Category: Bureaucraps

Fifth Circuit’s Suppressor Decision Could Gut Second Amendment Protections

Earlier this week a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its third ruling in a case dealing with a Louisiana man’s possession of an unregistered suppressor. Unfortunately, the third time wasn’t the charm for George Peterson, with the panel once again upholding his conviction, as it did in its original opinion in February and its first revised opinion in August.

This time around, the panel assumed without deciding that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, but ruled that the National Firearms Act’s taxation and registration scheme is akin to a “shall issue” concealed carry permitting regime and is therefore presumptively constitutional.

The panel essentially agreed with the DOJ, which, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has recognized that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, but still maintains that the NFA taxes and registration are constitutional. As the panel wrote in its unanimous decision:

The NFA provides that the ATF will deny a firearm-making application if the “making or possession of the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law.” This is precisely the “objective and definite” licensing criterion held permissible under Bruen.

Further, we have no reason to doubt on this record that the NFA’s fingerprint, photograph, and background-check requirements are “designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law abiding, responsible citizens.’” Peterson’s failure to make any showing as to how the requirement places an unconstitutional burden on his Second Amendment rights alone is dispositive.

It is not even clear he could claim that this requirement posed an unconstitutional burden as applied to him given his explanation that he failed to register because he “forgot” to do so. Finally, the NFA enforces its objective shall-issue licensing requirement through prohibiting suppressor possession by unlicensed persons, as did several of the “shall-issue” licensing regimes that Bruen cited approvingly.

The Fifth Circuit panel avoided any debate on the constitutionality of the $200 tax imposed by the NFA (something the DOJ has described as a “modest burden” on our Second Amendment rights) by declaring that, since Peterson brought an as-applied challenge and he never attempted to pay the $200 tax, the question is not germane to his case.

While the panel left open the possibility that other as-applied challenges to the NFA could be successful, the judges were pretty adamant that the NFA and its requirements are no different than a “shall issue” system for issuing concealed carry licenses. And since the Supreme Court hasn’t said anything about various arms enjoying different levels of protection under the Second Amendment, any restriction imposed on the purchase and possession of suppressors could be imposed on commonly-owned handguns, rifles, and shotguns as well… at least in the states where the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction.

Those states are Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, so I’m not particularly worried about any of them suddenly deciding to apply NFA language to semi-automatic handguns or AR-15s. If the Fifth Circuit’s logic is adopted by other appellate courts, though, it’s not difficult to imagine anti-gun lawmakers in blue states doing just that. We’re already seeing a number of Democrat-controlled states push for permit-to-purchase laws, so adding additional taxes and registration requirements to those statutes wouldn’t be difficult.

The DOJ has been criticized by 2A groups like Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition for continuing to defend the constitutionality of the NFA. That is a legitimate concern, and the fact that DOJ is also acknowledging that at least some NFA items are protected by the Second Amendment could also wreak havoc on our 2A rights in statehouses and courtrooms across the country.

As I said, SCOTUS has never suggested that the Second Amendment has tiers of protection for various arms. So when the DOJ says that a $200 tax on suppressors is only a “modest” and constitutionally permissible burden on our right to keep and bear arms, anti-gun politicians (and jurists) can use that to argue that a $200 tax on so-called assault weapons, semi-automatic handguns, or even all firearms is equally compliant with the Second Amendment.

I think the Fifth Circuit panel took some care not to give anti-2A politicians any legal ammunition to that effect, but I’m afraid they’ve opened up a Pandora’s Box by stating that the NFA’s restrictions are no different than a “shall issue” system for concealed carry. Let’s hope that an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court close the lid on this “logic” before the gun control lobby uses it as a cudgel to attack our 2A rights.

The ATF’s Quiet Digital Transformation — And Why It Matters

Here’s something most Americans don’t know: when a federally licensed firearms dealer goes out of business, they’re required to send their transaction records to the ATF. These records — Form 4473s documenting every gun sale — end up at the National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, West Virginia. The ATF uses them to trace firearms recovered at crime scenes back to their original point of sale.

For decades, these records existed primarily on paper. Millions of documents, stored in shipping containers and warehouses, searchable only through painstaking manual labor. Tracing a single firearm could take days.

That’s changing. The ATF has been digitizing these out-of-business records for years, and according to Gun Owners of America, the agency digitized over 50 million records in 2021 alone, bringing the total to nearly one billion. In 2022, the Biden administration finalized a rule requiring dealers to retain records indefinitely rather than destroying them after 20 years — meaning even more records will eventually flow to the ATF when those dealers close.

