Latest SAF ALERTS...This thread is for your information only; no comments/replies, please.


How Joe Biden plans to spend your money on the ‘gun violence public health epidemic’
by Lee Williams

For gun owners, Joe Biden’s FY2022 discretionary budget plan is an assault on our individual freedoms and civil liberties – an assault that could cost us both billions of taxpayer dollars as well as our guns.

Whoever actually wrote the plan is a master of creative writing – fiction writing, to be sure.

For example, Biden’s budget plan first refers to gun violence as a “public health epidemic” in a paragraph that’s sandwiched between two legitimate epidemics: opioid addiction and AIDs.

To address this “gun violence public health crisis,” Biden wants to give $2.1 billion – an increase of $232 million – to the Department of Justice, to “improve background check systems, and invest in new programs to incentivize State adoption of gun licensing laws and establish voluntary gun buyback pilot programs.”

Don’t forget that the buyback program Biden has frequently called for is designed for our ARs, AKs and other popular rifles, and there’s nothing voluntary about it. It’s confiscation, pure and simple.

His own campaign website shows that Biden wants to “institute a program to buy back weapons of war currently on our streets. This will give individuals who now possess assault weapons or high-capacity magazines two options: sell the weapons to the government, or register them under the National Firearms Act.” Those who don’t comply could be charged with illegal possession of an NFA-regulated firearm – a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison.

Biden wants to give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives $1.6 billion – an increase of $70 million – “to oversee the safe sale, storage, and ownership of firearms and to support the agency’s other work to fight violent crime.” In addition, he wants to double funding for “firearm violence prevention research” at the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institute of Health. Who better to help maintain the fiction that guns are a public health epidemic than the CDC and NIH, right?

Most worrisome, however, is the funding Biden wants to spend on domestic terrorism, especially since the definition of domestic terrorism seemingly expands every single day, and now includes both critics of the Biden-Harris administration as well as parents who may object to the actions of their local school board.

Biden’s budget plan would give $45 million to the FBI to investigate domestic terrorism, $40 million to U.S. Attorneys to prosecute more domestic terrorism cases, $12 million to the U.S Marshals Service to arrest domestic terrorists, $131 million to the Department of Homeland Security for domestic terrorism prevention and, of course, $4 million to the National Institute of Justice for domestic terrorism research.

While I’m very concerned about real domestic terrorists – those who seek to kill Americans and/or violently overthrow our system of government – I’m more concerned about foreign terrorists. Foreign terrorists have killed Americans. Irate parents who may object to their school’s mask mandate or curriculum have yet to crash any planes.

If Joe Biden has his way, it will only be a matter of time before gun owners are labeled domestic terrorists, especially those of us who own what Biden calls “weapons of war.” We’ve known for a long time Joe Biden wants our guns. This is how he intends to pay for it.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
Click Here For Web Version


BELLEVUE, WA – Following Wednesday morning’s oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Second Amendment Foundation predicts a victory for the right-to-carry a firearm in public for personal protection.

“Based on questions from the Supreme Court Justices,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “I’m confident we’re going to win either on a 5-4 or 6-3 vote.”

He said suggestions from New York Solicitor General Barbara D. Underwood and Deputy Solicitor General Brian H. Fletcher with the U.S. Justice Department—both defending New York’s restrictive “may issue” carry law—that the case be remanded back to the lower courts smacks of an attempted stall.

“I think at that point the anti-gun rights justices as well as the attorneys for New York recognized they are not going to win,” Gottlieb observed, “and they were trying to forestall an unfavorable ruling. During the oral arguments several justices affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms does not stop at the front door.”

“This important Supreme Court case,” he added, “was only made possible by SAF’s 2010 Supreme Court victory in McDonald v. City of Chicago, which incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment.”

Presenting the oral argument for the plaintiffs, attorney Paul Clement told the court that the constitution protects carrying concealed firearms outside the home. He also said there should be no requirement for a citizen to prove a special need in order to exercise a constitutionally protected fundamental right. Questions and comments by several justices pointed out that many lower courts were not adhering to the Heller and McDonald decisions by the high court and not applying the proper heightened scrutiny levels that the Second Amendment deserves.

SAF filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the NYSR&PA case, which was joined by several other gun rights organizations.

“After listening to the oral arguments,” Gottlieb said, “I’m convinced the ruling will impact the other seven states that do not recognize Second Amendment rights with their discretionary ‘may issue’ carry laws. I also think the court’s ruling should impact dozens of other cases SAF has filed that are currently in the lower federal courts.

“An affirmative ruling, which we expect sometime in June 2022,” Gottlieb noted, “will only reinforce our mission to win back firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Bloomberg’s child propagandists discover amicus briefs and other cool legal stuff

I’m guessing the kids working at the Trace don’t get out much. They don’t seem to have a lot of life experience.

The Trace is, of course, the propaganda arm of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Astroturf (not grassroots) anti-gun empire. The Trace describes itself as the “only newsroom dedicated to reporting on gun violence,” but a newsroom it is not. The Trace supplies propaganda for Bloomberg’s other anti-gun groups, which include Everytown and Demanding Moms, as well as any members of the media willing to cut and paste their stories. Reporters at the Trace are activists, not journalists. They advocate for more gun control. That’s why Bloomberg pays them.

One of their young’uns must have learned about amicus briefs in school recently, because he penned a breathless piece of agitprop, titled: “The NRA Paid a Gun Rights Activist to File SCOTUS Briefs. He Didn’t Disclose it to the Court.”

“The NRA Foundation has paid an attorney and Second Amendment activist to write favorable briefs in Supreme Court cases, suggests a hacked document released on the dark web last week,” the Trace story claims. “Interest groups, including those fueled by dark money, seek influence at the Supreme Court in a range of ways, one being the production of amicus, or friend-of-the-court, briefs, which often extend and amplify the arguments of one side in a case.”

The author, Will Van Sant, wrote that amici authors must disclose who paid for their work, and he claimed that a brief written by David Kopel on behalf of NRA Foundation “makes no such admission.”

Kopel, I should point out, is a distinguished Second Amendment scholar with the Independence Institute. He has written amicus briefs in scores of legal cases involving the right to keep and bear arms. He has also written law school curriculum, dozens of scholarly articles and op-ed columns about every aspect of firearm policy in America and worldwide. It was his recent brief for what could be the most significant gun-rights case ever to come before the Supreme Court, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which drew the Trace’s ire.

There are more than 80 amicus briefs filed with the court for this landmark case, from both sides. I wonder whether the Trace activist bothered to check the bona fides of the briefs submitted by his boss or the other gun prohibitionists. In fact, I wonder why this even became a story. Amicus briefs are certainly nothing new, regardless of whether Van Sant just learned about them in a Law 101 class. (Trust me, Will, they’re actually used quite often.)

As to the dark web, dark money and hacked Russian documents allegations, while they sound nefarious and add a certain James Bond-type tone to the story, the NRA Foundation’s support for Kopel and his employer is a matter of public record. The info is right there in the Foundation’s tax documents, which are posted online and available for the whole world to see – no undercover trips to Moscow needed.

I reached out to NRA for comment and they directed me to Marion Hammer, former NRA president and a current board member who also serves as NRA’s Florida lobbyist.

She laughed at the secret-squirrel tone of the Trace’s story.

“For decades, and even before I was NRA President, the National Rifle Association and The NRA Foundation have carried out their nonprofit charitable missions by funding Second Amendment scholarship and education. This has never been a secret,” Hammer said. “NRA funds academic research and fact production because NRA wants the truth, not fake propaganda deliberately manufactured by Second Amendment haters for the purpose of deception.”

The funding provided by The NRA Foundation to the Independence Institute was not for Kopel to write any particular brief or other work, and the Independence Institute didn’t receive NRA Foundation funding during the period when the brief was written and filed, she explained.

“The article suggests that Mr. Kopel needed to disclose past NRA Foundation funding in his briefs. Well, what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander,” she said. “Perhaps a follow-up article by the Trace will discuss briefs written by people who received funding from Michael Bloomberg or the many anti-Second Amendment groups he funds, and what disclosures were made there. When will we see an article about how the billions from Bloomberg or other billionaires are spent on gun control? How about a simple display on their site stating who funds them and what their agenda is? I’m not holding my breath.”

Neither am I.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
Click Here For Web Version


BELLEVUE, WA – The City of Boston has settled a federal lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and other plaintiffs over delays in accepting and processing licenses to carry a firearm, and has agreed to pay $10,000 to cover attorneys’ fees and costs.

SAF was joined by Commonwealth Second Amendment, Inc., and several individuals. The lawsuit was known as Alves v. McNamara. Plaintiffs are represented by New York attorney David Jensen.

