Category: Crap For Brains

Chavez v. Bonta. California’s 18-20 year old ban on buying semiauto centerfire rifles is upheld

This is ‘merely’ in the District Court; as it were, Act 1 in the play. The Firearms Policy Center will almost undoubtedly appeal and from the 9th Circus historical record we know how that will ultimately turn out, so in a few years, we may see it appealed to SCOTUS.

The judge cites that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the restriction on retail sales, meaningfully constrained the 18-20 year old Californians’ right to acquire firearms. The judge says that there are other routes e.g. private sales, gifts etc. BUT, this is ‘interest balancing‘, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional and repeated that several times.

The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule.

During the Biden ‘administration’ ATF ruled that “80%” receivers were to be treated and regulated just like they were fully finished guns.

The were sued and it went all the way to SCOTUS.

Justices Alito and Thomas were the only ones to dissent. All the others agreed. Regard the fate of future decisions accordingly.

 

BLUF
A decision point is coming. Decisive action by the Chief Justice could save the judicial branch by restoring the judicial modesty that preserves the respect of the other branches. If only we could be confident that John Roberts was wise enough to do it.

The Agony of John Roberts.

Pity poor John Roberts. No, he’s not corrupt or compromised. He is simply a man who has found himself at a pivotal time and place in a position of great responsibility for which he is utterly unsuited. He’s not a dumb man. He is, in fact, a very smart man – Hugh Hewitt knew him personally in the Reagan administration and testifies to that. I have no doubt it’s true. I know many smart people who have similar flaws. As objectively intelligent as John Roberts is, he is unwise, and he is endangering the institution he wants to preserve because he does not understand human nature or the times he finds himself in.

Frankly, I’ll take wisdom over raw intellect any day of the week.

If he had the capacity to lead that he so manifestly lacks, John Roberts could save his institution with decisive and bold action. But that’s not who he is. Understand what John Roberts wants. He is an institutionalist who has always wanted to protect the judiciary branch. He wants it to be a fully co-equal branch that is respected by all. But the very actions he has chosen to take – or not to take – in response to the current crisis of out-of-control subordinate courts are guaranteeing that it will fall. Continue reading “”

Never interrupt the enemy when he’s making a mistake.

Chuck Schumer rejects calls to step down as Senate Democratic leader.

WASHINGTON — A defiant Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer vowed that he won’t step aside as the chamber’s top Democrat, rejecting calls from some House colleagues and liberal advocates critical of his move to help pass a Republican funding bill.

“Look, I’m not stepping down,” Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a taped interview that aired Sunday on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.”

Continue reading “”

Judge includes new USAID head in order against dismantling the agency

Days after a federal judge blocked billionaire Elon Musk and the U.S. DOGE Service from taking further actions to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, he made clear in a separate ruling this week that the prohibition also applied to the agency’s new chief operating officer — a former DOGE team leader inside USAID who started his new role on the day of the first order.

Jeremy Lewin, a 28-year-old Harvard Law School grad on DOGE’s team dismantling USAID, joined the humanitarian agency Tuesday as its chief operating officer and deputy administrator for policy and programming, according to a court filing Wednesday by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice asked the Maryland federal judge to clarify or modify his order so that it wouldn’t apply to Lewin.

U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang, in declining the request Thursday, added that he reserves the right to modify the preliminary injunction to expand who it applies to if “additional personnel actions have the effect of circumventing” it.

On Friday, the Department of Justice filed notice that it will appeal Chuang’s original ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 3-20-2025

Given that the Supreme Court has scheduled a “large capacity” magazine ban cert petition to tomorrow’s conference for the ninth time (plus two reschedules), the timing of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals en banc panel upholding California’s ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds is interesting.

“[T]he en banc court concluded that California’s law comported with the Second Amendment for two independent reasons. First, the text of the Second Amendment does not encompass the right to possess large-capacity magazines because large-capacity magazines are neither “arms” nor protected accessories. Second, even assuming that the text of the Second Amendment encompasses the possession of optional accessories like large-capacity magazines, California’s ban on large-capacity magazines falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.” Here is a link to the decision.

In any event, there are other Second Amendment cert petitions scheduled for the conference. I’ve listed them below, along with the questions presented. Clicking on the docket number will take you to the SCOTUS docket, where you can take a deep dive into the petitions.

