Category: Business

NY AG Outlines What She Wants for NRA

New York Attorney General went after the National Rifle Association not out of concern for its members, but because she has ideological issues with the organization. She might claim otherwise, but her own rhetoric on the NRA in the past suggests otherwise.

However, there were, in fact, serious problems with the organization. There was actual corruption at the top of the NRA, which has now been dealt with.

The NRA is far from out of the woods. There is still a trial ongoing.

Stephen Gutowski, writing at The Reload, has an outline of what James wants for the NRA. First, Wayne LaPierre would have to be kept well away from the organization, which I don’t think anyone disagrees with at this point. There would also be an overseer, someone nominated by the NRA but approved by the court, in consultation with the NY state attorney general. Then there’s more (paywalled):

A second filing provided greater detail on how the oversight process would work and exactly how much access the court-appointed official would have. The AG proposed that the new official serve for three years after being nominated by the NRA and approved by the court. They would primarily be responsible for watching how the NRA spends its money, especially in areas that lead to the corruption central to the case—like related-party transactions and travel arrangements.

“This entails ensuring that the NRA implements and enforces its internal controls, policies, procedures and practices governing financial transactions and matters, including without limitation for purchasing, procurement, conflicts of interest and related party transactions, business ethics, expense reimbursements, travel expenses and gifts, gratuities and entertainment, are effective,” the second filing said. “This means that they are in place, compliant with governing law, communicated to staff, directors, vendors and NRA members, and consistently executed and enforced by the NRA’s management, and the NRA Board has knowledge of the content and operation and exercises reasonable oversight to ensure compliance.”

The filing also laid out what the overseer wouldn’t have authority over. It said the court-appointed official wouldn’t have a say over the “NRA’s Core Fundamental Mission Operations.” Those operations include the “political, legislative and advocacy activities of the NRAILA, including, without limitation, management of donor-restricted funds, the substance of programs comprising the NRA’s nonprofit mission,” as well as “mission-related (meaning advocacy) litigation.”

In other words, it looks like the oversight authority wouldn’t extend to anything involved in fighting for gun rights in this country, only in making sure that money is spent how it’s meant to be spent.

In theory, this shouldn’t be an issue. We have reform candidates who won some seats on the NRA board, so there are at least some people internally who are going to fight to make sure the NRA does what it said it would do, so having a third party from the outside also makes sure shouldn’t be a huge issue.

I’d love to say that this sets a precedence that I’m uncomfortable with, though I don’t know that this establishes a precedence at all. If this has happened before with other non-profits, then so be it.

My hesitancy stems mostly from not trusting Letitia James not to try to find some kind of loophole through which she and those who come after her can monkey with the NRA fulfilling its mission.

But if there are safeguards on that, then this is hardly the worst thing in the world. It would also allow the NRA to refocus its efforts on something other than defending itself in a court of law. It can then really buckle down on defending gun rights, which has been lacking.

Yeah, I still think other groups will fill the void, but that’s taking longer than I’d like or than we can afford. 

So long as this doesn’t allow anyone to prevent the NRA from spending money on its actual mission, then so be it. However, I will qualify all of this to say that I’m not remotely equipped to evaluate whether that’s the case or not.

Financial Surveillance: Why We Have To Prevent Liberal Organizations From Subverting The Second Amendment

There is no such thing as a free nation where the police and military are allowed to keep and bear arms and citizens are not. Our Founding Fathers understood this and enshrined the basic right to self-defense in the U.S. Constitution. The Second Amendment guarantees the absolute ability to live in peace without fear.

The U.S. Supreme Court has, time and again, reaffirmed that right. Yet elected Democrats and other stakeholders continue their all-out assault on this freedom with the ultimate goal of denying law-abiding Americans the opportunity to purchase and carry guns.

That’s why, in 2022, I became concerned when Visa and Mastercard announced they would separately categorize and track purchases for guns and ammunition. This move followed the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an international standards organization based out of Europe, approving an application for a firearm-specific Merchant Category Code (MCC). This move would set a dangerous precedent targeting legal gun owners, the vast majority of whom are Republicans or independents who lean Right.

A specific MCC for gun purchases would subject Americans attempting to exercise their constitutional rights to unnecessary and unethical surveillance. If rolled out, a national gun registry would be closer than ever, even though it is prohibited by federal law. The Left, however, does not care about the rule of law and they certainly aren’t hiding their desire to take away your freedoms. An elected Democrat recently called a federal gun registry a “wonderful idea.”

A gun-specific MCC is a clear threat to the privacy and Second Amendment rights of all Americans. Not only does it present an easy opportunity for liberal institutions to de-bank firearms sellers, which is abruptly closing financial accounts for religious and political reasons, but it could also discourage Americans from exercising their Constitutionally-protected rights. Importantly, the MCC would do absolutely nothing to improve public safety.

