Odd Stuffing – A weekly commentary on the issues, events and people impacting the 2nd Amendment community, the state, nation and world.

Glock Bans – The Latest Assault Weapons Lie

One of the latest innovative strategies from the extremists at Gun Control, Inc. is the Glock Ban. These new state laws being tested around the country target the ubiquitous Glock and Glock-style handguns because they are convertible to fully automatic by use of a “switch”. Never mind that a “switch” is highly illegal at both the state and federal level, the ban is because someone might take an illegal part and illegally put it into a legal firearm.

Of course, this is on top of numerous states suing Glock for producing firearms that can be illegally converted in the first place for marketing their capabilities to law-abiding civilians for self-defensive purposes which apparently also appeal to criminals. That supposedly makes them liable for unlawful use by criminals.

At issue is a small, add-on device invented by a Venezuelan man in 1986 and issued a U.S. patent in 1998. With it, a standard semi-automatic Glock handgun functions as a fully automatic Glock. As you might expect, a so-called “Glock Switch” is considered a fully automatic firearm part and, like an auto seer for any other firearm, highly regulated and illegal to make, possess or use.

Of course, with the U.S. Patent being filed, the genie was out of the bottle. The patent, intended to control the product and prevent others from making, selling, distributing or using it without your permission and/licensing, in effect gave it to the illegal world. Criminals, which includes other countries, care as much about patents as they do about the legal system. As such, Glock Switches began showing up in the U.S. within a few years. Many came in from China and now with the widespread adoption of 3D printing at the consumer level, they can be printed at home.

So, what of Glock? Is this their fault for designing a firearm that can be converted to fully automatic? Of course not. Only one Glock model, the Glock 18, is fully automatic. It is only sold to the military and law enforcement and the critical parts to make it fully automatic are not compatible with any other Glock firearms by design.

Keep in mind Glock’s striker fired design has also been replicated by many other firearm manufacturers. Note also that many semi-automatic firearms can be converted into fully automatic use by someone who knows how. The fact that these “switches” are currently only available for Glocks is no different than computer viruses targeting the most widely used software and operating systems first. You go after the biggest target first, then go after the rest later. This approach holds true for “switches” and for gun control as well.

Now enter the extremists from Gun Control, Inc. Having been unsuccessful at banning handguns after the United States Supreme Court ruled that unconstitutional, they attempted to slip the “semi-automatic mechanism” into their ever-evolving definition of so-called “assault weapons”, thus far with only limited success. Glock Bans allows them to go after one of the most common and widely owned semi-automatic handguns in the country/world because it can be illegally converted to fully automatic.

I’d like to think our own ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) has only been interested in removing these illegal devices from our streets and going after those who make and distribute them, but after seeing some of the ATF bulletins, with scale three dimensional drawings from multiple angles, I’m not sure. Given their association with Gun Control, Inc. who have time and again shown their willingness to sacrifice lives in order to further their anti-gun agenda, I haven’t been able to decide if they were trying to prevent or propagate the use of these “switches”.

One thing is for certain though. While Glock handguns are the current focus of so-called “easily convertible” firearms to be banned, once they gain traction here, they will quickly add more handguns, then rifles, then shotguns to their ever-evolving definition of banned firearms. Just like the never-ending definition of so-called “assault weapons”, this category of too-deadly-for-civilians-to-own firearms will continue to expand and encompass more and more currently legal firearms.

As I’ve mentioned before, all of this is being sponsored, written and supported by the extremist folks at Gun Control, Inc., funded by billionaire money and your very own tax dollars. State, county and municipal politicians don’t even have to understand what they are signing onto, only that it will all be taken care of for them and they will be considered a hero of the fanatical gun control community when the laws get enacted.

If you’re think this will somehow make our streets safer, it won’t. Criminals, terrorists and thugs know the law and break it anyway. It’s what they do. Adding more laws for them to ignore isn’t going to stop them of doing something they think will give them an advantage over a disarmed and vulnerable victim population.

Glock bans should be recognized for exactly what they are, another unconstitutional gun grab. None of these new laws target those who are creating and distributing the parts or the ones who use them, only the retailers who legally sell firearms and the law-abiding citizen who want to purchase, carry and use firearms for their own protection and the protection of their families.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #ATF, #Switch, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

American Values (Repost from October 9, 2017)

Amongst all of the attention grabbing faux protests by millionaire athletes and celebrities, protests for which I am willing to bet they have no idea why they are doing it other than to ‘show unity’ with ‘something’, something they don’t fully understand, there comes the question of American values. What values do we as a nation hold and how do we honor them?  If only the Founding Fathers had left us a clue what our country was all about… Oh wait, they did!

First off, let’s take a look at our nation. It is called a melting pot for a reason. Our population is the descendants of immigrants from around the world. Members of every race, religion, and belief system have come to our shores looking for the better life afforded by the freedoms our Constitution and Bill of Rights protect. It continues, as it has since the beginning, as more come to share in the American dream.

Of course, the American dream comes at a price. It was paid for with the blood of patriots, beginning with the Founding Fathers and continuing throughout our history with the men and women of our military forces. They have given their lives so that we can live free.

Our nation’s Bill of Rights stands alone in the world for the natural rights it protects. Remember, the Bill of Rights does not grant them; it merely protects those rights. Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable, i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. A point many of our current elitist politicians seem to have forgotten.

The fact that the framers of our nation made a point to call out these natural rights as what our nation was founded on is critical. They had just fought to free themselves from oppressive rulers and wanted to ensure it would never happen again. The protections they outline are for the individual – the people – NOT the government.

