Are Gun Dealers Truly Pro-Second Amendment? It Depends on Their Location

Los Angeles, CA — California is ground zero for oppressive and unconstitutional gun laws that flagrantly violate the Second Amendment. In this state, the constitutional right to bear arms is practically non-existent, buried under layers of government overreach. However, the tide is turning. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), has affirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says—and that it cannot be endlessly “balanced” against vague claims of public safety. The future will see most of California’s draconian gun laws wiped from the books.

Gun Dealers Before and After the 1968 Gun Control Act

Before the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms were sold like any other lawful product. No special licenses were required, no federal purchase forms, and no waiting periods. You could buy a firearm in person, by mail, or from a neighbor without jumping through bureaucratic hoops. So long as the seller had no reason to believe the firearm would be used in a crime, transactions were straightforward and respected personal freedoms.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 changed everything. Federal licensing requirements for dealers created layers of red tape, forcing small businesses to absorb steep compliance costs. Dealers had to operate out of brick-and-mortar locations and hire clerical staff to manage mountains of paperwork. Background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) added even more administrative burdens. All of this drove up the cost of firearms for consumers—and cemented the dealer’s role as a gatekeeper.

Gun Dealers in Restrictive States: Profiting from Your Rights

In states like California, where lawmakers weaponize bureaucracy to strangle the Second Amendment, gun dealers have become, intentionally or not, arms of the government. These restrictive laws mandate that even private transactions—whether a gift, loan, or sale to a friend—must go through a licensed dealer. This means buyers and sellers must pay the dealer for what should be a private transaction.

Even worse, gun laws in these states are often written to maximize profits for dealers. Mandatory training courses, often required for gun ownership, conveniently funnel gun owners into classes run by the same dealers selling the firearms. This creates a perverse financial incentive for some gun dealers to embrace and even lobby for stricter laws.

Gun Dealers in Free States: Respecting the Second Amendment

In contrast, gun dealers in free states operate without the burden of government overreach. There, private individuals can gift, loan, or sell firearms without dealer interference. Gun dealers are not coerced into acting as agents of the state and are free to focus on selling firearms rather than enforcing unconstitutional regulations.

The Reality: Gun Dealers Need to Pick a Side

As gun control laws face growing legal challenges across the country, the role of gun dealers is at a crossroads. Dealers in restrictive states have become complicit in policies that trample individual freedoms while padding their bottom lines. But the Bruendecision makes it clear: gun rights are not negotiable, and the Constitution is not for sale.

In the coming years, as unconstitutional gun laws fall, gun dealers in restrictive states will have to adjust. They must return to their original role—providing firearms to law-abiding citizens—not profiting off government mandates. Those who truly value the Second Amendment will embrace this shift. Those who don’t will be exposed for what they are: profiteers of tyranny.

It’s time to hold gun dealers accountable. The Second Amendment is not just a talking point—it’s the supreme law of the land.

Taylor Swift from My Point of View

 

Taylor Swift is undeniably an impressive business phenomenon. She has built a remarkable empire that few in the music industry could hope to replicate.

There’s no denying she’s charming, with a pleasant but mediocre voice and an ever-evolving wardrobe that keeps her young, devoted audience captivated. When it comes to songwriting, she’s no Cole Porter, Burt Bacharach, or Carole King. Personally, none of her songs have left me humming along, which, I must admit, is something of a relief.

On the visual front, however, Swift deserves an A. Her concerts are a spectacle of showmanship and creativity, showcasing her as a powerful example of the American dream in action. I applaud her for that. Still, I can’t quite grasp how her overall package has inspired such an immense global following.

One misstep, in my view, was her political endorsement of Kamala Harris, which risked alienating part of her audience. Yet, I have no doubt she will weather that storm. After all, her empire is vast, though even the brightest stars don’t shine forever. Longevity like that of the Rolling Stones is rare, and I suspect her immense persona may begin to wane in the years ahead.

So, pity me if you will—I just don’t get it.

The bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosives must be reimagined.

Washington, DC — This is an agency that has become bloated, unnecessary, and tyrannical.  They have taken their statutory authority and unlawfully embellished it destroying many lives in the process. 

