Category: Bureaucraps

NSSF Happy with DOJ’s Moves to Protect Gun Rights

A lot of people are displeased with the Department of Justice.
[Yours truly here among them!]

They see mixed signals from an administration that vowed to be strong on gun rights. They see them because they’re present. The DOJ will defend gun rights one day, and oppose them the next. It’s kind of causing a certain degree of whiplash.

But as I noted on Tuesday at the above link, purity was probably never going to happen.

For what it’s worth, though, Larry Keane of the NSSF is pretty happy with what’s happening overall.

President Donald Trump signed his Presidential Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights back on February 7, 2025, instructing U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all presidential and agency actions taken between January 2021 and January 2025 that “purport to promote safety” but infringed on the rights of law-abiding citizens. That includes rules issued by the DOJ and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), classifications of firearms and ammunition, regulatory enforcement policies and even reports issued by the former taxpayer-funded White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention that just pushed gun control.

In other words, for the first time, the Civil Rights Division is directed to treat the Second Amendment as what it is: a civil right deserving active protection, not a second-class right that must constantly give way to regulatory experimentation.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners of America Learns Gag Orders Makes Strange Bedfellows

Gun Owners of America has been challenging the Department of Justice over a troubling program where American gun buyers are seeing their purchases monitored by the ATF. There’s no due process involved at all, either. All it takes is for a law enforcement officer to say he suspects someone of not being an ideal citizen, and suddenly, they’ll get a notification whenever that person has a NICS check performed.

Just how bad are things? We don’t know.

It seems GOA knows, but they’re not talking. It’s not because they don’t want to. They’re not allowed to. They’re under a gag order that prevents them from telling what they know.

Unsurprisingly, others have an issue with that.

However, as this video from GOA tells us, what’s surprising is who is standing with them on this.

The fact that we’re being monitored for exercising our Second Amendment rights is far from new information. That doesn’t make it a good thing, only that it’s nothing new.

But for groups like Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vox, NPR, and Politico, among others, to stand with gun owners and have a problem with the gag order is very, very new.

As noted in the video, many of these organizations are generally very hostile toward the Second Amendment and Second Amendment organizations like Gun Owners of America.

Yet this isn’t a gun issue. Not really.

Sure, the underlying surveillance is very much a relevant issue for gun rights supporters, but the fact that Gun Owners of America isn’t allowed to speak about information that was given to them, inadvertently, by the Biden Department of Justice, is troubling for anyone in the media. After all, we get information from a variety of sources. Not all of that information was intended for public consumption, which is often the point. It betrays troubling behavior by the government that’s hidden under various laws pertaining to classified material.

And the courts have traditionally understood that and sided with the free press on such things most of the time.

If GOA is unable to speak with material handed to them directly by the DOJ, even if it wasn’t intentional, then what about a reporter who finds out that the government is funding an illegal arms trafficking network via drug sales in our inner cities? Just to name one completely random and not at all historical example.

Will Reuters get slammed with a gag order because a source gives them information on how the CIA is arming cartels so they can fight a different cartel? Again, a hypothetical, though this one is actually one I pulled out of my fourth point of contact.

That’s what this stand is truly about, of course, and I get that. It’s even fair that they’d side with GOA over their personal interests above and beyond any potential intrinsic desire to stand for rights as a whole. They’re not suddenly going to be pro-gun. This is about them and only them. In fact, I doubt they give a damn about the monitoring effort at all.

But politics is said to make strange bedfellows. It seems so do gag orders.

 

Just another long serving bureaucrap. Will he ever learn?

Trump Has Found His Pick for ATF Director

Since Donald Trump began his second term as president and Biden’s ATF Director Steve Dettelbach resigned ahead of being fired, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has been run by a couple of different interim directors, starting with FBI Director Kash Patel. Patel was replaced after reports surfaced that he was essentially a non-entity at the agency, and Army Secretary Dan Driscoll has been doing double duty interim director alongside his work with the Department of Defense in April.

Shortly after Driscoll was named as the interim head of the agency, the ATF’s Deputy Director Marvin Richardson stepped down (or was pushed out), and was replaced by Robert Cekada, who was previously Executive Assistant Director and oversaw the agency’s Office of Regulatory Operations, Office of Field Operations, and the Office of Intelligence Operations.

