CZ and Colt Canada taking part in Canadian Gun Confiscations?
Category: Goobermint
OMG.. you cannot make this up..
These are some of the things the Democrats are demanding we fund:
– $3 million for circumcisions and vasectomies in Zambia
– $833k for transgender people in Nepal
– $4.2 million for lgbtq people in the Western Balkans and Uganda
– $3.6 million… pic.twitter.com/maGvy3mLvC— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) October 3, 2025
Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.
The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?
The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty
In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.
Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.
In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.
Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.
NAILED IT! The FBI DID Send Hundreds of Undercover Assets Into the J6 Protest!
Yet another victory for the tinfoil hat, “conspiracy theory” crew: the FBI sent 274 “plainclothes” agents into the crowd of people protesting in and near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Just the News.
And many of those agents are not happy about how it all went down, not to mention the bureau’s liberal bias.
FACT-O-RAMA! When the House Judiciary Committee asked him if the FBI had undercover assets involved in the January 6 protest, then-FBI director Christopher Wray testified that such an idea is “ludicrous.” Maybe he and James Comey can enjoy a little yard time together.
An FBI after-action report that Kash Patel’s office recently discovered not only reveals that the agency sent 274 agents and personnel into the January 6 fracas but also how poorly planned and executed the plan was. The report also reveals that many rank-and-file FBI agents complained that they felt as though they were “pawns in a political war.” Others suggested that the FBI was too “woke.”
After the January 6 melee, dozens of FBI agents and officials lodged anonymous complaints to the bureau, outlining how the bureau sent them into a dangerous situation without safety gear or a proper way to identify themselves as armed federal agents to other law enforcement officers.
The most common complaint from the agents was the left-leaning political bias of the bureau and how the BLM rioters of 2020 received far better treatment than the January 6 protestors.
Some of the complaints were scathing. One of the bureau’s damning complaints read:
The FBI should make clear to its personnel and the public that, despite its obvious political bias, it ultimately still takes its mission and priorities seriously. It should equally and aggressively investigate criminal activity regardless of the offenders’ perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations; and it should equally and aggressively protect all Americans regardless of perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations.
That same agent also asked the FBI “to identify viable exit options for FBI personnel who no longer feel it is legally or morally acceptable to support a federal law enforcement and intelligence agency motivated by political bias.”
Another agent pulled no punches and suggested that the problem of political bias wasn’t just an FBI problem but that it extended to the Office of the U.S. Attorney:
Currently, the US Attorney’s office is dictating what it is that gets investigated. This is a dangerous precedent because we can barely get them to prosecute investigations that clearly meet thresholds needed for Federal prosecutions,” the agent wrote. “However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.
Many agents focused their ire on the “wokeness” of the Washington Field Office (WFO), with one writing, “WFO is a hopelessly broken office that’s more concerned about wearing masks and recruiting preferred racial/sexual groups than catching actual bad guys.”
Yet another agent lowered the boom and spoke directly about the FBI’s treatment of January 6 suspects:
However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.
FACT-O-RAMA! A vast majority of J6 defendants were charged with four misdemeanors, one of which involved trespassing. Most were not sentenced to serve time in jail.
This bombshell after-action report discovery comes hot on the heels of the arrest of former FBI Director Comey, who faces charges of lying and obstruction.
Had enough yet?
As almost always, the expense of the process was the punishment.
Second Amendment Foundation declares ‘vindication’ as Attorney General ends investigation
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced this week that it has reached an agreement with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. This concludes a three-year investigation that found no misconduct by SAF or its personnel.
As part of the settlement, SAF will withdraw its federal civil rights lawsuit against the Attorney General’s Office, former Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and other named defendants. This agreement includes the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) canceling its request for public records from the Washington Attorney General’s Office.
In return, the AG’s Consumer Protection will end its investigation into SAF and the other parties involved.
Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb stated the agreement represents a “vindication of our position that SAF, its partners and personnel did nothing wrong.”
Gottlieb says Ferguson’s investigation was political retaliation, not justice.
Gottlieb expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation initiated by Bob Ferguson, describing it as an effort to “discredit our work on behalf of gun owners and the Second Amendment.”
“Ferguson’s witch hunt wasted three years of our time and cost us thousands of man hours and more than $200,000. We’re convinced this happened because he is a devoted anti-gun rights politician and we are a national organization whose mission is to protect and defend the Second Amendment,” he added.
All of SAF’s sister companies were targeted as well, including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Merril Mail Marketing, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, and Liberty Park Press, where Gottlieb currently serves as publisher.
