ATF Proposed Rule a Blatant Attack on American Gun Industry

H/T NRA/ILA.

Under Joe Pee Pads Biden the assaults on the gun industry and the Second Amendment are going to get worse.

Two weeks ago we reported on a leaked document that appeared to be a new ATF proposed rule to amend several key definitions in federal firearm regulations. On May 7thATF published a nearly identical proposed rule on its website. The rule has not yet been published in the federal register, but likely will be on Monday May 10th. That publication will trigger a 90 day comment period where gun owners and members of the firearm industry will be provided with an opportunity to provide input on the proposed rule.

The proposed rule, entitled Definition of “Frame or Receiver” and Identification of Firearms, proposes new definitions for the terms “firearm frame or receiver,” “frame or receiver,” “firearm,” “gunsmith,” “complete weapon,” “complete muffler or silencer device,” “privately made firearm,” and “readily.” In addition to these changes, ATF is seeking to create an entirely new process for licensed firearm dealers to apply serial numbers to unserialized firearms that come into their possession and to require the indefinite storage of firearm records by licensees.

These new definitions would give ATF arbitrary authority to classify firearms in a way that could make it difficult or impossible for the firearm industry to operate.

As we said in our alert on the leaked draft, “the rule would mean that many manufacturers would need to get pre-approval from ATF for new firearm designs. To put it another way, the draft takes 107 pages to say ‘we’ll know it when we see it.’” And, despite effectively requiring this pre-approval, ATF notes that “ATF’s decision whether to classify an item voluntarily submitted is entirely discretionary.”

Creating arbitrary and unlawful new standards for firearm manufacturers while claiming that ATF has no obligation to actually reply to manufacturers who attempt to comply with the new standards is the very type of “arbitrary and capricious” rulemaking that the Administrative Procedures Act was enacted to eliminate.

These new standards would give the ATF Director an incredible amount of power over the firearm industry. And, this comes at a time when President Biden has nominated anti-gun lobbyist and gun ban proponent David Chipman to head the ATF. This proposed rule is just one more reason why it’s extremely important for all gun owners to contact their Senators and ask that they vote against Chipman’s confirmation.  

Once the proposed rule has been published in the federal register, we will provide more detail on the many problems with the proposed rules and give guidance to gun owners and members of the firearm industry on how to best craft persuasive comments. Please check back to www.nraila.org soon so you can help fight the Biden Administration’s anti-gun agenda.

Open Carrier and Concealed Carrier meet in Walmart Dispute over Cart

H/T AmmoLand.

The title is deceiving.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/05/open-carrier-and-concealed-carrier-meet-in-walmart-dispute-over-cart/#ixzz6uQC8LF1c
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- On Sunday, 2 May 2021, at about 12:30 p.m. this correspondent was in a Walmart in Yuma, Arizona. It was a mission of mercy.

After church, a visit to a friend in the hospital was in order. I had delivered him to the emergency room three days before. The friend desired another key for his residence, so more people could help to care for his dogs and do other needful things.

At the Walmart, I stopped at the firearms and ammunition section to take pictures of the lack of product available. I had a cart with some canned goods and a loaf of bread, which had been picked up on the way to obtain a duplicate key. I took the pictures and turned to retrieve the cart.

Walmart only had 17 100rd boxes of 12 gauge target loads. Image courtesy Dean Weingarten

The cart was gone. Another cart was nearby, but it was not mine. I said: “Where did my cart go? It had a loaf of bread in it.”

Another customer pointed down an aisle to the left. “There is a cart with bread in it”, he said.

25 yards away, walking away from us, was an above-average-sized middle-aged man, with a cart with a loaf of bread in it. I speed-walked up to the man, looked at the cart as I approached, and ascertained it contained the items I had selected. I was openly carrying a Glock 17 in a Fobus retention holster.

I touched the man on the upper arm, from his left rear, and said: “Excuse me. I think you have the wrong cart by mistake.”

The gentleman looked at me with a puzzled look. He looked at the contents of the cart. He looked back at me and said: “I think you are right. I was just at the ammunition counter…”

He looked at his wife, approaching from behind us. He said: “I think I grabbed the wrong cart. Sorry about that. I was just checking out what ammunition was available.”

