Category: Bureaucraps

Cynical Publius

I’ve had a number of people ask me what I think happened that caused our senior military leadership to go from being the most respected institution in America to being a bunch of banana republic narcissistic self-serving politicos.

There are so many ways to answer that, but I think the answer lies in some cultural shifts that have taken place over the past 30 years that made officers think they are woke politicians instead of steely-eyed warriors (and what happened to the senior officers drifted into the senior NCO ranks like an infection).

To wit:

1. The promotion of the concept of “interagency.”

After 9/11, a huge amount of emphasis was placed on better coordination between the DoD and other federal departments like State and the CIA. The idea was simply to produce better coordination across domains. But instead of the State Department becoming more like the DoD, the DoD started thinking like the State Department.

Historically (pre-1990s) there was a healthy tension between State and the DoD. Turning our senior officers into wannabe State Department grandees who get invited to Georgetown cocktail parties destroyed that tension and wrecked the warrior ethos of the military. (Although not “high ranking,” Alexander “Chow Thief” Vindman is a stellar example of this phenomenon.)

2. We sent our promising O-5s and O-6s to advanced degree-producing programs at Ivy League universities and made advanced degrees a key promotion criteria.

Think Dave Petraeus. The idea of the “warrior scholar” is nice in the abstract, but in reality what we did was infect our senior leaders with the woke mind virus.

3. The service academies and War Colleges tried to be like Ivy League universities and built a civilian cadre of professors who think and act like a Harvard scholar.

The result is the same as #2, except because the service academies are involved the woke mind virus starts at the very most junior officer levels with cadets at West Point, the Air Force Academy and Annapolis.

——————————————-

How to fix these cultural issues?

Continue reading “”

Navy Says 26 Ships Affected by Faulty Welds at Newport News Shipyard in Virginia.

More than two dozen Navy ships — including three that are currently in service — received faulty welds at the Huntington Ingalls Industries shipyard in Newport News, Virginia, the service’s top civilian leader told lawmakers last week.

In a letter to Congress dated Oct. 3, Navy Secretary Carlos Del Toro said that poor welds were found on the aircraft carrier USS George Washington as well as the attack submarines USS Hyman G. Rickover and USS New Jersey. In addition, the welding issues were identified on 23 more ships — a mix of new construction, ships in maintenance and aircraft carriers undergoing refueling.

The existence of faulty welds became public nearly two weeks ago when USNI News, citing a Navy memo, reported that the sea service was told by Huntington Ingalls, or HII, that workers did not follow proper techniques on some joints in noncritical areas and that early indications suggested that some of the issues were intentional.

Del Toro said that he became aware of the issue on Sept. 24, just days before the details became public.

A week later, the House Armed Services Committee formally demanded answers from the Navy in a letter to Del Toro where they asked for a briefing from the Navy leader by this Friday.

Continue reading “”

Expert Panel Analysis of Supreme Court Arguments in Garland v. VanDerStok.

As promised, SNW commentator and legal wiz LKB convened an all-star expert panel last night. The topic was yesterday’s oral arguments in the Supreme Court in the matter of Garland v. VanDerStock. That’s the case challenging the ATF’s unilateral redefinition of what constitutes a firearm under the narrowly-worded language of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Joining LKB were Independent Institute fellow Steven Halbrook, California Rifle & Pistol Association President Chuck Michel and NRA-ILA Director of Constitutional Studies Joseph Greenlee. These are three legal minds who have been working in the pro-2A space for decades and whose views on the matter at hand before the Court actually mean something.

This video will not only give you 33 well worthwhile minutes of analysis of the VanDerStok arguments, but the participants also look into their crystal balls to anticipate what other significant Second Amendment cases are headed the Supreme Court’s way in the near future. Enjoy.

wretchardthecat

The key to renewal is repentance, the acknowledgement of error. Yet that acceptance is almost impossible to those who grew up on the belief they are better than everyone else, who have justified their power over others upon that undoubted superiority.

The normal person learns more from failure than success. But the already perfect man lacks the capacity to learn anything from defeat other than to conclude that someone failed him.

Usually it is we the public who have failed them. Taxes will increase and regulations redoubled until everyone is doing his fair share. Notice that the concept that they actually work for us has completely disappeared in the shuffle.

The trope that Communists make subordinates report while standing on a trap door over a shark tank is a joke, but only just.

