John Crump

Conflicting ATF Letters to State FFLs Shows Continued Two-Faced Hypocrisy

July 28, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Conflicting ATF Letters to State’s FFLs Shows Continued Two-Faced Hypocrisy iStock-BrianAJackson
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)-The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is sending letters to Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) in states that have passed bills protecting the Second Amendment demanding that the FFLs do NOT follow state laws. The ATF, at the same time, sent letters to FFLs telling them to FOLLOW state laws in states that have passed laws that have weakened the Second Amendment.

This week Texas FFLs received a letter from ATF Assistant Director of Enforcement Programs and Services Alphonso Hughes regarding House Bill 957 (HB957). The Texas legislator passed HB957 during the last session. The bill exempts suppressors manufactured in Texas and that remain in Texas from the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The ATF claims that federal law supersedes HB957 therefor, FFLs should ignore HB957!?
Texas HB 957 is similar to the Kansas Act, which also exempted suppressors made in Kansas and remained in Kansas. In 2014, Jeremy Kettler purchased a suppressor from a military surplus store. Since the manufacture made the suppressor in Kansas and Mr. Kettler didn’t leave the State, he thought he was within the law. The ATF took the opportunity to arrest and prosecute Kettler for violating the NFA.

Gun Owners of America took up the case but ultimately lost in Circuit Court. The Supreme Court turned down the opportunity to hear the appeal. Many in the gun-rights world hoped that the Supreme Court would take the case and that it would have been a death blow to the NFA. The Supreme Court doesn’t have a strong history of taking gun cases.

The ATF also sent letters to FFLs located in Missouri, ordering them not to obey House Bill Number 85. HB 85 is known as the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA). The ATF seems to have a problem with certain parts of the new law.
Some of these conflicts that the ATF list that is considered infringements by Missouri are:
(1) “[a]ny tax, levy, fee, or stamps imposed on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services and that might reasonably be expected to create a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens,”(2) “[a]ny registration or tracking of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition,”(3) “[a]ny registration or tracking of ownership of firearms, firearms accessories, and ammunition,”(4) “[a]ny act forbidding the possession, ownership, use, or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens” (with “law-abiding citizens” defined as those who may possess firearms under Missouri law), and(5) “[a]ny act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.”
State Rights vs Federal Overreach vs Marijuana
These letters seem to be setting up a state law vs. federal law showdown. The ATF demands that FFLs obey federal law even if it puts them in jeopardy of violating state law. This ultimatum could become a state’s rights issue if both sides refuse to back down.

The question that remains is if the DEA sent out similar letters to states that have legalized marijuana. Those states have laws that do contradict federal law dealing with drugs. Could it be the federal government just targeting guns and doesn’t care about other conflicts between state and federal law? The Biden administration is openly hostile towards guns and gun owners.

The ATF also sent a letter to FFLs in Colorado regarding HB298, Colorado’s Expand Firearm Transfer Background Check Requirements. That bill requires FFLs to wait for a “proceed” from the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) before transferring a firearm. Under federal law, a dealer may transfer a gun after three days if a person is stuck in a delayed status. Under the new Colorado law, there is no end to the time limit to hold up a transfer.

The ATF requires FFLs to comply with this state law and ignore the federal statute. This request seems to run contradictory to the other orders that the Bureau has issued. Gun rights advocates say this double standard shows the ATF’s when it comes to guns.
Whenever a law is pro-gun, the ATF tells FFLs to ignore it. When a law is anti-gun, the federal agency demands that the dealers comply.
The ATF did not return AmmoLand’s request for comment.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com

Bump Stock Battle Rages On As GOA/GOF Files A Supplemental Brief

July 28, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Bump Stock Battle Rages On As GOA/GOF Files A Supplemental Brief
CINCINNATI, OH –-(Ammoland.com)- The battle for bump stock rolls on as attorneys for Gun Owners of America files a supplemental brief to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Gun Owners of America v. Garland.

In a statement, Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA and GOF, said: “We’re pleased to continue the battle against the ATF’s unconstitutional ban on bump stocks. As shown by their Proposed Rules on homemade and braced firearms, this rogue, lawless agency seeks to chip away at the rights of law-abiding gun owners. And this is why it is vitally important that their actions — including their ban of bump stocks — do not go unchecked. GOA and GOF will continue to hold the ATF accountable for its repeated assaults upon the Second Amendment rights of gun owners.”
The Gun Owners of America initially argued the case in front of a panel of judges on December 11, 2019. From the panel’s questioning of the government, most legal experts expected a positive outcome for gun rights. A few months later, in May, a three-judge panel from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the government in Aposhian v. Barr. On September 10, 2020, The Tenth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc.

En banc means the entire bench will hear the case. The prior ruling of the panel is vacated, meaning it is like it never happened. The declaration of the Tenth Circuit worried some pro-gun advocates since Circuit Courts do not like to give contradictory rulings. But on June 25, 2021, the Sixth Circuit handed down a decision by a 2-1 margin that stated bump stocks “are not a machine gun.”

