ATF NEWS: Texas Teen In Trouble

SAF Files Appellate Brief In 3rd Circuit Medical Marijuana Gun Ban Challenge Federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals who use illegal drugs, a provision that has come under increased scrutiny as more states legalize medicinal and recreational marijuana. This has led to several recent court cases concerning marijuana and firearms. In a previous report, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that medical marijuana users may retain their Second Amendment rights, noting an absence of evidence indicating that marijuana use alone increases dangerousness. Recently, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the federal law conflicted with the Second Amendment, although it referred the case back to the district court for further proceedings. Another relevant case is scheduled before the Philadelphia-based 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In Greene v. Bondi, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) submitted its opening brief challenging the federal prohibition on gun ownership for medical marijuana users. The SAF's case includes two private citizens: Warren County, Pa., District Attorney Robert Greene, who holds a Pennsylvania-issued medical marijuana ID card and wishes to possess firearms and ammunition; and James Irey, a disabled veteran seeking a medical marijuana ID to manage service-related injuries but concerned about losing his Second Amendment rights. According to an SAF news release, Executive Director Adam Kraut stated that marijuana is federally classified as a Schedule 1 narcotic, regardless of state-level legalization for medical purposes. Kraut described the situation facing medical marijuana users as a choice between accessing treatment and exercising Second Amendment rights, contrasting this with regulations allowing prescription painkiller users to purchase firearms. A Delaware court recently invalidated the state’s 2022 law banning firearm possession. The SAF brief asserts: “Prohibiting Greene, Irey, and similarly situated SAF members from purchasing, possessing, or using firearms and state-authorized medical marijuana constitutes a violation of the Second Amendment, as there is no analogous historical tradition of such firearms regulation in the United States.” The plaintiffs are seeking the repeal of the law so that individuals legally using medical marijuana can also exercise their Second Amendment rights. The brief concludes by requesting that the Third Circuit consider the matter en banc, apply the categorical approach to Second Amendment challenges to § 922(g), reverse the district court’s judgment, and find the challenged laws unconstitutional, either facially or as applied to the plaintiffs. Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, observed that as additional states legalize medical marijuana, the interplay between cannabis use and firearm rights creates added complexity for residents. Gottlieb stated that legal use of medical marijuana should not automatically result in the loss of Second Amendment rights, and indicated SAF’s intent to contest these restrictions in court.

3 Gun-Rights Groups Voice Opposition To Reported Trans Firearm Ban Proposal Media reports that the Trump Administration might be considering a move to ban gun ownership for trans Americans following the August 27 shooting at a Catholic school and church in Minneapolis, Minnesota, have some gun-rights groups speaking out. The attack at Church of the Annunciation, committed by a young man who had legally changed his name to a woman’s name, left two elementary-age children dead and 17 other people injured. In the aftermath, several media outlets, including CNN, reported that senior Justice Department officials are “weighing proposals” to limit gun ownership rights of trans individuals. That proposal has drawn the ire of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the National Rifle Association. All three groups say such a move would violate the Second Amendment. “Prohibiting whole groups of people from owning and using firearms because a sick individual misused a gun to harm and kill children is as reprehensible as restricting the rights of all law-abiding citizens because some people have committed crimes,” Alan Gottlieb, CCRKBA chairman, said in a news release addressing the issue. “That anyone in the Trump administration would consider such nonsense is alarming.” As Gottlieb further pointed out, such a blanket prohibition, which would affect an unknown number of people who haven’t harmed anyone, is simply wrong. “Gun owners already know what it’s like for the government to penalize them for crimes they did not commit,” Gottlieb said. “We shouldn’t even consider such an extreme response to a heinous act committed by one disturbed individual, much less implement it, no matter how horrible the crime. The deranged Minneapolis killer is no longer a threat to anybody, and we needn’t make scapegoats of others who had nothing to do with that outrage, just to create the impression something is being done.” Gottlieb said the ironic part of the whole situation is that some in the so-called “mainstream” media are suddenly supporting gun rights because somebody in the Trump administration is talking about restricting transgender individuals from exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Jasmine Crockett Texas Democrat insists her language is ‘accurate’ and a reflection of the president’s ‘playbook,’ while also taking aim at late activist Charlie Kirk . Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) stood by her previous statements comparing President Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler during a recent appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.” The Texas Democrat, in an interview with anchor Dana Bash, defended her use of the term “wannabe Hitler,” arguing that it is “accurate language” to describe the president’s actions and policies. The discussion came after Crockett had used similar rhetoric in a prior interview on MSNBC in July, following two assassination attempts on the president. When asked by Bash whether she felt a responsibility to moderate her language, Crockett responded that her primary responsibility is to be “transparent and to be honest.” "The reality is that we are living in a time in which this administration and this regime is not interested in making sure that people understand history,” Crockett said. “We need to understand why they are so problematic.” She continued, asserting that the president’s policies constitute a “playbook out of Hitler.” The interview also saw Crockett takes aim at the late Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk , whose memorial service was taking place at the same time as the interview. Crockett claimed without providing evidence that Charlie Kirk had said “things about who should live and who should die.” This is not the first time Crockett has made such claims about Charlie Kirk. Following his assassination on September 10, Crockett justified her “wannabe Hitler” comments on “The Breakfast Club” by distinguishing between her rhetoric and what she characterized as the president's promotion of a “culture of violence.” In a previous May interview on “American Fever Dream,” Crockett also stated that Republicans were “inherently… violent” and attracted “violent actors.” She dismissed the violence associated with groups like Black Lives Matter, claiming, “they try to pretend like that.” This is in contrast with a statement from Utah Governor Spencer Cox, who at a September 12 press conference stated that authorities found anti-fascist messages on ammunition recovered near Charlie Kirk’s assassination site.

