Category: Bureaucraps

Not much different than when Clintoon was in office

Joe Biden Declares War on American Gun Dealers

While the world’s attention is focused on the horrific events unfolding in Eastern Europe, the Biden-Harris administration quietly unleashed hell on American gun dealers.

As the NRA first noted, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has started revoking licenses of gun dealers for the most minor of paperwork errors – errors that never led to license revocations until Biden took office.

The move was intended to bolster Biden’s politically motivated strategem, which he first announced June 23, 2021, that “rogue” gun dealers are responsible for skyrocketing crime rates in large cities that historically have been controlled by Democrats. The “epidemic of gun violence” wasn’t caused by weak prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable, or gangs or underfunded police departments or by any combination thereof, Biden claimed. It was all the fault of “rogue gun dealers.”

Back then, Biden said rogue dealers willfully transfer firearms to prohibited persons, fail to conduct background checks, falsify records and/or refuse to cooperate with an ATF tracing request or inspection.

This week, The Biden-Harris administration added four more criteria to the rogue list – all minor paperwork errors: failure to account for firearms, failure to document a gun buyer’s eligibility, failure to maintain records needed to comply with an ATF tracing request and failure to report multiple handgun sales.

Continue reading “”

National gun control groups band together to show they aren’t serious

Nearly four dozen gun control groups sent a letter giving President Joe Biden an ultimatum: Get on the move with more gun control or else.

“As we made clear in our 2020 letter, gun violence is not acceptable,” the letter states. “The administration can, and must, do more in 2022 … We implore your administration to use the authority of the office.”

Buried in the groups’ anti-Second Amendment screed was a broadside against the organization that regulates the firearm industry, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. They demanded the ATF sever ties with the firearm industry and, in doing so, proved how unserious they are about addressing the criminal misuse of firearms and keeping firearms away from people who shouldn’t have them.

Buried in the letter is a shocking reveal: The groups demand the White House “stop funding, partnering, or co-branding programs with the National Sports Shooting Foundation via the Department of Justice and other Federal Agencies” and “no longer should the ATF hold private briefing and training sessions at NSSF’s annual SHOT SHOW.”

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearm industry trade association, has long-standing partnerships with the Department of Justice and the ATF. These have led directly to safer communities through programs such as Don’t Lie for the Other Guy and Operation Secure Store, both part of the firearm industry’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities initiative, and Project ChildSafe, a component of the DOJ’s Project Safe Neighborhoods.

Continue reading “”

20? Where’s the other 30, Huh?

20 GOP Senators warn DOJ, ATF on “secret guidance”

Utah Sen. Mike Lee and 19 other Senate Republicans have fired off a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and acting ATF Director Marvin Richardson expressing their “grave concern” over what they call an “an abject disregard for the fundamental principles of due process and accountable governance”; internal documents not available to the general public that the agency is using as secret guidance to threaten law-abiding gun owners who are attempting to lawfully build suppressors or who possess certain triggers.

We recently reported on the mass denials of gun owners who’ve applied with the ATF to build their own suppressors, only to be informed that the agency considers parts used to construct a silencer as suppressors themselves, which must be registered under the NFA. The letter from Lee and his Republican colleagues ties in that recent development with other agency actions that have targeted owners of forced reset triggers as well.

In the letters, the ATF claims–without offering any explanation as to why–that popular item known as “solvent traps” and “forced reset triggers” (FRT) are unregistered silencers and machine guns, respectively, and therefore subject to regulation under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26, U.S.C. §§5801-5872.

The ATF’s actions go far beyond these warning letters, according to the senators’ communication with Garland and Richardson. Lee and his colleagues also say that secret internal guidance has recently come to their attention; documents that are designed “‘to assist ATF personnel tasked with differentiating so-called ‘solvent-traps’ from firearm silencers’ and to assist ‘with identifying certain machine gun conversion devices commonly referred to as’ FRTs.’”

These documents contain summaries of the standards that the Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division purportedly uses to classify items. Disturbingly, ATF made these documents available only to those tasked with enforcing the law, rather than those who strive to comply with it. Indeed, ATF marked these documents as “Law Enforcement Sensitive” to conceal them from the firearms industry and the American public.

