Home Blog

Founding Fathers & AR-15’s

If you’re unfamiliar with the capability of a flintlock rifle, which was a common arm employed by American militiamen in the Revolutionary War, Flannel Daddy’s video above is a fantastic intro. The founding fathers understood its capabilities, and that it had advantages over the smoothbore muskets the British Army employed, particularly in the accuracy department. To wit: The founding fathers enthusiastically employed better, more capable, privately owned guns than were the military standard of the day.

Addressing the argument we’re dancing around, if you’re unfamiliar with it, bless you and your sheltered life: Anti-gunners will often propose banning any gun that wasn’t known by/available to the founding fathers. Ignoring the obvious absurdity of the argument that the inalienable rights written down by the founding fathers only extend to the technology available at the time (otherwise the internet, telephones, fax machines, and ballpoint pens would not be covered by the 1A), let’s take a look at this commonplace argument and how to counter it when encountered in the wild. AR-15’s certainly didn’t exist in the 18th century, but that point alone does not actually mean anything, particularly when considering the context of the era the founding fathers lived and wrote the Bill of Rights in.

First of all, the Continental Army grew from citizen militias which were as old as the colonies themselves. Most colonies required all able-bodied (usually those capable of strenuous physical activity, aged 16-60) men to keep, and be ready to bear arms in action with little notice. They were mustered periodically to practice functioning as a paramilitary unit, and were often the primary line of defense against native raiders. They were considered a local extension of the British Army, and were expected to have arms of modern military quality. After all, they were often deployed alongside the army (the most modern and powerful one in the world, at that), and needed to be similarly capable and equipped. The founding fathers knew this, many viscerally as they had been members of, or fought alongside the colonial militias in the British Army.

By the time of the “Boston Crisis” of 1774, American militias had over a century of combat experience. Particularly in New England, militias had by then developed a specialized branch of younger (typically <25y/o), enthusiastic, reliable, and more highly trained men, with arms supplied by the government, who were expected arm up and turn out with “a minute’s notice”. They were hand picked by regular militia commanders, essentially the first specialized American elite military unit, appropriately named “Minutemen”. By the American Revolution, they accounted for about a quarter of the New England militia’s roster, and were among the first to fight. Does this sound like a force that would turn down an AR-15 if you handed them one? We don’t think so, and we suspect the founding fathers wouldn’t either.

The militia, and the Minutemen in particular, employed tactics considered “ungentlemanly” by the standards of warfare of the day. Anything besides moving over open terrain in massed formations was considered terrorism, and the American irregular forces that made up the bulk of the early American revolutionary military took great pains to employ those “terroristic” tactics. The greater range and accuracy of their rifles meant that they did not need to fire in massed volleys to hit the enemy, and could even target NCOs and officers to disrupt their more numerous, and often better trained foe.

It should also be noted that especially early on, there were no government stores of small arms, artillery, or warships. Significant portions of the Continental Navy were converted merchant ships, armed with privately purchased and owned cannons, commissioned as privateers. The same goes for the cannons and small arms used by the Army.

Lastly, repeating arms absolutely existed during the founding fathers’ day. From the Puckle Gun (which makes an AR-15 look like a .22), to the pepperbox pistol, and the 22-shot Girardoni Air Rifle, capable of bringing down large game.

So to bury this argument once and for all, let’s take a look at what history has to say about what the founding fathers would have thought of an AR-15, shall we? We have:
-A nation at war with privately owned arms of all kinds, from swords and pistols to cannons and warships.
-A preference for top-of-the-line rifled flintlocks that exceed the capabilities of the British Brown Bess musket.
-An understanding of repeating arms, and period employment of such by hunters, the Austrian Army, and even Thomas Jefferson himself.
-An appreciation for ingenuity, engineering, and leveraging every possible advantage over the enemy to achieve unlikely success, even if that makes some label them “terrorists”.

