The only people requiring proof of citizenship to vote is a threat to are cheaters. (House Republicans/X.com)
“Judge blocks Trump election order despite overwhelming American support for voter ID,” Fox News reported Friday. “Federal court ruling strikes down executive action on election integrity as polls show 83% of Americans favor citizenship verification requirements.”
The judge is Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and “the portion of the order that [she] struck down included provisions related to requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote.”
Kollar-Kotelly based her decision on the separation of powers, which is independent of the overwhelming polling. She says elections are constitutionally the purview of Congress. To that end, Rep. Chip Roy sponsors a bill to require states to obtain proof of citizenship for federal elections, the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which has passed the House but is stalled in the Senate.
#BREAKING: The SAVE Act has officially PASSED the House, requiring proof of citizenship to vote
LFG!
208 Democrats voted AGAINST this measure though. That tells you everything you need to know. pic.twitter.com/fYAKnCVZvR
Democrats would have us believe it “disenfranchises” some of their constituents. How such constituents can still apply for government benefits that require similar ID, considered by collectivists to be “entitlements,” remains unexplained. Still, it shouldn’t be hard to find some since they’re claiming “millions.” Also absent from Democrats leveling such a charge is any indication of the Party reaching out to community organizations, churches, charitable organizations, and the like to identify such residents and assist them in establishing eligibility. You’d think it would be a natural for any congressperson to have a help desk in their district office, and ditto for state, county, and municipal reps.
But why fix something you say is important to you when you can complain and blame others instead? It serves their purposes more to level hyperbolic charges that help fuel resentment in their base by labeling Republicans as racists. Besides, who benefits from “undocumented” voters? Why would they want to kill that off?
For Clinton-appointee Kollar-Kotelly’s part, she may have a point in this case, but it’s also understandable to presume her order serves her personal political agenda as well. She’s the judge who blocked a rule by George W. Bush administration allowing visitors to national parks to carry concealed weapons after the Brady Campaign complained he couldn’t do that because “Prior to issuing the Final Rule, the Department of the Interior did not prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Protection Act” (apparently a DGU might accidentally hit a spotted owl?), and because its “members assert that they feel less safe and that the Final Rule has reduced their ‘opportunities to pursue recreational, aesthetic, and leisure activities in national park areas.’”
As for the SAVE Act, perhaps David Hogg’s Democratic civil war, with its radical leftist clown show, will derail the party’s chances in the midterms. Or perhaps feckless Republicans will once more snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It all hinges on what happens then.
The uncertainty in the face of certifiable insanity is unsettling. Still, gun owners should keep one thing in mind: NO matter what happens, even with illegal votes securing a trifecta, there aren’t enough of “them” to do what they want and take the guns. A “not safe for work” post (you’ve been warned) explains.
The truth is they wouldn’t dare. Which means the Second Amendment, battered as it may seem, is still working.
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.
You work hard, pay your taxes, and expect that money to serve American interests. What if I told you it’s been used—secretly—to bankroll the very people trying to strip you of your Second Amendment rights?
That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s the conclusion of deep-dive reporting from America’s 1st Freedom, AmmoLand News, and the hard receipts uncovered by watchdogs like Lee Williams and DataRepublican.com. The truth is finally out: a complicated web of nonprofits, government agencies, and billionaire-backed activist groups has been using U.S. taxpayer money—your money—to quietly fund anti-gun propaganda and legislation.
They Called It “Aid.” It Was Political Activism.
At the center of this scandal is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—a federal agency originally designed to help other countries with economic development and humanitarian aid. But during the Biden administration, USAID got hijacked.
Instead of helping nations in need, USAID began funneling American tax dollars into leftist nonprofits and activist groups, many of which are hell-bent on pushing gun control not just overseas—but right here at home.
We’re talking millions of dollars funneled into gun control powerhouses like Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, and Sandy Hook Promise, using a maze of shell organizations to hide the source of the money.
The Money Trail: Complicated on Purpose
Let’s be real. They didn’t want you to find this out.
They used a financial tactic straight from the political playbook: money laundering through “philanthropy.” Groups like NEO Philanthropy and the Tides Center acted as middlemen—nonprofits that take government grants and then redistribute the money to activist causes.
According to DataRepublican.com, here’s how some of your money was used:
Everytown received over $6.7 million via “charitable funds” from sources like Fidelity Investments’ donor-advised fund, but the origin traces back to government money via USAID.
Giffords was linked to over $8 million in similar funding.
Brady Center, March for Our Lives, and Sandy Hook Promise were also in the pipeline—indirectly but undeniably benefiting from taxpayer-funded grant networks.
Most of these groups want to gut the Second Amendment under the guise of “safety.”
Soros, Bloomberg & the Revolving Door
The plot thickens. This isn’t just random money ending up in activist hands.
Many of the players running these nonprofits used to work in government—or now work for George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, or Michael Bloomberg’s empire.
There’s even a pattern of meetings between Biden’s USAID leadership (like Samantha Power) and leftist mega-donors’ foundations. That’s not a coincidence—it’s a strategy. Use the government as an ATM for activism, with zero accountability.
