The Weekly Feast – Brisket
I have a number of Jewish friends, and I hear about brisket all the time. There was the running joke about Howard’s mother’s brisket in The Big Bang Theory. Brisket is one of those cuts of meat that is just scrumptious, if cooked right. So how do you cook it? It depends a lot on the cut you’re using. I’m going for slow cooked brisket at this point in my cooking career, because I love the convenience of the slow cooker (though I did cook this one in the oven). It’s a bit pricey (our 3lb brisket cost about $21), but it’s totally worth it. Also, it makes your whole house smell like heaven.
Ingredients:
- 3 lbs untrimmed flat-cut beef brisket
- 1/2 tbsp salt, plus more to taste
- 1 tsp freshly ground black pepper, plus more to taste
- 3 tbsp oil (olive or vegetable)
- 2 medium yellow onions, sliced
- 4 celery stalks, cut into 2-inch pieces, leaves coarsely chopped
- 6 garlic cloves, smashed
- 2 cups red wine (such as Merlot or Pinot Noir)
- 28 oz canned crushed tomatoes
- 1/4 cup ketchup
- 2 tbsp brown sugar
- 1 tsp dried thyme OR several sprigs of fresh thyme
- 3 bay leaves
- 4 medium carrots, halved lengthwise and cut on a bias into 2-inch pieces
Preheat the oven to 325°F.
Season the brisket with most of the salt and pepper. Heat the oil in a large dutch oven over medium-high heat. Brown the brisket, turning occasionally, until browned on all sides, 10 to 12 minutes. Transfer to a plate.
Place the onions, celery, and garlic in the pot, tossing it in the residual fat. Season with the remaining salt and pepper. Cook, stirring occasionally, until the onions are soft and translucent, about 5 minutes.
Add the wine, tomatoes, ketchup, brown sugar, thyme, and bay leaves, and stir to combine. Nestle the brisket down into the liquid, fat side up. You may need to move some of the onion mix to get it low enough. Most of the brisket should be covered with liquid, but it’s okay if the fat is out. Cover the pot and cook in the oven until the meat is fork-tender, about 3 hours.
Uncover the pot and add the carrots around the brisket. Cook, uncovered, until the carrots are tender (not soft) and the top of brisket is browned and crisp, 35 to 45 minutes.
Remove the brisket from the pot and let it rest while you make the sauce. Use a spoon to skim fat from the surface of the braising liquid and discard. Heat over medium-high heat and cook until the liquid is thickened to a sauce-like consistency, 5 to 10 minutes. Remove the thyme sprigs and bay leaves. Taste and season with salt and pepper as needed. When the sauce is mostly ready, cut up the brisket by slicing it against the grain. Place the sliced brisket on a deep serving platter. Pour the sauce over the brisket and serve!
For sides, you need to keep in mind that Jewish folk don’t mix dairy and meat. If you don’t care, feel free to go with whatever sides you like, but if you want to enjoy the full Jewish brisket experience, try some baked sweet potato drizzled with olive oil, a cabbage and apple slaw for a tart finish, or some hot cornbread.
Wolford v. Lopez, the assumed schedule
Wolford is in an interlocutory state. They are appealing a preliminary injunction.
The purpose of the trial court is to gather evidence, hear legal arguments, and then decide based on evidence and the legal standing.
What the Supreme Court has said is that Second Amendment challenges do not need evidence. They are legal decisions, decided by the courts.
The law says “x”. The challenger says the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct regulated by the law. The burden shifts to the state to show that the current law is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.
There is no evidence to present. The court decides if the plain text covers the conduct. The court decides if the government has proven a history of firearms regulation that matches the current law. If the state fails to meet its burden, then the law is ruled unconstitional.
If the state wishes to bring in expert testimony regarding this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, that expert must be a lawyer. Not only must they be a lawyer, they must be part of the case.
Friends of the court can express their opinion, but the only place those opinions have any weight is if they are legal arguments regarding regulations from the time of the founding or somehow relevant to finding that the conduct is not covered by the Second Amendment.
At this point, everybody in Wolford has agreed the plain text of the Second Amendment is implicated. The state can present their arguments to the Supreme Court just as easily as to the trial court. There is no value the trial court will add to the analysis the Supreme Court will do.