Gottlieb expressed relief that the ordeal is over, though he added, “we’re not happy that Ferguson is not held responsible for the damage he did. It is our sincere hope that no future attorney general in Washington state will conduct a politically motivated attack under color of law against any non-profit organization with which he or she has a fundamental philosophical disagreement.”
As parts of the agreement, the Washington State Attorney General has decided not to pursue any legal action stemming from the investigation.
This outcome comes as no surprise to Gottlieb, “since they couldn’t find any wrongdoing.”
The Federal Trade Commission Takes On the 2nd Amendment
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson requesting the FTC investigate whether the Biden Administration’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention worked with anti-Second Amendment organizations to demand that the agency crack down on “deceptive and misleading claims” made by gun manufacturers. These efforts were supported by a group of anti-Second Amendment senators who wrote to then-FTC Chair Lina Khan asking her to investigate the gun industry’s advertising practices.
The senators’ letter accused the gun industry of marketing to children because their ads referenced popular “first person shooter video games” like Call of Duty. The problem with this claim is that the majority of gamers are over 18—making it perfectly legal for the firearms industry to market their products to them. The letter also suggests that the gun industry is engaging in “deceptive” advertising by focusing on how firearm ownership can help law-abiding citizens protect themselves, their families, and their property. Once again, the senators’ claims do not fit the facts.
Gun owners use firearms in self-defense between 60,000 and 2,500,000 times per year, and private citizens are 85% more likely to use a gun for self-defense than to be killed by a firearm. It is not misleading to say that firearms can be a useful tool for self-defense. Sadly, it is also true that there are around 526 accidental gun deaths per year, as well as over 40,000 people wounded due to the careless use of firearms. However, the solution is not to restrict firearm advertising—but to promote responsible gun ownership. The gun industry, along with other pro-Second Amendment organizations, does engage in plenty of work in this area.
As weak as the arguments for restricting firearms advertising are, the main argument against such restrictions is that they violate the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedent establishes that commercial speech like advertising is protected by the First Amendment, although at a lower level than political or religious speech. Even under this lower standard of review, banning or otherwise restricting advertisements for firearms would likely be struck down by the courts.
But while a future gun-grabbing FTC Chair may not be able to directly restrict gun advertising, they may try to ban gun ads through the back door. One way to do this would be to condition approval of mergers and acquisitions of media companies—including social media companies—on an agreement to not promote “dangerous” products such as firearms. If this sounds familiar it is because it is the approach of current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson. Ferguson has conditioned approval of advertising firm Omnicom’s acquisition of fellow advertising company Interpublic on the firms agreeing not to restrict web ad placements based on the sites’ political content. Is it too hard to imagine a future progressive FTC conditioning a similar merger on a company’s agreement to not place ads on sites that promote products dangerous to public health, such as firearms?
Government agencies may not even have to directly threaten to deny approval of a merger or acquisition to get a company to disregard the Second Amendment rights of their consumers. For example, before winning approval of their purchase by Skydance, Paramount—who owns CBS—settled a lawsuit brought by President Trump alleging that 60 Minutes edited their interview with then-Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her appear more knowledgable and coherent. President Trump claims this was done to make the Vice President more appealing to voters, and thus constituted election interference.
A long time 60 Minutes producer resigned earlier this year, saying the network was interfering with the program’s editorial decisions to moderate criticisms of President Trump. While FCC Chair Brandon Carr did not explicitly demand these actions, his rhetoric about broadcasters being required to act in the “public interest”, and his threats to block the Paramount-Skydance deal, no doubt played a role in Paramount’s actions.
It is easy to imagine a progressive FTC or FCC Chair using this precedent to forbid a news program, podcast, or even entertainment program from including content considered pro-gun. Fortunately, the pro-Second Amendment movement is fighting any attempt to use spurious claims of “false and deceptive” advertising to infringe on the Second Amendment. According to Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, his group “is leading the charge to unravel many of Biden’s unconstitutional restrictions in the courts, and we applaud President Trump for working to roll back other abuses—because the Second Amendment isn’t a bargaining chip, it’s the cornerstone of every American’s freedom.”
DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case
The case Reese v. ATF challenges the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. Victorious at the Fifth Circuit, they’re now working towards a final judgment at the district court level, but the Department of Justice has taken a position that’s not sitting well with Second Amendment advocates.
After the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion on Reese v. ATF, the case was remanded for final judgment to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The circuit court concluded that “the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” The plaintiffs filed an important brief on Friday in support of their proposed judgment.
