upon conviction be fined for each violation not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both,” and further includes provisions for “principals” who “induce” or “willfully cause” offenses. How does that not apply to Fast and Furious?

PF: It should have. Again, it would have had to be prosecuted by the DOJ, and I’ve learned that the DOJ does what it wants, and it crushes those who dissent or speak up.

---

I could have gone on with plenty more questions based on all the reporting Vanderboegh had done, but the assignment here was to conduct an interview, not write a book. Speaking of that, I’ll come back and update this report with a link to my review of Forcellis’ The Deadly Path when it’s been posted.

Spoiler alert: Buy it.

---

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/1bNIlOE
via IFTTT

Upcoming: Supreme Court Oral Argument in NCLA Case Against ATF’s Unlawful Bump-Stock Ban

ACTIVIST ADVISORY

NCLA Case Against ATF’s Unlawful Bump-Stock Ban: File Photo

TOMORROW: Supreme Court Oral Argument in New Civil Liberties Alliance Case Against ATF’s Unlawful Bump-Stock Ban

WHERE: U.S. Supreme Court. Listen to the oral argument livestream here.

WHEN: February 28, 2024. Oral arguments begin at 10 AM EST.

WHAT: NCLA asks the U.S. Supreme Court to determine that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.” ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not illegal machine guns.

The ban threatened to turn Americans who had legally purchased bumpstocks into criminals overnight.

ATF issued a Final Rule in 2018 defining semi-automatic firearms equipped with bump stocks as “machineguns,” which federal law prohibits. The rule required Mr. Cargill, a Texas gun shop owner and Army veteran—and every other bump-stock owner nationwide—to either destroy or turn in their legally purchased devices. In January 2023, the en banc Fifth Circuit ruled in Cargill v. Garland that banning bump stocks requires an act of Congress, a major victory for NCLA. The ruling that bump stocks are not machine guns agrees with a subsequent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and an earlier one from the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, but it conflicts with Tenth Circuit and D.C. Circuit decisions rejecting challenges to ATF’s Final Rule.

The Constitution provides that only Congress may enact new criminal laws. Congress adopted a statute banning machineguns in 1986 that did not cover bump stocks.

ATF is not authorized to draft regulations expanding the reach of criminal laws beyond the scope of what Congress prohibited, so New Civil Liberties Alliance urges the Supreme Court to resolve this issue and safeguard Americans’ rights against administrative agency power grabs. NCLA is confident the Court will interpret the statute correctly and set aside ATF’s rule.

New Civil Liberties Alliance client Michael Cargill, former Texas Solicitor General Jonathan Mitchell, who will deliver oral arguments on his behalf, NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel Richard Samp, and NCLA President Mark Chenoweth will make remarks on the Supreme Court steps afterward.

New Civil Liberties Alliance released the following statements:

“My case is not about legalizing machine guns; on June 26th 1934, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which has since been amended, to clarify machine guns. This case concerns whether the ATF, an administrative agency, creates or writes law, or is that job reserved for Congress.” — Michael Cargill, NCLA client.

“This case is about the effort of a federal agency to create a new criminal statute. The Constitution is clear that it is up to Congress, not the Executive Branch, to establish criminal laws.” — Richard Samp, Senior Litigation Counsel, NCLA.

“This week in the Garland v. Cargill case the Supreme Court will consider whether Congress is the only branch of government with the ability to write criminal laws, as the Constitution requires, or whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms may reinterpret an old statute to create new criminal liability. If a federal agency can issue a rule that makes people felons for owning a device the agency had repeatedly and consistently approved as lawful for more than a decade, then everyone’s liberty is truly in jeopardy. ” — Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer, NCLA.

