MISSING AIRLINE SLUMP

Just like the M.I.A. stock market crash, the long-promised airline travel slump is nowhere to be found.

I checked the most recent TSA statistics available on airline passengers. More than 2.8 million people passed through TSA checkpoints on the latest day available, Thursday, May 15. That was some 40,000 more than the equivalent day in 2024 (May 16) and over 200,000 more passengers than the same day in 2023 (May 18). Not a holiday weekend, not spring break, not yet the summer rush, just packed airports and packed planes on a random Thursday.

Yet this headline featured in Forbes last week,

‘Trump Slump’ Hits Expedia: Shares Fall 8% Due To Weak U.S. Travel Demand

Ah, yes, the much-promised, but little-seen “Trump Slump.” I had occasion to venture out to the local airport this afternoon for a passenger drop-off. Despite the Trump Slump and the surrounding city in its final death throes, the airport on a Sunday mid-afternoon was a complete zoo both inside and out.

Unfortunately, I fear that all too few departing passengers were traveling on one-way tickets.

[Update: it turns out that I was correct about yesterday (Sunday). TSA data show passengers over 2.9 million, some 86,000 above the equivalent day in 2024. Yesterday marked the biggest travel day since December 1, 2024, the Wednesday after Thanksgiving.]

Right on time comes this headline from the Baltimore Sun,

Despite economic concerns, Americans are set on getting away for Memorial Day weekend

Bon Voyage!

Did Suppressor Company Work Against Removing Them from NFA?Suppressors are NFA items, and there’s really not a good reason why they should be on the list. Yeah, I know the anti-gun fearmongering talking points and all that, but let’s be real here. They’re against anything that we might possibly want. These are the same kind of people who gave us Prohibition, and we all know how well that worked out.And, honestly, the NFA is a holdover from the last time these morons had their way, so I don’t care what they have to say. We all know that suppressors are safety devices.

Unfortunately, House Republicans essentially gutted the effort to remove them from the NFA list and the best we’re looking at getting is the $200 tax stamp being dropped to zero.

But just on suppressors.

However, a rumor has been going around. The allegation is that a suppressor company is actively working to keep suppressors on the NFA list.

Jared Yanis over at Gun & Gadgets hit the high points in a video on Thursday.

Now, he doesn’t say anything definitive, only reporting what he’s hearing, as to whether Silencer Central is lobbying Congress to keep suppressors on the NFA list.

The argument makes some sense. Their business model is heavily influenced by the fact that they’re NFA items and thus tightly controlled. It’s entirely possible that they’ll lose a lot of market share if suppressors are largely deregulated.

Yanis also goes into the lobbying efforts made by Silencer Central that are strangely timed, considering all that’s gone on.

Over at Ammoland, John Crump reported on these allegations, naming the company specifically, including some mention of the lobbying efforts.

They responded to Crump, however, and said this:

Official Response from Silencer Central:

“Silencer Central is closely monitoring the ongoing congressional hearings surrounding the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). We have always been vocal supporters of the HPA, as well as the current proposed provision of a $0 tax stamp. Our priority has always been, and will continue to be, advocating for deregulation and 2nd amendment rights, while supporting any win we can get for our customers regarding their firearm and accessory ownership rights along the way. Regardless of the ever-changing regulatory landscape, we remain focused on delivering exceptional service and standing by the community we’re proud to be part of.” — Brandon Maddox, CEO, Silencer Central.

This statement marks the company’s first formal public response to questions about its lobbying strategy and its position on removing suppressors from the NFA.

Maddox’s statement is pretty definitive.

Crump also notes that Maddox has favored a different approach to the HPA, calling for what he described as a “crawl, walk, run” approach. However, that was also while Joe Biden was president, and his argument then was simply that Biden would never sign the HPA, which is fair.

It also doesn’t mean that because he favored that approach, then that he’d sabotage an effort to achieve more here and now when the odds are far better than they were then.

For what it’s worth, I reached out to Silencer Central on Thursday for comment–this was before I saw Crump’s story–and I haven’t heard back as of this writing. If I do, I intend to ask them follow-up questions about the lobbying efforts Yanis outlined in his video.

Now, I don’t know anyone mentioned in this post personally except for Yanis, whom I count as a friend. I can’t say anything about how trustworthy Maddox is because I don’t know him, so I’m going to err on the side of trust until or unless something new comes out.

If any company is working to undermine pro-gun legislation from within the firearm industry, we need to know who it is so they can get the Bud Light treatment, but we need more than rumors before we take that step.

SCOTUS, Anti-Gun Lawfare, and the Importance of PLCAA

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is an important bit of legislation that makes it a lot harder for people to sue gun companies because of what third parties do with the products they make and/or sell. It’s ridiculous we need such a law because only the mentally disabled would blame a company for making a product, selling it lawfully, only for some completely different party to do something.

I often liken it to suing Toyota over drunk drivers, and that’s for good reason.

As things are now, though, that protection is starting to crumble a bit. It’s being challenged left and right, with such a challenge currently before the Supreme Court, even as some states try to create workarounds that will let the lawfare against the firearm industry resume.

