Home ATF Canterbury ATF Nomination: This Tale Doesn’t Have a Happy Ending for Gun...

Canterbury ATF Nomination: This Tale Doesn’t Have a Happy Ending for Gun Owners

chuck canterbury atf director nomination trump
Fraternal Order of Police National President Chuck Canterbury (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
Previous Post
Next Post

By Rachel Malone

To Chuck Canterbury, being your guns rights champion means that he supports the woman who agreed “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”

So it’s a major problem that Canterbury has been nominated as ATF Director.

An anti-gunner sneaking into ATF’s top position can do a lot of damage to your right to keep and bear arms. And if he manages to convince gun owners that they have nothing to worry about, there’s nobody left to push back on his treachery.

Canterbury as ATF Director isn’t a tale that ends well for us. Let’s take a closer look with eyes wide open.

Canterbury Pushes for Gun Control

Chuck Canterbury is President of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), an organization which touts itself as “The Voice Of Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers.” As President of the FOP, he has asked Congress to “address gun violence” by passing three gun control measures that should make your blood boil.

First, he wants universal background checks. He claims that loopholes in the background check system are responsible for criminals obtaining guns. This is ridiculous.

Background checks are a blatant violation of “innocent until proven guilty.” Currently, 95% of initial NICS blocks are “false positives,” meaning that background checks are much more likely to keep law-abiding citizens from purchasing guns to protect themselves lawfully. Also, background checks certainly do not stop prohibited people from illegally getting their hands on guns.

Second, he wants to “invigorate the ATF” and give it the “manpower and resources” to enforce laws. Just so we’re clear, the ATF is the agency responsible for enforcing federal gun control acts.

So that’s exactly what we need to keep us safe — more federal agents to investigate and arrest people who haven’t paid their federal tax on those dangerous hearing protection devices (silencers) and those terrible guns that are safer for smaller people to handle (short-barreled rifles and shotguns).

And third, he wants law enforcement to have “better access to mental health records for keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” Considering the massive push for gun confiscations for those who are supposedly “mentally ill” without going through due process — this is pretty much the last thing I want.

This line-up should give you an idea of Canterbury’s game plan for running the ATF. And I say hell no.

Canterbury Opposes Gun Rights

As if pushing for gun control isn’t enough, Canterbury has also used his official position as President of FOP to oppose constitutional carry and other gun rights legislation. Seventeen states now recognize constitutional carry — the right to carry a gun without needing a government permit.

Ohio is working on it, but Canterbury has made it clear that he opposes the measure.

Canterbury Supports Anti-Gunners for Leadership

He testified in favor of Sonia Sotomayor for U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

His rhetoric was stellar. “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment,” Canterbury proclaimed. “In fact, if I thought that Judge Sotomayor’s presence on the court posed a threat to my Second Amendment right, I would not be supporting her here today.”

But only five years previously, Sotomayor had agreed that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right” (Sanchez-Villar v. United States, 2004).

Gun Owners of America opposed Sotomayor’s nomination, and with good reason.

The year after her SCOTUS confirmation, she voted wrong in McDonald v. Chicago (2010). She agreed that the individual right to keep and bear arms is not fundamental in the American scheme of justice, that gun regulations could help save lives, and that the States don’t have to uphold our right to keep and bear arms.

If Canterbury didn’t think Sotomayor posed a threat, he’s talking about a very different Second Amendment than the one I champion.

Of course, that should already be obvious from the support for gun control and helping to kill constitutional carry.

In Conclusion…

It’s worth paying attention to who’s running the ATF. It’s the agency that decided for years that bumpstocks were perfectly legal under the law, allowing many gun owners to own them. They also classified the pistol brace as allowable under Federal law.

The ATF is also the agency that President Trump commanded to arbitrarily reclassify bumpstocks as machine gun guns. And if the ATF had been led by someone with a stronger backbone, maybe that bumpstock ban wouldn’t have happened — or at least might have included a grandfather clause for everyone who already owned one.

With such important decisions for gun rights riding on the ATF director position, how could President Trump nominate Canterbury?

Well, it’s not the first time he’s let us down.

While the President has pleasantly surprised many by keeping promises on certain issues, gun rights is definitely not one of those categories. Trump’s campaign rhetoric of being strong on the Second Amendment has been replaced by his call for “take the guns first, and then due process later.”

And that call has been followed up with action: planting seeds for red flag confiscation orders, bypassing Congress in signing an executive order for the bumpstock ban, and now…Canterbury.

So what can you do about it?

The Senate has the responsibility of confirming Presidential nominations. This Canterbury tale is one that will not end well for us.

Don’t wait. Contact your U.S. Senators RIGHT NOW and let them know you OPPOSE Chuck Canterbury for ATF Director.

Let’s put an end to this Canterbury tale to avoid a tragic ending for gun owners.


Rachel Malone is Texas Director of Gun Owners of America. 

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. And we can actually do what exactly to stop This?
    I mean realistically if he’s nominated he’s practically in already.

      • Evidently, not one person was listening when Alexander Haig said right in front of the cameras long ago when he was pissed off.
        I ask up to look it up, hear, and understand!!

        Alexander Haig said (paraphrased)
        Let the people march in the streets. Let them carry signs of their protest. Let them write and call their representatives. As long as they continue to pay their taxes..WE DON’T CARE!!!

        Do you now understand why protests, writing letters to your representative (which by the way are opened and read by a 18-21 year old fresh out of college intern, who once they read it..throws it away), or call your representative (which the phone again is answered by a 18-21 year old fresh out of college intern, who acts and speaks as if every word you say is cherished and dutifully noted, then laughs once you hang up), have any connection to the representative they work for.

        They do not care about you!


        Get it? All the same.

      • So who would you suggest that you vote for in 2020?
        Are you considering any of the 25-30 liberal Socialist democraps? At least Trump is for American citizens…..I can’t say that about ANY of the liberal democraps running.

        • If there’s something in his platform you care about enough to trade gun rights, that’s fine. Congrats. But make no mistake, you’re an “I’m pro-2A but…” person; a fudd. I’m not trying to get you to change. I don’t care. But don’t kid yourself or think you’re passing yourself off as pro-RKBA.

          If you put the RKBA first, the best option is to not embolden either side of the single ruling party with your vote. Here’s an excercise f you want to try it. Suspend disbelief for a moment and think what you’d do if there were only Dems on the ballot. Make note of what you’d do then let ho of that thought. Then consider that D and R politicians have more in common with each other than either does with you and that it’s just one big party with a little theater and internal jockeying for position.

        • No your wrong, I’m all pro 2A No buts about it! You’ll have to pry them from my cold dead hands but when you only have 2 choices then go with the man that has tried to help the American people. There is not one F**king democrap that has tried to help any American Citizen other then rob them to give to the illegals. You know everything will be banned under the socialist rule, but then when MY rights are illegal then I’ll be a Felon.

        • There was one I had considered voting for but I forgot who it was. I’m waiting until after the debates weed out their fails, like Mr. Cheek Porn. When the dust clears, I will check out who is left. It won’t be Biden since he was likely complicit in spygate.

          Bernie is a communist, BootyJugg? Booty Judge? is the gay one right? hes out. Swalwel need not even apply, damn traitor, Theres that crazy chick Gallisomething? Shes too crazy.

          Sigh… I guess this will be shorter…: A Democrat candidate needs to at least be pro-life and pro-legalization of all drugs, at a MINIMUM, to even be entertained by me. Most fail just that.

        • Since when is Trump pro-American in anything but words?

          The Federalist Society has his hear on judicial appointments. Otherwise he’s a total bust leaning towards a an anti-gun lying sack of Cheeto dust.

          My state tends to go red strong enough that voting one’s conscience does not affect the Electoral Vote outcome. So I’m likely to do what I did last time, pick some write-in candidate who is at least a conservative, as compared to whatever the fuck Trump really is.

          Actually, I think he’s a Trump’ista.

      • yeah because getting Joe Biden or Kamala Harris by default is a much better choice than voting for a president that nominated someone to the ATF that half gun rights orgs support and the other half do not….Even TTAG has written a Pro- article and a Anti-article.

        • I only vote for who ever is more constitution abiding. In this case he is no different than a democrat. I will not vote for him again. Immigration and the economy are not to be traded for rights enshrined in our constitution. The end result will be more government power and not if but when democrats are in power again it will be worse because of trump.

        • Why should there be a better choice. You can be browbeaten into begging for the apparent lesser of two evils. And there are people smarter, ballsier and better connected who stand to profit in terms of wealth and power by giving you the minimum that will keep you begging.

