Hunter Biden To Appear In Person For Arraignment On Gun Charges

Hunter Biden To Appear In Person For Arraignment On Gun Charges

WILMINGTON, DELAWARE - JULY 26: Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, departs the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building and United States Courthouse on July 26, 2023 in Wilmington, Delaware. Biden pleaded not guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges in a deal with prosecutors to avoid prosecution on an additional gun charge. However, the federal judge overseeing the case unexpectedly delayed Biden's plea deal and deferred her decision until more information is put forth by both the prosecution and the defense. (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images)
Hunter Biden, son of U.S. President Joe Biden, departs the J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building and United States Courthouse on July 26, 2023 in Wilmington, Delaware. (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images)

OAN’s Elizabeth Volberding
6:30 PM – Wednesday, September 20, 2023


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

United States Magistrate Judge from the District of Delaware, Christopher Burke, has declared that Hunter Biden, 53, must not receive “special treatment” regarding his request to appear virtually for his first court hearing on federal gun charges.

Hunter Biden, son of President Joe Biden, was charged by Special Counsel David Weiss with making an untrue statement during his purchase of a firearm and making a false statement regarding information required to be kept by a federal licensed gun dealer. He was additionally charged with one count of possession of a firearm by a person who is an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance. 

On Tuesday, Hunter’s lawyers explained to the court that he will not be pleading guilty while asking for his first court appearance to take place virtually. This was something that Weiss’ team was opposed to in a filing on Wednesday.

Therefore, the Magistrate Judge announced on Wednesday afternoon that he will not be allowing Hunter to appear in court by video conference. He also explained that the president’s son should not be receiving special treatment.

“In the end, the Court agrees with both the Defendant and the Government, that Defendant should not receive special treatment in this matter — absent some unusual circumstance, he should be treated just as would any other defendant in our Court,” Burke stated in the filing. 

The 53-year-old’s in-person court appearance has been scheduled for October 3rd at 10 a.m. in Delaware. 

In Weiss’ opposition filing, it was stated that there are “serious felony gun charges at issue in this case.” 

Ultimately, the federal firearm charges are the first charges Weiss has brought against Hunter since becoming a part of the special counsel status. 

“Hunter Biden possessing an unloaded gun for 11 day [sic] was not a threat to public safety, but a prosecutor, with all the power imaginable, bending to political pressure presents a grave threat to our system of justice,” Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell expressed in a statement earlier this week. “We believe these charges are barred by the agreement the prosecutors made with Mr. Biden, the recent rulings by several federal courts that this statute is unconstitutional, and the facts that he did not violate that law, and we plan to demonstrate all of that in court.” 

Hunter has been in predicaments similar to this case previously. Fox News first reported in 2021 that police had responded to a case in October 2018, when a firearm owned by Hunter was found inside a trash can outside a market in Delaware.

According to a Fox News review, a firearm transaction statement reported that Hunter purchased a firearm earlier that month. On the firearm transaction report, Hunter responded negatively when he was asked if he was an “unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.”

“An in-person hearing is important to promote the public’s confidence that the defendant is being treated consistently with other defendants in this District and in other Districts,” Weiss’ team wrote in a letter to the federal Magistrate Judge on Wednesday.

“Moreover, the previous arraignment held in connection with this matter was anything but routine because the defendant and his previous attorney were not prepared to answer the Court’s questions,” the special counsel added.

Burke initially scheduled the arraignment for September 26th but decided to change the date to October 3rd.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here.

Federal Court Sides With Doctors on Ivermectin Lawsuit Charging FDA Overreach

Ivermectin antiparisitic drug

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans has given new life to a lawsuit brought by three doctors claiming the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) overstepped its authority and acted as a medical doctor rather than as a regulating authority in the agency’s campaign promoting a ban on the use of the drug Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.1

The court’s decision overturned U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Vincent Brown’s lower court’s order dismissing the doctors’ lawsuit. Judge Brown agreed with the government that it was protected from the lawsuit due to sovereign immunity.2 Sovereign immunity provides that the government may not be sued without its consent. The purpose behind the legal doctrine of sovereign immunity is to protect the government from being forced to change policies should someone disagree with them and bring legal action.3

The medical doctors, Mary Bowden, Paul Marik, and Robert Apter, argue that the FDA’s actions of interfering with their prescribing of Ivermectin harmed their reputation caused punitive action to be taken against them, and interfered with the practice of medicine, which included pharmacies failing to fill their prescription orders for Ivermectin.

Jared Kalson, the lawyer for the plaintiffs argued:

If the government is going to label Ivermectin a horse medicine or a horse dewormer and promulgate the idea that it is only for animals, then the natural correlation is that doctors who prescribe it are horse doctors or quack doctors, which has played out. The government engaged in a singularly effective campaign here to malign a common drug that has been used for a very long time and has been dispensed in billions of doses. Its one of the most famously safe drugs in the history of human medicine. And when people did exactly what the FDA said to Stop it. Stop it with the Ivermectin,I dont understand how that would not be traceable back to the FDA.4

Court Rules “FDA Not a Physician”

The plaintiffs appealed the lower court order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel of three appellate judges, including Judge Don Willet, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, and Judge Edith Brown Clement agreed with the plaintiffs that the FDA committed government agency overreach and allowed the doctors to proceed with their lawsuit.5

The Order read,:

FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise—but not to endorse, denounce, or advise. The doctors have plausibly alleged that FDAs posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to. As such, the doctors can use the APA to assert their ultra vires claims against the agencies and the officials.6

Judge Willet took issue with the FDA’s Aug. 21, 2021 Twitter post stating, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” The judge wrote, “Even tweet-sized doses of personalized medical advice are beyond FDA’s statutory authority.”7

How a Licensed Inexpensive Antiparasitic Drug Helped Treat COVID

Merck originally marketed Ivermectin, which was licensed in 1981, as a veterinary antiparasitic drug. By the late 1980s, Ivermectin became the most widely used antiparasitic drug in both animals and humans and has been especially useful in Africa to effectively and safely control malaria.8 9 A Nobel prize-winning drug, doctors have been prescribing Ivermectin to patients for decades.10

So how did a cheap, accessible antiparasitic become such a popular drug used to treat SARS-CoV-2 infections during the COVID pandemic?

