Category: Question O’ The Day

No why do I not trust this to be really happening?

ATF Changes Policy On NICS “Pre-Crime” Monitoring

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has changed its policy on monitoring the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

AmmoLand News first reported the ATF using a NICS monitoring system in 2021 after learning about the system through an inside source. The ATF would use NICS to monitor Americans buying guns. Data in NICS is supposed to be deleted within 24 hours, but the ATF requested that all data be saved for 30, 60, 90, or 180 days. The targets being monitored were not being charged with any crime. The ATF was tracking people who they felt “might” commit a crime in the future or associated with the “wrong” people.

The monitoring outraged many in the gun community who felt that the ATF and FBI were creating a “pre-crime” program. Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to show the use of the system. It turned out that the system was in widespread use and not only for those who “might” commit a federal crime. The ATF was monitoring people who might break California state law by purchasing a long gun that wasn’t legal within the Golden State.

The new policy should prevent some of those violations. Any new monitoring must be approved by the ATF Special Agents in Charge (SACs) and the Deputy Assistant Director (DAD). This change prevents rogue agents from using the system for their own needs. Also, the system may now only be utilized in cases involving suspected violations of federal firearm statutes. This new policy prevents ATF agents from monitoring suspects for states such as California.

The memo reads: “Effective immediately, Special Agents in Charge (SACs) approval and Deputy Assistant Director (DAD) concurrence is now mandatory for all NICS alerts. NICS alerts may only be utilized in cases involving suspected violations of federal firearm statutes. See 28 C.F.R. Part 25. This investigative technique should not be utilized to primarily investigate state firearm laws. A formal memo for approval will be utilized which will require the following information: Field Management Staff (FMS) will also monitor all requests.”

The FMS will notify the SAC and requester of upcoming expirations. This monitoring of expiration dates ensures that the flags are removed at the end of the monitoring. Sources tell AmmoLand News that there have been times when a flag is not removed and left in place. This oversight wasn’t done in malice; it was due to procedures not being followed. The new policy should change that.

The memo reads: “FMS will monitor all NICS flags and notify the SAC and requestor of upcoming expirations. Renewal of the NICS alert requires SAC concurrence and DAD approval. This process will also be documented in a formal memo and processed through FMS. Instructions regarding the maintenance and purging of NICS alert information will be provided by FMS. Any current NICS alert may only be renewed utilizing this process.”

A flag can be renewed, but only for six months. After that time period has expired, any extensions must be approved by the ATF Deputy Director and the Chief Legal Counsel. The idea is to prevent the abuse of the problematic NICS monitoring system. New ATF Deputy Chief Robert Cekada signed the letter.

About John Crump

So what do we know about U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscol regarding the 2nd Amendment?

FBI Director Kash Patel replaced as acting ATF boss, Army Secretary steps in
Patel was replaced at ATF by Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, seven people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

WASHINGTON − FBI Director Kash Patel was removed as the Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and replaced by U.S. Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, seven people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

Driscoll will continue to serve as Army Secretary while he also oversees the ATF, an arm of the U.S. Justice Department, said three of the sources, who were granted anonymity to discuss personnel matters that were not yet public.

Patel was sworn in as ATF’s acting director in late February, just a few days after he was also sworn in as FBI Director.

A Justice Department official confirmed the change.

It was not immediately clear when Patel was removed from the role. As of Wednesday afternoon, Patel’s photo and title of acting director was still listed on the ATF’s website.

The abrupt change in leadership comes at a time when senior Justice Department officials are weighing whether to merge ATF with the Drug Enforcement Administration as part of an effort to cut costs.

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.

Q:
Why do the demoncraps suddenly hate Elon Musk so much?

A:
It’s not so much Musk personally, but what DOGE represents; The exposing and dismantling of the corrupt bureaucrap state and the hog trough on the goobermint gravy train that corrupt politicans and their lackeys have used to graft literally trillions of dollars into their pockets with little to no way to track most of it.

I can’t say if Woodrow Wilson had it planned this way, but his ‘progressive’ state laid the foundation for the bureaucrap goobermint of Roosevelt’s welfare state, and later the military industrial complex formed to fight World War 2, that provided the ways and the means for those with corrupt intent to scam the system for their own benefit.

Those people are now the ones we see screaming their heads off, accusing Trump and Musk of everything they can think of to stir the low IQ mob into insanity.