He noticed the Glock on my hip. He looked at me and said: “I am old school” and carefully and deliberately swept back his shirt to reveal a well-worn 1911A1 holstered at his right side waist.

We discussed the state of ammunition. I gave him one of my cards. We strolled back to the ammunition counter, where he took possession of the cart I had seen there.

Other than the mistake with the cart, it was a typical meeting of the minds in the gun culture.

Weingarten open carry image taken by friend picked up from hospital. Courtesy Dean Weingarten.

On a previous trip to Fry’s a few days before, an older gentleman approached me as I left the store. The local requirement for wearing a mask has been removed. I had the same Glock and holster on my hip.

“I’d like to know”, he asked; “Did they make you wear a mask while you were armed?” We both had a good laugh.

Most armed Americans, with considerable reason to believe it is so, assume other members of the gun culture are sane people, above average in personal responsibility, who believe in and practice individual rights and responsibilities. They return the respect they are given.

Instead of shoot-outs, you experience friendly acceptance.

There were no signs on the Walmart doors. No one mentioned the holstered sidearm on my hip. The number of people wearing masks was decreasing.

Neither my new acquaintance nor I were wearing masks.

The phone announced a call. The friend in the hospital reported the hospital would be releasing him in an hour. The possibility of release had been uncertain.

I obtained the duplicate key and returned to the hospital, to pick him up and take him to his house.

For the first time in years, the prognosis seemed reasonably clear, and significantly positive.

ATF Releases Proposed Rules For So-Called ‘Ghost Gun’ Receivers & Frames

H/T AmmoLand.

If David Chipman becomes ATFE Director these new rules will be unstoppable.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/05/atf-released-proposed-rules-for-unfinished-receivers-and-frames/#ixzz6uPyysqpc
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) released new proposed guidelines on unfinished firearms receivers and frames.

As AmmoLand News reported back in November, the Biden transition team met with Acting ATF Director Regina Lombardo to get the ATF’s top priorities. The top brass at the ATF cited unfinished firearm receivers and pistol braces as their top two priorities. President Biden then promised swift action on firearms. Biden’s Vice President, Kamala Harris, is openly hostile towards the Second Amendment. She believes that the right to bear arms only applies to a state-run militia.

In early April, Biden announced his executive action against unfinished frames and receivers.

He gave the ATF 30-days to come up with new rules and regulations regarding what he refers to as “ghost guns.” Anti-gun groups and 22 states plus the District of Columbia have been pushing for changes to the laws. These groups and politicians think that these non-firearms should be treated as fully functional guns.

Under the new rule, the ATF would consider any externally visible housing or holding structure to be a frame or receiver. The builder would also have to get the frame serialized once it reaches near completion. The ATF now has wide latitude to decide what is and isn’t a frame or receiver.

The proposed new rule reads:

“More than one externally visible part may house or hold a fire control component on a particular firearm, such as with a split or modular frame or receiver. Under these circumstances, ATF may determine whether a specific part or parts of the weapon is the frame or receiver, which may include an internal frame or chassis at least partially exposed to the exterior to allow identification.”

The new rules also go after “buy build shoot” kits.  The ATF will consider these kits to be firearms.

The ATF Polymer80 raided over their kits.  The law enforcement agency considers these to be “readily convertible” since all parts are included in the kits.  The ATF is now changing the rules to justify their previous raids.

Manufacturers must mark all unfinished frames and receivers with “their name (or recognized abbreviation), and city and state (or recognized abbreviation) where they maintain their place of business; or their name (or recognized abbreviation) and their abbreviated FFL number, on each part defined as a frame or receiver, along with the serial number.”  FFLs holding  “privately made firearms” (PMF) must serialize their firearms within 60 days of the ruling. The owner could also destroy the gun or turn it into the government. Silencers are also targeted in the ruling.

The ATF created a new definition of a suppressor to be a “housing or holding structure for one or more essential internal components of the device, including, but not limited to, baffles, baffling material, or expansion chamber.”

The ATF will be accepting comments from the public on the proposed rule change for 90 days.

Gun owners have had success beating back similar rule changes in the past. Last December, the ATF proposed rule changes surrounding pistol braces. The public outpouring of dissent was so intense it forced the ATF to withdrawal the rule change. This battle will take much more of an effort by gun owners to win.

