Category: Bureaucraps

Another ATF Bureaucrat Removed From Office

Another long-term Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) employee is out as the purge of anti-gun advocates continues. The latest casualty, Megan Bennett, has been forced to retire.

Ms. Bennett was the Assistant Director of the Office of Enforcement Programs and Services (EPS). Recently, she came under fire for presenting former ATF Director Steve Dettelbach with what appeared to be an 80% AR-15 lower receiver in violation of Washington, DC law. DC requires all AR-15 lowers to be serialized and the transferee to go through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

It was clear by the ceremony that Dettelbach didn’t go through background checks.

In the ceremony, Bennett talked about her pride in being part of all the new rules implemented under the Biden Administration. Bennett was an advocate of rules such as the pistol brace rule. The rule reclassified pistols equipped with pistol stabilizing devices as short-barreled rifles (SBRs). Millions of Americans own braced pistols. These citizens would have to register their firearms with the ATF’s National Firearms Act Division (NFA), or they could be charged with a felony, face 10 years in federal prison, and be forced to pay a $250.000 fine.

Multiple gun rights organizations sued over the pistol brace rule, claiming that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The proposed rule had a checklist called the ATF Form 4999 with a point system determining whether a braced firearm was a rifle or pistol. The Final Rule lacked any resemblance to the proposed rule. The gun rights groups claimed that the Final Rule was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule. These groups also contended that the rule was arbitrary and capricious because it had a “you know it when you see it” clause.

The courts would issue multiple injunctions against the ATF’s pistol brace rule, preventing the Bureau’s enforcement of its implementation. Braced pistols would return to shelves of gun stores. This injunction should have been a sign that the ATF should not try to enforce the pistol brace rule, but Ms. Bennett and EPS disagreed.

Continue reading “”

ATF Targeting Old Men in Rural Missouri

The entire State of Missouri can rest much easier now. The ATF has made the Show-Me State a much safer place. Two rule breakers from small Missouri towns were indicted by a federal grand jury last week. Their crimes? They’re accused of selling guns without a federal license. Their ages? One was 75 and the other was 81 years old.

This, friends, is not a sick joke. The ATF actually publicized the arrests in a press release, which was sent out last week.

“According to an indictment returned this week, Aubrey Foxworthy, 81, of California, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan and Moniteau Counties from approximately June 2, 2023, through September 9, 2024. He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms. Foxworthy was also charged with possession of a rifle with a barrel length less than 16 inches and that rifle was not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record,” the press release states. “According to an indictment returned this week, Philip Leroy Rains, 75, of Popular Bluff, Missouri, was charged with dealing firearms in Morgan County from approximately April 1, 2023, through April 4, 2024. He did not have a federal firearms license to deal firearms.”

Each man now faces five years in a federal prison and fines of up to a quarter-million dollars for the no-FFL charges, but Foxworthy faces an additional 10 years in prison and fines of up to $10,000 for whatever the ATF considered an unregistered short-barreled rifle. Nowadays this could be a legal firearm with a brace. Unfortunately, if things go the ATF’s way, Foxworthy could leave federal prison in 2040 at the ripe age of 96.

Foxworthy could lose a lot more than just his freedom. According to his indictment, the ATF also ordered him to turn over all of his guns, and the 81-year-old had a decent collection.

The ATF wants 197 of Foxworthy’s personal firearms, according to a list attached to his indictment. The guns are about what you’d expect a lifelong gun owner to have in his safe. Almost all are American made: Ruger, Colt, Winchester, Savage, Browning, Remington, Marlin, Mossberg, Henry and Smith & Wesson. The ATF also wants Foxworthy’s ammunition, and the list claims he had more than 16,000 rounds.

Because the ATF prepared the list, there are four firearms identified as “machineguns,” but the type, manufacturer and calibers are listed as “unknown.” Also, Foxworthy was not charged with the illegal possession of any machineguns. This makes sense in a sick way, because experience has shown when the ATF can’t identify a firearm, they usually just consider it a machinegun.

The list also shows that Foxworthy owned a dozen Winchester Model 94 rifles. The serial number of one rifle shows it was manufactured before 1896. Depriving the man of that rifle is a sin, especially since it will likely be kept or even resold by some nameless ATF agent.

