Biden withdraws David Chipman’s nomination to head ATF

Chipman faced widespread opposition from Senate Republicans, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calling his gun policy views “extreme” and saying he is “unsuited enough” for the role.

https://www.axios.com/biden-withdraw-david-chipman-nomination-atf-guns-9605d8a6-318d-4ea4-8270-fca142c2f029.html

The Biden administration will withdraw the nomination of David Chipman to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives after bipartisan pushback, the Washington Post reports.

Driving the news: President Biden nominated Chipman, a gun control advocate, in April to head the agency, which has not had a permanent director since 2015 and is considered a force within the federal government to combat gun violence.

  • Chipman has served as a senior policy adviser at Giffords, a group led by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) that advocates for stricter gun laws.
  • He previously worked for the ATF as a special agent for two decades.

State of play: Some Democratic senators, including Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.), have said they remain undecided on the nomination. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) told the Biden administration that he was not supportive.

  • Chipman faced widespread opposition from Senate Republicans, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell calling his gun policy views “extreme” and saying he is “unsuited enough” for the role.
  • The White House did not immediately respond to Axios’ request for comment.

Biden Administration Bans Importation of Russian Ammunition

Biden Administration Bans Importation of Russian Ammunition

AUGUST 22, 2021 : NRA-ILA

The Biden Administration’s Department of State announced that it will soon prohibit the importation of Russian ammunition into the United States. According to a release on the Department of State’s website, “[n]ew and pending permit applications for the permanent importation of firearms and ammunition manufactured or located in Russia will be subject to a policy of denial.”

While the new policy appears to prohibit the importation of both firearms and ammunition, the importation of Russian origin firearms was already heavily restricted under past executive policies. The primary effect of this new policy will be on Russian origin ammunition.

The State Department claims that it is imposing these “sanctions on the Russian Federation over its use of a “Novichok” nerve agent in the August 2020 poisoning of Russian opposition figure Aleksey Navalny.” While that may be a viable reason for the United States government to sanction the Russian Federation, the ammunition import restriction seems more aimed at punishing American gun owners and businesses than as a foreign policy tool to influence the Russian Federation.

Ammunition exports to the United States are only a small percentage of the GDP of the Russian Federation, but Russian origin ammo makes up a large part of the American ammunition supply. American gun owners were already suffering from a market where demand was exceeding available supply. This new move by the Biden Administration will severely worsen the present supply problems.

The release goes on to note that the new policy:

will take effect upon the publication of a Federal Register notice expected on September 7, 2021, and they will remain in place for a minimum of 12 months. The sanctions can only be lifted after a 12-month period if the Executive Branch determines and certifies to Congress that Russia has met several conditions . . . including (1) providing reliable assurances that it will not use chemical weapons in violation of international law, (2) it is not making preparations to use chemical weapons in the future, (3) it is willing to allow international inspectors to verify those assurances, and (4) it is making restitution to Mr. Navalny.

While this delayed implementation date may seem to make a rush to approve new ammunition shipments possible, it’s not clear that ATF will provide any type of rush approval for the Form 6s necessary to lawfully import ammunition into the United States. These forms often take six or more weeks to get approved, so ATF delays may prevent any new shipments being approved for importation.

It appears that importers will be able to continue to import ammunition that was already approved prior to the publication of the notice in the Federal Register. That ammunition will likely be rapidly consumed due to present demand for ammunition in the United States.

The full effect of this new policy will likely not be realized for a few months, but it will certainly lead to more ammunition shortages, higher prices, and therefore fewer Americans excising their fundamental rights. It may also result in the shuttering of American small businesses that rely heavily on the importation of Russian ammunition. All of this is of course by design for the Biden Administration.

We will continue to keep all NRA members informed of this newest overreach by President Biden on his crusade against law-abiding American gun owners. NRA is reviewing all political, legislative, and legal options to fight this new policy.

Joe Biden Admits He Wants 9mm Pistols Banned

‘I’m Continuing To Push To Eliminate The Sale Of’ Things Like ‘9mm Pistol,’

CNN Town Hall: Joe Biden Suggests a 9mm Pistol Ban

https://newsbinding.com/news/cnn-town-hall-joe-biden-suggests-a-9mm-pistol-ban/

07-21-2021
During his Wednesday night CNN town hall, President Joe Biden talked about a “push to eliminate” 9mm pistols that have an ammunition capacity beyond that of which the left approves.

Biden said, “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a 9mm pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things.”

Up until now, Biden has pushed “assault weapons” ban legislation and moved executively to have the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) take regulatory action against AR-pistols with stabilizer braces.

On June 7, 2021, Breitbart News reported the DOJ moved to place certain AR-pistols under the purview of the National Firearms Act. But those AR-pistols are chambered in 5.56 or .223, not 9mm. Biden’s mention of going after 9mm pistols opens the door to regulating wildly popular Glock, Heckler & Koch, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer, Kahr, Taurus, and Springfield Armory pistols, among many others.


Biden: ‘I’m Continuing To Push To Eliminate The Sale Of’ Things Like ‘9mm Pistol,’ ‘Rifle’

https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-biden-indicates-he-wants-to-ban-the-sale-of-handguns

Jul 22, 2021   DailyWire.com

President Joe Biden suggested during a CNN town hall on Wednesday night that he is pushing to eliminate the sale of high-capacity pistols and rifles.