We think you’re capable of looking at the above and coming to your own conclusion, but if nothing else, keep all this in mind the next time you find yourself facing what may be a well-intentioned argument, however poorly supported by observable history it may be.

A New Year’s Gun Control Push! Biden goes for broke before losing the House

President Biden and his administration have been far from silent on pushing for gun control, specifically an Assault Weapon Ban after each of the major incidents regardless of circumstances.

Every slaying, they seem to think, can be solved or made less lethal if only we’d ban semi-auto firearms and limit magazines to 10 rounds. No word on how in the wide wide world of sports they expect to get hundreds of millions of semi-auto weapons out of circulation currently, prevent murders, suicides, and accidents with any weapon other than a semi-auto, or prevent the manufacture of new ones from 3D printing and other simple production mediums.

But that won’t stop him from making the noise.

NPR sat down and asked one of their experts,

Let us see what they came up with. I’ve been unsympathetic to NPR as of late, they’ve held onto several untenably stupid opinions as ‘fact’ when it comes to gun control and other subjects. Even if you personally do not care for firearms, even if you dislike firearms in private hands, that doesn’t dissolve responsibility as a conveyor of information (especially publicly funded), from coming at the information objectively and with aggressive reason.

From NPR,

NPR’s A Martinez speaks with gun control expert Robert Spitzer about President Biden’s push for an assault-style weapons ban after recent mass shootings in Colorado and Virginia.


President Biden is seeking to pass a ban on assault rifles before the end of the year. He’s making that pitch in the immediate aftermath of several deadly mass shootings across the U.S. in recent weeks. Democrats have made this proposal dozens of times in recent years, but they have been able to get it done, mainly because many Republicans in Congress oppose any type of gun control. So will it be different this time around? For more, we turn now to Robert Spitzer. He’s a distinguished service professor emeritus of political science at SUNY Cortland and an expert on gun policy. Professor Spitzer, what kind of pitch does President Biden need to make to push increased gun control legislation through Congress before the end of the year?

ROBERT SPITZER: I’m not sure there’s anything he can say that will make the Senate move. It’s important to remember that the House of Representatives has already passed an assault weapons ban bill and included in that a limit on large-capacity magazines, which arguably is even more important. But as you just discussed, the Senate has a full plate. The spotlight will be on the Senate when it comes to assault weapons and possible action. But it’s hard to imagine the Senate mustering 60 votes to enact a new assault weapons ban.

MARTÍNEZ: You know, professor, I was going to start off by asking you how likely it is that he would be able to push gun control legislation through Congress because usually, the answer is not likely. But not even a pitch, no pitch at all you think could crack the Senate?

SPITZER: Well, he might want the Senate to take a vote. And other Democrats might want a vote to be held, as well, just so that they’re on record on the issue. The assault weapons ban idea is supported by most Americans. It’s been floating around a long time. And so for political reasons, there might be a push to go ahead. But with so much on the Senate’s plate and on Congress’s plate, I think it will be a difficult haul. And the question that he will need to ask is whether that’s where he wants to put significant political effort in the short time between now and when the new Congress convenes in January.

And here we stumble across the real goal of making this noise from the White House.

This isn’t about the safety of the American people, there is no realistic way that the White House can accomplish anything with a ban and I’m done believing they’re just altruistically stupid. This isn’t tackling the myriad of problems that result in violent conclusions. This isn’t about assessing why young people seem to be committing an appalling number of excessively violent attacks, or why urban violence is so substantially increased.

This is about saying the right things so that they ‘tried’ the right amount to point at those who didn’t vote for it and blame them. It is all about passing the buck and not being held to blame for something they are actually blameless for already, but their voter base gets grumpy and they can win political capital.

MARTÍNEZ: What about executive action to overcome the gridlock?

