. . . because we don’t bring them cases they want to hear.  I’m not a Supreme Court watcher, but anybody can play one. The Supreme Court is unique in that it can’t take the initiative.  A party must bring a case to the Court and request certiorari, i.e., that the court agree to hear the appeal.  To be heard, the appellant must present an appealing case, one that the justices want to adjudicate. At least four justices must agree to hear a case.  Four of them are conservative, four are l...

"Poor people own guns. The elite have bodyguards.”  So opines Daniel Greenfield at FrontPage Magazine. Progressive elites imagine that drumming the message of gun control will get out the vote of the traditionally captive constituents of the Democrat Party.  Instead, they might be having precisely the opposite effect. Feelings about gun-control range widely on both sides.  There are roughly as many Americans with pro-gun sentiments as those with anti-gun sentiments.   (more…)

Yesterday, the American Medical Association’s House of Delegates passed anti-liberty resolutions surpassing what we anticipated just two weeks ago as we covered its planning. You can read about it on AMA Wire and MedPage Today, outlets that uncritically regard the AMA as the fount of all medical correctness. Even the Associated Press wrote that the “physicians group bowed to unprecedented demands from doctor-members to take a stronger stand on gun violence”. (more…)

There has been much debate about the Second Amendment grounded in several significant Supreme Court Decisions:  D.C. v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and Caetano v. Massachusetts.  But what do these decisions stand for?  What do they portend for the future?   This may develop from the proposition articulated in Heller: “. . . in case of confrontation.” More than any other statements in these decisions, these four words convey the expansion of the scope of the Second Amendment for t...

[Ed: This piece, like any not otherwise labelled, does not represent the official positions of DRGO , but is quite thought-provoking and well worth a read.] Progressives cry-out for “common sense” gun laws, to which gun owners respond: “What, specifically, do you propose?”  Congress, with the consent of President Trump, is poised to respond with the National Reciprocity Act compelling all 50 states to honor concealed carry permits issued by sister states.  The Supreme Court could accept ...

[Ed: After posting, we learned that Dr. Kleck is revisiting the CDC data. Its surveys were apparently done in only 15 states, with about a quarter of the U.S. population then. These did give  a mix of rural and urban, gun friendly and unfriendly. So they still support Kleck's findings, but upon Dr. Kleck publishing his revised conclusions we will revisit the subject.] Let’s crunch some numbers, and ponder the economic cost of ‘gun violence’. Mother Jones did in 2015 and concluded that the co...

[Ed: We're glad to introduce a new contributor, 'MarkPA', who combines 2A commitment, shooting expertise and analytic skills.] Humans are injured and die from gun-shot wounds; and so, doctors lay claim to gun-control as a “public-health” issue.  If this were “true” then it would follow that warfare is likewise a public-health issue about which doctors–and epidemiologists–have special expertise to contribute.  Here at DRGO, we reject this assumption. (more…)

The AMA just announced that it will make an “unprecedented” push for more gun control laws through resolutions presented at its House of Delegates at its next annual meeting June 9-13. This is not really unprecedented, as the AMA has been advocating anti-gun measures for three decades now, along with many co-conspirator specialty associations. But it is a way for it to jump on the current popular bandwagon for restricting guns since some of the teenagers from the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas Va...