Category: Courts

Don’t do what Mr. Griffin did.

Criminal defense attorney explains manslaughter charges after suspected burglar killed

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WMC) – A man has been charged with voluntary manslaughter after admitting to police that he shot a burglary suspect.

This happened on Robin Hood Lane in Memphis this Thursday. Marques Griffin, 30, told police he heard a noise in his apartment and found a man in his living room.

According to MPD, Griffin followed the intruder outside and fired three shots as the man ran away.

The suspected burglar died at the hospital.

Phil Harvey, the owner of Harvey Criminal Defense Lawyers, said that based on Griffin’s charges, MPD and the DA’s office decided he did not have a legitimate self-defense claim.

“If it’s true that Mr. Griffin shot someone outside of the home, then there’s a question of whether or not that self-defense statute applies,” said Harvey.

Harvey said Tennessee does not have a “Stand Your Ground” law.

He said the self-defense statute is written to apply when the victim is in their home and responding to a threat who is also inside or actively coming in.

“The standard ‘no duty to retreat’ part of that statute simply says you have to have a reasonable fear of what they call ‘imminent danger,’” said Harvey.

Harvey said that means that for deadly force to be considered self-defense, the victim has to be under an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Harvey said there is established case law on this type of incident.

“Tennessee v. Garner… It’s a 1985 case. A U.S. Supreme Court case that came out of Tennessee that actually dealt with whether or not police can shoot a fleeing felon. And in that case, it dealt with a burglary suspect who was running away and was shot by the police. And the federal courts decided that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment,” said Harvey.

Griffin remains behind bars on a $50,000 bond and is slated to reappear in court on Monday.

Chief Justice Roberts Is Not Defending The Second Amendment—He Is Containing It

New York – Let us dispense with the pleasantries.

The United States Supreme Court’s handling of Second Amendment cases is not “confusing,” not “complicated,” and not the product of innocent happenstance. It is, rather, the predictable output of discretionary power being used to avoid decisive confrontation with state defiance of the Court’s own landmark rulings.

And in that avoidance, the Second Amendment is being bled—slowly, methodically, and with a degree of institutional self-protection that should alarm every citizen who understands what the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is, and what it is for.

This companion article is necessarily short. The full argument is set forth in our original Arbalest Quarrel article, (Chief Justice Roberts Is Strangling The Life Out Of The Second Amendment) which we urge you to read in full. But the essentials are plain enough, and they must be stated plainly.

The Battle Is Not Only In The Merits—It Is In The Docket

Most Americans do not understand that the Supreme Court is not a forum of automatic justice.

The Court selects what it will hear. It grants or denies petitions for writs of certiorari at its discretion. And although Supreme Court Rule 10 pretends to supply a neutral architecture for that discretion, the reality is that Rule 10 functions as a judicial escape hatch—a convenient justification for declining the very cases that demand intervention.

In no domain is this more destructive than in Second Amendment litigation.

If the Court refuses to take the cases that matter, then Heller, McDonald, and Bruen become museum pieces—praised as “historic” while states openly devise end-runs around them in real time.

A Right that cannot be enforced is not a Right in any serious sense. It is a slogan.

The “Rule Of Four” Is Real—But The Strategy Is Realer

We discuss at length in the original article the Supreme Court’s so-called “Rule of Four”—the traditional practice that four Justices may grant certiorari.

This is not a trivial procedural detail. It is supposed to preserve the integrity of the Court’s appellate function by ensuring that a substantial minority may bring a matter before the Court for decision on the merits.

But in Second Amendment cases, the deeper reality is this:

Those Justices who cherish the Natural Law Right codified in the Second Amendment do not, as a general matter, vote to grant review unless they believe they have the votes to win.

And those who detest the Right will happily grant review when they believe they have five votes to shred it.

Continue reading “”

NRA sues the NRA Foundation.

Synopsis:

NRA is suing its charitable arm (the Foundation), accusing the Foundation’s leadership of trying to do their own thing instead of benefiting the NRA, and diverting money intended for NRA programs into other things.

Specifically, there’s $160 million that the NRA says the Foundation promised donors would go to NRA education programs, but now the Foundation is trying to cut off funding and run its own competing programs.

