SO LONG MASSACHUSETTS: The Reason Behind firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson’s Tennessee Move TO GREENER PASTURES

BY JIM GRANT 

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/10/greener-pastures-the-reason-behind-sws-tennessee-move/#axzz78bjFDd6u;

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

The decision to move a flagship manufacturer isn’t easy. It’s also not hard when legislators target industry for destruction.

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The decision to move a flagship manufacturer isn’t easy. It’s also not hard when legislators target industry for destruction.

That’s the case with Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., which recently announced it will move its headquarters and a large portion of its manufacturing from Springfield, Mass., to Marysville, Tenn. The company has been rooted in western Massachusetts since it was founded in 1852. In 2023, it will open the doors to its new manufacturing facility and headquarters nearly 900 miles south.

That’s not an easy decision. The company will invest hundreds of millions to build a new production plant. It will consolidate warehousing from Missouri to the Tennessee location. That’s where Smith & Wesson will transition the production of semiautomatic pistols and rifles, while revolvers will continue to be produced in Massachusetts. That move will require transferring 750 jobs.

“This has been an extremely difficult and emotional decision for us, but after an exhaustive and thorough analysis, for the continued health and strength of our iconic company, we feel that we have been left with no other alternative,” explained Mark Smith, Smith & Wesson’s President and CEO in a press release.

Tightening Grip

In other words, it was about corporate survival. Massachusetts has become increasingly hostile to gun owners and gun manufactures. The state has among the strictest gun control laws in the nation. State lawmakers banned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in 1998. State Attorney General Maura Healey expanded that crackdown on lawful firearm ownership with a 2016 Enforcement Notice that alleged firearm retailers were violating the state’s law by making small tweaks to certain firearms. The Enforcement Notice warned retailers those so-called “copies” or “duplicates” of the firearms specifically listed in the state law were illegal for sale, but that notice was vague and NSSF, along with two Bay State retailers, challenged the notice in court. Attorney General Healey agreed to clarify the notice after two years of legal wrangling.

This was an example of the hostility state authorities held against firearm industry members, but it was a status quo. Smith & Wesson could manufacturer their popular M&P 15 line of MSRs, but they weren’t available for sale to law-abiding citizens in their own state.

The decision point came when lawmakers directly targeted the firearm manufacturer’s ability to do business. Dual bills were filed in the state legislature (HD 4192/SD 2588) that would prohibit firearm manufacturers from manufacturing MSRs. The proposal includes banning so-called “assault weapons” and magazines capable of holding 10 or more cartridges.

“We are under attack by the state of Massachusetts,” Smith told reporters. The move is anticipated to cost $125 million “that I didn’t want to spend.”

Smith explained in the press release that the proposed Massachusetts legislation would prevent Smith & Wesson from manufacturing MSRs, despite the fact they are lawfully owned by citizens in 43 other states. There, they’re used for lawful purposes by law-abiding owners daily, including uses for recreational target shooting, hunting and self-defense.

That would have also meant Smith & Wesson would have been forced to sacrifice products that comprise 60 percent of their reported $1.1 billion revenue. There are over 20 million MSRs in circulation today and they are the most popular selling centerfire rifle on the market.

Strictly Business

“Honestly, we know we could have defeated it this session,” Smith explained to media. “But it will be back the next session and the session after that. I just can’t operate with that big a risk hanging over the company. We only started this process once the bill was filed. Then and only then.”

Smith & Wesson expects it will be two more years before their firearms bear Tennessee markings, but they’re not the only one to leave. Troy Industries, also a manufacturer of MSRs and parts, announced their own relocation earlier this year. Beretta U.S.A. moved manufacturing from Accokeek, Md., to Gallatin, Tenn., and Barrett Firearms is headquartered in Murfreesboro, Tenn. Other companies left their traditional home states for friendlier business climates when it became clear legislatures became hostile to their industry.

Massachusetts’ lawmaker attacks on Smith & Wesson were purely political. They don’t like firearms and even after they successfully banned their own citizens from owning the MSRs made in their state, they attempted to export their gun control by jeopardizing a leader in the firearm industry. Not so with Tennessee.

“Our pro-business reputation, skilled workforce, and commitment to the Second Amendment make Tennessee an ideal location for firearms manufacturing,” said Republican Gov. Bill Lee in a press statement.  “We welcome Smith & Wesson to The Volunteer State and are proud this U.S.-based brand has chosen to relocate from Massachusetts. Thanks for your significant investment in Blount County and for creating 750 new jobs”

Smith & Wesson’s response isn’t political at all. It’s just good business.


