Quote of the Day

In a sharp and unanimous 3-0 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s controversial “one-gun-a-month” law. This law, which limited law-abiding residents to purchasing just one firearm every 30 days, was found to violate the Second Amendment. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, has now set a powerful precedent in favor of gun rights and against what the court called “meaningful constraints” on constitutionally protected conduct.

Lisa Greene
June 24, 2025
California’s Firearm Quota Law Just Got Wrecked in Court

The California claims were so unbelievable that we got a unanimous decision out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals!

This win was brought to you by SAF and FPC. Please consider donating money. I donate thousands of dollars to them every year.

See also the following:

Quote of the Day

The Dallas Township Police Department is aware of recent public statements made by former Dallas High School student Calvin Polachek during a February 2025, rally in Frankfort, Kentucky. The event, organized by the Kentucky chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, supported the introduction of Kentucky House Bill 214 by (Kentucky) State Representative Adam Moore, which promotes gun safety education.

At the rally, Mr. Polachek claimed that in 2017 he survived a school shooting at Dallas High School in Dallas, Pennsylvania, an incident in which he said he lost is best friend, his brother and nine others. These claims are entirely false. Nonetheless, they were reported by multiple Kentucky media outlets, including Fox 56 in Lexington and the Kentucky Lantern, and have since spread nationally across platforms such as MSN, Yahoo News, various online publications and social media.

The widespread sharing of a fabricated tragedy is not only reckless, it is harmful. It fuels unnecessary fear, disrespects the experiences of real victims of school violence and misleads the public with a narrative that has no basis in truth.

Let us be absolutely clear: This event never occurred.

There has never been a school shooting at Dallas High School. Not in 2017, and not at any point in our community’s history.

Doug Higgens
Dallas Pennsylvania Chief of Police
May 18, 2025
Dallas High School graduate claims he survived mass shooting that never happened

They have to lie to have any chance of winning. So, lying is what they do. It is an essential part of their culture. I have documented proof they have been deliberately lying for nearly 40 years. It probably has been even longer.

Quote of the Day

As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR–15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too. The same is true of firearms with Spanish-language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history. See supra, at 6. Those guns may be “coveted by the cartels,” as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.”

Elena Kagan
SCOTUS Justice
June 5, 2025
23-1141 Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (06/05/2025)

What Justice Kagan is saying here should strike terror in the hearts of anti-gun people. She says AR-15’s, AK-47’s, and .50 caliber rifles are in common use for legal purposes. That is exactly what the Heller decision says are protected arms.

Justice Kagan is saying that. Should she try to say otherwise when an “assault weapon” comes before the court will likely result in a stern reminder by Justice Thomas and others of this opinion.

And the anti-gunners think there was something worse in this decision. Just wait.

And if you are somewhat persuaded by the argument made in the previous link, you need to read Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in the Mexico case:

This exception allows otherwise-prohibited suits against gun manufacturers to go forward if, among other requirements, the manufacturer has “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.”” 15 U. S. C. §§7902(a), 7903(5)(A)(iii). I write separately to note that the Court’s opinion does not resolve what a plaintiff must show to establish that the defendant committed a “violation.” §7903(5)(A)(iii). It concludes only that Mexico has not adequately pleaded its theory of the case—that, as a factual matter, the defendant gun manufacturers committed criminal aiding and abetting. See ante, at 10–14.”

…

In future cases, courts should more fully examine the meaning of “violation” under the PLCAA. It seems to me that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the “violation.” Allowing plaintiffs to proffer mere allegations of a predicate violation would force many defendants in PLCAA litigation to litigate their criminal guilt in a civil proceeding, without the full panoply of protections that we otherwise afford to criminal defendants. And, these defendants might even include ones who were cleared in an earlier proceeding, such as through a noncharging decision or a not-guilty or not-liable verdict. Such collateral adjudication would be at best highly unusual, and would likely raise serious constitutional questions that would counsel in favor of a narrower interpretation.

While technically this is not a 2^nd Amendment case, it is a through slap down of the anti-gun movement. It is another brick in the wall to keep them in the dustbin of history.

This post was inspired the following video by constitutional attorney and member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, Mark Smith:

Quote of the Day

In a surprising decision that’s now under appeal, a federal district judge ruled that the ban on civilian-owned machine guns may actually violate the Second Amendment. The case, United States v. Morgan, comes out of Kansas and challenges the 1986 Hughes Amendment – a law that bans civilians from owning newly manufactured machine guns. Attorney and YouTuber Tom Grieve broke down the case in a recent video, calling it “potentially the most important gun case in decades.”

According to Grieve, this is the first time in a long while that a federal trial court has directly stated that machine guns – yes, actual automatic weapons – are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. If that ruling stands, it could unravel a huge part of federal gun control as we know it.

Lisa Greene
June 5, 2025
How Decades of Gun Control Created a Legal Trap – And One Judge Called It Out with Nationwide Implications – Survival World

I posted about this case once before.

I have fairly high confidence the appeals court will find a way to claim machine guns are not protected. Then, I expect SCOTUS to refuse to take the case.

I will be disappointed, but all the briefs and other work that goes into this case can be recycled for other cases. Then, eventually, we will use liberal tears to cool the machines guns at the sporting events in local high schools.

Quote of the Day

Yesterday, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and FPC Action Foundation filed an amicus brief arguing that the federal prohibition on machinegun possession is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in the Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Brown.

Federal law criminalizes the possession by private citizens of any machinegun that was not registered by May 19, 1986. The defendant in the case, Justin Bryce Brown, was convicted of possessing such a firearm.

The district court held the ban unconstitutional as applied to Brown, because the government failed to carry its burden of proving that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. As the district court explained, “this is a heavy burden,” and by focusing on policy arguments rather than historical tradition, the government failed to meet it.

Now before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the NRA filed a brief arguing that the district court’s decision should be affirmed. The brief focuses on the standard the Supreme Court set forth for Second Amendment cases in the NRA’s landmark victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen, and emphasizes that the government must be held to its burden no matter what regulation is at issue.

NRA-ILA
June 4, 2025
NRA-ILA | NRA Files Amicus Brief in Challenge to Machinegun Possession Ban

Another step toward my vision of machine gun competitions in high school by 2032.

I posted about a previous step in this same case here.