Category: Anti Civil Rights ideas & “Friends”
64-year-old Anibal Hernandez Santana is facing state-level charges of assault with a deadly weapon, shooting into an occupied building and negligent discharge of a firearm, as well as the federal charges related to interfering with a federally licensed broadcast statios that led to him being taken into custody not long after he posted bond and left the Sacramento County jail on Saturday.
Though authorities have not officially said what Hernandez Santana’s alleged motive might have been, there are suspicions that the shooting was tied to ABC’s decision to yank Jimmy Kimmel off the air last week over his comments that portrayed the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk as a right-wing MAGA supporter of President Donald Trump.
Variety reports that Hernandez Santana’s social media contains a steady stream of anti-Trump postings, but Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros says Hernandez-Santana is also a big fan of gun control.
On X, Hernandez Santana has, among other things, spoken out in favor of California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines, advocated for limiting gun sales to single-shot rifles for adults under the age of 25 , and an outright ban on so-called assault weapons.
More recently, Hernandez Santana posted “Where is a good heart attack when we need it the most?? Please Join in my thoughts and prayers for the physical demise of our fearful leader,” and “The authoritarian oligarchy is now complete. CBS+ caving, big law firms in DC, the subservients FBI and AG, university presidents stepping own, fan boys SCOTUS, public radio, ICE goons. We are going to have to ‘fight like hell’. Rules don’t apply if election was stolen. FIGHT!”
To the best of my knowledge, not a single media outlet has reported on Hernandez Santana’s support for gun control, though the Sacramento ABC affiliate shared a post where he claimed to have started carrying a gun after Donald Trump was elected in 2016.
“I haven’t seen [the posts]… It’s not completely uncommon. I mean, I’m on social media a lot and reading comments and from both sides really, there are some comments that I wouldn’t say are extreme, but that show a lot of passion,” said [Hernandez-Santana’s attorney Mark] Reichel. “I understand the concern that people would have, but they’re not uncommon.”
With the FBI now involved, Reichel believes politics are at play.
“If his social media points are considered radical by you, I guess it depends on your perspective. There’s a lot of this stuff that’s said by the President and you’d have to consider that radical also,” said Reichel. “I think the President and the Trump Justice Department and Pam Bondi aren’t going to let this one go by… Of course, they’re going to grab it and try to bring it into federal court as soon as they can because they’ve got somebody who is an educated liberal who they believe shot at the building.”
I know that Reichel has a duty to defend his client, but c’mon now. It’s not Hernandez Santana’s social media posts that landed him behind bars. It’s the suspicion that he fired multiple shots at a television station just a few days after Kimmel was yeeted from the airwaves.
There are plenty of people on the left and the right who’ve taken issue with the implied threats by FCC Chair Brendon Carr to go after ABC and its parent company Disney, but as far as I know none of them decided to take out their frustrations by firing multiple shots at their local ABC station.
Hernandez Santana’s posts on X might help explain his mindset and motive if he is, in fact, responsible for the shooting, but I don’t think anyone has said his “radical” speech amounts to criminal activity in and of itself.
Hernandez Santana is entitled to his views on all kinds of issues, including his support for California’s gun control laws and a desire to see more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.
But if the news media is going to highlight his prolific posts on X, they shouldn’t hide his many comments in support of gun control while highlighting his animosity towards Donald Trump and the current administration. Hernandez Santana isn’t just an “educated liberal”; he’s a staunch advocate for restricting our right to keep and bear arms who, according to authorities, had no qualms about using a gun of his own to target those he disagrees with.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about our Second Amendment rights.
Hudson Munoz, the gay executive director of Guns Down America, a nonprofit advocating for stronger gun safety laws and reduced gun proliferation, called the proposal “misplaced, cruel, and dangerous,” arguing that it scapegoats transgender people rather than addressing systemic failures in America’s gun policies.
