Category: Bureaucraps

BLUF
The administrative state spent decades expanding its power through creative interpretations of old laws never meant to address modern policy debates. Trump is finally pushing back, and the establishment can’t stand it.

Trump Just Ended the EPA’s Climate Power Grab, and the Left Is Losing It

President Donald Trump just delivered a knockout punch to Obama-era climate hysteria, and the bureaucrats are having a total meltdown.

On Thursday, the Trump administration finalized rules repealing the EPA’s endangerment finding — that dubious 2009 determination claiming six greenhouse gases threaten human health under the Clean Air Act. “We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding,” Trump announced, calling the policy exactly what it was: “disastrous.”

This wasn’t just some regulatory tweak. The endangerment finding was the entire foundation for the EPA’s power grab over climate policy under the Barack Obama regime. It allowed unelected bureaucrats to impose crushing regulations on the oil and gas industry, power plants, and vehicles, all without Congress ever voting to grant them that authority. Essentially, it let EPA staffers reshape the entire American economy based on a single “finding” they issued themselves.

Trump’s repeal also axes those vehicle emission rules, since they all stem from the same flawed finding.

In addition, the Trump administration will finalize a repeal of rules that regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, since they stem from the finding. Under former President Joe Biden, the EPA sought to tighten those standards to prod the auto industry to make more fuel-efficient hybrids and electric vehicles — an effort the industry has since backtracked on.

The full text of EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding wasn’t made available before the Trump administration announced it, but the justification will likely rely far more on legal arguments that climate pollution cannot be regulated by the landmark Clean Air Act than an outright rejection of climate science, legal experts told CNN.

Good riddance.

Continue reading “”

Bondi dodges the question. And from her time as a Florid’s AG, we knew she was no fan of RKBA.
The real question no one seems to have the sense to ask is WHo DECIDED to litigate this?
Was it Bondi, and Trump is too loyal to her to bring her too heel, or is it Trump being his NOO YAWK self?

Rep. Ben Cline: The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, last year President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law which included the Hearing Protection Act — part of it — which was sponsored by myself and Congressman Clyde. It reduced the national firearms tax, $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms, to zero and while the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration and paperwork requirements remain in effect.

And your DOJ has said that would, even though the tax has been reduced to zero, that the registration requirement is still somehow necessary even though with regard to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, when that tax penalty was reduced to zero, you decided that the mandate was no longer necessary.

How are you justifying the existence of this registry?

AG Pam Bondi: Congressman, that’s pending litigation right now.

Rep. Cline: It is and I would hope that you would reconsider that.

President Trump’s ATF pick clears Senate hearing easily

by Lee Williams

New York state native turned Floridian Robert Cekada spent just over two hours Wednesday along with four judicial candidates testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

By all accounts, Cekada passed the test, and he will likely become the next Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Mr. Cekada has had an extensive career protecting Americans at the state and federal level,” Grassley said. “He served a decade as a police officer, receiving numerous awards. He has also spent two decades at the ATF. He knows how to lead the Bureau because he’s worked tirelessly throughout the chain of command.”

Grassley noted that his committee has received dozens of letters endorsing Cekada for the ATF leadership position, and that Cekada worked closely with his office after an ATF whistleblower revealed ATF’s misclassification scheme and other improper practices.

“Mr. Cekada worked closely with my staff to bring this resolution forward, to make sure no more taxpayer dollars were wasted,” Grassley said. “I commend his fine leadership and aggressive actions to find a solution for this brave whistleblower, and I encourage him to allow more whistleblowers to come forward, to help him understand what’s going on in the Bureau.”

Cekada started his law enforcement career in 1992 as a cadet for the New York City Police Department, where in 1999 he became a detective assigned to the department’s Organized Crime Control Bureau. He has also worked as an officer in Florida, until he joined the ATF in 2005, as a special agent in the Baltimore Field Division. His rise up ATF’s chain of command was swift. In May of last year, he became the ATF’s Deputy Director—it’s number two position.

Cekada’s testimony

Continue reading “”

DOJ and ATF Overreach: Weaponizing Patent Law Against the 2A

It’s no surprise to see the federal government trample on gun rights time and again. But the latest stunt from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) takes the cake. On January 26, 2026, the ATF filed a “Statement of Interest” in a purely civil patent infringement lawsuit between Rare Breed Triggers and Hoffman Tactical. This isn’t about crime or national security; it’s a business dispute over intellectual property. Yet here comes Uncle Sam, sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong, all in the name of “public safety.” If this doesn’t scream anti-2A overreach, I don’t know what does.

