The College Fix: More Legal Scholars Now Agree With Trump On Birth-Right Citizenship

 Here's the article: "Growing numbers of legal scholars support Trump’s order on birthright citizenship." The key takeaway is that Trump was able to shift the Overton Window as to who is entitled to birthright citizenship. Trump's order "prohibits federal agencies from recognizing citizenship for children born in the United States after Feb. 20, 2025, if their mother is unlawfully present and the father is neither a citizen nor a lawful permanent resident, or if the mother’s presence is temporary and the father lacks that status." 

Belgium's Gulag Archipelago

In 2012, the Institute For Public Affairs published an article entitled "The Soviet Origins of Hate-Speech Laws." It outlines how the initial efforts of Western countries to enshrine free speech into international law was opposed by the Soviet Union and other tyrannical countries which, over the years introduced restrictions on speech, often set out as restrictions on hate and discrimination. Yet, as the authors observe:

... But we must not take them at face value. The concept of ‘hate speech’ (and the concepts which are drawn from it, such as group defamation) was deliberately and explicitly political. Article 20 has its origins in a clash between two worldviews—that held by Western capitalist countries which supported individual rights and liberties, and that held by the Communist bloc, which did not.

It did not end with the declarations and agreements on human rights. Over objections from Western powers that it was inappropriate and unnecessary to use speech laws to legislate morality, the protections of speech under international law was whittled away. The article notes, for instance, that "[t]he same occurred during the drafting of the International Convention for the Elimination of all Racial Discrimination. Here the restriction on freedom of speech is even more strident. All signatories must ‘declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination.’"

    The article wraps up:

    In 1948, as the Soviet Union was trying to place restrictions on speech in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Gulag system held 2.2 million people. The year the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was approved by the United Nations, 1966, was the same year that two satirists, Andrei Sinyavsky and Yuli Daniel, were put on trial, sparking the late Soviet dissident movement. ‘It is a sad reflection on Europe’, writes the Danish human rights advocate Jacob Mchangama, ‘that the increasing emphasis on criminalizing words that wound, offend, or hurt is the brainchild of the very totalitarian states with which Western European states were locked in an ideological battle during the Cold War.’ The human rights movement to restrict hate speech and racial discrimination was an ideological power play by the Communist Bloc that was looking for human rights law to approve the suppression of political dissent. The adoption of hate speech restrictions was not intended to liberate minorities (as so many contemporary human rights advocates claim), but to restrain democrats.

    In the decade following the two conventions, Western countries adopted their own forms of racial discrimination laws which prohibited, to varying degrees, ‘hatred’ or ‘discrimination’. The United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, and Europe adopted prohibitions to protect racial or other groups. Of the major Western nations, only the United States now has no prohibition against hate speech.

Understanding the origin of hate speech laws and their purpose--to protect dictators and tyrants--is key to understanding the prosecution and conviction of former Belgian politician "Dries Van Langenhove of hate speech for a lecture in which he presented data and arguments about racial differences, migration and gender."According to the article:

Van Langenhove was found guilty on two counts under Belgium’s 1981 Anti-Racism Law: Incitement to hatred or violence against a group on grounds of nationality, so-called race, skin colour, origin or ethnic descent (charge A), and dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or racial hatred (charge C). He was acquitted on the gender-related charge (B). 

And what were the grounds for this.

• "Van Langenhove argued that differences between groups are not primarily the result of structural racism but rather stem from inherent group differences, a perspective that was presented as part of a broader critique of multiculturalism and progressive policies."
• "He made the observation that people of colour generally are worse off than white people, something his political detractors also claim, though they disagree about the root causes."
• "Van Langenhove also linked mass migration to declining school standards, insecurity, prison overcrowding and strain on social security."
• "He dismissed the prevailing explanation of structural racism, stating: 'You can almost not blame them for thinking that way, because their most fundamental premises, their framework, that of egalitarianism. Once you start with that, you can’t build anything on it, because it’s already wrong from the start. These people are not equal, they are not equal and they will never be equal'."

