Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: GUN POLITICS  (Read 1176 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 12623
  • Reputation: +8367/-1593
  • Gender: Male
GUN POLITICS
« on: August 03, 2025, 04:56:30 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • ATF’s Secret & Illegal Gun Registry Just Got More Dangerous — It’s About to be Powered by Federal Government AI
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on August 3, 2025 by Tred Law
    https://www.ammoland.com/2025/08/atfs-secret-illegal-gun-registry-just-got-more-dangerous-federal-government-ai/
    Opinion
    YouTube video player

    As the federal government rolls out its sweeping artificial intelligence strategy—ingesting “all government data” into machine learning models—gun owners have every reason to be alarmed.
    Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, recently confirmed that “all the government data that the government has is going to be ingested into models” to improve citizen services, including permits, taxes, and healthcare. That’s not just parking passes and passports—that potentially includes firearm transaction records, too.

    This raises a red flag for anyone following the ATF’s quiet construction of a digital database of gun owner records—a practice that violates federal law but has continued for years under both Democrat and Republican administrations. Despite clear legal prohibitions against a centralized registry, the ATF currently maintains nearly one billion firearm transaction records, many of them digitized and partially searchable.
    The Database That Shouldn’t Exist
    According to FOIA responses and internal ATF memos, the Bureau receives millions of out-of-business dealer records every month. These records include sensitive data from ATF Form 4473s—name, address, firearm description, and more. Although ATF claims that this information can’t be searched by name, it’s only because that feature is “disabled”—not deleted. With just a few keystrokes, ATF could turn this passive database into an active weapon against gun owners.
    Gun Owners of America (GOA) has gone further, exposing that the ATF has encouraged active FFLs to submit current records voluntarily, even before closing shop, expanding this illegal registry far beyond its already bloated scope
    Enter AI: From “Woke Filtering” to Weaponized Data
    18 U.S.C. § 926(a)(3)

    18 U.S.C. § 926(a)(3)
    The Trump administration’s recent executive order aims to prevent “woke AI” in federal procurement. It promises that large language models (LLMs) used by the government will be “ideologically neutral” and “truth-seeking.”
    Quote
    But what about privacy? What about the enforcement of laws like 18 U.S.C. § 926(a)(3), which prohibits the federal government from maintaining a firearms registry?
    Nowhere in the policy is there a guarantee that firearms ownership data will be excluded from AI ingestion. No safeguard. No carve-out. Just blind faith that bureaucrats will do the “right thing” with mountains of sensitive information—despite decades of evidence to the contrary.
    If firearm transaction records become part of these national AI systems, what’s to stop future administrations—or even foreign actors who compromise the system—from querying this data to locate, target, or harass law-abiding gun owners?
    Who Will Hold the Line?
    Congress isn’t asleep at the wheel—at least not all of it. In January 2025, Congressman Michael Cloud and Senator Jim Risch reintroduced the No REGISTRY Rights Act, a direct response to the ATF’s illegal stockpiling of gun owner data. The bill would dismantle the ATF’s Out-of-Business Records Imaging System (OBRIS), which currently holds over 920 million firearm transaction records, many of them digitized and indexed for rapid retrieval. Cloud’s investigation into this system, along with a damning report by Gun Owners of America, revealed how easily this database could be misused to build a door-to-door gun confiscation list.
    The legislation is refreshingly simple in its goals. First, it requires the complete destruction of the ATF’s existing registry. Second, it allows gun dealers to destroy their records when they go out of business—reversing Biden-era rules that forced permanent retention. And third, it prohibits any federal agency from creating or maintaining a gun registry ever again.
    The bill is supported by a coalition of liberty-minded lawmakers and gun rights champions, including GOA, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the NRA. But make no mistake—this fight isn’t over just because President Trump is back in the White House.

    Quote
    The bill still faces resistance in Congress from anti-gun lawmakers and bureaucrats who would rather sweep the registry issue under the rug than deal with it lawfully.
    What Can Gun Owners & Advocacy Groups Do?
    The only way to force this bill across the finish line is sustained pressure from gun owners across the country. Contact your representatives. Demand passage. The gun registry must not only be defunded—it must be destroyed. And the AI age only raises the stakes. Because if this registry survives, it may not be a human bureaucrat pulling your file—it might be an algorithm doing the government’s dirty work.