Other accusations involve changing the bylaws improperly, making the Foundation’s trustees “self-perpetuating” (self-electing), and cutting the NRA out of any say in who the Foundation’s people are.

gov.uscourts.dcd.288159.1.0

California ban on open-carry firearms is unconstitutional, appeals panel rules

A federal appellate court ruled Friday that California’s ban on openly carrying a firearm throughout most of the state is unconstitutional.

The decision from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals leaned heavily on the June 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down a New York state law regulating concealed weapons. That ruling worried lawmakers in California at the time – including the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who said the 6-to-3 Supreme Court decision meant “more people will carry guns in bars, in shopping malls, in churches, hospitals, movie theaters, even schools.”

“We are committed to defending California’s commonsense gun laws,” according to a written statement from the office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta in response to Friday’s appellate court ruling. “We are reviewing the opinion and considering all options.”

The 9th Circuit appellate decision stemmed from a civil rights lawsuit filed by Mark Baird of Siskiyou County. Baird argued in Sacramento federal court that he wished to openly carry a firearm for self-defense throughout California, but the state’s ban made it illegal in counties with populations exceeding 200,000 residents.

U.S. Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who wrote the appellate panel’s opinion, said the most recent Census shows that California counties with more than 200,000 residents are home to roughly 95% of the state’s population. There are 28 of California’s 58 counties have a population above the threshold, accounting for 37.3 million residents. Only 5% of California’s population for whom open carry is not outright banned, VanDyke said, are purportedly able to apply for a license that would allow them to open carry in just their counties.

VanDyke said openly carrying a gun has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms for most of American history. When applying the standard set in the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, VanDyke said the historical record makes unmistakably plain that open carry is part of this Nation’s history and tradition.”

VanDyke, appointed in 2019 by President Donald Trump, said open carry remains the norm across the country with more than 30 states that generally allow open carry to this day, including states with significant urban populations.

“Similarly, for the first 162 years of its history open carry was a largely unremarkable part of daily life in California,” VanDyke wrote. “From 1850, when California first became a state, until the Mulford Act of 1967, public carry of firearms in California (open or concealed) was entirely unregulated. And when California first deviated (or considered deviating) from this practice, its reasons for doing so were less than morally exemplary.”

U.S. Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith provided a partial dissenting opinion, arguing that California’s ban complied with the 2022 Supreme Court decision. Smith, who was appointed in 2007 by former President George W. Bush, said his colleagues “got this case half right” but misread the Supreme Court’s ruling on the New York state gun law.

VanDyke was joined in his opinion by another Trump appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee, also appointed by Trump in 2019. VanDyke said California law recognizes two methods to carry a firearm in public: concealed, such as hidden under a shirt and not visible to others, and open carry, such as visible in a holster and exposed to public view.

“Regardless of how a firearm is carried in California – concealed or openly – as a general matter it is unlawful under California law to publicly carry a firearm without a license to do so,” VanDyke wrote. “The reality is that no one in California can open carry – with or without a permit – in the counties where 95% of Californians live. Nor can the 95% of Californians who live in those urban counties get any open-carry permit at all, even to carry openly in one of California’s rural counties.”

For now, the ban remains in place and the case was remanded to Sacramento federal court with instructions to rule in favor of Baird on the open-carry ban. Bonta and his office have the option to request an en banc review from the full 9th Circuit.

On the local scene

Judge dismisses charges against captain, 2 supervisors involved in deadly Ride the Ducks sinking in 2018

GALENA, Mo. (KY3) – A Stone County judge dismissed charges against the captain and two supervisors involved in the July 2018 deadly Ride the Ducks sinking.

Judge Johnnie Cox ruled there was no probable cause in the case against Captain Kenneth Scott McKee and two supervisors, Curtis Lanham and Charles Baltzell. The Missouri Attorney General’s Office refiled the charges in April 2022.

The Ride the Ducks’ Stretch Duck 7 with 31 people on board capsized and sank in stormy weather on Table Rock Lake. Seventeen passengers, including nine from the same family and one crew member driving the boat, drowned that night. It became one of the deadliest boating accidents in United States history.

Investigators say the Ride the Ducks crew had plenty of warnings about the severe weather, but the boat still launched more than 20 minutes after a thunderstorm warning was issued for Table Rock Lake. The duck boat sank under high waves while winds around the area reached up to 70 miles per hour that day.

