Hunter Biden Withdraws Request for New Trial in Federal Gun Case

July 15, 2024

Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, has withdrawn his request for a new trial in his federal gun case after federal prosecutors criticized his legal approach as a “misunderstanding of appellate practice” and for neglecting prior court orders.

On June 11, Hunter Biden was convicted on three counts related to lying about his drug addiction to obtain a firearm. He filed a motion for a new trial on June 24, claiming that Delaware federal Judge Maryellen Noreika lacked jurisdiction over his trial. Biden argued that there were pending rulings in his appeals case that called Noreika’s authority into question.

Federal prosecutors from special counsel David Weiss’ office refuted Biden’s argument, emphasizing that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals had already authorized Judge Noreika to proceed with the trial. In a filing on Monday, prosecutors pointed out that the appeals court had dismissed Biden’s appeals with orders marked “Issued in Lieu of Mandate,” a crucial detail that Biden and his legal team failed to acknowledge.

Prosecutor Derek Hines wrote in the Monday filing, “When trial began on June 3, the Third Circuit had already dismissed both of the defendant’s appeals with orders stamped ‘in Lieu of Mandate’ and denied his petition for rehearing.” He added, “While the defendant repeatedly insisted before trial that his appeals divested this Court of jurisdiction, this is the first time he has spun this tale of the missing mandates.”

Hines made it clear that the dismissal orders provided no grounds for the court to reconsider its previous rulings, as the orders indicated that the appeals were non-appealable and did not affect the court’s jurisdiction.

Following this, Hunter Biden’s lead attorney, Abbe Lowell, filed a brief on Tuesday admitting the oversight. “As it appears that the Third Circuit views issuing a certified order ‘in lieu’ of a mandate as compliant with … procedure for shortening the time for issuance of a mandate, Mr. Biden withdraws his motion,” Lowell wrote.

Hunter Biden, a notable figure in his father’s administration following President Biden’s controversial June 27 debate against Donald Trump, faces up to 25 years in prison when he is sentenced later this year. However, federal sentencing guidelines suggest he is unlikely to receive the maximum sentence. Judge Noreika has yet to set a sentencing date.

Biden’s legal challenges do not end here. He is scheduled to go on trial on September 5 in Los Angeles, where he is accused of evading $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019. An earlier attempt to delay this trial was rejected by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May, with prosecutors calling the appeal a “stunt to delay his trial.”

Public opinion is not in Biden’s favor. A recent poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research revealed that 60% of Americans, including 59% of Democrats, agreed with the verdict in the Delaware trial, with nearly half supporting a prison sentence for Hunter Biden.

As these legal proceedings continue, the implications for the Biden administration and the wider political landscape remain to be seen.

ATF Under Fire for Repeatedly Violating Firearm Trace Data Laws

July 10, 2024 

In a move that has ignited fierce backlash from Second Amendment supporters, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has once again released sensitive firearm trace data, flouting federal laws designed to keep such information confidential.

For the second time in under a year, the ATF has disregarded the Tiahrt Amendment, which explicitly prohibits the disclosure of firearm trace data outside of law enforcement engaged in legitimate investigations.

This time, the ATF handed over the data to The Trace, a media outlet affiliated with the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Six months earlier, the ATF released similar data to USA Today following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, despite firearm trace data being exempt from FOIA.

The Trace had not contested a Ninth Circuit ruling that ordered the release of this protected data to Stop US Arms to Mexico, an Oakland-based nonprofit. This ruling came after the group’s founder, John Lindsay-Poland, requested data on U.S.-made firearms recovered at crime scenes in Mexico and Central America, detailed by the U.S. regions from which they were purchased.

Initially, the ATF denied this request, citing the Tiahrt Amendment. However, Lindsay-Poland sued, and the Ninth Circuit ruled in his favor.

Conversely, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that such data is protected and cannot be released, creating a split in circuit court decisions.

The ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ) should have recognized this as an opportunity to escalate the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ninth Circuit has a history of having a significant number of its decisions overturned, suggesting a strong chance for a successful appeal. Instead, the ATF opted to release the data.

Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights, voiced his frustration: “This blatant disregard for the law shows that the ATF is more interested in appeasing gun control activists than upholding their legal responsibilities. They’re not protecting law-abiding gun owners; they’re targeting them.”

The ATF’s actions appear influenced by broader political pressures. Gun control groups like Everytown and Stop US Arms to Mexico are determined to dismantle the Tiahrt Amendment, viewing it as an obstacle to their agenda.

