Yesterday, following less than three hours of jury deliberations, Hunter Biden, the son of President Joe Biden, was found guilty by a federal court jury in Wilmington, Delaware of lying on a federal form. The form in question, the 4473 Firearms Transaction Record, is the same form that Second Amendment advocates say the president and the ATF have “weaponized” used to against gun dealers and purchasers. President Biden’s office issued a statement saying he “accepted the outcome of the case and would respect the judicial process” – adding- “as his son considers an appeal.”

Ironically, consideration of an appeal would be founded on the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. The defense’s use of that argument, however, was insufficient to overcome testimony from Biden’s ex-wife, former girlfriend and widow of his brother, Beau, confirming that during the time when he lied on the Form 4473 in order to purchase a revolver, he was addicted to- and using- illegal drugs.

The federal charges against Hunter Biden focused on a form all gun owners are familiar with: the 4473 Firearms Transaction Record. It was question 11e that made Biden’s revolver purchase illegal.

Sentencing should take place within 120 days of a verdict, meaning Biden’s punishment should be announced before the November elections where his father will be seeking a second term.

Industry Response:

Mark Oliva, Managing Director, Public Affairs, NSSF

“……NSSF has been a consistent supporter of keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not possess them, whether that be a prohibited individual, an unsupervised child or someone suffering a mental health crisis. Hunter Biden’s admission that he was illegally using controlled substances and addicted to illicit drugs at the time of his firearm purchase clearly demonstrates that he was a prohibited individual at the time he purchased the firearm and lied on the ATF Form 4473 when he attested he was not using illicit drugs.

Alan Gottlieb, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

“..At some point President Biden must reflect on his half-century of gun control extremism and acknowledge that none of the laws he championed prevented his son from illegally buying a gun and being convicted of the crime in a Delaware courtroom. Meanwhile, millions of American citizens, who have committed no crimes, are nevertheless penalized daily by the laws and regulations the president and his anti-run-rights allies have supported in the misguided belief they have the moral high ground. Today proved otherwise.”

Randy Kozuch, Executive Director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA)

“The National Rifle Association has always stood for the lawful use and possession of firearms. Mr. Biden’s documented lifestyle choices at the time of purchasing a firearm made him a prohibited person under current law.”

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has announced it will hear oral arguments in the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge of the “Final Rule” issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding arm braces for pistols, during the week of Aug. 5.

The case is known as SAF v. ATF and was filed in February 2023. SAF is joined by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston. Last August, SAF won, in part, a preliminary injunction in the case when a court panel decided 2-1 the rule was “likely illegal” because the government had violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by adopting the rule without meaningful opportunity for public comment.

“We are delighted about the court’s decision,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We will be fully prepared to argue our case before the appeals court, and hopefully see a quick resolution of this case.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut noted the SAF case is part of a consolidation of four separate cases for briefing purposes, but still stands apart on separate issues.

“The ATF’s ‘Final Rule’ is a complete reversal of previous policy, and it was adopted in violation of APA guidelines.” Kraut said. “We certainly expect to prevail.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) issued the following statements after YouTube announced a formal change in their policies towards firearms related content:

“Restricting access to adults only—for content that depicts wholly legal and constitutionally-protected activity—is wrong, and it aims to push a sinister narrative to minors that firearms are evil,” said Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President. “In turn, as younger generations come of age, they will not question or push back on further violations of our Second Amendment rights.”

“Alvin Bragg and his anti-gun friends have been aggressively pressuring YouTube to censor and directly prohibit certain content related to guns for years now, and sadly they just succeeded and free speech has once again become the victim,” said Aidan Johnston, GOA’s Director of Federal Affairs. “Congress must demand answers from YouTube on how influential DA Bragg and gun control groups were in facilitating this change in policy and determine whether the Biden Administration or it’s White House Office of Gun Control was weaponized to force the censorship of Second Amendment content.”