To begin with they have been given powers by our politicians that were 100% contrary to the language and tradition of the Bill of Rights .  Then various ATF directors goaded on by gun rights, hating politicians engaged in horrific acts, some of the more notable are:

1. Ken Ballew Raid (1971)

Kenneth Ballew, a gun collector, was raided by ATF agents in his Silver Spring, Maryland apartment. The agents suspected him of possessing unregistered grenades. During the raid, Ballew, who had been bathing, armed himself with an antique revolver, believing his home was under attack. When the agents, dressed in plain clothes, forcibly entered, Ballew was shot in the head, leaving him permanently disabled. Investigations later revealed that the suspected grenades were inert and legally owned. This incident raised serious concerns about the ATF’s use of force and the procedures followed during such operations.

2. Ruby Ridge (1992)

In northern Idaho, Randy Weaver faced a federal firearms charge and failed to appear in court. This led to a standoff at his cabin in Ruby Ridge. A U.S. Marshal shot Weaver’s dog, which escalated into a gunfight, killing Weaver’s son, Samuel, and Marshal William Degan. The FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team later joined, and sniper fire killed Weaver’s wife, Vicki. The case became a symbol of federal overreach, with significant criticism directed at law enforcement agencies, including the ATF, for their handling of the situation.  Weaver was later awarded millions of dollars over this crime against humanity.

3. Waco Siege (1993)

The ATF attempted to execute a search warrant that was based on an informant’s false allegation, that the Branch Davidian’s of Waco, Texas, was engaged in illegal weapons violations. The initial raid led to a firefight, resulting in multiple deaths on both sides. A 51-day standoff followed, ending in a final assault involving tear gas and armored vehicles. A fire broke out during the assault, killing 76 Branch Davidians. The ATF faced widespread criticism for its tactics and the tragic outcome.

4. Operation Fast and Furious (2006–2011)

As part of an “effort” to combat Mexican drug cartels, the ATF allowed thousands firearms to be sold to suspected straw purchasers, hoping to trace them to criminal organizations. However, the agency lost track of the weapons. These firearms were later linked to numerous crimes, including the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry. The operation was condemned for its reckless, lack of oversight and failure to prevent the weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

5. Stevenson Ranch Shootout (2001)

In Stevenson Ranch, California, ATF agents attempted to serve a search warrant on David Beck, a suspect in illegal firearms sales. Beck opened fire, leading to a prolonged gunfight. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Hagop “Jake” Kuredjian was killed. Critics argued that the ATF did not adequately prepare for the operation and failed to communicate effectively with local law enforcement.

6. Bryan Malinowski Incident (2024)

Bryan Malinowski, the Executive Director of the Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport in Little Rock, Arkansas, was fatally shot during an ATF raid at his home. The agents were investigating Malinowski for allegedly purchasing and reselling over 150 firearms without a federal dealer’s license. During the pre-dawn raid, Malinowski reportedly defensively fired at the agents he mistook for burglars, injuring one, prompting them to return fire. He later died from his injuries. This incident reignited discussions about the ATF’s use of deadly force and the handling of search warrants.

These cases were poorly and dangerously planned because they could’ve simply arrested their suspects away from their homes and simultaneously served search warrants.  It’s almost impossible to destroy firearms like narcotic evidence so there is little or no need to conduct surprise raids.  

ATF has simply not been properly held accountable for any of their incredible abuses. 

The ATF’s track record in firearms enforcement has consistently demonstrated a blatant disregard for the civil liberties guaranteed under the Second Amendment. The agency’s actions reveal a disturbing pattern of excessive force, lack of oversight, and poor planning, often resulting in unnecessary harm to innocent citizens and law enforcement alike. These repeated failures illustrate that the ATF is not trustworthy to handle any firearms enforcement responsibly.

A strict reading of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), has effectively invalidated most federal and state gun laws because they are deemed to violate the Second Amendment.

Conversely, the ATF has excelled in other areas, such as investigating arson and bombings. Its contributions to these fields, along with its role as a tax enforcement body for tobacco and alcohol can be retained  in a reimagined and restructured agency. 

The time has come to demand meaningful reform. The ATF must be stripped of its firearms enforcement powers and redefined as an agency that focuses solely on its strengths: arson, bombing investigations, and tax collection. Only then can we prevent further abuses and restore faith in the integrity of federal law enforcement.  

Need Legal Help? Can’t Afford a Lawyer? Let Artificial Intelligence Help You!