The application for a gun- and ammo-specific MCC came from Amalgamated Bank in 2022, a blatantly Left-wing company that dubs itself America’s “socially responsible bank” and proudly says deposited money supports “sustainable organizations, progressive causes, and social justice.” Upon further examination, it’s clear the organization is closely connected to the Democrat Party. The New York Times in 2015 even called it “the left’s private banker.”

Clients of the union-owned bank include President Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi. Additional past and present clients include the Democratic Governors Association, the Biden Foundation, the Democratic National Committee, and Ready for Hillary 2016. Not exactly ardent defenders of the Second Amendment.

Amalgamated has also explicitly called for unconstitutional red-flag laws and says it discriminates against gun, nuclear weapon and ammunition manufacturers and distributors. Radical private organizations like this and the ISO should be nowhere near our Second Amendment.

At the time of the approval, Amalgamated Chief Executive Priscilla Sims Brown said the move “answers the call of millions of Americans who want safety from gun violence.” Does this call supersede the constitutional right to keep and bear arms? As a state representative serving the people of Northwest Tennessee, I can tell you my constituents would say that coastal elites and liberal corporations better stay far away from their guns and finances.

That’s why I set out to ensure this gun tracking scheme would never happen in the Volunteer State. This year, I sponsored the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act, which was passed by the General Assembly and went into effect July 1. This new law will prohibit financial institutions from requiring retailers to use a specific MCC for firearms sellers in Tennessee.

Law-abiding Americans deserve to make these purchases without fear of liberal corporations and an overbearing federal government coordinating to spy on them. I was proud to provide that peace of mind to Tennesseans with the passage of this new law.

Just before the new law took effect, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti warned that Visa, Mastercard and American Express were potentially gearing up to ignore it.

“Specifically, I am concerned that your compliance efforts are not sufficient and will allow you and other financial institutions to continue to utilize impermissible codes in violation of Tennessee law,” he said in a June letter to the chief executives of each company.

No credit card company should be able to cancel the votes of millions of Tennesseans by disobeying our policies.

We’ve already seen the Orwellian-like behavior from the Biden Administration and the private companies all too willing to hand over sensitive information. Earlier this year, the House Judiciary Committee revealed federal investigators had asked financial institutions to search customer transactions for various MCCs, stores and phrases, including Cabela’s, Bass Pro Shops, Dicks Sporting Goods, and MAGA.

The goal? Rooting out alleged “extremism” following the events at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.

If the federal government and private companies are already using banking information to target conservatives, ask yourself why they might want a separate MCC for firearms and ammunition sellers. It’s clear that in attempting to force these codes on Americans, they are also attempting to reshape what the Second Amendment means in our country.

Americans are tired of these people and groups pushing an agenda contrary to our founding ideals. I’m proud Tennessee has taken a stand against the ever-increasing leftist corporate-government alliance meant to intimidate and silence Christians and conservatives. It’s time every state stands with us.

Russell ‘Rusty’ Grills represents District 77 in the Tennessee House of Representatives

Senator Cramer Introduces Legislation to Allow Interstate Firearm Sales

WASHINGTON – Federal regulations prohibit any licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector to sell or deliver any firearm to an individual who does not reside in the state in which the licensee’s place of business is located.

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) led his colleagues in introducing the bicameral Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act (FICRA) to modernize and streamline the legal framework governing interstate firearms transactions. House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA-01) introduced a companion measure in May.

“The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens should not dissipate at state lines,” said Cramer. “For decades, outdated regulations have placed unnecessary burdens on our nation’s federal firearm purchasing laws. The Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act fortifies Second Amendment liberties by ensuring citizens can purchase and bear arms nationwide. It also enhances lawful commerce and supports our military members and their families, all while respecting states’ laws and regulations.”

“Our federal firearm purchasing process is unnecessarily complicated and is unfair for law-abiding citizens, small businesses, and our service members willing to put their lives on the line for our country. The need to modernize and simplify our federal firearm purchasing laws is long overdue and I’m pleased this bill will finally right this wrong,” said House Majority Leader Scalise.

Additional cosponsors include U.S. Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Budd (R-NC), Bill Cassidy, M.D. (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Steve Daines (R-MT), John Hoeven (R-ND), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-KS), Markwayne Mullin (R-OK), Jim Risch (R-ID), Rick Scott (R-FL), Tim Scott (R-SC), and John Thune (R-SD). The legislation has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

“This legislation would modernize the way firearms are sold under federal law and remove arbitrary barriers for law-abiding gun buyers and sellers,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “On behalf of the NRA’s millions of freedom-loving members, we applaud Senator Cramer for championing this legislation to benefit gun owners nationwide.

“This is common-sense legislation that would allow law-abiding Americans to purchase firearms of their choosing while ensuring state and federal laws are enforced,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Americans are allowed to purchase long guns across state lines. This bill would extend that right to handguns. Your Second Amendment right to acquire and keep a handgun for self-protection does not end at your state’s border. This bill would remove an arbitrary and unconstitutional infringement on Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

Click here for bill text. Click here for more information.

