Category: Bureaucraps

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.

The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule.

During the Biden ‘administration’ ATF ruled that “80%” receivers were to be treated and regulated just like they were fully finished guns.

The were sued and it went all the way to SCOTUS.

Justices Alito and Thomas were the only ones to dissent. All the others agreed. Regard the fate of future decisions accordingly.

 

Sam Corcos and the IRS Mess

I’ve been writing about the government’s data processing troubles for quite awhile now, and particularly since DOGE started to find where the bodies — well, I was going to say “bodies were buried” but that’s wrong. The government’s data processing corpses aren’t buried. They’re stinking shambling zombie bodies shuffling through the corridors seeking brains.

Of course, as wild wastes of money are uncovered, everyone and their aforementioned brothers, brothers-in-law, and politically connected people outside government have been screaming, while we regular old taxpayers are saying “God oh God, how did we get in this mess?”

So, Sam Corcos, CEO of Levels, a health startup, and Scott Bessent, secretary of the Treasury, were on Laura Ingraham’s show on March 20, talking about data processing at the IRS in particular.

The IRS has come up before — for example, when Musk and the DOGE boys discovered there were people up to almost 400 years old still active in the Social Security records, which are closely tied to the IRS records ever since the IRS declared that line on the Social Security Card about “not to be used for identification” was no longer operative.

Corcos was brought in to work for the Treasury to look at the IRS modernization program and its operations and maintenance budget. Now, the modernization program is new development — they’re attempting to build a more modern system and infrastructure to handle what the Social Security Administration does, while maintenance and operations is the budget that pays for just keeping the existing system running.

Corcos is running a successful startup — have a look at its website. So he has some expertise in software development. He started looking at the IRS systems.

It was interesting, if by interesting you mean “enraging” and “obscene.” The IRS has had this ongoing modernization program in operation since 1990 — that after a previous modernization program called Tax Systems Modernization (TSM), which started in 1986 and was finally declared a failure in 1997. Then there was the Customer Account Data Engine (CADE), which was launched in 2001 and terminated as a failure in 2009, having delivered about 15 percent of its planned function.

The existing system, as I’ve written about before, is based on IBM mainframes and written in COBOL and Assembler — that is, directly as machine instructions.

The current modernization program, according to Corcos, is currently 30 years behind schedule and $15 billion over budget. It’s been 35 years in development, and is now “five years away” from completion. And has been since 1996.

According to Secretary Bessent, the hangup is “entrenched interests” like consultants and contractors. Eighty percent of the IRS’s $3.5 billion budget goes to outsiders. Bessent says, “That’s not efficiency — that’s a racket.”

Corcos says the top priority is to turn this around. “The IRS spends way more than any private company would on a program like this. We’ve cut about $1.5 billion from the modernization budget. … It’s about asking tough questions and trimming the fat.”

It’s easy to blame the government developers, but Corcos says the developers are excellent — it’s management that’s the issue. “You see contracts — $10 million, $20 million, $50 million — and ask ‘Why are we doing this?’ Everyone shrugs. … You cancel it and nothing breaks. Inertia’s running the show — it just takes someone who cares to start asking questions.”

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

March 19, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications. 

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored. 

Key Points of the Rule Change: 

  • Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete. 
  • ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration. 
  • The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version. 

Gun Owners of America remains committed to monitoring this process and ensuring that any future policies respect the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban. This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The DOJ’s decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.” 

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“Since its enactment in 1992, Gun Owners of America has fought against the ‘Schumer Amendment’ which defunded the federal gun rights restoration statute. GOA and thousands of would-be gun owners are grateful to President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for once again allowing gun owners to petition to have their gun rights restored by the Department of Justice. We hope to see many more infringements repealed as the federal government carries out President Trump’s executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” 

Gun Rights Lawyer Named ATF’s New Chief Legal Counsel

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) unveiled its new Chief Legal Counsel.

Robert Leider will take over duties as the top lawyer of the ATF. The appointment is a sharp change of course from former Chief Counsel Pamela Hicks. Ms. Hicks’s views on guns were in line with groups like Everytown and Brady. Mr. Leider takes a more liberty-based approach to guns. The appointment of Leider to the position saw an outpouring of joy from gun rights activists.

