Coffee-Dementia Link Continues to Unfurl
— Two studies hint at protective relationships for some coffee and tea drinkers

PHILADELPHIA — Coffee and tea intake were associated with long-term cognitive changes in older adults, two prospective studies presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference opens in a new tab or window (AAIC) suggested.

Among 6,001 Health and Retirement Studyopens in a new tab or window participants in the U.S., drinking two or more cups of coffee a day was associated with a 28% lower risk of dementia over 7 years compared with drinking less than one daily cup (P<0.05), reported Changzheng Yuan, ScD, of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and the Zhejiang University School of Medicine in China, in a poster presented at the meeting.

Moderate tea drinking — up to two cups a day — was also associated with a lower dementia risk compared with no tea consumption (P<0.05).

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Tosses Majority of Mexico’s Lawsuit Against Gun Makers

For the second time, a federal judge in Massachusetts has dismissed the vast majority of Mexico’s lawsuit against multiple U.S. gun makers that accuses the companies of knowingly and willfully facilitating cartel violence south of the border. U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor first threw out Mexico’s complaint in 2022, opining that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act precluded Mexico’s lawsuit, but the litigation was reinstated by the First Circuit Court of Appeals a short time later.

Now Saylor has once again dismissed the case against six of the seven gun makers sued by the Mexican government, ruling that the plaintiff has been “unable to muster sufficient proof to establish a sufficient relationship between the claimed injuries and the business transactions of any of the six defendants in Massachusetts.”

The core question for jurisdictional purposes is whether Mexico’s claims against the six moving defendants “arise” from their business transactions in Massachusetts. See Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 223A, § 3(a).

As to those defendants, the connection of this matter to Massachusetts is gossamer-thin at best. The government of Mexico is obviously not a citizen of Massachusetts. None of the six moving defendants is incorporated in Massachusetts, and none has a principal place of business in Massachusetts.

There is no evidence that any of them have a manufacturing facility, or even a sales office, in Massachusetts. None of the alleged injuries occurred in Massachusetts. No Massachusetts citizen is alleged to have suffered any injury. And plaintiff has not identified any specific firearm, or set of firearms, that was sold in Massachusetts and caused injury in Mexico.

Furthermore—and despite the generous use of the word “defendants” throughout—the complaint does not actually allege the existence of a joint enterprise, joint venture, or civil conspiracy among the various defendants. There is no question, therefore, that personal jurisdiction must be proved separately as to each of the six moving defendants.

At its core, plaintiff’s jurisdictional theory is based on statistical probabilities.

Its reasoning may be characterized as follows:
(1) each of the six moving defendants sold firearms to distributors and retailers in each of the 50 states;
(2) each of the six defendants sold some (undetermined) number of firearms to Massachusetts-based distributors or retailers;
(3) some (undetermined) number of the firearms that were sold by each of the six defendants nationwide were illegally trafficked to Mexico;
(4) some (undetermined) number of the firearms that were trafficked to Mexico caused injury there; and therefore
(5) at least some of the firearms sold by each of the six defendants to Massachusetts entities must have caused injuries in Mexico.

Mexico’s legal team, which includes former Brady Campaign attorney Jonathan Lowy (who now heads up an outfit called Global Action on Gun Violence), brought in an economist to try to estimate the number of guns that were originally purchased in Massachusetts but were trafficked to Mexico. The judge, however, wasn’t persuaded by what she found.

To do so, she relied upon two principal datasets: a set that recorded the manufacturer of certain firearms recovered in Mexico between 2010 and 2021, and a “trace and recovery” dataset created by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (“ATF”) concerning firearms recovered in Mexico between 1989 and 2001.

She then used that data to estimate the number of firearms that she believes were likely trafficked into Mexico after a Massachusetts sale over the last ten years. 

As explained below, however, that report is problematic in multiple respects—beginning with the fact that Congress has prohibited the use of the ATF data in any civil action, and thus a critical foundation of her opinion must be disregarded.

Furthermore, her opinion stops short of estimating the number of firearms manufactured by each defendant that actually caused an injury in Mexico—a critical link to connect defendants’ business in Massachusetts to plaintiff’s claims. Under the circumstances, her opinion is not sufficient to prove the necessary jurisdictional nexus.