Let’s back up and break this down for those who might not be knee-deep in the gun world. Forced reset triggers, or FRTs, are engineered triggers that allow for faster semi-automatic firing by mechanically resetting the trigger after each shot. They’re not machine gunssince they require a separate trigger pull for every round, as affirmed by multiple courts. Rare Breed Triggers pioneered the FRT-15, a popular model that lets law-abiding citizens like you and me shoot fasterwithout converting semi-automatic firearms into fully-automatics. Hoffman Tactical, run by inventor Timothy Hoffman out of Tennessee, developed his own version called the Super Safety. It’s similar in concept but differs in design details. Notably, his design has been promulgated via open-source 3D-printable files that empower DIY enthusiasts to make their own.

The beef started when Rare Breed sued Hoffman in late 2025, claiming patent infringement. Rare Breed argues Hoffman’s design copies their tech too closely, while Hoffman counters that his is distinct enough and that no one owns the broad idea of forced resets. This should be a straightforward intellectual property/patent fight in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (case number 1:25-cv-00389-CLC-CHS);  No criminals, no threats to society, just two companies hashing out who gets to profit from a clever invention.

Enter the ATF, stage left. In their Statement of Interest, they declare a “strong interest in promoting the safe use of firearms by the public, and in this particular case, in discouraging unregulated manufacture of forced reset triggers that allegedly infringe Rare Breed’s patents.” They’re urging the judge to grant Rare Breed a preliminary injunction against Hoffman, effectively shutting him down. Why? Because in the DOJ’s rationale, fewer FRTs mean less “danger.” This isn’t neutral advice; it’s a blatant push to limit access to these triggers through the backdoor of patent enforcement.

To understand this meddling, we need to rewind to the ATF’s long war on FRTs. Back in 2021, the agency sent a cease-and-desist to Rare Breed, classifying the FRT-15 as a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.  Rare Breed fought back, and in a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Cargill v. Garland, the justices struck down the ATF’s bump stock ban, setting a precedent that devices like FRTs aren’t machine guns.  By July 2024, a Texas district court applied this to FRTs, ruling they require multiple functions per shot—not the single pull that defines a machine gun.

Undeterred, the ATF kept up the pressure, seizing triggers and dragging Rare Breed through lawsuits. But in May 2025, under the self-described “most pro-2A administration in history,” the DOJ settled. The feds dropped their cases, agreed to return seized FRTs (including those from Wide Open Triggers, a similar product), and Rare Breed resumed sales. Sounds like a win, right? Not so fast. The settlement had strings attached: Rare Breed promised not to develop FRTs for pistols and, crucially, to “enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety.” In other words, the ATF outsourced its infringement agenda to a private company.

Now, Rare Breed is suing not just Hoffman but several manufacturers of Super Safety designs. YouTube creators and gun forums are buzzing—some call it a betrayal, with Rare Breed torching community goodwill to appease the feds. Hoffman himself received a cease-and-desist in February 2025, pulling his files offline. And the ATF’s intervention? It’s the cherry on top, admitting in essence they’re using this civil suit to curb “unregulated manufacture.”

The ATF has no statutory authority to regulate firearm accessories like triggers in this way. They were created to enforce existing laws, not invent new ones via proxy. Patent law is for protecting innovation, not as a tool for disarmament. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, the bureaucracy finds ways to chip away at our rights. Remember, this “pro-2A” admin settled with conditions that force Rare Breed to police the market, effectively creating a monopoly that limits options for Americans.

The implications are chilling. If the government can hijack private lawsuits to advance gun control, what’s next? Banning aftermarket parts through intellectual property? Ignoring the First Amendment and stifling 3D printing innovations that empower self-reliance? Hoffman’s open-source approach democratizes gun tech, putting power in the hands of the people, not corporations or the state. By backing Rare Breed, the ATF is signaling they want fewer triggers out there, period, regardless of legality.

We can’t let bureaucrats weaponize the courts. Support organizations like Gun Owners of America who broke this story, contact your reps, boycott companies that cave to government pressure, and stay vigilant. The Second Amendment isn’t negotiable; it’s our birthright.