Bondi is wrong. The Trump DOJ is wrong. The 2nd amendment protects Arms, not just guns. That includes guns, knives, swords, bows and arrows.

BLUF
The Bigger Issue
This case is not really about knives.
It is about whether the Second Amendment is a principle or a policy tool.
If “arms” means only modern firearms — and only when politically expedient — then the amendment has already been hollowed out.
If it means what it says, then the government does not get to pick winners and losers based on aesthetics, mechanics, or public discomfort.

The courts will decide this case.

But the DOJ has already made its position clear — and it should concern anyone who takes the Second Amendment at face value.

Trump DOJ Says the Second Amendment Protects Guns, But Not Knives

The phrase “shall not be infringed” has a way of revealing who actually believes it — and who only supports it when it is politically convenient.

That tension is now on full display inside the Trump Administration itself.

While the Department of Justice has aggressively challenged gun control laws in blue states and territories, it is simultaneously telling federal courts that the Second Amendment does not protect switchblade knives. According to the DOJ, Americans may have a constitutional right to own AR-15s and carry handguns, but automatic knives are a bridge too far.

That position has landed the administration squarely at odds with Second Amendment advocates — and exposed a familiar fault line in how the federal government treats “arms” it finds uncomfortable.

The Case at the Center of the Fight

The issue is playing out in Knife Rights v. Bondi, a case currently before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Knife Rights, a national advocacy group, is challenging the constitutionality of the Federal Switchblade Act — a 1958 law that restricts interstate commerce in automatic knives and bans their possession on certain federal, tribal, and territorial lands.

Rather than backing the challenge, the Trump DOJ is defending the law.

In its appellate brief, the Department argues that switchblade knives are “well-suited to criminal misuse” and fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment altogether. According to the government, history supports broad regulation of “inherently concealed” weapons, and automatic knives fall under that category.

The DOJ’s conclusion is blunt: there is no constitutional right to carry or possess them.

A Narrow View of “Arms”

To justify its position, the Justice Department leaned heavily on 19th-century laws regulating the concealed carry of weapons such as Bowie knives, dirks, daggers, and pocket pistols. Those laws, the DOJ argues, demonstrate a long-standing tradition of restricting weapons deemed particularly suitable for concealment.

According to the brief, the Federal Switchblade Act fits neatly within that tradition because it targets only knives whose blades are concealed inside the handle and deploy automatically. Fixed-blade knives, the DOJ noted, remain unregulated under federal law.

In the Department’s view, that distinction is enough to survive constitutional scrutiny.

What the DOJ did not address is why concealability alone strips an object of Second Amendment protection — especially when concealed carry of firearms is now constitutionally protected nationwide.

Continue reading “”

Montana Accidentally Made Things Right on Gun-Free School Zones

I don’t think that schools should be totally gun-free zones. While I get that Bruen said that sensitive places could be gun-free, and schools are probably about as sensitive a place as you can name, I don’t think that barring lawful carry in schools for staff and parents is a winning strategy. After all, how many school shootings have we seen despite the schools having this status?

Yeah, plenty.

But the truth is that in most places, schools are as off-limits as they come. At least they are when it’s K-12 schools. Colleges are a different matter in many states, but below that level? The rules are firm.

And those rules include a “buffer zone” of sorts that prohibits the carrying of firearms around the school, regardless of most any other factor.

And Montana accidentally exposed a loophole and made things right, even if that’s not quite what they were trying to do.

Sometimes the most consequential gun control stories don’t start with a bill banning firearms. They start with lawmakers trying to expand freedom — and discovering that the Constitution doesn’t bend the way critics expect it to.

That is exactly what just happened in Montana.

In an effort to strengthen the right to carry, Montana lawmakers may have effectively erased gun-free school zones everywhere except on school property itself. Not through activism. Not through litigation designed to gut federal law. But through their own permitless carry statutes — and a federal court noticed.

The result is a ruling that has left gun-control advocates furious, school administrators uneasy, and Second Amendment supporters pointing out an inconvenient truth: when the state recognizes the right to carry as a right, federal carve-outs start to fall apart.

It all boils down to a guy who would go for a walk near a school. Sometimes, he’d carry a gun openly, and other times, it would be concealed. Local police told the school that he wasn’t breaking any state law, so they couldn’t do anything about it. The school moved kids away from the man and tried to erect visual barriers so no one would see him.