Now President Trump has nominated Cekada to become the agency’s permanent director; not exactly a surprising move, but not completely expected either. Trump has shown a desire to install outsiders at the helm of many agencies and cabinet positions, but Cekada has worked for the ATF for 20 years. He started as a field agent Hyattsville, Maryland and worked on the Regional Area Gang Enforcement Task Force from 2005 to 2011 before transferring to the Tampa field office for two years. He’s been at ATF headquarters since 2013, moving up the ranks from his position as project officer in the Firearms Operations Division’s Frontline Branch.

Before joining ATF, Cekada was a part of the NYPD and a member of the Plantation, Florida police. He held a variety of roles in those departments, including serving in the NYPD’s Anti-Gang Enforcement Unit and the Street Crime Unit and the SWAT unit in Plantation.

When Cekada was named the agency’s second-in-command back in April, the news was received positively by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. As we reported at the time:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the firearms industry, was quick to praise Cekada as Trump’s choice as the ATF’s Number Two, pointing to his extensive history going after violent criminals and his respect for the right to keep and bear arms.

“Deputy Director Cekada has the experience, wisdom and respect of his colleagues to effectively lead the men and women of the ATF,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Deputy Director Cekada respects the Second Amendment and understands that the firearm industry is not the ‘enemy’ but valuable partner that assists ATF in its core mission of combatting violent crime. Firearm retailers are on the front lines helping to prevent the criminal acquisition of firearms. They are a vital source of information to ATF special agents on illegal straw purchasing of firearms.”

As a Special Agent-in-Charge, Deputy Director Cekada has been on the ground with the firearm industry to promote public awareness to stop these crimes from occurring and has the career history of working with the firearm industry to ensure law-abiding citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The fact that Cekada has already established a good working relationship with the firearms industry is a good sign, and I’ve heard from sources who have knowledge of the ATF’s day-to-day operations that he was instrumental in getting rid of the “zero tolerance” policy on gun dealers that Richardson continued to enforce even after Steve Dettelbach resigned as ATF Director when Trump assumed office for his second term.

Since his appointment as Deputy Director, Cekada has been working alongside the agency’s new Assistant Director and lead attorney Robert Leider, a former professor at George Mason’s Antonin Scalia School of Law specializing in Second Amendment issues. The pair have been overhauling many of the ATF’s rules and regulations, and though the shutdown sidelined much of their work for the past month, the agency has already announced it’s rolled back the Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” policy that treated minor paperwork errors cause to revoke federal firearms licenses.

Biden’s pistol brace ban has been undone as well, with the DOJ deciding not to appeal a court decision that found the rule was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act, and it’s expected that Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule treating almost every gun owner who sells a firearm from their personal collection as an “unlicensed gun dealer” will also soon be axed.

That doesn’t mean that Cekada’s nomination will be smooth sailing, however. Senate Democrats are likely to challenge Cekada’s reforms, while Republicans may bring up issues like the agency’s railroading of Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, who’s currently sitting in a federal prison after being convicted of selling restricted firearms that weren’t really functional or illegal to possess, purchase, or sell.

Cekada should have the support of NSSF, which could also hurt his chances among Senate Democrats, but that could prove valuable among the Senate Republicans who will decide if he should take the helm of the agency.

Cekada is no David Chipman, the former ATF agent turned gun control advocate who was Biden’s first choice to head up the agency. Cekada has already demonstrated a willingness to be a change agent at the ATF, and I’m looking forward to seeing what he has to say about the need for more fundamental reforms within the agency and how he plans to accomplish those goals as the confirmation process gets underway.

BLUF
They gaslit America for years, censored the truth, and rewrote intelligence reports to keep Trump from being proven right. Now the cover-up is unraveling, but half the country still believes the lie. PJ Media has been sounding the alarm on Deep State corruption from Day One, and we’re not backing down.

Kash Patel Drops Covid Origin Bombshell

FBI Director Kash Patel dropped a bombshell during a recent interview with Glenn Beck, and anyone who has watched the federal bureaucracy sabotage President Trump at every turn will recognize the pattern instantly. Patel walked through how the Trump administration evaluated intelligence about the virus in the early days and how that assessment collided with a coordinated effort inside the bureaucracy and the media to protect China, shield Anthony Fauci, and deny Trump credit for getting it right.