Calls to Foxworthy’s defense attorney were not returned.

Takeaways

Who hasn’t seen an old man at a flea market with a couple guns for sale either on a folding table or laying on a blanket in the bed of his pickup?

It’s classic Americana, right? There is certainly no crime or criminal intent.

Unfortunately, Joe Biden robbed us of this for a few years. Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule required anyone who made a profit on a single gun sale to obtain a federal firearm license.

“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” former Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced about a year ago.

The press release shows that both arrestees’ alleged law-breaking occurred while Biden was napping at the White House. Besides, it was easier for the ATF. Their agents are much less likely to be shot or scared if they harass a couple old men, rather than going after big-city gangsters armed with full-auto Glocks with Glock switches.

Truth be known, Attorney General Pam Bondi or her staff should examine all of the ATF’s cases made during Biden’s term. Some were much worse than this one.

I certainly hope that whoever is actually in charge of the ATF today will take this into account and drop all charges against Messrs. Foxworthy and Rains.

The ATF has put each of them through enough. I hope that Foxworthy gets to keep his guns, too, especially the pre-1896 Model 94.

To do anything else would be a real crime.

Task Force’s Exclusion of Gun Owner Advocates Means Continuing DOJ Disappointments

How about combining department-wide policy and litigation resources” with counsel from the people most affected by infringements, the gun owners who made this new administration possible? (The United States Department of Justice/Facebook)

“For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right,” Attorney General Pam Bondi began in an April 8 Memorandum to All Employees. “No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

It’s a refreshing sentiment considering Justice Department sentiment during the last administration, but it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding about where the right to keep and bear arms comes from. As the Supreme Court noted about an earlier decision in the Heller case:

“The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’

As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed…’”

It’s not quibbling over words, and it recalls a similar disconnect from the previous administration, when the Trump White House website declared “The Second Amendment gives citizens the right to bear arms,” and then ignored a petition to make a simple correction.

That points to the danger in not formally partnering with the gun owners Donald Trump would not have won without. And the Second Amendment Task Force AG Bondi introduces in the memorandum is an invitation to continued dysfunction:

“I will serve as the Chair of the Task Force and the Associate Attorney General will serve as the Vice Chair. The Task Force will be further composed of representatives from my personal staff, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General. the Civil Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and any other components or representatives that I may from time to time designate to assist in the Task Force’s labors.”

Forgetting anyone (scroll to pg. 73)? Because the primary loyalty of all of those people Bondi cites is to the chain of command, and when its priorities conflict with “shall not be infringed,” guess which will win.

I’ve been advocating replacing Joe Biden’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention with an Office of Second Amendment Protection for a while now, arguing:

“Gun rights leaders and legal scholars could be identified and nominated to analyze and prioritize bills, lawsuits, regulations, opportunities, and threats, to advise on judicial and other federal nominees, and to help educate the public. The Office would provide a way for the public to express their concerns and to offer ideas and suggestions, meaning gun owners would have a conduit.”

Such a body could nip misunderstandings and surprises in the bud and put a stop to much of the Second Amendment bipolarity we see being manifested in Justice, where one day they come out with an announcement gun owners cheer, and the next do something that leaves us slapping our foreheads and wondering what the hell is wrong with these people. Such uncertainty breeds mistrust and causes real divisions among gun owners, especially when we see actions being taken that fly in the face of Donald Trump’s campaign promise that “Every single Biden attack on gun owners and manufacturers will be terminated on my very first week back in office, perhaps my first day.”

Aside from the fact that, instead of making that pledge come true, assessment reports, studies, and task forces just kick the can down the road indefinitely (see an instructive video from National Association of Gun Rights on this), such actions leave many wondering how serious and sincere the promises are.

Some recent cases in point:

Continue reading “”

Republican Lawmaker Takes Aim at IRS Guns

Today is tax day for most Americans. Some of us have extensions due to natural disasters, but most of you who haven’t already are probably working on your taxes today, and you’re probably thinking about how much you dislike the IRS.No one likes them.

But something that I’ve always found perplexing is that they have armed IRS agents.

