Tag: second amendment

Tenth Amendment Center: Eight Essential Principles Behind the 2nd Amendment

Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin writes Eight Essential Principles Behind the 2nd Amendment.

There is only one thing the ATF is authorized to do under the Constitution.

Disband!

This may sound like hyperbole, but when you understand the following eight essential principles from the founders behind the Second Amendment, this becomes completely clear.

First, the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right. In View of the Constitution of the United States, St George Tucker wrote, “The Right to Self Defense is the first law of nature,” and he called it “the true palladium of liberty.”

In other words, you have the right to defend yourself simply because you exist.

Samuel Adams made a similar assertion decades earlier, saying “Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life; secondly to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”

It follows from this that the Second Amendment isn’t your “gun permit.” You don’t need government permission to exercise a natural right. In effect, you are your own gun permit.

This leads to a third key point: every federal gun law is unconstitutional. 

All of them, past, present, and future – without exception.

Theophilus Parsons said, “No power was given to Congress to infringe on any one of the natural rights of the people.” [Emphasis added]

The Second Amendment was intended to clarify this point, explicitly stating that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

Even though the Second Amendment was only intended to restrict the actions of the federal government, state and local restrictions on firearms also violate your individual, natural rights. As Mercy Otis Warren put it, “Self-defense is a primary law of nature, which no subsequent law of society can abolish.” [Emphasis added]

James Wilson echoed the same idea, writing, “The defense of oneself, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law.” [Emphasis added]

So why do we even have a Second Amendment?

The founders cited four primary reasons.

  • It helps promote the individual, natural right of self-defense. 
  • It guarantees the states a militia power of their own to balance the military power of the federal government. – in other words, it prevents the need for large, permanent standing armies
  •  It was adopted to support the people defending against foreign invasion.
  •  Defense against domestic tyrants.

This raises the sixth key point. To fulfill the purposes of the Second Amendment, the people need to have the weapons necessary to get the job done. In other words, it’s not just about “muskets.” To render a standing army unnecessary, the people have to have military arms.

Tench Coxe pointed out that the people have the right to every type of weapon common to a soldier.

“Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.” [Emphasis added]

Coxe’s view should come as no surprise. The Revolutionary War had ended only five years earlier. If the colonists had not possessed military-style weapons, they would have lost the war.

James Madison alluded to this in Federalist #46, as he pointed out that a well-armed citizenry can protect themselves against an overreaching government. 

“It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.”

More generally, the seventh key point is that the founders viewed disarming the people as tyranny. 

During the Virginia ratifying convention, George Mason gave a history lesson, reminding the delegates that “an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania” advised Parliament “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

Mason continued, nothing that “they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”

Noah Webster expressed a similar view, writing, “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed.”

Standing armies were anathema to the founding generation, and many Second Amendment supporters miss the point that a well-armed populace mitigates the need for one.

St. George Tucker made this connection clear.

“Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Finally, we will never protect our right to self-defense and to keep and bear arms by getting on our knees and begging the government to stop violating it. As Thomas Jefferson put it, “A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift of their chief magistrate.”

During the North Carolina ratifying convention, James Iredell who was one of the first Supreme Court justices said, “The only resource against usurpation is the inherent right of the people to prevent its exercise.”

Roger Sherman made a similar point during a debate in the House of Representatives. 

“It is the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.”

Putting these eight points together, it all boils down to this: The only way to protect your rights is to exercise them whether the government wants you to, or not. 

Before you go, a quick bonus point. 

As Thomas Jefferson advised his 15 year old nephew Peter Carr, it’s essential for young people to be well-armed and trained too. He wrote, “As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun.”

“While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion on your walks.”

Daily Caller: Federal Court Strikes ATF Ban on Reset Triggers

From Daily Caller, Pro-Gun Group Secures Big Win Over ATF In Federal Court

A federal court on Tuesday struck down a ban imposed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) on reset triggers.

The ruling comes as the result of a lawsuit filed by The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR). U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor “vacated” the agency’s ban on the devices, arguing that it had overstepped its authority when it redefined forced reset triggers as machine guns, according to a press release from NAGR.

A forced reset trigger (FRT) is a firearm component that allows the trigger to reset more quickly than a regular trigger by forcing it back to its starting position after it is fired. The mechanism enables a shooter to fire multiple shots at a faster rate without converting the weapon into a fully automatic firearm.

The court’s ruling was influenced by the Supreme Court’s decision against the agency’s bump stock ban. 

The ATF “engaged in unlawful agency action taken in excess of their authority,” according to the court’s ruling, emphasizing that they did so by “redefining the statutory definition” of a “machinegun.”

The judge asserted that FRTs do not meet the statutory definition of machine guns because a firearm equipped with the device “must still reset after each round is fired and must separately function to release the hammer by moving far enough to the rear in order to fire the next round.”(article continues)

Colion Noir: 5th Circuit Says ATF Pistol Brace Rule “Likely Illegal”

Also, from Reuters news service:

A U.S. regulation restricting ownership of gun accessories known as pistol braces is likely illegal, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, a victory for a gun rights group challenging the rule.