We find the ATF’s attempt to conceal its interpretations of the law disturbing. In a free society, “Every citizen is presumed to know the law.” Thus, as the Supreme Court has said, “‘it needs no argument to show that all should have free access’ to [the law’s] contents,” including, in addition to the text of a statute, to those materials which constitute “the authentic exposition and interpretation of the law.

Our government, including the ATF, has a duty to inform Americans what they must do to comply with federal law, especially when the conduct involves the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right and violations could result in a penalty of up to ten years in prison. The use of “secret” law is anathema to our system of government. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said, “[a] designation by an unnamed official, using unspecified criteria, that is put in a desk drawer, taken out only for use at a criminal trial, and immune from any evaluation by the judiciary, is the sort of tactic usually associated with totalitarian régimes.” Yet, that is exactly what the ATF has done in this and other cases

The GOP senators are now demanding that Garland and Richardson turn over all internal instructions, guidance, and directives regarding solvent traps and forced reset triggers, along with an explanation about why the public hasn’t been informed of these details, by March 25th. Whether or not the Biden administration will actually do so is anyone’s guess, but I’m glad to see that this issue is at least on the radar of the following senators:

Mike Lee(R-UT),James Risch(R-ID),Thom Tillis(R-NC),Rick Scott(R-FL),Cynthia Lummis(R-WY), Mike Braun(R-IN),Cindy Hyde-Smith(R-MS),Marsha Blackburn(R-TN), James Lankford(R-OK), Kevin Cramer(R-ND), John Boozman(R-AR),Bill Hagerty(R-TN), Lindsey Graham(R-SC), John Hoeven(R-ND), John Barrasso(R-WY), Mike Crapo(R-ID), Chuck Grassley(R-IA), Ben Sasse(R-NE), Tim Scott(R-SC), Ted Cruz(R-FL)

ATF has a new Catch-22 requirement for home-built silencers

The Biden administration is expected to roll out a news ATF rules on home-built firearms and stabilizing braces for pistols at some point in the next couple of months, but ahead of those new regulations officially taking effect it looks like the agency has also changed its policy on home-built suppressors.

Late last month, the ATF rejected approximately 850 applications from gun owners looking to legally make their own suppressors, and according to NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, the agency’s new interpretation of an existing regulation has created a Catch-22 for gun owners who are trying to comply with federal law.

Under federal law, firearm suppressors, called firearm silencers or firearm mufflers in federal statute, are treated legally the same as other firearms and subject to the registration and taxation requirements of the NFA.

The recent change in policy stems from ATF’s interpretation of the definition of “firearm silencer or firearm muffler” which is “any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.”

In this case, ATF is specifically concerned with a “combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler . . . .” According to ATF, companies who are selling products that can be used for the assembly or fabrication of a silencer must treat those products as if they are already silencer. The company would need to be a licensed manufacturer, pay a special tax, and the product would need to be transferred on ATF’s Form 4 application, rather than being registered via a Form 1 by the person who intends to use the parts in assembling a functional silencer.

Beyond the equitable issues of denying applicants who in good faith attempted to comply with ATF’s long-time application of federal law, this new interpretation has serious logical problems. If ATF now considers any parts that are intended to be assembled into a silencer as if they are already legally a silencer, then completing a Form 1 for a silencer is now impossible. When an applicant completes a Form 1, they are evidencing an intent to assemble or fabricate a silencer. Any part used in that process would seemingly already be a silencer under ATF’s new twisted reading of the definition.

As the NRA notes, the ATF is asking applicants for detailed information about the parts they plan on using to build their suppressor, which could be legally problematic given that the agency is now considering silencer components as silencers themselves.

It also sounds like an easy fix is going to be hard to find, with the NRA saying its “working with pro-gun members of Congress to push back on ATF’s newest overreach” without mentioning any plans for a potential lawsuit. With Democrats in control of both chambers, pushing back on this overreach isn’t likely to bear fruit until next year at best, and that’s only if Republicans take control of the House and Senate.

The Biden administration has been criticized by some gun control activists for not doing enough on their issue, and it could very well be that the White House decided to throw them a bone by directly targeting those gun owners who want to comply with federal law. It won’t do a thing to reduce violence, and it could very easily turn law-abiding gun owners into paperwork criminals through no fault or ill intent of their own, but that’s a feature and not a bug for the gun prohibitionists.