          Not voting for a person who is going to screw you should be enough of a reward. The world doesn’t revolve around us, the parties don’t exist to be your Santa Clause.

        • I mean honestly… the biggest problem with Trump’s assault on the second amendment isn’t necessarily what he has proposed, but rather the fact that all of his mindless supporters are down on their knees with their mouths open and eyes closed waiting to lap it all up as he gives it to them.

          From a purely guns standpoint, our rights under Obama were largely left intact because people, even the most spineless RINOs, fought him tooth and nail any time he opened his mouth or even thought about guns.

        • What is “Trumps assault on the 2nd amendment”? I’ll completely agree that I do not like executive order gun laws (Which is what the bump stock ban was), but other than that I do not know what exactly you are talking about without more information.

          Honestly, I think putting two conservative supreme court justices on the bench is the best thing that could have ever happened for gun owners, currently and for generations to come. Now when we get the gun grabbing president (because it will happen), we will at least have a chance of having their unconstitutional laws and executive orders overturned. It could have easily gone the other way and had Clinton appoint two more John Stevens and we would have lost our gun rights completely, so I really do not get the disdain for Trump.

    • “Voting third party or writing in Rand Paul. . .” And this will accomplish exactly what? Do you think either political party gives a shit if you write in Bugs Bunny?

        • Pretty much. It’s time to just stop voting for the main parties and push up third parties independents and libertarian republicans. If their campaign pages are only platitudes and don’t say anything of substance just don’t vote for them.

          Every election here. The politicians campaign pages teach you nothing about who is running and the only people you know anything about is because of how horrible they are. “I will be pro gun” It means nothing. Say you want to repeal the nfa and I will vote. I’m done otherwise.

        • We tried that….how many delegates did Ron Paul get? 185 to Romneys 2,061? I would love to see a libertarian president ( I was all for Ron Paul), but that is a million miles away from happening. They chose both McCain (2008) and Romney (2012) over Ron Paul, that is how far away from getting a libertarian we are. Sadly, it looks far more likely we would end up with a socialist president before we ever got a libertarian one, which is mind boggling to me but it is the truth.

        • Kevin,

          Ron Paul was entirely blacked out by the media, even Fox prevented him from getting air time. Every time it was his turn to speak, boom, commercial break. By the time the debate was back, someone else was speaking.

        • I agree 100%. Mitt Romney and The RNC did to Ron Paul what Hilary Clinton and the DNC did to Bernie Sanders (they even overturned some of his delegates). Sadly, the RNC and DNC choose our political candidates, not the public which is probably why we always have to choose the lesser of two evils when it comes to picking our president.

        • To believe that in the today’s jerry-meandered political elections our country can be saved through the ballot box, is a fool’s errand. Observe the emboldened Leftist activists and extremists, the imbeciles and craven narcissist Dilettantes being elected or perpetually re-elected to office by the American electorate. By our daily consumption of their lies, half-truths, exaggerations and omissions, we are being conditioned and manipulated.

          For decades, Influential institutions saturated with Leftists, also known as Progressives, have been successful in creating generations of non-thinking, self-absorbed, intellectual, emotional and physical weaklings. A virtual prison of dumb down intellect. These mindless, instant-gratification automatons are selfish, rude, arrogant, boastful, proud, disrespectful, ungrateful, undisciplined, slothful and completely obsessed with themselves. They have been conditioned to “feel rather than engage in critical thinking.” They are easily offended by everything and anything that contradicts their world view. The more expensive the education, the more the tendency to be narrow-minded and intolerant.

          Any American not aware of the direness of our situation is either a lackey for the Establishment, dependent upon the system for their livelihood and existence, choosing to be willfully ignorant and silent, is too dumbed down, drugged or distracted by their techno-gadgets to care. But the storm has already gathered. The war has already begun and nobody knows when the conflagration will erupt. The Deep State is already at full war with us. From this point going forward, things can only get more dire…

      • Trump is just giving the dems more power. You get that right? I’m being forced to type a bunc more because it won’t let me post a comment.

        (It keeps telling me that I already posted this comment. It’s telling me it’s a duplicate. TTAG really needs to improve their comment section it’s really irritating. )

        • So as far as voting 3rd party, there was a viable 3rd party conservative candidate in 1992. He split the ticket & we got Blow Job Billy. How did that assault weapons ban work out?

