Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Some Oklahoma law enforcement say they won’t enforce new DOJ gun rule by: Kaitor Kay/KFOR

OKLAHOMA CITY, Okla. (KFOR) – Some sheriff’s offices across Oklahoma are standing against the enforcement of a new gun rule from the U.S. Department of Justice that expands the definition of short-barreled rifles to include pistols with stabilizing braces. These sheriffs assert that the new rule contradicts the Oklahoma Second Amendment Sanctuary Act.

On January 13, the DOJ submitted the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ “Stabilizing Braces” Final Rule, “which makes clear that when manufacturers, dealers, and individuals use stabilizing braces to convert pistols into rifles with a barrel of less than 16 inches, commonly referred to as a short-barreled rifles, they must comply with the laws that regulate those rifles, including the National Firearms Act (NFA).”

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said the rule “makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”

elbach explained further.

“Short-barreled rifles have the greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, like a pistol,” he said. “But certain so-called stabilizing braces are designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way under the statute.”

On Tuesday, Oklahoma County Sheriff Tommie Johnson lll said per the Oklahoma Second Amendment Sanctuary Act, his office cannot enforce the rule established by the DOJ since it’s not a federal law.

“This state statute creates a contradiction,” he said. “Therefore, I have instructed my deputies, if you encounter someone in possession of a pistol with a stabilizing brace during a low-level incidental contact like a traffic stop, traffic collision, or a motorist assist, deputies are not to take any action in regard to enforcement of ATF Final rule 2021R-08f… In other words, if a deputy encounters someone with a pistol equipped with a stabilizing brace, they will take no action against that person unless that person is using the weapon in the commission of a crime.”

Sheriff Damon Devereaux of Logan County and Sheriff Jim Mullett of Garvin County announced similar positions on Wednesday and Thursday, respectively.

“The Logan County Sheriff’s Office stands with our neighbors to the South, Sheriff Tommy Johnson lll, and The Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office and any other Sheriff’s Office or other Law Enforcement in defense of rights,” Devereaux said, citing Oklahoma State Statutes 1289.24d and 1289.24e.

Joshua Harris-Till, a leader with the Oklahoma chapter of Moms Demand Action, disagrees with the stance.

“The sheriff’s office should uphold this new rule because it is just a clarification on the short-barrel firearm laws already on the books,” he said. “It shouldn’t be something that we’re saying is a threat to the Second Amendment. All it is is a clarification.”

He explained how enforcing the rule of registering pistols with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles will make things better.

“It doesn’t make them illegal, inherently,” he explained. “What it makes is an opportunity for you to register those guns to show that you are a responsible gun owner and that your guns won’t be used in any of the crimes that are happening. And that’s going to help us kind of determine which guns are supposed to be on the streets and which guns aren’t. And so, if you really support responsible gun ownership, you should be in favor of this law and in favor of the registration so that we can figure out how to end gun violence.”

The DOJ said beyond background checks and serial numbers, the heightened requirements for short-barreled rifles include taxation and registration requirements that include background checks for all transfers including private transfers.

The new rule allows for a 120-day period for manufacturers, dealers, and individuals to register tax-free any existing NFA short-barreled rifles covered by the rule. Other options including removing the stabilizing brace to return the firearm to a pistol or surrendering covered short-barreled rifles to ATF. Nothing in this rule bans stabilizing braces or the use of stabilizing braces on pistols.

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Connecticut Governor Announces Plans for More Gun Control by DANTE GRAVES

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont announced a series of proposals aimed at curbing gun violence in the state during a press conference in Waterbury on Monday.

The proposals, which will be introduced during the 2023 legislative session include:

  • Banning open carry of firearms in public
  • Allowing concealed carry with a permit except in certain locations
  • Limiting handgun purchases to one per month
  • Updating the state’s ban on unregistered “ghost guns.”

These proposals will be part of the governor’s package of priorities for the 2023 legislative session, which he plans to present to the Connecticut General Assembly in February.

Gov. Lamont’s plans were also introduced in a press release via his official site.

Even though Lamont acknowledged that Connecticut is one of the safest states in the country, he claims the reforms are “commonsense” and even necessary due to rising rates of gun violence around the country.

“It’s our responsibility to implement policies that keep our homes and our neighborhoods safe, and we have to take every opportunity to keep our residents protected,” Lamont said. “These commonsense reforms will protect our neighborhoods and the people who live in them.”

