Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Democrats Don’t Care Whether Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Constitutional by Jacob Sullum

I am with Stupid Democrats

Washington, DC – -(AmmoLand.com)- A week before the House of Representatives approved a ban on “assault weapons,” a federal judge in Denver explained why such laws are unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

House Democrats either were not paying attention or did not care because they view the Second Amendment as an outmoded provision that imposes no meaningful limits on gun control.

Unfortunately for them, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held otherwise, ruling that the government may not prohibit law-abiding Americans from keeping handguns at home or carrying them in public for self-defense. The Court also has said the Second Amendment covers bearable arms “in common use” for “lawful purposes,” which presents a problem for Democrats who want to ban many of the most popular rifles sold in the United States.

On July 22, 2022, U.S. District Judge Raymond P. Moore, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order that bars Superior, Colorado, from enforcing its ban on “assault weapons.” The city defines that category to include semi-automatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines and have any of four features: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a flash suppressor, or a barrel shroud.

Two gun-rights groups argued that Superior’s ordinance, which also bans magazines that hold more than ten rounds, violated the Second Amendment. Moore concluded that they had “a strong likelihood of success on the merits.”

Moore noted that the plaintiffs had cited statistics to support their claim that the guns and magazines targeted by Superior’s ordinance “are commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” He also mentioned an earlier case in his court where both sides had stipulated that “semiautomatic firearms are commonly used for multiple lawful purposes, including self-defense,” and that “lawfully owned semiautomatic firearms using a magazine with the capacity of greater than 15 rounds number in the tens of millions.”

Under the Supreme Court’s test, Moore said, those facts mean that “the right to possess, sell, or transfer” the arms covered by Superior’s ordinance is “presumptively protected.” The burden is therefore on the city to show that its ban is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

That will be a formidable challenge, Moore suggested. “The Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public,” he said.

Like Superior’s ordinance, the bill that the House narrowly approved on July 29 covers “large capacity” magazines and includes a general definition of “assault weapons,” although its list of prohibited features is slightly different. It also bans many specific models by name.

During the debate over the bill, Democrats said the rifles they want to ban are “the weapon of choice for mass shooters,” which is not true: Most mass shooters use handguns. Democrats said the features targeted by the bill make rifles especially deadly, which also is not true: With or without those features, a rifle fires the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity.

Even while implying that the rifles covered by the ban are good for nothing but mass murder, Democrats emphasized that the bill would exempt the 24 million or so “assault weapons” that Americans already own. They refused to grapple with the constitutional implications of banning guns that millions of people use for lawful purposes.

When confronted by that reality, Republicans noted, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said, “The problem is that they are in common use.” Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.), the bill’s sponsor, likewise had no patience for Second Amendment arguments, saying, “Spare me the BS about constitutional rights.”

Unlike Nadler and Cicilline, federal judges like Moore cannot ignore the constitutional issue raised by this sort of legislation. Democrats will have to comply with the constraints imposed by the Second Amendment, no matter how much they might wish that it did not exist.

About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum
Jacob Sullum
Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Exclusive: Smith & Wesson Fights Back Against Democrat Subpoena

LAS VEGAS, NV - JANUARY 23: Attendees visit the Smith & Wesson booth at the 2018 National Shooting Sports Foundation's Shooting, Hunting, Outdoor Trade (SHOT) Show at the Sands Expo and Convention Center on January 23, 2018 in Las Vegas, Nevada. The SHOT Show, the world's largest annual trade show …
Ethan Miller/Getty
SEAN MORAN
 

Smith & Wesson has fired back in a letter against the House Oversight and Reform Committee Democrats’ subpoena against the firearms manufacturer, Breitbart News can exclusively reveal.

On August 15, Smith & Wesson, represented by Schaerr Jaffe, sent a letter to House Oversight and Reform Committee Chair Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) regarding the committee’s subpoena, which was issued on August 1.

Smith & Wesson CEO Mark Smith said this subpoena amounts to nothing more than politicians and the media attempting to “disparage” Smith & Wesson. He elaborated in a statement on Monday:

A number of politicians and their lobbying partners in the media have recently sought to disparage Smith & Wesson. Some have had the audacity to suggest that after they have vilified, undermined and defunded law enforcement for years, supported prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable for their actions, overseen the decay of our country’s mental health infrastructure, and generally promoted a culture of  lawlessness, Smith & Wesson and other firearm manufacturers are somehow responsible for the crime wave that has predictably resulted from these destructive policies.

 

But they are the ones to blame for the surge in violence and lawlessness, and they seek to avoid any responsibility for the crisis of violence they have created by attempting to shift the blame to Smith & Wesson, other firearm manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners.

 

It is no surprise that the cities suffering most from violent crime are the very same cities that have promoted irresponsible, soft-on-crime policies that often treat criminals as victims and victims as criminals. Many of these same cities also maintain the strictest gun laws in the nation.

 

But rather than confront the failure of their policies, certain politicians have sought more laws restricting the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, while simultaneously continuing to undermine our institutions of law and order. And to suppress the truth, some now seek to prohibit firearm manufacturers and supporters of the 2nd Amendment from advertising products in a manner designed to remind law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutional right to bear arms in defense of themselves and their families.

Mark Paoletta, a lawyer at Schaerr Jaffe representing Smith & Wesson, noted Smith & Wesson has tried to accommodate the committee’s request for information about its modern sporting rifles (MSRs) sales figures.

The left mistakenly often refers to these rifles as “assault weapons.”

As documented previously by Breitbart News, Smith & Wesson already divulged to the committee that MSRs comprise a majority of its sales, and that less than ten percent of its advertising focuses on MSRs.

Carolyn Maloney

Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., asks a question during a House Committee on Oversight and Reform hearing to examine the practices and profits of gun manufacturers, Wednesday, July 27, 2022, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (Mariam Zuhaib/AP)

The firearms company also said it cannot track deaths or injuries, crimes attempted or carried out with semiautomatic rifles.

In a missive to Maloney, Paoletta explained the court precedent already details how Congress does not need very specific information about exact units sold or revenue.

The letter details many court cases to back up its legal argument, in what could be the foundation of a legal argument against the committee Democrats should they want to pursue a court case against Smith & Wesson:

And, in fact, Congress recently proved that it does not need such very specific information about exact units sold and revenue to do its job. On July 29, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives (the House) passed a ban on what you erroneously call “assault weapons.” This only confirms my prior argument that the Committee does not need “every scrap of potentially relevant” information to legislate. Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2036 (2020); accord Comm. on Ways & Means, U.S. House of Reps. v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, No. 21-5289, 2022 WL 3205891, at *8 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 9, 2022) (“[T]he legislative process does not necessarily require full disclosure of all the facts in the way that criminal proceedings do.”)

