Categories
Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Born again Cynic! EVIL MF War

Politicians Are Scum By Will Dabbs, MD

The “Honorable” Andrew J. May
This is Congressman Andrew J. May. He was a card-carrying loser.

This is hands-down the most eventful election cycle of my lifetime. As I sit typing these words, one candidate was shot, and the other left the race because of senility … all in the course of eight days. I like to think of myself as a fairly creative guy, and even I could not make this stuff up.

One might be forgiven for believing the situation hopeless. Regardless of what side of the political fence upon which you might reside, everyone would likely acknowledge that our current crop of politicians comes with a spot of baggage. It’s enough to render a brother demoralized and wistful for the good old days.

Not so fast. While I do long for the purity and patriotism of wartime 1940s America, it seems that electing flaming idiots is a timeless problem. Back in 1943, one particularly ambitious moron killed a whole pile of U.S. submariners.

Everybody hates politicians. Andrew May was the reason.

The Guy

Andrew J. May was born in 1875 in Kentucky. A natural politician, May served as county attorney for Floyd County, Ky. from 1901 through 1909. Using that experience as a springboard, he landed a judgeship and, eventually, a seat in the U.S. Congress.

Congressman May hooked his wagon to Franklin D. Roosevelt. He was an ardent proponent of the New Deal. May was instrumental in passing the Social Security Act as well as the GI Bill of Rights. He was the primary author of the Peacetime Selective Service Act, which laid the foundation for the sweeping draft that was required to feed the massive American war machine during the early part of WWII. Up until this part in our tale, the Honorable Andrew J. May did indeed seem like an effective servant of the people.

I’ve known a handful of federal lawmakers, a couple of whom I saw in action up close. You cannot do that job for long and stay normal. They’re all disconnected from reality. Eventually, you start believing your own press releases. It is a hop, skip and jump from there over to pure, unfettered narcissism. Andrew May leapt in with both feet.

Never Trust a Politician with Anything Important

In 1943, Congressman May was head of the Military Affairs Committee. In this capacity, he toured American military installations across the Pacific Theater. Along the way, he was privy to a great deal of very sensitive information.

With the entire world at war, details regarding weapons’ capabilities were closely guarded secrets. Then, as now, public servants tended to flaunt both their positions and their access. In this case, the results were fairly catastrophic.

By 1943, the fortunes of American submarines in the Pacific were going swimmingly. Loss rates were low, and attacks on Japanese shipping were taking a vicious toll. One of the reasons for this success was that American subs could dive really, really deep. Back then, our boats could operate at least 400 feet below the surface, markedly deeper than their Japanese counterparts.

The Japanese could not imagine that Yankee submarines would be so much more capable than their own. As a result, when Japanese destroyers attacked U.S. submarines, they would set their depth charges to detonate fairly shallow. American skippers knew if they could just get deep enough, they would be relatively immune to Japanese attack. Then, Congressman May got home from his trip and scheduled a press conference.Congressman May undertook a fact-finding tour of military
installations in the Pacific during the height of WWII. He then
came home and blabbed all the classified details to the press

Stupidity Has a Face

 

During the course of his press event wherein he outlined all that he was doing to support the war effort, Congressman May casually mentioned that the reason American subs were doing so well was that they were running underneath Japanese depth charges. The meat of his conference made the wire services and spread across the country. Japanese spies took note and sent this information to their handlers back home. It was a simple thing to reset their depth charges to go off a little deeper. The Japanese began bagging U.S. submarines.

Vice Admiral Charles Lockwood, commander of the US submarine fleet in the Pacific, said, “I hear Congressman May said the Jap depth charges are not set deep enough. He would be pleased to know that the Japs set them deeper now.”

By war’s end, May’s idiocy had directly resulted in the sinking of 10 American submarines and the deaths of some 800 U.S. sailors.American submarines fared well in the Pacific during the early part of WWII. Then Congressman May explained to the Japanese what they needed to do to kill them.

It Gets Even Better

When he wasn’t busy drowning Americans, Congressman May was using his position to make money on the side. May used his influence to obtain war production contracts for his friends Murray and Henry Garsson.

Despite having no experience producing munitions, the Garsson brothers began churning out such stuff as 4.2-inch mortar shells, many of which were found to have had defective fuses. These fuses often resulted in premature detonations that ultimately claimed the lives of a further 38 U.S. soldiers. In exchange for these sweet military contracts, Congressman May accepted a bunch of good old-fashioned bribes.

