We have another firearms law found unconstitutional in the wake of Bruen, but this one has a significant difference.
On Friday, January 12th, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle ruled that a United States law prohibiting people from possessing firearms while inside of a post office goes against their constitutional rights.
According to Fox News, Judge Mizelle, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, cited a 2022 landmark United States Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights when she dismissed part of an indictment charging a postal worker with illegally possessing a gun in a federal facility.
That landmark case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, recognized a person’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense and established a new test for assessing firearms restrictions, noting it must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
The indictment against the postal worker, Emmanuel Ayala, was brought forth because of the Smith & Wesson 9mm gun that he kept in a fanny pack with his concealed carry permit. Ayala framed his case around the Bruen decision, arguing that the prohibition against guns in a federal postal facility is “unconstitutional” as applied to him because the “historical record does not support a law banning firearms in post offices.”
Mizelle noted that the United States’ response to Ayala’s claim was that the “Second Amendment allows it to punish the bearing of arms inside any government building.” The United States specifically deemed a post office as a “sensitive place,” claiming that such a designation means the government can “ban the carrying of firearms while not violating an individual’s Second Amendment rights” and is “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Mizelle rejected that claim, writing, “[Bruen] requires the United States to present historical support for § 930(a)’s application to Ayala, which it fails to do. Post offices have existed since the founding, as have threats to the safety of postal workers and the public entering those locations. Yet the historical record yields no ‘distinctly similar historical regulation addressing’ those safety problems by regulating firearms in post offices … Bruen deems this absence strong evidence of the statute’s unconstitutionality.”
Mizelle sided with Ayala is his claim that the law prohibiting guns in a federal postal facility was unconstitutional, writing, “I dismiss the § 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala’s Second Amendment right to bear arms.”
Snip.
In her decision, Mizelle stated that federal law did not ban guns in government buildings until 1964 and in post offices until 1972. She said there is no historical practice dating back to the 1700s that justifies the ban. The judge said allowing the federal government to restrict visitors from bringing guns into government facilities would allow it to “abridge the right to bear arms by regulating it into practical non-existence.
The big difference here is that previous anti-gun laws overturned in the wake of Bruen have been state laws, but this one is a federal law. Perhaps one slipped by while I wasn’t looking, but I believe that this is the first federal law overturned in the wake of Bruen.
Decision by decision, the Second Amendment is slowly being restored to its proper place in American jurisprudence.
On Friday, Judge Thomas S. Kleeh issued a decision striking down the federal prohibition against 18 to 20-year-olds purchasing handguns.
The plaintiffs in the case are Steven Robert Brown, Benjamin Weekley, the Second Amendment Foundation, and the West Virginia Citizens Defense League.
Judge Kleeh, a Donald Trump appointee, is Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.
Kleeh put the case in context:
This case requires the Court to assess the protected right of the people under the Second Amendment to the Constitution to keep and bear arms. U.S. Const. amend. II. Plaintiffs Robert Brown (“Brown”) and Benjamin Weekley (“Weekley”), individuals, are “law abiding, responsible adult citizens who wish to purchase handguns.”…Brown and Weekley are citizens of West Virginia and the United States of America and are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one. Brown and Weekley, as law-abiding, responsible adult citizens, would purchase handguns and handgun ammunition from Federal Firearms Licensees (“FFLs”) but for the right proscribed by 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1).
He went on to explain that Brown and Weekley had each tried to buy a handgun but were “refused the sales because they were under twenty-one years of age.”
Kleeh noted that the plaintiffs sought summary judgment against the statute while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), Attorney General Merrick Garland, and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach sought to have the case dismissed.
He sided with the plaintiffs and quoted extensively from Bruen (2022) to show the manner at which he arrived at his decision.
Here is one of Kleeh’s quotes from the Bruen decision:
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest…To demonstrate the regulation of that conduct is within the bounds of the Second Amendment, “the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s “unqualified command.”
It’s taken a bit of time, but we’re finally seeing Bruen test standards used to strike down gun-grabbing laws. Hopefully a whole lot more will be struck down in the near future…
Happy Black Friday, everyone! (Here’s my prepping/gift guide, if you haven’t seen it already.) I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving. Some interesting international election results, unreasonable gun control legislation gets struck down in two different states, more legal trouble for Houston Democrats, and a weed company goes bankrupt. It’s the Friday LinkSwarm!
