NFA Injunction Takes Effect

From The Truth About Guns: "DOJ Lets the Stay Expire — Silencer Shop’s NFA Injunction Takes Effect." From the article:

    At 12:01 a.m. Central on August 13, the seven-day stay on Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF ran out — and the Department of Justice let it. No emergency motion to the Fifth Circuit. No request to extend the pause. Nothing.

    For the first time in more than 90 years, a federally licensed dealer legally transferred a suppressor to a private buyer with no tax stamp, no Form 4, and no entry in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

    Gun Owners of America, Silencer Shop, and two buyers; YouTuber turned congressional candidate Brandon “The AK Guy” Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell closed the deal minutes after the stay lapsed.

    GOA called them the first unregistered suppressor purchases from Silencer Shop in the NFA era, and argued both men were covered twice over: as GOA members and as Silencer Shop customers. 

The article warns, however: "This is where readers need to slow down before doing anything stupid. The injunction is broad, but it is not nationwide amnesty." 

• The relief covers suppressors and AOWs bought through Silencer Shop or its dealers — not every gun store in America.
• It applies only in the 27 states without state laws mirroring the NFA. Fifteen states will still require ATF registration, and suppressors remain flat-out banned in others.
• SBRs and SBSs are covered by the ruling — but a separate law still stands. Hendrix’s order struck the NFA registration and approval requirements as applied to short-barreled rifles and shotguns too. The catch is the Gun Control Act: 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) independently bars a dealer from transferring an SBR or SBS without ATF sign-off, that provision sits outside the enjoined NFA sections, and an approved Form 4 is currently the only paperwork ATF offers to satisfy it. The tax is $0, and the NFA hook is gone, but a Form 4 is still required for short-barreled long guns, which is why Silencer Shop launched with suppressors and AOWs only.
• State and local law still remains regardless of this potential win.

There are more details in the article, so be sure to read the whole thing. The Mr. Guns 'n' Gear channel also goes into more detail:

VIDEO: "Breaking: The Biggest 2nd Amendment Win Ever - What You Need To Know"
Mrgunsngear Channel (26 min.)

Federal District Court Rules Portions Of NFA Illegal

From Shooting News Weekly: "US District Court in Texas Rules That With $200 Tax Gone, NFA Registration is Unconstitutional." Since the justification for the NFA was that it was to collect taxes, the removal of the $200 tax stamp on certain NFA items, such as SBRs and sound suppressors, left Congress without Constitutional authority to regulate those items. However, the ruling only applies to the plaintiffs in the case and would not extend to NFA items that are still, in theory, taxed. The Mr. Guns & Gear channel has more:

VIDEO: "Breaking: The NFA Ruled Unconstitutional - What You Need To Know"
Mrgunsngear Channel (15 min.)

Shilo Hendrix Found Guilty Of Using Racial Slur

MPR News reports: "Rochester jury finds woman who hurled racial slurs at a Black child on a playground guilty." Guilty of what? One count of disorderly conduct toward Sharmake Omar, the man who filmed her; but she was acquitted on a second charge of disorderly conduct for her conduct toward the kid that stole her baby's food. "She was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine, was placed on probation and ordered to complete community service," the article relates. Since she isn't facing jail time unless she violates probation, it is doubtful she will appeal the case, which is probably what the judge is counting on since the conviction rests on very shaky Constitutional grounds as this article from FIRE explains: "Shiloh Hendrix’s conviction can’t be squared with the First Amendment."

    Unless the trial record contains some critical fact absent from public reporting, that conviction cannot stand under the First Amendment.

    The video merely shows a heated verbal exchange between Hendrix and Omar. No threats. No violence. Nothing beyond words. However much offense they caused, that simply does not justify the government imprisoning, fining, or otherwise punishing the speaker. A public argument does not become a crime because a speaker used a particular word.

    The jury reportedly was instructed on the quaint “fighting words” doctrine. Although still technically an exception to the First Amendment, the Supreme Court recently threw cold water on “fighting words,” observing it “has not upheld a conviction under the fighting-words doctrine in 80 years.” That case was 1942’s Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, involving a man who had choice words for a police officer. It’s a good thing the fighting-words exception has been sharply limited and arguably erased by the Court’s subsequent speech-protective decisions. Violent individuals shouldn’t have a veto over what others can say.

