Category: Gun Fearing Wussies
A soon-to-be vacant gun store in Culver City has a new owner: the city itself.
Earlier this month, Culver City announced plans to purchase the Martin B. Retting Gun Store on Washington Boulevard for a price tag of more than $6 million.
The gunshop was a mainstay in Culver City for more than six decades, but in July, its longtime owners announced the store would be closing shop.
After 65 years in business, with the company staying in the hands of various members of the Retting family throughout, retirement beckoned its current owners.
“Despite having overcome and flourished after everything the firearms industry could throw at us, it turns out that the one thing we can’t defeat is the inevitable march of time,” store management wrote in a note to customers posted on its website.
The store became the subject of public ire in recent years due to its close proximity to La Ballona Elementary School.
It was also listed in a 2022 report by the California Department of Justice identifying it as one of the state’s top sources of guns that were illegally possessed, were used in the commission of a crime, or were suspected of having been used in a crime.
Years ago, Culver City passed an ordinance that prohibits gun sellers from operating businesses near schools, but the gun store received leniency due to its longtime residency and was allowed to keep doing business.
But those rights were transferrable, officials said, meaning if the storefront were to ever be sold, a new one could quickly take its place.
Yasmine Imani-McMorrin, the city’s vice mayor, said the city listened to input from the community and determined many were worried about public safety if a new store were to open.
“They had concerns about their families’ well-being,” Imani-Mcmorrin told KTLA’s Rachel Menitoff.
At a Sept. 11 city council meeting, the council met to discuss the sale and listen to feedback from the community. A crowd of mostly supporters gathered in the chambers to urge councilmembers to vote in support of the city’s purchase.
“Ending gun sales in our school zones will have an impact on our children and families that will be felt for generations,” said Melody Hanson, a mother and member of Culver 878, a local gun safety advocacy group.
After public comment ended, the council unanimously voted in favor of purchasing the property for $6.5 million. But despite the unanimous support from the council, not all in Culver City were encouraged by the sale.
Gary Zeiss, a Culver City resident who called into oppose the purchase, raised concerns about the overall cost of the property, which he said was significantly above market value.
“I am not a Second Amendment proponent by any stretch of the imagination, however I am a proponent of good government,” Zeiss said. “There’s no evidence that the value of the property is in any way proportional to the value of other properties in the area.”
Zeiss also questioned why the property was being purchased without any definitive plans on how it will be used.
In a statement provided to KTLA Wednesday, Mayor Albert Vera confirmed that there was no immediate plan for the property, but said it will eventually serve the community as a whole.
“The City’s decision to purchase the building is in large part from listening to the community and its desire to have a different use for that location. It will be an involved process with the community on the next steps for that building and what it ultimately will become,” the statement reads.
The Martin B. Retting Gun Store initially planned to shutter its doors at the end of July, but it remained open as recently as early September. Despite the retirement of its owners, guns and other merchandise were being sold at their original prices because the business closure was “not a liquidation, clearance or distress sale.”
The store’s phone number has since been disconnected.
—————————————————————————————-Now I am of mixed minds about this subject. For the following reason below.
In that I now have one less Gunshop to go to here in LA LA Land. A dying breed believe me!!
As usual Government has once again shown its ability to spend a LOT of money for basically symbolic reasons. Also I have been to their shop a couple of times. Now they had a great selection of $$$$ guns and a horrible attitude to boot.
Now for the good news. The owners with their backs to the wall were able to make the enemy pay a mighty hefty price for its victory. A weirdly shaped brick buildong with piss poor parking.
After several weeks of the abject failure of New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s (D) attempt to suspend constitutional rights in her state, there are a number of theories as to what, exactly, she was hoping to accomplish. First, and foremost, though, it appears to have been little more than a PR stunt. She all but said as much.
After receiving public opposition to her outlandish announcement of an unconstitutional 30-day ban on open and concealed carry of firearms in public places in Bernalillo County, followed quickly by numerous lawsuits and a temporary restraining order (TRO) against enforcing the ban, part of Lujan Grisham’s response to the TRO was to state, “Over the past four days (since issuing the order), I’ve seen more attention on resolving the crisis of gun violence than I have in the past four years.”
So she apparently got the publicity she was craving.
Not only is her comment a bald-faced lie, though, it’s an admission of failure, as Lujan Grisham has been in office for the past four years, and her party has controlled both chambers of the New Mexico legislature over that same time period. If she hasn’t been able to enact the laws she thinks will address violent crime involving those who use firearms in an illegal fashion over the last four years, either she is bad at governing, or her ideas are simply wildly unpopular or complete failures at achieving their alleged goals.
Probably a bit of all of that, really.
