Category: Goobermint

 Deflating another gun control bogeyman.

Deflating Another Gun Control Bogeyman

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

California: Background Check Requirement for Gun Barrel Sales Takes Effect January 1, 2026

California’s narrowing of gun barrel sales to licensed dealers only and background check requirement for said sales takes effect January 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed the gun barrel controls on October 10, 2025, noting that the new law “will require all gun barrel sales to be conducted by licensed firearms dealers, mandating that said dealers conduct an ‘eligibility check’ before selling a barrel.”

The language of the bill makes clear that a five dollar fee will be added to each barrel sale to cover the cost of the “eligibility check.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta put out a press release noting that the gun barrel controls take effect January 1, 2026, noting that the new law updates the definitions of “Firearm Accessory” and “Firearm Manufacturing Machine.”

Moreover, the new controls include an “updated definition and cause of action for unlawful distribution of digital firearm manufacturing code to unlicensed individuals” and create a “new criminal offense and civil cause of action for facilitating, or causing another person to engage in, the unlawful manufacture of firearms.”

If a barrel is purchased online, the new law requires that the “seller…ship the barrel to a licensed firearms dealer in California to complete the in-person transaction and final delivery pursuant to section 33700 of the Penal Code (codified by SB 704).”

California has more gun control than any other state in the Union, yet the FBI noted that California led the nation in “active shooter incidents” 2020-2024.

Government Control in the Digital Age
John Stossel

Politicians push government IDs.
In a TSA announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, “You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.”

European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do.

Spain’s prime minister promises “an end to anonymity” online!

Britain’s prime minister warns, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.”

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing “who actually got a vaccination or not.”

Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs. The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.”

That’s a good thing?

“That is a recipe for disaster and totalitarianism!” says privacy specialist Naomi Brockwell. “Privacy is not about hiding. It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A digital ID will strip individuals of that choice.”

“I already have a government-issued ID,” says Tokarev. “Why is a digital one worse?”

“It connects everything,” says Brockwell. “Your financial decisions, social media posts, your likes, things that you’re watching, places you’re going. You won’t be able to voice things anonymously online anymore. Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

Digital ID backers say the new ID will make life easier. “You can access your own money, make payments so much more easily,” says the U.K.’s prime minister.

Yes, says Brockwell, “until those services start saying, ‘No, you can’t use our system.'”

Even without a digital ID, Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers who protested COVID vaccine mandates. With a digital ID, politicians could do that much more easily.

Continue reading “”

Tim Walz Tries to Create a Backdoor Firearm Registry After Gun Ban Fails in State Legislature.

Tim Walz may actually be one of those politicians who really is as dumb as he looks. Despite the DFL’s [Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party] virtual control of Minnesota government, he still couldn’t gin up enough support to push an “assault weapons” ban through the legislature. About that situation, he wasn’t happy.

Not willing to allow that very public failure to stand, he signed two executive orders yesterday designed to generate some, uh, positive headlines in the state’s cooperative legacy press as a way to blunt the effects of the legislative defeat, the latest in a long string of very bad news for the hapless knucklehead who sits in the big chair.

From Northern News Now . . .

Governor Tim Walz signed two executive orders on Tuesday morning, surrounded by DFL lawmakers and advocates for gun violence prevention.

“I do not have the capacity as governor to issue an executive order to get rid of [assault weapons], but what I do have the ability to do is to start to move in a direction,” he said ahead of signing the orders.

The first order, according to Walz, aims to expand the administration’s efforts to provide added education on so-called red flag laws and safe storage practices.

The order will also require insurance companies to submit homeowners’ policy and claims data on firearms, using the state’s existing authority to issue “data calls” to recommend possible policy changes to the legislature.

Using taxpayer dollars to encourage the use of due process-free red flag law firearm confiscation isn’t anything new. It’s been done by the usual suspects at both the federal and state levels. But Walz is also creating a bureaucratic monstrosity he’s euphemistically calling the “Statewide Safety Council.” In practice it will likely serve the same purpose in the Land o’ Lakes as Biden’s now defunct White House Office Gun Violence Prevention.

As the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus describes it . . .

The newly announced Statewide Safety Council raises serious concerns. The council is composed entirely of appointed officials and pro–gun control advocates, with no representation from the Second Amendment community. Like similar advisory panels in the past, it appears designed to deliver predetermined recommendations aligned with the Governor’s policy goals rather than to provide balanced input or genuine stakeholder engagement.

