Category: Goobermint

More Caught Illegally Crossing Southern Border in 1 Year of Biden Than Entire Trump Presidency.

“Our top priority is to keep terrorists and their weapons from entering the United States.” So says the website of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The same webpage that makes this declaration includes a table that provides some relevant data for the fiscal years from 2017 to 2023. It lists how many individuals on the Terrorist Screening Dataset (commonly known as the “terrorist watchlist”) were encountered by the Border Patrol as they were trying to illegally sneak into the United States between the ports of entry on our southern border.

The Terrorist Screening Dataset, says the webpage, “originated as the consolidated terrorist watchlist to house information on known or suspected terrorists (KSTs) but has evolved over the last decade to include additional individuals who represent a potential threat to the United States, including known affiliates of watchlisted individuals.”

In fiscal year 2017, when Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, the Border Patrol encountered just two individuals on the terrorist watchlist trying to sneak across the southern border between the ports of entry. In fiscal year 2018, it encountered six. In fiscal year 2019, it encountered none; and, in fiscal year 2020, it encountered three.

In fiscal year 2021, the year President Joe Biden was inaugurated, there was a substantial shift in the trend. That year, the number of individuals on the terrorist watchlist that the Border Patrol encountered trying to sneak across the southern border increased fivefold to 15.

Then, in fiscal year 2022, it climbed to 98. So far in fiscal year 2023, which isn’t even half over yet, the Border Patrol has encountered 69 individuals on the terrorist watchlist trying to sneak across our southern border between the ports of entry.

How many on the terrorist watchlist have actually succeeded in illegally crossing our southern border into the United States? There is no way to know.

What we do know is that it only took 19 foreign terrorists who had made their way into the United States to hijack four domestic flights on Sept. 11, 2001.

While the Border Patrol managed to catch 98 on the terrorist watchlist trying to illegally cross our southern border between the ports of entry last year, is it possible there were 19 the Border Patrol did not catch?

There has also been a massive upward trend in the number of aliens the Border Patrol has “apprehended” or “encountered” as they tried to illegally cross the U.S.-Mexico border between the ports of entry.

Continue reading “”

Fauci Caught Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud About the COVID Vaccine During PBS Special

We should all reconcile with the fact that Dr. Anthony Fauci is never going away; too many people idolize the man. He’s become a cult-like figure for the COVID freaks on the Left, the male version of Hillary Clinton. Like herpes, you may not see Fauci daily, but he’ll say ‘hey’ every few years. PBS is doing a documentary about that man who got everything wrong about the coronavirus. In some segments posted on social media, Fauci is walking around DC with Mayor Muriel Bowser, trying to increase vaccine rates among black neighborhoods. They were met with skepticism (via Fox News):

The exchange was documented by PBS for an upcoming program on Fauci as part of its “American Masters” series, which aims to help viewers “discover insightful profiles of important figures in America’s artistic and cultural life.”

In a clip from the program titled “Dr. Fauci visits D.C. to battle vaccine hesitancy,” Fauci and Bowser are shown in June 2021 walking the streets of Ward 8 of Anacostia in southeast D.C. – a historical African-American neighborhood that Fauci called “disenfranchised” with low vaccination levels. At the time of the video, Fauci was the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.…

One man challenged the renowned doctor and the Democratic mayor by saying that “the people in America are not settled with the information that’s been given to us right now.”

“So, I’m not going to be lining up taking a shot on a vaccination for something that wasn’t clear in the first place,” he said.

He pressed Fauci and Bowser about the length of time it took to develop the vaccine and said, “Nine months is definitely not enough for nobody to be taking no vaccination that you all came up with.”

Bowser defended the vaccinate by saying, “The only reason I’m talking to you right now, as close as we are, is that I’ve been vaccinated,” as she stood about six feet from the man on the front porch of his home.

“But if thousands of people like you don’t get vaccinated, you’re going to let this virus continue to percolate in this country and in this world,” Bowser said.

“Something like the common flu then, right?” the man interjected.…

“[Your] campaign is about fear. It’s about inciting fear in people. You all attack people with fear. That’s what this pandemic is. It’s a fear, it’s fear, this pandemic. That’s all it is,” he said as Fauci and Bowser walked away.

Another woman also challenged the duo, saying, “I heard that [the vaccine] doesn’t cure it, and it doesn’t stop you from getting it.”

The pure comedic aspect surfaces when Fauci blames red states for not pushing vaccination, saying they will keep COVID around as new outbreaks occur. Sir, you’re in deep-blue DC, and people are skeptical of getting vaccinated. Also, the cat was already out of the bag: COVID is endemic. The one thing that Fauci should have come away with during this little walk through DC is that he’s abysmal at messaging. He also said that Republicans needed to be broken to his whims on vaccination.

Continue reading “”

Shot: defund the police
Chaser: I am begging for more police

Liberals are never, ever held to account.

San Francisco District Supervisor Hillary Ronen is “begging” for more police officers in the Mission District. Crime is out of control, and the city absolutely has to do something about it.

It’s a disaster! Somebody do something!

You have to sympathize with her and her constituents. Sure sounds like things are really bad out there. I wonder how any city could allow such a degradation in its policing capability?

Hillary Ronen is the one to ask. She led the fight to defund the police, after all.

Continue reading “”

Governor says she’s going to keep pushing on crime, gun bills

As Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham started her post-session news conference Saturday, she already knew the score.

Of the roughly 40 public safety bills introduced this year, the governor said she championed 10.

“We have about a handful up, and out of 40, it’s 10 [that passed], and not all of those would really constitute what I think are strong public safety measures,” she said.

“I know that is an area that you want me to say I’m disappointed,” Lujan Grisham added. “I’m motivated. I am very motivated to find additional ways to make sure that we really do everything in our power that makes our communities and cities in our state safe.”

