Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
Taya Gray/USA TODAY NETWORK file
California lawmakers will send a state excise tax on guns and ammunition to Gov. Gavin Newsom after years of failed attempts by Democratic legislators.
The Senate voted 27-9 on Thursday to approve Assembly Bill 28, which would require manufacturers, vendors and dealers to pay an 11% tax on guns and ammunition to fund violence prevention efforts. The bill passed with exactly the two-thirds threshold needed for approval of a tax.
Gun and ammunition-sellers would pay the new state tax on top of the 10 to 11% federal excise tax they already pay to fund wildlife conservation efforts.
Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Woodland Hills, authored the bill after former Assemblyman Marc Levine, D-San Rafael, failed multiple times to get excise tax bills through the Legislature.
Prior to Levine’s attempts, at least three other lawmakers had pushed similar taxes on guns and ammunition since 2013. Gabriel’s bill was the first of its kind to pass out of the Assembly.
When the assemblyman first put the bill forward, there were questions about whether it was “in the realm of possibility,” he said after the Senate vote.
“I introduced this bill at the very beginning of session,” Gabriel said. “A few weeks later, we have mass shootings in Half Moon Bay and in Monterey Park and in all these places.”
“Frankly, I think part of the reason the bill passed is the public is demanding this of us,” he added. “They are demanding that we have more solutions that will do more to protect their kids, to protect their communities.”
Lawmakers debate tax effectiveness
Many senators on Thursday cited their children and grandchildren and school safety concerns in their arguments for backing the bill. Floor debate lasted for about an hour before lawmakers voted.
Sen. Angelique Ashby, D-Sacramento, urged her colleagues to support AB 28 as a “mechanism to address gun violence.” She made her plea in the name of her school-age daughter and California children, as well as Amber Clark, a Natomas librarian who was fatally shot in 2018.
“Like so many Americans, I do hug my little daughter each morning as I drop her off at school,” Ashby said. “And as I drive away, I push out of my mind the unthinkable. Otherwise, it would be impossible for me to face the tasks I’m responsible for every day.”
But Republicans, and a handful of Democrats, said the tax would do little to prevent gun violence, and retailers would pass on the added cost on to customers. In this way, it would penalize law-abiding firearm owners, hunters and students taking part in shooting sports, they said.
“When you add another 11% on, all it’s going do is decrease the number of hunters,” said Sen. Bill Dodd, D-Napa. “Sooner or later, this will be like the tobacco tax. And sooner or later, this money’s going to go down, down, down.”
Gun control groups cheered AB 28’s passage and urged Newsom to sign it.
“This bill is an innovative approach in tackling gun violence and a crucial step to improve the safety of all California families,” said Cassandra Whetstone, a volunteer with the California chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, in a statement.
Gun rights advocates said they plan to sue the state over the legislation if the governor makes it law.
“The passage of this bill will be seen for what it is … an unconstitutional tax on an enumerated right,” said Rick Travis, legislative director for the California Rifle and Pistol Association, in an email.
The measure now heads to Newsom, who must sign or veto bills by Oct. 14.
(Yup, you read that right – California is going to tax one of our Constitutionally protected Rights.)
President Joe Biden and the Department of Justice announced a proposed rule to change who will need a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell firearms.
The long-awaited rule was hailed by anti-gun groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, Giffords, and Brady United as a way of closing the “gun show loophole” and the “internet loophole.” Anti-gun organizations claim this is a step towards universal background checks, a centerpiece of the Biden Administration’s anti-gun policy.
The proposed rule is powered by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which was a law championed by Chris Murphy (D-CT) and John Cornyn (R-TX). The BSCA changed the law’s wording to describe who the federal government considers a gun dealer. The bill altered the language of Section 921(a) of Title 18, United States Code.
The BSCA changed the definition of someone “engaged in the business” of selling guns from “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” to the ambiguous statement of “to predominantly earn a profit.” Now, the Biden Administration is exploiting that change through the upcoming rule. At the time, some Republicans who backed the law blew off the concerns that an anti-gun administration would exploit the language. The change read:
(22) The term `to predominantly earn a profit’ means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection: Provided, that proof of profit shall not be required as to a person who engages in the regular and repetitive purchase and disposition of firearms for criminal purposes or terrorism.
The new rule will also affect those that sell multiples of the same type of firearms. This section means that anyone who liquidates a collection of Glock pistols must acquire an FFL before they can liquidate the guns. Many people collect certain guns, and this would prevent the legal transfer of those firearms without an FFL.
