My 2nd Amendment Today: 2025

Monday, February 24, 2025

WA Commerce Dept. Has Previously Provided Funds to Gun Control Group

WA Appeals Court Unanimously Upholds Preemption in SAF Lawsuit, iStock-884168778 — The Washington State Dept. of Commerce has apparently been providing public funding support to a wealthy private gun control lobbying group. iStock-884168778

Over the past two bienniums (2021-2023 and 2023-2025) the Washington State Department of Commerce has apparently provided more than $350,000 to the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group which hardly needs taxpayer support, Ammoland has learned.

Public documents available online for both bienniums show the Commerce Department provided $263,750 to the Alliance during the 2021-2023 biennium for “Grants, Benefits & Client Services” and “Goods and Services,” In the 2023-2025 biennium, Commerce provided $102,102 in public funding to the Alliance, again for “Grants, Benefits & Client Services” and in July of last year, $30,000 for “Personal Service Contracts.”

The grand total for taxpayer money—including Evergreen State gun owners who pay taxes—over the past two bienniums comes to $365,852, and that does not include the proposed expenditure of another $100,000 this year for what is being labeled by Second Amendment activists as a ‘gun control conference” in Seattle. Checking back further, there does not appear to have been earlier allocation of state funds to the Alliance.

As explained by attorney Bill Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, in a recent YouTube video, “They are using your tax dollars to disarm you.”

TheGunMag.com, an online firearms news publication owned by the Second Amendment Foundation—which does not receive funding from the Washington Commerce Department—has been probing state support for the Alliance, since the agency’s solicitation of proposals from individuals or groups to support an early June event called “Together We End Gun Violence (TWEGV).”

Up to $100,000 is available for this project, according to the solicitation, which is called a “Request for Qualifications and Quotes” (RFQQ), Ammoland reported recently.

In total, if the full amount is spent, the Commerce Department will have provided nearly a half-million dollars of public funds to a private organization whose goal is to severely restrict the public ownership of firearms, which is constitutionally protected.

In an email to the Commerce Department, TGM and Ammoland asked the following:

“Why would a private gun control organization, which is supported by wealthy donors, need state/public money for grants, benefits and client services?
“Why would the state Commerce Department provide such funding to a private group which lobbies heavily to restrict the rights of law-abiding Washington state residents guaranteed and protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution and the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution?
“Would such public funding allocations be available to groups such as the Washington State Rifle & Pistol Association, Washington Arms Collectors and the Bellevue-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?”

There was no immediate response, other than a referral to a different individual within the agency, who did not immediately respond.

Attorney Kirk, in his video, had these observations:

“When you live in a state like Washington, and they start talking about ending gun violence, what they are actually talking about is ending gun ownership.”

“What this really is, is taxpayer funded propaganda on behalf of the Washington State Democratic Party.”

“Understand this, Washington. We probably do need our own DOGE program because, right now, the Department of Commerce is about to waste $100,000 of your taxpayer money so that they can put on a propaganda event in downtown Seattle and espouse the virtues of civilian disarmament.”

As Kirk and others have repeatedly pointed out, in the Evergreen State, gun control has become a top priority of the majority Democrats in the Legislature, along with former Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee and current Governor Bob Ferguson, who was state attorney general during Inslee’s 12 years in office. Ferguson has been a close ally of the Alliance and has appeared at several events.

TheGunMag has reached out to Republican State Rep. Jim Walsh, who also chairs the State Republican Party.

One thing is clear. Since Washington began pushing increasingly restrictive gun control measures starting in 2014, the number of homicides in the state has doubled. Yet, as reported last year, the Giffords gun control state scorecard gives Washington high marks for its restrictive gun laws. The state has banned so-called “large-capacity magazines” and “assault weapons.” Both bans are now being challenged in court. The state has imposed a 10-day waiting period on all firearms transfers, effectively creating a nightmare for gun show operators, which appears to have been the intention. There is now an education and training requirement, which opponents have likened to the long-unconstitutional “literacy test” for voting. And now Washington Democrats are pushing to adopt a permit-to-purchase requirement, which critics argue is wholly unconstitutional.

Perhaps the only conclusion to be reached is that restrictive gun control laws are important, but body counts are not.

About Dave Workman

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

from https://ift.tt/vV5O0tE
via IFTTT

Bureau of Land Management Ranges Near Phoenix Require Steel Targets for Safety?

On January 4, 2025, President Joe Biden signed H.R. 6492, also known as the Explore Act. The Act contains H.R. 1614, the previous Range Access Act. The act, as passed, requires bureaucrats in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) to consider the establishment of a target shooting range in each National Forest district or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) district. This is not a difficult requirement.

In Arizona, there are only four BLM districts. Each district is much larger than some of the smaller eastern states. BLM recently constructed three shooting ranges north of Phoenix, Arizona. These ranges were constructed before the Explore Act. The current rules on these ranges are extremely restrictive.

The experience of long-term desert shooters with the building of three ranges on BLM land north of Phoenix is a cautionary tale. A significant amount of money was spent to build well-designed ranges that have minimal utility.

The only shooting allowed at the ranges is shooting at steel targets at fixed distances, mostly at long ranges. No shooters are allowed to go down range. The only targets that may be used are the steel targets provided at the fixed ranges. The steel targets are painted once a week. This does not appear to be the original plan put forward by stakeholders when they met with BLM planners prior to the construction of the ranges.

Here is a slide show/video supplied by Tony Urso showing what experienced desert shooters expect of a range open to the public. The show is about 11 minutes long. It is very well done.

The use of steel targets in fixed positions, along with the prohibition against shooters from going down range in front of the firing line at any time, prevents many normal and expected uses of public ranges. Chronographs are generally not usable because most need to be placed ahead of the firing line. Shooting at close targets under 25 yards is not possible. Testing ammunition/firearms for accuracy is extremely limited because a shooter cannot determine where they hit the target with precision. Shooting to sight in a rifle or pistol is virtually impossible for the same reason.

