Today, one of our most fundamental and inalienable rights has been demoted to the status of a privilege—subject to permission, payment, and government approval. [More]
Yeah?
Yo, “Civil Rights Division“…
[Via Jess]
Notes from the Resistance
Today, one of our most fundamental and inalienable rights has been demoted to the status of a privilege—subject to permission, payment, and government approval. [More]
Yeah?
Yo, “Civil Rights Division“…
[Via Jess]

Here’s the new talking point to parrot about the suppressor concession:
I don’t suppose we can muffle those screams…?
Why the Supreme Court Fight Over Nationwide Injunctions Matters for Gun Owners [More]
It figures the “our democracy” people want one of their apparatchik’s opinions to be binding over all of us, no matter what we think.
With “progressives,” every day is Opposite Day.
I note the announcement does not include the SHORT Act being included in the House version. I’ve heard some stuff about that I may be sharing in a few days if I can confirm.
What will the Senate do? Gut feel: A critical mass of Dems love our money more than they our hate guns. And let’s not let this potential “win” on guns blind us to the existential dangers of out of control government spending to advance powers nowhere delegated.
Looks like I may have been wrong for being so negative about HPA’s chances.
Hey… does this mean I can dig up the Chore Boy…?
Do You Have to Serialized Your Unserialized Firearm in Washington State? [Watch]
He says “Yes.” I say it’s a choice, albeit one with risks that can be mitigated with prudent behaviors.
I get tired of this guy’s defeatist titles. I know as an officer of the court he can’t be out there preaching another great American tradition, but he doesn’t have to go full-on “Resistance is futile – You will be assimilated” Borg.
We all get they say we have to and will punish us if they catch us and have the upper hand.
Ultimately, there’s always another answer to “”Throw down your arms, ye villains, ye Rebels, Disperse!” and that prospect terrifies those making the demand, who understand their would-be victims aren’t the only ones with personal risks. That explains why government predators pick isolated easy targets and haven’t done confiscations on a mass scale, and that means, battered and vilified as it may be, the Second Amendment is still working.
[Via Jess]
How the 9th Circuit Misfires on the 2nd Amendment [More]
That’s presuming they’re just wrong instead of evil.
Grover promotes that kind of $#!+ to wheedle donations from thick-headed “moderates.”
And no, I don’t know how you can read the whole article without signing up. I figure if it’s anything like the title, I’ve seen enough.
[Via Dan Gifford]
They’re Banning Guns Based on Looks Now?! | Rhode Island S539 & H5436 [Watch]
Don’t these people have a Palestinian flag to fly?
[Via Jess]
The proposed regulation raises the fee for a SAEC and COE Verification check from $1.00 to $5.00…The rulemaking is complete. On May 12, 2025, the Office of Administrative Law approved the regulations and filed them with the Secretary of State. The regulations become effective on July 1, 2025. [More]
They do it because they can.
Guess who won’t pay.
[Via Jess]

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging Connecticut’s ban on adults under the age of 21 from purchasing, owning or carrying handguns. [More]
Good– it makes a key undeniable point:
Over 200 colonial and Founding-era militia statutes throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries not only permitted, but affirmatively mandated that persons aged eighteen to twenty acquire and keep arms.
During late debate over budget reconciliation proposals, a coalition of Second Amendment organizations is demanding that short barreled rifles and shotguns, as well as sound suppressors be removed from regulation under the 1934 National Firearms Act. [More]
Good idea. Some questions:

So, why not ask him what he told NRA to get them to mobilize their members on his behalf? [More]
Or to paraphrase Sir Wilfrid in Witness for the Prosecution, “The question is, Mr. Jolly, were you lying then, are you lying now, or are you not in fact a chronic and habitual LIAR?”
What’s to negotiate?
The text of the Second Amendment encompasses the purchase of firearms by 18-to20-year-olds, as the en banc majority below did not dispute, Pet.App.43a–44a, and as the majority was also forced to acknowledge, “the Founding era lacked express prohibitions on the purchase of firearms” by 18-to-20-year-olds. Id. at 30a. Indeed, the eighteenth century laws that come closest to reflecting a “Founding-era policy on age and firearms”—militia laws throughout the Nation obliging eighteen-year-olds to muster for militia service bearing firearms they were legally obligated to acquire for themselves—in fact “reflect the policy that eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds should be armed.” Id. at 159a (Brasher, J., dissenting). That should have been the beginning and the end of any suggestion that Florida’s age ban “is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17 (2022). [More]
With DeSantis backing NRA, what leg is Mark Glass still standing on?
[Via Jess]
Department of Justice Announces Settlement of Litigation Between the Federal Government and Rare Breed Triggers… The settlement includes agreed-upon conditions that significantly advance public safety with respect to FRTs, including that Rare Breed will not develop or design FRTs for use in any pistol and will enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety. Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products. [More]
It’s a yuge step.
It’s also not “shall not be infringed.”
Related UPDATES
Bill Maher tells Americans to stop pretending they have ‘core convictions’ and ‘deeply held beliefs’ [More]
Talk about saying something about yourself and who you surround yourself with…
Talk about being all over the map… except on the Second Amendment. He calls it “bulls#!+” and grouses that Congress can’t “limit the number of clips in a gun.”
Hey, if you’re going to commit blood libel, you may as well not know what you’re talking about.