The ATF’s Latest Proposed Regulation Could Make 40 Million Gun Owners Felons Overnight

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

This is a conspicuous confiscation of power, and it’s precisely what America’s founding fathers strove to avoid through the establishment of checks and balances.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives has published a notice outlining their plans to update regulations on stabilizing braces.

Originally developed to help those with disabilities shoot comfortably, stabilizing braces have become a popular firearm accessory used to legally adapt AR-style pistols into guns that can be shot from the shoulder, like the highly regulated short-barreled rifle.

According to the ATF, stabilizing braces will now have to conform to a set of stringent guidelines to be considered legal. If they don’t meet those standards, they—and the gun to which they’re attached—will automatically become regulated as a rifle under the National Firearms Act.

This isn’t the first time the ATF or the DOJ have attempted to regulate this popular accessory. A similar reclassification was proposed back in December, but it was shot down due to uproar from lawmakers and the firearm community. However, after pistol-braced firearms were used in two recent, high-profile mass shootings, the ATF has circled back to the issue and seems more motivated than ever.

Immediate Pushback

After the ATF notice was published, more than 130 representatives penned a letter to the agency and called upon the bureau to withdraw the rule, stating that the “proposed guidance is alarming and jeopardizes the rights of law-abiding gun owners.”

Most importantly, the lawmakers reminded the ATF that for the last decade, it had asserted that there were legitimate uses for stabilizing braces, as the accessory was designed to aid disabled gun owners who enjoy recreational shooting.

“Should this guidance go into effect,” they wrote, “a disabled combat veteran who has chosen the best stabilizing brace for their disability is now a felon.”

In response, the ATF claimed that this new classification won’t impact braces designed to help those with disabilities. However, their proposed point-based worksheet of stabilizing brace criteria fails to make this clear for gun owners.

Intentionally Complicated?

At 52 pages, the intricate proposal is so lengthy and establishes such specific requirements that law-abiding citizens will have no idea if their firearm is still legal.

“Certain prerequisites,” the proposal reads, such as weapon weight and the overall length, “will be applied to determine if the firearm will even be considered as a possible pistol or immediately determined to be a rifle.”

Furthermore, “design factors that are more likely to demonstrate a manufacturer’s … intent to produce a ‘short-barreled rifle’ and market it as a ‘braced pistol’ accrue more points than those that reveal less evidence.”

A stabilizing brace that has accumulated too many points based on these criteria will be deemed a rifle, and therefore unlawful. Not only is this formula complicated, but there seems to be another hitch.

“The new factoring system,” remarks the NRA-ILA, “seems designed to ensure that few, if any, firearms can meet the criteria.”

Therefore, by classifying these braced pistols as Short Barreled Rifles, one of the most highly regulated guns on the market, the federal government is forcing 10-40 million law-abiding gun owners to surrender, destroy, or register their legal firearms … or face felony charges.

Avoiding Centralized Power

Essentially, the ATF is able to add rules and reclassify weapons without holding a single vote in Congress. As a result, this significant assault on the Second Amendment will not receive its due process.

This is a conspicuous confiscation of power, and it’s precisely what America’s founding fathers strove to avoid through the establishment of checks and balances.

The Constitution’s authors designed the United States government as three separate branches: the legislative, judicial, and executive. The legislative creates laws, the judicial determines their constitutionality, and the executive implements them.

In certain scenarios, each branch has the power to override the others and ensure that no branch of government is able to hold too much centralized power.

Unfortunately, through its unilateral proposal that would impact tens of millions of US gun owners, the ATF is violating the Separation of Powers designed by the Constitution to limit government overreach and protect individual rights.

A Timeless Warning

In Federalist No. 48, James Madison warned that “the accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

This is exactly what is happening today.

This stealth power grab should concern all Americans, even if they are outside the immediately-impacted gun community.


This article was published on July 12, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from FEE, Foundation for Economic Education

Supremes Rule 9-0 Against RI Gun Grab

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

It is rare to see the Supreme Court unanimously rule on anything, but especially something having to do with firearms. But that’s just what happened in May when the SCOTUS overturned a 1st Circuit Court ruling in Caniglia v. Strom. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that police illegally seized a Rhode Island man’s firearms in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

Background: In 2015, Edward A. Caniglia (“Caniglia”) was at home with his wife, Kim Caniglia (“Mrs. Caniglia”), at their residence in Cranston, Rhode Island. Caniglia had an argument with Mrs. Caniglia that led to him offering her one of his unloaded guns in an appeal to “put him out of his misery.” She declined, but then Mrs. Caniglia left Caniglia to sleep in a nearby hotel overnight. When Mrs. Caniglia returned, she called the police, requesting to have her husband undergo a wellness check. Caniglia agreed to undergo the psychiatric evaluation — but only after the officers agreed they would not take his guns. However, the Cranston police deceived Caniglia.

The police would take Edward Caniglia’s guns while he was away and even lied to Mrs. Caniglia, claiming that Caniglia himself had consented to the confiscation. Caniglia would be released from the hospital almost immediately because there was nothing wrong with him other than, perhaps, having a vexatious wife. But his firearms were already gone, and he had to file a civil rights lawsuit against the department to get them back.

Both a federal court and the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals stated the police were well within their rights to take Caniglia’s guns under a 1973 “community caretaking exception,” which was established in the Cady v. Dombrowski case. In Cady, an officer was allowed to take a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant under the police’s “community caretaking” power.

This was a Fourth Amendment case, not a Second Amendment case, but having firearms involved is still important. The police didn’t lie to the Caniglias so the cops could seize Caniglia’s cupcakes, or a sofa, or lawn equipment. Had this decision stood, it would have been possible that the “community caretaking” excuse would be used against law-abiding gun owners who loudly and publicly express unpopular political opinions — such as “shall not be infringed,” for example.

Another example: Justice Samuel Alito noted in a concurring opinion that some of the principles of Caniglia’s case could apply to rulings on red-flag laws, which allow police to seize guns owned by individuals deemed dangerous to themselves or others. “Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues,” he wrote.


This article was published  June 21, 2021 and is reprinted with permission from Gun Tests – The Consumer Resource for the Serious Shooter.

61% of U.S. Counties Now ‘Second Amendment Sanctuaries’

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The majority of all U.S. counties have been designated as Second Amendment sanctuaries, according to an analysis by Sanctuary Counties.

As of June 20, there are 1,930 counties “protected by Second Amendment Sanctuary legislation at either the state or county level,” representing 61% of 3,141 counties and county equivalents in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Texas was the 21st state to pass a constitutional carry bill, which Gov. Greg Abbott signed into law, and becomes effective Sept. 1. And while some state legislatures are not taking the same action, county officials have chosen to enact their own legislation. Roughly 1,137 counties “have taken it upon themselves to pass Second Amendment Sanctuary legislation and likely hundreds of cities, townships, boroughs, etc. have done so at their level as well,” the site states.

The Second Amendment sanctuary movement was born out of a grassroots effort, brought on by county or municipal leaders who vowed to not enforce any gun laws imposed by state or federal bodies they deemed were unconstitutional.

Sheriffs have also made pledges to uphold the Second Amendment, most recently every sheriff in Utah.

“Importantly, the Second Amendment of our divinely inspired Constitution clearly states … ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,’” a letter signed by all 29 Utah sheriffs states. “We hereby recognize a significant principle underlying the Second Amendment: the right to keep and bear arms is indispensable to the existence of a free people.”

Upon signing the new Texas law, Abbott said Texas was a Second Amendment Sanctuary state. Months earlier, Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts signed a proclamation giving Nebraska the same sanctuary designation. And Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed a bill that nullifies federal gun laws in the Show Me state.

The movement is growing in light of statements made by President Joe Biden that the federal government will target firearms dealers in an attempt to link the increasing number of homicides occurring in major cities to a lack of gun law enforcement.

“We’ll find you and we will seek your license to sell guns,” Biden said last week.

Attorney General Merrick Garland also recently argued that while the majority of licensed firearms dealers sell to individuals who passed their FBI background check, that the same dealers “willfully violate the law increase the risk that guns will fall into the wrong hands.” He said the administration’s plan was part of a “concerted effort to crack down on gun traffickers.”

One such attempt is the ATF’s proposed new rule to regulate and tax a firearm brace widely used by veterans. The move has been criticized by members of Congress and by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who argues it’s unconstitutional.


This article was published on July 4, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Want Less Violence? Promote Gun Ownership

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Would carrying a gun make you feel safer?

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch thought so. But the state of New York denied them gun permits, saying they hadn’t demonstrated a “special need.”

Why did they have to prove such a “need”? The Supreme Court ruled more than 10 years ago that all Americans have a right to keep and bear arms, no matter where they live.

“Many other courts have thumbed their nose at that Supreme Court ruling,” Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation tells me. He’s excited that the Supreme Court will soon rule on Nash and Koch’s lawsuit over New York’s law.

I understand Nash and Koch’s frustration. I once tried to get a carry permit in New York.

First, I had to read 60 pages of instructions about irrelevant things like “metal knuckle knives” and “kung fu stars,” fill out a confusing 17-page form, get it notarized, and then go in person to police headquarters.

There they fingerprinted me, demanded reasons why I should be allowed to have a gun, and charged me $430.

I heard nothing from them for half a year. Then they wrote me saying that my application was “denied.”

I called to ask if I could appeal. They said I could try again if I could prove that “special need” to carry a gun. After years of confronting crooks on TV, I actually do have a special need for self-protection. I showed the cops threats on my life.

Not good enough, said the New York City permit department. They turned me down again.

Apparently, my mistake was not bribing the cops. Later it was revealed that the police in the permit department were giving out permits for money.

Scams like that thrive whenever politicians impose too many restrictions on people’s freedom. In parts of California, people got gun permits if they donated to a sheriff’s campaign.

It’s one more reason why Gottlieb is excited about this new Supreme Court case. Court watchers predict his side will win, especially because there are now more originalist judges on the court.

