Gun Owners in Embattled States Beg for Bondi’s ‘2A Task Force’ Attention

Gun owners are reacting to the announcement of a DOJ ‘Second Amendment Task Force.’ (Dave Workman)

No sooner did Attorney General Pam Bondi’s memorandum announcing the creation of a Second Amendment Task Force become public than social media erupted with messages from gun owners in embattled Democrat-dominated states expressing hope for Justice Department attention.

Bondi’s memo to DOJ employees declared, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

Quite possibly the most energetic reactions came from Washington state, where gun owners are presently under direct attack by the Legislature. Within a couple of hours of the story being reported at The Gun Mag (formerly GUN WEEK), more than 125 people had read about Bondi’s announcement, and many had left comments on the order of, “We need this in Washington state,” and “PLEASE come to WA.”

One respondent named Matt Occhione said he “Can’t wait till Pam Bondi shows up in the state of Washington and introduce(s) our government to the federal constitution!”

In Florida, one fellow responding to the story posted on Florida Carry’s Facebook page declared, “I love it!”

A reader responding to the same story link at the New York S.C.O.P.E. Facebook page suggested that Bondi “should have a chat with (New York Gov.  Kathy) Hochul! Bring Tom Homan with her!”

Another respondent on yet another Facebook site suggested, “Anti-gun groups exist to deprive people of their constitutional rights. That’s a federal crime. They should be prosecuted under the RICO statute, imprisoned and all assets seized.”

Clearly, Second Amendment activists across the landscape are delighted and energized by the news from Bondi and the DOJ. Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, released a statement hailing the announcement.

“This is the news we’ve been waiting for,” Gottlieb said. “From the wording of Attorney General Bondi’s memo, it looks like ‘gloves off’ time may have finally arrived. It marks a significant, and welcome change at the Department of Justice, because it is clear we now have leadership in place which treats gun owners as allies instead of antagonists.

“It’s great to have a Department of Justice defending Second Amendment rights,” he said, “instead of attacking them.”

Not only could the DOJ task force likely go after laws already passed and others facing certain enactment in Washington, but there would be fertile ground in neighboring Oregon, farther south in California, and in several other states in the east. The one thing they all have in common is a Democrat-controlled legislature and anti-gun Democrats in the respective governors’ offices and the offices of Attorneys General.

In his remarks, CCRKBA’s Gottlieb recalled how the Joe Biden administration “declared war” on the Second Amendment and this nation’s gun owners, by some estimates numbering between 85 and 100 million. It started almost immediately after Biden was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2021, and it continued throughout his four-year term, either at his direction or that of his subordinates.

That much was intimated in another CCRKBA statement reacting to the Trump administration’s reversal of Biden’s “zero-tolerance policy” toward even minor paperwork errors by federally licensed firearms dealers.

“Joe Biden, and whoever was guiding his anti-gun agenda while he suffered from diminished capacities, clearly intended to treat gun rights as regulated privileges,” Gottlieb stated at the time. “Their disdain for gun owners, gun shows and neighborhood retailers was well-established, and by trashing Biden’s Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy, the new administration continues to treat America’s Second Amendment community as allies, rather than enemies.”

Just where and how the DOJ’s Second Amendment Task Force will direct its attention remains to be seen, but the announcement is considered by many to be an affirmation of his campaign promises to protect the Second Amendment, and his executive action in March setting Bondi on the course she now appears to be following zealously.

One thing is clear, however. Bondi has all of the key players involved in this effort: FBI, ATF, the DOJ’s Office of the Solicitor General, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division.

What signal should this be sending to state officials who have been laboring feverishly to adopt the most stringent gun control laws ever? Karma may be on the horizon, and beleaguered gun owners from coast to coast are anxious for relief.

RELATED

• DOJ Announces Second Amendment Task Force

---

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/mlzHd9s
via IFTTT

Leak Reveals Deputy Marvin Richardson Forced Out at ATF

Screenshot From ATF Page Showing Richardson and Dettelbach

Long-time Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director Marvin Richardson has been dismissed from his post after being forced to retire. His other option was to be forcibly removed from his position.

Richardson served in the ATF for decades under multiple Presidents. Previously, he was Acting Director from 2021 to 2022. Richardson was the driving force behind the ATF’s war on pistol braces and privately manufactured firearms (PMFs). In 2020, AmmoLand News learned through a source inside the ATF that Richardson and then acting head Regina Lombardo met with the Biden Transition team without the knowledge of President Trump to discuss the ATF’s focus. Mr. Richardson was particularly interested in going after the stabilizing devices.

Even before the meeting with the Biden transition team, Mr. Richardson had been no fan of pistols equipped with braces, which he saw as a National Firearms Act (NFA) loophole. At his direction, ATF’s enforcement side issued cease and desist letters to Q, LLC, regarding its Honey Badger pistol, which was equipped with an SB Tactical brace. The ATF claimed that the Honey Badger was a short-barreled rifle (SBR) even though it was classified as a pistol by ATF standards. ATF’s enforcement side issued the letters even though the Trump Justice Department (DOJ) had ordered ATF’s industry side not to move on pistol braces. Q, LLC wasn’t the only company to receive a letter; multiple companies producing braced pistols also received them. But eventually, the ATF was forced to back down after pressure from the Trump DOJ.

Before President Biden took office, Richardson complained that the ATF didn’t have the “political capital” to go after pistol braces, but he was hopeful that it would have the political capital once Biden started issuing anti-gun proclamations. Mr. Richardson was right. After Biden entered office, the President ordered the ATF to change the pistol braces and PMF rules. Sources say the White House used the meeting between the Biden transition team and the ATF to develop their anti-gun road map.

Mr. Richardson has been the latest removal under the Trump Justice Department. Earlier, ATF Chief Counsel Pam Hicks was removed. Ms. Hicks was the darling of the anti-gun movement for targeting of Second Amendment rights. Under Richardson and Hicks, the ATF targeted the firearms industry with new questionable regulations and oversaw the prosecution of Americans for questionable “crimes.”

