Category: Scratch a Lib-Find a Tyrant

Pro Forma Kabuki Theater

Democrat Senator Pushes for $4,700 Tax Stamps

A leading anti-gun firebrand on Capitol Hill this week introduced a measure that would skyrocket the federal tax on NFA items, like suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who has signed on to just about every wandering gun ban and restriction that has come through Congress in the past two decades, on Tuesday suggested new tax rates on NFA items.

His proposed amendment to a Republican military spending bill would set the typical $200 making and transfer tax on most items to $4,709 and move the $5 tax on AOWs to $55.

“If we want to save lives in this country, we have to find a way, come hell or high water, to stop mass legalization of silencers in this country,” said Murphy in a press conference last month on the eve of potential NFA reform in the Republican reconciliation bill, H.R.1, better known as President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

While H.R.1 did not include “mass legalization” of suppressors (they have never been illegal, just taxed since 1934), it did drop the tax rate to $0, effective in January 2026.

National gun control groups quickly welcomed Murphy’s move, with Brady saying, “Thank you, Chris Murphy, for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.”

The likelihood of Murphy’s proposal sticking to the spending bill and making it into law is slim in the Republican-controlled Senate. Still, it signals one of the priorities that Dems will pursue when the polarity of Congress switches.

The author’s last paragraph makes a valid point. The only reason the NFA & NFRTR (the registry) was found to be legal – and by SCOTUS first in 1937 and several times later in cases that followed – was that Congress had the power to tax and the registry was ‘simply’ to confirm that the tax had been paid, or was covered under one of the very few exemptions.

Here’s the deal. Back in 1986 with the Firearms Owners Protection Act, an actual ban on a gun registry was included. 18 U.S. Code § 926 (a) (3) :

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

What with the adjudicated reason making the NFRTR avoid the ban eliminated by law, my bet is that within weeks, if not days after the law-if passed-goes into effect, some people in several of the different court circuits will file suit that the tax free part of the NFRTR is illegal, per that

New Senate Budget Language Would Scrap Taxes on Suppressors, Short Barrel Firearms

After Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the language repealing the taxes and registration requirements for NFA items like suppressors, short barreled firearms, and “any other weapons” could not be included in the One Big Beautiful Bill, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and others quickly floated an alternative: zeroing out the making and transfer taxes, while keeping the registration requirements in place.

That language has now been included in the text of the budget bill that’s slated for a preliminary procedural vote in the Senate later today (you can find it on page 491).

The new language would zero out the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as “any other weapons”, which should satisfy the demands of Second Amendment organizations NRA, GOA, SAF, FPC, American Suppressor Association, F.A.I.R. Trade Group, and the National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers; who released a joint statement on the reconciliation bill Friday night.

The American Suppressor Association, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers, and F.A.I.R. Trade Group strongly disagree with the weaponized procedural maneuvering used by the unelected parliamentarian to block the removal of suppressors and short barreled firearms from the NFA tax scheme in the One Big Beautiful Bill.

Unless the Senate chooses to overrule her egregious decision or the Senate Majority Leader removes the existing parliamentarian, which is well within their rights, immediate action must be taken to ensure law-abiding Americans are able to exercise their Second Amendment rights without the draconian NFA tax.

Though not the full tax repeal it should have been, there is still an opportunity to use well-established precedent to lower the NFA’s unconstitutional excise tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms to zero dollars.

Our organizations stand united on behalf of millions of law-abiding gun owners in calling on Congress to immediately make this revision. This is a critical step in our fight against the unconstitutional NFA tax scheme and for the rights of all Americans.

Democrats will undoubtably object to the new language as well, and MacDonough will have to make another ruling once the bill hits the Senate floor, but folks I’ve spoken with on the Hill and within the 2A community have expressed confidence that by limiting the language solely to taxation and leaving the registration requirements in place the parliamentarian will rule in favor of the amendment.

Some groups, including Gun Owners of America, are still calling on MacDonough to be fired or overruled by Senate Majority Leader John Thune.

Thune has repeatedly said that isn’t going to happen, and over at The Reload, Stephen Gutowski has a pretty good explainer about why the Senate Majority Leader isn’t likely to oust MacDonough, even with some Republican senators demanding she be fired.

Gutowski’s piece is behind a member’s paywall, so I’d encourage you to subscribe to The Reload and read the entire piece for yourself, but the gist of it is this line:

To many in the Senate, firing or overruling the parliamentarian during reconciliation is akin to ending the filibuster. If you can nuke the parliamentarian on one question in this process, you can nuke them on any. What goes around comes around, or so the thinking goes.