I get that they’re in charge of enforcing the tax code, but they’re still the IRS. They’re not a law enforcement agency, but a revenue collection agency. Their job isn’t to kick in doors and make arrests, so why do they have so many guns?

Well, one lawmaker has introduced a bill to fix that.

U.S. Rep. Barry Moore (R-Enterprise) introduced the Why Does the IRS Need Guns Act on Monday.

The bill:

  • Prohibits the IRS from using appropriated funds to purchase, receive, or store any firearm or ammunition
  • Requires the IRS to transfer to the GSA any firearms or ammunition owned or under the control of the IRS
  • Within 30 days of transfer, GSA must initiate the sale or auction of any firearms to licensed dealers and the auction of any ammo to the general public

Moore told 1819 News on Monday, “We’re going to try to force them to get rid of the ammunition and weapons they’ve bought since 2020.”

That’s a solid start.

However, there are a lot of federal agencies that have guns when they probably shouldn’t. I recall one story years ago where a tactical team from the Department of Education showed up at someone’s house regarding student loans. I don’t recall the specifics, but the fact that the Department of Education has a tactical team is more than a little troubling.

NASA and the Department of Energy have those, too, but I get why they have them. Rocket fuel would be beneficial to terrorists, as would sabotaging a nuclear reactor. Having heavily armed personnel on site makes sense for those two agencies.

For most other agencies, though, I don’t see why they need any such thing. If they need a door kicked down, that should fall to the FBI or some other relevant federal law enforcement agency.

So disarming the IRS is a good start, and I hope this bill passes, but I’d rather it be a bit more expansive than that.

While the federal government has spent years trying to disarm the American people, it’s been arming just about every governmental entity it can, which is not how the balance of power is supposed to work in this country. The militarization of federal agencies–agencies that are not law enforcement agencies–is a troubling phenomenon that no one should ever be comfortable with.

Like the man in the comic turned movie said, “People should not be afraid of their government. Governments should be afraid of their people.” That’s a lot harder to make happen when even the Department of Education has a heavily-armed tactical team. Especially when our own arms have been neutered by a century of gun control laws.

Starting with the IRS is fine, but the line cannot be allowed to be drawn there. More needs to be done.

Here’s hoping, though.

Senator Rand Paul Launches an Investigation Into NICS Monitoring

Senator Rand Paul is launching an investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

“This kind of backdoor surveillance of American citizens—without due process or public disclosure—should alarm every single person who values the Bill of Rights,” said Dr. Paul. “The ATF and FBI have no business creating secret watchlists for law-abiding Americans seeking to purchase firearms. It’s unacceptable, and I intend to get answers.”

In 2021, AmmoLand News discovered through a leak that the ATF was using the FBI’s NICS to monitor certain Americans’ gun purchases. These Americans were not wanted for any crime, but the ATF expected they might commit a crime in the future. Some people were monitored because they were associated with groups and people that the government didn’t like. The monitoring period for the ATF target is 30, 60, 90, or 180 days.

Recently, it was determined by a Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) filed by Gun Owners of America (GOA) that the ATF was using the NICS monitoring program to watch Californian gun owners who might purchase guns that violate state law. It is legal to buy long guns out of state, but not all those long guns are legal in California, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Continue reading “”

ATF Deputy Director Marvin Richardson Forced To Retire

Marvin Richardson, long-time Deputy Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), has been fast-tracked to the unemployment line after he was given the option of voluntary retirement or forced removal. Richardson had been with the ATF for decades, serving under numerous administrations with his record stretching back to the 1993 conflict in Waco, Texas, leaving seventy-six Branch Davidians dead, including over twenty children, a massacre for which he was awarded the Treasury Department’s Hostile Action Medal.

Richardson is the latest holdover to part ways with the ATF as the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) under Pam Bondi seeks to clean house at the agency after its political weaponization by the Biden administration. Earlier this year, ATF Chief Counsel and fellow anti-gun sweetheart Pam Hicks received her walking papers and was subsequently replaced by Second Amendment scholar and professor, Robert Leider, but not before doing her fair share of damage alongside Richardson by targeting the firearms industry and American gun owners with unconstitutional regulation and prosecution for years.