    Even if the “fighting words” doctrine still has a pulse, it’s very hard to see how it applies to Hendrix’s comments. The doctrine is, at most, confined to a tiny category of face-to-face insults that, under the circumstances, are likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction. But courts have made clear that even the most taboo racial slurs are not fighting words per se. And, as the video shows, Omar solicited Hendrix — who was walking away while carrying her child — to repeat the slur so he could capture it on video and shame her. She did so and then continued walking away. Nothing about the interaction suggests Hendrix’s words were likely to provoke an immediate violent response.

What this case is really about is punishing an uppity white woman. If the races had been reversed and she had been calling out "cracker" at a white kid, the prosecutor would have laughed at the mere suggestion that a criminal offense had occurred. 

    But perhaps the deeper lesson here is that we need to deport people like Omar. The kid's father obviously wasn't that upset about the incident. So why was Omar following a white woman around in a park and filming her? Had he been filming her before this incident? Or did he manufacture this whole incident in order to make money (he has raised over $40,000 on SpotFund)? 

Shiloh Hendrix Trial Begins

You may remember Shiloh Hendrix. She is the young mother who confronted a black kid who stole apple sauce from her baby bag--food she had brought along for her baby. But she used the "n-word"; and although blacks constantly use it in reference to each other, no white is allowed to use it. Thus, as the article notes, Hendrix has been "charged with three counts of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor charge with a maximum of 90 days in jail."  

    Hendrix, who has pleaded not guilty, appeared on Monday in Olmsted County District Court as jury selection got underway for her trial. 

    The jury will decide whether her behavior was unlawful and likely to cause violence, or if her words are protected under the First Amendment.   

This is in reference to the "fighting words" doctrine in which it has been held that words, made face-to-face, “which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace” are not protected speech under the Constitution. You can read more about this doctrine in this article from the Freedom Forum: "What Are Fighting Words? Definition, Examples and More."

3rd Circuit Strikes Down N.J. Assaut Weapon & Mag. Ban

Ammoland reports: "Major 2A Victory: Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s AR-15 & Magazine Bans." From the article:

Sitting en banc [i.e., the whole court rather than a three judge panel as normal], the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled July 17 in Cheeseman v. Davenport, formerly Cheeseman v. Platkin, that New Jersey’s so-called “assault firearm” ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to every semiautomatic rifle covered by the law. The court also struck down the state’s prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

 No word on whether New Jersey will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. 

    The article also explains the importance of this decision to other "assault weapon" ban cases that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear:

    The national importance of this ruling is difficult to overstate. Other federal appellate courts have upheld semiautomatic-rifle or magazine bans by treating commonly owned rifles as military weapons, minimizing lawful possession, or stretching late historical regulations beyond recognition.

    Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s dissent acknowledged exactly what the majority accomplished. She complained that the ruling makes the Third Circuit “the only Court of Appeals in the Nation to afford constitutional protection to AR-15s and LCMs.”

    That admission identifies the real story. There is now a clean federal appellate split over whether the government may ban AR-15-style rifles and commonly owned magazines.

    The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the consolidated Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases, which ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Third Circuit has now given the justices a detailed roadmap grounded in Heller, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford.

The article warns against immediately treating the laws as void: "New Jersey gun owners should not treat the publication of the opinion as an immediate green light to disregard existing statutes. The appellate mandate, further district-court proceedings, and any request by the state for a stay must still be watched closely."

Gun & Preppings News #90

 Some links that may be of interest: 

• "Pistols in America Across 250 Years"--Guns & Ammo. With the quote of the day: "Free men own guns, and there’s perhaps no better symbol than a handgun to distinguish an American from another person living elsewhere in the world."
• "Reducing Violent Crime Isn’t Complicated, You Just Have to Want to Do It"--Shooting News Weekly. The author mentions the general points: "Governments must make crime riskier by increasing arrests and convictions, imposing longer prison sentences, and allowing law-abiding citizens to defend themselves." But he also points out:

Nor is it a coincidence that the record influx of illegal immigrants during the Biden administration coincided with a sharp increase in violent crime. It is equally unsurprising that crime has fallen as deportations have increased. Deportation records show that 70 percent of illegal immigrants deported during the Trump administration had either criminal convictions or pending criminal charges in the United States. Even those who avoid arrest understand that any contact with law enforcement could lead to deportation, giving them a strong incentive to stay off the police’s radar and avoid committing additional crimes.

