The Search Warrant, The ATF and Brian Malinowski

0:14 March twentieth, twenty twenty four, in the early morning hours, while sleeping, Brian Malanowski and his wife are awakened by the crashing sound of their front door being forced open. Panicked and scared, Brian grabs his firearm and peers down the dark hallway. He sees a large figure headed towards him and fires. Brian misses, but sees the bullet ricochet strike the assailant just as the assailant returns fire, striking Brian Malanowski in the head and killing him. Brian's wife, frozen in fear, is snatched from the bedroom and dragged outside for four hours as her husband laid dying. When the smoke cleared, it was discovered that this operation was courtesy of the ATF. In the ensuing investigation into this incident is shocking. Welcome to exposed scandalous files of the elite, the search warrant, the ATF, and Brian Malinowski. Hey everyone, welcome back.

1:57 First, I want to say I appreciate everyone following us liking a shareness. It's why we have the success that we have so early on and we couldn't do it without you, So please continue to do that. And as always I like to get right into our exposed file for today, So stay tuned after this episode for some announcements upcoming in y'all this story that I'm about to tell you, you are not going to believe this happened. I'm going to start off giving you a little history of what the ATF does. And the ATF is the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms division of the government, and just as you would think, firearms are a big part of what they do, especially as it comes to licensing. If you're a pawn shop or if you are a gun dealer of some sort, they're the people that are going to make sure that you're following all the rules, whether it's background check, along with other rules. And we'll get into some of those. So March twenty first, twenty twenty four, and I'm sourcing the Arkansas Democrat Gazette and the headline says Little Rock Airport director Brian Malanowski is dead after ATF shootout, commissioner confirms. So I'm going to read you a quick article that's going to put this into context. And this was on March twentieth of twenty twenty four.

3:30 This was from NBC's website guy by the name of Patrick Smith, and it says the executive director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas, was shot Tuesday as federal officials arrived at his home to serve a search warrant. Brian Malanowski, fifty three, the airport's executive director, was injured during a firefight after six am as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosive A agents arrived. He was injured with gunshot wounds and treated on the scene by paramedics before being transported to a local hospital that from the Arkansas State Police. One ATF agent received what police called a non life threatening gunshot wound and was also taken to the hospital. Malanowski's older brother, Matthew fifty five, of Pennsylvania, was at his bedside Wednesday and said he didn't know whether his brother would survive. The article goes on to say some other things, but the pertinent stuff I just gave you, all right, So how does this happen? How does an airport executive, as a matter of fact, the highest paid official in the city of Little Rock, Arkansas, end up not only getting shot in a raid, but being the target of the at and the interesting thing about this case, and let me

5:03 give you a little history on this. I was unaware of this and was doing research for some other cases that I'm working on. Came across the congressional hearings that are actually occurring right now with the director of the ATF, saw a particular clip that kind of caught my eye, watched the clip, and then ended up watching a three hour congressional hearing on this case. And I couldn't believe what I heard, and I couldn't believe that I hadn't heard about this previously. So as I did my research, and I guess, as luck would have it, the search warrant that was originally sealed on this case had been unsealed by a judge, so I was able to get my hands on those search warrants. And let me explain to you how search warrants work.

5:56 In order to get a search warrant, you have to have permission from a judge. They have to sign off on that search warrant. In order to get them to sign off on it, you have to turn in at what's done as an affidavit for probable cause, and that affidavit is basically a letter detailing all your evidence that you have that makes you think it is necessary to search someone's house or search someone's car, things of that nature. In this case, a search warrant was signed for Brian Malanowski's house and Brian Malanski's vehicle. Now it's important to note, and you want to keep this in mind, it was a search warrant, not an arrest warrant. They're very different, and the way that you go about serving those should be very different.

6:47 So I've went through the affidavit of probable cause and the search warrants so that you don't have to. And I'm going to cover to you exactly what happened to put Brian Malanowski on the ATF's radar. And I'm also going to cover with you some obvious things that they did that I feel were wrong. And before I get into any of that, let me say something. Ninety nine point nine percent of the ATF are great people. They're doing great things. There's good and bad in every profession, as we know. But after reviewing this case, I'll give you this little hint about what I personally think about it. There was a big time failure of leadership here and it led to someone's death. As I told you, there was a warrant to search and seize the home and vehicle of Brian Malanowski. And I'll go ahead and give you a spoiler alert. I guess on this he was shot and killed during the execution of this warrant. And this warrant was based on him being what's known as an unlawful of guns. Okay, so a gun dealer without a license. Think of it that way. When you are a gun dealer, you have to have a license. And the difference there between someone that's licensed and someone that's not is someone that's licensed has to perform a background check.

8:18 If you go to a pawnshop you buy a gun, they're going to run a background check on you to make sure you're not Osama bin Laden or somebody. Right, if you go to a gun show, you don't have to have a bout background check ran on you because those are considered in a lot of cases hobbyists. And I'm not going to get into the legalities one way or the other necessarily, but just to let you know the difference between those two situations. So at some point in time prior to this search warrant. As you may be aware, there's a situation where Brian Malanowski got on the ATF's radar. So let's talk first about how he ended up on their radar. It appears that there was a confidential informant in Canada that took pictures of these firearms. And we really don't know a whole lot about that.

