Former Navy PO-1 Master-at-Arms Patrick Tate Adamiak. (Western Tidewater Regional Jail, Suffolk, Virginia, booking photo).
More than one-million good folks have seen Patrick “Tate” Adamiak’s horrible story on pro-gun websites and social media. I would like to thank everyone who helped spread the word about how the ATF ruined this honorable young 28-year-old’s life. As it stands now, Tate could be in prison until he’s 48-years-old, for made-up crimes he never committed.
Had the ATF never railroaded him, Tate would most likely be running a SEAL platoon about now. He was that good of a sailor. Naval Special Warfare wanted him as a leader and Tate was in their pipeline. That’s about all anyone needs to know about this young man’s professionalism and his dedication to this country.
In my humble opinion, the ATF should be shuttered for what they did to Tate, starting with the idiots involved in his case. What they alone were able to get away with serves as a very legitimate reason to remove the agency from the federal roster. These nincompoops became fixated on a replica M240 machinegun – which couldn’t even chamber a live round – and some demilled RPGs that Tate bought at a flea market in San Diego years ago.
The RPGs had holes drilled into their pipes and the guts removed from their handles. To be clear, they were not capable of firing anything, but that didn’t stop an overzealous ATF technician from reworking Tate’s tubes – taking the needed parts from one of ATF’s live RPGs and installing them and a subcaliber kit. Once restored, the ATF monkey managed to squeeze off one live 7.62x39mm round, which unfortunately, was all the jury needed to see.
That, friends, is about as far from real law enforcement as you can get.
Quite simply, the ATF lied in court while under oath. Their prosecutors knew their witnesses were lying and allowed it to happen – they made it happen. In any normal court of law, the judge would have gone ballistic, but not the one overseeing this case. This black-robed dunce even admitted she believed the replica M240 was a real firearm.
The more people who become aware of Tate’s plight, the likelier he will be released from prison.
Having read many of the files and court records, one thing bothers me more than anything else: How many additional servicemen and servicewomen are doing time behind bars right now for ATF “crimes” they never committed? How many civilians has the ATF locked up for bogus reasons like those we saw very clearly in Tate’s case?
One reader said the story should be added to the “Why the ATF should be disbanded” file. I don’t agree – at least not yet. We’ve got a good man downrange who needs to be cleared out hot before we can go after the ATF with the strength and vigor they truly deserve.
In 20 years of investigative reporting and nearly five years of focusing on the Second Amendment, I have never once asked, suggested or even implied that anyone needs a Presidential pardon.
That ends now.
I hope @realDonaldTrump, aka @POTUS, does what’s right, pardon’s Tate and releases him from prison, where he’s already served nearly two years for crimes he never committed.
Said Tate Thursday afternoon: “I am overwhelmed with the amount of support regarding my story and just wanted to thank each and every person that has recognized this gross injustice. It means the world to me, that my fellow patriots are sharing the true story and standing with me. This assault on our liberties could happen to any American exercising their rights. It’s because of all of you that I have hope that my freedom will soon be restored.”
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support 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.
Wisconsin to Remove DNR Rule that Violated Second Amendment
On Wednesday, January 29th, 2025, the Wisconsin Legislature Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) approved the repeal of Wis. Admin. Code § NR 20.05(2).
“No person may…[p]ossess or control any firearm, gun or similar device at any time while on the waters, banks or shores that might be used for the purpose of fishing.”
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rule has been in place since 1999. It effectively banned the possession of firearms in wide areas of the State. The repeal took place because the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) filed a lawsuit on June 6, 2024, as reported on AmmoLand.
Because the violation of the United States Second Amendment and Wisconsin Constitution Section 25 was obvious, Acting Secretary of the Wisconsin DNR Steven Little agreed to to repeal Wis. Admin. Code § NR 20.05(2) as soon as possible.
The website of the Wisconsin Administrative Code shows the rule has been suspended since December 17, 2024.
Bureaucracies move slowly. Changes in administrative rules in Wisconsin must be approved by the legislature, specifically the Joint Committee for the Review of Administrative Rules. On January 29th, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported the JCRAR had approved of the repeal of the rule. From jsonline.com:
After announcement of the lawsuit last year, the Department of Natural Resources pledged to repeal the rule, and said it already didn’t enforce the rule. But, the agency said, anglers still won’t be allowed to use guns to shoot fish, just simply carry them for protection.
The rule applied to everyone, not just anglers. “No person” is everyone. There was no exception, even for law enforcement.
This reporter was unable to confirm the approval at the Wisconsin Legislature website. Skylar Croy, a lawyer with the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, was intimately involved in the case. Skylar was contacted. He confirmed JCRAR had approved of the repeal of the rule by the DNR on a vote of 7-3. Eventually, the proceedings of the committee will be published. We may be able to determine the three Wisconsin legislators who voted to keep the obviously unconstitutional restriction in place.
The rule’s origin is shrouded in mystery. It appeared as part of a general restructuring of the administrative code in 1999. To the knowledge of this correspondent, no one has been willing to admit to changing the language to such a broad and unconstitutional prohibition.
Citizens must constantly guard against this sort of unaccountable activism in legislatures. WILL is to be congratulated for their victory in Wisconsin.
This correspondent noticed a similar situation in New South Wales, Australia. Draconian restrictions were placed on museums that displayed firearms. The restrictions were placed in an “administrative” change which was claimed not to include any substantive legal changes. When the change was noted, no one claimed responsibility for it. Unlike Wisconsin, Australia has no Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms. When this correspondent contacted a previous minority leader in the New South Wales Parliament, he said he would look into the matter. Later, he declared “success” by obtaining an exemption for the Lithgow Small Arms Factory Museum. No one in the New South Wales Parliament was willing to repeal the draconian rule.
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.
