The Department of Justice launches Project Guardian
to enforce and prosecute gun laws.
As the firearms and ammunition industry, we care deeply about Real Solutions to the problems of criminal misuse and unauthorized access to our products. We take action every day through our programs to promote safe, healthy use of firearms by law-abiding citizens. But we know more can be done to enforce existing laws and to prosecute those who break them.
That’s why NSSF applauds the U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) announcement this week launching Project Guardian a nationwide strategic plan to reduce the criminal misuse of firearms and to enforce existing federal firearms laws. Project Guardian will “further strengthen” and build on the Trump Administration’s DOJ’s ongoing efforts to combat gun violence.
Project Guardian
Project Guardian complements existing programs to enforce federal laws and facilitate close coordination with state, local and tribal partners and is based on five principles:
- Coordinated prosecution: “Federal prosecutors and law enforcement will coordinate with state, local, and tribal law enforcement and prosecutors to consider potential federal prosecution for new cases involving a defendant who: (a) was arrested in possession of a firearm; (b) is believed to have used a firearm in committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime prosecutable in federal court; or (c) is suspected of actively committing violent crime(s) in the community on behalf of a criminal organization.”
- Enforcement of federal firearms laws and background checks: “For all cases involving false statements on ATF Form 4473 (including lie-and-try, lie-and-buy, and straw purchasers), unlicensed firearms dealers, and other individuals involved in the illegal trafficking of firearms, the guidelines must place particular emphasis on: (a) violent persons, such as individuals convicted of violent felonies or misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, individuals subject to protective orders, and individuals who are fugitives where the underlying offense is a felony or misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; (b) individuals suspected of involvement in criminal organizations or of providing firearms to criminal organizations; and ( c) individuals involved in repeat denials.”
- Improved information sharing: “… on a regular basis, and as often as practicable given current technical limitations, ATF will provide to state law enforcement fusion centers a report listing individuals for whom NICS has issued denials, including the basis for the denial, so that our state and local law enforcement partners can take appropriate steps under their laws.”
- Coordinated response to mental health denials: “United States Attorneys should consult with relevant district stakeholders, including ATF and state or local law enforcement and mental health departments, to assess the feasibility of adopting disruption and early engagement programs to address mental-health-prohibited individuals who, attempt to acquire a firearm and to counter the threat of mass shootings.”
- Crime gun intelligence coordination: “Federal, state, local, and tribal prosecutors and law enforcement will work together to ensure effective use of ATF CGICs, and all related resources, to maximize the use of modern intelligence tools and technology, such as the National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) and Firearm Tracing, to investigate and prevent gun crime.”
Commitment to Real Solutions
We are strongly encouraged by the Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing the laws that will contribute to public safety while respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. These are the common-sense answers we seek that hold criminals accountable for their actions and keep faith with our communities to be safeguarded against those who prey on the most vulnerable.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
Nothing to add, here. Just subscribed to the OP to see how much repetition of the first DOJ article commentary appears.
Got nothing to do with anything except a bigger budget for the participants. Gotta grow that little kingdom any way you can. This should be good for 1 billion+ annually.
I foresee lots of gripes about this one, but I concur with NSSF completely, all gun laws should be rigorously enforced, beginning with lawmakers and their families. Then they will begin disappearing. 40-odd years ago, I read an article in a newspaper by a reporter here in Austin, who spent the day with a group of legislators in the state capitol. During a break in the day’s activities, while standing around in a public area, the gentlemen he was hanging with got into a discussion, followed by “show and tell” of their carry guns, this during a time before any manner of carry was legal in Texas. Handing loaded guns back and forth, extolling the virtues or drawbacks of each, we’ve all done it except today most of us know enough to unload everything, first. This was all common, everybody knew that for 100 years the gun laws were only for the black citizens, did not apply to white citizens, much less legislators. How the world has changed. But imagine, if you can, if that intrepid reporter had called the police, and they had responded and actually ENFORCED those laws which prohibited carrying firearms, and put those dozen-odd TX legislators in the freaking JAIL. The laws would have been changed in a week. Instead, everybody patted everybody on the back, the good ol boys went back into session, and it took another 20 years before we got concealed carry in TX. The reporter even printed the story! And STILL nothing changed.
