Learning From The Gun Prohibitionists

Lee Williams aka The Gun Writer has a post up today about a new anti-gun group called “Legislators for Safer Communities.” It is about gun prohibitionist legislators in 43 states coming together to form a coalition to work for gun control. What struck me about this story was not yet another astroturf gun control organization being formed. Rather that it was being supported by all the major gun prohibitionist groups.

From their press release:

Legislators for Safer Communities will serve as a hub for collaboration, partnership, shared resources, strategy, research, and peer networking. The coalition will work in partnership with Brady, Community Justice, Everytown, GIFFORDS, and March For Our Lives.

You have Brady, you have Everytown (and presumably their subgroups), and you have the Cult of Personality known as Giffords. While they take different approaches, they are all on the same page in fighting firearms rights, promoting the monopoly of violence by the state, and seeking more control over our lives.

Unfortunately, too many in the pro-rights community don’t play well together whether through philosophical differences or mere jealousy. One need not look too hard to find examples of that.

Here in North Carolina, a bill to allow permitless concealed carry which came from Grass Roots North Carolina and Gun Owners of America was killed when the NRA objected to it due to a provision that required a class on the use of deadly force. The bill was certainly not perfect and that provision was a requirement from House Speaker Tim Moore to move the bill. The thinking by its backers was that moving the bill was more important than the objectionable provision which might well be removed later.

The actual question was whether the NRA objected to the bill because of the provision or because it had not originated with them. This mindset has driven me up the wall for years. Unlike the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, I rarely see the NRA join with other groups as co-plaintiffs in cases. This needs to change! Resources are finite and are even more so now that the NRA has spent almost $200 million on Bill Brewer’s legal “services”.

If I am elected to the NRA Board of Directors, I plan to be a voice for working with other groups. It should not matter if the group is NRA affiliated or not. Coalitions need to be formed with groups like GRNC, Virginia Citizens Defense League, AzCDL, Commonwealth 2A, and the list goes on. The NRA should work with these groups on the state and local level just as much as they do with their affiliates so that NRA-ILA can do more within the halls of Congress with the resources they have. Sad to say but the non-NRA state affiliates are often more effective and more resolute in their push for gun rights.

Litigation needs to be coordinated where possible with SAF, FPC, NSSF, and the various foundations like the Mountain States Legal Foundation. You see it somewhat on amicus briefs but it needs to go beyond that. I remember reading about then NRA President Charles Cotton complaining about all the 2A cases brought by other plaintiffs after the NRA’s win in Bruen. The complaint should not have been that these groups were bringing cases based upon the Bruen decision but rather that the NRA had failed to follow up on its own win. Smaller organizations like SAF and FPC are always nimbler and inertia is always a problem with a larger, more bureaucratic, organization like the NRA. The smart thing would have been to give support to the nimbler organizations by either being co-plaintiffs or even funders of their efforts instead of just whining about it.

Everyone and every organization wants to get the credit for a win. That is understandable. However, is it more important to get the credit or get the win for firearm rights and freedom?

I know where I stand.

Henry Repeating Arms Steps Up

Henry Repeating Arms, makers of some of the nicest lever action carbines, rifles, and shotguns on the market today, has stepped up its support for Second Amendment groups. As part of their “Guns for Great Causes” charitable campaign they presented checks totaling $75,000 to the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Gun Owners of America at the recent SHOT Show.

Henry VP Dan Clayton-Luce presents check to SAF
Henry VP Dan Clayton-Luce presents check to GOA
Henry VP Dan Clayton-Luce presents check to FPC

The founder and CEO of Henry Repeating Arms had this to say regarding the donations:

“Henry Repeating Arms will never back down when it comes to supporting the individuals and organizations that work tirelessly to fight back against the political degradation of law-abiding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms,” said Anthony Imperato, CEO and Founder of Henry Repeating Arms. “Just like our Constitution, these organizations belong to and for the people. They have our backs, and we will always have theirs.”

I never had shot a Henry before Range Day. I got to shoot one of their side-gate loading lever actions in .360 Buckhammer. I was impressed with how smooth it was to throw the lever-action on that carbine. It was like cutting through butter. It was much smoother than a Rossi I shot later that morning.

I think it is instructive where Henry Repeating Arms put their money in the fight for the Second Amendment. While all three are national groups, they aren’t that other national group. I think the industry as a whole is wising up and putting their contributions where it will do the most good for gun rights.

ATF Training Simulator

As you may be aware, the new rules regarding the definition of frames and receivers went into effect yesterday. Also in the news is that BATFE Special Agents are now showing up on the doorstep of people that bought the forced reset triggers from Rare Breed to confiscate those triggers. These “visits” are without warrants with the implied threat that if you don’t cooperate, they will be back with a search warrant and tear your house to pieces.

With this as a background, I found the Firearms Policy Coalition tweet a very good spoof and effective fundraising. Their social media manager is on top of his or her game!

You Would Not Have Seen This In 2018

I received a press release earlier this week from Roy Hill of Brownells. Reading through it I was struck that this was not something you would have seen in earlier times. Bear in mind that Pete Brownell served as president of the NRA from May 2017 until May 2018 and was an officer and member of the board prior to that.

The release was about a donation made by Brownells to the Firearms Policy Coalition.

Brownells is proud to announce it has become a Benefactor Member of the Firearms Policy Coalition Constitution Alliance.

Brownells joins other well-known firearms industry companies such as Daniel Defense and Silencer Shop to stand with the Firearms Policy Coalition in defense and support of constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights for all Americans.

Founded in 2015, the FPC’s main mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms— often by filing lawsuits against egregious anti-gun-rights laws and regulations.

Recently, FPC filed a lawsuit challenging the unconstitutional New Jersey restrictions and local practices that prevent its residents from exercising their right to carry loaded handguns in public for self-defense. Additionally, FPC has recently filed lawsuits in Nevada, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Illinois, and Tennessee.

“FPC has stood in the Breach to defend our 2A rights for years. They have stacked up an impressive list of legal wins that keeps the individual right to bear arms alive in America,” said Brownells Chairman Pete Brownell.  “Now is the time to double down in supporting our Second Amendment Rights by supporting FPC.”

“It is an honor to have earned the support of Pete Brownell and the Brownells family,” said FPC president Brandon Combs. “Brownells is not only a world-class supplier of constitutionally protected products, it is an institution in our culture. Because of the generous support of our individual FPC Grassroots Army members and growing family of Constitution Alliance benefactors, like our friends at Brownells, our FPC Team is able to aggressively address important issues and protect individuals’ rights, freedoms, and property without hesitation. FPC will proudly continue to Fight Forward for the People and their rights, liberty, and property.”

So far in 2021, Brownells has donated around $175,000 to the FPC.

As I see it, the move by Brownells is an indication of two things. First, it is a testimony to how far the FPC has come in a short time. Second, and what really struck me, is that Brownells which has a long history with the NRA has chosen to send their money elsewhere.

Perhaps I’m mistaken but I see this as a way for Brownells to continue their support for the Second Amendment while distancing themselves from the NRA and all of its self-inflicted problems.

Schrödinger’s NRA

Normally I would call this post “Tweet of the Day”. However, I found the title in Rob Romano’s tweet too good not to use.

Rob is the creator of the invaluable Gun Case Tracker which follows virtually every 2A related case at the Federal and state level. He is also the Community Communications Director for the Firearms Policy Coalition.

For those of us in the gun rights community, the acronym NRA means the National Rifle Association. For anti-gun politicians and the media, it is shorthand for both the National Rifle Association and every other gun rights group. Given their top-down approach, it is hard for them to conceive that the largest organization doesn’t control everything. It is also hard for them to conceive that the grassroots can actually make their voice heard without a lot of prodding from the folks in Fairfax.

Here are the pair of great tweets from Rob:

Tweet Of The Day

The tweet of the day comes from the Firearms Policy Coalition with the reminder that tonight is the last time to make your voice heard on pistol braces.

Make sure to turn up your volume.

FPC Explains ATF Actions

The Firearms Policy Coalition has posted a long Twitter explanation of what the withdrawal of the ATF’s Request for Comment may mean as well as digging deeper into the language used in both the withdrawal and the original document. It is well worth a read to comprehend what we are facing.

FPC Has Perceptive Comment On ATF Blinking

The Firearms Policy Coalition, in their note on BATFE withdrawing their Request of Comment had a very perceptive on it that needs to be read. I think they are absolutely correct that BATFE may very well come back with something even worse.

While the ATF is apparently withdrawing this particular “guidance” at this time, the matter is still “pending further Department of Justice review,” which could lead to ATF taking different and potentially far more aggressive actions in the near future, especially under a Joseph Biden-led administration. Rather than publishing guidance, or conducting a rule-making process with notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, such as the Trump Administration engaged in for its ban on bumpstock-type devices, the ATF and DOJ may simply begin to prioritize enforcement actions based upon their clearly erroneous and dangerously broad reading of the law, such as by arresting and prosecuting those who merely possess a stabilizing brace-equipped handgun.

“The National Firearms Act and Gun Control Act, along with their regulations, clearly state objective criteria as to whether a firearm is a short barrel rifle, short barrel shotgun, or any other weapon,” explained Adam Kraut, FPC’s Director of Legal Strategy. “It remains evident that ATF’s policy preferences are hostile to law-abiding Americans and the agency’s schizophrenic approach to addressing these issues places individuals at risk of prosecution for simply following and relying on guidance from the agency.”

“The ATF’s withdrawal of their proposed guidance should be the end of the road for this assault on lawful accessories and law-abiding gun owners, but we know better. FPC will continue to carefully monitor and evaluate ATF policies and enforcement practices for violations of the law and our Constitution, and as we have before, rapidly respond with forceful and appropriate action,” concluded Kraut.

BATFE To Issue “Guidance” On Pistol Braces

Firearms attorney Joshua Prince posted an alert last night regarding a move by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to institute a rulemaking with regard to pistol braces. He had been given a draft copy of their proposal. Included in that proposal which I have embedded below, was a plan for DOJ to “subsequently implement a separate process for current possessors of stabilizer-equipped firearms to choose to register such firearms in compliance with the NFA.”

Atf Federal Register Notice Objective Factors for Classifying Stablizing Braces Draft 12-16-20 by jpr9954 on Scribd

As Mr. Prince notes, the BATFE seems to be planning only a 14-day comment period which seems to be in violation of the law. With the incoming and virulently anti-gun Biden Administration, one must wonder whether adherence to the law will matter to them. Even before the Electoral College met, the leadership of BATFE in the persons of Acting Director Regina Lombardo and Deputy Director Marvin Richardson (no relation) apparently has been reaching out to the Biden Administration on new gun control measures.

The Firearms Policy Coalition sent out a release on this late last night. They offer their initial thoughts on it. I think it is worth reading in its entirety.

WASHINGTON D.C. (December 16, 2020) — Your FPC team is in receipt of a draft notice from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) regarding how the agency will be evaluating weapons with “stabilizing braces.” Based upon our initial review of this notice, we offer these thoughts for your consideration:

1) The draft document does not appear to reflect a new “ban” on pistol braces or firearms with such devices. The ATF, evidently, is not indicating that the mere presence of a brace on a pistol automatically converts the firearm into one under the purview of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). (Indeed, the ATF has no authority to declare accessories like pistol braces to be NFA components, though the agency’s previous conduct provides little reassurance.)

2) The draft document instead purports to be intended to inform the public on how brace-equipped firearms will be examined in the future. Based on the criteria set forth in the draft document, it appears that the ATF would take something of a totality of the circumstances approach in determining whether a specific brace-equipped pistol is a ‘short-barreled’ firearm regulated under the NFA. These criteria include: the firearm’s type, caliber, weight, and length, the design of the brace itself, whether the firearm can be properly aimed when using the attachment as a brace, and whether an optic that cannot properly be used one-handed is present (i.e., something that suggests intent). The agency also indicates that it will observe the marketing of firearms and accessories, as well as other more subjective factors.

3) Importantly, the draft document recognizes that most people with braced firearms have acted in good faith. It suggests that the agency seeks to establish a procedure by which people who already have firearms that may fall under the purview of the NFA, and who wish to take advantage of registering them as NFA firearms to obtain the legal protections of such, may potentially do so without payment of the associated tax.

FPC believes that the NFA is an unconstitutional infringement of the People’s rights, that the ATF should be abolished, and that any policy or practice enforcing the Act is unconstitutional and immoral. 

With that said, the policies in the draft document do not appear to be a significant departure from previous publicly undisclosed agency policies, some of which were discovered through criminal prosecutions, FOIA requests, and other sources. Your FPC team will be monitoring the situation closely. If anything changes we will let you know as soon as possible.

While I don’t believe Joe Biden has the cognitive ability to discern whether such measures are legal, I believe he will rubber-stamp any and all such attempts to restrict rights and rewrite both law and regulations. In other words, he will do as he is told.