B.L.U.F.
How things fit together. It isn’t just Second Amendment items that the Supreme Court is fixing, it is a wealth of other issues. This is just one.
(1700 words)

As Second Amendment activists, we know how the government plays their game of infringement. They claim that The People aren’t implicated in this infringement, they claim that the conduct proposed isn’t really protected, they argue that the arm they are banning isn’t an arm, or they claim that it isn’t their burden to prove that an arm is not in common use.

These infringements come from the executive using a “Pen and a phone”, from regulatory agencies making regulations outside their delegated powers. From legislatures passing bills that are simply infringements.

All of them twist the words of the Constitution and Heller to take our protections away.

While I have not looked at the legal foundation for the establishment of the EPA, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess “The Commerce Clause”. In other words, it isn’t part of the enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government.

While we have been in our little niche over here, fighting to hold on to our rights, other groups have been fighting on other fronts. One of the biggest of those scams is the “Climate Emergency!!!!”.

Let’s get this out here first.

Is the climate changing? Yes! It has been changing since before the dawn of man.

Does human actions contribute to climate change? Yes! That is one of the things that makes us different from the rest of the animals. We can change our climate/environment when we need. When we heat our homes in the winter or cool our homes in the summer, we are pumping heat into the atmosphere. That is changing the climate.

Is Carbon Dioxide a greenhouse gas? Yes.

Is there a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature? Yes.

Do the CO2 level increases lead or trail the temperature levels? My research says it trails.

Finally, is the world going to end if we don’t address this “Climate Emergency!” No.

If the temperature went up 10C tomorrow, the world would survive, we would either adapt or we would die. If the temperature went down 10C tomorrow, the world would still survive. We would adapt or die.

Regardless, the world will survive, and I am not going to fret about it.

Unfortunately, there are a number of people who believe that the world will end. That humans are causing disastrous changes to the climate. That the primary cause of all this horrible climate change is the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere.

We can tell that they aren’t interested in reasoned discourse because they call CO2 “carbon emissions”. Carbon is horrible black stuff and nasty. CO2 is an odorless, tasteless, transparent gas (at normal temperature and pressure).

The claim is that if humans reduce the amount of CO2 we emit into the air, we will “save the planet.” Since there are people who just do not think it is a big deal, our betters have decided to do what’s right for us despite our misgivings.

To that end, large swaths of the political elite have started pushing green energy. Green energy is based on the assumption that we can collect energy, transport it to where it is needed, store it until it is needed, all without generating any CO2.

The idea is that we can capture energy from different natural phenomena. Such as the power of the wind. There was a time when wind power was used for moving goods vast distances. As soon as we had other means of propulsion, we ditched wind power because it was labor-intensive, unreliable, and didn’t have good storage methodologies.

We tried and still do use water power. It has advantages over wind power in that it can be reliable if you have a big enough storage facilities. Lake Mead is one of the most famous of those storage facilities. We have two smaller water power storage facilities in my small town. We don’t use the power stored in them anymore, but 100+ years ago we did.

A newer technology is converting solar energy directly to electricity and then attempting to transmit or store that electricity. This has reliability issues as well.

The reliability issue is so bad, that most green energy plants have an auxiliary power generation system built around normal fuels. Natural gas being one of the more common power sources.

Since The People are not willing to go quietly into the darkness, they are not willing to give up their access to reliable power on demand, the government is going to force them to switch.

Bills have been introduced in Congress to set up carbon taxes. A carbon tax is the idea that you are given a certain amount of carbon credits. As you produce CO2, you pay for that production with your carbon credits. If you don’t have enough carbon credits, then you have to buy credits on the open market. If you have excess carbon credits, then you can sell them.

Many people got wealthy with this scam. Congress recognized it as a scam and said, “NO” to it.

Even though Congress had said no, the executive wanted to force The People to his bidding. He called on his regulatory agencies to force The People.

The DoD mandated that a certain amount of fuel be “green fuel” based on a microbe that turned algae into a type of diesel fuel. That hasn’t reached commercial quantities yet, years after it was mandated.

Other agencies required that a certain amount of their vehicle fleet use remote CO2 emission sources. They would have a power plant generate electricity and then transport it to a local point of contact, where it was then transferred to an onboard storage device.

So who did the EPA upset this time?

And this is just one of the three cases docketed today.

What is the complaint?

What is this about? Regulatory overreach. The EPA claims that they have the power to force their plan onto the states. The plaintiffs (good guys) look at this and say Congress did not delegate that power to the EPA; thus the EPA can’t force their regulatory plan.

This is so much like the ATF deciding that a bump stock is a machine gun or that a hunk of aluminum is a firearm.

In all these cases, the federal regulatory agency is depending on Chevron deference. The agency says that a rule is confusing and ambiguous, then because of Chevron, it is confusing and ambiguous. If a rule is ambiguous, then the agency gets to say what the rule actually means, because of Chevron

A win for the states in these cases is a win for The People and the Second Amendment protected rights community.

It is another step in reigning in the federal behemoth.