Category: Observation O’ The Day

Carl

The argument that we must dismantle the Second Amendment in order to “save lives” is not only historically shallow, it is philosophically incoherent and legally reckless.

The right to bear arms was not written into our Constitution as a hobbyist clause. It was forged out of centuries of tyranny, colonial subjugation, and the painful lessons of disarmed populations across history. It exists not to promote violence, but to prevent the monopolization of it.

To suggest abolishing this right in the name of public safety is akin to drowning a person in hopes of sparing them from the threat of future harm. It sounds noble, until you realize it’s fatal.

True safety is not born from submission. It is born from the freedom to defend oneself, one’s family, and one’s community, especially when institutions fail, as history reminds us they often do. If we abandon that principle, we don’t move forward; we regress into the very dangers the Second Amendment was designed to guard against.

You don’t save lives by stripping away the tools that protect them. You don’t secure liberty by eroding the rights that uphold it.

All Eyes on SCOTUS: Will the Court Finally Defend the AR15 & the 2nd Amendment?

Opinion: Companion article inspired by Mark Smith’s Four Boxes Diner commentary and Roger Katz’s analysis in AmmoLand News

The Supreme Court has now relisted Snope v. Brown—the Maryland “assault weapons” ban challenge—13 times. That’s not just some bureaucratic delay. It’s a signal. It means the nine justices are circling this case, taking it seriously, and possibly gearing up to act.

In fact, as Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner points out, the Dobbs case that overturned Roe v. Wade was relisted 12 times before the Court granted review. Snope just passed that.

For pro-gun Americans who’ve had enough of being treated like second-class citizens when it comes to constitutional rights, this might be the moment we’ve been waiting for.

“This is not a trivial matter. It strikes at the heart of the Second Amendment’s protections.” — Roger Katz, AmmoLand News.

Katz is right. The question before the Court is simple but profound:

Can a state ban semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes—like the AR-15, America’s most popular rifle?

Under Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, the answer should be no. But gun control states like Maryland [NJ, NY, CT, IL, et al] think they’ve found a loophole, labeling AR-15s “assault weapons” and pretending that changes the Constitution.

Let’s be clear:

  • Americans commonly own AR-15s in the multiple millions.
  • They’re used for self-defense, sport shooting, and home protection.
  • They are not unusual, high-powered, or reserved for war—they’re the modern-day musket.

The Snope case is a perfect test. It’s clean, it’s direct, and it gives the Court the chance to finally say: The Second Amendment applies to rifles like the AR-15. Period.

Mark Smith explains that strategic justices sometimes wait to grant review until they’re confident they have five solid votes—not just four—to win the case outright. That might be what’s happening now. Thirteen relists mean they’re either preparing to drop a bombshell decision or writing a dissent if the case gets wrongly denied.

And as Roger Katz warns in his AmmoLand News piece, if SCOTUS refuses to take Snope, or worse, lets the ban stand, it would “damage Second Amendment jurisprudence…profound and lasting.”

The math doesn’t lie. According to SCOTUSblog, cases relisted 5+ times have nearly a 40% chance of being granted, especially if the Court plans a summary reversal—a quick smackdown without oral argument, like in Caetano.

So what should we be watching for?

  • Grant of cert: The best-case scenario. Oral arguments and a full ruling.
  • Summary reversal: Also good. A fast correction directing lower courts to follow Heller and Bruen.
  • Denial: A disaster for gun rights, letting anti-gun states keep rewriting the Second Amendment.

But as Mark Smith says:

“Every day the Snope case is still alive at SCOTUS is a good day.”

Let’s hope the Court finally backs the Constitution with action—not just words. And if they do, Snope could be the next Heller. It’s time.

The Germans never really abandoned the authoritarian state.

MOMof DataRepublican

So Susan Rice and her cronies are complaining because she was terminated from her DoD advisory board.

Let’s remember that she was the one that was trotted out onto all the talk shows after our country lost precious citizens during Hillary’s Benghazi debacle. She claimed it was all caused by a video.

Then during the ill-fated withdrawal from Afghanistan she was working on domestic policy, but she unapologetically defended the Biden administration’s decision to withdraw even though we left billions of dollars of equipment in our enemies’ hands and lost precious service people.