This was too much for the judges presiding over the case:

    In its verdict, the court stated that Van Langenhove’s arguments were not merely controversial but crossed into criminal territory by promoting hatred and racial superiority.

    The judges wrote that “For an act to be punishable, it is not necessary for the defendant to have openly incited others to commit specific acts of hatred or violence… It is sufficient that others are incited to adopt a general attitude of intolerance or aversion towards the targeted group of persons.”  

    The judges acknowledged that political speech enjoys strong protection under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Belgian Constitution, but ruled that Van Langenhove’s remarks were criminal.

    They concluded he had the specific intent to incite hatred, dismissing his disclaimers (such as welcoming everyone to his youth projects regardless of background) as attempts to shield himself from prosecution. The court held that his overall message promoted a hierarchy of groups and attributed societal problems to the presence of certain populations. 

You will note that the court was not saying that Van Langenhove incited violence against immigrant groups, but incited his listeners to have thoughts and beliefs other than those approved by the government.

    But, again, the purpose of hate speech laws is not to protect people but to protect governments. In this case, to protect government programs and policies concerning immigration, criminal justice, and so on, from public criticism. The question that needs asking is why such a critique not allowed. Is it because there is some nefarious plot that requires Western nations to be overrun by migrants or is it more banal such as protecting politicians and government workers from losing their jobs? Or just a general practice of reflexively squashing dissent not matter what form it takes?

    Paul Joseph Watson also has some thoughts about this case in the video below. But as he notes, the prosecution was not required to prove that anything that Van Langenhove asserted was false. "Under the law, merely suggesting that increased diversity leads to anything other than wondrous benefits to society is a criminal offense. For Van Langenhov to have committed a crime, it is not necessary for him to have incited concrete acts of hate or violence. It suffices that others are incited to take on a general attitude of intolerance or disapproval regarding a group protected under the criteria of the anti-racism law. Yes, in Belgium, it's literally a crime to say that diversity isn't our greatest strength." 

 VIDEO: "He Said The Unspeakable"
m o d e r n i t y (7 min.)

1st Circuit: Illegal Aliens Don't Have 2nd Amendment Rights

From The Truth About Guns: "Appeals Court Rules That Illegal Immigrants Don’t Have Second Amendment Protections." The article explains:

The ruling revolved around a case involving the prosecution of Alberto Rebollar Osorio, a Mexican citizen who had been living in the U.S. illegally for 11 years when he was taken into custody during a traffic stop in Maine. He had a firearm in his vehicle and was subsequently indicted on a charge of possessing a firearm as an “alien illegally or unlawfully in the United States.”  

Applying the Bruen standard, the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 8 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A), which bans illegal aliens from possessing firearms, fits within the history and tradition of this nation’s regulation of firearms rooted in English law and because it was enacted in the context of modern societal concerns about security risks posed by immigrants unlawfully living in this country. The court reasoned:

“The relevant history reveals a longstanding concern about sovereign control over individuals who, although owing a temporary and local allegiance to this country, which subjects them to laws like § 922(g)(5)(A), belong to groups presumed allegiant to a foreign power and have not formally recognized the government’s authority,” Chief Judge David Barron wrote in the court opinion. “And, we further explained there, § 922(g)(5)(A) fits within that tradition as a measure that aims to reduce the threat posed by a group similarly lacking a regulable relationship with the government.”   

They shouldn't have needed to go down that route. The text of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".  As an illegal, Osorio is clearly not part of "the people". Unfortunately, past Supreme Court decisions have held illegals to be part of "the people" for other provisions of the Bill of Rights. 

    The 7th Circuit had previously also held that illegals do not have Second Amendment rights. As it should be. It is bad enough that the invaders are here, let alone that they be legally permitted to arm themselves.  

The Purpose Of An Organization is What It Does: Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown

Ammo Land reports that "Gun-Control Groups Tell Court Americans Have No Right to Body Armor," referring to arguments made by the Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown gun control groups supporting a New York law that would ban most citizens from purchasing body armor. The author remarks: "Calling armor dangerous because it can stop a bullet is a confession that the anti-gun movement is not merely interested in disarming citizens. It wants citizens easier to hurt." 

Trump Admin. Sues Denver Over Gun Ban

This is what I voted for. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced it "filed suit against the City of Denver, Colorado alleging that the City unconstitutionally bans certain constitutionally protected semi-automatic rifles. These laws unconstitutionally infringe on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms in common use for lawful purposes." The ban includes popular semi-automatic rifles including AR-15s. 

CT Dem Wants To Ban "Automated" Guns

From Breitbart: "Connecticut Democrat: Ban Guns That Can Be Converted ‘Into Semi or Fully Automated Weapons’." The article notes that "Connecticut state Rep. Bob Godfrey (D) spoke in favor of banning firearms that are 'too easily converted into semi or even fully automated weapons.'" You might think the law was to protect us from rogue AIs and their terminator drones and robots, but you would be wrong. It was just another ignorant politician demonstrating that he knows nothing about what he intends to ban.

    Godfrey was defending the convertible pistol ban, aka, the Glock ban, which the Connecticut House passed on Wednesday.

    CT Mirror reported that the ban “passed by a vote of 86-64, with all the House Republicans and 15 Democrats voting in opposition.”

    The Mirror noted that Godfrey defended the bill as it moved through the House. He admitted that Connecticut citizens have a right to own firearms for self-defense but hedged that admission by saying the state’s legislature has the ability to define which firearms constitute “defensive weapons.”

Reminds me of this meme:

 

Source: WRSA

Trump Administration Decided To Keep Biden's "Frame Or Receiver" Definition

 As some background, from the NRA:

    During the Biden-Harris administration, ATF, relying on its rule-making authority (“to make rules and regulations as are necessary to carry out” the GCA), expanded upon the terms “firearm” and “frame or receiver” to sweep in new classes of partially complete and nonfunctional frames or receivers and parts kits that contained such items.

    The new Rule’s definition of a “firearm” includes “a weapon parts kit that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;” 27 C.F.R. § 478.11. In deciding whether a kit “may readily be converted” into a working gun, ATF will consider several factors, including the time, ease, expertise, and equipment required to complete a weapon, as well as the availability of other necessary parts. Likewise, the expanded definition of “frame or receiver” covers “a partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frame or receiver, including a frame or receiver parts kit, that is designed to or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver;” 27 C.F.R. § 478.12. While that definition does not apply until an object has “reached a stage of manufacture where it is clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon,” and excludes an “unformed block of metal” or liquid polymer, the Rule otherwise allows the ATF Director to consider extrinsic factors when determining whether an object is a “frame or receiver.”

The ATF explained the purpose behind the rule:

Technological advances, the agency claimed, made it easier for companies to sell such items to unlicensed persons “without maintaining any records or conducting a background check,” leading (so the argument went) to a proliferation of so-called “ghost guns” and “difficult[y] for law enforcement to determine where, by whom, or when they were manufactured, and to whom they were sold or otherwise transferred.” 

In other words, the purpose of the rule was to better allow surveillance of the populace and allow for law enforcement to have a data base they could consult when they encountered home manufactured weapons.  

    The challenge over the Rule want all of the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where the majority sided with the ATF.  And for those hoping that the Trump administration will get rid of the Rule, don't hold your breath. The Firearms Policy Coalition explains:

    On February 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14206, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” It sounded promising, but it has since proven to be little more than empty rhetoric.

    The following month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a disappointing decision upholding the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” rule, a relic of the Biden Administration. Rather than dismissing the appeal or withdrawing the Biden ATF regulation before the Court ruled, the Trump Administration chose to continue defending the gun control rule, allowing the Court to issue a decision that preserved President Biden’s regulatory overreach.

    In May 2025, FPC provided the Trump White House, DOJ, and ATF with a complete, print-ready proposed rule to address the Court’s decision following months of dialogue with key officials. But the Administration has since sat on its hands.

    Adding insult to injury, the Administration informed us yesterday that “At this time, the [Trump Administration] has decided to maintain the current definition of firearm ‘frame’ and ‘receiver’ contained in that final [Biden Administration] rule.”

    Whoever is steering the Trump Administration is aiming the Titanic directly at the iceberg.

    To put this latest disappointment in context, FPC has provided the Trump Administration, the White House, DOJ, and ATF, with dozens of lawful actions that could be taken to protect peaceable gun owners and the right to keep and bear arms. Nearly all of those proposals have been ignored.

    Instead, in case after case, the Trump Administration has adopted authoritarian, anti-American positions to restrict Second Amendment rights and prosecute those who exercise them. Worse still, the Administration is actively fighting to restrict or eliminate the injunctive relief that FPC and other organizations obtain to protect people from government abuses.

    The primary point to keep in mind is that these laws are intended to protect the government and its power, not the people. Thus, such as in this instance, where there is a tension between surveillance and gathering information about the public versus protecting civil rights, the the surveillance and government databases will almost always win.

    That same primary point--protecting the government--applies to other firearms laws. The NFA was passed in order to protect the government against a population that had grown restive in those early years of the Great Depression. Its purpose was to restrict the population from possessing arms that would give it a fighting chance against a military force (i.e., destructive devices and automatic weapons) or assassinate public figures (which at that time were almost always carried out using concealable weapons). It was for that reason that the original bill for the NFA also included handguns in addition to short barreled rifles and shotguns. And it is why the feds will always fight tooth and nail against loosening the restrictions under the NFA while also going after things that would emulate a prohibited weapon.  

VIDEO: ATF Continues To Insist That Pistol Braces Are Illegal

According to the video below, the ATF indicated in a recent court filing that, despite the pistol brace rule being struck down, the reasoning behind the rule was still valid and it still considers pistols with braces to be short barreled rifles.  

VIDEO: "ATF: Pistol Braces Are Felonies AGAIN!"
Tom Grieve (10 min.)

Second Amendment Foundation Victory Against Post Office Carry Ban

From the Second Amendment Foundation: "SAF WIN: POST OFFICE CARRY BAN INJUNCTION COVERS CURRENT AND FUTURE MEMBERS" (h/t Anonymous Conservative). The Feds had tried to limit the injunction to only those members of the SAF at the time the suit was filed, but the judge held that it applies to future members of the SAF as well. 

Feds Sue Coca Cola For Discriminating Against Men

The suit stems from last September when Coca-Cola Northeast Beverages, a New Hampshire-based distributor, hosted a two-day women-only networking event at the Mohegan Sun Casino and Resort in Connecticut.

    About 250 women attended the event, which centered around the theme “Embrace Your Authenticity: Break Barriers, Be Genuine, Inspire Change,” according to the social media post.

    Women were excused from work and paid their normal wages during the trip without needing to use any vacation time, the lawsuit said.

    The company also paid for their hotel rooms, as well as food and beverages during the trip, according to the suit.

    Funding the trip for female employees, but not male ones, “constitutes a denial of equal compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of sex,” the EEOC said in its lawsuit. 

We need more suits like this. For too long, liberals and the organizations they control have gotten away with violating laws prohibiting discrimination. 

Another Trans Person Goes Postal

 From the New York Post: "Trans dad Robert Dorgan shoots wife, 3 kids in horrid ‘family dispute’ at crowded RI hockey arena as players and fans are seen scrambling to safety." Per the article, "56-year-old Robert Dorgan — who also went by Roberta Esposito — died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, police said." But not before shooting "his wife, three kids and a family friend in the stands at a high school hockey tournament in Rhode Island on Monday." His wife and one of his kids also died. 