About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

 

 

Latest Survey Reveals Women Now Nearly Half of all New Gun Buyers

Latest Survey Reveals Women Now Nearly Half of all New Gun Buyers

BY BOB ADELMANN

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/latest-survey-reveals-women-now-nearly-half-of-all-new-gun-buyers/;

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

According to the most recent 2021 National Firearms Survey, almost half of all new gun buyers in the last two and a half years have been women. There were 7.5 million brand new gun owners since January 2019, and 3.4 million of them were female. Among those women, more than a quarter of them were black.

The survey also noted that among those new gun owners 55 percent were white, 21 percent were black, and 19 percent were Hispanic.

A previous survey issued in July provided even more details about gun ownership in the United States. That survey found that nearly a third of all American adults owned at least one firearm. That translates into more than 81 million Americans who are armed. And that number keeps growing. In 2020, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, there were more than 21 million background checks completed on people purchasing firearms, up an astonishing 40 percent from the previous year.

That same survey revealed that more than half of those gun owners carry a firearm on their persons for self-defense purposes, with an estimated 21 million of them carrying concealed.

The survey further revealed that about a third of those gun owners have used a firearm to protect themselves or their property. It estimates “that guns are used defensively by firearms owners in approximately 1.67 million incidents each year.”

In sum, 58 percent of gun owners are male, 42 percent are female. And approximately a quarter of blacks own at least one firearm while 28 percent of Hispanics own firearms, nearly 20 percent of Asians own firearms, and 34 percent of whites own firearms.

Those new gun owners are taking their purchases seriously as nearly a quarter of them have subsequently taken at least one gun class, and many have become proficient in the handling of their firearms.

Much of this surge in private gun ownership may be ascribed to the breakdown of law and order by BLM and Antifa groups, the defunding of local police, and the threat of additional gun regulations emanating from the present administration.

This makes the job of turning the United States into a “gun-free zone” — necessary for those working to turn the country into a communist dictatorship — ever more difficult. There are an estimated 100 million U.S. households where a firearm is present, and the task of disarming them would be incomprehensibly difficult.

The reason? Whether each new gun owner realizes it or not, he or she is taking advantage of the freedom to own a firearm guaranteed by the Second Amendment. This peculiar, and vital, freedom is what distinguishes the U.S. from every other nation on the planet. And as long as that freedom is recognized, and enjoyed, it presents a nearly insurmountable stumbling block to those who would disarm the populace in preparation for their New World Order.

Nevertheless the war against the private ownership of firearms in America continues. Earlier this month William Malzahn — with the imposing title of Acting Deputy Director of Office of Conventional Arms Threat Reduction, Bureau of International Security & Nonproliferation at United States Department of State — told the 7th Conference of States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty:

I have come from Washington, D.C., this week to take the floor on the agenda item Treaty Universalization to underscore the continuing commitment of the United States to responsible international trade in conventional arms … the Arms Trade Treaty is an important [tool] for promoting those controls internationally.

This treaty is the one that President Donald Trump “unsigned” at the National Rifle Association’s 2019 annual meeting.

As long as the present administration presses forward in its efforts to disarm the American people, the ownership of private firearms by those people is likely to continue and even accelerate, making the task of tyrants ever more difficult.

BIDEN’S White House Withdraws Chipman’s ATF Nomination But Eyes New Position As “Gun Czar”

BY JOHN CRUMP

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/09/white-house-withdraws-chipmans-atf-nomination-but-eyes-new-position-as-gun-czar/;

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. -(Ammoland.com)- The White House plans to pull the nomination of David Chipman for the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

David Chipman was an ATF special agent before leaving the Bureau to work for a private company called Shot Spotter. He served as its Vice President of marketing. Shop Spotter has face criticism from activists for being infective and targeting minority neighborhoods. Several major localities have canceled contracts with the company over these concerns. A Chicago Inspector General report shows the system only to be effective 9% of the time.

After his stint with Shot Spotter, Chipman went on to help Bloomberg start Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The organization morphed into Everytown for Gun Safety. He then went to work for Giffords.org. Giffords is an anti-gun organization founded by Gabby Giffords after being shot in a Safeway parking lot during a campaign stop.

