Beltway Kabuki

FPC and SAF File Lawsuit on
 Post Office Carry Prohibition

The Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation plus some individual plaintiffs have filed a lawsuit in the 5th Circuit Federal District Court regarding the prohibition of carrying a concealed firearm into or on the grounds of any US Post Office. They seek to have the court declare that such a prohibition is unconstitutional under previous Supreme Court Decisions. This is good news for us since we rent a PO Box at the local facility and it is a pain to have to disarm to merely stroll in and get our mail.

Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms reports on a previous ruling against the prohibition:

As FPC and SAF point out in their initial complaint, at least one other district court judge has already determined that making postal facilities “gun-free zones” violates the Constitution. In United States v. Ayala, a postal worker was indicted for possessing a handgun after he carried his concealed pistol inside a postal facility in Tampa. Emmanual Ayala has a valid Florida carry license, and says he had his pistol with him while hauling packages in a semi. Rather than leave the gun behind in his vehicle, Ayala kept it secured inside a fanny pack when he would enter postal facilities, but in September of 2022 he was stopped by postal inspection officials and was ultimately arrested by the Tampa police for bringing his gun into the facility.

In January of this year, however, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle threw out the charges against Ayala, ruling that the government had not demonstrated a historical tradition of barring guns in postal facilities.

This issue will probably be kicking around in the courts over the course of a couple of years. Keep in mind that it is VERY IMPORTANT to get the anti gun Democrats out of the Whitehouse and congressional majorities or this may never be resolved. Support the SAF and FPC and, most of all, support pro-gun choices for elected office at any level of government.

Yes – we’re back to blogging about our rights as Americans more frequently, we hope.

Continue to pray and support those who need it.

2023 Tax Preparation Now Complete

UPDATE: 02/01/2024 — Not a record, but the small refund hit the bank account today. So the 2023 tax season is now officially concluded and we can now devote our energies elsewhere.

Well, it’s all over but the reimbursement as far as the 2023 Tax Season is concerned. We obtained (electronically) all the necessary financial reports and have concluded the preparation of our submissions to the collective thievery of the US Internal Revenue Service and the Arizona State Department of Revenue (ADOR).

As I posted earlier this month, I have a spreadsheet that allows us to forecast our financial numbers with regard to the Tax Reporting cycle. There is a little guesswork, but the initial guesses usually get us within a few dollars of the final figures. This year was no exception and when the 2023 1099s and other forms were available, it was just a matter of “tuning up” the tax program. We’re now ready to file when the IRS and ADOR open up for the 2024 tax reporting season. The Feds will be accepting inputs next Monday 01/29/2024; I’m not sure when ADOR will be open for business, but it’s of little consequence since there is neither a refund nor tax due.

We will be getting our usual small refund from the IRS. Last year, the IRS had our refund in the bank account a mere three days after we filed. Since we’re filing early, maybe we’ll be as lucky again.

Proposed ATF Rule Threatens
Almost Anyone Selling A Gun

For the first time in American history, the federal government will require virtually every person who sells a gun privately to be a licensed gun dealer – and every person who buys one privately to register the sale with the federal government!

(Image: A Double whammy – either the “Punisher” or the Gadsden Snake will subject me to be put on an FBI “domestic terrorist” watchlist.)

As you know, gun registration is the first step towards confiscation and by becoming a licensed gun dealer, gun owners would be forced to submit to warrantless searches by ATF agents looking for even the slightest violations.

To make matters even worse, the ATF can throw the book at any gun owner who runs afoul of the new rule! If you sell a gun and the ATF determines you made a “profit,” you can be jailed for 5 years and fined $250,000!

Time is running out for comments against the proposed rule. The on-line comments form is at REGULATIONS.GOV. Go there and leave your comment in opposition to this bizarre (and unconstitutional) proposed rule. The comment period ends December 07, 2023, so just do it NOW. Copy and paste is OK.

The following are a couple of comments made by others in opposition to the NPRM:

From John Crump at Ammoland:

I strongly oppose the proposed rule that redefines who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. The new rule will burden American gun owners by creating a grey area where they can inadvertently break the law.

The new requirement circumvents Congress by creating a de facto universal background check rule. Congress has chosen to leave background check laws for private gun sales to the state governments. This rule will override the authority of the states with overburdensome federal regulations and strip state’s rights.

The regulation will not make us any safer. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. States that have enacted universal background checks did not see any reduction of crimes committed with firearms. I strongly encourage the government to work on real solutions to solve the epidemic of violent crime and stop using firearms as a scapegoat for failed policies.

From the Arizona Citizens’ Defense League (AZCDL):

1. ATF is wrong to suggest a single firearm sale—or no sale at all—might require a license. ATF’s rule does not specify a certain number of firearms sold but instead suggests that “even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license.”

However, the statutes enacted by Congress clearly do not intend to regulate the conduct of an individual who merely sells a single firearm. Instead, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(11), (21), (22), and (23) contemplate regulating someone who “regular[ly]” and “repetitive[ly]” either (a) manufactures and sells or (b) purchases and resells multiple “firearms.”