In 2020, Australian researchers from the Biomedicine Discovery Institute (BDI) at Monash University made the discovery that Ivermectin could neutralize the novel SARS-CoV-2 virus within 48 hours. The study, a joint effort between Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University in Clayton, Australia, and the Peter Doherty Institute of Infection and Immunity—a joint venture between the University of Melbourne and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, both in Melbourne, Australia—found that, in vitro, the drug proved effective against a number of viruses, including HIV, dengue, influenza, and Zika. The findings suggested that just a single dose of Ivermectin could remove or significantly reduce viral RNA within 24 to 48 hours of SARS-CoV-2 .

Dr. Kylie Wagstaff, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute scientist and leader of the study said: “We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours there was a really significant reduction in it.”

A study was published in 2021 in the American Journal of Therapeutics providing evidence that the use of Ivermectin reduces morbidity and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 infections, including time to recovery and viral clearance.11 In addition, Ivermectin is being investigated as an option for treating certain other human viral infections like latent Epstein Barr, which can be reactivated in some individuals when they are infected with SARS-CoV-2 and lead to long COVID.12 13 14

Ivermectin Showed Antiviral Effects Against Omicron and Other Variants

Off-label use of Ivermectin has been the source of much scrutiny among many public health officials throughout and even following the pandemic. And while historically prescribed as an antiparasitic for humans and animals, the drug did show and other variants in 2022 during joint nonclinical research conducted by Japanese pharmaceutical company, Kowa Co. Ltd.15

Additionally, another study published in The Lancet in 2021 found Ivermectin to incite “antiviral activity against SARS-CoV-2 and provides insights into the type of evaluations to be considered in the assessment of antiviral drugs for the control of COVID.”16

Popular podcast host and health and wellness influencer Joe Rogan posted a video only days after the FDA urged people to stop taking the drug to prevent or treat COVID-19 to share he was taking Ivermectin after contracting the virus. He said that taking Ivermectin in conjunction with monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, azithromycin, a NAD drip, and a vitamin drip, a protocol he shared with his followers, helped him feel “great” only three days later.

FDA’s Condemnation of Ivermectin-Blocked Doctor Prescriptions for COVID Patients

Judge Willet further pointed out that Ivermectin is available in both animal and human form and that doctors have been prescribing the drug to patients for decades. However, after the FDA’s condemnation of Ivermectin as an ineffective and potentially dangerous treatment for COVID-19, pharmacies across the country began refusing to fill doctors’ prescriptions for patients.

A Department of Justice attorney, Ashley Cheumg Honold, clarified the FDA’s position to the court stating…

FDA explicitly recognizes that doctors do have the authority to prescribe ivermectin to treat COVID.17

Despite the FDA’s statement that doctors have the authority to prescribe Ivermectin to treat COVID, pharmacies continue to refuse to fill prescriptions for the drug, leaving patients scrambling. Dr Bowden told The Epoch Times:

This needs to come to an end. In telling my patients what medicines they can and cannot have access to, we effectively have a large group of pharmacists practicing medicine without a license. They have no accountability for this yet they are allowed to dictate patient care. … I see it every single day. Enough is enough.18

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.

Click here to view References:

1 Robertson N. Federal appeals court revives lawsuit against FDA over COVID-19 ivermectin messaging. The Hill. Sept. 2, 2023.

2 Stieber Z. Judge Rules on Lawsuit Against FDA Over Ivermectin. The Epoch Times. Dec. 6, 2022.
3 What Is Sovereign Immunity? Definition and Examples. ThoughtCo.
4 Stieber Z. Judge Rules on Lawsuit Against FDA Over Ivermectin. The Epoch Times. Dec. 6, 2022.

5 Lysiak M. ‘FDA Is Not a Physician’: Appeals Court Sides With Doctors on Ivermectin for COVID-19. The Epoch Times Sept. 2, 2023.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid. 
Laing R, Gillan V, Devaney E. Ivermectin – Old Drug, New Tricks? Trends Parasitol June 2017; 33(6): 463-472.

9 Foy BD, Alout H, Seaman JA et al. Efficacy and risk of harms of repeat Ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria (RIMDAMAL): a cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet 2019; 393 (10180): 1517-1526.
10 Santin AD, Scheim DE, McCullough PA et al. Invermection: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge, COVID-19. New Microbes New Infect 2021; 42.
11 Kory P, Meduri GU, Varon J et al. Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19. Am J Ther 2021; 28(3).
12 Gold JE, Ikyay RA, Licht WE, Hurley DJ. Investigation of Long COVID Prevalence and its Relationship to Epstein-Barr Virus Reactivation. Pathogens 2021; 10(6).
13 Na L, Zhao L, Zhan X. Quantitative proteomics reveals a broad-spectrum antiviral property of ivermectin benefiting for COVID-19 treatment. J Cell Physiol 2021; 236(4): 2959-2974.
14 Bernal KDE, Whitehurst CB. Incidence of Epstein Barr virus reactivation is elevated in COVID-19 patients. Virus Res 2023; 334: 199157.
15 Reuters. Ivermectin shows ‘antiviral effect’ against COVID, Japanese company says. Jan. 31, 2022.
16 Krolewiecki A et al. Antiviral effect of high-dose ivermectin in adults with COVID-19: A proof-of-concept randomized trial. The Lancet June 17, 2021.
17 Lysiak M. ‘FDA Is Not a Physician’: Appeals Court Sides With Doctors on Ivermectin for COVID-19. The Epoch Times Sept. 2, 2023.
18 Lysiak M. Doctor: Pharmacists Continuing to Refuse Ivermectin Prescriptions, Raising Ethical Concerns. The Epoch Times. Sept. 1, 20223.

Protests amid new migrant center at Floyd Bennett Field, Brooklyn, NY, a former air force facility~Injunction filed to stop Floyd Bennett Field from being used for migrants

Hundreds of protesters gathered near Floyd Bennett Field Tuesday evening after state and federal officials reached a tentative deal to house migrants on the National Parks Services site. 

Injunction filed to stop Floyd Bennett Field from being used for migrants?

Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Reynoso discusses the migrant crisis and federal support announced last week.

New Mexico Governor Reverses Course on Gun Ban Order Amidst Legal Challenges

SEE:;Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

In a recent turn of events, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has backed down from her initial “emergency public health order” that had attempted to suspend Second Amendment carry rights throughout the state’s most populated county and city. This decision was heavily influenced by a temporary restraining order issued by a federal District Court Judge, which hindered the enforcement of the Governor’s original ban.

