JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON: “I’m struggling to see how it burdens a parent’s religious exercise if the school teaches something the parent disagrees with. You have a choice. You don’t have to send your kid to that school.”pic.twitter.com/g8Jl65s2pz
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) April 23, 2025
U.S. First Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Assault Weapon Ban Constitutional
The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.
I’ll be honest here, my ability to suffer foolishness kindly on this matter has permanently expired, so if you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive truth, then this one may not be for you.
Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, brought the case, announcing his plan to purchase items restricted by the infringement for the lawful purpose of self-defense, but a three blind mice panel of subversive activist judges who wouldn’t know a natural right from ringworm performed just the right amount of mental gymnastics necessary to return with a ruling so heavily steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship status alone, much less their seat on a bench.
Comrade Judge Gary Katzmann, whom I definitely wouldn’t let babysit my children, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court” needed to consider whether the law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which would make it allowable under the Second Amendment.
To be fair, Katzmann and his cronies would have found it consistent with a bowl of cereal if doing so properly served his anti-American agenda, and that is about as plausible as the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most common sporting rifle in America, does not unduly burden civilian self-defense.
The court was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and additional appellants failed to show any instance in which these models had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine finding that any search engine could refute in seconds with days and weeks of reading material.
In fact, even machine guns are not banned outright. But Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists never burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Constitution. Why let any of that get in the way of the internal insurrectionist agenda?
Katzmann and his merry band of idiots also claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”
While this take is genuinely not unique by any standard, it has also been debunked since, well, the beginning, as the Second Amendment clearly states in plain English, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a body of citizens trained and equipped to serve in a military capacity, ensuring the security of a free state, the Founding principle behind the Second Amendment.
Here’s a note to Katzmann and all the activist judicial traitors out there. If I can disprove you that easily, your children should be embarrassed by your legacy. There is very little I find more disgraceful than the absolute irreverence for your oath and obligation to the American people while you work to weaken the United States of America and poison our founding values from the inside.
Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind. Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.
Alito’s right to warn: Court’s knee-jerk habit of slapping Trump will cost it dearly.
“A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo.”
So wrote Harvard Law professor and constitutional scholar Adrian Vermeule on Friday after a district-court judge issued yet another lawless nationwide injunction meant to handcuff Trump and halt his agenda.
It’s a criticism the Supreme Court, and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, must take to heart.
One of the hallmarks of Roberts’ term has been an overweening desire to guard the judicial branch’s “legitimacy.”
But Roberts seems oblivious to the fact that the biggest threat to the courts’ legitimacy comes from the courts themselves — and his desire to preserve the judiciary’s standing with a small circle of Washington and academic insiders.
We saw that as far back as 2012, when Roberts switched sides in the case against Obamacare at the last minute, for fear that striking down that unprecedented bill would upset the DC applecart and harm the court’s legitimacy.
Instead, it was a self-inflicted wound. Nobody respects a trimmer.
Roberts’ Obamacare decision wasn’t rooted in the Constitution, but an attempt to have it both ways, giving the Democrats enough of a victory to keep them from declaring war.
And we’ve seen that sort of thing repeatedly in the years since.
Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court’s legitimacy in the eyes of America’s citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, plus some Ivy League law professors whose schools’ decaying reputations should give him pause.
But now the flurry of lower-court interference is reaching crisis proportions, says Harvard’s Vermeule and others.
The prime issue, among others, is the illegal — and yes, it was contrary to the statutes on the books — Biden administration policy to admit millions of unvetted migrants into the country, and to allow them to stay here.
The “rule of law” didn’t matter then, because the crowd to which Roberts defers was in favor of open borders and its massive influx of a low-wage, government-dependent underclass.
Biden’s border policy has never been popular with the public, but the public isn’t Roberts’ concern: When he worries about legitimacy, he’s really thinking peer opinion — the “Mean Girls” judiciary.
“People Who Bypassed Legal Process in Migrating to USA Demand Legal Process before Being Kicked Out,” as The Babylon Bee parody site put it.