State Sen. Gary Winfield and State Rep. Steven Stafstrom, co-chairs of the Judiciary Committee, praised the governor’s proposals.


“I have seen the success of our state-supported community violence intervention programs up close and personal,”  Winfield said. “They are critical to addressing and preventing gun violence in our communities, where strict gun laws fail to stop gun-related crime. We have the ability to address the root causes of gun violence and get to the individuals at risk of committing these offenses.”

Stafstrom agreed with Winfield.

“These critical reforms attack gun violence in our neighborhoods from every angle,” Stafstrom said. “I’ve supported some of these proposals in the past, and I look forward to working with the committee and the governor to get a commonsense gun violence package accomplished this session.”

According to Fox News, Republicans in the Democratic-controlled legislature took issue with the governor’s proposals, criticizing him for putting law-abiding citizens at risk while not placing enough emphasis on criminals.

“Today the Governor and Democrats pitched a familiar path to an ‘everybody problem’ by offering proposals that will again have law-abiding gun owners carrying most of the freight,” said House Republican Leader Vincent Candelora. “Missing from their news conference was any talk about focusing on the people who are squarely responsible for causing mayhem in our communities.”

The Governor’s proposal also includes allocating an additional $2.5 million for the community gun violence intervention and prevention program, which will continue funding for the staff at the Department of Public Health who oversee this program and also provide grants for community-based violence intervention organizations.

During Lamont’s time in office, he’s made gun control one of his primary goals. Starting in 2019, he made so-called “ghost guns” illegal unless the purchaser receives an official serial number from the state. In that same month, he banned gun owners from leaving their firearms unsecured in vehicles and homes. Part of that legislation was called “Ethan’s Law” in honor of 15-year-old Ethan Song, who was accidentally shot and killed while handling a .357 Magnum at his neighbor’s house.

This press conference took place less than a year after Lamont announced a $64 million dollar proposal for gun control which he claimed was supposed to address rising crime rates in the state.

“You’re not tough on crime if you’re weak on guns,” Lamont told reporters at the state Capitol in Hartford. ”We’re going to continue to stay tough on guns.”

You have to be kidding, right!?!

Four-Time Felon Attempts to Rob Concealed Carrier on Chicago Train… by MATTYP

Chicago has long been known as a city with some of the strictest gun laws; laws that were passed in an effort to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and increase the overall safety of the city. Are these laws living up to the hype?

The short answer: No!

The long answer: Regardless of any law restricting or prohibiting firearms, criminals will continue to find and use them.

On Friday, January 20, shortly before 5:00 pm, a 25-year-old bank security guard was riding the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) home when Darius Moss, 33, who has been arrested 32 times by Chicago police and convicted of four felonies since 2014, boarded his train car and started staring at him while smoking, reports Fox News.

An argument ensued until Moss revealed a firearm and proceeded to announce a robbery. Holding the victim at gunpoint, Moss allegedly took the man’s keys, phone, credit card, and, notably, his concealed carry license.

Moss threatened to shoot the victim if he did not exit the train at Cicero station, according to prosecutor Christopher Cromydas, as he recounted the story before Judge Maryam Ahmad during the bail hearing for Moss.

After stepping off the train at Cicero station, the guard pulled out his own firearm on the platform. He then re-entered the train and launched into a “firefight” with Moss where he expended 18 rounds, four of which jammed, Cromydas continued.

“Wait, wait, wait,” Judge Ahmad interjected. “A firefight on the train?”

“Yes, your honor,” Cromydas confirmed, explaining that the gunfight took place on the train and the platform.

Of the 18 rounds, Moss was only shot once in the leg, according to the Chicago police. Additionally, the victim was not injured, and there were no other injuries reported.

After the firefight, Moss exited at the Cicero station while the victim continued riding the train for approximately 3.5 miles to the Laramie station, where he identified himself to the police and explained what happened.

Chicago cops found Moss walking in the Cicero station area and recovered the victim’s property from his possession, along with a revolver that contained four bullets and one spent casing.

“It is a pure miracle by the grace of God that no one was killed, that no innocent bystander was killed,” Judge Ahmad remarked.

According to the public defender assigned to Moss, he has two children and is pursuing a career as a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning technician.