John Commerford at the NRA-ILA has some thoughts on the subject.

As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s (PLCAA) passage coming up on Oct. 26, the law is imperiled by a new generation of anti-gun litigants seeking to exploit loopholes. In March, however, one such case—Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicano—landed before the U.S. Supreme Court, where it received a chilly reception from skeptical justices across the ideological spectrum.

Most observers believe the plaintiffs overplayed their hand, although the reasoning the justices use to resolve the case will determine whether the PLCAA continues to protect the law-abiding gun industry as intended.

The PLCAA is ultimately about how the industry that enables Americans’ Second Amendment rights is regulated. Is it by relatively fixed and ascertainable statutes enacted by democratically elected legislators? Or is it by unpredictable, shifting and innumerable standards of “reasonableness” imposed after the fact by unelected judges at the behest of firearm prohibitionists?

That latter option promotes lawfare, which has been characterized as death by a thousand cuts. Lawfare practitioners may not care if they win their cases, because even one who is innocent before the law can succumb to the legal process itself.

The biggest cut is the expense of litigation. The lengthier and more complex the proceedings, the more likely the defendant will be unable to sustain a defense.

Another is reputational harm from accusations of wrongdoing, no matter how baseless, particularly if the media and public officials amplify the plaintiff’s case.

Commerford goes on to detail how the lawfare activists are using justifiable exceptions within the PLCAA and exploiting them to try and bring back their zealous attack on the one industry most vital to the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun companies can and should be able to be sued for misconduct. If they make a faulty barrel and it explodes, for example, they should be held accountable. Or, if their gun discharges in your holster, you might want to talk to a lawyer, and you should have that avenue available.

But the gun grabbers are trying to use this by claiming the companies’ marketing is misconduct, that by appealing to their customer base, they’re somehow responsible for what other people do.

The kicker is that many of these efforts don’t even try to present evidence that the criminal party even saw the marketing. That doesn’t matter to these folks, and that’s downright disgusting to me.

NSSF Data Shows Gun Sales Fell 3.4% from April 2024

The April 2025 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,174,294 is a decrease of 3.4 percent compared to the April 2024 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,216,116.

For comparison, the unadjusted April 2025 FBI NICS figure of 2,194,006 reflects a 2.1 percent decrease from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 2,240,434 in April 2024.

Additional insights on the month-over-month NICS data from GunBroker, NICS Reporting & Analysis(March 2025 data), available in the member portal under Industry Research.

Continue reading “”

Trump Calls For Big Cuts to ATF Budget, Citing Attacks on Second Amendment

President Donald Trump’s discretionary budget request for fiscal year 2026 has officially been released by the White House, and while he’s not proposing the ATF be totally defunded, he is demanding a major reduction in spending for the agency.

Under the budget proposal released today, the ATF would receive $468 million less than this year’s budget of roughly $1.62 billion, and the administration is citing the Biden administration’s weaponization of the agency as the rationale for the cuts.

 The Budget bolsters the Second Amendment by cutting funding for ATF offices that have criminalized law-abiding gun ownership through regulatory fiat.

The previous administration used the ATF to attack gun-owning Americans and undermine the Second Amendment by requiring near universal background checks; subjecting otherwise lawful gun owners to up to 10 years in prison for failing to register pistol braces that make it possible for disabled veterans to use firearms; the imposition of excessive restrictions on homemade firearms; and the revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses, which shut down small businesses across the Nation.

The Budget re-prioritizes resources toward illegal firearms traffickers fueling violent crime and crime gun tracing that State and local law enforcement need to track down dangerous criminals, such as MS-13 gang members.

With proposed cuts to the FBI and DEA as well, expect Democrats claim that it’s Trump who’s interested in defunding the police, and for gun control groups to raise hell in particular about the ATF’s budget, which they’ll portray as a gift to the firearms industry and its CEOs (Giffords, in particular, has been doing a lot of targeted messaging about gun company CEOs ever since the CEO of United Healthcare was assassinated on a New York street last December).

In fact, unnamed sources are already complaining to the press about what Trump’s proposed budget would mean. From Reuters:

Continue reading “”

Latest Look at Gun Buying Downright Fascinating

Americans buy a lot of guns. Many of those are gun folks buying their dozenth or so firearm, but many others are new gun owners buying for the very first time. It’s a glorious thing that we can do here in the United States that many people in other places simply cannot do. Not like we can.

Sure, some people have a problem with it, but the truth is that we’re buying guns and we’re buying a lot of them.

That’s according to a new Rasmussen poll.

A recent Rasmussen survey revealed what gun dealers and manufacturers already knew, and anti-gunners didn’t like hearing: Despite a downturn in gun sales, Americans are still buying guns, and for the past five years those purchases have surpassed one million per month.

This is happening despite efforts in several states to make buying guns increasingly difficult.

According to Rasmussen, 19 percent of American adults say they, or someone in their household, bought a gun in the past year. Sixty-four percent (64%) of all American Adults say the main reason most people purchase a gun is for self-defense, the veteran polling firm revealed, which says a lot about the public confidence in the ability of law enforcement to respond quickly to violent crime.

