Colorado Democrats are coming for your firearms, It's only a matter of time before they come to get yours
Gregory Kielma • April 1, 2024
Colorado Dems push sweeping gun control laws that are flying under national radar: 'Public is fed up'This is a subtitle for your new post
Colorado Govenor Jaris Polis
Colorado Dems push sweeping gun control laws that are flying under national radar: 'Public is fed up'
Story by Emma Colton
Colorado Democrats are pushing a series of gun control bills that mirror policies in liberal states such as California but have overwhelmingly flown under the radar in the media, Second Amendment experts say.
"This should be making national news as it doesn’t just impact Colorado, but the nation as a whole," Ava Flanell, a firearms instructor in Colorado Springs, told Fox News Digital. "Lawmakers are using these outrageous bills as blueprints, changing the state names and implementing them across the country at a state level because they don’t have the votes to do it nationally.
"Last year, it was Washington where they all passed, and the laws are decimating gun stores without a single positive impact on crime. Today, it’s Colorado. These same bills will show up in other states tomorrow if we don’t come together as a whole to fight this."
State Democrats are pushing a gun control blitz this year, including a bill that would ban so-called "assault weapons," which is typically understood as a semi-automatic rifle, like an AR-15; enact an 11% tax on gun and ammunition sales; and increase standards for concealed handgun training classes. Another bill would prohibit gun owners from carrying in "sensitive" areas, such as parks, banks and college campuses.
BIDEN DOJ’S GUN LAW BLUEPRINT WILL IMPACT ABILITY TO DEFEND YOURSELF: GUN RIGHTS GROUPS
The bills are under consideration by lawmakers in the state’s General Assembly, where the Democratic Party controls both chambers. The state’s governor, Jared Polis, is also a Democrat, meaning the party has a Democratic trifecta in the Centennial State.
The state’s House Judiciary Committee in March advanced a bill that would ban "assault weapons," sending the bill to the full House, where it’s anticipated to receive support from the Democratic majority.
Out of the legislation introduced this year, Flanell took issue with the state’s move to ban types of semi-automatic firearms.
"The so-called 'assault weapons' ban bill is the most concerning, but they all have tragic consequences for law-abiding citizens. The ‘assault weapons’ bill is incredibly deceptive. They want to ban not only every kind of ‘scary’ gun like ARs and AKs, but also 80-90% of semi-automatic firearms popular today, including handguns and shotguns," Flanell said.
She said the language in the bill is broad and would ban not only the guns, but also firearm features such as "a foregrip, adjustable stock, pistol grip, barrel shroud."
FEDERAL JUDGE RULES IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO BAN GUNS FROM POST OFFICES
"The bill sponsors claim these features increase lethality, when, in fact, they don’t. They’re merely cosmetic. A muzzle brake, which could be interpreted as a compensator, is another characteristic lawmakers have decided to make a firearm 'more lethal.' Muzzle brakes are one of the most popular features to tame recoil and are growing in popularity among female shooters, those who lack upper body strength or have physical limitations."
Antonia Okafor, the founder and president of a nonprofit firearm education group called EMPOWERED, told Fox News Digital Colorado’s moves to ban guns such as AR-15s would leave women especially vulnerable to crime.
"After seven years of training women, it is abundantly clear that women prefer an AR-15 for the defense of their home, their family and themselves," Okafor, a sexual assault survivor, told Fox News Digital.
"Despite the anti-gun rhetoric pushed by the media and gun control organizations, the AR-15 allows women to have a larger firearm without having to physically absorb as much recoil as a smaller, handheld firearm. The AR-15 makes it easier for those who have a physical disadvantage to have an upper hand against an attacker and creates a larger perimeter of protection. Simply put, a firearm levels the playing field."
The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic state representatives Elisabeth Epps and Tim Hernandez, both from Denver, defines an "assault weapon" as a "semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine, and has one or more of the following characteristics," including features such as a pistol grip or thumbhole stock and "any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non-trigger hand.