The government ended up exhausting their timeline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When remanded back to district court, both the plaintiffs and the government filed proposed judgments because “a good faith attempt to reach agreement with Government” failed.
The plaintiffs are proposing the government be enjoined from enforcing prohibitions on the sale of handguns to all eighteen-to-twenty-year-old members. The government is requesting that the law be enjoined only “with respect to the identified and verified persons described” in the proposed judgment. In short, the government essentially wants the order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not every member of the associations who are part of the lawsuit, which include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association.
“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”
The 19-page brief goes on to explain why the final judgment should not give deference to the government by delivering what would amount to an as-applied opinion. Given the amount of time it takes to bring such cases to completion, many plaintiffs are mooted out by coming of age before there are any final judgments—something the government incorporated in their proposed order.
“What’s at stake now is the scope of the injunction–meaning, which young adults will be able to exercise their rights,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Although it chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it is now the ATF’s position that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. That position is contrary to well-settled law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF won in the Fifth Circuit flows to those very members. All SAF members should be covered by this injunction.”
“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition had some harsh words for the Department of Justice. FPC said the government’s brief was full of “brazen arguments” and that “the DOJ is working to push all effective, cause-driven organizations … out of court altogether, and force people to pursue their rights through slow, complex, and expensive class-action lawsuits.” FPC alleges that these moves are all part of a new government ploy.
“The DOJ’s cynical scheme to undermine associational standing and relief for our members is nothing but an attempt to put constitutional accountability out of the reach of ordinary Americans,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “The federal government, having lost on the merits, is now trying to rig the process. But we will not be deterred. While the government has placed FPC and our members in its crosshairs, we are proud to expose and oppose this dangerous strategy as we pursue a world of maximal liberty for all peaceable people.”
We’re allegedly living at a time when the most pro-Second Amendment administration is in power. The government yielding by allowing the clock to run out on appealing to the High Court certainly was a win, but not if in the next breath they’re saying that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking should be grossly limited. The Fifth Circuit was clear when it said that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people,” there should be no further argument—yet here we are.
The power to tax is the power to destroy.
— Chief Justice John Marshall in McColluch v. Maryland (1819)
"I feel safe because I'm protected" says Pritzker.
Of course you do, fatso, because you have a massive, armed, taxpayer paid security detail.
You do know the average citizen can't afford such a luxury, right?
— American #10002 (@BendokasT91873) September 15, 2025
Tennessee of all places…
Skrmetti appealing gun law decision
(The Center Square) – Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is appealing a ruling by a Gibson County Chancery Court that said two Tennessee gun laws were unconstitutional.
The laws prohibited carrying firearms in state parks and carrying a gun or club with the “intent to go armed” and use it for violence or aggression.
Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three Tennessee residents sued the state, saying the laws violated their right to bear arms.
Skrmetti said his office was asking the chancery court for a stay pending appeal because the court’s ruling was broad and went too far.
“It entirely invalidates two gun laws, even though those laws are constitutional in some situations,” Skrmetti said. “For example, it’s obviously constitutional to prohibit a 10-year-old from bringing a semiautomatic rifle to a rec league basketball game or a drunk with a shotgun from staggering down Broadway or through Market Square or across Shelby Farms. But the Court’s ruling appears to legalize this in Tennessee.”
The ruling by the Chancery Court is causing confusion, Skrmetti said in the appeal.
“Plaintiffs’ counsel has already advised the public that ‘the entire law enforcement network in Tennessee [is] on notice’ and ‘attempts to enforce these two statutes’ by any official ‘should give rise to claims of federal civil rights violations,’” Skrmetti said. “Law enforcement is rightly loath to choose between tempting ruinous civil rights lawsuits and carrying out their duty to protect the public. And there is no doubt: because of its refusal to adhere to its own judicial limits, this Court’s order would leave large gaps in the General Assembly’s efforts to protect the public.”
Rep. Chris Todd, R-Madison County, said he wanted Skrmetti to appeal the decision but not because Todd opposes it. He called the opinion “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written decisions we’ve seen.”
Sen. London Lamar, chairwoman of the Tennessee Senate Democratic Caucus, said she supports the decision to appeal the decision.
“These long-standing gun safety laws are constitutional and they exist for a reason: to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect the public,” Lamar said. “If the lower court’s ruling is allowed to stand, it will tie the hands of police officers — even when they encounter someone with a loaded assault rifle parked outside a children’s park. Officers wouldn’t even be allowed to question that person’s intent until it’s too late. That’s not freedom. That’s a recipe for tragedy.”
Woman who grew up in Southern California says she saw first hand out illegals qualify for Section 8 and all our benefits
“I saw exactly how they did it and what they did and how they were able to get away with it for so long. So how they would do it is when you fill out these applications, there is a box that asks you, now they’ll initially ask you for your social security number and date of birth, whatever. But there’s a box that said check here if you do not have a social security number. Once you check that box, baby, you’re a celebrity after that.
— The border is right there. So the women and children would come over. And they’ll apply to all this aid. They’ll check that box. Do not have a Social Security number. And then they will get immediate assistance.
– They’ll get the Section 8
– They’ll get cash assistance
– They’ll get EBT
– They’ll get free lunch for the kids
– They’ll get ESL (English second language)
– They’ll get free tutoring
they’ll get everything they need, right? Because they’re not a citizen, so they need the emergency help
but here’s what they would do.
The men would be there too. They just wouldn’t include them on any paperwork. The men would be in the home, but the men would go to work. All while they woman and children are getting all this free everything, they would go to work.
They would do construction, get paid under the table, odd jobs, handyman work, paid under the table, fixed cars, paid under the table, have a food stand or food truck, cash only, okay? Selling whatever they can sell, reselling, doing whatever they can, all under the table. And the women would do it, too. So they getting all this money, cash only, tax free, no proof of anything, and living high off the hog off of our money that we’re actually paying off the government, off the handouts. That they say we take.
That’s how they were doing it.“
“That’s how they’ve been. Getting away with it. The men, they be out there making money and even the women, they be out there making money, cash only, tax free with the handouts of the government.”
She then explains what illegal businesses they run in California and how they avoid taxable income and reporting
Woman who grew up in Southern California says she saw first hand out illegals qualify for Section 8 and all our benefits
“I saw exactly how they did it and what they did and how they were able to get away with it for so long. So how they would do it is when you fill out these… pic.twitter.com/Uz6YC7CHZh
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) September 4, 2025
Why Has Fort Worth – One of America’s Most Conservative Cities – Hired an Anti-Gun Police Chief?
In a move sparking backlash from Second Amendment supporters, the city of Fort Worth has hired Eddie Garcia — the former police chief of Dallas and San Jose — as its next Chief of Police. Gun rights advocates are sounding the alarm, citing Garcia’s long and well-documented record of opposing constitutional carry, supporting California-style gun control, and pushing for “enhanced limitations” to the Second Amendment.
For a city like Fort Worth — often considered the nation’s most conservative large city — the choice is baffling.
Opposed Constitutional Carry and Civilian Rifle Ownership
During his tenure in Dallas, Garcia vocally opposed permitless carry, placing himself squarely against the will of Texas voters and the state legislature. Despite overwhelming support from grassroots Texans, Garcia parroted talking points from the gun control lobby, claiming it would make Texas more dangerous.
But it didn’t stop there.
As San Jose Police Chief, Garcia called for further restrictions on civilian ownership of AR-15s and questioned whether the Founding Fathers would have written the Second Amendment the same way if they had known about modern firearms — a tired trope often used by anti-gun politicians to justify new bans.
He went as far as to say the Second Amendment should be treated as a “living document” — a red flag for anyone who takes constitutional rights seriously. In the same interview, he referred to Black Lives Matter as a “valid movement.”
This about sums it up https://t.co/Sp8Yb7wlb3
— 🇺🇸🇺🇸Patriot Girl 🇺🇸🇺🇸 (@Patriot31) August 31, 2025
Not a single child was proficient in reading in 24 public schools in Illinois. https://t.co/GquBlPXjUC pic.twitter.com/9nLURwmjIh
— Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist (@DeAngelisCorey) August 29, 2025
LEGAL ALERT: A New York federal judge has ruled that the state’s non-resident carry ban violates the Second Amendment. https://t.co/RRJzOx8VsV pic.twitter.com/EnEXCjFbuz
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 20, 2025
LEGAL ALERT: The Tenth Circuit has ruled that New Mexico’s 7-day firearm waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment. https://t.co/UE4WP6Csnn pic.twitter.com/0l4aaDW2eA
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) August 19, 2025
Special Taxes on Firearms are Unconstitutional.
1. The Tax Law That Now Finds Itself Without a Tax
In the recent discourse around the potential removal of suppressors and short barrel rifles from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and its tax and registration requirements, a point made repeatedly was that if the tax was repealed but the registration stayed, the latter would be illegal as it was only ever justified by the former.