Headline news such as the reported raid on an underground nightclub in Colorado Springs, during which more than 100 people were arrested—allegedly many of them illegal aliens—and police recovered drugs and guns, might alarm more people enough to buy a firearm….

Political persuasion plays into Rasmussen’s findings. Republicans (71%) are far more likely than Democrats (60%) to believe self-defense is the primary reason for owning a gun. Among Independents, 61 percent think personal protection is the main reason. Likewise, according to Rasmussen, Republicans are more likely to say they or someone in their household bought a gun within the last year.

On the flip side, Democrats are much more likely to think it is too easy to buy a gun, Rasmussen noted.

Nothing shocking about that by any stretch, really. I’m less than thrilled that anyone would believe it’s too easy to buy a gun in this day and age, but I’m not surprised by it, either. The fact that I can walk into a gun store right now and walk out with just about anything in the store if my pockets are deep enough, regardless of what hurdles I have to clear, will always be “too easy” to some people.

But there’s another interesting tidbit that I found interesting.

And here’s an alarming—albeit maybe not surprising—revelation in the Rasmussen survey: “A majority (54%) of government employees believe it’s too easy to buy a gun nowadays, compared to 45% of private sector workers and 40% of retirees.”

While that really doesn’t necessarily play any significant factor in anything–government workers are still just one vote each–the truth is that at least some of those folks work for the ATF.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn this opinion was overrepresented at the ATF, either, though there’s no way to know that one way or the other.

Either way, it’s amusing.

The report also notes that The Trace has updated its estimate of guns in America to 512 million firearms.

My take on that?

Until every man, woman, and child has a few dozen guns, I won’t consider us even close to having enough.

As for what point hits “too many,” such a number does not exist.

If that fact makes some heads explode, well, so be it.

This is the way it’s been in Europe for quite a while. Major parts of a gun are serialized, and restricted. You can see this on Glocks and other European made guns where the serial number is on the frame, slide and barrel. Just like for ammo, if the tyrant demoncraps in California do happen to pass such a crap-for-brains law,  people who are interested enough will simply cross the state line to buy.


Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: California Democrats Push Background Checks for Gun Barrels

California Democrats are pushing legislation to require background checks for gun barrel purchases, effectively taking the “ghost gun” regulatory push to its logical conclusion.

The bill, Senate Bill 704, is sponsored by state Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D).

SB 704 singles out firearm barrels among the many other parts of firearm, requiring a background check for any replacement barrel or aftermarket barrel upgrade purchase:

Commencing on July 1, 2026, this bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer.

Moreover, SB 704 specifically outlines how the costs of performing background checks for barrels must be handled, making clear that the legislation literally creates “a new crime,” albeit a misdemeanor, in the state California.

Gun rights proponents have long warned that the Democrats’ use of terminology like “ghost guns”–and the resulting regulation of said “guns”–would lead to background checks for aftermarket firearm parts. State Sen. Arreguín’s legislation is doing just that.

Additionally, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warns that with a background check, SB 704 would end online barrel sales via the requirement for face-to-face transactions.

NAGR said, “We have warned that this was always the end goal. Target the secondary market — driving up the cost of repairing and maintaining firearms in an effort to win through attrition. The ultimate objective is a complete ban on online sales.”

Reform Minded Board Members Sweep NRA Officer Elections

At the NRA Annual Meetings last weekend I interviewed then-First Vice President Bill Bachenberg for the Bearing Arms’ Cam & Co podcast. During our conversation Bachenberg talked extensively about the reforms he’d like to see implemented within the group, starting with a president who knows a thing or two about running a business.

The NRA, for all its work as an advocacy, litigation, legislative, educational, and training organization, is a non-profit corporation, and Bachenberg believes someone with business acumen and a background in running successful companies is critical in restoring both faith and financial soundness to the organization.

Bachenberg spoke openly about his plan to challenge incumbent president Bob Barr for election, along with a reform-minded slate of additional officers: then-2nd Vice President Mark Vaughn, and Rocky Marshall, who’s been a longtime advocate for increased accountability and transparency.

Though officers are elected annually, traditionally they serve two-year terms, so this was a challenge to a sitting president, and was widely seen as a contest between those who are willing to acknowledge past failings within NRA leadership and those who still want to defend Wayne LaPierre and the misspending from other top executives, or at least refuse to truly acknowledge them.

Well, the 76 board members voted for new officers today, and it was a clean sweep for the reformers. From the NRA Public Affairs office:

Today, the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), elected Bill Bachenberg of Pennsylvania as President of the NRA and Doug Hamlin as NRA Executive Vice President & CEO. The meeting of the Board of Directors followed the 154th NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits where over 70,000 NRA members, their families, and supporters of the Second Amendment gathered at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta, Georgia to check out the latest guns, gear, and accessories from over 600 exhibitors.

“I am deeply honored to be entrusted by my colleagues on the Board to serve as President of the NRA,” said Bill Bachenberg, NRA President. “We are at a pivotal point in our Association’s history as we work to reach out to new members, build upon the trust of existing members, and provide the gold-standard programs that American gun owners expect. As the Nation’s oldest civil rights organization, the NRA plays a critical role in protecting and advancing freedom in America.”