Former NRA CFO Wilson “Woody” Phillips Ripped Us Off & Now Owes Back Millions

As dedicated NRA supporters, we know it’s maddening to witness the betrayal from within our own ranks. The latest news reveals the agreed-upon settlement that Wilson “Woody” Phillips, the former CFO of the NRA, confessed to unethical conduct, further deepening the trust issues we’ve had with the organization’s leadership.

Phillips’ Deceitful Contract

Without disclosing their relationship, Phillips admitted to awarding a $1.36 million contract to HomeTelos, a tech company run by his then-girlfriend Nancy Richards. This was a blatant violation of NRA policies designed to prevent conflicts of interest. It took whistleblowers raising the alarm for Phillips to finally come clean about his actions long after the contract had ended.

Shielding LaPierre’s Extravagance

Phillips didn’t just stop at self-serving contracts. Among other things, Phillips was accused of approving invoices for LaPierre’s private jet flights to the Bahamas; facilitating payments to contractors owned by LaPierre’s friends; and allowing an arrangement through which the NRA paid back its longtime advertising agency, Ackerman McQueen, for travel, makeup and other expenses it covered for LaPierre and his wife. He was a key player in hiding Wayne LaPierre’s outrageous spending from the NRA’s internal controls. LaPierre, with Phillips’ assistance, misused millions of dollars on luxury travel, and even yacht trips. This was money meant to protect our Second Amendment rights, not fund their extravagant lifestyles.

$2 Million In Damages To The NRA

The Bigger Picture

This scandal is just the latest in a series of revelations about mismanagement at the NRA. We’ve seen how LaPierre, Phillips, and other top executives have abused their positions and our donations. The jury recently found LaPierre guilty of spending millions in NRA funds on personal luxuries and ordered him to repay almost $4.4 million. This betrayal cuts deep, especially for those of us who have invested our time, money, and trust in the NRA’s mission.

As the trial continues, Attorney General Letitia James is pushing for measures to ensure this kind of corruption doesn’t happen again. She’s seeking an independent monitor for the NRA’s finances and wants to ban LaPierre from any leadership roles in New York charities. Manhattan Judge Joel Cohen will decide the remaining issues in the case beginning July 15th, 2024, including whether former LaPierre and ex-general counsel John Frazer should be barred from charitable organizations in the state.

For us, the rank-and-file members. We need to reclaim our organization from these corrupt individuals and ensure our contributions are used to fight for our rights, not to bankroll the lavish lifestyles of a few dishonest leaders. It’s time for a thorough cleanup and a return to the principles that made the NRA a powerful defender of the Second Amendment. Let’s demand accountability and integrity from those who represent us.

Great Divide: As Cal. Enacts Retail Code Law, Four Other States Say ‘No’

It is the latest warning sign of a great divide in the U.S.; a political and philosophical chasm growing wider in an election year which appears headed toward a collision of monumental proportions between the woke far left and traditional conservatives, with guns and the Second Amendment in then eye of this brewing storm.

As noted by News Nation, California’s new law requiring mandating the creation of specific retail codes that credit card companies provide to banks so the sales of firearms and ammunition at gun stores can be tracked just took effect.

At the same time, four states—Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee and Wyoming—have prohibited the use of such retail codes.

Next year, similar retail code requirements are scheduled to take effect in Colorado and New York.

There is more division on the table, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining to review two cases—one in Maryland and the other in Illinois—challenging their bans on semi-auto rifles, leaving the country divided with ten states and the District of Columbia banning the guns and the other 40 states allowing ownership. Presently, 29 Republican-controlled states allow permitless carry, and the remaining 21 states controlled by Democrats still require licenses or permits.

The retail code issue could be a Fourth Amendment cause as well as a Second Amendment because critics say it violates the privacy of gun owners, and lays the foundation for gun registration, despite what CBS News is reporting.

“The idea behind a gun merchant code is to detect suspicious activity,” the CBS report explained, “such as a person with no history of buying firearms suddenly spending large sums at multiple gun stores in a short period of time. After being notified by banks, law enforcement authorities could investigate and possibly prevent a mass shooting, gun control advocates contend.”

Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel at the National Shooting Sports Foundation, was quoted by the Associated Press stating, “We view this as a first step by gun-control supporters to restrict the lawful commerce in firearms.”

Many activists have already decided to pay only cash for their gun and ammunition transactions as a result of these tracking laws.

There is also a legitimate concern among gun owners that the California law equates all gun purchasers to criminal behavior.