Unlicensed sellers who sell through “online auctions” would be required to obtain an FFL under the proposed rule. This section is a targeted shot at sites like Armslist.
These websites do not sell firearms and currently do not have to get an FFL. The new rule seems to change that. This has long been a goal of the Biden Administration, which has put out false narratives about online gun sales, such as buyers not having to go through background checks for guns purchased online. The rule reads:
“In addition, it clarifies the term “dealer,” including how that term applies to auctioneers, and defines the term “responsible person.” These proposed changes would assist persons in understanding when they are required to have a license to deal in firearms.”
“These examples are provided to clarify for unlicensed persons that firearms dealing requires a license in whatever place or through whatever medium the firearms are purchased and sold, including the Internet and locations other than a traditional brick and mortar store.”
Armslist is specifically called out in the rule. Armslist is a firearms version of “Craigslist List.” Armslist has been the target of anti-gun groups for years who keep launching and losing lawsuits against the website. Many think this is a concerted effort to hurt the website’s business by stating up to 25% of people selling on the site will require an FFL under the proposed rule. The rule reads:
“To better estimate both online and offline sales, ATF assumed, based on best professional judgment of FIPB SMEs and with limited available information, that the national online marketplace estimate above may represent 25 percent of the total national firearms market, which would also include in-person, local, or other offline transactions like flea markets, State-wide exchanges, or websites within each of the 50 States.”
The rule would make it so that anyone who rents a table at a gun show will be assumed to be in the business of selling firearms, meaning that private citizens will no longer be able to sell their firearms at any gun show.
Also, if someone advertises their firearms for sale, they could be assumed to be in the business of selling firearms, which will shut down most private sales. The rule reads:
“Based on this decades-long body of experience, the proposed rule provides that, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, a person is presumed to have the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” when the person: (1) advertises, markets, or otherwise promotes a firearms business (e.g., advertises or posts firearms for sale, including on any website, establishes a website for selling or offering for sale their firearms, makes available business cards, or tags firearms with sales prices), regardless of whether the person incurs expenses or only promotes the business informally;94 (2) purchases, rents, or otherwise secures or sets aside permanent or temporary physical space to display or store firearms they offer for sale, including part or all of a business premises, table or space at a gun show, or display case;95 (3) makes or maintains records, in any form, to document, track, or calculate profits and losses from firearms purchases and sales;96 (4) purchases or otherwise secures merchant services as a business (e.g., credit card transaction services, digital wallet for business) through which the person makes or offers to make payments for firearms transactions;97 (5) formally or informally purchases, hires, or otherwise secures business security services (e.g., a central station-monitored security) system registered to a business,98 or guards for security99) to protect business assets or transactions that include firearms; (6) formally or informally establishes a business entity, trade name, or online business account, including an account using a business name on a social media or other website, through which the person makes or offers to make firearms transactions;100 (7) secures or applies for a State or local business license to purchase for resale or to sell merchandise that includes firearms; or (8) purchases a business insurance policy, including any riders that cover firearms inventory. 101 Any of these nonexclusive, firearms-business-related activities justifies a rebuttable presumption that the person has the requisite intent to predominantly earn a profit from reselling or disposing of firearms.”
By requiring more people to get FFLs, it will prevent a lot of Americans from selling guns. The secondary market has been an excellent way for those less fortunate to acquire the means of protection. Those who choose to get an FFL will be subject to unannounced warrantless inspections. These inspections have been used to revoke gun shop’s FFLs under the Biden Administration’s zero-tolerance policy.
FFL revocation is up between 350% and 500% and is currently at a 17-year high. The amount of record keeping, cost, and hostile environment created by the ATF could mean that many will not get an FFL to sell their firearms, which could be part of Biden’s plan.
The government’s argument is most criminals do not get their guns from gun dealers. That fact is true, but most criminals do not get firearms from legal transactions. Most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally through such means as theft, which means this rule will not prevent criminals from getting firearms.
“The U.S. Sentencing Commission reports that “88.8 percent of firearm offenders sentenced under §2K2.1130 [of the United States Sentencing Commission GuidelinesManual (Nov. 2021)] were [already] prohibited from possessing a firearm” under 18U.S.C. 922(g). These individuals would thus have been flagged in a background check,would have therefore been prohibited from buying a firearm from a licensed dealer after their first offense, and would not have been able to commit the subsequent firearms offense(s) if their seller had been licensed.”
