A FORMER Civil Rights Division Attorney

Quote of the Day

The Civil Rights Division’s new focus on the Second Amendment, which is far outside its longstanding mission, is moving us even further away from our nation’s commitment to protecting all Americans’ civil rights.

Stacey Young
A former Civil Rights Division attorney.
November 25, 2025
US Justice Department plans gun rights office within civil rights unit | Reuters

Is she so “tone deaf” she cannot even hear her own words? She contradicts herself in a single sentence. How can the Civil Rights Division be moving away from protecting “all Americans’ civil rights” by protecting a civil right they have never protected in the past?

I would also like to point out the article authors don’t mention the contradiction either.

This is mental illness and/or a deliberate intent of manipulation.

I would like to emphasize the “former” in her title. She richly deserves it.

Perfect Stable Currency

Via GrandParaLarry @ParaLarry:

For now.

If the FPC (see also here) and SAF (see also here) have their way, then eventually the price of a Thompson clone could drop to a few hundred present day dollars.

In related news, I didn’t realize people were working on the interstate sale problem. I think should be an easy win. I’m pleased to see it is being addressed.

Emotion, Not Constitutional Analysis

Quote of the Day

Considering much of the justification for restricting the Second Amendment comes down to preventing violence, this distinction is strange.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment’s protections has expanded over the years. It’s almost impossible for a public person to win a defamation or libel lawsuit, since the Supreme Court ruled in the 1964 case New York Times v. Sullivan that the plaintiff must prove “actual malice,” which means knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.

Commercial speech used to be unprotected. Now, it receives intermediate scrutiny after SCOTUS’ 1980 ruling in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission.
Hate speech, flag burning, violent video games and lies about military honors are all protected now.

If the Supreme Court applied strict scrutiny to firearms regulations, they would fail due to the lack of historical tradition. Requiring a minimum age of 21 to own a firearm would fail, since 18–20-year-olds served in the 1791 militia. Red flag laws would fail, since there are no pre-deprivation hearings. Magazine limits would fail since there is no founding-era analogue. Many felons are nonviolent, so laws prohibiting their possession would fail as too broad.

Judges justify the hypocrisy by pointing to the need to prevent gun deaths. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 44,400 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. last year. However, when compared to a similar country, England (and Wales), which bans firearms, the U.S. has lower overall violent crime rates. This reveals that judges are making decisions based on emotion, not relying on a purely constitutional analysis.

Rachel Alexander
November 19, 2025
Courts Broadly Interpret the 1st Amendment, While Hypocritically Limiting the 2nd Amendment – FourG

There are other options. It is possible, even probable, that it is not an emotional basis for the decisions. It could be there are “just” different principles at work. A disarmed population is a compliant population. Political power grows from the barrel of a gun, etc.

Criteria for Truly pro-Second Amendment

Quote of the Day

In his role as Deputy Director, we have worked closely with Robert Cekada to ensure law-abiding gun owners have a seat at the table in shaping policy.

If confirmed, he would be the first ever truly pro-Second Amendment nominee to head the agency. By nominating an ATF Director who understands our community and respects our constitutional rights, President Trump and his administration are further underscoring their commitment to standing up for the Second Amendment and gun owners. We urge the Senate to confirm him without delay.

Knox Williams
President and executive director of the American Suppressor Association
November 20, 2025
What to know about Robert Cekada, Trump’s pick for next ATF director | Buckeye Firearms Association

Unless they can privatize the ATF and make it into a chain of convivence stores, I can’t consider anyone nominated to head the ATF to be “truly pro-Second Amendment.”

When Have They Ever Been Concerned with Facts?

Quote of the Day

If Congress passes a national concealed carry mandate, anyone you see could have a gun on them—and the police would be powerless to protect you.

Leaders must stand up for public safety and put a stop to the gun lobby’s dangerous agenda.

GIFFORDS @GIFFORDS_org
Posted on X, November 17, 2025

Objection! Presumes facts not in evidence.