The question at the center of the debate: does this constitute a federal gun registry by another name?

Continue reading “”

What we really need is for the courts to overrule Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) where the Supreme Court ruled that even traveling state to state was ‘commerce’ and could be regulated by goobermint under the Constitution’s  commerce clause, thus unfortunately allowing the Feds to run amok.

As of October, “E-Form” .20s are already active, but as of now only works for those items that were made or transferred within the E-Form system. Those of you who know I have had – among others – an UZI smg for over 40 years are not aware of the problems I encounter with the lower level bureaucraps at ATF with traveling with it, that have to be resolved at higher levels….because the worked bees don’t appear to be all that bright.

ATF Proposes Changes to Make Travel With NFA Items Easier.

Until the National Firearms Act is a relic of the past, every little bit that makes it easier to navigate can surely help. In recent weeks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives published their intent to do just that in the form of a two-fer.

A proposed rule would help clarify and streamline the process for those transporting National Firearms Act-regulated items across state lines. In simplifying and digitizing that process, the move would also get rid of some unnecessary bureaucracy at ATF, as well as save time and money for both NFA-item owners and the agency.

Currently, a person wishing to transport certain NFA-regulated items – such as “short-barreled” rifles and shotguns – must, per 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4), complete and submit ATF Form 5321.20, the Application to Transport Interstate or to Temporarily Export Certain National Firearms Act (NFA) Firearms to ATF in advance of the travel. Alternatively, a person can mail a letter of request, in duplicate, containing all information required on the ATF Form, in lieu of the form.

Note just a few of the archaic instructions:

The registered owner of NFA firearm(s) shall complete two copies of ATF Form 5320.20 and forward the forms to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 (Attention: NFA Division).  The form can be submitted via facsimile to the NFA Division at (304) 616-4501 or may be scanned and emailed to NFAFax@atf.gov.

All signatures on both copies of the form shall be in ink. All other entries on the form shall be printed in ink or typewritten.

In the notice ATF submitted to the Federal Register, it stated that the plan is to permanently overhaul and digitize the process by revising the information collection method to make the form electronically fillable and allow it to be emailed directly, as well as auto-fill the required second copy. Additionally, the form will be part of its online eForms section on the ATF website for easier access and include more clarifying language on the application of the regulation for travel.

This latest proposal by ATF appears to be part of the ongoing effort announced as a “new era of reform” as posted on the ATF website earlier this year: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform. A quick perusal of the ATF Forms and Information Collection site shows multiple recent and similar updates meant to assist in streamlining forms, reducing paperwork, and updating procedures through digitization, all great efforts helping to ultimately reduce wait times and resources that burden both agency and citizen.

ATF is seeking public feedback on this proposed rule until January 27, 2026, to help assess the utility of the efforts and asks specifically for comments that:

  • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary to properly perform ATF’s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
  • Evaluate the agency’s estimate of the proposed information collection’s burden for accuracy, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
  • Evaluate whether, and if so, how the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information can be enhanced; and
  • Minimize the information collection’s burden on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

While there is still much work to be done in repealing the NFA, work NRA continues alongside Second Amendment partners in multiple lawsuits, for today, modernization is far better than weaponization.

Analysis: What to Make of New DOJ Second Amendment Section

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced plans to create the first-ever dedicated Second Amendment section within the agency’s Civil Rights Division. But thus far, the agency hasn’t been too eager to talk about it, and the reported rollout date for the new section to begin operations has already come and gone without any movement.
Officials from the DOJ only publicly confirmed the existence of the planned section for the first time on Friday night after more than a week of media reports.
“The 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right. After the prior administration’s campaign to infringe on Americans’ gun rights, the Justice Department is strongly committed to undoing the damage,” Attorney General Pam Bondi (R.) wrote in a social media post. “This unit within our Civil Rights Division will advance President Trump’s pro-2nd Amendment agenda and protect the right to bear arms for all.”
Details about the move were first reported by Reuters last week, though the plans for the new entity appear to have been months in the making. In a September interview with an alumni publication for her alma mater, Assistant Attorney General and leader of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon announced that plans for the new section were already in the works as early as this summer.
According to planning documents provided to Congress and obtained by Reuters, the proposed new section would be tasked primarily with “investigating local laws or policies limiting gun rights,” and it would carry out that work “using existing funds and personnel.” The documents also identified December 4th as the new section’s expected opening date.
However, the DOJ has yet to formally announce the new section beyond Bondi’s social media post, and it remains absent from the Civil Rights Division’s organization page.
The DOJ also has not responded to The Reload’s requests for comment on details about the new division.

Continue reading “”

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.”