If MacDonough was fired or overruled in order to repeal the taxation and registration requirements for NFA items with just 51 votes, Republicans would be giving Democrats the precedent to expand the NFA the same way the next time they have control of the chamber. Imagine AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms treated like machine guns, and large capacity magazines treated like suppressors, all because there were 51 Democrats willing to include that language in a budget bill.

That’s just one 2A-specific example, but there would likely be dozens of items on the Democrats’ wish list that would be enacted by disregarding the parliamentarian when they’re in charge. It’s the same rationale for keeping the filibuster in place: what goes around comes around, and any short-term advantage to destroying the filibuster or the tradition of adhering to the parliamentarian’s rulings wouldn’t be worth the long-term damage.

Thune could bend to the demands and dismiss MacDonough or decide her rulings don’t matter, but I really don’t think that’s likely. And if he did do that, we could see provisions that 2A groups don’t like get inserted back into the One Big Beautiful Bill; like the language that would require courts to impose financial bonds before issuing temporary restraining orders or preliminary injunctions against the federal government, which would cripple the ability of Second Amendment groups and individuals to file lawsuits challenging federal gun laws.

I still think MacDonough’s ruling was ridiculous given that the registration aspect of the NFA is directly tied to the taxing elements. But if the tax goes away, the same coalition that issued its statement on Friday night could always try to challenge the NFA registry in court, arguing that it’s no longer necessary or even moot once the taxes have been zeroed out. It might take a little longer, but we could see the registration requirements disappear… so long as the narrower language survives a second round of parliamentarian scrutiny.

Obama pines for a social media Ministry of Truth:

“We want diversity of opinion. We don’t want diversity of facts…it will require some government regulatory constraints.”
“There is a difference between these platforms letting all voices be heard, versus a business model that elevates the most hateful voices, or the most polarizing voices or the most dangerous in the sense of inciting violence.”
“And I that I think is going to be a big challenge for all of us that we’re going to have to undertake.”

Obama-approved narratives must go unchallenged, according to Obama.

We already have that in Missouri

Texas Senators Approve Measure Strengthening Right to Self-Defense
While Texas is already a castle doctrine state, individuals whom a grand jury declines to prosecute may still face civil action after exercising self-defense.

Texas senators have approved a measure strengthening the state’s protections for justified use of force or deadly force in self-defense situations.

Senate Bill 1730, filed by State Sen. Bob Hall (R–Edgewood), passed 26-3-2 on Monday.

The measure would prevent a claimant from recovering civil damages for personal injury or death if a grand jury has declined to pursue, thrown out, or acquitted the defendant of criminal charges.

In addition, if the claimant is found to be prohibited from seeking civil action, the proposal would require them to pay court costs and the defendant’s attorney fees.

Hall explained when laying out the measure before lawmakers that Texas is a castle doctrine state, meaning individuals are permitted to use force or deadly force in order to defend themselves on their own property.

“However, under current Texas law, individuals may file civil lawsuits seeking damages for personal injury or death resulting from the use of force or deadly force, even in cases where the defendants’ actions have been deemed lawful in a criminal proceeding,” claimed Hall.

The senator further argued that the current system creates “a substantial financial and emotional burden” for defendants who are faced with lawsuits after having already been cleared of criminal charges.

State Sen. Sarah Eckhardt (D–Austin) pointed out that the standards for civil and criminal actions are different, with criminal action requiring proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” and civil action having lesser standards.

Hall said that, although he is not an attorney and could not speak on Eckhardt’s comments directly, the intent of his measure is to “protect someone who has acted lawfully in their home … from an arduous civil case.”

Continue reading “”

SOMEONE SHOULD BE FIRED AFTER CNN ANALYST GOES ON RACIST RANT AGAINST WHITE AFRIKANERS

Things got wild on CNN on Monday night after a former Obama staffer and current CNN analyst decided to go on a racist rant over President Donald Trump admitting 48 South African refugees.

As RedState has reported, South Africa’s ruling party has infamously made singing “Kill the Boer,” which translates to “kill the farmer,” a staple of their political rallies. For context, the song specifically refers to white farmers (Afrikaners) and dates back to the country’s apartheid days. Laws to confiscate their land and extra-judicial killings have taken center stage over the last several years.