Once word got out about May’s body count, his constituency threw him out. After losing reelection, May was tried in federal court on charges of bribery and convicted after less than two hours’ worth of deliberation. May served a nine-month prison sentence. The Garssons went to jail as well.

Despite his malfeasance, May remained well-connected. In 1952, President Harry Truman granted him a full pardon. However, voters were apparently smarter than is the case today. Andrew May failed to resurrect his political career and spent the rest of his days working in private practice as a lawyer. He died in 1959 at the age of 83 as the only man in human history personally responsible for the sinking of 10 submarines.

Categories
Born again Cynic! Cops EVIL MF Grumpy's hall of Shame If I was in Charge Paint me surprised by this Some Scary thoughts You have to be kidding, right!?!

‘What about Tate?’ Dave Adamiak, Tate’s father, is nearing his wit’s end. by Lee Williams

by Lee Williams

Dave Adamiak, whose son Patrick “Tate” Adamiak has 17 more years left to serve in federal prison, is confused, perplexed and nearing his wit’s end.

While he appreciates all the support his son’s case has drawn—there are hundreds of videos and stories chronicled on his “Freedom for Tate” website—Tate remains is prison.

To date, there has been no formal move to secure his release—despite the kind words of more than a few elected officials.

Adamiak’s family sent a pardon request to Attorney General Todd Blanche and U.S. Justice Department Pardon Attorney Edward J. Martin Jr., along with nearly 2,000 signatures of supporters, who all believe Tate should never have been charged with a crime.

Tate’s name remains on President Donald Trump’s pardon list, unlike hundreds of others. In addition to 301 pardon denials, the Pardon Attorney has said that 5,908 clemency applications were also rejected.

His 20-year prison sentence, too, has received scorn, even from ATF Director Robert Cekada.

Cekada believes Adamiak was mistreated and massively over-sentenced.

“On the facts of this case, the sentence Mr. Adamiak received is excessive. Mr. Adamiak had no prior criminal history. He dealt with these weapons as curios. We have no evidence that he intended to use the weapons unlawfully or that he was part of a criminal organization. The extremely high sentencing guidelines likely reflect the paradigmatic cases of individuals possessing destructive devices, such as grenade launchers, and normally involve terrorism or organized criminal activity. No such conduct was present here. For me, unlawful possession of National Firearms Act items sentences approximately in the three-to-five-year range are common,” he told me just over a month ago.

Cekada is not alone. Six Republican lawmakers sent their own letter to Blanche and Martin seeking Adamiak’s release.

Congresswoman Jen Kiggans along with Congressmen Eli CraneEric BurlisonPaul A. Gosar, D.D.S.Rob Bresnahan, Jr., and Daniel Webster were very clear as to their intent:

“We, the undersigned Members of Congress, respectfully request that you work with President Donald Trump to give fair consideration to a commutation request for Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak. We believe that certain inconsistencies in the regulatory framework applied in his case as well as the broader enforcement environment at the time warrant careful review and consideration for executive clemency,” the lawmakers wrote.

The Representatives were extremely clear about Adamiak’s innocence, stating he had “maintained a well‑documented interest in military history and the lawful collection of historic artifacts, replicas, and training devices.”

“The items of concern in his case were inert collector pieces, nonfunctional replicas, and training aids that were incapable of firing,” the letter states.

Patrick “Tate” Adamiak as he was processed into the Western Tidewater Regional Jail on June 16, 2026. (Photo courtesy Western Tidewater Regional Jail).

For reasons that neither he nor his family understand, Adamiak remains housed in the Western Tidewater Regional Jail in Suffolk, Virginia—a county jail and a dangerous hellhole with none of the amenities of a federal prison.

On the day he first arrived at Tidewater, two guards pepper-sprayed an inmate for little or no reason, rammed his head into a metal door, and then dragged him through the jail until his neck and hand were broken. The jail’s medical staff said the inmate was “unlikely to regain limb control.”

The two guards were later fired and charged with malicious wounding; a Class 3 felony in Virginia involving intentional injury with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill. They each face up to 20 years in prison and $100,000 in fines.

Attempts to contact Adamiak in this facility were unsuccessful.

Case history

Adamiak, who at the time was an active-duty Navy E-6, was arrested and charged by the ATF during the height of the Biden Administration’s war on guns, gun owners, gun rights and the Second Amendment.

