When your debate performance is so bad they invoke the 25th Amendment…

Chip Roy Says He Will File 25th Amendment Resolution To Yank Biden From Office After Debate Implosion
“I intend to put forth a resolution calling upon the [vice president] to immediately use her powers under section 4 of the 25th Amendment to convene & mobilize the principal officers of the Cabinet to declare the [president] is unable to successfully discharge the duties and powers of his office,” Roy wrote in his post.

I wouldn’t rule that out. Kneepads Harris gets to be Prez. Maybe she’ll fake her way sufficiently that the Dims will put her forward as the “incumbent.” It’s a better shot than Gropin’ Joe at this point.

Or maybe “I’m black, and gay and a woman” Jean-Pierre will claim that the whole debacle was really another ring-wing “cheap fake” video that Republicans tricked CNN into running. Then the panic-stricken lefty media can play along and declare that Biden absolutely trounced Trump in the real debate that we stupidly didn’t watch.

Prez Debate 3

I gave up on last night’s debate elder abuse episode about 40 minutes in. But checking the news this morning — with an emphasis on the lefty “mainstream” outlets — it appears it only got…

…much, much worse for Biden. This tweet that I got in email sums it up fairly well.

Prez Debate 2

I’m done. According to Biden, the Supreme Court already ruled that Trump was responsible for January 6th.

Nope. Hasn’t happened… in this universe.

I had expected Biden to be sorta capable for the start of the debate. I was only watching to see how long he lasted until he crashed.

He crashed at the start. This, after a week of debate prep?

I’m going back to the book I was reading.

Prez Debate 1

Dear Bog.

I expected Biden to be juiced up enough to be coherent for the first 30 minutes.

He didn’t last 4 minutes.

At 30 minutes, he’s basically gone.  Incoherent, off topic rambling. Long debunked lies. Weird repetitive words. Jumbled pseudo words.

And we defeated Iran? WTF?

TZP Column: US vs. Rahimi

RAHIMI vs. Red Flags
UNITED STATES v. RAHIMI is in the news with a Supreme Court ruling a few days ago. And the victim disarmament crowd is all over it.

You see, SCOTUS found that someone never convicted of a crime can still lose his Second Amendment rights via a domestic violent prevention order. Associate Justice Thomas dissented. For very good reasons.

Michigan’s Attorney General is one of the people eyeing this ruling with glee.

[Read more]

[UPDATED 2] SCOTUS Tosses Bump Stock Ban

See updates below.

Big news this morning.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban
In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its authority when it issued a rule classifying firearms equipped with bump stocks as machine guns. The case, Garland v. Cargill, challenged the ban enacted following the 2017 Las Vegas concert mass shooting, which it implemented by interpreting a federal law restricting the transfer or possession of machine guns to include bump stocks.

It looks like Clarence Thomas wrote the majority decision, so I’ve got some reading to do. I always enjoy Thomas’ decisions.

It looks like this is primarily based on violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. I tried to tell the ATF just that in my NPRM comments.

I expect I’ll have more on this after I finish reading the decision.

UPDATE: Yes, the ATF violated the APA by exceeding its authority.

Held: ATF exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies a bump stock as a “machinegun” under §5845(b).

But, Thomas didn’t stop there.

A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot “by a single function of the trigger.” The phrase “function of the trigger” refers to the mode of action by which the trigger activates the firing mechanism.

A clear, unequivocal, specific ruling that, not only did they exceed their authority, but that bump stocks do not turn firearms into machineguns. As I told them.

In fact, one might almost suspect that Justice Thomas read my NPRM comments. Or maybe my blog.

ATF argues that a shooter using a bump stock must pull the trigger only one time to initiate a bump-firing sequence of multiple shots. This initial trigger pull sets off a sequence—fire, recoil, bump, fire—that allows the weapon to continue firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. This argument rests on the mistaken premise that there is a difference between the shooter flexing his finger to pull the trigger and pushing the firearm forward to bump the trigger against his stationary trigger.

The law address function of the trigger, not function of the finger. And the off-arm movement needed to make the finger re-engage the trigger is volitional, not an “automatic” function of the firearm.

Thomas included picture for idiots. But apparently he should have drawn them in crayon for the real morons on the bench.

The dimwitted dissenting Justices — Kagan, Sotomayer, Jackson; go figure — were reduced to this: The ATF says they’re machineguns, therefore…

When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires “automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

Those are the words of overly-emotive panty-pissers incapable of logic.

Added: This decision doesn’t specifically mention “Cheveron deference” (the idea that courts should defer to a federal agency’s interpretation of a law over that of the challenger), but they certainly did not give the ATF deference here. So that’s a good precedent for gun owners challenging other ATF abuses.

Hunter Biden: Guilty. Guilty. Guilty.

I’m seeing multiple reports that the jury reached a verdict in Hunter’s firearm trial. Guilty on all three counts.

Frankly, given that the crackhead self-incriminated in his memoir (and in text messages, photos and video on his laptop…) and even his “friendly” witnesses incriminated him, the verdict seemed a given.

His legal team’s choice of defenses seemed odd, too. He didn’t think he was addicted while he made the purchase. And He wasn’t under the influence while he purchased it.

It was pretty clear that he’d done what he was accused of, and that under the Gun Control Act of 1968 those were felonies. What his attorneys should have pushing was that those were not crimes until 1969, and that consistent with the BRUEN decision those laws are unconstitutional because there was no general historical legal tradition from the 18th and early 19th century of making drug users prohibited persons.

Heck, there was no such general, historical legal tradition until well after I was born in the latter half of the <20th century.

Will they appeal on those grounds? We’ll see.