The NRA Board of Directors also elected Mark Vaughan of Oklahoma as NRA First Vice President and Rocky Marshall of Texas as NRA Second Vice President.

“As we conclude a very successful NRA Annual Meeting in Atlanta, I know one thing for sure: NRA’s best days are ahead of us,” said Doug Hamlin, NRA Executive Vice President & CEO. “This Association is moving forward, full speed ahead, to support the shooting sports, train new gun owners, and defend the sacred right to self-defense. I thank the dedicated staff of the NRA who work day and night on behalf of NRA’s millions of members and America’s more than 100 million firearms owners.”

Following Mr. Hamlin’s reelection, he reappointed John Commerford as the Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and Josh Savani as the Executive Director of NRA General Operations.

The Board of Directors also reelected Sonya B. Rowling as NRA Treasurer, Robert Mensinger as NRA Chief Compliance Officer, and John C. Frazer as NRA Secretary.

The 2026 NRA Annual Meetings & Exhibits will take place in Houston, Texas, from April 17-19, 2026.

Frazer’s retention as NRA Secretary is a bit of a surprise, not only because he was part of the old regime but because he was implicated in Letitia James’ lawsuit against the NRA (a jury held that he made false statements but did not cause financial harm to the organization and should not be held liable for damages). Whatever their reasons, enough reformers felt comfortable with Frazer in his current role that he was re-elected.

Today’s election results are a clear sign that the Wayne LaPierre days of the NRA are, for better or worse, over. The fact that former NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox, who resigned after being placed on administrative leave by LaPierre during the NRA’s meltdown in 2019, was warmly welcomed at an event celebrating the Institute for Legislative Action’s 50th anniversary was another telling indication that Wayne LaPierre’s influence over the NRA and its leadership is on the wane, if not wiped out completely.

For several years a growing number of NRA members and board members have been advocating for making some big changes to the organization; not in terms of its mission, but its ability to succeed in that mission. There is a recognition that trust needs to be rebuilt, that the institutional arrogance of the past should no longer exist, if it was ever justified to begin with.

The NRA’s been knocked down a peg, and it wasn’t only because of Letitia James’ attempt to dissolve the organization and rob millions of members of their community. To pretend that isn’t the case only hurts the organization. Denial isn’t an option, and it wasn’t just the reformers who won today. I’d say the realists won too.

I’ve said along along that the Second Amendment community needs a strong NRA, and (casting all journalistic neutrality aside and speaking as a Benefactor Life Member) I’m thrilled that the reform slate swept the elections.

I believe this is the moment that many disgruntled and reform-minded NRA members have been working (or at least waiting) for, and after speaking with multiple board members and NRA leadership Doug Hamlin, John Commerford, and Josh Savani, I can honestly say in my more than 20 years of connections with the organization I’ve never seen the sense of energy and purpose that I witnessed in Atlanta.

I’m not saying the NRA is all the way back, but I’m optimistic that the efforts to rebuild and reform that led to today’s election results will now be able to kick into overdrive, and I’m excited to see what comes next.

BLUF
In rebuttal, Francisco effectively summarized the core of the case: The PLCAA is “not just about protecting the manufacturers, the distributors and the retailers, but it’s about protecting the right of every American to exercise their right under the Second Amendment to possess and bear firearms. That right is meaningless if there are no manufacturers, retailers and distributors that provide them in the first place.”

What Supreme Court Justices Had to Say About Mexico’s Attempt to Demolish Our Second Amendment

Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s,” stated the NRA’s amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court case Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The oral argument took place on March 4, and the Court’s decision is expected by the end of June. Based on the Justices’ questions during oral argument, there is reason for cautious optimism that the Court will enforce the federal statute that prohibits abusive lawsuits designed to destroy American firearms businesses.

The roots of the current Mexico case go back to 1998, when the gun-ban group Handgun Control, Inc., orchestrated meritless lawsuits by big-city mayors to attempt to bankrupt American firearms companies through the sheer cost of litigation. Handgun Control, Inc., later changed its name twice, and now calls itself Brady United.

In response, two-thirds of the states enacted legislation to forbid such abusive suits. Then in 2005, a bipartisan Congress passed and President George W. Bush (R) signed a federal statute called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to stop the frivolous suits. Given the new law, most judges promptly dismissed the abusive suits.

Yet two decades later, the Mexican government is in American courts attempting to accomplish what the previous lawsuits did not, namely bankrupting the American firearms industry—and thereby making the exercise of Second Amendment rights impossible.

The allegations in the Mexico case are updated versions of the same bogus allegations from the earlier suits: American firearms businesses that obey all of the many laws about firearms commerce should be held financially liable for criminal gun misuse. Mexico wants $10 billion from American firearms businesses, plus court-ordered, drastic restrictions on the firearms industry.

Continue reading “”

Tennessee Bill Would Strengthen Protection For Firearm Industry In The Volunteer State

A measure that is on the move in the Tennessee Legislature would significantly strengthen legal protections for those in the firearm industry in The Volunteer State.

