After fighting a bloody revolution against a tyrannical king and the most powerful army in the world, our founding fathers set about creating the Supreme Law of the Land. They were most concerned about free speech and the National Guard’s right to hunt ducks with muskets.
–Walter Flegalmansenson
May 18, 2025
Who was running the country?
The-basic-answer is people
Who were not elected to the position
and thus
Illegally exercised executive powers
ALEX BERENSON: Why we need to humiliate Joe Biden
It may seem cruel, but we must prevent similarly addled men from clinging to power
Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. was even more demented than we knew.
Last night, excerpts leaked from Biden’s October 2023 interview with Robert Hur, the federal prosecutor who investigated him for possessing classified documents.
They are awful. They show a man in severe cognitive decline. Biden couldn’t recall even basic facts, like when elections are held. Yes, Joe Biden — who had lusted for the presidency his entire life — thought Donald Trump had won in November 2017, not 2016. It wasn’t a verbal slip. He didn’t know. An aide had to correct him.
Even that summary doesn’t capture Biden’s struggles.
What he says is bad. How he says it is worse. His voice is weak and whispery. He goes silent for stretches, loses his train of thought, offers oddly emotional asides about his son Beau — though he could not remember when Beau died. He seems not to remember being vice president; he speaks of being a senator and then jumps to running for president.
In the end, the classified documents investigation went nowhere. (Like the similar case involving Donald Trump, it shouldn’t have). But along the way, Hur — a well-respected prosecutor who had been the U.S. Attorney for Maryland in Trump’s first term — discovered something far more important: proof of Biden’s incapacity.
The Hur interview is so crucial because Biden and his handlers went to such lengths to protect Biden from press or public scrutiny even before the 2020 election.
Biden used teleprompters for his speeches, of course. His press conferences were rare and closely scripted. He had been told what questions would be asked in advance. Biden’s few unscripted, live interactions visible to the public generally came when he left the White House to walk to Marine One. He would occasionally stumble over to the “gaggle” of reporters yelling questions at him and speak for a few seconds.
Hur’s interview with Biden was likely the only time during Biden’s entire presidency when he faced lengthy questioning he could not control. It shows why Biden and his handlers tried so hard to avoid similar situations.
Hur wrote in his report on the investigation last year that Biden was “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” The audio suggests that description was kind.
You wouldn’t trust the guy in this interview to drive to the grocery store.
Biden had the nuclear codes.
Still worse, Hur interviewed Biden in 2023. If Biden and the people around him had had their way, he would have been president through January 2029. The interview suggests he’ll be nearly vegetative by then — if he lives that long.
When the Justice Department released Hur’s report on his investigation in February 2024, the legacy media immediately downplayed its importance and attacked Hur’s motives.
… the legacy media is only the second-most important villain here. It was Biden and the people around him, most notably his wife Jill and son Hunter, who insisted that he was fit to serve, and would continue to be until he was 86.
“In what is supposedly a legal document, these inclusions certainly looked gratuitous—to say the least,” the New Yorker wrote in an article about Biden’s “righteous fury” over the report.
Two days later, the Washington Post would claim in a headline Hur had a “five-hour face-off” with Biden and write:
“Hur’s description of Biden’s demeanor as that of a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” would infuriate Biden’s aides, who saw it as sharply at odds with what occurred as the president sat for voluntary questioning.”
Sharply at odds, huh?
I have written before about the media’s dereliction of duty in covering Biden’s decline, both before and after the Hur report, which continued until his disastrous June 27 debate in Atlanta made covering for him impossible. And I will come back to the media’s failure. Hur’s report made clear that Biden’s cognitive impairment was severe and the White House was covering it up. That scheme should have been the story of the 2024 campaign from the moment the report became public.
This is not 20/20 hindsight on my part. On Feb. 9, 2024, the day the report came out, I wrote that it actually might be WORSE for Biden than an actual indictment.
Most of the media looked the other way, even as Biden’s flubs and lapses visibly worsened in the spring of 2024 despite the protective cocoon around him. But the legacy media is only the second-most important villain here.
It was Biden and the people around him, most notably his wife Jill and son Hunter, who insisted that he was fit to serve, and would continue to be until he was 86. Both Jill and Hunt had their reasons. Jill’s lust for the trappings of power would be almost comic in its nakedness if it weren’t so dangerous; Hunter has champagne taste and a beer budget (or, more accurately in his case, cocaine taste and a meth budget).
But, of course, all of them, including Biden, knew the truth. If they hadn’t, they wouldn’t have gone to such great lengths to hide it.