There will be an exception for gifting firearms between family members. Although this type of transfer only makes up a small portion of transfers. There will be a 90-day comment period once the proposed rule is posted to the federal registry. After the comment period, a final rule will be unveiled.”
AmmoLand News is currently reaching out to those Republicans who backed the BSCA to get comments.
Hallelujah! The legacy media has finally started covering ATF’s unconstitutional war on the country’s gun dealers, which the pro-gun media has been denouncing and warning the public about for more than two years.
The Wall Street Journal published a story Friday morning titled: “Hundreds of Gun Dealers Lose Licenses Under Biden Administration Crackdown.” Nine hours later, FOX News posted their take of the WSJ story titled: “Gun industry cries foul after hundreds of gun dealers lose licenses amid Biden administration crackdown.”
This friends, could be a very good thing.
The more scrutiny the ATF receives, the more difficult it will be for them to continue violating our constitutional rights. But remember that ATF officials are masters of hoodwinking and gaslighting the media and the public. Their responses to the WSJ and FOX show that ATF’s leadership are up to their old tricks. Clearly, they’re trying to downplay the significance of what they’ve already done, and what they continue to do every single day.
Everchanging Rules
In an emailed statement to Fox News, ATF said it is merely following the law:
“Federal Firearms Licensees are often our first line of defense against gun crime and are often a source of critical enforcement information that helps law enforcement identify straw purchasers and disrupt firearms trafficking schemes,” ATF Spokesperson Kristina Mastropasqua said. “FFLs that willfully (emphasis mine) violate the law, however, must be held accountable. ATF conducts inspections to ensure compliance with applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations and to educate licensees on the specific requirements of those laws and regulations.”
For those familiar with Joe Biden’s weaponized ATF, the word “willfully” should jump off the page.
In a story published in May 2020, one expert warned that the ATF had redefined “willful” to bolster Biden’s zero-tolerance for willful violations policy. Now, because of the new definition, if a dealer makes a simple clerical error, they can lose their license because the new definition of willful states that the dealer knew the law, but willfully chose to violate it anyway – regardless of whether it was a simple oversight, an error by an employee or a minor paperwork mistake.
“They have twisted negligence into willful,” the ATF expert said. “These are not uncommon errors that we’re seeing. Things happen.”
Revoked vs. Surrendered
Both FOX and the WSJ cited ATF revocation data that claimed there were 122 Federal Firearm License revocations during the last fiscal year, which began in October.
First, I need to point out that ATF data – any ATF data – is immediately suspect. I’d rather rely on an 8mm Type 94 Nambu for home defense than any numbers ATF publishes. There is no doubt that far more then 122 FFLs were revoked, but this is not the point.
After a series of embarrassing losses during their own revocation hearings, ATF switched up some of its tactics. Now, in addition to formal revocation proceedings, ATF agents try to scare the hell out of a gun dealer they’ve targeted, hoping they will “voluntarily” surrender their license and avoid hearings and reams of paperwork.
This tactic worked when ATF sent a SWAT team to the home of a gun dealer in rural Oklahoma and handcuffed him in front of his 13-year-old son, but it failed when they threatened a longtime gun dealer in Texas with unspecified federal charges, who instead opted to take them to court.
An FFL is an FFL to the ATF. It doesn’t matter how they get their hands on them, but any truthful data should also include the number of FFLs that were “voluntarily” surrendered.
ATF-Speak
When covering anything ATF, particular attention needs to be paid to their legalese. Often, when ATF claims a gun dealer broke the law, it’s not really a law. It’s actually a rule the ATF came up with themselves. More than a few courts have chastised the agency for trying to be judge, jury and executioner. They’ve violated real laws by creating and enforcing their own rules, which carry the full weight of a federal law, such as fines and lengthy prison terms.
ATF still can’t grasp that Congress creates laws, not the administration or any federal law enforcement agency. They’re headed for a spanking from the Supreme Court that will be legendary in its scope.
Written Statements
When a public official or the agency they represent have nothing to hide, they take questions. They submit to interviews. They give out their cellphone numbers. They make themselves available to the media and the public. After all, they work for us, or at least they’re supposed to.
Nowadays, ATF leadership is hiding deep in a bunker. They don’t respond to emails, phone calls or ever FOIA requests. When pressed hard, they’ll sometimes send a written statement, but only after it’s been approved by teams of lawyers and communications staffers.