Evil unmasked: How Charlie Kirk's murder exposed a diabolical spiritual war Billy Hallowell Is this the America we want? Millions of Americans are still desperately trying to scrub their hearts and minds of the infernal videos and images that emerged after conservative commentator Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Far from a typical social or political event, this murder has reverberated throughout America, igniting everything from fury to depression and opening a chasm filled with uncomfortable questions about the state of the nation and where we go from here. Today, too many people are now fully embracing and emulating Satan’s nature. There’s an alarm sounding among many faith and political leaders who believe America is at a dire crossroads — a point where we must carefully choose our destiny. "We have crossed the Rubicon," Pastor Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, told me last week. "We're no longer what we used to be. The age of civility is officially over, and we've entered into the proverbial dark, slippery slope where rhetorical violence becomes physical violence." He’s not wrong. The disturbing reality is that a sizable proportion of the public is now OK with political violence. In fact, a YouGov survey recently asked, “Do you think it is ever justified for citizens to resort to violence in order to achieve political goals?” Shockingly, 11% answered, “Yes, violence can sometimes be justified,” with an additional 11% stating they were unsure and another 5% preferring not to respond. Thus, while 72% rejected political violence, 27% either weren’t sure, wouldn’t respond — or seemed to back it. True evil This willingness to entertain political violence is so alarming and otherworldly that it can only come from one source: true evil. And sadly, wickedness has, in some circles, become increasingly pervasive. James 4:7 in the Bible is monumentally clear that each person must “resist the devil” and, when we do, “he will flee.” But today, too many people are now fully embracing and emulating Satan’s nature. The Bible tells us the “devil has been sinning from the beginning” (1 John 3:8) and is filled with ghastliness and lies. “He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him,” Jesus proclaims of Satan in John 8:44. “When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Scripture also makes it clear that the devil prowls around seeking to “steal, and kill, and destroy” (John 10:10), hoping to so confuse human hearts and minds that people reflect his nature and reject the biblical command to love God and love others. We see these elements permeating society and playing out not only in the brutal killing of Kirk, but also among the slew of people who have bizarrely and fiendishly excused or even celebrated the conservative commentator’s death. Make no mistake: The only humane and sane reaction to an assassination like this is sheer horror. There’s no need to add a “but,” no warrant for a “well, his tone wasn’t always the best” — and certainly no excuse for debasing Kirk’s humanity as to gleefully react to his death. Luciferian delight Such insanity, though not the majority response, exposes the extent to which some have willfully chosen to baste in the bowels of Luciferianism. Relishing in death has become a newfound passion for those who have given themselves over to such evil. Just consider that YouGov also found that 9% of Americans believe it’s acceptable to celebrate a public figure’s death. Sure, 78% said it’s inappropriate, but the fact that one out of every 10 Americans said it’s perfectly permissible “for a person to be happy about the death of a public figure they oppose” should send a literal shiver down our spines. As it turns out, Democrats (11%) are more likely than Republicans (6%) to say it’s either “always” or “usually” acceptable to celebrate public figures’ deaths. Republicans are also far more likely (89%) to oppose this than are Democrats (71%). These statistics reveal a disturbing level of moral corruption within the American populace, with human hearts taking on the nature of the devil in such a merciless way. Rather than showing honor and decency, many in recent days have opted for full-blown hatred — a satanic level of bile that says much more about them than it does Kirk or anyone else. One of the problems fueling the dysfunction in our politics has become an unhealthy rhetoric that dominates our discourse. Trump, Kirk, and others have been labeled as "racist," "homophobic," and other dishonest slurs. Some, like former President Joe Biden, warned Trump would “sacrifice our democracy.” Former Vice President Kamala Harris also seized on this rhetoric as did other Democrats. For his part, Trump has often returned fiery rhetoric. Tragically, there’s a cost to such proclamations. The choice is ours I recently spoke with Dallas Jenkins, creator of the hit TV show “The Chosen,” about Kirk’s death and the chaos in our nation. "We are in a time where people demonize the opposition — the political or spiritual opposition, so much that their death is a logical conclusion," Jenkins said. "If you tell enough people that someone or a group of people are Nazis, are a threat to your literal freedom and democracy, and in fact, your very life, I mean, why wouldn't you think that they should die, or at least be stopped in some dramatic way?" His point? We’ve allowed callousness and rhetoric to become so untethered from goodness that we have unwell people getting panicked, ginned up, and, in turn, radicalized. This is a dangerous path for our nation, with Kirk’s death, in particular, forcing both sides to decide: Is this the America we want — or are we willing to strive for something better? The Book of James warns that the tongue is a “world of evil,” can “corrupt the whole body," and is “set on fire by hell.” And Ephesians 6 delivers perhaps the most important context, explaining that the real battle is spiritual — not physical. “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms,” Ephesians 6:12 reads. We’d do well to pause, reflect, and ponder where we are and where we want to go. Will we choose God or Satan? Will we opt for good or devilish hatred? The decision is ours, and the very fate of our nation and the world depends on how we collectively answer.

