Category: Goobermint

Pam Bondi is the one that picked him. Trump, out of loyalty to one who defended him at his first impeachment trial, went along without further thought to nominating a jerk who, like Bondi, clearly doesn’t have much respect for individual rights.

Trump’s continuing weak spot is his apparent blind trust is those he considers loyal to him, yet who have shown to have their own agendas at his expense. (And don’t think for a minute that even Musk doesn’t have a personal agenda)

One would have thought by now that he had finally gotten it through his thick skull, that while in commercial business, you can -usually- buy loyalty with a large enough paycheck, in politics, loyalty is based on: ‘and what have you done for me lately?’

Florida Sheriff Chad Chronister withdraws as Trump’s nominee to lead DEA

Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister withdrew his name for consideration as President-elect Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

“To have been nominated by President-Elect @realDonaldTrump to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is the honor of a lifetime,” Chronister wrote in a post on X.

“Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I’ve concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration. There is more work to be done for the citizens of Hillsborough County and a lot of initiatives I am committed to fulfilling,” Chronister continued.

He said he appreciated the nomination and support from the American people and that he’s looking forward to continuing his work as sheriff.

District 1 County Commissioner of Lake County Anthony Sabatini called Chronister stepping down a “huge win for liberty.”

“This sheriff ordered the arrest of a pastor for holding services during the COVID panic. He was tapped by Trump to head the DEA. Glad to see him withdraw from consideration. Next time politicians lose their ever-lovin minds, he can redeem himself by following the Constitution,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., wrote in a post on X after the sheriff’s announcement.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., spoke to Fox News after Chronister’s withdrawal and defended the sheriff.

“What disqualifies somebody? We all make mistakes throughout life, right? I haven’t talked any details on that yet. But as far as someone making a mistake in their past, give us an example of anybody that hasn’t made a mistake in the past,” Mullin said.

Chronister faced backlash from multiple conservative figures for arresting a pastor for violating COVID rules.

The Rev. Rodney Howard-Browne was arrested in March 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue reading “”

A President has plenary power to pardon anyone he wants for any federal crime. That being said, the Bidens are just another crime family that managed to amass enough political power to insulate themselves from the legal consequences any normal citizen would be subject to.

Biden pardons his son Hunter despite previous pledges not to.

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden pardoned his son, Hunter, on Sunday night, sparing the younger Biden a possible prison sentence for federal felony gun and tax convictions and reversing his past promises not to use the extraordinary powers of the presidency for the benefit of his family members.

The Democratic president had previously said he would not pardon his son or commute his sentence after his convictions in the two cases in Delaware and California. The move comes weeks before Hunter Biden was set to receive his punishment after his trial conviction in the gun case and guilty plea on tax charges, and less than two months before President-elect Donald Trump is set to return to the White House.

It caps a long-running legal saga for the younger Biden, who publicly disclosed he was under federal investigation in December 2020 — a month after his father’s 2020 victory — and casts a pall over the elder Biden’s legacy. Biden, who time and again pledged to Americans that he would restore norms and respect for the rule of law after Trump’s first term in office, ultimately used his position to help his son, breaking his public pledge to Americans that he would do no such thing.

In June, Biden categorically ruled out a pardon or commutation for his son, telling reporters as his son faced trial in the Delaware gun case, “I abide by the jury decision. I will do that and I will not pardon him.”

As recently as Nov. 8, days after Trump’s victory, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre ruled out a pardon or clemency for the younger Biden, saying, “We’ve been asked that question multiple times. Our answer stands, which is no.”

Biden’s FBI Reportedly Altering Murder Data to Suit Gun Violence Narrative.

In October, Dr. John Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) broke the news that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had stealth-revised its reported violent crime data for 2022 to show a 4.5% increase, rather than the originally reported 2.1% decrease, for that year. Among other things, that adjustment added 1,699 more murders for 2022. Given that the vast majority of murder crimes are reported, Lott asks, “How do you miss 1,699 murders?”

Now, another source, Just Facts Daily (JFD), a “research institute dedicated to publishing facts about public policies,” has done a dive into homicide reporting and uncovered what appears to be an unusually large number of “homicides recorded on death certificates that are not reported as murders by Biden’s FBI.”