Steel targets were chosen as a method to prevent people from going downrange. From the blm.gov/blog:

Because the sites are operated as self-service shooting facilities, they need special management to ensure public and staff safety. Each of the sites has steel targets installed to prevent visitors from going downrange to place their own targets.

Shooters are not allowed to paint the provided steel targets.

Here is a video presentation from the Bureau of Land Management showing how the targets are made. It shows a glimpse of the BLM ranges north of Phoenix.

Tony Urso noted that when these ranges were opened, about 4000 acres of land suitable for recreational shooting adjacent to the now official ranges were closed to the public as a “safety measure.” Local managers have the authority to regulate adjacent lands for safety reasons.

BLM states an estimated 71,000 visits were made in 2023 to the 4 BLM constructed ranges near Phoenix. There are three ranges to the north of Phoenix, west of Lake Pleasant, in a roughly north-south line about four miles long. The three sites are:

Baldy Mountain Recreational Shooting Site
Church Camp Road Recreational Shooting Site
Saddleback Mountain Recreational Shooting Site

The Box Canyon Recreational Shooting Site is in Pinal County, southwest of the City of Maricopa. We would welcome reports from users of the Box Canyon site.

Sites are available six days a week, or about 312 days a year. The average estimated usage would be 71,000 divided by 4 X 312, or approximately 57 people per site per day. Some sites will be more popular than others. Weekends are probably more crowded than weekdays.

The lack of suitable facilities for pistol shooters is obvious. Pistols are designed for close-range use. Steel targets should not be shot at from close range because of the danger of backsplatter, bounce-back, and ricochet. Pistols are the most popular firearms purchased by the public.

All four sites ban shooters from going down range or from bringing their own targets. Those are site-specific rules which were not published in the federal register. The mandatory use of steel targets is a local rule that can be changed. It is a local prohibition arising from an over-abundance of caution, which precludes most traditional uses of ranges. These are the only public ranges this correspondent is aware of, which limit use to steel targets only to prevent shooters from going downrange.

The limitation of using only steel targets is an overreaction to potential dangers. The enabling legislation foresaw shooters would bring, set up, and remove their own targets. From the BLM site, rule 6:

You must only use authorized stationary targets as specified in the operating plan for each site. These targets may be made of cardboard, paper, self-healing, steel, and biodegradable clay (clay targets). All other items, such as aluminum cans, glass bottles, bowling pins, plastic bottles and other items which may leave debris, are not authorized to be used as targets. Exploding targets are prohibited. All user-supplied steel targets must be specifically designed for use with firearms and must be used at a distance of 100 yards or greater. Target frames must be designed to be reusable. The use of wooden pallets and other items not specifically designed as target frames are not authorized. All user-supplied targets, target frames, and debris must be removed from the site and disposed of properly after use and before leaving the site.

This correspondent’s experience as a bureaucrat leads to the question: was the decision to limit targets to provided steel targets primarily for the protection of the BLM decision makers? The idea seems to be that if you prohibit people from going down range, the liability of the decision-makers will be minimized. This is a pernicious idea which greatly diminishes the utility of the ranges. Thousands of people have been shooting on BLM land for decades. Accidents and injuries are minimal.

The idea of prohibiting people from safely going downrange to set up and remove targets is not a good innovation. The public BLM ranges should allow users to go downrange and use their own targets, especially for pistol shooting. Shooters at public ranges normally self-regulate this conduct by calling for a cold range to retrieve targets. Volunteers at public ranges could do the same.

As a shooter, this correspondent would have preferred less money spent on the installation of expensive chain link fencing on rough terrain. The money could have been used to provide for shade structures on the firing line. Shade, in Arizona summers, has high utility.

About Dean Weingarten:

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

from https://ift.tt/qZ3N789
via IFTTT

Make Constitutional Carry the Law of the Land in North Carolina ~ Take Action

Senate Bill 50 (“Freedom to Carry NC”) and House Bill 5 (“NC Constitutional Carry”) are in the process of becoming North Carolina law. We are so thankful to Sen.Berger and Rep Kidwell for their sponsorship and support in this pursuit.

Grass Roots North Carolina has been pivotal in this endeavor. We presented a 7,000-signature petition to Berger in a press conference at his office, and GRNC supporters sent thousands of emails to legislators.

Additional sponsors for HB 5 are Reps. Jay Adams (R-Catawba, ****), Ben Moss (R-Moore, Richmond, ****) and freshman Brian Echevarria (R-Cabarrus, ****). Additional sponsors for SB 50 are Sens. Danny Britt (R-Hoke, Robeson, Scotland, GRNC ****), Warren Daniel (R-Buncombe, Burke, McDowell ****), and Eddie Settle (R-Alexander, Surry, Wilkes, Yadkin, ****). Both bills are currently in their respective Rules, Calendar, and Operations committees.

Immediate Action Required!

IMMEDIATELY CONTACT REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP: Contact both Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger and Speaker Destin Hall to thank them for their support and urge them to give prompt committee hearings to HB 5 and SB 50. Use the links provided in the previous sentence for their contact information. Call and/or email the two leaders to thank them and to encourage them to advance these bills.
IMMEDIATELY CONTACT ALL RULES COMMITTEE REPUBLICANS: Both Rules Committees (for House and Senate) need to hear loud and clear that you want a prompt committee hearing for HB 5 and SB 50. See the contact information below.

Please send two messages. Below, find two copy-paste email lists, one for the House and one for the Senate. Below that, find the copy-paste email message.