Richardson, who saw pistol stabilizing braces as an affront to his beloved infringement, the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), was an instrumental force behind the ATF’s declaration of war on Americans who had equipped firearms with them based on the agency’s previous rules declaring braces a non-NFA accessory. He was also one of the key tools in the Biden administration’s attack on privately manufactured firearms, for which the left has now attached the made-up moniker, “ghost gun.”

Continue reading “”

Latest Moves to Reign In ATF Overreach are Welcome Blows Against the Anti-Gun Bureaucracy.

There really isn’t any line that anti-gun politicians won’t cross in order to undermine the Second Amendment. None. I remember several years ago when I was working for U.S. Senator Bill Roth (R-DE) – yeah, the Roth in Roth IRA – in his Wilmington office. There was a proposal to tax ammunition. This wasn’t the 11% excise tax we’re all familiar with, already pay, and never really see.

No, this was a tax designed to punish gun owners, to hurt them — significantly — right in their wallets. A couple of variations of this kind of tax were being considered or floated. If I remember correctly, the one at the time was either a 25% tax on handgun ammunition, or even a $0.25 per round tax.

I asked the Senator his opinion on an ammunition tax and his reply was quintessential Bill Roth. He looked at me and said, “It’s a tax. I’m against taxes.” He wasn’t concerned about the tax as an attack on the Second Amendment. He saw it as yet another attack on taxpayers.

Taxation is the primary weapon for politicians looking to take something away from citizens. The problem for them, however, is that new tax bills are harder and harder to pass as the majority of taxpayers are kind of tired of paying more and receiving little to nothing in return.

Knowing this, the Biden Administration sought to press its anti-gun agenda, in part, through overly aggressive enforcement by the federal firearm regulatory bureaucracy. By taking a zero tolerance approach to even the smallest clerical mistakes made by gun dealers, the Biden Administration would use ATF to strip retailers of their licenses to sell guns.

While this was pitched to the media and the public as zero tolerance, what they really should have called it was zero chance, as in there was virtually zero chance the agency wouldn’t be taking your FFL, because they were determined to find something. And that’s exactly how many retailers viewed it.

Fortunately, not every ATF agent doing FFL inspections was hellbent on pulling licenses and was willing to see simple clerical errors for what they were, unintentional minor mistakes that are easily rectified. In other words, they made a ‘no harm, no foul’ call.

Unfortunately, though, there were ATF agents who were more than willing to be weaponized by the agency’s leadership against FFLs lawfully conducting business. Maybe they saw this as a pathway to promotion within an administration that placed a lot of value on blindly following orders from the Autopen-in-Chief.

On Monday news came that the era of zero-tolerance was over. The National Shooting Sports Foundation heralded the announcement from the Trump Administration in Monday’s edition of Bullet Points.

NSSF praises the announcement today by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that the agencies are doing away with the Biden-era “zero-tolerance” policy that punished lawful and highly-regulated Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) for minor clerical errors.

The administration’s announcement also noted that the Biden-era regulatory policies on “engaged in the business” and pistol stabilizing braces would be reconsidered. Both of which were viewed – rightly – as regulatory overreach by the agency on issues that should have been addressed legislatively by Congress.

Where exactly we go from here is hard to predict, but Monday’s announcement is a very good sign that government of the people, by the people, for the people hasn’t succumbed to the Biden-era alternative of government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.

For right now it’s good riddance to some pernicious antigun regulatory overreach. We all know, however, that bureaucrats are going to bureaucrat because that’s the only thing they know how to do. And their turn will no doubt come again. Here’s hoping Revenge of the Bureaucrats doesn’t hit theaters anytime soon.

 

Just to make it clear, ever since 1570 when the Regent of Scotland, James Stewart Earl of Moray, was assassinated by a man using a rifle, those in political power have been scared to death of the idea that the mere lowly peasantry could possess the very thing to simply take care of a government they saw as not ruling in their best interest, and one decide to do just that.

This Supreme Court Is Woefully Weak On The Second Amendment

When firearms are involved, originalism is ignored and basic principles of statutory interpretation are overlooked.

The Supreme Court just issued a decision allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to rewrite the nation’s gun laws. It appears that the seven justices have contracted a bad case of “Gun Derangement Syndrome,” or GDS — a serious infection that afflicts many on the federal bench.