I am writing to unreservedly endorse Todd Vandermyde for a position on the NRA Board of Directors. Over the years, I’ve come to know Todd not only as a dedicated advocate for the Second Amendment but also as a true expert in the field.
Todd Vandermyde: Vote YES For Todd on Your 2025 NRA Board Election Ballot
Todd Vandermyde possesses an unparalleled understanding of both the legal and legislative processes surrounding the Second Amendment at both the state and federal levels. His experience as a lobbyist for the NRA in Illinois for over 25 years has given him a deep insight into how to navigate and influence policy effectively. He has argued numerous issues before the Illinois General Assembly, dealing with everything from federal firearms law to the technical nuances of firearms and ammunition. This experience is crucial in today’s political climate, where our Second Amendment rights are constantly under scrutiny and challenge.
Furthermore, Todd’s involvement with gun clubs, particularly his role as president of the Aurora Sportsman’s Club, one of the largest gun clubs in Illinois, showcases his commitment and leadership in the community. His practical experience with club management, coupled with his legislative acumen, positions him uniquely to bridge the gap between the NRA and the numerous gun clubs that have felt disconnected from the organization in recent years. Todd understands the grassroots level of gun ownership and advocacy, which is vital for rebuilding trust and engagement among these clubs.
Todd isn’t just a policy wonk – he’s been on the ground, fighting for our rights, whether in Springfield or in courtrooms.
His YouTube channel, “Freedom’s Steel,” further demonstrates his dedication to educating others about the intricacies of Second Amendment law, providing clear, actionable insights that go beyond mere rhetoric.
If we are to restore confidence in the NRA and ensure it remains a robust defender of our gun rights, we need someone like Todd Vandermyde.
His blend of legal, legislative, and practical experience is precisely what the NRA needs to regain the trust of thousands of gun clubs and individual members who have felt alienated. With Todd on the board, we can be confident that our Second Amendment rights are in capable, knowledgeable hands.
I speak from personal experience as someone who has engaged in grassroots activism, notably as the founder and architect of the 2013 Colorado recalls, which successfully removed senators who supported anti-gun legislation. My service on the NRA Board of Directors from 2015 has been marked by a commitment to transparency and accountability, often at personal cost. I’ve been a whistleblower within the NRA, not afraid to tell the truth to our members about the organization’s financial and leadership issues. I resigned in 2019 after being rebuffed for raising concerns about financial mismanagement, demonstrating my dedication to the integrity and mission of the NRA over personal gain or position.
I urge all voting members to support Todd Vandermyde in the upcoming elections. His election to the NRA Board would not only be a step towards strengthening our collective voice but also a commitment to informed, effective leadership in the fight for our constitutional rights.
Timothy Knight is a dedicated advocate for Second Amendment and Constitutional rights, known for founding the successful Colorado recalls. He served on the NRA Board, where his integrity earned him a reputation as an NRA Whistleblower. A skilled shooter and devoted family man, Timothy’s early experiences as an Eagle Scout have shaped his lifelong commitment to service and leadership.
The United Kingdom gave the world arguably the greatest comedy troupe of all time: Monty Python. And Monty Python gave us one of the great satirical takes on inefficient government bureaucracy with its 1970 sketch “The Ministry of Silly Walks.” For those unfamiliar, it presents an absurd government agency whose sole purpose is to foster the development and promotion of comedically ridiculous ways to walk.
Today’s British government seems to be taking cues from the Pythons in its response to horrific crimes.
Last July 29, a then-17-year-old male walked into a dance studio in Southport, Merseyside, UK, and began stabbing young girls with a kitchen knife. Three died—six-year-old Bebe King, seven-year-old Elsie Dot Stancombe, and nine-year-old Alice da Silva Aguiar—and eight were injured, along with two adults. Several of the victims who survived were taken to the hospital that day in critical condition.
On January 20, the accused attacker entered a guilty plea for three counts of murder, 10 counts of attempted murder, one count of possession of a “bladed article”—a kitchen knife—one count of ricin production, and one “terror-related” charge. The “terror-related” charge appears to stem from the accused’s possession of a study regarding an al-Qaeda training manual.
Because this monster committed his atrocity roughly one week before he turned 18, officials initially tried to protect his identity, as he was a minor when he went on his murderous rampage, although that restriction was quickly lifted.
But the murderer’s age seems to be the primary focus for how the UK wants to respond to this heinous crime. Not to be disrespectful to the barbaric nature of this crime, nor to the victims, but the response is rather silly.
In the UK, much like with anti-gun extremists here in America, the response to violent crime often focuses on the tool used by the criminal, rather than the criminal or, more importantly, the criminal’s history. The British long ago began imposing draconian restrictions on firearms in response to firearm-related crime, and because their right to arms was virtually eliminated throughout the 20th Century, guns in the hands of law-abiding Britons have nearly vanished.
But firearms are not the only possible tool for self-defense. Knives can, at times, help level the playing field when a person is faced with a violent assailant. Being ever vigilant in its efforts to disarm crime victims, the UK has systematically eliminated knives as an option, too.
Beginning in 1959, British laws regulating and restricting knives became increasingly oppressive.
That year, the sale and importation of many types of knives became prohibited. In 1988, the carrying of many knives in public was prohibited, although a 1953 law has also been reinterpreted in more recent years to punish those who are caught carrying knives in public. In 1996, selling knives to anyone under 16 became restricted, followed by an increase in the age restriction to 18 in 2006.
It’s not just knives, though, as there are any number of restricted or prohibited “weapons” in the UK, many of which range from obscure to—again with no disrespect to victims of violent crime in Britain—silly. The listing of what appears to be many traditional tools utilized in Asian martial arts seems a bit racist, and the inclusion of what they call a “zombie knife” just seems absurd. Apparently, a knife with both a “cutting edge” and a “serrated edge” is completely innocuous, but if words or images are added to the blade “suggesting it is used for violence,” it magically transforms into a dreaded “zombie knife.”
