Software Development Goes Full Brown Shirt On 3D Printing

Software makers have solidified their place as useful idiots for the anti-Second Amendment agenda by leading the charge when it comes to the development of programs that detect gun parts being made by 3D printers, block those prints and in some cases, automatically notify the authorities. Claiming that these advances are aimed at curbing the illegal printing of firearms and firearms parts, these companies have donned their brown shirts a bit too quickly and have not the first clue regarding the tradition and constitutionality of homemade guns in America.

Cloud-based 3D printing management platform 3DPrinterOS has partnered with Montclair State University to develop an algorithm that identifies the 3D printing of firearm parts, but they are not the first. Print&Go recently launched a software system designed to block 3D-printed production of firearms called 3D GUN’T. What this software does not offer before it invades your privacy and tells you what you can and can’t do in your home on the equipment you paid hard-earned money for is detect whether or not you are a prohibited individual, that is a person who’s record prohibits them from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

“This partnership allows us to explore the intersection of technology and public safety. We are excited to contribute our knowledge to develop a system that can make a real difference in identifying and mitigating risks associated with 3D printed firearms,” says co-director of the MIX at Montclair State University, Jason Frasca.

I have long said that the attack on 80% receivers as being “too easy to complete” has been disingenuous, a statement supported by authorities and companies now setting their sights on 3D-printing, which is effectively a 0% home build. If starting from scratch is considered illegal, then let’s face the facts, the goal is to prohibit Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to construct a firearm at home, a move that I find in contempt of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which directs authorities to respect the historical traditions of the Second Amendment.

Print&Go claims 3D GUN’T is designed to prevent the illegal manufacture of firearms via 3D printers, however, if a law-abiding citizen in a free state (actual America) chooses to manufacture a gun at home using their 3D printer, how does 3D GUN’T distinguish between this user and a criminal? It doesn’t. The software treats all Americans as criminals, deploying advanced algorithms to analyze CAD files, sent remotely or loaded via USB, and detect components that resemble firearm designs, immediately blocking print jobs that match these items in its extensive database. Additional use of artificial intelligence (AI) recognizes new or modified gun designs, keeping the software adaptive to emerging freedom and helping to stifle it.

3D GUN’T doesn’t stop there. It goes full Gestapo in your home, logging details of each print job and allowing authorities to trace activities and conduct a full audit trail, with integrated firmware installed directly on printers ensuring that unauthorized printing is blocked even if the printer is offline. The icing on top is real-time camera monitoring, providing visual oversight during printing and stopping any job where it detects a firearm shape.

“3D GUN’T is a critical tool in our efforts to ensure the responsible use of 3D printing technology… The solution not only prevents the illegal manufacture of firearms but also creates peace of mind for clients, whether they are makers, educational institutions, or businesses. With 3D GUN’T, users can oversee the management of their print jobs with the assurance that their technology misuse can be mitigated,” says Print&Go’s CEO John Amin.

The silver lining to this situation is that it opens up an oppertunity for 3D printer manufacturers who respect the rights of Americans to step in and fill a void. It also allows us yet another vote, this time with our bank accounts. Note these software developers and the 3D printer manufacturers who utilize this technology, then ask yourselves if you want to give them your money or invite them into your home. 

Gun Made Launches The Largest Online Search Engine For Guns and Ammunition

Gun Made just launched the largest online search engine for firearms and ammunition, connecting consumers to more than 4,000 gun stores across the United States. The coolest thing about this search engine is it provides gun buyers with real-time inventory so they can not only check the price, but see if a nearby brick-and-mortar store has the gun in stock. Gun Made tracks over 500 million items so consumers can locate in-stock products on shelves anywhere in the country, including right in their own backyard with a simple ZIP code search for local inventories.

Gun Made also plans to expand the search engine’s capabilities by the end of the year to include firarms parts and accessories as well. The sheer volume of tracking necessary to bring this information to your computer, tablet, or phone browser is remarkable, however, Gun Made has faced the challenge head-on, making it the first website in the firearms industry to provide this capability.

Continue reading “”

When Fiction Reads Like Reality

NRA In Danger posted “The Cabal Chronicles” yesterday. It presents a fictional newsletter from a cabal dedicated to the destruction of the NRA. It details the efforts made over the years to infiltrate the Board of Directors, siphon money and members from the NRA, and to set it up so that it self-destructs.

This supposed fictional newsletter is as close a description of what has actually happened to the NRA over the last 20 years as could be imagined. I think a publisher presented this as a book would have rejected it as it was just too far-fetched to be believed. However, this supposed fictional newsletter is as close a description of what has actually happened to the NRA over the last 20 years as could be imagined.

From “The Cabal Chronicles” about Indy in 2019:

On the eve of NRA’s annual meeting, some of the CEO’s scandals became public. For a day, though, our plan was in grave danger. The president, first VP, and some directors asked the CEO to step down, which of course would have ruined everything. NRA would have stood out as the nonprofit that discovered its CEO was corrupt, and immediately took action.

Fortunately, our obedient directors and the new chief vendor convinced the CEO to refuse the idea, and instead drafted a letter from the CEO to the board, portraying the CEO as bravely resisting extortionate demands. (We had many a laugh at that one. “Next, we write the letter for Al Capone!”)

Luckily for us, the majority of the board fell in line behind our sheep dogs and endorsed the CEO. So obedient were they that, before we were through, they’d purged their president and the first vice president for daring to challenge the corrupt CEO. The presidency fell to a lady whom we could easily control by making sure she chose our tools as her advisors. Led by them, she stripped any dissenting directors of their committee assignments, effectively making them powerless.

Moving on to 2020 and the pandemic. The Annual Meeting scheduled to happen in Nashville was canceled. However, the bylaws stipulated a meeting must be held so it was rescheduled to happen over Labor Day Weekend in Springfield, Missouri. Then that meeting got canceled and moved to a fancy resort in Tucson, Arizona. While not stated in the story, I think it must have been because too many rank and file members would have headed to Springfield if only to visit the Bass Pro mothership and the NRA Sporting Arms Museum before the meeting.

