Category: Bureaucraps

Rare Win: ATF Fails to Revoke NJ Gun Dealer’s Federal License

By Lee Williams

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Special to Liberty Park Press

Ira Levin could not be happier. He can continue to operate his gun shop, Legend Firearms, which is located in Monroe, New Jersey.

Levin has owned and operated the small gun shop since 2009, which is no small feat given the Garden State’s blatant antipathy toward guns and gun dealers.

Levin has sold more than 21,000 firearms and has been inspected dozens of times by both New Jersey State Police and ATF. They have never found a deficiency, at least not until Joe Biden declared war on gun dealers.

During an inspection in October 2022, an ATF Industry Operations Investigator, or IOI, found several deficiencies. A few customers wrote “USA” on the 4473 because they mistakenly thought the form asked for their country rather than their county. Levin’s staff did not catch the errors.

In addition, one of Levin’s part-time employees transferred firearms to three customers more than 30 days after they had signed the 4473. The ATF inspector said Levin’s employee should have had the customers fill out new 4473s before they took possession of the guns, because the form expires after 30 days. To be clear, all the customers passed background checks. None were prohibited persons.

Levin believed ATF would issue a warning or maybe a small fine for the clerical errors, until he received a letter stating that the ATF intended to revoke his federal firearm license. The revocation letter was signed by John Curtis, an industry operations director at ATF’s New York City Field Office.

Levin immediately tried to contest the revocation during a preliminary video call with Curtis and other ATF officials, which he hoped could save his license. They told him he could appeal their decision at an administrative hearing. Levin asked who would preside over the hearing and was told it would be Curtis.

“Curtis signed the revocation letter and now he is going to run the hearing. How is that right?” Levin told the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project last year. “Shouldn’t the person making the decision be objective?”

Levin was adamant that his revocation was part of a national trend orchestrated by the White House. Joe Biden first announced his zero-tolerance policy in June 2021. Part of his scheme included five criteria, which he claimed defined a rogue dealer: transferring a firearm to a prohibited person, failing to run a required background check, falsifying records, failing to respond to an ATF tracing request or refusing to allow ATF to conduct an inspection.

Levin violated none of these rules. However, the ATF is routinely revoking licenses for even the most minor of errors — errors not on Biden’s five-point list.

Continue reading “”

Honolulu, state of Hawaii coughs up six figures to sailor forced to give up his guns over mental health counseling

To be honest, I’ve got mixed feelings about this. While I’m glad that the city of Honolulu and the state of Hawaii are being forced to cut a check to Michael Santucci, the roughly $130,000 he’ll receive after his Second Amendment rights were violated doesn’t seem nearly enough to make up for the harm that was done to him.

Santucci was an active duty member of the Navy in 2021 when he sought a permit to possess a firearm in the home. After acknowledging that he had recently received mental health counseling, his application was rejected by the Honolulu PD on the grounds that he’d allegedly admitted to a significant mental health disorder. Not only was his permit denied, but the firearms he had previously lawfully purchased were seized by the Honolulu police.

In truth, Santucci was homesick, and simply wanted to talk to a counselor at Tripler Army Medical Center. Santucci ended up suing after his permit was rejected, and last year a federal judge ruled in his favor, declaring that Santucci had not demonstrated any sort of significant mental health disorder that would disqualify him under the Hawaii law while leaving the statute itself untouched.

After the judge’s ruling, the city and state settled with Santucci. The state of Hawaii agreed to fork over some $28,000 for Santucci’s trouble, while the city of Honolulu agreed to a $102,000 figure. Santucci still hasn’t received a check from the city, but it looks like one will soon be cut.

A Honolulu City Council committee Tuesday approved the city’s portion of the settlement — $102,500 — which goes to the full council next month.

The lawsuit by Michael Santucci alleged that the HPD seized his guns and that it held up his permit application in 2021 because he wrote down on his firearms questionnaire that he had recently received mental health counseling.

His lawyer said police had violated Santucci’s constitutional rights.

“Mr. Santucci’s case sort of demonstrates the attitude that HPD has toward people owning firearms. I think they view it really more as a privilege rather than a constitutional right,” said Santucci’s lawyer Alan Beck.

I’d say that’s an understatement on Beck’s part, and it’s not just limited to the city of Honolulu or its police department. As we reported earlier this week, local departments like the Honolulu PD are denying permits to anyone who possesses a medical marijuana card, and Gov. Josh Brown recently signed a carry-killer bill that prohibits lawful concealed carry in the vast majority of publicly accessible spaces, including all businesses by default.

The Democrats in charge of Hawaii’s government are doing everything they can to keep the islands gun-free and have displayed no concern or consternation about treading over a fundamental constitutional right in the process.

Because of Santucci’s legal actions the city of Honolulu has changed its questions on the firearms permit application, which will hopefully prevent this particular infringement from happening in the future. When it comes to getting the state to actually start treating the right to keep and bear arms as the fundamental right that it is, however, attorneys like Alan Beck and organizations like the Hawaii Firearms Coalition and the Hawaii Rifle Association still have their work cut out for them.

Bump stock ban heads to SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court is getting a chance to weigh in on the ATF’s ban on bump stocks imposed after the Las Vegas shooting in 2018, with the Firearms Policy Coalition filing a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with SCOTUS on Thursday.