Related: "Should Transgenders Have Their Firearms Confiscated?"--Guns America. According to the article, Ammunition to Go surveyed attendees of the 2024 National Rifle Association Annual Meetings in Dallas, Texas, with this very question. Per the article:

    When it comes to firearm confiscation for people who’ve had gender reassignment surgery, fewer than 22% of NRA members think these individuals should lose their firearms. About 28% are still on the fence.

    This means that approximately 50% of respondents firmly support 2A rights for the trans community.

    Interestingly, the oldest folks in the survey showed the most support for trans-gun rights. Only 18% of those 60 and older think gender reassignment should lead to confiscation.

    On the flip side, almost one outta three (29%) of 18-30-year-olds think those who’ve had gender reassignment surgery should have their guns seized.    

To be clear, the survey specifically asked about those who have undergone gender-reassignment surgery, so we aren't talking about someone like Corporal Klinger. At the time the Constitution was ratified, the law recognized that the rights of those of unsound mind could be curtailed, so there should be no Constitutional barrier to such a restriction. Be sure to read the comments to the Guns America article as they get to the meat of the matter. 

Loose Lips Sink Ships

Shooting News Weekly relates that "DC Man’s Slip of the Tongue Lands Him in Jail for Possession of a Forced Reset Trigger." According to the article, Erez Avissar was using a 3D printed forced reset trigger (FRT) at an unnamed shooting range in D.C., when he described the trigger as a "conversion device" to someone at the range--likely an employee of the range according to the article--and that person passed his name on to police who later arrested Avissar. Conversion devices--i.e., devices that convert a semi-auto to full-auto--are illegal under both federal and D.C. law. But an FRT is not a conversion device. Avissar's slip up, both in talking to the employee and in misstating what was the trigger, has landed him in jail.  

Lawsuit Filed Challenging The National Firearm Act

Back in 1934, frightened of how the populace was reacting to the economy being destroyed during the Great Depression, Congress considered a bill intended to disarm the populace of weapons necessary to overthrow a corrupt government or which it viewed as being popular with assassins: restricting access "destructive devices" (e.g., explosive shells and grenades, mortars, etc.); automatic weapons; short-barrel shotguns; short-barrel rifles; sound suppressors; and handguns. The restrictions on handguns was pulled from the final bill (Congress would try again with the Gun Control Act of 1968), but the rest went on to be regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA). 

    Because the courts at that time were intellectually honest enough to understand that the Second Amendment protected against any actions by the federal government to restrict arms--including (or especially) military arms--Congress believed the only way the NFA could pass Constitutional muster was to frame the NFA as a tax and, therefore, the reason for the $200 tax on most NFA items. 

    Which brings us to an article from the Shooting News Weekly entitled, "ASA, NRA, SAF, FPC File Lawsuit Challenging the Constitutionality of the National Firearms Act," which explains:

    ... If you’ll remember, back in June when the Big Beautiful Bill was being haggled over, there was much sturm und drang over the existential nature of the National Firearms Act, and how the Senate Parliamentarian would treat efforts to pull items like suppressors and SBRs out as part of the reconciliation process. Again, reconciliation measures can sidestep the Senate’s 60-vote requirement and pass with a simple majority.

    As many pointed out, the courts and the DOJ had for decades made the case that the NFA is tax measure. ... That being the case, inclusion of both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act in the B³ should have been a no-brainer.

    The Senate Parliamentarian, however, saw things differently and ruled them out. That’s why, instead of pulling suppressors, SBRs and SBSs out of the NFA and regulating them like any other firearm you can buy today, the only step forward included in the final version of the B³ was the elimination of the $200 tax stamp (which will take effect on January 1).

    But wait. Zeroing out the tax stamp isn’t nothing. As we and others have pointed out, eliminating the tax stamp undercuts any remaining argument that the NFA is a tax…because there is no longer a tax involved. On top of that, cans and SBRs are in common use. That means they pass the Heller test. There’s also no text, history or tradition of regulating them which means doing so doesn’t pass the Bruen test.

    Long story short…the NFA is now very constitutionally vulnerable. Yesterday, four gun rights orgs filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas — part of the gun-friendly Fifth Circuit — making exactly that case. 