The Chronicles continue about the 2020 meeting in Tucson which I did attend in reality and did present a resolution in reality.

The regular meeting of the members was canceled “due to Covid.” Then the meeting was reset and held in Tucson, AZ, where due to the small venue and Covid spacing, only a few hundred members could be allowed in. An online site was established for registration, and directors were tipped off in advance to fill it with themselves, their family, and their guests. As a result, registration of ordinary members closed within hours. A couple of dozen got in.

VP Cotton assured the friendly audience that the NY lawsuit was a sham and would surely be defeated. The directors in the audience led the rest in giving LaPierre a standing ovation. Some members did present resolutions which might have hindered our plans for destruction, but the directors present asked that they be referred to board committees, which of course discarded them.

The rest of The Cabal Chronicles continues and concludes with the members striking back by nominating 14 petition candidates. As my readers know, I am one of those 14 petition candidates. I am also one of the two “double nominated” candidates meaning I was nominated by both the Nominating Committee and by petition.

An interesting side note on being nominated by the Nominating Committee. An affidavit regarding the work of the Nominating Committee was filed by Charlie Beers with whom I’ve had friendly conversations. It states as the last item, “In fact, the Committee nominated multiple candidates who have been critical of NRA leadership, notably John Richardson, a longtime NRA member who runs a blog entitled No Lawyers, Only Guns and Money that frequently broadcasts such criticisms.” I’m not sure if that makes me famous or infamous but I’ll take it as I will be permanently in the New York trial records.

Presenting the last few years as fictional newsletter from a fictional cabal was a brilliant move. Read the entire post in NRA In Danger. It will be well worth your time.

Missing From Both Final Judgment Proposals

Both the NRA and the New York Attorney General’s Office submitted their proposed terms for the final judgment in People of New York v. National Rifle Association of America et al on October 4th. Having read both proposals, neither propose reforms intended to keep the rank and file NRA member informed.

Item 9 in the NYAG’s proposed final judgment says the NRA will set up a secure online portal that will “enable digital dissemination of Board, committee, and corporate documents to Board members, and shall enable convenient encrypted communications with Board members.”

Likewise, the NRA’s proposal for a final judgment states, “The Secretary’s Office shall use best efforts to implement, by January 2025, a secure portal that will enable digital dissemination of Board, committee, and corporate documents to Board members, and shall enable convenient encrypted communication with Board members.”

Nowhere in either document is any mention of providing information on a timely basis to the members of the NRA. Whether this is an oversight or intentional, I don’t know.

At the very least, here is what I would propose and what should be included in the final judgment. If you have other items that you would suggest be publicly available, make note of it in the comments.

  • Current bylaws must be published on the NRA website and available to all members. Do you know [how] hard it is to get an up-to-date copy of the bylaws otherwise?
  • A minimum 5 years worth of Form 990 and CHAR500 posted on the NRA’s public website. Many other non-profits make these available on their websites.
  • Board meeting agenda and minutes posted on the public website including for past meetings of the board. If small towns can do it, so can the NRA.

If those in charge are so worried about the gun prohibitionists or reporters from The Trace having access to this information, make it so it can be accessed only by NRA members. This is what they do with regard to candidate ratings by the NRA-PVF.

The time for keeping the membership in the dark is over. If the Board and the executives are serious about a NRA 2.0, this is one change they could easily make.

House Oversight Committee Subpoenas White House, ATF Over Chicago’s Glock Lawsuit

House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-OH) has issued congressional subpoenas to White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman and ATF Director Steve Dettelbach seeking information about any role the office and agency had in Chicago’s lawsuit against gunmaker Glock.

Comer initially requested Dettelbach and Feldman provide the committee with any pertinent communication between the White House/ATF and Glock back in June, but according to the congressman the Biden administration hasn’t turned over a single document. In fact, in his letter informing Feldman of the subpoena, Comer says Deputy Counsel to the President Rachel F. Cotton responded to the Oversight Committee in early July with a letter that “did not even reference the Committee’s request for documents.” Instead, Comer says Cotton “impugned the motives of the Committee,” stating “[t]he House Majority . . . [is] doing the gun lobby’s bidding by launching a baseless political attack on the Biden Administration under the guise of an ‘investigation.’”

If that were the case, it would be easy enough for the White House and ATF to disprove the claims of collusion by whistleblowers. So why is the White House stonewalling the inquiry into communications between the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, ATF, and Glock officials? As Comer reminded Dettelbach in his subpoena request:

The Committee has learned that on December 20, 2023, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention met privately with representatives from Glock, during which the Administration requested that Glock change their pistol designs so that it would be harder to illegally modify Glock pistols to shoot continuously with a single trigger pull.

On March 19, 2024, the City of Chicago filed suit in state court against Glock. Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, is listed as counsel for the plaintiff. The day the suit was filed, John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, posted on his X account “Today Everytown Law + the City of Chicago announced a historic lawsuit against Glock Inc. to hold them accountable for the unconscionable decision to continue selling its easily modified pistols even though it could fix the problem.”

Later in the post, Mr. Feinblatt said “[f]ederal Officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.”

Because the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s meeting with Glock was private, Mr. Feinblatt appears to have had insider information regarding your office’s meeting with Glock, which raises questions about whether your office colluded with Everytown for Gun Safety to initiate their lawsuit against Glock.

Chicago is seeking a court-ordered ban on the sale of Glock pistols to city residents “and Illinois gun stores that serve the Chicago market”, while Joe Biden recently used an executive order to set up an Emerging Firearms Threats Task Force that’s supposed to issue a report and an interagency plan to deal with machine gun conversion devices, which are already illegal under federal law.

