Civilian gun club wins lawsuit against Fort Devens for violating their rights
Gun club had to file a lawsuit against the Fort in 2022.

A small civilian gun club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston has won a “landmark” lawsuit against nearby Fort Devens for violating their rights and federal law by denying them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates.

The Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., filed suit in 2022 claiming that Fort officials were charging range fees in violation of federal law, according to club treasurer Jim Gettens, a retired attorney who assisted with the legal fight.

Gettens said Monday that his club’s victory was a major “David vs. Goliath” event.

“They were running an illegal profiteering racket,” he said. “That’s the best way to describe it. This was a landmark case.”

Gettens and other club members noticed that their problems with the range began only three days after Joe Biden took office in 2022, which they said would never have happened under President Donald Trump’s Administration.

At issue was a little-known section of U.S. code that requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access.

Another federal statute requires the Army to provide logistical support to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., is an affiliate of both the Civilian Marksmanship Program and the National Rifle Association.

For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the club members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little, which is why club member were so surprised when the Fort began charging them.

Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.

The bottom line was that Fort Devens tried to charge personnel costs for Range Safety Officers and technicians who were never there. In addition, a range staff member admitted in a memorandum that the range was unable to prove maintenance, supply and repair costs because the Fort never kept any such records.

“The odds were certainly stacked against us,” Getten said Monday. “As it turned out, the U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Devens croaked themselves with their own administrative records. A range officer filed a memo for the record admitting they kept no maintenance, supply or repair records—one of the most egregious abuses. We detailed all of this stuff in a memorandum in support for summary judgement. We just destroyed them.”

While the gun club won and can stop paying fraudulent fees, hundreds of civilian police officers are still charged for their time at the range, which Getten said is a legal problem for their agencies.

“Non-DoD law enforcement officers, state police and municipal police departments are still paying out the wazoo for all of those costs,” Getten said. “Non-DoD law enforcement agencies should not be getting hosed the way they are. Also, ICE, FBI, U.S. Customs and other federal law enforcement agencies pay out the wazoo for their range time and pass the costs onto taxpayers.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Julian N. Canzoneri, who defended the government against the gun club’s lawsuit, did not return phone calls or emails seeking his comments for this story.

What Happens if DOJ Stops Defending Silencer Regs?

Now that Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled the Justice Department is re-evaluating its stance that silencers aren’t “firearms” protected by the Second Amendment, what happens if the DOJ reverses course and suddenly declines to defend their inclusion in the National Firearms Act?

We wouldn’t suddenly see suppressors available for sale with a simple NICS check, unfortunately. That would require changing the NFA itself, which in turn would require congressional approval. The House may very well give its approval to the SHUSH Act, but it’s gonna be tough to get 60 senators on board with the change. So what impact would a DOJ reversal have in practical terms?

The NFA has been a flashpoint for advocates, who say that silencers are not frequently used in crime and believe that the silencers and other weapons regulated under the law, including machine guns and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, are protected by the Second Amendment. A decision by the Justice Department not to defend the law may, however, make it harder for gun rights groups to challenge the law at the Supreme Court.

“If Trump administration decides not to prosecute people under for illegal silencer possession while in office, that’s a good short-term win, that’s what a lot of gun rights activists will want,” said Stephen Gutowski, a gun safety instructor and founder of The Reload.

However, Gutowski added that if Democrats regain the White House in four years, “They can just reverse the policies and go back and start prosecuting people again, because the law was never found unconstitutional or invalid.”

If the Trump administration just decides not to enforce the NFA regulations surrounding suppressors, I don’t think that would actually be much of a win for gun owners, though it might provide some short term benefit for suppressor buyers and the companies that make them. What would stop the next Democratic administration from zealously prosecuting those companies or anyone who purchased/possesses a suppressor not registered or taxed under the NFA?

The best option may be for the Trump administration to decline to defend the current statute and not raising any objections to anti-gun AGs intervening as defendants in ongoing litigation. Then the full weight of the DOJ could be directed to side with the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, while allowing the cases to continue to make their way to SCOTUS.