“The city had already been very slow processing applications for carry licenses, and when the COVIC-19 pandemic hit, things completely ground to a halt,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb recalled. “With things returning to normal, the city has agreed that all individuals who were on the list of applicants as of July 26 will be contacted so they may submit permit applications. The city also agreed to resume its pre-pandemic practice of accepting applications by Oct. 31, which has happened, and they are paying our legal expenses.

“This is one of the many COVID-related lawsuits to protect gun rights that we won,” he added, “and we had also warned several other jurisdictions around the country of probable legal action for similar shutdowns because of the pandemic.”

Nearly all jurisdictions are now returning to normal operation, Gottlieb said. Updates on all SAF legal actions can be found at

“Hopefully, this sort of thing will never happen again, anywhere,” he commented. “We’re happy with the settlement of this case. It’s just one more example of how SAF is winning firearms freedom, one lawsuit at a time.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Click Here For Web Version


BELLEVUE, WA – Kahr Arms, the producer of a superb line of semiautomatic pistols, has joined the Second Amendment Foundation’s “Corporate Sponsorship Program” as a Gold Level supporter for 2022, the gun rights organization has announced.

“We are delighted to have Kahr Arms as a Gold Level Sponsor for the next year,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’ve known Kahr Arms’ Justin Moon for many years, and we’re proud to welcome his company’s support at this critical time. I want to publicly thank Justin for his generous support heading into 2022, and we look forward to working with Kahr over the next year, and in the future.

Kahr Arms has become famous as the producer of some of the country’s most reliable sidearms, in most popular calibers. Likewise, its subsidiary, Auto-Ordnance, offers high-quality pistols and Thompson models and Magnum Research Inc. manufactures the iconic Desert Eagle.

Looking back over the past nine months since the current administration was sworn into office essentially declaring war on the gun industry, firearms owners and the Second Amendment, Gottlieb acknowledged the road ahead is “filled with potholes and obstacles.” He promised SAF will remain vigorous its leadership role as a defender of the Second Amendment through education and litigation as it has for more than four decades.

“The current administration made no secret of its contempt for the rights of law-abiding American gun owners literally from ‘Day One’ on the job,” Gottlieb stated. “The support we are receiving from corporate sponsors including Kahr Arms will be a key component of legal actions over the horizon. We have entered a dangerous period for gun rights, and we’re proud to know Justin and his crew are right there with us. The importance of their commitment to defending the Second Amendment is paramount to the challenges that lay ahead.

SAF has been battling restrictive gun control laws in state and federal courts for more than 40 years. The landmark 2010 Supreme Court case of McDonald v. City of Chicago that nullified Chicago’s 30-year-old handgun ban and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment was a SAF case.

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
Click Here For Web Version


BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation today pointed to a new Morning Consult/Politico survey finding that the public trusts Republicans more than Democrats on gun policy as an acknowledgement that Americans are rejecting the Democrats’ radical gun control agenda.

The survey of almost 2,000 registered voters was conducted Nov. 5-7 and revealed that in the top five areas of concern—national security, the economy, gun policy, immigration and jobs—polling results show Democrats trailing.

“These survey results are revealing, especially on firearms policies,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “After years of failed gun control policies, the public has finally concluded that Democrats have only worked to disarm law-abiding citizens and make us more vulnerable to criminal attack. Policies advertised as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals have actually only been tough on their intended victims.

“The survey found that 46 percent of all American voters think Republicans do a better job on gun policy, while 39 percent still cling to the notion Democrats have the right approach, but a significant 15 percent are still in the middle,” he continued. “When the survey numbers focus on important suburban voters, the numbers get even worse. Forty-seven percent of voters in the suburbs believe Republicans are better on gun policy, while only 37 percent support Democrat schemes, and 16 percent remain undecided.

“The ten percent margin in the suburbs is extremely important for the upcoming 2022 midterm elections,” Gottlieb said. “That is where almost all the swing congressional districts are. This could cost the Democrats between 40 and 60 seats in the House.”

SAF has run more than 1,000 national TV spots on over 24 cable networks, along with radio advertising and millions of impressions on the Internet have helped educate the public on gun policy and the survey reflects the impact.

Gottlieb pointed to the election results in Virginia, which signaled a “new direction in the Old Dominion.” Commonwealth voters filled all statewide offices with Republicans, and put the House back in GOP control following two disastrous years.

“I anticipate Virginia gun owners will press the new administration and legislative majority to quickly undo the policies adopted by Ralph Northam and his cronies in 2020,” Gottlieb predicted. “Those policies, specifically the destruction of state preemption which guarantees uniformity of gun laws statewide, and the one-handgun-per-month purchase restriction, penalize honest citizens and do nothing to reduce violent crime.

“Democrats may have forgotten that right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution,” he concluded. “Rights are not up to a public vote, but people who attempt to infringe on those rights certainly are. Voters made that clear in Virginia and are poised to do it again in November 2022.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review of their challenge to Maryland’s ban on modern semiautomatic rifles.

Joining SAF and CCRKBA are Field Traders, LLC, the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, Micah Schaefer, David Snope and Dominic Banchi, for whom the case is named. The case is Bianchi v. Frosh. Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson and John D. Ohlendorf with Cooper & Kirk, PLLC in Washington, D.C., Raymond M. DiGuiseppe at the DiGuiseppe Law Firm, P.C. in Southport, N.C., and Adam Kraut, FPC in Sacramento, Calif. The brief may be read here.

As detailed in the 39-page brief, various circuits have upheld such bans by using what amounts to “a grab-bag of ad-hoc constitutional tests, varying from circuit to circuit,” with Maryland’s ban representing “perhaps the most extreme test contrived thus far.”

The brief goes on to explain, “Maryland’s ban…singles out for special disfavor not a recognized type of firearm, but certain features included on some firearms. That makes Maryland’s law particularly irrational, since most of the features it bans actually serve to make the firearms on which they are included safer.” A few lines later, the brief observes, “In truth, the odd assortment of firearms Maryland calls ‘assault weapons’ are mechanically identical to any other semiautomatic firearm—arms that, as no one disputes, are exceedingly common and fully protected by the Second Amendment.”

The Heller case in 2008 affirmed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

“We are pursuing this case because it is long past time for the Supreme Court to put an end to the legal gymnastics that have been used to uphold what amounts to an unconstitutional prohibition of semiautomatic firearms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “Lower courts have perpetuated such bans based on whatever logic they can conjure up to justify their decisions. The Second Amendment is not going to disappear, and questions about what arms are protected need to be answered. You cannot allow guns to be banned based on cosmetics or what color they are.”

Special Report: Liberal PAC the secret source for media’s 2024 civil war obsession, anti-gun disinformation

VoteVets is a hybrid political action group that operates as both a PAC and a Super PAC by donating money directly to political campaigns, and by raising and spending unlimited amounts of cash for “independent expenditures,” such as ad campaigns that target conservative candidates and issues, while supportingliberal issues and politicians.

The organization operates two groups, the VoteVetsPAC and the VoteVets Action Fund. Its stated mission is to “to elect veterans to public office,” but in actuality it only backs liberals. All of the candidates VoteVetssupports for federal, state and local offices are Democrats, and all of the issues it supports promote a liberal agenda.

Since it was formed in 2006, VoteVets has spent more than $120 million. Nearly half went for radio and television ads. According to, VoteVetsreceives money from the Democrats and Bloomberg: “The PAC’s top three donors in 2018 were the Senate Majority PAC, the House Majority PAC and Bloomberg L.P. The organizations contributed $4.5 million, $2.2 million and $1.5 million, respectively.”

While pretending to advocate on behalf of veterans and veterans’ issues, in reality VoteVets operates in lockstep with other anti-gun groups funded byBloomberg’s cash. To be clear, VoteVets advocates for more anti-gun laws and restrictions even though mostveterans own guns and strongly support the Second Amendment.

While VoteVets does fund lobbying efforts, it is thegroup’s liberal public-issue campaigns – which are usually not fully disclosed or attributed – that the mainstream media laps up like hungry dogs.

“They have really been punching above their weight this election cycle,” Rachel Maddow, MSNBC’s highest-paid news actor said of VoteVets.

Hoodwinking readers

The Washington Post and scores of other newspapers recently published an opinion column, which was actually just the latest VoteVets public-issue campaign.

The headline was damning: “3 retired generals: The military must prepare now for a 2024 insurrection.”

“The signs of potential turmoil in our armed forces are there. On Jan. 6, a disturbing number of veterans and active-duty members of the military took part in the attack on the Capitol. More than 1 in 10 of those charged in the attacks had a service record. A group of 124 retired military officials, under the name “Flag Officers 4 America,” released a letter echoing Donald Trump’s false attacks on the legitimacy of our elections,” the column states. It called on the Department of Defense to take “more intensive intelligence work at all installations.”

