Category: Crap For Brains

Georgia Supreme Court Upholds Carry Ban For Young Adults Under 21 Years Of Age

We’ve reported a number of times in recent years about the battle for Second Amendment rights for 18-, 19- and 20-year-old Americans. It seems anti-gun advocates think all the other enumerated rights in the U.S. Constitution are fine for young adults, just not the right to keep and bear arms.

In the latest court action concerning that particular subset of American adults, the Georgia Supreme Court on May 28 ruled that the state’s law banning possession or carry of firearms by adults under 21 does not violate the state’s constitution.

In the case,  20-year-old Thomas Stephens, along with gun-rights advocacy group Georgia 2nd Amendment, sued the state to overturn the law after a probate court denied him a weapons carry license. Stephens had argued the court should overturn its rulings in past cases related to the statute, “holding that the Georgia right to keep and bear arms is subject only to a ‘reasonable exercise of police power’ test.”

The court ruling stated: “In sum, Stephens has not offered a compelling argument that the original public meaning of Paragraph VIII is meaningfully different from the construction developed through our Court’s consistent precedent addressing the language of that provision over more than a century. Because he has not established that our precedent construing this language is clearly wrong, we decline his invitation to reconsider it. And because his only argument that the statute he has challenged violates Paragraph VIII requires that we reconsider that precedent, his constitutional challenge to the statute fails.”

Incidentally, the statute in question does have some exemptions, including those under 21 who have received military training or who possess or carry handguns on their property, in their vehicle or place of  business, or for hunting, fishing or sport shooting with a license.

Of course, both laws do violate the Second Amendment, as numerous gun-rights groups have been trying to prove in court over the past several years. However, the results have been mixed.

In January 2024, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, based in Philadelphia, ruled the state’s ban on adults 18-20 from carrying a handgun during an emergency to be unconstitutional under the new standards prescribed by the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in Bruen.

“We understand that a reasonable debate can be had over allowing young adults to be armed, but the issue before us is a narrow one,” U.S. Circuit Court Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote in the majority opinion. “Our question is whether the (state police) commissioner has borne his burden of proving that evidence of founding-era regulations supports Pennsylvania’s restriction on 18-to-20-year-olds’ Second Amendment rights, and the answer to that is no.”

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) recently filed its tenth such suit, this one challenging Connecticut’s ban on adults under 21 purchasing, owning or carrying handguns.

Justice Kavanaugh to Second Amendment: We’re Really Busy Now, Come Back In A Year Or Two

On December 1, 2020, the Maryland ban on AR-15s was challenged. The plaintiffs lost in the District Court and before the Fourth Circuit. In August 2024, a cert petition was filed in Snope v. Brown. The petition sat in purgatory for nearly a year with fourteen relists.

Today, the Supreme Court finally put the petition out of its misery and denied cert. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would have granted. Justice Barrett, as usual said nothing. Justice Kavanaugh wrote a very unusual statement respecting the denial of the petition. The first two paragraphs explain why the Maryland decision was “questionable.” If you read these parts, you would expect a grant. Indeed, Kavanaugh as circuit judge had found that the District of Columbia’s ban on AR-15s was unconstitutional. But then, we get to the last paragraph:

In short, under this Court’s precedents, the Fourth Circuit’s decision is questionable. Although the Court today denies certiorari, a denial of certiorari does not mean that the Court agrees with a lower-court decision or that the issue is not worthy of review.

The AR–15 issue was recently decided by the First Circuit and is currently being considered by several other Courts of Appeals…..

Opinions from other Courts of Appeals should assist this Court’s ultimate decision making on the AR–15 issue.

 Additional petitions for certiorari will likely be before this Court shortly and, in my view, this Court should and presumably will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.

My mouth nearly hit the floor when I read this. Kavanaugh all-but signals that he will be a fourth vote to grant cert. He does not identify any vehicle problems, or reasons why the Maryland petition should not be granted. Does he really think that rulings from the Ninth Circuit will help much in the deliberations? These courts will all rule against the Second Amendment. Nothing is in doubt. The upshot is that the Court is really busy with other stuff right now, and you all should just come back later. The Second Amendment could take a sabbatical for a year or two until the docket lightens up. Indeed, this case has been pending for nearly four years. Maryland gun owners will just have to chill.

Of late I’ve been praiseworthy of some of Kavanaugh’s actions, but this is the sort of Kavanaugh opinion that infuriates me. And where is Justice Barrett on these issues? A decade ago in 2015, Justice Scalia dissented from denial of cert in Friedman v. Highland Park, a challenge to an assault weapon ban.

This issue isn’t new. I think this term will be remembered as the term in which Justice Barrett’s slide became indisputable. I started tracking it years ago, but it is hard to ignore now.

Kostas Moros

May as well do a proper thread on this. Read for my analysis/cope.
Snope denied. The Supreme Court has forsaken us.
Kavanaugh says they want more percolation, apparently.
First up is Kavanaugh, in a statement respecting the denial of cert. (Basically a concurrence in denying it) Not that it will matter until SCOTUS actually polices the antigun circuits, but Kavanaugh confirms we are right that: a. there is a “common use” test. Antigun states have denied this, arguing there is no such test, or if there is, it’s only “commonly used for self-defense.” b. it is historically-based (i.e., not part of the phony “plain text” analysis). Antigun states have argued it’s at the plain text step.
Not strong enough to get granted cert now though, I guess?
Sure, but the antigun circuits will absolutely take this as an affirmance of the terrible Fourth Circuit ruling. SCOTUS needs to accept that it must actively police those circuits, or just admit it has no interest in protecting the Second Amendment so we stop wasting our time.
While they didn’t join this statement, this is Barrett and Roberts speaking too, it’s pretty clear. Kavanaugh wouldn’t write with such confidence (i.e. “presumably”) if he didn’t think they – or at least one of them – was on board to hear such a case soon. You are free to think I am coping – I can’t blame you for having zero confidence in the Court after this. It’s just how I read it. Even if I am correct, that wouldn’t make it okay. Another year or two of denied rights is incredibly damaging. As I have pointed out before, our lives are not that long, and not having our Second Amendment right fully realized for another year or two is a real loss. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from percolation. Only antigun circuits ever here AWB cases, and their rulings are all very similar to each other.
We love you Justice Thomas, thanks for always being a real one.
I don’t like Justice Thomas embracing the plain text “step.” I guess I now have to concede there is such a step, bummer.
That said, the plain text is not hard to meet in an arms ban case, as Thomas points out.
Now that Thomas has confirmed I was wrong and there is a “plain text” step, I now urge the Supreme Court to gut it and make Bruen the one-step test it should be. Antigun circuits will always place “too high a burden” on Plaintiffs to avoid the historical analysis. The plain text step, if it is too exist, should be no more than a simple qualifier, not some rigorous analysis.
to* exist.
So while Thomas does reject my view that there is no meaningful plain text step, he does agree that it isn’t a hard step to meet.
Beautifully written. Too bad it is in a dissent from denial of cert, and not the first line of a per curiam ruling.
Thomas deals with the 4th Circuits dumb slippery slope argument.
Thomas agrees that percolation has no value.
He concludes by pointing out the Court’s logic in VanDerStok could allow for the federal government to declare AR-15s to be “machineguns” and ban them. A future Dem administration will no doubt try this.
So, what’s my speculation?
I think there was clearly a lot of negotiating behind the scenes, and Roberts/Barrett or one of them just doesn’t want another controversial issue on their plate right now.
They promised Kavanaugh they’d take up the issue soon, but who knows if they will keep that promise (no doubt the stream of Trump admin cases will continue for the whole four years). Hopefully the USDOJ will support the Duncan cert petition to add some pressure for a grant. If they deny Duncan, then the next best candidate is probably the Illinois cases about to be heard on final judgment by the Seventh Circuit.
It is interesting that Kavanaugh had no similar statement for Ocean State Tactical. As a judge on the DC Circuit, he dissented from an opinion (Heller II) upholding an AWB, but said as to magazines he would have remanded for further proceedings. It’s possible Kavanaugh is against AWBs, but would be accepting of a magazine capacity limit. I certainly hope that isn’t the case. I can’t blame anyone for dooming at this point, but we’ll keep doing the best we can. We need Justices Thomas and Alito replaced by fire-breathers like VanDyke who don’t care about suffocating decorum traditions and will openly call out their colleagues when they are being hacks. Thomas and Alito are the best justices on the Court, but they are aging and it is critical they be replaced with equally-strong but younger judges.
Finally, the percolation excuse must be especially frustrating for the Snope plaintiffs. Let’s say in a best case scenario, Kavanaugh is being truthful, and SCOTUS does grant a similar case and strikes down AWBs. The Snope plaintiffs are still out all of their legal fees, which do not get reimbursed if you are vindicated two years later. You only win back fees if your case wins. So they are just SOL.
Very cool SCOTUS, thanks.

