All About Guns Allies Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Good News for a change! Gun Fearing Wussies

Why Trudeau’s Gun Bans Are Doomed To Fail

All About Guns Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE You have to be kidding, right!?!

Mexico tries to fine gun manufacturers by David

We wrote a while back that Mexico is suing US gun manufacturers because their products are heavily used by drug gangs and criminals in Mexico. Got shot down, right?

Now, we in the US have a law passed a couple of decades back called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). At that time, one of the key tactics used by gun-ban groups was to sue gun manufactures at the drop of a hat . Kid uses a 40 year old Colt to shoot someone? Sue Colt.  Gun store gets robbed and a stolen Glock is used to rob someone three states away? Sue Glock. The idea was that if they continually forced gun makers to defend these bull$hit suits, pretty soon they would go bankrupt from legal fees even if they never lost. PLCAA says that if the guns are legally manufactured and sold, the gun companies’ responsibility for wrong-doing ends there.

If the gun is defective or deceptively marketed, they are still liable. (This is the “protection gun makers from lawsuits no other manufacturer has” that Biden and company whines about. Most companies are already protected by case law – you can sue a bar for serving a drunk driver because they are a proximate cause, but not Ford because they made the drunk’s Mustang, right?) The plethora of suits caused Congress to pass PLCAA.

But here is how the gun groups describe it:

PLCAA is a law that protects the gun industry from civil liability for harm caused by negligence, defective products, or irresponsible behavior. It denies justice to victims and survivors of gun violence and perpetuates the flow of crime guns into communities of color.

So many lies…

Anyhoo, Mexico is suing seven manufacturers and a distributor, alleging negligence, defective product, barratry, piracy, simony, and for all I know indecent exposure. (They also want to know how Mexican Army guns wind up in the hands of the narco-gangs… cough cough ARMY CORRUPTION cough cough. Different article.)

Now, any normal person would say they can’t do that, right? They’ve already been shot down once. Oh no… the 1st Circuit steps in.

U.S. appeals court on Monday revived a $10 billion lawsuit by Mexico seeking to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for facilitating the trafficking of weapons to drug cartels across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturnedThe Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower-court judge’s decision dismissing the case on the grounds that a U.S. law barred Mexico from suing Smith & Wesson Brands (SWBI.O), Sturm, Ruger & Co and others.
Mexico’s lawyers argued the law only bars lawsuits over injuries that occur in the U.S. and does not shield the seven manufacturers and one distributor it sued from liability over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals.
U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta, writing for the three-judge panel, said that while the law can be applied to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit “plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”
He said that was because the law was only designed to protect lawful firearms-related commerce, yet Mexico had accused the companies of aiding and abetting illegal gun sales by facilitating the trafficking of firearms into the country.  Reuters
Knowing that other than warranty work, once gun companies sell their guns to a distributor they are legally protected, should be sufficient. But these judges (whose decisions were reversed two out of three times last year ballotopedia) are saying “well,  since it is not a US suit it can proceed” (?!)
Welcome to Ford getting sued for making that Mustang.  Kinda makes you want to sue Mexico for all that fentanyl coming from them…


Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE EVIL MF Grumpy's hall of Shame

Wayne LaPierre’s Brain is Shrinking, Yet He’s Still In Charge of NRA! …Why? by Jeff Knox

Wayne LaPierre IMG NRA-ILA

The second week of testimony in the New York trial of NRA, CEO Wayne LaPierre, Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer, and former Treasurer Woody Phillips wrapped up on Friday, January 19, 2024, and things are not looking good for the defendants. A fourth former executive, LaPierre’s former deputy Josh Powell, pled guilty days before the trial began.

In his resignation announcement, LaPierre said he was stepping down for health reasons. He is reported to be suffering from the debilitating effects of chronic Lyme Disease, a tick-borne bacterial infection that can cause a variety of serious health problems. Having struggled with Lyme Disease myself and had people close to me affected by the chronic form of the infection, I won’t join in the chorus that has suggested the whole thing is some ruse on LaPierre’s part.

Lapierre’s Brain Is Shrinking!?