Even media outlets weren’t safe. USAID paid Politico $44,000 in 2023-2024. That sounds small, but what is the total across federal agencies since 2014? Over $34 million. That money supports “news” coverage that constantly argues for stricter gun laws, while pretending to be neutral. Do you know how much they give to organizations like AmmoLand News that fight for your rights every day? ZERO!
What Changed? Trump & DOGE
President Donald Trump put a stop to it. One of his most impactful moves was launching the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which finally pulled back the curtain on this spending.
When the staff at Biden’s “Office of Gun Violence Prevention”—stacked with ex-Bloomberg lobbyists—realized what was coming, they jumped ship before Trump’s team could investigate.
Now, the audits are rolling in. DOGE and citizen-led efforts like DataRepublican.com are exposing how deep this rabbit hole goes. The numbers are shocking. The structure is deceptive. The intent is crystal clear: fund the anti-gun Left using your tax money, without your knowledge or consent.
The Cover-Up and the Outrage
Naturally, the people caught red-handed are playing victim.
Senator Chris Murphy called Trump’s investigation “corrupt.” Rep. Jamie Raskin claimed it “threatens lives.” But if there’s nothing to hide, why are 19 Democrat state attorneys general—including Letitia James—trying to block DOGE’s access to government records?
The louder they protest, the guiltier they sound. As Shakespeare said: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.”
Why This Matters
This isn’t just about money. It’s about trust, accountability, and the weaponization of government against its own citizens.
When the people who claim to “serve the public” use federal agencies and fake charities to bankroll efforts to disarm the public, they’ve crossed a red line. This is the kind of corruption we expect in banana republics—not the United States.
It shows why transparency, oversight, and a strong Second Amendment community are more important than ever.
What You Can Do
Visit DataRepublican.com – Learn how these grants were hidden. Use the graphs and share them widely.
Support pro-2A journalism – Outlets like AmmoLand News and SAF’s Investigative Journalism Project are leading the charge. Subscribe and share every article to help us!
Demand accountability – Contact your representatives. Ask why your money was used to attack your rights.
Vote accordingly – Politicians who supported this nonsense need to go.
Conclusion
The gun control lobby couldn’t win on the debate stage, so they turned to secretive funding networks and federal back channels. But the truth is catching up.
We finally have the receipts. Now, it’s our job to make sure America sees them—and never lets this happen again.
Tred Law is your everyday patriot with a deep love for this country and a no-compromise approach to the Second Amendment. He does not write articles for Ammoland every week, but when he does write, it is usually about liberals Fing with his right to keep and bear arms.
Government Opposes Compassionate Release of Gun Tuber Matthew Hoover For Terminal Medical Condition IMG: iStock-1245041394
Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Laura Cofer Taylor is trying to block the compassionate release of Matthew Hoover, who is suffering from a terminal illness.
Mr. Hoover is convicted of the illegal transfer of machine gun conversion devices (MCDs). He ran a successful YouTube channel called CRS Firearms. While running the channel, he was approached by a sponsor who sold a novelty item called the Auto Key Card. The Auto Key Card was a credit card-sized metal card with an outline inspired by a lightning link etched on its surface. Although Hoover never sold the cards and merely advertised them, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) claimed he entered into a conspiracy with the owner of the Auto Key Card company.
Even if that was true, the Auto Key Card never worked. An ATF firearms examiner cut along the lines and installed it in an AR-15. It did not work because the dimensions were not accurate. The examiner ended up cutting outside the lines. Even after cutting outside the lines, it still didn’t function because the metal was too thick. The ATF could only get hammer follow, which can be caused by a piece of metal getting stuck in the fire control group. There have been no examples of an Auto Key Card functioning as a lightning link to date. The creator of the card, Kristopher Justin Ervin, claims it was a novelty item used to inspire conversations about gun control.
AUSA Cofer Taylor delayed the trial several times because of cancer treatments. When Mr. Hoover wanted the same respect for his cancer, his request was denied. In prison, his cancer would continue to grow. His treatments were delayed during the trial and before he reached prison. Mr. Hoover would file for a compassionate release due to his terminal illness.
Many other people convicted of crimes have been released because of similar circumstances. Many of those crimes had actual victims. Mr. Hoover’s conviction was for a crime with no victims. Besides this charge, he has a clean record, but Cofer Taylor claims he will likely re-offend and deserves no mercy.
In her motion, the cancer survivor seems to question whether Mr. Hoover is actually sick, claiming that the evidence was not good enough. She fails to mention that court records show that she was aware of Hoover’s cancer during the trial. Also, Ms. Cofer Taylor cited several videos and articles this reporter wrote when she filed a motion to gag this reporter for writing about the case. Those articles talked about Hoover’s cancer. The motion to silence AmmoLand News’ reporting failed because of First Amendment concerns.
“Defendant’s request to the BOP for compassionate release claimed a basis of ‘Terminal Medical Condition,’ but otherwise was silent as to what terminal medical condition the defendant purports to have, and then in the notes claimed zero point offender status, See Doc. 354 at Ex. A. Section 1B1.13(b) permits a reduction of a defendant’s sentence based on the defendant’s medical circumstances, however, defendant has provided no evidence to support his request,” the legal filing reads.
