Globalize our Right to Bear Arms?

I’ve been advocating this for years because the right to life (including its corollary, the right to defend it) is not solely for Americans.

More and more, i’m hearing the call echoed, for example here and here. Brilliantly, these recent articles note the recent cries on the left to “Globalize Intifada” and propose a new push by America to pressure other countries around the world to respect the right to bear arms. They are emboldened by Trump’s recent success in aggressively pushing trade deals and peace deals and the feeling is that the time is right make 2A global and start enjoying the resultant peace and security.

The articles note much of the West has devolved into Orwellian dystopias, but point out a bright new trend in some countries which have recently embraced the right to bear arms, for example the Czech Republic which recently added the right to its constitution, joining a very exclusive club that desperately needs more members.

Fine goal, but this is not going to happen overnight. Trump is unique in American history and he won’t be around much longer. No other leader is great enough to even attempt this, and i doubt even Trump could do it alone. Let’s learn from the Left: “Think globally, act locally.” Starting with our families.

You can do a lot with just your family’s living trust, if you draft it properly to leave a legacy of firearm training for generations.

But if you have significant wealth, you can do more to train your community with advanced techniques such as the Gun HEET, or the non-charitable commercial purpose trust. The founder of Patagonia used the latter to fight global warming, and we can do the same to fight victim disarmament by global communards.

[UPDATE 4/2/2026: Canada buyback FAILS.]

Use of the words “brave” and “Canadian” in the same sentence, especially concerning guns, may sound odd to the American ear. But this news from Canada is inspiring. Despite mandatory registration and licensing schemes, another “gun buyback” (more accurately: compensated confiscation) scheme has failed. Only 25 out of around 200 of the registered but newly-banned weapons were returned. Mostly, brave gun owners in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, refused to participate in the pilot program. It will be interesting to see how this newfound Canadian courage holds  up when the program goes national in a few weeks.

Clients often assure me their kids are well-trained with firearms and would never give them up. But experience has taught me otherwise, and not only with regard to firearms. Kids can act much differently than parents expected, after parents die. History also teaches this (see video at left).

One thing your trust should do is prohibit and/or dissuade your kids and/or trustees from voluntarily surrendering any firearms for destruction or any other reason under one of these “gun buyback” or “compensated confiscation” programs.

Or your trust could simply train them really well. Then they will never consider such lunacy.

The 2021 tax court case Warne warns us that a gift of an LLC or other business entity that is split between several charities can result in a charitable deduction for estate and gift tax purposes that is substantially less than the full value of the business.

In such a case, the IRS will apply substantial valuation discounts for lack of marketability and also for lack of control.

These discounts are normally expected with minority interests, however in the Warne case, which involved a 75-25 split between two charities, the court appeared to approve application of discounts to the majority interest as well.

These discounts are useful when planning for estate reduction outside of the charitable context, but obviously not when valuing a charitable gift.

The Ninth Circuit today struck down California’s urban open carry ban. The case is Baird v. Bonta (No. 24-565) and you can find the opinion filed today here.

My recent post here summarizes the current status of open carry among the states and includes links to various posts of mine over the years on the subject, for example this one here arguing against a youtuber popular with gun owners who wrongly concluded Bruen allows states to choose open or concealed and ban the other (which coincidentally happens to be the thick-headed litigation position taken for years by most gun orgs).

Important caveats to note:

California may appeal to SCOTUS, possibly. More likely, California will seek Ninth Circuit en banc review of the panel’s decision. California may win, and if not they could then appeal to SCOTUS. All of these actions may result in the ruling being stayed.

If the ruling is not stayed, then the mandate will issue within days or weeks and the district court must enter judgment in accordance with the ruling. If and when that happens, you should be able to carry openly, technically (cops may not know or care about the law, or may claim you are brandishing, etc., not to mention the difficult issue of proximity to school zones without CCW), but note that this ruling only strikes down the urban ban on open carry that was passed about a decade ago to stop people from demonstrating “unloaded open carry” (see pics on my profile page). Trouble is, unloaded open carry is not very practical and might even be dangerous, and there is a separate law (PC §25850) banning loaded carry in public.

So even if California fails to fight the ruling (they most likely will, if only to delay implementation and lose more elections in the pursuit of communism which they think is cool), don’t expect to see open carry any time soon, except perhaps demonstrations of unloaded open carry. Especially with CCW’s so easy to get now in most counties, it makes much more sense to carry loaded and concealed under license. Note however that SB2’s draconian “sensitive” place restrictions apply only to CCW so unloaded open carry may provide some relief from those restrictions. California may change those too. And the courts will most likely eventually strike down all of these restrictions, including the restriction on loaded carry, but those issues are left for other cases.

The best thing for California, and even the commies that run it, is to do what Ohio did years ago when its state supreme court ruled that open carry was a fundamental right. Simply leave the ruling alone and remove all the insane restrictions on concealed carry. Most people would prefer to carry that way, at least most of the time. Some of us will open carry and all the concealed carriers will lecture us, or shoot us, when we fail to do so responsibly.

Studies indicate married women with children are happier and more satisfied than their single, childless counterparts.

The report, authored by Wendy Wang, notes that 40% of married mothers aged 18-55 describe themselves as “very happy,” compared to only 25% of single, childless women in the same age group. Additionally, married mothers report lower levels of loneliness, with just 12% saying they feel lonely “often” or “always,” compared to 22% of single, childless women.

Our TAX.GD page is now updated with the 2026 IRS inflation adjustments issued in Rev. Proc. 2025-32, key figures used in estate planning.

As extensively covered in our webinar “Estate Planning for Family Protection“, updated after President Trump signed OBBBA on July 4, 2025, the unified Basic Exclusion Amount for estate tax and gift tax is now set at $15,000,000 for 2026, as is the exemption amount for generation-skipping transfer tax. You can view that webinar any time for free at:
FreeEstatePlanningSeminar.com

Also of special note to estate planners is that the annual gift tax exclusion for 2026 remains at $19,000 (this amount adjusts for inflation, but only in $1000 increments); and adjustment of various income tax brackets for estates and trusts.

As an attorney with expertise in estate planning i would never recommend AI for drafting estate plans, but as someone who knows almost nothing about music i am very impressed with the song i created using AI at udio.com. It’s called “I Did Estate Planning My Way” and you can listen to it at this link here or in the player embedded below (just x out the cookie nonsense).

(By the way, you can do estate planning your way here.)

Lyrics

[Verse]
And now, the time has come to own my fate,
To plan my future's course, secure my estate.
A lasting legacy, I've crafted with care,
Not with those quick deals that leave you bare.

[Chorus]
I did estate planning my way,
Not just a paper trust from some cheap café.
With guidance from a pro, it’s clear as day,
I did estate planning, I did it my way.

[Verse]
In every clause and section, there's wisdom to find,
Not a one-size-fits-all, but tailored to my kind.
Navigating through the realms of tax and gain,
With strategy in hand, I weather any strain.

[Chorus]
I did estate planning my way,
Staying one step ahead of the game they play.
Secure in my choices, my family will say,
I did estate planning, I did it my way.

[Bridge]
So here's a word of warning, when you choose your path,
Don't fall for the gimmicks that lead to a rash.
Invest in a plan crafted, not built on mere cost,
For peace of mind—trust me, the cheap deal is lost.

[Chorus]
I did estate planning my way,
Not just a paper trust from some cheap café.
With guidance from a pro, it’s clear as day,
I did estate planning, I did it my way.

Do Your Parents Have an Estate Plan?

If you are part of the sandwich generation—caring for both your children and your parents at the same time—it is crucial that you know whether or not your parents have an existing estate plan. While the final decisions within their estate plan rest with them, creating a comprehensive estate plan is an absolute necessity, regardless of when it is done.

The thought of speaking with your parents about important and often sensitive topics like their finances and estate planning probably makes you want to run as fast as you can in the opposite direction. Nonetheless, having this conversation is the key to ensuring that your parents are able to live their golden years without financial worries and that their wishes are carried out after their death.

Estate Planning for Your Parents

Initiating conversations about your parents’ future, especially concerning their finances, medical care, and memorial wishes, can be challenging, but it is undeniably one of the most important discussions you can have with them. Addressing these topics sooner rather than later benefits everyone involved and ensures greater peace of mind and preparedness for the future. This crucial dialogue should encompass plans for when one or both parents pass away as well as scenarios where they become incapacitated and unable to manage their own affairs. To help ensure that their estate plan is comprehensive and aligns with their wishes, consider discussing the following key areas with your parents:

• A team effort. Encourage your parents to compile a list of their advisors, starting with legal and financial professionals, including their contact information. This list should also include the contact information for your parents’ doctors so that whoever they nominate as their health care agent can reach them if necessary. Even if they prefer not to share the list immediately, they can create it and let you know where to find the information if the need arises.
• Last will and testament or a trust. If you discover that your parents do not currently have a last will and testament (also known as a will) or revocable living trust (also known as a trust), it is probable that they do not have other essential estate planning tools, as these important tools are often created as part of a comprehensive estate plan. If they do have a will in place, confirm when it was created, who the personal representative or executor is, and where the original wills are stored. Similarly, if you discover that they have a trust, you will want to confirm who the trustee is, whether or not they have funded property and financial accounts into their trust, and where the original trust documents are stored. Stress to them that you do not need to read their will or trust in its entirety, but knowing where to find the original documents is crucial to ensuring that their wishes are carried out when the time comes.
• Medical directives. While discussing your parents’ estate plan, confirm whether they have created a living will (also known as an advance directive) and a medical power of attorney. These important tools allow someone to make medical decisions on their behalf if they are unable to make or communicate their own medical decisions. If you discover that they have these tools in place, encourage them to have a conversation with their chosen agent under their medical power of attorney to ensure that the decision-maker understands your parents’ feelings and wishes about both their medical care preferences as well as their end-of-life care, such as how their medical affairs should be handled should they become incapacitated and whether or not they want to be on life support.
• Insurance policies. It is important for you or your parents’ trusted decision-makers to know what insurance policies they have and where documentation is located, especially if one or both parents become incapacitated. This includes health insurance (private or Medicare), life insurance, homeowner’s insurance, auto insurance, disability insurance, and long-term care policies.
• Financial, Investment, and Retirement Accounts. Encourage your parents to create a comprehensive list of their checking, savings, brokerage, mutual fund, pension, and retirement accounts. This list should include where each account is held, account numbers, and the names of any key contacts at the institution. Just as important, your parents should have a financial power of attorney in place so that a trusted individual can step in and manage these accounts if your parents are traveling, ill, injured, or otherwise unable to manage their affairs. An experienced estate planning attorney can draft this document, but it is also wise to ask whether the financial institutions involved require their own power of attorney forms, since these are often more readily accepted. Having a valid power of attorney ensures that someone can access and manage your parents’ accounts, whether checking, investment, or retirement, so that day-to-day expenses are covered and long-term financial needs are met during incapacity and beyond.

Why Estate Planning Matters

Failing to put together an estate plan often leads to chaos, excessive costs and taxes, unnecessary court involvement, inadequate incapacity planning, potential hurt feelings, delays in distributing inheritances, and even unexpected outcomes after death.

Fear and discomfort can keep you from having this important estate planning conversation with your parents. As estate planning attorneys, we can provide your parents with guidance and advice on what options are available to them so that their wishes are followed upon their death.

Your Cyber Legacy: 3 Tips for Your Digital Assets

Digital assets are a category of commonly overlooked assets that play a crucial role in your estate plan and the legacy you leave behind at your death. It is all right if you did not consider these items when you first created your will or trust; such a mistake is surprisingly common and, luckily, easy to correct.

What are digital assets? They include all of the following:

• your digital photos and videos saved on your phone, in the cloud, or on an external hard drive
• files (such as emails, financial documents, digital business records, etc.) stored in the cloud or on your computer’s hard drive
• cryptocurrency
• nonfungible tokens
• domain names (URLs)
• social media profiles (e.g., Facebook, LinkedIn, X, TikTok, Instagram, Twitch)
• content creation accounts (e.g., YouTube)
• affiliate marketing accounts (e.g., Amazon, Google, ClickBank)
• accounts associated with e-commerce businesses (e.g., Etsy, Shopify)
• physical device backups
• databases (e.g., medical records, cloud storage services)

 Such digital assets often carry significant real-world value and, in some cases, generate substantial income. Examples include cryptocurrency wallets, domain names (URLs), monetized YouTube channels, influencer accounts, and digital business platforms. These assets may represent a meaningful portion of your estate, sometimes even its most valuable components. You can no longer afford to adopt a wait-and-see approach. Whether or not you proactively plan, your legacy now includes more than just the monetary inheritance, family heirlooms, and personal property you intend to pass along. In today’s world, you must also consider and create a plan for your digital assets.

To that end, here are three tips to help you create or update a plan to properly manage, transfer, or preserve your digital assets.  

1. Inventory your digital assets. Make a list of every online account you use. If you run a business, be sure to include spreadsheets, digital records, client files, databases, and other digital business documents. Not only will you need this information for your estate plan, but it will also play a crucial role in any business succession plan you create. If it exists online or in the cloud, connects to it, or pertains to it, put it on the list for your attorney and your trusted decision-makers (agent under a financial power of attorney, executor or personal representative, or successor trustee). This list can act as a critical resource when someone needs to step in and manage your digital assets.