As context, the federal Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics explains that the United States relies on “two national data collection systems to track detailed information on homicides: the [FBI’s] Supplementary Homicide Reports and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Fatal Injury Reports.” The Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR) are part of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, while the Fatal Injury Reports are developed from the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), a public health-based resource maintained at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Continue reading “”

How We Know Guns Aren’t Albuquerque’s Problem

When New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham took her animosity toward the Second Amendment and ramped it up to 11, trying to ban all lawful carry in Albuquerque, she said it was in response to the rampant violent crime in the city. She called it a public health crisis and used the draconian restrictions we saw during COVID-19 to justify this particular draconian measure.

And, of course, she got slapped down over it.

But it’s clear that she never got the message regarding the right to keep and bear arms nor the fact that while the city does have a problem, it’s not guns that are causing it.

In fact, it’s probably something else fueling a lot of the problems.

The Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office seized 65,000 fentanyl pills and three guns on Tuesday during a search of an apartment off East Central.

Richard Cortez, 44, who authorities say lived in the apartment, is charged with drug trafficking and three counts of possession of a firearm by a felon.

Michael Herrera, 18, who was inside the apartment at the time of the raid, is charged with resisting, evading or obstructing an officer for not surrendering “for over 30 minutes.”

Both men were booked into the Metropolitan Detention Center. Neither man had an attorney listed in online court records.

Court records show Cortez was sentenced to prison for drug trafficking in 2010 and for years afterward bounced between prison and probation after repeated violations.

In 2016, a BCSO deputy arrested Cortez on felony drug possession, according to court records. Cortez faced another potential prison stretch, but the case was dismissed, and Cortez was set free after the deputy didn’t show up for court.

Prosecutors filed a motion to detain Cortez until trial following Tuesday’s seizure, calling him “dangerous.”

“The defendant is a major dealer of fentanyl in the Albuquerque area,” according to the motion. “He had three firearms ready for use.”

How could he possibly have gotten guns? Gun control laws are in place to prevent people like this from getting guns, after all.

Then again, there are laws intended to prevent people from getting 65,000 fentanyl pills, too, and we see how well they worked.

See, the issue with most violent crime is that the violence is often ancillary to something else. In the 1990s, when the homicide rate was so ridiculous, it was gangs and drugs. To some degree, that’s still the case. Convicted felons aren’t reformed, they’re just put back on the streets where they seek out ways to continue with their previous criminal endeavors.

In this case, Cortez was a known felon with a long and prodigious history as a criminal, only to be able to become a “major dealer of fentanyl in the Albuquerque area.”

It looks to me like putting him right back on the streets time and time again wasn’t really doing all that much, and knowing a deputy didn’t show up for court in 2016, which got his case dismissed makes it that much worse.

Let’s remember something, folks. If fentanyl is so heavily controlled–and yes, it is–and people like this jackwagon can get it, why does anyone believe you can keep someone like this disarmed? What makes them think that suddenly a law will be passed that will make it so he can’t get firearms from any source?

It’s insane.

Then again, what about gun control isn’t?

And This Is Why the Public Doesn’t Trust the DOJ

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has released its annual report identifying the top management and performance challenges currently facing the federal agency.

Among the OIG’s findings, a lack of public trust in the DOJ remains a “longstanding” problem, Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz announced Monday, and strengthening such trust poses “a significant challenge.”

However, in its 59-page report highlighting incidents that have contributed to the department’s confidence crisis, the DOJ watchdog largely overlooked transgressions under the Biden-Harris administration, which still reigns. Instead, the OIG looked farther back to Trump’s time in office, his first term, as we head into the president-elect’s second.

Based on the OIG’s oversight work, the inspector general’s office blames a medley of Trump-era episodes as reasons why public trust in the institution has eroded over time.

First, the OIG report points to public statements that former federal prosecutor David Freed, a Trump-nominated U.S. attorney, made about an ongoing criminal probe into alleged ballot tampering during the 2020 presidential election.

Freed had said several mail-in military ballots, mostly cast for Donald Trump, were discarded (tossed into the trash) at a Pennsylvania election office in pro-Trump Luzerne County.

Ultimately, the OIG concluded that Freed’s comments “unnecessarily inserted partisanship into the investigation” and “created a false impression” that the incident was “much more serious than DOJ leadership knew it to be.”

