NAILED IT! The FBI DID Send Hundreds of Undercover Assets Into the J6 Protest!

Yet another victory for the tinfoil hat, “conspiracy theory” crew: the FBI sent 274 “plainclothes” agents into the crowd of people protesting in and near the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, according to Just the News.

And many of those agents are not happy about how it all went down, not to mention the bureau’s liberal bias.

FACT-O-RAMA! When the House Judiciary Committee asked him if the FBI had undercover assets involved in the January 6 protest, then-FBI director Christopher Wray testified that such an idea is “ludicrous.” Maybe he and James Comey can enjoy a little yard time together.

An FBI after-action report that Kash Patel’s office recently discovered not only reveals that the agency sent 274 agents and personnel into the January 6 fracas but also how poorly planned and executed the plan was. The report also reveals that many rank-and-file FBI agents complained that they felt as though they were “pawns in a political war.” Others suggested that the FBI was too “woke.”

After the January 6 melee, dozens of FBI agents and officials lodged anonymous complaints to the bureau, outlining how the bureau sent them into a dangerous situation without safety gear or a proper way to identify themselves as armed federal agents to other law enforcement officers.

The most common complaint from the agents was the left-leaning political bias of the bureau and how the BLM rioters of 2020 received far better treatment than the January 6 protestors.

Some of the complaints were scathing. One of the bureau’s damning complaints read:

The FBI should make clear to its personnel and the public that, despite its obvious political bias, it ultimately still takes its mission and priorities seriously. It should equally and aggressively investigate criminal activity regardless of the offenders’ perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations; and it should equally and aggressively protect all Americans regardless of perceived race, political affiliations, or motivations.

That same agent also asked the FBI “to identify viable exit options for FBI personnel who no longer feel it is legally or morally acceptable to support a federal law enforcement and intelligence agency motivated by political bias.”

Another agent pulled no punches and suggested that the problem of political bias wasn’t just an FBI problem but that it extended to the Office of the U.S. Attorney:

Currently, the US Attorney’s office is dictating what it is that gets investigated. This is a dangerous precedent because we can barely get them to prosecute investigations that clearly meet thresholds needed for Federal prosecutions,” the agent wrote. “However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

Many agents focused their ire on the “wokeness” of the Washington Field Office (WFO), with one writing, “WFO is a hopelessly broken office that’s more concerned about wearing masks and recruiting preferred racial/sexual groups than catching actual bad guys.”

Yet another agent lowered the boom and spoke directly about the FBI’s treatment of January 6 suspects:

However, their willingness to conduct a search warrant on someone’s life for a misdemeanor seems ridiculous. It is unreasonable for the FBI to conduct investigations involving misdemeanor violations at a federal level… it is not our role.

 

FACT-O-RAMA! A vast majority of J6 defendants were charged with four misdemeanors, one of which involved trespassing. Most were not sentenced to serve time in jail.

This bombshell after-action report discovery comes hot on the heels of the arrest of former FBI Director Comey, who faces charges of lying and obstruction.

Had enough yet?

This commie group, along with the Socialist Rifle Association and ANTIFA are the domestic enemies we need to ‘Find and Fix’ for when it comes time to TCOB, so work on your local intelligence operations

John Brown Gun Club Invokes Kirk Assassin’s Message on Campus Flier

The John Brown Gun Club is a leftist gun organization that is, basically, an armed militia. The existence of such an organization, even if they disagree with me on countless issues, isn’t troubling in and of itself. People have a right to keep and bear arms, and they have a right to associate with whoever they wish. That includes a gun club with some sketchy ideology.

What’s not cool is making threatening moves, statements, or anything else.

Whether it’s criminal or not might be another matter, but what the group just did crosses at least some lines with me. You can’t just invoke a message from an assassin and not invoke serious concern.

Since Charlie Kirk’s assassination on September 10, the left has been scrambling to control the narrative, insisting that political violence is a uniquely right-wing problem. But the disturbing reality is that the most recent eruptions of extremism are coming from their side of the aisle, thanks to rhetoric that Democratic leaders and their ideological allies still openly encourage.

This week’s incident at Georgetown University is a stark example. Students at one of the nation’s elite campuses discovered bright red flyers plastered across bulletin boards, distributed by the John Brown Gun Club, a self-described far-left militia with a history of violent activity.