Mr. Leider was an assistant professor at George Mason University, Antonin Scalia Law School, where he taught a class on the Second Amendment. Before becoming a professor, he worked for powerhouse law firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP. He also clerked for Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. Mr. Leider lists his interests as the right of self-defense and the Second Amendment.

“Underneath this debate over which “arms” the Second Amendment protects is a critical dispute about the contemporary purpose of the Second Amendment,” Leider wrote. “Illinois is essentially arguing that the Second Amendment exclusively protects individual self-defense against crime. The State understands Heller to have divorced entirely the right to keep and bear arms from the Second Amendment.”

Mr. Leider has also argued against the “Gun Free Zone Act.” The “Gun Free Zone Act” would have made any property within 1000 feet of a school a “sensitive area.” He argued that the law would strip Americans of their Second Amendment rights just because they live near a school. He claims such a law would fail a Bruen test and be unconstitutional.

Mr. Leider also has penned articles that advocated the stripping of qualified immunity from those state officers who resist the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling. If qualified immunity was removed from these state officers, it could open people like New York State Governor Kathy Hochul to legal action. States have passed laws inconsistent with Bruen since SCOTUS ruled on the case.

“In former may issue states, gun owners will face substantial legal risks when exercising their rights,” Leider wrote. “But the legal risk may not only be on private citizens.

Despite strengthening qualified immunity in recent years, the Supreme Court has not shielded government agents who willfully seek to violate the Constitution.

New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California may find that, in bringing down the heavy hand of the State against individuals who exercise their Second Amendment rights, their own police officers will get hit by the blow. “

Mr. Leider also believes bans on the open carrying of firearms violate the Second Amendment. He states that everyone should have the right to open carry. Out of all the changes made to gun control since Trump took office, the appointment of Leider to the Chief Counsel position might be the biggest.

Lawmakers Pushing Commerce Secretary To Dump Biden Admin’s Gun Export Restriction.

A group of 88 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate are pushing to have the Biden Administration rule restricting firearm exports by law-abiding American manufacturers reversed, and they want it done now.

On March 7, the lawmakers, led by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, R-Tennessee, sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick requesting reversal of the policy, which was part of the Biden Administration’s weaponized attack on gun owners, gun sellers and gun makers.

“As soon as is practically possible, we respectfully request that you rescind the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) recent interim final rule (IFR) ‘Revision of Firearms License Requirements,” the letter stated. “This misguided and destructive IFR is costing the American firearms industry nearly $500 million annually while doing nothing to advance U.S. interests or regional stability. Despite numerous attempts to rein in these actions through letters, legislation, hearings, markups and oversight, the Biden BIS ignored Congress and used the IFR to advance the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.”

The letter also referenced President Donald Trump’s recent executive order instructing new Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements and other actions of executive departments and agencies that violate the Second Amendment or furthered the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.

“Section (2)(b)(vii) of the executive order specifically requires the review and remediation of any agency action regarding the ‘processing of applications, to make, manufacture, transfer or export firearms.’ Because this IFR stops the commercial export of firearms, ammunition and related components to over 36 countries and severely limits the ability of American businesses to obtain export licenses, we believe this IFR ought to be addressed immediately.”

For his part, Sen. Lee said now is the time to act to get this onerous restriction off the books.

Continue reading “”

Should firearms background check system be abolished?

To some people, firearm background checks are accepted and considered a way to prevent bad guys from getting guns. They’re completely wrong, and here’s why.

The background check system, otherwise known as the “government hijacking of a God-given right and selling it back to you as a government-issued privilege,” is unconstitutional and dangerous to law-abiding citizens.

As we inch our way toward state-to-state reciprocity with constitutional carry in our major cities, we recognize that many states not only require a government-issued permission slip to carry a gun but also make it almost impossible to obtain that permit. Even if you can make it through the rat maze of training, fees, background checks, storage requirements, magazine capacity limitations, and a list of other constitution-violating requirements, most of society is off limits to you and your firearm because many state gun laws have deemed public and even private places, gun free zones.

The idea of undergoing and passing background checks as a prerequisite to exercising the 2nd Amendment should have never been a thought even in the darkest corners of the most communist minds of the most radical left-wing ideologues, not only because it violates the rights of American citizens, but also because it puts undeserving Americans in legal jeopardy and in physical danger.

According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2017, the NICS background check system denied 112,090 people the right to purchase a firearm. Of those 112,090 denials, only 12,710 were investigated. We have to ask ourselves: If over 112,000 people were denied but only 12,710 Investigations took place, wouldn’t that be clear evidence that the system is failing and falsely denying good people their right to keep and bear?

It gets worse. That same year, and from that group of 112,090 denials, there were only 12 prosecutions for the crime of attempting to purchase a firearm. Now the anti-gun crowd says, “See, we stopped 12 mass shootings!” Well, there are problems with that argument.

First of all, do we have no regard for the 112,078 people who were caught up in the poorly run background check system? What happens to those people? Well, the anti-gun crowd couldn’t care less about the people who are falsely denied their 2nd Amendment rights. As well as being falsely labeled a criminal and refused the ability to purchase a gun, good folks who are denied must also jump through hoops, make appeals, and wait.

Then, they have to wait some more because we know how efficient government agencies operate. By some estimates, approximately 80% of the NICS denials are never even appealed, often because the person denied is unable to navigate the appeals process or is unable to afford a lawyer to help them. In the meantime, good people are rendered unarmed and helpless by an unconstitutional process that should never have existed in the first place.

What about the 12 prosecutions in 2017? Were they mass murderers? And if they were, why weren’t they in jail? The background check system is created under the guise of stopping violent criminals from purchasing firearms, but if a person has done something so heinous that they lose their rights, wouldn’t that crime be enough to keep them in jail? And if not, why not? Why are they able to walk among us? It would seem the problem has less to do with guns and more to do with a criminal justice system that works to keep a violent element on our streets. The background check system, however, has been much more effective at preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms than criminals, and we can see that by simply looking at the numbers.

Now, you might remember the anti-gun crowd cheering in the media that the number of firearm purchase denials reached the highest number yet in the year 2021. That year, there were approximately 300,000 background check denials. This was great news to the gun grabbers because all they really care about is disarming their political opposition, but did the percentage of false denials change?

With a huge increase in firearm purchases after the left-wing riots of 2020, the FBI claims that its denial rate is 99.8% accurate. Mysteriously, the Government Accountability Office has still not posted their findings for 2022, but you’re supposed to believe that the FBI went from a .01% success rate to a 99.8% success rate, and you are now safe from false denials. John Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center has claimed that the exact opposite is true, and approximately 99% of firearm purchase denials are false positives, meaning good people are being denied their rights for no reason.

After watching the NICS system deny thousands of good people over the years, you’re supposed to believe that now, magically, the firearm background check system is functioning as it should. Well, we’re not buying it for a minute. We know the system is falsely denying good people their right to own firearms, and the system needs to be abolished.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed… as long as you go through a background check system designed by people who don’t want you to have a gun.”

 

ATF’s own documents show it is corrupt and ripe for replacement
Every Friday the ATF sends out press releases …

Every Friday afternoon the ATF sends out press releases from its 25 Field Divisions—big cities like Los Angeles, Miami, New York and 22 more. Users have to sign up to receive the emails, which usually describe the arrests the ATF claims it made during the week.

By far the vast majority of the actions described in the press releases—the arrests and the investigations—were not the result of any work by the ATF. The arrests were made by local cops who found a stolen gun or noticed that their suspect was a convicted felon and should not have possessed a firearm.

The ATF is usually brought into these investigations only after the arrest, once the real police have lodged their suspect in a county jail.

Still, according to the ATF’s own weekly emails, the agency takes credit for everything the local cops have done—every single lead or arrest—even though their special agents never left the building and never arrested or even met the bad guys.

The following are some of the press releases from 10 of the ATF’s 25 Field Divisions, which were sent around 3 p.m. on Friday, March 7, 2025. Five of the ATF Field Divisions did not send out any press releases.

As you will see, only two involve ATF-led operations.

Continue reading “”

If they’re being told to break recordkeeping laws it’s because the records reveal they broke worse laws.