The Legislature passed a gun storage law named after a 13-year-old Albuquerque boy authorities say was shot and killed by a fellow student who took his father’s gun to an Albuquerque middle school. Lawmakers also passed a bill that cracks down on organized retail crime and made it a fourth-degree felony to buy a gun for another person who is prohibited from owning a firearm.

But some of the governor’s biggest priorities went nowhere, including a ban on assault weapons; a bill to raise the age to 21 to buy or possess semi-automatic firearms, including assault weapons; and a 14-day waiting period to buy guns.

Other gun-related legislation — prohibiting firearms within 100 feet of polling places and updating the Unfair Trade Practices Act to lift restrictions on the filing of lawsuits against manufacturers or distributors — passed the Senate but didn’t get a hearing in the House, where they were likely to meet stiff opposition.

The governor also pushed for establishing a “rebuttable presumption” to keep repeat violent offenders awaiting trial off the streets instead of letting them be released pretrial. The bill was tabled in committee amid concerns it was unconstitutional.

Miranda Viscoli, co-president of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence, said she was “extremely disappointed” the bill to impose a 14-day waiting period on gun sales didn’t get a hearing in either chamber. Of all the violence prevention bills proposed this year, that was the bill that would’ve made the biggest difference, she added.

“The studies we looked at say it’s a game-changer in terms of suicide and crimes of passion,” she said.

But Viscoli said she was grateful the Legislature passed House Bill 9, intended to keep guns out of the hands of children and teens. The governor signed it into law Tuesday.

“We’ve been working on getting that passed since 2017,” she said.

Rep. Pamelya Herndon, D-Albuquerque, who sponsored the legislation known as the Bennie Hargrove Act, called some of the other gun bills considered by the Legislature controversial, noting some are “going to take some time.”

Lujan Grisham, who was hammered over a crime wave plaguing New Mexico as she campaigned for a second term last year, vowed to keep “pushing the Legislature” to enact more measures, including funding to put an additional 1,000 police officers on the ground.

“The Legislature should expect me to look at that again because I know we need 1,000 officers,” she said.

Asked about her strategy to get her public safety priorities across the finish line, Lujan Grisham said she has to think about “creative solutions.”

“I’m going to keep trying,” she said.

“Just look at the stats. We’ve released some folks that should never have been released and have already reoffended in Albuquerque while we’ve all been in the legislative session,” she said, referring to efforts to pass a pretrial detention bill. “I find that to be intolerable. There are states who do it better, and I don’t know why we don’t just do exactly what those states are doing. I don’t need to recreate the wheel.”

The governor said she would continue to battle for modified pretrial detention, noting “everyone here knows I’m introducing that again. And again and again, and I might just try to change the Constitution so I can run again.”

Lujan Grisham said she was kidding but added she would continue to battle on crime legislation. And she made no apologies for her battle against guns, brushing off criticism she’s infringing on law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“I have not talked to a single policymaker, not one legislator, who’s interested in preventing responsible gun owners from accessing firearms,” she said.

“What we’re trying to address is that we have a gun violence issue and that guns … get into the hands of people who should not have them,” she said. “That … takes a scalpel, like figuring out where we got a problem and taking care of that particular problem.”

The Biden administration leaked the military records for Republicans who were running for elective office to try to hurt their election chances.

House weaponization panel probes release of Air Force records to political operatives

The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government is probing the Air Force over the improper release of military service records to a political opposition research group.

In a letter to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall on Thursday, Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, demanded that the service branch hand over all documents and communication related to the release of Official Military Personnel Files to Due Diligence Group, LLC, a research firm that obtained the records of multiple GOP candidates in the lead up to the midterm elections in 2022.

Rep. Chis Stewart, Utah Republican, co-signed the letter.

An internal Air Force investigation revealed last month that the service improperly released the military duty information for 11 individuals. The investigation was launched after the disclosure of Indiana House Republican candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green’s military records ahead of the midterms.

Several other GOP candidates have since come forward to report that their military records were improperly released.

Two sitting members of congress, Republican Reps. Don Bacon of Nebraska and Zach Nunn of Iowa, were also among those whose records were improperly released.

In a letter to Mr. Bacon last month, the Air Force said a Due Diligence Group employee posing as a background investigator requested his records.

“Department of the Air Force employees did not follow proper procedures requiring the member’s authorizing signature consenting to the release of information,” Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek told CNN last month. “There was no evidence of political motivation or malicious intent on the part of any employee.”

She said the Air Force is “committed to preventing any such unauthorized disclosure of private information from occurring again” and will perform monthly audits.

Ms. Stefanek told Politico that “virtually all” of the 11 unauthorized requests for the records came from Due Diligence Group.

Mr. Jordan said on Thursday that the improper releases “may have violated Department of Defense policies and federal law.”

“While the Air Force has rightfully taken responsibility for these inappropriate OMPF disclosures, questions remain unanswered about the U.S. Air Force’s collection, maintenance, and dissemination of this sensitive information,” Mr. Jordan wrote.

New Student-Led ‘Red Guard’ Installed in Maine School District Causes Fury at Board Meeting

If you’re unfamiliar with the Red Guard instituted by Chairman Mao in China, get ready to understand it better than you ever wanted to. Critics of the sweeping transgender ideology infecting the school and medical systems have likened the ideology’s proponents to China’s Red Guard, a group of students trained to turn against their parents and other adults to usher in a brutal dictatorship. The Red Guard famously tortured its own teachers and parents in the name of the Communist cultural revolution. It was a dark and dangerous time in China for anyone who would not bow to the demands of tyrants.

A school system in Maine has instituted its own burgeoning Red Guard called the “Civil Rights Team.” This benign-sounding organization of kids is supposed to ensure that student rights are upheld. What has happened instead led to parents sounding off at the latest school board meeting to complain that the Civil Rights Team is just a bullying organization with an agenda. The Maine Wire covered the story:

Kristen Day said students affiliated with one of RSU 14’s Civil Rights Teams harassed her daughter. When her daughter refused to speak about her sexuality, two students affiliated with the club began to bully her and call her homophobic.

“They insisted she was gay because she dressed gay and listened to gay music,” Day said of her daughter, who was a 7th grader at the time of the alleged harassment.

“She was then called homophobic because she wasn’t at least bi,” Day said.

“She’s not political, but she does not want to talk about her sexuality in school,” she said.

Day went on to describe how the CRT (Is it a coincidence that their acronym mirrors Critical Race Theory?) founded by the Maine Attorney General’s office, pressured the kids into wearing pronoun pins.

Civil Rights Teams (CRTs) operate in Maine schools as a project of the Maine Attorney General’s Office, and the nominal goal of the student organizations is to reduce “bias-motivated” bullying and harassment in schools.

Day said her daughter was harassed about her sexuality by students affiliated with the school’s CRT under the pretext of opening a discussion about student sexuality.

CRT members also created surveys for their peers to take with questions about sexuality and gender, and they pressured them to don “pronoun” pins, Day said.

Windham Superintendent Christopher Howell, instead of investigating the allegations, wrote an email denying it ever happened.

“In short, the focus of [Civil Rights] teams is on helping to create a safe school environment for all,” said Howell.

“We are not aware of the Civil Rights Team being involved in the situation you’re referring to,” he said.

Using students to pressure other students into “group-think” is right out of the Commie playbook. It is not only disturbing that the Attorney General of Maine is complicit in doing this, but it should be a shocking wake-up call to parents nationwide. This threat of Communism is real. It is happening right now in this country. The question is, what are you going to do about it? If left unchecked this only ends one way: the same way it ended in China. NPR reported the sad reality in China as a result of the cultural revolution.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
….the only person Biden is trying to save with this rhetoric is himself.

Gun Control Is Joe Biden’s Safe Space
With more economic problems looming, the president returns to an old favorite.

When things are going poorly, Joe Biden usually heads out for another gun-control push, issuing executive orders, demanding more legislation, and repeating many of his most preposterous anecdotes and claims. Because Biden’s gun rhetoric offers little more than emotionalism, it doesn’t have to make much sense — which, of course, plays to his greatest strength.

During the spring and summer of 2022, when inflation kept hitting new 40-year highs, Biden gave one cynical speech on gun violence after the next. This week, as the banking system yawned under the weight of his reckless policies, Biden was in Monterey Park, where 11 people were murdered by a 72-year-old lunatic during last year’s Lunar New Year celebration, to demand Congress pass more laws.

Obviously, it’s all meant to be a distraction. But it also needs to be debunked.

Here is CBS News giving the White House the lead it was looking for:

President Biden issued an executive order on Tuesday that aims to increase the number of background checks to buy guns, promote better and more secure firearms storage and ensure U.S. law enforcement agencies are getting the most out of a bipartisan gun control law enacted last summer.

Biden’s executive order will direct U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to increase background checks by “cracking down on gun sellers who don’t perform them when required.” This is already the law, and there’s no evidence of any widespread problem with licensed gun sellers circumventing checks to illegally sell firearms to criminals.

Even if gun dealers were a bunch of disreputable characters, it makes little sense for them to risk their businesses when a healthy market for legal guns exists. But it is true that occasionally, as happened with the Charleston Church shooter, law enforcement doesn’t do its job. So maybe Biden should sign an executive order demanding the FBI try harder.

The attorney general is free to crack down on criminals whenever he pleases. Biden’s executive orders feed the false perception that more background checks would lead to less violence. Biden admits in his speech that goal of his new EO is “moving us as close as we can to universal background checks without new legislation.”

Continue reading “”

Biden’s Plan To Unilaterally Expand Background Checks for Gun Buyers Is Legally and Logically Dubious
The president wants to redefine federally licensed gun dealers in service of an ineffective anti-crime strategy.

President Joe Biden on Tuesday issued an executive order that the White House says will move federal regulation of gun sales “as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.” The order relies on a legally contentious redefinition of who qualifies as a gun “dealer” and therefore must obtain a federal license and comply with related rules, including customer background checks.

Federal law defines a gun dealer as someone who is “engaged in the business of selling firearms,” which until last year was defined as “devot[ing] time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms.” The 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act excised “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” and replaced it with “to predominantly earn a profit.”

As the Congressional Research Service explains, that change was “intended to require persons who buy and resell firearms repetitively for profit to be licensed federally as gun dealers, even if they do not do so with ‘the principal objective of livelihood.'” According to the amendment’s supporters, “there was confusion” about whether the definition of “engaged in the business” covered “individuals who bought and resold firearms repetitively for profit, but possibly not as the principal source of their livelihood.” The statutory definition still explicitly excludes “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”

Biden’s order does not say exactly how he intends to expand the number of people who are classified as dealers. Instead it instructs Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose department includes the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), to “clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms.” Garland may do that through “rulemaking, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law.”

Continue reading “”

BACKDOOR UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS INCOMING

Despite GOA Warnings, Republicans Helped the Biden Administration Implement Backdoor UBCs

President Biden just announced that he would be mandating backdoor UBCs or “as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.”[i] His claimed “authority” comes from Section 12002 of the Cornyn-Murphy Compromise.[ii] According to the White House:

Specifically, the President is directing the Attorney General to move the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation by clarifying, as appropriate, the statutory definition of who is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms, as updated by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.[iii]

Unfortunately, Gun Owners of America has been expecting this since the passage of the unconstitutional compromise on gun rights known as Cornyn-Murphy, or the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. GOA warned:

Expanding the definition of FFLs (Federal Firearms Licenses) could require anyone who sells more than one gun to do so through an FFL, resulting in a backdoor mechanism for universal background registration checks—just as the Obama Administration attempted.[iv]

Nevertheless, Congress, including 15 Senate GOP, rushed to “compromise” our gun rights away with hastily-written, secretly-negotiated legislation.[v]

Senator Cornyn’s Definition of “Engaged in the Business” Led Directly to Backdoor Universal Background Checks

Prior to Senate Republicans’ compromise, the legal definition of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) Gun Dealer read as follows:[vi]

The term “dealer” means (A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail, (B) any person engaged in the business[vii] of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or (C) any person who is a pawnbroker.

Anyone “engaged in the business” must have a license to deal in firearms, but law-abiding citizen’s private transfers were not included in this 53-year-old definition. The definition of a Federal Firearms License (FFL) was a critical boundary between the mandatory background checks performed during commercial gun sales and law-abiding private transfers and sales that take place daily in more than half of the United States. But Cornyn-Murphy added this foolish clarification, which the Biden Administration now proposes to weaponize:

The term `to predominantly earn a profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection

Not only that, but this asinine definition even “Provided, That proof of profit shall not be required” for a violation—making President Biden’s backdoor Universal Background Check scheme even easier! Expanding the statutory definition of FFLs (Federal Firearms Licenses) allowed the Biden Administration a strong excuse to vastly expand federal regulations and require anyone who sells more than one gun to do so through an FFL, resulting in a backdoor mechanism for universal background registration checks—just as the Obama Administration attempted.[viii]

Continue reading “”

New Mexico governor signs gun storage bill, but fate of other gun control bills still in doubt

The first gun control bill of the legislative session to get to New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has now been signed into law. The big question now is how many others will show up on her desk before the session wraps up this Saturday.

HB 9 creates the new crimes of “negligently making a firearm accessible to a minor” and “negligently making a firearm accessible to a minor resulting in great bodily harm or death”; misdemeanor and fourth-degree felonies, respectively. In practice, gun owners in the state are now expected to store their firearms locked up unless they’re being carried, at least if there are minors in the home, but the law is utterly unenforceable from a proactive standpoint. Even when the law is applied after a tragedy occurs the legal consequences are usually nothing, especially compared to the loss of a child. Take this recent case from North Carolina, for example.

A Gaston County assistant district attorney said that two parents and an uncle charged in the shooting death of a 4-year-old reached sentencing agreements on Monday.

Assistant district attorney Zach Holeve confirmed that Savannah Leigh Brehm and Hector Manuel Mendoza-Saucedo got 36-month probation sentences, while gun owner Keith Deshawn Sturghill received 24 months of probation.

Brehm, 22, Mendoza-Saucedo, 22, and Sturghill, 21, faced several charges, including felony involuntary manslaughter, felony child abuse, and the misdemeanor charge of storing a firearm in a manner accessible to a minor.

During a court hearing, prosecutors said the adults knew a loaded gun was on the home’s coffee table with the safety off. The gun belonged to Strughill.

Mendoza and Strughill left for work when the 5-year-old child and 4-year-old child found the weapon. A 5-year-old sibling shot the 4-year-old, according to investigators.

These three were charged with multiple felonies but only received probation for their negligence; presumably when their charges were reduced to a misdemeanor. Given the overwhelming number of felony cases that result in plea bargains, I doubt that New Mexico’s gun storage law is going to have much teeth to it. Encouraging responsible gun storage, either through incentivizing the use of gun safes and locks or through public safety campaigns aimed at gun-owning parents, seems like a much better approach than creating a new crime, but this is still probably the least offensive gun control bill introduced by New Mexico Democrats this session.

There are still a number of other measures that could still get to Grisham’s desk before Friday, including SB 428, which would amend the state’s Unfair Practices Act to include firearms with an eye towards encouraging lawsuits against gun makers for allegedly fueling violence through their marketing. The measure passed out of the Senate last week, but so far has not received a committee hearing in the House.

Meanwhile, a bill banning the sale and possession of unregistered “assault weapons” is sitting in the House Judiciary Committee, and Grisham has run into some behind-the-scenes opposition that could derail the measure completely, Other legislation raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21 and establish a 14-day waiting period on gun sales are also still kicking around, but haven’t seen any committee action in recent weeks.

Any bills that aren’t approved by both Houses by noon on March 18th are theoretically done for the year, though Grisham has suggested she could call lawmakers back for a special session on gun control if they don’t enact her anti-2A wishlist. Given the lack of movement on many of the governor’s demands, it may be that Democrats have just decided to kick some of these cans down the road a couple of months, but I suspect that gun owners and groups like the New Mexico State Shooting Association are also having an impact on at least some of the legislators that Grisham hoped would be reliable votes for her gun control agenda.

BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDER: UNIVERSAL BACKGROUND CHECKS WITHOUT CONGRESS?

In what many conservatives and pro-gun groups paint as a chilling overreach by the White House, President Biden on Tuesday announced a new Executive Order aimed at guns.

The rambling EO signed by Biden on March 14, on “on Reducing Gun Violence and Making Our Communities Safer,” is multi-faceted.

Among its “whole-of-government approach” tenets are marching orders to the Justice Department to publicly release more inspection reports of licensed gun dealers, expand existing campaigns to promote the safe storage of firearms, step up the entry of ballistics data collected from crime scenes, and increase efforts to encourage the use of “red flag” gun seizure laws.

Other measures include calling on the Federal Trade Commission to issue a public report analyzing how “gun manufacturers market firearms to minors and how such manufacturers market firearms to civilians, including through the use of military imagery.” This is even though only those over the age of 18 can legally purchase a firearm at retail.

Further, the Pentagon is directed to use “principles to further firearm and public safety practices” in their acquisition of firearms, a possible reference to mandating the use of unproven so-called “smart gun” technology.

[That can also be a vague hint that the DOD should try some kind of force play on the U.S. manufacturers to make them kowtow to restricting sales of guns to the civilian market that SloJoe doesn’t like; As in: “Nice lucrative .gov contract ya got there. Be a shame to lose it by continuing to sell those eeee-vil assault weapons to the public.”]

However, one part of the executive action has struck a strong chord with those on both sides of the national conversation on guns: more aggressively defining who is considered “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms” by the ATF and Justice Department. Past guidance from federal gun regulators on the topic of selling guns without a federal firearms license has proven fuzzy, with the agency noting that “courts have upheld convictions for dealing without a license when as few as two firearms were sold, or when only one or two transactions took place.”

Biden, in prepared remarks delivered Tuesday at an anti-gun event in California, was frank that the order was a move toward controversial universal background checks without the required legal framework of going through Congress to make it a law.

“First, this executive order helps keep firearms out of dangerous hands, as I continue to call on Congress to require background checks for all firearm sales,” said Biden. “And in the meantime — in the meantime, my executive order directs my Attorney General to take every lawful action possible — possible to move us as close as we can to universal background checks without new legislation.”

Speaking of prepared remarks, while the White House, Justice Department, and ATF were quiet as to what exactly are the new qualifiers for crossing the “engaged in the business of dealing in firearms” threshold, Everytown, a national gun control organization founded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg, fired off a press release hours before the Oval Office made public the executive action with a window on what could be coming from the administration.

In the statement, the group offered its vision for a proposed new rule by ATF: “Enforcement guidance and substantive rulemaking should make clear that anyone who offers a gun for sale at a gun show or pursuant to an advertisement — including online ads — is presumptively engaged in the business of selling guns and needs to run background checks.”

Continue reading “”

NSSF REACTION TO PRESIDENT’S GUN CONTROL EXECUTIVE ORDER

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, takes exception with President Joe Biden’s Executive Order to increase gun control measures. In the name of “doing something,” the Biden administration is chilling fundamental Constitutional rights and simply rehashing existing law, many of which were previously supported by the firearm industry.

“The Biden administration should demand that soft-on-crime prosecutors and lawmakers use the laws already in existence to lock up criminals that misuse firearms to prey on innocent Americans,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Instead, this administration continues to scapegoat the firearm industry for its unwillingness to address crime. The failure of this administration to seriously address spiraling crime and instead focus its attacks on a Constitutionally-protected industry that works diligently to remain in compliance with laws and regulations and actively cooperates with law enforcement, especially ATF, exposes the lack of urgency Americans demand to curb rampant and out-of-control crime.”

The firearm industry worked with Congress to update the statutory definition of “in the business,” in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was passed last year and signed into law by President Biden. The update defined those Americans “in the business” of selling firearms as those “predominantly earning a profit.”

Further, The White House accused industry members, without evidence, of selling firearms without required FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verifications. This is disingenuous, at best. The firearm industry was the progenitor of the point-of-sale instant background check to ensure firearms are sold only to those the law has determined can be trusted to possess a firearm. The firearm industry has been on the leading edge to improve the quality of FBI’s NICS, including supporting the FIX NICS Act of 2017 that incentivized states and required federal agencies to submit all disqualifying background information to the FBI to ensure prohibited individuals are barred from purchasing firearms. NSSF supports increasing the submission of disqualifying records to FBI NICS but rejects the Biden administration’s demand to move closer to universal background checks, which will not work without a national firearm registry, which is forbidden by federal law.

The firearm industry has also been consistently addressing compliance with federal regulations to report the loss or theft of firearms during shipping. NSSF has repeatedly held compliance seminars with members of the firearm industry and common carriers to be aware of and remain in compliance with reporting requirements when firearms go missing during shipping. NSSF has led this effort to ensure firearms are accounted for during transit from manufacturer to distributor to retailer and finally to retail sale.

NSSF welcomes the Biden administration’s renewed attention to safe storage of firearms in the home. This has been an issue on which the firearm industry has led from the front for over two decades. Every firearm shipped from the factory includes a locking device. Additionally, through NSSF’s leadership with Project ChildSafe®, over 40 million firearm safety kits, including locking devices, have been distributed to communities across America through partnerships with over 15,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states and five U.S. territories. This campaign has been recognized by the National Safety Council’s Green Cross Awards and the Government Accountability Office for its efficacy in reducing the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms through voluntary safe storage. NSSF welcomes the Biden administration’s support to increase the reach of this firearm-industry financed effort.

In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden held a White House meeting in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy. He spoke to then-NSSF CEO Steve Sanetti and referring to NSSF, the president said, “You guys are doing a lot of good things, including the gunlock thing. And this isn’t Joe Biden just blowing smoke. I mean it.”

NSSF has not opposed the use of emergency risk protection orders, or so-called “red flag” laws, so long as those laws include adequate protections for Constitutional Due Process considerations. To date, none of the “red flag” laws in the 19 states and District of Columbia include these Constitutional protections. NSSF urges the Biden administration and Department of Justice (DOJ) to address these Constitutional concerns that would encourage additional states to consider these laws.

President Biden’s demand to close “the dating violence restraining order loophole” has already been addressed and was not opposed by the firearm industry. Definitions of domestic partners were updated in the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Congress expanded domestic and dating partners to the list of prohibited individuals to include those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. Those laws were signed by President Biden.