NC HOUSE Rules Committee (copy-paste email list):

Reece.Pyrtle@ncleg.gov; Blair.Eddins@ncleg.gov; Brenden.Jones@ncleg.gov; Charles.Miller@ncleg.gov; Donna.White@ncleg.gov; Erin.Pare@ncleg.gov; Jimmy.Dixon@ncleg.gov; John.Torbett@ncleg.gov; John.Bell@ncleg.gov; Karl.Gillespie@ncleg.gov; Kelly.Hastings@ncleg.gov; Kyle.Hall@ncleg.gov; Neal.Jackson@ncleg.gov; Sarah.Stevens@ncleg.gov; Steve.Tyson@ncleg.gov; Ted.Davis@ncleg.gov; Tricia.Cotham@ncleg.gov; William.Brisson@ncleg.gov

NC SENATE Rules Committee (copy-paste email list):

Amy.Galey@ncleg.gov; Benton.Sawrey@ncleg.gov; Bill.Rabon@ncleg.gov; Brent.Jackson@ncleg.gov; Danny.Britt@ncleg.gov; Lisa.Barnes@ncleg.gov; Michael.Lazzara@ncleg.gov; Michael.Lee@ncleg.gov; Norman.Sanderson@ncleg.gov; Paul.Newton@ncleg.gov; Ralph.Hise@ncleg.gov; Todd.Johnson@ncleg.gov; Tom.McInnis@ncleg.gov; Vickie.Sawyer@ncleg.gov; Warren.Daniel@ncleg.gov

DELIVER THIS MESSAGE

Suggested Subject: “Advance Constitutional Carry Bills HB 5 & SB 50”

Dear Rules Committee Members:

As a Grass Roots North Carolina member, I thank you for your support and strongly urge you to give a prompt committee hearing to permitless or “constitutional” carry bills HB 5 and SB 50.

Fully 29 states have already adopted constitutional carry, with none of its naysayers’ dire predictions coming true. In fact, the Crime Prevention Research Center finds a small but significant reduction in violent crime among states which adopt permitless carry.

North Carolina Republicans are now lagging their counterparts in other states. Accordingly, I strongly urge you to bring constitutional carry to a prompt committee hearing and floor vote.

I will be monitoring your actions through Grass Roots North Carolina legislative alerts.

Respectfully,

NC: Mecklenburg County Sheriff McFadden Settles in Losing Gun Permit Delay Lawsuit

NC: Constitutional Carry & Phony ‘Gun Groups’ ~ Opinion

About Paul Valone

Author F. Paul Valone has been kicking leftist tail for twenty-eight years. Alarmed by the U.S. House passage of the “assault weapon” ban in 1994, he decided to take action. Finding no suitable organization, he organized a rally leading to the creation of a 501(c)(4) organization, Grass Roots North Carolina (GRNC), which remains North Carolina’s primary and most successful gun rights group to this day.

from https://ift.tt/Urkwm6j
via IFTTT

President Trump Fires ATF’s Top Lawyer, Leaves a Spot Open for A Constitutionalist

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) top lawyer has been fired by Attorney General Pam Bondi after President Donald Trump instructed the AG to investigate any cases that might have violated any American’s Second Amendment protected rights.

Former ATF Chief Counsel Pam Hicks announced on LinkedIn that she received a termination notice from the Department of Justice (DOJ). Ms. Hick has worked for the government for 28 years. She has been the darling of the anti-gun movement for her aggressive targeting of gun owners and her almost blind devotion to legally dubious ATF rules and regulations.

“Earlier today, I was served official notice from the Attorney General of the United States that I was being removed from my position as the Chief Counsel of ATF and my employment with the Department of Justice terminated,” Hicks wrote. “I have had the privilege of serving in the federal civil service for almost 28 years, including 23 as an attorney for the Department of Justice. Serving as ATF Chief Counsel has been the highest honor of my career, and working with the people at ATF and throughout the Department has been a pleasure. I thank my colleagues for their friendship and partnership over the years.”

Ms. Hicks has been the driving force of the ATF behind several high-profile legal cases. One of those cases is a challenge to the pistol brace rule, which the courts struck down. The ATF is still fighting that case, but there are signs that the Bureau might change its position. The ATF has asked for a pause in all pistol brace cases. With the dismissal of Hicks, hopes are high.

The other rules that Hicks has defended deal with bump stocks, privately manufactured firearms (PMF), and being engaged in the business of dealing firearms. The Supreme Court knocked down the Bump Stock rule. The rest of the rules have been ruled against in the courts but are still being litigated at higher-level courts. Also, a letter from 30 Senators asked the ATF to review and get rid of those rules.

She was also the Chief Counsel who cleared the way for the nearly one billion digitized records in the Martinsburg, WV, Out of Business Office. The same Congressional letter asked the ATF to destroy the records. She has been a staunch ally of anti-gun groups and their attempt to subvert the right to keep and bear arms.

Brady condemned the firing of Hicks. It accused the DOJ of bending its will to the gun industry and implementing a pro-gun extremist agenda. Brady President Kris Brown claimed that Americans are less safe with the firing and accused “industry insiders” of putting profits above lives.

“The abrupt firing of ATF Chief Counsel Hicks is chilling. It is also no secret that ATF has historically been woefully under-resourced, and we pay the price for our safety, with guns now the number one killer of children in this country. Now, with this sudden removal at the federal agency charged with preventing gun trafficking and overseeing the gun industry, we are all at greater risk.”

“Without light being shed on the sources and suppliers of gun crime in America, and enforcement of the laws designed to protect the public from gun violence, we will not be able to stem the flow of firearms that are contaminating and plaguing our nation,” he continued. “This administration’s latest move clearly demonstrates its willingness to capitulate to gun lobby interests at the expense of public safety. The American people deserve leadership at ATF that will vigorously enforce our nation’s gun laws and hold bad actors accountable — not industry insiders who will protect gun manufacturer profits over American lives. The position must be filled by someone committed to public safety, not industry profits.”