LaPierre has been in the courtroom every day during the two weeks of the trial. Still, his attorney has now submitted doctors’ notes asking the court for special accommodations for LaPierre during his upcoming testimony. The lawyer, supported by the doctors’ notes, says that, along with headaches, vision problems, and fatigue,

LaPierre is also suffering from cognitive issues related to the loss of cerebral mass. In other words, he’s saying LaPierre’s brain is shrinking, impacting his ability to think clearly and remember things. Because of this, the attorney is asking that the judge allow LaPierre and his lawyers to call timeouts during his upcoming testimony, possibly breaking it up over several days rather than trying to grind through one or two days of uninterrupted time on the stand.

The judge seems willing to accommodate LaPierre’s physical limitations and allow other witnesses to be called when and if LaPierre is incapacitated. This raises another important question about who’s running the NRA and why LaPierre remains officially in charge.

According to the letters from his doctors, LaPierre’s health has been in decline for several years.

His current condition was reported to NRA President Charles Cotton on January 3, 2024, two days before LaPierre announced his pending resignation. So why is LaPierre still holding the Executive Vice Presidency of the NRA?

If LaPierre is unable to testify for several hours consecutively due to his illness, and considering he is attending the trial in New York instead of being at his office at NRA headquarters, why didn’t he resign immediately on January 5? This was when the NRA Board was meeting, and they could have appointed a temporary replacement then rather than waiting for a month.

The NRA Bylaws say that in the case of a vacancy in the office of Executive Vice President, the Executive Director of General Operations is to fill the position until the Board meets to name a suitable replacement. LaPierre unceremoniously fired Joe DeBergalis, the ED of General Operations, shortly before Christmas, replacing him with Andrew Arulanandam. Arulanandam has been LaPierre’s top PR flack and spokesperson for several years. While his face is familiar to some members and the media, it would be a stretch to suggest he is qualified to run General Operations, and he’s certainly not qualified to be the CEO of the NRA.

During his testimony on Thursday and Friday, former Executive Director of NRA-ILA Chris Cox voiced a similar sentiment. Cox suggested that LaPierre demonstrated poor judgment in hiring, pointing to Josh Powell and Andrew Arulanandam as examples. Powell was LaPierre’s deputy who oversaw the collapse of the NRA’s controversial CarryGuard program and has already pled guilty in the New York trial. Arulanandam, who first worked under Cox in ILA before being moved over to NRA HQ by LaPierre, did not impress Cox while he was at ILA. Cox warned LaPierre that Arulanandam had “terrible” political judgment and was “lazy in core competencies.”

LaPierre ignored Cox’s warnings and kept Arulanandam on, promoting him to higher positions, eventually setting him up to take over as EVP and CEO upon LaPierre’s resignation.

This has laid the table for a bit of a battle within the NRA Board of Directors. It has been reported that Tom King, who has been one of LaPierre’s chief supporters on the Board and a close ally of NRA President Charles Cotton, has been calling fellow Directors to urge them to support a move to put Cotton in the EVP position.

Along with his duties as President, Cotton serves as the Chairman of the NRA’s Audit Committee, as I explained in a recent article, “Charles Cotton Must Never Be Allowed to Head the NRA!”. The Audit Committee is supposed to be the Association’s watchdog tasked with ensuring that the staff and vendors always operate within applicable laws and policies and conduct business in a manner that is above reproach.

Cotton served as vice chair of the committee for several years and then switched places with then-chairman David Coy. Between the two of them, they have been Chair and Vice Chair for the past 20-plus years, and they continue in those positions now, even though they’ve been President and Vice President of the Board for the past three years. Cotton and Coy were supposed to keep the NRA on track and away from even a whisper of corruption.

They failed spectacularly in that assignment and were rewarded for their failure by being elected to the offices of President and Vice President.

The best way for the NRA Board to demonstrate that they’ve learned nothing at all from the scandals and corruption that have plagued the NRA for the past 20 years and been publicly known for the past five years would be to hand the EVP position to Charles Cotton.

The trial continues on Monday with video testimony from former NRA President Carolyn Meadows. Ms. Meadows has been excused from testifying in person – or even via live video link – due to her own health issues, so her video deposition is being played.

It’s worth noting that Ms. Meadows’ health has been a limiting factor since she was first elected in 2019. She barely attended any Board meetings as President after she was elected, meaning that First Vice President Charles Cotton filled in for her for almost all of her two terms. He then served two terms as President himself, then orchestrated a Bylaws change to allow him to serve a third (effectively fifth) term as President.