As per the new modifications, the suspension on carry rights has been lifted for Bernalillo County and the city of Albuquerque. However, this ban will still apply to “parks or playgrounds where we know we’ve got high risk of kids and families,” stated Grisham. Although the exact specifics of this amendment remain somewhat ambiguous, the Governor held an hour-long press conference in an attempt to clarify her stance.

The initial order, introduced on September 8th, 2023, imposed a 30-day suspension of open and concealed carry rights in Bernalillo County, home to Albuquerque. This sudden move by the Governor was met with significant resistance, inciting multiple lawsuits and calls for her impeachment.

Even fellow Democrat, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez, expressed his reservations, stating his unwillingness to defend the state in the ensuing legal battles and his skepticism regarding the order’s potential impact on public safety.

The adjustment to the order came after an engaging courtroom debate. Lujan Grisham mentioned during a press briefing that there’s a considerable distinction between a suspension and a ban. While emphasizing her concerns about the ongoing issues related to gun violence and public safety, she cited the tragic incidents of three children, including an 11-year-old, who were recently victims of gun violence. This, coupled with convenient and questionable statistics showing a “43% increase in gun death rates” in New Mexico from 2009 to 2018, attributed to the Governor’s decision to classify gun violence as a statewide public health emergency.

Critics of Lujan Grisham’s measures have come from all corners. Albuquerque police Chief Harold Medina stated his reluctance to enforce the order, and Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen voiced his concerns about potential infringements on constitutional rights. As expected, gun-control supporters like Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, praised the Governor’s efforts as both brave and essential, even if the order’s legality remains a point of contention.

Reflecting on the blowback, the Governor commented, “When you try to build consensus on gun violence measures, you cannot.” If further challenges arise in the upcoming October hearing, Lujan Grisham mentioned the possibility of approaching the legislature for a resolution.

Maybe if the Governor focused on criminals instead of law-abiding gun owners, she could actually get to the consensus she claims to want.


Kennedy, Tillis Demand AG Garland Protect 2A Rights of Citizens of New Mexico

SEE:;Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Gun Rights Court

WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) today joined Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) in demanding Attorney General Merrick Garland protect the Second Amendment rights of New Mexicans from the unconstitutional actions of Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.

In a letter to Attorney General Garland, the senators urged the Department of Justice to respond swiftly to Governor Lujan Grisham’s unconstitutional Executive Order 2023-130, which violates the individual right to bear arms upheld in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also signed the letter.

“Governor Grisham has issued an order which is being used to blatantly trample on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of New Mexico, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) must act swiftly to stop this unconstitutional power grab,” wrote the senators.

“While the public health order may invoke state law to authorize this unconstitutional infringement, it should be no match for the authority which the DOJ has to enforce our rights under the U.S. Constitution. That is why we are calling on you to enforce the Constitution and intervene on behalf of the constitutional rights of New Mexicans to stop this unconstitutional act from standing,” the senators continued.

“By preventing certain New Mexicans from exercising their constitutional rights to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, Governor Grisham is violating the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article IV of the Constitution. This is a chilling action, and it is imperative that your Department act immediately to show that this kind of unconstitutional abuse will not be tolerated in New Mexico or anywhere else in the United States,” the senators concluded.

The full letter is available here.

LETTER: Kennedy, Tillis Demand AG Garland Protect 2A Rights of Citizens of New Mexico

Hunter Biden Indicted On Gun Charges By Special Counsel

Hunter Biden Indicted On Gun Charges By Special Counsel

US President Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden exits Holy Spirit Catholic Church after attending mass with his father (out of frame) in Johns Island, South Carolina on August 13, 2022. (Photo by Nicholas Kamm / AFP) (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)
US President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden exits Holy Spirit Catholic Church after attending mass with his father (out of frame) in Johns Island, South Carolina on August 13, 2022. (Photo by NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images)

OAN’s Sophia Flores
11:50 AM – Thursday, September 14, 2023


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has been indicted on three gun charges. The indictment comes weeks after his plea deal collapsed.


On Thursday, the younger Biden was indicted by special counsel David Weiss in connection to a firearm he purchased in 2018. He was charged with making false statements on a federal firearm form and possession of a firearm as a prohibited person. The three charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 25 years behind bars and a $250,000 fine.

In June, it appeared that both sides reached a plea agreement. The agreement would’ve forced the 53-year-old to plead guilty to the charges. Hunter would’ve entered a pretrial diversion program, which would’ve allowed him to avoid prosecution on a felony gun charge. The July plea collapse was unexpected and instead, he pleaded not guilty to the charges.

In 2018, Hunter purchased a firearm from a Delaware gun store. When signing federal forms to purchase the weapon, he lied on federal forms by stating he was not using or addicted to any drugs. At the time, Hunter was allegedly addicted to crack cocaine. It is considered a federal crime to lie on the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) form or to possess a firearm as a drug user.

This indictment comes days after Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) announced an impeachment inquiry against the 46th president.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here.



New Mexico GOP Launches Lawsuit Over Governor’s New Albuquerque Gun Ban

Republican officials in New Mexico announced a lawsuit against Gov. Michell Lujan Grisham (D-NM) and the State Secretary of Health over a controversial new rule banning the carry of firearms in Bernalillo County where Albuquerque is located.

It’s Bad. New Mexico’s Gov. (D) Grisham’s Public Health Order : Unconstitutional, Defies Bruen Ruling, & State’s Own Statutes


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.


WARNING: Liberal Logic Ahead, iStock

The unilateral action by New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham declaring a ban on civilian possession of a firearm, whether open or concealed, in public “to remain in effect for the duration of the public health emergencies. . .” is unconstitutional, unconscionable, and illegal.

But, apart from the illegality of Grisham’s Public Health Order on Second Amendment grounds and U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen rulings,,,

…the Order runs afoul of New Mexico’s own state Statutes!

This latter matter has not yet been discussed. We do so here.

We begin with the phrase “Gun Violence,” which appears in the Governor’s Public Health Order. For the longest time, the Anti-Second Amendment establishment has raged over this thing, “Gun Violence.” The idea implicit in ‘Gun Violence,’ if one insists on the expression, is that of ‘Criminal Violence’, where a criminal uses “a gun” in the commission of a crime. In that commonsensical view the phrase ‘Gun Violence’ simply denotes criminal use of guns, nothing more.

So why not eschew talk of Gun Violence for the appropriate expression, ‘Criminal Violence’?

