Black women are the fastest growing group of gun owners. This instructor has taught 2,000 students how to safely bear arms.

During the pandemic, gun and ammunition sales spiked dramatically in the United States — particularly among Black women, who have become the fastest growing group of gun owners in the country.

“In 2021, we were just coming outta COVID and violence was at an all-time high, riots were at an all-time high and human trafficking is at an all-time high,” licensed gun instructor Robin Evans tells Yahoo Life as a way to explain the rise. “So at that moment, I feel like there was a huge shift in Black people, in general, just wanting to learn how to defend themselves.”

After noticing the increasing reports of violence against women in 2021, Evans founded Chicks with Triggers, a business dedicated to teaching women, and specifically Black women, how to safely use firearms.

“When I got into this, there was no one who looked like me, and so I decided to create that lane for people to come and know that they have a safe space,” says Evans. “When I first started, I didn’t even know women would come. I thought maybe a woman here and there, but man, they came through the gates running. I just hit another milestone of 2,000 people that I have trained since I started in 2021.”

Continue reading “”

Obama Judge Denies NY Jews a Temporary Stop of Hochul’s Ban On Guns In Synagogues

In an insulting reiteration of NY Governor Kathy Hochul’s stunning hypocrisy over the rights of people to defend themselves, an Obama-appointed judge has DENIED a requested Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the NY state “sensitive area” gun ban called the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which went into effect September 1.

As I recently reported, the New York State Jewish Gun Club filed suit on September 29, after members and the group’s legal council recognized the threat of the CCIA – which Hochul signed on July 1, and which represents her leftist NY Assembly’s blitzkrieg response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s June “Bruen” gun decision supposedly insuring that the right to keep and bear arms also includes the obvious right to carry a concealed weapon outside the home. The half-hearted Bruen decision left wiggle room for oppressive state politicians to claim that certain “sensitive” public areas were off limits to the right of concealed-carry.

And Hochul’s hypocrisy is so towering that, even as she backed a “legislative package” supposedly honoring Holocaust victims over the summer, she and her pals in the state legislature smacked together a new statute that would ban concealed carry within synagogues and houses or worship — or, as I mentioned, at any of what they ambiguously call places where there is a “religious observance.”

In other words, she is threatening people that she will use gun-grabbing state aggression, and possibly use it against some of the same Holocaust survivors and/or their descendants who were attacked by the gun-grabbing Nazi regime.

Now, the new development. The NY State Jewish Gun Club filing in Federal District Court to temporarily restrain enforcement of Hochul’s gangland CCIA “religious observance” and “house of worship” gun ban has proven fruitless. BearingArms’ Cam Edwards caught the news, right away:

“Their first request was for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the state from enforcing that portion of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act; a request that was denied on Monday afternoon by U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick.”

And, guess what? The judge got his tax-funded job thanks to leftist political engineers:

“In his ruling, the Obama-appointed judge (who also has political ties to gun control fans Michael Bloomberg and former NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo) found that the plaintiffs had not met the requirements for a TRO (Temporary Restraining Order)…”

Here, observers can see a telling sign of the difference between a person who respects natural, God-given, rights, and a person looking only at material concerns, a person who cannot understand, or will not acknowledge, that the term “injury” does not pertain merely to physical harm, but includes the abstract and perennial realm of principles.

Broderick’s argument stands on the spongy notion that, as he declares:

“…I find that the harm pled is too remote and speculative, and fails to reach the stringent standard of ‘immediate irreparable harm.’”

Continue reading “”

How Much are Gun Laws Repressing Exercise of 2A Rights?

U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)-– The states with the most restrictive gun laws are repressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  How much damage are they doing?

In the 2022 Bruen decision, released by the Supreme Court on June 22, the court named six states and the District of Columbia as polities where the governments were violating the rights of their residents to keep and bear arms.

Those states were California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia.

There are reasonably good measures to compare those states to the rest of the country, where laws restricting the sale, ownership, and carry of arms are less burdensome.

