Supreme Court narrows Federal law preventing drug users from purchasing and possessing firearms.

 

Firearms and the Supreme Court. Fox News/Getty.

The Supreme Court has narrowed a federal law preventing drug users from purchasing and possessing firearms. Fox News. The law, which was used to prosecute Hunter Biden before he was pardoned by Joe Biden, said that anyone who uses illegal drugs was unable to posses firearms legally. The case was based on a Texas man who was arrested for admitting he smoked pot "every other day" while in possession of a firearm. The man was not intoxicated during his arrest, posed no threats to others and was not judged as an addict, it was only his statement that he was a drug user that got him in trouble. 

The Court said this was not sufficient under the standard set by NYSRPA v Bruen which said that gun laws needed a historical precedent, and that wasn't present in this case. However, the ruling was narrow, stating that old habitual drunkard laws would be a sufficient historical precedent to ban addicts, presently intoxicated people and people that have previously proven to be dangerous on drugs. It also does not seem to cover harder drugs, like cocaine and heroin. 

My Comment:

This is a strange ruling and kind of a hard one to explain. The ruling was very narrow, only saying the law was unconstitutional under very specific situations. The ruling is narrowed to marijuana and other similar drugs and probably won't help you if you are a user of hard drugs. If I understand the ruling correctly, it means that if you are a casual user of marijuana and you own a firearm, that no longer is enough for you to get charged with a violation of this law. 

A pair of examples would be useful here. The case at hand would have been good to go under this charge because he would have passed the test now set by this ruling. He was not carrying a gun while using drugs. He did not use hard drugs. He was not addicted to drugs. He simply smoked pot a couple of times a week. Under this ruling he would not be charged. 

But the Hunter Biden case? He would not have been helped due to this ruling. To review, Biden was charged with four crimes, lying on ATF form 4473, two counts of lying to a gun dealer and one count of possession a gun while being a user or addict of dangerous drugs. None of this would be changed by this ruling. Hunter Biden was in fact an addict of crack cocaine while he purchased a firearm, and crack cocaine is a dangerous drug. From what I understand, unless the ATF massively changes their rules or the law in question is massively changed as well, he would still be charged with all four crimes if he was arrested today. It fits well with the historical public drunkard laws so his charges would remain constitutional, assuming he wasn't pardoned. 

I do think that this is a win for both gun rights and marijuana supporters. It was always silly that someone could get charged with a felony for using a drug that was legal in the state they used. Indeed, it's a major reason why I have never used marijuana. I understood that doing so would potentially ruin my gun rights and I could get charged for lying on form 4473 if I ever purchased another gun. I have no plans to smoke pot now, it's still illegal in my state and I have zero interest in getting high, but it is nice that if I ever choose to if I travel or the law changes here, I won't have to sacrifice my gun rights to do so.  

Marijuana supporters will be happy as well. It's very clear that they seem to be winning the argument. I have never been a fan of pot and I think there have been real downsides for decriminalization of pot, but it's also clear that they have a ton of momentum. I would prefer if potheads all switched to alcohol given it's value as a social lubricant, despite it being a much more harmful drug, but that isn't in the cards. Either way, with pot being legal in some form in the majority of states and the drug being reclassified to a lower schedule, it's clear that marijuana supporters have been extremely effective in getting their goals accomplished. 

Deal to end Iran war signed early in diplomatic breakthrough.

 

President Trump signs the deal as French President Emmanuel Macron watches. New York Post.

The deal to end the Iran War has been signed early in a diplomatic breakthrough. New York Post. President Trump signed the deal at the Palace of Versailles in France as he was dining with French President Emmanuel Macron. President Pezeshkian of Iran also signed the document today, bringing an official end to the war. It is unclear why the deal was signed early as there had been plans to sign the document on Friday. The document lifts sanctions against Iran and opens the strait in exchange for Iran giving up its nuclear weapons program and enriched Uranium. 

NBC News has more information on what the deal contains. Both sides have agreed to meet diplomatically over the next 60 days to hammer out the details and sign a 2nd, more detailed document. The Strait of Hormuz will open immediately (after mine clearing operations finish) and there will be no fees charged for the next 60 days. Iran will surrender their enriched uranium and allow inspectors but details still have to be worked out. A $300 billion investment fund has been authorized though the United States will not contribute to it and the fund would take the form of sanctions relief for development projects. The one sticking point remains Lebanon, given that Israel was not a party to the negotiations and may continue their attacks on the country. 

My Comment:

Everyone expected a deal to be signed but I don't think too many people were expecting the deal to be signed today instead of Friday. They had even scheduled a ceremony and everything. All of that is canceled now and folks are wondering why. 

Some of this is due to just wanting this thing done with. Opening the Strait of Hormuz will lower gas prices along with fertilizer. Doing it now instead of Friday makes it that much quicker to clear the mines and open the Strait for the roughly 2500 ships that are trapped trying to get in and out of the area. Getting commerce going to will help the world economy a great deal and should lower gas prices dramatically in the United States. 

I think it also had a little to do with where Trump was today. He was in France for the G7 meeting and doing it in front of French President Emmanuel Macron shows respect to our French allies and will likely have an effect on the G7 members getting on board with the peace deal. Plus, President Trump is known for his sense of pageantry and signing it at Versailles is absolutely that. 

But I think this was primarily about Israel. Israel was not a party to these talks and this is almost a separate peace. Indeed the Israelis are furious, mostly because Lebanon was included in the deal. They also wanted regime change, and didn't think that killing two sets of leaders of Iran really counts. Netanyahu almost derailed the whole thing before the first memo was signed and it was only President Trump yelling at Netanyahu that righted the ship. 

By signing the deal now Israel risks losing their last and best ally if they decide to continue to bomb Lebanon or Iran. There may have even been plans in place for strikes before Friday's signing and by signing it today, Trump may have prevented Israeli interference in the deal. Launching strikes now aren't entirely impossible for Israel, but doing so would have much more severe consequences now. 

As for the deal itself, it's fine. America got it's main war goal. Iran will give up their nuclear material and their program along with ensuring inspections so it won't come back. Iran is getting some stuff too, but the most criticized portion, the $300 billion development fund, is not being paid by the United States. Other local states are paying for it, and that will given them even more leverage over Iran to play ball. 

FBI disrupts terror plot targeting UFC event on White House lawn.

 

Two rifles found by the FBI. Fox News/DOJ.

The FBI has disrupted a major terror plot that was targeting the UFC event held at the White House over the weekend. Fox News. The plot was complex and had multiple participants. It would have involved drone attacks on the event and then rifle attacks on survivors. The suspects had gathered weapons but had not secured the drones or explosives. However, the plot fell apart after one of the suspects mothers became concerned about her 19 year old son's behavior. She contacted the FBI who arrested her son and four other conspirators for the plot. 

My Comment:

It's unclear how far along this plot was. I think the portion about the drone attack is oversold. From what I understand they were unable to get the explosives. However, five guys armed with rifles could have done a lot of damage, even given the extreme security. They would likely have been shot and killed by Secret Service snipers, or even Capital Police, but they could have killed and wounded some people. 

Though the plot wouldn't have been as bad as the attackers wanted, it was a hugely dangerous plot. Had Tycen Proper's mother not turned him in, there was a very good chance this plot would have gone forward in some fashion. It might not have targeted the UFC event, the plot seemed like it was rushed, but I am guessing there would have been bloodshed. 

Keep in mind that President Trump was in attendance of this event and it might have been yet another assassination attempt. It would not have succeeded without the drones, but it was a genuine threat. I've lost track of how many attacks Trump has faced now but this is yet another one. 

The politics of this situation doesn't really match up with the right wing or left wing. These folks were accelerationists. They want America to fall and for it to be replaced with something else. It's a naive and stupid worldview as it would involve a whole lot of deaths of innocent people. And there was no guarantee that whatever comes next would be any better than what we have now. 

It's also clear that they were pretty deep in the conspiracy theory weeds. They seemed to be motivated by whatever popular conspiracy theory of the day was, in this case, data centers, Jeffrey Epstein and Israel. None of those neatly map onto the right or left, so this seems like something different.

It's not the first accelerationist attack either. There's a disturbing number of people that think we can't really vote our way out of our problems anymore. I'd even say they have a point if they are talking about Europe, but in the United States it's fairly baffling. In my view, things are absolutely changing for the better, not only by my standards, but by the standards of the accelerationists as well. It's an ideology that doesn't make much in the way of sense. 

President Trump announces a deal to end the Iran War.

 

President Donald Trump. New York Post/AP.

President Trump has announced a deal to end the Iran War. New York Post. Iran has confirmed the deal. Both sides are planning on signing a deal on Friday in Switzerland. The breakthrough was brokered by Pakistan. Though details are scarce, Iran has agreed to get rid of their enriched Uranium in exchange for opening the Strait of Hormuz, which has been blockaded by both sides of the conflict. The deal was briefly put into jeopardy after Israel bombed targets in Lebanon, but Trump was able to keep the peace process going in spite of the attack. Trump was reportedly furious with Israel for the attack. 

My Comment:

How optimistic should we be that this deal will actually end the war? The ceasefire already fell apart once so it's very possible that it could happen again. However, this is as close as we have gotten and there is a lot of reason for optimism too. 

The biggest problem is Israel. They weren't really consulted on this and the whole thing is dependent on them not attacking Lebanon. The bombing before this deal was made almost derailed the whole thing and I would not be surprised if it wasn't deliberate to derail things. 

Israel has different interests in Iran than the United States. The US wants to end the nuclear threat but Israel wants to go beyond that and go full regime change. That's despite the fact that Iran kind had a regime change. Certainly much of their leadership died in the initial strikes and even more died in the 2nd round last week. But I am not sure that Israel will accept the terms of this deal if it leaves Iran's Islamic government in power. 

The other factor that could derail it is Iran's IRCG. They have derailed it in the past and it's clear that the secular Iranian government does not have full control of their IRCG counterparts. The government is trying to frame this as a victory for them, so the IRCG might accept the deal. But if it does fall apart, they are the most likely reason why. 

However, things might actually work out. The war has to end at some point and it's clear that Iran's probably not going to get a better deal than they are getting now. This deal isn't one sided, they get an end to the war and some financial assistance as well.    

And it has to be noted that Iran's military has largely been destroyed. Iran's Navy is nothing but a bad memory and all they really have left for a surface fleet is a bunch of powerboats. The rest of their military is in somewhat better shape but they have lost most of their offensive and defense capabilities. They could continue the conflict, in theory, but they would not last long before a collapse. 

It really was one of the most one-sided military conflicts in American history. Iran was mostly unable to do much to the United States. We only took light casualties, and though we lost some equipment, it was nowhere near what the Iranians lost. 

So do I think this deal will work out? I think it's about a 75% chance of doing so. I think there is about a 15% chance of Israel screwing everything up for us and a 5% chance of the IRGC doing so as well, along with a 5% of chance of something else happening. Fingers crossed that it works out. 

UK Defense Secretary resigns due to lack of funding for the military

 

UK Defense Secretary John Healey. NBC News/Getty.

The Secretary of Defense of the United Kingdom, John Healy, has resigned, citing a lack of funding for the military. NBC News. Healey was followed by Al Carns, another senior figure in the Defense Department. Both men complained that Keir Starmer's plan to fund the military fell well short of what the United Kingdom needs, citing international threats. Starmer had said he would increase funding to 2.5% of GDP by next year and 3% by 2035. Healey was considered a strong and competent minster and his resignation is a serious blow to Kier Starmer's leadership. 

My Comment:

The resignation of Healey, and to a lesser extent, Carns and other figures in the Starmer government is a very bad sign for Keir Starmer. Starmer was already in trouble for many other reasons, but having to deal with his defense minster essentially calling his plans unworkable is a very bad sign for him. 

Indeed, it's like the rats are fleeing a sinking ship. Starmer has been in trouble for awhile now, especially after last months local elections ended with Labor taking massive damage. He is one of the least popular world leaders in Europe and that's really saying something. 

Even Labor says that it's very likely that Starmer's government will face a vote of no confidence fairly soon, in a few months at most. There's a very good chance that Starmer will be unable to right the ship and I would be very surprised if he was still in power by the end of the year, perhaps even the end of Summer. 

As for Healey's complaints, they are correct. The UK's military is a joke. Their Navy was unable to send their carrier to the Strait of Hormuz because they simply didn't have any escorts. They still have the carriers and a nuclear submarine fleet, but the rest of their surface fleet is a joke. And it damaged their relationship with the United States, I don't think President Trump forgave them for not helping in Iran. 

But it's not just the Royal Navy that has problem, the Army isn't much better. They only have 75,000 regular troops, which is basically nothing, and around 150 tanks. In a hypothetical war with Russia, for example, that would be a drop in the bucket compared to Russia's military, or even Ukraine's for that matter. It's a far cry from what they had during World War II, and even the ad-hoc fleet that won the Falklands Islands war would be more formidable than what they have now. 

All of this is in the context of yesterday's post where Northern Ireland is burning because the immigration problem. I don't think Healey resigned because of the unrest, but it shows another reason why funding for the military is so important. Indeed, if a new round of The Troubles happens again, this time focused on immigration, the UK is entirely unprepared for it.