Connect with us

2nd Amendment

Biden and ATF Threatening Your Second Amendment Rights


Recent developments reveal the extent to which President Joe Biden and his administration are willing to go to undermine the Second Amendment and impose draconian gun control measures. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), an agency already notorious for its overreach, has been collaborating with Biden’s transition team to enact gun control through executive actions. Their primary targets are commonly-owned pistol stabilizing braces and materials used by individuals to make their own firearms, often referred to as unfinished or “80%” frames or receivers.

On November 10, gun rights activist John Crump published a revealing piece on, detailing a leaked BATFE conference call involving Acting Director Regina Lombardo and Associate Deputy Director Marvin Richardson. According to Crump, Lombardo admitted that Biden’s transition team had contacted the BATFE to discuss the agency’s top priorities. Lombardo stated that her priorities included regulating pistol braces and 80% lower receivers.

Misguided Targeting of Pistol Stabilizing Braces

Pistol stabilizing braces, which help shooters stabilize pistols with one hand, have been a point of contention for the BATFE. These braces are particularly valuable for differently-abled shooters and have been approved by the BATFE for such purposes. Over four million of these items are currently owned by Americans.

However, in January 2015, the BATFE issued an Open Letter on the Redesign of “Stabilizing Braces,” attempting to criminalize the use of these braces if they were shouldered, claiming it transformed pistols into short-barreled rifles subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA). This interpretation was legally flawed, as the definitions of “rifle” and “pistol” hinge on design intent, not user manipulation.

In 2017, the BATFE admitted its error, clarifying that incidental or sporadic shouldering of a pistol brace did not constitute a redesign. Yet, under the current political climate fostered by the Biden administration, the BATFE has resumed its misguided targeting of these braces. In August, the agency sent a cease & desist letter to firearm manufacturer Q LLC, declaring its “Honey Badger” pistol equipped with a brace to be an NFA-regulated short-barreled rifle. Following grassroots opposition, the BATFE suspended the order for 60 days.

Assault on Unfinished Frames and Receivers

The current federal statute clearly defines a “firearm” and its frame or receiver, excluding unfinished frames and receivers. Yet, the BATFE seems poised to broaden these definitions unilaterally, circumventing established legal processes and historical precedents. Such executive overreach attacks the core of the Second Amendment, which has long protected the right of Americans to make their own firearms without government interference.

The BATFE’s actions align disturbingly with Biden’s agenda to enact stringent gun control measures without congressional approval. Even the Obama administration, despite its aggressive stance on gun control, did not target pistol braces or unfinished receivers through executive action. The willingness of the current administration to exceed these boundaries indicates a dangerous disregard for the rule of law.

It has become clear that the BATFE, an agency that consistently overreaches and undermines constitutional rights, needs to be dismantled. The agency’s collaboration with the Biden administration to impose unlawful regulations through executive fiat is a blatant violation of the Second Amendment. The BATFE has shown itself to be a rogue entity, more interested in advancing a political agenda than upholding the law.

Vigilance Against Unilateral Executive Action

Gun owners must remain vigilant against these overreaching measures. The Biden administration has already demonstrated a willingness to bypass constitutional protections afforded by the Second Amendment. The political counterweight of informed and active gun owners is essential to prevent unwarranted executive actions that infringe upon fundamental rights.

As the BATFE and the Biden administration maneuver to implement these draconian regulations, the need for robust opposition is more critical than ever. The preservation of our constitutional rights depends on resisting efforts to subvert the law by executive fiat. The Second Amendment, a cornerstone of American liberty, must be defended against these unprecedented assaults.

In conclusion, the BATFE’s history of overreach and its current alignment with Biden’s anti-gun agenda makes it clear that the agency must be dismantled. Only then can we ensure that our Second Amendment rights are protected from those who seek to undermine them.

Should the ATF be disbanded? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. 

(Visited 13 times, 1 visits today)

2nd Amendment

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Bump Stocks Sparks Debate Over Second Amendment


In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a federal ban on bump stocks, Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy expressed concerns that the high court is preparing to fundamentally alter the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Speaking on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Murphy warned that recent gun-related rulings suggest the court might restrict Congress’s ability to implement measures such as background checks or bans on specific firearms like AR-15s.

Murphy’s comments come after the Supreme Court’s decision to invalidate the federal ban on bump stocks, devices that enable a semi-automatic rifle to fire at a rate similar to a fully automatic weapon. This ruling represents another instance of the conservative-majority court rolling back firearm regulations.

The ban on bump stocks was initially pushed by former President Donald Trump following the 2017 mass shooting in Las Vegas, where a gunman used the devices to kill 58 people at an outdoor music festival. A Texas gun store owner challenged the ban after surrendering two bump stocks to the government, eventually suing to reclaim them.

Murphy criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling, suggesting that it aligns with broader efforts to erode gun control measures. He argued that the decision undermines previous bipartisan support for the bump stock ban and positions the court to dismantle key components of gun regulation, thus jeopardizing community safety.

The ruling has sparked a divide between gun control advocates and supporters of gun rights. Gun control groups contend that the court’s decision will exacerbate gun violence in a country already plagued by frequent shootings. They argue that the ban was a necessary regulation to prevent high-casualty incidents facilitated by rapid-fire capabilities.

Conversely, many Republicans have praised the court’s decision, maintaining that the bump stock ban was unconstitutional from the outset. GOP Sen. Tom Cotton remarked that the ban approached an infringement on the Second Amendment and emphasized the need to focus on tackling violent and gang-related crime rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.

The Supreme Court’s decision, although not based directly on the Second Amendment, has brought the debate over gun rights back to the forefront. This ruling is part of a trend where the high court has sided with gun rights groups, reflecting a broader judicial philosophy that may limit legislative and executive efforts to regulate firearms.

Despite the contentious ruling, Murphy highlighted some positive trends, noting a decline in urban gun homicide rates. He emphasized the ongoing need for effective legislation to prevent tragedies like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting while acknowledging recent legislative changes that he believes have contributed to enhanced public safety.

As the nation grapples with the implications of this decision, the divide between those advocating for stricter gun control and those championing gun rights continues to shape the legal and political landscape surrounding the Second Amendment.

What do you think of the recent Supreme Court ruling?

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

Hunter Biden Conviction Raises Second Amendment Questions Amidst Political Tensions


Hunter Biden’s recent conviction on federal gun charges has sparked a unique convergence of political and constitutional debates, with Second Amendment advocacy groups criticizing the law used to secure the conviction. Despite their staunch opposition to President Biden’s gun control policies, these groups are not necessarily rallying to Hunter Biden’s defense but are highlighting broader concerns about firearm regulations.

The case centers around Hunter Biden’s October 2018 purchase of a firearm from StarQuest Shooters & Survival Supply in Wilmington, Delaware. Prosecutors argued that Biden lied on ATF Form 4473 when he denied being an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances, a claim contradicted by his struggle with drug addiction at the time. After a weeklong trial, the jury found him guilty on all counts.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), a leading pro-Second Amendment organization, criticized the federal firearm regulation under which Biden was convicted. While they believe the law is “unconstitutionally broad,” they also assert that Hunter Biden deserved no special treatment and should face the same legal consequences as any other citizen.

The trial included emotional testimonies from Biden’s family members, emphasizing his ongoing battle with addiction. Despite the sympathy his personal struggles may evoke, the evidence presented by the prosecution was deemed overwhelming, leading to a swift jury verdict.

Mike McCoy, a former federal prosecutor and Second Amendment attorney noted the effectiveness of the prosecution’s case and suggested that most gun owners, given the current administration’s stance on gun control, might not be particularly concerned about this specific conviction. He acknowledged the broader implications of the ruling for the Second Amendment community.