The police don’t have the power to protect you now either. They only have the power to investigate and potentially arrest people after a crime has been committed.

Objection! Presumes facts not in evidence.

The post presumes private citizens who carry concealed guns are all criminals. The evidence is that people with concealed carry licenses are far less likely to commit a crime than even police officers.

Objection! Presumes facts not in evidence.

Allowing people to carry the most effective self-defense tools available increases public safety. It is only a dangerous agenda for violent criminals.

To be fair, gun control groups have never been concerned with the facts.

Via ‘Gun-Control’ Groups Don’t Trust You.

Courts or Legislatures? Why Not Both?

Quote of the Day

While many Americans still believe the courts are the key to restoring liberty, gun rights leaders say it’s time for a reality check — because the courts aren’t coming to save you. That’s the blunt warning from Hannah Hill, Vice President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights, who says far too many liberty activists have fallen into the trap of thinking they can sue their way back to freedom.

“No. The courts are NOT coming to save you,” Hill said in a recent statement. “If you’re waiting for a judge to fix this country, you’re going to be waiting forever.”

According to Hill, too many well-meaning conservatives are convinced that “one big lawsuit” will topple gun control laws or fix deep-rooted corruption, when in reality, the legal system is stacked against liberty from top to bottom.

Chris McNutt
November 14, 2025
Reality Check: The Courts Aren’t Coming to Save Your Gun Rights – Shooting News Weekly

I have been saying just the opposite for quite a while now. The legislatures in so many states are completely hopeless. I think the courts and/or prosecutions are the only hope in those gun-rights hellholes. If we can maintain an originalist majority on the SCOTUS long enough, we can get most of the bad laws removed from the books. Once the bad laws are off the books we can create a history of life without oppressive gun laws. The more history we can create the better our chances for a non-oppressive gun law future.

The risk is losing the majority on SCOTUS via the anti-gun politicians packing the court in the next five to ten years.

That said, having all the bad law the Federal level is plausible even without the support of SCOTUS. And if we can get rid of all the bad laws at the Federal level and in half or more the states then we have additional leverage for the remaining states.

I see the point of the article, and I am not entirely in disagreement with them. And redundancy in protection and plans are always a good thing. If we can get both the courts and the legislatures to see the plain and clear language of the 2nd Amendment that would be great. It would be much better than having just one or the other. So, both right?

The problem is that resources are limited and must be allocated to best accomplish the final goal. With the current SCOTUS I believe the path forward is more certain and less resource intensive than attempting to make similar progress in the legislatures. Hence, I’m going to be expending my resources on the courts for now. But I’m certainly not going to fault someone who can make a difference at the legislative front.

Do Studies Show Gun Control Works?

Don’t get mad and leave until you get into the good stuff at about 1:38 into the video.

Compassionate Leadership Means Hard Labor Camp for Life

Quote of the Day

Despite his website promising “compassionate leadership for a just future,” Smeltzer vowed in a recent post to “round up EVER [sic] SINGLE red hat wearing MAGA and put them in hard labor camps for the rest of their lives.”

While locking up those with whom he disagrees appears to be one of his key objectives, Smeltzer told the Washington Free Beacon that he is running a “health care and tax-the-rich campaign” and would use a role in Congress to advocate for his fellow “furry” fetishists.

Joseph MacKinnon
November 10, 2025
‘Furry’ Democrat running for Congress celebrated Kirk assassination, wants to put MAGA voters in ‘hard labor camps’ | Blaze Media

This refers to Samuel Smeltzer, a Democrat seeking to represent Michigan’s 7th district in Congress. He has six to eight opponents to defeat in the primary, then he would face the Republican incumbent in the November 2026 election. So, he still has a long journey ahead before he seizes the reins of power.

He certainly has the attitude I would expect from a socialist. The compassion part may not seem obvious in the current context. But if he really thinks all “red hat wearing MAGA” should be lined up in front of a ditch to be shot, then I suppose hard labor for life could be considered compassionate.

This is why we have the Second Amendment. This is why I created Boomershoot.

Prepare appropriately.

When Words Fail There Are Always Hand Signals

Via Matthew Bracken @Matt_Bracken:

I wish this were not true. But it has been true for decades. I remember one of my daughters bringing home a paper from college when she was going to the University of Idaho. I recall it being from a set of papers assigned by an economics professor. The students were to report on the errors they found in them. The paper was about some set of people in South America having freedom forced on them and how bad it was.

How do you argue with someone like this? How can you even have a conversation? We do not even share the definitions of words. Is there even a common basis for communication? Is it some sort of alternate reality?

I fear that at some point the only communication they will understand are hand signals. There are universal hand signals which everyone recognizes and usually comply with. Use them as a last resort.

WWII Veteran Says it Was Not Worth it for What We Have Today

Quote of the Day

My message is, I can see in my mind’s eye those rows and rows of white stones and all the hundreds of my friends who gave their lives, for what? The country of today?

“No, I’m sorry, but the sacrifice wasn’t worth the result of what it is now.

What we fought for was our freedom, but now it’s a darn sight worse than when I fought for it.

Alec Penstone
November 7, 2025
Winning Second World War was not worth it, says D-Day veteran

He is talking about the U.K. I cannot help but conclude this means people must be thinking their government of today is tyrannical. With the surveillance society, restrictions on free speech, firearms ownership, and even knife ownership I can see how a strong case can be made for that.

I wish them luck in recovering their freedom.

Gun Control in the U.S. is Futile

Quote of the Day

The actual figure really is innately unknowable. You can legally build an AR-15 rifle at home with a wee bit of mechanical skill and a router. However, for the sake of discussion, let’s pin that number at 30 million.

A fixed-stock AR-15 is 39 inches long. An M4 carbine with a 16-inch barrel is 33 inches long with the stock collapsed. Let’s therefore establish an average length for an AR-15 as 36 inches. If the typical “assault weapon,” whatever that truly is, spans 36 inches and you arrayed every one of them muzzle to butt, that line of guns would stretch from Boston to Los Angeles 6.5 times. That’s 17,045 miles’ worth of weapons. Starting to appreciate the scope of this thing?

There are around 400 million firearms in the U.S. A Glock 19 is 7.3 inches long. That M4 was 33. Some pistols are shorter. Some rifles are longer. Let’s just guess that they average around 20 inches across the board. Place every gun in America end-to-end, and now you have an unbroken line of weapons that will circle the globe five times.

There are 77 million lawful gun owners in the U.S. That’s 2.5 times as many Americans packing heat as there are soldiers on Planet Earth. We are some seriously well-armed rednecks.

After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre, the Australian government outlawed most guns, confiscating some 650,000 firearms. Gun control enthusiasts often look lustfully at our friends Down Under as role models. Even in a slow year, we gun-crazy Yanks buy that many new firearms every two weeks.

Will Dabbs
September 15, 2025
Gun Math is Hard | Field Ethos

Although the numbers above might seem definitive to gun owners, I’m not so sure it will have the desired effect on anti-gun people. I have often said gun grabbers don’t even understand arithmetic and some don’t even understand numbers. And with that blindness they may just double down. They may view this as all the more justification in saying, “There are too many guns on the streets.”

You Have a Mayor Who Hates Guns

Quote of the Day

You have a mayor who hates guns. If it was up to me, we wouldn’t have any handguns in the District of Columbia. I swear to protect the Constitution and what the courts say, but I will do it in the most restrictive way as possible.

Muriel Bowser
Mayor, Washington D.C.
2015
The Trump Administration Reveals the True Cause of Crime | An Official Journal Of The NRA

I appreciate her apparent honesty. But my guess is this does not begin to reveal the depth of his malfeasance.

Do not ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

I look forward to her words being used at her trial.

I Admire Their Ability to Lie

Quote of the Day

Kirk was shot in the throat by a high-powered sniper rifle while speaking to college students at Utah Valley University on September 10.

Phillip Nieto
October 29, 2025
Kash Patel shuts down Charlie Kirk foreign intelligence probe in explosive feud with Trump’s counterterror chief | Daily Mail Online

I have to admire the ability of some people to pack so many lies into a single sentence.

  • The bullet did not involve his throat. *
  • The rifle used was not a “high-powered sniper rifle.” **
  • The rifle did not shoot Kirk. It was a human who fired the shot.

See also: CCRKBA ALERT: MEDIA NOW CALLING KIRK ASSASSIN’S GUN A ‘SNIPER RIFLE’ | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms. Which includes this:

“The media couldn’t blame Kirk’s murder on a so-called ‘assault rifle,’ so they’re doing the next worst thing,” he added. “They’ve slapped a defamatory label on commonly-owned hunting rifles, hoping to make them the new bogeyman for the gun ban lobby. The Daily Mail has pulled a page out of the gun control playbook simply for the purpose of sensationalism. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

Gun banners lie. It is an essential part of their culture.


* Via Grok: No, it would not be accurate to say the bullet hit him in his throat.

The precise point of impact was the right side of his neck, specifically in the lateral cervical region (near the sternocleidomastoid muscle, approximately at the level of C5–C6 vertebrae). Medically and forensically:

  • The throat refers to the anterior neck (front), including the larynx, trachea, and thyroid area.
  • The neck is broader, encompassing anterior, lateral, and posterior regions.

The bullet entered the right lateral neck, not the anterior throat. It traversed obliquely leftward and downward, damaging the right carotid sheath and spinal structures before lodging near T1 on the left side—never entering the throat proper.

Saying “throat” would be anatomically incorrect and could mislead, especially given conspiracy claims misidentifying blood from internal vascular rupture as an anterior wound. Official autopsy diagrams and surgical reports consistently label the entry as right posterolateral neck.

** Via Grok: The rifle in this case was grandfather’s hunting rifle, modified with a shortened barrel and basic scope—functional for a 200-yard shot, but far from a modern sniper system.

Bottom line: Calling it a “high-powered sniper rifle” is inaccurate and inflammatory—it was a vintage bolt-action hunting rifle, effectively used but not technically either “sniper” or “high-powered” in the modern sense.

Human Beings are NOT SANE

Quote of the Day

Today’s topic addresses a pet peeve, which is how every single time some human-shaped monster attacks a school in America, the resulting commentary heavily features the line: “This never happens anywhere else!!” Really? Nowhere else? In no other country, in the entire world.

But here’s the linguistic game they play. Any time an incident involves a gun, it’s no longer a massacre. It’s a shooting. I insist on pushing back with that one. Of course they can say “it never happens elsewhere” if they make sure that it exclusively refers to only one specific type of massacre.

As for the argument that it makes the killing easier, therefore there will be more killings — that presumes some population of people who are a hair’s trigger away from killing everyone they see, but only stopped by the fact that they don’t have an “easy” way to do it. No, I argue that the important part is the line between “peace” and “killing”, and that once someone crosses that line, the weapon matters little.

Emma Hankins
October 17, 2025
guest post by Emma Hankins – According To Hoyt

She gives several examples, including her childhood in China, which disprove the assertion that “This never happens anywhere else!!” And, more importantly she offers some suggestions to deal with the fact, “Human beings are NOT SANE as a general rule and sometimes insanity leads to serious problems.”

Schindler Factory Museum

Quote of the Day

[On March 14, 1943] we found out that they were gathering a group of people that would be sent to the cemetery to dig a hole ( … ). There were 150 of us. We dug a hole that was several hundred metres long and few metres deep. After some time, flatbed carts began to arrive, loaded with the murdered people from ghetto B. The first few hundred of the killed were dressed, while the successive carriages were bringing along corpses that had already been undressed ( … ). The corpses were laid in the grave one by one, and when a whole layer had been laid, some soil was scattered around, and another layer of corpses followed ( … ). Some of the people were busy collecting the valuables found on the dead ones. The valuables were put into chests. Such was our 6-hour shift at the graveyard.

