Well, from the responses by other Justices to her an Sotomayor’s dissents in other cases, it’s pretty clear both of them are stupid, agenda driven hacks who, like all other leftists, don’t like the idea of their political rivals having the means to make telling them “No” a real decisive statement.

Jackson’s Concurring Opinion in Hemani Case Makes Laughable Argument Against Bruen

The Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen is probably the most important ruling the Court has made on the Second Amendment in history. While Heller and McDonald are critical as well, the Bruen test is a simple, straightforward test that can and should be easily applied to gun control laws. Did something like that exist at the time of the nation’s founding? Was there something like it during the time of incorporation? No, then knock it off.

But while the Hemani decision was ultimately unanimous, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, along with Justice Sonya Sotomayor, arguing that the Bruen decision needs to be revisited.

Along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson is advising the court to review its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Jackson and Sotomayor said the 2022 decision is “unworkable” and that the court may need to “retire the failed Bruen experiment.” That test, according to Jackson, is based on centuries-old evidence that may not be relevant to today’s legal questions.

“It imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems,’” Jackson said in her opinion, per Law & Crime.

“Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”

I find it interesting that Jackson and Sotomayor seem to think that applying history to whether something would align with the Founding Fathers’ intentions is problematic for “contemporary problems.” Never mind that we still look at their intentions on, say, the Fourth Amendment as it relates to your cell phone data or what’s on your laptop. The historic norms were that your person and your property were largely off limits without a warrant. While frisking was one thing–the things in your pocket, for example–it was easy for the Court to decide that your cell phone was a different thing.

Why is it that guns are a different matter? Is it because the history doesn’t align with what these two justices really wanted?

Continue reading “”

This crap-for-brains ‘allegedly’ needs to end. It either happened or it didn’t

Man Allegedly Crashes SUV Into Home, Gets Shot Dead by Resident

A man allegedly crashed his SUV into a San Tan Valley, Arizona, home around 6:30 p.m. Wednesday and was shot dead by a resident.

AZ Family reported that the driver of the SUV was identified as 34-year-old Jewell Vaughn.

ABC 15 noted that Vaughn allegedly drove the vehicle “through the front of the home and into the backyard.” The incident “[injured] both an adult male and adult female resident inside.”

One of the residents shot Vaughn and he succumbed to his wounds.

The female resident was taken to the hospital to have her injuries treated and the male resident was detained by police for questioning then released. Upon release he, too, was taken to a hospital for treatment.

Vaughn was “a father of five and a grandfather of one.”

Another Day, Another Reason ‘Public Safety’ Arguments for Gun Control Fall Flat

As Cam noted earlier this week, the Second Amendment Foundation is suing the sheriff in Contra Costa, California, over some rather bizarre concealed carry rules.

In particular, he will not issue a permit for any firearm that has a red dot sight or a flashlight, as well as any single-action only firearm. While I vehemently disagree with his position on SAO firearms, one can almost see the argument there. After all, single-action handguns have to be carried cocked and locked, which makes a lot of people nervous. It’s a non-issue, though, but I also understand many people don’t realize it. Still, we don’t base our rights around what makes other people scared, so it’s still a non-starter.

But the other things are a big issue in and of themselves, and it’s part of something I’ve noticed for a while with anti-gunners. Despite their claims about wanting to keep the public safe, they actively attack things that help keep the public safe.

Even if you think gun control works, most anti-gunners will still say the right to self-defense exists. They can’t afford not to, granted, but that right is there, has been affirmed by the courts numerous times, and that means we have a right to use a firearm in self-defense.

Now, let’s think about the sheriff in Contra Costa for a moment.

Red dot sights make it faster for someone to get a weapon on target and help to increase accuracy, particularly during high-stress situations. That means the rounds go where they’re meant to go, preferably into the bad guy and not someone standing off to the side who isn’t part of anything except, maybe, trying to be a good witness on your behalf.

Flashlights on a weapon are beneficial for properly identifying your target in a dark alley or parking lot. They help people make sure there’s actually a threat to their life by helping them identify the weapon as, you know, an actual weapon. They help to make sure the person you’re pointing the gun at is someone who needs a gun pointed at them, rather than someone else who popped up at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Both of these things are almost as common as oxygen in this day and age, and many firearms are built around them being added rather easily, and that’s assuming the gun didn’t come with the red dot from the factory. Moreover, they help make sure the good guys don’t shoot someone who doesn’t deserve it.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, we’ve got New Jersey.

