Category: Goobermint

Try “well known but – poorly – covered up, before the 2020 election”

Yes, Our President Was Senile for a Long Stretch.

On the menu today: Before we dive into the latest detailed anecdotes of President Joe Biden’s undeniable senility in his final year in office, we ought to look back at the on-the-money prediction of these all-too-late tell-all books from back in 2022. I knew this was coming and there’s an extremely good chance you knew this was coming, too. Democrats can’t wait to move on; it’s humiliating to learn Biden couldn’t function in the evenings, his staff told Democratic donors that Kamala Harris was incompetent and unelectable, and that Tim Walz was terrified of debating JD Vance. But how do you learn from a mistake if you refuse to ever admit them?

Everyone Recognizes George Clooney . . . Except Biden

The Morning Jolt, June 20, 2022:

I think the single most predictable “bombshell” of the coming years is that sometime in 2025, someone like Bob Woodward or Robert Costa will publish a book with a title like “Perpetual Crisis: Inside the Biden White House,” and we will “learn” something like:

The president’s official health report said he was in fine shape for his age. But behind the scenes, Jill Biden, Ron Klain, and Susan Rice were deeply concerned the president’s health was rapidly declining, and that he would soon be unable to perform his duties.

His speech was becoming less and less coherent, his thinking more erratic, his mood shifts more intense, and he angrily lashed out at routine advice or recommendations. He insisted he had not been told things he had been briefed on and that his wrong statements were correct. He repeatedly insisted the U.S. had committed to protecting Taiwan, when no treaty required it.

When asked about this, Biden insisted no policy had changed. At almost every public appearance, no matter how much he had been instructed to stick to the teleprompter’s prepared remarks, Biden would go off script and add some comment or outburst — like “for God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power!” — that undermined his message and created new foreign-policy headaches.

But the first lady, Klain, and Rice all concurred that Biden’s problems could be hidden from the public, at least for now, and that Vice President Harris taking over was unthinkable — both because it would be too traumatic for the country and because they had little faith in Harris’s ability to defeat Trump or DeSantis in 2024.

Either man entering the Oval Office in January would put nothing less than all of American democracy at risk. For the good of the country, Biden had to stay in place, and his cognitive decline hidden — much as FDR’s disability, JFK’s back pain, and Woodrow Wilson’s stroke had been hidden before. 

Biden’s public appearances grew less and less frequent, and he virtually stopped doing sit-down interviews. Late at night, Klain and Rice would get together, satisfied they had kept the ship sailing for another day. All the while, the public had no idea that Biden was in such rough shape.

Though it will be treated like a bombshell revelation, the fact is we all have eyes and ears and can see and hear Biden.

I just wish the lottery numbers were so easy to predict.

Enjoy these days of Joe Biden getting knocked around like a piñata, because after Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson have sold all the books they can, the story of the coverup of Joe Biden’s failing physical and mental health is going to disappear like the subject of a David Copperfield prime-time special. It’s just too embarrassing, too harmful to the Democrats’ priorities now, too much of a benefit to Donald Trump and Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer yesterday, on CNN:

Continue reading “”

While it is better than nothing, I don’t really know just how “good” this actually is compared to what we could get by pushing these goofball politicians a little harder.
As it is my Rep -Burlison- is hardcore pro-RKBA already.

Sometimes We Have to Take the Good When the Perfect Isn’t an Option

When Donald Trump was elected to a second non-consecutive term in November, along with GOP control of Congress, all of us who care about gun rights once again got stars in our eyes. Visions of 50-state carry reciprocity and silencers being sold at Harbor Freight and Home Depot danced in our heads.

That was fun and all and the requisite bills were written and introduced in Congress. Some of it was done in earnest and some of it was nothing more than performative fan service by politicians who knew good and well that the legislation was as doomed as the Cretaceous dinos who saw that big flaming rock hurtling toward them 65 million years ago.

In other words, we’d all like to have national reciprocity. And we’d all like to see suppressors delisted from the NFA. But given the realities of razor thin majorities in both the House and the Senate, along with pathetically few politicians with spines of sufficient stiffness to make any of that happen, it’s just not happening. We’d love to tell you there’s a realistic chance that either will come to pass, but we don’t make it a practice to lie to our readers. Still, isn’t it pretty to think so?

Over the weekend, our friends at Ammoland published a story about what’s happening with the Hearing Protection Act in the House Ways and Means Committee. As John Crump writes . . .

The Hearing Protection Act (HPA) might be in trouble in the House Ways and Means Committee, and anti-gun lobbyists are NOT the ones holding it up.

David Kustoff (R-TN) has been actively pushing to lower the tax stamp to $5 from $200, which would be a welcome change, but the better alternative is to remove suppressors completely from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). That would eliminate the tax stamp fee and remove all other NFA requirements.