During Richardson’s reign, the ATF was a political tool instead of a law enforcement and regulatory agency. Under Richardson’s leadership, the ATF also targeted gun dealerships with its non-defunct zero-tolerance policies that saw a 500% increase in Federal Firearms License (FFL) revocations. That policy has been rolled back. Other anti-gun policies also seem to be on the chopping block thanks to President Trump’s executive order on Second Amendment Rights.

Mr. Richardson’s departure is seen as a positive step for Second Amendment Rights. Mr. Richardson was a career bureaucrat who put politics over the rights of Americans. With Hicks and Richardson out, many wonder who will be next on the chopping block? A replacement is expected to be announced later today.

Daniel Driscoll to Be Named New ATF Acting Director

Unaccountable ATF Heads Colluding With Biden Transition Team to Ban Pistol Braces

Remember That Time ATF Suddenly Withdrew Guidance on Stabilizing Braces!?

---

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/VFsi0tQ
via IFTTT

Former Sailor Discusses his 20-year Prison Sentence, the ATF and his Hope for the Future

Former Sailor Discusses his 20-year Prison Sentence, the ATF and his Hope for the Future IMG: iStock-1245041394

Former U.S. Navy sailor Patrick “Tate” Adamiak is about to finish his third year in federal prison. He has 17 more years to go. The ATF and a federal prosecutor, who died several weeks ago, saw to that.

Adamiak’s horrific saga is finally becoming more well known, which is good. He needs a presidential pardon. In fact, the pardon list should start with him. The 31-year-old even plans to reenlist in the Navy if he gets out.

To be clear, Adamiak bought and sold gun parts through a website he created. Nothing he owned or sold was illegal, which the ATF discovered only after they searched his home. To save their careers, the ATF turned to their ringer, Firearms Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Bodell.

Through his testimony, which was nothing but lies and untruths, Bodell actually turned Adamiak’s toys into firearms, legal RPGs into destructive devices and 100% legal semi-autos into machineguns.

Adamiak was willing to answer questions Monday afternoon about his life and his ongoing legal drama. The interview was conducted by phone.

Monday was also the three-year anniversary of the SWAT team raid on his home.

How are you doing?

“I am doing as good as I can be for being in prison, but I make the most of it. I’m using my time productively, working on classes, staying physically fit and working toward proving my innocence. I have been taking an electrical certification program and doing a paralegal certification course with a college out of Pennsylvania. I’ve already completed several other courses on the building and construction trade.”

How do you spend your days?

“Normally, I wake up early around 6 a.m. Then, it depends on if I’m working or if I have classes. I’ll get myself together, make breakfast, usually oatmeal and coffee. I live with 12 other people in the cell, in bunk beds. I get along with everybody. They’re annoying, disgusting and gross, but we get along. It’s incredibly crowded. We’re packed in here like sardines.”

You broke no law but were found guilty and sentenced to 20 years. How do you deal with the unfairness of your conviction?

“It’s troubling. I believe when they think of the justice system, they think they built it so stuff like this can’t happen. I know I’m innocent and eventually I will be exonerated and released. I was doing well in my life. This was a life reset. It has taught me new values and enhanced other values. Before, I was so go, go, go. I focused solely on the military. I didn’t take as much time as I should have for friends and family. This put new perspective in my life. Friends and family became more valuable. I will not take them for granted as much as I did in the past. After all this nonsense and the hell I’ve been through, I know I will get more out of life in the future.”

How do you handle it mentally?

“I’m comfortable being uncomfortable, which I learned in the military. I just keep in mind this is a phase, and this is something I have to get through. I know I won’t be spending all 20 years in here. I don’t try to dwell on what happened. I try and be as productive as possible. I believe most successful people in the world do go through hardships, so it’s making me more resilient and tougher.”

What is the status of your appeal?

“Just recently, my appeal was in abeyance pending the Vanderstock decision. I am aware the prosecutor has filed a motion to keep me in prison. Currently, my attorney is working on a response to that. My case should start proceeding. He will write his motion regarding the Vanderstock case. Then, there will or won’t be oral arguments.”

How much are you relying on a presidential pardon?

“It’s probably the biggest deal in my life right now. I’m approaching three years of being locked up. My life has been destroyed for that long. It’s slow draining – an arduous process. The court system moves at a snail’s pace, and a presidential pardon would literally restore my life to where it had been within one day.”

What do you think of your supporters who read stories about you and become angry?

“It means a lot to me that they’re essentially supporting me – that so many people have been made aware by the people who are vocal about it. There were a few people who took issue at the beginning, three years ago. I’m grateful that people are looking at it and being vocal about it now. It’s my freedom and my life on the line. I am thankful for every single person who takes time out of their day to look at my situation.”

What can people do to help your case?

“Be vocal. Let their elected representatives know about me and let them know this is something important to them. Write letters to congressmen, senators and to President Trump himself. Reporters have also been gaining awareness.”

What is your opinion of the ATF?

“I’m not a huge fan but this might come off as shocking. As shocking as it sounds, I do not think they need to go away entirely. They shouldn’t be harassing law abiding citizens who are allowed to own guns. They came to my house and rearranged things that are perfectly legal. The ATF should be focused on violent criminals, not those who appreciate firearm history.”

Do you have more hope now that President Trump was reelected?

“Absolutely! Yes! I was counting on it. I had no faith in the Biden administration. I wouldn’t be in prison if it wasn’t for the Biden administration. I have consulted with a lot of high-power attorneys after I was arrested. They all said they have never seen a prosecution like mine. From my conversations with them it became apparent there was pressure from the Biden administration. I encouraged all of my friends and family to vote for President Trump. I never even had a speeding ticket, and I was put into prison for toys and items that the ATF had approved years ago.”

Ultimately, who is responsible for what happened to you?

“I think it was a collective effort between politically motivated officials from the previous administration. They got extra points because I was active duty, which made for a shocking headline and looked really good on paper. Even the prosecutor tweeted about it, thanking the jury.”

Is a presidential pardon the best response?