Patel reminded Beck that the team briefed Trump based on the intelligence they had. Trump listened, weighed the facts, and acted. Then the usual suspects stepped in: “Then enter Fauci and the media. ‘No, no, no. The Chinese would never do this. It’s not about… No, no, it didn’t come from that.’ Then the wet bat thing came out and some other goofy whatever.”

We all remember what went down. Fauci played the patronizing scientist. The legacy media enforced the talking points. Big Tech censored any dissent. The establishment insisted the virus emerged from some Wuhan wet market and treated anyone who questioned that tale like a threat to democracy.

Patel then pointed out the bombshell that dropped just weeks ago. According to him, former CIA Director Gina Haspel “authorized six case officers and intelligence analysts to be paid off so that they would change their assessment on COVID originations.”

“That’s a CIA institutional decision to spend taxpayer dollars to lie to the world where COVID came from because it fit the narrative that Fauci and the media wanted out there, along with Gina Haspel, because she didn’t want Donald Trump to get the credit for reading the intel right and making the hard right decision,” he said.


Continue reading “”

More on USPS Carry; Leaked Memo Confirmed Authentic

A federal judge found the prohibition on possessing firearms on some United States Postal Service properties unconstitutional. A leaked MEMO — confirmed authentic — outlines how USPS employees should deal with carriers.

In October it was reported that the prohibitions on firearm possession and carry on some USPS properties was ruled to be unconstitutional. The opinion said that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” How the USPS would be handling potential carriers has not been made publicly known, however a leaked internal MEMO contains instructions and the USPS has confirmed the authenticity of the material.

When contacted last month, the USPS addressed a query concerning the opinion. USPS Senior Public Relations Representative Felicia Lott spoke on behalf of the Service.

“The Postal Service is aware of the recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas regarding the ban on firearms possession on postal property, which enjoins enforcement of the ban at certain Post Offices, and the surrounding Post Office property, with respect to certain postal customers,” Lott wrote. “The Postal Service is currently analyzing the court’s decision and taking necessary steps to implement the injunction.”

Via a reddit post, an alleged postal clerk leaked an internal document dated October 24, 2025. The document states the following:

A federal court order currently permits certain postal customers to carry and possess firearms at most Post Offices, including in customer parking lots. In response to that decision, and while we work to clarify the precise scope of the court’s order, we are providing the following guidance to all our retail employees at all Postal Service retail facilities, regarding all of our customers at those facilities.

Because of this decision, there may be instances in which members of the public who are visiting Postal Service retail facilities to pick up their mail, or conduct a retail transaction, will be carrying firearms. Postal Service Employees are directed to refrain from confronting or engaging with the customer about the fact that they are carrying a firearm.

Postal Service employees should allow the customer to conduct their business in the same manner as other customers. Once the customer leaves, immediately report the matter to your supervisor or manager.

Management employees should immediately call the Inspection Service hotline at 1-877-876-2455. The Inspection Service will determine whether the ban on firearms possession can lawfully be enforced under the circumstances, and whether further action is justified. Calls to local enforcement (911) should only be made if the person is interfering with operations or if the customer is acting in a manner that raises immediate safety or security concerns.

The court’s decision does not affect the ban on firearms possession by Postal Service employees on postal property, which remains fully in place. Employees are reminded that carrying or storing firearms on Postal Service property is prohibited and can result in discipline, up to and including removal from the Postal Service. The prohibition on employee possession of firearms also means that storing firearms in vehicles that are parked on postal property is also prohibited.

Thank you for your attention.

Bearing Arms reached out to USPS Senior Public Relations Representative Felicia Lott concerning the document. In response to the request concerning the authenticity of the document, Lott said, “USPS confirms that the Service Talk is an internal employee document and refers back to its previous statement for request of any additional comment.”

An October 28 filing from the Department of Justice requested the court clarify and/or stipulate that the ruling should apply to named plaintiffs only as a membership list would not be provided by the organizational plaintiffs: Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation. The Justice Department says the court “should accordingly clarify that its declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are limited to the individual Plaintiffs and to individuals who have been identified and verified to the government as members of the organizational Plaintiffs.”

Members of SAF and FPC should be able to simply carry membership cards and or certificates with them in order to prove their status as an affected party. The court has not addressed the DOJ concerning their request as of this time.

The USPS has yet to make a public statement about the decision nor offer any guidance to Postal Service customers directly.