“You know the penalty for failure. Comrade”

Biden’s agency bosses say Americans have ‘too much freedom’
The ‘swamp’ thinks you have it too good.

In an unusual look at federal agency managers, most believe Americans have too much freedom, and they back President Joe Biden‘s efforts to impose 

The bosses of federal agencies were asked in a new Napolitan Institute survey about the “individual freedom” Americans have, and 51% said they have “somewhat” to “far too much freedom.”

But just 16% of voters agreed and 57% believe the government has too much control over their lives.

Democratic “swamp” managers felt the country has too much freedom at the highest levels in the survey, at 68%. Among Republican federal agency chiefs, just 33% agreed.

But the partisan bureaucrats were more in agreement when it came to choosing who is best at deciding if new regulations are needed, found the polling outfit headed by Scott Rasmussen.

Said the analysis shared with Secrets on Friday, “Fifty-four percent (54%) of government managers say that if, after carefully researching an important issue, they determine that a regulation is needed, yet voters overwhelmingly oppose it, they should follow their research and issue the regulation anyway. This includes 49% of Republican government managers and 60% of Democrats,” it said.

Unlike Democrats and Republicans in America, and even on Capitol Hill, partisans that work in the swamp generally think like the other, according to Napolitan’s latest poll of America’s 1% elitists.

“On many topics, there is a disturbing level of bi-partisan agreement among federal government managers. Fifty-three percent (53%) of Republican government managers and 48% of Democrats believe the federal government should be allowed to censor speech that is posted on social media platforms. Forty-three percent (43%) of ‘Elites’ and just 16% of voters share this view. Seventy-four percent of Republican government managers and 79% of Democrats favor banning private ownership of guns. This view is shared by 77% of ‘Elites,’ but just 36% of voters,” said the analysis.

In his polling of elites, Rasmussen has found a stunning gap with Middle Americans, which could be a danger sign considering the outsize effect of elites, especially in the media.

Rasmussen said, “The ‘Elite’ 1% wield a tremendous amount of institutional power but are wildly out of touch with the nation they want to rule. Over the years they have built institutions and mechanisms of regulatory power that are immune to the checks and balances of elections. Worse still, these same ‘Elites’ own, operate, and control a large majority of media outlets, blocking out the true voice of the American people and broadcasting their own out of touch viewpoints.”

That’s because the Chief was in violation of State Law.

Florida police chief learns hard lesson, un-bans guns and ammo
Okeechobee police chief receiving criticism from across the country.

by Lee Williams

Donald C. Hagan, the Chief of the Okeechobee, Florida Police Department, doesn’t appear to be enjoying his time on the national stage.

Hagan had to take some time off, his spokesman said Monday, because he is receiving personal attacks from across the country. As reported Monday, Hagan rocketed to infamy for signing an illegal city ordinance that banned firearm and ammunition sales as well as firearm possession just days before Hurricane Helene made landfall.

“The chief is not in,” a police receptionist said Tuesday morning. She directed calls to Okeechobee Police Major Bettye Taylor, who issued a statement Monday trying to clarify and explain her boss’ actions. Instead, it only muddied the waters.

“The Emergency Ordinance commenced immediately upon the declaration by the Police Chief and was thereafter terminated by the Police Chief on or about 9:51 pm on the same date it was issued.

The Emergency Ordinance was terminated for two primary reasons. One is that, fortunately, Hurricane Helene did not have a substantial impact on the City and its residents.

Secondly, a provision prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition was inadvertently included in the Emergency Ordinance. Upon discovering this, the City and Police Chief acted expeditiously to terminate the Emergency Ordinance,” Major Taylor wrote.

In other words, the part of the ordinance that banned the sale of guns and ammunition and prohibited firearm possession in public by anyone other than law enforcement or members of the military, was “inadvertently included” in the ordinance.

As you can imagine, neither Major Taylor nor her boss returned calls or emails Tuesday seeking to clarify how or why they banned guns and ammo sales inadvertently.

In her statement, Taylor also sought to reassure the town’s residents — as well as the legions of law-abiding gun owners who are following the story across the country — that the ban caused no harm.

“At no time did the City, or the Police Chief, contemplate, nor take any action, to prohibit, confiscate or otherwise regulate firearms or ammunition,” she wrote.

