Setting the Stage for Gun Control to be a 2016 Campaign Issue?
Clinton Joins Obama in Call for Additional Restrictions on Constitutionally Protected Rights
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” – Rahm Emanuel
Although the quote above is from 2008, the concept is nothing new for anti-gun zealots on the left, including Emanuel’s political cronies. The current mayor of Chicago – a prime example of the failures of gun control – has close ties with many other anti-gun politicians, including President Obama and 2016 democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton, and it is obvious that they are sharing the same playbook.
Emanuel was first appointed as the finance committee director for Bill Clinton’s presidential bid in 1992, before going on to be Clinton’s Assistant to the President for Political Affairs. Emanuel was later serving as Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy when when the 1994 “Assault Weapon Ban” (another fine example of the failures of gun control) was enacted. After a stint as a US Congressman representing Illinois’s 5th district, Emanuel was appointed by the Obama administration to serve as White House Chief of Staff following the 2008 election. Perhaps it was during all of this close time together that Emanuel shared his strategy of capitalizing on crises to push unpopular political agendas like the ones that top democrats are now espousing with renewed vigor in the wake of the recent tragedy at a Charleston, South Carolina, church. Continue reading
NRA-ILA: BATFE To Ban Common AR-15 Ammo
M855 ‘Armor Piercing’ Classification Could Drastically Impact Ammunition Availability
In a move clearly intended by the Obama Administration to suppress the acquisition, ownership and use of AR-15s and other .223 caliber general purpose rifles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unexpectedly announced today that it intends to ban commonplace M855 ball ammunition as “armor piercing ammunition.” The decision continues Obama’s use of his executive authority to impose gun control restrictions and bypass Congress.
It isn’t even the third week of February, and the BATFE has already taken three major executive actions on gun control. First, it was a major change to what activities constitute regulated “manufacturing” of firearms. Next, BATFE reversed a less than year old position on firing a shouldered “pistol.” Now, BATFE has released a“Framework for Determining Whether Certain Projectiles are ‘Primarily Intended for Sporting Purposes’ Within the Meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(c)”, which would eliminate M855’s exemption to the armor piercing ammunition prohibition and make future exemptions nearly impossible.
By way of background, federal law imposed in 1986 prohibits the manufacture, importation, and sale by licensed manufacturers or importers, but not possession, of “a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely . . . from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium.” Because there are handguns capable of firing M855, it “may be used in a handgun.” It does not, however, have a core made of the metals listed in the law; rather, it has a traditional lead core with a steel tip, and therefore should never have been considered “armor piercing.” Nonetheless, BATFE previously declared M855 to be “armor piercing ammunition,” but granted it an exemption as a projectile “primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes.”
Now, however, BATFE says that it will henceforth grant the “sporting purposes” exception to only two categories of projectiles: Continue reading
ATF Receives Nearly 9,500 Comments on Proposed NFA Trust Rule Change 41P
Responses include 100+ pages from David M Goldman, 17 from NRA-ILA
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) received 9,479 comments filed regarding docket ATF-2013-0001: Machine Guns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms: Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Corporation, Trust or Other Legal Entity with Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm.
The proposed rule change is summarized on its regulations.gov site as: “The Department of Justice is planning to finalize a proposed rule to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, the rule would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).”
In layman’s terms, what 41P does is require anyone obtaining an NFA firearm as a legal entity (e.g. an NFA Trust, LLC, or Corporation) to submit fingerprints, photographs, and proof of US citizenship along with their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer’s (CLEO) approval for each purchase or transfer. In many jurisdictions, this results in de facto ban on NFA firearms where the CLEO refuses to approve NFA transfers either because they are ignorant of NFA items or are outright anti-gun.
