Rather Expose Them Christian News Blog

U.S. Lawshield Experiences Record-Breaking Growth; Membership Exceeds 700,000

U.S. LawShield Banner

BY F. RIEHL

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/07/u-s-lawshield-record-growth-membership/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Houston, Texas – -(AmmoLand.com)- U.S. LawShield, industry leader and America’s largest provider of Legal Defense for Self-Defense coverage, announces record-breaking expansion and significant new customer acquisitions with membership exceeding 700,000. Targeted market demographics, strategic marketplace opportunities, and new gun ownership continues to drive growth.

“With millions of Americans seeking gun ownership for the first time, U.S. LawShield provides a much-needed resource for education and protection,” said P.J. Hermosa, CEO of U.S. LawShield. “Satisfied customers are renewing at increased rates, and they enjoy a variety of member benefits, educational opportunities, and the peace of mind we offer. Folks new to gun ownership have the most questions and need for knowledge, and we’re here to help them,” he added.

U.S. LawShield(R), Legal Defense for Self-Defense

The backbone of U.S. LawShield is its army of Independent Program Attorneys. Members receive exclusive access to the U.S. LawShield AttorneyResponse 365 24/7/365 emergency hotline, where lawyers answer every call immediately. “Our attorneys are well-versed in state-specific gun laws and Second Amendment legislation, and they answer more than 2,000 calls every month from people in crisis across the country,” said Hermosa.

“Our passion is educating consumers and advocating for lawful self-defense. The folks who choose to carry firearms and lawfully defend themselves deserve the unrivaled safeguarding U.S. LawShield provides,” Hermosa stated. “Our values and vision have positioned us to deliver the best solutions in the industry, and sustained growth is on our horizon.”

Throughout the company’s history, U.S. LawShield has remained true to its core premise of Preserving Freedom for Good.

“Protecting folks from the potential of injustices in our legal system after acts of self-defense is critically important as more Americans choose to own firearms lawfully,” said Hermosa. “We’re proud to educate our members in self-defense law and empower them to handle life-threatening situations with confidence.”


About U.S. LawShield

Since 2009, the mission of U.S. LawShield remains unchanged. We believe in Preserving Freedom for Good™ by educating our 700,000+ members and 6,000+ facility partners in self-defense law; empowering them to handle critical, life-threatening situations with confidence; protecting them from potential injustices in the legal system after acts of self-defense, and challenging the status quo regarding the affordability of legal defense. Our higher purpose is to create a united community of responsible individuals who believe in liberty and the inalienable right of self-defense.

For more information on U.S. LawShield and its legal defense for self-defense programs, visit the website at www.uslawshield.com.

U.S. LawShield

 

Only Armed Citizens Can Defend Our Constitutional Republic Against The Marxists

Opinion:
Social And Political Volatility And Upheaval In America Is Deliberate

BY ROGER KATZ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/07/armed-citizen-defend-constitutional-republic-against-marxists/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- Perpetrating and perpetuating the myth of “systemic racism” in American society serves the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist goal of creating volatility in society and social upheaval.

The Harris-Biden Administration at the behest of their Neo-Marxist and Billionaire Globalist handlers, along with the Marxist Democrat Party leadership, need societal volatility—demand that volatility—if they are to succeed in overturning a free Constitutional Republic, transforming it into an obedient vessel of a new Autocratic Marxist-Globalist world trans-superstate structure, spanning the entire globe.

To that end, they have cunningly devised many strategies. One that they have had the most success with involves the application of “race” and “racism” to everything Americans hold dear and holy, corrupting it, desecrating all of it—profanely, erroneously claiming that the very foundation of our Nation is rooted in the subjugation of Africans and their descendants.

These Neo-Marxists have deliberately thrust upon Americans a fairy tale surrounding slaves and slavery, claiming that race and racial identity is the defining feature of American society; that racism and the incitement of racial hatred are endemic to America; that “white extremism” and “white supremacism” are prevalent throughout society, endemic to the core of our Nation even though the fact of the matter is that white extremism and white supremacism is de minimis, representing no tenable threat to the stability of American society. Such instability and volatility that exists and is extant in the U.S. are manufactured by Marxist Democrat Party leadership and the Harris-Biden Administration, itself, not by infinitesimally small and hardly influential groups like the KKK.

The volatility and instability evident in society is a product of Government policy. It is seen in the Harris-Biden Administration’s open borders policy.

It is seen in its dismissive attitude toward soaring violent crime permeating society and toward a curious permissive attitude held toward criminals and psychopathic and psychotic lunatics, given incredible latitude to prey on hapless, innocent Americans. And it is seen in the Administration’s cavalier attitude toward agitators belonging to rabid Marxist, Anarchist groups—in particular, “Black Lives Matter” and “Antifa” and other such groups—that have caused and continue to cause mayhem and substantial damage to the institutions of a free Republic.

Thus, in propounding a basis to upend a free Constitutional Republic that Democrat Party Marxists and the Kamala Harris and Joe Biden marionettes desire to accomplish and fully intend to accomplish so long as they can maintain power, it behooves them to resort to chicanery to confuse Americans and to create dissension among Americans.

In much that the Democrat Marxists and the Executive Branch puppets do to bring about a rupture of society they must, at present, resort to psychological measures.

The salient tool of the propagandists is language and the manipulation of it to affect a desired response in the target population, a willing compliance to authority, and to obtain a desired outcome—the destruction of American culture and society and subjugation of the masses; ergo the Propagandist resorts to the manipulation of “race.” And he operates with complete abandon in generating volatility in society through the device of “systemic racism” and “white extremism.”

Why Do Democrat Marxists And Executive Branch Puppets Suffocate Americans With These Ludicrous Notions Of ‘Race’ And ‘Racism And ‘Systemic Racism’?

The Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists utilize the vehicles of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ and ‘systemic racism’ because they know Americans are acutely sensitive to the concepts—hence the expansive use of these words to drive a wedge among Americans, to cause an ever-widening rift among Americans that cannot be bridged; to change Americans’ perceptions of themselves, to soften them up, and make Americans amenable to the transformative influences of Marxism. And the extensive, intensive use of these concepts in the media is having the desired effect.

What Is ‘Race,’ Really, And Is It “Really” Real?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about ‘race’:

The concept of race has historically signified the division of humanity into a small number of groups based upon five criteria: (1) Races reflect some type of biological foundation, be it Aristotelian essences or modern genes; (2) This biological foundation generates discrete racial groupings, such that all and only all members of one race share a set of biological characteristics that are not shared by members of other races; (3) This biological foundation is inherited from generation to generation, allowing observers to identify an individual’s race through her ancestry or genealogy; (4) Genealogical investigation should identify each race’s geographic origin, typically in Africa, Europe, Asia, or North and South America; and (5) This inherited racial biological foundation manifests itself primarily in physical phenotypes, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture, and bone structure, and perhaps also behavioral phenotypes, such as intelligence or delinquency.

Both in the past and today, determining the boundaries of discrete races has proven to be most vexing and has led to great variations in the number of human races believed to be in existence. Thus, some thinkers categorized humans into only four distinct races (typically white or Caucasian, Black or African, yellow or Asian, and red or Native American), and downplayed any biological or phenotypical distinctions within racial groups (such as those between Scandinavians and Spaniards within the white or Caucasian race). Other thinkers classified humans into many more racial categories, for instance arguing that those humans “indigenous” to Europe could be distinguished into discrete Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean races.

The ambiguities and confusion associated with determining the boundaries of racial categories have provoked a widespread scholarly consensus that discrete or essentialist races are socially constructed, not biologically real.”

This Essentialist notion of race was taken as self-evident truths, and it tore Germany and the rest of the world apart, leading to a conflagration commencing in 1939 with the outbreak of the Second world war.

Jump to present-day America. The use of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ as a weapon—this time by the Harris-Biden Administration and Marxist Democrats—are again on full disgusting and noxious display.

The propagandists have taken a cue from the race proponents of Nazi Germany although with a decidedly peculiar twist.

This time it isn’t the German Nordic white “Herrenmensch” who is extolled but the purportedly black “Untermensch,” albeit the rabid Anti-American Anti-white current head of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, Kristen Clarke, has unabashedly argued that it is the “black race” that is markedly superior to the “white race.” See article in LA Times, referring at the end of the article to remarks of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, which explains why Republicans opposed her confirmation to head the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

“In opposing her nomination, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement Monday that Clarke had a ‘long history of statements that place the nominee on, frankly, the far-left fringe of the political spectrum . . . This is not the right nominee for a crucial post at a crucial time. ’”

See also an article in the North State Journal:

“Kristen Clarke, Joe Biden’s nominee for assistant attorney general of the United States, once promoted racist pseudoscientific quackery, arguing that the human brain was structured in a way that makes Black people superior to white people, and that “human mental processes” in the brain have chemicals that imbue one race with “superior physical and mental abilities” and “spiritual abilities.”

After confirmation, Clarke says, as reported in fox news, that she doesn’t “necessarily” hold to those beliefs.

In other words, Clarke still professes a belief in this nonsense, but she cannot be overt and explicit about it.

For those who would interject “race” into politics, then it must be faced head-on, rationally, logically, especially in those instances where one accepts the reality of “race” in a concrete, absolute biological sense, and dares to extol the righteousness and superiority of this or that “race.”

But what we are seeing is that the would-be Destroyers of our Nation have used the concept of ‘race,’ and ‘racism’ and continue to use “race” and “racism” as an odious political device, a tool, a bludgeon, a battering ram directed against our Nation, against our People, and against our Constitution—with the aim of destroying all of it and replacing it with something loathsome, something detestable, reprehensible. And they seek to erect their evil societal construct to ensnare and enslave us all.

Patriots…make sure your are prepared, stay heavily armed and always extremely dangerous. America is counting on you.


 

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: www.arbalestquarrel.com.

Arbalest Quarrel

 

RED ALERT: Deranged tyrant nominated to head ATF says anyone uttering “hate speech” online should have all their guns confiscated by armed federal agents

Image: RED ALERT: Deranged tyrant nominated to head ATF says anyone uttering “hate speech” online should have all their guns confiscated by armed federal agents

BY J.D. HEYES

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-07-nominee-head-atf-hate-speech-online-all-guns-confiscated.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) One of the problems with having Marxists in the White House is that they tend to choose left-wing extremists to serve the administration, and that is certainly the case when it comes to David Chipman, the man the Biden regime has nominated to serve as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

For one, Chipman only seems concerned about the “firearms” part of his regulatory position.

In an obscure interview with the BBC in 2019, Chipman came out and said that anyone who posts “hate speech” online ought to be subjected to having their firearms confiscated by armed federal agents, because the First Amendment and Second Amendment to the Constitution, he suggests by default, are not inalienable rights but rather those that are only granted by government.

“We really need to do more to monitor hate speech on the internet,” Chipman argued, going on to suggest that then-President Donald Trump’s speech was hateful as well and should also be regulated.

“But we also have to do more to curb that same speech being presented by our president and other elected public officials,” he went on.

Questions: Who are “we” and what “more,” exactly, should be done?

“The FBI, other federal agencies, have a tough job responding to these threats when they don’t currently (our emphasis) have the authority to remove weaponry just because people are saying hateful things,” he added.

Of course, “hateful things” is very often in the eye of the beholder, and when that speech arbiter happens to be a well-armed federal agency, that gets really worrisome really quickly.

It’s bad enough that a guy like Chipman has even been nominated to lead one of those armed federal agencies, but this guy literally would have jailed our founding fathers for their “hate speech” about liberty and freedom against the British Crown’s tyranny while at the same time confiscating their firearms.

The framers literally wrote and states literally ratified the First and Second Amendments to be able to be a) critical of government; and b) armed while being critical of government. Chipman and those in government like him want to punish Americans in the same way King George did before the American Revolution.

The one good thing is that Chipman may actually lack the votes in the evenly divided Senate to win confirmation. Yes, the Senate is currently split 50-50, Republicans and Democrats with Kamala Harris providing the tie-breaking vote, but he may not get all 50 Democrats.

Fox News reported late last month:

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday advanced President Biden’s nominee to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) on a party-line vote, setting the table for an uncertain confirmation effort on the Senate floor. 

Republicans, all of whom voted against David Chipman in the 10-10 Judiciary Committee vote, have raised alarms about Chipman’s alleged hostility toward guns – citing his past comments and his previous work with gun control groups like Giffords and Everytown. It’s likely all 50 Republicans will vote against the nominee on the Senate floor. 