Adamiak had been accepted to attend BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training). Had the ATF left him alone, he would likely be leading a Navy SEAL platoon.

After ATF agents kicked down his doors, they found nothing illegal or even suspected of being illegal. As a result, the ATF brought in a specialist, ATF Firearm Enforcement Officer Jeffrey R. Bodell, who discombobulated the actual items that the agents had found—all of which are still sold legally online, most do not even require an ID—and turned them into machineguns and destructive devices.

Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing a machinegun for a toy STEN submachinegun found during the search warrant. He paid $75 for the non-firing Spanish replica—or toy—which was made by Denix and is still sold online. Bodell inserted a real STEN barrel and receiver, neither Bodell nor his assistant could make it fire more than one round at a time. Despite their hard work, the toy STEN would not even accept a real magazine. Still, Bodell officially ruled that the toy was a machinegun.

Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing two destructive devices, two inert RPGs that had holes drilled into their receivers and were stripped of internal parts. ATF’s “expert” added parts from real RPGs until they would fire a single subcaliber 7.62x39mm round. As a result, he classified the RPGs as destructive devices. The inert RPGs are still legally sold today without an FFL or any other paperwork.

Takeaways

Adamiak and his father are very concerned about an upcoming hearing, which is scheduled for next month before Arenda L. Wright Allen, the federal judge who oversaw his trial and sentenced Adamiak to serve 20 years in prison.

They both doubt Judge Allen will give Tate a fair hearing. She has already precluded his attorney from rehashing much of anything from the trial. Adamiak could actually receive even more time behind bars.

Every day seems to be a constant battle, Dave Adamiak said. While Tate receives verbal support, nothing official is ever done.

Dozens of politicians have said Adamiak should never have been charged, yet he remains in prison.

“What about Tate?” Dave Adamiak asked. “It appears he’s been swept under the rug after all the traffic about his case. Everyone seems to know about it, but nothing is ever done. He’s still in prison—for nothing illegal. He broke no law. He did nothing wrong.”

Categories
Born again Cynic! Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom You have to be kidding, right!?!

Every Path After High School Explained — Who Actually Won at 40?

Categories
Born again Cynic!

The End of All Assault Weapons Bans

Categories
All About Guns Born again Cynic! Paint me surprised by this that’s too bad” You have to be kidding, right!?!

AI Doesn’t Get Guns By Peter Suciu

Artificial intelligence (AI) isn’t good at rendering firearms, and that’s probably not a bad thing, for reasons that will soon be explored. It should also be noted that while AI rendered guns isn’t good yet, it is likely to improve. That might not be a good thing either.

First, we need some background on what exactly AI is, or more accurately, what is generative AI. It has been in development for decades, but it was only in 2022 that generative AI entered the public consciousness with consumer-friendly programs.

AI rendered rifles
Where to start. There’s a LOT wrong going on here. Want to see if you can pick out the worst mistake?

Suffice it to say that generative AI, which includes OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude, and Google Gemini, among many others, is the evolution of technology that emerged in the 1960s and is something that is now used every day, again both for good and bad.

That’s not just in how it renders firearms.

AI can create visual artwork, compose music, write papers and stories, and produce other content. Students are using it as a shortcut with homework, and anyone who has been on social media has likely seen images and videos of varying quality. With a few prompts, which are written instructions, AI can generate content that just a few years ago would have taken design teams days, even weeks to produce.

AI generated 1911 pistol
This heavily distorted AI-generated image of a 1911-style pistol shows a weirdly downsized slide assembly and a grip frame with a Luger-like grip angle.

However, there is a lot of “AI slop,” as in low-quality, mass-produced digital content that shows a lack of human effort. Such content is seemingly created — if created is really the right term — by those seeking to flood the Internet to exploit algorithms and to generate quick ad revenue on some platforms.

How AI Works

It is important to understand how AI images are generated. How “intelligent” AI actually is remains a matter of debate.

Generative AI is based on “Large Language Models” (LLMs), which are trained on massive datasets of text and code to recognize patterns. Although they can be effective at parsing data, solving logic puzzles and even summarizing lengthy documents, LLMs can also produce factually incorrect, nonsensical, or made-up information that may seem plausible.

AI generates images by “learning” patterns from billions of existing pictures and their accompanying text descriptions. This process is called diffusion. AI is very good at generating images of well-known objects, where the attributes, including dimensions, color, and other properties, are clearly described.

AI generated rifle World War II
This AI generated image was intended to show U.S. soldiers in the European Theater of World War II. However, the gear, camo and rifles are all inaccurate.

It would seem that AI, therefore, should be good at rendering firearms, but a search of social media tells a very different story. AI-generated images of firearms depict weapons that would be impossible to produce in the real world, much like the fantastical settings created by the late Dutch artist M.C. Escher.

In the case of firearms, LLMs and AI have no shortage of information to draw from, yet generative AI platforms still struggle because they lack a true 3D understanding of the underlying mechanics, resulting in nonsensical attachments, bent barrels, missing triggers, and incorrect magazine placement. AI is still treating firearms as abstract collections of shapes rather than focusing on the functional mechanisms. That has resulted in impossible geometry.

There are now Facebook Groups and Reddit subs devoted to sharing AI-generated firearm images that defy reality. Even when it gets the basics right, AI still misses some key details. Several factors are at play, but the most basic is that generate AI is based on algorithms, and many are far less “intelligent” than it might seem.

Guns And Media — It’s Never Been Accurate

It is further worth taking a step back and remembering that mainstream depictions of firearms have long been questionable. Consider firearms in comic books and video games as just two examples.

AI generated carbines in the hands of hooded men
This AI-generated image has created an interesting amalgamation of a firearm that, at first blush, looks like an AR-style rifle. However, closer examination reveals some AK-like features.

Writers of the former and developers of the latter would routinely ignore basic mechanics, notably magazine capacities and recoil, opting instead to treat firearms as versatile plot devices that are only as accurate or deadly as the story demands at any given moment.

Likewise, the World War II-based comic books of the 1960s didn’t bother to feature realistic depictions of the enemy. The Germans were often presented with big red swastikas on their helmets, carrying weapons that were not an accurate drawing of the MP-40. It was a version that fit the narrative, even if it was far from accurate.

Video games have, in recent years, gone to great lengths to get many details of modern firearms right, including the look and sound, yet other attributes are often still very wrong, notably the weight and recoil. The guns may look correct, but they way they are employed and operate is anything but accurate.

Lack of Instruction?

AI continues to struggle with firearms for some very simple reasons. There is an old saying among computer programmers: “Garbage in, garbage out,” which is the principle that the quality of a system’s output is directly linked to the quality of input. Flawed or low-quality data will produce equally flawed or useless results.

weird AI generated guns
This one is unique in that, while there are some issues with the guns themselves, the real issue is the problem with human anatomy. Can you spot it?

In the case of AI, the “garbage in” is the lack of clear instructions.

“One of the reasons that guns are not properly rendered in AI is in the details,” explained Roger Entner, founder and principal analyst at Recon Analytics. “AI is only as good as the instructions you give it.”

AI often needs more information and details than it is given. It can get the basic shapes right, but it still doesn’t understand the mechanics.

“Guns are such intricate tools, with minuscule differences that are huge,” Entner told The Armory Life. “Gun owners may know these things so intricately, but AI does not.”

That is a key point to consider. There is already massive confusion in the mainstream consciousness about the differences between a commercial AR-15 and the military M16, so how can we expect AI to know better?

AI doesn’t just fall short with firearms, but all sorts of things.

“AI isn’t good at depicting a Cadillac XTS from a Chevrolet Malibu,” said Entner.

There is also the issue of bias, and it is firearm enthusiasts who are likely to notice the rendering problems of AI when it comes to guns.

“AI really does render firearms poorly. Many details range from implausible to outright wrong. But in perspective, AI renders many objects poorly,” noted Dr. Jim Purtilo, associate professor of computer science at the University of Maryland.

“If someone in the firearm community notices it with guns more than with other objects, then this could well be another example of a selective attention bias, which is where people with a decided interest in a given object will be much more inclined to notice when details are wrong. Show a young man the photo of a pretty young girl, and he will never notice what is in the background. ‘What monster?’”

Such a selective attention bias has cropped up in cinema for years.

“Show an old war movie and the gun enthusiast will complain, ‘that’s not a rifle they used,’ the history aficionado will say, ‘that’s not how it happened,’ and the linguists will lament that characters used words that didn’t become common until the modern era. This illustrates our biases,” Purtilo told The Armory Life.

Still, the implausible images result from how AI generates them today. There is ample data on firearm attributes, but few descriptions of how everything connects. AI’s LLMs make a best guess, often with comedic results.

DaVinci AI for gun image generation
The generative AI program known as DaVinci created this sci-fi-looking firearm when prompted to generate “a modern rifle.” It went all-in with a carbon fiber frame and a green accents.

“Pictures are tougher for AI than we understand,” added Entner. “Generic descriptions of something to AI will generate a generic description. It is like asking a five-year-old to draw a Single Action Colt.”

AI is thus like a child, and it may not provide all the details unless pressed. Even then, it may not fully appreciate how things go together without further explanation.

“Said simply, the program is averaging all the details of its training images when deciding which features to include,” said Purtilo. “It might know that a firearm has sights, a shoulder stock, and attachments, but it doesn’t know how these details might depend on one another.

The average sight across all the images it analyzed might have been a scope, the average stock might have a pistol grip, and the average attachment might be a laser pointer — and that is how it gives you a Revolutionary War musket with pistol grip, high power optic, and laser pointer.”

The Barriers of AI

The current technical barriers are just one of the main reasons that AI is bad at rendering firearms. The other is policy. AI developers are already cautious about how AI can be used.

“On the technical side, guns are complex objects with very specific features. Because they are so specific and have many parts that can be rendered incorrectly, it’s easy for a human to identify them as incorrect, as AI is not good at replicating specific weapons,” said Dr. Cliff Lampe, professor of information and associate dean for academic affairs in the School of Information at the University of Michigan.

AI generated assault rifle
This image shows what first appears to be a FAL-style rifle, but with some confusing characteristics regarding the top rail, handguard, magazine and barrel throwing things off.

Lampe, who focuses on the study of misinformation in media, told The Armory Life that the policy reason is that many models specifically list firearms as a type of object to render poorly.

“You can imagine, for instance, that you don’t want to be able to have GenAI [generative artificial intelligence] create specific schematics for firearms. Different models may have different thresholds here as a matter of policy, but all of them will have some safety restrictions built in,” Lampe noted.

Microsoft’s Copilot and ChatGPT are now among the generative AI platforms that won’t even render a firearm if requested. Copilot won’t even render soldiers holding firearms. However, because of the rise in “AI slop,” it may be a good thing that AI can’t generate extremely accurate firearms in videos. No manufacturer would be happy to see their product — a car, gun, or something else — used irresponsibly in an AI-generated video.

For now, we may need to accept that AI doesn’t do guns well, just as comic writers and video game developers missed the mark in the past.

“I don’t know whether AI is more likely to generate silliness with firearms than other objects. But if so, then this may well reflect a selection bias in training materials,” Purtilo continued. “AI models are trained by ingesting a huge volume of raw content. The companies scrape pages from websites, books, social media, and more for this purpose.”

As Lampe noted, there is also the issue of policies that restrict many sites from including firearm images, which could impact how AI learns.

“This limits what material AI has for training,” said Purtilo. “If you can’t depict safe and responsible firearm use on the web, then no AI will be able to render images with safe and responsible use of firearms. Whatever it generates will be inherently gibberish.”

———————————————————————————-

Categories
Born again Cynic! War

The AFTERMATH of WW2 – Forgotten History

Categories
Born again Cynic! California

They Closed Your Refineries — Now California Gas Could Hit $12!

I guess I got out of there at just the right time! Grumpy

Categories
Born again Cynic! Dear Grumpy Advice on Teaching in Today's Classroom Grumpy's hall of Shame

America Had the Perfect Middle Class — Until One Decision Crushed It

Categories
Born again Cynic! Related Topics

NRA Controversy Continues Organization Sues Its Own Fundraising Arm By Brent Wheat

The National Rifle Association has gone through a period of tremendous upheaval after the courts
found former NRA officials guilty of financial mismanagement. Now, the legal troubles continue as
the NRA is taking on it’s own fundraising arm in court.

For years, NRA members were told everything was hunky-dory, and most of us believed it.

Then came the fight between Oliver North and Wayne LaPierre, the “AckMack” troubles and finally the lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The allegations were explosive, but they are no longer just allegations after a jury weighed the evidence — Wayne LaPierre and other senior NRA officials were found liable for misconduct involving the organization’s finances.

Wayne LaPierre, former NRA CEO was ordered to pay back four million dollars to the NRA
and cannot serve as an NRA officer or director for 10 Years.

LaPierre was ordered to repay more than $4 million to the NRA and was later barred from serving as an NRA officer or director for 10 years. Recent appeals have upheld those penalties. Of course, the damage went far beyond the courtroom.

Troubles Ending?

The NRA spent years and tens of millions of dollars fighting legal battles while membership, revenue and most importantly, political influence, declined. Thankfully, reform-minded members eventually won key board elections and sought to move the organization beyond the LaPierre era. Many members assumed that was the end of the story.

It wasn’t.

Today, a new controversy is unfolding between the NRA and what was formerly known as the NRA Foundation.

The NRA filed suit against the foundation to prevent it from using the name or likeness of the NRA. On June 2, 2026, the NRA Foundation announced it would rebrand as the 1791 Foundation. Foundation President Tom King stated that the organization’s mission remains unchanged and the rebranding is intended to strengthen its ability to support firearms education, youth programs, law enforcement training, and other charitable initiatives. Critics, however, note that the ongoing dispute centers not only on the foundation’s charitable mission but also on its historic role as a supporting organization for the NRA. Whether the rebranding represents a change in identity, a change in mission, or simply a change in name is likely to remain a central point of disagreement.

Specifically, the NRA’s complaint asserts that foundation officials “sought to sever the relationship between the NRA and the Foundation by attempting to strip the NRA of its right to appoint the Foundation’s directors and seizing that power for themselves.” The foundation rejects those allegations and argues it is acting independently and in accordance with its charitable responsibilities. The dispute is now being fought in court. As many of the parties involved are famously litigious, I’ll refrain from asking more pointed questions until more facts are known.

Friends of NRA

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that many gun owners have long viewed the NRA and NRA Foundation as essentially the same organization. They are not. The NRA is the membership and advocacy organization (technically a 501(c)(4) organization) that conducts lobbying, political activity, training programs, competitions and member services. The NRA Foundation (a 501(c)(3) organization under tax code) was created as a separate charitable organization to raise tax-deductible donations for firearms education, youth programs, grants and related charitable purposes.

Most NRA members never paid much attention to the distinction because the two organizations worked closely together and shared a common mission. Historically, the NRA Foundation worked closely with the NRA and funded many NRA-related programs, while also making grants to youth shooting sports, clubs, law-enforcement training, conservation efforts, and other charitable initiatives.

According to recent reports, the 1791 Foundation controls roughly $160 million in net assets, while the NRA itself reported approximately $15.7 million in net assets. In other words, the charitable organization at the center of the current dispute controls the overwhelming majority of the financial resources involved. At its core, the legal battle centers on control of substantial charitable assets and how those resources will be used going forward.

The Question

Most members have neither the time nor the desire to read court filings, tax returns, and legal briefs. They simply want to know whether their money is advancing the Second Amendment or funding another round of gamesmanship, so we’ll attempt to answer the question at the center of this debate: If NRA members voted for reform, did reform follow the money?

The LaPierre era taught NRA members that problems can remain hidden for years behind familiar names and repeated assurances that everything is under control. The lesson wasn’t that some NRA leaders were corrupt; the lesson was that the members should pay attention and never stop asking questions.

In other words, the old advice to “Trust but verify” is still good advice, so those same important questions need to be asked today:

• Who controls the assets?

• Who controls the fundraising?

• Who controls the grants?

• Who decides where donor dollars ultimately go?

Most importantly, how much overlap exists between today’s 1791 Foundation leadership and the NRA leadership structure in the years leading up to the New York verdict?

Meet the New Boss

Several names associated with the current 1791 Foundation are familiar to longtime NRA observers. Among them are Tom King and former NRA President Charles Cotton, both prominent figures within NRA leadership during the LaPierre years.

Neither man’s involvement proves wrongdoing, and they have not been accused of misconduct in connection with the current dispute. However, these associations invite increased scrutiny from members who spent the last several years fighting for accountability and transparency.

Foundation leaders tell a very different story. In a recent editorial, 1791 Foundation Vice President Ronnie Barrett argued the dispute began after the foundation gained greater independence and increased scrutiny of NRA reimbursement requests.

According to Barrett, trustees concluded that too much donor money was being spent on overhead and administrative expenses and chose to direct more funds toward charitable programs instead. Barrett contends the lawsuit is not about abandoning the NRA’s mission but about a charitable foundation exercising independent judgment over donor funds.

Barrett’s editorial focuses extensively on donor stewardship, overhead costs and the foundation’s independence from the NRA. However, it did not touch on the number of prominent LaPierre-era NRA leaders who now hold key positions within the 1791 Foundation.

 

 

Readers will have to decide for themselves whether the dispute is primarily about stewardship, as Barrett argues, or whether it also reflects a struggle between competing factions within the broader firearms community. Either way, the continued prominence of several longtime NRA leaders ensures that questions about continuity and accountability are unlikely to disappear anytime soon.

Reasonable people can disagree about the merits of the NRA’s lawsuit, and the courts will ultimately sort out the competing claims. In the meantime, donors — especially those who previously donated to the NRA Foundation — should be asking legitimate questions about spending, governance, transparency and financial stewardship.

Takeaway

Trust is earned, and the NRA learned that lesson at great cost. The 1791 Foundation should expect to have to earn that same trust.

For donors, the issue is not whether the organization calls itself the NRA Foundation, the 1791 Foundation or the Committee to Keep and Arm Bears. The issue is whether contributions are advancing the mission donors intended to support.

The firearms community has already paid a steep price for years of misplaced trust. Before writing the next check or attending a “Friends” banquet, members should make sure they know not only where the money is going but also who is controlling it once it gets there.

The courts will eventually decide who wins the lawsuit. Donors should decide who earns their trust.

Categories
Born again Cynic! Cops

Virginia Court Slams Door on State Police Background Check Defiance — Injunction Remains in Effect by Mark Chesnut

Judge Orders Virginia State Police to Obey Gun Law Injunction

When Virginia State Police announced last week that it would resume enforcing the commonwealth’s universal background check requirement for private firearm sales — in direct defiance of a Lynchburg Circuit Court injunction that halted enforcement of the law — gun-rights groups didn’t wait around to see what would happen next. They went straight back to court.

On June 3, the court delivered exactly the response Virginia’s executive branch should have expected.

Judge F. Patrick Yeatts ruled that his statewide permanent injunction remains fully in effect and that Virginia law enforcement is expected to comply with that order. The ruling shut down Attorney General Jay Jones’s apparent theory that an executive branch officer can effectively dissolve a court injunction by deciding it no longer applies — and confirmed what gun-rights groups had been arguing since the State Police announcement: that the executive branch doesn’t get to unilaterally override court orders just because new legislation passes.

What just happened

As TTAG reported earlier this week, the dispute began when the Virginia Attorney General’s office informed the Virginia Citizens Defense League that Virginia State Police would resume universal background checks for private firearm sales — despite Judge Yeatts’s October 29, 2025, permanent injunction halting enforcement of that exact law.

Gun Owners of America and VCDL responded immediately with a contempt of court motion. The motion’s framing was unusually direct:

“It appears that the Commonwealth’s Executive Branch of government no longer has any respect for the rule of law. From the same Attorney General who brazenly sought to usurp his predecessor’s constitutional role before he even assumed office, Attorney General Jay Jones now informs this Court that its October 29, 2025, Final Order means nothing, and that Jones, as an executive branch officer and officer of the court, may unilaterally determine that a court’s order is no longer in effect.”

The court didn’t take long to agree.

The ruling

Judge Yeatts confirmed on June 3 that his permanent injunction remains fully in effect and that Virginia law enforcement is expected to comply. The court has called both parties back later this month for further proceedings in the ongoing case.

Within hours, Virginia State Police updated its website to reflect the court’s ruling. The page now states the agency is “in compliance with the injunction” and “currently cannot provide criminal history background checks for the private sale of firearms.”

That’s a quick reversal from the position Virginia State Police took last week. It’s also the correct one — the position the agency should have been taking all along, before the AG’s office decided that new legislation gave the executive branch authority to ignore court orders without going back to court first.

What this means

The ruling matters beyond the specific background check question because it confirms something fundamental about how court orders work in the American legal system. An injunction remains in effect until the issuing court dissolves it. Executive branch officers — including state attorneys general, governors, and law enforcement agencies — don’t get to decide on their own that an injunction no longer applies. If the state believes the injunction should be lifted because circumstances have changed (new legislation, new facts, whatever), the proper procedure is to return to the court and seek dissolution.

Virginia tried to skip that step. The court told them no.