Background: This week, YouTube and parent company Google announced plans to change their policy on firearms related content – effective June 18th. Under the new policy, which will be retroactive and apply to all existing content on the platform, the following will apply:

• Content showing the use of homemade firearms, automatic firearms, and certain firearm accessories will be age restricted.
• Content showing how to remove “safety devices” will be banned.
• Firearms in movies, video games, military and police footage, and warzone footage will not categorically be age restricted—creating a double standard for Hollywood and anti-gun corporate media.

In April, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg sent a letter to YouTube CEO Neil Mohan urging him to alter their algorithms to ensure that certain firearms content not be promoted. Additionally, he urged the company to directly censor and remove certain firearms-related content. Read more

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners, in a long-running legal challenge of California’s one-gun-per-month (OMG) law, have filed an appellee’s brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in response to the state’s effort to keep the law in place.

SAF won a summary judgement at the district court level, but California appealed. The case was originally filed in December 2020.

SAF is joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, North County Shooting Center, Inc., PWGG, L.P., a limited partnership, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen, for whom the case Nguyen v. Bonta is named. They are represented by attorney Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of Southport, N.C.

“It should be clear to the court that the text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct prohibited by California’s OMG statute,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The state argues that it’s restriction should be considered ‘presumptively lawful’ when it is plainly an unlawful ban on the otherwise lawful purchasing activity of honest citizens who simply wish to exercise their constitutionally protected rights for lawful purposes.” Read more

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and two other West Coast gun rights organizations have filed an amicus brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of an Oregon man convicted of illegally transferring a machine gun.

SAF is joined in the brief by the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and Second Amendment Law Center. They are not directly involved in the case, known as U.S. v. Daniel Matthew Kittson. The amicus urges the 9th Circuit to, at a minimum, remand the matter back to the district court “so it can conduct a proper historical review as required by Bruen,” which it did not do. SAF, CRPA and the Law Center are represented by attorneys Donald Kilmer in Caldwell, Idaho, and C.D. Michel, Joshua Robert Dale, Konstadinos T. Moros and Alexander A. Frank at Michel & Associates in Long Beach, California.

Kittson was convicted of trying to sell a Russian PPSh-41 machine gun. He is a convicted felon already, and has been sentenced to a term in federal prison. SAF and its partners contend such a conviction should be the result of deciding the case on the proper grounds.

“We are not defending Mr. Kittson or taking either side in this case,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Our interest is to insure the lower court conducts a historical analysis of the law as required under the Bruen decision. We are asking for a reversal of the court’s decision or a remand back to the district court for proper historical review.” Read more

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, fully supports the Congressional Review Act (CRA) Resolution of Disapproval of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “Engaged in the Business” Final Rule. The CRA was introduced and led by U.S. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and was co-sponsored by 43 additional senators.

The joint resolution would block the Biden administration from enforcing the Final Rule that forces private firearm sellers to obtain a federal firearms licensee (FFL), conduct FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check Systems (NICS) verifications and maintain records in perpetuity, the same as a bona fide licensed firearm retailer. The Final Rule was forced through to institute near-universal background checks, legislation that Congress has expressly rejected because it would require a national firearm registry to work.

“President Biden is using rulemaking by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to impose so-called ‘Universal Background Checks’ rejected by Congress. The rule is unconstitutional because it violates the Separation of Powers by usurping the role of Congress to say what the law is,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF’s Senior Vice President & General Counsel. “The rule ignores Congress’ requirements left unchanged by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) that a dealer is one who devotes time, attention and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms. All Congress changed was that the conduct need not be for purpose of earning a livelihood, just that it is predominantly to earn a profit. The Biden administration has repeatedly shown its willingness to run roughshod over the Constitution to attack the fundamental rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. NSSF is tremendously grateful for leadership of Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis to exert the will of Congress – the representative of ‘We, the People’ – to its proper role in the lawmaking process and protect of our rights.”

