FIBbing Again, edit

July 31, 2024 Sheila Stokes 1 Comment

Well, boy howdy. It seems the FIB, or Following Bidens Instructions has completely left the field of investigations behind. I’m not sure if they think Americans are just that stupid or if they know that in the Biden junta no one is ever held accountable.

It seems the young aspiring assassin Crooks, with no social footprint, did in fact have a social media account. But then the FIB said he had no friends, he did. They said he had given no clues, he had. He had talked to a classmate about how much he hated Trump and Republicans.

One of the striking things to me about the hearings that have been going on is how totally unprepared the witness are. One would think if they were going to testify they would have some basic information available to share, since that is their reason for being there. But no, again Biden world junta, so they don’t seem to fret too much about it. Or they just lie.

If you don’t remember Rep. Clay Higgins exchange with Inspector “Clouseau” Wray, here’s a refresher. He refuses to answer part of Rep Higgins’s questions and is totally clueless as to what a common law enforcement term means.

Then when it comes to the attempted assassination, he’s apparently unfamiliar with bullets and gun shot wounds.

Apparently the deputy director actually can confirm that President Trump was in fact, struck by a bullet, and not a murder hornet.

But back to the other FIB statement about no social media, he did have. He mostly seemed to reply to other’s posts, and he made only 9 total posts in 2021. But they did express only left-wing points of view. Sen. Marsha Blackburn is speaking with the same deputy director, Paul Abbate, that knows what a bullet is.

https://x.com/i/status/1818334823242510818

One of the interesting things is the reason all this is coming out accurately is because Andrew Torba, founder of GAB released the information to the public.

And why would he do that you ask?

BREAKING: The FBI is now claiming that the Trump shooter Thomas Matthew Crooks had an unspecified “social media account” in 2019/2020 (when he was 14/15 years old) that posted “anti-immigrant and anti-semitic” content.

This is not consistent with Gab’s understanding of the shooter’s motives based on an Emergency Disclosure Request (“EDR”) we received from the FBI last week for the Gab account “EpicMicrowave” which, based on the content of that EDR, the FBI appeared to think belonged to Thomas Crooks.

Many, particularly regime media reporters, have doubted Gab’s claims that this request existed. Normally we don’t confirm the existence or content of law enforcement communications. In this instance we had to make an exception due to the overwhelming public interest in disclosure and transparency.

As a courtesy to law enforcement, we are not going to post the entire request. This is the first page of that request.

The story is this: the account for which data was requested was, UNEQUIVOCALLY, pro-Biden and in particular pro-Biden’s immigration policy.

To the best of Gab’s knowledge, as of 2021, Crooks was a pro-lockdown, pro-immigration, left-wing Joe Biden supporter.

You can read the whole email I got as a blog post here

The thread on X (formerly Twitter) is available here.

The comments in the thread are pretty darn interesting, several pointing out recent FIB deceptions of the American public to favor Demoncrats in an election. Case in point,

That’s a lie. They got the information from Gab and the CEO knew the FBI would lie about it, so they released it first.

At this point, the alphabet agencies are so corrupt the only job they should qualify for is “journalist” for cnn or msnbc….Yeah, that level of lying and corruption.

Yeah, I forgot something….

Elon Musk of X (Twitter) and Andrew Torba of GAB

Constitution, gun control, gun grabbers, Law

Forced Reset Reset

July 25, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger

Among other gadgets which the ATF-Troop unilaterally declared to be NFA items — machine guns, specifically — was the forced reset trigger and like items.

Not so fast, feckless feddies. A federal judge has tossed that bizaare claim, in NAGR v. Garland.

Having considered the above-referenced filings and applicable law, th4e Court concludes thatthe Defendants engaged in unlawful agency action taken in excess of their authority. Therefore, the Courts GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgement and DENIES Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgement.

Note: The judge didn’t say the ATF exceeded its authority and leave it at that. He specifically and explicitly stated that they acted unlawfully; they broke the law. And he called out their BS on claiming FTRs turn semiautos into machine guns.