Smith & Wesson Response Letter 8-15-22 by Breitbart News on Scribd

Paoletta also notes that court precedent, which includes legal opinions from now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, that there is no constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic rifles:

“There is no basis in Heller for drawing a constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles.” Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244, 1286 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting) (discussing District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628–29 (2008)). See TRO at 10, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Town of Superior, No. 22-cv-01685- RM-NRN (D. Colo. July 22, 2022), ECF No. 18, where a Federal Judge issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the town from, among other things, banning MSRs: “The Court is sympathetic to the Town’s stated reasoning. However, the Court is unaware of historical precedent that would permit a governmental entity to entirely ban a type of weapon that is commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, whether in an individual’s home or in public.”

Paoletta also wrote “Congress must clearly spell out with even more specificity why it needs the granular level of information,” citing an example as the Supreme Court’s decision in Americans for Prosperity Foundation. v. Bonta.

The lawyer representing Smith & Wesson noted the committee Democrats did not assuage any fears from Smith & Wesson that they would keep the company’s proprietary information confidential:

Unfortunately, those protocols did nothing to assure us that my client’s proprietary information would be kept confidential by the Committee. Quite the contrary, those protocols state merely that the Committee pledged only to confer with my client, to the extent practicable, regarding the possibility of disclosure, and that the Committee reserves the right to disclose such information, regardless of any objections my client might have. And, in fact, our concerns were justified evidenced by the Committee’s decision to release similar proprietary, business sensitive information from other firearm manufacturers, despite their objections.

Paoletta also noted Maloney allowed Sig Sauer, one of the largest firearms manufacturers, to settle for less information than what Smith & Wesson divulged to the committee. Sig Sauer “refused” to divulge any revenue totals and only told the committee that MSR sales amount to less than three percent of its total revenue.

In contrast, Smith & Wesson already told the committee that MSR sales comprise a majority of the company’s annual net sales.

Smith & Wesson has already tried to comply with the committee’s request for a hearing; however, the company did not want its CEO, Mark Smith, to be the only firearms executive present at a hearing discussing gun violence and potential gun control proposals.

Paoletta contended the subpoena is only meant to punish or embarrass Smith & Wesson::

In Mazars, the Supreme Court said, “Investigations conducted solely for the personal aggrandizement of the investigators or to ‘punish’ those investigated are indefensible.” Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 140 S. Ct. 2019, 2032 (2020) (quoting Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957)). Based on the Committee’s actions, my client further objects to providing this additional information because, to any reasonable observer, the Subpoena is meant to punish Smith & Wesson for declining an invitation to testify at the Committee’s recent hearing. Finally, my client objects to Request 4 because it is only meant to punish or embarrass Smith & Wesson. Indeed, the information requested is simply not relevant to legislation as there is nothing that any of my client’s senior executives or directors could have said following those horrific shootings that would be relevant to any legislative purpose, and even more so since the House has already passed a ban on MSRs. The Committee already knows which MSRs were used in those shootings. It already knows how they were obtained. And it already knows what can happen if MSRs—or any firearms for that matter—are misused by criminals. Nothing more— especially the thoughts that my client’s executives may or may not have expressed among each other about particular tragedies—is needed to legislate.

Maloney, who has portrayed herself a strong advocate of gun control reform, was not present in person to vote for gun control in late July. Instead, Maloney voted by proxy, instead choosing to fundraise in Manhattan.

Suraj Patel, a primary opponent against Maloney, slammed her for voting by proxy. He said she is “grandstanding” on the issue of gun control.

“I would have 100 percent been there for the vote if I was in Congress,” he said.

“We will continue to work alongside law enforcement, community leaders and lawmakers who are genuinely interested in creating safe neighborhoods,” Smith concluded in his statement. “We will engage those who genuinely seek productive discussions, not a means of scoring political points. We will continue informing law-abiding citizens that they have a Constitutionally-protected right to defend themselves and their families. We will never back down in our defense of the 2nd Amendment.”

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.

Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Anti-Gun Partisan Lawfare? GWACS Sues KE Arms et al.

Categories
All About Guns Allies Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Canada imposes import ban on handguns By Cam Edwards

(AP Photo/AJ Mast, File)
Back in May, the Trudeau administration announced support for a bill that would halt the legal sale, purchase, and transfer of all handguns in Canada and allow for municipalities to ban the possession of pistols outright. In the months since sales of handguns have surged across the country; a development that should surprise no one. If people are told they won’t soon be allowed to buy something, that tends to increase their desire to get it before it goes away. This particular “limited time offer,” however, has not only prompted thousands of Canadians to purchase a handgun for the very first time, it’s led to the Canadian government to up its anti-gun stance by banning outright the importation of pistols into the country.

Such guns “have one purpose and one purpose only and that is to kill people,” Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino told a press briefing announcing the move.

Global Affairs Canada added in a statement that the ban for businesses and individuals was a temporary measure, set to “last until the national freeze comes into force,” which is expected to happen by the fall.

The announcement was welcomed by arms control group PolySeSouvient, which called it an “important and innovative measure that will undoubtedly slow the expansion of the Canadian handgun market pending the passage” of the handgun freeze.

Experts remain skeptical about the effectiveness of gun control measures taken by Ottawa, pointing to the smuggling of guns from the neighbouring United States as the real problem.

On Wednesday, the Canada Border Services Agency announced two major seizures in western Canada of “ghost guns,” which have no serial numbers and are difficult to trace.

Just like with gun control laws here in the United States, criminals are going to shrug off Trudeau’s backdoor gun ban because they’re not getting their guns through legal means in the first place.

Unlike the United States, however, there is no right to keep and bear arms in Canadian law, at least according to the country’s highest court.

“Canadians, unlike Americans, do not have a constitutional right to bear arms,” the high court stated in 1993, in a decision over the possession of convertible semi-automatic weapons.

“Indeed, most Canadians prefer the peace of mind and sense of security derived from the knowledge that the possession of automatic weapons is prohibited,” said the court.

The rights issue was tested again in the case of an Ontario firearms dealer and manufacturer.

Bruce Montague was charged with several weapons offences after police found more than 200 firearms and 20,000 rounds of ammunition at Montague’s home in northwestern Ontario.

Montague didn’t renew the registrations on his weapons, convinced that he had a constitutional right to bear arms without government interference or regulation, despite the passage of Bill C-68, the Firearms Act, in 1995.

Montague argued that he had “a constitutional right to possess firearms for self defence” derived from the constitution of Britain.

