Biden...The Blow Hard...at It AGAIN

How Do Red Flag Laws Work Robert Sadowski A red flag law is the common name given to Extreme Risk Protection Orders, Emergency Substantial Risk Orders, Firearm Restraining Orders, and several other official names that vary from state to state. Essentially, red flag laws allow a civil court—a judge—to temporarily remove firearms from a person who is considered a threat to themselves or others. Other items deemed dangerous weapons can also be seized depending on the state. Red flag laws were enacted to protect people as a suicide-prevention tool, a method to stop domestic violence, or averting a potential mass shooting. I think we—gun owners and non-gun owners—are all in favor of laws that protect our family, friends, and communities, but when the government, in this case, the state government, seizes our property, is that a violation of the 4th Amendment against unlawful search and seizure? What about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms? What States Have Red Flag Laws? The following states have enacted Red Flag Laws: • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Hawaii • Illinois • Indiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Nevada • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • Oregon • Rhode Island • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • District of Columbia Other states are considering adopting a red flag law. The first state to enact a red flag law was Connecticut in 1999. A shooting at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters in 1998, where an employee shot and killed four of his supervisors and then killed himself, was the act that caused Connecticut to pass the law. In 2022, under the Biden administration, the federal government created the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to encourage states to adopt red flag laws. The act offers states grants if the state enacts and enforces red flag laws. How Red Flag Laws Work Each state has its own procedures on starting the process to seize a gun owner’s firearms but generally operate the same way. Law Enforcement and/or family members petition a judge for an emergency order. That order would temporarily remove firearms from a person found to be at risk of harming themselves or someone else. In all 21 states where red flag laws exist, law enforcement is allowed to petition a judge for an order. In New Mexico and Florida, law enforcement is the only one eligible to petition a judge. In states like California, Colorado, and Hawaii, family members, teachers, and medical professionals can also petition a judge. Here’s how the scenario plays out. Someone is threatening to harm themselves or another person or people. Law enforcement, family members, teachers and medical professionals know or believe that person has access to a firearm, so they submit a petition to a judge. The judge has the final word on whether the situation warrants an immediate order and evaluates it based on the specificity of the person’s threats and that person’s access to firearms. If the judge deems the risk of violence high, the judge can issue an emergency ex parte order, which goes into effect immediately without the person being present or notified in advance. An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. The burden of proof on which the judge bases his or her decision is remarkably low for the initial seizure hearing, especially when you consider that no crime has been committed. The length of time the guns are kept away from their owner varies by state and situation, but typically, a set time is established, and then the guns are returned unless other court hearings extend the period of confiscation. The person named on the order can request their guns back and fight the order in court, at the person’s own expense, where they can present their side to the story. When guns are returned, law enforcement may conduct a background check before returning the firearms. Do Red Flag Laws Work? There is no central database that collects information on the effectiveness of red flag laws, but states like Connecticut credit the laws with a decrease in suicide. California touts that the law prevented mass shootings targeting schools. On the other side of the coin, 42 states have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries where law enforcement will not enforce gun policies that it believes violate the 2nd Amendment. Do Red Flag Laws Violate the 2nd and 4th Amendment? In recent years, red flag laws have been challenged and failed, with court's ruling that they are constitutional. We should all understand how red flag laws work in the state we live. Every law has loopholes that could potentially weaponize it against an unsuspecting person, even if the law was enacted in good faith.