With Hicks out of the ATF, the Bureau has a chance of replacing her with a Constitutionalist that will not prioritize making millions of Americans criminals over prosecuting dangerous transnational terrorist organizations.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

from https://ift.tt/72nWuZB
via IFTTT

Saturday, February 22, 2025

Senators Demand ATF Rescind Biden Infringements

NSSF Congressional Report Card: Democrats Fail Miserably, iStock-1154438278 — Senators Demand ATF Rescind Biden Infringements, iStock-1154438278

A group of 30 Senators has sent a letter to the acting Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) head, Marvin Richardson, demanding that the Bureau stop exceeding its power.

Senator John Cornyn and 29 colleagues sent the letter after President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order demanding that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate Second Amendment abuses by the ATF. Mr. Cornyn has been heavily criticized in the past by gun owners for teaming with Democrats and passing the Bi-partisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which was a gun control bill. Many wonder if he is trying to buy goodwill with the gun community or if he is actually concerned with ATF overreach.

The letter reads: “Under former President Joe Biden, ATF adopted numerous policies and rules that infringed upon Americans’ Second Amendment protections. President Trump’s Executive Order directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to review and develop a plan of action regarding President Biden’s unlawful firearms regulations. We ask that you work with the Attorney General to quickly identify and rescind these policies. In particular, we call your attention to the following anti-Second Amendment regulations and policies, which must be immediately rescinded.”

BREAKING

30 Senators demand ATF rescind Biden infringements pursuant to Executive Order 14206, including:

Engaged in the Business Rule
Frame & Receiver Rule
Pistol Brace Rule
Zero Tolerance Policy

It also calls for the deletion of @ATFHQ‘s illegal gun registry. pic.twitter.com/tpRkxPzZpK

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) February 20, 2025

The first rule that the Senators want to be reversed is the “engaged in the business” rule. Under the Biden Administration, the ATF issued a rule that almost all firearms transfers require a federal firearm license (FFL). Even selling as little as a single gun could mean a person is “engaged in the business” in the eyes of the ATF. Many called this rule a thinly veiled attempt at backdoor universal background checks (UBC). UBCs was one of President Biden’s goals, but he was unsuccessful due to resistance in Congress. He used the rule-making process to accomplish his goals. Currently, there is a preliminary injunction against the rule.

The second rule under the Congressional microscope is the pistol brace rule. The ATF used the rule-making process to reclassify pistols equipped with a brace as short-barreled rifles (SBR). Gun owners would have to register their pistols with the ATF National Firearms Act (NFA) division and pay a $200 tax stamp. The rule reversed years of ATF opinions and affected millions of Americans. An injunction currently blocks the rule from being enforced.

The third rule is the so-called “ghost gun” rule. This rule reclassified what is considered a firearm and regulated certain parts of guns, such as unfinished frames, as firearms requiring a serial number to be sold. This move was meant to kill the privately made firearms (PMF) rule, but with advancements in 3D printing, the homemade firearms community has survived. The rule has been blocked at the Circuit Court level, although the United States Supreme Court placed that judgment on an administrative stay. SCOTUS has heard oral arguments in Vanderstok v. Garland, and the community is awaiting their opinion on the matter.

The Senators also ask the ATF to rescind its “zero-tolerance” policies. The ATF has used the policy to shut down FFLs nationwide for violations such as a simple clerical error. One Industry Operation Inspector (IOI) purportedly wrote that he loved shutting down gun shops on social media. The process was weaponized under the Biden administration to attack the firearms industry. Several cases are taking place nationwide, trying to block the policy.

The final action the letter demands the ATF do is destroy its illegal registry located at the Out of Business Office in Martinsburg, WV, during an investigation into Walmart turning over 1000s of ATF Form 4473s to the Bureau. AmmoLand was able to determine that these records were being digitized. Further inquiries from Congress revealed that the ATF had almost 1,000,000,000 records scanned.

Gun owners celebrated the action by Congress. Now, those same Americans must wait to see how the ATF responds.

About John Crump

from https://ift.tt/mOk0We4
via IFTTT

ATF’s Poorly Trained ‘Operators’ Are a Threat to Public Safety

This excellent article from Feb 10, 2025 appears here with fresh updates.

The training course for ATF’s Special Response Team is only two weeks long.

Selection, training and leadership are vital to any special operations team, regardless of their size or mission parameters. The more rigorous the selection process, the more comprehensive the training, the more professional the leadership, the better the unit will perform.

Delta Force’s Operators Training Course, for example, is six months long, and teaches advanced CQB, precision marksmanship, counterterrorism and a host of esoteric skills needed by Delta operators to meet their worldwide mission requirements. OTC is only open to candidates who survive Delta’s arduous Selection and Assessment phase.

DEVGRU’s Green Team selection and training course is also six months long, and only Navy SEALs who have completed BUDS and spent at last five years on an SDV or SEAL team can apply.

MARSOC Raider candidates must complete a nine-month course, known as the Marine Special Operations Individual Course, or ITC. MARSOC Officers must also attend a four-week Team Commanders Course after they graduate ITC.

Army Special Forces candidates can spend six months to two years training before they earn an SF tab and a Green Beret, and the pipeline for Air Force special operators can take 15 months to two years.

Special Agents who want to join the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team must pass the New Operator Training School, which is 10 months long and extremely easy to fail.

United States Secret Service Counter Assault Team (CAT) members undergo a two-week selection course and then a seven-week basic training program. Secret Service snipers must pass a one-week selection process and then a 10-week sniper training course.

Candidates for Border Patrol’s Tactical Unit (BORTAC) undergo a three-week selection course and then a six-week training course before being assigned to a sector team. After a year, they can apply to join BORTAC’s elite national team.

By comparison, training for ATF’s Special Response Teams takes only two weeks, and ATF agents call themselves “operators” after they’ve completed the course.

Poor leadership

ATF refers to its SRT teams as “elite tactical groups.”

According to a September 2020 report from the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) titled “Federal Tactical Teams: Characteristics, Training, Deployments, and Inventory,” ATF’s Special Response Team was created in 1989 and has 114 members. From 2015 to 2019, the SRT was deployed 886 times. More than 85% of the deployments were to execute arrest and/or search warrants.