When Biden nominated Chipman, anti-gun groups like the Brady Organization and Everytown celebrated. People in the political world saw the nomination of Mr. Chipman as payback to anti-gun groups that backed Biden and dumped massive amounts of money into the past Presidential election cycle.

Chipman faced harsh criticism from gun rights groups for being an open anti-gun advocate. They also believed that Chipman was nominated for political reasons. Chipman has even suggested in the past that rifles that take detachable magazines should be regulated like machine guns because he believes it speeds up the rate of fire.

The gun world united to stop him from being confirmed. Significant pressure was upon Democratic Senators from conservative areas such as Senator Joe Manchin from West Virginia. Every national gun group launched some sort of campaign to stop Chipman from being confirmed.

At the same time, past racist comments allegedly made by David Chipman surfaced from his time at the ATF. Mr. Chipman made statements accusing black agents of cheating on tests because of their high scores. He insinuated that they couldn’t have scored as high as they did without cheating.

The anti-gun lobby credited the gun-rights movement with killing Mr. Chipman’s nomination.  Brady United accused gun organizations of running a “smear campaign.”

Executive Director Igor Volsky of rabid anti-gun group, Guns Down America, accused the Biden Administration of breaking its promises to the anti-gun lobby.  Anti-gun zealot Fred Guttenberg also blamed the White House for not getting Chipman confirmed.

But We Are Not Done with Chipman

Even though the Biden Administration is pulling Mr. Chipman’s nomination for head of the ATF, they are still looking for a position for him in occupy. This search for a job leads gun rights advocates to worry that the White House might appoint him to the “Gun Czar.” Biden in the past has considered Beto O’Rourke for the position.

A Czar is a position created within the White House without oversight from Congress. These positions are controversial because there is no oversight from Congress. Many people see these positions as the Executive branch overstepping its boundaries to appoint people to jobs that could never make it through a confirmation hearing.

Gun rights groups are demanding that the White House drop the search for a job for Mr. Chipman. They claim that David Chipman’s inability to make it through a confirmation hearing in Congress should disqualify him for all other positions within the White House, including a “gun czar.”

Gun Owners of America (GOA) Director of Federal Affairs agrees that Chipman is not fit to serve in any position within the federal government dealing with guns. He implores the Biden Administration from trying to find Chipman a job.

“David Chipman’s opposition to the Bill of Rights earned him the opposition of every Republican senator, and unanswered allegations of racism undermined his support among Democratic senators,” Johnston told AmmoLand News.

“Chipman’s disgust for the Second Amendment makes him uniquely unqualified to direct the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives—or any other public office for that matter. The Biden Administration should cease all efforts to ‘find another role” for this anti-constitutional rights activist who failed to earn the support of the United States Senate.”

The battle over David Chipman continues, but gun owners won a hard-fought battle.


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

Leftists Urge Biden to Go Around Congress, Create New Gun Control Office

BY LUIS MIGUEL

SEE: https://thenewamerican.com/leftists-urge-biden-to-go-around-congress-create-new-gun-control-office/;

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

The gun-control lobby is growing impatient.

With major gun-control legislation yet to materialize and Biden’s nominee to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) stalled in the Senate, gun-control activists are calling on the Democrats to create a White House office.

In a letter addressed to Biden this week, four gun-control advocacy organizations lamented that Biden’s policies on firearms “fall significantly short of the promises you yourself made while running for the presidency.”

“Your administration is hard at work pursuing important priorities from infrastructure reform to reducing the disastrous impacts of climate change,” they wrote. “But with rising gun deaths and the heightened threat of armed political extremism, gun violence can no longer be seen as a back burner issue.”

The White House has nominated David Chipman to lead the ATF. As The New American has reported, Chipman has called for banning all “assault-type” weapons, including AR-15s. 

When pressed in the Senate to give a definition of assault weapons, Chipman replied, “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.”

Under such a definition, nearly every semi-automatic rifle would be banned — which is surely the aim of Chipman and Biden.

The prospective ATF head’s sordid record with regard to the Second Amendment has kept him from getting support from the few key Democrats needed to confirm, and thus his confirmation languishes in the Senate more than four months since he was nominated.

As a result, the gun-control activists who wrote to Biden urged him to establish a White House office led by an aide that does not need Senate confirmation, similar to Biden’s White House Office of Domestic Climate Policy. Additionally, they called on him to use the “bully pulpit” to sell gun control to the public and then push legislation through Congress.

Politico notes: 

The groups — Guns Down America; March for Our Lives, which formed after the Parkland, Fla., high school shooting in 2018; Newtown Action Alliance, created in the wake of the 2012 school shooting in Connecticut; and Survivors Empowered, established after the Aurora, Co. theater shooting in 2012 — are seeking a meeting with White House officials and vowed to continue to push Biden to live up to his campaign promises.

“The president promised bold action over and over again … but he’s not really using all of his powers to tackle the issue of gun violence,” said Zeenat Yahya, deputy policy director of March For Our Lives. “When he wants to get things done, he does it. We’ve seen the infrastructure proposals, the Covid relief plan.… So I think it’s really up to him to get moving on these things.”

Biden supporters are beginning to worry that Democrats could be hurt in the midterms next year if he does not show legislative results on some of the key issues he promised to deliver on, including gun control, immigration, and police reform.

“We went to bat for him during the 2020 elections because he put forth the strongest gun violence prevention platform in modern history.… We need the president to take action,” said Newtown Action Alliance chair Po Murray. “We want to be able to drive voter turnout on this and it’s going to be really challenging if we don’t have any wins.”

Earlier this year, Biden announced gun-control executive orders banning “ghost guns” and “pistol braces” and ordering the Justice Department to write model “red flag laws” so that it’s easier for states to adopt them.

On the campaign trail, Biden said he wanted to repeal the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Doing so would make it easier for gun manufacturers to be held civilly liable for people who commit crimes with their products. Using that logic, should car manufacturers also be held responsible for all bodily and property damage made by irresponsible drivers?

He also affirmed a desire to “close the Hate Crime loophole” by enacting legislation prohibiting anyone “who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission,” from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

Constitutionalists must see to it that Biden’s gun-control agenda goes nowhere.

No Vaccination, No Guns: a Secret Plan For Gun Confiscation

BY EVAN NAPPEN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/08/no-vaccination-no-guns-gun-confiscation/;

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

New Jersey – -(AmmoLand.com)- In this episode Gun Lawyer Evan Nappen puts the two pieces together and explains their plan. Both parts are being separately promoted by Obama apparatchiks, Rahm Emanuel & Juliette Kayyem

  • 1) HR 4980 has been filed in Congress to put all unvaccinated persons on the No Fly List.
  • 2) The No Fly, No Buy, Gun Control law has been bouncing around since 2018 and has Bipartisan support.

That’s how they plan to do it.

“I’m Evan Nappen and welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, you know what folks? Today, it boils down to this. No vaccination, No guns. Now you may think, what does getting a COVID vaccination have to do with my ability to have firearms and exercise my Second Amendment rights? Well, I’m going to explain to you exactly what it has to do with, and it is an incredible threat that you need to be aware of.

Let me start by just talking about some things you may not know about the COVID vaccination. Even talking about a COVID vaccination, the lamestream media and big tech overlords they don’t you even talking about this, but we are going to talk about it. Let me just make it clear. There is a database of every individual who has received a COVID vaccination. You may not be aware of that; you may not even know about it. They do not make a big deal about it. But that database is there because this is an experimental vaccine, and they need to track you and it for medical and health purposes. So, there is a legitimate reason to do it. But regardless of that, this database exists. Listen above as I explain their plot…”


About Evan Nappen

Known as “America’s Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Host of the praised “Gun Lawyer” Podcast, author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, weapons history, and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades, it’s no wonder he’s become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry, and national media outlets. Called on regularly by radio, television, and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news, Evan has appeared on countless shows including Fox, CNN, Court TV, WOR-New York. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America.

Evan Nappen
Evan Nappen

IRAQVETERAN 8888: “Taliban Confiscate Civilian Firearms”

In this video, we discuss the recent news of the Taliban collecting firearms from civilians in Afghanistan after a very swift takeover. When arms are confiscated from a civilian populace, what follows will never be good regardless of the promises made, and more tyranny and oppression are sure to occur. The US gun control debate is over.

President Biden Surrendered US Arms to Terrorists. He Wants Yours

Terrorist iStock-1222645991

Disarming the populace and telling them that the government will protect them. Where have we heard that line before? IMG iStock-1222645991

BY JIM GRANT & LARRY KEANE

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/08/president-biden-surrendered-us-arms-to-terrorists-he-wants-yours/;

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

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The devastating visuals of Taliban fighters sweeping through Afghanistan that led to the fall of the Afghan government and the evacuation of the U.S. Embassy revealed a disturbing reality. President Joe Biden was willing to leave billions of dollars’ worth of high-tech weapons in the hands of the Taliban but is determined to strip law-abiding U.S. citizens of their God-given right to keep and bear arms.

One media outlet described the Taliban seizure of U.S. weapons as the “motherlode.” The equipment was supplied by the United States to the Afghan National Army. That included mine-resistant vehicles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and Humvees. One report described the seizure of U.S.-supplied guns as enormous.” Taliban fighters are swapping worn AK-47s for U.S.-made M-4s and M-16s.

Another report detailed that containers full of small arms were seized, including one instance in which 900 guns were seized. Taliban commanders bragged to reporters they had new weapons that could be used on the battlefield.

Press photos circulated of Taliban forces carrying near-new M-4 rifles, topped with thermal imagers. This was just days before Taliban forces released Al Qaeda prisoners from their cells as they entered Kabul.

‘Nobody Needs That…’

These arms are all in the hands of the Taliban, and it must be assumed by Al Qaeda. There are already reports of Taliban fighters rounding up weapons from Afghans.

“We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians,” a Taliban official told Reuters.

That’s eerily similar to the rhetoric President Biden has been telling the American public.

“There’s no reason someone needs a weapon of war with 100 rounds, 100 bullets, that can be fired from that weapon. Nobody needs that, nobody needs that,” President Biden said from the White House Rose Garden in April. He tweeted the same claim in February, throughout his presidential campaign and even going back to his term as vice president.

He later upped the ante mocking gun owners who said they need firearms as a check against a tyrannical government. President Biden said that they’d need jet fighters and made a thinly-veiled reference to using nuclear weapons against U.S. citizens.

President Biden nominated David Chipman to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Chipman also mocked gun buyers and would ban the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR), which he refers to as an “assault rifle,” but couldn’t define it to senators. All the gun control cards are still yet to be played. President Biden might be eyeing more gun control bids and doing so on the international stage.

Global Gun Control

The Seventh Conference of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty will meet in Geneva at the end of the month. This is the same group that then-Secretary of State John Kerry signed onto a treaty in 2013 that would have made U.S. firearm manufacturing and American gun ownership subject to international oversight. The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate.

President Donald Trump announced in 2019, “We’re taking our signature back.” That officially ended the U.S. involvement in the United Nations meddling in U.S. firearm manufacturing and gun rights of American citizens. NSSF praised the decision.

All eyes will be on the Biden administration and what moves will be made to subjugate God-given rights, protected by the Constitution, to international gun control. President Biden has made no secret of his intent to whittle away America’s gun rights. His respect for international arms control, though, is duplicitous. It stretches from the notorious and illegal Operation Fast and Furious gun-walking scheme while he was vice president. That operation sent untraced guns across the U.S-Mexico border that ended up in the hands of cartels and even used to murder Brian Terry, a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

It wasn’t the last time. The bungled Benghazi operation that happened under then-Vice President Biden’s watch that left four dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, was tied to illegal weapons trafficking. The Obama National Security Council refused a U.S. House of Representatives Oversight Committee investigation into the information of covert weapons trafficking to Libyan rebels. The Obama administration’s Department of Justice later dropped charges against an arms dealer for his part in the scheme. Now, he’s left billions in military weapons in the hands of known terrorists.

That’s the pattern for President Biden. He has overseen bungled operations that put guns into the hands of America’s enemies. Yet, he vilifies the firearm industry as the enemy.” This is the industry that provides law-abiding Americans the means to exercise their Second Amendment rights, the tools for law enforcement to keep communities safe, and the small arms for our military to protect America.

President Biden’s gun policies are making Americans vulnerable and emboldening America’s enemies.


About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

 

BIDEN’S ATF NOMINEE David Chipman FAILS TO ADMIT HE Pushed US Gun Control On Communist China TV

GOP Senator Calls Out Chipman For CCP Propaganda

At today's Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) called out David Chipman, nominee to be Director of the ATF, for his appearance on Chinese state TV.

David Chipman Took Part in Communist, Chinese Propaganda to Push Gun Control 

Rumble — Erich Pratt on David Chipman's Chances to Lead the ATF

55% of Republicans ‘Back Potential Use of Force to Preserve American Way of Life’

BY: DAVE WORKMAN

SEE: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/07/55-of-republicans-back-potential-use-of-force-to-preserve-american-way-of-life/;

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

A new George Washington University survey reveals divided sentiments about using force to preserve America’s way of life.

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A stunning George Washington University poll conducted in June revealed that “Over half of Republicans (55%) supported the possible use of force to preserve the ‘traditional American way of life,’” while also finding that 47 percent of Republicans think there may be a time when “patriotic Americans have to take the law into their own hands.”

Another finding listed in the survey is that Republicans are far less likely (21%) than Democrats (83%) to say that “changing the nation’s gun laws is very or somewhat important.”

As reported by The Hill, “support for principles like free and fair elections, free speech and peaceful protest was nearly unanimous among Democratic and Republican voters.”

However, The Hill also noted, “Republicans were significantly less likely to have a strong amount of faith in local and state elections. Eighty-five percent of Democrats expressed trust in local election officials, with 76 percent saying the same of state officials, compared to 63 percent and 44 percent, respectively, for GOP voters.”

What this survey actually accomplished was to show the continuing, and perhaps widening divide between Democrats and Republicans on gun rights, and how political partisans disagree in their understanding of what the Second Amendment is really about. As grassroots gun rights activists repeatedly remind one another on social media, it’s “not about duck hunting.”

Considering the reductions to police departments in some major cities over the past year—a result of the “defund police” movement and an apparent decline in morale among police officers due to what they see as a lack of support from elected officials—it probably should not be surprising to see an increasing number of citizens concerned about having to act as their own first responders in life-threatening emergencies.

Amid the turmoil of 2020 and continuing into this year, gun sales have continued briskly in many parts of the country. Some estimates have put the number at 8 million new, first-time gun owners have joined the firearms community.

Back in April, The Hill reported on another survey, this one a Morning Consult-Politico tracking poll, that found 64 percent of registered voters support stricter U.S. gun laws, while 28 percent do not.

Alarming to gun rights activists, that survey also found 46 percent of respondents “said that limiting gun ownership was more important than protecting the Second Amendment, while 44 percent said that gun ownership rights were a higher priority.”

In May, Pew Research released a report citing eight “key facts about Americans and guns.” This poll also illustrates the divide between party philosophies on the Second Amendment.

According to Pew, the eight points are:

  • Around half of Americans (48%) see gun violence as a very big problem in the country today.
  • Attitudes about gun violence differ widely by race, ethnicity, party and community type.
  • Roughly half of Americans (53%) favor stricter gun laws, a decline since 2019.
  • Americans are divided over whether restricting legal gun ownership would lead to fewer mass shootings.
  • There is broad partisan agreement on some gun policy proposals, but most are politically divisive.
  • Americans in rural areas typically favor more expansive gun access, while Americans in urban places prefer more restrictive policies.
  • More than four-in-ten U.S. adults (44%) say they live in a household with a gun, including about a third (32%) who say they personally own one.*
  • Personal protection tops the list of reasons why gun owners say they own a firearm.

(*There is an interesting aspect to this question on gun ownership, and it came up recently in an Elway poll conducted in Washington State. When survey participants were asked whether anyone in their household owned a firearm, 42 percent said “yes,” 44 percent said “no,” but a sizeable number (14%) declined to answer. It is becoming more frequent that gun owners refuse to answer such a question because they do not believe it is anyone’s business whether they own a gun. Washington, incidentally, is a state with about 7.3 million residents, and there are currently more than 625,000 active concealed pistol licenses in circulation. That translates roughly to about one in nine or ten adults in the state who are licensed to carry, and roughly 20 percent of them are women.)

Among the prickliest of issues may be that 80 percent (or more) of Democrats “favor creating a federal database to track all gun sales and banning both assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, majorities of Republicans oppose the proposals,” Pew said.

Gun owners have long opposed a federal gun registry, a sentiment that could be more

However, 72 percent of Republicans “support allowing people to carry concealed guns in more places and allowing teachers and school officials to carry guns in K-12 schools (66%)” Pew added. Democrats, on the other hand, are largely opposed. Only 20 percent support broader concealed carry and 24 percent supported the idea of armed teachers.

The George Washington University poll revelations about the differences between Republican and Democrat responses underscores the concern American gun owners have about the push to change the nation’s gun laws and make them more restrictive under Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and the Pelosi-Schumer Democrat majority on Capitol Hill.

The political landscape could change dramatically in November 2022, largely driven by those concerns. Between now and then, however, activists will have their hands full blocking the gun control schemes that have already been introduced, and those yet to be revealed.


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

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.

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

1 2 3