Also curious is the apparent exemption for any of the prohibited items if they are over 100 years old. If a newly manufactured piece of steel is too “dangerous” for law-abiding subjects in the UK to possess, what mystical transformation occurs once it passes the century mark in age? Steel, as well as many other metals, is extremely durable. A poorly maintained blade can be quickly returned to its original effectiveness in the hands of even a novice craftsman. Again, a silly exception, although we wouldn’t suggest removing it.
Returning to the heinous crime from last July, one quickly notes that none of the restrictions on knives that have been put into place in the UK had any impact on the perpetrator. That, of course, is not surprising. Much as we know here in America that restrictions placed on guns only affect the law-abiding, deranged violent predators like the British murderer in this case don’t care about the laws that have been put in place for “public safety.”
So, how did the perpetrator procure the kitchen knife he was supposed to be prohibited from procuring due to his being just shy of 18?
He bought it online. But if it is illegal to sell that kind of knife to someone under 18 in the UK, shouldn’t the online retailer, in this case Amazon, have safeguards like age-verification? Yes, and Amazon says they do.
But this particular fiend circumvented those safeguards using encrypted software. Amazon also stated it utilizes an “Age Verification on Delivery process” for items that are restricted for purchase by age. According to Amazon, the delivery driver handed the age-restricted parcel to someone “visibly over 25 years old.”
In spite of the guilty plea, there remain many unresolved questions in this case.
The real issue, however, is the fact that the perpetrator had exhibited years of problematic—to put it mildly—behavior, and little was done to address it. This sounds strikingly familiar to any number of high-profile violent crimes that have taken place in the US over the last several years.
This British monster first came to the attention of the government in 2019, when, at the age of 13, he contacted a UK counselling service, asking, “What should I do if I wanted to kill somebody?” Later calls had him claim he was being bullied and wanted to kill the person he alleged was responsible. He was visited by police and later expelled from his school after disclosing he frequently carried a knife to school.
He was then admitted to a “specialist education centre,” and during his admission meeting, stated the reason he brought the knife to his previous school was “to use it.” He was later referred to an anti-extremism program after he researched school shootings in class. In over 18 months, he was referred to the program three times.
In December 2019, he went to his old school armed with a hockey stick, threatened former classmates and teachers, and struck one child, causing a broken wrist. He had the names of classmates and teachers written on the hockey stick.
In 2021, police got involved after he kicked his father and damaged his car. In 2022, police were called when a bus driver alleged he had not paid the fare, and a few months later, they were called again after an argument over him being denied access to his computer.
In late 2022, he was enrolled in a new school, which mostly entailed home instruction where school staff were occasionally accompanied by police—presumably for their safety. Finally, one week before his attack, he used a fake name to book a taxi to take him to his old school where he had committed his hockey stick assault. His father noticed the taxi and convinced his son to return to his home. Prosecutors seemed to believe his father stopped an attack on his son’s former school.
So, all the warning signs were there, including acts of violence, but little was done. Instead, the UK government wants to focus on imposing additional burdens on law-abiding British subjects for purchasing common kitchen tools.
Let’s remember that this monster had likely intended to try to murder former classmates just one week before his eventual attack. The actions of his father seem to have dissuaded him from that assault, so he apparently did not mind waiting to kill. He apparently bought his knife online roughly two weeks before he turned 18, so even if more stringent restrictions or policies were in place, he wouldn’t have had long to wait before making his purchase.
And we should not forget the fact that he had manufactured his own supply of ricin; an extremely potent toxin. Who knows what he may have done with that had he run into a temporary roadblock for acquiring a kitchen knife?
As we recently reported, confidence in law enforcement in the UK is low. Crimes regularly go unsolved, and many Britons have given up on relying on police assistance, even when the circumstances warranted a law enforcement response. To make matters worse, law enforcement appears to be focusing its efforts on investigating and prosecuting people for posting jokes or opinions online that some might find offensive.
The fact that so many glaring warning signs were overlooked, dismissed, or simply ignored in this particularly heinous crime is not likely to win over any of those who do not have faith in British law enforcement. The silly response from the government of ratcheting up restrictions on kitchen tools will probably fail to make any converts, either.
It could be considered a Pythonesque response if it were not for the reprehensibly tragic crime.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
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.
The First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution serve as foundational elements of American law and governance.
Each amendment, while relatively brief in its phrasing, carries profound implications for the rights of individuals and the limits of governmental power. A close examination of the language — “Congress shall make no law” in the First Amendment and “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment — reveals significant differences in scope, interpretation, and historical application.
I try here to explore these distinctions and their broader constitutional ramifications.
The First Amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The phrase “Congress shall make no law” explicitly limits legislative power at the federal level. The framers of the Constitution designed this language to protect individual liberties against governmental overreach, specifically targeting Congress, the legislative branch. Over time, through the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment, these protections have been extended to state governments, as well. This textual structure underscores a negative liberty — a prohibition against certain types of governmental action rather than an affirmative grant of rights.
The Second Amendment states:
“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.”
The phrase “shall not be infringed” is broader and more abstract in its scope. Unlike the First Amendment, which directly addresses Congress, the Second Amendment imposes a general prohibition overall on the infringement of the right to bear arms, without specifying which branch or level of government it restrains; thus, all branches plus under the Fourteenth Amendment to the states. The lack of direct reference to any governmental body opens the language to broader interpretation and debate regarding its application spanning both Federal and State levels.
The First Amendment explicitly names Congress, emphasizing its role as the legislative body that could threaten freedoms of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. In contrast, the Second Amendment’s passive construction (“shall not be infringed”) leaves the scope open-ended, implying a universal prohibition against any infringement, regardless of the actor. This distinction has led to different judicial approaches in interpreting these amendments.