Meanwhile, Mexico is suing several U.S. firearm manufacturers for $10 billion, claiming these companies are responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms by Mexican drug cartels.

This lawsuit, supported by prominent gun control activists, seeks to hold American manufacturers accountable for the actions of criminals abroad.

Joe Biden has made no secret of his stance against the firearm industry. During his campaign, he declared gun manufacturers as “the enemy.” His administration has utilized every available lever to attack the industry, from legislative efforts to executive actions.

Vice President Kamala Harris, assigned to secure the southern border and spearhead the gun control agenda, has seen little progress on both fronts. The newly established White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, staffed by former Everytown lobbyist Robert Wilcox, further underscores the administration’s commitment to this cause.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, known for his anti-gun rulings, and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, who halted Operation Thor—a project aimed at disrupting firearm trafficking—are key figures in this contentious approach.

The ATF’s repeated release of trace data undermines ongoing investigations and further alienates themselves from gun owners and the gun industry.

Critics argue that these trace data leaks prove background checks do not work. Chris McNutt stated “All of the guns in the trace data were purchased by individuals who successfully passed a background check. So there is no reason to demonize the stores where these guns were initially sold” highlighting fundamental flaws in current gun control measures that unfairly target legitimate businesses.

Former ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan emphasized the importance of safeguarding trace data, warning against its use as a political weapon. “If the Tiahrt Amendment were repealed, it could seriously undermine, if not eviscerate, the critically important investigations ATF special agents and local law enforcement are building to bring illegal firearm traffickers to justice,” Sullivan wrote.

The ATF’s decision to release this data twice within six months raises serious questions about the agency’s priorities and its commitment to upholding the laws designed to protect sensitive information.

For many in the gun rights community, these actions are seen as part of a broader strategy to erode Second Amendment protections and vilify law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

The Implications of SCOTUS Overturning Chevron Deference

July 9, 2024

As we reported last week, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron Deference doctrine, a move that promises significant implications for gun owners and the administrative state’s power.

The decision, handed down on June 28, 2024, marks a substantial shift in the judicial review of regulatory actions, particularly those undertaken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

By describing the 1984 Chevron decision as “fundamentally misguided” and a “byzantine set of preconditions and exceptions,” SCOTUS has now empowered judges to closely scrutinize and potentially overturn regulatory agency actions, significantly limiting their power to redefine their authority. This decision dismantles an important tool of the political bureaucracy—the appeal to “experts”—and returns judicial authority to the courts.

Chevron Deference, established by the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., mandated that courts defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes, provided those interpretations were reasonable.

For decades, federal courts often sided with agencies, even when their decisions were questionable. This gave agencies leeway to interpret laws in ways that expanded their power, sometimes at the expense of constitutional rights.

For gun owners, Chevron was often translated into more restrictive regulations and a lack of judicial recourse. This doctrine effectively empowered agencies like the ATF to act as judge, jury, and executioner in regulatory matters.

Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights, explained the significance: “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron is a game-changer. It removes the undue deference that courts have historically given to agencies like the ATF. Now, federal courts will evaluate these cases independently, ensuring that no agency can bypass judicial scrutiny.”

This decision could not have come at a more critical time.

The ATF has been at the center of several contentious regulatory battles, including those over bump stocks, pistol braces, and redefinitions of what constitutes a firearm.

Under Chevron, the ATF’s expansive interpretations were often upheld by courts. Without Chevron, these regulations will face stricter scrutiny.

McNutt highlighted the immediate effect: “Ongoing and future litigation against the ATF now has a higher chance of success. For instance, in the bump stock ban case, courts will no longer feel compelled to side with the ATF just because of their perceived expertise. They will look at the facts and the law more objectively.”

One significant impact is on federal firearm licenses (FFLs). The ATF has been known to revoke these licenses for minor infractions, citing willful violations. Without Chevron Deference, there’s a stronger chance that courts will thoroughly examine whether such violations are truly willful or simply clerical errors, giving gun dealers a fairer chance in disputes.

Critics of Chevron have long argued that it undermined the separation of powers by allowing executive agencies to wield legislative and judicial authority.

The Supreme Court’s ruling realigns the balance of power, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law.

McNutt emphasized, “This decision is a monumental victory for gun owners. It ensures that regulatory agencies like the ATF cannot impose restrictive measures without thorough judicial review. This upholds the fundamental principle that no agency should have unchecked power over the rights of citizens.”

