Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Without providing any evidence, the paper says “loosened restrictions on firearms” contributed to gun violence in Columbus.
Like many other cities across the country, Columbus, Ohio, saw a spike in homicides during the COVID-19 pandemic. Even though that was a nationwide phenomenon, The New York Times, in a story that purports to explain “How Gun Violence Spread Across One American City,” blames “loosened restrictions on firearms” in Ohio.
The implausibility of that explanation is immediately apparent because the story opens and closes with the June 2021 death of 43-year-old Jason Keys, who was killed during a bizarre dispute in Walnut Hill Park, “a leafy neighborhood” of Columbus. Although Times reporters Shaila Dewan and Robert Gebeloff present that incident as emblematic of how weak gun control has helped make formerly safe Columbus neighborhoods newly dangerous, the details of this homicide plainly do not fit that theory.
Keys and his wife had just visited her grandparents’ house when they were confronted by 72-year-old Robert Thomas, who was carrying a rifle. Prosecutors later said Thomas “believed that the couple had let the air out of his tires and poured herbicide on his lawn.” But it was not Thomas who killed Keys. Another neighbor, a 24-year-old ex-Marine named Elias Smith, responded to the altercation by firing seven shots at Keys from his front doorstep.
At his murder trial in July 2023, Smith testified that he thought he was defending his neighbors from Keys, who had a pistol in his waistband. The jury did not buy it. Smith was convicted and received a sentence of 15 years to life.
It is hard to see how “loosened restrictions on firearms” contributed to Keys’ death. Dewan and Gebeloff note that Smith was armed with “a so-called ghost gun, an AR-style rifle that Mr. Smith had assembled from parts ordered online,” which is doubly irrelevant. First, Keys would be just as dead even if Smith had bought a ready-made rifle. Second, the “loosened restrictions on firearms” highlighted by the Times did not affect the availability of homemade rifles. More generally, those changes clearly had nothing to do with this crime.
In 2020, Dewan and Gebeloff note, Ohio “enacted a ‘stand your ground’ law supported by gun rights organizations, expanding established limits on when a shooting can be deemed self-defense.” Under Senate Bill 175, which took effect in April 2021, “a trier of fact shall not consider the possibility of retreat as a factor in determining whether or not a person who used force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person’s residence reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.”
That rule already applied to people in their homes or vehicles. The new law extended it to other locations where “the person lawfully has a right to be.” Whatever the merits of that change, it did not affect Smith’s criminal liability, since he was standing at the entrance of his own home when he fired his rifle. His defense failed because he was unable to show that he “reasonably believed” the use of deadly force was “necessary to prevent injury, loss, or risk to life or safety.”
Dewan and Gebeloff also mention changes that Ohio legislators made in 2022, when they “allowed school boards to arm teachers who completed 24 hours of training, eliminated permit and training requirements for concealed weapons, and barred cities from prohibiting gun sales during riots.” These provisions are not relevant to Smith’s crime, and in any event they were approved the year after he killed Keys.
Finally, Dewan and Gebeloff note that “lawmakers pre-empted cities from passing their own gun statutes” in 2006 and “rescinded a ban on high-capacity magazines” in 2014. Litigation based on the former law, they add, blocked enforcement of Columbus ordinances “requiring guns to be safely stored around children and banning high-capacity magazines.” Those ordinances were enacted in 2022, so it is logically impossible that preventing them from taking effect played a role in Keys’ death even if their requirements were relevant, which they are not.
At the time of the shooting, Smith was a 24-year-old man, not a child. And since he fired seven rounds, the city’s subsequent 30-round limit on magazine capacity could not even theoretically have made a difference either. Likewise with the magazine restriction that state legislators repealed in 2014, which imposed a similar limit.
In addition to Keys’ murder, the Times notes homicides committed by gun-wielding Columbus teenagers as a result of trivial disputes. One reason those teenagers have access to guns, it says, is “the attitude that the ‘man’ of the family should be armed, even if he is still a child.” A safe storage law might or might not correct that attitude, but at least it is arguably relevant to the problem the Times is describing, unlike the “stand your ground” law, permitless concealed carry, and limits on magazine capacity.
Dewan and Gebeloff also note that gun sales rose during the pandemic. “According to law enforcement officials,” they say, “stolen guns in Columbus might be had for as little as $50.” They quote a local activist who avers that buying guns is as easy as buying marijuana nowadays.
It is not clear what any of that has to do with “loosened restrictions on firearms.” Stealing guns is still illegal in Ohio, and so is selling them to minors. The minimum purchase age is 18 for long guns and 21 for handguns.
Although homicides generally fell in 2023, the Times notes, they rose in Columbus. But Dewan and Gebeloff add that “there is optimism that 2024 is going to be better in Columbus, which has seen homicide numbers fall dramatically so far this year, with 36 as of last week, compared with 70 in the same period the year before.”