For more information, visit the case page here.

from https://ift.tt/uqW01yE
via IFTTT

NRA Board of Directors Voting 2024: Here Is How You Should VOTE

Opinion

File Photo

NRA Voting Members (all Life Members and those Annual Members with 5 consecutive years of current membership) should have now received their March NRA magazine with their voting ballots inside. If you did not receive a ballot package in your magazine, you are probably not a Voting Member. If you think you are, you can call the membership line at 877-672-2000 and discuss it with them.

Even if you’re not a Voting Member, please keep reading. There is a way you can make a difference in this election.

In the ballot package you will find bios of candidates, a discussion of some proposed Bylaw amendments, the ballots, and a pre-addressed envelope for mailing your completed ballots to an accounting firm for tabulation.

Every year the NRA sends out about 2.5 million ballots to eligible Voting Members, and every year, only about 5% to 7% of those ballots are ever returned.

That means that 93% to 95% of ballots are wasted. Pretty sad. The most common reason NRA members give for not voting is that they “don’t know enough,” and leave it to people who they think know more about the candidates and issues than they do.

If you read this article, you’ll know more about NRA elections than the vast majority of NRA members. If you click on the NRA tag link at the bottom of this article, after my bio, and read some of those articles, you’ll know more than 90% of NRA members. Please share that information and this article.

There are two (2) ballots in the ballot package: One for the Board of Directors election, and one for the Bylaws question.

On the Bylaw question, “…should the Board create the position of Chief Compliance Officer (CCO)?” I recommend a YES vote.

The Bylaws require a member vote to create any new officer position, and the Board wants to create the position of Chief Compliance Officer (CCO). The CCO is to be an expert on ethics, best practices, and legal and regulatory compliance. By creating this position as an official officer position in accordance with the proposed Bylaws amendments, the CCO will serve at the pleasure of the Board. That means he or she can’t be fired or suspended by the CEO. That’s important. The NRA was, at its peak a few years ago, an almost half-billion-dollar-a-year corporation, but it was run like a local gun club. We need professional managers who understand the complexities of the corporate, and nonprofit world.

As to the Director Ballot, I’m recommending members to Bullet Vote for only the four reform candidates nominated by petition of the members: Phil Journey, Rocky Marshall, Dennis Fusaro, and me, Jeff Knox – and no one else.

There are 34 candidates to fill 25 seats on the Board, plus 1 to be elected at the Members’ Meeting in Dallas in May (constituting 1/3rd of the 76-member Board of Directors). Twenty-five of those candidates are incumbents, including three past presidents (Carolyn Meadows, David Keene, and John Sigler, all Wayne LaPierre supporters), and one current vice president (David Coy, who is also a LaPierre defender/enabler and is vice chair of the Audit Committee).

Of the remaining candidates, four (including me) were nominated by member petition, and the rest were nominated by the Board’s Nominating Committee. There are a few on the list who I consider to be fairly solid Directors, but almost all of them have just stood by silently while Wayne LaPierre and the NRA “leadership” have driven the organization to the brink of bankruptcy, with only one (Buz Mills of Gunsite) publicly challenging the status quo.

Please Bullet Vote for only the 4 reform candidates who were nominated by petition of the membership. They are:

• Judge Phil Journey, an activist, collector, avid shooter and trainer, deeply involved with youth shooting programs, and former Board member who actively worked to get the NRA back on track and was pushed off the Board for his efforts.
• Rocky Marshall, a former VP of a fortune 100 corporation and firearms enthusiast who served on the Board for less than a year and was also pushed out for asking uncomfortable questions and pointing out disturbing facts.
• Dennis Fusaro, a former Marine, shooter, and activist who considers himself just a regular NRA member and has been very active in gun rights advocacy and political activism for decades.
• Jeff Knox (me), competitive shooter, reloader, and gun tinkerer who has been a Life member, deeply involved in the NRA for over 40 years and has served as a self-appointed watchdog and reporter on the NRA for more than 20 of those years, following in the footsteps of my late father, Neal Knox. Neal Knox was then Vice President of the NRA and saw the direction LaPierre was taking the Association back in the mid-’90s. He tried to nip the corruption in the bud back then, only to be pushed out like so many others.

