Sen. Adam Schiff just inherited Dianne Feinstein’s torch—and immediately used it to light his credibility on fire.
In a now-laughed-off social media video, Schiff reintroduced the “Assault Weapons Ban of 2025,” a recycled gun control fever dream that’s already been dunked on by the facts—and even by his own platform.
What’s your take on Schiff’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2025”?
Within hours, the post got slapped with a brutal community note pointing out that his claim—that the 1994 ban “held crime and mass shootings at bay for 10 years”—is flat-out false. The Department of Justice’s ownresearch says it had no measurable effect on gun violence.
Oops.
That didn’t stop Schiff from repeating the tired old talking point about “weapons of war,” a term cooked up by people who clearly haven’t fired anything louder than a Nerf gun.
Never mind the over 30 million modern sporting rifles (MSRs) in circulation across America—used daily by law-abiding citizens for hunting, home defense, competition shooting, and plinking pop cans in the backyard.
That’s more MSRs than there are Ford F-150s, and nobody’s trying to ban those.
Let’s be clear: this bill has no chance of passing. Even with Democrats controlling Congress in 2021-2022, the ban never made it to a vote.
Now, with Republicans holding both chambers, it’s dead on arrival. That’s the nicest way to say “laughably doomed.”
But the circus must go on. Schiff trotted out the usual suspects—Padilla, Murphy, Blumenthal, and the Brady/Giffords crew—for a press conference nobody watched, to push polling numbers nobody believes.
Murphy had the gall to call this bill “popular,” even though Gallupshows support for an AWB dropping steadily, from 61% in 2019 to just 52% in 2024. Meanwhile, opposition keeps climbing, as NSSF’s Larry Keane noted in a brilliant op-ed.
Here’s the truth: Schiff’s Assault Weapons Ban isn’t about safety. It’s about control, headlines, and cash for gun control PACs. Schiff’s political theater may excite donors and D.C. interns, but in the real world, Americans aren’t buying it—and they’re not giving up their rights.
Nice try, Senator. Maybe next time, bring facts instead of fiction.
—————————————————————————————- I am so ashamed that this thing is one of my Senators!! Grumpy
The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.
I’ll be honest here, my ability to suffer foolishness kindly on this matter has permanently expired, so if you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive truth, then this one may not be for you.
Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, brought the case, announcing his plan to purchase items restricted by the infringement for the lawful purpose of self-defense, but a three blind mice panel of subversive activist judges. Who wouldn’t know a natural right from ringworm performed just the right amount of mental gymnastics necessary to return with a ruling so heavily steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship status alone, much less their seat on a bench.
Comrade Judge Gary Katzmann, whom I definitely wouldn’t let babysit my children, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court” needed to consider whether the law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which would make it allowable under the Second Amendment.
To be fair, Katzmann and his cronies would have found it consistent with a bowl of cereal if doing so properly served his anti-American agenda, and that is about as plausible as the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most common sporting rifle in America, does not unduly burden civilian self-defense.
The court was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and additional appellants failed to show any instance in which these models had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine finding that any search engine could refute in seconds with days and weeks of reading material.
Katzmann embarrassingly attempted to correlate a longstanding tradition of regulation with the outright banning of “specific weapons once it became clear that they posed a unique danger to public safety, including mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.”
However, no such longstanding tradition exists, with the mental gymnastics here contributing mostly to a sad perversion of the Bruen decision, for which the Supreme Court is likely to tuck tail and expose its lack of spine.
In fact, even machine guns are not banned outright. But Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists never burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Constitution. Why let any of that get in the way of the internal insurrectionist agenda?
Katzmann and his merry band of idiots also claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”
While this take is genuinely not unique by any standard, it has also been debunked since, well, the beginning, as the Second Amendment clearly states in plain English, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a body of citizens trained and equipped to serve in a military capacity, ensuring the security of a free state, the Founding principle behind the Second Amendment.