“At this point, a presidential pardon would be the best thing that could happen, because I could go home tonight and be back in a Navy recruiter’s office tomorrow.”

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/Mz5xVcj
via IFTTT

Mel Gibson Got His Gun Rights Back, but Millions of Americans With No History of Violence Are Still Waiting

Opinion

Mel Gibson IMG Georges Biard, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Like millions of Americans, Mel Gibson has a criminal record that disqualifies him from legally owning a gun. Unlike nearly all of those people, the movie star, whom President Donald Trump has designated as one of his three “ambassadors” to Hollywood, will be relieved of that disability, thanks to a recent decision by Attorney General Pam Bondi that also covers nine less famous individuals.

Although Gibson’s inclusion on that list smacks of political favoritism, Bondi’s move is part of a long overdue effort to restore the Second Amendment rights of “prohibited persons” who pose no threat to public safety.

The Gibson controversy should not overshadow a much bigger scandal: the unjust, constitutionally dubious policy that permanently disarms Americans based on a wide range of criminal convictions, including many that do not involve the use or threat of force.

Gibson lost the right to possess firearms in 2011, when he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor involving domestic violence: an assault on his girlfriend. Another provision of the same federal law sweeps much more broadly, covering anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, regardless of the sentence that was actually imposed, whether or not the offense involved violence, and no matter how long ago it happened.

To give you a sense of how capacious that category is, it includes the president himself, who last year was convicted of 34 state felonies involving falsification of business records.

Because of those convictions, which did not result in any formal punishment, a man entrusted with control of the nation’s vast military might, including its nuclear weapons, is not allowed to own a gun.

No matter what you think about the underlying case, that situation makes no sense as a matter of public safety. It is likewise hard to see the logic of taking away someone’s Second Amendment rights because he grew or sold marijuana, underreported his income to obtain food stamps, misrepresented the thickness of shoe inserts, tampered with fishing gear, inadvertently transported a box of ammunition into Mexico, or committed any of the myriad other nonviolent offenses that trigger this disability.

Even the American Civil Liberties Union, which is not known for defending the Second Amendment, sees a problem with this “extraordinarily broad statute,” which “does not target dangerousness or propensity to commit violence.” It says “there is no historical precedent for such a broad ban on firearm possession.”

After casting that absurdly wide net, Congress approved a process that could eventually allow people to wriggle free. It authorized the attorney general to restore a prohibited person’s gun rights when “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety.”

That process, however, was delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which Congress has prohibited from considering such applications since 1992. Because of that spending rider, prohibited persons had no recourse unless they managed to obtain a pardon that restored their gun rights.

Bondi is trying to revive the remedy that Congress offered before making it impossible to obtain. An interim final rule that took effect last month rescinds the ATF’s authority in this area, returning it to the attorney general.

Bondi says that move is consistent with a Feb. 7 presidential order that instructed her to “assess any ongoing infringements” of Second Amendment rights stemming from “actions of executive departments and agencies.” She notes that the “confusing” lack of a remedy for prohibited persons “has taken on greater significance given developments in Second Amendment jurisprudence since 1992.”

Those developments cast doubt on the constitutionality of defining prohibited persons so broadly that they include millions of Americans with no history of violence. Challenges to those restrictions, which have been successful in several cases involving people convicted of nonviolent crimes, may ultimately force Congress to take a narrower approach.

Trump DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

Actor Mel Gibson Becomes the Unlikely Poster Boy for Felon’s Gun Rights ~ VIDEO

---

About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum

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

Harvard Scholar Argues to Tax Freedom for ‘Public Health’

Opinion
By Salam Fatohi

Istock

Leave it to the “scholars” at Harvard Kennedy School to come up with a scheme that combines the arrogance of the “intellectual elite,” increasing taxes, administering gun confiscation plans, and – again – purposefully conflating “public health” policies for crime control for the latest pie-in-the-sky gun control plan.

It would be an absurd April Fool’s joke if the researchers at Harvard Kennedy School weren’t serious. Just to be sure, a little digging shows that they received a grant for the study from Arnold Ventures, a known antigun philanthropy organization that funds gun control efforts across the country. What the idea shows is how out-of-touch the “intellectual elite” are when it comes Americans’ – and the firearm industry’s – commitment is to ensuring free exercise of Second Amendment freedoms. These are foundational to the unique American identity – that the rights are granted to Americans by their Creator and guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, specifically in this case by the Bill of Rights. That’s not the case with two ivy-bound researchers. When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms – they’ve got a plan.

Trust me. It’s not better.

Luis Armona, an economic and assistant professor of policy at Harvard Kennedy School, and Adam Rosenberg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, believe they’ve come up with a way to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms – specifically murder. They just need to tax the snot out of them.

Flawed Premises

Before anyone gets apoplectic, they are quick to reassure doubters they know what they’re doing.

“I grew up in the United States, so I’m intimately familiar with gun culture and the way guns can be an important part of the identity of those who own them but also have important consequences for public health,” Armona explained to Robert O’Neill of Harvard Kennedy School.

So Armona understands “gun culture” because he grew up in America. That’s the start of a bad punchline for a second-rate joke, but in the interest of honest debate, we’re listening…

“But for nearly 30 years, the federal government did not fund research on firearms, and so our understanding of how these markets work is very undeveloped,” he added.

Hold on. That’s not even close to true. That’s a gun control talking point to attack the Dickey Amendment that states no funds made available for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

That doesn’t mean the CDC stopped studying guns. NSSF pointed that out previously, and President Donald Trump even signed legislation in his first administration that said the CDC has authority to conduct research into the causes of “gun violence.”

Do You Even Research, Bro?

Armona and Rosenberg have a plan, though. They will dig into the data to understand the pattern of gun sales in the United States, starting with publicly-available gun purchase data in Massachusetts. That presents the second problem. Massachusetts’ data might be flawed, though, since Massachusetts banned the sale of the most-popular selling centerfire rifle in America – the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR). There are over 30 million of these rifles in circulation in America, but the Massachusetts data will be lacking since it’s not reflective of the buying patterns of other states that don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights.