2024 NRA Board Election Reform Candidates Whos Who

I don’t recommend voting for anyone else on the ballot. There are a few candidates who I believe will work with us to help reform the NRA, but don’t need your vote because they will win election in any case. There is also an unfortunately large number of incumbents who have failed to take a stand against corruption and cronyism, making it impossible for me to recommend them.

As I write this, the jury in the New York case against the NRA and three of its top officials, including Wayne LaPierre, is still out. The jury has been deliberating for a full week. Verdicts could come back any time. Yes, I said “verdicts,” plural. The case is complex, with 4 defendants – LaPierre, Former Treasurer Woody Phillips, Secetary and General Counsel John Frazer, and the NRA itself, along with a wide variety of specific questions for the jury to decide for each of them. The Verdict Sheet is 17 pages long, more like a college final exam than a simple “Guilty/Not Guilty” proposition.

I fully expect the jury to find for the plaintiff on most of the charges, meaning that the NRA and its co-defendants will be facing sanctions. What exactly those sanctions might be will be decided in the next phase of the trial, in which the judge, who has been very fair throughout this case, will hold hearings before deciding how to proceed. It’s very likely that LaPierre and Phillips will be ordered to pay some restitution to the NRA, and possibly face some rather meaningless proscriptions against working for nonprofits in the future. Frazer could potentially lose his law license and be barred from some types of work. The big question is what the judge will decide to do about the NRA itself.

In previous rulings in this case, the judge has expressed some frustration with the NRA Board of Directors and officers’ failure to take any substantive actions to correct glaring problems. While they claimed in the trial to have been victims of unscrupulous executives and to have “course corrected” to keep that sort of thing from happening again, they have spent the past 5 years covering for those same executives and allowing much of the questionable behavior to continue unabated.

I think it’s very likely the judge will order some reforms and will remove some executives, officers, and other NRA “leaders,” but it’s impossible to guess just how far he might go.

I personally think it would be appropriate for him to remove all of the officers, along with the entire membership of the Executive Committee, Audit Committee, and the Finance Committee, if not the entire Board, then appoint the remaining Directors or a group of NRA state affiliate leaders to serve as an advisory committee through a reorganization process.

Meanwhile, some members have been asking about what the reform candidates are hoping to achieve with our campaigns for the Board.

Unfortunately, with so much up in the air, it’s very difficult to formulate a strategy. All we can do is try to put pieces in place and be ready to act when the judge’s decision comes down. Electing the four reform candidates could be an important piece of that puzzle.

Personally, one of my major goals is a total revamp of the Board structure. I think a Board of 9 to 15 Directors would be more effective, efficient, and responsive to the needs and desires of the membership. Further, I think those Directors should be people with specific skills and experience needed to manage a $400 million per year corporation. That would take me out of the running, as all of my business experience is limited to small businesses, not major corporations. I’d be fine with that. My father used to keep a plaque on his desk that said something like, “It’s amazing what you can achieve when you don’t care who gets the credit.” I’m a firm believer in that and would gladly step aside for better-qualified candidates to guide the NRA forward, as long as they are deeply committed to defending the core principles of the Association and restoring the critical programs that have been allowed to wither over the past 5+ years.

I’ve written in the past about the qualities I think are needed for CEO candidates and about ways I think the NRA could be effectively restructured to be more efficient and effective. I’ve asked my fellow candidates to review those articles and provide feedback. I plan to write a fairly comprehensive article on the subjects next week, incorporating their thoughts and ideas along with my own. In the meantime, I will try to answer any questions that pop up in the comment section below.

Read Related:

NRA Board Bullet Voting , What is it? Why Do It On Your NRA Member Ballot

Open Letter: To The Board Of Directors Of The National Rifle Association Of America

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/QN6JrL9
via IFTTT