Category: Crap For Brains

The Honeymoon Is Over: Trump’s Pick for Labor Secretary Is a Teachers’ Union Fave

Well, that didn’t last as long as I would have liked. President-elect Donald Trump had been on a roll with his choices for roles in his next administration. On Thursday, he ruined the good vibes with one horrible, horrible Cabinet pick.

In Tuesday’s Morning Briefing, I celebrated Trump’s nomination of Linda McMahon to be Secretary of Education. Her strong views on school choice rattle the people in charge of the teachers’ unions, who are the biggest obstacle to education reform because they’re powerful leftist political lobbies. I noted that substantive progress with school choice would be “a direct shot at the heart of the Democrats’ main source of funding.”

On Thursday, Trump did something to make the teachers’ unions happy.

The Wall Street Journal:

Hard to believe, but Donald Trump on Friday night nominated a favorite of teachers union chief Randi Weingarten as his Labor Secretary. Why would Mr. Trump want to empower labor bosses who oppose his economic agenda and spent masses to defeat him?

Mr. Trump’s regrettable choice is Oregon Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer. Ms. Weingarten on Thursday tweeted her support for the freshman Republican. Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, who spoke at the Republican National Convention, has also been pulling for her. In a Truth Social post, Mr. Trump said she’ll work toward “historic cooperation between Business and Labor.” But Ms. Chavez-DeRemer has backed union giveaways like the Pro Act, which are not “cooperation.”

I’ll get to the Pro Act in a moment. For the moment, let us focus on the fact that Randi Weingarten is a vile human being. She was the face of school closures during the COVID-19 pandemic, and championed keeping them closed far longer than even the other tyrants thought was necessary. Weingarten wrecked a generation of public school children, forcing them into a brutal game of “catch up” that many will never win.

Then she lied about her role in all of that.

She’s Team Trump with the Chavez-DeRemer choice though:

When one of the most clinically insane leftists in America thinks that a Republican politician did a good thing, it means that the Republican just did a clinically insane leftist thing.

Continue reading “”

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Most of Restrictive New York Concealed Carry Gun Law; Next Stop SCOTUS
Federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals upholds “good moral character” requirement of New York’s concealed carry gun law, setting up expected showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court

We have been following the twists and turns of litigation battles associated with New York’s most recent concealed carry gun law. This is important, not only because it affects the constitutional rights of millions of law-abiding New York State citizens, but also because this case could be a bellwether for the country, should the U.S. Supreme Court decide to review the case and provide further guidance on the gun rights of citizens nationwide.

You may recall that it all started, as we reported, when SCOTUS struck down New York’s previous concealed carry gun law, which required citizens to make a showing of “special need” when applying for a carry permit, as violative of the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment, in the seminal New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen case:

We…now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.

The parties nevertheless dispute whether New York’s licensing regime respects the constitutional right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense. In 43 States, the government issues licenses to carry based on objective criteria.

But in six States, including New York, the government further conditions issuance of a license to carry on a citizen’s showing of some additional special need. Because the State of New York issues public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrates a special need for self-defense, we conclude that the State’s licensing regime violates the Constitution.

So after Bruen, as the case is typically called, New York could not require citizens to show a special need to get a concealed carry permit. And boy was Kathy Hochul, the far-left governor of New York, pissed: NY Gov. Hochul Loses Her Mind Over SCOTUS Ruling Striking Down Conceal Carry Law.

So pissed, in fact, that she rapidly called a special session of the New York legislature, and immediately passed a new concealed carry gun law even more restrictive than the previous one: New York Democrats Undermine Supreme Court 2nd Amendment Ruling In New Legislation.

Continue reading “”

Kansas City-Area Lawmakers Buck Veto, Pick Fight With Missouri Legislature

When Jackson County, Missouri Executive Frank White vetoed a package of local gun control ordinances last week, he rightfully pointed out that the measures are “fundamentally flawed, unlawful, and counterproductive.” The state of Missouri has a firearms preemption law in place that prohibits localities from adopting their own gun laws, and there’s no doubt that the ordinances approved by the Jackson County legislature violate the state’s preemption statute.

The ordinances establish age limits for firearm and ammunition purchases and an almost near-total ban on the possession of “assault rifles” for adults under the age of 21. White said that if the ordinances were allowed to take effect, it would open up Jackson County to “costly legal battles,” but Jackson County lawmakers are apparently willing to let taxpayers foot the bill for their quixotic attempt to subvert state law because they’ve overridden his veto and put the county on a collision course with the state of Missouri.

County Legislator Manny Abarca, who was caught in Union Station with his then-five-year-old daughter during the Super Bowl parade shootings, said the bill is needed to fight the rash of violence this summer by armed teens. He also pointed to the murder of Irish chef Shaun Brady in August.

“The least we can do is implement common-sense protections to prevent such devastating incidents from happening again,” Abarca said in a press release. “This ordinance is a necessary step to enhance public safety and protect our youth.”

White vetoed the bill last week, saying state law clearly bans passage of any local gun laws and he feared a lawsuit.

He issued a statement late Monday saying passage of the bill was “a disappointing moment for our residents.”

“While I respect the legislative process, this ordinance does not meet legal standards set by state and federal law, and we fully expect that it will be challenged in court,” White said. “Regrettably, this will mean that taxpayer dollars are spent defending an ordinance that has little chance of being upheld.”

Abarca’s grandstanding won’t cost him a dime personally, but he and the other six Jackson County legislators who overrode White’s veto are going to be wasting a lot of the county’s money defending the indefensible. Missouri statute is crystal clear about the powers of local governments to impose their own gun control laws:

No county, city, town, village, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall adopt any order, ordinance or regulation concerning in any way the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies…

The two exceptions granted to local governments are the ability to regulate the open carrying and discharging of firearms, though even then political subdivisions can’t craft an ordinance that prohibits guns from being used in defense of person or property. Abarca’s ordinances directly conflict with state law by imposing new regulations on the sale of firearms and ammunition, as well as the possession of so-called “assault rifles” ((a term, by the way, left undefined by the ordinance).

There’s no question that the ordinances conflict with state law. The biggest unknowns at the moment are who will sue to strike down the new ordinances, and whether Jackson County Sheriff Darryl Forte will try to enforce the measures adopted by county lawmakers.

There is no shortage of potential plaintiffs, including Second Amendment organizations, gun stores, and young adults in Jackson County who could bring a legal challenge to the new ordinances, but standing could be an issue if Forte decides its better not to enforce them. Regardless of enforcement, I expect the Missouri Attorney General’s office will also have plenty to say about the Jackson County legislature’s illegal ordinances, and might even bring a separate legal challenge to strike the measures from the books.

No matter how concerned Abarca and other lawmakers are about “youth” crime in Jackson County, violating state law to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of young adults is, as White said, a fundamentally flawed and counterproductive approach. Money that could be spent on hiring more deputies, prosecutors, or even community violence intervention efforts will now be directed toward defending Abarca’s public relations stunt instead of making Jackson County a safer place.

Software Development Goes Full Brown Shirt On 3D Printing

Software makers have solidified their place as useful idiots for the anti-Second Amendment agenda by leading the charge when it comes to the development of programs that detect gun parts being made by 3D printers, block those prints and in some cases, automatically notify the authorities. Claiming that these advances are aimed at curbing the illegal printing of firearms and firearms parts, these companies have donned their brown shirts a bit too quickly and have not the first clue regarding the tradition and constitutionality of homemade guns in America.

Cloud-based 3D printing management platform 3DPrinterOS has partnered with Montclair State University to develop an algorithm that identifies the 3D printing of firearm parts, but they are not the first. Print&Go recently launched a software system designed to block 3D-printed production of firearms called 3D GUN’T. What this software does not offer before it invades your privacy and tells you what you can and can’t do in your home on the equipment you paid hard-earned money for is detect whether or not you are a prohibited individual, that is a person who’s record prohibits them from legally purchasing or possessing a firearm.

“This partnership allows us to explore the intersection of technology and public safety. We are excited to contribute our knowledge to develop a system that can make a real difference in identifying and mitigating risks associated with 3D printed firearms,” says co-director of the MIX at Montclair State University, Jason Frasca.

I have long said that the attack on 80% receivers as being “too easy to complete” has been disingenuous, a statement supported by authorities and companies now setting their sights on 3D-printing, which is effectively a 0% home build. If starting from scratch is considered illegal, then let’s face the facts, the goal is to prohibit Americans from exercising their Constitutional right to construct a firearm at home, a move that I find in contempt of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, which directs authorities to respect the historical traditions of the Second Amendment.

Print&Go claims 3D GUN’T is designed to prevent the illegal manufacture of firearms via 3D printers, however, if a law-abiding citizen in a free state (actual America) chooses to manufacture a gun at home using their 3D printer, how does 3D GUN’T distinguish between this user and a criminal? It doesn’t. The software treats all Americans as criminals, deploying advanced algorithms to analyze CAD files, sent remotely or loaded via USB, and detect components that resemble firearm designs, immediately blocking print jobs that match these items in its extensive database. Additional use of artificial intelligence (AI) recognizes new or modified gun designs, keeping the software adaptive to emerging freedom and helping to stifle it.

3D GUN’T doesn’t stop there. It goes full Gestapo in your home, logging details of each print job and allowing authorities to trace activities and conduct a full audit trail, with integrated firmware installed directly on printers ensuring that unauthorized printing is blocked even if the printer is offline. The icing on top is real-time camera monitoring, providing visual oversight during printing and stopping any job where it detects a firearm shape.

“3D GUN’T is a critical tool in our efforts to ensure the responsible use of 3D printing technology… The solution not only prevents the illegal manufacture of firearms but also creates peace of mind for clients, whether they are makers, educational institutions, or businesses. With 3D GUN’T, users can oversee the management of their print jobs with the assurance that their technology misuse can be mitigated,” says Print&Go’s CEO John Amin.

The silver lining to this situation is that it opens up an oppertunity for 3D printer manufacturers who respect the rights of Americans to step in and fill a void. It also allows us yet another vote, this time with our bank accounts. Note these software developers and the 3D printer manufacturers who utilize this technology, then ask yourselves if you want to give them your money or invite them into your home. 

Sedition, Insubordination, Conduct Unbecoming. In a time of war; Treason.
This sort of thing must be rooted out and the bureaucraps fired, those on active duty who took part relieved, and those who may not have been on active duty (retired), recalled and face courts martial. The military must be completely subordinate to the elected constitutional national command authority and follow their legal orders or what we’ll wind up with is a military hunta akin to the praetorian guard of the roman empire who decided who the next emperor would be after disposing of the last one.

Sorry, We Can Only View This Secret Pentagon Meeting as a Plot to Foment an Insurrection

John Frankenheimer directed a movie called Seven Days in May in the 1960s, starring Kirk Douglas as a military officer who uncovers a coup against the president of the United States by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who signed a deeply unpopular nuclear disarmament treaty. That’s a movie. In 2024, the Pentagon brass plotted to countermand President-elect Donald J. Trump’s orders. If we’re going by the Left’s rules here, this is an insurrection. It’s a military coup. What’s worse is that these anti-Trump meetings were held in secret and then got leaked to the media (via CNN):

Pentagon officials are holding informal discussions about how the Department of Defense would respond if Donald Trump issues orders to deploy active-duty troops domestically and fire large swaths of apolitical staffers, defense officials told CNN.

Trump has suggested he would be open to using active-duty forces for domestic law enforcement and mass deportations and has indicated he wants to stack the federal government with loyalists and “clean out corrupt actors” in the US national security establishment.

[…]

“We are all preparing and planning for the worst-case scenario, but the reality is that we don’t know how this is going to play out yet,” one defense official said.

Trump’s election has also raised questions inside the Pentagon about what would happen if the president issued an unlawful order, particularly if his political appointees inside the department don’t push back.

“Troops are compelled by law to disobey unlawful orders,” said another defense official. “But the question is what happens then – do we see resignations from senior military leaders? Or would they view that as abandoning their people?”

CNN’s Scott Jennings tore apart these unelected bureaucrats yesterday. We’re back to the same Deep State games, but this time, Trump, with no re-election ahead of him, can go hard and fast to rid the Pentagon and any agency of troublesome government workers who think they’re above the law and not accountable to the will of the people. The illegal orders narrative is also ridiculous, soaked in the anti-Trump hysterics that have engulfed the Left.

Secret meetings on thwarting a duly elected president are not a good look.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Colorado Under-21 Gun Sales Ban

The Centennial State can once again deny 18-to-20-year-olds the ability to purchase any firearms.

A three-judge panel for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday overturned a lower court injunction against Colorado’s recently passed gun sales ban for adults under 21. The panel determined that the lower court “abused its discretion” by finding the ban likely unconstitutional. Instead, it ruled that commercial firearm purchases are not covered under the Second Amendment.

“Pineda has partially met his burden at step one by demonstrating that (1) 18- to 20-year-olds fall within ‘the people,’ and (2) the arms he wishes to purchase constitute protected “arms,” Judge Richard Federico wrote for the majority in RMGO v. Polis. “However, Pineda fails to prove that SB 23-169 implicates his right to ‘keep and bear’ arms, the third prong of step one. This is because SB 23-169 is presumptively lawful as a law that imposes conditions or qualifications upon the sale and purchase of arms and thus does not fall within the protections of the plain text of the Second Amendment.”

The ruling deals a significant blow to Colorado gun-rights advocates looking to stave off the state’s increasingly restrictive approach to firearms. The opinion opens the door for the state’s young adult sales ban to take effect for the first time, and its capacious view of permissible commercial sales restrictions could invite many additional regulations.

The case stems from Senate Bill 169, which Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law in May 2023. The bill raised the state’s minimum age to purchase any firearm to 21. State policy previously allowed 18-year-olds to purchase rifles and shotguns but not handguns.

Rocky Mountain Gun Owners (RMGO) immediately sued Polis over the law and secured a preliminary injunction against its enforcement last August, the same day it was supposed to take effect.

“The Court finds that the Governor has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that SB23-169 is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation,” Judge Philip Brimmer wrote at the time.

Continue reading “”

Federal Appeals Court Upholds DC Magazine Ban

Gun owners in the nation’s capital will continue to face ammunition magazine capacity limits, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

A divided three-judge panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court decision upholding DC’s ban on the possession and sale of what it called “extra-large capacity magazines” (ELCMs). The panel ruled the city’s ten-round limit for magazines fit within the nation’s historical tradition of regulating “particularly dangerous weapons” and those “capable of unprecedented lethality,” even though there weren’t similar bans when the Second Amendment was ratified.

“Because ELCMs implicate unprecedented societal concerns and dramatic technological changes, the lack of a ‘precise match’ does not preclude finding at this preliminary juncture an historical tradition ‘analogous enough to pass constitutional muster,’” the majority wrote in an unsigned opinion in Hanson v. District of Columbia. “Therefore, we hold Hanson is not sufficiently likely to succeed on the merits of his claim to warrant the entry of a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the magazine cap.”

The ruling deals a significant blow to gun-rights advocates in their decades-long quest to undo DC’s restrictive gun laws. It comes as appeals courts across the country have routinely upheld similar bans in recent years despite the Supreme Court raising the bar modern gun laws have to clear to pass muster in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Continue reading “”

TPTB have always been scared to the point they wet themselves that the peons possess the means to eliminate them from the equation.
It became even more scarier when reliable weaponry that can either smite from a distance, or be easily carried and concealed, was developed.
We’re going to see if this still holds basically true, or if our Supreme Justices can override the goobermint’s  fear that those in power can be help to ultimate consequences.

Perhaps the Most Concerning Comment on Vanderstock

The ATF’s rules on so-called ghost guns don’t actually stop bad guys from making their own guns. Still, those rules exist.

At least, they exist until after the Supreme Court rules on Vanderstock v. Garland.

As we’ve noted previously, though, the odds don’t look good for pro-gun folks. It seems the Court had at least some interest in keeping the rules in place, which is troubling because it seems pretty clear to me that the ATF overstepped.

However, there was one comment that bothered me more than just about anything else I saw come out of the arguments.

“Drilling a hole or two, I would think, doesn’t give the same sort of reward that you get from working on your car on the weekends… My understanding is that it’s not terribly difficult for someone to do this,” said Chief Justice John Roberts.

While it’s easy to ridicule the Chief Justice for this misguided statement, it’s important to consider his sources for the hyperbole, the ATF and the Biden administration.

“Drilling a hole or two” is a demonstrably dishonest take on the process, and I would have particularly enjoyed seeing a kit laid out in front of the Justices for a hands-on show of how “not terribly difficult” it is.

This would have been good for a few laughs.

Representing manufacturers and groups opposing the rule, Peter Patterson pointed out that building the kits is far more complicated than the administration has suggested, however, Patterson wisely remained grounded in his argument, staying with the facts and nature of the litigation, which had nothing to do with how easy or difficult a kit is to build, and everything to do with the ATF overstepping its authority.

Since the conclusion of the day’s oral arguments, the mainstream media has touted the Supreme Court’s disposition during the hearing as signaling a tendency towards the ATF and Biden administration’s arguments regarding lack of manufacturing difficulty and the potential for prohibited individuals to purchase kits and build them at home for criminal intent.

I will point out, however unnecessarily, that violent crime has been around long before 80% receiver kits, and violent criminals have never had an issue arming themselves, sometimes aided by our own government. Just ask Barack Obama and Eric Holder about Operation Fast and Furious.

All of that is absolutely true, of course. It’s a good deal more complicated than just drilling a couple of holes and calling it good, which is why the ATF’s argument regarding how “readily” it can be turned into a firearm is wrong and should be overturned.

