News

The Intermittent Missive – More Intermittent Than Ever!

Nov 18, 2025 JL R

[Note: backlog of Missives is due to Allyson, not JLR.]

Nov. 6-7, 2025:

LARGE SOLAR ERUPTION
Major Solar Shockwave hits in 24 Hours as Earth Geostorm Already Begins ERUPTION
video – 00:33:06 – https://youtu.be/Mtp0sri71QE
Massive explosions on the Sun continue with two new 7.4 and 8.7 m-flares, both of which more directly launched coronal mass ejections towards Earth than the two X-flares from the day before. They are estimated to arrive in 24 hours or so on November 7th early morning UTC, and this is as the Earth is already in a G2 geomagnetic storm with a coronal hole high-speed-stream impact soon to occur. A massive spike in plasma density is coming and then afterwards, a solar wind void that could trigger BIG earthquakes. Geophysicist Stefan Burns reports…

This Cold Blast Will Hit Different…
video – 00:09:58 – https://youtu.be/Gf070xMcnLE
Severe storms with a hail threat are possible Friday in the Tennessee and Ohio Valleys. A blast of much colder air will then surge across the Upper Midwest this weekend.

“We’re Coming After You” – How Some On The Left Found Peace Through Hate
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/11/03/were-coming-after-you-how-the-left-found-peace-through-hate/
The key to hate is to decouple it entirely from reason and reality. Only then can you hate completely without restraint or regret.
Hateful speech is in vogue as Democratic leaders ramp up violent rhetoric and political violence rises. The key is to get voters to hate your opponent so much that they forget how much they dislike you.

A Quarter of Americans Now Believe Political Violence is Justified
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/11/04/a-quarter-of-americans-now-believe-political-violence-is-justified/
We have seen a rise in both rage rhetoric and political violence. New polling shows a shocking level of support for political violence, even after the assassination of Charlie Kirk. A new poll shows roughly a quarter of voters believe political violence is justified with the highest percentage among younger voters. The poll shows that 55 percent of Americans expect political violence to increase with the highest percentage among Harris voters at 61 percent. Younger Americans are the most supportive of political violence. The poll shows that one in three Americans under 45 years old believes that political violence is justified. (because “political violence” is a far-away thing, it has not touched them personally – jlr)

A quick challenge.
https://miguelgg.substack.com/p/a-quick-challenge
They do not fear us. They mock us.
Politeness and the expectation of fairness will be our demise, political and otherwise.

Congressional Judiciary chairs urge SCOTUS to address possible ethics violations by federal judges
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/congress-judiciary-chairs-urge-scotus-address-possible-ethics-violations
The letter specifically refers to anonymous statements federal judges have made to the New York Times that appear to smear the Supreme Court, and describes the relationship between the high court and lower courts as a “war zone.”

Democrats on Track to Destroy the Union Once Again
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/11/democrats_on_track_to_destroy_the_union_once_again.html
Let’s make one thing perfectly clear: Democrats are just as determined to destroy the union today as they were in the 1860s.

Nancy Pelosi Announces Her Retirement After Nearly 40 Years in Congress
https://www.westernjournal.com/ap-nancy-pelosi-wont-seek-reelection-ending-storied-career-us-house/

SCOTUS reinstates Trump transgender passport policy
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-reinstates-trump-transgender-passport-policy
The ruling comes after the Trump administration appealed a lower court order from September that allows transgender or nonbinary people to request a male, female, or “X” identification marker on their passports, rather than choosing their biological sex.
Read More

        
Jasper, Indiana, USA - August 5, 2018: The Strassenfest Parade, Clowns, members of Funsters, driving a clown car down the street during the parade
Case Analysis

Second Circus Court of Appeals

Nov 17, 2025 Chris Johnson

Something from the late night keyboard.

Since I read it, now you get to as well. An opinion from the Second Circus Court of Appeals.

The Second Amendment, made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, guarantees that “the right of the people to keep and bear [a]rms [] shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II.

After Bruen, we follow a two-step framework to evaluate Second Amendment challenges. First, the plaintiff must establish that “the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. If the plaintiff surmounts this initial textual hurdle, the burden shifts to the government to prove that the challenged law is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” Id. We focus on history and tradition because the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right”—with a history that makes clear that this right is “not unlimited.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 595 (2008) (emphasis in original). The right’s enshrinement in the Bill of Rights “br[ought] the old soil with it,” Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729, 733 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)—that is, we understand the Second Amendment to “incorporate traditional limitations that existed at or around ratification, unless historical context suggests otherwise,” Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941, 968 (2d Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1900 (2025). Historically established firearm regulations therefore inform us of the limits of the right and thereby “give content to the indeterminate and underdetermined text of the Second Amendment.” Id.

There is a piece of legal sleight of hand happening in this paragraph. The paragraph cites to Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. 729,733(2013)

This citation references a Supreme Court opinion published in U.S. Reports (the official reporter for Supreme Court opinions), volume 570, starting at page 729. This opinion was issued in 2013. The quote in question is on page 733 of volume 570.

If you don’t read the opinion, you might miss an important bit of context: the text “brought the old soil with it” is itself a quote. Where did that quote come from? It comes from Justice Frankfurter’s 1947 article, Some Reflections on the Reading of Statutes, 47 Colum. L. Rev. 527, 537.

In other words, the Second Circus is pulling a quote from an article by Justice Frankfurter, not the words of the actual Supreme Court opinion. By the by, at least the introduction to his article is an easy read, poking fun at Congress.

In the cited opinion, The Court is using the quote to emphasize that when Congress puts words into a law, or when they exclude a word, there is intent behind that. In the particular case, the word was “coercion”. The Hobbs Act makes it illegal to extort tangible property. Things of real value, such as money, cars, houses, or intellectual property.

Coercion is the act of forcing somebody to do something; in the case at hand, it was Sekhar attempting to blackmail a New York State official to recommend his firm for a contract. A recommendation is not tangible property, therefore not extortion, and therefore not a violation of the Hobbs Act.

The meanings of “coercion” and “extortion” come from the old world legal system, thus “brought the old soil”. Here, the Second is going to use it to mean that they can use English Law to interpret the meaning of the Second Amendment.

Under this history and tradition analysis at step two, we “must ascertain whether the [challenged] new law is relevantly similar to laws that our tradition is understood to permit, applying faithfully the balance struck by the founding generation to modern circumstances.” United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 692 (2024) (alteration adopted) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry.” Id. The Supreme Court has stressed that the Bruen framework was “not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” Id. at 691. Thus, this analogical reasoning “requires only that the government identify a well-established and historical analogue, not a historical twin” or a “dead ringer.” Bruen, 597 U.S. at 30 (emphases in original).

Mentioning something one time in an opinion is not “stressing” a point. In addition, the term “trapped in amber”, when read in context, is more about making sure that more restrictive laws from the past do not entangle modern life. I.e. It is in the positive for The People, not as the state uses it.

Because Bruen did not “provide an exhaustive survey of the features that render regulations relevantly similar under the Second Amendment,” id. at 29, we attempted to undertake that endeavor at some length in Antonyuk. There, we explained that “courts must be particularly attuned to the reality that the issues we face today are different than those faced in medieval England, the Founding Era, the Antebellum Era, and Reconstruction.” Antonyuk, 120 F.4th at 970; see Bruen, 597 U.S. at 27 (“[C]ases implicating unprecedented societal concerns or dramatic technological changes may require a more nuanced approach.”). Thus, a lack of distinctly similar historical regulations during one or more of those time periods “may not be reliably dispositive in Second Amendment challenges to laws addressing modern concerns.” Antonyuk, 120 F.4th at 970. “Reasoning from historical silence is [also] risky,” we said, because “[l]egislatures past and present have not generally legislated to their constitutional limits,” and it is thus “not necessarily the case that, if no positive legislation from a particular time or place is in the record, it must be because the legislators then or there deemed such regulation inconsistent with the right to bear arms.” Id. at 969.

The Second has explicitly stated that “…this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation…” means other countries’ laws from before the founding, 1791 and the pre- and post-Civil War eras. The 1868 time frame was ripe with racist gun control laws to disarm blacks.

In addition, the Second has decided that the burden the state must meet is not a long standing firearm regulation forming a tradition in this Nation, but they can also suggest that the legislators of those eras could have passed analogous laws but didn’t bother, for reasons.

It goes on and on like this. The Second trundles along in their clown car claiming that even the lack of a law doesn’t mean anything. They ignore Bruen telling New York, explicitly, that they can’t just make the island of Manhattan a sensitive place, just because it is crowded or has a strong police presence.

Instead, they make Times Square a sensitive place and just about anywhere else people might need to carry.

        
Revolver with Concealed Weapons Gun Permit Isolated on Black
Legal Rant

You Don’t Hate NY State Government Enough

Nov 16, 2025 Chris Johnson

Back in 2022, after Bruen, Antonyuk v. Hochul, 1:22-cv-00986, (N.D.N.Y. Nov 04, 2025) was filed. This case has gone up and down the court system multiple times. It has even made it to the Supreme Court seeking certiorari at least once.

While it is an interesting case, it won’t become worth writing about again until something worthwhile happens. They will continue to win at the district court level, they will continue to lose at the circuit court level, and they are unlikely to be granted certiorari this term.

That doesn’t mean that I don’t keep an eye on the case, and something popped up the other day worth mentioning.

In the state of NH, CCW permits are granted by the local police chief. In California and Massachusetts, it is also the police that grant carry permits. In the state of New York, it is not the local police that hold sway over who does and who does not get a carry permit.

Instead, it is state judges.

There does not appear to be anything inherently wrong with this arrangement. It is just as reprehensible as every other firearm licensing scheme.

That is until you get into the weeds.

If your local sheriff or police chief denies you your permit, you can sue to get your permit. Just walk down to the local courthouse and file the paperwork, and it happens.

Will you win? That is an entirely different question. And it is a question that has a path to the Supreme Court.

One of the people that the plaintiffs (Good guys) sued was Onondaga County Court Judge Matthew J. Doran, in his official capacity. I assumed that he didn’t grant a permit or something of that sort. I’m too lazy to look up what he did wrong to get sued.

He has now moved the district court to be removed from the case.

The Second Circuit’s recent ruling in Kellogg v. Nichols, 149 F.4th 155 (2d Cir. 2025), is an intervening change in governing law that requires dismissal of all claims against Judge Doran. Kellogg establishes that the licensing activities at issue in this case are judicial actions over which there is no federal subject-matter jurisdiction. In Kellogg, two plaintiffs sued a Columbia County Court judge, asserting that denying their firearms permit applications violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Judge Hurd granted a motion to dismiss, relying on the Second Circuit’s previous decision in Libertarian Party of Erie County v. Cuomo, 970 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2020), abrogated in part on other grounds, NYSRPA v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), to conclude that licensing decisions by state judges are judicial in nature and protected by absolute immunity, that the plaintiffs lacked standing because a judge is not an adverse party, and that the text of Section 1983 barred injunctive relief against a judicial officer. See Kellogg v. Nichols, 703 F. Supp. 3d 367 (N.D.N.Y. 2023).
— Antonyuk v. Hochul, 1:22-cv-00986, (N.D.N.Y. Nov 04, 2025) ECF No. 159, at 5

Judges cannot be sued for decisions they make as part of being a judge. They can’t be sued for any ruling they make from the bench.

Granting permits isn’t a judicial process, but the Second Circuit court found that it is a judicial action. If it is a judicial action, then the judge has absolute immunity from any decision he makes.

The state of New York has made it impossible for The People to sue when their rights are violated by a judge deciding to not grant a CCW.

  • Antonyuk v. Hochul, No. 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-CFH (N.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 20, 2022), ECF No. 159 (Nov. 4, 2025) (motion to dismiss claims against Judge Doran), available at CourtListener.
  • Kellogg v. Nichols, 703 F. Supp. 3d 367 (N.D.N.Y. 2023), available at Justia.
  • Kellogg v. Nichols, 149 F.4th 155 (2d Cir. 2025), available at Justia.
  • Libertarian Party of Erie Cnty. v. Cuomo, 970 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2020), abrogated in part on other grounds byN.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), available at FindLaw.
  • N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), available at Supreme Court.
        
bullet holes in the target
Firearms

Range Day

Nov 15, 2025 Chris Johnson

Shooting is a perishable skill. New guns shoot differently. You go through ammo faster with 17-round mags than with 7-round mags.

I have decided that I will be using my Sig P365-XMacro as my competition gun. According to my math, this means I need to be able to hit a 10″ round target at 65 ft.

Miggy was telling us a recent zinger. Mrs. Miggy asked him why he could hit steel at 40 yards with his Sig P365-RS but couldn’t hit the hamper with his socks at five feet.

Now 40 yards is 120 ft., and with a shorter barrel than what’s on my XMacro and with smaller grips. I should be able to hit steel at 60 ft consistently, right?

Wrong.

As far as I can tell, I’m pulling low and left consistently. Time for more practice with the dry fire system. Remove ammo from the room. Set up the Mantis; make sure the pistol is safe. Rack, holster. Draw, take sight, press trigger. Make sure the pretty little dot is where it is supposed to be.

For what I took to be 8″ steel, maybe 6″ at around 15-20 yards, I was aiming at the right edge slightly above center to consistently knock plates over.

I did notice that I wasn’t centering the front sight correctly at times. I also noticed that when I had the pad of my finger flat on the trigger, I did better. And finally, when I was carefully pressing the trigger, making sure not to jerk, things went better.

Printing on paper showed low left, which I was able to correct to center center, but only by changing my point of aim.

I believe that my old results were a result of correcting point of aim, not in correcting my shooting.

The problem with that is that the point of aim changes depending on distance. What works at 30 ft will not work at 60 ft and I’m not that good at judging distance, yet.

        
Too Many Questions. A pile of colorful paper notes with question marks on them. Close up.
BLOG

Question of The Week

Nov 14, 2025 Chris Johnson

What project(s) have you started and found to be bigger than you expected?

The wife decided it was time to paint the hallway. This required emptying the hallway. Which was a task she expected.

She then needed to remove the popcorn covering on the walls, which was much larger than she expected. Even though I bought a power wall sander for her.

The result was no more popcorn/textured walls. But there were dings, scrapes, and other damage on the walls. We could have just painted over and it would have been ok.

I decided we needed to apply a skim coat. Which meant I had to learn that what I wanted to do was a skim coat. Then I had to learn how to do it. Then try and fail. Then try again and fail differently. Something about having just the right amount of water in the plaster.

I have 3/4s of one wall completely ready for the primer. The the rest of that wall and 2.5 other walls are ready to be sanded, and I still need to apply the skim coat on about 60 sq ft of wall.

Damn that is a skill I do not have.

        
Firearms

So That’s How You Do It?

Nov 13, 2025 Chris Johnson

I’ve been carrying my Sig P365-RS since my holster from We The People Holsters arrived. It is a very comfortable holster.

The model I purchased was the “Freedom” system. This consists of a form-fitted shell for your firearm and another for a magazine. These shells have many holes in them for mounting the belt loops. They claim over 2500 different ways to attach your shell to your body.

I’m to fat to do the appendix carry, but they have systems that work for that. They have tuck belt loops that clip over your belt and allow you to tuck your shirt between your firearm and your belt. It looks nice but is not how I do it.

My preferred method is inside the waistband (IWB) with the tuck style loops.

Strong hand at the 4 O’clock position or even the 5 o’clock.

For true concealed carry, I love it. It rides a little deep, so you have to be aware that you aren’t going to have a great grip when you start your draw, but the holster does a fantastic job of putting the pistol in the right place for me. When I have finished presenting, everything is just right.

The holster for the P365-XMacro arrived, and I configured it for OWB instead of IWB. The holster was still excellent, but I wasn’t totally satisfied with how the gun was presenting.

By the end of the first day of wearing it, I realized the hilt was tilted out about 40 degrees. It felt like it was flopping away out there.

With about 60 seconds with that powered screwdriver, I had reconfigured the holster. I moved the belt loops from the inside to the outside, then ran my belt through the loops and over the holster.

The holster now sits firm against my body. It is in the right place; it isn’t flopping around.

I just need to control myself so I don’t end up with a dozen holsters from them.

It is nice having a holster this comfortable.

        
United States constitution with American flag in background on rustic wooden table
Politics

Article III orders Article II to violate Article I

Nov 10, 2025 Chris Johnson

So this gets complicated.

Article I establishes the legislative branch, Congress. Congress controls the purse. They decide how money is to be spent and what tax rates should be.

Once Congress allocates money, it is the responsibility of the Article II executive to spend the money.

The Article III judiciary is there to make sure that what Article I and Article II branches are within the boundaries of the Constitution.

Congress decided that they were not allocating money for non-essential work for the 2025-2026 budget year, which started October 1st.

This means that only essential money can be spent.

SNAP is not considered an essential expenditure. And before you get upset about this, the military is something in the Constitution, and they are not considered essential.

This means that The Executive, The President, ordered the United States Department of Agriculture to stop SNAP payments.

SNAP benefits are administered at the state level. The state gets money from the federal government, skims a bit off the top, and then sends the money to those with EBT cards. Note, having an EBT card doesn’t mean you are on SNAP. EBT cards are bought and sold all the time. Yes, that’s illegal.

A group went to a district court in Massachusetts. Why? Because it is a progressive hell hole.

They claimed that it was illegal for the president to turn off the SNAP spigot. The judge agreed and issued a temporary order requiring the Article II Executive to take money from a pot of money that Congress had allocated for something else and send it to the SNAP program.

The Article II Executive appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that the Article III district court did not have the power or authority to order the Article II Executive to break the law and send money that Congress did not allocate to the SNAP program.

The First Circuit looked at the facts; the petitioner is the Trump administration, and they lose.

This ran out the clock. Even if a judicial order is illegal, you must follow it or face contempt charges.

The money was stolen from one program, sent to the USDA, which then sent it to the states. The states then sent it to the EBT cards.

The Article II Executive appealed the case to the Supreme Court on the emergency docket. KJB then issued an administrative stay. Yeah, even a broken clock is right once or twice a day.

The USDA then started the clawback process, demanding the money back.

The states said, “We don’t have it, we sent it out.”

The states should have clawed back all the unspent money on EBT cards.

Regardless, those states now owe the federal government all the money they spent.

The good news is that 8 Democrat Senators have voted for a CR through January.