NSSF recognized that the Department of Defense (DoD) instructs all military members on firearm safety during entry-level training. These include the fundamental rules of firearm safety. The firearm industry welcomes the Biden administration’s acknowledgment of proven firearm safety practices that have been the hallmark of the firearm industry for over a century. To the extent that the Biden administration is attempting to politicize the acquisition for the warfighter, the only criteria should be which firearm is the best one to meet the needs of America’s warfighters. Injecting gun control politics into the process is dangerous. Gun control politics should never have a place in DoD’s selection processes.

NSSF does not oppose the reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearms Act, that requires 3.7 ounces of metal be included in a major component part of a firearm. Detection technology has improved to the point where image detectors have been able to identify polymer-framed firearms. Demands to modernize this act deserve strict scrutiny. The Undetectable Firearms Act as it is currently written should be made permanent.

NSSF rejects the Biden administration’s demands to ban Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard-capacity magazines. This demand is clearly unconstitutional, as affirmed by the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court that affirmed the individual right to possess firearms in common use. More than 24.4 million MSRs are in circulation today. That’s more than there are Ford F-150s on the road, the most-popular selling pickup truck. MSRs are semiautomatic firearms, which operate the same way as the most popular handguns and duck hunting shotguns. One cartridge is expended for each pull of the trigger. Likewise, efforts to ban standard-capacity magazines are an attempt to infringe on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. The courts have affirmed that magazine possession is essential to the ability to exercise Second Amendment rights. NSSF knows from government studies that banning MSRs and restricting magazine capacity will not make our communities safer.

NSSF rejects the Biden administration’s demand to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). This law is the expressed will of Congress that was passed with a wide bipartisan majority and prevents frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties. This would be akin to suing Ford and Anheuser-Busch for criminal drunk driving incidents. Criminals are responsible for the crimes they commit.

NSSF rejects President Biden’s weaponization of the nonpartisan Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to squelch the First Amendment rights of firearm businesses. The heavy-handed approach is nothing short of an attempt to chill First Amendment-protected commercial free speech about products protected by the Second Amendment. The firearm industry markets firearms only to those who are legally able to possess them. Only those over the age of 18 can legally purchase a firearm at retail after submitting to an FBI NICS verification.

NSSF also rejects the Biden administration’s attempt to weaponize the “zero tolerance” policy of revoking federal firearms licenses for minor clerical errors by compounding that ill-conceived policy to expand it to a “name-and-shame” effort. Firearm retailers are the front line for ensuring firearms are sold only to those legally able to purchase them and “zero-tolerance” risks the cooperative relationship between firearm retailers and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). This weaponization of the ATF would codify the Biden administration’s efforts to transform the ATF from a law enforcement and regulatory agency to one that is a political arm of an antigun administration.

DC Freaks Out Over DeSantis’s Ukraine Comments; Voters Shrug.

Salent segment:

Rah-rah, Slava Ukraini, and all that, but there’s a limit to American largesse. And people get miffed when Biden jets to Kyiv with a suitcase full of money but avoids East Palestine, Ohio.

Politicians in both parties must understand that their first responsibility is to their own nation; allies come second. Forget this, and the people will toss them on their tin ears. DeSantis makes his priority clear: the United States of America.

Reagan-era Secretary of State George Shultz asked every new US ambassador a simple question. “I’m going to spin the globe and I want you to put your hand on your country.”

When they pointed to the nation assigned to them, Shultz corrected them. “Your country is the United States.”

DeSantis has passed this test. Biden has not.

“Live fire” tests for gun owners violates Second Amendment, says…
Harvard Law Review?

My buddy Jim Wallace of the Gun Owners Action League likes to refer to Massachusetts as a “Second Amendment battleground state”, and he’s not wrong. Beleaguered gun owners in the Bay State are subjected to a host of unreasonable restrictions on their right to keep and bear arms, and if anything the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen has only made anti-gun activists and politicians more eager to slap more laws on the books.

Under the pre-Bruen standard, local licensing authorities had broad discretion in approving or denying applicants for a License to Carry, and Wallace has previously told us that many jurisdictions are trying to get around the Supreme Court’s decision. State lawmakers are even pushing to require applicants to demonstrate their proficiency with a firearm by requiring live fire training and passing a test, something GOAL says is completely unnecessary.

Now a new article in the Harvard Law Review says those mandates aren’t just unneeded, they’re unconstitutional. The article focuses on the licensing process in Boston, where police already require applicants to pass a “shooting qualification test” at the local police range within two weeks of submitting an application. All would-be pistol owners (a LTC is required to own, purchase, and carry a handgun) must demonstrate “safe handling of, and familiarity with, a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver” as well as completing a scored live-fire test; requirements that have no analogues in history, according to the author.

The City of Boston could presumptively argue that its Qualification Test, which requires an LTC application to obtain a quantifiable point tally on a scored target, is the type of objective test that Justice Thomas deemed constitutional.

But that contention misconstrues Bruen. First, the Bruen majority did not hold that all objective licensing requirements are constitutional, for even an objective test must not “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” And a shall-issue permitting scheme “can be put toward abusive ends.”

Because the Qualification Test requires applicants to fire a heavy, unpopular handgun accurately, which not everyone can do, it impedes law-abiding citizens from exercising their armed self-defense right — the right to public carry is reserved only for those who shoot well with a heavy handgun. Second, Justice Thomas stated that background checks and firearms safety courses are constitutional, but a shooting qualification test is not a firearms safety course.

Thus, Bruen does not support the proposition that scored live-fire tests survive judicial scrutiny. The Qualification Test’s quantitative characteristics may mitigate its constitutional deficiencies but do not cure them.

In addition to accuracy, the Qualification Test demands that applicants show “safe handling of, and familiarity with, a .38 caliber, 4-inch barrel revolver.” The City of Boston does not provide any concrete guidelines, like a scoring rubric, for the safe-handling requirement, and licensing officials may have differing opinions on the matter. Such requirements do not resemble the “narrow, objective, and definite standards” that Justice Thomas referenced as per se constitutional.