For some reason, though, that has greatly offended Democrats, who have finally found refugees they do not want to admit into the country. Funny how that works, right? I’m sure it’s just a coincidence. On the other hand, here’s Ashley Allison making it clear that it’s not one.

ALLISON: So if the Afrikaners don’t actually like the land, they can leave that country. 

JENNINGS: They are. They’re leaving to come here. These refugees are coming here.

ALLISON: No, they can leave and go to where their native land is, which is probably Germany or…

JENNINGS: Are you against them coming here?

PANELIST: Holland…

ALLISON: Holland, yes. 

JENNINGS: Are you against them coming here? 

ALLISON: I’m against the hypocrisy of this administration…

JENNINGS: No, no, that’s not the question. The question is are you against them coming here. 

ALLISON: If there was actually a genocide happening like there is other places in Sudan and the Congo, I would not, I’m not opposed for Congolese and for the Sudanese to come to Africa [America?] just like I’m not opposed to Venzualans and South Americans coming to America if they are fleeing and looking for asylum. What I am against…

JENNINGS: So just these 50 people, you’re against…

ALLISON: What I am against is that they are being given special treatment when there is not a genocide happening in South Africa, and they just don’t like the law of the land!

What an absolutely deranged thing to say on so many levels. Imagine, for a moment, if a Republican CNN panelist told black Americans that they can “leave and go to where their native land is” if they don’t like laws that physically and financially persecute them. Do you imagine that person would still have a job right now? Heck, they kicked Ryan James Girdusky off the air permanently for making a beeper joke about terrorist-supporter Mehdi Hasan, and the conservative commentator chimed in to provide this bit of insight on Allison’s rampant racism.

It should also be mentioned that pretending all South American refugees are legitimate and worthy of entry while singling out these South Africans is completely transparent. Most of the illegal aliens who crossed the border and claimed asylum were economic migrants. At no point did Allison have a problem with that or decry the standards by which they were being admitted. Let some white farmers with hundreds of years of lineage in Africa show up, and suddenly she wants to proclaim only the persecutions she approves of count. There’s no good explanation for that except that she’s exactly what she appears to be, which is a blatant racist.

Understand that as much as Trump brought these Afrikaners over to help them, he also did it because he knew Democrats would react like this and expose themselves. He threw the bait out there, and they gobbled it up because they just can’t help themselves. Meanwhile, CNN is just fine with racism on their airwaves as long as it comes from the “right” people.

Inside the mind of the politically violent

Starting in 2016, how many of us heard the phrase “bash the fash” or “punch a Nazi” somewhere? I know I heard it or saw it all over the place. Those who espoused such things argued that this kind of thing was acceptable because the threat was so dire. They had every right to resort to violence in the face of what they argued was violence.

Of course, no one actually did anything to hurt them, but it didn’t matter because they’d already rationalized it in their minds.

Most of those who said it were big on talk, short on action. That’s probably for the best, really, because most of those couldn’t fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

But now, with Trump’s return to the White House, I expected to hear a repeat of those mantras. I really haven’t, all things considered.

Instead, the violence is real, not rhetoric.

And while the firebombings and attempted assassination make the bigger news, even more pedestrian assaults happen, and we’ve got a glimpse inside the mind of one of those attackers.

WSU student Jay Sani said he was attacked by instructor Patrick Mahoney and Gerald Hoff after Mahoney forcibly took his red Trump hat which read “Trump 2024 Take America Back.” The altercation reportedly occurred outside The Coug, a well-known campus bar, and was captured on surveillance cameras.

According to Sani, Mahoney ripped the hat off his head and taunted him by saying “Go get it, b***h,” before repeatedly punching him in the back. Hoff then kicked Sani several times, while Mahoney grabbed him by the chest and slammed him to the ground. Sani said he was left with multiple bruises.

Pullman police located and interviewed Mahoney and Hoff within hours. Both men admitted to the attack.

Mahoney told police that he had seen Sani on campus before and knew he was a “right-wing dude.” He admitted that he grabbed his hat, threw it, and said “Go get it.”

Hoff admitted, “We did grab him and threw him to the ground.”

Despite their admissions, Mahoney claimed he did not hit Sani and said he didn’t believe he had done anything illegal. Police, however, emphasized that the incident involved unwanted physical contact. Mahoney also blamed Sani, telling officers he “got what’s coming to him.”

Sani only came forward now because it looks like Mahoney might be reinstated, even after assaulting a student.

What’s interesting to me, though not surprising, is the argument that Sani “got what’s coming to him” simply because he wore a Trump hat.