Yes, delisting cans would certainly be better. If that’s doable.

Heavy lobbying is being done by the former head of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), Chris Cox, a paid lobbyist. Cox is working to lower the tax stamp fee to $5 and keep suppressors on the NFA!

The current NRA-ILA has pushed for the removal of suppressors from the NFA, and Cox’s actions are contrary to that stance. Mr. Cox no longer has any connections to the NRA. Mr. Cox has also lobbied for a gun company that produces suppressors, which has strongly advocated removing silencers from the NFA, and could make millions of dollars if the hearing protection item is delisted from the NFA.

Yes, this sucks. There’s no reason why metal tubes that save shooters’ hearing should be regulated like machineguns (not that machineguns should be regulated more than semi-autos either). But while I’ve had no contact with anyone involved in the HPA process at all, none of this sounds nefarious.

Politics has accurately been called the art of the possible. Believing the bill could pass on its own and get 60 votes in the Senate (let alone wrangling all of the House Republicans) to get it though to the President’s desk is a fantasy. Could the bill be tacked on to some other “must pass” item like budget reconciliation (no filibuster, simple majority to pass)? Maybe…again if and only if Republican have the cojones to do that.

In other word, don’t bet your mortgage on it. So what’s happening to the bill in the Ways and Means committee? We’d guess it’s realpolitik. It sounds like Cox and Rep. Kustoff have recognized that they have a snowball’s chance in Hell of passing the bill delisting suppressors and rather than throwing their hands up and saying, ‘Oh well, we gave it the old college try,’ they’ve decided to take a big step in the right direction.

Think about it for a minute. A tax stamp has cost $200 since it was enacted as part of the NFA in 1934. While inflation has whittled the real value of that away over the decades, it’s still not nothing. Add that amount to the price of a good suppressor — which will run you anywhere from $300 to $1300 depending on caliber, materials, features, etc., that’s still enough to discourage a lot of people from buying one. Beside the fact that it’s just plain insulting to pay Uncle Sam $200 for no good reason at all, most people would rather put those two Benjamins toward more ammo.

But what if a tax stamp costs only $5? That would be much more than just “a welcome change.” Lots of us pay that much for coffee every day. A $5 tax stamp would effectively be de minimis. Combine that with the fact that average eForm 4 wait times these days can be counted on the fingers of one hand and the hurdle to suppressor ownership would be almost nonexistent.

Yes, you’d still have to fill out the Form 4. Yes, you’d still have to submit fingerprints. Yes, that’s all blatantly unconstitutional (or should be adjudicated as such in a Supreme Court ruling).

But once again, we live in the real world. A world inhabited by sniveling, linguini-spined politicians on the “good” side and venal gun-hating hacks on the “bad” side. A world with billionaire-backed civilian disarmament operations run by hoplophobic gun-grabbers who operate by sowing fear and work on a daily basis to limit Americans’ gun rights. A world where anti-gun stenographers in the media are only too happy to further the messaging of the gun control industry.

In short, delisting silencers from the NFA simply isn’t in the cards. We’d love to be proven wrong, but it’s just not a realistic possibility now (or likely any time soon). And that probably accounts for what’s happening behind closed doors in Washington.

So…what if the average gun owner could sidle up to a SilencerCo kiosk at their local gun store, fill out the Form 4, submit their fingerprints right there, and pay only $5 on top of the cost of the can? And what if they could then pick up their can the same week? That would open up suppressor ownership to tens of thousands (if not more) people than today. And that’s something that should be done if it can be.

While it’s not ideal, it’s unquestionably a big step in the right direction. And if that’s what can be achieved right now, we’d call that a win.

Police Raid Shatters British Gun Control Myth. Again

“We need sensible gun control laws like the UK has.”

How many times have you heard something like this? Often, the country is different, but a lot of times it’s not. Far too many Americans forget we fought an entire war because of British attempts at gun control and think we should import it here.

In fairness to them–well, sort of–they actually think it would work.

The problem is, it doesn’t. Like, at all.

Police have arrested seven people after uncovering a stash of guns, knives and machetes during a raid at a petrol station.

Armed officers swooped on a row of businesses around the Gulf Petrol Station in Birmingham today amid a major operation.

Firearms officers, drones officers, dog handlers, and officers from the Organised Crime and Gangs team descended on the complex at around 2.30am, where they seized several dangerous weapons.

Two stun guns, shotgun cartridges and a large number of knives and machetes were all recovered and are now being examined by officers….

Photos taken from the scene show forensics officers handling a number of guns including what appears to be a shotgun and a revolver.

A black Vauxhall was also pictured at the site of the raid, with a large dent and several scratches along the front passenger door.