According to the author of the law review article, Boston’s requirement is already ripe for a court challenge, and any move by the state to impose similar live-fire mandates on all LTC applicants would face stiff legal headwinds.

Based on the City of Boston’s facially unconstitutional licensing regime, any Boston resident can seek declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for the City’s infringing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

This Note does not purport to discuss all the mechanics of either standing or § 1983 liability. As a general matter, however, it bears mentioning that an aggrieved applicant could assert a plausible claim for declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief against City of Boston licensing officials, the colonel of the Massachusetts State Police, and certain state firearms officials, subject to any affirmative defenses raised by the government.

It’s refreshing (to say the least) to see an article casting doubt on the constitutionality of a Massachusetts gun control law in the pages of the Harvard Law Review, and I hope this is the start of a trend. Far too many academic institutions have seemingly adopted a post-Bruen position of supporting any and all gun control laws, or at least criticizing those court decisions that have ruled a particular law unconstitutional.

Some, like the University of Minnesota, have even enshrined anti-gun activism into the curriculum in the wake of Bruen. I’m sure that the prevailing attitude at Harvard Law is still anti-2A, but at least the Harvard Law Journal is willing to print and publish pieces that take both Bruen and the right to keep and bear arms seriously.

German gun laws make anything in the U.S. pale in comparison. This was the case even 30+ years ago when I was stationed there.
Thus we see that the gun grabbers will never be satisfied.

“Lax gun laws” blamed for Hamburg shooting

I recently took a look at gun control laws in Germany. It was because of the Hamburg shooting. I knew there would be a discussion of the gun laws on the books as well as calls for new ones and I wanted to be familiar with what’s already in place.

What they’ve got is pretty extensive, too. Mandatory storage laws, psychological evaluations before purchasing a gun, a licensing process that requires applicants to show a necessity for buying a gun, and age restrictions.

Frankly, they’ve got more rules in place than any state in the US could ever hope to get through.

Their gun laws are anything but lax.

Yet, in the wake of the Hamburg shooting, many are blaming lax gun laws.

Gun laws in Germany, where weapon ownership is among the highest in Europe, could be further tightened after last week’s mass shooting in which seven people, including an unborn child, were killed in a Jehovah’s Witness hall in Hamburg.

The attack has thrown up the perennial question of whether the various parts of the country’s federal system are working together, and strengthened the hand of those in the governing coalition who are seeking stronger gun controls…

But people are now asking why the specialist force is not deployed every day. And in a country whose fragmented political system is often a cause for complaint, a reckoning is coming over Hamburg’s weapons control authority’s response to an anonymous letter sent two months ago about [the gunman’s] mental health.

On 7 February, officers visited [the killer] at his flat in west Hamburg but gave him just a verbal warning after finding a loose bullet on top of the safe in which his gun and ammunition were supposed to be stored. The city’s health services seem to have had no involvement in the unannounced visit, despite the red flags of his book and the anonymous letter, which had suggested that [he] was suffering from a psychological disorder but refused to seek treatment.

A member of Hamburg’s Hanseatic Gun Club, [he] had held a weapons licence since December last year, and the awarding of this permit is a focus of attention as the people of Hamburg prepare to bury their dead.

So once again, we see a mass shooting in an area with extensive gun control laws already on the books.

Sure, many are focusing on a single round sitting on top of the gun safe, but let’s be honest here. That’s not the issue. The issue was, in part, that German gun control didn’t stop the Hamburg shooting. Gun control doesn’t do that.

What it does is make it so literally none of the people in that building had the means to resist this maniac.

Additionally, for all the talk of mental health, let’s remember that the shooter had to undergo a mental health screening in order to get his license. He passed that.

Now, I’m not saying that people can’t develop mental health issues afterward. Not at all. What I’m saying is that this is one of those measures we’re told we need here in the US, yet this is why it’s ineffective. The truth is many people can pass such a screening despite probably not being mentally well.

Germany has pretty extensive gun laws, some of the most extensive on the planet short of outright bans on anything more powerful than a blowgun.

That wasn’t the problem.

We’ll never solve the issue of mass shootings so long as people keep pretending guns are the issue, rather than people.

Biden Administration, State Governments Carried Out Elaborate Hoax On Gun Owners

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- The “why” of the attack on the armed citizenry is as pressing as the “how”—the strategies employed. It all goes back to Government’s lust for “power” and “control” over the common people. The Globalists and their puppets in Government treat people like random bits of energy that require a firm hand lest common people get “out of hand.” The fear of the Tyrant is always that the common people will revolt against his Tyranny.

The “sticky wicket” for the Globalists is the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

It serves, one, as evidence of the sovereignty of the American people over their Government, Federal, State, or local, and serves, two, as a mechanism to thwart the rise of tyranny. The Second Amendment, unlike the First or any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Has a tenacity that, when unleashed, a ferocity that scares the dickens of the proponents of a world empire and world domination, as well it should.

In this second half of the Biden Administration regime, we are seeing more and more emphasis placed on reining in the armed citizenry. And State Governments under Democrat Party leadership, like that of New York, are fully on board with this. Expect to see more of this, much more, in the weeks and months ahead.

The argument NY Governor Kathy Hochul makes in support of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) boils down to these two propositions:

  • People are afraid of guns and of average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners who keep and bear them.
  • Average law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners pose an imminent threat to public safety and order.

Concerning the first, if some Americans happen to fear guns and those who exercise their fundamental, unalienable right to armed self-defense—indeed, if any American should happen to register such fears—those fears aren’t the product of something innate in a person, but, rather, are the product of an elaborate, concerted well-coordinated, and executed plan.