It pays to remember that the insane can be quite dangerous, and as an acquaintance says often enough: “Prepare Accordingly”

BLUF
So in conclusion, please: Stop politicizing everything. Stop looking for counterfactual counter-narratives. Give credit where credit is due.
And most importantly, stop posting legal arguments that are completely devoid of law. You have a responsibility to the people of this country.
Do better.

Mark Goldfeder

Dear @Senate Judiciary Democrats 🇺🇸 (🦋 now on bsky) , You are so incredibly wrong, and I can prove it. A thread, in response to yours. The only difference? Mine has citations. Let me explain:

Just to recap… Mahmoud Khalil exercises his First Amendment rights. But, Donald Trump and Marco Rubio didn’t agree with what he said.


To begin, the Immigration and Nationality Act § 212(a)(3) contains a number of activities for which a person can be deemed ineligible based on security and related grounds. Subsection (B)(i) has nine grounds related to terrorism. uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req

Most of the nine are not controversial at all- people engaging in terrorism, etc.

The one that has you all indignant is ground number (VII): [Any alien who] endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;

You say you are concerned that this ground would violate the First Amendment rights of someone like Mahmoud Khalil. Let’s examine that contention.

First, let us be clear that you are not arguing that he has not endorsed or supported terror. I say this because if only you expressed any concern about the people he has been terrifying for over a year, maybe I would have some sympathy for your crocodile tears now. You didn’t.

So the question becomes: Are his First Amendment rights the exact same as a citizen’s First Amendment rights? The answer may surprise you: Not exactly, but it does not matter.

At least some First Amendment protections do apply differently to aliens than they do to citizens. Ready for those citations? See, for example. Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 3 I0, 419-424 & n.51 (2010)

“The Government routinely places special restrictions on the speech rights of students, prisoners, members of the Armed Forces, foreigners, and its own employees. When such restrictions are justified by a legitimate governmental interest, they do not necessarily raise constitutional problems…the constitutional rights of certain categories of speakers, in certain contexts, “ ‘are not automatically coextensive with the rights’ ” that are normally accorded to members of our society, Morse v. Frederick , 551 U. S. 393, 396–397, 404 (2007) (quoting Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser , 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986)).”

Now, my dear Dems, are there any cases discussing the types of ways in which speech rights might be applied differently to foreigners who do specific things, including advocating for certain group that for good reason, considers dangerous and a threat to national security?

Why yes! Thank you for asking. In fact, there is over 120 years of Supreme Court precedent! See Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)

(This case was about anarchists who wanted to violently overthrow the government, but you can substitute Hamas affiliated anti-West agitators who want to…violently overthrow our institutions):

“…Congress was of opinion that the tendency of the general exploitation of such views is so dangerous to the public weal that aliens who hold and advocate them would be undesirable additions to our population, whether permanently or temporarily, whether many or few; and, in the light of previous decisions, the act, even in this aspect, would not be unconstitutional, as applicable to any alien who is opposed to all organized government…

We are not to be understood as depreciating the vital importance of freedom of speech and of the press, or as suggesting limitations on the spirit of liberty, in itself, unconquerable, but this case does not involve those considerations. The flaming brand which guards the realm where no human government is needed still bars the entrance, and as lone as human governments endure, they cannot be denied the power of self-preservation, as that question is presented here.”

So our first conclusion is this: The First Amendment might apply with some conditions to foreigners, and based on Supreme Court precedent this is literally one of those conditions.

Continue reading “”

No movement on the ‘Assault Weapon’ (Snopes) or ‘Large Capacity’ Magazine (Ocean State) cases as of March 3rd Morning Orders.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030325zor_apl1.pdf

Well what does this mean? We get to wait more.

It more than likely means that SCOTUS will not take the case this term. That’s not a hard and fast rule, but the longer the wait, the more likely it becomes.

This will be the fourth relisting whenever it next goes to conference. Generally speaking the more relists after two, the less likely they take it. HOWEVER, NYSRPA v. Bruen was relisted four times. Dobbs v. Jackson, the abortion case that did away with Roe v. Wade, was relisted TWELVE times.

That we did not get a denial is good. This order was full of denials. That we did not get granted cert is bad. Nothing has happened.

Thomas (and others) have had plenty of time to write a denial. If they were going to deny it, my view is they would have by now. But we simply do not know.