In spite of her age and poor health concerns, Ms. Meadows has been nominated for reelection to the Board in the coming election….  She and another woman from Georgia were both added to the list of nominees after Phil Journey, Rocky Marshall, Dennis Fusaro, and I (Jeff Knox) were qualified by petition as nominees. Some speculate she and her friend were added to pad the field and make it even harder for any of the four reform candidates to be elected.

Ballots should be in the March issue of NRA magazines, which will hit mailboxes around mid-February, so please be sure to vote and encourage your NRA friends to vote. “Bullet voting,” i.e. voting for just the four Outsider Candidates for NRA Board, myself included, and no one else, gives us the best chance of winning seats, so please spread the word on that, too.

All About Guns Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Mexican-American Billionaire from New York Funds ‘Tennessee 11’ to Push Gun Control Agenda via ‘Citizen Solutions’ in 2024

The 2024 session of the Tennessee General Assembly is scheduled to convene in Nashville on Tuesday, January 9.

According to his personal website, Daniel Lubetzky was born in Mexico City in the late 1960s and came to the United States with his family as a teenager.

In 2004, Lubetzky is the founded the snack company Kind LLC. It was reportedly worth $5 billion when the company was sold to Mars Inc. in 2020. When the company was under his management, Lubetzky was named a Presidential Ambassador of Global Entrepreneurship by former President Barack Obama and his administration’s Commerce Secretary, Penny Pritzker.

His foundation received its tax-exempt status in 2017, and a federal tax filing from 2021 indicates the Lubetzky Family Foundation has offices at 3 Times Square, also known as the Thomson Reuters Building, in New York. The Lubetzky Family Foundation spent nearly $3.5 million in 2021, when its eight highest-earning employees were each paid more than $100,000, and collectively were compensated $1,294,410.

Lubetzky’s involvement in Tennessee politics comes through a group called Citizen Solutions, which is a project of Starts With Us, which in turn is a project of the Lubetzky Family Foundation. Citizen Solutions seems to exist to spread awareness of the suggestions made by the Tennessee 11, a group of 11 Tennessee residents affiliated with Citizen Solutions.

The Tennessee 11 apparently met for the first time in September, when the group held a “solution session” in Franklin.

In October, the Tennessee 11 announced eight proposals for new laws, regulations, and initiatives they claim would contribute toward the prevention of gun violence. Among the proposals, according to a press release by Citizen Solutions, are calls for Tennessee to pass a red flag law, which would allow courts to order the temporary suspension of an individual’s right to bear arms, require Student Resource Officers (SROs) be trained in “mental health first aid” and “trauma-informed care,” and create “an incentives-first approach to gun ownership rights and responsibilities.”

Another proposal includes Tennessee investing resources to prevent traumatic childhood experiences that could potentially precipitate gun violence.

The Tennessee 11 also proposed laws or regulations requiring Tennesseans obtain a license or permit to carry a handgun, though the group noted, “the TN11 reached a majority but not unanimous consensus on this proposal and now asks the public for feedback.”

In November, the Citizen Solutions “opened a public feedback platform,” according to The Daily Beacon, which reported the activists “are encouraging [University of Tennessee] students to give feedback on the proposals” made by the Tennessee 11.

On the Citizen Solutions website, the activists claim their gun control proposals were drafted by “Tennesseans with very different perspectives.” Citizen Solutions also bills itself as “an ambitious civic experiment empowering Americans to counteract the extreme voices dominating media and politics by elevating the will of the people.”

However, several of the activists who comprise the Tennessee 11 appear to be partisan, and some worked for the Democratic Party or are former Democratic political candidates.

One of the Tennessee 11, Brandi Kellett, is an Associate Professor at Lipscomb University, and her “areas of scholarship focus on culture, memory and faith as a resistance to oppression in the African disapora across the Americas,” according to her university biography.

Arriell Gipson, a Memphis Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Shelby County Clerk in 2022, is another member of the Tennessee 11. A profile for her campaign revealed she is “the committee chair for the Mayor’s Young Professional Council, Violence Prevention and Criminal Justice Reform Committee, First Vice President for the Shelby County Young Democrats, a graduate of Leaders of Color, Organizing for Action, New Memphis Leadership Institute, and The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga with a Bachelor of Science in Psychology.”