      • The accomplishment is you avoid begging the political elite for stuff that they’re not going to give you anyway.

    • “Voting third party or writing in Rand Paul. Not sure yet.”

      Thank you, thank you , thank you. We Left Wing Socialists always count on the Far Right to be our best friends when it comes to making sure we end up electing the Democrats. This is not sarcasm its the truth. We love 3rd Party Conservative candidates. We will be helping you to spread the word to other Conservatives to vote 3rd party. I can feel “The Bern” getting stronger by the day.

      • Lol….didn’t you Bernie types learn last go around that the DNC chooses your candidate and that Sanders wasn’t in the cards…..do you really think anything has changed? Do you really think this is not 2016 again, but this time Biden is your Clinton and Bernie will end up being sidelined and supporting the nominee in the end. Come on now, you have some VERY wishful thinking if you think for even one second the DNC will allow Sanders to be the democrat nominee.

        Maybe this will help you remember what happened?

    • Idiot.
      If you normally vote Republican and then vote for a 3rd party you in fact are voting for the Democrat.
      Adults realize this.

  2. Why is ammoland.com saying the exact opposite of what TTAG is saying?


    Excerpt: His nomination of Mr. Canterbury, which does require Senate confirmation, falls directly in line with his campaign promise to work with the firearms industry and protect the Second Amendment. Mr. Canterbury’s resume and reputation highlight that he is the leader that ATF needs in order to become the bureau that they are intended to be.”

    For the past 16 years, Mr. Canterbury has served as the President of the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). During his tenure, in 2009, Mr. Canterbury went on record saying, “I want no mistake to be made. I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment.”

      • A microcosm of what’s happened to our supposed RKBA ‘advocates.’ Yes, the guy is massively anti-gun, yes, he is supported by certain sectors of the gun community.

        What else is new?

        • Everything I have read on this guy has been a contradiction. Anti-gunners call him pro-gun, pro-gun websites call him an anti-gunner…..he is for suppressors, he wants to take guns away. I was hoping that the article writer would help me determine which article was more factual, but nope….both were written by “TTAG contributors”

      • We’re not contradicting ourselves at all. The earlier piece we ran was from the NSSF. They endorse Canterbury. This one is from Rachel at GOA. She’s obviously opposed.

        We presented both views so that you can see the positions and reasoning various groups are taking with regard to this nomination.

        There’s no contradiction there.

        • I don’t know if I agree with that Dan. TTAG has presented both sides (I agree with that), but not taken either side or shown one side to be more truth than the other. One says how great the guy is for the gun community and the other says how horrible he is for the gun community……how is any reader of TTAG supposed to know which is factual and which is more emotion than facts? Is he both sides of the coin? Is he both good and bad for the gun community? Do I believe GOA or NSSF (which are both good)? How does this help educate readers on the subject?

        • “We presented both views so that you can see the positions and reasoning . . .”

          By doing this, Dan, you give the impression that there is some moral equivalence between being for or against Canterbury. Someone who is so clearly in favor of increased government infringement on 2nd Amendment rights is not morally equivalent to someone who isn’t. “Shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. You are either in support of 2nd Amendment rights or you aren’t. Despite what he says, Canterbury is not a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights. As a matter of fact, Canterbury’s support of the 2nd Amendment reminds me of China’s “support” for freedom of religion.

        • It would help all of us then if you prefaced outsourced contributions with some sort of declaration as such.

        • ” We presented both views so that you can see the positions and reasoning various groups are taking with regard to this nomination. ”

          All well and good… now that you’ve paid your homage to journalistic objectivity, how about telling us which side of the fence TTAG is on.

        • Lol….I am thinking for myself, and that is why I am asking so many questions. Conflicting information doesn’t help anyone think for themselves, it only causes confusion and so far it looks like this article is based not on facts or at least they didn’t provide any solid ones. All of the links lead to vague statements that are very hard to contribute to Canterbury, or completely mislead what was actually said. Like the statement:

          “As President of the FOP, he has asked Congress to “address gun violence” by passing three gun control measures that should make your blood boil.”