Jan Mischel
A clerk, aged 34
From an exhibit in the Schindler factory museum, October 4, 2025.

Earlier this month Barb and I went on an abbreviated WWII tour of Europe. The administration building of Schindler’s factory was our first stop after settling into our Airbnb.

From the same exhibit:

Our guide had numerous things to tell us I had not heard before. The following is my paraphrasing. We were not allowed to record the tour.

The Nazis regarded the Poles as subhumans as well as the Jews. We were all to be removed to make room for the classic Aryan Germany, tall, blonde, and blue eyed. They did not destroy Krakow as they did many other cities. In part this may have been because the Polish military did not defend Krakow. It was also a very nice city. The plans were to resettle the Aryan Germans to the city.

One thing that was different in Poland compared to the other conquered countries such as France. For example, in France, it was a death penalty if you were caught hiding a Jew. In Poland it was a death penalty if you were caught helping a Jew. Giving a Jew a glass of water or a slice of bread could result in you being killed. If a Jew was found hiding in a home or shop, everyone in the home or shop, even the current customers were murdered.

When the Germans took control, it was a death penalty to possess a gun or listen to the radio. They shut down the schools because Poles did not need an education to be slaves.

In the movie Schindler’s office was at the top of the stairs on the right. In real life it was in a different place.

The picture above is of the real office.

These are pictures of some of the Jews Schindler saved:

Schindler’s factory mostly made pots and pans for the military:

And Schindler:

After four years of occupation by the Germans Poland was occupied by the Soviet Union for 45 years. The Poles have some rather strong opinions about that. But other than the picture of Stalin, I will save that story for another day.

Constitutional Rights Cannot be Redefined by Agency Decree

Quote of the Day

The injunction is significant—not only for its immediate protection of NRA members but also for the precedent it sets in reining in agency overreach. Beyond striking down a single rule, the ruling reasserts a fundamental principle: that the power to make or change laws lies with Congress, not unelected bureaucrats.

For the firearm community, Butler v. Bondi is more than a courtroom win. It is a reaffirmation that the boundaries of federal power must be respected, and that constitutional rights cannot be redefined by agency decree.

Susanne Edward
October 13, 2025
Judges Rule Against Another Biden-Era Policy | An Official Journal Of The NRA

This is good, but it reminds me of something else I want the gun rights organizations to work on… How does anyone believe the 2nd Amendment allows restrictions on interstate sales of firearms? Why can’t someone in California legally buy a gun in Oregon or Nevada without it being shipped to a California FFL?

It is not that I think the interstate sales restrictions should be a higher priority than semi-auto rifle bans, standard capacity magazine bans, and the “sensitive places” B.S. But it should be on the radar.

Also, in an era of President Trump pushing the envelope with executive orders, this precedent will be interesting in its application to recent events.

Power Over Principle

Quote of the Day

They see this as a fight about how Democrats can start winning again, which makes it not merely tactical but also existential: Party officials, strategists, and activists have spent a year sifting through the wreckage of an election that was calamitous to the Democrats’ governing plans as well as their very understanding of themselves. And there is no shepherd to guide them. The party’s erstwhile leader, Joe Biden, is widely scorned. Harris, its would-be standard-bearer, is busy promoting a backward-looking volume of grievances.

Elaine Godfrey
October 14, 2025
The Democrats’ Heterodoxy Problem

As a libertarian/constitutionalist I’m always somewhat amused by a political party changing its policies. And here we have members of the Democrat party considering all policies up for revision as long as they can regain power:

“Permissive” isn’t a word you would use to describe Democrats over the past few years. The party has suffered from a perception that it has become intolerant of different perspectives and preoccupied with identity politics and language policing. Litmus tests aren’t just applied to gun policy, but to policies on LGBT rights, immigration enforcement, policing, and other matters.

But losing power has a way of shaking up party canon. And there are some signs that Democrats are ready to move past this era of ideological purity and rigidity.

I have my differences with Republicans, but the Democrats have been the sworn enemy of the Second Amendment for 60 years. To see them struggle with relevance, self-doubt, and even identity, invokes a fair amount of schadenfreude.