A 2-1 panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives finalized the rule in January without giving the public a meaningful chance to comment on it. That made it invalid under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, the panel found…

TFB: District Court Vacates ATF 80% Receiver Rule

Washington State has its own law banning 80% receivers, but in this article The Firearms Blog talks about the recent ruling (June 30, 2023) where a court in the Northern District of Texas determined that the ATF, in its 80% receiver rule, had exceeded its statutory authority and vacated the Final Rule. Because the court relied on statutory authority, the court did not make any Constitutional determination on the law as related to the Second Amendment.

The hits just keep on coming in the lawsuits against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. ATF took their most recent L on June 30th in the case VanDerStok v. Garland in the Northern District of Texas (case number 4:22-cv-00691-O). Let’s go through this decision, what it means, and what it may signal for other issues.

Background

If you are reading articles like this, you probably know the backstory, but here is a short refresher. Homemade guns have always been legal in the United States. The frame or received of a firearm is, according to US law, the regulated part. That is why it bears the serial number. 

Over the last dozen years or so there has been an expanding world of people who want to make their own guns. Rather than buying a complete, serialized receiver from an FFL, enthusiasts started converting so-called 80% receivers into complete receivers. Enterprising companies began selling 80% receivers with parts and jigs which made it easy to create a 100% receiver. Now, the ATF hates it when anything is easy, so it was only a matter of time until additional regulations arrived.

ATF Rule 2021R-05F purported to redefine “frame or receiver” by expanding that definition. Most importantly, it changed the definition to “make[] clear that the “frame” or “receiver” includes a partially complete frame or receiver, including a parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver[.]” This Rule was challenged in the courts, and (spoiler alert) it did not go well for ATF.

The Decision

Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas heard the case and issued this decision. One of the first battles was over a preliminary injunction, which would prevent ATF from enforcing this rule during the lawsuit. The ATF lost that round. More plaintiffs joined in the fight and the scope of the preliminary injunction kept growing. 

Eventually, both sides filed motions for summary judgment. This motion says to the court “Even if you take all of the facts that the other side says are true, we would win, so you might as well just call it now and not have a trial.” Unsurprisingly, this went very badly indeed for the ATF.

District Court Vacates ATF 80% Receiver Rule (Analysis)

The Court’s logic was pretty simple; a part cannot be both a receiver, and not yet a receiver at the same time. ATF’s entire premise of regulating an 80% lower when it is sold with jigs or tools as a completed receiver makes no sense because it is (by ATF’s own admission) still not actually a receiver.

“As the Court previously explained, the issue in this case is whether ATF may properly regulate a component as a “frame or receiver” even after ATF determines that the component in question is not a frame or receiver. It may not. Logic dictates that a part cannot be both not yet a receiver and receiver at the same time. Defendants’ reliance on that logical contradiction is fatal to their argument.”

This decision did not need to reach other Constitutional issues presented. Courts must dispose of cases on grounds other than Constitutional ones when they can do so. In this particular case, the Court found ATF’s position so clearly wrong that no other Constitutional grounds needed to be addressed.

“Because the Court concludes that the ATF has clearly and without question acted in excess of its statutory authority and that this claim is dispositive, the Court declines to address the constitutional questions presented.”

GOA: Gun Industry Writes To Congress As Imminent Ban Threatens 40 Million Firearms

From Gun Owners of America, GOA: Gun Industry Writes To Congress As Imminent Ban Threatens 40 Million Firearms :

On June 1st, the Biden Pistol Ban is set to go into effect. This rule, concocted by the bureaucrats at ATF, criminalizes ownership of an estimated 40 million firearms currently in possession by law-abiding citizens.

According to the final rule, gun owners who possess braced firearms will have to destroy, reconfigure, register, and turn in their firearms to ATF, or face NFA violations which include $250,000 in fines and a hefty prison sentence.

This rule will have some of the most wide-reaching impacts nationwide compared to other ATF administrative rulemaking actions. In comparison, ATF’s bump stock rule was estimated to have affected 520,000 Americans, whereas this pistol brace ruling affects 80 times more law-abiding citizens.

In response, the No Compromise Alliance sent a letter signed by notable firearms industry companies to Congress.

Among the undersigned are notable firearms industry companies such as Rifle Dynamics, Kahr Arms Group, KCI USA, Tippmann Arms, and more.

Additionally, two other letters were sent to Congress, with notable people of influence throughout the firearms community – representing more than 30 million viewers – and local ranges & shops that are bound to be affected by ATF’s overreach.

While these letters certainly make a statement, Gun Owners of America is working on all fronts to defeat the ATF’s pistol brace rule before it goes into effect.

GOA has a lawsuit in the 5th Circuit with Texas AG Ken Paxton. This circuit is the same that recently overturned the ATF’s bump stock rule in January of 2023.