This is frustrating so far, but there’s more to explore. Armona and Rosenberg assume that most firearm owners are likely to be male, conservative, rural and less racially diverse. For a dataset, that might be statistically true, but it also ignores the rapidly-changing reality. Today’s gun buyer is increasingly more representative of minorities, women and those who live in urban areas. The media has recognized this. The New York Times wrote about it. So did The Boston Globe. And so did The Wall Street Journal, not just recently but also last year. And the Christian Science Monitor. And Huffington Post. And CNN. And ABC News. And GV Wire. There are also NSSF’s research, that showed since 2020, there have been 26.2 million new first-time gun buyers who are increasingly representative of urban dwellers, women and minorities. That’s more than the population of Florida.

Tax, Tax, Tax

Here’s where it gets… well, interesting. Armona and Rosenberg believe they could get buy in from NSSF on their gun-tax-for-public-health scheme. They note the Pittman-Robertson excise tax – that’s the 10 and 11 percent tax paid by firearm and ammunition manufacturers that funds wildlife conservation across America as a starting point. That’s not for “public health,” by the way. They also note California and Colorado’s new excise tax to fund their gun control efforts in those state – which is being challenged in court.

Armona and Rosenberg argue that taken nationwide, a tax increase on guns would generate $400 million from gun purchasers and another $570 million from manufactures and reduce murders by 60 victims. They admit, though, this idea is likely “infeasible.”

To get everyone on board, the two scholars propose to lower taxes on long guns and increase them on handguns, since handguns are criminally-misused by a much wider margin.

Here’s the Thing About Criminals

Here’s where the whole house-of-cards falls apart. Criminals, typically, don’t legally buy guns. That means they wouldn’t pay the tax. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics own reports show that 90 percent of criminals convicted of crimes involving a firearm admit they obtained those firearms through illicit means. In other words, those criminals stole those firearms or bought them on the black market.

The other, really, really big problem is that crime isn’t a public health crisis, as much as gun control advocates want to profess it is. Crime is a law enforcement issue. There is no prescription that prevents people who have no respect for life or law to make them not want to harm their victims. There’s no pill to cure that ill-minded intent.

There is a proven method, though. Lock up the criminals. Putting a criminal behind bars has a pretty good effect on preventing them from committing further crimes when they’re serving their sentence. Enforcing criminal law against those who commit crimes stands a greater chance of gaining public and political support than would the idea that taxing guns and ammunition for those who obey the law would. Making those who legally buy a gun to protect themselves from criminals pay extra to the government doesn’t make a criminal not want to harm their victims. It only punishes the innocent and taxes a Constitutionally-protected right.

The Harvard Kennedy School might want to go back to basics. Taxing a Constitutional right doesn’t add up. Locking up criminals equals less crimes and less victims.

U.S. Second Amendment: Means ALL Weapons & ZERO Infringements ~ VIDEO

Trump Administration Pares Back Anti-Gun CDC Center

---

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/ZiThgLW
via IFTTT

Colorado Wave of Gun Control Legislation Heads to Governor Polis for Final Decision

iStock-rudall30

Denver, CO – A new wave of sweeping gun control bills is and has been moving rapidly through the Colorado Legislature, alarming gun owners and Second Amendment advocates across the state.

Several controversial proposals—ranging from near-total bans on modern firearms to red-tape restrictions on ammo sales and gun shows—are now headed to Governor Jared Polis’ desk for signature.

Among the most dangerous bills, according to pro-gun groups, is Senate Bill 25-003, which would ban the manufacture, sale, and even possession of most modern semiautomatic rifles and handguns. Despite fierce opposition and constitutional warnings from legal experts, the bill passed both chambers and is awaiting the governor’s decision. The Firearms Coalition of Colorado warns that this bill effectively bans nearly all modern pistols—not the small percentage claimed by its sponsors.

“This bill is either a massive mistake or a deliberate misrepresentation,” said a constitutional scholar in a widely circulated legal analysis. Gun rights supporters have until April 13th, 2025, to ask Governor Polis to veto the bill.

Another measure drawing sharp criticism is SB25-034, a so-called “Voluntary Do Not Sell Firearms Waiver,” which would allow individuals to self-ban from owning guns. Critics argue it opens the door to pressure from overzealous authorities and could lead to permanent firearm bans based on mental health labels.

Then there’s SB25-059, which tries to backfill or divert taxpayer money towards funding for anti-gun groups after the anticipated collapse of gun sales—caused by these very laws—wipes out revenue from the state’s 6.5% gun and ammo tax.

“Colorado politicians want to ban the products, then turn around and fund anti-gun programs using the money they just destroyed,” said a spokesperson from the Coalition. “It’s like lighting the house on fire and then asking the insurance company for a new mansion.”

Another major concern is HB25-1133, which adds burdensome rules for ammo sales. It raises the legal age to buy ammo to 21, requires in-person signature on delivery, and mandates that all ammunition at retail stores be kept under lock and key. Gun show vendors say the bill would wreck their business.

HB25-1238 could do even more damage, say critics. This bill bans all private sellers from participating as vendors at gun shows, allows vague restrictions on attendees bringing firearms, and adds camera surveillance requirements that would bankrupt smaller promoters. Many see it as a direct attempt to eliminate gun shows in Colorado.

Other bills that are raising eyebrows include:

• SB25-205: Requires FFLs to run serial number checks with local law enforcement if they “reasonably believe” a firearm is lost or stolen. Dealers could lose their license if they make the wrong call.
• HB25-1225: Expands the ban on open carry near anything even remotely “election-related,” raising red flags for gun owners concerned about vague language and potential abuse during election season.
• HB25-1314: This bill gives peace officer status to state Department of Revenue employees in the newly created firearms division, creating a new class of armed state agents. Critics fear it could sideline local sheriffs and create a state-level gun control enforcement squad.

While most of the proposals have been introduced and championed by Democrats, a few bills with bipartisan support are being praised by the pro-gun community. HB25-1062, which makes the theft of a firearm an automatic felony, and HB25-1171, which bars habitual car thieves from owning guns, are both supported by the Firearms Coalition.