Which leads us to, when will we hear back from the Supreme Court?
Cert was granted on October 3, 2025. Per rule 25 of the Supreme Court, the Petitioner (Plaintiff) must have their briefing in within 45 days. November 17, 2025. It is unlikely that this date will be pushed. Amici briefs supporting the Petitioner are due 7 days after.
The Respondent’s (defendant’s) brief is due 30 days after that, on December 17th. Again, Amici briefs the Respondent or neither are due 7 days after.
The Petitioner gets to reply to the Respondent’s brief. That is due 30 days after the respondent dockets their brief, putting us at January 10, 2026.
If everything goes as scheduled, oral arguments will be heard in February, with the opinion issuing in May.
I expect we will see at least one other Second Amendment case this term. If the Court is looking at Wolford to address sensitive places, then there will be no other sensitive places challenges heard.
That leaves a case dealing on what “arms” means. When that case is heard, they will address the proper usage of the “in common use for lawful purposes” shortcut to a Second Amendment win.
Win the War, Not Just a Battle
Winning the Battle
There are too many historical situations where a combatant won a battle, but it cost them the war. Little Big Horn comes to mind, though I don’t know enough to say if it is a true or good example.
The cost of winning might come with excessive loss of resources. A Pyrrhic victory.
The anti-gun people understand this. They are sometimes willing to lose a battle to maintain battlefield dominance. In N.Y.S.R. & P.A. v. New York City the city and state fought tooth and nail. They didn’t stop fighting. We lost in the district court. We lost in the Circuit Court. We appealed to the Supreme Court, and we were granted cert.
The anti-gunners looked at this and proceeded to remove the challenged regulations for New York City gun owners. The state of New York passed a law saying that New York City could never do it again. The state then told the Supreme Court the case was moot. The case was never heard. It died.
We “won” the battle; the anti-gunners won that war.
Rahimi
The anti-gun Biden administration saw a slate of cases moving towards the Supreme Court challenging §922(g)(8), Domestic Violence Restraining Order in Possession. The best case for us was the Range case. The worst for us was the Rahimi case.
Range was a case about a man who failed to claim income from his lawn care side hustle while he was receiving aid from the state. He was charged with defrauding the government. This was a felony. He pleaded guilty. He served no time. He was told to go forth and sin no more. And he kept his nose clean.
As a convicted felon, he is prohibited from possessing firearms. He went to court to get his rights back. His case would have been a wonderful opportunity to show that non-violent felons, under the 1968 GCA, cannot be prohibited from possessing firearms.
Rahimi, on the other hand, was a violent criminal. Witnesses saw him slam his girlfriend’s head into the car. He fired his gun at witnesses. He was arrested and was in prison for multiple felonies as well as being subject to a DVR while in possession.
After Bruen was decided, the Fifth Circuit court pulled the Rahimi case back after issuing their opinion. In their second opinion, they applied Bruen faithfully and declared §922(g)(8) unconstitutional.
Merrick Garland pushed Rahimi to the front of the line, and it was heard by the Supreme Court, which issued their opinion. Rahimi is a bad man. He needs to be in prison. He is precisely the sort of person that should not have access to arms.
This means that there are bad facts. Bad facts make for bad law. In this case we ended up with an opinion that was more easily twisted by inferior courts.
Garland v. Bondi
When Rahimi was requesting cert, the Garland-controlled DOJ pushed the Supreme Court to take the case. When the DOJ asks the Court to take a case, they are more likely to take the case requested by the DOJ than other similar cases. We did not want this to happen. Yes, we wanted the Court to hear a 2A case. This was not the one we wanted in front of the Supreme Court.
We are now looking at Rush v. USA. This is another case with bad facts. Mr. Rush is not a good man. He was doing bad things, and FO was applied to him.
He had his license revoked. He drove to his court hearing. He drove away after the court hearing. The cops stopped him to ask what he was doing driving on a revoked license. During the stop they smelled and observed pot. He was arrested. While searching his car, they found an SBR.
We don’t need to go into what he had done to be in court in the first place; needless to say, not a good fact pattern.