“After meeting with Mr. Chipman, listening to Mainers, and reviewing his record, I have decided to vote against Mr. Chipman’s nomination to serve as the ATF Director,” Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said in a statement ahead of the Judiciary Committee vote. “In recent years, Mr. Chipman has been an outspoken critic of the firearms industry and has made statements that demean law-abiding gun owners.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., a constitutional originalist, echoed most Republicans when he said of Chipman that he’s leery of his “agenda… to take away Second Amendment rights from law-abiding citizens while violent criminals are loose on our streets.”

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, blasted Chipman for saying in a Reddit post a few years back that anyone who fails a gun background check should be arrested.

“We don’t arrest people before they commit crimes. That’s the sort of thing that’s reserved for bad post-apocalyptic dystopian novels and movies,” Lee said.

Sources include:

FoxNews.com

Mom-At-Arms.com

Cuomo Declares FAKE ‘Gun Violence Disaster Emergency’ In New York State

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

Gov. Cuomo Imagines: New York Needs a ‘Magic Wall’

Gun Industry Fires Back At Cuomo's 2A Attack

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has declared war on guns and the firearms industry.

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/07/cuomo-declares-fake-gun-violence-disaster-emergency/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

USA – -(AmmoLand.com)- Anti-gun New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) has issued an executive order declaring a “gun violence” disaster emergency in the Empire State, reportedly allowing him to “tap into $138 million in state funds” to pay for efforts to combat what he calls an epidemic.

The announcement came Tuesday as Cuomo was appearing at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in Manhattan, according to NBC News. The new twist or truth, according to published reports, is that this allows Cuomo and other officials to treat violent crime involving guns as a public health emergency.

“This new strategy treats gun violence as a public health crisis, using short-term solutions to manage the immediate gun violence crisis and reduce the shooting rate,” NBC News reported.

According to Forbes and other publications, New York City has reported a spike in homicides. The state is “on pace” for 621 gun-related murders so far this year, up from last year’s total of 594 for the entire year, according to the Gun Violence Archive. According to the New York Daily News, 51 people were shot in New York over the July 4 holiday weekend, including 26 in just New York City. Shootings are up 38 percent over the same time period in 2020, the Daily News added.

The Gothamist reported June saw 165 shootings including 33 homicides in New York City, although far-left Mayor Bill de Blasio on Tuesday was talking about a decline in city crime during the month. The newspaper said June 2020 produced 205 shootings and 43 slayings.

In the process of declaring war on guns, Cuomo said he would sign legislation sponsored by Assemblywoman Patricia Fahy (D-Albany) that will “make it easier to sue gun companies for gun violence.”

He inked that legislation promptly.  That tactic was tried in the early 2000s as municipalities with liberal administrations around the country tried to bankrupt the firearms industry with a series of “junk” lawsuits, leading Congress to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act prohibiting such legal harassment.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation immediately said it will “challenge to overturn the law.”

“This law is unconstitutional, plain and simple,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “It is abhorrent that Governor Cuomo is rehashing a decades-old failed playbook that was rejected by courts in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.”

Keane accused Cuomo of “blame shifting for his administration’s failures to prevent crime by pointing fingers at firearm manufacturers.”

 

NSSF said in a prepared statement that the law “is in contravention to federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), and the legal foundations of tort law.”

Cuomo’s plan calls for efforts to “get illegal guns off the streets” and prevent firearms from falling into the wrong hands. While there is no clear definition of what are “illegal guns”, how he intends to accomplish that may become one more gun control campaign that impacts more law-abiding New Yorkers than it does the criminal element.

 

The governor also announced the creation of an “Office of Gun Violence Prevention,” which seems to be a growingly popular idea aimed at creating a taxpayer-funded bureaucracy to promote gun control legislation.

Cuomo’s executive orders will also require police departments to share data, NBC News reported.

Part of the millions of dollars Cuomo plans to devote to this effort will be used to create jobs and “community activities” for so-called “at-risk youth,” the Daily News reported. An estimated 21,000 jobs will be created this summer at several agencies, including the NYC Hospitality Alliance, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and the State Parks.

But the New York Post raised an interesting issue. This sudden declaration of war on gun-related crime comes at a time when Cuomo is “facing multiple probes tied to sexual harassment allegations and the cover-up of nursing home deaths from COVID-19.”

This could raise questions about whether this is a Cuomo effort to distract the public and the news media from those troubles.

The governor wants to create a council on “gun violence prevention.”

“Everything is on the table,” he reportedly said. “We all want the same thing, and that’s what we’re going to do.”

The Post also noted that State Senate Minority Leader Rob Ortt (R-Lockport) criticized Gov. Cuomo for “declaring another emergency” just “days after finally relinquishing his emergency powers.” He’s spent the past year exercising emergency powers. Now, he’s found another emergency.

But Ortt observed, “These heinous acts of violence and the victims affected deserve real solutions — not political grandstanding.”


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

Leaked ATF Guidance: Private Gunmakers Are Criminals, Terrorists & Extremists

BY LEE WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/atf-guidance-private-gunmakers-criminals-terrorists-extremists/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Leaked ATF Report: Private Gunmakers Are Criminals, Terrorists & Extremists

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- If there is any federal agency that can be counted on to create a problem just to justify their own existence it is certainly the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

When it comes to overhyping the next “threat” to the homeland – regardless of the facts – the ATF seldom disappoints.

The embattled agency’s latest piece of creative fiction is a warning about “privately made firearms” or PMFs, and it should serve as a warning to gun owners, homebuilders, and everyone else who values their civil rights.

An ATF document titled “First Responder Awareness of Privately Made Firearms May Prevent Illicit Activities” was published last week by the Joint Counterterrorism Assessment Team (JCAT).

“JCAT is a collaboration by the NCTC, DHS, and FBI to improve information sharing among federal, state, local, tribal, territorial governments and private sector partners, in the interest of enhancing public safety,” the document states. “This product is NOT in response to a specific threat against the United States. It provides a general awareness of, considerations for, and additional resources related to terrorist tactics, techniques, and procedures, whether domestic or overseas.”

To be clear, the ATF and JCAT consider homebuilt firearms “terrorist tactics, techniques and procedures,” even though Americans have been making guns legally in their homes since before there even was a United States of America.

The document was never supposed to be leaked to the media or the public and is exempt from discovery through the federal Freedom of Information Act, but some freedom-loving soul published it online yesterday despite its ominous warning:

“WARNING: This document is UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Do not release to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need to know without prior approval from NCTC, DHS, or the FBI. This document may contain US Person information deemed necessary for the intended recipient to understand, assess, or act on the information provided. Additionally, this document may contain information exempt from public release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552).”

“Criminals and violent extremists continue to seek ways to acquire firearms through the production of privately made firearms (PMFs),” ATF’s document warns. “PMF awareness and identification can aid

PMF recovery, prevention of illicit activities including terrorism, and overall first responder and public safety.”

Evidently, even the ATF was worried that their door-kickers might go too far, again – they can’t afford another Waco or Ruby Ridge – so they included a subtle warning before things get out of hand.

“NOTE: Many of the activities described herein may involve Constitutionally protected activities and may be insignificant on their own. Action should not be taken solely based on the exercise of Constitutionally protected rights.” Yep, those pesky Constitutional rights tend to get in the way.

Much of the advice the ATF passes on to First Responders would be laughable, were it not for the fact that Americans have a right to make firearms in their own homes. Apparently, that doesn’t matter. If you’re found with 3D printers, printing mediums such as plastic, ceramic, or metal spools, or place what the agency considers to be too large of an order online, you’re going to be suspected of terrorism or violent extremism even though your actions are perfectly legal.

I have written about the need to abolish the ATF before because no one seems capable of reining in the rogue agency or forcing them to accept the fact Americans actually do have constitutional rights.

This is more important now than ever before, because Biden’s nominee to head the ATF, David Chipman, is a paid anti-gun activist who would definitely take the agency in the opposite direction.

If Chipman is confirmed by the Senate, this leaked ATF report is just a warning of more serious civil rights violations yet to come.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

 Subscribe 

Why Does Lloyd Austin Refuse to Define ‘Extremism’?

BY TYLER O'NEIL

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2021/06/26/why-does-lloyd-austin-refuse-to-define-extremism-this-army-definition-should-raise-alarms-for-conservatives-n1457375;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Even though the Department of Defense (DOD) carried out a military-wide “stand-down” training on “extremism” early into Joe Biden’s tenure, the DOD still has not promulgated an official definition of extremism. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin refused to give a definition at a congressional hearing this week, and on Thursday, the DOD confirmed to PJ Media that it has not adopted a definition. However, a working definition that the Army Recruiting Command apparently uses to screen applicants should raise alarm bells for conservatives.

“I’m very concerned about the recent order that you have conducted regarded looking at so-called ‘extremism,’ and I have sent to you two letters, Mr. Secretary, asking for the definition of what the Department of Defense views as ‘extremism,’ and have not heard back from you yet,” Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.) told Austin at a hearing on Wednesday. “Could you just share with me, does the Department of Defense have a definition of extremism?”

Austin did not answer Hartzler’s question. He assured her, “I believe that 99.9 percent of our troops are focused on the right things, embracing the right values, each and every day. Small numbers of people, in this area, can have an outsized impact on our organization.”

RecommendedEXCLUSIVE: The DOD’s ‘Extremism’ Working Group Confirms Fears of a Free-Speech Crackdown

“We are focused on extremist behavior, not what people think or political ideas or religious ideas, but extremist behavior,” Austin insisted.

“So, do you have a definition of what extremism is and what that behavior is?” Hartzler asked.

“Again, we’re focused on behavior,” Austin repeated, dodging the question.

“Well, you had a stand-down and you had a pause over the entire military for an entire day to do training to talk about this, and you don’t have a definition yet of what the purpose was and what extremism is?”

“The purpose was to have a discussion with our troops and our leaders on the issue of extremism, and that was very productive,” Austin said.

Hartzler brought up a new DOD screening procedure, asking, “What, specifically, would you be screening for?”

“Our screening is focused on screening those applicants that are coming into the military. We want to make sure that we’re bringing in the right type of people, quality of people,” Austin replied.

“So, if someone says that they’re for President Trump, would that be viewed as extremism?” Hartzler pressed.

“As I said earlier, this is not about politics. I want our troops to participate in our political system,” Austin replied. “That’s what they’re fighting to defend. But I will also say that we will continue to be a diverse and inclusive organization.”

RecommendedWhistleblowers Explain How Biden’s Woke ‘Extremism’ Training Is Tearing the Military Apart

PJ Media reached out to the DOD on Thursday, and a spokesperson confirmed that the Department had not put out any guidance defining extremism. However, various training materials used for the military-wide “stand down” to combat “extremism” follow the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) playbook for demonizing conservatives through the biased application of terms like “discrimination.”

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) shared the reports of whistleblowers who said the DOD pushed “anti-racist” and Marxist critical race theory (CRT) materials in trainings to combat “extremism.” One whistleblower said his or her unit was forced to read White Fragility by Robin DiAngelo. One Army officer said his general officer told him “that the entire U.S. Army is racist.” Earlier this week, Army General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, defended teaching CRT in the military and repeated CRT propaganda against the Constitution.

This context suggests that the DOD may hesitate to define “extremism” because its likely definition will involve demonizing conservative views. Indeed, on Wednesday morning, a communique sent to Army Recruiting Command — and first reported by PJ Media’s Stacey Lennox — presented a slanted definition of “extremism.” The DOD has not adopted this definition, but it seems the Army is using this definition to screen applicants.

The document laid out an illogical definition of extremism: “Extremism is defined as an individual that advocates for any of the following:

  1. Hatred or intolerance on the basis of race, sex (including gender identity), sexual orientation, or ethnicity.
  2. Creating or engaging in discrimination based on race, color, sex (including gender identity), national origin, religion, or sexual orientation.
  3. Use of force or violence or unlawful means to deprive individuals of their rights to achieve political/religious/discriminatory goals.
  4. Support for terrorist or criminal organizations or objectives.
  5. Overthrow of the U.S. Government by force, violence, or sedition.
  6. Subversion (i.e., violations of law, disobedience to lawful orders or regulations).