“These two bills actually target criminals. We support those,” said a Coalition member. “But the rest of this agenda targets law-abiding citizens. It’s punishment for owning the ‘wrong’ kind of gun, buying the ‘wrong’ kind of ammo, or carrying in the ‘wrong’ place.”

Many of the bills are now in Governor Polis’ hands. He can sign them, veto them, or allow them to become law quietly.

Grassroots activists are urging fellow citizens to flood the Governor’s office with calls, letters, and emails before it’s too late.

“This is the most aggressive attack on the Second Amendment we’ve ever seen in Colorado,” said a local gun shop owner. “If you don’t speak up now, your rights won’t be around much longer.”

Contact Info for Action:

Governor Jared Polis: (303) 866-2885
Mail: Office of the Governor, 200 E. Colfax Ave., Denver, CO 80203
Governor’s Contact Form

Find your legislator: leg.colorado.gov/find-my-legislator
Track legislation: leg.colorado.gov/bills
Watch hearings live: https://ift.tt/m6GpKUX

For more updates from the Firearms Coalition of Colorado, visit: GunIssues.groups.io

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

ATF to Review Pistol Brace Rule After Trump’s Order

SB Tactical Stabilizing Braces

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced it will review the pistol brace rule.

During a meeting with the Biden transition team in 2020, the ATF stated its two targets were pistol braces and privately manufactured firearms (PMF). The Biden administration must have taken that meeting to heart because shortly after Biden came into office, he announced a slew of anti-gun propositions, including issuing an executive order demanding that the ATF change its classification of braced-equipped pistols. The ATF presented a proposed new rule.

The controversial rule saw the ATF change its stance on pistol-stabilizing devices. For years the Bureau stated that these devices were not stocks and didn’t require additional National Firearms Act (NFA) registration when equipping the item with a pistol. The new rule changed that long-held stance.

The proposed rule had a point system allowing brace owners to determine if their brace pistol was now considered a short-barreled rifle (SBR). ATF Form 4999 was the form used in the proposed rule, and hundreds of thousands of comments were made on the form during the comment period. The point system was utterly absent when the final rule was finally unveiled. The rule made all pistols equipped with currently available braces SBRs.

Owners of braced pistols were given a short window of time to register their firearms as SBRs. This process included additional background checks, submitting fingerprints and passport photos to the ATF, along with pictures of any markings on the pistols. The $200 tax stamp usually required for an NFA item was waived through a tax forbearance. If a gun owner didn’t complete the steps, they would be guilty of a felony and face 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

After the rule was unveiled, multiple lawsuits sprung up, claiming that the rule violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The APA says a final rule can differ from a proposed one if it is a logical outgrowth of the original. The plaintiffs in the cases claimed that the two rules looked nothing alike. Moreover, the plaintiffs all contended that the rule was arbitrary and capricious. They claimed the ATF overstepped its power to make the rule.

Before the rule could go into effect, multiple courts issued injunctions against its enforcement. Shortly after, braced pistols returned to the market. The ATF kept fighting the ruling in court but kept losing. The ATF asked the courts to stay the decision until they could appeal, but those requests were denied.

Even after the ATF lost in court, the Bureau issued a letter to a member of Gun Owners of America (GOA) claiming that a CZ Scorpion equipped with a brace would still need to be registered with the ATF’s NFA Division. After pressure, the ATF reversed course on the letter and withdrew its registration demand.

Early in President Trump’s return to the White House, he issued an executive order (EO) demanding the Department of Justice (DOJ) review all legal cases and policies for Second Amendment violations. The ATF falls under the DOJ. The review of the rule is a direct result of that EO.

The rule could be pulled entirely, meaning that the status quo would be kept since it is now legal to own a braced pistol. This repeal would be helpful for gun owners who live in states that ban SBRs. If the rule were allowed to stay, those gun owners would have no choice but to get rid of their firearms, modify their guns, or face legal consequences.

This change is just one step to fix the many anti-gun moves made by the ATF under the Biden administration. The ATF has always claimed to be a partner with the gun industry, but its actions under Biden put the Bureau in an adversarial role. This change is a small step in repairing that relationship.

---

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/TGcMrvd
via IFTTT

Research: Armed Citizens MORE Effective Than Police at Stopping Active Shooters

John Lott spoke at the recent Gun Rights Policy Conference about armed citizen intervention in active shooter incidents. (Screen Snip, YouTube, SAF)

New research from the College of William and Mary and the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows armed civilians are more effective than police at stopping active shooting attacks on the public. Armed civilians are more likely to stop the attacks without being injured or killed. Armed civilians stop more attacks than do police. Police in the United States stop almost as many attacks as are stopped by armed civilians.

For decades, Second Amendment advocates have considered it to be common sense that armed civilians would be more effective at stopping active shooter attacks on the public than police. To people familiar with firearms, shooting, and defensive tactics, who thoughtfully considered active shooting attacks on the public, such outcomes seemed obvious. Those without such a background sometimes considered the opposite to be true. Such persons would cite a lack of training, lower skill levels, and a general distrust of the ability of non-police to make good decisions in such fast-moving crisis situations.

The paper was published on April 3, 2025, by authors John R. Lott, Jr. and Carlisle E. Moody. From 2014 through 2023, using FBI data and a number of other public sources, researchers were able to identify 512 active shooter incidents that conformed to the FBI definition. Of the 512 incidents, 158 were stopped by police, and 179 were stopped by armed citizens. There were 177 where the shooter stopped or was stopped without intervention by armed civilians or police. These cases include incidents where the attacker committed suicide before police arrived, was subdued by unarmed people, was not apprehended, or was arrested in a different location.  About 8% of adults have concealed carry permits, while about 7.2% of likely voters self-report they carry firearms all of the time, and another 8.4% of voters self-report they carry some of the time.