The two pieces of respect for American values currently under attack are the Pledge of Allegiance and the National Anthem.

The Pledge of Allegiance, first written in 1887, later revised in 1892 and first formally adopted by Congress in 1942. It was officially named the Pledge of Allegiance in 1945. The current version was adopted on Flag Day in 1954.

“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

The National Anthem, The Star Spangled Banner, written by a witness to the attack on our soil during the Battle of Baltimore in the War of 1812, was signed into law as the national anthem of the United States of America by President Herbert Hoover on March 4, 1931.

“O! say can you see, by the dawn’s early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight’s last gleaming,
Whose broad stripes and bright stars through the perilous fight,
O’er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets’ red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there;
O! say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

How those two pieces of respect for our nation can be interpreted to be anything but a representation of the values our nation was founded on is beyond me. They are a show of respect not only for the nation, but those who have fought, and continue to fight for the very freedom and rights we enjoy.

But then, we’ve all seen insanity on overtime lately as everything from fashion, art, books and memorials being selectively reinterpreted by any and everyone as offensive in some way, shape or form. Fortunately, we have the First Amendment protected right to free speech, and being a disrespectful fool falls into that category; so go nuts.

To all the petty, attention-grabbing people out there who are choosing to protest ‘something’ by not honoring the nation that provides you with the ability to protest and express your discontent in the first place; I ask you this. What the hell are you doing about the problem you think you are protesting for?

To the millionaire athletes and celebrities who can’t find the physical or emotional strength to stand during the National Anthem; have you put your money and influence where your knee is and helped others less fortunate than you? To the politicians, our elected public servants who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution as part of your entry into the position of trust you hold. Other than sitting on your ass during the Pledge of Allegiance, what have you done to help alleviate the issues you claim you are protesting for?

Here are some suggestions:

How about going into the communities you claim to represent and mentoring at risk youth? How about giving a helping hand to those who don’t have and never will have the advantages you were able to obtain in “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. Maybe, just maybe, if you were to teach them what our National Anthem and the Pledge of Allegiance actually stand for, they too would help our nation achieve the values of “liberty and justice for all.” Maybe if you showed a little respect, they would too.

Bob

#oddstuffing, #nationalanthem, #pledgeofallegiance, #constitution, #billofrights, #firstamendment, #respect, #mewe, #oddstuffing.com

ATF Policy & The Winds of Change

We are seeing a great deal of change within the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). Going the way of the Dodo are many draconian and punitive polices put in place by the extremist left gun control lobby to restrict your Second Amendment protected rights. But be warned, just because the new – in reality the previously abandoned and replaced – polices are steering the agency back on a course of partnering with the firearm industry today, doesn’t mean it’s going to stay that way.

For those of us who were used to the ATF working with the firearm industry instead of against it, these changes are most certainly welcome. Among the changes:

Cancellation of the so-called “Zero Tolerance” policy which automatically revoked Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) license for minor and inconsequential paperwork errors.

The Demand 2 Program is ending. Otherwise known as “name and shame”, required FFLs with 25 or more firearms traced back to them following the recovery at a crime scene, and the time from retail sale to trace is three years or less, be automatically flagged for additional scrutiny, regardless of whether or not they had complied with all applicable laws and regulations. Initiated in February of 2000 during the anti-gun Clinton administration, the program implied the retailers had done something wrong, even if they followed the exact letter of the law. These confidential results from ATF firearm traces were often released to anti-gun groups for publication.

The restrictions on non-lethal training rounds used by military, law enforcement and civilian force-on-force training scenarios and fired from “specific-use guns that can’t fire standard ammunition” have been removed. These rounds are now not considered ammunition because they are not designed for offensive combat and are not designed or for use in any firearm.

The ban on so-called “dual use” barrels has been reversed. Dual-use barrels were banned for import in 2005, if those barrels could be used in a firearm determined to be “non-sporting.” Now, the ATF views those barrels as importable, as long as they can be used with sporting purpose guns.

We also see the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has sent staff to the Agency with the goal of revising or eliminating more than 50 rules and gun restrictions by July 4. While a momentous task with the potential to reduce or eliminate many administrative roadblocks within the ATF, we have no indication if these will be internal operations or external Second Amendment impacting policies.

Among the changes being considered is a reduction in the number of Industry Operations Investigator (IOIs) by two thirds, 541 of the estimated 800 currently on staff. The workforce reductions are part of the DOJ’s plan to merge the ATF and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) into one agency.

This proposed merger however is a real head scratcher. It’s unlikely you could find two more oppositely focused agencies. One primarily deals with lawful, Second Amendment protected firearms rights, the other primarily deals with unlawful, trafficking and use of illegal substances. Like many, I am dubious of this plan.

Meanwhile, let’s consider the policy changes at the ATF. Supposedly new management and oversight brought in with the new administration is returning the agency to its role as an industry partner and investigator and enforcer of the illegal firearms market. For those of us involved in the firearms industry, this is obviously a very good thing when compared to the previous administration who fundamentally turned policy and direction of the ATF over to the gun control lobby.

But therein lies the rub. The previous anti-gun administration turned the ATF into a gun control organization. This more pro-Second Amendment administration is returning the ATF to an industry partner/investigator of illegal activities agency. What will happen when the next anti-gun administration comes into power?