ATF Drops CLEO Notification from Form 1 NFA Applications

The ATF just previewed a batch of housekeeping changes to Form 1 (ATF 5320.1)—the form gun owners use to make and register NFA items like SBRs and suppressors. Buried in the Federal Register notice is the big one: the agency plans to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement for NFA registration.

The ATF’s filing also modernizes items in preparation for the upcoming changes to the NFA’s tax structure, as it will no longer collect a tax on SBRs and suppressors. It clarifies how you can pay the $200 tax for “machinegun(s) or destructive device” or $0 for “other types of firearms,” such as SBRs and suppressors.

There is also an update to accept additional types of digital signatures and let applicants attach a passport-style photo or ID copy instead of using a fixed photo box on the form. There’s also a cleanup of wording and new instructions for married couples registering as an “other legal entity.” All of that is in service of making the form easier to complete and aligning it with incoming tax changes.

Continue reading “”

FBI Continues To Publish Inaccurate Data On Armed Citizens Stopping Active Shooters

Few gun owners were surprised when we learned that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) under President Joe Biden had fudged the numbers when reporting active shooters stopped by armed citizens. Now, however, the Trump Administration FBI is continuing the practice, far underreporting the number of incidents where armed citizens are the real heroes.

According to an October 2 report by John Lott posted at realclearinvestigatiins.com, the past trend of the FBI underreporting armed citizens who stopped active shooters continues to be a problem. And Lott, president of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), said it’s not just a small discrepancy; the FBI is grossly underreporting the numbers.

“Even though the FBI acknowledged the issue at the time, it never corrected the error involving the politically fraught issue,” Lott wrote. “In the years since, the problem has only gotten worse. Since RCI’s 2022 article, the FBI has acknowledged just three additional incidents of armed good Samaritans stopping active shooters from 2022 to 2024, and none in the last two years. In contrast, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I head, has documented 78 such cases over that same period—a 26-fold difference.”

The FBI defines active shooter incidents as those in which an individual kills or attempts to kill people in a public place, excluding shootings that are related to other criminal activity, such as robbery or fighting over drug turf. They include instances from one person being shot at and missed all the way up to a mass public shooting.

“In 2022, the FBI reported that only 11 of the 252 active shooter incidents it identified for the period 2014-2021, or 4.4%, were stopped by an armed citizen,” Lott wrote. “However, an analysis by my organization identified a total of 281 active shooter incidents during that same period and found that 41 of them—or 14.6%—were stopped by an armed citizen.”

As Lott further pointed out, the FBI report compiled for the Biden administration for 2023 and 2024 contains worse errors.

“It asserts that armed civilians stopped none of the 72 active shooting cases it identified,” he wrote. “The CPRC, by contrast, identified 121 active shooter cases—45 of which were ultimately halted by armed civilians. Those incidents included eight cases that likely would have resulted in mass public shootings with four or more people murdered.”

Ultimately, Lott said that the FBI has the ability to set the record straight in at least some cases, providing a clearer view of remedies to crime.

“But its unwillingness to correct errors—or its efforts to fix them on the sly, as RCI reported last year—and improve its methodology raises more concerns. Its shortcomings regarding armed citizens thwarting active shooters illuminate many of these problems.

Lott’s report at realclearinvestigations.com also delves into the dangerous fallacy of so-called “gun-free” zones. Those interested in learning more about the FBI’s underreporting of armed heroes and the danger of “gun-free” zones should give it a good read.

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges Constitutionality of National Firearms Act

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

The groups Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three people: John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or “Any Other Weapon” to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The One Big Beautiful Bill removed the tax on these arms but kept the registration requirement.

The newly filed suit seeks to completely remove the affected arms from the NFA, eliminating the remaining registration requirements for gun silencers, short-barreled rifles, or barreled shotguns.

“With the tax now set to $0, the remaining registration requirements for these arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Completely removing them from the NFA is now a must, and this suit aims to eradicate the barriers to the exercise of the Second Amendment. SAF is already a plaintiff in its own lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these elements of the NFA, and now our sister organization the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is joining the fight as a plaintiff with our financial backing in this companion case.”

Continue reading “”

Why is Bondi’s DOJ Defending the Biden-Cornyn Gun Back Door Registration Scheme?