For the past four years, there has been a great deal of “attention” in the legislature on Lujan Grisham’s notion that infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners will somehow stop violent criminals from being violent criminals. Just go to NRAILA.org, then scroll down and use the filter to select New Mexico and All Dates. There have been countless anti-gun bills introduced, and some have even passed to become law. None have proven to be capable of reducing the violent acts of criminals misusing firearms.
Speaking of the apparent unpopularity of her ideas, one cannot help but notice the lack of support for her PR stunt. Honestly, it’s a bit surprising, knowing just how radical the anti-Second Amendment community is.
Lujan Grisham, during her press conference announcing her attempt to suspend the rights of law-abiding gun owners, stated that she had spoken to the White House prior to enacting the order. She didn’t say what kind of feedback she received, but considering there have not been any comments from anyone in the Biden administration about her actions—actions that have received national coverage by many media outlets—it may be safe to presume the subject matter is as toxic to Biden as his son’s legal problems.
Anti-gun organizations have been equally mum. None of the groups that supported Lujan Grisham’s election—like Everytown/Moms Demand and Giffords—have issued a single statement in support of the governor’s stunt. Normally, anti-gun organizations are eager to praise the actions of anti-gun politicians; especially when they are put in the national spotlight.
But so far, all we’ve heard are crickets.
Similarly, these groups tend to file amicus briefs in support of anti-gun efforts that are challenged in court. Again, nothing on the aforementioned groups’ websites mentions filing any briefs in support of Lujan Grisham.
In fact, New Mexico’s attorney general, Raul Torrez (D), has publicly stated he will not defend the governor’s order in court, noting that it is clearly unconstitutional. Torrez, it should be noted, was also endorsed by the anti-gun groups Giffords and Everytown/Moms Demand.
Even some of the most vocal, radical anti-gun individuals called out Lujan Grisham for overstepping her authority with the unconstitutional ban on the right to carry. Anti-gun US Representative Ted Lieu (D-Cal.) posted to X (formerly Twitter) that the order “violates the U.S. Constitution,” and that “(t)here is no such thing as a public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution.” Anti-gun activist David Hogg, as if cutting and pasting from some damage control script sent out by “moderate” anti-gunners, used virtually the same language as Lieu about a “public health emergency exception.”
Then, the very weekend the order was first put into place, peaceful protestors in Albuquerque carried firearms in the city—both openly and, presumably, concealed—with not a single arrest made or citation issued.
Some of the more radical political operatives in the country may not have realized these were peaceful protests, as no riots took place, no businesses were looted or burned down, and nobody was assaulted. Nonetheless, they were the epitome of peaceful protests.
Thus far, her actions have resulted in numerous legal challenges, including one filed by NRA-ILA, and one TRO issued by a Biden-appointed judge. Yes, you read that right, the first of what will likely be numerous defeats for Lujan Grisham’s PR stunt was issued by a judge appointed by Joe Biden.
After the TRO was issued, the governor amended her order to narrow the unconstitutional suspension of the right to carry firearms to apply to “public parks or playgrounds” in the affected area. Of course, diminishing the area an unconstitutional order impacts does not make it less unconstitutional, it just has the potential to decrease the number of people who might be affected. Virtually every legal challenge to the order, even as amended, shall likely continue. We know ours will.
But if you need any more evidence that the governor was merely looking for attention, rather than actual solutions, again, just consider what she says. When asked directly, during her own press conference announcing her action, if she thought criminals would obey the order, she said no, but thought it would send a message. She even openly admitted that she was issuing the order without having figured out how it would be enforced.
“Sending a message” may be one of the worst defenses of an unconstitutional law we’ve heard, but considering she admits her order will not affect criminals, it may be the only defense she has.
California already can rightfully argue they are the strictest gun control state in the country. Gov. Gavin Newsom is even pushing for a Constitutional amendment to do away with Second Amendment rights. That’s not stopping them from rushing to implement even more gun control in the waning days of the session.
It will be a whiplash final week for bill movement. Here’s a rundown of what’s happening in Sacramento.
Senate Bill 241 passed out of the Assembly and is headed to the Senate. The bill requires California firearm retailers and their employees to undergo annual training courses which are implemented by the California Department of Justice (CalDOJ). The training requirements include “how to recognize and identify straw purchasers and fraudulent activity;” “how to recognize and identify indicators that an individual intends to use a firearm for self-harm;” “how to prevent theft or burglary of firearms and ammunition;” and “how to teach consumers rules of firearm safety, including, but not limited to, the safe handling and storage of firearms.”
The firearm industry rejects the bill’s mandates and penalties but agrees these are important aspects to owning and operating a firearm retail location. It’s why NSSF has provided training, education and resources to industry members and promotes the Real Solutions. Safer Communities. initiative.
Rather than forcing expensive and time-consuming requirements on retailers, NSSF provides access and materials from the Don’t Lie for the Other Guy campaign to reduce illegal “straw purchases,” Operation Secure Store retailer security program and Project ChildSafe safe firearm storage initiative. Each of these programs, as well as others, have had a real, meaningful impact on making communities safer without imposing costly mandates and red tape on small businesses.
Assembly Bill 1406 passed both the Assembly and Senate and is heading to Gov. Newsom for signature. AB 1406 would expand the existing 10-day waiting period on the sale or transfer of a firearm to include a possible 30-day state waiting period.
The existing 10-day waiting period is already being challenged in court as unnecessary and that violates law-abiding Californians’ Second Amendment rights. After all, rights delayed are rights denied. A successful National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification already reveals whether the buyer is prohibited from owning a firearm or not, and a federal background check window exists for the minute percentage of NICS checks that come back in delay rather than approved or denied.
Senate Bill 368 is another bill that would impact firearm retailers and also make it more difficult to help reduce the tragedy of firearm deaths by suicide. SB 368 is heading to Gov. Newsom for signature after passing out of both the Assembly and the Senate. The bill adds additional requirements and red tape for firearm retailers to navigate should a person experiencing temporary mental health challenges decide to give their firearm to the dealer for storage. Similar laws in New York and Massachusetts end up discouraging individuals from pursuing this option and often the firearm dealer is left in a difficult place to navigate penalties and possible violations due to the firearm transfer mandates.
Assembly Bill 1089 passed both the Assembly and Senate and is heading to Gov. Newsom’s desk for possible signature. AB 1089 prohibits anyone, including a gunsmith or hobbyist, from manufacturing a home-built firearm and requires those individuals to register as a state-licensed firearm manufacturer. Building firearms at home has been common since before the founding of the country.
One of the most egregious pieces of legislation to see significant movement in Sacramento is Assembly Bill 28. AB 28 already passed both chambers and is already on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk for possible signature. AB 28 has made a wave of national news already and would impose an 11 percent excise tax on firearm retailers and manufacturers for all sales of guns or ammunition. The Associated Press reported, “California’s proposed tax would not apply to people who buy the guns. Instead, the state would make the businesses that sell guns and ammunition pay the tax. However, most of the time businesses will raise prices to cover the cost of the tax.”
Senate Bill 2 creates a new arbitrary system and criteria for firearm permits making it immensely harder for citizens to obtain carry permits. This is Gov. Newsom’s response to the Bruen decision. Since he didn’t like the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, he took the same tactic and sought legislation to make it nearly impossible to legally carry a firearm in California – even if an individual has a permit. The bill would make nearly every public place in California a “sensitive place” and deny law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm.
While there are still only a handful of days remaining, the firearm industry is also watching to see if legislators move a California state Merchant Category Code (MCC) bill (AB 1587) to track individuals who make firearm purchases using a credit card, as well as a microstamping bill (SB 452) which would require the state to study the unworkable and flawed technology on new firearms in the state.
NSSF will be closely monitoring the situation in Sacramento.
BIDEN’S BLANKET ENDORSEMENT AS GUN CONFERENCE LOOMS
President Joe Biden recently picked up a literal “blanket endorsement”
from several gun control lobbying groups for his 2024 re-election run.
(Official White House portrait, public domain)
In politics, as well as business, timing is everything, so let’s take a look at current events and test the theory.
Last month, in something of a first, it seems like every gun prohibitionist lobbying group on the map joined together to endorse Joe Biden for re-election in 2024. This is quite possibly the biggest non-surprise in recent political history, and it tells us something important.
Gun grabbers, as my pal Alan Gottlieb at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) calls them, are dead serious about keeping their guy in the White House for another four years.
Adding to the mix, just about this time last month, CNN was reporting how the president would be making an announcement right after Labor Day about how gun control would be a centerpiece in his campaign over the next 14 months.
By now, if CNN was right, we should know what this was all about. It was supposed to include expanding the definition of what a firearms dealer is, and whether active gun traders and/or buyers and sellers should have a federal firearms license. There was more mentioned, and none of it was good news for gun owners.
Another talking point was supposed to be expanded background checks, or so-called “universal background checks,” which translates to more red tape and inconvenience for honest citizens and no problem at all for criminals who simply bypass background checks. There was some question about whether Biden could do this without legislation, which would likely be DOA on Capitol Hill, with an election year looming.
What really makes this interesting is — as I mentioned right up front — is the timing. The weekend of Sept. 22-24, the 38th annual Gun Rights Policy Conference will unfold in Phoenix, Arizona. Would anyone care to bet what and who will be the main subjects of discussion during that lively 72-hour gathering?
Alan Gottlieb created the Gun Rights Policy Conference
38 years ago. It has grown to be an important grassroots event.
What is the Gun Rights Conference?
For the past 38 years, gun rights advocates and grassroots activists from across the country have gathered at some hotel in some city for a weekend of panel discussions, reports, networking, socializing and learning about Second Amendment issues from the top names in the gun rights movement.
The Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC), which is co-hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation and CCRKBA, is something of a “Who’s Who” event. Over the years, it has attracted leaders from virtually every gun rights group on the map.
We’re talking NRA, GOA, National Shooting Sports Foundation, SAF and CCRKBA of course; Illinois State Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners Action League of Massachusetts, Washington Arms Collectors, Florida Carry, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and so many other groups it’s impossible to name them all.
GRPC was and remains the brainchild of the aforementioned Alan Gottlieb. Unlike a National Rifle Association convention, this event was designed to always be an educational gathering. It is oriented toward grassroots activism, and over the past couple of years, features have been added.
Last year, there was a day-long legal symposium which drew several attorneys who are getting deeply involved in Second Amendment litigation. In conjunction with the conference there has been a gathering of bloggers and podcasters.
The first one of these gatherings was held in Bellevue, Washington, and I was there. It was, from a journalist’s perspective, one of those rare opportunities to listen and get an understanding of how the most energetic folks in the gun rights movement talked and thought. Things haven’t really changed much; the faces, of course, but not the philosophy. If you want to understand gun rights from the ground up, this little soiree is just what you need.
Among this year’s confirmed speakers will be American Handgunner and GUNS Magazine columnist Massad Ayoob, who happens to also serve as president of the SAF. He will be joined by radio legends Tom Gresham (SAF Board of Trustees) and Mark Walters (CCRKBA Board of Directors), SAF and CCRKBA leader Alan Gottlieb, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, journalist John Fund and many others. A full program should be available online within days right here.
Massad Ayoob is no stranger to readers of American Handgunner
and GUNS magazine. What many don’t know is that he is the
president of the Second Amendment Foundation.
Only twice has the event been totally online — during the COVID-19 pandemic — and the virtual GRPC events were viewed online by tens of thousands of people.
Panel discussions frequently involve politicians, academics, attorneys, writers, historians, firearms trainers, and local activists.
There are two receptions, one Friday evening and the other Saturday evening. Saturday’s agenda runs from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. and includes an awards luncheon. Sunday’s agenda runs from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m.
For those unable to attend, the sessions will be live-streamed, and you should be able to hook up by visiting the SAF website.
Who Backs Biden?
Returning to endorsements for the president, it’s a veritable Rogue’s Gallery of gun control extremists.
The lineup includes Everytown for Gun Safety, the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action, Students Demand Action, Team Enough, Community Justice Action Fund, and Giffords. Would you believe it, Spectrum News identifies this bunch as “gun safety groups.” (If you ever want to have a little fun, ask representatives from any of these groups how many certified “gun safety” instructors they have, where they offer “gun safety” courses and what kinds of guns they personally own.)
When CNN announced Biden’s campaign plans, the report said he would “make gun safety a central issue of his reelection campaign.” What’s he going to do, encourage people to take an NRA home firearms safety course?
The courts have lately been unkind to gun control, but not entirely hostile. After U.S. District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas ruled ATF overstepped its authority in writing a “new rule” on parts kits — the so-called “ghost guns” — the Supreme Court reversed and allowed the rule to stand, at least while the actual case makes its way through the lower courts.
Hunter Biden’s so-called “sweetheart deal” on drug charges and alleged gun law violations was derailed by a judge several weeks ago, so that could come up during the campaign. There was a strange silence from the gun control crowd when Hunter’s “deal” on the gun law violation was announced. Hey, if it weren’t for the double standard, the Left would have no standards at all.
But, these people vote, so we better vote, too.
Fatal Choice
An Indiana man made the fatal mistake of apparently driving into the front yard of a couple in the Salem area, then pulling a gun on the male homeowner, according to Fox News.
It was his bad luck the man’s wife was inside. She grabbed her own handgun and shot the suspect — identified as 45-year-old Michael Chastain — fatally. Chastain reportedly had previously dated the couple’s daughter, but she no longer lived at her parents’ home, so it’s not clear why he went there in the first place. It turned out to be the last place he visited, not counting the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
Chastain reportedly had a criminal record.
Limping to Jail?
There’s a 23-year-old guy in Hammond, Louisiana, who may be limping into court shortly, thanks to a nastily-placed bullet which hit him just above the knee.
Of course, he earned the lead by allegedly forcing his way into the wrong residence at a mobile home park in Tangipahoa Parish (I can’t pronounce it, either) last month. According to WWL News, the suspect broke in through a window, threatening to kill the homeowner and her family. He also reportedly assaulted a guest in the process. He immediately learned this was the wrong way to win new friends because the female homeowner produced a pistol and plugged him.
Instead of running or even hobbling away, our miscreant reportedly stripped off all of his clothes and then ran to a nearby vehicle, broke a window and tried to barricade himself inside.
If you guessed drugs were somehow involved, you are a good guesser. According to the report, the suspect confessed to the sheriff’s office that he had consumed some “illegal narcotics” prior to the incident. Our model citizen now faces charges including home invasion, second-degree battery, “vehicle burglary,” and resisting arrest.
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.)
When the young paste-eaters at Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun propaganda factory, known as the Trace, team up with the stodgy window-lickers at the Gun Violence Archive to produce a story about the utility of the AR-15 platform as a modern self-defense tool, it’s hard not to get too excited.
It’s like watching two freight trains headed toward each other on the same track. You know the results are going to be cataclysmic. None of these halfwits have ever heard a shot fired, much less one fired in anger, or especially one fired to good effect. They know less about what makes a reliable home defense weapon than I do about man-buns, skinny jeans, or avocado toast.
We have debunked the Trace and the Gun Violence Archive so often it’s getting old. The kids at the Trace masquerade as legitimate journalists when, in fact, they’re nothing more than highly paid anti-gun activists. The GVA purports to track gun crimes and maintain a list of mass shootings, but their data is collected from media, and even social media sources, and their stats are so inflated they’d have you believe a mass shooting occurs nearly every time someone draws from a holster. When the two anti-gun nonprofits combine for a story, it’s bound to be something as bereft of facts as it is poorly written, and to that standard, their most recent collaboration does not disappoint.
A story published Tuesday asks: “How Often Are AR-Style Rifles Used for Self-Defense? Supporters of AR-15s, often used in mass shootings and racist attacks, say they’re important for self-defense. Our analysis of Gun Violence Archive data suggests otherwise.”
The story was written by one of the Trace’s senior fabulists, Jennifer Mascia, who is “currently the lead writer of the Ask The Trace series and tracks news developments on the gun beat.” Mascia has also led the Trace’s hilarious we’re journalists, not activists, propaganda campaign on social media.
Mascia claims her story was a response to a reader’s question: “Many gun owners claim to buy assault-style rifles for defense. So how many documented cases are out there where someone actually defended themselves with an assault-style rifle?”
Mascia reportedly searched the GVA’s data for “assault weapon,” which she said the GVA defines as “AR-15, AK-47, and all variants defined by law enforcement.” Of course, there’s no mention of whether the weapons were capable of select-fire and, therefore, actual assault weapons. She started with 190 incidents, which she whittled down for various reasons. The results: “That left 51 incidents over a nine-and-a-half-year span in which legal gun owners brandished or used an AR-style rifle to defend life or property. That averages out to around five per year.”
To be clear, I trust Mascia’s findings about as much as I trust the GVA data that produced the results. The whole story is GIGO – garbage in, garbage out.
It is noteworthy that the firearms “expert” whom Mascia found to further beclown herself – who wrote in a CNN story that the AR is the last gun he’d recommend for self-defense – is none other than former Washington D.C. police officer Michael Fanone. He’s the officer who cried a lot before the January 6 Commission – the one with the beard who cried a lot, if that helps jog your memory.
“I’m more familiar with the gun than most people: I own one. And one thing I know for sure is that this weapon doesn’t belong in the hands of the average civilian,” Fanone wrote of the AR platform in the CNN story.
The network must have liked the cut of his jib. Fanone is now a CNN contributor and hawking a new book: “Hold the Line: The Insurrection and One Cop’s Battle for America’s Soul.” (Nancy Pelosi highly recommended it.)
Since he’s so afraid of the AR platform, I can’t help but wonder what weapon Fanone, or for that matter, Mascia, would recommend for home defense. If I had to guess, it probably has two barrels, a wooden stock and exposed hammers.
I’m somewhat familiar with the AR myself, which is why I trust it to defend my hearth and home. It’s light, accurate, and deadly, which is exactly the point, and something we should stop making allowances for.
Despite the exhortations of Bloomberg’s activists or crybaby ex-cops, an AR-15 is exactly what I want when The Bad Man comes a-calling.
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 shooter.
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.