The massive expansion of persons considered to be “engaged in the business” is a reversal of a policy goal sought by gun control groups who complained during the Clinton administration that there were too many FFLs. This new policy brings further concerns that ATF resources will be misallocated to monitoring and requiring registration of up to 328,000 Americans it now deems to be “firearm dealers” even though they only make occasional firearm sales, exchanges or purchases for the enhancement of a personal collection or a hobby, or who sells all or part of a personal firearm collection.

There are also industry concerns that ATF will be unable to provide necessary customer service to the industry, including processing import permits, forms for making and transferring suppressors and classification determinations on new products. The firearm industry will go from zero tolerance to zero lawful, Constitutionally-protected commerce – perhaps an ulterior motive behind the rule.

Those resources should be focused on criminals and disrupting illegal firearms trafficking rings instead of enforcing politically-motivated schemes to force a universal background check system.

For more information contact:  Mark Oliva at 202-220-1340

BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a reply brief with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in its challenge of the “Final Rule” issued by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) regarding arm braces for pistols.

In 2023, SAF won, in part, a preliminary injunction in the case. Last August, in a 2-1 ruling, a Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel said the rule was “likely illegal” because the government had violated the Administrative Procedures Act by adopting the rule without meaningful opportunity for public comment.

The case is known as SAF v. ATF and was filed in February 2023. SAF is joined by Rainier Arms, LLC and two private citizens, Samuel Walley and William Green. They are represented by attorney Chad Flores at Flores Law in Houston.

In their brief to the court, SAF and its partners maintain the appeals court should hold the plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success because the Final Rule changes the definition of an arm brace “using the guise of mere clarification.”

“Our challenge is part of a consolidation of four separate cases for briefing purposes, underscoring the broad and compelling opposition to the ATF’s action,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We have contended all along the Final Rule regulates brace-equipped pistols, which are in common use, as short-barreled rifles. This is a complete reversal of previous policy.” Read more

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation are thrilled to be partnering with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a lawsuit challenging the Biden ATF’s new rule to require background checks on the private sales of firearms. The States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah also joined in the filing.

As argued in the suit, the Biden Administration’s rule goes well beyond the changes made by Senator John Cornyn in his “compromise” gun control package, which passed in 2022. This rule would subject “hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal guilt for all manner of activities relating to the innocuous, statutorily authorized, and constitutionally protected private sale of firearms.”

Simply by selling one firearm, individuals could be required to obtain a Federal Firearms License and conduct a background check or face criminal prosecution.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“We warned the American public that this legislation brokered by Senator Cornyn was no small compromise, and here we are today filing our second lawsuit challenging a major policy derived from that anti-gun law.

“Criminalizing untolled numbers of Americans for simply selling a firearm in a private party transaction is wrong, unconstitutional, and must be halted by the courts. Anything less would further encourage this tyrannical administration to continue weaponizing vague statutes into policies that are meant to further harass and intimidate gun owners and dealers at every turn.” Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – Two Second Amendment Foundation cases challenging bans on so-called “assault weapons” and magazine capacity—one in Illinois and the other in Maryland—are among five cases distributed Tuesday by the U.S. Supreme Court for conference May 16.

The cases are known as Harrel v. Raoul and Bianchi v. Frosh. They were accompanied by cases known as Gun Owners of America v. Raoul, Caleb Barnett v. Raoul and Javier Herrera v. Raoul.

“Today, the Supreme Court’s docket reflected that both of our cases challenging Illinois’ and Maryland’s ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ were distributed for conference,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “We are hopeful that the Court will discuss these cases during their next conference in mid-May and ultimately grant cert so that millions of Americans can enjoy the same Second Amendment rights their counterparts do throughout the country. It is time for the Supreme Court to confirm that these modern firearms are in fact protected by the Second Amendment.”

“We’re encouraged that these five cases, all essentially dealing with the same issue in two different federal court circuits, were distributed for Supreme Court conference at the same time,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb acknowledged. “This could be the signal for which we have been waiting, that the Supreme Court may be ready to consider cases challenging bans on the most popular firearm in America today and their magazines. These firearms are owned by millions of peaceable citizens, and because they are in common use, they certainly qualify for Second Amendment protection.” Read more