Quote of the Day

Now in Viramontes, we have an amicus from “Americans Against Gun Violence,” that decided to boldly go where no other brief today has gone: Asking the Supreme Court to overturn Heller

Firearms Policy Coalition @gunpolicy
Posted on X October 28, 2026

The brief being referred to is Americans Against Gun Violence amicus brief in Viramontes.

An alternate link for the brief is here.

After a certain point being bold does not get admiration from others. It just gets a shake of the head at the sad desperation involved.

I don’t believe they can get more than one SCOTUS vote to support their claims. It is nice for them to openly admit they do not want the general public to have guns for self-protection:

The Heller decision both rests upon and promotes the deadly myth of “guns for protection.”

We could stop there and be satisfied we have wasted enough time on their delusions. But there is other low hanging fruit.

They even used the old, tired Cruikshank deception of:

the Court held that “bearing arms for a lawful purpose” is “not a right granted by the Constitution.” Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 553.

They, as is typical of the anti-gun nuts, have to lie and/or be deliberately deceptive to have hope of gaining traction. As I have pointed out before, they are deliberately leaving out the very next sentence of that decision:

The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

Chief Justice Morrison Waite
U.S. Supreme Court
U S v Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

As said by the late, great, Neal Knox:

The Court stated in Cruikshank that since the First and Second amendments limited only the Congress they did not prohibit the Ku Klux Klan from conspiring with local officials to prevent newly freed black slaves from holding political meetings or having guns. It boggles the mind to hear so-called “Liberals” proudly cite the Cruikshank decision.

Emphasis added.

They also pull out the equally tired statement about retired Chief Justice Warren Burger’s claim of:

This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud – I repeat the word “fraud” – on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

When people bring that out, ask them, “What decision is that from?” The answer is that was not a court decision at all. It was in a PBS NewsHour interview. It was not briefed and debated. It was just his relatively unresearched opinion.

I’m almost certain I have spent more time on this brief than SCOTUS and their clerks will spend on it. And I certainly have spent more time than it deserves unless someone can find some humor in their sad desperation.