Note that nothing we see here that these two said to the police really contradicts anything of relevance. They say they didn’t punch Sani, which isn’t surprising since it’s clear they figure that’s what assault is, but they admit to throwing him on the ground. They admit to taking his hat and throwing it, telling him to go and get it like he’s a dog.

They admitted to everything needed to justify charges, and they did it because they felt completely justified. They even told the police Sani “got what’s coming to him” simply because he was a Trump supporter.

In the mind of the leftist, everything they want to do is righteous, and anyone who opposes it is evil. They believe anything necessary to achieve their goal is good and just, including blatant assault over simply supporting the “wrong” guy for president.

Sani didn’t do anything. There’s no evidence he said anything. Even if it did talk smack, that’s grounds for talking smack in return, not snatching his property and assaulting him.

Now, let’s think about things like the vandalism of Teslas, the attacks against Tesla dealerships, the Trump assassination attempts and plots, the attack on the Pennsylvania Governor’s Mansion, and whatever other insanity is yet to come.

These people all believe what they’re doing is righteous, that they’re the ones in the right, and everyone who opposes them is aligned with the forces of evil. The guy who attacked the governor’s mansion, for example, claimed that he was justified because of what Gov. Josh Shapiro—a Democrat, it should be noted—wanted to do to the Palestinian people.

They have decided that elections only have consequences when they win, and they will be the consequences when they lose. They’re ready to destroy each and every one of us if given half the chance.

Hell, look at Taylor Lorenz fangirling over Luigi Mangione. Yes, I get that there are a lot of people who have absolutely no sympathy for Magione’s alleged victim, but she crossed an insane line, not by just shrugging off a bad person dying, but by celebrating his murderer as if he’s the messiah or something.

As I noted over at Townhall, people like Taylor Lorenz are why I carry a gun. People like Mahoney and Hoff are, too.

Sooner or later, one of these leftist nutjobs is going to go beyond a simple assault and try something else.

They deserve the Kyle Rittenhouse Special, and they deserve it good and hard.

Why Do I Have Guns? Because of People Like Taylor Lorenz.

Former New York Times and Washington Post “journalist” Taylor Lorenz is not a very good person, but I want to start by making it very clear that the headline is not a threat against her. I wish her absolutely no physical or even psychological harm from any kind of violent encounter.

No, I carry a gun because of people like her, but not so much because I’m looking to hurt them.
I’m looking to make sure me and mine don’t get hurt by the kind of people who want to impress people like her.

As you may have heard, Lorenz embarrassed herself by fawning over UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson’s alleged killer. Luigi Mangione reportedly shot Thompson with a privately made firearm with a privately made suppressor on the streets of one of the most anti-gun cities in the country.

Mangione is someone that, apparently, many women find to be a good-looking guy. He doesn’t do it for me, but then again, dudes never will.

Lorenz, however, celebrated the murder from the start, and in her latest comments during an interview with CNN, she literally called Mangione “moral.”

Yes, the guy accused of killing another, who Lorenz believes did it, was the moral one. A lot of people agree with her.

This is sick and twisted, especially as this kind of celebratory attitude encourages others to kill people they disagree with or simply don’t like because they did something “bad.”

Yet Lorenz isn’t exactly my biggest fan, apparently. She blocked me on X shortly after I criticized what one might laughingly call her work. I said she sucked at her job and she got bent out of shape over it. It’s safe to say, at least at that moment, that she probably thought I was a bad person.

And now we know what Lorenz wants to see happen to “bad people.”

In this day and age, there are a ton of people who think like this. They’re the people firebombing Tesla dealerships or plotting to kill President Donald Trump or Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro because they don’t like what they believe these people represent.

So why would anyone believe those deemed “bad” won’t become the target of people who want to be seen as “good” by their side, by people like Lorenz?

While I don’t think I’m likely to ever be the victim of any such thing, I’d be stupid to act like I’m impervious. That’s true of just about everyone out there, even those of us who don’t have a particularly high profile. I mean, despite being a health insurance CEO, Brian Thompson wasn’t that well known, all things considered.

People like Lorenz celebrate the murder of people they don’t like, which feeds into the idea that the ends justify even the most violent means. It doesn’t matter whether there are non-violent means available; they still support violence.

Taylor Lorenz will likely never act violently herself. Not for her politics and not for much of anything else, except maybe in her own defense.
But her and people like her celebrating and swooning over a killer and pretending he’s a hero has the potential to result in a whole lot more deaths than Luigi Mangione could have possibly carried out himself.

 Would The Violent Left Try to Influence the Supreme Court if it Takes the Maryland ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Case?

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.

The Globalist Authoritarians Are Playing With Fire

What happened with Marine Le Pen, the most popular politician in France who was just banned from standing for election on the flimsiest of pretenses, is no exception. It’s becoming the rule around the West and in other places, too, where being outside the mainstream of authorized establishment left-leaning globalist politics has become criminalized.

In some places, like the UK and Spain, it takes the form of persecuting people for saying things that those in power don’t want to hear. In other places, like Germany, upstart populist parties that earned a significant number of votes are informally, and sometimes formally, marginalized and threatened with being banned. But it’s the criminal persecution of leaders that is becoming the go-to.

It happened to Bolsonaro in Brazil, Netanyahu in Israel, Georgescu in Romania, and Le Pen in France. In each of these cases, the establishment authoritarians essentially attempted to frame a politician they couldn’t beat at the ballot box. Of course, their American analogs tried to do the same thing to Donald Trump here, and when that didn’t work, their allies tried to murder him. Thankfully, they failed at both – with the people who instigated these atrocities too dumb to know that they are the ones who should be the most thankful they failed.

These are not the acts of strong and confident leaders who believe in the strength and popularity of their ideology. These are the cowardly acts of authoritarians who differ from Putin not in their nature but only in their extent. They haven’t thrown anybody out of a fifth-story window yet that we know of, though we don’t know if they actively put the murderer who tried to kill Trump in Butler up to it – the one who tried to ambush him in Florida was an active member of their collective – but they would’ve cheered if either attempt had succeeded.

Continue reading “”

Manhattan DA calls on 3D printing companies to deter creation of ghost guns

With crimes involving ghost guns on the rise, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., is calling on a 3D printer manufacturer to put more safeguards in place to prevent the spread of 3D-printed guns and gun parts.

Bragg penned a letter to Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd. (Creality), which produces 3D printers available to individual consumers, to install their printers with an available 3D-printing software program that detects the shapes of common gun parts and blocks their printing. Bragg also called on Creality to take down any online blueprints, also known as CAD files, from its cloud platform, and to ban the creation of illicit weapons in the company’s user agreement.

The letter comes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold federal regulations, which the DA’s office filed an amicus brief in support of last summer, requiring ghost gun parts to have serial numbers and compelling background checks for prospective buyers of ghost gun home-assembly kits.
“We are calling on companies that sell 3D-printers to work with us to stem the flow of dangerous weapons into our communities by implementing targeted, commonsense fixes. Too often, gun violence tragically takes innocent lives and tears at the fabric of our communities. Over the past several years, the number of illegal, 3D-printed firearms and ghost guns has increased significantly. We have an aggressive and holistic approach to combatting gun violence alongside our law enforcement partners but we cannot do it alone. We are hopeful that we can partner with these companies and make a meaningful impact on public safety,” said District Attorney Bragg.

Creality printers have been previously seized during searches by law enforcement in New York City, including recent cases; the DA’s office cites the cases against Luigi Mangione and Robert Guerrero, which are still in progress, as well as Cory Davis and Cliffie Thomspon, both of whom plead guilty to manufacturing ghost guns.

Since 2020, the DA’s Office has been cracking down on use and possession of ghost guns and illegal firearms, creating the Ghost Gun Initiative with the NYPD. Between 2021 and 2024, homicides decreased by 20%, and shootings decreased by 45% in Manhattan.

In 2023, Bragg introduced legislation to close loopholes in New York’s gun laws to make manufacturing 3D-printed and ghost guns and gun parts a felony. The legislation would also make it a misdemeanor to share, sell or distribute files containing blueprints for 3D-printed firearms components.

Bragg will be sending similar letters to other leading consumer brands of 3D printers in the coming weeks. Click here to read the full letter.

“The Real Motive of Liberals have nothing to do with the welfare of other people. Instead, they have two related goals–to establish themselves as morally and intellectually superior to the rather distasteful population of common people, and to gather as much power as possible to tell those distasteful common people how they must live their lives.”
– Thomas Sowell

Attendees at AOC and Bernie Sanders Denver Rally Openly Threaten to Kill President Trump.

Attendees of a recent Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders rally in Denver were openly calling for the murder of President Donald Trump. We guess the Democrat Party has abandoned its ‘Joy’ message from the 2024 presidential election.

