His dissent in Kipke.

Maryland has not come forward with evidence that—at the Founding—States enacted measures prohibiting firearms at public demonstrations. On the contrary, the historical record reflects quite the opposite. As the district court observed, “[j]ust before the ratification of the Second Amendment, ‘six out of the thirteen original colonies required their citizens to go armed when attending … public assemblies.'” Specifically, in the 150 years before the Second Amendment’s enactment, American colonies up and down the Atlantic enacted laws requiring men to bring firearms with them to church and other public gatherings. For example, a 1643 Connecticut law cited the possibility of attacks as the basis for each household to “‘bring a musket, pystoll or some peece, with powder and shott to e[a]ch meeting.'” And a 1642 Maryland law forbade able-bodied men from “go[ing] to church or Chappell … without [a] fixed gunn and 1 Charge at least of powder and Shott.” Given that the Second Amendment codified a preexisting right, such colonial laws illuminate that our Founders would never have commonly understood that right to permit the government to prohibit carrying firearms at public demonstrations.

These specific colonial-era laws also reinforce the broader historical record from the Founding Era. Americans owned firearms and they carried those arms with them when they left home. To return to St. George Tucker’s appraisal, “[i]n many parts of the United States, a man no more thinks, of going out of his house on any occasion, without his rifle or musket in his hand, than a European fine gentleman without his sword by his side.” Put bluntly, “‘Americans certainly did not think that bringing guns to town was a problem’—it ‘was normal.'”

The majority opinion dismisses such Founding-Era evidence based on the misguided notion that laws governing riotous assembly permit the regulation of armed assemblies. But that’s a red herring—Bruen instructs courts to look to the Founding Era to determine whether a modern-day restriction is grounded in the Nation’s tradition of restricting firearm carriage. As already discussed, the affray laws did not address the sort of widespread prohibitions on presence and possession of firearms contemplated by Maryland’s modern prohibition. When it comes to public demonstrations and firearms, the Founding-Era record reveals: (1) no nationwide consensus of prohibiting the mere presence firearms at public gatherings, and (2) numerous examples of firearms being required at public gatherings. It’s the combined effect of these two components of the historical record that compels the conclusion the Second Amendment does not permit governments to prohibit mere possession of firearms at any public demonstration.

Additional considerations bolster this conclusion. As observed elsewhere, Founding-Era required-carry laws “establish[ ] an expectation that the person next to you in the crowd is armed, thus undermining the majority’s assumption that an armed person in the assembly threatens the public good.” Put another way, the existence of these Founding-Era examples illuminates the falsity of the position that locations where the public gathers en masse carry a national tradition of being inherently “sensitive” such that they fall within a class of permissible firearms restrictions.

The majority’s prefatory observation about the interplay of the First and Second Amendment further obfuscates the analysis. No one disputes that the First Amendment protects “the right of the people peaceably assemble,” or that—consistent with the Second Amendment—a state can prohibit firearms from being used in a manner that disrupts the peace. But Maryland’s law prohibits the mere presence of firearms during public demonstration under circumstances unrelated to maintaining the peace. By presuming that the mere presence of firearms somehow threatens peaceful public assembly, Maryland’s law subjugates the Second Amendment right to public carriage for lawful purposes to the First Amendment right to assemble. It also ignores that restricting open carry may itself have First Amendment implications. That’s precisely what the Supreme Court has cautioned against by reminding courts and legislatures that the Second Amendment is “not a second-class right.”

Given the absence of Founding-Era regulations to support Maryland’s broad prohibition of firearms at and near public demonstrations, the majority opinion instead cites a host of inapplicable laws as supposed analogues. None meet Bruen‘s exacting standards. As previously discussed, “affray” and other prohibitions on riotous or unlawful assembly targeted the manner in which arms were carried, not their mere presence or possession. The critical question for these jurisdictions was not whether an assembly was armed, but whether it constituted an “affray,” i.e., a disturbance of the peace. And while a handful of states and territories dating from 1869 to 1890 enacted broader assembly-oriented provisions, as explained above, the Supreme Court deems such examples much too sparse—and from a period much too late—to substantiate proof of a nationwide understanding at the time of the Founding.

This is similar to what I’ve pointed out before.

In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.

And more.

“1. John Adams John Adams, as a 9-or-10-year-old schoolboy, carried a gun daily so that he could go hunting after class. 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 257-59 (1961). 2. Patrick Henry Patrick Henry would “walk to court, his musket slung over his shoulder to pick off small game.” Harlow Giles Unger, LION OF LIBERTY: PATRICK HENRY AND THE CALL TO A NEW NATION 30 (2010). 3. Daniel Boone “When Daniel was almost thirteen he was given his first firearm, a ‘short rifle gun, with which he roamed the nearby Flying Hills, the Oley Hills, and the Neversink Mountains.’ ” Robert Morgan, BOONE 14 (2007). 4. Meriwether Lewis Meriwether Lewis’s neighbor Thomas Jefferson observed that young Lewis “when only eight years of age . . . habitually went out, in the dead of night, alone with his dogs, into the forest to hunt the raccoon & opossum.” 8 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, at 482.  5. Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson himself carried as a lad. “When he was ten he was given a gun by his father and sent into the forest alone in order to develop self-reliance.” 1 Dumas Malone, JEFFERSON AND HIS TIME: JEFFERSON THE VIRGINIAN 46 (1948). As an adult, Jefferson wrote about a holster he made for one of his Turkish pistols, “having used it daily while I had a horse who would stand fire,” and he noted another holster he made “to hang them [the Turkish pistols] at the side of my carriage for road use.” 10 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, RETIREMENT SERIES 320-21 (2004). Jefferson advised his fifteen-yearold nephew to “[l]et your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” 8 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 407 (2004). 6. James Monroe Every day, “[w]ell before dawn, James left for school, carrying his books under one arm with his powder horn under the other and his musket slung across his back.” Tim McGrath, JAMES MONROE: A LIFE 9 (2020). 7. Ira and Ethan Allen Ira and Ethan Allen regularly carried multiple arms at once. For example, in 1772 Ira, Ethan, and a cousin went to purchase land near New York’s border “armed with holsters and pistols, a good case [pair] of pistols each in our pockets, with each a good hanger [sword].” 1 James Wilbur, IRA ALLEN: FOUNDER OF VERMONT, 1751-1814, at 39 (1928). The next year, during land disputes between the Allen trio and the Royal Governor of New York, Ira wrote that the three men “never walked out without at least a case of pistols.” Id. at 44. 8. Joseph Warren Joseph Warren was targeted by the British as tensions rose in April 1775. After spotting the British watch, one of Warren’s friends “advised Warren not to visit his patients that evening. But Warren, putting his pistols in his pocket, replied, ‘I have a visit to make to Mrs. ___, in Cornhill, this evening, and I will go at once.’ ” Richard Frothingham, LIFE AND TIMES OF JOSEPH WARREN 452 (1865). 9. William Drayton When traveling throughout South Carolina in 1775 to promote the Patriot cause, “Drayton always had about his person, a dirk and a pair of pocket pistols; for the defence of his life.” 3 AMERICAN ARCHIVES, 4th ser., at 258 (Peter Force ed., 1840). 10. General Population Recalling the Boston Massacre, British Captain Thomas Preston—commander of the Redcoats stationed in Boston—noted the admonition of a trial judge prior to the incident: “that the inhabitants carried weapons concealed under their clothes, and would destroy them [Redcoats] in a moment, if they pleased.” THE ANNUAL REGISTER, OR A VIEW OF THE HISTORY, POLITICS, AND LITERATURE, FOR THE YEAR 1766, at 215 (4th ed. 1785). On the annual commemoration of the Massacre in 1772, Bostonians attended Dr. Joseph Warren’s stirring oration. Expecting the speech to upset the Redcoats in attendance, “almost every man [in the audience] had a short stick, or bludgeon, in his hand; and . . . many of them were privately armed.” Frederick MacKenzie, A BRITISH FUSILIER IN REVOLUTIONARY BOSTON 37 (Allen French ed., 1926). Writings from early American history mention people carrying firearms as part of everyday life. See, e.g., 1 Isaac Weld, TRAVELS THROUGH THE STATES OF NORTH AMERICA 233-34 (2d ed. 1799) (1796, on the roads from Kentucky/Tennessee to and from Philadelphia/ Baltimore, “the people all travel on horseback, with pistols and swords.”); 8 THE WORKS OF WASHINGTON IRVING 83 (1866) (In 1808 St. Louis, “[n]ow and then a stark Kentucky hunter . . . with rifle on shoulder and knife in belt, strode along.”). “

Shooting News Weekly.

… subject to subsection (2), the name, date of birth, current address and telephone number of every spouse, common-law partner and other person with whom the applicant is in a conjugal relationship at the time of making the application or with whom the applicant has been in a conjugal relationship within the two years before the application is made.

As I watch the breathless YouTube videos about how the Western Provinces are going to secede from Canada and join the U.S., and then compare it with the ever-so-soft and gentle nudging they give their federal government, I can’t help but conclude that someone is dead wrong.

Here’s what I think. I think the government could take everything they have including their wives and daughters and Canadians would complain a bit but do nothing.

Change my mind.

Hey just so you know, leftists are going to riot for the entire time that a Republican is president for the rest of your life

So you better get tough and get used to it

— James Klüg (@realJamesKlug) January 27, 2026

What’s happening at the moment in Minnesota isn’t organic. It is sponsored by the CCP and billionaires who live there (Neville Roy Singham, as well as other bad actors who don’t live in the U.S.).

For proof see this thread and this thread. This is not in the category of protests – this is an insurgency run out of international offices, mainly the CCP, whom I predict we will be in a shooting war with inside of five years.

It is well rehearsed, well planned, well organized, and very effective. They are following the playbook written in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As a former Special Forces Warrant Officer with multiple rotations running counterinsurgency ops—both hunting insurgents and trying to separate them from sympathetic populations—I’ve seen organized resistance up close. From Anbar to Helmand, the pattern is familiar: spotters,…

— Eric Schwalm (@Schwalm5132) January 25, 2026

I would never claim that some misguided soul who wishes to protect and defend himself and his loved ones doesn’t have a right to carry arms. If he is a citizen, then he is covered under the U.S. constitution, the covenant that binds us. The second amendment is the guarantor of the right of amelioration of tyranny. I would never advocate a philosophical test to own arms. But what the constitution doesn’t grant is the right to overthrow the government and impose an even worse tyranny.

Unfettered immigration is tyranny because it is population replacement – a complete revision of culture, identity, and religious background and commitments – along with the theft of the wealth hard working men have earned through their lives to protect, defend and provide for their loved ones.

As to the notion of getting tough and getting used to it, that is the furthest thing from American minds right now. The Texas putz Ted Cruz wants to tone down the rhetoric.

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said on his podcast that the Trump administration could improve “the tone with which they’re describing this.”

“Escalating the rhetoric doesn’t help, and it actually loses credibility,” Cruz said on Monday’s episode of “Verdict with Ted Cruz.” “And so I would encourage the administration to be more measured, to recognize the tragedy and to say, we don’t want anyone, anyone’s lives, to be lost, and the politicians who are pouring gasoline on this fire, they need to stop.”

Trump seems within a hair of firing the head of the DHS, Shawn Hannity wants ICE to stop targeting Home Depot.

America is soft, weak, ignorant, lazy, gullible and coddled, and when anything becomes hard or violent or difficult, it shies away from the hard things. America may have voted for this, but it thought it could happen without toughness. The first time America saw what it’s going to take to rid ourselves of this blight, it shrunk into the closet and cried for mommy.

America wants to watch its football games and halftime shows, buy jerseys of its favorite players, and eat chips and popcorn while it watches other men play at silly games.

We are at war, and those who can’t see it for what it is will get run over. In my estimation, America is finished. America had one chance. It blew it.

Ammoland.

“At first, all they wanted to do was repeal the $200 tax on the suppressors, but they still wanted to leave it in the NFA, which means the registration and all that goes along with that; the waiting periods, etc.” Pratt explained. “We said, ‘No, no, no.’ We just melted their phone lines. I mean, so much so we had reports they were turning off the phones in the House of Representatives.”

Well, that’s not the way I remember it. I remember you talking about this being a “win” for future suppressor owners. Either way, you didn’t succeed. You should have told Cornyn that you would lobby against his reelection to the senate if he went down this path.

Speaking of Cornyn, how come the fine folks in Texas haven’t run him out of office yet? After all, he appears to care more about the Muslims than anyone else in his supposed constituency. Let’s see if there are enough Muslims in Texas to elect him.

🚨BETRAYAL🚨Texas Senator John Cornyn has praised Islam and said “Ramadan Mubarak.” Cornyn last year said “Inshallah” at the TX GOP Convention, meaning “If Allah Wills.” Is this why Cornyn has NOT Condemned the Texas SHARIA LAW City that's being built?!

Follow: @Carlos__Turcios pic.twitter.com/8SryANYtx2

— Carlos Turcios (@Carlos__Turcios) April 13, 2025

Source.

A hunter from Montana who narrowly escaped death during a grizzly bear attack has disclosed that one split-second decision saved his life.

Chase Dellwo, then 26, was hunting with his brother in the Montana backcountry when he inadvertently stumbled upon a 400lb sleeping male grizzly.

Local reports indicate that Dellwo was moving up a creek bed on a Saturday morning, attempting to herd a group of elk towards a ridge where his brother was stationed, when the bear woke up abruptly just three feet away.

Poor weather conditions, including snow, rain, and winds reaching 40mph, appear to have concealed Dellwo’s approach, meaning the bear didn’t see him coming and was thus taken by surprise.

He barely had time to retreat before the creature knocked him to the ground and bit his head, reports the Mirror.

“He let go but he was still on top of me, roaring the loudest roar I have ever heard,” Dellwo said.

The bear then clamped down hard onto his leg, shaking him violently and tossing him into the air. As it lunged again, Dellwo says that he didn’t succumb to panic, a factor that may have made all the difference.

“I remembered an article that my grandmother gave me a long time ago that said large animals have bad gag reflexes,” he said. “So I shoved my right arm down his throat.”

Incredibly, it worked. The bear immediately released the quick-thinking hunter and fled, leaving Dellwo severely wounded but, importantly, alive.

Despite bleeding profusely, he managed to reunite with his brother who quickly took him to the hospital. Doctors treated him for hundreds of stitches and staples in his head, a swollen and bruised eye, and deep puncture wounds on his leg.

The article says he was a hunter. I don’t know if he could reach his weapons in time, but I think I’d rather shoot the predator with a large bore handgun (.44 Mag, .454 Casull, or 450 SMC).

My own home state of NC has a law against the carry of firearms in parades, protests, etc. It’s dumb and unconstitutional.

There have been a number of articles on this subject in the wake of the recent ICE shooting in Minnesota, like this one and this one.

Most of them are pretty dumb and miss the point. I don’t want to get into a long-winded discussion of it, but I’ll say this much. Whomever was carrying the firearm, assuming that he was an American citizen and thus a recipient of the hard work of securing the obligations of covenant protections (i.e., the constitution), had a right to be carrying a gun.

What that person did not have the right to do is impede the removal of invaders from America, or perpetrate further invasion of America. That’s called treason. The second amendment is in place for the amelioration of tyranny. It does not protect the imposition of another tyranny.

I made a comment to this video as follows.

“You make a lot of great points. Ask any hunter why you can no longer find deer in the Pisgah National Forrest. Here’s why. Mountain bikers protest to the state when anyone talks about burning it. The last time I hunted there there were no deer. The woods is so dense with dead fall, limbs and brush that you can’t walk into the woods you have to step through two feet deep of treacherous stuff that can break your ankles. What was once delivered wisdom from the old timers (let the woods burn from lightning strikes) became “fight the fires.” Until we came up with a solution, managed, or prescribed, or controlled burns. But unless it’s private property, the biologist don’t like that either. So we just drive the wildlife out instead. As for the wolves, I’m sure they like seeing cows give birth and when they’re at their weakest, the newborn (along with placenta) becomes a meal. The coyotes (Coydogs or Coywolves) do that here. They are invasive and will utterly destroy the deer herd if left unchecked. So there’s no limit on hunting them. Nor should there be. They – along with feral hogs – should be eradicated, at least here in the east. Y’all should never have put the wolf back into where it doesn’t belong. You need to do controlled burns. And you shouldn’t have “wildlife biologists” who aren’t hunters. Hunters are better at observing and cataloging wildlife behavior than they are. At one time in our past, it was understood that managing (and slowly and slightly increasing the herd size) was a balancing act that required burns, hunting, logging, and biologists who understood this sort of thing. Today the universities graduate earth-worshippers who accomplish the opposite of what they intend. The earth and what’s in it aren’t here for me to worship. I’m here to be a good steward of what God has granted us. Few college grads understand that today.”

This is really a bad look for the South Carolina DNR. I would think they would want to back out of this as quickly as possible.

First, the point of the law is not to shoot deer while spotlighting.

Second, for all the officers knew, Shane Huffman was attempting to figure out if that game standing in the field was a Coyote or Feral Hog, both of which are legal to shoot any time of the day with either thermal scopes or NV. What Shane intended by backing his truck up goes to state of mind, and it is impossible for the officers to prove that.

Third, if these officers have time to put human bait in fields and sit in cars waiting for people to stop and look at the bait, they have way to much time on their hands. I have often stopped when I saw a deer, or what I thought was a deer, in order to (a) keep from running over a deer (if it’s a doe there’s likely more around), and (b) to gauge the size and quality of the deer (who knows, maybe it’s somewhere I would want to hunt in the future).

As to (a) above, I have a guard on the front of my truck. I know a guy to hit a deer and totaled his vehicle, and another who did $26,000 worth of damage to his vehicle.

Fourth, officer Thomas should be fired for being corrupt, and officer Tatum should be fired for being so stupid.

Fifth, don’t ever talk to the police. Ever. Under any circumstances. The words are: “I invoke my fifth amendment rights and will not speak to law enforcement except in the presence of my attorney.”

Sixth, officer cameras should not have mute features.

Finally, I suspect that most state DNRs could get by with only 10% of the officers they currently have in their employ.