An FTR is a device that forcibly returns the trigger to its reset state. In the commercialized FRT designs at issue in this litigation, the trigger is forcibly reset by the hammer when the bolt carrier cycles to the rear. A “locking bar” mechanically locks the trigger in its reset state, preventing the user from moving the trigger rearward to function by releasing the hammer, until the bolt has returned to the in-battery position and the firearm is safe to fire.
[…]
When firing multiple shots using an FRT, the trigger must still rest after each round is fired and must separately function to release the hammer by moving far enough to the rear in order to fire the next round.

TL;DR: It’s still firing semi-auto, idiots. And you don’t get to change the definition of machine gun to encompass whatever.

Plaintiffs’ cgun definition as applied to FRTs ontend that the ATF’s broadened view of the machinegun definition as applied to FRTs is an unlawful expansion of the agency’s authority.Plaintiffs are correct.

Interestingly, there seems to be no mention of CHEVRON deference to agency interpretations, or Loper Bright‘s reversal of such deference. The judge simply noted that both plaintiffs and defendants agreed of how FTRs work, but that the ATF improperly called semiautos machine guns.

Courts, Hollywood, Law

Alec Baldwin Charges Dismissal: Not What Some Think

July 14, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Sheila has covered the Trump assassination attempt, so I’ll just say for now — pending new information — that I don’t think this will be the last attempt before November.

What I am here to talk about is charges against Alec Baldwin being dismissed with prejudice.

Some people see this as the exoneration of Baldwin.

We told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and explained to all comers, in excruciating detail, how Baldwin was not legally responsible to any whit for the shooting on the set of Rust, explaining the safety rules and the chain of culpability using metric fucktons of pixels and internet bandwidth.

Sorry, Aesop; that isn’t what happened. Charges were dismissed for a deliberate Brady violation by prosecution: hiding evidence which defense seemed to believe to be exonerating. Defense had moved for this dismissal, and I find that odd.

Up to now, all the publicly available evidence and forensic reports indicated to me that Baldwin was guilty. Now, suddenly, new evidence appears. Two years after the shooting, a third party turned over some ammunition that he thought might be associated with the case. Without a trial with testimony, I don’t see how it is relevant. It might be, but I don’t know. The case against Baldwin was based on his own — multiple — safety violations; not on where the live ammunition came from. It wouldn’t matter where the live round came from if only Baldwin had followed just one of the four rules.

At opening statements Wednesday, prosecutors alleged Baldwin violated the “cardinal rules of firearm safety” by pointing the prop gun at Hutchins and pulling the trigger.

Assuming it is relevant, I would have thought defense would want to continue the trial and get the actual exonerating testimony on record, along with a formal acquittal. That would clear Baldwin’s name.

Instead, the defense effectively suppressed all the evidence — not just the new ammo evidence but everything else prosecution was prepared to present — themselves, at least so far as the public is concerned. No trial, no evidence presented. If defense actually thought the evidence was overwhelmingly exonerating, why move for dismissal for a Brady violation (something you might do before the trial starts) instead of moving for a directed verdict of acquittal (the normal thing, once a trial in in progress)?

Now Baldwin is going to have to live with having killed a woman, and having everyone look at him and think, You never were acquitted; you forced an end to the trial on a technicality. Why?

For that alone, I imagine a lot of actors and crew will be hesitant to work with Baldwin anywhere in the same county.

[best infommercial voice] But wait! There’s more! Baldwin’s defense:

“This was an unspeakable tragedy, but Alec Baldwin committed no crime. He was an actor, acting, playing the role of Harlan Rust,” attorney Alex Spiro said. “These ‘cardinal rules’ are not cardinal rules on a movie set.”

Would you want to be anywhere near the guy who thinks safety rules don’t apply on set? Not even the film industry’s own safety standards.

I also wouldn’t want to pay the insurance premiums for any film that includes Baldwin. Assuming any film with Baldwin can even get insurance coverage now.

