Category Archives: Gun Rights

Another Brick in the Wall

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to twenty-year-old individuals among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence “cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.” … In sum, 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(b)(1), (c)(1) and their attendant regulations are unconstitutional in light of our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation.

Edith Hollan Jones
U.S. Circuit Judge
January 30, 2025
Reese v. ATF.

Still another brick in the wall regarding the right of 18- to 20-year-old people to keep and bear arms. It also helps protect the path to even more laws from GCA68 being declared unconstitutional.

I Hope They Enjoy Their Trials

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Turning lawfare on its creators is not about revenge. It will serve as a deterrent to prevent future abuse and will restore public confidence that justice is even-handed. Individuals who have carried out lawfare have not only destroyed faith in our legal system but also may have violated the law. A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 241, prohibits conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” a person exercising constitutional rights or privileges. Clearly President Donald J. Trump had constitutional rights and privileges to run for office and govern, not to be imprisoned for contrived crimes, and not to be deprived of property based on abuse of federal and state justice systems. According to the Biden administration’s own theory, preventing a candidate from running and assuming office also deprives supporters of their rights to vote.

Victoria Toensing and John Yoo
January 27, 2025
Prosecute The Architects Of Trump Lawfare

Via email from Defens, who also said:

If the Trump administration could potentially use this, perhaps the time is actually ripe to go after folks like Ferguson, Pritsker, and other 2A infringing politicians?

It certainly seems to me they could prosecute a lot of politicians. Whether they will or not is another question. I would like to see it. And, as always, I hope they enjoy their trials.

A Right Worth Defending

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In times of crisis, self-reliance is not just a virtue – it is a necessity. The ability to protect yourself, your family, and your community is a right worth defending.

Bradley Larson
January 24, 2025
Wildfires in California Reinforce the Importance of Gun Rights – California Globe

Politicians who ban guns get the same response from me as if they were banning fire extinguishers, seat belts, and life insurance. You never want to be in the situation where you must have a firearm to save an innocent life. And you don’t want to be in a position to use a fire extinguisher, seat belts, or life insurance. But banning them does not reduce the likelihood you will need them or the value when you do use them. It only makes the situation worse.

Hence, they must be mind-boggling stupid or incredibly evil.

Such politicians should be fired and reemployed in a field more to their mental capacity. I’m thinking coloring book tester, pharmaceutical research test subject, or organ donor.

Mass Shooters Have Unpunished Accomplices

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

While details are unknown, one thing is certain. Whatever the motivation of the shooter(s), he/they had accomplices who will go unpunished: the State of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following Bruen, New York threw a tantrum by trying to destroy the right to carry through banning carry almost everywhere relevant, even for those with a CCW permit. One of the categories of places banned is any business that serves alcohol, even if you are not drinking.

Judge Suddaby enjoined New York’s law, rightly noting that there was no historical tradition to support such a restriction. At most, history supports restricting those who are actually intoxicated, not those who are sober. But the Second Circuit reversed, citing a few outlier 19th century local ordinances that applied at only a few places (not everywhere that served alcohol).

So any New Yorkers with a CCW permit could not legally carry at the nightclub that was the site of this mass shooting tonight.

“Sensitive places” laws disarm good people and are a big help to the deranged criminals and mass murderers looking for a soft target.

New York and the Second Circuit’s hatred of the Second Amendment will have a growing bodycount. The Supreme Court needs to end its cowardice and more aggressively intervene to smack down errant circuit courts.

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, January 1, 2025

This was in response to the mass shooting at the Amazura Night Club in Jamaica, Queens.

There are numerous politicians in need prosecution.

Gun Law Grading

Posted on by

Via Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras.

I like the response from Texas Gun Rights @TXGunRights:

@GIFFORDS_org gave Texas an F on their annual gun law scorecard.

Is there any way we can stretch the limits of our F?

We are formally requesting that their scoring rubric be updated to have either an F- or grade lower than F.

Giffords Law Center should have a zero-grade option. We would call it fully compliant with the 2nd Amendment.

Welcome Zuckerberg to the Fight and Watch Your Back

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In his exclusive interview with Fox News on Tuesday, Meta’s chief global affairs officer, Joel Kaplan, admitted that the Trump election changed the situation for the technology company: “We have a new administration coming in that is far from pressuring companies to censor and [is more] a huge supporter of free expression.”

It is a chilling statement if one thinks of what might have happened if Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, arguably the most anti-free speech ticket in history, had won. The suggestion is that the new spring at Meta would have turned into a frozen tundra for free speech.