“What won’t they do?” Munoz asked. “To avoid talking about the truth of gun violence, which is that permissive access and a massive deregulatory agenda around firearms is increasing the lethality and prevalence of guns in our communities. That is what leads to gun violence.”
Munoz noted that instead of investing in proven measures like community violence intervention programs, education, or workforce training, lawmakers are redirecting resources while manufacturing “bogeymen” to blame.
“They are going out of their way to create a bogeyman for gun violence, trans people, in order to avoid talking about the hard truths that need real solutions,” Munoz said. “It’s particularly cruel and misplaced, given the rates of suicide and self-harm in the LGBTQ community. This is part of a broader strategy to persecute marginalized communities and blame them for problems that the Trump administration is creating for itself.”
Munoz described the current administration’s approach as an “escalate and blame” strategy, ratcheting up rhetoric while deflecting responsibility. “What they’re doing here is escalating the rhetoric and blaming the wrong people for the problems they are creating,” he said.
Munoz fears the repercussions could be severe, and he warns that stigmatizing transgender people as uniquely dangerous could have ripple effects far beyond the gun debate.
“It’s going to make it harder for trans people to speak up and ask for help,” Munoz said. “This further stigmatizes a group of people and pushes them outside the bounds of medical care and social services, labeling them as dangerous. That’s a trope that has been used against the queer community, including trans people, for all-time, and it’s an ugly new face of old stigma.”
The danger, Munoz added, is not theoretical. “I’m actually very afraid we’ll see more violence against trans people,” he said. “It’s not a reach to conclude that as people are told trans people are dangerous and armed, some will take it upon themselves to feel justified in perpetuating violence against a community that already faces tremendous stigma and persecution.”
At the same time, Munoz emphasized, trans people are already contending with limited access to medical care, legal protections, and basic safety. Layering new restrictions that paint them as a public threat only increases their vulnerability.
“This is cruel,” Munoz said bluntly. “Instead of addressing gun violence with evidence-based solutions, this administration is targeting a marginalized group, escalating stigma, and putting lives at risk.”
I am of mixed opinion about this one. Anybody out there have any good ideas out there on this issue? BUT Please keep the bad puns to yourself. Thanks Grumpy
On September 2, 2025, a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned a lower court ruling and upheld a concealed carry ban Illinois on public transit.
The case is Schoenthal v. Raoul. It was brought by four plaintiffs and last year, a Northern District of Illinois judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, according to CBS News.
On Tuesday, the three judge panel of the 7th Circuit upheld the ban.
Judge Joshua Kolar wrote:
The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to self-defense. It does not bar the people’s representatives from enacting laws — consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of regulation — that ensure public transportation systems remain free from accessible firearms.
We are asked whether the state may temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned. We draw from the lessons of our nation’s historical regulatory traditions and find no Second Amendment violation in such a regulation.
The plaintiffs now have an option to appeal for the case to be heard en banc by the 7th Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio, a member of Gun Owners of America, and the director of global marketing for Lone Star Hunts. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in 2010 and has a Ph.D. in Military History. Follow him on X: @awrhawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
We told you back in 2022 how U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, worked with President Joe Biden and Democrats in the U.S. Senate to help pass the so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) later utilized to issue several more Final Rules further restricting firearm ownership.
Now, in the midst of a reelection campaign that sees him running neck-and-neck with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Cornyn is denying that he worked with the Democrats to help get the anti-gun measure passed.
According to a report at dallasexpress.com, the pro-gun rights group Texas Gun Rights recently posted on social media: “Speaking of shooting, remember when you teamed up with Biden to spearhead gun control legislation?” Cornyn’s reply was a simple, “No.”
Either Cornyn’s memory is failing him or he’s trying to hide the fact that he was instrumental in the passage of the measure back in 2022. In fact, that’s the point Blaze Media personality Sara Gonzalez was making when she asked on social media: “Is John Cornyn senile, a liar, or both?”
The denial also gave Texas AG Paxton a chance to take a shot at Cornyn, who he’s seeking to unseat in the U.S. Senate.
“My promise to voters of Texas is that I will never be thanked by Joe Biden for helping him pass gun control legislation,” Paxton posted on X. “I wish John Cornyn could make the same promise.”
In fact, Cornyn’s denial isn’t even plausible. There’s no doubt that he aided in the passage of the bill, even voting “yea” when the final vote on the measure was taken.
At the time, Cornyn should have known better than to help with the bill. Despite his claims that he “thought it was important to demonstrate the Senate could work,” the National Rifle Association publicly opposed the legislation, warning that its vague language gave anti-gun officials nebulous authorities that could be abused to target law-abiding gun owners and firearm-related businesses. That assertion, of course, turned out to be correct.
Cornyn’s denial of being involved with the legislation comes only three months after Texas Gun Rights penned a letter to President Trump in which it aired its grievances over what it believes to be Cornyn’s lack of support for the Second Amendment.
“Dear President Trump, We, the members and supporters of Texas Gun Rights, write to you as dedicated defenders of the Second Amendment,” the letter stated. “We urge you in the strongest terms not to endorse Senator John Cornyn in his bid for re-election to the U.S. Senate.”
An Emerson College Poll released August 15 showed a statistical tie among GOP primary voters, with 30% backing Cornyn, 29% supporting Paxton and 37% undecided.
As I was reading transcripts of oral arguments presented to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the Constitutionality of Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases, I found myself laughing frequently at the mental gymnastics on display and the idea that such an easy answer seemed so far out of the state’s intellectual grasp.
I know, I know. So, what is the answer? We’ll get to that, but first, let’s mock some anti-Second Amendment clowns whose lack of wit begs the question, how does this individual eat a bowl of cereal without accidentally drowning?
For those who actually live in America, the idea of a waiting period to take home a newly purchased firearm may seem foreign and absurd, and it is, but for those living in territories masquerading as American states, it’s just another day in authoritarian paradise.
Fortunately, attorneys representing Maine have been keen to point out their own corrupt attempts to pervert the meaning of the Second Amendment, arguing that the right to keep and bear arms does not implicitly protect the right to purchase them.
If there was ever a slimy, sleazy, and repugnant excuse for an individual, meet Christopher C. Taub, Maine’s chief deputy attorney general, whose arguments read like a brightly lit neon sign screaming, “I am not credible!” I wonder if he even noticed.
As I continued reading the transcript, I thought this line of abject stupidity might be reigned in after U.S. Circuit Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson objected to the notion, pointing out that “you gotta be able to get a firearm in some fashion.”
And she is correct, especially during a time when the government is working hard to eliminate homemade firearms. Who would have bet an Obama appointee could make such a precise and cogent statement? I certainly didn’t see it coming.
Thankfully, Erin Murphy of Clement & Murphy in Washington, D.C., representing plaintiffs in the matter, was there to throw fuel on the fire in the form of superior reasoning.
“The only thing this law is doing is restricting possession … The state doesn’t care about the transaction. Or the legal title. They care about possession.”
Great point. The transaction being complete, this has nothing to do with the purchase, only possession. Taub walked right into that like a hyena into the lion’s den.
But Taub wasn’t about to give up trashing his credibility at the mere sign of logic and reason. He argued the Second Amendment would only factor in if a waiting period “meaningfully impairs” the right to keep and bear arms.
I didn’t catch the “meaningfully impairs” section of the Second Amendment, Chrissy, but I am familiar with the term “shall not be infringed,” and like most Americans, I don’t need to litigate the simple text into absurdity.
I wish I could tell you that Chrissy walked away with his tail between his legs at this point, but the clown show wasn’t complete. Taub next argued that the right is not applicable to all Americans, as “the Second Amendment applies to people who are law-abiding and responsible.”
But this time it was a Biden appointee, U.S. Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, who intervened to inform Taub that he was an idiot, but in a non-pejorative “judgy” manner that my direct to abrasive lack of patience does not afford me.
“Your argument is the waiting period is checking on whether people are law-abiding, and I don’t see that,” said Montecalvo.
First of all, this is absolutely correct, as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is, well, INSTANT! In most cases, a background check yields a result while the customer is still in the store. Strike three on this gun controller.
You would think it was time for Taub to hang up the scales of justice and seek employment in a more fitting environment for his personal intellect, especially after getting beaten up by both Obama and Biden judicial appointees on matters of the Second Amendment, but you’d be wrong.
Taub then chose to pivot, arguing that waiting periods save lives. But do they? When this argument is made, gun controllers are generally talking about those who seek to obtain a firearm to commit suicide.
Judge Thompson aptly pointed out, however, that such a provision would do nothing for those who already own a gun. I will expand on this by saying that those who don’t own a firearm typically have an alternative means of obtaining one, and the legality of doing so isn’t of much concern to them, all things considered.
Further, a firearm is not necessary to commit suicide, and a waiting period does nothing to protect from the litany of other methods available to those who have their minds set. The idea of violating the Constitutional rights of so many Americans in light of these facts is unconscionable, and U.S. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, another Biden appointee, agrees with me.
“If I have an impulse problem, there are other ways I can get a gun. You’re taking a sledgehammer to a lot of people who are law-abiding and responsible but not necessarily solving for other people. You’re creating a lot of problems without a solution,” said Aframe.
Now, before we go giving these judges too much credit, let’s look at where they may have stepped in it themselves.
“Maine’s science says that waiting three days has indicia of proving responsibility, just like a safety class proves responsibility,” according to Aframe.
This isn’t about Maine’s science. It is about the Constitution of the United States of America. But one must also consider the source, and let’s face it, Democrats will lie, manipulate, and sell their souls to eviscerate freedom. So what do we know about the source? We know they either can not or will not understand the concise plain text of the Second Amendment. That’s enough for me. If you are either too stupid or too corrupt to seize its meaning, don’t even begin to speak to me about science.
Judge Thompson, as if looking to belong to both reasonable and incompetent sides of the argument, provided this nugget of mindlessness to the debate.
“[P]eople need safety classes in order to be responsible. In order for us to tease out who has a crisis, we wait three days; that’s how you tease it out,” Thomson said.
This prompted a response from Erin Murphy, demonstrating that the idea of “teasing it out” is speculative at best.
“At the end of three days, everyone gets the firearm. They don’t know. The state has not assured itself. They haven’t done anything,” Murphy said.
She also took a moment to remind the judges of a 2022 Supreme Court case that they may have heard of, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, pointing out that a waiting period “doesn’t fit with the historical tradition of doing something to ensure” responsibility.
Remember, this isn’t about what one might subjectively feel is a good or effective policy. This is about the law, and even though both federal and state governments have all but thrown out the Constitution, certainly a 2022 Supreme Court ruling should be fresh in their minds.
At the end of the day, the judges seemed largely confused on the subject, perhaps suggesting they should seek a job application at the local McDonalds alongside Taub, where they would be safe from having to interpret simple text, not to mention I’m not going to show up to their workplace and slap the frier basket out of their hand like I’m doing today. Aframe even questioned whether or not the right to bear arms meant that Americans have the right to bear them immediately, or if “meaningfully impaired” was some sort of standard by which there is any metric to measure. Really?
Alright. I promised a solution to the debacle, and I’m a man of my word. Are you ready for it? Apply the same standard to all the other liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights.
Start with the First Amendment. Could some sort of waiting period protect individuals from saying things that are perhaps offensive or capable of inciting conflict? It is the left, after all, that championed the “words are violence” movement. If so, would making people wait to exercise their free speech pass Constitutional muster? There’s your answer.
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.