It stands to reason that the U.S. military would define extremism to include advocacy for the “overthrow of the U.S. government by force, violence, or sedition,” and that aspect of the definition seems unassailable. Subversion may also count as extremism, so long as the definition does not exclude certain forms of civil disobedience that should fall under the First Amendment’s speech protections. Support for terrorist or criminal organizations also seems a reasonable aspect of an extremism definition.

RecommendedEXCLUSIVE: Army Finally Defines ‘Extremism’ When It Comes to Screening Out ‘Hate Group’ Members

The use of force or violent means to deprive people of their rights may also reasonably fit a definition of extremism. While Stacey Lennox was right to warn about the Left applying rights language to abortion and other issues, opposition to abortion should involve reasoned debate, not violence.

However, the first two aspects of this Army definition should raise red flags for conservatives.

Conservatives do not support “hatred or intolerance on the basis of race, sex (including gender identity), sexual orientation, or ethnicity,” but the Left often twists the definitions of “hate” on these hot-button issues. For example, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) routinely brands mainstream conservative and Christian organizations “hate groups” due to their opposition to the Left’s narrative and activism on LGBT issues, Islam, and immigration.

In the wake of a scandal involving claims of racial discrimination and sexual harassment that saw the SPLC fire its co-founder and lose its president and legal director, a former SPLC employee outed the “hate-group list” as a “masterstroke of [the founder]’s marketing talents.” This seemed to confirm claims that the hate group list is a cynical fundraising scheme, rather than a legitimate report.

The “hate group” accusation also gives the SPLC a way to destroy its political enemies. Former SPLC spokesman Mark Potok also revealed an animus against the organizations on the list. He said the SPLC’s “aim in life” is to “destroy these groups.” In 2012, a deranged man targeted the Christian non-profit organization the Family Research Council (FRC), aiming to kill everyone in the building and smear a Chick-fil-A sandwich into his victims’ faces. He told the FBI he targeted FRC due to the SPLC’s “hate group” accusation. The SPLC has not dropped that accusation.

Democrats have endorsed the SPLC’s “hate group” accusations, while some Big Tech companies and some corporate boards have also adopted this twisted weaponization of the “hate” label.

In a similar vein, Biden’s definition of civil rights law would implicate many social conservatives in “discrimination” — especially when it comes to “gender identity.”

According to the Biden administration, the “discrimination” that fits the second part of the Army recruiting definition of “extremism” would apply to one person who refers to biological males who identify as female with male pronouns, who advocates for excluding biological males from women’s sports, or who warns against the abuses of subjecting gender-confused children to chemical castration, among other things.

Biden has even fought to resurrect an Obama-era HHS rule that would force Roman Catholic doctors to perform transgender surgery, in violation of both Catholic teaching on sexuality and the Hippocratic oath. If refusing to perform transgender surgery counts as “discrimination,” that might make every Catholic medic in the military an “extremist.”

RecommendedHead of the Joint Chiefs Repeats CRT Propaganda Trashing the Constitution

Without a definition of “extremism,” the DOD cannot allay conservatives’ fears about the whistleblower reports and about the Biden administration’s radical twisting of civil rights law. While the DOD claims to be formulating an official definition, Austin’s decision to stonewall Hartzler instead of giving her even a working definition seems mighty suspicious. The Army Recruiting Command’s slanted definition only underscores conservatives’ worries.

POLICE STATE NJ Senator Menendez Panders to Constituents Over Chipman for ATF Head

NJ Senator Bob Menendez Poses with EveryTown and Moms Demand Action, IMG menendez.senate.gov

NJ Senator Bob Menendez Poses with EveryTown and Moms Demand Action, IMG menendez.senate.gov

BY JOHN PETROLINO

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/nj-senator-menendez-panders-to-constituents-over-chipman-for-atf-head/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- The matter of David Chipman’s confirmation process to lead the ATF is still in flux. Advocates have been urging everyone to reach out to their senators about voting against the confirmation of Chipman. The rehashing of anything Chipman-related really does not have to happen again. However, what of the senators that are known anti-civil rights, proponents?

NJ Senator Bob Menendez

One such senator, Bob Menendez from New Jersey has a rather hubris and obnoxious form letter that he sends to those that write to him on the subject. Take a read:

Dear Constituent,

Thank you for contacting me to express concerns regarding David Chipman, President Biden’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).  Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you.
 

 
On April 7, 2021, President Biden announced his nomination of David Chipman as Director of ATF.  Mr. Chipman previously served as a special agent at ATF for over 25 years.  If confirmed, Mr. Chipman would be the agency’s first permanent director since 2015.

 

As a former ATF agent and an advocate for sensible gun safety laws, I believe Mr. Chipman is prepared to lead the ATF’s efforts to help prevent gun violence and save lives in communities across the country.  I also believe that, as a gun owner himself, Mr. Chipman will strongly defend the rights of citizens to use legal firearms responsibly.

 

Mr. Chipman’s nomination currently awaits consideration before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, of which I am not a member.  Please rest assured that I will keep your views in mind when his confirmation comes before me for a vote.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if I may be of further assistance.  I invite you to visit my website (http://menendez.senate.gov) to learn more about how I am standing up for New Jersey families in the United States Senate.

NJ Senator Bob Menendez

Including the letter in full was probably not necessary, as I’m only going to focus on certain parts. However, in the spirit of fairness to ole Robert, I left the missive unchanged for everyone’s unbiased review.

Some of what Menendez said is factually based. Yes, Chipman was nominated by the Biden-Harris administration. Yes, Chipman would be the first permanent director since 2015 if confirmed. That’s about all where the “facts” lay. The first falsehood that should be pointed out is that Menendez states:

Your opinion is very important to me, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you.

On its face, this statement is flat-out false. If Menendez cared about the opinion of the constituents who write to him in opposition to the confirmation of Chipman, there is a high probability the same people do not support all the legislation he’s introduced or supported in order to advance the anti-freedom caucus’ agenda. Menendez supports legislation such as:

  • S.1558 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Untraceable Firearms Act of 2021
  • S.1131 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) HEAR Act
  • S.974 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Gun Records Restoration and Preservation Act
  • S.736 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Assault Weapons Ban of 2021
  • S.529 — 117th Congress (2021-2022) Background Check Expansion Act

That’s just a smattering of the bills that Menendez supports in this session of congress. This is not an extensive investigative piece, but suffice it to say if someone is against Chipman, they’re probably against those bills. We can politely reply:

No Bob! I know my opinion is not important to you, so please do not pretend it is. We’d not be having this correspondence if you respected my opinion, which happens to align with the Bill of Rights. Whereas, your opinion and actions are contrary to freedom.

Next piece to look at:

As a former ATF agent and an advocate for sensible gun safety laws…

As discussed time and time again, Chipman worked for the “anti-gun”, read anti-civil rights, lobby. Chipman does not advocate for “sensible gun safety laws”, he is a prohibitionist, like you. Further, it has been proved that more laws do not equal less crime. If that were the case, the state you hail from, New Jersey, would be one of the safest in the country. But instead, New Jersey has some of the most violent and crime-ridden cities in the nation. The only city that has shown any appreciable advancement in curbing crime is Camden, once the murder capital of the US, saw shootings drop in 2020.

I also believe that, as a gun owner himself, Mr. Chipman will strongly defend the rights of citizens to use legal firearms responsibly.

To think that Chipman, a former ATF agent, does not himself own firearms would be grossly obtuse. Many former law enforcement personnel own firearms. There are many reasons why they might, but none of which are prevalent to the conversation. Plenty of politicians, political hacks, and congresscritters that are members of the anti-freedom caucus own guns. How about you Bob? Do you own any firearms? Owning a gun does not make someone an advocate for firearm liberties or would cause them to “defend the rights of citizens”. I actually know what I’d refer to as anti-gun gun owners, and it’s frustrating talking to “them”. Speaking of Chipman’s firearms, isn’t there a little drama about that which surfaced recently involving him losing his service weapon?

In closure, don’t thank us for our thoughts. You don’t mean it, so don’t say it. The public at large would have more respect for you if you were unapologetic on this subject and just said:

“Ya know, I’m gonna confirm Chipman because I think he supports the same gun control agenda that I do. He may not know what an ‘assault weapon’ is, but by golly, he wants to take them all!”

 


John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

John Petrolino
John Petrolino

 

POLICE STATE NEW JERSEY: Gun Control Group Applaud NJ Governor’s Office For ‘Operation ChokePoint’ Style Actions

New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy

BY JOHN PETROLINO

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/gun-control-group-applaud-nj-govs-office-operation-chokepoint/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- There are so-called “gun control” organizations that we, as gun owners, have to deal with on a constant basis.

Sure, the narrative has changed over the years, with many of the Astroturf groups referring to themselves as “gun safety” groups, but nonetheless, the spirit of “Handgun Control Inc” (aka Brady United) lives on in all of them. What is perhaps more surprising to me is learning about a group that apparently  has no issues mincing words and refers to themselves as a “gun control organization.”

One such group was corresponding with Governor Phil Murphy’s Director of Communications, Mahen Gunaratina. Looking through documents obtained through the Open Public Records Act (OPRA W170483) I glimpsed at an email thread involving Igor Volsky, the Executive Director of Guns Down America, and Governor Phil Murphy’s office. In the email dated March 15, 2019, Volsky does not hold any punches. In fact, what he had to say I’m going to include in full here for your immediate review:

Daniella — thanks so much for the connect, I’m moving you to BCC!

Mahen, we may have met when I interviewed the Governor as part of our ThinkingCAP podcast at CAP in 2018! I’ve since moved to running a gun control organization called Guns Down America and we’ve been absolutely loving what you guys are doing on the issue, particularly the decision to include the number of crime guns recovered by each manufacturer!!

I’m connecting with you because later this month we’re launching a campaign pushing the largest banks to stop doing business with the gun industry until that industry can be fundamentally reformed. Since TD Bank is headquartered in New Jersey, I’d love to hop on the phone and tell you more about that effort and ways the Governor can create some amazing change in the corporate responsibility/gun space.

I’m attaching a brief overview of our strategic thinking and would love to connect. Would you have some time next week?

Best,
Igor

Well, isn’t that a cute missive to digest? “I’m moving you to BCC!”, convenient. As noted earlier, this is a “gun control” group, self-proclaimed. If I had to take a guess, I’d say this goes directly against what the playbook from a group such as Moms Demand Action would say. My assumption, if I had the chance to read such a document, is it would say something very similar to exactly this:

DO talk about “preventing gun violence.” DON’T talk about “gun control.”

I suppose when the microphones aren’t hot, these groups have no issue admitting to exactly what they are. On one hand, I do find it rather refreshing to know that Igor, the head of a “gun control” group, is not trying to change his spots. Kudos! for honesty, at least with Governor Murphy’s office.

The first rule of gun control is never talk about gun control!

Something of a coincidence maybe, I will note that I did try to check out the podcast episode that Volsky mentioned in his email. Interestingly enough, the content of the interview is no longer available. What did Governor Murphy talk about? What is the content that no longer can be accessed? The title of the show is “New Jersey’s Gov. Phil Murphy on Resisting Trump” and you can read the show notes HERE:

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (D) joins Michele and Igor to discuss the progress his state has made—including passing equal pay and paid sick leave, pushing back against the GOP tax bill, and his decision to create a Cabinet as diverse as New Jersey—despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to dismantle progressive agendas. Also, Ben Olinsky, senior vice president of Policy and Strategy at CAP, joins to outline the Center’s big ideas for states, including overtime, a state Earned Income Tax Credit, and “clean slate” legislation to automatically seal nonviolent criminal records.

This is the type of stuff we, as gun owners, need to be aware of. This is the type of stuff the general public needs to learn about. Volsky fed us the information through this email he probably never thought would see the light of day. His group was advocating for an “operation chokepoint” type of tactics to be employed in New Jersey. This anti-civil rights enthusiast was clearly trying to conspire with government officials in the state of New Jersey to engage in discriminatory practices.

Volsky applauds “…the decision to include the number of crime guns recovered by each manufacturer!!” The program seems to have begun in January 2018. I vaguely remember the murmurs of this initiative via executive order starting, and most people were dismissive of it being more Astroturf “we’re doing something” measures. In light of litigation against one such tracked manufacturer, we can see there may have been some method to their madness. As reported:

State data show that more than 80% of the guns used in crimes in New Jersey came from outside of the state, with Smith & Wesson firearms among the heaviest-trafficked firearms into the state. According to the latest report, 48 Smith & Wesson-brand firearms were used in crimes in the state, the leader among all gun manufacturers.

