We all love the huge win that the NYSRPA case brought to 2nd A supporters.

Today it got much better.

4 other 2nd A cases were appealed to SCOTUS and waiting on a writ of certiorari to see if if 4 or more Justices agree to hear the appeal. Most cases do not get "granted cert" and the ruling of the lower court stands.

Today all 4 cases were Granted, Vacated, and Remanded (GVRed) back to the lower courts for new rulings in compliance with the process layed out in the NYSRPA case for 2nd A cases.

This means that SCOTUS determined the cases were decided wrong and the lower courts must fix that according to the rules set out in NYSRPA. The text of the 2nd A and historical traditions of restrictions.

No kind of balancing review such as intermediate or strict scutiny.

The cases GVRed are:

Cali Mag Ban.

Maryland AWB.

HI open carry ban.

NJ mag ban.

Some of us were hoping SCOTUS would grant cert and hear the cases but this is even better. Major pee pee slap to all those lower appeals court.

It's basically winning a sumary judgement.

Today was a very good day.

SCOTUS GVRed all the 2nd A cases

The times they are a changing.

(Ha, and some say nothing is being done - clueless)

How will this affect the WA mag ban that goes into effect tomorrow?

Has that one gone to court under a lawsuit and been upheld yet?

Odds are, if the CA one gets overturned, that will be precedent for overturning the other State's versions.

That is outstanding news. Many thanks for posting!

Not yet as far as im aware. Those things take time.

Hopefully somebody with standing in WA will file for a TRO pending the 9th Circuits new decision on the Cali ban.

The Dem's in communist run states don't intend to follow recently upheld or overturned laws as they apply to the constitution and have stated so. Also don't hold your breath waiting for federal law enforcement agency's to force them to.

You got it, bro.

Kari Lake is getting my dough.

Nah, I'm waiting for Trump's return to the WH after the Nov election and swing states decertifying their EC votes.

Over the top good!

If MD goes does DC to since it is historically part of MD?

More W,GoT, RoG!




Wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments.
I LOVE IT!

Both DC and MD are in the 4th Circuit. The 4th now has to rule consistant with SCOTUS rules for 2nd A cases.

If the 4th Curcuit now rules properly then it wuld be a slam dunk that anyone with standing in DC would win an easy case.

As good as the NYSRPA was these cases being GVRed is even better.

Clear direction from SCOTUS to all lower courts on 2nd A cases.

That would be my guess. I hope they are successful.

Pretty big aftershock....

The thing is that the lower courts ignored Heller and created the two part test that was finally struck down. Whether the courts now read Thomas' opinion and abide by it, or just come up with new tests that facially comport with the standard of review announced in the opinion but stick to the "it's not a core right, the public safety concerns justify the government action" is to be seen.

I'm counting on the two cases in the 9th Cir. (HI and CA) to be a harbinger of how much activism is left in 2A matters at lower courts.

All kinds of things going our way. Tired of winning yet? LOL.

Unfortunately, that will be the result because courts can't give binding advisory opinions (as opposed to pointing which way the wind is blowing for future cases), and the facts and laws vary from case to case. But, the vacating and remanding of 4 big cases shortcuts the process because the litigants aren't starting from scratch. This drastically cuts down the time frame for getting a final resolution of the issues presented in those cases.

DC has its own circuit.

Thanks for the correction.

Maybe Dick Heller wants one more run at them for old times sake.

So true!

At this point any self-professed conservative that bitches about Trump is either ignoring the bigger picture or they’re a closet case of TDS. The REAL and LASTING impact of President Trump’s legacy, aside from illuminating the corruption of our entire government, is the true conservatives he appointed to the highest court.

God bless President Trump!

Both Washington and California are in the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit. California's mag ban was ruled unconstitutional twice, in rulings that closely followed Heller. As with all pro-Second rulings, the case was overturned en banc by the Ninth Circuit.

After NYSPRA the arguments used by the en banc panel to uphold the ban have been eliminated. This will leave the en banc panel with two choices: either rule that the mag bans are unconstitutional or try and come up with a new argument that they are constitutional.

