Yearly Archives: 2021

The bill passed, 216-208, without any Republican support.

A Rasmussen poll released in March found only 29% of Americans supported D.C. statehood and 55% opposed it. The rest were unsure.

“In no other democratic nation in the world does the capital city of that nation not have a vote in their parliament,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., “Now our ‘parliament’ is called the Congress. Think of that, in no other democratic nation in the world are their citizens treated unequally in terms of a vote in the parliament of their nation.”

Many constitutional scholars, though, argued D.C. statehood cannot be accomplished through legislation.

“DC statehood can only happen by constitutional amendment," said Jenna Ellis, who was a legal adviser to former President Donald Trump and is a constitutional law attorney. “The founders designed the district because federal government needs to have independent control over the seat of government. Read Federalist 43.”

The District of Columbia has a population of roughly 700,000, more than Vermont or Wyoming and just a little less than Alaska. The district already has a nonvoting Democratic representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton. She praised the bill’s passage.

“Today’s victory was historic, both for D.C. residents and for the cause of D.C. statehood,” Norton said.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., expressed support for D.C. statehood when it was passed during the Trump administration, but that legislation never gained traction. This time around, the bill faces a difficult road ahead in the Senate.

“It is past time to end the historic disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens and make D.C. a state,” Sen. Schumer said when the provision passed the House last year. “As one of my top priorities when it comes to voting rights and democracy reform, I will keep working in the Senate to secure statehood, full voting rights and full home rule, for D.C. in this Congress and beyond.”

Hoyer, though, also called for an end to the filibuster to get this legislation and their other controversial agenda items to the president’s desk.

“There are no provisions in the Constitution about a filibuster, so, frankly, I think that filibuster rule ought to be eliminated in the United States so that democracy can prevail,” Hoyer said.

The statehood legislation provides that “the commonwealth shall be admitted to the Union on an equal footing with the other states." That means representation in the House and Senate and notably, more weight in Congress likely going to the Democratic Party.

The residents of Washington voted more than 90% for both Hillary Clinton in 2016 and President Joe Biden in 2020, leaving little doubt about what party their members of Congress would support.

Republicans pointed to this leftward bias as evidence that D.C. statehood is only about expanding Democratic power.

“The Democrats’ D.C. statehood scheme is about two things: consolidating power and enacting radical policies,” said House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif. “The American people see right through this blatant power grab.”

A contingent within the district has pushed for statehood for years under the motto, “taxation without representation,” a reference to the same slogan that united the American colonies against the British during the American Revolution. That motto dons license plates registered in the district today.

"I voted YES for DC statehood,” Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, wrote on Twitter. “The Districts 700,000 residents, who pay more taxes than 21 states, deserve full representation and an equal voice. No taxation without representation.”

(The Center Square) – Less than a year after the death of George Floyd in police custody, a jury found former Minneapolis Police officer Derek Chauvin guilty on charges of second-degree unintentional murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.

Anger from the tragic death in police custody on May 25, 2020, was fueled by a bystander filming part of the arrest, showing Floyd pinned under Chauvin’s knee for 9 minutes and 45 seconds, while he pleaded “I can’t breathe.” Floyd was declared dead later that day.

The video caused protests worldwide and pushed discussion of police accountability and proper levels of force for minor crimes, as Floyd was arrested for allegedly attempting to spend a fake $20 bill.

After Floyd’s death, rioters stormed the Twin Cities, burning to the ground the businesses of first-generation immigrants, many who lacked insurance, as well as the Third Police Precinct, causing more than $500 million of damage to nearly 1,500 Twin Cities businesses – the second most expensive riots in the United States after the 1992 Los Angeles civil unrest following the police beating of Rodney King.

But the cost to taxpayers kept climbing as the Minnesota National Guard response to initial riots cost nearly $13 million, who have been deployed more than three times since then.

Floyd's family conducted an independent autopsy finding he died from mechanical asphyxiation, while the Hennepin County medical examiner cited Floyd's death as "cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint and neck compression."

