Gregory Kielma • November 23, 2023
Boy This is One Mad Judge
Federal Judge: There’s No Constitutional Right to Buy a Gun
By TTAG Contributor -November 22, 202387
From the NRA-ILA
Honest people can disagree with the Founders’ decision to enshrine the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights. They cannot, however, pretend that decision never happened. For much of the 20th Century, however, gun control activists tried to convince the public that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” had nothing to do with the right of individuals to keep and carry guns for their own self-protection.
That charade – never convincing to anyone who could read – has been debunked by the U.S. Supreme Court no less than four times in the last 15 years. But Second Amendment denialism remains an active strain of the firearm prohibition effort, as demonstrated by a federal judge in Colorado who ruled last week that whatever the provision means, it does not include the right to buy a gun
That decision came in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenged Colorado’s three day waiting period for firearm purchases. Proponents of the law undoubtedly knew it was in trouble after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified how lower courts are to analyze challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment.
Bruen stated: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This test likely spells doom for Colorado’s waiting period, as laws of that type were completely unknown to the generation that adopted the Second Amendment.
Faced with this reality, Judge John L. Kane – appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1977 – decided to stretch reason to the breaking point by deciding the right to possess a firearm doesn’t include the right to acquire one.
The court began its analysis by acknowledging that the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller meant “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But then Judge Kane went on to insist: “purchase and delivery are one means of creating the opportunity to ‘have weapons.’ The relevant question is whether the plain text covers that specific means. It does not.”
Oregon gun store counter assault rifle AR-15
According to this “reasoning,” a state could completely ban the sale and delivery of firearms without implicating the Second Amendment. This would imply a right to have something, but not to obtain it through the most obvious and ordinary means.
Of course, it’s true that the Second Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving guns. But it’s also true the First Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving newspapers. Nevertheless, any judge insisting a ban on newspaper sales would not implicate the First Amendment prohibition on “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” would in doing so disgrace himself and ruin his professional and intellectual credibility.
Perhaps recognizing this, Judge Kane hedged his bets by offering a number of alternative theories about why Colorado’s waiting period did not infringe the Second Amendment.
First, he theorized, “Even if purchasing a firearm could be read into the terms ‘keep’ or ‘bear,’ receipt of a firearm without any delay could not be, as the Founders would not have expected instant, widespread availability of the firearm of their choice.” Judge Kane attempted to bolster this argument by pointing to “expert” testimony that indicated firearm purchases at the time of the founding were not as convenient, prompt, or accessible as they are today.
But even these “experts” acknowledged this was because technology, production, and marketing were circumstantially more primitive in those days, not because legislators made a deliberate choice to delay firearm purchases. Of course, virtually nothing that involved the delivery of a good was as efficient and accessible to the founding generation as it is in modern times. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that it will not tolerate “frivolous” arguments that 18th Century technological limitations delineate the scope of constitutional rights in the present day, including in a Second Amendment case that dealt with stun guns.
Next, Judge Kane pointed to language in Heller that he claimed rendered “presumptively lawful” any regulation on “the conditions or qualifications” of the “commercial sale of firearms.” He then argued: “Colorado’s Waiting-Period Act regulates only the sale, and specifically sellers, of firearms. … The Act does not apply to anyone who does not ‘sell a firearm.’”
Putting aside the fact that the disputed issues in Heller had nothing to do with firearm sales, much less mandatory waiting periods, Judge Kane was again resorting to frivolous formalism in attempting to stake his reasoning on the distinction between sellers and purchasers. Colorado’s waiting period imposes an arbitrary and de facto impediment on the purchase of guns, thereby implicating the rights of buyers at least as much as sellers.
Dragonmans gun store range
Returning to the First Amendment, no one would take seriously an argument that a person’s First Amendment right to access information was not implicated just because a particular restraint applied to a publisher or bookseller and not the reader himself.
Meanwhile, the language Judge Kane invoked to argue the Supreme Court allows firearm sales to be regulated cuts against his primary ruling by suggesting the Supreme Court considers such sales as the default starting point under the Second Amendment.
But Judge Kane wasn’t finished, and proposed yet another reason why Colorado’s waiting period is consistent with the Second Amendment, even if he were wrong about everything else.