SB1360 has passed both chambers with overwhelming majorities and is headed for Gov. Bill Lee’s desk for his signature.

Of course, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, was designed to protect gunmakers and sellers from frivolous lawsuits targeting their legally made, lawfully sold products. But many states have also passed state protections, also, to further bolster that protection.

Tennessee passed its version of the PLCAA back in 2023. The new bill further fortifies that law by expanding legal protections to include private sellers, suppressor manufacturers and magazine producers; prohibiting Tennessee courts from recognizing or enforcing out-of-state or foreign court judgments that conflict with Tennessee’s pro-Second Amendment public policy; and penalizing bad-faith litigation by imposing triple damages on out-of-state plaintiffs and their attorneys who attempt to enforce hostile judgments in Tennessee courts.

The measure states: “In a qualified civil liability action brought against a dealer, manufacturer, or seller of a qualified product, the complaint must allege that the dealer, manufacturer, or seller of the qualified product directly caused the damages alleged. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the civil liability action is not barred by this section. If a court determines a civil liability action is barred by this section, then the court shall dismiss the civil liability action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Continue reading “”

Gov. Gianforte to Gunmakers Fleeing Colorado’s Firearm Ban: ‘Montana Is Open for Business’

Anticipating the rush of gunmakers fleeing Colorado after the state’s recent adoption of a semiautomatic firearm ban, Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) is letting the manufacturers know: “Montana is open for business.”

Breitbart News reported that Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed the semiautomatic firearm ban on April 10, 2025, and it takes effect in August 2026. In addition to banning America’s most popular rifle–the AR-15–Colorado’s ban also prohibits AK-47s, numerous semiautomatic shotguns, and even a number of pistols.

Gov. Gianforte released a video on April 23, 2025, describing Colorado’s new gun control as “one of the most restrictive gun bans ever adopted in the United States.”

He noted that the gun control bans not only the selling of numerous semiautomatic firearms, but also the manufacturing of the guns.

By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Gianforte noted, “This is on top of the liberal state’s existing ban on ‘high capacity’ magazines. That’s just crazy.”

He then pointed out, “Colorado is ranked in the top 10 states with the biggest gun industries. So, to all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question is simple: Do you want to move back to America? Montana is open for business.”

A press release accompanying the video noted that Montana is a constitutional carry state which “[prohibits] the enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that infringes upon ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, magazine, or firearm accessory.”

Gianforte summarized his message by saying, “In Montana, we embrace freedom and the free enterprise system. Come on home to America, right here in Montana.”

ATF Targeting Old Men in Rural Missouri

The entire State of Missouri can rest much easier now. The ATF has made the Show-Me State a much safer place. Two rule breakers from small Missouri towns were indicted by a federal grand jury last week. Their crimes? They’re accused of selling guns without a federal license. Their ages? One was 75 and the other was 81 years old.

This, friends, is not a sick joke. The ATF actually publicized the arrests in a press release, which was sent out last week.

“According to an indictment returned this week, Aubrey Foxworthy, 81, of California, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan and Moniteau Counties from approximately June 2, 2023, through September 9, 2024. He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms. Foxworthy was also charged with possession of a rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches and that rifle was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record,” the press release states. “According to an indictment returned this week, Philip Leroy Rains, 75, of Popular Bluff, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan County from approximately April 1, 2023, through April 4, 2024. He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms.”

Each man now faces five years in a federal prison and fines of up to a quarter-million dollars for the no-FFL charges, but Foxworthy faces an additional 10 years in prison and fines of up to $10,000 for whatever the ATF considered an unregistered short-barreled rifle. Nowadays this could be a legal firearm with a brace. Unfortunately, if things go the ATF’s way, Foxworthy could leave federal prison in 2040 at the ripe age of 96.

Foxworthy could lose a lot more than just his freedom. According to his indictment, the ATF also ordered him to turn over all of his guns, and the 81-year-old had a decent collection.

The ATF wants 197 of Foxworthy’s personal firearms, according to a list attached to his indictment. The guns are about what you’d expect a lifelong gun owner to have in his safe. Almost all are American made: Ruger, Colt, Winchester, Savage, Browning, Remington, Marlin, Mossberg, Henry and Smith & Wesson. The ATF also wants Foxworthy’s ammunition, and the list claims he had more than 16,000 rounds.

Because the ATF prepared the list, there are four firearms identified as “machineguns,” but the type, manufacturer and calibers are listed as “unknown.” Also, Foxworthy was not charged with the illegal possession of any machineguns. This makes sense in a sick way, because experience has shown when the ATF can’t identify a firearm, they usually just consider it a machinegun.

The list also shows that Foxworthy owned a dozen Winchester Model 94 rifles. The serial number of one rifle shows it was manufactured before 1896. Depriving the man of that rifle is a sin, especially since it will likely be kept or even resold by some nameless ATF agent.

Calls to Foxworthy’s defense attorney were not returned.

Takeaways

Who hasn’t seen an old man at a flea market with a couple guns for sale either on a folding table or laying on a blanket in the bed of his pickup?

It’s classic Americana, right? There is certainly no crime or criminal intent.