The First Amendment protects expressive and participatory rights, central to democratic governance. These rights are seen as essential for individual autonomy and collective decision-making. By contrast, the Second Amendment protects a specific individual and collective right — the right to keep and bear arms — which has been interpreted as connected to personal defense, resistance to tyranny, and the maintenance of a militia.
The Backstory
Historically, the First Amendment emerged from the Enlightenment’s emphasis on individual liberty and the abuses of speech and religious freedoms under British rule. Its phrasing reflects a reaction to specific historical grievances. Meanwhile, the Second Amendment was influenced by the colonial experience of armed resistance against Britain and concerns about standing armies. The phrase “shall not be infringed” again reflects a universal principle aimed at ensuring both personal security and the collective defense of liberty.
Judicial interpretation of the First Amendment has produced a robust body of jurisprudence. Cases such as Schenck v. United States (1919) introduced the “clear and present danger” test, while Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) refined protections for speech, ensuring that only incitement to imminent lawless action could be restricted. The incorporation of the First Amendment through Gitlow v. New York (1925) extended its protections to state governments, reinforcing its role as a cornerstone of individual rights.
Interpretation of the Second Amendment has been less consistent. For much of American history, courts viewed it as (improperly) linked to the maintenance of state militias. However, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) marked a significant shift, affirming an individual’s right to bear arms unconnected to militia service. This decision emphasized the personal right to self-defense, expanding the understanding of “shall not be infringed” as a broader safeguard against governmental action.
The phrase “Congress shall make no law” clearly delineates the boundaries of legislative authority, framing the First Amendment as a direct check on governmental power. In contrast, “shall not be infringed” in the Second Amendment suggests an overarching protection of a pre-existing right, implying that the right to bear arms is fundamental and not contingent on any governmental recognition.
Modern controversies surrounding the First Amendment include debates over the limits of hate speech, the regulation of misinformation, and balancing free speech with societal harm. The absolute nature of “Congress shall make no law” is tempered by judicial recognition that some speech, such as libel or incitement, can be regulated to protect other rights. While the Second Amendment faces intense debate over gun control and public safety. Opponents of expansive gun rights argue that the universal nature of “shall not be infringed” must be reconciled with the government’s responsibility to protect citizens, but this is very wrong. Supporters contend that any regulation constitutes an infringement on a fundamental right. Courts have struggled to balance these competing interests, causing a patchwork of state and federal regulations, which, by my humble understanding, should not be.
Historically, the First Amendment’s foundations in safeguarding discourse and participation highlight its role in fostering democratic resilience. By contrast, the Second Amendment’s roots in self-defense and resistance to oppression reflect its orientation toward individual autonomy and security. This difference manifests in contemporary discourse, where First Amendment issues often revolve around societal impacts of speech, while the Second Amendment revolves around balancing individual freedoms against the collective’s safety.
Both amendments endure constant scrutiny in a changing social landscape. The First Amendment contends with new digital-age challenges, such as social media regulation and artificial intelligence’s role in shaping public discourse. Similarly, the Second Amendment must address evolving weapons technology and the sociopolitical (read: emotional) dynamics of gun ownership.
Wrapping it all up, the differences between “Congress shall make no law” and “shall not be infringed” reflect distinct approaches to constitutional rights.
The former is precise and directed, limiting legislative authority to safeguard democratic freedoms. The latter is broad and universal, applied to State & Federal governments, protecting a fundamental natural right without specifying the scope of any restrictions. These linguistic nuances have shaped their interpretation, application, and role in American legal and cultural frameworks.
Simple breakdown:
“Congress shall make no law” applies to governmental/legislative roles, while
“Shall not be infringed” applies across the board!
What do you think? Are all laws having to do with firearms and “gun rights” unconstitutional? Let me know in the comments below.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
Amar, Akhil Reed. America’s Constitution: A Biography. Random House, 2005.
Rakove, Jack N. Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution. Knopf, 1996.
Balkin, Jack M. Living Originalism. Harvard University Press, 2011.
Winkler, Adam. Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America. W.W. Norton, 2011.
About Alan J. Chwick:
Alan J. Chwick, A.S., B.S., FL/NY/SC Paralegal is known for his involvement in legal articles usually related to firearm regulations and for his contributions to discussions on gun rights. Retired Managing Coach of the Freeport NY Junior Marksmanship Club. Escaped New York State to South Carolina and is an SC FFL & Gunsmith (Everything22andMore.com).
Criminal for gun control Menendez has been caught in a trap of his own making. (Senator Bob Menendez/Facebook)
“Former Sen. Bob Menendez sentenced to 11 years for corruption and bribery conviction,” CNN reported Wednesday. This was ” following his conviction on bribery and corruption charges after taking cash, a Mercedes Benz and gold bars as bribes in exchange for helping three businessmen and the Egyptian government.”
What this also means is that Menendez, a huge proponent of disarming law-abiding Americans, is a “prohibited person,” forbidden by federal (and New Jersey) law from owning a gun. He thus joins an uncounted number of criminal Democrat politicians, including a long list of many who were members of Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” coalition, now caught up in a net they cast to catch their countrymen.
Menendez was particularly zealous in that. “A founding member of the Senate Gun Violence Prevention Caucus,” a leftist boondoggle that criminalizes gun owners and, judging from the predators still able to arm themselves by ignoring the law, prevents no violence. In this case, his “Gun Records Restoration and Preservation Act” aimed at transactions completed by people obeying prior restraints could obviously not restore nor preserve any records of black market transfers.
Accounting for all of Menendez’s attacks on the Second Amendment would fill volumes. Suffice it to say a search for the term Bob Menendez + gun provides plenty of examples, including:
N.J. Senator Menendez co-launches bill to give ATF, FBI gun tracking power
Booker, Menendez, Blumenthal Reintroduce Federal Firearm Licensing Act
Sen. Bob Menendez, Mayor Ras Baraka call for more enforcement of federal gun laws
U.S. Senate Democrats unveil legislation to ban high-capacity gun magazines
Egypt, guns, money and power at center of Menendez indictment
That last point was elaborated on by Larry Keane of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, who noted:
The charges allege Sen. Menendez took bribes to benefit the businesses and the Egyptian government, “including with respect to foreign military sales and foreign military financing,” over which the senator has oversight as the Senate Foreign Relations Chairman, and Ranking Member previously. Sen. Menendez allegedly provided non-public information to intermediary businesses, after which one businessman texted an Egyptian official stating, ‘The ban on small arms and ammunition to Egypt has been lifted. That means sales can begin. That will include sniper rifles among other articles.’”
“Throw ‘em into prison for five years” is what New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez wants for any out-of-state concealed carry permit holder who enter his state with a firearm.
That’s a hell of an attitude for someone born to Cuban immigrants. Rather than embracing the freedom that made this country different from the totalitarian regime his parents fled, he instead adopted Fidel Castro’s tyrannical “¿Armas para que?” violence monopoly policies.
Maybe Menendez will soon meet some gun owners who are incarcerated simply for exercising a Constitutionally enshrined right. In any case, his now being one of the disarmed that he spent a career trying to turn ordinary citizens into recalls nothing so much as a line from Shakespeare’s Hamlet:
For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
Hoist with his own petard…
And what will be lost on him is people he has disparaged and tried to criminalize, Second Amendment advocates, believe a lifetime gun ban on non-violent people does not comport with the history text, and tradition of the right to keep and bear arms as understood by the Founders.
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.
I, Timothy Knight, former NRA Director, NRA whistleblower, and founder of the Colorado recalls, proudly endorse Jonathan Goldstein for a position on the NRA Board of Directors.
Jonathan Goldstein Needs Your YES Vote For a Seat on the NRA Board
Jonathan Goldstein has been a formidable advocate for the Second Amendment, demonstrating an unwavering commitment to the rights of gun owners. His legal acumen in firearms law has been pivotal in several landmark cases, ensuring that the principles of the Second Amendment are not just upheld but vigorously defended.
His track record in legal advocacy is not just commendable but essential for the ongoing fight to protect our constitutional rights.
During my tenure on the Nominating Committee, where I served alongside Jonathan, I witnessed firsthand his dedication to pushing the NRA toward positive change. He consistently asked probing questions and pushed for the inclusion of younger, dynamic members on the Board, understanding the necessity of fresh perspectives to keep the organization relevant and vibrant. His efforts to nominate new, younger individuals reflect a vision for a future where the NRA continues to grow and adapt to new challenges while staying true to its core mission.
Jonathan’s unwillingness to yield in the face of opposition, whether in the courtroom or within the boardroom, is exactly what the NRA needs. In an era where our rights are constantly under scrutiny and attack, having someone like Jonathan, who not only understands the legal landscape but also has the courage to stand firm, is invaluable.
I urge all NRA members to recognize the invaluable contributions Jonathan Goldstein can bring to the Board. His experience, dedication, and vision are critical for the NRA’s continued success and relevance in the defense of our Second Amendment rights.
Timothy Knight is a dedicated advocate for Second Amendment and Constitutional rights, known for founding the successful Colorado recalls. He served on the NRA Board, where his integrity earned him a reputation as an NRA Whistleblower. A skilled shooter and devoted family man, Timothy’s early experiences as an Eagle Scout have shaped his lifelong commitment to service and leadership.
I am privileged to endorse Jim Sheckels for the NRA Board of Directors. As someone who has firsthand experience challenging the NRA’s leadership, exposing internal issues, and mobilizing grassroots efforts, I recognize in Jim Sheckels a leader who embodies the principles and dedication needed to steer the NRA back toward its core mission.
Jim Sheckels’ involvement with Scouting is not only extensive but also profoundly impactful. His role as a National Rifle Association Training Counselor, Chief Range Safety Officer, and his certifications across various shooting disciplines from basic to advanced levels, make him uniquely qualified. At the 2023 National Scout Jamboree, Jim was instrumental in providing a safe and educational environment for thousands of Scouts and Leaders at the shooting ranges. His leadership ensured that these scouts and scouter were introduced to firearms safety and marksmanship in a way that aligns with the values of both Scouting and the NRA.
His dedication to training and education extends beyond the Jamboree. As Vice President of the Crosse Creek Rifle and Pistol Club in North Carolina, Jim has been pivotal in organizing public matches and fostering a community where safety and skill are paramount. His commitment to the Second Amendment is not just through words but through action, by educating and training the next generation of responsible gun owners.
Jim’s approach to his involvement in both Scouting and the NRA reflects the grassroots spirit I’ve advocated for. He understands that the strength of the NRA lies in its members and in the community it serves. His work with Scouting at the Jamboree level shows his capability to manage large-scale operations with integrity, focus, and a member-first mindset.
In Jim Sheckels, we have a candidate who not only brings a wealth of experience but also a passion for education, safety, and the preservation of our Second Amendment rights.
His election to the NRA Board would ensure that the organization continues to be an advocate for its members, focusing on education, safety, and the grassroots efforts that define our community.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case seeking to hold the FBI liable for trauma suffered more than seven years ago during a ‘wrong address’ raid in Atlanta. IMG FBIHQ-IG Public Domain
Can the FBI be held liable for a family’s trauma because a SWAT team smashed through the door of the wrong house in an October 2017 raid in Atlanta, detonating a flashbang grenade, handcuffing the man and holding him, a woman and her child at gunpoint?
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, and the outcome could have a lasting effect on the way federal law enforcement and even local police conduct raids.
According to USA Today, the agent in charge of the raid blamed a GPS device for the mix-up. Apparently, nobody checked the actual warrant for the right address, but only relied on GPS, which has been known for sending motorists down dead-end roads.