Again, while acknowledging – as the parties themselves agreed – that waiting periods for firearm purchases were unknown in American law until well into the 20th Century, he still found them consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This was because, he said, “our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” and “the Waiting-Period Act and the intoxication laws both work to prevent individuals in a temporary impulsive state from irresponsibly using a firearm.”
Judge Kane was dismissive of plaintiffs’ attempts to point out the obvious distinction that intoxication speaks to the condition of a particular individual in a particular moment, while the waiting period broadly applies to firearm sales generally, regardless of the buyer’s condition or state of mind. His response to this fundamental difference was that the intoxication laws affected all intoxicated persons, some of whom also might not have behaved irresponsibly with a firearm.
Judge Kane’s final gambit was to suggest that the Supreme Court had indicated a general openness to shall-issue licensing schemes for carrying firearms, so long as they were not directed to “abusive ends.” This, he said, was analogous to the waiting period, because both require a “defined requirement” to be met before exercise of the right, and plaintiffs had not proven the waiting period was abusive.
Judge Kane offered no limiting principles for what sorts of laws purportedly aimed at impulsive or irresponsible behavior or that imposed “defined requirements” prior to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms might be permissible under the Second Amendment. But it’s difficult to understand how his reasoning would be distinguishable from the “interest-balancing” the Supreme Court specifically rejected in Bruen, which likewise focused on why the government purported to be acting, not on whether such actions were well-established in American history.
There is perhaps no legal rule so clear and unequivocal that it cannot be purposely misconstrued by a judge who is more interested in his preferred outcome than in actually following the law. But if the Polis case shows anything about Bruen’s historical test, it’s that it makes spotting such judges easier than ever.
This article originally appeared at nraila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
Ruger vs Beretta Mike Hardy 4/20/2026 Drama in the firearms industry is not unheard of, but it is fairly rare. Given the industry’s relatively smaller size, there just usually aren’t a lot of eyebrow-raising events that happen. However, that has changed recently with interactions between Ruger and Beretta. These two stalwart bastions of gun design and manufacture have not exactly come to blows, but there are developments raising some eyebrows. Let’s take a quick look at the situation. In September of 2025, Beretta – the oldest gun manufacturer in the world, since 1526 – acquired 7.7% of Sturm, Ruger & Co. stock and then bought more to up its total holdings to 9.95%. That number makes Beretta the largest single shareholder of Ruger stock. The “Poison Pill” In October 2025, Beretta purchased the extra shares as recounted above. That led Ruger to issue a “poison-pill defense”… there are different forms of that strategy, but they all boil down to making a hostile takeover more difficult and costly for the acquirer. In its initial federal disclosure, Beretta Holding said that it: Did not have a present intention of seeking control” of Ruger, but instead they claim that they simply want a “strategic minority interest” in order to reverse what it calls Ruger’s “deteriorating financial performance.” I’m not sure Ruger believed that, after they contended that “Beretta’s Chair “indicated a long-term plan to combine Ruger with Beretta, but made no formal proposal” at a December meeting. Earlier this year, negotiations between the two companies fell apart, and Ruger went public with details of what it called a “creeping takeover” by Beretta Holding. In a March 9 statement, Ruger stated that: “Beretta repeatedly demanded terms that would transfer value from other Ruger stockholders to Beretta and undermine Ruger’s status as an independent public company,” That statement included: “Specific demands like 25 percent of the company, discounted shares, a board appointee that could violate antitrust laws, and more. Beretta repeatedly advanced extreme demands and threatened to ‘go to war’ if those demands were not met. “Beretta’s scathing reply on March 10 addressed what it called Ruger’s breach of confidentiality by issuing “blatantly false and misleading statements.” Beretta insists it wants only to help Ruger as a minority investor.