          When really he asked for stronger background checks, more ATF agents and more funding with the specified purpose of stopping illegal gun trafficking and criminal activity. Truth is if this article was written by you JWTaylor I would have probably assumed it to be factual and truthful since I have not seen any bias or false information written from you (or most TTAG writers)….you seem to lay down the facts/truth whether the readers want to hear it or not (Like your “Its technically a silencer, not a suppressor” comment). That is why I read TTAG, because it is generally factual and not biased misinformation. And that is what I generally expect when I read a TTAG article, and I am sorry to say that this article does not seem to be one of those…..but without spending hours doing research how would I know for sure? We, as readers, look to writers to do the investigative research time and provide facts so we do not have to spend hours trying to pick the truth from the twisting of facts. I know that really isn’t the world we live in anymore, and everything written on the internet or in a newspaper should be taken with a grain of salt and viewed skeptically.

        • Thanks for saying this. Everyone needs to do their own research. You can’t rely on the NRA or the NSSF or any “old” gun support group. As far as I’m concerned they are all suspect.

        • Says the guy who volunteered for and then stayed in a career that’s singular defining required quality is the willingness to follow orders. Your a smart guy but not particularly introspective, which makes sense, its not really a desirable trait in a military man.

      • The more I read about this guy the more confused I am. Everything contradicts another……The best I have come up with is that this article uses vague statements about his support for Sotomayor (which I can not find) and statements made by the FOP they are attributing to Canterbury (in a case that Ohio police did not support a non-permit concealed carry, in a state that fully allows open carry without a permit). And then the article makes statements like this:

        “Second, he wants to “invigorate the ATF” and give it the “manpower and resources” to enforce laws. Just so we’re clear, the ATF is the agency responsible for enforcing federal gun control acts.
        So that’s exactly what we need to keep us safe — more federal agents to investigate and arrest people who haven’t paid their federal tax on those dangerous hearing protection devices (silencers) and those terrible guns that are safer for smaller people to handle (short-barreled rifles and shotguns).

        Honestly this article looks like more emotion than facts and a lot of twisting facts to mislead the reader, but I would need to do a lot more reading and searching to fully determine that for sure. I mean when you have to tell your readers that the ATF nominee wants to “Enforce federal gun laws” …..it just seems more scare than logic…..of coarse a lifetime police officer that is going to be nominated to head the ATF is “going to enforce federal gun laws”, its illogical to think any ATF agent wouldn’t. To be fair, drug cartels and criminals that illegally acquire firearms would likely be a bigger target for these additional ATF agents than “people who haven’t paid their federal tax on those dangerous hearing protection devices”. Removing guns from those types would be a good thing for the firearm community……

        • Check the links in the article. The “statements made by the FOP they are attributing to Canterbury” come from a letter with his signature on it!

        • “Check the links in the article. The “statements made by the FOP they are attributing to Canterbury” come from a letter with his signature on it!”

          I followed all of the links and the only one with his name on it was the one addressed to Patrick J Leahy requesting stronger background checks, more agents and more funding to investigate illegal gun trafficking. What link are you talking about?

          Here is the only one I found with his name on it:

          The link which the article labeled as -“As President of the FOP, he has asked Congress to “address gun violence” by passing three gun control measures that should make your blood boil.”

          Why should background checks, more agents and more funding for the ATF to stop illegal gun trafficking be something “should make your blood boil”? The more I dig into this article the more BS/fear mongering it spits out. I lost a lot of respect for GOA because of this article. If they oppose Canterbury, fine but don’t give me some fear mongering and twisting of words to prove your point. Give me facts not emotional BS.

    • No, we have a Second Amendment that clearly states there shall be no infringement on the peoples rights to keep and bear arms.

      • Until some asshole comes along and attempts to “INFRINGE” yeah, it has actually happened and thankfully we have had a Supreme Court that has so far upheld the letter of 2A….

        • Actually, no, support from the Supreme Court ebbs and flows like the tide. Two cases 11 and 9 years ago were a step in the right direction. Nothing since. How do you think we got where we are in the first place?

        • Yeah, SC to rescue! Good thing that thanks to the SC we can enjoy our RTKBA uninfringed. /sarc
          Where have you been for last 85 years?

        • “thankfully we have had a Supreme Court that has so far upheld the letter of 2A….”

          Um… It hasn’t upheld “shall not be infringed”; the actual letter of the 2A.

      • Yeah, except you and all the other cucks who voted for this guy are bent over the counter screaming “INFRINGE HARDER DADDY!!!”

      • You do realize that the 2nd Amendment isn’t guaranteed forever, right? (Follow my train of thought before you start swearing at me, ok?)