He is charged with armed habitual criminal and armed robbery with a firearm. Judge Ahmad was barred from holding Moss without bail because prosecutors did not ask her to.

“This is just ridiculous. Ridiculous,” Ahmad continued before ordering Moss to pay a $25,000 deposit toward bail to be released before trial.

You have to be kidding, right!?!

A Ford Primer (Hey its my Blog !!)

Darwin would of approved of this! You have to be kidding, right!?!

I think that he is one of my former students!

May be an image of 1 person and text

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

ATF Unveils Pistol Brace Rule…Everything Is An SBR!

SB Tactical Stabilizing Braces
SB Tactical Stabilizing Braces

WASHINGTON, D.C. -( The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) released its final rule surrounding pistol stabilizing devices killing off the market for the items unless court challenges prove successful.

The new rule (ATF final rule 2021R-08F) was published on the ATF’s website today and is set to be posted on the Federal Register on Monday, one day before the industry’s largest trade show, SHOT Show. The regulation will affect millions of Americans that currently own pistol stabilizing devices. What has been considered pistols for years will now be regarded as short barreled rifles (SBR) and be subjected to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The proposed rule used a form known as “Worksheet 4999” to determine if a firearm equipped with a pistol brace would be considered an SBR by using a point system. The ATF ditched the form in favor of a widespread declaration that almost every pistol equipped with a brace of any kind would be considered an SBR.

“Worksheet 4999 was intended to ensure uniform consideration and application of the statutory definition of those terms. Based on the comments received, the Department agrees that the proposed Worksheet 4999 and point system did not achieve these intended purposes,” the Final Rule reads.

Under the new rule, any firearm that is “designed or redesigned made or remade and intended to be fired from the shoulder” will be considered an SBR.

This designation includes devices such as pistol stabilizing braces which the ATF assumes the shooter installed to be able to shoulder the gun. Also, if a firearm merely has the surface area that would allow it to be fired from the shoulder, the ATF might consider it an SBR if it has a weight or length consistent with a rifle.

ATF Releases Final Version of Pistol Brace Rule
ATF Releases Final Version of Pistol Brace Rule

Any pistol with a length of pull that is consistent with that of what would be found in a rifle would be considered an SBR. Any adjustable attachments, such as a multi-position buffer tube, would also automatically make the pistol an SBR. If the shooter places an optic on their firearm that requires an eye relief that is consistent with what’s used on a rifle, such as a scope, then that gun will also be considered a short barreled rifle. If a firearm has the surface area to be fired from the shoulder, such as a firearm equipped with a nonadjustable buffer tube, then that will be considered an SBR, basically making every AR-15 pistol and SBR.

“Whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension, or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment that is necessary for the cycle of operations,” the document reads.

The ATF will also look at marketing material offered by the manufacturer to determine if installing that device on a firearm will convert it to an SBR. Several lawsuits involve companies suing over California’s law preventing the advertisement of firearms to people under the age of 18, including safety classes.

The ATF will also look at how the people in the firearms community use a gun to determine whether it is an SBR. You could use a device as intended by the manufacturer and still violate the rule if others use it in a way that is not consistent with how the manufacturer designed the device to be used.

There is a 120-day grace period to apply for a tax stamp for any device now considered an SBR that was previously considered a pistol.

Although the ATF states a 120-day grace period to register a pistol as an SBR, the ATF only promises not to enforce NFA rules on these devices for 60 days. The ATF will give a tax forbearance for the $200 tax stamp fee. A tax forbearance means that the ATF will not collect the $200 tax fee, although, by the law, you still owe the fee; it just will not be collected. The rule is set up the way it is because the ATF cannot waive a tax.

Gun owners must use e-Forms to file for the tax stamp. Only individuals would qualify for the tax stamp on devices with pistol stabilizing braces. If someone wanted to put the firearm into a trust, they must first register as an individual and then pay the $200 transfer fee to transfer it into a trust. Many people who own NFA items prefer having their firearms in a trust.

Some states do not allow for SBRs. Gun owners in those states do have options.

They could add a 16-inch or greater barrel, converting the firearm from a pistol into a rifle. In the past, the ATF has stated that a pistol could never be converted into a rifle, but the regulation seems to change this determination. The pistol stabilizing device could also be removed, and the gun owner can modify their firearms not to be able to accept a pistol brace. The gun owner also has the option of destroying the firearm. The final option would be turning the gun into the ATF for zero compensation.