“The goal should be to identify, isolate and remove potential mutineers; guard against efforts by propagandists who use misinformation to subvert the chain of command; and understand how that and other misinformation spreads across the ranks after it is introduced by propagandists,” the generals wrote.

The column followed a similar bit of anti-Trump 2024 fearmongering, which was published by Newsweek, titled: “Millions of Angry, Armed Americans Stand Ready to Seize Power If Trump Loses in 2024.”

In the Washington Post story, VoteVets received only an oblique mention – certainly not full disclosure – in the authors’ byline: “Paul D. Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general and a senior adviser to VoteVets; Antonio M. Taguba, a retired Army major general, with 34 years of active-duty service, and Steven M. Anderson, a retired brigadier general who served in the U.S. Army for 31 years.”

What the Post and the other media platforms that republished the syndicated column did not tell their readers was that the entire piece was little more than VoteVets’ ongoing political agitprop, and that two of the three generals are thinly veiled political activists, and apparently far more interested in partisan politics than they ever were the welfare of the troops who served under their command.

The newspapers never mentioned that after he retired in 2006, Major General Easton strongly criticized the Bush Administration on multiple media platforms for its handling of the Iraq War. Nor was it disclosed that he served as a special advisor to both Hilary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.

In 2004, Major General Taguba was assigned to investigate allegations of mistreatment at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison. His report, which was extremely critical, was almost immediately leaked to the media. The stories served as an inspiration for the Iraqiinsurgency and, ultimately, cost American lives. It is still a rallying cry for our foes throughout the Middle East. After the leak was investigated, Taguba was ordered by the Army’s Vice Chief of Staff to retire. This fact, too, never made it into print.

Ignorant beginnings

VoteVets has a long history of advocating for more gun control.

In 2012, VoteVets chairman Jon Stolz wrote a scathing op-ed column about the Trayvon Martin case, titled: “Shoot First Laws: Even troops in war zones can’t do that.” Stolz’s column, which was widely republished, excoriated “Stand Your Ground” laws in Florida and other states.

“The Trayvon Martin case has gripped the nation and forced the country to re-examine our gun laws. But the horrible affair has struck me in another way, because of my two tours in Iraq,” Stolz wrote. “One fact stands out in my mind: The ‘Stand Your Ground’ law in Florida, which may let George Zimmerman off the hook for the killing of Martin, gives more leeway to shooters than our own military gives to soldiers in war.”

The problem with Stolz’s column is that his premise is 100% wrong. The Trayvon Martin shooting was never a “Stand Your Ground” case. Zimmerman never invoked the immunity the statute provides. Stolz’s subsequent comparisons between Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law and the military’s Rules of Engagement were completely moot.

One year later, VoteVets joined with Giffords, Michael Bloomberg and Bloomberg’s proxy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in opposing the 2013 Colorado recall, which successfully removed two Democratic state senators who supported new gun-control legislation. VoteVets ran ads speaking, falsely, on behalf of the veterans’ community.

It was the first time a Colorado lawmaker had ever been recalled.

“Good” anti-gun messengers

In 2018, VoteVets barnstormed across the country with Gabby Giffords’ anti-gun group.

“We’re hitting the campaign trail with @VoteVets! Ahead of this year’s election,” Giffords tweeted on Aug. 20, 2018. The two groups supported anti-gun candidates in Pennsylvania, Colorado, California, New Jersey, Virginia and Kentucky.

“For a long time, Democrats have been playing defense on issue of gun safety,” Dan Helmer, VoteVets vice-president told a McClatchy newspaper. “We see a trend across the country where, increasingly, the American people are demanding change.”

VoteVets and Giffords both said veterans made “especially good messengers for policies that restrict access to guns.”

“They have the ‘platform and credibility’ to talk about the issue,” Helmer said. “No one more than vets know just how deadly some of these weapons can be. Nor have others proven so dedicated to defending the country.”

Giffords and VoteVets called the candidates they supported “part of a new generation of leaders challenging gun-lobby backed politicians.”

“Military veterans know that weapons of war have no place in our schools, in our places of worship, at concerts, at night clubs and in our communities. Too many in Congress are afraid to take on the NRA and pass meaningful legislation supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans to reduce gun violence,” Helmer said in a joint press release. “The veteran candidates we are meeting with on this tour have already answered the call of duty once and bravely stood up to defend and serve this nation. They have the courage to stand up to the NRA and fight for legislation to protect our communities from the epidemic of gun violence. We are proud to partner with Captain Kelly and Giffords on this tour.”

Democratic, not veterans issues

According to its Facebook page, VoteVets claims to be “the first and largest progressive group of veterans in America.”

“We represent over 1.5 million veterans, military families, and their civilian supporters,” the site states.

However, the issues posted on Facebook and its other social media accounts reveal that the group is far more aligned with the Democratic Party than any veterans’ community – even a progressive one.

VoteVets advocates for Vaccine mandates, “accountability” for the Jan. 6 protest, Joe Biden’s Build Back Better plan, climate change, abortion rights, Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, Critical Race Theory, GBLT issues, voting rights and of course more gun control.

Biden and Kamala Harris receive nothing but praise, while Donald Trump and other Republican lawmakers receive nothing but criticism – intense criticism.

Real veterans’ issues, such as dysfunctions within the VA, civilian job resources, posttraumatic stress disorder, suicide prevention, POW/MIA, disability benefits and illnesses caused by burn-pit exposure, are rarely, if ever, mentioned.

To be clear, VoteVets regurgitates nothing but liberal talking points rather than advocating for veterans as it claims.


It’s no secret why anti-gun groups believe veterans would make good messengers for their rhetoric. Veterans have the credibility that they never will. Unfortunately for Giffords, Brady and Bloomberg, most veterans are too politically savvy to fall for their anti-rights shenanigans.

Besides, every veteran I know owns guns – every single one. While I’m sure there are some who don’t, I’ve never met one, but I’ll admit I tend not to run in those circles. Vets, especially those who served in the combat arms, understand the importance of being able to defend themselves and their families, which is why they are such strong protectors of the Second Amendment.

VoteVets has its supporters, of that I am sure, but the group doesn’t speak on behalf of the vast majority of veterans, and they certainly don’t speak for me. Quite frankly, I find what they’re doing – pushing a liberal agenda under the guise of advocating for veterans – sickening. It’s time for them to stop pretending they’re working on our behalf.
The whole premise of the USA Today article discussed below is bogus, THE NAZIS IMPOSED GUN CONTROL.

View this email in your browser

USA Today warns that Second Amendment supporters can become Nazis
by Lee Williams

USA Today’s “extremism” reporter Will Carless has extremists on the brain. He’s written about extremist cops, extremist podcasts, extremist militia groups, extremist videos, extremist Facebook groups and now, extremist gun show recruiters.

Before he joined Gannett’s flagship newspaper about a year ago, Carless was the extremist guy at the Center for Investigative reporting (CIR), a small nonprofit located in the San Francisco Bay area. You may have never heard of CIR, but you’ve probably heard of their donors. They include George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, The Wellspring Philanthropic Fund, which donates millions to left-of-center advocacy groups, and other similarly aligned groups. Carless’ work has also appeared in the Trace – the propaganda arm of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun empire.

Carless’ latest USA Today story, “Down the barrel of a gun: How Second Amendment activism can be a gateway to extremist ideologies,” is, in a word, extreme.

The logic he uses to support his story is simple – incredibly flawed, but simple. Since there are vendors at gun shows hocking Nazi paraphernalia, III% patches and controversial books, Carless would have you believe they’re recruiting for the right-wing extremist movement, and anyone who supports gun rights is ripe for their recruitment. Carless hatched this crazy theory after visiting a gun show.

“Gun shows like this have long been part of the connective tissue between mainstream conservatism and the American extremist movement,” Carless wrote. “The vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding citizens, but experts and former members of the extremist far-right said a passion for gun rights often serves as a gateway to radicalization – one eagerly exploited by recruiters and leaders in the movement.”

In other words, if you support our God-given right to self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment, expect to be sporting a swastika armband and goosestepping to SS marching songs by the end of the day.

Carless cites Igor Volsky, executive director of Guns Down America, as his primary expert. “Gun culture and gun rhetoric is, itself, bathed – saturated – in extremist conspiracy theories,” Volsky is quoted as saying in the story. “What all of these conspiracy theories have in common, what this rhetoric really emphasizes, is the fear that a powerful government is going to come in and disarm you and impose their values onto you.”