That means it’s likely that soon, almost all Americans will be legally able to carry guns.

Some people say that will be terrible.

“Women are less safe!” says professor Lisa Moore of the University of Texas on TV. “Every vulnerable population, LGBT people, students of color, has more to fear!”

But then why are 58% of new gun owners blacks, and 40% women?

“An awful lot of women bought a firearm to protect themselves and feel a whole lot safer!” says Gottlieb. “Eight hundred thousand times a year, a person uses a firearm to protect themselves. If you call 911, the police usually get there after the crime is over.

Over the last decades, most states liberalized their gun laws. More allow concealed carry. Gun control advocates predicted that would lead to an epidemic of shootings.

The opposite happened. As concealed carry was legalized, violent crime went down. Especially telling, crime dropped in each state right after the law was changed.

Gottlieb says that’s because “an armed society is a polite society.”

As a reporter who attended only liberal schools and worked in liberal newsrooms, I’d been taught that more guns means more violence. Even after interviewing violent criminals in prison and hearing many say that what they feared most was “not the police,” but that the person being robbed “might be armed,” I still believed that more guns meant more crime.

Only when I started researching gun crime and studying the data did it become clear that most of my anti-gun assumptions were wrong.

More guns really does mean less crime.


This article was published on July 2, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Daily Signal.

Nolte: A Drag Queen-Loving Military Can’t Defend You. Go Buy an ‘Assault’ Rifle

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

When the U.S. military starts sanctioning drag queen shows, it’s time to buy an “assault rifle,” or ten.

Remember back in 2007 when Rick Santorum said, If we allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military, within 15 years this same military will be putting on drag shows?

And then, do you remember how the fake media freaked out and attacked Santorum over that — all the fury over his “outrageous” and “inflammatory” fear-mongering!

Well, you probably don’t remember that because it didn’t happen.

But it could have.

Just like this could have happened…

REPUBLICAN: If we allow same-sex marriage, within ten years drag queens will be performing in front of small children in public libraries.

JAKE TAPPER: That is outrageous fear-mongering and bigotry!

And yet, here we are.

And, uh, here we are.

How far is this shit gonna go? That’s a fair question when you recall how ridiculous the idea of allowing Drag Queen Story Hour would’ve sounded just a few years ago.

At this rate, in just a few years the left will be putting on live sex shows using children. Go ahead and pretend to be outraged over that prediction, but the left is nearly there already. Look at how this 11-year-old drag queen. And it’s not the radical left. The 11-year-old was celebrated on NBC News…..

So on top of providing sex-change surgeries and trolling civilians on Twitter and teaching the pro-racist, anti-science Critical Race Theory, the U.S. military is now sanctioning drag queen shows and defending this with a statement that should make every normal person’s skin crawl:
The [drag show] … provided an opportunity for attendees to learn more about the history and significance of drag performance art within the LGBT+ community.

Ensuring our ranks reflect and are inclusive of the American people is essential to the morale, cohesion, and readiness of the military. Nellis Air Force Base is committed to providing and championing an environment that is characterized by equal opportunity, diversity and inclusion…

…The military is doomed, which means you are more vulnerable than ever before and you need to run out today and purchase what is incorrectly called an “assault rifle.” One is good. Ten is better.

To recap…

Democrats are emptying prisons of violent criminals.
Democrats are allowing the left-wing terrorists in Antifa and Black Lives Matter to rampage without penalty.
Democrats are overseeing a violent crime explosion.
Democrats have turned the U.S. military into an anti-American freak show.
Let me repeat: You must, right now, run out and purchase what is incorrectly called an “assault rifle.” You must be able to protect yourself because no one else is going to protect you, most especially a military focused on sex changes, diversity training, and books that declare America an evil not worth defending.

Buy guns.

Buy ammo.

Learn how to use your guns.

Pray that you never need to…


Read the complete article, published June 23, 2021 at Breitbart.

Why Every American Should Own a Gun…And Know How to Use It

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

The issue seems to perfectly match the discordance of our times. As the media and political elites lecture us about “gun violence” and attempt to take our rights away, average Americans are buying guns and ammunition at a record pace.

Some 40% of first-time buyers are women.

What do average Americans know that the elites do not?

Most Americans know that even before the recent Biden crime wave, police response time for a 911 call in major metropolitan areas averaged around 11 minutes. Now like all averages, some responses were quicker and some were longer. In rural areas, it can be much longer. But since the average armed encounter lasts about three to four seconds, it is a distinction without much of a difference.

The simple fact that is understood by most sensible people, is that when it comes to self-protection, you are the first responder. Police will most likely arrive in time to put you in a plastic bag and issue a report. That is if they have not been defunded or distracted by mass riots that paralyze their ability to respond.

I think people likely know, that competency with a firearm can be obtained through training and that physical size and strength don’t play a large role in the process. Martial arts are great but it takes years, upwards of a decade to be truly competent. And, no matter how good you are, you can’t cheat father time. Your speed, power, and dexterity will decline. Besides, in about 40% of attacks today, you must deal with more than one assailant. To rely on your physical skills is a low probability bet.