If Congress confirms David Chipman as the new ATF Director, the task of backing down the ATF will become almost impossible. Chipman is an anti-gun advocate and former ATF agent. He works for Giffords which is a rabid anti-gun group. He has also worked for Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown For Gun Safety and believes that magazines should be regulated like machine guns.

The ATF will review the comments on the new rules for 60 days before announcing the final version of the new regulations. It will then take 30 to 60 days before the rules go into effect. Groups like Gun Owners of America have vowed to fight back against these new rules and said they would spare no expense to defeat them.

“GOA will spare no expense to defeat Biden’s tyrannical agenda and will rally gun owners and Second Amendment supporters nationwide to defend the right to keep and bear arms,” GOA’s Senior Vice President, Erich Pratt, told AmmoLand News.

It is up to the gun community to get involved in beating back these new regulations. Readers can submit comments here.

Trump-Rejecting Republican Has Plan to Drive Gun Owners from GOP

H/T AmmoLand.

It will most likely be gun owners running his never Trumper ass out of the GOP.

 

U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “The Trump-rejecting Florida Republican who has a plan to fix the GOP Miami Mayor Francis Suarez has a message for leaders in Washington,” Politico reports. “Start thinking more like mayors.”

“Suarez is a Cuban Republican, but he doesn’t match some of the usual headlines surrounding Cuban American voters,” we are told. “For one, he didn’t vote for Trump in the 2020 election. He doesn’t have a great relationship with DeSantis, either, and has criticized him openly and done little to support him politically. He even voted for DeSantis’ 2018 Democratic opponent, Andrew Gillum.”

In other words, he voted to help empower the Biden gun-grab agenda. And he tried to inflict a gun-grabbing, crystal meth-abusing, adulterous vomiter supported by socialists who sing songs about killing their enemies with knives and guns on his gun-owning constituents. I’m not making any of that up.

You’d think for a Cuban American, Suarez would understand the evil of the “¿Armas para que?” violence monopoly the tyrant Castro imposed to enslave the island under communism. You’d think the experiences and insights of those who escaped and know the essential relationship between an armed people and freedom would be the stronger influence.

Instead, Suarez in effect says that in order to win elections, more Republicans need to join him in demanding prior restraints on a fundamental right via so-called “universal background checks” that, according to the National Institute of Justice:

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

Suarez in effect says that in order to win elections, more Republicans need to join him and his fellow mayors in demanding to criminalize and indefinitely delay private transfers.

And naturally, when it comes to immigration policy, Suarez says the winning strategy for Republicans is to favor “new shapers” (those would be foreign nationals) over “ourselves and our Posterity.” That’s despite all credible polling and all real-world experience proving cultural terraforming combined with a “pathway to citizenship” runs consistently around 70% to 30% in favor of  Democrats and citizen disarmament.

That, of course, is right in line with Establishment Republican interests, the ones who, like Suarez opposed the agenda that Donald Trump campaigned and that those who voted for him consider existential.

So it’s no surprise we see former House Speaker John Boehner, now that he no longer needs our votes, declaring “America First …  is one of the nuttiest things I’ve ever seen,” and “that gun control would be a top priority ‘if’ he were Speaker now.” And it’s even less of a surprise to see former President George W. Bush throwing out words that play right into Democrat hands like “isolationist” and “nativist” and not forgetting to throw the right to keep and bear arms under the bus:

“Bush remained hopeful that a more moderate Republican — one who supported reasonable gun reform measures, increased public school funding and a path to citizenship for undocumented workers, among other policies — could succeed in the party’s 2024 presidential primary.”

That’s despite an NRA endorsement that, tellingly, only mentioned “hunting and sport shooting” and promoted the asinine contention that “the Constitution gives people the personal right to bear arms.” (With former Democrat aides Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox being the only gun group “leaders” with Trump’s ear, no wonder he got the “give’ business wrong.)

Are Republicans really stupid enough to believe they can take the fire out of the bellies of their core constituents and give the Democrats everything they demand? And still not be ruthlessly attacked as “extreme”?

What is it leftist influencers are now saying about Boehner? His betrayal only earned him their contempt. And do you think they’re motivated to take back the “renegade right-wing extremist” charge against Bush? Even with his inner circle making a big show of abandoning the GOP?