The average price American families will have to pay to celebrate Thanksgiving with a traditional dinner will be the most expensive in history after years of sky-high inflation that experts attribute partially to President Joe Biden’s policies, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).
The price of all goods has risen dramatically under Biden following a period of sustained high inflation, which peaked at 9.1% in March 2022 and has since remained elevated, measuring at 3.2% in October, while the index for food rose 3.3% year-over-year for the month. The total increase in costs for a Thanksgiving dinner is about 26% since the beginning of Biden’s term, culminating in the most expensive Thanksgiving dinner in history.
Don’t buy the cookies. “Girl Scouts To Host Training Sessions On ‘Internalized Racism,’ ‘White Supremacy Culture.'” (Hat tip: Instapundit.)
In a surprising turn of events, Argentina has elected the libertarian outsider Javier Milei as its new president. The hotly contested presidential run-off saw Milei defeating left-wing candidate Sergio Massa — a consequential shift in the country’s political landscape. Massa brusquely conceded on Sunday night, stating, “Milei is the president elected for the next four years.”
The victory of Milei, a self-proclaimed “anarcho-capitalist,” introduces an unconventional leader with what are considered to be radical economic views relative to Argentina’s neighbors. His campaign, characterized by anti-establishment rhetoric and metaphorical gestures such as wielding a chainsaw to show his fervor for cutting taxes, resonated with voters frustrated by Argentina’s economic decrepitude, including triple-digit inflation. One of Milei’s key proposals is the adoption of the U.S. dollar as Argentina’s national currency, an unprecedented move for a country of its size (Argentina is home to some 45.8 million people).
Massa — a lifelong politician and representative of Argentina’s left-wing political establishment — emphasized his government’s actions to address inflation during his tenure.
But Milei’s appeal, particularly among the younger generation, suggests a desire for change to break free from the cycle of economic crises.
Milei’s victory has produced excitement and concern alike. While some see him as the catalyst for much-needed economic reforms, others fear the potential austerity measures tied to his plans, such as shutting the central bank and slashing spending. Despite the uncertainty, Milei’s supporters view him as the only viable option to break the political status quo and address Argentina’s persistent and extreme economic challenges.
The election is not just a political shift but also a generational one, with Milei’s popularity among the youth reflecting a desire for a new direction. The effect of Milei’s win extends beyond Argentina’s borders, potentially influencing trade relationships, especially with his criticism of China and Brazil and his preference for stronger ties with the United States. As for the U.S., the hour is late, and we’ll take all the friends we can get, and Argentina is doubly welcome because the Millennium must be nigh if a libertarian won an election outside of New Hampshire.
Note: Linking to MSN rather than NRO because the latter has now raised it’s war against ad-blockers to obnoxious levels. Year-by-year, the TDS-infected NR has become ever-more sad and useless.
Geert Wilders, the Dutch populist whose anti-Islam comments have led to death threats, could become the next leader of the Netherlands following an election upset for his Freedom Party (PVV) on Wednesday.
After 25 years in Dutch politics without holding office, Wilders was set to lead coalition government talks and has a good chance of becoming prime minister.
An exit poll on Wednesday evening showed the PVV in a clear lead, 10 seats ahead of its closest rival, Frans Timmermans’ Labour/Green Left combination.
“We will have to find ways to live up to the hopes of our voters, to put the Dutch back as number one”, Wilders said in his first response, adding that “the Netherlands will be returned to the Dutch, the asylum tsunami and migration will be curbed.”
Maryland is one of 14 states that require background checks for all firearm purchases, whether or not the seller is a federally licensed dealer. Since 2013, Maryland has imposed an additional requirement on handgun buyers: They must first obtain a “handgun qualification license,” which entails completing at least four hours of firearm training and undergoing a seemingly redundant “investigation” aimed at screening out people who are legally disqualified from owning guns. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, that process, which can take up to 30 days, violates the Second Amendment.
In a decision published on Tuesday, a divided 4th Circuit panel concluded that Maryland’s handgun ownership licensing system is not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test that the U.S. Supreme Court established last year in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Writing for the majority in Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore, 4th Circuit Judge Julius Richardson notes that Bruen “effected a sea change in Second Amendment law,” making a variety of gun control laws newly vulnerable to constitutional challenges. Maryland’s handgun licensing law is the latest example.
Speaking of unconstitutional gun laws being struck down: “It turns out that bullets are an essential part of a gun, and limiting the number of rounds in a gun violates the Oregon constitution. A county judge in Oregon made that decision on Tuesday overturning Measure 114, a citizen-passed measure that outlawed what gun grabbers call ‘high capacity magazines’ and required that Oregon serfs get a permit to be allowed to purchase a gun.” (Hat tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)
Funny how no Arab nation wants to take in Palestinians. They know the simple truth: They suck.
The Palestinians tried to take over Jordan in the 1970s, leading to the late King Hussein declaring war on them and driving them out. They were booted from Kuwait after collaborating with Saddam Hussein’s forces before the Gulf War. They set off a powder keg in Lebanon, a nation that has yet to recover from its brutal civil war that lasted 15 years. No Arab country wants these people because they bring instability and trouble.
Outgoing Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner gets to enjoy a new host of scandals on his way out.
As term-limited Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner finishes his final days at the helm of the state’s most populous city, a new set of scandals have emerged over city contracts and a dispute over who will pay for a book touting the mayor’s legacy.
In the most recent dustup, an investigation by Houston’s KPRC 2 discovered that city contracts for much-needed water repairs were awarded to two relatives of Houston Public Works (HPW) employee Patrece Lee, including one for $4.5 million to Lee’s brother, who had only created his company six months before the city council approved the “emergency contracts.”
When KPRC reporter Amy Davis attempted to question Turner about the issue at a public event last week, Turner became irate and told his communications director to escort Davis from the room.
“You are not going to get away with this,” said Turner to Davis. “You are rude.”
Late Friday, HPW Director Carol Haddock announced that the employee had been placed on leave while the city’s Office of the Inspector General investigated the allegations.
In another contract scandal, Houston Landing media reported last week that the Midtown Redevelopment Authority had referred information to law enforcement on a since-fired manager who allegedly steered more than $4 million in taxpayer-funded landscaping contracts to himself and another contractor.
The latest developments came hard on the heels of Turner’s squabble with Houston First Corporation, the city’s marketing organization. During the “State of the City” luncheon last September, hosted by Houston First, attendees were given copies of Turner’s book “A Winning Legacy,” which celebrates the mayor’s accomplishments during his eight years in office.
As first reported by Bill King, Turner told President and CEO Michael Heckman that Houston First must pay a $123,979 invoice for the 600 copies, but Heckman refused, saying it was not in the corporation’s budget and not an appropriate expense. Houston First Chairman David Mincberg later told FOX 26 that the corporation would develop a strategy to raise private funds to pay for the books.
Controversy has also surrounded Turner’s management of city finances. Last year, Controller Chris Brown warned that the city was using $160 million in federal COVID-19 relief funds to plug budget holes and even to cover ongoing expenses.
Speaking of governments in trouble for spending Flu Manchu funds on other priorities, Germany is also in trouble for pulling the same trick after their high court told them to stop. As Europeans, spending within their means is unacceptable, so they’re now plotting to suspend debt limits…
Texas Governor Greg Abbott endorses Donald Trump for President. This is interesting in that Abbott is a careful, cautious Republican, who might be more ideologically inclined to endorse Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley. That Abbott has endorsed Trump indicates he thinks Trump is a lock for the 2024 nomination. He may be right.
“Stacey Abrams’ Brother-In-Law Arrested, Accused Of Human Trafficking, Choking Underage Girl…Jimmie Gardner, a well-known Georgia-based youth motivational speaker, is accused of human trafficking, lewd or lascivious touching, and battery…According to the Tampa Police Department, Gardner invited a 16-year-old girl to his hotel room in the early hours of Friday, offering to pay her for sexual acts.” Sounds like the wrong sort of youth motivation…
London mayor Sadiq Khan’s much-hated, rent-seeking “Ultra-Low Emission Zone” scheme uses cameras and vans to catch and fine people using gas-powered cars a hefty £12.50-per-day in order to make clear to ordinary Londoners of limited means just how much he holds them in contempt “fight climate change.”