Chauvin’s attorney argued Floyd’s underlying medical conditions of hypertensive heart disease and fentanyl toxicity caused his death, and that Chauvin’s use of force was appropriate to subdue a 6-foot-4 man intoxicated with illegal substances that can give some superhuman strength.

Floyd’s girlfriend Courtney Ross described Floyd’s addiction to painkillers, testifying Floyd overdosed in March 2020 and she believed he began using again two weeks before his May death.

An autopsy found methamphetamine and fentanyl in Floyd’s system, while investigators also found pills contained methamphetamine and fentanyl inside Floyd’s vehicle.

The prosecutor argued Floyd didn’t exhibit overdose symptoms and instead pointed to the knee pressed on Floyd’s neck as the cause of death. That attorney cited a forensic toxicologist who found fentanyl levels were “well below” that of people who die from an overdose and only a “very low” level of methamphetamine in Floyd's blood.

“The experts all agree and the videos show that George Floyd did not die the way someone who dies from a fentanyl overdose dies,” Prosecutor Steve Schleicher said. “His breathing, it didn’t slow down. He didn’t fall asleep. He didn’t go into a coma. No, this looked nothing like a fatal fentanyl overdose.”

In a civil lawsuit, Floyd’s family settled with the city of Minneapolis for a record $27 million last month.

Lawmakers listened to hours of testimony last week about how toxic parents and their near-constant complaining have made it tough to find or keep refs and umps across Wisconsin.

“This isn’t about the occasional displeasure of a spirited fan, or someone being hard on a ref or an ump,” Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association Executive Director Dave Anderson told lawmakers last week. “Our officials have thick skin. But they shouldn't have to be chased back to their cars. They shouldn’t have to feel fearful or unsafe, or confront the threat of violence for doing their job.”

Rep. Alex Dallman, R-Green Lake, is co-sponsoring the anti-harassment plan. He says Wisconsin has laws against attacking referees or umpires. Though Dallman says the state doesn’t have a sufficient way of punishing fans who cross the line but stop just short of an assault.

“As a licensed sports official for the last 10 years I have been both verbally and physically confronted while officiating,” Dallman said during the hearing on his plan. “It has become an increasing issue across all levels of sports. And harassment has led to a decline in the number of people [becoming] sports officials.”

Dallman’s plan would make it a misdemeanor to harass or intimidate an official.

Democrats at the hearing, including Rep. Sylvia Ortiz-Velez, D-Milwaukee, questioned the need for establishing a new crime.

“When I look at this bill, it makes me wonder if by passing this, we are putting acts of violence on the same stage as acts of harassment,” Ortiz-Velez asked.

Other Democrats wondered if schools and officials simply were not enforcing the laws already on the books.

Dallman said current punishments are essentially one-and-done.

“Once we remove them from the school, it solves the problem for that day. It doesn’t solve it forever,” Dallman explained. “I’d like to see this enhancement to allow us to either deter them from doing this over and over again. Or at least be able to say ‘This is the penalty you have if you come back to our school and do this again.”

There’s no word when the proposal might prompt a vote.

(The Center Square) – Democrats enthralled their base and alarmed Republicans with the recent announcement of a new push to add four justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the latest polling suggests the majority of Americans don’t favor expanding the highest court in the land.

New polling released by Rasmussen Tuesday found that only a third of likely voters support adding justices to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, 55% of likely voters oppose expanding the bench, which has remained at nine justices for over 150 years.

The poll surveyed 1,000 likely voters between April 15 and April 18 of last week. Respondents were asked:

“The U.S. Supreme Court as defined by law has nine members – a chief justice and eight associate justices, all appointed to lifetime terms. Do you favor or oppose increasing the number of justices on the U.S. Supreme Court?”

Sentiments have remained roughly the same since Rasmussen asked the same question in the fall of last year. Last September, 53% of likely voters said they opposed adding justices to the court while only 32% supported it. The rest were unsure.

However, that same poll found 52% of likely voters support term limits for the Supreme Court while 36% oppose.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll released last week found that the majority of Americans want to end lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court and put some kind of term or age limits in place.

That poll found 63% of Americans wanted to end lifetime appointments, but only 38% wanted to expand the court.