WHAT? USAID Senior Staffer Instructs Remaining Staff to Convene for an ‘All Day’ Document Destruction

After Secretary of State Marco Rubio took to X on Monday to declare that 83 percent of the USAID programs would be cancelled and contracts rescinded, a curious memo from a USAID senior staffer obtained by POLITICO instructed remaining staffers to convene at the former agency on Tuesday for destruction of “classified safes and personnel documents.”

Rubio said:

After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.

The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.

In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping (approximately 1000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department.

Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform.

And now, according to Politico:

A senior official at USAID instructed the agency’s remaining staff to convene at the agency’s now-former headquarters in Washington on Tuesday for an “all day” group effort to destroy documents stored there, many of which contain sensitive information.

The materials earmarked for destruction include contents of the agency’s “classified safes and personnel documents” at the Ronald Reagan Building, said an email sent by USAID’s acting executive director, Erica Carr, and obtained by POLITICO.

“Shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break,” the email said. Carr instructed staff to label the burn bags with the words “SECRET” and “USAID/B/IO/” (agency shorthand for “bureau or independent office”) in dark Sharpie.

The email didn’t provide any reason for the document destruction. The building is being emptied out after mass layoffs, which may have disrupted routine document destruction timetables. Customs and Border Protection is planning to move into the USAID facility, having rented 390,000 square feet of office space in the building last month.

ProPublica journalist Brett Murphy also claims to be in receipt of this memo, citing it is from, “the agency’s acting executive secretary.”

Continue reading “”

Still too many.

Rubio cancels 83% of USAID contracts after six-week review

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that his agency had canceled 83% of the U.S. Agency for International Development‘s contracts following a multiple-week review.

USAID was one of the first agencies targeted by the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk for cuts under the Trump administration, with all foreign aid out of the agency paused initially. The Trump administration fired thousands of employees and contractors at USAID and put Rubio as the agency’s acting administrator during the reforms.

Rubio announced early on Monday that 5,200 contracts would be canceled because the programs did not serve U.S. interests, claiming the move would save “tens of billions of dollars” in a post on X.

“After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.”

Senators Send Letter Urging Repeal of Biden-era Rule Damaging the Firearms Industry

On March 5th U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and U.S. Representative Mark Green (R-TN-07) sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging him to rescind an interim final rule (IFR) that the Biden Administration promulgated in an effort to hamstring the domestic firearms industry.

In October 2023, President Biden ordered a 90 day “pause” on firearm exports licenses issued by the Department of Commerce.

This order was in lock-step with other actions taken by the Biden Administration to hinder the U.S. domestic firearms industry in any way possible. And unsurprisingly, at the end of this “pause” the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an IFR in April 2024. This IFR placed much tighter restrictions on semi-automatic firearms exports, listed dozens of countries as “high risk” countries which would be subject to a “presumption of denial” for export permits, removed a “presumption of approval” for licenses to many countries that had helped to expedite the process previously, and a number of other restrictions. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an organization that represents firearms manufacturers, stated that this decision would cost the industry nearly $500 million annually.

Continue reading “”

Impact of Trump ‘Gender Ideology’ Order on Firearm Transactions to Be Determined

“Trans star of hit HBO series says renewed passport now says male after Trump order,” Fox News reported in late February. “Hunter Schafer, a transgender actor and star of the HBO series ‘Euphoria,’ revealed that her new passport was issued with a male gender marker because of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.”

The Executive Order Schafer referred to, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by Trump on Feb. 20, asserts:

“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”

OK, but this is AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, and while all peaceable human beings are encouraged here to recognize and claim their right to keep and bear arms, it’s fair to wonder what any of this has to do with that. Trump’s order offers a tangentially related clue:

“Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages.”

Gun owners will recall that in 2020, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive revised the ATF Form 4473 “Firearm Transaction Record,” required when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. Among other changes,  ATF added a box under “Sex” for prospective gun purchasers to check if they self-identify as “non-binary.”

What this means is the Form 4473 will need to be revised again if ATF is to comply with the executive order. As Orchid Advisors reported on AmmoLand in 2019:

“[A] 60-day notice seeking public comment … is required in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”). In essence, the PRA requires government agencies to seek approval every three years for continued use of forms utilized by government agencies and to seek public comment on the form or its new revision, if applicable.”