        The Left is currently using the same strategy on us that they used to sway public opinion regarding the LGBT movement. – and it’s working! What did they do?

        – Used the media to sensationalize any acts of violence against gays,
        – Used Hollywood to demonize those who were against them; ridicule, shaming, etc.
        – Used every violent action as a potential tipping point (the killing of Harvey Milk served that role – from that point on, public opinion was at an irreversible point). And they now have all the rights they ever wanted.

        The same technique was used for during the civil rights era (The water hosing of demonstrators was such a visual sign of the horror that public opinion was forever changed).

        Now about the 2nd Amendment: We see the same techniques being used against us! We’re being demonized, each tragedy brings us one step closer to a tipping point, Hollywood and the media sensationalize every negative event. And we’re seeing public opinion starting to turn.

        When the time is right for them, an effort will be made to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and it’ll be history. And it will be done exactly as instructed by the Constitution.

        And if that happens, and it’s done appropriately as outlined in the Constitution, anyone who uses violence to fight it will not be considered a patriot. (Hard to argue in favor of the Constitution if you fight against the use of the process that it delineates).

        And what are we doing? We argue among ourselves, we demonize the NRA, and we act like a bunch of unhinged fanatics who make no effort to have a civil conversation to explain our beliefs.

        If I were a bettng man, I’d have a hard time betting that we’ll win this in the long run!

  3. Given the makeup of my Senators (Connecticut) I would do better writing them and saying that I am a gun owner and NRA member and I want them to vote for Canterbury since he would help dismantle gun control regulations. 😉 Otherwise, I’m wasting my time writing my Senators.

    • Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray. Elected by, for, and from the vast horde of Puget Sound Progtards. Whatever the worst decision is, they will unerringly vote for it. Total waste of time.

  4. Yeah, I’ll make it a point to contact my two senators: Chuck Schumer & Kristen Gillibrand! That would be waste of digital ink!!!

    • Not doing your duty is a sin by omission while others sin by commission. You have to do it regardless of it being futile because it’s the correct thing to do.

      If you do not inform them of your wants and the wrongs of their actions they can feign ignorance. You empower them in that way. You have to shout back like the kids in Colorado did to the adults, those kids are aware they don’t have power over those people yet, nevertheless they did not sit idle.

  5. What exactly constitutes mentally ill? How do you think the politicians will define this? PTS or depression? That covers a bunch of people. Are they worried about people not getting help for fear of being labeled mentally ill just like they’re worried about illegal aliens “living in the shadows”?

  6. My Dear Rachel Malone,

    While I agree with nearly everything you wrote in the article above, you betray your limited knowledge of the firearm community when you use the Leftist MSM’s made-up term “silencer”. For the love of God, please stop using this word for a suppressor…the item does not (and cannot) silence the concussive air wave made by a bullet’s exit from a gun’s muzzle. A smaller caliber cartridge with a subsonic rated load can help to minimize the noise, but all a suppressor does is attenuate (decrease) the noise. If you’re shooting a suppressed .45 handgun at an indoor range, for example, it’s still going to be loud enough that you’ll want ear protection. Only Hollywood and Leftist ignorami think these metal cans actually allow a person to silently Ninja themselves within a building and take down unsuspecting victims one-at-a-time.

    Please, people.

    • The inventor of the device, Hiram Maxim, first termed it a Maxim Silencer. I know that the term suppressor is more appropriate, given that it attenuates a gunshot, not eliminates it. Yet, that’s the terminology chosen by the inventor.

      • Everybody Damn! She’s cute! I don’t know if she belongs at GOA making gun videos or in a dress on a catwalk in Milan!

    • Nope, it’s a silencer. Read the patent.
      And yes, actually, silencers can make some guns so quiet people in the next room can’t hear them.

    • The legal term is “silencer”. Here’s the text of the NFA where it is used.

      ( a ) The term ” firearm” means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition.

      The term “suppressor”—while actually more technically correct—is not used in the law.

    • I’m a Trump supporter. But I do not like the fact that my president goes all fan-boy when he’s around cops.

      • Isn’t that anyone with one of those thin blue line stickers tho? All about their freedoms but they support the ones who will take the kings shillings to enforce tyranny on innocents. Trump is an eccentric jackass who won the presidency by fooling you, just like Obama fooled all his black voters. The cartel is laughing so hard at his enforced borders they send mass waves of people instead. Nothing Trump does will help this country. He is the polar opposite of Obama, although not a 2A supporter AT ALL, and you are proud to be a ‘Supporter’? Good job making the country worse than the idiots who voted the other way the previous 2 elections. Pathetic.

  7. While reading one of the links in the article :


    I noticed a major SCOTUS event dealing with firearms will happen in two days (June 6, 2019).

    The deciding on a writ of certiorari on the Kettler case, the guy in Kansas convicted of possession of an un-registered NFA device (a ‘silencer’).

    Let’s cross our fingers and hope it gets granted this Thursday…

    • The guy who didn’t raise an eyebrow when Kavanaugh told him that the Constitution wasn’t the most important thing in a ruling?

      • You mean the one who single-handedly laid out Feinstein’s fraud on the congress on live TV as well as the legal consequences, causing her to vapor-lock and the proceedings to conclude with no further “revelations” about Kavanaugh? That one? Or do you mean the one who’s actually been seen having fun shooting an AR at some point, lol?

    • The time to vote for Cruz was in the Republican Primary of the last election, but no, everybody had to jump of the Trump train because “he tells it like it is!”. Well sorry, but “it is!”

  8. Why does everyone keep wasting ink on this topic? We are not going to change Gifford’s, Gilliford’s or Schumer’s [sic] mind. And they’re not going to change ours. Stockpile firearms and ammunition. Recruit new shooters. Vote for true pro 2A. That’s the only thing that might work.

    • This is how we tell which candidates are pro-2A. Not that there wasn’t tons of proof that Trump is not all along, but I like to think maybe someone will finally learn a lesson from this. The comment sections are grtting better, less of a partisan circle jerk than say, last summer.

  9. Your vote doesn’t count so much when it comes to the presidency and federal. The presidency is not nearly as important as they would make you believe. Your vote is most effectual locally and local politics has the greatest impact on you personally. This is why social engineering tactics intend to cause you to believe that voting doesn’t matter at all in America, that nothing can ever change and you must vote for the lesser of two evils just to survive in the short term.

    Social engineers came into the Libertarian party a long time ago and told all the youth not to bother voting. They said it’s best to just ignore the system as much as you can. That you can’t change the course of events because the monster is too big and strong. Just pay your taxes and stay out of trouble so you can live a life under the radar. If anything Libertarians can sit in a room with other Libertarians every year and complain about how bad America is and how they have the better ideas, then they go home and do nothing to change things.

    The same thing happens in the NRA.

    It’s all social engineering by smart people who plan for the long term. Their goals are set for decades or centuries into the future, in contrast, you worry about every 2 or 4 years. They are willing to take a few hits because they know in the future they will win with a K.O.

    Most “patriots” are willing to accept Trump for a 2nd term because they are thinking about the right now not what’s down the road. They are willing to ignore all the bad Trump is doing because they are wrapped up in the moment. They excuse all the Democrat/leftist policies Trump is implementing because they are holding onto the past fear of Hillary and they are distracted by the current arguing with Democrats.

    The Democrats know they are going to come out on top, they always do, eventually that is. Hence why they are now open about what they want and they are proud to say it for everyone to hear. They have gained enough support from Americans to campaign openly. They know the current path for the future is more leftism in America and Republicans are going to help them get there.

    Real talk.

      • I was born behind enemy lines. The area I grew up in was conservative although not religious, but all my white teachers were socialists/communists. So the things I was being taught at government school didn’t line up with my neighbors’ way of life. However, the makeup of the states is blue.

        Living in that environment allowed me to see all the lies Democrats and Republicans tell you. The things I was being taught was the opposite of what the successful and happy people around me were doing. Do I listen to the politicking government official/agent or the successful families who have their own businesses?

  10. So a government official wants to strip americans of their 2nd amendment rights?

    …..who knew….

    Sorry, but this is an old song. For the 4,754th time. None, zero, nunca, nil, and all other words than mean zero, government officials in any and or all nations on earth, want their citizens armed. If Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al could go back in time and undo the 2nd, they’d do it in a heartbeat.

    Government exists to curtail rights, never ever do they want an armed opposition. That makes things complicated.

    You want to stop 2nd amendment opponents from gaining power, load up the muskets and head to the nearest capital, and explain it to them, barrel first. Other than that we are just rearranging deck chairs.

    • “If Washington, Jefferson, Madison, et al could go back in time and undo the 2nd, they’d do it in a heartbeat.”
      I really must disagree with that sentence, everything else in your post is pretty much spot on, but the reason the founders included the 2nd was because they had actually just had to deal with a gun grabbing despot and had he been successful they would still be subject to his rule.. In fact the Top 10 were pretty much all aimed directly at preventing a Monarchy/despot/dictator from taking hold while while affirming basic god given rights. If anything had they had the foresight to understand the possibilities they would probably have further expounded to make allowances for the advancements in technology that have taken place since they imparted their wisdom upon us.

  11. RE: But only five years previously, Sotomayor had agreed that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right”.

    Sounds like someone needs to read the Bill of Rights again….

  12. Citizens always have some aces up the sleeve. One – we do not have to follow the judge’s instructions in a criminal trial for one of our fellow citizens who are charged with breaking a gun law, if we believe that certain anti-gun laws are unconstitutional, we may vote not guilty (it only takes one juror to do so) and that is the end of the road, since the prosecutor cannot appeal that verdict in a criminal trial. You have to keep your mouth shut about using that power, when you are still a member of the jury pool and are being questioned. That power should not be used carelessly, but wisely. Just think simply, if you had to follow everything the judge tells you, then why have a jury. Should be go back to Star Chamber “trials” like were once used in England? Thomas Jefferson wrote to Thomas Paine, in 1789, the following: “Another apprehension [about the French Revolution] is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by jury; and I consider that as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” Go to Fully Informed Jury Association or American Jury Power for more solid information. Secondly, we should be focusing on electing constitutional politicians to the U. S. House of Representatives, since they control the purse strings of the nation. In a broader sense quit voting for Demopublicans or Republicrats, unless that person is a true constitutionalist. Forget the party names and when a person asks you if you’re a conservative or a liberal, just reply that you try to follow the U. S. Constitution is the tradition of the Founding Fathers. Also check out the website http://www.guncite.org.

  13. If Trump loses even 10 percent of 2A voters I dont see how he wins.He’ll lose at least 3 of NC, FL, OH, PA and WI. And their’s no electoral math under which he wins if that happens

  14. Blah, blah, blah….
    And more blah, blah, blah…

    It sure is fun talking about it. Definitely easier than actually doing something.

    Oh yeah, I’ll be really brave and write-in Donald Duck for president. That will show them.

  15. Another deep state anti Second Amendment RAT BASTARD. Is President Trump that FING stupid to keep appointing enemies of our Constitutional Republic? Or just completely naive and blind?

    • No, Trump has not varied in the least. He was never a gun guy. He is a con artist who made suckers out of the right wing and is well positioned to repeat the act for another four years. It is just that simple.

      The only truly, long term positive to come out of this disaster is that the Federalist Society is essentially Trump’s judge pickers. Trump doesn’t know shit about how to pick a judge.

      This is what has become of our politics. To avoid a second Clinton Error voters accepted a blatantly obvious con man’s tall tales and absurd bragging instead of supporting a real conservative.

  16. Trump proving once again exactly who and what he truly represents, and it is not God, the Constitution, or the people. For all those that think he is different and represents hope LOL, your you’r own worst enemy.

  17. Sometimes you feel like Jerry Clower telling his coon hunting story and you wonder if maybe we wouldn’t have been better off to just elect Hillary so there is enough shock value to set the conflict in motion and get it over with. He was in the tree fighting with the raccoon and his friend was on the ground afraid to shoot the raccoon because he might hit his buddy. The comment was, “just shoot cuz one of us gotta get some relief.”

  18. Another blow hard.. lot of talk with out resources or authority to enforce the 2nd amendment. More ATF agents stand on the rule of law and not the bureaucracy of a political hack.. this guy will talk tuff . He wand do squat..

  19. Another blow hard.. lot of talk with out resources or authority to enforce the 2nd amendment. More ATF agents stand on the rule of law and not the bureaucracy of a political hack.. this guy will talk tuff . He wand do squat..

  20. It’s coming down to this. Gun owners VS Gun takers. Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment is enshrined for the GUN OWNERS.

    That means the other side is committing treason. So they can be HSOT on sight as criminals who want to be the only ones to have guns. To possess yours!

    But you know, they planned this. You do know that, don’t you?


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here