I'm not sure how I feel about today's decision in Rahimi. On the one hand, I understand why the court wants to restrain people like Rahimi from firearms possession.
On the other hand, I tend to agree with Justice Thomas in his dissenting opinion. The court bent over backwards to find a way to make our history and tradition of firearms regulation fit this specific case - which it really doesn't. Unfortunately, that tees up lower courts to do the same sort of thing.
Still, I was pleased to read the concurring opinions of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. I think they did a very good job of instructing lower courts in the manor in which they must decide 2A cases and circumscribing the outer limits within which lower courts must function. Hopefully, these efforts will restrain lower courts from following the fuzzy example demonstrated in this case.
I urge you to read the decision and form your own opinion. I'll have a detailed interview with a constitutional attorney to discuss the case next week.
In the first half, attorney Sean Maloney from Second Call Defense joins me to explain the lessons gun owners can learn from what happened to Kyle Rittenhouse.
In the second half, I discuss a home invasion case from Oceanside California in which the homeowner successfully defended himself.
WHAT? Gun Makers Now Liable For Shootings?!?
Maybe we need to make politicians liable for failed policies.
Make judges liable for repeat offenders!!!
Gavin Newsom's Gun Stunt BACKFIRES- Quickly
Jul 16, 2025 ✪ Members first on July 16, 2025
He’s pushed some of the strictest gun control laws in the country… but just accepted a handgun on a podcast — on camera.
In this video, I expose the shocking hypocrisy behind one of America’s most anti-gun politicians and how his actions speak louder than his gun-grabbing policies. Gun owners across the country have been told they don’t need firearms — but apparently, some politicians do?