Ms. Cofer Taylor also claimed that since Hoover called out the government after Ervin’s arrest, that should prevent a compassionate release. Under the United States Constitution, we are allowed to criticize the government, but since Ms. Cofer Taylor also tried to gag a member of the media, freedom of the press is guaranteed by the same Amendment; maybe she is not familiar with the First Amendment. She also claims that Hoover was encouraging “prohibited persons” to buy the Auto Key Card, but Hoover didn’t consider the Auto Key Card to be a gun.
The filing reads, “Even if this Court were to find that the defendant has established a basis for reducing his sentence, this Court should deny the motion because a reduction is not supported by the Section 3553(a) factors. As this Court noted at sentencing, a sentence of 27-33 months, less than what the defendant now requests, would have been ‘wholly inadequate’ to achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing. The Court reasoned that the defendant “specifically encouraged prohibited persons, including convicted felons, to purchase these illegal devices, which this Court described as “extremely dangerous.” In imposing the defendant’s 60-month sentence, this Court further observed that the defendant’s conduct ‘was not aberrant’ and that “he doubled down even after Mr. Ervin’s arrest.” Even if the defendant could establish a basis for a sentence reduction, the Section 3553(a) factors would preclude it.”
If the courts grant the motion for compassionate release, Hoover will be reunited with his wife and daughter. If he is denied, then the future remains unknown.
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.
Trump’s message after a tragic mass shooting at Florida State University was clear: defend the Constitution, even in moments of crisis.
On April 17, 2025, a deranged gunmankilled2 two people and wounded six others. The attack, which unfolded near the student union just before noon, rattled the campus and reignited fierce debate over gun policy and campus safety in Florida.
The shooter, identified as 20-year-old FSU student Phoenix Ikner, arrived at a campus parking garage around 11 a.m. and beganfiringa handgun outside the student union shortly before noon. Ikner chaotically moved across green spaces and buildings, firing indiscriminately. Law enforcement ultimatelyconfrontedhim. After refusing to comply with law enforcement directives, he was shot and apprehended by the officers at the scene.
President Donald Trump, whose primary residence is in Palm Beach, Florida,respondedswiftly to the tragedy. In his initial remarks, Trump described the shooting “a shame” and “a horrible thing,” stating, “Things like this take place. And we’ll have more to say about it later.” When pressed about the possibility of new gun control measures, Trumpreiteratedhis unwavering support for the Second Amendment:
“Look, I’m a big advocate of the Second Amendment. I have been from the beginning. I protected it, and these things are terrible, but the gun doesn’t do the shooting. The people do. It’s a phrase that’s used probably too often.”
President Trump further emphasized, “I have an obligation to protect the Second Amendment. I ran on the Second Amendment… and I will always protect the Second Amendment.” Trump’s comments made clear that this latest shooting would not prompt him to reconsider his stance on gun rights or support additional restrictions.
The FSU shooting occurred against a backdrop of contentious debate over campus carry laws in Florida. Just three weeks before the attack, the Florida Senate Criminal Justice Committee narrowly voted down a bill (SB 814) that would haveallowedconcealed carry of firearms on college campuses. The bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Randy Fine, was defeated in a 4-3 vote after Republican Sen. Ileana Garcia joined Democrats Mack Bernard, Jason Pizzo, and Carlos Guillermo Smith in opposition. Two other Republicans wereabsent, making Garcia’s vote decisive.
Sen. Garcia defended her vote,stating, “I have zero regret… This decision wasn’t about partisan politics; it was rooted in common sense. The incident at FSU was tragic, but the real issue lies not with the firearm itself, but with the factors that led to it.” The bill’s failure is notable in a state legislaturedominatedby a Republican supermajority (28-12 in the State Senate and 84-36 in the State House after the 2024 elections), further highlighting divisions even within the GOP on gun issues.
Florida already has several gun control laws on the books, including:
Banon concealed carry and open carry of firearms on college campuses.
Minimum age of21for purchasing rifles and handguns[10][18].
Three-day waiting period for most firearm purchases.
“Red flag” lawallowinglaw enforcement to temporarily seize firearms from individuals deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.
Despite these measures, the FSU shooter was able to obtain firearms and carry out the attack, violating multiple existing laws in the process.
While President Trump and many Republican lawmakers nominally remain committed to defending gun rights, the failure to pass the campus carry bill, due in part to a Republican defector, underscores ongoing divisions within the party. The FSU tragedy also raises questions about the effectiveness of current gun control laws, as existing measures did not stop the shooter from carrying out a heinous act.
As the investigation continues, the debate over how best to ensure campus safety in Florida and across the nation will certainly intensify.
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.