Around the world, free speech is in a free fall. Speech crimes and censorship have become the norm in the West. A new industry of “disinformation” experts has commoditized censorship, making millions in the targeting and silencing of others. An anti-free speech culture has taken root in government, higher education, and the media. 

We will either hold the line now or lose this indispensable right for future generations. Zuckerberg could make this a truly transformative moment but it will take more than a passing meta-culpas.

We need Zuckerberg now more than ever. 

So, with that off my chest, I can get to what I have longed to say: Mr. Zuckerberg, welcome to the fight.

Jonathan Turley
January 7, 2025
Meta’s Zuckerberg makes a free speech move that could be truly transformational

The whole DEI industry has essentially collapsed. Gun laws changes seem painfully slow. But in reality, they are falling in numbers and speed not experienced in at least the last 100 years. Free speech may be experiencing a resurrection as well.

I welcome Zuckerberg to the fight too. But I’m also going to watch my back.

Another Brick in the Wall

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It is undisputed that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” for other constitutional rights such as the right to vote (U.S. Const. art. I, § 2; id. amend. XVII), freedom of speech, the freedom to peaceably assemble and to petition the government (id. amend. I), and the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (id. amend. IV).15 Heller cautions against the adoption of an inconsistent reading of “the people” across the Constitution. 554 U.S. at 580. Indeed, wholesale exclusion of 18-to-20-year olds from the scope of the Second Amendment would impermissibly render “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense … ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70 (quoting McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 780 (2010)).

We therefore reiterate our holding that 18-to-20-year olds are, like other subsets of the American public, presumptively among “the people” to whom Second Amendment rights extend.

Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan
January 13, 2025
Lara v. Pennsylvania State Police

See also SAF WINS CHALLENGE TO PENNSYLVANIA CARRY BAN FOR YOUNG ADULTS – Second Amendment Foundation. The Firearms Policy Coalition also worked on this case. Every month my employer and I donate money to both organizations.

After bouncing around the court system, including a visit to SCOTUS. We now have a definitive ruling that 18-to-20-year olds are considered people. The anti-gun people fought this all the way. It seems unlikely they will be able to get SCOTUS to consider the case.

We now have another brick in the wall.

They, in the Form of the State, are God.

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The claim leftists make that their policies work for the ‘greater good’ requires a godlike perspective that views all ends and weighs all outcomes.

It’s a claim to divinity that the left are very comfortable with.

They, in the form of the State, are God.

Alice Smith (@TheAliceSmith)
Tweeted on September 23, 2022

You can see the truth of this in the actions of Stalin and other communist dictators. But you don’t need to look that deep into history or to other continents. This is Bill Clinton:

In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton’s response:
“We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right… But … if you don’t spend it right, here’s what’s going to happen. In 2013 — that’s just 14 years away — taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks… I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, ‘Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?’ “
Source: Washington Times, January 21, 1999

They sincerely believe they know how to spend your money better than you do. You see it not only in the banning of the most popular type of guns in this country. You see it in the regulation of healthcare, transportation, industry, and even the toys of your children.

Also, FYI, I can find enough material in one day of Smith’s X feed to supply my QOTD posts for a week.

We Need to Raise Awareness and Respect

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

HOUSE BILL 1152
State of Washington 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session
January 2, 2025

See also: Gun owners could be charged with felonies if firearm gets stolen under new proposed bill.

These criminals* are trying to remove the above “does not apply if” clause from the safe storage law. The safe storage law is already bad enough and probably going to be struck down as being unconstitutional. But now, if a prohibited person unlawfully enters your home or vehicle, steals your firearm(s), then you become a criminal. You have committed a misdemeanor as soon as the criminal gains access. If they use them in a felon crime, you can also be changed with a felony.

If you have the firearm(s) “properly” stored in your vehicle then that does not apply. But “properly stored” means:

(a) A person shall not store or leave a pistol in any vehicle unless (i) the pistol is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(b) A person shall not store or leave a rifle or shotgun in any vehicle unless (i) the rifle or shotgun is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided or soft-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(c) A rifle or shotgun stored in a soft-sided container in a vehicle in accordance with this subsection must also have a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm installed on the rifle or shotgun while the firearm is stored in a soft-sided container.

(d) For the purpose of this subsection, a hard-sided container excludes a glove compartment or center console but includes a console vault or other container specifically designed to securely store firearms.

So, they want to make is so you must have handgun and long gun cases affixed in your vehicles. Otherwise, you could not stop to pick up some ammo as you left town on a hunting trip. And unless you carry your competition gun into the store to grab a case of water on your way to a match you risk becoming a criminal.

They have zero concern for this blatant violation of the Second Amendment. We need some prosecutions to raise awareness and respect.

I look forward to their trials.

* Representatives Doglio, Walen, Ryu, Ramel, Farivar, Berry, Leavitt, Alvarado, Mena, Duerr, Reed, Parshley, Fitzgibbon, Callan, Macri, Cortes, Obras, Gregerson, Simmons, Peterson, Rule, Street, Goodman, Wylie, Pollet, Nance, Berg, Davis, Ormsby, Lekanoff, Fosse, Salahuddin, Hill, and Tharinge.

A Cure for My Nightmares

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Despite Congress not funding removal of disabilities for over three decades, ATF’s regulation (27 C.F.R. § 478.144) remains on the books with the procedure for filing and processing a petition to remove disabilities. (The regulation states that relief will not be granted if the applicant is prohibited from gun possession by the state law where he resides, but that is invalid because § 925(c) imposes no such condition for relief from the federal disability.) If the petition is denied, § 925(c) entitles the applicant to file a petition for judicial review in which new evidence may be admitted. That provides a check on abusive agency action.

The ball is in Congress’s court to restore funding. Otherwise, given the circuit split, it is likely that the Supreme Court will step in to resolve this issue soon.

Stephen Halbrook
January 13, 2025
Second Amendment Roundup: Circuit Conflict in Felon Gun Ban Cases

Having a path for convicted felons to regain their gun rights is not something I consistently advocate for. But it is important. Three Felonies a Day comes to mind.

Beyond that is the GCA 68 definition of a prohibited person includes those, “.. Under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.” This includes people were convicted as a juvenile.

One of my nightmare scenarios is that small children are convicted of a “felony.” This happens routinely. It could occur for crying in public or some such thing. Then, because everyone is a convicted felon, the Second Amendment does not have be repealed. A total ban on individual gun ownership is achieved without infringing the Second Amendment.

Yes, it is ridiculous, but nightmares are not constrained to reality. And then look at the “Red Flag” laws and domestic abuse restraining orders being used to nullify Second Amendment rights. Reality and nightmares are not that divergent.

The Range v. Attorney General case is a good first step to eliminating a large set of my bad dreams.

A Sporting Purpose Baby Step

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) today introduced the Sporting Firearms Access Act to stop the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from arbitrarily blocking imports of firearms and ammunition.

The Sporting Firearms Access Act clarifies the definition of “sporting purposes” used by the ATF to regulate import of firearms into the U.S. The new definition would recognize firearms and ammunitions used for activities such as hunting, target shooting, and competitions. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms and ammunition can only be imported if the ATF recognizes it as being suitable for “sporting purposes.” Ambiguity in the law has allowed the ATF to arbitrarily deny imports of firearms by U.S. customers and businesses.

James E. Risch
January 4, 2025
Risch Leads Bill to Block ATF’s Ability to Deny Firearm, Ammunition Imports – Press Releases – James E Risch, U.S. Senator for Idaho

While I think this bill does not go nearly far enough, it is an unexpected gift.

What I want to know, is where does the 2nd Amendment say only sporting firearms are protected? At a minimum, firearms used for self-defense should be protected. And the real threshold for protection should be, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!“

Yes, the ATF have been running roughshod over imports. Their absurd definition of “sporting” means little more than hunting rifles and shotguns. So, this is an improvement. I’ll clench my teeth a little. Nonetheless, I will thank Senator Risch for a baby step in the correct direction.

A Step Toward Machine Gun Competitions in High Schools

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Mr. Burlison is also introducing legislation to repeal the 1934 National Firearms Act, which taxes, registers, and restricts gun owners.

Kerry Picket
January 7, 2025
GOP lawmakers introduce legislation to abolish ATF – Washington Times

See also GOP Congress Targets ATF, Even Introduces Legislation to Make Machine Gun Ownership Legal Without Special Paperwork.

The headline is concerned with abolishing the ATF. Slinking into view with a single low-key sentence is a WMD against Federal gun laws.

I think it is unlikely to pass on its own this year and or even the foreseeable future. But if Musk and Ramaswamy trim two trillion from the budget via the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), then I could see the ATF and the NFA as part of the eliminated waste.

This would result in my vision of seeing machine gun competitions in high schools by 2032 being realized.

