Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
by Lee Williams
Mark “Choppa” Manley is a gun owner, a gun collector and a Second Amendment advocate who has more than 70 legally owned firearms stored in a gun safe at his Baltimore home.
All of his firearms comply with both federal law and the laws of Maryland. He is always very careful about that.
Manley works as an intervention specialist for his local school district. His day begins early and ends late, usually around 7 p.m., because he also coaches girls’ flag football.
Manley and his wife, who did not want her first name used in this story, get up early for their jobs. For them, November 21st began just like any other workday.
“The morning of the raid started just like any other morning,” Manley told the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project.
“My wife went downstairs around 4:30 a.m. to make coffee,” he said. “I was sitting on the side of the bed, getting myself together.”
“Mark, there’s someone outside the house!” his wife yelled. She saw people moving around in their front yard.
Manley grabbed a handgun and looked out the window. He could see ATF agents making “tactical movements” all over his front yard.
“I could see agents crouching down with long guns,” he told SAF.
Manley checked his home security system’s monitor and saw more agents taking tactical positions in his backyard. He put down his pistol and quickly woke his two daughters, but not his 15-year-old son who was sleeping in the basement.
“I looked out the window again and could tell they were going to bust down our door,” Manley said. “I yelled ‘Hello! We are up here.’ All of a sudden, a bomb went off. My wife screamed. She followed right behind me on our way out, but she was disoriented. She was in pure shock.”
As the family walked out through their front door, they saw dozens of heavily armed ATF agents.
“I got my arms up and I’m walking down the steps. When I got to the bottom I turned around and saw that the agents had rifles pointed at my daughters,” Manley said. “I have young kids. They had guns pointed at my children. It was a pretty emotional moment for me. I was about to lose control. I yelled ‘You have guns on my f—ing children!’ They lowered their weapons.”
Manely and his 17-year-old daughter were each handcuffed. His wife and children were moved to the rear of a SWAT van. It was 20-degrees outside, and they were only wearing pajamas.
“I would like you to take the handcuffs off my daughter,” Manley’s wife told the ATF agents. “Why did you handcuff my husband? He complied with everything you asked for.”
The family then overheard ATF agents talking about their 15-year-old son, who was flash-banged in his basement bedroom.
“My son loves the basement,” Manley said. “He has his own place, but they busted down his door, threw a grenade and 14 agents ran into his room, guns drawn and threatening to shoot him. He was woken by surprise. They busted down the glass door to his room and had guns drawn. We were relieved to see him when they brought him out.”
“They brought our son out as we were ready to get back inside the house,” Manley’s wife said. “It was a half-hour later.”
Manley started thinking about his neighbors. He and his family had only moved into their home three months ago. Their neighborhood is predominantly white.
“For us to be the only black family on the block — the ATF just assumed they would find something in our home,” his wife said.
Next, the ATF agents brought police canines and their handlers into the home.
“The dogs ransacked our house,” Manley said. “They defecated everywhere — even on my daughter’s bed. This was completely uncalled for.”
Meanwhile, Manley said a host of ATF agents “ransacked” his home.
“They threatened to blow up my gun safe,” Manley said. “I don’t have anything to hide, so I told them I’d open the safe. They uncuffed me and told me ‘Don’t try to run.’ Where was I gonna run to? My family was right there.”
Manley unlocked his gun safe and slowly swung open the door.
“They were all standing around waiting and hoping,” he said “This was their moment, they thought. They started pulling out rifles and shotguns, but everything was registered and Maryland-compliant. ‘We got nothing here,’ one of them said.”
One ATF agent, who had told Manley’s wife he was the lead investigator, asked her later via a phone text for dimensions and other information about the doors and windows his team had destroyed, which he promised to replace.
“I didn’t want to talk to them,” she said. “I didn’t reply. They had just waged war on us.”
Aftermath
The Manley family was never told, at least officially, why they were mistakenly targeted by the ATF.
“I have done nothing illegal. I don’t sell guns. I don’t own any machineguns,” Manley said.
“The search warrant said he is a felon,” Mrs. Manley said. “It said he is a felon in possession of firearms.”
“I don’t have any felony record,” Manley said.
Their home was terribly damaged in the raid. It needs new floors in the living room and in their son’s bedroom because of the flash-bang grenades, and their front and rear doors still remain shattered. The police canine feces the family cleaned up themselves.
The agents asked Manley why “someone would make up stuff about you?”
