Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Guns

No Charges in ATF Killing Over Paperwork Firearms Violation

Vague rules and an unjustified raid led to Bryan Malinowski’s brutal death at the hands of federal agents.

J.D. Tuccille | 6.19.2024 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
Two federal agents from behind wearing "ATF POLICE" shirts. | APEX / MEGA / Newscom/DFBEV/Newscom
(APEX / MEGA / Newscom/DFBEV/Newscom)

Agents of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) suspected that Bryan Malinowski, executive director of the airport in Little Rock, Arkansas, and an avid firearms collector, was reselling enough firearms at gun shows to make him more of a commercial dealer than a hobbyist. That meant he should, in the ATF's view, get a Federal Firearms License. So on March 19, agents did what law enforcers do when they suspect people of paperwork violations: They raided his home before dawn, taped over the doorbell camera, and shot Malinowski dead less than a minute later when he opened fire on intruders who had just busted in his front door.

Unsurprisingly, the ATF agents are on their way to evading consequences for causing a man's death over a paperwork violation.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Self-Defense, But for Who?

"A law enforcement officer is justified in using deadly physical force if the officer reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to defend himself or a third person from the use of deadly force," Sixth Judicial District Prosecutor Will Jones writes in his letter to ATF Special Agent Joshua Jackson absolving the agent who killed Malinowski of legal liability. "Given the totality of the circumstances, Agent 2 had a reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary to defend himself and Agent 1. Therefore, the use of deadly force by Agent 2 was in accordance with Arkansas law and was justified."

Of course, Malinowski himself might have felt justified in using deadly force given that the front door to his family's home had been battered down just seconds after strangers began banging on the door.

"Had he survived he was almost certainly entitled to claim self-defense in the wounding of the agent based on the reckless manner in which the government planned and executed the search," Bud Cummins, a former U.S. Attorney who represents the Malinowski family, told me.

A Rules-Defying Raid

Reckless is right. In 2021, the Justice Department issued guidance to federal agencies on the use of chokeholds and no-knock raids. The raid on Malinowski's home falls well outside that guidance.

"Because of the risk posed to both law enforcement and civilians during the execution of 'no knock' warrants, it is important that this authority be exercised only in the most compelling circumstances," Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco wrote. "An agent may seek judicial authorization to conduct a 'no knock' entry only if that agent has reasonable grounds to believe at the time the warrant is sought that knocking and announcing the agent's presence would create an imminent threat of physical violence to the agent and/or another person."

Malinowski was a prominent member of the community—he's still listed on the Little Rock website as executive director of the Bill & Hillary Clinton National Airport—suspected of sliding from the category of a hobbyist selling off unwanted guns to a dealer engaged in commercial activity. That's not a real crime involving victims, only a technical violation that could be made legal (matters of right and constitutionality aside) by getting the required license. Surely, the ATF agents must have had more to go on than that before kicking in Malinowski's door?

The ATF didn't respond to my queries. But the affidavit for the search warrant in the case focuses entirely on Malinowski's sales at gun shows and mentions that a few were later involved in crimes. There's no hint that Malinowski posed a danger.

"Malinowski was solely suspected of violating ATF's unconstitutionally vague rules about qualifying as a 'person, engaged in the business of selling firearms' based on subjective observations about his appearance as an exhibitor at occasional gun shows," Cummins, the Malinowskis' attorney, told me. Speaking from experience, he added, "this is undoubtedly, the least serious crime that a U.S. attorney's office would even trifle with."

"Unconstitutionally vague" is a nice way of describing rules that might get your door kicked in if ATF agents read the wrong tea leaves or just don't like you.

Legality Is a Matter of Interpretation

"Federal law does not establish a 'bright-line' rule for when a federal firearms license is required," according to ATF's official guidance for the public, updated last year. "As a result, there is no specific threshold number or frequency of sales, quantity of firearms, or amount of profit or time invested that triggers the licensure requirement. Instead, determining whether you are 'engaged in the business' of dealing in firearms requires looking at the specific facts and circumstances of your activities."

Malinowski may well have read those amorphous guidelines and come to very different conclusions about the nature of his activity than did an ATF agent who woke up in a bad mood. He could have assumed his steady job and established hobby demonstrated that he was not a commercial dealer, while ATF agents decided differently. According to Prosecuting Attorney Will Jones, who says the ATF did nothing wrong, those differing interpretations got the Malinowski front door knocked on at 6:02:59 am on March 19, the door rammed open at 6:03:27 am, and Bryan Malinowski fatally shot at 6:03:44 am.

Don't Count on Consequences

After the release of the local prosecutor's report exonerating the agent who killed Malinowski, the ATF will conduct an internal review of its agents' conduct. You can probably guess how that will go. But some elected officials are also concerned. Members of the House Judiciary Committee grilled ATF Director Steven Dettelbach last month about the propriety of the no-knock raid and the justification for the lack of cameras.