Eventually, the feds stepped in, arrested him, and saw the whole thing thrown out.

Why?

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that because Montana statutorily authorizes concealed carry for eligible citizens, those citizens qualify for the federal licensing exception.

In plain terms: if everyone is licensed by law, then everyone qualifies for the exemption.

The court dismissed the charges and made it clear that the outcome wasn’t an accident; it was the logical result of Montana’s legislative choices.

The ruling emphasized that Montana did not delegate licensing authority to agencies or local officials. The Legislature itself granted the authority. Congress, the court said, did not clearly prohibit states from doing that.

As a result of that ruling, though, gun-free school zones are confined exclusively to the school itself, not the area around the school.

If schools are going to be gun-free zones, this is how it should be. The idea that the area around the school is also gun-free is a major problem because, frankly, people travel by those schools all the time. They have to in order to get to where they’re going, and unless they’re licensed under state law, they may be committing a felony.

The “buffer zone” thing has always been wrong, but Montana accidentally fixed it for residents there. Instead of just saying a license isn’t needed, they licensed everyone, which had an unintended but positive effect regarding the whole school zone thing.

Maybe other states should address this via their own constitutional carry laws. Most didn’t take quite the same approach as Montana, but they could make that happen and change things once and for all.

It would be a win for gun rights, sanity, and everything else decent in the universe, and the anti-gunners would still have their allegedly gun-free schools.

Again, not that it seems to do much good.

I don’t understand Lowy’s particular brand of stupid, but I do admire his total commitment to it.

Anti-Gun Attorney Behind Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gun Makers Brings the Stupid Back to SCOTUS

Jonathan Lowy, the former litigator for Brady who’s now the head of something called Global Action on Gun Violence, was on the receiving end of a 9-0 Supreme Court decision against his client in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, where SCOTUS unanimously concluded that the Mexican government’s attempt to sue U.S. gunmakers for aiding and abetting cartel violence was not only foreclosed by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but was based on a number of implausible allegations that Lowy failed to prove.

Lowy gets good money from anti-gun groups like Everytown to tilt at windmills, though, so that embarrassing loss isn’t keeping him away from the Supreme Court. Global Action on Gun Violence recently submitted an amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez arguing that Hawaii’s “vampire rule” prohibiting concealed carry on all private property unless property owners explicitly allow it should be upheld because SCOTUS was wrong in Heller when it concluded that the Second Amendment protects and individual right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment uniquely states its“well-regulated militia” purpose in its text, and, for over two centuries, courts faithfully and consistently interpreted it in light of that text and purpose. In modern parlance, it was read, logically, as its author, James Madison, intended; essentially, “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in state militias shall not be infringed.” The history surrounding the Second Amendment’s drafting and ratification make clear that Madison and the other Framers were animated only by anti-federalist concerns that the new federal government could neuter state military forces.

… The Court in District of Columbia v. Heller replaced Madison’s vision with an ahistorical, atextual reading of the Second Amendment that renders its first half an inconvenient irrelevancy and injects a modern purpose of private, armed self defense with handguns that was nowhere mentioned in the Amendment’s text or history. After Heller, the courts have been required to interpret the Second Amendment essentially (and nonsensically) as:

“Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people (including those who have nothing to do with the militia and may even oppose the state) to possess arms for private self-defense (wholly unrelated to militias) shall not be infringed.” That interpretation is wrong.

Lowy’s argument was thoroughly rejected by the majority in Heller, which rightfully noted that the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment doesn’t make the right to keep and bear arms contingent on service in the militia.

Continue reading “”

Now, if they’d stop their schizophrenic support for similar federal laws.

Justice Department Sues the District of Columbia for the Unconstitutional Ban of Semi-Automatic Firearms
Monday, December 22, 2025

Today, the Justice Department sued the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), alleging that the District government and MPD unconstitutionally ban the AR-15 and many other firearms protected under the Second Amendment. The District’s gun laws require anyone seeking to own a gun to register it with D.C. Metro Police. However, the D.C. Code provides a broad registration ban on numerous firearms — an unconstitutional incursion into the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes. MPD’s current pattern and practice of refusing to register protected firearms is forcing residents to sue to protect their rights and to risk facing wrongful arrest for lawfully possessing protected firearms.