The symptoms are this: when firearms are involved, the judicial rulebook goes out the window. Originalism is ignored, basic principles of statutory interpretation overlooked, and new rules of law invented. What’s left is nothing that passes for reasoned decision-making; it’s the implementation of judges’ personal policy predilections.

Until recently, the Supreme Court seemed immune to this illness. After nearly all federal circuits mused that the Second Amendment did not so much as protect an individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller set the record straight. And after lower courts devised “judge-empowering interest-balancing tests” to circumvent Heller, The New York State Bar Association v. Bruen course-corrected.

But recently, cracks have begun to show. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in United States v. Rahimi, for example, arguably waters down Bruen’s rigorous requirement that governments must justify firearms laws with historical analogues — directing courts merely to follow the “principles that underpin the Nation’s regulatory tradition,” whatever that means. So wishy-washy was the Rahimi opinion that Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence to remind everyone that Bruen is still good law.

Continue reading “”

Bombshell Report Exposes Biden’s Massive Chinese Spy Cover-Up

The Biden administration has been caught red-handed prioritizing Beijing’s feelings over American national security. In a shocking revelation, we now know that Biden officials engaged in secret discussions with Chinese counterparts about their spy balloon before bothering to inform the American public that our sovereignty had been violated.

According to a report from Fox News Digital, Internal State Department documents reveal that on Feb. 1, 2023, while a Chinese surveillance balloon was floating across our nation collecting intelligence, Biden officials were more concerned about how exposing this breach would affect our “relationship” with China. Seriously?

That’s right — instead of immediately shooting down this obvious threat to national security, then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his team were busy playing diplomatic footsie with Beijing. According to Trump administration officials familiar with the documents, Blinken fretted that public disclosure would have “profound implications for our relationship” with China.

Think about this. The Biden administration knew about this threat on Jan. 28 yet waited until Feb. 2 to inform the American people. That’s five days of silence while a hostile foreign power’s surveillance equipment drifted across our country — a threat we wouldn’t have known about had it not been for civilians who discovered it. It was only afterward that the Biden Pentagon issued its statement. It likely wouldn’t have said anything at all if it could have gotten away with it.

Continue reading “”

So what do we know about U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscol regarding the 2nd Amendment?

FBI Director Kash Patel replaced as acting ATF boss, Army Secretary steps in
Patel was replaced at ATF by Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, seven people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

WASHINGTON − FBI Director Kash Patel was removed as the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and replaced by U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, seven people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

Driscoll will continue to serve as Army Secretary while he also oversees the ATF, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department, said three of the sources, who were granted anonymity to discuss personnel matters that were not yet public.

Patel was sworn in as ATF’s acting director in late February, just a few days after he was also sworn in as FBI Director.

A Justice Department official confirmed the change.

It was not immediately clear when Patel was removed from the role. As of Wednesday afternoon, Patel’s photo and title of acting director was still listed on the ATF’s website.

The abrupt change in leadership comes at a time when senior Justice Department officials are weighing whether to merge ATF with the Drug Enforcement Administration as part of an effort to cut costs.

Where Is the DOJ’s Second Amendment Report?

On February 7th, President Donald Trump gave Attorney General Pam Bondi 30 days to finalize and submit a policy plan of action for enacting pro-gun reforms. Nearly two months later, the Trump Administration hasn’t released any plan.

“Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” the order stated.

The 30-day due date for that report would have been March 9th, but that day came and went without any movement from Bondi or the White House. When this omission got some attention, the Department of Justice (DOJ) told ABC News that the deadline was extended to March 16th. Since then, the department has not provided any additional progress updates and did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

The administration’s apparent slow-walking and opacity surrounding its progress raises questions about how much it plans to follow through with the order’s proposed scope.

Trump promised gun voters swift action in undoing all of President Biden’s gun-control achievements during his “very first week back in office.” But he took three weeks before even broaching the subject, and only ordered a review to eventually consider which, if any, of his predecessor’s policies to reform or reverse.

To date, that has not resulted in the initiation of any new rulemaking to repeal any Biden-era regulations.