This is what Suarez says Republicans need to project in order to win? That and be like Bloomberg’s mayors?

“GOP leadership has no clue what their base believes in,” Wayne Allyn Root writes on WND.com. He lists 14 statements he made at GOP events where he was the keynote speaker, each resulting in “wild applause” from the attendees, the very Republican voters the tone-deaf  GOP establishment refuses to acknowledge, let alone listen to.

So naturally, Nikki Haley, the epitome of an establishment Republican, is considering Suarez as a running mate if she decides to run for president in 2024.

It’s almost like their goal is an elephants’ graveyard.

CO Bill Banning People Convicted Of Violent Misdemeanors From Owning Guns Advances

H/T Bearing Arms.

This is typical of the anti-gun crowd trying to fix a nonexistent problem.

By federal law, only those convicted of felons or domestic violence are barred from owning a firearm, not people with lesser charges such as violent misdemeanors like a simple assault charge. This is probably a good thing since so many of those misdemeanor charges spawn out of youthful indiscretions or momentary lapses of judgment and aren’t indicative of a broader pattern.

If they are, they usually end up resulting in a felony charge sooner or later anyway, and the problem takes care of itself.

Then again, in the wake of a mass shooting, everything goes on the table, especially in an anti-gun state like Colorado. Now, they’re looking to bar people convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning guns.

The first of three bills introduced after the mass shooting at a King Soopers in Boulder cleared its first committee late Wednesday night.

If it becomes law, the bill would prevent people from buying a firearm for five years after being convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, including some crimes of child abuse, sexual assault, cruelty to animals, and violating a protection order.

The man arrested for the shooting in Boulder pled guilty to a violent misdemeanor for punching a high school classmate in 2017. Investigators say he passed a background check in order to buy his gun.

“Persons convicted of violent misdemeanors are more likely to be arrested for violent crimes in the future. Communities should not be forced to tolerate risks like this, as the people of Boulder now know too well,” said Peter Fog with Colorado Faith Communities United To End Gun Violence.

Dr. Garen Wintemute, head of California’s Violence Prevention Research Program, told lawmakers that research in his state found people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors and purchase a gun legally are 9 times more likely to be arrested for murder, rape, robbery or aggravated assault when compared to gun buyers without a criminal record.

See, this is one of those vague stats anti-gunners like to throw around. Nine times more likely than…what? If the chances of being charged with any of those crimes are 0.0001 percent and it jumps up to 0.0009 percent, then it’s really not much of an issue. The odds are still ridiculously good that someone isn’t a threat.

They throw around numbers like that to scare people, but they don’t give you a frame of reference with which to truly understand what those numbers mean.

Regardless, though, I’m going to repeat my position from every time they try to expand the list of prohibited people. If the crime is severe enough to strip someone of their constitutionally protected rights for the rest of their life, then they’re severe enough to be upgraded to a felony.

If you can’t do that, then clearly they’re not that big of a danger, now are they?

Of course, this isn’t all the bill tries to do, either.

The bill also closes what gun control advocates describe as the “Charleston loophole” — a federal policy allowing a licensed gun dealer to sell a weapon to someone if their background check isn’t completed within three days. Under the bill, the seller would have to get the results of a Colorado Bureau of Investigation background check before transferring a gun.

So now they can deny anyone the ability to purchase a firearm by simply dragging their feet indefinitely. After all, that’s why there was a limit to how long a person had to wait in the first place. People were concerned that was a possibility, so they capped it at three days to return a check. If not, then one is assumed to have passed, then no one had to worry about being held up indefinitely from exercising their Second Amendment rights simply because of bureaucratic BS.

Colorado, however, doesn’t care about your rights. They’re going to tread violent misdemeanors like violent felonies and take a big, steaming dump on everyone else’s rights while they’re at it.

It’s a beautiful state, but there’s absolutely no way I could put up with that.

WHAT THE NEW YORK TIMES REFUSED TO REPORT ABOUT THE GUN INDUSTRY

H/T The Truth About Guns.

The New York Times is not a decent liner for the bottom of a bird cage.

When The New York Times tells America they publish “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” what they’re really saying is that it’s only the news that fits their narrative.