The report also calls attention to another OIG inquiry into claims that senior DOJ appointees placed “political pressure” on the trial team prosecuting Roger Stone, a close confidant of Trump, so that they lowered their sentencing recommendations.

While the OIG did not find evidence that the prosecution’s revision was the result of “improper political considerations,” the report chastises the “unusual substantive involvement,” though not prohibited by law or policy, of then-Attorney General Bill Barr and other high-level DOJ officials in the second sentencing recommendation’s preparation and filing.

Their embroilment in the case against the president’s political ally “affected the public’s perception of the Department’s integrity, independence, and objectivity,” the OIG says.

Continue reading “”

All this was, was political shenanigans to try and shame Trump’s political support into running away, so he’d drop out of running for reelection. If Trump would drop, he’d be way too old to run in 2028, so he’d be done. Trump apparently figured it out, and here we are.

Jack Smith’s End Of Lawfare Charges Against Trump Proves It Was A Political Witch Hunt.

Special Counsel Jack Smith said on Monday that the evidence against now President-elect Donald Trump in the 2020 election case is rock-solid and that no one is “above the law” — but that he’d nonetheless drop the charges against Trump.

But if that’s the case, why bail out now? Surely if Trump is really the criminal mastermind Smith alleges he is, there’s no conscionable way he could drop the charges. The reality is that Smith knows this was never about the law. It was about leftists using lawfare to prosecute and ideally jail their political opponent.

“After careful consideration, the Department has determined that OLC’s [Office of Legal Counsel] prior opinions concerning the Constitution’s prohibition on federal indictment and prosecution of a sitting President apply to this situation and that as a result this prosecution must be dismissed before the defendant is inaugurated,” Smith’s filing stated.

Smith still made sure to add a throw-away-line that the decision to drop the case did not “turn on the gravity of the crimes charged, the strength of the Government’s proof, or the merits of the prosecution, which the Government stands fully behind.” But, Smith added, the Department of Justice concluded that pursuing the case would hinder Trump’s ability to lead.

Trump was indicted by Smith for questioning the administration of the 2020 election. The Supreme Court torpedoed Smith’s efforts in July when it ruled 6-3 that a president has “absolute immunity” for “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority” and “at least presumptive immunity” for all “official acts.” The court sent several questions pertaining to the charges against Trump back to the lower court to determine whether his actions constituted an official act. Smith then filed a superseding indictment against Trump, refusing to let the case go when he thought it would hurt Trump’s chances of winning the election.

The Trump-Vance transition team celebrated the decision in a statement.

“Today’s decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump, and is a major victory for the rule of law,” Trump communications director Steven Cheung said in a statement. “The American People and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system and we look forward to uniting our country.”

Smith isn’t the only Democrat to admit that the lawfare was purely political.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg agreed on Tuesday to indefinitely delay Trump’s sentencing in the case regarding Trump’s alleged payments to his then-lawyer Michael Cohen. Cohen was purportedly instructed to pay pornographer Stormy Daniels to stay quiet about an alleged affair (which is not illegal). But Bragg claimed that Trump’s payments to Cohen (which were classified as legal payments) should have been classified as campaign expenses, alleging that the payments were made to influence the 2016 election. Cohen, however, testified that Trump was concerned that the allegations would negatively affect his family after they first surfaced in 2011.

Where Does Pam Bondi Stand on Gun Control?

Donald Trump’s second choice for Attorney General is likely to find a warmer reception in the Senate than Matt Gaetz did, but she could face some hostility from Second Amendment organizations over some of her previous positions on guns and gun control.

Pam Bondi served as Florida’s attorney general for eight years, and was in office when the legislature crafted its response to the 2018 shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland.

“In a time of crisis, it’s about finding common ground, and that’s what Gov. Scott has done,” Bondi told Fox Business host Stuart Varney in March of that year, as the Florida legislature was in the midst of passing legislation that, among other things, raised the age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21 and established a “red flag” law in the state.

During that same interview, Bondi praised Trump’s response to the Parkland shootings and expressed her hope that he could be a “mediator” with federal lawmakers.

“Hopefully Congress will follow Florida’s lead and what Gov. Scott has been doing here in Florida and all of us working so well together,” she told Varney as the interview concluded.