• "Holding Zero: A Case Study of Your Scope's Nemesis"--Rifleshooter Magazine. The author notes:

The inability to get a rifle sighted in can come from several sources. Your rifle could have a problem. Or it just may not like the loads you’re feeding it. It could—(shocking thought!)—even be you, the shooter, that’s inconsistent. However, scope and scope mounting-system issues are frequently the culprit, and that’s what we’re here to explore in this article. 

And:

    Good bases and rings do hold quality scopes precisely in place. Not just for a while, but as hundreds, even thousands of shots create mini earthquakes.

    However, some scopes just won’t hold zero, and some bases and rings just won’t hold tight. Usually, that’s because they’re either cheap (let’s call it what it is), or they’ve been improperly mounted. Either is extremely frustrating. Both must be resolved before the rifle can perform properly.

    What causes scopes, scope rings, or bases to come loose? There are a variety of possibilities, but the most common ones are recoil—when a scope is mounted improperly—and vibration. As in, vibration in the belly of an airplane, or the rifle case mounted to your ATV, or behind the seat of your pickup. 

• And on the topic of precision shooting: "AR-15 Precision Long Range Shooting Basics"--AR Build Junkie.  An interview of Former Army Ranger sniper team leader, Ryan Cleckner, who is also the author of Long Range Shooting Handbook. There are also links to a few videos on long range shooting. And for those interested into getting into precision shooting with an AR, Cleckner says: "With long-range ARs, I would only worry about the barrel and the trigger.  Even if you have a budget AR and you just want to upgrade some parts and you put a decent quality barrel on it and a nice trigger, you are going to be fine." He has some more advice on upgrading an AR, so be sure to read the whole thing.

• Something that may be of interest to those of you with military surplus rifles: "Barrel Harmonics: How Shooting With a Bayonet Attached Affects Accuracy"--Shooting News Weekly. The author explains:

    Any person with knowledge and experience shooting precision rifles — or just shooting rifles precisely — knows that when a shot is fired, the barrel flexes and then returns to its original state in a fraction of a second. That’s called “barrel harmonics.” There are plenty of super slo-mo videos online that demonstrate this. 

    During a precision rifle course our instructor had us deliberately take shots with our bolt-action precision rifles and then stick them through a section of chainlink fence with the barrels purposely resting on the fence to see if our point of impact changed. Spoiler alert, the impacts were off dramatically. Our ½-size steel silhouette targets were around 200 yards away if memory serves. 

He then tested the shift caused by mounting bayonets on an AR15 and an AK style rifle: specifically, a Springfield Armory SA-16 (a semi-auto clone of the M16A2) and a Century Arms BFT-556 (a 5.56mm AK 74 style rifle). With the bayonet mounted, the SA-16 went from a 0.68 inch 5-shot group at 25 meters to 2.3 inches; and the group printed about 3 inches above point of aim. The BFT-556 had a 2.36 inch group at 25 yards without the bayonet; and, according to the author, the group size showed only a 0.5 inch different with the bayonet mounted, and the group only moved 1.5 inches higher. The author concludes:

    When we do our rifle ballistics math and extrapolate how a one-inch group at 100 yards translates to 2 inches at 200, etc., a 3-inch rise in impact between 25 and 50 yards translates to 6 inches of rise at 100 and a full 12 inches at 200. Being 12 inches off at 200 yards could definitely translate to missed targets.

    To be fair, we wouldn’t likely fix bayonets if we knew we were engaging targets beyond 100 yards. The cold steel of a bayonet is intended for up close and personal work. In a close quarters battle environment like the jungle or a MOUT situation, we expect targets to easily be inside of 100 yards.