The litigation is in the form of New Jersey suing Smith & Wesson over their advertising methods. From another report on the suit specifically:

“New Jersey is asking a judge to force Smith & Wesson Brands Inc. to hand over internal documents, the latest twist in an ongoing legal fight over how the gun manufacturer advertises to residents.

The subpoena came after Grewal’s office asked outside lawyers to help investigate how gun companies promote their products.

Smith & Wesson said in its lawsuit that this all amounted to an “unconstitutional fishing expedition” designed to weaken the Second Amendment.

Grewal’s office pushed back, saying last week that state law allowed them to dig into anyone advertising within New Jersey.

The review was not about “the product Smith & Wesson sells, but the representations and omissions in its marketing and advertising,” state officials argued in court documents, and the investigation has shown that some ads “may misrepresent the impact owning a firearm has on personal safety.”

Some Smith & Wesson ads also promoted carrying concealed firearms without mentioning that New Jerseyans needed a permit to conceal carry, state officials wrote.

Grewal’s office asked that Smith & Wesson be held in contempt of court for ignoring the subpoena.”

It’s eye-opening to see how all the pieces come together. New Jersey officials are using taxpayer dollars to sue a perfectly legitimate business. Looking at Guns Down America and what they stand for sheds more light on perhaps what else we could be up against in the Garden State:

Guns Down America has led large coalitions to execute successful campaigns that have forced FedEx to stop providing discounts to NRA members, drove two large insurers (Chubb and Lockton Affinity) to break their business relationship with the NRA’s Carry Guard insurance and helped push the NRA toward bankruptcy, pushed the nation’s largest banks to publicly back away from doing business with the gun industry, and convinced Walmart to significantly reduce their gun sales and begin actively lobbying for gun reform.

You, the gun advocate can connect the rest of the dots. Taking a 30,000-foot view, we are better able to see how these groups and methods all come together. Guns Down America has a line of communications with Governor Phil Murphy’s office. People like Volsky have his ear. AmmoLand News is going to continue to monitor and look into any potential wrongdoing by the Murphy administration. As you can see, we have our work cut out for us, and we are dealing with groups conspiring with the government against the people to usurp their rights.


About John Petrolino

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

John Petrolino
John Petrolino

White House Doc Shows Plan To Use Threat of “Domestic Terrorism” For Gun Control

Anonymous Snitch Group to Dox ‘Domestic Terrorist’ Trump Voters

BY JOHN CRUMP

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/white-house-doc-shows-plan-to-use-threat-of-domestic-terrorism-for-gun-control/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

White House Doc Shows Plan To Use Threat of “Domestic Terrorism” For Gun Control, iStock-1267413669

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- Is the White House using the threat of “domestic terrorism” to institute gun control? According to a White House document titled the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism,” gun control is a crucial component of Joe Biden’s plan.

The document says there is a rise in domestic violet extremists (DVE). It highlights the biases against minority populations as one factor of the growth of DVEs. It also states that those that believe that the Federal government is overreaching its power are at risk for becoming extremist, and the “perceived government overreach will almost certainly continue to drive DVE radicalization and mobilization to violence.”

While left-wing groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter are not mentioned in the document, patriot groups are referred to as militia violent extremist (MVEs). Last summer, left-wing riots caused havoc across the country, causing millions of dollars of damage to properties and cost several people their lives.

According to the document, the idea of fraud in the recent general election led to the January 6th breach at the Capitol. It also claims that COVID-19 conspiracy theories also have led people down the path of extremism. It lays down the idea that not trusting the government leads to violent domestic extremism. It claims that this plan is something all Americans can get behind. Many gun owners would disagree with President Biden’s statement.

The document breaks up the plan into four strategic pillars, and one pillar should be very concerning for gun owners. The Biden administration is using the threat of domestic terrorism to infringe on the right to bear arms.

The document reads:

Strategic Goal 2.1: Strengthen domestic terrorism prevention resources and services.

While those who break the law in furtherance of domestic terrorism must face investigation and prosecution for their crimes, it is equally important that the Federal Government engage in efforts to prevent individuals from being drawn into the grip of domestic terrorism in the first instance. That means reducing both supply and demand of recruitment materials by limiting widespread availability online and bolstering resilience to it by those who nonetheless encounter it, among other measures. It also means reducing access to assault weapons and high–capacity magazines and enforcing legal prohibitions that keep firearms out of dangerous hands. Such prevention efforts must be pursued while safeguarding civil rights and civil liberties, including privacy protections, and while avoiding discrimination, bias, and stereotyping.

The document wants to restrict access to modern sporting rifles. The AR15 is included in this category. The AR 15 is the most popular rifle in the country. Americans of all walks of life own these rifles, and people like Stephen Willeford have used an AR15 to defend their community from a crazed murderer. One pregnant woman even used an AR15 to protect her family against home invaders. According to the document, the Biden administration wants to make it harder for Americans to defend themselves with the rifle that has been called the modern musket.

The document also states the White House wants to use the threat of domestic extremism to reduce access to standard compacity magazines. It does not say how it will accomplish that goal, but people like Biden’s ATF director nominee, David Chipman, want to add standard capacity magazines to the NFA. Chipman went as far as comparing detachable magazines to machine guns.

It also talks about using “legal prohibitions” to prevent firearms from falling into “dangerous hands.” The document never mentions what prohibitions it will use. Gun rights advocates are worried that this move could be an excuse to push for new gun control restrictions. The Biden administration, in the past months, has launched attacks on the right to bears arms. These attacks include going after homemade firearms and pistol braces.

The White House did not return AmmoLand’s request for comment.


About John Crump

John is a 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 www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

DOJ Warns States About Second Amendment Sanctuaries~Meanwhile immigration sanctuary policies are lauded and emulated

BY MICHAEL CUTLER

SEE: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/06/doj-hypocritically-warns-states-about-second-michael-cutler/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

On June 17, 2021 AOL published an Associated Press report under the title, Justice Dept.: Missouri governor can't void federal gun laws.  This report began with this excerpt:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is warning Missouri officials that the state cant ignore federal law after the governor signed a bill last week that bans police from enforcing federal gun rules.

In a letter sent Wednesday night and obtained by The Associated Press, Justice officials said the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause outweighs the measure that Gov. Mike Parson signed into law Saturday. The new rules penalize local police departments if their officers enforce federal gun laws.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Brian Boynton said the law threatens to disrupt the working relationship between federal and local authorities, they said in the letter, noting that Missouri receives federal grants and technical assistance.

The public safety of the people of the United States and citizens of Missouri is paramount,” Boynton wrote in the letter.

The DOJ did not have to wait long for a response.  Just hours later, as reported by ABC News, Missouri responds defiantly to Justice Dept. over gun law, which noted, in part:

Similar bills were introduced in more than a dozen other states this year, including Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia and Iowa. In Texas, the governor has called for the state to become a so-called Second Amendment sanctuary.

Wow!  A new form of “Sanctuary policies” enacted by state governments and the federal government under Mr. Biden’s “leadership” is upset!

Having uttered the magic word “Sanctuary”, we cannot ignore that over the past several decades a growing number of cities and states, almost invariably led by radical leftists, have implemented so-called “sanctuary policies” that, to varying degrees, hamper cooperation between local and state police and federal immigration law enforcement authorities.

Certainly, our nation’s immigration laws are serious laws that were enacted to protect national security, public safety, public health and the jobs and wages of Americans.

Frequently these sanctuary policies have increased to the point where detainees lodged by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) personnel have been blatantly ignored so that aliens who have serious criminal histories were released from custody rather than be turned over to ICE so that could be deported from the United States.

A few of these cases received attention from the media, but in reality, a huge number of such criminal aliens who should have been removed (deported) from the United States were permitted to roam freely in towns and cities across the United States, all too frequently, with tragic results.

Consider the horrific case of 32-year-old Kate Steinle who was shot to death by Jose Ines Garcia-Zarate, a citizen of Mexico who was illegally present in the United States and had an extensive criminal history in the United States.  He had been previously deported from the United States five times so that his mere presence in the United States constituted a felony under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): 8 U.S. Code § 1326.

On December 1, 2017, Business Insider published a report about this case, Kate Steinle's death at the hands of a Mexican national became a flashpoint in the immigration debate — here's the story behind her killing.  Here is an excerpt from this report:

At the time of Steinle's death, Garcia Zarate had been convicted of nonviolent drug crimes and deported five times since the early 1990s.

He faced a sixth deportation in 2015 and was in Justice Department (DOJ) custody that March after serving 46 months in prison for a felony re-entry into the US, but instead of transferring him into the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation, the department transferred him to the San Francisco County Jail for prosecution of a 1995 marijuana charge.

San Francisco prosecutors, who had long ago deprioritized marijuana charges, dismissed the decades-old charge and released Garcia Zarate on April 15, 2015. Due to San Francisco's policy of limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities — which some refer to as a "sanctuary" policy — the city did not inform ICE when they released Garcia Zarate.

There is a huge number of similar cases around the United States, where "sanctuary policies” that contradict federal immigration law has resulted in the death and injury of thousands of victims at the hands of aliens who were illegal in the United States, subject to deportation but were shielded, aided and abetted by the jurisdictions who declared themselves to be “sanctuaries” for illegal aliens, in apparent violations of a number of laws, beginning with 8 U.S. Code § 1324 that begins with the following:

(a) Criminal penalties

            (1)

(A) Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

When President Trump acted to end sanctuary policies that harbor and shield illegal aliens, out of his well-founded concerns about public safety and national security, he was rebuffed in the courts and by globalists who complained that his efforts were based on xenophobia” and God knows what else!

Did the bipartisan 9/11 Commission that we keep so much about by Nancy Pelosi suffer from racism and xenophobia?  Pelosi has repeatedly called for a “9/11-style commission” to investigate the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021.

Back on December 21, 2004, the Congressional Research Service issued a wide-ranging report that must be made mandatory reading for every political leader of the United States.  The title of the report was: 9/11 Commission: Legislative Action Concerning U.S. Immigration Law and Policy in the 108th Congress Updated December 21, 2004.

Here is the summary of this report began:

Summary

Reforming the enforcement of immigration law is a core component of the recommendations made by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission). The 19 hijackers responsible for the 9/11 attacks were foreign nationals, many of whom were able to obtain visas to enter the United States through the use of forged documents. Incomplete intelligence and screening enabled many of the hijackers to enter the United States despite flaws in their entry documents or suspicions regarding their past associations. According to the Commission, up to 15 of the hijackers could have been intercepted or deported through more diligent enforcement of immigration laws.

The 9/11 Commissions immigration-related recommendations focused primarily on targeting terrorist travel through an intelligence and security strategy based on reliable identification systems and effective, integrated information-sharing. As Congress has considered these recommendations, however, possible legislative responses have broadened to include significant and possibly far-reaching changes in the substantive law governing immigration and how that law is enforced, both at the border and in the interior of the United States.

The next time Nancy or her disciples invoke the 9/11 Commission, they need to be pointedly asked if they read the 9/11 Commission Report and how they and the Biden administration can blithely ignore the clear and present danger the Biden administration’s immigration policies (actions and lack of action) create for America and Americans.

Our nation’s Constitution and laws are not a menu from which picky eaters can decide what to order or not order.  It is hypercritical and beyond outrageous that the DOJ would attack Sanctuary policies regarding the Second Amendment while not only sanctioning immigration sanctuary policies but actually emulating those extremely dangerous policies in clear violation of standing federal law and in direct opposition to the findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

Judiciary Delays Corrupt Biden’s Appointee Chipman Vote; SECOND AMENDMENT Activists Flood Capitol Switchboards

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/judiciary-delays-chipman-vote-2a-activists-flood-capitol-switchboards/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

A vote on the nomination of David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been delayed until Thursday, June 24 by the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Screen snip, YouTube, Sen. Mike Lee)

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Senate Judiciary Committee has delayed voting on the nomination of retired federal agent-turned-gun control advocate David Chipman one week, until Thursday, June 24, and during that time, grassroots Second Amendment activists are expected to be flooding Capitol Hill with messages of opposition.

“Between now and next Thursday,” suggested Jason Ouimet, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, “(gun owners) ought to be contacting their Senators. They don’t want a partisan person like David Chipman running ATF.”

