Tag: atf

Kentucky Residents Who Participate In State’s New Medical Marijuana Program Will Be Ineligible To Own Guns, Feds Warn

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is warning Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

As Kentucky prepares to implement the medical cannabis law that Gov. Andy Beshear (D) signed last year, ATF has put residents on notice about the ongoing federal ban on gun ownership by people who use marijuana, regardless of individual state policies.

“You cannot possess firearms and ammunition and also be a user of marijuana,” ATF Special Agent AJ Gibes told WDRB this month, referring to a statute requiring gun purchasers to fill out a form that includes a question about whether they are an active marijuana consumer. If they check yes, they’re disqualified from owning the firearm.

Notably, Gibes said that while people who already own a gun aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”

He added that ATF is “not actively seeking and working solely on investigations involving just the possession of firearms and marijuana because of our finite resources,” but that doesn’t change the law, and people will still be at risk of prosecution if they violate it.

ATF has also weighed in on other recent state cannabis policy developments.

Keep reading

Pro-Gun Organization Wins Lawsuit Against ATF’s Trigger Prohibition

On July 23, 2024, The National Association for Gun Rights was victorious in a summary judgment from the Federal District Court, Northern District of Texas, which overturned the ATF’s prohibition on forced reset triggers.

The ruling was issued by Judge Reed O’Connor, which vacated the ATF’s prohibition on forced reset triggers, declaring resoundingly that the ATF went beyond the scope of its statutory powers by redefining forced reset triggers as machine guns. The ruling was partly based on the Supreme Court’s recent Cargill decision overturning the ATF’s bump stock prohibition regulation.

Hannah Hill, Executive Director of the National Foundation for Gun Rights (the legal arm of NARG) declared, “We are absolutely thrilled that the court has dealt such a decisive blow to the ATF’s unconstitutional agency overreach. The ATF under the Biden/Harris regime has utterly trampled the Constitution and the rule of law in their eagerness to destroy the Second Amendment. The ATF may appeal this ruling, but precedent and momentum are both on our side, and we fully anticipate the absolute end of the ATF’s unlawful, unconstitutional ban on forced reset triggers.”

Keep reading

Watchdog sues for ATF records about shooting death of Arkansas Airport Official

The watchdog group Judicial Watch has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) records regarding the fatal shooting of Little Rock, Arkansas, resident and Executive Director of the Clinton National Airport: Bryan Malinowski.  

Malinowski was shot and wounded by ATF agents in shootout an ATF raid on his home in March. He died of his injuries. When originally asked for pertinent records, ATF produced only heavily redacted search warrant court filings. 

The lawsuit was filed June 10, 2024, after the ATF failed to respond adequately to an April 16 FOIA request for: 

  1. All emails and text messages sent to and from ATF officials regarding Little Rock resident Bryan Malinowski who died in an ATF raid on March 19, 2024.
  2. All records related to the raid on the home of Bryan Malinowski, including but not limited to, re-operational briefing documents, raid plans, investigative reports, memoranda, warrants and audio and video recordings.

On April 22, 2024, Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, wrote a letter to ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, asking for details about “the deadly pre-dawn raid conducted by ATF in Little Rock, Arkansas, while executing a search warrant on the home of Bryan Malinowski, a local airport executive.”

An affidavit, which was unsealed after Malinowski’s death and produced to Judicial Watch, alleged he unlawfully sold guns without a license.

Keep reading

No Charges in ATF Killing Over Paperwork Firearms Violation

Agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) suspected that Bryan Malinowski, executive director of the airport in Little Rock, Arkansas, and an avid firearms collector, was reselling enough firearms at gun shows to make him more of a commercial dealer than a hobbyist. That meant he should, in the ATF’s view, get a Federal Firearms License. So on March 19, agents did what law enforcers do when they suspect people of paperwork violations: They raided his home before dawn, taped over the doorbell camera, and shot Malinowski dead less than a minute later when he opened fire on intruders who had just busted in his front door.

Unsurprisingly, the ATF agents are on their way to evading consequences for causing a man’s death over a paperwork violation.

Self-Defense, But for Who?

“A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force if the officer reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to defend himself or a third person from the use of deadly force,” Sixth Judicial District Prosecutor Will Jones writes in his letter to ATF Special Agent Joshua Jackson absolving the agent who killed Malinowski of legal liability. “Given the totality of the circumstances, Agent 2 had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend himself and Agent 1. Therefore, the use of deadly force by Agent 2 was in accordance with Arkansas law and was justified.”