We’ve already seen federal agencies roles mutated across the board. The FBI went from being the nation’s premier law enforcement agency to a domestic political spy agency more concerned with parents’ free speech at school board meetings than threats to national security or crime. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Air Marshals were concentrating on covertly transporting unvetted illegal aliens and monitoring anyone who spoke out against the program. Customs and Border Protection became the illegals and smugglers welcome wagon and valet service. While these agencies are supposedly being refocused to their actual roles, I don’t believe anyone is going to fully trust this will be a permanent change.

I suppose the good news is with the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) overturning the 1984 Chevron case, it will make it more difficult for federal agencies to create and interpret the law themselves. This of course assumes future administrations will follow the law and SCOTUS will uphold the eventual challenges to violations.

Where does this leave us peasants? Skeptical at best. We need to embrace and celebrate the changes BACK to where we were before but to also prepare for the eventuality of when the wind blows in the other direction.

Perhaps now is a good time to consider who we vote for in the 2026 midterms and STOP SENDING PEOPLE WHO WILL TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS TO REPRESENT US!

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #ATF, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Mexico and Unites States Gun Control, Part Deux

The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) bars the lawsuit in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The unanimous 9-0 decision, authored by one of the most liberal left Associate Justices, should send a clear signal to end these nuisance lawsuits. But of course, that isn’t going to happen.

Mexico’s President announced they will be continuing with a separate lawsuit against the distributors and retailers excluded from the case just dismissed by SCOTUS. This case, Estados Unidos Mexicanos v. Diamondback Shooting Sports, Inc makes identical claims against the distributors and five firearm retailers, all Federal Firearm Retailers (FFLs) as the previous case.

Mexico claims these distributors and retailers are aiding and abetting Mexican cartels use of firearms against the Mexican people. In this lawsuit, Mexico is not alleging any U.S. crimes were committed by the distributors and retailers. In fact, there is no allegation of any sales not fully compliant with all state and federal laws, including completing ATF Form 4473 and background checks on the purchasers. Multiple sales of handguns and, as is required in border states, multiple sales of centerfire rifles have all be reported to the ATF and local law enforcement as required by law.

What Mexico is alleging is these distributors and retailers had an “opportunity and obligation” to stop the sales of firearms likely to be illegally trafficked to Mexico. They continue to allege “design and marketing decisions” that could “stimulate cartel members’ demand for their products”, as a ploy to worm their way into an exception to the PLCAA. Allegedly, sales of the very same products popular in the United States should be a “red flag” these firearms may somehow unlawfully find their way into Mexico and into the hands of the cartels and used criminally be cartel members. Yet, the Mexico lawsuit does not identify any specific firearms sold by these retailers and later recovered at Mexican crime scenes.

It is worth repeating the PLCAA is a federal law which protects gun manufacturers and licensed dealers from being held liable for any ‘harm caused by those who criminally or unlawfully misuse firearm products or ammunition products that function as designed and intended.’ The law was designed to prevent nuisance lawsuits from being filed for actions clearly beyond the control of the firearm industry.

The fact that Mexico’s lawsuits were allowed to proceed in the first place is a problem. While joining with the majority, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas also authored a significant concurring opinion in the case and advised, “In future cases, courts should more fully examine the meaning of ‘violation’ under the PLCAA.”

“It seems to me that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the ‘violation.’ Allowing plaintiffs to proffer mere allegations of a predicate violation would force many defendants in PLCAA litigation to litigate their criminal guilt in a civil proceeding, without the full panoply of protections that we otherwise afford to criminal defendants,” Thomas wrote. “And, these defendants might even include ones who were cleared in an earlier proceeding, such as through a noncharging decision or a not-guilty or not -liable verdict. Such collateral adjudication would be at best highly unusual and would likely raise serious constitutional questions that would counsel in favor of a narrower interpretation.” “Particularly given the PLCAA’s aim of protecting gun manufacturers from litigation … this issue warrants careful consideration,”

What is really going on? As I pointed out in my original post – Mexico and Unites States Gun Control – this is all being driven by the very same billionaire/millionaire and taxpayer funded anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment lobbyists and lawyers who are writing laws for cities, states and the federal government in the United States and the rest of the world. These rabid anti-gun groups have been and are continuing to fund Mexico’s legal actions against Unites States firearm manufacturers, distributors, retailers, transportation companies and individuals.

They are going after the firearm industry from the manufacturers down to the smallest retailer with lawsuits designed to cripple their business and force them out of the civilian firearm market. Failing this, they would be content to have the courts impose such severe and limiting conditions that very few would be willing to risk the liability of selling firearms not specifically approved by the gun control community to civilians.

Mexico’s lawsuits are really about gun control in the United States and restricting what you and I can purchase, carry and use to protect ourselves and our families. With failures in the courts from District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, Caetano v. Massachusetts, Garland v. Cargill, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the gun control community has been searching for new and innovative ways to restrict firearm rights.

As intended by the gun control community, lawsuits like these will continue as long as they can find willing dupes to allow their names to be used as plaintiffs and ideology driven judges willing to twist and bend federal law and Supreme Court rulings. Meanwhile, millions of dollars will be spent by those caught up in these nuisance lawsuits to defend themselves and our Second Amendment protected rights.

Bob

Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #Mexico, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Forced Reset Triggers & the Lies Extremists Spread

In what can only be described as a triumph of logic and legal responsibility, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) reached a settlement in its case against Rare Breed Triggers over their forced reset trigger (FRT). As you might expect, the gun control community was positively apoplectic and immediately began spreading even more lies.

According to the extremist gun control community.