This came to a head early Saturday as Roberts and six colleagues stepped in to temporarily uphold a lower-court opinion interfering with Trump’s deportations.
The Supremes acted one-sidedly and with untoward swiftness to block the president — in accordance, it seems, with Vermeule’s dictum.
But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Justice Samuel Alito said, in a blazing dissent:
“Literally in the middle of the night, the Court issued unprecedented and legally questionable relief without giving the lower courts a chance to rule, without hearing from the opposing party, within eight hours of receiving the application, with dubious factual support for its order, and without providing any explanation.”
The court may make much of the “rule of law,” Alito noted — but “both the Executive and the Judiciary have an obligation to follow the law.”
The court’s irregular behavior here brings that into serious question.
Fight with Soldiers, Not Lawyers.
When a group of German saboteurs were caught in New York and Florida in June 1942, planning to blow up hydroelectric plants and other loci of American industrial power but ratted out by two of their fellows in Operation Pastorius, President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew exactly what he was not going to do. “I want one thing clearly understood, Francis,” he told his Attorney General, Francis Biddle. “I won’t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus. Understand?” Biddle understood: this was war. There would be no civilian “due process.” They would get what was coming to them.
The men had buried their German uniforms on the beaches, and were wearing civilian clothes and carrying a lot of greenbacks when apprehended. Since they had not actually done anything, under civilian law, smart lawyers could get them off with just a couple of years in prison for violating immigration laws, spitting on the sidewalk, and picking their feet in Poughkeepsie. Further, there was a Supreme Court precedent from the Civil War era to deal with, Ex Parte Milligan (1866), in which a Confederate sympathizer and propagandist in Indiana had had his conspiracy conviction by a military tribunal overturned on the grounds that federal courts were still operating at the time of his arrest, and that’s where he should have been tried.
From Roosevelt’s point of view, however, habeas was a luxury the country couldn’t afford; Lincoln had felt the same way during his time as commander-in-chief. Pearl Harbor was, after all, only six months in the rear-view mirror and while the Battle of Midway had just sent the Japanese carrier fleet to the bottom, the Brits had gone tits up at Dunkirk in May 1940 and the Soviets were continuing to reel from Operation Barbarossa, which launched in June 1941. Shortly after the capture of the Germans, FDR issued Executive Proclamation 2561, which created a military tribunal to try their cases. They were thus charged not under civil law but American laws of war dating back to 1775 — the ones that allowed combatants to summarily execute spies and saboteurs. (During the Revolution, both the American Nathan Hale and the British Major John André were hanged as spies.)
Instead, the operatives were given a military tribunal, convicted, and six of the eight (all had lived in the U.S. and two were American citizens) were sent to the electric chair in August; the two informers were given life or extended sentences in exchange for divulging the plot. Because in those days the Supreme Court actually did read the election returns, Roosevelt’s solution had been pre-emptively sanctioned by the Court in Ex Parte Quirin (July 1942):
In a unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Harlan Fisk Stone, the Court concluded that the conspirators, as spies without uniform whose purpose was sabotage, violated the law of war and were therefore unlawful enemy combatants. Noting that Congress had, under the Articles of War, authorized trial by military commission for unlawful enemy combatants, the Court therefore determined that the President had not exceeded his power. Furthermore, the Court asserted that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments “did not enlarge the right to jury trial” beyond those cases where it was understood by the framers to have been appropriate.
What a difference fourscore and three years make. Although the Islamic ummah declared war on the United States of America in 1998, and although President Trump has designated Mexican and South American narco gangs such as Tren de Aragua as terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an appalling number of American lawyers — including some ostensibly on the right — appear not to have gotten the message, and have dragged him into federal court over and over again over the phantom issue of alien “rights.” Most recently, the Supreme Court under the wretched John Roberts, ignored its own precious precedents and issued a midnight order temporarily blocking Trump from deporting criminal aliens slated for deportation until further notice while “due process” continues duly.