The case, known as Guedes v. BATFE, was last heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ATF rule last year. In its opinion, the appellate court ruled that it was within the ATF’s purview to define bump stocks as machine guns, despite the fact that the devices have no moving parts nor allow for multiple rounds to be fired with a single pull of the trigger.

Other appellate courts, including the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, have disagreed; ruling that the administratively-imposed ban went beyond the agency’s authority.

A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machinegun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.

But even if that conclusion were incorrect, the rule of lenity would still require us to interpret the statute against imposing criminal liability. A rich legal tradition supports the “well known rule” that “penal laws are to be construed strictly.” United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 94–95 (1820). As Chief Justice Marshall explained long ago, the rule “is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department. It is the legislature, not the Court, which is to define a crime, and ordain its punishment.” Id. at 95.

The Government’s regulation violates these principles. As an initial matter, it purports to allow ATF—rather than Congress—to set forth the scope of criminal prohibitions. Indeed, the Government would outlaw bump stocks by administrative fiat even though the very same agency routinely interpreted the ban on machineguns as not applying to the type of bump stocks at issue here. Nor can we say that the statutory definition unambiguously supports the Government’s interpretation. As noted above, we conclude that it unambiguously does not. But even if we are wrong, the statute is at least ambiguous in this regard. And if the statute is ambiguous, Congress must cure that ambiguity, not the federal courts.

The definition of “machinegun” as set forth in the National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act does not apply to bump stocks. And if there were any doubt as to this conclusion, we conclude that the statutory definition is ambiguous, at the very least. The rule of lenity therefore compels us to construe the statute in Cargill’s favor. Either way, we must REVERSE.

The Tenth Circuit has sided with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, while the Sixth Circuit found that the rule is unenforceable and setting up a genuine split among the appellate courts. That increases the odds of the Supreme Court accepting Guedes for review, and the division between the lower courts was noted in FPC’s request for the Court to step in.

Continue reading “”

This is right out of the Declaration of Independence:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

Special Report: Biden Weaponizing IRS Into a Well-Armed Paramilitary Force

U.S.A. — Iowa Senator Joni Ernst introduced a bill last week titled “Why does the IRS Have Guns Act,” which would prohibit the IRS from buying or storing guns and ammunition, transfer all IRS firearms to the General Services Administration so they could be auctioned off to licensed gun dealers to reduce the national debt, and move the agency’s Criminal Investigation Division to the control of the Justice Department.

“The taxman is fully loaded at the expense of the taxpayer,” Ernst said in a statement. “As the Biden administration has worked to expand the size of the IRS, any further weaponization of this federal agency against hardworking Americans and small businesses is a grave concern. I’m working to disarm the IRS and return these dollars to address reckless spending in Washington.”

While the outcome of Ernst’s legislation is not promising – Joe Biden will likely veto her bill, should it ever reach his desk – the Senator’s efforts have drawn much-needed attention to the massive arsenal that the IRS has amassed – is amassing.

The IRS is preparing for battle. Some of the weapons and tactical equipment currently in their inventory are used by elite military commandos, not American law enforcement officers. To be clear, none of this extreme militarization occurred until after Biden took office.

“Who are they preparing to battle?” asked Adam Andrzejewski, CEO and Founder of OpenTheBooks.com, the largest private repository of U.S. public-sector spending. Andrzejewski’s watchdog efforts have led to federal legislation, grand jury indictments, congressional hearings, subpoenas and convictions, as well as audits by the Government Accountability Office and Congressional Research Service reports.

In one recent report, Andrzejewski found that IRS has spent $35.2 million taxpayer dollars on guns, ammunition and tactical gear since 2006, but the agency’s purchasing increased dramatically under Biden.

“The years 2020 and 2021 were peak years at the IRS for purchasing weaponry and gear. Just since the pandemic started, the IRS has purchased $10 million in weaponry and gear,” the report states.

Continue reading “”

‘The Nation Can’t Stand’: John Durham’s Response to Harriet Hageman’s One and Only Question Portends a Chilling Truth

Special Counsel John Durham testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday for nearly six hours. The Democrat members of the committee trotted out their standard barrage of sly accusations and sinister insinuations, while the Republicans, for the most part, sussed out the highlights (or lowlights) of the most critical findings contained in Durham’s report. Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) shook things up a bit, going right after Durham and accusing him of essentially serving as the Washington Generals to the Swamp’s Globetrotters.

For his part, though he appeared somewhat ill at ease, Durham kept his composure, even lobbing a brushback pitch at Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). He took some affront to Gaetz’s accusations. But it was his response to Rep. Harriet Hageman (R-WY) at the very end of the hearing that served as a chilling portent for the nation’s future.

Hageman utilized most of her allotted five minutes to address Durham, reading prepared remarks:

 

Mr. Durham, in reviewing your report, I sincerely wanted to understand the work that you did and decipher the various investigations that we have been discussing: the origins, the history, the backstory, the whos, the whys, the whats, the what ifs, and the hows.

I desperately wanted to figure out what happened to what was once our flagship law enforcement agencies — the FBI and the DOJ — to determine what went wrong and to evaluate how we can go forward from here. I have listened with great interest, hoping to find some answers to the burning questions of the day. And I have reached a few conclusions that I do not believe are subject to dispute or debate.

