(AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
Previous Post
Next Post

The good guys appear to have won the day in the fight over Trump’s nomination of Chuck Canterbury to head the the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives and really big fires. While Canterbury’s nomination may have looked good on the surface to some, plenty more gun rights activists convinced key Republican senators to block the nomination.

In her post here, Rachel Malone, the Texas Director of Gun Owners of America, revealed Canterbury’s true history of advocating for gun control, time and time again. A past which gun owners should find very troubling.

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.

In the end, Canterbury’s record trumped any words of praise he got from a handful in the gun community.

From the Washington Free Beacon:

Chuck Canterbury, President Trump’s nominee to serve as head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, is likely to see his nomination withdrawn due to stringent opposition from Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Washington Free Beacon learned on Thursday.

“Chuck Canterbury does NOT have sufficient support in the Judiciary Committee and is now expected to be held up instead of getting a vote today,” a GOP Senate aide told the Free Beacon on Thursday morning. “Republican members are (1) Concerned about his stances on gun control, and (2) there is still some bad blood for him flipping the Fraternal Order of Police in support of the First Step Act (after opposing the more moderate version), allegedly in exchange for the ATF Director nomination.”

“His 2A views are bad and he’d lose a lot of votes in committee,” a second Senate source told the Free Beacon. “We expect the White House will pull him given lack of support from Republicans on the Judiciary Committee.”

At least one Republican senator, Utah’s Mike Lee, seemed to agree with this assessment when reached for comment.

“Sen. Lee has concerns about Canterbury’s Second Amendment views and is pleased the markup has been delayed,” Lee’s office told the Free Beacon.


Dear President Trump,

Why don’t you consult Don Jr. or maybe even your own Second Amendment Coalition about a potential BATFE nominee, rather than consulting the swamp?


America’s Gun Owners

Previous Post
Next Post


    • If you remember the old comic strip B.C. there was a recurring theme where words were defined. In one episode the word was dumbfounded. The definition was A.T.F.

    • If Trump could pass legislation by edict, then maybe?

      Last time I checked, Congress passes or rejects legislation and the president signs it if he likes it.


      • Strange. The last time I looked he banned pieces of plastic via executive order. Perhaps you’re thinking we live in America, instead of Amerika?

        • They changed a definition, not a law. Even that is on shaky ground and is subject to review. If the argument against it was a left wing viewpoint, you have seen an immediate injunction, nullifying it until it worked it’s way through the courts.

        • They changed a law. They reinterpreted it to mean something it doesn’t. Things have been arbitrarily banned through executive power. It’s gross over reach. it’s not shaky. It is a dangerous precedent for the future.

        • It was not an executive order. Like it or not, Trump did not have official role in that. Yet he had a political role. It’s greatly disappointing non the less.

      • John,
        Do you remember that from 2017-2019 the GOP owned the majority with the House, Senate, White House and SCOTUS?

        • And right now even, late September 2019

          Here’s my list of Dem/Deep State officials that have been arrested.
          Careful it’s long.

          Yep, here it comes.

          Any day now.

  1. I’d love to hear him articulate a reason to disarm a law-abiding citizenry. I will always use the word citizenry because the Brits are subjects of the crown and therefore not true citizens and they HAVE been disarmed!!

    • I beg to differ. We are not citizens, because there are no citizens. Here’s the definition of a citizen:

      a native or naturalized member of a state or nation who owes allegiance to its government and is entitled to its protection

      The courts have ruled time and again that we are not entitled to its protection. Cops are there to enforce the opinions of politicians, not to protect you and me. Furthermore, you’d be hard pressed to make a rational argument that everyone owes allegiance to the government. Rather, the government should owe its allegiance to us!

      So, no, we are not citizens. We are just as enslaved as the British, and just as spineless in the defense of our rights. The only difference is that the politicians haven’t figured out yet just how spineless we are.

  2. Dodged that bullet. /sarc

    Who is recommending this laundry list of candidates to Trump? I just received a large multi-section questionnaire from the CA RNC asking me for my opinions on several matters as we ramp up the 2020 election cycle. I answered all in red ink, scribbling my notes (to whomever might care to read them) for clarification of my answers.

    I specifically made note (again, in red ink) that all their gun-related questions referred to the topic as “gun control”. In every instance, I crossed out the word “control” and replaced it with “rights”. So all my concerns are about gun rights, Mr. President…and whoever is putting together the poll results for Trump to read.

    My top 5 concerns, selected from the RNC’s long list?

    * Government size/scope
    * Government spending
    * Immigration/border
    * 2nd Amendment
    * Traditional values

    • FYI, these are not polls. These are devices to get donations. Do you really believe someone is reading this Bravo Sierra?

    • Haz,

      You hit the nail on the head: the people working on Trump’s staffing plan are actively undermining his agenda. Add to that the aggressive attacks on so many of his nominees, it makes finding good people and getting them approved painfully difficult.

      Trump’s Chief-of-Staff is supposed to make sure the ducks are lined up in back of the President’s agenda.

  3. Not that i’d claim to know if Mrs. Malone ever uttered anything like the phrase, or that I think suppressors and SBRs/SBSs should continue to be NFA controlled items. Isn’t it a common sentiment that existing firearms laws should be enforced rather than having new gun control laws passed?

    • The NFA is nonsense. Why can I own a pistol grip shotgun with a barrel 18” long and an OAL of 24”, but I cant own a shotgun with a short barrel but a full stock that gives it an OAL of 24”. Likewise with bull pup rifles and SBRs.

      • Exactly. We’re being held hostage by an 85 year old gun control law thinly disguised as a “tax measure.”

        It’s a mish-mash of ideas trying to solve whatever the issues of the day were- the reasons for specifics measures are lost to time. Not that they would be compelling enough to excuse its unconstitutionality.

        They certainly didn’t envision the day when a 14.5 inch barreled rifle would be the standard service weapon of the Army or the popular appeal such arms would have to the gun buying public.

  4. If that testimony on behalf of Sotomayor is an exact quote, then I would not hire this individual for any job, let alone support his nomination to a major federal position. He simply lacks either the soundness of judgment to make important assessments, or the personal character to speak honestly about them. Either way, he is not to be entrusted with power over others.

  5. They left out his call for an “assault weapon” ban in his FOP President’s Column in their February 2013 newsletter/magazine following the Sandy Hook shooting.

  6. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to be on an election ballot or be appointed and approved without first being able to pass an eighth grade comprehensive reading test and copying the Declaration of Independence and the entire Constitution of the United States at least five hundred times in front of witnesses. That still would not asure us we’d be getting a person capable of putting their shoes on the correct feet and tying their own shoe laces but it might be a start.

Comments are closed.