Retired ATF Deputy Assistant Director Pete Forcelli previously told Bearing Arms that the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention had pushed Dettelbach to have the ATF reclassify Glocks as machine guns under the NFA, but Dettelbach has so far resisted the move. Chicago’s lawsuit, along with the task force established by Biden, seem designed to give the ATF another push towards reclassifying some of the most popular handguns on the market as machine guns after the November elections have taken place.

My guess is that the White House and ATF will stonewall Comer’s subpoena just as they ignored his initial request for information. But if Kamala Harris wins election next month, don’t be surprised if the candidate who says she’s not taking anyone’s guns away suddenly decides that its time to make the sale of Glocks (and perhaps all other striker-fired pistols as well) off-limits to the civilian market; essentially imposing a ban on the sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic handguns through ATF regulation.

NICS Background Checks for Gun Sales Up in September 2024

Last month saw a measurable bump in the number of background checks for likely gun sales compared to the same month in 2023.

The figure of 2,072,550 checks conducted through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System last month is a 1.8-percent increase from the FBI NICS figure of 2,035,410 in September 2023.

When adjusted by removing figures for gun permit checks and rechecks by states that use NICS for that purpose, the latest total stands at 1,156,223, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade group for the U.S. gun industry. This number remains 1.3 percent higher than the September 2023 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,141,847.

Of note, last month continues the unbroken 62-month streak that NICS has logged over 1 million adjusted background checks in a single month.

Industry insiders see last month’s figures of over 1.1 million background checks for the sale of a firearm at retail as a strong indicator of a vibrant demand for lawful firearm ownership, especially speeding toward a presidential election.

“The Vice Presidential debate offered a substantive examination of why Americans – by the millions each month – continue to lawfully purchase firearms,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF’s director of public affairs. “Americans are concerned for their safety and the safety of their loved ones. They refused to be painted with the broad brush that gun control proponents use to paint them in the same patterns as criminals. The fact is, Americans face a stark difference in the two tickets when it comes to respecting their Constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. America is demonstrating, month after month, that lawful gun ownership matters.”

The true number of guns sold nationwide is likely far higher than the 1.1 million noted by NSSF. It should be noted that NICS numbers do not include private gun sales in most states or in cases where a carry permit is used as an alternative to the background check requirements of the 1994 Brady law, which allows the transfer of a firearm over the counter by a federal firearms license holder without first performing a NICS check. Further, it doesn’t capture personally made firearms.

NSSF Praises SCOTUS Decision to Review Mexico’s Baseless $10 Billion Lawsuit Against Firearm Manufacturers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, praised the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to grant Smith & Wesson’s petition to hear Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., Mexico’s frivolous $10 billion lawsuit against American firearm manufacturers seeking to blame them for the harm caused by lawless narco-terrorist drug cartels in Mexico. Mexico’s lawsuit also seeks to dictate how firearms are made and sold throughout the United States through a federal court injunction, in effect usurping the role of Congress and 50 state legislatures.

NSSF filed an amicus brief earlier this year in support of the Supreme Court granting the case, arguing that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s flawed decision, “blows a gaping hole in the PLCAA and rolls out the red carpet for a foreign government intent on vitiating the Second Amendment.” The U.S. Supreme Court will now set a briefing schedule and hold argument, likely early in the new year.

“Today’s announcement by the U.S. Supreme Court that they are granting Smith & Wesson’s petition to hear Mexico’s frivolous $10 billion lawsuit against lawful American firearm manufacturers is welcomed news to the entire firearm industry. Mexico’s lawsuit seeks to blame lawful American firearm businesses for violence in Mexico perpetrated by Mexican narco-terrorist drug cartels and impacting innocent Mexican lives.

It is not the fault of American firearm businesses that follow strict laws and regulations to lawfully manufacture and sell legal products,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “This case represents exactly why Congress passed, and President George W. Bush enacted, the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA).

The case was rightly dismissed by a federal judge before the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ erroneous ruling earlier this year that reversed the district court order and reinstated the case. Lawful American firearm manufacturers follow American laws to make and sell lawful and Constitutionally-protected products. The Mexican government should instead focus on bringing Mexican criminals to justice in Mexican courtrooms.”

Mexico alleges U.S. firearm manufacturers are liable for the criminal violence perpetuated by narco-terrorist drug cartels by refusing to adopt gun control restrictions that exceed what the law requires for the strictly-regulated production and sale of firearms. A U.S. District court in Massachusetts dismissed the case, finding the claims were barred by the PLCAA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, however, revived the case on Mexico’s appeal earlier this year.

The First Circuit held that Mexico’s claims alleging that the defendants know their regular business practices contribute to illegal firearm trafficking fit within a narrow exception to the PLCAA. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al, the petitioners, argue the First Circuit erred when it reversed the lower court’s decision to dismiss the case.

The petitioners also noted the First Circuit’s decision to allow for an exception to PLCAA fails because there is no evidence U.S. firearm manufacturers violated federal laws against aiding and abetting firearm trafficking. The petitioners explained to the Supreme Court that Mexico’s complaint “fails to identify any product, policy, or action by the American firearms industry that is deliberately designed to facilitate the unlawful activities of Mexican drug cartels.”

NSSF’s amicus brief concluded by urging Supreme Court action and pointing out that the First Circuit’s decision to reinstate the case was incorrect because it is “… emblematic of a recent trend of anti-gun governments (and courts) mendaciously skirting the PLCAA and using the resulting threat of bankruptcy-inducing tort liability to destroy a lawful industry that is vital to the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. This Court’s intervention is imperative.”

Marion Hammer Resigns From NRA Board, Talks to AmmoLand News

Marion Hammer, the first female president of the National Rifle Association and veteran gun rights lobbyist in Florida as head of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida (USF), has resigned from the NRA Board of Directors, ending a 42-year tenure as one of the organization’s most powerful voices.

