Articles by Herschel Smith

I like Mark and he’s certainly on our side, and correct about his concern.  But this is way late to come to the table with the concern compared to the warnings David Codrea and I have both laid out for years now.

Our God-given rights are certainly not at risk since the Almighty decreed them before time began.  But that doesn’t mean they will be recognized by the state or that we won’t have to go through troublesome times ahead because of the usurpation of the Lordship of Christ by the state.

Oh, no big deal.  We’ll cover the cost of the stuff we broke.  Sorry to have gotten the wrong room.  As for the lady we threw into the road half naked, we let her go as soon as we figured out she wasn’t our target.

No biggie.  See ya’.

Seriously.  These people should all be on a road crew digging dirt and preparing to lay asphalt.

Here is the SAF/FPC brief.

You can read it at your leisure.  One part stood out to me.

In 1770, Georgia mandated that individuals on Sundays carry arms to “any church, or other place of divine worship,” providing that an individual met their obligation by “carry[ing] with him a gun, or a pair of pistols, in good order and fit for service.” 19 THE COLONIAL RECORDS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA: PART I, STATUTES, COLONIAL AND REVOLUTIONARY 138, 1768–1773; A DIGEST OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, 1800 Ga. Laws 157 (Watkins, eds.)

This is an important point to me for at least a couple of reasons.  First, as we’ve discussed many times before, in order to understand the constitution, you must understand the milieu in which it was written.

The founders were accustomed to the open, public carry of weapons, and at times mandated it for sundry reasons.  It’s frankly amazing how many alleged “historians” try to understand history without reference to both primary and secondary sources.  If you haven’t read the news articles at the time of the founding, you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about.  If you didn’t read what men wrote, if you don’t study their laws, if you don’t read the sermons they heard, you don’t understand their history.  I have.  I’ve read that history, and I’ve read the sermons they listened to.

Second, this means open carry was common.  There is simply no other way to see this passage.  The text is clearly split into two parts: (1) guns, and (2) pistols.  And regarding pistols, they demanded a second sidearm as a backup.  You cannot appendix carry a long gun.  It would even be difficult to conceal two pistols without people noticing that you’re carrying.

Gentlemen openly display their weapons.  Only a history in which criminals have become increasingly common has it become customary to hide our weapons in our girth.

I listened to a video here (Guns Cranks) that was about as much Fudd lore as I could take, and I turned it off after just a few minutes.  Each and every reason they have to object to open carry has been fully addressed on these pages.  Furthermore, the instigator thinks he was smart and coy by trying to mock folks, like me, who have a southern accent.  To him, folks with a southern accent must be goofballs, uneducated Gomers, lacking wisdom and smarts.

He only made himself look stupid in my opinion.  I’m glad I’ve never run across these cranks before.  I’ll make sure never to link them again.

By the way, I was just thinking – you know where I’ve never heard the southern accent mocked before?  In professional society presentations on things like solutions to differential equations, particle transport calculations, and other engineering and scientific models and data.

Not once.  I’ve only been respected in such venues.  I was wondering, do any of the gun cranks know how to solve mathematical models like that?  Who’s the stupid one?

A comment was posted on this article here at TCJ by BAP45: “Great stuff but I’m surprised you linked inrange.”

I didn’t author the article, my co-writer did.  However, I suspect he simply copied the entirety of the linked article (the part he lifted out) for perspective and context.  It’s fine.

Apparently, the video was done by someone named “Karl.”  I have never watched InRange TV, don’t know who Karl is, and had no idea why anyone would bring this up.

So I did a little digging.  Apparently, there’s a lot of water over the dam on this guy, as well as online fights between him and folks at ARFCOM.

This thread is gruesome.  Karl is apparently a socialist, perhaps a member of ANTIFA, defends exposing children to “drag queens,” and according to the thread there is a video of him admitting to being a priest in a satanic “church.”

Gross.

I had no idea and am not familiar with these people at all.  I don’t have the time necessary to fisk everything some guys do during the day (I have a day job), and I certainly don’t have time to fisk everything we link.

But everything that guy stands for is diametrically opposed to what I stand for, and vice versa.  I am a Christian, and Jesus is the Lord of Lords.  I defend liberty and firearms ownership not because I want to see little children exposed to drag queens, but because I don’t want that.  I want a godly society and liberty from tyranny.  I am a Christian libertarian.  Karl sounds like a jerk and an awful man.  I put him in the same category as gun controllers, regardless of what he claims.  Being made in God’s image is the only reason we have right to liberty and self defense.

Having said that, I don’t think his video was particularly useful or informative.  I think the NGSW is the wrong weapon for the future, and I’ve already said what I think the best option would have been: a barrel and magazine swap and change over to the 6mm ARC.

I won’t be proven wrong about this.

Source.

Visa and Mastercard paused their decision to start categorizing purchases at gun shops, a significant win for conservative groups and Second Amendment advocates who felt that tracking gun shop purchases would inadvertently discriminate against legal firearms purchases.

The decision is, at the same time, also a defeat for gun control groups. There had been hope that categorizing credit and debit card purchases would allow authorities to potentially see red flags — like significant ammunition purchases — before a mass shooting could happen.

After Visa and Mastercard announced their plans to implement a separate merchant category code for gun shop purchases, the payment networks got significant pushback from the gun lobby as well as conservative politicians. A group of 24 GOP state attorneys general wrote a letter to the payment networks threatening legal action against Visa and Mastercard if they moved forward with their plan.

There are also bills pending in several state legislatures that would ban the tracking of purchases at gun shops, which would have made it even more difficult for Visa and Mastercard to implement the categorization.

Washington Examiner (via MSN) is also reporting on this story, along with Bloomberg.

Oh, I suppose this isn’t a win for us and loss for the controllers.  I suspect it’s a strategic retreat.  They are retreating for some period of time.  The controllers never sleep and won’t let up their efforts.

Given the Fascist nature of the coupling of large corporations with the FedGov, I suspect we’ll see attempted action at the federal level to push this forward.  They’re just handing the football off to a different runner.

We’ve panned this gun as the wrong choice for all the wrong reasons, and I still believe that.  However, Tim Harmsen apparently likes the gun a lot.

Breaking News!!! District Judge Ezra declares Cargill the winner in the Cargill v Garland bump stock case, tosses a judicial middle finger at the 5th circuit, takes his toys home and closes the case. We requested bump stocks to be legal in all 50 states. So are they @ATFHQ ? #2A pic.twitter.com/P7xvkfj6rw

— Michael Cargill (@michaeldcargill) March 8, 2023

We’ve covered this before.  Softer metals can wear down harder metals if they make contact long and vigorously enough.  And he tells you so again in the video.

Source.

A Missouri law banning local police from enforcing federal gun laws is unconstitutional and void, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

U.S. District Judge Brian Wimes ruled the 2021 law is preempted by the federal government under the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

“At best, this statute causes confusion among state law enforcement officials who are deputized for federal task force operations, and at worst, is unconstitutional on its face,” Wimes wrote.

Missouri’s Republican Attorney General Andrew Bailey in a statement said he will appeal the ruling.

“As Attorney General, I will protect the Constitution, which includes defending Missourians’ fundamental right to bear arms,” Bailey said. “We are prepared to defend this statute to the highest court, and we anticipate a better result at the Eighth Circuit.”

The Missouri law had subjected law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforced federal gun laws without equivalent state laws to a fine of $50,000 per violating officer.

Federal laws without similar Missouri laws include statutes covering weapons registration and tracking, and possession of firearms by some domestic violence offenders.

Well then.  I expect we’ll see all city, county and state LEOs enforcing immigration laws and arresting illegals now, right?

Oh, wait.

Consider the irony.  States like NY, NJ, California and Illinois get to infringe upon rights outlined in the 2A despite what the Bruen decision said, but when states don’t have these corresponding laws to the FedGov, they have to enforce them anyway.

It’s almost like the scales are always tilted toward infringement, yes?

Gun Owners of America has filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against the ATF concerning the pistol brace rule.  The motion can be found in its entirety here.  The motion concludes as follows.

The fact that the Final Rule technically presents a (forced) choice does not absolve it of its unconstitutional sins. As the Fifth Circuit observed in BST Holdings v. OSHA, “the loss of constitutional freedoms ‘for even minimal periods of time … unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.’” 17 F.4th 604, 618 (5th Cir. 2021) (burden on liberty interests posed by vaccination mandate was irreparable harm) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). The vaccination mandate in BST Holdings “threaten[ed] to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s).” Id. Here, the Final Rule imposes a similar choice, forcing individuals to choose between destroying their property or prosecution.

When the government is a party, the balance-of-equities and public-interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009); Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134, 187 (5th Cir. 2016) (same). A court therefore must weigh whether “the threatened injury outweighs any harm that may result from the injunction to the non-movant” and whether “the injunction will not undermine the public interest.” Valley v. Rapides Parish Sch. Bd., 118 F.3d 1047, 1051, 1056 (5th Cir. 1997). There is no harm to ATF from pausing enforcement of the Final Rule and maintaining the status quo. The Final Rule claims to “enhance[] public safety,” 88 Fed. Reg. at 6481, yet ATF is able to point to only two handgun braces (out of millions) that have been criminally misused, see 88 Fed. Reg. at 6495. Even then, there is no evidence that those crimes could not have been committed using a different firearm. Weighing against this are the very real and ongoing irreparable harms to Plaintiffs discussed above. Indeed, the public is served when the law is followed, and “there is generally no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action.” Wages & White Lion Invs., LLC, v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin., 16 F.4th 528, 560 (5th Cir. 2021) (citation omitted). The balance of equities and public interest weigh heavily in favor of an injunction.

GOA and GOF have members and supporters nationwide. Exhibit 13 at ¶ 6. The geographic scope of interests presented, as well as the complications inherent to a piecemeal implementation or injunction of the Final Rule, which impacts criminal prosecutions and fundamental rights, support this Court granting nationwide relief.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should preliminarily enjoin Defendants from enforcing the Final Rule.

Our friend Stephen Stamboulieh is one of the attorneys in this case.