What about directing the DoJ, you know… something he is in charge of, to follow through on more NICS Denial cases, put resources into making sure NICS is as up-to-date, easy to access, and constantly functioning as it can be. Perhaps make certain their are enough NICS examiners and data folks as compared to IRS agents since the number of bodies in the ground due to 1099-EZ’s is significantly lower than violent crimes.

SPITZER: President Biden issued some executive actions this past summer pertaining to the gun issue. And he probably will be looking at a way or may be looking at a way now to tweak existing rules that could affect gun policy. But it’s important to remember that executive orders are not the vast, sweeping, unlimited powers that many people ascribe to them. And he this summer, for example, said that they would tighten up on gun dealer regulations and on restricting ghost guns. And especially moving on ghost guns, I think, will be significant in terms of executive actions. But it’s not clear that there’s a whole lot more he can do within the realm of executive orders and other unilateral actions because important policies are still framed by Congress.

So… no. He won’t do anything meaningful because meaningful wouldn’t line up with politically advantageous. We’ll be promised he is trying but no complex action will be taken and certainly no action that would put him at odds with his necessary voter bases, he’s got two years to look useful enough to get re-elected and hope that the Republicans are foolish enough to run an annoying meme-grade candidate that won’t make him look like the slack jawed buffoon who cost them so dearly this midterms. The only reason the Dems weren’t taken to the cleaners was some of the more imbecilic decisions of the Republicans.

We have gridlock instead, and maybe that’s for the best. But Biden is still going to cry and “try” for something with this Congress, so at least he can blame them. He won’t even have to blame them long since the new Congress will seat and then the actions of the old one won’t matter so much anymore.

It’s just political hot potato.

MARTÍNEZ: Biden has also mentioned red-flag laws, the lack of enforcement of red-flag laws around the country. Now, those are state laws. What could Washington do to increase enforcement of red-flag laws across the country?

Remember the BSCA? Are you telling me the BSCA, the most meaningful and comprehensive piece of gun legislation in a generation as Biden told us, isn’t doing diddly to curb violence? What about that boyfriend loophole!? Surely that loophole being unlooped has saved people, right?

SPITZER: In the bipartisan gun bill that Congress passed and President Biden signed this past summer, there was a provision to encourage more states to adopt red-flag laws and to provide funding for them. And he’s – at the least, I would think would want to be very public to encourage states to move ahead in doing that. Nineteen states have red flag laws in place right now. And one of the problems we’ve seen is that often, the enforcement of these laws is pretty spotty, and knowledge of red-flag laws is very limited. And red-flag laws are typically triggered when a family member or somebody who knows somebody who owns guns and who makes a threat against others or against themselves then goes to the police to begin the red-flag law process to perhaps remove guns from the person. But you’ve got to be able to know that you can do that before the process begins. And much more publicity could be issued surrounding that. That’s not an executive order matter, per se necessarily, but it’s something that could be done to increase the effectiveness of red-flag laws.

So it is as vague an ineffectual as predicted.

People are reluctant to snitch on their neighbors and family. Judges, doctors, and cops are reluctant to be professionally liable for wrongly flagging someone. I don’t think that the ‘publicity’ is what is lacking, its that there was no hope it would work to begin with.

MARTÍNEZ: I remember as candidate Biden, he had promised to hold gun manufacturers accountable and repeal a law that provides protection for gun-makers. What kind of an impact would that kind of move make?

How? How would Biden keep this absurd promise?

We just said he wasn’t going to be able to move legislation, so how would he manage a repeal of the PLCAA and why would it have a positive effect?

SPITZER: If Congress decided to move ahead with changing the law to allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers to proceed, that would be a major, major change. It’s not on the agenda, and it is not something to my way of thinking that the president could advance through unilateral presidential actions.

Oh it isn’t, the President just lied for political capital. Gotcha.

It would be a major change, an absurd one that tied up money of manufacturers defending spurious lawsuits for people misusing their products.

MARTÍNEZ: It sounds pretty hopeless for people that want some movement on this, professor.

