22 thoughts on “In the Not Too Distant Future, We Won’t Be Able to Believe How Stupid Things Were”
Dude
Get this. An administration opened the borders to the third world on their first day in office, inviting over 10 million people in. Then, they said the only way to fix this new border crisis was to give them lots and lots of money. Here’s the wild part: people actually believed it, and still do to this day.
Everyone seems to keep pretending this is all permanent …and ignoring the very real fact that the next election can undo everything that has been done in the last two years.
“…and ignoring the very real fact that the next election can undo everything that has been done in the last two years.”
Not everything, none of the SCotUS stuff, and the 5th circuit is independent, and will happily tell the BATF where to stick their new-found Leftist Scum ™ insolence…
“Stacking requires control of all three branches…”
No it doesn’t. It just needs one party to control both chambers of congress and a nomination of a candidate from their party’s president in office. The number of Supreme Court justices is currently limited to nine, a standard set by the Judiciary Act of 1869. But congress has the authority to change this number. So a Congress dominated by, for example, democrats in both houses in the majority can change the number then simply approve the SCOTUS nominees they want thus appointing them to SCOTUS.
300BlackoutFan
If the tax were re-instated, likely…..
Vote accordingly…
But now the questions is – can the tax be re-instated?
The original purpose, as stated by congress, was to circumvent the Second Amendment and that was the only justification for the tax – an intentional violation of the second amendment by using the power to tax. But the power to tax never included the power to tax anything having to do with a constitutional right or just anything at all and still doesn’t.
But while the power to tax gives Congress broad authority to lay and collect taxes, the Constitution also has limits for taxing power.
The Taxing and Spending Clause lets congress lay taxes for federal debts, the common defense, and the general welfare. And under the Export Clause, Congress may not tax articles exported from any state. And although SCOTUS way back said the tax basis of the NFA was constitutional, because congress has the power to tax, we know today the taxing of firearms under the NFA was never for “federal debts, the common defense, and the general welfare” and can’t be justified as such as the Second Amendment is just as much a Constitutional right as say the First Amendment or right to vote – for example, if the first amendment or voting exercised can not be taxed then neither can the second or any other right.
But also – Congress does not actually have power to regulate private conduct or constitutional rights. It has certain enumerated powers and that’s it. Purchase and possession and acquiring and making firearms and firearms related stuff is private conduct and constitutional right, and congress, the government, does not have an enumerated power to regulate private conduct and/or constitutional rights so to do so they resort to something within their enumerated powers to regulate such.
Congress has used its taxing power to regulate private conduct and constitutional right exercise (i.e. the second amendment). When Congress has enacted a tax to compel adherence to a regulatory scheme that it could not impose directly using its other enumerated powers, the question of whether SCOTUS will uphold the tax under the taxing power depends on if the Court views the tax as the functional equivalent of a regulatory penalty on a constitutional right or some other private conduct over which the government does not have an enumerated power to regulate. But today, and now with this ruling, it would be pretty clear that the return of the tax in a democrat administration would be a regulatory penalty on a constitutional right and/or private conduct just as it was when it was first enacted those many years ago when they did not have to deal with the idea of ‘regulatory penalty’ for exercise of a constitutional right.
If it’s vaguely up for debate, then yes, they can and will reinstate the tax. Even if it isn’t up for debate, they’ll still reinstate it. Then you’ll have to rely on a few squishes on the SCOTUS. I don’t feel great about that.
What we can do other than just voting: flood the zone with legally purchased “NFA” items. We have at least a little over two years to do that. Oh look, suppressors and SBRs are now in common use. Now the Supreme Court has to consider that.
Despite the injunction, for a person covered by the injunction, ATF is telling FFL’s a form 4 for a suppressor is still required: ATF Warns Gun Owners– Do NOT Take Those Suppressors
“The new NFA suppressor ruling is already creating major confusion for gun owners and FFLs. Some dealers are moving forward with qualifying suppressor transfers without an ATF Form 4, while other FFLs say they’ve been told by ATF personnel to continue with ‘business as usual’ until additional guidance is issued.