Continue reading “”

Keep right on talking Chuck…….

Judicial Overreach and the Separation of Powers: Why Judges Cannot Run the Executive Branch

The United States Constitution is built on a system of separation of powers, ensuring that each branch of government—the legislative, executive, and judicial—operates within its own clearly defined sphere of authority. Article II of the Constitution explicitly vests executive power in the president, granting him the sole authority to run the executive branch, hire and fire federal employees, and manage the implementation of federal policy.

However, in recent years, judicial overreach has increasingly threatened this fundamental structure. Activist judges have repeatedly interfered with executive decisions, particularly regarding federal employment and budgetary matters, effectively attempting to seize control of the executive branch. This kind of judicial activism is not only unconstitutional but also dangerous to the very principles of self-governance and democratic accountability.

The Executive Power Belongs to the President Alone

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” This is not an ambiguous statement—it makes clear that executive authority belongs to the President, not to Congress, not to the courts, and not to unelected federal bureaucrats.

Among the responsibilities that come with executive power is the authority to hire and fire federal employees. The president, as the head of the executive branch, is responsible for ensuring that federal employees serve the interests of the American people effectively and efficiently. If an administration determines that certain employees are unnecessary, redundant, or incompetent, it is well within the president’s constitutional authority to dismiss them. No federal employee has a constitutional right to a government job. Employment in the federal government is not a protected right, and courts have no legitimate authority to override the president’s decisions on workforce management.

Despite this clear constitutional framework, we have seen repeated attempts by liberal judges to interfere with the executive branch’s authority by blocking efforts to reduce the federal workforce, demanding that terminated employees be rehired, or even forcing the president to spend taxpayer money on wasteful programs that he deems unnecessary. Such rulings are blatant violations of the separation of powers and represent an unacceptable intrusion into executive functions.

Continue reading “”

What do they want, sponge balls for bullets? These purported scientists are morons with crap-for-brains to think they can sell this.

Gun Control Researchers Should Realize: It’s the Criminal, Not the Bullet’s ‘Case Fatality Rate’

Instead of advocating for prosecutors to get tough on criminals who break the law, keeping them behind bars longer rather than being released with a slap on the wrist, researchers have been keeping themselves busy in a flurry of “research” to tell us what we already know. Firearms are deadly. That is, after all, why law-abiding citizens use firearms for self-defense.

That is why gun rights advocates, Second Amendment supporters and self-defense proponents take firearm education and training so seriously. With great privilege (exercising Second Amendment rights) comes great responsibility.

Several researchers teamed up to publish a recent article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) titled, “Bullets as Pathogen—The Need for Public Health and Policy Approaches.” The results were not at all earth-shattering – that larger bullets cause more damage than smaller ones – but policy recommendations resulting from the “research” could be far-reaching, if impractical.

“It is past time to address the ultimate cause of injury and death, the bullet, and consider bullet-specific regulations to decrease the burden of firearm injuries in the U.S.,” the authors proclaimed.

Bullets Aren’t Bacteria

Gun control activists in university research departments are increasingly partnering with health care professionals in order to push an agenda of strict gun control as if they’re trying to solve a public health emergency. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health immediately comes to mind. That institution, funded by staunch gun control activist and hypocrite Micheal Bloomberg – who also bankrolls Everytown for Gun Safety and its propaganda “news” outlet The Trace – just released a report including five policy recommendations and promoted the idea that gun ownership would be better treated as a privilege and not as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for all law-abiding citizens.

The researchers behind the new JAMA article are pushing more of the same.

“Through examination of the devastating damage of bullets to individuals and society and application of public health principles akin to communicable diseases, we can prevent further injuries, disability and unnecessary loss of life,” the authors wrote.

Continue reading “”

Court upholds Florida gun law that bars people under 21 from buying rifles
Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment.

Saying the restriction is “consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,” a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. [really? What ‘historical tradition?]

The 8-4 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after seven years of legal wrangling in the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a 2018 law passed after a mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 students and faculty members.

Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down the victims at his former school. The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the gun-age restriction shortly after the law passed.

Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment. While the law barred people under 21 from buying rifles and long guns, they still can receive them, for example, as gifts from family members.

“From this history emerges a straightforward conclusion: the Florida law is consistent with our regulatory tradition in why and how it burdens the right of minors to keep and bear arms,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. “Because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, the Florida law prohibits them from purchasing firearms, yet it allows them to receive firearms from their parents or another responsible adult.”

Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, Britt Grant, Nancy Abudu and Charles Wilson joined the majority opinion. Judge Andrew Brasher wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch, Barbara Lagoa and Robert Luck.

SCOTUS is going to have to do something about this and slap these silly lower courts down, or things aren’t going to be pretty

Seventh Circuit Panel: SBRs Aren’t ‘Arms’ Protected by the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That should mean any weapon used for offensive or defensive acts. The reason was very clear. It was intended for us to be able to maintain a militia that could defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But the Seventh Circuit has decided that short-barreled rifles, or SBRs, aren’t arms covered by the amendment.

(I had to use a screenshot that I linked since X is having issues with the embed codes)

Now, this is a problem for a lot of reasons.

First, let’s talk a bit about the Miller decision. Yes, it’s a Supreme Court decision that lower courts have had to contend with for ages now. However, Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun. The Court in that decision said that such a weapon had no militia use, thus it wasn’t covered by the Second Amendment. That was wrong, of course, because that ruling was issued in 1934, so after shotguns had been used so effectively in World War I that the Germans tried to get using them considered a war crime.

Further, Miller himself was dead, so there wasn’t really another side arguing one way or the other in that case.

Still, when you look at Bruen, it doesn’t say anything about how you can just decide something isn’t an arm simply because you don’t think it’s useful for warfare.

Of course, then there’s the fact that if SBRs aren’t useful for warfare as a tool of the militia, then why is the standard issue weapon for the United States Army technically an SBR? The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5 inches, which is an inch and a half shorter than what is necessary for a rifle to not be considered an SBR. If SBRs aren’t useful for militia use, then why is it issued to every one of our combat troops and was used in pretty much every firefight out troops saw in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Now, let’s talk about the “step two in our Bruen” thing that’s cut off.

We turn to step two in our Bruen analysis in the interest of completeness. As discussed below, even if short-barreled rifles were “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, historical tradition likely supports regulating them.

The court goes on to argue that Rahimi permits similar but more modern laws can be considered.

Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 692. When the historical laws “address[ed] particular problems” there is a good chance “contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons” are also permissible. Id. The laws do not need to “precisely match”—the contemporary one must only “comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment….” Id.

Now, I’m not an attorney, but this sure looks like the Rahimi decision seems to suggest that contemporary laws can be applied when the historical laws addressed either that problem or similar ones. In other words, if the Founding Fathers were trying to address drunk people carrying guns, as they did, a more contemporary law seeking to address a similar problem would apply.

Instead, the Seventh Circuit judges just decided to accept contemporary laws as good enough simply because they don’t like the idea of SBRs.

That’s not even getting into the possibility that these judges’ nominations might not even be valid since everything Biden signed looks to have been the result of an autopen and we can’t be sure Biden even knew what was happening in the first place.

MSNBC Panel: Democrats Really FUBAR’d the Moment, Huh?

Ya think?

Give credit to Symone Sanders and Michael Steele for being honest about Democrats’ abject strategic and tactical failures last night. But also consider the fact that they had little choice in the matter, after watching Democrats as a body soil the sheets on national TV.

“Republicans were not coming to play,” Steele noted, as though anything about Donald Trump’s triumphant return after four years of Democrat lawfare suggested anything different. Not to mention that the Democrats had spent the better part of two days leaking plans to organize disruptions to Trump’s speech to Congress, which at one point included noisemakers as well as “bingo signs,” which were every bit as stupid as Sanders and Steele describe. (Wait until the meme-makers get done with them. Those won’t be back.)

But none of the panel truly gets what went wrong for Democrats last night:

 

Put aside the complaint that Al Green was somehow treated unfairly or differently than Lauren Boebert or Marjorie Taylor Greene. (Take that complaint to Nancy Pelosi, who sat through last night’s speech looking utterly defeated.) Republicans knew better than to stage an organized food fight at a State of the Union or quasi-SOTU event. Why? Because presidents have the tactical and strategic advantage, especially when his party controls Congress.

James Carville used the analogy of Pickett’s Charge recently. For those who haven’t studied Gettysburg, Pickett’s Charge lost Robert E. Lee the battle and the war by ordering an infantry charge on the center of a fortified Union line across nearly a mile of open ground, on the military basis of We’re right and they’re not. Pickett’s forces — some of them — actually made it to the line, but his command was destroyed, and Lee was forced to retreat from then until Appomattox.

That’s exactly what happened last night, and it’s even more inexplicable than Lee’s decision at Gettysburg. The American people rejected Democrats and chose Trump despite four or even nine straight years of exactly this kind of attack on him. Trump triumphed over the ankle-biting as well as the lawfare, and despite the character assassinations Democrats have staged on Trump and his supporters. The last place to use those same strategies and tactics is in a place where Trump easily commands the high ground — cameras, the microphone, and the attention — especially since it has been blindingly clear that he loves doing battle.

Steele suggested that Democrats shouldn’t have shown up at all. That would have been a bad choice too; it would have made them look like absconders rather than responsible legislators, only willing to participate in civic duties when they’re in charge. It still would have been a better choice than what unfolded last night. To answer McCaskill’s question more fully, they should have sat quietly, gotten it over with, and afterward started listening more than talking. Instead, they sounded like unruly radicals, and acted like fools.

If they would stop emoting and start listening, they might understand why a new CBS poll shows that three out of every four viewers approved of Trump’s speech, even though only 51% of the viewers identified as Republicans. It’s because Trump used the speech to position himself on the 80% side of the 80/20 issues Americans care most about:

– 77% support his plan to cut government waste and spending

– 77% back his immigration and border policies

– 76% approve of Trump’s speech

– 76% approve of removing congressmen who interrupted his speech

– 74% say his speech was presidential

– 73% support his stance on Russia and Ukraine

– 68% say it made them feel hopeful and proud

– 68% say he has a clear plan to tackle inflation

– 68% say he accurately described America’s crime crisis

– 63% say he focused on issues they care about

In other words, Trump set a trap for Democrats who couldn’t have telegraphed their foolish strategy and tactics more loudly than if they’d exhumed Samuel Morse himself to do it. And Democrat leadership — not the Boeberts and the MTGs, but party leadership — led them on a Pickett’s Charge right into it, with crazy Al Green waving his walking stick to lead the charge.

Now Democrats look like a party that can’t even break free of their toxic Trump derangement long enough to stand for a child suffering from brain cancer, or a young man whose dream of serving his country through West Point has come true. Democrats are utterly lost because they stand for nothing except raw power to benefit themselves, and only themselves. And without any other real purpose, the only strategy that they can see is to stupidly charge at all times under the military doctrine of We’re right and they’re not.

Maybe they should learn from history rather than trying to edit it.

Thomas Jefferson had some things to say about goobermint gone tyrant:

When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty.

When once a Republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

and last, but not in anyway least:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

Rep. Jamie Rankin Beclowned Himself in Opening Remarks at Gun Hearing

Rep. Jamie Rankin isn’t going to be on the Christmas card list of any gun rights group you care to name. He’s a vehement anti-gunner and that’s where his bread is buttered. That’s not going to change.

Which is fine, I suppose. He’s in the minority right now, so all he can do is bloviate and then sit there and be impotent in his gun rights animosity.

But bloviate he shall, and he did.

In opening remarks in a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, Rankin decided to display his burning stupid for the entire world to see, then sent out a press release with his remarks.

Awfully swell of him, really.

The problem is that my Republican colleagues have completely deformed the Second Amendment. They say it gives you the right to overthrow the government. Our former colleague, Matt Gaetz often claimed that the Second Amendment “is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary.”

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to munitions equivalent to that of the government’s arsenal. As our colleague, Representative Chip Roy, argues, the Second Amendment was “designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them.” And my friend Representative Lauren Boebert says that the Second Amendment has “nothing to do with hunting, unless you’re talking about hunting tyrants, maybe.”

Despite all of this pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric about how the Constitution provides a right of civil insurrection, the actual Constitution, in a half-dozen different places, treats “insurrection” and “rebellion” not as protected rights but as serious and dangerous offenses against our government and our people.

And yet, our Founding Fathers also made it very clear that when the government became tyrannical, it was the duty of the people to throw off the chains of oppression and fight back, not just with words but with weapons.

I mean, they’d just engaged in their own rebellion, their own insurrection, and thrown off those precise chains. They knew that no government could be created that couldn’t, in time, come to oppress the people. They wanted to prevent that, which includes the right to keep and bear arms.

Continue reading “”