Finally: Trump Pulls the US Out of United Nations’ International Gun Registry Scheme

President Donald Trump just delivered a long-overdue message to the global gun confiscation cartel: America is not taking orders from the United Nations.

In a major move for national sovereignty and Second Amendment freedom, the Trump administration has formally withdrawn the United States from the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, a UN-run reporting system that gun rights advocates have warned for years is part of the international bureaucracy’s long game to pressure nations into “standardized” gun restrictions.

What Is the UN Register of Conventional Arms?

UNROCA is a so-called “voluntary” United Nations registry where participating countries report information about weapons transfers, including categories of conventional arms and, in many cases, small arms and light weapons.

Supporters claim it promotes “transparency.”

But gun owners know how this game works.

Transparency is always the excuse and control is always the goal. Because once international bureaucrats start collecting data, they don’t stop at tracking tanks and fighter jets.

Continue reading “”

RESPONSE BRIEF FILED IN SAF’S SECOND NFA CHALLENGE

BELLEVUE, Wash. — Jan. 21, 2026 — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a response brief in the second of the organization’s two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA) registration scheme.

Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the brief voices the organization’s opposition to the Government’s motion for summary judgment in Brown v. ATF.

Until President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the NFA established a $200 tax and registration regime on certain classes of firearms including silencers, short-barreled firearms and “any other weapons” (AOWs), drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. SAF and its partners filed lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing authority is no longer justifiable.

“The passage of the Big Beautiful Bill kicked the already questionable constitutional authority for the NFA right out from under the ATF,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “With its actual purported authority now eliminated, the government has resorted to borrowing taxation authority from elsewhere in the statute, or entirely different constitutional authority rarely asserted to justify the NFA. Today’s brief explains exactly why neither tactic is persuasive.”

SAF is joined in Brown v. ATF by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two private citizens.

“For the second time this week SAF and its partners have filed opposition briefs in response to the government’s insistence on defending the NFA,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re better situated now than we have been in almost 90 years to relegate significant chunks of the unconstitutional NFA to the dustbin of history. Today’s brief is a major step toward that goal.”

Glenn Beck

I said I would give Pam Bondi a year to prove herself as an Attorney General who would dismantle the Deep State, let Americans see the truth, and finally bring to justice the criminal elites who have been “too big to jail.”

Today, that year is up, and I haven’t seen evidence that she has done ANY of that.

Bondi’s handling of the Epstein case was one of the worst fumbles I have ever seen. But we all remember that.

What about the lack of prosecution against anyone who tried to weaponize the justice system against political opponents like Trump?

Or the failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the Russiagate hoax like Clapper and Comey? That’s not weaponization. We’ve had the EVIDENCE for years that they lied and colluded with the press!

Where are the prosecutions related to the Mar-a-Lago raid? We keep finding out that it was even WORSE than we were told, but NOTHING has happened yet?

Can we get an update on any George Soros investigations? Why has it taken so long to go after him?

Or how about investigating the Clintons for NON-Epstein related scandals: Gazprom? Uranium One? Benghazi? Hillary’s email server? Claims of fraud in Haiti? Anything the Clinton Foundation has touched?!

How about the failure to drain the Swamp of Deep State actors working against the American people and their elected officials?

Or the PROVEN lies from Capitol Police about Jan. 6?
Or the FBI’s lies about the number of agents in the crowd?
Or investigations into possible 2020 election fraud?
Or follow-up on DOGE’s fraud findings?

Sure, the DOJ is looking into the Somali fraudsters. But what about everyone in the banks, state government, and federal offices that HAD TO have known about the fraud?!

What about Biden’s autopen scandal? Who signed off on everything if it wasn’t Biden?

And the Biden administration was FULL of government weaponization worth prosecuting: the COVID lockdowns and vaccine mandates, the unjust FACE Act arrests, everything the Twitter Files exposed. Where is a SINGLE arrest?

And speaking of COVID, what about investigations into AMERICA’S role in creating the virus and covering up its true origins? And dare I mention Fauci?

To be fair, I understand that you can’t just rush to prosecute cases as massive as Epstein, Russiagate and COVID. It takes years if you want to do that right. We’re not looking for show trials. But all I’ve seen so far is hearing after hearing with NO results.

Maybe there’s a reason for that. But – and I believe this alone is enough to FIRE her – Bondi has failed to communicate any of this to the American people. We want results. But even more so, we want the HONEST TRUTH.

