The DOJ Says It Will Challenge Unconstitutional Gun Policies. Maybe It Should Stop Defending Them.
The Justice Department’s litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.

The Justice Department recently established a “Second Amendment Section” within its Civil Rights Division. On its face, that move is a welcome development for defenders of the constitutional right to armed self-defense—an impression reinforced by the alarm the new initiative has generated among gun control advocates. But the section’s mission statement raises doubts about its commitment to Second Amendment advocacy. So does the Justice Department’s ongoing defense of constitutionally dubious federal gun laws.

“I’m really excited about this,” Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division, told Fox News. “For the first time, the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the DOJ at large will be protecting and advancing our citizens’ right to bear arms as part of our civil rights work….As Attorney General Pam Bondi has said, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and I couldn’t agree more with my boss.”

Dhillon said the Justice Department will challenge obstacles to obtaining concealed carry permits such as “multi-thousand-dollar costs” and “unreasonably long delays.” Another potential target, she said, is state bans on “guns that should be protected by the Second Amendment” under “recent Supreme Court precedent,” by which she presumably meant “assault weapon” bans. In a recent Supreme Court brief, the government’s lawyers suggested that “cases involving state laws banning AR-15 rifles” provide good “vehicles for clarifying the appropriate framework for discerning what types of arms the Second Amendment protects.”

So far, so good. But the Justice Department’s description of the Second Amendment Section’s agenda should give pause to anyone familiar with the litigation inspired by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified the Second Amendment test for gun control laws and cast doubt on the constitutionality of many longstanding firearm restrictions.

The Second Amendment Section aims to protect “the natural firearm rights of law-abiding American citizens and ensure that such rights to keep and bear arms will not be infringed,” the Justice Department says. “The mission of the 2nd Amendment Section is to ensure that law-abiding American citizens may responsibly possess, carry, and use firearms.”

That “law-abiding” qualifier does not appear in the text of the Second Amendment. Nor is it “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by Bruen. And taken literally, it excludes millions of peaceful Americans from exercising “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” which is in fact the upshot of policies that the Trump administration defends.

Continue reading “”

A foreigner, here on a student visa, who supports a murderous terrorist group need to be immediately deported, as in stuck on the first available plane back to their home country with nothing more than the clothes on their back and their passport in their pocket.

Faculty group demands protections for non-citizens who ‘express support’ for Hamas.

A national faculty coalition is pushing to grant non-citizens First Amendment protections, demanding that the Trump administration be permanently barred from revoking visas over pro-Palestinian activism or support for terrorist groups.

The initiative is led by the American Association of University Professors and several of its university chapters, including Harvard’s, in partnership with the Middle East Studies Association.

A court victory for the AAUP in September stated that the Trump administration was violating the First Amendment by revoking visas of pro-Palestinian activists, according to The Harvard Crimson.

The national coalition’s new proposal seeks to block the Trump administration from continuing what it calls unconstitutional arrests and deportations. However, it also demands that any relief must apply to all noncitizens, not just members of the petitioning organizations.

It also includes a list of pro-Palestinian statements that cannot warrant a threat to a person’s visa.

The list includes statements considered “to express support or sympathy for terrorism or a designated foreign terrorist organization such as Hamas.”

However, not everyone agrees that citizens and noncitizens should share the same rights.

Foundation for Defense of Democracies Program Director Brandy Shufutinsky told The College Fix via email that Secretary of State Marco Rubio “has the power to revoke visas as they are a privilege, not a right.”

In her experience, no one has faced deportation or visa revocation solely for pro-Palestinian speech. However, she noted that visa-holders who express support for terrorism or violate U.S. civil-rights laws have faced appropriate consequences.

“If we do not allow criminals and terrorists into our country, why would we allow noncitizens who are already here to engage in criminal or terrorist activity?” Shufutinsky said.

Continue reading “”

Comment O’ The Day
Retracted for inaccuracies in the base data and flaws in the methods of calculations. But, listen to the experts!