First elected to the board in 1982, Hammer rose through the ranks and served as NRA President for two terms, from 1995 to 1998. She stepped into the role upon the death of then-President Tom Washington, who had suffered a heart attack while hunting deer in Michigan. Standing barely 5 feet tall, Hammer earned a reputation for being a tough and effective proponent of the Second Amendment and the NRA.

In a telephone chat with AmmoLand News, she confirmed that NRA halted grants to maintain USF, so the organization effectively no longer exists.

Hammer, now 85 and with a slightly frail voice, acknowledges what was in an email to an unidentified confidant and which has been published on the website NRAinDanger. In that message, Hammer recalled she had been encouraged to run for the BOD in 1981 by the late Harlon B. Carter. She contacted then-NRA Secretary Warren Cheek, telling him she would run only if nominated by the Nominating Committee, not by petition.

In that message, she also wrote, “The NRA today is both a disappointment and an embarrassment.”

Her resignation is from the board only. She remains a member of the Executive Council, and the only thing she says has changed is that she no longer has a vote as an NRA director, but she still has “a voice.”

“I haven’t been able to go to board meetings for quite a while,” Hammer said. “I made room for somebody who can vote.”

Comments on NRAinDanger were not entirely flattering to Ms. Hammer, reminding readers she was former Executive Vice President Wayne “LaPierre’s most staunch…defender.” However, at least a couple of respondents noted how Hammer “was the tail that wagged the dog for the 2nd Amendment in Florida. And Florida became the tail that wagged the USA to where we now have 29 Constitutional Carry states. What happened in Florida got us to Heller, to McDonald, and to Bruen.”

Another reader responded, “I was on a couple conference calls late 80s early 90s…that she was part of. She truly was a force of nature back then.”

However, others are highly critical, citing, among other things, money she was paid by NRA to lead and operate Unified Sportsmen of Florida.

Continue reading “”

Cris Cox used to be the NRA’s former political director and chief lobbyist.


New gun group launches to fill NRA vacuum

Anew gun rights group is launching a six-figure ad buy in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, focusing on the millions of Americans who became gun owners during and after the COVID pandemic.

Why it matters: The NRA — the longtime premier gun-rights group in the U.S. — cut its political spending from $54 million in 2016 to $29 million in 2020, according to OpenSecrets data. It has reserved $1.3 million in ad spending in 2024, according to AdImpact.

  • The Secure Our Freedom Alliance, a 501(c)4 organization, isn’t looking to compete with existing firearm groups, but wants to fill what it sees as an urgent need to address gun owners this election cycle.
  • By some estimates, post-pandemic, there are some 22 million new gun owners.

The big picture: The goal is to convince new gun owners, especially women and minorities, that their rights are under attack by the Biden administration and progressive politicians.

  • “Our purpose is to win the hearts and minds of the American public to protect the right to self-defense,” said Chris Cox, a senior adviser to the new group and the NRA’s former political director and chief lobbyist.
  • “Every American family has a right to protect themselves and their homes from violent criminals, and the right to choose the method of self-defense they deem best,” he said.

Zoom in: The NRA, founded after the Civil Wardeclared bankruptcy in 2021 and tried to reincorporate in Texas.

  • But its influence and its revenue has dwindled.
  • Along with robust advertising and lobbying campaigns, the NRA’s president, Wayne LaPierre, was also spending lavishly on clothing and travel, inviting a lawsuit from New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) for improperly using charitable contributions.
  • LaPierre resigned from the organization in January of this year. In February, he was found liable for misspending $5.4 million of the group’s money by a New York jury.

What they are saying: “Between now and November, NRA will be strategically targeting key states to reelect President Trump and stop Kamala Harris from taking her radical gun confiscation agenda to the Oval Office,” said Doug Hamlin, NRA executive vice president and CEO, in a statement to Axios.

  • “We will be engaging with our millions of members and gun owners to elect pro-freedom candidates up and down the ballot,” he said.

Driving the news: The ads by the new group are directed at younger voters, as well as women and minority gun owners, with an emphasis on self-defense.

  • “Our neighborhood, it’s not so good,” says the mother in one 30-second commercial, as she’s tucking her daughter into bed.
  • “She is my responsibility and I will protect her,” she says, locking away a handgun on her nightstand.

Another ad shows a young woman at the shooting range with her father. She then holsters her pistol and heads out on a run by herself.

  • “As a woman, I made the decision to always be ready.” she says. “To carry a gun is my freedom and my right.”

The bottom line: “We are going to make the case to the American public that he [Biden] is wrong, anti-gun liberals are wrong, and that the right to self-defense is fundamental to every law-abiding American,” Cox said.

Harris-Biden inner circle have almost no business experience — no wonder Americans are hurting

In her one and only interview of the presidential campaign, Kamala Harris claimed she is “very proud” of the economy she and Joe Biden have presided over for almost four years.

Her rosy view of their management of inflation echoes Biden’s tone-deaf boasts about what a great job he’s done, while Americans struggle to pay for groceries.

“I’m very proud of the work that we have done that has brought inflation down to less than 3%,” Harris told CNN last week.

Considering they inherited an inflation rate of 1.4%, and their reckless spending propelled it to a peak of 9.1% in June 2022, that’s not exactly something to boast about.

Harris said she is “proud” of the Biden administration’s record on the economy. Will Lanzoni/CNN

Biden and Harris ignored warnings that the $1.9 trillion “American Rescue” spending package would overstimulate the economy at precisely the wrong time, just as we were emerging from pandemic lockdowns in March 2021.

Their reckless disregard of economic reality turbocharged consumption and drove inflation to 40-year highs.

But at least Harris had the sense not to declare Bidenomics a “success” when prompted to do so by interviewer Dana Bash.

“There’s more to do,” she admitted. “But that’s good work.”

What exactly that “good work” would entail is a mystery, considering Harris still doesn’t have a single policy on her website, refuses to do interviews like a normal candidate, and is relying on compliant journalists to walk back her most whacky ideas.