“I’m the only guy that ever got — passed legislation when I was a senator to make sure we eliminated assault weapons,” Biden said. “The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a, whether it’s a 9mm pistol or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous.”

“I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things, but I’m not likely to get that done in the near term,” Biden added.

TRANSCRIPT:

QUESTION: So how will you address gun violence from a federal point of view to actually bring about change and make our local cities safer?

BIDEN: Now, I’m not being a wise guy, there’s no reason you [inaudible], have you seen my gun violence legislation I’ve introduced? As you know, because you’re so involved, actually, crime is down. Gun violence and murder rates are up. Guns. I’m the only guy that ever got passed, legislation when I was a senator, to make sure we eliminated assault weapons. The idea you need a weapon that can have the ability to fire 20, 30, 40, 50, 120 shots from that weapon, whether it’s a, whether it’s a 9mm pistol, or whether it’s a rifle, is ridiculous. I’m continuing to push to eliminate the sale of those things. But I’m not likely to get that done in the near term. So, here’s what I’ve done. The people who, in fact, are using those weapons are acquiring them illegally, illegally. And so what happens is, I’ve gotten ATF, Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I have them increase their budget and increase their capacity along with the Justice Department to go after the gun shops that are not abiding by the law of doing background checks. For real, that’s number one. Number two, number two, we are in a position where you, most of the cities, and I don’t know enough, I think you’ve had a lot of gun violence here in Cincinnati, I think it was up to what, how many, how many dead? 500 over a period? Don’t hold me to the number, whatever it was. But my point is all across the country. And it’s not because the gun shops in the cities are selling these guns. They are either shadow gun dealers and or gun shops that are not abiding by the law. So we’re going to do major investigations and shut those guys down and put some of them in jail and for what they’re doing, selling these weapons. There’s also a thing called ghost guns that are being sold now and being used. And so but in addition to that, what we have to do is we have to deal with a larger problem of the whole issue of law enforcement generally, we’re in a situation where as much as we need to pass the Floyd Act and all that, but here’s the deal. Cops are having real trouble. They’re not all bad guys, there are a lot of good guys. We need more policemen, not fewer policemen. But we need them involved in community policing, community policing. And when we did that, violent crime went down, all the criticism about the original crime, but guess what, crime went down until we stopped doing community policing. So it’s about getting, we have availability now, of over, billion, lots of money, for cops to be able to hire psychologists, psychiatrists, as well as social workers to be engaged in the process.

DailyWire.com – Jul 22, 2021

Texas Supreme Court Rules Gun Store Can’t Be Sued for Selling Gun Under Law Biden Wants To Eliminate

Friday’s ruling was a major victory for gun-rights advocates. It’s also a dire warning: If the Biden administration is allowed to repeal the PLCAA, it doesn’t need to change the Constitution or overturn landmark Second Amendment rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller to implement the kind of gun control it wants.

C. Douglas Golden, The Western Journal
June 27, 2021

On Friday, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the San Antonio-area store couldn’t be sued by victims of the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas mass shooting because the store was protected by the PLCAA when it sold a Ruger AR-556 rifle, an additional 30-round magazine and ammunition to a Colorado man who allegedly killed 26 individuals at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. The shooter later killed himself during a police chase.

According to The Associated Press, Devin Kelley purchased the rifle with a Colorado ID from Academy Sports and Outdoors in 2016. While he should have been precluded from buying the gun after a bad conduct discharge from the U.S. Air Force in 2014 after he was court-martialed in 2012 for abusing his wife and stepson and served 12 months confinement, the AP reported, the Air Force failed to notify the FBI of the conviction.

Trending: Biden on Chauvin Sentence: ‘Seems To Be Appropriate’
However, the plaintiffs in four lawsuits against the store claimed Academy Sports and Outdoors wasn’t protected under the PLCAA because Kelley provided the store with a Colorado ID, the AP reported. Under the federal Gun Control Act, they alleged that meant Academy had to comply with both Colorado and Texas gun laws — and in Colorado, magazines that hold more than 14 rounds are banned.

Two lower courts allowed the lawsuits to go ahead. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled unanimously that PLCAA protections applied to Academy since the Gun Control Act narrowly applies to the sale of firearms only.

“Indeed, although the transaction between Academy and Kelley on April 7, 2016, encompassed the sale of two Magpul large-capacity magazines — one packaged as a stand-alone product and one packaged with the Ruger AR-556 rifle — the plaintiffs do not contend that the sale of the stand-alone magazine along with the rifle rendered the transaction unlawful even though it could not have taken place legally in Colorado,” wrote Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra Lehrmann in her opinion.

“And the statutory text does not allow us to treat the magazine packaged with the rifle any differently. Plaintiffs essentially seek to rewrite [the law] to apply to ‘the sale or delivery of any rifle and any bundled component parts.’ This we cannot do.

“In sum, the sale of the Ruger AR-556 rifle to Kelley complied with the legal conditions of sale in both Texas and Colorado. Because the Gun Control Act did not regulate the sale of the magazines, the Colorado law prohibiting their sale was immaterial.”

Lehrmann also noted that “[l]itigation against the Air Force for failing to collect, handle, and report the required information is ongoing in federal court.”

Academy’s lawyers called it a “landmark” decision, according to The Texas Tribune.

“Our thoughts and prayers continue for the victims of this tragedy,” the lawyers said. “We feel the entire Supreme Court opinion applied the law carefully and thoughtfully in this situation.”