President Joe Biden created a commission of experts earlier this month to examine expanding the court. Biden pledged to create that commission during the presidential campaign, but he would not make a clear commitment to expand the court.

Biden's messaging on the issue has varied, but he did say during the campaign that he was “not a fan” of adding justices, citing the bad precedent and opportunity for future administrations to continue adding more and more justices.

Some Democrats in the House and Senate were eager to push forward, though, and introduced legislation last week that would add four justices to the court.

"We are here today because the United States Supreme Court is broken,” said Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass, one of the leaders of the legislative effort. “It is out of balance, and it needs to be fixed. Too many Americans view our highest court in the land as a partisan, political institution, not our impartial, judicial branch of government.”

Republicans were quick to attack the plan, calling it an abuse of power and an attempt to establish a liberal majority on the court, which now has more Republican appointees than Democrat.

"The Democrats will do anything for power," said Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., in response to the bill.

Tuesday's Rasmussen poll, however, found that while most Americans oppose, a majority of Democrats support expanding the Supreme Court. The party is split on the issue, setting Democrats up for more division and infighting in the months and primaries to come.

That division was on full display last week when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she would not support bringing the legislation to the floor. The continued push for court expansion and the Democratic division surrounding it suggests it will not be resolved anytime soon.

Some Republicans signaled they are planning to use the issue to campaign against Democrats in the next election.

"President Biden campaigned on a promise of lowering the temperature and uniting a divided nation," said Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "If he really meant it, he would stop giving oxygen to a dangerous, antiquated idea and stand up to the partisans hawking it."

Wisconsin lawmakers spent Wednesday at the Capitol looking to close the gaps from last fall’s election.

The Wisconsin Senate approved four pieces of legislation that Sen. Duey Strobel, R-Saukville, said will make it easier to vote and more difficult to cheat in the state.

“We must restore confidence and trust in our elections, and these bills are the first step in doing that,” Stroebel said.

One of the plans, which provides more protections for poll workers, is from Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills.

The others are all Stroebel’s, including:

SB 213 expands enforcement options for election law violations by giving the courts a direct path in election challenges, not just the Wisconsin Election Commission. The plan also allows prosecutors in neighboring counties to investigate election complaints in adjacent counties.SB 208 increases transparency at the Wisconsin Elections Commission by requiring the online publication of the Commission’s meeting minutes.SB 207 clarifies the rules in Wisconsin dealing with outside money and its use in the state’s election administration.

The last plan, dealing with out of state money for nonprofits, is also the focus in the Wisconsin Assembly.

Rep. Janel Brandtjen, R-Menomonee Falls, told The Center Square on Wednesday that she is poised to push for a number of new restrictions on how groups like the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life can operate in the state.

"You're talking about millions of dollars with no regulations and no reporting," Brandtjen said. "And this is just the money we know about."

Brandtjen is leading the investigation in the Assembly inspired by reports that the CTCL all but took over Green Bay’s election operation last fall. Brandtjen said that investigation is now focusing on other communities in the state because of a lawsuit filed last week.

Brandtjen said the investigation is solely about election integrity, not about who won the November election in Wisconsin.

“If this was the Tea Party funded by the Koch brothers, we still wouldn’t want third party money coming into Wisconsin and into our elections,” Brandtjen said.

Most of the Senate’s election proposals, and just about anything that comes from Brandtjen’s investigation, is almost certainly dead on arrival at Gov. Tony Evers’ office.

Brandtjen said the governor has made it clear he won’t sign anything that he thinks makes it more difficult to vote.

“This has nothing to do with making it more difficult for people to vote,” Brandtjen said. “It only has to do with third-party money coming into Wisconsin.”

The FDA made the announcement on Twitter and issued a joint statement with the CDC after six reported cases in the U.S. of a “rare and severe” type of blood clotting. All six cases of clotting occurred in women between the ages of 18 and 48.

Health officials said there was no sign of similar issues with the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, and that vaccinations should continue with those two formulas.

“We are recommending a pause in the use of [the Johnson & Johnson] vaccine out of an abundance of caution,” the FDA said on Twitter. “As of 4/12, 6.8m+ doses of the J&J vaccine have been administered in the U.S. CDC & FDA are reviewing data involving 6 reported U.S. cases of a rare & severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the vaccine. Right now, these adverse events appear to be extremely rare."

The CDC will meet with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Wednesday to review the cases. The FDA will then review their analysis so the federal agencies can decide the next steps.

Until that review is complete, though, the federal government is asking that those vaccines be put on hold.

“People who have received the J&J vaccine who develop severe headache, abdominal pain, leg pain, or shortness of breath within three weeks after vaccination should contact their health care provider,” the two health agencies said in a statement. “COVID-19 vaccine safety is a top priority for the federal government, and we take all reports of health problems following COVID-19 vaccination very seriously.”

Many states were following suit by suspending the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine at facilities they run. In New York, the Cuomo administration said that anyone who had an appointment to get a Johnson & Johnson vaccine on Tuesday would instead get a different shot.

"New York State will follow the CDC and FDA recommendation and pause the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine statewide immediately today while these health and safety agencies evaluate next steps," State Health Commissioner Dr. Howard Zucker said in a news release. "All appointments for Johnson & Johnson vaccines today at New York State mass vaccination sites will be honored with the Pfizer vaccine."

(The Center Square) – Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council, met with Republican lawmakers this week to explain the nature of the problem Border Patrol is facing on a daily basis.

“I would argue that it’s the biggest surge that we’ve ever seen in the history of the Border Patrol,” Judd said during a roundtable with members of Congress, Texas landowners, and law enforcement.

The two-day trip to McAllen, Texas, was spearheaded by Ohio U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, and included several Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee. Jordan said House Democrats were invited to come but declined to participate. Jordan says what he saw is a “catastrophe.”

“In all my years in Congress, this has been the most disturbing field tour that I’ve ever taken," California U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock told reporters at a roundtable.

Judd says Border Patrol is overwhelmed by a surge of 18,600 unaccompanied illegal immigrant minors, family units that comprise nearly 53,000 individuals, and 96,600 single adults in March alone.

CBP projects more than 1 million unaccompanied minors will enter the U.S. illegally this year.

During the month of March, Southwest land border encounters and apprehension totaled 172,000 illegal immigrants, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) reported. An additional 1,000 people per day are evading capture, CBP estimates. These numbers are up compared to February, when border agents apprehended 101,000 illegal immigrants and unaccompanied minors.

However, Acting CBP Commissioner Troy Miller argues the surge at the border “is not new” and that encounters have “continued to increase since April 2020.”

He added, “our past experiences have helped us be better prepared for the challenges we face this year.”

Judd disagreed, arguing, “this surge is unlike anything we’ve ever seen before.”

“Even though we were making 1.5 million arrests, we were actually dealing with about 400,000 to 500,000 individual people – we were just arresting the same people over and over again,” Judd said. Most were single males from Mexico, whereas the types of people crossing today are different, he said. “Today … if we make 1.2 million arrests, we’re actually dealing with about 800,000 to 900,000 different people.”

Taking care of family units and unaccompanied minors requires a great amount of resources, including housing, food, transportation and health care, all paid for by taxpayers. Taxpayers also foot the bill for the processing of and subsequent transfer or release of the individuals into the United States.

“You could cross the border illegally one day and be in Virginia the very next day,” Judd said, referring to the “catch-and-release” program implemented by the Biden administration.

“I personally have apprehended groups from China, from Bangladesh, from Russia, from Poland, from Brazil. And these criminal organizations are allowed to go into these countries, and they’re allowed to advertise their services and make billions of dollars off of human misery. And it’s based upon our policies,” he said, referring to the Biden administration policies that reversed Trump-era policies.

Last month, President Joe Biden appointed Vice President Kamala Harris to oversee the border crisis, however, she has yet to visit the border.

Judd says the current policy of “catch-and-release” only incentivizes illegal immigration. A better alternative is to detain individuals while their immigration case is being adjudicated, he suggested, pointing to the Trump administration’s Migrant Protection Protocols, known as the Remain in Mexico program, which sought to do this.

McClintock said the group of lawmakers “watched literally hundreds of illegal migrants crossing the border and turning themselves in to the Border Patrol," he said. "Groups who were in the company of children under seven had their basic biometric information taken down, and then [they were] dispatched to bus stations to continue into the United States.”

McClintock said the children are held for an average of 24 days and the situation is "getting worse by the day." Mexican cartels net roughly $500 million per month through human trafficking, he said.

“We are feeding the Mexican crime cartels," he added. "The crime cartels are taking in roughly a half a billion dollars a month through this human trafficking network."

Indiana U.S. Rep. Victoria Spartz blamed “perverse incentives and lack of leadership" for the border crisis. “Perverse incentive and lack of leadership from this administration [have] created a real serious crisis at the border. And it has really escalated," she said.

“Forty percent of our Border Patrol agents are busy processing people and changing diapers," she continued. "It means that they cannot do their job protecting the border. It means that Mexican cartels are controlling the border. This is a national security and humanitarian crisis.”

Utah U.S. Rep. Burgess Owens recounted sobbing children and a young woman who was gang raped.

“We have an administration that does not have the backbone to come down here and encourage these great men and women who are doing a job but being overwhelmed right now,” Ownes said.

Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs said the situation was “horrific to see."

The White House said a new executive order will create a presidential commission composed of experts to study current practices of the Supreme Court, most notably the “membership and size” of the court itself.

The commission will hold public meetings and present a report on its findings within 180 days. According to the White House, its stated purpose is to provide "an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform.”

That raised eyebrows, though, as a thinly veiled exploration of expanding the size of the court after many Democrats called for the court’s expansion last year.

What is also called “packing the court” became a contentious issue during the 2020 presidential campaign.

Liberal Democrats have called on Biden for months to add justices to the court, which has a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents. Biden often avoided questions about the issue on the campaign trail, but did say he is “not a fan” of adding justices.

Former President Donald Trump appointed three justices during his term, giving conservatives a 6-3 majority on the court. Those victories for the former president prompted Democrats, particularly the more liberal wing of the party, to push for appointing more supposedly left-leaning justices once a Democrat was in the White House.

“Expand the court,” U.S. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-New York, said just days before the November elections. “Republicans do this because they don’t believe Dems have the stones to play hardball like they do. And for a long time they’ve been correct. But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isn’t. There is a legal process for expansion.”

Democrats could outright expand the court and add justices, but another tactic may involve putting term limits on justices with the hopes of replacing them with Democratic nominees.

Republicans were quick to criticize Biden's commission, pointing to an overreach of executive authority.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, responded to the announcement immediately on Twitter, saying Democrats want to “close your schools, open your border, take your guns, raise your taxes, cancel your culture, pack your court,” hitting several lines of attack against the Biden administration.

“Why study something we already know? Democrats want to pack the Supreme Court,” he added.

The Republican leadership of the House Judiciary Committee, where Jordan serves as the ranking member, echoed that sentiment, saying in response, “President Biden promised he’d govern as a 'moderate.’ He lied.”

Congress has the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court, but the highest court in the land has remained at nine justices since 1869, over 150 years.

The president’s new commission will be led by two co-chairs. The first is White House Counsel and Yale Law School Professor Cristina Rodriguez, who currently serves as former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice. The other co-chair is Bob Bauer, Professor of Practice and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at New York University School of Law.

“The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court’s role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court’s case selection, rules, and practices,” the White House said in a statement. “In addition to legal and other scholars, the Commissioners include former federal judges and practitioners who have appeared before the Court, as well as advocates for the reform of democratic institutions and of the administration of justice. The expertise represented on the Commission includes constitutional law, history and political science.”

(The Center Square) – President Joe Biden announced a series of controversial gun control measures from the White House Thursday.

The president laid out several executive actions and made clear he thinks more gun control measures are needed and coming soon. He also urged Republicans to partner with him in passing gun control legislation, including a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

“Whether Congress acts or not I’m going to use all the resources at my disposal to keep people safe from gun violence,” Biden said during his speech from the Rose Garden. “There is more Congress can do to help that effort.

“This is just the start,” he said.

Joined by Attorney General Merrick Garland and Vice President Kamala Harris, Biden announced the Department of Justice must issue a proposed rule on what he called “ghost guns,” weapons created by 3D printers that are often without serial numbers, making them difficult to track.

“Individuals can buy kits that contain almost all or all of the parts they need to assemble a gun,” Biden said. “They can put together a working gun in as little as 30 minutes.”

Biden has also instructed the DOJ to release a proposed rule within 60 days focused on modified pistols, arguing they can in some cases be treated like small rifles. The agency also must issue an annual firearms trafficking report, he said.

The most substantive changes to gun policy, though, could come through Congress. Biden called on members to pass gun control legislation, and threw a jab at Republicans unwilling to sign on to his proposed measures.

“They have offered plenty of thoughts and prayers, but they have not passed a single federal law to reduce gun violence,” Biden said. “Enough prayers. Time for action.”

Gun control legislation

Biden's legislative proposals include a national “red flag law” and new language to shore up what the president calls background check “loopholes.”

“Congress should close those loopholes and go further, including by closing ‘boyfriend’ and stalking loopholes that currently allow people found by the courts to be abusers to possess firearms, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, repealing gun manufacturers’ immunity from liability, and investing in evidence-based community violence interventions,” the White House said in a statement. “Congress should also pass an appropriate national ‘red flag’ law, as well as legislation incentivizing states to pass ‘red flag’ laws of their own.”

Biden pointed to two background check bills that passed the House in March. He also advocated for removing liability protections from gunmakers.

“No matter how long it takes, we are going to get these passed,” Biden said. “I know that the conversation about guns in this country can be a difficult one.”

Sharp pushback

Republicans were quick to criticize Biden’s plan, arguing the president is abusing his authority and violating the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

“The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental for preserving our liberty,” U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Twitter. “The answer is not to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens. The answer is to go after violent criminals and come down on them like a ton of bricks.”

Critics argue Biden’s measures will do little to stop criminals but will hamper the freedoms of regular Americans.

“President Biden’s executive order on guns operates under same fallacy often committed by gun-control advocates: go after guns that look or sound scary ('ghost guns') but are rarely used in crime and, in the process, potentially turn millions of Americans into felons,” said Trevor Burrus, a constitutional expert at the Cato Institute. “Any gun control policy that doesn’t focus on inner city gun violence and suicides with handguns is not a serious attempt to mitigate gun deaths. But the presence of a gun is not the primary cause of interpersonal gun violence and firearm suicides, and we must broaden our search for solutions that do not focus on guns.”

Other critics pointed to the right to self-defense. Julie Gunlock, director of the Center for Progress and Innovation at Independent Women’s Forum, voiced opposition to Biden’s proposed measures, saying they make Americans more vulnerable to crime.

Crime rates have spiked in several cities around the country.

“As we’ve seen over and over again, these measures do nothing to reduce gun violence but they do make people more vulnerable to criminals,” Gunlock said. “People have a right to defend themselves, and the government should have no role in telling people how to do it. President Biden’s [executive order] will only embolden criminals and endanger law-abiding American lives.”

Any serious restrictions on gun rights are likely to face lawsuits. The Trump administration banned bump stocks in 2017, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an injunction against that rule last month, saying it was likely unlawful.

"We will take whatever actions are necessary, possible, and prudent to protect the rights and liberty of law-abiding gun owners and our members against illogical, immoral and unconstitutional laws, government agencies and policies, such as we did in the case of former President Trump’s bump stock ban," the Firearms Policy Coalition said in a statement.

Biden’s speech laid out the first in what will likely be a prolonged campaign for more gun control regulations and enforcement. As part of that effort, Biden also announced David Chipman as his nominee to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Finally, none of these measures or any of the other critical law enforcement work the department does with respect to illegal guns can be effectively carried out without strong leadership,” Garland said in his speech following the president. “[Chipman’s] extensive experience as an ATF agent will prove invaluable, and I look forward to working with him.”