"The bill defines the term ‘assault weapon’ and prohibits a person from manufacturing, importing, purchasing, selling, offering to sell, or transferring ownership of an assault weapon," the bill’s summary states. "The bill further prohibits a person from possessing a rapid-fire trigger activator. A person in violation of the prohibitions will be assessed a first-time penalty of $250,000 and $500,000 for each subsequent violation."
Hernandez said the bill becoming law would protect the community from mass shootings.
"The vast majority of Americans and over 80% of Democrats support an assault weapons ban and are fed up with weapons of war in our communities," Hernandez said after the bill passed through committee. "My entire childhood, I was afraid to die in school because adults wouldn't be bold enough on guns, and those fears only grew when I became a teacher and I saw my students struggle with those same anxieties. We must take action to protect our communities, especially our students, from the death and destruction assault weapons inflict on so many innocent people."
Flanell told Fox News Digital Colorado’s "anti-gun lawmakers are undoubtedly out of touch with Americans' support of the Second Amendment," citing how the U.S. recently became a constitutional carry majority nation.
"Twenty-nine states currently have constitutional carry. While over 50% of the country recognizes the Constitution, states like Colorado are going backwards," Flanell said. "Our homicide by firearm rate has surpassed the national rate for the first time in over 40 years, while states who have passed constitutional carry are seeing a decrease.
JUDGE RULES ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS HAVE GUN RIGHTS PROTECTED BY 2ND AMENDMENT
"This comes after Colorado lawmakers have already enacted gun control measures such as universal and expanded background checks, magazine capacity limits, safe storage, red flag laws, etc. And the state has even created their own Office of Gun Violence Prevention. The same trend of higher crime with more restrictive gun laws has been proven repeatedly in other states, and politicians refuse to recognize that the firearm violence occurring is overwhelmingly not from legal firearm owners."
J
ust last month, Republican Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin vetoed 30 gun control bills, including one that would have made it a misdemeanor to import, sell, manufacture, purchase or transfer so-called "assault firearms" and another that would have banned guns on college campuses and buildings owned by public universities and institutions of higher education. Democrats in that state hold control of the General Assembly but do not have enough votes to override the Republican governor's vetoes.
VIRGINIA GOVERNOR VETOES DOZENS OF GUN CONTROL BILLS THWARTING DEMOCRAT LEGISLATORS
Flanell is the founder and owner of Elite Firearms & Training in Colorado Springs, which she opened in 2013 after the death of her mother, who also was a gun instructor in the state, Flanell told Fox News Digital.
"In 2012, my mom, who was a firearms instructor, sadly passed away. I moved back to Colorado from New York City, where I had been living for eight years, to help my dad with the family businesses. A week before my mom passed away, I shot my first firearm with her instruction. At that point, I knew very little about firearms and was determined to learn as much as I could, so I could help keep my parents’ businesses alive and thriving," she said.
She told Fox Digital that from what she heard from fellow law-abiding gun owners and supporters of the Second Amendment, "the public is fed up" with the state’s push to enact further gun control measures.
"Roughly 600 people signed up to testify against the ‘assault weapons’ ban bill, and testimony was cut at 12 hours with hundreds still waiting to testify," Flanell said. "Colorado has over 2,500 federal firearms licensees, which means they have a license to sell firearms. In my opinion, every one of these people should have been standing at the Capitol fighting this as it will undoubtedly decimate their business if this law passes. Understandably, many feel exhausted by the constant assaults on their rights, but right now is not the time for any gun owners or stores to be complacent."
Yet another bill under consideration, HB 24-1310, would repeal an existing exemption and prevent school staff such as teachers from carrying on school grounds.
"Colorado law currently allows for individual school districts to determine their own armed security protocols, something that is often utilized by charter schools and rural districts across the state," Flanell said. "I’ve personally certified school employees to carry on school grounds. One particular school is located over 20 miles from their sheriff’s office. If there’s an active shooter, children and staff don’t stand a chance if they relied on law enforcement response."
Flanell cited research showing most mass shootings unfold in "gun-free zones" where criminals are less likely to be confronted by an armed good Samaritan.