Back in February, on the third anniversary of the Parkland, Florida, high school shooting, President Joe Biden announced three major gun control initiatives he wanted to pursue, including “eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

That empurpled language was code for repealing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields firearm manufacturers and retailers for gun crimes committed with weapons that were legally produced or purchased. Of the three legislative proposals he floated, this was the one that raised the least alarm among gun rights advocates, with universal background checks and bans on so-called “assault weapons” and “high-capacity magazines” getting a lot more play.

And yet, repealing the PLCAA would be the most pernicious of the three. If you don’t believe me, just ask the owners of Academy Sports and Outdoors.

In terms of setting precedent that the maze of regulations blue states continue to impose on magazines, ammunition and other firearm accessories aren’t covered under the reciprocity provisions of the Gun Control Act, yes, the decision the decision Friday could end up being more important inasmuch as it illustrates what would happen if Democrats were to repeal the PLCAA.

During an April 8 speech on his gun control executive orders, Biden claimed “the only industry in America, a billion-dollar industry, that can’t be sued, has exempt from being sued, are gun manufacturers.”

“Imagine how different it would be had that same exemption been available to tobacco companies, who knew and lied about the danger they were causing, the cancer caused and the like,” the president said, according to a Rev.com transcript.

“Imagine where we’d be. But this is the only outfit that is exempt from being sued. If I get one thing on my list, the Lord came down and said, ‘Joe, you get one of these.’ Give me that one, because I tell you what, there would be a come-to-the-Lord moment these folks would have real quickly. But they’re not, they’re not, they’re exempt.”

First, consider what an admission that is. Democrats have wanted — yearned for — the return of a ban on so-called “assault weapons” since the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired in 2004. They’ve been clamoring for universal background checks since time immemorial.

Yet, if divine intervention gave Joe Biden one of the things on his checklist, he’d ask for legislation that would allow people to sue firearms manufacturers — in other words, the repeal of the PLCAA. It’s not difficult to figure out why.

If the PLCAA were to be repealed, firearms dealers would also have to receive some protection from the Democrats who would, presumably, be the motive factor behind killing the law. You have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa alive and well and and managing a Baltimore-area Quiznos.

In 2021, the easiest way to hollow out our Second Amendment rights is to repeal legal protections for everyone in the industry and subject gun manufacturers and firearms dealers to death by a thousand nuisance-lawsuit paper cuts.

Friday’s ruling was a major victory for gun-rights advocates. It’s also a dire warning: If the Biden administration is allowed to repeal the PLCAA, it doesn’t need to change the Constitution or overturn landmark Second Amendment rulings like District of Columbia v. Heller to implement the kind of gun control it wants.

All it needs is enough greedy lawyers and enough partisan juries.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.

Supreme Court: Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of ‘Community Caretaking’

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “community caretaking” does not allow police to enter and search a home without a warrant.

SCOTUS Rules Police Cannot Search Homes Without Warrants in the Name of ‘Community Caretaking’

MAY 17, 2021

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Monday that an exception to the Fourth Amendment for “community caretaking” does not allow police to enter and search a home without a warrant.

The “community caretaking” exception originated from a 1973 case, Cady v. Dombrowski, in which an officer took a gun out of an impounded car without a warrant. The Supreme Court ruled at the time that police can conduct such warrantless searches if they are performing “community caretaking functions” in a “reasonable” manner.

Monday’s ruling, in the case Caniglia v. Strom, centered on whether that exception also justifies warrantless searches of homes. In a 9-0 ruling, the court decided that it does not.

While Cady recognized that police perform “many civil tasks” in modern society, the “recognition that these tasks exist” is not “an open-ended license to perform them anywhere,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in the majority opinion. “The Fourth Amendment protects ‘[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,’” he continued.

(As Justice Samuel Alito noted in his concurrence, Monday’s ruling does not apply to another Fourth Amendment exception known as the “exigent circumstances” exception, which allows police to enter homes without a warrant to help “an injured occupant or to protect an occupant from imminent injury.’”)

“Perhaps not coincidentally, the Court’s unanimous ruling comes at a time of national debate over whether we should dial back the scope of police activities and only use them for actual law-enforcement purposes,” said Clark Neily, senior vice president for criminal justice at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute, which had filed a brief urging the court to agreed with Caniglia. “This represents a welcome, albeit unusual, refusal on the justices’ part to give the government greater leeway in conducting warrantless searches of people’s homes and personal effects.”

The suit was filed by a Rhode Island man, Edward Caniglia, after police officers searched his home and seized two handguns without a warrant in 2015. During an argument with his wife, Caniglia had placed a handgun on the dining room table and asked her to “shoot [him] and get it over with.” His wife left and spent the night elsewhere, and after not being able to reach him the next day, called the police. The police found Caniglia on his porch; he denied he was suicidal but agreed to go to the hospital for psychiatric evaluation “on the condition that the officers would not confiscate his firearms,” according to Monday’s opinion.

The police did so anyway after he left.

Caniglia later sued the officers, arguing that the search and seizure violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The officers argued that their actions were legal because they believed Caniglia was suicidal. The District Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the police, ruling that the search counted as “community caretaking”—and that Cady had extended to both cars and homes.

A nonpartisan coalition of civil liberty advocates had worried that a similar Supreme Court ruling could have created a potentially dangerous precedent. The American Civil Liberties Union and the American Conservative Union Foundation had joined the Cato Institute to file a joint brief urging the court to keep the community caretaking exception “confined to its historic vehicle-related origins” and reject a broader standard that “would give police free rein to enter the home without probable cause or a warrant.”

