Category: Business

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-

BLUF
the core purpose of these tariffs is to strengthen the U.S. economy by prioritizing American-made goods and industries.

And that’s what it’s all about.
This is how Trump did business before he was POTUS and does it today
The standard operational politicians still haven’t figured it out.
(Or have, and are against it as it conflicts against their own agendas)

Trump’s Tariffs Shake the World: 50 Countries Already Fold as ‘America First’ Strategy Takes Hold

Nearly just a week, after President Donald Trump’s bold new tariffs took effect, over 50 countries, are already at the negotiating table, signaling that the global economic landscape is shifting in favor of American interests. The ten percent universal tariff on imports and reciprocal tariffs targeting roughly 90 nations are proving to be a wake-up call for the world.

Countries that once took advantage of unfair trade practices are now scrambling to strike better deals, understanding that America is no longer willing to play the role of the passive consumer. Trump’s “America First” approach is pushing nations to reconsider their trade practices, and it’s clear that the President’s strategy of economic toughness is beginning to pay off.

During an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Agricultural Secretary Brooke Rollins acknowledged that Trump’s tariffs have already forced other nations to bend to America’s will. She emphasized that the core purpose of these tariffs is to strengthen the U.S. economy by prioritizing American-made goods and industries. Rollins acknowledged that while the immediate impact of the tariffs may be harsh to digest, the long-term benefits for the country will be significant. She clarified that Trump’s bold policies are laying the groundwork for a more resilient and self-sufficient economy.

“We do already live under a tariff regime in this country, but it’s the tariff regime of China, of Mexico, of Brazil, of Australia, of countries that Mexico won’t take our corn, Australia won’t take our beef,” Rollins said. “The country of Honduras takes more pork than the entire European Union does, American pork, I should say. So, from our farming and ranching perspective, which is what I’m focused on, but happy to talk about anything that it has to, it is time for a change. That’s what this president evoked last Wednesday.”

“We already have 50 countries that have come to the table over the last few days, over the last weeks, that are willing and desperate to talk to us. We are the economic engine of the world, and it’s finally time that someone, President Trump, stood up for America,” she continued.

Trump has implemented a 34 percent tariff on Chinese imports, which is set to take effect next week. In response, Beijing revealed that it would impose a matching 34 percent tariff on American goods starting April 10. In addition, the president will impose two significant tariffs to boost U.S. manufacturing, create jobs, and increase government revenue. On April 9, a ten percent blanket tariff will be imposed on all imports, alongside reciprocal tariffs on goods from approximately 90 countries.

The new measures are part of the administration’s strategy to revive American industry and ensure fair trade practices. Among the nations facing steep tariff hikes are Lesotho (50 percent), Cambodia (49 percent), and Madagascar (47 percent). Trump said the goal is to protect American workers and strengthen the country’s economy.

Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of Prop KK guns and ammunition tax.

COLORADO SPRINGS — An El Paso County resident, a Colorado licensed firearms dealer and several gun rights advocacy organizations are asking for an injunction in Denver District Court to halt a new state excise tax on guns and ammunition.

Zachary Langston along with the National Rifle Association, the Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Magnum Shooting Center of Colorado Springs are asking a judge to stop Proposition KK from taking effect.

The defendants named in the case are Heidi Humphreys, the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue, who is required by statute to “administer and enforce the tax,” and Michael J. Allen, the District Attorney of El Paso County, who is charged with prosecuting the criminal penalties imposed by Proposition KK.

Proposition KK — passed in November with 54 percent of the vote — will add a 6.5 percent excise tax on the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition. It will be imposed on firearms dealers, manufacturers and ammunition vendors, with the exception of those selling less than $20,000 per year as well as law enforcement agencies and active-duty military.

The lawsuit was filed on the basis that the tax is unconstitutional because it does not pass a “means-end” test handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2022 Bruen decision, which says gun rights restrictions must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations.

Continue reading “”

ATF facial recognition: Chairman Andy Biggs seeks records as gun owners sound alarm

Gun owners across America have every reason to be outraged. According to a March 27, 2025, letter from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been secretly using facial recognition technology to track and identify gun owners—all without sufficient oversight, transparency, or even basic training for agents.

Biggs, who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, is now demanding that Acting ATF Director Kash Patel hand over all documents relating to the agency’s use of facial recognition software. The call for answers follows multiple bombshell Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and revelations that the ATF conducted at least 549 facial recognition searches between 2019 and 2022, often on law-abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“The Subcommittee has concerns about ATF’s use of facial recognition and AI programs and the effects that its use has upon American citizens’ Second Amendment rights and rights to privacy,” Biggs wrote.

A Pattern of Overreach

This latest scandal adds to a growing list of examples proving that the federal government simply cannot be trusted with gun owner data. As AmmoLand News previously reported, the ATF has flirted with or outright pursued unconstitutional surveillance for years—compiling digitized firearm transaction records and maintaining nearly 1 billion records at its National Tracing Center.

Continue reading “”

Parents’ Lawsuit Against Gun Maker Dismissed by Court

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parents of a teenager who was accidentally shot and killed by a friend. The court cited the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from liability in cases where harm arises from the unlawful use of their products. Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy emphasized that the Gustafsons’ claims were not viable under this statute.

This ruling is significant as it reinforces protections for gun manufacturers against tort claims, a legal framework that many states grapple with in the wake of increasing gun violence. The parents argued that the law contravened their rights under the commerce clause and the 10th Amendment; however, these challenges were also rejected by the court, highlighting the ongoing debate over accountability in the gun industry.

Just a few days over 8 years ago, 13 year old James Gustafson was killed when his friend, 14 year old  John Burnsworth, pointed a gun at him and pulled the trigger. Burnsnworth maintained that since the magazine had been removed he thought the gun was unloaded, not realizing there was still a round in the chamber. Burnsworth was convicted under juvenile law for involuntary manslaughter

Gustafon’s parents brought a civil lawsuit against Springfield Armory and Saloom Department Store, which sold the pistol to its lawful owner. The Gustafons claimed the design of the pistol was defective, and accused the manufacturer and dealer of negligent design and sale, as well as negligent warnings and marketing, arguing that those actions caused their son’s death.

A trial court threw out the lawsuit, ruling that this type of litigation is prohibited under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but the state Superior Court reinstated the lawsuit and remanded the case back to the lower court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, in a unanimous decision, held that the PLCAA is constitutional and dismissed the Gustafson’s lawsuit with prejudice.

I think this indicates DOGE cut off another bunch of grifters money supply

National Gun-Control Group Lays Off Most Staff

March For Our Lives is slashing its employees and appointing a new leader.

The gun-control group announced it would cut ties with 13 of its 16 full-time staffers last week. It also named a new executive director. Jaclyn Corin, a 24-year-old Parkland survivor and group co-founder, will take the reins as the organization attempts to navigate bumpy terrain in the wake of the 2024 election.

“We are facing financial challenges as an organization, not unlike many nonprofit advocacy organizations in this time,” Corin told The 19th. “I am sure things would look differently with a different outcome of the election, but these are the systems and circumstances in which we have to make adjustments based on the financial situation we find ourselves in. It is incredibly unfortunate that these cuts have to happen.”

Continue reading “”

The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule.

During the Biden ‘administration’ ATF ruled that “80%” receivers were to be treated and regulated just like they were fully finished guns.

The were sued and it went all the way to SCOTUS.

Justices Alito and Thomas were the only ones to dissent. All the others agreed. Regard the fate of future decisions accordingly.

 

Gun maker closes up shop in N.J., taking 146 jobs with it to the Midwest

Gun manufacturer Henry Repeating Arms says it is making a strategic move to relocate its operations out of New Jersey and into the Midwest, according to a statement released by the company.

The manufacturer will close its Bayonne operations and move jobs to its newly expanded headquarters in Rice Lake, Wisconsin. It will also move jobs to two additional facilities in nearby Ladysmith, Wisconsin.

The closure affects 146 workers at the Bayonne operation according to WARN notices filed March 13.  Henry employs more than 800 people, according to its website.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, Henry’s New Jersey facility manufactured 35,069 firearms in 2022. This included 25,012 rifles, 1,433 shotguns, and 8,624 handguns.

The company said in the statement that the move out of New Jersey accommodates the need for increased production capacity and better supports the company’s future growth driven by innovative firearms design.

“We are putting all of our eggs in one basket, the Wisconsin basket, because it makes us more efficient, more productive, and allows for more collaboration amongst our design and engineering teams, all while sustaining and enhancing Henry’s solid reputation for quality,” said Anthony Imperato, Founder and CEO of Henry Repeating Arms.

“With about 400,000 square feet of cutting-edge manufacturing operations in four facilities within minutes of each other, Henry Repeating Arms is well positioned for its next chapter.”
Andrew Wickstrom, president of Henry Repeating Arms, said the new phase will help the company grow.

“This transition allows us to double down on what we do best — making world-class rifles, shotguns, and revolvers right here in the heart of America,” said Wickstrom. “Our Wisconsin operations have been essential to our success for a long time, and now it is the cornerstone of our bright future.”

Actually I think the other nations that want to use the Suez canal and Red Sea for commerce should be upping their patrolling too

Lawmakers Pushing Commerce Secretary To Dump Biden Admin’s Gun Export Restriction.

A group of 88 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are pushing to have the Biden Administration rule restricting firearm exports by law-abiding American manufacturers reversed, and they want it done now.

On March 7, the lawmakers, led by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tennessee, sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick requesting reversal of the policy, which was part of the Biden Administration’s weaponized attack on gun owners, gun sellers and gun makers.

“As soon as is practically possible, we respectfully request that you rescind the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) recent interim final rule (IFR) ‘Revision of Firearms License Requirements,” the letter stated. “This misguided and destructive IFR is costing the American firearms industry nearly $500 million annually while doing nothing to advance U.S. interests or regional stability. Despite numerous attempts to rein in these actions through letters, legislation, hearings, markups and oversight, the Biden BIS ignored Congress and used the IFR to advance the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.”

The letter also referenced President Donald Trump’s recent executive order instructing new Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements and other actions of executive departments and agencies that violate the Second Amendment or furthered the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.

“Section (2)(b)(vii) of the executive order specifically requires the review and remediation of any agency action regarding the ‘processing of applications, to make, manufacture, transfer or export firearms.’ Because this IFR stops the commercial export of firearms, ammunition and related components to over 36 countries and severely limits the ability of American businesses to obtain export licenses, we believe this IFR ought to be addressed immediately.”

For his part, Sen. Lee said now is the time to act to get this onerous restriction off the books.

Continue reading “”

Trump Kills an Intrusive Housing Rule, Again

This past week, Scott Turner, President Trump’s new secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), announced that HUD would be terminating the notoriously intrusive Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule. By attaching strings to billions of dollars in community development block grants from HUD, AFFH gives the feds the ability to control zoning regulations and many other aspects of local government.

AFFH severely undermines our federalist system, not only by expanding central control but by turning suburban municipalities into helpless satellites of neighboring urban centers. Over and above engineering residential patterns by race, ethnicity, English proficiency, country of origin, and more, AFFH is designed to urbanize suburbs — forcing dense development to cluster around public transit hubs with the goal of coercing suburbanites out of their cars.

Supposedly, AFFH carries out provisions of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. In reality, the rule is classic regulatory activism. It reads contemporary policy goals back into a law that mandated no such thing. AFFH, for example, slyly imposes a principle of “economic integration” on the suburbs, although nowhere does U.S. law recognize or demand economic integration.

In sum, AFFH is a systematic attack on America’s suburbs, an attempt to undercut their economic and political independence, urbanize them, and ultimately to absorb them into their greater metropolitan regions as if they never existed to begin with. The rule was the brainchild and longtime dream of President Obama’s Alinskyite community organizing mentors, who hated the suburbs, dismissed them as products of racism and greed, and blamed them for urban decay. AFFH is federal overreach on stilts, very arguably the most radical policy initiative of Obama’s presidency. Truly, the rule was designed to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

Thanks to President Trump, AFFH failed to do so. Trump, in fact, has uprooted AFFH twice. He killed off the Obama version in 2020, while running for reelection. Now Trump has moved to terminate the only very slightly revised Biden version of AFFH.

Continue reading “”

Senators Send Letter Urging Repeal of Biden-era Rule Damaging the Firearms Industry

On March 5th U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and U.S. Representative Mark Green (R-TN-07) sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging him to rescind an interim final rule (IFR) that the Biden Administration promulgated in an effort to hamstring the domestic firearms industry.

In October 2023, President Biden ordered a 90 day “pause” on firearm exports licenses issued by the Department of Commerce.

This order was in lock-step with other actions taken by the Biden Administration to hinder the U.S. domestic firearms industry in any way possible. And unsurprisingly, at the end of this “pause” the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an IFR in April 2024. This IFR placed much tighter restrictions on semi-automatic firearms exports, listed dozens of countries as “high risk” countries which would be subject to a “presumption of denial” for export permits, removed a “presumption of approval” for licenses to many countries that had helped to expedite the process previously, and a number of other restrictions. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an organization that represents firearms manufacturers, stated that this decision would cost the industry nearly $500 million annually.

Continue reading “”

Mexico’s Frivolous Lawsuit: What SCOTUS Got Wrong About the Firearm Industry

Predicting how the U.S. Supreme Court might rule on a particular petition is risky business. Most legal analyses of the Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos hearing this week are leaning in one direction – that the Court is likely to reject Mexico’s claims and ultimately dismiss their frivolous $10 billion lawsuit against U.S. firearm manufacturers.

After all, there’s no evidence to support their claim. Mexico can’t show the court how a lawfully-made and lawfully-sold gun that is illegally straw purchased, illegally smuggled across an international border, illegally possessed in Mexico and criminally misused by narco-terrorist drug cartels is the responsibility of U.S. gun makers. There was discussion among the justices and the lawyers about legal concepts and terms like “proximate cause,” “foreseeability” and “aiding and abetting,” but the simple understanding is that the justices seemed skeptical that they should accept that U.S. firearm manufacturers should be on the hook legally because they might foresee that someone, somewhere and years from when a gun is made, could criminally misuse that gun to cause harm that requires the government of Mexico to spend money in response. That’s the part that gives common sense and sanity a fighting chance in this case.

Some of the justices’ questions demonstrated that they did not all seem to fully understand how the industry legally conducts business.  Here are a couple of examples.

Continue reading “”