Now she is calling for Hegseth to resign over a text. The hypocrisy of Democrats remains astounding!

The Only “Constitutional Crisis” is That Democrats Lost, Now They’re Trying To Govern from the Courtroom

My Hot Take on Democat Lawfare: “There is no constitutional crisis other than the Democrats lost. They are trying to create a constitutional crisis by having the judiciary and the federal district courts assume control of the executive branch.”

Democrats have launched a pre-planned, well-organized lawfare campaign against the Trump administration.

The NY Times reported in late November 2024 on the massive effort which was two-years in the making and in the immediate post-election period focused heavily on finding plaintiffs and lining up legal groups to challenge expected Trump policies:

More than 800 lawyers at 280 organizations have begun developing cases and workshopping specific challenges to what the group has identified as 600 “priority legal threats” — potential regulations, laws and other administrative actions that could require a legal response, its leaders said. The project, called Democracy 2025, aims to be a hub of opposition to the new Trump administration….

Democracy Forward has spent the last two years working to identify the possible actions the new Trump administration could take on issues they see as key priorities to defend, the group’s leaders said, using as a blueprint Mr. Trump’s first-term actions, his campaign promises and plans released by his allies, including the Heritage Foundation and its Project 2025 agenda….

The flotilla of lawyers is preparing to challenge new regulations released by the Trump administration, even beginning the process of recruiting potential plaintiffs who would have legal standing in court.

We have seen the fruits of the lawfare planning in the opening three weeks of the Trump administration, with several dozen lawsuits filed, and many (not all) district court judges willing at least to grant temporary restraining orders, incuding one ex parte TRO issued by an emergency duty judge at 1 a.m. last Saturday morning that by its terms removed political appointee control of Treasury payment systems. (That TRO was scaled back by the judge permanently assigned to the case, and is under review by her in a ruling expected soon.) It may be that the short-term TROs are not extended to longer-term preliminary injunctions, and if that happens the “crisis” may solve itself, but I’m not hopeful.

Here is my ‘hot take’ on how the lawfare, not the Trump administration, is creating the real ‘constitutional crisis’. This is a short excerpt from my much longer (almost 20 minute) explanation as part of the podcast we just posted.

Continue reading “”

So it’s now obvious, SCOTUS woman judges, even supposedly ‘conservative ones’ are problematic when it comes to goobermint power.
Roberts is just his squishy self.

Supreme Court Rules Against Trump’s Bid to Stop $2 Billion in USAID Funding.

On Wednesday morning, in a 5-4 emergency decision, the Supreme Court upheld a decision from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali that essentially says that Donald Trump can’t withhold $2 billion in USAID money from existing contractors. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the three liberal members of the court. From the ruling:

On February 13, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered a temporary restraining order enjoining the Government from enforcing directives pausing disbursements of foreign development assistance funds. The present application does not challenge the Government’s obligation to follow that order.

On February 25, the District Court ordered the Government to issue payments for a portion of the paused disbursements—those owed for work already completed before the issuance of the District Court’s temporary restraining order—by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.

Several hours before that deadline, the Government filed this application to vacate the District Court’s February 25 order and requested an immediate administrative stay. THE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay shortly before the 11:59 p.m. deadline and subsequently referred the application to the Court. The application is denied.

Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of Trump, with Justice Alito writing the lengthy dissent that begins with:

Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.

So, what exactly does this mean? Judge Ali, who was appointed by the Biden administration, ruled that the Trump administration must maintain USAID agreements that were in place before Trump officially took office on January 20. According to The Hill, Ali “found the Trump administration wasn’t complying with his order to resume the unpaid USAID contracts and grants. Last week, Ali demanded the funds be released by the end of the following day.”

Red State’s Susie Moore writes, “SCOTUS temporarily paused that order, but now, since the deadline is past (and moot), rather than vacate it altogether, they’re lifting the pause and sending things back to the district court to sort out further.”

According to NBC, “Specific projects affected by the payment freeze include the installation of new irrigation and water pumping stations in Ukraine; waterworks upgrades in Lagos, Nigeria; the supply of medical equipment in Vietnam and Nepal; and measures to combat malaria in Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Ethiopia.”

While it’s not great news for Trump, as Moore says, “This isn’t the end of the story on this case — not by a long shot.”