The National Instant background Check System (NICS) tracks retail gun sales in all the states. Gun sales are much closer than NICS background checks alone because NICS checks are done for many other things as well.

Gun sales, measured in the NICS system, give us a strong representation of how many guns were purchased in a given year in each state.

Looking at the restrictive states compared to the non-restrictive states will show if the restrictive state laws are repressing the exercise of the right to keep arms by repressing the number of people who purchase firearms.

The number of people who have permits to carry is not as easily obtained. The Crime Prevention Research Center (CRPC) has worked to determine how many carry permits exist in each state. The numbers reported in 2021 will be used for this comparison.

This is a quick, first-order comparison to see if any obvious disparity exists. If no disparity exists, a more sophisticated analysis may or may not show those laws repress the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Population figures for the states were taken from the 2020 census. Gun sales and carry permits will be expressed as rates so as to make a state-to-state comparison meaningful. The numbers of gun sales are from two years, 2020 and 2021.

2020 is a particularly useful year, as there was both a significant increase in violent crime and political posturing to restrict firearms sales and possession. The motivation to exercise Second Amendment rights should have been high.

2020 recorded all-time records for gun sales.

Gun sales for the restrictive states and the District of Columbia in 2020, as calculated from the NICS data, were 2.05 million. Per capita firearm sales were .024 firearms per person.

In 2021, for the restrictive states and DC, the numbers were: 1.93 million, and .023 firearms sold per person.

Restrictive states gun sales per capita: 2020 – .024; 2021 – .023.

Gun sales for the rest of the USA in 2020 were 18.6 million, and .075 firearms sold per person. In 2021, there were 16.2 million firearms sold, and .065 firearms sold per person.

Less restrictive states, gun sales per capita: 2020 – .075; 2021 – .065.

This is significant evidence of repressing the exercise of Second Amendment rights.  In 2020 and 2021, the sales of firearms in the restrictive states were only one-third as many per capita as in non-repressive states.

Continue reading “”

Police: Two People Dead, Six More Wounded in Stabbing Attack on the Las Vegas Strip

LAS VEGAS (KTNV) — Two people are dead and six more are hospitalized after a mass stabbing on the Las Vegas Strip on Thursday morning.

Three of the victims are in critical condition, said Capt. Dori Koren with the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.

This, after police were called to a casino in the 3100 block of Las Vegas Boulevard at 11:41 a.m. on reports of a stabbing with multiple victims.

The suspect was taken into custody in front of the Venetian, reportedly with a significant amount of blood “on his sleeves.” Police said multiple victims were transported to area hospitals with “unknown extent of injuries.”

Five of the patients were taken to University Medical Center’s trauma center for treatment, a hospital spokesperson confirmed:

“One patient is in critical condition and one patient has passed away. Two of the patients are in serious condition and one is in fair condition. Our team members at the UMC Trauma Center continue to work tirelessly to provide these patients with the highest level of care available.”

Witnesses at the scene tell 13 Action News reporter Joe Moeller the stabbings occurred in multiple locations and some of the victims involved may have been showgirls, who take photos with tourists on the Strip.

Moeller spoke to one woman who said the injured showgirls are her employees. She tells KTNV the suspect told the women he was a chef and asked to pose for a photo with them while holding a knife. When the women declined his offer, he stabbed them, she said.

One witness from Canada shared a photo with 13 Action News of a showgirl being taken away from the scene on a stretcher.

Another witness, Pierre Fandrich of Montreal, Canada, spoke to KTNV through a translator. He says he was walking along the strip when he thought he heard “three or four showgirls laughing,” though it turned out to be screaming. Fandrich says he saw “a lot of blood” as one woman ran across the bridge, one was on the ground and another — with an apparent stab wound on her back — tried to help the woman on the ground. Another person approached them and attempted to help the woman on the ground by doing CPR until the police arrived, Fandrich says.