And then there’s Walz’s attempt to hoover up data on gun owners from insurance companies . . .

“The insurance companies, they need to let us know what the economic impact is,” said Walz, “We know what the economic impact is. We know what the emotional impact is; now we can quantify it.”

The only thing is, economic data isn’t likely the only thing Walz is looking for here. Again from the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus . . .

We are closely reviewing the legality of Governor Walz’s executive order directing state agencies to gather data from insurance companies, including any information related to firearms owned by peaceable, law-abiding Minnesotans.

We have already heard from dozens of our members who are deeply concerned that the Walz administration is attempting to build a registry of gun owners and the firearms they legally own by using insurance records as a backdoor mechanism.

Let us be clear: any attempt to track or monitor Minnesota gun owners will be met with fierce resistance.

We will take all appropriate legal and legislative action to protect the privacy, dignity, and rights of Minnesotans under the Second Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution.

The Constitution is not a suggestion.

Governor Walz does not get to decide which rights are convenient to ignore.

This looks very likely to be challenged in the courts. Stay tuned.

Muslim terrorist examined by ASIO for Islamic State links six years before Bondi attack

Bondi Beach terror attack gunman Naveed Akram was investigated over links to Islamic State six years before carrying out the massacre with his father that has left 16 people dead so far.

ASIO examined the 24-year-old Muslim terrorist after police stopped a terror plot by a Sydney-based IS cell in 2019 led by Isaac El Matari, who was jailed for seven years in 2021 for planning an insurgency in Australia.

Joint Counter Terrorism Team (JCTT) official told ABC News an IS flag was found in the car belonging to Naveed and his Pakistani immigrant father Sajid Akram, 50, a licenced firearm owner who was killed during the attack on Sunday evening. Naveed is in a critical condition in hospital under police guard.

The official said ASIO examined Naveed’s links to the IS cell after Matari’s arrest, and sources said the two men were close.

ASIO boss Mike Burgess confirmed on Sunday evening that one of the gunmen was known to the spy agency, but did not specify which one, and said he was not seen as an “immediate threat”.

NSW Police Commissioner Mal Lanyon confirmed on Monday that Sajid owned six legal firearms, and that police were in the process of determining whether the weapons were used in the Bondi attack.

Police raided the Akram family home in the immigrant-dominated western Sydney suburb of Bonnyrigg on Sunday evening, where Naveed’s mother Verena Akram told The Sydney Morning Herald her unemployed bricklayer son was a “good boy”, and had told her he was going on a fishing trip.

“He rings me up [on Sunday] and said, Mum, I just went for a swim. I went scuba diving. We’re going … to eat now, and then this morning, and we’re going to stay home now because it’s very hot,” she said.

“He doesn’t have a firearm. He doesn’t even go out. He doesn’t mix around with friends. He doesn’t drink, he doesn’t smoke, he doesn’t go to bad places … he goes to work, he comes home, he goes to exercise, and that’s it.

“Anyone would wish to have a son like my son … he’s a good boy.”

Not surprised in the slightest.

Gabbard: 2,000 Afghan refugees in U.S. have ties to terrorism.

An estimated 2,000 Afghan nationals admitted to the United States following the deadly 2021 pullout of American forces from Afghanistan have ties to terrorism, according to the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard.

Gabbard made the astonishing revelation during an interview on Fox News Friday morning, following a tense House Homeland Security Committee hearing Thursday, when Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem highlighted national security risks to the homeland.

The Center Square previously reported that the U.S. Department of Defense Inspector General released a report in January 2022 that admitted thousands of Afghan evacuees who entered the U.S. following the American military evacuation in August 2021 were not properly vetted.

“[The DoD] found that Afghan evacuees were not vetted by the National Counter-Terrorism Center (NCTC) using all DoD data prior to arriving in CONUS,” the report said.

The report also noted, during an “analytic review, NGIC personnel identified Afghans with derogatory information in the DoD ABIS database who were believed to be in the United States.”

The 2022 report affirms Gabbard’s concerns that some individuals admitted to the U.S. under the Biden administration may pose a national security risk.

Continue reading “”

The DOJ Says It Will Challenge Unconstitutional Gun Policies. Maybe It Should Stop Defending Them.
The Justice Department’s litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.

