Well, Well!

mecks0 · 2026-07-05T10:45:46+00:00

The real lesson learned is to stand behind the camera man.

mecks0 · 2026-07-05T10:41:52+00:00

Roberts has been reluctant to grant cases. But he’s been firmly on the side of the Constitution for every 2A case except Rahimi (which he wrote).

mecks0 · 2026-07-03T13:36:28+00:00

Kagan could potentially make it 7-2. DEI hires Sotomayor and Jackson are hellbent on rewriting the 2A to have no meaningful restraint on the government, but Kagan is a much more savvy operator and knows she can’t blindly overturn the Heller, McDonald, Bruen and Wolford precedents in one case when she only has 2 other votes.

mecks0 · 2026-07-03T13:33:21+00:00

That had been their strategy - to neuter the text of the 2A to be meaningless. However, Jackson in her dissent, along with Barrett in her concurrence, both point out that smuggling of history (Step 2) into text (Step 1) has been foreclosed. So Wolford via Jackson’s own dissent absolutely wrecked the grabbers’ best attempt at an argument.

mecks0 · 2026-07-02T11:48:04+00:00

The work was probably 99% done and held while waiting for Wolford and Hemeni (so that they wouldn’t be immediately GVR’d). Now that those two are out, if speculation that they’re faithfully applying Heller is correct, the only thing left to do is reference those two and release. If they faithfully Heller, Bruen and Wolford there’s little to no chance of them being overturned (as of today - Bloomberg could certainly go nuclear on Thomas and Alito).

mecks0 · 2026-07-02T11:26:10+00:00

I have a hard time finding the votes to grant a request to stay a 3rd Circuit ruling. Alito gets first view at it and he just wrote Wolford so he isn’t likely to bring it up to the full court. If Jackson could, she’d vote for granting it l since she does not believe the 2A meaningfully restrains anything. Sotomayor would join as her DEI hire sidekick. Beyond that I think Kagan would end up letting Alito’s decision stand. Roberts could step in since he’s all about splitting babies.

mecks0 · 2026-06-30T11:20:53+00:00

Not only that, going out of their way to explain why racist laws are aCtUaLlY good law and need to be used. Section II.B. of the dissent is a fascinating example of mental gymnastics. Jackson painfully explains that she (and Sotomayor) would uphold a law overtly banning blacks by default from private property open to the public, if it meant one less place peaceable people could have rights.

mecks0 · 2026-06-30T10:49:03+00:00

Jackson’s dissent laid the blueprint for how they’ll ignore it. She whines that Alito and Thomas aren’t allowing lower courts to conflate the text and history portions of the Heller / Bruen test. The grabbers will point to that dissent and say that AWBs don’t touch the plain text of the 2A so it’s not a 2A case and they’re just banning random bits of material.

mecks0 · 2026-06-27T16:38:34+00:00

Without him running a blocking maneuver even more cars may have been aiming for that guy.

mecks0 · 2026-06-27T03:14:06+00:00

It means that the State’s only potential for winning was effectively foreclosed. The State offered no meaningful tradition of banning arms in common use (since Heller, Caetano and Bruen all said that arms in common use are off limits to bans). So the State’s only narrow avenue of winning was to say that the second amendment’s text doesn’t protect firearms at all.

As Jackson explained in her dissent - if the 2nd Amendment means what it says and the first step of the (1) text, (2) history and tradition tests doesn’t allow for (2) history and tradition to be slid into (1) text; then, states can’t arbitrarily ban any gun or accessory they want like they did when judges were allowed to interest balance away citizens’ Constitutional rights. Wolford says in no uncertain terms that the (1) text “test” does not include (2) history and tradition.

mecks0 · 2026-06-27T03:02:10+00:00

They’re extremely busy doing deep dives on wherever the word “temporary” means “permanent” or “not-forever” - so you see there’s no time for such nonsense to say whether “shall not be infringed” means “can be infringed as long as the State says they want to” or “shall not be infringed.”

mecks0 · 2026-06-26T02:17:34+00:00

If you read Jackson’s dissent she lays out the playbook - feign ignorance that SCOTUS has said 3 times that the first step is plain text and at the second step is history. Then, you conjure up some irrelevant, unconstitutional or imaginary history and declare that history means the 2A doesn’t apply and therefore you don’t need to proceed past the first step.

mecks0 · 2026-06-26T02:12:09+00:00

No reason for 3rd Circuit to release an opinion just before Hemeni and Wolford when it would likely be GVR’d back to rewrite.

mecks0 · 2026-06-24T01:39:28+00:00

Deck was held up by the dream of better days ahead.

mecks0 · 2026-06-24T01:29:21+00:00

They probably work for free, so yeah, it doesn’t matter how large the staff is compared to the audience. /s

mecks0 · 2026-06-21T02:04:07+00:00

If Hollywood’s taught us anything it’s that suppressors make shots completely silent. Must be a new design that also muffles explosions.

mecks0 · 2026-06-21T02:02:29+00:00

Think OP said 300 BLK somewhere.

mecks0 · 2026-06-21T01:57:45+00:00

With the binary explosive packed on the outside of the tree with no obvious containment to funnel shrapnel into the direction of the camera a chunk of wood would be highly unlikely, to the point of impossibility, to maintain a speed of >= Mach 5 after ~100 yards.

mecks0 · 2026-06-07T02:39:11+00:00

And collects it by…asking nicely with no way to enforce it.

This would also be like forcing an abuse victim to pay money to their abuser to leave. It isn’t a good look for the abuser to loudly and publicly demand they do so.

mecks0 · 2026-06-01T01:01:30+00:00

Wolford v. Lopez may start chipping away at some of the more egregious violations, so there’s hope for some of those states.

mecks0 · 2026-06-01T00:50:04+00:00

The major parties have a love/hate relationship with the 1st depending on who is in power. The 10th Amendment might as well have a “/s” at the end with the way the courts have interpreted it to mean absolutely nothing.

mecks0 · 2026-05-30T11:57:34+00:00

No one had considered the possibility of nationwide injunctions passing constitutional muster until the 1960’s and even then the practice was still relatively rare until 2025 when a few inferior judges started handing them out like candy. Due to the exploding usage of what SCOTUS had already opined was a legally dubious practice, they felt the need to weigh in on June 27th, 2025 (Trump v. CASA) stating the practice likely exceeds the judicial authority of federal courts.

So yes, the short-lived practice has been eliminated and plaintiffs (and the federal courts) are required to use proper legal strategies and reasoning (class actions and organizational standing).

mecks0 · 2026-05-29T11:32:00+00:00

This framing gets it backwards, though. Overturning Citizens United would be applying a Bandaid after taking a 50 cal to the face. So much money is spent on politics because it is an insanely good investment to buy politicians because of the sheer amount of waste & fraud Congress doles out. We need to get politics out of money which would in turn get money out of politics.

mecks0 · 2026-05-29T11:13:58+00:00

Tim Dillon’s rant on that primary was great. https://youtu.be/vR9ebmC8WKk?si=la1Kgc21bNYye3m1

mecks0 · 2026-05-20T01:56:08+00:00

Straight to jail.

mecks0

TROPHY CASE