At first, Fandrich says he “thought a girl fell from the bridge because there was a lot of blood on the ground.” Fandrich did not see the suspect in the aftermath because “everything happened so fast.”

Another witness shared a video of one of the victims, which has been blurred due to its graphic nature.

A witness visiting Las Vegas from Los Angeles recalls seeing one victim “laying on the ground near the shops” and being attended to by one of the security guards. The witness said they were in the Wynn at the time of the attack but came upon the scene after leaving the resort.

Traffic along Spring Mountain at Las Vegas Boulevard will remain shut down while an investigation into the incident is conducted by LVMPD.

Clark County issued the following statement regarding the incident:

The Clark County Coroner identified two victims of the stabbing as Brent Allan Hallett, 47, of Las Vegas, and Maris Mareen Digiovanni, 30, of Las Vegas.

BLM Rioter Who Murdered Retired St. Louis Police Captain Sentenced to Life in Prison Without Parole

The 26-year-old man convicted of killing retired St. Louis Police Captain David Dorn was sentenced to life in prison without parole on Wednesday.

Stephan Cannon’s sentencing comes after a jury convicted him in July of fatally shooting Dorn in June 2020. The 77-year-old was responding to a burglary alarm at a friend’s pawn shop during a night of Black Lives Matter rioting when Cannon shot him.

Cannon was convicted in July on all of felony charges he faced, including first-degree murder, first-degree robbery, first-degree burglary, stealing $750 or more, unlawful possession of a firearm, and three counts of armed criminal action…..

Concealed carry holder shoots burglar in Chinatown

Prosecutors say a concealed carry holder shot a burglar who charged at him when he returned to his home in Chinatown on Monday evening. Now, the burglar is hospitalized and charged with a felony.

Chicago police responded to the victim’s home in the 300 block of West 24th Place around 6:30 p.m. and found Tywone Underwood, 30, with a gunshot wound to his abdomen.

The homeowner, 32, told cops that he saw his garage door open and a bike leaning against the garage when he returned home. When he peeked into the garage’s side door, Underwood charged at him, the prosecutor said.

The victim took a step back, pulled out his gun, and shot Underwood once in the abdomen, said Sarah Dale-Schmidt, a Cook County prosecutor.

Police found the victim’s PlayStation, Yeezy slippers, and an Apple iPod in the garage, all of which had been removed from the man’s home by Underwood. Cops determined that Underwood entered the victim’s home through an unlocked second-floor window and then ransacked the residence, Dale-Schmidt said.

Prosecutors charged him with residential burglary and simple assault. Judge Charles Beach ordered him to pay a $25,000 deposit toward bail to get out of custody.

Dale-Schmidt said Underwood was convicted of manufacture-delivery in 2011 and unlawful use of a weapon in 2012.

But Underwood has also been convicted of burglary-like misdemeanors in more recent years, according to court records.

He was charged with criminal damage and trespassing in February 2019 after a North Center resident reported two men broke the front glass of her building and then started turning door handles on apartments.

Three weeks later, he was charged with misdemeanor theft of lost or mislaid property for allegedly selling three iPads that were taken in a burglary. He pleaded guilty to all charges in both incidents and received a sentence of two days.

Resident shoots, kills man who entered Beach Park home and allegedly pulled knife

Police say a man shot and killed another man who entered his residence in Beach Park Thursday morning and pulled a knife when a fight ensued.

The Lake County Sheriff’s Office and Beach Park Fire Department responded around 12:40 a.m. Thursday to the 38100 block of North Loyola Avenue in Beach Park for a report of a person shot.

Sheriff’s 911 Telecommunicators were told that the person who fired the gun, a 24-year-old man, was involved in an altercation with the man who had been shot.

Lake County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Chief Christopher Covelli said deputies arrived to find Tino Roane, 37, of Waukegan, deceased in the residence.

The person who shot Roane had been living at the residence and remained at the scene until deputies arrived.

A preliminary investigation shows Roane arrived at the residence of the 24-year-old man.