Yes, They Really are that Stupid and/or Evil

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

How about this? You can have any gun you’re willing to be shot with.

“Excellent choice, sir. Before I ring it up, just one small formality.  Please go and stand in front of that wall…”

Gethsemane Tilset (@djapn)
Tweeted on September 26, 2022

As if guns were designed to be harmless when they hit their target. They really are that stupid. Or they are pushing a mindset intended to make effective self-defense nearly impossible? Nerf and Airsoft guns are all you need, right?

I find it interesting this user still exists on X but has zero followers and has no posts. Draw whatever conclusions you want from that.

Ninth Circuit Court Scolded by One of its Own

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

And to paraphrase James Madison, if judges were angels, nothing further would need be said. But unfortunately, however else it might be described, our court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence can hardly be labeled angelic. Possessed maybe—by a single-minded focus on ensuring that any panel opinions actually enforcing the Second Amendment are quickly reversed. The majority of our court distrusts gun owners and thinks the Second Amendment is a vestigial organ of their living constitution. Those views drive this circuit’s caselaw ignoring the original meaning of the Second Amendment and fully exploiting the discretion inherent in the Supreme Court’s cases to make certain that no government regulation ever fails our laughably “heightened” Second Amendment scrutiny.

…

Until the Supreme Court forces our court to do something different than balance our view of the utility of some firearm product or usage against the government’s claimed harm from its misuse, the Second Amendment will remain essentially an ink blot in this circuit.

Lawrence VanDyke
Ninth Circuit US Circuit Judge
November 30, 2021
DUNCAN V. BONTA No. 19-55376

Via Chuck Petras @Chuck_Petras -> Kostas Moros @MorosKostas -> Google…

SCOTUS needs to exercise force.

Their Goal is not Public Safety.

Posted on by

The slim ball politicians in Washington State are continuing their assault on gun owners and dealers with HOUSE BILL 1132 which reads in part:

A new section is added to chapter 9.41 RCW to read as follows:
(1)(a) A dealer may not deliver more than one firearm to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.

(b) A dealer may not deliver more than 100 rounds of .50 caliber ammunition or more than 1,000 rounds of any other caliber of ammunition to a purchaser or transferee within any 30-day period.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to any of the following:

(a) Any general authority Washington law enforcement agency or limited authority Washington law enforcement agency as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020;

(b) Any correctional facility as defined in RCW 72.09.015;

(c) Any private security company as defined in RCW 18.170.010;

(d) Any federal peace officer, general authority Washington peace officer, or limited authority Washington peace officer who as a normal part of the officer’s duties has arrest powers and carries a firearm, as those terms are defined in RCW 10.93.020, and is obtaining firearms or ammunition for law enforcement purposes;

(e) The criminal justice training commission;

(f) Any federal firearms dealer, federal firearms importer, or dealer, as those terms are defined in RCW 9.41.010, who is obtaining firearms or ammunition for resale;

(g) Any person who may, pursuant to RCW 9.41.113(4), claim an exemption from the background check requirements of RCW 9.41.113;

(h) The exchange of a firearm where the dealer sold that firearm to the person seeking the exchange within the 30-day period immediately preceding the date of exchange or replacement;

(i) The return of any firearm to its owner;

(j) The receipt of firearms by a person who acquires possession of the firearms by operation of law upon the death of the former owner who was in legal possession of the firearms, provided the person in possession of the firearms can establish such provenance. Receipt under this subsection is not “distribution” under this chapter;

(k) Any private party transaction where the seller is, at the time of the transaction, required under state law or by court order to relinquish all firearms;

(l) Any private party transaction where the seller is any of the following:

(i) The personal representative of a decedent’s estate who is transferring the firearm to one or more heirs or beneficiaries of the decedent’s estate pursuant to the decedent’s will or the laws of intestate succession;

(ii) The holder of the decedent’s property who is transferring the firearms pursuant to RCW 11.62.010 to the successor of the decedent, as defined in RCW 11.62.005, or the surviving spouse of the decedent pursuant to RCW 11.04.015; or

(iii) The trustee of a trust who is transferring the firearms to one or more trust beneficiaries upon the death of a settlor of the trust; or

(m) Any person who is a licensed collector as defined in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 921 and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and who has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the department of justice.

(3)(a) Any person who violates this section commits a class 1
civil infraction and shall be assessed a monetary penalty of $500.

(b) If a person previously has been found to have violated this section, then the person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for a subsequent violation of this section.

(c) If a person previously has been found to have violated this section two or more times, then the person is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW for each subsequent violation of this section.