Demoncraps and Men

Democrats are spending $20 million to win back men—but until they understand what men actually want, they’ll keep buying maps without learning the terrain.

Since last November, Democrats and their friends in the media have spent a great deal of time wondering what they can do to win back male voters. Now they’re prepared to spend a great deal of money to help them figure it out. The “gender gap” in American politics was traditionally about Republicans’ inability to win over a majority of women voters, but this imbalance has more than evened out over the last few election cycles. Today, the Democrats’ struggle to win male voters—and young male voters, in particular—is as pronounced—if not more so—than their opponents’ struggle with women. Some of them, at least, would like to know why and would like to spend $20 million of their donors’ money in the process.

The explanations and consequent solutions offered so far range from the seemingly practical to the hopeless to the head-scratching. One might think that $20 million would buy something more insightful than this, but then, this is the same party that triumphantly chose Tim Walz as its vice-presidential nominee, fully expecting him to be the answer to their gender gap problem. Or in other words, don’t hold your breath.

In reality, the odds that the contemporary Democratic party will be able to win back men, now or in the foreseeable future, are vanishingly small. The party, as it is currently constituted, lacks both the will and the ability to make the changes that would be necessary to do so. What I mean by this is that the contemporary Democratic party is built on a handful of foundational notions that are, by and large, incompatible with the goal of appealing to men.

Continue reading “”

These Are Trained Judges, Readers! Don’t Try This Yourselves at Home!
Readers of today’s opinion in Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President (which I think got it largely right in its substantive analysis), might notice that it included 26 exclamation points (not counting one in a quote from President Trump). Here is just a subset:

The Founding Fathers knew this! …

Please—that dog won’t hunt! …

The causal chain contains at most two links, and it is certainly not highly attenuated! …

Please! …

I agree! …

Taken together, the provisions constitute a staggering punishment for the firm’s protected speech! The Order is intended to, and does in fact, impede the firm’s ability to effectively represent its clients! …

Thus, to the extent the President does have the power to limit access to federal buildings, suspend and revoke security clearances, dictate federal hiring, and manage federal contracts, the Order surpasses that authority and in fact usurps the Judiciary’s authority to resolve cases and sanction parties that come before the courts! …

I appreciate that the author is a federal judge, and I’m not, but my sense is that the exclamation points do more to detract from the persuasiveness of the opinion than to advance it. And even if it works for a judge, I would strongly recommend lawyers to avoid such massive use of exclamation points—indeed, even any use of exclamation points. (“Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi,” as my father liked to quote.)

To pass along again (albeit imprecisely) an exchange I blogged about in 2007,

[Talk had turned to effective legal writing; B is a smart soon-to-be-law-student.]

A. Another thing I learned about legal writing: Don’t use exclamation points for rhetorical emphasis. And all-caps — don’t do that, either. Bold is also very bad. So is italics: It’s OK to use it to highlight important terms in quotes, or terms that you’re trying to distinguish from each other in your arguments, but don’t use it as an exclamation point.

B. But what then are you supposed to use for rhetorical emphasis?

A. How about … forceful arguments?

SCOTUS to CASA to A.A.R.P.: In Case Of (Perceived) Emergency, Ignore The Rules, And Make Stuff Up
None of the usual rules will apply when the ACLU says there is an emergency.

The past 24 hours have been something of a Rorschach Test for the Supreme Court. In the birthright citizenship case, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the judiciary must retain the power to enter universal injunctions, even if Article III does not otherwise permit such injunctions. And in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the court should certify a class without going through Rule 23, and grant an ex parte tro without considering any of the usual TRO factors.

What lesson should lower court judges take away? In cases of perceived emergencies, forget all the rules and make stuff up. When the executive branch takes such actions we call it an autocracy. When the courts do it, they call it the “rule of law.”

I will have much more to say about this order in due course.

Well, that would be ‘tried to confiscate’ and it wouldn’t be pretty as I’m sure LOTS of people would go ‘Solzhenitsyn Style’. But then Justice Sotomayor never has been a ‘wise Latina’

Does Justice Sotomayor Really Want To Know What The Remedy Would Be If The Government Confiscated Everyone’s Guns?

Justice Sotomayor is pretty predictable. She walks into oral argument with a set of questions she wants to ask, and she will keep asking them, whether or not she gets the answer she wants. I imagine advocates get frustrated, but that is part of the game.

During the birthright citizenship cases, Justice Sotomayor asked the same line of questions several times–apparently she thought it was clever. To illustrate the limits of the government’s position concerning nationwide injunction, she would change the hypo: what would happen if the government sought to confiscate every gun in America; would every gunowner have to bring an individual law suit to seek relief?

Page 13: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –so, when a new president orders that because there’s so much gun violence going on in the country and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone, then people –and he sends out the military to seize everyone’s guns –we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every named plaintiff gets –or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?

Page 41: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: If we’re afraid that this is or even have a thought that this is unlawful executive action, that it is Congress who decides citizenship, not the executive, if we believe, some of us were to believe that, why should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action, as unlawful as an executive taking the guns away from every citizen?

Page 44: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –it got rejected repeatedly. We can go into the history of citizenship, but I still go back to my question. You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop, put this aside, to stop a president from an unconstitutional act, a clearly, indisputably unconstitutional act, taking every gun from every citizen, we couldn’t stop that.

Does Justice Sotomayor really want to know what the remedy would be if the government confiscated everyone’s gun? This remedy would not involve Rule 23. [fyi. ‘Rule 23’ is a rule in federal courts about class action suits, MF]

Nearly 250 years ago, King George III and General Gage tried to confiscate the firearms from the Americans. What happened next? Lexington and Concord, the Shot Heard Round the World. As best as I can recall, the patriots did not go to a Court of Chancery to seek an equitable remedy.

We have a similar story in Texas history. During the Texas Revolution, the Mexican Army demanded that the Texians in the City of Gonzales surrender their cannon. What did the Texians say? Come and Take It! The remedy here was not equitable; it was belligerent. The Texians did not reply with a canon of construction; they replied with a cannon of destruction. This was the Lexington of Texas. And the Battle of Gonzales led to the Battle of the Alamo, which led to Texas Independence. Sensing a pattern of what happens when the government tries to disarm the people?

I took this photo during my visit to the museum in Gonzales.

I’m reminded of Judge Kozinski’s opinion in Silviera v. Lockyer:

The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

Fortunately, the Framers were wise enough to entrench the right of the people to keep and bear arms within our constitutional structure. The purpose and importance of that right was still fresh in their minds, and they spelled it out clearly so it would not be forgotten.

There is an important lesson to be learned here. Courts cannot solve all problems. Courts should not solve all problems. Courts will not solve all problems.

2A Groups Urge Congress to Pass Full Hearing Protection Act

While a move to zero out the $200 tax on suppressors has initial approval on Capitol Hill, Second Amendment advocates stress there is still a lot of work to be done.

Following a marathon overnight markup battle from Tuesday night into Wednesday morning, the nearly 400-page reconciliation package approved in a party-line vote by the House Ways and Means Committee included a section that dropped the long-standing $200 tax on suppressors to $0.

The bill now goes to the House Budget Committee for further consideration before heading to the House floor. That, argue NFA reformers, allows another chance to drop the regulation that would remain even if the tax remained zeroed out.

“Now, we call on the full House to do the right thing by inserting Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act to permanently remove suppressors from the unconstitutional NFA tax scheme,”  stressed Knox Williams, president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association. “We have every confidence House leadership will deliver on decades-long promises to stand up for the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”

Even the NRA, which for years resisted suppressor deregulation in the past, is calling on its members to reach out to the Congressional switchboard. 

“Before final passage of this important legislation, the U.S. House has the opportunity to improve this provision to fully remove suppressors from the NFA,” said the group in a statement. “This provision, along with any other provision in the bill, could be altered or removed at any time before final passage of the bill.”

Advocates point out that the registration mechanism and red tape – not the tax – that come with NFA regulation are the most onerous parts of the current strict controls on the sound moderating devices. Leaving the process intact retains an artificial barrier to acquiring a suppressor, has a negligible impact on crime as ersatz, illegally made suppressors are easy to produce, and a bait-and-switch of simply dropping the tax can easily be undone by future reconciliation bills.

Colion Noir had a good take on the issue in the below piece of video advocacy.

“They’re not doing this because it’s better for us. They’re doing it because it keeps control in their hands. This isn’t about safety, it never was. This is about setting precedent because if they remove suppressors from the NFA today, tomorrow, we’ll ask, ‘why are SBRs still there,’ then after that, ‘why is the NFA even a thing at all.’

That’s what terrifies them. Not the hardware. The idea that we might reclaim authority over our own rights. And I don’t care who’s in office. Republicans, Democrats, bureaucrats with pin collections and zero range time, if you’re in government, the last thing you want to give up is power– and I know it.

That’s why they’ll toss you a $0 fee like a bone and act like they did you a favor because they think you’ll settle for scraps instead of demanding the whole meal.”

As for where Guns.com stands:

Well, this is ‘final’ so I think it can be appealed directly to SCOTUS.

Washington Supreme Court upholds ban on large ammo magazines

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the state’s ban on high-capacity magazines, the latest in a two-year-long saga that has largely played out in Southwest Washington.

Lawmakers in 2022 banned the sale of ammo magazines holding more than 10 bullets in an effort to thwart deadly mass shootings. However, a gun store in Kelso allegedly continued to sell the magazines and picked up a civil lawsuit from the Washington State Attorney General in July 2023. The store owner — with help from the Pasco-based advocacy group The Silent Majority — sued, saying the law violated the U.S. Constitution.

A Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge later sided with the gun store and deemed the new law violated the Second Amendment.

Washington Supreme Court justices ruled 7-2 on Thursday that the new state law doesn’t violate Americans’ right to bear arms because “large capacity magazines are not ‘arms.’”

“The ability to purchase [large capacity magazines] is not necessary to the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense,” Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision also found that the legislation does not violate the state’s constitution.

Wally Wentz, the owner of Gator’s Custom Guns in Kelso, declined to comment Thursday.

Wentz’s attorneys at the Silent Majority Foundation said they plan to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court. Attorney Pete Serrano said they will pore over the justices’ legal analysis first.

Continue reading “”

Trump Administration Position on Machine Guns – Not 2A Protected
This Position Undermines Its Second Amendment Credibility

“Trump administration says machine guns aren’t protected by Second Amendment,” The Washington Times reports. “The Trump administration is taking heat from gun rights advocates after the Justice Department argued in court that machine guns fall outside the scope of firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

The story quotes Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Case, who, in arguing a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court ruling, asserted “Machine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

District Judge Carlton Wayne Reeves of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi had properly ruled that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, codifying that text, history and tradition at the time the Constitution was ratified, defined the standards to be used in determining Founding Era intent.

Besides, the Second Amendment says “arms.” It doesn’t say “kinds of arms.” Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe’s views were reflective of what the understanding was at the time, when he wrote, “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

And for what purpose?
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms,” Coxe declared.

Where’d you pull “kinds of weapons” out of, AUSA Case? She’s relying on the “in common use at the time” artificial construct that restricts “legal” ownership to what has not been banned by infringements, and limits gun uses to “self-defense.”

Continue reading “”

Don’t take advice on guns from the New York Times’ “Ethicist.”

In a country with more guns than people (there were some 393 million firearms in civilian hands alone in 2017, according to the Small Arms Survey), it’s easy to see why your husband might feel that owning one himself could give him some control, some shield against chaos. But your instincts are sound. As you’re aware, bringing a gun into our homes doesn’t seem to tip the odds in our favor. Studies show little evidence that guns protect against injury or loss during a crime. Instead, they raise the risk of harm within the household, through accidents, impulsive actions or suicide.

You’re imagining your regret were civic life to unravel, and you had failed to prepare. Maybe there’s a “Last of Us” scenario flickering in your heads, where bandoliered bad guys roam a collapsed society, but even then, I doubt that whatever firearm your husband is contemplating would help. In a world where some are armed to the teeth, being armed to your toes seems unlikely to do anything but escalate the dangers for you. What’s more to the point is that you feel safe in your city. Your recognition that guns bring more harm than good isn’t naïve. Real control lies in holding fast to your reasoned beliefs, not in giving way to fear.

— Kwame Anthony Appiah in My Husband Fears Political Violence. Should We Buy a Gun?

Obama Judge Goes Full Theater Kid, Declares It ‘Unconstitutional’ for Trump to Pull Security Clearances

As lower and district court judges continue to one-up each other with absurd usurpations of clearly stated executive authority, another contender has entered the ring.

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell ruled on Friday night that the President of the United States does not have the power to pull government security clearances from Perkins Coie, a private law firm. Yeah, that would be the same Perkins Coie that worked with Democrats to gin up the Russian collusion hoax. 

In her order, Howell decided that quoting Shakespeare was appropriate. I guess our judiciary is full of theater kids.

“No American President has ever before issued executive orders like the one at issue in this lawsuit targeting a prominent law firm with adverse actions to be executed by all Executive branch agencies but, in purpose and effect, this action draws from a playbook as old as Shakespeare, who penned the phrase: ‘The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers,’” Howell wrote in the 102-page order on Friday. 

Howell alleges that the Trump administration violated the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, with her basic argument being that the executive order in question amounted to illegal coercion. In arguably politicized fashion, she went on to express animosity toward the law firms that cut deals with the administration to keep their clearances.

All of this will undoubtedly and justifiably seem ridiculous to onlookers, regardless of what legal arguments may or may not actually exist. Control over security clearances is a vested power in the executive branch, and if the president decides he doesn’t want a law firm that literally targeted him on behalf of Hillary Clinton to have access to classified materials within his administration, one would think he should be able to do so.

Continue reading “”

I like to see the left get a dose of their own medicine

Reaping What You Sow: AOC Townhall Descends Into Chaos As Protester Shrieks, ‘You’re a Liar!’

The Democrats love chaos and unhinged protests—except when it’s directed against them. But sometimes, the chickens come home to roost, and NY Dem Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez found that out the hard way as she was heckled and shouted down at her town hall Friday night.

Remember: no matter how woke you are, there’s always someone even woker:

Not surprisingly, it was a protester who had her knickers in a twist about the supposed Palestinian “genocide,” but didn’t have a word to say about the savage October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel where terrorists killed and raped over 1,200 innocents and took hundreds hostage. That seems to be OK in some of these people’s minds.

A hysterical protester yelling about the “genocide” in Gaza interrupted a district town hall event being held by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., shortly after it began on Friday night.

As Ocasio-Cortez first began speaking, she pulled up a PowerPoint presentation for the night’s event. She was then interrupted before even getting through her first slide discussing the Trump administration’s budget cuts, including alleged cuts to local healthcare systems.

“I am a healthcare worker and I want to know what you’re doing about the genocide in Gaza!” the protester started shouting at the congresswoman.

The female protester epitomized the unhinged leftists that we’re getting all too used to seeing:

“Shame on you, you’re a liar. You’re a liar!” the woman screamed as others began to boo at her.

“Shame on you, I used to support you,” the woman shouted as she exited. “You’re a war criminal! War criminal! War Criminal!”

The intellectually challenged congresswoman is many things, mainly an anti-American values provocateur, but even I, as a harsh critic, don’t think she fits the bill of “war criminal.”

This is the world that Democrats have created, though—they’ve celebrated far-left “defiance” and radical protests and unhinged diatribes… It’s actually kind of beautiful when it comes back to haunt them.

Enjoy it, AOC, this is your world.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez wasn’t done, of course, she had more—and it may come back to haunt her. She taunted Border Czar Tom Homan, which in my view is not a particularly smart thing to do:

“Come for me,” she shouted out to the man my colleague Ward Clark likes to call “The Hammer.” She may well get her wish, but I don’t think it will go well for her.

First Circuit Rules in Favor of Massachusetts Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban

A federal appeals court determined Massachusetts’ ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines aligns with historical firearm regulation and doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, confirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the sale of so-called “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 and magazines that hold over ten rounds. The court found that its previous decision upholding a similar Rhode Island magazine ban also applied to Massachusetts’ restrictions on firearms.

Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in Capen v. Campbell, “A straightforward application of our prior holding in Ocean State Tactical supports the Commonwealth’s demonstration that the Massachusetts Ban’s AR-15 restriction ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” He added, “This means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

This decision follows a pattern of appellate courts upholding state-level bans on certain firearms and magazines since the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling in 2022.

The Bruen decision changed the landscape for Second Amendment legal challenges by now requiring firearm regulations to abide by the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This new framework has opened new avenues for gun owners to challenge AWBs and magazine bans in solid blue states. That said, the courts have still placed obstacles for gun owners seeking to roll back unconstitutional gun control measures. 

Shortly after the Bruen ruling, U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Superior, Colorado’s ordinance prohibiting AR-15s and magazines over 10 rounds. The court rejected the town’s argument that such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” calling attention to their widespread lawful use and the lack of historical precedent for the implementation of such bans at the local level. Judge Moore alluded to Bruen’s emphasis on text and tradition, writing that the town’s public safety justification did not trump constitutional rights. While the TRO was limited to 14 days, the case marked the beginning of an early wave of judicial skepticism toward municipal AWBs through the use of the Bruen framework.