Another member, former Tennessee state trooper Mark Proctor, wrote in a guest column for The Tennessean in August that “stricter gun regulations save lives.” The Tennessee 11 member specifically argued in favor of a “[s]trict permitting process” and new legislation to “[k]eep guns away from the wrong people.”

Therapist Adam Luke joined the Tennessee 11 from Columbia, Tennessee. In October, Starts With Us published a lengthy statement from Luke on social media. Luke lamented, “When we talk about guns, there’s so much division. Either we’re attacking traditions or we want people to be in harm’s way.”

He urged Tennesseans to “have that bigger discussion of recognizing that what you’re feeling is legitimate, but sometimes our feelings alone aren’t the only information we need to be taking in.” While Luke seemed hesitant to support a red flag law in his statement, the group’s proposal to “[a]llow courts to temporarily remove someone’s firearms if they are deemed a danger to themselves or others based on certain criteria showing they are at risk of committing violence” had the unanimous support of the Tennessee 11.

While Lubetzky funds the Tennessee 11 through his New York-based Lubetzky Family Foundation, he is also an Inaugural Board of Directors member for the controversial Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The ADL notes Lubetzky is the recipient of awards from the World Economic Forum, Skoll Foundation, Conscious Capitalism, and Hispanic Heritage Foundation.

It remains unclear if Lubetzsky’s efforts will bear fruit after a significant push for gun control failed in 2023, when Democrats were joined by Governor Bill Lee (R) in calls for restrictions following the Covenant School shooting.

Red flag legislation was unsuccessful during the regular session in 2023, and though Lee called a special session for the Tennessee General Assembly to pursue gun control initiatives, the governor did not back a red flag law proposal for a second time. Ultimately, no gun restrictions were passed during the special session, and Lee recently signaled that he does not intend to push for red flag legislation in 2024.

– – –

Tom Pappert is the lead reporter for The Tennessee Star, and also reports for The Georgia Star News, The Virginia Star, and the Arizona Sun Times

All About Guns Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Marxist Ideology and the Push to Ban Militia Weapons in the USA by Dean Weingarten

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Under the ideology of cultural Marxism and the framework of Marxist “Woke” ideologies, power must be taken from a majority population. Firearms, as noted by the Marxist and Chinese mass murderer Mao, are a form of political power. Mao wrote:

Every Communist must grasp the truth: Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

What Mao meant was only the Communist Party should be allowed to have guns. For a Marxist revolution to succeed, the people must be disarmed.  The left in the United States has long pushed for the disarmament of the population.

Recently, the left has primarily pushed for the banning of those arms that are commonly available and most suitable for militia use. These are modern semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity magazines of 30 rounds. These types of rifles are admirably suited to the defense of homes and neighborhoods, in part because they are understood to be extremely effective and, as such, have great deterrent value.

The American founding fathers understood the political power of firearms as well. They had just won a war with the superpower of the age, England. The English king had repeatedly attempted to disarm first the colonists and then the revolutionaries. The founders wished to make sure no future American government would be able to disarm the American people. Thus, they included the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. The founders understood the right to keep and bear arms included defense against all threats from animals, criminals, other nations, and domestic tyrants.

Many infringements on the right to keep and bear arms have been tolerated by the people of the United States as long as the infringements were applied to disfavored minorities.

During the existence of the United States, the vast majority of people could easily purchase a rifle, shotgun, or pistol, with little difficulty in all states. Disfavored minorities, particularly black people, had a difficult time purchasing handguns in many places. Disfavored minorities were seldom prohibited from buying rifles and shotguns. Most of those infringements were in states dominated by the Democratic party.

Even in states that were most hostile to the Second Amendment, rifles and shotguns were easy to get. The greatest push was to ban handguns because handguns were commonly used in crime. Rifles and shotguns are rarely used in crime. Many political commentators made the claim restricting handguns did not affect the Second Amendment because there was easy access to rifles and shotguns.

