CNBC:

In an unusual maneuver, Goldstein also used the case to raise the question of whether Trump’s acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker, was constitutionally appointed.

Trump appointed Whitaker in November after forcing out Jeff Sessions. Critics immediately pounced on the appointment, arguing that it was unlawful because Whitaker had not been confirmed by the Senate to the post he held at the time of his elevation to acting attorney general.

Goldstein made his client’s gun rights case into a vehicle for resolving the issue and urged the justices to resolve both matters. He did so simply by asking the court to change the name of the case.

He asked the court to name the case Barry Michaels v. Rod Rosenstein, rather than Barry Michaels v. Matthew Whitaker. In briefs, Goldstein acknowledged that his argument was unusual but said he saw the issue as urgent.

“Yes, the Court can blink at that reality, decline to act, and move on,” Goldstein wrote in one November brief. “But history will regret that it did.”

The court declined Goldstein’s request to change the name of the case in addition to the underlying 2nd Amendment question.

Presumably, thus goes down one objection to the Trump bump stock ban, i.e., that it was approved by an unconstitutional AG (not the subject of this CNBC article).  It was, but apparently the Supreme Court doesn’t care to visit the question.

There is no shortage of Trump supporters, here on this blog or elsewhere.  And there is no shortage of Trump detractors.  It occurs to me that sometimes language is a barrier to communication rather than the vehicle for it.

Trump might be engaging repeatedly in 3D chess, or he might not.  His art of the deal might be selling out your rights for his benefit, or it might not be.

But in either case, it must be remembered that his predilections are those of a Northeastern progressive, with certain conservative tendencies.  He isn’t a reliable, ideologically committed conservative, or a conservative (or libertarian) based on incorrigible principle.

The strata in which he communicates and flows is ever changing, a non-fixed, malleable, very unpredictable morass of ideas and statements.  The problem comes in because of the nature of language itself.  Language, as American philosopher Gordon H. Clark said, is comprised of words and sentences, all of which is designed as tags and signifiers to help one person communicate a thought to another.

When he says that he supports gun rights, he may not be saying the same thing you think you’re hearing.  Or in other words, gun rights to him means something different than gun rights to you.  It’s a safe bet that gun rights to him means submission to the authorities, full and complete, so that red flag laws wouldn’t be a problem to him.  He believes in no principle that would cause him to oppose red flag laws.

Likewise, the notion that anyone might need or want a stock is silly, and so given that there is no principle to which he can refer to oppose such a ban, he supported it.  His nomination of Barr for AG falls into the same category.  He liked what Barr had to say about the “witch hunt” to which Trump himself was subjected, and thus he will be the next AG.

Trump can appear in front of the NRA and say all sorts of things that sound as if he supports gun rights the way you support gun rights.  He isn’t lying.  he just sees things differently.  His entire world and life view is different.  But when you get past those tags that are supposed to communicate thoughts from one person to another, his ideas are far different from most real gun rights supporters.

You cannot listen to Trump on a pedestrian level, as a freshman in college.  You must understand the nature of language, how it differs from person to person, its potential lack of clarity, and how the tags that are words can be confused, misinterpreted, and misjudged, and thus become vehicles for communicating the wrong thoughts.  Language can be clear, but in order to make it so, the speaker and hearer must arrive at compatible definitions and use the care necessary to define thinking men and women.

Via WRSA, at Survival Blog, Rawles has a great analysis of the current attempts by the statists to undermine recognition of your God-given rights.

It’s a very comprehensive analysis, and as always, Rawles is well worth the time.  Also as always, share your thoughts and comments.

UPDATE: My oldest son points out that this is from a year ago.  I asked him if that is important?  He says, “The Art of War” is necessary for understanding Trump.  It’s difficult to understand whether he’s serious or simply tactically owning or feigning positions.  My response: Then why the red flag laws and bump stock ban?

Via Uncle, this isn’t the Onion.  It’s real.