Trying To Gin Up Support To Ban Your Father's Hunting Rifle

 NBC News laments: "Charlie Kirk assassin's alleged gun was powerful, vintage and hard to trace." The article notes that the rifle used by Kirk's killer "was a decades-old, German-made rifle built for use by the military in both World Wars, according to multiple law enforcement sources familiar with the investigation. So old that it may have been brought into the U.S. before laws were enacted in the 1960s requiring guns to be affixed with serial numbers or other marks to enable tracing." That apparently gives it some sort of super-power because: "'Short of the security afforded to the president, there’s no way to defend against the threat posed by this,' said Scott Sweetow, a retired official with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives." 

    While "they’re not designed to spray a large volume of bullets at once," the article helpfully explains, "they are, in some ways, ideally suited for use in sniper-style killings."

    ... Because they are so ubiquitous and beloved by hunters and recreational shooters, a person toting such a rifle in a place like Utah would not arouse any suspicion.

    And they are so well made that, with a decent scope, a person with basic firearm proficiency can strike a target from 150 to 200 yards away, roughly the distance of the shot fired by the Kirk assassin.

    “You do not have to have gone to sniper school or have been any type of champion marksmen,” said Brian Greco, a retired NYPD officer who served in the counterterrorism unit and a Marine Corps veteran. 

Believe me, someone openly hauling a scoped rifle through a college campus is going to arouse suspicion. In my area, they have even had lockdowns because of people being spotted on school grounds carrying folding shovels or umbrellas. 

    The article suggests it it is unlikely that the government will be seeking to ban hunting rifles (for now, it should have added) but the piece ends with another expert warning:

“A vintage firearm in grandpa’s old trunk is cool,” he added, “but it also unfortunately gives access to a firearm to someone who may otherwise have not had access or could have been denied access.” 

Ah yes. The liberal's greatest fear is that someone, somewhere, might be doing something without government permission. 

They’re Coming After Your Father's Hunting Rifle

Even as they pushed gun control for all sorts of other types of firearms, the Dems have always claimed they weren’t coming after your hunting rifle. Just weeks ago, after the Catholic school shooting in Minneapolis, the mayor pushed for stricter controls on "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines, but assured voters that "We're not talking about your father's hunting rifle here." 

    But like all other Dem promises, it comes with an expiration date. And we have reached it. Breitbart reports: “Stephen Colbert Pushes More Control on 'Long Guns' After Man Attacked Dallas ICE with 8mm Bolt Action.” After reminding his sycophants that he had long supported gun control:

Then Colbert went to gun control: “I mean, there really hasn’t been much movement to rein in the access to the long guns and many of the weapons used in these killings, but, I mean, hopefully, maybe there could be a political sea change in the United States.” 

This is an obvious reference to the weapons used to kill Charlie Kirk and in the attack on the ICE facility in Texas, both of which were Mauser bolt action rifles--exactly the type of rifles like your father or your grandfather's hunting rifle. 

VIDEO: California Bans Glocks

Although it had not yet been signed by California's governor, California's legislature has passed a bill banning pistols that can easily be converted to machine guns that appears written expressly to ban sales of Glock pistols and clones, including those already on the approved list of pistols. 

 VIDEO: "California Bans Glock"
Liberty Doll (7 min.)

DOJ Considering Rule To Ban Transgenders From Owning Guns

I've seen several sites post about this: "DOJ mulling rule that could restrict transgender individuals from owning guns: Sources"--ABC News. From the article:

    Senior Justice Department officials have held internal deliberations in recent days over potentially issuing a rule that could restrict transgender individuals from being able to own firearms, two officials familiar with the discussions confirmed Thursday to ABC News.

    The policy discussions, which are believed to be in their early stages and driven in part by chatter in right-wing media, follow last week's Minneapolis Catholic church shooting that the FBI has said was carried out by a transgender woman.