“Are you kidding me?” Manley said. “I made it out of the inner city and poverty. People who are still there know me and envy what I’ve become. I do all of the giving back, but there is still hate and jealousy. Someone must have gotten caught with something and said, ‘Mark’s got all kinds of guns.’ To this day we just don’t know. Someone must have gotten caught and said some lies. It was all too easy for them to kick down my doors.”
Manley and his family have started a Go Fund Me page, which so far has raised more than $18,000. They are also speaking with several attorneys.
Neither Toni M. Crosby, the Special Agent in Charge of ATF’s Baltimore Field Division, nor Katherine Rottman, the office’s Public Information Officer, returned calls or emails Thursday afternoon.
“Thank you for contacting the ATF Baltimore Field Division. This inbox is not actively monitored but we are in receipt of your email and a member of our team will follow up with you,” an email reply states.
Said Manley: “Would this happen if I was white? Probably, but I feel like more of a target because I am black, but I don’t want to. I was targeted because I am such a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am heavily armed. I’m a black man, but me being a black man doesn’t help my case. They put me in the worst position as the man of the house. It was all just horrific, man.”
As the calendar flips to 2025, a number of new gun laws are set to take effect across the United States, some strengthening gun rights protections and some simply eroding them. Here’s a look at some of the more notable ones as reported by USA Today that are taking effect.
No Surprise, More Gun Restrictions in California
California remains at the forefront of restrictive gun policies with several new laws going into effect. Among them:
- AB 1483 strengthens the existing one-handgun-per-30-days rule by removing exemptions for private party transactions. However, enforcement is on hold due to ongoing court battles. This legal uncertainty offers a glimmer of hope for gun owners who view the law as an unnecessary limitation.
- AB 1598 requires firearm dealers to distribute pamphlets warning of firearm ownership risks, such as suicide and accidental injury. Critics argue this measure stigmatizes gun ownership rather than addressing root causes of violence.
- AB 2917 expands criteria for gun violence restraining orders to include hate-based threats. While framed as a public safety measure, concerns remain about potential misuse of these orders to infringe on lawful gun owners’ rights.
These laws reflect a continued push by California lawmakers to tighten restrictions, but they also face significant legal and grassroots opposition.
Colorado: Stricter Storage Rules and Concealed Carry Requirements
Colorado’s, or should we say Colofornia’s, new law mandates that handguns stored in unoccupied vehicles must be secured in locked, hard-sided containers out of sight, and the vehicle itself must be locked. Critics note this law could inadvertently put gun owners at greater risk by creating logistical challenges for lawful self-defense.
Additionally, starting July 1, 2025, concealed carry applicants will need to complete an eight-hour training course, including a live-fire component. While training is always valuable, some see these requirements as another hurdle discouraging lawful concealed carry.
New Hampshire: Expanding Gun Rights
In stark contrast to the more oppressive anti-gun states, New Hampshire is bolstering Second Amendment protections with new laws effective Jan. 1.
- HB 1186 prohibits the use of merchant category codes (MCCs) to track firearm-related purchases, safeguarding privacy for gun owners.
- HB 1336 ensures employees can securely store firearms in locked vehicles without employer interference.
Efforts to introduce more restrictive gun laws, such as reporting mental health information to federal background checks, failed in the legislature. New Hampshire’s actions reflect a strong pro-gun stance, even amid calls for tighter controls following a high-profile shooting in 2023.
Kentucky: Shielding Gun Owners’ Privacy
Like New Hampshire, Kentucky joins a growing list of states enacting laws to prohibit the use of MCCs for gun retailers, a policy backed by the NRA. The ban takes effect in 2025, aiming to protect gun owners from potential financial discrimination while reinforcing privacy rights.
New York and Minnesota: More Restrictions
Meanwhile, New York’s new measures include mandatory warning signs at gun dealerships alerting potential buyers to the inherent dangers of firearms in the home (which is none if you adhere to gun safety practices) and a statewide registry for extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), expanding the state’s already restrictive landscape.
Minnesota’s ban on binary triggers also goes into effect, further limiting firearm modifications. Such measures are seen by many as part of a broader agenda to incrementally restrict gun ownership.
The new year will be no different than others as state legislatures are set to push more gun laws with Democratic majority houses pushing more gun control and Republican-led houses pushing more freedom. Check back with TTAG frequently to see what news is coming down the line … and more importantly, what may affect you.
Some firearms trainers make me sick. I’m not talking about the good ones who train countless citizens or even ones who are awful, and we all know there are some out there. Like the ones who brag they’ve been certified for 40 years, and never got a stitch of training since then. You know the type.
Just like doctors, the firearms community has some people who need a whack upside the head. We have doctors out there who prescribe pills because the drug companies tell them to, not because the meds are needed. We have people going to doctors because Big Pharma is advertising, asking them to prescribe drugs that can do all sorts of harm because there might be some marginal benefit. That is just bass ackwards. But the doctors comply, to the tune of billions of dollars. There’s a word for that. It’s perverse.
A Sad Business Model
We see some of the same in firearms training. Some trainers are training solely because the government forces people to take prescribed classes, to get carry permission slips. It’s not that the classes are good or bad or might teach some of what needs to be known. It’s because people’s rights are denied by the same government that then requires the class, and the wallet cards. And these trainers, loyal to a fault, line up at the government feed trough to chow down on the required meals. A high school diploma ought to require one credit in marksmanship. Now, there’s a righteous requirement.
Are you the type of sycophant ward of the nanny state, incapable of running a business unless the state requires people to take your program under penalty of arrest? You’re running an “education program” that teaches what your master says to teach instead of real firearms training. Don’t get me wrong. The government CCW leash got a lot of people armed and in police criminal databases for safekeeping.
Are you an American, free-thinking, independent business leader driven by profit motive, self-interest, personal initiative and free-market capitalism? You’ve trained earnestly for long, hard hours until you excel at your craft — and you want the public educated.
Could you sell the goods you have and the talent you have, to people who can freely buy your goods? Can you step out from under the state or federal feed bag, and instead of depending on government handouts and coercive support, convince people to get your training because it’s good for them, will help them survive, will prepare them for emergencies, will make you look good and honored, make them solid citizens? This is good. Americans commend this.
Earn It
If you want to cry about inept inability to independently run classes, go tell your mama. If you want to step up to the plate and make an adult of yourself, show your stuff, do good, and be what Americans ought to be, then go out there and sell to the half of the public that has guns instead of the few percent willing to bow and scrape for voluntary taxation, expiration dates and official government-approved “carry cards.” We knew, when discreet carry started, that some gun bubbas would become the “state training industry,” dependent on government handouts, mandates and threats, coercive compulsory classes, and could never do the work on their own. Your countrymen are ashamed of you. Leave the practice, be productive or apply for a salary somewhere, be a wage slave. The savvy, market-oriented, independently motivated, self-reliant business people will rake in the money you deem too difficult to independently earn. Earn. Now, there’s a word you should ponder.
I’ve been saying training opportunities will blossom once Americans’ Second Amendment rights are restored, and the market becomes 50% of the public, the armed half, instead of the small percent the CCW government-enabled market focuses upon.
Constitutional Carry, real freedom, can’t get support from people who need the government leash. They effectively bleed out the support we need for true freedom to carry, for easy opt-in licensed permission. Real constitutional 2A only gets support from folks who understand what 2A is really about. The front end of the gun is where freedom comes from, not bowing to the dictates of the boss.
When my state, Arizona, was on the verge of obtaining this grand prize, no-papers carry and throwing off shackles of “civilized” oppression, we weren’t even sure what to call it. At the time, in 1994, people called it Vermont Carry, because Vermont never had bans, the only such state. Alaska got there next, but Alaska Carry made even less sense than Vermont Carry. So we invented the term Constitutional Carry the night before the law took effect, and the rest is history. Be part of history and teach Americans to carry and shoot safely because it’s right, not because it’s required.
Award-winning author Alan Korwin has written 14 books, 10 of them on gun law, and has advocated for gun rights for nearly three decades. His next book is Why Science May Be Wrong.
Police in New York want the legal ability to seize firearms during a domestic violence call – even if no arrests were made. However, instead of going through normal legal channels and obtaining a search warrant or court order, police just want the legal ability to take the guns on their own.
New York State lawmakers plan to reintroduce a bill during the next legislative session that will go farther than the state’s Safe Homes Act of 2020, which allows officers to seize firearms found during a consensual search when police respond to a domestic dispute.
New York State Senator Peter Harckham, a Democrat from Westchester County, has sponsored a bill that would
“mandate” officers to confiscate all firearms left out in the open during a domestic call.
“This is not gun control, this is gun safety; and this is domestic safety,” the senator told Spectrum News. “This is keeping the victims of domestic violence alive. We had two fatalities through domestic violence and firearms in my district in the last month. This is very real. This is very deadly and this is not a permanent seizure.”
Senator Harckham’s bill would allow police to keep the seized weapons for five days – most likely to seek restraining orders or other legal options – before returning them to their rightful owners. Also, police would likely extend this five-day time limit as needed.
Tom King, president of New York State’s Rifle & Pistol Association, balked loudly about the new bill.
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,” King told the reporters. “That means a search warrant or an order from a judge to confiscate the firearms, and they’re doing this without that.”
King pointed out the more than 100 New Yorkers who had firearms seized under the state’s newly expanded red-flag law. This group contacted King’s nonprofit seeking help getting their guns back. Some have already paid more than $10,000 in legal expenses, King said.
Takeaways
The main problem with the new bill is that it offers police yet another illegal mechanism to seize someone’s guns.
Our federal law does not allow law enforcement to go traipsing through someone’s home looking for firearms that were never used in a crime, which they will then seize for no evidentiary value.
These types of laws are passed solely for one reason – harassment. They want to harass gun owners. They want gun owners temporarily disarmed and then forced to make several trips to the police station to get their property returned, at great cost, too. Don’t forget that.
Today, gun owners have fewer rights in places like New York than they do in free states. This new bill will only make it worse.
Article courtesy of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Click here to support the project.
In the United States of America, with the Second Amendment protecting our natural right to keep and bear arms, one would think that computer difficulties wouldn’t stop gun sales in an entire state for nearly two weeks.
Alas, one would be wrong.
Since November 1, nobody has been able to legally purchase a firearm in Washington State because of a computer system in the state’s Secure Automated Firearms E-Check (SAFE) system being “compromised.” That’s the program through which Washington conducts its background checks, instead of just going through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check (NICS) system.
When employees realized the system had been “compromised” on November 1 (they won’t say what that means), rather than figuring out how to fix it or putting some standby system into place, they immediately shut it down, making it impossible for gun dealers to run background checks for purchases. Since private sales are outlawed in the state, that effectively shut down all legal gun buying and selling.
In a Seattle Times report, Wendy Ferrell, associate director for the state Administrative Office of the Courts, said she couldn’t reveal the cause of the “compromise” because of “security reasons.”
“In an abundance of caution, we proactively took down our systems to secure them and are working around the clock with leading experts to restore services as quickly as possible,” Ferrell told the Times.
At that time, officials expected the outage to last “at least a week.” However, 12 days later, the system is still offline.
And officials don’t seem to be in much of a hurry to get it back up and running, based on a letter sent to gun dealers last week by Kevin L. Baird, assistant commander of the State Patrol’s Firearms Background Division.
“What this means to you: We are effectively on hold with any checks submitted from November 1, 2024, onward until AOC brings their systems back online,” Baird wrote. “Once that happens, the backlog of checks will process through as normal. But, until that time, we cannot make any determinations on any checks. We are currently working through as many pre-November 1 checks as possible, but even those are likely to be delayed due to another AOC system that we check also being down. We will do our best to get as many checks completed before their 10-business day wait period is met (to prevent unnecessary delays to your customers), but there may be some that we are not able to proceed/deny for a few days afterwards.”
That letter prompted leaders of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry trade association, to encourage Washington officials involved with the fiasco to quickly find a remedy. In a letter sent on November 12, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Larry Keane asked state officials to quickly change to the NICS system, at least for now.
“ICS operates effectively nationwide, ensuring accurate background check verifications and accommodating safe and responsible firearm transactions,” Keane wrote. “Until the SAFE system is restored, we believe the NICS program is a sufficient alternative to maintain both security and access.”
Keane followed that statement with a warning to Washington officials that a prolonged delay in gun sales would not be tolerated by the organization.
“Please be aware that the inability to conduct lawful transactions may lead to further action, as we seek to protect the rights of our members and their customers,” Keane wrote. “We urge a swift resolution to these technical issues and stand ready to explore additional measures that should be taken to ensure Washingtonians are not unduly burdened in the future.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has also vowed legal action if the situation isn’t remedied promptly.
“This is simply unacceptable, and we will not tolerate it,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Washington State citizens have had their rights under the federal and state constitutions suspended, and we will take legal action if this isn’t solved immediately.”
Since the implementation of Extreme-Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), or “red flag” laws, numerous studies and high-profile incidents have cast doubt on their effectiveness and raised concerns about potential abuses and deadly outcomes. While ERPOs are intended to prevent gun violence by temporarily removing firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others, evidence from recent studies and case examples demonstrates significant flaws in both effectiveness and due process.
FAIL: Extreme-Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs) Don’t Deliver
A comprehensive review by the RAND Corporation reveals that Extreme-Risk Protection Orders have had inconclusive results on various public safety outcomes, including violent crime, suicides, and unintentional injuries. While proponents argue that ERPOs could reduce gun violence by preemptively disarming high-risk individuals, RAND’s findings indicate that this objective remains largely unproven.
According to RAND’s 2024 update, only five studies met their inclusion criteria to assess ERPOs’ impact on suicide rates, and of those, only one showed any potential reduction, estimating a mere 4% to 6% decrease in suicides. Yet even this study faced criticism for significant methodological weaknesses, including its limited geographic focus and reliance on assumptions rather than direct causative evidence (Dalafave, 2021).
The RAND analysis highlights the disparity in outcomes across states implementing ERPOs. For instance, in states like Connecticut and Indiana, initial findings suggested minor reductions in firearm suicides, but when RAND revisited these findings, they found that results varied widely by location and that some states, like Connecticut, experienced inconclusive or even negligible impacts despite widespread ERPO implementation. The observed declines were not statistically significant in most cases, raising questions about ERPOs’ broader effectiveness. (RAND, 2024).
On other outcomes, such as violent crime and mass shootings, RAND’s report describes the evidence as “inconclusive or mixed,” with studies unable to demonstrate any consistent decrease in homicides or firearm-related assaults post-ERPO adoption. One study, analyzing data from Indiana and California, found no clear link between ERPO laws and declines in violent crime. In fact, the study cited “serious methodological concerns,” with one study noting that the “Extreme-risk protection orders have uncertain effects on total and firearm homicides. Evidence for this relationship is inconclusive”,” pointing to factors such as limited enforcement periods and variable criteria for ERPO petitions as possible explanations.
Similarly, RAND’s findings on unintentional firearm injuries reveal significant limitations, with only one study meeting their standards to evaluate this outcome. The study’s authors observed “uncertain associations” between ERPOs and unintentional firearm deaths, emphasizing that “available data do not allow for clear conclusions on ERPOs’ preventative capacity in this area” (RAND, 2024). In other words, although ERPOs are positioned as a preventative measure, evidence supporting their practical impact on enhancing public safety remains insufficient.
With these findings, RAND emphasizes that ERPOs, as currently implemented, “leave major gaps in their purported safety benefits,” potentially posing more questions than answers. These mixed results indicate the need for a critical examination of ERPO policies and underscore concerns raised by civil rights advocates about the laws’ effectiveness and constitutionality.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL DOWN TO CONTINUE READING
Citations:
- RAND Corporation, “The Effects of Extreme-Risk Protection Orders,” July 16, 2024.
- Dalafave, R. “An Empirical Assessment of Homicide and Suicide Outcomes with Red Flag Laws,” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, 2021.
- Pear, V. et al., “Firearm Violence Following the Implementation of California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order Law,” JAMA Network Open, 2022.
FACT: ERPO Have Deadly Outcomes
In Maryland, however, tragic results from an ERPO enforcement in 2018 stand as a stark warning of the real-life dangers posed by red flag laws. Early one morning, Maryland police attempted to enforce a red flag order by removing a resident’s firearms without prior notice. A struggle ensued, leading to the homeowner’s death. This incident underscores concerns raised by Second Amendment advocates who argue that ERPOs can turn deadly when gun owners, often unaware of the order, are faced with unexpected armed confrontations on their own property.
FACT: ERPO Hurt Due Process
The lack of due process in these laws is also under scrutiny. In 2023, a New York court ruled that red flag orders must require supporting documentation from a medical professional, highlighting due process violations in previous ERPOs. Without such standards, red flag orders may be issued based on claims from family or friends without a medical basis, stripping gun owners of their rights without adequate justification. Judge Craig Steven Brown, citing the Constitution, stated that “Second Amendment rights are no less fundamental than… Fourth Amendment rights,” emphasizing the need for robust due process before depriving someone of these liberties.
FACT: Extreme-Risk Protection Orders Are Abused
Critics also note the ERPO system’s vulnerability to misuse, including situations where orders are reportedly used to harass former partners or as leverage in family disputes. For gun owners, fighting an ERPO can be costly, particularly for those with limited resources, effectively making it more difficult for lower-income individuals to reclaim their rights.
Just Say NO!
Organizations such as Gun Owners of America and the Firearms Policy Coalition have taken strong stances against red flag laws, arguing that no amount of due process can reconcile these laws with Constitutional rights. Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) states they could support red flag laws if due process is guaranteed. However, NSSF has emphasized that ex parte orders—those issued without notifying the gun owner beforehand—pose an unacceptable risk of abuse.
The mixed results from ERPOs on safety outcomes and the potential for rights abuses are significant. As more states consider ERPO laws, policymakers must grapple with the evidence and listen to communities concerned about both safety and constitutional rights.
The question remains whether the risks ERPOs present to individual liberties and potential misuse outweigh their uncertain benefits for public safety.
Read Related: