I have pinned this post to the top of my blog. It is to remind people of what many of our opponents want. Alison Aires wants a tyrannical government. They want summary execution for private possession of firearms.
We are unpersuaded by the State’s argument that LCMs are not “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment because they are not necessary to operate a firearm. The State reasons that firearms can operate with smaller capacity magazines. But the text of the Second Amendment does not limit “Arms” to the minimum equipment necessary to operate a weapon. And nowhere in Heller or Bruen’s textual analyses did the Supreme Court suggest that the availability of alternative equipment changes the definition of an arm under the Second Amendment.
It is important to note that the decision was 10-5 and that Freeman, writing for the majority, is Biden appointee. And for people who care about such things, she is a black woman. The racist who would normally call this decision a right wing, white male, ruling will find themselves a bit tongue tied on this occasion.
Please also note that anti-gun politicians attempting to use such weak arguments is very telling. They are reaching the end of the line. As we move forward their babblings will become less coherent and more easily dismissed. Soon their contribution to society will be considered nothing more than a stain on liberty in our history books.
On July 1, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear challenges to so-called “assault weapon” bans out of Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois. That means the justices will now confront one of the most important Second Amendment questions in the country: whether states and localities may outlaw some of the most popular rifles in America by attaching to them a political label designed to frighten the public. However, the gun-control lobby chooses to market these bans, the underlying reality is simple. The government is attempting to prohibit arms that millions of peaceable Americans own for lawful purposes.
In my mind this should have been resolved within a few years after California passed the Roberti–Roos “Assault Weapons” Control Act in 1989. But the reality is that we didn’t have the SCOTUS votes for a win. There were a lot of people who even doubted we had the votes to agree the 2nd Amendment was an individual right in the 2008 Heller decision. Now, we know we have the votes and the pro-freedom organizations are pushing as many cases as they can through the courts while the chances of a win are good.
This could be dismissed as an incredible fantasy dream that could never true:
“The US Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, has agreed to hear en banc the question of whether Congress has the constitutional authority to enact federal gun control laws.”
The only hook in the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government to regulate guns is the commerce clause. Had you been concerned the feds restricting gun ownership in the early 1800’s you would have thought you were doubly protected by the lack of an enumerated power as well as the 2nd Amendment. As of Wickard v. Filburn (1942) the government bypassed the enumerated powers restriction, and they burst through the loophole like one of the Missoula floods. Now we have an essentially unlimited Federal government.
The case before the Fifth Circuit is a gun case by a convicted felon in possession of a firearm challenging the government’s authority granted in Wickard v. Filburn. If successful at both the appeals court (plausible) it would be immediately appealed to SCOTUS. Justice Thomas has said he thinks this approach to invalidating gun regulation has merit.
If SCOTUS overturns Wickard v. Filburn we would suddenly be living in an unknown universe. Probably 95% (or more) of what the Feds currently do would be beyond their authority.
This would be a way to get out from under the $40 Trillion dollar debt. It would relive all the congress critters from being blamed for the collapse of, well, just about everything the government does.
I would like to believe this has the potential to restore the limited government the founders envisioned. But, to put it mildly, I am skeptical. But it is fun to think about. Imagine the liberal tears, shrieks, and wailing!
But just that this is being considered is incredible. We truly live in interesting times.
“Doubles all around,” said Tradition. “New Jersey is paying.”
A little knowledge of 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 helps with the punchline.
I’ve been putting time and money into this cause for over 30 years now. It is incredibly satisfying to be able to make jokes like this instead of thinking about to make my last stand at my underground bunker in Idaho as costly as possible for the forces of tyranny.
I’ve been quoting Winkler since 2008 (see also here). I would never call him a friend to the gun rights movement. But he is mostly accurate, if you ignore what some people might say are lies by omissions, in his observations.
That he says, “there very few guns laws that are safe”, is an admission from the other side that a structural collapse in our opposition is in sight. This is other evidence of this too:
I think a lot of folks on the left see this like I saw the gay marriage issue: Regardless of how one might feel about it, it was a losing issue for R’s. And it is better that the debate on it just be disposed of for good. Many folks on the left know 2A is a losing issue for them. And the longer they drag it on, the more active we get about it. Being anti-2a is an anchor around their necks.
Of course, that is not the universally accepted take:
Elon Musk just told the highest-paid profession on earth it was never a skill. It was a workaround.
AI no longer needs programming languages at all. It writes machine code directly. Raw binary optimized beyond anything human logic could produce.
No syntax. No compiler. No translator.
Musk: “You don’t even bother doing coding.”
Every language ever written. Every framework ever built. Every career spent mastering them.
All of it was humanity’s way of approximating what machines actually needed. We didn’t learn to speak to computers. We spent fifty years building a crutch because we couldn’t.
AI just made the crutch irrelevant.
Now add Neuralink. No keyboard. No screen. No interface.
Musk: “Imagination-to-software.”
Intention becomes execution. Nothing between what you imagine and what exists.
Humanity spent its entire history building tools to shrink the gap between mind and reality. Language. Writing. Mathematics. Code.
Every one was just a smaller bottleneck. AI doesn’t shrink the bottleneck. It removes the gap.
The entire framework of technical expertise just collapsed into one question. Can you think clearly.
Everyone else is debating how AI changes development. Musk already moved past the debate. He’s not optimizing the process. He’s dissolving the need for one.
The barrier between imagination and reality held for all of human history. It just fell.
Just one question, “Can you think clearly?” <SNORT!!>
That is hilarious. There are surprising number of people that contradict themselves in a single written sentence. Just imagine what looking under that hood at their thought patterns would be like!
But let’s go with it for a bit. Imagine if there was no practical way for a human to review programs before they were deployed. That is what this proposal means.
Programs thought into being by 1,000 different madmen will attempt genocide of Christians. A different set of 100,000 madmen will attempt the complete annihilation of all people of Jewish heritage. And others of white, black, brown, and/or yellow skin color would be targeted for extinction. The existence of source code in the present-day world offers some hope of detection and remediation of the killer code.
And if there were no source code a rogue AI could infect every other AI with near zero ability for humans or benign AI to detect the situation before it was too late.
Imagine all the world’s industrial controllers, vehicles, medical equipment, food supply chains, electrical systems, water supplies, pharmaceuticals, and machines of war are secretly programmed to kill as many humans as possible starting on January 1, 2030, 00:00 UTC. With no way to know all the computers were about to flip a bit and change from obedient servants to apex predators we would be caught totally by surprise. Even if a critical mass of people did survive and eventually suppress the new super predator, there would be no way to quickly recover. Essentially every computer from the one in your watch to the computers in your appliances and even sewers could have a seed of the virus that given a semi-fertile place to grow could reconquer the world and be smarter about it the next time. The survivors would have to destroy or completely isolate every computer on the planet and start up our technology chain again… if they dared.
Fun times huh?
On the other hand, while this might technically be possible it seems unlikely. Programs are seldom written just once and never changed. They are extended with new features added. Bugs are found and fixed. Going into an optimized executable file and adding a new feature is really, really tough compared to having a higher-level language that allows insertions, deletions, and corrections of any size.
Grok seems to concur that it seems unlikely to occur anytime soon:
Unlikely in the dramatic form described. Here’s why:
AI is augmenting, not replacing, the stack yet: Modern LLMs excel at high-level languages (Python, Rust, etc.) because that’s what vast training data contains. They can generate assembly/machine code for specific tasks, but full complex programs (OS kernels, databases, GUIs) still rely on structured languages, libraries, tooling, testing, and human oversight for reliability, security, and maintainability. Direct binary output would be brittle—tiny changes in hardware, OS, or requirements break it without easy debugging.
Interfaces are improving fast: Voice, multimodal (e.g., Grok), and brain-computer interfaces will make “describe what you want” much more powerful. We’re already seeing AI agents handle end-to-end tasks. But “imagination-to-software with zero gap” requires massive leaps in reasoning, planning, verification, and hardware integration. Near-term: much less boilerplate and faster prototyping. Not the end of programming languages.
Real trends supporting parts of it:
AI is generating huge amounts of code in startups and tools.
Small dependencies/libraries may decline as AI “vibe codes” one-off solutions.
Binary analysis/reverse engineering is getting easier with AI, weakening “security by obscurity” for closed software.
But open source isn’t dying—it’s evolving amid challenges like maintainer overload from AI slop.
So, I don’t think AI will entirely skip the source code step entirely. It might create a new programming language that human cannot understand without an interpreter. But I think that should be a red line that it is not allowed to cross.
So, what to do? I have a suggestion. The Supreme Court should consider summarily reversing some of our wayward Second Amendment decisions. To put it more colloquially, it’s time for some benchslaps. Nothing less will give this court any pause before ultimately blessing every arms restriction it reviews.
Lawrence VanDyke Circuit Judge 9th Circuit Court July 16, 2026 Knife Rights v. Bonta
I like the translation he gives for the meaning of a benchslap.
These sterile descriptions, while accurate, don’t fully capture the stinging impact of a summary reversal. When the Supreme Court summarily reverses, it’s essentially sending a clear (if harsh) message to a lower court:
Dear lower court:
Your decision sucks…. And it sucks so badly, it isn’t even worth a closer look.
Kindly re-do it.
Regards,
The Supreme Court
This is language in a Federal Appeals Court decision I never expected to see in my lifetime.
July 17, 2026. Today, a middle level federal appeals court threw out New Jersey’s longstanding “assault weapons” ban and magazine ban as unconstitutional. In a stunning, long-awaited decision in ANJRPC v. Attorney General of New Jersey, the U.S Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit ruled that semi-automatic rifles and magazines in excess of 10 rounds are in common use by millions of law abiding Americans and are therefore protected arms under the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.
See also:
I find it ironic that New Jersey is getting their “assault weapon” ban ruled unconstitutional before the similar Washington state law is thrown out. Compared to New Jersey, Washington is relatively new to the infringement game of magazines and semi-auto firearms.
I suspect we will have to wait until late June of next year before my AR-15s and 18 round pistol magazines are grudgingly legally tolerated in Washington.
Still, it’s another brick in the wall and worthy of celebration.
The federal government has filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in a case challenging the ban on possessing and carrying firearms in U. S. Post Offices, making the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) win final.
In September, the Northern District of Texas ruled in favor of SAF and declared the carry ban on post office property unconstitutional, enjoining its enforcement against the plaintiffs, including SAF members. The District Court went on to clarify that the injunction had nationwide effect. With the voluntary dismissal of the appeal, SAF’s win in the case stands, meaning all current and future SAF members will remain covered by the injunction moving forward.
A ghost gun company has been ordered to pay more than $100 million in the death of a Kentucky teenager who had purchased the company’s pistol-building kit online.
The verdict — believed to be the largest-ever against a gun dealer — was awarded by a jury Wednesday following a trial focused on whether the vendor, Husky Armory LLC, skirted federal regulations barring the sale of the gun-assembly kits to those under 21.
…
A state court in Louisville had previously issued a default judgment against the vendor for failing to respond to the lawsuit. Following a two-day trial this week, a jury awarded $4.2 million in economic damages and $100 million in punitive damages to the family.
“This historic verdict sends a powerful message to ghost-gun sellers who set up businesses to profit by circumventing critical safeguards like background checks and age verification,” said Dana Mulhauser, an attorney for Everytown Law.
There are some odd things in this story:
Why didn’t the dealer show up in court? Where they just letting the LLC fold and avoiding the lawyer costs?
What does “skirting federal regulations” and “circumventing critical safeguards” mean? If regulations were violated, then shouldn’t there have been criminal charges?
The 18-year-old who committed suicide with the “ghost gun” was legally an adult. And some Federal courts (with more coming soon) have ruled that 18-year-olds can legally purchase guns. To my readers who are lawyers, would a court ruling that an 18-year-old can legally purchase handguns result in this verdict being thrown out in some future appeal?
Joe: Why don’t these legal criteria result in an “unconstitutionally vague” situation?
Grok:
For your blog post, here’s a clear, balanced explanation of why courts have generally not struck down the “readily convertible” / ATF frame-and-receiver criteria as unconstitutionally vague.
The Legal Standard for “Void for Vagueness”
Under the Due Process Clause (5th and 14th Amendments), a law is unconstitutionally vague if it:
Fails to give ordinary people fair notice of what conduct is prohibited (or regulated), or
Encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by officials.
However, the Supreme Court applies this doctrine with some flexibility, especially for economic/regulatory statutes (as opposed to pure criminal bans). Laws don’t need to be perfectly clear in every hypothetical; they must provide a “reasonable degree of clarity” for the average person. Courts also consider context, administrative guidance, and whether the law has a core set of applications that are understandable.
Why Courts Have Upheld ATF’s Approach
Multi-factor tests are common in federal law: The “readily convertible” standard draws from longstanding language in the National Firearms Act (1934) and Gun Control Act (1968), which use terms like “may readily be converted” for things like short-barreled shotguns or machine gun parts. Courts have upheld similar flexible standards for decades in firearms and other regulatory contexts (e.g., “sporting purposes” tests, “assault weapon” definitions in some states, or environmental regs).
Supreme Court precedent in ghost gun cases: In the 2025 Bondi v. VanderStok decision (and related rulings), the Court addressed the rule and did not invalidate it on vagueness grounds. Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion focused on statutory interpretation and found that the Gun Control Act “plainly” covers certain kits and unfinished frames. The Court viewed the ATF’s factors as providing workable guidance tied to objective elements like design, marketing, and practical completability (e.g., referencing specific kits assemblable quickly with common tools).
Fair notice in practice: Proponents argue that commercial sellers and serious builders have access to ATF guidance, FAQs, industry examples, and legal counsel. The regulation targets clear cases (e.g., “Buy Build Shoot” kits marketed as easy home assembly) rather than raw scrap metal. Enforcement focuses on sellers, not random personal projects.
Judicial deference to agencies on technical matters: Courts often give agencies like the ATF latitude to interpret technical terms in their statutes, especially where Congress used broad language.
Counterarguments and Ongoing Debate
Critics (including some lower court opinions before Supreme Court review, and Second Amendment advocates) contend:
The factors (time, tools, skill, intent) are too subjective, creating a chilling effect on lawful conduct and risking selective enforcement.
The old informal “80%” line was clearer; the new rule blurs it in ways that make compliance unpredictable for manufacturers.
In some challenges, defendants have argued it violates fair notice, especially for edge cases.
These arguments have succeeded in narrow ways in lower courts or specific applications, but broad facial vagueness challenges to the core rule have not prevailed at the Supreme Court level so far. Vagueness claims in gun cases often intersect with Second Amendment scrutiny (Bruen framework), where regulations must be consistent with historical tradition—adding another layer.
Bottom Line for Context
The criteria survive (for now) because courts treat them as a workable regulatory standard with roots in older statutes, sufficient guidance for core applications, and legitimate government interests in tracing crime guns. That said, the area is litigious and somewhat uncertain—exactly why you’ve seen so many lawsuits, state variations, and industry shifts. Legal experts on both sides continue to debate it.
For your post, you could note that “vagueness” is a high bar to meet constitutionally, and regulators prefer flexible standards for evolving technology (like 3D printing or modular designs). Always attribute sources (ATF docs, court opinions) and consider including perspectives from groups like the NRA/GOA on one side and Everytown/Giffords on the other for balance.
This is a neutral summary based on public legal developments as of 2026—not legal advice. Court rulings can shift, so check the latest opinions if you’re publishing. Let me know if you need quotes, citations, or help structuring a section.
Joe: A short-barreled shotgun or rifle is readily created from a normal length shotgun or rifle with a hacksaw within a few minutes. Why doesn’t the sale of common shotguns and rifle result in a legal violation?
Grok:This is a common and reasonable question about the difference between “readily convertible” in practice versus how the law actually draws the line.
The Legal Distinction
Under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act, a short-barreled rifle (SBR) or short-barreled shotgun (SBS) is a regulated item (Title II firearm) requiring registration, tax stamp, and ATF approval. However, selling a standard, legal-length rifle or shotgun does not violate the law, even though a person could illegally shorten it with a hacksaw in minutes. Here’s why:
“Readily convertible” is not purely about physical ease or time alone. ATF and courts look at the overall design, configuration, and intent of the item as sold. A factory rifle or shotgun is manufactured and sold in a configuration that is not an NFA firearm. The law regulates the finished product’s characteristics (barrel length + overall length) at the time of transfer, not hypothetical future modifications by the buyer.