Worth v. Jacobson: FPC 2A Challenge to MN Carry Ban on 18-20 Year Old Adults
Summary: Federal Second Amendment constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s ban on the right to bear arms as to young adults.
Plaintiffs: Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition
Defendants: Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety Bob Jacobson, Mille Lacs County Sheriff Don Lorge, Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wolbersen, and Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry
Litigation Counsel: Blair Nelson, David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William Bergstrom
Docket: D. MN case no. 0:21-cv-01348, Eighth Circuit case no. 23-2248, Supreme Court case no. 24-782 | CourtListener Docket
Key Events & Filings:
Supreme Court
2025-4-21: Petition DENIED.
2025-3-26: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2025.
2025-3-24: Reply Brief for the Petitioner
2025-3-10: Brief in Response
2025-1-17: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari
The Supreme Court has denied Minnesota’s cert petition in our lawsuit challenging the state’s age-based carry ban, which means our win will stay in place:
Kostas Moros:
At this point, the weirdest result would be a denial/dissent. Why did it take 11+ relists? Why hold OST in its interlocutory posture just for a dissent in Snope? Doesnt mean it wont happen though.
First Circuit Upholds Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans
he Bay State’s ban on the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.
A three-judge panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of “assault weapons,” such as the popular AR-15, and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. It determined that the logic of a prior ruling upholding Rhode Island’s ban on certain magazines applied to the weapons banned by Massachusetts law.
“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,’” Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in Capen v. Campbell. “This means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.”
The ruling extends the unbeaten streak for states defending hardware bans at the federal appellate level ever since the Supreme Court handed down its New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision in 2022. It will undoubtedly add to the growing sense of frustration among gun-rights advocates who believe Supreme Court precedent forecloses sales bans on common semi-automatic firearms and the magazines that come standard with them.
The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), the plaintiff in this case, did not respond to a request for comment. The group sued over Massachusetts’ bans in 2022, shortly after the High Court handed down the Bruen decision. They were first upheld by US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in December 2023 after Saylor ruled that the banned items fit within the country’s historical tradition of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
Between that ruling and Thursday’s update on appeal, the First Circuit issued a separate opinion upholding Rhode Island’s nearly identical ban on ammunition magazines in March of 2024.
“The justification for the law is a public safety concern comparable to the concerns justifying the historical regulation of gunpowder storage and of weapons like sawed-off shotguns, Bowie knives, M-16s and the like,” Judge William Kayatta wrote in Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. “The analogical ‘how’ and ‘why’ inquiry that Bruen calls for therefore strongly points in the direction of finding that Rhode Island’s LCM ban does not violate the Second Amendment.”
Lawsuits Inbound After Colorado Governor Signs Semi-Auto Ban
The original version of the semi-auto ban was pretty simple: gas-operated semi-automatic long guns capable of accepting a detachable magazine would be prohibited for sale and manufacture in the state of Colorado, and though residents who possessed one before the law could take effect could keep theirs, it would be a criminal offense for anyone else to acquire or keep on in their home.
Polis said the measure would help push Colorado toward its goal of becoming one of the top 10 safest states. He also advocated for the legislators to look at creating scholarship opportunities for the training, which would be run through Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and permits would be maintained by county sheriff’s offices. He said the current goal is to ensure CPW’s firearm training costs are under $200.
He also advocated for legislators to find a way to ensure prior firearm training and experience, such as peace officer or military training, to allow that training to qualify the citizens for purchase.
Colorado’s violent crime rate has soared since 2012, when the state enacted its first real gun control measures, including a ban on “high capacity” magazines. Polis is deluding himself if he believes that SB 3 is going to make the state a safer place. Any criminal who wants to obtain a firearm for illicit or evil purposes can either steal one, go through the state-mandated training and be approved for purchase, or simply head out of state and buy a rifle or shotgun there.
It will be lawful residents who feel the brunt of SB 3s impact, with Polis essentially admitting that the permit-to-purchase process will add hundreds of dollars to the price of a modern sporting rifle. Firearm retailers will feel the pinch as well, since many Coloradans who want to purchase one of these guns will likely head to FFLs across the border in states like Wyoming and Kansas to do so.
