Texas2AAttorney
CJGRISHAM

Every legal system rests on an answer to one question: who has final authority? Our Constitution answers it clearly and succinctly: Sovereignty rests in the people, exercised through written law, amendable by us, binding on everyone equally.

Classical Islamic jurisprudence answers that question differently. Sharia is not merely private devotion. It is a comprehensive legal order covering contract, family, inheritance, criminal punishment, and the terms on which one may leave the faith. In its traditional formulation, that law is divine, and therefore not subject to amendment by any legislature, including ours.

Where those systems meet, the friction is real. Our First Amendment protects the right to blaspheme, to convert, to ridicule any doctrine. Traditional Islamic law treats apostasy and blasphemy as offenses. Our Fourteenth Amendment demands equal protection. Traditional rules of inheritance and testimony assign different weight to men and women. These are not caricatures. They are positions found in the standard schools of jurisprudence.

American law has always accommodated religious practice. What it cannot accommodate is a parallel legal authority that claims precedence over it. A faith may ask for space within the constitutional order. It cannot be granted a place above it.

The question before us is not whether Muslims may worship freely. They may, and must. The question is whether we will be honest that some doctrines make claims our founding documents cannot honor, and that we owe every American, including Muslim Americans, the clarity of saying so.

The Power of Sunlight: Another Payment Processor Changes its Tune After Anti-Gun Discrimination is Exposed.

Financial companies seem to have a funny habit when their discrimination against the firearm industry gets exposed. They suddenly change their tune.

That’s what is happening in West Virginia, where state Attorney General JB McCuskey investigated financial companies after NSSF member Kent Cartridge Company, an ammunition manufacturer in Kearneysville, was denied payment-processing services. BILL and Ramp had separately told Kent Cartridge they couldn’t provide services because of “compliance and underwriting restrictions” and “restrictions from our partners.”

Now, BILL is serving Kent Cartridge and companies involved in the dispute have assured AG McCuskey they don’t discriminate against lawful firearm businesses. Of course, that’s how it should have been from the beginning.

West Virginia Demanded Answers

NSSF exposed the discrimination in July after Kent Cartridge provided communications showing it had been denied services. BILL also listed the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition within a restricted business category.

AG McCuskey took notice.

His office investigated whether the companies’ actions violated West Virginia’s Firearm Industry Nondiscrimination Act. The NSSF-supported law prohibits financial institutions that do business or contract with the state from discriminating against firearm entities or trade associations because they engage in lawful commerce involving firearms, firearm accessories or ammunition.

The law doesn’t require financial institutions to ignore legitimate business or financial risks. It does, however, make clear that a blanket policy refusing financial services to firearm entities does not qualify as a “business or financial reason” justifying discrimination.

That’s an important distinction. Financial institutions can make legitimate business decisions. They cannot simply decide an entire lawful industry is unworthy of financial services because they disapprove of the products it manufactures and sells for “woke” political reasons.

West Virginia backs that principle with consequences. Government entities generally cannot contract with financial institutions that discriminate against firearm businesses, and the law provides civil remedies for violations.

Continue reading “”

Justice Department investigates College of William & Mary over alleged ‘race-based’ scholarships.

The College of William & Mary is under federal investigation this week over a series of scholarships and student programs that the U.S. Department of Justice says may be racially discriminatory.

Announced Monday, the investigation focuses, in part, on the Virginia public college’s “W&M Scholars” program, “which grants scholarships covering the ‘full cost of in-state tuition and fees’ to ‘academically distinguished students,’” the Washington Examiner reports.

Students who express an “interest in diverse people and perspectives” receive “top consideration” for the first-year scholarship, according to a department news release.

The department is investigating whether these and other scholarships and programs “include racial criteria that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.”

>“Providing any educational benefits, including recruitment, scholarships, and support services, based on race violates the civil rights of all Americans,” the department stated in its letter to the college.

Another area of the investigation is the Holmes Scholars program for doctoral students. It offers mentorship, professional development, and career resources to “future education leaders of color,” according to the news release.

The investigation includes several other programs as well, the Examiner reports:

Other programs at the College of William and Mary also raised concerns for the DOJ including the Martha L. Muguira Fellowship which gave “preference” to Latino and Hispanic women, the Lemon Legal Scholars Program which allegedly was “exclusively earmarked for graduates of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and the “Reaching Back Scholarship” which gave a “preference” to applicants from HBCU schools as well as those “who contribute to the diversity” of W&M Law.

“Awarding scholarships or offering coveted opportunities to students based on the color of their skin is illegal and offends the guarantees of our color-blind Constitution,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated in the news release.

The department also stated that although the programs are under investigation, it “has not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigation.”

The college media relations office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The College Fix, asking for its response to the investigation.

 

FBI Releases Latest Data On Post-SCOTUS Crime Wave That Hasn’t Arrived

The FBI’s new crime report is out, and it’s safe to say that those who listened to the predictions of anti-Second Amendment groups are wondering where the crime is.

Since the Supreme Court struck down New York’s discretionary system for issuing concealed carry permits in June 2022, groups like Everytown, Giffords and Brady United predicted public safety would be diminished by the decision. However, the FBI’s data noted that in 2025, the murder rate went down 18.1%, while violent crime fell by over 9%.

One survey of crime that is widely cited is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) carried out by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), which showed from 2021 to 2023, the NCVS reported a 36% increase in the violent crime victimization rate, according to the report.

The FBI shifted how it gathered the data after 2020. In 2021, nearly 40% of police agencies did not send the data to the FBI. However, for the 2023 report, 72% of agencies reportedly participated. The FBI’s release of the new crime figures stated that over 17,000 agencies participated in sending crime data for 2025, while 16,791 sent information on so-called “hate crimes.”

In a July 22 poll commissioned by the Crime Prevention Research Center, the number of people who reported carrying a concealed firearm went up from 24.3% in December 2024 to 30.9%. In other words, more people are carrying concealed.

This is not surprising for two reasons: First, since Bruen, states like California, New York and New Jersey can’t deny a permit because someone didn’t prove “good cause” to carry a firearm. Second, we’re also seeing many states going to “constitutional carry” where no permit is needed at all.

The result, if you believe the polling data, is that a would-be crook has a much larger chance of coming across an armed citizen when he is trying to commit his crimes. Armed citizens end up being far less understanding than a Soros prosecutor, and the result… well, we’ve seen the results in some recent news articles.

In other words, criminals are probably electing not to do things which might lead to an encounter with an armed citizen. So, it’s no wonder crime’s been dropping.

Federal Judge: ATF’s ‘Frame and Receiver Rule’ Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Texas ruled Tuesday that the Biden-era “Final Rule” on Frames and Receivers as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case is known as Defense Distributed v Blanche (formerly known as VanDerStok v. Bondi).

In his 29-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas writes, “The Final Rule does not merely lack supporting analogues. It contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing. Self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our Nation…

“Thus, the Court ENJOINS Defendants from enforcing 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) against Defense Distributed, SAF, or any of SAF’s current or future members with respect to Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames and G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module.”

According to a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) news release announcing the ruling—SAF was a plaintiff in the case—”The court declared the rule unconstitutional as applied to all SAF members and issued a permanent injunction protecting Defense Distributed and current and future Second Amendment Foundation members as it relates to the specific gun kits involved in the case. SAF and its partners filed for a motion summary judgment in April of this year, which today, the Court granted.”

A jubilant SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb stated, “It was obvious from the outset that the Biden ATF’s definition of a ‘firearm’ was intentionally vague and provided no clear guidance to the average law-abiding American as to what was actually legal.

“As it stood previously,” he continued, “the updated definition, in essence, made a law-abiding citizen a criminal for nothing more than owning a piece of plastic that could be converted into a firearm. That isn’t how it works. Congress set the definition and the ATF can’t unilaterally trump up a revised version to suit their political agenda. The ruling also affirms that you are indeed allowed make firearms in your own home without fear of prosecution.”

In his ruling, Judge O’Connor—a 2007 George W. Bush appointee—criticized the ATF’s Final Rule for using “abstract and vague language.”

Continue reading “”