Here’s a note to Katzmann and all the activist judicial traitors out there. If I can disprove you that easily, your children should be embarrassed by your legacy. There is very little I find more disgraceful than the absolute irreverence for your oath and obligation to the American people while you work to weaken the United States of America and poison our founding values from the inside.
Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind.
Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.
In a recent case out of Hawaii, a U.S. District Court has upheld a federal gun ban, denying a motion to dismiss the indictment of Christopher Chan, who was charged with unlawfully possessing a machine gun and a short-barreled rifle. Judge Derek Watson, appointed by President Obama, ruled that these types of firearms are not protected under the Second Amendment. While the court’s decision isn’t surprising, given the political landscape in Hawaii, it raises critical issues about how the Second Amendment is being interpreted today.
The case stems from an incident where Christopher Chan was found in possession of a short-barreled rifle and a machine gun. These are firearms that, under the National Firearms Act (NFA), must be registered, and in this case, they weren’t. Chan’s legal team argued that the charges violated his Second Amendment rights, asserting that these firearms are “arms” protected by the Constitution. They also challenged the Commerce Clause, arguing that Congress didn’t have the authority to regulate the possession of these firearms.
However, Judge Watson’s decision struck down both arguments, claiming that neither the short-barreled rifle nor the machine gun falls within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protection. This ruling is significant because it highlights the ongoing tension between federal gun laws and the constitutional right to bear arms.
FILE – State Sen. Dave Min, D-Irvine, listens as lawmakers discuss a bill before the Senate at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif., July 10, 2023. A federal appeals court on Tuesday, June 11, 2024, upheld California's ban on gun shows at county fairs and other public properties, deciding the laws do not violate the rights of firearm sellers or buyers. The two measures were both written by Min. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File)
SOURCE: Rich Pedroncelli
SAN FRANCISCO —
A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld California’s ban on gun shows at county fairs and other public properties, deciding the laws do not violate the rights of firearm sellers or buyers.
The 3-0 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a federal judge’s ruling in October that blocked the laws.
The two measures were both written by Democratic state Sen. Dave Min. The first, which went into effect in January 2022, barred gun shows at the Orange County Fair, and the other, which took effect last year, extended the ban to county fairgrounds on state-owned land.
In his decision last fall, U.S. District Judge Mark Holcomb wrote that the state was violating the rights of sellers and would-be buyers by prohibiting transactions for firearms that can be bought at any gun shop. He said lawful gun sales involve commercial speech protected by the First Amendment.
But the appeals court decided the laws prohibit only sales agreements on public property — not discussions, advertisements or other speech about firearms. The bans “do not directly or inevitably restrict any expressive activity,” Judge Richard Clifton wrote in Tuesday’s ruling.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who defended the laws in court, hailed the decision.
“Guns should not be sold on property owned by the state, it is that simple,” Bonta said in a statement. “This is another victory in the battle against gun violence in our state and country.”
Gun shows attract thousands of prospective buyers to local fairgrounds. Under a separate state law, not challenged in the case, actual purchase of a firearm at a gun show is completed at a licensed gun store after a 10-day waiting period and a background check, Clifton noted.
Gun-control groups have maintained the shows pose dangers, making the weapons attractive to children and enabling “straw purchases” for people ineligible to possess firearms.
The suit was filed by a gun show company, B&L Productions, which also argued that the ban on fairgrounds sales violated the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The appeals court disagreed, noting that there were six licensed firearms dealers in the same ZIP code as the Orange County Fairgrounds, the subject of Min’s 2022 law.
Min said the restoration of the laws will make Californians safer.
“I hope that in my lifetime, we will return to being a society where people’s lives are valued more than guns, and where gun violence incidents are rare and shocking rather than commonplace as they are today,” Min said in a statement Tuesday.
The ruling will be appealed, said attorney Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, the state affiliate of the National Rifle Association.
“CRPA will continue to protect the despised gun culture and fight back against an overreaching government that seeks to limit disfavored fundamental rights and discriminate against certain groups of people on state property,” Michel said in a statement provided to the San Francisco Chronicle.
While several states have passed laws this legislative session protecting gun owner privacy by prohibiting the use of firearm-specific merchant category codes by payment processors, Colorado has done just the opposite.
On Wednesday, Democrat Gov. Jared Polis signed SB24-066 into law, basically creating backdoor gun registration in the state by requiring use of such codes.
At issue is a new Merchant Category Code (MCC) for gun purchases adopted by the International Organization for Standardization a little over a year ago. MCCs are used by payment processors (like Visa and Mastercard) and other financial services companies to categorize transactions.
Prior to the creation of the specific code for guns, firearms retailers fell under the MCC for sporting goods stores or miscellaneous retail. If the new code is used, credit card companies and other payment processors can tell the purchases were firearms.
This session, legislators in Utah, Kentucky, Iowa, Tennessee, Georgia, Wisconsin and Indiana passed laws prohibiting use of the code. A similar bill is still under consideration by lawmakers in New Hampshire.
State Sen. Tom Sullivan, sponsor of the measure in the Colorado Senate, said the bill is a life-saving measure.
“Credit cards have been repeatedly used to finance mass shootings, and merchant codes would have allowed the credit card companies to recognize his alarming pattern of behavior and refer it to law enforcement,” Sullivan said. “This bill will give us more tools to protect people, and make it easier to stop illegal firearms-related activity like straw purchases before disaster strikes.”
Interestingly, efforts are underway in Congress to outlaw the use of firearm-specific merchant category codes. Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik of New York, Andy Barr of Kentucky and Richard Hudson of North Carolina have filed a bill that would prohibit use of the four-digit code that’s been created to identify merchants selling firearms.
“The tracking of gun purchases is a violation and infringement on the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans which is why I am proud to introduce the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act to prohibit radical gun grabbing politicians from tracking lawful gun purchases,” Rep. Stefanik said in a press release announcing the measure. “I share the concern of law-abiding gun owners across our nation that have voiced their fear that such tactics will work to serve the radical Left’s anti-gun agenda. I will always stand up for our Second Amendment rights as Americans and provide a critical check to any entity attempting to encroach on our liberties.”
The Colorado law will take effect 90 days after the adjournment of this session of the Colorado legislature.
We wrote a while back that Mexico is suing US gun manufacturers because their products are heavily used by drug gangs and criminals in Mexico. Got shot down, right?
Now, we in the US have a law passed a couple of decades back called the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). At that time, one of the key tactics used by gun-ban groups was to sue gun manufactures at the drop of a hat . Kid uses a 40 year old Colt to shoot someone? Sue Colt. Gun store gets robbed and a stolen Glock is used to rob someone three states away? Sue Glock. The idea was that if they continually forced gun makers to defend these bull$hit suits, pretty soon they would go bankrupt from legal fees even if they never lost. PLCAA says that if the guns are legally manufactured and sold, the gun companies’ responsibility for wrong-doing ends there.
If the gun is defective or deceptively marketed, they are still liable. (This is the “protection gun makers from lawsuits no other manufacturer has” that Biden and company whines about. Most companies are already protected by case law – you can sue a bar for serving a drunk driver because they are a proximate cause, but not Ford because they made the drunk’s Mustang, right?) The plethora of suits caused Congress to pass PLCAA.
But here is how the gun groups describe it:
PLCAA is a law that protects the gun industry from civil liability for harm caused by negligence, defective products, or irresponsible behavior. It denies justice to victims and survivors of gun violence and perpetuates the flow of crime guns into communities of color.Brady.org
So many lies…
Anyhoo, Mexico is suing seven manufacturers and a distributor, alleging negligence, defective product, barratry, piracy, simony, and for all I know indecent exposure. (They also want to know how Mexican Army guns wind up in the hands of the narco-gangs… cough cough ARMY CORRUPTION cough cough. Different article.)
Now, any normal person would say they can’t do that, right? They’ve already been shot down once. Oh no… the 1st Circuit steps in.
U.S. appeals court on Monday revived a $10 billion lawsuit by Mexico seeking to hold American gun manufacturers responsible for facilitating the trafficking of weapons to drug cartels across the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturnedThe Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned, a lower-court judge’s decision dismissing the case on the grounds that a U.S. law barred Mexico from suing Smith & Wesson Brands (SWBI.O), Sturm, Ruger & Co and others.
Mexico’s lawyers argued the law only bars lawsuits over injuries that occur in the U.S. and does not shield the seven manufacturers and one distributor it sued from liability over the trafficking of guns to Mexican criminals.
U.S. Circuit Judge William Kayatta, writing for the three-judge panel, said that while the law can be applied to lawsuits by foreign governments, Mexico’s lawsuit “plausibly alleges a type of claim that is statutorily exempt from the PLCAA’s general prohibition.”
He said that was because the law was only designed to protect lawful firearms-related commerce, yet Mexico had accused the companies of aiding and abetting illegal gun sales by facilitating the trafficking of firearms into the country. Reuters
Knowing that other than warranty work, once gun companies sell their guns to a distributor they are legally protected, should be sufficient. But these judges (whose decisions were reversed two out of three times last year ballotopedia) are saying “well, since it is not a US suit it can proceed” (?!)
Welcome to Ford getting sued for making that Mustang. Kinda makes you want to sue Mexico for all that fentanyl coming from them…
The second week of testimony in the New York trial of NRA, CEO Wayne LaPierre, Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer, and former Treasurer Woody Phillips wrapped up on Friday, January 19, 2024, and things are not looking good for the defendants. A fourth former executive, LaPierre’s former deputy Josh Powell, pled guilty days before the trial began.
Also, just days before the trial, LaPierre announced his resignation, effective at the end of January 2024, at an NRA Board of Directors meeting. Many spectators and even some participants have missed the delayed effect. He’s still technically in charge and, presumably, still having hislegal bills covered by NRA members’ money.
In his resignation announcement, LaPierre said he was stepping down for health reasons. He is reported to be suffering from the debilitating effects of chronic Lyme Disease, a tick-borne bacterial infection that can cause a variety of serious health problems. Having struggled with Lyme Disease myself and had people close to me affected by the chronic form of the infection, I won’t join in the chorus that has suggested the whole thing is some ruse on LaPierre’s part.
Lapierre’s Brain Is Shrinking!?
LaPierre has been in the courtroom every day during the two weeks of the trial. Still, his attorney has now submitted doctors’ notes asking the court for special accommodations for LaPierre during his upcoming testimony. The lawyer, supported by the doctors’ notes, says that, along with headaches, vision problems, and fatigue,
LaPierre is also suffering from cognitive issues related to the loss of cerebral mass. In other words, he’s saying LaPierre’s brain is shrinking, impacting his ability to think clearly and remember things. Because of this, the attorney is asking that the judge allow LaPierre and his lawyers to call timeouts during his upcoming testimony, possibly breaking it up over several days rather than trying to grind through one or two days of uninterrupted time on the stand.
The judge seems willing to accommodate LaPierre’s physical limitations and allow other witnesses to be called when and if LaPierre is incapacitated. This raises another important question about who’s running the NRA and why LaPierre remains officially in charge.
According to the letters from his doctors, LaPierre’s health has been in decline for several years.
His current condition was reported to NRA President Charles Cotton on January 3, 2024, two days before LaPierre announced his pending resignation. So why is LaPierre still holding the Executive Vice Presidency of the NRA?
If LaPierre is unable to testify for several hours consecutively due to his illness, and considering he is attending the trial in New York instead of being at his office at NRA headquarters, why didn’t he resign immediately on January 5? This was when the NRA Board was meeting, and they could have appointed a temporary replacement then rather than waiting for a month.
The NRA Bylaws say that in the case of a vacancy in the office of Executive Vice President, the Executive Director of General Operations is to fill the position until the Board meets to name a suitable replacement. LaPierre unceremoniously fired Joe DeBergalis, the ED of General Operations, shortly before Christmas, replacing him with Andrew Arulanandam. Arulanandam has been LaPierre’s top PR flack and spokesperson for several years. While his face is familiar to some members and the media, it would be a stretch to suggest he is qualified to run General Operations, and he’s certainly not qualified to be the CEO of the NRA.
During his testimony on Thursday and Friday, former Executive Director of NRA-ILA Chris Cox voiced a similar sentiment. Cox suggested that LaPierre demonstrated poor judgment in hiring, pointing to Josh Powell and Andrew Arulanandam as examples. Powell was LaPierre’s deputy who oversaw the collapse of the NRA’s controversial CarryGuard program and has already pled guilty in the New York trial. Arulanandam, who first worked under Cox in ILA before being moved over to NRA HQ by LaPierre, did not impress Cox while he was at ILA. Cox warned LaPierre that Arulanandam had “terrible” political judgment and was “lazy in core competencies.”
LaPierre ignored Cox’s warnings and kept Arulanandam on, promoting him to higher positions, eventually setting him up to take over as EVP and CEO upon LaPierre’s resignation.
This has laid the table for a bit of a battle within the NRA Board of Directors. It has been reported that Tom King, who has been one of LaPierre’s chief supporters on the Board and a close ally of NRA President Charles Cotton, has been calling fellow Directors to urge them to support a move to put Cotton in the EVP position.
Along with his duties as President, Cotton serves as the Chairman of the NRA’s Audit Committee, as I explained in a recent article, “Charles Cotton Must Never Be Allowed to Head the NRA!”. The Audit Committee is supposed to be the Association’s watchdog tasked with ensuring that the staff and vendors always operate within applicable laws and policies and conduct business in a manner that is above reproach.
Cotton served as vice chair of the committee for several years and then switched places with then-chairman David Coy. Between the two of them, they have been Chair and Vice Chair for the past 20-plus years, and they continue in those positions now, even though they’ve been President and Vice President of the Board for the past three years. Cotton and Coy were supposed to keep the NRA on track and away from even a whisper of corruption.
They failed spectacularly in that assignment and were rewarded for their failure by being elected to the offices of President and Vice President.
The best way for the NRA Board to demonstrate that they’ve learned nothing at all from the scandals and corruption that have plagued the NRA for the past 20 years and been publicly known for the past five years would be to hand the EVP position to Charles Cotton.
The trial continues on Monday with video testimony from former NRA President Carolyn Meadows. Ms. Meadows has been excused from testifying in person – or even via live video link – due to her own health issues, so her video deposition is being played.
It’s worth noting that Ms. Meadows’ health has been a limiting factor since she was first elected in 2019. She barely attended any Board meetings as President after she was elected, meaning that First Vice President Charles Cotton filled in for her for almost all of her two terms. He then served two terms as President himself, then orchestrated a Bylaws change to allow him to serve a third (effectively fifth) term as President.
In spite of her age and poor health concerns, Ms. Meadows has been nominated for reelection to the Board in the coming election…. She and another woman from Georgia were both added to the list of nominees after Phil Journey, Rocky Marshall, Dennis Fusaro, and I (Jeff Knox) were qualified by petition as nominees. Some speculate she and her friend were added to pad the field and make it even harder for any of the four reform candidates to be elected.
Ballots should be in the March issue of NRA magazines, which will hit mailboxes around mid-February, so please be sure to vote and encourage your NRA friends to vote. “Bullet voting,” i.e. voting for just the four Outsider Candidates for NRA Board, myself included, and no one else, gives us the best chance of winning seats, so please spread the word on that, too.