"You got a citizen, the highest paid official in the municipal government of Little Rock Arkansas, making 260,000 a year running the airport. No criminal background history, no nothing. And he's dead at a pre-dawn raid when it sure looks like you could have served this search warrant when he wasn't there," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) snapped at Dettelbach.

Here's a thought: Malinowski's death at the hands of ATF agents is getting wide notice because he was a prominent, prosperous man. What about the people without resources and connections who get raided, set up for sleazy busts, or otherwise abused based on the mood of agents interpreting conveniently vague federal rules in whatever way suits their prejudices—rules that are impossible to reconcile with individual rights and the plain language of the Second Amendment.

Despite Malinowski's prominence, his brutal death at the hands of an ATF agent looks like it will go unpunished. Unfortunately, the agent who killed him won't be the first one who got away with murder.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Brickbat: Quadruple Dealing

J.D. Tuccille is a contributing editor at Reason.

GunsBATFLaw enforcementGun RightsGun OwnersRaidSecond AmendmentArkansasCriminal Justice
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (111)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Vernon Depner   11 months ago

    Federal law enforcement in this country is rogue and out of control. I have no suggestions for what to do about that.

    1. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

      Simple. First off ban all federal agents from carrying any firearms while not on federal lands. Secondly require any federal agents operating off of federal lands to request assistance from the Sherrif of the county in which they are attempting to enforce federal laws.

      This can be done at the state level, but since most state level politicians have delusions of rising to become federal level politicians they won't do it unless there is significant pressure from the electorate.

      1. JohnZ   11 months ago

        How are you going to accomplish that? Congress? What a joke.

        1. Uncle Jay   11 months ago

          Exactly.
          The only ones in the federal government that should be armed are members of the US Armed Forces, not civilian agencies.
          That only makes sense, and since it does make sense, you know no member of Congress or the Senate will pass such prudent legislation.

        2. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

          No. State level ballot initiatives. Empower County sherrifs to control any federal visits. Sherrif is an elected position. Gives some closer control by the people of what the feds are doing. A law like that in Texas would have prevented the Branch Davidian massacre.

      2. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

        Washington Examiner:

        Add the U.S. Department of Education to the list of federal agencies that can invade your home at gunpoint and hold you and your family in custody for hours.

        Kenneth Wright learned this the hard way last week, when federal "education" agents busted down the front door of his Stockton, Calif., home at 6 in the morning.

        "They surrounded the house; it was like a task force or SWAT team," a neighbor told a national news affiliate. "They all had guns. They dragged him out in his boxer shorts, threw him to the ground and handcuffed him."

        Wright's terrified children -- ages 3, 9 and 11 -- were forced to sit in a patrol car for two hours. Wright himself was in custody for six hours. "I felt really bad for those kids," a neighbor said.

        Federal agents for the Education Department's inspector general executed a very broad search warrant and seized paperwork and a personal computer. Wright says the law enforcement agents -- who reportedly included 13 with the Education Department and one or two Stockton police officers -- told him they were investigating his estranged wife's use of federal aid for students. But she doesn't even live in his house.

        A federal spokesman tried to distance the Education Department from the raid by emphasizing that the IG runs a "semi-independent office." But that begs the question of why a federal agency overseeing education policy should have an IG who can send agents armed with guns into Americans' homes. Or why the department has SWAT-style teams of agents to begin with.

        [...]

        But the list includes dozens of federal agencies with no business training and fielding armed officers. Who wants early-morning armed break-ins by the Department of Agriculture, Railroad Retirement Board, Bureau of Land Management, Tennessee Valley Authority, Office of Personnel Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

      3. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

        Forbes:

        What’s curious, however, is that traditionally administrative agencies spent more than $20 million. Four notable examples:

        1) The 2,300 Special Agents at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are allowed to carry AR-15’s, P90 tactical rifles, and other heavy weaponry. Recently, the IRS armed up with $1.2 million in new ammunition. This was in addition to the $11 million procurement of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment procured between 2006-2014.

        2) The Small Business Administration (SBA) spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to load its gun locker with Glocks last year. The SBA wasn’t alone – the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service modified their Glocks with silencers.

        3) The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a relatively new police force. In 1996, the VA had zero employees with arrest and firearm authority. Today, the VA has 3,700 officers, armed with millions of dollars’ worth of guns and ammunition including AR-15's, Sig Sauer handguns, and semi-automatic pistols.

        4) Meanwhile, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agents carry the same sophisticated weapons platforms used by our Special Forces military warriors. The HHS gun locker is housed in a new “National Training Operations Center” – a facility at an undisclosed location within the DC beltway.

        Spending on guns and ammo at 58 non-military federal agencies – including 40 regulatory, administrative agencies – amounted to $158 million.

        The continued growth of the federal arsenal begs the question: Just whom are the feds planning to battle?

        More examples of agencies amassing firepower over the last two years:

        Loading the Gun Locker – Federal agencies spent $44 million on guns, including an “urgent” order for 20 M-16 Rifles with extra magazines at the Department of Energy ($49,559); shotguns and Glock pistols at the General Services Administration ($16,568); and a bulk order of pistols, sights, and accessories by the Bureau of Reclamation whose main job is to build dams, power plants, and canals ($697,182).

        Buying Bullets in Bulk – The government spent $114 million on ammunition, including bulk purchases by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ($66,927); the Smithsonian ($42,687); and the Railroad Retirement Board ($6,941). The Social Security Administration spent $61,129 on bullets including 50,000 rounds of ammunition plus 12-gauge buckshot and slug ammo.

        The EPA special agents purchased ammunition for their .357 and 9mm revolvers and buckshot for their shotguns. While Bernie Sanders claimed that the biggest adversary to the United States was climate change, the EPA stood ready to fight in ways we couldn’t have imagined.

        Hollow-Point Bullets – Despite being outlawed by the Geneva Convention, federal agencies spent $426,268 on hollow-point bullets, including orders from the Forest Service, National Park Service, Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Fiscal Service, as well as Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

        1. CE   11 months ago

          I get that the IRS wants to be armed — they go around trying to rob people. And the US Fish and Wildlife Service may encounter armed and unhappy poachers in their line of work.

          But the Small Business Administration?
          Health and Human Services?
          The Department of Veterans Affairs?
          Aren’t those guys supposed to be helping people? Who would want to shoot them?

          1. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

            Crazy Right Wing Militia Extremists. Of course.

        2. SiliconDoc   11 months ago

          I appreciate all your postings here, quite eye opening, our ridiculous raging freak government is out of control and has turned it's attention to law abiding citzens because of it's widespread crazed ideology and lack of any idea of spirit of the laws or reasonable enforcement. So on that note I suspect the article outlines a criminal gov agency going overboard.
          On the other hand, someone mentioned or suggested the big shot of the Bill and Hillary Clinton airport probably has insider information on the dark goings on by the biden admin there, flying in illegals and who knows what other nefarious 3 letter agency activities.
          So it might have been a planned hit job. I find it likely. If it isn't likely, then we can assume fairly the entire multi million person bureaucracies of the US government have thrown all caution to the wind and do not even defer to people in powerful positions, especially if they have a culture that is not inline with the demoncrat zeitgeist.

      4. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

        Back to the IRS, that branch of the IRS has just over 2000 special agents (so about 2.5 firearms per agent), who must comply with requirements (per the website and report 2021_Annual_Report.pdf (irs.gov))

        Major Duties
        Adhere to the highest standards of conduct, especially in maintaining honesty and integrity.
        Work a minimum of 50 hours per week, which may include irregular hours, and be on-call 24/7, including holidays and weekends.
        Maintain a level of fitness necessary to effectively respond to life-threatening situations on the job.
        Carry a firearm and be willing to use deadly force, if necessary.
        Be willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments.

        Forbes has been keeping tabs on this division for many years, and notes that in one 2-year period, agents had accidental discharges 11 times--which was more times than they fired their weapons intentionally in the field. Their arsenal includes fully automatic weapons. One might be forced to wonder: why does the IRS need this level of firepower when the Treasury Department already includes the Secret Service? And when the agency could tap the FBI or US Marshals Service, ATF, or DEA as may be most applicable to their target's proclivities?

        Some of these go back to the Obama years.

        The Gun-Toting IRS (forbes.com)
        The Statutory Problem With IRS Firearms (forbes.com)
        IRS Has 4,500 Guns, 5 Million Rounds Ammunition: Paying Taxes? (forbes.com)
        Why Are Federal Bureaucrats Buying Guns And Ammo? $158 Million Spent By Non-Military Agencies (forbes.com)

    2. IceTrey   11 months ago

      Prohibit government coercion.

    3. bacchys   11 months ago

      If you think this is limited to federal law enforcement, you're badly uninformed.

      In Los Angeles County v. Mendez, SCOTUS decided cops can shoot someone after unlawfully entering their home if they perceive a threat.

    4. ricbee   11 months ago

      "No Knock"raids should be strictly forbidden,they are almost always used when they are afraid evidence(drugs)would be destroyed,what justified this raid,the Judge who signed the order should be thrown off the bench,

  2. Get To Da Chippah   11 months ago

    Do you have a legal right to self defense while in the commission of an illegal act? Do bank robbers have a right to self defense against the bank's armed security personnel? If not, then I would not think the ATF agents had a right to self defense while engaging in a no-knock raid in violation of ATF policy.

    1. Vernon Depner   11 months ago

      "ATF policy" does not have the force of law.

      1. Get To Da Chippah   11 months ago

        https://www.justice.gov/d9/pages/attachments/2021/09/14/2021.09.13_chokehold_carotid_restraint_knock_and_announce_policy_final_0.pdf?ref=berkeleyscanner.com

        Federal agents are generally required to "knock and announce" their identity, authority and purpose, and demand to enter before entry is made to execute a warrant in a private dwelling. U.S. Const., amend. IV; 18 U.S.C. § 3109; see Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). Once that announcement is made, agents must wait a reasonable amount of time based on the totality of the circumstances to permit the occupant to open the door before making entry into a dwelling. See United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31 (2003). The Supreme Court has recognized, however, that there are certain situations where it is not constitutionally necessary to "knock and announce" before entering a dwelling- namely, where the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that knocking and announcing would create a threat of physical violence, likely result in destruction of evidence, or be futile. See Hudson, 547 U.S. at 589-90. Because of the risk posed to both law enforcement and civilians during the execution of "no knock" warrants, it is important that this authority be exercised only in the most compelling circumstances.

        Seems like it was in violation of the law.

        1. Old Engineer   11 months ago

          The agents should have hid behind cars and quietly waited for Malinowski outside his home. Then, as he turns to lock his door, shot him in the back. That would have minimized the danger to the agents.

          They could have been even safer if they had chosen to burn the house to the ground and only shot Malinowski as he fled the burning structure. Better yet, Malinowski could have died in the flames.

          The safety of the agents is not the controlling criteria for serving a warrant. If it were, the above would not have been satire, it would have been part of the next ATF planning session.

          1. JohnZ   11 months ago

            And if his family died in the fire...so what? They were just following orders.

            1. rloquitur   11 months ago

              No. The family should have known better to be near a thug who is a gun criminal.

          2. CE   11 months ago

            You mean, Ruby Ridge and Waco tactics?

  3. Don't look at me!   11 months ago

    No more busting down doors on someone’s home.

    1. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

      The No Knock warrant is a product of the Drug War. The logic was getting to the dealer before he flushed his stash down the toilet, like in the movies. No Drug War = no justification for No Knock warrants.

      1. Jerry B.   11 months ago

        Maybe he was going to flush his M-16s down the toilet.

        1. ricbee   11 months ago

          The ATF was afraid of that,what could they have told the Judge who authorized it?

      2. Eeyore   11 months ago

        If they have so little drugs that they will fit down the toilet without clogging, then they are barely a dealer if at all.

        1. Zeb   11 months ago

          A few grams of fentanyl goes a long way. But in general you are absolutely right.

  4. A Thinking Mind   11 months ago

    To be fair, I’m sure they felt it was necessary in order to prevent him flushing his guns down the toilet.

    1. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

      Ok, now I'm imagining a toilet and sewer system large enough to flush an MP-5...

      You'd need fucking King Kongs toilet for that.

      1. Eeyore   11 months ago

        My toilet won't even reliability flush ammunition.

        1. n00bdragon   11 months ago

          "Reliably"? You've done this multiple times, let alone once?

          1. Eeyore   11 months ago

            I think it's best if I don't further explain.

        2. JohnZ   11 months ago

          All my ammo fell out of the boat. Lake is quite deep.

    2. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   11 months ago

      The proper way to deal with that possibility is to let the dealer flush his drugs, then calmly and politely search his house, confiscate his cash, issue him a ticket to appear in court later, and leave. Now the drugs are gone and the dealer owes his supplier a fortune which he can't repay.

      Isn't that what the drug war is trying to accomplish? Isn't that two birds with one stone?

      Oh, but it doesn't have the thrill of shooting peasants.

  5. Torguud   11 months ago

    “Malinowski was a prominent member of the community” might be meaningless. A difficult question may be.. Did Malinowski belong or contribute to the right political party?

    1. SiliconDoc   11 months ago

      Bingo. Obvious (R) or conservative.
      So murdering him was important to the regime and inline with policy.

  6. mattwa   11 months ago

    Failure to comply with any law, when even a Supreme Court Justice would be unable to determine if that law is being complied with, carries the death penalty now.

    Democrats – fighting for democracy.

    1. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

      https://reason.com/volokh/2014/12/05/dont-support-laws-you-are-not/

      On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

      I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn't. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it's useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

      The problem is actually broader. It's not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It's every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they're right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won't lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.

      1. Wally   11 months ago

        You shouldn't teach law then. By your logic, theft should be legal. I'm not willing to have someone killed over my TV, or even my car. You're advocating for anarchy, which eventually results in a lot more killing. When there is no punishment for property crimes, they tend to escalate into life and death situations. No wonder law enforcement is failing in this country. People like you "educating" attorneys.

  7. Idaho-Bob   11 months ago

    when he opened fire on intruders who had just busted in his front door.

    Not enough firepower; gotta think like Branch Davidians protecting their home: use rifles with standard or high-capacity magazines.

    1. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

      They actually on average had fewer guns than the average for that part of Texas.

  8. Longtobefree   11 months ago

    Simple, and deficit reducing; disarm all federal officers except the secret service and the U.S. Marshals.
    Sell the weapons through the Civilian Marksmanship Program.

    1. JohnZ   11 months ago

      Arming the SS doesn't seem to work so well when they get robbed at gunpoint.
      And what the hell was that agent doing in Tustin, Ca. when sleepy Joe was a couple hundred miles away?

      1. Longtobefree   11 months ago

        Looking for someone who does yardwork?
        Meeting his Communist Chinese controller?
        Conducting voter registration, per executive order?
        Tracking down John Galt?

      2. ObviouslyNotSpam   11 months ago

        Have you never seen To Live and Die in LA?

      3. CE   11 months ago

        Hiring hookers? That's what SS agents do in most cities.

  9. Quo Usque Tandem   11 months ago

    There are many other ways they could have handled this; they could have stopped outside his home, on his way to work, etc. etc. But no, the ATF went for guts and tactical glory and this is what happened.

    If you think the government is your friend [most likely because you want them to make others behave as you wish], you are a fool. And will inevitably be their victim when their power grows unchecked and increasingly unaccountable

    1. TrickyVic (old school)   11 months ago

      ^This

    2. Zeb   11 months ago

      Seems to me they could have sent him a letter advising him that he should have a FFL and shouldn't sell more guns until he gets one.

      1. CE   11 months ago

        One case where a sharply worded letter actually is the best option.

    3. CE   11 months ago

      Attacking possibly armed unsuspecting citizens in pre-dawn raids is intended to provoke a response, so the invading forces can take out the suspect and not have to prove their case.

      1. SiliconDoc   11 months ago

        Exactly, so besides the overt attacks on (R) and conservatives and Tea Party and maga members, we have the possibility he knew too much about the shady biden regime illegal alien flights into the airport, or 3 letter drug and gun running, or other should be criminalized or is government activity but never enforced, so they had to take him out because he was thinking of exposing their crimes.

  10. mad.casual   11 months ago

    OK, so we can all agree that, between Bryan Malinowski and President Trump's "stolen documents" raid, Hunter Biden got *well* above aboard treatment on the firearms charges, the law should be repealed, and we should be conducting a more thorough investigation of the tax evasion and FARA charges, right?

  11. Longtobefree   11 months ago

    Lot's of videos on u-tube show how to reinforce your door - - - - - -

    1. Get To Da Chippah   11 months ago

      Much like body armor, I suspect it will soon be against the law to reinforce your doors against forcible entry.

    2. CE   11 months ago

      Then they throw a couple of flashbangs through your windows, or drive their armored personnel carrier through your wall. Wrong address? Oops, sorry, law enforcement is not liable, and your insurance won't cover it.

      1. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

        Creative lawn decorations can help with the entry vehicle. Make those garden gnomes out of reinforced concrete that is planted at least two feet deep. A half dozen of those strategically placed should handle most vehicles. Plant trees to funnel the vehicles into the lawn gnomes. Running over a tree would get them in deep shit with the tree huggers.

  12. Knutsack   11 months ago

    Sadly, the more I read stories like this, the more I start to believe that some examples need to be made.

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   11 months ago

      This example wasn't enough? There are still people collecting guns?

      Sometimes it's really hard to make 330 million people do what Dear Leader wants.

  13. Truthteller1   11 months ago

    Along with regime media, the federal government is the enemy of the people.

  14. Keldonric   11 months ago

    One question: Why cover the doorbell camera?

    We obviously do not have the smartest people running these things. You have a location with many firearms. Was it a pre-dawn raid scheduled to make it back to some place for a late breakfast? Why the rush in executing the action? Was there the possibility of a hostage situation. As someone else mentioned he was not going to be destroying evidence. Cordon off the location and contact the individual and get them to come out.

    I swear some of these things seem engineered to produce this result. Could it be part of psyops against others in similar situation? I am being slightly sarcastic here but I am not sure that cynicism should not rule the day.

    1. Gaear Grimsrud   11 months ago

      It has all of the earmarks of a psyop. Currently being carried out on a grand scale.

    2. n00bdragon   11 months ago

      Could it be part of psyops against others in similar situation?

      This makes no sense. If one didn't know they were under investigation and about to be arrested how could they know they were in a "similar situation"? The cops want to play Bad Boyz and that's about the tall and short of it. Anything more than that is expecting too much intelligence for the ATF's finest.

    3. Vernon Depner   11 months ago

      Why cover the doorbell camera?

      Seems like obvious evidence of premeditation.

    4. CE   11 months ago

      Or ask the local sheriff to serve a warrant for the suspect to appear in court. He was probably buddies with the local sheriff.

  15. Gaear Grimsrud   11 months ago

    Thanks to Reason for (finally) covering this story. While this story has a 2a angle the larger story is the total weaponization of the executive branch under the Biden regime. Along with the J6 prosecutions, pro life prosecutions, Trump prosecutions etc. the goal is to instill fear in anyone who even appears to deviate from leftist orthodoxy. Reason campaigned for this regime. You are not forgiven.

    1. Longtobefree   11 months ago

      Actually, it was Obama who tried back door gun control by buying up all the 9mm pistols in the world "for protection" of federal thugs.
      He also tried to corner the ammunition market.

      1. JohnZ   11 months ago

        Which brings up my own question...can I pay for a gun with cash or must I be forced to use a C.C.?

        1. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

          The guy selling AKs out of the trunk of his car doesn't take credit cards. So I'm told.

        2. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

          The only problem I'd see with using cash is the amount you'd need. For some of the better rifles you'd need a wallet busting number of 100 dollar bills.

      2. tracerv   11 months ago

        It's all about the ammo. That's the target.

        1. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

          There are people who are of the opinion that this is part of the Administration's larger trend to “have any entity in the federal government buy up ammo to reduce the amount of ammunition that is in supply, while at the same time, making it harder to produce ammo.” Especially when the federally-owned ammunition plant in Missouri has been banned by the Biden administration from selling surplus ammunition to the public. Previously, the military had been banned from selling used brass cartridges from their firing ranges to the public, since people can clean and reload the brass. The military brass is now paying to have the military's brass collected, compacted (rendering it useless for reloading), and hauled away for metal recycling.

      3. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

        Forbes, 2017:

        1) The 2,300 Special Agents at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) are allowed to carry AR-15’s, P90 tactical rifles, and other heavy weaponry. Recently, the IRS armed up with $1.2 million in new ammunition. This was in addition to the $11 million procurement of guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment procured between 2006-2014.

        2) The Small Business Administration (SBA) spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars to load its gun locker with Glocks last year. The SBA wasn’t alone – the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service modified their Glocks with silencers.

        3) The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has a relatively new police force. In 1996, the VA had zero employees with arrest and firearm authority. Today, the VA has 3,700 officers, armed with millions of dollars’ worth of guns and ammunition including AR-15's, Sig Sauer handguns, and semi-automatic pistols.

        4) Meanwhile, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agents carry the same sophisticated weapons platforms used by our Special Forces military warriors. The HHS gun locker is housed in a new “National Training Operations Center” – a facility at an undisclosed location within the DC beltway.

        Our report quantified the $1.48 billion spent by 67 non-military federal agencies on guns, ammunition, and military-style equipment from 2006-2014.

        More examples of agencies amassing firepower over the last two years:

        Loading the Gun Locker – Federal agencies spent $44 million on guns, including an “urgent” order for 20 M-16 Rifles with extra magazines at the Department of Energy ($49,559); shotguns and Glock pistols at the General Services Administration ($16,568); and a bulk order of pistols, sights, and accessories by the Bureau of Reclamation whose main job is to build dams, power plants, and canals ($697,182).
        Buying Bullets in Bulk – The government spent $114 million on ammunition, including bulk purchases by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ($66,927); the Smithsonian ($42,687); and the Railroad Retirement Board ($6,941). The Social Security Administration spent $61,129 on bullets including 50,000 rounds of ammunition plus 12-gauge buckshot and slug ammo.

        The EPA special agents purchased ammunition for their .357 and 9mm revolvers and buckshot for their shotguns. While Bernie Sanders claimed that the biggest adversary to the United States was climate change, the EPA stood ready to fight in ways we couldn’t have imagined.

        Hollow-Point Bullets – Despite being outlawed by the Geneva Convention, federal agencies spent $426,268 on hollow-point bullets, including orders from the Forest Service, National Park Service, Office of Inspector General, Bureau of Fiscal Service, as well as Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marshals, and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

  16. Eric Owens   11 months ago

    It's a shame his neighbors had no will to help defend their community against the Adolph Eichmans taking pay from global serial child murderers, to violate human rights of American citizens.

    1. Eric Owens   11 months ago

      “In order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [treaty/tax/commerce/etc] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added”

      It’s almost like SCOTUS is in on the conspiracy to violate Constitutional Rights, but the lawyers are too civil to call them the traitor trash they are.

  17. MatthewSlyfield   11 months ago

    Here's another issue to consider during the Bill Clinton administration the ATF made an explicit effort to reduce the number of FFLs. This was accomplished mostly by adding a minimum business activity rule to the qualifications for obtaining an FFL.

    It's entirely possible that Malinowski, despite the ATFs claim that he was selling enough guns that he needed an FFL, would have been unable to qualify for an FFL because he wasn't selling enough guns.

    1. jimc5499   11 months ago

      You've got a point there.

  18. Michael Ejercito   11 months ago

    Here is something John McWhorter wrote.

    https://time.com/4404987/police-violence/

    Controversy will continue, such as over whether race affects how likely officers are to be exonerated for killings of this kind. However, at the end of the day any intelligent engagement with these issues must keep front and center that there was a Daniel Shaver for John Crawford, a Michael Parker for Walter Scott, a James Scott for Laquan McDonald. Economist Roland Fryer’s conclusions, stunning even to him, that cops use more force against black people but do not kill them more than they kill whites is perhaps less perplexing than it seems.

  19. Quo Usque Tandem   11 months ago

    Hadn't thought of that, but you are probably right. He was going to gun shows and to my knowledge had no physical establishment from which to operate such a business. And I doubt it's by accident that many people who would/do sell guns cannot qualify for a license to do so, but of course they are subject to prosecution for selling "too many" without an FFL.

    Makes perfect sense, from a horrible and corrupt bureaucratic point of view. They really just want guns gone from our hands.

    1. Quo Usque Tandem   11 months ago

      [reply to Mathew Slyfield, but didn't post that way...]

  20. JohnZ   11 months ago

    The Obiden administration has weaponized the FBI and ATF against Americans.
    Criticize a school board for allowing a rapist pretending to be trans and you get a visit from the FBLie. Pray in front of an abortion clinic and get arrested and sent up for two years. Expose a hospital's tran surgeries and the FBLie comes calling.
    Ruby Ridge
    Waco,Tx.
    The Bundy Ranch
    Sandy Hoax: the persecution of Alex Jones...so who's next?
    The land of the free no longer exists. We live in a police state where one wrong word can get you a visit from the Feds. Censorship, even prison for those who dare speak out. Journalists jailed for exposing the truth, people forced to take deadly vaccines. Support the wrong candidate and get arrested.
    America more resembles a dictatorship than a Republic.
    And voting isn't going to change anything.
    America is taking on all the characteristics of a failed state.
    Be prepared. A hard rain's a gonna fall.

    1. Old Engineer   11 months ago

      Don't buy those survival food for your bunker just yet. Under the Roosevelt administration, things were much worse than today, mainly because communication between individuals was far less than now.

      We can beat this, but it will take years, certainly more than I have left.

      Our kids and grandchildren will have the chance to end this tyranny, but we have to prepare them by countering the public school propaganda machine. We need to give them the knowledge of how to fight and, more importantly, help them develop the will to fight.

      1. ObviouslyNotSpam   11 months ago

        You're responding to a guy who just called Sandy Hook a "hoax". Do you think it was a hoax?

  21. Old Engineer   11 months ago

    The ATF and the FBI love "pre-dawn raids". The FBI raided Northrop Electronics at 5:00 AM to prevent the destruction of evidence that Northrop was over billing the government. The final result? Two years later the government discovered that they owed Northrop $30 million because of not billing things that they could have legitimately billed.

    1. JohnZ   11 months ago

      I'm stunned the ATF hadn't brought CNN along for the raid.

  22. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland   11 months ago

    This account omits a number of important points in an effort to depict the departed as a victim.

    Mr. Malinowski played plenty of stupid games and won a stupid prize. He was no victim.

    1. Old Engineer   11 months ago

      If you're lucky, you'll never win the stupid games you play.

    2. Michael Ejercito   11 months ago

      What important points?

      J.D. Tucille contacted the ATF for their view; they declined to answer.

      1. rloquitur   11 months ago

        Why should they explain themselves--they eliminated a bad guy with guns. Tucille should be prosecuted for slander of ATF agents. How dare he question their actions which provided swift and sure justice.

    3. Get To Da Chippah   11 months ago

      This account omits a number of important points

      None of which you brought up, I notice.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland   11 months ago

        The size of his firearms inventory is enough to dispel any reasonable sense this guy was a mere "hobbyist." He purchased 150 guns in a few years, including multiples of some guns, and regularly sold guns at rented tables at gun shows. Law enforcement personnel found roughly 50 guns during the warranted search.

        If he didn't recognize he needed to obtain a license for that commercial enterprise -- involving sale of guns to unqualified buyers -- he was too stupid have airport operations entrusted to him. He should have obtained sound legal advice if he was too dumb to understand his situation.

        1. Get To Da Chippah   11 months ago

          The size of his firearms inventory is enough to dispel any reasonable sense this guy was a mere “hobbyist.” He purchased 150 guns in a few years, including multiples of some guns, and regularly sold guns at rented tables at gun shows. Law enforcement personnel found roughly 50 guns during the warranted search.

          The size of one's collection is not indicative of a desire to sell -- quite the opposite, I would think. How 'regularly' was he selling weapons? And how 'regularly' does one need to sell them in order to qualify as a dealer? The law doesn't explicitly say. Finding 50 guns is, once again, not a sign of an intent to sell.

          If he didn’t recognize he needed to obtain a license for that commercial enterprise — involving sale of guns to unqualified buyers — he was too stupid have airport operations entrusted to him. He should have obtained sound legal advice if he was too dumb to understand his situation.

          Once AGAIN, the law doesn't say how often or how much one has to sell to be considered a firearms dealer under the law. The solution is to change the law to make it less vague. But then that would likely limit the ATF Crime Squad from having their fun.

          1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland   11 months ago

            You remind me of a law student at the start of second year . . . some simple familiarity with the structure of arguments, but none of the judgment associated with persuasiveness.

            He bought 150 firearms. He had 50 left. That indicates that what he was doing at the gun sale tables he rented at gun shows was selling many guns without a license.

            People on the spectrum. like disaffected wingnuts, have a difficult time managing concepts such as reasonableness, but that doesn't mean the American mainstream must be similarly hobbled. The warrant was righteous. The search was legitimate. An antisocial gun nut fucked around and found out.

            1. Diarrheality   11 months ago

              Reasonableness? You're defending an entirely avoidable murder inasmuch as the victim wasn't on your team.

        2. Diarrheality   11 months ago

          I'm sorry I mistook you for some harmless troll when, in fact, you're an immoral piece of shit beholden to the whims of the state. Fuck off, you spineless, boot-licking asshole.

        3. MrMxyzptlk   11 months ago

          That's all? Shit. I know people with more guns that that around the home. I won't say who because just in case your'e a stool pigeon, I don't want them messed with.

        4. MeanGene   11 months ago

          Why don't you just admit it, Artie, you LIKE the idea of federal agents executing people for paperwork violations. Quit hiding behind that "law-and-order" stuff.

    4. JohnZ   11 months ago

      Discounting the fact the ATF had brutalized his household with a dangerous invasion of his property.
      A revolution was started because of just that.
      Maybe it's because they were hoping for the exact outcome that occurred.

  23. rloquitur   11 months ago

    This slander of brave federal agents just doing their jobs has got to stop. The crime, whether a "process" crime or not, involved guns, and guns are dangerous. Thus, the raid was entirely appropriate, and the brave federal agents saved us all a lot of money and time by pronouncing the sentence. And this bad guy with guns could have been acquitted by a jury, so justice was not only swift, but sure. Yes, people can defend their homes against criminals, but it's up to homeowners who are dirty or suspected to be dirty to ascertain whether those breaking down the door are cops, whether or not they announce. The guy is lucky because apparently he died quickly. One less bad guy not filing his gun paperwork. Thanks to those brave officers--I feel so much safer having read this.

  24. mad.casual   11 months ago

    But remember, it's those insane über-Christian, patriarchal, anti-Abortionists who are insanely treating every abortion situation as though lives hang in the balance, whether they do or not.

  25. Henweigh   11 months ago

    I am 100% onboard with this initiative. Let's all save money and lives!

  26. Use the Schwartz   11 months ago

    Every one of those agents went home feeling like heroes, told their wives and kids over dinner that they got a bad guy today. Then they slept the guilt-free sleep of the righteous.

  27. Mudhen   11 months ago

    When's the last time the Feds held anyone of their own responsible for screwing up?

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland   11 months ago

      There is no indication of mistake or wrongdoing by the officers in this case.

      1. Diarrheality   11 months ago

        Certainly not for someone as mechanical and repulsive as you, Reverend.

      2. Vernon Depner   11 months ago

        You know who else was just following orders?

      3. Wally   11 months ago

        They murdered him. The guy ran the airport. It's not like it was hard to find him or to find his dwelling when he was at work. It was deliberate murder.

  28. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

    Did he have a dog and did the agents shoot it too?

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland   11 months ago

      He had a wife who benefited from mercy in this case.

  29. Medulla Oblongata   11 months ago

    Don’t forget, ATF just tried to redefine that term downward, too, making pretty much anyone who ever thought about selling a gun a “dealer” and at risk for these gestapo-like tactics.

    https://bearingarms.com//camedwards/2024/06/19/new-republic-blasts-worst-judge-ever-over-atf-ruling-n1225333?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl&recip=4474886

  30. CE   11 months ago

    The ATF director was questioned by Congress about the raid, but said he was unaware of it before the fact, because they do 11,000 of these types of actions per year! When pressed for details about why they conducted a raid when he was home instead of searching the house when he was not, the ATF director repeatedly told Congress that “firearms trafficking is not a victimless crime.” Turns out he wasn’t “trafficking” anything, he was in technical violation of a law that wasn’t all that clear.

    https://www.kark.com/news/state-news/atf-director-questioned-on-march-raid-of-home-of-little-rock-airport-executive-bryan-malinowski/

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's FTC Chair Is Continuing To Push Lina Khan's Antitrust
Ideology

Jack Nicastro | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: They Won't Miss It

Charles Oliver | 5.22.2025 4:00 AM

America's Credit Is Falling—and the Government Is Still Digging Deeper Into Debt

Veronique de Rugy | 5.22.2025 12:13 AM

A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House

Jacob Sullum | 5.21.2025 6:00 PM

Supreme Court Orders Maine Legislator Censured for Social Media Post Must Get Voting Rights Back

Emma Camp | 5.21.2025 4:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!