Two armed civilians attempting to stop active attackers were killed a probability of about 1% of an armed civilian being killed per successful stopping of an attack. One of the two deaths was where responding police shot and killed the armed civilian after the active shooting attack was stopped.  Twenty-six police were killed while attempting to stop active shooting attackers, a probability of about 17% of a police officer being killed per successful stopping of the attack. This is explained in part by active attackers deliberately targeting uniformed police officers.  No police were killed by responding armed civilians.

Incidents, where armed civilians stopped the attack, averaged about half as many people being killed as in the average active shooter incident. Incidents, where police stopped the attack, averaged about 17% more people killed than in the average active shooting incident. This is explained, in part, because armed civilians stop active shooting incidents much more quickly than police do. If an active shooting incident continues long enough for police to respond, it is likely more people will be killed before the police arrive.

Analysis: The academic paper’s results validate the intuitive understanding of Second Amendment advocates.

The results should calm the fears of those who believed armed civilians would cause more difficulties than they would solve. The explanations for such lopsided results are not hard to understand.

Armed civilians tend to carry weapons because of personal considerations. They have consciously decided to carry, mostly for purposes of defense of self and others.  Many police officers carry because it is a job requirement for them to carry. The incentives of the two groups are different. People who have decided to carry for the defense of themselves and others have strong incentives to develop marksmanship skills and to study defensive situations and tactics. This correspondent and numerous others have noted many armed civilians have skills that exceed that of the average police officer. Many armed civilians have experience as former police and military.  Having taught hundreds of students in concealed carry classes, this correspondent believes people who carry firearms for their own defense and that of others tend to be of higher intelligence, income levels, and education levels.

Armed civilians have three major advantages over police officers in stopping active shooting attacks on the public. First, they are likely to be inside the situation rather than outside responding to it, giving them an enormous time advantage. They can respond much faster than the police. Second, they are not obvious to the attacker, giving them a tactical advantage of surprise. Third, because they are much closer in time and distance from the attack than the police, they have significant advantages in tactical knowledge of the situation.

It is understandable for people who are not interested in firearms or in carrying them for self-defense to misunderstand the dynamics of armed civilians responding to active shooting attacks against the public. The paper discusses how those fears are misplaced.

Approximately 8% of adults are armed civilians who routinely and legally carry firearms for the defense of themselves and others. This is about 22 million people in the United States of America.  There are about .67 million sworn and armed police officers. There are about 33 armed civilians for every armed police officer. There are about a hundred armed civilians for every police officer on duty at any given time. It is not surprising armed civilians stop more active shooting incidents than the police do and stop them faster and with fewer deaths and injuries than the police do.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock G17 Gen5 9mm Pistol - PA175S203	Palmetto State Armory	$ 604.99 $ 539.99
	Glock G17 Gen5 9mm Pistol - PA175S203	Palmetto State Armory	$ 729.99 $ 539.99
	Glock G17 Gen5 9mm Luger 4.49in Black / Coyote Battle Worn Flag Cerakote Pistol - 17+1 Rounds - Brown	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 649.99
	Glock G17 Gen5 9mm Luger 4.49in Black / Gray Battle Worn Flag Cerakote Pistol - 17+1 Rounds - Gray	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 649.99

NYC Court Holds Stun Guns are NOT Protected by Second Amendment

Non-Violent Gun Convictions Deserve Trump’s Attention

 

---

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/CSn8plO
via IFTTT

March For Our Lives Faces Layoffs Amid Financial Struggles

March For Our Lives Faces Layoffs Amid Financial Struggles iStock-1222018004

There’s trouble in gun control land. Prominent civilian disarmament organization March For Our Lives is having to downsize its workforce and appoint a new leader amidst financial challenges. 

The gun-control organization revealed on March 20, 2025, that it laid off 13 of its 16 full-time employees. Additionally, Jaclyn Corin, a 24-year-old Parkland survivor and co-founder of the group, has been appointed as the new executive director. Corin will lead the organization as it grapples with new challenges after the 2024 election.

“We are facing financial challenges as an organization, not unlike many nonprofit advocacy organizations in this time,” Corin said to The 19th. “I am sure things would look differently with a different outcome of the election, but these are the systems and circumstances in which we have to make adjustments based on the financial situation we find ourselves in. It is incredibly unfortunate that these cuts have to happen.”

The layoffs mark a major reversal for one of the nation’s premier gun control organizations, likely diminishing its influence ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. 

March For Our Lives was established on February 14, 2018, after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, where 17 people were killed and 18 others injured. The group initially gained momentum through a viral fundraiser and substantial support from donors with deep dockets. Parkland survivors were used as the public face of the organization to market it to the public. 

Its inaugural march on March 24, 2018 in Washington, D.C., drew a massive crowd and solidified its place as a key player in gun control advocacy. The group’s activism contributed to Florida’s adoption of SB 7026, a bill that includes red flag provisions, increases the minimum age for purchasing firearms to 21, and establishes a three-day waiting period for all firearm purchases. They were able to achieve this even with Republican control of the Florida State Legislature. 

Since then, March For Our Lives has been among the country’s most aggressive gun control advocacy organizations. In recent years, the organization expanded its focus to collaborate with other left-leaning groups and advocate for issues that went beyond gun control. During its 2018 inaugural march, March For Our Lives Human teamed up with Human Rights Campaign and the National LGBTQ Task Force, amplifying calls for gun control alongside LGBT safety. 

Gun control organizations like March For Our Lives were able to score another victory in 2022 after Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) in 2022, which expanded background check requirements for firearm sales and established a framework for eventual universal background checks — a measure some critics argue could lead to stricter firearm access policies.  President Joe Biden hailed the BSCA as “the most significant gun control legislation to pass Congress in 30 years”, emphasizing its role in tightening federal regulatory measures. 

That said, March For Our Lives has struggled to replicate the scale and enthusiasm of its 2018 march. Fundraising for its non-profit entities have experienced significant declines in that timeframe. Revenue for its foundation plummeted from $2.2 million in 2022 to $1.4 million in 2023, generating a deficit of over $300,000. Its political affiliate saw revenues fall from $7 million in 2022 to under $3.5 million in 2023, running deficits both years — well below the $18.6 million raised in 2018.