President Donald Trump raised the issue, unprompted, during a roughly hour-long televised meeting with Feinstein and other members of Congress Wednesday afternoon at the White House. “I think it’s something you have to think about,” Trump said at the gathering to discuss school safety. “It doesn’t make sense that I have to wait until I’m 21 to get a handgun but I can get this weapon at 18,” he added, referring to assault rifles.

Trump’s comments came the same day Feinstein and Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake formally rolled out their bipartisan legislation to raise the minimum age for purchasing assault weapons and high capacity magazines from 18 to 21. The California Democrat, sitting directly to the president’s left at the White House meeting, interjected at one point, asking if he’d sign legislation to raise the age to 21.

Trump said he’d give it “serious thought,” even though he acknowledged the National Rifle Association opposed such a proposal. The president said he’d been “asked that question more than any other question” in the wake of the Feb. 14 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, which killed 17 people.

He also didn’t rule out the idea of outlawing assault weapons, like the semi-automatic AR-15 rifle gunman Nikolas Cruz used to mow down students and teachers at Stoneman Douglas High. Feinstein pitched her 2017 legislation to renew the ban at the beginning of the meeting, handing Trump a copy of the bill. She was the author of the original assault weapons ban that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1994. It expired in 2004.

Later, the president asked Sens. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Joe Manchin of West Virginia if they could fold Feinstein’s legislation (and another proposal from Minnesota Democratic Sen. Amy Klobucher) into their bipartisan background checks bill. “Can you add what Amy and Dianne have, can you add them in?” Trump asked. Feinstein’s gleeful reaction, smiling widely and appearing to plead with Toomey and Manchin, immediately began circulating on Twitter.

Don’t be surprised.  The “Let’s make a deal” president famously said during his campaign that “Everything is negotiable.”  By that he meant everything, including recognition of your rights.  We all knew that then, and we still know it today.  Nothing has changed.

Trump may be just a stupid hack with Northern progressive proclivities who doesn’t understand his base.  But then he could also be a Manchurian candidate for the deep state.  What else would explain his nomination of Sessions for AG, his leaving Mueller, Comey and Rosenstein in positions of authority, and his support for red flag laws and the bump stock ban?  Who knows except him?  In any case, time is running out, and the state is evolving to an even more draconian tyranny.

There is also the support by the NRA that organization will have to answer for.  Was their support just stupid, or was there some ulterior motive?

Remember me saying this?

Some folks in the patriot community talk about wearing body armor, whether soft or plate.  Don’t even discuss that, don’t even consider that, if you can’t strap on a 50 pound pack and make a climb, perhaps not this difficult, but one like it.

Well, they’re not talking about wearing body armor, at least not in this video, but nonetheless my counsel remains.  If you’re not in good shape, stop worrying about the hardware and get in shape.  You’re getting the cart before the horse.

Via WiscoDave, this sad tale.

An Indiana police officer is in critical but stable condition after she was accidentally shot by her partner while on duty.

The Lafayette Police Department released body camera footage showing Officer Lane Butler, her partner Aaron Wright and a third officer searching a home for a fugitive on January 8.

After the officers failed to find the suspect inside, Butler is seen on camera exiting the home with Wright following behind her with his gun drawn.

Authorities say that’s when a dog inside the home attacked Wright, causing him to fire his gun and strike Butler in the back.

Butler was wearing a bulletproof vest, but the bullet hit right above it in her shoulder.

‘Our conclusion in this incident was this was not a result of an act of negligence, carelessness or otherwise reckless behavior,’ Lafayette Police Chief Patrick Flannelly said at a press conference Friday. ‘It was accidental.’

Police say the dog escaped its cage and attacked Wright from behind. In the video the dog can be heard barking loudly before he fired.

Butler immediately collapsed to the ground outside of the home and the officers in the video can be heard shouting, ‘What happened?’

Body camera footage shows the two officers coming to assist Butler.

Wright runs to flag down another police car responding to the scene and they help Butler inside, who remains conscious throughout.

An ambulance eventually arrives and they as they load her into the back, Butler appears to be going into shock and collapses.

Full body-cam video is at the link.  Don’t take my word for what happened or the things I intend to say about this.  Go watch it for yourself.

Tactically speaking, this is simply the weirdest thing I’ve ever witnessed.  They are traipsing through the domicile with no intent, no method, and no procdure.

They are holding their pistols way up in the air like gang-bangers, and they are using their weapons-mounted lights as assistance to search the home.  Thus, every time they need a light, they have to point their firearms in the direction of interest.  Next, he has his finger on the trigger of the gun, or otherwise, he has his finger on the weapons-mounted light (my Streamlight doesn’t work that way, and for good reason), but the dog scares him, and sympathetic muscle reflexes cause him to discharge his weapons.

They force the wounded cop to walk to his patrol car, learn that an ambulance is arriving, and then force her to walk and drag her to the ambulance in order to get help.  Finally, do you think if you or I had been scared by a dog and had our finger our weapons in ANY situation at all, and discharged the weapon injuring someone else, we would be released without charges?

I’ve said it before, having cops around in the most dangerous thing that can ever happen in your life.  They can’t be trusted with firearms.

Military Times:

U.S. officials say the Pentagon is finalizing plans that would send hundreds of additional active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border for several more months to support the Department of Homeland Security.

The troops would install another 160 miles of concertina wire in Arizona and California.

Details are being worked out, but the plan likely would extend the military’s border mission though the end of September.

None of this makes a hill of beans of difference.  They won’t be under arming orders.  They will have no mission except to perform administrative and assistance duties.

I believe that virtually the only constitutional imperative of the U.S. military is to protect and defend the country against invasion and protect the borders (with the exception of the Navy and Marines who protect and defend Americans abroad and trade on the high seas).  Therefore, I support an armed mission in which invaders are shot.

However, the lawyers, the Congress, the Senate, the military, the judiciary, and just about everyone in power, interprets Posse Comitatus as preventing the use of the military this way, even though their actions wouldn’t be taken against U.S. citizens.

So they will arm the FBI, BLM, ATF and most other federal agencies like an army and allow them to perpetrate armed actions against U.S. citizens, while preventing the military from stopping invasion.

Light is called darkness, and darkness is called light.  But until the country has the stomach to force this action, it won’t happen.  The military lawyers won’t even bother to bind the hands of Soldiers and Marines at the border by issuing ROE/RUF.  They just won’t arm them at all.

Concord Monitor:

A group of Republican state representatives are vowing to disobey a new rule banning firearms on the House floor, calling it “illegitimate” and dangerous.

In a letter to the Monitor , Auburn Rep. Jess Edwards and seven other members of his party denounced the new rule as unconstitutional, arguing that representatives had no obligation to follow it.

“We view Rule 63 as illegitimate,” the group wrote, referring to the new change, which passed the House last week. “We view Rule 63 as having the perverse effect of increasing the risk to everyone in the House gallery and chambers.”

They added: “Due to our willingness to exercise our constitutional rights and because any attempt to disarm House members is foolish public policy, we reserve the right to refuse to comply.”

In its Jan. 2 session – the first of the new year – the newly-Democratic  House voted to ban firearms and other deadly weapons  from the House floor, gallery, and anteroom.

Representatives are expected to turn in any weapons to State House security before entering the House floor on voting days, according to Shurtleff. Any representatives in defiance of the rule may be ejected or even arrested, the rule states.

The amended rule, a restoration of a policy last seen in 2014, set off a firestorm from the outset. In passionate speeches Wednesday, Republican representatives pointed to death threats they had received from members of the public and argued banning firearms would make them unsafe.

Interesting.  So is civil disobedience allowed only by lawmakers, or is it good for “ordinary” people too, you know, the peasants?

So what will happen to a peasant when he disobeys the idiotic nullification laws the cities in NH are setting up against state law?

They finally admit it?  My response: you’re a little late to the game, pal.  There is one minute to go in the fourth quarter and we’re down 44-16.

If I didn’t know better I’d swear this is just another stunt for fund-raising.