Precedent and statutory language: The NFA defines SBRs/SBSs based on their dimensions when possessed or transferred. Simple possession of a hacksaw or the knowledge that someone could cut it down does not turn a legal firearm into a regulated one. If it did, virtually every rifle and shotgun would be presumptively illegal, which Congress never intended.
Contrast with ghost gun kits: ATF’s frame/receiver rule (and “readily convertible” for kits) targets items specifically designed, marketed, or sold with the purpose and features that make them function as (or quickly become) the core regulated component of a firearm. Examples include unfinished frames bundled with jigs, matching slides, and instructions for rapid completion. A standard rifle is not sold that way—its design is for lawful use at full length.
Key Practical and Legal Reasons
Intent and marketing matter: Selling a hacksaw alongside a shotgun marketed as “easily convertible to SBS” could trigger scrutiny. Selling a normal shotgun does not.
Historical and policy line: Congress chose specific dimensional thresholds for NFA items rather than banning everything modifiable. Making an SBR without approval is illegal (possession of the modified gun), but the unmodified host gun remains legal.
Enforcement reality: ATF prosecutes illegal shortening after the fact. They do not treat every long gun sale as constructive manufacture of an NFA item.
In short, the law focuses on the characteristics and commercial presentation of the item at the point of sale/transfer, not every possible illegal downstream modification. This is why standard rifles and shotguns are freely sold, while certain unfinished frames/kits designed to become functional firearms quickly face different rules.
This distinction helps explain why the “readily convertible” standard is applied more narrowly in some contexts than a pure “can it be done fast with basic tools?” test. For your blog, it’s a useful illustration of how technical feasibility alone doesn’t dictate legality—statutory definitions, intent, and regulatory purpose do.
As always, this is a high-level overview of federal rules; specific cases can turn on facts, and state laws add layers.
This is too nebulous and creates a chilling effect upon a specific enumerated right. “Shall not be infringed” is the proper resolution.
Honorable Roger T. Benitez (Ret.) served as a United States District Judge for the Southern District of California from 2004 until his… pic.twitter.com/m1hJsiGh0U
Nothing much has changed with the New York Times over the years. In the 1930s, thanks to Walter Duranty, the so-called “newspaper of record” was effectively cheerleading for Joseph Stalin’s communism. Today, in Jia Lynn Yang’s “How American Socialism Changed, and Stormed the Democratic Party,” it displays a similar sympathy for a modernized version of that same evil system, now advanced by New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani and his allies.
Yang’s article is filled with admiration for socialism’s supposed adaptability and moral force. She notes that Mamdani’s New York protégés “won by harnessing a wide sense of grievance.” In other words, they are skilled politicians, identifying discontent and converting it into electoral success. But Stalin, too, harnessed grievance, appealing to resentment against the czarist regime. That did not make him a champion of liberty.
What do you expect? If they were capable of learning from history and the world around them, they could see the difference between East and West Germany, North and South Korea, Hati and the Dominican Republic (opposite sides of the same island), and Venezuela before and after the socialists took power.
Even when lined up at the edge of the ditch like millions of others before them, they will still insist, “This is a mistake! I’m a good communist! This isn’t real communism!”*
Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.
But the courts, strong action from the executive branch, and determined community action eventually stopped the Democrats from socially acceptable lynching, separate water fountains, only sitting in the back of bus, suppressing voters, illegal mixed-race marriages, and a multitude of other injustices.
A culture shift with support from the courts allowed homosexuals out of the closet and the right to marry.
It is now our turn to change the culture in a dramatic and nearly irreversible way.
With a specific constitutionally protected right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to back us up, why can’t we achieve our goals as well? I think we can and will. I think we are on the edge of a widespread collapse of the resistance to our destiny. I think wins in the “assault weapon” cases will break their will to continue.
The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.
Today, Barb and I went on a somewhat impromptu hike to the First Burroughs Mountain adjacent to Mount Rainier. We had been in this area before (see Barb and Joe’s unexpected adventure and The mountain has a hat). I think it was my current manager at work who recommended today’s trail. I had been somewhat intrigued by the trail when we took the branch to the Mount Fremont lookout. Even more so the second time when I went with a co-worker from the east coast. Then, when my manager strongly recommended it, I decided it was definitely on my to-do list. When on Saturday Barb said she would like to go to Rainier and asked where I would like to go. I told her of the recommendation and we made it happen.