This was illustrated in a remark by Hudson Munoz, executive director of Guns Down America, a gun prohibition lobbying organization, which states on its website, “Guns Down America is successfully building a future with fewer guns by weakening the gun industry and building political and cultural support for policies that will keep us safe from gun violence. Small but mighty, Guns Down America has led the gun violence prevention movement by ending the NRA’s lucrative insurance program, pushing major American banks to end their business relationships with irresponsible gun manufacturers, and forcing large retailers like Walmart to dramatically shrink gun sales.”

In his view, the new California law is as “first step.”

“The merchant category code is the first step in the banking system saying, `Enough! We’re putting our foot down,’ Munoz told News Nation. “You cannot use our system to facilitate gun crimes.’”

So the question arises, how can there be any progress when one side treats the other side as criminals? Eventually, that philosophy could collide with common sense, plus the Constitution.

New FBI rule gives gun dealers access to stolen firearm records; Springfield law enforcement and gun store owners weigh in

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KY3) – A new ruling by the FBI gives federal firearm licensees access to FBI records of stolen firearms.

Before this new ruling, firearm dealers had to use their best judgment when buying guns from strangers.

“People that bring in a used gun, I have no way of knowing if it’s stolen or not and if I do purchase it, and it is stolen, I lose the money I put into it and the gun,” 417 Guns owner Brent Ball said.

We asked how he verifies whether a gun is stolen or not without the database tool. Ball said he was in law enforcement for many years and tries to use his best judgement when buying firearms, but there’s not been a way to verify whether it’s stolen or not until now.

“If I’m not comfortable with the situation, I have them leave. I don’t need that business,” Ball said.

Major Tad Peters with the Springfield Police Department said this new ruling is a good thing, especially since the city has experienced issues with stolen firearms before.

Continue reading “”

What with today’s decision reversing Chevron deference, I see no way that the bureaucrap’s rule on unfinished receivers stands.

BLUF
Fortunately, we will not have to wait too long to see if Cargill stands alone or reflects a broader trend of checking ATF claims of authority. On April 22, 2024, the Court granted certiorari in Garland v. VanDerStok, a case challenging the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule as beyond the scope of the agency’s authority. A decision in VanDerStok will likely come during the Court’s next term.

Garland v. Cargill: The Court’s Textualists Stick to Their Guns

Because it involves guns, Cargill v. Garland has been seen by supporters and opponents alike as a Second Amendment case. That is not really correct. Rather, it presents a question of basic statutory interpretation. And in answering that question, Cargill is a triumph of textualism and separation of powers concerns over purpose-driven interpretation and legislative intent.

For the majority, the words on the paper are what matter, even if the Congress that wrote them might have done things differently. It does not matter if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck if it doesn’t have the features that Congress used to define a duck.

On the separation of powers front, Cargill is a victory for congressional lawmaking authority. Administrative agencies such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) cannot step in and rewrite statutes by administrative fiat just because Congress is not acting as quickly as they might wish.

Continue reading “”

Overturning the Chevron Deference Could Mean a Regulatory Revolution

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

Business groups have long argued that federal agencies have too much power in their rulemaking. The Supreme Court agrees.

The Supreme Court on Friday overturned the legal precedent known as the Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision, which will reshape the way that federal agencies interpret laws and craft rules that regulate a wide range of businesses.

For decades, courts have turned to regulatory agencies to fill in the legal gaps when areas of the law are ambiguous–this is the so-called Chevron deference, which emerged from case law.

The Chevron deference resulted from a 1984 case filed by Chevron, a big oil company, which argued that the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act was overly broad. Chevron lost the case after a judge found that federal agencies are considered to be the authority on a statute if it’s ambiguous. That decision brought forth the Chevron doctrine, or the Chevron deference.

The high court revisited Chevron through a pair of companion cases: Relentless v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

Continue reading “”

CFIUS Clears Sale of The Kinetic Group to CSG

Represents Final Regulatory Approval Required to Close the Transaction

Board of Directors Continues to Recommend Stockholders Vote in Favor of Merger Agreement Proposal at Special Meeting on July 2, 2024

ANOKA, Minn.–(BUSINESS WIRE)– Vista Outdoor Inc. (“Vista Outdoor,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our”) (NYSE: VSTO) and Czechoslovak Group a.s. (“CSG”) announced today that the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) has cleared CSG’s proposed acquisition of Vista Outdoor’s The Kinetic Group business (the “Transaction”). Vista Outdoor and CSG received written notice from CFIUS that CFIUS has concluded its review and investigation of the Transaction and has determined that there are no unresolved national security concerns. CFIUS clearance was the final regulatory approval required under the merger agreement with CSG for the closing of the Transaction.

Michael Callahan, Chairman of the Board of Directors, said “We are very pleased that CFIUS has carefully vetted the Transaction and, as we expected, determined that there are no unresolved national security concerns.”

CFIUS is an interagency committee of the U.S. government authorized to review certain transactions involving foreign investment in the United States to determine the effect of such transactions on U.S. national security.