But what policies she has divulged so far are not promising: Soviet-style price controls to address food inflation — which she attributes to “price gouging” — and $25,000 handouts to first home buyers which will simply push up the price of real estate are two of her brain explosions.

In her embarrassingly brief CNN interview, to which she insisted on bringing wingman Tim Walz for emotional support, Harris muttered something vague about an “opportunity economy” being her “day one” priority.

But nobody has a clue what she means. One way of assessing how a Harris presidency would affect the economy is to look at the economic competence of her advisers and other administration personnel, many of whom are likely to play a role if she is elected.

Alarmingly, a new report titled “Amateur Hour” from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity shows that most of the administration’s top officials have zero experience in business.

Economists Stephen Moore and Jon Decker have analyzed the work records and résumés of the top 66 officials who deal with economic policy, regulation, commerce, energy and finance and found 58 percent have virtually no business experience.

That includes Biden, Harris and Vice Presidential nominee Walz, none of whom has worked off the public teat. (A dubious tale Harris once told about working at McDonald’s while in college doesn’t count.)

Moore and Decker found that the average business experience of administration appointees is only 3.1 years and the median years of business experience is a big fat zero.

“The vast majority of the Biden-Harris economic/commerce team members are professional politicians, lawyers, academics, community organizers, or government employees.”

Only 12% of Biden-Harris appointees have extensive business experience, defined as 10 or more years in the private sector.

“Amateur Hour” is an update of a similar report Moore and Decker produced in 2022, but this time they have focused on six of Harris’ economic and finance advisers and found they have a “disturbingly low level of business/finance background . . .

“The total number of years of business experience for these top six staffers was 14.

“They combined for an average of 2.3 years and, once again, the median was zero years.”

Only one of the top six Harris appointees, her chief of staff, Lorraine Voles, had extensive business experience and only two had any business experience at all.

The average business experience of Biden-Harris appointees is well behind the record of President Donald Trump’s cabinet officials during his last year in office, who had an average of 13 years of business experience.

A new report from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity found that most of the Biden-Harris administration’s top officials have little to no business experience. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post

“If history is any guide, it is likely that if Kamala Harris is elected president, many if not most of the Biden top officials will have positions of power in her administration — though possibly in different appointments and agencies …

“Based on the personnel that Harris has surrounded herself with, we would expect a continuation of the anti-business agenda that we have seen under Biden — and perhaps worse.”

Without management experience or economic competence, key officials in the administration have bungled their portfolios.

The authors single out Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the former small town mayor of South Bend, Indiana, who has presided over a $6 billion program to build half a million electric vehicle stations — which has produced fewer than 20.

The report highlighted Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s failure to build promised electric vehicle charging stations. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, the former Michigan governor, “has had a hard time with reporters even citing very basic energy statistics that calls into question her familiarity with the critical national energy issues she is overseeing.”

Granholm has said that she doesn’t have “a magic wand” to deal with rising gasoline and home heating costs, but her department has “helped kill vital pipelines and energy production and drilling facilities that could [help] alleviate the crisis.”

Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra, a lawyer with little business or health care experience “botched the billion-dollar program for free COVID testing kits and has de-emphasized treatments for COVID that could have saved lives.”

Many Biden-Harris officials seem to be more interested in pursuing progressive social policies objectives than in expanding the economy, the authors say.

Neera Tanden, the head of the Domestic Policy Council, career experience is solely in political campaigns and nonprofits. AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File

For example, Lail Brainard, Biden’s choice as vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, “wants climate change and gender equity issues to be concerns and priorities of the nation’s central bank [and] wants banks to stop lending to oil and gas companies.”

Phillip Jefferson, an economist at Davidson College, is now Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve Board with no private sector experience. “This might explain why the Fed has failed in its mission over the past four years to keep inflation low and the dollar stable.”

Neera Tanden, who heads the administration’s Domestic Policy Council, has spent her entire career working for political campaigns and nonprofits.

Moore and Decker point to a few exceptions, such as Biden’s newish chief of staff Jeff Zients, who has over two decades of experience in venture capital, tech, and health care, and Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, who worked for 11 years as a successful venture capitalist.

Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo recently claimed she wasn’t familiar with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ downward revision of its recent jobs report. Ron Sachs – CNP for NY Post

However, Raimondo beclowned herself last month when she told ABC News she wasn’t “familiar” with the Bureau of Labor statistics downwards revision to its latest jobs report of a staggering 800,000 jobs. Raimondo tried to claim it was “misinformation” from Trump.

Doubling down on the administration’s progressive proclivity for wealth redistribution, higher tax rates on the rich, more regulation, more social welfare and climate-centric energy policies, a President Harris is a bleak prospect for the country’s economic wellbeing.

Polls show most Americans believe the economy is headed in the wrong direction, but there’s no hope on the horizon if she wins.

NRA CEO Doug Hamlin sent a letter to staff today announcing the group has retained former Solicitor General Noel Francisco of Jones Day to handle its ongoing First Amendment fight with former New York financial regulator Maria Vullo. So it looks like Brewer Law finally got fired.


Image

Al Hammond Urges Hamlin To Fire Brewer

NRA Director Al Hammond has sent a letter to the members of the Board of Directors encouraging them to support NRA EVP Doug Hamlin and to encourage Hamlin to fire Bill Brewer and his law firm. From everything I’ve read and everything I’ve heard, Hamlin as EVP has the authority to hire and fire any and all vendors including Brewer. While some are strongly holding to the theory that only the Special Litigation Committee has that power, I think ultimately that they are in error.

From Al Hammond’s letter to the BOD:

Subject: Letter to Support Doug Hamlin to Terminate Bill Brewer

Fellow NRA BOD members,  We have come to a critical time in the history of the NRA.  Myself having worked for the NRA for close to 30 years and then joining the BOD I have never seen this association in such dire straits financially and continuing down a path dooming our beloved NRA. We have to take a stand and turn this organization around. 