Immediately following the signing on Thursday afternoon, the Colorado State Shooting Association, which is the official state association of the National Rifle Association, said it would be filing a lawsuit against the new law.
“This legislation, which imposes unprecedented restrictions on the purchase of semi-automatic firearms through a burdensome permit-to-purchase scheme, represents a direct assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Coloradans,” CSSA said in a release.
The group has contended that the measure will create a “de facto gun registry” that is maintained by state or local authorities. CSSA also noted that it had presented a petition with over 40,000 signatures urging Polis to veto the bill.
The NRA also vocalized its opposition to the bill.
“Behind closed doors, Governor Polis cowardly signed into law the most anti-gun, anti-freedom bill in Colorado’s history. Instead of respecting the individual liberties of gun owners and hunters in his state, he bent the knee to the radical gun control element of his party,” the NRA said in a release. “In Jared’s Colorado, you need a ‘Polis Permission Slip’ to exercise your constitutional rights. If this proposal was popular with his citizens, it would not need to be enacted in secret.”
The preparation for the inevitable lawsuits has already begun, but don’t be surprised if nothing is filed immediately. The law won’t take effect until August 1, 2026, and any litigation filed now might be dismissed because the issue isn’t ripe for court review.
That extended deadline also gives Coloradans more than a year to continue to purchase the most commonly sold and popular rifles in the country, and in the short term, Polis’s ban is likely to lead to a spike in sales for the rifles and shotguns he and gun control activists want to restrict.
For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.
[Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]
Supreme Court Should Resolve Proximate Cause in S&W v. Mexico
Illinois court shows need to lay the issue to rest.
As I posted here, the March 4 oral argument in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos appeared to go well for S&W and not well for Mexico. Mexico’s lawsuit seeks to hold America’s federally-licensed firearm industry responsible for the cartel violence that plagues Mexico. The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prohibits lawsuits against the gun industry for crimes committed by third parties.
PLCAA does allow an action in which [1] a manufacturer or seller “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, and [2] the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.” It was suggested in oral argument that Mexico’s aiding and abetting theory did not meet element [1], rendering it unnecessary to resolve [2]. Yet leaving the latter, the proximate-cause issue, in limbo will result in continuing legal uncertainty and ongoing attacks on the industry facilitated by courts that are allowing the most extreme theories of proximate cause in which remoteness is disregarded.
The latest example is the denial by Judge Jorge L. Ortiz of the motion to dismiss in Kelly Roberts v. Smith and Wesson Brands, Circuit Court 19th Judicial District, Lake County, Ill. (April 1, 2025). In 2022, Robert Crimo III murdered seven people and injured dozens more with an S&W rifle in Highland Park, Illinois. He has pleaded guilty and faces life in prison. His father pleaded guilty to reckless conduct for helping his son obtain the rifle while knowing of his mental health issues.
The lawsuit against manufacturer S&W, the distributor, and the retailer that sold the rifle is exactly the kind of case PLCAA was enacted to prevent. The Roberts plaintiffs alleged that S&W advertisements intentionally promote militaristic misuse of firearms, especially among young people. (Of course they don’t.) S&W responded that “the claimed harm is the aggregate result of numerous intervening (including criminal) acts by third parties not under Smith & Wesson’s control,” and that “Plaintiffs fail to allege, as they must, that they even saw the Smith & Wesson advertisements they complain of, let alone that they were deceived by them.”
Just to make it clear, ever since 1570 when the Regent of Scotland, James Stewart Earl of Moray, was assassinated by a man using a rifle, those in political power have been scared to death of the idea that the mere lowly peasantry could possess the very thing to simply take care of a government they saw as not ruling in their best interest, and one decide to do just that.
This Supreme Court Is Woefully Weak On The Second Amendment
When firearms are involved, originalism is ignored and basic principles of statutory interpretation are overlooked.