Continue reading “”

SAF Files Amicus Challenging Lifetime Firearm Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession as applied to an individual with a decades-old misdemeanor DUI conviction.The case, Williams v. Attorney General of the United States, will be argued before an en banc panel in February. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Law Center.

“The government’s position defies Bruen and Rahimi by seeking to impose a permanent disarmament on a law-abiding citizen based solely on a nonviolent misdemeanor from 20 years ago, with no evidence of ongoing danger,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the risks of intoxication and firearms through temporary restrictions on those currently impaired, never by stripping gun rights forever from someone who once drank irresponsibly but has since reformed. We urge the Court to reject this overreach and affirm the district court’s ruling.”

If the Third Circuit rules in favor of Mr. Williams, it could have major implications for many others who are disarmed due to similar convictions.

“This case highlights the unconstitutional overreach of federal disarmament laws that ignore historical limits and present-day realities,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is committed to defending the rights of individuals like Mr. Williams, and we believe this case warrants the Court’s careful consideration.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

US government sues US Virgin Islands and accuses officials of violating the Second Amendment

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A Second Amendment clash has erupted between the federal government and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The U.S. government sued the U.S. territory, its police department and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks on Tuesday, accusing them of obstructing and systematically denying American citizens the right to possess and carry guns.

The U.S. Virgin Islands requires that applicants demonstrate “good reason to fear death or great injury to his person or property,” and to have “two credible persons” to vouch for their need of a firearm. Local law also requires that someone have “good moral character” to obtain a gun permit, which is valid for up to three years and applies to a single weapon.

The lawsuit states that no specific standard has been set or defined for the requirement of character. It also claims that the defendants “regularly” refuse to issue permits to those who by law are “deemed to be an improper person” by the territory’s police commissioner.

The lawsuit states that those in the U.S. territory also must “submit to intrusive and warrantless home searches” as one condition to obtain a gun permit. If an applicant refuses a home inspection, which takes “several months to a year to schedule and complete,” the government will not process their request, according to the lawsuit.

Some good, but mostly bad news

BLUF
The real question is what will the Court do with the gun and magazine ban cases in the new year? We’re getting to the point in the Court’s term that any case they decide to take up would most likely be heard next fall.

Supreme Court Turns Away Challenges to National Firearms Act

The Supreme Court didn’t grant cert to any Second Amendment cases in its orders list released on Monday, but they did keep ahold of several challenges to state-level gun and magazine bans as well as several prohibited persons cases.

The justices also denied cert to a pair of challenges to the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles, as well as the appeal of a Pennsylvania father who was hoping to revive a lawsuit against a gun maker and gun seller holding them civilly liable for the death of his son.

Robinson v. U.S. and Rush v. U.S had drawn attention from a number of Second Amendment groups including Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Foundation, which filed amicus briefs in support of the cert petitions urging the Court to take one or both cases. The groups obviously were hoping that the Supreme Court would declare that short-barreled rifles are arms protected by the Second Amendment, but also pointed out multiple flaws in the rationale deployed by lower courts in upholding the NFA’s restrictions.

The brief filed by GOA and a number of state-level 2A groups in Robinson, for instance, noted the lower courts’ description of the NFA as a “shall issue” licensing system akin to concealed carry regimes.

Continue reading “”

Fifth Circuit’s Suppressor Decision Could Gut Second Amendment Protections

Earlier this week a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its third ruling in a case dealing with a Louisiana man’s possession of an unregistered suppressor. Unfortunately, the third time wasn’t the charm for George Peterson, with the panel once again upholding his conviction, as it did in its original opinion in February and its first revised opinion in August.

This time around, the panel assumed without deciding that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, but ruled that the National Firearms Act’s taxation and registration scheme is akin to a “shall issue” concealed carry permitting regime and is therefore presumptively constitutional.

The panel essentially agreed with the DOJ, which, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has recognized that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, but still maintains that the NFA taxes and registration are constitutional. As the panel wrote in its unanimous decision:

The NFA provides that the ATF will deny a firearm-making application if the “making or possession of the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law.” This is precisely the “objective and definite” licensing criterion held permissible under Bruen.

Further, we have no reason to doubt on this record that the NFA’s fingerprint, photograph, and background-check requirements are “designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law abiding, responsible citizens.’” Peterson’s failure to make any showing as to how the requirement places an unconstitutional burden on his Second Amendment rights alone is dispositive.