For gun owners, this decision is a monumental victory. It curtails the ATF’s ability to unilaterally impose restrictive regulations without thorough judicial review.

By ensuring that courts evaluate regulatory actions independently, the decision upholds the fundamental principle that no agency should have unchecked power over the rights of citizens.

In the broader context, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron Deference is a significant step toward reining in the administrative state and restoring constitutional checks and balances.

For the gun community, it marks a triumph in the ongoing battle to protect Second Amendment rights from overreach by federal agencies.

Newsome’s Push for Gun Control Amendment to Constitution Stalls

July 8, 2024 

One year after Governor Gavin Newsom of California proposed a constitutional amendment that would significantly water down and weaken the Second Amendment, his campaign has failed to gain traction beyond his home state. In fact, no other states have joined his call for a “28th Amendment.”

Newsom’s efforts to gather support have been promoted heavily across his social media channels over the past year, and primarily involve online petitions and volunteer training, aimed at building a grassroots movement.

However, legislative leaders in several Democratic-controlled states have indicated that the idea of a constitutional convention to adopt this amendment has not been discussed among their caucuses.

Nathan Click, Newsom’s spokesperson, acknowledged the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment but emphasized their focus on grassroots mobilization.

“We’re under no illusions of how hard it is to pass a constitutional amendment, so that’s why we’ve focused on building this grassroots army to help these legislators,” Click said.

Despite these efforts, the campaign’s lack of progress raises questions about whether Newsom is genuinely committed to the amendment or using it as a political strategy to maintain national relevance.

California’s strict gun control laws have faced significant challenges in the courts, especially following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which overturned New York’s stringent concealed carry law and set a precedent for evaluating firearms regulations.

This ruling has led to numerous lawsuits against California’s gun laws, resulting in several of them being struck down or put under serious legal scrutiny.

In response, on June 8, 2023, Newsom announced his plan to circumvent these judicial setbacks by proposing a constitutional amendment.

His proposed amendment includes universal background checks, raising the federal minimum age for gun purchases to 21, implementing a mandatory waiting period, and banning the sale of assault weapons.

“Governor Newsom isn’t sitting idly by while right-wing judges dismantle our gun safety laws,” Click stated. “He’s taking aggressive actions — defending our state’s first-in-class gun safety laws from judicial attacks while simultaneously fighting to pass a constitutional amendment to enshrine gun safety nationwide.”

However, the path to a constitutional convention is fraught with obstacles. Two-thirds of state legislatures must agree to convene such a convention, and any proposed amendment would need ratification by three-fourths of the states. Given the current political climate, achieving this level of consensus appears highly unlikely.

Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights, criticized Newsom’s efforts, saying, “This push for a constitutional amendment is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Newsom knows he doesn’t have the support needed to pass this, but he’s using it to keep himself in the spotlight and rally his base — especially with the prospect of Biden being replaced as the Democratic nominee for President.”

Despite Newsom’s efforts, no other states have joined California in calling for a constitutional convention on gun control. Even in Democratic strongholds like New York, Illinois, and Michigan, the idea has not gained traction. Legislators in these states have not discussed the proposal, and there has been little to no outreach from Newsom’s team.

National gun control advocacy groups have also remained distant from Newsom’s campaign. Organizations such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Brady: United Against Gun Violence, while supportive of all of the policies pushed by Newsome, have not publicly supported the push for a constitutional convention, focusing instead on legislative efforts that seem more feasible.

Newsom continues to promote his plan through advertisements and social media, urging supporters to sign his petition.

Despite this, many see his campaign as more of a political maneuver than a serious legislative effort.

Critics argue that his focus on gun control is out of step with other Democratic priorities, especially in key battleground states where gun rights remain a deeply divisive issue.

SCOTUS Rejects Illinois Gun Ban Case

July 3, 2024

The Supreme Court declined to review National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville, allowing the case to move forward in the lower courts. The U.S. District Court previously denied a preliminary injunction to block a law affecting gun owners, a decision upheld by the 7th Circuit. This ruling, which controversially stated that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment, stands despite strong opposition from Justice Clarence Thomas.

Thomas criticized the 7th Circuit’s decision as “nonsensical,” arguing that AR-15s, as widely owned semi automatic rifles, are indeed “Arms” under the Second Amendment. He emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court reviewing this decision if it returns in a final judgment posture.