Imagine if Biden had won. Imagine if he had somehow found his way through his debates with Trump and then gone back to the presidential cocoon. Imagine if the media had insisted through Election Day that the videos showing his decline were merely “cheap fakes” – as it did throughout the spring. We’d be approaching a Constitutional crisis. Our system is not parliamentary; it has no way to replace an unfit President quickly or easily. And in running for a second term when he did not have to, Biden showed that he would not give up power unless he was forced to do so.
Robert Hur spoke truth to power. He’s a hero.
Biden and the people around him lied about his basic ability to function as he tried to convince American voters to give him the world’s most important job for four more years. He shouldn’t be forgiven. His misdeeds belong in the first line in his obituary.
We need to remember what he did, even if he can’t.
Unfortunately, House Republicans essentially gutted the effort to remove them from the NFA list and the best we’re looking at getting is the $200 tax stamp being dropped to zero.
But just on suppressors.
However, a rumor has been going around. The allegation is that a suppressor company is actively working to keep suppressors on the NFA list.
Jared Yanis over at Gun & Gadgets hit the high points in a video on Thursday.
Now, he doesn’t say anything definitive, only reporting what he’s hearing, as to whether Silencer Central is lobbying Congress to keep suppressors on the NFA list.
The argument makes some sense. Their business model is heavily influenced by the fact that they’re NFA items and thus tightly controlled. It’s entirely possible that they’ll lose a lot of market share if suppressors are largely deregulated.
Yanis also goes into the lobbying efforts made by Silencer Central that are strangely timed, considering all that’s gone on.
Over at Ammoland, John Crump reported on these allegations, naming the company specifically, including some mention of the lobbying efforts.
They responded to Crump, however, and said this:
Official Response from Silencer Central:
“Silencer Central is closely monitoring the ongoing congressional hearings surrounding the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). We have always been vocal supporters of the HPA, as well as the current proposed provision of a $0 tax stamp. Our priority has always been, and will continue to be, advocating for deregulation and 2nd amendment rights, while supporting any win we can get for our customers regarding their firearm and accessory ownership rights along the way. Regardless of the ever-changing regulatory landscape, we remain focused on delivering exceptional service and standing by the community we’re proud to be part of.” — Brandon Maddox, CEO, Silencer Central.
This statement marks the company’s first formal public response to questions about its lobbying strategy and its position on removing suppressors from the NFA.
Maddox’s statement is pretty definitive.
Crump also notes that Maddox has favored a different approach to the HPA, calling for what he described as a “crawl, walk, run” approach. However, that was also while Joe Biden was president, and his argument then was simply that Biden would never sign the HPA, which is fair.
It also doesn’t mean that because he favored that approach, then that he’d sabotage an effort to achieve more here and now when the odds are far better than they were then.
For what it’s worth, I reached out to Silencer Central on Thursday for comment–this was before I saw Crump’s story–and I haven’t heard back as of this writing. If I do, I intend to ask them follow-up questions about the lobbying efforts Yanis outlined in his video.
Now, I don’t know anyone mentioned in this post personally except for Yanis, whom I count as a friend. I can’t say anything about how trustworthy Maddox is because I don’t know him, so I’m going to err on the side of trust until or unless something new comes out.
If any company is working to undermine pro-gun legislation from within the firearm industry, we need to know who it is so they can get the Bud Light treatment, but we need more than rumors before we take that step.
oday, in accordance with President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights, as well as the Attorney General’s Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force, the Department of Justice announced the settlement of litigation between the federal government and Rare Breed Triggers.
“This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.”
In June 2024, in Cargill v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule classifying a bump stock as a “machinegun.” In July 2024, the Northern District of Texas applied Cargill v. Garland to a device called a “forced-reset trigger” (FRT) and concluded that FRTs also cannot be classified as a “machinegun.”
The Department’s agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue. The settlement includes agreed-upon conditions that significantly advance public safety with respect to FRTs, including that Rare Breed will not develop or design FRTs for use in any pistol and will enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety. Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products.
The cases that will be resolved under the settlement agreement are:
- NAGR v. Garland, 23-cv-830-O (N.D. Tex.), on appeal 24-10707 (5th Cir.).
- United States v. Rare Breed Triggers LLC, No. 23-cv-369 (E.D.N.Y), on appeal 23-7276 (2d Cir.).
- United States v. Miscellaneous Firearms and Related Parts and Equipment Listed in Exhibit A, 23-cv-17 (D. Utah).