Among the comments received is a 17 page document filed by Chris Cox on behalf of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). In his comments, Cox references a number of other comments, including those filed by NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog’s David M. Goldman in his 55 page submission accompanied by another 88 pages of supporting exhibits. Cox goes on to point out their three main objections to the change:
First, its requirements are not authorized by the NFA and are therefore illegal for the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to impose. Second, the requirements could effectively block even those who are lawfully entitled to receive and possess NFA firearms from doing so under the very regime Congress created, and most states recognize, for this purpose. On the other hand, ATF has articulated no reason why the current regime has proven unworkable or how imposing these additional burdens on responsible, law-abiding persons would enhance public safety.
The comments appear to be overwhelmingly in opposition to the changes in 41P and articulate many reasons why the proposal should not be implemented. The BATFE must now review all of the submitted comments and replies before making a decision – which is expected to come in early 2015.
Gun Control Advocates are as Useless as Gun Control Itself
Remember back in September when we told you about Kroger standing up to Moms Demand Action? The top brass of the grocery chain refused to be bullied into an anti-gun statement or policy (like Target, Starbucks, Chipotle and others). Instead, the world’s 5th largest retailer decided to employ actual common sense and allow their patrons to #ShopSafe, saying “Our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws and to ask customers to be respectful of others while shopping. “We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue, and we trust them to be responsible in our stores.”
Despite their claims to be “common sense” advocates, the astroturf anti-gun zealots threw a hissy fit and decided to boycott Kroger. Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand, said “Moms need to shop for groceries, but we don’t have to shop at stores that put our families in harm’s way. Kroger’s policy endangers our families by putting us in the position of having to guess if the man carrying a rifle through the cereal aisle is a threat to their safety.
A lot of good that did.
As pointed out by the Iowa Firearms Coalition, Kroger is doing as good or better than ever. According to Supermarket News, Kroger posted a 21% increase in profit in the third quarter compared with the same period last year while identical store sales excluding fuel were up 5.6%, making this the 44th quarter with positive identical store sales.
Maybe it is time for other retailers to take an honest look at their policies and ask who they are really hurting when they kowtow to bullies like Moms Demand Action and don’t allow their patrons to #EatSafe or #ShopSafe – especially when the store is unwilling or unable to protect them… Like Target: Continue reading
Watson v. Holder: Second NFA Lawsuit Filed Challenging 922(o)
Following on the heels of the Hollis v Holder lawsuit filed in late October, Mississippi attorney Stephen Stamboulieh – along with additional counsel David Scott – have brought a second suit alleging that, through 18 U.S.C. §922(o), 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. and the implementing regulations 27 C.F.R. § 479.105(a), the US government has overstepped their powers as provided for under Article I of the US Constitution and violate the Ninth and Tenth amendments by creating a de facto machine gun ban. Additionally, the suit claims, the regulations violate the plaintiff’s (and others’) Second Amendment rights. This is part of the case made in the Watson v. Holder complaint filed last week.
A twist on this case compared to the previously filed Hollis v Holder complaint is that the defendant, Ryan Watson, as a trustee of the Watson Family Gun Trust, had already made the 10.5″ barreled Palmetto State Armory (serial number LW001804) into a machine gun as per the Form 1 as approved by ATF official, Shannon Siviero. It was sometime after this that the ATF “changed their minds,” whited out the relevant portions of the approved From 1, and demanded that Watson “abandon or otherwise surrender” the machine gun and stamp. Following subsequent communications between Watson and the ATF (including a promise of no further criminal prosecution), Watson surrendered, under protest, the new machine gun to the ATF – although maintaining his ownership interest.
This demand for not only the plaintiff’s approved Form 1 and tax stamp (bought, paid for, and issued), but also the machine gun manufactured pursuant to that approval, is the basis for the charge of violating Watson’s Fifth Amendment rights
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. – Amendment V of the United States Constitution
In both cases, declaratory and injunctive relief is sought in the form of either declaring the laws and regulations noted above to be unconstitutional or, alternatively, to find that unincorporated trusts are not prohibited by 922(o) from manufacturing or possessing post-May 19, 1986 machine guns as individuals would be under the Hughes Amendment to the Firearms Owner Protection Act.