Many of my shooting acquaintances are very competent, well into their 70s and 80s. That includes women as well.

In as little as a week, a decent civilian shooter can emerge from training schools like the famed Gunsite Academy in Paulden, Arizona. Good local training can also be found, including shooting clubs at the Ben Avery Shooting Facility just off the I-17 and Carefree Highway. With some 1600 acres of shooting facilities, it is the largest complex like this in the nation.

It is one of the “hidden gems” of Arizona, not likely to make it as a feature by the Arizona Republic, even though it is named for one of their famed journalists.

There is the Scottsdale Gun Club and C2 Tactical, Rio Salado, Shooter’s World, plus a variety of private trainers.

But the need for training and the facilities for training were known before things took a real turn for the worse, with the emergence of Progressive radicalism. Now, there is even greater urgency.

In many cities today, the local district attorneys are choosing not to enforce the lawBail has been all but eliminated in some places, and the idea of incarceration itself is now challenged. No one it seems has moral agency and is responsible for their bad behavior.  Crime is caused by poverty, white privilege, and white supremacy.  Social peace can only be had by taking your guns, your means of protection, away from you.

The Progressive idea, now largely adopted by the Democrat Party, of protecting you is to release criminals from prison, allow completely open borders, forcibly move drug-addled strangers into your neighborhood, defund the police, reduce or eliminate prison terms, and not prosecute criminals. And of course, allow people to taunt and humiliate the police, hogtie discipline in the school system, and argue that fathers are not necessary to raise a family.

In some jurisdictions, such as Portland, Minneapolis, and San Francisco, a constant state of rioting is permitted if not outwardly encouraged.

Progressives have also done a good job of breaking down the social control functions of religion and family, and have been responsible for a terrible coarsening of the culture.

While great at tearing down institutions, the Progressive seem unable to come up with better ones.  The result is social vacuum chaos and a high degree of instability. One wonders what the US would look like if we had to re-live a social trauma like the Great Depression.

A stable society is largely one that can control itself, by raising good people who can control themselves and take responsibility for their own actions. Building character is what church, school, and family were supposed to do, and were largely united in the effort. While not always successful, it is not a myth that some years ago, one could really leave the front door unlocked at night.

Now character is considered a “white trait”, and a means to hold people down.

Ever notice that Conservatives largely want individuals to reform themselves, while Progressive Democrats want to reform the world? Conservatives believe the human condition is improved by working moral character from the inside out, while Progressives feel it is improved by working on the outside environment inward.

Today, the media and the schools now seem more a purveyor of social nihilism that demands no personal responsibility. It is all the fault of capitalism, or patriarchy, or white supremacy. Not surprisingly, people who truly believe they are victims, held down by “the system”, tend to be unhappy and casual about violence.

In short, most people know they are being subjected to a cruel, and at times a truly silly social experiment by people who think three-quarters of a degree change in temperature in the next hundred years is the greatest threat to the social order.

Police? We don’t need no stinking police! Let’s just “reimagine” a world without authority. They love that word. They want us to be part of their Jacobin experiment.

People spend a lot of time on social media. They see the video camera footage of elderly Asian women having their heads stomped into the pavement, people being sucker-punched on the street, Amazon delivery people attacking clients, and frequent brawls in airports.

One gets the feeling that the wheels are starting to come off of our civilization. That is only partially true.  It appears more likely the wheels are being purposefully removed.

It is not clear how we will come out of this. A counter-reaction seems to be brewing as parents begin to understand their local school has been taken over by space aliens from Berkeley and that some district attorneys want to impose their Jacobin experiments on your community.

So, it is only logical it would seem, to assume personal responsibility for your own protection.  Or as Charles Barkley put it concerning defunding the police, “who you gonna call, Ghost Busters?

The government is doing too many other things to be concerned with its basic responsibilities. It is too busy attempting to change human nature and control the environment.

Get a gun.  Learn the law.  Get good trainingYou are on your own, kiddo.

22 GOP-Led States Urge Ninth Circuit To Uphold Lower Court’s Decision To Strike Down California’s Weapons Ban

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Twenty-two Republican-led states filed a brief in support of a district court ruling handed down by federal Judge Roger Benitez, who ruled that an assault weapons ban California had in place for three decades was unconstitutional.

The states, led by Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich, argue in a June 15 filing that the Ninth Circuit should uphold Benitez’s decision. Earlier this month, Benitez issued an injunction and gave California 30 days to file an appeal, which it did. Gov. Gavin Newsom says the ban has “saved lives.”

Brnovich argues that Arizona and other states have found “that modern rifles are common to the point of ubiquity among law-abiding gun owners and their use promotes public safety.”

Describing “modern rifles” as “assault rifles” is a misnomer, they add, because they are “most often used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like personal protection or target and sport shooting.”

Because these firearms are commonly used, the ban “strikes at the core of the Second Amendment,” the filing says.

