Category: Crap For Brains

Op-Ed Reveals Just How Little Most Gun Control Advocates Understand Guns

The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson rattled more than a few cages. There are reports of CEOs traveling with armed security, though I haven’t seen corroboration of those, and we’ve seen just how many people are OK with murdering someone simply because they don’t like them.

And in the media, it’s been a great time to push all the evils of so-called “ghost guns” since it turns out the alleged killer had one in his possession.

The problem is that a great many of those in the media who are beating the drum really don’t know what they’re talking about.

Just in time for Christmas and Hanukkah and Kwanzaa and the winter solstice and New Year’s, Republicans and Democrats find themselves face-to-face with a problem they can actually solve together.

They can outlaw so-called “ghost guns” like the one used to kill a health care executive recently in New York City.

Imagine that. A genuine end-of-the-year opportunity to do something for the common good — something that transcends cultures and religions and politics.

Yes, dear reader, I know what you are thinking: Our nation’s political system is so broken that Republicans and Democrats barely speak to each other. So actually solving a problem — well, that may take a miracle.

But this is a season of hope, right?

Ghost guns are virtually untraceable. They can be made at home, from plastic-like materials on a 3D printer. They look like toys. And prospective shooters can even pick a favorite color, with choices ranging from tennis ball green to Barbie pink.

But these guns are definitely not toys. And we all know what ghost guns can do. We saw one in action on the morning of Dec. 4, when a hooded, masked man stepped from the predawn shadows on a sidewalk in midtown Manhattan and killed a health care executive with a shot in the back.

First, let’s talk about gun tracing, since that seems to be the main condemnation of these homemade firearms.

There’s no evidence that gun tracing has ever been used to solve a crime. People have specifically looked, and while there might be an exception they missed, it’s clearly not an essential tool for law enforcement, especially since there’s no way it would be enough to secure a conviction in and of itself.

Second, let’s get into the “they look like toys” argument, which is a new one for me. I guess I should be thankful for that because a new argument means that I get to take a different, novel approach in response. I generally like that.

However, this one is too idiotic to actually enjoy rebutting.

They look like toys? Where the hell is he looking at homemade guns? Yeah, they’re plastic–polymer, actually, but who am I to quibble?–but the gun that the alleged killer had on hand was one that basically looked like a Glock, the most popular handgun model in the country. Toys generally are made to look like real guns anyway, so that’s a nonsense argument even if it were true.

The reason there’s no outrage over “ghost guns” is that the people who are outraged over the murder are the people who support gun rights, as a general thing. That’s it. That’s why there’s “no outrage” over Thompson’s murder. The people who want to be outraged over guns are too busy celebrating a murder, which just goes to show it’s not about the guns, it’s about people like you and me having them.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Non-Violent Felon Gun Ban

The government can permanently disarm somebody convicted of non-violent felonies if their broader criminal history contains violent conduct, a federal appeals court has ruled.

On Monday, a three-judge panel for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected a Kentucky defendant’s as-applied challenge to his recent conviction for possessing a firearm as a felon. The panel ruled that even if a person is convicted of non-violent felonies, the totality of their criminal record can indicate “dangerousness” that permits disarmament under the Second Amendment.

“Morton’s criminal record demonstrates dangerousness, specifically that he has committed ‘violent’ crimes ‘against the person,’” Judge Rachel Bloomekatz wrote in US v. Morton. “So, his conviction is consistent with the Second Amendment as interpreted in Williams. Accordingly, § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to him.”

The ruling stands out as the first time the Sixth Circuit has applied its unique standard for adjudicating challenges to the federal felony gun ban—by far the most common Second Amendment claim arising in the courts since the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision. Other circuits have either issued blanket rulings upholding the federal ban as constitutional or struck it down in narrow applications without setting a generalized standard for evaluating other cases. But the Sixth Circuit crafted a standard that only convicted felons who are shown to be “dangerous” can be disarmed in an August ruling upholding the ban.

Monday’s panel was tasked with applying that new “dangerousness” test to Jaylin Morton.

Morton was arrested in 2022 on several outstanding warrants and was found to be in possession of multiple handguns. At the time of his arrest, he already had “at least six prior felony convictions.” Those included multiple convictions for possessing a firearm as a felon, evading the police, one for burglary, and one for intimidating a participant in a legal process. He also had multiple non-felony assault convictions, including one for a domestic-violence incident in which he “punched his then-girlfriend in the head.”

He was subsequently indicted for possessing a firearm as a felon, which he moved to challenge on the grounds that the Second Amendment does not permit disarming him because his prior felony convictions were for non-violent crimes.

Drawing on the Sixth Circuit’s earlier ruling from August, US v. Williams, Judge Bloomekatz said that the court’s controlling precedent recognizes constitutional applications of the lifetime felony gun ban for offenses that “strongly suggest dangerousness,” particularly “crimes against the person,” like murder and assault. Bloomekatz said Morton’s criminal conduct “undoubtedly” demonstrates he is violent.

“Among other offenses, Morton was previously convicted for wanton endangerment and possessing a firearm as a felon after he shot at his ex-girlfriend and her family, and then showed up at her house a few weeks later and verbally harassed her with a gun on his person,” she wrote. “On another occasion, Morton was convicted of assault resulting from a domestic-violence incident after he punched his then-girlfriend in the head during an argument.”

And though the domestic violence incident was not a felony that currently underlies his lifetime firearms ban, she said the court “may look at Morton’s whole criminal history in assessing dangerousness.”

“Moreover, we are not confined to the fact of conviction alone, but may consider how an offense was committed,” she wrote. “Accordingly, Morton’s convictions demonstrate his dangerousness, making § 922(g)(1) constitutional as applied to him.”

The decision adds to the growing divergence in how lower courts are handling the federal lifetime gun ban for felons. Even courts that have reached similar conclusions to one another have done so under a variety of approaches, which has resulted in a variety of enforcement standards for the most commonly charged federal gun statute.

In June, Department of Justice expressed concern over the growing divide and asked the Supreme Court to resolve the matter.

“The substantial costs of prolonging uncertainty about the statute’s constitutionality outweigh any benefits of further percolation,” US Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar said at the time.

However, the Court opted to sidestep the matter. Instead, it remanded half a dozen requested cases back down to the appellate system to be reconsidered in light of its most recent case law.

Even as many of those cases have returned with unchanged outcomes, the Court has not yet taken up one that would resolve the question.

Psychiatrist Says America Must ‘Dismantle the Cult of the Gun’

I’m often bemused when academics write about gun owners as if we’re some exotic species to be investigated and examined to see what makes us tick, as opposed to their friends, family members, and co-workers.

Dr. Tamir Rahman, an associate professor of psychiatry at Washington University is the latest to channel his inner Jane Goodall and unleash it on American gun owners. In a new piece at Psychology Today, Rahman says it’s time to shift our relationship with firearms.

America’s relationship with firearms has mutated into a paradox. What began as a practical right tied to hunting and self-defense has metastasized into a near-religious reverence, transforming firearms into sacred objects. For many, guns are no longer tools—they are symbols of identity, power, and defiance. While this cultural fixation has fostered community among gun owners, it has also exacerbated the nation’s inability to address the epidemic of gun violence. Reimagining this relationship is not merely an ideal—it is a necessity.

In contemporary America, guns are more than objects. They are badges of liberty, resistance, and power. This shift has been fueled by political rhetoric, cultural narratives, and media representation. For many, owning a firearm is a declaration of values, a statement that screams: “I am free. I am powerful.”

Rahman claims that in order to “address its gun violence epidemic”, the U.S. “must dismantle the cult of the gun”; reframing firearms from symbols of power to tools of responsibility. Rahman offers several suggestions on how to make that happen.

1. Empowering Parents, Educators, and Schools

Parents, educators, and schools are at the forefront of shaping how future generations perceive firearms. Instead of shunning discussions about guns, schools can foster informed and responsible attitudes by integrating firearm education into the curriculum. This approach does not advocate normalization but instead focuses on demystification and accountability.

Why not advocate normalization? After all, as sociologist and gun owner David Yamane says, gun ownership is normal and normal people own guns. Demystifying guns is important, and there’s nothing objectionable about Rahman’s call to integrate firearm education into the curriculum, so long as its not aimed at making gun ownership and responsible gun use taboo.

2. Bridging the Polarization Through Shared Values

The polarizing debate over gun ownership often pits gun rights against gun control, creating an impasse. However, addressing the extreme overvalued beliefs surrounding firearms can provide common ground. Both sides can unite around shared values: responsibility, safety, and the prevention of violence.

Can we really, though? The gun control lobby’s foundational premise is that guns are bad, fewer guns are good, and criminalizing basic aspects of our Second Amendment rights is beneficial to society.

In theory Rahman is right that both sides should be able to come together on policies and practices that don’t involve putting new gun laws on the books, but so long as gun control groups view firearms themselves as a problem that needs to be solved I don’t think there’s much common ground to be found.

Rahman is guilty of that himself. Even when he discounts the push for gun bans, he does so in a way that’s not going to draw much support from gun owners and Second Amendment advocates.

While discussions about banning firearms often arise, such measures alone are not conducive to changing America’s deeply ingrained gun culture. Prohibition risks intensifying polarization and deepening the symbolic power of firearms as emblems of resistance. Instead, the focus should shift toward reshaping attitudes through education, accountability, and responsible ownership.

Fostering a culture that values the ethical use of firearms over their glorification addresses gun violence without alienating lawful owners. This collective action acknowledges complexity, cultivating respect and responsibility to transform perspectives sustainably.

Yes, prohibition intensifies polarization and helps to turn firearms into “emblems of resistance”. Rahman, however, fails to address why that is: banning guns is an abhorrent violation of a fundamental civil right that should be resisted.

Rahman seems very invested in the idea of changing the attitudes of gun owners, but he should be equally or more concerned about changing the mindset of anti-gun activists. I’m not convinced that there’s a “cult of the gun” in the United States, but I know there’s a cult of the gun prohibitionists, and any effort to shift the American relationship with firearms has to start with those trying to eradicate that relationship altogether.

“Imagine filing lawsuit against Glock, getting five paragraphs in, and admitting you fundamentally don’t understand how the gun even works.”

Imagine filing lawsuit against Glock, getting five paragraphs in, and admitting you fundamentally don’t understand how the gun even works.

Holding down the trigger bar will cause a dead trigger – not fire the gun repeatedly. Embarrassing.

Image

Fundamental misunderstanding continues. The G18 achieves auto fire differently than a G17 with a switch does. The trigger bar isn’t “held down” in either case, though.

If holding down the trigger bar is all that was required, you wouldn’t need a switch at all.Image

The G46 has the same dastardly trigger bar that works in the same dastardly way. Making a switch for a G46 wouldn’t be fundamentally different than making one for a G17. But don’t worry, New Jersey says the G46 is cool.Image
Image
This is so unbelievably dumb. Mind numbingly so.Image
Me whenever I don’t know how springs work. Me when I’m the master of Glock knowing. Me when I’m a lawyer getting paid to lawsuit and I just make stuff up.Image
If “remaining lowered” is all that it took, why don’t Glocks go full auto if you assemble them without the trigger bar at all? Permanently lowered if it isn’t installed. Shutting the slide should rip the whole mag, right?Image

Ketanji Brown Jackson Vs. Sonia Sotomayor: Who’s Dumber?

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, a pivotal case addressing state restrictions on controversial medical interventions, including puberty blockers and hormone treatments for minors with gender confusion. At the heart of the case is a Tennessee law banning these procedures for children, with the court’s decision likely to have far-reaching consequences. Will our country protect children from these barbaric and irreversible procedures or not?

As I previously reported, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson humiliated herself when she bizarrely tried to equate banning transgender procedures for minors with prohibiting interracial marriage. She began with a convoluted statement: “Being drawn by the statute that was sort of like the starting point, the question was whether it was discriminatory because it applied to both races and it wasn’t necessarily invidious or whatever.”

It got worse from there.

“But you know, as I read … the case here, the court starts off by saying that Virginia is now one of 16 states which prohibit and punish marriages on the basis of racial classifications.” While it was clear that she intended to invoke historical racial discrimination, the connection to the case at hand was tenuous at best.

The real stretch came when she concluded, “And when you look at the structure of that law, it looks in terms of you can’t do something that is inconsistent with your own characteristics. It’s sort of the same thing.”

The suggestion that anyone could somehow liken laws protecting minors from irreversible and harmful gender procedures to bans on interracial marriage is downright absurd. Jackson’s argument hinged on a confusing assertion that both types of laws were based on “inconsistency” with one’s “characteristics,” a comparison that is frankly laughable and dumb.

But she wasn’t the only left-wing justice on the court to make a dumb argument.

While speaking before the court, Tennessee’s Solicitor General asked, “How many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits?”

And that’s when Justice Sonia Sotomayor promptly jumped in.

“I’m sorry, Counselor,” she said, interrupting him. “Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin, there is always going to be a percentage of the population under any medical treatment that’s going to suffer a harm.”

That’s right. Sotomayor, the so-called “wise Latina,” compared cutting off the healthy breasts and genitals of minors to taking aspirin.
Which justice made the dumber argument? Jackson bizarrely compared Tennessee’s ban on gender procedures for minors to bans on interracial marriage, claiming that both involve “inconsistency” with inherent characteristics. The analogy was a spectacular failure as protecting minors from irreversible harm has nothing to do with racial discrimination.

Meanwhile, Sotomayor trivialized the issue by likening the risks of permanent, life-altering surgeries on minors to those of taking aspirin. This flippant dismissal of the severe, irreversible consequences of such procedures demonstrates a shocking lack of seriousness.

Both arguments are embarrassingly absurd, making it difficult to determine which is more moronic. One thing is for sure: both are an embarrassment to the court.

Pam Bondi is the one that picked him. Trump, out of loyalty to one who defended him at his first impeachment trial, went along without further thought to nominating a jerk who, like Bondi, clearly doesn’t have much respect for individual rights.

Trump’s continuing weak spot is his apparent blind trust is those he considers loyal to him, yet who have shown to have their own agendas at his expense. (And don’t think for a minute that even Musk doesn’t have a personal agenda)

One would have thought by now that he had finally gotten it through his thick skull, that while in commercial business, you can -usually- buy loyalty with a large enough paycheck, in politics, loyalty is based on: ‘and what have you done for me lately?’

Florida Sheriff Chad Chronister withdraws as Trump’s nominee to lead DEA

Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister withdrew his name for consideration as President-elect Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

“To have been nominated by President-Elect @realDonaldTrump to serve as Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration is the honor of a lifetime,” Chronister wrote in a post on X.

“Over the past several days, as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in, I’ve concluded that I must respectfully withdraw from consideration. There is more work to be done for the citizens of Hillsborough County and a lot of initiatives I am committed to fulfilling,” Chronister continued.

He said he appreciated the nomination and support from the American people and that he’s looking forward to continuing his work as sheriff.

District 1 County Commissioner of Lake County Anthony Sabatini called Chronister stepping down a “huge win for liberty.”

“This sheriff ordered the arrest of a pastor for holding services during the COVID panic. He was tapped by Trump to head the DEA. Glad to see him withdraw from consideration. Next time politicians lose their ever-lovin minds, he can redeem himself by following the Constitution,” Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., wrote in a post on X after the sheriff’s announcement.

Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., spoke to Fox News after Chronister’s withdrawal and defended the sheriff.

“What disqualifies somebody? We all make mistakes throughout life, right? I haven’t talked any details on that yet. But as far as someone making a mistake in their past, give us an example of anybody that hasn’t made a mistake in the past,” Mullin said.

Chronister faced backlash from multiple conservative figures for arresting a pastor for violating COVID rules.

The Rev. Rodney Howard-Browne was arrested in March 2020 amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

Continue reading “”

Delusional #Resistance Heroines Literally Believe They’re Jason Bourne-Tier Operatives

These #Resistance Don Quixotes prove, yet again, that Ted Kaczynski, AKA “The Unabomber,” was correct in his analysis that the leftist mind is obsessed with bathing in victimhood, even when it’s entirely imagined — they live it, they breathe it, they savor it.

When they go to sleep at night, they dream of getting shipped off to government work camps by some fascist strongman, their self-identity wrapped up inextricably in invented persecutions.

Via Industrial Society and Its Future (emphasis added)

Many leftists have an intense identification with the problems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), defeated (American Indians), repellent (homosexuals) or otherwise inferior. The leftists themselves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit to themselves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they identify with their problems. (We do not mean to suggest that women, Indians, etc. are inferior; we are only making a point about leftist psychology.)…

Feminists are desperately anxious to prove that women are as strong and as capable as men. Clearly they are nagged by a fear that women may not be as strong and as capable as men…

Art forms that appeal to modern leftish intellectuals tend to focus on sordidness, defeat and despair, or else they take an orgiastic tone, throwing off rational control as if there were no hope of accomplishing anything through rational calculation and all that was left was to immerse oneself in the sensations of the moment.

(As an aside, what a shameful waste of a great intellect to devote one’s life to a solitary existence in a shed in the woods, building and mailing bombs across the country woods when so much good might have come from pursuing a different path.)

They measure their virtue against each other’s, competing to maximize their relative victimhood and ascend, accordingly, further up in the Social Justice™ hierarchy.

White liberal women who occupy the upper crust of the middle class, bleeding into the upper class, in particular, are most eager to advertise their victimhood and commitment to the cause of the liberation of oppressed minorities
precisely because they know that they are, in reality, the opposite of oppressed; one would be hard-pressed to argue that modern Western civilization hasn’t been built around their whims.

The result is performances like these, in which this woman adopts the persona of a James Bond-caliber spy, giving instructions to her clandestine comrades (publicly on social media, ironically) regarding how to purchase burner phones for members of targeted groups — in towns that are not their own, with cash, she emphasizes, so as to avoid the MAGA Gestapo once the round-ups start.

She doesn’t specify what targeted groups she is referencing “at risk of having to flee” a Trump administration, but we can guess: transgenders and assorted alphabet people, legacy fronthole women who want abortions at eight months, non-whites, non-Christians, et al.

Will the fever break once Trump assumes office and these people are free to go about espousing their delusions on social media, definitively not incarcerated?

Only time will tell, but inertia is a hell of a thing.

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 “”