In addition, GOA has backed legislation targeting the root of the issue with the SHORT Act. The act itself would remove Short Barreled Rifles (SBR), Short Barreled Shotguns (SBS), and ATF’s favorite, “Any Other Weapons” (AOWs) from the unconstitutional regulation of the National Firearms Act.

The NFA is the law that ATF derives its regulatory authority from on the brace issue, so the SHORT Act aims to stop the ATF by removing its power over such items in the first place.

Lastly, GOA has fought hard with our allies in Congress to bring the ATF’s pistol brace rule under scrutiny via the Congressional Review Act.

For those unfamiliar, the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to file a joint resolution of disapproval, which would overturn agency rulemaking.

This is where we need your help. 

With our legal fight against Biden and his ATF coming down to the wire, please call your Senators and Representatives and let them know to support the Joint Resolution for Congressional disapproval of the ATF’s rulemaking.

You can call your elected officials at (202) 224-3121

Let them know to support S.J. RES. 20 if they’re in the Senate & H.J. RES. 20 if they’re in the House of Representatives.

Washington State Senate Passes “Assault Weapons” Ban

From The Hill:

The Washington state Senate has passed a bill to ban the sale and manufacture of assault weapons, bringing the state one step closer to becoming one of the few in the country that have instituted general assault weapon bans.

The bill, which must now return to the House for concurrence on some of the amendments made to the legislation, would ban the “manufacture, importation, distribution, sale, or offer for sale of any assault weapon.”

It would take effect immediately if signed by the governor and ban at least 60 different types of assault weapons.

The legislation provides a number of notable exceptions to the ban.

The new rules would not apply to weapons that are already possessed by a person in the state or those who inherit weapons. It also would allow law enforcement agencies to continue to purchase such weapons.

Even with the exceptions, the regulations would institute one of the most comprehensive statewide bans on assault weapons in the country…

From Bearing Arms, “Assault weapons” ban clears WA State Senate, 2A groups promise legal challenge

A bill banning the sale and manufacture of so-called assault weapons has cleared its last major legislative hurdle in Washington State, but Second Amendment groups are already vowing to bring the fight over the gun ban to the courts if and when HB 1240 is signed by Gov. Jay Inslee.

State senators worked overtime over the weekend to clear the gun ban off their calendar, ultimately approving the bill on a party-line vote with only a couple of minor changes.

A floor amendment allows for gun manufacturers to sell inventory already in stock prior to Jan. 1, 2023, and only to out-of-state clientele, for 90 days after the bill goes into effect.

“I wasn’t able to support today’s legislation, because I think that we took away from some of the important things that we need in everyday life, which is additional treatment facilities. We need more mental health available resources for everybody,” said Sen Jeff Wilson, (R ) 19th District, Longview.

Because the bill was amended in the Senate, it must return to the House for further consideration. The 2023 legislative session is scheduled to adjourn on Sunday, April 23.

I’m sure that House Democrats will hold a concurrence vote well before the legislature adjourns in a couple of weeks, and Inslee has already pledged to sign the gun ban bill into law. This isn’t the only infringement to the Second Amendment rights of Washingtonians that’s likely to be enacted before April 23rd either. Last Friday the state Senate also gave its approval to HB 1143, which would establish a “permit to purchase” system complete with mandatory firearm training that every would-be gun owner must possess before they can lawfully purchase or receive a firearm as well as a mandatory 10-day waiting period on all gun sales.

Inslee’s sure to sign that bill into law as well, and has already been touting the supposed benefits of a gun ban on Twitter…

GOA: Hearings for WA Preemption Repeal, “Assault Weapon” Ban, and More

Gun Owners of America has posted about hearings for Washington State bills, taking place simultaneously for House and Senate bills so as to prevent gun owners from weighing in on both.

Washington Patriots, we are in the fight of a lifetime for your 2nd Amendment Rights! The radical Left is fast streaming a vote to destroy your God-given rights with multiple anti-gun bills to be heard on Tuesday, Jan. 17th  in the House Civil Rights & Judiciary and Senate Law and Justice committees.

Here’s what’s on the agenda:

House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee (10:30 AM on Tuesday, January 17th) 

  • HB 1178 – Would repeal firearms preemption in Washington. This would turn Washington into a patchwork quilt of gun control laws as anti-gun cities would be free to enact their own gun control ordinances.
  • HB 1143 – This bill creates a draconian “permit to purchase” requirement for all firearm sales in Washington and would require mandatory training, among other things.
  • HB 1144 – Creates a mandatory training requirement to purchase firearms that would need to be renewed every five years.
  • HB 1240 –  The so-called “assault weapons” ban that would criminalize possession of over 65 semi-automatic rifles

Senate Law & Justice Committee (10:30 AM on Tuesday, January 17th) 

  • SB 5078 – This bill would eliminate immunity for firearms manufacturers, placing the entire gun industry at risk for frivolous lawsuits. If enacted into law, it could lead to the entire firearms manufacturing industry being sued out of existence.