The attorneys general also disputes a claim California makes in its appeal that the rifles it banned are used for illegal activities and that residents can use other means for self-defense. The attorneys general say this argument has already been rejected in a previous court ruling. They also point out that California’s appeal doesn’t dispute that thousands of Californians own rifles for home defense or sporting, and that they have been used to stop mass shootings.

Enacted in 1989, California’s Assault Weapons Control Act [AWCA] banned many popular semiautomatic pistols and rifles. Lawmakers amended the law in 2000, which prompted another legal challenge to the state’s magazine capacity restrictions. Benitez also heard that case and decided in favor of the plaintiffs.

While gun control advocates point to AR-15-type weapons being used in mass shootings, most gun deaths in California and nationwide are suicides and perpetrated with handguns, which aren’t affected by AWCA beyond their magazine capacity, plaintiffs argue.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, California has seen 10,180 deaths since 2013.

States who joined Arizona include Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.


This article was published on June 17, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Congressman’s Impassioned Testimony Reveals the True Victims of Gun Control

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Data show that every year, at least 200,000 women employ a firearm to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Gun control advocates often claim the moral high ground. They accuse opponents of selfishly clinging to their guns and having cold hearts toward the victims of gun violence. That is exactly what happened on May 20 at a Congressional hearing on the issue.

But Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) wasn’t having it.

“We care about victims,” he said in his testimony. “I care about the victims of gun control.”

Massie then related how gun control victimized Nikki Goeser, one of his former staffers, who “watched her husband killed in front of her, because she followed the gun control laws, and her assailant—her stalker—did not. She left her concealed carry weapon in her car, because it was a gun-free zone.”

More than a decade ago, she and her husband Benjamin Goeser were operating their karaoke business at a restaurant in Tennessee when her longtime stalker confronted them.

“…I would usually carry my permitted concealed handgun with me,” she told Fox News, “But, at the time, Tennessee did not allow carrying in restaurants that served alcohol. While I obeyed the law, Ben’s murderer did not. He had no permit to carry, and he brought a gun into a gun-free zone.”

“In April 2009, the murderer shot my husband seven times in front of 50 witnesses. The whole attack was recorded by the restaurant’s security cameras.”

Ben Goeser was a victim of gun violence. But, he was also a victim of gun control. A gun control law prevented his law-abiding wife from saving his life from a law-flouting criminal.

In a tragic irony, his death contributed to gun violence statistics that are regularly used to argue for more gun control laws like the very one that sealed his fate.

An Essential Protection

Women are particularly vulnerable to being victimized by gun control. An estimated 1.9 million women are targeted and physically assaulted in the United States every year: a number of them by stalkers like the one who menaced Nikki Goeser and slew her husband.

Data show that every year, at least 200,000 women employ a firearm to defend themselves against sexual abuse. And studies have shown that armed women are highly effective in preventing rape and sexual assault with guns.

With generally smaller frames and thus less capacity to fend off large attackers with their bodies alone, firearms provide women essential protection. As comedian Chris Rock has pointed out, guns are the great equalizer. “You got pecs? l got Tecs,” he quipped, referring to the Tec-9 automatic pistol.

This reality is too often lost on many who otherwise voice support for female empowerment and equality. By depriving them of essential protection, gun control disempowers, oppresses, and victimizes women on a vast scale.

When Time Matters Most

The specific gun control measures discussed in the May 20 hearing would only victimize women even more.

Gun control advocates want to eliminate a provision in the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that allows gun dealers to proceed with a sale if the buyer’s mandated background check has not been completed within three business days. They blame it for enabling Dylann Roof to obtain the gun he used in the 2015 Charleston church shooting. Thus, they call it “the Charleston loophole.”

But in his testimony, Massie explained that Roof would have passed the background check anyway, so eliminating the provision wouldn’t have hindered him.

Who would it hinder? Women in desperate need of a gun to defend themselves and their loved ones from abusers or stalkers and whose safety can’t afford a lengthy waiting period. For potential victims in such situations, time is of the essence.

Also discussed at the hearing were “safe storage laws,” which advocates claim would prevent accidental gun deaths and suicides. But as Massie pointed out in his testimony, there is no evidence backing this assumption. Instead, safe storage laws only impair and inhibit people’s ability to use their guns defensively… as in the case of a home invader.

A survey conducted by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention found that on average, Americans use guns to frighten away home intruders about 498,000 times per year, and in general, felons have reported that they avoid entering houses when people are at home because they fear being shot. If criminals know that guns are safely out of reach in locked storage, they will have less of a deterrent.

A Blind Eye

“One of the great mistakes,” the economist Milton Friedman once said, “is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.”

Another great mistake, explored by Henry Hazlitt in his classic book Economics in One Lesson, is to only consider a policy’s impacts on one group of people and ignore its impacts on other groups.

Gun control advocates are too often guilty of both errors. They dwell on their intentions and disregard the unintended consequences of gun control. And while accusing others of not caring about victims of guns, they themselves turn a blind eye to victims of gun control.


This article was published on June 11, 2021 and reproduced with permission from FEE, Foundation for Economic Education.

The Senate Must Reject The Nomination Of Gun Control Extremist David Chipman

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editor’s Note:  The following is a press release issued June 8, 2021 from the Conservative Action Project.


June 8, 2021
Washington, DC

Conservatives join with Second Amendment advocates in strongly opposing David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).

A former ATF special agent, Chipman currently serves as a senior policy advisor to a pro-gun control lobbying group. He has a long history of misconstruing key details of how firearms work, and has laid out an aggressive anti-gun ownership platform.

Critically, it is unclear whether Chipman fully understands the technical details of firearms and the firearm markets he so eagerly looks to regulate. In 2018, Chipman argued in favor of subjecting all AR-15s and potentially all semi-automatic rifles to regulation under the National Firearms Act – a hugely punitive taxation and regulation measure on the country’s most popular rifle, hugely difficult to implement and police.

In his recent confirmation hearing, Chipman reasserted his support for mass confiscation of semi-automatic rifles – especially troubling considering that, when asked by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to define a semi-automatic assault rifle, his answer would cover every single modern sporting rifle in America today.

Though Chipman walked back the claim in his confirmation hearing, he has previously advocated for arresting prospective gun purchasers in gun stores following a failed background check – regardless of whether or not the prospective purchaser has done anything wrong. This is a highly dubious proposal given a Department of Justice report from 2011, which found the “false positive” denial rate for background checks was roughly 95 percent.

Chipman has also made false claims about both the nature and intent of firearms suppressors, as well as falsely stating in front of Congress that the American gun market is “flooded” with “foreign made ARs.”

David Chipman is a gun control extremist whose views on firearms and the Second Amendment are wildly out of step with constitutional interpretation and widely held social norms. It is clear that Chipman intends to use the position as Director of the ATF to further an aggressive anti-gun agenda, rather than implement the law as written. The Senate must oppose his nomination.

The Honorable Edwin Meese III
Attorney General
President Ronald Reagan (1985-1988)
Alfred S. Regnery
Chairman, Conservative Action Project
President, Republic Book Publishers
Kelly J. Shackelford, Esq.
Chairman, CNP Action, Inc.
President and CEO, First Liberty Institute
Myron Ebell
Director, Center for Energy and Environment
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Lori Roman
American Constitutional Rights Union (ACRU)
The Honorable Becky Norton Dunlop
White House Advisor
President Ronald Reagan (1981-1985)
William L. Walton
Council for National Policy
Tom Jones
American Accountability Foundation
The Honorable Morton C. Blackwell
The Leadership Institute
The Honorable Paul S. Teller, Ph.D.
Executive Director
Advancing American Freedom
The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr.
Chief Domestic Advisor
President Ronald Reagan (1987-1988)
Mary Vought
Executive Director
Senate Conservatives Fund
Rachel A. Bovard
Senior Director of Policy
Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI)
The Honorable J. Kenneth Blackwell
Constitutional Congress, Inc.
Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin (Ret.)
Executive Vice President
Family Research Council
Wesley Denton
Chief Operating Officer
Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI)
Jenny Beth Martin
Tea Party Patriots Citizen Fund
The Honorable Bob McEwen
U.S. House of Representatives
Former Member, Ohio
Cleta Mitchell, Esq. The Honorable Russ Vought
Office of Management and Budget (2020-2021)
The Honorable David McIntosh
U.S. House of Representatives
Former Member, Indiana
Scott T. Parkinson
The Honorable Tony Perkins
Family Research Council
The Honorable Donald Paul Hodel
U.S. Secretary of Energy (1982-1985)
U.S. Secretary of Interior (1985-1989)
The Honorable Jim DeMint
Chairman, Conservative Partnership Institute
Member, US Senate (SC 2005-2013)
Ed Corrigan
Vice Chairman, Conservative Action Project
President & CEO, Conservative Partnership Institute
L. Brent Bozell, III
Founder and President
Media Research Center
Terry Schilling
American Principles Project
Tim Macy
Gun Owners of America
Alan M. Gottlieb
Executive Vice President
Second Amendment Foundation
The Honorable James C. Miller III
Budget Director for President Reagan, 1985-1988
David N. Bossie
Citizens United
Justin Danhof
General Counsel
National Center for Public Policy Research
The Honorable Chip Roy
Texas 21st Congressional District
Mike Davis
Founder and President
Article III Project (A3P)
The Honorable Kenneth T. Cuccinelli
Former Va. Attorney General
Former Acting Deputy Secretary, DHS
The Honorable Gary L. Bauer
American Values
Charles J. Cooper
Assistant Attorney General, President Ronald Reagan (1985-1988)
Cooper & Kirk, PLLC
Dr. Jerry A. Johnson
President (2013-2019)
National Religious Broadcasters
Dr. Richard Lee
There’s Hope America
The Honorable Stephen Stockman
U.S. House of Representatives
Former Member, Texas
Ed Molchany
Chief Marketing Officer
Media Research Center
Amapola Hansberger
Legal Immigrants for America
Andresen Blom
Hawaiian Values
Dr. Rick Rounsavelle
Saulius “Saul” Anuzis
60 Plus Association
Seton Motley
Less Government
James L. Martin
60 Plus Association
Willes K. Lee
National Federation of Republican Assemblies
Dr. Thomas Sheahen
Western Technology, Inc.
Richard D. Hayes
Hayes, Berry, White & Vanzant, LLP
Kay R. Daly
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary
Martha Boneta
Vote America First
Mario Navarro da Costa
Director, Washington Bureau
Tradition, Family, Property
C. Preston Noell III
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.
The Honorable Carol Dawson
Former Member
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
Joan Holt Lindsey
Lindsey Communications
Eunie Smith
President Emeritus
Eagle Forum
The Honorable George K. Rasley Jr.
Managing Editor
Lee Beaman
Beaman Ventures
Ron Pearson
Executive Director
Conservative Victory Fund
Tom DeWeese
American Policy Center
Paavo Ensio
Universal Minerals Group
Barry Meguiar
Ignite America
Penna Dexter
Point of View Radio
Dawn Wildman
Director of Policy
Coalition for Policy Reform
Lewis K. Uhler
Founder and President
National Tax Limitation Committee
Elaine Donnelly
Center for Military Readiness
Floyd Brown
The Western Journal
Ambassador Henry F. Cooper
President Reagan’s Defense and Space Negotiator
SDI Director
Peter J. Thomas
The Conservative Caucus
Jay Mount
MDS Communications Corporation
Rod Vandenbos
The Honorable Mike Hill
Former Member
Florida State House
William W. Pascoe, III
Our Man in Washington
Tea Party Patriots Action
Kathleen A. Patten
President & CEO
American Target Advertising, Inc.
Chad Connelly
Faith Wins
Ralph A. Rebandt, II
Candidate for Governor, Michigan 2022
Ralph Rebandt for Governor
Melissa Kaye Ortiz
Founder and Principle
Able Americans
Robert K. Fischer
Meeting Coordinator
Conservatives of Faith
Richard Scurry Barbara J. Ledeen
Retired Senate Staff
U.S. Senate
Jack Park
Conservative Activist and Donor
Law Offices of Jack Park
Jon Schweppe
Director of Policy and Government Affairs
American Principles Project
John McCardell
Executive Director
Campaign for Liberty
Dr. Virginia Armstrong
National Court Watch Chrm.
Eagle Forum
David Haas
Morrison Inc
Judson Phillips
Tea Party Nation
Dr. Allen Unruh
National Abstinence Clearinghouse
Randy M. Long
Long Business Advisors, LLC
Kevin Freeman
NSIC Institute
Leigh Bortins
Classical Conversations
William Shaker
Washington Marketing Group
Gerard Kassar
State Chairman
NYS Conservative Party
The Honorable Diana Denman
Chairman/ President
The Reagan Legacy Forum
Steve Berger
George M. Hiller
George M. Hiller Companies, LLC
Paul Gessing
Rio Grande Foundation

Columbia Journalism Review Abandons Neutrality – Adopts Gun-Control Advocacy

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

Columbia Journalism Review recently conducted a “summit” to finally resolve problems with news coverage of gun violence, seeking to end what it claims are distorted and misleading stories of this deadly subject. Every advocacy group in America, including Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership [JPFO], wants this to happen. Is gun-control advocacy a proper role for CJR?

CJR invited grand members of the media, including The Washington Post, The New York TimesThe Guardian (U.K.) prestigious reporters and editors, and less well-known outfits such as The Trace. Through some inexplicable oversight, they forgot to include any members of the firearms industry itself. Balance—all sides of an issue—has always been recognized as a requirement of sound journalism by The Society of Professional Journalists [SPJ], CJR and the others involved, including news consumers. What happened?

The attempt to understand gun violence by only involving anti-gun advocates as CJR has done is like trying to understand women by only speaking with men.

That a formerly prestigious media institution like Columbia Journalism Review, in conjunction with the century-old Society of Professional Journalists, would act in such a total vacuum defines in a moment the main problem with the approach taken and the results obtained. Journalists should know better. What did they miss?

There Is No Gun Violence

The term gun violence is a recently created pejorative (c. 1980) that denigrates firearms and displaces focus from crime and murder, where the real issues lie. By using that preferred euphemism they maintain a narrative that hides the real problems of deteriorating social fabric, inner-city dysfunction where more than 90% of all murders occur, and the inconvenient truth about the people conducting the crimes. Demographic and sociological studies identify the perpetrators but it is politically incorrect to name them, or point out their poverty, predominant race, motivations, family structure (or lack thereof), and political forces that perpetuate the situations.

Instead, reporters and editors, often unwittingly, follow a predetermined storyline in lockstep as CJR, SPJ, and the others have done. They see the problems falsely as so-called “gun violence” when in fact it is nothing of the sort. That misleading line of thinking (that guns and violence are linked) advances the notion that guns themselves are evil and must be confiscated by state actors (police), who themselves are heavily armed, a one-to-one connection typically missed by CJR-type journalists. When this leads to unfathomable levels of public resistance reporters and editors are flummoxed. The CJR enclave did nothing to illuminate this and if anything, obscured it along familiar lines. No viable solution effloresced. It could not, with only half the issue examined. The 100 million decent peacefully armed citizens are outraged and lament candidly amongst themselves at shooting ranges, where reporters typically never go.

When reporting starts to examine why 7,000 people of color murder each other annually in what we used to call ghettos, and now whitewash as inner cities, the “gun problem” will begin to unravel. But this is difficult and politically inexpedient. Public defenders know who their endless flow of clients are. Reporters seem to have no clue, or don’t want to know. I suspect it’s the latter, it is such an inconvenient truth. Most murderers do not see a courtroom. They keep their guns.

Bad Language Aids Bad Reporting

The term gunman is sexist. It surprises the firearms community that CJR-type reporters, who generally consider themselves woke, are not awake to that fact. Murderer, or killer are better terms, more accurate. Try criminal, villain, psychopath, homicidal maniac, even suspect, and they take the focus (and self-evident prejudice) off the hated object, placing it instead of the evil perpetrator, where blame belongs. “But he’s not convicted yet!” they cry. Neither is the supposed gunman.

The term shooter actually describes the 100 million gun owners who practice. Practice is good. The term murderer describes the tiny number of people who crack and go psychotic in public, randomly shooting innocent people, or targets of their hatred. A review of recent news coverage shows reporters conflate these terms in misleading ways, constantly. Mass murderer is the correct term for such actors, not mass shooters though this proper use of language was not brought out at the summit. It did not make it into the final report, which JPFO has analyzed.*

Though CJR, SPJ, and the unwoke believe The New York Times and The Washington Post consider themselves purveyors of news without bias, they rarely if ever cover the shooting sports, a term with which they are essentially unfamiliar. Yet it is the number two participant sport in the nation, bigger than golf at number three, based on retail sales. Compare coverage of the shooting sports at number two, to golf in third place, for a glimmer of the imbalance. At least golf is a sport of enormous privilege—so there is no cause for concern, right?

I’ve personally asked many reporters, “Do you ever cover the good that guns do?” They do not. They don’t know what that is. They routinely respond with a blank stare, raised eyebrows, and a query, “What do you mean, the good that guns do?” They don’t realize guns have social utility. Guns save lives. Guns stop crime. Guns are good. Guns protect you. Guns are why America is still free. Guns are important. If guns magically ceased to exist we would have to reinvent them to protect ourselves. There would still be hoards at the gates. Clubs and blades don’t evaporate. Communists remain a threat.

If we somehow managed to totally ban firearms here the communist Chinese (plus Brazil, Italy, Russia and the other makers of fine firearms) would flood the market with an iron river making the cocaine trade look like banana imports. Did the CJR and SPJ seminar make these points clear for future “gun-violence” coverage? How could they—they are steeped in the narrative, with other views excluded, for neo-balance. CJR unwittingly humiliated itself.

How can the press learn and inform themselves and the public about the true nature of firearms, when such large portions of the picture are obscured or missing entirely? That of course is rhetorical, it cannot. Will enclave participants be responsive to this assessment? If past is prologue, confidence is not high. “Gun violence” (crime) will continue to plague society, people of color will continue to die on streets where you do not live or go, and journalism will skip out on SPJ’s guideline to “… resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage,” and completely fail to provide an “open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.” It is stunning that so many reporters find the glorious Second Amendment repugnant.

Guns Are Not Medicine

One final point. CJR-type journalists have this wrong: People of color indiscriminately murdering each other in tiny isolated areas is not a public health crisis in the sense of a pandemic. Crime is not a disease. Guns are not pathogens. You should not have to be told this—you’ve contracted it from brainwash detergent. The enclave’s conclusion that guns are bad medicine does not make them thus. Hospital emergency rooms overflowing with crime victims is a problem, caused by social unrest, and the root causes clearly are not retail businesses or federal licenses. Imagining that’s so is perverse and delays us from getting to the real issues. COVID, STDs, heart disease, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, maybe even vaccine hesitancy, these are health-care crises.  Ballistics, no.

If there is a medical side to this it is hoplophobia, the untreated morbid fear of weapons, especially guns. The Fifth Edition of the DSM refused to include hoplophobia as a recognized and diagnosable condition, despite evidence and serious appeals to do so. This further delayed much needed treatment, especially for members of the medical community where it is running rampant. A lot of what we treat as a political or journalism problem is really a medical condition, and until we get down to that, a lot of these problems will fester, not begin to abate or find a cure.

The next CJR and SPJ summit must include Doctors for Responsible Gun Policy, JPFO, and similarly situated experts.

* JPFO’s former Executive Director Charles Heller has written a brief on the CJR conclusions.

Alan Korwin, an-award-winning author of 14 books, is writing his 15th book, Why Science May Be Wrong, and is the publisher at Bloomfield Press. Click here to visit

This article was published in the Daily Caller on May 26, 2021 and is reproduced with permission from the author.