In a stunning betrayal of gun owners, Attorney General Pam Bondi recently ordered the Department of Justice to continue defending Joe Biden’s “Engaged in the Business” rule — a backdoor gun registration scheme.

And now there’s a new twist: a federal judge in the Northern District of Alabama just ruled that the ATF overstepped its authority with major parts of this rule, and issued a permanent injunction protecting the named plaintiffs and their members from enforcement.

Despite this rebuke, though, Bondi’s DOJ is pressing forward with defending the rule — even after President Trump ordered a full review of Biden’s gun control agenda earlier this year. This is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to kneecap Trump’s pro-gun agenda.

What the Court Did

The court declared multiple provisions of the ATF’s rule unlawful, including:

  • The claim that there’s no minimum number of guns or sales required to be “in the business.”
  • The presumption of “profit intent” even when no profit is shown.
  • The attack on the “personal collection” safe harbor, excluding firearms kept for self-defense.
  • Presumptions that reselling or advertising firearms automatically makes someone a dealer.

These provisions have now been permanently blocked against enforcement for the named plaintiffs. But here’s the catch: the rest of the country is still exposed. Unless the rule is struck down entirely, millions of gun owners remain at risk of being treated like criminals for private sales.

Cornyn’s BSCA Opened the Door for This

Make no mistake: this entire scheme is the spawn of John Cornyn’s Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, drafted with anti-gun Democrat Chris Murphy. Cornyn handed Biden the legislative keys to create a backdoor registry — and Bondi is keeping it alive.

Pam Bondi has a long history of selling out gun owners. She supported red flag laws in Florida, refused to stop anti-gun ordinances, and repeatedly sided with the political elite over grassroots conservatives. Now, as Attorney General, she’s siding with Biden over Trump, fighting in court to preserve Biden’s gun control legacy.

President Trump must get control of his own AG and force her to follow his pro-gun agenda.

The Fight in the Courts

There is hope, however. In the Fifth Circuit, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Gun Owners of America are suing to stop this same rule. Texas Gun Rights and the National Association for Gun Rights filed a hard-hitting amicus brief in support.

A preliminary injunction is currently protecting gun owners in Texas and several other states. But if Bondi’s DOJ succeeds in salvaging the Biden-Cornyn rule, that protection could vanish, putting every gun owner back in the crosshairs.

As every gun owner knows: registration is the first step to confiscation.

 

Chris McNutt is president of Texas Gun Rights. 

Federal Judge: Biden ATF Rule on Firearms Sales Cannot Be Used Against NRA Members

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Corey L. Maze “permanently [blocked] federal authorities from enforcing multiple provisions of the ATF’s [‘engaged in the business’ rule],” according to Rocket City Now.

Maze’s ruling applies to two plaintiffs — “Don Butler of Talladega and David Glidewell of Ragland” — and to members of the NRA.

ATF’s engaged in the business rule became final on April 10, 2024. The rule is designed to expand the occurrences of point-of-sale background checks by counting certain private sales as business sales, thereby requiring the transfer to be handled via a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.

As the rule prepared to be finalized, Breitbart News noted that then-ATF director Steven Dettelbach could not could not define a precise threshold for when private citizens are considered “engaged in the business” of selling guns. The ambiguity put law-abiding gun owners on edge, as they could not ascertain when they might be in violation of the rule and when they might not.

A lawsuit, Butler v. Garland, resulted, later to be augmented to Butler v. Bondi.

In the case, “Plaintiffs argue that Congress requires a person buy or sell multiple firearms before he can be deemed to be engaged the firearms’ business, and ATF exceeded its authority by roping in persons who sell or offer to sell only one firearm.”

Maze agreed with the plaintiffs, noting that the “ATF exceeded its authority when it interpreted the [the Gun Control Act of 1968] to possibly prohibit a single purchase or sale or a single offer to purchase or sell a firearm.”

Maze pointed to case law, summarizing: “Congress decided that a person is not engaged in the business of dealing in firearms unless he deals firearms ‘as a regular course of trade or business’… Regular means repeated or often. So regular business requires more than one firearm transaction involving a single firearm. Because the Final Rule says single transactions involving one firearm may be prohibited in some cases, it exceeds ATF’s statutory authority.”