As Americans perceived the growth of the political bureaucracy and the disfavor with which the Constitution was held by the political class, resistance to disarmament grew. The push to ban handguns failed.  As a way to revive the failing fortunes of those pushing for population disarmament, Josh Sugermann advocated for a ban on “Assault Weapons” in 1988. From

Josh Sugarmann, founder and executive director of the Violence Policy Center, laid out this strategy of misdirection and obfuscation in a
1988 report on “Assault Weapons and Accessories in America.” Sugarmann observed that “the weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”


He added that because “few people can envision a practical use for these guns,” the public should be more inclined to support a ban on “assault weapons” than a ban on handguns. While handguns are by far the most common kind of firearm used to commit crimes, they are also the most popular choice for self-defense. Proscribing “assault weapons” therefore sounds more reasonable.

Sugarmann’s predictions fell flat. The market for semi-automatic rifles grew and grew. The more the left attempted to ban them, the more popular they became. Much of the popularity came from a growing resistance to the “Deep State” as the people became dissatisfied with the disconnect between what politicians did and what they said.

The Second Amendment gained vocal and organized supporters. A ten-year failed federal “Assault Weapon” ban was not renewed. A super majority of states reformed their gun laws, removing more and more infringements. The Supreme Court affirmed the Second Amendment meant what it said. At present, over half of the United States do not require a permit to carry a loaded handgun, openly or concealed.

A minority of historically repressive states with hard-left governments are resisting this trend. They include California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island. Vermont, Colorado, and Washington State are recent additions.

They are working to ban the most effective militia weapons commonly available in the United States. Weapons which are seldom used in crime. Their laughable “reason” is semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity magazines are used in the rare mass murder when, in fact, pistols are used more commonly in mass murder.  Judge Benitez, in his classic opinion on the California ban on “Assault Weapons,” says it very well:

Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle, the AR-15 is the kind of versatile gun that lies at the intersection of the kinds of firearms protected under District of Columbia v. Heller,  554 U.S. 570 (2008) and United States v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Leftist politicians in a few states insist on banning the most effective militia weapons.  Activists openly state they do not trust the people with “military” weapons. The shade of Chairman Mao would approve.

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

Seeking Attention, Not Solutions in New Mexico

After several weeks of the abject failure of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s (D) attempt to suspend constitutional rights in her state, there are a number of theories as to what, exactly, she was hoping to accomplish. First, and foremost, though, it appears to have been little more than a PR stunt. She all but said as much.

After receiving public opposition to her outlandish announcement of an unconstitutional 30-day ban on open and concealed carry of firearms in public places in Bernalillo County, followed quickly by numerous lawsuits and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcing the ban, part of Lujan Grisham’s response to the TRO was to state, “Over the past four days (since issuing the order), I’ve seen more attention on resolving the crisis of gun violence than I have in the past four years.”

So she apparently got the publicity she was craving.

Not only is her comment a bald-faced lie, though, it’s an admission of failure, as Lujan Grisham has been in office for the past four years, and her party has controlled both chambers of the New Mexico legislature over that same time period. If she hasn’t been able to enact the laws she thinks will address violent crime involving those who use firearms in an illegal fashion over the last four years, either she is bad at governing, or her ideas are simply wildly unpopular or complete failures at achieving their alleged goals.

Probably a bit of all of that, really.

For the past four years, there has been a great deal of “attention” in the legislature on Lujan Grisham’s notion that infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners will somehow stop violent criminals from being violent criminals. Just go to, then scroll down and use the filter to select New Mexico and All Dates. There have been countless anti-gun bills introduced, and some have even passed to become law. None have proven to be capable of reducing the violent acts of criminals misusing firearms.

Speaking of the apparent unpopularity of her ideas, one cannot help but notice the lack of support for her PR stunt. Honestly, it’s a bit surprising, knowing just how radical the anti-Second Amendment community is.

Lujan Grisham, during her press conference announcing her attempt to suspend the rights of law-abiding gun owners, stated that she had spoken to the White House prior to enacting the order. She didn’t say what kind of feedback she received, but considering there have not been any comments from anyone in the Biden administration about her actions—actions that have received national coverage by many media outlets—it may be safe to presume the subject matter is as toxic to Biden as his son’s legal problems.

Anti-gun organizations have been equally mum. None of the groups that supported Lujan Grisham’s election—like Everytown/Moms Demand and Giffords—have issued a single statement in support of the governor’s stunt. Normally, anti-gun organizations are eager to praise the actions of anti-gun politicians; especially when they are put in the national spotlight.

But so far, all we’ve heard are crickets.

Similarly, these groups tend to file amicus briefs in support of anti-gun efforts that are challenged in court. Again, nothing on the aforementioned groups’ websites mentions filing any briefs in support of Lujan Grisham.

In fact, New Mexico’s attorney general, Raul Torrez (D), has publicly stated he will not defend the governor’s order in court, noting that it is clearly unconstitutional. Torrez, it should be noted, was also endorsed by the anti-gun groups Giffords and Everytown/Moms Demand.

Even some of the most vocal, radical anti-gun individuals called out Lujan Grisham for overstepping her authority with the unconstitutional ban on the right to carry. Anti-gun US Representative Ted Lieu (D-Cal.) posted to X (formerly Twitter) that the order “violates the U.S. Constitution,” and that “(t)here is no such thing as a public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.” Anti-gun activist David Hogg, as if cutting and pasting from some damage control script sent out by “moderate” anti-gunners, used virtually the same language as Lieu about a “public health emergency exception.”

Then, the very weekend the order was first put into place, peaceful protestors in Albuquerque carried firearms in the city—both openly and, presumably, concealed—with not a single arrest made or citation issued.

Some of the more radical political operatives in the country may not have realized these were peaceful protests, as no riots took place, no businesses were looted or burned down, and nobody was assaulted. Nonetheless, they were the epitome of peaceful protests.

Thus far, her actions have resulted in numerous legal challenges, including one filed by NRA-ILA, and one TRO issued by a Biden-appointed judge. Yes, you read that right, the first of what will likely be numerous defeats for Lujan Grisham’s PR stunt was issued by a judge appointed by Joe Biden.

After the TRO was issued, the governor amended her order to narrow the unconstitutional suspension of the right to carry firearms to apply to “public parks or playgrounds” in the affected area. Of course, diminishing the area an unconstitutional order impacts does not make it less unconstitutional, it just has the potential to decrease the number of people who might be affected. Virtually every legal challenge to the order, even as amended, shall likely continue. We know ours will.

But if you need any more evidence that the governor was merely looking for attention, rather than actual solutions, again, just consider what she says. When asked directly, during her own press conference announcing her action, if she thought criminals would obey the order, she said no, but thought it would send a message. She even openly admitted that she was issuing the order without having figured out how it would be enforced.

“Sending a message” may be one of the worst defenses of an unconstitutional law we’ve heard, but considering she admits her order will not affect criminals, it may be the only defense she has.

Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE

The Fallout From Liberty Safes

Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Born again Cynic!

NRA’s Mystery Case Revealed


First, there was a post in The Trace referring to a sealed case involving the NRA and its longtime advertising firm Ackerman McQueen. It turns out all we knew is that the NRA has subpoenaed Tony Makris’ wife Elicia Warner Loughlin. She went to US District Court in South Carolina to quash the subpoena as being “burdensome”. It should be noted at this time that the NRA has settled with Ackerman McQueen for $12 million. Further, Makris’ Under Wild Skies won a judgement for $500,000 +/- in Virginia state courts against the NRA.

Next, the blog NRA In Danger reported on another move to squash a subpoena issued by the NRA. This time it was Makris who went to US District Court in Virginia to squash it. That subpoena had been issued to his CPA firm of Fitzwater and Dean. On August 18th, Magistrate Judge John Anderson ruled in favor of quashing the subpoena. He said it was overbroad, would impose an undue burden, not timely, and that the information could be obtained elsewhere. He also refused to transfer the case to the US District Court in Texas. Judge Anderson did allow the discovery order to remain sealed pending orders from the court in Texas.

Thanks to Judge A. Joe Fish of the US District Court for Northern Texas unsealing the majority of the case on August 25th, we finally have an answer.

The NRA sued Ackerman McQueen and the Mercury Group for breach of contract on September 1, 2022. The complaint which was filed under seal alleges Ack Mac and the Mercury Group violated the terms of the Confidential Settlement Agreement (CSA) because Makris and Under Wild Skies was suing the NRA in Virginia state court. They contend that UWS was an affiliate company and that suit violated the $12 million settlement which was “a broad, mutual general release of all claims (the “Release”) among the parties and their affiliates and/or related companies.”

The complaint goes on to argue that since Tony Makris was a senior executive of Ack Mac and President of Mercury Group, he and Under Wild Skies were precluded from suing the NRA in state court as they were “intertwined” and thus bound by the CSA. AckMac and the Mercury Group are included this suit because they failed to “cooperate in the dismissal of the UWS litigation.” The NRA does acknowledge later in the complaint that UWS is an entity that is solely owned by Tony Makris and is a Virginia corporation.

What is ironic here is the claim by the NRA (or should I say Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors) that they only sued AckMac, the Mercury Group, and Under Wild Skies initially so that they could do their due diligence and comply with concerns of New York regulators.

The NRA is asking for damages in excess of $75,000, attorneys’ fees in both this and the UWS cases, and reimbursement with interest of the damages awarded by the Virginia court.

In response to the NRA’s allegations, AckMac and the Mercury Group acknowledge the CSA, the litigation in Virginia by UWS, and that Tony Makris is an officer of both AckMac and Mercury. There is stops. They say that Under Wild Skies is not an affiliate or related entity of either company. They deny UWS was bound by the CSA. They also say the lawsuit is moot because the Virginia court found UWS was not bound by the CSA and that a jury awarded UWS $550,000 in damages. It is also contended that this lawsuit is “collaterally estopped” due to the rulings of the Virginia court which disposed of the NRA’s argument that the CSA included Under Wild Skies. Given that, this argument cannot be raised again.

Later filings added Tony Makris personally as a defendant in the case. His brief for summary judgement filed in May 2023 argues that he was never a named party to the CSA. Further, that he individually was not a party to the litigation in Virginia between Under Wild Skies and the NRA. It was the corporation that sued the NRA and not Makris personally. He also argues that he was a beneficiary of the CSA and cannot be sued as it granted release from any liability, damages, etc “from the beginning of the world until the date of this release.” Included in that release were all “Ackerman parties” which included any past, present, or future officer, director, shareholder, principal, etc. of Ackerman McQueen and Mercury Group. The NRA explicitly has said that Makris was an officer and executive and thus he personally would be covered by the CSA.

I don’t know how this case will be resolved. However, given there are 171 entries in the docket, attorneys have come and gone from Brewer, Attorneys and Counselors, and there is a lot of back and forth on what can be introduced as evidence or what can be sealed, I think the real winners in this case will be the attorneys.

For the life of me, I cannot see what financial benefit will accrue to the NRA given the legal bills involved in trying to claw back the $550,000 paid to Under Wild Skies and perhaps some of the $12 million in the CSA with AckMac and Mercury Group. I don’t know if the Special Litigation Committee was involved in approving this lawsuit or if the Board was even informed. Regardless, this lawsuit seems more akin to the lawsuit that cost $8 million in legal fees so the NRA could avoid paying Chris Cox the $2 million in severance due him. They lost that case by the way. It just seems a frivolous waste of members’ dues that could have gone to more important things. You know like actually defending the Second Amendment against the predations of the Biden Administration.

Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Born again Cynic! Grumpy's hall of Shame Some Red Hot Gospel there!

From only guns and money – A Multitude Of Liberty Safe Memes

Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE You have to be kidding, right!?!

Important Info – If You Own a Liberty Safe, Get Rid of It – Company Provides Govt Access Codes to All Their Products

This is alarming, quite alarming. [H/T Collin Rugg] In a recent J6 case it has been revealed that Liberty Safe Co. gave the FBI background access codes to the safe and vault owned by the investigative target of the FBI, Nathan Hughes.

As the story is told, the FBI (federal govt) contacted the safe manufacturer and asked for a secret code that would open the safe. The FBI had a search warrant for the premises.  Liberty Safe Co. gave the FBI the access code that would allow them to open the safe, without relying on (or asking) the owner to open it.

This is alarming on a few levels.  First, why does Liberty even hold an override code for their safes.  Second, why didn’t Liberty just tell the FBI they do not own the safe, therefore the issue of compliance is between the owner and the FBI?

Liberty Safe Co. responded:


This is a ridiculous position easily avoided by saying, “we don’t own the safe.”  The bottom line is to avoid all the Liberty Safe products that allow them to access your private holdings, including gun safes and personal papers.  If you own a Liberty Safe, just get rid of it.  It’s compromised. Write it off to a lesson learned and forget about it.