Even before Bondi tacitly embraced “red flag” laws and prohibiting young adults from purchasing firearms at retail, some 2A activists in Florida weren’t big fans of Bondi’s tenure as AG. Florida Carry’s general counsel Eric Friday expressed relief when current AG Ashley Moody took over the position in 2019.

“Ms. Bondi made numerous anti-gun decisions,” Friday said.

Bondi opposed a semiautomatic weapon ban in Connecticut after the Sandy Hook shooting and defended Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law. But she also argued that stand your ground shouldn’t be used by police officers to defend their shootings.

In 2013, Bondi also defended the state’s law that prohibits people from openly carrying weapons, pitting her against Friday’s organization. Her handling of it prompted Hammer to reassure NRA members that Bondi was “a friend of our organizations.”

Bondi also defended the Legislature’s gun-control measures passed in the wake of the Parkland shooting, including a provision that outlawed anyone younger than 21 from buying a rifle or shotgun.

The NRA challenged the law and asked that a 19-year-old plaintiff be allowed to remain anonymous in the case so she could avoid potential harassment. After Bondi fought it, Hammer accused her of “bullying.”

Moody, it should be noted, has continued to defend the post-Parkland gun controls adopted by the Florida legislature and Scott. The NRA’s lawsuit challenging the age-based gun ban is currently pending in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, with oral arguments taking place last month.

Bondi is not an out-and-proud gun grabber, but she does come with some gun control baggage that’s likely to come up during her meet-and-greets with senators as well as her confirmation hearings. Would she, for instance, wholeheartedly defend the federal prohibition on handgun sales for adults younger than 21? Does she continue to believe that Congress should implement a federal gun violence restraining order like the one adopted in Florida six years ago? Would she side with the plaintiffs challenging semi-auto bans in Maryland, Illinois, New Jersey, California, and a handful of other states? And where does Bondi come down on the issue of restoring Second Amendment rights to those convicted of non-violent felony offenses?

So far none of the major 2A groups have commented on Bondi’s selection on social media, either in support or opposition to her nomination. Whether she’ll face any formal objections from Second Amendment organizations remains to be seen, and they may very well be holding off until they hear what Bondi herself has to say about the right to keep and bear arms as the confirmation process plays out.

The Honeymoon Is Over: Trump’s Pick for Labor Secretary Is a Teachers’ Union Fave

Well, that didn’t last as long as I would have liked. President-elect Donald Trump had been on a roll with his choices for roles in his next administration. On Thursday, he ruined the good vibes with one horrible, horrible Cabinet pick.

In Tuesday’s Morning Briefing, I celebrated Trump’s nomination of Linda McMahon to be Secretary of Education. Her strong views on school choice rattle the people in charge of the teachers’ unions, who are the biggest obstacle to education reform because they’re powerful leftist political lobbies. I noted that substantive progress with school choice would be “a direct shot at the heart of the Democrats’ main source of funding.”

On Thursday, Trump did something to make the teachers’ unions happy.

The Wall Street Journal:

Hard to believe, but Donald Trump on Friday night nominated a favorite of teachers union chief Randi Weingarten as his Labor Secretary. Why would Mr. Trump want to empower labor bosses who oppose his economic agenda and spent masses to defeat him?

Mr. Trump’s regrettable choice is Oregon Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer. Ms. Weingarten on Thursday tweeted her support for the freshman Republican. Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, who spoke at the Republican National Convention, has also been pulling for her. In a Truth Social post, Mr. Trump said she’ll work toward “historic cooperation between Business and Labor.” But Ms. Chavez-DeRemer has backed union giveaways like the Pro Act, which are not “cooperation.”

I’ll get to the Pro Act in a moment. For the moment, let us focus on the fact that Randi Weingarten is a vile human being. She was the face of school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and championed keeping them closed far longer than even the other tyrants thought was necessary. Weingarten wrecked a generation of public school children, forcing them into a brutal game of “catch up” that many will never win.

Then she lied about her role in all of that.

She’s Team Trump with the Chavez-DeRemer choice though:

When one of the most clinically insane leftists in America thinks that a Republican politician did a good thing, it means that the Republican just did a clinically insane leftist thing.