Hannah Hill, Executive Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights, expressed frustration, stating, “Today’s decision tells the lower courts they’re more than welcome to trample Bruen to their hearts’ content – at least for the time being. For now, the Second Amendment IS a second-class right until the Supreme Court decides to stop ducking the issue.”

Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights, echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the Supreme Court’s inaction effectively delays justice for gun owners. “Justice Thomas just told the nation that the 7th Circuit got it wrong when it ruled that AR-15s – the most commonly owned rifle in America – is not a gun at all under the Second Amendment. They better get used to hearing from us because we will keep bringing ‘assault weapons’ ban cases until they get it right.”

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to address this critical issue leaves many Second Amendment advocates concerned about the future of gun rights in America. As the legal battle continues, organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights remain dedicated to challenging laws that infringe upon constitutional freedoms. This ongoing struggle underscores the importance of vigilance and persistent advocacy in defending the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

Former Uvalde Police Chief Indicted For Botched Shooting Response

June 29, 2024

Former Uvalde school district police Chief Pete Arredondo has been indicted by a grand jury for his handling of the response to the tragic 2022 Robb Elementary School shooting.

This indictment, along with charges against former district officer Adrian Gonzales, represents the first criminal charges against law enforcement for their actions during the deadliest school shooting in Texas history.

The grand jury in Uvalde County charged Arredondo and Gonzales with felony counts of abandoning or endangering a child, as reported by the San Antonio Express-News.

The charges come more than two years after the horrific incident on May 24, 2022, when a lone gunman killed 19 fourth graders and two teachers in a brutal attack.

The response by law enforcement on that day has been widely condemned. Nearly 400 officers from federal, state, and local agencies were present, yet it took 77 minutes for them to confront the shooter. The gunman was eventually shot and killed by Border Patrol officers.

This delayed response has been scrutinized in numerous reports, including a January U.S. Justice Department report which highlighted significant leadership failures and suggested that lives could have been saved if officers had acted more swiftly.

In the months following the shooting, several officers were either fired, suspended, or chose to retire.

Arredondo was fired approximately three months after the shooting. His role as the incident commander, according to the school district’s active shooter response plan, placed him at the center of the investigation.

Uvalde County District Attorney Christina Mitchell convened the grand jury in January to investigate the law enforcement response and decide whether criminal charges should be brought against any of the officers involved. The grand jury’s proceedings are secret, leaving it unclear if more indictments will follow.

Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights, applauded the indictment, saying, “This is a crucial step toward accountability. The catastrophic failure in Uvalde cost innocent lives, and those responsible must face justice.”

Families of the victims have been demanding accountability since the tragedy. Jesse Rizo, whose niece Jacklyn Cazares was killed, expressed hope that this indictment would lead to more officers being held accountable.

“I’m really hoping this is just the beginning of indictments that may be coming down,” Rizo said. “There are a lot of officers that need to be held accountable.”

Prosecuting police officers is challenging due to their significant legal protections. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that officers do not have a constitutional “duty to protect,” complicating efforts to hold them criminally responsible for inaction.

The grand jury indictment is one of several investigations initiated after the shooting. These probes have often left victims’ families frustrated with the pace and transparency of the process.

Recently, an independent review cleared local officers of wrongdoing, further aggravating the families of the victims. Uvalde Police Chief Daniel Rodriguez, who was on vacation during the shooting, resigned shortly after the review was released.

SCOTUS Strikes Another Blow to ATF by Overturning Chevron

June 29, 2024

In a landmark decision on Friday, the Supreme Court overturned the long-standing Chevron deference doctrine, dealing a significant blow to federal agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that have relied on it to create regulatory gun control measures.

This decision, following closely on the heels of the Court’s ruling against the ATF’s bump stock ban, marks a pivotal moment for Second Amendment advocates and sets a new precedent for the judicial oversight of federal agencies.

The Chevron deference, established by the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., mandated that courts defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes as long as those interpretations were “reasonable.”

This doctrine has often been criticized for giving federal agencies too much power to interpret and enforce laws without sufficient judicial oversight.

In the majority opinion for the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized that it is the judiciary’s role to interpret laws independently, without yielding to agency interpretations.

“The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority,” Roberts wrote. “Courts may not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled.”