Now, I truly appreciate your regard for the agency you have dedicated your career to. I am sure that as your investigation progressed, you must have been truly saddened by what you found. What you have exposed, however, is that we are dealing with something so corrupt and so rotten that no amount of face paint, deflection, or whitewashing can fix this. You have been asked lots of questions about predicates, protocols, the Steele dossier, the Australian connection, Mr. Papadopoulos, Mr. Carter, the FISA court, and Crossfire Hurricane, among others. Your responses have been enlightening, but let’s get to the brass tacks: None of those people or documents or reports were relevant to the FBI when it identified Donald Trump as Public Enemy Number One.

What do I mean? The accuracy and veracity of the Steele dossier was irrelevant to the FBI. The accuracy and veracity of the reports coming from the Australian embassy were irrelevant to the FBI. The fact that the Russian experts in the CIA, FBI, NSA, and other agencies had no evidence of any kind of relationship between Mr. Trump and Putin or Russia was irrelevant to the FBI. And the fact that there was no verifiable evidence, such as testimony, documents, videos, or recordings of Russian collusion was irrelevant to the FBI.

Hageman continued, laying out her theory of the motivation behind the whole endeavor.

 

Nothing — and I repeat, nothing — that the FBI did was designed to show that Donald J. Trump was a Russian asset. That wasn’t the purpose of the entire charade. How do I know this is true? Because they told us so. The very people who cooked this up, and the ones who ran this entire operation: Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, Clinesmith, Steele, the DNC, Perkins Coie.

It was never their purpose to prove Russian collusion, and in fact, from the very beginning, they knew that no such thing actually existed. They knew that the entire Russian collusion narrative was fabricated by the Clinton campaign to deflect attention from her mishandling of classified materials and destruction of official emails.

They didn’t need to prove Russian collusion. They just had to keep the investigation alive. And so long as they had a complicit press, and so long as they had people in this very body, who has been here — one of the gentlemen, who has been here much of the day, who would go on TV every night and lie about the smoking gun — they could further their personal and political agendas.

Oh no, the purpose of Crossfire Hurricane wasn’t to prove Russian collusion — it was to destroy Donald J Trump, and they told us that with the text messages that are set forth on page 49 and 51 of your report — 49 and 50 of your report.

And then, if they failed at blocking Mr. Trump from being elected as president, well, they had a backup plan — they had their “insurance policy,” to use Strzok’s terminology — which was to make it impossible for him to govern; to use whatever tools were available to taint his presidency, the legitimacy of his election, his ability to work with foreign leaders, and to make everything about “Russia, Russia, Russia.”

And then, Hageman drilled down to the heart of the matter.

 

And how has this corruption and rot manifested itself in our everyday lives? In our national culture? In our ability to solve the problems we are facing? It has destroyed some of the key foundations of this country, a foundation built on equal protection, on the belief that justice is blind, on the belief that you will be held accountable if you commit a fraud of the magnitude of what we have been discussing here today, on the belief that due process, justice, and constitutional rights are more than mere words.

It has left a smoldering hot volcanic mess where the soul of this country used to be — all because a few people in the FBI decided they wanted to destroy a political candidate and ultimately a president and anyone associated with him. While these folks set out to destroy a presidential candidate and later a presidency, the fact is that they destroyed so much more — and that will be their ultimate legacy.

One casualty is America’s faith in our institutions, and another casualty is the erosion of a justice system that is supposed to apply equally to all Americans, but that has been weaponized to protect the favored few elites — the Clintons, the Bidens — while targeting political enemies. That is the current legacy of the FBI and DOJ,

Now at the end of her allotted time, Hageman asked her one and only question of Durham — though Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) did his level best to cut her off:

Mr. Durham, here is my question: How long do you think that this country will survive with a two-tiered justice system that seeks to persecute people based on their political beliefs?

Whatever one’s takeaway of Durham’s report and his testimony might be, it would be difficult to doubt the sincerity (or the foreboding accuracy) of his response:

I don’t think that things can go too much further with the view that law enforcement, particularly the FBI or Department of Justice, runs a two-tiered system of justice. The nation can’t stand under those circumstances.

‘FBI and DOJ’s Dishonest Tactics Are Their Calling Card’ Now.

FBI whistleblower Steve Friend reacted to allegations of government misconduct published by PJ Media, saying the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) “willingly operate outside the boundaries of policy and law to achieve [their] ends.”

Friend, an FBI whistleblower and fellow at the Center for Renewing America, told me in exclusive comments, “In recent years, the FBI and DOJ’s dishonest tactics are their calling card.” He was partly reacting to new evidence and allegations from former Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), who exclusively revealed the previous prosecutorial misconduct of Donald Trump’s prosecutors to PJ Media. Renzi and Trump, however, are not the only targets of a weaponized DOJ and FBI.

Renzi was convicted on bribery and extortion charges, to which he pleaded “not guilty.” He was later given a full presidential pardon by Trump. While a 2019 complaint and request for investigation filed on Renzi’s behalf by respected legal firm Mayer Brown claim to provide evidence  of prosecutorial misconduct, current Trump prosecutors Jack Smith and David Harbach were more directly implicated in the misconduct allegations than previously revealed. The allegations of misconduct involving Smith, Harbach, and other members of both the DOJ and FBI included illegal wiretaps, a witness payoff scheme, introduction of false testimony, and tainting the jury.

As Friend noted, Renzi’s and Trump’s cases are two instances of a worrying communistic pattern from the federal government. “In recent years, the FBI and DOJ’s dishonest tactics are their calling card. Instead of investigating legitimate violations of law, these agencies employ Stalin’s approach: ‘show me the man and I’ll find you the crime.’ And they willingly operate outside the boundaries of policy and law to achieve these ends,” he said.

Friend listed other examples of federal, particularly FBI, misconduct. “They offered Christopher Steele $1 million to prove his fictional dossier claims,” he said. “They targeted General Michael Flynn for a process crime investigation and pressured him to plead guilty by threatening his family. They reinterpreted an Enron accounting law to charge January 6th subjects with felonies. They manipulated and withheld evidence during the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

And besides more well-known public figures, the FBI and DOJ have targeted and continue to target pro-lifers, traditional Catholics, and parents concerned about woke curriculum. Renzi and Trump, sadly, are not exceptions.

Friend ended by emphasizing that the federal government is deliberately and unjustly targeting Americans. “These are all intentional acts the FBI and DOJ effected to persecute American citizens instead of protect them,” he said.

FPC Completes Appellate Injunction Briefing in Lawsuit Challenging ATF Pistol Brace Rule

NEW ORLEANS, LA (June 21, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a reply brief with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Mock v. Garland, FPC and FPC Action Foundation’s challenge to ATF’s pistol brace rule. The brief was filed less than one month after the Court clarified that its injunction against the rule covers FPC’s members. The brief, which was the final filling in the case before oral argument, can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“Nothing in Appellees’ rehashed arguments alters the conclusion already reached by the motions panel,” argues the brief. “Appellants remain likely to win on the merits because a braced pistol is a constitutionally protected bearable arm, and the Agencies have not met their burden of showing that the right to keep and bear arms historically allowed NFA-like regulation of braced pistols or SBRs, however defined.”

Plaintiffs are requesting that the Fifth Circuit issue a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo while they argue their full case–functionally extending the injunction beyond just the length of the appeal. The case is set for argument before the Fifth Circuit on June 29th.

FPC and FPCAF have specifically requested an injunction that will extend to all individuals, not just Plaintiffs and their members and customers: “The public has no interest in the unlawful enforcement of [ATF’s] rule and the irreparable harms that accompany it. This Court should thus reverse the district court and enter a nationwide preliminary injunction to prevent these harms.”

“All we’re asking is for the Fifth Circuit to ensure that peaceable people across the United States are protected from ATF’s enforcement of its unlawful and unconstitutional pistol brace rule for the length of the case,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation and FPC’s counsel in this case. “The firearms at issue here have been properly treated as pistols for a decade; we simply want to preserve that status quo while we make our full case to the Court.”

I don’t buy Durham’s excusing FBI agents as good people

I have not spent any time today listening to John Durham’s testimony, which I find fundamentally uninteresting. He managed to craft a report that, even as it hinted at a damning coup attempt within the government against the duly elected president, nevertheless gave everyone involved what amounted to a pass. Maybe it’s that jaundiced attitude that leaves me unimpressed with the fact that Durham claims that most FBI agents are really good people.

As I often do, I turned to the Daily Mail, which is more honest than the American news outlets:

Former special counsel John Durham revealed that FBI agents have apologized to him for their handling of the Trump-Russia probe as he confirmed he saw bias among key officials in charge of the investigation like Peter Strzok.

‘I have had any number of FBI agents who I’ve worked with over the years, some are retired, some are still in place, who have come to me and apologized for the manner in which that investigation was undertaken,’ Durham revealed at the top of the high-profile Judiciary hearing.

To him, that proved that a majority of the FBI are ‘good, hard-working people’ who ‘swear under their oaths to abide by the law.’

‘Our findings are sobering,’ said Durham. ‘Having spent 40 years plus as a federal prosecutor, they are particularly sobering to me.’

First of all, “any number” is a meaningless statement. That could be three. Second, their secretive little apologies to Durham mean nothing. What we’re learning is that, from the top down, the DOJ and the FBI are corrupt. And we’re also learning that the men and women who work for it, or who retired during this corrupt era, are either complicit in the corruption or too afraid to do or say anything.

If the DOJ/FBI were the law firm I once worked for, where a corrupt partner bilked clients, and everyone stayed silent, it’s easy enough to give a pass to the ones who stayed silent. After all, this was one law firm, which wasn’t going to change the world, and the employees who knew what was going on had families that relied on them, student loans (which, in those days, had to be paid off), mortgages, health problems, etc. The downside risk of squealing on one attorney just didn’t seem worth it.

However, the DOJ and FBI are not one little law firm, one school, or one corporation. They are at the very heart of the federal criminal justice system; they sit on more secrets than we can imagine (Jeffrey Epstein’s little black book and, theoretically, whatever is making Chief Justice John Roberts jump when required, etc.); and they used their massive, unfettered authority to try to take down the president of the United States.

Under those circumstances, when we’re staring at a festering carbuncle at the very heart of the American government, it’s not okay to stay silent. This is bigger than an individual’s needs. This requires moral courage, patriotism, and decency—and not a single one of those agents who quietly whispered into Durham’s ear did a damn thing. They didn’t blow the whistle when these historic crimes were being committed, and they haven’t come forward since then to say, “Yeah, it’s true. Something really is rotten in the State of Denmark.”

So, no, Mr. Durham, I’m not impressed. Those agents who apologized to you may be hard-working but, given the corruption lying at the center of our constitutional republic, they are not good.

UPDATE: Within a short time of publishing the above, I was strongly reminded of DOJ/FBI issues when I listened to the opening monologue in Matt Walsh’s video podcast which reminded me, in turn, of Tucker’s podcast about the DOJ’s and FBI’s treatment of Hunter Biden.

 

The Strange Idea That a Cabinet Officer Should Report to the President

A Trump administration agency head’s struggle against bureaucracy illuminates the need to subordinate executive agencies to the president’s will.

David L. Bernhardt, former U.S. secretary of the interior, deputy secretary, solicitor, and an independent agency commissioner, lets us in on an intriguingly strange secret about what insiders like him would recognize was an exceptional command he received from a U.S. president.

In 2018, President Donald Trump called in Deputy Bernhardt and informed him that, “You’re going to be running the ship [at Interior] for a while,” as acting secretary. And the president added, “Do you have any questions?” The savvy Bernhardt only asked one: “Who do I report to?” He tells us that “President Trump looked at me quizzically. ‘You report to me,’ he said.”

Bernhardt had earlier served under President George W. Bush and tells us in his new book, You Report to Me: Accountability for the Failing Administrative State, that even cabinet secretaries normally had to fight through the White House Office bureaucracy to get access to the president himself. To some extent, the same has been true under most modern presidencies.

So, Bernhardt replied to President Trump: “I know that’s what the Constitution says,” choosing his words “carefully,” “but who do I actually report to?’ ‘You report to me,’ he repeated. He could not have been more clear: I reported directly to him and to no one else!” Bernhardt then tested the offer, both as acting and permanent secretary, and it actually worked!

Why is access so important? Bernhardt explains that his direct access to the president

avoided the massive periods of inactivity that plagued much of my prior experience in the Department of the Interior under President George W. Bush. Far more critically, Trump’s expectation that those serving in the executive branch actually report to him reflected a reality about the presidency and his view of it. The Constitution of the United States confers all the executive power on the president.

As I see it, as director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Ronald Reagan during his first term, this critical relationship justifies the seemingly strange book title You Report to Me. Interestingly, William P. Barr, in his book on his experiences as attorney general under presidents George H. W. Bush and Trump, also raises this matter of reporting. It is clear between the lines that he had much more access to Trump than he did to Bush. This is an attribute of the more recent president that has not been widely reported, especially by the mainstream media.

Open cabinet access to the president had been the norm since George Washington, but it violates most modern Washington insiders’ presumed knowledge that the White House Office and the Office of Management and Budget expert staffs should and actually do run the modern presidency. The fundamental administrative fact is that, if the traditional direct presidential relationship fails, it is replaced by irresponsible bureaucracy, both careerist and political.

Bernhardt explains how the government today does not generally work as the Constitution expected. Congress now leaves most of the policy-making to the bureaucracy, the real Article III courts leave legal-policy interpretations mostly to bureaucratic bodies in the executive branch, and the careerist bureaucracy actually performs the major executive functions of the national government — leaving the bureaucracy pretty much unaccountable to anyone.

A big part of the problem with today’s 2 million civil servants (and the generally ignored 20 million contractors) is the enormous growth of government and how that has made managing it so much more difficult over time. Bernhardt says he is generally pleased with the competence of the civil servants he has had contact with but is frustrated with the cumbersome procedures required for the removal of poor performers and the number of ways dysfunctional employees have available to frustrate removal. Only “8 percent of civil service managers with poor-performing employees even attempted to discipline or fire them.”

Continue reading “”

The Department of Justice is corrupt. No one should trust it.

‘TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF JUSTICE:’ GOP Presidential Candidates React To Hunter Biden’s DOJ Deal.

Several Republican 2024 presidential challengers weighed in Tuesday on the deal between President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) on federal gun and tax charges.

Hunter Biden will plead guilty to two tax misdemeanors and enter a probation agreement with the DOJ for a felony gun possession charge; Biden has been under investigation in the Federal District of Delaware since 2018 over allegedly failing to pay taxes and lying on a federal firearm application. Many of the 2024 GOP contenders criticized the deal as letting Hunter Biden off easy, as the younger Biden was able to avoid jail time, contrasting the legal treatment with that of former President Donald Trump.

“Today proves there is a clear two-tiered system of justice—one for Democrats and one against President Trump,” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung told the DCNF. “As President Trump predicted earlier this month, Hunter was given a sweetheart deal that sweeps his crimes under the rug in a blatant attempt to interfere with the 2024 election. All the while, Joe Biden continues to be given a pass by his weak special counsel for his classified documents strewn all across his garage and in his Chinatown office building. The Biden Crime Family continues to show they are willing to sell out America to dangerous foreign actors in order to line their pockets with millions and millions of dollars.”

“Looks like Hunter received a sweetheart deal and is not facing any charges on the massive corruption allegations,” DeSantis wrote in a tweet. “If Hunter was not connected to the elite DC class he would have been put in jail a long time ago.”

Continue reading “”

SAF sues Pennsylvania Sheriff to stop warrantless searches

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a challenge of Pennsylvania’s promulgated firearms regulation and its enforcement by the Pennsylvania State Police and Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, which includes warrantless searches.