“The CFIUS process involved a thorough review and investigation of the Transaction by numerous U.S. Government departments and agencies with a range of national security and other mandates,” Callahan said. “We believe the end result supports our view that CSG—which has deep expertise in supply chain excellence and ammunition manufacturing and strong support for NATO and allied nations—will be an excellent owner of The Kinetic Group. CSG is fully committed to supporting our American workforce, American hunters and domestic and allied military and law enforcement partners.”

The closing of the Transaction remains subject to receipt of the approval of Vista Outdoor’s stockholders and other customary closing conditions. The special meeting of Vista Outdoor stockholders to, among other things, consider and vote on a proposal to adopt the merger agreement with CSG is scheduled to be held virtually on July 2, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. Central Time.

The Board continues to recommend Vista Outdoor stockholders vote in favor of the proposal to adopt the merger agreement with CSG. Vista Outdoor is confident that the Transaction will maximize value for our stockholders by

  • Providing for a $2 billion purchase price, representing a $90 million increase from the original $1.91 billion purchase price,
  • Allowing stockholders to benefit directly from additional excess cash generated by the Company prior to closing,
  • Delivering $18.00 in cash consideration per share at closing, representing a $5.10 increase from the original cash consideration of $12.90 per share, and
  • Enabling stockholders to capture the long-term intrinsic value that is embedded in Revelyst’s business plan as a standalone public company……..

One Million Gun Sales for 58 Months Straight.

May marked the 58th month in a row that the number of firearms sold—as reflected by the volume of National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) requests processed by the FBI—exceeded one million. The news wasn’t all good, though. The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) estimates, based on NICS figures, that sales decreased by 7.2 percent when compared to purchases made in May of 2023.

The total number of firearms sold last month nationwide came in at roughly 1,089,117, according to NSSF’s figures. During the same reporting period in 2023 the total was 1,174,142.

Declines in demand are frequent this year as a new normalcy returns after the pandemic buying boom. Comparing April’s 2024 and 2023 figures, for example, the drop was more significant at 11.2 percent, according to NSSF’s calculations. Volumes were estimated at 1,442,061, respectively. In February, however, decline was only .01 percent.

It’s important to keep in mind 24 states currently have at least one qualified alternative permit, which under the Brady Act allows the permit-holder—who has undergone a background check to obtain the permit—to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer without a separate additional background check for that transfer. The number of NICS checks in these states does not include these legal transfers based on qualifying permits and NSSF does not adjust for these transfers.

The adjusted NICS data were derived by subtracting NICS purpose code permit checks and permit rechecks used by states for CCW permit application checks, as well as checks on active CCW permit databases. Though not a direct correlation to firearms sales, the NSSF-adjusted NICS data provide an additional picture of current market conditions. In addition to other purposes, NICS is used to check transactions for sales or transfers of new or used firearms.

With a contentious Presidential election on the horizon, enthusiasts can expect to see an increase in foot traffic through the doors of their favorite FFLs as sales rebound toward November.

Gov. Jeff Landry Signs Bill Making Louisiana 16th State to Block Credit Card Tracking of Gun Purchases

Gov. Jeff Landry (R) signed legislation SB 301 last week to prohibit credit card companies and other financial institutions from tracking firearm and firearm-related purchases in Louisiana.

Landry’s signature made Louisiana the 16th state to ban such tracking efforts.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation’s Darren LaSorte applauded Landry:

Governor Jeff Landry’s signature on the Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act is a powerful statement that the Second Amendment rights of Louisianans are not negotiable. This law will protect Louisiana’s citizens from unlawful intrusion on their private purchases when purchasing firearms and ammunition with a payment card.

“‘Woke’ Wall Street banks, credit card companies and payment processors won’t be able to collude with government entities to spy on Louisianans’ private finances when they exercise their rights,” LaSorte added. “No American should fear being placed on a government watchlist because they choose their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.”

The other 15 states that have barred credit card tracking of firearm and firearm-related purchases are Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Iowa, Kentucky, Wyoming, Indiana, Utah, Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia.

On the other hand, California’s Democrat-controlled legislature passed a bill requiring credit card companies to track firearm and firearm-related purchases in their state. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the legislation, which takes effect in 2025.

Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction Against ATF Rule on Gun Dealers

A federal judge in Texas has granted a preliminary injunction against the ATF’s new rule on who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, but his ruling won’t apply to every gun owner across the country. Instead, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk has limited the scope of the injunction solely to the named plaintiffs in the case.

Still, given that those plaintiffs include the states of Texas, Utah, Louisiana, and Mississippi along with Gun Owners of America, the Tennessee Firearms Association, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League, millions of gun owners who could otherwise be subjected to an ATF investigation or federal charges simply for offering a firearm for sale can rest a little easier for the time being.

