By Lee Williams

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

(The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.)

UPDATED, 7/1/22 @ 1:40 p.m. PDT — United Parcel Service is terminating the accounts of gun dealers across the country. Any packages currently in the UPS system may be “seized and destroyed.”

In a letter sent to one Florida gun dealer, Ghost Firearms, UPS said they were terminating the account because they “may be violating” laws concerning homemade firearm parts.

“We write to inform you that UPS has learned that your company may be violating applicable laws concerning the shipment of “ghost guns” to unauthorized locations,” the letter states. “In light of our concern, UPS has determined that it will cancel your account, effective immediately.

Ghost’s owner, Joe Zatar was told all scheduled pickups will be cancelled, and that he cannot reopen another UPS account or ship anything from a UPS store or website.

He is most concerned about the packages already in the UPS system, which he may have already lost.

“Please note that any package found in the UPS system determined to have been tendered by GHOST FIREARMS may be seized and destroyed,” the letter states.

“I just shipped more than $30,000 worth of products,” he said.

Zatar immediately called his UPS sales rep, who said he had no idea the account was terminated.

Ghost Firearms sells uppers, lowers, handguards and OEM parts for a number of manufacturers. They also sell 80% receivers.

“We do not ship to states where they’re not allowed,” Zatar said. “We are in total compliance. We had ATF in here just two weeks ago, and they told us we were completely legal.”

Initially, Retail giant Brownells told their customers in a Facebook post Friday that they too were terminated by UPS.

Brownells did not specify in their post the reason why UPS terminated their account, and the post was taken down several hours later. 

UPS’ Media Relations personnel did not return calls or emails seeking comment for this story.

Seventy-five years have passed since George Orwell observed that, when challenged by uncomfortable facts, political advocates often descend into “euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness.” This is still the best description of the rhetorical approach being taken by the American gun-control movement.

Over the last four decades, as support for increasing restrictions has steadily eroded, America’s gun-control activists have attempted to redefine or obfuscate almost every element within the debate. Disfavored guns have been rebranded “assault weapons”—not because such a designation means anything useful or concrete, but because, as the anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann put it, the term takes advantage of “the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons” and helps to “increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Over the same period, gun control has been relabeled “gun safety”; standard-issue magazines have been deemed “high-capacity” magazines; firearms owned by prohibited persons have become “illegal guns”; mass-murderers have been deemed “active shooters”; deliberately crafted laws have been transmuted into “loopholes”; weapons that happen to be black have been classified as “military style”; confiscation drives have been termed “mandatory buybacks”; and everything—yes, everything—that the opponents of the Second Amendment seek to do has been cast as mere “common sense.”

One can get a good idea of the game that is being played by comparing the changes in public-opinion polling to the evolving names of America’s largest gun-control groups. Back in 1974, when Gallup was finding that 41% of Americans favored a ban on handguns, the organization that is now called the Brady Campaign was called the National Council to Control Handguns. Also, the organization that is now called The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence was called the National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Over time, as polling changed, so did the names of the groups that were calling for it. In 1980, the National Council to Control Handguns was renamed Handgun Control Inc. By 2001, it had become the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Today, with support for a ban on handguns at 25%—about the same number as believe that we should “defund the police”—it is simply known as Brady: United Against Gun Violence.

Thanks to a relentless pressure campaign, these euphemisms have become standard in the media—and beyond. Back in 2013, as the Obama administration geared up for its big gun-control push, the Center for American Progress sent a memo to politicians and journalists alike explaining how they should talk about guns if they wanted to “help.” The big piece of advice in the memo: To describe everything Obama sought to do as mere “gun-violence prevention.” Since then, the Center for American Progress and similar anti-gun groups have so rigorously policed the language in this area that the vast majority of reporters have come to follow their advice without thinking about it.

The results of this shift have not only been farcical, but have also greatly diminished our understanding of reality. It is now common for media outlets, such as CNN, to describe any criminal event as a “mass shooting,” irrespective of the circumstances or the setting. There’s been a gang fight in Chicago? “Mass shooting.” We have news of a family tragedy inside an apartment building? “Mass shooting.” So imprecise has the media become, in fact, that by the end of 2019 almost every American outlet was repeating the claim made by the activist Gun Violence Archive that there had been 418 mass shootings in the United States that year. The real number, per the definition used by the FBI, was six.