This alone speaks volumes about the ATF. It says they don’t believe in accountability to the public, which pays their salaries. It also screams that they have a lot to hide – far more than what’s already been uncovered.
I hope the legacy media’s interest in ATF’s shenanigans continues – the more, the merrier. Besides, ATF has become bloated with lies and is long overdue for a massive investigative enema.
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shoote
.jpeg)
In a significant ruling, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals announced on Thursday that New Jersey possesses the authority to sue firearm manufacturers under its “public nuisance” law. This comes as a substantial victory for the ant-freedom state and its ongoing efforts to gut public safety amidst the backdrop of gun rights affirmation by the U.S. Supreme Court.
From Fox News:
“A three-judge panel on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that a legal challenge brought against the law by the National Sports Shooting Foundation (NSSF) was premature. Though the court acknowledged the law is somewhat vague about what conduct can trigger a lawsuit from the state, it nevertheless said the firearms industry “jumped the gun” by filing a legal challenge before demonstrating injury. “
Although New Jersey’s “public nuisance” legislation was signed into law by Democratic Governor Phil Murphy in July 2022, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) moved swiftly, only four months later, to block its enforcement.
NSSF argued that this state law was in direct contradiction to the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which offers broad protective measures against liabilities for the gun industry. However, the recent 3rd Circuit decision ruled that NSSF’s legal challenge might have been too hasty. This sentiment was mirrored in Judge Stephanos Bibas’ statement, noting that there was little evidence to indicate that enforcement was imminent.
As a result, he commented, the firearms industry “jumped the gun” by filing a legal challenge prior to any observable harm.
Despite this setback for the gun industry, the NSSF remains resolute. Lawrence Keane, the NSSF General Counsel, pointed out that while they disagreed with the court’s decision, it’s important to underline the court hasn’t expressly stated that New Jersey’s law is compliant with the PLCAA. This distinction leaves a door open for further legal challenges if New Jersey moves to enforce the “public nuisance” law against firearm manufacturers.
This constitutionally shaky law is part of a broader series of gun reforms rushed into law by Governor Murphy. It grants New Jersey the ability to sue the firearms sector over concocted “public nuisance” violations that government officials claim arise from various stages in the gun lifecycle – from manufacturing and distribution to marketing. The significance of this strategy is further highlighted by the establishment of a new office by the state attorney general, Matt Platkin. This office, reportedly the first of its kind in the nation, sole purpose is initiating civil enforcement actions against firearm companies at taxpayers’ expense.
Democrat supporters of the legislation believe it’s an essential tool for public safety. Attorney General Platkin reaffirmed this belief, stating that the law aims to hold accountable those whose actions, driven by profit motives, exacerbate the epidemic of gun violence.
On the national stage, New Jersey’s initiative appears to be setting a foreboding precedent. Following the state’s lead, other predominantly blue states, including Delaware, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Washington, and Illinois, have either passed or are considering analogous measures to attack the gun industry, one of America’s last robust manufacturing sectors. With the 3rd Circuit’s ruling being the first instance of a federal appellate court weighing in on such laws, the decision will likely influence subsequent judicial perspectives.
The journey is far from over. As states tread this shady legal path, they are guaranteed to encounter additional challenges from the gun industry and advocates for the U.S. Constitution. The primary contention remains the incongruence between overarching state laws like New Jersey’s and the federal PLCAA.
After years of light enforcement to encourage cooperation, ATF is clamping down on firearm sellers, who say they are being unfairly targeted
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives employs about 800 people to inspect licensed firearms dealers across the country. PHOTO: TIM SLOAN/AFP/GETTY IMAGES
The Biden administration is revoking licenses from hundreds of firearms dealers in a significant escalation of federal enforcement actions that has angered many in the gun industry.
It has also provoked disagreement among law-enforcement veterans. Some say it is a welcome change after years of wrist slaps, while others say it risks alienating some of the government’s most valuable sources in combating gun violence.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has revoked the licenses of 122 gun dealers in the fiscal year that began in October, up from 90 for all last fiscal year and 27 in 2021.
Previously, ATF issued warnings to many firearms dealers for legal violations, in part because they are a valuable source of tips on suspicious gun buyers. The Trump and Obama administrations never revoked more than 81 dealers’ licenses annually since at least 2013, the earliest year for which data are available.