2. Designate a Digital Fiduciary (Sometimes Called a Cyber Successor): This is someone you trust who can access your online accounts and business on your behalf if you are incapacitated or after your death. In most cases, this person will also serve in a traditional fiduciary role, such as your agent under a power of attorney, trustee, or personal representative, depending on timing. Access to digital assets is governed by state law (such as the Revised Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act, or RUFADAA, enacted in most states) as well as the terms and conditions of each platform. You should keep your access information secure and consider using the online tools offered by providers (such as Google Inactive Account Manager or Apple Digital Legacy) to ensure your fiduciary can act quickly and legally.

3. Determine the necessary tools to properly record and carry out your wishes and ensure that your legacy continues as you want. Depending on your unique situation, it may be advisable to fund some of your digital assets into a trust or even include specific access in a power of attorney. We can help you determine the best way to protect and pass on your digital assets, select your trusted decision-makers and beneficiaries, and ensure that the right tools are in place so your assets can be accessible when needed. The laws in this arena are evolving, so any planning you have done in the past needs to be reviewed and possibly updated.

Potential Pitfalls of Failing to Plan for Digital Assets

The worst thing you can do is nothing. Inaction could result in the loss of digital family photo albums, disruption of your business if you are incapacitated, or worse. If this process feels daunting or you are unsure where or how to start, call us. We can help you identify, track, and protect your digital assets to give you peace of mind.

Illegal aliens often have greater gun rights than US citizens, thanks to laws giving greater gun rights to cops, who are often illegals.

These illegal cops can have guns you cannot have, and they can carry guns in places where you cannot be armed.

Most people are shocked when they learn this, but they shouldn’t be shocked at this mighty river of ridiculousness as it’s the confluence of several other ridiculous trends tolerated by supposed conservatives for many years.

Due to open borders you have a flood of illegals creating chaos in our cities, putting pressure on police, so police hire illegals, and to deal with a society gone off the rails, conservatives who give lip service to the Second Amendment but never bother to train with their own weapons vote to give special gun rights to that special class of people known as cops, whether they are citizens or not.

And now they want to give illegals the right to vote their own ballot in addition to voting yours.

Jimmy Buffett’s estate has been buffeted by apparent mutual mistrust between cotrustees he designated for the marital trust he left behind for the sole benefit of his wife, Jane.

As is common, he designated his wife as trustee. However, as he apparently did not trust his wife’s ability to manage by herself an estate worth close to $300 million, he appointed his longtime accountant as cotrustee.

Not getting along, it seems litigation has commenced to resolve the differences.

Conflict is the worst legacy you can leave, so it makes sense to think through the alternatives and perhaps engage in dialogue regarding trustee selection and control.

Using a neutral corporate trustee is one approach, but there are many other options for naming trustees and granting rights to remove and replace trustee, appointing trust protectors, etc.

Below is a presentation i made many years ago about selection of trustees.

Distribution of stock from Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT) is merely a change in beneficial ownership, not insider trading so no disgorgement of profits required.

So says a district court in Tennessee, ruling on a summary judgment motion. Nosirrah Management, LLC vs. AutoZone, Inc. (W.D. Tenn. April 14, 2025)

Like many GRATs, this one included a “swap power” to substitute assets in the GRAT but grantor never exercised the swap power. If he had, that could have been considered insider trading. In a preliminary order, the Court indicated that the mere existence of the swap power, without exercise, could trigger insider trading, but that issue was never decided in the final order. Therefore, it may be prudent to consider omission of swap power for insider GRATs.

PLR 202528006 rules GST tax exempt status remains intact after merger of two trusts with identical terms and same beneficiaries:

Husband’s Exempt Trust and Wife’s Exempt Trust have the same beneficiaries, and the
Trusts’ dispositive, administrative, and termination provisions are identical. State’s rule
against perpetuities does not apply to the Trusts. As a result, the Trusts may remain in
existence indefinitely. Pursuant to the merger, the property held in Husband’s Exempt
Trust will be added to Wife’s Exempt Trust, and Husband’s Exempt Trust will terminate.
Thereafter, all property will be subject to the terms of Wife’s Exempt Trust. After the
merger, all property will be subject to the same terms to which it was subject before the
merger. Accordingly, the merger does not shift a beneficial interest in the trusts to any
beneficiary who occupies a lower generation (as defined in § 2651) than the person or
persons who held the beneficial interest prior to the modification, and the modification
does not extend the time for vesting of any beneficial interest in the trusts beyond the
period provided for in the original trusts.

We now have clarity in estate tax, which general partners of private equity and venture capital funds might well avoid by transferring a type of asset known as “carried interest” before appreciation carries their estates north of their applicable gift/estate tax exclusion amount.

Carried interest is simply a contingent right to receive a share of future profits, usually after limited partners enjoy return of capital and a certain preferred return on that capital. When the fund matures and distributions begin, carried interest can rapidly gain value and typically comprises the majority of income for such general partners.

But in the early years of a fund, we might call it “concealed carry” as it is often overlooked in estate planning due to its initially low value due to lack of guaranteed return, illiquidity, clawback risk, long investment cycle, etc. These early years are the ideal window to transfer the carried interest out of the general partner’s estate. The lower the value at the time of transfer, the less gift/estate tax exclusion amount is used up in getting the expected appreciation out of the general partner’s estate and into trust for the beneficiaries, where additional planning will shelter the appreciation from other taxes such as the generation-skipping transfer tax.

How is carried interest valued and transferred? Carefully, by experts, because it’s complicated. Valuation is best done with discounted cash flow analysis that focuses on particular economic aspects of the fund involved and includes discounts for restrictions on control and marketability. Once you have a value, there are a couple ways to transfer the carried interest. The safer/simpler way (per IRC §2701 safe harbor) called “vertical slice” is where you simply transfer from the general partner a proportionate share (same percentage, say 30%) of both the general partner’s direct interest in the fund, and the general partner’s carried interest in the fund. The downside of that method is that because you are transferring direct interest you may be using up more gift/estate tax exclusion than would be necessary under an alternate approach called “derivative-based planning” which is beyond the scope of this article, but available if you need it.

FBI 2024 data shows that violent crime is way down after 2022 Bruen decision restoring right to bear arms, despite predictions of mayhem.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans, possibly millions, are carrying today that were not doing so in 2022.

Yet no blood in the streets!

Crime seems to have returned to pre-“plandemic” levels. Crime actually fell in every category and population group. (Not sure if they have a category for transgender leftist clowns.)

Cause can be debated but the main point here is that, as usual whenever gun rights are expanded, predictions of “blood running in the streets” failed to coagulate.

By my count, after the recent decision of a Florida appellate court striking down that state’s ban on open carry (a decision Florida’s Attorney General says is binding statewide), there remain only five states that generally prohibit open carry of handguns: California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. (Plus DC, of course.)

Florida’s open carry ban has long been an irritating anomaly among gun-friendly states, stubbornly kept in place by a few Republican state senate leaders who listen too much to law enforcement, who typically oppose open carry. Florida’s sheriffs long opposed concealed carry before its groundbreaking permit system launched a new trend of shall-issue CCW permits that spread rapidly across the nation throughout the nineties and oughts. The crazy predictions of blood running in the streets due to CCW never materialized, and now the same predictions are being made about open carry. (Just a few days ago i argued a bit with Sheriff Chad Bianco who is running for Governor of California and opposes open carry, which i support enthusiastically — he even referred to open carry as his “uniform” and sounded serious; i still offered a large donation to him as he’s mostly great on issues, particularly ccw issuance, though i have some concern that he was clueless about Prop 19 when i asked a question on that.) The only blood running in the streets is that of blue-staters running to red states that allow open carry. 

Even better for Floridians, statutory restrictions prohibiting carry in certain places are tied to use of concealed carry licenses and technically do not apply to open carry. So technically Florida is more Texas than Texas right now.

And Publix, Florida’s largest grocery chain (my daughter attends law school in Florida and we know it well), has announced they will welcome open carry as well as concealed carry at all locations. (UPDATE: Giffords chimes in on this — LOL.)

NRA and other gun orgs courted disaster for years when they actually took litigation positions arguing that open carry was NOT constitutionally protected, and therfore concealed carry was protected. Even now, after Bruen, gun orgs and their media influencers are doubling down on this flawed notion that a state can pick either open or concealed and ban the other. As i point out here, this distorted view is an illogical misreading of Bruen. Bruen protects both open and concealed, saving the gun orgs from their own defeatist litigation positions.

The biggest fears regarding open carry are (1) having your gun taken from you, and (2) being taken out as the first target.

The video at left is an example of (1). The carrier was also taken out, but only because of stupidity so extreme it constituted begging to be taken out.

There are other examples of bad outcomes, for example here and here.

However, bad outcomes like these are statistically rare given how widely, and how long, open carry has been allowed. And who is to say something similar could not happen with concealed carriers, as CCW becomes more common and criminals get better at detecting CCW (like cops and other CCW’s can do already).

Much is written about the dangers of “gun free zones” and how mass attackers seek them out.

I’ve written here making the case that concealed carry itself CAUSES these dangerous “gun free zones”, and only open carry provides Deterrence, Education, and Accountability. See also here. The local sheriff was actually present at the Cascade Mall shooting, but helpless because of his stupid policy against off-duty carry.

Yes, there can be some added risk to what i call The Aposematic Citizen. But that risk can be mitigated by using a high-retention holster and carrying a back up weapon, concealed. And the risk gets smaller as more citizens step up to carry openly. Here is a success story.

Again, it is not all or nothing. You can choose when to carry concealed, when to carry openly, and when to carry both ways at the same time (concealed backup). Nighttime at a stop-and-rob is a good time to conceal, probably, depending on the crowd.

Finally, while many are willing to tolerate the difficulties attending concealed carry, the fact is it can be uncomfortable and inconvenient at times and shortcomings in concealment have been a basis for abusing armed Americans — here, for example.

Let people choose.

Open Carry is Ultrasound for the Second Amendment.

Sydney Sweeney is the new face of gun training culture.

Awesome job, whoever trained her.

Hope she attends our clinic.

We’re all about genes and dynastic firearm training, often in jeans!

Disinheritance always adds to the risk of internecine litigation between family members.

This case is an extreme example of what can go wrong.

Disinherited heir seeks revenge, and possibly a very large reward as a whistleblower, for exposing an apparent scheme of income tax fraud involving misrepresentation of the mother’s tax domicile as Florida rather than New York.

Often, these problems are dealt with more effectively during life, with truly comprehensive estate planning.

The US Tax Court in Estate of Billy S. Rowland v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-76 (U.S.T.C. July 15, 2025), link here, denied portability election due to incomplete estate tax return (Form 706).

Though a return was otherwise timely filed under the relaxed deadline under Rev Proc 2017-34 for estates under the filing threshhold filing merely to elect portability, and that Rev Proc generally allows filers to omit details on value of property eligible for marital and charitable deductions, the return was considered incomplete because the lack of detail on the value of property eligible for marital and charitable deductions made it impossible to determine the value of property passing to trusts for the grandchildren, who are non-deductible beneficiaries. As noted on pages 7 and 8 of the Court’s opinion:

relaxed reporting does not apply to marital or charitable deduction property if “[t]he value of such property relates to, affects, or is needed to determine, the value passing from the decedent to a recipient other than the recipient of the marital or charitable deduction property.” Treas. Reg. §20.2010-2(a)(7)(ii)(A)(1). 

I have no professional training in the security field and no law enforcement or military experience, but my decades of experience as a practitioner and instructor of concealed carry tells me that security at a recent local political event was probably lacking in a few respects. For the safety of both dignitaries and others attending, i hope security can be strengthened with an eye toward ever-changing current local laws affecting both threat and defense matrices.

This particular event was a fundraising dinner for an influential local lobbying group, featuring a nationally-known, high-level dignitary i was eager to meet. Prior to the event, i called the organizers to see what restrictions there might be on concealed carry at the event. I was told there would likely be no screening of attendees with metal detectors and such, and i confirmed that the meet and greet was to take place at a so-called “bar” located on the private ranch hosting the event. I was told the “bar” was not a commercial bar with liquor license for the sale of liquor, but from the description it seemed clearly to be a place with the primary purpose of dispensing alcohol. It turned out to be a very nicely-appointed bar operated by catering staff who poured drinks but took no money. Heaven, for bar-goers.

Based on the information i had, i decided to leave my gun in the Jeep during the meet and greet, and then retrieve it before the dinner/speech segment which was to be held in a giant outdoor pavilion (i never actually retrived it as i was running short on time before dinner). The reason i disarmed is PC §26200(a)(2), enacted recently as part of SB2’s overhaul of concealed carry rules:

(a) While carrying a firearm as authorized by a license issued pursuant to this chapter, a licensee shall not do any of the following:

….

(2) Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcoholic beverages for onsite consumption.

This particular section applies to this “bar” even though it is not licensed to sell liquor commercially. A separate prohibition applies to carry at bars and restaurants selling liquor under another section PC §26230 featuring a long list of “sensitive places” where our hallucinatory, marijuana-toking legislature dreams it has authority to restrict carry. A federal judge issued an injunction against almost all of these restrictions, but later a Ninth Circuit panel decision lifted the injunction as to about half of those places, effectively disarming Californians in much of California (relying partially, in traditional Democrat character, on an 1865 Black Code to do so). 