We’ll have more on this situation in the coming days, but for now I’d urge gun owners hoping to legally and lawfully build their own suppressor to be very cautious now that the ATF has changed its rules. As idiotic as the new interpretation is, the agency can still use it to make life hell for applicants, and that’s exactly what Joe Biden’s allies in the gun control lobby are rooting for.

When GCA ’68 was amended in 1986, a federal registry was banned. If ATF is already violating the spirit, if not the black letter of the ban, why does anyone think a new ‘only more so’ will make a difference, but anyway, even if it is nothing much more than a political statement (as it stands no chance of even being passed by Congress, much less signed into law by SloJoe, it is a right thing to do.

Gosar Introduces Legislation to Prevent the Federal Government from Creating Gun Lists

Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-04) issued the following statement after introducing the No Gun Lists Act, legislation endorsed by Gun Owners of America.

“In its latest attempt to keep track of all law-abiding gun-owners and implement its unconstitutional gun control agenda, the Biden administration has ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) create a gun owner database of almost a billion searchable records, prohibited by current federal law.  In just the past year, the ATF has stockpiled the records of over 54 million legal gun owners according to a  troubling document first reported by the Washington Free Beacon.

The ATF is violating existing federal law regarding record keeping and there is concern that passing another law prohibiting record keeping will not stop the ATF.  My No Gun Lists Act would require the ATF to immediately eliminate their illegal firearm record repository system, prohibit the relisting of records, and allow gun owners to sue the ATF for damages and injunctive relief,” said Congressman Paul Gosar.

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affair, Gun Owners of America (GOA) added “Rogue bureaucrats who assist in the infringement of the People’s Second Amendment rights to create a gun registry don’t deserve special protections, they deserve to be punished. Congress has no business whatsoever maintaining its gun and gun owner registry. GOA thanks Rep. Gosar for this strong legislation.”

Background:

Current Federal law requires gun purchases from dealers to fill out form 4473, which are stored by dealers for 20 years thereby preventing the ATF from accessing the information in the future.  18 USC § 923(g)(4) requires out of business dealers to provide Out of Business Records (OBRs) to the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C § 926 prohibits the ATF from creating and/or maintaining a firearm registry. The Biden administration is moving to alter current laws to ensure that gun records are transferred and stored in perpetuity to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the federal government. ATF is using the OBRs to create and maintain a firearm registry of almost a billion records with their Enterprise Content Management Imaging Repository System.

The No Gun Lists Act requires the immediate elimination of the Enterprise Content Management Imaging Repository System, which allows ATF to maintain a searchable gun owner information database of almost a billion records. Additionally, the No Gun Lists Act creates a private right of action that allows gun owners to sue the ATF.

Click here to read the legislation.

Biden’s New Rule On 80% Unfinished Firearms Expected In April 2022

WASHINGTON, D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- According to a New York Times report, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) new rule on unfinished firearms frames &  receivers will be out in early April 2022.

The Biden administration is looking for a victory, and so-called “ghost guns” seem to be where the President thinks he can get a win.

The administration has faced all-time record-low approval ratings from the American public in the wake of several high-profile blunders. The disastrous pull out of troops in Afghanistan started Biden’s slide in popularity.

COVID-19 restrictions also saw the President taking a loss when the courts ruled his vaccine requirements for American companies unconstitutional. His policies on COVID payouts caused a labor shortage in the US, which led to empty shelves in many stores. Many small businesses shut down because they could not outbid the federal government, which paid people to sit home and do nothing.

Gas prices are over $4 a gallon and headed to an unheard of $5.00. Inflation has been out of control and rising to levels not seen since Jimmy Carter’s presidency. The President has refused to approve drilling permits to make the country energy independent, bending a knee to OPEC to help the energy crisis and now banning Russian gas imports. He is worried that he will upset the same far left-wing advocates that want to ban unfinished frames and receivers by approving new drilling permits.

Last April, President Biden announced that he was ordering the ATF to act against unfinished frames and receivers in addition to pistol stabilizing devices. The ATF wrote up new regulations and submitted them to the National Registry for a public comment period. Over 300,000 Americans submitted comments on the topic. Most of the comments opposed the rule change.

Continue reading “”

Federal Government Spent $2.1 Million to ‘Root’ Out Oppression in Plant Sciences

The federal government allocated $2.14 million to “root” out alleged oppression in… plant sciences.