“The Trump administration has just effectively legalized machine guns. Lives will be lost because of his actions.”
“FRTs automatically return forward, or reset, after being pulled. Thus, if a shooter pulls an FRT and holds it to the rear, the gun will continue firing like a machine gun.”
“These modifications pose a danger to the public because they could lead to significantly more victims in mass shootings, yet they serve no legitimate purpose for, say, hunting or home defense.”

Back in the world of reality…

In announcing the settlement with Rare Breed Triggers, the Attorney General said, “This Department of Justice believes that the [Second] Amendment is not a second-class right. And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.”

The settlement includes the DOJ dismissing three lawsuits involving Rare Breed Triggers, including a stop to erroneously enforcing federal machine gun regulations against the company and its patented FRTs for AR-style firearms, and returning confiscated FRTs to customers. Nothing in the agreement stops Rare Breed Triggers from developing FRTs for other semi-automatic rifles, including AKs, and other manufacturers may also see this as a green light to produce their own designs.

In exchange, Rare Breed Triggers has agreed not to produce or market FRTs for any handgun where the magazine loads into the trigger-hand grip. The settlement also requires Rare Breed Triggers to make “reasonable efforts” to protect its patent by seeking prohibitory injunctions against any person or entity that manufacture[s], sells, or distributes any FRT.

The WHY behind this settlement is just as important as the WHAT. Aside from the new administration’s promise to not treat the Second Amendment as a second-class right like the previous administration did, there is the whole Cargill case involving bump stocks.

While Cargill wasn’t a Second Amendment case per se, it did find the ATF exceeded its authority by independently reinterpreting the definition of a machine gun. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) also found since the shooter must pull the trigger between each round; a bump stock is NOT a machine gun.

So, a quick debunk of the gun control lies. FRTs are do not turn semi-automatic firearms into machine guns. Just because you changed the definition of machine gun to include FRTs (like you changed the definition of child to include 18- and 19-year-olds) does not make it a fact. A FRT trigger must RESET before the next shot, hence the name, forced reset trigger. If you hold the trigger to the rear, it will NOT reset and hence, not fire again until it is released to reset.

Then there is the, “they serve no legitimate purpose”. This goes back to one of the oldest, and least constitutional arguments of “need”. Firearm purchases, concealed carry permits, and even firearm designs had previously been denied because there was no evidence of a “special need” presented. The government, or more accurately here the gun control community controlling the ATF, is attempting to deny something they don’t like because THEY don’t believe it has a “legitimate purpose”, or “need”. Or, in other words, a privilege to be granted or denied by the government at will. Fortunately, SCOTUS has eliminated this as a regulatory policy in Bruen, but the lies continue.

Oh yea, and the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It is self-defense, it is sport shooting, it is collecting, it is herd management and protection, it is marksmanship, it is shooting for no other reason than you want to. It doesn’t have to have a “legitimate purpose”.

While this is a victory, it is a conditional and possibly temporary one. The DOJ agreement includes a provision preventing Rare Breed Triggers from developing products for certain style pistols. While there is nothing preventing other companies from doing this, as some already have, it is a limitation which might be invoked on other companies.

The settlement also doesn’t seem to preclude a future administration from coming in and reversing the decision. While I abhor the gamble and cost involved in getting a case to the Supreme Court, a decision there, or a denial of the DOJ’s appeal based on Cargill, would have provided a more permanent ruling to protect us from going through this in the future.

I’ll say it again. The only way to prevent this from happening is to stop electing people who are willing to take away our rights.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #FRT, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Control: Twisting Truth and Faking Fact

After reading a recent post from the gun control community, I find it fascinating how facts from the real world can be twisted to form a new, twisted reality. But I suppose when you are trying to convince people that anyone or anything associated with firearms is threat to public safety, you have to take some liberties with the truth.

I’ve linked to a copy of the article below for your entertainment. NSSF REPORT: AR-15 OWNERS STOCKPILE WEAPONS, SEEK SILENCERS. The article quotes the NSSF (National Shooting Sports Foundation – the industry trade organization) then picks apart pieces to make wild speculations about it.

One of the things which immediately pops out is the “AR-15 owners stockpile weapons”. This is based on a single NSSF survey showing a of percentage AR- and AK-style rifles owners own 3.8 on average.

So apparently 3.8 firearms are now considered a stockpile. I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration to call 3.8 a stockpile, but we should be used to the gun control community twisting the truth. How many times have you seen an article on an arrest where the person had a “weapons cache” or “arms stockpile” or “ammunition cache” when there were two firearms and 50 or 100 rounds of ammo?

Let’s keep in mind one of the gun control extremists’ goals is to limit the number of firearms and the amount of ammunition you can own, just like they have already done in other countries. They are pushing this narrative here by showing a small number of personally owned firearms and exclaiming how this is a “massive arsenal” far above mainstream users which can only be used by terrorists and mass shooters.

Remember, redefining common terms to meet their definition is their specialty. These are the folks who falsely claim guns are the leading cause of death for children in this country because they define children up to the age of 20. So, redefining a “stockpile”, something most of us would envision as being a pretty big number – like actual military armory type quantities – down to a tiny number of firearms and ammunition is no big deal.

They also go after the term Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR) as something created in 2009 to rebrand AR-15, AK-47 and other such firearms to invent a sporting purpose “… instead of weapons of war designed for maximum lethality.” Here they continue to pursue the lie that semi-automatic AR-15 and the like are “weapons of war”. They are not and never have been. But they’ve never let the truth get in their way.

