Politics – Firearm Prices Online

Did Anti-Gun Meta Shut Down Hancock’s Skeet Gold Coverage?

admin — Tue, 27 Aug 2024 02:54:44 +0000

Vincent Hancock did it again. The 35-year-old won the Men’s Skeet Olympic gold medal, breaking a wildly-impressive 58 out of 60 clay targets and edging out his fellow teammate, competitor and student, Connor Prince, by just one shot.

Hancock became a four-time Olympic gold champion in his sport, having previously earned Olympic gold medals in 2008, 2012, and 2021. He is the only skeet shooter to take home an Olympic gold medal more than once.

That should earn him some accolades. Maybe something like a Google-doodle. Don’t count on it, though. The Big Tech overlords celebrated in a much more sinister fashion. Meta shut him down. No Facebook. No Instagram. And no celebrations of American shooting gold.

Just last week, NSSF highlighted the Big Tech bias against the USA Shooting, when YouTube and Meta shadow-banned McKenna Geer, a Paralympic shooter who will represent Team USA in Paris for the 2024 Paralympics.

“I have always feared the day the media would censor my sport and speech just because I use firearms,” Greer wrote on Instagram after her account was blocked. “That day has finally come.”

Geer even wrote that athletes like her in the shooting sports rely in social media to spread the word not just about their sport but also about firearm safety.

That wasn’t good enough for Meta. Just the News reported, “According to the Instagram notification, Geer’s account and the three flagged posts are not recommended to non-followers. ‘Your account and content won’t appear in places like Explore, Search, Suggested Users, Reels, and Feed Recommendations,’ the Instagram notification reads. The notification also tells Geer to consider editing her profile and either edit or remove the flagged posts. Geer said her Instagram account says that she ‘should have the option to appeal the decision,’ but the button to appeal it doesn’t work.”

NSSF isn’t alone in noting Big Tech’s silent treatment of the shooting sports. Tim Rupli authored an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal noting that Meta is censoring Olympic athletes. He quoted Kelly Reisdorf, USA Shooting’s CEO saying, “By silencing an athlete’s voice, you infringe not only on their freedom of expression but subtly on their right to bear arms as well, as these platforms are critical for educating and sharing the legitimate and safe use of firearms in sport.”

Target: Shooting Sports

Now, Hancock is getting similar treatment. It’s not that Hancock’s achievements aren’t noteworthy. Hancock joined an elite group of U.S. Olympians when he broke his final clay and clinched his most recent gold medal.

USA Shooting celebrated the achievement, noting in a press release that, “Hancock, of Eatonton, Georgia, is now the sixth Olympian ever to win four gold medals in the same event, joining Al Oerter (USA, discus), Paul Elvstrom (Denmark, sailing one-person class), Carl Lewis (USA, long jump), Michael Phelps (USA, 200m individual medley), and Mijain Lopez (Cuba, Greco-Roman heavyweight). He is the first shooting Olympian to accomplish this feat.”

Hancock is one of the most decorated shooting sports competitors of all time. He’s brough home 29 medals from a variety of world competitions, including the 2008 Beijing Olympics, 2012 London Olympics, 2020 Tokyo Olympics and now the 2024 Paris Olympics. That’s on top his medal-worthy performances at the World Championships, Pan American Games and World Cup Finals. He’s a U.S. Army veteran, having served with the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit.

USA Shooting also noted that the first-and-second place finishes from Hancock and Prince also marked another “first” for the U.S. Olympic team.

“Hancock and Prince’s double podium marks the first time the U.S. has earned more than one medal in Men’s Skeet at an Olympic Games,” USA Shooting’s press release stated. “The was also the first time more than one U.S. athlete competed in an Olympic Men’s Skeet final.”

Very Little National Coverage

Hancock’s fourth Olympic gold medal was celebrated by The Guardian, a notoriously anti-gun United Kingdom publication. NPR – no friend to lawful firearm ownership – also headlined his achievement. ESPN, with its own anti-gun bias, also praised the victory.

Meta, instead gave Hancock their own salute. It was the same one they gave Geer just weeks ago.

“Your account and content won’t appear in places like Explore, Search, Suggested Users, Reels, and Feed Recommendations,” his Instagram page reads.

Meta and Google got the media spotlight treatment after they wrongly claimed that photos of former President Donald Trump raising his fist in the moments after an assassination attempt were “being marked as digitally altered” and censored. When they got caught in that censorship scheme, they quickly beat feet to reverse their policy, admitting that incorrect fact checks were being applied to the now-famous photo.

“Facebook has just admitted that it wrongly censored the Trump ‘attempted assassination photo,’ and got caught. Same thing for Google,” Fox News reported that former President Trump wrote on his proprietary social media platform Truth Social. “They made it virtually impossible to find pictures or anything about this heinous act. Both are facing BIG BACKLASH OVER CENSORSHIP CLAIMS.”

Big Tech Bias

NSSF has steadfastly held that Big Tech and social media giants hold hostile attitudes toward the lawful use of firearms. They’ve defunded YouTube channels and censored small businesses, even when ads didn’t have anything to do with firearms.

The firearm and ammunition industry has more than a few instances of documented antigun bias by social media companies. There’s a love-hate relationship with the social media platforms. They’ve become so ubiquitous that it’s nearly impossible to reach customers without them. NSSF has argued they’ve become the virtual public square, where people from every walk of life can not only see pictures and video of friends and family, but express ideas, debate topics and participate in civic discourse. That is, of course, if they’re allowed.

Olympic athletes like Hancock, Prince and Geer have taken their sport to the world stage and show what safe and responsible firearm ownership looks like. They demonstrate a competitive spirit, the ethos of Olympic competition and the American values for respect of rights and freedom.

They just can’t talk about it on their social media platforms.

This article originally appeared on nssf.org.

Did Anti-Gun Meta Shut Down Hancock’s Skeet Gold Coverage?

admin — Sat, 17 Aug 2024 11:33:44 +0000

“I have always feared the day the media would censor my sport and speech just because I use firearms,” Greer wrote on Instagram after her account was blocked. “That day has finally come.”

Geer even wrote that athletes like her in the shooting sports rely in social media to spread the word not just about their sport but also about firearm safety.

(Photo by USA Shooting/Brittany Nelson)

Target: Shooting Sports

USA Shooting also noted that the first-and-second place finishes from Hancock and Prince also marked another “first” for the U.S. Olympic team.

Very Little National Coverage

Meta, instead gave Hancock their own salute. It was the same one they gave Geer just weeks ago.

“Your account and content won’t appear in places like Explore, Search, Suggested Users, Reels, and Feed Recommendations,” his Instagram page reads.

Big Tech Bias

They just can’t talk about it on their social media platforms.

This article originally appeared on nssf.org.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Hollywood to Sell Gun Control Agenda with Brady United

admin — Sun, 23 Jun 2024 02:32:35 +0000

The glamour and influence of Hollywood just ain’t what it used to be. That explains why Brady United for Gun Control’s recent announcement that they’re bringing on Hollywood executives and producers to help sell gun control makes perfect sense.

Hollywood Brought in to Sell Gun Control

Americans don’t want to be lectured to by out-of-touch actors who make millions and live in safe, gated communities and are protected by armed bodyguards. They don’t care what they think. They’re tired of paying good money to have “woke” movie directors bludgeon them with progressive politics in a movie theater.

The gun control industry, in the same light, continues to push an agenda that Americans aren’t buying. Recent history and polling has shown law-abiding Americans are fed up with the defund-the-police and soft-on-crime policies imposed on them in America’s biggest cities, including Los Angeles and Hollywood.

They’re no longer remaining victims to politicians taking away their rights and letting criminals run the show. Instead, they’re taking personal safety into their own hands by embracing their Second Amendment rights.

With their announcement, Brady is joining other national gun control groups in trying to sell Americans on giving up more of their rights. That agenda is not an award-winning one.

In The Tank

The abysmal viewership numbers of the various yearly Hollywood awards shows are in the dumps. Recently, the Academy Awards, or Oscars, had just 10.1 million viewers. That’s a plunge of more than 55 percent from the year prior.

Anyone recall the 2020 Ricky Gervais monologue? (Disclosure: not safe for workplace viewing.) “So, if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything,” Gervaise chastised the live audience of actors and entertainment industry suits.

The feeling is similar among Americans who see gun control groups lecture them about community safety, endorse and support prosecutors and elected officials who go soft on criminals, and then work to deny law-abiding Americans from taking lawful steps to protect themselves and their families. No amount of Hollywood dress-up will help.

Brady announced the addition of three big Hollywood names to help them sell more gun control. In a release, the gun control group touted the hires. It states they will “bolster efforts and cultivate new relationships in the entertainment industry.”

The goal is to “ignite a movement among culture leaders and creators to spark positive norm and behavior change and reshape America’s relationship with guns.”

