Shawn Kroll, a structural engineer and Marine veteran, joins the program to discuss his lawsuit against the ATF over a new ruling banning stabilizing braces on pistols with 10.5-inch barrels. He argues this arbitrary ban affects 10 to 40 million Americans, forcing them into felony status if they fail to surrender firearms within 120 days, while legal compliance via tax stamps takes 9 to 18 months. Led by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, Kroll warns that unilateral definition changes could expand to triggers and grips, creating a German-style registry. The segment concludes by highlighting existing brainwave monitoring technology from companies like Meta, raising urgent concerns about privacy and government surveillance. [Automatically generated summary]
He has just filed a lawsuit against the ATF about something that is really, honestly, going to affect all of us and all gun owners.
If they can get away with this, they will come and take away your gun, and it will happen faster than you think.
Now, he is currently a structural engineer.
He is a decorated Marine combat veteran.
He served the United States with distinction in Afghanistan, and he has a pistol with a 10.5-inch barrel and a stabilizing brace.
Well, that's a problem.
Why?
Because the ATF has changed their mind.
So he has just put together a lawsuit and just filed it just a few minutes ago.
We've been waiting for this to happen.
And he joins us now from Wisconsin.
Sean, welcome.
Morgan Glenn, Mickey Brasby.
Oh, man, I thank you for coming on, but thank you for what you're doing.
This ATF ruling that they just changed and changed their mind, and I believe have no standing, have no way to actually do this legally.
If this isn't fought in the court and won, I think our Second Amendment rights are gone.
Do you believe it's hyperbole?
No, I'm inclined to agree.
You know, unfortunately, this is just another instance in a long list of arbitrary bans by the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, to your point, many of which were at one point deemed acceptable to be purchased.
So I agree wholeheartedly.
Okay, so tell me about your lawsuit.
Why did you file it?
Why is it being filed in Wisconsin?
And what does it say?
Yeah, so the reason for filing, in short, again, I believe this to be a massive overstep by the ATF, and I don't believe it to be a rightful or illegal thing to be done.
I find it unfortunate that now as a civilian, no longer an active service member of the United States, I still feel compelled to have to stand up for the rights of the people of this country.
And unfortunately, I'm doing so from a branch of government that has sworn to do the same.
Part of the lawsuit that we have actively amongst myself and two other veterans is just going against the ATF for this ruling.
We don't believe it to be valid.
We don't believe it to be a justified change in definition, and so we wish to change that.
Okay, now you're filing in Wisconsin.
Who is filing with you?
Who do you have representing you?
Yeah, so the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is the firm that I'm working with.
Again, I have two other veterans.
One is a resident here of Wisconsin, Gabe Tauser, and the third is a veteran in the state of Texas in Amarillo.
Okay, so if anybody doesn't know the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, they are very, very good and have a really good track record at things like this.
So this is kind of the, you know, the reason why I asked this, Sean, is Rosa Parks was not the first woman to refuse to give up her seat.
She was just the best one to present to the world with the best chance of it sticking.
So I'm assuming that there's others that are doing this, but you are also, you and your fellow Marines or compatriots are selected as one of the best cases out there.
Would that be true?
Do you know?
Yeah, I certainly hope so.
You know, we pride ourselves on, you know, not only our service, but our continued service to our country in all aspects now, you know, after all of our actual contracts with the Department of Defense have now ended.
So yeah, I would be inclined to agree.
Okay.
So what are you arguing?
Because it's a pretty long filing.
It's 25 pages and it covers a lot.
Yeah.
So again, you know, to keep it relatively short, we believe this ruling to be unconstitutional.
We believe it to be against what the ATF is within their bounds of being able to do.
You're effectively taking an estimated 10 to 40 million Americans that have purchased these braces and you are making them sell them overnight.
And by doing so, you are restricting their ability to not only have their gun rights, but to even participate in the voting experience as an American.
So we stand to step in to hopefully stop or retract this change in definition so that we can again allow the people of this country to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
How do you feel about the chances there in Wisconsin?
So I believe the suit is actually formally being filed in Amarillo, Texas.
Again, the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty is the one who is heading this up, but there is a high likelihood that in Amarillo that this is likely to gain traction, get support.
So it is my understanding that that is the tactical choice there.
We are going and proceeding forward with that.
Okay, I didn't know it was filed here in Texas.
That explains a lot.
Thank you.
That makes me feel much better.
Okay.
So you are looking to overturn the stabilizing, but you're also, if I'm not mistaken, trying to make sure that this overreach doesn't happen in other categories beyond the stabilizing brace, correct?
Yeah, so in general, obviously we hope to set a precedent that, again, you can't unilaterally write law as the ATF.
And by changing the definition, they're trying to go around that and to do it by other means.
And so what we are hoping to do is to, again, by stopping this piece of definition change, we hope to set a precedent to where this cannot happen for any other instance of any other type of item in the future.
So explain what that means because, I mean, this law has come out and it is absolutely nowhere in the mainstream press.
And I think that's for a reason.
They're avoiding this because they know if people understand what this means, they will be filing themselves.
I mean, it would be, I think, it would be overwhelming the system with litigation because it does just this one, put maybe up to 40 million Americans in prison.
And it forces you to turn over something that the ATF themselves said was legal when you bought it.
Now they're changing with no grandfather law.
And this could go all the way down to magazines.
This could go to, you know, they are talking about banning all semi-automatic weapons, which would mean that really only the cowboy gun is allowed.
Oh, and the Red Rider BB gun, which will put an eye out.
And that is accurate, right?
Can you kind of go into where this leads if it's not overturned?
Yeah, so, you know, I think just recently, within the last day or so, they're finding now that formerly some of the triggers that are sold in the industry are now to be considered machine guns.
You know, the trigger assembly itself exclusively is a machine gun.
You know, you already have instances where a vertical grip that is perpendicular to the direction of the barrel is making something a felony to own versus if it's 15 degrees, it is then safe.
You know, you have a lot of these distinctions that kind of exist in ambiguity to where you could very unwittingly do something that is illegal and become a felon unbeknownst to your choices.
And so there is definitely an opportunity to expand this if it gets pushed through and it is successful to apply to quite literally any other aspect of the firearms industry.
And if we don't turn our gun in, or if we don't alert them with a picture and serial numbers and everything else, if we don't say, hey, I'm this citizen A and I have this gun and I bought it here.
If this doesn't isn't overturned, I'm automatically, if I own one of these guns, a felon and they can arrest me.
But the problem is that this is exactly the way they did it in Germany.
They'll say, turn in your guns, but if you turn in your guns, then they have a register of everybody.
If it is overturned, anybody who's turned their guns in and turned all that information in, they now have a registry of that.
And you're not going to get your guns back if you overturn.
So a lot of people are stuck in this place.
Look, I don't want to be a felon, but I don't want to turn my gun in.
And I certainly don't trust the ATF to give them my information.
Yeah, absolutely.
And, you know, it's worth mentioning that the current amount of NSA submissions per year handled by the ATF, they are oftentimes unable, given the manpower that they have, the resource allocated to, to process all of those in a given year.
I think the estimate is somewhere around 500,000 per year that are submitted.
They can't get to them now.
So wait a minute, wait a minute.
Explain that for people who don't understand.
For instance, if you have a legally owned automatic weapon, a machine gun, which is lawful, but they cost because you can only buy them from the, you know, prior to what, 1980 or 1990.
So they cost an absolute fortune, and drug dealers aren't buying them over the counter.
So they cost a fortune, and you have to go and apply for what is called a stamp.
And that vets you, but to get that stamp takes over a year.
But in this case, they're saying you have to send all your information and apply for that stamp, but this goes into effect in 120 days.
There's no way to process all of those stamps.
So what happens in between?
And they're playing cat and mouse on this.
They're being very coy on this, on what that means if you've applied and you don't have it yet.
Correct?
You're absolutely correct.
So to apply for the free tax stamp is one of the routes that you can do to be in compliance with this new change of definition.
You can submit for your firearm to be what's referred to as an SBR, a short-barreled rifle.
The issue, to your point, it oftentimes takes anywhere from 9 to 18 months to get that processed and to be given the authority to legally possess that item.
Now, in any other instance, you would do so through a dealer who will hold on to the item until that acceptance is granted to you and then issue that and transfer it over to you.
In the correct circumstance that we are discussing this morning, you already have that in your possession.
So when you exceed that 120-day mark and you have still another anywhere up to 15 months to go before they could potentially approve this, you are, by your own admission, from the fingerprints and the photos that you have submitted to the ATF in violation of what you can legally possess at that time.
So you are at that point immediately a felon.
All right.
So 120 days from the time of this law being posted, this law had not been posted on the registry as of early last week.
When did they post the law?
When did the 120 days go into action?
It is my understanding that that was this morning.
It was formally entered into the registry, and therefore you would have 120 days as of this morning to be in compliance with this new change.
Okay.
Sean, I hope to have you on again.
Real quick, do you think this is going to the court will rule on this pretty quickly and hear the case?
I certainly hope so.
Given the nature of these, they're usually long-winded arguments and battles.
But with that said, we have hope that the choice of Amarillo to be the state that we are filing suit in will have an effect and this will proceed and get some traction here.
Well, again, thank you again for filing this suit and coming on.
Wearable Devices Decoding Brain Activity00:07:20
I really appreciate it.
I hope this story goes far and wide today because you need to understand 120 days from today, if you own a pistol that has a pistol grip, if you will, a pistol brace, you will be a felon in 120 days.
And none of the options are any good to deal with it.
You're listening to the best of the Glenn Beck program.
Here's a clip again from the World Economic Forum.
Listen.
First off, a video.
It's going to make you see the future and understand a wonderful future where we can use brainwaves to fight crime, be more productive, and find love.
That's wonderful.
You're in the zone.
Even you can't believe how productive you've been.
Your memo is finished, your inbox is under control, and you're feeling sharper than you have in a decade.
Sensing your joy, your playlist shifts to your favorite song, sending chills up your spine as the music begins to play.
You glance at the program running in the background on your computer screen and notice a now-familiar sight that appears whenever you're overloaded with pleasure, your theta brainwave activity decreasing in the temporal regions of your brain.
You mentally move the cursor to the left and scroll through your brain data over the past few hours.
You can see your stress levels rising as the deadline to finish your memo approached, causing a peak in your beta brainwave activity right before an alert popped up, telling you to take a brain break.
But what's that unusual change in your brain activity when you're asleep?
It started earlier in the month.
You send a text message to your doctor with a mental swipe of your cursor.
Could you take a quick look at my brain data?
Anything to worry about?
Your mind starts to wander to the new colleague on your team, whom you know you shouldn't be daydreaming about, given the policy against intra-office romance.
But you can't help fantasizing just a little.
But then you start to worry that your boss will notice your amorous feelings when she checks your brain activity and shift your attention back to the present.
You breathe a sigh of relief when the email she sends you later that day congratulates you on your brain metrics from the past quarter, which have earned you another performance bonus.
You head home jamming to the music with your work-issued brain-sensing earbuds still in.
When you arrive at work the next day, a somber cloud has fallen over the office.
Along with emails, text messages, and GPS location data, the government has subpoenaed employees' brainwave data from the past year.
They have compelling evidence that one of your co-workers has committed massive wire fraud.
Now, they're looking for his co-conspirators.
You discover they are looking for synchronized brain activity between your coworker and the people he has been working with.
While you know you're innocent of any crime, you've been secretly working with him on a new startup venture.
Shaking, you remove your earbuds.
Stop for a second, please.
Stop.
How many feel comfortable with this?
This, remember, was introduced as, you know, your future and showing you how exciting things can happen in your future.
You'll be able to increase your productivity.
We'll be able to fight crime.
You'll be able to find love.
Who's comfortable with just this?
Now, let me just play the beginning of one of the eggheads at the World Economic Forum talking about this.
Go ahead.
You have the rest.
What do you think?
Is it a future you're ready for?
You may be surprised to learn that it's a future that has already arrived.
Everything in that video that you just saw is based on technology that is already here today.
Artificial intelligence has enabled advances in decoding brain activity in ways that we never before thought possible.
You've heard a lot about AI over the past few years here at Davos.
It's been the talk of the hour.
But I want to talk about it in a different way, which is the ability to decode brainwave activity.
After all, what you think, what you feel, it's all just data.
Data that in large patterns can be decoded using artificial intelligence.
Consider this.
The average person thinks thousands of thoughts each day.
As a thought takes form, like a math calculation, you're happy, you're tired, you're hungry, you're elated.
Neurons are firing in your brain, emitting tiny electrical discharges.
As a particular thought takes form, hundreds of thousands of neurons fire in characteristic patterns that can be decoded with EEG or electroencephalography and AI-powered devices.
In fact, what you're seeing here is my brain activity while I'm wearing a simple device like the one on the right.
We're not talking about implanted devices of the future.
I'm talking about wearable devices that are like Fitbits for your brain.
It used to be that there was very little we could tell from EEG activity.
But already, using consumer wearable devices, these are headbands, hats that have sensors that can pick up your brainwave activity, earbuds, headphones, tiny tattoos that you can wear behind your ear.
We can pick up emotional states like are you happy or sad or angry?
We can pick up and decode faces that you're seeing in your mind.
Simple shapes, numbers, your PIN number to your bank account.
It's not just your brain activity here that we can pick up.
We can also pick up your brain activity in different places, like as your neurons fire from your brain down your arm and send signals to your hand to tell you how to type, move.
All of that could be decoded through electromyography.
And that's what you're seeing here is a device now in the form of a simple wearable watch that can pick up that activity.
And in one of the pivotal acquisitions of the field, Meta acquired this company, Control Labs, in 2019 because major tech companies are investing in helping to make these devices universally applicable as the way in which we interact with the rest of our technology.
Universal Basic Income for AI Jobs00:01:39
In fact, the coming future.
We are there, gang.
Everything, Stu, you remember, you remember the crazy days back in the 90s when I would talk about this stuff, and it was really truly science fiction.
It was science fiction.
It was a prediction from people like Ray Kurzweil of where we were headed in the very near future.
And when you said very near future, it seemed like it was a long way away.
You know, it was 2020, 2030, this would begin to happen.
And I've been telling you since 2016, I started to get very, very specific that our jobs are going to be in danger.
Our jobs are going to be in danger because things like AI will be able to take jobs away from people.
This is why when I've ever spoken of universal basic income, I have not dismissed it out of hand as un-American.
Universal basic income, as it's been debated, is wrong.
And I do not think it's an answer for anything.
I think it will only cause more problems.
However, what I have said is we have to discuss something because what's going to happen is these tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and others,