Friends, your constitutionally-protected rights have never been in such peril in Washington. That’s why I need you to take action by sending a message to the committee members to oppose these bills and signing up to testify on Tuesday.

To testify, please follow these instructions as modified from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF): 

What: House Civil Rights and Judiciary Committee
When: January 17, 2023
Time: 10:30 a.m. (PST)
Location: In-Person House Hearing Room A or Virtual

Instructions: To sign up to testify in opposition to these bills or to submit written testimony against this egregious legislation, click on this link and follow the directions below:

  1. Select “Civil Rights & Judiciary” in the “Committee” box.
  2. Select “01/17/23 10:30 AM” in the “Meetings” box.
  3. Select the following bills “HB 1178, HB 1143, HB 1144, and HB 1240” under “Select agenda item.”
  4. Select either written testimony or sign up to testify virtually under “Select type of testimony.”
  5. Fill out registration page.

What: Senate Law and Justice Committee
When: January 17, 2023
Time: 10:30 AM (PST)
Location: In-Person Senate Hearing Room 4 or Virtual

Instructions: To sign up to testify in opposition to these bills or to submit written testimony against this egregious legislation, click on this link and follow the directions below:

  1. Select “Law & Justice” in the “Committee” box.
  2. Select “01/17/23 10:30 AM in the “Meetings” box.
  3. Select “SB 5078” under “Select agenda item.”
  4. Select either written testimony or sign up to testify virtually under “Select type of testimony.”
  5. Fill out registration page.

This is devastating to the people of Washington! The anti-gun Left will stop at nothing and will continue their unlawful attack against your 2nd Amendment rights if we do not stand and fight.

The time to act has never been greater than it is now, so please send a message to the committee members (by using the form above) to OPPOSE the above bills and sign up to testify. 

On the federal level, the ATF has changed its rule on AR pistols with braces, making them illegal unless you register them. In the video below, Colion Noir talks about it.

Jonathan Turley: Fifth Circuit Rejects Bump Stock Ban

From attorney Jonathan Turley comes this article on the Fifth Circuit Federal Appeals court rejecting the ATF ban on bump stocks.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down a major opinion in Cargill v. Garland, No. 20-51016, ruling 13-3 that the ATF ban on bump stocks is unlawful. The en banc decision found that a bump stock may be many things but it is not a machine gun.

On December 18, 2018, the ATF issued a rule that bump stock would now be considered unlawful as machine guns and gave bump stock owners 90 days to surrender the devices. After that deadline, possession would be treated as a federal crime. The specific statement read, in part:

The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices — meaning “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics — are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.

On January 6, 2023, the Fifth Circuit handed down its decision rejecting the rule. It explained the technical aspects for the case as well as the clear shift in interpretation by the ATF:

“A bump stock is a firearm attachment that allows a shooter to harness the natural recoil of a semi-automatic weapon to quickly re-engage the trigger after firing, enabling him to shoot at an increased rate of speed. When ATF first considered the type of bump stocks at issue here, it understood that they were not machineguns. ATF maintained this position for over a decade, issuing many interpretation letters to that effect to members of the public.”

Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in her majority opinion that “[p]ublic pressure to ban bump stocks was tremendous” after the mass shooting in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017. However, “[a] plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of ‘machinegun’ set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”

The majority further explained:

The Government’s regulation violates these principles. As an initial matter, it purports to allow ATF—rather than Congress—to set forth the scope of criminal prohibitions. Indeed, the Government would outlaw bump stocks by administrative fiat even though the very same agency routinely interpreted the ban on machineguns as not applying to the type of bump stocks at issue here. Nor can we say that the statutory definition unambiguously supports the Government’s interpretation. As noted above, we conclude that it unambiguously does not. But even if we are wrong, the statute is at least ambiguous in this regard. And if the statute is ambiguous, Congress must cure that ambiguity, not the federal courts.

The holding was supported by a rule of lenity that “penal laws are to be construed strictly.” She noted that, as in United States v. Wiltberger, the Court had long followed the rule which Chief Justice Marshall described as “founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.”

Thirteen judges agreed with the conclusion though twelve (Chief Judge Richman and Judges Jones, Smith, Stewart, Elrod, Southwick, Haynes, Willett, Ho, Duncan, Engelhardt, and Wilson) reversed on lenity grounds while eight members (Judges Jones, Smith, Elrod, Willett, Duncan, Engelhardt, Oldham, and Wilson) reversed on the ground that federal law unambiguously fails to cover non-mechanical bump stocks…(article continues)

AmmoLand: Gun Voters Could Deal A Punishing Blow on Election Day

Dave Workman at Ammoland.com writes about how Gun Voters Could Deal A Punishing Blow Driving Home the Win on Election Day 2022. Despite court victories re-affirming the individual right to keep and bear arms, oppression-minded politicians and organizations continue to press for the denial of people’s rights across the nation. Here in the northwest, Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114 is perhaps the most onerous gun control farce on the ballot.