…”
MrGunsnGear drops in on Palmetto State during the run on suppressors.
“Mike with MrGunsnGear traveled down to Columbia, SC to the Palmetto State Armory location there to witness for himself the madness during this recent run on suppressors as a result of the NFA injunction. Mike spoke with several customers about their experience.”
Something to think about, maybe, and more unanswered… while the form 4 is not required for those covered by the injunction a lawyer friend pointed out to me that the injunction did not enjoin the registration its self as far as the ATF requirements under law. I do not understand all the legal’ese specifics involved but he described it to me like this, basically: The law requires the ATF to register suppressors because the law still exists, the injunction covered that those covered by the injunction were not required to do a form 4 thus were not required to register. There is nothing that actually stops the ATF from using the form 4473 as the registration vehicle for suppressors because the 4473 is a transaction record and the form 4 for a suppressor was also basically a transaction record because the ‘transaction’ was submitting the form 4 for registration. The injunction only stopped the ATF from enforcing NFA registration requirement for suppressors against those covered by the injunction, however, registration actions for the ATF are still required for suppressors because the law exists and the injunction did not stop ATF from complying with the law for their own actions for registration which means that a person covered by the injunction could still be having their suppressors registered into the NFA database because they still need a 4473 to transfer the suppressor.
SoCal City Jacks Up Concealed Carry Application Fee by 1000 Percent
”
…
As one X user pointed out in response to Moros’s post, Glendale was ‘only’ charging $100 for a concealed carry license a year ago. That’s still about twice what I pay for my carry license in Virginia, but it’s also almost 1,000 percent less than the $1078 Glendale is now forcing residents to cough up before they can exercise a fundamental civil right.
And as Moros notes, the price of submitting an application is just part of the cost. Glendale residents will also be charged at least $93 for their fingerprints, and probably closer to $150 when the third party who scans the prints adds in their fee. Then there’s the $500 psych evaluation fee, and the cost of the training that’s mandated for all applicants, which can run anywhere from $300 to $435, according to the city.
All told, it will run someone about $2,000 just to apply for a carry license in Glendale, which is bound to have a chilling effect on the number of people applying for their CHL.
While the Supreme Court said in Bruen that ‘shall issue’ licensing schemes were constitutional, the court also noted that lengthy wait times in processing applications or exorbitant fees could render even a ‘shall issue’ system invalid. Glendale officials will undoubtedly claim that they’re just passing the true cost of processing a carry permit on to the applicant, as allowed under California law, but I find that very hard to believe given that San Bernardino County charges $90 and Riverside County charges just $20 compared to Glendale’s $1,078.
…”
How left wingers think: A thing that happened here yesterday. I was in a store and there was some brief activity & yelling and police arrived. The lady in front of me and others in line is one of our known loon left wing white liberal women, an older woman. She asked what happened and the clerk told her “a guy” shoplifted a TV, grabbed it from the store order pick-up area while the clerk in that area was taking care of another customer and tried to run out of the store with it but some employees stopped him. The left winger says “Maybe they could not afford one and really needed it. Just let him go.”. The clerk, a younger black woman, says “So if I need a TV and can not afford one I can come over and take yours?”. The left winger asked to talk to a ‘manager or supervisor’ and refuses to move out of line or pay for her stuff thus blocking others and me and we all move to another line behind the people already there waiting to check out. A supervisor arrives, the left winger wants the clerk fired for being ‘racist’.
Get this. An administration opened the borders to the third world on their first day in office, inviting over 10 million people in. Then, they said the only way to fix this new border crisis was to give them lots and lots of money. Here’s the wild part: people actually believed it, and still do to this day.
What’s more wild is Biden did this at the height of a pandemic.
Everyone seems to keep pretending this is all permanent …and ignoring the very real fact that the next election can undo everything that has been done in the last two years.
“…and ignoring the very real fact that the next election can undo everything that has been done in the last two years.”
Not everything, none of the SCotUS stuff, and the 5th circuit is independent, and will happily tell the BATF where to stick their new-found Leftist Scum ™ insolence…
Clarification, I’ll ask someone who actually knows these things :
LKB, can a new Leftist Scum ™ administration just over-rule the 5th circuit court decision???
Apparently you haven’t heard of the leftist plan to “stack” the SCOUTS, using term limits….but by all means, keep pretending.
Stacking requires control of all three branches…
“Stacking requires control of all three branches…”
No it doesn’t. It just needs one party to control both chambers of congress and a nomination of a candidate from their party’s president in office. The number of Supreme Court justices is currently limited to nine, a standard set by the Judiciary Act of 1869. But congress has the authority to change this number. So a Congress dominated by, for example, democrats in both houses in the majority can change the number then simply approve the SCOTUS nominees they want thus appointing them to SCOTUS.
If the tax were re-instated, likely…..
Vote accordingly…
But now the questions is – can the tax be re-instated?
The original purpose, as stated by congress, was to circumvent the Second Amendment and that was the only justification for the tax – an intentional violation of the second amendment by using the power to tax. But the power to tax never included the power to tax anything having to do with a constitutional right or just anything at all and still doesn’t.
But while the power to tax gives Congress broad authority to lay and collect taxes, the Constitution also has limits for taxing power.
The Taxing and Spending Clause lets congress lay taxes for federal debts, the common defense, and the general welfare. And under the Export Clause, Congress may not tax articles exported from any state. And although SCOTUS way back said the tax basis of the NFA was constitutional, because congress has the power to tax, we know today the taxing of firearms under the NFA was never for “federal debts, the common defense, and the general welfare” and can’t be justified as such as the Second Amendment is just as much a Constitutional right as say the First Amendment or right to vote – for example, if the first amendment or voting exercised can not be taxed then neither can the second or any other right.
But also – Congress does not actually have power to regulate private conduct or constitutional rights. It has certain enumerated powers and that’s it. Purchase and possession and acquiring and making firearms and firearms related stuff is private conduct and constitutional right, and congress, the government, does not have an enumerated power to regulate private conduct and/or constitutional rights so to do so they resort to something within their enumerated powers to regulate such.
Congress has used its taxing power to regulate private conduct and constitutional right exercise (i.e. the second amendment). When Congress has enacted a tax to compel adherence to a regulatory scheme that it could not impose directly using its other enumerated powers, the question of whether SCOTUS will uphold the tax under the taxing power depends on if the Court views the tax as the functional equivalent of a regulatory penalty on a constitutional right or some other private conduct over which the government does not have an enumerated power to regulate. But today, and now with this ruling, it would be pretty clear that the return of the tax in a democrat administration would be a regulatory penalty on a constitutional right and/or private conduct just as it was when it was first enacted those many years ago when they did not have to deal with the idea of ‘regulatory penalty’ for exercise of a constitutional right.
If it’s vaguely up for debate, then yes, they can and will reinstate the tax. Even if it isn’t up for debate, they’ll still reinstate it. Then you’ll have to rely on a few squishes on the SCOTUS. I don’t feel great about that.
What we can do other than just voting: flood the zone with legally purchased “NFA” items. We have at least a little over two years to do that. Oh look, suppressors and SBRs are now in common use. Now the Supreme Court has to consider that.
Despite the injunction, for a person covered by the injunction, ATF is telling FFL’s a form 4 for a suppressor is still required: ATF Warns Gun Owners– Do NOT Take Those Suppressors
“The new NFA suppressor ruling is already creating major confusion for gun owners and FFLs. Some dealers are moving forward with qualifying suppressor transfers without an ATF Form 4, while other FFLs say they’ve been told by ATF personnel to continue with ‘business as usual’ until additional guidance is issued.
…”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-WN7MA2xZ8
MrGunsnGear drops in on Palmetto State during the run on suppressors.
“Mike with MrGunsnGear traveled down to Columbia, SC to the Palmetto State Armory location there to witness for himself the madness during this recent run on suppressors as a result of the NFA injunction. Mike spoke with several customers about their experience.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4i2_5yCE6s
Something to think about, maybe, and more unanswered… while the form 4 is not required for those covered by the injunction a lawyer friend pointed out to me that the injunction did not enjoin the registration its self as far as the ATF requirements under law. I do not understand all the legal’ese specifics involved but he described it to me like this, basically: The law requires the ATF to register suppressors because the law still exists, the injunction covered that those covered by the injunction were not required to do a form 4 thus were not required to register. There is nothing that actually stops the ATF from using the form 4473 as the registration vehicle for suppressors because the 4473 is a transaction record and the form 4 for a suppressor was also basically a transaction record because the ‘transaction’ was submitting the form 4 for registration. The injunction only stopped the ATF from enforcing NFA registration requirement for suppressors against those covered by the injunction, however, registration actions for the ATF are still required for suppressors because the law exists and the injunction did not stop ATF from complying with the law for their own actions for registration which means that a person covered by the injunction could still be having their suppressors registered into the NFA database because they still need a 4473 to transfer the suppressor.
SoCal City Jacks Up Concealed Carry Application Fee by 1000 Percent
”
…
As one X user pointed out in response to Moros’s post, Glendale was ‘only’ charging $100 for a concealed carry license a year ago. That’s still about twice what I pay for my carry license in Virginia, but it’s also almost 1,000 percent less than the $1078 Glendale is now forcing residents to cough up before they can exercise a fundamental civil right.
And as Moros notes, the price of submitting an application is just part of the cost. Glendale residents will also be charged at least $93 for their fingerprints, and probably closer to $150 when the third party who scans the prints adds in their fee. Then there’s the $500 psych evaluation fee, and the cost of the training that’s mandated for all applicants, which can run anywhere from $300 to $435, according to the city.
All told, it will run someone about $2,000 just to apply for a carry license in Glendale, which is bound to have a chilling effect on the number of people applying for their CHL.
While the Supreme Court said in Bruen that ‘shall issue’ licensing schemes were constitutional, the court also noted that lengthy wait times in processing applications or exorbitant fees could render even a ‘shall issue’ system invalid. Glendale officials will undoubtedly claim that they’re just passing the true cost of processing a carry permit on to the applicant, as allowed under California law, but I find that very hard to believe given that San Bernardino County charges $90 and Riverside County charges just $20 compared to Glendale’s $1,078.
…”
ht* tps://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/08/16/socal-city-jacks-up-concealed-carry-application-fee-by-1000-n1233526
gun guys always get caught by the wife…
ht* tps://x.com/OriginalRoddick/status/2088767260995264835
The 2026 Democrat Party tent…
ht* tps://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/images/2026/228/9e2d9ba4-3356-4ac9-bc69-de17b3958ea3-650×0.jpeg
Evolution of the Democrat Party…
ht* tps://media.townhall.com/cdn/hodl/ha/images/2026/228/dec644ac-3814-4cc5-9f5d-8d1d8ac62a6c-650×0.jpeg
The anti-gun: “The constitution is hamstringing the ATF!”
The Constitution: “Exactly.”
How left wingers think: A thing that happened here yesterday. I was in a store and there was some brief activity & yelling and police arrived. The lady in front of me and others in line is one of our known loon left wing white liberal women, an older woman. She asked what happened and the clerk told her “a guy” shoplifted a TV, grabbed it from the store order pick-up area while the clerk in that area was taking care of another customer and tried to run out of the store with it but some employees stopped him. The left winger says “Maybe they could not afford one and really needed it. Just let him go.”. The clerk, a younger black woman, says “So if I need a TV and can not afford one I can come over and take yours?”. The left winger asked to talk to a ‘manager or supervisor’ and refuses to move out of line or pay for her stuff thus blocking others and me and we all move to another line behind the people already there waiting to check out. A supervisor arrives, the left winger wants the clerk fired for being ‘racist’.
They used the tax to bypass the 10A. They bypassed the 2A by ignoring it.
Also the more modern way of bypassing the 10A is misuse of the commerce clause