Given the current administration, I’m not sure I’d dismiss the fear that a powerful government is going to disarm me as a conspiracy theory. It’s Joe Biden’s stated goal. It’s still there on his campaign website for all to see: “assault weapon” bans, confiscation under the guise of mandatory buy-backs, regulation by the NFA, standard-capacity magazine bans, one-gun-per-month rationing, and the closing of so-called loopholes.

The White House now acknowledges that they believe the most severe threat from domestic terrorist comes from the far right, Carless points out.

“What do you expect the Biden White House to say?” asked Alan M. Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation. “They are the far left that, as Biden himself has said, wants to ban 9mm handguns and semi-auto rifles.”

The rest of Carless’ story describes his one-man sojourn through the gun show aisles. His reportage is like a trip back through time – to the mid-1990s to be precise.

He dredges up The Anarchist Cookbook and The Turner Diaries, which some vendor evidently still had in print. The former, Carless said, “describes how to make homemade bombs.” Yes, it certainly does, but there are far more worrisome plans and racist novels available on the internet, all of which are still protected by the First Amendment, at least for now.

“Nestled in the middle of the show at the Atlanta Expo Center, a man proudly displayed Nazi memorabilia: medals, swastika patches and a model of a German amphibious vehicle occupied by toy Nazi soldiers. People crowded around his table, asking questions about buying and selling Nazi stuff,” he wrote.

I’ve seen a few gun-show vendors selling Nazi memorabilia, but I’ve never seen a crowd at their tables. Most people, myself included, just walk on by.

No one at the gun show was willing to talk to Carless, which is not a surprise. He spoke to a few people but they refused to give him their names. That was probably for the best. He’s biased, just like all the rest of the legacy media, and his entire premise was wrong. Are there extremists who own guns? Sure, nearly half the country owns guns so there are bound to be a few. But implying that the vast majority of law-abiding gun owners are somehow likely to fall under their spell is wrong. It’s fake news. It’s about what I’d expect to see from USA Today, given their ongoing partnership with the Trace and the extreme leftwing politics of those in charge.

Click Here For Web Version
BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms today expressed their sincere gratitude to the Attorneys General in 25 states for joining an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, supporting their challenge to a Maryland gun ban law and urging the high court to hear the case.

“We are truly gratified that the top law enforcement officers in fully half of the states in our country have signed onto this amicus brief,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “The fact that all of these top legal officers support our challenge to Maryland’s egregious law should carry considerable weight, and underscore the validity of our case.”

Gottlieb, who also serves as CCRKBA chairman, said the 37-page amicus brief is loaded with strong legal arguments supporting the Maryland case, known as Bianchi v. Frosh. The Attorneys General are led by Arizona AG Mark Brnovich and West Virginia AG Patrick Morrisey. They are joined by their colleagues in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming.

In their brief, the Attorneys General note, “The other states’ experience shows that the Affected Firearms are common to the point of ubiquity among law-abiding gun owners. Allowing their use promotes public safety. Meanwhile, calling the Affected Firearms ‘assault weapons’ is a misnomer. Law abiding individuals use them in a variety of peaceful civilian activities, and the guns are no more lethal than many other rifles chambered in similar calibers that Maryland’s ban does not reach. There is nothing sinister about citizens bearing the Affected Firearms. Indeed, many of these firearms advantage individuals who find standard guns more challenging to operate. In short, law-abiding citizens bearing the Affected Firearms benefit public safety, counter-balance the threat of illegal gun violence, and help make our streets safer.”

“We are hopeful the Supreme Court accepts our case because it is long past time for the court to more fully define the parameters of our right to keep and bear arms, which includes all commonly owned firearms,” Gottlieb stated. “We are convinced the guns Maryland wants banned are fully protected by the Second Amendment, and the court has an opportunity to make it official.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, challenging the constitutionality of a recently-enacted section of the state Penal Code requiring the state Department of Justice to share private information on millions of gun owners in the state, with the California Firearm Violence Research Center and others.

Joining SAF in this action are the Firearms Policy Coalition, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC and Doe Brandeis, a private citizen. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay with the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento. The lawsuit is known as Brandeis v. Bonta.

The lawsuit contends disclosure of personal information about California gun owners under provisions of Assembly Bill 173, passed by the Assembly last year, violates their privacy rights, which are specifically protected by the state constitution. This information sharing also violates provisions of Proposition 63, the ammunition background check measure passed by voters back in 2016, which specified that personal information was to remain confidential, and shared “only for law enforcement purposes.”

“This is clearly an attempt violate the law, and the constitutional privacy rights of California gun owners for reasons we could only begin to imagine,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This proves once again that gun prohibitionists are willing to trample on laws they previously passed with a new law that violates the rights of gun owners for the alleged purpose of so-called ‘research,’ the nature of which seems dubious at best.

“In their zeal to treat California gun owners as second- or even third-class citizens, anti-gunners in Sacramento forget that those citizens have rights including the right to privacy,” Gottlieb added. “More than 4 California million gun owners have a reasonable expectation that their personal information is protected by the law and the state constitution. We will not stand idly by while their privacy is violated under the guise of research that has nothing at all to do with law enforcement.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

LA Times scraping the bottom of the barrel for anti-gun commentary
by Lee Williams
The Los Angeles Times is in serious trouble. The once-great newspaper has lost the pulse of its own community. Its leaders can no longer read the room. They keep shoveling their anti-gun propaganda, but no one is listening. Their readers are too busy trying to buy guns.

If the editors came out of their ivory towers, which are no longer even in LA – the paper moved its operations to nearby El Segundo in 2018 – they would see California is changing. Murders, rapes, car-jackings and “follow-home robberies,” a term the Times itself helped coin, are skyrocketing. Add in disaffected and defunded police, roving gangs of thieves preying upon high-end retailers and even train robbers, and it’s enough to prompt even the most woke Californian to Google gun shops. The Times, however, hasn’t even noticed. Sadly, they are still banging their guns-are-bad gong.

Their latest anti-gun column – “Thinking of buying a gun for self-defense? Don’t do it” – shows just how desperate they have become for commentary that matches their political beliefs.

The author, Dr. Steven J. Sainsbury, an ER doc from San Luis Obispo, California makes a simple point: There is no such thing as a defensive gun use, he claims, because in his 25 years of emergency medicine, “I never treated a single patient who was shot by a law-abiding citizen in self-protection. Not one.”

First, I doubt Dr. Sainsbury’s claim is even true. He seems to be a man on a mission – the type of zealot who doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story. This is certainly not his first foray into anti-gun propaganda. In 2019, he submitted a column warning the newspaper’s readers not to give firearms as Christmas presents. “Guns don't mean anything positive to me. They signify only death and destruction. They are certainly nothing to put in a festive box with a bow under a Christmas tree,” he wrote.

Second, there are issues with the column that neither the Times nor the good doctor were willing to acknowledge. Dr. Sainsbury claims he has treated hundreds of gunshot victims, but according to his bio, he has been working in an emergency room in San Luis Obispo – a tourist destination, known for its museums, art galleries and historic Spanish mission. The 2010 United States Census recorded a population of 45,119, of which 38,117 (84.5%) were White, 523 (1.2%) were African American, 275 (0.6%) were Native American, 2,350 (5.2%) were Asian, 65 (0.1%) were Pacific Islander and 1,973 (4.4%) were other races. My point is this, while like any city San Luis Obispo has its share of violent crime, it’s not nearly as hellish as Oakland, Los Angeles or San Francisco. I question how many shooting victims the good doctor has even seen.

Also, it wasn’t until just recently that some California sheriffs and chiefs of police began increasing the number of concealed-weapon permits they issue to help their constituents defend themselves against rising crime. Just a few years ago, an applicant had to be extremely wealthy and/or a celebrity to “qualify” for a may-issue CCW permit in the Golden State. As a result, California lagged far behind other states in the number of legally armed citizens who had the means to defend themselves.

Sainsbury cites a hodgepodge of statistics, which he claims prove that a gun in the home is more likely to be used against the homeowner or a family member. “Be responsible and be wise. Don’t buy into the myth of owning a gun for self-defense. The life you save may be your own,” he wrote. This is somewhat novel. I’ve had the misfortune to read the gun-ban industry’s propaganda for more than a decade now, but I’ve never heard any of them refer to “the myth of owning a gun for self-defense.” Even Gabby, Everytown and the Demanding Moms admit that self-defense is the number-one reason why an overwhelming majority of new gun owners said they purchased a firearm. There’s certainly nothing mythical about carrying a firearm for self-defense, Doc.

Over the past few years, the Los Angeles Times has suffered massive setbacks, including revolving editors and owners, a bankruptcy, shrinking readership and the layoff of more than 200 staffers. It’s become clear that they’ve grown desperate for any content that can, as they say in newspapering, fill a hole.