Gregg Kielma, FFL, Firearms Instructor, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and Gunsmith. I'm truly saddened by the University's stance on honoring Charlie Kirk . Can someone explain how this wonderful man of God, political person and advocate for good, who debated reasonably with people that differ with him can do this? Can someone tell me why he is so bad? Why? He stood for everything that was good, nothing more nothing less. He encouraged people of the opposite opinion to sit down with him and talk about it. And he's assassinated for it? Charlie Kirk was an angle walking among us. I rejoice knowing he is with now with God. Shame on Utah Valley University. The shame is immense on the board, facility and students that purpurate this narrative. Lastly Kielma says, please take a look below at how DEI effect our universities, culture and our young people. Community members are speaking out against a proposal to establish a Charlie Kirk memorial at Utah Valley University, saying it would glorify a divisive political figure whose views run counter to the school’s values of diversity and inclusivity. They’re calling on UVU and local leaders to reject the plan. If you agree no memorial should be built, sign the petition. In Utah Valley, as passionate members of the community, we're deeply troubled by any proposal to establish a memorial for Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University (UVU). Our concerns arise from profoundly disagreeing with his political views, which we believe do not represent the values of diversity, equity and inclusion. Charlie Kirk is a controversial political figure known for his divisive rhetoric. His organization, Turning Point USA, has been criticized for promoting messages that some consider homophobic, transphobic, and racist. Many in our community feel that glorifying such a figure with a memorial could send the wrong message to our students, staff, and residents. UVU prides itself on being a diverse and inclusive institution that fosters an environment of learning and growth for all students, regardless of their background. Erecting a memorial for Charlie Kirk would undermine these core values and might alienate students who represent different political, racial, and cultural backgrounds. Therefore, we urge the administration of UVU and the community of Orem, UT , to reconsider and reject any plans to honor Charlie Kirk with a memorial. We want to ensure that our university remains a welcoming space for everyone, and recognizing Charlie Kirk in such a way contradicts this mission. Let us stand together to maintain the integrity and dignity of our educational environment where all voices are heard and respected. Please sign this petition if you agree that no memorial should be erected for Charlie Kirk at UVU.

How do gun shops prevent customers from threatening staff with firearms? What precautions are in place? Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms Gun stores, my location, have strict safety rules: clients are never allowed access to both guns and ammunition simultaneously. If someone wants to test a firearm's action, only inert snap caps are used. Ammo and guns remain physically separated at all times. Any attempt to load a gun inside the store is met with immediate intervention, and persistent unsafe behavior can result in my staff drawing their own weapons. Visitors to my gunsmith shop and location are required to ask permission to bring an unloaded and cased, firearm into my property. Any personal firearm coming into the shop must be unloaded and secured in a case or box. Drawing or presenting a loaded or holstered weapon without warning can result in being confronted. At my location I generally permit responsible carrying but prohibit reckless actions such as waving barrels or handling unloaded guns unsafely. Florida law requires specific signage if stores wish to ban carry, but responsible behavior is always expected for service or fitting firearms. Every action should be handled very over carefully.