Let’s not forget it was the gun control community that coined the term “assault weapons” in 1988 to refer to semi-automatic firearms with similar cosmetic features to military firearms, but without the capability to be used as fully automatic assault rifles, a term already in common use. Assault weapons sound scary, semi-automatic firearms do not.

Of course, there is no consensus in the gun control community on what exactly a so-called “assault weapon” is. Is it the cosmetic features? Is it the removable magazine? Is it the semi-automatic mechanism? This constantly progressing definition is used to encapsulate as many firearms as possible so they can all be banned as being too dangerous for civilian ownership.

They also massively misquote how many MSR/AR/AK/etc pattern firearms are in circulation to make them look like outliers, not in common use by the general public – an argument used to get around United States Supreme Court decisions. The generally accepted estimate is now between 25 to 45 million, making it the most popular type of firearm in the country, aka common use.

Silencers? Really, this again?? One more time – suppressors do not SILENCE a gunshot like they do in the movies. Hollywood says you can snap a tiny two-inch silencer on a revolver and all you get is a pfft noise. In reality, a suppressor just lowers the volume to a safer level.

Once again, the gun control extremists stretch the truth by citing the example of a cold-blooded daylight, street murder of a health care CEO by an entitled and disturbed individual using what by all accounts was an illegal, home built suppressor to insinuate suppressors have no use other than for killing people.

Now contrast this with a recent ATF announcement of new suppressors issued to their agents for “health and safety”, the exact same rational used by law enforcement agencies and military around the world. But when a regular law-abiding citizen wants one, they must be planning a murder. Your health and safety do not matter.

Suppressors are legal in 42 states and hunting with a suppressor is legal in 41. As of June 2024, there are more than 4.8 million legally owned suppressors in the United States. And yes, more and more firearm owners are buying them thanks to the NFA (National Firearms Act) processing times going from 18-24 months down to days or weeks. This has dramatically increased demand as buyers no longer have to pay for the suppressor and tax stamp then wait two years to take possession. The anti-gun extremists call this a “troubling surge in silencer sales”.

For those of you who live in the real world, it’s okay to have more than one nanny state approved firearm, more than a box or two of ammunition and even have a suppressor. Of the estimated 400-500 million firearms in the United States, only a teeny-tiny fraction is used for illegal purposes. The rest are lawfully owned for hunting, sport and for the protection of self and family. Don’t let the extremists in the gun control community reset the narrative to make you look like the bad guy.

Remember, gun control does absolutely nothing to increase public safety and the answer to fix that shortcoming is always to implement more gun control.

Bob

http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/SmokingGunFable.pdf

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Gun Control – Everything Old Is New Again

Many think the current generation of gun control extremists are creating their novel approaches to eliminate our Second Amendment protected rights from scratch. In reality, they are merely copying the tried and tested methods of old and adapting them for modern times.

Here’s a short quote for you.

“Are the authorities justified to call the carrying of a weapon a “misuse” that is subject to punishment if the person carries the weapon exclusively for the purpose of self-defense, a right that every citizen has by law? May a state, which is unable to protect life and liberty of its citizens from unlawful attacks, keep these citizens from exercising their right to self-defense? It is clear that even a strong, but unarmed man will be helpless when confronted by an armed attacker. The fact is that peaceful citizens who respect the law are forced to forego weapons because of the penalties contained in the weapons laws. On the other hand, peace breakers who intentionally violate the law and order are not deterred by a prison term. “ “Allow the orderly citizen to carry the weapon he needs for his self-defense but severely punish the person who actually misuses a weapon”.

This argument was made by Dr. Flegel, Senior Court-Marshal Judge for the Navy (Obermarinekriegsgerichstrat) in Germany in August 1931.

You see the Weirmar Republic, the predecessor government of Nazi Third Reich, had already gone down the path of restricting the purchasing, possessing and carrying firearms by civilians. The registration records would later be of great use to Nazi officials to disarm individuals and undesirable groups and keep them from obtaining any more.

Sadly, Germany is using its firearm registry again to deny citizens of firearms. The current left-wing administration has declared the right-leaning political party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) a “right-wing extremist” group. As such, members of this party have been deemed “unreliable” under Germany’s gun laws and is revoking their gun licenses. Without any charges of crimes by the individual members of the party, firearms must be surrendered or destroyed, just for being a member of an opposition political party. This comes just after AfD became the biggest political party in Germany.

Do any of these strategies sound familiar?

Licenses for individuals to purchase, own and carry a firearm.
Creating bureaucratic and economic barriers to obtain a firearm license or license to carry.
Declaring opposition political groups “extremists” to restrict their firearm rights.
Requiring a “need” and other subjective criteria to carry a firearm.
Limiting the availability and quantity of ammunition.
Eliminating civilian ownership of so-called ‘military’ type firearms.
Expanding regulations on firearm manufacturers, distributors retailers and gunsmiths.
Using ownership registries to confiscate personally owned firearms.

All of these strategies are being used TODAY in our country but were conceived and utilized by the Nazi government to disarm and oppress their own citizens years ago.

Here’s a fun fact. One of the current propaganda tactics is to label anyone even slightly right-of-center a Nazi. Of course, history clearly shows us the ones who are trying to deny access to firearms and individual rights were the Nazis, NOT the ones defending those rights.

There is a controversial post from a few years ago with the quote: “Why gun control? Because armed people will NOT willingly load themselves into railroad boxcars.” While it’s impossible to say with certainty if an armed civilian population in Germany would have been able to stop the atrocities committed there, history does show us what happens to disarmed civilians over and over again.

The Second Amendment

The United States of America’s Second Amendment is a unique protection of natural rights in the world. No other country has this. While a few started out with similar protections for a while, decades of whittling away have rendered them null and void. It’s interesting to note for all the countries our nation has ‘assisted’ with regime change, none of the new and improved constitutions have included Second Amendment like protections. The reason is easy to understand. Governing armed constituents who can force you out of office like you just did to the previous regime is so much harder.

Despite years of creative reinterpretation by gun control extremists, the Second Amendment does in fact protect an individual’s natural right to keep and bear arms. It always has. But it is under constant attack at the local, state and federal levels. Each little so-called “common sense gun safety” law whittles away at that right. Individually, they might not be considered a serious threat, and that’s the idea. Small, incremental infringements that only the most radical gun nuts would ever oppose are easier to pass. Everyone wants to be safe, right?

Except gun control laws have never succeeded at reducing violence or crime since they only target law-abiding citizens, not the criminals who by their very definition, disobey the law. Yet we are constantly told just one more law, one more regulation, closing one more loophole will make us all safe. It simply isn’t true. It wasn’t then, and it isn’t now.

Bob

Gun Control Target: Colorado

In one of the latest rights oppression operations, the gun control extremists successfully targeted the State of Colorado for a new round of novel Second Amendment suppression laws. Born not within the borders of Colorado, this was delivered from the same Gun Control Inc. lawyers and activists targeting state houses around the country. While the resulting law is less draconian than originally proposed, it still represents a serious violation of rights. And this is just the beginning.

On April 10, 2025, Democratic Governor Jared Polis signed several new gun control bills into law, among them, Senate Bill 3, commonly known as the Semi-Automatic Ban, which by most accounts will ban up to 85% of rifles, plus many shotguns and handguns. The primary targets of the new law are the popular and common AR/AK pattern firearms, but it lassos in most semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines.  The law goes into effect on August 1, 2026. Prior to signing the law, Governor Polis said, “I really think this will make Colorado safer.”

Under the new law, manufacturing, distributing, transferring, selling, and purchasing certain semiautomatic weapons in Colorado that use detachable magazines will be illegal. New firearms must now be sold with the magazines of no more than 15 rounds welded, soldered, or epoxied in place.

Unless…

Naturally, the common exceptions are made for the military, law enforcement, prison guards, or armored vehicle personnel. But, if the common citizen jumps through a series of expensive and time-consuming hoops and gets a permit-to-purchase, they too can purchase these WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms.

Common Coloradoans can apply for a five-year purchase permit after passing a subjective vetting by a county sheriff, a background check, and completing a class to obtain a “firearms safety course eligibility card.”  IF said commoner has not taken a hunter safety course, they must take a 12-hour in-person training course over two days, otherwise it’s a shorter course, plus pass a test with a score of at least 90%. The results of which are available in a shared statewide database, a.k.a. registry of people who own these WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms, to firearms retailers (FFLs) to determine if you are eligible.

Read another way, if you can afford to take the time off work, and to pay for the background check, pay for the extra training, just to obtain an eligibility card from your local sheriff, you can then buy one of these WAY TOO dangerous firearms.  Those of less modest means need not apply to be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

In case you’re wondering where this abomination came from, it was conceived by the lawyers at one of the national gun control groups – whom I collectively call Gun Control, Inc. – who delivered it to the Colorado Senate sponsor. This is yet another case where the Gun Control, Inc. establishment is driving new gun control laws in this country and the local or state politicians are simple the signatory sponsor. All they have to do is sign their name to the bills and Gun Control, Inc. handles the rest, including in many cases defending the law in state and federal courts.

This has been evident in other states like New Mexico when the state sponsors of a new gun control bill could not answer even basic questions about the bill being considered and needed to have a lawyer from Gun Control, Inc. who was in the audience address the questions.

Keep in mind this new law is the watered down, starter version. As originally delivered to the State of Colorado, it called for a COMPLELTE BAN on the described firearms, including those currently in lawful possession. However, the uproar from the commoners would have made it far too controversial to pass, so the no manufacturing, distributing, transferring, selling, and purchasing UNLESS you have a permit-to-purchase scheme was introduced.

What’s so ironic is this new law directly undercuts their own narrative on what they claim are WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms. Instead of the outright ban the gun control lobbyists handed them, they said these firearms are still okay to own if you already have one AND you can still get an exemption through the permit-to-purchase program.

As I said above, this is now just a starter law that gets their foot in the door for banning certain firearms.  But as we’ve learned from the slow-but-steady gun control progression in Kalifornistan, subsequent legislative sessions will need to urgently address these deadly loopholes, and it is much easier to amend an existing law than to get a new one passed.

What will be in the subsequent versions? Removal of the exemption to purchase with an eligibility card. Those in current possession must register their WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms to keep them. Removal of the ability to pass them on to descendants. Severe restrictions on where and when they can be used. And finally, the WAY TOO dangerous to own firearms will be completely outlawed and must be surrendered.

Fortunately, this and the other do-nothing-for-public-safety gun control laws will be challenged, but as always, we are funding both sides of this fight. Our donated dollars to save our Second Amendment protected rights are up against our own unlimited tax dollars and billionaire funded activist attorneys trying to take them away.

This story is being repeated across the country. The only way to prevent this from happening is to stop electing people who are willing to take away our rights.