Despite that good news, Dewan and Gebeloff cannot let go of the notion that insufficiently strict gun laws are retarding progress in this area. “Some criminologists,” they write, “say there is no reason to think that homicides cannot fall back to the relatively low levels seen in the 20 years before the pandemic—except perhaps that there are far more guns and far fewer limits on them.” Dewan and Gebeloff also worry that “the Supreme Court has made [guns] harder to regulate.” The subhead likewise wonders if Columbus can “find its way back to the old normal” despite “more guns and looser laws.”
The Times, in short, assumes that more guns mean more murder, even though that effect was not apparent in the decades prior to the pandemic, when a long decline in homicides established “the old normal” despite rising gun ownership. It also assumes that “loosened restrictions on firearms” resulted in more homicides during the pandemic without explaining exactly how that worked in Columbus or anywhere else. And it assumes that reducing crime requires stricter gun control, even though homicides are falling precipitously in Columbus and other cities despite “looser laws.” When you take those propositions for granted, there is no need for evidence, which explains why the Times does not bother to offer any.
Maine gun owners aren’t out of the woods yet concerning the proposed “assault weapons” ban pushed by anti-gun Democrat lawmakers this session.
While Gov. Janet Mills vetoed LD 2086 back on April 29, some in the legislature are attempting to override the governor’s veto. And tomorrow, both the state Senate and House will be holding a vote that will either uphold or override that veto.
In her veto message concerning the measure, Mills said the bill might unintentionally ban weapons that responsible gun owners use for hunting or target shooting.
While Mills said she agreed that semi-automatic firearms converted into the functional equivalent of a machine gun should be restricted, she said she was concerned that certain language in the bill could have a “risk for unintended consequences.”
“Such legislation should only be developed in a deliberate, inclusive and clear manner for both gun safety advocates and those concerned with protecting lawful access to firearms,” Mills said in the veto message.
In fact, the governor’s fears were well founded. The legislation would actually create a backdoor ban on commonly owned firearms and firearm parts by redefining a “machine gun” to include any semi-automatic firearm that includes parts that could “increase the rate of fire.”
As Gun Owners of Maine said in a recent update to members: “Destruction of firearms and alterations in the definition of Machine Gun to include commonly owned semi-automatic firearms modifications is not only a waste of perfectly good firearms, it is a stepping stone to a ban on ‘assault’ weapons.
This amendment brought to light the fact that Maine’s current statute surrounding the definition of a Machine Gun (as assessed by attorneys specializing in firearms) could be construed to include shotguns/buckshot/snake shot. Yes, this law has been on the books for decades, but it is out of step with federal law and frankly, ‘intentions’ of politicians who seek to remove firearms from the hands of law-abiding citizens is not something we trust. This definition needs to be amended and we will be seeking to do so next session.”
Maine gun owners found themselves under heavy fire by gun-hating Democrats this legislative session following last fall’s mass murder in Lewiston. The governor allowed a measure requiring a three-day waiting period before gun purchasers who have already passed the federal background check can have a new gun transferred to them. She also signed bills making it easier to confiscate firearms without due process, requiring background checks for private sales through online means and strengthening a law that forbids the “reckless” sale of a gun to a prohibited person.
Interested Maine gun owners should contact their Senator or Representative immediately and ask them to vote to uphold the governor’s veto on the “assault weapons ban.”
South Carolinian faced 115 years in prison until ATF admitted they got the wrong man
ATF refused to say how the false arrest could have happened. by LEE WILLIAMS
Firearms seized by ATF and South Carolina law enforcement last year during a “major drug and guns crackdown,” which resulted in 20 arrests, including Bryan Montiea Wilson. (Photo courtesy U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of South Carolina.)by Lee Williams
Wednesday, December 13, 2023, began just like any other workday for Bryan Montiea Wilson, a 33-year-old resident of West Columbia, South Carolina, who had never been in trouble with the law. 
At 6 a.m., Wilson began his shift at Harsco Rails on West Technology Drive, where he worked as a material processor for the railroad equipment manufacturer. A couple hours later, Wilson’s supervisor found him on the facility floor and told him to report to the main office. Inside were two men and a woman, all wearing civilian clothes. They told Wilson they were ATF agents and that they had a warrant for his arrest. They never showed him a badge.
Wilson was handcuffed and searched. He did not resist and complied fully with their demands. He told the agents he was diabetic, so they allowed his supervisor to retrieve a Pop-Tart, fruit juice and blood-sugar monitor from his locker. Wilson was walked out of Harsco in handcuffs. All of his coworkers witnessed his arrest. In the parking lot, Wilson saw two more agents searching his car.
On the way to the federal courthouse, the agents allowed Wilson to call his brother, who notified his parents of his arrest. At the courthouse, Wilson was booked, fingerprinted and photographed. He was searched a second time; all of his personal property was seized, and he was locked in a holding cell by himself.
Eventually, a Federal Public Defender was allowed in and showed Wilson a copy of an indictment, which charged him with five counts of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance and three counts of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense.
Wilson faced up to 115 years in a federal penitentiary and more than $17 million in fines. The indictment also sought to forfeit unspecified personal property and money. Wilson had never been arrested in his life. He repeatedly told his lawyer he was innocent and that there had to be some sort of mistake.
Wilson was ushered into a courtroom and arraigned before a U.S. Magistrate Judge, who read the charges off of the indictment. An agent falsely testified that the ATF had Wilson under surveillance for the past 13 months. The agent listed several dates when Wilson allegedly sold drugs to undercover ATF agents. He claimed they had Wilson on tape committing the crimes, and that other codefendants had been arrested as well.
Wilson pleaded not guilty. The judge was willing to schedule a bond, but prosecutors wanted Wilson held for several days instead. After the hearing, Wilson continued to tell his lawyer that there had been a mistake. His family, who were present during the arraignment, said the same thing.
False reports
According to court documents, from November 2022 to March 2023 West Columbia Police Officers Calvin Brown and David Thompson — who were assigned to an ATF task force and supposedly working under ATF supervision — “conducted a series of gun and drug purchases from (among others) someone they identified as Mr. Wilson.”
According to the officers’ reports, the person that the officers bought guns and drugs from and surveilled was listed as “WILSON, BRYAN MONTIEA” or “BRYAN WILSON.” Their reports even listed Wilson’s actual home address. They described him as a black male, 33 years old, five feet, 10-inches tall, with black hair and brown eyes — a description that matches Wilson and a host of other West Columbia residents.
Their reports document numerous undercover purchases of crack cocaine, methamphetamine and numerous firearms from someone they falsely believed was Wilson.
On March 15, 2023, the officers wrote “A CONTROLLED PURCHASE FOR 2 FIREARMS FOR THE PRICE OF $1,900 AND 29 GRAMS OF METHAMPHETAMINE FOR THE PRICE OF $280 FROM THE SUSPECT IDENTIFIED AS BRYAN WILSON WAS CONDUCTED THROUGH THE USE OF CONFIDENTILA (sic) INFORMANTS AND UNDERCOVER OFFICERS.”
On December 5, 2023 — eight days before Wilson’s arrest — a federal grand jury issued an eight-count indictment, alleging Wilson committed the following federal crimes:
- Count One: Possessing and distributing crack cocaine on November 10, 2022, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
- Count Two: Possessing and distributing five grams or more of methamphetamine (i.e., “meth”) and crack cocaine on November 18, 2022, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and (b)(1)(C).
- Count Three: Possessing and distributing crack cocaine on December 8, 2022, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C).
- Count Four: Using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime on December 8, 2022, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
- Count Five: Possessing and distributing five grams or more of meth and crack cocaine on January 17, 2023, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and (b)(1)(C).
- Count Six: Using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime on January 17, 2023, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
- Count Seven: Possessing and distributing five grams or more of meth on March 13, 2023, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B).
- Count Eight: Using and carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime on March 13, 2023, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).
There was just one problem: Bryan Montiea Wilson never sold guns or drugs to ATF agents, their informants or anyone else.
ATF got the wrong man.
Release
Wilson’s Federal Public Defender is the real hero in this case. After the arraignment, he persuaded prosecutors to keep Wilson at the courthouse long enough for him to investigate Wilson’s claims of innocence.
No documentation exists about the process or how this happened, but eventually the ATF somehow realized they got the wrong man. Prosecutors quickly moved to dismiss the case, but they offered no written explanation as to why they wanted the charges dropped.
“Further review of the case reveals that the interests of justice would best be served by a dismissal of the pending charges as opposed to further prosecution. Based on the foregoing, the Government respectfully requests that the Court dismiss the pending charges against defendant Bryan Montiea Wilson,” the prosecution’s motion to dismiss states.
Assistant U.S. Attorney E. Elizabeth Major, the prosecutor who signed the motion to dismiss, did not return calls seeking comment for this story.
Wilson was released from federal custody around 4:20 p.m., and he walked out of the courthouse a free but damaged man. All of the charges were dismissed with prejudice at the prosecutors’ request.
No one told him how the ATF had made such a horrible mistake.
Civil suit(s)
Earlier this month, Wilson filed a federal civil-rights lawsuit against the two West Columbia Police Officer who falsely alleged he sold them guns and drugs while they were working as task force officers for the ATF.
His lawsuit, which seeks an unspecified amount of actual, consequential and punitive damages, alleges the officers committed a false arrest, in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights, and that their misconduct led to wrongful indictment/malicious prosecution, which violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
“Defendants initiated a criminal proceeding against Plaintiff without probable cause — i.e., without a reasonable belief that Plaintiff, in fact, committed federal drug trafficking and gun crimes,” the lawsuit claims. “As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff was indicted, arrested, searched, detained, and humiliated and is entitled to recover damages, present and prospective, including for lost wages, mental anguish, distress, shock, loss of reputation, the violation of his Fifth Amendment rights, and other expenses.”
Wilson’s suit details the harm his false arrest has caused.
He needed to take several days off work. Nowadays, he rarely leaves his house. He suffers migraines and his coworkers spread rumors about his arrest and his release. One falsely claims he flipped on a codefendant, which is the kind of rumor that can get him killed. Others claim he was arrested for rape and even murder.
According to his lawsuit, Wilson worries his teenage daughter may learn what the ATF did to him. His mother, this suit claims, “now calls her son while he is at work to check on his wellbeing.”
“Mr. Wilson is a father, brother, and son, and a law-abiding citizen who works for an honest living,” the lawsuit states. “He has never trafficked drugs. He is a lawful gun owner. He has no criminal record.”
A second civil rights lawsuit against the ATF is extremely likely.
Veronica Hill, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina said she cannot comment about the case because Wilson has filed an administrative claim against the government — a prelude to a civil suit.
“When you want to file a (civil) complaint against a federal agency, you have to file an administrative claim first,” she said. “If it is not resolved within six months, or not resolved to the satisfaction of the claimant, a lawsuit can then be filed.”
Corey Ray, spokesperson for ATF’s Charlotte Field Division, which oversaw the investigation, did not return calls seeking comment for this story.
Guns on the table
Neither prosecutors nor the ATF allowed Wilson’s false arrest to dampen their enthusiasm for what they described in a press release as an “advanced, intelligence-based, multi-faceted law enforcement operation.”
“In June of 2022, in response to rising violent crime in the West Columbia area, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in Columbia launched an advanced, intelligence-based, multi-faceted law enforcement operation. The purpose of the operation was to target criminal entities and groups in the area, specifically those engaged in the illegal use, sale, and possession of firearms and narcotics. ATF established a controlled buy location, and ATF undercover agents and confidential informants began conducting controlled purchases of firearms and narcotics from criminal targets in the area, while local agencies conducted crime suppression operations,” the release states.
According to the press release, 210 firearms were seized and 20 people were arrested, including “members of the Bloods, Crips, and Gangster Disciple street gangs.”
Neither Wilson nor his false arrest were mentioned in the press release.
Takeaways
Were it not for the heads-up play of a Federal Public Defender, Wilson would likely still be in jail alongside 20 alleged gang members. It is not known if ATF agents were ever able to track down the suspect whom they mistook for Wilson, who actually sold them drugs and guns.
We will never know all of the allegations that the ATF made against Wilson or the details. Their federal complaint was quickly sealed and is no longer available to the public. However, the allegations Wilson’s attorney included in his civil suit are eerily similar to the allegations ATF made about Bryan Malinowski, the 53-year-old Arkansas airport executive whom ATF agents shot and killed in his home March 19.
The ATF also claimed they had made several undercover firearm purchases from Malinowski. They said they surveilled Malinowski for months, too. Malinowski will never be able to refute these allegations or file a civil suit.
Civil rights violations by the ATF have skyrocketed since the Biden-Harris administration weaponized the agency as part of its war on law-abiding gun owners. One can only wonder whether federal judges will take judicial notice of these injustices and start asking a few more questions before they sign off on any future request from the ATF, to ensure the agents don’t shoot another innocent homeowner or make another false arrest.
Gov. Jared Polis
While several states have passed laws this legislative session protecting gun owner privacy by prohibiting the use of firearm-specific merchant category codes by payment processors, Colorado has done just the opposite.
On Wednesday, Democrat Gov. Jared Polis signed SB24-066 into law, basically creating backdoor gun registration in the state by requiring use of such codes.
At issue is a new Merchant Category Code (MCC) for gun purchases adopted by the International Organization for Standardization a little over a year ago. MCCs are used by payment processors (like Visa and Mastercard) and other financial services companies to categorize transactions.
Prior to the creation of the specific code for guns, firearms retailers fell under the MCC for sporting goods stores or miscellaneous retail. If the new code is used, credit card companies and other payment processors can tell the purchases were firearms.
This session, legislators in Utah, Kentucky, Iowa, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin and Indiana passed laws prohibiting use of the code. A similar bill is still under consideration by lawmakers in New Hampshire.
State Sen. Tom Sullivan, sponsor of the measure in the Colorado Senate, said the bill is a life-saving measure.
“Credit cards have been repeatedly used to finance mass shootings, and merchant codes would have allowed the credit card companies to recognize his alarming pattern of behavior and refer it to law enforcement,” Sullivan said. “This bill will give us more tools to protect people, and make it easier to stop illegal firearms-related activity like straw purchases before disaster strikes.”
Interestingly, efforts are underway in Congress to outlaw the use of firearm-specific merchant category codes. Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Andy Barr of Kentucky and Richard Hudson of North Carolina have filed a bill that would prohibit use of the four-digit code that’s been created to identify merchants selling firearms.
“The tracking of gun purchases is a violation and infringement on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans which is why I am proud to introduce the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act to prohibit radical gun grabbing politicians from tracking lawful gun purchases,” Rep. Stefanik said in a press release announcing the measure. “I share the concern of law-abiding gun owners across our nation that have voiced their fear that such tactics will work to serve the radical Left’s anti-gun agenda. I will always stand up for our Second Amendment rights as Americans and provide a critical check to any entity attempting to encroach on our liberties.”
The Colorado law will take effect 90 days after the adjournment of this session of the Colorado legislature.
(Photo by Peerapon Boonyakiat / SOPA Images/Sipa USA)(Sipa via AP Images)
This morning, a briefing will be held by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) for “the Hill” regarding their interim rule regarding the “pause” on the issuance of new government licenses for firearms, related components and ammunition for “nongovernmental end users.”
The Outdoor Wire has learned the Commerce Department plans to make that “pause” on the issuance of new export licenses for firearms, related components and ammunition permanent.
That announcement, we’ve learned, could come as soon as tomorrow and “most definitely” by the first of next week.
More than a few United States Senators are already less than thrilled at what they call yet another example of Biden administration bureaucratic overreach, but there’s little they can do at this point.
If Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo presses forward with the change and Congress can’t reverse it, the costs to the gun industry could be as much as $238 million in annual revenues.
That’s a far cry from the $10 million dollar cost estimate Commerce reportedly has assigned to the change. That estimate, to be clear, would put it under the threshold requiring Congressional approval.
Like the original announcement of BIS’s 90-day pause, the timing of this status change appears to be based on the old “Friday news dump” theory. Bad news, or controversial decisions, are historically dropped late on Fridays, preferably in the spring and summer.
The “pause” has already put a financial hurt on many smaller producers in the industry. One machine company in Tennessee has already closed, putting ten people out of work. Company owners attribute the business closure to the Biden “pause” that stopped a major contract for more than $6.5 million worth of components to a single gun company.
Other small companies nationwide are suffering significant losses. Larger companies haven’t commented, but the pause has essentially stopped more than a thousand export licenses.
The “pause” began on October 27, 2023, when the Commerce Department announced a “temporary pause” on the issuance of new licenses involving firearms, related components and ammunition for “nongovernmental end users” in certain countries.
The pause by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) was to last “approximately 90 days” and allow the department to “assess current firearm export control review policies to determine whether any changes are warranted to advance U.S. national security and foreign policy interests.”
In February, well past the 90-day pause window, Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) sent a letter to the Commerce Department. In it, they expressed a concern that while there was little evidence the pause on new export licenses improved U.S. national security, there was extensive evidence it harmed small and medium-sized American businesses.
Here’s what they concluded:
According to industry experts, the 90-day pause implemented by the Commerce Department is likely to cost American businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue.
The Department’s pause on issuing new export licenses for firearms comes at the very same time that the Department has loosened restrictions on exporting products controlled under the Chemical Weapons Convention and Missile Technology Control Regime.
It is difficult, therefore, for us to conclude that the Commerce Department’s pause on issuing new licenses is truly motivated by a desire to promote U.S. national security. […] Nevertheless, 90 days have now passed and the Commerce Department’s pause remains in full effect.”
A fairly significant political “fingerprint” indicates the whole pause scheme was initiated by the White House’s newest gun control group, the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
Unable to pass gun control legislation, the current administration appears to have included anti-gun moves in their “whole of government approach” to getting their agenda implemented without approval from Congress.
By changing administrative language and rule interpretations (think the ATF’s “in the business” or firearm definition changes) they achieve immediate results.
Reversing those administrative decisions requires slogging through the court system. In the interim, the damage is done, harming those affected by the rules with no risk of penalty to the administrators.
According to the Senators, the pause appeared to be a “concerted and deliberate attempt to punitively target the American firearms industry.” They urged the Commerce Department to lift the pause and “refrain from imposing any new regulations that would unduly harm countless small and medium sized businesses across the United States.”
The letter appears to have neither motivated nor intimidated the BIS. Seven months after announcing the 90-day pause, and more than a month since the Senators’ letter was sent, the pause remains in effect. Now, it appears Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo is prepared to make it permanent.
Sources tell us the Secretary is also “cleansing” the Department of longtime employees and administrators who have gone on record as opposing the scheme. Earlier this week, a whistleblower in Commerce tipped Senators to the impending change. Shortly afterwards, he was told to “start making plans for future employment.”
The whistleblower also told members of Congress that Commerce Department employees involved in the BIS were “assembled” and told to “either get onboard or prepare to get out” prior to the plan being announced as permanent.
Small companies that manufacture components for firearms companies have already been suffering under the “pause.” But that doesn’t appear to bother either the bureaucrats or Secretary Raimondo one whit.
A permanent ban on exporting civilian products by the firearms industry will have a serious impact, and it won’t only hit firearms or ammunition manufacturers. Companies that supply the industry with everything from raw goods to machined component parts will share in the discomfort and some won’t survive.
We have the BIS briefing covered and as always, we’ll keep you posted.
By a razor-thin margin, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear the challenge to the Biden Administration’s “ghost gun” law.
The case, VanDerStok v. Garland, challenges the Department of Justice’s 2022 Final Rule that redefined important legal terms dealing with guns, including “firearm,” “receiver” and “frame,” making the longstanding American tradition of building personal firearms pretty much a thing of the past.
The vote to hear the case was 4-to-3, with no information released as to who voted for or against hearing the case. It takes four “yea” votes for the Supreme Court to grant a review in a case.
At issue is whether the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped their bounds in promulgating the Final Rule. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the rule is just another example of the bureaucrat-run agencies overstepping their bounds by making laws instead of enforcing them.
That’s exactly what a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found last November when it unanimously ruled to uphold an earlier district court decision on the matter. In that ruling, Judge Kurt Engelhardt, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed in no uncertain terms that the rule was an overstep.
“ATF, in promulgating its Final Rule, attempted to take on the mantle of Congress to ‘do something’ with respect to gun control,” Judge Engelhardt, a Donald Trump nominee, wrote in the opinion. “But it is not the province of an executive agency to write laws for our nation. That vital duty, for better or for worse, lies solely with the legislature.”
Judge Engelhardt further wrote that the Final Rule “flouts clear statutory text” and “exceeds the legislatively imposed limits” on agency authority.
“Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will,” the judge wrote. “Unless and until Congress acts to expand or alter the language of the Gun Control Act, ATF must operate within the statutory text’s existing limits.”
The lawsuit was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) on behalf of itself, two individual FPC members and Tactical Machining LLC. News that the Supreme Court would hear the case brought a positive reaction from FPC Founder and President Brandon Combs.
“FPC and our members look forward to the end of President Biden’s unconstitutional and abusive rule,” Combs said in an FPC press release. “We are delighted that the Supreme Court will hear our case and decide this important issue once and for all. The Fifth Circuit’s decision in our case was correct and now that victory can be applied to the entire country.”
Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation president and counsel for the plaintiffs, said the case should teach the ATF a lesson about who is charged with making laws in the country.
“This is an important day for the entire liberty movement,” Wisniewski said. “By agreeing to hear our case, the Supreme Court will have the opportunity to put ATF firmly in its place and stop the agency from unconstitutionally expanding its gun control agenda. We look forward to addressing this unlawful rule in the Court’s next term.”
The case has been added to the high court’s calendar for the session beginning in October. Oral arguments in the case are expected to begin sometime this fall.
On the 31st anniversary of the Federal government’s assault on the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, more questions are being asked about another gross case of government overreach regarding the botched March 19 ATF SWAT team raid that killed Little Rock Airport executive director, Bryan Malinowski.
Just as in Waco where more than 900 FBI and ATF agents attempted to storm the complex by pumping tear gas into the building and ramming it with armored vehicles, leading to a conflict that caused fires that killed 76 people, Malinowski, was awakened by an ATF SWAT team storming into his home in the middle of the night. When he ran from his room, armed and unsure of who was invading his home, agents shot and killed him.
The very rule the ATF has used to justify their storming of the man’s house in the middle of the night is just now being issued and won’t be made final until 30 days after it appears in the Federal Register.
The Justice Department announced last week it had submitted to the Federal Register the “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule, which makes clear the circumstances in which a person is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a federal firearms license, in order to increase compliance with the federal background check requirement for firearm sales by federal firearms licensees. Here’s what they had to say:
“Under this regulation, it will not matter if guns are sold on the internet, at a gun show, or at a brick-and-mortar store: if you sell guns predominantly to earn a profit, you must be licensed, and you must conduct background checks,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “This regulation is a historic step in the Justice Department’s fight against gun violence. It will save lives.”
“The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act enhanced background checks and closed loopholes, including by redefining when a person is ‘engaged in the business’ of dealing in firearms. Today’s rule clarifying application of that definition will save lives by requiring all those in the business of selling guns to get a federal license and run background checks — thus keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. “I applaud the hard work of ATF in drafting this rule and reviewing the hundreds of thousands of public comments, which overwhelmingly favored the rule announced today. Because of that work, our communities will be safer.”
“This is about protecting the lives of innocent, law-abiding Americans as well as the rule of law. There is a large and growing black market of guns that are being sold by people who are in the business of dealing and are doing it without a license; and therefore, they are not running background checks the way the law requires. And it is fueling violence,” said Director Steven Dettelbach of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
“Today’s Final Rule is about ensuring compliance with an important area of the existing law where we all know, the data show, and we can clearly see that a whole group of folks are openly flouting that law. That leads to not just unfair but, in this case, dangerous consequences.”
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), enacted June 25, 2022, expanded the definition of engaging in the business of firearms dealing to cover all persons who devote time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business to predominately earn a profit through the repetitive purchase and sale of firearms.
On March 14, 2023, President Biden issued Executive Order 14092, which, among other things, directs the Attorney General to develop and implement a plan to clarify the definition of who is engaged in the business of dealing in firearms and thus required to obtain a federal firearms license.
The Final Rule conforms the ATF regulations to the new BSCA definition and further clarifies the conduct that presumptively requires a license under that revised definition, among other things.
Federally licensed firearms dealers are critical to federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial law enforcement in our shared goal of promoting public safety.
Licensees submit background checks on potential purchasers to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, which helps to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons.
Further, licensees keep records of sales transactions to help ensure that when a gun is used in a crime and recovered by law enforcement it can be traced back to the first retail purchaser; they help identify and prevent straw purchasers from buying firearms on behalf of prohibited persons and criminals; and they facilitate safe storage of firearms by providing child-safety locks with every transferred handgun and offer customers other secure gun storage options.
Unlicensed dealing, however, undermines these public-safety features — which is why Congress has long prohibited engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without the required license.
To increase compliance with the statutes Congress has enacted, the Final Rule identifies conduct that is presumed to require a federal firearms license. And, in addition to implementing the revised statutory definition discussed above, the Final Rule clarifies the circumstances in which a license is — or is not — required by, among other things, adding a definition of “personal firearms collection” to ensure that genuine hobbyists and collectors may enhance or liquidate their collections without fear of violating the law.
The Final Rule also provides clarity as to what licensees must do with their inventory when they go out of business.
The Final Rule goes into effect 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
On Sept. 8, 2023, the Justice Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking, and during the 90-day open comment period, ATF received nearly 388,000 comments.
The final rule, as submitted to the Federal Register, can be viewed here.
And this is what the ATF announced:
On April 10, 2024, the Attorney General signed ATF’s final rule, Definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms, amending ATF’s regulations in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 478. The final rule implements the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA,” effective June 25, 2022), which broadened the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms (other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker).
The Final Rule clarifies that definition. It will be published in the Federal Register and will be effective 30-days from publication.
This final rule incorporates BSCA’s definitions of “predominantly earn a profit” and “terrorism,” and amends the regulatory definitions of “engaged in the business as a dealer other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit” to ensure each conforms with the BSCA’s statutory changes and can be relied upon by the public.
The final rule clarifies when a person is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms at wholesale or retail by:
- clarifying the definition of “dealer,” and defining the terms “purchase,” “sale,” and “something of value” as they apply to dealers;
- adding definitions for the term “personal collection (or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection),” and for “responsible person”;
- setting forth conduct that is presumed to constitute “engaging in the business” of dealing in firearms, and presumed to demonstrate the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” from the sale or disposition of firearms, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, in civil and administrative proceedings;
- clarifying that the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” does not require the person to have received pecuniary gain, and that intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes;
- clarifying the circumstances when a person would not be presumed to engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, including as an auctioneer, or when purchasing firearms for, and selling firearms from, a personal collection;
- addressing the procedures former licensees, and responsible persons acting on behalf of such licensees, must follow when they liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their license; and
- clarifying that licensees must follow the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 CFR 478.94and Subpart H, rather than using an ATF Form 4473 when firearms are transferred to other licensees, including transfers by a licensed sole proprietor to that person’s personal collection.
Based on their own wording, it is unlikely Malinowski was making the majority of his income from selling firearms since being the executive director of a national airport pays pretty well last time we checked. (It’s ironic that the airport he was director of is the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport as Bill Clinton was president of the United States and head of the federal government at the time the Waco siege took place.)
And despite this new rule from the ATF, it will be of no help to them in defending their actions in Little Rock. The “Engaged in the Business” rule may be part of the falsely named “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act,” but for one Little Rock family, it has already cost them a life.
The ATF’s new re-definition of “Engaged in the Business” of selling firearms is expected to go into effect on or about May 15th. The ATF’s Final Rulemaking was announced on April 8, 2024. Ignoring the weight of public comment, and ignoring logic, this new set of rules (see text at the ATF website) could make advertising and selling just one gun at a profit without a FFL a felony criminal offense. Even worse, it shifts the burden of proof from the government to individuals. In effect, you will be assumed to be guilty unless you can prove that you made no profit. Given the ongoing onslaught of currency inflation, just breaking even after allowing for inflation could be deemed a “profit”.
This new rule, which is 466-pages long, stems from the passage of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which broadened the definition of when someone is considered “engaged in the business”. Creepy Joe Biden signed this law on June 25, 2022. By abusing Chevron deference, the ATF’s minions then created this 466-page monstrosity, to wildly extrapolate just 73 words from the 1968 Gun Control Act into this lengthy set of rules.
There are some vague exemptions in the rule that redefine the term “personal collection” to clarify when people are not “engaged in the business” because they make only occasional sales to enhance a personal collection or for a hobby. But the rule also calls out exceptions to those exemptions. Fo example, the new rule transforms “occasional” into just one sale at a profit, to qualify for prosecution under a Federal felony! The ATF has warned: Willfully engaging in the business of dealing in firearms without a license is subject to a term of imprisonment of up to five years, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. They want to make everyone fearful of prosecution, and bow to their will.
Again, the burden of proof will shift from the government to individuals, to establish if the modern firearms they “occasionally” sell are part of a personal collection, and whether those sales are not intended to make a profit, but rather just to improve a collection.
The government use vague and ambiguous definitions where it suits them (like refusing to assign any number or frequency to the term “occasional”), but elsewhere in their rules they come down hard, with strict and picky definitions, to their advantage.
Absurdly, the word “sale” is redefined by the new rule, to include bartering between residents of the same state.
Even more absurdly, the ruling fabricates from thin air several new standards of “evidence” of criminal intent, none of which were mentioned in congressional legislation, such as:
Repetitively selling guns “…that are of the same or similar kind (i.e., make/manufacturer, model,
caliber/gauge, and action) and type…” — as proof of intent to be “engaged in the business”.
or,
Keeping a gun less than 30 days before reselling it — as proof of intent to be “engaged in the business”.
or,
including a factory box (“…persons who repetitively sell firearms in new condition or in like-new
condition in their original packaging…”) — as proof of intent to be “engaged in the business”.
or,
Keeping records of original cost versus sales price — as proof of intent to be “engaged in the business”.
The ATF rule includes this phrase: “…makes and maintains records to document, track, or calculate profits and losses from firearms repetitively purchased for resale.” It bears mention that keeping records is often needed for tax or insurance purposes, but the ATF sees this as further evidence of someone’s intent to be “engaged in the business”
Elsewhere in the same 466-page-long set of rules, we learn that a lack of original purchase cost records would make it almost impossible to prove that you didn’t later re-sell any particular gun at a higher price. Thus, it is a case of: “You are damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.” So, from a practical standpoint, what are we expected to do? A.) Not keep records, but then be unable to document that we weren’t seeking a profit, or B.) Hide our cost basis records, and only reveal them if we are later charged with being “engaged in the business” without a license, to prove our innocence? This all flies in the face of the time-honored “innocent until proven guilty” principle in American jurisprudence.
Sadly, the DOJ’s comment period for the proposed rulemaking has come and gone, and this new set of rules may stand, even if the Supreme Court does away with Chevron deference, with the upcoming Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo case. We will simply have to live with it, most likely for several years.
INTRASTATE VERSUS INTERSTATE
By their very nature private party sales through local classified ads or at gun shows are intrastate (within a state) commerce. Buyers, sellers, and merchandise do not cross state lines. The Federal government only has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. By effectively banning private party sales between residents of the same state, this new rule is a gross overreach of Federal authority. The ATF claims that they have authority because intrastate somehow magically “affect interstate commerce. I spelled out their illogical nonsense in a recent SurvivalBlog article, titled: Fencing In Federal Jurisdiction.
PRE-1899 GUNS ARE EXEMPT
Thankfully, pre-1899 antique guns and blackpowder replica guns are exempt from the new rules. Per the Gun Control Act of 1968, any gun with a frame or receiver made on or before December 31, 1898 is not considered a “firearm”, regardless of its chambering, ignition system, or configuration. With the exceptions of only short-barreled cartridge rifles or shotguns, or full-auto guns (per the National Firearms Act of 1934) all other “antiques” are outside of Federal jurisdiction. Note, however, that some state and local laws apply. Needless, to say, after this rule goes into effect I expect to see some brisk sales of my pre-1899 antiques and percussion black powder replicas, at Elk Creek Company. I invested in a big vault full of the right guns!
THE CLOCK IS TICKING!
I’ve warned SurvivalBlog readers about this upcoming rule for more than four years. (See: Preparing for a Private Gun Transfer Ban, posted in January 2019, and Some Very Bad Law: The ATF’s New “Engaged In The Business” Rule, posted in September 2023.) I hope that my readers bought what they needed for their collections, quietly. (Read: Sans papiers.)
Some advice for those of you who live in any of the 34 “free” (private party sales) states: You now have less than a month to buy any private party guns or lowers that you want, to round out your collection. The clock is ticking. Do your purchasing while it is still legal, and while there are still some willing sellers. After the rule goes into effect, most people will be frightened into compliance, and nearly all sales of modern (post-1898) guns will be shifted to FFL channels — which means filling out an ATF Form 4473, and submitting to an FBI background check. Gun shows as we now know them in the 34 free states will become a thing of the past. The selection of guns offered privately will become pitifully small. There will be just a handful, and your chance of finding a particular model variant will become almost nonexistent, unless you submit to the Federal paperwork and background check.
Bottom line: Unless this rule is suspended or overthrown by the courts, by June of 2024, all gun shows will resemble California gun shows, where any modern guns get transferred only through Federally-licensed “transfer dealers.” This deeply saddens and troubles me. Another nail has been added to the coffin of American liberty.
P.S. : A reminder that there were 15 shameless U.S. Senators with a “(R)” after their names who voted for the BSCA bill. They knew that this bill would end private sales of used guns. They were:
- Roy Blunt, Missouri
- Richard Burr, North Carolina
- Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia
- Bill Cassidy. Louisiana
- Susan Collins, Maine
- John Cornyn, Texas
- Joni Ernst, Iowa
- Lindsey Graham, South Carolina
- Mitch McConnell, Kentucky
- Lisa Murkowski, Alaska
- Rob Portman, Ohio
- Mitt Romney, Utah
- Thom Tillis, North Carolina
- Pat Toomey, Pennsylvania
- Todd Young, Indiana