The Justice Department recently established a “Second Amendment Section” within its Civil Rights Division. On its face, that move is a welcome development for defenders of the constitutional right to armed self-defense—an impression reinforced by the alarm the new initiative has generated among gun control advocates. But the section’s mission statement raises doubts about its commitment to Second Amendment advocacy. So does the Justice Department’s ongoing defense of constitutionally dubious federal gun laws.

“I’m really excited about this,” Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division, told Fox News. “For the first time, the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the DOJ at large will be protecting and advancing our citizens’ right to bear arms as part of our civil rights work….As Attorney General Pam Bondi has said, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and I couldn’t agree more with my boss.”

Dhillon said the Justice Department will challenge obstacles to obtaining concealed carry permits such as “multi-thousand-dollar costs” and “unreasonably long delays.” Another potential target, she said, is state bans on “guns that should be protected by the Second Amendment” under “recent Supreme Court precedent,” by which she presumably meant “assault weapon” bans. In a recent Supreme Court brief, the government’s lawyers suggested that “cases involving state laws banning AR-15 rifles” provide good “vehicles for clarifying the appropriate framework for discerning what types of arms the Second Amendment protects.”

So far, so good. But the Justice Department’s description of the Second Amendment Section’s agenda should give pause to anyone familiar with the litigation inspired by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified the Second Amendment test for gun control laws and cast doubt on the constitutionality of many longstanding firearm restrictions.

The Second Amendment Section aims to protect “the natural firearm rights of law-abiding American citizens and ensure that such rights to keep and bear arms will not be infringed,” the Justice Department says. “The mission of the 2nd Amendment Section is to ensure that law-abiding American citizens may responsibly possess, carry, and use firearms.”

That “law-abiding” qualifier does not appear in the text of the Second Amendment. Nor is it “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by Bruen. And taken literally, it excludes millions of peaceful Americans from exercising “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” which is in fact the upshot of policies that the Trump administration defends.

Continue reading “”

What we really need is for the courts to overrule Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) where the Supreme Court ruled that even traveling state to state was ‘commerce’ and could be regulated by goobermint under the Constitution’s  commerce clause, thus unfortunately allowing the Feds to run amok.

As of October, “E-Form” .20s are already active, but as of now only works for those items that were made or transferred within the E-Form system. Those of you who know I have had – among others – an UZI smg for over 40 years are not aware of the problems I encounter with the lower level bureaucraps at ATF with traveling with it, that have to be resolved at higher levels….because the worked bees don’t appear to be all that bright.

ATF Proposes Changes to Make Travel With NFA Items Easier.

Until the National Firearms Act is a relic of the past, every little bit that makes it easier to navigate can surely help. In recent weeks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives published their intent to do just that in the form of a two-fer.

A proposed rule would help clarify and streamline the process for those transporting National Firearms Act-regulated items across state lines. In simplifying and digitizing that process, the move would also get rid of some unnecessary bureaucracy at ATF, as well as save time and money for both NFA-item owners and the agency.

Currently, a person wishing to transport certain NFA-regulated items – such as “short-barreled” rifles and shotguns – must, per 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4), complete and submit ATF Form 5321.20, the Application to Transport Interstate or to Temporarily Export Certain National Firearms Act (NFA) Firearms to ATF in advance of the travel. Alternatively, a person can mail a letter of request, in duplicate, containing all information required on the ATF Form, in lieu of the form.

Note just a few of the archaic instructions:

The registered owner of NFA firearm(s) shall complete two copies of ATF Form 5320.20 and forward the forms to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 (Attention: NFA Division).  The form can be submitted via facsimile to the NFA Division at (304) 616-4501 or may be scanned and emailed to NFAFax@atf.gov.

All signatures on both copies of the form shall be in ink. All other entries on the form shall be printed in ink or typewritten.

In the notice ATF submitted to the Federal Register, it stated that the plan is to permanently overhaul and digitize the process by revising the information collection method to make the form electronically fillable and allow it to be emailed directly, as well as auto-fill the required second copy. Additionally, the form will be part of its online eForms section on the ATF website for easier access and include more clarifying language on the application of the regulation for travel.

This latest proposal by ATF appears to be part of the ongoing effort announced as a “new era of reform” as posted on the ATF website earlier this year: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform. A quick perusal of the ATF Forms and Information Collection site shows multiple recent and similar updates meant to assist in streamlining forms, reducing paperwork, and updating procedures through digitization, all great efforts helping to ultimately reduce wait times and resources that burden both agency and citizen.

