Quote of the Day
We are supporting Ms. Gardner’s petition for certiorari because, as we state in the amicus, a general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense cannot coexist with each state having a requirement that visitors from other states first undergo a costly and time-consuming process. The fact she went through the permit procedure in Virginia should be ample proof she is not a criminal, and besides that, she was acting in self-defense from what she believed was road rage and an attempt to do her harm.
If the high court takes this case for review, it could result in a ruling which could mandate national concealed carry reciprocity. Such a ruling would definitely benefit our members and supporters nationwide.
Andrew Gottlieb
CCRKBA Managing Director
December 11, 2025
CCRKBA FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN CHALLENGE OF MARYLAND CCW LAW | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
That she is an adult, is not subject to involuntary confinement, and not a fugitive from justice should be ample proof of her fitness to exercise her right to keep and bear arms. But, bargaining for what you believe to be achievable and having a good chance of winning is better than demanding something you have a near zero chance of getting and losing.
Let normalcy bias do its thing then get more next time. That is what the anti-freedom people have been doing for a long time. More than one can play this game.
exactly
“Let normalcy bias do its thing then get more next time. That is what the anti-freedom people have been doing for a long time. More than one can play this game.”
The trouble is that of the Orwellian window.
We have been moved by the outright and stark actions of the communist to the place they can just ban things outright.
Then make us baby step till they regain power. Then do it again with some more in your face outrage. Logic and reason be damned.
The real problem now is that we are on the flat earth battle space they have created.
No matter which way you are looking. It’s a cliff.
Demographics, food, medicine, dopamine/drug addiction, disarmament, monetary policies, just to name a few. And anyone of them will destroy us.
As Bracken says; “Before you start bailing out the boat, first you have to stop the people that are drilling holes in it.”
How exactly that happens legally I have no idea. Because the communists will never give you any other choice but to obey them or die.
2A was wrote by our forefathers for us.
Because that’s how the real world works.
“Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.”
I guess our forefather weren’t the only ones to recognize that universal truth.
And like it or not, here we go again.
So… did the anti-gun people, “Stop the people drilling a hole in their boat before bailing it out?”
Do we have a Judge of any real power that can read and apply.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” ?
Ya, I kind of think they did.
The analogy is broken. We’re not bailing out the boat of RKBA, we’re drilling holes in the anti-RKBA boat. We don’t need to stop the people bailing, we just need to drill faster.
Their boat: Guns kill people.
Our holes: Spoons don’t make people fat, pencils don’t misspell words.
Their boat: Gun violence is largest in the world.
Our holes: Only count homicides, not suicides and self defense.
Their boat: laws that ban guns
Our holes: overturn those laws at SCOTUS.
True. We are on the offensive and mostly winning.
“The analogy is broken.”
Really?
The communists don’t have a separate boat here. There is only one constitution of the United States (boat) that we’re arguing over.
And instead of invoking the 2A’s operative sentence that controls everything written before it.
You can’t even get your lawyer to speak it in court. Let alone SCOTUS.
All they will discuss is historical analogs, Heller, Bruen, and “where the court said”.
All of which the communists just ignore and go on to pass some other constitutional outrage.
As for SCOTUS itself, were one seat away from the communist clown-world agenda.
Even if you could get them agree with you.
The communist will just invoke some “emergency” order. Which seems to be the way government is truly run these days.
Look, I agree and applaud the efforts that are being done on all our behaves.
And truly wish I could do more in the same vein. So please don’t think I’m not appreciative. I am.
But this whole mess started and is maintained with government wanting to get around their constitutional mandate and sworn oath.
And the only way it will get fixed (legally speaking) is to stand on the solid ground of the constitution and 2A itself.
And not back down an inch.
And to date we have allowed the communist to control the debate. And then argue with them through logic and reason. (Which never works).
Instead of just pointing to their naked criminality. Their outright treason. And the fact that this one simple sentence placed where it is, proves that beyond any reasonable doubt.
Sorry, I’m old and get frustrated easy.
A modest proposal:
Let localities pass any gun control laws they want.
BUT they only apply to the people that reside in that locality.
And by locality, I mean local. Not the state, not the county, not the city; at least one subdivision below any polity with a population over 5000 people. Elect a Gun Control Board that does nothing but Control Guns, and the Regulation part of Congress is to make sure that it is expressed in a standard format, structure and formal legal language that is not subject to misinterpretation. No “assault weapon” or “battlefield weapons of war” phrasing; you’ll have to say something that means a thing and not other things. The rules aren’t in effect until they are registered and someone could look up an address and know what the rules are for anyone living at that address.
Then the rules of where you live go with you everywhere. After all the people that live near you are the best positioned to know what you (and your neighbors) can safely handle. After all, they’re the ones most at risk of you going off the rails, right? You and everyone in close proximity. Thus, they know best. If you can’t be trusted with a revolver in New York City, you can’t be trusted with one in Montana, ya morally deficient reprobate. If you can be trusted with a machine pistol, you can be trusted with one in New York City, good sir/ma’am..
If you don’t like the rules, you won’t have to move far. Those rules should be disclosed as part of real estate transactions, as they may materially affect the property values. I’m sure people will be quite happy to pay well to live in a gated community in Seattle where nobody who lives there is allowed to have a firearm of any kind.
Oh… and to hire someone to do a thing is the same as doing the thing yourself. No armed security for people who can’t have guns themselves.
I proposed something similar a couple of years ago:
Nice. But I consider 2013 more than a “a couple of years ago.” 😉
“Let localities pass any gun control laws they want.
BUT they only apply to the people that reside in that locality.”
How ’bout this instead.
Either you live by and swear allegiance to the constitution. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Or you go find another country to live in.
That’s not a particularly modest proposal.
Agreed.
Won’t work for those of us who travel. Let the Constitution rule
This case would produce a summary judgment in a flash, if only the country’s judges paid any real attention to the plain English words of the Constitution.
“Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State” (Article IV section 1).
This is why our driver’s licenses work nationwide. Or why a marriage performed in NH is valid anywhere in the country. And that illustrates another point: it isn’t relevant that the laws are not uniform. States differ in who can marry, but a marriage between two people that was legal when and where performed is recognized everywhere, including in states where those same people could not, or not then, have been married in that state.
Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » DO AS MUCH AS YOU CAN WHEN YOU CAN: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good: Argue for t
This is good. Not perfect, but good good. The basic facts of the case are about as clear-cut, clean, and sympathetic as any attorney is ever going to see.
video recap and discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-Ykm11KuAc