The Supreme Court just issued a decision allowing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to rewrite the nation’s gun laws. It appears that the seven justices have contracted a bad case of “Gun Derangement Syndrome,” or GDS — a serious infection that afflicts many on the federal bench.
The symptoms are this: when firearms are involved, the judicial rulebook goes out the window. Originalism is ignored, basic principles of statutory interpretation overlooked, and new rules of law invented. What’s left is nothing that passes for reasoned decision-making; it’s the implementation of judges’ personal policy predilections.
Until recently, the Supreme Court seemed immune to this illness. After nearly all federal circuits mused that the Second Amendment did not so much as protect an individual right to bear arms, District of Columbia v. Heller set the record straight. And after lower courts devised “judge-empowering interest-balancing tests” to circumvent Heller, The New York State Bar Association v. Bruen course-corrected.
But recently, cracks have begun to show. Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in United States v. Rahimi, for example, arguably waters down Bruen’s rigorous requirement that governments must justify firearms laws with historical analogues — directing courts merely to follow the “principles that underpin the Nation’s regulatory tradition,” whatever that means. So wishy-washy was the Rahimi opinion that Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a concurrence to remind everyone that Bruen is still good law.
Rutgers study reveals assassination culture.
Among Americans identifying themselves as left-of-center:
48.6% say that murdering Elon Musk is justified.
55.2% say that murdering President Trump is justified.https://t.co/k5UORBLY0y pic.twitter.com/REETGOnNfZ
— J Michael Waller (@JMichaelWaller) April 8, 2025
I haven’t wanted to be so grim and say it out loud, but the results of this survey raises another separate reason I’ve been hoping Snope, the Maryland “assault weapons” ban case the Supreme Court is thinking about taking, is a per curiam decision despite the long odds of that happening.
If SCOTUS grants cert, I deeply fear unhinged anti-gunners will commit mass shootings to try and sway the Court in the months between a grant and a ruling.
This isn’t a farfetched fear. We’ve already had at least two high profile mass shooters say in their manifestos they were motivated in part by wanting to advance gun control.
In an environment where some of the left seems to be embracing political violence, committing terrible crimes to influence a Court ruling wouldn’t be all that surprising. Better to decide Snope instantly on a per curiam and deny them that motivation. And it should be decided per curiam anyway, given Heller should have settled any hardware issues as to commonly used arms.
While Judge Kozinski had a personally problematic career on the bench, he was a pro-RKBA jurist, holding his own alongside Justice Thomas in his jurisprudence. It may be hoped that some of this judicial view has rubbed off onto the Secretary
Judge Kozinski’s dissent in Silveira v. Lockyer:
Judges know very well how to read the Constitution broadly when they are sympathetic to the right being asserted. We have held, without much ado, that “speech, or . . . the press” also means the Internet, and that “persons, houses, papers, and effects” also means public telephone booths.
When a particular right comports especially well with our notions of good social policy, we build magnificent legal edifices on elliptical constitutional phrases–or even the white spaces between lines of constitutional text.
But, as the panel amply demonstrates, when we’re none too keen on a particular constitutional guarantee, we can be equally ingenious in burying language that is incontrovertibly there.
It is wrong to use some constitutional provisions as spring-boards for major social change while treating others like senile relatives to be cooped up in a nursing home until they quit annoying us.
As guardians of the Constitution, we must be consistent in interpreting its provisions. If we adopt a jurisprudence sympathetic to individual rights, we must give broad compass to all constitutional provisions that protect individuals from tyranny.
If we take a more statist approach, we must give all such provisions narrow scope. Expanding some to gargantuan proportions while discarding others like a crumpled gum wrapper is not faithfully applying the Constitution; it’s using our power as federal judges to constitutionalize our personal preferences.
The able judges of the panel majority are usually very sympathetic to individual rights, but they have succumbed to the temptation to pick and choose. Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms.
Indeed, to conclude otherwise, they had to ignore binding precedent. United States v. Miller (1939) did not hold that the defendants lacked standing to raise a Second Amendment defense, even though the government argued the collective rights theory in its brief.