The question of why such psychologically damaging programs would be initiated by and ceaselessly and vigorously propagated by the Federal Government and many State Governments against the civilian population has nothing to do with a desire on the part of the Government to secure the life, health, safety, and well-being of Americans.

Rather, it has everything to do with carrying out a plot focused on the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, the only one like it in existence, the dissolution of our Constitution, and the subjugation of our people to the dictates of a new order of reality: the rise of a neo-feudalistic global empire.

Continue reading “”

If you’ll remember, the ‘joke’ name for Chicago for years has been ‘Chiraq’.
Plus I’m shocked that this unpolitically correct statistic is in the article:
“Black and Hispanic men represented 96% of those who were fatally shot, and 97% of those injured in a shooting…”

Seem Bill Whittle was right: “Maybe it’s the people holding the guns.”

Risk of death by gun violence is higher for men in some U.S. areas than in wartime. 

In some parts of the United States, young men face a higher risk of dying from gun violence than if they’d gone to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, a new study reports.

Young men living in certain high-violence ZIP codes in Chicago and Philadelphia run a greater risk of firearm death than military personnel who served in recent U.S. wars, according to findings published online Dec. 22 in JAMA Network Open.

Young men in Chicago’s most violent ZIP code were more than three times as likely to experience gun-related death compared to soldiers sent to Afghanistan, the researchers found, while those in Philadelphia’s most violent area were nearly twice as likely to be shot to death.

In all ZIP codes studied, young men from minority groups overwhelmingly bear the risk of firearm-related death, the findings showed.

“These results are an urgent wake-up call for understanding, appreciating and responding to the risks and attendant traumas faced by this demographic of young men,” said study leader Brandon del Pozo, an assistant professor of medicine at Brown University’s Warren Alpert Medical School in Providence, R.I.

His team examined shooting data from 2020 and 2021 in four large U.S. cities — Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and Philadelphia.

The investigators zeroed in on shootings involving nearly 130,000 men between 18 and 29 years of age. They grouped them by ZIP code so U.S. Census data could be used to examine demographics in those neighborhoods.

The researchers also compared the cities’ gun violence data with combat-related deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan — from 2001 to 2014 for Afghanistan and 2003 to 2009 in Iraq.

While young men in Chicago and Philadelphia had a much greater risk of firearm death, those in the most violent parts of Los Angeles and New York had a 70% to 91% lower risk than U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the researchers said.

“We often hear opposing claims about gun violence that fall along partisan lines: One is that big cities are war zones that require a severe crackdown on crime, and the other is that our fears about homicides are greatly exaggerated and don’t require drastic action,” del Pozo said in a university news release.

“We wanted to use data to explore these claims — and it turns out both are wrong,” he continued. “While most city residents are relatively safe from gun violence, the risks are more severe than war for some demographics.”

Black and Hispanic men represented 96% of those who were fatally shot, and 97% of those injured in a shooting, according to the report.

The study authors noted that exposure to combat has been associated with post-traumatic stress disorder and higher rates of homelessness, alcohol use, mental illness and substance use.

“Our findings — which show that young men in some of the communities we studied were subject to annual firearm homicide and violent injury rates in excess of 3.0% and as high as 5.8% — lend support to the hypothesis that beyond the deaths and injuries of firearm violence, ongoing exposure to these violent events and their risks are a significant contributor to other health problems and risk behaviors in many U.S. communities,” the research team concluded.

The health risks are likely even higher for city dwellers because they have a lifetime “tour of duty,” as opposed to a typical year-long posting to a war zone, del Pozo added.

“The findings suggest that urban health strategies should prioritize violence reduction and take a trauma-informed approach to addressing the health needs of these communities,” he said.

SAF SUES NEW JERSEY OVER NEW CONCEALED CARRY LAW

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a federal lawsuit against the State of New Jersey, challenging the state’s new gun control law prohibiting licensed concealed carry in an expanded list of so-called “sensitive places,” and further criminalizes carrying an operable handgun “while in a vehicle.”

Joining SAF are the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners and the New Jersey Second Amendment Society, along with three private citizens, Nicholas Gaudio, Jeffrey M. Muller and Ronald Koons. Plaintiffs are represented by attorney David D. Jensen, David Jensen PLLC, of Beacon, N.Y.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is known as Koons et al v. Reynolds et al.

Named as defendants are Atlantic County Prosecutor William Reynolds, Camden County Prosecutor Grace C. Macaulay, Sussex County Prosecutor Annemarie Taggart, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and State Police Supt. Patrick Callahan, in their official capacities.

Shortly after New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy signed the new legislation on Dec. 22, SAF and its partners quickly filed the lawsuit.

“We are asking for a declaratory judgment against certain tenets of the new legislation,” explained SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are also seeking a preliminary and/or permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their officers, agents and other employees from enforcing the challenged segments of the law.

“The specific sections of law violate the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment,” he continued. “There is no established historical tradition that could be used to justify these restrictions. This new legislation literally criminalizes licensed concealed carry just about everywhere, making a mockery of the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

“New Jersey’s Legislature and Governor have shown that they do not wish to heed the Supreme Court’s guidance as to the bounds of the right to bear arms in Bruen,” said SAF’s Executive Director Adam Kraut.  “Despite clear directives as to a citizens’ right to bear arms, New Jersey continues to thumb its nose at the constitutional rights of its citizens in the name of ‘safety’. Such disregard for the rights of New Jerseyans will not be tolerated. As such, we are seeking to vindicate the rights of our members and the public in an expeditious manner. It is a shame the elected officials of New Jersey have no respect for the enumerated rights of the People and continue to needlessly waste their state’s tax dollars passing unconstitutional laws which render the common person defenseless.”