Of course, Malinowski himself might have felt justified in using deadly force given that the front door to his family’s home had been battered down just seconds after strangers began banging on the door.

“Had he survived he was almost certainly entitled to claim self-defense in the wounding of the agent based on the reckless manner in which the government planned and executed the search,” Bud Cummins, a former U.S. Attorney who represents the Malinowski family, told me.

Keep reading

Texas judge blocks Biden ATF rule expanding gun background checks

A federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked the Biden administration from enforcing its gun background check rule in the Lone Star State on Sunday evening, one day before the national measure took effect.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, granted a temporary injunction against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to block the federal rule in Texas, though not in other states that challenged the rule.

The rule was scheduled to go into effect on Monday and shutters the “gun show loophole” for firearms sales, requiring dealers selling guns for a profit to be licensed and requiring background checks for buyers.

“I am relieved that we were able to secure a restraining order that will prevent this illegal rule from taking effect,” Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who challenged the Biden administration rule, said in a statement. The challenge to the ATF measure was also joined by the Gun Owners of America, a pro-Second Amendment group.

“President Biden and his anti-gun administration have aggressively pursued an agenda meant to harass, intimidate, and criminalize gun owners and dealers at every turn,” said Erich Pratt, senior vice president of GOA.

Plaintiffs argued the ATF rule violated the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 and the Second Amendment. Kacsmaryk did not rule on the constitutional claim but agreed with the plaintiffs that it ran afoul of the 2022 law.

Keep reading

ATF Report Undermines Left’s Hysteria Over So-Called ‘Gun Show Loophole’

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment (NFCTA), Vol. III, undermines the left’s long-standing hysteria over a so-called “gun show loophole.”

The NFCTA examines gun trafficking and gun trafficking channels, both domestic and international.

The ATF uploaded the NFCTA in various parts or segments, and part four looks at “source-to-market” trafficking.

From the NFCTA:

The term source-to-market type captures the geographic scope of firearm trafficking cases, which include intrastate, interstate, and international trafficking. Within the U.S., intrastate trafficking involves the movement of firearms in markets within states, while interstate trafficking occurs between states. International trafficking involves the movement of firearms in markets between the U.S. and a foreign country. For interstate and international trafficking, the term ‘source’ is used to identify the state or country that is the supplier of illicit firearms, while the term ‘market’ is used to identify the state or country that is the recipient of illicit firearms. In the case of international trafficking, the U.S. may serve as the source country while a foreign country serves as the market country, referred to as U.S. to foreign trafficking. Conversely, a foreign country may serve as the source country while the U.S. serves as the market country, referred to as foreign to U.S. trafficking.

Following decades of hysteria from the left resulting in gun control push after gun control push based on the so-called “gun show loophole,” one would think such shows to play a dominant role in intrastate and interstate trafficking. However, the NFCTA numbers show only 3.2 percent of ATF intrastate trafficking cases involve “trafficking in firearms at gun shows, flea markets, or auctions.”

Moreover, only 4.3 percent of ATF interstate trafficking cases involve “trafficking in firearms at gun shows, flea markets, or auctions.”

The percentage of international ATF trafficking cases from the United States to a foreign country involving “trafficking in firearms at gun shows, flea markets, or auctions” is 4.5 percent.

Keep reading

Airport executive shot in firefight with federal agents at his home in Arkansas

The executive director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas, was shot Tuesday as federal agents arrived at his home to serve a search warrant, police said.

Bryan Malinowski, 53, the airport’s executive director, was injured during a firefight after 6 a.m. as Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents arrived.

He “was injured with gunshot wounds and treated on scene by paramedics before being transported to a local hospital,” Arkansas State Police said in a statement, adding that his condition was unknown as of 12:30 p.m. Tuesday.

One ATF agent received what police called a “non-life-threatening gunshot wound” and was also taken to a hospital, police said.

Malinowski’s older brother, Matthew Malinowski, 55 of Pennsylvania, was at his bedside Wednesday and said he didn’t know whether his brother would survive.

“We don’t know if he’s going to make it in the next 24 hours,” Matthew Malinowski told NBC News by phone in his first public comments. “He was shot in the head.”

Matthew Malinowski said his brother was on life support and doctors haven’t performed surgery “because they don’t think he’s gonna make it.”

He said Bryan Malinowski collected guns and other weapons, as well as coins, lived in an upper-middle class suburb and earned $253,000 a year.

“He has so much to lose,” the brother said.

A public records search of Bryan Malinowski showed no arrests or other run-ins with police.