Continue reading “”

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Most of Restrictive New York Concealed Carry Gun Law; Next Stop SCOTUS
Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholds “good moral character” requirement of New York’s concealed carry gun law, setting up expected showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court

We have been following the twists and turns of litigation battles associated with New York’s most recent concealed carry gun law. This is important, not only because it affects the constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding New York State citizens, but also because this case could be a bellwether for the country, should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to review the case and provide further guidance on the gun rights of citizens nationwide.

You may recall that it all started, as we reported, when SCOTUS struck down New York’s previous concealed carry gun law, which required citizens to make a showing of “special need” when applying for a carry permit, as violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, in the seminal New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen case:

We…now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria.

But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.

So after Bruen, as the case is typically called, New York could not require citizens to show a special need to get a concealed carry permit. And boy was Kathy Hochul, the far-left governor of New York, pissed: NY Gov. Hochul Loses Her Mind Over SCOTUS Ruling Striking Down Conceal Carry Law.

So pissed, in fact, that she rapidly called a special session of the New York legislature, and immediately passed a new concealed carry gun law even more restrictive than the previous one: New York Democrats Undermine Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Ruling In New Legislation.

Continue reading “”

DOD ‘Intentionally Delayed’ National Guard Deployment To The Capitol On Jan. 6

Federal bureaucrats within the Department of Defense (DoD) delayed the deployment of the National Guard on Jan. 6, 2021 and covered it up, according to a House Republican investigation of government conduct related to the Capitol riot.

On Thursday, Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., who is leading a review of the work completed by the partisan Jan. 6 probe run by then-Rep. Liz Cheney of Wyoming, sent a letter to the inspector general for the Department of Defense demanding a correction to an agency report published in November 2021.

“This report was the final product of the DoD IG’s review into the events of January 6, and reviewed how the DoD responded to requests for support as the events unfolded,” Loudermilk, the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight for the House Administration Committee, wrote. “Throughout the Subcommittee’s extensive investigation into the failures of January 6, 2021, we have discovered numerous flaws and inaccuracies in the report that your office has yet to appropriately address.”

Such flaws and inaccuracies, however, may have been part of a partisan cover-up after GOP lawmakers discovered the Pentagon was responsible for delays in guard deployment.

Continue reading “”

Kansas City-Area Lawmakers Buck Veto, Pick Fight With Missouri Legislature

When Jackson County, Missouri Executive Frank White vetoed a package of local gun control ordinances last week, he rightfully pointed out that the measures are “fundamentally flawed, unlawful, and counterproductive.” The state of Missouri has a firearms preemption law in place that prohibits localities from adopting their own gun laws, and there’s no doubt that the ordinances approved by the Jackson County legislature violate the state’s preemption statute.

The ordinances establish age limits for firearm and ammunition purchases and an almost near-total ban on the possession of “assault rifles” for adults under the age of 21. White said that if the ordinances were allowed to take effect, it would open up Jackson County to “costly legal battles,” but Jackson County lawmakers are apparently willing to let taxpayers foot the bill for their quixotic attempt to subvert state law because they’ve overridden his veto and put the county on a collision course with the state of Missouri.

County Legislator Manny Abarca, who was caught in Union Station with his then-five-year-old daughter during the Super Bowl parade shootings, said the bill is needed to fight the rash of violence this summer by armed teens. He also pointed to the murder of Irish chef Shaun Brady in August.

“The least we can do is implement common-sense protections to prevent such devastating incidents from happening again,” Abarca said in a press release. “This ordinance is a necessary step to enhance public safety and protect our youth.”

White vetoed the bill last week, saying state law clearly bans passage of any local gun laws and he feared a lawsuit.

He issued a statement late Monday saying passage of the bill was “a disappointing moment for our residents.”

“While I respect the legislative process, this ordinance does not meet legal standards set by state and federal law, and we fully expect that it will be challenged in court,” White said. “Regrettably, this will mean that taxpayer dollars are spent defending an ordinance that has little chance of being upheld.”

Abarca’s grandstanding won’t cost him a dime personally, but he and the other six Jackson County legislators who overrode White’s veto are going to be wasting a lot of the county’s money defending the indefensible. Missouri statute is crystal clear about the powers of local governments to impose their own gun control laws:

No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies…

The two exceptions granted to local governments are the ability to regulate the open carrying and discharging of firearms, though even then political subdivisions can’t craft an ordinance that prohibits guns from being used in defense of person or property. Abarca’s ordinances directly conflict with state law by imposing new regulations on the sale of firearms and ammunition, as well as the possession of so-called “assault rifles” ((a term, by the way, left undefined by the ordinance).

