Notes from the Resistance
Herschel springboards off my latest “common use” article and gives his own insights. [More]
I’m also interested in the guy in comments who felt the need to qualify his admission that I’m “absolutley correct here” by saying he “often disagrees with” me. Really? How? On what? Is it just from what he infers or can he prove something I said is wrong?
My print articles are available by subscription or at diverse and inclusive newsstands near you:
Since no innovation ever begins “in common use,” a government with the power to do so can ban all new weapon developments from those they would rule, retaining them exclusively for itself. [More]
Sorry, you can’t have one. Hey, it’s your “gun rights leaders” who embraced the “in common use” litmus test we’re using to deny you.
The NFA is constitutional because it’s “a modest burden” and not a ban [More]
The Second Amendment does not say “shall not be banned.” It says “shall not be infringed.” Even modestly.
Unless you’re one of the “smartest people in the room” who buy into the Trump/Bondi DOJ is playing super secret 3D chess with court rules that they can’t tell us about, and it will all work out in the end, honest…
Then ask why they’re not pushing SBRs.
UPenn Climate Prof Quickly Backtracks After Seeming to Call for Armed Uprising Against Trump [More]
Michael Mann…? Isn’t he the environmentalcase who tried to destroy Mark Steyn over free speech…?
Let’s contact General Miyares and politely let him know that you are greatly disappointed in him for not signing on to the national concealed carry reciprocity letter that twenty-four other attorneys general sent to Congress. [More]
Either that or you could do it very publicly, and in no uncertain terms let him know he needs you more than you need him.
Today, Pennsylvania Gun Rights (PAGR), Firearms Owners Against Crime (FOAC), and Gun Owners of America–Pennsylvania (GOA-PA) are jointly calling for State Representative Frank Burns (D-Cambria) to immediately resign from the Pennsylvania House Second Amendment Caucus following his decisive vote to kill a Constitutional Carry amendment. [More]
Vs.
Let Me Be Absolutely Clear: I Have NEVER Voted Against Constitutional Carry. The claim that I voted against constitutional carry is 100% FALSE. I have never—and will never—vote against your Second Amendment rights. [More]
They can’t both be right.
What would the significance of overturning procedural rules be on overall 2A progress, and why does everything in politics have to be so damn laden with twists, turns, and pitfalls instead of just being straightforward and unambigouous?
That’s a rhetorical question.
And I wonder if this, this, this, and this had any bearing on his decision to make a choice on a rule that had an effect on permtiless carry…
Then again, there’s this to consider (scroll down in comments):
The PA House of Representatives’s single subject rule, as stated in the Pennsylvania Constitution, requires that bills passed by the House must only contain one subject, which is clearly expressed in the title. This rule, found in Article III, Section 3, aims to ensure legislative clarity and prevent “logrolling” or the inclusion of unrelated provisions in a single bill… The Pennsylvania Constitution’s “single subject rule” is found in Article III, Section 3. Here’s the full text:
Article III, Section 3 – Passage of Laws
“No bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title, except a general appropriation bill or a bill codifying or compiling the law or a part thereof.”
Bottom line, armed citizens are out there. A lot of them. Law enforcement needs to understand this and be prepared to handle encounters respectfully and professionally. [More]
It’s bad enough when we’re behaving legally and they’re not. Add in jokes and threats about killing us, and that’s intolerable.
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.