Guest columns such as Dr. Sainsbury’s cost the newspaper nothing, since guest columnists are not normally reimbursed, their content is free. However, as you can see in this case, you get what you pay for.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.

ATF must choose whether to cover for Biden or comply with federal law
by Lee Williams

In late June, Joe Biden announced a new zero-tolerance policy for “rogue gun dealers,” who he claimed were responsible for skyrocketing violent crime rates in major cities historically controlled by Democrats.

The violence wasn’t caused by weak prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable, or gangs or underfunded police departments or by any combination thereof. It was all the fault of “rogue gun dealers,” who Biden claimed willfully transfer firearms to prohibited persons, and/or refuse to cooperate with a tracing request from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

Biden’s illogical rant produced a bit of head scratching among the gun-rights community. After all, why target Federal Firearm Licensees, who are arguably the most heavily regulated federal license holders. If Joe really wanted to reduce violent crime, why not go after the real criminals instead, such as the 100,000 documented gang members living in Chicago. Hit them with federal RICO statutes, or fire the cowardly prosecutors who won’t send them to prison, or both. It all made no sense, unless of course Biden’s entire plan was nothing more than a pretext to make life even more hellish for American gun owners, which we all knew was the case. However, saying that a president is lying and proving that he’s lying are two different things. We went for the proof.

To vet Biden’s rogue gun dealer theory, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project immediately sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the ATF, seeking the following:

Copies of documents that show the number of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and their state of residence, who have been prosecuted for willfully transferring a firearm to a prohibited person over the past three years (from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2021.)

Copies of documents that show the number of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and their state of residence, who have been prosecuted for ignoring and/or refusing to cooperate with a tracing request from the BATFE, over the past three years (from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2021.)

(Note: We did not seek the names or other identifiers of any FFL.)

I wish I could take credit for the idea, but I can’t. It was Mr. Gottlieb’s, and it remains one of the cleverest strategies I’ve seen in a long time. Alan Gottlieb is the executive vice president and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

Our FOIA request was pretty simple, and it would definitely prove or disprove Biden’s claims, which everyone, even the ATF, likely knew were false. If the rogue dealers were responsible for the increasing violence, there should be hundreds if not thousands of prosecutions and subsequent FFL revocations. If Biden’s claims were false, there would likely be a half-dozen prosecutions in the entire country.

I need to point out this wasn’t my first FOIA. During my years as an investigative reporter and editor, I have made hundreds of FOIA requests – local, state, federal and even a few territorial. After your first 100 or so, you start to learn what is in-bounds for FOIA and what isn’t. You also get to know how long a response should take. This request was an easy one – a couple of key strokes and it’s done. It should have taken a few hours at the most, certainly not days, or even weeks, and definitely not eight months.

Four months passed without a word from the ATF – not even an acknowledgement they had received the FOIA request. Then, in October, the ATF finally admitted it had received the request, but warned it might take even longer to process.

“For your information, this office assigns incoming requests to one of three tracks: simple, complex, or expedited. Each request is then handled on a first-in, first-out basis in relation to other requests in the same track. Simple requests usually receive a response in approximately one month, whereas complex requests necessarily take longer. At this time, your request has been assigned to the complex track,” the ATF letter states.

The letter also provided the names of two FOIA liaisons, Darryl Webb and Zina Kornegay. Months of calls and messages left for these alleged liaisons were not returned.

This week, however, after another four months had passed, Kornegay finally answered her phone.

“I’m seeing a bit of back-and-forth,” she said of the request. “Let me look into this further. I will try and find out what’s going on with this.” She refused to say when the ATF would actually respond to the FOIA request. “Let me speak to my team leader,” she said. “I do see your request, but there seems to be some back-and-forth about the best way to handle it.”

Toothless law

The Freedom of Information Act is federal law. The ATF is a federal law enforcement agency, responsible for enforcing federal law. In a perfect world, that alone should be enough reason for the ATF to quickly comply with any and all FOIA requests. Unfortunately, the ATF’s world is far from perfect.

The Biden-Harris administration has weaponized the agency and given it specific orders to infringe upon our right to keep and bear arms. That much is abundantly clear. No law – especially one as anemic as the federal FOIA statute – will stop the ATF from targeting gun owners and gun dealers.

If the ATF or any other federal agency fails to comply with a FOIA request, the requestor doesn’t have many options They can file a lawsuit, and if a federal judge determines the agency acted “arbitrarily or capriciously,” the court can assess attorney fees, which will be paid with taxpayer dollars.

Also, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel can investigate a FOIA dispute. The OSC can determine whether discipline against the federal employee who improperly withheld the records is warranted, and the offending agency must take whatever corrective action the OSC mandates, but these actions are extremely rare. Actual federal FOIA-related criminal cases are even rarer, practically unheard of.

As a result, most federal agencies – especially one as heavily politicized as the ATF – know there is no easy or timely way that they can be forced to turn over documents they want to conceal from the public.

By comparison, many states have FOIA-type laws that have actual penalties, especially Florida. In the Gunshine State, knowingly violating public records law is a first-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to one year in prison, a $1,000 fine or both. Why the federal government does not have a tough FOIA statute is a question for your elected officials.


The ATF is in a trick-bag of sorts. They can comply with federal law and provide the documents, which will likely reveal that Biden’s rogue gun dealer policy is just a ruse concocted by anti-gunners, or they can continue to deny and delay the FOIA request even though their actions violate federal law. I’m starting to wonder if there is anyone left at the ATF who even cares about such things.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
CCRKBA is the sister organization of SAF.


BELLEVUE, WA – The overnight invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops underscores the importance of the Second Amendment to the defense of freedom in the United States, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said today.

“While we’ve seen reports that the Ukraine Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) has voted to ease restrictions allowing civilians to carry arms outside their homes,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “in our country this has been the constitutional law of the land since our nation was founded. The right of the people to keep and bear arms has protected this country since the beginning, and what is happening right now in Ukraine should be a lesson to all of those who push for citizen disarmament and a ban on private gun ownership how perilous that would be.”

Russian troops crossed the Ukraine border overnight, and world leaders are now scrambling to respond. The action is being universally condemned throughout the western world, but only in the United States is there good cause to appreciate the fact that average private citizens enjoy a constitutional protection to be armed.

“Our Second Amendment was enshrined in the Bill of Rights by men who had just fought a war for independence,” Gottlieb observed. “They returned to their homes from battlefields, not from some deer hunting camp. The right to keep and bear arms has never been about shooting ducks, but about protecting our right as citizens of the greatest nation on earth to defend our homes and families immediately against the kind of international outrage now unfolding in eastern Europe.

“The gun prohibition lobby would have America become vulnerable to such aggression as we are now seeing on television screens from coast to coast,” he continued. “This isn’t some action movie Americans are watching, this is real life, and it vividly illustrates why so many of us fight day and night to protect and defend our Second Amendment rights.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the good citizens of Ukraine,” Gottlieb stated. “We can only hope that gun prohibitionists, or at least their supporters in the establishment media, learn something from this tragedy. To live in peace, one must always be prepared to defend it.”

Everytown blames ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws for skyrocketing murder rates
by Lee Williams

Times are tough for Michael Bloomberg’s well-paid propagandists at Everytown for Gun Safety. They rant and rave about the evils of gun ownership but no one is listening. More than five million people recently ignored their palaver and purchased their first firearm – including a large percentage of women and African Americans. Most Americans, this shows, have tuned the Everytowners completely out.

Historically, when anti-gun activists feel slighted or ignored, they regroup, pivot and push out some other form of propaganda, hoping to break back into the 24-hour news cycle. Today is no exception. Bloomberg’s crew has already started pushing a new study from a handful of British academics, who claim that Stand Your Ground laws “are associated with an 8% to 11% national increase in homicide rates.”

Note that the Oxford professors could only claim that the Stand Your Ground laws “are associated with” the increasing homicide rates. If they could have determined the laws actually caused the increase, they would have specifically mentioned that in their report. Regardless, for the Everytowners that was more than enough proof. Besides, the want to ignore what’s really causing the increasing number of killings.

“In states with Shoot First laws, overall homicide rates have increased and these deadly laws have done nothing to deter crime. On the flip side, states without Shoot First laws have seen a decrease in homicides,” they tweeted Wednesday.

Stand Your Ground laws are racist, Bloomberg’s activists claim. They’re still trying to pin the law on the Trayvon Martin shooting, even though the shooter, George Zimmerman, never invoked a Stand-Your-Ground defense.

