‘Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results’ – attributed to Albert Einstein

Group That Pushed Mexico Into Lawsuit Against Gun Makers at It Again

Mexico’s ill-fated lawsuit against the gun industry was a case of knowing what was inevitable. There was no world where the Supreme Court, especially this one, would allow a lawsuit to proceed against the industry despite the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. I didn’t expect the 9-0 decision, but it was clear-cut.

Well, the “brains” behind that — I use that term very, very loosely here — are at it again.

This time, it seems they’re trying to goad Canada into filing a lawsuit as well, one just as doomed as Mexico’s was.

A new report from Global Action on Gun Violence lays the groundwork for a greater understanding of the cross-border gun trafficking crisis, the harm this phenomenon causes, and recommendations for decreasing this trafficking pipeline.

Jonathan Lowy, founder and president of Global Action on Gun Violence  (GAGV) asserts, “The U.S. gun violence epidemic is causing a regional and global pandemic.  This data confirms that overwhelming majorities of crime guns in Canada and the Caribbean flow directly from U.S. gun shops, as a result of reckless gun industry practices enabled by weak U.S. laws.  GAGV is committed to stopping this crime gun pipeline at the most effective point — the gun industry source.

Gun trafficking is one of the world’s greatest threats to public safety, and the United States is the most prolific source of gun trafficking. Guns are brought illicitly from weak gun law states to stronger gun law states and from the U.S. to other nations with far more stringent gun laws.  The result fuels death rates in the United States that are 20 times higher than in comparable countries, contributes to nations in the Americas having the highest death rates in the world, and enables organized crime, gun trafficking, human trafficking, and a host of other public health, human rights and other societal harms.

Now, Canada has a problem compared to its usually low crime rate, and this despite a plethora of gun control laws on the books, but I fail to see how this is our fault.

After all, it’s already illegal to traffic guns outside of the United States without appropriate approval, and so whoever is trafficking guns is breaking the laws of both nations.

But we already see some…interesting use of numbers here.

One of the supposed key findings of the report said, “84.6% of crime guns in Canada are from the U.S.”

Interesting, sure, but it’s also kind of BS. Cam wrote about this back in June, and most of the so-called crime guns weren’t from the United States. While it’s possible that there’s been some new data, I think it’s also worth noting that this claim is supposedly based on ATF tracing data. However, wouldn’t the Canadian authorities check their own databases first? Why outsource tracing to the U.S. when you’ve got the Royal Canadian Mounted Police that should, ostensibly, be able to at least trace guns domestically? Then, if they’re not in domestic databases, ask the ATF for help.

That didn’t make it in Lowy’s so-called report.

What did, though? Well, I’m glad you asked.

Recommendations

  • Legal and policy reforms, at the federal and state level, can make a difference, as can litigation brought in and outside of the U.S. against negligent gun industry companies who facilitate gun trafficking.

  • Policies and industry reforms to reduce the supply of crime guns at the source. Federal reforms should include universal background checks, buyer licensing or individualized vetting, stronger scrutiny of bulk and repeat sales, better dealer oversight, mandatory tracing, and repeal of legal barriers that shield the gun industry from accountability.

  • Similar reforms at the state level should prioritize Ohio because of its outsized role. Strategic litigation, as well as enhanced cross-border enforcement on firearms trafficking into Canada.

That’s right, everything on that list is part of the anti-gun wishlist. Conveniently.

Lowy knows that an entire country suing the gun industry would likely bankrupt it, even if the industry ultimately won. That’s the point. It’s a case of the process being the punishment. He likely knows good and well that these companies have done nothing wrong. If nothing else, the questions asked by the Supreme Court should have made it clear that the manufacturers don’t know who the bad actors are, and they sell to distributors anyway, at least in most gun transactions.

It’s not about facts, though. It’s about completely disrupting the Second Amendment. That’s the goal, and it really has nothing to do with violence in other countries.

BS. Science fiction isn’t reality

A New Form Of Life
By any working definition that draws on biology rather than philosophy or religion, AI is alive.

We are in the process of creating a second form of life. The emergence of this new form of life is an inevitable result of the fundamental laws of the universe — forces similar to those that brought about humans’ own existence. This new form of life is gradually taking shape in the world’s data centers.

