Category: Observation O’ The Day

Just a reminder that when it’s a Republican, pleading the 5th is a tacit admission of guilt.

Military Arms
@MAC_Arms

Here’s my take on the Epstein files scandal. I have no evidence of this, only my gut instincts.

The list that we were told existed before it didn’t exist likely contained the names of some very powerful people in government on both sides of the aisle along with unelected bureaucrats and political donors.

This scandal threatened to completely disrupt our government and shake what little trust people have in it to the ground. No one on either side of the aisle wants that, this potentially threatens both parties equally.

Why isn’t Hakeem Jeffries on CNN screaming foul right now? Pelosi? AOC? Crickets. I scanned their X profiles and I see no mention of this news, not yet anyway. If Trump farts, within minutes the usual suspects are all over social media and traditional media screeching. We’re over 12 hours into this “news” and again… nothing.

Also keep in mind that the real power brokers in DC aren’t elected. Many were likely on that list too, and they definitely don’t want their names in lights. Many of them exist in the shadows and this would drag them into the light.

This is the closest anyone has ever gotten to undoing much of the NFA. I don’t get how gun rights groups are responsible for the GOP refusal to fire or overrule the Parliamentarian (which affected much more than just this issue). They clearly pushed for that, hard. Given they couldn’t get it, they took the consolation prize of zeroing the tax, which itself would be the only blow against the NFA that has ever landed. That isn’t selling anyone out.

Nobody was “gaslit.” The plan was originally just to zero out the tax. Progun groups pushed for (and got) scrapping of registration too in the House’s bill. They took a big swing, but got screwed by the Democrat Parliamentarian and the GOP’s refusal to stop her. I’m not mad at them for trying.

You should be demanding of the groups you support, I don’t begrudge anyone that. But at the same time, I think a lot of grifters who have never accomplished anything of note are taking cheap shots right now with bs accusations.

Cynical Publius

In the future, the current practice of mutilating young children to feed their parents’ egos will be looked upon with the same disgust as we now view the Tuskegee Experiment and the lobotomization of sexually active young women in bygone decades.

But at the moment there are still sentient beings–including, sadly, three SCOTUS justices–who believe that destroying the lives of young children is a worthy political cause.

Shameful.

@SCOTUSblog
NEW: In U.S. v. Skrmetti, a closely watched case on a Tennessee law barring certain medical care for transgender minors, the court holds that Tennessee’s law can remain in place.

The Quantum Gun Fallacy

Those who suggest (or insist) that correlations prove that gun possession guarantees gun-related harm are essentially arguing a version of Schrödinger’s cat — where every person is simultaneously a shooter, a victim, and a bystander… and your neighbor’s dusty rifle, locked in a closet, is somehow shooting up a school, protecting someone, and doing absolutely nothing, all at the same time — until a policy advocate opens the box and decides which outcome they prefer.

This time, it’s not in a dissent, but as dicta in the actual decision.

Kagan Echoes Sotomayor and Accepts That AR-15s Are ‘In Common Use’

By 

Last year, in the case of Garland v. Cargill, Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent that included the following description of the AR-15:

Within a matter of minutes, using several hundred rounds of ammunition, the shooter killed 58 people and wounded over 500. He did so by affixing bump stocks to commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.

At the time, I noted that this was an odd concession to make, given a) that Sotomayor is reflexively hostile to Second Amendment challenges, and b) that one of the most important challenges the Court is likely to hear in the coming years will revolve around precisely that claim:

. . . those who wish to ban the AR-15 have taken to claiming that the rifle is not, in fact, “in common use,” and that, as a result, it is not protected under the Second Amendment. Remarkably, Justice Sotomayor just pulled the rug from underneath that argument — and, to make matters worse, did so in an official Supreme Court opinion on the subject of firearms law. [. . .] Sotomayor even uses the word “common”! Not “everyday” or “universal” or “normal” or “usual,” but common — the very word that was used in Heller.

This morning, in her majority opinion in Smith and Wesson Brands, Inc v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Justice Kagan did pretty much the same thing:

Finally, Mexico’s allegations about the manufacturers’ “design and marketing decisions” add nothing of consequence. Brief for Respondent 23. As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles.

See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR–15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.)

The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too. The same is true of firearms with Spanish-language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history. See supra, at 6. Those guns may be “coveted by the cartels,” as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.”

Note the language here. “Widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” “The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country.” “They also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to ‘millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.’”

Under Heller, all firearms that are “in common use” are presumptively protected. At some point — and relatively soon — we are going to get a case in which the plaintiffs contend that the ban on AR-15s in their state is illegal under Heller. I have no doubt that, when that happens, Kagan and Sotomayor will find some convoluted reason to uphold the ban, but, having twice conceded such a key claim, that reason will need to be much, much more radical than it would otherwise have been.

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!