The New York Times ran a recent piece that attempted to broad-brush paint the entire firearm community as trying to do everything possible to literally get the ceiling to cave in on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The article headlined “How the A.T.F., Key to Biden’s Gun Plan, Became the NRA Whipping Boy,” used an anecdote of the floor collapsing, allegedly due to the weight of stacked paper investigations, at the ATF’s national gun-tracing center.

The article was published just weeks before the U.S. Senate is to hold a confirmation hearing on President Joe Biden’s nominee for ATF director – David Chipman. The article is full of President Biden’s gun control ideas and the undercurrent is that the firearm industry must be brought to heel. According to this article, that’s Chipman’s job, the same guy who was a paid gun control lobbyist for Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords group by whom he is still currently employed. The article points out that Giffords began lobbying President Biden shortly after the election to nominate Chipman to be ATF director.

In communications, this is what’s called “inoculation theory.” It works just like getting a vaccination. The Times gives readers just enough information to spark a reaction and instill a predetermined thought to arise when the full-blown infection comes along.

Except, The New York Times was selective in their reporting. It wasn’t an accident or oversight. It sure wasn’t due to publication space. It was purposeful.

ACCUSATIONS VS. TRUTH

The Times accused the “gun lobby” of blocking ATF modernizations and director confirmations. Both claims are wildly inaccurate. There hasn’t been a Senate-confirmed director at the ATF since B. Todd Jones resigned in 2015. It’s not true, however, that the “gun lobby” has blocked nominations.

NSSF supported the nomination of Michael Sullivan in 2007, when the position first required Senate confirmation. He was acting director and nominated for the permanent role by President George W. Bush. NSSF also supported the confirmation of President Barack Obama’s nominee, B. Todd Jones who was confirmed by the Senate and NSSF supported the nomination of Chuck Canterbury in 2017.

Accusations that the “gun lobby” is keeping ATF “outgunned” and outdated are flatly false. NSSF has worked with Congress to successfully provide resources to increase funding and staffing for both the ATF and the FBI, which runs the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). NSSF was leading the effort to transition the ATF from the stacks of paperwork the New York Times demonized to a modernized e-Forms system. It was the NSSF that urged ATF to adopt an electronic Form 4473 and to allow industry members to maintain electronic records including in the cloud.  Our work to provide ATF (and NICS) with improved resources continues.

A fully-functioning and staffed ATF and FBI-NICS is what the firearm industry needs, especially when it comes to clearing out backlogs that plague firearm sales. Last year, during the height of the gun sale surge, it was NSSF that was fighting to get more resources directed to keep up with background checks. Congressional Democrats, led by Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), wrote a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding the FBI break the law and not process background checks. The reason: there were a lot and it could be overwhelming. Instead of asking Director Wray if resources were needed, Sen. Markey wanted the system to crash.

ATF COOPERATION

The New York Times writes about friction between the ATF and the “gun lobby” because the idea of conflict between the regulatory and law enforcement agency and the industry it regulates sounds intriguing. It sells papers. The truth is, well… a little more boring.

There’s a good relationship between the ATF and NSSF. There are long-standing partnerships with common goals that prove this. For more than 20 years, the ATF and NSSF have partnered to prevent illegal firearm straw purchases. It’s a campaign called Don’t Lie for the Other GuyTM. NSSF also matches ATF reward offers when firearms are stolen from retailers to bring those criminals to justice and recover those firearms before they can be criminally misused. That’s been ongoing for years and was recently made a pillar of the latest cooperative effort called Operation Secure Store®. That’s a partnership between ATF and NSSF to raise awareness within the firearm retailer community and voluntarily improve and enhance security at firearm retailers to prevent and deter thefts and robberies. These are part of the firearm industry’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities.® campaign.

That’s the truth. Had the reporters bothered to contact NSSF, they would have learned the truth. But, despite its motto, The New York Times only prints the news that supports its gun control agenda.

 

West Virginia Governor Signs Second Amendment Preservation Act

H/T AmmoLand.

Thank you Governor Jim Justice(R-WV) for signing the Second Amendment Preservation Act into law.

West Virginia – -(AmmoLand.com)- West Virginia has joined the list of Second Amendment sanctuaries with the passage of HB2694, the 2nd Amendment Preservation Act. Governor Jim Justice signed the measure into law, meaning it will take effect on July 9, according to the website of the West Virginia state legislature.