Roane knocked at the door and let himself inside because he was an acquaintance of the female homeowner, who was not home, Covelli said.

The 24-year-old man asked Roane to leave several times and then a physical altercation ensued between the two men.

During the altercation, Roane grabbed a knife from the kitchen, Covelli said.

The 24-year-old man shot and killed Roane. The 24-year-old man is currently in custody as detectives continue their investigation. It is unknown if he will be charged.

There is no known risk to the community, Covelli said.

The Lake County Coroner’s Office said an autopsy showed Roane died from multiple gunshot wounds.

Home Invasion Suspect Shot While Stealing Dog

DUNN – A Johnston County man was shot during a reported home invasion, according to the Harnett County Sheriff’s Office. Around 5:45am Tuesday, Harnett County deputies responded to a reported home invasion on Bear Lane outside of Dunn.

Deputies spoke with a 29 year-old woman who said she was awaken by a “banging” noise coming from her door. She told deputies she observed and confronted the suspect who was attempting to take her pet dog. She reportedly told the intruder to leave but he failed to do so.

Fearing for her safety as the intruder stared at her, she shot the suspect, who then fled the premises, according to a press release.

Responding deputies found the suspect about 200 yards away by his vehicle. He was transported to Central Harnett Hospital in Lillington for treatment of a gunshot wound to the lower right leg and a superficial gunshot wound to the right side.

Malihk Giles, age 20, of Oak Lane, Dunn, a southern Johnston County address, was taken into custody upon his release from the hospital. Giles was charged with first degree burglary and possession of stolen property.

The female victim told authorities she did not know Giles.

Giles vehicle was seized and detectives applied for a search warrant Wednesday as the investigation continues.

At last check, Giles was being held under a $75,000 secured bond at the Harnett County Detention Center.

Police say semi-automatic gun, machete used in Northglenn burglary before teens shot

Northglenn detectives said that two teen burglary suspects had a semi-automatic gun and a machete before they were shot and killed by the homeowner over the weekend after trespassing. Police believe the suspects were also responsible for burglarizing a nearby home on Sunday afternoon.

When LJ Perceval and her son came home Sunday, it was clear someone broke into their house. She immediately called 911 and was told it would be a while before officers responded, due to a “more serious” situation down the street.

Perceval soon learned the crimes were connected and the burglary suspects were dead.

Northglenn police connected her burglary to the juveniles shot and killed after trespassing around the corner.

Northglenn police report the suspects broke a fence to gain entry into the backyard of a home in the 11600 block of Pearl Street. That’s where police say the suspects and the homeowner exchanged gunfire.

The Colorado Make My Day law gives homeowners immunity from prosecution if they kill an intruder in their home under certain conditions.

2 years ago, this would have been called ‘Dangerous Misinformation!™’

Mouthwashes may suppress SARS-CoV-2

SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is an airborne disease transmitted via aerosols, which are spread from the oral and nasal cavities—the mouth and the nose. In addition to the well-known division and spread of the virus in the cells of the respiratory tract, SARS-CoV-2 is also known to infect the cells of the lining of the mouth and the salivary glands.

Commercially available mouthwashes contain a number of antibiotic and antiviral components that act against microorganisms in the mouth. One of these, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), has been shown by a team of researchers led by Professor Kyoko Hida at Hokkaido University to reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in the , primarily by disrupting the lipid membrane surrounding the virus. While there are other chemicals with similar effects, CPC has the advantage of being tasteless and odorless. Their findings were published in the journal Scientific Reports.

The researchers were interested in studying the effects of CPC in Japanese mouthwashes. Mouthwashes in Japan typically contain a fraction of the CPC compared to previously tested mouthwashes. They tested the effects of CPC on  that express trans-membrane protease serine 2 (TMPRSS2), which is required for SARS-CoV-2 entry into the cell.