He pointed to the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, Canada’s founding constitutional document, which in his view imported the English Bill of Rights of 1689, which states in Article 7: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”

Montague further argued that in 1982, this historical right was shielded from any ordinary legislation by section 26 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which reads: “The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.”

His convictions were upheld in the Ontario Court of Appeal and in September 2010, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear a final appeal, without offering reasons.

We may see a lawsuit filed by one or more gun shop owner over the import ban, but I think any litigation hoping to undo the move is unfortunately going to face long odds in court.

I also doubt that Trudeau is going to stop here. When (not if) this ban fails to stop violent criminals from illegally using guns in violent crimes it’s likely that the prime minister will finally adopt what gun control activists in Canada have been calling for all along: an outright ban on the possession of all handguns. The Trudeau administration is already moving ahead with its compensated confiscation of so-called assault weapons, and Canadian gun owners are right to be concerned about a similar push to confiscate handguns from law-abiding citizens in the not-too-distant future.

 

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

Leaked ATF Resignation Letter Shows Agents’ Frustration Over Politicization by John Crump

ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/
ATF Police Raid IMG 2nd instagram.com/atfhq/

DENVER. COLORADO -(Ammoland.com)- A leaked resignation letter provided to AmmoLand News shows the ATF agency in turmoil over political pressure.

Brandon M. Garcia was a career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) special agent until he resigned over the politicization of the federal agency and the Government’s attempt to divide people.

Garcia sent a lengthy six-page resignation letter (embedded below) laying out his reasons for leaving the Bureau after 18 years of service. He explains that he didn’t do the job for money or “fun.” He wanted to put violent criminals behind bars. But lately, he doesn’t feel like he knew what the mission was anymore. He was asked to do things that didn’t make sense, and when he asked “why,” he was always told because “they” said so.

“I don’t know what the mission really is anymore, but I don’t like it. For the past couple of years, I have found myself asking “why” a lot more often. As of late, the answer is typically because “they” said so. I still don’t know who “they” are. But I seem to disagree with whoever “they” are on pretty much everything,” Garcia wrote in his resignation letter.”

The former Special Agent highlights how crimes across the country are prosecuted differently depending on if the state is a “red” state or a “blue” state. He explains that agents are expected to set aside their personal and political beliefs but says that the same standard doesn’t apply to the entire Department of Justice. He claims other ATF employees are struggling with the same realization.

Garcia claims that the “woke left” is running the country. He specifically targets the DOJ Civil Rights Division. He insinuates the low morale at the ATF and in law enforcement, in general, is because of the anti-law enforcement movement that he feels is being pushed by the administration and Joe Biden’s Attorney General. Merrick Garland. He says the DOJ was using COVID as a “scapegoat.” He points out that the last time that morale was as low as it is now was under the Obama administration, which was also hostile to law enforcement. He also points out that each administration celebrates diversity unless it is the diversity of thought.

“The last time morale was this low with ATF was probably 2013-2016. Coincidentally, that was also the last time we had an administration openly criticize law enforcement,” Garcia wrote. “Both administrations preached diversity, or rather “celebrate” it, but then expect everyone to have the same liberal opinion.”

The now former Agent wrote that he believes the country is more divided than ever, pushing people to extremes, and leaving those in the middle to suffer. He thinks the Government is “adding fuel to the fire.” Garcia thinks that the ATF’s leadership isn’t fighting for agents. According to him, the leadership is just going along with the administration not to lose their job. Biden demoted former ATF Acting Director Marvin Richardson for not going far enough with the new final rule surrounding the redefinition of a firearm.

Garcia believes that the ATF focuses too much on “the gun.”

He claims the recent actions by the ATF show that it is aligned with the left and says he doesn’t want to investigate the gun. He wants to investigate the criminal. He claims that the ATF used the failed vaccine mandate to increase the ATF’s budget to concentrate on “the gun.” He claims that the ATF “catered” to Biden’s dislike of guns. He says that most ATF agents are pro-gun and anti-criminal. He states that ATF agents didn’t become agents to go after law-abiding citizens for non-compliant firearms or to argue what a gun is or is not.

“Did our leaders forget that ATF agents are law enforcement? Most agents are pro-gun. All agents should be anti-criminal. We did not become ATF agents so we could collect data, ensure firearms are in compliance, seize trigger groups, argue about what a firearm is or is not, seize firearms for reasons other than prosecuting criminals, or spend countless hours inputting data to justify someone else’s existence in HQ. We became ATF agents so we could work the streets and smack evil in the mouth. We took this job because we are willing to risk it all and hope that we can make the streets just a little bit safer for the law abiding, upstanding citizens of the USA. At least that’s why I became an ATF agent,” Garcia wrote.

Garcia talks about how the Biden administration talks about guns and violent crime in the same sentence and pushes for banning certain types of firearms, but in blue states, those charged with gun crimes are only given a slap on the wrist.

He also states that violent crimes committed with firearms are usually “pled down to non-violent crimes, and the defendant again avoids prison.”

He also believes that banning guns wouldn’t stop crime. Garcia logically points out that criminals do not obey the laws. He doesn’t think criminals will stop using firearms no matter what the law says. He believes that banning guns will only affect law-abiding citizens.

The former Special Agent believes that the administration is targeting the conservative population. Garcia points out that very few people were charged with rioting during the summer of 2020, but hundreds have been arrested for the January 6 event for just being there. He even insinuates that pallets of bricks and frozen water bottles were planted at the scene of the 2020 summer riots.

“We can probably agree that law abiding citizens do not commit gun crime. I think that we can probably also agree that the majority of gun owners tend to be more conservative than liberal. So essentially, gun control will only affect law abiding, conservative citizens. Therefore, the Government is only punishing the conservative population. Similarly, in the summer of 2020, rioters were allowed to burn cities, assault the police, and terrorize citizens with little to no consequence. However, the chaos associated with January 6 has resulted in hundreds and hundreds of prosecutions. The vast majority of the defendants have been convicted of simply being there. They didn’t even have pallets of bricks or frozen water bottles staged at the scene, let alone Molotov cocktails for them to throw at the police. Still, 18 months later, the left continues to be absolutely obsessed with it,” Garcia said.

Garcia calls out President Joe Biden for blaming January 6 on Trump. He highlights Biden was saying you can’t be “pro-insurrection and pro-cop.” He insinuates that Biden and the Democrats are not “pro-cop.” he says that the administration changed the definition of “hypocrisy” like they changed the definition of “vaccine.”

“Where was the support of law enforcement from the Democratic party during the presidential campaign? For at least the past 10 years, the Democratic party and the DOJ Civil Rights Division has consistently justified criminal behavior, advocated for decriminalization, and scrutinized the officer’s actions when an officer was assaulted. That is the equivalent of asking a domestic violence victim what they did to cause their spouse to beat them up,” Garcia wrote.