“Their work includes search and arrest warrants, high-risk criminal investigations, undercover operations, surveillance operations, and protective service operations,” ATF states on its website.

ATF claims SRT’s two-week training course is an “intensive program,” during which SRT candidates “learn specialized skills such as marksmanship, manipulation of numerous weapon systems, individual and team tactical movement, tactical medicine, chemical agent deployment, use of less-lethal weapon systems, armored vehicle operations, surveillance, helicopter operations and operational planning. SRTs also participate in rigorous activities such as defensive tactics, breaching, rappelling, fast-roping, rural patrolling and operations.”

Anyone with even a modicum of tactical knowledge must scoff at these claims. There is no way any federal law enforcement agency can sufficiently teach its agents all of these techniques and bring them to acceptable skill levels in just two weeks. Tactical movement alone takes far more time to train and master, and what ATF calls “marksmanship” is nothing much beyond their standard qualification.

ATF public relations officials posted a chilling interview on their website of Gerry Arena, an SRT team commander. Arena touts his team’s skills and stresses the dangerous nature of the criminals they encounter, but then he says the scary part out loud.

“Because we are a fully functioning tactical unit our team stays intact. We will never ever incorporate a member from an outside agency into our stack,” Arena said.

It is clear ATF doesn’t understand how truly bad their SRT teams are. In fact, they think they’re pretty good – fully functioning tactical units.

Sadly, the whole world now knows the truth – how poorly ATF’s SRT performs when called upon.

On March 19, members of ATF’s Region 3 SRT, which is headquartered in Dallas, conducted an early morning raid of Bryan Malinowski’s home in West Little Rock. A gunfight ensued, caused by ATF’s poor choice of raid tactics. An ATF agent who has never been named shot Malinowski in the head with his carbine. Malinowski, a 53-year-old airport executive with no prior criminal history, died of his wounds two days later. His family insists Malinowski didn’t know he was trading gunfire with federal agents. Instead, they say he thought he was defending himself and his wife from armed home invaders.

Not one member of ATF’s SRT wore a bodycam during the search warrant execution, which is contrary to ATF’s policy. To date, no one from ATF has made any statement about Malinowski’s killing, other than to say he fired first.

This is the latest example of the poor leadership of ATF’s teams. Real leadership is accountable. Real leaders take the blame when mistakes are made. And to be clear, ATF made a lot of mistakes that led to Malinowski’s killing, yet the team leaders remain mum.

Sara Abel, public information officer for ATF’s Dallas Field Division did not return calls seeking comment about the fatal raid.

Operators?

There is a lack of consensus even among the special operations community about who deserves the title: Operator. Some say only members of our Tier One units Delta and DEVGRU deserve the title, but this would leave out MARSOC Raiders, the majority of Navy SEALs, Army Special Forces, Air Force special operators and a whole bunch of Rangers.

Most special operators don’t care too much about the title. Besides, operator is a mindset, it’s not a tab or a badge, but one this is crystal clear: ATF SRT members are not operators. Their use of the term is an insult. They’re hardly even law enforcement. They are thugs with guns – poseurs in pricey Crye MultiCam – paid for by your taxpayer dollars. They are hammers who view every law-abiding gun owner as a nail.

Given their poor training and complete lack of professional leadership, it is only a matter of time before an SRT member kills another innocent American citizen in their home.

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.

Lee Williams

from https://ift.tt/6R9AP1k
via IFTTT

Friday, February 21, 2025

Study on What Americans Would Pay to Stop ‘Gun Violence’ Built on Flawed Assumptions

guns money iStock-515708952 — If we’re going to spend money, spend it wisely. IMG iStock-515708952

“Americans willing to pay nearly $100 billion to reduce gun violence,” the headline from a Tuesday announcement from Duke University of findings published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claims. “A new study finds that Americans are willing to pay nearly $100 billion for policies that reduce gun violence by 20%, underscoring the widespread desire for stronger intervention.”

The “research” is the brainchild of Philip J. Cook and Marc Jeuland of Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy and Jens Ludwig of the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy that “uses a nationally representative survey to measure willingness to pay (WTP) for gun violence prevention programs. The findings show that there is widespread support from Americans of all stripes to invest financially in solutions.”

Their conclusion?

“Households are willing to pay an average of $744 annually for a 20% reduction in gun violence, totaling $97.6 billion nationwide.”

All that’s left is to figure out how to do that, and the affinity for “gun control” advocated by the “study” authors is a good indicator of why they won’t recommend investing in freedom solutions instead of financial ones. Because Americans are already invested up to our necks, and it isn’t working.

Think of all the taxes we pay at the federal, state, and municipal levels for government that has the prime directive to protect life, liberty, and property, and then look at how many agents and agencies are actively working against all three. Throw more money into that? What’s the definition of insanity, again?

The authors’ presumption is that the “wider desire [is] for stronger intervention.” More police? The “Only Ones”? With higher rates of suicide than the general public, and higher rates of criminality than concealed carry permit holder? And none of whom have an actual duty to protect for which they can be legally held liable should they fail…?

For $744, you can get a pretty reliable handgun, shotgun, or rifle and some ammunition for it. And there are plenty of gun groups eager to provide training for nominal costs.

One example, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s “First Shots” program offers seminars in most states (scroll down the linked page and click on the interactive map) that provide “An educational introduction to the safe and recreational use of firearms; A clear understanding of the local requirements for owning and purchasing a firearm; Individual and group training; A rundown of shooting sports opportunities for all levels of interest [and] A chance to give shooting a try!”

Do you want to reduce “school shootings”? Look at all the money on “hardening” schools, including on school resource officers and “first responders” (with the most “famous” ones notorious for sheltering themselves instead of the children they’re deployed to protect). Then look at FASTER training (Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response) and realize:

“There have been no shooting attacks in schools where teachers can legally carry guns.”

That’s a heck of a lot more than 20%.

What’s to stop any of this? In a word, Democrats.

They’re the ones who push citizen disarmament. They’re the ones who make carry permits hard to get, and out of reach for lower income Americans. They’re the ones whose catch-and-release policies put career criminals back onto the streets where they easily bypass all the prior restraints the “law abiding” must overcome before obtaining a gun. They’re the ones conjoined with teachers’ unions that are the loudest and shrillest opponents of defending themselves and their charges.

Don’t look for the new “study” to tell you any of this. Its grant-funded ivory tower eggheads are too busy trying to convince us to keep doing what experience shows us will never work—throwing money at government hoping it will relieve us of our individual duties and responsibilities as “We the People” to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

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.

David Codrea

from https://ift.tt/20Hug9t
via IFTTT

Your Right to Hunt: A Core Part of the 2nd Amendment ~ DEEP DIVE

This Deep Dive is based on the excellent document “Heller, History, and Hunting by Charles W. Welch ” (embedded below), which was published in association with the Firearms Research Center.

EOTECH Vudu 3.5-18x50 SFP Rifle Scope is the Top Choice for Big Game Hunters — File Photo: EOTECH Vudu 3.5-18×50 SFP Rifle Scope

The Second Amendment protects our right to keep and bear arms—but does that include the right to hunt?

Common Use & Lawful Purpose: The paper interprets Heller and Bruen to affirm the right to arms in common use for lawful purposes, including hunting.
Two-Step Framework:
- Is the arm in common use today?
  Is the purpose currently or traditionally lawful?
  - If both are met, the right exists.
“In Common Use” Defined: The existence of multiple millions of rifles intended explicitly for hunting confers in common use.
Hunting as Lawful Purpose: Hunting is historically and legally recognized as a lawful reason for keeping and bearing arms, with no state prohibiting it.
Historical Regulations: Hunting laws have never outright banned seasonal hunting with commonly used arms in appropriate locations.

Some might argue that hunting is just a hobby, something separate from the core of the Second Amendment’s protections. But that’s a misunderstanding of both history and Supreme Court precedent.

Hunting isn’t just an old American tradition; it’s a lawful purpose for owning and using firearms, deeply rooted in our history and protected by the Second Amendment.

Heller Decision & Common Use

When the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, it made clear that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “in common use” for lawful purposes. The Court focused on self-defense, but that wasn’t an exclusive list. Hunting, as Charles Welch points out in his analysis, is a lawful purpose that has always been part of American gun ownership. The logical extension of Heller is simple: if a firearm is commonly used for hunting, then the right to own and use that firearm is protected under the Second Amendment.

This is reinforced by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which clarified that Second Amendment rights must be evaluated based on text, history, and tradition. Historical records show that Americans have always used firearms for hunting, and hunting regulations have generally accepted that citizens have a right to use arms for this purpose.

Historical Foundations: Hunting & the Right to Bear Arms

Hunting wasn’t just a pastime in early America—it was necessary for survival. The Founding Fathers recognized this, and state constitutions dating back to the 18th century enshrined protections for hunting. Vermont’s Constitution, for example, explicitly protected the right to hunt as early as 1777. Even Pennsylvania’s constitutional debates included discussions about adding hunting to its right-to-bear-arms provision.

While the U.S. Constitution doesn’t explicitly mention hunting, it doesn’t have to. The Founders wrote the Second Amendment to protect arms for lawful uses, and history shows that hunting was always one of them.

If the right to bear arms includes self-defense, militia service, and sport shooting, it certainly includes hunting as well.

Modern Threats to Hunting Rights

Some politicians and gun control activists try to divide FUD hunters from other gun owners, arguing that certain firearms aren’t “necessary” for hunting. This tactic is a backdoor attempt to limit Second Amendment rights by picking and choosing which firearms they believe should be protected.

This is where Welch’s argument about “common use” becomes critical. If 200,000 stun guns in circulation were enough for the Supreme Court to consider them in common use (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 2016), then millions of modern rifles and shotguns used for hunting absolutely qualify. Attempts to ban semi-automatic rifles—many of which are used for hunting—ignore this legal reality.

Beyond firearm bans, some government agencies are also trying to limit the types of ammunition or hunting areas available to the public. These restrictions are just as dangerous to Second Amendment rights. If the government can regulate hunting into oblivion, it weakens the broader right to bear arms.

Why This Matters for All Gun Owners

Gun owners—whether they’re hunters, competitors, or self-defense advocates—need to stick together. The fight against gun control can not just be about AR-15s or concealed carry permits; it’s about protecting all lawful uses of firearms. If hunting can be restricted, then it sets the stage for further restrictions on self-defense and sport shooting.

The Second Amendment is more than militias or self-defense—it protects the right to own firearms for all lawful purposes, including hunting. That’s what history tells us, and that’s what the Supreme Court has reaffirmed. It’s time for hunters to recognize that their rights are at stake and stand with the rest of the Second Amendment community.

If we don’t protect the right to hunt today, we risk losing more than just our hunting rifles—we risk losing a fundamental piece of our American freedom.

Heller, History, and Hunting By Charles W. Welch

Assault Weapons: Federal & State Regulations in Light of Bruen ~ DEEP DIVE

Rediscovering the Second Amendment: A Call to Arms for Common Defense ~ DEEP DIVE

from https://ift.tt/v4k0riH
via IFTTT

Thursday, February 20, 2025

Media Bias Alert: The Daily Mail Gets LGBTQ Gun Ownership Incredibly Wrong

Opinion

DAILYMAIL.COM LGBTQ people reveal outrageous reason they're buying guns screengrab 2-20-202 — DAILYMAIL.COM LGBTQ people reveal outrageous reason they’re buying guns screengrab 2-20-202

A recent Daily Mail article, “LGBTQ people reveal outrageous reason they’re buying guns,” makes it sound like LGBTQ folks picking up firearms is some shocking new thing.

