Shall not be infringed

There is currently a legal case affecting Second Amendment rights, in which the Department of Justice and the ATF are advocating to maintain restrictions on non-residents purchasing handguns in states where they do not reside. Notably, these restrictions would not apply to rifles.

It is imperative that the President and the Department of Justice reconsider their position, withdraw any opposition to this case, and allow a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.


Here is my letter I sent:

Dear President Trump, and DOJ Pam Bondi

I ask that you instruct DOJ, Pami Bondi, to withdraw any opposition to this action and to grant judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Based on the case and statements below.

The case you’re referring to is Elite Precision Customs LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), filed on January 20, 2025, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth Division). The case number is 4:25-cv-00044.Firearms Policy Coalition+4NationBuilder+4CourtListener+4Firearms Policy Coalition+1

Case Overview

This lawsuit challenges the federal ban on interstate transfers of handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) to individuals who are not residents of the state where the dealer is located. Plaintiffs argue that this restriction infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of individuals and businesses.GIFFORDS+3NationBuilder+3Firearms Policy Coalition+3

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution (ratified 1791):

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

“Infringe” was stronger than merely regulate; it implied violation, encroachment, or impairment of a right. It was not used lightly; “infringe” suggested denying or materially restricting a right rather than simply placing conditions on it.

Implication for the Second Amendment

The Framers’ use of “shall not be infringed” suggests that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be absolute in its protection against government encroachment, though subsequent interpretation has allowed for some regulation that doesn’t destroy the right.

For example, minor regulations constitute infringement; laws that effectively prohibit the right would have been considered infringing in 1791.

Origin / Source

From Latin infringere (“to break, violate”). Common in legal texts and dictionaries of the 18th century.

From Latin incrocare or French encrocher, meaning “to hook into” or “advance beyond proper limits.” Used in legal and property contexts.

Samuel Johnson, 1755

“To violate; to transgress; to break a law or right.”

“To advance beyond proper limits; to intrude.”

Blackstone, 1765–1769

Acts that breach or diminish established rights or liberties.

Acts that intrude upon another’s lawful rights or property, including civil liberties.

Strength / Severity

Stronger: implies violation or material impairment of a right; actionable in law.

Strong but slightly more gradual: implies intrusion or gradual trespass, may or may not constitute full violation, depending on context.

Legal / Rights Implication

Government or individual cannot infringe a right without overstepping legal bounds; protection is absolute.

Encroachment is an unauthorized intrusion; often gradual or creeping; legally objectionable but may describe minor or developing overreach.

Example (18th c. rights context)

“A law prohibiting all citizens from bearing arms infringes the right to keep and bear them.”

“A law requiring burdensome regulations before exercising the right may encroach on the right, depending on severity.”

Thank you,


Stand up for our RIGHTS and make America Great Again


Feel free to ask me about anything, including comments on articles, questions you may have.


Copyright Notice © 2025 Cecil Wayne Thorn Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work authored by Cecil Wayne Thorn, to distribute, display, and reproduce the work, in its entirety, including verbatim copies, provided that no fee is charged for the copies or distribution. This permission is granted for non-commercial distribution only.


Texas U.S. Senator John Cornyn, Betrayed the Second Amendment

John Cornyn Has Sold Out the Second Amendment — It’s Time to Hold Him Accountable

You deserve to know the full truth about Texas U.S. Senator John Cornyn and the damage he’s done to our Second Amendment rights.

As we approach the high-stakes 2026 Republican primary, gun owners and constitutional conservatives have a clear mission: Fire John Cornyn and replace him with a Republican who will fight—not compromise—for our God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Cornyn has repeatedly caved to the radical anti-gun left, helping push so-called “bipartisan” gun control that threatens the freedoms of every law-abiding American. Red flag laws. Expanded background checks. Deals made behind closed doors. That’s not leadership—it’s betrayal.

The attached reprint from the National Association for Gun Rights lays it all out—chapter and verse. Every vote. Every deal. Every attack on your rights.

National Association for Gun Rights (PDF) [1]

This isn’t about party politics. This is about protecting the Constitution from those who say one thing in Texas and do the opposite in Washington.

Read it. Share it. Spread the word.

Let’s send a loud, clear message in 2026: If you betray gun owners, you’re done.


EndNote’s:

  1. Dudley Brown President, National Association for Gun Rights, https://gunrights.org/ , 2025

Feel free to reach out with any questions, feedback on articles, or anything else you’d like to discuss—I’m always happy to connect!


Copyright Notice © 2025 Cecil Wayne Thorn Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work authored by Cecil Wayne Thorn, to distribute, display, and reproduce the work, in its entirety, including verbatim copies, provided that no fee is charged for the copies or distribution. This permission is granted for non-commercial distribution only.


Immigrants had lower conviction rates for crimes, including violent offenses, than native-born Americans

 BULLSHIT!

Texas-Specific Data: Texas is unique in tracking criminal arrests and convictions by immigration status. Research focusing on Texas found that undocumented immigrants had lower conviction rates for crimes, including violent offenses, than native-born Americans.
cato.org

Somebody forgot how to add and subtract

“When comparing immigrants (both legal and illegal) to native-born Americans, the data is as follows:

Native-born Americans: 2,980

Immigrants (Illegal+ Legal): 1,671 + 1,440 = 3,111

Conclusion:

When comparing crime rates, it is essential to combine legal and undocumented immigrants to ensure an accurate comparison with native-born Americans. The aggregated data reveals a difference of 131 per 100,000 residents, indicating that immigrants (legal and undocumented combined) have a higher overall rate of crimes and violent offenses compared to native-born Americans.

Illegal immigrants exhibit higher rates compared to legal immigrants.

This is an example of how the Left attempts to manipulate the data.


Let’s stand up for those who stood up for us.

Call 202-224-3121 to find your Congressional representative.


Contact Me: About anything, comments on articles, questions you may have, etc.