Recognition of rights restored: How many will follow, how will they qualify,and how long will it take? gun control gun rights iStock-gguy44 962772470
“On April 18, 2025, Todd Blanche, Deputy Attorney General signed a filing for the Federal Register (Docket No. OAG192) regarding ‘relief from disabilities’ for “Federal firearm privileges,” attorney Stephen Stamboulieh wrote in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Department of Justice filed on behalf of this correspondent. “In this filing, the Department of Justice identified ten (10) individuals for firearm restoration, and said that the ‘Attorney General has reviewed all the relevant facts for each individual listed below, including the materials that each individual submitted seeking either a pardon or relief from federal firearms disabilities…’”
Per the filing, the identified individuals are: Judy Broach, Danny Preston, Conrad Timothy, Lyn Dunham, Mel Gibson, Jessica Lynn Jacobson, Joseph Klecko, Wayne L. Mertz, Charles E. Moehring, Jr., Patrick Lynn Morgan, and Ronald Joseph Willkomm
“The document provides no details about what led to the loss of gun rights for these ten individuals, though Gibson’s no contest plea to misdemeanor battery in 2011 is a well documented matter of public record,” Cam Edwards wrote on Bearing Arms. Edwards also notes that “Gun control activists like Brady’s Kris Brown have alleged that the restoration of rights process announced by Bondi amounts to an ‘at best… a pay-to-play system that could arm the highest bidder, or at worst, automating a process that could arm those with criminal histories and dangerous behaviors.’”
Like their crime arguments that never mention defensive gun uses (DGUs), leave it to professional violence monopolist apparatchiks to always paint options in the most negative way possible for anyone dumb enough to turn to them for anything. In this case, Brown is committing a deliberate lie of omission by not conceding that these may, in fact, just be good citizens who once found themselves afoul of the law, now pose no danger, and would like all of their rights recognized, including the right to protect themselves. To the prohibitionists, though, none of us can be trusted, and lies about “commonsense gun safety laws that respect the Second Amendment” notwithstanding, their goal has always been to disarm their countrymen, a little at as time if that’s all they can get, but always with an eye on the prize.
Edwards is right, though; Mel Gibson’s is the only name that stands out. It’s probably not unfair to presume a media-savvy Donald Trump knows how a celebrity who enjoys enormous popularity with millions of voters can help warm the public up to the idea, and gun owners will benefit from that. Hopefully, the “A-list” actor/director will be able to use the bully pulpit afforded him by fame to take a stand for the Second Amendment, rather than vacillating that “I don’t even know whether I’ve made up my mind on this issue. It’s a prickly one.”
It’s really not, and it’s with an eye toward determining how these 10 choices were selected for DOJ’s initial offering that prompted this FOIA request, asking for:
All records “reviewed” by the Attorney General for each individual listed in the filing;
All records “that each individual submitted” to receive relief under 18 U.S.C. 925(c); and
All other records not “submitted” by the list of individuals, but relied upon by the Attorney General in establishing that “each individual will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief to each individual would not be contrary to the public interest.”
This action can also help us see one other thing important to citizens serious about holding their government accountable: Under a Bondi DOJ that says it’s committed to “protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” will we see dutiful compliance and production of requested documents, or more of the trademark stonewalling the department has become notorious for in prior administrations?
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.
Earlier this month, U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) took to the Senate floor so that he could complain about President Trump and Elon Musk. He went on for over 24 hours. One can speculate as to why he felt it necessary to waste the time of lawmakers when everyone with even a passing familiarity with today’s political climate is painfully aware that virtually every Democrat in Congress is committed to opposing Trump and his policies.
Yes, there is the occasional elected Democrat who will side with the President on certain issues, but the general public seems to perceive Democrats as being wholly united in opposition to Trump. Considering he won the White House by a veritable electoral landslide, won the popular vote, and recent polls asking Americans if they feel the country is headed in the right direction have reached higher levels than they have in many decades, it’s no wonder support for Democrats, in general, has reached historic lows.
But what does any of this have to do with the Second Amendment, and why do we think Booker should identify as a hypocrite? Well, the two are related.
It seems that, prior to seizing control of the Senate floor, one of Booker’s staffers was arrested for carrying a firearm on the Capitol grounds. Booker is a well-known anti-gun extremist, and has supported virtually every proposal that has sought to undermine the Second Amendment. So it would seem a bit hypocritical to employ someone who seems to actually believe in the right to bear arms.
The staffer, who we are not going to name, is apparently a former law-enforcement officer. He also, apparently, possesses a carry permit. Unfortunately, that permit does not allow for him to carry on the Capitol grounds. Of course, NRA supports expanding the areas where law-abiding citizens may carry firearms for personal protection—including those who have gone through the process of obtaining a carry permit.
There are not many details regarding this incident, but one report notes that the Capitol Police stated, “[A] Member of Congress led an IDed staff member around security screening at the Hart Senate Office Building.”
Now, it’s at least reasonable to speculate, if not assume, that the “Member of Congress” who led this staff member around the screening was Cory Booker. They were, after all, going into the Hart Senate Office Building, which is where Booker’s office is located.
It would also seem plausible, if not probable, that Booker led his allegedly armed staffer around screening because he knew he was armed. Whether the staffer was armed (if the accusations are true) strictly on his own behalf, or on behalf of another, is unclear.
Whatever the case, perhaps Booker should address what seems to be a hypocritical position of opposing the Second Amendment while employing someone who seems to exercise it (perhaps to his own benefit), and circumventing security meant to restrict the Second Amendment.