Off by a factor of 70. Orwellian mission accomplished, I suppose.

ALBANY, N.Y. — New York would require people applying for a handgun license to turn over a list of their social media accounts so officials could verify their “character and conduct” under a bill headed toward passage Friday in the state Legislature.

The provision was part of a proposed redesign of the state’s firearms licensing laws hammered out by lawmakers after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down rules that had severely limited who could get a permit to carry a handgun outside their home.

A bill advanced by Democratic leaders would eliminate the most strict barriers to getting a permit but also impose new requirements for applicants.

Among the requirements: Applicants would have to show they have “the essential character, temperament and judgment necessary to be entrusted with a weapon and to use it only in a manner that does not endanger oneself and others,” according to the bill.

And as part of that assessment of good character, the bill says, applicants would have to turn over a list of any social media accounts they have had in the past three years “to confirm the information regarding the applicant’s character and conduct.”

“Sometimes, they’re telegraphing their intent to cause harm to others,” Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said at a news conference.

Gun rights advocates and Republican leaders were incensed, saying the measure intrudes on constitutional rights.

“What is being proposed in New York is a violation of Second Amendment rights, but they are also asking you to sign away your privacy rights for social media accounts, signing away your First Amendment rights,” said Mark Liva, the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s managing director of public affairs. State Republican Chair Nick Langworthy said “New Yorkers’ constitutional freedoms were just trampled on.”

The bill didn’t specify whether applicants would be required to provide licensing officers with access to private social media accounts not visible to the general public.

People applying for a license to carry a handgun would also have to provide four character references, take 16 hours of firearms safety training plus two hours of practice at a range, undergo periodic background checks and turn over the contact information of their spouse, domestic partner or any other adults living in their household.

Aaron Dorr, the executive director of the New York State Firearms Association, called the measure “the kind of bill that the Gestapo would be proud of” or “you’d see in Communist China.”

“This will never survive a court challenge,” he said.

Hochul’s chief lawyer, Elizabeth Fine, insisted the state was setting out “a very clear set of eligibility criteria” and noted that the legislation includes an appeals process for applicants who may feel a reviewer acted inappropriately.

The state Senate approved the measure Friday during a special legislative session called to address the state’s gun laws. The Assembly was expected to consider the measure later in the day.

The Supreme Court ruling struck down a previous rule requiring people to demonstrate an unusual threat to their safety to get a license to carry a handgun outside their homes. That restriction generally limited the licenses to people who had worked in law enforcement or had another special need that went beyond routine public safety concerns.

Under the new system, the state wouldn’t authorize permits for people with criminal convictions within the past five years for driving while intoxicated, menacing or third-degree assault.

People also wouldn’t be allowed to carry firearms at a long list of “sensitive places,” including New York City’s tourist-packed Times Square.

That list also includes schools, universities, government buildings, places where people have gathered for public protests, health care facilities, places of worship, libraries, public playgrounds and parks, day care centers, summer camps, addiction and mental health centers, shelters, public transit, bars, theaters, stadiums, museums, polling places and casinos.

New York would also bar people from bringing guns into any business or workplace unless the owners put up signs saying guns are welcome. People who bring guns into places without such signs could be prosecuted on felony charges.

That’s a reverse approach from many other states where businesses that want to keep guns out are usually required to post signs indicating weapons aren’t allowed.

Gun advocates said the bill infringes on rights upheld by the Supreme Court.

“Now we’re going to let the pizzeria owner decide whether or not I can express my constitutional right,” said Sen. Andrew Lanza, a Staten Island Republican. “This is a disgrace. See you in the courts. You all know this is unconstitutional. You all know this is just a ruse. Another attempt to say to the people of the state of New York: ‘We don’t trust you.’”

The bill would also fix a recently passed law that barred sales of some types of bullet-resistant vests to the general public, but inadvertently left out many types of body armor, including the type worn by a gunman who killed 10 Black people in a racist attack on a Buffalo supermarket.

If passed, the bill would go to Hochul’s desk for her expected signature, then take effect Sept. 1.

———

Associated Press/Report for America writer Maysoon Khan contributed to this report. Maysoon Khan is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on under-covered issues. Follow Maysoon Khan on Twitter.