The Supreme Court reached the Second Amendment claim and rejected it on the merits after finding no evidence that Miller’s weapon–a sawed-off shotgun–was reasonably susceptible to militia use. We are bound not only by the outcome of Miller but also by its rationale.
If Miller’s claim was dead on arrival because it was raised by a person rather than a state, why would the Court have bothered discussing whether a sawed-off shotgun was suitable for militia use? The panel majority not only ignores Miller’s test; it renders most of the opinion wholly superfluous. As an inferior court, we may not tell the Supreme Court it was out to lunch when it last visited a constitutional provision.
The majority falls prey to the delusion–popular in some circles–that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll.
But the simple truth–born of experience–is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people.
Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks’ homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence.
As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. See Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went”). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.
All too many of the other great tragedies of history–Stalin’s atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few–were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations.
Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here.
If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. 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. Despite the panel’s mighty struggle to erase these words, they remain, and the people themselves can read what they say plainly enough:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The sheer ponderousness of the panel’s opinion–the mountain of verbiage it must deploy to explain away these fourteen short words of constitutional text–refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say.
The panel’s labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it–and is just as likely to succeed.
Antonyuk denied without any dissent even though there is a clear circuit split on 1791 vs 1868. And they GVR'd it after Rahimi.
Guess they really wanna make clear they will never grant an interlocutory case on 2A. So Wolford is probably getting denied too, though maybe it has…
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) April 7, 2025
(Yes this is absolutely cope, I admit)
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) April 7, 2025
Activist Judge Caught Red-Handed in Setup Against Trump in Bombshell Revelations
A bombshell transcript obtained by conservative journalist Julie Kelly exposes how Judge James Boasberg deliberately positioned himself to target President Trump’s administration over deportations of criminal illegal aliens. The shocking revelations demonstrate how far the activist judiciary will go to obstruct Trump’s legal immigration enforcement efforts.
Kelly’s analysis of Thursday’s hearing transcript reveals Boasberg’s calculated moves to interfere with executive authority. The judge, who claims his assignment to the case was “random,” actually knew the case was coming to him.
The Justice Department filed an application for an emergency stay of an order requiring an adjudicated MS-13 member be brought back the United States that stopped within inches of calling the district court judge who issued the order a moron. In a tersely worded brief that demolished the entire proceeding, the Justice Department’s brief ridiculed the order by Obama-appointed Judge Paula Xinis to “facilitate and effectuate” Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s return to the US by Monday night, saying: “Because the United States has no control over Abrego Garcia, however, Defendants have no independent authority to “effectuate” his return to the United States—any more than they would have the power to follow a court order commanding them to “effectuate” the end of the war in Ukraine, or a return of the hostages from Gaza;” see Judge Orders Trump to Return Deported Man Sent to El Salvadoran Prison, Sets Up a Massive Showdown – RedState.
Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, who is portrayed as a “Maryland father” in most news reports, entered the US illegally in 2011. In 2019, he was arrested on allegations of membership in the violent Salvadoran gang called Mara Salvatrucha, or MS-13. At that time, he applied for political asylum, which was denied. He was given an order of removal, but a judge put his deportation on hold on the grounds that he might be in danger if he returned to El Salvador. In early March, Garcia was arrested and put on a plane to El Salvador and the Terrorist Confinement Facility, CECOT.
His attorneys sued, and a judge ordered the Trump administration to return Garcia to Maryland. In her order, the judge called the deportation “an illegal act.”
When White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt reacted by saying, “We suggest the Judge contact [El Salvador’s] President [Nayib] Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador,” it struck me, and many others, as the kind of remark you can make if you are in no danger of facing the judge in a courtroom. As it turned out, she perfectly captured the tone of the administration’s request for a stay of her order.