Ultimately, Cory Booker cares about Cory Booker, and his penchant for self-promotion is well-established.
Back when he made his “I am Spartacus” comment during the debate over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, he tried to present the image of a brave man risking expulsion from the Senate for releasing what he claimed were classified documents relating to Kavanaugh.
His recent publicity stunt on the Senate floor is really no different. One could speculate that it was merely intended to give him more public exposure, and his ultimate goal is not to stop Trump policies, but to lay the groundwork for another run at becoming President. Booker, you may recall, was one of the Democrat candidates for president who dropped out early in the 2020 race to challenge President Donald Trump.
For what it’s worth, Booker certainly differentiated himself from the last two Democrat presidential candidates. Joe Biden likely couldn’t stay awake for 12 hours, let alone speak for 24, and Kamala Harris…well, the term word salad is a bit overused when referring to her, but the thought of 24 hours of her speaking might evoke the image of a truckload of lettuce spilling its haul on an open highway.
Hypocrite or not, at least Booker is able to speak, and for a considerable length of time. Perhaps that is the new standard for anti-gun Democrat presidential candidates.
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
Virginia gun owners: Get involved or this will be your future in Richmond. (Congresswoman Abigail Spanberger/Facebook)
“Abigail Spanberger’s war on guns [is] a clear and present danger to Virginia’s Second Amendment rights,” AmmoLand Correspondent Tred Law declared. “Despite her carefully polished image as a moderate, Spanberger’s actions—and promises—reveal her to be one of the most extreme anti-gun candidates ever to seek Virginia’s highest office.
“From public rallies with Moms Demand Action to her enthusiastic support of California-style gun bans, Spanberger has made it clear: if elected governor, she will sign into law a sweeping slate of gun control measures that would strip law-abiding Virginians of their constitutional rights,” Law noted.
Now a new article by Fox News says the former congresswoman and CIA operations officer has been accused of ethics violations for failing to list her home, worth $1M, being transferred to a trust benefiting her children on financial disclosure reports to Congress:
“The campaign for Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, who is aiming to replace incumbent GOP Gov. Glenn Youngkin, is calling the incomplete disclosures ‘a calculated lie,’ not an ‘accident.’ But, according to Spanberger’s campaign, the only asset contained in the trust is Spanberger’s personal residence, which is not required to be disclosed.”
As scandals go, that’s pretty weak tea, and anyone counting on it to be a showstopper and derail her campaign will be disappointed. And that’s too bad, because Marine veteran Earle-Sears promises to be as good on guns as Spanberger is bad.
“Marines know how to use guns, and I won’t ever support a red flag law!” she pledges on X.com. “The 2nd Amendment says, ‘shall not be infringed!’ #SemperFi.”
Spanberger, on the other hand, never saw a gun she didn’t want to grab. I’ve not made a point of following all the infringements she demands in detail because there are so many prohibitionist Democrat politicians out there, and I just don’t have the time, but here are a few items that have come across my desk over the years.
She bragged about her oath to the Constitution “put[ting] country first before party” while simultaneously bragging about all the ways she was undermining “the security of a free State.”From the original War on Gunssite comesthis demonstrable lie:
“Spanberger cited her background. A former officer in both law enforcement and the CIA, Spanberger said she grew up in a house filled with guns among a family of sportsmen. ‘I fully support the Second Amendment,’ she said. ‘It is a fundamental constitutional right, and I affirm that.’”
And who is satisfied that all questions concerning the “14,000 votes [Spanberger found] for herself on a flash drive when she was behind in her race” have been completely answered?
For someone with her access to government power circles, inquiring minds want to know more about her stint teaching at “the Islamic Saudi Academy, which later fended off controversy after a valedictorian was charged with aiding al-Qaida.” The biggest concern her campaign, the Democrats, and the media (but I repeat myself) had about that and other irregularities was the Post Office screwed up, and the PAC that found out shouldn’t have.
If elected governor, Spanberger threatens to enact every infringement that comes across her desk, whereas Earle-Sears will serve as a veto bulwark against Democrat excesses. Every Virginia gun owner who cares about the Second Amendment needs to involve themself in this campaign and do more than post occasional internet comments.
Then, inform yourself about what’s going on politically in Old Dominion, and there’s no better way to do that by becoming a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. These folks do a remarkable job promoting good legislation and mobilizing against bad, and they do it under the constraints of limited manpower and resources. They need you to help carry the burden, and if you think of what they do for you, it’s not that big an ask. Join them.
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.
As this correspondent sits in the Press Office at the 2025 Annual Meeting of the NRA in Atlanta, Georgia, there is time to reflect on the enormous progress which has been made in restoring rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Bill of Rights.
The first time I was in Atlanta for more than a plane exchange was within a month or two of 51 years ago, while on active duty in the United States Army, in 1974. This correspondent attended the NRA Annual Meeting in Atlanta in 2017.
In 1974, traveling across state lines with firearms was a perilous proposition. It would be 12 years before the Firearms Owners Protection Act (FOPA) was passed, with intense lobbying by the NRA. Peaceably carrying unloaded firearms locked in your vehicle was subject to various state and local laws. This incremental improvement of lawful interstate carry is often ignored by people discussing FOPA.