Unfortunately, Joe Biden robbed us of this for a few years. Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule required anyone who made a profit on a single gun sale to obtain a federal firearm license.

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” former Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced about a year ago.

The press release shows that both arrestees’ alleged law-breaking occurred while Biden was napping at the White House. Besides, it was easier for the ATF. Their agents are much less likely to be shot or scared if they harass a couple old men, rather than going after big-city gangsters armed with full-auto Glocks with Glock switches.

Truth be known, Attorney General Pam Bondi or her staff should examine all of the ATF’s cases made during Biden’s term. Some were much worse than this one.

I certainly hope that whoever is actually in charge of the ATF today will take this into account and drop all charges against Messrs. Foxworthy and Rains.

The ATF has put each of them through enough. I hope that Foxworthy gets to keep his guns, too, especially the pre-1896 Model 94.

To do anything else would be a real crime.

Reformers Gain Ground in National Rifle Association Board Election

The National Rifle Association holds an annual election for their board of directors. 25 directors–who serve three years each–are selected by voting members. The 2025 BOD election results were just released, as reported by the “American Rifleman.”

Previously reported–Part One and Part Two–there are two different slates or camps eyeing or occupying spots on the board.

One group self-describes as NRA 2.0, colloquially referred to as “reform candidates,” or “reformers.” The other, an “old guard” of several incumbents and newcomers alike, call themselves Strong NRA. NRA 2.0 accuses Strong NRA of being a so-called “Cabal.”

In the wake of turmoil caused by former CEO and Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and a lawsuit filed against the Association by New York Attorney General Letitia James, already skeptical members started to get more vocal. This led to an organized cadre of four reformer candidates getting elected to the BOD in 2024. For 2025, NRA 2.0 had 28 candidates.

What were the results of the election? Who came out on top? Were there any disappointments?

According to the “American Rifleman,” these are the election results:

Continue reading “”

Colorado Enacts Sweeping Gun Law: What SB25-003 Means for Firearm Owners

On April 10, 2025, Colorado’s Senate Bill 25-003 was signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on April 10, 2025. The passage of this bill represents one of the most significant changes to gun regulations in the state’s history. This legislation establishes a first-of-its-kind permit-to-purchase system for certain semiautomatic firearms while prohibiting rapid-fire conversion devices.

SB25-003, officially titled “Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices,” fundamentally changes how Coloradans can purchase certain types of firearms. The law criminalizes the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and purchase of specific semiautomatic weapons without proper permitting. It specifically covers the following firearms:

  • Semiautomatic rifles with detachable magazines
  • Semiautomatic shotguns with detachable magazines
  • Gas-operated semiautomatic handguns with detachable magazines[

Importantly, the legislation does not affect most handguns (which are typically recoil-operated), shotguns with fixed magazines, or semiautomatic firearms with fixed magazines holding 15 rounds or less.

Rather than imposing an outright ban, Colorado’s SB25-003 introduces a detailed permitting process for individuals seeking to purchase certain semiautomatic firearms. Under the new law, prospective buyers must first apply to their county sheriff for a course eligibility card. This application requires a government-issued photo ID, a name-based background check, and a signed affirmation that the applicant complies with all relevant firearm laws.

Once eligibility is established, applicants must complete a firearms safety course. Those who already hold hunter education certification may take a basic four-hour course. Those without such certification must complete an extended 12-hour course conducted over at least two days. After completing the training, applicants are required to pass a final examination with a minimum score of 90 percent.

Permits issued under this process are valid for five years. Once expired, individuals must repeat the entire application, training, and testing process to obtain a new permit.

Continue reading “”

We actually have one of, if not the, largest known deposits of these strategic minerals right here in the U.S. We’ve just been too politically lazy, letting the foreign controlled econutz and business owners overly motivated by the bottom line to develop the mining

China’s New Weapon Isn’t a Missile. It’s a Magnet.

On April 4, the Chinese government issued sweeping new export controls on critical rare earth elements in response to the Trump Administration’s reciprocal trade plan. And while the categories of rare earths included — samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium, and yttrium — are unknown to most Americans, they are embedded in everything from smartphones to stealth bombers.

These new restrictions are not just a new volley in the ongoing back-and-forth between Washington and Beijing. For those paying attention, this is a strategic maneuver that puts pressure directly on the backbone of U.S. national defense and the broader high-tech economy.

While the move is couched in the language of national security and non-proliferation compliance, its timing and scope are not accidental. China is leveraging its near-total dominance over the global rare earth supply chain to shape geopolitical outcomes and force the U.S. to respond.

To better understand the government’s options, it’s helpful to know more about what these rare earth elements do. Dysprosium and terbium are used to produce high-temperature-resistant magnets essential for electric motors in guided missiles, aircraft, drones, and naval propulsion systems. Samarium-cobalt magnets power everything from F-35 jet actuators to targeting systems. Gadolinium is a key component in military-grade sonar. Scandium-aluminum alloys reduce weight while maintaining strength in aerospace structures. Lutetium is increasingly used in advanced radiation detection and positron emission tomography (PET) systems.