Later in the day, as reported by The Hill, FBI Special Agent Lawrence Guera returned to the home, apologized for the erroneous raid and promised to pay for the damages, and even left a business card.
But when the victims of this wrong door raid sued for compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for the trauma they suffered, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals turned them down flat. According to the USA Today report, the court said the FTCA “doesn’t apply if the disputed action by the law enforcement officer involved an element of judgment, even if the officer abused his discretion.”
The case brought by Trina Martin, her then-seven-year-old son Gabe (now in his teens), and her partner Toi Cliatt was detailed in a news release from the Institute For Justice (IJ) back in September. The Institute is described as “a nonprofit libertarian law firm that frequently brings cases to the high court.”
Here’s how that IJ release described what happened: Martin and Cliatt “were jolted awake by the sound of a flashbang grenade exploding in their living room. Toi, fearing that the home was being robbed, pulled Trina into the bedroom closet and reached for his legally owned shotgun. Just as he was about to grab it, an FBI agent barged in, threw him to the ground, and began interrogating him and Trina. All the while, Gabe was separated from his mother as officers stormed into his bedroom with guns drawn.”
“When Toi told the agents his address,” the narrative continued, “it dawned on them that they had raided the wrong house. The FBI had a warrant—for a house with a different address number on a different street.”
At least nobody was shot dead by the FBI team, which, by this point, may have exhaled a collective “Oops!” They withdrew and reportedly went to the right address, where an arrest was made.
The Institute for Justice is now involved, representing the couple. The case is known as Martin v. U.S.
“The FBI can’t undo the damage it caused by raiding the wrong house, but the government needs to pay for its mistake,” said Dylan Moore, an attorney at IJ. “Congress created the FTCA to give people like Trina, Gabe, and Toi a remedy. Courts should not do backflips to read that remedy out of existence.”
The Hill was conducting an unscientific survey of readers, asking whether they think the FBI should, or should not, have immunity in this case. Here are the latest results:
Definitely should not: 70%
Definitely should: 12%
Possibly should: 4%
Possibly should not: 10%
Other / No opinion: 4%
According to The Hill, seven members of Congress on both sides of the aisle filed an amicus brief with the high court, urging the justices to take the case, and this may have helped Martin and Cliatt in their efforts. The bipartisan group consisted of Senators Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) and Reps. Harriet Hageman (R-Wyo.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Dan Bishop (R-N.C.).
The Hill quoted from the brief: “Today, victims of wrong-home raids by federal officers in Collinsville, Illinois, may sue under the FTCA, but victims of an identical raid in Collinsville, Georgia, could not…That asymmetry is untenable and contravenes Congress’s deliberate decision 50 years ago to accept responsibility and provide redress to those harmed by federal law-enforcement officers’ misdeeds. This Court should grant review to restore uniformity in this important area of federal law and ensure that Congress’s policy judgment is given effect.”
As noted in the petition for certiorari, “Whatever the finer details of why Agent Guerra led his SW AT team to the wrong house and kicked in the door without confirming the address, the dispositive facts are undisputed: The FBI raided the wrong house, traumatizing an innocent family who had done nothing wrong. No factual disputes cloud the questions presented or their application to this case.”
The Court will likely hear the case sometime in the Spring and deliver a ruling, likely in June.
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.
Former Navy PO-1 Master-at-Arms Patrick Tate Adamiak. (Western Tidewater Regional Jail, Suffolk, Virginia, booking photo).
Patrick “Tate” Adamiak never sold a single real firearm—not one—even though he sold thousands of dollars per month of military gear and gun parts legally on his former website.
Adamiak was one of Gun Broker’s top 500 dealers, until the ATF decided to target him personally and lie under oath about the facts of his case. Now, unless someone quickly rights this unconstitutional wrong, Adamiak will be held in federal prison until 2042.
Adamiak, clearly, is the type of American most people admire.
“I am extremely patriotic. My whole life has been that way,” he told the Second Amendment Foundation by phone from a federal prison in New Jersey. “I am still proud to be American, proud of our flag and proud to be in this country. I have always had a strong desire to succeed.”
Adamiak enlisted in the Navy when he was 17, and eventually became an E-6 Master-at-Arms. He has a bachelor’s degree and was working on a master’s until his arrest. He was on track for an officer’s commission within Naval Special Warfare.
“I was pursuing becoming a SEAL officer,” he said. “I went to California for the first phase. A few months after that I was arrested, after a decade of working my ass off.”
He has always been “into guns.”
“My dad started teaching firearm safety,” he said. “I had BB-guns, and then I got my first rifle when I was eight. Since then, I’ve been hooked. I started collecting military gear and guns until I had a vast collection. This was our hobby together – me and my dad. We were building a collection together. I have about 150 firearms in my collection,” Adamiak said.
By 2016, his personal collection was gaining serious momentum.
“I was buying guns, military surplus and replica firearms,” he said. “My idea was to build a military display museum. I started buying, selling and trading to start my business, while I was in the Navy.”
Adamiak’s hobby quickly turned into a side-hustle – a hobby or pastime that pays for itself.
“I started focusing on that,” he said. “I got an LLC, a business license and a tax number. I started selling on Gun Broker. I became one of the top 500 sellers of niche gun parts. I’d buy in bulk and sell off a couple items. That’s how my business started, and it really took off.”
Adamiak was contacted by another large dealer who had similar interests and owns a military surplus museum.
“Basically, I put in a big list – a bulk order,” he said. “He started shipping to me every two or three weeks. I would buy at wholesale prices. It was completely legal – a big bunch of gun stuff. I obtained a replica Mark 19 grenade launcher and a replica M240 machinegun, which they later lied about at my trial.”
(Photo courtesy of Patrick “Tate” Adamiak).
Confidential informant
The confidential informant, or CI, that brought Adamiak’s freedom to an end was cooperating with the ATF to work off charges of his own.
“He used to own a machinegun shop,” Adamiak said. “The ATF raided his house, found a gun and charged him with felon in possession. He kept asking me for a machinegun, which I never got him. I got him a shroud off of Gun Broker. The ATF paid him around $8,000 for my case alone.”
“To be clear, I never sold a single item that qualifies as a firearm or requires an FFL (Federal Firearm License). Only non-regulated gun parts,” Adamiak said.
While dropping off gear at Adamiak’s home, the CI saw the replica grenade launcher and belt-fed machinegun replicas. He asked Adamiak if he had an SOT (Class 3 FFL).
“No, they’re replicas,” Adamiak replied. “That was the end of the conversation. We finished trading and bartering and he left.”
From this point forward, Adamiak said he became the target of a “fishing expedition by the ATF.”
“I was repeatedly asked by various people if I had machineguns for sale, and my answer never changed: No!” he said. “They attempted over and over again to have me source or put together a machinegun for them, but as a law-abiding citizen, I refused. I even cited NFA rules on several occasions in writing. I wouldn’t even bend a MAC-10 flat for them, which they asked me to do many times.”
Adamiak did agree to broker the purchase of a PPSh-41 barrel shroud for a client. The part does not qualify as a firearm.
“It was literally purchased in open commerce, with a business check, from a confirmed FFL as an unregulated part directly off of Gun Broker,” he said. “Evidently, the ATF must have realized this was the closest thing they could get from me to a firearm, but what they really wanted was to get in my house to see the Mark 19 and the M240 replicas that their CI was boasting about.”
“When applying for their search warrant the ATF told the judge in a criminal complaint that at issue was the PPSh-41 barrel shroud that they said was a machinegun, but that was not even close, legally,” Adamiak said.
Show trial
More than 40 federal agents and police officers raided Adamiak’s home and a rental property he owned. Agents came from the ATF, FBI, HIS, NCIS, SWAT, Bomb Squad and local police.
“They turned my house upside-down, but did not find a single functional machinegun or destructive device,” Adamiak said.
The agents seized about 35 replica firearms and parts from Adamiak’s personal collection and labeled them “suspected machineguns and destructive devices.”
Most worrisome, the agents seized money and silver Adamiak collected as “proceeds of illegal activity,” including his antique currency collection, which was worth thousands of dollars. Eventually, hiring an attorney was difficult for Adamiak because law enforcement took all of his savings.
“It’s my opinion and that of my family’s that the ATF realized they had messed up after they didn’t find a single illegal weapon,” Adamiak said. “So, they completely reinterpreted the statutes and implemented a new rule to spin the jury and get me convicted. They manufactured crime to convict me.”
The ATF’s first indictment charged Adamiak with possessing 33 machineguns. There were no destructive devices mentioned. To counter, Adamiak and his attorneys hired former ATF senior official Dan O’Kelly as a defense witness.
O’Kelly joined the ATF as a Special Agent in 1988 after serving 10 years as a sworn police officer. He became a legend within the agency, including a stint as the lead instructor of Firearm Technology on staff at the ATF National Academy. O’Kelly has taught internationally and co-wrote the program establishing the Certified Firearm Specialist for the ATF, while he was at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.
The prosecutors knew that O’Kelly would make mincemeat of their charges, so they reindicted Adamiak, charging him with possession of one machinegun and four destructive devices.
“They knew we’d make them look like fools at trial with Dan’s testimony, so the AUSA filed motions to block his expert testimony saying, ‘Any testimony about the definition of a frame or receiver of a machinegun would be both irrelevant and confusing to the jury.’” Adamiak explained.
His trial, he said, was “literally theatrical.”
“The AUSA absolutely twisted every fact, cherry-picked messages to completely change the whole narrative, and blatantly lied about everything to make me look bad,” he said.
She claimed the down payment for Adamiak’s house were profits of illegal gun trafficking. Adamiak bought his house a year before he started his hobby business using his Navy pay.
She claimed Gun broker is the dark web.
She used his military training against him.
She claimed he stole parts from the military, despite the fact that he had detailed records for every single part.
She claimed his honest business strategy of buying low and selling for profit was “greed.”
She attempted to make Adamiak look like a neo-Nazi because he had his grandfather’s WWII war trophies stored in his safe, some of which had German markings on them.
Throughout the trial, the ATF claimed that their CI had warned Adamiak about the “illegal weapons.” Most worrisome was the replica M249, which cannot even chamber a live round.
“The ATF even admitted in the report that it’s a replica,” Adamiak said. “The judge even brought this up in my sentencing order which indicates that she still thinks it’s real. It’s fake!”
All of the counts against him were almost laughable. None made any legal sense.
Counts 1 and 2 concerned the PPSh-41 receiver, which is not a firearm under current federal law.
Counts 3 and 4 concerned his M203 and M79, which are Title 1 firearms that were legally transferred by an FFL. Neither had a 40mm barrel affixed. Adamiak had 37mm barrels for both, which are legal and not subject to National Firearms Act (NFA) regulation.
Count 5 concerned two inert RPGs, which were missing all of the parts to make them functional and had holes drilled directly into their chambers.
“My lawyers said that they were almost happy that I was charged with these RPGs because it was so ridiculous that it would damage the ATF’s creditability and made the jury question their logic,” Adamiak said. “Unfortunately, the ATF decided to take my inert RPGs to their lab, completely rebuild them with components off one of their own real RPGs and demonstrate that they would work by shooting a .30 caliber training round in a self-contained firing mechanism. They essentially inserted a bolt-action rifle into the tube that looks like a rocket, fired one shot, and then said it’s a destructive device.”
Throughout the trial, the ATF’s attorneys showed jurors pictures of Adamiak’s extensive personal collection, including random parts, barrel shrouds and MAC-10 flats.