On Monday, the Supreme Court did just that, ruling that neither “the holding nor logic” of Cady justified the police’s actions.

Biden’s 6 executive orders on gun control

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd speaks on Biden’s gun control actions . . .

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd on Biden’s gun control actions.

Things to note in Biden’s gun control measures contained in the article below:

  • “a public health crisis”
  • “epidemic of gun violence”
  • “homemade guns”
  • “ghost guns”
  • “pistol-stabilizing braces”
  • “red flag” laws
  • David Chipman” adviser at the gun control group Giffords

Biden announces 6 executive orders on gun control

Thursday, April 8, 2021 :: By Alexandra Jaffe, Aamer Madhani and Michael Balsamo, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden, in his first gun control measures since taking office, announced a half-dozen executive actions Thursday aimed at addressing a proliferation of gun violence across the nation that he called an “epidemic and an international embarrassment.”

“It is actually a public health crisis,” Biden said during remarks at the White House.

Greeting the families of gun violence victims and activists, he assured them: “We’re absolutely determined to make change.”

His Thursday announcement delivers on a pledge Biden made last month to take what he termed immediate “common-sense steps” to address gun violence, after a series of mass shootings drew renewed attention to the issue. His announcement came the same day as yet another shooting, this one in South Carolina, where five people were killed.

But Thursday’s announcement underscores the limitations of Biden’s executive power to act on guns. They include moves to tighten regulations on homemade guns and provide more resources for gun-violence prevention, but fall far short of the sweeping gun-control agenda Biden laid out on the campaign trail.

Indeed, the White House has repeatedly emphasized the need for legislative action to tackle the issue. But while the House passed a background-check bill last month, gun control measures face slim prospects in an evenly divided Senate, where Republicans remain near-unified against most proposals.

Biden is tightening regulations of buyers of “ghost guns” – homemade firearms that usually are assembled from parts and milled with a metal-cutting machine and often lack serial numbers used to trace them. It’s legal to build a gun in a home or a workshop and there is no federal requirement for a background check. The goal is to “help stop the proliferation of these firearms,” according to the White House.

The Justice Department will issue a proposed rule aimed at reining in ghost guns within 30 days, though details of the rule weren’t immediately issued.

A second proposed rule, expected within 60 days, will tighten regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces, like the one used by the Boulder, Colorado, shooter in a rampage last month that left 10 dead. The rule will designate pistols used with stabilizing braces as short-barreled rifles, which require a federal license to own and are subject to a more thorough application process and a $200 tax.

The department also is publishing model legislation within 60 days that is intended to make it easier for states to adopt their own “red flag” laws. Such laws allow for individuals to petition a court to allow the police to confiscate weapons from a person deemed to be a danger to themselves or others.

The department also will begin to provide more data on firearms trafficking, starting with a new comprehensive report on the issue. The administration says that hasn’t been done in more than two decades.

Biden is also nominating David Chipman, a former federal agent and adviser at the gun control group Giffords, to be director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The Biden administration will also make investments in community violence intervention programs, which are aimed at reducing gun violence in urban communities, across five federal agencies.

Officials said the executive actions were “initial steps” completed during Garland’s first weeks on the job and more may be coming.

The ATF is currently run by an acting director, Regina Lombardo. Gun-control advocates have emphasized the significance of this position in enforcing gun laws, and Chipman is certain to win praise from this group. During his time as a senior policy adviser with Giffords, he spent considerable effort pushing for greater regulation and enforcement on ghost guns, changes to the background check system and measures to reduce the trafficking of illegal firearms.

Chipman spent 25 years as an agent at the ATF, where he worked on stopping a trafficking ring that sent illegal firearms from Virginia to New York, and served on the ATF’s SWAT team. Chipman is a gun owner.

He is an explosives expert and was among the team involved in investigating the Oklahoma City bombing and the first World Trade Center bombing. He also was involved in investigating a series of church bombings in Alabama in the 1990s. He retired from the ATF in 2012.

During his campaign, Biden promised to prioritize new gun control measures as president, including enacting universal background check legislation, banning online sales of firearms and the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. But gun-control advocates have said that while they were heartened by signs from the White House that they took the issue seriously, they’ve been disappointed by the lack of early action.

With the announcement of the new measures, however, advocates lauded Biden’s first moves to combat gun violence.

“Each of these executive actions will start to address the epidemic of gun violence that has raged throughout the pandemic, and begin to make good on President Biden’s promise to be the strongest gun safety president in history,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Biden’s Gun Control By Executive Order

Anti-gun Senators and Mayors Push Biden on Executive Gun Controls

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd speaks on Joe Biden’s gun control proposal.

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd on Biden’s gun control proposals.

Anti-gun Senators and Mayors Push Biden on Executive Gun Controls

NRA-ILA :: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021

Following a year filled with the COVID-19 pandemic and widespread civil unrest, Americans are in no rush to enact further gun controls. According to data from a January Gallup poll, 42 percent of Americans are satisfied with the current gun control laws. The poll also found that 9 percent of Americans are dissatisfied with current firearms laws, but want them to be made less strict. Therefore, according to the survey, a majority of Americans (51 percent) either want gun control laws to remain the same or to be made less restrictive.