Doing so would drive public policy where it belongs, on crime and criminals and away from the mechanism criminals sometimes employ, although not invariably, to do their horrible misdeeds.

But Democrats and Progressives don’t want to talk about crime and criminals. They don’t even want to talk about criminal use of guns. They only want to talk about guns and reducing the number of them, and that creates a real problem.

For, who is it that owns and possesses most of those “guns?” The answer is tens of millions of innocent, rational, responsible, law-abiding citizens.

And why do tens of millions of Americans wish to keep and bear guns?

Well, they do so for many reasons, all lawful, and one of which stands out as predominant: self-defense.

But little mention of this finds its way into the public square because Democrats and a sympathetic Press won’t allow it. They don’t want it. Anti-Second Amendment elements in Government, in the Press, and in the greater society have their own uses for ‘Gun Violence.’ It is they, after all, who have coined the expression.

And that phrase is the driving force behind the Governor’s Public “Health” Order.

Boiled down to its essence, the tacit message conveyed is this:

“Guns are a virus, a virulent contagion, and like all virulent contagions, must be rooted out, quarantined, and eradicated, and I, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, intend to do just that!”

The idea of Guns as a virulent contagion is not a novel idea. It goes back decades.

In 1995, in an Academic Article, Don Kates and others wrote (Guns And Public Health: Epidemic Of Violence Or Pandemic Of Propaganda?)  about the strategy to deny one’s exercise of the natural law right of armed self-defense by viewing guns as a health menace. The article’s writers referred to this strategy as “The Public Health Agenda.”

“In 1979 the American public health community adopted the ‘objective to reduce the number of handguns in private ownership,’ the initial target being a 25% reduction by the year 2000. Based on studies, and propelled by leadership from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the objective has broadened so that it now includes banning and confiscation of all handguns, restrictive licensing of owners of other firearms, and eventual elimination of firearms from American life, . . . .

This follows the health advocate sages’ avowed intention to promote the idea that firearm ownership is an evil and that its elimination is a desirable and efficacious means of reducing violence.” From “Guns And Public Health: Epidemic Of Violence Or Pandemic Of Propaganda?”, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 513, Spring, 1995, by Don B. Kates, et. al.

Viewing “Gun Violence” as a medical matter is inane. It involves tortuous use of a literary device, metaphor, as a mechanism upon which to design and implement public policy.

The metaphor is that guns are like a virulent plague and must be stamped out. And Governor Grisham’s Order is based on the metaphor of “Guns As Virulent Virus.” She attempts to apply the metaphor to law. That is absurd.

Our free Constitutional Republic is grounded on law, not metaphor.

Nonetheless, Grisham trusts that she can skate around the Second Amendment issue and the constraints of State law by focusing on guns as a public health menace. She hopes that no one will bother to notice the card trick and the use of metaphor she employs to do this.

Unfortunately, pervasive and undeniable lunacy doesn’t prevent ideological fanatics who wield immense power from thrusting their lunacy on everyone else, embroiling us all in their nightmarish reality.

So, why isn’t anyone attacking the Governor’s lunacy head-on? That is where attention should first be directed.

Grisham cites several New Mexico State Statutes. Do they offer her support? Let’s see.

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-5 provides that,

“A. A state of public health emergency may be declared by the governor upon the occurrence of a public health emergency. Prior to a declaration of a state of public health emergency, the governor shall consult with the secretary of health. The governor shall authorize the secretary of health, the secretary of public safety and the director to coordinate a response to the public health emergency.”

But the pertinent question here is whether the mere possession of guns in public equates with “Gun Violence” such that this “Gun Possession” qua “Gun Violence” falls within the legal definition of a ‘Public Health Emergency’ under New Mexico law.

In New Mexico, public health emergencies fall within the purview of N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-1-1 — 24-1-44.

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-2 says this:

“As used in the Public Health Act [Chapter 24, Article 1 NMSA 1978]:

A. ‘condition of public health importance’ means an infection, a disease, a syndrome, a symptom, an injury or other threat that is identifiable on an individual or community level and can reasonably be expected to lead to adverse health effects in the community; . . . .”

So, then, Does “a condition of public health importance” include “Gun Violence” qua “Possessing Guns in Public” under New Mexico law?

No, it does not. This kind of thing does not fall within the purview of New Mexico’s “Public Health Act” and, therefore, cannot be construed as a “Public Health Emergency” under New Mexico law, as shown below.

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-3 is the applicable “Definitions,” and Section. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-3 (G) defines the phrase, ‘public health emergency.’

“‘Public health emergency’ means the occurrence or imminent threat of exposure to an extremely dangerous condition or a highly infectious or toxic agent, including a threatening communicable disease, that poses an imminent threat of substantial harm to the population of New Mexico or any portion thereof.”

Does the phrase “exposure to an extremely dangerous condition” that appears in the afore-cited statutory section embrace “Gun Violence” qua “Possessing Guns in Public” under New Mexico Law?

Such an idea would be a stretch—an impossible stretch. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-2 explains why.

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 12-10A-2 (Purposes of the Act) says,

“The purposes of the Public Health Emergency Response Act [12-10A-1 NMSA 1978] are to:

A. provide the state of New Mexico with the ability to manage public health emergencies in a manner that protects civil rights and the liberties of individual persons; [emphasis added]

B. prepare for a public health emergency; and

C. provide access to appropriate care, if needed, for an indefinite number of infected, exposed or endangered people in the event of a public health emergency.”

Paragraph “C” implies the presence of an ongoing and serious chemical, biological, or epidemiological hazard, causing illness to many people. Such a health emergency is objective and the harm caused to many is measurable and extensive.

A health emergency does not include criminological problems, sociological concerns, or matters deriving from political biases or animosities.

Moreover, Paragraph “A” makes abundantly clear that any declaration of a public health emergency must be conducted in a manner that “protects civil rights and the liberties of individuals.”

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is one such fundamental civil right that requires protection when the New Mexico Governor declares, as here, a “Public Health Emergency.”

But how can the exercise of a fundamental civil right, the right of the people to keep and bear arms—that the governor implies is a public health emergency (for that is what the New Mexico Public Health Order targets), and one that must be harshly dealt with—truly be considered a health emergency under New Mexico law when that health emergency is the very fundamental civil right that must, as New Mexico law makes clear, be protected during an emergency?

The answer is: It cannot! That is the crux of the problem for Grisham and her “Public Health Order.”