SCOTUS Sides With Trump Admin 5-4, Stays Lower Court Ruling Compelling Teacher Training Grants
At last check, we were north of 160 federal lawsuits filed against Trump administration executive actions, and while the district courts have been furiously handing out temporary restraining orders (TROs) and injunctions, a number of the cases have been snaking their way up through the appellate courts to the Supreme Court. Mind you, these are largely procedural rulings rather than decisions on the merits. There’s still a long way to go before all the dust settles.
But the Trump administration scored a win before the Supreme Court Friday afternoon as the high court issued a 5-4 decision granting the administration’s request for a stay of a district court TRO, which enjoined the administration from terminating various education-related grants and required it to pay out past-due grant obligations and continue paying grant obligations as they accrue.
Here’s a bit more background:
A divided Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration by allowing officials to block $65 million in teacher development grants frozen over concerns they were promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.
The 5-4 emergency ruling, for now, lifts a lower order that allowed the Education Department to resume the grants in eight Democratic-led states that are suing. …
In February, the administration began canceling disbursements under two federal education grants aimed at developing educators and combatting teacher shortages: the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development Program.
Officials have cast the freezes as part of the administration’s broader crackdown on DEI, and it also comes as Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon look to effectively gut the department.
As noted above, this was a 5-4 decision. It is per curiam, so there’s no designated author of the majority decision, but Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s three liberal justices in dissent.
The full decision may be viewed here, but here are the key factors in the majority’s ruling:
Lawsuit challenges constitutionality of Prop KK guns and ammunition tax.
COLORADO SPRINGS — An El Paso County resident, a Colorado licensed firearms dealer and several gun rights advocacy organizations are asking for an injunction in Denver District Court to halt a new state excise tax on guns and ammunition.
Zachary Langston along with the National Rifle Association, the Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Magnum Shooting Center of Colorado Springs are asking a judge to stop Proposition KK from taking effect.
The defendants named in the case are Heidi Humphreys, the Executive Director of the Department of Revenue, who is required by statute to “administer and enforce the tax,” and Michael J. Allen, the District Attorney of El Paso County, who is charged with prosecuting the criminal penalties imposed by Proposition KK.
Proposition KK — passed in November with 54 percent of the vote — will add a 6.5 percent excise tax on the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition. It will be imposed on firearms dealers, manufacturers and ammunition vendors, with the exception of those selling less than $20,000 per year as well as law enforcement agencies and active-duty military.
The lawsuit was filed on the basis that the tax is unconstitutional because it does not pass a “means-end” test handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2022 Bruen decision, which says gun rights restrictions must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulations.
Parents’ Lawsuit Against Gun Maker Dismissed by Court
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parents of a teenager who was accidentally shot and killed by a friend. The court cited the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from liability in cases where harm arises from the unlawful use of their products. Justice Sallie Updyke Mundy emphasized that the Gustafsons’ claims were not viable under this statute.
This ruling is significant as it reinforces protections for gun manufacturers against tort claims, a legal framework that many states grapple with in the wake of increasing gun violence. The parents argued that the law contravened their rights under the commerce clause and the 10th Amendment; however, these challenges were also rejected by the court, highlighting the ongoing debate over accountability in the gun industry.
Just a few days over 8 years ago, 13 year old James Gustafson was killed when his friend, 14 year old John Burnsworth, pointed a gun at him and pulled the trigger. Burnsnworth maintained that since the magazine had been removed he thought the gun was unloaded, not realizing there was still a round in the chamber. Burnsworth was convicted under juvenile law for involuntary manslaughter
Gustafon’s parents brought a civil lawsuit against Springfield Armory and Saloom Department Store, which sold the pistol to its lawful owner. The Gustafons claimed the design of the pistol was defective, and accused the manufacturer and dealer of negligent design and sale, as well as negligent warnings and marketing, arguing that those actions caused their son’s death.
A trial court threw out the lawsuit, ruling that this type of litigation is prohibited under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, but the state Superior Court reinstated the lawsuit and remanded the case back to the lower court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, in a unanimous decision, held that the PLCAA is constitutional and dismissed the Gustafson’s lawsuit with prejudice.