Updated May 16, 2025
Only in Brazil
The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority.
– Lord Acton
May 17, 2025
36 years ago D Company, 2nd Battalion, 10 Infantry Regiment graduated Basic Combat Training Class 2-89
New Oklahoma law changes how guns can be used to protect property: What ‘defensive display’ means
Oklahomans can now legally point a firearm or other weapon at someone if they are defending their home, private property or business under a new law signed by Gov. Kevin Stitt.
Existing state law allows people to point weapons in self defense, but House Bill 2818 expands the justified “defensive display of a firearm or other deadly weapon” to include defense of property.
The new law took effect immediately after Stitt signed it on Thursday, May 16.
During debate on the House floor, Democratic lawmakers questioned the law’s author, state Rep. Jay Steagall, on responsibilities of a gun owner and whether Oklahoma youths would interpret the law to allow flashing a weapon as an acceptable response to fear of confrontation.
“We don’t have any control over the way someone else perceives something. There’s not a way for me to legislate that,” Steagall said during a presentation in March. “But what we can do is provide a clear definition of what’s lawful and what’s not lawful when it comes to the display or the pointing of a firearm.”
What is considered ‘defensive display of a firearm’ under House Bill 2818
According to the new law, defensive display of a firearm includes the following:
-
- Verbally informing another person that you possess a firearm or have one available – “I’ve got a gun”
- Exposing or displaying the weapon in a manner where a reasonable person would understand that it’s meant to protect against unlawful force
- Placing your hand on a firearm while it’s “in a pocket, purse, holster, sling scabbard, case or other means of containment or transport
This is the latest law to expand gun rights in Oklahoma, a state known for its permissive rules on the ownership, carrying and use of firearms. Another proposed law recently sent to the governor’s desk for his approval would allow elected municipal officials and judges with a valid firearm license to carry concealed guns in buildings leased or owned by their city, if a policy is approved by the city council.
In the United States, most states follow some version of the Castle Doctrine, which allows the use of deadly force in self defense. According to an analysis by FindLaw, however, state laws vary when it comes to which locations or specific situations allow someone to claim their use of force was justified.
The National Conference of State Legislatures notes that Oklahoma is one of 28 states where the person claiming self defense has no duty to attempt retreat before firing their weapon. It’s also one of just 10 states that allow that person to “stand their ground.”
In 2019, Stitt signed legislation on the “constitutional carry” of handguns. The measure loosened the state’s gun laws, allowing most adults to carry a loaded, concealed firearm without a permit.
SCOTUS to CASA to A.A.R.P.: In Case Of (Perceived) Emergency, Ignore The Rules, And Make Stuff Up
None of the usual rules will apply when the ACLU says there is an emergency.
The past 24 hours have been something of a Rorschach Test for the Supreme Court. In the birthright citizenship case, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the judiciary must retain the power to enter universal injunctions, even if Article III does not otherwise permit such injunctions. And in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the court should certify a class without going through Rule 23, and grant an ex parte tro without considering any of the usual TRO factors.
What lesson should lower court judges take away? In cases of perceived emergencies, forget all the rules and make stuff up. When the executive branch takes such actions we call it an autocracy. When the courts do it, they call it the “rule of law.”
I will have much more to say about this order in due course.
Gun owners secure historic settlement with DOJ, ATF over Forced Reset Triggers
The Trump administration will also return all FRT devices that were seized by the Biden administration, if individual owners request the returns by September 30, 2025. Instructions for filing the requests will be posted on the ATF’s website.
Two gun rights groups on Friday signed a historic settlement with the Justice Department (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), over a series of lawsuits regarding Forced Reset Trigger (FRT) devices.
The settlement comes under a new presidential administration, which agreed to drop three pending lawsuits filed under the Biden administration and not prosecute owners of FRTs if the devices meet a legal definition upheld in a summary judgment last year.
The Trump administration will also return all FRT devices that were seized by the Biden administration, if individual owners request the returns by September 30, 2025. Instructions for filing the requests will be posted on the ATF’s website.
The agreement was made by the ATF, DOJ, National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights (TXGR).
“This is one of the most stunning victories in the history of the gun rights movement. We didn’t just beat the ATF — we put them in a submission hold, and they tapped out,” NAGR President Dudley Brown said in a news release. “This decision marks a new era of holding the DOJ and ATF accountable when they trample the rights of law-abiding gun owners. We made them give back what they took, and that’s a precedent they’ll never forget.”
According to my contacts “on the hill” – Rep Andrew Clyde has been holding the line behind closed doors to ensure the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act are put back into the “big beautiful bill” which President Trump says he will sign.
