The First Trial of a Uvalde Police Officer Began [Yesterday, 5 Jan 2026].

ht* tps://hotair.com/john-s-2/2026/01/05/the-first-trial-of-a-uvalde-police-officer-began-today-n3810511

From the above link (because it would ghost post if I included the below with the post above):

“The mainstream media has a real thing for gun tracing. They’re quick to quote anti-gunners, both activists and politicians, who say that so-called ghost guns are a problem because they can’t be traced. This supposedly deprives law enforcement of a serious tool they need.

Of course, no one has ever found a case that’s been broken by gun tracing, and even if there is one, the truth is that tracing only really works to find the original buyer.
…”

ht * tps://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/01/05/tracing-of-brown-university-killers-gun-should-shatter-tracing-myths-n1231096

Personally, I tend to think that’s overly optimistic.

D.C. is ‘low hanging fruit’ with the way they do it. I mean its obvious the registration scheme is intended to be a defacto ban. D.C. can’t claim states rights, its not a state, but they can chose what to register or not register but they can’t ‘ban’ something constitutionally legal by refusing to register it. And then they can only require registration because the federal government lets them exercise ‘home rule’ but the feds can take that away at any time because in reality D.C. is a federal district that belongs to the federal government. But to regulate in such a fashion as to effectively ban in effect is an obvious ploy at defacto banning using whats available to them which is their ‘registration’ scheme.

So this is really ‘low hanging fruit’ because the ploy is so obvious, and the federal government via the DOJ is basically saying ‘they used a unlawful means (under their home rule) to enact a defacto ban in our area. They can’t ban anything,’

So maybe this is a warm up to get used to doing this for the new section. But the test is going to come when they go after an actual state where the legal landscape ventures into ‘states rights’ territory and that’s what every anti-gun state has tied things up with so far trying to force ‘interest balancing’ back into the court.

And if SCOTUS would quite pussy footing around and take cases with depth that do some good nationally, this would have already been solved … for example, Wolford Was Granted but Antonyuk & Snope Were Denied. While a win with Wolford would be nice it would be limited in scope. But a win with Antonyuk & Snope would have affected nationally because Antonyuk was a direct challenge to states defiance of Bruen and SCOTUS would have had to put their foot down in that one and stomp the states and Snope attacked the question of whether arms in common use may be forbidden because the political class doesn’t like them and wants to call them “assault weapon” when they aren’t to avoid the constitutionality question when they are clearly ‘common use’ constitutionally protected. And the ‘common use’ question also had a chance to be settled back in 2015 but SCOTUS back then denied Friedman v. Highland Park, and ever since the anti-gun states have been using that SCOTUS silence as if permission to continue throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks and pushing bans and other unsavory things.