Thread by @StephenGutowski

I'm confused about why @GlennThrush gives such harsh treatment to acting ATF Director Richardson for doing innocuous stuff the ATF has been doing for years. But he gives extremely sympathetic coverage to David Chipman despite his racism allegations. nytimes.com/2022/03/04/us/…

By "extremely sympathetic" I mean Thrush has never once even mentioned the allegations or asked Chipman about them. But he goes pretty hard after Richardson for attending SHOT Show despite the fact the ATF has been attending the show for years. It's pretty bizarre.

This mirrors what the gun-control movement has been doing. So, it's not terribly surprising. Though it is bizarre to go after Richardson for attending the trade show of an industry he regulates. He didn't even say anything controversial. Just gave a time line for a new rule.

The industry doesn't want those rules to go into effect at all. How Thrush or the gun-control groups imagine this is some sort of win for the industry is beyond me.

But Thrush seems to know very little about the ATF, firearms industry, guns, or the federal rulemaking process. He claims the "ghost gun" rule was expected to be in place by now. Expected by who? The rulemaking process takes a year or more. Just look at the bumpstock ban.

Red Flag laws aren't about "carrying guns," they're about possessing guns altogether. Universal background check proposals aren't about "enhancing" background checks, they're about requiring them on private transfers. And what is Thrush's definition of "military-style firearms."

This kind of gun reporting is so typical at major outlets. It's mostly just unquestioned talking points from sources who are usually from Democrats or gun-control groups. Mainly because the reporters have no understanding of either guns, gun laws, or even the politics of guns.

It's no mystery why gun owners don't trust most major media outlets.

The Thrush piece was worse originally. He described Biden's plan to reclassify (effectively ban) pistol braces as "a rule banning the use of high-capacity 'bump stocks'." The complete lack of even basic knowledge from reporter through editor is amazing.

https://twitter.com/2Aupdates/status/1500515441327935493?t=HKUxDwvRLj3Av9HyFCTqrg&s=19

Humor me while I dig into this one. First, the pistol brace ban proposal has nothing to do with bump stocks whatsoever. A bump stock is a stock (the shoulder thing that goes up). So, I have no clue how a stock can be "high capacity."

Its just a word salad of scary gun terms.

This is a pistol brace. It's designed to be strapped around a user's forearm. The ATF had ruled some devices like this can be put on ARs with short barrels without triggering regulations for short-barrel rifles.

Biden's proposed pistol brace regulation would require the vast majority of guns with the braces to be registered with the ATF and taxed under the National Firearms Act of 1934. It's a felony not to comply. It will effect millions. thereload.com/biden-admins-p…

It's probably too much to hope The Times (or most outlets for that matter) would hire at least one person who actually understands this stuff. But at least reach out to people willing to give you guidance. I'm happy to help with at least the technical details off the record.