We left home at 5:30 AM and arrive at the Sunrise Parking lot about 7:45 AM. The lot was nearly full. We felt really good about getting a decent parking spot. It was foggy and even misty on the drive, and we were a little concerned about the weather blocking good views. The forecast was for a sunny afternoon and by 8:45 it was rapidly clearing.
7:59 AM leaving the Sunrise parking lot:
There are steep cliffs and from the trees you know it the winters are long and harsh. The fog was started to clear by 8:11:
Below is a picture of Barb on the trail ahead of me and was taken a few seconds after the picture above. The trail on this section is really nice. Other areas were narrower and potentially hazardous.
This picture was from 8:45 and is the trail I had only seen from a distance on the way to and from the Fremont Lookout. You can see the trail below going across the hillside from this picture from the Fremont Lookout post.
At 8:58 you can see the trail to the lookout and the lookout itself (on top of the first peak from the left) across the valley:
More pictures from the same location at the picture above:
25 mm lens.
50 mm lens.
18 mm lens at 9:07. This was our first good view of Mount Rainer itself:
55 mm lens at 9:07:
From the top of First Burroughs, we could see about 10 goats who seem to have no concern there were 20 or more people 100 or so feet away giving them lots of attention.
9:46 with a 55 mm lens:
9:47 with a 300 mm lens:
Same picture as above with the image cropped:
Still more cropping:
9:48 Barb:
9:58 I’m not sure what this is supposed to be. But it is on the top of the First Burroughs:
10:10 We took a new to us trail back to Sunrise:
10:40 The trail is a little more “interesting” here. Barb became far more cautious. She once fell on a trail while on Mount Rainier and it took her a year to fully recover:
We were really glad we took the new trail. Not only because it was new to us but because we had a spectacular view when we stopped for lunch at 10:45. Just left of center is a gravel covered glacier. You can see the glacier wall and the multiple streams of glacier melt leaving the face of the glacier. On the right is Mount Rainier:
11:03 The glacier face with a 300 mm lens:
11:03 120 mm lens. A lake fed in part from the glacier:
11:05 Mount Rainier with a 129 mm lens:
11:10 Another interesting point on the trail:
We got back to our car about 1:30. We walked a total of 6.9 miles. We drove home and took naps. It was a bit tiring but very well worth it.
This analysis draws on two major U.S. military sources: the 1962 U.S. Army Medical Department report Wound Ballistics, which compiled data from multiple surveys covering thousands of casualties from World War II and Korea, and the 2012 technical report by two U.S. Air Force Academy researchers that provides a detailed study of the ballistics of the 30-06 cartridge.
Analysis
A deformed, wobbling (yawing), non-bonded bullet, traveling at an estimated 2,507 feet per second, that is designed to mushroom and deform upon contact, likely began to tumble by over 90 degrees within 3″ of tissue, separate and fragment, dumping all of it’s 2018 ft-lbs of energy within just 6 inches.
I am skeptical this can be used as a definitive answer to the questions raised because it seems unlikely the U.S. Army had access to statistically significant human wound ballistic data with 30.06 cartridges using soft-point bullets. Military ammo is full metal jacket with more recent allowance of the use of match grade hollow points where the hollow point is an artifact of the construction rather than a deliberate design to increase the ability of the bullet to wound.
That said, through and through shots for elk with this bullet type and weight (the claims I have seen are 150 grain Remington Core Lok), are far from certain. With deer they are mostly certain. But these shots are mostly through the lungs which are much easier to penetrate than muscle. So, with a young, large man like Kirk, a bullet losing its jacket and fragmenting in a neck shot, as the autopsy claims, then the main bullet fragment hitting the spine (I don’t know about this part) it seems plausible that it might not have exited.
Let’s be precise about causes. For example, the housing crisis isn’t a progressive policy failure — it’s rooted in decades of restrictive zoning, corporate real estate speculation. Homelessness requires federal funding for mental health services and addiction treatment. Blue cities can’t solve (problems like these) alone.