This, however, is not exactly true. The ordinance the chief signed clearly prohibited the “sale of, or offer to sell, with or without compensation, any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description. The intentional display, by or in any store or shop, of any ammunition or gun or other firearm of any size or description. The intentional possession in a public place of a firearm by any person, except a duly authorized law enforcement official or any person in military service acing in the official performance of their duty.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The States’ Brief ends with the truism that policy concerns can’t trump statutory text. “Left with little in the way of textual support, many of ATF’s amici argue that this Court should depart from the statute’s plain meaning because excluding ‘ghost guns’ from the GCA’s scope would purportedly have dire consequences.” But that’s a matter for Congress, not the agency or the Court.

Second Amendment Roundup: Follow ATF into a Political Briar Patch?

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week, on October 8, in Garland v. VanDerStok, the challenge to the radical expansion of the regulatory definition of “firearm” in the Gun Control Act (GCA). Neither Congress nor the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) ever touched that statutory definition passed by Congress in 1968. And both left the non-controversial regulatory definition of “firearm frame or receiver” undisturbed since 1968. But suddenly in 2022 ATF promulgated a Final Rule redefining those terms to include materials, tools, and information that a person with knowledge and skill can use to fabricate a firearm or a frame or receiver.

One of the most hard-hitting amici briefs filed in support of the challengers to the regulation is the brief of the States of West Virginia and 26 other States. ATF, the brief argues, “is a political briar patch because of its rulemaking authority.” That characterization is from a law review article with the parodistic title “Almost Heaven, West Virginia?: The Country Road to Take Firearm Regulation Back Home to Congress and the States.” That play on words brings together John Denver’s “Take Me Home, Country Roads” with the major question doctrine set forth in West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587 (2022). If that rule of law applies to anything, it applies to ATF’s recent the regulatory rampage.

Given the political volatility of the “gun control” issue, Congress has historically been torn between constituents who support the Second Amendment and those who wish to criminalize various forms of acquisition and possession of firearms. Because that the issue is a “major question,” Congress writes gun statutes carefully and narrowly in a manner that leaves nothing to chance. As the States’ Brief says:

Given the sensitivity of this work, one might at least expect ATF to tread carefully before purporting to regulate in unexpected and aggressive new ways. But recently, it hasn’t. ATF has instead seemed determined to stretch the words found in statutes like the GCA and NFA [National Firearm Act] to reach conduct never anticipated by the lawmakers who passed them. This case, concerning ATF’s efforts to regulate gun kits and other forms of private firearms assembly under the guise of calling them “frames or receivers” subject to the GCA, is just the latest example of that effort.

This is not the first, and it won’t be the last, overreach by ATF. As the States’ Brief continues, “many of the Amici States here have been compelled to step in and sue ATF multiple times over the past few years just to return the agency to its actual area of authority.” Thus, “when the Court encounters another ATF regulation offering a purportedly creative solution to a long-standing problem, it should be wary.”

Continue reading “”

House Oversight Committee Subpoenas White House, ATF Over Chicago’s Glock Lawsuit

House Oversight Committee chair James Comer (R-OH) has issued congressional subpoenas to White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention Director Stefanie Feldman and ATF Director Steve Dettelbach seeking information about any role the office and agency had in Chicago’s lawsuit against gunmaker Glock.

Comer initially requested Dettelbach and Feldman provide the committee with any pertinent communication between the White House/ATF and Glock back in June, but according to the congressman the Biden administration hasn’t turned over a single document. In fact, in his letter informing Feldman of the subpoena, Comer says Deputy Counsel to the President Rachel F. Cotton responded to the Oversight Committee in early July with a letter that “did not even reference the Committee’s request for documents.” Instead, Comer says Cotton “impugned the motives of the Committee,” stating “[t]he House Majority . . . [is] doing the gun lobby’s bidding by launching a baseless political attack on the Biden Administration under the guise of an ‘investigation.’”

If that were the case, it would be easy enough for the White House and ATF to disprove the claims of collusion by whistleblowers. So why is the White House stonewalling the inquiry into communications between the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, ATF, and Glock officials? As Comer reminded Dettelbach in his subpoena request:

The Committee has learned that on December 20, 2023, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention met privately with representatives from Glock, during which the Administration requested that Glock change their pistol designs so that it would be harder to illegally modify Glock pistols to shoot continuously with a single trigger pull.

On March 19, 2024, the City of Chicago filed suit in state court against Glock. Everytown Law, the litigation arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, is listed as counsel for the plaintiff. The day the suit was filed, John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, posted on his X account “Today Everytown Law + the City of Chicago announced a historic lawsuit against Glock Inc. to hold them accountable for the unconscionable decision to continue selling its easily modified pistols even though it could fix the problem.”