That’s embarrassing for the gun control activists, or at least it would be if it didn’t give them a new talking point about Congress tying the hands of “gun safety advocates” when it comes to using ATF data. As far as the Mexican government is concerned, however, Saylor’s ruling is a total loss. The only remaining defendants are Smith & Wesson, which was headquartered in Massachusetts during the time period in question, as well as a wholesaler who wasn’t a part of this particular request to dismiss the case.

While Mexico’s lawsuit, which seeks $10 billion in damages from gun makers, isn’t completely dead, Saylor’s ruling is a big step in that direction. The final blow to the litigation could come from the Supreme Court, which is set to consider the gun companies’ appeal of the First Circuit ruling that reinstated the lawsuit in its September 30th conference. As the gun makers argued in their cert petition:

To be clear, Mexico’s complaint does not include any groundbreaking factual revelations, nor does it uncover any secret dealings between the cartels and America’s firearms companies.

Instead, Mexico’s suit challenges how the American firearms industry has openly operated in broad daylight for years. It faults the defendants for producing common firearms like the AR-15; for allowing their products to hold more than ten rounds; for failing to restrict the purchase of firearms by regular citizens; and for refusing to go beyond what American law already requires for the safe production and sale of firearms.

In Mexico’s eyes, continuing these lawful practices amounts to aiding and abetting the cartels. According to Mexico, American firearms companies are liable because they have refused to adopt policies to curtail the supply of firearms smuggled south—such as making only “sporting rifles,” or combining sales to those with a “legitimate need” for a firearm (as defined by Mexico).

This lawsuit is basically an attempt to allow the Mexican government to impose its own preferred gun control policies on the U.S. firearms industry by blaming gun makers for cartel violence.

SCOTUS should grant cert and dismiss the case altogether, but we won’t know if the Court will grant cert for another few months.

Disabled Vietnam veteran shoots, kills home intruder

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – It’s the makings of a nightmare, but when a local veteran woke up recently, it was his terrifying reality.

Danny Ricketts says a person with a knife tried to get into his window, but he was also armed. Ricketts says he grabbed the gun from his nightstand, shot the intruder, and then called police.

When police got to his apartment near San Mateo and Zuni early Monday morning, they found the intruder down the street.

Ricketts wishes it was all a bad dream.

“I looked at the window and I didn’t see any blood and I didn’t see any bodies. So I thought I missed initially and I was kind of grateful at that,” said Ricketts.

He woke up early in the morning to his bedroom window slamming.

“I could see it was a knife sticking under the window, sort of wiggling back and forth, and the window was coming up,” Ricketts said.

With his PTSD, the Vietnam War veteran keeps a weapon close by.

“I keep a pistol on my nightstand under a hat. I reached and got it and I said, I still don’t know quite what I said, ‘What the f**k you doing, get the h*ll away from here’ something like that,” said Ricketts.

Then, he fired one round and the person took off.

“This was folded in such a way the bullet went through three layers at first,” said Ricketts.

Police haven’t released the suspect’s name, but surveillance video from a neighbor shows him running by after the shooting.

Ricketts called 911, but the intruder later died in the street.

“When I was in the police car I could see in the distance the body, and I asked the detective if it was the body of the person I shot, and they said ‘Yeah’ and I felt kind of bad,” Ricketts said.

Police say, as of now, Ricketts is justified in the shooting.

“Sounds like this gentleman the other day he called police, he secured his firearm I believe, he told them exactly what happened,” APD Spokesperson Gilbert Gallegos.

KOB 4 saw another example of this in late March when police say Joseph Rivera broke into Anissa Tinnin’s Albuquerque home. She was there with her 4-year-old granddaughter. She called the police but took matters into her own hands.

Gallegos says while they can’t tell you what to do if you’re in a similar situation, they can tell you what not to do.

“We’ve seen instances too where people may have felt a fear but, and then they go chasing the individual, and continue to shoot at them. That’s where it really gets pretty questionable as to whether you’re defending your life at that point,” said Gallegos. “You can protect yourself if there’s a fear of harm or protect somebody else. You can’t protect your property by using deadly force.”