Ouimet spoke with AmmoLand News via telephone, expressing alarm that a nominee with Chipman’s background would be considered for the job of running the government’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. NRA has opposed the Chipman nomination from the beginning, stating, “Chipman has a long history of gun control advocacy that disqualifies him from leading the agency charged with enforcing federal gun laws.”

“The person who runs ATF ought to be somebody who can put politics aside, work with industry, gun owners and law enforcement,” Ouimet said.

Chipman, however, has worked for the gun prohibition lobby in the years since retiring from the ATF, which is responsible for enforcing the nation’s federal gun control laws.

Ouimet indicted calls to the Capitol have been heavy, and he said NRA has been concentrating attention on senators in certain states.

Earlier this week, Gun Owners of America provided an online avenue to oppose Chipman’s nomination. At the same time, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms offered the Capitol switchboard telephone number (202) 224-3121 for gun owners who prefer making a personal call to the offices of their two senators.

Ouimet suggested placing calls and sending messages specifically to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee’s direct line is (202) 224-7703:

DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS

REPUBLICAN MEMBERS

Messages for Committee Chairman Dick Durbin could also be called directly to his office at (202) 224-2152, and Ranking Member Sen. Chuck Grassley at (202) 224-3744.

The Senate will break for a couple of weeks in late June through July 12, Ouimet noted. During that period, when senators are at home meeting with constituents, grassroots activists can set up face-to-face meetings or attend “town hall” gatherings. Watch your local newspaper for information on such events.

Quimet expects a solid party-line vote in the Judiciary Committee, which is evenly divided with 11 members from each side of the aisle. It is when, or if, the nomination gets to the full Senate where each vote will hang in the balance, and a tie would be decided by Democrat Kamala Harris, in her role as president of the Senate.

Adding to the drama, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene this week introduced H.R. 3960, which would abolish the ATF. Text of the legislation was not available when AmmoLand News checked on the measure Friday online.

In a statement quoted by the Washington Examiner, Greene observed, “The ATF’s unconstitutional war on gun owners and our Second Amendment rights must end.”

RELATED:


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

RED ALERT: Biden regime makes boldest move in history of America to ban, register firearms using federal bureaucracy

Image: RED ALERT: Biden regime makes boldest move in history of America to ban, register firearms using federal bureaucracy

BY J.D. HEYES

SEE: https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-06-14-biden-regime-aims-to-ban-register-firearrms.html;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

(Natural News) When Democratic presidential contenders like Beto O’Rourke say they are going after our guns, they mean it. When Democratic presidential contenders say they are pro-Second Amendment and pro-Constitution, they are lying.

Both of these facts have been proven anew thanks to a heinous new rule introduced this week by the Biden regime.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives believes it has the authority to confiscate, ban and register an entire class of firearms — tens of millions of them, in fact — without ever consulting Congress.

The rule seeks to ‘regulate’ the use of (ban) so-called “Stabilizing Braces” — attachments to sporting pistols like those chambered for the AR-15 round to make them easier (and safer) to fire by essentially turning them into rifles.

So why that suddenly makes a difference to these gun-grabbing sons 0f you-know-whats is beyond us, given that actual AK and AR-style rifles will (for now) not be affected.

According to a fact sheet about the rule from SB Tactical, the rule, called, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces,'” is the second attempt by the agency to regulate the devices, the first rule having been withdrawn in December 2020 ahead of Biden’s expected ascendency into the Oval Office, which happened only because Democrats stole Donald Trump’s reelection victory.

“The [Notice of Proposed Rule Making] proposes amending the definition of the term ‘rifle,’ as contained in 27 CFR §§ 478.11 and 479.11, to ‘clarify that the term “rifle” includes any weapon with a rifled barrel and equipped with an attached ‘stabilizing brace’ that has objective design features and characteristics that indicate that the firearm is designed to be fired from the shoulder, as indicated on ATF Worksheet 4999,” the fact sheet begins.

“ATF explains that the purpose of the amendments would be to target attachments to pistols that the agency contends are designed to evade restrictions imposed by the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act,” which limits the size of shotguns and rifles, the fact sheet continues.

“While ATF acknowledges that some stabilizing braces are intended to assist those with disabilities or limited strength to fire pistols, ATF argues that the intent of many such braces is effectively to convert pistols into unregulated short-barreled rifles (SBRs),” says the fact sheet — a contention that makes no sense given that a) any firearm is ‘regulated’ in that every buyer must be cleared to purchase one; and b) making a short-barreled rifle into a rifle makes it (anyone?) a rifle.

So what’s the issue? Well, the issue is the Biden regime sees stabilizing braces as a way to get the camel’s nose under the tent of broader regulation and eventually registration and banning of all “assault weapon” types of rifles, and against the people’s will. Always remember, Democrats will never be ‘finished’ taking away guns until they can take away all of them, the Second Amendment be damned.

“ATF proposes applying a point system…to determine whether a particular stabilizing brace would convert an otherwise unregulated pistol into an SBR,” the summary continued. But regardless, “ATF says it reserves the right to classify a firearm as an SBR, even if it satisfies the point system on the Worksheet 4999.”

So, this is a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ scenario the ATF is establishing for these SBRs, of which there are an estimated 20-40 million in circulation that have been legally purchased.

“This proposed rule would be the largest Executive Branch firearms ban/registration scheme in American history— forcing the registration or destruction of millions of privately-owned firearms, and the loss of thousands of good-paying jobs from hundreds of companies,” SB Tactical’s fact sheet continues. “Through the creation of an arbitrary points system (ATF Worksheet 4999), the proposed rule would ensure that 99% of the firearms already in circulation are suddenly unlawfully possessed.”

This is a naked gun grab by the regime. If you want to sound off on this unconstitutional BS — and you should — click here and let the ATF know you disapprove if this.

Sources include:

SBTactical.com (.pdf file)

SecondAmendment.news

 

NICS: Leak Shows People Being Added to Prohibited Firearms Purchase List Without Due Process

BY JOHN CRUMP

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/leak-shows-people-being-added-to-prohibited-list-without-due-process/#axzz6xrCIJwGc;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)-Can you be added to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) “Prohibited” list without being convicted of a crime? According to leaked documents received by AmmoLand News, the answer appears to be “yes.”

The document in question is called “Guidance for Requesting a Submission of the NICS Indices Unlawful User/Addicted of a Controlled Substance Files.” It lets law enforcement officials add suspects to the prohibited list even if the subject hasn’t been convicted of a drug charge. Most gun owners are not aware that they can lose their gun rights without a court convicting them of a drug crime. This expanded power brings up a concern that the ability to add a suspect to the NICS Indices violates a person’s right to due process.

The NICS Indices is a list of people prohibited by the FBI from purchasing a gun.

When a Federal Firearms License holder (FFL) runs a NICS background check on a gun buyer, the system runs the purchaser’s name against the NICS Indices. If the system comes back with a positive hit, the FBI’s system will deny the sale of the firearm. No other information is supplied to the FFL about the denial.

The form lets law enforcement add someone to the NICS Indices if the subject fails a drug test. The reporting officer doesn’t have to file charges against the person who fails the drug test. Many positive drug tests are false. In almost all cases, the person is not notified that the law enforcement agency has added them to the NICS Indices.

The form also allows Law Enforcement to add a suspect to the NICS Indices if they claim they have found the person in possession of drugs regardless of state law. That means that a police officer finds someone in possession of a drug legal in a state, the officer can fill out the form and have the person added to the NICS Indices. More and more states have legalized marijuana, but the drug remains illegal on the federal level. An officer could find a person with marijuana and let them go because they are prohibited by state law from arresting them. The officer still could report them to the FBI and have their firearms rights revoked.

The most disturbing part of the form is that law enforcement can add someone to the list by claiming the person admitted to using drugs. The person doesn’t have to be arrested or fail a drug test. The officer can just claim the person said they had used drugs within the last year. A person who admits to trying marijuana eleven months ago will lose their gun rights by a cop adding them to the NICS Indices.

The biggest issue is that law enforcement could mark someone as an unlawful user of drugs without their knowledge. Lying on a 4473 form is a felony. The person who tried marijuana once 11 months ago might consider themselves drug-free, but the FBI would say they are a drug user since they have tried a drug within the last year. If a law enforcement officer reports them to the FBI, the same officer could arrest the person and charge them with a felony that could land them in prison.

The form also lets law enforcement add a person to the NICS Indies for mental health reasons. These reasons could be that law enforcement has committed someone involuntarily to a mental health facility or a court system adjudicating as mentally defective.

AmmoLand News obtained the form from an inside source that has chosen to remain anonymous.


About John Crump

John is a 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 www.crumpy.com.

 

DOJ Releases Biden Gun Confiscation Order Legislation

NRA-ILA AR-15 Locked

In May, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Department of Justice’s civil rights work was “critical to protecting the American dream.” IMG NRA-ILA

BY NRAHQ

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/doj-releases-biden-gun-confiscation-order-legislation/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In May, Attorney General Merrick Garland told lawmakers that the Department of Justice’s civil rights work was “critical to protecting the American dream.” Since then DOJ has made clear that Garland’s selective definition of “civil rights” has no room for the Second Amendment or even basic due process under the law. Moreover, contrary to recent messaging, Garland and the DOJ appears to support an increase in civilian-police confrontations – so long as the civilian involved is not actually suspected of having committed any crime.

On June 7, the DOJ released model state gun confiscation order legislation – sometimes referred to as “extreme risk protection order,” “gun violence restraining order,” or “red flag” legislation. Regardless of the marketing, such laws empower the government to extinguish a person’s Second Amendment rights and confiscate their firearms without due process. Those subject to these orders are stripped of their rights without being convicted of any crime. By releasing this model language, the Biden administration has endorsed these unconstitutional measures.

Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms; in the Fourteenth Amendment context, a liberty. A respondent’s firearms are, of course, their property

Ex Parte Orders

The Biden gun confiscation order language provides that a,

court shall issue an emergency ex parte extreme risk protection order upon submission of an application by a petitioner, supported by an affidavit or sworn oral statement of the petitioner or other witness, that provides specific facts establishing probable cause that the respondent’s possession or receipt of a firearm will pose a [significant danger/extreme risk/other appropriate standard established by state law] of personal injury or death to the respondent or another person.

An ex parte hearing takes place without notice to respondents and without their ability to participate in the proceedings. The court is only presented the statements of the individual petitioning to strip the respondent of their rights. There is no opportunity for the respondent to challenge the veracity of the petitioner’s statements. This one-sided procedure is ripe for abuse.

The Biden administration proposes a “probable cause” evidentiary standard for the ex parte gun confiscation order procedure. This means that the petitioner need not establish proof that the respondent poses a “risk” in order for the court to issue a confiscation order.

Moreover, a “probable cause” standard makes no sense in this context. In order to make an arrest or acquire a search warrant, police need to cite specific facts that establish probable cause that a crime has been committed. Crimes, of course, have specific elements. In the Biden gun confiscation order context, no crime has been alleged. Vague claims about a person’s strange but lawful behavior giving rise to “probable cause” of “risk” is a ridiculous perversion of the long-established legal process.

Orders Pursuant to a Hearing

Biden gun confiscation orders issued after a full hearing, where the respondent had an opportunity to participate, would strip a person of their Second Amendment rights and firearms for at least one year. Under the Biden language, such an order could be renewed indefinitely in one-year increments – empowering the government to strip a person of their Second Amendment rights in perpetuity without a trial.

Moreover, in the full hearing context, the Biden administration endorses a “preponderance of the evidence” evidentiary standard. In other words, the petitioner must prove that there is a greater than 50-percent chance the respondent meets some nebulous level of “risk.” Of course, this weak evidentiary standard is in stark contrast to the traditional evidentiary burden used in circumstances where individuals face a lengthy and indefinite loss of a fundamental right: “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

During the course of an order, a respondent would have one opportunity to petition for the termination of their gun ban. In order to prevail,

The respondent shall have the burden of proving, by the same standard of proof required for issuance of such an order, that he or she does not pose a [significant danger/extreme risk/other appropriate standard specified by state law] of personal injury or death to himself or herself or another.

In a sick perversion of our constitutional order, under the Biden legislation, the state would be relieved of its burden to prove that the respondent poses a “risk” that necessitates the continued deprivation of a fundamental right. Rather, the respondent would be required to prove that they do not pose a “risk.”

Such a bastardized legal procedure based on a flimsy evidentiary standard combined with an ill-defined concept of “risk” endangers all gun owners’ right to keep and bear arms.