For all the state’s many sins against the Second Amendment, the one that stands out for our purposes here is its ban on hollow-point ammo. While it’s sometimes framed as expanding so as to cause more damage to the person being shot, the reality is that hollow points are in my gun because they have less of a chance of overpenetrating my target and hitting someone or something else that doesn’t need shooting.

Yes, I should pay attention to both my target and what’s beyond it, but if lives are on the line, I can’t guarantee I’m going to get everything right. Police departments use hollow points for the same reason I do, so that officers don’t end up shooting through bad guys and into bystanders.

New Jersey, though, has banned them and is very strict on the subject, even prosecuting people who came in from out of state with them in their firearms.

From red dots to hollow points, the items that make it so the general public is safer in self-defense situations are treated like they’re somehow making guns less safe for that public. There’s no evidence of any of it, but they scare someone somewhere, so screw our rights because it makes someone nervous.

Why, if I were more cynical, I’d swear that the reason they do this is because they want innocent people to get shot, all so they can demonize self-defense even more than they already have.

But they wouldn’t do that, now, would they?

Cynical Publius

RE: The Reflecting Pool

Let’s review a few undeniable, irrefutable facts about this subject:

1. The Reflecting Pool on the National Mall has been a leaking, algae-overgrown mess for years.
2. Having a national monument in such disrepair reflects poorly on our nation.
3. President Trump saw these problems and decided America deserved better for our 250th Birthday, and has been trying to resolve those problems in time for July 4th.
4. Democrats everywhere want the repair efforts to fail.

*******************

These are FACTS people, not my opinion.
FACTS.

So what logical conclusion do all these facts lead to?
Simple.

***Democrats would rather see the United States of America fail than see President Donald J. Trump succeed.***

Democrats are not patriots. They do not care about our nation or our national pride.
They only care about power, and to achieve power they would destroy our nation if that was what they deemed necessary.
It’s basically the same ethos that caused them to burn down our cities in 2020 rather than see Trump win a second term.

I really do not see how it is possible to coexist with these people unless they change.

 The Real Reason Why Everytown is So Angry About the ATF’s 34 Proposed Rule Changes.

This is outrageous. I’ve been wanting a hit piece like this written about me since forever, and have practically lobbied for one, but ATF’s chief counsel, Robert Leider, gets one for his all too sensible rule reform package. It’s all just staggeringly unfair.

I considered boycotting Everytown’s Smoking Gun anti-gun agitprop operation because of this affront, but I know they rely on me for a decent chunk of their traffic and I can’t just put people out of work like that, even if their entire job is to eliminate my gun rights (and yours, too).

I’m a bloodthirsty gun nut lawyer, not a monster after all. They start like this . . .

If you’ve read any of Leider’s pre-ATF scholarship, you’d know he’s a Second Amendment true believer, not some gun industry lapdog. The Smoking Gun naturally frames Leider’s rules reforms as “placating the gun industry” because that suits them more than the truth does. And the truth is that millions of Americans — Leider included — insist on their Second Amendment rights.

I did a full thread on that ProPublica article on the administration allegedly easing up on gun trafficking, so I won’t go into detail on it here. Suffice it to say, the ATF’s “zero tolerance” campaign was about harassing gun dealers for paperwork errors, not catching dealers who were intentionally breaking the law.

No, that’s not at all what he said in the interview. What he was explaining was that paperwork errors often arise from confusing or unneeded required information. So by simplifying the form, fewer errors will happen due to confusion and never become a problem in the first place. Intentional violations would still be punished.

By the logic of this idiotic article, we should make voter registration forms more confusing on purpose, and then prosecute those who make an honest error for voter fraud.

You could do this with literally any time frame. California has a ten-day waiting period. Someone could  become prohibited on day nine and pick up their gun the next day. Is Smoking Gun really contending any significant number of prohibited people would be stopped by a 30-day window, but would have made it through a 60-day window? There’s no statistical backing for that contention.

Everytown asserts that the current form 4473 is a useful tool to catch prohibited people. You know, prohibited people like those who walk into a gun store and say, “Why yes, I’m a human trafficker, give me my gun now, please.” But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, these are the same dipshits who think criminals pay attention to “no guns” signs.

Note that we have already long been doing this form of sales for suppressors. And suppressors are almost never used in crimes.

By the end, we get to what Everytown is actually mad about: the continuing normalization and mainstreaming of firearms purchases.

The ATF’s changes would be a step back towards what the process had been for most of our history until the gun control interregnum of the last 60 years or so when authoritarian anti-gunners had the upper hand. They’re now losing the argument outside the minority of states they control and they’re big mad about it.

I guess they’ll just have to learn to live with that.

Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.

Texas: Pro-Gun Rhetoric vs. the Reality of Lingering Restrictions

Texas has long positioned itself as a bastion of Second Amendment freedom. With its deep gun culture, cowboy heritage, and constitutional carry law enacted in 2021, the Lone Star State projects an image of unapologetic support for the right to keep and bear arms. Politicians often tout Texas as a model for the rest of the nation, where law-abiding citizens can carry without government permission. Yet, a closer examination of its statutes reveals a more nuanced, eye-opening picture.

Truth is, Texas does not even rank in the top 10 of the most pro-Second Amendment states in various assessments, precisely because its legal framework is still riddled with technical requirements that are problematic for responsible gun owners.

Recent events have brought this tension into sharp focus. The arrest of NBA star James Harden in Houston exemplifies how Texas’s vaunted permitless carry law falls short of the “shall not be infringed” ideal in practice. On June 13, 2026, police pulled over Harden during a traffic stop in downtown Houston. Officers spotted a handgun resting openly in the vehicle’s cup holder. Harden acknowledged ownership, but the firearm was not secured in a holster. He was arrested and charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon, a Class A misdemeanor.

This incident ignited widespread discussion on social media. Gun owners across platforms questioned the logic: In a “constitutional carry” state, why does a loose gun in one’s own car trigger criminal charges? The answer lies in the specifics of Texas Penal Code §46.02. While permit-less carry allows eligible adults (generally 21 and older, not otherwise prohibited) to carry handguns openly or concealed without a License to Carry (LTC), open carry of a handgun requires it to be in a holster if visible. This applies in public places and explicitly in motor vehicles. A handgun in plain view, such as in a cup holder, on a seat, or in a door pocket, must be holstered for lawful open carry. Concealed carry avoids the holster mandate, but visibility changes the rules.

Texas law does not define “holster” in exhaustive detail, but courts and enforcement interpret it as a device designed to secure the firearm to the person or vehicle in a manner that prevents it from being loose, ultimately the decision on what is considered “secure in a holster” is arbitrary and based on the opinion of law-enforcement officers. Even magnetic mounts or simply placing the gun in a safe direction often fails this test. The result is a technical violation that hands law enforcement and prosecutors a tool to charge individuals based on placement rather than any demonstrated threat or criminal intent. Harden was released on a low bond, and such cases often resolve with minimal consequences for first-time, law-abiding offenders. But the principle stays troubling.

This holster requirement for visible handguns in vehicles is not a minor footnote. It stems from pre-2021 laws and survived the push for constitutional carry. Before HB 1927, open carry was more restricted. The 2021 reform expanded rights by removing the permit requirement for holstered carry, but it preserved the holster mandate for anything visible. Proponents argue this balances public safety and open carry; critics see it as a half-measure that supports unnecessary government micromanagement of how citizens exercise a fundamental right. Compare this to states with stronger reputations for minimal interference. In places like Arizona, Vermont, or Alaska, often ranked higher for gun freedom, carry laws emphasize simplicity.

Many true “constitutional carry” areas impose fewer conditions on vehicle transport or visible carry, focusing prohibitions on prohibited persons, sensitive places, or reckless behavior rather than technical securing requirements. Texas’s more extensive statutes, including detailed rules on display in vehicles and watercraft, contribute to its absence from many top 10lists of gun-friendly states. Strong culture and pro-2A politicians are assets, but layered regulations undermine the claim of maximal liberty.

Defenders of Texas law point to progress. “Constitutional carry” was a significant victory after years of advocacy. Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine provide strong self-defense protection. Long guns enjoy broader open carry freedoms, and there are no statewide registration or permit mandates for ownership. Yet, the persistence of rules like the vehicle holster requirement reveals a reluctance to fully embrace the simplicity that “shall not be infringed” demands. In truly elite pro-2A environments, the default is liberty, with narrow, clearly justified exceptions. Technical gotchas erode trust and create opportunities for selective enforcement.

Social media reactions to the Harden case highlighted broader frustrations, with gun rights advocates noting the irony;  a state that mocks “gun control” states for overregulation still gives officers discretion over cup holder placement. Others emphasized personal responsibility, secure your firearm properly, but the core complaint is philosophical. Why should law-abiding adults need to navigate such details in their private vehicle? This isn’t about celebrity exceptions; it’s about consistent principles. If the goal is empowering citizens as their own protectors, especially in rural areas with slow response times or urban settings with variable policing, laws should minimize friction for the compliant majority.

Broader Texas gun laws add context. Prohibited places are still extensive: schools, polling places, certain government buildings, and private property with proper signage. Age restrictions (with some court challenges for 18–20-year-olds) and disqualifiers for certain misdemeanors persist. While these exist nationwide, they illustrate that Texas has not purged all pre-existing controls. Extensive statutory language around carry modes creates gray areas that defense attorneys and instructors must constantly clarify. Firearms trainers often dedicate time to vehicle-specific scenarios precisely because of these nuances. Critics from the gun control proponents use such incidents to argue thatpermit-less carry is reckless, but that misses the point. Partial reforms invite exactly the kind of “gotcha” enforcement that undermines public confidence.

True Second Amendment maximalism would prioritize clear, minimal rules focused on prohibiting the dangerous rather than regulating the method of carry for the responsible. Texas has a vibrant gun culture and elected leaders who claim to champion 2A causes. Events like the Harden arrest, however, serve as teachable moments. They spark necessary debates about whether statutes truly reflect the state’s professed values. Gun owners should push legislators for further simplification: clearer definitions, broader allowances for vehicles without technical traps, and a continued emphasis on intent over form. Strong culture is vital, but when law still equips prosecutors with tools to penalize technicalities absent criminal mindset, it undercuts the promise of constitutional carry.

The Second Amendment is not a suggestion or a privilege granted by the state. It is an inalienable right. Texas has advanced farther than many states, but genuine unencumbered recognition is still lacking. Incidents like this remind us that rhetoric must align with reality, and that vigilance from the gun community is essential to close the gaps between profession and practice. For a state that prides itself on independence and self-reliance, settling for “mostly pro-2A” should be unacceptable.

The goal must be straightforward defense of the Second Amendment. Anything less is infringement.

Two Federal Courts, Two Weeks Apart, Split on Whether Silencers Are Protected Arms

Key Takeaways

  • The Fifth Circuit ruled that silencers qualify as ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
  • This split creates a significant circuit disagreement, potentially beneficial for suppressor owners.
  • The Fifth Circuit emphasized that if a device aids self-defense, it qualifies as an arm, while the Ninth Circuit viewed silencers as optional accessories.
  • Both cases upheld convictions due to non-ideal test circumstances, illustrating the complexities of the registration process.
  • The split may encourage the Supreme Court to address the definition of suppressors and their status under the Second Amendment.

NEW ORLEANS, LA — Two federal appeals courts just looked at the same question weeks apart and gave opposite answers. The question was simple. Is a silencer an “arm” the Second Amendment protects?

On June 18, the Fifth Circuit said yes. On June 3, the Ninth Circuit said no. That disagreement is now a real circuit split, and it may be the best thing to happen to suppressor owners in years.

I covered the Ninth Circuit loss earlier this month in United States v. DeBorba. Now the Fifth Circuit has answered back.

Start with the win. In United States v. Comeaux, a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that silencers are protected “Arms.” Brennan James Comeaux had been convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act after deputies searched his home and he admitted making the devices. He challenged the charge on Second Amendment grounds.

Earlier rulings had ducked the core question, assuming silencers might be arms without deciding it. Judge Jerry E. Smith decided it. “They are,” he wrote.

His reasoning tracks the Constitution. Silencers cut noise and recoil, reduce muzzle blast, and improve accuracy and follow-up shots. Those functions make a gun safer and more effective for lawful self-defense. Because a silencer facilitates armed self-defense, it falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The government’s argument that a silencer is not necessary to fire a gun did not move the court. Under Bruen, an arm does not have to be necessary. It only has to facilitate self-defense.

Now compare that to the Ninth Circuit. In DeBorba, the same kind of NFA charge produced the opposite holding. That panel called silencers “optional accessories,” lumped them in with slings and scopes, and ruled they are not arms because a gun fires without one. Same statute, same Supreme Court precedent, completely different result.

This is the heart of the split. The Fifth Circuit asks whether a device facilitates self-defense. The Ninth Circuit asks whether a device is strictly necessary to make a gun go bang. One test protects the modern tools gun owners actually use. The other lets a court carve away any feature it decides is optional, and there is no obvious stopping point once scopes and sights are on the table.

Here is the frustrating part the two cases share. Both men still lost, and both courts leaned on the same crutch to get there.

Continue reading “”