    It’s safe to say that adding bayonets to fighting rifles negatively affects accuracy in longer distance shooting. However, for CQB situations, having a chunk of lethal steel affixed to the end of your barrel wouldn’t have such a negative effect on accuracy as to preclude its use. Just be sure to take it off — or take it into account — before engaging anything at greater distances.  

• "Unbreakable? Not Quite: Common AK Failure Points"--The Firearm Blog. Not surprisingly, these include the extractor claw and spring, fire control group springs, recoil springs, firing pin issues, bolt wear, rivet problems, cracked trunnions, gas block wear, ejector wear, and corrosion. I will comment from experience that there are many nooks and crannies where water can collect in an AK which are hard to reach with a rag to absorb the water. I would recommend that when returning from the field using an air compressor and/or hair dryer to blow out the water and dry the weapon. 
• "A Reliable, Affordable AR-Style Shotgun: The Tokarev TT-12 PRO"--Shooting Wire. What caught my attention about this was the author's assertion that this shotgun was reliable. Oh, and the price: an MSRP of $399, but the author claims that the street price is running about $250. 
• "Concealed Carry Corner: Concealing On A Motorcycle"--The Firearm Blog.  An excerpt:

The big difference between carrying in a regular car and a motorcycle is the fact that you're exposed to the outside world and elements while on a motorcycle, so there aren't many places to just outright hide your handgun. Not only do you have to worry about keeping your handgun concealed, but you also have to keep in mind that moving around and leaning on your bike can cause different strain on your holster than what's typically normal for carrying concealed. When going at highway speed, it's common for shirts to ride up in the wind without a heavier vest to keep things in place. It's important to think about where your handgun is positioned and if there's a chance of it being exposed at higher speeds when on the highway. 

•  "Pocket Pistols Are Dead: Here's Why You're Wrong"--Handguns Magazine. The author notes:

As we have laid out, you have 4 extremely general categories of pistols to choose from for CCW. So, if you’re choosing one of the extremes in a pocket pistol, how is it relevant in 2026? Maybe your occupation doesn’t allow for a pistol on your waist - not necessarily in a legal sense - but potentially because you are in a trade like carpentry, plumbing, etc., where your waist already has a toolbelt taking up all of the real estate around your waist. So, you need to resort to more creative methods of carry like your pocket.

He also explains:

    The primary scenarios where a pocket pistol may be a good application for you would be formal attire, hot weather, or extenuating circumstances at your job. We have already painted the picture for your job. You might have a carpentry belt around your waist, work in an office where a hip-carried firearm could be accidentally brandished, or other instances that demand your pistol should reside in your pocket.

    Another opportunity to pocket carry is while donning a suit and tie. Professional wear is often tight-fitting and doesn’t take into account the possibility for concealed carry. So, if you force it, it can be tremendously uncomfortable as well as open the door for scaring your co-workers or friends who have delicate sensibilities.

    Finally, there are the oppressively hot times in the summer where you’re only wearing a thin T-shirt and shorts. This type of clothing gives you a cooling factor in hotter temps but doesn’t lend itself well to carrying a firearm.

• Speaking of pocket pistols: "Phlster Introduces Enigma Micro For Pocket Pistols"--The Firearm Blog.
• "Big Woods Bucks x Henry Repeating Arms Long Ranger Big Woods Carbine"--The Firearm Blog.  Henry has produced an 18.5" barrel version of their .308 Long Ranger lever action rifle intended for hunting in dense woods. It still uses a 4-round detachable box magazine. 
• Since these are a type of insurrection, I believe it is a topic to which preppers should pay attention: "The Scourge of Teen Takeovers"--City Journal.  Key point:

    Police officers, district attorneys, and sheriffs offer a different explanation for the teen takeovers: they are the consequence of a decades-long demonization of the criminal-justice system.

    Asked how the Chicago Police Department would have responded to a stampede on the Magnificent Mile before that demonization took hold, a recently retired officer with over 30 years on the force replied: “We would have cleared the streets, arrested those breaking windows, looting stores, and assaulting passersby. We would have used pepper spray, fists, and batons to restore order—all of which we did during the Bulls riots [in 1992], the Democratic National Convention in 1996, NATO, and other localized disturbances that didn’t make the news.”