Colorado Democrats Want to Regulate Gun Barrels Like Firearms — And It May Be Coming to Your State Next Scott Witner 4/20/2026 Colorado Senate Bill 26-043 would require background checks, dealer transfers, and five-year recordkeeping for the sale of a simple metal tube — a move critics say is a textbook step toward de facto disarmament. Colorado Democrats are pushing legislation that would regulate firearm barrels — the metal tube the bullet travels through — as if they were complete firearms. Under Senate Bill 26-043, selling or transferring a barrel to a fellow gun owner without routing it through a federally licensed dealer would be a crime, carrying up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine on the first offense. This isn’t about suppressors, which are already federally regulated as NFA items. This isn’t about receivers. This is a barrel. A spare part that countless Colorado gun owners buy, sell, and swap without a second thought — and now legislators want the same paper trail you’d generate buying a complete firearm. The bill would require dealers to log the buyer’s name, address, phone number, date of birth, driver’s license number, the barrel’s make, model, and caliber, the transaction date, and the name of the employee who handled the sale — the same paper trail created when purchasing a complete gun. “The regulatory solution creates compliance burdens for 100% of law-abiding gun owners who make up the entire legitimate market for firearm barrels in the state.” The stated justification is ghost guns. Colorado banned so-called ghost guns in 2023, but legislators say criminals are now 3D-printing frames and other components and purchasing legal metal barrels online to build untraceable firearms. The problem with that logic? By the bill sponsor’s own account, ghost guns account for approximately 3% or less of firearms recovered from Colorado crime scenes. A 3% problem is being used to justify 100% compliance burdens on law-abiding residents. The Wyoming Loophole Denver resident Keith Emerson told the committee what anyone with a map already knows: a criminal who wants a barrel can simply drive a couple of hours to Wyoming and buy one without any Colorado paperwork whatsoever. The bill creates zero barrier for anyone willing to cross a state line, while creating new criminal exposure for every honest Coloradan who doesn’t. Anti-gunners’ answer to that argument, as always, is that Wyoming should be doing this too. It’s never the law that’s the problem — it’s everyone else’s freedom that needs to be curtailed. Perhaps the most troubling procedural detail: the bill contains a “safety clause” that designates it as emergency legislation. In Colorado, that designation exempts the bill from the citizen ballot initiative process. If SB 26-043 passes and Governor Polis signs it, there is no referendum — no direct democratic challenge by the people it would affect. It’s locked in. Death by a thousand regulations Colorado has added a new layer of gun control in every legislative session since 2019 — waiting periods, age restrictions raised to 21, ammunition purchase age requirements, extreme risk protection order expansions, detachable magazine permitting requirements, and now barrel regulation, alongside a companion bill that would ban 3D printing of gun parts and criminalize possession of even the digital instructions to print them. No single bill bans guns outright. But each year the regulatory web gets tighter, the cost of compliance grows, and the risk of innocent mistakes steepens. Map it across seven years, and the picture is unmistakable: this is how you disarm a population without ever using the word “ban.” You regulate. You criminalize transfers. You decide what counts as a gun. You do it one small, “common sense” step at a time until eventually, a lot of people just give up. “Colorado and the other 49 states are all policy laboratories — and the experiments that succeed, or fail depending on your perspective, will get exported to other states, as they always have.” Colorado gun owners should be contacting their state legislators now. And gun owners in every other state should be paying close attention, because what starts in one purple state rarely stays there.
Staying Safe at Home, Work or Your Business Gregg Kielma-Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/19/2026 Hello friends, family and business partners, my mission is to empower responsible citizens with the knowledge, skills, and mindset to stay safe every day. Through disciplined training, clear instruction, and a commitment to integrity, Tactical K Training & Firearms prepares individuals to protect themselves, their families, and their communities. I believe safety is a lifelong practice — one built on awareness, accountability, and never tiring of doing the right thing. Please, Never Tire of Staying Safe. At Tactical K Training & Firearms , I, Gregg Kielma teach responsible gun owners to build confidence, sharpen awareness, and protect what matters most through practical, real world training. Safety Isn’t a Phase, It’s a Lifestyle. My approach at Tactical K Training & Firearms reinforces the habits, skills, and mindset that keep you, your family, and your community safer every day. Kielma Parting Shot: Your Life, Family and Friends Are Worth The Effort. Through clear instruction, honest guidance, and real-world scenarios, Tactical K Training & Firearms helps responsible citizens stay prepared, stay aware, and stay confident. Gregg Kielma