2. ATF fails to protect unlicensed conduct exempted by Congress. Congress also expressly exempted “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby.”

3. Wrongfully licensing constitutionally protected activity will lead to warrantless searches and additional constitutional violations. Selling a single firearm—which might make you a newly-minted gun dealer—could subject you to warrantless searches of your home and firearm collection. This is a clear violation of both the Second and Fourth Amendments, and runs totally contrary to the Supreme Court’s Caniglia decision in 2021, wherein the court ruled unanimously that warrantless searches for firearms as part of a “welfare check” is unconstitutional.

4. ATF suggests it might deny a license to applicants who the agency ordered to become licensed due to prior sales without a license. Catch-22!

5. ATF’s backdoor Universal Background Check includes Universal Firearms Registration. So-called “Universal Background Checks” are only enforceable with a gun registry. This rule proposes that private citizens be regulated by the federal government as gun dealers, forcing them to run background checks on every firearm transaction in a backdoor attempt to require private citizens to eventually turn over these registration papers (i.e. Forms 4473, Multiple Sales Reports, and Acquisition and Disposition logs). Failure to do so will be considered a federal crime. The Biden Administration described this as “moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.”

Again, the link to the page is here:

NPRM Comments Link

Ringing in the New Year …

… and ringing out the old. So long 2022 – It’s been — weird.

But not all was bad in 2022 — we’re in good health and have been this year save for a major scare when Damsel got a mass report on this year’s mammogram — fortunately, the results of a biopsy (not fun) was benign calcification. My checkups with the urologist, the ophthalmologist, the nephrologist and dermatologist were business as usual with no complications.

Over the last few weeks, we did a first cut at the 2022 taxes and no surprises. It looks like we’ll be getting a small refund. We also calculated the 2023 Required Minimum distribution for the IRA — the new RMD will be down due to dramatic market loss in the IRA in 2022. That, and the Social Security cost of living adjustment is far less than might be necessary to offset Biden’s disastrous economy. It will be tight, but we’re going to be OK.

Over the last two years, we have seen relentless attacks on our God-given rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. New gun control has been enacted thanks to the Marxist Democrats and a few spineless RINOs. The NYSRPA v Bruen decision by the Supreme Court of the US is a help but states and courts are still ignoring it – be ready to fight in ’23.

So that’s it for our New Year’s message. We’re wishing you good health and providence from The Almighty in the coming year. God Bless!

9/11 – 20 Years Later

Biden - Worse than Carter, Clinton or Obama

There are plenty of pictorial tributes to the WTC, Pentagon and Flight 93 that depict the tragedies of 9/11/2001 out in cyberspace, but I wanted to point out on this 20th anniversary that at this point in time, America is seen abroad as being a weak and patronizing nation. This 2012 Ramirez cartoon posted during the Obamination administration is even more apropos today in the wake of the cowardice shown by Biden and the Joint Chiefs in the Afghanistan debacle. Joe Biden – Worse than Carter, Clinton or Obama.

We’re still firmly in the “NEVER FORGET” column of thought regarding the 9/11 attacks, but are also firmly in anticipation of more to come now that the enemies of America have been shown that there will be no significant reaction on behalf of America and her allies. God only knows when and where more violence will be perpetrated on our soil. And the Biden Puppeteers are bringing unvetted “refugees” to the country as fast as they can while letting our stranded citizens languish under the Taliban.

Join us as we pray for The United States of America to regain her stature among nations and for the safety of our countrymen from enemies both Foreign and Domestic.

Census 2020

Census 2020Well, the Census is behind us now, unless the .gov decides that our submitted inputs were deficient or something. We got our snail mail a couple of days ago inviting us to respond on-line with a twelve-character code that identifies our address. Once signed in, we answered the questions with a minimal amount of personal information disclosure.

Just for the purposes of how this census compares with the past, I examined an old photocopy of the 1910 census taken in Los Angeles. Back then, government workers conducted the census door to door.

Even back in 1910, the questions asked exceeded the original intent of the census which was to get a head count. There were personal information questions not necessarily pertinent to the original census intent. The headings below were on the 1910 census form:

  • Location (House No., etc.)
  • Name
  • Relationship to head of household
  • Personal Description
    1. Sex
    2. Race
    3. Age
    4. Marital Status
  • Place of birth
  • Father’s place of birth
  • Mother’s place of birth
  • Citizenship (immigrants and whether naturalized)
  • Language spoken
  • Occupation
    1. Trade (job title)
    2. Nature of business
    3. Employee or employer status
    4. Tenure
  • Education level
  • Owner or renter at residence

The one glaring item in the 1910 census omitted from the 2020 census was that of citizenship. Does this mean that NON-citizens who answer the census are included in the head count for determination of congressional districts and number of representatives in government? If so, THAT IS A VERY BAD THING, and not what the founders intended!

The following link is to an image of the referenced 1910 census for a portion of a precinct of Los Angeles, CA. I intentionally left it as a very large image which you will need to scroll about to see the various entries. 1910 LA Census