Legal troubles can be daunting, especially when you can’t afford an attorney. But in today’s world, artificial intelligence (AI) has opened up new possibilities for those who need legal help without the hefty price tag. With the right guidance, AI can assist in creating the legal documents you need with professional precision—no lawyer required!

Imagine having instant access to professionally prepared documents just by knowing the right prompts to ask AI. With carefully worded questions, you can generate everything from wills and trusts to civil complaints, motions, responses, and even simple no-fault divorce documents. For straightforward cases, AI can be your personal assistant in the legal realm, quickly drafting the documents that otherwise might cost you thousands of dollars in fees.

But AI’s power doesn’t end with document creation. If you know how to ask, it can guide you step-by-step through the legal process, offering insight into arguments, strategies, and procedures. It’s like having a virtual legal coach at your fingertips, empowering you to become what some call a “jailhouse lawyer” in the best sense—a person who, without formal training, can navigate legal waters effectively.

And it’s not just DIY litigants benefiting from this technology. Lawyers themselves are relying heavily on AI to streamline research, draft documents, and generate insights that save them hours. In fact, many attorneys have quietly incorporated AI into their practice, realizing it can drastically cut down the time spent on routine tasks.

This technology doesn’t just empower individuals; it disrupts the courtroom dynamics. When someone represents themselves, opposing lawyers often expect an easy win. But AI levels the playing field. Self-represented litigants can now show up to court armed with well-researched arguments and precise filings, making it much harder for the opposition to steamroll them. In some cases, it even pushes judges to provide extra guidance to non-lawyers, which can frustrate and disrupt the strategies of seasoned attorneys.

So, if you’re willing to learn and get creative with your prompts, AI can help you become the litigant that lawyers dread—an “opponent from hell.” And as technology advances, it’s not just lawyers who will feel the impact. Numerous professions will need to adjust to the rise of AI, but in the meantime, it can be a game-changer for anyone facing legal challenges without the budget for legal fees.

Whether you’re taking on a legal battle yourself or simply preparing your estate, AI offers a new world of possibilities—no degree required. With a little know-how, you can turn today’s technology into tomorrow’s legal advantage.

The Legacy Media: Masters of Their Own Demise

 

Journalism is about simply gathering and reporting the facts. However our legacy corporate mainstream media had a goal and it was to denounce Donald Trump anyway in every way that they possibly could.

They pulled no punches whenever anyone doubted the 2020 election they would simply be called liars.  That is despite the fact that no court would actually allow the examination of ballots.  So really you’re looking at two sides of a guessing game.  The Media does not know what the facts really are here, but they gambled their entire reputation on claiming there was absolutely no voter fraud.

Every chance that the media had to denounce, Donald Trump was fully exercised.  Orange man bad what is the common theme no matter what TV channel you were watching or what newspaper you were reading.  Then there were the nighttime TV talk shows and of course, that ridiculous daytime dumpster fire trash show called The View. It has been a solid nine years of absolute preaching by the media that Donald Trump was an evil, tyrannical, Hitler like dictator.  They gambled everything, especially any semblance of credibility in their propaganda, smearing efforts.  

The media has obviously lost their credibility, which could never be regained.  Never forget, of course there are those people who want to believe the lies and have been actually programmed like cult members.

However, it’s very clear. The voters in the 2024 election have completely rejected what the media has been saying by electing Donald Trump and a landslide.  I have a question for the Media was it all worth it?

An anatomy of the 2024 presidential race.

Kamala Harris’s campaign was as aimless as the fabled lost Dutchman ghost ship, drifting with no course, no solutions, and empty promises to fix what her administration had already failed to address over the last three and a half years. She presented no real plan, leaving us with the grim certainty that her administration would continue on the same disastrous path we had already suffered through.

Even the Hollywood celebrities she paraded around could barely rally their own followers, let alone real supporters of Harris. It was painfully clear that they weren’t fans of her, just hired faces. And it was hard to ignore Harris’s inability to string together coherent thoughts without a Teleprompter, as if drug abuse might explain her struggles to communicate. She could only recite short talking points in her infamous word salads. If she had won, it’s doubtful she would have been in control; it would likely be the same unelected insiders pulling the strings, just as they have with dementia-ridden Biden.