This decision arrives just two weeks after the Supreme Court overturned the ATF’s bump stock ban, another significant victory for gun rights advocates. In that case, Justice Clarence Thomas authored the majority opinion, unequivocally rejecting the ATF’s assertion that bump stocks convert semi automatic firearms into machine guns.

“Semiautomatic firearms, which require shooters to re engage the trigger for every shot, are not machineguns,” Thomas wrote. “This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a ‘machinegun.’ We hold that it does not.”

The overturning of Chevron and the rejection of the bump stock ban signify a robust reaffirmation of judicial authority over administrative interpretations of the law, particularly those affecting constitutional rights.

These rulings underscore the Court’s commitment to safeguarding individual liberties against expansive regulatory overreach.

Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights, praised the ruling, stating, “This is a monumental victory for Second Amendment advocates. The Supreme Court has sent a clear message that regulatory agencies cannot bypass the Constitution to impose their anti-gun agenda. This ruling is a critical step in protecting our rights from bureaucratic overreach.”

The implications of this ruling could significantly impact Texas Gun Rights’ ongoing lawsuit against the ATF’s forced reset trigger (FRT) ban, which classified FRTs as machine guns.

The Supreme Court’s stance against Chevron deference strengthens the argument that the ATF has overstepped its authority in reclassifying these firearm components.

For Second Amendment supporters, Friday’s ruling is a monumental step in curtailing the power of federal agencies to unilaterally impose restrictive gun control measures.

The decision sends a clear message that the interpretation and application of the law must rest with the judiciary, not unelected bureaucrats.

 

Surgeon General Declares Gun Violence a Public Health Crisis

June 25, 2025

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy has declared gun violence a “public health crisis” in a new advisory from the Office of the Surgeon General, urging the nation to collectively address the issue.

Texas Gun Rights has been warning Americans about the potential for the radical left to declare gun violence a public health crisis after federal, state and local governments abused their power in a declared public health crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights, remarked, “This so-called public health crisis is just another way for the government to ram radical gun control down our throats. We’ve seen how they’ve exploited health crises before, and now they’re trying to do the same with our Second Amendment rights.”

Gun Violence Statistics and Misconceptions

The gun control debate is often fueled by alarming statistics that sow fear among the public.

Yet the Brady Campaign, a staunch advocate for radical gun control, claims that a whopping 60% of gun deaths are suicides — and only 37% are homicides, including the 1% of mass shootings.

The remaining 3% of gun deaths involve law enforcement, unintentional shootings, and undetermined causes.

Among the homicides, the majority are criminals killing other criminals, often gang related.

Despite these figures, the likelihood of an average person dying from gun violence is extremely low.

Yet the use of such statistics is frequently aimed at inciting fear to push a political agenda rather than presenting a balanced view of the role of firearms in society.

The Reality of Defensive Gun Use

While guns are often villainized in the media for every death they are involved in, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of gun uses in the United States are defensive.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), studies on defensive gun use indicate that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.

These instances often go unreported to law enforcement and are rarely picked up by local or national media outlets.

This extensive defensive use of firearms highlights the critical role that the Second Amendment plays in American society.

It demonstrates that the “good guy with a gun” is not a myth but an essential aspect of self-defense and public safety.

Surgeon General’s Push Call for Gun Control

But the Surgeon General’s advisory outlines what they refer to as the devastating impact of gun violence, noting that “over 48,000 people died from firearm-related injuries in 2022” — which accounted for less than 1% of U.S. deaths in 2022.

For perspective, the three leading causes of death in 2022 were heart disease (699,659 deaths), cancer (607,790), and unintentional injury (218,064).

COVID-19, listed as the underlying cause for 186,702 deaths during 2022, ranked as the fourth leading underlying cause of death.

The Surgeon General’s advisory calls for more research, better data collection, and the implementation of “public health strategies to reduce gun violence,” which, of course, includes radical gun control laws in the form of mandatory storage requirements, an assault weapons ban, universal gun registration and even “red flag” gun confiscation.

Dr. Murthy argues that this “public health approach” can somehow significantly reduce gun violence, drawing parallels to successful efforts in reducing tobacco-related diseases and motor vehicle crashes.

 

5th Circuit Upholds Dismissal of “Made in Texas” Suppressor Lawsuit

June 21, 2024

In a blow to Texas’s bid for firearm independence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging federal regulations on suppressors made and kept within the state.

This decision confirms that even suppressors manufactured entirely within Texas must comply with federal law, rendering them illegal under the National Firearm Act (NFA).

The lawsuit, driven by several Texas residents and the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG), sought to challenge federal oversight on suppressors through the Texas Suppressor Freedom Act (House Bill 957).

This 2021 law, championed by state Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), posited that suppressors made and kept in Texas should not be subject to federal regulation.

Under the act, Texas residents could request the OAG to obtain a federal court order to prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing federal suppressor regulations within the state.

Federal Judge Mark Pittman originally dismissed the lawsuit, citing lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed, but the 5th Circuit panel, composed of Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and James C. Ho, affirmed the dismissal.

The 5th Circuit’s 14-page opinion emphasized that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete plan to violate federal law.

The court noted that while the plaintiffs expressed intent to manufacture suppressors, they did not specify that they would bypass federal requirements, such as registering the suppressors, paying a $200 excise tax, and applying for federal approval. The court underscored that manufacturing a suppressor is not illegal if these procedures are followed.

Chief Judge Edith Brown Clement, writing for the panel, stated, “The declarations do not state any intention to engage in conduct proscribed by law. The plaintiffs must show an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Texas Gun Rights expressed disappointment but remained defiant. President Chris McNutt criticized the ruling, asserting, “This decision is another example of federal overreach infringing on states’ rights and individual freedoms. Using a suppressed firearm is considered polite in other parts of the world, yet here in America they are regulated like a machine gun.  It makes no sense. Texans should have the right to manufacture and possess suppressors without federal interference.”

For now, this ruling reaffirms the ATF’s authority to regulate suppressors, even those made and kept within a single state. The court’s decision also highlights the stringent requirements individuals must meet under the NFA, which categorizes suppressors as firearms, subjecting them to extensive regulations.

Texas argued that the federal suppressor regulations hinder residents’ ability to protect their hearing, a health and well-being issue. However, the court found this argument insufficient, stating that Texas’s interest was derivative of its citizens’ individual Second Amendment claims and did not constitute a valid quasi-sovereign interest.

Attorney Tony McDonald, representing the Texas residents, indicated plans to refine the lawsuit and refile with more specific allegations to better establish standing. McDonald stated, “We will go back to the trial court, re-tool our declarations and allegations, re-file the case, and ask the court to take up the rest of the summary judgment questions again.”

Biden Releases Gun Control Ad Following Hunter’s Conviction


June 25, 2024,

Joe Biden launched a new 30-second advertisement emphasizing his commitment to gun control, just days after his son, Hunter Biden, was convicted on felony gun charges.

Biden’s move also follows the Supreme Court’s decision to roll back a national ban on bump stocks.

The Supreme Court recently ruled 6-3 that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority by classifying bump stocks as illegal machine guns.

This decision overturns the ban implemented during Donald Trump’s presidency, which was a response to the 2017 Las Vegas massacre where a deranged killer allegedly used a bump against to kill people for the first time in recorded history.

In the newly released ad, Biden accuses former President Trump of being influenced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and failing to take meaningful action on gun control.

“When Trump was president—children gunned down in classrooms, innocent people killed in church, and massacred at a concert. Still, Trump did nothing,” Biden asserts. “He sided with the NRA, but I sided with you. I’ve expanded background checks, created an office of gun violence prevention, and now murder rates are down.”

Biden concludes the ad with a direct message to viewers: “You and your family deserve to be safe and I’m going to fight like hell to see to it that you are.”

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Biden urged Congress to take further action, stating, “Congress must ban bump stocks, pass an assault weapon ban, and take additional action to save lives. Send a bill to my desk. I will sign it immediately.”

Of course, Biden’s “assault weapon” ban is far more expansive than AR-15 rifles; the GOSAFE Act being pushed by Biden’s Democrats in D.C. serves as a de facto ban on most semi-automatic firearms, including most commonly owned rifles, shotguns and pistols.

The timing of Biden’s ad is notable, coming just days after a federal jury in Delaware convicted his son, Hunter Biden, on three felony gun charges.

These charges are related to Hunter’s 2018 purchase of a revolver, for which he falsely claimed he was not a drug user. Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison for these charges, further complicating the president’s stance on gun control.

Joe Biden’s ad and his call for more stringent gun control measures come at a critical time, as the ATF continues facing court room losses over its regulatory authority.

With his latest polling numbers in the toilet, Biden is doubling down on his stance as a staunch advocate for more gun control in hopes of resurrecting his fledgling campaign.

Help us fight back against Biden’s anti-gun agenda!