The first step is to terminate Bill Brewer and his legal team and allow our elected CEO/EVP to do his job without constraint.  I have sent a letter to Doug Hamlin encouraging him to do so and I would ask you to consider sending one in support of Doug as well. My letter is below.

Now is the time to stand and be counted and help rewrite history as being part of the patriots who saved not only the NRA but our Country. We owe this to our NRA members, our Country and our children to continue to protect these rights every day.  Now is your chance to be heard. Please send Doug Hamlin a support letter for all the good work he has accomplished and continues to do for our NRA everyday.

Best Regards

Al Hammond

NRA BOD

Hammond then goes on to release the letter he sent to Doug Hamlin in encouragement. You may remember that some of the cabal had referred to Hamlin as the “interim EVP” which he is not. I presume that was because they preferred a more compliant EVP and one not associated with the reformers.

From that letter to Hamlin:

Doug,

As a member of the National Rifle Association Board of Directors my fiduciary responsibility is to represent our members and promote and protect this great association.

With the continuation and constant legal maneuvering by the Brewer law firm to keep the NYAG law suite and other lawsuits without a resolution it is time to terminate and replace our current legal counsel and replace them with our own internal legal counsel and/or another outside legal counsel firm who can get the job done.

We have paid the Brewer firm in excess of 190 million dollars and we can no longer afford this high priced counsel with dismal positive results.  We are cash strapped and the current legal counsel and our President, Bob Barr, along with the entire Special Litigations Committee seem to have turned a blind eye and insist we continue to use Bill Brewer for not only the NYAG case but other pending cases and any new legal cases we enter into.  Enough is enough.

As the duly elected CEO/EVP you have the full authority to decide on any legal counsel moving forward and termination of any currently being utilized.  I fully support and ask you to dismiss the Brewer Firm from any and all lawsuits currently and any moving forward. Our members have had enough of their hard earned money and the support they have given being squandered on poor legal representation.

Thank you for all that you have done and continue to do to bring back the NRA to what it should be and let’s build a bigger and stronger NRA  working together.

Best Regards

Al Hammond

NRA BOD

Andrew Arulanandam Heads To Idaho

Andrew Arulanandam has officially submitted his papers to retire from the NRA effective September 1st. Doug Hamlin, CEO and EVP, sent out this announcement this morning.

Andrew Arulanandam – a valued member of our NRA team for the past 24 years, will be retiring effective September 1, 2024 to pursue a new opportunity.  Andrew has been an integral part of our organization consistently demonstrating dedication, expertise, and a commitment to professionalism and excellence.  Please join me in expressing the NRA’s deep gratitude and best wishes to Andrew.

Doug Hamlin

Executive Vice President/CEO

National Rifle Association of America

After being promoted from being the NRA’s head PR flack to the Executive Director of General Operations and then becoming Interim EVP after Wayne resigned, I was a bit surprised that that he was allowed to stick around after Doug Hamlin was elected EVP. This is especially true given how Arulanandam fronted for the cabal. That said, it was probably easier to return him to his position in PR with the understanding he would be retiring in a few months. I don’t know whether this allowed him to qualify for the NRA’s old pension but that is neither here nor there. I also don’t know whether his salary was reduced from $450,000 when he returned to the old job.

While the NRA hopefully has seen the last of him, the people of Idaho are getting him back.

Governor Brad Little announced the appointment of Andrew Arulanandam as the new director of the Idaho Lottery and the Idaho State Liquor Division. Arulanandam will take over following the retirement of Jeff Anderson, who had led both agencies until July….

In his new position, Arulanandam will lead two agencies that generate significant economic activity for Idaho. In 2023, the Idaho Lottery and Idaho State Liquor Division returned over $210 million to support state programs such as schools and infrastructure.

Arulanandam will begin his new role in September.

It should be noted that Arulanandam was the Executive Director of the Idaho GOP among other Idaho-based positions before he started working for the NRA. He is also a 1992 graduate of Boise State University.

The house cleaning at the NRA continues as now Arulanandam joins Tyler Schropp in the former NRA employee category. I certainly hope there will be more to come including a certain outside counsel.

The Houthis have defeated the US Navy

Operation Prosperity Guardian (OPG) was set up in December 2023 in response to the Houthi attacks on commercial shipping passing through the southern Red Sea. The aim was to provide a unified international front that would both deter the Houthis from further attacks and reassure the shipping companies who due to reasons of risk and associated insurance costs were already starting to take the long route round the Cape of Good Hope.

The problem was, it didn’t work. The Houthis were not deterred and continued taking pot shots at anyone and everything from ships with the most tenuous links to Israel, to Iranian grain carriers to Russian dark fleet oilers. For relatively little effort and money, they achieved their desired end states of ‘improved local influence’ and ‘challenging international shipping’ almost immediately. Their line that they would stop if there was a ceasefire in Gaza convinced only a few.

This led to Operation Poseidon Archer starting in January 2024, with US and UK counterstrikes on Houthi targets. But as Saudi Arabia proved between 2015 and 2023 (and repeatedly told us) trying to disable the Houthis by kinetic strikes is like punching smoke, and so it proved.

None of these efforts were helped when the EU formed a splinter coalition called Aspides so as not to associate with the US posture in Israel. The West’s inability to agree on how to perform a relatively basic task did not go unnoticed by potential adversaries. It was certainly noticed by the shipping companies we were trying to reassure.

Since January, not only have the attacks steadily increased in number, they have diversified too. Drones and cruise missiles were accompanied by hijackings and ballistic missiles. April saw the first use of a surface drone and there has been a steady increase in this method since.

Recently the Houthis have started following up their attacks with small arms fire from fast boats and the last few weeks have seen the amount of attacks increase above what was an average of 2.5 a week.

Even Russia doesn’t want to risk it at the moment. Earlier this month, Russian tankers Arpus and Arlan, which could have gone through the Suez Canal, instead transferred their oil into the Gold Pearl – too big for the Canal – and she duly went round the Cape.