Will Absorbing the ATF Into the FBI Rein in Each Agency’s Abuses?
The ATF, charged with regulating firearms, has a history of abuse and incompetence.

By appointing FBI Director Kash Patel as acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), President Donald Trump took a step towards reining in a federal agency justifiably viewed by many as a threat to self-defense rights. He also signaled that he may consolidate government bodies that overlap in their responsibilities. Fans of big government and opponents of privately owned firearms won’t like the move, but the idea of combining the agencies is hardly unprecedented. After all, President Bill Clinton had the same idea three decades ago.

Patel Wears Two Hats

“ATF welcomes Acting Director Kash Patel to ATF, who was sworn in and had his first visit to ATF Headquarters in Washington, D.C. today,” the ATF posted on X on February 24. “We are enthusiastic to work together for a safer America!”

Patel takes over from Steven Dettelbach, who resigned just before Trump took office. Dettelbach presided over an ATF seen as even more hostile to gun owners than has historically been the case.

Continue reading “”

What Did Trump Promise Mexico’s President on Guns?

President Trump has hit the pause button on his tariff threat to Mexico after discussions with his counterpart south of the border, but President Claudia Sheinbaum says that while her country will increase the number of military troops at the border to counter the drug cartels’ trafficking of fentanyl, Trump has agreed to “work jointly to avoid the entry of guns to Mexico.”

Sheinbaum’s comments came during her press conference on Monday. The Wall St. Journal covered Sheinbaum’s remarks, but she apparently didn’t announce any details of the supposed agreement between Trump and herself. 

“There are rocket launchers that come from the U.S. illegally,” Sheinbaum said she told Trump. “How is that possible?”

Mexico says that upwards of 70% of the weapons used by the country’s organized crime groups are smuggled from the U.S. “For the first time, the U.S. government will work jointly to avoid the entry of guns to Mexico,” she said at her daily news conference on Monday. 

Mexico is suing U.S. gun manufacturers and arms dealers in federal courts to try to end the illegal trafficking of weapons to the country.

If Sheinbaum’s end of the deal involves sending 10,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to combat fentanyl trafficking, what is Trump supposed to do in return? Increasing border patrols is one thing, but Sheinbaum’s interest in targeting gun dealers and manufacturers suggests she might have something else in mind

Sheinbaum also hit back after Washington accused her government of having an “intolerable alliance” with drug trafficking groups.

“We categorically reject the slander made by the White House against the Mexican government about alliances with criminal organizations,” Sheinbaum wrote earlier on social media.

“If there is such an alliance anywhere, it is in the U.S. gun shops that sell high-powered weapons to these criminal groups,” she added.

U.S. gun stores aren’t selling rocket launchers to cartel members, despite Sheinbaum’s claims. In fact, one of the major sources of U.S.-manufactured arms that end up in the hands of the cartels were diverted there by Mexican law enforcement and the military. As CBS News reported more than a decade ago:

The State Department audits only a tiny sample – less than 1 percent of sales – but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were “diverted” into the wrong hands, or had other “unfavorable” results.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation‘s Larry Keane, who speaks for gun manufacturers, said he understands the potential for abuse.

“There have been 150,000 or more Mexican soldiers defect to go work for the cartels, and I think it’s safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them,” Keane told CBS News.

If Sheinbaum really wanted to curtail cartel access to U.S. firearms she could order a halt to the direct sales to Mexican law enforcement and the military, but that would mean pointing the finger at the corruption within her own government instead of scapegoating the U.S. firearms industry.

I don’t think Trump is interested in stopping those sales either, to be honest, but the question still remains: what “help” did Trump offer, exactly? 

Gun control groups like Brady are calling on Trump to “craft a plan to ensure that gun manufacturers do not do business with those who break the law, fund the ATF, and instead of diverting agents to focus on immigration enforcement, allow them to focus on holding rogue gun dealers accountable.” 

Trump has yet to do undo the ATF rules enacted under the Biden administration, which has already exasperated many Second Amendment advocates. Now he also needs to offer up specifics about his agreement with Sheinbaum to put gun owners at ease.

Combatting the cartels shouldn’t result in an emboldened ATF or actions against the firearms industry, but that’s exactly what Sheinbaum and her allies in the American gun control movement are demanding.