Yeah, not a lot of guns, but let’s also remember that they regulate stun guns and bladed weapons, which also don’t seem to be much of a problem for some people to get.

I don’t know the specifics of this raid, nor do I care.

For me, this is just another example of how criminals will get guns, even on an island with only one roadway leading into the country. If the UK can’t keep guns out of the country, how would we?

We have a porous southern border, which isn’t as porous as it was, but is still bad enough. Once it becomes profitable enough, some criminal enterprise would start importing guns into the United States, rather than out of here.

There’s very little in the way of legal gun sales in the UK, which clearly doesn’t stop bad people from getting guns, and people want this here? They claim, “I support the Second Amendment, but…” and then want to completely gut it by doing exactly what the British were trying to do at Lexington and Concord, all without a hint of irony at the fact that it doesn’t work in the UK.

It’s absolutely bonkers, and yet, here we are.

No, the UK’s gun control doesn’t work. It never worked. As I’ve noted before, our non-gun homicide rate is higher than their total homicide rate, which means looking at them as a guide on guns makes absolutely no sense due to significant differences in our culture.

So excuse me if I don’t bend over and accept that the empire we kicked out of our borders in the 18th century and that has since shrunk to a minuscule portion of where it was, a nation that now arrests people for mean words on the internet, is a country we can learn anything from other than how not to become a totalitarian hellhole in the making.

Part of that is not giving up our guns, because I promise you, if Europeans as a whole were armed like Americans, memes wouldn’t be the thing the powers that be over there fear.

Trump Administration Position on Machine Guns – Not 2A Protected
This Position Undermines Its Second Amendment Credibility

“Trump administration says machine guns aren’t protected by Second Amendment,” The Washington Times reports. “The Trump administration is taking heat from gun rights advocates after the Justice Department argued in court that machine guns fall outside the scope of firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

The story quotes Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Case, who, in arguing a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court ruling, asserted “Machine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

District Judge Carlton Wayne Reeves of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi had properly ruled that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, codifying that text, history and tradition at the time the Constitution was ratified, defined the standards to be used in determining Founding Era intent.

Besides, the Second Amendment says “arms.” It doesn’t say “kinds of arms.” Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe’s views were reflective of what the understanding was at the time, when he wrote, “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

And for what purpose?
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms,” Coxe declared.

Where’d you pull “kinds of weapons” out of, AUSA Case? She’s relying on the “in common use at the time” artificial construct that restricts “legal” ownership to what has not been banned by infringements, and limits gun uses to “self-defense.”

Continue reading “”

Minnesota Gun Owners Take Aim At Taxpayer-Funded Anti-Gun Activism.

Fed up with their tax dollars being wasted by a University of Minnesota program advocating for more restrictive gun control laws, a Minnesota pro-gun organization is asking both the federal Department of Justice and the Department of Education to investigate.

In a recent social media post, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MCGO) announced that the organization had sent a letter to the DOJ and DOE asking them to investigate the University of Minnesota Law School’s Gun Control Litigation Clinic.

The clinic is ostensibly in business to provide students with experience on cases related to so-called “gun violence,” more appropriately called criminal violence.

“The Gun Violence Prevention Clinic will offer students a unique experiential learning opportunity to work on litigation affecting a significant societal problem,” the organization’s website states. “The Clinic will litigate affirmative cases that will reduce injuries, deaths, and trauma caused by gun violence, challenge overreaching gun laws, and defend gun laws and regulations against legal challenges.”

MCGO says, however, that the clinic, which is led by a former litigator at extremely anti-gun Everytown Law,  is little more than a partnership with Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office and is operating as a political and legal arm of the Walz/Ellison Administration’s gun control strategy.

“Their activities are not good-faith exercises in legal education, public service, or even legal education,” the tweet stated. “Instead, they are engaged in taxpayer-funded litigation activism aimed at dismantling one of our nation’s core constitutional freedoms—the Second Amendment. There is no place for this at a public university.”

In the letter, MCGO provided more details about the clinic’s partnership with the state’s anti-gun administration.

Continue reading “”

This is another one of Trump’s, or his ‘advisors’ goofs. Taking a Republican out of the House, requiring a special election to replace him. Now, while both he and Matt Gaetz were replaced with other Republicans, any election always has a certain amount of risk involved, and if the demoncraps retake the House in 27, the only thing we’ll see is a continual series of impeachments of Trump, simply out of hate.

BREAKING: Waltz Out at the White House

Three weeks after inadvertently adding Atlantic reporter and long time Trump foe Jeffery Goldberg to a Signal group chat, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz and his deputy Alex Wong have reportedly been ousted from the administration. Others in the chat included Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, Vice President JD Vance, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and more.