In fact, I’d say if a single year passes without a single prosecution for a law (ANY law!), the law should automatically be dropped from the books.
“In fact, I’d say if a single year passes without a single prosecution for a law, the law should automatically be dropped from the books.”
Now there’s an interesting idea. Lotsa wrinkles to sort out, but intriguing.
I just want the rule makers to stop infringing on my right to whack somethin’ stupid.
“I just want the rule makers to stop infringing on my right to whack somethin’ stupid.”
Well….uuuhhhmmm, like… you know, those rules are probably the only thing protecting me from getting a whackin’.
First among them things that blatantly should be illegal but simply can’t happen every year, like assassinating political figures. Second is that congress and PotUS have no difficulty extending existing things indefinitely: There’s been a series of taxbreaks that theoretically expire but are renewed all the time and aren’t made permanent so congress doesn’t have to put them in the budget.
“In fact, I’d say if a single year passes without a single prosecution for a law (ANY law!), the law should automatically be dropped from the books.” OK- is that federal law, state law, local or municipal ordinance? Who in the hell could even start to keep track?
“OK- is that federal law, state law, local or municipal ordinance? Who in the hell could even start to keep track?”
Well….
First, we get some computers. Then we build a database that will indicate the implementation of every law on the books, anywhere (call it The Federal Registry of Registries Registry). Then someone writes a program that will send notices to appropriate persons that a law proved useless, and needs to be repealed. And then we need a commission to ensure the automatic notifications are valid, and that the appropriate people are immediately repealing unused laws. We should also have a certifying board that monitors whether all the laws are being monitored, and that repeals happen withing a set time frame, and that the law-making bodies, wherever, are timely providing correct data to the Registry of Registries Registery.
Then….problem solved, jobs created, everyone goes home, lights up a Lucky, and grabs all the gusto they can from the refrigerator.
Interesting and compelling argument. I tentatively concur. If a law has not been applied for at least a year, perhaps it isn’t necessary and should be removed.
Instead of rendering a law moot if not used (good idea, but could still be abused), an alternative would be a mandatory sunset on Laws.
This would require legislatures to reconfirm these laws on a recurring basis. arguments could then include the specific law’s effectiveness. Consider background checks for which fewer than 1% are prosecuted. That’s not a very compelling argument for “guilty until proven innocent”.
I like it. And, all of the time required for the sunset reviews would mean less time for their foolishness.
Sounds like my mom compelling me to put away my toys. If you have not played with it in X number of days and it has not been put away, it goes in the garbage because you obviously don’t need it.
” if a single year passes without a single prosecution for a law (ANY law!), the law should automatically be dropped from the books ”
I’ve said it here many times… every law should be required to carry a sunset clause not to exceed 10 years. Amendment XXVIII.
And any law should come with an expiration date. This would weed out bad laws and force lawmakers to approve “good” laws.
And some of the sentences should be doubled, especially straw man purchasers. I want to see how wives and girlfriends will take the chance of a 20 year sentence to buy the “love” of their lives a gun and as in felony murder also charge them with any crime committed by the recipient with that sentence to served CONSECUTIVELY to the straw man 20 years. As far as I’m concerned if somebody wants to mess around with a freedom and right and endanger them they should pay a REAL price. Felon in possession and a couple of others should also be doubled. Felon in possession would be life on a second conviction. No parole for any of this.
So, that innocent single mom who inadvertently brought a handful of hollow points into NJ should have done far longer in prison, then been barred from protecting herself and her kids on pain of life in prison? You do realize that the government gets to define “felon” right? If you trust them that much you must be a Democrat
“So, that innocent single mom who inadvertently brought a handful of hollow points into NJ should have done far longer in prison,”
An person who is convicted of breaking laws is not “innocent”.
Once we do away with the silly category of “misdemeanor”, all crime can be felonies. All felonies should be mandatory life sentences (without parole). Each convicted felon serving a life sentence has no worries about “gun rights” being restored. Additionally….
All felons serving life sentences should be put on a national transplant registry, and their organs harvested as needed by the transplant lists. (of course, transplanting from felons should be limited such that the host for organs does not die, or become quadriplegic, blind, placed on life support, that sort of thing…just take one of whatever the host has two). This would truly be paying a debt to society.
Do you own stock in the private prison industry?
“Do you own stock in the private prison industry?”
No.
Chop shops.
That should be for “real” felons. A “real” felon should be incarcerated in the penitentiary for a full 365 days. None of this, plea to it and you stay out of jail – oh, BTW, you can never have firearms again…..
Yes, because old unconstitutional laws are much better than new unconstitutional laws. (LOL)
Whenever you run into the phrase, “gun laws”, you should realize you are being fed a shovel load of crap. Murder, assault, rape should be against the law. The tool used should be completely irrelevant.
Yes, SO MUCH THIS. How many hundreds of gun laws do we already have? “Strongly enforce existing laws” just means a crackdown on more stupid, unconstitutional shit. Look for 922(r) and “constructive intent” violations based on this new initiative, and meanwhile a portion of those who scream “I will not comply!” will praise the virtues of the brave government for cracking down on “criminals”. It’s disturbing how many of the PoTG accept and even support the notion that the state has both a right and a duty to decide who should and shouldn’t be “allowed” to own guns
Yes, there can be problems with enforcing existing laws. But, if we don’t want the existing laws enforced, we are being dishonest when we demand that rather than create new laws, “enforce the existing laws.”
The DOJ attorneys plea bargain very serious gun cases that carry jail time that exceeds 20 years down to probation. Even to gang members and those with long criminal histories. It’s sickening.
What a novel idea: enforce the laws Congress has already passed. Why didn’t anyone think about this before??
If only people had said something before..
Suuuure, because we all know that the DOJ has our best interests at heart. Right?
“Suuuure, because we all know that the DOJ has our best interests at heart. Right?”
Of course not. However……
Government exists; it is reality. Like the man said, “You can’t win, you can’t break even, you can’t quit the game.”
Hotel California: You can check out whenever you want, but you can never leave.
“Hotel California: You can check out whenever you want, but you can never leave.”
There ya’ go.
NSSF cheers the national, state, county, local coordination of tyranny.
Who wins on the pro NFA34/GCA68 ticket? Who wants more database enforcement and less privacy?
Let’s go after “Prohibited Persons” and make the barrel even harder to get out of. You’re not in prison, but you also have no Right to self defense. Deal with it, criminal!
Land of the Free, Home of the Brave?
Department of Justice plus enforcing existing laws. Brilliant, why did nobody make the connection sooner?
And exactly how would you go about enforcing laws like mag bans that literally millions of otherwise law abiding people ignore, or figure out ways around them?
“And exactly how would you go about enforcing laws like mag bans that literally millions of otherwise law abiding people ignore, or figure out ways around them?”
If you don’t want existing laws enforced in place of new impotent laws, one must abandon the mantra that demands enforcing existing laws rather than creating new ones.
Enforce, don’t enforce. Either is fine, just be honest and consistent.
https://nationalgunrights.org/resources/news/attorney-general-barr-announces-project-gestapo-gun-control-initiative/ Might want to check this out. Are they sliding things under the table? You decide.
Depending on which laws they choose to enforce (and there is definitely such a thing as selective enforcement), that can be good or bad. What keeps some guy with a 10 1/2 shot magazine in Commieland from getting a four year scholarship to Pen State?
Yup, enforce existing laws and focus enforcement on the worst offenders, repeat offenders, career criminal scum. Simple math, biggest bang for your policing buck.
And ….. because it is the second story on the topic, it ain’t a new idea. Feds, States, Counties and Cities have teamed up like this before plenty of times. It works, but they lose interest and the budgets get strained. So they quit.
They quit focusing on the worst bad guys and they quit enforcing existing laws? Um, shouldn’t that be the normal thing they do all the time???
Why would the NSSF support unconstitutional ‘laws’ being enforced? It is specifically because of those ‘laws’ that We The People are having the problems we are currently. Shall not be infringed means precisely that which was originally written.
More idiots. First there should not be any gun laws!!! No enforcement necessary. Second illegal and legal drugs are killing more people than people with guns, including suicides, so don’t piss on my leg and try to convince me it’s raining. Btw the laws on drugs are both states and federal that clearly prohibit owning, using, and selling of same. Idiots.