!FLORIDA IS MY HOME! Gregg Kielma-Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/19/2026 Florida has been my home for 47 years, and throughout that time I've mostly experienced all of its positives. Here are some reasons why I truly enjoy living here. Sure, there are challenges—like the intense heat, hurricanes, bugs, and occasional overgrowth—but this place feels like home, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else! !FLORIDA IS MY HOME! Let's Take a LOOK! 1. No State Income Tax Florida is one of the few states with zero state income tax, allowing residents to keep more of what they earn. This is especially attractive for retirees, remote workers, and high income earners. 2. Year Round Warm Weather With 230–250 sunny days per year and mild winters, Florida offers a climate that supports outdoor living all year long. 3. World Class Beaches Over 1,300 miles of coastline and award winning beaches like Siesta Key, Clearwater, and Pensacola make Florida a paradise for beach lovers. 4. Outdoor Recreation & Natural Beauty Boating, fishing, kayaking, hiking, paddleboarding, and exploring the Everglades—Florida’s biodiversity and outdoor lifestyle are unmatched. 5. Affordable Housing (Compared to Many States) While prices have risen, Florida still offers more affordable options than high cost states like California or New York, with many markets below the national median. 6. Lower Overall Cost of Living Beyond taxes, Florida’s cost of living remains competitive, especially in suburban and inland areas. 7. Cultural Diversity & Vibrant Communities Florida is one of the most diverse states in the U.S., with residents from every background, age group, and region. 8. Strong Job Market & Growing Economy Florida’s economy continues to expand, with opportunities in tourism, healthcare, logistics, tech, construction, and remote work. (Supported by tax advantages and population growth.) 9. Laid Back, Outdoor Focused Lifestyle Sunshine, beaches, parks, and waterfront living create a relaxed atmosphere that attracts families, retirees, and remote workers alike. 10. A Haven for Remote Workers Remote workers relocating from high tax states can save 10–13% of income annually simply by living in Florida—an enormous financial advantage. !I LOVE FLORIDA! Gregg Kielma
Owning and Training With A Firearm: Some People Just Don’t Understand Gregg Kielma-Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/18/2026 A coworker commented on a Tampa Bay shooting on 4/15/2026, blaming me for selling firearms in the community. The incident involved two suspects, one juvenile and one 18-year-old, who used a firearm during a dispute—exact reasons unknown. I always emphasize safety and responsible ownership in my classes as an FFL and Firearms Instructor. Below are my thoughts and tips for conversations with those who advocate relinquishing Second Amendment rights and firearms. Some coworkers, friends, or neighbors may be uneasy about us owning firearms not because of anything you or I have did wrong, but because they’re filtering the idea through their own experiences, fears, or misunderstandings. Many people only encounter firearms through news stories about crime or through entertainment that portray guns as inherently dangerous, so they instinctively associate ownership with risk rather than responsibility. Others may have grown up in households or communities where firearms were never part of normal life, so the idea feels foreign or intimidating. Another reason, some worry about safety simply because they don’t understand the layers of training, discipline, and legal responsibility that you practice every day. And in some cases, people project their own anxieties—about violence, about control, or about the world feeling unpredictable—onto anyone who chooses to own a firearm. None of this reflects your character or your professionalism. It reflects their lack of exposure to responsible ownership. Often, once people see the level of care, education, and integrity you bring to the subject, their discomfort softens because they finally understand the difference between a lawful, trained owner and the stereotypes they’ve been reacting to. Gregg Kielma
Why People Lie on the 4473 — and Why It Never Works By Gregg Kielma, FFL & Owner of Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/18/2026 As an FFL, I see a lot of things behind the counter that the average gun owner never thinks about. One of the most frustrating — and frankly baffling — behaviors is when someone decides to lie on an ATF Form 4473. Let me be clear: lying on a 4473 is a federal crime, and people still try it every single day across the country. I check everything. Every box, every detail, every ID, every answer. That’s my job, and I take it seriously. So why do people still lie on a form that is designed to catch them? My Thought: They think “just checking a box” doesn’t matter Some people convince themselves that the form is just paperwork and nobody really looks at it. They assume the background check is a formality and the 4473 is just a hoop to jump through. They don’t realize that the form is the background check — and the moment they lie, they’ve committed a felony. My Thought: They underestimate how thorough NICS really is People imagine NICS as a quick name search. In reality, it’s a national system tied into criminal history, mental health adjudications, restraining orders, immigration status, and more. If someone is prohibited, it will surface. And when the system flags a lie, it’s documented. My Thought: They think their past won’t catch up to them I’ve seen people with old charges, dismissed cases, or “sealed” records assume they’re in the clear. But federal law doesn’t forget. If someone is prohibited, the system knows — and lying on the form doesn’t erase the past. My Thought: Straw purchasers think they’re smarter than the system This is the most common lie: “I’m the actual buyer.” If someone is buying a gun for another person — especially someone prohibited — that’s a straw purchase. It’s one of the fastest ways to earn federal charges. And yes, the patterns are obvious. The ATF sees them. FFLs see them. It’s never subtle. My Thought: They assume the FFL won’t check or won’t care Not in my shop. Not ever. I check everything because it protects my license, my business, my community, and the integrity of responsible gun ownership. I’m not here to play games with federal paperwork. If something doesn’t look right, the sale stops. Period. My Thought: They, people don’t understand the consequences Many people don’t realize that lying on a 4473 can lead to: • Federal felony charges • Up to 10 years in prison • Fines up to $250,000 • Permanent loss of firearm rights • ATF investigation • State-level charges on top of federal ones And here’s the kicker: most people who lie don’t even get the gun. They walk away with nothing except a documented federal offense. Tactical K Training and Firearms: My message as an FFL I’m not here to judge anyone, it’s not my position to judge you. I’m here to run a lawful business and promote responsible firearm ownership. The 4473 isn’t optional. It isn’t a suggestion. It’s a legal document, and I treat it as such. If someone can legally own a firearm, the process is smooth. If they can’t, lying won’t change that — it only makes things worse. Kielma’s Parting Shot: Honesty on the 4473 protects everyone: the buyer, the seller, and the community. As an FFL who checks every detail, every time, I can say with confidence: lying on the form never works, and it’s never worth it. Gregg Kielma
Why Do Felons Want Guns—And How Do We Stop It Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training and Firearms 04/18/2026 As a firearms instructor, an FFL, and someone who works every day with responsible, law‑abiding gun owners, I get asked a simple question that has a complicated truth behind it: Why do felons want guns in the first place? And more importantly, how do we stop them from getting them without punishing the people who follow the law? This is an issue that affects every community, every business, and every family. Understanding the “why” helps us build better solutions. Why Do Felons Seek Firearms? Felons—especially those with violent or repeat criminal histories—often pursue firearms for reasons that have nothing to do with self‑defense or lawful ownership. Common motivations include: Power and Intimidation Criminal activity often relies on leverage. A firearm gives someone with bad intentions the ability to threaten, coerce, or control others. Protection within Criminal Circles When someone is involved in illegal activity, they aren’t calling 911. They arm themselves because they expect violence from others in the same world. Financial Gain Firearms are a form of currency in the criminal ecosystem. They’re traded, stolen, and used to commit further crimes. Disregard for the law A person who has already shown a willingness to break the law is not suddenly going to respect firearm regulations. That’s why restrictions alone don’t stop them. None of these motivations have anything to do with responsible ownership, training, or personal protection. They’re rooted in criminal behavior—not citizenship. How Do We Stop It? The answer isn’t to burden the people who already follow the rules. Law‑abiding citizens aren’t the problem. The real solutions focus on criminal behavior, not lawful ownership. Target the illegal supply chain Felons don’t walk into gun stores. They get firearms through: Straw purchases Theft Black‑market trades Ghost gun trafficking Criminal networks My opinion, stopping this requires enforcement, not new restrictions on lawful buyers. Enforce existing laws consistently We already have strong federal laws—18 U.S.C. § 922(g) is clear. The problem is when violations aren’t prosecuted. When a felon is caught with a firearm, consequences must be real, predictable, and swift. Strengthen community reporting and awareness Most illegal firearms move through communities long before law enforcement sees them. Anonymous reporting, community partnerships, and education help cut off access early. Support responsible gun owners—not restrict them Trained, law‑abiding citizens: Store firearms securely Report theft immediately Understand transfer laws Keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons Empowering responsible owners is part of the solution. Invest in prevention, not punishment alone Some individuals re‑offend because they return to the same environment with no support. Programs that reduce recidivism—job training, counseling, and community reintegration—help shrink the pool of people seeking guns for the wrong reasons. Kielma's Parting Shot Felons want guns for criminal purposes, not for the reasons responsible citizens own them. Stopping them requires: Strong enforcement Cutting off illegal supply chains Community involvement Supporting lawful gun owners Reducing repeat criminal behavior At Tactical K Training and Firearms, I teach that responsible ownership is the backbone of community safety. When we focus on the real problem—criminal access, not lawful access—we protect our rights and our neighborhoods at the same time. Gregg Kielma