Gun dealers have filed lawsuits and threatened to stop informing federal agents about suspicious buyers, claiming that the crackdown is a way to punish the firearms industry by an administration hostile to them.
The Biden administration, which has been pushing to more tightly regulate guns both via legislation and administrative action, said it is simply enforcing the law.
ATF Director Steve Dettelbach said guns can end up getting sold to criminals and others who shouldn’t have them if dealers don’t follow the rules. PHOTO: OLIVER CONTRERAS/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
“We’ve taken steps to hold accountable those few dealers who are engaging in these willful violations,” said ATF Director Steve Dettelbach. “They’re not going to have the privilege of being a gun dealer anymore.”
Dettelbach said guns can end up getting sold to criminals and others who shouldn’t have them if dealers don’t follow the rules.
Gun-store owners complain that the federal government is taking away their livelihoods over paperwork errors.
“We were making $1 million a year, now it’s less than $100,000,” said Anthony Navarro, who lost his license last year after receiving three earlier warnings since 2009. “This policy is designed to be a backdoor violation of the Second Amendment.”
Navarro still sells firearm accessories at his Greeley, Colo., store.
The ATF employs about 800 people to inspect more than 50,000 licensed dealers across the country. In the past, the agency had a light touch with inspections in part because it relied on dealers for information about suspicious gun buyers, according to former ATF officials.
“The gun dealers were our first line of defense against gun trafficking,” said Peter Forcelli, a retired deputy assistant director. “Why are we now beating an ally into submission?”
Other former officials said that the soft approach created an environment in which dealers weren’t worried about breaking the rules.
“The ATF, previous to this administration, had a ‘Let’s see if we can help you’ attitude and some gun dealers took advantage of that,” said Rick Vasquez, a retired ATF official.
President Biden’s tougher approach comes after a yearslong push by gun-control groups such as Brady to go after rogue gun dealers. Brady compiled about 80,000 pages of ATF inspection reports in recent years to highlight the issue.
Christian Heyne is vice president of policy and programs at Brady, which advocates for tighter gun laws. PHOTO: TOM WILLIAMS/ZUMA PRESS
“We could see regularly that recommendations for revocation were being downgraded and then these same stores would be inspected again for even at times even more than a decade,” said Christian Heyne, vice president of policy and programs at Brady.
Heyne discovered that an ATF inspector had in 2015 recommended revoking Navarro’s license for his shop in Colorado after sending him warning letters in 2009 and 2011. The 2015 inspection turned up 10 violations, including selling guns to people who said they were prohibited from owning guns on background check forms. An ATF supervisor overturned the recommendation, saying Navarro should be given a warning conference instead, the inspection reports show.
Navarro said some customers made mistakes when filling out background check forms, but weren’t prohibited from buying firearms.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
How should regulation of gun dealers be enforced? Join the conversation below.
In 2020, inspectors found more violations, including failing to report multiple sales of handguns and failing to keep records of some transactions. Officials noted that they had warned Navarro to clean up his act on multiple occasions, according to agency documents.
Navarro said he discovered those issues after one of his employees quit. “It was a horrendous mess,” he said. “This guy hid forms underneath the printer.”
He said he reported the problems to the ATF as soon as he found them.
The agency revoked his license to sell firearms last year.
An ATF spokeswoman declined to comment on specific cases.
A North Dakota gun store that recently filed a lawsuit against the ATF alleged that the new approach to inspections is being “wielded as a political weapon.” Bridge City Ordnance had sued the agency over an unrelated matter when inspectors recommended revoking its license. Lawyers for the gun store declined to comment, as did the ATF.
Leslie Gifford, an 82-year-old retiree who sold firearms out of his garage in Burlington, Kan., for the past three decades, tried to fight back when the ATF pulled his license last year for several violations including selling a gun to a man from Nebraska. Such sales are required to go through a dealer in the purchaser’s home state.
At a hearing, Gifford said he thought the sale was allowed because the man had a concealed-carry license from Nebraska, and he apologized, according to ATF documents. He attributed other violations to being too busy.
The ATF wasn’t moved by his pleas, ruling that “there is no legal justification for a licensee’s claim that circumstances, such as being busy or overwhelmed, excuses the failure.”
Gifford said he believes the government was determined to revoke his license, rather than reach a reasonable compromise.
“Mr. Biden wants to get rid of all of us little dealers,” said Gifford. “Gets me wound up, boy. It’s a political game, sure as hell.”
.JPG)