Alinsky’s Rules

Uncategorized

932 Pages Is Hard To Ignore

June 27, 2018 by 3 Comments

Alinsky’s Rule No. 4 states “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Part of the rule book for administrative rulemaking is that each and every comment must be examined. It is easy to skim over repetitive comments stating “teh bump stock is bad” or, conversely, “you are wrong, you child-killing gun grabbers.” It is much harder to ignore a 923 legal document with 35 exhibits written by firearms law attorneys.

That is what the Firearm Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation dumped into the laps of the bureaucrats at DOJ and BATFE. The bureaucrats at DOJ thought their 50 pages of legal sophistry as to why bump fire stocks are illegal would scare people away. It didn’t. The FPC/FPF comment was written by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group. They know a thing or two about the NFA and firearms law in general.

The key thing about such a long document such as the comment submitted by FPC/FPF is that each and every point will have to be considered and the rule will have to address them. Moreover, it sets up the playing field for the anticipated court challenge to the probably bump stock ban rule. Only things that were brought up during the comment period can be considered by the courts. No new objections can be made.

Below is the news release from the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Firearms Policy Foundation detailing their 923 page comment. As a reminder, doing stuff like this isn’t cheap and proponents of gun rights don’t have our own pet billionaire to fund us unlike the corporate gun ban lobby. You might want to send a few bucks to the FPF– tax deductible, you know – to help in the effort.

WASHINGTON, DC (June 27, 2018) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Firearms Policy Foundation (FPF) have announced that their extensive, 923-page opposition comment was filed with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding the agency’s proposed rulemaking to ban “bump-stock” devices. The FPC Comment and its 35 exhibits can be viewed online in their entirety at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf-opposition-atf-bump-stock-ban.
The FPC Comment in opposition was filed on the groups’ behalf by attorneys Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut of Firearms Industry Consulting Group (FICG) after President Trump directed Attorney General Jeff Sessions to use executive actions to unlawfully and unconstitutionally expand the scope of statutes to force the dispossession and destruction of legally-acquired property–without just compensation–and subject possibly more than 500,000 Americans to severe federal criminal penalties. FICG attorney Adam Kraut produced a video (Exhibit 28) with Patton Media and Consulting to show how a bump-fire-type device actually works when it is installed on a firearm.
“It is beyond outrageous that ATF has purposely misled the public on the function of bump-stock-devices,” said FICG Chief Counsel Joshua Prince. “Even setting aside the constitutional concerns, there are a plethora of issues that preclude ATF from moving forward with its bump-stock proposal. ATF is unlawfully attempting to usurp the Congress’ power by modifying a definition codified in the tax code by Congress and is attempting to retroactively apply this definition, which is precluded by federal tax laws designed to prevent this kind of action by the Government.”
“Perhaps more frightening than the text of this unlawful executive action is the fact that the Trump Administration is expressly saying that not only can the ATF re-write Congress’ statutes to mean whatever they prefer, but that the Second Amendment doesn’t protect conduct with common semi-automatic firearms and parts, let alone devices like machineguns,” commented FPC President and FPF Chairman Brandon Combs. “That should send chills down the spines of American gun owners.”
“Our important opposition is not only a substantial addition to the rulemaking record, but a warning shot across the ATF’s bow. If the ATF proceeds with this unlawful and unconstitutional proposal, our attorneys have been instructed to explore every possible legal remedy, including filing a federal lawsuit and seeking an injunction. We would relish the opportunity to defend the Constitution and law-abiding American people against the Trump Administration’s patently anti-gun arguments in a court of law,” Combs concluded.
BACKGROUND
In ten letter rulings between 2008 and 2017, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) concluded that bump-stocks and some similar devices did not qualify as “machineguns” because they did not “automatically” shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.
On October 1, 2017, a terrorist used firearms in a premeditated attack on attendees of an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, Nevada, killing 58 people and injuring more.
On December 26, 2017, ATF published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in the Federal Register regarding the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices” as an initial step in the process of substantively changing through fiat regulation the statutory definition of “machinegun” with the intent to ban bump-stock-type devices they previously ruled were legal to acquire, possess, and use.
On January 25, 2018, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) submitted comments responding to the ATF – an agency under the Department of Justice – Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in opposition to the “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to “Bump Fire” Stocks and Other Similar Devices.”
On February 20, 2018, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum to Attorney General Sessions directing the Department of Justice to initiate a regulatory action to ban “bump fire” stocks and similar devices. (83 Fed. Reg. 7949.)
On March 29, 2018, the ATF published its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a proposed ban on “Bump-Stock-Type Devices” in the Federal Register. (83 Fed. Reg. 13442.)
On June 19, 2018, attorneys at Firearms Industry Consulting Group submitted over 900 pages of analysis and documents, along with multiple video exhibits, on behalf of FPC and FPF (the “FPC Opposition”) in opposition to the ATF’s proposed rulemaking. In the FPC Opposition, and by separate letter to ATF Acting Director Thomas E. Brandon, FIGG (on behalf of FPC and FPF) demanded a hearing before any final rulemaking action pursuant to the right codified under 18 U.S.C. § 926(b).
The comment period for ATF rulemaking docket no. 2017R-22 will close on June 27, 2018, at midnight Eastern Daylight Time.
SUMMARY OF OPPOSITION ARGUMENTS
  • ATF’s Proposed Rulemaking (docket no. 2017R-22) is procedurally flawed and violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
  • ATF’s proposed rule violates the Constitution in numerous ways, including:
    • I – Separation of Powers
    • I – Ex Post Facto Clause
    • Fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms protected under the Second Amendment
    • Rights to due process, fair notice, and just compensation for the taking of property protected under the Fifth Amendment
  • ATF’s proposed rule exceeds its statutory authority
  • ATF’s proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious
  • ATF’s proposed rule is unconstitutionally vague
  • ATF failed to consider viable and precedential alternatives
  • ATF’s proposed rule is not supported by policy considerations
  • ATF’s proposed rule “should be withdrawn and summarily discarded, or, in the alternative, ATF should elect Alternative 1 and abandon the proposed rulemaking in its entirety.”
RELATED NEWS RELEASES
Oct. 6, 2017: Firearms Policy Coalition Repudiates Proposed Bans on Semi-Automatic Firearms and Accessories, Including “Bump Fire” Stocks – http://bit.ly/fpc-2017-10-6-bumpstocks
Jan. 25, 2018: FPC Says ATF ‘Bump Stock’ Regulation Proposal is “Illegal” – http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-1-25-bumpstock-ban-illegal
Feb. 20, 2018: FPC Calls President Trump’s ‘Bump Stock’ Ban “Lawless” – http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-2-20-trump-ban-lawless
Feb. 26, 2018: President Trump Says He Will ‘Write Out’ Bump Stocks Without Congress; Two Second Amendment Groups Initiate Legal Action to Oppose Ban – http://bit.ly/fpc-2018-2-26-trump-bumpstocks
LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS FILED
All documents and videos listed below are available online at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpf-opposition-atf-bump-stock-ban.
FPC and FPF’s Comments in Opposition to Proposed Rule ATF 2017R-22
Exhibit 1 – FICG Expedited FOIA request dated March 30, 2018
Exhibit 2 – LVMPD Preliminary Investigative Report, January 18, 2018
Exhibit 3 – Video: Iraqveteran8888, Worlds Fastest Shooter vs Bump Fire! – Guns Reviews, YouTube, October 13, 2014
Exhibit 4 – Video: Miculek.com, AR-15 5 shots in 1 second with fastest shooter ever, Jerry Miculek (Shoot Fast!), YouTube, June 20, 2013
Exhibit 5 – Carl Bussjaeger, [Update] Bumbling Machinations on Bump Stocks?, April 2, 2018 and [Updated] Bump-fire Rule: “Comments Not Accepted”, March 30, 2018
Exhibit 6 – Motion in Limine, United States v. Friesen, CR-08-041-L (W.D. Okla. Mar. 19, 2009)
Exhibit 7 – John Bresnahan and Seung Min Kim, Attorney General Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress, June 28, 2012
Exhibit 8 – Testimony of Gary Schaible, United States v. Rodman, et al., CR-10-01047-PHX-ROS
Exhibit 9 – Senator Diane Feinstein, Feinstein: Congress Shouldn’t Pass the Buck on Bump-Fire Stocks, October 11, 2017
Exhibit 10 – ATF Determinations
Exhibit 11 – Video: Shooting Videos, Rapid manual trigger manipulation (Rubber Band Assisted), YouTube, December 14, 2006
Exhibit 12 – Video: StiThis1, AK-47 75 round drum Bumpfire!!!, YouTube, September 5, 2011
Exhibit 13 – Video: ThatGunGuy45, ‘Bump Fire’ without a bump-fire stock, courtesy of ThatGunGuy45, YouTube, October 13, 2017
Exhibit 14 – Video: M45, How to bumpfire without bumpfire stock, YouTube, October 8, 2017
Exhibit 15 – Verified Declaration of Damien Guedes
Exhibit 16 – Verified Declaration of Matthew Thompson
Exhibit 17 – Video: Vice News, Meet One Of The Analysts Who Determined That Bump Stocks Were Legal, YouTube, October 11, 2017
Exhibit 18- Video: Fastest Shooter OF ALL TIME! Jerry Miculek | Incredible Shooting Montage, DailyMotion, 2014
Exhibit 19- Gun Control Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1235
Exhibit 20 – 26 C.F.R. § 179.120
Exhibit 21 – Joshua Prince, Violating Due Process: Convictions Based on the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record When its ‘Files are Missing’, September 28, 2008
Exhibit 22 – Eric Larson’s testimony and exhibits of April 3, 1998, before the House Committee on Appropriations
Exhibit 23 – ATF Quarterly Roll Call Lesson Plan, July 12, 2012
Exhibit 24 – Eric M. Larson, How Firearms Registration Abuse & the “Essential Operational Mechanism” of Guns May Adversely Affect Gun Collectors, Gun Journal, March 1998
Exhibit 25 – U.S. Government’s Brief in Support of Cross Motion For Summary Judgment And In Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion For Summary Judgment, Freedom Ordinance Mfg. Inc., v. Thomas E. Brandon, Case No. 3:16-cv-243-RLY-MPB
Exhibit 26 – Video: Molon Labe, hogan 7 m16.wmv, YouTube, October 25, 2011
Exhibit 27 – Testimony of ATF Senior Analyst Richard Vasquez in U.S. v. One Historic Arms Model54RCCS, No. 1:09-CV-00192-GET
Exhibit 28 – Video: Adam Kraut Esq. and Patton Media and Consulting, Bump Stock Analytical Video, June 14, 2018
Exhibit 29 – National Firearms Act: Hearings Before the Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. Rep. No. 9066, 73rd Cong. 2nd Sess. April 16, 18, and May 14, 15, and 16 1934
Exhibit 30 – Testimony of Police Chief J. Thomas Manger
Exhibit 31 – ProPublica, Workers’ Comp Benefits: How Much is a Limb Worth?, March 5, 2015
Exhibit 32 – Verified Declaration of former ATF Acting Chief of FTB Rick Vasquez
Exhibit 33 – Verified Declaration of Jonathan Patton of Patton Media and Consulting
Exhibit 34 – FICG’s Letter on Behalf of FPC to Acting Director Brandon
Exhibit 35 – FPC’s January 25, 2018 Letter in Opposition to ATF’s ANPRM re: “Application of the Definition of Machinegun to ‘Bump Fire’ Stocks and Other Similar Devices”
Uncategorized

While I Was Away – No. 2

July 24, 2017 by 1 Comment

Continuing on with the things I missed while at the beach are these two announcement from the Firearms Policy Coalition regarding bullet buttons and proposed ammo regulations in California. The FPC is a multi-state coalition of gun rights groups headquartered in California. They have been keeping a close eye on the regulations being developed for the enforcement of recently enacted firearms laws and propositions.

When you are headquartered in a state where the progressives have a monopoly on virtually everything, you have to fight back anyway you can. Showing that they have learned Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and especially Rule No. 4, the Firearms Policy Coalition is making the California Department of Justice live up to all those progressive laws dealing with public notice and freedom of information.

On bullet buttons:

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 21, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has obtained a copy of the newest version of the California Department of Justice (DOJ) “assault weapons” regulations. FPC has published the regulations at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations.

“FPC’s Regulatory Watch program has once again proved its value in ensuring that the State of California does not advance its gun control agenda behind closed doors,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Without this program, countless gun-owning Californians would be in the dark about their future.”

Last December, the DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the California Office of Administrative Law’s (OAL) “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ believed the regulations were not subject to public notice or comment. However, thousands of FPC members and Second Amendment supporters sent letters opposing the secret process through FPC’s grassroots tools and, without further comment, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period.

In May (a quarter of a year later), the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. It took numerous legal demands to DOJ and OAL to finally get OAL to provide FPC with a copy of the proposed regulations. Following DOJ’s numerous attempts at hiding firearm regulations from the public, Craig DeLuz, FPC’s Legislative Advocate, and FPC filed a legal action against DOJ (DeLuz, et al. v California Department of Justice) in order to ensure that in the future DOJ complies with the California Constitution and Public Records Act.

In the end, these proposed regulations were summarily rejected by OAL a little more than a month later. And now DOJ has submitted almost the same exact regulations, appearing only to have changed the implementation date from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2018. This new date was established by AB 103, a recently approved budget trailer bill.

“At first glance, the DOJ’s latest package of ‘assault weapons’ regulations are as awful as their first two attempts,” noted DeLuz. “It appears that DOJ keeps submitting the same proposed regulations, over and over again, expecting different results. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?”

The second announcement has to do with California’s proposed ammunition regulations and the hearings seeking feedback.

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 20, 2017) — Adding to the growing list of its legal woes, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) was forced to issue a new regulatory notice and postpone a hearing regarding their recently-submitted regulations concerning new ammunition vendors and licenses. Many new ammunition laws were passed last year in Gavin Newsom’s so-called “Safety for All Act” (Proposition 63) and in Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León’s Senate Bill 1235 (SB 1235).

As part of its California regulatory watch program, which holds the State accountable for the improper implementation of various gun control laws, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) recently discovered the new DOJ ammunition sales regulations. That new regulation was officially published in the State’s Friday, July 14 Notice Register, but wasn’t clearly accessible to the public until the morning of Monday, July 17.

“In order for citizens and interested groups to be given an opportunity to advocate for their rights and policy preferences, the DOJ must follow the law,” said Craig DeLuz, a lobbyist and spokesperson for the Firearms Policy Coalition. “We are here to make sure they do.”

On July 17, FPC delivered a letter to DOJ advising them that they had not sent any notification about this proposed rulemaking using the DOJ’s e-mail based notification system it established and solicited participation in for that express purpose. The FPC letter also noted that none of the regulation documents that were discussed in the DOJ’s notice could be found on the Attorney General’s Web page listed in the Notice Register. FPC concluded that the public did not receive proper notice and demanded that DOJ remedy the defects.

Just two days later, on July 19, DOJ e-mailed their entire regulatory notice list — which they had initially failed to do — and said that the hearing for public comment, which was originally scheduled to take place August 28, had been pushed back to September 12 — allowing more time for the public and advocacy organizations like FPC to analyze them and weigh in. Additionally, DOJ updated the public notice to reflect a different Web page that contained a working link to the proposed new regulations and forms.

“When law-abiding citizens and small businesses risk fines and jail time for not following the law, the least the DOJ can do is follow the law themselves,” commented DeLuz. “While their latest move is a step in the right direction, they still have a long way to go. We’ll be keeping an eye on them.”

At www.DOJregwatch.com and its companion page, www.bulletbuttonban.com, FPC tracks DOJ firearm-related rulemakings and provides the public with links to the documents and updates. FPC’s goal is to ensure that the regulations proposed are legal, available to the public, and follow all public notice and comment requirements in the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and applicable laws.

So far, FPC has so far been successful in repeatedly thwarting DOJ’s attempts to create law by executive fiat under the guise of the regulatory process. Previously, DOJ was forced to withdraw its proposed “large capacity magazine” and “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” regulations. More recently, the Office of Administrative Law rejected DOJ’s second attempt at issuing “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” regulations.

Uncategorized

Comment Of The Day

February 17, 2017 by 2 Comments

President Trump held a news conference yesterday and, from what I’m reading, it was pure Trump.
The heads of the media personalities are still exploding and they don’t know why.

The best comment came in response to a post by Professor William Jacobson regarding the news conference. VaGentleman had this to say:

I’m reminded of the scene in ‘Patton’ where he is standing on the hill overlooking the battlefield and shouts, “Rommel, you bloody bastard, I read your book!”. Alinskyites, take note.

Charles Heller of Liberty Watch Radio, JPFO, and AzCDL made the nearly the same point when we recorded him for an interview with The Polite Society Podcast. He urged gun rights activists to read the Rules for Radicals and use them.

Uncategorized

Ummm – Not Exactly Correct, Ms. US Attorney For Connecticut

December 25, 2015 by 1 Comment

While reading the Book of the Face I was stunned to learn that Stag Arms had just lost their Federal Firearms License for a variety of violations including having 62 machine guns (actually just the receivers) that were registered to another entity or not registered at all. More on this in another post.

What I found very interesting was this paragraph from the joint press release from US Attorney for Connecticut Deidre M. Daly and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

A receiver is the key regulated part that is considered a machine gun. All other parts necessary to transform a receiver to a fully functional semi-automatic or automatic machine gun can be purchased over the Internet.

On the face of it, this is true. The receiver is the key regulated product of machine guns as well as any other firearm manufactured in the United States. It is the part that is serialized. It is also true that you can get all the normal trigger parts including the auto sear over the Internet to go into a registered machine gun receiver.

However, thanks to ATF Ruling 81-4, drop-in auto sears which allow some semi-automatic AR15s to become fully automatic if they have the other M16 parts are considered machine guns and are regulated under the National Firearms Act.

Regardless of the date of manufacture of a drop in auto sear (i.e., before or after November 1,
1981) the possession or transfer of an unregistered drop in auto
sear (a machinegun as defined) is
prohibited by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. § 5861, and the Gun Control Act, 18
U.S.C. § 922(o).

This may be a niggly, little quibble but it was the BATFE’s own ruling that decreed the drop in auto sear a NFA item. Since they wrote the regulation they should be held to a higher standard when it comes to the verbiage used in a press release. (Alinsky’s Rule No. 4) A drop in auto sear is not just something that you can buy off the Internet to make a receiver into a fully automatic firearm.