This is indeed correct, as from its inception, the NFA was justified as a tax, with the registration being incidental to that tax and only existing ostensibly to ensure the tax was properly paid for each NFA item sold. Then-Attorney General Cummings was clear about this in his testimony to Congress during the debates over the bill in 1934:
Courts have consistently upheld the NFA, and its registration provision, on the grounds that it was a tax. Some who tried to challenge the law even argued that the tax was a pretext, with the real aim being to unconstitutionally restrict the arms included in the NFA. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in 1937, just a few years after the NFA was first enacted in Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 512-514 (1937):
“Petitioner. . .insists that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms, the local regulation of which is reserved to the states because not granted to the national government. . . But a tax is not any the less a tax because it has a regulatory effect. . . Here the annual tax of $200 is productive of some revenue. We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed. As it is not attended by an offensive regulation, and since it operates as a tax, it is within the national taxing power.”
Ever since then, dozens of rulings have upheld the NFA on those same grounds. For example, in 2018 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “the NFA is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, as well as its authority to enact any laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power.” United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1179 (10th Cir. 2018).
Dear Democrats:
Hey. How’ve you been?
It’s been a rough 25 years. It feels like ever since that hanging chad election in 2000, we have been at each others’ throats. Mostly this is because we’ve let the hyperbole and the wild conspiracy theories control us on both sides. Now I say that is 80% you and 20% us (because you control the media), and we’ve done our fair share with Birthers and Big Mikers, but the bottom line is that neither side trusts what the other side says.
That’s a shame.
I get why you may not trust us. But you are going to have to on what we are about to tell you. Sometimes objective truths need to be said, and we’re about to say them.
Buckle up Buttercups. What you are about to read is 100%, verifiably true:
1. In the 2016 presidential election, the Hillary Clinton campaign fabricated out of the ether a wholly fictional “dossier” alleging that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian Federation.
2. This “dossier” was shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the friendly Obama Administration, and treated as reliable intelligence even though those agencies knew it was highly suspect.
3. This wholly-fabricated “dossier” was then used as a legal basis for surveillance and wiretaps on members of the Trump Team before and after the election, and the communications equipment in the Trump Transition Team HQ in New York was in fact wiretapped by the Obama Administration.
4. After the election was over and Trump had won, the intelligence community determined that there was no material Russian interference in the election. Barack Obama directed them to reverse that finding.
5. This new, false finding, coupled with the ongoing concerns regarding the dossier became the bases for a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to prevent Donald Trump from ever taking office, even though the American people had just elected him. The ongoing Potemkin Villages of the dossier and the IC report were the bases for numerous unlawful warrants on the Trump team, the creation of interview traps where Trump members might incriminate themselves by making a false statement to the FBI, and generally encircling the entire Trump transition team via subterfuge and placing them in a public aura of an illegal enterprise and not a validly-elected administration.
6. With the Obama plan unable to prevent Trump from taking office, his loyalists who remained in the new Trump Administration did their very best to work towards removing Trump via scandal, with James Comey being the chief bagman via the bogus dossier.
7. While everything described above was happening, it was all being leaked to the media in an effort to discredit and cripple the Trump Administration. Often bogus information would be fed to a media source, the source would report it, and then the fact that the media reported the bogus information was used by Democrat operatives as a basis for legitimizing it, i.e. “the wrap up smear.”
8. All of the above became such a burden on the new Trump Administration that a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was appointed to cut through to the truth. Unfortunately Mueller was relying on the same fake dossier and bogus IC reports, so bogus data led to a bogus investigation that served no other purpose than to cripple the Trump Administration for two years.
9. To summarize points #1 through #8 above, the Obama/Hillary plan had three steps: (i) spread Russia lies so Trump loses the election; (ii) if Trump wins the election, spread Russia lies so he is never inaugurated; and (iii) if he is inaugurated, spread Russia lies to cripple his ability to govern.
10. After Trump lost in 2020 and he started indicating that he would run again, the Obama team, now with Biden installed in the White House as a puppet, knew they could not let him win as he would unravel what they had done, make it public, and potentially cause a bunch of them to end up in prison. So they coordinated lawfare attacks on Trump across the nation using Democrat operatives, thinking that Trump would end up in prison or his reputation would be in such tatters that he could never be elected. That backfired.
11. Trump got elected in 2024.
12. On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a treasure trove of heretofore hidden information which, alongside already-public information about the fake dossier, shows that everything we say above is 100%, inarguably, reliably, factually, objectively accurate.
