Quote of the Day
We would like to offer the Democrats a different idea: Dare the Republicans to try and stop them.
Democrats should not limit themselves to what Republicans might or might not support. Instead, they should fight to advance a maximalist agenda and force Republicans to go on the record blocking or obstructing limits on corporate power.
Stephanie Taylor, Sean Vitka
November 12, 2026
The Democrats’ new motto should be: Republicans, try and stop us
What I find most interesting is the policy list. The authors want limits on corporate power and data centers and aggressive climate action, and they cite polling and candidates favoring Medicare for All or a public option, higher taxes on millionaires, a $15 minimum wage, and stopping war.
Guns are not mentioned. And guns were not really an issue in most of the campaigns.
Why is this? Where is their gun control agenda?
I suspect they know it is not an issue that clearly helps them win swing voters. In other words, they know being labeled a gun grabber is not good for advancing their ambitions for increasing their political power. And I suspect they love power more than the destruction of gun owner rights. Yes, guns are an impediment to their desire for power. But being voted out of office is a greater impediment.
There certainly are true believers who cannot imagine good, sane people opposing gun control, and some states will pass new restrictions. Democrats now hold full control in Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and Virginia has already passed an assault weapons ban. But I suspect the state legislatures will not go for a massive wave of restrictions on gun owners. And I think the courts will support gun owners far more than they have in the past. Just look at the fact that SCOTUS ruled 6-3 against Hawaii’s carry restrictions and 9-0 against prosecuting Hemani. And look at these cases (assembled by Claude):
2026
- Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche (5th Cir., Oct. 21, 2026). A three-judge panel held that Section 1242 of the Federal Switchblade Act violates the Second Amendment. It’s a knife case, not a firearm case. The case was sent back to the district court, and DOJ may seek review.
- Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey (3rd Cir. en banc, July 17, 2026). The court ruled 10-5 that New Jersey’s ban on semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15 and on magazines over 10 rounds is unconstitutional.
- Baird v. Bonta (9th Cir., Jan. 2, 2026). A divided panel held California’s open-carry ban in counties over 200,000 people unconstitutional.
Late 2025
- United States v. Cockerham (5th Cir., Dec. 17, 2025). The court held the federal felon-in-possession law unconstitutional as applied to a man whose only felony was failing to pay child support. The Supreme Court left the ruling in place.
Earlier but still relevant
- Reese v. ATF (5th Cir., 2025). The court held the federal ban on dealers selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds unconstitutional, and DOJ declined to seek Supreme Court review. NRA-ILA reported in September that DOJ has declared the ban unconstitutional.
- Nguyen v. Bonta (9th Cir., June 20, 2025). The court struck down California’s one-gun-a-month law, and the mandate issued Aug. 14, 2025.
- Worth v. Harrington. The Supreme Court denied review, leaving in place an Eighth Circuit decision that restored carry rights for 18-to-20-year-olds in Minnesota.
The Supreme Court will also decide the AR-15 ban cases by next June. That is a lot of momentum for the gun grabbers to push back against.
Agreed, not every court agrees with the Third Circuit: The Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois’s ban a week earlier. But not only is the current judicial state, but judicial trend is better than it has been in the last 100 years. That must be taken into account by the gun grabbers. For example, DOJ has already sued Virginia over its new ban.