The Ignominy Of Master Sergeant Timothy Walz

If Tim Walz could not be trusted to fulfill the duties he had to his nation in 2005, how can he be trusted to be vice president in 2025?

The last couple of days have been a whirlwind of controversy regarding the military service record of Democrat vice presidential candidate Tim Walz. My X account has seen the most traffic it has ever known as I have discussed this issue at length, and I thought it would be a good idea now to take a deep breath and kind of recap where we are at in this controversy. I know for sure that the veteran community is fired up over this issue, but I sense that many from the non-veteran community do not know what to think given the competing arguments from both sides of the political aisle.

I would like to share my own personal experiences and thoughts as a retired Army colonel and veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan. What I hope for civilians to understand is this: The issue is not the number of years Walz served, or when he submitted his retirement paperwork, or what his final rank was, or even — just as a stand-alone proposition — whether he ever went to combat. No, the issue is the unique and special position of trust he held when he decided to walk away from his soldiers, his unit, and his nation. I’ll explain.

But first, some facts. There are all sorts of facts and disinformation flying around on this matter, so I want to highlight the most basic and most important facts, ones that not even the most rabid Democrat can dispute:

Walz served for 24 years in the Minnesota Army National Guard, retiring at the rank of master sergeant (an “E-8” in the Army).
In the spring of 2005, Walz was serving as the command sergeant major (an “E-9”) of the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery, a Minnesota Army National Guard battalion that is part of the 34th Infantry Division.
Also in the spring of 2005, Walz and his battalion received a warning order that the battalion would be deploying to Iraq. (We know this because Walz’s own congressional campaign told us at the time.)
Knowing that his unit was deploying, Walz nevertheless chose to retire from the National Guard in May of 2005 to pursue his congressional campaign.
Serving members of the National Guard and the Reserve routinely also serve in Congress, and always have. Tulsi Gabbard is an excellent recent example. Walz did not necessarily need to retire to run for Congress. However, an Iraq deployment he might have instead chosen to participate in would, in fact, have prevented him from campaigning.
Walz’s retirement meant he did not fulfill a contractual service commitment he willingly entered into when the Army selected him to attend the United States Army Sergeants Major Academy. As a result, the Army reduced his official retirement rank from E-9 to E-8.
These are facts. Now let’s explain what was so egregious in what Walz did.

So Walz retired when he was allowed to and ran for Congress instead — what’s the big deal, right? Well, had Walz been some slug E-8 holding down some clerical job in the 34th Infantry Division Headquarters, counting his days until retirement, and had he opted to take a lawful retirement rather than go to Iraq, no one would care. But that’s not what happened. Walz was a COMMAND SERGEANT MAJOR (“CSM”), and that makes all the difference in the world.

Continue reading “”

Second Circuit Rules Legal Gun Ownership Not Probable Cause for Warrantless Search

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals hasn’t traditionally been a welcoming place for gun owners. This is the same appellate court that originally upheld New York’s “may issue” carry regime before the Supreme Court overturned their decision in Bruen, and since then the court has upheld many of New York’s post-Bruen restrictions on lawful gun owners.

Today, however, a three-judge panel on the court got it absolutely right when it ruled that a Connecticut police officer isn’t entitled to qualified immunity after handcuffing, detaining, and conducting a warrantless search on a resident after he produced a valid handgun permit.

Defendant-Appellant Nicholas Andrzejewski, an officer of the Waterbury,Connecticut police department, appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Arterton, J.) denying in part his motion for summary judgment on the grounds that his purported conduct was not shielded by qualified immunity.

That conduct, as alleged by Plaintiff-Appellee Basel Soukaneh, is that in the course of a routine traffic stop, Andrzejewski unlawfully and violently handcuffed and detained Soukaneh in the back of a police vehicle for over half an hour and conducted a warrantless search of Soukaneh’s vehicle after Soukaneh presented a facially valid firearms permit and disclosed that he possessed a firearm pursuant to the permit.

On appeal, Andrzejewski argues we should reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity because the presence of the lawfully owned firearm in the vehicle gave him the requisite probable cause to detain Soukaneh, search the interior of his car, and search his trunk.

Andrzejewski’s argument is essentially that, by exercising our Second Amendment rights, we give up our Fourth Amendment right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. In fact, he basically maintained that possessing a valid pistol permit gave him reasonable suspicion to search Soukaneh’s vehicle for some evidence of wrongdoing.

After the district court ruled that the officer wasn’t entitled to qualified immunity for his actions, Andrzejewski introduced a new argument in his appeal to the Second Circuit; it wasn’t solely Soukaneh’s gun permit that led him to handcuff the gun owner and search his car, it was the fact that Soukaneh had stopped his vehicle in a “high crime area known for drug transactions”.

As the panel noted, however, “a location’s reputation as a high crime area alone is typically not enough to suggest reasonable suspicion [of a crime], let alone probable cause.” And the court found that Andrzejewski offered no evidence whatsoever that Soukaneh was illegally possessing a gun when he was confronted by the officer. To the contrary, as a matter of fact. Andrzejewski was able to conclusively determine that Soukaneh had a valid pistol permit and lawfully possessed the firearm that he informed the officer he was carrying.

The desire to confirm the legitimacy of the facially valid firearms permit that Soukaneh presented did not—with nothing more—provide Andrzejewski with probable cause for the half-hour or longer handcuffed detention that occurred.

It is uncontested that Soukaneh presented Andrzejewski with a gun license, the legitimacy of which Andrzejewski himself admits he had no reason to question. Moreover, Andrzejewski concedes that he was informed of the facially valid license before Soukaneh told him that he had a gun and specified its location.

Andrzejewski does not allege that the permit appeared abnormal in any fashion or that Soukaneh engaged in any suspicious or threatening behavior. On the facts before us, Andrzejewski does not provide an articulable reason why he, or any other reasonable officer, could conclude that there was probable cause to believe that Soukaneh possessed his firearm unlawfully in violation of Section 29-38(a).

 To find otherwise would consign those validly carrying firearms pursuant to a license to automatic detention because it would effectively presume that gun permits are invalid until proven valid, or that lawfully owned guns are per se contraband until proven otherwise. Such a finding would effectively render armed individuals’ Fourth Amendment rights meaningless when they are lawfully carrying firearms.

As common sense as that position is, it’s still somewhat surprising to see the Second Circuit panel unanimously reach that conclusion… especially since the panel was comprised of two Biden appointees and one judge appointed by Barack Obama.

Andrzejewski could still appeal to an en banc panel of the Second Circuit or take his case directly to the Supreme Court, but I doubt he’s going to find a more receptive audience for his arguments at SCOTUS. The Supreme Court has already declared that the Second Amendment isn’t a second-class right, so I doubt a majority would go along with the officer’s contention that exercising your right to keep and bear arms negates your Fourth Amendment rights altogether.

U.S. Government Appeals Pistol Brace Decision to 5th Circuit

After nearly three months of silence, the U.S. Government has now appealed the June 13, 2024, pistol brace decision to the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The appeal was announced on August 12, 2024. The case is Mock v. Garland, and it was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition.

The ATF pistol brace rule targets stabilizer braces attached to AR pistols, claiming the braces turn AR pistols into short barrel rifles (SBRs). And since SBRs are regulated under the National Firearms Act (1934), the ATF issued its rule on AR-pistol braces to stop what it saw as a way around SBR regulations.

Breitbart News reported that U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction against the AR pistol brace rule on November 8, 2023.

Kacsmaryk observed that the “court is not insensitive to the ATF’s concerns over gun industry gamesmanship and attempts to circumvent the rules on SBRs.” But he followed that acknowledgement by quoting Bruen (2022), noting that the government may not justify the passage and/or existence of a regulation by “simply [positing] that the regulation promotes an important interest.”

In a decision dated June 13, 2024, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the ATF’s AR pistol brace rule, saying it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

The U.S. Government has now appealed the pistol brace decision to the Fifth Circuit.

Breitbart News pointed out the Fifth Circuit decided against another ATF rule–a ban on bump stocks–on January 6, 2023. The court did so in light of the ATF’s arbitrary recategorization of bump stocks as “machine guns.”