These are not luxury materials. They are irreplaceable components in mission-critical systems. It is impossible to build an advanced hypersonic glide vehicle, a submarine-launched cruise missile, or a battlefield drone swarm without them.

China dominates the pipeline for these materials entering the rest of the world, controlling approximately 70 – 85% of their global production and processing capacity. In many cases, such as with dysprosium and terbium, China is not just the dominant supplier, it is the only economically viable one.

The implications of the new restrictions extend far beyond defense. These same elements are foundational to industries that define modern civilization: consumer electronics, factory automation and robotics, health care, electric and hybrid vehicles, wind turbines, medical imaging, semiconductors, appliances, and more. Now Beijing is threatening to block them from those it considers its adversaries.

China has a history of leveraging their advantage in this sector. In 2010, China restricted rare earth exports during a territorial dispute with Japan. In 2023, it imposed curbs on gallium, germanium, and graphite (important in semiconductor production) in response to U.S. chip export bans. Last year, it strengthened restrictions on gallium and germanium and added antinomy and superhard materials.

This latest move is most expansive yet. It targets a broader array of elements, and the regulatory language is sweeping, covering metals, oxides, alloys, compounds, magnets, and even mixed-material targets used in thin-film manufacturing. China is proving that it is willing to endure economic blowback to assert long-term strategic control, and as tensions with the U.S. rise, the boundaries of a new materials Cold War are being drawn.

The Trump Administration is watching this carefully and has already begun taking aggressive steps toward putting the U.S. in a greater position of rare earth and critical mineral self-sufficiency. But American progress in this area over the past 20 years has been sluggish. Building rare earth processing plants is capital-intensive and geopolitically challenging.

Fortunately, the U.S. can access its own rare earth resources within its borders. The Mountain Pass deposit in California is now scaling up production, although it still sends a substantial amount of its mined ore to China for processing. It also largely lacks the heavy rare earths dysprosium and terbium. Another very large resource, located in Nebraska, can produce these defense-critical rare earths in additional to establishing global U.S. dominance in production of the rare earth scandium. That project could move to construction immediately, given adequate financing.

But China’s dominance in midstream processing, the chemical separation and purification that turns mined rock into usable materials, remains unrivaled.

To address this challenge, the U.S. must treat rare earth independence not as an industrial policy footnote but as a core national security imperative. That means accelerated investment in mining, extraction, refining, and recycling capacity, all backed by government dollars, loans and loan guarantees, and streamlined permitting. Importantly, as President Trump’s recent Critical Minerals Executive Order proposes, the Defense Production Act should be fully leveraged to jumpstart rare earth projects on U.S. soil.

Further, any domestic investment must be met with greater cooperation between Washington and allied nations that can counter China’s monopoly. Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia should be part of a coordinated, supply-secure bloc for critical materials.

The wars of the future may not start with missiles, but with minerals. And unless the U.S. invests in securing access to the elements that power our technologies, we may soon find ourselves on the wrong side of a digital and defense divide.

Latest Moves to Reign In ATF Overreach are Welcome Blows Against the Anti-Gun Bureaucracy.

There really isn’t any line that anti-gun politicians won’t cross in order to undermine the Second Amendment. None. I remember several years ago when I was working for U.S. Senator Bill Roth (R-DE) – yeah, the Roth in Roth IRA – in his Wilmington office. There was a proposal to tax ammunition. This wasn’t the 11% excise tax we’re all familiar with, already pay, and never really see.

No, this was a tax designed to punish gun owners, to hurt them — significantly — right in their wallets. A couple of variations of this kind of tax were being considered or floated. If I remember correctly, the one at the time was either a 25% tax on handgun ammunition, or even a $0.25 per round tax.

I asked the Senator his opinion on an ammunition tax and his reply was quintessential Bill Roth. He looked at me and said, “It’s a tax. I’m against taxes.” He wasn’t concerned about the tax as an attack on the Second Amendment. He saw it as yet another attack on taxpayers.

Taxation is the primary weapon for politicians looking to take something away from citizens. The problem for them, however, is that new tax bills are harder and harder to pass as the majority of taxpayers are kind of tired of paying more and receiving little to nothing in return.

Knowing this, the Biden Administration sought to press its anti-gun agenda, in part, through overly aggressive enforcement by the federal firearm regulatory bureaucracy. By taking a zero tolerance approach to even the smallest clerical mistakes made by gun dealers, the Biden Administration would use ATF to strip retailers of their licenses to sell guns.

While this was pitched to the media and the public as zero tolerance, what they really should have called it was zero chance, as in there was virtually zero chance the agency wouldn’t be taking your FFL, because they were determined to find something. And that’s exactly how many retailers viewed it.

Fortunately, not every ATF agent doing FFL inspections was hellbent on pulling licenses and was willing to see simple clerical errors for what they were, unintentional minor mistakes that are easily rectified. In other words, they made a ‘no harm, no foul’ call.

Unfortunately, though, there were ATF agents who were more than willing to be weaponized by the agency’s leadership against FFLs lawfully conducting business. Maybe they saw this as a pathway to promotion within an administration that placed a lot of value on blindly following orders from the Autopen-in-Chief.