IMO, the odds of them coming up with an argument that a mag ban is constitutional that follows the rules laid down in NYSPRA are slim. If they try it and lose in the Supreme Court, the new SCOTUS decision would apply to the entire country.

I'm sure that the en banc panel would rather eat broken glass than declare the mag bans unconstitutional, but there is a strategic advantage to it; the ruling would only apply to the states in the Ninth circuit, which would include WA and CA. This would delay nationwide coverage of the ruling, during which they would hope for some seismic change in the composition of the court.

Wrong the rulings will effects state laws nation wide.

Negative. Ninth Circuit rulings are only binding precedent in the states within the Ninth Circuit. They are only persuasive authority otherwise.

Before Trump, it was Mitch McConnell holding Garland's nomination that gave Trump the opportunity to nominate a conservative justice.

With 2 of the GVRed cases in the 9th it's going to be interesting.

Trump made a decent dent in the 9th and it's not impossible to draw an en banc panel that would actually rule right even before this new NYSRPA ruling.

Open carry and standard mags on all the left coast.

Speaking of the 9th, the Cali AW ban and ammo ban are there on hold pending the resolution of the Cali mag ban.

So now the 9th has to use the reasoning specified in NYRPA to decide the Cali AW ban.

You guys in free states better get your AR stuff now because when 9th rules AW bans are not constiutional there is a lot of pent up demand that will be uncorked.

I know many who will be online the minute that ban is overturned.

Yep I tried to get a 50 round mag for my M21 when they said that the ruling was Unconstitutional a couple years ago and the company I ordered it threw left me high and dry by waiting to ship it.

I really do not need a 50 round mag for that rifle but I just wanted it to shove up our Politicians Arrs's .
They track all of this stuff coming into the State.

When they loft this ban again I will be one of the first to order the Largest Mag's I can for my Rifles.

If AWB's are out where does this leave the NFA?

The Trump Effect will continue for years to come.

That's a great question.

Guess that will remain to be seen.

Probably be an interesting argument for auto pistols and rifles generally used by one person such as Thompsons and M14 types, but not likely for a Ma Deuce?

As to other things requiring their OK, saw offs and such...............................you're guess is as good as mine.

Does that mean Californians will be able to take all the goofy embarassing shìt off their ARs?



Magpul better be cranking out extra stocks and grips...

The NFA would likely be considered one of the longstanding gun regulations that both Heller and this case say are Constitutional.

The proper name for the carry case from New York is New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA) if one is only using one side.

Just like we all call Heller v DC the Heller case as Heller was the winner and the loser was the District of Columbia.

YouTubers need to quit talking about the losers, Bruen.

That certainly is true. But, the people who put handcuffs on people and take them to jail know that they do not have immunity from civil and criminal liability if: (1) they violated someone's Constitutional rights; and (2) they should have known those Constitutional rights were clearly established at the time they put the handcuffs on (or even before), as finally adjudged by a court years down the road. So, for many of the reasons that the police have been standing down in many jurisdictions because of the possibility of a runaway jury (civil or criminal, state or federal) or ambitious prosecutor (criminal), they may be less aggressive than the politicians they serve in their jurisdictions.

I'd bet that as well.

Lots of new unplowed ground out there with this SCOTUS ruling.

Like button necessary for that one, thanks Steve

Thank God for the foresight our founders had with the 2nd Amendment. They will never get the requisite 38 states to repeal it. Too many like the Dakotas, and the rest of the non-coastal west, the south, the mid-west, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, etc. etc.

Amen!

Negative... They were remanded based on First Circuit Precedent and therefore incorporated on all 50 states.

Perhaps, but....
New York's Sullivan Act predates the NFA by nearly 30 years. Wasn't that shot down by the NYSRPA decision?

Exactly! Toss the earlier case and not look VERY hard at the latter???

It should not take a rocket scientist to see the vulnerability.

This seemed to go under the radar for some reason.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/11/us/california-gun-ban-under-21-federal-ruling/index.html

About wrecked the car when I heard the 9th overturned a Cali gun law.

Then, we had the talk of this under 21 thing going into Brandon's
new law.