Gallegos says APD is currently investigating five other homicides in the city that are looking justified as well.

The district attorney’s office always has the final say though if charges will be filed.

Remember ‘Marooned‘ ?

Boeing Starliner astronauts might not return to Earth until next year

Aug. 7 (UPI) — Boeing Starliner astronauts, stranded at the International Space Station after a weeklong test flight turned into a two-month stay due to thruster problems, may be forced to fly home on SpaceX in 2025, NASA has admitted.

NASA updated reporters Wednesday at a news conference, which Boeing did not attend, on the timeline for crew members Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams. The astronauts have been in space for 63 days with no return date in sight.

Wilmore and Williams arrived at the ISS on June 6 on what was the first crewed test flight of Boeing’s Starliner capsule. The mission was supposed to be the final step before NASA certified Boeing to fly crews to and from the space station, before faulty thrusters stranded the pair in June.

“We’re in kind of a new situation here, in that we’ve got multiple options,” Ken Bowersox, associate administrator for NASA’s space operations mission directorate and a former agency astronaut, told reporters Wednesday.

“I would say that our chances of an uncrewed Starliner return have increased a little bit on where things have gone over the last week or two,” Bowersox said. “But again, new data coming in, new analysis, different discussion — we could find ourselves shift in another way.”

“We don’t just have to bring a crew back on Starliner, for example. We could bring them back on another vehicle,” Bowersox added. The space agency is expected to make a final decision as early as next week.

“Our prime option is to return Butch and Suni on Starliner,” Steve Stich, manager of NASA’s Commercial Crew Program said. “However, we have done the requisite planning to make sure we have other options open, and so we have been working with SpaceX to ensure that they’re ready to respond.”

NASA said it is now considering sending only two astronauts, instead of four, on September’s SpaceX Crew-9 mission to leave space for Wilmore and Williams to return to Earth on SpaceX Dragon in February 2025. SpaceX has been transporting astronauts to and from the ISS since 2020.

“We’re not ready to share specific crew names for the contingency plan,” ISS program manager Dana Weigel told Space.com. “We’ll go look at future manifests and just see what makes sense for the overall crew compliments going forward.”

On Tuesday, NASA announced SpaceX would delay the Aug. 18 launch of its Crew-9 mission, more than a month, to Sept. 24. The delay will give NASA and Boeing more time to repair Starliner’s five of 28 reaction control thrusters which misfired during docking at ISS on June 6.

While NASA said Starliner can safely undock from ISS, there is still uncertainty over how its thrusters would operate during the ride back to Earth.

“Starliner ground teams are taking their time to analyze the results of recent docked hot-fire testing, finalize flight rationale for the spacecraft’s integrated propulsion system and confirm system reliability ahead of Starliner’s return to Earth,” NASA said in a statement Tuesday.

Stich told reporters Wednesday that tests on the ground revealed that a small Teflon seal swells under high temperatures, which could be to blame for Starliner’s thruster problems.

“That gives us a lot of confidence in the thrusters, but we can’t totally prove with certainty what we’re seeing on orbit is exactly what’s been replicated on the ground,” Stich added.

Despite not attending Wednesday’s briefing, Boeing has maintained its confidence “in Starliner’s return with crew.”

“We still believe in Starliner’s capability and its flight rationale,” the company said in a statement Wednesday, as it also admitted the possibility that a different vehicle could bring the astronauts home.

“If NASA decides to change the mission, we will take the actions necessary to configure Starliner for an uncrewed return.”

SAF Vows to Take Maryland’s Semi-Auto Ban to the Supreme Court

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has announced they will seek Supreme Court review in Bianchi v. Wilkinson, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s assault weapons ban, after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

“Today’s decision from the 4th Circuit is unsurprising given their prior decision in Kolbe,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut.
“We believe, much like in Kolbe, the court’s analysis is flawed and that the challenged law is unconstitutional. We will be filing a petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court, as this case presents an excellent vehicle for the Court to settle this debate once and for all.”

In the 65-page opinion, judges for the majority wrote: “The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.”

Chief Judge Diaz drafted a concurring opinion, with five other judges joining. Judge Richardson drafted a dissenting opinion, with four other judges joining stating: “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal…In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.”

Joining SAF in the case are the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Field Traders, LLC., the Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, David Snope, Micah Schaefer and Dominic Bianchi, for whom the case is named. “The court relied heavily on the distinction between ‘military style’ arms and those appropriate for self-defense use,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This distinction runs completely contrary to the mandates of Heller and Bruen, and now sets the stage for another petition for SCOTUS review of the case.”

Federal Appeals Court Again Upholds Maryland AR-15 Ban

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again found Maryland’s so-called assault weapons ban is constitutional.

In a ten-to-five ruling on Tuesday, a full panel of the appeals court determined the Old Line state’s ban on AR-15s and similar firearms does not violate the Second Amendment. It found the banned guns fall outside the protections guaranteed by the Constitution. Using similar reasoning to the last time the panel ruled on the same law in 2021, the majority decided semi-automatic assault weapons are too similar to military weapons to fall under the Second Amendment.

“The assault weapons at issue fall outside the ambit of protection offered by the Second Amendment because, in essence, they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” Judge Harvie Wilkinson wrote for the majority in Bianchi v. Brown. “Moreover, the Maryland law fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

A lot has changed in Second Amendment jurisprudence since the appeals court ruled on the ban in 2021. The most significant was the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new test for Second Amendment cases. The Court then vacated the Fourth Circuit’s ruling in Bianchi and sent it back down for reconsideration in light of the new test. The Fourth Circuit delivering the same result once again could provide reason for The Court to take up the case, especially since it has now reached a final conclusion on the merits.

The Supreme Court has been reluctant to take up Second Amendment cases in recent months and declined to grant certiorari in all of its pending gun cases last month. That included denying a request to take up a collection of cases challenging the Illinois assault weapons ban. However, Justice Clarence Thomas suggested that reluctance was based on the fact those cases were at the preliminary injunction stage rather than final judgment.

“This Court is rightly wary of taking cases in an interlocutory posture,” Justice Thomas wrote. “But, I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment. We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are ‘Arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.”

The Fourth Circuit did address what types of arms are protected or, at least, which ones aren’t. The majority looked primarily at the Supreme Court’s holding in 2008’s DC v. Heller decision, which recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms while striking down the city’s handgun ban, as well as dicta in the case.

“As recognized in Heller, ‘the Second Amendment right … extends only to certain types of weapons’; it is ‘not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,’” Judge Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, wrote for the majority. “Arms typically used by average citizens for self-defense are generally within the ambit of the Second Amendment, presumably because these arms had proven over time to effectively amplify an individual’s power to protect himself without empowering him to singlehandedly reign terror upon a community.”

Judge Wilkinson pointed to Heller‘s description of short-barrel shotguns and “M-16 rifles and the like” as weapons the government can ban. He said there was a common thread that connected those firearms, which also extends to semi-automatic AR-15s and the other guns Maryland bans.

“What brings all the weapons beyond the scope of the Second Amendment together, and what separates them from the handgun, is their ability to inflict damage on a scale or in a manner disproportionate to the end of personal protection,” he wrote. “As such, they are weapons most suitable for criminal or military use.”

The majority then turned its attention to the Bruen test, which requires modern gun laws to be rooted in the history and tradition of firearms regulation dating back to the Founding Era in order to withstand scrutiny. In what has become the post-Bruen go-to legal reasoning to uphold modern gun bans, the majority asserted it could take a broader view of historical analogues because it argued assault weapons are a modern invention that has fueled the modern problem of mass shootings. It then pointed to early regulations on gunpowder storage and the carrying of Bowie knives as substantially similar to Maryland’s ban on the sale of modern semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

“In sum, then, 18th and 19th century legislatures’ passed laws in a number of states that restricted the use or ownership of certain types of weapons,’ once it ‘became obvious that those weapons … were being used in crime by people who carried them concealed on their persons and were thus contributing to rising crime rates,’” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “These legislatures—in balancing individual rights and public peacekeeping—permitted individuals to defend themselves with firearms, while ridding the public sphere of excessively dangerous and easily concealable weapons that were primarily to blame for an increase in violent deaths.”

Ultimately, as they did before the Supreme Court handed down its Bruen decision and remanded the case, the majority concluded Maryland’s assault weapons ban is constitutional.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment is an integral component of the Bill of Rights. But as our nation’s history has shown, it is ‘neither a regulatory straightjacket nor a regulatory blank check.’ The Amendment has not disabled the ability of representative democracy to respond to an urgent public safety crisis,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “To disregard this tradition today—when mass slaughters multiply and the innovation of weaponry proceeds apace—could imperil both the perception and reality of well-being in our nation. We therefore hold that Maryland’s regulation of assault weapons is fully consistent with our nation’s long and dynamic tradition of regulating excessively dangerous weapons whose demonstrable threat to public safety led legislatures to heed their constituents’ calls for help.”

The dissenting judges disagreed with that conclusion and slammed the majority for treating the Second Amendment as lesser than other protections offered in the Bill of Rights.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal,” Judge Julius N. Richardson, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote for the dissent. “Appellants seek to own weapons that are indisputably ‘Arms’ within the plain text of the Second Amendment. While history and tradition support the banning of weapons that are both dangerous and unusual, Maryland’s ban cannot pass constitutional muster as it prohibits the possession of arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. In holding otherwise, the majority grants states historically unprecedented leeway to trammel the constitutional liberties of their citizens.”

Combat Strike Operations Order 35
509th Composite Group U.S. Army Air Force

Taking off from Tinian island at approximately 2:45 a.m. with Colonel Paul Tibbets as command pilot of the ‘Enola Gay‘, the B-29 ascended to operational altitude as it flew to Iwo Jima island to rendezvous just before 6:00 a.m. with the accompanying observation and photography aircraft

At 08:09, Colonel Tibbets started his bomb run over Hiroshima and handed control over to his bombardier, Major Thomas Ferebee.
The release at 08:15 went as planned, and the gun type atomic bomb containing about 141 pounds of uranium-235 took 44.4 seconds to fall from the aircraft flying at about 31,000 feet to a detonation height of about 1,900 feet above the city.

Due to a crosswind, the bomb missed the aiming point, the Aioi Bridge, by approximately 800 feet and detonated directly over Shima Surgical Clinic with the force equivalent to 16 kilotons of TNT.
The radius of total destruction was about 1 mile, with resulting fires across 4.4 square miles.

Around 70,000 to 80,000 people, including 12 U.S. prisoners of war, were killed and another 70,000 injured.

ATF Moves to Halt Forced Reset Trigger Ruling, Appeals Decision

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is arguing in a new filing that it cannot meet a federal court’s order to return the forced reset triggers (FRTs) they collected when they effectively banned the devices last year.

Last month, U.S. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor ordered the vacatur of an ATF rule classifying FRTs—a rapid-fire trigger device—as regulated machinegun parts. O’Connor further ordered the ATF to return, within 30 days, any FRTs it seized from manufacturers, resellers, or individual owners while its rule was in effect.

The ATF has since filed motions challenging O’Connor’s ruling, including appealing the ruling up to the U.S. Fifth Circuit of Appeals and requesting a stay of the lower court’s decision.

Arguing their motion to stay O’Connor’s ruling, the ATF said it would be difficult to meet the requirement to turn over any seized FRTs within 30 days.

“ATF does not know the identities of the Organizational Plaintiffs’ claimed members,” the federal agency wrote in its Aug. 1 filing, referring to the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) and Texas Gun Rights.

“Thus, ATF has no ability to determine who must be returned devices under the Order,” the ATF’s legal filing continues. “And even if an individual approaches ATF and self-identifies as an Organizational-Plaintiff member, ATF does not have the means to verify the accuracy of that representation, or whether they were, in fact, a member at the time the complaint was filed, as is necessary to receive relief.”

O’Connor’s order for the ATF to return seized FRT’s didn’t stipulate that the agency should only return the devices to the organizational plaintiffs. Rather, his ordered simply directed all of the seized devices be returned.

“The Court ORDERS Defendants to return to all parties, including manufacturers, distributors, resellers, and individuals, all FRTs and FRT components confiscated or seized pursuant to their unlawful classification within thirty (30) days of this decision,” O’Connor’s July 23 instruction states. Continue reading “”