It should, especially after Bruen. Stop screwing around with the ease bake oven solutions that solve nothing and start working on the individual criminal environments of the cities and counties that are the problems. Those socio-economic environs will require tailored approaches and solutions specific to their unique situations. None of them, and I do mean none of them will be perfect or foolproof but they can, over time, rebuild confidence in the civility and rule of law within the spaces.

SPITZER: Well, the only other question, I think, is whether movement could be made separately on limiting large-capacity magazines because that’s a major problem.

No, it isn’t. This argument is stupid and demonstrates a willful lack of understanding of how a firearm operates. Magazine capacity is not a problem, it is a strawman argument that relies on perfect responses to perfect situations and the magical disappearance of literally hundreds of millions of durable magazines from ever being used in a crime again.

Gun control is one of the ultimate expressions of ‘stupidly altruistic’ by using no critical thinking. Just pass the law and things will get better, we promise. Don’t ask how, you’re just a gun extremist if you do.

MARTÍNEZ: Gun control expert Robert Spitzer, thanks for your time.

SPITZER: You bet.

So none of my faith in NPR’s deep and critical journalistic problem solving has been restored by this interview. Gun control continues to be the Utopia Fantasy of ‘if everything goes right than nothing will go wrong’.

If we just had a few more rules against shooting people indiscriminately then people will stop.

Sounds stupid when you put it that way, doesn’t it.

Measure 114: Liberals Trust Police?

The left in Oregon supporting Ballot Measure 114 has apparently had a crisis of identity. After years of announcing that police across the country are institutionally racist, classist, and generally mean, bad guys, and specifically calling out Portland Police for using right-wing memes and calling attention to OathKeepers within PPB ranks, we’re at a crossroads. Apparently the right-wing racist/fascist/authoritarians we were told to protest to protect black lives for the last two years are magically not racist or authoritarian at all… so long as we’re talking about gun control.

Yes, the ACAB crowd is suddenly on board with cops, and all it took was Ballot Measure 114: a mishmash of prior failed gun control efforts including a permit-to-purchase system, a pre-requisite training class, a public list of Oregonians who attempt to purchase a firearm, and a 10rd cap on magazine capacity, among other things. This necessarily means that Law Enforcement (the bad guys, remember?) will be the arbiters of every Oregonian’s enumerated right to own a firearm. To clarify once more, for those in the cheap seats, the same people we were told were racist nazi thugs can decide who can be armed, and that’s not just okay, but a good and necessary thing.

Crazier yet, Oregon Law Enforcement seems as apprehensive about measure 114 as you might, and for good reason: The permitting program they’re meant to enact and maintain has no funding, despite the Oregon State Sheriff’s Assn estimating a $40,000,000 annual pricetag. The live-fire gun safety class you will have to take before applying for the permit is not enumerated, nor does anyone seem to know who will be offering it, or where. Gun ranges in Portland are few and far between, and unless you’re a member of a club, most people shoot on BLM land.

Additionally, when we asked Ceasefire Oregon how Law Enforcement was meant to determine which of a pile of 30rd magazines was made before or after measure 114 took effect, we were told that magazine manufacturers inside the state would be required to stamp every magazine they produce to indicate their production date. Do you know any magazine manufacturers inside of Oregon? Neither do we, and judging by the lack of a response to that question, neither do they.

All of this is not new to measure 114, or gun control movements in general. They will court whoever it takes to enact their misguided legislation, and fortunately many of their own are quick to call this out. Along with the usual pro-gun groups, a twitter search of “#NoOnMeasure114” calls up a who’s-who of Socialist, Trans, and general leftist orgs and individuals in the Pacific Northwest calling out Brady, Ceasefire, and everyone else who seems to have forgotten everything they said about police in the 2020’s up to this point. If it feels weird to be on the same side as Socialists, consider that it’s nice to see a coherent message, and a vocal pro-rights stance from any direction these days.