Continue reading “”

If they’re pushing such disconnected message, perhaps it’s because their brains (what they have of them) are disconnected from reality

If Biden Saved the Economy, Why Do We Need Price Controls?

Democrats are pushing a jarringly disconnected economic message.

Biden “recovered all those millions of jobs that [Donald] Trump watched slip away,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) declared. Biden “rebuilt the economy” after the pandemic put it “flat on its back,” intoned Sen. Chris Coons (D–Conn.), a longtime Biden stan.

Biden himself put the cherry on top. “We’ve had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever,” the president said. “We gone from economic crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world,” he claimed, pointing to job creation figures, economic growth, higher wages, and “inflation down, way down, and continuing to go down.”

If so, someone should probably tell Vice President Kamala Harris about all that.

Just four days ago, Harris outlined plans for gigantic government interventions in the economy, including price controls. In what was billed as the first major policy speech of her hastily assembled campaign, Harris promised to implement the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries” and to take other actions to empower the federal government to “bring down costs.”
(There’s been some debate in the days since her speech about whether it is fair to say Harris has called for price controls, but economist Brian Albretch has laid out clearly why she in fact did, writing that “any policy that gives the government the power to decide what price increases are ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’ is effectively a price control system. It doesn’t matter if you call it ‘anti-gouging,’ ‘fair pricing,’ or ‘consumer protection’—the effect is the same. When bureaucrats, not markets, determine acceptable prices, we’re dealing with price controls.”)

Continue reading “”

NRA, SAF File Brief In Case Concerning Carry Across State Lines

Massachusetts restrictive gun laws continue to come under well-deserved fire because of their failure to respect the Second Amendment.

We reported over the past week how gun owners have started an initiative petition to put a repeal of the new sweeping gun law on the statewide ballot and about the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) donating $100,000 to the Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) to help fund that group’s lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law. Now two gun-rights groups have filed an amicus brief in another Massachusetts case challenging the state’s permit law that restricts lawful gun owners from carrying a firearm in the state.

The case involves New Hampshire resident Dean F. Donnell, Jr., who was stopped by police in Massachusetts and charged for carrying a firearm without a license. In the case named Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Donnell, the National Rifle Association (NRA) and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed their 38-page brief explaining their interest as that of their members’ ability to travel with firearms legally across state lines, to use them for lawful purposes.

“There is no historical tradition that justifies the non-resident licensing scheme now in place in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Looking back, a government license has not been required to exercise the right to carry arms. Such licenses came into existence only in the late 19th Century, and they applied only to the concealed carry of firearms. Open carry was unrestricted.”

In the brief, NRA and SAF argue that the law doesn’t meet the second Bruen standard of proving a historic precedent exists for such a restriction.

“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” the brief states. “Because the Supreme Court has already held that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects carrying handguns publicly for self-defense, the Commonwealth bears the burden of justifying its regulation with historical tradition. It has not and cannot do so.”

The brief further argues that no historical tradition exists that justifies the Commonwealth’s nonresident licensing scheme.

“Historically, nonresidents traveling in a state were treated no worse than residents with regard to firearm carry,” the brief states. “If they were treated differently under the law, it was generally to exempt travelers from carry restrictions—not to subject them to more onerous burdens than residents. Moreover, a government license was not historically required to exercise the right to carry arms; carry licenses that applied to free citizens were not enacted until the late-19th-century and applied only to concealed carry, leaving open carry unrestricted.”

Adam Kraut, SAF executive director and one of the attorneys in the case, said the act of just getting  permit puts a huge burden on non-resident gun owners.

“New nonresident license applications require an in-person appointment in Massachusetts, necessitating an extra (unarmed) trip to the Commonwealth—which, especially for residents of distant states, becomes a barrier to entry that may be financially untenable,” Kraut said.

The NRA and SAF conclude in the brief that since the law violates the Second Amendment, the district court’s order of dismissal should be confirmed.

Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC’s Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium.

The 2-1 decision overrules a trial court decision that went the other way, and could set an important property rights precedent.

On Wednesday, in Darby Development Co. v. United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which reviews takings claims against the federal government ruled that a takings lawsuit against the 2020-21 federal eviction moratorium can proceed. In so doing, it overruled a trial court decision by the Court of Claims, which I criticized here. The decision could well end up setting an important takings precedent.

In September 2020, during the Covid pandemic, the Trump Administration Centers for Disease Control (CDC) imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium, claiming that it would reduce the spread of the disease. The Biden Administration extended the moratorium multiple times.

In August 2021, the eviction moratorium was invalidated by the Supreme Court because the CDC lacked proper statutory authority to institute it. But, in the meantime, numerous landlords suffered financial losses, because they could not evict tenants who weren’t paying rent.

Some of the property owners filed a lawsuit arguing that the eviction moratorium violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay “just compensation” whenever it takes private property. As I explained at the time, their position was backed by the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which held that even temporary physical occupations of property qualify as “per se” (automatic) takings requiring compensation.

In May 2022, the US Court of Claims dismissed the takings lawsuit against the CDC moratorium on the perverse ground that there was no taking because the CDC’s eviction moratorium was never properly “authorized.” In other words, the government could escape takings liability because its actions were illegal! The recent Federal Circuit decision reversed that ruling.

Continue reading “”

Running For NRA Board Of Directors
August 9, 2024 by John Richardson

Some people already know this but I am running for the NRA Board of Directors. For a long time I thought I could be most useful outside looking in and reporting on what I saw. I think that is still valuable. Nonetheless, after much discussion between the Complementary Spouse and myself, I decided to take the plunge.

As to why I would submit myself to this, the answer is simple. Someone has to do it and better that the one doing it comes primed for reform. We in the Second Amendment community need a viable NRA. By viable, I mean one that can still put the fear of God in politicians, that will train people in proper firearm use and safety, and that will, in conjunction with other 2A groups, litigate the hell out of gun control laws.