As far as form changes go, it’s hardly a big one, although some on either side of the issue would argue the sociological implications actually are a big deal. In 2019, the “libertarian” CATO Institute took issue with “ATF’s rigid and unreasoned stated policy” of insisting on selecting “male” or “female” for transfers before the “non-binary” option was added in. They presumably will make the same arguments if it’s revised back out.

As long as “gun rights advocates” are picking things to get upset about, I’d suggest that’s a bit of a red herring argument, and the true outrage ought to be reserved for a prior restraint that presumes a delegated federal override of “shall not be infringed.” Imagine explaining the 4473 to Tench Coxe or Samuel Adams, and what their reaction would be if you told them that before the national government would allow them to own a gun, they’d have to – among other things and under penalty of perjury – disclose who they were, where they lived, what they were buying, and what was or is now between their legs.

No, Mr. Secretary, generals do not have civil service protection or tenure. They serve at the pleasure of the president.
And if you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

Five of the ten living former Secretaries of Defense ratcheted up the warfare against President Trump when they signed what they called an “Appeal to Congress.” The gist of their complaint is that they want to veto the President’s choice of his principal military advisor and other senior officers who serve at the pleasure of the President. They like their guys, and they don’t like the President’s choices. The conclusion that the five signers seek to foist on the American public is in their third paragraph: “We, like many Americans — including many troops — are therefore left to conclude that these leaders are being fired for purely partisan reasons.”

Their “Appeal” is nonsense, but dangerous nonsense. It combines historical ignorance with their own partisan attempt to attack President Trump in a way that would weaken civilian control. If their “Appeal” were granted, it also would further the politicization of the military by plunging Congress into disputes relating to military matters that the Constitution entrusts to the President.

Five Resistors’ “Appeal to Congress”

“The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.”

I shall begin at the end — with the rebellious former secretaries’ conclusion: They sum up by charging the members of Congress to “do their jobs” by “urging them to take George Washington’s warning to heart.”

I wonder how many of the signers knew the historical background and significance of George Washington’s advice which they quote to close their Appeal: “The Army is a dangerous instrument to play with.” When he wrote that in February 1783, Washington was warning Hamilton against trying to use the military to further political ends and undercut civilian control of the military. It was one of Washington’s many affirmations of the necessity for civilian control of the military.

And if the President — any president — does not have the sole power to relieve senior military officials, and if he is required to report to both the House and the Senate to “justify each firing” as the Appeal advocates, then the president no longer has full control of his senior military officers or of the Army.

Washington’s warning fully supports civilian control over the military, including — especially — over those whom the signers refer to as “senior U.S. military leaders.” And our Constitution reposes that civilian control in only one man — the President. By trying to usurp this presidential control of the military, these former secretaries are attempting to weaken the bedrock principal that the military must be controlled by its civilian masters.

Thus, General Washington’s warning most certainly does not support these rebellious signers’ efforts to hamper civilian control over the military. Just the opposite; Washington refutes them.

Aside from this example of historical ignorance, there are many other reasons to repudiate the rebellious signers’ “Appeal.” Let us consider some of them.

Continue reading “”

After ATF Abuse, a New Bill in Congress Would Finally Give the Tiahrt Amendment Teeth.

The Tiahrt amendment — AKA the Tiahrt “rider” — became law in 2003. Among other things, it prohibits ATF from releasing law firearm data to anyone outside of law enforcement. There’s only one problem with the Tiahrt amendment …it has no teeth. In other words, there’s no penalty for ATF violating the law, which they did as part of Biden’s war on guns.

When not proclaiming the gun industry an enemy of the people, semi-sentient Joe campaigned on repealing Tiahrt. Fortunately, he failed in that effort, but it didn’t stop his weaponized ATF from blithely ignoring the law and releasing trace data last year as part of a media and gun control industry effort to name and shame gun dealers that had lawfully sold guns used in crimes, smearing them as enabling “gun violence.”

Now, however, there’s an effort afoot in Congress to give anti-gun un-elected bureaucrats pause before violating the Tiahrt amendment. Rep. Clay Higgins of Louisiana has introduced a bill that would fine violators, enable gun dealers to sue them as well, and remove sovereign immunity from the firearm regulatory agency if they decide to ignore the law again in the future.

The NSSF is cheering on the move . . .

Continue reading “”