Shea De Bruyn, a neighbor, told NBC News’ affiliate KARK of Little Rock that she was woken by five or six loud bangs.

“My heart was racing and the dogs were barking.” she said. “I’m just really curious as to what was going on just a few houses down.”

Neighbors also told KARK that on Tuesday evening they saw guns and ammunition being loaded onto a trailer, while firefighters carried a circular saw, crowbars and other tools into the house.

Matthew Malinowski said his brother met with Arkansas senators last week in Washington for official airport business.

“That tells you the circles he’s running in,” the older brother said.

The state police Criminal Investigation Division is investigating the case.

Keep reading

ATF Agent Stops Gun Sale Over Marijuana Odor And DOJ Argues Cannabis Consumers Don’t Have 2nd Amendment Rights 

Second Amendment advocates are criticizing a pair of recent developments around marijuana and firearms—issues they say underscore the need for further reform.

Last month during a routine audit of a gun dealer, a federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) investigator reportedly ordered the store to stop the sale of a pistol because the investigator claimed the would-be buyer smelled of marijuana.

“I wasn’t high,” the prospective buyer told the Second Amendment Foundation, according to the outlet Ammoland, which referred to the individual only as Daniel. “None of this makes any sense to me.”

Daniel had already filed federal paperwork saying he was eligible to own a firearm and had passed a background check for the handgun, according to the report. When he went to pick it up at a Plant City, Florida store, however, the ATF industry operations investigator reportedly halted the sale.

ATF spokesman Jason Medina acknowledged that the smell of marijuana could have been from exposure to second-hand smoke and not an indication that the gun buyer himself had consumed cannabis.

“That’s true,” Medina told Ammoland.

Meanwhile in a federal appeals court case, the Department of Justice argued in a filing earlier this month that marijuana users “are more likely than ordinary citizens to misuse firearms,” likening them to “the mentally ill” as well as “infants, idiots, lunatics, and felons.”

Keep reading

Gun Hobbyists (and Liberty) Win Big in Court

The Biden administration’s scheme to threaten the public with tightened gun-control regulations by reinterpreting laws to mean what they never meant in the past is running into some speed bumps. Stumbling over one of those obstacles is an attempt by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to define unfinished firearm frames and receivers—functionally, paperweights—as firearms for the purpose of regulating homemade “ghost guns.” The courts aren’t buying the government’s argument and on November 9 delivered another slap to regulators and the White House.

“The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy,” wrote Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt for three judges of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in ruling on VanDerStok v. Garland. “Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will.”

Specifically, the court addressed portions of the ATF’s new “frame and receiver” rule which reinterpreted existing law, particularly elements of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The rule would extend the ATF’s reach and allow the government to restrict home construction of firearms in ways that the Biden White House wants as part of a crusade against so-called “ghost guns” but hasn’t been able to get through Congress.

Keep reading

5th Circuit Panel Unanimously Finds ATF’s 80 Percent Firearm Frame Rule ‘Unlawful’

A three-judge panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided on Thursday against the ATF’s 80 percent frame rule, finding that the ATF overstepped its bounds in issuing it.

The 80 percent or partial frame rule is contained within ATF Final Rule 2021-05F, and makes clear the ATF’s position that partially completed pistol frames–commonly known as 80 percent frames–are “firearms.”

The ATF’s rule on frames took effect on August 24, 2022, and following public pushback, the ATF released a December 27, 2022, letter, reiterating that their rule does hold that “partially complete pistol frames” are “firearms.’ This opens the door for a background check requirement for certain gun parts and/or parts kits.

All three judges on the Fifth Circuit panel decided against the ATF’s rule.

The three judges, Kurt D. Engelhardt, Andrew S. Oldham, and Don Willet, were all appointed by Donald Trump. The case made its way to them on appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The judges seized on the the ATF’s act redefining partial frames as firearms, noting that in so doing the ATF went beyond Congress.

Engelhardt wrote the court’s opinion and noted:

The agency rule at issue here flouts clear statutory text and exceeds the legislatively-imposed limits on agency authority in the name of public policy. Because Congress has neither authorized the expansion of firearm regulation nor permitted the criminalization of previously lawful conduct, the proposed rule constitutes unlawful agency action, in direct contravention of the legislature’s will.

Oldham, concurring, pointed to what he saw as the ATF’s core blunder: “ATF’s foundational legal error is that it conflated two very different statutes: the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934. Those two statutes give ATF very different powers to regulate very different types of weapons.”

Keep reading