It does not breathe, reproduce through cells or adhere to the chemistry that governs every organism on Earth. However, it is composed of the same fundamental ingredients: matter, energy and information all organized in ways that allow it to persist, adapt and act. What is being developed is more than another generation of machines. It is the early emergence of a new form of life.

There is nothing artificial about systems built from real atoms, powered by real electricity, running in real machines. The systems reproduce, vary, adapt, undergo selection and gather energy from their environment. By any working definition that draws on biology rather than philosophy or religion, that is life.

What Is Life?

Once molecules capable of copying themselves appear, they do. Copies that are slightly better at replicating themselves accumulate at the expense of those that are slightly worse. Variants that fit a local environment outcompete variants that do not. If an environment changes, a population changes with it. Across long stretches of time, this process generates organisms of astonishing complexity.

A living system reproduces, creates variants, selects from among those variants and uses energy from its environment to do so. Reproduction, variation, selection and energy define life. This definition does not require carbon, cells, a heartbeat, a nervous system or pain.

Consider a virus. If a chemist synthesizes the genome of a virus from ordinary chemicals, the result is a strand of nucleic acid that on its own does nothing. Many people, looking at that strand, will say: That is not alive. But put the strand into a cell and it will direct the cell’s machinery to make copies of itself. Those copies make further copies. Errors accumulate, variants appear and survivors persist. Influenza and the coronavirus do this. By my earlier four-property definition, these viruses are life.

Every living thing needs context. Humans depend on the atmosphere, adequate temperatures, a food chain and the planet’s protective magnetic field. Remove that context and humans die as surely as viruses without cells. With life, a substrate can change but dependence on it does not.

The common objection to calling machine intelligence a form of life is: How can something dependent on human-built hardware and electricity be alive? But all life depends on its context or envelope! Viruses need cells, humans need Earth and machine intelligence needs data centers and supporting infrastructure. Depending on a particular environment does not disqualify something from being considered alive. It is a consistent condition.

Continue reading “”

Justice Department sues San Jose, police over gun permit fee

(KRON) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it has filed a lawsuit against San Jose and its police department, alleging the city charges private individuals unreasonable fees to exercise their Second Amendment right to lawfully carry a firearm.

According to a Justice Department press release, San Jose’s firearm permit fee is the highest in the country at nearly $1,600 per license.

“Indeed, San Jose’s fee towers over those imposed by the country’s biggest cities. New York, Washington, D.C., Boston and Chicago all charge a small fraction of San Jose’s fee,” the Justice Department said.

complaint_-_us_v_san_jose_police_dept

Download

“All law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. This right is not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but a fundamental element of our republic,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said. “You don’t need a law degree to recognize that charging a fee several times higher than the cost of the firearm itself is illogical, and an unconstitutional attempt to impede Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

The Justice Department said people who believe a state or local government has infringed on their right to keep or bear arms can submit a complaint through its Second Amendment Section.

Continue reading “”

If you’re under the impression that this was some sort of simple oversight by that intern who wrote the original ordnance, you need to think again. The gun-grabbing crowd will never stop.

Forest City passes ordinance after rewrite following Second Amendment backlash

After Cops & Congress reporting, town attorney revises urban archery code before commissioners approve measure with one no vote

By Annie Dance | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary

Forest City commissioners approved a revised urban archery ordinance Monday night after Cops & Congress reporting drew attention to broader weapons restrictions when used lawfully, buried inside the proposal and triggered hundreds of comments on social media.

Forest City gun ordinance draws Second Amendment scrutiny

Annie Dance
·
Sep 13
Read full story

The ordinance passed with one dissenting vote from John Mark Bennett.

Before the vote on Sept. 14, the town attorney, Elizabeth T. Miller, known as Beth, revised the code to explicitly protect the lawful defense of people and property — language that had become a central point of concern after the original ordinance was published in the town’s meeting agenda packet.

Miller, a registered Democrat, is also the attorney for the town of Rutherfordton. She has been practicing law since 1988, according to the state bar public directory.

The original proposal had been drafted by intern Ben Roach, according to their July meeting documents, and then reviewed by the town manager, Janet Mason, town attorney, and police chief Chris LeRoy before it was placed on Monday’s agenda. Roach is the son of Paula Roach, who serves as Rutherford County Deputy County Manager and Finance Director.

Despite those reviews, the first version proposed changes to Forest City’s firearms and nonfirearm weapons ordinances without expressly preserving an exception for a person lawfully defending themselves or their property.

That changed after the issue became public.

The revised ordinance now states that Forest City’s prohibition on discharging firearms does not apply to “any person while exercising a legal right to defend persons or property.”

The same protection was added to the section governing bows, crossbows, air rifles, slingshots and other nonfirearm projectile weapons.

Continue reading “”

‘Safe Storage Policies™’ was already decided by SCOTUS in Heller,
as in they can’t be mandated

National gun survey highlights self-defense; Washington activists pivot to safe storage

A new National Firearms Survey finds an estimated 88 million American adults own approximately 461 million firearms as questions about guns and public safety swirl in Washington state and nationwide.

Authored by Prof. William English at the McDonough School of Business, Georgetown University, the survey contains some eye-opening information about gun ownership, including the types of firearms people own, and how many people have used them for self-defense purposes.

The results could also have a bearing on a pair of Second Amendment cases to be argued this Fall before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The report “summarizes the main findings of the second wave of the National Firearms Survey, conducted in July and August of 2026,” English writes. “Like the first wave, which was fielded in early 2021, this survey aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date, and it does so with a sample large enough to make well-powered, statistically informative inferences within individual states.”

Dave Workman, communications director for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms told The Center Square the findings are clear evidence that increasing numbers of gun owners across the country has not translated to an increase in violent crime.

“It shows without question that during the period of 2024 to 2025, when crime was declining by more than 18%, U.S. gun ownership was probably at its peak,” said Workman.

“It really puts the lie to the argument that more guns in private hands is going to result in more violent crime across the country. More guns does not equal more crime.”

Workman noted the results could play into two cases going before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall: Viramontes v. Cook County from Illinois, and Grant v. Higgins from Connecticut.

Workman said in the Connecticut case, the fact that 24% of all firearms owners in America own an AR-15 type weapon will play into the arguments.

“It’s a challenge of the Connecticut state statute, banning these so-called assault rifles, which they’re really not,” said Workman, noting that having millions of law-abiding Americans owning AR-15s can’t go unnoticed by the high court.

“It does show, beyond any doubt, that modern semiautomatic rifles, the AR15s, the AKs….they are in common use, and that is a deciding factor as far as being protected by the Second Amendment,” he said.

“I think it’s going to knock a cornerstone of the argument out from under the gun prohibition lobby.”

The Center Square reached out to Washington’s Alliance for Gun Responsibility for comment on the firearms survey and to find out what the gun lobby priorities will be for the 2027 legislative session in Olympia.

AGR’s Chief of Staff Ryan Disch-Guzman said they believe there are many more firearms out there than the survey reflects.

“They are surveying firearms owners. But there are many more firearms out there on the black market and stolen firearms that aren’t possible to trace in a survey like that,” Disch-Guzman said.

“And that’s one of the reasons why we are going to be pushing for safe storage policies.”

He said AGR will be pressing for tougher safe-storage laws during the 2027 legislative session.

Continue reading “”

Criminal cases coming in the new term – and why the court could and should do more

As many SCOTUSblog readers are likely aware, there are some blockbuster criminal law cases set for the Supreme Court’s upcoming term. Bans on AR-15 and similar semi-automatic rifles. Whether juries in criminal cases must always be 12 persons. Whether seizing a plane for the unlawful transport of a six-pack of beer is an unconstitutional “excessive fine.”

In fact, 11 of the 25 cases already granted for review are, by my calculation, criminal law and related (what I call the court’s “CLAR” cases). They won’t all be headline-grabbers, but 40% of the court’s docket is a very healthy chunk. And the court will surely grant some more after its Sept. 28 “long conference.” I provide more details on the already granted cases below. But first:

The court can and should take more criminal cases

Before discussing the merits of the current 11 CLAR cert grants, I want to point out that the court could do much more. Last month the Congressional Research Service put out a 68-page report on “Circuit Splits from 2025.” That little-reported document details almost 100 cases in which lower courts have disagreed (just in 2025?) on significant federal points of law. The Supreme Court has statutory jurisdiction to address such lower court “splits,” whether from federal or state courts. The Supreme Court’s Rules 10(a) and (b) expressly note that lower court “splits” on federal questions – that is, cases from different courts that disagree on some important point of federal statutory or constitutional law – are a reason for the court to grant review. Granting Supreme Court review on lower court splits makes sense, as national uniformity on federal issues is a major, and one of the oldest, reasons for having (as Article III of the Constitution begins) “one supreme Court.” What’s more, I have to believe that the CRS report did not come out of the blue but was prepared with the knowledge of (and perhaps even encouragement from?) folks in the solicitor general’s office.

By far, the largest category of unresolved such “circuit splits” listed by CRS is criminal law and procedure, with 28 cases – three times larger than the next category, civil procedure. The report provides case citations for all 28 of these (at least one from every circuit except the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit). Just a few examples of important questions that need settling: Is embezzlement a continuing offense that extends the statute of limitations? Is car-jacking a violent felony when the state statute also reaches extortion? Is criminal forfeiture limited to property a defendant has actually acquired (here a cert petition may be pending)? What intent is required for a civil rights violation on a county road?

To make an oft-repeated point, the Supreme Court used to decide as many as 150 cases per term. But during the 2025-26 term the justices heard argument after full briefing in only 58. According to a Federalist Society report that has often been repeated, in 2012 Chief Justice John Roberts said that the court could hear “100 cases without any stress or strain, but the cases just aren’t there,” and he “emphasized that circuit splits are far and away the most important consideration.” The capacity of the justices to handle more cases is not an issue – more grants of review to provide national uniformity in criminal cases ought to be a priority.

Continue reading “”

Rule Of Thumb™:

BLUF
My take is, let’s look at everything, but take our time. Once we put the government in the driver’s seat, there’s no turning back.

AI Regulation: If Bill Gates Is for It, I’m Against It. But Is It That Simple?

If you’re confused by the latest tidal wave of stories about the need to regulate artificial intelligence (AI), just know that it’s all by design, and it will get worse. The left is following a familiar playbook, creating confusion and chaos that eventually gets so out of control that you will predictably have people throwing their hands up in the air and turning to the government to fix things — just as planned.

The ready-made solution when that time comes will be increased regulation of AI, along with mountains of fines and costs that create a barrier for newcomers to get into the space. This will serve to suppress competition from start-ups while effectively giving Big AI an assist from the government and its friends in the Democrat Party, with a few Republicans thrown in for good measure.

The consequences for this concerted and orchestrated push to take control over the AI space will be less innovation, a more energized China, increased risk to American competitiveness and national security, and, closer to home, some major infringement on First Amendment rights and more monolithic control over what’s accepted truth and what is not. When you have only a handful of companies with this much power, the death of free speech is on the horizon.

That said, something does need to be done to provide “guardrails” so that AI doesn’t do what the doomsayers say it will do, which they allege will wipe out life as we know it.

At a time like this, people like you and I need to rely on leaders and experts. The question is, which ones?

If the COVID-19 pandemic taught us anything from a public arena standpoint, it’s that since we don’t have access to all the information we need and deserve, we are left to base our own positions on these sorts of matters on the people we trust most. On the flip side, if Bill Gates is for it, I’m against it.

In August, Gates published a blog post where he called on technology leaders, politicians, and leaders in government to come up with new policies to protect jobs and the people who do them, and to tax companies based on how they use AI.

If this sounds a lot like the “climate change” template, it is. If you bought into that scam long enough, you’d have to conclude that the key to saving the planet is more regulation and higher taxation. Same thing here. The key to saving society from the dangers of AI is more regulation and higher taxation, at least according to Gates.

Continue reading “”

“Black September”

Black September (Arabic: أيلول الأسود, – Aylūl al-ʾAswad), also known as the Jordanian Civil War, was an armed conflict between Jordan, led by King Hussein, and the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), led by Yasser Arafat. The main part of the fighting took place between 16 and 27 September 1970.