“Twenty-nine states currently have some version of these dangerous Shoot First laws on the books. The good news: We’re fighting to #EndShootFirst,” the group tweeted.

The real cause

If the Everytowners, Demanding Moms and the youngsters at the Trace ever bothered to pick up a newspaper or watch something other than CNN or MSLSD, they would quickly learn the real cause of the skyrocketing homicide rates, which are plaguing all of the major cities around the country controlled by Democratic administrations. Progressive prosecutors are to blame for the out-of-control violent crime, not Stand Your Ground laws or anything else. It's fairly obvious, or at least is should be.

District Attorneys in Baltimore, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and other large cities operate more as social justice warriors than prosecutors. Former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr first pointed this out in 2019. Barr added that these “reformers” who “spend their time undercutting the police, letting criminals off the hook and refusing to enforce the law, are demoralizing to law enforcement and dangerous to public safety.”

In the three years since Barr’s pronouncement, things have only gotten worse. In fact, the voters are so upset by the prosecutors’ soft-on-crime shenanigans. they’re seeking to recall Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascón and Chesa Boudin, his colleague in San Francisco and possibly more, since there is a terrible trickledown effect once these alleged public servants stopped putting bad guys behind bars.

When the police realized that the suspects would likely be out the jailhouse door before they’ve even finishing writing their arrest reports, their enforcement efforts quickly subsided. Consequently, once the bad guys realized the cops and prosecutors had stopped doing their jobs, utter mayhem ensued – a free-for-all of robberies and shootings that has impacted thousands of people. This is the situation residents of every large metro face today. The Stand Your Ground laws have nothing to do with this lawlessness and chaos.

The law

There has never been a more misunderstood law than Stand Your Ground. It’s actually a very simple statute, which the gun-ban industry cannot ever seem to grasp. All the law did was remove a citizen’s “duty to retreat” when they’re faced with deadly force. Before the law, a citizen had a duty to retreat when they were confronted by an armed assailant. They had to run away hoping they would not get shot in the back. Stand Your Ground legislation removed this run-away requirement. Now, deadly force can be met with deadly force. It is not a “shoot first” law as Everytown would have us believe – far from it. Neither is it a “license to kill.” To be clear, Stand Your Ground is a legal defense. It has about as much to do with increasing crime rates as any other legal defense.

If Everytown and Michael Bloomberg’s other Astroturf (not grassroots) groups need something to demonize for fundraising purposes, perhaps they should look at the soft-on-crime prosecutors. They could each use a heady dose of demonization before even more lives are lost on their watch.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
Click Here For Web Version

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court following the retirement of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer later this year raises alarms, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Just the endorsements Judge Jackson’s nomination is receiving should be enough to cause concern,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The nomination is being applauded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s gun prohibition lobbying groups including Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, and by the anti-gun Giffords Law Center and Brady group. There can be no stronger indication of where Judge Jackson stands on the individual right to keep and bear arms and how she might rule on Second Amendment issues.”

Judge Jackson has also been reversed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, for what Prof. Jonathan Turley described as “judicial overreach.”

“The high court doesn’t need another liberal activist justice on the bench,” Gottlieb observed, “especially where Second Amendment issues are concerned. We know it is inappropriate to ask a Supreme Court nominee how he or she would rule on possible upcoming cases, but considering the energetic support Judge Jackson’ nomination is already receiving from the gun ban lobby, such questions aren’t even necessary.

“When the nation’s most extreme gun control lobbying groups throw their weight behind a judicial nominee,” he added, “there should be no misconception about where that nominee is likely to stand on Second Amendment rights, and frankly, it’s disappointing.

“Since Joe Biden promised to make gender and ethnicity the deciding issues in his Supreme Court nominations,” Gottlieb stated, “we were hopeful his selection would be someone upon whom we could depend for at least some semblance of objectivity. But not now, not with endorsements from organizations known to be hostile to Second Amendment rights, because that is and always has been their litmus test.

“For this reason and no other,” Gottlieb concluded, “Judge Jackson’s nomination raises red flags for gun owners. We implore the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct a thorough and thoughtful vetting process, and to raise questions about her Second Amendment perspectives during any confirmation hearing.”

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.
A new survey by the nationally-recognized polling firm of McLaughlin & Associates shows strong public support for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in the wake of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

The Second Amendment Foundation commissioned survey said 66.1 percent of the respondents agreed with the statement posed by the McLaughlin poll stating, “When you see what is going on with Vladimir Putin and Russia’s military invasion of the Ukraine, it is more important than ever for Americans to defend their 2nd Amendment Constitutional freedoms for law-abiding citizens to continue to have the right to own guns for their personal protection.” Only 25.7 percent disagree, and only 8.2 percent had no opinion. The survey may be read here.

“This should send a message to the Biden administration that Americans by a large majority fully understand the Second Amendment is about defending liberty and not about duck or deer hunting,” said Alan Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president. “The new McLaughlin data shows how out-of-touch Biden and his fellow Democrats are about the right to keep and bear arms.”

“Unfortunately,” veteran pollster Jim McLaughlin observed, “Americans are seeing first hand through Vladimir Putin’s brutal, military invasion of the Ukraine the importance of our cherished Second Amendment rights. The brave Ukrainian citizens have been able to thwart Putin’s military aggression by arming themselves against the Russian invaders. Americans clearly associate the importance of their Second Amendment rights with maintaining a safe, free and democratic nation.”

Biden came into office 14 months ago with an ambitious gun control agenda that dramatically stalled after the Senate debacle regarding his nomination of former ATF agent-turned-gun-control-advocate David Chipman to head the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

SAF commissioned the McLaughlin survey, which was conducted among 1,000 likely voters across the country March 17-22. McLaughlin’s survey also revealed more people oppose bans on semi-automatic rifles and 9mm pistols than support them.

“After what we’ve seen on the nightly news from Ukraine, Americans are more protective of their constitutional rights than ever,” Gottlieb said.
CCRKBA is the sister organization of the Second Amendment Foundation.


Demand ATF Accountability
The House Seeks To Eliminate ATF Records Agency Shouldn't Have
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has been retaining records on firearm owners, violating its deletion policy requirements and allowing it the ability to create a de facto gun registry. H.R.6950 requires the ATF to abolish its Enterprise Content Management Imaging Repository System--essentially requiring them to comply with their own deletion policies--and prevents them from ever creating anything like it again. In addition, it allows anyone aggrieved by a violation of the requirement to bring action for damages in any federal district court.

Let the House Committee on the Judiciary know you support this resolution and urge them to act on it; call and/or write them today!

House Committee on the Judiciary Contact Information
Phone Office Location
(202) 225-3951
House Committee on the Judiciary
2138 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Thanks for your commitment to this fight and for helping win it!
Yours in Freedom,

James Jones | Projects Director
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
e: [email protected] | w:
p: (425) 454-4911
fb.png tt.png
With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States. The Citizens Committee can be reached by phone at (425) 454-4911, on the Internet at or by email to [email protected].

Voice: (425) 454-4911
Toll Free: (800) 426-4302
FAX: (425) 451-3959
Email: [email protected]

facebook.png twitter.png
Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
James Madison Building
12500 N.E. Tenth Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
The Second Amendment Foundation is calling for an investigation of possible gun law violations by NBC News and the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office while producing and filming an undercover “hidden camera investigation” at a gun show, focusing on sales of so-called “ghost gun” kits.

NBC reporter Vaughn Hillyard took his hidden camera into the Oaks, Penn. Eagle Gun Show to purchase two P80 firearm kits from JSD Supply. Those kits, generically called “80 percenters” because they require some finishing work by the buyer, were subsequently taken to the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office where they were finished, assembled and actually fired on camera. The report aired on March 17.

“This sort of sensationalism is designed to generate ratings and raise viewer alarms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “However, our alarms were raised because of the possible felonies that may have been committed by the reporter and the office of Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro.”

The issue was initially raised by Ammoland journalist John Crump, who frequently writes about the firearms industry. Ammoland is an online publication covering all aspects of firearms news and is one of the most widely-read gun news sites in the U.S. According to Crump’s report, “The news crew transferred two complete ‘readily convertible’ kits out of the parts they purchased separately at the show. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) previously viewed ‘buy, build, shoot’ kits as readily convertible and, therefore, a firearm…If the ATF still keeps to that definition, Hillyard, an out-of-state resident, transferred two ‘readily convertible’ firearms (pistols) kits illegally to the Pennsylvania AG’s employees to complete. There is not an exception in the law for any AG’s ‘special agents,’ which means that the agents must obey all laws.”

“You cannot violate federal gun laws to complain about gun laws and promote a gun control agenda, even as a working journalist,” Gottlieb stated. “We call on the Biden Justice Department to investigate possible violations of federal gun law, same as that agency would investigate any private citizen who had done the same thing. You don’t get a pass simply by working for NBC.”
Click Here For Web Version

Biden’s budget: $1.7 billion increase for the ATF
by Lee Williams

There are few documents in Washington more worthless than a presidential budget. Joe Biden’s budget, which was formally presented Monday, is no exception.

A presidential budget is merely a wish list – a starting point for the complex task of funding the government. They’re more of a statement of priorities than an actual budget, and Biden’s priorities are very clear. He wants to increase funding for the ATF by more than 13%, so the embattled agency can hire more special agents to target Biden’s fictional “rogue gun dealer” boogeymen, whom the White House blames for skyrocketing crime rates in large cities historically controlled by Democrats.

“The Budget includes $17.4 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion above the 2021 enacted level, for DOJ law enforcement, including a total of $1.7 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to expand multijurisdictional gun trafficking strike forces with additional personnel, increase regulation of the firearms industry, enhance ATF’s National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, and modernize the National Tracing Center,” Biden’s budget states.

To be clear, this is all part of Joe Biden’s war on America’s gun dealers. If they’re allowed to hire hundreds of additional special agents, the ATF could take this war to the next level. No gun dealer would be safe from increased harassment, surprise audits and other mayhem, which the Biden-Harris administration clearly hopes will put them all out of business.

The main problem with any increase in funding for the ATF is the ATF itself. Historically, the agency has proven all to willing to be weaponized by the current occupants of the White House, especially if the current occupants are anti-gun, and there has never been a more anti-gun crew than the Biden-Harris administration.

This susceptibility to political pressure has led to massive failures, which have cost hundreds of lives: Ruby Ridge, Waco and Fast and Furious to name a few deadly debacles. The fact that the ATF isn’t now pushing back against Biden’s crazy “rogue gun dealers” theory shows just how far the agency is willing to go for a presidential belly-scratch and pat on the head. After all, we all know the real reasons why violent crime rates are skyrocketing in large cities – gangs, defunded and demoralized police, and soft-on-crime prosecutors – and they don’t have anything to do with gun dealers of any kind, rogue or law-abiding. In fact, the ATF continues to provide top cover for Biden’s theory. As of today, they still have not responded to a pair of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, which would debunk Biden’s rogue gun dealer theory once and for all.

Rather than increasing funding, I hope Congress will consider defunding the ATF. The agency has never been held accountable for the Americans killed during its botched, politically motivated raids. It’s time to send the ATF a clear message that enough is enough. To do otherwise could be deadly, and cost even more American lives.

The Second Amendment Foundation ( is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

Biden arms terrorists then disarms law-abiding Americans
by Lee Williams

Among the $80 billion worth of high-tech weaponry Joe Biden gifted to the Taliban after his inept and deadly Afghanistan withdraw were 176 artillery pieces,64,363 belt-fed machine guns, 126,295 handguns and of course 358,530 select-fire assault weapons – real assault weapons.

Most of the assault rifles were equipped with high-end optics. Many had IR lasers, which aren’t much good without night-vision gear. However, Biden left behind 16,035 sets of NVGs.

The small arms were accompanied by 23,132 armored vehicles, both tracked and wheeled, 8,000 cargo trucks, 42,000 pickups and SUVs, 109 helos and 65 fixed-wing aircraft, including four C-130s.

Of course, the highest price we paid for Biden’s Afghan retreat wasn’t guns or gear. It was the loss of 13 brave service members who were killed during the final days of the evacuation. Biden honored their sacrifice by fidgeting and checking his watch each time one of their caskets was carried past him on the tarmac of Dover AFB.

Joe Biden created the largest and the most heavily armed terrorist army the world has ever seen. It is only a matter of time before the Taliban projects the force he gave them beyond Afghanistan’s borders. They don’t appear to be in any hurry. Afghans have always played the long game with all things international.

Since the Afghan evac, the Biden-Harris administration has lurched and stumbled from one disaster to another, but they’re happy no one is looking back. We might notice their hypocrisy, which is off the charts. In fact, the Biden-Harris administration has redefined hypocrisy.

To be clear, after he armed foreign terrorists, Joe Biden now wants to disarm American citizens. He wants to ban homemade firearms, even though Americans have been making guns in their homes since before there was a United States of America.

Biden and his millennial handlers are worried more about Americans with 80% Glock-ish frames than they are blood-thirsty foreign terrorists with 100% M4s.

I’m sorry, but no one who supplied arms to terrorists is going to tell me what type of arms I may or may not own, and if I want to build one myself, so be it. It is no one’s business but mine. Besides, Biden’s ban on homemade guns is based on data that ATF cannot verify, and statistics the Justice Department disavowed. It is an infringement, pure and simple, just the latest battle in Biden’s war on our gun rights – a war that’s raging.

Last week, Biden named Steve Dettelbach as his second choice to fill the vacant ATF directorship. Dettelbach is an anti-gun extremist who supports bans on private firearm sales, “assault weapons” and standard-capacity magazines. My thoughts on Mr. Dettelbach are thus – if he’s such an accomplished gun grabber, maybe Joe should send him to Kabul, where there are plenty of guns for him to grab, all bought and paid for with American taxpayer dollars.

Don’t think for a second Biden has pivoted solely to homemade guns. He reaffirmed his true intent last week during a press conference in the Rose Garden:

“We need Congress to pass universal background checks. Universal background checks. And I know it’s controversial, but I got it done once: Ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines,” Biden said.

He is right about that. Unconstitutional bans and infringements are certainly controversial – about as controversial as arming foreign terrorists who have already spilled American blood.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.
In a unanimous decision today, the Washington State Supreme Court has ruled plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed by the Second Amendment Foundation against the City of Edmonds for violating the state’s firearms preemption law, which the Court upheld, have standing to bring the action.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Steven C. González stated, “We hold that the plaintiffs have standing and that this ordinance is preempted by RCW 9.41.290. We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

SAF was joined in the case, known as Bass v. City of Edmonds, by the National Rifle Association and three private citizens, Swan Seaberg, Curtis McCullough and Brett Bass, for whom the lawsuit is named.

The city had adopted a so-called “safe storage” mandate for firearms owners living within Edmonds city limits. But in 1985, the State Legislature adopted the state statute, preempting “the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law…”

“This is a great victory for the principle of state preemption,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This should send a signal to other municipal governments—especially the City of Seattle against which we have a nearly identical pending lawsuit—that they cannot enact their own gun restrictions in violation of state law or the state constitution.

“We will not tolerate anti-gun politicians who violate the law in order to pass laws to restrict our rights,” he added.

In his ruling, Chief Justice González stated, “We decline to limit the preemption statute to firearms’ transactions and active use. That limitation is simply not consistent with the words of the statute as a whole.” A few lines later, he added, “The legislature plainly meant to broadly preempt local lawmaking concerning firearms except where specifically authorized in chapter 9.41 RCW or other statutes…Accordingly, we hold that this ordinance is preempted by state law.”

“Washington adopted state preemption nearly 40 years ago,” Gottlieb said, “and we will defend it vigorously, because it is plain common sense. We’re grateful the state’s highest court unanimously shares that opinion. This is another example of SAF fulfilling its mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time.”

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

SPECIAL REPORT: ATF Federal Firearm License revocations up a staggering 500%
by Lee Williams

In the years before the Biden-Harris administration took over the White House, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives usually revoked an average of 40 Federal Firearm Licenses (FFLs) per year. But, in the 11 months since Joe Biden declared war on “rogue gun dealers,” the ATF has revoked 273 FFLs – an increase of more than 500%. However, rather than targeting the true rogues, Biden’s ATF is revoking FFLs for the most minor of paperwork errors, which were never a concern for the ATF until Biden weaponized the agency.

“This has nothing to do with the ATF and everything to do with the DOJ,” said John Clark of FFL Consultants. Clark is a firearm industry expert who said the ATF announced the number of revocations at a recent Firearm Industry Conference.

“The vast majority of the ATF don’t like this any more than the industry does,” he said. “It’s Biden.”

Clark and business partner John Bocker crisscross the country to help gun dealers fight back against Biden’s overreach – a service that is free to all members of the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Their mantra is: “Get it right the first time.”

“Our goal is to prevent an incident from occurring,” Bocker has said. “Our goal is prevention – get it right the first time. We are the proactive and preventative arm of the NSSF.”

Nowadays, they’re extremely busy. “I had three revocation hearings last week,” Clark said.

Key to the massive increase in revocations is Biden’s zero-tolerance for willful violations policy, which Clark said relies upon a new definition of willful. If a dealer makes a simple mistake, they can now lose their license, because the new definition of willful states that the dealer knew the law, but willfully chose to violate it anyway – regardless of whether it was an oversight, an error by an employee or a simple paperwork mistake.