    Such a proposal could face significant pushback not only from civil rights groups but from gun rights organizations, which have historically been resistant to the issuance of any regulations restricting people's access to firearms. 

Time Magazine adds: "The aim of such a policy would be 'to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell,' an official reportedly said." 

    A lot of the comments I see view this as master level trolling because the Left will now have to choose between supporting gun control or supporting the rights of transgenders. Time Magazine seems to have opted for the latter, describing the rumors as yet another attack on trans rights by the Trump Administration, but other groups have also gone with the latter route, with Time also relating:

    Legal experts and LGBTQ+ advocates have sounded the alarm on the potential restriction.
    
    “The Constitution isn’t a privilege reserved for the few; it guarantees basic rights to all. Transgender people are your neighbors, classmates, family members, and friends—and we deserve the full protection of our nation's laws, not anti-American nonsense from the White House,” Laurel Powell, director of communications at the Human Rights Campaign, told ABC News. “If rights can be stripped from one group simply because of who they are, they can be stripped from anyone.” 

But there is precedent for this: the so-called "red flag" laws that allow a person's Second Amendment rights to be stripped if a person is deemed to be a danger to him- or herself or to others; and federal law prohibitd someone who has been adjudicated as mentally defective or has been committed to a mental institution from owning a firearm. According to federal regulations, being "adjudicated as a mental defective" includes a determination by a lawful authority that a person, due to "marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease," lacks the mental capacity to manage their own affairs. If the Human Rights Campaign doesn't like this, perhaps they should be opposing "red flag" laws. 

Weekend Reading

•  Greg Ellifritz, over at Active Response Training, has a new Weekend Knowledge Dump available. Some of the articles and links that caught my eye included: an article from Massad Ayoob entitled "When Burglars Attack: The Stiffler Case," which goes over a defensive shooting and the subsequent prosecution of the homeowner (Ayoob was one of the experts for the defense); in the save vein, an article with 36 rules for armed defenders; a link to a repository with easily over 100 downloadable and printable targets; an article going over how to rapidly reload a revolver; some thoughts on carrying a smaller pistol for self-defense (although, as the revolver reloading article points out, small revolvers don't suffer from the loss of reliability that you see with small semi-autos); an article on restoring leather holsters; and a lot more.
• While you are at Active Response Training, be sure to check out a couple other recent posts:
• ".22s for Self Protection?"
• "SWAT Raid or Home Invasion?"--some clues as to whether the person trying to bust down your door in the middle of the night are police or criminals masquerading as police. 
• On the topic of police coming to your door, you might want to check out this article from Concealed Nation: "Do You Have to Open the Door for Police? Know Your Rights." The author includes some special considerations for those that own firearms.
• And just for something different: "How Elite Special Operations Troops Created a Drug Cartel"--Reason.  

Feds Give Up Defending Pistol Brace Rule

Guns.com reports that the federal government has dropped all further appeals of a decision in Mock v Bondi where the court had overturned an ATF rule banning pistol braces, giving a win to gun owners. 

2nd Circuit Upholds NY Law Allowing Lawsuits Against Gun Manufacturers

 The Reuters article relates:

    A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a New York public nuisance law exposing the gun industry to possible civil lawsuits for violence caused when people use their products.

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan rejected a facial challenge to the law by the National Shooting Sports Foundation trade group and 14 members including Beretta, Glock, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger.

    Signed by Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo in July 2021, the law lets New York, local officials and the public sue manufacturers, wholesalers and dealers for endangering people’s safety and health through sales of firearms and ammunition.

    In a 3-0 decision, Circuit Judge Eunice Lee said the law was not preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, which shielded the firearms industry from civil liability when its products are used in crimes.

    Lee said Congress intended to preserve “at least some causes of action” for knowing violations of state firearms sales and marketing laws, and New York’s law was not vague about how the gun industry could comply.

    She also said the law did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce, citing the law’s public health and safety goals and absence of specifically identified economic burdens. 

Another way that the blue states are trying to legislate for the country as a whole.