Abuse of NICS

Posted on by

NICS needs to be eliminated:

Rand Paul Probes ATF Secret Surveillance Program

Concerned over reports of secret surveillance of American gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is asking for answers.

On April 10, Sen. Paul, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, wrote a letter to ATF Director Daniel Driscoll requesting information on a secretive program that appears to allow the federal government to monitor law-abiding Americans attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

According to Sen. Paul, based on limited public information, the NICS Audit Log Review (Monitoring) system appears to allow ATF agents to request monitoring of a target for time frames ranging from 30 to 180 days after providing identifying information and applicable or potential violations of statute. Upon approval, the ATF would receive an alert(s) from the FBI using the information in its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

People should go to jail over this. I hope they enjoy their trials.

Lame and Sad

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Small dick guys things

amigodasorte @kaiokavi
Posted on X, June 30, 2024

It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday; it is another science denier (see also here and here)!

Lame. No originality. No interesting twist. Just sad.

Psychological Set Points

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

In climate and energy policy, certain well-intentioned ideas gain outsized popularity despite persistent evidence against them. One such appealing but deeply problematic approach is the “fabric first” philosophy — the notion that building decarbonization must begin by aggressively insulating and sealing structures, only later electrifying their heating systems. On the surface, it’s intuitive: if buildings leak less heat, they need less energy. Yet decades of research across multiple countries continue to reveal that “fabric first” consistently delivers far less than promised, saddling property owners and governments with excessive costs while barely reducing fossil fuel dependency.

…

In short, after decades of experience and analysis, the lesson is clear and overdue: if the goal is truly to decarbonize buildings rapidly, affordably, and permanently, electrification must lead the way. Insulation and sealing should support that goal—not substitute for it. Anything else is merely burning money and carbon while chasing a comforting illusion.

Michael Barnard
March 27, 2025
The “Fabric First” Trap: Decades Of Studies Show Electrification Wins Every Time – CleanTechnica

The reason why this is true is obvious in hindsight:

The culprit, as ever, was the infamous rebound effect: homeowners, now able to heat their spaces affordably, naturally sought higher comfort — warmer rooms, longer heating periods — and even added heated extensions to their properties.

This reminds me of the effect of “childproof” medicine bottles. It turns out that when people had small children and hazardous medicines, their behavior changed versus without “childproof” medicine bottles. They were less careful with the availability of their medicines when they had “childproof” medicine bottles. The end result was essentially the same accidental poisoning of small children.

It appears the psychology is that, in essence, people have a “set point” of risk level they are willing to accept. They used the increased safety of the containers to increase their convenience and maintained the same level of child safety.

And so it is with the heating bills. The people have a “set point” on what they will spend on heating cost and seek more comfort as the cost goes down.

The 9th Circuit is Playing Stupid

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The majority doesn’t seem to know that a flintlock musket would not fire without a flint, meaning that it is an essential part of an arm protected by the Second Amendment.  And speaking of flintlocks, given the majority’s imperative that the more inferior the arm, the better, modern repeating arms that fire smokeless cartridges aren’t protected because single-shot flintlock firearms are available.  But Heller explicitly rejected that argument.

While claiming that a magazine that holds over ten rounds is not an arm, the majority asserts that a magazine that holds ten or less is an arm because it “is necessary to the ordinary operation” of the firearm “as intended.”  Ordinary operation as intended by whom?  This made up distinction could be used to justify a ban on magazines that hold more than two rounds, as that would still allow the semiautomatic function.

Stephen Halbrook
April 3, 2025
Second Amendment Roundup: 9th Circuit Upholds California Magazine Ban (Again)

It is not that the 9th Circuit Court “doesn’t seem to know.” They know what they are doing. They are just playing stupid.

They have delayed the correct ruling on the question of whether 10+ round magazines are protected arms since 2017. I will not be surprised if it they manage to delay it for a full decade. They should be prosecuted for this.

Universal Truth

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Why should Jews be armed and trained? Because it is our right and our choice to do so, and because no one can take that from us unless we allow them to. Because our heritage is survival. Because if we proclaim Never Again while demanding or expecting or hoping someone else will give it meaning, then we are fools.