 

Retraction Note: The economic commitment of climate change
Maximilian Kotz, Anders Levermann & Leonie Wenz
Nature (2025)

The Original Article was published on 17 April 2024

The authors have retracted this paper for the following reasons: post-publication, the results were found to be sensitive to the removal of one country, Uzbekistan, where inaccuracies were noted in the underlying economic data for the period 1995–1999. Furthermore, spatial auto-correlation was argued to be relevant for the uncertainty ranges.

Continue reading “”

What we really need is for the courts to overrule Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) where the Supreme Court ruled that even traveling state to state was ‘commerce’ and could be regulated by goobermint under the Constitution’s  commerce clause, thus unfortunately allowing the Feds to run amok.

As of October, “E-Form” .20s are already active, but as of now only works for those items that were made or transferred within the E-Form system. Those of you who know I have had – among others – an UZI smg for over 40 years are not aware of the problems I encounter with the lower level bureaucraps at ATF with traveling with it, that have to be resolved at higher levels….because the worked bees don’t appear to be all that bright.

ATF Proposes Changes to Make Travel With NFA Items Easier.

Until the National Firearms Act is a relic of the past, every little bit that makes it easier to navigate can surely help. In recent weeks, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives published their intent to do just that in the form of a two-fer.

A proposed rule would help clarify and streamline the process for those transporting National Firearms Act-regulated items across state lines. In simplifying and digitizing that process, the move would also get rid of some unnecessary bureaucracy at ATF, as well as save time and money for both NFA-item owners and the agency.

Currently, a person wishing to transport certain NFA-regulated items – such as “short-barreled” rifles and shotguns – must, per 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4), complete and submit ATF Form 5321.20, the Application to Transport Interstate or to Temporarily Export Certain National Firearms Act (NFA) Firearms to ATF in advance of the travel. Alternatively, a person can mail a letter of request, in duplicate, containing all information required on the ATF Form, in lieu of the form.

Note just a few of the archaic instructions:

The registered owner of NFA firearm(s) shall complete two copies of ATF Form 5320.20 and forward the forms to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405 (Attention: NFA Division).  The form can be submitted via facsimile to the NFA Division at (304) 616-4501 or may be scanned and emailed to NFAFax@atf.gov.

All signatures on both copies of the form shall be in ink. All other entries on the form shall be printed in ink or typewritten.

In the notice ATF submitted to the Federal Register, it stated that the plan is to permanently overhaul and digitize the process by revising the information collection method to make the form electronically fillable and allow it to be emailed directly, as well as auto-fill the required second copy. Additionally, the form will be part of its online eForms section on the ATF website for easier access and include more clarifying language on the application of the regulation for travel.

This latest proposal by ATF appears to be part of the ongoing effort announced as a “new era of reform” as posted on the ATF website earlier this year: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform. A quick perusal of the ATF Forms and Information Collection site shows multiple recent and similar updates meant to assist in streamlining forms, reducing paperwork, and updating procedures through digitization, all great efforts helping to ultimately reduce wait times and resources that burden both agency and citizen.

ATF is seeking public feedback on this proposed rule until January 27, 2026, to help assess the utility of the efforts and asks specifically for comments that:

  • Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary to properly perform ATF’s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
  • Evaluate the agency’s estimate of the proposed information collection’s burden for accuracy, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
  • Evaluate whether, and if so, how the quality, utility, and clarity of the collected information can be enhanced; and
  • Minimize the information collection’s burden on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

While there is still much work to be done in repealing the NFA, work NRA continues alongside Second Amendment partners in multiple lawsuits, for today, modernization is far better than weaponization.

Pentagon rolls out GenAI platform to all personnel, using Google’s Gemini.

Other “frontier AI capabilities” will join Gemini on the new GenAi.mil platform, meant to make generative AI tools available to all three million military and civilian personnel, the Department of Defense announced.

WASHINGTON — This morning the Defense Department announced the launch a new website, GenAi.mil, meant to bring generative AI tools to all three million of its military, civil service, and contractor personnel.

“The future of American warfare is here, and it’s spelled AI,” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth exclaimed in a video released on X.com. “At the click of a button, AI models on GenAI.mil can be utilized to conduct deep research, format documents, and even analyze video and imagery at unprecedented speed.”

The first AI available on the site will be the government version of Google Gemini, which can handle highly sensitive but unclassified information (what the Pentagon calls IL-5 data). But the Pentagon’s plan is to grow GenAi.mil to offer “several frontier AI capabilities,” the announcement said — and the Department’s chief technology officer, under secretary for research and engineering Emil Michael, wants GenAI for classified data as well.

“For the first time ever, by the end of this week, three million employees, warfighters, contractors, are going to have AI on their desktop, every single one,” Michael said at DefenseScoop’s DefenseTalks conference this morning. “[We’ll] start with three million people, start innovating, using building, asking more about what they can do, then bring those to the higher classification level, bringing in different capabilities.”

Michael, a former Uber executive who recently took over the Pentagon’s formerly independent Chief Digital & AI Office, downplayed the previous administration’s efforts to advance artificial intelligence. “For the past five years, the Department has had very little to show in the way of AI,” he told the conference.

Michael had made a similar complaint on Saturday at the Reagan National Defense Forum, although he singled out fellow panelist Adm. Sam Paparo and his Indo-Pacific Command as an pathfinder. “For a department of three million people, we’re vastly under-utilizing AI relative to the general population,” Michael said. “Admiral Paparo and his command is probably one of the premier users; they’ve adopted it faster than sort of any other component, because they’ve seen the utility and they’re most urgent about it, and so we work most closely with him, and then we take the learnings that he’s developing and bring it to other places.”

Michael emphasized in both appearances that he wants to apply AI not just to Pentagon business processes — which have a lot in common with the private-sector functions that commercial GenAI is trying to take on — but also for intelligence analysis and even “warfighting” functions like logistics planning and combat simulations.

“I think in the next few weeks to months, not years, you will see this proliferate throughout the entire Department of Defense,” Michael said at the Reagan Forum. “It’s going to be my number one priority for the rest of my term.”

 

Governor Rhoden working with State Senator Crabtree to deregulate suppressors in South Dakota

RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) -An effort is underway to deregulate suppressors in South Dakota.

Governor Rhoden and State Senator Casey Crabtree will be working to remove suppressors from the list of controlled weapons in South Dakota. Removing suppressors from the state’s controlled weapons list would still mean they are regulated under federal law and purchasers would still need to go through background checks on other measures. Rhoden’s office says however the step sends a message of support to further deregulate the parts at the federal level. South Dakota NRA State Director Brian Gosch says he agrees with that sentiment. Gosch added during a phone call on Tuesday, “Suppressors are all about hearing protection”

Rhoden told KOTA Territory News last week that he believed the federal government was heading toward deregulation and that South Dakota was taking the lead on the issue.

“It shows that we respect our 2nd amendment rights in South Dakota, and was really, the suppressors were vilified and shouldn’t have been on that list in the first place,” said Rhoden.

State Senator Crabtree and Rhoden both initially announced their own individual proposals before announcing they would work together on Tuesday. Crabtree said in a press release, “Thanks to President Trump and Republican Leaders, the One Big Beautiful Bill was a major win for gun owners purchasing suppressors. This session, we will update South Dakota law to reflect this Second Amendment victory.”

Crabtree was referring to the Big, Beautiful Bill’s removal of a $200-dollar tax stamp to purchase suppressors. That tax will expire next month.

One Common Link for Mass Killings Should be Eliminated, and It’s Good for Gun Rights, Too

It’s darkly humorous to me how often anti-Second Amendment types see some kind of gun control law as the ultimate solution to everything. They pretend that this law will stop mass shootings, regular murders, suicides, domestic violence, type 2 diabetes, conflict in the Middle East, and Christmas’s encroachment into the rest of the year.

It’s funny how often they try that crap, and how often the media pretends they’re hearing BS and mistaking it for brilliance.

But there is one little change that could be made that would reduce a whole lot of problems. I’m honest enough to say it won’t make them all go away, but it’ll help reduce a lot, including mass shootings.

It’s pretty simple, really. End gun-free zones.

In their manifestos, many mass murderers have explicitly said they looked for targets that had disarmed victims in them. Nevertheless, mainstream-media outlets often leave this fact out.

The Annunciation Catholic School murderer wrote: “I recently heard a rumor that … the Aurora theater shooter, may have chosen venues that were ‘gun-free zones.’ I would probably aim the same way … .”