He continued to examine phrases in the ATF’s final engaged in the business rule, showing again and again how the “ATF exceeded its authority,” ruling: “The court will enter a separate order that PERMANENTLY ENJOINS the Department of Justice, ATF, Acting ATF Director Daniel Driscoll, and Attorney General Pamela Bondi from enforcing these aspects of the ‘Engaged in the Business’ Final Rule against Plaintiffs Don Butler, David Glidewell, and any member of the NRA.”

NAILED IT! The FBI DID Send Hundreds of Undercover Assets Into the J6 Protest!

Yet another victory for the tinfoil hat, “conspiracy theory” crew: the FBI sent 274 “plainclothes” agents into the crowd of people protesting in and near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Just the News.

And many of those agents are not happy about how it all went down, not to mention the bureau’s liberal bias.

FACT-O-RAMA! When the House Judiciary Committee asked him if the FBI had undercover assets involved in the January 6 protest, then-FBI director Christopher Wray testified that such an idea is “ludicrous.” Maybe he and James Comey can enjoy a little yard time together.

An FBI after-action report that Kash Patel’s office recently discovered not only reveals that the agency sent 274 agents and personnel into the January 6 fracas but also how poorly planned and executed the plan was. The report also reveals that many rank-and-file FBI agents complained that they felt as though they were “pawns in a political war.” Others suggested that the FBI was too “woke.”

After the January 6 melee, dozens of FBI agents and officials lodged anonymous complaints to the bureau, outlining how the bureau sent them into a dangerous situation without safety gear or a proper way to identify themselves as armed federal agents to other law enforcement officers.

The most common complaint from the agents was the left-leaning political bias of the bureau and how the BLM rioters of 2020 received far better treatment than the January 6 protestors.

Some of the complaints were scathing. One of the bureau’s damning complaints read:

The FBI should make clear to its personnel and the public that, despite its obvious political bias, it ultimately still takes its mission and priorities seriously. It should equally and aggressively investigate criminal activity regardless of the offenders’ perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations; and it should equally and aggressively protect all Americans regardless of perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations.

That same agent also asked the FBI “to identify viable exit options for FBI personnel who no longer feel it is legally or morally acceptable to support a federal law enforcement and intelligence agency motivated by political bias.”

Another agent pulled no punches and suggested that the problem of political bias wasn’t just an FBI problem but that it extended to the Office of the U.S. Attorney:

Currently, the US Attorney’s office is dictating what it is that gets investigated. This is a dangerous precedent because we can barely get them to prosecute investigations that clearly meet thresholds needed for Federal prosecutions,” the agent wrote. “However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

Many agents focused their ire on the “wokeness” of the Washington Field Office (WFO), with one writing, “WFO is a hopelessly broken office that’s more concerned about wearing masks and recruiting preferred racial/sexual groups than catching actual bad guys.”

Yet another agent lowered the boom and spoke directly about the FBI’s treatment of January 6 suspects:

However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

 

FACT-O-RAMA! A vast majority of J6 defendants were charged with four misdemeanors, one of which involved trespassing. Most were not sentenced to serve time in jail.

This bombshell after-action report discovery comes hot on the heels of the arrest of former FBI Director Comey, who faces charges of lying and obstruction.

Had enough yet?

The Federal Trade Commission Takes On the 2nd Amendment

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson requesting the FTC investigate whether the Biden Administration’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention worked with anti-Second Amendment organizations to demand that the agency crack down on “deceptive and misleading claims” made by gun manufacturers. These efforts were supported by a group of anti-Second Amendment senators who wrote to then-FTC Chair Lina Khan asking her to investigate the gun industry’s advertising practices.

The senators’ letter accused the gun industry of marketing to children because their ads referenced popular “first person shooter video games” like Call of Duty. The problem with this claim is that the majority of gamers are over 18—making it perfectly legal for the firearms industry to market their products to them. The letter also suggests that the gun industry is engaging in “deceptive” advertising by focusing on how firearm ownership can help law-abiding citizens protect themselves, their families, and their property. Once again, the senators’ claims do not fit the facts.

Gun owners use firearms in self-defense between 60,000 and 2,500,000 times per year, and private citizens are 85% more likely to use a gun for self-defense than to be killed by a firearm. It is not misleading to say that firearms can be a useful tool for self-defense. Sadly, it is also true that there are around 526 accidental gun deaths per year, as well as over 40,000 people wounded due to the careless use of firearms. However, the solution is not to restrict firearm advertising—but to promote responsible gun ownership. The gun industry, along with other pro-Second Amendment organizations, does engage in plenty of work in this area.

As weak as the arguments for restricting firearms advertising are, the main argument against such restrictions is that they violate the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedent establishes that commercial speech like advertising is protected by the First Amendment, although at a lower level than political or religious speech. Even under this lower standard of review, banning or otherwise restricting advertisements for firearms would likely be struck down by the courts.

But while a future gun-grabbing FTC Chair may not be able to directly restrict gun advertising, they may try to ban gun ads through the back door. One way to do this would be to condition approval of mergers and acquisitions of media companies—including social media companies—on an agreement to not promote “dangerous” products such as firearms. If this sounds familiar it is because it is the approach of current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson. Ferguson has conditioned approval of advertising firm Omnicom’s acquisition of fellow advertising company Interpublic on the firms agreeing not to restrict web ad placements based on the sites’ political content. Is it too hard to imagine a future progressive FTC conditioning a similar merger on a company’s agreement to not place ads on sites that promote products dangerous to public health, such as firearms?

Government agencies may not even have to directly threaten to deny approval of a merger or acquisition to get a company to disregard the Second Amendment rights of their consumers. For example, before winning approval of their purchase by Skydance, Paramount—who owns CBS—settled a lawsuit brought by President Trump alleging that 60 Minutes edited their interview with then-Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her appear more knowledgable and coherent. President Trump claims this was done to make the Vice President more appealing to voters, and thus constituted election interference.

A long time 60 Minutes producer resigned earlier this year, saying the network was interfering with the program’s editorial decisions to moderate criticisms of President Trump. While FCC Chair Brandon Carr did not explicitly demand these actions, his rhetoric about broadcasters being required to act in the “public interest”, and his threats to block the Paramount-Skydance deal, no doubt played a role in Paramount’s actions.

It is easy to imagine a progressive FTC or FCC Chair using this precedent to forbid a news program, podcast, or even entertainment program from including content considered pro-gun. Fortunately, the pro-Second Amendment movement is fighting any attempt to use spurious claims of “false and deceptive” advertising to infringe on the Second Amendment. According to Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, his group “is leading the charge to unravel many of Biden’s unconstitutional restrictions in the courts, and we applaud President Trump for working to roll back other abuses—because the Second Amendment isn’t a bargaining chip, it’s the cornerstone of every American’s freedom.”

DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case

The case Reese v. ATF challenges the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. Victorious at the Fifth Circuit, they’re now working towards a final judgment at the district court level, but the Department of Justice has taken a position that’s not sitting well with Second Amendment advocates.

After the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion on Reese v. ATF, the case was remanded for final judgment to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The circuit court concluded that “the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” The plaintiffs filed an important brief on Friday in support of their proposed judgment.

The government ended up exhausting their timeline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When remanded back to district court, both the plaintiffs and the government filed proposed judgments because “a good faith attempt to reach agreement with Government” failed.

The plaintiffs are proposing the government be enjoined from enforcing prohibitions on the sale of handguns to all eighteen-to-twenty-year-old members. The government is requesting that the law be enjoined only “with respect to the identified and verified persons described” in the proposed judgment. In short, the government essentially wants the order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not every member of the associations who are part of the lawsuit, which include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association.

“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

The 19-page brief goes on to explain why the final judgment should not give deference to the government by delivering what would amount to an as-applied opinion. Given the amount of time it takes to bring such cases to completion, many plaintiffs are mooted out by coming of age before there are any final judgments—something the government incorporated in their proposed order.

“What’s at stake now is the scope of the injunction–meaning, which young adults will be able to exercise their rights,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Although it chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it is now the ATF’s position that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. That position is contrary to well-settled law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF won in the Fifth Circuit flows to those very members. All SAF members should be covered by this injunction.”

“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition had some harsh words for the Department of Justice. FPC said the government’s brief was full of “brazen arguments” and that “the DOJ is working to push all effective, cause-driven organizations … out of court altogether, and force people to pursue their rights through slow, complex, and expensive class-action lawsuits.” FPC alleges that these moves are all part of a new government ploy.

“The DOJ’s cynical scheme to undermine associational standing and relief for our members is nothing but an attempt to put constitutional accountability out of the reach of ordinary Americans,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “The federal government, having lost on the merits, is now trying to rig the process. But we will not be deterred. While the government has placed FPC and our members in its crosshairs, we are proud to expose and oppose this dangerous strategy as we pursue a world of maximal liberty for all peaceable people.”

We’re allegedly living at a time when the most pro-Second Amendment administration is in power. The government yielding by allowing the clock to run out on appealing to the High Court certainly was a win, but not if in the next breath they’re saying that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking should be grossly limited. The Fifth Circuit was clear when it said that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people,” there should be no further argument—yet here we are.

This is what can happen when a state decides to be the NICS point of contact for dealers. Of course, states actually do this to make an illegal registry of, if not guns, gun owners. And, you have to wonder just how real the “hack” is, as opposed to the state goobermint simply wanting to shut down dealers for however long they want.

Nevada Cyberattack Leaves Gun Buyers in Limbo

Many gun sales in the Silver State have been stuck on hold for the past few weeks after a cyberattack on multiple state agencies, and there’s no telling when the state’s background check system will be back online.

Hannah Miles, owner of Guns N Ammo in Gardnersville, Nevada, tells Bearing Arms that she currently has more than 20 background checks pending; all from customers who’ve paid for their firearms but can’t take possession because of the outage. Miles adds that she’s heard it could be a couple of months before the problem is rectified, and the state has offered no alternative for FFLs to conduct the checks while the system is offline.

The cyberattack took place on August 24, so it’s already been more than two weeks of frustration for gun buyers and sellers. Individuals who hold a valid Nevada concealed carry license are exempt from the background check requirement on gun sales, but the outage is impacting everyone else.

Gun store owners told News 4-Fox 11 the outage has affected gun sales, but they were more concerned with the cyberattack affecting Nevadans’ Second Amendment rights.

“The state’s priority should be the constitutional rights of the citizens,” said Michael Alaimo, owner of Rightful Liberty Arms in Reno. “When you go to the state website, it doesn’t say anything about the firearms. Everything says about payroll and DMV, and those are not rights. You know the right to bear arms is in our constitution.”

Alaimo said roughly half of his sales are to people that require a federal background check, while the other sales are to concealed carry permit holders.

Meanwhile, Marcus Hodges, Reno Guns & Range’s assistant general manager, said he has a table ‘piling up with firearms’ that cannot be given to customers.

“There are some people that are foregoing the sale at this point in time. Unfortunately, it’s affecting everybody in the state,” Hodges said.

Nevada is what’s known as a Point of Contact state, meaning Nevada FFLs contact the state’s Department of Public Safety’s Records Bureau instead of going to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System directly. According to the state, “the advantage to this is that the Point of Contact Firearms Program has access to Nevada criminal history records.”

The disadvantage, of course, is that an untold number of Nevadans are now unable to exercise their Second Amendment rights because of this cyberattack. That’s a real problem, from both a practical and constitutional standpoint.

A right delayed is a right denied, and at the moment the right to keep and bear arms is being denied to every first-time gun buyer in Nevada who doesn’t hold a valid carry license. There is no way for them to legally acquire a firearm unless they can find a seller who fits in the state’s narrow exceptions to its universal background check law, and that’s not going to be possible for many residents.

The effects on gun sellers are equally profound. Most people aren’t going to spend money on a gun if they can’t actually take possession of it until some unknown date in the future, and the inability to process background checks for weeks on end will certainly have an impact on the finances of many FFLs. It’s possible that some shops will have to cut staff or even close entirely if these delays last much longer.

I’m honestly not sure what it would take to allow FFLs to go directly to NICS itself, but unless there’s a provision in state law that allows for that in the case of a system failure it would most likely involve litigation, and the prospects of any legal relief are slim. I’m not aware of any lawsuit that’s been filed over the delays, but even if gun stores or gun buyers were to sue it would take some time to get before a judge, and even longer to obtain injunctive relief. By then the system may once again be operational, and my guess is that most FFLs don’t want to spend the money hiring an attorney and suing the state if there’s a chance their lawsuit will be mooted by the time they get their day in court.

At this point, though, it might be worth the effort. If nothing else, lawmakers need to revise or amend the state’s background check law to allow FFLs to go directly to NICS if and when the DPS Records Bureau is unable to conduct background checks in the future. That won’t fix the ongoing problems, but it would at least prevent them from re-occurring the next time the state gets hit with a cyberattack.