19 Attorneys General Opposing DOJ Gun Confiscation Program

19 attorneys general are opposing the Biden Administration's "red flag" gun confiscation program and are urging the DOJ to scrap it. 

I have personal experience with California's "red flag" law brought on through a restraining order by a vindictive ex-girlfriend. It was dismissed during a court hearing as I had proof that there was no basis for the restraining order.

According to the Highland County Press:

COLUMBUS – Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and 18 other state attorneys general are opposing a new federal program that promotes aggressive enforcement of “red flag” gun-confiscation laws.

Yost and his counterparts argue in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland that the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, launched in March by the Department of Justice, undermines the Second Amendment and other fundamental rights in a flawed attempt to reduce gun violence.

“The solution to gun violence is not more bureaucracy, and it is certainly not parting otherwise law-abiding men and women from their right to self-defense,” Yost said.

The state attorneys general raise several concerns with the ERPO Resource Center, most notably how the program advocates for laws that allow government officials to “suspend fundamental rights under the Second Amendment with no genuine due process."

So-called “red flag” laws permit authorities to seek court orders authorizing the confiscation of firearms from people thought to pose a danger. Twenty-one states have enacted such laws; Ohio is not among them.

Another issue is whether the DOJ had authority to create the program in the first place. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, cited by the department as the impetus for the ERPO Resource Center, makes no mention of such a program. In fact, the letter says, that funding from the 2022 federal law was supposed to go to states and local governments.

To read more, go here. 

Protecting Privacy In Purchases Act Introduced

Protecting Privacy In Purchases Act has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Richard Hudson of North Carolina and Andy Barr of Kentucky. 

This act, if passed into law, will prevent credit card companies and banks from tracking gun and ammunition purchases.

My last two gun purchases were by cash. It's nobody's damn business what I buy.

The Highland County Press reported:

Restricting use of a merchant category code to track transactions for firearms and ammunition sales has been proposed by Republican U.S. Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Richard Hudson of North Carolina and Andy Barr of Kentucky.

The implementation of the MCC, as it is commonly known, happened in September 2022 by the International Organization for Standardization. Visa, Mastercard and American Express paused the implementation, and Hudson said he’s questioned it from the outset.

A release from Hudson says the proposal would “preempt California’s newest attempt to single out and surveil law-abiding firearm and ammunition owners.” News broke last week that American Express, Visa and Mastercard would go forward and track gun store purchases in the state.

In a release, Lawrence G. Keane, National Shooting Sports Federation senior vice president and general counsel for the Firearm Industry Trade Association, said, “The Biden administration has already proven they cannot be trusted to respect the private firearm transactions of law-abiding citizens. Without a warrant, federal agencies collected financial information on private firearm and ammunition transactions to create an illegal government watchlist of gun owners. Representative Elise Stefanik’s legislation would rein in federal overreach to use the private financial transactions of law-abiding citizens against them for political means.”

Stefanik said such tracking is a violation of constitutional rights.

To read more, go here.