The Trump admin tried to merge DEA and ATF. After pressure, it quietly abandoned the plan

After pushback from both gun rights and gun control groups, the Trump administration has quietly abandoned its plan to merge the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives into the Drug Enforcement Administration, according to people briefed on the matter.

Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced plans last year to merge ATF into the DEA, a proposal that would require Congressional budgetary approval and is part of the early administration-wide effort to shrink the size of federal government agencies.

Officials involved in the proposal told CNN at the time of Blanche’s proposal that the two agencies had different missions — ATF is tasked with investigating violent crime, gun trafficking, arson and bombings, while DEA agents enforce the nation’s drug laws — but they naturally went hand-in-hand.

“Where there are drugs there are usually guns, and where there are guns there are usually drugs,” one of the officials previously told CNN.

The effort was re-affirmed in June, when Justice Department officials suggested eliminating the ATF “as a separate component, with its functions merged into the Drug Enforcement Administration,” leaving the DEA as “a single component that will address violent crime, drug enforcement, and crimes relating to firearms” in their budget proposal.

Administration officials’ expectations that pro-Trump gun-rights groups would welcome the plans were dashed almost immediately.

Some conservative and gun-rights groups have long called for the ATF’s abolishment but raised concerns that a merger with another agency would empower the agency’s gun-related efforts, not weaken them. The MAGA groups want ATF gone and the laws it enforces repealed. Giving its powers to another agency makes things worse, a gun rights source told CNN.

“Regulating guns is a hot potato. Everyone is for eradicating illegal drugs. Not everyone is for gun regulation,” one person involved in the Trump administration discussions that followed the Blanche memo told CNN.

Continue reading “”

Man Successfully Registers Potato as Silencer

“TATE001”

That’s the official serial number of what appears to be the first legally registered 9mm potato silencer, according to a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) registration form obtained by The Reload. It’s registered to a man named Zach Clark, who said he pulled off the feat as an act of defiance against the National Firearms Act (NFA).

“It’s a good way to highlight to normal people that like, ‘Yeah, this is dumb,’” Clark told The Reload. “This whole law is kind of dumb.”

The spud suppressor may be the most remarkable result of the NFA tax cut enacted at the beginning of the year as part of President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which made the cost of registering suppressors $0 and opened up the floodgates. The ATF saw more NFA electronic registration requests on New Year’s Day than at any time in its history. The lower cost of compliance, combined with a recently-digitized process, has made new kinds of suppressors–including disposable or even meme designs–more viable than before.

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) informed NSSF that on Thursday, January 1, 2026, alone, an unprecedented surge in e-Forms submissions were being processed,” the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the gun industry’s trade group, said last week. “That total was approximately 150,000 e-Forms. For an eye-popping comparison, last year, ahead of the $200-to-$0 tax change, typical daily volume on e-Forms for suppressors, SBRs and SBSs would hover closer to around 2,500.”

While the NFA requires registration of all sound-suppressing devices that attach to a gun barrel to be registered with the ATF, it provides a process for people to register their own homemade designs. In the same way that somebody buying a suppressor from a store would have to fill out an NFA registration form and get the ATF to approve it before taking possession of the device, a home builder has to submit their intent to build one and get approval before actually constructing the device.

Clark went through that process with his potato suppressor design. He said he made sure to keep potatoes out of his house while he waited to hear back from the ATF.

“As of this moment, I have the serialized washer, and I have the potato, but I haven’t put it together,” he told The Reload. “There’s a manufacturing buffer on that from approval; you have to wait. Plus, that’s a whole thing of like, what is your manufacturing intent? Does it count when you’ll buy the potato? Is it having any potato in your house? Any potato products?”

Potato silencer registration submission form
Potato silencer registration submission form / Zachary Clark

While Clark’s registration effort is something of a troll, gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere noted it isn’t entirely a laughing matter.

Continue reading “”

Rep. Eric Burlison: ‘Real Freedom Means Less Government Interference,’ End the ATF

Rep. Eric Burlison (R) is beginning 2026 right where he spent 2025, namely, pushing for the end of the ATF’s registration schemes and for the abolition of the agency itself.

He used a post on January 11, 2026, to remind Americans that the $200 tax on suppressors was done away via the language of the One Big Beautiful Bill, yet the ATF continues registering the devices. In so doing, the agency creates “busywork” that slows the transfer of a suppressor, “holding gun owners hostage with delays and excuses.”