There was no permit to carry in Texas. There was a somewhat ambiguous exception for carrying while traveling. You could carry on your own land in Texas.
In 1974, there were may issue permits by local Sheriffs in Georgia and Mississippi for residents. Alabama had a shall-issue permit system, which depended on the local sheriffs.
In 1974, this correspondent was acutely aware of the many legal vulnerabilities associated with carrying arms across state lines. Traveling under orders while on active duty with the army provided some protection.
The situation had improved significantly by the time of the 2017 trip to the NRA Annual meeting from Texas to Georgia.
FOPA had been passed. As long as you could legally possess firearms where you were going and where you had been, federal law gave you some protection. Georgia and Mississippi passed a shall issue law in 1989. Texas passed a shall-issue permit law in 1995. Louisiana became shall-issue in 1996. Louisiana passed an improved Right to Carry amendment to its Constitution in 2012. They had a shall-issue permit and open carry. In 2016, Mississippi joined the Constitutional Carry club.
In 2025, Constitutional Carry (permitless carry) became law in 29 states. When the 30th state will join the club is uncertain. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Georgia are all Constitutional Carry States. The Supreme Court issued the landmark Bruen decision in June 2022. About a dozen recalcitrant states still fight to prevent the exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment. Numerous cases are in the courts. A second Trump presidency makes nullification of the Second Amendment by the courts unlikely.
In 1974 it seemed the battle for Constitutional government had been lost. Progressive philosophy was in power nearly everywhere. President Reagan was in the future, the Cold war was in full swing. Vietnam was still a hot war. This correspondent decided to fight for recognition of Second Amendment rights because giving up meant giving up the rule of law. In many ways, it meant giving up on the idea of limited government.
Contrary to expectations, Second Amendment supporters have been mostly winning for the last 40 years.
Much remains to be done. Don’t forget how much has been accomplished by steady incrementalism. The facts, the culture, and the Constitution are with Second Amendment supporters. The primary tools of our opponents are lies and emotional deception.
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.
Last February, NRA-ILA’s reporting exposed the case of Taylor Taranto, a pardoned January 6 protestor separately arrested on firearm charges in Washington, D.C.
One of those charges alleged possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle (SBR) under the National Firearms Act (NFA). The firearm in question was a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace, which would not have been considered an SBR until a 2023 rulemaking by the Biden-Harris administration reclassified potentially millions of braced pistols as SBRs. By the time of Taranto’s prosecution, that rule had been vacated by a federal judge in Texas. Yet the same Biden-era U.S. attorney who had charged Taranto for his presence at the January 6 protest insisted that the government could continue to prosecute Taranto under the rule’s terms as “ATF’s best understanding of the [underlying] statute.” On April 16, however, that U.S. attorney’s successor, Edward Martin, moved for dismissal of the NFA count against Taranto “in the interest of justice.”
What this move portends for the government’s position on braced pistols generally is not immediately clear. The Biden-Harris rule, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” remains on the books, although its enforcement is still enjoined. The government’s former position in the Taranto case, however, tried to circumvent the court rulings prohibiting enforcement of the rule by claiming ATF still had the authority and mandate to enforce the NFA itself. And if the agency’s enforcement decisions “tend[ed] to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule,” then so be it, the government argued in a brief.
Taranto’s attorney had characterized this position in a court filing as “truly astonishing,” as well as “contradictory, unfair, and most importantly not legally sound.”
The arguments supporting the NFA charge had been raised by former U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Matthew Graves, also known for aggressive pursuit of January 6 protestors, including those – like Taranto – charged with misdemeanors. Graves resigned on January 16, 2025, shortly before President Trump took office in his second term.
Although President Trump pardoned the January 6 protestors, Taranto remained in D.C. jail on the firearm-related charges.
His tribulations in confinement have been extensively documented online, including his description of being confined to a cell with water seeping through the walls, resulting in continual mold growth and water on the floor. The obvious unhealthiness of these conditions, according to Taranto, is exacerbated by lack of light, long periods of confinement to the cell, lack of basic sanitation, and poor nutrition. It is unclear if Taranto will be released, as he still faces a pending felony count of carrying the CZ Scorpion in D.C. without a license, as required by District of Columbia law.
Ironically, although the NFA charge had required the government to argue the braced CZ Scorpion was a rifle, the charge under D.C. law simultaneously required it to argue the same firearm is a handgun.
The dismissal of Taranto’s NFA charge follows an April 7 announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice and ATF of a “comprehensive review of [the] stabilizing brace regulations.” This will involve “consultations with stakeholders, including gun rights organizations, industry leaders and legal experts,” with the goal of ensuring the resulting policies are “constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”
The position former U.S. attorney Graves had taken in Taranto’s case with respect to the NFA charge obviously would not have survived this kind of scrutiny, and it is commendable the government appears to have recognized as much. NRA-ILA’s original reporting, and subsequent efforts by other pro-gun groups, including Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Council, undoubtedly contributed to this outcome.