This is a generational opportunity to get some of our 2nd Amendment rights restored. HOLD THE LINE 🇺🇸
“The House now has a historic opportunity to repeal the burdensome taxation, registration, & regulation of short-barreled firearms & suppressors under the National Firearms Act.
“The American People are watching. It is time to deliver.”
🚨BREAKING🚨
Rep. Clyde & other GOA allies just voted 16-21 to block the reconciliation bill in the Budget Committee.
The bill, which still does not include HPA & SHORT Act, will be delayed until a deal is reached.
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 16, 2025
Well, that would be ‘tried to confiscate’ and it wouldn’t be pretty as I’m sure LOTS of people would go ‘Solzhenitsyn Style’. But then Justice Sotomayor never has been a ‘wise Latina’
Justice Sotomayor is pretty predictable. She walks into oral argument with a set of questions she wants to ask, and she will keep asking them, whether or not she gets the answer she wants. I imagine advocates get frustrated, but that is part of the game.
During the birthright citizenship cases, Justice Sotomayor asked the same line of questions several times–apparently she thought it was clever. To illustrate the limits of the government’s position concerning nationwide injunction, she would change the hypo: what would happen if the government sought to confiscate every gun in America; would every gunowner have to bring an individual law suit to seek relief?
Page 13: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –so, when a new president orders that because there’s so much gun violence going on in the country and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone, then people –and he sends out the military to seize everyone’s guns –we and the courts have to sit back and wait until every named plaintiff gets –or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court?
Page 41: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: If we’re afraid that this is or even have a thought that this is unlawful executive action, that it is Congress who decides citizenship, not the executive, if we believe, some of us were to believe that, why should we permit those countless others to be subject to what we think is an unlawful executive action, as unlawful as an executive taking the guns away from every citizen?
Page 44: JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –it got rejected repeatedly. We can go into the history of citizenship, but I still go back to my question. You claim that there is absolutely no constitutional way to stop, put this aside, to stop a president from an unconstitutional act, a clearly, indisputably unconstitutional act, taking every gun from every citizen, we couldn’t stop that.
Does Justice Sotomayor really want to know what the remedy would be if the government confiscated everyone’s gun? This remedy would not involve Rule 23. [fyi. ‘Rule 23’ is a rule in federal courts about class action suits, MF]
Nearly 250 years ago, King George III and General Gage tried to confiscate the firearms from the Americans. What happened next? Lexington and Concord, the Shot Heard Round the World. As best as I can recall, the patriots did not go to a Court of Chancery to seek an equitable remedy.
We have a similar story in Texas history. During the Texas Revolution, the Mexican Army demanded that the Texians in the City of Gonzales surrender their cannon. What did the Texians say? Come and Take It! The remedy here was not equitable; it was belligerent. The Texians did not reply with a canon of construction; they replied with a cannon of destruction. This was the Lexington of Texas. And the Battle of Gonzales led to the Battle of the Alamo, which led to Texas Independence. Sensing a pattern of what happens when the government tries to disarm the people?
I took this photo during my visit to the museum in Gonzales.
I’m reminded of Judge Kozinski’s opinion in Silviera v. Lockyer:
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.
There is an important lesson to be learned here. Courts cannot solve all problems. Courts should not solve all problems. Courts will not solve all problems.
Teen fatally shot in self-defense at Berkeley County apartments.
HANAHAN [South Carolina] — The person who shot and killed a teenager outside an area apartment complex will not be charged after police determined it was a case of self defense, authorities said.
Hanahan police responded to the parking lot area near the Bowen Village shopping plaza just before 9 p.m. May 12 to find 18-year-old Tra’sean White of Wadmalaw Island suffering from a gunshot wound, according to Police Chief Richard Gebhardt. White was pronounced dead on the scene.
The shooting occurred near a Domino’s Pizza restaurant at 9105 Bowen Pier Drive and several other stores and restaurants attached to the Channel Family Apartment Homes complex.
A day after the shooting, police arrested Deonte Calen Trevon Lancit, 18, of Charleston. He is charged with armed robbery.
An investigation revealed that Lancit and White had been in the area attempting to rob someone. During the robbery, the intended target shot and killed White, Gebhardt told The Post and Courier.
Authorities presented evidence to prosecutors at the Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office who determined the shooting was an act of self-defense.
Lancit is in the Hill-Finklea Detention Center after being denied bail by a magistrate judge, according to a clerk at the Berkeley County jail.