During the January 6 event, a Capitol Police Officer shot and killed Ashli Babbitt. Garcia surmised if the protestors and Babbitt were left-wing, then the liberal media would crucify the officer, making sure he would never have worked again. He believes the DOJ is the “driving force behind this double standard.” He calls for equal treatment under the law.

He claims that politicians do not care about the truth. He says that they only care about public opinion. Garcia claims that the majority of the population supports law enforcement. He says most criminals dislike cops but that the Democrats are trying to appease the criminal population.

Garcia also takes issue with the amount of “violent federal defendants released following their detention hearing.” He says the system was broken. The agent blames the revolving door of prison as the reason for the rise of violent crime over the past few years.

Garcia says guns are not the problem. He believes that the problem is not holding criminals accountable for their actions. The former agent doesn’t think seizing firearms will combat violent crime. He believes that more violent criminals should be locked up and accuses legislators and members of the judicial system with neglecting their oath to uphold the Constitution.

He ends by saying he believes in God, I believe “in The Constitution, and I believe that bad guys belong in prison.” He doesn’t think the Government believes in those anymore.

I am aware that I run the risk of sounding like I have an inflated sense of the value that I bring to ATF. I do not. I know that I am just a guy, and I am someone that will be replaced the momentI turn in my stuff. Just to save everyone time, I will tell you that I am not resigning “in lieu of termination” and there is no scandal that resulted in my resignation. I have just reached the pointwhere I cannot, in good faith, support the direction this government is taking our country;specifically, the direction it is taking law enforcement.Over the past almost 18 years with ATF, I have worked in 4 different states and 5 differentcities. I have had at least 9 different supervisors and regularly received outstanding evaluationsfrom all of them. I am not a guy that bucks the system or causes problems or brings othersdown. I am just a guy that works hard and asks questions and wants to know the “why” behindeverything. I challenge others to simply do their very best, all the time, and expect them tochallenge me to do the same. But like most cops, I am also a guy that needs his job to be morethan a paycheck. I never did this job because it was “fun”, I did this job because it isnecessary…and purposeful. There are very few of us that are willing to do it. I have always saidthat I do this job for the mission, not the money. That mission used to be locking up violentcriminals. I don’t know what the mission really is anymore, but I don’t like it. For the pastcouple of years, I have found myself asking “why” a lot more often. As of late, the answer istypically because “they” said so. I still don’t know who “they” are. But I seem to disagree withwhoever “they” are on pretty much everything.It is getting more difficult, but I am still an optimist and I pray that someone, somewhere at thetop, pays attention and my resignation may somehow bring the support for law enforcement backto the people in the trenches. The people that could actually die doing this job, the street levelagents, Task Force Officers and street cops. I am not trying to speak on behalf of all agents andlaw enforcement personnel across the country. I can only speak to what I know is happening inareas I am familiar with. It seems like parts of the country may be perfectly content with the waythings are going. I don’t like referring to “red” or “blue” states, but at a minimum, I wouldsuspect agents and officers in “blue” states are not happy. We are a federal agency and so is theUSAO, if AUSAs in certain parts of the country are prosecuting various ATF type crimes,shouldn’t the entire country see similar results? Why do federal prosecutions vary from state tostate? We as agents are required to set aside our personal and political opinions and do our job.Why does that same standard not apply to the entire Department of Justice? I know there will bemany that disagree with my take on things and that is just fine. We should be allowed to havedifferent opinions; but I know there are others out there struggling with the same feelings I amstruggling with, and I pray they find purpose and rejuvenation for the job.Despite the email inundation, I did not submit my Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) because I think the questions are extremely vague. Vagueness leads to misunderstandings andmisrepresentations. If you want the truth, be specific. We are investigators, for us, the truth is inthe details. If you are implying the survey is in reference to certain people, include their name onit. Most field agents, especially younger ones, have no clue who makes up our “seniorleadership”. To be perfectly honest, I don’t know who all of them are either because most ofthem have no impact on my daily job. If you don’t include the name, we don’t know exactlywho you are talking about. And you won’t know who we are talking about. In a survey, thereshould be no room for interpretation. Unless of course, you want to manipulate the data. I
would be curious to know how the rest of the country feels about the Attorney General, theirrespective U.S. Attorney’s Offices, and DOJ as a whole. I think you would probably find thatlaw enforcement officers in a number of states feel like the DOJ Civil Rights Division and thewoke left are not only running the entire country but are decimating cities and policedepartments. You may also find that in certain areas, agents think ATF is folding to the pressures of the left. I doubt those questions will be asked because I don’t trust that you reallywant to know why morale is low. You look for a scapegoat, like COVID. But that is not why. Iam confident that the agents and officers regularly working violent crime and going toe-to-toewith the most violent criminals on the street are not worried about dying from COVID or ifeveryone is vaccinated or wearing a mask or if they can telework. If you want the field to takethe survey seriously, then you need to take the survey seriously.The last time morale was this low with ATF was probably 2013-2016. Coincidentally, that wasalso the last time we had an administration openly criticize law enforcement. Bothadministrations preached diversity, or rather “celebrate” it, but then expect everyone to have thesame liberal opinion. I don’t know anyone in law enforcement that wants to be“celebrated”. But people in law enforcement do need to know they are supported. We are allcops; race, sexual orientation, gender, religion, or political affiliation don’t matter to us when weare all working together to fight the evil that is out there. The government is creating thisissue. The government is dividing us. This job is not about us as individuals, it is about helpingthe people and protecting them from the predators.I have always loved the mentality of law enforcement officers. No matter their politicalaffiliation they stand for law and order. They stand for what is good. They stand for what isright. This is the fourth administration I have worked under. I have never seen the country moredivided than it is right now. We are becoming a country that focuses on extremes and all thegood people in the middle are the ones suffering. Instead of being a rational voice, thegovernment is only adding fuel to the fire. I don’t feel like our leadership is fighting for theagents, or for police in general. They seem to be going along with the attitude of the currentadministration. I get it, they don’t want to push back and risk losing their position, or title. Butwe are allowing people that have never done this job to dictate how we do this job. Why are weso afraid of educating politicians with the truth?Our agency talks a lot about developing real “leaders”. If our leaders are afraid, or unwilling, tofight back against things they know are wrong, maybe they are not leaders. “Because they saidso” or “Because I said so” should never be an acceptable answer for a leader and those phrasesare never used by a real leader. A long time ago, when I was a brand-new patrol officer inAlbuquerque, my training officer told me “If you have to say the words ‘I’m in charge’, then youare not in charge”. Our government tends to punish, shame or pressure employees intocompliance rather than motivate. If employees (especially those in law enforcement) aremotivated, and
know
 they are supported, they will work their tails off. Money is not
the
 motivating factor for law enforcement officers. Sure, we have bills to pay, and we should beable to live a comfortable lifestyle, but we
need 
 to serve a mission greater than ourselves, and we
need 
 to feel like what we do may actually make a difference.
I feel like what I am being told and what I see happening are contradictory. In a meeting not toolong ago, the Deputy Director told us that ATF is not aligning with either political party (whichis the way it should be. But also intriguing to me that he felt the need to emphasize it), however,ATF’s recent actions sure seem to align with the left. Over the last couple of years, ATF has been spending a significant amount of time talking about and changing the course of this agencyto focus on “the gun”. Frankly, I don’t really care about investigating the gun, I care aboutinvestigating the criminal, and then plucking that criminal out of society. Last year, HQ spent pretty much the entire year, talking about the “vaccine” and threatening termination for thosewho wouldn’t get it. Why should anyone, let alone the government, care who does and does notget vaccinated. Yet, the Deputy Director threatened to prosecute the agents for “lying to afederal agent” if we did not appropriately update our vaccination status the system. Seems a bitextreme. I have never even threatened a criminal with that charge. The push was clearly political, and I wanted no part of it. ATF didn’t fight for the rights of the agents. They allowedthe government to treat those that fought back like they were lepers. Then they tasked attorney’swith determining if agents were religious enough to opt out. Does it really matter? They didn’twant the shot. That should have been the end of it. But then there was a second assault from theattorneys, but this time the level of questioning essentially mocked one’s faith. They knew theyhad no legal grounds, so they used the leftist tactics of shaming, excluding, and threatening intocompliance. There is no telling how many agents got vaccinated for the sole purpose of keepingtheir job and their pension. The government’s tactic had no teeth and overnight it all just wentaway. They acted like it never happened. Another liberal tactic. But it was worth it right? ATFgot a bigger budget out of it. A budget that will be used to focus on “the gun”. ATF catered toan administration that has made it clear that they don’t like guns and they don’t like the police.Money isn’t free, no matter what this administration says.Did our leaders forget that ATF agents
are
 law enforcement? Most agents are pro-gun. Allagents should be anti-criminal. We did not become ATF agents so we could collect data, ensurefirearms are in compliance, seize trigger groups, argue about what a firearm is or is not, seizefirearms for reasons other than prosecuting criminals, or spend countless hours inputting data to justify someone else’s existence in HQ. We became ATF agents so we could work the streetsand smack evil in the mouth. We took this job because we are willing to risk it all and hope thatwe can make the streets just a little bit safer for the law abiding, upstanding citizens of the USA.At least that’s why
 I 
 became an ATF agent.Deep down, I can’t imagine that our ATF leadership agrees with this administration’s approachto policing or their treatment of law enforcement personnel. Nobody in law enforcement canagree with this administration and still believe in the mission of police work. It is not socialwork; it is police work. This cannot be the future of law enforcement if we truly care about ourcountry and the well-being of its citizens. For at least the last decade, the government hasfocused on holding police accountable. I agree, we do need to be held accountable. Buteveryone needs to be held accountable for their actions, not just police. Who is holding thecriminal accountable? Who’s holding the politicians accountable?As a first line supervisor, I consistently see agents and officers second guessing themselves before and after the use of force. It is not their fault. I have been in several uses of force, andthey were all deemed “reasonable”. I truly believe that after force is used by ATF agents, we
really are supported by ATF. The problem is most law enforcement leaders are afraid tovocalize the fact that using force against criminals is simply part of the job. But why? We canno longer say that because we have stopped fighting back, we have stopped standing up forourselves and now we are owned by the woke left. Words don’t stop violence. Only violencestops violence. That is just the way it is. That is also why this job is not for everyone. Violenceis the only language these violent criminals understand. If you have not experienced that type ofevil on the streets or while conducting your investigations, you are investigating the wrong people. They are out there, and they will kill you without thinking twice. Yet recently, thegovernment only seems to advertise fighting back against the right. Why don’t we advertisefighting back against all criminals? I think it’s because even good ol’ fashioned conservativefolks agree that there are consequences for breaking the law. So, nobody complains about it.Which makes it easy. Since most moderate conservatives tends to appreciate law enforcement,the far-right lacks support; therefore, the right cannot “cancel” you. The extreme left however,that is more difficult. They clearly have an anti-law enforcement view and even non“progressive” liberals openly share their discontent for law enforcement. So, we just play alongand act like what the left is doing is not evil. I feel like we have taken on the mentality of “if youcan’t beat them, join them”. I will not join them.If our leaders are unwilling to educate politicians as to why their policies are flawed or that it isimpossible to rationalize with irrational people (i.e., de-escalation) or that their naivety makesthem sound completely ignorant, how will they ever know? Or…. they do know, they don’t care,and our job no longer matters.This administration talks a lot about guns in the same sentence they talk about violent crime;however, they say nothing about holding people accountable for the crimes they commit (unlessit supports their agenda). I agree that gun crime is out of control. But I also know there is adouble standard that is being ignored. When horrible tragedies occur with firearms, the leftseizes every opportunity to argue for gun control and the elimination of certain types of weaponsystems. However, specifically in blue states, fewer and fewer defendants associated with guncrimes are actually sentenced to prison. Additionally, violent crimes committed with firearmsare consistently pled down to non-violent crimes and the defendant again avoids prison. This isnot unique to state prosecutors, the USAO does the same thing. If there is no consequence tocommitting a crime, then why would a criminal stop? If guns were banned, why would thecriminals actually agree to abide by the law?We can probably agree that law abiding citizens do not commit gun crime. I think that we can probably also agree that the majority of gun owners tend to be more conservative than liberal.So essentially, gun control will only affect law abiding, conservative citizens. Therefore, thegovernment is only punishing the conservative population. Similarly, in the summer of 2020,rioters were allowed to burn cities, assault the police, and terrorize citizens with little to noconsequence. However, the chaos associated with January 6 has resulted in hundreds andhundreds of prosecutions. The vast majority of the defendants have been convicted of simply being there. They didn’t even have pallets of bricks or frozen water bottles staged at the scene,let alone Molotov cocktails for them to throw at the police. Still, 18 months later, the leftcontinues to be absolutely obsessed with it.
While typing this I see that President Biden is completely distraught that Capitol Police officerssuffered through “medieval hell” on January 6
th
 and, of course, it is all Trump’s fault. Hecontinues to say you can’t be “pro-insurrection and pro-cop”. Like the definition of “vaccine”,has this administration also changed the definition of “hypocrisy”? Where was the support oflaw enforcement from the Democratic party during the presidential campaign? For at least the past 10 years, the Democratic party and the DOJ Civil Rights Division has consistently justifiedcriminal behavior, advocated for decriminalization, and scrutinized the officer’s actions when anofficer was assaulted. That is the equivalent of asking a domestic violence victim what they didto cause their spouse to beat them up.Wasn’t there an officer involved shooting on January 6? We sure didn’t hear much about it untilthe left decided he was a hero. I’m not suggesting it was a bad shoot at all, I will always give theofficer the benefit of the doubt in a shooting. However, I am suggesting, if it was a differentcrowd of rioters, the officer might be in prison right now. At a minimum, the liberal mediawould have ruined his career and the officer would have been unemployable…effectively,canceled. If you think I am wrong, you are not in law enforcement, or at least not real lawenforcement. Cops know I am right. Yet, this is the side that our leadership has decided to please. DOJ is clearly the driving force behind this double standard. I thought they were allabout equal treatment?I am sure I don’t have all the facts, but where would we get them anyway? There is no mediasource I trust and there is no Congressional hearing that is not a complete sham. Depending onthe witness, they are either coddled or insulted. Politicians no longer (or maybe never) careabout the truth, they only care about public opinion. Why do we, as law enforcement, try to playthat game? Police will never deal with the majority of the population, and the majority of the population will always support the police. Of those we deal with, most of them will dislike us,and some of them will love us. Why can’t we just leave it at that? When we try to appease the percentage of the population that will always hate us (because they are criminals), everyoneloses.I think our job as Special Agents is relatively simple. We need to target, catch, and submit asolid case that results in violent criminals going to prison. I know there are other agent jobs thathave different roles, but as a whole, we need to put people in prison. ATF says NIBIN identifiesthe “trigger pullers”. I say NIBIN identifies a gun that was used in a shooting. Police workidentifies “trigger pullers”. My experience, and I would assume the experience of agentselsewhere, indicates that prosecutors no longer view circumstantial evidence as real evidence. Itseems to me like they view it as reasonable doubt. Through the emphasis on NIBIN, I think ATFis headed in a direction that will generate cases with more circumstantial evidence. Nowadays,at least in Colorado, it takes a very special prosecutor to take on a case with circumstantialevidence. Then a special judge and jury to convict. If we already know that prosecutors nolonger view circumstantial evidence as real evidence, then why are we trying to give them morestuff they won’t use. NIBIN should simply be a tool, if we continue to move our agency in adirection that relies so heavily on NIBIN, we will turn into data collectors and investigators thatrarely prosecute anyone. That’s not what I signed up for.

 

This year alone, our office has had more violent federal defendants released following theirdetention hearing than I have seen in my entire career. That is saying something because I havenever had to fight so hard just to get violent offenders prosecuted. So not only are we prosecuting fewer defendants (and pleading down charges to nothing so prosecutors can avoidthe courtroom), but they are also being released. Am I wrong to think that the system iscompletely broken when the outcome of an investigation depends on the draw of the AUSA andthe Magistrate? Could you imagine if the tables were turned? We would be fired orindicted. Especially in the past two years, it seems like jails and prisons can’t let people out fastenough. I wonder why violent crime is up. We really need to do something about those gunsthough, right?I stand firm that guns are not the problem. The problem is that we don’t hold criminalsaccountable for their actions anymore. I have spent the majority of my career working violentcrime. I learned a long time ago that you do not combat violent crime by seizing firearms; youcombat violent crime by locking up violent criminals for a really long time. Not just a reallylong time on paper, a long time behind
actual 
 prison bars; like we used to do it before legislatorsand members of the judicial system decided to neglect their oath.I hear people say that the pendulum will swing back like it always does. Historically, it hasswung back due to public opinion and the public realizing that being a victim is not as fun as theleft made it out to be. Now, the difference this time is that the pendulum swung left and is nowlocked there through laws and policies. In almost 20 years of law enforcement, I have neverseen a policy decision that made policing less restrictive. All policy decisions restrict whatagents and officers are allowed to do. This kinder, gentler, softer way of policing is now the newnormal.Like I mentioned previously, agents will work their tails off under the appropriate conditions.The agents, TFOs, and support staff assigned to the Colorado Springs Field Office absolutelywork their tails off. They have done more than I could ever ask of them. It is the people likethem that make me so proud to have been an ATF agent. But when prosecution comes down tothe roll of the dice, I am no longer willing to subject these guys to the situations I have previously subjected them to. They are far too valuable, and I care about them too much. I’msure there are other ways to do this job that doesn’t require us to get our hands dirty or look acriminal in the face and see the defeat in his eyes when he knows we caught him red handed.But those ways are not for me. I believe in God, I believe in The Constitution, and I believe that bad guys belong in prison. The Government no longer believes in any of those things. Since Ican no longer do this job the way I think it needs to be done and have the appropriate level ofsuccess, then it is time for me to fight this fight from a different angle. I will always fight for good, and I will always fight for law enforcement.
Thank you, ATF, be safe and God bless, Brandon Garcia
Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California

Desperate California Anti-Gunners Wreck Junior Shooter Clubs Lawmakers claimed they were just banning marketing guns to kids. by J.D. TUCCILLE

(Anna Krivitskaia / Dreamstime.com)

Organized youth shooting is disappearing in California as a result of a new law sold as banning advertising guns to kids but also potentially penalizes any promotion of firearms to minors. Rightfully criticized as a totalitarian attack on gun-oriented speech, the law is also an example of desperation on the part of those opposed to firearms, who lost big in the Supreme Court, see DIY firearms makers slipping beyond their grasp, and are now reduced to lashing out at an entire culture.

“A new California law that bans marketing guns to kids isn’t sitting well with some Glenn County shooting teams,” ActionNewsNow reported July 29. “Some parents and students say this law could end up costing them their sport.”

Glenn County families aren’t alone.

“Due to recent legislation from the California State Assembly, and signed into Law by Gov. Gavin Newsom, the USA Clay Target League, DBA USA High School Clay Target League/California State High School Clay Target League, has been forced by law to suspend all operations within California,” USA Clay Target League notes on its website. “California Assembly Bill 2571 … provides for a civil penalty of $25,000 for any and each instance of firearm-related marketing to persons under the age of 18. That includes the ‘… use, or ownership of firearm-related products…’ as well as ‘…events where firearm-related products are sold or used.'”

The law’s chilling effect on shooting sports extends to simple speech involving minors and firearms.

“Due to California Bill A.B. 2571, Junior Shooters is no longer available to juniors (Under 18) from the state of California,” the youth-oriented publication warns online. “If you are a minor in California, please do not continue, otherwise, welcome to Junior Shooters.”

Understandably, the publishers of Junior Shooters are suing the state of California with the assistance of the Second Amendment Foundation.

“The broad-sweeping law applies not only to ‘commercial speech’ targeting children or encouraging them to engage in unlawful behavior, but to a great deal of political and educational speech, truthful commercial speech aimed at adults, and speech promoting activities that are perfectly lawful to engage in—even by minors in California,” warns their motion for a preliminary injunction, which will be heard in federal court on August 22. “Because the law is not tailored to serving a compelling governmental interest, it violates the First Amendment rights to free speech, assembly, and association.”

Of course, A.B. 2571 wasn’t sold as an attempt to prohibit passing an appreciation for shooting sports from one generation to the next. It was peddled instead as a restriction on marketing guns to kids, as if there’s a danger of tiny tots disguising themselves as their parents to get through the background checks at sporting-goods stores.

“California has some of the strongest gun laws in the country and it is unconscionable that we still allow advertising weapons of war to our children,” Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan (D–Orinda) huffed in a press release when Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure into law on July 1.

But the actual law goes well beyond restricting targeted advertising. Its language could easily be construed to encompass youth shooting teams, firearms publications, and activist organizations. Arguably, A Christmas Story might not pass muster over young Ralphie’s hankering for a Red Ryder BB gun. That’s why legislators were warned by legal experts that their bill didn’t just tread into territory protected by the First Amendment, it stomped all over that ground.

“A gun magazine publisher, for instance—or a gun advocacy group that publishes a magazine—would likely be covered as a ‘firearm industry member,’ because it was formed to advocate for use or ownership of guns, might endorse specific products in product reviews, and might carry advertising for guns,” cautioned UCLA’s Eugene Volokh in testimony that dubbed the measure “unconstitutional.”

The courts will do what the courts will do, of course. But A.B. 2571 resembles a likely piñata for any judge who cares about protections for free speech, without even getting into the Second Amendment implications. So why would gun-hating California lawmakers waste time, effort, and taxpayer money on legislation seemingly doomed to go down to ignominious defeat?

Well, the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bruen capped off a tough stretch for gun-rights opponents that began in 2008 with Heller. Many of their favorite restrictions now look legally vulnerable if not outright impermissible under the Constitution’s Second Amendment. On top of that, years of threatening to prohibit popular firearms helped launch a DIY culture of enthusiasts who make guns at home using techniques resistant to regulation. Anti-gunners target unfinished 80 percent firearm receivers only to have innovators respond with zero-percent receivers. And bans on using 3D printers, computer numerical control (CNC) machines, or traditional workshop tools to manufacture firearms are largely unenforceable against people who set out to evade control. So, authoritarians are reduced to desperation and overreaching.

“The problem with this bill is the same problem as the Texas anti-abortion law it mimics: it creates an end run around the essential function of the courts to ensure that constitutional rights are protected,” the California ACLU objected to the state’s recent application to guns of the ill-considered approach in Texas’s law, passed before Dobbs overturned Roe‘s protections for abortion. “Specifically, this bill creates a ‘bounty-hunter’ scheme that authorizes private individuals to bring costly and harassing lawsuits designed and intended to intimidate people from engaging in a proscribed activity without requiring—or even permitting—the government to defend the law the defendants are alleged to have violated.”

As with the Texas law it copies, California’s anti-gun bounty law is widely seen as excessive and dangerous even by many of those who sympathize with its intent. Likewise, a prohibition on “advertising” firearms to minors that criminalizes sports teams, censors publications, and targets an entire culture seeks to escape protections for established liberties in a sweeping attack that has already inflicted collateral damage.

Wounded animals are dangerous, of course, and that’s what anti-gun authoritarians resemble at the moment. With dwindling means to impose their will, and their prey escaping their grasp, anti-gunners are lashing out at more people and freedoms than ever before. They’re going down to defeat, but they’ll take some victims with them.

Categories
Ammo Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Biden’s Fish & Wildlife Service Pitches Lead Ammo & Fishing Tackle Ban

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

House Democrats Push Terrorism Charges for Mass Shooters Using AR-15s by AWR HAWKINS

A customer handles an AR-15 at Jimmy's Sport Shop in Mineola, New York on September 25, 2020. - Gun store owners on Long Island have been selling out of firearms as scores of customers fear a rise in violence as the pandemic escalates in the area. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. …

Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Veronica Escobar (D-TX) are pushing the “Mass Shooter Prosecution Act,” which would open mass shooters and their “support networks” up to terrorism charges in the event the shooters use guns Democrats typically label “assault weapons.”

Yahoo News quoted Moulton addressing mass shooters, saying, “They are terrorists and they should be prosecuted as terrorists.”

He added, “[The bill] also allows prosecutors to go after the material support networks. Networks that provide aid, perhaps its guidance, instructions maps. Whatever helps these attackers carry out these vicious assaults.”

Escobar said, “My community of El Paso was forever changed by the actions of a domestic terrorist fueled by white supremacy theories. With this legislation, we’re giving law enforcement the tools they need to follow through with investigations into terrorist networks and any individual responsible for attacks against our communities.”

The text of the “Mass Shooter Prosecution Act” defines a mass shooter as “whoever kills 3 or more people in a single incident using a machinegun or a covered semiautomatic weapon in a circumstance described in subsection (b).”

The semiautomatic weapons that qualify under the heading of “mass shooting” are the same types of weapons House Democrats voted to ban last week. Firearms outside those apparently fall outside the parameters of proposed terrorism charges.

The punishment for those who meet the definition of “mass shooter” is imprisonment for “any term of years or for life. ”

AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio and a Turning Point USA Ambassador. Follow him on Instagram: @awr_hawkins. Reach him at awrhawkins@breitbart.com. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends"

Oregonians to Vote on Gun Control Measure Opponent Calls ‘Strictest’ in the Nation By Scottie Barnes

Guns in San Francisco, Calif., in a file image. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
Guns in San Francisco, Calif., in a file image. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)Oregonians will soon vote on a ballot measure that opponents say could virtually end the legal sale of firearms in the state, making it one of the “strictest gun-control measures ever proposed in the nation,” according to Leonard Williamson, an explanatory committee member who opposes the measure.

If voters approve Measure 114, the “Changes to Gun Ownership and Purchase Requirements Initiative,” a permit would be required to obtain any firearm, magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds would be outlawed, some commonly used pump shotguns would be banned because they can exceed the 10 round limit, and State Police would be required to maintain a searchable public database of all permit applications.

Arguments on both sides of the issue began in earnest on July 26 as a five-person committee— comprising two members who helped to draft and promote the citizen-driven ballot measure, another who supports it, and two who oppose it—met to write the 500-word Explanatory Statement that will appear in the voters’ guide this fall.

The committee got off to a contentious start as the only statement considered had been provided by proponents. Those opposing the measure called their language “misleading.”

“The Explanatory Committee is charged with preparing an impartial, simple, and understandable statement explaining the ballot measure,” committee member Williamson wrote in a memo to the committee. “By omitting certain key components of the summary, voters are misled as to what the ballot measure will do or not do.”

The measure would enact a law requiring a permit issued by a local law enforcement agency to purchase any firearm. Applicants would have to pay a fee, be fingerprinted, complete safety training, and pass a criminal background check.

In addition, the applicant must complete a hands-on demonstration of basic firearms handling to qualify.

“In order to obtain the permit, an applicant would have to show up with a firearm to demonstrate the ability to load, fire, unload, and store the firearm,” Williamson, an Oregon trial attorney specializing in firearms law, told The Epoch Times. “But you can’t get a firearm without the permit. And under Oregon’s highly restrictive gun storage laws, no one can legally loan a firearm to another. That creates an impassable barrier.”

Opponents claim that the permit and training programs also create an unfunded mandate with no enforcement measures.

“The measure calls upon the Oregon State Police to come up with these [permitting and training] programs, but there’s no consequence if they don’t, and there’s no timeframe for coming up with them,” argued committee member HK Kahng, an engineer and NRA firearms instructor, during the committee meeting.

The measure does not estimate the cost or analyze its impact on small local police departments.

The Oregon State Sheriff’s Association has estimated that even if a person could somehow complete the required training, the permitting process could cost sheriffs almost $40 million annually. But nothing in the measure provides any funding, and the fees included would not come close to covering the costs.

“Numerous police departments and sheriff’s offices have agreed that complying with this measure will either be exorbitantly expensive or impossible,” Kevin Starrett of the Oregon Firearms Foundation told The Epoch Times. “None have said they will be offering the training required to apply for the permit to purchase, which sheriffs and local police will be tasked with administering.”

Williamson also expressed concerns that the permit system grants the Oregon State Police “unfettered authority” to inquire into all manner of personal information of the applicant and to deny the applicant the permit for any reason or for simply failing to cooperate.

“No information is off limits,” he claims. “The introduction of highly subjective criteria in [the measure] allows the government significant authority to intrude into the private lives of law-abiding citizens wishing to exercise their protected rights under the Second Amendment.”

The opponents also argue that language describing the magazine ban creates confusion.

The measure allows “registered owners” of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to retain them so long as they were purchased before the ban.

“But how do you prove when you purchased a magazine?” Williamson asked. “There is no magazine ‘registration.’ They don’t have serial numbers. There’s no way for the average person to prove they had it before the law was passed. That means citizens must prove their innocence.”

Lawfully owned magazines that exceed 10 rounds may not be used for self-defense outside the home. Under the measure, possession would be restricted to the owner’s property, at a gunsmith, on a private shooting range, or during a firearms competition.

“The minute you leave the house, that 15-round magazine is now illegal, and you could be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for each magazine in your possession because you’re not in your home or at a gun range,” Williamson explained. “And you could be charged multiple times for the same magazines since magazines do not contain identifying markings.”

“So that could make an otherwise legal gun-owner a criminal overnight,” commented Kahng.

“But they would have time to turn those magazines in,” responded committee member Margaret Onley, an Oregon labor and employment attorney who supports the measure.

In the end, the committee voted 3-2 to adopt the explanatory language with minor changes and submitted it to the Oregon Secretary of State for final approval, leaving opponents frustrated.

“I don’t think you’ll find any precedent in U.S. history in which a citizen has to go through so many hoops to exercise Constitutional rights,” Williamson said. “This is the first of its kind, and if it passes, it will wind up in court.”

Scottie Barnes

Scottie Barnes
As founding editor of GeoIntelligence and Geospatial Solutions and editor in chief of GPS World, Scottie Barnes has examined the implications of public policy and emerging technologies on areas ranging from homeland security and national defense to forestry and urban planning. She now provides breaking news and investigative reporting from the Pacific Northwest for readers of The Epoch Times.
Categories
Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops

Leaked Documents Show FBI Equating Basic American Terminology With ‘Violent Extremism’ By Kira Davis

AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File
On Tuesday, Project Veritas dropped a bombshell document that shows the FBI making disturbing judgments in identifying “violent extremists.”

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Aug. 2, 2022] Project Veritas released a newly leaked document today provided by an FBI whistleblower, which shows how the Bureau classifies American citizens it deems to be potential “Militia Violent Extremists” [MVEs].

In the document, the FBI cites symbols, images, phrases, events, and individuals that agents should look out for when identifying alleged domestic terrorists.

Some of the examples of “red flags” used in the documents are truly shocking.

Of note, under the “Symbols” section, is a prominent citation of the Second Amendment, where it explains that “MVEs justify their existence with the Second Amendment, due to the mention of a ‘well regulated Militia,’ as well as the right to bear arms.”

Right below that, under the “Commonly Referenced Historical Imagery and Quotes” section, Revolutionary War images such as the Gadsden Flag and the Betsy Ross Flag are listed. Each flag displayed in the document comes with a brief description of what it means.

Under the “Common Phrases and References” section of the leaked document, Ashli Babbitt is cited as a person that MVEs consider to be a Martyr.

FBI “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide” Page 1. CREDIT: Project Veritas
FBI “Domestic Terrorism Symbols Guide” Page 2. CREDIT: Project Veritas

Incredibly, the document also ties things like Ruby Ridge, Waco and Timothy McVeigh with traditional American symbols.

Other disturbing “red flags” identified in the document were “All enemies, foreign and domestic” and, shockingly, “I will not comply.”

It is extremely alarming to learn the FBI is so casually conflating common, basic American terminology and Americana with violent extremists. It seems they are genuinely setting up Americans for punishment based on the most basic, common expressions of totally average patriotism.

Project Veritas indicated the document was not for public consumption.

The “Unclassified/Law Enforcement Sensitive” document says it is for “FBI Internal Use Only.”

Kira Davis

Kira is a freelance writer and Editor-at-large for RedState. She has appeared on Fox News, OANN, The Blaze and The Dr. Phil Show. Kira is also a regular guest host at KABC radio in Los Angeles. Her podcasts “Just Listen to Yourself” and The Kira Davis Show are heard by hundreds of thousands of listeners across the country and the globe. Kira lives in Southern California with her husband and two children. She is a dog person but has been known to tolerate cats from time to time.