We repeat, everything written above is VERIFIABLY, OBJECTIVELY TRUE.
We know you love to say how much you “love democracy.”
Do you? Do you REALLY “love democracy”?
What is described above is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.
Forget any arguments about whether something was criminal or the statute of limitations or whatever other technicality distractor gets thrown out there, we have a very simple question for you:
HOW CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS?
Please consider this letter a peace offering. If you are willing to acknowledge what transpired and offer an apology, we might be able to begin to trust each just a teeny bit. We are all Americans, after all.
Sincerely,
The American Coalition of Non-Smoothbrained Conservatives
STL judge strikes law requiring guns in parked cars to be locked away
ST. LOUIS — A St. Louis judge took down a local law that required drivers to store firearms in lockboxes or other secured containers while leaving them unattended in vehicles.
The July 15 ruling states that a 2017 ordinance conflicts with a Missouri law that takes away local governments’ ability to regulate firearms.
Circuit Judge Joseph P. Whyte ruled that since the measure conflicts with state gun laws, it violates the Missouri Constitution’s preemption clause, which prohibits local governments from enacting gun regulations that go beyond state law.
The preemption states:
“The general assembly hereby occupies and preempts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.”
The ordinance, introduced by former Alderwoman Lyda Krewson and approved unanimously by the Board of Aldermen, aimed to curb gun thefts from vehicles, which city officials say have surged in recent years and often lead to firearms being used in violent crimes.
“Requiring reasonable measures to secure firearms left in unattended vehicles will reduce gun thefts, protect the property of the City’s law-abiding citizens, and prevent stolen guns from falling into the hands of criminals,” aldermen said in the ordinance.
Under the law, gun owners who left firearms unsecured in vehicles could face fines of up to $500 and incarcerations of up to 90 days.
But Attorney General Bailey framed the ordinance as an unconstitutional infringement on Missourians’ Second Amendment rights.
In a gun-related lawsuit in February 2023, Bailey said, “I have long held that the Constitution was meant to be a floor, not a ceiling, and the Second Amendment is the amendment that makes all of the others possible.
The judge’s ruling leans heavily on Missouri Revised Statutes Section 21.750, which expressly prohibits cities and counties from adopting any ordinance or regulation related to the possession, transfer or storage of firearms beyond what state law allows.
Supporters of the ordinance had argued that the measure was tailored not to restrict gun ownership and pointed to data from the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department showing more than 1200 guns stolen from vehicles in 2023, a 27% increase over the previous year.
It is still uncertain whether the city plans to appeal the ruling.
FPC WIN: Order Vacating Biden “Pistol Brace” Rule Stands, Government Dismisses Appeal
NEW ORLEANS (July 17, 2025) – This afternoon, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the federal government agreed to a joint dismissal of the government’s appeal in our Mock v. Bondi lawsuit, a case that successfully challenged the Biden ATF’s “pistol brace” ban rule and secured injunctive relief for gun owners while the case was being litigated to final judgment, which completely vacated the rule.
“Today is a great day for freedom and the American people,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “The dismissal of this appeal should be the final nail in the coffin of this unconstitutional Biden ATF assault on gun owners. As we explained in the case filings, braced pistols are not ‘short-barreled rifles’. But either way, they are unquestionably arms protected under the Second Amendment. We are thrilled to have secured this important win for liberty and excited to take on even more unconstitutional laws so you can exercise your rights when, where, and how you choose.”
“The government is finally retreating from the Biden Administration’s patently unlawful effort to turn millions of peaceable people into felons by decree,” said FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski, an attorney for the challengers. “This horrible rule was a perversion of our system of limited government, so we’re glad to see this case resolved in favor of liberty and the rule of law.”
“This is a clear-cut victory and monumental step in preserving gun rights for future generations and safeguarding the firearms ecosystem from regulatory overreach,” said David Farrell, a Maxim Defense vice president. “This important achievement is the result of tireless dedication from the entire litigation team, not to mention the many supporters who have stood with us every single day. When we fight boldly and stand united, freedom prevails.”
If you want to support this important pro-Second Amendment win and FPC’s dozens of cases working to strike down unconstitutional gun control laws, join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.
Today’s filing in Mock can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/mock. The Mock case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in this case by two individual FPC members as well as Maxim Defense. FPC Action Foundation is counsel of record for the Plaintiffs, alongside Benbrook Law Group, P.C. and Cooper & Scully, P.C. Schaerr | Jaffe LLP represented the plaintiffs during the preliminary injunction appeal. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this case.