During a Saturday evening press conference, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem described the incident like this: The officers attempted to disarm this individual but the armed suspect reacted violently. Fearing for his life and for the lives of his fellow officers around him, an agent fired defensive shots. It looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement, she added.
DHS claimed in their statement about the event that the man had been armed and acted as a threat to agents who were conducting an operation in the area. The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots, they said.
For my money, judicial arrogance and an "overinflated view of their intelligence and their abilities" would look like basing a politically motivated, but legally dubious Second Amendment opinion around a bunch of cases that conclude the opposite way if the judge bothered to read them. Or maybe using their perceived clout to blackmail a law school for not disrespecting student speech enough.
I'm back on social media, I'm back in the fight, and i'm here to stay.For a quick update, 6 months ago I made the best decision of my life and married my best friend. @BellRittenhouse, I couldn't be happier. I love you beautiful.More big announcements coming soon... pic.twitter.com/7gjG3wwZgy- Kyle Rittenhouse (@rittenhouse2a) December 10, 2025
Two consolidated lawsuits are about to ramp up relating to social media platforms and the harms caused to users, especially teens, based on their designs. The litigation, which has been taking shape over several years, accuses Snap, Meta, TikTok, and YouTube of knowingly designing their platforms to addict users. [Bloomberg] The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a Second Amendment case, with the support of the Trump administration, which deals with a Texas law barring drug users including cannabis users from owning guns. [Associated Press]
In the 50-page decision, the three-judge panel ruled that the challenged provisions of New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act are consistent with the nation's "historical tradition of gun regulations and, thus, does not violate the Second Amendment" right to bear arms. The panel also concluded that the plaintiffs, several New York gun owners, are "unlikely to succeed" on the merits of their legal arguments.
Before Donald Trump had even won last year's presidential election, Gun Owners of America, one of the country's most aggressive second amendment champions, saw an opportunity to use the coming budget bill to overturn one of the country's core gun laws. Their target: the National Firearms Act. Passed in 1934 in response to gangster-era crime, the NFA imposed registration and a $200 tax on machine guns, silencers, and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California's law requiring background checks for bullet purchases is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment.