Governor Grisham’s Order is legally incoherent, incompatible with State Statute, logically inconsistent, and, on analysis, overtly nonsensical.

We hope someone challenging Governor Grisham’s “Public Health Order” in Federal or State Court will make that argument.

About The Arbalest Quarrel:

Arbalest Group created `The Arbalest Quarrel’ website for a special purpose. That purpose is to educate the American public about recent Federal and State firearms control legislation. No other website, to our knowledge, provides as deep an analysis or as thorough an analysis. Arbalest Group offers this information free.

For more information, visit:

Arbalest Quarrel

The Most Important Second Amendment Battle…Right Now WITH NEW MEXICO’S GOVERNOR

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, heads back down to New Mexico to see all the development, and there have been many since Gov. Grisham decided that she had the power to suspend her citizens' Second Amendment Rights. Even some of America's most notorious gun grabbers, including David Hogg and Ryan Busse, have publicly spoken out against this gross overreach. Several law enforcement agencies have said that will NOT enforce the order and the lawsuits have started to fly. NAGR is the first to the party so we go over their lawsuit today so that all of you can arm yourself with education. Read NAGR's complaint here. Read NAGR's motion for a TRO here.


Jan. 6 Defendant: ‘They Want You Scared’

Jan. 6 Defendant: ‘They Want You Scared’
Cliff Grassmick/Daily Camera via AP
The left has to have scapegoats to prop up its sagging Jan. 6 “insurrection” narrative, and so Joe Biggs of the Proud Boys has just been given seventeen years in prison for his actions on that fateful day, which involved nothing more than tearing down a fence. If one guy removing a single barrier can bring the government of a superpower perilously close to being overthrown, we’re in bigger trouble than we thought. Biggs would be the first to tell you that we are, but not in the way that the leftist elites want us to think.

The Post Millennial reported Wednesday that Biggs explained the objective behind his sentence, which Judge Timothy Kelly made harsher because of the circumstances: the fence he tore down “separated law enforcement personnel from the protesters … on Capitol grounds that day,” and so Kelly “ruled that Biggs was subject to heavier sentencing consequences for domestic terrorism.”

This is ridiculous on its face. 9/11 — that was terrorism. The Fort Hood jihad massacre — that was terrorism. The Boston Marathon bombing? Terrorism. Some people getting let into the Capitol and snapping some selfies? Not terrorism.

According to Biggs, the agenda behind the left’s fabricated Jan. 6 hysteria is not just to destroy Trump and sideline him for 2024, but something far more sweeping and insidious.

“They want you scared,” Biggs said, referring to ordinary law-abiding American citizens who oppose the Biden regime and everything it stands for. Biggs told Alex Jones “that the case against him and others involved in the Jan. 6 riot was politically motivated.” When he was convicted, Biggs said, “My heart hurt.” He explained, “They want to send a message to Americans that if you go to these events, if you are part of a political group, they’re going to throw you in prison for a long time.”

It makes sense. The Biden regime has given numerous indications of its taste for authoritarianism: its ill-fated Disinformation Governance Board, which would label some speech as “disinformation” (as was originally done with Hunter Biden’s laptop); its collaboration with Big Tech to silence and deplatform Americans who objected to its COVID propaganda; its determination to find something — anything — to hang on Trump to prevent him from running again in 2024, instead of just persuading enough Americans to vote for them; and more.

Authoritarian regimes use terror to remain in power. In the Gulag Archipelago, Alexander Solzhenitsyn explains that sometimes Stalin’s police would arrest and imprison people who were perfectly innocent, and it was no mistake: the Communist authorities wanted to terrorize the population into submission, making people think that they had to be extra careful to do everything that those authorities required, or else they might be the next ones to be arrested.

In the same way, Biggs says, “They don’t want you to go out and vote, they want people scared before it’s time to vote, and that’s why all this heat’s happening right now.” He points out that the sentences he and other Proud Boys have received are absurd and unjust, for “he and other members of the Proud Boys had ‘no plans’ to breach the U.S. Capitol on January 6 despite being charged with seditious conspiracy, which investigators could not formally determine with evidence.” Biggs added that Judge Kelly’s decision to treat his “shaking offense,” that is, shaking and knocking down the fence, as “terrorism” was “ridiculous,” and it most certainly was.

Related: Here’s Proof That Trump’s Trials Are Election Interference

“We went there that day with no plan, with nothing,” Biggs added. “We were there like every other American, but because we’re a political group… They’re going to put us in chains.” Indeed. If Biggs had been a member of Antifa or of whatever intelligence agency Ray Epps works for, he would be getting puff pieces in the New York Times instead of seventeen years in the slammer.

“There was no intelligence of a plan,” he maintains. “Not one of the rats that came forward said that there was a plan. Everyone said that there was zero plan of anything happening that day by us, and yet they got us for conspiracy to plan this. They said we had this meeting of the minds without ever actually saying anything, and it happened on the fly at the first breach. So apparently we all had this telekinesis power.”

This is not justice. This is not even any semblance of justice. This is naked terror. And its target is the American people. We are supposed to see what happened to Joe Biggs and be too frightened to continue to dissent. Instead, we should, and must, speak out all the more loudly.

New Mexico Governor Suspends Open & Concealed Carry Claiming Public Health Order, RIGHT TO SUSPEND HER OATH OF OFFICE, claims she has the power because “gun violence” is a “public health crisis.”

New Mexico Carry Prohibition is a Crime

SEE:;Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a public health order suspending open and concealed carry of firearms in Bernalillo County public places for the next 30 days. Bernalillo County is the home of Albuquerque.

The Governor announced in a press conference Friday that she was taking the extraordinary step after the death of an 11-year-old due to a gunshot and several other shootings. She made the announcement alongside other New Mexico officials, all of whom had taken solemn oaths to support and defend the Constitution.

The Governor claims she has the power because “gun violence” is a “public health crisis.”

The order will almost certainly be challenged on Constitutional grounds. The move seems to run afoul of the Bruen Decision, which said individuals have the right to carry firearms outside the home. The Supreme Court did not make any exceptions for “public health.” In fact, the decision knocked down interest balancing. The Governor stated she expects legal challenges to the order.

AmmoLand News has reached out to several gun rights organizations to get comments. Gun Owners of America (GOA) responded, and the organization is aware of the Governor’s actions and is looking at options to challenge it.

One Cuban American who works for GOA compared the order to the country his family fled.