Petitioners

In many jurisdictions with gun confiscation order legislation, only close family members and law enforcement officers may petition for an order. This helps to ensure that the petitioner has a significant relationship with and knowledge of the individual, or in the case of law enforcement, will face professional consequences if they have been found to have abused the procedure.

In its draft legislation, the Biden administration has made clear that they want the categories of petitioners to be far broader. The legislation would define eligible petitioners to include,

(E) A health care provider [as defined by state law] who has provided health services to the respondent; 

(F) An official of a school or school system in which the respondent is enrolled or has been enrolled within the preceding [six months/one year/two years/other appropriate time period specified by state law]; or

(G) [Any other appropriate persons specified by state law.]

Under such a regime, a doctor, nurse, dentist, optometrist, or EMT might be able to petition the court to strip an individual’s Second Amendment rights regardless of how fleeting their interaction with the respondent may have been or whether or not they have any mental health assessment training.

Worse, the Biden administration endorses granting any school employee a veto on a student’s right to keep and bear arms up to two years after they were enrolled. Consider the danger of empowering one of the most partisan left-wing occupational fields to adjudicate millions of current and former students’ Second Amendment rights.

Dangerous Confrontations Between Citizens and Police

The Biden gun confiscation order legislation would create confrontations between armed individuals in their homes and the law enforcement officers tasked with disarming them. The problem is potentially even more acute in the ex parte context, where the arrival of an officer may be the individual’s first notice that their rights have been abrogated.

At 5:17 a.m. on November 5, 2018, police served a “Red Flag” protective order at the home of 60-year-old Gary J. Willis in Anne Arundel, Md.  According to the Baltimore Sun, Willis brought a firearm when he answered the early morning knock at his door. The confrontation ultimately ended with police shooting and killing Willis in his own home.

Confiscation of Non-Prohibited Persons’ Guns

The Biden gun confiscation order legislation contemplates the confiscation of all firearms in a location which a respondent has access to, regardless of whether those firearms are owned by the respondent.

The Biden legislation provides,

(1) If the evidence presented at the hearing establishes probable cause that the respondent has access to a firearm, on his or her person or in an identified place, the court shall concurrently issue a warrant authorizing a law enforcement agency to search the person of the respondent and any such place for firearms and to seize any firearm therein to which the respondent would have access.

(3) If the owner of a firearm seized pursuant to this subsection is a person other than the respondent, the owner may secure the prompt return of the firearm by providing an affidavit to the law enforcement agency affirming his or her ownership of the firearm and providing assurance that he or she will safeguard the firearm against access by the respondent.  The law enforcement agency shall return the firearm to the owner upon its confirmation, including by a check of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and the applicable state firearm background check system, that the owner is not legally disqualified from possessing or receiving the firearm.

The legislation anticipates that law enforcement would be empowered to confiscate firearms owned by individuals who are not covered by a confiscation order. The legislation places no burden on law enforcement to determine whether the firearms at a location accessed by the respondent are in fact the respondent’s property. To add further insult, those whose firearms are erroneously confiscated would be required to undergo an FBI background check before the return of their lawful property.

No Solid Evidence Supporting Biden’s Gun Confiscation Legislation

In a “commentary” released alongside the draft Biden gun confiscation order legislation, the DOJ pronounced, “research has shown that states can save lives by authorizing courts to issue [gun confiscation orders].” In reality, research on the effectiveness of gun confiscation order laws has been limited.

Research does show that the absence of due process has practical consequences for those wrongfully targeted under gun confiscation orders. Connecticut adopted an ex parte gun confiscation order procedure in 1999. An examination of the law found that 32 percent of ex parte orders issued in Connecticut were overturned following a hearing.

The RAND Corporation conducted a comprehensive study that surveyed the available research on several gun control policies. As part of the study, RAND researchers sought to determine “How Extreme Risk Protection Orders Affect Gun Use Outcomes.” The study stated, “We found no qualifying studies showing that extreme risk protection orders decreased any of the eight outcomes we investigated.” The “gun use outcomes” studied included “violent crime” and “suicide.”

The draft Biden gun confiscation order legislation is an overt attack on the Second Amendment and the due process rights that protect all Americans, regardless of whether they own firearms.

Attorney-General Garland appears all too willing to selectively undermine civil rights by executive fiat at Biden’s request. However, gun owners can strike a blow against Biden’s executive gun control efforts by denying him his choice to lead ATF – longtime anti-gun activist David Chipman.

Please contact both of your United States Senators and ask them to vote against David Chipman.


About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

National Rifle Association Institute For Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

FIREARM CONFISCATION: Conservative Action Project Comes Out Swinging Against Chipman

ABOVE: David Chipman’s nomination to head the ATF just attracted some powerful opposition.

(Screen snip, YouTube, Sen. Mike Lee)

BY DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/conservative-action-project-comes-out-swinging-against-chipman/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The Washington D.C.-based Conservative Action Project (CAP) came out swinging against the nomination of David Chipman, the former federal agent-turned-gun control advocate, to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, stating “He has a long history of misconstruing key details of how firearms work, and has laid out an aggressive anti-gun ownership platform.”

In a “Memo for the Movement” signed by nearly 100 prominent conservatives and Second Amendment advocates led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, the group is telling the U.S. Senate to reject the nomination of gun control extremist David Chipman.”

Also among those signing the memorandum are Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (Ret.), executive vice president of the Family Research Council; Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness; L. Brent Bozell, founder and president of the Media Research Center; Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation; Kathleen A. Patten, president and CEO of American Target Advertising, Inc.; David N. Bossie, president of Citizens United; Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project; Tim Macy, chairman of Gun Owners of America; Martha Boneta, president at Vote America First, and Dawn Wildman, director of policy for the Coalition for Policy Reform, and dozens of others.

The full list reads like a Who’s Who of conservative politics and Second Amendment activism.

Gottlieb, who also chairs the grassroots Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, told AmmoLand News that this memo, with all the signatures, is “a major development.”

The CAP memorandum pulls no punches.

“Conservatives join with Second Amendment advocates in strongly opposing David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF),” the message states.

“A former ATF special agent, Chipman currently serves as a senior policy advisor to a pro-gun control lobbying group. He has a long history of misconstruing key details of how firearms work, and has laid out an aggressive anti-gun ownership platform.”

“Critically, it is unclear whether Chipman fully understands the technical details of firearms and the firearm markets he so eagerly looks to regulate. In 2018, Chipman argued in favor of subjecting all AR-15s and potentially all semi-automatic rifles to regulation under the National Firearms Act – a hugely punitive taxation and regulation measure on the country’s most popular rifle, hugely difficult to implement and police.

“In his recent confirmation hearing, Chipman reasserted his support for mass confiscation of semi-automatic rifles – especially troubling considering that, when asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to define a semi-automatic assault rifle, his answer would cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today.

“Though Chipman walked back the claim in his confirmation hearing, he has previously advocated for arresting prospective gun purchasers in gun stores following a failed background check – regardless of whether or not the prospective purchaser has done anything wrong. This is a highly dubious proposal given a Department of Justice report from 2011, which found the “false positive” denial rate for background checks was roughly 95 percent.

“Chipman has also made false claims about both the nature and intent of firearms suppressors, as well as falsely stating in front of Congress that the American gun market is ‘flooded’ with ‘foreign made ARs.’

“David Chipman is a gun control extremist whose views on firearms and the Second Amendment are wildly out of step with constitutional interpretation and widely held social norms. It is clear that Chipman intends to use the position as Director of the ATF to further an aggressive anti-gun agenda, rather than implement the law as written. The Senate must oppose his nomination.”

According to The Hill, Chipman “is facing intense opposition from gun rights groups that are pushing key senators to reject his nomination.”

The Capitol Hill newspaper explained that “pro-gun organizations are protesting his nomination over his support for stricter gun laws and previous work as a policy adviser for Giffords, a gun control group.” Those organizations, the article added, “are now focused on moderates who could swing the outcome, namely Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.),Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.).”

In an article blasting Chipman for his answers during his May hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the National Rifle Association asserted the nominee “worked to obscure the woeful record of the 1994 Clinton ‘assault weapons’ ban.” Chipman, according to NRA, “described the data regarding the ban’s efficacy as ‘mixed.’”

“In truth,” NRA said in the article, “the Clinton semi-auto ban was a failure that even the federal government has acknowledged as ineffective.”

“The evidence is clear,” the article concluded, “banning commonly-owned semi-automatic firearms and their accessories doesn’t work. Chipman and the broader gun control movement’s continued advocacy for a failed policy measure reveals that their political project isn’t motivated by a desire for ‘gun safety,’ reducing violence, or ‘public health,’ but rather a religious passion for civilian disarmament.”

If the Senate rejects Chipman’s nomination, it will be a major defeat for the Biden administration and a setback for Joe Biden’s gun control agenda. Throughout his political career, Biden has never been a friend of the Second Amendment, and his nomination of Chipman is seen by many in the firearms community as a deliberate attempt to pick a fight with gun owners.

In a statement to the media last month, Gottlieb observed, “Out of all the potential candidates to lead the agency, Joe Biden has picked the one individual whose nomination was guaranteed to ignite a political firestorm. At this point, it is fair to question why the president has done this. It looks like the president wants to put the gun prohibition lobby in charge of firearms regulation and enforcement.”

RELATED:


About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman

POLICE STATE NJ AG Grewal Misusing His Office To Extort & Shut Down Out-Of-State Gun Firms

BY LEE WILLIAMS

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/06/nj-ag-grewal-misusing-his-office-to-extort-shut-down-out-of-state-gun-firms/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

New Jersey’s anti-gun Governor, little Phil Murphy, has let his radical Attorney General, Gurbir Grewal, target, entrap and harass legal firearms retailers across the country. This is another reason Phil Murphy must lose in his reelection efforts in the NJ governor’s race.

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- New Jersey’s Attorney General is ordering firearm products banned in the Garden State, and then extorting thousands of dollars from out-of-state firms through lawsuits.

When I worked at a newspaper in Delaware, I was intimately aware that if I strayed across the border into New Jersey with any weapons, ammo, or mags and got caught, I would likely spend the rest of my life in state prison.

Back then, New Jersey officials were content with only targeting individual gun owners, either those who weren’t familiar with their crazy gun laws or those from free states who may have taken a wrong turn.

Nowadays, things are different. New Jersey officials, [under the leadership of rabid anti-gunner Phil Murphy] are actively targeting citizens of other states, who may have never even set foot in New Jersey.

New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal is using “undercover” detectives to entrap firearms retailers and manufacturers – especially those in other states – in the hopes that the exorbitant fees and penalties he will extort from them will force the owners out of business.

This is a new kind of gun control.

So far, AG Grewal has targeted retailers who sell firearm components designed for home-builds and, of course, those who sell standard-capacity magazines.

Even the judges are in on the AG’s scheme. A New Jersey state court recently ordered a Florida firm to pay the state $150,000!?

Their crime? They refused to turn over their customers’ names and addresses to the Attorney General.

Grewal v. 22Mods4ALL

According to the civil complaint, 22Mods4ALL is a small, mom-and-pop retailer with less than 10 employees located in Longwood, Florida.

22Mods4ALL sells ARs and AR components, as well as the accessories you’d expect. (They actually have 5.56 in stock at $0.66 per round.)

I reached out to them seeking comment for this story, but have not heard back. I can’t say I blame them. They’re up against a team with unlimited resources paid for by taxpayer dollars. Besides, the prosecution seems very personal. Whoever wrote the civil complaint Grewal’s office filed against the small shop has a flair for the dramatic. It’s based upon emotion, rather than facts.

The complaint begins in El Paso, where the author describes a mass murder committed by an AK-47 and “extra magazines capable of holding at least 30 rounds of ammunition each.” Then misdirects the reader on to Dayton, Ohio, and describes “a shooter equipped with an AR-15 style rifle, a 100-round drum magazine, and 250 rounds of ammunition.” Then it’s Parkland, Florida’s turn, followed by Tucson, Arizona, and then, finally, New Jersey, where the author defines “Large Capacity Magazine.”

“To prevent gun violence, and to mitigate the risk of mass shootings, the State of New Jersey has long banned possession of large capacity ammunition magazines (“LCMs”) — firearm magazines capable of holding more than the standard number of rounds provided by the manufacturer,” the complaint states.