Thanks to my friend Todd Vandermyde, my name has been submitted to the Nominating Committee. Likewise, I have submitted his name in nomination. I have returned the documentation that they have requested and the committee will be meeting in the last part of August to review those names submitted. Obviously, with the parties meeting on August 12th to hammer out the final court order the entire procedure may change. One interpretation of the interim court order is that anyone who met the qualifications – a Life Member of five years – will have their name on the ballot. We shall see.

Regardless of what the Nominating Committee or the court decides, I plan to run by petition. Ideally, I would be a dual-nominated candidate. My rationale is that a candidate who gets on the ballot by petition is there because the members want him or her there. Given my goal is to serve the members to the best of my abilities, that is as it should be.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Tosses Majority of Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gun Makers

For the second time, a federal judge in Massachusetts has dismissed the vast majority of Mexico’s lawsuit against multiple U.S. gun makers that accuses the companies of knowingly and willfully facilitating cartel violence south of the border. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor first threw out Mexico’s complaint in 2022, opining that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precluded Mexico’s lawsuit, but the litigation was reinstated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals a short time later.

Now Saylor has once again dismissed the case against six of the seven gun makers sued by the Mexican government, ruling that the plaintiff has been “unable to muster sufficient proof to establish a sufficient relationship between the claimed injuries and the business transactions of any of the six defendants in Massachusetts.”

The core question for jurisdictional purposes is whether Mexico’s claims against the six moving defendants “arise” from their business transactions in Massachusetts. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3(a).

As to those defendants, the connection of this matter to Massachusetts is gossamer-thin at best. The government of Mexico is obviously not a citizen of Massachusetts. None of the six moving defendants is incorporated in Massachusetts, and none has a principal place of business in Massachusetts.

There is no evidence that any of them have a manufacturing facility, or even a sales office, in Massachusetts. None of the alleged injuries occurred in Massachusetts. No Massachusetts citizen is alleged to have suffered any injury. And plaintiff has not identified any specific firearm, or set of firearms, that was sold in Massachusetts and caused injury in Mexico.

Furthermore—and despite the generous use of the word “defendants” throughout—the complaint does not actually allege the existence of a joint enterprise, joint venture, or civil conspiracy among the various defendants. There is no question, therefore, that personal jurisdiction must be proved separately as to each of the six moving defendants.

At its core, plaintiff’s jurisdictional theory is based on statistical probabilities.

Its reasoning may be characterized as follows:
(1) each of the six moving defendants sold firearms to distributors and retailers in each of the 50 states;
(2) each of the six defendants sold some (undetermined) number of firearms to Massachusetts-based distributors or retailers;
(3) some (undetermined) number of the firearms that were sold by each of the six defendants nationwide were illegally trafficked to Mexico;
(4) some (undetermined) number of the firearms that were trafficked to Mexico caused injury there; and therefore
(5) at least some of the firearms sold by each of the six defendants to Massachusetts entities must have caused injuries in Mexico.

Mexico’s legal team, which includes former Brady Campaign attorney Jonathan Lowy (who now heads up an outfit called Global Action on Gun Violence), brought in an economist to try to estimate the number of guns that were originally purchased in Massachusetts but were trafficked to Mexico. The judge, however, wasn’t persuaded by what she found.

To do so, she relied upon two principal datasets: a set that recorded the manufacturer of certain firearms recovered in Mexico between 2010 and 2021, and a “trace and recovery” dataset created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) concerning firearms recovered in Mexico between 1989 and 2001.

She then used that data to estimate the number of firearms that she believes were likely trafficked into Mexico after a Massachusetts sale over the last ten years. 

As explained below, however, that report is problematic in multiple respects—beginning with the fact that Congress has prohibited the use of the ATF data in any civil action, and thus a critical foundation of her opinion must be disregarded.

Furthermore, her opinion stops short of estimating the number of firearms manufactured by each defendant that actually caused an injury in Mexico—a critical link to connect defendants’ business in Massachusetts to plaintiff’s claims. Under the circumstances, her opinion is not sufficient to prove the necessary jurisdictional nexus.

That’s embarrassing for the gun control activists, or at least it would be if it didn’t give them a new talking point about Congress tying the hands of “gun safety advocates” when it comes to using ATF data. As far as the Mexican government is concerned, however, Saylor’s ruling is a total loss. The only remaining defendants are Smith & Wesson, which was headquartered in Massachusetts during the time period in question, as well as a wholesaler who wasn’t a part of this particular request to dismiss the case.

While Mexico’s lawsuit, which seeks $10 billion in damages from gun makers, isn’t completely dead, Saylor’s ruling is a big step in that direction. The final blow to the litigation could come from the Supreme Court, which is set to consider the gun companies’ appeal of the First Circuit ruling that reinstated the lawsuit in its September 30th conference. As the gun makers argued in their cert petition:

To be clear, Mexico’s complaint does not include any groundbreaking factual revelations, nor does it uncover any secret dealings between the cartels and America’s firearms companies.

Instead, Mexico’s suit challenges how the American firearms industry has openly operated in broad daylight for years. It faults the defendants for producing common firearms like the AR-15; for allowing their products to hold more than ten rounds; for failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens; and for refusing to go beyond what American law already requires for the safe production and sale of firearms.

In Mexico’s eyes, continuing these lawful practices amounts to aiding and abetting the cartels. According to Mexico, American firearms companies are liable because they have refused to adopt policies to curtail the supply of firearms smuggled south—such as making only “sporting rifles,” or combining sales to those with a “legitimate need” for a firearm (as defined by Mexico).

This lawsuit is basically an attempt to allow the Mexican government to impose its own preferred gun control policies on the U.S. firearms industry by blaming gun makers for cartel violence.

SCOTUS should grant cert and dismiss the case altogether, but we won’t know if the Court will grant cert for another few months.