The "assault weapons" ban bill, combined with a bill that would assess gun and ammo sales with an 11% tax and a bill that would prevent legal gun owners from carrying guns in areas defined as "sensitive," such as college campuses, parks and places of worship, resembles legislation signed into law in California.
CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY: 2023 SAW NEW MILESTONE FOR GUN RIGHTS
The Golden State earlier this year called on a federal circuit court to reverse a lower court’s decision on California’s ban on semi-automatic weapons after the law was found unconstitutional. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom last year also signed into law an 11% state tax on guns and ammo and another bill that prevents gun owners from carrying in areas described as "sensitive." California is the only state in the nation with the additional tax.
Washington state also went on a recent gun control blitz, with the governor signing bills into law that banned "assault weapons," enacted a 10-day waiting period to buy a gun and requires gun makers and dealers to take "reasonable steps" to keep guns from "dangerous individuals."
Flanell said the bill that would ban "assault weapons" is the "scariest" piece of gun control legislation but noted she’s watching the other bills as well. She argued the bill that would tax gun owners 11% to purchase guns and ammo would have drastic effects on lower-income Americans who want to protect themselves.
VP HARRIS PUSHES GUN CONTROL AT SITE OF PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING AS VICTIM'S DAD CALLS IT 'SLAP IN THE FACE'
"Most of these proposed bills in Colorado will hurt the underprivileged the most, ensuring only the wealthy can protect themselves or express their constitutionally protected right," Flanell said. "Firearms are not inexpensive, averaging a little more than $500 each. When you add an 11% tax to that and on ammunition, it adds up quickly. Especially for someone to maintain proficiency with their firearm. They need to practice, and they can’t afford it at a time when most Americans are living paycheck to paycheck."
Flanell argued the tax is a "sin tax," adding, "self-defense is not a sin; self-defense is a human right."
"Another pending bill, HB24-1270, requires gun owners to get liability insurance," Flanell said. "Not only does this increase the cost for gun owners, but I think it will be difficult to find a company that will cover them, making the few companies that do a monopoly. As we’ve seen with banks, many merchants refuse to do business with gun stores and gun-related accessories and training, often dropping accounts without notice.
"My goal was and has always been to help people learn in a safe, fun environment, but I really wanted to be a resource and role model for women."
Original article source: Colorado Dems push sweeping gun control laws that are flying under national radar: 'Public is fed up'
Louisiana House Rejects Firearm Storage Mandate, Advances Two Pro-Gun Measures Story by Mike Jenkins The Louisiana House of Representatives took decisive action on several firearm-related bills Thursday, defeating a measure that would have mandated specific firearm storage practices while approving two bills aimed at expanding gun rights. The two pro-gun bills now head to the State Senate for further consideration. The Senate will now take up both HB 393 and HB 407 for additional policy committee hearings. These two bills join another pro-gun measure, HB 289, already in the Senate and eligible for a committee hearing. Authored by Representative Dewith Carrier, HB 289 is a pro-Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bill. It aims to further protect the firearm and ammunition industry from being held liable for the criminal misuse of their legally manufactured and sold products by third parties. HB 289 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary C Committee and could receive a hearing as early as next week. In other legislative activity, SB 101, a pro-gun bill authored by Senator Blake Miguez, is poised for a House floor vote next week. This bill seeks to eliminate some gun-free zones, allowing individuals legally carrying under constitutional carry provisions or with out-of-state concealed carry permits recognized by Louisiana to carry in more locations across the state. Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage. Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates. Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