    But then, he says, “the bottom fell out. Officers were cast as the enemy by eight years of Obama.” After the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014, followed by those of Laquan McDonald in Chicago that same year and of Freddie Gray in Baltimore in 2015, “we were cleaning spit off our windshields on a daily basis. We were physically attacked more during those years than at any other point in our careers.” Officers feared being sued for lawful tactics that make for bad optics.

    The cops disengaged. “We drove by the dope sellers on the corner, asked no questions of the juveniles who were clearly up to no good, and ignored the cars running stop signs and weaving through traffic.” Better just to do your eight hours and go home.

    Another retired Chicago cop recalls asking his commanders in 2010 when mobs were storming downtown: Can we make arrests? He was told: just hold the line and move them around. Even were the officers to engage, the chance that the average detained teen would face serious consequences was already low.

    In the 1990s and early 2000s, officers had a protective attitude toward business; they took responsibility for the well-being of shopkeepers and their customers, says a Chicago sergeant still on the job. “It’s different now.”

    And then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd died while restrained by a Minneapolis officer. The country’s elites proclaimed that systemic racism had killed Floyd. Politicians and business leaders rushed to explain the ensuing firebombing of police cars and stations, the attempted murder of police officers, and the destruction of businesses as an understandable, even justifiable, reaction to police oppression.

    The post-Floyd race-riot era is largely coterminous with the Covid era: lockdowns began in late March 2020, and the riots erupted at the end of May. That overlap has allowed policing skeptics to attribute the crime spike that began in 2020 to Covid rather than to de-policing and de-prosecution. Those same skeptics now apply the argument to teen takeovers as well.

    The rest of the world again provides a useful benchmark. Other countries did not experience a comparable surge in crime beginning in 2020, just as they did not experience a wave of teen takeovers. The United States experienced both because police and prosecutors shied away further from imposing consequences on antisocial behavior.

    The juvenile-justice system was similarly emasculated in the twenty-first century, for much the same reason as the adult system: to avoid disparate impact. The Obama administration sued school districts for disparities in school-discipline rates between black students and white students. Suspensions and expulsions plummeted. Rather than being punished, insubordinate pupils were directed to “peace circles” and other forms of restorative justice.

    Outside the school bureaucracy, cities and states loosened their already-permissive rules for holding juveniles accountable for crimes. From 2008, when Barack Obama was first elected president, through 2021, the rate at which black male juveniles received final dispositions for violent offenses fell 67 percent, according to the National Center for Juvenile Justice. It is unlikely that this decline in adjudications reflected a 67 percent drop in violent crime among black juveniles, given victimization data and the reports of police officers. Instead, budding criminals were increasingly kept out of the juvenile system altogether, whether their misconduct occurred in schools or on the streets. Those who did enter the system encountered increasingly permissive rules.

Looks Like The Supreme Court Had A Busy Morning

• "Supreme Court rules Trump can turn back asylum seekers at US border in major immigration win"--New York Post. Liberals argued that the invaders should be deemed to have "arrived" in the U.S. for purposes of asylum laws when they reached the border, but SCOTUS held that the common meaning of "arrived" applies, not almost here. Justice Sonia Sotomayor once again showed why she should not be on the Court complaining that the decision "extinguishes the light of the torch of the Statue of Liberty.” 
• "Supreme Court rules Trump can remove deportation protection from Haitians, Syrians"--New York Post.  It opens the door to more than 6,000 Syrians and 350,000 Haitians being deported. Most significant part, I think, was that SCOTUS is that when the applicable statute said there was no judicial review of decisions terminating Temporary Protected Status, it meant it--no more lower court meddling. 
• "Supreme Court strikes down Hawaii law requiring permission to carry guns in stores and hotels"--New York Post. The law that was struck down was of the type called a "Vampire rule" requiring the gun owner ask permission before entering an establishment. "The high court’s 6-3 decision means people can carry guns onto privately owned property like shopping malls and gas stations, unless the owners specifically say guns are banned at their establishments."

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.