Ban Ban Ban: Common Sense


The recent surge in proliferation of full auto “switches” (particularly for Glock handguns) has Chicago city officials scrambling, occuring somehow despite all of the legislation banning them. These small, plastic or metal devices that replace, in the case of a Glock, the stock backplate on the slide grant the user select-fire capability. They can be purchased through the mail from places like Wish.com, or Alibaba, (though some of us may remember when they were advertised on social media alongside “solvent traps”) made in a home shop, or even 3D printed for the cost of a hunk of plastic.

However one acquires a switch, they are themselves considered NFA items, whether they are mounted to a firearm or not, and thus not legal to own without a tax stamp. Apparently, there is a large (and rising) number of Chicago citizens who have decided that the NFA is not relevant, and are purchasing or making them illegally.

Desperate for a way to bolster the gun ban idea they’ve so thoroughly bought into, in the face of the abject failure of anti-gun legislation to address or prevent teenage felons from acquiring pocket-sized machineguns, they have announced a new approach: banning guns. Yes, it’s a radical shift, but it’s so crazy it just might work: When your gun ban doesn’t work, the solution is clearly another gun ban.

Specifically, they’ve decided that since it’s a simple thing to add a switch to a Glock, that Glocks themselves should be banned as “easily converted” guns. How this addresses a problem that is fundamentally decentralized, in that anyone (literally anyone, a 10y/o can do this with funding and minimal instruction) can currently 3D print an MP5 clone with a couple hundred bucks and an internet connection, we certainly can’t say, but we’re very interested to hear their rationale, because guns have clearly won the war on guns.

Nerf Gun License? Only in NYC!

NYC is something of a meme when it comes to their attempts to nerf the second amendment. From their draconian policies throughout the 20th century banning essentially all lawful gun ownership, their elimination of all but two gun stores (those holdouts are in Manhattan, obviously), their blaming of Virginia for most of their gun crime, and perhaps most notably their Stop And Frisk campaign: Meant to find illegal guns, but apparently mostly good at harassing people doing nothing wrong.

But if there’s one thing we must surely all have assumed would always be sacred, it’s Nerf guns. That staple of the childhood toybox, one of a precious few remaining gifts that ensures a child gets any sort of exercise away from a screen, and fun for all ages, has apparently fallen afoul of the anti-gun movement.

Attempting to obey the absurd gun laws of his home city, the above redditor, recognizing that the permit to buy spring and air powered guns doesn’t actually exist, sent a message to the police commissioner asking what it was he was supposed to do in order to comply with the law in purchasing a Nerf gun. The response he got was, I think most would agree, literally insane: he was told to apply for a concealed carry permit. To be clear, if you look at the message he sent, it included a photo of the single shot, spring-powered Nerf gun in question, with the relevant foam darts. This is not simply a misunderstanding, as anyone with eyes who was presented with the question he sent would understand there is not a firearm, pellet gun, or even airsoft gun at play here, just a nerf pistol, and the cheapest one they make at that.

So one is left to assume that the Police Commissioner of NYC, or at least whoever answers their email, genuinely believes that owning a plastic, spring-powered, single shot Nerf dart launching device within the boroughs of their city requires 16 hours of classroom training, two hours on a live range, and to pass a written test with a score of at least 80 percent. It’s honestly no wonder their Bruen response law is getting eaten up in court.

Mag Ban Ruling is Back On The Menu

The absolute chads over at Firearms Policy Coalition have been slugging away at California’s standard capacity mag ban for years, and if it goes our way, could mean big things for states dealing with their own magazine ban. First among those are other members of the 9th Circuit; Washington and Oregon. Washington has had its own magazine ban enacted this year, and Oregon now has Ballot Measure 114 also banning mags over 10rd in capacity, that will be voted on in November.

Despite criticism about the lack of crime-prevention efficacy, the dearth of law enforcement support or enthusiasm for prosecuting mag bans and other such laws, not to mention the unenforceability of them, Anti-gun orgs rarely let go of a position they’ve settled into. Oregon’s proposed law goes beyond the magazine ban, and establishes a Massachusetts style gun ownership permit and prerequisite safety class. While some might argue those aren’t direct infringements, the idea of a “poll tax” on an enumerated right, and the obvious barrier to the exercise of same this places for the poorest residents are obvious to many, especially those in marginalized communities anti-gun orgs claim to want to help.

Worse yet, Oregon Measure 114, if passed, will become law with zero preparation for complying with it. There is no vetted class, paperwork/application for the permit, or state or even police policy on who can teach the class, where it can be held, how much it costs, or what the standards for pass/fail are. A win for 114 in November means that, until these issues are funded and worked out, nobody in the state will be able to legally purchase a gun, from a store or a private citizen. If a class is required to get a permit, and there is no class, or permit to get, what is this but a de-facto ban on all gun purchases?

It’s easy to come up with ideas, and imagine that they might affect positive change in the world. What’s difficult (and apparently not on the anti-gun agenda) is ensuring those ideas mesh with reality, and have the proper funding, manpower, and infrastructure necessary to actually functionally implement them, without harming law abiding people in the process. What’s also easy, however, is coming to the conclusion that the elimination of firearms purchases in the state of Oregon is not a bug, but a feature of Measure 114. Hopefully the FPC and their endeavors in California will bear fruit soon, and the question of the status of the standard capacity mag ban and more will all become moot.

4 Years Of Nothing


4 years ago, Washington State Ballot initiative 1639, like all gun control measures, was set to finally solve the problem of human beings killing each other. What was the cost of this important, life-saving measure you might ask? Surely whatever it is would be worth it. Well among other things for the low, low price of “An annual mandatory background check of every current gun owner in order to ensure they haven’t become violent felons in the meantime” an end to gun violence can be yours.

All that stood in the way was those awful gun owners, simple-minded puppets of the NRA who consistently voted to line the pockets of gun manufacturers, against their own interests. Beating all odds though, 4 years ago it actually passed, and nobody has died to gun violence since! Right?

Well, not exactly. Not only has it not made an impact on homicide rates, it hasn’t even been implemented. Washington state has (thankfully) made zero plans, let alone efforts, to actually implement the will of the voters and actually conduct annual background checks of existing gun owners. How exactly they would know who was a current gun owner, and thus subject to the law was never answered. Would the suspected gun owner would be required to go to a gun store and pay for the NICS check themselves? Would the government simply run their data through the system automatically on their birthday? The world may (hopefully) never know, but one thing is sure: after 4 years the WA state government certainly doesn’t. In fact the Department of Licensing, who was tasked with managing this debacle, determined that there was no feasible way to implement the scheme approved by voters.

4 years after the passage of this bill, WA state legislators, citizens, and even the citizen-sponsor of I-1639 are, often entirely unaware that their initiative languishes in limbo long after ballots were counted. The Office of the Governor admitted that it was effectively dead in the water with no legal avenue to implement it, but did so quietly enough that nobody seems to have noticed, even as they push for more gun control that, one assumes, must also have a chance of winding up drifting in space with no route forward in perpetuity.

People who are wholly ignorant of guns, drafting and passing legislation to restrict guns, with no understanding of the existing regulations on guns, or what the legal avenues to do so are, managed to write a regulation so unhinged from reality that it cannot be made to work? Who could have seen this coming? I suppose we’ll have to pass another law and wait 4 more years.

LEO Discretion: Good Or Bad?

Everytown and other gun controllers, who have been crowing loudly about how the discretion of your local Sheriff is vital to keeping your community safe, apparently only want that discretion applied to things they like, like May-Issue concealed carry schemes. Yet again, those responsible for enforcing the ridiculous laws handed to them by anti-gun legislatures like the one in New York (who is actively attempting to flout the SCOTUS ruling in Bruen) have recognized the futility, and lack of constitutionality inherent in them, and are refusing to comply.