We will report on further developments of the government’s ongoing review of the braced pistol rule, as well as on Taranto’s remaining charge, as they become available.
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
Meet the Man Whose Lies Put an Innocent Sailor in Prison for 20 Years iStock-1178499375
The government’s case against Patrick “Tate” Adamiak was led by two Assistant U.S. Attorneys, but their main witness became the real reason why a jury found Adamiak guilty, and a federal judge sentenced him to 20 years in prison.
To be clear, Adamiak was railroaded by Jeffrey R. Bodell, who works out of a small ATF office in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
According to documents obtained by the Second Amendment Foundation, Bodell is an ATF Firearms Enforcement Officer, or FEO, who has worked in ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division since he was hired in November 2020.
When he took the stand to testify falsely about what he did to Adamiak’s firearms, Bodell had been an ATF employee for less than two years.
Most damning was the fact that this was the first time Bodell had ever testified at any trial.
Bodell’s inexperience was not missed by Adamiak’s defense attorney, Larry Woodward, according to a transcript of the trial:
WOODWARD: Good morning, sir. My name is Larry Woodward and I represent Mr. Adamiak. My question is have you ever testified as a witness, expert witness before?
THE WITNESS (Bodell): I have not. This is my first time.
WOODWARD: This is your first time?
THE WITNESS (Bodell): Yes, sir.
WOODWARD: Okay. Thank you.
Background
According to his Curriculum Vitae, in December 2011 Bodell earned a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice from Shippensburg University, which is located in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. However, school officials did not return calls seeking to verify his degree.
Bodell also states he obtained a diploma from a “Master Gunsmithing Program” in May 2017 at the Pennsylvania Gunsmith School, which is located in Pittsburgh. However, school officials did not return calls seeking verification.
After earning his gunsmithing degree, Bodell’s CV shows he worked at three gun shops but for short periods of time.
He claims to have worked for Lebo’s Gunsmithing in Shippensburg for 10 months, Legendary Arms Works in Harrisburg for 16 months, and then he ran his own gun shop called Bodell Custom, LLC, for 17 months in Shippensburg. After closing his own gun shop, Bodell went to work for the ATF.
According to a transcript from Adamiak’s trial, Bodell described his career rather quickly.
“I attended Pennsylvania Gunsmith School where I, upon graduation I worked for a small gunsmithing shop for good, a year and a half, conducting general gunsmithing. After that I worked for a semi-custom production bolt-action rifle company making rifles for a year and a half. And then after that I had my own gunsmithing business based out of my house,” the excerpt from the trial states.
It should be noted that Bodell’s six-page Curriculum Vitae is loaded with long lists of the firearms on which he was trained, but it is also chock-full of nonessential information, including legislation he has studied, historic information he received, museums he has toured, and trade shows he attended.
Bodell did not respond to calls or messages left on his cell phone or with his employer. No photo of Bodell could be found.
Problems
Adamiak, who is now 31, was just a 28-year-old E-6 in the U.S. Navy prior to his arrest. He enjoyed firearms and ran a private website that sold gun parts—not guns. He was always extremely careful about what he sold. After all, he had to protect his naval career, which was doing extremely well.
Adamiak was unprepared for Bodell or his incredible deceptions, which have become almost legendary. Bodell actually turned toys into firearms and legal semi-autos into machineguns.
Bodell inserted a real STEN action and a real STEN barrel into Adamiak’s toy STEN submachinegun and got it to fire one round, even though the toy’s receiver wouldn’t accept a real STEN magazine. Bodell actually classified the toy, which are very popular, as a machinegun.
Bodell fired five of Adamiak’s very expensive and extremely collectible legal semi-autos, which fire from an open bolt. All the ATF technician could achieve was semi-auto fire, but that didn’t stop him. He classified all five highly sought after firearms as machineguns.
Bodell ruled that several receivers that had been cut in half were actually machineguns. The same parts are still legally sold online and do not require an FFL or any paperwork.
RPGs
The worst thing Bodell told the court were his misconceptions about two inert RPGs.
Bodell took the inert rocket launchers to the ATF’s lab and added missing fire-control components including a firing pin from a functional RPG from the ATF’s collection. The agent also added a sub-caliber training device that resembles a warhead, which can fire 7.62x39mm rounds on its own without even loading it into an RPG.
“He fired a 7.62x39mm rifle cartridge through it utilizing the sub-caliber training device, which is a standalone rifle that can be fired independently on its own,” Adamiak said last week.
Bodell falsely testified that the missing parts didn’t matter, legally.
“It doesn’t matter whether it fires or not, and if it’s missing some component parts, it wouldn’t be relevant to the classification of a destructive device,” Bodell told the court, which is not what the statute or case law state.
Bodell even made a video of him and an assistant firing one rifle round from Adamiak’s heavily converted RPG.
“An RPG is a very simple and crude device,” Adamiak said. “Taking a piece of metal pipe and hose clamping a fire control mechanism to it would effectively duplicate what Bodell did in his testing.”
Takeaways
Because the ATF screwed up, kicked down Adamiak’s door and then created a multitude of fake charges, it proves they would rather prosecute an innocent man and force him to serve two decades behind bars than admit the truth—that their special agents don’t have a clue about what they’re doing. That’s why the ATF was forced to call in their ringer, Bodell, to help make their fake case.
Once the ATF turned the case over to Bodell, Adamiak’s innocence no longer mattered. Bodell would break all the rules.
All of what Bodell insisted were illegal items are still sold legally online: Inert RPGs, toy STENs, submachinegun receivers and especially open-bolt semi-autos. The RPGs, toy STENs and submachinegun receivers don’t require any paperwork to purchase.
Bodell is not alone. His opinions, and those of his colleagues, other Firearm Enforcement Officers, are fed to them by senior ATF officials. That is why Adamiak received such a stiff two-decade sentence, because these FEOs are paid liars. In many cases, it’s like they are the half-educated leading the blind.
Despite Bodell’s and the ATF’s untruths, an anti-gun judge crippled Adamiak’s defense. One of his defense experts, former ATF senior official Daniel G. O’Kelly, wasn’t even allowed to testify much despite his vast knowledge.
O’Kelly joined the ATF as a Special Agent in 1988 after serving 10 years as a 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.
After lengthy testimony from both Bodell and O’Kelly on one issue, the judge sided with O’Kelly, and denied the prosecutors’ attempt to penalize Adamiak for 977 additional “machineguns,” which were just flat pieces of metal. The additional 10 years prosecutors wanted for the flats were not added to Adamiak’s 20-year sentence.
O’Kelly, and Adamiak, wishes he could have testified about the other false claims prosecutors made in the case. Even though his testimony was very limited by the court, O’Kelly still wishes Adamiak well.
“The ATF teaches its agents the minimum about guns. If they encounter something they don’t understand, they’re supposed to ask the (Firearms Enforcement Officer), but the answer they get is a directed response from the administration. These FEOs are not allowed to give their opinions,” O’Kelly said Thursday afternoon. “The FEO’s testimony is a substance of the opinion that was forced by official ATF opinion on any firearm issue. That official opinion is based upon what an anti-gun administration has told them is should be. I’ve proven that, in terms of what the ATF has suffered on a number of issues.”
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.
NICS Background Check Marijuana Exclusion ATF Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record Question. iStock-919659526
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a case with major implications for the Second Amendment and federal drug laws, the U.S. Solicitor General appointed by President Donald Trump has asked the Supreme Court for a 30-day extension to decide whether to challenge an appeals court ruling that chips away at the federal gun ban for marijuana users.
The case, United States v. Baxter, centers on Keshon Daveon Baxter, who was caught in Des Moines, Iowa with a loaded pistol and a bag of marijuana in 2023. Federal prosecutors charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a statute that bars “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing firearms.
Baxter fired back with a constitutional challenge, arguing that the statute is unconstitutionally vague and violates the Second Amendment when applied to someone like him—a nonviolent individual not under the influence at the time of arrest. While the district court rejected his claims, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed in part and ruled that there wasn’t enough evidence to determine whether the ban was constitutional as applied to Baxter’s specific circumstances.
Now the Biden-era ruling is in limbo. Trump’s Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, is weighing whether to escalate the fight to the Supreme Court. In a brief filed on April 18, 2025, Sauer said more time was needed “to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals’ ruling.”
A Crumbling Gun Control Pillar?
This isn’t an isolated incident. Over the past year, multiple federal courts—including in the Fifth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits—have raised serious doubts about the legality of banning gun ownership based solely on marijuana use. Some judges have outright called it unconstitutional, especially when there’s no proof the person was high while carrying a gun.
That’s a big deal. Millions of Americans now legally use marijuana in their states, and under current federal law, they’re stripped of their Second Amendment rights for doing so.
Groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) are paying close attention. “Historically, Americans were only disarmed for being dangerous,” the FPC said in a statement. “There’s no historical precedent for disarming someone just because they used marijuana.”
The FPC and other pro-gun legal groups see Sauer’s extension request as a promising sign that the Trump-aligned DOJ could reverse course and abandon the broad ban on marijuana users’ gun rights altogether.
Political Tensions Simmer
The Biden administration has strongly defended the gun ban, claiming marijuana users are a public safety risk and even linking marijuana use to poor firearm storage and increased suicide risk. Biden’s DOJ has repeatedly leaned on the Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision, which upheld gun restrictions for those under domestic violence restraining orders, to justify § 922(g)(3) enforcement.
In contrast, Trump has sent mixed signals. Once during a speech at a National Rifle Association (NRA) leadership forum he floated the idea that “genetically engineered cannabis” might be linked to mass shootings, his administration’s move to appoint Sauer—and now the hesitation to push this case to the high court—signals potential daylight between the prior rhetoric and present legal strategy.
What’s Next?
If the Supreme Court ultimately takes the case and rules against the government, it could strike down or narrow the use of § 922(g)(3) nationwide—setting a landmark precedent that protects gun rights for law-abiding cannabis users.
The government now has until May 6, unless the extension is granted, to decide whether to file a petition for review. With dozens of other similar challenges making their way through the courts, what happens in Baxter could reshape the legal landscape for gun owners across the country.