The critical Nov. 8th 2022 midterm elections are only days away. As people continue talking about a “red wave” sweeping across the U.S. landscape to wash anti-gun Democrats from Congress and state legislatures, the “gun vote” could be the decisive factor in many of these races.

According to Fox News, “The discussion surrounding gun control in the United States is a core issue for some voters heading to the ballot box this November.”

The critical factor is whether gun owners—who often are guilty of lethargy and/or election season apathy—will turn out in adequate numbers to swing the vote. They did last year in Virginia, putting solid pro-gunners in statewide offices, but will they repeat that performance on a national scale?

Take a look at Massachusetts, where the Gun Owner’s Action League just released a report showing how homicides in the Bay State have increased 110 percent since the passage of the 198 Gun Control Act in that state. GOAL Executive Director Jim Wallace, in a telephone conversation with AmmoLand News, said the report speaks for itself:

“The Commonwealth’s decades old gun control scheme has been an unmitigated disaster.”

The law failed to reduce gun-related homicides. It failed to reduce accidental firearms fatalities, and it has done poorly in efforts to reduce gun-related suicides.

Call it the “October non-surprise” since gun control laws have also failed in other regions.

Out in Oregon, Fox News is reporting on Ballot Measure 114, an extremist initiative that would add Oregon to a list of states currently requiring a permit to purchase a firearm. [government permission slips]

According to Fox, “Oregon’s law would be the only one that mandates a live-fire safety class approved by the state police and administered by local law enforcement.”

The proverbial fly in the ointment is that nearly all police agencies do not have the facilities to provide the required training.

The story further notes, “The Oregon State Sheriff’s Association opposes Measure 114, citing the burden it would place on financially-strapped law enforcement agencies. Officials say it would delay law-abiding citizens from being able to purchase guns by months or even longer.”

Kevin Starrett, director of the Oregon Firearms Federation, told Fox News essentially the same thing he told AmmoLand News months ago: “The measure is designed to absolutely guarantee that people will not have the means to protect themselves and to dox anybody who attempts to comply with the permit process.”

In Georgia, it’s gun owners versus an avowed anti-gunner in Stacey Abrams, whom Fox News described as “one of the most significant advocates of gun control in a battleground election against Republican Incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp.”

The Fox report also pointed to Ohio, where anti-gun Democratic State Representative Tim Ryan is squaring off against Republican JD Vance.

It is against this backdrop that Friday’s attack on Paul Pelosi, husband of Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi—another perennial gun control proponent on Capitol Hill—was so shocking. Pelosi was brutally attacked in his own San Francisco home. He was seriously injured by a suspect who wielded a hammer, demonstrating that blaming guns and penalizing gun owners for violent crimes is a false flag.

Reacting to the attack, Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said the nature of the attack “should preclude any effort by Speaker Pelosi’s Democrat colleagues to exploit this horrible incident for the purpose of advancing their extremist gun control agenda.

“This is the kind of violent crime against which average citizens, including Speaker Pelosi’s constituents, must be prepared to defend themselves on a daily basis in an environment where the far left has pushed ‘defund-the-police’ efforts and adopted policies which have allowed dangerous individuals to roam our streets and neighborhoods,” Gottlieb added.

In Gottlieb’s home state of Washington, there is also an energetic challenge of 30-year-incumbent Democrat Sen. Patty Murray—a dependable anti-gunner—by Republican Tiffany Smiley, a political newcomer who has been waging a remarkably effective campaign. A strong turnout of Evergreen State gun owners could provide a nasty surprise to Murray, who critics say has never represented their interests in Congress…(article continues)

For more on Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114 see this video from Colion Noir:

WMBF News: S.C. joins fight to stop tracking guns purchased with credit cardsWMBF News:

source: WMBF News

WMBF reports on a group of states demanding that banks and credit card processors stop tracking firearms purchases. Why isn’t Washington on the list of states that joined? Hmm…

S.C. joins fight to stop tracking guns purchased with credit cards

South Carolina joined 24 other states demanding banks and credit card companies stop tracking, or monitoring, firearms purchased using credit cards.

The coalition alerted the chief executive officers of three major credit card companies that the recent adoption of the Merchant Category Code for the processing of firearms purchases from gun stores is “potentially a violation of consumer protection and antitrust laws.”

In the letter to the CEOs of American Express, Mastercard, and Visa, the attorneys general say the monitoring and tracking of firearms purchases creates a “list of gun buyers” and creates the obvious risk that law-abiding consumers’ information will be obtained and misused by those who oppose Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“Why would banks and credit card companies need a separate code to process gun purchases, if not to possibly track and monitor people who buy them?” Wilson asked.

The following states joined: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, West Virginia.

To read the letter, click here.