Mouthwashes may suppress SARS-CoV-2
Antiviral efficacy of CPC against SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures expressing TMPRSS2. For all of the four strains tested, a concentration of 40 µg/mL of CPC significantly reduced the viral titers, the number of virus particles. Asterisks indicate significant results. Credit: Ryo Takeda et al, Scientific Reports, August 18, 2022

They found that, within 10 minutes of application, 30–50 µg/mL of CPC inhibited the infectivity and capability for cell entry of SARS-CoV-2. Interestingly, commercially available mouthwashes that contain CPC performed better than CPC alone. They also showed that saliva did not alter the effects of CPC. Most significantly, they tested four variants of SARS-CoV-2—the original, alpha, beta and gamma variants—and showed that the effects of CPC were similar across all strains.

This study shows that low concentrations of CPC in commercial mouthwash suppress the infectivity of four variants of SARS-CoV-2. The authors have already begun assessing the effect on CPC-containing mouthwashes on viral loads in saliva of COVID-19 patients. Future work will also focus on fully understanding the mechanism of effect, as lower concentrations of CPC do not disrupt .

It’s also blatant vote pandering a month from midterm elections that looks to rake the demoncraps over the coals.

Biden Pardons Thousands Convicted of Marijuana Possession Under Federal Law
The move represents a fundamental change in America’s response to a drug that has been at the center of a clash between culture and policing for more than a half-century.

WASHINGTON — President Biden on Thursday pardoned thousands of people convicted of marijuana possession under federal law and said his administration would review whether marijuana should still be in the same legal category as drugs like heroin and LSD.

The pardons will clear everyone convicted on federal charges of simple possession since it became a crime in the 1970s. Officials said full data was not available but noted that about 6,500 people were convicted of simple possession between 1992 and 2021, not counting legal permanent residents. The pardons will also affect people who were convicted under District of Columbia drug laws; officials estimated that number to be in the thousands.

The pardons will not apply to people convicted of selling or distributing marijuana. And officials said there are no people now serving time in federal prisons solely for marijuana possession. But the move will help remove obstacles for people trying to get a job, find housing, apply to college or get federal benefits.

Mr. Biden urged governors to follow his lead for people convicted on state charges of simple possession, who vastly outnumber those charged under federal laws.

Still, the president’s actions — which come about a month before the midterm elections and could help energize Democratic supporters — represent a fundamental change in America’s response to a drug that has been at the center of a clash between culture and policing for more than a half-century.

Continue reading “”

Federal Judge Blocks Latest New York Gun-Carry Restrictions

New York’s attempt to restrict gun carry after its previous law was struck down by the Supreme Court has failed.

Federal district judge Glenn Suddaby issued a temporary restraining order against the state’s enforcement of most provisions in the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). He found all of the novel policies restricting gun carry by those with valid permits were unconstitutional under the standard set in New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen, though he also upheld some more common regulations.

“Simply stated, instead of moving toward becoming a shall-issue jurisdiction, New York State has further entrenched itself as a shall-not-issue jurisdiction,” Suddaby wrote. “And, by doing so, it has further reduced a first-class constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense (which, during the 19th and 18th centuries in America, generally came with an assumption that law-abiding responsible citizens were not a danger to themselves or others unless there was specific ground for a contrary finding) into a mere request (which is burdened with a presumption of dangerousness and the need to show ‘good moral character’).”

The ruling represents a further victory for gun-rights advocates who have challenged severe restrictions on gun carry and a further setback for states that have sought to severely limit who can carry a gun and where they can carry it. Judge Suddaby’s decision is also one of the first to apply the Bruen standard to a gun-carry law passed in response to the ruling. It could serve as a guide for other federal courts across the country dealing with challenges to similar laws.

Suddaby ruled the state could not enforce its “good moral character” clause unless there is a preponderance of evidence the applicant is a threat to others with the exception of self-defense. He blocked the requirement that applicants turn over their social media history and information on others who live with them. He also blocked the CCIA’s requirement that applicants meet with permitting officials for an in-person interview,

TPUSA Ambassador Speaks Up for Women’s Rights When It Comes To Firearms

TPUSA Ambassador as well as the CEO and Founder of Alexo Athletica, Amy Robbins, is always on the frontlines to fight for our right to protect ourselves!