Maryland, AR-15s and the Fourth Circuit

Should you be so unfortunate as to live in Maryland, and more unfortunate as to own an AR-15, you’re a criminal, as the Fourth Circuit Court recently affirmed. This despite the Supreme Court’s Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions having made clear the Second Amendment acknowledges the individual right to self-defense in one’s home and elsewhere, and common and usual weapons are presumptively constitutional. Unfortunately none of those decisions specifically mention the AR-15, the most popular—common and usual–rifle of its type in America. This opened the gun ban door a crack, which the 4th Circuit majority used to push the door wide open:

We have described the AR-15’s capacities in abundant detail to demonstrate just how far outside the animating purposes of the Second Amendment this weapon lies. While we know that the AR-15 thrives in combat, mass murder, and overpowering police, appellants have failed to demonstrate that the weapon is suitable for self-defense. This is likely because such a showing would be difficult to make. Indeed, many of the weapon’s combat-functional features make it ill-suited for the vast majority of self-defense situations in which civilians find themselves.

It would be hard to imagine a more deceptive and less informed recitation of legal mush. The majority decision goes on to claim the “heightened firepower” of the AR-15 is a terrible risk of overpenetration, and the 30-round magazine, standard since the Vietnam era, is also useful for mass murder, because self-defense shootings commonly only involve a few shots. The majority would also have us believe the AR-15 is particularly useless for home defense. They conclude their specious arguments with this:

In sum, the AR-15—with its military origination, combat-functional features, and extraordinary lethality—has “the same basic characteristics, functionality, capabilities, and potential for injury as the M-16.” And its all too frequent use in terrorism, mass killing, and police murder shows that the AR-15 offers firepower ill-suited and disproportionate to fulfilling the Second Amendment’s purpose of armed self-defense. Therefore, just like the M16, the AR-15 is “most useful in military service” and “may be banned” consistent with the Second Amendment.

Where to begin? The AR-15 has been on the civilian market since the 1960s, and while Armalite—“Armalite Rifle,” not “Assault Rifle” certainly wanted military contracts, only the Air Force initially adopted the rifle for base defense. The Army eventually adopted it, and after decades of development, the select-fire M4, not available to civilians, is the current issued rifle.

Both the M4 and AR-15, the M4’s semiautomatic only, look-alike cousin, fire the .223/5.56 NATO cartridge, which is of only intermediate power, and has long been known as an unreliable penetrator and man stopper. The Military is currently developing a higher-powered cartridge, and rifle.

Is the AR-15 a “common and usual” arm?  Best estimates place more than 23 million in citizen’s hands. However, Americans have purchased more than a million guns a month for 60 straight months, so that figure is surely low.

“Firepower” is a military concept inappropriately applied to individual arms. The majority’s argument is emotion-laden and obviously taken directly from the writings of anti-liberty/gun cracktivists, while the dissent is well-reasoned, relying on the law, the Founder’s intent and accurate history.

Obviously, the AR-15 is not “most useful in military service,” which is why the automatic-fire capable M4 is the issue military rifle. Gun banners hope to be able to ban any class of firearms, in this case, a semiautomatic rifle of intermediate power. That precedent, if upheld, would allow the banning of all semiautomatic firearms, which, like the AR-15, are useful for self-defense.

They also hope to ban “large capacity” magazines for the same reasons by using the same tactics. While it’s true most armed encounters involve relatively few rounds fired, attacks by multiple armed thugs are becoming more common, in and out of the home. In such encounters, a 30-round magazine can be the difference between life and death.

Certainly, we carry handguns because it’s difficult to carry long guns of any type as we go about our daily business, but because handguns are more convenient does not make rifles unconstitutional. Anyone knowingly entering an armed encounter with less than a rifle is looking to die. The police are increasingly abandoning shotguns and adopting AR-15s for patrol carry. Are the police now the military? Should citizens be less well armed, less able to defend themselves?

The 4th Circuit has now clearly established a split among the lower courts, which will allow the Supreme Court to grant cert and further define the limitations of the state in banning popular, common and usual guns. In our uncertain times, a decision in line with their Heller, McDonald and Bruen jurisprudence would be welcome, and conducive to the preservation of our representative republic.

Man shoots, kills attempted robber in North Austin: APD

AUSTIN, Texas – An attempted robbery ended in a deadly shooting in North Austin, Austin police said.

Austin police said on Wednesday, July 24, around 10:30 p.m., officers responded to a robbery at the Taste of Home Handmade Dumpling Restaurant, at 10901 N Lamar Blvd. The caller said someone tried to rob him with a knife, and he shot the attempted robber.

The investigation showed Hao Lin, 51, left the restaurant when he saw 57-year-old Chup Prum on a bike. Prum pulled out a knife and approached Hao Lin. Hao Lin then pulled out a gun and shot Prum, police said.

After being shot, Prum rode off on his bike, and went home. He later went to a local hospital and died from his injuries four days later.

No charges are being filed at this time, police said.

I have a solution. Not that I didn’t already know it, but when I visited friends in Fort Yukon Alaska, they had the solution for ‘invading wildlife’ as well. Large Caliber Rifles.

How invasion of enormous wild beasts has left shocked residents in idyllic Wyoming mountain towns fearing for their lives: ‘I do a lot of praying.’

Residents of idyllic mountain towns have been left looking over their shoulder after the population of grizzly bears soared.

Since being put on the Endangered Species List in 1975 when there were just 700 of them patrolling the lower 48 states, grizzlies have made a comeback.

Places including towns, farms and ranches across the Northern Rockies where they hadn’t been seen in more than a century are reporting sightings.

Biologists say they believe the population has now climbed to at least 2,000, and the bears now regularly roam outside Glacier and Yellowstone National Park.

Cecil and Bridget Gallagher, who live in Clark, Wyoming, just outside Cody, harvest sweet corn on their farm, which they say now provides them with an adrenaline rush.  Since being put on the Endangered Species List in 1975 when there were just 700 of them patrolling the lower 48 states, grizzlies have made a comeback. The animals started showing up near their ranch around a decade ago, causing them to put up an electric face.

Since then, the bears have managed to come into the cornfields, with four being trapped by state game managers last year.

With harvest looming, the Gallaghers say they fear for themselves and their kids walking through the fields as they try to generate enough noise to ward off bears.

Bridget told the outlet: ‘I do a lot of praying. We start picking sweet corn next week. Saw our first set of bear tracks around the field a couple days ago. Luck’s job begins again.’

Continue reading “”

Federal Appellate Court Rules in Favor of Takings Lawsuit Against the CDC’s Covid-Era Eviction Moratorium.

The 2-1 decision overrules a trial court decision that went the other way, and could set an important property rights precedent.

On Wednesday, in Darby Development Co. v. United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (which reviews takings claims against the federal government ruled that a takings lawsuit against the 2020-21 federal eviction moratorium can proceed. In so doing, it overruled a trial court decision by the Court of Claims, which I criticized here. The decision could well end up setting an important takings precedent.

In September 2020, during the Covid pandemic, the Trump Administration Centers for Disease Control (CDC) imposed a nationwide eviction moratorium, claiming that it would reduce the spread of the disease. The Biden Administration extended the moratorium multiple times.

In August 2021, the eviction moratorium was invalidated by the Supreme Court because the CDC lacked proper statutory authority to institute it. But, in the meantime, numerous landlords suffered financial losses, because they could not evict tenants who weren’t paying rent.

Some of the property owners filed a lawsuit arguing that the eviction moratorium violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay “just compensation” whenever it takes private property. As I explained at the time, their position was backed by the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, which held that even temporary physical occupations of property qualify as “per se” (automatic) takings requiring compensation.

In May 2022, the US Court of Claims dismissed the takings lawsuit against the CDC moratorium on the perverse ground that there was no taking because the CDC’s eviction moratorium was never properly “authorized.” In other words, the government could escape takings liability because its actions were illegal! The recent Federal Circuit decision reversed that ruling.

Continue reading “”