“New Mexico’ Governor has violated the rights of New Mexico’s law-abiding citizens in a manner I would only expect to see 90 miles off the coast of Florida,” said Luis Valdes, Florida Director, GOA. “In the Communist Hellscape that is Cuba. Criminals will continue to break the law, and the law-abiding will suffer because of it.”

Besides the restriction on carrying firearms outside of one’s residence, there were several other stipulations introduced. Including one measure that will place increased pressure on the locally owned and operated gun shops, implementing monthly inspections of federal firearms licensees (FFL) by the state.

• The Regulation and Licensing Division will conduct monthly inspections of licensed firearm dealers to ensure compliance with all sales and storage laws.
• The Department of Health, along with the Environment Department, will begin wastewater testing for illegal substances such as fentanyl at schools.
• The Department of Health will compile and issue a comprehensive report on gunshot victims presenting at hospitals in New Mexico, which shall include (if available): demographic data of gunshot victims, including age, gender, race, and ethnicity; data on gunshot victims’ healthcare outcomes; the brand and caliber of the firearm used; the general circumstances leading to the injury; the impact of gunshot victims on New Mexico’s healthcare system; and any other pertinent information.
• No firearms are allowed on state property, including state buildings and schools. This also includes other places of education where children gather, such as parks.
• New Mexico State Police will add officers in Albuquerque with funding for overtime provided.
• The Children, Youth, and Families Department will immediately suspend the Juvenile Detention Alternative Initiative and evaluate juvenile probation protocols.

No lawsuits have been announced, but it is not a question of if. It is only a question of how many and when the cases will be filed.

UPDATE 9/9/2023 Local Law Enforcement have begun to weigh in:

Statement from Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen:

“…However, as the elected Sheriff, I have reservations regarding this order. While I understand and appreciate the urgency, the temporary ban challenges the foundation of our Constitution, which I swore an oath to uphold. I am wary of placing my deputies in positions that could lead to civil liability conflicts, as well as the potential risks posed by prohibiting law-abiding citizens from their constitutional right to self-defense.

I was elected to represent and safeguard all constituents and to ensure the balance between our rights and public safety is maintained. That means we must critically evaluate any proposed solution to the deeply rooted issue of gun violence, ensuring we both protect our community and uphold the values that define us as a nation.”  ~ Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen.

Albuquerque Police Department Chief Medina sent the following message to APD officers about the governor’s state order on gun possession.


UPDATE 9/10/2023

Late Saturday, September 9th, 2023, Gun Owners of America filed a Temporary Restraining Order against the NM Governor’s unconstitutional order.

RANDY DONK, GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INC. and GUN OWNERS FOUNDATION, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-…

New Mexico Suspends Concealed Carry Public Health Order

About John Crump

John 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 and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at

John Crump

Leftist Gets Five Years for Killing Republican Teen With Car

Your ‘Justice’ System at Work: Leftist Who Ran Over and Killed ‘Republican Extremist’ Teen Gets Just Five Years in Prison

Your ‘Justice’ System at Work: Leftist Who Ran Over and Killed ‘Republican Extremist’ Teen Gets Just Five Years in Prison
Shannon Brandt (Stutsman County Jail)
Two-tier justice system? Absolutely. Joe Biggs, a member of the Proud Boys who dared to shake a fence at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, has just been sentenced to seventeen years in prison for doing so. And on Friday, a leftist thug named Shannon Brandt was also sentenced. Brandt ran over and killed a teenager, Cayler Ellingson because he thought Ellingson was a “Republican extremist.” For that, Brandt will serve five years in prison, minus almost a year that he has already served under house arrest. It would be fitting if Brandt and Biggs could be sentenced to the same prison so that Brandt could say goodbye to Biggs when he gets freed and thank his lucky stars that another “Republican extremist” is safely behind bars.

Fargo, N.D.’s KVRR reported that after Brandt completes his ridiculously light sentence, or whatever portion of it he actually does serve before some leftist judge springs him, “he will then serve a period of supervised release.” Presumably, this will include supervision while he is driving, in case any other “Republican extremists” dare to venture out onto the streets while this maniac is behind the wheel.

Brandt, according to KVRR, was “initially charged with intentional homicide in the case,” which was altogether fitting and proper, as it was based upon “a state trooper’s report that Brandt and Ellingson had gotten in a political argument which escalated.” However, “that report was later discounted, but not before conservative political figures, including former President Donald Trump, and some media outlets seized on it to advance a narrative of left-wing violence.”

Why was this report discounted? Was that decision also politically motivated? After all, court documents note that “Brandt stated that the pedestrian called some people and Brandt was afraid they were coming to get him. Brandt admitted to State Radio that he hit the pedestrian and that the pedestrian was part of a Republican extremist group.” That certainly sounds like left-wing violence, unless you’re a fellow leftist who wants to pretend that this sort of thing doesn’t happen. “The State Medical Examiner’s Office,” KVRR continues, “later concluded it was an accident and that Brandt was trying to escape a confrontation with Ellingson when he ran him over.”

What a coincidence, that Brandt would be involved in an accident involving someone with whom he had just had a political argument. Brandt’s attorney, Mark Friese, insists that his man “stayed on the scene” after hitting Ellingson, but according to a Sept. 2022 report in Fox News, Brandt fled the scene. If that is accurate, it is odd behavior if the whole thing was an accident. Why wouldn’t he stick around, so as to emphasize that he was horrified at the accident, sorry that it happened, and ready as a good citizen to take responsibility?

Even worse, State’s Attorney Kara Brinster “alleged that Brandt’s statements to investigators didn’t align with the evidence in the case and that he didn’t take sufficient accountability for Ellingson’s death.” Nevertheless, she was responsible for the slap on the wrist Brandt received, as she “requested five years incarceration with credit for time served and three years of supervised release.” Good thing he just killed a patriot with his car and then may have left the scene; Brandt didn’t have the poor judgment to do something serious, like shake a fence.

Related: Animal Who Ran Over, Killed Teen He Thought Was a ‘Republican Extremist’ Walks Out of Jail Days later

The light sentence Brandt received was partly based on the fact that he was diagnosed with autism, “which the experts said impacted his ability to interpret social situations and prompted an exaggerated reaction and response to the confrontation with Ellingson.” But wait a minute: if the whole thing is supposed to be an accident, what “exaggerated reaction and response” did Brant have after his “confrontation with Ellingson”? He was also drinking.