Federal Measure Would Deregulate Short-Barreled Rifles, Shotguns, AOWs Mark Chesnut Spurred by the Biden Administration’s redefining braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), placing them under the auspices of the National Firearms Act (NFA), a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator have filed companion bills in Congress to remove short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and so-called “any other weapons (AOWs)” from NFA regulation. Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Georgia, introduced the House version of the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles, or SHORT, Act, while U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, introduced the Senate companion act. The measure states: “In the case of any registration or licensing requirement under State or local law with respect to a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or any other weapon (as defined in section 5845(e)) which is determined by reference to the National Firearms Act, any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon.” “The Biden-Harris Administration dangerously weaponized the draconian National Firearms Act to further infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment liberties,” Clyde said in a news release announcing the measure. “Yet the American people overwhelmingly rejected the Left’s unconstitutional tactics and backdoor gun control in November. It’s now time for Congress to use this mandate to protect Americans’ unalienable, constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Deregulating SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs is the most effective way to ensure American gun owners are not subjected to unlawful and unnecessary restrictions, taxation, and registration of firearms or pistol braces. I’m proud to partner with Senator Marshall in the fight to defeat this Biden-era rule and safeguard Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms.” Sen. Marshall said he hopes the measure starts “rolling back” some of the damage the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) did during Biden’s time in office. “‘Shall not be infringed’ is crystal clear—and the Biden-era abuses of the constitutionally protected rights of gun owners across the country need to be undone,” Sen. Marshall said. “The SHORT Act takes a step toward rolling back nonsensical regulations that the National Firearms Act has placed upon gun owners. I challenge my colleagues in both chambers to pass this legislation and join me in fully restoring and protecting our God-given Second Amendment rights.” As expected, a number of gun-rights groups, including Gun Owners of America (GOA), have thrown their full support behind the measure. “The Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act will repeal elements of the archaic National Firearms Act, which the Biden ATF abused to justify their unconstitutional pistol brace ban—a policy change that affects millions of law-abiding gun owners and does nothing to curb rising crime,” said Aidan Johnston, GOA director of federal affairs. “GOA is proud to support the SHORT Act, which will repeal archaic short barrel restrictions from the National Firearms Act of 1934 and prevent them from ever being weaponized against the American people ever again.” In total, 45 House members from districts around the country co-sponsored the act, showing the widespread disdain for the Biden Administration’s actions in reinterpreting the NFA.

Key West Man Pleads Guilty in D.C. to Smuggling Firearms from Florida to Haiti Friday, April 11, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia USADC.Media@usdoj.gov WASHINGTON – Jean Wiltene Eugene, 57, of Key West, Florida, pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court to one count of smuggling for his role in a gun running operation that illegally exported firearms to Haiti. The plea was announced by U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Justin Fleck of the Miami Field Office. Sentencing is scheduled for July 22. According to court documents, Eugene is a U.S. citizen who was born in Haiti and resides in Key West, Florida. On or about September 23, 2021, Eugene knowingly exported more than two firearms from the United States to Haiti without having first obtained the required license from the Bureau of Industry and Security, located in the District of Columbia. Any person who exports a firearm without proper authorization may be fined up to $1 million and imprisoned for up to 20 years. According to court records, Eugene arranged to ship vehicles to Haiti through a Florida-based export company. Eugene signed the company’s terms and conditions of shipments, which required the shipper to affirm that the vehicles did not contain any firearms or ammunition. In a subsequent interview with law enforcement, Eugene admitted that, in 2020 and 2021, he shipped two vehicles to Haiti with firearms hidden inside. Eugene stated that he placed food and other items around the bins holding the firearms so border authorities would not find the weapons. In a later interview with federal agents Eugene stated that nine firearms he purchased in Key West under his name were currently located at his gas station in Haiti and that none of those firearms remained in the United States. He admitted that he knew it was illegal to ship weapons to Haiti when confronted by the federal agents. Pursuant to an active arrest warrant, Eugene was arrested at a traffic stop on May 4, 2024, in Key West. This case is being investigated by the FBI Miami Field Office with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Commerce’s Office of Export Enforcement. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Paschall and Trial Attorney Beau Barnes of the National Security Division. Updated April 11, 2025

ATF Building Washington, DC Jury Returns Guilty Verdict in Federal Firearms Case Friday, April 11, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Western District of Louisiana MONROE, La. – A federal jury that was seated in Monroe this week returned a guilty verdict last night against Maurice Mitchell, 42, of Monroe, for illegally possessing a firearm, announced Acting United States Attorney Alexander C. Van Hook. Chief United States District Judge Terry A. Doughty presided over the trial. According to evidence presented at trial, deputies with the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office were dispatched to a mini storage facility in West Monroe on January 8, 2023, to follow up on a complaint received about a possible burglary in progress at that location. Deputies arrived on the scene in less than a minute after receiving the call and upon their arrival, immediately located two individuals near the storage units. Mitchell was one of the individuals they encountered and when he saw deputies, he immediately fled the scene riding a bicycle. Deputies ordered Mitchell to stop and as he was riding away, drove his bicycle into a culvert area and fell over, but Mitchell got up and began running. After a short pursuit, deputies were able to take Mitchell into custody. Deputies conducted a search of Mitchell and found a small bag that had fallen from his bicycle basket. Inside the bag was a loaded .38 caliber revolver with five rounds of ammunition in the cylinder. Agents with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) testified at trial that the firearm seized from Mitchell was test fired and found to be a working firearm which had traveled in interstate commerce. Mitchell was charged in an indictment on August 7, 2024, with one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Mitchell has a lengthy criminal history including prior felony convictions for attempting to disarm a peace officer (2017), possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, possession of oxycodone, cocaine and marijuana and resisting an office by flight on foot (2015), and possession of cocaine (2008). After deliberating for nearly five hours, the jury returned the guilty verdict against Mitchell for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He now faces a sentence of up to 10 years in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and a fine of up to $250,000, or both. Sentencing has been set for July 31, 2025. The case was investigated by the ATF and the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office and was prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Catherine Semmes and Assistant United States Attorney Jessica D. Cassidy. # # #