Have a listen, they’re not bashful. (WATCH – PROFANITY WARNING)

As ambassadors of the far left wing of the Democrat Party, this sentiment is in line with the socialism and Marxism the two advocate.

We’ll be hearing a lot more of this the closer we get to the midterm elections. Commenters say it’s bad for America.

Continue reading “”

Keep right on talking Chuck…….

UN Judge, Onetime Columbia University Human Rights Fellow, Found Guilty of Slavery.

A United Nations judge was convicted on Thursday of trafficking a young woman to the United Kingdom and forcing her to work as a slave.

Ugandan judge Lydia Mugambe, 49, “exploited and abused” the victim, prosecutors said, forcing her to work as an unpaid maid and caregiver while barring her from seeking other employment. A jury found Mugambe guilty of multiple offenses, including facilitating illegal immigration, forced labor, and witness intimidation, the Independent reported.

Mugambe was a fellow housed within Columbia University’s Institute for the Study of Human Rights, whose fellows work to “address some aspect of a history of gross human rights violations in their society, country, and/or region,” in 2017.

Columbia did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Mugambe became a judge on the U.N. International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in May 2023, even though police had been called to her home in Oxfordshire three months earlier, according to the Independent. Mugambe was studying for a law Ph.D. at Oxford at the time.

A jury agreed with the prosecution’s case that Mugambe, who also serves as a judge on Uganda’s High Court, conspired with Ugandan diplomat John Leonard Mugerwa in a “very dishonest” quid pro quo. Mugerwa, the prosecutors said, arranged for the Ugandan embassy to sponsor the victim’s entry into the United Kingdom under false pretenses, while Mugambe attempted to influence a judge overseeing a case in which Mugerwa was involved.

Mugambe denied the charges, insisting she always treated the young woman with “love, care, and patience,” the BBC reported.

SCOTUS is going to have to do something about this and slap these silly lower courts down, or things aren’t going to be pretty

Seventh Circuit Panel: SBRs Aren’t ‘Arms’ Protected by the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That should mean any weapon used for offensive or defensive acts. The reason was very clear. It was intended for us to be able to maintain a militia that could defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But the Seventh Circuit has decided that short-barreled rifles, or SBRs, aren’t arms covered by the amendment.

(I had to use a screenshot that I linked since X is having issues with the embed codes)

Now, this is a problem for a lot of reasons.

First, let’s talk a bit about the Miller decision. Yes, it’s a Supreme Court decision that lower courts have had to contend with for ages now. However, Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun. The Court in that decision said that such a weapon had no militia use, thus it wasn’t covered by the Second Amendment. That was wrong, of course, because that ruling was issued in 1934, so after shotguns had been used so effectively in World War I that the Germans tried to get using them considered a war crime.

Further, Miller himself was dead, so there wasn’t really another side arguing one way or the other in that case.

Still, when you look at Bruen, it doesn’t say anything about how you can just decide something isn’t an arm simply because you don’t think it’s useful for warfare.

Of course, then there’s the fact that if SBRs aren’t useful for warfare as a tool of the militia, then why is the standard issue weapon for the United States Army technically an SBR? The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5 inches, which is an inch and a half shorter than what is necessary for a rifle to not be considered an SBR. If SBRs aren’t useful for militia use, then why is it issued to every one of our combat troops and was used in pretty much every firefight out troops saw in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Now, let’s talk about the “step two in our Bruen” thing that’s cut off.

We turn to step two in our Bruen analysis in the interest of completeness. As discussed below, even if short-barreled rifles were “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, historical tradition likely supports regulating them.

The court goes on to argue that Rahimi permits similar but more modern laws can be considered.

Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 692. When the historical laws “address[ed] particular problems” there is a good chance “contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons” are also permissible. Id. The laws do not need to “precisely match”—the contemporary one must only “comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment….” Id.

Now, I’m not an attorney, but this sure looks like the Rahimi decision seems to suggest that contemporary laws can be applied when the historical laws addressed either that problem or similar ones. In other words, if the Founding Fathers were trying to address drunk people carrying guns, as they did, a more contemporary law seeking to address a similar problem would apply.

Instead, the Seventh Circuit judges just decided to accept contemporary laws as good enough simply because they don’t like the idea of SBRs.

That’s not even getting into the possibility that these judges’ nominations might not even be valid since everything Biden signed looks to have been the result of an autopen and we can’t be sure Biden even knew what was happening in the first place.