The Atlantic published details of the chat, which included sensitive discussions about bombing Iranian backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. Waltz admitted to accidentally adding Goldberg but maintained he didn’t know how the number ended up in his contact list.

“The world found out shortly before 2 p.m. eastern time on March 15 that the United States was bombing Houthi targets across Yemen,” Goldberg detailed. “I, however, knew two hours before the first bombs exploded that the attack might be coming. The reason I knew this is that Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defense, had texted me the war plan at 11:44 a.m. The plan included precise information about weapons packages, targets, and timing.”

President Donald Trump continues to stand by Secretary of Defense Hegseth and others who were in the discussion. Signal is a legal and approved way for government officials to communicate so long as the information shared is unclassified.

On Thursday morning, Waltz was still at the White House discussing the newly inked economic deal with Ukraine.

Germany Is Revoking Gun Rights from AfD Supporters—and It’s a Warning Shot for the West

In Germany, owning guns is a privilege that can be taken away—not for breaking the law, but for holding the wrong political opinion.

Members and supporters of the right-leaning Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party are now facing mass gun license revocations. The reason? The German government has labeled the AfD a “right-wing extremist” group—a political designation that suddenly makes its members “unreliable” under the country’s gun laws. And just like that, firearms must be surrendered or destroyed.

If that sounds outrageous, it should. But it’s not surprising.

Here in the U.S., we’ve already seen our own political establishment flirt with these kinds of tactics. Remember when New York’s then-Governor Andrew Cuomo said pro-gun conservatives “have no place” in his state? Or when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors labeled the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization”? Label first. Punish later.

That’s the playbook being used in Germany right now. And it’s worth paying attention to.

Government Labels a Popular Opposition Party “Extremist”—Then Comes the Crackdown

In 2021, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), designated the entire AfD as a “suspected threat to democracy.” That move allowed the government to surveil, wiretap, and investigate the party and its members.

It didn’t stop there.

Courts have now upheld revoking gun licenses from AfD members, based solely on their political affiliation. In one case, a couple in North Rhine-Westphalia lost legal ownership of over 200 firearms. They weren’t criminals. They weren’t accused of wrongdoing. They were just AfD members.

Another court in Thuringia blocked a blanket gun ban for all AfD members—but left the door wide open for revocations on a case-by-case basis.

In Saxony-Anhalt, officials are reviewing the gun licenses of 109 AfD members. As of last fall, 72 had already been targeted for revocation, with the rest under active review. The justification? Supporting a party the state now claims is “working against the constitutional order.”

And the courts are backing it up. According to a March 2024 ruling, former or current AfD supporters “lack the reliability” required to legally own firearms.

Why the AfD’s Platform Sounds Familiar to American Ears

You don’t have to support the AfD to see the dangerous precedent here. In fact, many of their stated positions would be right at home in American politics:

  • Support for limited government and individual liberty
  • Stronger penalties for violent crime
  • Calls for unbiased law enforcement and judicial independence
  • Opposition to political censorship
  • A demand for simple, fair taxes for middle- and low-income citizens

On gun rights, their platform is clear: “A liberal and constitutional state has to trust its citizens… The AfD opposes any form of restrictions of civil rights by tightening firearms legislation.”

Sound extreme to you? Or does that sound like something a lot of Americans already believe?

Continue reading “”

Lawsuits Inbound After Colorado Governor Signs Semi-Auto Ban

After the Colorado legislature amended SB 3 to better align with Gov. Jared Polis’s point of view, there was little doubt that the gun ban bill would be signed into law once it reached his desk, and on Thursday afternoon, Polis put pen to paper and enshrined the bill into law.

The original version of the semi-auto ban was pretty simple: gas-operated semi-automatic long guns capable of accepting a detachable magazine would be prohibited for sale and manufacture in the state of Colorado, and though residents who possessed one before the law could take effect could keep theirs, it would be a criminal offense for anyone else to acquire or keep on in their home.

Polis’s wanted to see a major change to the bill; allowing AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles to stay on store shelves and giving Colorado residents the ability to purchase and possess them going forward, but only if they undergo additional training and receive a Second Amendment permission slip from their local sheriff.

Polis said the measure would help push Colorado toward its goal of becoming one of the top 10 safest states. He also advocated for the legislators to look at creating scholarship opportunities for the training, which would be run through Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and permits would be maintained by county sheriff’s offices. He said the current goal is to ensure CPW’s firearm training costs are under $200.

He also advocated for legislators to find a way to ensure prior firearm training and experience, such as peace officer or military training, to allow that training to qualify the citizens for purchase.

Colorado’s violent crime rate has soared since 2012, when the state enacted its first real gun control measures, including a ban on “high capacity” magazines. Polis is deluding himself if he believes that SB 3 is going to make the state a safer place. Any criminal who wants to obtain a firearm for illicit or evil purposes can either steal one, go through the state-mandated training and be approved for purchase, or simply head out of state and buy a rifle or shotgun there.