Spoiler alert: It’s NOT. The gun community has always been diverse, and shooting sports have never cared about your gender or who you date. But instead of acknowledging that, this inflamtory article twists LGBTQ gun ownership into some big political drama.

Ironically, it’s actually creating the division it claims to be exposing.

Clickbait & Fearmongering

Let’s start with the headline. “Outrageous reason”—seriously? What’s outrageous about self-defense? The right to bear arms applies to everyone, and LGBTQ people are no exception. The article acts like they/them are only now discovering the Second Amendment because of conservative policies, but groups like the Pink Pistols have been around for decades. This isn’t some sudden political reaction; it’s just people realizing their right to protect themselves.

Separating Gun Owners for No Reason

One of the worst parts of this article is how it treats LGBTQ gun owners like they’re some brand-new, separate category. They’re not. Gun ownership has always been about personal protection, self-reliance, and sport—not political identity. The Second Amendment is for everyone. But by carving LGBTQ gun owners out as a special case, the media fuels division instead of just recognizing them as part of the broader firearms community.

It’s unnecessary, divisive, hurtfull and counterproductive.

Double Standards on Guns

Here’s where the media’s bias really shows: If a conservative buys a gun because they’re worried about crime or government overreach, the media calls them paranoid. But when LGBTQ individuals do the same thing, suddenly, it’s then totally understandable?

That’s a complete double standard. Self-defense is self-defense—why does it matter who’s holding the gun?

Ignoring the Bigger Picture

The article barely mentions the real reasons why anyone—LGBTQ or not—might want to buy a gun. Crime rates are up, police response times are getting worse, and many people just don’t feel safe anymore. Instead, the article focuses entirely on politics, ignoring the fact that the surge in gun ownership spans all demographics.

Gun Control Nonsense Slipped In

Even though the article is supposedly about more people arming up for self-defense, it still sneaks in anti-gun arguments. It throws out the usual claims about guns leading to more suicides and homicides—while completely ignoring the fact that armed citizens also prevent crimes, including hate crimes, every day. If the piece truly respected LGBTQ gun owners’ decisions, it wouldn’t undermine their choice with scare tactics.

Bottom Line: Stop Making This a Political Identity Issue

This Daily Mail article is a perfect example of how the failed and deceitful media warps reality. Gun ownership isn’t about being liberal or conservative, straight or gay—it’s about a fundamental right. By trying to frame LGBTQ gun owners as some new phenomenon, the article does more harm than good. Instead of dividing people, they should recognize that the right to bear arms belongs to everyone.

The gun community has always been open to those who value self-defense—no labels required.

Live Inventory Price Checker

Bersa Thunder 380 Auto (ACP) 3.5in Black/Pink Pistol - 8+1 Rounds - Pink	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 289.99
Walther Arms P22Q .22 LR 3.42" Bbl RAL4003 Hot Pink Pistol w/(2) 10rd Mags 5120756	EuroOptic.com	$ 319.99
Bersa Thunder 380 Auto (ACP) 3.5in Black/Pink Pistol - 8+1 Rounds - Pink	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 309.99
FMK 9C1 G2 9mm Luger 4in Pink Pistol - 10+1 Rounds - Pink	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 289.99

NSSF: The Second Amendment is for Everyone

Sharyn Hinchcliffe This Time on Riding Shotgun With Charlie #110 ~ VIDEO

Thomas Conroy is a firearms aficionado and writer who lives in the Midwest.

from https://ift.tt/GkS8eVb
via IFTTT

Gun Control Lawmaker Makes Actual Threats of Public Violence in Congress

Opinion By Larry Keane

Will Noty Comply American Flag Militia Confiscation AdobeStock_Tomasz Zajda 110451903 — AdobeStock_Tomasz Zajda

Congressman Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) reminded the country last week why the Second Amendment is so vital to the United States.

The former Long Beach mayor called on the Democratic Party to “bring actual weapons” in the “fight for democracy.”

Those are chilling and dangerous words coming from a lawmaker who wants to strip every law-abiding citizen of their rights to keep and bear arms. Rep. Garcia made the call-to-action at the same time he used derogatory language to belittle Elon Musk, who has been heading up President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The remarks weren’t the product of heated and passionate debate. He planned them. Rep Garcia brought a poster-sized photo of Musk to the hearing, referring to the image as a “d— pic.”

After that, he doubled down. On both his foul language and his call to arms.

“I think [Musk is] also harming the American public in an enormous way,” Rep. Garcia told CNN’s host Brianna Keilar, according to Fox News. “And what I think is really important and what the American public want is for us to bring actual weapons to this bar fight. This is an actual fight for democracy, for the future of this country.”

The Left is running like roaches with the light on over @DOGE. @RepRobertGarcia went far beyond the pale last night, calling for weapons to be used against @ElonMusk.

This won’t be ignored. We’re making an example out of him. pic.twitter.com/wK8SLGN4J8

— Rep. Nancy Mace (@RepNancyMace) February 13, 2025

‘Incite Violence’

The row is rooted in President Trump’s slashing of the federal workforce, a promise he made on the campaign trail. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.) wasn’t standing for it. She quickly introduced a censure resolution saying “violence, threats of violence, or attempts to incite violence against Federal employees should not be tolerated in the House of Representatives.”

“The Left is running like roaches with the light on over @DOGE,” Rep. Mace posted on X. “@RepRobertGarcia went far beyond the pale last night, calling for weapons to be used against @ElonMusk. This won’t be ignored. We’re making an example out of him.”

Rep. Garcia dismissed anyone considering taking him at his work for American citizens to heed his call and take up arms for his agenda.

“Obviously, I was using a figure of speech,” Rep. Garcia told The Long Beach Post.

Except he wasn’t. And he didn’t. Rep. Garcia said he wanted the Democratic Party to “bring actual weapons.” Then, he doubled down on it.