The text of the legislation includes significant barriers to the use of state and local law enforcement authorities for enforcing some of the onerous restrictions that Joe Biden wishes to impose on our Second Amendment rights. For instance, the legislation prohibits “federal commandeering” of state and local law enforcement agencies for the purposes of enforcing any federal firearms law.

In essence, the federal government is prohibited from commandeering, which the legislation defines as “taking control of or seizing the assets, personnel, or operations of an agency of this state, or of a political subdivision of this state, or the employees of an agency or political subdivision of this state without the express authority for the control having been formally given by the state or political subdivision of the state.”

More importantly, the legislation also prohibits local and state agencies from acting against people who are in compliance with state firearms laws, particularly when they may be in conflict with an “inconsistent federal firearms law” or an “inconsistent presidential executive order or action.”

An “inconsistent federal firearms law” is defined as “a federal statute, regulation, or rule relating to firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition that is inconsistent with the laws of the State of West Virginia. Inconsistent federal firearms law also means and includes any federal firearms law which the enactment, enforcement, or execution of which violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” Similarly, an “inconsistent presidential executive order or action” is defined as “an executive order or action issued by the President of the United States relating to the enforcement or execution of an inconsistent federal firearms law.”

The state states that “a federal firearms law which criminalizes the possession of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition for federal purposes when the possession of that firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition would not be, and is not, a violation of the law of the State of West Virginia” is considered to be “inconsistent with the laws of the State of West Virginia.” The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action has a summary of that state’s firearms laws for loyal Ammoland readers to review.

According to Gun Owners of America, the legislation passed by huge margins (72-24 with 4 abstentions in the statehouse, 30-4 in the state senate). The gun-rights group has asked members to “thank or spank” state legislatures, depending on their vote, and to thank Governor Justice for signing the bill into law.

 

Kansas Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto, Lowers Age for Concealed Carry to 18

H/T The Truth About Guns.

Bravo to the Kansas Legislature for over riding the veto of Governor Laura Kelly(Delusional-KS).

Last month, Kansas Governor Laura Kelly vetoed a bill that would have extended concealed carry to all adults in the state. The governor had been a big opponent of campus carry and didn’t want to see the number of guns legally carried on Kansas’s college and university campuses increased.

In announcing the veto, Kelly tried to let Kansas’s gun owners know she’s really on their side by proclaiming that “I have always been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but . . . .” ‘Nuff said.

Yesterday the legislature let the Governor know what they think about age discrimination where enumerated civil rights are concerned. They overwhelmingly overrode the governor’s veto, lowering the age for legal concealed carry to 18 years of age.

From the Epoch Times . . .

After a short discussion, the House voted 84 to 39 to override the Democratic governor’s veto of HB 2058 that proposes to let more people carry guns if they have a proper permit. The Senate also voted to override the veto 31 to 8. …

“The governor in her message indicated that she has always supported the Second Amendment,” Rep. John Barker (R-Abiline) said of Kelly’s decision to veto the bill last month. “Well, I find that hard to believe sometimes because we already have 18-year-olds that can carry a gun [openly] in the state of Kansas.”

It’s another welcome win securing equal gun rights for all adults, no matter their age.

St. Louis Couple That Defended Home from Protesters Face November Trial

H/T AmmoLand.

This couple is being persecuted by and over zealous anti-gun prosecutor.

Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2021/05/st-louis-couple-that-defended-home-from-protesters-face-november-trial/#ixzz6u3OOarrH
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- The St. Louis couple whose armed defense of their home from protesters last summer made national news now faces a criminal trial tentatively scheduled during the first week of November, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey became reluctant celebrities of sorts last year when they were caught on video carrying guns outside their mansion after protesters allegedly broke through a gate and entered their property. As reported by the Portland Press Herald and Associated Press, “The protesters ventured onto a private street that includes the McCloskey mansion. The couple, both of them attorneys in their early 60s, said they felt threatened after protesters broke down an iron gate and ignored a ‘No Trespassing’ sign. Protest leaders denied damaging the gate and said the march was peaceful.”

The march was actually headed toward the home of then-St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson, according to published reports. Nobody has ever explained why the crowd veered onto the McCloskey’s property, which was protected by a gated barrier.