Ammoland: Leaked ATF Resignation Letter Shows Agents’ Frustration Over Politicization

Ammoland has an article citing an ATF agent’s resignation, complaining over the increasing politicization of prosecution through the Department of Justice. While one person’s letter cannot cover the entire range of agents’ beliefs, it is still unlikely that this agent’s complaints are unique. The entire resignation letter is posted at the original article linked just below.

Leaked ATF Resignation Letter Shows Agents’ Frustration Over Politicization

A leaked resignation letter provided to AmmoLand News shows the ATF agency in turmoil over political pressure.

Brandon M. Garcia was a career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) special agent until he resigned over the politicization of the federal agency and the Government’s attempt to divide people.

Garcia sent a lengthy six-page resignation letter (embedded below) laying out his reasons for leaving the Bureau after 18 years of service. He explains that he didn’t do the job for money or “fun.” He wanted to put violent criminals behind bars. But lately, he doesn’t feel like he knew what the mission was anymore. He was asked to do things that didn’t make sense, and when he asked “why,” he was always told because “they” said so.

“I don’t know what the mission really is anymore, but I don’t like it. For the past couple of years, I have found myself asking “why” a lot more often. As of late, the answer is typically because “they” said so. I still don’t know who “they” are. But I seem to disagree with whoever “they” are on pretty much everything,” Garcia wrote in his resignation letter.”

The former Special Agent highlights how crimes across the country are prosecuted differently depending on if the state is a “red” state or a “blue” state. He explains that agents are expected to set aside their personal and political beliefs but says that the same standard doesn’t apply to the entire Department of Justice. He claims other ATF employees are struggling with the same realization.

Garcia claims that the “woke left” is running the country. He specifically targets the DOJ Civil Rights Division. He insinuates the low morale at the ATF and in law enforcement, in general, is because of the anti-law enforcement movement that he feels is being pushed by the administration and Joe Biden’s Attorney General. Merrick Garland. He says the DOJ was using COVID as a “scapegoat.” He points out that the last time that morale was as low as it is now was under the Obama administration, which was also hostile to law enforcement. He also points out that each administration celebrates diversity unless it is the diversity of thought.

“The last time morale was this low with ATF was probably 2013-2016. Coincidentally, that was also the last time we had an administration openly criticize law enforcement,” Garcia wrote. “Both administrations preached diversity, or rather “celebrate” it, but then expect everyone to have the same liberal opinion.”

The now former Agent wrote that he believes the country is more divided than ever, pushing people to extremes, and leaving those in the middle to suffer. He thinks the Government is “adding fuel to the fire.” Garcia thinks that the ATF’s leadership isn’t fighting for agents. According to him, the leadership is just going along with the administration not to lose their job. Biden demoted former ATF Acting Director Marvin Richardson for not going far enough with the new final rule surrounding the redefinition of a firearm.

Garcia believes that the ATF focuses too much on “the gun.”

He claims the recent actions by the ATF show that it is aligned with the left and says he doesn’t want to investigate the gun. He wants to investigate the criminal. He claims that the ATF used the failed vaccine mandate to increase the ATF’s budget to concentrate on “the gun.” He claims that the ATF “catered” to Biden’s dislike of guns. He says that most ATF agents are pro-gun and anti-criminal. He states that ATF agents didn’t become agents to go after law-abiding citizens for non-compliant firearms or to argue what a gun is or is not.

“Did our leaders forget that ATF agents are law enforcement? Most agents are pro-gun. All agents should be anti-criminal. We did not become ATF agents so we could collect data, ensure firearms are in compliance, seize trigger groups, argue about what a firearm is or is not, seize firearms for reasons other than prosecuting criminals, or spend countless hours inputting data to justify someone else’s existence in HQ. We became ATF agents so we could work the streets and smack evil in the mouth. We took this job because we are willing to risk it all and hope that we can make the streets just a little bit safer for the law abiding, upstanding citizens of the USA. At least that’s why I became an ATF agent,” Garcia wrote.

Garcia talks about how the Biden administration talks about guns and violent crime in the same sentence and pushes for banning certain types of firearms, but in blue states, those charged with gun crimes are only given a slap on the wrist.

He also states that violent crimes committed with firearms are usually “pled down to non-violent crimes, and the defendant again avoids prison.”

He also believes that banning guns wouldn’t stop crime. Garcia logically points out that criminals do not obey the laws. He doesn’t think criminals will stop using firearms no matter what the law says. He believes that banning guns will only affect law-abiding citizens.

The former Special Agent believes that the administration is targeting the conservative population. Garcia points out that very few people were charged with rioting during the summer of 2020, but hundreds have been arrested for the January 6 event for just being there. He even insinuates that pallets of bricks and frozen water bottles were planted at the scene of the 2020 summer riots.

“We can probably agree that law abiding citizens do not commit gun crime. I think that we can probably also agree that the majority of gun owners tend to be more conservative than liberal. So essentially, gun control will only affect law abiding, conservative citizens. Therefore, the Government is only punishing the conservative population. Similarly, in the summer of 2020, rioters were allowed to burn cities, assault the police, and terrorize citizens with little to no consequence. However, the chaos associated with January 6 has resulted in hundreds and hundreds of prosecutions. The vast majority of the defendants have been convicted of simply being there. They didn’t even have pallets of bricks or frozen water bottles staged at the scene, let alone Molotov cocktails for them to throw at the police. Still, 18 months later, the left continues to be absolutely obsessed with it,” Garcia said.

Garcia calls out President Joe Biden for blaming January 6 on Trump. He highlights Biden was saying you can’t be “pro-insurrection and pro-cop.” He insinuates that Biden and the Democrats are not “pro-cop.” he says that the administration changed the definition of “hypocrisy” like they changed the definition of “vaccine.”

“Where was the support of law enforcement from the Democratic party during the presidential campaign? For at least the past 10 years, the Democratic party and the DOJ Civil Rights Division has consistently justified criminal behavior, advocated for decriminalization, and scrutinized the officer’s actions when an officer was assaulted. That is the equivalent of asking a domestic violence victim what they did to cause their spouse to beat them up,” Garcia wrote.

During the January 6 event, a Capitol Police Officer shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. Garcia surmised if the protestors and Babbitt were left-wing, then the liberal media would crucify the officer, making sure he would never have worked again. He believes the DOJ is the “driving force behind this double standard.” He calls for equal treatment under the law.

He claims that politicians do not care about the truth. He says that they only care about public opinion. Garcia claims that the majority of the population supports law enforcement. He says most criminals dislike cops but that the Democrats are trying to appease the criminal population.

Garcia also takes issue with the amount of “violent federal defendants released following their detention hearing.” He says the system was broken. The agent blames the revolving door of prison as the reason for the rise of violent crime over the past few years.

Garcia says guns are not the problem. He believes that the problem is not holding criminals accountable for their actions. The former agent doesn’t think seizing firearms will combat violent crime. He believes that more violent criminals should be locked up and accuses legislators and members of the judicial system with neglecting their oath to uphold the Constitution.

He ends by saying he believes in God, I believe “in The Constitution, and I believe that bad guys belong in prison.” He doesn’t think the Government believes in those anymore.

GOA: Oppose the Biden Administration’s Attempt to Ban Lead Ammunition on Federal Lands

From Gun Owners of America

Oppose the Biden Administration’s Attempt to Ban Lead Ammunition on Federal Lands

Please Contact the U.S. Department of the Interior and Oppose the Lead Ammunition Ban!

Joe Biden is once again attacking our right to keep and bear arms, and this time he is also attacking America’s hunting traditions.

That is why Gun Owners of America is jumping into the fight, and we need you with us.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), run by radical gun-grabbing Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, is proposing to ban lead ammunition and fishing tackle on certain federal lands by 2026.

We have seen anti-gun and anti-hunting radicals do this at the state level in places like California where urban elites want to ban hunting and fishing.

They claim their bans protect wildlife, but the science on these matters is inconclusive at best, and studies have not proven that lead shot or fishing tackle present a widespread threat to people or wildlife.

California and some European countries banned lead ammunition years ago, and there has been no improvement in lead exposure among wildlife. It is clear that lead in the environment is coming from sources OTHER THAN LEAD AMMUNITION.

In fact, the “science” mentioned in the Federal Register is so weak the proposed ban wording claims lead shot and tackle “may” cause harm. By using the word “may,” the government is admitting they want to ban something they can’t prove is harmful.

Lead shot and bullets have been used by Americans for generations, and there is no clear evidence this ammunition causes widespread harm to humans or wildlife populations.

Every year, new science emerges that suggests a connection between lead poisoning in wildlife and alternative sources of lead in the ecosystem. In short, we just don’t have strong evidence to prove that lead ammunition is harming wildlife because there are so many lead sources in nature.

Gun Owners of America expects this is the start of a national ban on lead ammunition which will increase costs and decrease participation in America’s Centuries-Old Hunting Tradition.

We need you, and your friends, to click the links in this alert and make a formal comment on the Federal Register telling the Biden Administration you oppose any restrictions on lead ammunition.

Please use one or both of the methods below to contact the U.S. Department of the Interior. Tell them you are writing to oppose the National Lead Ammunition Ban proposed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Please Contact the U.S. Department of the Interior and Oppose the Lead Ammunition Ban!

You can also Click Here to Submit a Formal Comment on the Federal Register Telling the Biden Administration You Oppose a Lead Ban.

Kind Regards,

Mark Jones
Certified Wildlife Biologist®
National Director, Hunter Outreach

P.S. You can read my full, fact-based analysis of Biden’s lead ammunition ban here.


Reason: US Dist. Court Issues Temp. Restraining Order against Colorado Gun and Magazine Ban

David Kopel at Reason.com writes about a US District Court Judge issuing a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of Superior, Colorado’s municipal code which banned certain firearms and magazines. Hopefully such rulings will be coming soon to a state near you.

Colorado U.S. District Court issues TRO against magazine and gun ban

Today U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore issued a temporary restraining order against the ban on so-called “assault weapons” recently enacted by the town of Superior, Colorado, in Boulder County. The case is Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Superior.

Lead attorney for the plaintiffs was Barry Arrington, one of Colorado’s top lawyers on education law, and now the victor in a major Second Amendment case. Arrington previously served in the Colorado House of Representatives, and as a trustee of the Independence Institute, where I work.

Judge Moore formerly was a corporate lawyer (Davis, Graham and Stubbs, Denver), and then head Federal Public Defender for Colo. and Wyoming. He was appointed to the bench by President Obama in 2013, and confirmed unanimously.

Like several other towns in Boulder County, Superior recently outlawed semiautomatic centerfire rifles that have at least one supposedly bad characteristic, such as an adjustable stock; various semiautomatic shotguns; various semiautomatic handguns; and magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds.

It was obvious that such arms are “commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” which is the Supreme Court’s rule from District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) for which arms are protected by the Second Amendment. First, the Colorado Attorney General and plaintiffs in an earlier case challenging the state of Colorado’s ban on magazines over 15 rounds had so stipulated. Colorado Outfitters Ass’n v. Hickenlooper, 24 F. Supp. 3d 1050, 1068 (D. Colo. 2014), vacated in part on other grounds and remanded, 823 F.3d 537 (10th Cir. 2016). (I represented 55 Colorado Sheriff plaintiffs in the case, which ended up with the 10th Circuit declaring that neither the Sheriffs nor the many other individual and organizational plaintiffs had standing.) Commonality was also found in the undisputed facts set forth in Fourth Circuit Judge Traxler’s dissenting opinion in Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114, 153-55 (4th Cir. 2017). The opinions of many other Circuit Courts provide additional, irrefutable proof of commonality; the banned firearms number in the millions, at least, and the banned magazines comprise over half of all magazines.

Pursuant to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, courts are supposed to decide Second Amendment cases on text, history, and tradition. Judge may not decide based on their own opinions about good policy, nor should they defer to legislative policy judgements. The policy  balancing was already conducted by the American people when they adopted the Second Amendment.

In Bruen‘s historical approach, the most important periods are the Founding Era and Reconstruction (when the Fourteenth Amendment made the Second Amendment enforceable against state and local governments). English history is relevant to the extent that is shows an unbroken tradition that was adopted in America and continued to the Founding. Colonial history is also relevant. So is 19th century history, and (Reconstruction excepted), the earlier the better. The late 19th century is weaker, and the 20th century is far too late to show a historical tradition that could override the text of the Second Amendment.

Judge Moore wrote: “the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

To be precise, there are a few precedents pre-1900, but none are valid any longer…(article continues)

ABC: Supreme Court says several gun cases deserve a new look

The Supreme Court has remanded several cases back to lower courts to decide in light of their recent decision in Bruen. As you’ll see below, two of the cases involve bans on standard-capacity magazines — magazines that hold more than ten rounds — which could impact the Washington state ban that goes into effect today (July 1st, 2022).

ABC reports:

The Supreme Court said Thursday that gun cases involving restrictions in Hawaii, California, New Jersey and Maryland deserve a new look following its major decision in a gun case last week.

In light of last week’s ruling — which said that Americans have a right to carry a gun outside the home — lower courts should take another look at several cases that had been awaiting action by the high court, the court said. Those cases include ones about high-capacity magazines, an assault weapons ban and a state law that limits who can carry a gun outside the home.

The justices, in a 6-3 decision, last week struck down a New York law that required people to show “proper cause,” a specific need to carry a gun, if they wanted to carry a gun in public. Half a dozen states have similar laws that were called into question by the ruling.

In the New York case, the court’s conservative majority gave lower courts new guidance about how to evaluate gun restrictions. The justices rejected a two-step approach appeals courts had previously used as having one step too many. They said courts assessing modern firearms regulations should just ask whether they are “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.”

Sending other gun cases back to lower courts gives them the opportunity to apply that new guidance.

One of the cases the justices sent back to a lower court Thursday involved a Hawaii statute similar to New York’s. In that case, a panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in 2021 that the right to “keep and bear arms” in the Constitution’s Second Amendment “does not guarantee an unfettered, general right to openly carry arms in public for individual self-defense.” But the high court said in its latest gun case that the Constitution protects “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.” A lower court will now have to revisit the Hawaii ruling.

The high court also told federal appeals courts to revisit cases involving laws in California and New Jersey that limit the number of bullets a gun magazine can hold. A 2018 New Jersey law limits most gun owners to magazines that hold up to 10 rounds of ammunition instead of the 15-round limit in place since 1990. A lower court upheld the law.

California law also bans magazines holding more than 10 bullets. A panel of 11 judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 last year to uphold California’s ban.

The justices also sent back for further review a case from Maryland that challenged the state’s 2013 ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons. The high court had in 2017 turned away a previous challenge to the law.