Gun safety groups, for their part, say that silencers put people at risk by make a mass shooting harder to hear and contend that because silencers reduce the recoil when a gun is fired, it could make it easier for a gunman with a semiautomatic to shoot with fewer interruptions.

“Silencers in the wrong hands create serious public safety risks,” Everytown for Gun Safety writes on their website. “The loud and distinctive noise that a gun makes is one of its most important safety features: when people hear it, they realize they may need to run, hide, or protect others.”

The group also raises concerns that removing silencers from the NFA would allow them to be purchased without a background check.

Frankly, if suppressors aren’t “firearms” as the DOJ (and at least one federal court contends), then they arguably shouldn’t be included in the National Firearms Act as a restricted firearm. And yes, their removal from the NFA could allow their purchase without a background check, but if they’re merely an accessory then so what? What other firearm accessory requires a background check of any kind, much less a detailed check and an extra $200 tax?

Of course, whether there are five justices on the Supreme Court at the moment who are ready to remove suppressors from the NFA is very much an open question, especially after Wednesday’s 7-2 decision upholding the ATF’s rule treating unfinished frames and receivers as completed firearms. The bottom line is even if the Trump administration is on board with the idea, deregulating suppressors is going to be a challenge, whether it’s through the legislative or judicial branches.

Chavez v. Bonta. California’s 18-20 year old ban on buying semiauto centerfire rifles is upheld

This is ‘merely’ in the District Court; as it were, Act 1 in the play. The Firearms Policy Center will almost undoubtedly appeal and from the 9th Circus historical record we know how that will ultimately turn out, so in a few years, we may see it appealed to SCOTUS.

The judge cites that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the restriction on retail sales, meaningfully constrained the 18-20 year old Californians’ right to acquire firearms. The judge says that there are other routes e.g. private sales, gifts etc. BUT, this is ‘interest balancing‘, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional and repeated that several times.

If you want a productive society that extends beyond, say, next week, you teach your kids about hard work and creativity and personal responsibility, respect for authority, but if you want to destroy a society, you funnel a ton of garbage to kids about gender, ideology and twerking.
– Tucker Carlson

You Want to Win a War? This Is How You Win a War

There’s more good news out of the Middle East, I’m happy to report. On the heels of yesterday’s news that the Israeli Defense Force was doing an admirable and rapid job of eliminating Hamas leadership in an explosive game of Whack-a-Mole, today we learn that the Gazans themselves finally show signs of turning against their terrorist government.

We saw tiny signs of this in the awful weeks after the Oct. 7, 2023, terror invasion that kicked off the Israel-Hamas War, such as the old Gazan woman who accused Hamas of stealing humanitarian aid meant for the people. “Everything goes to [Hamas] houses,” she complained. “They take it; let them take me, shoot me, or do whatever they want with me.”

But Tuesday saw a rare mass protest against Hamas.

Even the mayor of Beit Lahia, Gaza, got in on the action.

If Hamas finds him, I suspect he won’t die well.

Why the mainstream media chooses not to air clips like these is anyone’s guess, but anyone’s most cynical and accusatory guess is probably the correct one.

None of this is perfect, of course. “Why aren’t they chanting to release the hostages then?” one critic wondered. Then there’s Iran, the official sponsor of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. Until Iran is put back in the box President Donald Trump had them in during his first term, the terrorist kudzu will grow back.

But turning the population against the people who started the war is how you end a war, and Israel’s renewed offensive — the IDF’s WWII-style rubble-ization of the Gaza Strip — might be doing just that.

Continue reading “”

Youngkin Vetos Gun Bills

Gov. Glenn Youngkin isn’t the most outspoken of governors. He just quietly does what he does in Virginia, even with a hostile legislature that seems determined to make the Old Dominion State one of the most anti-gun in the nation.

In fact, they sent a pile of gun control bills to him, which would be bad news for Virginia residents like our dear, old Cam Edwards.

But, well, it seems that he wasn’t interested in playing along.