It will be lawful residents who feel the brunt of SB 3s impact, with Polis essentially admitting that the permit-to-purchase process will add hundreds of dollars to the price of a modern sporting rifle. Firearm retailers will feel the pinch as well, since many Coloradans who want to purchase one of these guns will likely head to FFLs across the border in states like Wyoming and Kansas to do so.

Immediately following the signing on Thursday afternoon, the Colorado State Shooting Association, which is the official state association of the National Rifle Association, said it would be filing a lawsuit against the new law.

“This legislation, which imposes unprecedented restrictions on the purchase of semi-automatic firearms through a burdensome permit-to-purchase scheme, represents a direct assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Coloradans,” CSSA said in a release.

The group has contended that the measure will create a “de facto gun registry” that is maintained by state or local authorities. CSSA also noted that it had presented a petition with over 40,000 signatures urging Polis to veto the bill.

The NRA also vocalized its opposition to the bill.

“Behind closed doors, Governor Polis cowardly signed into law the most anti-gun, anti-freedom bill in Colorado’s history. Instead of respecting the individual liberties of gun owners and hunters in his state, he bent the knee to the radical gun control element of his party,” the NRA said in a release. “In Jared’s Colorado, you need a ‘Polis Permission Slip’ to exercise your constitutional rights. If this proposal was popular with his citizens, it would not need to be enacted in secret.”

The preparation for the inevitable lawsuits has already begun, but don’t be surprised if nothing is filed immediately. The law won’t take effect until August 1, 2026, and any litigation filed now might be dismissed because the issue isn’t ripe for court review.

That extended deadline also gives Coloradans more than a year to continue to purchase the most commonly sold and popular rifles in the country, and in the short term, Polis’s ban is likely to lead to a spike in sales for the rifles and shotguns he and gun control activists want to restrict.

How Did an Honors Student Who Says She Can’t Read or Write Get Into College?

Aleysha Ortiz, 19, alleges she cannot read or write yet says she graduated with honors from Hartford Public High School in 2024. She has since filed a lawsuit against the Hartford Board of Education and city officials, accusing them of negligence in failing to provide adequate special education services throughout her schooling, per reporting from Connecticut’s News 8 WTNH.

Ortiz, who is now enrolled at the University of Connecticut (UConn), said she relied heavily on assistive technology such as speech-to-text and text-to-speech programs to complete schoolwork, according to CNN.

Why It Matters

Ortiz’s lawsuit underscores broader concerns about systemic failures in public education, particularly in providing adequate support for students with learning disabilities. The case has drawn attention to how academic achievement is measured and whether special education students are truly receiving the skills they need to succeed beyond high school.

Additionally, it raises questions about how colleges assess applicants, especially those facing severe academic challenges.

Ortiz told CNN she was promoted through school without acquiring fundamental literacy skills. In a May 2024 city council meeting, she testified that after 12 years in Hartford Public Schools, she was unable to read or write, despite being awarded an honors diploma.

Days before her graduation, school officials reportedly offered her the option to defer her diploma to receive additional support, but she declined, according to CNN.

How Did She Get Into College?

Her admission to UConn was possible due to the school’s holistic application process, which does not require SAT scores. According to UConn admissions, the university evaluates applications based on GPA, coursework, extracurricular activities and essays.

Ortiz, who told CNN she used voice-to-text software to complete her application, also received financial aid and scholarships to support her education.

Once in college, Ortiz faced academic difficulties. She shared with CNN that while UConn has provided support services, she took a leave of absence starting in February 2025 for mental health reasons. She has stated she intends to return to her studies but has faced challenges in adapting to the rigor of college coursework.

Experts have pointed out that Ortiz’s case is not unique. Literacy advocates argue that disparities in educational resources disproportionately affect students in underfunded districts, contributing to cases where students graduate without essential skills.

Continue reading “”

Colorado Governor Signs Semi-Auto Permit-to-Purchase Scheme into Law

It will soon be much harder for Colorado gun owners to continue purchasing modern semi-automatic firearms.

In a closely guarded ceremony Thursday, Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D.) signed SB25-003 into law. The “Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices” bill criminalizes the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and purchase of any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or gas-operated handgun that accepts a detachable magazine. The law also carves out an exception from the ban for those who undergo an extensive permitting and training process—the first of its kind for purchasing firearms in Colorado.

“This legislation builds on our commitment to improve public safety, reduce gun violence, uphold our freedom,” Polis said in a statement.