Burlison pointed out that the zeroing of the $200 federal has resulted in a “surge” in suppressor purchases, which has translated into a backlog at the ATF as the agency finds itself overwhelmed with the registration workload: “…the ATF wasn’t ready for the surge in registrations and crashed their system. Unacceptable! Now they’re still demanding paperwork for no reason. Time to end this pointless registry entirely…”

He wrote, “I sent a letter demanding fixes, but the real solution is abolishing the ATF altogether. We don’t need unelected bureaucrats infringing on our rights. Congress must act to dismantle this relic and restore liberty!”

And I helped!

Explosion of Silence: ATF Gets 150,000 eForm Submissions On First Day of Zero Dollar Tax Stamps.

Gun owners from all across the country—except, of course, for California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C.—can celebrate the New Year with a bang! Or, at least a suppressed bang, that is.

After Congress passed, and President Donald Trump signed into law, the One Big, Beautiful Bill last summer, the extra $200 tax on firearm suppressors, short-barrel rifles and short-barrel shotguns is no more.

During the final few months of 2025, many suppressor companies were known to cover the tax for suppressor buyers if they chose to make their purchase ahead of January 1 and the numbers noticeably increased before the holidays.

But with the ringing in of the New Year, suppressor purchases skyrocketed as expected. All signs suggest 2026 will be the Year of the Suppressor.

Not A Typo

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives informed NSSF that on Thursday, January 1, 2026, alone, an unprecedented surge in e-Forms submissions were being processed. That total was approximately 150,000 e-Forms. For an eye-popping comparison, last year, ahead of the $200-to-$0 tax change, typical daily volume on e-Forms for suppressors, SBRs and SBSs would hover closer to around 2,500.

That’s not a typo. Americans are taking advantage of the tax reduction on National Firearms Act (NFA) items—including firearm suppressors, SBSs and SBRs—in a big, big way.

That data tracks with other data points NSSF has seen in recent years and all expectations are that growth in the number of Americans who own a suppressor will explode.

Continue reading “”

Tracing of Brown University Killer’s Gun Should Shatter Tracing Myths

The mainstream media has a real thing for gun tracing. They’re quick to quote anti-gunners, both activists and politicians, who say that so-called ghost guns are a problem because they can’t be traced. This supposedly deprives law enforcement of a serious tool they need.

Of course, no one has ever found a case that’s been broken by gun tracing, and even if there is one, the truth is that tracing only really works to find the original buyer.

This was just illustrated rather well in a report about how the tracing of the Brown University shooter’s gun has been completed.

The origin of the 9mm pistol that [the killer] fired in a Brown University lecture hall is not known to the public.

But investigators have completed their trace of the gun, which means they have identified the first person who purchased the weapon after it was manufactured and distributed, according to Andrew Wozniak, a spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

If that first purchaser was [the killer], then investigators already know where he procured the gun that he fired on Dec. 13, killing two people and injuring nine.

However, if [he] was not the first purchaser, what investigators know is not as clear, based on Wozniak’s limited comments.

“ATF has completed traces of the firearms in this case,” he said, adding that the agency “cannot publicize the details of those firearm traces at this time.”

In the lexicon of the ATF’s tracking center, a complete trace means that investigators tracked the gun along a path from either its manufacturer (or an importer, if it was foreign-made); through a chain of distribution, which typically involves a wholesaler as well as one or two retailers; and on to the first purchaser, Wozniak said.

And if it went beyond that initial purchase, even in a universal background check state, things get virtually impossible.

In this case, they know who had the gun and are trying to see if they can find a link to someone who may have helped him. Unless the gun was originally purchased by a third party a few weeks or so before the shooting, or if the original buyer reported the gun stolen, then there’s not a whole lot else to be learned.

Once a gun leaves the hands of the original buyer, the trail largely dies. That’s true even in universal background check states, where people might be required to go to a gun store to transfer a firearm, but they’re not required to remember which one they went to or anything else. Depending on how long ago such a purchase was, the original buyer may legitimately not remember anything about the transaction.

And that’s if everyone is trying to do everything lawfully and you have a near-totalitarian regime in place to make everyone do everything exactly like they’re supposed to.

Realistically, though, even that wouldn’t be the case in most states.

For all the hysteria about gun tracing, the people screaming the loudest don’t actually understand how tracing works and what its limitations are. In this case, we see a report that explicitly outlines what the ATF can learn from a trace, and that ain’t much.

While it’s a tool law enforcement uses, they don’t bank on that solving crimes, and they have never gotten a conviction based primarily on gun-tracing data. They do actual police work because that’s what puts criminals behind bars.

In this case, they hope they can find anyone who helped, but let’s be real, they’re not likely to find one. The only reason they found one in the Columbine case was that the killers were underage, and they needed someone older to buy the guns. That’s it, and that’s rare.

I’ll be shocked if they learn anything useful this time.

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) quietly changed its postmark rule effective December 24, 2025, clarifying that a machine postmark shows the date of the “first automated processing,” not necessarily when you dropped the mail off, which can be days later, impacting deadlines for taxes, ballots, and legal documents.

To ensure your mail is postmarked the actual date of deposit, you must request a free, manual hand-stamped postmark at a USPS counter or use Certified/Registered Mail, as machine stamps may be delayed due to network consolidation.

What changed?
Old understanding: A postmark reflected when you dropped mail in a box or at the counter.
New rule: The date on a machine postmark is when it first enters the automated sorting system at a regional facility, which could be days after you deposited it.

Why does it matter?
Deadlines: Federal and state laws often rely on the postmark date for timely filing of taxes, votes, and legal papers, potentially leading to late penalties.
Example: A tax payment dropped off on Dec 31 might get postmarked Jan 2, making it late for the Dec 31 deadline.

How to ensure an on-time postmark:
Go inside: Visit a USPS retail counter and ask the clerk for a manual (hand-stamped) postmark for free.
Use secure services: Send items via Certified Mail or Registered Mail for dated proof of mailing.
Mail early: Send time-sensitive items well before the deadline to allow for processing delays.

 Deflating another gun control bogeyman.

Deflating Another Gun Control Bogeyman

There is a problem with the term “gun violence.” Not just the term itself, but the whole idea that firearm-related injuries and deaths are qualitatively different or special. Violence is violence regardless of the weapon or method used.

Gun violence is a handy bogeyman for gun control and other groups advancing similar agenda. By lumping homicides, suicides, and accidents together, gun grabbers of every stripe can use this family-sized phantasm to alarm the public. Even better, it can be used to make a variety of claims since the overwhelming percentage of Americans won’t check the underlying numbers.

Gun control addicts use this to confidently claim there is an “epidemic” of gun violence. In June 2024, Vivek Murthy, Joe Biden’s surgeon general, declared “firearm” violence was a public health crisis. Murthy went on to recommend the adoption of the gun-grabbers’ wish list despite the fact that none of those measures have been shown to be effective based on results reported by the U.S. government.

When most people hear the word “violence” they associate it with one individual deliberately using force to harm another individual, i.e. assault or murder. It’s also the type of violence most alarming to the public. Supporters of 2A restrictions focus their rhetoric and “remedies” on exploiting this fear.

But there is a problem with this: Far from being a looming threat, the U.S. homicide rate has been declining.

FBI statistics for the 65 years from 1960 to 2024 prove this. The decade from 2010 to 2019 had a lower average murder rate than any comparable period going back to the last year of Eisenhower’s term. In fact, the 2010-2019 average was 12% lower than in the previous decade.

Continue reading “”

Bondi is wrong. The Trump DOJ is wrong. The 2nd amendment protects Arms, not just guns. That includes guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows.

BLUF
The Bigger Issue
This case is not really about knives.
It is about whether the Second Amendment is a principle or a policy tool.
If “arms” means only modern firearms — and only when politically expedient — then the amendment has already been hollowed out.
If it means what it says, then the government does not get to pick winners and losers based on aesthetics, mechanics, or public discomfort.

The courts will decide this case.

But the DOJ has already made its position clear — and it should concern anyone who takes the Second Amendment at face value.

Trump DOJ Says the Second Amendment Protects Guns, But Not Knives

The phrase “shall not be infringed” has a way of revealing who actually believes it — and who only supports it when it is politically convenient.

That tension is now on full display inside the Trump Administration itself.

While the Department of Justice has aggressively challenged gun control laws in blue states and territories, it is simultaneously telling federal courts that the Second Amendment does not protect switchblade knives. According to the DOJ, Americans may have a constitutional right to own AR-15s and carry handguns, but automatic knives are a bridge too far.