Northern Virginia legislators are decrying Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s recent veto of a bill to keep firearms from the homes of domestic abusers.

Youngkin vetoed 157 bills on Monday (March 24), including Sen. Barbara Favola’s (D-40) Senate Bill 744 and Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker’s House Bill 1960 — identical pieces of legislation that amend existing Virginia law by removing firearms from the hands of convicted domestic abusers.

“Guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination and these deaths are preventable,” Bennett-Parker said in a statement. “These bills were a common-sense fix to ensure that illegal guns stay out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers. I’m incredibly frustrated that the Governor vetoed our ability to protect women who are dying at the hands of their abusers through better enforcement of our existing laws. The Governor has made Virginia less safe for women and families.”

Youngkin has vetoed the measure for the second year in a row, and Bennett-Parker and Favola’s statements mirror their reactions to last year’s veto.

They should get used to disappointment.

However, this wasn’t the only anti-gun bill in and amongst those 157 items. Neary two dozen more got the veto treatment, according to a press release from the NRA:

Yesterday, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin reaffirmed his support for the rights of law-abiding gun owners by vetoing two dozen bills that would have trampled on the Second Amendment freedoms of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Similar to last session, Governor Youngkin disposed of egregious legislation that would have emboldened criminals and left peaceable Virginians defenseless.

“On behalf of Virginia’s NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, I want to thank Governor Youngkin for standing strong in his support for the Second Amendment by vetoing the litany of gun control bills pushed through the General Assembly this year,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “For the second year in a row, gun control activists tried to enact dozens of radical, California-style laws that would have severely restricted the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in the Commonwealth. The NRA applauds Governor Youngkin for upholding his promise to protect our Constitutional freedoms.”

The bills vetoed by Governor Youngkin came from the long wish list of radical gun control activists. This included attempts to restrict the Constitutional rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults, dramatically expand gun-free zones that would have left law-abiding Virginians defenseless and enact a mandatory waiting period to take possession of a legally purchased firearm. In addition, the vetoed legislation would have banned a wide range of commonly owned firearms used by Virginians to hunt, compete and for self-defense.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Virginia has off-year elections. In fact, they go to the polls this fall to elect a new governor and vote on the legislature, among other offices. Youngkin can’t run for re-election because Virginia has a law where governors can’t serve consecutive terms.

And based on the 2024 election, where Kamala Harris took the state by over five points, it doesn’t look like a red wave is likely this year.

But much of the anti-gun lean in the state comes from Northern Virginia, where many federal bureaucracy employees live. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know what DOGE is doing to the bureaucracy.

That might have some kind of impact on the election outcome, as many now unemployed federal workers may be relocating to less expensive communities throughout the nation.

Or, at a minimum, someplace where they can get a job.

However, gun rights proponents in the state should probably not count on that and mobilize now, back candidate who will support their gun rights, and do everything the can to mitigate the impact anti-gun groups will have on the upcoming election.

I won’t connect my dishwasher to your stupid cloud
March 24, 2025

Jeff Geerling:

This weekend I had to buy a new dishwasher because our old GE died.

I bought a Bosch 500 series because that’s what Consumer Reports recommended, and more importantly, I could find one in stock.

After my dad and I got it installed, I went to run a rinse cycle, only to find that that, along with features like delayed start and eco mode, require an app.

Bosch dishwasher Home Connect logo

Not only that, to use the app, you have to connect your dishwasher to WiFi, set up a cloud account in something called Home Connect, and then, and only then, can you start using all the features on the dishwasher.

Video

This blog post is a lightly-edited transcript of my latest YouTube video on Level 2 Jeff:

Continue reading “”

The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule.

During the Biden ‘administration’ ATF ruled that “80%” receivers were to be treated and regulated just like they were fully finished guns.

The were sued and it went all the way to SCOTUS.

Justices Alito and Thomas were the only ones to dissent. All the others agreed. Regard the fate of future decisions accordingly.

 

“The Real Motive of Liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead, they have two related goals–to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.”
– Thomas Sowell