In an unexpected twist, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has offered to assist Hunter Biden in challenging his conviction on constitutional grounds. The FPC argues that federal gun regulations are often unconstitutional and detrimental to individual freedoms, and they have expressed their willingness to support Biden in contesting these laws.

The political ramifications of the conviction are significant, particularly given President Biden’s aggressive stance on gun control. Critics argue that the administration’s policies are inconsistent, pointing to the conviction of the president’s son as evidence of this hypocrisy. President Biden, however, has maintained his support for stricter gun regulations, calling on Congress to ban bump stocks and “assault” weapons in the wake of the ruling.

Hunter Biden faces a maximum prison sentence of 25 years for his three charges, along with substantial fines and supervised release. As a first-time offender, he is unlikely to receive the maximum penalties, but the case underscores the complex interplay between personal accountability, legal interpretations, and political agendas in the ongoing debate over gun rights in America.

The situation illustrates the intricate and often contentious nature of firearm regulations and Second Amendment rights, highlighting the need for careful consideration and balanced legislation in addressing these critical issues.

Was Hunter Biden rightly convicted? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Continue Reading

2nd Amendment

Supreme Court Ruling on Bump Stocks: A Victory for Second Amendment Advocates


The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a significant victory for Second Amendment supporters, ruling that a bump stock does not transform a firearm into an automatic weapon. This decision strikes down a federal rule that banned bump stocks, affirming the right of Americans to own such devices.

In a 6-3 decision, Justice Clarence Thomas clarified the court’s stance on the issue. He emphasized that Congress has long restricted access to “machineguns,” defined as firearms capable of “shooting automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.” Semiautomatic firearms, which require the shooter to reengage the trigger for each shot, do not fall under this category. The court concluded that a bump stock, which allows for rapid reengagement of the trigger, does not convert a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

The case, Garland v. Cargill, questioned whether a bump stock device qualifies as a machinegun under federal law, given its design to increase the firing rate of a rifle. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion found that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot per trigger pull and therefore cannot be classified as a machinegun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) had exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as such.

This ruling follows a contentious history. In the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which left 60 people dead and 500 wounded, the ATF issued an interpretive rule categorizing bump stocks as machine guns. This decision was met with substantial political pressure and led to a nationwide ban initiated by the Trump administration and defended by President Biden’s Justice Department.

The Supreme Court’s decision has been met with mixed reactions. Gun rights advocates, like Michael Cargill, owner of Central Texas Gun Works, view it as a reaffirmation of constitutional rights. Cargill, an Army veteran, sued the government after being forced to surrender his bump stocks under the ATF’s rule. His legal team praised the ruling, arguing that the ATF overstepped its authority by attempting to rewrite criminal laws without congressional action.

Critics of the decision, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argue that it undermines public safety. Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent, contended that a bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle essentially functions as a machinegun and should be regulated accordingly. President Biden also criticized the ruling, calling on Congress to ban bump stocks and “assault” weapons to prevent mass shootings.

The ruling has far-reaching implications for gun owners and the firearms industry. Bump stocks, which first appeared in the early 2000s, allow for a higher rate of fire by harnessing the recoil energy of a semiautomatic weapon. The Supreme Court’s decision means that the estimated half a million bump stocks in circulation before the federal ban can now be lawfully owned and used.

For Second Amendment advocates, this ruling is a critical affirmation of the right to bear arms and a rejection of regulatory overreach. It underscores the importance of adhering to the constitutional framework when interpreting laws related to firearms. As debates over gun control continue, the Supreme Court’s decision will undoubtedly influence future legislative and judicial actions concerning the Second Amendment.

The battle over bump stocks highlights the ongoing tension between gun rights and gun control efforts. While the Supreme Court has clarified the legal status of these devices, the broader debate over firearm regulations and Second Amendment rights is far from settled. As the nation grapples with issues of public safety and constitutional freedoms, this ruling serves as a reminder of the complex and often contentious nature of gun policy in America.

Was the Supreme Court right on bump stocks? Leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Continue Reading


Copyright © 2024 Guncountry. All Rights Reserved