You’ll notice that New Jersey’s LCM definition is flawed on its face. AR manufacturers designed 20- and 30-round magazines for the rifle – that’s the “standard number of rounds provided by the manufacturer.” [Standard Capacity Magazines or “SCMs”]

Regardless, the New jersey penalties are very clear: “Any person who knowingly possesses an LCM is guilty of a fourth-degree crime, punishable by fines of up to $10,000, and by a term of imprisonment of up to eighteen months,” the complaint states.

22Mods4ALL – allegedly – sold six 30-round magazines to “to New Jersey undercover detectives from the New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice (“DCJ”),” the complaint states. During a second purchase, the gun shop allegedly sold the detective three more. The Attorney General then sent 22Mods4All a cease-and-desist letter, which the gun shop honored. It stopped shipping mags to New Jersey, but that wasn’t the end of the malicious prosecution.

“The Attorney General also demanded Defendant provide the details of all past sales of ammunition magazines capable of holding fifteen rounds or more to any New Jersey address since January 1, 2014, including the name and address of the purchaser and the specific ammunition magazine purchased,” the complaint states.

In other words, the AG wanted the names of any New Jersey residents who may have bought a magazine, which would likely have been followed by a knock on their front door.

That may have been too much for the good folks at 22Mods4All who, evidently, respect their customers’ privacy and don’t want to see any of them carted off to prison.

“Defendant, despite repeated attempts at contact, has ignored the Subpoena for months. As a result, the CFA authorizes the Attorney General and the Director to obtain a judgment from the Superior Court directing compliance with the Subpoena,” the complaint states.

Last week, a New Jersey judge ruled that the gun shop owners must pay a civil fine of $150,000 for not cooperating with the AG’s subpoena and turning over a list of customers’ names and addresses.

Legal Reaction aka Extortion

The New Jersey AG is weaponizing his office to push a political agenda, according to former Florida prosecutor Lisa Chittaro.

Last year, Chittaro ran for State Attorney of Sarasota County but lost during the Republican primary to the incumbent. She had been endorsed by the National Rifle Association in the race.

“This is a crafty and questionable use of litigation,” Chittaro said. “Because of their elected position, this seems designed to impede and attack a legitimate business – a business that did not target the citizens of that state – for the sole purpose of attacking the Second Amendment.

“This attorney general is trying to harness access and regulate the spread of the internet, and hold a legitimate business accountable,” Chittaro said. “This is an attack on the Free Market, an attack on the Second Amendment – it’s an attack. They are using their office as a political weapon. They are pushing through their political agenda of gun control, and they are overreaching into the state of Florida. New Jersey is trying to put a legitimate Florida firm out of business.”

Takeaways

In my humble opinion, New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal has two reasons for his cross-border shenanigans. First, he wants to make a name for himself. That much is very clear. Second, he wants to close down gun shops – as many as he possibly can – because of his anti-rights political agenda.

As bad as AG Grewal tries to paint them, the good folks at 22Mods4All look like heroes.

They should be commended for protecting their New Jersey customers – if they have any, of course. Standing up to a bully sounds good, but they’re standing up to a bully who can put them out of business. That takes balls – big brass ones. The problem is exacerbated because AG Grewal desperately needs a win – something he can show off to his constituents.

Right now, Attorneys General from 24 states have filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn New Jersey’s ban on standard-capacity magazines.

“The Amici States the Attorneys General serve are among the forty-three states that permit the standard, eleven-plus capacity magazines that New Jersey has banned…and have advanced their compelling interests in promoting public safety, preventing crime, and reducing criminal firearm violence without a magazine ban such as the one here,” the brief states.

I certainly hope the Justices will take up the case. In the meantime, someone needs to take a hard look at Attorney General Grewal. He is clearly misusing the powers of his office to further his own political agenda.

There’s a term for that. It’s called public corruption, and it’s always been a problem in the Garden State.


About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer”, has been writing about the Second Amendment, firearms, the firearms industry, and the gun culture for more than 10 years. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

Lee Williams

Biden’s ATF Nominee David Chipman to Ban All “Assault-type” Weapons

Biden’s ATF Nominee David Chipman to Ban All “Assault-type” Weapons

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/bidens-atf-nominee-david-chipman-to-ban-all-assault-type-weapons/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

During a Senate confirmation hearing on Monday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) pressed Biden pick, David Chipman, who is poised to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), to explain his position on banning the popular semi-automatic AR-15 rifle. Asked Cruz, “The AR-15 is one of if not the most popular rifles in America. It’s not a machine gun, it’s a rifle. Your public opinion is that you want to ban AR-15s. Is that correct?”

Chipman was crystal clear: “With respect to the AR-15, I support a ban.”

He then expanded on his remark, calling the rifle “particularly lethal”:

The AR-15 is a gun I was issued on ATF’s S.W.A.T. team and it’s a particularly lethal weapon, and regulating it as other particularly lethal weapons, I have advocated for.

This was the first among many lies, distortions, and prevarications that punctuated the nominee’s responses to intense probing and questions by Republican senators. The lie: the firearm Chipman was issued was no doubt a fully automatic weapon, capable of firing many rounds rapidly with a single press of the trigger. This is a far cry from popular AR-15s now owned by an estimated 20 million law-abiding American citizens.

The second statement — that the AR-15 is a “particularly lethal weapon” — is even more chilling: it suggests that the mere ownership of the firearm provides sufficient proof that its owner is intent on committing mayhem and, it would follow, he should be banned for owning the weapon.

Chipman prevaricated when asked by Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to define an “assault weapon”: “An assault weapon would be … what Congress defines it as,” trying to avoid the question.

Cotton pressed Chipman: “Can you tell me what is an assault weapon? How would you define it if you were the head of the ATF?” Chipman finally came up with an answer: “any semi-automatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable magazine above the caliber of .22, which would include the .223 which is largely, you know, the AR-15 round.”

Cotton leaped at his response: “I’m amazed … that might be the definition of an assault weapon … that would basically cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today!”

Cotton missed an opportunity: under Chipman’s definition nearly every semi-automatic weapon — rifles and handguns — would be banned if the nominee had his way. That would include the 9mm, 40 caliber, and popular .45 calibers for which most handguns are chambered to accept.

Senator Cotton was just getting warmed up:

On March 25, Politico reported that Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, applied for a handgun that was later thrown in the trash and had to be recovered by Secret Service agents in 2018. Politico reported that Hunter Biden completed this background check and answered “no” to the question of whether he was an unlawful user or addicted to any drug.

Hunter Biden has since published a book and gone on a nation-wide book tour conducting numerous interviews stating that he was, in fact, very much addicted to drugs at the same time that he purchased this firearm. This would mean that by his own admission Hunter Biden lied on that form, and by your earlier testimony, committed a serious felony.

Should Hunter Biden be prosecuted for breaking the law?

Chipman’s effort to evade the question was revealing:

If I’m confirmed as ATF director, it will be my responsibility to enforce all federal laws without political favor. I do not know any factors in this particular case, but I am familiar with the press account of it.

His response was totally inadequate, and Cotton pressed Chipman again:

Can I get your commitment that if you are confirmed you will, in fact, look into this matter and refer it for prosecution if you find that Hunter Biden violated the law?

Chipman sidestepped the question once again:

I will ensure that all violations of law are investigated and referred to.

And then came the masterstroke that topped the lengthening list of Chipman’s double-speak prevarications:

I’m not sure that it has not been investigated.

For all intents and purposes, the confirmation was over and Chipman is history. Other senators peppered the nominee with questions about his comments that mocked new gun owners who have been setting records in acquiring firearms. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) summed them up: “It concerns me that you, as the nominee to be the director of the ATF, would have such a flippant and, if I may say so, utterly condescending attitude toward first-time gun owners in this country. Why would you choose to insult so many of your fellow Americans with a statement like this based on the fact that they purchased a gun?”

Other senators quizzed the nominee about his comments following the ATF’s attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas, in 1993. Chipman said: “Cult members used two .50 caliber [automatic weapons] to shoot down two Texas National Guard helicopters.”

Again, the nominee waffled:

I could have done a better job be describing them as being “forced down” because of the gunfire, as opposed to shot down, which might have left the impression that they were blown out of the sky, which they were not.

I regret that confusion.

Chipman was one of the chief investigators into the Waco incident and so had to know his statement was a canard. It was only under public pressure brought by the senators that he even came close to apologizing, calling it a “confusion” that he “regrets.”

Chipman lied when he was pressed by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas): “Is a law-abiding gun owner a threat to public safety, in your view?”

Chipman revealed his anti-gun, and anti-gun owner, ideology:

Thank you for that question, senator. If the term “law-abiding” means someone has lawfully possessed a gun, there are often occasions that that person then goes on to commit a violent crime.

Wrong. Very few of the horrific mass shootings Americans have witnessed and suffered involve a rifle; the vast majority involve handguns. Semi-automatic rifles are almost never involved.

Aidan Johnston, spokesman for Gun Owners of America (GOA), summed up Chipman’s performance:

Today clearly showed that David Chipman is too radical to lead an agency that should not exist in the first place. The tyrannical gun control advocated by Chipman will be totally ineffective to stop criminals.

That “tyrannical gun control” refers to the bill offered by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) in March. The proposed bill would ban more than 200 firearms, including the AR-15, the AK-47, and Uzi models.

But this bill has little chance of passage. Only 35 Senate Democrats have co-sponsored it, and it will take 60 votes for passage. A similar bill offered by anti-gun/anti-gun owner senators in 2013 received only 40 votes.

Chipman’s dismal performance could have lasting and favorable implications for worried gun owners. If he is confirmed, every gun owner in the country will know that the government has now officially declared war on his right to purchase, own, and use firearms, and they will remember come election time in November 2022. And they will continue to purchase them in record numbers.

If Chipman isn’t confirmed, the next in line to be nominated by Biden to head the ATF will face the same sharp questioning, providing Americans with still another opportunity to appreciate the lengths to which the Biden administration is prepared to go in its attempt to disarm them.

Related video and articles:

ATF Chief: Waco Whacko? | 2A For Today

April Gun Sales Continue Surge After Record-breaking March

ATF Claims FOIA Request on Hunter Biden’s Gun Violates His Privacy

Laws for thee but not for me? It’s fair to ask how administration enforcers would react had this story been about anyone’s son but the president’s.

BY DAVID CODREA

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/05/atf-claims-foia-request-on-hunter-biden-gun-violates-his-privacy/;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- Six months after attorney Stephen Stamboulieh filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on my behalf regarding the agency’s reported involvement in the case of Hunter Biden’s gun, we have received an answer. ATF won’t tell us anything because it says Biden’s privacy interests outweigh the public’s right to know.

It’s a typical pattern of stonewalling and defiance of federal transparency laws by those who ruthlessly enforce edicts on the rest of us that gun owners really saw come to the fore during the heyday of Operation Fast and Furious investigations into ATF “gunwalking.” As AmmoLand Shooting Sports News readers have seen in a series of exclusive reports, that has extended through the years to this day, with the government’s recent non-responsive “response” to a FOIA request filed with Kent Terry, brother of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, whose murder was the catalyst for the deadly criminal scheme to begin unraveling.

The Blaze reported in late October that “Hunter Biden’s handgun was taken from his vehicle without his knowledge by Hallie Biden,” his brother’s widow with whom he then had an affair, “and she placed it in a garbage can outside a Delaware supermarket.” Readers of this column will recall it tied that account in with the question of if the president’s son had broken the law by denying abuse of controlled substances on the Firearm Transaction Record, ATF Form 4473. Lying on the form is a federal felony.

That report was followed up with two separate FOIA requests being filed a few weeks later, to both ATF and the Secret Service, which had also been reported to be investigating the Biden gun incident.

“In response to your FOIA request, the Secret Service FOIA Office has conducted a reasonable search for all potentially responsive documents,” that agency responded in late January. “The Secret Service FOIA Office searched all Program Offices that were likely to contain potentially responsive records, and no records were located.”

Attorney Stamboulieh filed a complaint on my behalf in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in late April because that position is refuted by numerous media reports and by Hunter Biden’s own account retrieved from a text message on his damaged laptop computer.

ATF’s responses have been more circuitous.

“We have determined that you are a non-media, non-commercial requester pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(III),” Adam C. Siple, Chief, Information and Privacy Governance Division, asserted in a Feb. 26 FOIA request receipt acknowledgment.