Since Donald Trump’s victory in 2024, Democratic donors have slashed funding for both Democratic candidates and progressive organizations. This slashing of financial support has had a direct impact on March for Our Lives’ ability to maintain its previous staffing levels.

The new executive director noted that the 2024 presidential election indeed had a negative impact on the gun control organization’s ability to raise funds: “I am sure things would look differently with a different outcome of the election, but these are the systems and circumstances in which we have to make adjustments based on the financial situation we find ourselves in. It is incredibly unfortunate that these cuts have to happen.” 

Although financial data for 2024 is not yet available, comments from Corin suggest that March For Our Lives is not going away anytime soon. Corin acknowledged that the group misallocated its resources but emphasized that March For Our Lives is not shutting down its operations. 

“While these efforts were important, we ultimately took on more than our resources could sustain over the long term — and we take responsibility for that,” she told The 19th.

She stated that the organization would stay committed to pushing for stricter gun laws while refocusing on mobilizing young people. “Now, we are making an intentional effort to double down where we are most effective: mobilizing young people to hold their leaders accountable for failing to address the number one killer of kids,” Corin added.

The newly appointed executive director expressed hope that the group could rekindle awareness about the severity of gun violence in the United States, equipping young voters with tools to bring about changes. 

“We hope to remind people of the insanity of the existence of this issue in this country and then give them the tools for how to actually make a change in their communities,” she stated.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

from https://ift.tt/K6MWgeb
via IFTTT

Bail Reduced for WA Teen Murder Suspect as Dems Push Gun Control

While Democrats push more gun control for Washington adults, a judge just reduced bail for a teenage murder suspect, igniting furious criticism. iStock-884168778

While Democrat lawmakers in Olympia—the state capital of Washington—are rushing to add further restrictions on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, a judge in Pierce County on Monday halved the bail for a 17-year-old double-murder suspect, igniting a blistering river of public sarcasm.

KOMO News—the Seattle-based ABC affiliate in Western Washington—is reporting how Judge Joseph Evans reduced bail for Isaiah Davion Williams from $2 million to $1 million at a Monday hearing. Williams’ family and attorney had asked bail to be reduced to $250,000.

He has been charged as an adult in this case with two counts of first-degree murder.

Williams is being held in the slaying of two other teens outside of a Spanaway house party March 29. The shooting, caught on security camera video, reveals a wild scene with scores of teens scrambling for cover.

The two dead teens have been identified as 15-year-old Joaquin Ramirez and 19-year-old Hector Gonzalez-Valdez. Turns out they were all carrying handguns, which is illegal under existing Evergreen State law.

When Ammoland initially reported this case, nobody could have anticipated Judge Evans’ bail reduction. Still, the family may be unable to post bond or make bail, and Williams remains in jail, with a further court appearance reportedly slated next week.

As reported by KOMO, the family and the attorney are describing Williams in almost saintly terms. His grandmother reportedly wrote in a letter to the court that the suspect is “the most caring, loving, and talented young man I know.” The defense attorney also described his client as “a polite, respectful young man” and “an accomplished athlete.”

But reaction to this case is overwhelmingly negative and dripping with sarcasm.

“So, why did he have a gun with him,” one person asks.

Another observed, “I was ‘polite and respectful’ when I was 17. Yet I didn’t carry a gun and shoot it into a crowd at a gathering of my peers.”

More than 100 people have commented so far at the KOMO website.

Others point to Williams’ previous legal troubles including assault and unlawful possession of a firearm, which turned out to have been stolen from a gun dealer in a different county, according to a story in the Seattle Times.

It is against this backdrop that Democrats in the state legislature have been pushing two measures ratcheting down on the gun rights of honest Evergreen State citizens. One of those bills—House Bill 1163—is the hotly contested permit-to-purchase mandate which has drawn fury from grassroots activists, including Daniel Mitchell, firearms retailer and head of the Washington Civil Rights Association. While testifying before the Senate Law & Justice Committee against HB 1163 last month, Mitchell identified himself to the lawmakers as “Plaintiff No. 1,” and promised to be first with federal lawsuit if the bill becomes law.

The other measure is Senate Bill 5098, which places restrictions on carrying firearms in many places, although there is an exemption for people with active concealed pistol licenses. According to the most recent data from the state Department of Licensing, more than 700,000 Washington citizens have active CPLs.

Those citizens will be penalized beginning in November 2026 when they, too, will be expected to provide proof of finishing a state-approved firearms safety course to include a live fire exercise. This mandate has been compared to a literacy test for voting.

Opposition to both bills has far outpaced support, by as much as 10-to-1, with people submitting both written and oral testimony. Yet, anti-gun Democrats appear confident they can adopt more restrictions and retain control.

Washington has long been considered a “petri dish” for anti-gun activities. The rush for restrictive gun control began in 2014 with the passage of gun control Initiative 594, and it was ramped up in 2018 with the passage of Initiative 1639. Other gun restrictions including bans on so-called “large-capacity magazines” and “assault weapons” have been passed by the Democrat-controlled legislature, but none of these laws prevented the number of murders to double statewide over the past 10 years, a fact which has been presented repeatedly to state lawmakers.

If these bills are signed into law by Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson, who lobbied for the gun and magazine bans and has historically been allied with the billionaire-backed Alliance for Gun Responsibility, there will undoubtedly be swift court challenges, with Mitchell quite possibly being the first plaintiff.

RELATED:

• Are Anti-Gunners Stubborn or Brain Dead? Criminals Ignore Gun Laws

---

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/l4X3ZRk
via IFTTT

FBI #2 Dan Bongino’s Bold Stance on 2nd Amendment Rights & the Future of Firearms Policy ~ VIDEO

Dan Bongino is known for his unapologetic support of the Second Amendment, and as the newly appointed Deputy Director of the FBI, his stance on gun rights is more important than ever.

In his years of advocacy, he’s consistently challenged the narrative pushed by those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding gun owners. His outspoken defense of firearms and self-defense speaks to a larger issue of governmental overreach and the rights of American citizens to protect themselves.