These weren’t harmless announcements about progressive bake sales or climate marches. The flyers featured the chilling words, “Hey fascist! Catch!” the exact phrase investigators say Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk during a Turning Point USA event in Utah, scrawled on a shell casing. Even more disturbing, the flyer boasted that the group is “the only political group that celebrates when Nazis die,” before urging students to scan a QR code to join its cause and “make a real change” through aggressive activism instead of “ceremonial resistance.”

This rightly alarmed conservatives on campus. “So obviously I read this immediately as a threat, not only for me but for everyone on this campus,” Shae McInnis, a Georgetown sophomore and College Republicans treasurer, told Fox News Digital. And who can blame him?

The flyer’s message was unmistakable: violence is not only permissible but worth celebrating if you belong to the wrong political camp. We’ve been saying all along that when Democrats use rhetoric dehumanizing people on the right, it makes people on the left feel morally obligated to use violence against them.

Now, the problem here is what constitutes “aggressive activism.”

If it’s marches and protests every day of the week, that might be annoying, but it’s protected speech. The inclusion of the phrase “Hey fascist! Catch!” suggests something very different.

That’s not activism. That’s crossing a line.

No, it might not be an overt threat–or, at least, not enough of one for a DA to consider prosecuting anyone–but the message is clear. They not only approve of what Tyler Robinson actually did, but also want folks to believe they’re willing to emulate it. That is a threat, no matter how you slice it.

I’ve long stated I’ll stand with almost anyone who will defend gun rights. That includes John Brown Gun Club members.

Or, more accurately, it did.

I want nothing at all to do with people who use these kinds of threats to try and affect political change. I don’t want to be associated, even at a distance, with an organization that seeks to recruit people with methods like this. Especially since they either need to deliver on the promises of that particular kind of “aggressive activism” or those who signed on for it will go it alone, only now they’ll have others who think that’s a good idea.

At a time when we need to ramp down the tensions, this isn’t going to come to a good end.

As almost always, the expense of the process was the punishment.

Second Amendment Foundation declares ‘vindication’ as Attorney General ends investigation

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced this week that it has reached an agreement with the Washington State Attorney General’s Office. This concludes a three-year investigation that found no misconduct by SAF or its personnel.

As part of the settlement, SAF will withdraw its federal civil rights lawsuit against the Attorney General’s Office, former Attorney General Bob Ferguson, and other named defendants. This agreement includes the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) canceling its request for public records from the Washington Attorney General’s Office.

In return, the AG’s Consumer Protection will end its investigation into SAF and the other parties involved.

Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb stated the agreement represents a “vindication of our position that SAF, its partners and personnel did nothing wrong.”

Gottlieb says Ferguson’s investigation was political retaliation, not justice.
Gottlieb expressed his dissatisfaction with the investigation initiated by Bob Ferguson, describing it as an effort to “discredit our work on behalf of gun owners and the Second Amendment.”

“Ferguson’s witch hunt wasted three years of our time and cost us thousands of man hours and more than $200,000. We’re convinced this happened because he is a devoted anti-gun rights politician and we are a national organization whose mission is to protect and defend the Second Amendment,” he added.

All of SAF’s sister companies were targeted as well, including the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Merril Mail Marketing, the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, the Service Bureau Association, and Liberty Park Press, where Gottlieb currently serves as publisher.

Gottlieb expressed relief that the ordeal is over, though he added, “we’re not happy that Ferguson is not held responsible for the damage he did. It is our sincere hope that no future attorney general in Washington state will conduct a politically motivated attack under color of law against any non-profit organization with which he or she has a fundamental philosophical disagreement.”

As parts of the agreement, the Washington State Attorney General has decided not to pursue any legal action stemming from the investigation.

This outcome comes as no surprise to Gottlieb, “since they couldn’t find any wrongdoing.”

If you do this and your vehicle doesn’t have an actual safe, or vault, you’re what’s termed a ‘Loot Drop’

Las Cruces police urge residents to stop leaving guns in unattended cars

LAS CRUCES, New Mexico (KVIA) — The Las Cruces Police Department is asking gun owners to stop leaving firearms in cars. The department says 75% of stolen firearms in Las Cruces since 2022 have been taken during automobile burglaries.

“Of the 578 firearms reported stolen between Jan. 1, 2022, and Sept. 24, 2025, 429 were taken from the gunowner’s vehicle,” a department spokesperson explained. 143 were stolen from houses.

“The increased number of firearms stolen from vehicles is a trend that’s been seen nationally.”

Police recommend that residents remove firearms, ammunition, magazines, and accessories from unattended cars. They also recommend you roll up your windows and lock the doors, remove guns before loaning a car to a friend or leaving it at a repair shop, and stop showing casual acquaintances and strangers your guns.

The Federal Trade Commission Takes On the 2nd Amendment

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) recently sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Andrew Ferguson requesting the FTC investigate whether the Biden Administration’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention worked with anti-Second Amendment organizations to demand that the agency crack down on “deceptive and misleading claims” made by gun manufacturers. These efforts were supported by a group of anti-Second Amendment senators who wrote to then-FTC Chair Lina Khan asking her to investigate the gun industry’s advertising practices.

The senators’ letter accused the gun industry of marketing to children because their ads referenced popular “first person shooter video games” like Call of Duty. The problem with this claim is that the majority of gamers are over 18—making it perfectly legal for the firearms industry to market their products to them. The letter also suggests that the gun industry is engaging in “deceptive” advertising by focusing on how firearm ownership can help law-abiding citizens protect themselves, their families, and their property. Once again, the senators’ claims do not fit the facts.

Gun owners use firearms in self-defense between 60,000 and 2,500,000 times per year, and private citizens are 85% more likely to use a gun for self-defense than to be killed by a firearm. It is not misleading to say that firearms can be a useful tool for self-defense. Sadly, it is also true that there are around 526 accidental gun deaths per year, as well as over 40,000 people wounded due to the careless use of firearms. However, the solution is not to restrict firearm advertising—but to promote responsible gun ownership. The gun industry, along with other pro-Second Amendment organizations, does engage in plenty of work in this area.

As weak as the arguments for restricting firearms advertising are, the main argument against such restrictions is that they violate the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedent establishes that commercial speech like advertising is protected by the First Amendment, although at a lower level than political or religious speech. Even under this lower standard of review, banning or otherwise restricting advertisements for firearms would likely be struck down by the courts.

But while a future gun-grabbing FTC Chair may not be able to directly restrict gun advertising, they may try to ban gun ads through the back door. One way to do this would be to condition approval of mergers and acquisitions of media companies—including social media companies—on an agreement to not promote “dangerous” products such as firearms. If this sounds familiar it is because it is the approach of current FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson. Ferguson has conditioned approval of advertising firm Omnicom’s acquisition of fellow advertising company Interpublic on the firms agreeing not to restrict web ad placements based on the sites’ political content. Is it too hard to imagine a future progressive FTC conditioning a similar merger on a company’s agreement to not place ads on sites that promote products dangerous to public health, such as firearms?

Government agencies may not even have to directly threaten to deny approval of a merger or acquisition to get a company to disregard the Second Amendment rights of their consumers. For example, before winning approval of their purchase by Skydance, Paramount—who owns CBS—settled a lawsuit brought by President Trump alleging that 60 Minutes edited their interview with then-Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her appear more knowledgable and coherent. President Trump claims this was done to make the Vice President more appealing to voters, and thus constituted election interference.

A long time 60 Minutes producer resigned earlier this year, saying the network was interfering with the program’s editorial decisions to moderate criticisms of President Trump. While FCC Chair Brandon Carr did not explicitly demand these actions, his rhetoric about broadcasters being required to act in the “public interest”, and his threats to block the Paramount-Skydance deal, no doubt played a role in Paramount’s actions.

It is easy to imagine a progressive FTC or FCC Chair using this precedent to forbid a news program, podcast, or even entertainment program from including content considered pro-gun. Fortunately, the pro-Second Amendment movement is fighting any attempt to use spurious claims of “false and deceptive” advertising to infringe on the Second Amendment. According to Eric Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, his group “is leading the charge to unravel many of Biden’s unconstitutional restrictions in the courts, and we applaud President Trump for working to roll back other abuses—because the Second Amendment isn’t a bargaining chip, it’s the cornerstone of every American’s freedom.”

Appeal Brief Filed in Knife Rights’ Second Amendment Federal Switchblade Act Lawsuit

Knife Rights and its fellow appellants have filed their Appeal Brief in our Federal Second Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Switchblade Act.

Download the Opening Brief

Download the Full Excerpts (159MB)

The essence of the case is that the Supreme Court has made clear that the “Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms…” Further, in Heller, the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and that weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” are within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Despite this, the Federal Switchblade Act broadly restricts, or outright bans in over one-third of the U.S., a huge category of such bearable arms that are in common use, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

The District Court ignored its commands from the Supreme Court with another absurd stretch to avoid ruling in favor of the Second Amendment.We are asking the Appeals Court to reverse this ridiculous decision.

We also hope that with the Department of Justice’s recent amicus briefs in the 7th and 3rd Circuits opposing bans on AR-style rifles (“assault weapons”) and magazines-more-than-10 round capacity as “flagrantly violat[ing] the Second Amendment,” that they will revisit their irrational opposition in our case and stipulate, like in these others, that switchblades are commonly possessed arms under the Second Amendment and that the Federal Switchblade Act (excepting the import ban) also flagrantly violates the Second Amendment.

Knife Rights’ Attorney John Dillon said, “this is a very strong appeal from a district court decision that has no legitimate legal support. There is no question that switchblades are “arms” under every conceivable definition of the term. Because the FSA clearly prohibits the manufacture, transportation, and purchase of these arms in all interstate commerce, as well as possession of switchblades on all federal lands and Indian Country, Heller and Bruen demand that the government bear the burden of justifying the FSA’s prohibitions. The government has entirely failed to meet this burden, and we will prove that on appeal.”

Since 2010 Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 58 bills & court decisions repealing knife bans & protecting knife owners in 36 states and over 200 cities and towns! Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™.

The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment

Taking a person’s quote out of context is unfair and disingenuous. Doing so when that person is not present to defend themselves is truly heinous and cowardly. Such has been the case in the weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of all the misrepresentations and outright lies surrounding Charlie Kirk, his beliefs and actions, perhaps the most insidious is the one used to justify his murder. His quote circulating on social media goes as follows: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” The deliberately fallacious logic of the Left then concludes that by Kirk’s own words, he deserves to be one of those unfortunate casualties. They leave out, of course, the part where Kirk stresses that while the Second Amendment allows us to protect many of our God-given rights, this decision comes with an imperative to reduce gun violence.

Rather than waste time justifying the value of Charlie Kirk’s human life to the soulless who do not care to hear it, it is both in better service to the memory of Charlie Kirk and more edifying to focus on just why a full gun ban should not exist in the United States of America.

There are two common answers conservatives give in defense of the Second Amendment, and both are not only insufficient but fundamentally incorrect. The first and most useless is hunting. While in simple terms, the right to hunt animals is self-evident, guns for the sole purpose of hunting would logically exclude the necessity of semi-automatic weapons and AR-15s. As Joe Biden was wont to say, deer do not run around in Kevlar vests. Furthermore, the benefits of hunting are persuasively dismissed by a side that ostensibly argues for human lives. For the average American influenced by media narrative, it is unjustifiable to allow school shootings in order to allow middle-aged men wearing camouflage to shoot deer.

The second is self-defense. This argument holds up considerably better, though it is still lacking. There exist evil actors, some with guns. The best way to counteract this unfortunate reality is by having good actors with guns, both for deterrence and defending against such actors. Taking away Second Amendment protections leaves good-faith actors susceptible to attack, and leaves the likelihood that bad actors will procure firearms illegally. The argument against this, however, is that an effective repeal of the Second Amendment and large-scale gun confiscation would produce a world with no guns for evil actors, eliminating the need for self-defense from gun violence. From a procedural perspective, a full gun confiscation is unfeasible and would not yield the utopian society the Left desires. While these are valid arguments, they are questions of practical application rather than objective principles.

The argument that Charlie Kirk makes, and the argument made by the Founding Fathers, is in fact the correct one. Americans have the right to bear arms because we have the right to possess a physical check against a tyrannical government. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers were careful to create a constitution that would prevent their new government from devolving into the tyranny they had escaped under the British. An armed citizenry is a blunt solution to this problem. The Swiss resistance model, for example, inspired the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. It allowed the Swiss people to fend off time and again both foreign and domestic tyranny. Consent of the governed does not mean anything at all if the citizens do not have an alternative option. Without the right to firearms, consent of the governed is a vacuous phrase meant to cleverly enslave the population using the delusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is a far more uncomfortable argument. The modern American does not like the idea of rising up to fight a tyrannical power. While the Constitution is one of the great written works in the history of the world, it rests on values and assumptions greater than the document itself. One of these values has been lost by the American spirit, namely, a willingness to die for something. The founders, though differing in theological details, held a deep respect for eternity and the final end. Only with that worldview is it at all reasonable to throw away an earthly life for another person, an ideal, or simply God Himself. The modern American has lost this.

This does not mean that every American should be thirstily awaiting civil war. It is simply a reminder that love for America means a respect for its founding principles. Respect here means more than tacit agreement to these principles — it requires a willingness to defend them. If this sentiment were commonly held among Americans, the right to bear arms would not be a rigorous debate but an assumed fundamental bedrock of our country. When Charlie Kirk acknowledged the risk of gun violence, he did so because he understood this fact. Charlie Kirk’s message and legacy are greater than himself. The fact that his enemies are so intent on distorting his words is a sign that we should listen more carefully to them.

Trump Can (and Should) End Semi-Auto Import Ban Right Now

My first “evil black rifle” was an AK that I built from a kit. Yeah, I know, an evil “ghost gun,” though the term was still years away from becoming uttered, much less mainstream. A gunsmith friend told me to get an 80 percent receiver, a parts kit, and some compliance parts, then we all gathered at his workshop for a day of building AKs, general BSing, and some grilled burgers partway through the day.

It was an absolute blast.

We had to get a parts kit, though, because we couldn’t just import completed AKs, even modified to semi-auto only. During Bush Sr’s administration, he banned the import of semi-automatic firearms for “non-sporting purposes” such as those so-called assault weapons.

My parts kit was a Romanian AK that had the receiver cut in three places with a torch. Now, they also cut the barrels, all because people built guns.

However, as Trump has set this term as the most pro-gun administration in my lifetime, there’s something else he could do, and gun rights groups should be asking for it, as David Codrea notes at Firearms News.

“There’s something else Trump could do quickly that would not require Congressional approval,” this column reported online last November in Donald Trump and Republicans Owe Gun Owners, and It’s Time to Collect. Focused on pledges the president had made to gun owners to solicit their votes, the article explored decisions within the president’s power to make that would help make good on his promises.

What Trump could do, on his own authority, is end the 1989 import ban on semi-automatic rifles pejoratively designated as “assault weapons.” That ban, put in place by Republican President George H.W. Bush, imposed “a permanent import ban on 43 types of semiautomatic assault rifles, including the Chinese-made AK47 and Israeli-made Uzi carbine,” per The Washington Post. The rationale was they “were not being used for sport as required by the Gun Control Act of 1968.” This approved gun control by a Republican president opened the gates for many states and municipalities to ban military-styled semi-auto firearms nationwide without a peep from the Bush Administration or his anti-2A Attorney General William Barr who would later become President Trump’s “best people” attorney general during his first term.

The ban would be “very easy” to overturn, Firearms News Editor-in-Chief Vincent DeNiro assessed. But how? GCA ’68 was a law enacted by Congress. The classification of the semiautos was not.

“President Trump doesn’t even need Congress to get rid of the unconstitutional 1989 ‘assault weapons’ import ban, he just needs to order the BATFE to declare all imported semi-auto rifles as ‘sporting,’ which is what these same models are considered when domestically produced,” DeNiro explained last year. “If he wants to go down in history as a Second Amendment hero, he can make this happen on day one.”

That’s the absolute truth, but Trump didn’t do that on day one, unfortunately.

Still, he could do it now. Semi-autos are still imported. They’re made domestically as well. There’s literally no reason for this ban to be in place except to make it harder to lawfully own these firearms.

More than that, groups like Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the NSSF, the National Association of Gun Rights, and the NRA should all be challenging the Trump administration to do just that. Lift the import ban. These weapons are, in fact, used for sports–three-gun competition is a sport, as is varment hunting, deer hunting, and so on–and the ban is wrong on every level.

President George H.W. Bush was not a friend of the Second Amendment. That’s clear as day, and he set the stage for the federal assault weapon ban in 1994 by this action. He made it clear that these particular rifles were too dangerous for regular citizens to own, at least in his view, and as the leader of the Republican Party at the time, it gave a green light to a lot of lawmakers that this was OK.

It wasn’t.

It’s time to end this and do it now.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
— Sun Tzu