But a group of Londoners has found an innovative and amusing way to nullify the snooping cameras:
It turns out those dinosaur costumes are just the right height to block the snoop cameras.
A herd or pack of T-Rexes is evidently called “a terror.”
The ULEZ has recently been extended even to outer boroughs like Bexley. “There are lots of people in this sort of borough that are low income. So the reality of this is that if you have a vehicle that isn’t compliant, you may not be in a position where you can afford to: A.) Pay the charge, or B.) Buy a vehicle that’s compliant.”
“I’m shocked it’s come to this.”
“In central London you’ve got tubes, you’ve got trains. We simply don’t have that out here.”
“The people that this affects most of all [are] people at the bottom end of the social ladder.”
“I’m 75 and I’m coming out to to help the people that can’t afford to pay the £12.50. This is why we’re doing this.”
Unfortunately this story comes a week too late for Halloween season vampire jokes, but the State of New Jersey keeps your baby’s blood without your permission for 23 years.
Today, a group of New Jersey parents teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a federal lawsuit challenging New Jersey’s practice of keeping blood samples taken from newborn babies for 23 years, all without parents’ knowledge or consent. Not only does New Jersey hold onto the blood, it can use the blood samples in any manner it chooses.
When babies are born in New Jersey, state law requires that blood be taken from the newborns and tested for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, hormonal deficiencies, and other immunity issues. All states perform similar tests.
But, after the testing is over, New Jersey’s Department of Health keeps the leftover blood for 23 years. The state does not ask parents for their consent to keep their babies’ blood, failing to even inform parents that it will hold on to the residual blood. The only way parents could learn about such retention is by proactively looking it up on one of the third-party websites listed on the bottom of the card they’re given after the blood draw. And, once the state has the blood, it can use it however it wishes, including selling it to third parties, giving it to police without a warrant, or even selling it to the Pentagon to create a registry—as previously happened in Texas.
“Parents have a right to informed consent if the state wants to keep their children’s blood for decades and use it for purposes other than screening for diseases,” said IJ Senior Attorney Rob Frommer. “New Jersey’s policy of storing baby blood and DNA and using that genetic information however it wants is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of all New Jersey parents and their newborns.”
Pretty much every state does blood testing for newborns to screen for genetic disorders, but as far as I can tell, only New Jersey keeps it around for whatever they damn well please, be it criminal, commercial, or secret clone armies.
What could possibly go wrong?
You might think that government agents would need a warrant to obtain your blood, but Maryland vs. King holds that obtaining DNA from arrested suspects is akin to fingerprinting and thus not a Fourth Amendment violation. But obtaining and keeping DNA from every single baby born in your state would seem a giant Fourth Amendment violation. Especially since at least four New Jersey police departments have used the baby DNA for criminal investigations.
“What makes New Jersey’s program so uniquely disturbing is the complete lack of safeguards for future abuse and the lack of consent, which leave the program ripe for abuse,” said IJ Attorney Christie Hebert. “Parents should not have to worry if the state is going to use the blood it said it was taking from their baby to test for diseases for other, unrelated purposes.”
New Jersey is not alone in facing legal issues for the lack of consent when obtaining blood and over what the state does with the blood. Texas, Minnesota, and Michigan have all faced lawsuits over their retention of blood samples without informed consent from the parents. The 2009 lawsuit in Texas resulted in the state destroying 5.3 million blood samples, and now, all blood samples obtained after 2012 must be destroyed after two years. A 2014 settlement in the Minnesota lawsuit resulted in 1.1 million blood samples being destroyed. In 2022, Michigan agreed to destroy 3 million blood spots, but that lawsuit continues to move forward.
“It’s incredibly misleading for the state to tell parents they are simply drawing blood from their babies to test for diseases when it could be sold to third parties or used by other government agencies to build invasive databases or registries,” said IJ Attorney Brian Morris. “As Texas and other states have shown, these concerns aren’t hypothetical.”
Neither you, nor your children, nor their blood, are the property of the state, and this New Jersey law deserves to go down hard.
For all that Democrats at the state and national level want to force adoption of them, electric cars are no panacea to solving the “climate change crisis” those same Democrats claim will kill us all.
Peter Zeihan explains why.
“A lot of major auto manufacturers are scaling down their plans to make electric vehicles. Ford and GM have both suspended, well, cancelled plans to build a couple new facilities for battery and EV assembly. No changes to their internal combustion engine vehicle plans.”
Tesla production is also slowing. “They’re going to suspend and maybe even cancel the plans for the gigafactory that they were going to be building in Mexico, although that’s very TBD.”
“From an environmental point of view most EVs are at best questionable.”
“The data that says they’re a slam dunk successes assumes that you’re building the EVs with a relatively clean energy mix and then recharging it with 100% green energy, and that happens exactly nowhere in the United States.”
“The cleanest state is California they are still 50% fossil fuel energy, and they lie about their statistics, because they say they don’t know what the mix is for the power that they’re importing from the rest of the country, which is something like a third of their total demand. And the stuff that comes, say, from the Phoenix area in Arizona to the LA Basin which is something like 10GW a day, which is more than most small countries, is 100% fossil fuel.”
“More importantly on the fabrication side, because there are so many more exotic materials and because energy processed to make those materials is so much more energy intensive, all of this work is done in China, and in most places it’s done with either soft coal or lignite.”
“You’re talking about an order of magnitude more carbon generated just to make these things in the first place compared to an IC [integrated circuit, AKA computer chips]. And that means that these things don’t break even on the carbon within a year. For most you’re talking about approaching 10 years or more.”
But Zeihan is leaving the most important variable out of this equation: The smug sense of satisfaction and moral superiority American leftists feel when driving these cars. Isn’t that worth all those extra coal plants?
Number 2: Materials. “These vehicles require an order of magnitude more stuff, more copper, more molybdenum, more lithium, obviously, more graphite. And the energy content required to put those in process is where most of the energy cost comes from.”
“If we’re going to convert the world’s vehicle fleets to these things, there’s just not enough of this stuff on the planet. I’m not saying that we can’t build on in time, but that time is measured in decades.”
“Supposedly we need 10x a much nickel on all the rest. So the stuff just isn’t there. So even if this was an environmental panacea, which it’s not, we would never be able to do it on a very short time frame. You’re talking a century.”
They’re also way more expensive. “This is not a vehicle that’s for most people.”
“And that’s before you consider little things like range anxiety. I’ve rented an EV. It’s real. There just aren’t enough charging stations.”
“EVs are building up on the lots and people just aren’t buying them without absolutely massive discounts and the discounts are now to the point that the whole industry is no longer profitable even with the subsidies that came in from the Inflation Reduction Act.”
“1% of the American vehicle Fleet to EVs, and it looks like we may be very close close to the peak.”
Not every one of his points hits home (there are, in fact, lots of overpriced gas powered cars and trucks sitting on dealers lots, as a lot of YouTube channels will show you), but he’s mostly correct.
Our conservative estimate is that the average EV accrues $48,698 in subsidies and $4,569 in extra charging and electricity costs over a 10-year period, for a total cost of $53,267, or $16.12 per equivalent gallon of gasoline. Without increased and sustained government favors, EVs will remain more expensive than ICEVs for
many years to come. Hence why, even with these subsidies, EVs have been challenging for dealers to sell and why basic economic realities indicate that the Biden administration’s dream of achieving 100% EVs by 2040 will never become a reality.
Here’s a story I missed from September that takes on an even more sinister cast in retrospect.
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced the filing of a new Second Amendment lawsuit challenging multiple parts of California SB2, which unilaterally declares numerous locations as “sensitive places” where California will now ban the carry of firearms by licensed, law-abiding Californians. The complaint in Carralero v. Bonta can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.
“SB2 restricts where persons with licenses to carry a concealed weapon may legally exercise their constitutional right to wear, carry, or transport firearms. And it does so in ways that are fundamentally inconsistent with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen,” argues the complaint. “The Second Amendment does not tolerate these restrictions. This Court should enter judgment enjoining their enforcement and declaring them unconstitutional.”
“With Gov. Newsom’s signing of SB2 today, California continues to exhibit its disdain for the rights of Californians, the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPC Action Foundation’s General Counsel and Vice President of Legal, and FPC’s counsel. “Unfortunately for California, and contrary to Governor Newsom’s misguided statements, the state does not have the power to unilaterally overrule individual rights and constitutional protections. Fortunately, courts across the nation have already struck down laws just like SB2, and we expect the same result here.”
FPC is joined in this lawsuit by three individuals, Orange County Gun Owners, San Diego County Gun Owners, and California Gun Rights Foundation.
If Democrats actually revered the Supreme Court as much as they claim to, Bruen would have ended their attempts to pass Second Amendment infringing legislation. But the goal of disarming the civilian population is only slightly less sacred a Democratic Party cause than taxpayer-funded abortions. So they soldier on trying to thwart the Constitution.
This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Well, it’s not like any particular houses of worship are under particular threats from particular terrorist organizations, now is it?
Just four years ago on the last day of Passover, a man armed with a rifle burst into a synagogue in Poway, near San Diego, fatally shot one woman and injured three other congregants, including the synagogue’s rabbi.
A year before, an even more horrific attack on a Pittsburgh synagogue left 11 dead.
In the aftermath of the attack on Israel, many American Jews are arming themselves. But in California, not only will Jews and worshippers in other faiths be banned from protecting themselves in their houses of worship, but would-be killers will know that potential victims in “sensitive” areas will be unarmed.
Everywhere in the west, the radical left is protesting to support Hamas, despite (or perhaps because) of the latter’s calls to completely destroy the Jews. Meanwhile, Gavin Newsom and California Democrats are disarming law-abiding Jewish American citizens in their synagogues.
I’ve long documented the failures of California’s still unbuilt high speed rail, and now a video from Simon Whistler (yeah, him) covers a similar doomed British high speed rail project:
“Even in a country used to paying absurd prices for everything from houses to a pint of beer, it was still a pretty eye-watering figure. After initially being projected to cost under £40 billion in 2012, Britain’s second high-speed rail project, HS2, was recently calculated to be facing a price tag closer to £100 billion.”
“Just the first phase alone the 34 miles connecting London and Birmingham is in danger of becoming one of the most expensive railways ever built.”
It was originally supposed to pay for itself by offering high speed connections between London and three English industrial cities in the north: Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. But ballooning costs forced the cancellation of those two line extensions.
“All rationale for HS2 vanished, leaving the UK with a multi-billion pound bill just to slightly reduce travel time between London and Birmingham.”
HS1 was the 62 mile high speed rail line from London to the channel tunnel. It only cost three times the estimated price.
One reason it was considered a success: “It had added significant extra capacity to commuter lines running into London from Kent, as much as 40% extra in peak times.”
In the dying days Gordon Brown’s Labor government in 2010, Transport Secretary and rail freak Lord Adonis published a white paper outlining his Utopian high speed rail vision for Britain. Unfortunately, incoming conservative George Osborne had a soft spot for flashy infrastructure projects.
“Neither Adonis nor Osborne nor anybody else could have envisaged a budget that would soon balloon wildly out of control.” Actually, I suspect anyone familiar with the many failures of high speed rail projects in the U.S. could indeed have envisaged it.
By 2015 it was up to £55 billion.
By 2019 it was £71 billion, or over £22,000 for every UK household.
After 2020 and Flu Manchu, it was over £100 billion, and PM Rishi Sunak pulled the plug on everything but the London to Birmingham stretch, which was still going to cost £53 billion, or £396 million per mile.
“The fast train from Euston Station to Birmingham New Street takes around 1 hour and 40 minutes. All H2 will do will shave 25 to 35 minutes off that.”
All infrastructure projects in the UK cost more than their equivalents in continental Europe. “The insane costs associated with planning applications in the UK, something that you could see in the proposed London Themes Crossing, which recently spent £267 million just on planning paperwork.”
There’s a ton of NIMBYism along the route, forcing them to spend billions building rail tunnels despite it being perfectly feasible to build it overland.
Between London and Birmingham lies the sort of gentile English landscape that people who’ve never visited the UK believe the whole country looks like, a green swath of rolling hills, country lanes and posh blokes wearing tweed. Unfortunately, it turns out that the sort of people who live in this landscape hate the idea of London politicians plonking a fancy new train line right in the middle of it.
“Some countries like Japan can do tunneling at a reasonable cost. The UK is not among that group.”
Then there’s the well-paid army of white collar consultants, which will be familiar to any observer of California’s high speed rail project. “Among them were 40 employees paid more than £150,000 a year, and chief executives with higher salaries than any other public official in Britain.” Nice work if you can get it.
“In July of 20123 the government’s own infrastructure watchdog branded HS2 as unachievable saying it could not be delivered in its current form.”
The kicker: HS2 may never make it to central London, as building there is too expensive. “Rather than terminating at Euston Station in central London, HS2 would now end at Old Oak Common,” a suburban station, where they’re expected to catch local connections. “The new line will cost of tens of billions get you from Birmingham to central London less quickly than you can do it at the moment.”
But they’ve already spent £40 million for two top-of-the-line boring machines from Germany to dig the Old Oak Common to Euston segment. Current plans are to bury them in hope they might be used later.
“Hearing about stuff like this, it is tempting to wonder if, just maybe, the UK shouldn’t have listened to the results of the 2006 independent review into high speed rail written by Rod Edington before HS1 was even finished it concluded that highspeed rail simply isn’t worth it in Britain.”
“The money would be better spent on less sexy improvements, like line electrification and improving local bus services.”
And we all know why they’d never go that route: There simply aren’t enough opportunities for bureaucratic empire building and graft…
Here’s Texas Scorecard’s roundup, with input from Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, True Texas Project, and the Huffines Liberty Foundation and links to Texas Legislative Council Analysis of the amendments. The Texan also has a roundup.
Here’s my quick and dirty list of propositions and recommendations.
Proposition 1 (HJR 126): Protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management. This is the “right to farm” bill, which provides a bulwark against local, state and federal interference in food-growing activities, such as were messed with by some states during the 2020 Flu-Manchu panic (such as Michigan’s Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer banning seed sales. And remember, such interference in people growing food on their own land was blessed by the Supreme Court in Wickard vs. Flburn. Recommendation: Vote FOR Proposition 1.
Proposition 2 (SJR 64): Authorizing a local option exemption from ad valorem taxation by a county or municipality of all or part of the appraised value of real property used to operate a child-care facility. Another subsidy for a favored industry. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 2.
Proposition 3 (HJR 132): Prohibiting the imposition of an individual wealth or net worth tax, including a tax on the difference between the assets and liabilities of an individual or family. A wealth tax is total commie bullshit. Recommendation: Vote FOR Proposition 3.
Proposition 4 (HJR 2 from the second special session): Authorizing the legislature to establish a temporary limit on the maximum appraised value of real property other than a residence homestead for ad valorem tax purposes; to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district applicable to residence homesteads from $40,000 to $100,000; to adjust the amount of the limitation on school district ad valorem taxes imposed on the residence homesteads of the elderly or disabled to reflect increases in certain exemption amounts; to except certain appropriations to pay for ad valorem tax relief from the constitutional limitation on the rate of growth of appropriations; and to authorize the legislature to provide for a four-year term of office for a member of the board of directors of certain appraisal districts. Well, that’s a mouthful. I don’t care for the little unrelated special interest payoff shoved in at the end, but do appreciate the tax relief, temporary though it may be. Recommendation: Vote FOR Proposition 4.
Proposition 5 (HJR 3): Relating to the Texas University Fund, which provides funding to certain institutions of higher education to achieve national prominence as major research universities and drive the state economy. Our social justice-infected universities need less money, not more, and if they’re not willing to give up being factories for radical leftwing indoctrination, they need hard reboots. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 5.
Proposition 6 (SJR 75): Creating the Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state. While there’s a need for various water projects around the state, “creating fund X administered by agency Y for the benefit of entity Z” type schemes always offer the opportunity of abuse, and the principle of subsidiarity demands that local entities pay for their own damn water projects, not rely on off-general budget slush funds. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 6.
Proposition 7 (SJR 93): Providing for the creation of the Texas energy fund to support the construction, maintenance, modernization, and operation of electric generating facilities. While Texas needs more reliable grid, I see nothing about this proposition that would prevent the fund from being used to subsidize more of the unreliable “green” energy lawmakers already seem to love subsidizing. To quote the Huffines Foundation: “Proposition 7 would increase the cost of electricity without improving the reliability of the electric grid. It would also accelerate the trend toward ending market competition and putting Texas politicians and bureaucrats in control of the Texas electricity market. Texans should reject more subsidies for electric generators and let politicians know that grid reliability should be increased by ending renewable energy subsidies.” Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 7.
Proposition 8 (HJR 125): Creating the broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed broadband access and assist in the financing of connectivity projects. More corporate welfare for things the state shouldn’t be subsidizing. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 8.
Proposition 9 (HJR 2 from the regular session): Authorizing the 88th Legislature to provide a cost-of-living adjustment to certain annuitants of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. TFR and TTP came out as neutral. While not philosophically opposed, I suggest voting against until there’s an outside audit to confirm that none of this money is being siphoned off into ESG investing. Recommendation: Vote AGAINST Proposition 9.
Proposition 10 (SJR 87): Authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation equipment or inventory held by a manufacturer of medical or biomedical products to protect the Texas healthcare network and strengthen our medical supply chain. More special interests carveouts. Vote AGAINST Proposition 10.
Proposition 11 (SJR 32): Authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreational facilities. El Paso should pay for it’s parks out of general funds, not bonds, since parks don’t generate revenue to pay back bonds. Vote AGAINST Proposition 10.
Proposition 12 (HJR 134): Providing for the abolition of the office of county treasurer in Galveston County. Normally, I’d be for anything that eliminates a government official. But there’s this from TTP: “AGAINST –The current Treasurer campaigned on a promise to eliminate his position, which prompted this legislative action. Since one less government position means less government, we initially supported this amendment. However, we then heard from many conservative activists in the Galveston area who said they don’t want the position to be dissolved because there will be no more accountability to the office and it will be handed to cronies.” I sort of believe this, since my late uncle (who ran a restaurant there) said Galveston was corrupt from top to bottom. No recommendation.
Proposition 13 (HJR 107): Increasing the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges. AGAINST. Turnover at least offers the opportunity of breaking up entrenched power.
Proposition 14 (SJR 74): Providing for the creation of the centennial parks conservation fund to be used for the creation and improvement of state parks. More off-budget shenanigans. Vote AGAINST Proposition 12.
Williamson County early voting locations can be found here. Travis County early voting locations can be found here.
After the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals found that a challenge to the Biden administration’s rule regulating pistol braces as short-barreled rifles (SBR) would likely prevail, a district judge entered orders enforcing the appeals court’s findings — blocking any enforcement against the plaintiffs, their customers, or their families.
The case, styled Mock v Garland, was brought against the Department of Justice by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to challenge the reclassification of popular pistol braces as SBRs, which are heavily regulated weapons under the National Firearms Act (NFA). That law requires extensive background checks, a $200 tax that in some cases takes over a year to pay, and carries additional restrictions on the firearm.
Violating any of the nuanced rules in the NFA can subject the owners to heavy fines and penalties.
While the district court had initially denied the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction, the instructions from the 5th Circuit instructed the district judge to grant the request in a manner consistent with their findings.
On October 2, Judge Reed O’Connor issued the order blocking enforcement of the law against the individual plaintiffs, FPC and their members, pistol brace manufacturer Maxim Defense, and their customers and families.
The lawsuit will now proceed to trial, along with challenges brought by several other gun rights groups in separate cases seeking to have the rule struck down entirely.
As I’ve stated before, the pistol brace rule would retroactively make millions of law-abiding Americans criminals for not registering them (which, for the left, is no doubt the point). Government agencies should not be able to unilaterally and retroactively declare ownership of legally obtained goods suddenly forbidden on penalty of law.
This ruling is also another example of why the black-pilled “Republicans are useless” mutterings are wrong. Without Reagan, Bush41, Bush43 and Trump judicial appointments, it’s overwhelmingly likely that none of the landmark Second Amendment cases (Heller, Bruen) go our way, and ruling Democrats would be busy working on complete disarmament of American citizens.
It’s important to celebrate every victory for freedom, no matter how small.