The bill enacts some of the most sweeping gun regulations ever considered in the Centennial State, even compared to the few dozen restrictions Colorado lawmakers have been stacking up over the last decade. It fulfills gun-control advocates’ longstanding goal of cracking down on the availability of certain semi-automatic firearms and is almost sure to draw legal challenges from gun-rights groups.

The Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), the state’s NRA affiliate, threatened as much in a statement blasting the Governor’s decision to sign the bill.

“We are resolute in our response,” Ray Elliott, CSSA president, said. “The Colorado State Shooting Association is actively exploring every legal option to challenge this unconstitutional law. Our legal team is preparing to contest Senate Bill 3, and we are committed to pursuing justice through every available avenue.”

The group said it submitted 40,000 petition signatures to the Governor urging a veto earlier this week.

The bill’s controversial nature could explain its unceremonious entry into law. Polis, a Democrat with a libertarian streak, kept his opinions on the policy close to the vest throughout the legislative process. He did not publicly indicate whether he would sign the bill until Thursday, even as he faced immense outside pressure from groups on either side of the issue.

His office did not respond to a request for comment.

While he hesitated to increase public scrutiny of the measure, his office was heavily involved in making the final product less restrictive than its original form. As introduced, the bill envisioned an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms that did not have a permanently affixed magazine capable of holding 15 or fewer rounds—a policy even broader than typical “assault weapon” bans that Polis has expressed skepticism of in the past.

Working closely with the Governor’s office, the bill’s sponsors added several pages to its provisions to craft an entirely novel process for Coloradans to continue purchasing the weapons in question. It includes a prospective buyer having to first obtain a newly established “firearms safety course eligibility card” from their local sheriff, which requires paying a fee, submitting fingerprints, and going through a background check.

Once issued, a firearms safety course eligibility card would be valid for five years. The issuing sheriff would be required to submit cardholders’ data to a newly created “Firearms Safety and Training Course Record System” administered by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, an agency that currently does not handle anything involving firearm sales.

With a valid eligibility card, a prospective buyer could enroll in either a “basic firearms safety course” or an “extended firearm safety course.” The basic firearms safety course is open to eligible cardholders with a hunter education certification and requires four hours of in-person instruction. Prospective buyers without hunter education training will be required to attend the extended firearm course, which must include at least 12 hours of in-person instruction spread across at least two days.

The bill requires both courses to include curricula on safe weapons handling, secure storage and child access prevention, firearms deaths and mental illness, extreme risk protection orders, and “victim awareness and empathy.” Completing each course would be contingent on receiving a score of at least 90% on a final test.

If a cardholder wants to continue buying the affected firearms, they must undergo the process again after five years.

In addition to restricting the availability of certain guns, the measure also contains provisions going after bump stocks, binary triggers, and similar accessories. It bans the possession of any “rapid-fire device,” defined broadly as any combination of parts that has the effect of “increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm above the standard rate of fire.” It also codifies increased criminal penalties for violating the state’s twelve-year-old ammunition magazine ban, now a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.

The law’s provisions are set to go into effect on August 1, 2026.

Bombshell Report Exposes Biden’s Massive Chinese Spy Cover-Up

The Biden administration has been caught red-handed prioritizing Beijing’s feelings over American national security. In a shocking revelation, we now know that Biden officials engaged in secret discussions with Chinese counterparts about their spy balloon before bothering to inform the American public that our sovereignty had been violated.

According to a report from Fox News Digital, Internal State Department documents reveal that on Feb. 1, 2023, while a Chinese surveillance balloon was floating across our nation collecting intelligence, Biden officials were more concerned about how exposing this breach would affect our “relationship” with China. Seriously?

That’s right — instead of immediately shooting down this obvious threat to national security, then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken and his team were busy playing diplomatic footsie with Beijing. According to Trump administration officials familiar with the documents, Blinken fretted that public disclosure would have “profound implications for our relationship” with China.

Think about this. The Biden administration knew about this threat on Jan. 28 yet waited until Feb. 2 to inform the American people. That’s five days of silence while a hostile foreign power’s surveillance equipment drifted across our country — a threat we wouldn’t have known about had it not been for civilians who discovered it. It was only afterward that the Biden Pentagon issued its statement. It likely wouldn’t have said anything at all if it could have gotten away with it.

Continue reading “”

The Idiocy of Trying to Ban Possession of 3D Printer Files

I’m part of the last generation to grow up without the internet. That didn’t really happen until the 1990s, and much of the popularity that followed was well after my high school years. Yes, I’m old.

I was still young enough to embrace this new technology. I remember the early days when it was difficult to find stuff on the internet, especially with the terrible search engines we had available, but then stuff changed. We had Google make it easier to find whatever you were looking for–it sucks now, for the record–and then we got social media where it was easy to connect to folks and build relationships.

So I understand the internet and how it works about as well as anyone who doesn’t get into the technical aspects in and of themselves probably can.