Baltimore Man Pleads Guilty to Machine Gun Possession in Federal Court Friday, April 11, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Maryland Baltimore, Maryland – Garrick Powell, 32, of Baltimore, has pled guilty to the unlawful possession of a machine gun in federal court. Kelly O. Hayes, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland, announced the plea with Special Agent in Charge Toni M. Crosby, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) – Baltimore Field Division, and Commissioner Richard Worley, Baltimore Police Department (BPD). According to the guilty plea, on April 19, 2023, law enforcement found Powell in possession of a machine gun. BPD officers from the Eastern District Baltimore Community Intelligence Center — who were surveilling the 500 block of North Patterson Park Avenue — spotted Powell displaying the characteristics of an armed person. An officer observed Powell enter a vehicle and drive away from the block. Officers then conducted a traffic stop, searched Powell’s vehicle, and recovered a loaded Poly80 9mm handgun with an extended magazine. The Poly80 firearm is frequently referred to as a “ghost gun” because there is no serial number on the firearm. Additionally, the Poly80 had a conversion device attached to the weapon which converted the semi-automatic weapon into an automatic Poly80, making it a machine gun. Officers also recovered a second extended magazine and 63 rounds of 9mm ammunition from Powell’s vehicle. Sentencing is set for July 16, at 10 a.m. Actual sentences for federal crimes are typically less than the maximum penalties. A federal district court judge determines sentencing after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors. This case is part of Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), a program bringing together all levels of law enforcement and the communities they serve to reduce violent crime and gun violence, and to make our neighborhoods safer for everyone. On May 26, 2021, the Department launched a violent crime reduction strategy strengthening PSN based on these core principles: fostering trust and legitimacy in our communities, supporting community-based organizations that help prevent violence from occurring in the first place, setting focused and strategic enforcement priorities, and measuring the results. U.S. Attorney Hayes commended the ATF and BPD for their work in the investigation. Ms. Hayes also thanked Assistant U.S. Attorneys Patricia McLane and Stanton Lawyer who are prosecuting the case. For more information about the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office, its priorities, and resources available to help the community, visit www.justice.gov/usao-md and www.justice.gov/usao-md/project-safe-neighborhoods-psn. # # # Contact Kevin Nash USAMD.Press@usdoj.gov 410-209-4946

Pam Bondi Big changes just hit the ATF. Marvin Richardson— one of the architects behind the pistol brace ban and ghost gun crackdowns—was just forced into retirement by the Trump administration. After 35 years and a long record of pushing anti-2A policies, Richardson was given an ultimatum: retire or be fired. This move comes after another major dismissal—ATF Chief Counsel Pam Hicks.

Parrish Man Indicted For Arson Of A Vehicle Friday, April 11, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Tampa, Florida – United States Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe announces the return of an indictment charging Kendarius Devonta Stitten (25, Parrish) with a violation of the federal Anti-Arson Act. If convicted, Stitten faces a minimum penalty of 5 years, up to 20 years, in federal prison. The indictment also notifies Stitten that the United States intends to forfeit assets that are alleged to be traceable to proceeds of the offense. According to the indictment, on March 20, 2025, Stitten set fire to a rental van that was parked at a motel in Bradenton. An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed one or more violations of federal criminal law, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office, the Florida Bureau of Fire, Arson, and Explosives Investigations, and Cedar Hammock Fire Rescue. It will be prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Adam W. McCall. Updated April 11, 2025