Personally thought it was a huge for the most liberal circuit to take
that stand. But believe like someone else posted. Since they overturned
it, it avoided a SCOTUS decision that would have made it nationwide.

It's precedence setting maybe, but still puts off a final decision.


PS. Used the CNN link just because I enjoyed them reporting on this.

Ya welcome!







How so, when they speak of arms in common use and the militia. Some aspects could certainly be Constitutional, but I would say the process should be streamlined. Machineguns themselves could very well be restricted, but having suppressors, SBSs & SBRs on the NFA list makes absolutely no sense at all.

The Court held Antebellum southern states laws were void if they violated the 2nd and 14th. It is looking at the time period of the founding now.

The NFA mainly applies to automatic weapons. At the time of it’s enactment, they were only about four decades old and were not common. The NFA itself will stay.

But the “sporting purposes” clause on the 1968 importation ban and the 1986 ban on domestic manufacture of automatic weapons could get a look.

The “sporting purposes” clause on imports seems really suspect in light of the new decision. It stands to reason that if you don’t have to provide justification to the state for carrying a particular firearm, then an importer should not have to provide any justification as to the purpose of a firearm it wishes to bring into the country. And historically until 1968, there were no bans of any sort on the importation of firearms.

I would also add executive orders that ban importation of firearms and ammunition to the list as well.

At one time in this Country it was Common Respect for the Amendments as they were written ..
Heller and the NYMSLSDRGC decision came about because the Marxist said No we Don’t Agree on the 200+ Year Principle of the 2nd..
Ladies and Gentlemen Harvard and Yale Law Schools ain’t done with you Yet..
In fact they ain’t done with any of the Founding Documents..
One day it will be realized that we can’t Coexist with these Psychopaths..

Roll Them or They Roll You

We’ve been getting rolled by Yankee commies since 1865.

Logically, it seems that way. Politically, NFA is a third rail I doubt they'd touch. But then I said that about abortion. Who knows?

SCOTUS decision Miller:


“some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” Miller, 307 U.S., at 178. Miller implies that a weapon that is commonly owned and that is useful for the common defense for a militia member is also protected by the Second Amendment.

What is the standard issue weapon of the infantry?

Thomas gives a hint:

'... For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)). That said, we cautioned that we
were not “undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis
today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and
moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District
of Columbia’s handgun ban. 554 U. S., at 627...'

'...If the last decade of Second Amendment litigation has
taught this Court anything, it is that federal courts tasked
with making such difficult empirical judgments regarding
firearm regulations under the banner of “intermediate scrutiny” often defer to the determinations of legislatures. But
while that judicial deference to legislative interest balancing is understandable—and, elsewhere, appropriate—it is
not deference that the Constitution demands here. The Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest balancing by the people” and it “surely elevates above all other
interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to
use arms” for self-defense. Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. It is
this balance—struck by the traditions of the American people—that demands our unqualified deference. ...'

'...“Just as the First Amendment
protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth
Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second
Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Ibid. (citations omitted).
Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of
“arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding,
that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. ...'

Any examples of a circuit court ruling being binding in all states?

I always thought cicuit courts only had jurisdiction in their circuit.

Those bastards!

First, higher courts bind lower courts within their particular state or circuit. With the
exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, courts of appeals and state courts do not bind courts
outside the state or circuit in which they are located. That is, a federal Supreme Court decision is
binding on all lower federal courts, both circuit courts of appeals and district courts. A federal
circuit decision is binding on all federal district courts within its circuit, but not federal courts in
other circuits. For example, a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit binds
the U.S. district courts within the Ninth Circuit, but not federal courts in any other circuit.
However, a district court or trial court decision would not bind higher courts. A decision by a
state’s highest court is binding on all appeals courts and trial courts in that state, but not on state
courts in other states, and usually, a state court of appeals’ decision binds state trial courts in that
state.

Second, with the exception of the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts bind only other
federal courts, not state courts. Thus, a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, a federal court, is binding on federal district courts within the boundaries of the Ninth
Circuit. It is not binding on California state courts, even though California is geographically
within the Ninth Circuit. Similarly, state courts bind only other state courts within the state.
A decision of the California Supreme Court would thus bind other California state courts, not
state courts in any other state. However, sometimes a federal court must apply a state’s law. In
that case, the state’s interpretation of that law is binding on the federal court. Therefore, a
California Supreme Court decision on a matter of California law would bind federal courts on
that state law issue. Similarly, state courts must sometimes decide issues of federal law, but they
are not bound by federal courts except the U.S. Supreme Court. A decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court, a federal court, is binding on state courts when it decides an issue of federal law, such as
Constitutional interpretation.


FROM: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Which-Court-is-Binding-HandoutFinal.pdf

I hope I'm wrong, but I think that approach would be seen as being too literal by the court. The language in bold, that was first used in Heller and was reiterated in Bruen, seems to describe most of what the NFA does:


"[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt
on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as
schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. [Footnote 26: We identify these presumptively
lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list
does not purport to be exhaustive]."

Parts of the NFA might be subject to attack, but I think the Court was signaling that existing federal laws like the NFA are in the clear.

FROM the Opinion: Bottom of page 27, top of 28

Thus, “postratification adoption or acceptance of laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the constitutional text obviously cannot overcome or alter that text.”

I don't want to derail this thread, but there are lots of intelligent opinions here and I think my question might be related. Given the 2A win this week and the EPA win that might impact the overreach of the other 3-letter agencies (specifically the ATF), does anyone have any insight as to what they expect could/might happen with the upcoming ATF decision regarding AR pistols that was supposed to come out this month or next?

Thanks in advance.

Ok, Sitka, could you explain what "First Circuit Precedent" is and how it would make a Ninth Circuit ruling binding on all 50 states?

Been wondering on that. As near as I can ascertain the current working definition of ‘pistol’ includes a barrel less than 16” and an overall length 26” or less. I’m not sure that is included in the NFA. If it is not, and the ATF is using their own expansion of what is written, then Congress will have to establish the parameters defining “pistol”. I do know the ‘short barreled rifle’ definition and inclusion in controlled weapons is questionable as far as original intent. These dimensions allow departmental interpretation of what is a pistol and what is a SBR to begin with.

All this and more add up to confusion about what is a pistol, what is a SBR, and what arms can be equipped with a brace without running afoul of ATF’s interpretation. And more bigly are these ‘interpretations’ subject to ATF definitions or subject to strict adherence to the 2nd Amendment.

Not a attorney, but I'd guess, and it's only that, the ATF and various state governments are going to make you sue the relevant law, or rule. I think the brace ban will be enforced until someone sues them. Depending on who you read, there are from anywhere 35000-40000 gun control laws on the books, and as I read SCOTUS's decison they are illegal. All of them. Unless they existed in 1791. So these ten day waiting periods, one gun a month purchase laws, Red flag laws and everything else in a just world should be null and void as of a couple of days ago. But they will stay on the books until someone gets arrested over them and just keeps appealing.

If Heller is applied then they’re common use weapons and the West Virginia case is applied that’s in question also. The West Virginia case is somewhat vague about where the line is on regulatory power to create “law”. There’s going to be a bunch of cases testing the reach of the West Virginia case. The ATF’s reinterpretation of what is a firearm is in the application to the AR platform is something that would appear to run afoul of the West Virginia case. Congress wrote a clear definition and the ATF has expanded that to include the AR. It will be interesting.

Thank you @shootem , @ Lee_Woiteshek and @Daveinjax for your thoughts, much appreciated Gentlemen. Have a great 4th!

Ken Paxton, AG of Texas, filed a suit in Federal District Court over suppressors made in Texas in Febuary.

It's going to be interesting to see how this track shakes out with the NYSRPA case defining the way courts must decide 2nd A cases.

There might be a case to be made against ANY federal regulation of firearms that falls outside of taxing authority. Clearly, when they made the original NFA in the 1930s, they thought the federal taxing authority was the only way to get at it. So, there might be a chance to get rid of ALL federal regulations not based on taxing authority and for those to be given very close scrutiny.

Because it is a constitutional ruling and that affects all 50 states

"Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."

Since Congress approved this in Maine's Constitution in 1820 doesn't it preempt all gun or other weapon control laws? It certainly makes all my legislators guilty of oath violations.

We’re I writing opinion that’s pretty much what I’d say. 2A is amazingly simply to carry such weight as delegated by the founders. Misinterpretation has to be intentional. The federal government is constitutionally prohibited from not only banning certain firearms but prohibited from infringing on the peoples’ right to not only keep but freely bear arms. Infringement must also include taxes on firearms and ammunition EVEN Pittman-Robertson. Going beyond the ATF and state authorities these type restrictions must include agencies charged with enforcing congressional law such as EPA and IRS. The biggie yet to fall is the IRS. One can dream.

As explained to me, SCOTUS remanded a Ninth Circuit ruling specifically citing a First Circuit Decision. Doing so proves the precedent applies beyond the First.

PRECEDENT of the First does NOT apply beyond the First.

Precedent of the First does NOT apply to the SCOTUS, BUT.....

If the Supreme Court Cites the First it supports the decision of the First, and if they make it a decision/Opinion of the Supreme Court it then DOES apply to all..... Not as an Opinion of the First, but that of the SCOTUS...

You guys must believe constitutional laws matter. I seem to remember our illegitimate president swore to uphold our constitution and protect our country. Leaving our southern border open should get him sent to jail immediately. Gun laws are already being ignored around the country in every liberal [bleep] hole state. To expect anything the SCOTUS does to change this is a pipe dream. Nobody is going to jail so nothing will change.

SCOTUS remanded the Ninth circuit ruling and cited the NY ruling they just made as guidance for their decision.

The Opinion was an Opinion of the Supreme Court and it is binding on all....

SCOTUS GVRed 2 cases back to 9th for new ruling consistant with the NYSRPA case.

Those new rulings will only be binding in the 9th.

SCOTUS also GVRed 2 cases back to the 3rd Circuit and those rulings will only bind the 3rd.

No Circuit court can bind all Circuits but can enjoin a Federal Law or Executive Action that affects the Nation, pending review.

The HI judge comes to mind.

The laws in contest are all State Laws and only effect single states inside of a particular Circuit.

Do you not realize your words are anathema to the very solution you are trying to convince us you desire? Get pissed, get involved at your local and state level. Talk to others in person, as many as you can. Let your frustration be your newfound strength in all of this. You abviously don't need "grow a set," you simply need realize "they" are bigger than you think they are...

So, I’ll have to sue in WA to get our mag ban lifted? Or will the decision of the 9th cover WA as well?

If WA is in the 9th Circuit, and it is, decisions of the 9th are binding there, regardless of which State within the 9th from which the case may have originated .........

NYS will be back in front of the SCOTUS as they just passed a law that pretty much gave the court the finger. Somehow the left just cannot figure out that law abiding CC people are the good guys and the criminals are the bad guys.

They know that. They don't care. Those are the people they fear the most, because they plan to do things to them (via the power of state) that would make them want to shoot them.

because the criminal base and their famlies are the Democratic party voter base

Most states would repeal the law on their own but if they try to ignore the ruling then someone will file suit in Fed District court and probably receive a summary judgement.

It will all depend on how hard the lefties want to double down on tyranny.

If the 9th does what SCOTUS told them to do with the Cali mag ban then all the mag bans in the 9th circuit are circling the drain.

If the 9th does what SCOTUS told them to do with the Hawaii open carry ban then all states in the 9th will have open carry in a short time.

The 9th is also holding the Cali AWB and ammo ban until SCOTUS ruled on NYSRP.

It will be a direct FU to SCOTUS if the 9th finds any of these restrictions constitutional and sending all these 2nd A cases back to the appeals courts is a message from SCOTUS.

Ignore the ruling of SCOTUS and passing new, more restrictive laws are clearly the plan. POTUS signed federal red flag law after the NY Bruen decision. NY went and called a emergency session of its legislature and did the same. SCOTUS does not have a enforcement arm, and the DOJ is clearly compromised. You are going to have to sue with your own money or someone else's to get these things overturned in your jurisdiction. It will take years, and they will continue to pass laws that are clearly in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling without punishment. POTUS is not going to call out the 82nd Airborne to enforce this decision.

That scenario is one of the main reasons the founding Fathers codified the right to keep and bear arms with the 2nd Amendment.

Authorities ignoring court rulings and restricting civil rights under color of law is Tyranny.

Don't need the 82nd when there is a Militia right there.

I grasp the fact the we are a nation today, because the Brits came after our guns, and triggered a revolution. But they were different men in a different time. As long as the power stays on, you can watch your favorite television show, and have Domino's delivered to your door, I don't think you going to see a repeat of the same. I'm not sure if they were lining conservatives against the wall with blindfolds that anyone would interfere. Other than light some candles and making pithy tweets. I am of the age where I am beyond warrantee, so my involvement either way is would be a hindrance or minimal. It's those that are coming after us are going to have it bad, those few who are the bedrock of this nation and make it work. When we lost the schools and colleges, they made two, perhaps three generations of perfect little socialists and commies. This will cost us a hundred years of unrest. As for the "milita" the only ones I am aware about are either black nationalists, or comprised of FBI agents.

Yes, you can count on the fact that any militia being formed will be led by, and mostly comprised of, FBI operatives.

Wearing khakis.

By definition the Militia is the People.

Even Colorado law enforcement does not enforce the mag limitations, and that's without those limitations having been ruled unconstitutional.

There is going to be lefty shenanigans but we have plenty of money and have learned much about winning the legal battles.

Some of you sure are defeatist after the best week evar for Court Rulings and freedoms.

Up until the point where it suits their purpose.

Selective enforcement of the law is three steps into the process to tyranny. Equal treatment under the law is one of the cornerstones of our civilization.

I believe it was in the late sixties or early seventies that the federal government brought all remaining "state militias" into the National Guard system. There are no longer any state militias...unless we can get people to form new ones?

It's not selective enforcement as that means some people get enforced and others do not.

It's nullification.

That said once the law in question has been ruled unconstitutuional that change the game in a big way.

We are in for some interesting times.

Unless your local chapter is comprised of friends that have known each other for decades. 😉

LMAO... Yeah, like Hillary, Clapper, et al? That's plenty 'equal'....

Could be wrong, but I believe California is the only other state in the 9th that does not permit open carry.

Not true. Texas has its own state militia as does Florida and California, separate from the National Guard. There may be other states as well that do that I am not immediately aware of. How well organized or trained they are may be questionable. I, myself joined and was commissioned in the Texas State Guard during Operation Desert Storm as I did not know how far that situation was going to escalate. Thankfully, no one had to rely on us, but at least we stepped up to the plate to be available if needed.

Be that as it may.....
The Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as 'every able bodied free Male over the age of 18'. Note the this was just one year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment. Pretty well spells out the intent of what our founding fathers had in mind.

As the left controls the conversation in the press, on social websites, I'm pretty sure any involvement in a militia that isn't government sponsored is going to be prefixed with "extreme right wing" and this current DOJ will use the Patriot Act against you.

I really don't have a solution for the leftist states that chose to enforce what laws it wants against what people it decides are threats. That those same laws that are overturned by the highest court in the land and not only is the instruction to overturn ignored but more restrictive laws are passed without consequence to those who are doing passing those laws.

Maryland dropping the requirement for "good and substantial reason" on CCW permits due to NYSRPA case.

Maryland Drops G&S

Democrats now calling for more and stricter gun controls in wake of July 4th shootings.

Reuters, CBS, Bloomberg

Anyone surprised at this?

And if they don't get it, they will trigger the next MKUltra subject on the list.

There seems to be a pattern.

And politicians’ security will all use baseball bats. No more firearms. Just not necessary.

It's much worse than some kind of small scale MKUltra thing.

The media is nonstop promoting the Blue Print for broken minds to get attention.

The media, social media, and pharma are breaking minds.

We can all list the exact formula for a broken mind to get max attention.

If you’re not sick they’ll convince you that you are.

Good article by Daivd Kopel on the NYSRPA decisison.

Long Victory