Kristi Noem From The....THE BLAZE! Kristi Noem’s bombshell letter hits Harvard where it hurts Owen Anderson May 24, 2025 Ivy League academics mocked traditional values for decades. Now they’re panicking as their utopian vision crumbles — without a savior in sight. Picture a Harvard University faculty lounge: a ring of professors clustered around Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s letter, one of them furrowing his brow and murmuring, “Wait, are we the baddies?” Such moments of self-awareness, alas, remain forever just beyond the reach of our academic elite. The very institutions that lecture us daily about our original sin — racism — have, with impressive irony, perfected the art of racial discrimination. We are now at the far end of a 75-year arc that began with William F. Buckley Jr.’s “God and Man at Yale” and ends, aptly, with Harvard losing federal funds over the consequences of its own institutional neglect. The problems Buckley identified — contempt for Christianity and American ideals chief among them — have not only remained; they have metastasized. The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate. How did we get here? On Thursday, Noem sent a letter to Harvard informing the school that it had lost its certification for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. This came after Harvard repeatedly ignored federal requests to disclose statistics related to anti-Semitic activity on campus. According to the letter, Harvard fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students, tolerates pro-Hamas sympathies, and sustains racially discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion policies. Sign up for the Blaze newsletter By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, and agree to receive content that may sometimes include advertisements. You may opt out at any time. Harvard is now learning the lesson that Christian colleges grasped nearly half a century ago: Government money comes with government strings. But why did it take Harvard so long to recognize this? The answer is disarmingly simple — until now, those strings were always in harmony with Harvard’s ideological tune. Federal dollars came bundled with leftist priorities, and thus the elite saw no need to question them. Christian colleges, in contrast, often declined the money to preserve their mission of faithfulness to Scripture. What’s astonishing is that Harvard — the oldest corporation in the Western Hemisphere, chartered in 1650 — still behaves as though it needs government money. Its endowment, by the latest count, stands at more than $53 billion. Yet judging from the panic issuing from the president’s office, one might think bankruptcy was imminent. The reason? DEI is embedded so deeply into Harvard’s research infrastructure — even in the sciences — that stripping funding from DEI-tainted grants strikes at the university’s financial core. In academic circles, panic now masquerades as prophecy. Professors speak as though the world is ending — though, given their long record of failed doomsday predictions about climate catastrophe, one might be forgiven for tuning them out. I remember, early in my career, being told by an administrator that Al Gore’s book was a “road map to the future.” It turned out to be more of a road map to irrelevance. Global warming’s great success was posting more failed predictions than Hal Lindsey. But now the panic is personal. It’s not the planet they fear losing. It’s their world — their imagined utopia of managed speech, redefined morality, and subsidized ideology. That world is slipping through their fingers, and they have nothing left but their performances of alarm, such as reading an indigenous land acknowledgement, confessing their privilege, employee training about infinite genders, and giving a voice to the voiceless. This explains the despair among leftist academics. Even as the broader world shows signs of improvement, economically, culturally, and even morally, they howl louder. Why? Because the improvement is happening without them — or worse, despite them. They believed they were changing the world by sermonizing about “whiteness” and “heteronormativity.” Instead, they became a punch line. They trained a generation of DEI advocates with the promise that there would always be government work, but those jobs disappeared faster than the edibles at a faculty party. This is why Noem’s letter cuts so deeply. It documents, officially and unambiguously, the discriminatory policies of Harvard University. The very professors who made a career of moral hectoring have, predictably, become the thing they claimed to hate. As we turn the page on this chapter of the failed American university, we should remember that Buckley, despite his critique, was ultimately optimistic. He knew that donors, parents, and students were no longer represented by Ivy League ideology, even as those schools embraced collectivism in his day. He believed they would reject the communitarian ideologies of these universities. And they have! Now, as the last gasps of those failed philosophies echo through Harvard Yard, we too have reason to be hopeful. Parents, donors, and students are awakening, and they’re asking for something better. American ideals and Christianity are back on the menu at the schools that matter. Perhaps, at long last, we are remembering what once made Harvard great in the first place: Veritas.
Nevada Man Sentenced to 46 Months in Prison for Threatening U.S. Senators A Las Vegas man who pleaded guilty to threatening a U.S. Senator from Nevada and threatening family members of two United States Senators was sentenced today to over three years in prison followed by three years of supervised release. “The threats against these U.S. Senators and their families were vile, dehumanizing, and shameful,” said Sue J. Bai, head of the National Security Division. “Today’s sentence reflects the Department’s firm resolve to holding accountable those who seek to intimidate and harm our public officials. Such threats of violence have no place in our country.” “With today’s sentencing, the defendant will pay the price for making threats of violence,” said Assistant Director Donald M. Holstead of the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division. “It is unacceptable to threaten public officials or anyone else, and the FBI will work with our law enforcement partners to identify and hold accountable anyone who engages in such illegal activity.” According to court documents, from Oct. 11 to 25, 2023, John Anthony Miller left numerous threatening voicemails at the offices of two U.S. Senators. Miller threatened to assault and murder a U.S. Senator with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with U.S. Senator while engaged in the performance of official duties, and with intent to retaliate against the U.S. Senator on account of the performance of official duties. The following week, on Oct. 24 and Oct. 25, Miller threatened to assault and murder a member of the immediate family of two U.S. Senators, with intent to impede, intimidate, and interfere with the U.S. Senators while engaged in the performance of official duties, and with intent to retaliate against the U.S. Senators on account of the performance of official duties. Miller pleaded guilty to one-count of threatening a federal official and two-counts of influencing, impeding, or retaliating against a federal official by threatening a family member. U.S. District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey presided over the sentencing hearing. The FBI Las Vegas Field Office investigated the case with valuable assistance provided by the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, the U.S. Marshals Service, and the U.S. Capitol Police. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Jacob Operskalski and Daniel Schiess for the District of Nevada prosecuted the case. To report suspected threats or violent acts, contact the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI (225-5324) or file an online complaint at www.tips.fbi.gov. If someone is in imminent danger or risk of harm, contact 911 or your local police immediately.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi, DEA, & USAO New Mexico Announce Results of Historic Drug Bust On May 6, 2025, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico, announced the outcome of a weeklong, multi-agency enforcement operation targeting one of the largest drug trafficking organizations responsible for flooding communities with fentanyl and other illicit narcotics.
Maryland drug trafficker sentenced to five years in prison for firearms offense U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of Virginia ALEXANDRIA, Va. – A Maryland man was sentenced today to five years in prison for possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. According to court documents, on Dec. 7, 2024, an officer of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA) initiated a traffic stop after she observed Kaleel Malcolm Nagbe, 21, of Baltimore, holding a cellphone as he was driving on the Pentagon Reservation. As she approached the vehicle, the officer detected the odor of marijuana and asked Nagbe to exit the vehicle. After being informed that PFPA officers would be conducting a probable-cause search of the vehicle, Nagbe reentered the vehicle and attempted to drive away. Another PFPA officer then leaned into the vehicle and grabbed Nagbe. Both officers prevented Nagbe from driving away and secured him after a brief struggle. During a search of the vehicle, officers located approximately 13 pounds of marijuana in the trunk and multiple clear baggies in the passenger compartment that bore images of characters from the cartoon “Codename: Kids Next Door.” The baggies bore a QR code that, when scanned with a cellphone, were linked to an Instagram account that advertised marijuana for sale using the same cartoon packaging. When officers searched Nagbe they located a loaded firearm in his underwear. The firearm had a round of ammunition in the chamber and 16 additional rounds in the magazine. The firearm was equipped with a machinegun conversion device, rendering it capable of firing automatically. On Jan. 4, 2023, Nagbe was convicted in the Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court of possession of a regulated firearm by a person under 21 years of age, and was sentenced on April 23, 2023, to five years in prison, with all but the 367 days he had already spent in custody suspended. Nagbe was on probation for that conviction at the time of the current offense. Erik S. Siebert, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia; Anthony A. Spotswood, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Division; and Chris Bargery, Director of the Pentagon Force Protection Agency, made the announcement after sentencing by U.S. District Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff. Assistant U.S. Attorney John C. Blanchard prosecuted the case. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. A copy of this press release is located on the website of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. Related court documents and information are located on the website of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia or on PACER by searching for Case No. 1:25-cr-6. Contact Press Officer USAVAE.Press@usdoj.gov Updated May 22, 2025