Amy was recently on The Chris Salcedo Show on Newsmax, speaking about the frustrating arguments made by the left regarding firearms.

The host, Chris Salcedo, asked Amy, “What makes you pull your hair out, the disingenuous argument from the other side saying you as a women don’t deserve to protect yourself with a firearm. What is the number one argument that just drives you up a wall?”

She replied, “The number one argument that I hear, is that women are weak and incapable of carrying a firearm, and they are more likely to die in the presence of a firearm . . . So instead of encouraging women to go get training, go get armed, learn to be safe and proficient with some kind of self-defense tool.”

“The only thing that we can do, ladies, is stop believing this lie,” Amy added.

I couldn’t agree more — firearms are dubbed “the great equalizer” for a reason, they give women leverage, and the ability to protect themselves against a male aggressor that, in most cases, is going to be both larger and stronger.

It is so empowering to know that you can take your personal safety into your own hands.

The left constantly seeks to demonize firearm owners for gun violence, even though the vast majority of gun crimes have been committed by offenders who did not legally possess the firearm used in the first place. Individuals who have the desire to go through the legal processes to purchase a gun for self-defense and defense of their families should not be discouraged from doing so, or worse, prevented from doing so.

I encourage everyone, but especially females, to pursue training in self-defense specifically with firearms in order to ensure that they have the best means possible to keep themselves and their loved ones safe.

Mexican official says new lawsuit against US gunmakers is on the way

There’s no reason to believe the outcome will be any different than the first lawsuit that the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador brought against U.S. gun makers; a dismissal of the case long before it ever reached trial. Still, with AMLO’s cartel strategy of “hugs, not bullets” resulting in even more cartel violence, it’s no surprise that he and other officials are trying to distract from their own failures by pinning the blame on the US firearms industry.

Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told the Mexican Senate on Wednesday that the government’s next lawsuit will be filed in the border state of Arizona, though he didn’t say whether any gun control groups will be a part of this new effort as they were the first time around.

During his speech on Wednesday, Ebrard referred to a bipartisan package of gun safety measures passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Joe Biden in June. The law blocks gun sales to those convicted of abusing unmarried intimate partners and cracks down on gun sales to purchasers convicted of domestic violence.

“Illicit arms trafficking is already a crime in the United States,” Ebrard said.

“You have to start establishing criminal responsibilities because the companies that are selling these weapons in these counties (in Arizona), which are very few, of course they know where those weapons are going,” he added, but did not specify which companies he was referring to.

Ebrard makes it sound as if there are no laws whatsoever governing gun sales from licensed firearms retailers, even though border state gun dealers not only have to follow the long list of federal regulations surrounding firearm transfers, but even have special requirements placed on them like reporting multiple sales of modern sporting rifles to the ATF.

Frankly, if he really wants to talk about establishing criminal responsibilities, I’d say he should start much closer to home and crack down on the graft, corruption, and theft within the Mexican armed forces.

Continue reading “”

Well, she was unable to define what a woman was either, so her gobbletygook here shouldn’t have been a surprise.

KBJ’s Jumbled Musings on the Fourteenth Amendment

In today’s [Oct 3rd ] oral argument in Merrill v. Milligan, Justice Jackson capped her very long questioning of Alabama solicitor general Edmund LaCour with a speech/question that went on for around four minutes and that runs a full three pages (57:2-60:2) in the transcript. In her speech, Jackson states that the Framers of the 14th Amendment adopted it “in a race conscious way,” as they were “trying to ensure that people who had been discriminated against, the freedmen in — during the reconstructive — reconstruction period were actually brought equal to everyone else in the society.” As she puts it, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 “specifically stated that citizens would have the same civil rights as enjoyed by white citizens,” and the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure that the Act had a solid “constitutional foundation.”

Somehow Jackson leaps from these propositions to the assertion that the 14th Amendment doesn’t embody “a race-neutral or race-blind idea in terms of the remedy” for discrimination against freed slaves.

I don’t understand her leap. By her own account, the very purpose of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was “to make sure that the other citizens, the black citizens, would have the same [civil rights] as the white citizens.” It was designed to remedy a situation in which “people, based on their race, were being treated unequally” by the states. And the 14th Amendment had the same goal.

The proposition that the 14th Amendment requires that the government be color-blind is open to challenge both as to what exactly that means and to whether that meaning is well founded. But Jackson seems to think that the color-blind position is somehow at odds with the fact that the 14th Amendment was designed to ensure equal treatment—when that of course is exactly what advocates of the color-blind position maintain the 14th Amendment requires.

Jackson seems to confuse herself with her own terms. Yes, of course, the Framers can be said to have adopted the 14th Amendment “in a race conscious way”—if that means that the central purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that freed slaves received equal treatment in fundamental ways. By its plain text, the 14th Amendment ensures that states shall not “abridge the privileges or immunities” of citizens, irrespective of their race; shall not “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” irrespective of the person’s race; and shall not deny any person the “equal protection of the laws,” irrespective of the person’s race.

But how is this elementary recognition at all at odds with the color-blind position? In his great dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the first Justice Harlan celebrates that the post-Civil War Amendments “removed the race line from our governmental systems.” In his very next sentence, he states that these amendments had “a common purpose, namely, to secure to a race recently emancipated, a race that through many generations have been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the [white] race enjoy.” (Internal quote omitted.) He of course goes on to characterize the amended Constitution as “color-blind.” On what conceivable basis are we to think that there is any tension among Harlan’s statements?

Insofar as Jackson might be arguing that the 14th Amendment allows race-conscious remedies, she doesn’t touch on the critical questions of what counts as a race-conscious remedy and when such a remedy is permissible. Some scholars cite the Freedmen’s Bureau Acts as evidence that the Equal Protection Clause does not require colorblindness. But as law professor Michael Rappaport points out in “Originalism and the Colorblind Constitution,” even apart from the question whether those Acts inform the meaning of the 14th Amendment, they gave benefits to freedmen and refugees (most of whom were white) not on the basis of race but on the basis of the oppression and hardship they were enduring. Further, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas—leading proponents of colorblindness—agree that states can act to provide benefits to blacks (or persons of other races and ethnicities) when they have been victims of discrimination.

The usual suspects are going gaga over Justice Jackson’s remarks. But neither they nor she appear to understand the position they think they are contesting.

Sun Tzu 101: Know the enemy as well as you know yourself. Doctor Yamane is studiously researching the anti-gun movement.

Supreme Court vacates controversial Massachusetts gun control law
The Massachusetts gun control law places strict restrictions on the ability to purchase and possess handguns

The Supreme Court ordered a lower court ruling on a Massachusetts gun control law to be vacated and directed a lower court to reconsider the case.

The case in question, Morin v. Lyver, centers around a controversial Massachusetts law that imposes strict restrictions on the possession and purchase of handguns, including the need for a license in order to purchase or possess a pistol. The law also includes a lifetime ban on purchasing handguns on anyone convicted of a nonviolent misdemeanor involving the possession or use of guns.

The U.S. District Court of Massachusetts originally found the law constitutional, but the Supreme Court on Monday ordered that ruling vacated and the case “remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.”

The case, a 6-3 ruling earlier this year, struck down a New York law that required people to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a concealed handgun permit.

“The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees,’” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority at the time. “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need.”

The case was considered a landmark ruling by the court, opening up the potential for new challenges to state and local restrictions on guns.

Monday’s order to vacate the lower court ruling and have the case reheard was unsigned by the justices, and there were no dissents.

The Supreme Court began its new term Monday and is expected to make decisions on key cases surrounding voting rights, affirmative action and religious freedom.