Later in the post, Mr. Feinblatt said “[f]ederal Officials recently contacted Glock to discuss implementing new ways to modify Glock pistols to make it harder for Glock switches to be installed. Rather than help, Glock falsely insisted there is nothing they can do.”

Because the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention’s meeting with Glock was private, Mr. Feinblatt appears to have had insider information regarding your office’s meeting with Glock, which raises questions about whether your office colluded with Everytown for Gun Safety to initiate their lawsuit against Glock.

Chicago is seeking a court-ordered ban on the sale of Glock pistols to city residents “and Illinois gun stores that serve the Chicago market”, while Joe Biden recently used an executive order to set up an Emerging Firearms Threats Task Force that’s supposed to issue a report and an interagency plan to deal with machine gun conversion devices, which are already illegal under federal law.

Retired ATF Deputy Assistant Director Pete Forcelli previously told Bearing Arms that the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention had pushed Dettelbach to have the ATF reclassify Glocks as machine guns under the NFA, but Dettelbach has so far resisted the move. Chicago’s lawsuit, along with the task force established by Biden, seem designed to give the ATF another push towards reclassifying some of the most popular handguns on the market as machine guns after the November elections have taken place.

My guess is that the White House and ATF will stonewall Comer’s subpoena just as they ignored his initial request for information. But if Kamala Harris wins election next month, don’t be surprised if the candidate who says she’s not taking anyone’s guns away suddenly decides that its time to make the sale of Glocks (and perhaps all other striker-fired pistols as well) off-limits to the civilian market; essentially imposing a ban on the sale of commonly-owned semi-automatic handguns through ATF regulation.

Latest ‘Ghost Gun’ Claims Have Tons of Problems

Ages ago, I owned an AK-47 clone. I built it from a kit I purchased along with a less than 80 percent receiver I bought, then took it to a build party with some friends and got a great gun out of the deal as well as a fun day.

This was long before so-called ghost guns were the scourge of the world. No one had even heard the term and a few years later, when we did, we laughed at it and for good reason.

Now, though, the term is everywhere. What’s more, rules got put in place–without Congress, it should be noted–to supposedly stem the tide.

And it seems that we’re getting some mixed signals on the efficacy of those restrictions.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: Textualism and ATF’s Redefinition of “Firearm”
The statutory history of the Gun Control Act cuts in favor of the VanDerStok respondents.

This is my second installment preceding the upcoming October 8 argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to the regulatory redefinition of the term “firearm” in the Gun Control Act.  By expanding the statutory definition, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) in its 2022 Final Rule purports to criminalize numerous innocent acts that Congress never made illegal.

Until the new rule, a kit with partially-machined raw material that can be fabricated into a firearm was not considered to have reached a stage that it is a “firearm.”  To prevent Americans from making their own firearms from such material, which has always been and remains lawful, the bugbear term “ghost guns” was recently coined.  In its VanDerStok brief, the government argues that “anyone with basic tools and rudimentary skills” can “assemble a fully functional firearm” from such kits “in as little as twenty minutes.”

As explained in my last post, that is refuted by none other than the former Acting Chief of ATF’s Firearm Technology Branch, Rick Vasquez, who reviewed and approved hundreds of classifications about whether certain items are “firearms.”  As he explained in his amicus brief, fabrication of a firearm from these kits is a complex process requiring skill and special tools beyond the capacity of the average person.

In this post I’ll trace the statutory history of the term “firearm” to gain insight into its meaning.  The Gun Control Act defines “firearm” as “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon….”  18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3).  An ATF regulation on the books from 1968 to 2022 defined a “frame or receiver” as “that part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock and firing mechanism,” i.e., the main part of a firearm to which the barrel and stock attach.

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Roundup: VanDerStok Tests Limits of Yet Another ATF Rule
The Supreme Court is set to decide whether the agency may expand criminal liability under the Gun Control Act.

On October 8, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Garland v. VanDerStok, a challenge to the Final Rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) from 2022 redefining and drastically expanding the meaning of the terms “firearm” and “firearm frame or receiver.”  This is the first of several posts in which I’d like to highlight some of the enlightening amici curiae briefs that have been filed in support of the respondents who challenged the rule.

Continue reading “”