We do not want Rush in front of the Supreme Court. In the best of worlds, we are only going to get a lackluster result. In addition, there are other vehicles in the works attacking SBR, Silencers, and SBS remaining inside the NFA.
Damning With Faint Praise
My father explained this to me in terms of how a superior officer might praise a lower ranking member with faint praise. He said nothing that can be challenged, but everybody reading the report will know what is not said.
A pitcher might be praised for how far he can spit his tobacco juice. This likely implies he’s not a good pitcher.
The DOJ must make a good faith effort to explain why cert should be denied. It has to be grounded in legal reasoning. And they do that.
Their motion is darn weak. They rely on regulations from the 19th century. The whitewash Miller‘s findings. In short, it half hearted. But they use it as a method to say:
Some of the questions that petitioner raises may well warrant review in an appropriate case. See Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534, 1534 (2025) (statement of Kavanaugh, J.); id. at 1538-1539 (Thomas, J., dissenting). But this case would be a poor vehicle for addressing those issues. Regardless of how the Court resolves the questions petitioner seeks to litigate, petitioner’s facial challenge to the NFA would fail for the reasons discussed above. See pp. 4-5, supra. This Court does not sit to “decide abstract questions of law * * * which, if decided either way, affect no right” of the parties. Supervisors v. Stanley, 105 U.S. 305, 311 (1882). Other types of cases—for instance, cases involving state laws banning AR-15 rifles, see Snope, 145 S. Ct. at 1534 (statement of Kavanaugh, J.)—would provide better vehicles for clarifying the appropriate framework for discerning what types of arms the Second Amendment protects.
— Rush v. USA, DOJ Response, SCOTUS 24-1259
— Rush v. USA, DOJ Response, SCOTUS 24-1259
This is on point. It is a statement that the DOJ wants the Supreme Court to hear a 2A case, just not this one.
Final Note
As we have discussed, a circuit split is useful for getting the Supreme Court to grant cert. Getting a circuit split on anti-gun laws is very difficult because anti-gun states passing infringements exist within anti-gun inferior courts. The Ninth Circuit is many to zero in favor of California infringements.
The Seventh is nearly as bad. So are the Second, Fourth, Third, and First circuits. Well, sort of.
The Third Circuit, as of Friday, was 7-6 Republican appointees. In an upcoming en banc hearing, they will be 8-6. The problem is that if one of those Republican appointed judges flips to the side of infringement, we will lose in the Third Circuit, again.
On Friday, the Senate confirmed Professor Jennifer Lee Mascott to the Third Circuit. If President Trump signs the confirmation, and she is sworn in by a Supreme Court Justice by the morning of the 15th, she will sit and hear Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Platkin (consolidated with Firearms Policy Coalition v. Platkin, Docket Nos. 24-2002 and 24-2003).
With Judge Mascott on the Third Circuit for this hearing, there will be a 10-6 balance. Even if we were to lose one judge to the dark side, we still win the case.
If we win in the Third Circuit, we will have the circuit split on “Assault Weapons” bans.
Conclusion
All is not as it seems on the surface. You have to look beyond what we are seeing and look to the future. Pam Bondi and Trump are good for the Second Amendment. If it looks like they are not, wait a minute. Take a deep breath and figure out what else is going on.
Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives, Update
Yeah, it really was the judge being a clown. The state did not ask for membership lists.
On Friday the parties, the state, and the plaintiffs filed a joint motion to amend the final judgement.
- The Court’s Judgment compels Plaintiffs to disclose their membership as of November 6, 2020, to the Government by October 28, 2025.
- The Government, as a general policy, does not compel disclosure of the identity of members of private organizations, and the Government did not seek to do so here.
- Plaintiffs assert that the Judgment’s order compelling them to disclose their membership violates the First Amendment and would subject them to irreparable harm. See, e.g. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595, 606 (2021).
- To be clear, Plaintiffs do not concede that altering the Judgment in this way would make its scope appropriate, and Plaintiffs retain their right to challenge all aspects of the Judgment on appeal. However, in the absence of the proposed amendment, Plaintiffs face an imminent deadline compelling the disclosure of their membership information.
- To avoid the need for Plaintiffs to file an emergency motion to stay the disclosure deadline, the Parties respectfully request that the Court act on this motion by October 14, 2025.
Short translation, the state is still attempting to make a facial challenge judgement into an as-applied judgement, but even the government understands that demanding membership lists is verboten.
The Intermittent Missive – So Much News
October 9, 2025:
Media Smears Stay-At-Home Moms as Nazis
https://amac.us/newsline/
As birth rates continue to plummet and fewer young people are getting married, the liberal media is doing everything it can to accelerate those alarming trends by smearing women who embrace traditional family life as complicit pawns in an imagined fascist takeover of America. The Guardian’s Adrienne Matei, who claimed in a recent article that so-called “tradwives” are echoing Nazi propaganda and doing the bidding of President Donald Trump’s supposedly authoritarian regime.
50% of Americans Considering Buying Guns Out of Mass Shooting Concerns
https://bearingarms.com/
(the devil is in the details – look at the sample size – jlr)
Nancy Pelosi has unbelievable response to Democrat candidate who issued death wish against Republican
https://www.theblaze.com/news/
Nationwide: Muslims and Leftists Stage Violent Riots Celebrating the Mass Slaughter of Jews on October 7th, Police Hospitalized
https://gellerreport.com/2025/
After what we’ve seen these past two years, perhaps it’s not a huge surprise. But decent Americans ought to be deeply disturbed … and worried.
LOTS of videos
Nick Freitas
https://www.facebook.com/reel/
https://www.facebook.com/reel/
Prepping – Logic, Part 2
Sorry this one took a couple of weeks. It’s been busy here. Things are starting to settle down, though. Of course, that also means it’s almost National Novel Writing Month, and I’m going to be writing a flurry of words (50,000+ in 30 days), but I’m not going to think about that for a bit. LOL… We left off Heinlein’s list about here:
Take orders. You need to be able to take orders because no matter how “high up” you are on any particular totem pole, at some point you’re going to run into someone who’s higher than you. This is because we’re not ever going to be experts at everything. We each spend time with people who are better at something than we are, and when those people are in charge, you must be able to do what you’re told. But as any American soldier will tell you, it isn’t that simple (even though it sort of is). Per the Uniform Code of Military Justice, soldiers are only required to obey LAWFUL orders. Our soldiers are given more latitude as to what’s lawful and what’s not, while still being held to an extremely high standard (and getting higher, thanks Pete!). All of our soldiers are expected to be thinking people. Blind adherence is not useful. But the ability to continue to take orders, even when things are tough, even when you’re shitting your pants, even when you’re scared, is absolutely necessary. That’s also true of those of us NOT soldiers, though perhaps to a slightly lower level. As non-combatants, even if we end up as guerrilla fighters, we just need to be able to follow orders at a competent level. You need to recognize when someone knows more than you do, and be able to take a back-seat for a bit.
Give orders. There will be a moment when YOU are the expert, the leader, the person in charge. It might be on purpose, and it might be by accident, but regardless, you must be prepared to give orders. More than that, you may have to give orders that you know damn well will end up with someone hurt (physically or emotionally), or worse, dead. You need to be prepared for whatever outcome happens when you give those orders. You have to be ready to give them decisively, with authority, and with strength of belief.
Cooperate. That’s a tough one, hm? Yes, you might have to cooperate with people who don’t share your world view. You might have to work with liberals and Democrats. But it CAN be done. And you must know both how to, and when to. Sometimes, it’s just going to be an easy choice. Groups often have better survivability options than singletons. It’s a skill we’re horribly underdeveloped in, in my very strong opinion. When was the last time you reached out to someone you disagree with, to cooperate? Maybe it’s time. Practice, because it’s important. And just in case someone wants to leap to conclusions, no, this doesn’t mean you have to “give in and open the government” or anything like that. I’m talking small scale here. Neighbors. Friends of friends. Local government maybe.
Friday Feedback
They Can’t All Be Lieing?
My new car audio console uses Android Auto. It will provide a choice of podcasts to listen to. It can also play music, which I prefer, but today I pushed the button for news.
Two minutes of advertisements, one minute of news from Fox. Two minutes of advertisements, five minutes of news from some unknown source. Two minutes of advertisements, ten minutes of news from Routers.
In those ten minutes I did not detect a single lie. What I did hear was a narrative created by what wasn’t said and what was reported.
The story was about Trump calling for J.B. Pritzker and Brandon Johnson to be put in jail. They choose to leave off why he wanted them to be put in jail. They left it hanging as if it was for personal reasons. They then added another truthful fact. Neither man has been charged with any criminal act.
The narrative was that Trump is threatening his political opponents with jail time, even though they have not done anything wrong.
Not All Power Supplies Are Equal
One of the nodes in my Ceph cluster died, taking three OSDs with it. Two of the drives were moved to a different node, and the cluster rebalanced.
Because I’m cheap, I didn’t toss the dead node. Instead I stripped it out of its case, saved the case fan, power supply, and the motherboard, still with its memory and NVMe card.
Saving this board turned out to be useful. When I found that the CPU that I had purchased for the replacement node didn’t have integrated graphics, leaving the new node totally headless, I was able to use that old board to install an OS to the NVMe card and then move it to the new node.
When I put the NIC into the new node and buttoned it all up, I thought it would be fine. When I attempted to power it up, it failed to start.
Pulling the NIC out allowed it to boot.
I tossed the “bad” NIC. Went back to check things out and to move forward with the new node. Installing another NIC caused the same failure.
Back to that singleton motherboard with a desktop power supply powering it. No problem running with any of the NICs. As an aside, did you know you can hotwire a computer? I was accused of hot-wiring a computer the other day because I used a jumper to emulate the power switch on the case.
Overall, it turned out that the power supply wasn’t supplying good power. I replaced it with a new power supply, and that headless node is busy rebalancing the Ceph cluster. And I found that I really like modular power supplies. The ability to choose which cables you want makes the wiring so much easier and cleaner.
Do You Feel The Need For Screwing?
I have a manual ratcheting screwdriver that I really like. It is a Stanley FatMax with an integrated bit holder and good ergonomics. It was my go to when I needed to drive screws.
If I need to drive many screws, I use my cordless drill. The problem with that is that it is a pain switching between drill bits and driver bits. It is also bulky and a bit heavy. Finally, it doesn’t always have a light touch.
One of the YouTube videos I was watching had a powered screwdriver. I decided to try one. I purchased the SKIL one from Amazon for around $30.
This was well worth the dollars just for the Ceph node build. The process of building out that node required me handling 30 some screws. Most were removed and reinstalled multiple times.
The amount of time and wrist ache this one tool saved me was worth it. I have a couple of other tasks coming up and this tool will be in my pocket for the job.
It’s In An Interlocutory State?
When they say that nobody knows what the Supreme Court will do, they are not joking. There are people with much more experience than I who have spent a lifetime trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do. They get it right about 50% of the time (Joke).
There are some things we do know. Having a circuit split on a question increases the likelihood of a case being heard. Its being a novel question also increases the likelihood. The Court doesn’t like to relitigate the same question. Having many cases with the same question will also increase the likelihood.
Other things we know are that cases that are repeats don’t get heard, or they might just get a GVR. And cases that are in an interlocutory state are not heard. The Court does not want to hear cases until the case has been fully litigated in the inferior courts.
Wolford v. Lopez was granted cert, even though it is in an interlocutory state.
The Court has also agreed to hear Trump v. Cook, 25A312 (SCOTUS), which is also in an interlocutory state.
Things, they are a-changing.
Cloud Init
This is a game changer for me, if I can get it all to work. The ability to put a thumb drive into a new node, power it on, and end up with a full install with no action on my part is wonderful!
I’m looking at setting up a server to do the full configuration from a network fetch instead of from the NoCloud datasource.
He Deployed the National Guard!
I worry about government overreach. Having the president deploy the National Guard to cities to perform police functions worries me.
What will the Democrats do when they are back in power? Will I see troops in my small town demanding to see my papers?
Then I remember the beautiful images of our troops guarding a chain-link fence surrounding buildings in D.C. and go, yeah, already done that.
Keep your head on a swivel, watch your six, stay strapped.
Question of the week?
When you take a long, hard, honest look at what the current administration is doing, the powers they are flexing, which of those powers do you think will be used against us when the Democrats next take power?
Just examine J6 vs BLM mobs in the same time frame to see what I’m talking about.
Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives
History
Back in November of 2020, Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, FPC, The Second Amendment Foundation, and the Louisiana Shooting Association filed suit in the Western District of Louisiana challenging 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1), 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.99(b)(1), 478.124(a), and 478.96(b).
U.S.C. is United States Code, or laws. C.F.R. is Code of Federal Regulations. So they are challenging the rules and regulations infringing on The People aged 18, 19, and 20 from purchasing firearms from FFLs.
The named plaintiffs, Reese and Granich, were in that age range when the suit was filed. Since it was filed in 2020, there is no way that they are still in that age range today. The case is moot.
This is why the organizations are required to be in the suit. They need real people to start the suit, but the organizations can add other members that meet the requirement of being in the age group as the original plaintiffs age out.
On May 5th, 2021, the plaintiffs did just that; they added Emily Naquin to the suit. This gave them a longer window and added a woman to the complaint.
On June 10, 2021, Joseph Granich left the suit.
In July of 2022, the court was formally made aware of Bruen. This means that the district court must use the Heller methodology as affirmed in Bruen. Is the plain text of the Second Amendment implicated? Is there an analogous regulation in this Nation’s history of firearm regulation?
The state immediately responded that Bruen affirms the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations,
including ‘laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms’
. In other words, the state ignored the holding and dicta of The Court and instead cherry-picked a phrase from a concurrence. I love how they say, “Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence emphasizes….” They added the word emphasizes to imply what is not there.
On December 21, 2022, the district court found that the Second Amendment was implicated. Further, it found that Congress had designated 18, 19, and 20-year-olds as particularly dangerous, and therefore they could be disarmed in keeping with this Nation’s history of firearms regulation. Never mind that this implies that Congress can disarm any group by declaring them “dangerous.”
The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued its opinion January 30 and issued its mandate on April 17, 2025.
The Fifth Circuit Court’s Judgment
The Fifth Circuit dealt with the state’s contention that the law didn’t even implicate the Second Amendment like this:
Addressing the first question under Bruen, the government contends that “the Second Amendment’s plain text” does not cover the conduct that §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) prohibit. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24, 142 S. Ct. at 2130. The government argues that a limited ban on the purchase of handguns from FFLs is not an infringement on the Second Amendment rights, and in any event eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not among “the people” protected by the right. We reject these points, then move to Bruen’s second inquiry: …
— Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 127 F.4th 583, 593 (5th Cir. 2025)
— Reese v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 127 F.4th 583, 593 (5th Cir. 2025)
Note that the state doesn’t even believe that newly enlisted members of our military are part of The People.
The court then went on to discuss what plain text means. The threshold textual question is not whether the laws and regulations impose reasonable or historically grounded limitations, but whether the Second Amendment “covers” the conduct (commercial purchases) to begin with.
— Id.. Clearly this is the correct methodology.
Step one isn’t really a step; it is a simple question. If it takes more than a sentence, then they are likely doing it wrong.
Or, put another way, why not assume it is covered under the plain text? The courts used to do this, until they couldn’t wave a magic wand and say the state’s argument is more important than The People’s rights.
One brief pre-ratification aberration and a handful of post-ratification examples do not outweigh the consistent approach of all states—including Virginia—where the minimum age of eighteen prevailed at or immediately after ratification of the Second Amendment. See NRA II, 714 F.3d at 340–41 n.8 (Jones, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). The founding-era laws are far more probative of what “the people” meant when the Second Amendment was ratified, as “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 634–35, 128 S. Ct. at 2821.
— Id.
— Id.
This is a good example of “tradition.” We can look at this Nation’s history of firearm regulation and find outliers. These outliers do not outweigh the consistent approach, the traditions of all states.
In the end, the Fifth Circuit concludes:
Ultimately, the text of the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence “cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence.” Id. at 66, 142 S. Ct. at 2154 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 614, 128 S. Ct. at 2810). In sum, 18 U.S.C. §§ 992(b)(1), (c)(1)[sic 922] and their attendant regulations are unconstitutional in light of our Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation.
We REVERSE the district court’s judgment and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
— Id.
Three of the potential outcomes from an appeal are “AFFIRM,” which says the superior court agrees with the inferior court. “VACATE,” which says that the inferior court got it wrong and needs to do it over, considering the named opinions. But the strongest of them all is to “REVERSE.” To reverse an inferior court’s decision is to say not only did they get it wrong, but that the superior court doesn’t believe the inferior court will get it right.
Or in some cases, there is no need for the inferior court to put their oar in the water. What’s done is done.
The District Court Beclowns Themselves
The circuit court’s holding is that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1), (c)(1) and the regulations that build on them are unconstitutional. There is no wiggle room in that opinion. It is a pure win for The People.
There is nothing in that opinion that suggests that this is an as-applied or is any other way limited to just the plaintiffs.
In Rahimi we had an “as applied” finding. This is being played out in other §922(g)(8) situations. They are coming down in “as applied” opinions.
Once the district court receives its marching orders, it is supposed to follow orders like the inferior it is. There is a clear winner and a clear loser.
The court then orders the parties, both the winners and the losers, to submit a proposed judgment. The court is supposed to look at the proposed judgment, make sure it aligns with the superior court’s orders, and then sign off.
Generally, the parties work out an agreement, which is then presented to the court.
The plaintiffs, the good guys and winners, suggested the following:
The Court declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) & (c)(1), their derivative regulations, and all other laws, regulations, policies, practices, and customs implementing or effectuating the same, violate the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by prohibiting the sale or delivery of handguns and handgun ammunition to 18-to-20-year-olds.
With the court ordering the state to stop enforcing the rules and regulations. This judgment would stop the exercise of the relevant rules and regulations in the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit. A giant win. And it could be used in support of other cases.
The state, the defendants, the bad guys, and the losers proposed the following:
The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (A) Plaintiffs Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin; and (B) individuals who (i) were members of Plaintiffs Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020, and (ii) have been identified and verified by respective Plaintiff organizations during the course of this litigation.
Here the state changes this from a facial win to an as-applied. Which is even worse than it originally sounds. This judgment would only last for 3 years. At the end of three years, everybody that would be covered by this judgment would have aged out of the category.
The state argues that Trump v. CASA applies. The state claims that the judgment of the court would be a universal injunction, which would be too wide. But that was never the case. This ruling would only apply within the Fifth Circuit. So the state is full of excrement.
They go on to say that it should only apply to members of the organizations that were members when the case was filed. This would limit the relief to people that joined FPC or SAF when they were children; otherwise, they would have already aged out.
The state is also requiring that the organizational plaintiffs provide membership lists because: limiting the scope of permanent relief to members of the organizational plaintiffs who were members when suit was filed is necessary because only such persons have standing to sue, and because equity requires this limitation to avoid incentivizing free riders.
The judge’s final order includes FFLs that were members of the organizations when the suit was filed in 2020.
The only people who would benefit from this order are the two named plaintiffs.
Conclusion
The judge is a freaking clown. He got his knuckles rapped by his superior and has decided to thumb his bright red nose at them.
The Intermittent Missive – 72 Hours
October 7 & 8, 2025
72 Hours
https://tactical-wisdom.com/
If you’ve followed me for any length of time, you’ve heard me mention that you are never more than 72 hours from a complete collapse of society. That can be locally, regionally, nationally, or worldwide. A storm can happen, a grid collapse, or, as appears more and more likely, a civil war can happen.
It’s time to get your awareness level where it belongs. As I write this, A US Governor is openly calling for resistance, including armed resistance, to the federal government with the media cheering his supporters on. No matter which side of the issue you are on, you need to pay attention. Federal law enforcement agents are being followed and ambushed. Many public figures are openly calling for violence on both sides. Rewards have been offered for the killing of federal agents.
Meanwhile, we’ve had church attacks, bombings, bomb threats, and assasinations. – – – there’s more
Most importantly, stop denying that this is happening.
https://tactical-wisdom.com/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leftists Put $10K Bounty on Killing ICE Officers, Chicago Mayor Johnson Escalates Violent Rhetoric
https://gellerreport.com/2025/
https://www.facebook.com/reel/
Most Virginia Dems Sticking By Candidate Who Wanted ‘Two Bullets to the Head” of Republican Lawmaker
https://bearingarms.com/
https://www.facebook.com/reel/
rcd via e-mail – “I don’t think the secret service details would find this amusing.”
Democrat Neera Tanden On Jay Jones: Assassination Wishes Are “Private Conversations”
https://chipdrewry.substack.
Biden’s top political enforcer, brushed off Democrat Jay Jones’s vile comments about killing political opponent and his children. This is the heart of America’s double standard: one set of rules for the Left, another for everyone else. “Private conversation” has become the new Democrat excuse for open hate, and condoning violence. The threats — real or rhetorical — are only getting louder. And they are all from the left.
The Broader Implications of Jay Jones Are Even Worse Than His Text Messages
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/
How many times have we heard Democrats demand that every Republican, from President Trump down to the local dog catcher, tone down their rhetoric and the supposed weaponization of government in the name of stopping “political violence”?
Harvard Places Gun Control-Loving Professor on Leave After Arrest for Allegedly Shooting at Rats
https://bearingarms.com/
President Trump Threatens to Invoke Insurrection Act in Portland
https://twitchy.com/brettt/
https://www.brennancenter.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/
At the risk of repeating myself.
https://miguelgg.substack.com/
Muslims Stage Rallies Across America on October 7th to Call For More Monstrous Atrocities Against Jews
https://gellerreport.com/2025/
One of the ‘Top 50 Influential Muslims,’ DEI Explains Why Jews Can Be Killed in Synagogues
https://gellerreport.com/2025/
‘If I ever cross paths with him … I will kill him where he stands’: Dad sends warning after his son’s killer gets big break
https://www.theblaze.com/news/
In 2018, Exantus was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity but was convicted of assaulting other family members, WDKY said. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, WKYT said. Then, as of last week, Exantus was released from prison for good behavior, WDKY reported. Set free from behind bars 13 years early.
Chicago Police Told Officers “No Units Will Respond” As Protesters “Surrounded” Federal Agents
https://www.zerohedge.com/
“We Are Not Messing Around”: More Than 8,600 People Arrested In FBI Campaign Targeting Violent Crimes
https://www.zerohedge.com/
however – – –
The first of the Portland Antifa ICE rioters has been federally convicted.
https://x.com/MrAndyNgo/
Trantifa militant Julie Winters, formerly Christopher Hudson, has pleaded guilty to felony intimidation of a federal officer and resisting arrest.
Other serious charges were dropped as part of the plea deal. (see above story “We Are Not Messing Around” – jlr)
California’s Sneak Attack on the First Amendment
https://amac.us/newsline/
SB 771 is not a routine state bill; it’s a test case for digital authoritarianism.
Foreign Communists Are Funding and Training Violent Leftist Radicals in US
https://amac.us/newsline/
Front and center are dark places run by communist parties, such as China and Cuba. They fund intricate radical networks inside American society because they benefit when chaos weakens us. It doesn’t matter what issue gets thousands out on the street to riot, or now, even kill. One group that has been named is Armed Queers Salt Lake City, a Marxist cell that believes in arming and training LGBTQ+ people to acquire power. The group is led by Ermiya Fanaeian, a gun-toting transgender Iranian immigrant who calls for revolution. Fanaeian traveled to Cuba for training earlier this year, where he was told by Cuba’s communists, “It’s time for you to go home and make your own revolution.”
Senate confirms more than 100 Trump nominees amid government shutdown
https://justthenews.com/
cum grano salis
Fiat Currency Experiment Ending Globally – John Rubino
https://usawatchdog.com/fiat-
. .In order (for gold) to serve as the foundation for the next monetary system . . . as we did it in the classical gold standard that was in place up until WWI, if we went back to that, you would need a gold price at around $20,000 per ounce.
video – 00:48:53 – https://rumble.com/v700js4-
NYPD Cops: ‘I Will Quit If Zohran Is Elected’
https://www.thefp.com/p/nypd-
if Mamdani gets into Gracie Mansion, they’re getting out of the force—or even, in some instances, the city.
FA to FO