In this video compilation of Bongino’s best Second Amendment quotes, he offers sharp critiques of gun control measures, while defending the right of every American to arm themselves. This article will explore some of the key points raised by Bongino, discussing his views on firearms, government control, and the importance of maintaining our constitutional rights.

1. The “Bill of Rights” vs. the “Bill of Needs”

One of the most powerful quotes from Bongino in the video is his remark: “It’s not called the Bill of Needs, it’s the Bill of Rights.” This statement directly challenges those who question the necessity of owning certain firearms, such as AR-15s, by highlighting the foundational truth that the Second Amendment is about rights, not needs. The right to own and bear arms isn’t about what the government deems necessary; it’s about ensuring that every American has the ability to defend themselves and preserve their freedom.

Bongino’s point here is simple: gun ownership isn’t a privilege granted based on need but a fundamental right. It’s a point he emphasizes repeatedly in his defense of the Second Amendment.

2. Debunking the “Fully Semi-Automatic” Myth

Another humorous yet critical moment in the video is Bongino’s reaction to the term“full semi-automatic.” As he puts it, “What the heck is a full semi-automatic? I’ve never seen such a thing.” This remark highlights a common issue with the gun control debate: ignorance. Many politicians and public figures misuse terminology or show a lack of understanding about how guns function when discussing firearms.

Bongino has long criticized the media and political figures who use these terms to stoke fear and push for restrictions that don’t address real issues. His point is clear: when discussing firearms, it’s essential to have an accurate understanding of the technology, otherwise, we risk creating laws that do more harm than good.

Fully semi automatic! https://t.co/iA2qOC7O9M

— 4 our kids (@KO888888888) February 7, 2025

3. The Real Issue: Criminals Don’t Follow Laws

A central theme in Bongino’s argument is that criminals do not follow laws. This point is often ignored by those pushing for stricter gun control. As Bongino notes, “Criminals love gun laws because they get the guns. Only law-abiding citizens follow the laws.” In his view, gun control laws are not a solution to crime because those who break the law aren’t concerned with complying with additional regulations. Instead of restricting the rights of lawful gun owners, Bongino advocates for focusing on criminals who misuse firearms.

4. The AR-15 as a Self-Defense Weapon

When discussing the AR-15, a frequent target of gun control advocates, Bongino defends its use as a viable self-defense weapon. Despite the criticisms that the AR-15 is too powerful or unnecessary for home defense, Bongino points out that the AR-15 is a highly effective tool for protecting oneself in dangerous situations. He’s quick to note that while other weapons, such as shotguns, can be effective, the AR-15 is often more manageable and more accurate for self-defense purposes.

He criticizes the idea that only certain types of weapons should be available for self-defense, emphasizing that the right to choose the best tool for protection should be left to the individual. It’s a stance rooted in his belief that Americans should have the freedom to make decisions about their safety without unnecessary interference.

5. Firearms Training Over Bans

Bongino has also suggested that solutions to gun violence should focus on responsible gun ownership, such as increasing training and education, rather than bans. For example, he’s open to the idea of training teachers to use firearms to protect students in schools—strictly on a voluntary basis. He emphasizes that anyone who carries a firearm should be comfortable and trained in its use, pointing out that competent gun owners are an asset to society, not a liability.

His willingness to entertain this idea is a reflection of his belief in empowering citizens to protect themselves rather than relying on a government to do so. For Bongino, this aligns with the core principle of the Second Amendment: personal responsibility and the right to defend oneself.

6. Government Overreach & the Bureaucratic Hassles

A recurring theme throughout Bongino’s commentary is his distrust of government interference in citizens’ rights. From his criticism of the bureaucratic hurdles in place to purchase firearms to his objections to “mental health” red flags being used as a reason to restrict gun ownership, Bongino warns that these regulations often end up penalizing law-abiding citizens instead of targeting actual criminals.

As he puts it: “I’m not interested in your list and I’m not interested in your opinion on how I should protect myself.” For Bongino, the government should not dictate how individuals protect themselves or what types of firearms they can own, especially when criminals don’t follow the rules.

Bongino’s Impact on Second Amendment Advocacy

Dan Bongino’s approach to the Second Amendment is both informed and unapologetic. His years of experience as a law enforcement officer, coupled with his position as a conservative commentator, have made him one of the most vocal defenders of gun rights in America today.

As he transitions into his role as FBI Deputy Director, Bongino’s influence will likely play a significant role in shaping the future of firearms policy in the United States. His commitment to defending the Constitution and ensuring that law-abiding Americans maintain their rights to bear arms is something that will continue to resonate, especially as he takes on a position that directly impacts the enforcement of gun laws. For Bongino, it’s clear: the Second Amendment isn’t up for negotiation.

As we watch the debate around firearms evolve, we must remember the core values Bongino advocates for: personal freedom, the right to self-defense, and the importance of ensuring that gun laws protect citizens rather than hinder them.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Magpul SGA Mossberg 12 Gauge Shotgun Stock - Black - Black	Sportsman's Warehouse	$ 109.99
	Mossberg 835 12 Gauge Shotgun - Mossberg 835 12 Gauge 26'''' Bbl 6-Round	Brownells.com	$ 515.99
	Mossberg 12 Gauge 24" Adjustable Rifle Sight Slug Barrel for Mossberg 500, Maverick 88 6-Shot Shotgun, Blue - 90055	Palmetto State Armory	$ 220.99 $ 179.99
	Mossberg 12 Gauge 24" Integral Scope Base/Cantilever Slug Barrel for Mossberg 500, Maverick 88 6-Shot Shotgun, Matte Blue - 92256	Palmetto State Armory	$ 233.99 $ 222.99

2nd Amendment Defender, Dan Bongino, Named as New FBI Deputy Director ~ VIDEO

Meet Your New ATF Director ~ Kash Patel, as Trump Reshapes Federal Law Enforcement

from https://ift.tt/FPq86Sy
via IFTTT