    • Call for Immediate Deletion: Demand that any AI system built by the federal government be explicitly barred from ingesting or accessing any firearms-related records—whether paper, scanned, or digitized.
    • Push for Enforcement of Existing Laws: Congress must enforce 18 U.S.C. § 926(a)(3) and hold the ATF accountable for violating it. Any federal employee found knowingly participating in building a gun registry should face consequences.
    • Support REGISTRY Destruction Legislation: The GOA-backed bills are vital. Gun owners should contact their senators and representatives to co-sponsor and support these efforts.
    • Demand Transparency: FOIA requests should continue, especially as new AI projects come online. The public deserves to know which data sources are being fed into these models—and whether your gun record is among them.
    • Educate and Mobilize: Local and state-level activism remains one of the best tools to apply pressure upward. Host town halls, educate other gun owners, and make sure this issue doesn’t fly under the radar.
    The fusion of unchecked artificial intelligence with illegally maintained federal firearm records should set off alarms for every freedom-loving American. AI can either empower citizens or enable tyranny—it depends entirely on who controls the data. Right now, gun owners are losing that battle.
    The government must not be allowed to digitize our rights away. Let this be a wake-up call. Stay armed with the truth—and stay involved. The future of the Second Amendment may depend on what you do today.



    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12623
    • Reputation: +8367/-1593
    • Gender: Male
    Re: GUN POLITICS
    « Reply #1 on: Yesterday at 11:41:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • UNITED STATES V. MILLER: How the Second Amendment Was Subverted
    https://www.ammoland.com/2013/12/united-states-v-miller-how-the-second-amendment-was-subverted/ 
    Ammoland Inc. Posted on December 11, 2013 by F Riehl, Editor in Chief
    By Dean Weingarten
    Miller, of U.S. v Miller, photograph from Brian Frye title=Miller, of U.S. v Miller, photograph from Brian Frye

    Miller, of U.S. v Miller, photograph from Brian Frye
    Gun Watch
    Gun Watch
    Arizona – -(Ammoland.com)- In 2008, Brian L. Frye published the seminal paper on the history of United States v. Miller, the single most important second amendment case before U.S. V. Heller.
    While Miller no longer holds as much significance in second amendment cases as it used to, the way in which the government manipulated the case in order to deprive American citizens of their second amendment rights deserves detailed study.
    In  “THE PECULIAR STORY OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER“, Professor Frye’s meticulous scholarship shows that much of what went on behind the scenes differs sharply from what we have been told.

    Frye’s essay consists of 34 pages, packed with footnotes docuмenting original sources.  He summarizes his conclusions in this early paragraph:

    Quote
    This essay suggests the conventional wisdom is only half-right, because Miller did less than generally supposed. Part I presents a brief historiography of Miller. It argues scholars have not provided an entirely convincing account of the Supreme Court’s holding in Miller, largely because they focus on the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Part II recounts the history of the case. It shows Jack Miller was a career criminal and government informant. It finds Miller was a Second Amendment test case arranged by the government and designed to support the constitutionality of federal gun control. And Part III analyzes Miller in light of this history.
    I do not think that Professor Frye goes far enough.  The facts appear like a conspiracy to strip Americans of their second amendment rights through collusion of the judge, prosecutors, and defendant’s council in the case.  The only bright spot was the actual Supreme Court decision which held that arms related to the militia were protected by the second amendment.   With appellate courts packed with Roosevelt appointees over his four terms, the appellate courts only interpreted Miller in ways to remove any protection for the second amendment.
    Notice a couple significant points below.  First, that Miller and Layton were not allowed to plead guilty, and this was from Judge Ragon, who was the rabid equivalent of Charles Schumer of today.  Second, Judge Ragon appointed the defense counsel, Paul E. Gutensohn.

    Quote
    On June 2, 1938, Miller and Layton were both indicted on one count of violating 26 U.S.C. § 1132(c) by transporting an untaxed short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce. Both Miller and Layton pleaded guilty, but Ragon refused to accept their plea and appointed Paul E. Gutensohn as counsel.
    Now Judge Ragon has the case he wants, the defendants he wants and the defense council that he wants.  Judge Ragon then creates the only defense for the case, his memorandum opinion.
    Quote
    On June 11, 1938 Miller and Layton demurred to the indictment, claiming that it presented insufficient evidence of a transfer requiring payment of a tax and challenging the constitutionality of the NFA under the Second and Tenth Amendments.  Surprisingly, Ragon immediately issued a memorandum opinion sustaining the demurrer and quashing the indictment. He held that the NFA violates the Second Amendment by prohibiting the transportation of unregistered covered firearms in interstate commerce.
    Professor Frye goes on to provide details that explain much that seems peculiar, and even insane, about the 1934 National Firearms Act.  What sense is there to make short barreled rifles and shotguns, which are the functional equivalent of pistols, subject to insanely high taxes  ($200 in 1934 was equivalent to $4,000 in  2012) and to such extreme levels of regulation that it deterred the vast majority of people from even attempting to comply?  The answer is that the 1934 NFA was designed to make pistols as hard to get as machine guns.  Judge Ragon had pushed for legislation to do this while he was in congress.  Michigan had already provided a lesson for the drafters of the 1934 NFA.  In 1925, Michigan, lobbied by the KKK, had passed a pistol licensing scheme, in order to keep black people disarmed.  In 1931, Michigan had outlawed short barreled rifles and shotguns.  What was the point of keeping black people from having pistols, if they could simply procure rifles or shotguns, saw off the barrel and stock, and have a functional pistol without having to go through the permit process that they were effectively barred from?
    Quote
    As originally proposed, the NFA also applied to pistols and levied a $1000 tax on manufacturers and importers. However, after the NRA and other firearms associations opposed the inclusion of pistols at the public hearings, the restrictions on pistols were eliminated.  The Ways and Means Committee approved the bill without reservation, and the Finance Committee recommended amending the tax on manufacturers and importers to $500, which the House accepted.  Congress explicitly disclaimed any intention to include “pistols and revolvers and sporting arms” because “there is justification for permitting the citizen to keep a pistol or revolver for his own protection without any restriction.”
    The effective ban on short barreled shotguns and rifles was left in the legislation, because few people owned them at the time.
    Quote
    Before he became a judge, Ragon represented the Fifth District of Arkansas in Congress from 1923 to 1933.  As a congressman, he was a vocal advocate of federal gun control. In 1924, Ragon introduced an unsuccessful bill prohibiting the importation of guns in violation of state law, and vigorously supported another bill prohibiting the mailing of most pistols, which eventually passed in 1927.  Basically, Ragon wanted to prohibit firearms used by criminals, including pistols.  “I want to say that I am unequivocally opposed to pistols in any connection whatever. If you want something in the home for defense, there is the shotgun and the rifle, but a pistol is primarily for the purpose of killing somebody.”  And he specifically dismissed Second Amendment objections to federal gun control. “I cannot see that violence to the Constitution which my friend from Texas sees in this bill.”  If Arkansas could prohibit pistols, so could the United States.
    The bit about using shotguns for self defense could have come directly from the mouth of Vice President Joe Biden.  Perhaps VP Biden left off the rifles in his comments, because the Obama administration is trying to ban many rifles.
    Judge Ragon was closely tied to the Roosevelt administration, and had been appointed to his judicial seat by President Franklin Roosevelt.

    Quote
    A prominent Democrat, Ragon endorsed Roosevelt in 1932 and helped push the New Deal through the Ways and Means Committee.  In return, Roosevelt made him a district judge.  The NFA was part of Roosevelt’s New Deal program, enacted with broad support shortly after Ragon took the bench. But the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (sic) was stirring up popular opposition, much of it based on the Second Amendment.  The government needed to silence the complaints, and Miller was the perfect vehicle. Ragon had presided in an O’Malley prosecution, so he knew Miller was a crooked, pliable snitch, who wouldn’t cause any trouble. And Gutensohn was a comer who knew the game and got his due.  Ragon’s memorandum opinion presented no facts and no argument. With no defense muddying the waters, it was the government’s ideal test case.
    In an extremely rare move, the government appealed the case directly to the Supreme Court.   I do not believe it could happen today.  Perhaps a legal scholar can explain how the government lawyers were able to jump over the appellate court.   Then the defense attorney, Gutensohn, (remember, appointed by Judge Ragon) steps away from the case, and does not participate in oral arguments or a written brief.
    Quote
    Supreme Court Clerk Charles Cropley wrote to Gutensohn on March 15, informing him the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal and expected to hear oral argument on March 31.  Gutensohn wrote back on March 22, asking why he had not received the record or the government’s brief and emphasizing that he represented Miller and Layton pro bono.
    Quote
    Cropley replied on March 25,informing Gutensohn that the government had submitted a type-written brief and he could do the same. In the alternative, Cropley suggested the court could postpone oral argument until April 17.
    But on March 28, Gutensohn replied by telegram: “Suggest case be submitted on Appellants brief. Unable to obtain any money from clients to be present and argue case = Paul E Gutensohn.”
    With no one but the government presenting any evidence in the case, a decision was made, based on the presented “facts”, which included the effective lie that short barreled shotguns were not used by the military.
    Quote
    The decision came quickly. On May 15, 1939, Justice JamesClark McReynolds “drawled from the bench: ‘We construe the amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.’”
    The New York  Times, reliably “progressive” provided journalistic cover for the judicial coup.  Note that this is seven years after the New York Times gave Walter Duranty a Pulitizer Prize for effectively covering up the mass murder in the Ukraine by the Soviet Union.   The Pulitzer has never been pulled.
    Quote
    The unanimous vote was 8-0, as Justice Douglas was recused.The papers were bemusedly pleased. The New York Times noted, “The record in the case of Miller and Dayton [sic] does not show for what purpose they were taking the sawed-off shotgun across State lines. Government officials felt, today, however, that the McReynolds decision had given them a new instrument with which to fight bank robbers, gangsters and other criminals, whose favorite arm is the sawed-off shotgun.” 
    In a pattern that we see followed today, a congressman called for even more draconian gun laws, and had the gall to say that they would not hamper people from “purchasing or possessing a firearm”.
    Quote
    And Jackson soon asked Congress to enact legislation requiring the registration of all firearms, in order to foil subversives: 
    Quote
    “’It is to be particularly noted that the legislation, the enactment of which I recommend, would in nowise improperly limit the freedom of action of peaceful, law abiding persons. The contemplated legislation would not hamper or hinder any person from purchasing or possessing a firearm. It would merely require him to register the firearm and to record any transfer of the weapon.’”
    As often happens with snitches, Miller met an unhappy end a short while later.
    Quote
    At about 9 a.m. on April 3, two or three men in a car picked up Miller at his home in Ketchum, Oklahoma. 
    Quote
    The next day,around noon, a farmhand named Fisher discovered Miller’s bullet-ridden corpse on the bank of the “nearly dry” Little Spencer Creek,nine miles southwest of Chelsea, Oklahoma. 
    Quote
    Miller was shot four times with a .38, twice in the chest, once under the left arm, and once through the left arm. The .45 automatic next to him had been fired three times.
    Miller’s confederate did much better.  He got a sweetheart deal for his part in the charade.
    Quote
    On January 8, 1940, Layton pleaded guilty to the reinstated NFA charge and Ragon sentenced him to five years probation. 
    Judge Ragon did not live to see the political rewards for his conspiracy against the second amendment and the American people.
    Quote
    Ragon expected an appointment to the Eighth Circuit, but died suddenly of a heart attack on September 15, 1940.
    We owe a great deal to the scholarship done by Professor Frye.  This is the definitive work on how the Miller case was set up to deprive the American people of their second amendment rights.   It is worth reading in its entirety in order to see the nuances and the attention to detail in the original sources.
    us v miller by richard_rowland

    ©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
    Link to Gun Watch



    Offline Mark 79

    • Supporter
    • *****
    • Posts: 12623
    • Reputation: +8367/-1593
    • Gender: Male
    Re: GUN POLITICS
    « Reply #2 on: Today at 12:06:19 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • To defeat Scribd's control freak paywall pimps, see the attached file.