Fun for Headline Writers

Quote of the Day

Wolford is gonna be so much fun for headline writers when the SCOTUS ruling is published.

“Supreme Court drives stake through the heart of Vampire Rule”

“Court majority throws holy water on gun control dreams”

“Garlic may keep away vampires, but Hawaii’s Vampire rule cannot keep away legal carry.”

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, October 6, 2025

If only the headline writers in legacy media could see the humor as clearly as we do. But they are becoming increasingly irrelevant, so I suppose it does not matter that much anyway.

SAF’s NFA Legal Strategy

Via email from the Second Amendment Foundation:

Dear Friend of Freedom,

Let me be blunt: The National Firearms Act’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles and shotguns, as well as suppressors, are now laws without a legal leg to stand on.

For 91 years, the government defended the NFA as an exercise of Congress’s “taxing authority.” That was always a flimsy excuse – but it was their excuse. Thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill, that tax – and the government’s justification – have now evaporated. 

Now the government is trying to enforce registration requirements for a “tax law” that has no tax.

Even with the tax burden reduced to $0 for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors, the NFA still requires the submission of your fingerprints, and still requires you put your name on the government’s list of firearm owners. That is unacceptable, pure and simple.

We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to strike at the heart of the unconstitutional National Firearms Act!

That’s why we filed our second federal NFA lawsuit THIS WEEKJensen v. ATF in the Northern District of Texas – and we’re not stopping there.

WHY WE’RE FILING MULTIPLE LAWSUITS IN DIFFERENT COURTS

We just opened a second front in Texas. Here’s the strategy:

  1. More judges, more perspectives – We increase our odds of finding constitutionally honest judges who understand Bruen and Heller.
  2. Circuit splits force Supreme Court review – If different circuits rule differently, SCOTUS is more likely to step in. We’re creating the conditions for a landmark victory.
  3. The government can’t defend the indefensible everywhere – Every new case spreads ATF resources thinner and exposes how weak their legal position really is.
  4. Momentum compounds – Each favorable ruling sets precedent and influences other courts and puts more pressure on the government.

We’re not gambling on one judge. We’re surrounding the NFA from every angle.

The Supreme Court has already given us the Second Amendment roadmap: Firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes cannot be banned. There are over 4 million suppressors and hundreds of thousands of short-barreled rifles legally owned in America. These are common arms used for hearing protection, home defense, and hunting – not “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

The anti-gun lobby is terrified. Their entire argument boils down to: “We want it to be as difficult and expensive as possible for Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

That’s not a legal argument: That’s elitism, that’s corruption, and that’s tyranny.

HERE’S THE ASK:

Every lawsuit costs real money – and we’re funding a coordinated legal offensive across multiple federal districts.

WANT TO KEEP YOUR NAME OFF OF THE GOVERNMENT FIREARM REGISTRATION?

For 90 years the government charged you $200 for the pleasure of putting your name on their gun registry. Instead, with that $200 you can make sure that registry is shattered into a thousand pieces and scattered to the wind.. The best part is your $200 donation to SAF is tax-deductible. Think the ATF would give you a $200 tax write-off? Think again. 

I donate to SAF via a paycheck deduction which my employer matches. This amounts to $2,400/year.

If you would like to donate, click here.

Socialist’s Unquenchable Thirst for Power

Quote of the Day

This is a painful lesson that a lot of us in the Palestine solidarity movement have been learning is that we don’t have power… what we don’t have is power… the question I’m asking myself, and I’m asking you to ask yourself, ‘is where can I actually build power?”

Eman Abdelhadi
Associate Professor of the University of Chicago’s Department of Comparative Human Development
At Socialism 2025, July 5, 2025
Far-left University of Chicago professor charged with violent felonies during anti-ICE riots in Broadview

As if you didn’t already know, socialists have an unquenchable thirst for power. And, of course, all Marxists know that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

I leave the remainder of this lesson as an exercise for the reader.

Please prepare appropriately.