Bob

#Oddstuffing, #Constitution, #BillOfRights, #SecondAmendment, #2A, #GunControlFails, #NoNewGunLaws, #FactsMatter, #GunVote, #Colorado, #medium, #mewe, #gab, #gettr, #truthsocial, #threads, #bluesky, #oddstuffing.com

Mexico and Unites States Gun Control

In case you missed it, the United States Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. While it may sound like a landmark case of a sovereign foreign nation taking necessary legal action to protect their citizens against American arms manufacturers, the truth is a lot simpler. It’s just another extremist gun control ploy to restrict United States Second Amendment rights.

The WICKEDLY short version of the case.

Mexico is attempting to sue firearms manufacturers for $10 Billion for crimes committed in Mexico. They allege the American firearm manufacturers are responsible for the illegal sale and smuggling of firearms into Mexico and is the cause of cartel violence in the country.

The initial suit was filed in U.S. District Court in Boston in 2021, which was dismissed by that district court based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) that prohibits frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry for the criminal misuse by remote third parties.

Mexico appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which revived the lawsuit holding that Mexico’s “aiding and abetting” theory fit within one of the PLCAA’s narrow exceptions. Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., et al., successfully petitioned the Supreme Court last year and the nine justices took turns asking lawyers for both parties why this case should be dismissed or allowed to proceed.

A link to the oral arguments on March 4^th, 2025, is listed below and will give you some insight to the thinking of the Court.

In considering this, we need to recognize how heavily regulated the firearm industry is in the United States and how a firearm gets to the illegal market in Mexico. Manufacturers typically sell to distributors, who sell to retailers, the final Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) who sells to the public with a federal form 4473 and background check. The first illegal act is that of a straw purchaser who buys the firearm and provides it to someone who then smuggles it across the border to Mexico, another crime. The firearm is then provided to the cartels, another crime, who uses it to commit their crimes.

There is also the myth about 90% of the firearms used by the cartels come from United States FFLs. The truth is that less than 12 percent of the firearms Mexico seized in 2008, for example, have been verified as coming from the U.S. In 2008, approximately 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals in Mexico. Of these 30,000, only 7,200 (24 percent) were submitted to the ATF for tracing. This is because only these firearms were likely to have come from the U.S., a determination made by the presence of a U.S. mandated serial number and the firearm’s make and model – requirements under federal law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Of the 7,200 firearms submitted for tracing, only about 4,000 (13 percent) could be traced by the ATF of which roughly 3,480 (12 percent) came from the U.S. Although 3,480 is approximately 90 percent of the firearms successfully traced, it is hardly the mythical 90 percent of the total firearms recovered.

It’s also important to note neither the manufacturer, distributor or retailer are ever made aware of the results of a firearm trace.

Going after legal, licensed firearm manufacturers isn’t a new tactic. In the 1990’s, there were a number of lawsuits filed against the largest manufacturers in an open attempt to bankrupt and shut them down or get them to agree to the gun control lobby’s demands for restrictions on products and sales. Any of the smaller manufacturers who didn’t follow suit would be put out of business, along with retailers if they refused to adopt the gun control mandated policies.

The resulting PLCAA was signed into law in 2005 by President George W. Bush with broad bipartisan support by Congress. The law was spurred by numerous frivolous lawsuits orchestrated by gun control groups to circumvent Congress and put firearm companies out of business based on the criminal misuse of firearms by remote individuals who lack respect for both life and law. The PLCAA has been repeatedly upheld as Constitutional by federal courts.

If you’re wondering where this legal action came from, it’s the very same billionaire/millionaire and taxpayer funded anti-gun/anti-Second Amendment lobbyists and lawyers who are writing laws for cities, states and the federal government in the United States and the rest of the world. The co-counsel for the Mexican government, likely the driving force behind this legal action, is from one of these anti-gun groups. The very same groups who get victims of violence in the United States to attach their names to lawsuits they file against manufacturers, distributors, retailers, transportation companies and individuals.

Mexico’s drug industry is estimated to make between 17 and 38 BILLION dollars PER year. That means they have a huge business to protect, and a huge budget to protect it with. With that buying power they can purchase almost any type of military equipment they want from the world market, including fully automatic firearms, mini-guns, rocket propelled grenades, anti-tank rockets, mines and grenades. These don’t come from firearm retailers in the United States.

Mexico also has a significant desertion problem from their army. Between 2003 and 2009 alone, there were an estimated 150,000 desertions, many taking their military issued weapons with them.

Billions of dollars of annual profit buys a lot of political influence from local politicians, law enforcement, prosecutors and judges to those at the national level, including all branches of the military. Mexico is ranked as 124 out of 180 countries on a corruption index by the watchdog Transparency International. That puts Mexico on par with Pakistan and Kyrgyzstan.

Keep in mind Mexico is the model country for gun control advocates. Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world and has only ONE gun store in the entire country run by the ONLY entity who can legally purchase firearms from any manufacturer in the world – the Mexican military. For a quick rundown on the gun control situation in Mexico, please see a previous article The Cost of National Gun Control at: https://oddstuffing.com/archives/215

Mexico’s issue isn’t civilian firearms legally manufactured and sold in the United States, it’s Mexico’s own corruption and embracing of the illegal drug and human trafficking trade into the United States. This illegal activity brings billions of dollars into the country each year, with a portion of it being slid into the pockets of people who either look the other way or actively facilitate it.

These are the very people the United States based anti-gun zealots have recruited to be their patsy in their latest attempt to circumvent the PLCAA. The goal is the same, only this time they are using a foreign government to destroy the legal firearm industry in this country.

It is a fool’s errand to predict how the Supreme Court might decide a pending case, however the questions posed by justices indicated their doubts about Mexico’s allegations. Let us hope they will see through the anti-gun lobby’s latest attempt to circumvent the law and restrict our Second Amendment rights further.

A decision is expected at the end of the Supreme Court session in June.

Bob

http://oddstuffing.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/23-1141_09m1.pdf

Change The Definition to Fit the Lie

The big news this week from the ATF is it looks like they are finally going to start reversing some of the damage caused by the previous administration to our Second Amendment protected rights. In particular, the reversal of the Zero Tolerance Policy for FFLs, as well as taking a “comprehensive review” of the definition of ‘engaged in the business’ and the stabilizing brace regulations. While the new direction is important, it’s also critical to understand just how this happened in the first place.

Let’s start with an example of changing the definition. The latest and greatest pulling at the heart strings ploy is the gun control zealots claim, “Gun Violence is the NUMBER ONE cause of death for children today.” How many times have you heard left-wing anti-gun politicians, reporters and pundits use this line. Of course, it’s a lie.

How do they justify this? Easy, change the definition of “children”. Their so-called “research” included 18- and 19-year-olds in the definition of “children”, dramatically altering the results. Do you consider 18- and 19-year-olds children? No, they meet every other definition of an adult including the ability to vote, enter business contracts, join the military and get married, except when it comes to the gun control zealots wanting to influence the public. Change the definition to fit the lie.

Now let’s look at a statement from one of the no-gun-in-civilian-hands-is-a-good-gun organizations, Everytown.

“… Bondi is specifically attacking three things: ATF’s zero-tolerance policy for gun dealers who willfully violate the law, a rule that requires more gun sellers to get licensed and run background checks, and a rule that regulates deadly short-barreled rifles… “

The previous administration’s implementation of the Zero Tolerance Policy was directed at one thing, and one thing only. To shut down as many FFLs as possible. To do this, they changed the definition of “willful” to mean ANY paperwork error on the myriad of federal forms required to buy and sell firearms in this country. Even something as inconsequential as a single misspelled word was considered a “willful violation” and enough to get the dealer’s license revoked. And revoke licenses they did. In 2021 there were 134,516 FFLs, in 2024 that number had been reduced to 127,784

In this scenario, they changed the definition to fit the lie that thousands of rouge gun dealers were ignoring federal law and selling guns illegally.

Note there was also a side benefit in that all the firearm transaction records from dealers put out of business have to be sent to the ATF to be included in their computerized firearm registry database. Yes, it really exists, but more on that another time.

In regard to ‘engaged in the business’, the ATF changed the rules on who needed to get a Federal Firearms License (FFL) to sell a firearm. The new rules were so expansive, a single sale of a personally owned firearm for profit could result in a criminal charge. The objective was to force more people into obtaining a FFL so they must do background checks, aka a backdoor implementation of Universal Background Checks, making the transaction records available for the ATF registry.

In this scenario, changing the definition to fit the lie of “dealers” not doing background checks so practically every firearm sale would be subject to a background check and records collection.

Then of course we come to stabilizing pistol braces and what a convoluted story it is. Originally designed to allow a disabled combat veteran to continue to shoot, it was approved by the ATF and not classified as a short barreled rifle (SBR). The ATF then said the simple act of moving the brace from your arm to shoulder was a “redesign” and made it a SBR. Another ATF determination letter then said it was incorrect with the redesign designation. The ATF then came up with another proposed rule with a byzantine point system for determining if a stabilizing brace was in fact a pistol or a SBR, which then was withdrawn. Then they said braces were in fact rifle stocks and you could either pay the $200 tax and register it as SBR under the National Firearm Act (NFA) which comes with many restrictions, surrender or destroy the firearm, or remove and get rid of the brace – since simply having access to one while owning an AR pistol was considered “constructive possession” of a SBR. Since then, the courts have ruled the ATF rule was “arbitrary and capricious” and nationwide injunctions issued.

Let’s also recall that rifles of all kinds, including SBRs, are used in only about 3% of homicides nationwide. Handguns are most commonly used for the simple reason they are concealable. A pistol with a stabilizing brace is bulky, larger and heavier than a standard handgun and as difficult to conceal as a rifle.

But not letting facts get in the way, in this scenario they changed the definition to fit the lie that stabilizing pistol braces are SBRs and somehow more deadly than a pistol without one. Because of this they deserve to be taxed and regulated as a NFA item.

As you can see, the gun control community became the guiding influence of ATF policy during the previous administration. Given the creation of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a government funded and activist staffed gun control organization within the White House, it’s easy to see where all this came from. Fortunately, that group was disbanded shortly after the current administration took office.

This week also saw the announcement of a new task force. From Attorney General Pamela Bondi.

“The prior administration placed an undue burden on gun owners and vendors by targeting law-abiding citizens exercising their 2^nd Amendment rights. The Department of Justice’s new 2^nd Amendment Task Force will combine department-wide policy and litigation to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.”

This announcement signals a dramatic and welcome about face. Our government should be actively supporting and defending the Constitution and Bill of Rights, rather than trying to undermine it for their own purposes. While we may not agree with all the positions this administration takes, we are certainly in a far better place than we were with the last one.

It is also a reminder that our Second Amendment protected rights can be systematically eliminated bit by bit by bit until there is nothing left to defend. The only way to prevent this from happening is to stop electing people who are willing to take away our rights.

Bob