It is not even clear he could claim that this requirement posed an unconstitutional burden as applied to him given his explanation that he failed to register because he “forgot” to do so. Finally, the NFA enforces its objective shall-issue licensing requirement through prohibiting suppressor possession by unlicensed persons, as did several of the “shall-issue” licensing regimes that Bruen cited approvingly.

The Fifth Circuit panel avoided any debate on the constitutionality of the $200 tax imposed by the NFA (something the DOJ has described as a “modest burden” on our Second Amendment rights) by declaring that, since Peterson brought an as-applied challenge and he never attempted to pay the $200 tax, the question is not germane to his case.

While the panel left open the possibility that other as-applied challenges to the NFA could be successful, the judges were pretty adamant that the NFA and its requirements are no different than a “shall issue” system for issuing concealed carry licenses. And since the Supreme Court hasn’t said anything about various arms enjoying different levels of protection under the Second Amendment, any restriction imposed on the purchase and possession of suppressors could be imposed on commonly-owned handguns, rifles, and shotguns as well… at least in the states where the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction.

Those states are Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, so I’m not particularly worried about any of them suddenly deciding to apply NFA language to semi-automatic handguns or AR-15s. If the Fifth Circuit’s logic is adopted by other appellate courts, though, it’s not difficult to imagine anti-gun lawmakers in blue states doing just that. We’re already seeing a number of Democrat-controlled states push for permit-to-purchase laws, so adding additional taxes and registration requirements to those statutes wouldn’t be difficult.

The DOJ has been criticized by 2A groups like Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition for continuing to defend the constitutionality of the NFA. That is a legitimate concern, and the fact that DOJ is also acknowledging that at least some NFA items are protected by the Second Amendment could also wreak havoc on our 2A rights in statehouses and courtrooms across the country.

As I said, SCOTUS has never suggested that the Second Amendment has tiers of protection for various arms. So when the DOJ says that a $200 tax on suppressors is only a “modest” and constitutionally permissible burden on our right to keep and bear arms, anti-gun politicians (and jurists) can use that to argue that a $200 tax on so-called assault weapons, semi-automatic handguns, or even all firearms is equally compliant with the Second Amendment.

I think the Fifth Circuit panel took some care not to give anti-2A politicians any legal ammunition to that effect, but I’m afraid they’ve opened up a Pandora’s Box by stating that the NFA’s restrictions are no different than a “shall issue” system for concealed carry. Let’s hope that an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court close the lid on this “logic” before the gun control lobby uses it as a cudgel to attack our 2A rights.

This is part of the anti-American legacy of President Auto-Pen

She actually said:
“replacing them with loyalists and people who don’t know anything…”
Anything she ever says again should be ignored forever.

Yes, but this statement is even more dangerous:
“these issues should not be in presidential control”
She is placing the bureaucracy above the constitution.

Federal judges crave the spotlight: In case after case, judges ruled to stymie the executive branch for one main reason.

In the great injunction sweepstakes that have followed Donald Trump’s second administration like a shadow, we have seen district court judges with a hankering for executive power attempt to play president in more than a hundred cases from immigration and tariffs to funding various executive branch agencies, so-called trans-rights, DEI and climate change.

Some of these injunctions and temporary restraining orders are still pending. Many, perhaps most, have been resolved by the Supreme Court in ways that favor the Trump administration, not always categorically but usually by affirming the broad scope of executive power envisioned by Article II of the Constitution. “The executive Power,” quoth that magisterial document, “shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” “A president,” mind you, a single one. Not a president and hundreds of district court judges.

The rousing start to Article II of the Constitution is neatly put, isn’t it? But those judges took it as a challenge. Trump is an affront to what every right-thinking, i.e., left-leaning, person believes. He wants to make America more prosperous, freer and more secure than it has become in the hands of Democrats and other disciples of hegemonic bureaucracy.

He moved quickly to secure the border.  Can you believe it? He is deporting scads of people who are here illegally. Outrageous. He outlawed the racist practice of DEI throughout the federal government and made federal funds contingent upon ending the scam. Horrible. He thinks that the military should be an institution specializing in fighting wars, not promoting “social justice.” Clearly he must be stopped.

Continue reading “”