The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences recently awarded $2.14 million to the American Society of Plant Biologists for the development of a multi-organization research coordination network called ROOT and SHOOT,” The College Fix reported. “ROOT stands for Rooting Out Oppression Together. And SHOOT? SHaring Our Outcomes Transparently.”

An abstract for the award stated that the “demographic distribution of scientists, especially those in positions of authority, does not reflect that of the US population.”

“Some of the causes of this disparity are known, such as a lack of role models and the tendency for people to look within their own circles when they recruit, appoint, and promote. This award will provide resources, trainings, opportunities, and structures that will allow participating plant science and affiliated organizations to change that construct,” the abstract added, according to the Fix.

The award came after the National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences (NSF BIO) released a Dear Colleague letter last year encouraging “professional societies to submit proposals to develop collaborative networks for facilitating cultural changes in the biological sciences to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

The letter also stated that the NSF BIO “recognizes culture change in the biological sciences as an urgent priority and is committed to supporting efforts that use evidence-based practices to remove barriers for individuals historically excluded from science.”

The letter called for organizations to submit proposals that “build networks to generate the changes needed to broaden participation within academic and professional spheres of the biological sciences.”

As the Fix noted, the letter did not provide any details examples about how biological sciences create or maintain barriers for minorities, nor did it provide details about how focusing on diversity, equity, and inclusion – rather than, say, merit – benefits science.

The Fix also reported that Mary Williams, principle investigator for the ROOT program, announced the grant award in a blog post, calling the program “bold,” “radical,” and “innovative.

“[T]ogether we will get to the root of the systematic oppressions that lie within our organizations, so that they can regrow as truly inclusive spaces,” she wrote.

She added:

Our objectives are to 1) make a Bold Start by establishing an inclusive operational path for the RCN [research coordination network], and immediately addressing known climate and cultural deficiencies together; 2) to Dig Deeper by developing and implementing tools for self-assessments of community cultures and structures, and 3) to Reach for the Sky by identifying areas for equity action, and designing, implementing, and assessing interventions.

A more detailed abstract for the ROOT and SHOOT program on the NSF website says that the program will create and provide “web pages, guides, workshops, webinars, and action plans”  to increase diversity at scientific organizations.

The millions spent are unlikely to increase diversity, as past attempts at spending money in the area have failed. Google, for example, spent $265 million between 2014 and 2017 yet still had hiring discrepancies.

How Big Is This SCOTUS Case About EPA’s Svengali-Like Powers? Huge.

When Richard Nixon conceived of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to clean the nation’s air and water in 1970, he probably never imagined it would become the 800-pound gorilla of government. Yet, 52 years of mission-creep later, here we are. Now the Supreme Court will decide if unelected EPA bureaucrats have more power than Congress to dictate key elements of the U.S. economy.

The case of West Virginia v EPA pits the coal state, North Dakota, and several other Republican-dominated, energy-producing states against the Left Coast, Messed Coast states of California, Washington, and Oregon, along with several energy companies that have bought into the EPA’s Obama-era Clean Power Plan that requires states to cut power-plant emissions by 2030. That rule has never gone into effect due to a 2016 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2019, the Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and installed another policy, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule (ACE), that gave states more latitude in setting power plant and greenhouse gas standards. Indeed, under the Trump Administration policies and market forces, the original Clean Power Plan emissions standards were already being met.

But the deep state moved into action. SCOTUSblog relates that on Trump’s last full day in office, “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the repeal of the Clean Power Plan, vacated the ACE Rule, and sent the issue back to the EPA for additional proceedings.”

Now the fight over this power play is at the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the energy states, the lower court gave the EPA unchecked authority to dictate policy, subsuming what is supposed to be Congress’s power under the “major questions” and “non-delegation” policies.

Continue reading “”

Amazing how the pandemicpanic has so suddenly ended now that the ’22 election season is gearing up………..

The CDC Says Most Americans Can Take Their Masks Off
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky stressed that people could continue to wear masks if they wanted to.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are letting most Americans take their masks off for a little bit, as a treat.

On Friday, the public health agency released a new COVID Community Levels tool that measures the severity of the pandemic by COVID’s burden on the hospital system, rather than the number of cases. That change in measurement means the CDC is now classifying about 70 percent of counties in the country at low or medium threat of COVID. In those areas, the agency is no longer recommending people wear a mask indoors.

These new guidelines don’t change the requirements that people wear masks on well-ventilated airplanes or near-empty buses and subways. The agency is still also recommending that people, including school children in K-12 schools, wear masks indoors in the 30 percent of counties where the risk of COVID-19 is ranked as high.

The in-school masking recommendation is being lifted for school children in low- and medium-risk counties, however. That’s a change from CDC Director Rochelle Walensky’s comments from just last week. The director had said in a closed congressional hearing that she had no plans to change the agency’s recommendation that all school children continue to wear masks, according to reporting from Reason’s Robby Soave.

Walensky was careful to stress on a call with reporters today that people in low and medium-risk jurisdictions were still free to wear a mask if they wanted to.

“Anybody is certainly welcome to wear a mask at any time if they feel safer wearing a mask,” she said, as reported by the Associated Press.

That will certainly be comforting to those who weren’t sure if they could make a decision without the CDC’s explicit approval. For most people, however, the agency’s new guidance will do little more than ratify what they’ve already been doing.

Some 65 percent of the country has already had two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, enough to be “vaxxed and relaxed.” And those who haven’t been vaccinated were not likely to be the most fanatic followers of the CDC’s masking advice.

The practical upshot of the new guidelines is that they’ll give local government officials and school superintendents the permission and courage they need to stick to their planned repeal of mandatory masking or a much-needed nudge to get rid of those mandates that are still in place.

Today’s blacklisted American: 9-year-old boy denied kidney transplant because donor hasn’t gotten COVID jab.

They’re coming for you next: A nine-year-old boy has been denied a kidney transplant by his hospital because his donor, who also happens to be his father, has not gotten any COVID shots.

Nine-year-old Tanner Donaldson suffers from stage 5 chronic kidney disease and urgently needs a kidney transplant. Miraculously, his father, Dane, is a perfect match to donate one of his kidneys. In early 2018, Cleveland Children’s Hospital approved the transplant. Shockingly, however, the hospital is now denying Tanner’s transplant following the execution of a “cruel, illogical, and unscientific” policy that demands the donor—but not Tanner—to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Both the father and the child have gotten and recovered from the Wuhan flu, and thus have natural immunity, which is one reason the father doesn’t want to get the jab. Furthermore, he considers the risks of the shot far outweigh its benefits. As the family’s lawyer noted in a letter to Jane Jankowski, Interim Director of the Cleveland Clinic Center for Bioethics that made the decision blocking the transplant operation:

CDC’s Director, Dr. Walensky, has acknowledged that the COVID-19 vaccines do not “prevent transmission.” In contrast to this failure of the vaccines, as conceded by the CDC on Nov. 5, 2021, there has yet to be one documented case of a person who “(1) never received a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) was infected with COVID-19 once, recovered, and then later became infected again; and (3) transmitted SARS-CoV-2 to another person when reinfected.” In fact, several independent studies confirm that reinfections for COVID-19 are exceedingly rare and reaffirm the durability of natural immunity.

Moreover, there is ample evidence that getting a COVID shot carries real risk. In weighing these options, the father has chosen what he considers the safest option for himself, and his son.

Yet, the hospital would rather let the boy die from a failed kidney then permit him to get a new one from his father, just because the father didn’t get the jab and thus his kidney might somehow expose the boy indirectly to COVID.

This insane policy is of course standard operating procedure in the past two years. Too many so-called intellectuals, scientists, and medical officials have apparently become so wedded to government policy that they no longer can use their brains, in any way at all. The rules trump ever fact, every time, so much so that little children must be condemned to death if they or their parents do not obey.

The parents options apparently are limited. The hospital approved the transplant in 2017, and to get another hospital to take this case quickly is likely difficult, if not impossible.

Thus, a little boy will die because his doctors demand that everyone follow an irrational and somewhat harmful rule.

Joe Biden’s New Gun Control and How to Stop It

In the current political climate, it’s difficult to pass new federal gun control through Congress. But that hasn’t stopped the last two presidents from implementing new rules on firearms via executive fiat. Trump banned bump stocks with an executive order. Now, two EOs by Joe Biden set to go into effect this summer will impose additional federal gun control.

The first EO would require registration of “80 percent lowers.” These are basically unfinished firearm parts that you can use to build your own gun. Because 80 percent lowers fall outside of the FFL process, they effectively allow the private manufacture of unregistered rifles. Some people refer to them as “ghost guns.”