"News Media", Culture, Law, Politics, Voting

One Half Inch

July 14, 2024 Sheila Stokes 3 Comments

We’ve long been hearing the violent left speak with impunity about attacking conservatives, including politicians. The feel they are entitled to threaten physical violence and joke openly about it.

Violent left

I’m sure we all remember the political rallies of 2020 when President Trump’s supporters were attacked by unhinged leftist. Women alone were mobbed, reporter Andy Ngo was viciously attacked and sustained several injuries. During the “summer of love” when Soros funded Antifa and communist groups like BLM ruled the streets motorists were trapped by “mostly peaceful” riots, cars were broken into and 9-1-1 calls were ignored. Our inept, dishonest Vice President Kakela Harris urged people to donate to spring violent antifa members that had been arrested. Setting them free to attack more innocent people, free to burn more buildings. That should have made it clear who’s side she was on.

For years now the corrupt, lying, morally bankrupt media has been assuring everyone Donald Trump is literally hitler! Under no circumstances can he be allowed to regain the white house, I’ve even seen signs saying by any means necessary. Because that’s how democracy works in their brain dead little heads.

Today the fruition of all that was seen in Butler Pa. The Obiden administration decided to go full on banana republic and assassinate their political rival.

Today at a political rally there was an attempt on President Trump’s life. Thank G-d he survived. There are several pictures that have made it out of the rally.

As you can see that wound is a heart stopper. Mine, not his. Some are saying the second photo will be the photo of the year. Myself, I prefer the third photo. The man stood up, told the secret service he had to get his shoes back on and triumphantly pumped his fist in the air telling his supporters to fight, not to give in.

Reaction has been from the sarcastic to the unbelievably stupid. The first one is humor, the second one is an actual CNN aka #Fake News headline. Yep, it just didn’t happen, no one tried to kill President Trump, he “fell”. Dear lord these are very stupid people and or just that corrupt. Its no wonder cnn has like 12 viewers.

But why do I say the Obiden junta decided to go full on banana republic?

Because he’s called for violence and so have demoncratic staffers.

This is who works with Congress. We pay this salary.

Because of interviews like this one done by the BBC

Because of citizen journalists asking questions like why wasn’t the Secret Service having people stationed on top of all the buildings around there?

Because of podcasters like former Secret Service Dan Bongino who has pointed out Kim Cheatle has denied President Trump full package secret service protection. They have also denied Robert Kennedy Jr. secret service protection at all.

And who is in charge of the Secret Service?

Oh, Mayorkas…guess he’s worried if President Trump gets back in he may be called to account for the millions of illegal invaders he’s let in and flown in all over the country bypassing the border all together, so the numbers will be lower.

Take a look at that wound, one half inch to an inch over I’d be doing a very different column tonight.

Not only would we have a dead political candidate, we’d be fixin’ to see the start of the next civil war. I mean listen to those audiences as the demoncrat politicians are openly calling for violence against fellow citizens. Do they act horrified? No most cheer and applaud.

And that my friends is what we’re facing. Dirty filthy antifa and people like those in the audiences who will more than happily attack people. Because, you know, democracy or something.

As I understand it the assassin is dead, killed by the secret service who’s new motto is ”So secret it’ll be like we aren’t even here!”.

But I’ve heard reports there were actually two assassins. I’ve heard one was oriental looking.

Anyone know where Lon Horiuchi was today?

Courts, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

Gutting The Administrative Swamp Creatures

July 1, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger

Oh, boy. Last week, we saw “CHEVRON deference” overturned, eliminating the ATF-abused procedure of requiring judges to take the agency’s word for it when they creatively reinterpret laws.

Today, the Supreme Court took it quite a bit further in CORNER POST. This is a case over debit card merchant transaction fees, so you wonder what it has to do with Second Amendment issues.

Everything. And the EPA is going to hate this, too. Here’s the background.

In 2021, Corner Post joined a suit brought against the Board under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The complaint challenged Regulation II on the ground that it allows higher interchange fees than the statute permits. The District Court dismissed the suit as time-barred under 28 U. S. C. §2401(a), the default six-year statute of limitations applicable to suits against the United States. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

The lower courts held that the statute of limitations clock started ticking the rule was published. An interesting take; imagine claiming that statute of limitations for robbery started running when the law was passed, rather than when the robbery took place.

That matters, because Corner Post didn’t exist when the transaction fee rule was published. Just like you might not have been born when the armed robbery law pass enacted. Corner post was injured when they opened for business and started accepting debit cards. That is when the statute of limitations starts counting down.

Held: An APA claim does not accrue for purposes of §2401(a)’s 6-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.

How does that apply to us and the ATF?

Until 1982, semi-auto firearms that fired from the open bolt were semi-autos. But that year, the ATF suddenly decided that open-bolt firearms are easily converted into machineguns, and thus are machineguns. Unless…

To make it worse, it only applied to those models sold after the ruling, while those sold prior somehow remain semiautomatic. This forced complete redesigns on the manufacturers.

Here we have a rule that is arbitrary, capricious, and in conflict with the law defining “machinegun.”

The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

“Restored,” not converted. It had to be a machinegun at some earlier point in its existence. But courts defer to the ATF’s re-definition, and send people to prison over semi-auto “machineguns.”

We got rid of that stupid deference last week. But it still looked like we were stuck with existing stupid, arbitrary, and capricious rules. No more.

Go out and buy one of those open-bolt SM10 machineguns. When you’re told to apply for your tax stamp, sue the ATF over the idiotic rule…

…because you were just now injured by it. And have standing.

tick tick tick tick tick

Every swamp agency’s years-old rules are now ripe for challenging all over again, without deference. I saw a comment at SCOTUSblog to the effect that SCOTUS just guaranteed itself horrendously full dockets for next few years.

Good.

Constitution, Courts, gun control, Law, SCOTUS

CHEVRON Overturned

June 28, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger

While this case, LOPER BRIGHT ENTERPRISES ET AL. v. RAIMONDO, was not about the Second Amendment, it’s still a big win for it.

Held: The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.

When SCOTUS tossed the ATF’s unconstitutional bump-stock ban, they called out the ATF for attempting to take the legislative power of Congress. I thought it was a good start, and I looked forward to the Loper Bright ruling.

This decision doesn’t specifically mention “Cheveron deference” (the idea that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a law over that of the challenger), but they certainly did not give the ATF deference here. So that’s a good precedent for gun owners challenging other ATF abuses.

The ATF lives for CHEVRON deference. That’s how two copies of the exact same model of semiauto pistol could be a semiauto, while one assembled the very next day is a machinegun. Or 37 mm projectiles are either not destructive devices (loaded with a black powder pyrotechnic charge) or are destructive devices (loaded with a bean bag). Or the magical way Desert Eagle .50s became destructive devices when they changed the method of measuring the bore. Or…

Eh, just read that white paper for more.

For too long, the ATF has relied on Just take our word for it, Your Honor. No more; now they have to prove their psychotic re-interpretations really are Congressional intent. And presumed innocence returns.

On the downside, just as has happened post-BRUEN, it’s going to take a lot of effort to get lower courts to pay attention, and stop granting unconstitutional deference to unelected DC swampcrawlers.

I hope the good attorneys at the Firearms Policy Coalition take a look at this decision and that white paper, and see if they can right some very old wrongs.

Bump-Fire, Constitution, Law, SCOTUS

Repost: SCOTUS Tosses Bump Stock Ban

June 26, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger

I originally posted this on my personal blog while TZP was down.

See updates below.

Big news this morning.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule classifying firearms equipped with bump stocks as machine guns. The case, Garland v. Cargill, challenged the ban enacted following the 2017 Las Vegas concert mass shooting, which it implemented by interpreting a federal law restricting the transfer or possession of machine guns to include bump stocks.

It looks like Clarence Thomas wrote the majority decision, so I’ve got some reading to do. I always enjoy Thomas’ decisions.

It looks like this is primarily based on violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. I tried to tell the ATF just that in my NPRM comments.

I expect I’ll have more on this after I finish reading the decision.

UPDATE: Yes, the ATF violated the APA by exceeding its authority.

Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b).

But, Thomas didn’t stop there.

A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism.

A clear, unequivocal, specific ruling that, not only did they exceed their authority, but that bump stocks do not turn firearms into machineguns. As I told them.

In fact, one might almost suspect that Justice Thomas read my NPRM comments. Or maybe my blog.

ATF argues that a shooter using a bump stock must pull the trigger only one time to initiate a bump-firing sequence of multiple shots. This initial trigger pull sets off a sequence—fire, recoil, bump, fire—that allows the weapon to continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. This argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between the shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary trigger.

The law address function of the trigger, not function of the finger. And the off-arm movement needed to make the finger re-engage the trigger is volitional, not an “automatic” function of the firearm.

Thomas included pictures for idiots. But apparently he should have drawn them in crayon for the real morons on the bench.

The dimwitted dissenting Justices — Kagan, Sotomayer, Jackson; go figure — were reduced to this: The ATF says they’re machineguns, therefore…

When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Those are the words of overly-emotive panty-pissers incapable of logic.

Added: This decision doesn’t specifically mention “Cheveron deference” (the idea that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a law over that of the challenger), but they certainly did not give the ATF deference here. So that’s a good precedent for gun owners challenging other ATF abuses.

authoritarian swine, Constitution, Courts, gun control, Law, Rights, SCOTUS

RAHIMI vs. Red Flags

June 24, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger

UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI is in the news with a Supreme Court ruling a few days ago. And the victim disarmament crowd is all over it.

You see, SCOTUS found that someone never convicted of a crime can still lose his Second Amendment rights via a domestic violent prevention order. Associate Justice Thomas dissented. For very good reasons.

Michigan’s Attorney General is one of the people eyeing this ruling with glee.

Nessel says SCOTUS gun ruling confirms constitutionality of Michigan gun laws
“Michigan’s recently passed ERPO [extreme risk protection order] law was modeled after the federal law at issue in the Rahimi case, and the Supreme Court’s decision today only confirms the constitutionality of our own law.”

Not so fast, statist thug.

Rahimi was charged with unlawful firearm possession under 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8). An important part of that is this:

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;

That’s a problem with Michigan’s ERPO law (“red flag”). Michigan’s law allows ex parte proceedings in which the accused does not receive “actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate.”

So, no, RAHIMI does not support your unconstitutional “red flag” law.

A lower court had dismissed the charge against Rahimi, based on the BRUEN test of general, historical legal tradition; the court found no early laws analogous to firearm possession bans via protective order. But — compromised? — Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, claims to have found not one, but two such laws.

By the 1700s and early 1800s, though, two distinct legal regimes had developed that specifically addressed firearms violence: the surety laws and the “going armed” laws. Surety laws were a form of “preventive justice,” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 251 (10th ed. 1787), which authorized magistrates to require individuals suspected of future misbehavior to post a bond
[…]
Surety laws could be invoked to prevent all forms of violence, including spousal abuse, and also targeted the misuse of firearms.

Can you spot the subtle difference between a surety bond to prevent a person performing an actual violent act, and a protective order that bans possession of a tool regardless of whether it was used?

Dolly-influenced(?) Roberts couldn’t.

His other example law similarly misses the mark.

The “going armed” laws—a particular subset of the ancient common law prohibition on affrays, or fighting in public provided a mechanism for punishing those who had menaced others with firearms. Under these laws, individuals were prohibited from “riding or going armed, with dangerous or unusual weapons, [to] terrify[ ] the good people of the land.”

The “going armed” laws were specific to threatening and menacing actions using guns (and other weapons), not the simple possession of those implements.

Roberts missed it by this ……………….. […] ………………….. much. I’m not sure how he missed it, since I figured it out two years ago. Yes, I examined historical surety bonds and such in this very light. Maybe the Fifth Circuit read it, even if Roberts didn’t.

Thomas, dissenting, gets it right, as usual.

To trigger §922(g)(8)’s prohibition, a restraining must bear three characteristics. First, the order issues after a hearing where the accused “received actual notice” and had “an opportunity to participate.”

No ex parte proceedings allowed.

Just as important as §922(g)(8)’s express terms is what it leaves unsaid. Section 922(g)(8) does not require a finding that a person has ever committed a crime of domestic violence. It is not triggered by a criminal conviction or a person’s criminal history, unlike other §922(g) subsections.

And Thomas correctly notes that this is a deprivation of rights not triggered by a criminal conviction. Plus…

In addition, §922(g)(8) strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process. Rather, the ban is an automatic, uncontestable consequence of certain orders.

The bans firearm possession, not just threatening or menacing actions. Sometimes it’s like Thomas reads my work as much as I read his. (That’s a joke; I’d be dumbfounded if Thomas knows who I am even if prompted with my name.)

And what does Clarence Thomas think of Roberts’ surety laws argument?

Section 922(g)(8) violates the Second Amendment. First, it targets conduct at the core of the Second Amendment— possessing firearms. Second, the Government failed to produce any evidence that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. To the contrary, the founding generation addressed the same societal problem as §922(g)(8) through the “materially different means” of surety laws.

Aha! the outright ban on mere constitutionally protected possession is not analogous, it is a “materially different means.”

Thomas notes that even the prosecution didn’t try to present surety and going armed laws as analagous to 8 U.S. Code § 922(g)(8).

Despite canvassing laws before, during, and after our Nation’s founding, the Government does not identify even a single regulation with an analogous burden and justification.

The Government couldn’t come up with even one, so Roberts invented one for them.

Administrivia

We’re Back!

June 19, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger 4 Comments

Sorry about the dead page for the past month.

The short version is:

A WordPress plugin caused WordPress to crash. It crashed so badly that I couldn’t login to WP to kill the bad plugin.

So I tried from the site control panel… but that didn’t give me access to WP functions. I needed a hosting service level login. But I never had that; that was the purview of Jo Ann…

Who passed away.

So I figured I’d go the long way around and fix it with an FTP upload. But I hadn’t had occasion to use FTP in some years, and my login no longer worked; the FTP server name was now invalid.

Sheila got JG, who took over for Brad and Jo Ann at Missouri Bullet company, to help. It took her quite a bit of back and forth with the hosting company, but they finally disabled the troublesome plugin, and…

We’re back!

This would not have happened without JG’s patient help. Thank you very, very much.

authoritarian swine, gun control, gun grabbers, Politics, So Much Stupid!

Everything

May 14, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger

Remember the shoulder things that go up? Move over, McCarthy; Senator Ben Cardin [Dumbass-MD] says, “Hold my beer.”

It’s time to pass mandatory background checks, bans on assault weapons and high-ammo stocks.

We owe it to young people everywhere.

Confusing stocks and magazines? Stocks made of a bunch of cartridges? High-priced ammunition company exchange shares? Who knows? I had a brief impulse to contact Cardin’s office and ask what he was talking about, but…

The fact is, when you’re a tyrannical SOB who wants to regulate, control, or ban everything, it doesn’t really matter if you’re also an ignorant, tyrannical SOB.

As for “mandatory background checks,” sales through Federal Firearms Licensees already have mandatory background checks. And the ATF has already published a rule requiring anyone who might sell, or buy, a gun to be an FFL required to conduct “mandatory background checks.”

It’s almost enough to make me miss New York Congress-scum Major Owens, who at least had the honesty to file bills to simply repeal the Second Amendment outright.

Username

Password


Remember me

Forgot Password?
Join Us

The Zelman Partisans