Well it took long enough

 

Ron DeSantis, Florida Cabinet Declare CAIR, Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa as Terrorist Groups.

“The designations will also apply to more than 90 organizations already listed as foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. government, including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, two Mexican drug cartels and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and his cabinet have declared CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Antifa as terrorist groups, along with a host of others, under a new law that took effect over the summer.

 

From CBS News:

DeSantis, Florida Cabinet designate more than 90 groups as terrorist organizations

Gov. Ron DeSantis and the Florida Cabinet on Tuesday voted to designate more than 90 groups as terrorist organizations, and a legal challenge is already in the works seeking to block the move.

With little comment from the state panel and no public testimony, the Cabinet voted to apply domestic or foreign terrorist designations to a series of groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Muslim Brotherhood and antifa.

The designations will also apply to more than 90 organizations already listed as foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S. government, including the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, two Mexican drug cartels and Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Under a new law, HB 1471, that took effect July 1, CAIR filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Tallahassee, contending that DeSantis is violating the First Amendment and the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU National Security Project, said attorneys intend to file a motion Thursday on behalf of CAIR-Florida seeking a preliminary injunction against the designation.

“There is nowhere in that notice any allegation or evidence that CAIR has engaged in any violent or dangerous act in violation of Florida or U.S. law,” Shamsi said Tuesday outside the Cabinet meeting. “And that’s the first requirement for something as serious as this.”

 

The reaction from the left is exactly what you would expect.

This is from The New Republic:

Ron DeSantis Goes Full Islamophobe With New Terrorist Designation

From here on out, a civil rights group will receive the same treatment in Florida as the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced Tuesday the implementation of the “anti-sharia law” he signed earlier this year, officially designating 90 groups as terrorist organizations, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, the largest Muslim advocacy group in the nation.

Florida’s authority on the matter superseded the State Department, which does not list CAIR as a terrorist organization, thanks to a state law (H.B. 1471) that went into effect in July. That allowed Florida’s domestic security chief to officially identify terrorist organizations without the involvement of the federal government.

The state government proceeded with the matter without input from the public.

The Muslim Brotherhood and antifa also received the terror group designation. Other groups targeted by the action include the Venezuelan crime syndicate Tren de Aragua, two Mexican drug cartels, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps of Iran.

A Texas federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit trying to hold UPS and FedEx liable for the Uvalde shooting

gov.uscourts.txwd.1172812709.49.0

Citing this law –
“Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994”.

In brief:
The Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 (FAAAA), 49 U.S.C. § 14501(c)(1) preempts state laws and common law causes of action that are “related to a price, route, or service” of a motor carrier, broker, or freight forwarder with respect to the transportation of property. Courts have repeatedly held that state tort claims can qualify as a “law … having the force and effect of law” and therefore be preempted

DO IT THIS WAY ⇓

Woman shoots masked intruder dead in Frankford apartment break-in: police

PHILADELPHIA – A 29-year-old man is dead after investigators say he broke into a Frankford apartment and was shot dead by the woman who lives there.

What we know:
Police say the shooting happened at an apartment building on the 4600 block of Castor Avenue around 5 a.m.

Investigators believe a 29-year-old man wearing a ski mask shattered a second floor window and entered an apartment.

A woman who lives in the apartment encountered the intruder and fired at least two shots, one striking the man in the head.

Officers found the man lying on the bedroom floor and brought him to an area hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Chief Inspector Scott Small told reporters that the woman and the intruder knew each other and had some sort of prior relationship.

Investigation continues
What’s next:
No arrests or charges have been reported as of Wednesday morning.

Police have not said if the gun used in the shooting was legally owned.

NOT THIS WAY ⇓

California Man Arrested After Firing Warning Shots at Burglars

Let’s start off by noting that yes, warning shots are stupid. I don’t feel like getting into why, generally speaking, in this piece, because it’s not about that. It’s about a California man facing charges for firing warning shots.

It started with the nightmare scenario for many people: the proverbial bump in the night. Someone was inside of the home in the dark of night who shouldn’t have been there.

So a man who works as a security guard decided he needed to do something, but he apparently didn’t want to hurt anyone.

A security guard was in custody Tuesday after firing warning shots to scare off burglars during a home invasion in Hacienda Heights.

Several suspects allegedly broke into a home to commit a burglary around 9:20 p.m. Monday in the 15400 block of Skyline Drive, a Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department spokesperson said.

An armed security guard at the residence, which is located within the gated Skyline Estates community, fired warning shots in the air to scare off the burglars, the sheriff’s department said.

Several suspects fled the location in a dark-colored sedan while others remained inside following the shots, according to the sheriff’s department….

Deputies detained the security guard who informed them that he fired the warning shots in the air. It is illegal to discharge a firearm without threat of the loss of life, the sheriff’s department said.

Now, some items were stolen and were recovered nearby, so there is evidence of a burglary.

Further, because the guard was home at the time, it means it was a “hot” burglary. Those are considered fair game in most states, especially those without an explicit duty-to-retreat law. California does not actually have one of those. Believe it or not.

So while firing a warning shot into the air was colossally stupid, and the man should most likely be charged if that round hits anything or anyone, that’s not what he’s charged with, and that is the problem here. If he technically shot straight up into the air, terminal velocity limits what the round will do when it returns to the Earth, but the issue is that few people will hold a gun perfectly straight, and thus the problem.

A burglar in the home with you is a threat to your life. That’s established doctrine in most states, and the reason for that is the high number of “hot” burglaries that turn into violent encounters, including homicides.

Of course, this is Los Angeles, where they value the lives of criminals over ordinary citizens. Why, those burglars might have been illegal aliens who should be welcomed to take all of our crap because we live on stolen land or something!

Charges should fit the crime, but the only “crime” here is the stupidity of that warning shot, especially up into the air. Especially as that block seems to have everyone packed in like sardines.

Still, it’s Los Angeles. Is anyone really surprised that they’re going to be hell on someone defending themselves during a home invasion? Seriously? That doesn’t make it right, though. Not in the least.

DOJ Sues Minnesota Over Gun Permit-to-Purchase Laws and Waiting Periods

On September 24, the Department of Justice took a huge step that could have major repercussions for gun control. The DOJ filed a lawsuit saying Minnesota’s firearm purchase permit and 30-day waiting period are unconstitutional.

Daniel Rosen, the U.S. Attorney General for the District of Minnesota, said:

“We are committed to protecting Minnesotans’ right to purchase firearms and we will not tolerate procedures that are wielded in a way that impairs that right.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said:

“Law-abiding citizens do not need government permission to purchase a firearm, and forcing a citizen who has already passed a background check to wait up to sixty days to obtain a firearm is intolerable under the Constitution.”

The suit is being brought against the state of Minnesota and the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minnesota’s original purchase permit law was enacted in 1977 but has been modified several times, most recently in 2025.

In 2023, the state expanded its waiting period from seven to 30 days, the same as the time limit for local police or the county sheriff to grant or deny a permit.

According to the DOJ, police in both Minneapolis and St. Paul routinely take more than the 30 days the law allowed and that wait times of up to 60 days are not uncommon.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon commented:

“The Supreme Court held that the home is where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. When a person needs to defend their home, they need to defend it now, not thirty to sixty days from now.”

Continue reading “”

Grassroots Judicial Report—September 30, 2026

What’s New — United States Supreme Court: Sept. 28 long conference summary; New York: Second Circuit: Defending Education v. Croton-Harmon Union Free School District: Docket No: 24-1900: Although this is not a 2A case, the court held that an organization may sue on behalf of its members under § 1983 when it satisfies the traditional test established in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission.

An important procedural matter for 2A cases: Hawaii: Ninth Circuit: En Banc: Yukutake v. Lopez, No. 1:19-cv-00578-JMS-RT: As of the 6-5 en banc decision, Hawaii may enforce both the 30-day handgun permit-expiration provision and the specified in-person firearm-inspection requirement;

Delaware: Third Circuit: Rigby v. Jennings: Case 1:21-cv-01523-MN: Decision:Filed 09/10/26 Judge Maryellen Noreika. A new Delaware law purports to “fix” this decision.

Week ending September 25

A review of the week’s available federal-court and Supreme Court materials did not reveal a new Supreme Court merits ruling, certiorari grant or denial squarely presenting a Second Amendment question, federal circuit merits opinion, or consequential preliminary-injunction ruling concerning the constitutional validity of a firearms restriction. However an en banc 6-5 ruling in  Yukutake v. Lopez that reversed the district court and the 3-judge panel’s injunction will probably be on its way to SCOTUS seeking certiorari.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Broadens Lawsuit, Targets San Jose Insurance Requirement for Gun Owners as Well

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) amended its original complaint against San Jose, California’s concealed carry license fee so as to target the city’s liability insurance requirement for gun owners as well.

Breitbart News reported the DOJ’s initial complaint against San Jose, noting that it centered on the city’s “presumptively unconstitutional” concealed carry license fee of roughly $1,600.00.

But the DOJ has now amended the complaint so as to go after San Jose’s liability insurance requirement for gun owners, too.

The San Jose Police Department noted that the city has a Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance which “requires firearm owners to obtain and maintain liability insurance and pay an annual gun harm reduction fee.”

The DOJ’s amended complaint lists San Jose’s liability insurance requirement and Gun Harm Reduction Ordinance under the heading, “Abusive Fees.”

…If a man lies under oath or procures the lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if, instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability, the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread and more pernicious. — Teddy Roosevelt – May 12, 1900

Author, Self-Described Gun Control Proponent, Says Gun Bans Don’t Work

A British-Canadian journalist and self-described gun control advocate who has authored a new book being released today—The American Way of Killing—told Time magazine in a Sept. 22 interview that he doesn’t think bans on so-called “assault weapons” work, and he also acknowledged the elimination of handguns is not likely possible.

Malcolm Gladwell, a staff writer at The New Yorker for the past 30 years, has published eight books relating to the social sciences. He has finally gotten around to discussing gun-related violence in the U.S., but it is not clear that he understands the importance of the Second Amendment, and right-to-bear-arms tenets woven into more than 40 state constitutions.

Asked by Time editor-at-large Belinda Luscombe whether he thinks banning modern semiautomatic rifles—the so-called “assault weapons” now the subject of an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court with oral arguments scheduled Dec. 2—his reply was blunt.

“No. Assault-rifle bans of the sort that have been passed and contemplated in the United States are completely pointless,” Gladwell stated. “They’re just a charade, and they are a distraction from the real issues. I think gun control can play an important role in violence prevention. But empty theatrical exercises in removing a class of rifles because they look a certain way do not move the needle.”

Coming from a gun control proponent, that amounts to blasphemy. And while Gladwell sticks to his guns (no pun intended), he admits the elimination of handguns in the U.S. is unlikely.

Aside from Supreme Court rulings that handguns are protected by the Second Amendment—which protects the right to keep and bear arms from government infringement—he just doesn’t believe removing them is possible.

“There’s the obvious political thing that people with guns are the most motivated to fight hardest politically,” he observed. “The Supreme Court currently has been captured by a majority of people who believe very strongly in gun rights. I don’t know how many hundreds of millions of guns there are in America, but there’s a lot. Practically speaking, I don’t know how you get rid of them. No one’s ever answered that. I’m as big an advocate of gun control as anyone else, but I have no clue about how it would work if it was passed. I mean, are you going into people’s homes to remove their guns? Very few gun-control advocates have a good answer to that question.”

Gladwell doesn’t mention the high court rulings which say gun ownership, especially handgun ownership, is protected by the Constitution. But he does point a finger at liberals who are adverse to recognizing that irresponsible people use guns to kill people, and that the gun, itself, doesn’t make that call.

“One of the many annoying things about the gun debate in America is the extent to which liberals roll their eyes at ‘Guns don’t kill people; people do,’” he told Time. “I understand their aversion to it because it was dreamt up by people who wanted to escape any responsibility at all for the presence of guns in America…One of the irresponsible things about progressive views on gun violence is the extent to which they use their legitimate antipathy towards guns as an excuse not to address more fundamental issues about human behavior.”

He also maintains that the so-called “epidemic of gun violence” often claimed by anti-gunners, is “an epidemic we invented.”

He doesn’t think criminal activity in the U.S. is inherent, but a problem “that was brought about by a wide set of very specific choices, misapprehensions, and errors.”

In a proverbial nutshell, Gladwell may have unwittingly indicted the political left. They don’t like guns, but their solutions, such as banning the most popular rifle in America, are non-starters. In reality, they really have no solutions at all that will pass muster under the Second Amendment, which is enjoying something of a revival under the Roberts Supreme Court, and many observers expect that to be strengthened even more when the Court rules on the constitutionality of semi-auto bans sometime in mid-2027.

Study on firearm safety pours cold water on anti-2A storage law assumptions.

A new study revealed that firearms safety education was far more effective at encouraging gun owners to securely store firearms than legislation was.

The study, published by Crime and Delinquency in June, sought to determine how prevalent firearms safety training was as well as how many firearms owners kept their firearms secure.

The study found that 90% of gun owners reported receiving at least informal firearms safety training.

“Within the United States, a substantial 90% of owners report receiving some form of instruction, typically divided into formal and informal tracks,” the study said.

“Formal training generally encompasses structured hunter safety, self-defense, or professional courses. On the other hand, informal training, which was reported by roughly 70% of owners, is a form of cultural transmission passing through friends or family.”

Anti-Second Amendment groups like Giffords and Everytown have pushed for legislation that would hold people criminally responsible in the event a child gained access to a firearm.

According to the groups, 26 states and the District of Columbia have laws that leave a gun owner subject to potential prosecution should a child gain access to the firearm.

The study, though, noted that the laws were not effective at increasing the rate at which firearms owners safely stored their firearms. Instead, the best predictor was having received firearms safety training at some point.

“The results from our multivariable model show that the strongest predictors of secure firearm storage were completing a form of gun safety training, either formal or informal, demonstrating that gun safety training and secure firearm storage are interconnected,” the study said.

“Together, these findings suggest that most gun owners in the United States are well-versed in firearm safety practices and store their guns securely when they are not using them.”

“Another interesting finding from analyses was that having a state law requiring secure firearm storage was unrelated to gun owners’ storing their weapons securely.

This confirms findings in prior research and suggests that policymakers should focus on other mechanisms to promote secure firearm storage,” the study added later.