Visalia Californina Felon Indicted for Possessing Safe Full of Firearms Thursday, April 16, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of California FRESNO, Calif. — A federal grand jury returned an indictment against Pete Alvarez, 45, of Visalia, charging him with being a felon in possession of a firearm, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant announced. According to court documents, during an investigation into a shooting, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant of Alvarez’s residence. There, they located a safe in Alvarez’s bedroom with 17 firearms, including several short-barrel firearms without serial numbers that were in the process of being manufactured. Alvarez is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition because of prior felony convictions in Fresno County including, assault with a deadly weapon, receiving stolen property, being a felon in possession of a firearm, battery causing serious injury, and assault with a deadly weapon. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; the Fresno Police Department; and the Tulare Police Department are conducting the investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert Veneman-Hughes is prosecuting the case. If convicted, Alvarez faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Any sentence, however, would be determined at the discretion of the court after consideration of any applicable statutory factors and the federal Sentencing Guidelines, which take into account a number of variables. The charges are only allegations; the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations, and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Updated April 16, 2026
Gun Store Owner Indicted for Aiding and Abetting Straw Purchasing and Failing to Report Cash Payments Over $10,000 Wednesday, April 15, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Arizona PHOENIX, Ariz. – The owner of Virtus Armament and The Armory, Virtus Armament, a federal firearms licensee (FFL), was indicted last week on charges related to aiding and abetting straw purchases of firearms and failing to report cash transactions over $10,000. On April 8, a federal grand jury in Phoenix returned an 8-count indictment against Esteban Yanez, 34, of Gilbert, Arizona, for False Statement During the Purchase of a Firearm, Straw Purchasing of Firearms, and Failure to File Forms 8300 Relating to Cash Received in Trade or Business. Yanez was arraigned April 14. The indictment alleges that on three occasions, Yanez aided and abetted individuals who knowingly made false statements to Yanez’s FFL when submitting the ATF Form 4473, misrepresenting the actual purchaser of the firearms. In two instances, the firearms were being purchased for an individual convicted of a felony. Federal law prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Finally, Yanez is also alleged to have failed to file the IRS Form 8300, reporting the receipt of over $10,000 in a trade or business, related to the sale of firearms. A conviction for False Statement During the Purchase of a Firearm carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. A conviction for Straw Purchasing of Firearms carries a maximum penalty of 15 years in prison, a fine of up to $250,000, or both. A conviction for Failure to File Forms 8300 Relating to Cash Received in Trade or Business carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison, a fine of up to $500,000, or both. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives conducted the investigation. The U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Arizona, Phoenix, is handling the prosecution. An indictment is a formal accusation of criminal conduct. All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law. CASE NUMBER: 26-CR-00326 RELEASE NUMBER: 2026-062_Yanez
How to Protect Ourselves From Potential Foreign Backed Threats in a Responsible, Safety Focused Way Gregg Kielma-Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/17/2026 Protecting ourselves from any organized threat — whether foreign backed, criminal, or extremist — starts with the same principles you already teach: awareness, layered security, and calm, informed action. The goal is not to hunt for “sleeper cells,” but to make it harder for any malicious actor to exploit vulnerabilities in our homes, businesses, or communities. At the personal level, the most effective protection comes from sharpening situational awareness: noticing unusual surveillance, unfamiliar vehicles lingering repeatedly, or individuals probing for information about routines, access points, or security measures. These aren’t signs of a specific group — they’re universal pre incident indicators. Strengthening digital hygiene is equally important, since foreign backed actors often exploit online vulnerabilities long before physical ones. Using strong authentication, monitoring accounts for unusual activity, and being cautious with unsolicited messages reduces the risk of being targeted or manipulated. At the community level, staying connected is one of the strongest defenses. Sharing information with neighbors, local businesses, and trusted community groups helps everyone spot patterns that a single person might miss. If something genuinely concerning appears — such as attempts to acquire restricted materials, suspicious photography of critical infrastructure, or probing questions about security — reporting it to local law enforcement or federal tip lines is the correct and lawful step. These agencies are trained to evaluate threats without bias and without putting innocent people at risk. Finally, preparedness matters. Having emergency plans, medical kits, communication backups, and basic readiness ensures that if any kind of attack or disruption occurs — whether foreign backed, criminal, or domestic — you and your family can respond quickly and confidently. The goal is resilience, not fear: building layers of protection that work against any threat, known or unknown, while maintaining respect for the diverse, law abiding people who make up our communities. Gregg Kielma