Security was lacking in my opinion, first of all, because there was no screening of attendees. Maybe they decided against that because it was a fundraiser and some people might not have liked that. I wouldn’t have minded that so much for this event for a dignitary, as i was told there would be several sheriff’s deputies present, though i think there is an unjustified overreliance on law enforcement for security. Remember how that went for Trump in July of 2024? That whole SNAFU might well have been handled more effectively with armed private citizens carrying openly, together with appropriate plexiglass barriers. Dozens of people saw what was happening but the cops they informed were wacky toon versions of the Keystone Cops. Nothing worked in law enforcement that day. Even after being spotted by a local cop, the shooter was able to get multiple rounds off, hitting Trump and several others.

Secondly, if you are NOT going to screen, then at least hold the event at a location where concealed carry is not prohibited. That way licensed concealed carriers may be able to help, if they are “lucky” enough to be in a position to do so. If the cops think they can handle it themselves then fine, if they screen. Absent screening, why stack the deck in favor of the suicidal criminal who doesn’t care about following the rules proscribing carry? Such attackers actually seek out “gun-free zones” for their attacks.

This event was only about a week after the assassination of anti-Ukraine bigot Charlie Kirk, and the short conversation i had with the dignitary at this event indicated high concern over death threats. I considered immediately bringing up these security concerns but decided it was probably not the best time and place to do that, especially since he was quite rattled (and i was quite embarrassed) after i accidentally dropped my glass of soda water and it loudly shattered next to him. (Might have sounded like a gunshot.) 

All such events, without screening, should be held in places where concealed carry is allowed. California is not the only state where laws are in flux due to aggressive gun grabbers taking advantage of uncertainty over the scope of permissible “sensitive places” exclusions on carry.

Conservative events without dignitaries should also try to locate where concealed carry is allowed, for obvious reasons. Too many of these events are located in places where carry is banned.

Due to the concerning recent increase in “assault tranny” mass shooters, our Attorney General Pam Bondi has apparently been considering some type of ban or restriction on gun rights enjoyed by “transgender” individuals.

This is a horrible idea for a lot of reasons. It’s a slippery slope posing a risk to all our rights, and of course it directly threatens the “transgender” person’s right to life if they lose the ability to defend it.

I’m glad to see gun orgs swiftly and clearly REJECT this ludicrous idea.

Yes, there is mental illness involved and violence is an increasing problem in this group. But that doesn’t mean all of them are violent. Red flag laws can be a solution if they are carefully tailored to prevent violation of due process rights. Regardless, we know bans do not work. Nature finds a way, and so will these people.

As always, the best solution is for the public to arm themselves for defense in these situations.

Stories here, here, here, here, here, and here.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is so shocking, it is certainly a turning point for US culture and politics.

The horror is captured in the graphic blood-spurting video at left, included here not for shock value but to honor the man. That’s not a gun in his hand, it’s a microphone. This was truly the death of a martyr and a patriot.

America changed in that moment, and that led to an aftershock, the tsunami of fearless commentary in support of Kirk that took over the airwaves, and grew into a massive memorial service filling a stadium and attended by VIPs you would expect only at the passing of a head of state. Kirk was key to Trump’s electoral success, but for anyone concerned about the future, it is clear Turning Point is here to stay as a force for revival of the American family.

The most shocking thing to me is how little shock i felt, or feel. Rush’s passing was a gut punch, but Kirk’s was almost nothing to me.

I agreed with Kirk on almost every issue and i am well aware of his importance in getting Trump elected and to the future of our GOP, but when he started spreading putlerprop on Ukraine, i stopped listening to him and the radio and TV networks who gave him a platform for all that evil propaganda supporting Russian imperial genocide. Unfortunately for the GOP, with very few exceptions almost every conservative pundit bought into the lies spread by the likes of Kirk and Tucker Carlson.

I certainly cannot speak for every Ukrainian and i am not even Ukrainian. (No matter, since few Ukrainians know anything about Charlie Kirk.) Nor is my daughter Ukrainian, since under international law natural born citizenship passes only through the father (though she speaks both Russian and Ukrainian, fluently).

But my wife is Ukrainian, and so is her immediate family dodging various types of Russian bombs near the front in eastern Ukraine. Yes, Russian is their main language. No, they do not want to live in “Russkiy Mir”, and neither do their neighbors. We are in regular contact, so based on this admittedly small pool of Ukrainians i have a fairly good read on how Ukrainians remember Chalie Kirk, or should.

Official Ukraine has tact that i obviously lack and Zelensky expressed polite condolences without bringing up that whole support of genocide stuff, letting bygones be bygones. Of course it didn’t take long for Putler’s pal Medvedev to blame Ukraine for the assassination (see here for example).

Strong Ukraine supporters Sebastian Gorka and Mark Levin expressed deep affection for Kirk despite differences over Ukraine. But Levin was critical of Zelensky after his rude welcome at the Oval in February and to my knowledge neither Gorka nor Levin have close family dodging bombs near the front.

So what are some of the lies about Ukraine (what i call putlerprop) spread by Kirk?

He said so much in various media that i’m sure i don’t have a complete inventory (again, i stopped listening to him). For example, i don’t see any statements of his on the biolabs nonsense, but wouldn’t be surprised if he spread that too.

This Estonian observer points out a few things. Days before the full-scale invasion, Kirk labeled the conflict nothing more than a “border dispute”. Yet after the invasion, he said it was a “moral disgrace” for the US to focus more on Ukraine than its own southern border (as if we are not capable of handling both issues simultaneously; note that Kirk never supported assistance to Ukraine, not even after Trump fixed the border). In a Rodney King-like comment he publicly apologized to Russia on behalf of Americans, telling them we all just wanna get along. He also claimed Zelensky is some sort of CIA agent (the 74% of Christian Ukraine that voted for and still support this popular Jew would claim he is THEIR agent).

The Kyiv Independent points out that Kirk denounced Ukraine as corrupt, called Zelensky a “puppet of the CIA”, and claimed that occupied regions such as Crimea want to be part of Russia. They also point out that Kirk sharply criticized Zelensky after the infamous Oval Office meeting last February (my wife and i watched the entire hour-long video and saw no rudeness by Zelensky, only from hisvicedickishness Vance and then Trump when he had to jump in and defend Vance after Vance messed things up). The KI does note that Kirk called Putin a “gangster” and a “thug” and stated that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was wrong.

The Kyiv Post has a little more detail:

Kirk was known for his vocal opposition to US military and financial aid to Ukraine, frequently advancing pro-Russian talking points. Ukrainian media reported he had called President Volodymyr Zelensky a “CIA puppet” and claimed that eastern Ukraine “historically belongs to Russia.”

After the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Kirk characterized the War in Ukraine as a “border dispute” and spread false claims from Russian state media that Ukrainian forces were firing mortar shells at a Russian separatist enclave in Ukraine, as per the New York Times.

“I don’t love the idea of sending arms to Ukraine.” Kirk said on his show.

“I can understand that to a certain extent, but further funding a kinetic conflict against Russia and the Russian Federation is not our fight, not our conflict”

He criticized the US government for giving money and weapons to a country that “few people can find on a map.”

Kirk believed that Washington was “wrong” to view Russia as an enemy, even though he “does not like the Russian Federation or Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.”

Kirk also stated that the Ukrainian “military-industrial complex” and the oligarchs of Ukraine’s ruling class would benefit from the war.

Kirk labeled Ukraine’s brave Azov battalion as “Neo-Nazi” even though the few members who were using those symbols (which has pretty much stopped) were for the most part simply Ukrainian nationalists who hearken back to the days when nationalists allied with Nazi Germany to fight Soviet Russia. Ford vs Chevy, only two choices in those days. Plus Azov worked fine with Zelensky, who is Jewish. And Kirk doesn’t bother to point out the tens of thousands of innocent civilians buried in mass graves in Mariupol, just one of many cities to suffer Putler’s mass genocide. And it’s only fair to mention this article about use of Nazi symbols at Kirk’s rally on the day he was shot, not that i actually think he was a Nazi but it’s only fair to point this out and at a minimum it provides some basis for Antifa to claim they got a “fascist”. Finland also had an issue with Nazi symbols use in its military logos, but no one thinks Finns are Nazis. To think that shows extreme ignorance of history.

This UNN article has more:

It should be noted that the American blogger repeatedly spoke negatively about Ukraine. In particular, in 2023, the Center for Countering Disinformation reported that Kirk called for an end to the provision of American financial aid to Ukraine and criticized the activities of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

It’s simply unacceptable for ordinary people to spend $2 trillion that you don’t have on wars you can’t win, defending people who don’t belong to you, while you’re being invaded by people we don’t know. Cut spending. End the mess in Ukraine

Kirk called Zelenskyy a fraud and a “puppet of intelligence services.”

Now understand that Zelenskyy is simply being fed talking points by our own intelligence services. Zelenskyy is a puppet of the intelligence services. Zelenskyy is not just persecuting Putin… He is declaring war on the Russian people. He is not just saying that Putin is bad, listen carefully. He is saying that Russian society is bad. This is how nuclear war arises. Zelenskyy probably blames the entire population of Russia for allowing “another Hitler” to seize power. If this is another Hitler who came to power, Zelenskyy, then why are there so many Nazis in your army?

• At the very beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Charlie Kirk simply called it a “border conflict.”
• He also stated that “Crimea should be returned to Russia as a gesture of goodwill.”
• He accused Volodymyr Zelenskyy of the absence of elections in Ukraine. (Editor’s note: opponents constantly reminded him of the Constitution of Ukraine and martial law, and also cited examples that there were no elections in Great Britain during World War II. The same applies to the USSR: elections to councils in the USSR began to resume only after the war, from 1946).
• Charlie Kirk repeatedly wrote that Zelenskyy “holds Europe hostage, demanding money in exchange for adequate treatment of refugees so that they do not start terrorizing Europe.”
• He also praised BRICS and, of course, constantly criticized the allocation of money for aid to Ukraine.

In this 10/31/23 post Kirk claims a “victory lap”:

Just a year and a half ago, 90% of Americans supported unlimited aid to Ukraine. Only a tiny handful stood in opposition. Eighteen months later, Charlie has been vindicated, as a new Time story exposes the ongoing corruption and futility of the Ukraine war. Charlie looks back on how public opinion has evolved, and what it means for the future of Ukraine, America, and the world.

Yet Trump just posted (see left column) on Truth that he thinks Ukraine can win back all territories taken by Russia “and maybe more”. Kirk was still opposing aid to Ukraine in a post on 7/8/25, even though Trump had already pivoted by then toward supporting Ukraine. 

Conservatives detest the notion (called “bothsidesism”) that both sides of the political aisle are to blame for political violence. The violence is clearly on the left in America. Why are American conservatives, who supposedly believe in the right to life and in peace through strength, so horribly blind when it comes to Russian imperial genocide? These gullible isolationists just throw up their hands and say “both sides” must be at fault. 

Neither Trump nor Kirk is stupid. Although Trump’s rhetoric at times was questionable, and the Oval Office incident was itself such an abomination as to be almost another genocide of Ukraine, the fact is that Trump’s actions have almost always been much better for Ukraine and Europe than those of the Dems. I think Trump may have held for awhile to the old Kissingerian establishment doctrine of appeasing Russia on Crimea, but Trump has clearly shed that illusion now, if in fact he still suffered from it. I think it more likely Trump’s “appeasement” was simply to buy time so that he could get American diplomacy/trade/economy/military back in shape after Biden. Trump needed isolationists like Kirk to win office, but Trump’s rhetoric as well as action must pivot toward Ukraine if he is not to lose the midterms.

As for Kirk, his “business plan” involved building support among young males afraid to fight WW3. Kirk delivered them with his isolationist putlerprop. That’s not going to work anymore.

The Kirk camp is filled with isolationists: MTG, Tucker Carlson, presidential son Donald Trump, Jr., etc. And what the hell happened to Glenn Beck?? He used to be the greatest critic of Putin and the threat Putler poses to Europe, and then like overnight he suddenly switched sides. Doesn’t anyone remember Beck’s old videos?? They have all slandered Ukraine with extremely offensive comments that our great President would never make. Don Jr is especially disappointing. I suppose it’s possible they are all cooperating in a giant head fake against Russia but that sounds like fantasy even though it would be fantastic.

One final note on Pastor Rob McCoy, who as Kirk’s friend and pastor made the first speech at Kirk’s memorial. When we were kids, Rob and i attended the same Catholic parish, were in the same Scout troop, and went to the same high school. Not exactly close friends, but we knew each other. Haven’t talked with him much since, outside of high school reunions and only several of those briefly. But i do recall he had an extremely negative view of Zelensky. My understanding is that his daughter married into a well-to-do Ukrainian family and Rob’s wife Michelle told my wife the family was from Dnipro (my wife’s hometown) but the family is now all here in the US. My mother-in-law thought she recognized the family name as the same as a bureaucratic high-up in Dnipro, from years ago. This is just speculation, but it’s plausible that the family could have been part of the old guard connected to establishment prior to Maidan in 2014 (when Yanukovych high-tailed it to Russia), and that would explain why they are all apparently here now in the US and why Rob has such disdain for Zelensky. I have Rob’s mobile and could ask him about all this to confirm, but it would be a weird conversation and unnecessary. Not at all suggesting anything inappropriate here, just making the point that Kirk’s inner circle seems to be rather anti-Ukraine, or at least anti-Zelensky. 

In January 2024, Kirk said that a “myth” had been created around Martin Luther King which had “grown totally out of control” and that King was currently “the most honored, worshiped, even deified person of the 20th century” despite “most people” supposedly disliking him during his life. There is much good in what Kirk did for the conservative movement, but that movement could be threatened if it does not temper the current “deification” of Kirk with some realism about where he erred.

A California appellate court ruled in Groebner v Super. Ct. that in a probate case a demurrer can be filed at any time at or before the initial hearing.

California’s Code of Civil Procedure (CCP) specifies that a demurrer must be filed within thirty days of a complaint. The CCP applies to probate cases, except where the Probate Code provides otherwise, which it does in §1043.

We can help you with your estate matters, whether trust admin, probate, or even a demurrer in probate.

Learn more at CentralCoastProbate.com

Not saying we need to ban all cars. But this one was an SUV. And it was BLACK. Made with GERMAN precision. Probably not even electric. 

Story here:

VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) — Murder charges were filed Sunday against a suspect in a weekend car ramming attack that killed 11 people between the ages of 5 and 65 at a Filipino heritage festival in the city of Vancouver, a tragedy that shook Canada on the eve of a federal election.

The British Columbia Prosecution Service charged Kai-Ji Adam Lo, 30, with eight counts of second degree murder and said more charges were possible. Investigators ruled out terrorism and said Lo had a history of mental health issues.

Lo, a Vancouver resident, appeared in court and remains in custody, prosecutors said. An attorney for Lo wasn’t listed in online court documents and The Associated Press wasn’t immediately able to reach an attorney representing him.

Dozens of people were injured, some critically, when a man driving a black Audi SUV entered the street just after 8 p.m. Saturday and struck people attending the Lapu Lapu Day festival. He was arrested at the scene. Authorities had not released victims’ names by Sunday evening.

Democrat Senator (and former VP candidate) Tim Kaine shockingly rejected the self-evident Truth, stated in our Declaration of Independence, that our rights come from God rather than government.

Is it not crystal clear that the Democrat Party is the party of godless woke fascist communards?

How about designing your estate plan to pass on values that matter?

The video below shows Kaine putting his cloven hoof in his mouth, and Senator Cruz attempting to exorcize the Republic.

Research published in the American Journal of Transplantation shows that Chinese communist physicians are actively participating in the execution of prisoners and the harvesting of their organs:

The dead donor rule is fundamental to transplant ethics. The rule states that organ procurement must not commence until the donor is both dead and formally pronounced so, and by the same token, that procurement of organs must not cause the death of the donor. In a separate area of medical practice, there has been intense controversy around the participation of physicians in the execution of capital prisoners. These two apparently disparate topics converge in a unique case: the intimate involvement of transplant surgeons in China in the execution of prisoners via the procurement of organs. We use computational text analysis to conduct a forensic review of 2838 papers drawn from a dataset of 124 770 Chinese-language transplant publications. Our algorithm searched for evidence of problematic declarations of brain death during organ procurement. We find evidence in 71 of these reports, spread nationwide, that brain death could not have properly been declared. In these cases, the removal of the heart during organ procurement must have been the proximate cause of the donor’s death. Because these organ donors could only have been prisoners, our findings strongly suggest that physicians in the People’s Republic of China have participated in executions by organ removal.

Physician clients have told me that pretty much the same thing happens here in the US, on a much smaller scale. Organs are often removed a little sooner than they should, for example.

Keep all this in mind when drafting your estate plan, particularly health care documents.

Almost every estate planning client has family protection as a major if not primary legacy goal.

The worst legacy you can leave is to leave your children fighting each other.

Looks like that’s what Tony Bennett did, because he put his trust in one child to administer his estate for the other children.

That’s fine in theory, and often it works out.

Often, it does not.

There are alternatives. You can name all the kids as co-trustees. You can name close friends or possibly other relatives. You can name a trust company or a licensed professional fiduciary. You can give various persons the right to remove and replace a trustee. You can include provisions for a trust protector, for an even higher level of protection against intra-family litigation.

Some of the worst estate planning is found among the wealthy.

A hero armed with his self-defense handgun joined with several other bystanders to actively subdue the attacker in a mass stabbing at a Michigan Walmart. (I’m placing this one on my “mass shootings” list even though it’s a mass stabbing.)

While one could quibble with the hero’s pointing in without firing (generally you train to maintain handgun at low ready and only point in once you have made the decision to fire), pointing specifically at the perp’s head (an almost certainly lethal shot if it hits, and less likely to hit and stop than thoracic center-of-mass and thus frowned upon unless there is no alternative), while using a “gangsta” style grip and stance fraught with so many negatives anyone with training would likely alternate between SMH’s and chuckles, the end result was success and you cannot argue with success. This was a former Marine, Marines are awesome, but most are not trained much in handgun unless they were MP’s. And a lot of ex-military feel like they can get away wihout additional training. Maybe that explains the “style” used here, or maybe this was pure genius. In any form of public speech, you have to know your audience, and holding a gun to a mass stabber’s face is one of the most potent forms of speech. While it’s certainly not textbook, the hero did say the perp appeared nuts and in such situations, if you really want to avoid shooting, it can actually help to seem nuttier than the perp. I think in the video you can sort of see the perp reacting in a “this guy’s nuttier than i am” way. [I did something similar in my own DGU back in 2009 — perp was advancing toward me even though my gun was at low ready, until i stopped withdrawing and actually bared my teeth.] Demeanor is everything.

Stories here, here, here, here, and here.

Assassination culture continues to spread after study shows 56% of Left (those who self-identify as being left-of-center) wants President Trump assassinated.

Of course there is nothing new about this woke fascist terrorism, and it’s not even all that new on the American Left.

Trump supporters have been injured or threatened by leftist violence since Trump’s 2016 campaign. We saw Antifa at work during Trump’s first administration. Then we were blessed with a brief respite from political assassination under Biden’s COVID fascism which some think may have assassinated over a half million Americans dumb enough to take that experimental mRNA vaccine or give it to their kids.

Now the march of the leftist brownshirts continues, with multiple attempts on Trump’s life, and now of course Charlie Kirk.

Pope Leo says we need to end the “pandemic of arms”, but the only solution to assassination culture is gun culture.

As i posted previously, the failure of Rupert Murdoch’s trust to include adequate trust protector provisions allowing, without court action, the shift of control to Lachlan Murdoch, resulted in Rupert’s unsuccessful Nevada suit to reform the trust, a bitter succession fail.

Now it appears the family has settled its differences, but only at the cost of favorite son Lachlan buying out his woke siblings.

Merry Constitution Day!

Honoring our surest guarantee of Family Power.

Here is text of the original US Constitution, without any amendments:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Section. 2.
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.
Section. 3.
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
Section. 4.
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section. 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Section. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.
Section. 3.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
Section. 4.
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Article. VI.
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Article. VII.
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
The Word, “the,” being interlined between the seventh and eighth Lines of the first Page, The Word “Thirty” being partly written on an Erazure in the fifteenth Line of the first Page, The Words “is tried” being interlined between the thirty second and thirty third Lines of the first Page and the Word “the” being interlined between the forty third and forty fourth Lines of the second Page.
Attest William Jackson Secretary
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
G°. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia

A Family Mission Statement can play an important role in growing and maintaining Family Power in the near term and over several generations.

Dynastic trust incentives can help transmit the necessary values for Life, Fortune, and Honor, to grow Family Power, but words on paper are much more likely to lead to a successful legacy when supported by a substrate or lattice of values developed by regular and continuous family discussion during life.

Like a business plan, the Family Mission Statement is continually revised as goals and values come into focus, and failures are addressed. The parents of course have ultimate control as trustmakers and good stewards of their own wealth, but will need to achieve buy-in (assent) from descendants to assure continuation of the legacy, and that requires successful sharing of at least some of these values during life. Buy-in won’t happen without everyone participating. 

Texas recently had a chance to live up to its undeserved reputation as a palladium of gun rights, and failed.

Texas bill SB 82 was allowed to languish and die in committee. The text is very short and could have been improved, for example by narrowing “criminal act” to acts involving use or threat of violence, but the bill had a worthy goal in making business owners liable for crime occurring on their premises if they post signage to prevent concealed carry of firearms by CCW holders. I hope the bill is resurrected, improved, and passed.

Cam Edwards criticized the bill here. I’ve followed Cam for decades, since NRANews days, and met him once back in 2007 at the first Gun Blogger Rendezvous in Reno. I lost track for several years after getting banned from Facebook and LinkedIn, but now i follow him on Truth. Few if any protect 2A more fiercely and ably than Cam, but i have to disagree with almost everything in that particular article.

Cam says the bill is akin to gun control in that it makes us give up our property rights in exchange for safety. Nonsense! The business owner is already liable to business invitees (customers) for damages occurring on the premises. The question is, will an intervening tortfeasor’s unforseeable criminal act cut off liability of the business owner? Generally it would, but if the business owner forces his customers to disarm, that very act of creating a victim disarmament zone raises the foreseeability of violent crime in that zone. Maybe not, if customers are thoroughly screened for weapons and security is provided, but no business is going to do that. The reality of “gun free zones” is that they attract armed criminals. So what is really happening without the bill, is that the business owner makes ALL of his customers give up THEIR safety (ie, their right to life) so that the business owner can play not God but a delusional god who thinks criminals (or non-criminals, for that matter) will comply with his stupid sign. SB 82 restores balance by imposing stupid prizes where the business owner decides to play stupid games.

Cam next suggests broadening the bill to apply as well to government property. While that would be nice, as would simply getting rid of all gun free zones, SCOTUS has left ambiguity re sensitive places and broadening the bill would likely make it toxic to legislators at this stage, a poison pill tactic that gun controllers would celebrate.

Having followed Cam for decades, during the heady growth years of shall-issue, i know he is an indefatigable opponent of “gun free zones”. I just have to disagree with his apparent elevation here of property rights over the right to life. Although it is often true that rights to liberty/property/life can be viewed as so related as to be identical (life is property, property is life), there is in fact and in law a hierarchy of rights and right to life must always be at the top. That said, the bill simply restores balance, in response to the business owner’s elevation of his own property right above the right to life of ALL of his customers.

Allowing businesses to prohibit carry with impunity frustrates carry due to the impracticality of complying. And there are additional safety concerns attendant to forcing carriers to load and unload their weapons repeatedly in cramped automobile confines not optimal for safety and under circumstances where the carrier may be rushed due to schedule on a busy day. A stranger could approach, with bad result — it’s happened. 

Most gun owners, even if licensed CCW holders, don’t carry as often as they should and may be unaware of these impracticalities but some empathy could be obtained from teenage girls forced to change in their cars while queer dudes take over their locker rooms.

California narrowly escaped posting of businesses (“vampire rule”) but the Ninth Circuit panel left a clear roadmap (to Hawaii) for imposing it whenever Sacramento wants to take the plunge and throw those dice, politically. 

For now, we have enough on our plate dealing with California’s remaining extremely broad “sensitive place” restrictions. My successful 2A suit could be helpful to anyone seeking to punish wayward cops dumb enough to actually enforce these restrictions. 

Non-charitable purpose trusts are gaining attention as an alternative structure for business succession planning.

Traditional estate planning will often give control to family members, or maybe some of them, in varying degrees, usually through some combination of trusts and trust-owned business entities such as LLC’s. Trusts generally must have beneficiaries and quite often those beneficiaries have some degree of control over the trust and any business it owns. The control of the beneficiaries may be large or small depending how the trust is drafted. There may be a true dynasty trust lumping all descendants together, or perhaps beneficiary-controlled subtrusts, or something in between. The beneficiaries may or may not have the ability to remove and replace trustees. Regardless of the exact structure, the beneficiaries have rights as equitable owners and can sue for various reasons if they are not happy. I encourage clients to consider values transmission planning using incentives, not only in their estate plans but during life in accordance with their family mission which is hopefully consistent with their estate plan. The hope is that transmitting values important to the particular family and giving the beneficiaries some measure of control will keep the trust (including any business owned by it) viable as an instrument to build Family Power, rather than allow independent fiduciaries to ignore those values in favor of more pedestrian values inimical to Family Power, for example subordinating all decisions to a prime directive of protecting the earth from climate change. I mean, who would want that? I tell people all the time, while discussing options for leaving a legacy of firearm training, that i would be equally happy planning for a family that wanted to leave a legacy of fighting climate change — but no family has ever asked me to assist with such nonsense!

Well as it turns out, that is exactly the sort of planning involved in the most famous recent example of a commercial purpose trust. The founder of Patagonia, Yvon Chouinard, cared so much about fighting climate change and taking care of his employees, that he transferred all the voting stock of his company to an Oregon Stewardship Trust under a particularly aggressive Oregon statute allowing commercial purpose trusts with no limit on duration. The trust he created imposed strict requirements elevating his stated progressive goals to a higher priority than earning profit for the shareholders, which is perfectly fine under that statute and similar statutes in other states. The Chouinards donated the rest of the company (non-voting shares) to a 501(c)(4) involved in sympathetic social work and lobbying.

Why let the wealthy woke fascist communards have all the fun? Such a trust could just as easily promote gun culture and firearm training. You might add it as #8 on my list of Seven Types of Gun Trusts, although in my opinion gun trusts work best when they have actual beneficiaries and this purpose trust planning makes more sense holding business assets generating income that could then be used to promote some type of firearm legacy, for example by donating to aligned organizations or perhaps by setting up gun trusts to train actual beneficiaries.

As good as Oregon’s statute is, the state is too far left to be safe for any such gun planning, over the long run. Ditto California. Even with the traditional planning i do in California, i generally recommend moving trusts if feasible out of California once they become irrevocable whether or not they include gun planning. And specifically with regard to purpose trusts, although California does allow them under California Probate Code § 15211, the term is limited to only 21 years and most business owners wanting this type of planning will want to extend their business at least 50 or 100 years, typically. (Under § 15212, California provides separately for pet trusts, another type of purpose trust, which can last up to the lifetime of the pets under that section.)

While fifty or a hundred years is probably sufficient to satisfy the goals of most business owners wanting to create a social legacy for their company as in the case of the Chouinards or other communards or perhaps some great Americans wanting to more broadly transmit the militia ethic beyond merely their own descendants, and definitely sufficient for another possible use which would be to keep the commercial legacy going while bypassing incompetent/disinterested family members until some alternate succession can be arranged (if key employees are not ready to agree to buyout, for example), rest assured there are multiple states allowing purpose trusts of even longer duration, several in perpetuity.

Texas passed a statute allowing purpose trusts just a couple of years ago, which allows a very respectable duration of 300 years and broad flexibility of purpose, whether economic or not, to allow something like what Patagonia did, or maybe something a little more Texas. Couple that with Texas’ unparallelled business climate, and Texas may be your best bet. Attorney David R Duringer and his Protective Law Corporation are qualified to practice law in Texas, as well as California and Washington.

Just in time for Halloween, here is one of several videos left behind by the Satanic leftist assault tranny Minnesota Robin f/k/a Minneosta Robert who shot up a Catholic school this morning (or more precisely, a Catholic church connected with that school), killing several kids.

The video has been disappearing from the internet, no doubt because it is so damaging to the leftist narrative.

The video is extremely disturbing and strongly recommended viewing for parents who want to protect their kids, and kids whose parents won’t.

This post is a brief review of Mark Levin’s new book “On Power“, which i downloaded on Audible.

In short, the book is mercifully short, but it’s also great, like all of Mark’s books. In fact, it might be the greatest.

I say that because while there is no shortage of conservative books discussing inalienable rights, it seems very few focus on the power underlying, protecting, and threatening those rights. Mark’s book makes the simple dichotomy of “negative power” effecting more authoritarian democracy or perhaps tyranny, and “positive power” which is used to establish and preserve maximal rights under ordered liberty. The brevity of the book makes sense in focusing on this very important and very neglected issue of power. Mark treats the issue efficiently, adds sufficient modern context to motivate the reader to action, and then gracefully ends the book without repeating all the great stuff we read in his other books.

Mark writes that there are many forms of power and lists several types of political power, but i would add “Family Power” which could be the subject of another book (i’ll write it if Mark won’t). You could also add “testamentary power” and a few other related subtypes. For several years i’ve been running ads on a local station that plays Mark’s show and each ad recites the mission of my law firm which is to help families grow Family Power by transmitting Life, Fortune, and Honor, to descendants.

My ads also make the point that without Faith and Family, there is no Freedom. In keeping his book short, Mark allows us to focus and act on its critically important message on the importance of positive power. The marxists have indeed put a bullseye on the nuclear family, however we cannot rely on politics and the courts to save the family. Only comprehensive estate planning can, as the most potent form of extra-governmental positive power, effectively transmit the necessary Life, Fortune, and Honor, to descendants.

There appears to be one defect in the book. Mark routinely states, or at least implies, on air and in his books, that Montesquieu originated the idea of tripartite governance with separate executive, legislature, and judiciary, and it is certainly true that our Founders were influenced by Montesquieu’s writings. Yet it was the seminal Ukrainian constitution, the 1710 constitution of Zaporizhian Cossack hetman Pylyp Orlyk, that first provided for a tripartite government with independent judiciary, and this was well before Montesquieu. I know that Mark is a great supporter of Ukraine (where my wife’s family is now getting bombed by genocidal Russian imperialist invaders), so i hope he will mention this on his show if he hasn’t already.

My wife and i look forward to meeting Mark at his book signing at the Reagan library this weekend. Once i get the hard copy i plan on re-reading it (another advantage of short books) and may update this post after i do so.

California Probate Code §15800(b) (set forth below) was amended several years ago to place extra notice burdens upon a successor trustee who takes over a revocable trust upon settlor incapacity, unless someone competent remains with a power to revoke the trust (other spouse in a joint trust, for example). Within sixty days of determining settlor incapacity, successor trustee must now provide a copy of the current trust and all amendments (or a current restatement), plus annual accountings going forward, to all beneficiaries who would take at settlor’s death, except for any contingent beneficiaries the successor trustee deems not likely to actually take at death of the settlor. Failure to comply might well be a breach of fidiciary duty causing substantial damages.

Previously, such duties did not arise until a trust became irrevocable upon death of a settlor.

Note that it is not uncommon for incapacitated persons to regain capacity, and the law does not address this scenario. 

Whether capacity is regained or not, many settlors would abhor the notion of ALL beneficiaries getting this level of detailed information about their estate plan and finances while the settlor is still alive, though incapacitated. Aside from the severe breach of privacy, there is a very practical concern that in some families the required disclosures may spur conflict and perhaps litigation. Although it is tempting for those with a “when in doubt, disclose” mindset to look at this law as a brilliant way to head off future litigation, myriad possibilities exist for extremely adverse outcomes. Few settlors would want to pour accelerant on smoldering conflicts, or stick around for the raging inferno that erupts.

Fortunately, this law allows trusts to draft around it. Your attorney can easily draft your trust to render this §15800(b) completely inapplicable, or perhaps tweak it so that notice is not given to all beneficiaries but only a select few who can be trusted to monitor the successor trustee.

Finally, note that regardless of §15800(b) or how a trust may draft around it, remainder beneficiaries have a right to petition a court to compel accountings or disclosures of other information, including trust documents, and may succeed if they can persuade the court of the necessity.

***

For your reference, here is California Probate Code §15800(b):

(b) Except to the extent that the trust instrument otherwise provides or where the joint action of the settlor and all beneficiaries is required, if, during the time that a trust is revocable, no person holding the power to revoke the trust, in whole or in part, is competent, the following shall apply:

(1) Within 60 days of receiving information establishing the incompetency of the last person holding the power to revoke the trust, the trustee shall provide notice of the application of this subdivision and a true and complete copy of the trust instrument and any amendments to each beneficiary to whom the trustee would be required or authorized to distribute income or principal if the settlor had died as of the date of receipt of the information. If the trust has been completely restated, the trustee need not include the trust instrument or amendments superseded by the last restatement.

(2) The duties of the trustee to account at least annually or provide information requested under Section 16061 shall be owed to each beneficiary to whom the trustee would be required or authorized to distribute income or principal if the settlor had died during the account period or the period relating to the administration of the trust relevant to the report, as applicable.

(3) A beneficiary whose interest is conditional on some factor not yet in existence or not yet determinable shall not be considered a beneficiary for purposes of this section, unless the trustee, in the trustee’s discretion, believes it is likely that the condition or conditions will be satisfied at the time of the settlor’s death.

(4) If the interest of a beneficiary fails because a condition to receiving that interest has not been satisfied or the trustee does not believe that the condition will be satisfied at the time of the settlor’s death, the duties in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be owed to the beneficiary or beneficiaries who would next succeed to that interest at the relevant time or period as determined under the trust instrument, as amended and restated.

My recent post Victory for #2A in Duringer v Morro Bay gave little detail, but i can now report judgment was entered today in favor of Plaintiff David R. Duringer (that’s me!) jointly and severally against all three defendants: the City of Morro Bay; former police chief Joseph Cox a/k/a Jody Cox (personally, in his individual capacity); and current — soon to be former?? — police chief Amy Watkins (personally, in her individual capacity).

The case is totally unique — absolutely no other case like it, anywhere — yet is both a Second Amendment victory and a First Amendment victory that can inspire a tidal wave of other such victories. Blood is in the water and the dinner bell is ringing liberty. 

This was not a judgment by the Court on the merits. Instead, i accepted Defendants’ offer of judgment in my favor for a specific dollar amount pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. [The point of Rule 68 is to create, for judicial economy, an extra risk on a Plaintiff who refuses to settle early in that the Plaintiff might have to pay some of Defendants’ attorney fees and costs if the Plaintiff fails to obtain a judgment for at least the amount offered. Good rule! (See treatise “Economic Analysis of Law” by the great Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner.)]

My case was strong on liability, for violation of multiple federally-protected constitutional rights under the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments, unusually egregious in that, aside from merely affecting me personally, the violations were in retaliation for my speech and conduct as a political candidate and therefore also affected my supporters.

If you want to know better the strength of my case, skim through my 92-page complaint. In short, the case centers around MBPD’s denial of my CCW application based on their determination that i lacked Good Moral Character. Their sole basis for that determination (because my record is 100% spotless) was my non-threatening display, as political speech, of a so-called “red gun” at a forum when i was running for city council. A “red gun” is neither a firearm, nor any sort of a gun. It’s a hunk of red plastic in the shape of a gun which is perfectly legal to display in public. Actually, it’s specifically designed for that purpose and both Defendant police chiefs admitted there was nothing illegal about my display of the “red gun”. Yet in their warped judgment, my non-threatening display of the “red gun” as political speech was an indication that i could not responsibly carry a concealed firearm. Problem One: SCOTUS prohibited use of any judgment, let alone warped judgment, in issuing permits to carry; and Defendants knew they were acting against this clear authority.  Problem Two: My twenty year perfect record of safety as a student, practitioner, and instructor of concealed carry. Problem Three: During my campaign, both before and AFTER the forum event, i repeatedly displayed the same “red gun” publicly while teaching drills on voters’ porches all over town without complaint or response by MBPD, as i had done two years prior in a different city. See my 92-page complaint for more detail.

Civil rights cases normally involve suing public officials in their official capacities, rather than the municipality itself. My case was different, involving claims that in general are rarely successful but were well-founded upon the facts of my case. I sued the City of Morro Bay alleging a conspiracy (or as i call it, a high-tech lynching) to deprive me of my federally-protected rights in furtherance of Morro Bay city policy. I sued the two police chiefs in their individual capacities, even though such actions are rarely successful due to the affirmative defense of qualified immunity, because there is evidence that these defendants knowingly violated clear legal authority as they deprived me of my federally-protected rights. Moreover, i have hard evidence that the City of Morro Bay falsified public records in producing a false document which it claimed to be the official letter denying my CCW application, but which differed substantially in content from the actual letter received and still in my possession.

We all knew that despite strong arguments for liability, my case was somewhat weaker on damages in that much of the economic losses were admittedly speculative. I could definitely prove some economic loss, which might be necessary to serve as a basis for punitive damages (never got a clear answer on that, but regardless it would be easy to show some economic loss), and i could probably recover some amount for other compensatory damages. But punitive damages would require years of litigation and the reality is that, even though i had the law on my side, this would be a California jury and even if the case made it successfully through the Ninth Circuit or perhaps beyond, a decent amount of punitive damages was unlikely. Moreover, I’m sure opposing counsel did some verdict research and was equally aware that Second Amendment judgments are skewed toward the low end of the monetary scale.

I’m no Richard Posner, but as an Econ major i understand opportunity cost and this case was definitely a distraction from my practice. But despite the increasing opportunity cost of pursuing this judgment, the magnitude of harm i suffered precluded me from considering an insubstantial amount. Understanding the uncertainty in damages and the generally low value of Second Amendment cases, but also understanding my need for a recovery of some substance, opposing counsel correctly guessed (to the penny) my lowest acceptable amount, and i accepted his Rule 68 offer.

Defendants offered me enough to settle, but not enough to forgive. There was absolutely no indication of remorse by Defendants. Given the way negotiations went, i doubt whether Defendants learned any lesson from my case. I can only hope the taxpayers of Morro Bay, many of whom also vote, will successfully conclude the lesson.

Why do i call the resolution of my case a “Second Amendment victory”? After all, i did not seek to overturn any unconstitutional laws (the Good Moral Character requirement used to deny my CCW was repealed soon afterward). Nor did i seek to obtain a CCW (i already have one, from our sheriff). I sought declaratory relief that the administrative determination that i lacked Good Moral Character was without basis, null and void — but there was no decision on the merits. No admissions were made, no issues were decided. A money judgment was entered in my favor, but no one would say the amount is huge.

This is a Second Amendment victory because:

1. The judgment amount, though not huge, should be substantial enough to discourage future deprivation of federally-protected rights, especially when considering the substantial fees charged by several attorneys working for Defendants.
2. Failed off-record settlement negotiations exposed the insane degree to which Defendants are committed to their relentless policy against gun rights, in total disregard of the Constitution, even as they attempted to shield that policy from public scrutiny. While Defendants never signed off on acknowledging their determination that i lacked Good Moral Character was “without basis, null and void” (my main goal from the beginning), i emerged free to tell the complete story and disparage the heck out of these evil bastards.
3. Failure of off-record settlement negotiations put Defendants in a worse position. They now have personal judgments against them as a permanent public record. (As we tax lawyers like to say: “Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.”)

Rule 68 offers and acceptances of those offers are usually not filed with the Court. The parties usually work out some other mutually beneficial arrangement, largely because…guess what: defendants don’t like having civil judgments permanently on their record. Instead, the parties agree to some other terms, including dismissal of the lawsuit; hence, no judgment.

Upon learning i had efiled the Rule 68 offer and acceptance, opposing counsel was PISSED, even daring to say i lacked professionalism!

But i had warned opposing counsel i would be proceeding on Rule 68 if we failed to complete the off-record settlement quickly, according to their estimated timeframe. (I was careful to clearly document our agreement that the off-record negotiations were not a rejection of the Rule 68 offer.) Negotiations dragged on, blowing past their estimates, excuses were made about having to deal with an overworked part-time city attorney, and the City never signed the agreement. Yet despite this supposed difficulty in getting signatures, there seemed to be no difficulty in getting quick response from the City almost in realtime as we negotiated terms telephonically and by email in order to produce the agreement i signed and waited for the City to sign.

Even after I signed the agreement, which by its own terms (provided by opposing counsel) obligated me to file dismissal within 7 days of receiving settlement check, opposing counsel weirdly kept insisting that i would have to sign a dismissal before receiving check. I would consider that a material breach of the agreement if the City had signed — which they hadn’t. Nor did i ever receive opposing counsel’s signature as Attorney for all defendants. So rather than being a material breach, it was really a rejection of the deal i signed, a rejection of my signature.

The insistence of signing dismissal before getting check was the caboose in a long train of abuses. The whole experience of negotiating the off-record settlement was insulting in its complete disregard for my long-stated objectives. The misspelling of my middle initial (not easy to do, even in the busiest office) might have been innocent, but in retrospect may have been part of a plan to delay things long enough that i would blow the deadline for accepting their Rule 68 offer. More importantly, they included broad language requiring confidentiality and non-disparagement, hoping to bar me from saying anything bad about Defendants and getting my story out about what happened to me. Can you believe that? I was offering to engage in an off-record settlement that would avoid the public record of entry of civil judgment against these Defendants and i was not even demanding any extra money for that favor, not a penny above what i was entitled to under their minimalist, non-apologetic Rule 68 offer. And yet they dared to include this brazen attempt to silence me from all public comment, to keep the lid on what they had done. I categorically rejected both clauses requiring confidentiality and non-disparagement, agreeing only to include a short covenant against actionable defamation, which is unlawful anyway. And then opposing counsel quickly informed me of the very quick response by the overworked part-time city attorney who cannot quickly sign things that the City would like to include language barring me from ever applying for CCW with the City again. My response to that was angry. Aside from being totally contrary to my objective of getting the word out that their determination that i lacked Good Moral Character was wrong, this prohibition would itself be a further violation of my inalienable rights. The City had learned nothing.

A year and a half before filing this case, i warned Defendants i would sue them but offered to settle everything without money if they would simply reverse that administrative determination of lack of Good Moral Character, which of course was utterly and completely baseless.

Now, after filing this federal case, i was not demanding any extra money beyond what i had accepted in the Rule 68 offer, yet i was willing to enter into an off-record settlement benefiting Defendants much more than me. Really the only thing i was asking for, the only thing i cared about, was for Defendants to include an admission that the administrative determination, in denying my CCW, that i lacked Good Moral Character, was “without basis, null and void”. And they would only give me three of those five words: “null and void”.

Stupidly, i accepted.

Stupidly, opposing counsel insisted on requiring me to sign dismissal before receiving check, contrary to the express terms i signed. Again, i consider that a rejection of the supposed deal.

Regardless, and stupidly, Defendants and their attorney failed to sign the agreement after i repeatedly warned them that failing to complete it quickly would result in my proceeding under Rule 68.

Stupidly, even after acknowledging by email their receipt of my acceptance of the Rule 68 offer, opposing counsel failed to make any attempt to sweeten the off-record deal so that it actually offered me something. Like including those two words they took out (“without basis”), for example. That might have worked. But probably not, as trust was lacking at this point.

So now, two police chiefs have a substantial personal judgment entered against them, a permanent public record against them as individuals.

What will i do with “all this money”? Assuming my Jeep survives the Rubicon Trail this summer, i plan to spend a good portion of the judgment proceeds upgrading the free handgun training i offer at my office in Morro Bay.

US military vet hijacks Belize plane with knife, stabbing three including pilot, gets shot and killed by passenger carrying pistol.

Story here.

Here is yet another example of estate plan failure due to lack of family control.

Public agencies and nonprofits usually cannot be trusted over the long term to faithfully fulfill testamentary intent.

Did the San Luis Obispo City Council fail to honor the wishes of a  woman who donated the Canet Adobe to the city to be used for park and recreational services? Or, did the city find an alleged loophole that allows the construction of low-cost housing on the property? It is now up to the court to decide.

More than 30 years after Mary Gail Black donated the Rosa Butron de Canet Adobe to the city for use as a park or recreational facility, the city struck a deal with a nonprofit seeking to create low-cost housing.

Smart Share Housing Solutions plans to place 20 tiny homes, ranging in size from 220 to 264 square feet, on the 466 Dana Street property to serve low and very low income people.

Story here at Cal Coast News.

I spoke yesterday on California Gun Trust Planning at the Atascadero Rotary Club and was asked whether a gun trust can help avoid application of California’s one gun a month law which prohibits purchase of more than one firearm over a thirty-day period (aka “1-in-30 ban”).

My presentation is clear that a gun trust in California is NOT a way around transfer rules, and i reminded him of this.

I also told him i thought the law was blocked in federal court a few months ago but i haven’t had time lately to keep up with all the 2A litigation going on. (Partly this is due to my own litigation. Still waiting for entry of judgment on a simple Rule 68 offer/acceptance. Work has really piled up for federal judges as they try to run the Executive Branch.)

Anyway i checked on the status of Nguyen v Bonta and it looks like everything is frozen at the Ninth Circuit level with no new developments since its stay was reversed on August 15, 2024, allowing the district court’s judgment and injunction to take effect and block this unconstitutional law.

[UPDATE: As bad as Byrna is generally, it is even worse for Californians as they are limited here to kinetic rounds (“pain compliance”) and cannot be used with chemicals without meeting additional prereqs. The ads indicating they are legal in all 50 states are misleading.]

Carry a firearm, not a Byrna!

While it is definitely a good idea to carry a non-lethal alternative for self-defense, there are many such alternatives that are smaller and easier to carry than a Byrna.

Very few people would carry both a firearm and a Byrna. If i have more room for backup, it will be a backup handgun (BUG), not a Byrna.

Don’t believe the ubiquitous Byrna ads on conservative talk shows. Byrna is no better at protecting your family than the crappy trusts those radio shows sell. It’s almost like Ukraine, where it seems the GOP has become a bunch of NevilleTrumper peaceniks who no longer believe in peace through strength.

After reading Professor Lott’s great article on this subject, i’m sure you’ll agree and let this Byrna fad pass before you do:

But Byrna’s claims ignore key realities. The company’s ads assume that using a gun always results in death, but that isn’t remotely accurate. In 95% of defensive gun uses, simply displaying a firearm stops an attack without firing a shot. Only a tiny fraction of one percent of defensive gun uses result in a fatality or wounding. The vast majority of defensive gun uses are a less-than-lethal alternative.

While Byrna notes that law enforcement officers are adopting their weapons, police also carry firearms for a reason— pepper gas and Tasers frequently do not get the job done. A National Institute of Justice study found that pepper gas works only 20% of the time when used by arresting officers. But few civilians will carry both a Byrna weapon and a real firearm, and Byrna’s advertising never advises people to carry both one of their weapons and a traditional gun. 

Encouraging people to rely on Byrna pepper or tear gas projectiles creates a false sense of security. An individual’s pain tolerance, drug use, or mental state can affect how they respond to these irritants. For instance, the Virginia Commonwealth University Police department has reported that intoxicated individuals or those with a high pain threshold may not be affected at all. People who have previously been exposed to pepper spray can develop some tolerance.

Environmental factors can also limit the potency of these weapons. Wind and rain may disperse pepper and tear gas. In indoor situations, using pepper and tear gas may affect defenders as much as their attackers.

Police have used Tasers and other non-lethal weapons for decades. But just like pepper spray and tear gas, they don’t always work. The Police Executive Research Forum finds that, nationwide, Tasers are ineffective about 40% of the time. Everything from the clothing that people wear to whether they are wearing rubber soled shoes will effect their success. Nor are Tasers always non-lethal. An investigation by Reuters identified over 1,000 cases in the United States of individuals dying following use of a Taser, often in combination with other forms of force.

In a podcast where Byrna CEO Bryan Ganz and Chief Revenue & Marketing Officer Luan Pham interviewed me, they acknowledged the limitations of pepper or tear gas, and they personally primarily rely on “kinetic” projectiles. Byrna also sells solid, hard-shell projectiles that have a painful impact. But these instruments may not stop a determined or intoxicated criminal. These kinetic projectiles also lose effectiveness if the criminal wears heavy apparel such as a winter coat or leather jacket. Due to differences in velocity, weight, and aerodynamics, weather (wind and rain) also affects the accuracy and speed of the shots, potentially reducing effectiveness, much more so than is true for faster moving bullets.

Relying on a Byrna weapon instead of a firearm could leave someone dangerously unprepared when an attacker isn’t deterred. 

…

While less lethal than in those cases where a gun needs to be fired, these projectiles can still cause serious injury or even death. Byrna itself warns that its weapons “can cause serious injury or death” when striking sensitive areas such as the head, neck, or upper torso.

Self-defense requires certainty, not wishful thinking. While non-lethal tools have their place, they should supplement rather than replace firearms. But few are being advised to carry both a Byrna weapon and a gun.

A new study by Lott and Moody shows that armed citizens are much more effective than uniformed police at stopping potential mass shootings.

The study concluded:

The results favor intervention by armed citizens. Unlike uniformed police officers, armed

citizens are already on the scene and don’t stand out as obvious threats to a shooter. In

contrast, police face significant disadvantages. They rarely happen to be present when an

attack begins, and if a potential attacker sees an officer nearby, he’s likely to either wait

for the officer to leave the area or move on to a new target. Shooters who decide not to

alter their plans will likely choose to attack the visible uniformed officers first. While

taking on an officer may not be easy, it becomes the first objective when the shooter sees

that the officer is armed and in uniform.

Off-duty, undercover, or plainclothes officers share the same tactical advantages as

armed civilians. It would be valuable to compare their effectiveness directly to that of

civilians. However, we found only two cases where shooters interacted with non-

uniformed officers, so we can’t yet test whether uniforms themselves make it harder for

police to intervene effectively. That comparison will have to wait for more data.

Our findings show that armed citizens are significantly more effective than uniformed

police at stopping potential mass shootings. This result isn’t a criticism of law

enforcement, it simply reflects the tactical realities they face. Their uniforms make them

visible targets, and longer response times give attackers more opportunity to cause harm.

These results also suggest a broader conclusion: having armed citizens dispersed

throughout public spaces improves public safety. Conversely, gun-free zones are likely to

be counterproductive, a view supported by other research showing that the overwhelming

majority of mass public shootings happen in such zones (Lott, 2010, Crime Prevention

Research Center, 2025).

Armed citizens are not trained like police officers as to the correct response to an active

shooter event. Consequently, they could make the situation worse by inserting themselves

into the event. Our analysis soundly rejects that idea. In fact, we find the opposite to be

true: armed citizens do not interfere with police, and in active shooter situations, they

reduce deaths and injuries significantly more effectively than the police.

The video at top left is a brilliant “dissent video” by Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit, part of his recent dissent in Duncan v Bonta. (Video below that is my daughter Ayn, who is now finishing up her first year at University of Florida School of Law.)

Judge VanDyke resided awhile in Nevada and i’m guessing he’s maybe Front Sight trained, and he certainly competes actively. Very refreshing to see.

Watching the video reminds me of an evening my wife and i spent at Chief Judge Alex Kozinski’s home where he hosted a meeting of the Federalist Society. After speaking with the Chief Judge about our Second Amendment he brought me into his den and pulled from his coat a small titanium revolver he had concealed and handed it to me. So light! I was impressed and ended up getting something similar by Ruger, as a backup gun. Pretty sure that was his backup, too.

Anyway, Judge VanDyke’s dissent video is well worth the watch. His visual approach is really the best way to explain why the majority’s view of standard (a/k/a “high”) capacity magazines as not being “arms” entitled to Second Amendment protection, because they can be swapped out for something less “dangerous”, is unworkable as the same rationale could be applied to almost any part of the firearm, allowing that part to be swapped with something less “dangerous” and therefore also less effective for self-defense.

Not to be confused with my own lawful drawing of a red gun at a candidates forum (over which I filed a federal suit, entry of judgment expected soon in my favor), another Morro Bay man drew a bayonet at a city council meeting. I haven’t seen his speech and i know nothing of the incident other than what is reported in the excerpts below. But i’m guessing i’d like his style of political speech. Importantly, note that a police commander stated there was nothing threatening about his display of the bayonet (see below). Again, i have no idea what he was speaking about but i pray that repercussions for him are minimal, given my own experience with disarmingly overreactive Morroans.

Here is what was reported by KPRL, a station i advertise on:

A man who regularly speaks during public comment at the Morro Bay city council meetings, 28-year-old Kiernen Cottle, was arrested by police after he drew a bayonet during public comment.

This occurred on the January 28th city council meeting for Morro Bay, where Cottle is seen on video unsheathing a bayonet, holding it above his head while speaking, and sheathing it before wrapping it back in a towel and sitting down when his comment was over.

He was later arrested for violating California penal code 171b(a3), prohibiting people from carrying a knife longer than four inches in a public building or meeting.

And here is what was reported by KVEC, another station i advertise on:

A Morro Bay man brought a 20-inch-long World War II bayonet to this week’s City Council meeting and ended up in jail. According to the Tribune, 28-year-old Kiernan Cottle stepped to the podium Tuesday, unrolled a towel, revealing a sheathed bayonet. He gave an impassioned speech while unsheathing the the blade. He finished he comments and returned to his seat. Morro Bay Police Commander Tony Mosqueda watched the incident and did not think Cottle’s actions were a threat. Cottle was arrested the next day for bringing a knife longer than 4 inches to a public building or meeting.

I should probably have a “Dumb Criminals” category but as an estate planner i’ll stick with “Dying Embarrassed”.

This man was convicted of attempted murder because, even though he pointed his semi-auto handgun at a Pismo Beach cop’s head and pulled the trigger, he had loaded rounds backwards in the magazine!

We all should hope the day never comes when we have to shoot cops. Politics and courts must always be utilized to remedy injustice, no matter how defective.

But just in case, make sure your family can at least load a magazine properly.

Free training here.

Pursuant to new interim final rule issued by FINCEN on March 21, 2025, US persons and entities are now exempt from Beneficial Ownership Interest (BOI) reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act.

Aside from being extremely burdensome and vague in some cases, the law has been attacked as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy, and appears doomed except as applied to foreign persons and entities.

See the new rule here.

Will concealed carry insurance actually protect you and your family?

There are concerns (for example, see thread here) where policies may not be delivering as expected.

You have to read proposed policy language carefully to see what is covered and what is excluded.

Insurance policies seldom cover damages resulting from intentional or reckless conduct, only negligence. Plaintiffs will often plead negligence in order to bring in insurance as a potential resource to satisfy judgment, and regardless of eventual liability determination, the insurance company’s duty to defend is usually broader than the duty of coverage.

So insurance usually makes sense at least to cover some of the attorney fees.

But to truly protect yourself and your family, including family wealth, you need to consider other layers of protection.

Most importantly, foster a family militia ethic of regular training, during your life as well as after your death. Good training can go a long way toward preventing both criminal and civil liability in defense situations. Take advantage of the free handgun training we provide to the public generally and also under our client maintenance program.

Next, make sure you have a comprehensive estate plan that truly protect the inheritances of your children from creditors, predators, and perhaps their own profligacy, depending on the level of control you give them. You can also provide similar prtection to a surviving spouse. This kind of protection is relatively easy to obtain even with a basic, foundational estate plan, even in California.

Next, consider self-settled asset protection planning (protecting your own assets against your own creditors). Some of this is easy, maximizing use of available exemptions from collection. Beyond the available exemption planning, maximum protection is expensive, but often worth it especially for anyone with a business or otherwise facing potential future lawsuits. (It’s generally too late once circumstances arise creating a cause of action.) These advanced options involve sophisticated trust and entity planning, not only in California but also in other states and often offshore as well.

One more thing: Asset Protection Planning may actually help you become a better fighter. It can do that by helping you to avoid DEADLY HESITATION. You try to avoid that with regular practice. And hopefully you would never hesitate if defending your family. But what if it’s some other situation, like defending against a mass shooter in a mall attack? I know many concealed carriers who swear they will never defend anyone other than self or family, but what if you have the opportunity and decide otherwise? Concern over inadequate estate planning (including asset protection planning) could well cause DEADLY HESITATION.

My radio ad on Asset Protection for CCW is located here.

Victory for the Second Amendment in Morro Bay today as Plaintiff David R Duringer files acceptance of Defendants’ FRCP Rule 68 Offer of Judgment in favor of Plaintiff in his federal case, Duringer v Morro Bay et al.

More details to follow and an update will be posted once judgment is entered.

The Fifth Circuit on December 26 vacated its December 23 stay of a Texas federal judge’s injunction against Corporate Transparency Act (CTA).

Although the merits panel still has the matter set for expedited appeal to the next available oral arguments panel, vacation of the prior stay with its ridiculous new CTA compliance deadline of January 13, one week before Trump’s inauguration, likely means Americans can now ignore this oppressive and unconstitutional law as i doubt very much Trump will enforce it.

Americans are tired of this unconstitutional BS and law and accounting professionals need to be smarter about advising on it.

Earlier this month, a Texas federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against the heinous and unconstitutional Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which required burdensome reporting for many types of entities, even non-business entities created f0r family estate planning.

Yesterday, on December 23, 2024, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of the preliminary injunction. In light of the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network issued an alert that reporting companies are once again required to file beneficial ownership information reports, but the deadline has been extended. Reporting companies that existed before January 1, 2024 now have until January 13, 2025 to file their reports.

The squishy approach is to go ahead and comply by the new deadline.

Others may recognize that because this law was passed over Trump’s veto and is oppressive in so many ways to families and businesses and is actually a threat to ordered liberty in this country, Trump will probably not enforce it and likely will seek its repeal.

As my practice matures and I take on more high-net-worth clients, it’s amazing how poor the estate planning is among some of these families. Sometimes, there is no planning at all! In other cases, there is very simple cookie-cutter planning, which is always bad whether done by an attorney or not.

A previous post of mine here points out how incentive trust planning might have avoided the pain Elon Musk experienced from the loss of his son to transgender ideology.

In the case of Rupert Murdoch, it seems he failed to build flexibility into his irrevocable trust with trust protector provisions, something I include routinely when drafting trusts for families much less wealthy than the Murdochs. (I only take clients who want to plan seriously to protect their families with lifelong continuing subtrusts for their beneficiaries, and trust protector provisions can help keep these trusts working over a long period of time.)

Although the case is not final, the Nevada probate judge will most likely ratify the commissioner’s decision, and Murdoch’s rumored plans for appeal will likely fail because it is difficult to get courts to change irrevocable trusts in an adversarial setting since they are, well…irrevocable. A court will often happily change a trust where all beneficiaries are in agreement, or where the changes are minor adjustments for errors or tax changes, or sometimes more significant changes when in the interest of all beneficiaries and done in good faith.

Here, Murdoch wanted to wrest ultimate control of Fox and News Corp from three of his four oldest children and give it to the fourth, Lachlan, whom he trusts more with maintaining the conservative brand than he does the wokish three (echoing the miniseries, Succession). The problem is that even if, as Murdoch claims, allowing Lachlan to maintain the conservative brand maximizes financial benefit to everyone, the fact that control is taken away from the three woke kids over their objection means that the change cannot be considered in good faith, which is mandatory for any fiduciary.

A decent estate planning attorney might have suggested Murdoch include provisions for appointment of an independent trust protector that could make changes altering control and governance while either clarifying Murdoch’s intent that these changes would be deemed in good faith, or alternatively specifying that these changes could be made under specifically non-fiduciary powers, not requiring good faith.

In basic, foundational estate planning, trust protectors are normally intended to act as fiduciaries only, to make changes wanted by everyone, without having to go to court. In some cases, like the Murdochs, there must be planning to deal with battles for control and sometimes that means non-fiduciary powers to alter control or perhaps even to modify distribution. Such action is bound to wind up in court regardless, but well-crafted trust protector provisions can increase likelihood of success for the trustmaker’s desired succession plan.

A Texas federal court has just saved a zillion businesses (and family trusts and mere holding companies) the effort of complying with the onerous filing burden under the draconian, oppressive, vague and unconstitutional Corporate Transparency Act (and zillions more not even aware of the requirement), applying a preliminary injunction against the CTA nationally.

As i posted previously, different court earlier this year also ruled CTA unconstitutional, but limited its decision to the plaintiffs in that case (no national injunction).

I have been advising clients to hold off on filing at least until the 12/31/24 deadline, but now it appears they can hold off longer and my guess is that Trump will not enforce this evil law, passed over his veto, and will seek its repeal or substantial modification.

Hat tip to Foley Hoag for additional detail:

In a striking decision on December 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction in favor of the plaintiffs in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. et al. v. Garland. The Texas federal court found that the CTA is likely unconstitutional because it goes beyond Congressional powers under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause in relation to any enumerated power, concluding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their Tenth Amendment challenge. The Texas federal court did not consider the plaintiffs’ additional challenges under the First and Fourth Amendments. 

The Texas court’s preliminary injunction applies nationally. It specifically enjoins the enforcement of the CTA (31 U.S.C. § 5336) and the Reporting Rule (31 C.F.R. 1010.380) and stays the compliance deadline under § 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) throughout the U.S. As a result, all reporting companies are no longer required to comply with the CTA’s January 1, 2025 beneficial ownership (BOI) reporting deadline pending further orders from the district court or on appeal. You can read the district court’s decision here. 

The Texas court’s preliminary injunction would be subject to review on appeal (which would be heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit). The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) will now have to decide whether to appeal that ruling, and whether to seek any immediate emergency relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals while the appellate process plays out (which ordinarily could take many months). The impending transition to a new administration and new DOJ leadership in January 2025 will obviously have an impact on those decisions. The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) has yet to comment on the decision.

The Texas federal district court’s findings align with those of Nat’l Small Bus. United v. Yellen, a case decided earlier this year by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which found the CTA unconstitutional (but limited its injunctive relief to the plaintiffs in that case only). The Alabama federal court’s decision is now under review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in an appeal expected to be decided this coming spring. In that case, the Department of Justice decided not to seek emergency relief from the narrower injunction ordered there.

You may have seen my posts or heard my radio commercials on the idea of #DisinheritWoke. Like leaving a legacy of firearm training, i think it’s much more important than trying to succeed in politics or the courts.

Is it any wonder why so many of my estate planning clients are designing their plans to discourage and even prohibit support for any government education at the so-called “public schools”, incentivizing homeschooling and other private options, and even in some cases discouraging any sort of college education?

So-called “education” has become monstrous, child abuse in many cases, and educrats a threat to our republic.

So it’s really not surprising that a University of Kansas professor recently called for anti-Harris male voters to be lined up and shot.

What’s surprising is that he was fired for the comment.

Maybe there is hope. Then again, we’re not in Kansas anymore.

The war isn’t going very well at Gettysburg, either.

It probably takes a lot to shock Dr Lott:

The new data on all the criminal noncitizens coming into the U.S. is shocking.

.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) checks the background of illegal aliens they have in custody. But, the administration’s letter to Congressman Tony Gonzales (R-TX) shows that as of July 21, 2024, ICE let 435,719 convicted criminals and 226,847 pending criminal charges in their home countries into the U.S.

.

Of those cleared by ICE, 13,099 have convictions for homicide and another 1,845 were facing criminal charges. Another 9,461 have convictions for sex offenses (not including assault or commercialized sex), and 2,659 face pending charges. The convictions include other crimes such as assault (62,231), robbery (10,031), sexual assault (15,811), weapons offenses (13,423), and dangerous drugs (56,533).

.

About 7.4 million noncitizens are in the “national docket data,” so 662,776 is 9% of the total, and if one extrapolates the numbers to the homicide rate in this country, it strongly indicates that the government is letting migrants into this country who commit murder at a rate 50% higher than the rest of the U.S. population.

.

And these numbers clearly underestimate the crime rate committed by these noncitizens. The noncitizens in the “national docket data” turned themselves in to border agents for processing or were caught. Those who don’t turn themselves in are obviously far more likely to have something to hide from those doing the processing, so-called “gotaways,” who are observed illegally entering the U.S. but not caught or turned back.

On top of all this, whistleblowers report DHS is refusing to collect DNA samples from migrants, as required by federal law!

Political humor (parody, satire, etc.) is legal again in California!

A federal judge has enjoined Gov. Noisome’s perniciously noisome “Deepfakes” law (actually a collection of three noisome bills he signed with this noisome objective) as it is likely to be unconstitutionally noisome to the First Amendment.

The Babylon Bee benefits from a similar injunction issued recently in a related case.

If you get my newsletter you may have noticed that i started sprinkling them with added BB links, even before these injunctions. Sort of like walking across the street to the post office, even when i don’t have to mail anything, gotta get my daily quota in. Rebel with a clause. 

Health care planning is one of the most important concerns of comprehensive estate planning, often overlooked or given short shrift by simpler estate plans.

There has been a great deal of attention given to former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s ordering elderly COVID patients into nursing homes and the high number of deaths resulting from that order, on top of all the other mandates.

By contrast, very little attention has been focused on similar orders given by other Democrat governors such as Noisome, Walz, and Whitmer.

Available research indicates all of these governors bear responsibility for a high number of excess deaths and other rmaladies due to their COVID tyranny, which still persists in some ways.

Does your estate plan — your trust, health care directive and other related docs — adequately protect you from the next round of health fascism?

Yet another mass knife has occurred in communist China, at a Wal-Mart in Shanghai.

Three dead, fifteen injured. Attacker arrested. (Most mass attackers here in the US at least have the decency to attempt suicide as soon as they face any opposition.)

Obviously, private gun ownership is virtually non-existent in communist China. 

They can control the law-abiding, but even this controlled society cannot control violent criminals.

Of course the whole society is run by violent criminals. That’s why they control the law-abiding.

We can only hope the Chinese triads can smell the bloody Trump support from this Wal-Mart in Shanghai.

My classmate Kamala Harris claimed back in 2007 as San Francisco District Attorney that the police are able to randomly search homes to check for compliance with San Francisco’s gun storage law.

That law served as a model for similar laws later passed by many California cities, including Morro Bay (which prompted me to run for city council in Morro Bay). These laws are clearly unconstitutional under the Bruen standard set out by SCOTUS.

(Many Californians, including many politicians, mistakenly think there is a state law mandating storage. Actually, the state penal code merely creates certain penalties if a gun is misused in certain situations because it was stored improperly. Importantly, state law exempts parents from liability where a child uses a gun in self-defense. As always, except for very young children or other special situations, my recommendation is generally to gun-proof the child rather than to try to child-proof the gun. Here is a list of examples where children successfully used guns to defend themselves and family members.)

Aside from being clueless on Second Amendment issues, my classmate was apparently snoozing in ConLaw when the Fourth Amendment was discussed. That might be why she apparently failed to pass the bar exam on her first try.

A terrorist in central Israel near Glilot rammed his truck into a crowd of people at a bus stop, killing one, injuring 36, six seriously.

The terrorist then emerged with a knife but before he could cause further injury he was killed by armed bystanders.

Stories here and here.

This kind of thing has happened previously in Israel, which has generally allowed licensed carry although in varying degrees over the years. The recent massacre on October 7, 2023, occurred at a low point in carry, and it likely has increased again since. People tend to think guns are no longer necessary when they don’t see violence, because they fail to see what is keeping the peace: keeping the piece.

For a list of mass shootings here in the US that have been stopped by armed citizens, click here.

Last month i posted this article regarding Dr Lott’s latest discovery of a surge in violent crime that didn’t jibe with FBI stats.

Since then he’s posted several articles here, here, here, here and here, leading up to and following the FBI’s scandalously quiet “nothing to see here folks” revision of its 2022 data, resulting in an incredible 6.6% swing from a putative 2.1% drop in violent crime, to an alarming 4.5% surge in violent crime. Other stories here, here, and here.

The erroneous data was actually used to improperly and unfairly fact check Donald Trump in his ABC debate with my classmate, but Trump stayed confident in his assertion, probably because of Lott’s persistent research.

This is a major black eye for the FBI. Given the many other instances of suspicious conduct by the FBI, the understatement may well have been intentional and might have gone unnoticed if not for “those pesky kids” at Lott’s Crime Prevention Research Center.

Details are sketchy and confusing in this bizarre case of an apparent child abduction by an apparently drug-addled attacker wielding a knife in an apparent attempt to grab a 2 year old girl on a walk with her parents in Beverly Hills.

The father bravely defended himself but suffered knife injuries in the process. No details, but knife injuries are generally horrible. Despite these injuries, the father was apparently able to injure the attacker with his own knife sufficiently to cause death of the attacker somewhat later.

During the interim, the attacker was distracted by a Good Samaritan, who punched the attacker, and the attacker apparently decided to kidnap the Good Samaritan’s dog instead. (To some people, pets are like kids — if you are such a person, you should know that we include pet trust planning at no extra charge.)

If you want to know more about this incident, check out stories here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I don’t want to know any more about this incident. What i know, or apparently know, is disturbing enough.

While the father is being lauded for bravery, and there appears to be some evidence of that, he apparently failed to be armed and trained with a handgun to protect his family when necessary. Nor is the mother excused from this duty. If laws don’t permit being armed, then you don’t take your family there. But you can generally get a CCW in California now, fairly easily.

Since the father was not properly armed with a firearm, he suffered knife injuries which are probably horrible. And he had to defend using the attacker’s own knife, killing the attacker. Gunshot wounds are more survivable than most people believe, and chances are the attacker would be alive if the father (or mother) had shot in defense. The failure of both parents to be armed also necessitated the involvement of the Good Samaritan and risked not only his life, but his dog’s, and imagine if he’d died without a pet trust.

The attacker is of course left with the fate of dying embarrassed, killed with his own knife after apparently attempting to kidnap a kid, and upon failing that a dog, while apparently high on drugs.

Are you armed and trained to protect your kids?

If you were to leave the range prematurely, would the guardians of your kids be armed and trained to protect your kids?

Are your kids armed and trained to protect their kids?

How about THIS situation: 

The IRS has released Revenue Procedure 2024-40, which specifies annual inflation adjustments for tax year 2025.

Some highlights:

• Gift, estate and generation-skipping transfer tax exemption amounts: $13.99 million (up from $13.61 million)
• Annual gift tax exclusion (IRC Section 2503):  $19,000 (up from $18,000)
• Top (37%) income tax bracket for estates and trusts: $15,650 (up from $15,200)
• Zero percent tax bracket for capital gains for estates and trusts: $3,150

Our page at TAX.GD has been updated with these numbers and more.

Remember, BDOT planning can shield your trust from high income tax rates and over time yield greater asset protection.

At the beginning of this year, the California Uniform Directed Trust Act (CUDTA) went into effect, codified in Probate Code §§ 16600-16632.

It was a long time coming, having been first proposed back in 2010 by our state bar’s trust and estate section. When it went into effect this year, California was the forty-seventh (!) state to enact such legislation. Forty-six other states had beaten California, formerly known as a bellwether state and now known as the nation’s chief domestic exporter of refugees fleeing communism.

As a bastion of communism, the People’s Republic of California is no friend to creative trust planning, trusts being a cornerstone of freedom in free societies. Hence the delay in enacting CUDTA. Yet it had to happen eventually as California is not completely isolated from what is happening in Free America.

Not that the delay prevented creative planning. Many of us in California have for years been planning in various ways for directed trusts. For example, wealthy families may want to designate a particular wealth management firm to continue managing assets while a corporate trustee takes over other, more routine administrative duties. In my practice, I routinely include detailed and robust provisions for a “trust protector” to keep continuing trusts working over long periods of time. Where clients prefer using beneficiary-controlled trusts instead of requiring an independent trustee, I will include provisions for a “distribution trustee” and draft to allow some asset protection. These are all examples of what is called a “trust director” under CUDTA, which is some person (or group of persons) not a trustee, with power to direct trustee in regard to some aspect of trust administration, including distribution.

There are a million potential variants of directed trusts, this area is still developing, and this article not meant to discuss CUDTA thoroughly. Suffice it to say here that while CUDTA does not actually legalize any new form of planning (we were already doing this stuff), it does greatly promote directed trust planning by clarifying certain liability shields over these roles such that trust directors and directed trustees are liable for conduct within their own spheres, but do not have to worry so much about being liable for each other’s conduct. Duties to monitor are also reduced. Other arguments exist for these curtailments in liability, but CUDTA adds helpful clarity.

Another helpful aspect of CUDTA is that it allows similar partitioning of control, responsibility and liability between co-trustees, and apparently special trustees appointed for a particular purpose.

This is all very helpful with firearm planning, as it may be necessary to appoint a special trustee over certain firearms, or all of them. With firearms, it is very important to clearly specify who has authority over the firearm. The uncertainty over this aspect of control is one reason i seldom use NFA trusts in California, and CUDTA appears to help with this issue. However, there are many additional reasons, both legal and market, to steer clear of NFA trusts in California. Put simply, these over-regulated items are for the most part either illegal or not very popular, either because they are not great choices for self-defense, with better market alternatives, or simply not attractive enough to marry the federal government over.

CUDTA is directly relevant to an issue I posted about a year ago in a rebuttal to some disappointing (and offensive) misinformation (disinformation?) by CRPA regarding gun trusts, distribution trustees may be used in a beneficiary-controlled trust funded with firearms. As I wrote in that article, such a trust should clearly exclude firearms from the ambit of the distribution trustee’s control, leaving full control of the firearms with the beneficiary-trustee. If not, then the arrangment would appear to violate firearm transfer and registration laws as only one person, as reported to DOJ, may control that firearm. While federal laws are more focused on posession, California more stringently regulates ownership and control, in addition to possession.

The issue of power of appointment is a bit more grey. My conservative approach is to exclude from trust protector’s power of appointment any power over firearms, because of my concern for maintaining complete and total power of transfering firearms with the registered owner of those firearms. Yet Probate Code § 16606 excludes all powers of appointment from any application of CUDTA. Keep in mind that while CUDTA is helpful to make everyone involved more comfortable with furcated trust powers and duties, the primary focus in any gun planning must be to facilitate compliance with all applicable firearm laws.

Six years ago I posted this article proposing use of an advanced planning technique known as the Health and Education Exclusion Trust (HEET) to leave a dynastic legacy of firearm training. Such a trust might be called a Gun HEET.

The Fall of the Republic and associated increase in violent crime, together with expected sharp reductions in exclusions from death tax, have led to increasing discussion of this idea among colleagues. In my practice, I currently have two high net worth (HNW) client couples seriously considering use of the technique.

HEETs are potentially useful in larger estates passing significant wealth to descendants two or more generations below the transferor, where all available Generation-Skipping Transfer (GST) tax exclusion is expected to be completely allocated, used and exhausted, and where there is a desire to make significant expenditures for health care and education costs on behalf of those descendants two or more generations below the transferor. (The beneficiaries do not actually have to be descendants, but if not related then certain age rules apply.)

Under IRC §2611(b):

any transfer which, if made inter vivos by an individual, would not be treated as a taxable gift by reason of section 2503(e) (relating to exclusion of certain transfers for educational or medical expenses)

is excluded from the definition of “generation-skipping transfer”.

Under IRC §2503(e):

(1) In general
Any qualified transfer shall not be treated as a transfer of property by gift for purposes of this chapter.

(2) Qualified transfer
For purposes of this subsection, the term “qualified transfer” means any amount paid on behalf of an individual—
(A) as tuition to an educational organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) for the education or training of such individual, or
(B) to any person who provides medical care (as defined in section 213(d)) with respect to such individual as payment for such medical care.

IRC §170(b)(1)(A)(ii) specifies:

an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on

Thus, although IRS guidance on HEETs is minimal, you can see there is clearly potential for medical care payments made directly to medical care providers, and tuition payments made directly to educational organizations fitting the above description, all on behalf of beneficiaries who would be “skip persons” (for example, descendants two or more generations below transferor), to fall outside the definition of “generation-skipping transfer” and therefore not be subject to GST tax, even if the payments are made by a non-GST-exempt trust (a trust to which no GST exemption has been allocated).

The HEET can be a lifetime gift ILT for estate reduction, or if control is desired the HEET can be funded by an RLT. (Since the HEET makes the most sense where GST exemption is exhausted, or expected to be exhausted, the lifetime gift option will usually be preferred as estate tax exemption will also likely be exhausted and further estate reduction will likely be beneficial.)

The big issue to deal with is that GST tax is owed on transfer to a skip person, and where all remaining trust beneficiaries are skip persons the trust itself is considered a skip person (“taxable termination” occurs when last non-skip person dies).

The solution developed by estate planning attorneys is to include a charity as a beneficiary. The charity (or successor) will live forever and thus the dreaded taxable termination will be avoided. Conservative practitioners recommend distributing at least ten percent of income to the charity so it is not disregarded by the IRS.

Also, it is strongly recommended that a 501(c)(3) charity in strict compliance be designated, rather than a 501(c)(4).

So for example, if you want to designate a gun organization as charity for a Gun HEET, you may want to select the NRA Foundation, a 501(c)(3), but would NOT be advised to select the NRA itself, which is a 501(c)(4). Other gun orgs may have similar educational foundations, less involved in politics.

If designed as a grantor trust, the grantor while living may be able to take a charitable income tax deduction for amounts distributed to the charity. After grantor dies, the HEET itself gets the deduction in calculating its own trust-level income taxation.

Apart from designating a gun org 501(c)(3) as charity, which may indeed be a worthy objective (to the extent the gun org is worthy), what does all this have to do with using a Gun HEET to leave a legacy of firearm training?

You could view the charity requirement as completely separate and distinct from the requirement of making payments for tuition and medical care directly to qualifying providers. You can pick any 501(c)(3) you want, doesn’t have to be gun-related. Or if you are passionate about spreading the kind of substandard firearm training propagated by the gun org educational affiliates, possibly because you expect some indirect political benefit from their approach to mass training, then go for it. But for your own family, you want the best in firearm training (if for no other reason than to minimize payments for medical care upon negligent discharge) and you will instruct the trustee to select qualifying educational institutions that offer not only top-tier firearm training but all the other training, including values-based education, necessary in your opinion for a successful firearm legacy. Tuition payments (tuition only, not books, etc.) will qualify at any level of education so long as the educational organization meets the above description.

Or, you could potentially combine the two endeavors by setting up your own “dynastic” firearm school as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. This is more risky and requires strict compliance over time to avoid any impermissible benefit to your family from the nonprofit’s activities. If you, your family, and your trustees, are all careful about following the rules, staying at arms length from the nonprofit school whether as students or as hired instructors, this could be a very good way of channeling tuition payments to a school with the training philosophy you like, in a way that can benefit others in your local community. Note that, in addition to strictly complying with 501(c)(3) requirements especially in dealings with family and trustees, the nonprofit school under this arrangement must also qualify under the IRC §170(b)(1)(A)(ii) description of an educational organization with regular faculty, curriculum and students. While it may be safer to broaden curriculum beyond simply firearm training, note that a martial arts school was approved in Rev. Rul. 78-309, 1978-2 C.B. 123.