In his ruling, Kacsmaryk held that the plaintiff’s argument that the new ATF rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act is likely to prevail at trial. According to the judge, the new language from the ATF goes far beyond the small changes in statute that were approved by Congress as part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

Here, the Final Rule clashes with the text of the BSCA in at least three ways. First, it asserts that there is no “minimum number of firearms to actually be sold to be ‘engaged in the business’” for the purposes of the licensing requirement. . “[A] single firearm transaction”— or even a mere offer to engage in a transaction — may suffice.

[W]hile selling large numbers of firearms or engaging or offering to engage infrequent transactions may be highly indicative of business activity, neither thecourts nor the Department have recognized a set minimum number of firearms purchased or resold that triggers the licensing requirement. Similarly, there is no minimum number of transactions that determines whether a person is “engaged inthe business” of dealing in firearms. Even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license.

But the BSCA says otherwise: The term “engaged in the business” means . . .

as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921(a)(11)(A), a person whodevotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of tradeor business to predominantly earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personalcollection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms[.]

Congress says someone must repeatedly buy and resell firearms to be considered a gun dealer, while the ATF says merely offering a single gun for sale can suffice. Kacsmaryk rightfully held that it’s the language in the statute that matters most, and the agency has likely strayed so far from the text that its rule should be rendered null and void when the case is resolved on the merits.

The judge also took issue with the ATF rule’s suggestion that “actual profit is not a requirement of the statute —it is only the predominant intent to earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms that is required,” pointing out that the current statute states “proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism. According to Kacsmaryk, that means that proof of profit is required if the feds want to charge someone with being an unlicensed gun dealer and there are no allegations of criminal activity or terrorism involved.

Lastly, Kacsmaryk found fault with the ATF’s presumptions on “when a person has the intent to ‘predominantly earn a profit’” and “that someone is ‘engaged in the business.’” Under the ATF’s rule, people are presumed to have those intentions unless they can prove otherwise, which the judge says “flip[s] the statute on its head by requiring that firearm owners prove innocence rather than the government prove guilt.”

I wish that the judge would have applied this injunction to all gun owners and not just the named plaintiffs in the case, but this is still a significant victory for those challenging the new rule. Texas v. ATF isn’t the only lawsuit to challenge the ATF rule either, so there’s a good chance that more gun owners will find relief as the other lawsuits move forward in the courts.

Uvalde Lawsuit Against UPS, FedEx the Dumbest Ones Yet

Lawsuits against companies that had no hand in something like the awful events of Uvalde aren’t surprising, but they’re stupid.

It’s idiotic.

But I thought we’d seen all the stupid we were going to see on that front. That’s a case of “shame on me” for underestimating the vile idiocy of the anti-gun movement. It seems they have found a new target.

On the day of the shooting, the gunman was armed with a weapon ordered online and shipped to Oasis Firearms in Uvalde where it was then picked up by the shooter.

The lawsuit claims the companies then shipped an enhanced trigger system to the gunman’s house. This allowed the gunman to convert it into a fully automatic or semi-automatic weapon.

The lawsuit cited the UPS conditions of carriage as proof of a violation. The UPS conditions state that, “Shipments must not contain goods which might endanger human or animal life or any means of transportation.”

The families also said that the shipment of the Hell Fire trigger to the gunman’s house was a violation of school zone area protections. The gunman’s house was less than 1,000 feet away from the Robb Elementary School zone.

Yep. This is pure idiocy.

The Hell Fire trigger has been on the market for over 30 years. It’s nothing but a trigger that allows people to fire semi-automatic weapons a bit faster, much like many other trigger modifications. These are not illegal and are perfectly acceptable to ship through either UPS or FedEx.

Moreover, it doesn’t violate the UPS conditions of carriage because the trigger won’t do any of those things. Not by itself, anyway.

“But it’s also a violation of school zone area protections.”

The courts have long found that people living less than 1,000 feet from a school zone don’t forfeit their Second Amendment rights simply because they live within walking distance of a school. That means people can lawfully buy guns and store them in their homes.

It also means that there is no reason for a carrier to question gun part going to a home within that area.

In short, UPS and FedEx had no reason to not ship the part to the individual who turned out to later become the Uvalde killer.

Let’s also be real here for a moment. UPS and FedEx aren’t gun companies. They don’t have any reason to stay in this fight. They make money shipping guns and parts, but do they make enough to deal with the negative publicity that might arise? Probably not. They’re far more likely to cave than a gun company might.

But let’s understand what this is really about. It’s not about UPS or FedEx doing anything wrong. They know this is a stretch. They don’t expect this to go to trial, even. Oh no, this is about something far different.

What these folks are trying to do is to use the legal system to bully UPS and FedEx into refusing to transport firearms or firearm parts. They want to see these carriers cut out every firearm-related company so that those companies will have a harder time shipping products to customers.

As a result of that, it becomes harder for law-abiding citizens to get not just parts but guns shipped to their FFL.