There’s no question that the ordinances conflict with state law. The biggest unknowns at the moment are who will sue to strike down the new ordinances, and whether Jackson County Sheriff Darryl Forte will try to enforce the measures adopted by county lawmakers.

There is no shortage of potential plaintiffs, including Second Amendment organizations, gun stores, and young adults in Jackson County who could bring a legal challenge to the new ordinances, but standing could be an issue if Forte decides its better not to enforce them. Regardless of enforcement, I expect the Missouri Attorney General’s office will also have plenty to say about the Jackson County legislature’s illegal ordinances, and might even bring a separate legal challenge to strike the measures from the books.

No matter how concerned Abarca and other lawmakers are about “youth” crime in Jackson County, violating state law to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of young adults is, as White said, a fundamentally flawed and counterproductive approach. Money that could be spent on hiring more deputies, prosecutors, or even community violence intervention efforts will now be directed toward defending Abarca’s public relations stunt instead of making Jackson County a safer place.

Don’t Think Guns Are Treated Differently? Think Again

There are some people who think guns get some kind of special dispensation within the law. This is popular with the “I wish women had the same rights as guns” crowd that can’t seem to shut up. It’s nonsense, of course, but some people really like to pretend otherwise. They like to pretend guns are treated differently than everything else.

But let’s be real. Guns are treated differently than other products. It’s just not the way they want you to think.

See, few other industries are facing threats of government regulation and intervention because of things that third parties do that are already prohibited by law, but  that’s what’s happening in the firearm industry.

After the video montage of criminal violence, Chairman Durbin continued his opening remarks.

“Glock switches, which are banned under federal law are cheap, often costing less than $20, and they’ve been increasingly common across our country,” the chairman said. “We must act. Gun manufacturers can and should do more to ensure their products cannot be converted into illegal machine guns.
If manufacturers fail to act, Congress should take up legislation to hold these companies liable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.”

Of course, the White House coordinated with Everytown and The City of Chicago to sue Glock under this baseless legal theory; and is the subject of an ongoing congressional investigation.

Chairman Durbin gives away his authority here as he knows well lawful firearm manufacturers cannot and should not be held liable for the criminal actions of unaffiliated remote third parties. This is the cornerstone of American jurisprudence and codified in the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that countless gun control activists wish to eliminate.

The chairman said it himself – these illegal firearm conversion devices like Glock switches are already illegal. Prosecutors need to get tough and hold criminals accountable for committing these horrible crimes.

Some argue that the PLCAA is more proof that guns are treated differently, but let’s understand what the PLCAA does and why it exists.

It was created to deal with a particularly insidious series of lawsuits aimed at trying to punish the firearm industry for what third parties did with firearms. There was no wrongdoing by the gun manufacturers, who complied with all federal regulations. It was just a way to try and bankrupt gun companies or force them to stop selling to the general public.

The PLCAA ended that.

Some argue this creates special protections for the industry, and it may, but only because they are needed. For example, the auto industry doesn’t get sued because of drunk drivers. If they did, we’d likely see similar protections put in place.

However, now the target is companies like Glock who find their firearms ending up in criminal hands and who are using devices that are illegal, that have been illegal since they were invented, and that cannot be lawfully purchased. Since most of them were made after 1986, the machine gun ban implemented that year means that no one can buy one even after jumping through all the NFA hoops.

The threat here is that Glock will face regulation if they don’t change their entire design to accommodate for someone doing something illegal.

No other industry would face such threats.

For example, no one has ever threatened the auto industry because the window glass is too easy for thieves to break or the cars are too easy to hotwire. No one sued door lock companies for failing to stop someone busting through the door.

But Glock is being threatened here.

The upside is that it’s an empty threat. The PLCAA does mean that lawsuits can’t really happen, but Congress can end those protections, so that’s not what makes it empty. What does is the fact that Durbin isn’t going to be calling any shots for the next two years at least. The incoming Congress doesn’t exactly look like one inclined to punish a popular firearm maker that provides most of the guns used by law enforcement over what criminals do with devices they add that aren’t even made by Glock in the first place