Mark McCloskey was armed with an AR-15-style rifle and his wife held a small semiautomatic pistol. Images of the couple have become famous, and went viral almost immediately following the incident. They have been interviewed on various Fox News programs and elsewhere, and their case also got attention because of allegations Circuit Attorney Kimberly Gardner sent fundraising emails during her reelection campaign last year mentioning the case.

The case has raised questions about the rights of people to defend their homes with firearms in situations where protesters pose a threat. Even though leaders of the protest insisted the march was peaceful, that apparently was not how the McCloskey’s viewed the situation.

Expect a considerable amount of controversy as this case moves forward. Another hearing is set next month, the Post-Dispatch reported. Does a protest march have any First Amendment right to step onto private property? Has anyone been arrested for breaking through the McCloskey’s gate?

The case may cut to the core purpose of the Second Amendment. In the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, it was established by the Supreme Court that the people have a right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense.

Does the right to keep and bear arms apply to defending the home, or just the people inside?

Patricia McCloskey held a handgun, while Mark McCloskey held an AR-15-type rifle. Joe Biden and Capitol Hill anti-gunners consider such a firearm to be an “assault weapon” that should be banned, while gun rights activists insist modern semiautomatic sporting rifles like the one McCloskey carried, are in common use and most certainly are protected by the Second Amendment. The high court has yet to weigh in on that subject.

The McCloskeys were indicted by a St. Louis grand jury in October on a felony charge of unlawful use of a weapon and evidence tampering, the Post-Dispatch detailed, and some argue charges should never have been brought. Missouri Gov. Mike Parsons announced he would pardon the couple if they are convicted, which may further muddy the legal water that has already been stirred by the fact the protest was part of the strife following last year’s death of George Floyd in Minneapolis after being pinned to the ground for more than nine minutes with a knee across his neck. The former police officer responsible for that use of force was recently convicted of murder.

A special prosecutor has been appointed, according to KSDK News. He is Richard Callahan, a former U.S. attorney, and judge.

The McCloskey’s are represented by attorney Joel Schwartz, who has argued the grand jury process was “tainted” by Gardner, who did win re-election last fall.

There is even more drama in this case. According to Politico, Mark McCloskey “is considering running for the Senate in 2022, after Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., announced in March he would not seek reelection.”

The McCloskey’s appeared in a video message during last year’s Republican National Convention. As reported by Politico, “The couple became a cause célèbre for conservatives and won the support of then-President Donald Trump, who used the incident to advance a central theme of his reelection campaign — that far-left activists were overrunning upscale communities.”

Oh Look! An Englishman Disapproves of Our Gun Rights…And the Second Amendment Foundation

H/T The Truth About Guns.

It will soon be 245 years ago we declared our freedom from the Limey’s so who gives a fat rats ass what this dill hole thinks.

Sir Max Hugh Macdonald Hastings is a preeminent British journalist and military historian. As a foreign correspondent for the BBC, he covered 11 wars and reported from more than 60 countries.

In 1982, Hastings was the first reporter to enter Port Stanley, after the British military kicked out the Argentinians and liberated the Falkland Islands.

Hastings was knighted in 2002 for his “services to journalism.”

He has written more than 25 books – mostly about military history. I have a couple on my bookshelf. They’re very good. I highly recommend Yoni: Hero of Entebbe: Life of Yonathan Netanyahu. It’s a great read.

That said, Hastings doesn’t know a damn thing about Americans, our gun culture or our Second Amendment rights.

Nowadays, Hastings writes two columns a month for Bloomberg Opinion. I assume you’re familiar with the political views of its owner. Hastings’ latest column is titled: ‘I Grew Up on Guns. Now I’ve Learned to Love Firearm Control: Viewed from the U.K., the American love of weapons is completely understandable, and completely irresponsible.’

The column reinforces two points; the British will never understand us, our gun culture or the Second Amendment, and…who cares what the British think?

Like legions of anti-gun writers before him, Sir Max tries to establish his gun bona fides by telling his readers that he grew up with guns.

Evidently, Hasting’s father brought back a couple souvenirs from the Second World War including a Luger, a Mauser, a Radom and what he refers to in his column as a “Schmeisser submachine gun.” (It’s an MP-40, Sir Max. Hugo Schmeisser had nothing to do with this weapon except for holding a patent on the magazine.)