Who are they targeting with this law? It is just the dealer. A person purchasing ammo can go to a different seller every other day. They can then purchase 15,000 rounds in a month without running afoul of this proposed law. They can even buy any number of rounds from a friend.

Via email, Rolf proposed a motive for this seeming absurdity:

Depending on the enforcement regs, I think I may see its primary purpose.

It a limitation on FFLs selling you more than X. Not a prohibition on you buying more than X.

That means the DEALER must track by ID all purchases and maintain those records.

If they don’t, then a government informant walks in 29 days apart as part of a sting operation…..

Constant harassment of dealers is the only goal.

This is plausible. But I think it is just as likely that they really are that stupid. The law doesn’t have to make sense. It is just (what they want to be) the law.

If you insist this has to make sense in some way, then Rolf has a decent hypothesis. Think about it this way. Excluding the Las Vegas music festival shooting a few years ago, where over 1,100 rounds were fired, can you name a crime that utilized more than 1,000 rounds? And even in that incident, Purchases from just two dealers would have supplied more than enough ammo.

This makes it crystal clear their goal is not public safety.

These criminal need to be prosecuted. I hope they enjoy their trials.

The First and Second Amendments Cannot Coexist

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

We don’t make this statement lightly, but the folks over at Giffords and Brady have filed an amicus brief in a matter, challenging all of Maryland’s new sensitive places, that actually argues that the First Amendment and the Second Amendment cannot coexist, and because of that, the 2A will always take a back seat to the 1A.

William Kirk
December 30, 2024
The Most Dangerous Gun Control Argument You Will Ever Read

What other rights must you only exercise one at a time? If you exercise your right to freedom of religion, do you forfeit your Third Amendment rights and you will be required to quarter troops in your house? Or how about, if you insist on a warrant before your house is searched, you then forfeit your “privilege” to a lawyer when being questioned by the police.

I don’t say “privilege” lightly, because this is what they are demanding. The government gets to decide when, where, how, and if you get to exercise a specific enumerated right. Their demands change the exercise of a right into a privilege.

I don’t think the courts will buy this argument. I would like to think the lawyers writing this brief know it too and are doing this just for the money.

I hope they get slapped down with extraordinary harshness.

Disregard for Court Rulings Must Be Soundly Rejected

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.

John Roberts
Supreme Court Chief Justice
December 31, 2024
Roberts warns against ignoring Supreme Court rulings as tension with Trump looms

One has to wonder if there are specific cases he has in mind when he says this. More importantly, what actions will the court take to enforce their decisions?

It is About Bullying, not Crime Reduction

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

“Stupidity” may apply in terms of whether they honestly believe such restrictions will reduce or prevent crime, but rights-hating Democrats know such measures infuriate and frustrate gun owners, which is exactly what they want to do. Were they in elementary school, one might argue, this would be called bullying, because they know they can get away with it.

Dave Workman
December 30, 2024
WA Lump of Coal: Dems File HB 1132 Limiting Gun, Ammo Buys

They have been bullying us for decades. I expect it will get worse before it gets better. It will only get better when they start paying a price. I don’t know when or if that will happen, but I know it should happen.

There are at least two ways this can come about legally. 1), they are prosecuted; or 2), the court assigns a monitor to them. The monitor would report to the judge periodically.

I would like to see the politicians and activists supporting this crap spent time in prison. I’m thinking the sentence length should he double the number of days the offending law was in force.

Never Underestimate the Power of Human Stupidity

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

If you need a license to kill deer why don’t you need one to kill humans?

David Hogg 🟧 @davidhogg111
Tweeted on April 2, 2024

This is so mind warping stupid I started wondering if he knew it was stupid but thought he would manage to sell it to the general population as something profound.

Looking further in the thread I found the answer 75 minutes later:

Plenty of people will think this is dumb- good for you. I’m not looking out for an election and I’m entitled to my own opinion no matter how much you disagree.

David Hogg 🟧 @davidhogg111
Tweeting on April 2, 2024

Yup. He is that stupid. He really thinks it is something profound.

It is people like this that we are up against. And yet, we came close to losing the war.

Gun control is Icarus

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Gun control is Icarus…and it got too greedy, arrogant, and flew too high. There’s only one ending to this story and looking at cases around the country…fantasy is almost up. Enjoy losing.

Johnny Silverhand @MegaManX1984
Posted on X on December 21, 2023

A little something is lost without the entire context, but I wanted to have the above in case any of the below disappears. Here is the entire context: