Category: Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE
I’m a big fan of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali congresswoman who always speaks her mind. Of course, I’m not a fan because I like her politics. But I do like the fact that nearly every time she speaks out in public, it serves as a warning for freedom-loving Americans that a true threat exists within our own federal lawmaking body.
Such was the case recently when Rep. Omar was caught on camera weighing in on a critical issue that many of us haven’t thought about for a while. In a video reposted on the Texas Gun Rights X page, Rep. Omar enthusiastically shared her views on registration and what always follows registration—confiscation.
“We have more guns in this country than we have humans,” she said in the video. “So, one of the things that is going to be important is to create a registry so we know where the guns are. We know when they go into the wrong hands when they’re stolen. And we can actually start a buyback program. I know that some of the Minnesota legislators have had that legislation, and that’s something that we should be thinking about on a federal level.”
It’s interesting that Rep. Omar would mention a “gun buyback” in the same breath as gun registration. Pro-gun advocates have warned for years that registration always leads to confiscation wherever it has been tried. Thus, anti-gun Democrats have avoided lumping the topics together.
As we’ve chronicled a number of times on TTAG, there are numerous other problems with gun “buybacks” besides the elephant in the room—eventual confiscation. First, they can’t be “buybacks” because the government never owned the firearms they are confiscating through compensation.
If there’s a big loser in Second Amendment-related court proceedings over the past few months, it has to be California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In fact, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 24 that the state’s ammunition background check law violated the Second Amendment and affirmed a district court’s order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law, Newsom shared some harsh words with the media.
“Strong gun laws save lives—and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said in a released statement. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition, and their voices should matter.”
Newsom’s frustration isn’t just with the decision on ammo background checks, however. To be sure, Newsom’s and California’s anti-gun regime have seen plenty of court losses as of late, and they have been dealt with especially harshly by the 9th Circuit Court—historically a bastion of anti-gun advocacy—in recent weeks.
For one, on June 20, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the California law limiting firearm purchases to just one every 30 days. This gun-rationing scheme, the court said, not only violated the Second Amendment but had no historic precedent as required by the Bruen doctrine.
“The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm,” the 9th Circuit ruling stated. “California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment, and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
Less than a month later, the 9th Circuit reversed a district court decision and upheld an earlier ruling that the Golden State’s law prohibiting advertising of any “firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors” is also unconstitutional.
“California has many tools to address unlawful firearm use and violence among the state’s youth,” the ruling stated. “But it cannot ban truthful ads about lawful firearm use among adults and minors unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors.”
Note that the big losses haven’t just been in the 9th Circuit Court, but also at the district court level. On July 1, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the state’s law banning nonresident carry permits is unconstitutional.
“Although California identifies a regulatory burden from potentially tens of thousands of new applications, the constitutional infringement pushes the balance of equities in Plaintiffs’ favor,” the ruling stated.
Ultimately, his recent court losses might have something to do with Newsom’s recent lie proclaiming he’s now a Second Amendment advocate.
“I’m not anti-gun at all,” Newsom said at the time. “I’m for just some gun safety common sense. I’m challenged by large-capacity magazine clips in urban centers, weapons of war sometimes outgunning the police. But otherwise, man, people have the right to bear arms, and I’ve got no ideological opposition to that at all.”
Hopefully, pretending not to be anti-gun made him feel a little better about all the bad beatings he’s been taking in court recently. He’s going to need it, as more lawsuits in the pipeline will continue to dismantle the state’s tangle of anti-gun laws.
The CIA Venona files when finally released proved they deserved their fate. Grumpy
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.
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 own research 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 Gallup shows 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