On Monday news came that the era of zero-tolerance was over. The National Shooting Sports Foundation heralded the announcement from the Trump Administration in Monday’s edition of Bullet Points.

NSSF praises the announcement today by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that the agencies are doing away with the Biden-era “zero-tolerance” policy that punished lawful and highly-regulated Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) for minor clerical errors.

The administration’s announcement also noted that the Biden-era regulatory policies on “engaged in the business” and pistol stabilizing braces would be reconsidered. Both of which were viewed – rightly – as regulatory overreach by the agency on issues that should have been addressed legislatively by Congress.

Where exactly we go from here is hard to predict, but Monday’s announcement is a very good sign that government of the people, by the people, for the people hasn’t succumbed to the Biden-era alternative of government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.

For right now it’s good riddance to some pernicious antigun regulatory overreach. We all know, however, that bureaucrats are going to bureaucrat because that’s the only thing they know how to do. And their turn will no doubt come again. Here’s hoping Revenge of the Bureaucrats doesn’t hit theaters anytime soon.

 

Supreme Court Should Resolve Proximate Cause in S&W v. Mexico

Illinois court shows need to lay the issue to rest.

As I posted here, the March 4 oral argument in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos appeared to go well for S&W and not well for Mexico.  Mexico’s lawsuit seeks to hold America’s federally-licensed firearm industry responsible for the cartel violence that plagues Mexico.  The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry for crimes committed by third parties.

PLCAA does allow an action in which [1] a manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and [2] the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”  It was suggested in oral argument that Mexico’s aiding and abetting theory did not meet element [1], rendering it unnecessary to resolve [2].  Yet leaving the latter, the proximate-cause issue, in limbo will result in continuing legal uncertainty and ongoing attacks on the industry facilitated by courts that are allowing the most extreme theories of proximate cause in which remoteness is disregarded.

The latest example is the denial by Judge Jorge L. Ortiz of the motion to dismiss in Kelly Roberts v. Smith and Wesson Brands, Circuit Court 19th Judicial District, Lake County, Ill. (April 1, 2025).  In 2022, Robert Crimo III murdered seven people and injured dozens more with an S&W rifle in Highland Park, Illinois.  He has pleaded guilty and faces life in prison.  His father pleaded guilty to reckless conduct for helping his son obtain the rifle while knowing of his mental health issues.

The lawsuit against manufacturer S&W, the distributor, and the retailer that sold the rifle is exactly the kind of case PLCAA was enacted to prevent.  The Roberts plaintiffs alleged that S&W advertisements intentionally promote militaristic misuse of firearms, especially among young people.  (Of course they don’t.)  S&W responded that “the claimed harm is the aggregate result of numerous intervening (including criminal) acts by third parties not under Smith & Wesson’s control,” and that “Plaintiffs fail to allege, as they must, that they even saw the Smith & Wesson advertisements they complain of, let alone that they were deceived by them.”

Continue reading “”

DOJ and ATF Repeal Zero Tolerance Policy, Major Second Amendment Win for the Trump Administration

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 7, 2025

Washington, D.C. – In a significant win for the Second Amendment, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced today the repeal of the controversial Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy, also known as the Zero Tolerance Policy. First introduced under the Biden administration, the policy aggressively targeted gun dealers for minor paperwork errors—creating fear and uncertainty across the firearms community.

The decision to roll back this anti-gun policy comes under the direction of the Trump administration and marks a key step toward restoring Americans’ access to firearms. The DOJ and ATF, now led by Attorney General Pam Bondi and Acting ATF and FBI Director Kash Patel, will also begin formal reviews of the tyrannical stabilizing brace rule and the unlawful “engaged in the business” rule used to target private gun sellers.

The stabilizing brace rule, which attempted to reclassify braced pistols as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act, and the “engaged in the business” rule, which was a backdoor attempt to create Universal Background Checks, were both the subject of national backlash and multiple court challenges.

Gun Owners of America has long sounded the alarm on the weaponization of the ATF under the Biden administration, where bureaucratic overreach was used to harass law-abiding gun dealers and crush small businesses. The so-called “Zero Tolerance” Policy wasn’t about safety—it was about control. GOA and Gun Owners Foundation responded with force, filing two major federal lawsuits: Kiloton Tactical v. ATF and Morehouse Enterprises, LLC v. ATF (II). Today’s repeal is a direct result of sustained legal and grassroots pressure—and a clear sign that this administration is serious about restoring constitutional order.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“For years, the Zero Tolerance Policy has been a tool of political retribution—targeting gun stores and Americans who were simply trying to exercise their rights. We applaud President Trump, Attorney General Bondi, and Director Kash Patel for listening to gun owners and taking action to repeal this abusive policy. This is what pro-gun leadership looks like.”

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we’re seeing a realignment toward the Constitution. This repeal and regulatory review of ATF’s “Zero Tolerance” Policy sends a clear message that the era of Biden gun control is over. GOA is grateful for the administration’s commitment to restoring Second Amendment rights and standing with law-abiding gun owners nationwide.”

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-