In other words, I’m not what this ATF functionary considers an “authorized journalist,” flying in the face of decades of professional experience, the law, and years of filing FOIA requests with government agencies and then reporting on their responses or lack thereof – just like here. Trying to make it about me was just a feint—empowering government bureaucrats to arbitrarily and inconsistently determine who is or is not a journalist is clearly unconstitutional, and obstructs the ability to investigate and report on matters of public interest.

All to stall and dodge on a FOIA response concerning one of the Democrat political elites?

“Based on the information you provided to us, we were not able to locate any responsive records subject to the Freedom of Information Act,” Siple informed us a month later, curiously parroting the Secret Service position. The information we provided was pretty specific. So, they weren’t involved, either? Are they saying they don’t have any documents subject to FOIA, not that there aren’t any? Could it be all the reports were wrong?

Then something even more curious happened. Two days later, Siple informed us via email that he was withdrawing the “no records” response. Neither Stamboulieh nor I recall that happening to one of our requests before.

Then on May 12, Siple gave us ATF’s official response:

“As you know, my office did initially conduct a search for records responsive to Mr. Codrea’s FOIA request, but I have since determined that this was an error because the subject of this particular records request is a third party and a private citizen. Under these circumstances, the request should have been denied categorically without a search due to the substantial privacy interests retained by the subject of Mr. Codrea’s request.

“In my view, the denial of Mr. Codrea’s records request is required by law under the Privacy Act and the existence of any such material is exempt from disclosure under the FOIA. As you may know, disclosure of records relating to a third party is only permitted with the express authorization and written consent of the third party or a demonstration that the public interest in the disclosure outweighs the personal privacy interests of the third party. Since you have not provided any documentation that would demonstrate your right to access the records of a third party, we cannot confirm or deny the existence of such records or disclose the requested information at this time.”

Would it be fair to suspect they know all about it and don’t intend to do a thing unless forced to? And had this involved an ordinary private citizen, they’d have posted all about it years ago?

Stamboulieh responded, citing Biden’s own public admissions, credible media reports, and that “Mr. Biden’s purchase of a firearm (and subsequent loss and lack of prosecution) is of such a public interest that twenty-two House of Representative members are asking that Mr. David Chipman ‘publicly commit to investigate allegations that Hunter Biden falsified information during a background check in order to illegally obtain a firearm…’”

That’s a key point, and I’ll get back to it, but first, here is our response:

There is a real opportunity during Chipman’s Senate Judiciary hearing scheduled for Wednesday (watch here beginning at 10 a.m. Eastern) to ask him pointed questions under oath about the Hunter Biden allegations. It will tell us much if he defers to the ATF “privacy” excuse and it will tell us even more if all the Democrats champing at the bit to confirm him and impose “universal background checks” support giving Chipman, and thus the president’s son, a pass on his.


About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

David Codrea

SCOTUS: Police Cannot Seize Guns Without A Warrant

Constitution Glock iStock-697763612

BY JOHN CRUMP

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/05/scotus-police-cannot-seize-guns-without-a-warrant/#axzz6vEMbv2D8;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- In a case argued in front of the Supreme Court, that could affect Red Flag laws across the country, SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the “community caretaking” exception does not apply inside the home.

Caniglia v. Strom centers around the police seizing the firearms of a man that his wife reported as suicidal. The incident that led to the issue started when Edward and Kim Caniglia began to have marital problems in their 27-year long marriage. Mr. Caniglia grabbed his unloaded handgun and sat it on the table, and told his wife, “shoot me now and get it over with.”

Mr. Caniglia then left the house to go on a drive. While he was gone, Mrs. Caniglia hid the gun. When he returned, the couple started to fight again. This time, Mrs. Caniglia left the house and decided to stay at a motel to let things calm down and blow over.

Mrs. Caniglia tried to call her husband the following day, but he was not answering the phone. She then contacted two police officers to do a welfare check on her husband with her. She told the police about what her husband did the night before but stressed that her husband didn’t threaten her. He was just expressing how hurt he was because of the fighting. Mr. Caniglia has never been abusive and does not have a criminal record.

Police told Mrs. Caniglia to stay in the car. They found Mr. Caniglia sitting on the back porch. They talked to him, and he assured them that he wasn’t suicidal. One of the officers said Mr. Caniglia appeared completely normal but was upset because the police became involved in the dispute. The officers wanted him to go to the hospital for a mental evaluation.

Mr. Caniglia was hesitant because he believed the officers would seize his guns if he did, but the officers agreed not to take his firearms. The officers had him transported to the hospital via ambulance. Once gone, the police did what they promised Mr. Caniglia that they would not do. They entered his home and searched for guns. The officers seized two handguns, magazines, and ammunition without a warrant. They claimed to have used the “community caretaking” exception.

When Mr. Caniglia returned home, he found out police seized his guns without a warrant and did not leave him with any way to retrieve his firearms. When he tried to get the guns back, the police refused to turn over the man’s property. He would have to sue to get them back.

He claimed that police violated his Fourth Amendment rights and his right to due process. The case made its way through the courts. President Joe Biden strongly supported the actions of the police. President Biden has been pushing Congress to pass a national “red flag” law.

SCOTUS rejected the notion that police could take someone’s guns without due process.

Anti-gun groups condemned the decision of the Court and claimed it makes people less safe. Gun rights groups hailed the decision as a victory for freedom. One gun group, Gun Owners of America, filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of Mr. Caniglia. The organization celebrated the decision as a victory for inalienable rights.

“The Supreme Court today smacked down the hopes of gun-grabbers across the nation,” Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told AmmoLand. “The Michael Bloombergs of the world would have loved to see the Supreme Court grant police the authority to confiscate firearms without a warrant. But the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Fourth Amendment protections in the Bill of Rights protect gun owners from such invasions into their homes.”

The case will have a rippling effect across the legal landscape. The courts will have to decide if this decision affects “red flag” laws.


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 www.crumpy.com.

John Crump

 

US Navy seizes thousands of assault weapons, machine guns, sniper rifles from ship going to Yemen to aid Houthis

BY ROBERT SPENCER

SEE: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/05/us-navy-seizes-thousands-of-assault-weapons-machine-guns-sniper-rifles-from-ship-going-to-yemen-to-aid-houthis;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Meanwhile, Biden’s handlers are planning to send massive amounts of money to the Islamic Republic of Iran, which will use it to obtain new weapons for the Houthis and other jihadis.

“US Navy seizes weapons in Arabian Sea likely bound for Yemen,” The New Arab, May 9, 2021

The US Navy announced Sunday it seized an arms shipment of thousands of assault weapons, machines [sic] guns and sniper rifles hidden aboard a ship in the Arabian Sea, apparently bound for Yemen to support the country’s Houthi rebels.

An American defense official told The Associated Press that the Navy’s initial investigation found the vessel came from Iran, again tying the Islamic Republic to arming the Houthis despite a United Nations arms embargo. Iran’s mission to the UN did not immediately respond to a request for comment, though Tehran has denied in the past giving the rebels weapons.

The seizure, one of several amid the yearslong war in Yemen, comes as the US and others try to end a conflict that spawned one of the world’s worst humanitarian disasters. The arms shipment, described as sizeable, shows that the war may still have far to run.

The guided-missile cruiser USS Monterey discovered the weapons aboard what the Navy described as a stateless dhow, a traditional Mideast sailing ship, in an operation that began Thursday in the northern reaches of the Arabian Sea off Oman and Pakistan. Sailors boarded the vessel and found the weapons, most wrapped in green plastic, below deck.

When laid out on the deck of the Monterey, the scale of the find came into focus. Sailors found nearly 3,000 Chinese Type 56 assault rifles, a variant of the Kalashnikov.

They recovered hundreds of other heavy machine guns and sniper rifles, as well as dozens of advanced, Russian-made anti-tank guided missiles. The shipments also included several hundred rocket-propelled grenade launchers and optical sights for weapons.

The Navy’s Mideast-based 5th Fleet did not identify where the weapons originated, nor where they were going. However, an American defense official said the weapons resembled those of other shipments interdicted bounded for the Houthis.

Based on interviews with the crew and material investigated on board, the sailors determined the vessel came from Iran, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation.

“After all illicit cargo was removed, the dhow was assessed for seaworthiness, and after questioning, its crew was provided food and water before being released,” the 5th Fleet said in a statement.

The seizure marks just the latest in the Arabian Sea or Gulf of Aden involving weapons likely bound to Yemen. The seizures began in 2016 and have continued intermittently throughout the war, which has seen the Houthis fire ballistic missiles and use drones later linked to Iran. Yemen is awash with small arms that have been smuggled into poorly controlled ports over years of conflict.

This recent seizure appeared to be among the biggest. Tim Michetti, an investigative researcher who studies the illicit weapon trade, also said the shipment bore similarities to the others.

“The unique blend of materiel recovered by the USS Monterey appears to be consistent with the materiel from previous interdictions, which have been linked to Iran,” he said….

Portland BLM/Antifa Draw Guns on Drivers to Enforce No-Go Zone in Broad Daylight

BY VICTORIA TAFT

SEE: https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/victoria-taft/2021/05/07/portland-blm-antifa-draw-guns-on-drivers-to-enforce-no-go-zone-in-broad-daylight-n1445236;

republished below in full unedited for informational, educational & research purposes:

Portland’s revolutionaries from Black Lives Matter and antifa took over a busy street at noon on Wednesday and pulled guns on drivers who dared try to dart past the mob. The groups were holding a rally for a gangland shooter who was killed by police in 2018. That shooting was ruled justified (more below).

The chaotic scene included guns being drawn on white drivers by the multiracial BLM and antifa protesters and one driver drew his own weapon in reply. Someone deployed pepper spray.

A driver was reportedly beaten and held against his will, another had his back window destroyed and shots of some sort were fired by the AK-47- and AR-15-wielding terrorists. Multiple sharp sounds were heard followed by the sound of whooshing air after the militants flattened the tires of a car the gun-wielding crowd had forced to stop. The man was “aided” to the sidewalk, as a live-streamer put it (see the video below).

Portland
Antifa/BLM terrorists wield guns as they block citizens from traveling on public streets.

The driver in the video above had his keys, gun, and tools stolen out of his truck, according to Portland police, who finally showed up to take a report in response to an apparently false claim that someone had been hit by one of the cars.

As officers arrived they did not find any pedestrians who claimed to have been struck. The large group had moved away, still walking in nearby streets, some openly carrying firearms. Officers remained in the area searching for anyone who may have been injured and to collect evidence and information.

Additional calls came in from people who had been driving vehicles in the area and who were blocked by the crowd in the street. One person said people in the crowd broke out their vehicle windows, damaged tires, and sprayed them with some kind of irritant near North Interstate Avenue and North Killingsworth Street.

A person in another vehicle blocked by the crowd near North Alberta Street and North Michigan Avenue got into a dispute with people who surrounded him and took a firearm from him, as well as tools and keys.

See another video of the melee below.

A video taken of the event doesn’t tell the whole story, of course, and details are few. But you don’t need to see the video to know that this looks like another act of terrorism on the streets of Portland by Antifa thugs. It also highlights again that BLM and their Antifa “security” are armed, dangerous, and willing to confront people who get in their way. As the Left is fond of saying, “by any means necessary.”

This is the banana republic encouraged by Democrats who have run Portland for decades. While city leaders spend time and money on defunding police and diversity-intersectional-art-tax projects and throwing away millions on its nearly 15th year of “ending homelessness in ten years,” actual law-abiding people are being harmed by the scourge of these thugs.

Expect more clashes like this.

Mayor Ted Wheeler’s flaccid denunciations of Antifa and the district attorney setting rioters free when they’re caught red-handed makes Portland an easy target for this kind of lawlessness.

The marchers took over the street at North Interstate Avenue and North Killingworth Street in North Portland. The marchers demanded “justice” for Portlander Patrick Kimmons, who was killed by police in 2018 after he’d shot two people in a gangland shooting. Police demanded he drop his gun and when he didn’t, they shot him. The shooting was declared justified and officers were cleared of any wrongdoing in the case.

Related: After a Year of Riots, Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler Vows to ‘Take Our City Back from Antifa.’ Color Us Skeptical.

Portland does allow open carry of unloaded weapons and concealed carry. But, as I explain in my podcast series, Portland is attempting to do away with self-defense, one conservative at a time.

Mogadishu, here we come.

_____________________________________________________
1 2 3 6