“They have twisted negligence into willful,” Clark said. “These are not uncommon errors that we’re seeing. Things happen.”

On paper, Biden’s new policy seems clear:

Absent extraordinary circumstances that would need to be justified to the Director, ATF will seek to revoke the licenses of dealers the first time that they violate federal law by willfully.

1.) transferring a firearm to a prohibited person
2.) failing to run a required background check
3.) falsifying records, such as a firearms transaction form
4.) failing to respond to an ATF tracing request
5.) refusing to permit ATF to conduct an inspection in violation of the law

However, Clark and Bocker are seeing these rules pushed far beyond the realm of common sense or fairness, and local gun dealers are paying the price.

For example, the transaction number for a NICS background check requires nine digits. If a gun dealer mistakenly omits a number, their license can be revoked for failing to run a background check. Under the Biden-Harris administration, there is no longer any room for human error.

Similarly, the ATF has started contracting out its trace requests, Clark said. He and Bocker have talked to a dealer whom the ATF accused of not complying with a trace request. They fault, they found, actually belonged to the ATF, which hadn’t updated its records from the contractors. Until this was clarified, the dealer was at risk of losing everything.

Their firm offers a free webinar for gun dealers, which addresses Biden’s policy.

ATF breaking federal law

Biden first announced his zero-tolerance policy for “rogue gun dealers” in June of last year. He claimed these dealers were responsible for skyrocketing violent crime rates in major cities historically controlled by Democrats.

The violence wasn’t caused by weak prosecutors who refuse to hold criminals accountable, or gangs or underfunded police departments or by any combination thereof, he said. It was all the fault of “rogue gun dealers,” who Biden claimed willfully transfer firearms to prohibited persons, and/or refuse to cooperate with a tracing request from the ATF.

To vet Biden’s rogue gun dealer theory, the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project immediately sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the ATF, seeking the following:

Copies of documents that show the number of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and their state of residence, who have been prosecuted for willfully transferring a firearm to a prohibited person over the past three years (from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2021.)

Copies of documents that show the number of Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and their state of residence, who have been prosecuted for ignoring and/or refusing to cooperate with a tracing request from the BATFE, over the past three years (from June 23, 2018 to June 23, 2021.)

(Note: We did not seek the names or other identifiers of any FFL.)

We’re still waiting for a response.

In the 11 months since the FOIA request was filed, the ATF has not complied with the law. The ATF is in a trick-bag of sorts. They can comply with federal law and provide the documents, which will likely reveal that Biden’s rogue gun dealer policy is just a ruse, or they can continue to deny and delay the FOIA request even though their actions violate federal law.


If there is a dealer who transfers firearms to prohibited persons, fails to conduct background checks and ignores requests from the ATF to help trace firearms used in a crime, they should lose their FFL. I don’t know anyone who disagrees with that. However, these are not the type of dealers the ATF is targeting at Biden’s behest. The Biden-Harris administration has ordered the ATF to revoke FFLs for even the most minor of paperwork errors, solely to support its rogue-dealer myth.

There is no doubt Biden will soon hold a press conference touting the effectiveness of his zero-tolerance policy and the hundreds of “rogue gun dealers” whose licenses were revoked as a result. What he won’t mention is that none of the dealers who lost their livelihoods contributed to the skyrocketing violent crime rates of major metros. They were simply law-abiding men and women who made a minor paperwork error, which Biden has now criminalized as part of his ongoing war on our guns.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.

A three-judge panel for the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday struck down a California prohibition on sales of semiautomatic rifles to young adults in the 18-20-year-old range, remanding the case back to the district court for further proceedings in a win for the Second Amendment Foundation. The case is known as Jones v. Bonta.

SAF was joined in by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Firearms Policy Foundation, Calguns Foundation, Poway Weapons and Gear and PWG Range, North County Shooting Center, Inc, Beebe Family Arms and Munitions, and three private citizens including Matthew Jones for whom the case is named.

The majority opinion was written by Judge Ryan Nelson and joined by Judge Kenneth Lee, both Donald Trump appointees, and in part by Judge Sidney Stein from the Southern District of New York, a Bill Clinton appointee. Judge Stein also dissented in part.

Writing for the majority, Judge Nelson observed, “(T)he Second Amendment protects the right of young adults to keep and bear arms, which includes the right to purchase them. The district court reasoned otherwise and held that the laws did not burden Second Amendment rights at all: that was legal error…(T)he district court erred by applying intermediate scrutiny, rather than strict scrutiny, to the semiautomatic centerfire rifle ban. And even under intermediate scrutiny, this ban likely violates the Second Amendment because it fails the ‘reasonable fit’ test.”

“We are delighted with the opinion,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The court majority rightly recognized that delaying the exercise of a right until age 21 does irreparable harm. It also applied strict scrutiny to the semi-auto ban.”

He noted this ruling could have an impact on another case challenging a similar prohibition in Washington State, which is also part of the Ninth Circuit. There, the prohibition was adopted via a citizen initiative in 2018, and was challenged by SAF and the National Rifle Association.

Thank you.
Your support makes our work possible.

Senate to hold hearings next week on Biden’s second choice to run ATF
by Lee Williams

Senate hearings for Joe Biden’s second nominee to head the ATF, Steve Dettelbach, could begin as early as next week, Sen. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Politico.

Officials withing the Biden-Harris administration have said they hope to refocus on Dettelbach’s nomination after the mass murder in Buffalo, New York.

When Dettelbach, a Democrat, ran unsuccessfully for Ohio Attorney General in 2018, he was endorsed by Biden, Barack Obama and Everytown for Gun Safety.

“Dettelbach is running on a platform that includes strengthening enforcement of gun safety laws in Ohio, and he supports closing the background check loophole and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers. His opponent, Dave Yost, is endorsed by the NRA,” Everytown announced in a 2018 press release. “Everytown is all-in on the midterm elections and gun violence survivors and volunteers with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America will be knocking on doors and making calls to elect Dettelbach and other gun sense candidates.”

Everytown quickly endorsed Dettelbach to head the ATF because of his history of support for “assault weapon” and standard-capacity magazine bans, universal background checks and Red-Flag laws, as have several groups that represent police chiefs, sheriffs and other law enforcement executives.

The president of the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, which represents 26,000 federal officers, wrote that Dettelbach has a “proven history of working with law enforcement agencies, corrections officials, advocates, stakeholders, and elected officials across the political spectrum.”

Most recently, a group of 140 ex-Justice Department employees endorsed Dettelbach, saying he will “will help keep our communities safe by taking gun traffickers and other violent criminals off our streets."

Biden’s first choice to run the ATF, David Chipman, was rejected by the Senate due to the uproar his nomination created within the gun-rights community, which balked because Chipman was a paid, anti-gun extremist.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which “vehemently opposed” Chipman’s nomination, calling him “entirely unqualified to hold a position of public trust,” has concerns about Dettelbach, too.

“NSSF is committed to a thorough examination of Dettelbach’s record and qualifications and will listen carefully to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. NSSF has significant concerns regarding Dettelbach’s previous public statements supporting bans on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), or AR-15 semiautomatic rifles, universal background checks, which are unworkable without a national firearm registry that is already forbidden by federal law, and extreme-risk protection orders, or so-called “red flag” laws, without protections for Due Process considerations. Dettelbach was also previously endorsed by the gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety, for his support for policies restricting Second Amendment rights,” said in a statement last month.

The National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund awarded Dettelbach an “F” when he ran for Ohio Attorney General in 2018. The organization strongly opposes his nomination to head the ATF, and has urged its members to take action.

“Like Chipman, Dettelbach is a dedicated gun controller with a background that proves he would be neither fair nor objective as head of ATF. When running for Ohio Attorney General in 2018, Dettelbach endorsed gun bans, restrictions on lawful firearm transfers, and further expansion of prohibitions on who can lawfully possess a firearm. In short, it’s unclear what gun control measures Dettelbach doesn’t support,” NRA said in a statement.


After Chipman’s stunning defeat, the Biden-Harris administration seems to have learned a lesson. White House staffers are laying a better foundation for Dettelbach than they did Chipman. They’re putting in the work, so to speak. They let Chipman sink or swim on his own, and he quickly sunk, so they’re a lot more careful with Biden’s second choice.

Compared to Chipman and his reprehensible personality, Dettelbach may be a charmer. The Senate hearings will be telling. However, when you consider their lack of respect for the right to keep and bear arms and their inability to serve as a fair and objective regulator of the firearms industry, Biden’s two nominees are eerily the same.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn't be possible without readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation now to support pro-gun stories like this.