Which is why the push from some anti-gun states to prohibit the files for 3D printers that allow people to make their own firearms and accessories is absolutely idiotic.

Proving that some folks aren’t sure how the internet works, several states are striving to make it harder to make firearms and firearm components privately.

In recent news from California, New Jersey, and New York, blue state prosecutors and lawmakers are making an extra effort to curb the availability of digital gun plans and devices that can help legally produce home-built guns, which are allowed under federal law.

In New Jersey, the Democrat-controlled state Assembly passed A4975 last month in a 50-26 roll call along party lines. The bill makes it a crime to possess digital instructions to manufacture guns and gun components, including receivers or magazines. Under the proposal, a person who is not licensed or registered to manufacture firearms but possesses any digital firearm instructions is guilty of a fourth-degree felony, which is punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a fine of up to $10,000.

Meanwhile, in New York, Manhattan’s Democrat District Attorney Alvin Bragg has penned a letter to Creality, a Chinese 3D printer maker – one of the largest in the world – to urge the company to do more to block its machines from having the capability to make gun components. Further, Bragg wants Creality to police its cloud community for such CAD files.

That first sentence, though, says it all.

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Constitution doesn’t apply for a moment. In such a case, you can make anything you want illegal. You can prohibit anything at all.

What you can’t do, though, is stop people who don’t respect the law.

Now, here in the real world where there is a Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to be protected by the Second Amendment, there are major problems with such laws beyond the fact that they don’t work, especially since making your own gun has been legal since well before the founding of this nation. I think one would be hard-pressed to find a law from the time of the founding that would serve as an analog.

So there’s that.

But we also have to acknowledge just how ridiculous the law is with regard to preventing criminals from doing anything. I mean, this is the era of the internet. People can find whatever they want.

Even sites that try to prohibit people from IP addresses in those states–which may impact people living just across state lines or others who have IP addresses that may not accurately pinpoint their homes–will run into an issue because VPNs can be set to make it appear you live in a completely different state.

You can’t stop the signal.

Yeah, the law will allow prosecution of people who happen to have these files, but so what? How are they going to enforce it unless they’re tipped off that someone has these files? They’re not. How will they most likely get tipped off that someone has them? They’re using them to print gun parts and likely selling them.

By then, they’ve already broken the state laws against printing the guns in the first place, so the damage is done.

Yes, this is idiotic.

But then again, considering which states are looking at this, nothing at all should be shocking about the idiocy.

Where Is the DOJ’s Second Amendment Report?

On February 7th, President Donald Trump gave Attorney General Pam Bondi 30 days to finalize and submit a policy plan of action for enacting pro-gun reforms. Nearly two months later, the Trump Administration hasn’t released any plan.

“Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” the order stated.

The 30-day due date for that report would have been March 9th, but that day came and went without any movement from Bondi or the White House. When this omission got some attention, the Department of Justice (DOJ) told ABC News that the deadline was extended to March 16th. Since then, the department has not provided any additional progress updates and did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

The administration’s apparent slow-walking and opacity surrounding its progress raises questions about how much it plans to follow through with the order’s proposed scope.

Trump promised gun voters swift action in undoing all of President Biden’s gun-control achievements during his “very first week back in office.” But he took three weeks before even broaching the subject, and only ordered a review to eventually consider which, if any, of his predecessor’s policies to reform or reverse.

To date, that has not resulted in the initiation of any new rulemaking to repeal any Biden-era regulations.

The few concrete indications of DOJ compliance with the order have mostly taken the form of requests for pauses in various ongoing gun cases to allow it to consider what position it wants to take. The department also began to push for a new framework for restoring the gun rights of former convicts.  The New York Times has reported that move could benefit actor Mel Gibson and at least nine other as-yet-undisclosed individuals, though they haven’t announced any action yet.

While each of those fronts may eventually play out in gun-rights advocates’ favor, the administration’s restrained approach, especially in contrast to actions it has taken elsewhere, has already resulted in one significant loss for gun-rights groups. Though it could have immediately started rolling back Biden’s gun rules without Bondi’s review as an intermediate step, the Trump Administration’s decision to wait left the “ghost gun” kit ban case uninterrupted. That culminated in the Supreme Court issuing a 7-2 ruling upholding that ban at the end of last month, which could make undoing the ban down the line harder.

Delaying legal challenges while the department decides what position to take also risks drawing out the gun-rights movement’s longer-term project of stacking up court decisions permanently invalidating federal gun laws. Even if the DOJ decides not to defend a given gun law or de-prioritize enforcement, subsequent administrations can simply reverse that discretion. The same holds true for the new gun-rights restoration process, which risks undermining gun-rights advocates’ legal challenges to the federal ban on non-violent felons possessing firearms.