That position has landed the administration squarely at odds with Second Amendment advocates — and exposed a familiar fault line in how the federal government treats “arms” it finds uncomfortable.

The Case at the Center of the Fight

The issue is playing out in Knife Rights v. Bondi, a case currently before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Knife Rights, a national advocacy group, is challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Switchblade Act — a 1958 law that restricts interstate commerce in automatic knives and bans their possession on certain federal, tribal, and territorial lands.

Rather than backing the challenge, the Trump DOJ is defending the law.

In its appellate brief, the Department argues that switchblade knives are “well-suited to criminal misuse” and fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment altogether. According to the government, history supports broad regulation of “inherently concealed” weapons, and automatic knives fall under that category.

The DOJ’s conclusion is blunt: there is no constitutional right to carry or possess them.

A Narrow View of “Arms”

To justify its position, the Justice Department leaned heavily on 19th-century laws regulating the concealed carry of weapons such as Bowie knives, dirks, daggers, and pocket pistols. Those laws, the DOJ argues, demonstrate a long-standing tradition of restricting weapons deemed particularly suitable for concealment.

According to the brief, the Federal Switchblade Act fits neatly within that tradition because it targets only knives whose blades are concealed inside the handle and deploy automatically. Fixed-blade knives, the DOJ noted, remain unregulated under federal law.

In the Department’s view, that distinction is enough to survive constitutional scrutiny.

What the DOJ did not address is why concealability alone strips an object of Second Amendment protection — especially when concealed carry of firearms is now constitutionally protected nationwide.

Continue reading “”

The Lead “Crisis” And Regulatory Squeeze

How To Turn A Legitimate Concern Into A Backdoor Ban

The dangers of lead (the mineral, not the concept of pointing your gun ahead of a moving target) are not a myth, and shooters shouldn’t pretend otherwise. It’s a naturally occurring element used extensively in shooting sports with well-documented health risks. Anyone who spends time around firearms — especially indoors, in high-volume training, or at poorly managed ranges — should understand those risks clearly.

The problem isn’t that lead is dangerous. It certainly can be — just like chainsaws, motor vehicles and guns themselves — but the individual risks are easily reduced. The bigger problem for gun enthusiasts and hunters is how that danger is being selectively framed, exaggerated, and weaponized to make shooting sports increasingly expensive, impractical and regulated out of reach.

This is not about safety anymore. For anti-gunners, it’s about regulatory leverage.

Continue reading “”

ATF Will Shut Down eForms After Christmas to Retool for Zero Dollar Tax Stamps

As you surely recall, one of the features of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill that’s near and dear to the hearts of gun owners is the elimination of the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barrel rifles and short-barrel shotguns. No longer will you have to fork over a couple of Benjamins for the privilege of buying a can for your AR or pistol caliber carbine. And if you decide an 11-inch barrel suits your need in a rifle better than one that’s 16 inches or more (18+ inches for shotguns), you won’t have to send Uncle Sam any of your hard-earned dollars.

This welcome change will take effect on January 1.

That means, however, some system tweaks are needed for our friends in ATF’s NFA Division. To make the necessary upgrades to handle the law change, they’re going to shut the eForms system down for Form 1 and Form 4 submissions after Christmas to let their geeks get to work.

From ATF . . .

On December 26, the eForms system will be temporarily unavailable while we upgrade the system to permit reduction to tax rates for certain NFA firearms.

    • The ATF eForm 1 and ATF eForm 4 will be made unavailable on the eForms platform with no new electronic submissions available until January 1.
    • All ATF eForm 1 and ATF eForm 4 applications in a DRAFT status will be deleted from the eForms system.

All completed ATF eForm 1 and ATF eForm 4 applications submitted within eForms before December 26 will be processed before January 1.

This is necessary to implement statutory changes contained within the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which reduced the making and transfer tax for certain firearms to $0. Deletion of all DRAFT applications is necessary because of the field and formatting changes required on the new forms, available January 1. This will also allow ATF to add additional functionality to the Form 4, allowing both qualified licensees as well as other transferors to submit Form 4 applications through the eForms system.

If you’ve ever been through a system change or upgrade, you know that the process seldom goes to plan. Let’s hope ATF has its digital ducks in a row. As noted above, any eForm applications in draft status when the system goes down will be zapped, so act accordingly.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.