SAF is joined by Shot Tec, LLC and a private citizen, Grant Schmidt. They are represented by attorneys Joshua Prince and Dillon Harris, Civil Rights Defense Firm, of Bechtelsville, Pa. Defendants are Col. Christopher Paris, commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) and Montgomery County Sheriff Sean Kilkenny, in their official capacities. The action was filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

The petition challenges Col. Paris and the PSP’s “interpretation, implementation and enforcement” of the firearms regulation “which is being enforced” by Kilkenny, according to the court filing. The petition alleges that Sheriff Kilkenny “has implemented a policy…which he contends, based on the PSP’s promulgation and implementation of (the regulation) permit him, in the absence of probable cause and a warrant and in violation of…the Pennsylvania Constitution, to come into those…homes or business.”

Plaintiffs further assert this inspection enables the sheriff to impose sanctions against holders of state licenses to sell firearms “for not having ‘safe storage’” in the event of an emergency when the PSP has “failed to promulgate any regulations addressing what constitute ‘safe storage’ or sufficient safeguards…when the General Assembly only delegated to the PSP the ability to establish such standards.”

“The State Assembly has never enacted a law allowing for warrantless searches of licensees, but the state police promulgated a regulation requiring licensees to submit to such searches, which are now planned by the sheriff’s department,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We believe there are grave constitutional issues involved in this scheme, particularly when an administrative agency simply waives an individual’s constitutional rights by implementing a regulation without any framework from the legislature. Equally troubling is the Sheriff’s assertion that he would revoke a license from and individual asserting their right to be free from unlawful searches and seizures. We have filed this petition to ensure constitutional rights are respected.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb observed, “No statute should allow carte blanche regulations to be imposed by any law enforcement agency because of the inherent danger of overstepping legal authority and constitutional protections which must be protected in a free society. We’re seeking a remedy from the court to stop this, especially when warrantless searches are involved.”

We know why the programs and agencies stay around – it’s an easy way to skim money.

Republican Lawmaker’s Bill Seeks to Phase Out ‘Zombie’ Federal Programs Costing Over $510

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) wants to phase out the more than 1,100 “Zombie” federal agencies and programs that continue for years on end to get over $358 billion annually despite having expired legislative authorizations.

The McMorris Rodgers proposal is H.R. 1518, the Unauthorized Spending Act (USA), which she has introduced in every Congress since 2016. The Washington state Republican believes her proposal is needed to restore to voters the power of accountability in the nation’s capital.

“We have a fiscal crisis in America today, too much of the federal government is on autopilot. Americans are rightly frustrated by a government that thinks it knows best. These frustrations are a symptom of the people losing our power to ensure every penny of taxpayer money and every decision by federal agencies are subject to citizens’ scrutiny,” McMorris Rodgers explained in a statement on her official website.

“The USA Act aims to restore the American people’s ‘power of the purse’ by eliminating unauthorized spending or ‘Zombie’ programs—spending on government programs that haven’t been authorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. This bill is simple, it ensures that every penny of taxpayer money is subject to the scrutiny of the American people.

“It means that the people’s representatives are doing their jobs to effectively review, rethink, and possibly eliminate programs that are no longer needed. It means restoring the power of the purse and ending unauthorized spending,” she continued.

Her proposal currently has 11 co-sponsors, all Republicans, in the House of Representatives, and sits in the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability and the House Budget Committee, awaiting further action. No hearings have been scheduled on the measure.

The Congress Budget Office (CBO), in an April 2023 report, “identified 1,108 authorizations of appropriations that expired before the beginning of fiscal year 2023 and 355 authorizations that are set to expire before the end of the fiscal year. CBO also found that $510 billion in appropriations for 2023 was associated with 428 expired authorizations of appropriations.”

The USA proposal “puts all unauthorized programs on a pathway to sunset in three years, which is enforced by a reduction in overall budget authority based on the total value of unauthorized programs,” according to a fact sheet on the McMorris Rodgers website.

“In the first year after expiration, overall budget authority is reduced by 10 percent of the total value of unauthorized spending. In the second and third years, that increases to 15 percent. The programs in question would sunset at the end of the third fiscal year after expiration,” the fact sheet said.

Congress could also decide to reauthorize a Zombie agency or program, but individual senators and representatives would have to go on record one way or another whether to phase out funding or reauthorize the activity.

The process of deciding what to do about a specific Zombie agency or program would be overseen by a new Spending Accountability Commission (SAC) tasked with establishing reauthorization schedules, conducting reviews of the effectiveness of the agencies and programs, and recommending mandatory budget cuts “to be used as potential offsets to restore budget authority that was reduced due to unauthorized programs.”

For David Ditch, Zombie federal agencies are programs, especially those that have continued with funding but without reauthorization, “are a symptom of a federal government that is far too big for the institution of Congress to manage. No institution in the history of humanity could properly manage an entity [like the federal government] that employs so many people doing so many things and spending so much money covering such a broad range of topics.”

Ditch is a senior policy analyst in the Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget at The Heritage Foundation think tank. Before joining Heritage, Ditch worked on the Senate Budget Committee where, among much else, he analyzed Zombie agencies and programs.

At the heart of the problem, Ditch told The Epoch Times, is how “Congress, rather than doing the hard work of analyzing the performance of an existing federal agency or program, the instinct is to create new things that you can take political credit for back home.”

4 Decades as a Zombie

“Especially when you combine those political incentives with the astronomical growth of the federal government that took place during the 20th century and which has been allowed to keep growing and festering over time, you end up with a combination of small Zombies that probably should be repealed, and I would say large important programs with nowhere near enough oversight,” Ditch said.

Among the results of such political dysfunction are federal agencies—like the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities—that have continued receiving billions of tax dollars despite their legislative authorizations having expired three decades ago in 1993.

Other examples of Zombie programs include the Title X Family Planning Program in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that expired in 1985 which, Ditch pointed out, primarily provides funding for one of the most hotly debated federal subsidy recipients, the Planned Parenthood Foundation of America, Inc.

“If it is so contentious that we couldn’t reauthorize it, why should that program be entitled to going on four decades of billions of dollars over that time period in federal funds?” Ditch asked.

The Bidens ‘Coerced’ Burisma To Pay $10 Million In Bribes, Says Credible FBI Source

Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky wasn’t far from the mark when he said it would take 10 years to unravel the complex payment path that led to Joe Biden

The Bidens allegedly “coerced” a foreign national to pay them $10 million in bribes, according to individuals familiar with the investigation into the FBI’s handling of the FD-1023 confidential human source report. What, if anything, agents did to investigate these explosive claims remains unknown, however, with sources telling The Federalist the FBI continues to stonewall.

On Monday, Sen. Chuck Grassley revealed a foreign national — identified by individuals with knowledge of the matter as Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky — allegedly possessed 17 recordings implicating the Bidens in a pay-to-play scandal. While 15 of the audio recordings consisted of phone calls between Zlochevsky and Hunter Biden, two were of calls the Ukrainian had with then-Vice President Joe Biden, according to the FD-1023.

The Federalist has now learned the FD-1023 reported the CHS saying the Bidens “coerced” Zlochevsky to pay the bribes. Sources familiar with the investigation also explained the context of Zlochevsky’s statements, and that context further bolsters the CHS’s reporting.

In the FD-1023 from June 30, 2020, the confidential human source summarized earlier meetings he had with Zlochevsky. According to the CHS, in the 2015-2016 timeframe, the CHS, who was providing advice to Zlochevsky, told the Burisma owner to stay away from the Bidens. Then, after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential contest, the CHS asked Zlochevsky if he was upset Trump won.

Zlochevsky allegedly told the CHS he was dismayed by Trump’s victory, fearing an investigation would reveal his payments to the Biden family, which included a $5 million payment to Hunter Biden and a $5 million payment to Joe Biden. According to the CHS, the Burisma executive bemoaned the situation, claiming the Bidens had “coerced” him into paying the bribes.

The CHS responded that he hoped Zlochevsky had taken precautions to protect himself. Zlochevsky then allegedly detailed the steps he had taken to avoid detection, stressing he had never paid the “Big Guy” directly and that it would take some 10 years to unravel the various money trails. It was only then that Zlochevsky mentioned the audio recordings he had made of the conversations he had with Hunter and Joe Biden, according to the CHS.

The broader context of this conversation adds to the plausibility of Zlochevsky’s claims that he possessed recordings implicating the Bidens. And we already know from Grassley and House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer that the FBI considered the CHS, who relayed Zlochevsky’s claims to the FBI, a “highly credible” source.

Further, according to individuals familiar with the investigation, the FBI admitted the CHS’s intel was unrelated to the information Rudy Giuliani had provided the Western District of Pennsylvania’s U.S. attorney’s office — the office then-Attorney General William Barr had tasked with reviewing any new information related to Ukraine.

Sources told The Federalist that investigators out of the Pittsburgh office, in addition to reviewing Giuliani’s information, searched internal FBI databases and came across an earlier FD-1023 related to the CHS. That earlier FD-1023 then led to agents questioning the CHS on June 30, 2020, uncovering the details concerning Burisma’s alleged bribery of the Bidens.

What the FBI did to investigate the allegations is unknown, with sources telling The Federalist the bureau refused to either confirm or deny that the DOJ under Barr sent the FD-1023 to Delaware for further investigation. On the contrary, the FBI allowed Rep. Jamie Raskin, ranking member on the House Oversight Committee, to falsely represent to Americans that Barr and Pittsburgh U.S. Attorney Scott Brady had closed the investigation. Raskin’s deceit, tolerated by the FBI, forced Barr to publicly correct the record.

The FBI is also refusing to provide any information on what, if any, steps it took to investigate the detailed claims contained in the FD-1023. But sources familiar with investigative procedures maintain there was insufficient time between the June 30, 2020, interview of the CHS and the FBI headquarters’ closing of an assessment related to the FD-1023 in August 2020 to properly probe the matter. “They couldn’t have done much,” one source said.

There is also no independent confirmation from Delaware indicating any investigative steps were taken regarding the FD-1023. Agents in Delaware “could have sat on it,” according to one individual familiar with the investigation.

While the FBI’s efforts to unwind the pay-to-play scheme seem to have been nonexistent, banking records released in May by the House Oversight Committee show congressional investigators are unraveling the complex web behind the Biden family business. Those records provide concrete evidence of a pattern of public corruption involving foreign nationals, with Joe Biden at the helm. There are still more banking records to review, along with the many details recently discovered when the whistleblower came forward with the FD-1023.

Apparently, Zlochevsky wasn’t far from the mark when he said it would take 10 years to unravel the complex payment path that led to Joe Biden.

Homeland Committee Chairman: China Likely Sending Military Personnel Into U.S.

On Wednesday, Congressman Mark Green (R-Tenn.), Chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, claimed that the People’s Republic of China is likely sending military personnel into the United States via the southern border with Mexico.

According to Just The News, Chairman Green made the revelation at a press conference, where he also announced a new investigation into Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In his remarks, Congressman Green said that “Chinese Nationals, many of whom are military-aged men” and have ties to the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP), are crossing the southern border among the hordes of third-world illegal aliens, and have similarly been released into the United States by the Biden Administration.

“We have no idea who these people are and it’s very likely, using Russia’s template of sending military personnel into Ukraine, China is doing the same in the United States,” said Green, who also said that the claims were verified by a Border Patrol sector chief.

In concurrence with Green’s remarks, the Homeland Security Committee released a report on Wednesday revealing that the number of apprehensions of Chinese nationals at the southern border has increased significantly since Biden took power.

At least 10,000 Chinese illegals were encountered at the border during the time period between October 2022 and April 2023, the report states. During the same period of time in the previous year, that number was down to just 2,200.

The revelations highlight a major national security risk associated with the Biden Administration’s open-borders approach to immigration. Biden and the Democratic Party as a whole have vowed to provide amnesty to millions of illegals, as well as numerous free taxpayer-funded benefits, including education, healthcare, and housing.

They’re searching for evidence that microstamping is possible. So in fairness, it does take a really long time to find something that doesn’t exist.

New Jersey Attorney General’s office five months behind on gun microstamping law
The law requires the Attorney General to investigate the viability of microstamping technology in guns within 180 days.

The state Attorney General’s office is five months behind a statutory deadline in determining the “technological viability” of microstamping in guns, with results expected to come sometime this summer.

Gov. Phil Murphy last July signed a bill into law that created a roadmap to mandate gun retailers sell firearms with microstamping technology, as part of his third major gun safety package. The technology leaves unique identifiers on bullet casings to identify the make, model and serial number of a firearm. Both Murphy and Attorney General Matt Platkin, who have prioritized gun safety initiatives, support the technology.

The law requires the Attorney General to investigate the viability of microstamping technology in guns within 180 days. The findings of that investigation would guide what requirements the state has for mandating gun retailers sell firearms with the microstamping technology.

In a statement, the Attorney General’s office said that results are expected this summer.

“Work on the microstamping regulations and investigation is proceeding and will be completed as soon as possible,” Attorney General’s office spokesperson Michael Symons said in a statement. “Combatting gun violence is a top priority for Attorney General Platkin, and this includes carefully examining the use of cutting-edge technology like microstamping to bolster those efforts. Every effort has been made to implement the microstamping law as quickly as possible and much of the work necessary to reach that goal has been completed. This includes reviewing the viability of the technology, which is currently underway.”

New Jersey is not alone in missing microstamping deadlines. New York, which also passed a microstamping law last summer, has also missed deadlines on determining  the viability of the technology in guns.

Continue reading “”

Ghost Guns Come Back to Haunt the Biden ATF

The ATF’s blunder on 80% frames misfires in court, then backfires as 0% pistols enter the game

In April of 2022, the Biden administration sought to ban the commercial sale of incomplete firearm frames or receivers (commonly referred to as 80% lowers) through ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F. Entirely disrupting the long-held American tradition of home gunsmithing, ATF’s activist reinterpretation of an existing law seeks to prohibit the sale of 80% receivers unless the vendor is a federally registered firearms dealer and each sale is approved by the FBI’s background check system and accompanied by a permanent record of the transaction.

ATF’s 2021R-05F rule tried to accomplish this by legally reclassifying 80% lowers — partially completed receivers that were not previously regulated as firearms — as firearms. If you aren’t familiar with 80% frames, you should understand that these are plastic or metal blocks that, at the time of their sale, cannot accept the parts, trigger components, or the other pieces necessary for a firearm to operate. They are not guns; they can’t be loaded, they can’t fire, they have no firing mechanism. And yet the ATF contends that because these could become guns, they should be sold and regulated as guns.

That’s because 80% frames are purchased by hobbyists who also buy parts kits, jigs, and tooling and will work at home to complete the rest of the machining and assembly process required to create a viable firearm. Building 80% guns is popular with gun enthusiasts who enjoy the satisfaction of building their own firearms and the personalization of customizing their firearms to their specifications.

The firearms created by these hobbyists are what the ATF calls “privately made firearms” and what the media calls “ghost guns.”

An “80%” AR-15 receiver. Note the lack of finish, trigger, or lower receiver parts. The bare metal must be machined away and holes drilled to accommodate the trigger, hammer/trigger pins, safety, and more…

In fairness, some ghost guns are also produced by the criminal element. And it’s also true that these firearms have become increasingly popular amongst prohibited possessors. But in a country that has largely traded any real concern for order, public safety, or property rights for legalized shoplifting, mass encampments of homeless drug addicts, and civil rights patronage schemes, one must remember that our government is simply acting in bad faith when it comes to gun laws like 05F.

If it were important to the government to stop gun crime, they would focus their efforts on St. Louis or Baltimore. But it’s not important to the government to stop these crimes, it’s important to the federal government to stop you from being able to defend yourself from them.

When 05F was added to the federal registrar, Polymer80, Gray Wolf Tactical, Tactical Machine LLC, Defense Distributed, and a number of other companies that specialize in the sale or manufacture of 80% frames, components, and tooling were all at risk of closing or being irreparably harmed by the ATF’s new interpretation of existing gun laws.

These conditions precipitated a lawsuit, and in March of this year, a federal judge granted an injunction in favor of, among others, Defense Distributed, the Texas-based maker of the Ghost Gunner machine.

Continue reading “”