Seven-Time Convicted Felon Sentenced To More Than Two Years For Attempting To Illegally Purchase A Firearm U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Jacksonville, Florida – U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Corrigan has sentenced Stephen K. Gainous (38, Jacksonville) to 30 months in federal prison for making a false statement to a federally licensed firearms dealer during the attempted purchase of a firearm. Gainous pled guilty on February 14, 2025. According to court documents, Gainous completed an ATF Form 4473 during the attempted purchase of a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Gainous indicated on the required paperwork that he was not a felon. This was a false statement, in that Gainous was previously convicted of seven felonies, including battery on a child, making a false statement during the acquisition of a firearm, possession of cocaine, criminal use of personal identification, and fraudulent use of a credit card. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Brenna Falzetta. This is another case uncovered through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). All NICS denials are reported to federal law enforcement and are reviewed daily for potential criminal prosecution. Federal law makes it a felony offense to make a false statement to a firearms dealer when trying to buy a gun. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. Updated May 22, 2025
Pam Bondi ATF Updates National Policy on Federal Firearm Licensee Inspections To Promote Fairness, Consistency, and Public Safety The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives today issued an updated national policy for administrative actions related to compliance inspections of federal firearms licensees. The guidance promotes clear, consistent and fact-based decisions that uphold ATF’s commitment to public safety and respect for Second Amendment rights. The policy replaces the 2021 Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement policy, also known as the "zero-tolerance" policy. It directs industry operations investigators to consider all circumstances of an inspection rather than applying automatic outcomes, ensuring ATF uses its regulatory authority fairly and effectively. “This update is about getting it right and making sure we’re focused on public safety,” ATF Acting Director Daniel Driscoll said. “Under the previous policy, some licensees were being penalized for simple mistakes such as, forgetting to put their license number on forms. This new guidance gives our investigators the discretion to tell the difference between an honest mistake and a real threat to public safety. Law-abiding dealers deserve a system that treats them fairly, not like suspects. They are our partners and the first line of defense in our efforts to combat firearms trafficking.” The policy provides investigators and field leadership clearer guidelines for evaluating violations, weighing mitigating and aggravating factors, and determining the proper response—from education and warnings to administrative actions. Decisions must factor in whether licensees self-reported issues, implemented corrective actions, or present a continuing threat to public safety. These updates support the administration’s efforts to increase transparency and public confidence in government oversight, reaffirming ATF’s commitment to accountability and legitimate business practices. Key points of the updated policy • Context-driven enforcement: Serious, willful violations may lead to administrative action, while minor or clerical errors may be addressed with education or warnings. • No automatic revocation: Removes the prior policy’s presumption of license revocation, instead considering intent, compliance history and public-safety risks. • Stronger public-safety focus: Investigators must evaluate whether continued operations pose a public-safety threat or contribute to violent crime, and whether the licensee demonstrates the ability to comply moving forward. • Clear legal standards and timelines: Defines key terms such as “willful” and “knowing” and establishes uniform timelines for reviews, actions and coordination. • Support for lawful industry engagement: ATF continues early intervention and collaboration with responsible licensees, while firmly addressing repeat or serious violations. ATF conducts compliance inspections as part of its mission to ensure firearms are sold, transferred and documented in accordance with federal law. The revised policy ensures inspections are fair, consistent and focused on reducing violent crime while protecting the rights of responsible gun owners. Compliance inspections also support ATF’s broader efforts to combat firearms trafficking. By examining dealer records and business practices, industry operations investigators can identify suspicious patterns—such as straw purchases or missing inventory—that may indicate firearms are being diverted into illegal markets. These findings assist in criminal investigations and help reduce violent crime by preventing guns from falling into the wrong hands. ATF is the federal law enforcement agency responsible for regulating the firearm industry and enforcing laws related to firearms and violent crime. For more information, visit atf.gov or follow @ATFHQ on X. Contact: ATF Public Affairs Division, Liaison2@atf.gov
Have you ever had to use your concealed carry? Kielma say’s, this from an avid reader of my blog. Your thoughts? Unfortunately, yes. I was pumping gas into my 2011 mustang boss 5.0 when a Hispanic looking man came up from behind me and when he yelled HEY! I turned around and he had a gun pointed at my face. He told me in broken English to stop what I was doing so I stopped pumping gas and hung up the gas pump. While still pointing his gun at me he got in my car and locked the door. When he tried to start my car, he suddenly realized that the key was not in the ignition. He turned towards me, and I had already pulled my micro desert eagle .380 out of my pocket and now I was pointing it at his head. The idiot tried to reach for his gun which he had placed next to him on the passenger seat. I screamed “RIGHT THERE” at the top of my lungs. He looked scared and I used my key to unlock the door, and I ordered him out of my car. I pistol whipped him hard across his face and ordered him on the ground. I told him that he had really fucked up and that I was going to kill him. I guess he decided to take a chance, and he got up and started running down the street. I decided to just let him go because I didn't want to kill anyone after all. When he was a block away, I went into the tiger mart and asked the clerk if they had a security video. He said we have cameras, but the machines haven't worked for a long time. I decided screw it because there's no proof and I left. I still have that scumbag’s gun. FYI never leave your keys in the ignition when you're pumping gas and keep your head on a swivel. If you live in a carry state buy yourself a good compact handgun and get a CCP.
States Move to Ban Glocks Over Full-Auto Conversion Panic Scott Witner - You read that right— California and Illinois lawmakers are pushing bills to ban Glock pistols. Why? Because some criminals have illegally installed so-called “Glock switches” to convert them to full-auto fire. These devices, also known as auto sears, are already federally banned, heavily prosecuted, and undeniably illegal under the National Firearms Act. But that’s not enough for anti-gun legislators. Instead of punishing criminals, they’re coming after law-abiding gun owners—again. From Banning Devices to Banning Guns The logic behind these proposed bans is just as ridiculous as it sounds: Since some criminals have illegally modified Glock pistols, the solution must be to ban Glocks altogether. In California, Assembly Bill 1127 seeks to outlaw the sale of Glock pistols and any other handgun that could potentially be converted to full-auto. Meanwhile, Illinois’ HB4045 is aiming for the same target. And you can bet other blue states are watching closely. As Gun Owners of America National Director Mark Jones warned in a recent interview, this trend could spread. “Our citizens need to be vigilant and not think it cannot happen here,” said Jones. “Colorado has shown us that with their transformation over a decade.” Even in pro-gun states like Wyoming, gun owners are being warned not to get too comfortable. Elections have consequences, and the anti-gun crowd is playing the long game. Let’s Be Clear: Full-Auto Conversions Are Already Illegal Glock pistols, like the overwhelming majority of modern handguns, are semi-automatic—one round fired per trigger pull. The “Glock switch” alters the pistol’s internal mechanism to make it fire fully automatic, which is illegal unless you own a properly registered machine gun manufactured before 1986 (and good luck affording one). These devices are typically imported illegally from China and other black market sources. They’re unreliable, unsafe, and built with all the quality you’d expect from a sketchy ePacket shipment. Not only are they illegal to possess under federal law, but installing one can seriously damage your firearm—or injure the user. Yet instead of focusing on those criminals, lawmakers want to punish the millions of Americans who legally carry and depend on Glock handguns for self-defense. Banning Glocks Won’t Survive Constitutional Scrutiny The push to ban handguns like Glocks isn’t just unconstitutional—it’s already been ruled that way. George Mocsary, director of the Firearms Research Center and professor at the University of Wyoming College of Law, pointed out that the Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision explicitly affirmed the individual right to own handguns. “It’s just an effort by these states to harass the people who own these Glock handguns lawfully,” Mocsary said. That precedent is crystal clear: You can’t ban handguns just because a few bad actors break the law. And trying to justify a ban based on the hypothetical that someone might commit a felony with an aftermarket part? That’s like banning pickup trucks because someone might use one to flee a robbery. What This Means for Gun Owners If these bills pass, don’t expect them to stop at Glock. Any pistol with a polymer frame and a modular fire control group could be next. Heck, even metal-framed classics could be targeted if someone finds a way to hack them. And for those traveling through California or Illinois with a concealed carry permit? Be careful. Even if your permit is recognized, your legally-owned Glock could make you a criminal under these new laws. “It certainly could impact travel,” said Jones. “Even if traveling with a reciprocal permit, you need to comply with the laws of the state where you go.” A Desperate New Gun Control Tactic Jones summed it up best: This isn’t about safety—it’s about control. “Specifically, to these switches, it is already a federal felony to illegally convert a weapon to full auto,” he said. “This is already illegal, so more unconstitutional gun control isn’t the answer.” These proposals aren’t just misguided—they’re proof that anti-gun legislators will never stop at regulating illegal behavior. Their real goal is to chip away at lawful gun ownership, piece by piece. And now they’re coming for America’s most popular handgun.