This EO is expected to be finalized in June.

The second executive order set to go into effect in August will place regulations on “pistol braces.” This device serves as a stabilizer that enables a shooter to fire a rifle with one hand. Pistol braces are popular with disabled people who can’t use both arms. But the feds claim they are a dangerous firearm accessory.

Under the executive order, pistol braces will fall under the National Firearms Act. This is the same law used to regulate machine guns, silencers, and short-barrelled rifles. The EO won’t ban pistol braces, but it will require anybody that has one to register it with the feds. This will come with a $200 tax, and it can take up to one year to complete the registration. In effect, it registers the gun with the federal government.

According to an op-ed by attorney John Werden, upwards of 40 million Americans own pistol braces. There is no grandfather clause under the order. In other words, when the EO goes into effect, all of those people will become felons if they don’t go through with the registration process.

NOW WHAT?

The federal government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate pistol braces or 80 percent lowers. There is no delegated power for registering firearms accessories or parts, and the Second Amendment slams the door on such federal action completely.

Even if you could strain this kind of regulatory power out of the Constitution, it would have to come from Congress. The president was never intended to be a lawmaker. These executive orders are unconstitutional.

It is clear constitutional scruples won’t stop this federal gun control – or any federal gun control that might come down the pike in the future. But state action can stop it dead in its tracks.

States can nullify these federal rules in practice and effect simply by refusing to participate in their enforcement and implementation. A piece of legislation known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act does just that.

The federal government relies heavily on state cooperation to implement and enforce almost all of its laws, regulations and acts – including gun control. By simply withdrawing this necessary cooperation, states and localities can nullify many federal actions in effect. As noted by the National Governors’ Association during the partial government shutdown of 2013, “states are partners with the federal government on most federal programs.”

Based on James Madison’s advice for states and individuals in Federalist #46, a “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” represents an extremely effective method to bring down federal gun control measures because most enforcement actions rely on help, support and leadership from state and local governments.

Fox News senior judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano agreed. In a televised discussion on the issue, he noted that a single state taking this step would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible” to enforce.

Continue reading “”

Observation O’ The Day

Never forget that while Russia was preparing for war, our intelligence and investigative services were concentrated in the “real” threat to the US: Parents standing up for their kids at school board meetings, anybody who is white, straight and not voting Democrat, and any POC who dared step outside the Liberal Plantation. —Miguel G.

The Civilian Disarmament Industry Wants Biden to Create a Ministry of Gun Violence

Because nothing solves a problem more quickly or efficiently than erecting a federal bureaucracy around it. Bonus: It’s a great way to funnel federal taxpayer dollars to “gun safety” orgs, researchers, “violence interruptors” and other civilian disarmament industrial complex grifters, too!

The office and its director would be responsible for coordinating a government-wide response to a worsening crisis. It would employ public health strategies, support and evaluate prevention programs, collect much-needed data, and hold other agencies accountable — with the ultimate goal of reducing shootings.

Creating such an office would be relatively easy. It could be accomplished by executive order, without congressional approval, and the idea is not a new one. Presidents — including Biden — have for decades created offices or other specialized units to tackle complex challenges. It’s become a common way for presidents to enact their will, with some clear advantages — as well as mixed results.

Establishing an office to tackle gun violence would mean that the federal government’s disparate groups and staffers devoted to the issue would be forced to collaborate, instead of tackling facets of it in isolation.

— Chip Brownlee in Advocates Say Biden Is Ignoring a Major Gun Violence Prevention Opportunity

Very quietly, 2 federal agencies are studying post-vaccination neurological issues

With no public announcements, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) both are studying neurological problems that have appeared in people after receiving the COVID vaccines.  In a scoop, Zachary Stieber of the Epoch Times has confirmed via emails that the studies are underway.  You can read the report un-paywalled (by special arrangement with the Epoch Times) here:

Two U.S. agencies have been quietly studying neurological problems that have appeared in people who have had COVID-19 vaccines, The Epoch Times has found.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) have been conducting separate research projects into post- vaccination neurological issues, which have manifested with symptoms like facial paralysis and brain fog and have been linked in some cases with the vaccines, according to emails reviewed by The Epoch Times.

One attempt to gain understanding of a problem that experts around the world are struggling to understand is being carried out by Dr. Janet Woodcock, who was acting commissioner of the FDA until Feb. 17.

Woodcock, now the FDA’s principal deputy director, has been personally evaluating neurologic side effects from the COVID-19 vaccines since at least Sept. 13, 2021, according to the emails, many of which have not been reported on previously. FDA epidemiologists are also gathering data to look into the issues, according to messages from Dr. Peter Marks, another top FDA official.

A team at the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), meanwhile, started seeing patients reporting vaccine injuries for a study in early 2021 after receiving complaints shortly after the vaccines were made available. A portion of the patients was examined in person at the Bethesda, Maryland, facility.

None of the reviews or studies appear to have been announced, and health officials have said little about them publicly, despite a growing recognition among experts that at least some issues are likely linked to the vaccines.

For further details on the study, read the whole thing.

The New York Times Makes A Stunning Admission About CDC Data On Vaccines

The New York Times made an eye-popping admission on Sunday regarding data collected by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) on Covid-19 vaccines.

In an article titled, “The C.D.C. Isn’t Publishing Large Portions of the Covid Data It Collects,” reporter Apoorva Mandavilli writes: “For more than a year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has collected data on hospitalizations for Covid-19 in the United States and broken it down by age, race and vaccination status. But it has not made most of the information public.”

Mandavilli, who covers science and global health for the Times, reported that the agency has published “only a tiny fraction of the data it has collected” since the pandemic began, including data on booster efficacy for 18 – 49 year-olds, a tremendous chunk of the U.S. population.

Reasons listed include bureaucracy, sample size, and not being “ready for prime time,” but one that’s definitely set to raise lots of eyebrows is the claim that the data could be “misinterpreted” by Covid vaccine skeptics.

From the report:

Last year, the agency repeatedly came under fire for not tracking so-called breakthrough infections in vaccinated Americans, and focusing only on individuals who became ill enough to be hospitalized or die. The agency presented that information as risk comparisons with unvaccinated adults, rather than provide timely snapshots of hospitalized patients stratified by age, sex, race and vaccination status.

But the C.D.C. has been routinely collecting information since the Covid vaccines were first rolled out last year, according to a federal official familiar with the effort. The agency has been reluctant to make those figures public, the official said, because they might be misinterpreted as the vaccines being ineffective.

Instead, health experts have been forced to rely on data from Israel and elsewhere to make decisions, the Times reported.

Biden administration sues Missouri over controversial gun-rights bills

The Biden administration is suing Missouri over its controversial gun-rights bills passed last year, which would allow citizens to sue state or federal agencies for $50,000 if they prove their Second Amendment rights were violated.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland announced the lawsuit Wednesday, saying House Bill 85 violates the “Supremacy Clause, is preempted by federal law and violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity.”

The Justice Department (DOJ) states in the lawsuit the law hurts cooperation between federal, state and local law enforcement.

“The penalties associated with H.B. 85 have prompted state and local agencies and individuals within those entities to withdraw support for federal law enforcement efforts, including by not sharing critical data used to solve violent crimes and withdrawing from joint federal task forces,” the department wrote.

The DOJ also alleges federal authorities in the state have complained of difficulties in enforcing federal gun laws due to the law, as it effectively declares federal laws “invalid.”

“This act impedes criminal law enforcement operations in Missouri,” Garland wrote. “The United States will work to ensure that our state and local law enforcement partners are not penalized for doing their jobs to keep our communities safe.”

The Biden administration has opposed the law since its signing in 2021, with the DOJ telling a court the law was unconstitutional last August.

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt released a statement after the department’s announcement defending the law.

“After their disastrous arguments in the Missouri Supreme Court last week, the Biden Department of Justice has now filed yet another partisan lawsuit that seeks to attack Missourians’ Second Amendment rights,” Schmitt said.

“My Office has fought to continue the initiative, but this initiative has been suspended solely because of the Biden Administration’s actions. Time and again, the Biden Administration has put partisan politics ahead of public safety. Make no mistake, the law is on our side in this case, and I intend to beat the Biden Administration in court once again,” he added.

The New York Times reports the bill has seen opposition from law enforcement officers across the political spectrum, with Republican Gov. Mike Parson saying those concerns should be addressed in the legislation.