All of this isn’t about correcting wrongs committed prior to Uvalde. It’s about making it harder for you and me to exercise our Second Amendment rights. Who needs gun control if you can’t find a gun to buy in the first place?

That’s what this is about. Sure, this one lawsuit won’t necessarily change the landscape, but it’s never about one lawsuit. It’s about the death by a thousand cuts. It’s about making it just too difficult to deal with the firearm industry.

And the stupidity won’t end here, either. We’ll see more and worse.

When we were picking up an ammo order,  AK & I had the pleasure of meeting Carlo Fiocchi at the Ozark facility and having him give us a personal tour many years ago.

Fiocchi Ammo Review

When someone starts talking about exquisite Italian engineering, the average person will naturally think of names like Ferrari, Lamborghini, and Ducati. And although Italy is very well known for their luxury car brands, if you’ve ever put any number of rounds of Fiocchi ammo through your favorite Glock, Sig Sauer, or Smith & Wesson, you know that Italian ammo is good stuff!

Although many shooters know Fiocchi for their handgun ammo, the company also has an excellent line of centerfire rifle ammo and has made a huge impact in the world of sporting clays with their shotgun target loads as well as offering a comprehensive line of rimfire ammo as well.

To put it bluntly, Fiocchi makes quality ammo at a price point most every shooter can afford. In this Fiocchi ammo review, we will take a look at what makes Fiocchi an excellent choice for your favorite handgun or rife as well as digging into the storied history of Italy’s oldest ammunition factory.

What is the quality of Fiocchi ammo?

Fiocchi ammunition is good ammo, extremely high-quality, and is perfect for plinking, competitive matches, or long-distance target shooting. I have not experienced any jams of failure to fire (FTF) malfunctions while using Fiocchi ammo. No matter if you enjoy rimfire shooting, sporting clays, or centerfire rifle/pistol, factory Fiocchi loads are perfect for any situation.

Where can I buy Fiocchi Ammo?

Check out our entire selection of Fiocchi Ammo for sale online! Don’t hesitate to purchase rounds like 5.56 NATO in bulk to save even more money on Fiocchi ammunition!

Fiocchi Ammo History and Important Information

Fiocchi Munizioni (Fiocchi Ammunition) was established in 1876 by Giulio Fiocchi in Lecco, Italy. It is one of Italy’s oldest and largest ammo manufacturers and supplies centerfire, rimfire, and shotgun ammunition to civilians, hunters, and law enforcement.

Although Fiocchi is not Europe’s oldest ammo manufacturer (that tile goes to Sellier & Bellot), Fiocchi has developed a reputation as one of the world’s finest loaders of metallic cartridges. In 1989 they received NATO qualifications to produce 9x19mm NATO ammunition to CIP specs, and their 5.56x45mm NATO qualification came 10 years later in 1999.

Although the ammo factory in Italy remains the home of Fiocchi ammo, access to the American market has been a tricky path Fiocchi has had to traverse.

During the 1950’s, Fiocchi in partnership with Smith & Wesson, owned a factory in Alton, Illinois. However, Fiocchi decided to sell their portion of the factory back to Smith & Wesson and it wasn’t until 1980 when Carlo Fiocchi helped put Fiocchi ammunition back into American shooting goods stores.

Fiocchi ammo for sale

Shop Fiocchi Ammo

On his honeymoon, Carlo traveled in the United States with the interest of locating a site for a new Fiocchi ammunition plant. Carlo was able to convince the then president Paolo to build a manufacturing plant in Ozark, Missouri near Springfield.

Continue reading “”

The new Minutemen buy guns

As we approach 60 consecutive months of more than a million gun sales, it’s time to review the state of gun ownership in America, and enjoy the tears of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists.

According to a report by the National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF), the number of people who became first-time gun owners since 2020 has reportedly grown to over 22.3 million people, or the population of Florida.

Keep in mind every federal background check prior to purchase, can account for more than one gun. Why would so many Americans become new gun owners? In a word: Democrat/socialist/communist (D/s/c) policies:

Continue reading “”

Number Of First-Time Gun Owners Since 2020 Now Equals Population Of Florida

There has been a drastic surge in the number of Americans becoming first-time gun owners over the past four years according to a press release.

The National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) pointed to data showing a major trend in gun ownership. The number of people who became first-time gun owners since 2020 has reportedly grown to over 22.3 million people, which is equal to the population of Florida.

The impetus behind the rapid increase in first-time gun ownership is attributed to numerous factors, including COVID-era lockdown measures, soft-on-crime prosecutors and skyrocketing violent crime rates, according to the NSSF.

The report highlights Chris Cheng, a competitive shooting champion who testified before Congress about the rise in gun ownership.