Yeah, this is pretty common. Mass killers have often picked gun-free zones for their rampages. That’s part of why schools are such popular targets. It’s why churches are popular targets. A lot of shopping malls are gun-free zones, and those are pretty popular with this bunch, too.

And look what happens when someone has a gun in one of these places that’s traditionally gun-free?

The Greenwood Park Mall shooting ended with an armed citizen becoming something of a legend in shooting circles. He put down the bad guy in impressive fashion.

Yet he wasn’t quite as impressive as Jack Wilson, who put down a would-be mass killer before the little bastard knew what hit him with a headshot that limited the horrific incident to just a few seconds at a church in White Settlement, Texas.

Guns save lives.

Gun-free zones are a primary target for would-be killers, and it’s not just mass killers, either. More pedestrian criminals have no respect for the signs on the door. Hell, if they’re going to prance around armed even though they can’t legally have a firearm at all, do you really think a sign will stop them? Of course not.

Look, making gun-free zones disappear won’t make all of society’s problems vanish in an instant. Unlike the other side of this debate, I’m not delusional.

But I can say that it’ll go a long way in reducing the threat to some of the places where people are the most vulnerable. What’s more, it means we’ll have more cases like White Settlement and Greenwood Park Mall, at the very least, and it might…encourage some people to look for another way to achieve fame or infamy, whichever they’re after.

Guns aren’t the problem. They’ve never been the problem. They’re tools; tools with no volition of their own. They serve their masters regardless of whether that master is a hero or a villain.

So let’s stop treating them like they are and start empowering the heroes instead of making it easier for the villains.

Alabama Gets “F” From Anti-Gun Organization. Let’s Examine Why That’s A Compliment

Some anti-gun politicians tout their “F” grade from the NRA with a certain amount of pride.

That’s fine, because the NRA isn’t doing it for the benefit of people who will see that as a mark of respect. Their grades for politicians is really just a tool for passing along who tends to be pro-gun and who isn’t as a means to help folks who might not know. Not everyone can know every politician in Congress, even those of us who work in politics are hard-pressed to know even most members of the House and Senate, much less all of them.

But what about an organization like Giffords?

No, they’re not trying to help individuals. They’re trying to guilt states into working toward a better grade, and they’re doing it by using allies in the media to pretend the grade means more than it actually does.

For example, Alabama just got a big, old “F” from them, and AL.com is all a-twitter about it.

Alabama continues to have some of the worst gun laws and rates of gun death in the country, according to an annual report from GIFFORDS Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The report ranked Alabama at 36 out of all 50 states in terms of its gun law strength resulting in an F on the overall scorecard, maintaining the same grade from 2024….

Scorecards are determined after experts analyze the gun laws of each individual state and assess how effective they are at reducing gun violence, the report says.

“Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and young people in the United States — an unacceptable reality. Our country can do so much better,” GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown said. “Alabama has some of the weakest gun laws in the country, earning an F on GIFFORDS Law Center’s Annual Gun Law Scorecard. It’s time for leaders in Alabama to step up and act to address this crisis.

Except that the laws in question aren’t any with compelling evidence of them working. In fact, literally none have been found to have really great evidence of being effective. The left-leaning RAND has admitted as much in its annual reports of gun control studies. There are a few that have some degree of evidence, but none are compelling.

Instead, Giffords does essentially what the NRA does. It makes its ranks based exclusively on how much a state toes the line with its agenda. States that pass Giffords’ priorities get higher grades than states that don’t.

Which is fine, of course, if that’s what they want to do.

However, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the effectiveness of a given measure.

While Giffords at least makes an attempt at showing a trend for weaker gun laws leading to higher “gun death” rates, what they don’t show is that they don’t even try to account for any other potential factors. It’s a pure attempt at correlation, which uses a trend so as to exclude outliers as mere inconveniences.

So Alabama getting an “F” isn’t a terrible thing.

In fact, it means the state is respecting the Second Amendment, something that Giffords cannot and will not ever try to comprehend. The fact that the founders both swore oaths to defend the Constitution, then immediately turned against it tells us an awful lot about just how meaningless anything they say actually is.

“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience and are left to the common refuge, which God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.”
– John Locke, 2nd Treatise on Government.