His father, Hastings claims, turned in all of the firearms during one of several amnesties the British government used to disarm its citizens.

“I recite this personal history before considering the latest appalling U.S. massacres in Atlanta, Colorado, Indianapolis and elsewhere. It is intended to dispel the common response of American enthusiasts to the rest of the world’s horror: ‘Foreigners don’t understand guns,’” he wrote.

I’m sorry, Sir Max, but my “common response” is pretty far from dispelled.

Growing up with a couple of bring-backs doesn’t make you a gun guy, just as growing up with my dad’s old guitar doesn’t make me Eddie Van Halen.

Hastings claimed that he first objected to mass weapons confiscations in Britain and Australia along Libertarian grounds. “I have since changed my mind,” he wrote. “I have come to believe that widespread firearms ownership is a pollutant; that we are a better, much safer society without handguns.”

A pollutant? Really?

But it gets worse.

“My resistance to private ownership of military weapons is strengthened by close acquaintance with them. I once won a prize as a member of a British Parachute Regiment team, shooting with automatic rifle, submachine gun and light-machine gun. I know how terrifyingly easy it is for a man or woman — though it is always men — with a gun in their hands to touch a trigger and broadcast devastation and death,” he wrote.

On this side of the pond, sir, we’re well acquainted with the I’ve-been-in-the-Army-so-I-understand-guns fallacy. It falls short both here and over there.

“Everybody who studies U.S. experience knows that legally held firearms are almost never successfully used by civilians, either to prevent a crime or to frustrate a mass shooting,” Sir Max opined. “The more extreme U.S. gun lobbyists insist that the best response to gun massacres is to arm more people, including schoolteachers, to defend themselves. There is no shred of evidence, nor credible speculation, to justify such a claim.”

No shred of evidence? That, Sir Max, is an outright lie.

Just because the mainstream media chooses not to cover the thousands of defensive gun uses that occur in this country every single year doesn’t mean they don’t occur or that there isn’t any evidence.

Defensive gun uses happen all the time, but you need to look for them since the media has decided that these stories aren’t worthy of any ink or pixels.

I have saved the best for last: “Most people seem to accept the enthusiasm of rural Americans for owning sporting guns as an assertion of the frontier spirit, which is in some measure shared by foreign sportsmen like me. Yet assault rifles, such as so many self-proclaimed militiamen now boast, have no application for practicing target skills or killing deer.”

There is no better way for anyone – especially a Brit – to prove their ignorance of our gun culture and our God-given Second Amendment rights than by bringing up hunting – especially deer hunting.

Give the Second Amendment a read, Sir Max, a thorough read. You’ll see there’s nothing int it about hunting. There is, however, a bit about the security of a free state. That means tyranny, sir, which we still won’t allow over here. Perhaps you’ve heard about the dustup that occurred the last time some Englishmen tried to regulate our private gun ownership.

As to Hastings’ claim that ARs “have no application for practicing target skills” – that’s so incredibly ignorant it’s difficult to respond. There are millions of Americans who practice their “target skills” with ARs every single day, myself included. In fact, if you go to the range – any range – you’ll see more people shooting ARs than anything else. It’s the most popular firearm in the country – it’s America’s Rifle. I cannot even comprehend the level of ignorance it takes to not understand this.

However, Hastings’ ignorance knows no bounds.

“The Second Amendment Foundation, a firearms lobby, recently denounced President Joe Biden’s proposal for new restrictions as signifying that he has “declared war on tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners.”

To be clear, I do not speak on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation. That’s Mr. Gottlieb’s job. However, as a proud life member of the organization, I agree 100% that President Biden has declared war on gun owners. Why else would he have nominated an anti-gun activist to run the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives?

Why else would the President have threatened door-to-door confiscations?

Why else would he even consider using the National Firearms Act to regulate the most-popular rifle in the country and its standard-capacity magazines.

We are at war, Sir Max.

Instead of denigrating a country and its people who you clearly know very little about, I’d recommend you drop immediately to your knees and thank God we have a solid gun culture over here, because if we didn’t, you’d likely have written your ignorant collection of lies and falsehoods in German.