“The past year-and-a-half or so with COVID-19 has been a pressure cooker … When you couple that with calls to defund the police and taking law enforcement officers off the street … it makes citizens like me less safe,” Cheng said during his testimony, according to the report. “If I can’t have law enforcement there, then it is a rational conclusion that individual citizens like myself would opt to utilize my Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm and use that firearm in lawful and legal self-defense.”

More than 52% of American voters indicated that they or someone in their home owns a firearm, according to an NBC News national poll released in November 2023. Researchers also found that 48% of firearm owners were concerned that the government would not take enough action to restrict access to firearms while 47% worried that the state would go too far in regulating guns.

Bank of America Walks Back Gun Lending Ban

One of the country’s largest financial institutions is reversing course on AR-15s and other popular firearms.

Bank of America backed off its blanket ban on lending to companies that manufacture what it has labeled “military-style firearms,” Bloomberg first reported Friday. Going forward, the bank will resume lending to firearms companies on a case-by-case basis subject to “enhanced due diligence,” according to its latest Environmental and Social Risk Policy (ESRP) Framework.

Bill Haldin, a spokesperson for Bank of America, confirmed the change in policy in a statement to The Reload.

“Certain client relationships or transactions that carry heightened risks go through a due diligence process that involves senior level risk review,” he said. “We recently detailed that in our updated risk policy framework.”

The about-face comes as Republican-led states are increasingly turning up the heat on financial institutions and other businesses that adopt environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies they argue target legal firearms and energy production. Gun commerce, in particular, has become a flashpoint in recent years as major banks like Bank of America, JPMorgan, and Citibank publicly cut off funding to businesses that sell certain firearms and accessories. In response, Republicans in states like Texas and Florida have shown an increased willingness to use new government regulations to combat those practices.

Continue reading “”

Louisiana Passes Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act

BATON ROUGE, LA. (May 28, 2024) – Today, the Louisiana Senate gave final approval to the “Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act,” a bill to prohibit financial institutions from using a credit card merchant code that would enable the tracking of firearm and ammunition purchases.

Sen. Blake Miguez filed Senate Bill 301 (SB301) on March 1. The bill would prohibit any financial institution operating in the state from requiring or permitting “the assignment of a firearms code in a way that distinguishes a firearms retailer from other retailers.”

SB301 also prohibits all state and local government entities from keeping any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or the owners of such firearms. Financial institutions would be prohibited from denying a transaction based on the code. Those found guilty in a court of violating the law would be subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000 per violation, with the court determining the amount by factors “including the financial resources of the violator and the harm or risk of harm to the rights under the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Constitution of Louisiana, resulting from the violation.”

On April 16, the Senate passed the bill by a vote of 28-11. Last week, the House approved the measure with some technical amendments by a vote of 74-26. Today, the Senate concurred with a vote of 27-9.

Over the 2023-2024 legislative sessions, at least 13 states have passed similar legislation.

Continue reading “”

 FPC, NRA File Briefs With Supreme Court Over Mexico Lawsuit

The case involving Mexico’s lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers and retailers for violence south of the border is beginning to see some action from pro-gun rights organizations.

On Wednesday, both the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking a review of lower court decisions regarding Mexico’s attempts to impose its gun-control preferences on Americans.

“Mexico’s frivolous lawsuit to impose its draconian disarmament policies is a bald attempt to wage war on peaceable Americans and our constitutionally protected rights,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a release announcing filing of the brief. “As our brief makes clear, the Supreme Court should enforce the law, put an end to this radical anti-rights lawfare and protect the right to keep and bear arms.”

“Mexico’s attempt in this litigation to impose a foreign nation’s policy preferences on the American people through judicial fiat and exact a financial penalty that would cripple the American firearms ecosystem would be deeply troubling even if it stood alone,” the FPC brief stated. “It does not. To the contrary, this action is merely one of a phalanx of recent, abusive lawsuits brought by anti-Second-Amendment activists, organizations and governments.”

In the end, the brief requested that the Supreme Court grant a review and intervene in the important case to protect gunmakers and the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). In an earlier ruling, the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the PLCAA does not bar Mexico’s lawsuit.

“The situation has accordingly become dire, and the time for this Court’s intervention is now,” the brief stated. “In the four-and-a-half years since this Court declined to review the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in Soto, the chief development has been the contrivance of ever more devious and extreme methods of evading the Act Congress passed to save the firearms community from abusive litigation. If the Court allows the lower-court’s treatment of the PLCAA to ‘percolate for another four-and-a-half years, there may be nothing left of the firearms marketplace to save.”

In the NRA brief, the organization stated: “Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s. To that end, Mexico aims to destroy the American firearms industry financially.”

“This case exemplifies why PLCAA was enacted,” the brief continued. “Mexico seeks billions of dollars in damages and the imposition of extensive gun controls in America while relying on shoddy data and false allegations to exaggerate the impact of Petitioners’ firearms on Mexican homicides.”

The lawsuit is named Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos