Privacy Equals Suspicion?

Perhaps the most baffling statement in the ATF’s internal records is the claim that the more anonymity a firearms purchaser seeks, the greater the likelihood that their transaction is illegal. Sanderson called this conclusion “ridiculous,” pointing out that federal law has explicitly protected gun owners’ privacy since 1986, when Congress banned national gun registries. The ATF’s insistence that privacy equates to wrongdoing flies in the face of long-established legal protections.

Misstating the Law to Justify Surveillance

The ATF’s own document contains troubling misinterpretations of firearm laws. Yanis highlighted that the agency lists only four “legitimate” types of firearm transactions, all involving Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs). However, this omits lawful private sales between individuals, which remain fully legal under federal law. By ignoring the legality of private sales, the ATF appears to be laying the groundwork to push for more regulations, further infringing on gun owners’ rights.

The Role of Nicholas Speranza Jr.

A familiar name surfaced in the ATF’s records – Nicholas Speranza Jr., an ATF intelligence specialist. Sanderson connected him to previous GOA legal battles, particularly against the agency’s “zero-tolerance” FFL revocations. Speranza was directly involved in a case where an FFL was nearly shut down due to what GOA describes as illegal harassment by the ATF. That same individual’s involvement in the social media monitoring effort suggests a broader pattern of overreach within the agency.

Weaponizing the ATF Against the Public

Both Sanderson and Yanis emphasized that the ATF’s activities do not appear to be focused on violent crime or illegal firearm trafficking but rather on tracking and intimidating gun owners. This raises serious constitutional concerns about the erosion of both First and Second Amendment rights. If the ATF is monitoring social media users simply for discussing their rights, it signals a shift toward suppressing lawful gun ownership through surveillance and fear tactics.

Are Your Posts Being Used Against You?

One of the most disturbing takeaways from the FOIA revelations is the ATF’s apparent disdain for online privacy. Yanis highlighted how the agency mocks gun owners who wish to keep their firearm ownership private, implying that such individuals are either criminals or attempting to evade government oversight. This mentality is dangerous – it suggests that law-abiding citizens are being treated as potential threats simply for exercising their rights.

What Happens Next?

With a new presidential administration promising to rein in overreaching government agencies, Sanderson and Yanis both called for action against the ATF’s surveillance programs. The exposure of these documents provides gun rights advocates with a crucial opportunity to demand accountability. Transparency and oversight are critical, and as Yanis put it, it’s now up to elected officials to decide whether the ATF will be curtailed – or allowed to continue its aggressive monitoring of the gun community.

Why This Matters

Beyond the immediate concerns for gun owners, this case highlights a broader issue: government surveillance without clear oversight. If an agency can monitor social media posts of law-abiding citizens without cause, what’s to stop further expansion into other constitutionally protected activities? The GOA’s revelations serve as a reminder that unchecked power can quickly lead to abuse. The question now is whether anything will be done to stop it.

In the United States, the rules around constitutional carry—meaning the right to carry a handgun in public without a permit—vary by state, with each state’s legislature setting its own laws on the matter. Some states require a permit for carrying handguns publicly, while others do not. Here’s what you need to know about each state.

Originally published by Lisa Greene for MSN. Read the full story ›