With respect to Oregon, Arnold v. Kotek, an Oregon state court permanently enjoined Measure 114, a 2024 ballot initiative that led to the ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds and the imposition of a permit-to-purchase system. Judge Robert Raschio ruled the law violated the Oregon Constitution’s right to bear arms, finding that high-capacity magazines have a valid use in the context of modern self-defense and that the state failed to demonstrate a historical tradition for such restrictions.

Though the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed this decision, the case underscores how Bruen’s logic has continued to influence state-level challenges.

In Illinois’ case, in Barnett v. Raoul, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled last November that Illinois’ statewide ban on assault weapons and magazines holding over 10–15 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The court determined that AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms are commonly owned and used by citizens for legal purposes, including self-defense, and thus fall under Second Amendment protection.

Judge McGlynn stressed that the state failed to identify historical analogues for banning weapons widely used by law-abiding citizens, as dictated by Bruen. However, the decision was stayed for 30 days pending appeal, but the 7th Circuit later allowed the ban to remain in place temporarily while the appeals process goes on. 

Going back to Massachusetts, the state can continue enforcing its firearms and magazine restrictions. The plaintiffs may either appeal the decision or return to district court to argue the case on its merits. The legislation being challenged is the 2024 Act Modernizing Firearms Laws (Chapter 135/H.4885), which Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed last July.  The legislation replaced “assault weapon” with “assault-style firearm” and broadened definitions to include firearms with interchangeable parts or receivers compatible with prohibited models. Additionally, the bill mandated serialization and registration of all firearms, including privately manufactured “ghost guns,” within strict timelines, while also reinforcing the 10-round limit for detachable magazines and introducing new penalties for non-compliance.

With this decision in the books, Massachusetts maintains some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, pending any further appeals. While the post-Bruen era offers new opportunities for gun owners to resist gun grabs in blue states through litigation, these legal battles will be protracted and costly in nature. Restoring gun rights in the most hostile jurisdictions toward the right to self-defense will be no walk in the park.

Spain experienced a nationwide power outage one week after reaching 100% “green” energy.

Across all of Portugal and Spain, people were left without power or cell service of any kind. The nations literally went dark.

Tens of millions of people had to resort to old handheld radios to figure out what was even happening. It could have been an alien invasion for all they knew!

From El Pais:

The outage suddenly set Spain back to the 19th century. Traffic lights out of service, traffic jams forming across the country, pedestrians wandering around cities without public transportation, desperate families trying to communicate with their loved ones, passengers left stranded without trains or flights, canceled medical appointments, rescues underway in subway stations and elevators, lines forming outside small shops due to supermarket closures…

I wonder what could have caused this?

For no reason at all, here’s a video of Spaniards celebrating the destruction of a nuclear power plant three years ago.

This is the way it’s been in Europe for quite a while. Major parts of a gun are serialized, and restricted. You can see this on Glocks and other European made guns where the serial number is on the frame, slide and barrel. Just like for ammo, if the tyrant demoncraps in California do happen to pass such a crap-for-brains law,  people who are interested enough will simply cross the state line to buy.

Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: California Democrats Push Background Checks for Gun Barrels

California Democrats are pushing legislation to require background checks for gun barrel purchases, effectively taking the “ghost gun” regulatory push to its logical conclusion.

The bill, Senate Bill 704, is sponsored by state Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D).

SB 704 singles out firearm barrels among the many other parts of firearm, requiring a background check for any replacement barrel or aftermarket barrel upgrade purchase:

Commencing on July 1, 2026, this bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer.

Moreover, SB 704 specifically outlines how the costs of performing background checks for barrels must be handled, making clear that the legislation literally creates “a new crime,” albeit a misdemeanor, in the state California.

Gun rights proponents have long warned that the Democrats’ use of terminology like “ghost guns”–and the resulting regulation of said “guns”–would lead to background checks for aftermarket firearm parts. State Sen. Arreguín’s legislation is doing just that.

Additionally, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warns that with a background check, SB 704 would end online barrel sales via the requirement for face-to-face transactions.

NAGR said, “We have warned that this was always the end goal. Target the secondary market — driving up the cost of repairing and maintaining firearms in an effort to win through attrition. The ultimate objective is a complete ban on online sales.”