Brock Friedman
April 11, 2025
Why Jews Should Be Armed and Trained

Agreed, in as far as it goes. The assertion applies to everyone of sound mind, not just Jews.

Reality is the Cure

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The more media depictions veer away from reality, the greater the shock when people experience reality. Firearms instructors all have stories about the “aha!” moments of students who personally experience firearms after only media depictions.

When your belief structure is based on false assumptions, reality tends to bite. This is happening in the old Media. They are operating in a bubble where their false assumptions about reality and their groupthink are starting to intersect with reality. Their audiences don’t want what they are selling. Profits are plummeting. Their preferred solution: Have the government bail them out with subsidies.

One of the most important and misunderstood features of a market based economy is the right to fail. When ventures fail, more competent hands obtain the resources and make adjustments better tuned to reality. Progressive control of the media is failing. Their preferred solution is tyranny. The next election will determine if they succeed.

Dean Weingarten
September 24, 2024
GUN WATCH: Looney Tunes Bans Cartoon Guns, Wounds Fans

Progressives lost the national elections. Mainstream media is failing.

One can make the case that progressives have lost. But I think that is premature. There is still life left in them.

Keep pushing reality. As difficult as reality is, it is Kryptonite of the political left. Reality is the diagnosis, and potential cure, of their mental diseases.

Tardis?

Posted on by

Day before yesterday, while visiting Land’s End I thought I might be looking at a Tardis or two:

The doors were open, so I went inside:

I was disappointed. They are just an old telephone booths.

Land’s End was more interesting:

In the picture below, the red arrow in the upper left points to the sign. The other arrow points to the possible Tardis sighting.

And on a larger scale, you can see Land’s End is the southwestern tip of England:

Here is Something You Don’t See Every Day

Posted on by

Yesterday, Barb, her daughter Maddy, and I were our way to the Jolly Farmer Cliddesden for dinner after visiting some interesting sights. I looked to the side of the road and saw what looked like Stonehenge with some people and sheep. I gave my phone to Barb, and she took some pictures for me:

Yup. It was Stonehenge alright. We didn’t realize you could see it from a nearby road. The last time we visited, we took a about a two-hour bus ride from London to the entrance. This is from the opposite side.

It turns out that A303 goes right by it:

The visitor center is much further away as seen in the upper left-hand corner in the picture below:

After getting home today, I went out to do some errands. It was such a pleasure to drive on the correct side of the road. And so many of the roads there were very narrow and without shoulders.

You Don’t Need to Touch Your Toes

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

I’m part of this group, actually.

I’ll go door to door and help confiscate all the assault rifles from all you obese gun owners who can’t touch your toes.

Learn martial arts and be a real man like me.

Dave Ernestkag @DavidErnestkag
Posted on X, October 3, 2024

I find it interesting this “real man” doesn’t know that you don’t need to touch your toes to prevent your guns from being taken before the ammo. You only need to touch the trigger.

Don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.

A Good First Step

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The tax stamp requirement for firearms and suppressors listed as controlled items under the National Firearms Act was intended to suppress Americans’ desire to fully-exercise their Second Amendment rights. It was – and is – a ‘sin tax. However, there is no sin in exercising a Constitutionally-protected right. We appreciate the leadership of Representative Hinson and Senator Cotton to eliminate this tax that only serves as a barrier to law-abiding citizens keeping and bearing arms.

Larry Keane
NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel
April 14, 2025
RIFLE-men: Boozman-Cotton Legislation Would Remove $200 NFA Tax

This is a good first step. I think the next step would be to do away with redundant background check. Just use NICS.

Then the registration requirements should go away to be replaced with an ordinary 4473s.

Elimination of 4473s and NICS can wait until Q4 of 2025.

The Science of Gun Ownership and Penis Size

Posted on by

Mostly this is confirmation of what we already knew:

Size Matters? Penis Dissatisfaction and Gun Ownership in America – Terrence D. Hill, Liwen Zeng, Amy M. Burdette, Benjamin Dowd-Arrow, John P. Bartkowski, Christopher G. Ellison, 2024

In this study, we formally examine the association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership in America. The primary hypothesis, derived from the psychosexual theory of gun ownership, asserts that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises will be more likely to personally own guns. To test this hypothesis, we used data collected from the 2023 Masculinity, Sexual Health, and Politics (MSHAP) survey, a national probability sample of 1,840 men, and regression analyses to model personal gun ownership as a function of penis size dissatisfaction, experiences with penis enlargement, social desirability, masculinity, body mass, mental health, and a range of sociodemographic characteristics. We find that men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned. The inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and gun ownership is linear; however, the association is weakest among men ages 60 and older. With these findings in mind, we failed to observe any differences in personal gun ownership between men who have and have not attempted penis enlargement. To our knowledge, this is the first study to formally examine the association between penis size and personal gun ownership in America. Our findings fail to support the psychosexual theory of gun ownership. Alternative theories are posited for the apparent inverse association between penis size dissatisfaction and personal gun ownership, including higher levels of testosterone and constructionist explanations.

There is something new in here. There is an inverse relationship that is useful for us to use. It IS projection:

men who are more dissatisfied with the size of their penises are less likely to personally own guns across outcomes, including any gun ownership, military-style rifle ownership, and total number of guns owned.

See also:

There are Drugs and Therapy for That

Posted on by

I find this very telling about their mindset:

Save it, you can jerk off into it tonight while you dream about shooting people

OL @TheWizKid68
Posted on X, May 12, 2024

This was in my set of pending Markley’s Law examples. While it is a sexually related insult to gun owners it is a little too weak for a Markley’s Law Monday posting.

This mindset has the potential to have its own name. The belief that gun owners get sexually aroused by the thought of shooting, or have a desire to shoot, people is surprisingly common.

I think it demonstrates they have a poor theory of mind. There are therapies and drugs that sometimes help these people.

Bonus Points for Originality

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

I’m sorry you feel you need an AR-15 to compensate for your tiny tadger. That’s rough.

Christina Zheng @Christilynw
Posted on X, May 30, 2024

It’s not only another Markley’s Law Monday; it is another science denier (see also here)!

She gets bonus points for originality. This is the first time I have seen the word tadger (also spelled todger).

Of course, as Markley’s Law predicts, she is not smart enough to respond rationally in a gun control debate. She only has insults. We have SCOTUS decisions.

Gun Safety Commerical

Posted on by

This probably is not considered safe for work.

A Form of Mental Illness

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Those who carry guns don’t push that belief on others; they simply want the right preserved. Those who hate guns want them outlawed for everyone. That’s the difference between freedom and tyranny. It’s a distinguishing characteristic between conservative and liberal beliefs.

Army of the Poors @ArmyOfThePoors
Posted on X, June 28, 2021

I’m not convinced it is a “distinguishing characteristic between conservative and liberal beliefs.” It certain is A Conflict of Visions. But I see it a distinguishing characteristic between individualists and collectivists. The collectivist somehow believes it is necessary for everyone to have the same beliefs and act in essentially the same way. If the people lobby for teachers to be allowed to carry guns in schools to protect the children, then the collectivists cannot take those words literally. They insist this means we are intent on forcing all teachers to carry guns in schools.

It is very bizarre to me. Some other examples:

  1. They cannot imagine a society where people have the freedom of choice to spend their money as they see fit.
  2. They cannot imagine a society where people are allowed to raise children in a manner other than what the collective insists is the one true way.
  3. They cannot imagine a society where a baker is allowed to refuse baking a cake for an occasion celebrated by the collective which is repugnant to the baker.

I suspect it is a form of mental illness. I once had a relationship where I lived with similar bafflement for decades. I would literally write things down in the clearest possible words. And yet, those words would be warped to mean something entirely different in their mind. I would have them read the words carefully, demanding they show me the words that meant what they interpreted them to mean. After a few minutes, I would convince them I had not said what they claimed I had said. Then, literally 10 or 15 seconds later, they would revert to their original misinterpretation. Even though they had admitted they had wrongly interpreted the words, it was impossible for them to hold on to the literal meaning of the words I used.

I suspect a form of this mental illness infected the Democratic Party. And once it reached a critical mass the craziness caused the implosion of their voting base and the record low approval ratings. Somewhat like the Emperor’s New Clothes, everyone, except the crazy’s themselves, can see the truth and are no longer afraid to say it out loud.

Only Compliance is Important

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

It isn’t important which hill neoMarxists choose to die on. What’s important is that they die on whatever hill the Party chooses for them.

George Orwell didn’t write that all freedom is the ability to believe that 2 and 2 are 4.

He wrote that all freedom is the freedom to SAY that 2 and 2 are 4.

Out loud.

What you are seeing here isn’t credulity. That’s not the point. Many of the people who loudly say that 2 and 2 are 5 don’t actually believe that. Nor does the Party need or even want them to.

Beliefs aren’t important to the Party. Math isn’t important to the Party, either.

What’s important to the Party is compliance.

Here’s how this works:

The Japanese insult, “bakamono”, meaning fool or idiot, is written with the kanji characters for “horse” and “deer”.

This isn’t because the Japanese think of horses or deer as foolish. It’s a reference to a story.

On 27 September 207 BC, the eunuch Zhao Gao tested his power against the emperor’s. He presented a deer to the Second Emperor but called it a horse. The emperor laughed and said, “Is the chancellor perhaps mistaken, calling a deer a horse?” He questioned those around him. Some remained silent, and some aligned with Zhao Gao and called it a horse. Zhao Gao secretly arranged for all those who said it was a deer to be brought before the law. Thereafter the officials were all terrified of Zhao Gao.

The ridiculousness of calling a deer a horse, or a woman a man, or two and two five, isn’t the result of stupidity or madness.

It’s the whole point of the litmus test.

If the Party says a deer is a horse, will you agree loudly and vehemently, or will you dissent? Will you comply with the evidence of your own senses, or with the dictates of the Party?

This is how the Party knows who are its slaves, and who are its enemies, which are the only two categories the Party will allow.

“Transwomen are women” isn’t a statement about biology. It isn’t even a statement about social roles.

It’s an oath of submission. What it really means is “I will comply, please do not hurt me.”

This is the true source of the “black lives matter”/”all lives matter” arguments of 2020. It sounds like a silly disagreement if you listen to the content of the words, because “all”, by definition, includes “black”.

But the content of the words was never the point. The point was to make you utter ritual words as a token of submission. Problem was, the words weren’t ridiculous enough. They didn’t distinguish between those who had a philosophical respect for human life, and those who would obey the Party no matter what.

See, the Party isn’t interested in sincere believers. They are of limited use, convenient before the Revolution, but, afterwards, they will be lined up in front of a shallow ditch and shot.

Why?

Because what the Party wants, the whole point of having the Party at all, is absolute power, commanding absolute obedience.

The obedience of even the most zealous of ideological allies is conditional… he obeys because he agrees. So the power of the Party over him is not absolute. They might, someday, do something with which he disagrees, and then he might disobey.

The Party does not want loyal allies who love it. It wants slaves who fear it. Only fear compels absolute, unconditional obedience.

The Party does not care what is in your heart and mind. It only cares that you kneel.

If you are a structural engineer, and the Party says that pi is 3, you must loudly declare that pi is three, and that anyone who says otherwise must be publicly executed as a capitalist imperialist colonialist running dog.

If you do not, you will be tortured and executed.

But you must also secretly memorize the real value of pi, and use it in all your calculations, because you will also be tortured and executed if your buildings fall over.

You must, however, never write down the true value of pi, to help you remember it, and you must carefully burn any page of calculations using it after you are done. If you are caught with these things, you will be tortured and executed.

You must instead spend 75% of your working time constructing fake calculations, starting with the assumption that pi is 3, and subtly introduce computational errors to lead your answer to the real numbers that you computed in secret.

No one will ever read these, but you must meticulously construct them anyway, because if your neighbor ever gets jealous of you, because your wife is prettier than his, or your state-issued apartment is ten square feet larger, then the secret police will check your work, and your only hope is that no divergence from the will of the Party can be found.

Otherwise… well, you know. Here, in the United States, the Party is an embryo. It doesn’t have the power to torture and kill you. It will do its best, of course, but right now, what it has to threaten you with is character assassination.

Racist, sexist, homophobe, transphobe, fatphobe, islamophobe, anti-semite, microaggression, heteronormative, nazi.

Damage to your reputation isn’t particularly fearsome compared to the Soviet, or the Chinese, or the Cuban methods of handling dissent. It isn’t much compared to what the Sandinistas did, or Sendero Luminoso, or Pol Pot.

But the Party needs to start somewhere. It needs to create fear, and train people in compliance, so it can grow.

The Party is not Marxist-Leninist. The Party has no belief system, and it never did. Marxism-Leninism was only ever about finding ridiculous things to force you to say.

Nowdays, the same purpose is served by obvious falsehoods like “transwomen are women”, and “diversity is our strength”.

Devon Eriksen @Devon_Eriksen_
Posted on X, April 9, 2025

I suspect there is a lot of truth to this. However, I have a question… If there are only two categories of people, then which category do The Party members belong? Or saying it differently, how is it decided who are members of The Party?

I have a nagging feeling there are other flaws in this, but it may be due to some oversimplification for illustration purposes other than fatal errors.

Assuming this is fundamentally true, then we have an interesting takeaway. Resistance to The Party only requires noncompliance. Pointing out the most absurd of The Party assertions widens a crack in the power of The Party. Think of the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. All it took was the correct observation of a little child to break the false assertion.

This is, of course, an exaggeration of reality, But the direction of the force vector to break The Party is dead on.

More on Democrat QAnon

Posted on by

More skepticism: Investigating rumor Trump will declare martial law on April 20 after invoking Insurrection Act of 1807.

See also my first blog post on this topic: Democrat Version of QAnon?

Typical Democrat Nonsense

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

Anti-gun New York Gov. Kathy Hochul’s signature on legislation requiring new merchant codes for firearm and ammunition purchases with credit cards is typical Democrat nonsense—penalizing honest gun owners for crimes they didn’t commit.

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arm
April 7, 2025
NY GOV. HOCHUL’S ANSWER TO VIOLENT CRIME: INVADE GUN OWNER PRIVACY | Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms

It has nothing to do with public safety and everything to do with enabling tyranny.

Hence, in a certain sense, it is not nonsense at all. It is all according to plan.

Were the founders of the United States Christians?

Posted on by

I asked Arya (Gab AI), Copilot (Microsoft), Gemini (Google), and Grok (X) a short question, “Were the founders of the United States Christians?”

This was inspired by some of the comments in Democrat Version of QAnon?. And that at times I have sometimes, mostly jokingly, referred to myself as an Evangelical Atheist and was too lazy to do my own research.

Arya:

Yes, the founders of the United States were Christians. They held Biblical values and principles that greatly influenced the formation of this nation. This is evident in documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, which reflect Christian beliefs.

Copilot:

The religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers of the United States were diverse and complex. Many of them were influenced by Christian principles, but their personal beliefs varied widely:

  • George Washington: Often described as a devout Anglican, though his personal writings suggest he was more of a Deist, believing in a higher power but not necessarily adhering to orthodox Christian doctrines.
  • Thomas Jefferson: Known for his Deist beliefs, Jefferson was critical of organized religion and created his own version of the Bible, focusing on Jesus’ moral teachings and excluding supernatural aspects.
  • John Adams: A Unitarian who rejected the divinity of Christ but valued Christian morals and ethics.
  • Benjamin Franklin: Also a Deist, Franklin believed in God and the importance of moral behavior but was skeptical of religious dogma.

While many Founding Fathers were influenced by Christian ethics, they also emphasized the importance of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. This diversity of beliefs helped shape the secular nature of the U.S. Constitution.

Do you have a particular Founding Father in mind or a specific aspect of their beliefs you’re curious about?

Gemini:

It’s a complex question with no simple yes or no answer. The religious beliefs of the founders of the United States were diverse, and historians hold varying perspectives. Here’s a breakdown:

Diversity of Beliefs:

  • Christians: Many of the founders came from Protestant Christian backgrounds, including Anglican, Presbyterian, and Congregationalist traditions. Some, like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Jay, Roger Sherman, and John Witherspoon, held more orthodox Christian views and frequently incorporated Christian principles into their public discourse.
  • Deists and Theistic Rationalists: Influenced by the Enlightenment, some key founders, including Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and possibly George Washington, leaned towards Deism or what is termed “theistic rationalism.” Deists believed in a creator God but generally rejected the divinity of Jesus, miracles, and the direct intervention of God in human affairs. Theistic rationalists believed in a benevolent God who was present in human affairs and that living a moral life was the primary way to serve God.
  • Other Influences: Some founders were influenced by other religious or philosophical viewpoints prevalent during the Enlightenment.

