The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epoch in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forever more. – John Adams
He was a couple of days off…
July 2, 2026
1776 – The Lee Resolution, also known as “The Resolution for Independence” – named for Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, who proposed it to Congress after receiving instructions and wording from the Fifth Virginia Convention – is the formal assertion passed by the Second Continental Congress on this day, resolving that the Thirteen Colonies (then referred to as the United Colonies) were “free and independent States” and separate from the British Empire.
News of the act was published that evening in The Pennsylvania Evening Post and the following day in The Pennsylvania Gazette.
The Declaration of Independence, which officially announced and explained the case for independence, was approved two days later, on July 4th
Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.
That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.
That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation
Trans gunman caught in alleged casino terror plot with huge cache of weapons
Las Vegas cops busted a transgender gunman who allegedly planned a casino massacre using a huge cache of weapons.
Allison Howlett, 36, who was born a man but lives as a woman, was arrested Saturday on charges of making terroristic threats, assault with a deadly weapon, auto theft, gun theft and other offenses.
The wild story unfolded shortly after 9:30 a.m. Saturday when Howlett’s former spouse, who is female, called police to report Howlett had stolen her car and the vehicle held numerous firearms, Henderson Police Chief Reggie Rader said.
Howlett’s ex was tracking her stolen car on her phone and led cops to it where it was parked in a garage at Sunset Station hotel, the top cop said.
As officers approached the vehicle Howlett blasted music over the car’s stereo and refused commands to exit. He did, however, ask cops for a drink of water.
“Officers were eventually able to establish communication and convince her to roll down her window during negotiations,” said Rader.
“When she asked for water, the quick-thinking officers developed a plan to take her into custody as an opportunity arose when she reached for the water,” he explained. “Officers used that moment to gain control of her hands and remove her from the vehicle.”
The Black Codes Are a Cautionary Tale, Not a Useful Precedent
It has not been a great few months for Neal Katyal. As Charlie Cooke has detailed, Katyal and Hawaii got trounced, and properly so, in Wolford v. Lopez, which sought to masquerade a state law by which the government criminalizes having a gun on any private property as merely private conduct, because it allows the property owner to explicitly permit guns to be carried. Nobody in the 6–3 majority was fooled.
The really contemptible thing in this case was Katyal trolling the Court’s consideration of history and tradition in gun regulation by arguing that Hawaii was just following in the path of Southern states that adopted strict “Black Codes” during Reconstruction that limited the right of freedmen to carry guns. As I explained after the argument in January, this is the worst possible use of history:
It was left to Justice Thomas to ask the obvious rejoinder: “If you’re going to cite the Louisiana black codes of 1865, don’t you also have to cite the subsequent adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment that was in part generated because of laws like that?”
Thomas is right. It’s not just that the Black Codes were later found to be unconstitutional; it’s that the people who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment were specifically responding to those laws. . . .
The history of the Black Codes [should be read] not as proof of our history and tradition, but as proof of what defenders of that history and tradition were aiming to abolish by enacting the 14th Amendment.
. . . Reading the Black Codes into the 14th Amendment is like reading the law of slavery into the 13th Amendment or reading bans on black voting into the 15th. It has the whole point of the amendment precisely backward.
Alito dismissed Katyal’s troll with the scathing contempt it deserved, saying that it “cannot be taken seriously” given the actual history. But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was taken with the argument, and as has happened several times of late when Jackson decides to promote some nonsense about the methodology of the Court’s work, Justice Amy Coney Barrett felt compelled to respond.
Jackson — joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor but, pointedly, not by Justice Elena Kagan — leaped at the analogy to the Black Codes as a club to wield in her continuing campaign against the use of history and tradition in reading the Second Amendment. That’s why Katyal was offering her the argument — not because he seriously believed that anybody applying the Court’s existing tests in good faith would fall for this hackish fallacy, but so that the Court’s test itself could be attacked. That’s also why commentators such as Mark Joseph Stern like the argument: “Virtually all of the laws that SCOTUS credits as relevant to the Bruen analysis were written by racist white men . . . by and for heterosexual white males.” Here’s Jackson:
As I see it, there are two potential reasons to use—or exclude—the Black Codes in Bruen’s history-and-tradition test. First, it could be that the Black Codes regulated guns consistent with the Second Amendment but States chose to exercise their regulatory authority in a discriminatory fashion. . . . Under this framing, those gun regulations are not examples of an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to bear arms, but rather exemplify a violation of a different constitutional Amendment—the Fourteenth.
Alternatively, it could be that States did not have the constitutional authority under the Second Amendment to enact such regulations but did so anyway for discriminatory reasons. Under that framing, not only did the States violate the Constitution by acting on the basis of race; they also violated the right to bear arms. Only the second set of circumstances justifies removing these laws (and the experiences of those they targeted) from the body of evidence that determines the historical reach of the Second Amendment under Bruen.
Jackson writes this as if she is completely oblivious to both the cause-and-effect relationship between the Black Codes and the enactment of the 14th Amendment and the fact that states could violate the Second Amendment with impunity before 1868 because until then it only bound the federal government. (Of course, nearly all such states had their own state constitutional guarantees, but Jackson just blows past the distinction.)
Ohio: 116 School Districts Now Allow Armed Employees
Four years after Gov. Mike DeWine (R) signed legislation allowing school boards to choose to allow teachers and other employees to be armed, 116 school districts have chosen to allow armed employees for classroom defense.
WOWO reported that the figure of “116 school districts” is derived from state data “as of June 17.”
The Ohio Capital Journal noted that the 116 districts include “more than 70 Ohio school districts and 15 Christian schools…[with] staff members who are authorized to carry weapons on school grounds.”
Ohio Federation of Teachers President Melissa Cropper criticized the training requirements for the growing number of armed school employees, saying, “It’s not a sufficient amount of training. We’re talking about highly intense situations that require a lot of not only tactical training on how to use weapons, but how to deal with making split-second decisions.”
She did not provide an instance where an armed teacher or employee has harmed someone since the law was signed by DeWine.
Antwerp district superintendent Marty Miller explained that his district chose to arm teachers and employees because they are in a rural setting with a longer police response time.
He said, “It’s just letting the public know that your children are protected.”
Supreme Court Lets SAF 2A Victory Stand in Pennsylvania Case
By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand a ruling by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals which found young adults ages 18-20 are members of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment, handing another victory to gun rights advocates in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.
The high court declined to review a case known as Bivens v. SAF (formerly known as Lara v. Paris), in which the Third Circuit had twice ruled in SAF’s favor.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb told TGM via telephone that this year’s court rulings, combined with Tuesday’s announcement that two SAF cases challenging bans on modern semiautomatic firearms in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois have been granted certiorari translate to a winning year so far. Topping it off was the decision to let the Third Circuit ruling stand.
In a prepared statement, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut observed, “While a cert grant on this case could have meant an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take our win in the Third Circuit and apply it nationally, we are still content that our victory in this case is now permanent and final. Adults under 21 enjoy all the same constitutional rights as their older adult counterparts, and the rights protected by Second Amendment are no different. This victory serves as a major stepping stone to striking down additional unconstitutional portions of Pennsylvania state law and those like it around the country.”
The original lawsuit dates back to October 2020, so it has been litigated for almost six years. This is not unusual for Second Amendment cases, which seem to cause many district courts to shift into low gear. Likewise, anti-gun-rights losers tend to file appeals on whatever grounds they can find, while occasionally asking for delays, which stretches out the calendar even more.
“The Third Circuit ruled not once, but twice, that 18-20-year-olds have the same rights as their peers older than 21,” noted Gottlieb. “Those over 18 in this country can buy property, join the military and get married just like those over 21-years-old. Why then should they be forced to wait to enjoy their Second Amendment rights? There is no reason – they are adults under the law and should therefore be afforded their full constitutional rights.”
Just FYI, the party that has been screeching for the past 11 years that Trump is the end of democracy has now been overrun by “Democrat Socialists” who openly advocate for the abolition of everything this country is based on. Wild times.
— Mark Walker (@markwalker5555) July 1, 2026
This Is Why Some Want Your Guns
In 2023, Jason Aldean made waves with “Try That in a Small Town.” The song and accompanying video made it pretty clear that much of the lawlessness we see in American cities, particularly the political sort, such as riots, wouldn’t fly in small-town America. In fairness, it’s a good way to get your butt handed to you.
Whether or not you’re left alive to learn from your mistakes would directly depend on how stupid you were.
Of course, a lot of people on the left got very butthurt over it, claiming that the song was endorsing political violence, racism, and everything else they deem horrible in society…unless it’s them doing it.
The point, though, was that small towns didn’t play around, and since people are far more likely to be armed, their refusal to play around would not make them attractive places to try such shenanigans.
Well, someone on Reddit seemed to not get the memo, and it’s actually kind of funny.
It seems that the author hasn’t realized that rural Americans don’t rely on the police to protect them. If “The Revolution” were to start in small towns, what you’re going to see is something that will make the Battle of Athens look like a thumb-wrestling convention.
Sure, rural communities only have a couple of cops–my father, when he was chief in Leary, Georgia, had three officers at the department’s largest, and by the end, he was flying solo–but that’s because a lot of the time, the police are just there to draw the chalk line around the bad guy’s body.
What we need to understand, though, is that while this is just one rando on Reddit, where anyone can post anything, it represents what a lot of people would like to do.
Is it any wonder that these same people want to inflict gun control on the rest of the country? See, while right now, small-town America can generally handle itself just fine from a rampaging mob, the reason most people won’t bring up a “suggestion” like this is that the rural communities have the guns to fight back, even in states like California or New York.
Removing the guns from the equation is critical, especially as most people live in the cities, so even if they’re not part of this so-called revolution, they’re not going to be the ones impacted directly. They think that guns lead to the crime they see in their communities, so they support gun control with the misperception that it is a benefit to society.
The truth is that while not every gun control advocate is an authoritarian, every authoritarian favors gun control. Removing a civil liberty, though, is an inherently authoritarian act, and it can’t be successfully framed otherwise. Many try, but it fails simply because they can’t get away from the fact that it impacts the innocent far more than the guilty.
And, for those inclined to incite some communist “revolution” on the rest of the country, their masses must meet unarmed opposition. Guns are equalizers, and they can’t have that.
For now, it really is “Try That in a Small Town.”
If they get their way, though, make no mistake, they will. The fact that so many Democrats are swooning over “Democratic Socialists”–which are still just commies, but commies with sprinkles–suggests that more of them want to do this than we might otherwise suspect.
Luckily, Antifa is now officially a terrorist organization, and a group of them got a few centuries in prison for being lefty terrorists, which means anyone trying to do this is going to have a problem even before they get to Mayberry.
But if they make it there, the Second Amendment makes damn sure we can start stacking them before they can be offended by the fact.
A neighbor shot and killed a man who was dragging a woman while armed with a machete, the Fort Worth Police Department said.
According to FWPD, at about 10:20 p.m. Sunday, officers responded to a call concerning a person with a weapon in the 2900 block of Ross Avenue. When officers arrived, they found a man suffering from an apparent gunshot wound. He was transported to the hospital in critical condition, where he was pronounced dead.
After speaking with witnesses, officers learned that the man was involved in a verbal and physical argument with a woman and dragged her down the street while being armed with a machete.
Witnesses told police that the woman was screaming for help, and one neighbor came outside to tell the man to stop.
Police said the man who witnesses said was dragging the woman then approached that neighbor while he was still armed with the machete, and the neighbor shot him at least once.
That’s when witnesses called 911, and the neighbor stayed at the scene to be interviewed by homicide detectives, officials confirmed.
At this time, no arrest has been made, and the names of those involved have not been released.
The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people; or of peaceable assemblies by them, for any purposes whatsoever, and in any number, whenever they may see occasion. —St George Tucker, 1803
Yet, today, here we are………..
July 01, 2026
The 2 finger ‘hunt and peck’ typing style turns out to be more than twice faster than the 1 finger style
Another way to look at it.
Cheer Up! The Birthright Citizenship Case Moves Us Toward Inevitable Victory.
Would I have loved Justice Barrett or Chief Justice Roberts to have defied their natural judicial conservatism—in the non-political sense—and embraced the new thinking today? Yeah, that would’ve been great, but it wasn’t in the cards. Instead, we got two votes that I frankly didn’t expect. And those two votes position us for victory. If one of those five majority justices goes away and President Donald Trump appoints the replacement, it’s very likely we will have a 6–3 majority that supports limiting the current idea of effectively unlimited birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.
Let me put it in sportsball terms. We didn’t score a touchdown today, but we moved the ball down the field and put ourselves in position for a field goal or maybe even a touchdown in the next couple of plays.
So don’t freak out, don’t cry, don’t scream and yell. There’s no reason to. This result was better than we had any right to expect at this juncture in the process of changing the way the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause is viewed under the law. And this is why keeping the Senate in 2026 is more important than ever.
Cheer up. Don’t doom. We did better than we had any right to expect, and in the end we’re going to win.