ATF issuing suppressors for the ‘health and safety’ of its agents, but what about us? Lee Williams The ATF admitted it issues $1,300 rifle suppressors for the “health and safety” of its law enforcement agents, “due to the extensive training and quarterly firearms qualifications they must complete,” according to our story published Wednesday. But those three words chosen by the ATF – health and safety – set off a bomb among readers, and rightly so, because of how those of us who aren’t ATF agents are treated if we want to protect our own health and safety. Why do law-abiding Americans have to pay $200, submit a federal application, and jump through a series of legal hoops just to purchase a single silencer? Besides, most of us shoot a lot more than at quarterly firearms qualifications, so our hearing is at serious risk. One reader pointed out that suppressors are safety devices for the ATF but are considered a privilege for those of us who aren’t ATF agents. Unfortunately, he is 100% correct. The ATF is completely wrong in its reasoning. We can all agree that suppressors offer a tremendous boon to health and safety, but shouldn’t civilians receive the same benefits as our lowliest federal agents? We should be able to purchase them anywhere, anytime we want, without any federal forms, waiting periods or especially $200 fees. Doesn’t the American public deserve the same level of health and safety that ATF agents receive, especially since we’re already funding theirs through our tax dollars? If the ATF is correct and suppressors are true health and safety devices, why isn’t there one included in the box with every new gun purchase? The ATF already requires gunmakers to include padlocks and keys with every new sale. Why not suppressors, too? Why do American citizens have to take second place to federal agents? Don’t we have the same right to safeguard our own health and safety? H.R.404 – Hearing Protection Act Just four months ago, Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which was designed to reduce “the overly burdensome barriers required to purchase a firearm suppressor to ease access for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain the hearing protection they need.” “Americans who enjoy hunting and target shooting should be able to do so safely and legally without facing burdensome government regulations,” Rep. Cline said. “The Hearing Protection Act will reclassify suppressors, making it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing while enjoying recreational activities. It’s time to ensure that our Second Amendment rights are upheld, allowing responsible citizens to enjoy their freedoms without unnecessary obstacles.” As it stands now, Cline’s bill has 76 cosponsors, and every single one is a Republican. The bill was assigned to the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period of time that will be determined by the Speaker of the House, The bill drew strong support from the gun community, including the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF). While representatives from all of the organizations were quoted in the bill’s press release, no one said anything better or more relevant than Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s senior vice-president and general counsel. “Congressman Cline’s Hearing Protection Act will have the federal government recognize firearm suppressors for what they are. These are accessories to a firearm that make recreational shooting and hunting a safer experience,” Keane said. “These safety devices reduce the report of a firearm to a level that won’t cause instant and permanent hearing damage. Despite Hollywood’s depictions, they do not mask the sound of a firearm. The focus should be on removing barriers to safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating resources to ensuring firearms are safeguarded from those who should never possess them. Strict regulatory control of firearm accessories, and the parts of those accessories that have no bearing on the function of a firearm, is unnecessary and not the wisest use of federal resources. NSSF thanks Congressman Cline for his leadership for ensuring safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating necessary resources where they are most needed.” The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