Tactical K Training and Firearms Outdoor Range I'm someone who owns a 9mm handgun, is it worth getting a budget AR-style rifle for home defense? What's best for YOU and YOUR Family? Gregg Kielma Firearms Instructor Kielma suggests reading the article below and then making a good decision with the Tactical K Training and Firearms Staff before you invest. Continues Kielma, to answer this question I get asked all the time, maybe for you, however, not for me. My home defense firearm is a 12g shotgun for several reasons. Case Study: The infamous FBI Miami Massacre that kicked off the rush to “better” ammo and gear could have been resolved with the ammo and gear on scene that day earlier than it was. It was resolved with 4 shots from a 12-gauge shotgun. Every agent there that day had what he needed to do the job, and the job was eventually done with it. Better tactical judgment, decisions, and marksmanship were the real problems, not an “ammunition failure”. Case Study: Same for the North Hollywood shootout. The bad guys did not have armored faces, arms, hands, legs, and feet. The LEO could have done better with what they used earlier than with what they had later. Case Study: Two, local PDs best and brightest, skilled in action pistol and MMA, armed with the newest gear were both killed by a man off his meds with a relic WWII surplus revolver. What they have does not matter as much as what you do with what you have. I feel safe protecting my home with a shotgun as my first resource and handgun as the other option. I keep both close by, so I don’t need to spend valuable time fumbling around to keep my home safe. I have a plan. My judgment, training, and experience keeps my family safe along with my firearms of choice and the firearms and ammo I use. Kielma continues, training and your plan are crucial for home and self-defense. The type of firearm is used is paramount. We offer outdoor training to develop the skills needed to defend yourself family and friends at our outdoor range. Call me to schedule a day and time to train to be comfortable and the best you can be when armed.

Do concealed carriers carry with a round in the chamber? Gregg Kielma Firearms Instructor Says Gregg Kielma Firearms Instructor, Gunsmith, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and FFL. I get asked this question all the time. Please take a look at my thoughts on carrying a round in the chamber and ready to fire when needed. Please stay safe and situationally aware. Questions? Please respond or give me a call. I'm 6' tall and always carry with a dedicated IWB holster that fits well and stays concealed. I would encourage any competent shooter to always carry a round in the chamber, if you ever need to use your tool, and that’s exactly what it is, your firearm is just a tool, you’ll come to thank me later. Among concealed carriers, the decision to carry a firearm with a round in the chamber is a significant consideration involving both safety and readiness. Many reputable firearms training organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA) and the United States Concealed Carry Association (USCCA), and Tactical K Training and Firearms advocate carrying with a round chambered to enable a faster response in critical self-defense situations. Law enforcement and Tactical K Training and Firearms defensive shooting courses commonly teach that carrying this way reduces the time and motor skills needed to make a firearm ready under stress, which can be crucial during emergencies. Safety remains paramount, and carrying with a round chambered should only be practiced by individuals who have received proper firearms training, are confident in their handling skills, and use a high-quality, well-fitting holster that fully covers the trigger guard. According to available safety data, accidental discharges among responsible concealed carriers are rare when best practices and safe carrying methods are followed. However, some individuals choose not to carry a round in the chamber, especially those who are new to firearms or still building confidence in their skills. This decision is often based on personal comfort levels, concerns about accidental discharges, or the desire for additional practice before adopting this method. Both approaches are valid, and individuals are encouraged to make informed decisions based on their training, experience, and comfort with their equipment. Continuing education, regular practice, and a commitment to safety are essential for all concealed carriers, regardless of their chosen method.

Bill Would Repeal Gun-Free School Zones Act Mark Chesnut Following the recent shooting at a Catholic school in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which resulted in two children dead and 17 others injured, a U.S. congressman is proposing to abolish the law that allows only criminals to be armed near public schools. On August 29, U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, introduced the “Safe Students Act,” H.R. 5066, which would repeal the “Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990,” (GFSZA) and eliminate that law’s one-size-fits-all federal ban on guns in school zones. According to Rep. Massie, enactment of the “Safe Students Act” would make it easier for state and local governments and school boards to set their own firearms policies unambiguously. “Gun-free zones are ineffective and make our schools less safe,” Rep. Massie said in a news release announcing the measure. “Since 1950, 94% of mass public shootings have occurred in places where citizens are banned from having guns. Banks, churches, sports stadiums and many of my colleagues in Congress are protected with firearms. Yet children inside the classroom are too frequently left vulnerable.” In fact, statistics support Rep. Massie’s argument. Recent data shows a 200% increase in targeted school shootings in the United States since the act was enacted, and a 327% rise in shootings on or near school campuses during the same period. Rep. Massie’s bill, originally introduced by Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in 2007, repeals GFSZA, a law that makes it “unlawful for any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” In 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court held the GFSZA unconstitutional, which prompted Congress to amend the bill in 1996. The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the amended act.