California's Glock Ban Catches Immediate Lawsuit

Just as soon as California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law AB1127, which bans some Glock handguns, gun rights groups challenged the law's constitutionality and immediately filed suit.

As I am no longer a resident of California and don't own Glock pistols, I personally have no dog in this fight. But many people do own Glocks and reside in California.

Guns.com posted the following on the lawsuit:

Describing the state's wacky new ban on Glock and Glock-like pistols as "flagrantly unconstitutional," gun rights groups filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California on Monday. 

The legal challenge, Jaymes v. Bonta, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, a licensed firearms retailer, and two individuals, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity. 

The suit takes aim at AB 1127, which was passed by the Democrat-controlled state legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 10. The new law, which becomes effective in July 2026 as California Penal Code § 27595(a), bans the sale or transfer of semi-automatic Glock and Glock-style handguns with cruciform trigger bars under the pretext that they can be illegally converted to full-auto machine pistols. 

The groups challenge the ban on the contention that semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way, and that Glocks and Glock clones are among the most popular designs in modern firearms history, with millions in circulation since the 1980s. 

To read more, go here. 

10th Circuit Waiting-Period Case Paused

 

The following came this morning in an email from the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association:

10th Circuit Waiting-Period Case Paused (En Banc Petition Filed)

NMSSA Update: On August 19, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered a major win for gun owners in New Mexico. The panel ruled that our state’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases likely violates the Second Amendment and directed the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement. This was a clear recognition that the law places an unconstitutional burden on the lawful acquisition of firearms. But the fight is not over. This week, the State of New Mexico filed a petition asking the full Tenth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. “En banc” means the case would be reconsidered by all active judges of the court, not just the original three-judge panel. When the State filed this petition, it automatically stayed the mandate — which means the panel’s decision is not currently in effect. In other words, the seven-day waiting period remains in place until the court decides what to do with the petition. What happens next If the court denies rehearing, the mandate will usually issue 7 days later. At that point, the lower court would be required to issue the injunction, blocking the waiting period. If the court grants rehearing en banc, the panel’s ruling is vacated, and the case will be reconsidered by the full court, which will issue a new decision. Until then, the status quo continues, and gun owners must remain patient and vigilant. Why this matters This case could set an important precedent not only for New Mexico but for the entire Tenth Circuit region. It is another example of how courts across the country are applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard and pushing back against laws that lack historical justification. NMSSA’s Commitment Your New Mexico Shooting Sports Association is following this case closely. We will continue to provide timely, accurate updates to keep our members informed. When major changes occur — whether the mandate issues or the full court agrees to rehear the case — you will hear about it from us first. Thank you for standing with NMSSA in defense of your Second Amendment rights. — Anthony Segura Executive Director New Mexico Shooting Sports Association

Cruise Industry Suing Hawaii Over "Green Fee"

Above, a Honolulu sunset. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

"Democrats never met a tax they didn't like or hike." This was said many times by President Ronald Reagan. Such is the case with Hawaii.

Hawaii is under Democrat control much like California. They passed a "Green Fee" earlier this year on the tourism industry purportedly to fight climate change, which is bullshit anyway. 

The cruise industry is fighting back and plans on suing the state of Hawaii over this tax that's set to go into effect next year.

USA Today reported:

The cruise industry’s leading trade group is suing Hawaii over a new tax on cruises and other travel accommodations.

The state passed the country’s first “Green Fee” earlier this year, raising its transient accommodations tax by 0.75% to 11% to fund climate change resiliency projects and other environmental efforts. The increased fee, set to take effect in 2026, applies to hotels, vacation rentals and – for the first time – cruises.

Cruise Lines International Association said, in an Aug. 27 lawsuit filed in the District of Hawaii, that the change violates federal law, in part because it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution’s Tonnage Clause.

Honolulu Ship Supply Co., Kaua’i Kilohana Partners and Aloha Anuenue Tours LLC are also listed as plaintiffs. They contend that the requirements place an undue burden on cruise lines and passengers and risk undermining Hawaii cruise tourism.

To read more, go here.

Trump DOJ Supports Cuba Lawsuit Against Cruise Lines

Above, Havana's Sierra Maestra cruise terminal. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Politics, including international trade relations, sometimes makes strange bedfellows, even involving lawsuits.

The following article caught my attention by its headline, "Trump DOJ Supports Cuba Lawsuit Against Cruise Lines".

This involves dock facilities at Havana Port that were confiscated by Cuba's communist government. I took a cruise to Havana back in April 2019 and the ship, Majesty of the Seas of Royal Caribbean, used those dock facilities after our arrival. President Trump ended vacation cruises to Cuba in June 2019.

According to Seatrade Cruise News:

The US Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to review an appeals court decision that sided mostly with cruise lines sued for using Havana docks which had been confiscated by Cuba's communist government.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in October 2024 ruled mostly in favor of cruise companies that were sued under under Title III of the Helms-Burton or Libertad Act which allows US nationals to seek compensation for property taken over by Cuba. The US national, Havana Docks, held a concession to operate facilities that were used by Carnival Corp., Royal Caribbean Group, Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings and MSC Cruises.  

Appeals court decision

The appeals court determined the property of Havana Docks confiscated by Cuba was the concession right to operate and profit from the docks for 99 years, which was set to expire in 2004. The facilities were used by the cruise lines from 2016 to 2019. The court said Havana Docks did not own the real property but had the concession right to operate and benefit from the port.

Above, yours truly at Havana Port just after our arrival.

To read more, go here. 

Gun Owners of America Lauds Mexico Smackdown By SCOTUS

Gun Owners of America issued a press release of the smackdown of Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gun manufacturers.

It reads in part:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

June 5, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – Gun Owners of America (GOA), alongside Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) and a nationwide coalition of Second Amendment advocates, is celebrating today’s 9-0 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court rejecting the Mexican government’s radical attempt to sue American gun manufacturers for cartel violence fueled by Mexico’s own failed disarmament policies. 

The case, Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, marked an unprecedented effort by a foreign government to hold lawful U.S. businesses liable for criminal acts committed entirely outside the United States. GOA previously filed an amicus brief urging the Court to dismiss the case as a dangerous affront to American sovereignty and gun rights. 

In its unanimous opinion, the Court held that Mexico’s lawsuit “attempts an end-run around the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA),” and affirmed that American gun makers cannot be held liable for the criminal misuse of firearms by third parties—especially foreign cartels. 

To read the full release, go here. 

DOJ Settles With Family of Ashli Babbitt

 

🚨 #BREAKING: The Trump administration has CONFIRMED they reached a settlement with the family of Ashli Babbitt, the unarmed woman who was shot and kiIIed on J6

President Trump vowed to look into this matter. And he kept his word.

This is STEP ONE of Justice for Babbitt. Her… pic.twitter.com/flpOc3ow4z

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 2, 2025

Dems Suing Against Trump's EO Blocking Non-Citizens From Voting

 

Wow https://t.co/wUusBIjoEn

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) April 3, 2025

Superman Never Ending Rights Battle

The lawsuit by the estate of Superman co-creator Joe Shuster is moving along and the court battle is just beginning.

The lawsuit by the Shuster estate involves international copyright laws to Superman. Warner Bros. Discovery and DC Comics are vigorously fighting the lawsuit.

This comes at an interesting time since a new Superman movie will be opening in theaters July 11.

The Superman Homepage reported: 

Warner Bros. Discovery and DC Comics have filed a motion to dismiss a new lawsuit over Superman’s copyright in foreign territories, arguing that the case has already been thoroughly decided in previous court battles.

The lawsuit, filed by the estate of Joe Shuster (co-creator of Superman) through representative Mark Peary, claims rights to the Superman character in several international territories. Their attorney, Marc Toberoff, argues that in overseas territories, copyright assignments automatically terminate 25 years after an author’s death under the “Dickens provision” of U.K. copyright law.

Warner Bros. responded forcefully in their motion filed Wednesday, pointing out that courts have repeatedly rejected similar claims in the past. The studio noted that Peary’s mother, Jean Peavy, signed away all rights to Superman after Shuster’s death in 1992.

The case centers on complex international copyright law. Toberoff filed the suit in New York federal court, claiming U.S. courts have jurisdiction because the United States is a signatory to the Berne Convention, an international copyright agreement. However, Warner Bros.’ attorney countered that the Berne Convention cannot be enforced in U.S. courts and that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

To read more, go here. 

What Supreme Court Justices Said About Mexico’s Lawsuit

Mexico's case against U.S. gun manufacturers is being heard before the Supreme Court. 

Instead of taking responsibility for their lack of prosecutions against drug cartels, Mexico is trying to hold gun manufacturers liable.

America's 1st Freedom reported:

On March 4, the U.S. Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments from opposing attorneys in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, a civil suit in which Mexico—with the help of U.S. gun-control proponents—is suing American gun companies for $10 billion because of violence committed by Mexican drug cartels on Mexican citizens.

This case is so obviously founded upon anti-gun politics that, in an amicus brief to the Court on the case, the NRA states, “Mexico has extinguished its constitutional arms right and now seeks to extinguish America’s.”

Gun-control groups and politicians who embrace gun bans and other anti-gun efforts are supporting Mexico’s suit.

The politics of the anti-Second Amendment groups and individuals supporting this lawsuit are so clear that the justices began by attempting to determine what law or statute the American companies had allegedly broken.

This led to legal discussion on a “predicate exception” to a 2005 law—the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)—that specifically bars frivolous suits that attempt to hold a lawful manufacturer, distributor or seller of a firearm responsible if that product was later used in a criminal manner by a third party.

The attorney representing gun makers, Noel Francisco, pointed out early on that if “Mexico is right, then every law-enforcement organization in America has missed the largest criminal conspiracy in history operating right under their nose, and [according to this illogical deduction’] Budweiser [would be] liable for every accident caused by underage drinkers since it knows that teenagers will buy beer, drive drunk and crash.”

As the hearing went on, some of the justices echoed this concern.

To read more, go here. 

SCOTUS To Hear Mexico's Lawsuit Against U.S. Gun Manufacturers

The lawsuit by Mexico against U.S. gun manufacturers will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case will be heard tomorrow.

USA Today reported:

WASHINGTON − A federal law that protects the firearm industry didn’t stop the parents of the victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting from going after the gun maker.

But in the first test of the law before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, the justices are expected to cast a more skeptical eye on Mexico’s attempt to hold American gun companies responsible for the violence caused by drug cartels armed with U.S.-made weapons.

This time, gun violence prevention groups worry the Supreme Court could side with gun makers in a way that would go far beyond this dispute between Mexico and American gun companies.

To read more, go here. 

Park Service Wins Legal Battle Over Cashless Payment Policy

Above, Yosemite entrance gate in 2016. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Being a holder of the National Park Senior Pass, this doesn't affect me. But others are bothered by the National Park Service's cashless policy for paying entrance fees at national park entrance gates. 

A federal judge tossed a lawsuit by three people over this policy.

According to RV Travel:

It was a case that really stirred up RVtravel.com readers. Three people filed suit against the National Park Service for its “cashless payment” policy rolled out at some Park Service sites. Now a judge has tossed their cashless payment suit out—but left the plaintiffs a little bit of wiggle room.

Cashless payment suit claimed violation of “legal tender” law

Last March, Esther van der Werf of Ojai, California, Toby Stover of High Falls, New York, and Elizabeth Dasburg of Darien, Georgia, filed suit in U.S. District Court. The suit asked the court for a declaratory judgment. It claimed the Park Service violates U.S. law that “legal tender”—U.S. currency—is suitable “for all public charges.” If their suit was successful, it would have forced the Park Service to accept cash for any fees charged to visitors.

To read more, go here. 

Warners Hit With New Superman Lawsuit

Above, the Superman statue in Metropolis, Illinois. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Here we go again!

A new Superman lawsuit has been filed, this time by the estate of Superman co-creator Joseph Shuster.

Reuters reported:

Jan 31 (Reuters) - The estate of one of Superman's co-creators has filed a copyright lawsuit in a U.S. court against Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD.O), opens new tab ahead of the release of its new movie, "Superman," part of a planned reboot of the DC Comics superhero film franchise.

The lawsuit, opens new tab was filed on Friday in federal court in New York City by the estate of Superman illustrator Joseph Shuster, who created the famous superhero along with writer Jerome Siegel.

The lawsuit noted that Shuster and Siegel had licensed their rights to the character to Detective Comics, the predecessor of DC Comics, now a subsidiary of Warner. The lawsuit claims that under British law, Shuster's rights reverted to his estate in 2017, 25 years after his death.

The estate accused Warner of unlawfully failing to pay royalties to use Superman in Britain, Canada, Australia and other countries outside the United States.

The new Superman movie, directed by James Gunn and starring David Corenswet, is set to be released in theaters in July. The new litigation could complicate the international distribution of the film. It marks the latest salvo in a long-running legal battle over the rights to the character.

Shuster's estate is seeking monetary damages and a court order blocking Warner from depicting Superman without a license. 

To read more, go here. 

Navajo Nation Sues Over Chaco Canyon Protections

Above, ancient pueblo Indian ruins at Chaco Culture National Historical Park. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

The Navajo Nation is taking advantage of the change in presidential administrations by filing a lawsuit against the Department of the Interior in federal court over Chaco Canyon.

According to E & E News:

The Navajo Nation is heading to federal court to challenge a long-standing freeze on fossil fuel and mineral development within New Mexico’s Chaco Canyon.

The lawsuit filed last week in federal court in New Mexico challenges the Biden administration’s 2023 decision to withdraw federal lands within a 10-mile radius of the Chaco Culture National Historical Park, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that is home to thousands of historical and spiritual artifacts. The move received strong support from the Pueblo and Hopi tribes.

The Navajo Nation alleged the Interior Department made its decision without properly consulting with its members about the economic consequences for tribal communities that are already facing financial hardship. 

To read more, go here. 

Biden Signs Law Reforming National Park Film Permits

Above, Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Finally, His Fraudulency Joe Biden did something that actually benefits people.

He signed into law a bill that reforms national park film permits.

Buckrail reported: 

JACKSON, Wyo. — On Saturday, Jan. 4, President Joe Biden signed H.R. 6492, the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences Act or the EXPLORE Act, into law.

The EXPLORE Act includes provisions of the FILM Act, which reforms the permit system for for-profit filming under the National Park Service (NPS).

This passage comes after the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and the National Press Photographers Association filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of Jackson-area photographers Alexander Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith against the NPS after they were ticketed for violating the federal law prohibiting commercial filming without a permit in Grand Teton National Park (GTNP).

“By removing unconstitutional barriers, this new law allows filmmakers to share the beauty and stories of our national parks without facing jail or fines for how they use the footage,” FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere said in a press release. “FIRE applauds Congress and President Biden for taking this crucial step to ensure no one sheds their First Amendment rights just for stepping on land that belongs to the American public.”

To read more, go here. 

Montana Gov. Gianforte Sues Yellowstone National Park Over Bison Plan

Above, lounging bison and their calves in Yellowstone National Park. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

A legal battle is brewing in the state of Montana over a plan by the National Park Service and Department of the Interior over a bison management plan.

Governor Greg Gianforte and the Montana departments of Livestock and Fish, Wildlife & Parks are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

According to the Bozeman Daily Chronicle: 

Citing a failure to cooperate with Montana state agencies and violation of federal laws, Gov. Greg Gianforte’s administration has sued to have Yellowstone National Park’s bison management plan nullified.

The 51-page lawsuit, filed on Dec. 31 in Billings District Court, names the National Park Service, Department of Interior and its leaders — including Yellowstone National Park Superintendent Cam Sholly — as defendants.

In addition to Gianforte, the Montana departments of Livestock and Fish, Wildlife & Parks are plaintiffs in the suit.

Yellowstone’s bison plan was finalized in July 2024 amid protests from the Gianforte administration, first outlined in a 17-page letter in 2023.

Under Gianforte’s leadership, the state has sought lower bison populations in the park to lessen the chance of the animals migrating into Montana in the winter.

The state wants the park bison population to number no more than 3,000 animals, a target agreed to in 2000 when the Interagency Bison Management Plan was adopted.

In the new plan, however, Yellowstone cited updated scientific findings to justify a population range between 3,500 to 6,000 animals after calving. That would put the population at an average of 5,000 head a year.

To read more, go here. 

Congress Passes Bill To Rescind Need For Filming Permit In National Parks

Above, Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Two days ago, I posted about two photographers who filed suit against the National Park Service over the requirement to have a permit to film or photograph commercially in Grand Teton National Park.

As luck would have it, a bill rescinding that permit requirement for national parks has passed the congress and is headed to His Fraudulency Joe Biden's desk for signature.

National Parks Traveler reported:

In a big win for filmmakers, a provision in the EXPLORE Act, passed yesterday [Thursday] by the Senate and headed for President Biden's desk soon, eliminates the need for photographers and videographers to secure permits to film, even for commercial purposes, in national parks.

This comes just a day after a lawsuit challenging the NPS ban on commercial photography in the parks was filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) a conservative-leaning free speech advocacy group, on behalf of adventure filmmakers Alexander Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith. Rienzie and Burkesmith were attempting to film an attempt to set the FKT for ascending the Grand Teton earlier this fall and were refused a permit. The National Press Photographers Association joined the lawsuit. 

To read more, go here. 

Photographers Sue Over National Park Filming Permits

Above, Grand Teton National Park. Photo by Armand Vaquer.

Did you know that if you are just a tourist or a news organization, you don't need a permit to photograph or shoot videos within our national parks? But if you are doing so commercially, you need a permit.

That is the crux of a new lawsuit against the National Park Service by two commercial photographers. They claim that the permit requirement violates their First Amendment rights.

According to PetaPixel:

Two photographers have sued the National Park Service (NPS) claiming that its photography permit requirements violate First Amendment rights.

Nature and sports photographers Alexander Rienzie and Connor Burkesmith filed the lawsuit against NPS, with the aim of overturning its “unconstitutional permit-and-fee scheme that charges Americans for the right to film in public spaces.”

According to the lawsuit, Rienzie and Burkesmith wanted to film athlete Michelino Sunseri’s attempt to break the record for the fastest climb up the Grand Teton in Grand Teton National Park, Wyoming in September.

The filmmakers planned to have only two or three people, using small handheld cameras and tripods, on the 16-mile route for the shoot — less gear than the typical climber going up the mountain.

Under current law, the NPS does not require everyday visitors or news photographers to have film or photography permits.

To read more, go here. 

Radio Station Contemplates Suing Harris Campaign Over Ad

It looks like not everybody in the media is enamored with Kamala Harris or her campaign.

A North Dakota radio station is contemplating suing Harris's campaign over an ad that has headlines implying they are supporting her.

The Washington Times reported:

A radio station is contemplating a lawsuit against Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign over its practice of altering headlines in online ads to make it appear that news outlets are supporting her bid for the White House.

Campaign ethics experts called the ad manipulation strategy “sloppy” and a threat to Ms. Harris’ claims of running an honest operation.

Steve Hallstrom, president and managing partner of Fieldstone Group, which operates WDAY Radio in Fargo, North Dakota, said the Harris campaign “lied to every single person who saw that ad.”

“We have reached out to the Harris campaign and demanded they terminate this ad immediately, and we are considering all options here, including legal action,” he said. “This is not right, and they should not be allowed to get away with this and tarnish our reputation — whether it’s a family-owned North Dakota company like us or a major national news organization.”

To read more, go here. 

California Excise Tax On Firearms Prompts Lawsuit

Another great example of what happens when a state becomes a one-party state of radical socialist Democrats is the 11% excise tax on firearms, parts and ammunition in California. 

This has prompted a lawsuit (as well it should have).

Fox News reported:

A consortium of Second Amendment advocacy groups and two residents filed suit seeking to block California’s new 11% excise tax on firearms, parts and ammunition.

The case, Jaymes v. Maduros, alleged that the Supreme Court has previously ruled that constitutional rights should not be subject to taxation, and sought to block the tax that went into effect July 1.

One of the precedents cited was Murdock v. Pennsylvania, in which the court sided with a Jehovah’s Witness who had been required to purchase a permit to evangelize door-to-door in Westmoreland County.

In that regard, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), National Rifle Association (NRA), California Rifle & Pistol Association and the two civilians filed their complaint against California Department of Tax & Fee Administration Director Nicolas Maduros in his official capacity, citing similar protections.

I am glad that I moved out of that rotten state.

To read more, go here.

Rex Museum Gutted By Gallup Librarian

Above the Rex Museum in Gallup. Photo by @newmexiconomad.

For months, I noticed that the Rex Museum in Gallup has been closed and wondered what's going on. 

Last evening, we had dinner at Martin Link's for Independence Day. While there, we had a discussion about the latest goings on in Gallup and the topic of the Rex Museum came up.

It seems that the head librarian had some photos she took of Gallup Inter-Tribal Indian Ceremonial she wanted to display and she asked the city government if she could display them at the Rex Museum. They granted permission.

Sounds harmless, right? Wrong. It turns out she gutted the museum of its historical displays so that she could display her pictures and put them into storage somewhere. 

After she was done displaying her photos, she didn't return the museum's displays. So they are in limbo somewhere.

It was my suggestion last night that if she doesn't put the displays back into the museum she should be demanded to do so (or forced to by lawsuit in court, if necessary) with a time deadline. 

I don't know her name and it wasn't mentioned.