9:20 We just know somehow he came in contact with some firearms, he took pictures of them, he sent those to the Canadian police. The Canadian police then ran the serial numbers. They could see the serial numbers, and some of these pictures ran the serial numbers and some of them came up with Brian Malanowski's name, So they traced those seral numbers. So the ATF gets this information and they're like, who's this Brian Malanowski guy, And of course they start kind of digging into who he is. And as they start looking into him, and this is what they'll do. The first thing they'll do is we'll see how many firearms you have bought over time? Right, So they in this case, they looked at a three year period and they saw that Brian Malinowski had bought one hundred and fifty guns in that three year period. That's a lot of guns. It's not illegal. You can buy as many guns as you want, there's nothing illegal about that. But you're going to raise some eyebrows at the ATF if you do that, because it is a lot of guns. And what they're doing at this point is they're trying to build probable costs. They're basically trying to say it's more probable that he is a gun dealer than not basically engaging in the business of selling firearms without a federal

10:50 firearms license. People do this. It occurs. They may be trying to avoid the paperwork aspect of it, because you have to run those back round checks when you're a licensed firearms dealer. They may be trying to avoid the fees. There's fees to maintain that license. So it may be totally innocent why they're doing it. And I say innocent in the respect that they may be not necessarily trying to have bad intentions and sell, you know, firearms to a country that's not friendly to the United States something like that. They you know, they're just selling them at gun shows or whatever. But it's a problem. I mean, you don't want guns ending up in the hands of a bunch of felons if you can avoid it, right, So that's their suspicion. They're trying to build probable calls on that, and the radar goes up because of the amount of firearms he's purchased. Then it gets more interesting. They they start looking at what type of firearms he was purchasing, and a lot of these twenty five models of the same Okay, so a glock forty two a person that's not dealing in firearms for a litting right, they're not going to buy twenty five block forty twos. Just not going to happen. This guy had at least multiples, so three or more of the same brand and type of gun purchased over and over again out of those one

12:24 hundred and fifty guns. So he was buying identical brands manufacturers of guns, and that raises flags. Then they find a firearm and the way they found that firearm, and this firearm was licensed also to Brian Malanowski. The way they found it, they pulled a guy over and the police go up to the it's a traffic interaction. He was speeding. Police go up to the vehicle they smell marijuana. The search of the vehicle and they find a firearm registered to Brian Malanowski or that was the original purchaser of that gun. Well, this happens three times within short order with three different people, so now he's really on the radar. So at this point they go back, they start going back to distributors and they get what's done as forty four to seventy threes. These are the forms that if you're a gun dealer and you sell a gun to an individual, you have to turn in what's known as a forty four seventy three and that's just paperwork so that a background check, et cetera can be ran on that individual. And Brian Mantlanawski was buying these guns legally from a dealer. From a matter of fact, it was a particular website he was going to, and so the paperwork trail was there, and that's how they knew how many not only how many guns he had bought, but the brands of guns he had bought. They start at that point undercover

14:01 operation. And Brian Malanowski was very active in going to gun shows and having booths in gun shows as a matter of fact, and an undercover agent starts going to these gun shows and he sees Brian Malanowski there and he's setting up boosts. Right, He's got guns laid out on a table. He's talking to people and he's telling them how much a gun cost. Look, use your common sense on that. He's definitely selling firearms as more of, let's say, a side hustle than a hobby. Okay, And that's not going to be my argument in this situation because to me, it's apparent he was, you know, technically breaking the law. So they're looking at the totality of these circumstances in order to build this search warrant. They put together a case. They even have have a particular ATF agent buy guns from Brian Malinowski at gun shows. You know, they're surveilling him constantly, and he knows none of this is going on. He has no clue about any of this.

15:18 So they get the warrants signed for both his vehicle and his house. Now, again, these are search warrants. These are not arrest warrants. There is a difference. But why do they want these search warrants? Well, they want to look at his electronics, they want to get a hold of that. They want to look at his cell phone, they want to look for paper records, they want to look for receipts, they want his actual firearm inventory. Because they don't necessarily have all the proof yet for an arrest, but they're pretty sure the search warrants will lead to that. So that's why they don't have an a arrest warrant at the time. A judge's not going to sign one. They don't have enough proof, at least that's the way they felt, so they didn't try to get in a rest warm and that tells you something in that too. You want to stay off of the ATF's radar. Don't buy multiples of the same gun. It's legal to do that. You're not doing anything illegal, But unless you have a good reason for doing that, you're probably going to go on that radar. I mean, maybe it's you and your wife and you buy two of the same block. You know, you get matching blocks. There's nothing wrong with that, and that's fun. You can do that, but be aware you're probably gonna go on the ATF radar. I've heard that you should never buy two guns within five days of each other for that same reason. It'll kind of

16:48 raise a flag with the ATF. Personally, Hey, I'm a law abiding citizen. I'll buy twenty if they're for my personal use. I'm not going to hesitate to buy as many guns as I feel like I want to buy at that time. If the ATF wants to come talk to me about it, that's fine too. And let me say this, the ATF probably a lot of those guys are hobbyists too. If you go into a career and you decide to go into the ATF, you probably love firearms. But there's good and bad in every profession. I'm gonna tell you what. Somebody screwed the fuck up on this one. So they get that search warrant, and on the search warrants, they have a certain day that that search warrant has to be served by these particular search warrants. The date was the date that this whole incident went down, the twentieth of March. That was the last day they had. And you can't serve search warrants just any time of day.

17:52 As a matter of fact, in this particular case, they could not serve that search warrant before six o'clock. Can't show up at five. You got to show up at six, and I think the cutoff on that was ten o'clock at night, so they had that window. Obviously, my opinion, they're going to serve it as early as possible. You have a better chance of catching someone while they're groggy, their mind is not all about them. It's early in the morning. So they meet at a date and it was not the twentieth it was the prior week and they needed a Walmart and someone determines, uh, oh, Brian Malanowski is non home. And that's a key part to this case. Listen to what I just said. They had everybody ready to go, they meeted a Walmart parking lot. It's early in the morning. Someone figures out Brian Malanowski is not home, so they call it off. Now why why call it off? The person doesn't have to be there to serve a search warrant. They can be forced states a way, you can break in their house and search whatever you want. You have a warrant to do that. But they didn't. They wanted him there, and you're gonna see why as we go on through this podcast. So the search warrant does not get served that day, it gets served on the

19:22 twentieth and I just read you at the beginning of this podcast a little article that covered the quote unquote shootout if you will between Malanowski and the ATF. So i'll pick up there, and as I told you, Brian Malanowski was shot. He was brought to the hospital, and I'm gonna read you this. This was March twenty first of twenty twenty four. This is from the Arkansas Democrat Casette. Little Rock Airport Director Brian Malanowski dead after ATF shootout. Commissioner confirms the executive director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport was shot in the head by federal officials in a shootout Tuesday morning and has died with a heavy heart. We announced the passing of our executive director, Brian Malanowski.