This might be the first time Rep. Garcia has indicated any support for private firearm ownership. He’s in favor of banning Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and banning adults under 21 from possessing a firearm. He also wants so-called “universal background checks” which would require a national firearm registry to work and would be very convenient that Rep. Garcia would know exactly who owned what firearms and where they are stored. Rep. Garcia wants to institute a federal licensing system. That would be even more convenient because he could ensure only those who support his political agenda would be approved.

Sound Orwellian enough? Not for Rep. Garcia. He wants people to “bring actual weapons” in his fight against President Trump and those carrying out his agenda. That’s an actual threat of war. Pitting Americans against a duly-elected president and the administration carrying out that president’s agenda – and the duly-elected Congress and the judiciary – isn’t only maniacal. It’s the very definition of tyranny.

Second Amendment Solution

That’s exactly why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights – to protect the citizens against a tyrannical government. The Framers drafted the Bill of Rights – including the Second Amendment – after throwing off a tyrannical government that kicked off their oppression by ignoring the will of the people it governed and attempted to seize their arms.

James Madison drafted the Second Amendment and is also believed to have drafted Federalist 51, in which he famously wrote, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.”

But Madison recognized then what we’re seeing today. Those representing us in Congress are no angels. The Second Amendment is the guardrail against that by telling the government what it cannot do. The biggest check on a tyrannical government is an armed citizenry. It literally says it in the text – see the part about being necessary for the security of a free State.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This isn’t the first time a sitting Member of Congress – or even a president – threatened war against U.S. citizens who dare to exercise their freedoms. Rep. Eric Swalwell did it in 2018. President Biden did it as recently as 2024. Both times, they were in response to calls to ban guns from those who obey the law.

Get that? They threaten to break laws to seize the guns that Americans would use to guard against a tyrannical government that threatens war against gun owners. Does that sound as crazy as it seems? Well, that’s because it is.

These same lawmakers scratch their heads and wonder why NSSF and others won’t “compromise” with their gun-grabbing schemes.

That violent rhetoric shouldn’t be tolerated. Not in the streets and certainly not in the U.S. Capitol by a sitting member of Congress. However, true to form, those who want to steal away gun rights from law-abiding Americans are particularly verbose in threatening war when it suits their political agenda.

https://ift.tt/36kVKhN

Another Democrat Gun Grabber Calls for Political Violence, This Time with ‘Actual Weapons’

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

from https://ift.tt/Dznu2qJ
via IFTTT

Gun Owners Need More Rules? In This Case, Yes!

Some rules can be used against freedom prohibitionists. (F. Paul Valone)

“Sometimes, the first step in getting involved in grassroots advocacy can be the most daunting one, but the fact remains: There is no one in your life more important to protecting your rights than you.” That’s the first sentence in my endorsement of freedom advocate and Grassroots North Carolina President F. Paul Valone’s Rules for ANTI-Radicals: A Practical Handbook for Defeating Leftism.

Rules for ANTI-Radicals: A Practical Handbook for Defeating Leftism

Valone shows how to use the tactics of the left against them and does it in an instructive and engaging way. Most readers here will get the title’s nod to “community organizer” Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The book was the subject of Hillary Clinton’s senior thesis at Wellesley College and acknowledges “Lucifer” as “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom.”

Suffice it to say Valone’s Rules for ANTI-Radicals pursues the different goals of advancing truth and freedom instead of the collectivist descent into hell on earth.

Endorsements aren’t things I give out lightly and I never offer insincere praise. So, I mean it when I say:

“Paul Valone has written a very important primer that helps all of us recognize where we can best fit our talents and goals to beat the control freaks and prohibitionists at their own game, and that makes that first step a lot easier: Read this book. You’ll know what to do next.”

AmmoLand has already published a publicity release for the book, including an enthusiastic interview on Tom Gresham’s Gun Talk, so I’m not alone in thinking this “user manual” is something special. Rather than repeat what’s already been said there, let’s instead look at some of the topics Valone explores and explains.

He starts out with a “Boot Camp for Conservative Activists,” introducing the reader to what Alinsky was about and then dissecting what “liberals” are – and aren’t, how they “bludgeon you into submission,” and how to “beat [them] at their own game.”

Valone then defines “the basics,” the “tools and tactics” activists have at their disposal to engage in grassroots economic, political/electoral, legislative, and legal actions. He explains how to organize and mobilize, two essential functions the left has mastered, and which “conservatives” had better learn how to emulate, followed by two more necessary capabilities, fundraising and media management.

All are comprehensively covered by someone who has spent decades learning and perfecting all the disciplines and methods that he shares. Think of what it has taken for him to lead a statewide group, the knowledge, the discipline, and the force of will needed to keep the leftists at bay and then to make advances against subversion that metastasizes through corrupted media and establishment agendas.

This is a college-level class on how to fight, and taking it makes us all the more knowledgeable and prepared to win. Valone knows what he’s talking about and explains it all in a way that’s easy to follow and interesting. He supplements it throughout with graphics, charts, and appendices, making this not just an instruction manual, but an authoritative reference that activists will want to keep nearby for when the innumerable questions arise that Rules for Anti-Radicals has ready answers to.

Where should you best apply your skills and efforts? That’s up to you. If you haven’t already found a personally rewarding way to advance your interests and the rights of those you love, there’s no better way to identify how to get involved than by learning what the tactics that work are.

Maybe you already know where you fit in, find it fulfilling, and are good at it. As I ended my endorsement, “for those of us already along the path, this book is an invaluable resource to help guide our efforts for maximum effect.”

You can get a copy either from Amazon or, an autographed copy through the Rules for ANTI-Radicals website.

Giffords Propagandist Plays Word Games to Agitate for Magazine Ban

Very Real Potential for ‘Existential’ EMP Attack Highlights Suicidal Short-Sightedness of Gun Banners