Donald Trump, on the other hand laid out clear, concrete plans for America’s future. He isn’t hiding behind vague statements or accusations thrown by the Democrats. His top priority is to restore order, removing illegal aliens, particularly those from foreign prisons and those committing crimes here in the U.S. His vision includes empowering American workers, giving them tax breaks on overtime and tips, boosting productivity across the board. And he aims to dismantle the modern-day slavery of income tax, imposed as a “temporary” measure during the Civil War but abused ever since.

We will hold Trump accountable, ensuring he keeps his promises. Energy independence is on the horizon, and with it, reduced fuel costs that will drive down the price of everything, especially food. This is the leadership we need to reclaim America’s strength, and we’re ready to see Trump deliver on his word.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Bill of Rights is not absolute?

The fact is these rights were crafted to be absolute.  Until early in the 20th century, they were absolute and then things changed. The concept that rights are not absolute, particularly in the context of the Bill of Rights, was famously articulated by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). In his opinion, Holmes wrote, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” This statement marked one of the earliest and most influential judicial crossroads that this certain right—specifically the First Amendment right to free speech—is not absolute and may have limitations under specific circumstances. The Schenck case was later used extensively to gut the second amendment along with search and seizure and due process rights. 

Weighing public safety and modern times simply became an accepted method that brought on the flawed idea that the Constitution was a living document that could be changed along with the needs of the nation without going through the proper political process. 

It wasn’t until District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); and finally New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022) that the current Supreme Court effectively put an end to interest balancing regarding the Second Amendment. 

Now, we must explore other avenues to reverse the effects of interest balancing that have eroded our rights—especially concerning search and seizure and due process protections.  Simply put, modern times or public safety cannot be used as an excuse to take our rights away.  We do have a proper political process that would allow those kind of restrictions.  

Propaganda and the Power of Influence on the Mind and Donald Trump

Decades ago, New York’s Madison Avenue advertising agencies discovered a powerful truth: repetition in messaging has a profound and lasting effect on the human mind. The more frequently a message is shared, the more likely people are to believe it, eventually accepting the products being promoted as the best. This perception is often an illusion, yet people spend their money on these products, sometimes even if they have no need for them.

Children are especially vulnerable to advertising. They quickly develop loyalty to brand names they hear repeatedly on television, even requesting medications they see advertised, believing these products will solve their imagined problems. Adults, often without realizing it, also start favoring whatever brands or ideas they’re exposed to through propaganda or advertising.

One of the masterminds behind the use of propaganda was Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, who famously said, “If you tell a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.” This principle applies equally to modern political advertising. For example, a continuous stream of political attacks directed at Donald Trump over the past decade has influenced public opinion, much of it generated by Washington insiders. Many who dislike Trump struggle to provide reasons beyond superficial criticisms often picked up from the media.

Our natural tendency is to seek out sources that align with our political beliefs, reinforcing what we already think we know. However, it’s essential to examine our views and question whether they are rooted in facts or influenced by repeated propaganda. Careful research is crucial, as we can’t rely solely on the statements of TV personalities or politicians.

Democrats Promising a Smooth, Peaceful Presidential Transition? Not a Chance!

The election is over, but the war against President-elect Donald Trump is far from cooling down. In fact, it’s only heating up as the coup d'é·tat continues.  As we approach a critical date—the so-called “hush money” sentencing on November 26—it’s clear that the deep-state efforts to block Trump haven’t slowed; they’re accelerating.

Let’s be clear: this isn’t just politics as usual. We are witnessing what amounts to a well-orchestrated coup. Democrats, led by partisan operatives like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, are doing everything in their power to twist and weaponize the legal system against Trump. Here’s the playbook: the Biden Justice Department had previously investigated this case and declined to prosecute. That alone should tell us something. But Bragg, a staunch Democrat operative, took matters into his own hands, bending and distorting the law to push for an indictment. And where? In Manhattan—hardly neutral ground—where a show trial with a hostile jury delivered the verdict they were all but expected to reach.

In a case this high-profile, a change of venue and jury sequestration would be basic steps to ensure fairness. But those safeguards were cast aside in favor of a trial by public opinion. The media circus, the influence, the clear bias—there’s no denying it: this was no fair trial. Trump’s legal team will undoubtedly appeal, and the case could very well end up in the Supreme Court. But here’s the immediate concern: Judge Juan Merchan, another member of this machine, could order Trump into custody come November 26, despite there being zero threat to public safety.

And don’t be fooled—if Trump is taken into custody, it won’t be the end. It will be just one more step in the political elite’s relentless pursuit of his downfall. His enemies, some of whom are sitting comfortably in Congress, are not done. They’ll continue to throw every roadblock they can at him, whether through attempts to decertify the election, stall the transition, or disrupt any chance of progress. Given the stakes, further attempts on Trump’s life cannot be ruled out.

As for the key players orchestrating this chaos—Bragg, Judge Merchan, and their cohorts—they’ve made their choice. They’ve joined a campaign against a sitting president, and they’ll likely be looking over their shoulders for the rest of their miserable lives. The impact of their actions will follow them, leaving them to contend with the consequences of this disgraceful attempt to manipulate justice.

The battle isn’t over; it’s just beginning. This November 26, we’ll see yet another chapter in the deep state’s relentless,  desperate and dangerous attempt to subvert the will of the people.

President Donald Trump’s newDepartment of Justice and gun law court challenges.

 

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to appoint a new Attorney General, the nominee will receive confirmation from the Republican-majority Senate. This appointment could have significant implications for how the Department of Justice (DOJ) approaches the defense of federal gun control laws currently facing legal challenges in the courts. Traditionally, the DOJ defends federal statutes when challenged. However, there have been notable exceptions; for instance, the DOJ opted not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) during the Obama administration, arguing it was unconstitutional. 

A similar scenario may arise with federal gun laws, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022). The Bruen ruling set a higher constitutional bar for upholding firearm regulations, mandating that any restrictions must align with the Second Amendment’s text, history, and tradition as understood at the time of the Founding. This decision has essentially invalidated thousands of gun laws throughout the nation. This shift in precedent could serve as a compelling rationale for the DOJ to abstain from defending certain gun laws it deems indefensible under this new framework.

If the incoming Attorney General decides not to defend particular gun laws, it could significantly influence the outcome of these cases, potentially leading to those laws being struck down if no other parties intervene. Alternatively, Congress or advocacy groups might attempt to step in to uphold the statutes.

While the Attorney General does have the authority to decide whether to defend federal laws, exercising this discretion could be politically charged, especially concerning gun control. A decision not to defend could face scrutiny from both sides of the debate, but Bruen provides a legitimate legal basis for declining to defend laws that may no longer pass constitutional muster. This approach could have profound implications for the future of firearm regulation in the United States.

Donald Trump Should Order Immediate Pardons for Three Heroes

It’s time for Donald Trump if elected to act decisively and grant immediate, full pardons to Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning. These individuals are not criminals; they are heroes who risked everything to expose the deep-rooted corruption and abuses of the American government—revelations that all Americans have the right to know.

Assange, an Australian journalist, simply exercised his right to publish the truth through WikiLeaks, standing firmly on First Amendment principles. His only “crime” was revealing to the world what the U.S. government wanted to hide. Snowden, a government contractor, blew the whistle on the NSA’s sweeping, illegal mass surveillance of American citizens, exposing how our own government was secretly intercepting and storing our private phone calls and Internet communications. Manning, a United States Army soldier, courageously followed her conscience, providing Assange with key evidence of government misconduct and upholding the spirit of the Nuremberg principles by refusing to stay silent about illegal actions.

For Manning, the consequences were severe: prosecuted in a general court-martial, dishonorably discharged, and twice imprisoned. But in following her conscience, Manning refused to obey illegal orders and did the only right thing by ensuring that the American people were not deceived by their own government. This was no different from Daniel Ellsberg’s courageous release of the Pentagon Papers, which exposed lies about the Vietnam War.

As a society that claims to value truth, transparency, and justice, we must recognize Assange, Snowden, and Manning for what they truly are—heroes who sacrificed their freedom to defend ours. They deserve comprehensive and immediate pardons. Manning should also receive full back pay, veterans benefits, and a reclassified honorable discharge.

While the Democrats have shown no interest in doing what’s right, Donald Trump must make these pardons a priority as our 47th President. Assange, Snowden, and Manning have paid enough for exposing the truth. Now, it’s time to recognize their bravery and honor their contributions to justice and freedom.