20:14 This from Bill Walker, who was the chair of the Little Rock Airport Commission. Brian was a sixteen year employee of the airport. Under his leadership, our airport has experienced significant growth and success, expanding services and offerings to our community in state. And he also offered condolences to Malanowski's family and friends. It goes on to say he opened fire on officers as they attempted to search a search warrant at his home located in West Little Rock. A man that was making two hundred and sixty four thousand dollars a year was the head of the Little Rock Airport, the highest paid official working for the city of Little Rock, dead in a shootout. Now, none of that money necessarily matters, but it's important to the story in that this guy was not your typical arms dealer and he atf knew it. They're not stupid, they have common sense, and it's my belief this could have been completely avoided and a man's dead now because of it. So what happened, what happened during that raid, And I want you to put yourself what really grabbed me during this story is this could have been any of us. And I'm going to tell you why right here. And the New York Times did a great job of really covering what happened. So I'm going to reference that the loud noises outside

21:49 their bedroom door woke them before dawn. Brian Malinowski bolted up and looked at his wife stay back. She remembers him saying, after he reached you to the drawer for his gun and loaded it, he crept into a hallway of their home in Little Rock, Arkansas, and saw figures in the darkness. He started shooting and was met with a return fire. The people shooting back in him were agents of the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Division, executing a search warrant on suspicion that Malanowski had repeatedly sold guns without a license. What made this different for many confrontations was that mister Malanowski was a respected official in the community and a director of the Little Rock Airport. Mister Malanowski shot an agent in the foot as the agents fired back, a bullet struck Malanowski fifty three in the head, and two days later he died in the hospital.

22:48 His death has been met by outrage from his family, friends, and gun rights supporters in Arkansas and beyond, who say the raid on March nineteenth was ill conceived, unnecess necessary, in a shocking case of government overreach. Why couldn't this be avoided, his wife said in a recent interview at her home, where newly patched bullet holes lined the walls. Republicans in Congress are asking the same question, and a hearing Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee grilled the director ATF's Stephen deddelboch about this case, one of the latest tension points in the country's bitter divide on access to guns, but in a heavily armed nation where legal gun sales are linked with other violent crimes, Some law enforcement experts have defended both the investigation of mister Malanowski and the need for serving search warrants.

23:41 Early in the morning, shortly after the raid, the ATF revealed that it had been investigating mister Malanowski for months on suspicion he was selling a large number of firearms at gun shows without a license sometime soon after he bought them. The law at the time was vague, exempting people who occasionally sold guns as a hobby, but not spelling out how many sales was too many. The evidence gathered by the ATF convinced a judge to sign a search warrant, leading the agents to enter the home on a quiet cul de sac that morning. And it goes on to discuss, you know, he was a well respected member of the community, wealthy, lived in a wealthy neighborhood, etc.

24:27 Some important things to note. Why was he killed? Well, here's what happened. When the smoke cleared the ATF shows up at that same Walmart on the twentieth of March, and it is ten to twelve vehicles, estimated between forty and fifty agents, and they descend upon Brian Malanowski's house in a quiet little subdivision. They get out of the vehicles and the ring camera captures this. They go to the front door. One of the ATF officers has a piece of black tape ready to go and he sticks it right over the ring camera. Now, why do you do that? Then they kick open the door. That's right. They had what's known as a no knock warrant.

25:18 Now, are there situations where a no knock warrant is okay? Yes? Yeah. If you've got a serial killer in a house and you're pretty sure of it and you've got an arrest warrant, you're not exactly gonna want to knock on the door and say police, you know, open the door. Likely the assailant will run. But Brian Malanowski was not someone that you would need to have a no knock warrant to serve a search warrant. For the law says you, these have to be extremely limited circumstances where you have a no knock warrant, And there's a reason for that. If you're on the other side of that door, you don't know who's busting in your house.

26:03 Brian Malanowski and his wife were in bed asleep, the front door bust open. It's still dark outside. They hear this, they wake up, and what's he do? The same thing? I would do the same thing. Likely everybody listening to this would do. You grab your gun, you load your gun. You look down the hallway, you see figures. Nobody's identified themselves, nobody's announced themselves. Hey, atf put your hands up. How do we know this Brian Malanowski's wife because they didn't have body cameras on. Not only did they cover the tape on the door, they didn't have on body cameras, which body cameras are designed to protect both the citizen and the police. Look, let's be honest. Body cameras are on everybody for one reason. You want to avoid a circumstance whereas he said, she said, And a body camera is gonna tell the truth. It has audio on it, so you're not only gonna hear what occurred, but you're gonna see what occurred. It protects both the police and the citizen. None of them have body cameras on, and we're gonna get into why they say they didn't have them on and why I think they didn't have them on in just a minute, but they bust in. Brian Malanowski jumps out of the bed.

27:25 He's protecting his wife. He shoots down that hallway when he sees these figures, he has no you know, this is the this could be the devil himself coming to kill me. He shoots a bullet, hits something, The ricochet hits the ATF agent's foot. They fire, meaning the ATF shoot Brian Malanowski in the head. He eventually dies two days later in the hospital. They then grab his wife, pull her out of the bed. Now her husband's just shot. At this point, maybe they said, worre ATF come on, I don't know, but they grab her, They pull her out of the house. They put her in a police car for four hours.

28:11 Several times, while she's sitting in that police car, she's asking, how's my husband? You know, this lady's probably crying, she's in pieces. How's my husband? They won't even answer. Major failure here. Whoever led these men to do that needs to be fired immediately. You fucked up. You're a dumb ass. Use some common sense. They've been investigating that guy for months, they knew his movements, they were following him. This guy is not the head of a gang that is dealing arms with the mafia.

28:59 This guy is the head of the airport in Little Rocket. Look. He's doing this probably because he loves guns. It's a side hustle. Did they have a right to get a search warrant? Was that search warrant? Vallot? Absolutely? This guy was definitely selling guns beyond a hobby. If you're buying that many guns and you've got thirteen guns laid out a gun show, you're probably doing it more as a side hustle than a hobby. And he probably should have been registered. So I'm not saying they were in the wrong for the suspicion. And I'm not saying this guy was not dealing guns without a license, because as much as I hate to say it, he probably was. It looks to me like he was. But this was not a guy that if they knocked on the door and said, mister MALLANASKI it's the ATF. We need you to open up. He's coming to the door.

29:52 This guy's not running out the back window. He's got a wife and he's got a job where he's making three hundred thousand dollars a year that he don't want to lose. He probably would have admitted to it. Hey, it's not he wouldn't have got the death penalty. He'd have gotten some trouble, but he's not going to go shooting at the ATF over this. He would have probably played dumb and just said, I didn't rise. I was supposed to have a license. I thought you could sell it a you know, a gun show without a license. And he partially would have been correct. I mean, it is very unclear, and we're going to get into that. But now he's dead. So as I read you in that article, and this just occurred last week, hearings with the House Judiciary Committee started and they had several different people testify. One of them was the ATF director himself, guy by the name of Stephen Dedelboch. Another one was the family attorney for Brian Malanowski, who also, interestingly enough, had a lot of experience.

30:59 He was a federal pros akeater, so he kind of knows how that side of government works, and I'm going to play you a clip, and this clip is representative Jim Jordan from Ohio, and it kind of opens the hearings on the ATF planning that raid on Brian Malinowski. And it's pretty hard to beat the way Jim Jordan sums it up here. So I'm going to play that for you. Here's that. We'll begin hearing with opening statement. Chair recognizes himself. Government's not supposed to change the rules without a vote of Congress. Executive branch executes the laws. Legislative branch passes the laws. But when you bypass that format, which is exactly what the ATF has done, you get all kinds of bad things. First, it was the pistol brace rule. November twenty six, twenty twelve, the ATF told the inventor of the pistol brace quote he would not be subject to the National Firearms Act.

31:55 Last year they changed the rule after twelve years, change the rule. By the way, the pistol brace was put together to help disabled veterans be able to shoot, be able to practice and shoot at the range. Now with the rule change, if you don't turn it in get rid of it, you become a felon. Then it was a policy change that the ATF enacted. The ATF now says if a Federal firearms licensee makes a mistake on the form, even if it's a clerical mistake, well that now equals a quote wilful falsifying of records and they could lose their license. In fact, one hundred and fifty seven FFLs lost their license last year. In this gotcha game that the ATF is playing with people who are in the business of selling firearms, and the pressure to deal with what the ATF comes out and finds you've made some mistake on the form, many people are just voluntarily giving up their FFL twenty four in twenty twenty one, sixty nine in twenty twenty two to eighty people last year gave up their license versus dealing with the hassle from the agency that's supposed to help them comply, not put them out of business.

33:09 And finally, there's the new definition of who actually needs a Federal firearms license. Since nineteen sixty eight, the definition said it had to be your principal livelihood. Principal livelihood in the business is selling firearms. You needed that if you were doing that you needed an FFL. But this past Monday, new definition was put in place said if you're earning a profit atf doesn't be able to can't really define what that means. To sell one gun to your cousin, made ten dollars, made fifty dollars on the sale of a gun, two guns to someone ten guns. In fact, they couldn't even tell how tell the court how it works, this new definition. When you make up the rules as you go, bad things happen. You lose your life, livelihood for a clerical air, you become a felon for having a pistol brace they told you was legal for twelve years, and you might even get shot.

34:09 That's what happened to Brian Malanowski just two months ago. We have Brian's widow with us today. She was here with us yesterday heard some powerful testimony from US attorney Bud Cummings, who represents the Malanowski family. In fact, I'm gonna read from mister Cummings testimony that he gave in this room yesterday. It's legal to buy, trade, and sell guns without a Federal Firearms license if you are a collector or hobbyist. But at some point the ATF decided that Brian Malanowski had crossed a murky line and he was no longer a hobbyist. Because of that, ATF concluded he was required to purchase a two hundred dollars federal firearms license before he sold any more guns. I call it murky because there is no bright line test. It's truly subjective, but one thing seems certain. Bryan Malanowski received no warning. His family, his friends, his work colleagues would all guarantee you he loved his career and he would have never knowingly jeopardized it over a weekend hobby. His real job, his main job, the only job was he ran the Bill and Hillary Clinton Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas. Highest paid official in the municipal government made two hundred and sixty thousand dollars a year. But on March nineteenth, at six oh one am, over one hour before sun up, ten car loads of ATF agents and Little Rock Police Department officers came to the Malinowski home to execute their

35:44 search warrant, not an arrest warrant, search warrant. At six h two forty six am, ATF agents in full swap gear approached the front door They had a piece of tape ready to cover the camera lens of the doorbell camera, which they did. Next, Missus Malanowski heard only a loud crash as her front door caved in. Her husband, Brian, woke up to the sound of the crash, found a pistol, loaded a magazine, and left the bedroom to investigate. Brian warned his wife to stay behind in the bedroom, but Mayor stubbornly followed him down the hallway. The ATF apparently killed electricity to the home. The front room was usually well lit at night, but missus Malanowski saw only darkness as she peered down towards the front entryway. She could only see shadowy outlines of presumed home invaders standing in her front hallway.

