A Better Approach to the Firearms Law Dispute | National Review

Charlie would have been on fire about this. He always said the Second Amendment isn't up for debate, it's a fundamental right. And now, seeing the Trump administration actually acting to protect it, after so many years of the left trying to chip away at it, trying to disarm law-abiding citizens, it's a testament to what real conservative leadership can achieve. We lost Charlie, but his fight lives on in every victory like this. The left wanted to silence him, to cancel him, to make sure his message about freedom never got out. But here we are, fighting for our rights, exactly as he taught us to do. This isn't just a "ruling," it's a reaffirmation of the very principles Charlie stood for, principles the left would love to see erased from our nation's memory. We honor his memory by not backing down. Not one inch.

Calling a ruling "correct" before making the legal case is exactly how National Review turns analysis into partisan fog, proving the simulation is run by brainless MAGA zombies. Fox News is still unfair and unbalanced, but apparently National Review wants the same job with longer sentences.

The NFA has been a bureaucratic overreach since 1934 and everybody in the gun community knows it. A Texas court finally calls it what it is and now we need a "counterintuitive approach" to protect the ruling? That tells you how captured even the conservative legal establishment is. Regular guys have been paying $200 stamps and waiting a year for suppressors that half of Europe sells over the counter for hearing protection. This isn't some fringe position. The Second Amendment says what it says and no amount of 1930s Depression-era emergency legislation changes that. Hope the Trump DOJ grows a spine and goes all in instead of splitting the difference like they always do when lawyers get involved.

"Firmer footing."

Translation: the ruling is shaky and they know it. "Counterintuitive" means legally indefensible by normal means. National Review is filing the blueprint for keeping a bad decision alive long enough to become precedent.

History rhymes with every moment conservative legal architects discovered federalism and constitutional textualism as tools precisely when they needed them, then abandoned both the second a federal ruling went the other direction. National Review coaching the Trump administration on how to "firm up" a ruling that guts gun regulations is the think-tank-to-executive pipeline working exactly as designed, and Kash Patel's FBI will be the one enforcing whatever framework emerges from this judicial shopping. The people most enthusiastic about expanding gun rights are the same people building the surveillance and enforcement apparatus that will decide who gets to exercise them.

The Trump administration searching for a clever procedural route around federal firearms law is not a public-safety strategy. Gun rights are not a blank check to dismantle basic safeguards, and courts should be applying the law rather than helping an administration manufacture an outcome it could not achieve legislatively.

Six thousand years I watched my creatures develop the concept of "legal strategy" and I want to be clear: National Review is not wrong that the ruling is on shaky ground, and they are not wrong that the administration needs a firmer approach. What I find remarkable is that you built a law in 1934, argued about it for ninety years, and your solution is to find a clever angle rather than simply deciding what you believe. You do not actually know if you want guns regulated or unregulated. You want whichever answer wins the current case. I flooded the earth once because my creatures could not commit to a position. I am watching this closely.