Lawmaker Zbur Pulls California Bill Imposing Duty To Retreat In Self-Defense Situations Mark Chesnut A measure before the California State Assembly that would have imposed a duty to retreat upon citizens before using lethal force to protect themselves from threats has been pulled from consideration by the bill’s author. The measure had been introduced by Democratic Caucus Chair Rick Chavez Zbur, who touted the measure in a recently released statement to close a dangerous legal loophole “that could allow armed aggressors to initiate confrontations in public, kill their victims, and then exploit self-defense laws to escape accountability.” It seems that Zbur had been listening to the inane rhetoric of gun control groups too much and accidentally believed one of their favorite talking points about how Stand Your Ground laws are bad. On its website, Everytown for Gun Safety writes: “Shoot First laws—also known as Stand Your Ground legislation—are deadly, reckless, and extreme. They give people a license to kill, allowing them to shoot first and ask questions later, then claim self-defense.” Sound familiar? Zbur’s excuse is a pretty good rendition of Everytown’s longtime lie about an important self-defense issue. “This legislation builds on California’s gun safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation,” Monisha Henley, Everytown senior vice president for government affairs, had said in praise of the measure. “White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence. Now, lawmakers have an opportunity to help stop that and save lives.” With the legislation now withdrawn, gun rights and self-defense proponents are declaring victory—and a much-needed victory at that. Rick Travis, legislative director for the California Rifle & Pistol Association, told Cam Edwards of Cam & Company that people around the country were so insulted that many got involved in fighting the measure. “That doesn’t happen much in California,” Travis said. “That amount of a coalition voice had an impact where several other legislators that would normally support Zbur took two steps back with a ‘not my circus, not my monkey’ kind of an attitude. Then, Zbur pulled back and said, ‘Well, I’m going to amend it.’ “The hilarious point was he is one of the biggest fear-mongers, he is one of the biggest mis informers that we’ve ever had in the capital. And yet, he pointed a finger at us and said, ‘All you guys like to do is fear-monger and misinform people. We started laughing and were like, ‘Look in the mirror, buddy. That’s you.’” In the end, Travis said, Zbur amended the measure to try to make himself look good, but that didn’t work. “No one bought it, number one,” Travis said. “Number 2, he made the bill even worse. Then he just said, fine, forget it, and pulled the bill. So, the bill is dead for this session.” Ultimately, Zbur’s pulling the bill makes California a little freer than it would have been had the measure passed and become law. But as we all know, there’s still a long way to go for the Golden State to recognize the Second Amendment rights of its citizens as it should.

GOA Suing ATF Over Gag Order On Secret Surveillance Documents With no action on the topic more than two months into the Trump Administration, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has announced it has filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) over a gag order placed on its attorneys in the matter of secret surveillance documents gained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. GOA filed the action on March 12, a year and a half after a protective order was placed on GOA lawyers to not release the information, which the gun-rights group says is still pertinent today. According to a report at ammoland.com, the order was issued after GOA filed a 2021 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking “records about a secret government surveillance program which unlawfully and unconstitutionally monitors and records the firearm purchases of American citizens who are perfectly eligible to purchase and possess firearms.” The ATF eventually gave the documents to GOA, then tried to force the group to return all the documents and destroy any copies made of them. When GOA refused, ATF asked the court for a protective order to keep the organization from releasing the documents. Since that order has been in effect, GOA has not released the documents but now is asking the court to allow it to release the papers. “Relying on the asserted ‘implied power’ of courts ‘to issue a temporary protective order for inadvertently produced FOIA materials,’ this Court granted Defendant’s requests, issuing first an order to ‘sequester’ and subsequently a protective order that ‘plaintiffs and their counsel’ ‘shall sequester’ and ‘shall not disseminate, disclose, or use for any purpose those records or the content of those records,’” the brief states. “Thus, for the past 17 months, Plaintiffs—members of the press—have been prohibited from printing the news, while Plaintiffs’ lawyers have been prohibited from communicating with their clients, advocating for their clients’ interests, or even accessing portions of their own attorney work product.” As GOA also pointed out in their brief, if the documents were classified, they still would not be entitled to a “sweeping protective order.” Only portions of the papers affecting national security would be eligible for protection via a protective order. Ultimately, it’s a shame that GOA must continue fighting in court a questionable decision resulting from President Joe Biden’s weaponized ATF now that the new administration is in place. With the change of administration, ATF should back off of all such actions but seems to be reluctant to do so. In fact, earlier this month we reported how Biden holdovers at the ATF are attempting to stall litigation on the ATF’s “engaged in the business” Final Rule by filing a motion asking for a stay. In response, GOA, Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) and the states of Texas, Louisiana, Utah and Mississippi filed an opposition to the DOJ’s motion, arguing that a stay in the ruling could harm gun owners across the nation. Lately, some in the gun-rights community have been questioning the Trump Administration’s dedication to protecting the right to keep and bear arms in light of Trump only addressing guns once, in an executive order, in his first two months in office. In that order, he instructed new Attorney General Pam Bondi to “examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights.” The deadline for that report passed last week and at the time of this writing, Bondi still had not submitted a report.