The few concrete indications of DOJ compliance with the order have mostly taken the form of requests for pauses in various ongoing gun cases to allow it to consider what position it wants to take. The department also began to push for a new framework for restoring the gun rights of former convicts.  The New York Times has reported that move could benefit actor Mel Gibson and at least nine other as-yet-undisclosed individuals, though they haven’t announced any action yet.

While each of those fronts may eventually play out in gun-rights advocates’ favor, the administration’s restrained approach, especially in contrast to actions it has taken elsewhere, has already resulted in one significant loss for gun-rights groups. Though it could have immediately started rolling back Biden’s gun rules without Bondi’s review as an intermediate step, the Trump Administration’s decision to wait left the “ghost gun” kit ban case uninterrupted. That culminated in the Supreme Court issuing a 7-2 ruling upholding that ban at the end of last month, which could make undoing the ban down the line harder.

Delaying legal challenges while the department decides what position to take also risks drawing out the gun-rights movement’s longer-term project of stacking up court decisions permanently invalidating federal gun laws. Even if the DOJ decides not to defend a given gun law or de-prioritize enforcement, subsequent administrations can simply reverse that discretion. The same holds true for the new gun-rights restoration process, which risks undermining gun-rights advocates’ legal challenges to the federal ban on non-violent felons possessing firearms.

To be sure, the administration has also offered gun voters policy changes with more straightforward upsides. It unceremoniously dispensed with the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, for example, which was set up by former President Biden to promote gun-control policies. Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services also scrapped a 2024 surgeon general advisory calling for an “assault weapon” ban, among other new gun restrictions.

It has also, at times, broadened its view beyond the federally-focused executive order. For instance, the DOJ last month announced a civil rights investigation into Los Angeles County over its practice of subjecting concealed carry permit applicants to lengthy wait times and high application fees, and it suggested that additional investigations could soon follow. Shortly thereafter, Trump also issued a separate executive order establishing a new federal task force charged with, among other things, “increas[ing] the speed and lower[ing] the cost of processing concealed carry license requests in the District of Columbia.”

Those moves have no doubt been welcome developments for Second Amendment advocates. Still, they are less potentially impactful than the areas Trump ordered the DOJ to review, and those have seen little to no movement.

Well, how about you just get rid of the who NFA scheme anyway, since the FOPA ’86 banned federal gun registries (except for guns regulated by the NFA)?

Rep. Hinson & Sen. Cotton Reintroduce Bill to Repeal Firearm Transfer Tax

On April 1, 2025, Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA-02) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) reintroduced the Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty Excises Act, or the RIFLE Act. These bills (H.R. 2552 and S.1224 respectively) would remove a $200 excise tax that is imposed on law-abiding gun owners when they purchase certain firearms and accessories that are governed by the National Firearms Act.

Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty Excises Act, or the RIFLE Act

Since 1934, gun owners wishing to purchase items such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles have been forced to pay a $200 “sin tax” to the federal government.

This tax is, according to the ATF, intended to “curtail, if not prohibit, transactions” of these lawful items. But this legislation would remove that imposing financial barrier.

Speaking on this important legislation, Representative Ashley Hinson said, “The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right that is not to be infringed. Law-abiding gun owners should not be forced to pay an unconstitutional firearm tax. This bill will remove unnecessary financial barriers on lawful gun owners from the antiquated 1934 National Firearms Act and protect the Second Amendment rights of Iowans and Americans.”

“Law-abiding Americans who exercise their Second Amendment rights should not be subject to unnecessary taxes and restrictions preventing them from doing so. Passed into law in 1934, the National Firearms Act needs to be amended. Our legislation will remove the red tape that places an undue financial burden on would-be gun owners,” said Senator Cotton.

“The National Rifle Association applauds Representative Hinson and Senator Cotton on their leadership on the Second Amendment and their reintroduction of the RIFLE Act,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “This $200 punitive tax has only ever served as a financial barrier for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Representative Hinson has been joined by 28 of her colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senator Cotton has been joined by 12 of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate. NRA-ILA will continue to update you as this important legislation makes its way through the legislative process.