Judge Bradley Cruff didn’t explain that anomaly as he addressed Brandt: “You didn’t intentionally run him over. I acknowledge that. I understand what the experts in this case are saying about how your mind works. And you didn’t intentionally kill Cayler. But he did die. And that’s a result of your alcohol consumption. You recklessly pushed Cayler to the ground with your SUV, you recklessly ran him over, and you recklessly killed him.” That’s an awful lot of recklessness to be an accident. Ellingson’s mother “asked Cruff not to follow the plea agreement and to give Brandt the maximum sentence for manslaughter, which is ten years,” but to no avail.

Brandt addressed the courtroom, professing to be full of contrition and saying, among other things, “I am truly devastated by the impact this has had on the entire community.” And he wasn’t even talking about the impact of our two-tier justice system.

Federal Appeals Court Revives FDA Lawsuit Regarding Anti-Ivermectin Campaign

Federal Appeals Court Revives FDA Lawsuit Regarding Anti-Ivermectin Campaign

A sign for the Food And Drug Administration is seen outside of the headquarters on July 20, 2020 in White Oak, Maryland. (Photo by Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images

OAN’s Brooke Mallory
11:48 AM – Monday, September 4, 2023


Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

A federal appeals court overturned a prior judgment on Friday, enabling a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) lawsuit involving its campaign against the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 to proceed.

In a lawsuit filed against the FDA last year, three different doctors asserted that the agency had overstepped its boundaries in its anti-ivermectin campaign, “acting more like a medical body than a regulator.”

A district judge had originally ruled that the lawsuit could not proceed, but in a Friday decision, the 5th Circuit Appeals judge gave the physicians new hope by remanding the matter to a lower court for reconsideration.

“FDA is not a physician. It has authority to inform, announce, and apprise — but not to endorse, denounce, or advise,” said Judge Don Willett. “The Doctors have plausibly alleged that FDA’s Posts fell on the wrong side of the line between telling about and telling to.”

Ivermectin is an anti-parasite drug that is frequently prescribed to horses but also occasionally prescribed to people as well. The FDA’s campaign, which featured viral posters stating “You are not a horse,” underscored the agency’s warnings that it should not be used to treat the COVID-19 virus.

“Although [the] FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals, it has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19, nor has the agency stated that it is safe or effective for that use,” the agency’s recommendations stated.

While a handful of people were reportedly hospitalized and some even died from the drug, which occurs if one takes ivermectin in addition to certain other medications, many groups still welcomed it as a miracle cure and claimed to receive beneficial results for their health.

However, In 2021, a review of 14 studies on the use of ivermectin concluded that there was insufficient evidence to justify its usage, adding that “few [of the studies] are considered high quality.”

Yet, “It must be acknowledged that some of these studies were possibly intentionally designed to yield predetermined findings,” researchers maintained.

Besides COVID-19, there have also been reports from those suffering from autoimmune disorders who claim that ivermectin helped combat their negative symptoms and that they have been taking the anti-parasite drug for years.

The National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization are two organizations that have consistently advised against using ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

The anti-ivermectin FDA campaign, according to the three doctors, damaged their doctoral reputations since they had previously encouraged the use of the drug. One doctor was expelled from medical school, and another was even suspended from working at a hospital.

“This case has broad implications for protecting the practice of medicine from unlawful interference by the FDA,” the doctors’ attorney, Jared Kelson, said in a statement. “It’s about ensuring that federal agencies act only within their statutory authority. The FDA crossed a bright line here.”

One of the pro-liberty plaintiffs in the case, Mary Talley Bowen, praised the decision on Friday.

“A small win, or at least a step forward, in a monumental battle to protect the doctor-patient relationship from government tyranny… ONWARD!” Bowen said.

Stay informed! Receive breaking news blasts directly to your inbox for free. Subscribe here.

ATF Inspector Seizes Gun Store Records Without A Warrant

SEE:;Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.

ATF Police Raid IMG
ATF Police Raid IMG

A Florida-based Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Industry Operations Inspector (IOI) seized a federal firearms licensee’s (FFL) completed ATF Form 4473s and bound book to take off-site to make copies violating federal law. The IOI would return the documents a week later.

Last week, Kiloton Tactical joined a coalition of FFLs led by Eric Blandford of the Iraqveteran8888 YouTube channel and vowed to sue the ATF over the Biden Administration’s zero-tolerance policy for FFLs. The lawsuit has now been filed with the illegal actions of the IOI front and center in the complaint.

According to 18 U.S.C. 923(g)(1)(A), FFLs must maintain records such as a bound book and copies of the ATF Form 4473, which Kiloton Tactical did maintain. During an inspection, an IOI is able to look over records for policy violations but does not have the authority to inspect the documents off-site. This action is expressly prohibited by 27 CFR § 478.23(cd).

The statute reads: “The inspections and examinations provided by this section do not authorize an ATF officer to seize any records or documents other than those records or documents constituting material evidence of a violation of law. If an ATF officer seizes such records or documents, copies shall be provided to the licensee within a reasonable time.”

At the time of the seizure, no wrongdoing was suspected. The IOI insisted he was within his legal rights to remove the documents from the store. The IOI’s deviation put him at odds with federal law.

The ATF’s IOI handbook doubles down on forbidding an IOI from removing records from a business. The ATF has been slow to release the IOI handbook to the public, and when they finally did, the document was heavily redacted. AmmoLand News acquired an unredacted copy of the guide from our sources inside the ATF. Every IOI is responsible for knowing the policies laid out in the handbook, but the ATF employee ignored page 10 of the handbook, which expressly prohibits IOIs from making any seizures.

IOI Manual Forbiding Seizures

Later in the same guide, the ATF states that all inspections should be done at the FFL’s location. There is no exception for carrying out an inspection of records off-site. The IOI in question violated the ATF’s own policies and violated federal law. To many, this is just another example of a lack of training for ATF employees. Others believe that ATF employees think they are above the law due to a culture of government overreach.

Page 46 Of The IOI Manual

The Biden administration has empowered the ATF to shut down gun stores for small clerical errors. President Joe Biden claims the new zero-tolerance policy only affects “rogue gun dealers,” but in practice, many more small gun stores are being targeted. FFL revocations are up between 350% and 500%, rising to a 17-year high.