“They told the jury these were all machineguns,” he said. “The worst was the M240. They displayed a photo of the ATF case agent holding the belt-fed M240 replica and testified that it was a machinegun, and also made filings saying the same thing, despite the fact that the ATF’s own report says it’s a replica and not a firearm at all.”
Rather than winning the trial as his attorneys had claimed they would do, Adamiak was found guilty and sentenced to 20-years imprisonment. His attorneys never even called O’Kelly to testify, whom Adamiak had paid thousands of dollars just to be there.
O’Kelly was not impressed by the prosecution, which he believes was unfair.
“This was a prosecution by people who don’t know enough about guns, who don’t realize that what they’re looking at doesn’t satisfy the statutory definition,” O’Kelly told the Second Amendment Foundation. “When ATF encounters some of these devices, they say a forced reset trigger is a machinegun or a brace is a shoulder stock when they’re not. Then, armed with not enough information, they take it to a federal prosecutor, who takes them at face value. The next thing you know is someone is indicted, and their entire life is over.”
Takeaways
The ATF did not return calls or emails for this story. However, they could not wait to tell the world about Adamiak’s 20-year sentence.
“NORFOLK, Va. – A Virginia Beach man was sentenced yesterday to 20 years in prison for possessing and selling unregistered machineguns and possessing unregistered destructive devices,” a press release sent out in June 2023 falsely claims.
“According to court records and evidence presented at trial, between approximately October 2021 and April 2022, Patrick Tate Adamiak, 28, was obtaining illegal machine guns that were not registered and he was selling these machine guns online. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) purchased eight machine guns from him through a confidential source. They then executed a search warrant at Adamiak’s residence and recovered 25 additional unregistered firearms. A search warrant at his residence found that Adamiak was in possession of two grenade launchers and two antitank missile launchers. Adamiak is a Master at Arms in the U.S. Navy,” the Justice Department press release states.
Thankfully, the Navy never believed any of these false allegations. They never prosecuted Adamiak. In fact, the Navy never even sent him a letter.
Rather than demoting him, they let him burn through his personal leave while in jail. Usually, once a sailor goes to jail, they’re considered UA, but with Adamiak, things were different.
The Navy continued to pay him as an E-6 on the 1st and 15th of every month. Once he ran out of leave, he received a DD214 with an honorable discharge.
Unfortunately, Adamiak’s mother died about a month after his arrest, according to his father, David Adamiak.
“It was terrible. What scumbags the ATF are,” his father said. “They arrested him on my wife’s birthday and she died about a month later. They put her in the grave.”
Said David Adamiak: “I’m at my wit’s end. I can’t focus. I can’t believe this would happen to such a patriot. He’s been around guns since he was very young. I taught him how to shoot, and it was all used against him in court. The ATF took this model Sten – it’s just a Sten model. They took it back to their lab, but they couldn’t even get it to fire, but they said now that’s a machinegun. That was pretty much like their entire case.”
(Photo courtesy of Patrick Tate Adamiak).
A GiveSendGo account has been established to help Adamiak raise funds for his legal battles.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support 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.
On January 15th and January 16th, in Houston, Texas, two young men fired guns in defense of self and others. One young man was protecting himself and his companions in the car he occupied. The other was protecting his pregnant significant other. Both actions appear to be justified. Both young men are reported to be less than 21 years old.
The Texas restoration of Constitutional carry, passed in 2021, generally excluded people under the age of 21. Here are the two incidents.
On January 16, 2025, at 9:30 p.m., a young man was driving with his pregnant significant other. The incident started on I-610 in northeast Houston. From khou.com:
Police said the 20-year-old driver again tried to get away from the aggressive driver, but the truck drove into the oncoming traffic lanes to swerve in front of him and block them. That’s when HPD said the truck driver got out and ran toward the car with his hands near his pocket. Police said the 20-year-old driver feared for his life and opened fire through the front windshield and through the side of the car, hitting the aggressive driver in the torso, arm and leg.
According to HPD, the 20-year-old driver used to be a security guard and had handcuffs on him. He detained the other driver and contacted police. HPD said he was fully cooperating with investigators.
The alleged aggressive driver was taken to an area hospital where he is expected to survive.
“He’s our victim, but again, more of a suspect, really,” said Lt. R. Willkens with HPD. “Kind of a self-defense thing.”
No charges are expected for the 20-year-old.
On January 15, 2025, at 2:40 p.m. at 7050 Inwood Park Drive in Houston, a 19-year-old defended himself and his friends. From CityofHouston.news:
The male shooter, 19, was not injured in the incident.
HPD Homicide Division Sergeant N. Lazo and Detective M. Providence reported:
HPD patrol officers responded to a shooting call in the parking lot of an apartment complex at the above address and found a male suffering from multiple gunshot wounds. He was in possession of a firearm.
Paramedics pronounced him deceased at the scene.
Officers located the shooter at the scene. He stated that he and his friends were inside a vehicle when they were approached by the armed male, who raised a gun in their direction. The shooter stated he feared for his safety and fired shots toward the armed male, striking him. No one else was injured.
The incident will be presented to a grand jury. Because of an exception in the law passed in 2021, the 20-year-old in the incident that started on I-610 was legally in possession of a firearm. The exception applies to people possessing firearms in a vehicle or a boat and on the way to and from the vehicle or the boat.
The 19-year-old’s situation is not quite as clear, as he did not own a vehicle and was not driving it. It is unlikely he will be charged with possession because the prohibition on 18-20-year-old people from carrying firearms was struck down in a federal court case in 2022. No record of an appeal to the case was found.
Young adults (18-20-year-olds) are among those covered by the Second Amendment. As shown in these cases, they face serious dangers that can be mitigated by exercising their rights protected by the Second Amendment. It is expected that the Supreme Court will eventually strike down infringements preventing 18-20-year-olds from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
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.