Tasking manpower and finances to uphold blatantly unconstitutional violations of the 2nd Amendment, as well as common sense, are not a high priority for these men. They are making it known that their discretion will come heavily into play when deciding on enforcement measures for this, and any similar laws. Niagara County Sheriff Mike Filicett described the situation like this: “We will take the complaint, but it will go to the bottom of my stack… There will be no arrests made without my authorization and it’s a very, very low priority for me.” Sheriff Filicett isn’t alone, either. The New York State Sheriff’s Association called the law a “thoughtless, reactionary action” that achieves nothing but to “restrain and punish law-abiding citizens.” Apparently police voices are only wanted when they’re in lockstep with gun-grabbers.

So an anti-gun organization who touts their acceptance of police discretion on one aspect of the right to keep and bear arms, while shouting to the heavens that they support and listen to law enforcement, only to decry the same when it doesn’t lean in their favor on another aspect? Sounds like just another Monday to us. This certainly isn’t the first time local Sheriffs have been the primary barrier between anti-rights legislation and the people, and unfortunately we suspect it won’t be the last.

Anti-Gun Media Wrong Again


While it may seem unfair to describe an interpretation of SCOTUS refusing to hear a gun rights case as “Anti-Gun”, the NRA-ILA goes into great detail on what exactly happened, and why the misrepresentation paints news outlets as anti-gun. Headlines like the ABC News one here paint a vivid, if bleak picture for those interested in the right to keep and bear arms, but fear not: It’s not accurate. You should read the entire NRA-ILA article at length, but we will summarize it here.

Firstly, despite headlines, the Bump Stock Ban was not “upheld” by SCOTUS. There were two separate cases challenging the ban that are relevant to this discussion: Gun Owners of America, Inc. v. Garland, and Aposhian v. Garland. In both cases, the 6th and 10th Circuit Courts respectively upheld the ATF rule making bump stocks legally “machineguns”, despite nothing about them fitting their own legal definition thereof. Upon this ruling, both petitioned to be heard by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS declined to hear (known as “denying a petition of certiorari”) either of them, but that is not the same as upholding the lower Federal Appeals Court rulings. While the average person might be forgiven for confusing this for an endorsement of the ban, reporters should know better, whether they’re anti-gun or not.

It’s also worth considering, as NRA-ILA explains in greater detail, that there is a 3rd case working its way through the 5th Circuit, that is going to be heard in front of the full court, vs a panel of judges, and it’s entirely possible SCOTUS is simply waiting to see how that pans out before deciding to hear it, if necessary. One would imagine that misrepresenting the highest court in the land should be embarrassing, but it’s possible our editors care more about such things than those at ABC.

Bruen Strikes Back: SCOTUS FTW


If you wanted a reminder that the Bruen decision was a landmark case in the fight for the 2nd Amendment, well we’re happy to share this one with you.

The US District Court of Massachusetts had found that a MA state law permanently barring gun ownership for people convicted of gun-related misdemeanors constitutional in Morin v. Lyver. The case in question involved a MA resident who, believing his MA carry permit to be valid in Washington DC, tried to comply with a “no guns” sign at the American Museum of Natural History by asking if they could check it for him. His non-violent misdemeanor conviction of carrying unlawfully, under the MA law in question, barred him from handgun ownership forever.

While the District Court found that the ban was constitutional, when presented with the case, SCOTUS dissented, and is requiring they re-hear the case with the text of the second amendment, and the historical context of American firearms regulation in mind. If, given those considerations, the MA does not pass constitutional muster, then the Bruen standard demands it be struck down.

While it will take some time for this, and the other major cases SCOTUS has sent back to lower courts this year to move their way through the justice system, it’s a welcome sign that these cases are both getting heard, and being decided based on the text, historical context, and original intent of, the 2nd Amendment and its authors.