ATF is seeking public feedback on this proposed rule until January 27, 2026, to help assess the utility of the efforts and asks specifically for comments that:

  • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary to properly perform ATF’s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
  • Evaluate the agency’s estimate of the proposed information collection’s burden for accuracy, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
  • Evaluate whether, and if so, how the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information can be enhanced; and
  • Minimize the information collection’s burden on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

While there is still much work to be done in repealing the NFA, work NRA continues alongside Second Amendment partners in multiple lawsuits, for today, modernization is far better than weaponization.

Pentagon rolls out GenAI platform to all personnel, using Google’s Gemini.

Other “frontier AI capabilities” will join Gemini on the new GenAi.mil platform, meant to make generative AI tools available to all three million military and civilian personnel, the Department of Defense announced.

WASHINGTON — This morning the Defense Department announced the launch a new website, GenAi.mil, meant to bring generative AI tools to all three million of its military, civil service, and contractor personnel.

“The future of American warfare is here, and it’s spelled AI,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exclaimed in a video released on X.com. “At the click of a button, AI models on GenAI.mil can be utilized to conduct deep research, format documents, and even analyze video and imagery at unprecedented speed.”

The first AI available on the site will be the government version of Google Gemini, which can handle highly sensitive but unclassified information (what the Pentagon calls IL-5 data). But the Pentagon’s plan is to grow GenAi.mil to offer “several frontier AI capabilities,” the announcement said — and the Department’s chief technology officer, under secretary for research and engineering Emil Michael, wants GenAI for classified data as well.

“For the first time ever, by the end of this week, three million employees, warfighters, contractors, are going to have AI on their desktop, every single one,” Michael said at DefenseScoop’s DefenseTalks conference this morning. “[We’ll] start with three million people, start innovating, using building, asking more about what they can do, then bring those to the higher classification level, bringing in different capabilities.”

Michael, a former Uber executive who recently took over the Pentagon’s formerly independent Chief Digital & AI Office, downplayed the previous administration’s efforts to advance artificial intelligence. “For the past five years, the Department has had very little to show in the way of AI,” he told the conference.

Michael had made a similar complaint on Saturday at the Reagan National Defense Forum, although he singled out fellow panelist Adm. Sam Paparo and his Indo-Pacific Command as an pathfinder. “For a department of three million people, we’re vastly under-utilizing AI relative to the general population,” Michael said. “Admiral Paparo and his command is probably one of the premier users; they’ve adopted it faster than sort of any other component, because they’ve seen the utility and they’re most urgent about it, and so we work most closely with him, and then we take the learnings that he’s developing and bring it to other places.”

Michael emphasized in both appearances that he wants to apply AI not just to Pentagon business processes — which have a lot in common with the private-sector functions that commercial GenAI is trying to take on — but also for intelligence analysis and even “warfighting” functions like logistics planning and combat simulations.

“I think in the next few weeks to months, not years, you will see this proliferate throughout the entire Department of Defense,” Michael said at the Reagan Forum. “It’s going to be my number one priority for the rest of my term.”

 

The Somali Welfare Fraud Scandal Is Even Worse Than You Think

“We believe the Somali fraud operation in Minnesota is the single greatest theft of taxpayer dollars, through welfare fraud, in American history.”

Survey Says: Majority Think Government Corrupt, Disagree Who Can Fix It

A new Rasmussen survey released Tuesday reveals that four out of five likely voters believe corruption is a problem in Washington,. D.C. but they disagree on who can fix the problem.

Of the 80 percent who say government is corrupt, 44 percent think it is “very corrupt.”

And Republicans need to be careful, because Rasmussen says 43 percent of survey respondents think Democrats can handle the issues of government better, while 41 percent think the Republicans can do a better job. Sixteen percent aren’t sure one way or the other.

The survey of 1,155 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on Nov. 13 and 16-17 by Rasmussen Reports with a margin of sampling error at +/- 3 percentage points and a 95% level of confidence.

“Not surprisingly,” said Rasmussen, “78 percent of Democrats trust their own party more to handle issues of government corruption and government reform, and 77 percent of Republican voters trust the GOP more. Unaffiliated voters are about evenly divided, with 37 percent trusting Republicans more and 36 percent trusting Democrats more to handle corruption and reform issues, while 27 percent are not sure.”

The survey results probably should not surprise anyone, considering all that has been said about certain members of Congress getting wealthy from insider trading and not being held accountable. On the other hand, some people on Capitol Hill have been criminally prosecuted over the years, with individuals such as New Jersey’s Bob Menendez and New York’s Anthony Weiner going to prison.

According to Rasmussen, “76 percent of voters agree that federal agencies such as the FBI and CIA need major reform, including 45 percent who Strongly Agree. Only 17 percent disagree.”

Breaking things down along party lines, Rasmussen said “Eighty percent (80%) of Republicans at least somewhat agree that federal agencies such as the FBI and CIA need major reform, as do 71% of Democrats and 75% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

“Forty-nine percent (49%) of Democrats, 39% of Republicans and 45% of unaffiliated voters believe the federal government is Very Corrupt,” Rasmussen added.

FLASHBACK:(Deceit O’ The Day)

What is Operation Allies Welcome? The refugee scheme that allowed DC shooting suspect into the US

The man accused of shooting two National Guard members near the White House Wednesday night entered the country through Operation Allies Welcome, a resettlement program to assist Afghan nationals.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the suspect – an Afghan man identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal – arrived in the U.S. in 2021. He later applied for asylum in 2024, which was approved this year under the Trump administration.

The U.S. has now suspended all Afghan immigration requests in response to the shooting outside a metro station in downtown Washington D.C., which officials described as a targeted ambush. The two guard members are still in critical condition.

In a televised address from Mar-a-Lago, Trump condemned the attack – the day before Thanksgiving celebrations get underway – as a “crime against humanity”.

On Wednesday, Trump lashed out at former president Joe Biden’s administration for letting in “20 million unknown and unvetted foreigners” to the US through the Operation Allies Welcome program. However, this figure appears to be an enormous exaggeration.

The scheme was launched in August 2021 during Biden’s presidency, following the chaos of the U.S. military withdrawal from Afghanistan and the Taliban’s return to power.

Continue reading “”

New York’s Assault on the NRA — and Free Speech — Gets a Court Bailout

In 2017, under the direction of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York launched a coordinated campaign to cripple the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of its defense of the Second Amendment and protected speech. New York’s Department of Financial Services contacted banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA and delivered an unmistakable message: Continue associating with the NRA, and the state would investigate, cite, and regulate your business into oblivion. Coming from the state’s top financial regulator, the warning carried real weight – exactly as intended.

The strategy worked. Financial institutions and insurers quickly distanced themselves from the NRA, leaving the organization unable to secure even basic corporate services in the state. If that sounds like an obvious First Amendment violation, that’s because it is. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that government “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against third parties to suppress disfavored speech are flatly unconstitutional.

Because that rule remains as clear today as it was in 1963, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously for the NRA last term. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, put it plainly: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” When regulators use the power of their office to pressure private actors into isolating or punishing a speaker, they violate the First Amendment just as surely as if they had censored the speech directly.

This case sits squarely at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments. The NRA’s policy views related to the Second Amendment, its speech, its advocacy, and its expression are all protected by the First Amendment. A government that can strangle a gun-rights group through financial coercion can use the same tools to silence pro-life organizations, religious ministries, parental-rights groups, or anyone else who falls out of political favor. That is why the ACLJ fights not just for the substance of constitutional rights, but also against government efforts to punish those who speak about them.

That unanimous ruling should have ended the matter. It should have allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to proceed so a jury could determine the full extent of the constitutional violations. But the Second Circuit had other ideas. In defiance of both the Supreme Court’s clear command and the First Amendment itself, the court held that New York’s officials were entitled to qualified immunity – meaning the case had to be dismissed.

Qualified Immunity Was Never Meant to Shield Deliberate Speech Suppression

Continue reading “”

DOJ Official Says Congress, Not Courts, Should Address NFA Taxes, Registration

Despite ongoing objections from Second Amendment groups and a letter from Rep. Andrew Clyde and more than two dozen other members of Congress urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to recognize congressional intent and stop defending the National Firearms Act’s taxes and registration requirements for National Firearms Act items, the DOJ’s latest brief in an NFA case offers a full-throated defense of those measures.

The  brief, filed in Silencer Shop, et al v. BATFE, not only argues that the Constitution empowers Congress to adopt the challenged NFA requirements and that the $200 tax and registry of who has paid it remain a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, but that the tax and registration mandates “comport with the Second Amendment” as well.

… the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled shotguns and rifles, suppressors, and AOWs is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” As the Supreme Court has consistently observed, American legislatures have long “prohibited the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Laws dating back to theFounding Era targeted, through outright bans or lesser regulation, particularly dangerous weapons that were uniquely susceptible to criminal misuse. Similarly, many states have long regulated the size of firearms. The NFA fits within that historical tradition by targeting particularly dangerous weapons that “could be used readily and efficiently by criminals,” though its requirements are much more modest than the categorical bans of the past. That alone demonstrates that the NFA comports with the Second Amendment.

Gun Owners of America, among others, has objected to the DOJ’s continued defense of the NFA, which led to a rebuke of the 2A organization from a DOJ official.

McGavick’s argument is an odd one, given that the Supreme Court does have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. And in the case of the NFA’s taxation and registration schemes, it’s clear that the intent of Congress was to repeal those provisions. The $200 tax has been zeroed out as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, but though the Senate also removed the accompanying requirement that those who pay the tax have to register that payment with the federal government, the Senate parliamentarian objected to that provision, so the registry remains.
The DOJ could have taken the position that, since the registration is actually a registry of all those who’ve paid the tax, and the tax has no been zeroed out, the registration requirement is moot. It could also, of course, have taken the position that the NFA does violate the Second Amendment, despite what the Court has said in cases like Miller and Heller.

Part of the DOJ’s problem is that it has previously admitted in the Peterson case that challenges the NFA’s restrictions on suppressors that those items are, in fact, protected by the Second Amendment. Still, the DOJ took the position that the $200 tax and registration requirements are only “modest burdens” on the right to keep and bear arms, at least as they apply to those items.

The Supreme Court has never suggested that there are various levels of protection for arms that fall under the Second Amendment’s umbrella, so the DOJ’s position arguably leaves the door open for similar requirements on all arms protected by the Second Amendment. If the DOJ is going to to defend the National Firearms Act, it might have been better for the agency to argue that NFA items aren’t protected at all instead of coming up with a convoluted theory about tiers of protection and what kind of restrictions might be allowed for some arms. That still wouldn’t satisfy groups like GOA, FPC, and NRA, but it also wouldn’t allow gun control groups and anti-gun polticians to adopt the DOJ’s language and apply it to handguns or semi-automatic long guns in the future.

When Rep. Clyde joined me on Bearing Arms Cam & Company to discuss the letter to Bondi, he indicated that if the DOJ didn’t fall in line behind Congress’s intent he might re-open the letter to gather more signatures before submitting its rebuke into the official congressional record. Clyde says he’s also working on an appropriations bill that would remove the registration requirements, which would be fantastic if it comes to pass, but that action in the legislative branch still doesn’t mean that the executive branch’s hands are tied when it comes to the NFA and its infringements on our right to keep and bear arms.

New York City residents should keep Bernie Goetz’s travails in mind if they’re going to go armed in public.

Senior citizen who saved himself from would-be mugger is heading to prison because of NYC’s ‘draconian’ laws

A Queens senior citizen who shot dead a man who tried to rob him will spend four years in prison after admitting to toting an unlicensed revolver — as his lawyer ripped the city’s “draconian” gun laws.

Charles Foehner, 67, pleaded guilty to one count of criminal weapons possession Thursday in a deal to end his case more than two years after he fatally shot would-be thief Cody Gonzalez, who charged at him near his Kew Gardens home.

The Queens District Attorney’s Office chose not to prosecute Foehner, a retired doorman, for Gonzalez’s killing after he told cops that he’d defended himself from a mugger who lunged at him late at night holding what looked like a knife — but which turned out to be a pen.

Foehner was not charged with manslaughter after claiming self-defense, but pleaded guilty to a lesser gun charge.Brigitte Stelzer

But prosecutors slapped Foehner with a slew of weapons raps for the unlicensed handgun and for an arsenal of illicit handguns, revolvers and rifles inside his home in the quiet neighborhood.

Foehner took the plea deal to avoid a trial, where he faced 25 years in prison on gun charges that are not hard to prove, said his attorney Thomas Kenniff after Thursday’s hearing in Queens Supreme Court.

Continue reading “”