The Sixth Circuit ordered the District Court to grant an injunction against the bump stock ban. The federal government asked for an en banc hearing. The Sixth Circuit granted the government its request, thus vacating the panel’s pro-gun decision. Because an en banc hearing is basically a “do-over,” attorneys for Gun Owners of America lead by Robert Olson had to file a new brief in the case stating why that the plaintiffs believe that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) didn’t have a right to ban bump stocks.
The government is claiming that it has Chevron deference when it comes to the definition of a machine gun.
Chevron deference stems from Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In that case, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that if a statute is ambiguous, then deference is given to the regulatory agency.
Olson makes the case that “Chevron does not apply because the statute is not ambiguous.” GOA argues that the statue does not have any gray areas. The definition of a machine is clear. With a single function of the trigger, the gun fires multiple rounds. A bump stock doesn’t work in a similar way. The trigger needs to be pulled for each round to fire. A bump stock uses the recoil of the rifle to speed up firing. The same effect can be accomplished by using a rubber band or belt loop.
The original panel concluded that Chevron does not apply because this is a criminal statute. In the ruling, the majority wrote, “no deference is owed to an agency’s interpretation of a criminal statute.” Olson agrees with the panel, and GOA has case law on its side. In the United States v. Apel, the Supreme Court wrote, “we have never held that the Government’s reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference.” Also, in Abramski v. the United States, SCOTUS wrote, “criminal laws are for courts, not for the Government, to construe … ATF’s … position … is … not relevant at all” and “a court has an obligation to correct [the agency’s] error.”
The supplemental brief argues that “a president’s political objectives do not receive Chevron deference.” It can’t be argued that President Trump wasn’t the catalyst for the change to the definition of a machine gun. In 2018, he stated that bump stocks should be a machine and ordered the ATF to “write out” the device, but Trump did not have the expertise to make the claim that bump stocks were machines and didn’t have the power to order the ATF to “write out” the product.
Deference is given to agencies because they are assumed to have “expertise” in “highly technical” areas of the law. The Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) of the ATF first reviewed bump stocks in 2008 and determined that the device was not a machine gun. For the next nine years, the ATF held firm in its opinion that bump stocks were not machine guns and repeatedly issued opinion letters on the subject. It wasn’t until the President order the agency to redefine a machine gun that bump stocks were banned. The government claims that bump stocks are machine guns because it allows “continuous firing initiated by a single action by the shooter.” This definition is different than a “single function of the trigger.”
The decision to make bump stocks a machine gun was one of the President’s policy goals.
GOA makes the case that Chevron deference cannot be used for a policy goal. Case law seems to be on their side. In Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, SCOTUS ruled that an agency may not “rewrit[e] …unambiguous statutory terms” to suit “bureaucratic policy goals.”
Olson points out that Congress did not delegate to ATF the authority to define or redefine the term “Machinegun.” This fact is important because the courts have ruled that only Congress has the power to write new federal criminal law. In the United States v. Davis, SCOTUS wrote that “[o]nly the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws.”

GOA says that even if the statute were ambiguous, then it is Unconstitutionally vague. The gun-rights groups argue that the “Rule of Lenity” applies here. Ambiguities in criminal statutes have always been interpreted against the government. In this case, the government is arguing that ambiguities should be ruled in favor of it, which would break new ground in case law.
All this might not matter because the government seems to have waived Chevron deference by not raising it in district court. In Help Alert W. Ky., Inc. v. TVA, the court ruled the federal government waived any reliance on Chevron deference by failing to raise it to the district court.” On the same day the panel handed down its decision in favor of GOA, SCOTUS declined to consider Chevron deference in HollyFrontier Cheyenne Ref., LLC v. Renewable Fuels Ass’n because the government did not ask for deference earlier therefore waived deference.
The final point Olson makes is that “deference here will only further embolden ATF’s lawless actions.” Many consider the ATF to be out of control. The ATF is trying to use deference to shut down the unfinished firearm frames and pistol-stabilizing brace markets. Many do not believe that the agency has the power to do so because they would be making de facto laws. If GOA is successful in the bump stock case, then it could throw a monkey wrench into the ATF’s future plans.
There is no timeline for a final decision in the bump stock case, but the bump stock war is far from over. Both sides are expected to appeal a negative outcome to the Supreme Court.

About John Crump
John is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

CAUGHT: Biden’s ‘AFT’ Secretly Changing Rules To Revoke Firearms Licenses

July 23, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

New Leak Shows ATF Changing Secret Rules To Make It Easier To Revoke FFLs
WASHINGTON, D.C. -(AmmoLand.com)- A Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) leak shows that the organization is changing its secret rules regarding guns sellers to make it easier for the government to strip firearms dealers of their federal firearms license (FFL).

In 2020, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the ATF. The gun-rights group asked the agency to provide a copy of ATF O 5370, entitled “Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy and Procedures.” This document lays out the administrative remedies for violations found during an ATF inspection of a licensed firearms dealer.

The ATF has long tried to prevent the document from seeing the light of day.
After much stalling, the ATF begrudgingly turned over the heavily redacted version of the document to GOA. Still, the federal agency redacted almost all of the valuable information the FOIA request. Some of the missing information includes what violations could cause the dealer to lose their FFL.

ATF Response ATF O 5370 Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy and Procedures 1D – Redacted

The ATF did not know when it turned over the document to GOA that AmmoLand News had already obtained an unredacted copy of the secret document from our sources from deep within the Bureau.
Also, in February, the ATF launched the Firearms Compliance Inspections website, which lists some reasons that the ATF will revoke a license of a firearms dealer. The reasons listed on the website are incomplete when compared to the actual Federal Rules detailed in ATF O 5370.
For example, according to the ATF site, if a dealer refuses to allow an Industry Operations Inspector (IOI) to do an inspection, then the FFL would be revoked according to the site. In reality, according to the ATF O 5370 document, that would only be the case during the seller’s business hours that they provided to the ATF during their application phase of their FFL. Suppose an IOI wanted to do an inspection outside the dealer’s business hours. In that case, the document instructs them to call the dealer via phone and arrange a mutually agreeable time to inspect the seller’s books. There are several other reasons the ATF list on its site that would cause the agency to revoke a license.
These include the following:

Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person.
Failing to conduct a required background check.
Falsifying records.
Failing to respond to a trace request.

The problem is these reasons do not line up with the actual rules laid out in ATF O 5370, entitled “Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy and Procedures.” [unredacted version embedded below] It seems like the rules on the website have been truncated to remove several qualifiers. A gun buyer can use a concealed handgun permit (CHP) to purchase a firearm instead of the dealer running a background check in many states. If the CHP holder has become a prohibited person since acquiring the permit, it could jeopardize the dealer’s license even though the dealer is complying with the Brady Act. A previous leak obtained by AmmoLand News showed that IOIs have started running retroactive background checks using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) on gun buyers that purchased firearms using a CHP.
The Actual Federal Rules for revoking a license according to ATF O 5370 are as follows:

Refused ATF right of entry and inspection during hours of operation at the licensed premise.
Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person WHILE knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that the transferee is a prohibited person
Failing to conduct a required background check AND the purchaser is prohibited.
Falsifying records
Failing to respond to a trace request AND is a repeat violation.

Biden Administration Playing Dirty with ‘AFT’
AmmoLand News first thought that the difference could be an oversight, but our internal ATF contacts have also provided us with a memo, dated July 14, 2021, from Acting Assistant Director (Field Operations) George Lauder to all Special Agents in Charge(SAIC) and all Directors of Industry Operations (DIO) that showed that the differences are not an oversight.
According to the memo, the changes are a part of the Biden “Administration’s Comprehensive Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gun Crime and Ensure Public Safety.”

President Biden has called for a crackdown on “rogue” deal dealers, and the secret changes to the hidden rules seem to be a way of lightening the burden of proof that the government needs to revoke a gun dealer’s license. The changes have been made without any oversight leading a lot in the gun community to wonder if this is another example of an out-of-control agency.
The memo also requires all field divisions to harass, er.. utilize “Crime Gun Intelligence Analytics (CGIA) and other data-driven tools in determining the prioritization of inspection resources.”
These factors include:
a. The extent to which firearms sold by the dealer are later used in criminal activity;b. The time between the sale of a firearm and its use in a crime;c. The number of recoveries associated with shootings, domestic violence, and other violent offenses; andd. Additional information developed by local law enforcement partners.
AmmoLand News reached out to the ATF for comment but did not get a response before publication.
GOA — ATF FOIA Request ATF O 5370 Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy and Procedures

ATF Response ATF O 5370 Federal Firearms Administrative Action Policy and Procedures 1D – UNRedacted

Constitutional Carry & Corruption in The Bayou: Louisiana ~ VIDEO

July 15, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Constitutional Carry & Corruption in The Bayou: Louisiana iStock -LarisaBozhikova
Louisiana – -(AmmoLand.com)- When both chambers of the Louisiana legislature passed Constitutional Carry, most pundits expected Governor John Bel Edwards to veto SB 118. According to several people in the know, the Governor is now protecting his veto by offering favors and making threats to elected representatives.

The bill would allow any person who is not prohibited by law to carry a concealed firearm anywhere the citizen can open carry a gun. A resident of the state could not carry a firearm in a gun-free zone and still would need a permit to carry a gun in a restaurant or within 1,000’ of a school. The current concealed carry permit system would remain in place, and most people will still choose to get a permit to expand the areas that they are permitted to carry a gun and for reciprocity with other states.

A lot of gun rights advocates see the Constitutional Carry Bill as more of a start than the perfect pro-gun bill. Anti-gun groups claim that the bill would make Louisiana a more dangerous place. In the 21 states that have passed some form of Constitutional Carry, there hasn’t been an uptick in crimes committed with guns or firearm-related accidents.

When a bill is vetoed in Louisiana, it triggers a veto override session unless the members of the legislature agree NOT to hold one. Right now, it appears that there is an excellent chance that the first-ever veto override session will happen in Louisiana this month.
The Constitutional Carry Bill passed in both the House and the Senate by a veto-proof majority with several Democrats crossing party lines and voting for the pro-gun bill. It should be a slam dunk for the Governor’s veto to be overridden, but weak Republican leadership and suggested back-room deals are in play to jeopardize Constitutional Carry in the Pelican State.
In The House, SB 118 passed with every Republican voting for the Senate bill with the exceptions of Joseph Stagni, who voted no, and Stephanie Hilferty, who was absent for the vote. Hilferty currently opposes Constitutional Carry. Six Democrats joined Republicans in backing the Constitutional Carry bill.
Clay Schexnayder is the current Republican Speaker of The House, but only 22 Republicans out of 68 voted for him to be the Speaker. Schexnayder relied on votes by the Democrats to get the leadership position. The Speaker hasn’t been a strong supporter of gun rights, and it calls into question whether the Speaker is willing to go head-to-head with Governor Edwards over the Constitutional Carry bill.
More disturbing are accusations of deals being struck behind the scenes with members of the House and the Governor to block a veto override and kill Constitutional Carry.
George Peterson of PDW Solutions went on record with AmmoLand News, stating that Republican Patrick Connick has agreed to vote against an override of the Governor’s veto in return for funding for the Roosevelt Overpass. The budget for that project is in the millions of dollars. Two other sources also claim that Connick directly told them the same thing. The sources stated that the Governor had a meeting with Connick and the Democrats that voted for Constitutional Carry in the past few days.
According to the sources, five of the six Democrats in the House [that originally voted yes for the constitutional carry bill] will not vote to override the Governor’s veto putting the chance of Constitutional Carry in Louisiana in jeopardy. Connick also told AmmoLand News that he plans to vote against overriding the Governor’s veto. After speaking to his police chiefs, Connick states that he no longer supports Constitutional Carry because it would make Louisiana a more dangerous place. Yet he claims he is still pro-gun rights…!?
When pushed on the data showing that an increase in gun deaths hasn’t been the case in states with Constitutional Carry, he stated that he doesn’t believe in statistics, and other states with Constitutional Carry don’t have cities the size of New Orleans. Phoenix currently has 1.3 million more people than New Orleans.
Connick denied making any deals with the Governor but did say that Edwards has brought a lot of projects to his district. He also highlighted his friendship with Governor Edwards and stated that Edwards is a good man and is a good Catholic. He feels the Governor is being dragged through the mud over Constitutional Carry.
Republican Ronnie Johns was absent for the bill’s initial passage, but he voted yes for the concurrence. Since that time, he has decided NOT to back Constitutional Carry in the veto override session. The Governor recently appointed Johns to a lucrative position on the Gaming Commission. There isn’t concrete evidence tying the appointment to the vote on Constitutional Carry, but several gun rights activists have questioned the timing for the appointment.

The Senate President is Page Cortez. Cortez has not shown support of Constitutional Carry and could slow play the veto override session to run out the clock on taking up the bill. According to the Hay Ride, Cortez is not actually in favor of the session, but grassroots efforts have forced his hands.
Since SB 118 is a Senate bill, it will have to come out of the Senate during the veto override session. Some gun-rights activists worry that Cortez will never call up the Constitutional Carry bill for a veto override. Nothing in the Louisiana Constitution requires all vetoed bills to be voted on during a veto override session, and the Senate President controls what bills are heard during the session.
Governor Edwards has always claimed to be a blue dog pro-gun Democrat, but he has made a hard turn to the left by vetoing Constitutional Carry and a bill protecting women’ssports in his lame-duck term. Some have openly wondered if the Governor is auditioning for another position with the Biden Administration?
Constitutional Carry in Louisiana is not dead but will take a massive grassroots effort to force Louisiana politicians to keep their promise to the state’s gun owners. If you support Constitutional Carry for Louisiana, the deadline for an up-or-down vote to hold the override session ends tonight, 7/15/2021, so call your representative or contact them on social media.

Leak Shows ATF Preparing Operation Targeting Smith & Wesson and Others

July 12, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Leak Shows ATF Preparing Operation Targeting Smith & Wesson and Others
BOSTON, MA –-(Ammoland.com)- A leaked email shows that The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is seeking volunteer Industry Operations Inspectors (IOIs) to serve on temporary detail to the Boston field office in Mid-October of this year.

The email was sent out across the ATF to get volunteers for the operation. The purpose of the detail is to carry out several large-scale inspections of gun manufactures and sub-contractors in the New England area. The action isn’t limited to any single firearms manufacture. It seems like the ATF is targeting the gun industry in New England as a whole. The ATF is not acting on any actionable information but will be looking for record-keeping and other compliance violations.

The detail would last 30 days, and the IOIs would target several major firearms manufacturers across the Northeast region. New England is the home of some of the most historically significant firearms manufacturers in the country, including Colt and Smith & Wesson. No specific company was named in the initial request for volunteers itself, but it did show that the targets would be major players in the firearms field and all sub-contractors for major companies.

In a follow-up ATF email leaked to AmmoLand News, Smith & Wesson was specifically named for the inspections. It seems like the 165-year-old company has been in the crosshairs of anti-gun groups and anti-gun politicians for some time. A liberal California judge ruled that the victims of an attack on a synagogue could sue the gun manufacture even though the law indemnifies them from being sued over the misuse of their products.
The ATF might ask some IOIs to stay on the detail for an additional pay period depending on what the inspections turn up at the gun companies. The request asks for IOIs with at least three years of experience and experience with manufacturer compliance inspections. To some employees in the ATF, this sounds like a fishing expedition targeting the legal sale of firearms. The operation seems to be run by ATF Director of Industry Operations Nicholas O’Leary himself.
President Joe Biden has put the gun industry in his crosshairs before even taking office.
He and Vice President Kamala Harris has lobbied to remove federal protections against civil suits targeting firearms companies. The current administration wants to allow people to sue gun companies for crimes using their products. Gun rights advocates say removing this protection would be akin to allowing people to sue car companies for drunk driving accidents.
During Biden’s term in the US Senate, he voted against the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act that protected manufacturers from anti-gun groups, such as the Brady Organization, from funding lawsuits to make it economically unfeasible for anyone to run a gun company. Especially with the prevalence of anti-gun judicial advocacy in the country, running a firearms company would be financially impossible. Even if the company does win in court, it will still cost it hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The goal of the suits would be to bankrupt gun manufacturers and dealers to cut down on the supply of firearms available to the American public.
Biden’s pick to head the ATF, David Chipman, has also advocated targeting gun manufacturers to prevent people from exercising their God-given right to bear arms. Chipman is an anti-gun zealot that preaches the use of the ATF rulemaking ability to ban magazines because, in his opinion, they could be considered machine guns because they speed up the rate of fire.
Chipman has also worked for several anti-gun organizations, including Everytown for Gun Safety’s predecessor, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and Giffords. If Chipman is confirmed, we can expect operations like this to become commonplace.
Gun Owners America (GOA) sees this action as a blatant attempt to harass gun manufacturers. GOA has a large presence in the New England area and has called for defunding the ATF because the group sees the ATF as an out-of-control unconstitutional agency. They believe the ATF is trying to implement backdoor gun control by targeting gun companies.
“This sounds like a blatant attempt to harass legitimate businesses,” said Alan Rice, New Hampshire State Director for Gun Owners of America. “The Biden Administration is working overtime to make things difficult and inconvenient so that fewer people will want to engage in the business of manufacturing and selling firearms to law-abiding people. These burdensome inspections will surely result in increased costs to be passed along to gun buyers.”
Rice further stated that if he were running a gun or ammunition manufacturer he would respectfully decline to supply arms and ammunition to any federal law enforcement agencies as long as the Biden Administration is weaponizing law enforcement against a Constitutionally protected industry.

AmmoLand will continue to monitor the situation and report if the operations expand.

About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

The Second Annual Gun Maker’s Match Registration Opens

July 7, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

The Second Annual Gun Maker’s Match Registration Opens
ST AUGUSTINE, FL. –-(Ammoland.com)- The second annual Gun Maker’s Match registration period has opened for competitors to sign up to compete against other hobbyists.

The match will take place on March 19, 2022, in St Augustine, FL. The Gun Maker’s Match is a competition where the competitors use guns that are home built. These firearms range from guns made from kits like the Polymer80 to 3D printed firearms frames and receivers. The match is organized by the Guns for Everyone gun-rights group.

Guns for Everyone is a non-profit organization. Its mission is to train as many people as possible on the safe use of firearms. The group has provided free training for people to get concealed carry permits in Colorado and beyond. The group also certifies firearms instructors and runs national and local firearms competitions. Gun-rights activist Edgar Antillon runs the non-profit organization.

A few of the competition categories include printed pistols, printed rifles, kit pistols, and kit rifles. The competition’s goal is to show the general public that homemade firearms are not the tools of criminals. Most people that build homemade firearms are law-abiding citizens and do not build their guns for nefarious reasons. To some, it is a statement that the right to bear arms cannot be stifled. To others, it about the journey of building something with their own hands.
The Biden administration issued an executive action that tasked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to come up with a new definition and rules for firearms to directly attack American’s right to build their own guns. The ATF made up the term privately made firearms (PMF). The new rules would make it almost impossible for hobbyists to purchase kits to build guns.
The Biden administration claims that because unfinished frames and receivers are not serialized, they find their way into the hands of criminals. A lot of the pressure to change the rules surrounding unfinished frames and receivers comes from anti-gun groups like Giffords, Brady, and Everytown for Gun Safety. Biden’s pick for ATF Director is David Chipman, who works for Giffords, has spoken out against unfinished frames and receivers.
Another source of pressure is from anti-gun State Attorney Generals such as Pennsylvania AG Josh Shapiro. Shapiro has targeted local Pennsylvania company JSD Supply. JSD Supply sells P80 kits and its own kits based on the Sig P320. Earlier in the year, Shapiro pressured Eagle Arms to stop allowing JSD Supply to sell its products. JSD Supply was a sponsor of the inaugural Gun Maker’s Match that was held on June 19, 2021.
JSD Supply was a sponsor of the inaugural Gun Maker’s Match that was held on June 19, 2021.
In addition to JSD Supply, other unfinished firearms companies sponsored the past event. Defcad sponsored the competition and donated a Ghost Gunner 3 as a prize for a division winner. Polymer80, Mantis, Brownells, and NASGW also sponsored the past match. Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) also sponsored the event. Both gun rights organizations support the right of the people to build unserialized firearms.
Events like these competitions demystify the homemade firearms community. For full disclosure, the author’s online store also sponsored the TUSC competition team.
TUSC competition team

YouTube Bans Far-Left & Anti-Gun Right Wing Watch

July 5, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

YouTube Bans Far-Left & Anti-Gun Right Wing Watch
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- YouTube has removed Right Wing Watch from their platform, the hyper-partisan group announced on Twitter Monday with screenshots of YouTube denying its appeal.

The group’s Twitter read: “Our efforts to expose the bigoted view and dangerous conspiracy theories spread by right-wing activists has now resulted in @YouTube banning our channel and removing thousands of our videos. We attempted to appeal this decision, and YouTube rejected it.”
Right Wing Watch (RWW) was a project of the far-left People For the American Way (PFAW). PFAW pushes far-left conspiracy theories about groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA). The organization claimed that GOA was a bridge between government officials and a “radical anti-government militia movement.” The left-wing organization also tried to connect the gun group to Christian nationalism.

GOA has never been connected to any militia and is not a religious organization.
The pro-gun group has members of all races and religious backgrounds. Although RWW and PFAW also claimed the National Rifle Association (NRA) is racist, it seems like the group has a vendetta against GOA and, more specifically, Larry and Erich Pratt for their no-compromise gun stance.

RWW history of attacking pro-gun organizations as well as right-leaning groups. Their mission was to de-platform as many groups as possible for their right-wing beliefs. They have not only targeted pro-gun groups but also targeted My Pillow founder Mike Lindell and E.W. Jackson. The group has even tried to de-platform former UFC fighter Tito Ortiz for his conservative views.
The group used many of the same techniques that it complained to YouTube about right-wing groups using. Some of these techniques included targeted harassment campaigns and Copywrite violations. RWW had multiple violations. Journalist Matt Binder pointed out that the group would upload a raw video from a right-wing channel without adding commentary.

Right Wing Watch only posts raw clips taken from right wing channels. there’s no added commentary. they got banned for uploading the very same content you’re describing in your post.
this is a pretty bad example of what you’re sayinghttps://t.co/xhlTpGRAk8
— Matt Binder (@MattBinder) June 28, 2021
Without adding commentary to the clips, the group could not claim “fair use.” Fair use requires the person or group using the clip to add something to “transform” the video. Uploading raw video without anything added would not be considered “transformative.”
RWW could argue the clips were uploaded for educational purposes, but that would be hard to prove since no commentary was added. YouTube will not remove a channel until that channel racks up three strikes. The far-left group exceeded that total. In addition, the channel included thousands of videos at the time of deletion.
Some saw the banning of Right Wing Watch as poetic justice. The group has lobbied big tech to censor groups and people who hold different beliefs than RWW. This list included many pro-gun activists and pro-gun groups. The group has always claimed that these platforms can ban whoever they want because they are private companies. However, RWW’s view on big tech seems to have changed with its banning.
Many on Twitter jumped at the opportunity to point out the irony of a group that lobbied for censorship now complaining about censorship. People like reporter Andy Ngo pointed out that Right Wing Watch mocks people who complain about “cancel culture.” Tim Pool said that the group got burned by the same fire they started.

.@RightWingWatch’s YouTube channel has been permanently suspended for repeated violations of the platform’s community guidelines. RWW itself works to get others banned & has mocked those who speak about cancel culture. https://t.co/1e99H2i1Zr
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) June 28, 2021

You got burned by the fire you started
We warned you that this is exactly what would happen if you push for censorship
This is perfectly ironichttps://t.co/lt2sYie5vW
— Tim Pool (@Timcast) June 28, 2021
AmmoLand News reached out to Right Wing Watch for comment, but the group has not returned our emails so far.

About John Crump

John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Smoking Gun Shows The ATF Dishonesty In Responding to FOIA Request

July 4, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Smoking Gun Shows The ATF Dishonesty In Responding to FOIA Request
WASHINGTON D.C. –-(Ammoland.com)- New evidence shows that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is lying to journalists, lawyers, the public, and their own Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) department.

Earlier in the year, AmmoLand News obtained inside information from a source and a copy of the notes of a Director of Industry Operations (DIO) conference call that ATF employees on temporary detail to the NFA (National Firearms Act) division were not hitting target metrics. The NFA division is responsible for processing and approving tax stamps, processing NFA transfers, and adding new NFA items to the NFA registry. The exact metrics were not revealed on the call.

On my behalf, on March 1, 2021, my attorney, Stephen Stamboulieh, filed an FOIA request to get the exact metrics that the ATF uses for the NFA division. At the same time, another attorney, Robert Olson, filed an FOIA request to get the DIO notes from the call in question. AmmoLand News had a leaked version of the notes, so this request would show what the ATF would redact from the document.

The FOIA department responded to the FOIA request stating that the NFA division reported that it did not have metrics.
Stamboulieh responded back to the FOIA department that we actually already knew that these metrics existed because we had inside ATF information from the DIO conference call. He quoted directly from the notes and asked the FOIA department to go back to the NFA division and ask for the metrics again. The request to double was granted.
A few days later, The ATF’s FOIA Department returned the request that Mr. Olson submitted for the DIO conference call notes. The ATF must not have been aware of Mr. Olson’s connection to me or the AmmoLand New article about the leaked conference call because they provided a redacted version of the DIO conference call notes. Someone at the ATF redacted the portion of the notes regarding the NFA division’s metrics. This redaction was only days after my other FOIA request was returned, with no results found.
The ATF exempted the portion of the FOIA request dealing with the failure to hit targets of the employees on the temporary detail to the NFA division. Someone at the ATF redacted that section of the DIO conference call. The ATF said they redacted the information because revealing it “would disclose techniques and procedures for enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.”
The redacted information does not deal with “enforcement investigations or prosecutions.” There is no risk that disclosing metrics of processing tax stamps could be used to circumvent the law. It seems like the ATF does not want the public to know the NFA division’s metrics and chose to mislead FOIA requestors about the existence of the metrics in question.
Furthermore, we believe that the ATF’s FOIA department was not involved in the coverup of the existence of the metrics. The FOIA department requests the information from the department in question on behalf of the requester and then relays it back to the requester. The department’s job is to act as a single point of contact for the public. They do not get to decide what the department hands over.
It isn’t clear why the ATF chose to be dishonest about the existence of the NFA department’s metrics, but it does call into question the honesty of other redactions in FOIA requests.

Speaking With Gun Right Attorney, Analyst, and Author, Paloma Capanna

July 2, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

Speaking With Gun Right Attorney, Analyst, and Author, Paloma Capanna, iStock-697763612
U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- Paloma Capanna is an attorney and policy analyst who is pushing for the American people to realize the right to bear arms is a civil right.

For nearly 20 years, Paloma has been fighting for gun rights in court and beyond. She represented Bill Robinson and 32 other plaintiffs in the landmark case that revealed the NICS-to-TSDB connection. The FBI was sharing NICS data on gun buyers with the executive branch. She is also an award-winning activist and writer.

Paloma’s new book is called, Events of January 6: What Impact the Second Amendment Movement? The Activist’s Workbook, and it releases on Independence Day. I had a chance to speak to Paloma about her new book and her views on the state of the Country.

Paloma Capanna
John: Tell me about your book?
Paloma: When the events of January 6 happened, suddenly we found Oath Keepers at the top of the news cycle everywhere from PBS straight the way through to Fox News. And that caused me to the immediate question of “why.” As I started digging into the alleged prosecutions of people that the Department of Justice and the FBI were branding as Oath Keepers, I came to see that the government’s own case was non-existent.
That’s really what catapulted me to look into the events of January 6 in depth. And then to ask the question, “what impact will this have on domestic terrorism statute, and what impact will this have on the Second Amendment movement?”
John: So, the book is basically going over what impact January 6 had on the Second Amendment movement and basically the Patriot movement in broader terms. Why do you think the government targeted The Oath Keepers?
Paloma: The Oath Keepers have a mission that is a bit different than other Second Amendment groups. They expressly speak to Veterans, First Responders, law enforcement, and even active-duty members of the United States Armed Services.
What I think comes across in the DOJ and FBI papers is that they are tweaked by Stewart Rhodes to focus on that particular segment of the American activist population.
John: Since their mission is a little bit different, that basically makes them a lightning rod for the government to accuse them of the events of January 6?
Paloma: I think you can’t look at Oath Keepers and say, either they planned the January 6th events at the Capitol, and the government papers do not even allege that Oath Keepers arrived at the US Capitol until after it was breached approximately 90 minutes into the events that were unfolding.

John: Why do you think that the government uses the January 6th events as an excuse to go after gun owners even though there wasn’t a gun there at all?
Paloma: Creepage, right? The domestic terrorism statute that we find at 18. USC section 2331 was actually passed in the days after 9/11. Most people hold the misconception that the Patriot Act targeted international terrorism. But that statute was already on the books since 1992 during Bush One.
So fast forward to 9/11, what Congress does pass under Bush was a domestic terrorist definition tucked into the Patriot Act. And for the last 20 years, this Country has been working its way towards a situation where everything that has been done to enemy combatants and detainees in the name of being foreigners on foreign soil is now coming home to be turned on its head.
Just American activists on us soil and in US prisons.
John: When the Patriot Act passed back then, I was yelling for the top of the rooftops that this isn’t about terrorism, this isn’t about Al-Qaeda, that it’s going to come back and hurt Americans. And it’s going to allow the government to violate the civil rights of Americans. But it was very hard to get that across to people.
Paloma: Yes.
Impossible. Impossible! I was at public appearances, and I was running for Congress, and I was being called Un-American to my face in public settings for making those arguments. Yes, impossible. I feel like I’ve been saying the same thing for 20 years, and now finally, people are willing to listen because we’re at the 11th Hour.
John: Yeah, exactly. Another thing I have a question: I don’t know if you saw the article I released recently, but it’s the White House plan to deal with domestic terrorism.
Paloma: No, I actually was focused most recently on your article on the Heller celebration. And I thought to myself, “How have I missed out on this.” So hopefully, a future year.
John: Okay. That was a fun article. That was a fun day. Hey, next year if you want to come, I can arrange it.
I got documents from the White House where they’re talking about domestic terrorism and domestic extremists. It doesn’t mention anybody by the name, but it mentions the right-wing and the people involved in the January 6th event. It never mentions is left-leaning groups like Antifa, BLM, or any of the groups that actually burned cities and cost lives.
Why do you think that is?
Paloma: Manipulation of the narrative. You know what’s interesting is up until like midnight January 5, we could call this, you know, Cinderella’s twin sister story, but up until midnight, January 5, arguments were being made by various people on both sides, even by moderate, even by analysts at think tanks that were talking about the evolution of violence in 2020 into 2021.
And that entire discussion pivoted on its head on January 6, and now even channels like Fox are just completely sucked into this lopsided, fear-mongering rhetoric. None of the reporters are running down the details and looking at the information that’s available by submitting a FOAIL. And I look at one of these defendants, look at Thomas Caldwell, for example, he’s won.
One of the first defendants charged altogether. He’s one of the first three charged as being an Oath Keeper. And his lawyers make a claim in the papers that Thomas Caldwell is a former FBI section chief.
Where is the media coverage of this? Where is anybody tracking down the information from the FBI? Is that true? And in the response from the DOJ with the FBI, they completely skip. That allegation. There’s no comment one way or the other. Have we got any media coverage? No, nothing zero.
John: You and I were on the same page when we come to that stuff.
Another thing in that document was to combat white nationalism; they want to limit access to so-called assault, weapons, and so-called high-capacity magazines, which you and I would probably call standard capacity magazines
Paloma: Or just magazines.
John: Correct. What does that have to do with white nationalism?
Paloma: Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Including that for any person who has followed the topic more, broadly of hate crimes committed by any group or individual person, seeking to target an individual or group, the number one method of violence is the hand.
The hand, the mouth, the words that come out the slamming of doors at businesses at rentals, it has absolutely nothing to do with firearms or even knives.
At this point, I think that there absolutely is an effort to try to manipulate the narrative and the American Consciousness against any person who is a law-abiding gun owner in America.
John: You think they’re using that as an excuse to target guns. How do you think that they’re going to rectify their assertion that guns are tools of white nationalism with the statistics showing the record number of African Americans and other minorities buying firearms?
Paloma: They are assuming that the American people want to be ignorant. They are assuming that people are worn out from the pandemic and are worn out from the frenzy of media. I mean, you turn on the television, and what do you see on the six o’clock news.
I call it the eight-minute surf, and I’ll literally start ABC, NBC, CBS pivot over to CNN, MSNBC, and so forth. You know, straight up my television dial for the first six to eight minutes to see what America is eating for dinner by way of the news. And it’s not investigative journalism. It’s not Bob Woodward. It’s not even reliable.
It’s simply a talk show. And what I would love to see is for the FCC to actually revoke the news licenses and simply convert these into entertainment channels because I don’t see the difference between Real Housewives of New Jersey and CNN at this point.
John: Yep, it seems that true investigative journalism is dead. It also appears that journalism that tries not to take a stance and put out the facts for the people to decide on their own is dead. I try to do a lot of articles where I don’t really put my opinion in there, and I’ll let the people decide on their own. Why do you think that has fallen out of favor with news organizations?
Paloma: I don’t think they are right in their capitalist approach to the news. They can’t sell newspapers. They can’t get the attention of Americans. There’s too much to compete with, especially with social media outlets and, if you will, hobbyist reporters, right? So, you walk out with their cell phone and do a little bit of video. They put it up. Do you know how many people are following and clicking?
What I am finding is that, in my book, we will be doing the official release on July 4. We started a soft rollout two weeks ago on Bill, Robinson’s Second Amendment radio show out of Upstate New York, and I’ve already got Book Sales coming in from all over the Country. This was not quite what I expected, but the word this is out, and you know people are clicking buttons and calling. Some are even ordering like a box full of copies. People in America are still looking for facts. They are still looking for reliable sources. Sometimes we are hearing and sharing things among each other.
Someone will say to me, “Well, I heard I heard there were no firearms recovered at the Capitol. On January 6. Is that true?”
That’s part of why I spent over 400 hours researching and writing this book is because now, you can say, Jill Sandborn of the FBI testified to Congress that no firearms were recovered at the Capitol on January 6. No firearms charges have been brought in more than 400 prosecutions initiated since January 6. There’s your source.
But that’s not what’s getting reported. I mean, you have to be a wonky person. You have to go over to C-SPAN. You’ve got to look at that Congressional hearing testimony. You have to read the whole 15-hour transcript. There were charges, no claims. That’s from the US government. So, how the media can continue to be making this a gun issue is absolutely criminal.
You know it is really time for Americans to get back to having a backyard barbecue together and discussing issues. Even if it’s crazy, Aunt Louise, who you think is a progressive and she comes with a pink hat on. Even if it’s a white man over 50 who’s a curmudgeon and wants to pound it and say, President Trump, is still my President.
We, as Americans, have got to recognize what’s happening right now in the name of domestic terrorism concerns, every single one of us, this isn’t a political issue. It has nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans. I mean, my book points to Senator Lindsey Graham and several of the very disturbing things he said during the hearings. It points to Senator Marco Rubio and a bill that he says if you had a pending for an investigation during the last ten years, it would be sufficient to disqualify you from purchasing a firearm.
We, As Americans, have got to stand together on this and draw a line and say we cannot allow this to happen.
John: Yeah, I agree. Your book comes out on July 4. I take it. That’s not a coincidence.
Paloma: Yes.
John: Yeah, where can people get a copy of your book?
Paloma: 2ampatriot.com
John: What is a 2 AM Patriot?
Paloma: Yep, 2 AM Patriot for those of us who lay awake at night—wondering if we’ve done enough for civil rights.
Buy “Events of January 6: What Impact the Second Amendment Movement? The Activist’s Workbook” at https://www.2ampatriot.com/

New Leaks Shows ATF Running Background Checks On Gun Buyers Retroactively

July 1, 2021 by contrib1 Leave a Comment

New Leaks Shows ATF Running Background Checks On Gun Buyers Retroactively (Dave Workman)
MARTINSBURG, WV –-(Ammoland.com)- AmmoLand News learned through a leaked Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) conference call that the agency is starting to run gun buyers retroactively through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

In the conference call, the ATF leadership asked its Industry Operations Inspectors (IOI) to collect information on the customers that used concealed carry permits instead of obtaining a background check through the NICS. The purpose of obtaining this information would be to run the customer’s data through the NICS to see if the customer would have received an approved or denied status. In addition, the IOI will pass on the names and information of customers denied by the NICS to the criminal branch for a special agent to follow up.

Some states, such as Alaska, allow gun buyers to use their concealed carry permits to buy a gun instead of being subjected to a background check through NICS. Gun buyers in these states believe that using a concealed carry permit to purchase firearms gives them a level of anonymity that the NICS doesn’t provide.

The information from the firearms background check paperwork (ATF Form 4473) is not submitted to the FBI when the customer uses their permit. Before the new policy, the only time the government would know a person bought a gun is when the FFL goes out of business, a trace request is submitted, or the customer buys multiple handguns within a seven-day period.
Congress wrote an exemption to the mandated background check using the NICS into the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in 1998. However, the ATF has not been a fan of states letting their citizens use their concealed carry permits to buy guns without going through the NICS. In fact, the ATF has told states like Michigan that they can no longer use the concealed carry permit exemption.
According to the Brady Act, states can let gun buyers use concealed carry permits instead of going through the NICS if the permit meets or exceeds the NICS requirements, and the issuing agency performs a background check on the permit applicant using the NICS. However, even though states like Michigan meet all the conditions laid out in the Brady Act for a NICS exemption, The ATF had an issue with how some issuing agencies implemented the law.
Some sheriffs used the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) to perform background checks instead of the NICS. The NCIC database is where the NICS database pulls most of its information. They claimed since that the sheriffs were not following the proper procedure, that the FFLs of the state could not use the concealed carry permit to buy a gun.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) sued the ATF over their decision to revoke the NICS exemption for Michigan and other states. GOA claimed that the ATF did not have the right to reinterpret the Brady Act law. The ATF stopped revoking exemption status for states once the lawsuits started to be filed in multiple states by the gun rights organization.
It seems like the ATF has found another way to run customers through the NICS. Unfortunately, the ATF would not provide AmmoLand News a comment.