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

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

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

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

A Pattern of Overreach

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

Continue reading “”

We got rid of this here in Missouri 18 years ago, and the Sheriffs who administered it were thankful they didn’t have to deal with the annoyance of it anymore and it wasn’t anywhere near as restrictive as what this proposed legislation is. This is nothing more than goobermint harassment.

Permit-to-Purchase Measure Advancing in Washington

Washington State already has a “universal” background check law that requires everyone who purchases a firearm to go through a background check, but now Democrats in Olympia want to add a second check, along with training mandates, for every would-be gun owner in the state.

E2SHB 1163 has already passed out of the House of Representatives, and last Thursday cleared the Senate Law and Justice Committee on its way to the Senate floor.

Republicans, according to The Center Square, argue the bill violates gun rights protected by the Constitution. Critics also believe the bill will cost hundreds of dollars and take weeks before someone can buy a gun.

“To be rather blunt about this, I think this is another imprudent piece of legislation that probably will pass out of committee today, but I want to be real clear about it — I don’t think this will survive the brewing historical analog test,” Senator Jeff Holy, R-Cheney, said during Thursday’s Senate Law and Justice Committee meeting. “I could pretty much guarantee litigation is going to immediately come forward once this bill does pass both Chambers.”

Holy, added the media outlet, believes the cost of buying a firearm and taking a safety course is too much of a burden.

“The cost of the permit we’re talking about here is, we’re guessing, maybe $200,” Holy said, as reported by The Center Square. “It’s going to disproportionately impact lower and middle-income people. The last thing we’re going to want to have is people with a need for self-protection to have to go off-market and buy guns from inappropriate sources.”

It’s not only the cost that will send some people to the illicit market. The state currently has a 10-day waiting period on all firearm sales, which is already bad enough. But under the permit-to-purchase scheme making its way through the legislature, the Washington State Patrol would have an additional 30 days to approve or deny a permit application, which can’t be dropped off until after someone has passed the approved firearms safety course. The WSP has already indicated they’d have to hire or more staff or re-allocate existing personnel to process the applications, so you know there’s not going to be a quick turnaround.

What happens when a woman leaves her abusive partner and wants a handgun to protect herself? As things stand, she already has to hope and pray that he doesn’t come after her in the ten days she has to wait between buying a gun and picking it up, even if it only takes a matter of seconds for her background check to come back clean. Under Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1163 she could easily be forced to remain defenseless for over a month, at least if she wants to remain in compliance with the law.

There is simply no way for someone who’s not already a gun owner to be able to take possession of one in a timely manner, even if they have reason to believe that their life is in danger. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown claims this bill will save lives. The truth is that it puts the most vulnerable Washingtonians at risk, either of losing their life or being charged with a crime for daring to exercise their Second Amendment rights without a state-issued permission slip.

Actually I have no problem at all believing this

You Won’t Believe What Insanity HHS Was Funding

Do you want your taxpayer dollars funding studies on preventing pregnancy in “transgender boys” or HIV stigma in Thailand? Fortunately, Trump’s Health and Human Services secretary also considers that a waste, so he’s cutting numerous idiotic woke studies.

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Trump’s new agency heads have uncovered billions of dollars of egregious fraud and waste, including the previously unknown agency whose employees lived “like kings” and the Social Security funding for 150+ year olds. Now HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is looking to streamline the massive, unwieldy, unconstitutional, and harmful federal healthcare agencies. It’s time to cure the woke mind virus. Read on for mind-blowing craziness.

First reported on Fox News, the woke HHS grants — presumably Biden-era, though there’s been deep government corruption for decades — included one for over $5 million to study “Harnessing the power of text messaging to reduce HIV incidence in adolescent males across the United States.” A Stanford University study, “Sex hormone effects on neurodevelopment: Controlled puberty in transgender adolescents,” received over $3.6 million from HHS.

A whopping 61 grants from HHS subsidiary NIH for California DEI and “gender” studies were also slashed, per Fox. The scale of federal fraud and waste is so vast it is difficult to comprehend. No wonder the Deep State was panicked at the prospect of Donald Trump returning to the White House and at the appointment of Kennedy as HHS secretary.

“#TranscendentHealth – Adapting an LGB+ inclusive teen pregnancy prevention program for transgender boys,” reads another $1,319,024 grant awarded to the Center for Innovative Public Health Research.

The University of California, San Francisco’s $2,554,402 grant for “Structural Racism and Discrimination in Older Men’s Health Inequities” also was canceled, Fox Digital learned, as was a $822,539 grant to UCLA called “Buddhism and HIV Stigma in Thailand: An Intervention Study.”

Meanwhile, Americans are more chronically unhealthy than ever. What a joke the federal bureaucracy is.

Altogether, hundreds of NIH grants on “gender” or DEI topics have already been canceled, including research on “multilevel and multidimensional structural racism” (whatever that means), “gender-affirming hormone therapy in mice”, and “microaggressions.” I think I lost brain cells just reading those inanities, and yet supposedly serious researchers were receiving taxpayer money for this.

Kennedy has already announced a reduction of some 20,000 HHS employees, as multiple of HHS’s subsidiary departments and agencies will be “merging… into a new organization called the Administration for Healthy America or AHA.” Imagine healthcare agencies actually working to make people healthy! Now if only we could have some major accountability for the former HHS leaders who ruined so many lives with their disastrous COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates…

What Happens if DOJ Stops Defending Silencer Regs?

Now that Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled the Justice Department is re-evaluating its stance that silencers aren’t “firearms” protected by the Second Amendment, what happens if the DOJ reverses course and suddenly declines to defend their inclusion in the National Firearms Act?

We wouldn’t suddenly see suppressors available for sale with a simple NICS check, unfortunately. That would require changing the NFA itself, which in turn would require congressional approval. The House may very well give its approval to the SHUSH Act, but it’s gonna be tough to get 60 senators on board with the change. So what impact would a DOJ reversal have in practical terms?

The NFA has been a flashpoint for advocates, who say that silencers are not frequently used in crime and believe that the silencers and other weapons regulated under the law, including machine guns and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, are protected by the Second Amendment. A decision by the Justice Department not to defend the law may, however, make it harder for gun rights groups to challenge the law at the Supreme Court.

“If Trump administration decides not to prosecute people under for illegal silencer possession while in office, that’s a good short-term win, that’s what a lot of gun rights activists will want,” said Stephen Gutowski, a gun safety instructor and founder of The Reload.

However, Gutowski added that if Democrats regain the White House in four years, “They can just reverse the policies and go back and start prosecuting people again, because the law was never found unconstitutional or invalid.”

If the Trump administration just decides not to enforce the NFA regulations surrounding suppressors, I don’t think that would actually be much of a win for gun owners, though it might provide some short term benefit for suppressor buyers and the companies that make them. What would stop the next Democratic administration from zealously prosecuting those companies or anyone who purchased/possesses a suppressor not registered or taxed under the NFA?

The best option may be for the Trump administration to decline to defend the current statute and not raising any objections to anti-gun AGs intervening as defendants in ongoing litigation. Then the full weight of the DOJ could be directed to side with the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, while allowing the cases to continue to make their way to SCOTUS.

Gun safety groups, for their part, say that silencers put people at risk by make a mass shooting harder to hear and contend that because silencers reduce the recoil when a gun is fired, it could make it easier for a gunman with a semiautomatic to shoot with fewer interruptions.

“Silencers in the wrong hands create serious public safety risks,” Everytown for Gun Safety writes on their website. “The loud and distinctive noise that a gun makes is one of its most important safety features: when people hear it, they realize they may need to run, hide, or protect others.”

The group also raises concerns that removing silencers from the NFA would allow them to be purchased without a background check.

Frankly, if suppressors aren’t “firearms” as the DOJ (and at least one federal court contends), then they arguably shouldn’t be included in the National Firearms Act as a restricted firearm. And yes, their removal from the NFA could allow their purchase without a background check, but if they’re merely an accessory then so what? What other firearm accessory requires a background check of any kind, much less a detailed check and an extra $200 tax?

Of course, whether there are five justices on the Supreme Court at the moment who are ready to remove suppressors from the NFA is very much an open question, especially after Wednesday’s 7-2 decision upholding the ATF’s rule treating unfinished frames and receivers as completed firearms. The bottom line is even if the Trump administration is on board with the idea, deregulating suppressors is going to be a challenge, whether it’s through the legislative or judicial branches.