To be sure, the administration has also offered gun voters policy changes with more straightforward upsides. It unceremoniously dispensed with the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, for example, which was set up by former President Biden to promote gun-control policies. Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services also scrapped a 2024 surgeon general advisory calling for an “assault weapon” ban, among other new gun restrictions.

It has also, at times, broadened its view beyond the federally-focused executive order. For instance, the DOJ last month announced a civil rights investigation into Los Angeles County over its practice of subjecting concealed carry permit applicants to lengthy wait times and high application fees, and it suggested that additional investigations could soon follow. Shortly thereafter, Trump also issued a separate executive order establishing a new federal task force charged with, among other things, “increas[ing] the speed and lower[ing] the cost of processing concealed carry license requests in the District of Columbia.”

Those moves have no doubt been welcome developments for Second Amendment advocates. Still, they are less potentially impactful than the areas Trump ordered the DOJ to review, and those have seen little to no movement.

Well, how about you just get rid of the who NFA scheme anyway, since the FOPA ’86 banned federal gun registries (except for guns regulated by the NFA)?

Rep. Hinson & Sen. Cotton Reintroduce Bill to Repeal Firearm Transfer Tax

On April 1, 2025, Representative Ashley Hinson (R-IA-02) and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) reintroduced the Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty Excises Act, or the RIFLE Act. These bills (H.R. 2552 and S.1224 respectively) would remove a $200 excise tax that is imposed on law-abiding gun owners when they purchase certain firearms and accessories that are governed by the National Firearms Act.

Repealing Illegal Freedom and Liberty Excises Act, or the RIFLE Act

Since 1934, gun owners wishing to purchase items such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles have been forced to pay a $200 “sin tax” to the federal government.

This tax is, according to the ATF, intended to “curtail, if not prohibit, transactions” of these lawful items. But this legislation would remove that imposing financial barrier.

Speaking on this important legislation, Representative Ashley Hinson said, “The Second Amendment is a Constitutional right that is not to be infringed. Law-abiding gun owners should not be forced to pay an unconstitutional firearm tax. This bill will remove unnecessary financial barriers on lawful gun owners from the antiquated 1934 National Firearms Act and protect the Second Amendment rights of Iowans and Americans.”

“Law-abiding Americans who exercise their Second Amendment rights should not be subject to unnecessary taxes and restrictions preventing them from doing so. Passed into law in 1934, the National Firearms Act needs to be amended. Our legislation will remove the red tape that places an undue financial burden on would-be gun owners,” said Senator Cotton.

“The National Rifle Association applauds Representative Hinson and Senator Cotton on their leadership on the Second Amendment and their reintroduction of the RIFLE Act,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “This $200 punitive tax has only ever served as a financial barrier for law-abiding Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Representative Hinson has been joined by 28 of her colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Senator Cotton has been joined by 12 of his colleagues in the U.S. Senate. NRA-ILA will continue to update you as this important legislation makes its way through the legislative process.

DataRepublican 

I’ve had a change of heart on federal income tax. On the surface, it’s just a way for the government to generate revenue—it has to get its funding from somewhere. But I now see that the method of taxation itself fundamentally alters the relationship between the government and its people.

When the government relies on taxing individual income, it shifts from serving its citizens to exploiting them as a revenue source. This dynamic creates an inherent friction, where the government no longer answers to the people but to the system that extracts from them. And if you look around, it’s clear—whatever our tax dollars are funding, it’s not serving us.

This is what modern economists fail to grasp when they dismiss tariffs, sales taxes, or luxury taxes as harmful. The structure of taxation matters, not just the amount collected. The income tax distorts governance itself—and it needs to go.

ATF facial recognition: Chairman Andy Biggs seeks records as gun owners sound alarm

Gun owners across America have every reason to be outraged. According to a March 27, 2025, letter from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been secretly using facial recognition technology to track and identify gun owners—all without sufficient oversight, transparency, or even basic training for agents.

Biggs, who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, is now demanding that Acting ATF Director Kash Patel hand over all documents relating to the agency’s use of facial recognition software. The call for answers follows multiple bombshell Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and revelations that the ATF conducted at least 549 facial recognition searches between 2019 and 2022, often on law-abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“The Subcommittee has concerns about ATF’s use of facial recognition and AI programs and the effects that its use has upon American citizens’ Second Amendment rights and rights to privacy,” Biggs wrote.

A Pattern of Overreach

This latest scandal adds to a growing list of examples proving that the federal government simply cannot be trusted with gun owner data. As AmmoLand News previously reported, the ATF has flirted with or outright pursued unconstitutional surveillance for years—compiling digitized firearm transaction records and maintaining nearly 1 billion records at its National Tracing Center.

Continue reading “”