36:39 That's what Brian saw too. Brian fired a few shots at the intruder's feet to drive them back out of the front door. The ATF shot Brian in the head. His wife was standing inches away from him a mere fifty seven seconds. Fifty seven seconds he lapsed from the time. Agents covered the doorbell camera until gunshots erupted and Brian was fatally wounded six two forty six to six SOHO three forty three agents immediately dragged missus Malanowski into the front yard. She was barefoot, wearing minimal night clothing, and the temperature was thirty four degrees. They locked her in the backseat of a car and detained her there for four hours, refusing her many requests to check on her husband. Her husband she had just seen shot, wouldn't allow her to get close or even use the neighbor's bathroom. Even though policies have been in place at both the ATF and the Little Rock Police Department for the past three years requiring the use of body worn cameras when executing any search warrant, the Department of Justice tells us that no body cameras were used. If this isn't the weaponization of government, I don't know what is. I don't know what is, mister Dettelbach.

37:58 We're gonna have questions about this and a host of other things the ATF has done under your watch. So that was a pretty good summation of the events of that day. And then Representative Jordan he had the opportunity to question the ATF director Steven Dettelback directly about that deadly raid on Brian Malinowski, and he wanted to know specifically, what were you trying to hide? Why did you put that tape on the ring doorbell camera? Why weren't you wearing body cameras that day? So here's that, mister dettelback. What were you trying to hide on the raid on March nineteenth to mister Malinowski's house, disabled the doorbell camera, cut electricity to the house, and you didn't wear body cameras.

38:49 What were you guys trying to hide, mister chairman, Uh, not trying to hide things. In fact, after the after the guy's cut electricity to the house, after the that's a question I'm trying to answer after the Okay, if there's no question, that's sign No, that is a question did you after the After the incident, we along with the Little Rock Police, called for an independent investigation being done by the Arkansas State Police and the local prosecutor. No, that's not trying to hide anything. I asked three questions, why did you put the tape on the doorbell camera, why'd you cut the lights? And why didn't you wear the body cams? And what are you trying to hide? And mister chairman, the reason that we called for the investigation is We're not trying to hide anything. The reason I'm not going to talk about what's going on in that investigation is to respect its independence and out of fairness. There's a reason for the Department of Justice policy that's existed for so many decades about not commenting and pending matters. It's not fair to people it and it risks the perception that people are trying to influence in Why do you ignore the rules? Because don't if the rules don't. The rules say you should only use a no knock entrance into a property if it's the only way, if it's the absolute best way to do it. I can read from Miss Monico's directive limit the circumstances in which agents may seek to interdwelling and pursue into a warrant without complying with the knock and announce rule because of

40:19 the risk pose to both law enforcement and civilians. So you want to limit this, why'd you guys, why'd you guys do it all in fifty seven seconds? Respectfully? With respect to what I said before, is that we are not trying to hide anything. An independent agency is investigating it, and we pursue into long standing policies are not going to come. Department of Justice has already told us you guys weren't wearing cameras. I'm just asking why I for the cameras. I'm our body weren't camera policy. I can talk about that even I think I can answer the question without talking about talking about some things relative to the investigation, but not others. We want all the answers to what's going on here. I will tell you with respect to the body work and camera policy. The Department of Justice announced that policy when it was announced, as we have communicated to your staff and you, it was announced that it would be phased implementation. Atf is implementing that policy. We've implemented it in just under a third of our field divisions. We have not received three separate requests for program funding from Congress to do so, but we are still doing it. I watched a hearing a couple of weeks ago officers did the Little Rock police officers who accompanied you on this raid? Did they wear body cams? Again, not commenting on this specific case, but in general, the Department of Justice written policy allows local law enforcement on these types of operations short term operations to follow their own guidelines and policies if they wish in

41:55 bodywarn cameras. And what I wanted to say is the policy was to wear weren't wearing them that day. We want to know why did you tell them not to wear them? Mister chairman. Again, it is simply unfair at this point, while there's a pending investigation, that's a simple question. We just want to know why they weren't following the rules. Their rules say where body cameras? Your rules say where body cameras? You weren't wearing body cameras. I go back to my original question, what were you trying to We saw the video where you walked up, you put the tape on the doorbell. We know there were no lights to the foyer, and we have missus Malinowski here who can testify to that. And we know you weren't wearing body cameras. What were hiding again, mister chairman, We're not hiding anything.

42:38 And with respect to the bidy war camera policy, the people there, why on twelve Why on the twelfth did you not go and search the home. You were all circled up ready to go, but a week before, on the twelfth of March, you don't go. You go in the nineteenth why'd you decide not to go on the twelfth? Chair? Uh? These operations and by the way, we do about eleven thousand operations each year, they're very dangerous operations. ATIP doesn't do anything that is not dangerous. Well it's not quite true, but many of them are very, very dangerous. And those operations are handled by people with decades of law enforcement experience. They planned them. Look at you got him. This is little uniquet. You got a citizen, the highest paid official in the municipal government, Little Rock, Arkansas, making two hundred and sixty thousand dollars a year running the airport.

43:35 No criminal background history, no, no, nothing, and he's dead at a at a at a pre dawn raid when it sure looks like you could have served this search warn't when he wasn't there, but you decided not to, decided to wait till he was home when you did it on March nineteenth, and as a result, mister Malinowski is no longer with us. Well, first of all, let me just say this, mister chairman. Any time that there's a loss of life that is that is a profound incident. And of course on behalf of just myself, ATF and all law enforcement. We are very sorry when those things happen. Also, an agent was shot that day, and I'm sure you are sorry that that occurred. Of course, all the more reason to follow the no knock warrant, not to have a no knock warrant take place, and follow the rules, mister Chairman, As somebody who has worked with law enforcement for decades, there's a great temptation when a horrible incident happens to prejudge. Sometimes people even try to use it to advance agendas. The cops who are in the field and the families who want the answers. And my time is expired. It's important to note that there were some police from the City of Little Rock there, Okay, wasn't just the ATF and those folks usually have and I'm ninety nine percent sure the city of the Little Rock no different. They have a policy they have to have their body cameras on, and all of them have body cameras. It's

45:06 amazing how the ATF, with a billion dollar budget doesn't, but the city of Little Rock or these smaller cities throughout the country can afford body cameras. We'll get a little bit more into that, but it's important to note that if they weren't wearing them, it was because they were told to take them off. I think an investigation is going to show that. But we'll continue on and Representative darryl Isa, who is a Republican from California. He spoke about the ATF's decision to conduct a no nock rate, specifically on Brian Malinowski, and he brought up some interesting points. And here's that I recognize myself now, Director, you accused the dead men of a crime of illegally selling in the back seat a weapon, and would I hear that correctly? Respectfully, what I did was talked about the public search warrant, Affidavid, that was and proved understand. But you're standing by your search warrant. You're standing by the fact that in the search warrant you're alleging that he had committed a crime. Is that correct I, Chairman, Respectfully, I was making the point that you're not being respectful answer the question. The question is did you allege that he had committed a felony, that a crime in your affidavit.

46:30 The judge did find that. Okay, well, I'll take that as the judge found it because you alleged it. So you alleged a crime, but you didn't seek to arrest him. Did you do you have an arrest warrant for mister Melinofsky. My understanding that's a yes or no. Director I understanding is it. My understanding is that there was not an arrest warrant. I don't have the full investigative file, but that is my understanding. You came here, you knew we were going to ask you saw yesterday, and now you're you're playing one of the games that the Chairman and I didn't like during Fast and Furious. We don't like it now if you want to be back here again, because you can't seem to know what you should know, what Missus Melanowski deserves to know. If some group of ten car loads of people showed up and kicked in a door in the dark of night, and somebody came and shot at them, we wouldn't be talking about somebody getting shot in the toe. We'd be talking exclusively about a planned murder of somebody who may or may not be armed, but who had every right to have weapons in their home and expectation they had weapons in their home, and expectation that they might use it. All of that you don't have to be atf to know.

47:46 So let's go back on track here again. If you had a belief that he had committed a crime, and if your intent was to arrest him, then that would explain why a week earlier you've called off an already authorized search because you were only going to search for the weapons. You weren't going to search for him. Isn't that correct, respectfully, mister Chairman, I am not able and will not It's not fair to do this during the pendency of a criminal investigation. Look, it's always I'm sorry, but DJ and you guys, it's always you can go on forever. Hunter Biden's over.

48:32 Why didn't you do a no knock on him at his home with the Vice president? To be clear, this isn't our investigation. We and the Little Rock police asked an outside investigation be conducted by the Arkansas State Police. It's their investigation, and I you that, and I hope they appropriately find that, in spite of qualified immunity, that you blew it badly enough that in fact, criminal charges should be considered. I hope they see whatever the truth is What is the penalty for the crime alleged on the Alpha David for selling a weapon not as a licensed dealer. What's a penalty? Oh, my lord, mister chairman, I believe it's a ten year felony. And there are two different crimes. This might be a five year and a ten year felony. Okay. I want to get back to you to make sure that there's a series of statutes that run all in a row there. I want to make sure I'm not sing up the statue of years or it's ten years.

49:30 It's not a death penalty. Is that correct? There is not a death penalty for that statue, noment Okay. So mister Melanowski was not in any danger or being executed for what he is alleged to have done, and no longer can defend himself because he's dead. But he was killed doing what any normal citizen does when people enter their home in the dark of night and they don't know who they are. If he had body cameras, maybe maybe missus Melanowski didn't hear right. Maybe you said police and identified yourself. Maybe he said I don't care, and maybe he fired the shots. I don't believe that and I don't think you do either. I believe he had every real belief that he was defending his wife and family. He fired warning shots, a ricochet hit a police officer or an ATF agent, and you killed him. Those are the facts. I have been investigating ATF for many years, and ATF agents have rightfully so, and you know, with great preparation, I'm sure, come forth and been our whistleblowers, and we've consistently seen there are two ATFS, the one we need and want and deserve, and the one that plays fast and loose like ten cars, going in deliberately with a warrant that did not entire and arrest when in fact, if you wanted

51:01 to arrest him, it would have been reasonable to arrest him at work and simultaneously go into his home. If you had done that, he'd be alive today, and we'd be talking about other things, including whether you acted legally. Without I yield back all of this that I'm playing you right now. All of these folks in the Senate are bringing up some really good points. And I thought that Matt Gates, a Republican from Florida, really put Stephen Dedelbock in a corner with the utter confusion on how they classified gun sellers versus hobbyist. So here's that exchange between ATF Director Stephen Dedelboch and Representative Matt Gates during that House Judiciary Committee meeting. Gentlemen from Florida's recognizing thank you, mister Chairman. So the ATF has a final rule. I think the comments and the rule itself accumulated to about four and sixty six pages that define who is engaged in the business of firearms dealing? So how many firearms does someone have to sell to be engaged in the business of firearm dealing? Congressman, As you know, that matter is being litigated in several courts, So sticking to what's already in the public record, the rule itself is sixteen pages, skipping lines, and there's about, as you say, over four hundred pages of explanation. And so there are factors that are conduct based, not numerical based,

52:38 but conduct based. Also, we received many comments. One of the comments that we received was from I think Senator Cornyan who expressed a view that there was no numerical threshold. Others had a different view. Ye in the House Judiciary Committee, we probably won't look to Senator Corden as the oracle of all things gun rights. But you know as to the so you're saying there really is no number. I'm saying that Congress our job. Our job is to implement the statute that Congress rights Ye a regular person for a regular person that one form or another acquires guns, and they're trying to figure out how many of these guns do I sell before I have to register as a dealer.

53:20 What you're saying is there is no bright line there. I'm saying that there is now more information than ever in the form of that role for specific conduct base I think I think just for a regular person, more information than ever is probably less helpful than if you sell three guns, you're not a dealer, and if you sell four guns then you are a dealer. Right. And this rule that you guys have drafted, it's currently enjoined. Right, it has no effect. There is uh. There are three cases that I know of, maybe more going on now. One of the judges has issued equitable relief. So in Texas, a judge has stopped the implementation of this law for three reasons. One is that there's no minimum requirement, and the court is found this court in Texas that you aren't just giving effect in life to Congress's statutes. You've in fact exceeded your authority because Congress would have never allowed some sort of sliding scale where sixteen pages of single space whatever determines whether or not you're a firearm dealer, not how many guns you sell.

54:27 There's a second reason that court in Texas said that this would not have effect, and it's that actual profit is not a requirement of the statute, only the predominant intent for profit. How do you understand that ruling? Again, that's in litigation. The Department of Justices positions on each and every one of these matters is public. It is laid out in many, many pages of briefing, and so would I would ask people to look at our briefs that we filed in the court, and I would commend your attemp. But someone is just trying to figure out whether or not they have to get a federal license or be subject to your guys breaking their doors down and potentially killing them.

55:07 You would think that you'd want that to be easily understandable. And here, even if someone isn't turning a profit, but they might want to turn a profit, they could be subject to this regulation, and the court found that troubling. And then the third reason the court identified is that your rule doesn't just give meaning to Congress's statute, but that quote arbitrarily evisceraates the safe harbor for provision. So there's a safe harbor for provision of this law that says if you're just engaged in the occasional sale or exchange or purchase of a firearm for a personal collection or a hobby that this wouldn't this regulatory structure wouldn't affect you. But what the court is saying here in blocking your rule is that you have a viscerated the safe harbor that exists for the hobbyist. Do you have a reaction to that ruling? Again, yes, our position is not that, but it's under a litigation we have filed extended. We here we are make your argument. I mean, they're sitting here in court trying to figure out what Congress means. What we're saying is there should definitely be a bright line in terms of guns. You shouldn't have to have this pondering question about profit motive, and you shouldn't eviscerate the safe harbor that's what we're saying. So what's your argument as to why the safe harbor should be eviscerated.

56:29 Our argument is to look to the statute that Congress wrote. The statute that Congress wrote, And I just want to make clear that people understand this. There was an earlier comment about the word livelihood. That's not in the law anymore. That Congress wrote. Congress took that out of the law. It doesn't exist anymore. So we start with the statue. That's where things always begin and end. I know you started with the statue, but what this court is saying is that you have exceeded the statute. You've done it in a way that eviscerates the safe harbor, that blurs the lines, and that creates no decle way for people to comply with the law. And the reason I think you guys are doing that is you want to make it more difficult for people to engage in the legal, lawful, and constitutionally contemplated manner to transfer firearms. And you're trying to criminalize an entire enterprise. And that's why you see it's trying to curtail some of your funding and your authorities.

57:16 I see my times expired, this chairman, I you'll think, I mean, I think that sums up the confusion right there, and something needs to be done about that. And another thing that came up during these hearings was discussion on the pistol brace. And just real quick, a pistol brace is a brace that goes up around the elbow. It attaches to the butt of a pistol and it's designed to make the pistol stable so that you can aim it better and it also takes some of that recoil away. Now, why was this invented. It was actually invented back in I think it was twenty fifteen for veterans, injured veterans who like to go and shoot, but they were injured in war and maybe they didn't have use of their arm like they used to from bullets, maybe hitting nerves, things like that. So this guy invented a pistol brace to help with that. And as of May thirty first, if you own this pistol brace, now it's completely legal up until May thirty first, of twenty twenty four. As of May thirty first, just prior to this audio dropping, if you own a pistol brace, you're legal. But they just changed it. So now you're a felon if you own a pistol brace and it's connected to your gun. Representative Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota covers this in this next clip, and the reason that I'm referencing

58:47 it is it is an example here where the ATF may be overreaching with citizens of the United States, and that's right here. You'll deal back. Jennaen from North Dakota's recognized we're conflating two issues here. A man is dead and an officer was shy, not because of rank and file law enforcement doing their job, but because somebody made a leadership decision in order to execute a warrant in the most dangerous way possible given the circumstances of that case. And we could sell six AM and standard operating procedure. You can do that everywhere else. I've represented three officers and officers involved shootings. I spent ten years dealing with search warrants. I know the facts of this case. I know where the guy worked, I know that he was surveilled, and I know that they chose to implement a warrant in a way that absolutely maximized the risk of harm both to the person being served the warrant on and to the officers serving the warrant. But I'm going to move on. I'm going to move on to something else quick. Federal gun charges are what we call strict liability crimes.

59:46 Right, If you have a gun and you're a prohibited person, that's the crime. There doesn't need to be intent. There doesn't need to be any of those things. Right. I disagree. So if you're a felon in possession of a firearm, you can intent. You can say I didn't know I was a felon. No, but there's an intent requirement in Congress's statute. You can read nine twenty two G. One. It's in the statute. Congressman, you said earlier that ATF's responsibility is to implement the laws that Congress passes. Right, Correct, When did the US House pass a rule classifying a pistol brace as a short barreled rifle? That rule making is based upon the National nineteen CORESS pass a law they didn't nineteen. In nineteen thirty four, Congress passed the National Firearms Act, which said that short barreled rifles were unusually dangerous. I'm not asking you about short barreled rifles. I know what short barreled rifles are qualified as in the National Firearms Act. When did Congress pass a law saying pistol brace is qualified. When did Congress pass Congress passed that they are covered by the national pass the law? When did the President sign the law? He didn't. The first pistol brace was sold in twenty twelve, a guy walked into a gun store, bought it legally, walked out of the gun store with the pistol brace, with the pistol brace rifle. No need for two hundred dollars, No needed for a stamp.

1:01:07 So you're saying, if there's a new brand of gun that didn't exist in nineteen sixty eight, that the Gun Control Act doesn't apply to it. I'm saying, in twenty twelve, a guy in Dickinson, North Dakota, walked into a firearms store and bought a gun legally correct with a pistol brace. Didn't need to do a stamp, didn't need to do a two hundred dollars didn't need to do a two hundred dollars registration. Again, we look at I think say, no, this is a factual question. The first pistol brace was sold in twenty twelve, Did the person who purchased it need a stamp? And did he need did he need the federal government's permission to buy that gun? The two thousand perspectfully, the twenty twelve, the thing that has been talked about in this committee previously was never brought to market.

1:01:51 Okay, so twenty fifteen. It would depend upon the actual design of the individual item. There were numerous different items being manufactured. You spend twenty years as a prosecutor, twenty years as a prosecutor. You know the answers to these questions. I done asking them. I'm just going to go with numbers. From twenty twelve until two thousand and twenty three, the ATF estimates that there are three to three to seven million pistol braces sold on the civilian market, not requiring the two hundred dollars stamp from the NFA for a short barreled rifle. Now what Congressional Research Service says there are ten to forty million of those those things purchased in the same period of time. Manufacturer sales estimate are significantly higher than the ATFS estimate to include, and those estimates exclude twenty twenty twenty twenty one. In twenty twenty two, now the Deputy Chief of the ATF has stated that prior to June one, twenty twenty three, two hundred and fifty five thousand, one hundred and sixty two registrations on retroactive purchases were received by the ATF. Does that sound accurate? I don't know who that person they're going to have a title like that, but the number sounds like the number of people that during a certain period of time sought registration. The number does sound familiar, but I don't know the quote there. If I got a rancher in southwest North Dakota who's hunting snow geese to a Federal wildlife refuge and a US four in, a US agent comes out. He purchased that rifle legally in twenty fifteen, and he's out shooting shooting geese with the

1:03:24 shotgun. US Fish and Wildlife comes to his car and sees a gun in there with a pistol brace. What's the penalty for him, now he bought the gun legally twenty fifteen. Well, again, it's five that that cares in in max for two hundred and fifty thousand dollars five. You talk about costs, you talk about budget cuts. So let's just assume the low end number of the ATF numbers on three to seven million read three million license three million guns that were purchased legally without any extra requirement. The ATF has gotten two hundred and fifty five thousands of those registered. You were roughly saying two point seven million people are now felons in possession of firearms for something they purchased legally. I respectfully disagree with a lot of the characterizations in your question.

1:04:12 The last administration Attorney General bar issued guidance on this before we even before ATF even got to this, people were unnoticed for years and years and years that you can't take something and break it into two and then put it together and treat it differently than the person who buys it in one piece. They bought a gun legally, and you guys retroaight actively made it illegal in a different qualification. Respectfully, I disagree that is not what the facts reflect. The gentleman, you've heard all those clips, You've heard the story. Do I think that the ATF had valid probable cause and that that warrant for his vehicle and his home that were signed. Do I think that those were valid and that they should have been signed. Yes, I personally think that Malanowski was breaking the law. I do think that he was dealing in guns, but it kind of stops there. I don't think that Malanowski had any ill intent.

1:05:13 I don't think that Malanowski was intentionally selling these to felons. I don't think any of that. I think this is a guy who loved guns, had a hobby, and was just kind of skating that gray line and he stepped over into the black at some point. That being said, the response is what I have issues with. My questions were why didn't they serve that search warrant the week prior? My personal feeling is they wanted to arrest him. They knew that the person doesn't have to be home, and in order to serve that search warrant they could have done it. Then no one so far, and I watched that entire hearing is answered why not why didn't they are serve it at that time? But mister common sense does, and mister common sense tells me that the true intent was for them to arrest Malanowski when they served the search warrant, but they had to search the house first to find enough probable cause to arrest him, and they were confident they would find it there, and I think they wanted to scare the shit out of him.

1:06:27 The second issue the body warned cameras. Even local police weren't wearing them, y'all. That proves to me the ATF's intent to hide something. Maybe your agents didn't have body cameras, but the local police do. And if you told them to take them off, and that's the only reason they would have been off, it's because they were trying to hide something. And putting tape on that doorbell camera to serve the search warrant not an arrest warrant. If you're serving a rest warrant, I get it, you don't want that person on the inside to be seeing your movements on the outside. But come on, we've talked about this the whole time. Use your common sense.

1:07:08 This guy was not a danger and you knew it. Putting tape on that doorbell camera trying to hide I had a problem with them serving the no knock warrant, and I've kind of discussed that earlier, But not only did they serve a no knock warrant on a search warrant and not an arrest warrant. They didn't announce themselves entering his home. You know atf come out with their hands up. They didn't even do that. This is my biggest issue out of this whole case. They knew full well that this guy would not be a danger. He was one of the most well known people in a little rock, very wealthy, had way too much to lose to just not comply.

1:07:48 His wife was there for Christ's sake. That was done to instill fear, plain and simple. Then after all this, you've already shot this woman's husband and eventually it killed him. They keep his wife in a police car for four hours, won't even answer her questions as to how her husband is doing while they searched the house. Sorry pathetic. And they sent ten unmarked police car vehicles anyway, and agents and riot gear to his home. Some estimated between forty and fifty agents. That's a great use of my money, great use all those guys being paid for. Brian Malinowski, You're not, you know, picking up Pablo Escobar. I hope some heads roll on this because they need to. A man is dead. That didn't have to be dead. And as I said, it could have been any one of us.

1:08:56 If that ever happens in my house, you come bust through my door and you don't announce yourself, I'm shooting and I might be dead after how many out there that's listening right now can say they're not doing the same thing that could have happened to any one of us. He didn't know who was busting in his door, He didn't know who those figures were in the hallway. They never announced themselves. As atf everybody's shooting right. Thank you so much for listening to today's episode and listening to every episode that we drop on Exposed. We have some great episodes coming up for you. I may drop another episode in just a couple of days because our boy Pete Diddy is in trouble again. I don't know if if those parts will ever end with Diddy.

1:10:02 Every time I think I put him away for a little while, something else happens, and something else indeed has happened. And until next time, I'm Jim Chapman, your host of Exposed, Scandalous Files of the Elite. Much love,