The new regulation is expected to cost gun owners over $260 million. It is expected to cost the federal government over $3 million. In addition to the cost, it will put an increasing burden on the already overwhelmed NFA division of the ATF. the ATF claims that the average wait time will be 90 days, although Silencer Shop is showing a wait time of eight months for a tax stamp. Not only will it bog down the new tax stamp applications for SBRs, but it might drastically increase the wait time for other NFA items, such as sound suppressors.

There will be challenges to the new rule. The Second Amendment Foundation has an ongoing case in a federal District Court in North Dakota over the new regulation. Other legal challenges are expected shortly from other Second Amendment organizations.

Ammoland News reached out to SB tactical for a comment on the final rule but has not received one at the time of this writing.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at

John Crump

All About Guns You have to be kidding, right!?!

What an idiot!

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

ATF Bans Millions of Guns With New Pistol Brace Rule Stephen Gutowski

A group of AR-15s at range day for SHOT Show 2022
A group of AR-15s at range day for SHOT Show 2022 / Stephen Gutowski

Millions of Americans face the threat of federal felony charges over guns they purchased legally thanks to a new rule released by the ATF.

The agency announced plans to publish the final version of their rule reclassifying pistol braces, a popular firearm accessory, on Friday. The rule, which President Joe Biden requested as part of his efforts to unilaterally reform gun laws, would effectively ban the use of braces unless registered with the ATF. Anyone who does not comply with the rule could be subject to upwards of ten years in federal prison despite the agency previously ruling the braces were legal multiple times over the past decade.

“While firearms equipped with ‘stabilizing braces’ or other rearward attachments may be submitted to ATF for a new classification determination, a majority of the existing firearms equipped with a ‘stabilizing brace’ are likely to be classified as ‘rifles’ because they are configured for shoulder fire based on the factors described in this rule,” the ATF said in the rule. “Because many of these firearms generally have a barrel of less than 16 inches, they are likely to be classified as short-barreled rifles subject to regulation and registration under the [National Firearms Act (NFA)] and [Gun Control Act].”

The agency says that nearly everyone with a pistol-brace-equipped gun is “violating the NFA by possessing an unregistered rifle with a barrel of less than 16 inches.”

The rule has wide-ranging implications for many American gun owners as pistol braces have exploded in popularity since the ATF first determined they did not convert pistols into heavily-regulated short-barrel rifles back in 2012.  The exact number of braces already in circulation is unclear, but the number is well into the millions. The ATF itself estimates three to seven million of the devices exist. The Congressional Research Service puts the number much higher at somewhere between 10 and 40 million.

The Biden Administration’s decision to move forward with the ban comes after hundreds of thousands of comments opposing the regulation were left during its public comment period. It also comes in the immediate aftermath of the Fifth Circuit ruling against the Trump-era bump stock ban. That policy was implemented through the same rulemaking process and after the ATF had also previously declared bump stocks to fall outside the NFA’s purview, which could foreshadow legal problems for the new pistol brace rule.

Attorney General Merrick Garland (D.) defended the rule change and said it was necessary to prevent crimes committed with guns he believes should be subject to NFA regulations.

“Keeping our communities safe from gun violence is among the Department’s highest priorities,” he said in a statement. “Almost a century ago, Congress determined that short-barreled rifles must be subject to heightened requirements. Today’s rule makes clear that firearm manufacturers, dealers, and individuals cannot evade these important public safety protections simply by adding accessories to pistols that transform them into short-barreled rifles.”

The NFA requires Americans to register all rifles that have barrels shorter than 16 inches and pay a tax of $200, a process that can take nearly a year, or face federal felony charges. However, the law defines “rifles” as guns that are “designed and intended” to be shouldered. The ATF initially determined firearms equipped with pistol braces, which are designed to be strapped to a shooter’s forearm instead of pressed against their shoulder, are not rifles and, therefore, not subject to NFA regulations.

For the next decade, the agency issued often vague or contradictory determinations on different versions of pistol braces that were subsequently created. At one point during the Obama Administration, the agency claimed the act of pressing a pistol brace against a shooter’s shoulder constituted a redesign of the product turning it into an illegal unregistered short-barrel rifle only to later rescind that declaration under the Trump Administration. The inconsistency led to increasing complaints the agency doesn’t use any objective measure for determining the legality of the devices.

Now, under the Biden Administration, the agency’s new rule purports to be more objective but still relies on subjective measures, including whether the agency believes “indirect marketing” of a brace shows it is meant to be shouldered. Ultimately, it classifies nearly all pistol-brace-equipped firearms as unregistered short-barrel rifles. The agency gave Americans who own pistol-braced guns a few options to avoid potential prosecution.

“Any weapons with “stabilizing braces” or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register,” the agency said,” or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the “stabilizing brace” such that it cannot be reattached; or the firearm is turned in to your local ATF office. Or the firearm is destroyed.”

The rule faces substantial political opposition. In addition to the hundreds of thousands of public comments opposing the rule, nearly every member of the Senate Republican caucus sent a letter to Attorney General Garland demanding he withdraw of the rule during the summer.

“The way the proposed rule is written makes clear that ATF intends to bring the most common uses of the most widely possessed stabilizing braces within the purview of the NFA,” the senators said in the letter. “Doing so would turn millions of law-abiding Americans into criminals overnight, and would constitute the largest executive branch-imposed gun registration and confiscation scheme in American history.”

Gun-rights groups have promised to fight the rule in court. Erich Pratt, Gun Owners of America senior vice president, said his group is already writing up a lawsuit.

“This administration continues to find new ways to attack gun owners, and this time their target is brace-equipped firearms that allow persons with disabilities to safely and effectively use pistols,” he said in a statement. “We will continue to work with our industry partners to amplify the disapproving voices in the firearms industry, and the Gun Owners Foundation, our sister legal arm, will be filing suit in the near future.”

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said they will update their active case against the agency over its handling of braces.

“The Second Amendment Foundation already has a lawsuit filed against ATF over arm braces and will amend it to include their new attack,” he told The Reload.

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Gun Owners in San Jose Now Need Liability Insurance Ordinance is a U.S. first and part of a broader movement by gun-control activists

A new law in San Jose, Calif., mandates that all city gun owners own insurance covering costs related to accidental gunshot injuries or deaths.PHOTO: /ASSOCIATED PRESS

Dave Truslow, a San Jose, Calif., tech-industry retiree and firearms instructor, recently started storing his collection of more than 100 guns out of town because he wanted to get ahead of a new city law requiring him to carry liability insurance for them.  

“I decided I did not want to be required to comply with this,” Mr. Truslow said of the law, which went into effect Jan. 1.

San Jose’s law, the first of its type in the nation, mandates that gun owners in the city of nearly one million have insurance covering costs related to accidental gunshot injuries or deaths. The law doesn’t require policies to cover criminal misuse of firearms.

The law was pushed by former Mayor Sam Liccardo after a series of mass shootings in the area. Mr. Liccardo, a Democrat who recently stepped down due to term limits, said he thinks the law ultimately will result in insurers offering lower premiums to gun owners who safely store and handle their firearms, much like auto insurers give discounts for good driving.

Former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo says he began to push for the insurance law after mass shootings in the area.PHOTO: HAVEN DALEY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

“Just as insurance was a mechanism to dramatically improve road safety . . .  insurance with guns could similarly have that effect,” Mr. Liccardo said.


What’s News

Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.

Gunowners who object to the law, including Mr. Truslow, said they already took safety measures such as keeping their firearms in safes. City officials should spend more time focusing on fighting gun violence, he said.

Gun-rights groups filed lawsuits in response to the ordinance last year before it went into effect. A federal judge tossed out the suits but said that some of the claims could be refiled because the complaints had been drafted before the U.S. Supreme Court decided an important Second Amendment case last summer known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

In that case, the Supreme Court threw out New York’s restrictions on carrying concealed weapons in public, a decision that since has been invoked by judges in striking down several firearm restrictions.

In response, gun-control advocates in state and local governments have looked toward new approaches that could hold up in court. California last year passed a law allowing individuals to sue gun makers over violations of the state’s gun restrictions, basing on a Texas law allowing private individuals to sue to enforce abortion restrictions.

New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in December signed a law akin San Jose’s insurance law, which requires at least $300,000 in insurance coverage related to injury, death, or property damage for people with permits to carry guns in public.

The San Jose law applies to all gun owners, regardless of whether they carry them in public.

Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said his organization is preparing new legal challenges to San Jose on Second Amendment grounds. “This is just a way to make it too costly to own a gun,” Mr. Michel said.


Should all gun owners be required to carry liability insurance? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.

A city spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Advocates on both sides of America’s gun-rights debate say they are watching the San Jose law closely. The measure’s success or failure could determine whether such laws are adopted elsewhere.

A California state lawmaker has proposed a bill to require gun-liability insurance statewide.

Obtaining the insurance required by San Jose likely won’t be difficult for most people, said Janet Ruiz, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade group. Most homeowners- and renters-insurance policies cover the type of liability described in the new law, she said.

A vigil at San Jose City Hall in 2021 honored victims of a shooting.PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

A few insurers offer stand-alone gun-liability policies, but most don’t, according to the institute.

Mr. Liccardo said the law doesn’t call for San Jose’s police department to proactively check whether people with firearms have insurance. But gun owners will be required to carry proof of insurance with their firearms much as drivers do, he said.

As one example, he said officers could check if they responded to a domestic violence call and a gun was present. Those not in compliance face fines of up to $1,000.

Accidental shootings accounted for 1% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of accidental shooting deaths ticked up in 2020, but in general has been falling for decades, according to the CDC.

Write to Zusha Elinson at

All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Grumpy's hall of Shame Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Wells Fargo Dumps Florida Gun Seller’s Accounts, Signaling Complete Severing of Gun Industry Ties By Kira Davis

Wells Fargo Dumps Florida Gun Seller's Accounts, Signaling Complete Severing of Gun Industry Ties
(AP Photo/CX Matiash, File)
Wells Fargo Bank has suddenly dumped the accounts of a prominent gun dealer in Florida.

The financial institution abruptly closed both the business and personal accounts of Brandon Wexler over the Christmas holidays. Wexler is a longtime customer of the bank, having had personal accounts for over 25 years and business accounts for at least 14 years.

In a letter to the dealer, obtained by The Reload, Wells Fargo claims a review of the account deemed Wexler’s business “too risky.”

Wells Fargo performs ongoing reviews of its account relationships in connection with the banks responsibilities to manage risks and its banking operations. We recently reviewed your account relationship and as a result of this review we will be closing your above referenced account. The accounts are expected to close by February 9, 2023 or you may contact the bank to initiate closure at an earlier date. The bank’s decision to close your accounts is final. Please note the bank reserves the right to close the subject accounts sooner than February 9, 2023 if circumstances arise that warrant an earlier closing. Also be aware that some circumstances may delay the closure of your accounts to learn more refer below to what may delay account closure

A Wells Fargo representative gave a statement to The Reload and denied the bank closed Wexler’s accounts because of his industry.

Jennifer L. Langan, Head of communications for CSBB & Consumer Lending at Wells Fargo, disputed Wexler’s claim that the closures were due to his work as a gun dealer.

“Based on our analysis of the risk associated with this customer, we made a decision to close the accounts,” she told The Reload. “Our decision is not based on the industry.”

However, a second letter from Wells Fargo to Wexler indicates that isn’t a completely honest statement. The banking giant explicitly says the reason for yanking the business account is because their guidelines prohibit them from “lending to certain types of businesses.”

Wells Fargo performs ongoing reviews of account relationships in connection with the company’s responsibility to oversee and manage risk and its business operations. We have reviewed your relationship with Wells Fargo and have determined at this time to close your account, effective 12/23/22. As of the date of this letter you may no longer make purchases or take cash advances. The reason for this action is:

Banking guidelines excludes lending to certain types of businesses

The Wex Gunworks owner isn’t an unknown quantity in the industry or business in general. Wexler has been a go-to industry source for media over the years, including The New York TimesCNN and ABC. Given the longstanding relationship with Wells Fargo, Wexler feels certain this is a case of industry discrimination.

“I’ve been with them for 25 years,” he told The Reload. “I’m a professional fireman. I do everything the right way. It’s messed up.”

Wells Fargo has indicated in the past they intend to pull away from banking relationships with gun dealers and pro-second amendment organizations like the NRA.

Wexler says he is currently weighing his legal options.

“I don’t care about the money. It’s more about making a point here. The public really needs to know about this. It’s not right.”