IOIs no longer have the discretion to determine whether a violation is willful. Instead of revocation being the last option, it is becoming the default action by the ATF over minor errors. The zero-tolerance policies have significantly impacted the firearms market, decreasing the number of gun stores across the country and ending the livelihood of not only the stores’ owners but also the employees of the businesses.

One organization that has sounded the alarm against the ATF overreach is Gun Owners of America (GOA). GOA has a lawsuit of its own in North Dakota against the zero-tolerance policy. GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt has pledged to help the FFL Coalition’s efforts in any way possible.

“The ATF is out of control, and both Congress and the Courts have an obligation to rein them in! GOA fully supports the FFL Coalition’s efforts to halt the weaponization of the ATF, and thus protect honest gun dealers around the country,” Pratt told AmmoLand News. “Left unchecked, Biden’s Zero Tolerance policy will cripple the gun industry and make it virtually impossible for law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms and exercise their rights.”

The actions of the IOI show the agency’s problems are systemic and highly politicized, leaving us with one solution: defund the ATF.

ATF Inspector Seizes Gun Store Records Without A Warrant by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News on Scribd

About John Crump

John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at

John Crump

Coalition of FFLs Sue Over Biden’s “Zero Tolarance” Policy

SEE:;Republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, & research purposes.


In recent months, the Second Amendment community has faced unprecedented challenges in the wake of President Biden’s attack on gun rights. One of the most contentious issues has been implementing the “zero tolerance” policy for gun dealers by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). As staunch defenders of the Second Amendment, a coalition of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) has stepped up to contest what they view as an overreach of government authority. The alliance is led by Eric Blandford, who runs the successful YouTube channel Iraqveteran8888.

“Selling firearms is a perfectly normal business venture, and nobody should have to fear losing their entire life savings over a typo,” Blandford told AmmoLand News.

The announcement was announced on the popular YouTuber’s channel. He was joined in the video by Senior Vice President of GOA, Erich Pratt.

The Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” policy for gun dealers has drawn significant criticism from pro-gun advocates, including FFLs.

President Biden claims that the policy aims to crack down on alleged violations of federal gun laws by firearm dealers. The coalition of FFLs claims the ATF is taking an over-aggressive stance on even minor clerical errors. The members point to the ATF punishing law-abiding FFLs for trivial mistakes and administrative errors leading to the revocation of FFLs. Under the policy, the revocation of FFLs is at a 17-year high.

The FFL coalition argues that the ATF’s “zero tolerance” approach undermines the due process rights of FFLs and could potentially lead to the unjust revocation of licenses. Instead of focusing on rooting out actual criminals, this policy places undue burdens on small business owners who strive to adhere to complex and often confusing regulations. There is also evidence that the ATF is using the revocation process as retaliation against FFLs that sue the Bureau. Moorehouse Enterprises is one of the alleged victims of ATF reprisal. The gun store sued the ATF over the new rule on frames and receivers. After the lawsuit was launched, a local Industry Operations Inspector (IOI) examined the company’s books and found a few errors. Even though the IOI was positive about the inspection, the small local business received a revocation letter. The gun store has now launched a second lawsuit contesting the revocation with the help of Gun Owners of America (GOA).

The legal battle launched by the FFL coalition centers on upholding the principles of due process and fair treatment under the law.

Pro-gun advocates argue that treating minor administrative mistakes with the same severity as deliberate violations disproportionately punishes FFLs who are attempting to comply with an elaborate set of regulations.

The coalition believes that this overzealous approach by the ATF could have far-reaching implications, not only for FFLs but for the broader Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. By contesting the ATF’s “zero tolerance” policy, the coalition seeks to protect not only their livelihoods but also the rights of responsible gun owners across the nation.

The ongoing legal battle between gun stores and the ATF represents a pivotal moment for Second Amendment rights in the United States. The FFL coalition’s efforts are a testament to the enduring commitment of Americans to safeguard their constitutional rights.

About John Crump

John 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 and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at

John Crump

Justice Department Sues Elon Musk For Not Hiring Legal Immigrants

Justice Department Sues Elon Musk for Not Hiring Illegal Immigrants and Asylum Seekers

Justice Department Sues Elon Musk for Not Hiring Illegal Immigrants and Asylum Seekers
(AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)
Elon Musk’s company Space X has been sued by the Justice Department because the billionaire refused to hire asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

“The lawsuit alleges that, from at least September 2018 to May 2022, SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying and refused to hire or consider them, because of their citizenship status, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” the Justice Department said in a statement.

DoJ says that Space X wrongly claimed in its advertisements and online postings that the company could only hire U.S. citizens and green card holders because of export control laws.

The lawsuit pointed to a Twitter post by Musk claiming that “U.S. law requires at least a green card to be hired at SpaceX, as rockets are advanced weapons technology.”

Musk is accusing DoJ and by extension, the Biden administration of the “weaponization of the DOJ for political purposes.”


In a post on X, the SpaceX CEO said the company “was told repeatedly that hiring anyone who was not a permanent resident of the United States would violate international arms trafficking law, which would be a criminal offense.”

U.S. Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s civil rights division said a DOJ investigation found that SpaceX “failed to fairly consider or hire asylees and refugees because of their citizenship status and imposed what amounted to a ban on their hire regardless of their qualification, in violation of federal law”.

Clarke also said SpaceX recruiters and high-level officials “actively discouraged” asylum recipients and refugees from seeking work opportunities at the company.

DoJ wants back wages and fair consideration for asylum recipients and refugees who were denied employment at Space X. The would be a fairly large number because any immigrant or asylum seeker who applied for a position at Space X would be in line to receive compensation.


According to the complaint, Musk also said in a video from an international space conference in 2016 that “unless [you] can somehow get a green card, we are legally prevented from hiring anyone.”

The Justice Department is asking an administrative law judge to order SpaceX to stop the allegedly illegal hiring practice, pay an unspecified civil penalty, consider hiring applicants and potential applicants impacted by the policy and provide back pay to those affected.

The complaint notes that SpaceX hired for numerous positions with no connection to sensitive technology, like cooks, dishwashers and baristas. It’s unclear whether the Justice Department is claiming the firm turned away applicants for such jobs because they didn’t have a green card — the permit the U.S. government issues to lawful permanent residents.

The bottom line is that Musk and Space X believed they were acting in accordance with the law, and the government now says — four years after the fact — that they weren’t.

It would seem that the Biden administration wants to set an example for large companies that aren’t hiring enough immigrants and asylum seekers.

1 2 3 31