Sensing a dearth of popular support for their gun control schemes, anti-gun politicians are urging President Joe Biden to act unilaterally to restrict firearms. This week, a group of 12 Senate Democrats led by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Biden that urged the president to nominate a permanent director to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and empower them to enact a raft of executive gun control measures. In a similar vein, a group of big-city mayors that included Chicago’s Lori Lightfoot penned a CNN opinion piece that called on the president to attack gun rights through executive action.

According to the Senators’ letter, “the next Director of the ATF must be committed to enacting policies that will allow the agency to fulfill its mission to protect communities and combat gun violence.” According to the group, in order to do this the next director must adopt the following priorities: 

1. Implement regulations to stop the proliferation of ghost guns.

2. Issue a new regulation clarifying which gun sellers must get dealer licenses and run

background checks.

3. Modernize, strengthen, and prioritize oversight of the gun industry.

4. Ensure public transparency by disseminating robust statistical data.

5. Update critical reports and develop new ways to affirmatively share information about

gun trafficking and the source of crime guns.

6. Require FFLs to notify the Department of Justice every time they complete a gun sale

where a background check has been initiated but not completed to ensure the

prioritization of completing background checks where a sale has been made.

Some of the items are vague, but others directly correspond to policies that have repeatedly been rejected by the American public through their elected representatives.

The first item on the anti-gun senators’ wish list would restrict Americans’ right to make their own firearms for personal use by further regulating unfinished frames and receivers.

Concerning these items, the current federal statute and regulations are clear. Federal law defines a “firearm” to include “any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” and “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” In the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), “firearm frame or receiver” is further defined as “That part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.”

In order to target unfinished frames and receivers, ATF would likely attempt to broaden the definition of “firearm frame or receiver” in the CFR. Such a change is inadvisable and would at the very least require a formal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act.

By targeting the materials Americans use to make their own firearms, ATF would be striking at the core of the Second Amendment right in a manner that has no basis in the text, history, and tradition of the right. Since long before the founding, Americans have enjoyed the right to make their own firearms for personal use without government interference. 

The second wish list item is something of an Obama-era retread. Having failed to criminalize the private transfer of firearms by means of legislation in 2013, in 2015 the Obama administration explored restricting the private transfer of firearms through executive action.

Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)) provides,

(a) It shall be unlawful–

(1) for any person–

(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or

Therefore, a person may not “engage in the business” of dealing firearms without a Federal Firearms License. Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), of course, are required to consult the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) before transferring a firearm to a non-dealer.

The term “engaged in the business,” as it pertains to firearms dealers, is defined by statute (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(21)) as,

a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

Notice that the language does not contain a specific number of firearm sales or transfers that triggers the definition of “engaged in the business.” The language in the definition was carefully crafted to exempt individuals selling and trading firearms in and out of their private collections, no matter the frequency or volume. Rather, it is when a person sells firearms “as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” that a person must obtain Federal Firearms License.

Enacting this statutory definition of “engaged in the business” was a key component of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. Prior to FOPA, ATF had targeted private individuals at gun shows who sold a few firearms out of their private collections on multiple occasions.

In the end, the Obama administration correctly determined that they did not have the authority to limit the private transfer of firearms by executive fiat. Instead, the administration issued a 15-page guidance document that summarized existing law concerning firearms dealing.

Though vague, wish list items four and five appear targeted at the Tiahrt Amendment. This important piece of legislation restricts the dissemination of certain law enforcement data on firearms traces. Prior to the Tiahrt Amendment, the often-misleading data had been abused by gun control advocates to push gun control measures and attack the firearms industry.

Further, the release of this sensitive data had the potential to imperial law enforcement officers. Writing in support of the Tiahrt Amendment, the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police explained “releasing sensitive information about pending cases can jeopardize the integrity of an investigation or even place the lives of undercover officers in danger.” Though the amendment restricts the dissemination of trace data, it does ensure law enforcement can access this information for legitimate investigative purposes.

Item six is an attempt to undermine the NICS’s three-day safety-valve provision by intimidating FFLs into not transferring a firearm even when they are permitted by law to do so.

Under federal law, if a NICS check is delayed for further research and the FBI’s NICS section is unable to determine that the prospective firearm transferee is prohibited from possessing firearms under federal or state law three business days after the check was initiated by a firearms dealer, the firearms transfer may proceed at the dealer’s option. This provision encourages the FBI to conduct NICS checks in an efficient manner and prevents the government from arbitrarily denying an individual their Second Amendment rights through an indefinite delay. According to the 2019 NICS Operations Report only 70 percent of NICS checks that year resulted in an “instant determination,” with the remaining 30 percent requiring some analysis or additional research. 

The proposed requirement that FFLs report lawful firearm transfers to the Department of Justice, who through ATF has control over their license, is an obvious attempt to bully gun dealers into cutting off this vital safety-valve. Moreover, there is no statutory language supporting such a scheme. 

In addition to Mayor Lightfoot, the CNN column was authored by United States Conference of Mayors (USCM) President and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, and Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott. In the piece, the mayors offered a vaguer call for executive action than their more sophisticated federal allies, but explicitly demanded action on “ghost guns” and “strengthening the background check system.”

As the piece pointed out, the mayors are all members of finance tycoon Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Moreover, the group contended that their anti-gun initiative was the result of the winter meeting of the USCM.

The USCM is a handgun prohibitionist organization. In June 1972, USCM adopted a policy resolution on handgun control that called for the abolition of private handgun ownership. The resolution stated,

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the United States Conference of Mayors takes a position of leadership and urges national legislation against the manufacture, importation, sale, and private possession of handguns, except for use by law enforcement personnel, military and sportsmen clubs;

In 2008, USCM joined with Legal Community Against Gun Violence (now Giffords) in a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court Case District of Columbia v. Heller that argued in favor of upholding Washington, D.C.’s unconstitutional handgun ban. 

It is unsurprising that members of a group that believes the Second Amendment does not constrain their power to enact gun control would believe that the U.S. Constitution and federal law should not constrain President Biden’s.

In late 2015, Obama tasked his White House with doing everything within their lawful authority to pursue gun control through executive action. Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz said of Obama’s administrative gun control efforts, “he has asked his team to scrub existing legal authorities to see if there’s any additional action we can take administratively…The President has made clear he’s not satisfied with where we are, and expects that work to be completed soon.” In remarks announcing the new actions, Obama stated “we’re going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the books…”Further, a press release that accompanied the announcement of these measures, stated, “The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence.”

The executive branch has not been granted further power to regulate firearms since the Obama administration “scrub[bed]” the law for avenues to attack gun owners by presidential fiat. The measures advanced by this anti-gun cadre of U.S. Senators and mayors are willful perversions of federal law that NRA stands ready to oppose.

New House Bill Takes Aim At Second Amendment Rights

H.R. 127 – Hannibal is at the gates

FEB 10, 2021https://www.larslarson.com/a-new-house-bill-could-take-aim-at-your-second-amendment-rights/

H.R. 127 sponsored by Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee

H.R. 127 sponsored by Rep. Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX), released on 1/28/21 could be a major threat to your second amendment rights if it makes its way to law. This awful infringement on your rights would do the following:

  • Impose Licensing of Firearms and Ammunition for Possession of any firearm or ammunition.
  • Impose an additional license to DISPLAY  an Antique Firearm in the HOME.
  • Impose an additional license for Possession of  “Military Style Weapons.”
  • Impose mandated Firearm Liability INSURANCE with a yearly fee of $800 payable to the US Attorney General.
  • Impose a detailed Federal Firearm Registration System to which THE PUBLIC, all Federal, State and Local law enforcement, all governments, and all branches of the US Armed Forces has complete access.

Lars Larson’s interview with Dr. John Lott of the Crime Research Prevention Center below . . .

Lars Larson’s interview with Dr. John Lott of the Crime Research Prevention Center – FEB 10, 2021

Biden Calls for Gun Reform On Anniversary of Parkland Shooting

“Biden may become the most antigun president in American history.”

Joe Biden calls for tighter laws governing guns.

By VOA News
February 14, 2021

“Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.”

Joe Biden

On the third anniversary of a school shooting that left 17 people dead, U.S. President Joe Biden called for tighter laws governing guns.

Sunday marks the third anniversary of a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida that killed 14 students and three staff members. Another 17 people were injured. The tragedy turned some survivors into household names across America as they fought for safer schools and stronger gun control laws.

“Our hearts are with everyone in the community today and every day,” March for Our Lives, the organization started by student survivors of the 2018 attack, wrote on Twitter.

In a statement released Sunday, Biden lauded the efforts of survivors and activists from Parkland to call for better gun laws.

“This Administration will not wait for the next mass shooting to heed that call,” the statement read.

Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

Despite a history of mental health problems and threatening behavior, Nikolas Cruz, the 19-year-old shooter in Parkland, was able to buy an AR-15-style, semi-automatic rifle, which he used to open fire on students and teachers at the school, police say.

Now 22, Cruz awaits trial, which has been delayed in part because of the coronavirus pandemic. Prosecutors have stated they would seek the death penalty. Cruz confessed to the crimes and his lawyers have said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence.

Support for stricter gun laws typically breaks down along political party lines with Republicans advocating for gun rights and Democrats seeking more gun control measures. Public support for new regulation waxes and wanes. In a Gallup poll conducted in the fall of 2020, 57% of Americans said they supported stricter gun laws, down 7 percentage points from the prior year and down 10 percentage points from 2018, the year of the Parkland shooting.

In 2019, legislation that had bipartisan support in the House to increase background checks for gun purchases stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Many Republicans and some Democrats have been reluctant to support measures that would make it more difficult to purchase firearms or outlaw some types of guns, citing the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which says in part that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But on Sunday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she hopes to try again.

“We will enact these and other life-saving bills and deliver the progress that the Parkland community and the American people deserve and demand,” she said in a statement.

National Rifle Association spokeswoman Amy Hunter told the Wall Street Journal that Biden “may become the most antigun president in American history.”

Meanwhile in Parkland, parents of victims continue to work to pressure Congress to pass gun control reforms.

Manuel Oliver, whose son Joaquin was killed in the 2018 shooting, is organizing the sending of “shame cards” to members of Congress, which highlight how gun violence has continued to affect communities across the United States.

Firearm Licensing and Registration – Sabika Sheikh Act : H.R. 127

A bill now proposed in the 2021, 117th Congress for consideration and voting – Firearm and Ammunition Licensing

H.R.127 – Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127/text

A BILL

To provide for the licensing of firearm and ammunition possession and the registration of firearms, and to prohibit the possession of certain ammunition.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Sabika Sheikh Firearm Licensing and Registration Act”.

SEC. 2. LICENSING OF FIREARM AND AMMUNITION POSSESSION; REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS.

(a) Firearm Licensing And Registration System.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“§ 932. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms

“(a) In General.—The Attorney General, through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, shall establish a system for licensing the possession of firearms or ammunition in the United States, and for the registration with the Bureau of each firearm present in the United States.

“(b) Firearm Registration System.—

“(1) REQUIRED INFORMATION.—Under the firearm registration system, the owner of a firearm shall transmit to the Bureau—

“(A) the make, model, and serial number of the firearm, the identity of the owner of the firearm, the date the firearm was acquired by the owner, and where the firearm is or will be stored; and

“(B) a notice specifying the identity of any person to whom, and any period of time during which, the firearm will be loaned to the person.

“(2) DEADLINE FOR SUPPLYING INFORMATION.—The transmission required by paragraph (1) shall be made—

“(A) in the case of a firearm acquired before the effective date of this section, within 3 months after the effective date of this section; or

“(B) in the case of a firearm acquired on or after the effective date, on the date the owner acquires the firearm.

“(3) DATABASE.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall establish and maintain a database of all firearms registered pursuant to this subsection.

“(B) ACCESS.—The Attorney General shall make the contents of the database accessible to all members of the public, all Federal, State, and local law enforcement authorities, all branches of the United States Armed Forces, and all State and local governments, as defined by the Bureau.

“(c) Licensing System.—

“(1) REQUIREMENTS.—

“(A) GENERAL LICENSE.—Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, the Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to possess a firearm and ammunition if the individual—

“(i) has attained 21 years of age;

“(ii) after applying for the license—

“(I) undergoes a criminal background check conducted by the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the check does not indicate that possession of a firearm by the individual would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law;

“(II) undergoes a psychological evaluation conducted in accordance with paragraph (2), and the evaluation does not indicate that the individual is psychologically unsuited to possess a firearm; and

“(III) successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 24 hours of training; and

“(iii) demonstrates that, on issuance of the license, the individual will have in effect an insurance policy issued under subsection (d).

“(B) ANTIQUE FIREARM DISPLAY LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to display an antique firearm in a residence of the individual if the individual—

“(i) is the holder of a license issued under subparagraph (A);

“(ii) supplies proof that the individual owns an antique firearm;

“(iii) describes the manner in which the firearm will be displayed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, and certifies that the firearm will be so displayed; and

“(iv) demonstrates that the individual has provided for storage of the firearm in a safe or facility approved by the Attorney General for the storage of firearms.

“(C) MILITARY-STYLE WEAPONS LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall issue to an individual a license to own and possess a military-style weapon if the individual—

“(i) is the holder of a license issued under subparagraph (A); and

“(ii) after applying for a license under this subparagraph, successfully completes a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of the weapon, that includes at least 24 hours of training and live fire training.

“(2) PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION.—A psychological evaluation is conducted in accordance with this paragraph if—

“(A) the evaluation is conducted in compliance with such standards as shall be established by the Attorney General;

“(B) the evaluation is conducted by a licensed psychologist approved by the Attorney General;

“(C) as deemed necessary by the licensed psychologist involved, the evaluation included a psychological evaluation of other members of the household in which the individual resides; and

“(D) as part of the psychological evaluation, the licensed psychologist interviewed any spouse of the individual, any former spouse of the individual, and at least 2 other persons who are a member of the family of, or an associate of, the individual to further determine the state of the mental, emotional, and relational stability of the individual in relation to firearms.

“(3) DENIAL OF LICENSE.—

“(A) REQUIRED.—The Attorney General shall deny such a license to an individual if—

“(i) the individual is prohibited by Federal law from possessing a firearm; or

“(ii) the individual has been hospitalized—

“(I) with a mental illness, disturbance, or diagnosis (including depression, homicidal ideation, suicidal ideation, attempted suicide, or addiction to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act) or alcohol), or a brain disease (including dementia or Alzheimer’s); or

“(II) on account of conduct that endangers self or others.

“(B) AUTHORIZED.—The Attorney General may deny such a license to an individual if—

“(i) the psychological evaluation referred to in paragraph (2) indicates that the individual—

“(I) has a chronic mental illness or disturbance, or a brain disease, referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I);

“(II) is addicted to a controlled substance (within the meaning of the Controlled Substances Act) or alcohol; or

“(III) has attempted to commit suicide; or

“(ii) prior psychological treatment or evaluation of the individual indicated that the individual engaged in conduct that posed a danger to self or others.

“(4) SUSPENSION OF LICENSE.—

“(A) IN GENERAL.—A license issued under this subsection to an individual who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year is hereby suspended.

“(B) AUTHORIZED FOR LACK OF FIREARM INSURANCE.—The Attorney General may suspend a license issued under this subsection to an individual who has violated section 922(dd) in the most recent 12-month period.

“(5) REVOCATION OF LICENSE.—A license issued under this subsection to an individual who is or becomes prohibited by Federal or State law from possessing a firearm is hereby revoked. Such an individual shall immediately return the license, and surrender all firearms and ammunition owned or possessed by the individual, to the Attorney General.

“(6) EXPIRATION OF LICENSE.—A license issued to an individual under this subsection shall expire—

“(A) in the case of a license that has been in effect for less than 5 years, 1 year after issuance or renewal, as the case may be; or

“(B) in the case of a license that has been in effect for at least 5 years, 3 years after the most recent date the license is renewed.

“(7) RENEWAL OF LICENSE.—The Attorney General shall renew a license issued to an individual under this subsection if the individual—

“(A) requests the renewal by the end of the 60-day period that begins with the date the license expires;

“(B) in the 3-year period ending with the date the renewal is requested—

“(i) has met the requirement of paragraph (1)(A)(ii)(II); and

“(ii) has successfully completed a training course, certified by the Attorney General, in the use, safety, and storage of firearms, that includes at least 8 hours of training;

“(C) meets the requirement of paragraph (1)(A)(iii); and

“(D) in the case of a license issued under paragraph (1)(C), in the 2-year period ending with the date the renewal is requested, has successfully completed a training course, certified by the Attorney General, that includes at least 8 hours of training in the use of the weapon subject to the license.

“(d) Firearm Insurance.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—The Attorney General shall issue to any person who has applied for a license pursuant to subsection (c) and has paid to the Attorney General the fee specified in paragraph (2) of this subsection a policy that insures the person against liability for losses and damages resulting from the use of any firearm by the person during the 1-year period that begins with the date the policy is issued.

“(2) FEE.—The fee specified in this paragraph is $800.”.

(2) MILITARY-STYLE WEAPON DEFINED.—Section 921(a) of such title is amended by inserting after paragraph (29) the following:

“(30) The term ‘military-style weapon’ means—

“(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as—

“(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

“(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

“(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC–70);

“(iv) Colt AR–15;

“(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

“(vi) SWD M–10, M–11, M–11/9, and M–12;

“(vii) Steyr AUG;

“(viii) INTRATEC TEC–9, TEC–DC9 and TEC–22; and

“(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

“(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

“(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(iii) a bayonet mount;

“(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

“(v) a grenade launcher;

“(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of—

“(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

“(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

“(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

“(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

“(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

“(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of—

“(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

“(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

“(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

“(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.”.

(3) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following:
“932. Licensing of firearm and ammunition possession; registration of firearms.”.

(4) DEADLINE FOR ESTABLISHMENT.—Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall prescribe final regulations to implement the amendments made by this subsection.

(b) Prohibitions; Penalties.—

(1) PROHIBITIONS.—Section 922 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(aa) It shall be unlawful for a person to possess a firearm or ammunition, unless—

“(1) the person is carrying a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1); and

“(2)(A) in the case of a firearm owned by the person, the firearm is registered to the person under section 932(b); or

“(B) in the case of a firearm owned by another person—

“(i) the firearm is so registered to such other person; and

“(ii) such other person has notified the Attorney General that the firearm has been loaned to the person, and the possession is during the loan period specified in the notice.

“(bb)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to transfer a firearm or ammunition to a person who is not licensed under section 932(c)(1).

“(2) It shall be unlawful for a person to sell or give a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the sale or gift.

“(3) It shall be unlawful for a person to loan a firearm or ammunition to another person unless the person has notified the Attorney General of the loan, including the identity of such other person and the period for which the loan is made.

“(4) It shall be unlawful for a person holding a valid license issued under section 932(c)(1) to transfer a firearm to an individual who has not attained 18 years of age.

“(cc) A person who possesses a firearm or to whom a license is issued under section 932(c)(1) shall have in effect an insurance policy issued under section 932(d).”.

(2) PENALTIES.—Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(8) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(aa) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both.

“(9)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $75,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 15 years, or both.

“(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(2) shall be fined not less than $30,000 and not more than $50,000, imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 10 years, or both.

“(C) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(3) shall be fined not less than $5,000 and not more than $10,000.

“(D) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(bb)(4) shall be fined not less than $75,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 15 years and not more than 25 years, or both, except that if the transferee of the firearm possess or uses the firearm during or in relation to a crime, an unintentional shooting, or suicide, the transferor shall be fined not less than $100,000 and not more than $150,000, imprisoned not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years, or both.

“(10) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(cc) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.”.

(3) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—

(A) ELIMINATION OF PROHIBITION ON ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRALIZED FIREARM REGISTRATION SYSTEM.—Section 926(a) of such title is amended by striking the 2nd sentence.

(B) APPLICABILITY TO GOVERNMENTAL AND MILITARY FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.—Section 925(a) of such title is amended in each of paragraphs (1) and (2), by inserting “and except for section 932,” after the 2nd comma.

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this subsection shall take effect on the date final regulations are prescribed under subsection (a)(4).

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF CERTAIN AMMUNITION.

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 2 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(dd)(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess ammunition that is 0.50 caliber or greater.

“(2)(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

“(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to—

“(i) the manufacture for, or possession by, the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or the possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);

“(ii) the possession by an employee or contractor of a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 on-site for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;

“(iii) the manufacture or possession by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Attorney General; or

“(iv) the manufacture for, or possession by, an organization that provides firearm training and that is registered with the Attorney General, or the possession by an individual to whom such an organization is providing firearm training during and at the location of the training.”.

(b) Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Defined.—Section 921(a) of such title, as amended by section 1 of this Act, is amended by inserting after paragraph (30) the following:

“(31) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’ means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition, but does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”.

(c) Penalties.—Section 924(a) of such title, as amended by section 2 of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“(11)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(1) shall be fined not less than $50,000 and not more than $100,000, imprisoned not less than 10 years and not more than 20 years, or both.

“(B) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(dd)(2) shall be fined not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000, imprisoned not less than 1 year and not more than 5 years, or both.”.