America’s relationship with guns certainly has changed dramatically over the past three years, too. So much so that Americans have lawfully purchased more than 1 million firearms every month for 50 straight months.

This historic stretch includes large percentages of women gun buyers, minority gun buyers, and first-time gun buyers. This makes the gun-owning community the most diverse ever.

Deep Gun Control Ties

Joining the Brady gun control outfit are Christy Callahan, a former motion picture creative executive and TV writer; Jared Milrad, an “award-winning filmmaker, actor, entrepreneur and advocate for inclusion and social impact in entertainment”; and Matt Littman, who is leaving his position at the gun control group 97 percent.

Previously, he served as then-Sen. Joe Biden’s chief speechwriter and is currently a senior advisor to President Biden’s reelection campaign. President Biden, of course, continues to repeat lies about the firearm industry in his speeches and public appearances calling for more gun control.

Callahan helped spearhead an “open letter” that was signed by more than 200 Hollywood writers, producers and actors. The letter demonstrated how one-sided the effort is.

“Guns are prominently featured in TV and movies in every corner of the globe, but only America has a gun violence epidemic. The responsibility lies with lax gun laws supported by those politicians more afraid of losing power than saving lives,” the letter reads.

Among other goals, the letter states the signatories support “Limiting scenes that include children and guns, bearing in mind that guns are now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.”

The false statistic is repeated often by gun control groups, as well as President Biden. They knowingly ignore that most of the deaths included involve criminal firearm violence committed by persons aged 18 and 19. As such, they are legal adults.

I wonder how many acting gigs these signatories turned down because they depicted and glorified the misuse of gun violence. Let’s see them put their money where their mouth is.

Leading Real Change

The firearm industry supports safe and responsible gun ownership and has a proven track record of making a positive impact. NSSF’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities.® campaign has helped reduce unintentional firearm deaths to record low numbers since data was first tracked in 1903.

That includes supporting safe and secure firearm storage in the home and not in use. Through that effort, Project ChildSafe® has distributed more than 40 million free firearm safety kits. This includes locking devices, through partnerships with over 15,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states and five U.S. territories.

This campaign has been recognized by the National Safety Council’s Green Cross Awards and the Government Accountability Office for its efficacy in reducing the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms through voluntary safe storage.

Additionally, NSSF’s Operation Secure Store® and Don’t Lie for the Other Guy campaigns work with firearm retailers to provide educational resources and services to better secure their inventory and reduce robberies and burglaries and remind the public it is a serious crime to lie on the federal background check form to buy a firearm for someone else who cannot do so on their own. ATF data from this year confirms once again these programs help make communities safer.

Hollywood elites continue to ignore the real crime problems plaguing America’s cities. Gun control groups are no better and continue to advocate for policies that limit rights, leaving law-abiding Americans less safe. Hollywood and gun control working together won’t change anything.

Instead, the firearm industry will continue doing the hard work on safety initiatives that actually do make communities safer. All while protecting rights – not eliminating them.

Story originally posted to NSSF.org.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban Injunction Overturned

admin — Sun, 23 Jun 2024 01:28:39 +0000

Back in May, I reported that a U.S. District Judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Illinois “assault weapons” ban. However, in a recent decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the decision. What’s more, they indicate that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Seventh Circuit Court Overturns Injunction Against Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban

As reported below, the original injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn in Barnett v. Raoul. Following his decision, an appeal was filed with the Seventh Circuit court. The three-judge panel is made up of Ronald Reagan appointee Frank Easterbook, Bill Clinton appointee Diane P. Wood, and Donald Trump appointee Michael P. Brennan.

According to Breitbart News, “Easterbrook and Wood constituted the panel majority in overturning the injunction. They noted that Heller (2008) held, ‘[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.’”

The panel noted that in Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. Specifically, because they are not “bearable” and can “be dedicated exclusively to military use.”

For this reason, Easterbrook and Wood worked to highlight the similarities between AR-15s and M16s. However, the similarities highlighted only occur when currently illegal modifications are made to the AR platform. Such as adding a “bump stock” or auto-sear. Likewise, they make the correlation between the two regarding the same ammunition and kinetic energy.

Breitbart News states, “Judge Brennan dissented from the majority decision, stressing that the Illinois ‘assault weapons’ ban fails if tested by Bruen (2022) because the ban has no historical precedent in American tradition.”

Fortunately, according to a post from the Firearms Policy Coalition on X, there is still a pathway to victory.

The post states that the court does “not rule out the possibility that the plaintiffs will find other evidence that shows a sharper distinction between AR-15s and M16s (and each one’s relatives) than the present record reveals.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition promises to fight forward.

To clarify, the Seventh Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction (halt of the law’s enforcement on the likelihood of victory) we secured at the District Court level. They claim there is still more to be learned as the case moves forward, leaving the door open that victory is…

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) November 3, 2023

We will continue to follow this case as it moves forward and will provide updates as they happen.

On May 2, 2023, Joshua Swanagon reported:

U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn apparently shares the views of many law-abiding American citizens. Specifically, there are already enough gun laws on the books that aren’t enforced, and there’s no need for more. For this reason, he issued a preliminary injunction against the Illinois “assault weapons” ban on Friday, April 28, 2023.

U.S. District Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban

Judge McGlynn presided over Barnett v. Raoul, which consolidated numerous suits against the Illinois “assault weapons” ban. The ban, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), was brought about following the attack on an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, Illinois (details below). Occurring just weeks after the SCOTUS issued its Bruen decision, Democrats used the attack to justify PICA.

In his decision, McGlynn acknowledged the attack, and the Democrats attempt to take advantage of it:

“As Americans, we have every reason to celebrate our rights and freedoms, especially on Independence Day. Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?

“More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is ‘likely no.’”

Appropriately, McGlynn pointed to Bruen in his decision to block enforcement of PICA until a ruling on its constitutionality is finalized:

“Amongst other things, the Bruen Court reaffirmed that ‘the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry…upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose…of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”’ 142 S. Ct. at 2134 (quoting D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008)).”

Likewise, he went on to say that the SCOTUS decision in Bruen states that “the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.’”

McGlynn Suggests Enforcing Current Laws

Concluding his decision, McGlynn called attention to the fact that there are enough gun laws on the books. However, those laws are being ignored or diminished in severity. So, he suggests that Illinois look to enforce its current laws before trying to enact more:

“The Court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions. Again, the Court’s ruling today is not a final resolution of the merits of the cases. Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence.

“There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously.

“Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes.”

This really gets right to the heart of the issue. Law-abiding American citizens are punished for the crimes of a few, while criminals are “lightly inconvenienced” and walk free. So, while criminals become ever more emboldened, law-abiding citizens are being stripped of their Second Amendment rights. No country can survive this kind of lopsided justice.

Injunction Leads to Surge in Gun Sales

As you might have already guessed, the injunction led to an rapid surge in gun sales. In fact, immediately following the ruling, weekend crowds filled gun shops. One gun shop owner indicated that there was a line outside the door before he could open in the morning.

According to the Chicago Tribune, “Suburban gun shop owners were swamped with weekend crowds after a federal judge in the district court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an injunction Friday, blocking enforcement of the state’s January ban on military-style firearms.”

Some were just happy to enjoy their Second Amendment freedoms again:

“I’m fairly excited that I got my rights back,” Johnson said. “We live in the United States, we should follow the Constitution and be able to do what law-abiding citizens are able to do.”

Others expressed concerns over unsafe living conditions in Chicago:

“Living in Chicago raises obvious self-defense issues,” Eldridge said. “If somebody is ready to spend $250 and 16 hours of their time on a concealed carry class, that’s a pretty good indication that they do have some concerns about personal safety.”

Instead of paying attention to his constituents, Democratic Attorney General Kwame Raoul has filed an appeal to McGlynn’s ruling. Likewise, he has filed a motion in federal court to stop the ruling from going into effect, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Until that time, the people of Illinois are taking advantage of the injunction and buying what they can now. Proving once again, Democrats make the best gun salesmen.

On January 13, 2023, PDW reported:

Well, that was fast. As it turns out, the new “assault weapons” ban in Illinois isn’t too popular among law enforcement or state representatives. The ink was barely even dry on the document before they voiced their opposition. Although this legislation mostly affects point of sale, current owners of banned firearms are supposed to register them (story below). But it doesn’t look like anyone will be enforcing it in at least two counties.

Opposition to Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban Turning to Defiance

Quickly after the bill was signed, Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe issued a statement. In the statement, he makes it clear that he will not be supporting the bill at all. Specifically, he states that it is a violation of the constitution.

“Neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting [or] housing individuals that have been charged solely with non-compliance of this act,” a statement from Sheriff Darby issued on Wednesday and reported by WEVV News, says.

According to the WEVV report, a nearly identical statement was issued by the Wabash County Sheriff’s Office following Darby’s statement. The statement from Wabash County also opposes the bill and contains the same quote as above. Likewise, several other sheriffs in the area and around Illinois have issued similar statements.

Illinois State Representatives Chime In

The newly signed legislation did not sit well with members of the Illinois House or Senate either. Many called the legislation out for endangering Illinois citizens, highlighting that people who break the law are not going to register their firearms. However, some went on to openly defy the ban.

According to CBS News, Illinois State Rep. Blaine Wilhour (R-Beecher City) said, “We will not comply, and you’re not going to do a darn thing about it, because the law, the Constitution, and the founding principles are on our side.”

Likewise, outgoing Illinois State Sen. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) tweeted a message of defiance:

It looks like this legislation is heading for an uphill battle, and many opponents are confident of a win. It may be a long road, but as long as the constitution is upheld, as it should be, this should be struck down forthwith.

On January 11, 2023, PDW reported:

You might have already seen the headlines. Four dead and three wounded in a rash of criminal shootings in Chicago on Monday alone. What is Gov. Pritzker’s answer? Does he address the growing epidemic of violent crime in his state? Nope. Instead, he is focusing on making it harder for law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. To be specific, on Tuesday night, he signed an “assault weapons” ban in Illinois.

Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban Signed Tuesday

Illinois becomes the ninth state to enact an “assault weapon” ban. The legislation bans the sale of supposed “military style weapons” and high capacity magazines in the state of Illinois. The legislation banning “assault weapons” passed the Illinois House in a 68 to 41 victory.

According to Fox2Now, “The ban took effect immediately, so it is now illegal to sell assault weapons in the Land of Lincoln. The legislation also caps the purchase of ammunition magazines at 10 rounds for long guns and 15 rounds for handguns. Rapid-fire devices, known as “switches,” are also banned because they turn firearms into fully automatic weapons.”

ABC News states, “Just hours after the legislation’s passage in both chambers of the Illinois General Assembly, Gov. J.B. Pritzker signed the “Protect Illinois Communities Act” into law during a ceremony at the State Capitol in Springfield. Supporters, some of whom were gun violence survivors, erupted with applause and cheers as the governor presented the signed document.”

Reports indicate that pending sales will still be processed, but only if the required background checks have already been started. Gun owners who have any of the firearms affected by the legislation may keep them. However, they must register them with the Illinois state police by the beginning of next year.

The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) promises to fight the legislation in court, claiming it affects nearly 2.5 million legal firearm owners in the state.

ISRA executive director Richard A Pearson said in a statement Tuesday, “Challenge accepted. The Illinois State Rifle Association will see the State of Illinois in court.”

Firearms Effected by the Legislation

You can find the bill below, and the long list of firearms affected begins on page 84. It is too long to list here, and I recommend you take a look. Quite frankly, the list is so long that it’s quicker to look at what isn’t subject to the ban.

Specifically, the following are all that is still allowed:

Any firearm that is an unserviceable firearm or has been made permanently inoperable.
An antique firearm or a replica of an antique firearm.
A firearm that is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action, unless the firearm is a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
Any air rifle as defined in Section 24.8-0.1 of this Code.
Any handgun, as defined under the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, unless otherwise listed in this Section.

What you’ll find on the list of now unacceptable firearms are pistols with threaded barrels, AR pistols, AR-10s, AR-15s, AKs, .50 cals, some shotguns, “high capacity” magazines, and much more. Likewise, many firearms are listed specifically by name in the legislation. To be honest, it’s pretty much a gun lover’s wish list.

Read the entire list here:

Legislation Might Not Pass Muster

Fortunately, the Illinois State Rifle Association feels that this legislation will not pass constitutional muster and will be defeated. However, until that happens, Illinois residents are subject to it and are living at the whim of criminals. Until these myopic legislators decide to empower law enforcement to enforce current laws, things will continue to deteriorate.

But I wouldn’t count on that. They only care about dismantling the Second Amendment and disarming law-abiding citizens. All the while, they could care less about gangs and thugs like these guys:

These are members of the MBlock set of Black Disciples near 69th and Maplewood in Chicago.

Has anyone thought to inform these gentlemen of Chicago’s strict gun laws? I thought being a member of a violent gang would show up on a background check. How’d they get the guns? pic.twitter.com/kMbOEQvlOl

— Will (@notBilly) January 11, 2023

Unfortunately, I feel things are only going to get worse for citizens in Chicago before they get better. If they ever do.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act Introduced

admin — Sun, 23 Jun 2024 00:24:15 +0000

Congressman Blake Moore (R-UT) and Congressman Jared Golden (D-ME) introduced the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act November 9 to reallocate the funding generated from tax stamp processing for the purpose of enhancing wildlife and habitat conservation and recreation programs. This change will supercharge funding for these critical funding streams while expediting processes at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act Details

Under the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), all applicants seeking to transfer a suppressor are required to undergo a background check and pay a $200 tax stamp. This funding is currently deposited into the U.S. Treasury without any specific direction, even though total revenues generated from this tax are expected to approach $200 million this year.

The Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act would strategically allocate these taxes to both support wildlife conservation and recreation and expedite ATF processing. Specifically, 15% of the total revenue would go to the ATF’s NFA division, aimed at expediting the processing of suppressor applications. The remaining 85% would be split further: 85% would be allocated to the Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund to support wildlife conservation, law enforcement, hunter recruitment, and other related lawful activities, while 15% would be provided for the development, maintenance, and operation of recreational shooting ranges. These dedicated ranges enhance safety, reduce environmental impact, and contribute to the recruitment and retention of ethical hunters and shooters.

I’m pleased to introduce the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife & Recreation Act, an important bill that represents a transformative step in funding our nation’s wildlife conservation while streamlining federal processes. #utpol https://t.co/0ED82f3WSG

— Congressman Blake Moore (@RepBlakeMoore) November 10, 2023

Bipartisan Effort for Wildlife, Sportsmen

“I am pleased to introduce this important bill that underscores our commitment to conserving America’s natural heritage, investing in outdoor recreation, and making ATF’s processes for law-abiding citizens more efficient,” said Congressman Blake Moore (UT-01). “This bill represents a transformative step in funding our nation’s wildlife conservation while streamlining federal processes.”

“By paying fees for licenses and equipment, Maine outdoorsmen have sustained our state’s recreational opportunities for generations,” said Congressman Jared Golden (ME-02). “Applying this same principle to the sale of accessories like silencers will increase consistency with the law, bolster conservation efforts in Maine, and make the background check process more efficient and effective.”

Without changing the criteria for obtaining a suppressor, the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act would build upon our rich conservation heritage by increasing conservation funding and enhancing the capacity and efficiency of the ATF and FBI in the processing of applications for suppressors.

Directing ATF Tax Money Where We Want It

“This bill dedicates significant resources that would accelerate wildlife conservation and restoration efforts, such as habitat improvement, research and education. It’s a powerful commitment to conservation. It also improves ATF application efficiency, which will improve processing time for those seeking to legally obtain a suppressor.” -Joel Ferry, Executive Director of the Utah Department of Natural Resources

“The Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act is a great opportunity to advance conservation and recreational shooting in this country by applying the revenue to areas that the consumers support. The additional funding for conservation will further advance the mission of the Mule Deer Foundation: ensure the conservation of mule deer, black-tailed deer and their habitat. The Mule Deer Foundation is proud to be a supporter of this legislation and we thank Congressman Moore and Congressman Golden for their leadership on this issue.” -Joel Pedersen, President and CEO of the Mule Deer Foundation

“SAM-ILA applauds the introduction of the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act. Conserving Maine’s wildlife by utilizing all the best hunting heritage tools that can generate the money to pay for them is always the best policy. Thank you Congressman Golden and Congressman Moore.” -David Trahan, Executive Director Sportsmans Alliance of Maine Institute for Legislative Action

“The Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act will provide the single most consequential benefit to America’s wildlife, hunters and recreation that the Pittman Robertson Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund has received since it was signed into law in 1937, cementing the North American model of wildlife conservation for the next hundred years. I thank Congressman Moore and Congressman Golden for their leadership and for their commitment to conservation and America’s sportsmen.” -Brandon Maddox, CEO of Silencer Central & Congressional Sportsmen Foundation Board of Directors

Supporting Wildlife & Recreation Shooting

“The Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act is no-nonsense legislation that will keep pace with the user-pays wildlife conservation efforts that have made the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation the envy of the world. Increasingly greater numbers of hunters use suppressors to harvest wild game, as it is legal to do so in 41 states. Suppressors are a safety tool that protects hearing and reduces noise pollution. This legislation is in keeping with the modern application of suppressors to ensure the taxes paid for suppressors are applied to wildlife conservation, recreational shooting range construction and improvements and reducing the lengthy processing backlogs for suppressor approval by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Firearm and ammunition manufacturers fulfill a critical role funding wildlife conservation and this bill would bring the taxes paid by suppressor customers into those same vital efforts.” -Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel

“Delta Waterfowl is proud to support the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act. This bill will provide a major boost to hunter supported conservation of America’s ducks and waterfowl habitat across the four North American flyways. Delta recognizes the leaders of this bipartisan effort, Representatives Moore and Golden, and offers its support to pass this bill into law.” -John Devney, Chief Policy Officer of Delta Waterfowl

“The Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies thanks Representatives Moore and Golden for their steadfast support for conservation. Building on the proven success of the Pittman-Robertson Act will strengthen the partnerships between hunters, target shooters, and manufacturers that enable state agencies to manage healthy habitats, ensure abundant wildlife populations, and provide accessible outdoor recreational opportunities for the public.” -Chuck Sykes, Director of the Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries and President of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies

“The Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act will provide a significant plus up to the Pittman-Robertson account for the purposes of bolstering recreational shooting opportunities and enhancing wildlife conservation. Moreover, the legislation will provide ATF with the resources they need to process firearm suppressor applications in a timely manner. We are thankful for Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Member Rep. Moore and CSC Vice Chair Rep. Golden for introducing this legislation that will support our hunters, target shooters, and our state fish and wildlife agencies through expanding Pittman-Robertson.” -Jeff Crane, President and CEO of the Congressional Sportsmen Foundation

“Safari Club International applauds the introduction of the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act. Expediting ATF processing while directly benefiting conservation is a win-win for all hunters and wildlife. Thank you Congressman Moore for your leadership.” -Ben Cassidy, Executive Vice President, Safari Club International

“For more than 80 years sportsmen and women have funded conservation through their purchases. We applaud Reps. Moore and Golden for this innovative bill that will build upon this tradition and commit additional resources to restoring wildlife habitat and supporting state-level professional wildlife management.” -Collin O’Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation

“TRCP appreciates Rep. Moore and Rep. Golden for their leadership to increase funding for conservation through the Tax Stamp Revenue Transfer for Wildlife and Recreation Act. This bill will help fund projects that support abundant wildlife populations and public access for hunting and fishing.” -Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Federal Judge Rules that ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule is Illegal

admin — Sat, 22 Jun 2024 23:13:27 +0000

Follow the bouncing ball. The ATF pistol stabilizing brace rule, which banned ownership of the device, has been the hot potato of gun control. However, the hot potato may finally be cooling as a Federal Judge has determined the rule to be illegal. With previous injunctions only extending to the plaintiffs and their constituents, this recent ruling covers the entire nation.

A Federal Judge Determines that the ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule is Illegal

Although a resolution to block the rule has failed the Senate, the courts continue to pass injunctions against it. However, up to this point, the injunctions have only covered plaintiffs like FPC (Firearms Policy Coalition) and GOA (Gun Owners of America) (including their constituents). But the new ruling from Federal U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk applies to the entire rule—nationwide.

According to The Reload, “Unlike previous rulings against the ATF, Kacsmaryk’s order applies to the entire rule. That means it could affect tons of gun owners nationwide, with the number of affected braced guns estimated to be in the millions or even tens of millions.”

Noting that the ATF exceeded its power when crafting the rule, Kacsmaryk’s ruling stays enforcement of the law, applying to everyone across the country.

The story continues, “That’s a significant departure from Judge O’Connor’s ruling, where he rejected a request to extend his preliminary injunction to all braced gun owners.”

In Britto v. ATF, Judge Kacsmaryk writes, “As explained in Garland, ‘[t]he controlling law of this case is that the Government Defendants’ promulgation of the Final Rule ‘fails the logical-outgrowth test and violates the APA’ and ‘therefore must be set aside as unlawful’ under the APA,’”

He went on to state, “[T]he Court is certainly sympathetic to ATF’s concerns over public safety in the wake of tragic mass shootings. The Rule ’embodies salutary policy goals meant to protect vulnerable people in our society. But public safety concerns must be addressed in ways that are lawful. This Rule is not.”

In addition, Kacsmaryk states that the law also puts businesses at risk. He states in Britto v. ATF that ATF admits the 10-year cost of the rule is over one billion dollars. Not to mention, the rule would cause certain manufacturers to close their doors for good.

What Does This Mean for Pistol Brace Owners?

Judge Kacsmaryk’s ruling places a preliminary injunction against the rule, staying the rule in its entirety. As such, the ATF is blocked from enforcing its ban on AR-15-style pistols equipped with the brace. So, as of now, you are free to own and use a pistol-stabilizing brace without risk of running afoul of the law.

Although the ATF may try to convince the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the injunction, it is not likely to happen. Judge Kacsmaryk made it clear that the case is likely to prevail on its merits. Not to mention, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has already determined that the rule violates the APA (below). Thus, sending it to the District Court, which has resulted in this ruling from Judge Kacsmaryk.

However, this does not mean that it is over. Because the ATF is facing challenges in several states and courts, it is likely to go to the Supreme Court. However, the SCOTUS is currently considering a similar ban on bump stocks, which could have an impact on this case.

According to the Washington Examiner, “Many experts expect that case to influence the pistol brace challenges. ‘What the Supreme Court does in the bump stock ban case will likely have big implications for the pistol brace ban because they are very similar rules carried out in very similar ways,’ said Stephen Gutowski, founder of The Reload, an authoritative Second Amendment news site.”

But for now, you can go back to using your pistol brace while things get settled once and for all. We will stay on top of it and keep you informed of any new developments.

On August 4, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

We recently reported that a resolution blocking the ATF pistol stabilizing brace rule suffered a loss in the Senate (below). However, lawsuits opposing the arbitrary rule just got a shot in the arm from the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a 2-1 vote, the three-judge panel finds that the rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule Violates the (APA)

On Tuesday (August 1^st, 2023), the 5^th Circuit handed down a decision reversing a district court order that rejected a preliminary injunction against the stabilizing brace rule. Additionally, the panel remanded the case to the district court to reconsider its decision.

However, its ruling was not based on the constitutionality of the rule but on a procedural basis. Specifically, according to the court, the rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

According to Breitbart News, “The Firth Circuit panel ruled two to one to reverse the district court order, remanding the case to the district court for reconsideration. In so doing, it noted that the district court had treated the ATF’s rule as “interpretive” rather than “legislative” in nature. Consequently, APA guidelines do not apply to a rule that is “interpretive” in nature.”

However, the panel feels that the rule is legislative in nature and, therefore, falls under APA guidelines. The panel notes:

“We move on to plaintiffs’ claim that the Final Rule violates the APA’s procedural and substantive requirements. On that front, plaintiffs establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. The ATF incorrectly maintains that the Final Rule is merely interpretive, not legislative, and thus not subject to the logical-outgrowth test. The Final Rule affects individual rights, speaks with the force of law, and significantly implicates private interests. Thus, it is legislative in character.”

In addition, the Fifth Circuit panel noted the difference between the ATF’s proposed rule and its final rule. According to the panel, the differences are so contrasting that it would be “impossible for a regular citizen to determine what constitutes a braced pistol.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) Responds

Following the decision, the SAF responded by stating that the decision gives credence to its own cases regarding the rule.

“This is a significant win for gun rights,” noted SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “because the arguments in this case are essentially the same as we are making in our own challenge of the pistol brace rule.”

“This ruling,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut, “is a serious setback for the Biden administration’s gun control agenda. As the court noted, the Final Rule was not the logical outgrowth of the original proposed rule, and therefore must be set aside. Thanks to this ruling, we can jump start our own case with very good prospects for success.”

Keep checking back with TL on this developing story.

On June 23, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

Unfortunately, the battle for our Second Amendment rights has suffered a setback. Specifically, the pistol stabilizing brace rule from the unelected ATF stands after H.J. Res 44’s narrow loss in the Senate. As we recently reported (below), the resolution to block the rule passed the House by a bipartisan 219 to 210 vote. However, it could not overcome the Senate.

Resolution to Block ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule Fails in the Senate

The resolution, H.R. Res 44, which passed the House last week, was an effort to block the unconstitutional rule of the ATF. Although it would have a tough fight in the Democrat-controlled Senate, there was still a chance. And surprisingly, it put up a good fight with the loss coming to a 50-49 vote.

However, what is not surprising is the fact that Sens. Sinema, Tester, and Munchin went against their constituents and voted against the resolution. One would expect that from Democrats Tester and Munchin, even though they represent red states. But Sinema is an Independent from the most gun-friendly state in the Union—Arizona. This does not bode well for her future in Arizona politics.

A fact not lost on Gun Owners of America:

.@SenatorSinema has BETRAYED her gun owning constituents!

She has failed to vote for H.J. Res. 44. to STOP Biden’s executive overreach.

Gun owners are watching and we’re coming for your seat!#STOPTHEBAN

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) June 22, 2023

As a result of the resolution failing to pass the Senate, law-abiding citizens are deemed felons in the eyes of unelected bureaucrats as of June 1st. However, all is not lost, and the fight goes on.

According to Breitbart News, “With the resolution defeated, the two remaining routes for defeating the rule are to have enforcement of the rule defunded in appropriations or to win a decision blocking the rule in the court system.”

The NSSF Responds

The NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation) has been on top of this ongoing battle for our rights from the beginning. And the recent setback is not sitting well with the organization, which has expressed disappointment.

“This vote was disappointing, if not expected. We are deeply troubled by the unchecked growth of the administrative state that threatens our fundamental rights and liberty,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President, and General Counsel.

The NSSF went on to point out that several senators are facing reelection in states where gun rights are critical to voters. According to the organization, these senators have ceded their authority and allowed their constituents to be “turned into criminals by administrative fiat.”

The NSSF lists the following senators facing tight reelection bids:

Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Bob Casey (D-Pa.)
Joe Manchin (D-W.V.)
Jon Tester (D-Mont.)

“These senators must now explain to their constituents why they failed to act to safeguard against the Biden administration’s executive overreach that is chipping away at their fundamental Constitutional rights,” said Keane.

“Come election day, NSSF will work to educate gun owners in these states about how these legislators turned their backs on the Second Amendment and failed to uphold their duties as lawmakers who write the law not the Executive Branch. Failing to maintain the balance of power grants unchecked authority to President Biden to run roughshod on citizens’ rights,” he concluded.

Keep checking back with TL on this developing story.

On June 16, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

The battle for our Second Amendment rights continued in the House, and fortunately, it resulted in a win Tuesday. Specifically in regards to the ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule that recently took effect, making criminals of law-abiding citizens—overnight. As a result, the Republican-run House passed H.J. Res. 44, blocking the ATF’s unconstitutional rule, with 2 Democrats supporting.

House Passes Resolution to Block ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule

According to Breitbart News, “On April 20, 2023, Breitbart News reported that H.J. Res. 44 passed out of committee, at which time Rep. Clyde told Breitbart News he was convinced the resolution would reach the House floor for a vote.”

As expected, the resolution went to the House on Tuesday, June 13^th, 2023, where it passed by a 219 to 210 vote. Despite the odd fact that we need a law to repeal a rule, the resolution now goes to the Senate. Since the resolution passed in the House, this allows a vote in the Senate without a filibuster.

After the bill, sponsored by Reps. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) and Richard Hudson (R-NC), passed, the two celebrated on Twitter.

Rep. Andrew Clyde tweeted:

BREAKING: The House just PASSED my resolution to strike down the ATF’s unconstitutional pistol brace rule with bipartisan support.

This is a MAJOR WIN for service-disabled veterans in their fight against the Biden Administration’s latest tyrannical tactic.

— Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) June 13, 2023

And Rep. Richard Hudson tweeted:

CCRKBA Expresses Its Congratulations

Following its passage, the CCRKBA (Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) congratulated the effort.

“We’re encouraged that House Republicans have sided with the nation’s firearm owners in opposing this new arm brace rule,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

“The rule was a complete reversal of earlier ATF policy which shows how insidious the Biden administration’s efforts to erode the Second Amendment have become. Joe Biden campaigned on a gun prohibition platform, and now his administration is trying to turn millions of law-abiding citizens, including disabled veterans, into criminals just to advance his agenda,” he continued.

However, Gottlieb urges citizens to contact their U.S. Senators to voice their opinion about the rule.

“We are urging our members and supporters to contact their U.S. Senators in order to speedily move this House resolution through the upper chamber. It is important that gun owners stand together against the Biden administration’s blatant effort to criminalize the exercise of a constitutionally-protected right.”

Gottlieb goes on to state that Senate Democrats need to hear from the citizens they represent. It is time that they stand with their constituents and the Constitution against the Biden Administration’s weaponizing of federal agencies.

In the CCRKBA press release, Gottlieb gives one final message of strength and resolve:

“Gun owners are not the enemy,” he noted. “We’re just honest citizens who are tired of being used as scapegoats and treated like criminals, which is what the pistol brace rule change is really all about. Blocking the pistol brace rule will signal the White House and the ATF to stop playing games with the Second Amendment.”

Keep checking back with TL on this developing story.

On March 23, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

As we reported in early February (below), Rep. Andrew Clyde was eyeing the Congressional Review Act to block the ATF pistol stabilizing brace rule. According to his website, Clyde and Rep. Richard Hudson introduced the resolution Monday.

CRA Resolution Introduced to Block ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule

On Monday of this week, Reps. Andrew Clyde and Richard Hudson introduced a CRA resolution against the ATF stabilizing brace rule. 180 House Republicans joined the effort, while Sens. John Kennedy and Roger Marshall introduced the companion resolution in the Senate.

According to Clyde, “Congress must swiftly move to block the ATF’s unconstitutional pistol brace rule, as this misguided measure turns millions of law-abiding gun owners, including many disabled veterans, into criminals for merely possessing legal firearms with stabilizing braces.”

He went on to state, “Unquestionably, this is nothing more than a reckless attempt to advance President Biden’s ultimate goal of an unarmed America.”

Gun Owners of America told Fox News Digital it fully supports both resolutions. Further, it states that it helped Clyde and Marshall draft the resolutions. Likewise, the organization dismissed any notion that the Biden administration was operating within its means to enforce the rule.

GOA went on to tell Fox News, “Biden’s ATF has no authority to mandate that the owners of up to 40,000,000 pistols destroy, turn in, rebuild, or register those guns with the federal government before their arbitrary May 31st compliance deadline.”

What Does This Mean?

Although the ink is still drying on the resolution, it looks like this could be the end of the rule. The Congressional Review Act, implemented in the 1990s, is a means to undo illegitimate rules by unelected officials.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “The CRA allows Congress to review “major” rules issued by federal agencies before the rules take effect. Congress may also disapprove new rules, resulting in the rules having no force or effect.”

Likewise, Fox News further clarifies, “The resolution would nullify the Biden administration rule if passed by the House and Senate and signed by President Biden, or if Congress were to override a likely Biden veto.”

This is still fresh, and we are monitoring it. Anything is possible in this crazy “new normal,” but this is looking very promising.

We will be sure to bring you the latest as it happens. Hopefully, the next update will include news of the rule’s ultimate demise.

Keep checking back with TL on this developing story.

On February 28, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

To say that the ATF kicked the hornet’s nest with its recent pistol stabilizing brace rule is putting it mildly. The reversal of nearly a decade of guidance on pistol classification threatens jobs and businesses. Not to mention the rights of law-abiding American citizens. And the industry will not just sit idly by and watch it happen. Now, Maxim Defense joins the fracas with its own suit against the agency.

Maxim Defense Partners with FPC Against ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule

Maxim Defense sells pistols equipped with pistol braces in the hundreds of thousands. So, the new rule threatens not only the livelihood of the company itself but also its employees. As a result, on February 21^st, 2023, FPC and Maxim Defense filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Mock v. Garland.

According to Michael Windfeldt, Founder of Maxim Defense, the company’s history is linked to the pistol stabilizing brace. So, Maxim Defense adds a very important voice to the conversation.

“The recent ATF Pistol Brace Rule creates additional difficulty for an already burdened industry,” said Windfeldt. “This challenges us all. Everyone recognizes how important it is for lawful firearm owners to have a voice, and Maxim is committed to fighting for our rights.”

According to the lawsuit, the reclassification results from the—at the time—newly elected President Biden. His campaign ran on gun control, and when congress didn’t give him what he wanted, he used the ATF to “dramatically expand their interpretation of the congressionally defined term ‘rifle’ to accomplish the legislative agenda Congress declined to adopt.”

This is a completely unacceptable and unconstitutional end run around the Second Amendment and legislative process. If it is allowed to stand, it will not stop here. It is time to disband the ATF for good.

On February 9, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

SB Tactical formally announced a lawsuit today, in conjunction with the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), against the ATF. The lawsuit challenges the legality of the ATF’s recent Final Rule reversing a decade of legality for pistol stabilizing braces.

SB Tactical Sues ATF Over Pistol Stabilizing Brace Final Rule

“Under the guise of ‘public safety,’ the ATF has placed millions of law-abiding firearm owners in legal jeopardy,” said Jeff Creamer, president and CEO of SB Tactical. “It’s a gross overreach of the Bureau’s authority and, if allowed to stand, will result in the largest gun registration scheme in U.S. history.”

FRAC, the lead plaintiff, filed the litigation in North Dakota. A coalition of 25 states, lead by West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley, also joined the litigation.

“As we’ve seen with similar cases like Cargill v. Garland, wherein FRAC, SB Tactical, and B&T USA all appeared as amici curiae, the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals held that such regulatory overreaches are not within the ATF’s authority,” said Travis White, president and CEO of FRAC. “We feel that there is a positive trend towards regulatory accountability in the Courts, and we are confident that the Courts will continue to hold the ATF accountable for their pattern of regulatory overreach and ever-shifting positions.”

Keep checking back with TL on this developing story.

On Feb. 1, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

UPDATED: The ATF is about to learn who makes the rules in this country. Spoiler alert: it isn’t them. Fortunately for law-abiding citizens, we still have representatives fighting for us. In this case, Representative Andrew Clyde has plans to shut down the new pistol stabilizing brace rule from the ATF. Utilizing the Congressional Review Act (CRA), Rep. Clyde plans to introduce a resolution to override the unconstitutional new ruling.

ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule Under Fire

Soon after the ATF overstepped its bounds, Representative Clyde took to Twitter to announce action against the new rule. Specifically, he plans to reintroduce the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today Act (SHORT Act). This would repeal elements of the National Firearms Act, which would, in turn, prohibit the ATF from registering and banning pistols with stabilizing braces.

Likewise, he plans to introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to override the new ATF rule.

According to the Brookings Institute, the Congressional Review Act creates a streamlined procedure by which Congress can disapprove and nullify regulations promulgated by various federal government agencies.

Likewise, the Congressional Review Act requires all rules to be reported to Congress. Congress then has 60 legislative working days to introduce a special joint resolution of disapproval of the rule. The resolution can then be discharged from the committee and avoid the Senate’s filibuster.

Similarly, the U.S. Government Accountability Office states that the Congressional Review Act allows Congress to review “major” rules issued by federal agencies before they take effect. Congress can also disapprove of the new rules. As a result, the new rules have no force or effect.

In other words, the ATF can pound sand. It does not make the rules in this country; the elected legislative branch makes the rules.

ATF in the Crosshairs

The ATF really kicked the hornet’s nest with this one. It seems that its decision to institute this unconstitutional rule has garnered a lot of negative attention for the organization. Aside from the pistol stabilizing brace rule being targeted by the CRA, there is also new legislation proposed to abolish the agency.

Representative Matt Gaetz introduced legislation this week titled Abolish the ATF Act. And it is quite clear what it aims to do. Gaetz filed the legislation in response to the new ATF rule on stabilizing braces.

In a press release following the ATF announcement, Gaetz states, “House Republicans have the ATF in our crosshairs. The continued existence of the ATF is increasingly unwarranted based on their repeated actions to convert law-abiding citizens into felons. They must be stopped. My bill today would abolish the ATF once and for all.”

As if that weren’t enough of a message, Gaetz told Fox News, “My bill would abolish the ATF. If that doesn’t work, we’re going to try defunding the ATF. If that doesn’t work, we’re going to target the individual bureaucrats at the top of the ATF who have exceeded their authority in rulemaking. And if that doesn’t work, we’re going to take a meat cleaver to the statutes that the ATF believes broadly authorize their actions.”

Things aren’t looking so good for the ATF at the moment. And it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving organization.

On January 15, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

UPDATED: Well the ATF finally did it. The agency released its Final Rule on the Pistol Stabilizing Brace, putting all previously legal gun owners of AR- and AK-style pistols using the device in serious peril of becoming felons.

ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Final Rule Released

The convoluted and confusing 293-page document becomes yet another bit of ATF guidance that proves difficult to understand. It appears the rule attempts to prevent anyone from using a pistol stabilizing device to fire from the shoulder. The rule stipulates it will “not affect ‘stabilizing braces’ that are objectively designed as a ‘stabilizing brace’ for use by individuals with disabilities, and not for shouldering the weapon as a rifle.”

For everyone else, the Rule says “Any weapons with ‘stabilizing braces’ or similar attachments that constitute rifles under the NFA must be registered no later than 120 days after date of publication in the Federal Register; or the short barrel removed and a 16-inch or longer rifle barrel attached to the firearm; or permanently remove and dispose of, or alter, the ‘stabilizing brace’ such that it cannot be reached…”

This one will most likely play out further in court, much like bump stocks. This is a developing story, so stay tuned for more updates.

ATF Goes After Pistol Stabilizing Braces

On Dec. 21, 2020, Tactical Life’s Will Dabbs reported:

PSB—Fallout. Nope, that’s not the title of the latest first-person shooter video game; it’s the ominous dark cloud you see building on the horizon. PSBs (Pistol Stabilizing Brace) are an entire world that seems about to change fundamentally thanks to the ATF.

Alex Boscoe’s PSB altered most everything about the American gun scene. Boscoe originally developed this delightful device to allow disabled shooters to run rifle-caliber pistols safely one-handed. However, there have been rumblings for literally years now that the ATF was trying to exert more control over PSB-equipped firearms. Now, with the pending arrival of a liberal Presidential administration, things have reached critical mass.

Fallout From the ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Guidance

A recent announcement of proposed rule making portends significant new restrictions on PSB-equipped weapons. These proposed rules also imply that there will be an amnesty of sorts. Presumably this would allow owners of PSB-equipped firearms to register their guns as short-barreled rifles (SBRs) easily and without payment of the $200 tax. If this is indeed the case, much will change about gun ownership in America. I’m no psychic, but here are a few of the changes I could see coming as a result.

1. Goodbye PSB-Specific Companies

If PSB-equipped guns are indeed reclassified as SBRs, then companies making PSBs will implode. SB Tactical is one of my favorite gun companies. It changed the paradigm of American gun ownership by successfully challenging the status quo. I love those guys. However, if PSB-equipped guns suddenly and administratively become SBRs, then SB Tactical’s market is irrevocably gone overnight.

There is a precedent. I’m old enough to remember when this happened to machine gun manufacturers in 1986. On May 19, they were engaged in a legally, albeit heavily, regulated business. The next day, everything they produced was untouchable by normal American citizens.

Don’t expect Uncle Sam to care about those who lose their livelihoods because of any new regulations. He won’t. These are gun guys, not violent social justice protestors. There won’t be any verklempt celebrities weeping on national TV over their sordid plight.

2. Flooding the SBR Market

If this is indeed an amnesty allowing us to register guns as SBRs tax-free, then we will have some hard decisions to make. I own several PSBs myself. It will be tempting to sign up all those AKs and AR receivers as SBRs. It would admittedly be great fun to replace my PSBs with real-live buttstocks. However, that would absolutely flood the market with SBRs.

If that’s the case, the resale potential for those guns drops to nothing. If everybody and their grandmother suddenly has amnesty registered SBRs, then nobody is going to be willing to pay $200 to transfer one. The decision to be made will be whether to register the gun or just remove the PSB and run it as a conventional old school big-boned pistol.

3. Wait Time Increase

Current estimations have around four million PSBs in circulation. As of 2017, there were 5,203,489 firearms listed in the National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record (NFRTR). A sweeping SBR amnesty could easily bump the number of guns in the registry by 50 percent. All those new American gun owners added to a spooky government database should put a smile on Kamala Harris’ face.

The current wait time for processing a Form 4 (the ATF form used to transfer an NFA item to an individual) is seven months, as per the ATF website. One Form 4 I did a while back took a full year. Dumping another couple million guns into the NFRTR won’t do much to speed that up.

The ATF folks in Martinsburg really are working their butts off to process these things. They moved 2.6 million forms in 2016; that’s 9,731 forms each and every work day. Now we propose to add another several million guns to the registry. I don’t envy them.

Conspiracy Theories

This has been done before. In 1994 the ATF reclassified the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper shotguns as Destructive Devices under the NFA. I guess just because they looked scary. This seems awfully silly in light of the subsequent Saiga shotgun. Regardless, there was a tax-free amnesty covering these three models that ran from 1994 until 2001. During that time, Americans registered some 8,200 guns. A potential PSB amnesty, however, would be on an altogether different scale.

The Internet is awash with conspiracy theories. The most prevalent seems to be that the ATF has been planning this crackdown for years awaiting the advent of a suitably liberal president and his administration. Perhaps that is the case. However, the possibility of an SBR amnesty—despite the unconstitutional nature of the parent law—seems to me to be a fairly compassionate way to go about it.

There’s another angle at play here, though. The skeptic will appreciate that this move does potentially bring millions of guns and, more importantly, gun owners into a registration scheme that involves demographic data, fingerprints, and photos. There will be inevitable concerns about this sweeping registration being used as a stepping stone to gun confiscation.

I’m not much of a conspiracy theorist myself. I used to work for the government. The government I worked for wasn’t competent enough to manage a proper sweeping conspiracy without botching it up. However, this is not 1994.

Final Thoughts on the ATF and Pistol Stabilizing Brace

We put-upon American gun guys grumbled at the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. However, unlike 1994 there are nearly 400 million firearms in circulation in America today; 20-30 million of those are “scary” black guns. There are 20 times as many guns in America as there are soldiers serving in every nation on the planet combined. I wouldn’t want to be the guy who tried to force American gun owners to give up their firearms.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Camfour Offers an Exclusive New NAA Pug with “The Duke”

admin — Sat, 22 Jun 2024 21:54:46 +0000

When it comes to pocket pistols, NAA (North American Arms) models, like the Pug (below), have long been a staple. Chambered in .22 WMR, the Pug easily hides away anywhere on your person. For this reason, Camfour released an exclusive model with its “The Duke.”

The Camfour Exclusive NAA (North American Arms) Pug – “The Duke”

Marking an immediately recognizable departure from the standard Pug lineup, The Duke features a black frame, trigger, hammer, and barrel. The 1-inch slab-side barrel reduces weight and enhances the overall aesthetic. Likewise, a series of grooves runs along the top to help reduce glare when using the XS Sights White Dot sights.

In place of the standard slip-on rubber pebble grip, The Duke features pearl grip panels for a classic aesthetic. Running along the backstrap is engraving signifying the model name, “The Duke,” in bold white, Western-style lettering. As with all North American Arms pocket revolvers, The Duke keeps a small profile by foregoing a trigger guard.

Chambered in .22 WMR, the 5-round stainless bull barrel contrasts beautifully against the black frame. In addition, the exclusive Pug model includes a .22 LR conversion barrel for a more enjoyable plinking experience. Although there isn’t a trigger guard, there are notches between rounds in the chamber to rest the hammer down, making it safe.

Availability

The Camfour exclusive NAA Pug “The Duke” is available now with an MSRP of $426.00. For more information, please visit Camfour.com.

Camfour “The Duke” Specs

Caliber:	.22 WMR Includes 22LR Conversion Cylinder
Capacity:	5
Finish:	Black Frame & Barrel with Silver Cylinder and Cylinder Pin
Length:	4.56 inches
Height:	2.81 inches
Width:	1.06 inches
Weight:	6.4 ounces
Barrel Length:	1 inches
Sights:	XS White Dot
Action:	Single Action
Grips:	Pearl Grip Duke Engraving
MSRP:	$426.00

On December 16, 2020, Personal Defense World reported:

In a world gone double-stack striker-fired, carry optics and more, sometimes its good to take a step back. Take in the simpler ways to accomplish a goal. In the world of concealed carry pistols, the NAA Pug fills a unique niche.

Shooting the NAA Pug

We recently got some much-needed time reacquainting ourselves with North American Arms and its unique array of self-defense guns. At the 2020 Athlon Outdoors Rendezvous we put some rounds downrange, again reaffirming the Pug’s rightful place as a viable defensive option.

When it comes to concealability, these guns arguably stand unrivaled. The Pug serves as a five-shot, single-action revolver. It weighs around 6.5 ounces unloaded. Its 1-inch barrel fires either .22 Magnum or .22 LR, depending on the cylinder installed. The interchangeability delivers a cool practice/carry combo.

“We make a lot of mini-revolvers. So, this one is really popular,” said Sadie Sweat, North American Arms. “It’s got a .22 Magnum cylinder in it, with the option of a .22 LR cylinder as well.”

(Photo by Alex Landeen)

Using the guns, you pull down a spring-loaded mechanism, then pull out the cylinder pin. Place the revolver in half-cock, allowing the cylinder to rotate out, facilitating loading/unloading of the pistol.

These guns come with this really slick cobble rubber grip. And that’s really nice, just for the size of our gun, it gives you something really nice to hold onto when you’re shooting it.

The NAA Pug looks like something straight out of the late 1800s, and in some ways it is. But for those worrying about the safety aspect, NAA has got you covered with modern upgrades.

“There’s notches between the rounds,” Sweat said. “So to use our safety you’d rest the hammer down in these notches instead of on a round, so it makes it safe to carry as well.”

The NAA Pug, with both .22 Magnum and .22 LR cylinders, retails for $380. For even more information, please visit northamericanarms.com.

Specs

Caliber: .22 Magnum
Capacity: 5
Overall Length: 4.56 inches
Overall Height: 2.81 inches
Width: 1.06 inches
Weight: 6.4 ounces
Barrel Length: 1 inches
Sights: XS Tritium Dot
Action: Single Action
Grips: Slip-on Rubber Pebbled
MSRP: $380 (with .22 LR conversion cylinder)

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

New York Mayor Adams Blurs Truth for “Assault Weapons” Ban

admin — Sat, 22 Jun 2024 20:44:24 +0000

New York City Mayor Eric Adams is sounding more and more like one of his predecessors, Michael Bloomberg. A hypocritical gun control activist with truth problems. It’s notable given the mayor’s “Gotta get tough on criminals” campaign platform that earned him New York City voters’ approval in 2021. And now, Adams is pushing for an “assault weapons” ban in New York that will mostly only affect law-abiding citizens.

New York Mayor Eric Adams Pushes “Assault Weapons” Ban

Residents in The City that Never Sleeps have serious concerns that aren’t going away – crime. Instead of addressing it and getting tough on violent criminals who break the law, Mayor Adams is blame-shifting and calling on law-abiding New Yorkers to give up more of their God-given rights.

It’s a familiar call from gun control activists who can’t understand that criminals don’t follow the laws.

Leading From Behind

Mayor Adams, Co-Chair of the Bloomberg-founded Mayors Against Illegal Guns, sent a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.) demanding Congress to ban so-called “assault weapons.”

That’s the same gun ban on commonly-owned firearms that failed in Congress last year. Likewise, it failed when Democrats held majorities in the House and Senate. Not to mention the White House – under both former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden. More than 60 mayors signed the letter and most have crime issues of their own.

During a press conference, Mayor Adams called for a new gun ban while speaking about the recent tragedy in Lewiston, Maine, and revealing a bigger issue.

“Eighteen Mainers were stolen from us by yet another disturbed man, wielding an assault rifle…,” Mayor Adams said. “When you allow someone with a mental health illness to have access to these assault rifles, it can create a great deal of danger…”

The mayor ignored that the “disturbed” murderer did, in fact, demonstrate numerous signs of serious mental health issues. He was known to authorities to have made serious and repeated threats of violence – including targeting a National Guard center.

State and local law enforcement agencies very likely made mistakes that should have placed the murderer on the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) prohibited list. This possibly even could have led to firearms being seized. Those questions are still awaiting answers.

For Mayor Adams and his colleagues, the details don’t much matter.

“It’s easier to buy a weapon of war than it is to buy a Sudafed,” the mayor repeated, citing a claim former Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts posted to social media following the tragic shooting.

That claim is dubious and was fact-checked.

Big Bucks Behind Gun Bans

It’s no surprise the same lies around banning the most popular-selling semiautomatic rifle in America are repeated by the same gun control activists. They’re nearly all bankrolled by the same money.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg founded and funds Mayors Against Illegal Guns. He finances Everytown for Gun Safety too, as well as the gun control mouthpiece The Trace and Moms Demand Action.

He ran for president on a gun control platform, but voters recognized his glaring gun control hypocrisy, too. In a town hall, he was questioned about his desire to ban and confiscate firearms while at the same time employing private, armed security guards. He proudly stated Americans shouldn’t need armed security because most of them don’t have enough money to deserve it.

“Alright, look… I probably get forty or fifty threats every week…” Bloomberg said. “That just happens when you’re the mayor of New York City, or very wealthy, or campaigning for the president of the United States.”

Same Story, Different Mayor

It’s the same gun control hypocrisy from the mayor. Mayor Adams came into office promising he’d forgo the mayor’s security detail and noting he’d carry a concealed firearm.

“Yes I will carry, number one, and number two, I won’t have a security detail,” he declared in 2020. “If the city’s safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him.”

The streets aren’t safe, and New Yorkers remain fed up with criminals running the show. Crime and safety remain a serious issue for residents. Yet Mayor Adams has focused on punishing law-abiding New Yorkers and limiting their rights and ability to protect themselves.

Added to the ongoing “normal” crime surge the city is living through, a rise in antisemitic threats and violence since the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel have led to a surge in Jewish Americans buying firearms for the first time.

Wrong Facts. Wrong Solution.

The only thing Mayor Adams got right in his letter is that the murderer in Lewiston had severe mental health issues. Those are well-documented. There should have been coordination and communication between state and local agencies, law enforcement and FBI NICS that would’ve prohibited the murderer from purchasing or possessing firearms.

That is an effort on which NSSF led with the FIX NICS Act. It’s named for the firearm industry’s FixNICS® initiative to get all states to submit disqualifying records into the FBI’s NICS. NSSF changed the laws in 16 states and in Congress to get the background check system to work as intended.

It’s been a 30-year effort that has led to a 270 percent increase in the number of submitted adjudicated mental health records to NICS.

The mayor also falsely suggested the previous “assault weapon” ban had a significant impact on “reducing shooting deaths.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says otherwise. After the 1994 ban expired in 2004, CDC studies reported the impact on criminal misuse of firearms by renewing the 1994 ban would be “too small for reliable measurement.”

There are more than 24.4 million Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in private circulation since 1990. Law-abiding Americans use them for lawful purposes every day. Mayor Adams, and his colleagues, should stop wasting time calling on Congress to ban legal firearms and instead focus on holding criminals accountable for crimes in their cities.

That’s what his employers – New York City residents – want.

Story originally posted to NSSF.org.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Anti-Hunting U.N. Pushes Meatless Agenda Due to Climate Change

admin — Sat, 22 Jun 2024 19:32:39 +0000

Leaders of the world’s developed and undeveloped countries are gathering in Dubai for the 28^th U.N. Convention of Parties (COP28) on climate action. It’s a global confab for privileged leaders to fly their private jets around the world – including Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry – to meet and talk about “climate science.” But anti-hunting, animal rights activists are piling on the climate agenda this year with major efforts to force developed countries to cut back on burgers and steaks.

Anti-Hunting Activists Use Climate Change to Reduce Meat Consumption

“The world’s most-developed nations will be told to curb their excessive appetite for meat as part of the first comprehensive plan to bring the global agrifood industry into line with the Paris climate agreement,” Bloomberg reported.

Coincidentally, that’s the same media company owned by the billionaire gun control piggy bank and failed presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg.

U.S. officials should tell U.N. officials to pound sand. It’s a backward and laughable proposal for many reasons. Such an effort would end up penalizing America’s millions of hunters.

And that, consequently, would harm many more millions of less fortunate families in need of good, healthy meals. Especially during the holiday season.

Meatless Mandate Manure

The anti-meat push from the U.N.’s Food & Agriculture Organization won’t do much of anything towards “climate goals.”

The scheme calls for developed nations to greatly reduce meat consumption and agribusiness. However, at the same time it encourages developing countries to dramatically ramp up theirs. The net between those opposing efforts would do little globally.

Mandating reductions in meat consumption here at home would have a big impact, though. Despite pleas today by animal rights activists for Americans to go the meatless route, the vast majority of Americans don’t.

According to the data used by the U.N.’s food agency, the average American consumes 280 pounds of meat each year. The U.N. commission recommends people consume no more than 35 pounds of meat per year.

The push on the global stage to go meatless isn’t so far-fetched to believe political leaders in the U.S. could begin passing similar proposals. After all, the Baltimore School District became the first school district in the nation to implement “Meatless Mondays” for school lunches back in 2009. That move garnered the praise of the rabid anti-hunting People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). Likewise, it was based on studies from the antigun Johns Hopkins University.

Former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio followed suit in 2019. The U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2012 began discussing similar plans, and the idea has percolated so much that U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) introduced federal legislation in 2021 prohibiting federal agencies from implementing “Meatless Monday” policies.

These efforts by anti-hunting animal rights groups to dramatically reduce meat consumption have persisted for years. Mostly in the background of policy debates.

Recent developments in the U.S. and the prominence of the issue at this year’s U.N. meeting show there’s cause for greater vigilance from America’s hunting community.

Laughable Litigation

Earlier this year, the city of Ojai, Calif., became the first municipality in the country to pass a resolution declaring that elephants aren’t just animals and instead deserve “the legal rights of a nonhuman animal.”

It was a victory for the Non-human Rights Project (NhRP) after several years of pursuing similar litigation against zoos in both New York City and Colorado. After passing their resolution, Ojai City Councilwoman Leslie Rule declared, “It isn’t a joke.”

For those unfamiliar, NhRP failed in several previous attempts to get “personhood” rights for animals, namely elephants, under the care of zookeepers. In 2022, New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge Janet DiFiore rejected the group’s lawsuit against the Bronx Zoo.

She wrote, “Habeas corpus is a procedural vehicle intended to secure the liberty rights of human beings who are unlawfully restrained, not nonhuman animals.”

Judge Jenny Rivera piled on, too, asking about Happy, the elephant that is well cared for at the Bronx Zoo.

“If Happy is a person, does that mean that I couldn’t keep a dog? I mean, dogs can memorize words.”

In a harbinger of what a possible legal victory for NhRP could mean, the New York Farm Bureau submitted an amicus brief in favor of the Bronx Zoo, warning that a ruling in NhRP’s favor could be disastrous.

“Worse, if any of those habeas petitions succeed in securing the release or transfer of livestock… the downstream effects also would be serious.”

The floodgate would open for future lawsuits against other zoos. Animal rights groups could sue dairy cow or meat processing operations, pig farms, or chicken or pheasant preserves. Those would also be serious obstacles for hunters harvesting wild game for their freezers. Not to mention wildlife management biologists who rely on hunting as the primary wildlife conservation management tool.

Hunters Feeding the Needy

It is approaches like the COP28 meat reduction plan that make no sense and in turn only end up harming efforts by America’s hunters to help those in need. Hunters generously give back to those families who are less fortunate. This is while continually under attack by anti-hunting animal rights activists and “climate science” schemers.

MeatEater reported on an extensive study demonstrating the depths and breadth of America’s hunters helping the hungry in order to “reframe debates about the relevance of wild and natural harvests, and understand how they contribute to a stable and equitable food system.”

The report breaks down several states respective contributions through programs like Hunters Against Hunger and Hunters for the Hungry. All told, it’s estimated that around 10 million meals of healthy, high-protein wild game are donated by hunters across the nation every year. That’s an estimated $70 million of meat donated by generous hunters.

A simple Google search reveals how much good America’s hunters are already doing this hunting season. Specifically in states like Indiana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio and more. These highlights are likely nowhere to be found in Dubai.

Mandating reductions in meat intake by a global organization like the U.N. under the guise of “climate science” isn’t a serious solution for anything. Especially when the policies are pushed by anti-hunting activists with no connection to the communities American hunters continue to support.

Hunters harvesting game and generously donating extra food to those in need is uniquely American. And we should celebrate and encourage it.

Story originally posted to NSSF.org.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Wayne LaPierre Steps Down from Leadership Role at NRA

admin — Sat, 22 Jun 2024 18:26:56 +0000

Embattled NRA CEO and executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre announced on Friday that he will be stepping down from his position. The decision comes days before a New York civil suit is set to begin against LaPierre and other NRA executives. As of January 31st, the announcement ends a decades-long career that many think should have ended long ago.

Out With the Old: Wayne LaPierre to Resign his Position with the NRA

Wayne LaPierre will be stepping down on January 31st, 2023, ending his decades-long position with the NRA. His announcement comes days before a New York City civil trial is set to begin against LaPierre and others. The trial will focus on accusations of misappropriation of the organization’s funds. Specifically, he and other executives allegedly enjoyed luxury vacations and other perks at NRA members’ expense.

In a statement on NRA’s website, LaPierre said, “With pride in all that we have accomplished, I am announcing my resignation from the NRA. I’ve been a card-carrying member of this organization for most of my adult life, and I will never stop supporting the NRA and its fight to defend Second Amendment freedom. My passion for our cause burns as deeply as ever.”

According to the National Rifle Association announcement, an interim CEO and EVP has already been selected. Following the departure of Wayne LaPierre, long-time NRA executive and Head of General Operations Andrew Arulanandam will step in temporarily.

The decision will hopefully weaken NYAG Leticia James’ attacks on the NRA, who vowed to dissolve the organization.

The NRA states, “With respect to the NYAG’s allegations, the NRA Board of Directors reports it has undertaken significant efforts to perform a self-evaluation, recommended termination of disgraced ‘insiders’ and vendors who allegedly abused the Association, and accepted reimbursement, with interest, for alleged excess benefit transactions from LaPierre, as reported in public tax filings.”

LaPierre said, “I am proud of the NRA’s advocacy in New York and, through it all, determination to defend the Second Amendment. I can assure you the NRA’s mission, programming, and fight for freedom have never been more secure.”

You Don’t Have to Go Home, But You Can’t Stay Here

In a Board of Directors meeting in Irving, Texas, today, NRA President Charles Cotton accepted LaPierre’s resignation. Reports indicate that he cited health reasons for his departure. As part of the organization’s announcement, Cotton expressed gratitude for his service:

“On behalf of the NRA Board of Directors, I thank Wayne LaPierre for his service. Wayne has done as much to protect Second Amendment freedom as anyone. Wayne is a towering figure in the fight for constitutional freedom, but one of his other talents is equally important: he built an organization that is bigger than him. Under the direction of Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA will continue to thrive – with a renewed energy in our business operations and grassroots advocacy. Our future is bright and secure.”

While the organization thanks LaPierre for his service, many members simply thank him for leaving.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?