Evidence and Interpretations:

  • Public Statements: Many founders invoked God and divine providence in their public speeches and writings. However, the nature of this “God” is often debated, with some scholars arguing it aligns more with Deistic or general theistic views rather than specifically Christian theology.
  • Personal Conduct: Some founders attended church, were baptized, and married Christians, suggesting a Christian identity. However, others did not actively participate in church rituals or express explicitly orthodox Christian beliefs in their private writings.
  • Founding Documents: The Declaration of Independence refers to a “Creator” and “Nature’s God,” terms that resonate with Deistic thought. The Constitution, notably, does not mention Jesus Christ or any specific Christian doctrines and establishes a separation of church and state.
  • Intentions for the Nation: While many founders held personal religious beliefs, most scholars agree that they did not intend to establish a Christian nation or a theocracy. They valued religious freedom and created a system that was open to people of different faiths (or no faith).

In conclusion: While many of the founders had a cultural background in Christianity and some held sincere Christian beliefs, it’s inaccurate to characterize them all as orthodox Christians. Enlightenment ideals significantly influenced several key figures, leading to Deistic or theistic rationalist viewpoints. Ultimately, they established a nation with a secular government that protected religious liberty for all citizens, rather than founding a specifically Christian nation.

Grok:

The religious beliefs of the United States’ founders were diverse and complex, reflecting a range of perspectives rather than a uniform stance. Many of the key figures, like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were influenced by Christianity, as it was the dominant religion in the American colonies at the time. However, their specific beliefs varied widely.

Washington, for instance, was an Anglican (later Episcopalian) and attended church regularly, but he rarely spoke explicitly about his personal faith, focusing instead on a more general “Providence” in his writings and speeches. Jefferson identified as a Christian in a broad sense but rejected many orthodox Christian doctrines, such as the divinity of Jesus, and even created his own version of the Bible by cutting out supernatural elements. Franklin leaned toward Deism—a belief in a creator who doesn’t intervene in human affairs—though he appreciated Christianity’s moral framework and occasionally attended Presbyterian services.

Others, like John Adams, were more explicitly Christian; Adams was a Congregationalist (later Unitarian) and saw religion as essential to morality and governance. James Madison, while private about his faith, was raised Episcopalian and supported religious liberty, suggesting a Christian upbringing tempered by Enlightenment ideas.

Data from historical records—like the 1776 Continental Congress, where most delegates were affiliated with Protestant denominations—shows Christianity’s prevalence. But the founders’ writings, especially in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution, emphasize Enlightenment principles like reason and individual rights over explicit Christian doctrine. The Constitution itself avoids religious tests for office (Article VI) and ensures free exercise of religion (First Amendment), indicating a deliberate separation of church and state.

So, were they Christians? Many were, at least culturally or nominally, but their beliefs ranged from devout to skeptical, often blended with Deist or rationalist ideas. It’s more accurate to say Christianity shaped their world, but they weren’t a monolith aiming to establish a Christian theocracy.

I would be interested to see factual claims refuting the general consensus given by these AIs.

A Judicial Middle Finger to SCOTUS

Posted on by

Quote of the Day

The Ninth Circuit’s chaotic (and defiant) Second Amendment jurisprudence begs out for intervention by this Court. Sup. Ct. R. 10(a), (c). That chaos has escalated to an internecine intra-circuit conflict, most recently in Duncan v. Bonta, No. 23-55805, 2025 WL 867583 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025) (en banc). The case generated three dissents on the merits, including a first-of-its-kind video dissent.

…

The Duncan dissenters didn’t mince words: “[T]he majority didn’t just butcher the Second Amendment and give a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court. It also spurned statutory procedure for en banc proceedings.”

Donald Kilmer
C.D. Michel
March 31, 2025
B&L PRODUCTIONS, INC., D/B/A CROSSROADS OF THE
WEST, ET AL., v. GAVIN NEWSOM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IN HIS
PERSONAL CAPACITY, ET AL.

The video mentioned is this one:

You would think SCOTUS would rapidly get annoyed with this contempt by the lower courts and slap them down. But apparently things do not work the way I think they should.