But I’m bothered by Roberts’s statement about how it does give “the same sort of reward” that one might get from working on their car.

I wasn’t aware that was the legal threshold for our rights, whether or not a judge finds it satisfying.

Especially when I don’t find working on my car particularly rewarding. If I’m working on my car, it’s because something isn’t right and I can’t afford to take it to a mechanic. Since that’s what my son does for a living now, that’s rare, but that’s how it’s been in the past. For me, it was a task that needed to be accomplished, not something I found enjoyment in.

That’s kind of how hobbies work, though. Some people are really into DIY projects like renovating their bathroom. Others do it because they need the bathroom fixed and can’t afford to hire someone. The first group is the amateurs in the original sense of the word–those who do something for the love of it–while the others aren’t necessarily finding any sense of reward, necessarily.

Some people get a charge out of collecting stamps while others only buy them now to pay bills that don’t have an online presence for whatever reason.

Yet Roberts’s comment, while possibly meaningless, suggests that the justice might well consider whether they see this as a real hobby or not, and if they don’t because they, personally, don’t see anything fun in making one’s own firearms, we have a big problem.

“…’tis Devoutly to be wish’d.”

Did Kamala Just Implode Her Campaign With Another Disastrous Interview?

After reading the tea leaves, the Harris-Walz campaign discovered that it was a problem that Kamala wasn’t doing interviews, and so they basically decided to put her out there and hope for the best.

Well, it’s not going well, and I can’t help but wonder if this is why Trump’s been seeing momentum in recent polling. Frankly, I expect more movement in Trump’s direction after her latest interview on Wednesday with Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC.

Seriously, this interview showed us (again) why Kamala was not the candidate that Democrats genuinely wanted to run after Joe Biden dropped out.

Ruhle pointed out that “prices are still high,” to which Kamala responded, “Yeah, I agree with you.”

When Ruhle pressed her on how she planned to combat price gouging without resorting to price controls, which could raise concerns about her principles, Kamala sidestepped the question entirely. Instead of providing a clear answer, she declared, “I am never gonna apologize for going after companies and corporations that take advantage of the desperation of the American people.”

This response was vague and failed to address Ruhle’s legitimate concerns. Kamala cited her experience as attorney general, alleging that a few companies exploit emergencies to jack up prices, but offered no evidence to support her claims or clarify her stance. “Yes, I’m going to go after them,” she reiterated, but her lack of specificity left viewers questioning the effectiveness of her plan to reduce living costs, including housing and daily necessities.

My favorite word salad of the evening was Kamala showing off what she learned from her Word-of-the-Day calendar. Check it out:

Some of the work is gonna be through what we do in terms of giving benefits and assistance to state local governments around transit dollars and looking holistically at the connection between that and housing and looking holistically at the incentives we in the federal government can create for local and state governments to actually engage in planning in holistic manner that includes prioritizing affordable housing for working people.

In case you weren’t keeping track, that was three uses of the word “holistic” in about 15 seconds.

When asked about how she’s going pay for her plans, Kamala simply choked.

“Expanding that child tax credit, or you mentioned housing before, giving that extra money for a first home. If you can’t raise corporate taxes or if GOP takes control of the Senate, where do you get the money to do that? Do you still go forward with those plans and borrow?” Ruhle asked.

“Well, but we’re gonna have to raise corporate taxes,” Kamala replied. “And we’re gonna have to raise—we’re gonna have to make sure that the biggest corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. That’s just it. It’s about paying their fair share.”

In true Kamala style, that wasn’t an answer to the question. Instead, we got meaningless talking points and a hope that she’ll have a willing Congress that will enact her agenda. She clearly had no idea how to answer the question. In fact, her answer was so bad that Ruhle herself panned it after the interview aired.

“She doesn’t answer the question around—if the GOP is controlling the Senate if she can’t raise corporate taxes, where is she going to get the money from?” Ruhle said. “You know to expand the child tax credit and do all the things she wants to do. And she says, ‘We just have to do it.’ And that’s great and that’s a campaign promise, but-but-but the issue is, if it means we’re just gonna borrow again, then what we’re doing is we’re just never addressing the deficit.”

It’s amazing to think that the Harris-Walz campaign thinks her doing these interviews is a net-positive compared to the radio silence we were getting before. She’s not helping herself with these interviews at all, and when Ruhle couldn’t even deny that she wasn’t answering the questions, that’s just… bad..