Artificial intelligence is a tool. A powerful tool, certainly, but one that people build, train, fund, and put to work. That means the people and companies behind it have a responsibility to make sure it works properly and has meaningful safeguards.

On keeping America moving forward in AI, I agree with President Donald Trump.

Trump has pushed back against tighter federal AI regulation, dismissed catastrophic warnings as a “hoax,” and argued that slowing American development would benefit China. I agree with his central point about protecting American innovation and technological leadership. [The Wall Street Journal](https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/trump-says-ai-doesnt-need-more-guardrails-despite-industry-warnings-b94263fa)

America should keep building. We should keep researching, improving, and finding useful ways to put this technology to work. Fear should not become our national technology strategy.

As a programmer, I see AI as something that can help people solve problems. It can assist with writing software, organizing information, automating repetitive work, and making complicated tasks more manageable. Its value comes from what people accomplish with it.

But calling AI a tool does not let its developers off the hook. It puts responsibility directly on their shoulders.

AI does not spring into existence on its own. Even when AI helps write code or supports the development of another system, people and organizations make decisions about its objectives, resources, access, and deployment. Those decisions carry consequences.

If your company builds an AI system, your company should test it thoroughly, protect the information it handles, establish limits on what it can do, and provide ways for people to intervene when something goes wrong. When you discover a serious weakness, fix it. When your product has limitations, explain them honestly.

**Safeguards should be part of the engineering from the beginning.**

A company should not need to wait for Washington to tell it that exposing private information, allowing unauthorized access, or releasing an inadequately tested product is unacceptable. Responsible development belongs in the design, the testing, and the daily operation of the system.

Users have responsibilities, too. An AI answer still needs judgment. Something does not become accurate simply because a computer says it confidently. Anyone who has used these systems knows they can produce a wrong answer with the confidence of somebody who has never been wrong in their entire life.

I support moving forward with our eyes open. Taking real problems seriously is compatible with supporting innovation. We can demand better products and responsible companies while opposing broad restrictions that make useful development unnecessarily difficult.

My position is straightforward: let American companies build, expect them to put real safeguards in place, and hold people accountable for what they develop and deploy.

I agree with President Trump that America needs to remain a leader in AI. The companies building that future need to earn the public’s trust through their work.

AI is a tool. Human responsibility comes with it.

September 11 is not just a date on the calendar. It is a day to remember the mothers, fathers, children, friends, first responders, service members, and ordinary Americans whose lives were taken by an act of calculated evil.

We remember the people who went to work that morning and never came home. We remember the firefighters, police officers, paramedics, and volunteers who ran toward danger while others were trying to escape it. We remember the passengers of Flight 93, who understood the stakes and chose courage. Their actions reminded the world that the American spirit does not surrender easily.

We also honor the men and women who answered the call after 9/11. Many served far from home, in dangerous places, with one purpose in mind: to prevent those who use terror as a weapon from bringing that kind of destruction to our shores again. Some came home carrying visible or invisible wounds. Some did not come home at all. Their service and sacrifice deserve more than a passing mention once a year.

The threat we faced on September 11 came from radical Islamist terrorists who twisted religion into a justification for murder, oppression, and tyranny. That violent ideology is fundamentally incompatible with the freedom, equality before the law, religious liberty, and democratic self-government that define America. It must be confronted honestly and defeated wherever it takes root.

At the same time, we must be precise about what we are confronting. The enemy is violent extremism and those who support, finance, recruit for, or excuse it, not peaceful Americans who practice Islam and live under the same Constitution we all swore to defend. Our strength is not abandoning our principles in fear. Our strength is holding to them while refusing to be blind to real threats.

Evil does not always announce itself at the border. It can seek influence through propaganda, intimidation, corruption, recruitment, and attempts to exploit the openness of a free society. That is why vigilance matters. Government leaders, law enforcement, communities, and citizens all have a responsibility to protect this country, defend the Constitution, and ensure that no extremist ideology gains a foothold in the institutions meant to serve the American people.

We owe the fallen more than silence. We owe them remembrance. We owe the wounded and the families who still grieve our respect. We owe those who fought after 9/11 our gratitude. And we owe the next generation the truth: freedom is precious, evil is real, and liberty survives only when good people have the courage to defend it.

Never forget the lives lost on September 11, 2001.
Never forget those who answered the call.
Never stop defending the country they loved.

One Year Later: Charlie Kirk’s Voice Still Matters

One year ago, Charlie Kirk was killed for speaking openly about his beliefs. His death was a tragedy, but it must not be allowed to silence the constitutional freedoms he defended.

The answer to speech we dislike is not violence. It is more speech, better arguments, peaceful debate, voting, organizing, and holding leaders accountable. Those rights belong to every American, regardless of party, religion, race, or viewpoint.

Charlie’s legacy should be a renewed commitment to use the First Amendment the right way: speak your mind, listen when you disagree, challenge ideas, and stand up for what you believe without fear. Political violence is not courage. It is cowardice, and it is an attack on the Constitution itself.

There are people on the left, right, and everywhere in between who have allowed anger to replace discussion. That has to stop. America does not survive because we all agree. America survives because we protect the right to disagree peacefully.

Charlie Kirk’s death was not in vain if it reminds us that our constitutional rights are worth exercising, defending, and preserving for the next generation.

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, September 9, 2026                                                    
Contact: Kevin Lampe - Kurth Lampe Worldwide
(312) 617-7280 or kevin@kurthlampe.com

Update on Lawsuit Against Texas Military Department Retaliatory Firing of Computer Programmer Over Protected Political Speech

National Guard Bureau Inspector General Refers Complaint to Texas National Guard Inspector General Office

In addition to the lawsuit, John Gately filed a complaint with the Department of Defense Inspector General. After a preliminary review of Gately's charges, the National Guard Bureau Inspector General determined the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Texas National Guard Inspector General Office and officially referred the case to them under Army Regulation 20-1.

MSgt David E. Eichaker of the National Guard Bureau Inspector General (NGB-IG) responded to Gately’s submission to the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG). 

Gately’s lawsuit alleges that "Higher Ups" directed his termination after he refused to censor a personal press release about a political candidate.

Highlights of Recent Federal Court Order in Gately’s Lawsuit

First Amendment Retaliation Claim Validated: The federal court explicitly ruled that Gately adequately pleaded all four legal elements required to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Core Political Speech Recognized: The judge affirmed that Gately’s statements regarding a local political election fell "squarely into the 'public concern' bucket," emphasizing that his comments as Republican Precinct Chair represented core political speech in which he maintained a powerful constitutional interest.

Presumption in Favor of Free Speech: The court applied the Pickering balancing test and determined that Gately’s interest in speaking about a public election outweighed the department’s interest in suppressing the speech. The court rejected TMD’s claim that the speech disrupted workplace "harmony," noting that Gately's political release relied entirely on publicly available sources.

Reinstatement Remedy Preserved: While sovereign immunity limits certain retrospective claims, the court confirmed that a state official's continued refusal to re-employ an individual following a retaliatory discharge constitutes an ongoing constitutional violation under Ex parte Young. Consequently, Gately's claim for prospective reinstatement remains fully intact.

Background on John Gately’s lawsuit against Texas Military Department

Gately, a ten-year employee and computer programmer for the Texas Military Department (TMD) and a Master Sergeant in the Texas State Guard, filed a federal lawsuit on June 2, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint (Case No. 26-1480) alleges that Gately was wrongfully terminated in violation of his First Amendment rights after refusing to remove a political press release he authored in his personal capacity as a Republican Precinct Chair. David Sergi and Jessica Cousineau of Sergi & Associates of San Marcos, TX, filed the lawsuit.

The lawsuit names Major General Thomas M. Suelzer, Adjutant General of Texas; Mike W. Gorby, Executive Director of the Office of State Administration; John Doe(s; and the State of Texas as defendants.

According to the lawsuit, Gately has an outstanding employment record with multiple commendations over more than a decade of service and was sworn in as Republican Precinct Chair for Precinct 338 in January 2026. On March 12, 2026, acting in his capacity as Precinct Chair, Gately published a press release about Round Rock, TX, mayoral candidate Kelly Hall. The press release discussed Hall's service record and claims regarding his discharge from the Texas State Guard.

The lawsuit says shortly after the press release was posted online, Gately’s TMD supervisors, acting on instructions from "higher-ups," repeatedly directed him to remove the post. Despite confirmation from the TMD Government Affairs Office that his speech was protected under the First Amendment, Gately was told that refusing to comply would result in his termination. On March 19, 2026, Gately was fired.

"This is a clear-cut case of government overreach and a blatant violation of the most fundamental right guaranteed to every American," said David K. Sergi, lead attorney for Gately. "John was speaking as a private citizen about a significant public concern. The Texas Military Department cannot use its power as an employer to silence political discourse or punish employees for exercising their constitutional rights outside of the workplace."

Throughout his career, Gately received dozens of awards, including the Texas Outstanding Service Medal six times and the Texas Medal of Merit five times. His performance reviews consistently indicated that he "Exceeded Job Expectations."

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the termination was unconstitutional, as well as reinstatement, back pay, and compensatory damages for emotional distress and reputational harm.

"Political liberty is the bedrock of our democracy," Sergi continued. "When a state agency fires a model employee because they don't like his personal political speech, it threatens the rights of every public servant in Texas."
 

Justice is not cheap when the government has wronged you.

At this point, I have spent $61,762 in legal fees seeking accountability, not because I wanted a fight, but because I refused to surrender my constitutional rights.

The lawsuit, Gately v. Suelzer et al. (Case No. 1:26-cv-01480-ABD), filed by David Sergi of Sergi & Associates in San Marcos, Texas, challenges my termination after I refused to censor political statements I wrote in my personal capacity as a Republican Precinct Chair.

The federal court has ruled that I adequately pleaded all four elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court recognized that my statements about a local election were core political speech on a matter of public concern. It further found that my interest in speaking outweighed the department’s claimed interest in workplace “harmony,” particularly because my release relied entirely on publicly available information.

The Court also preserved my request for reinstatement. A continued refusal to re-employ someone after a retaliatory termination can be an ongoing constitutional violation, and that part of this fight moves forward.

I have also instructed my attorney to pursue a state lawsuit concerning violations of my rights under the Texas Constitution. I am doing this because federal and state constitutional protections both matter, and because sovereign-immunity limits can restrict the remedies available in federal court. Reinstatement is important, but it is not the whole issue. State law provides another avenue for the courts to examine the conduct, determine responsibility, and address the harm caused.

The Texas Constitution protects free speech, too. Article I, Section 8 provides that every person is free to speak, write, and publish opinions on any subject. My political statements were made in my personal capacity as a Republican Precinct Chair, concerning a public election, not as part of my government job.

Texas law says the same thing in plain terms. Texas Government Code § 556.003 provides that state employees have the rights of freedom of association and political participation guaranteed by the Texas and United States Constitutions.

My speech was made personally, as a Republican Precinct Chair, about a public election. I was not using government time, government equipment, government resources, or government authority to make my views known. The Texas Government Code recognizes that being a state employee does not require a person to surrender the constitutional rights every other citizen has.

The federal judge’s ruling matters because the Court has already found that I adequately pleaded a First Amendment retaliation claim and recognized that my statements were core political speech on a matter of public concern. The Court also found, at this stage of the case, that my interest in speaking outweighed the department’s claimed interest in suppressing that speech.

That federal ruling does not decide the Texas constitutional claims for the state court, but it is important. It confirms that this was not minor workplace gossip or misconduct. It was protected political speech. I am pursuing the state case because Texas’ Constitution deserves to be enforced as well, and because accountability should not disappear simply because one court’s available remedies are limited.

But this fight is not just about getting my job back. Reinstatement is only one part of it. This is about accountability for those who took an oath and failed to honor it.

Money comes and goes. Your word either means what you say it means, or it does not. Integrity should not be a moving target, especially for people entrusted with public authority. When it becomes one, taxpayers are the ones who ultimately pay the price.

It is also hard dealing with the same agency that fired you while it appears to be looking for, or trying to manufacture, new claims to pressure you into removing yourself from the department altogether.

That is how people get worn down. If you do not have the money to fight, you may never find justice. And when no one can afford to hold an agency accountable, the people responsible can continue violating the rights of other members.

That is why it matters that we vote for honest, truthful political leaders, people who understand that public service is not a shield from accountability.

Our government has three equal branches, and there is more than one way to hold bad actors accountable.

For Immediate Release:
Monday, August 24, 2026                                                              
Contact: Kevin Lampe - Kurth Lampe Worldwide
(312) 617-7280 or kevin@kurthlampe.
Federal Court Clears Path for First Amendment Retaliation Lawsuit Against Texas Military Department

Ruling Denies State’s Motion to Dismiss Core Constitutional Claim, Affirming Public Employees’ Right to Engage in Political Speech
 

AUSTIN, TEXAS — In a major victory for free speech and public employee rights, a federal court has denied the Texas Military Department’s (TMD) motion to dismiss a First Amendment retaliation lawsuit brought by computer programmer and Texas State Guard Master Sergeant John Gately. With the federal court's rejection of the motion to dismiss, the case now advances to discovery.
 

The court’s ruling clears the way for Gately’s lawsuit to proceed against TMD leaders  Major General Thomas M. Suelzer, Adjutant General of Texas, and Mike W. Gorby, Executive Director of the Office of State Administration, in their official capacities, allowing Gately to pursue full reinstatement to his position as well as attorney’s fees and court costs.

The lawsuit, Gately v. Suelzer et al. (Case No. 1:26-cv-01480-ABD), filed by David Sergi of Sergi & Associates, San Marcos, TX, challenges Gately’s wrongful termination after he refused to censor political statements he authored in his personal capacity as a Republican Precinct Chair.
Key Highlights of the Federal Court Order

• First Amendment Retaliation Claim Validated: The federal court explicitly ruled that Gately adequately pleaded all four legal elements required to establish a First Amendment retaliation claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Core Political Speech Recognized: The judge affirmed that Gately’s statements regarding a local political election fell "squarely into the 'public concern' bucket," emphasizing that his comments as Republican Precinct Chair represented core political speech in which he maintained a powerful constitutional interest.
• Presumption in Favor of Free Speech: The court applied the Pickering balancing test and determined that Gately’s interest in speaking about a public election outweighed the department’s interest in suppressing the speech. The court rejected TMD’s claim that the speech disrupted workplace "harmony," noting that Gately's political release relied entirely on publicly available sources.
• Reinstatement Remedy Preserved: While sovereign immunity limits certain retrospective claims, the court confirmed that a state official's continued refusal to re-employ an individual following a retaliatory discharge constitutes an ongoing constitutional violation under Ex parte Young. Consequently, Gately's claim for prospective reinstatement remains fully intact.
   

"This decision is a decisive victory for John Gately and a vital safeguard for every public servant across Texas," said David Sergi, Gately’s attorney. "The state tried to bury this case under technical immunity defenses, but the court saw through it. The judge confirmed what we have said from day one: government agencies cannot weaponize employment power to punish employees for participating in political speech outside the workplace."
 

"John acted entirely within his rights as a private citizen and party official," Sergi added. "By keeping our claim for reinstatement alive, the federal court has signaled that Texas state agencies will be held accountable when they violate the United States Constitution."
 

Gately served as a computer programmer for the Texas Military Department for more than ten years, consistently earning "Exceeded Job Expectations" performance reviews and receiving numerous state awards. In January 2026, he was sworn in as Republican Precinct Chair for Precinct 338.
 

On March 12, 2026, acting in his personal role as a Republican Precinct Chair, Gately issued a public press release addressing local election candidates. TMD supervisors then demanded that Gately remove the political post, claiming the instructions came from "higher-ups." When Gately refused to comply with the unconstitutional order, TMD terminated his employment on March 19, 2026.
 

For media interviews with David Sergi, Attorney, please contact Kevin Lampe at (312) 617-7280 or kevin@kurthlampe.com.
 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a Hawaii law that barred licensed gun owners from carrying handguns onto private property open to the public unless they first received the owner’s express permission, ruling 6-3 that the restriction violated the Second Amendment.

The decision in Wolford v. Lopez reversed a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and sent the case back for further proceedings. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the court’s conservative majority, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. Barrett also wrote a concurrence. Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

The Hawaii law required people with concealed-carry permits to obtain “express authorization” before bringing a firearm into businesses and other private property open to the public. The court said the law flipped the traditional rule that people may enter property held open to the public unless the owner says otherwise.

“This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects,” Alito wrote, saying the law interfered with the right to carry firearms for self-defense during daily life.

Alito rejected Hawaii’s argument that its local customs and laws justified the rule, writing that the Second Amendment has the same meaning in every state. He said it cannot give way to “the spirit of Aloha” and added that local attitudes cannot change the meaning of rights applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

The ruling does not prevent private property owners from banning firearms. The court said owners of establishments open to the public may still admit or exclude people carrying guns. But Hawaii cannot make exclusion the statewide default unless owners affirmatively opt in to allowing firearms, the majority said.

Hawaii officials had argued that the law protected property owners’ rights and balanced those rights against the right to carry firearms. Gun rights challengers, including three Maui County residents with concealed-carry permits and a Honolulu-based advocacy group, said the rule amounted to a broad restriction on lawful public carry.

In dissent, Jackson said the case was about property rights, not gun rights, and accused the majority of turning the court’s 2022 gun-rights decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen into a “free-for-all.” She said the ruling improperly limited lawmakers trying to protect both gun owners and property owners.

Kagan wrote separately that Hawaii’s law was consistent with historical regulations aimed at addressing harms caused by people carrying guns on other people’s land.

The decision is the court’s latest major Second Amendment ruling since Bruen, which held that people have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense. The court did not take up separate parts of Hawaii’s law involving firearms at beaches, bars and other sensitive places

AUSTIN, Texas — Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said Wednesday that the state has formally asked the federal government to reimburse more than $10 billion spent on border security efforts under Operation Lone Star.

Abbott said Texas submitted documentation to the Homeland Security Department seeking repayment for costs tied to the border initiative, which he launched in March 2021. The operation has deployed Texas National Guard members and state troopers, built border barriers and used state resources to target illegal crossings, drug smuggling and other border-related crimes.

“For four years under Biden, Texas spent more than $10 billion of taxpayer money to secure the border,” Abbott said in a statement. “I have formally submitted Texas’ application to the Department of Homeland Security for reimbursement.”

The governor’s office said the reimbursement money was included in the federal law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill. The money is being administered through the Homeland Security Department and the Justice Department, and Abbott said Texas will also seek reimbursement from the Justice Department.

Operation Lone Star has been one of Abbott’s signature border policies and a frequent point of conflict with the Biden administration, which challenged some Texas border measures in court. Critics have also questioned the operation’s cost, legal footing and effect on migrants and border communities.

Abbott said he will work with Texas’ congressional delegation, President Donald Trump and federal agencies to recover the money. The governor’s office said Texas bore the largest share of state border security expenses eligible for reimbursement.

 A growing list of public employees punished for social media posts about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has begun winning settlements, reinstatements and legal victories, renewing a national debate over how far government employers can go when political speech causes outrage.

Maria Ruhtenberg, an attorney with the Iowa Office of the State Public Defender, was fired after private Facebook posts about Kirk drew one complaint and later a media inquiry. She appealed, got her job back and later settled a federal First Amendment retaliation lawsuit for $125,000.

She is not alone. NPR reported that other resolved cases include Melissa Crook, an Iowa high school teacher who settled for $145,000 and benefits; Suzanne Swierc, a Ball State University health educator who settled for $225,000; Brittney Brown, a Florida wildlife biologist who settled for $485,000; Darren Michael, an Austin Peay State University professor who was reinstated and received $500,000; and Larry Bushart, a retired Tennessee law enforcement officer who received $835,000 after being jailed for a Facebook post about Kirk.

Two more public university cases also ended in reversals. Phillip Michael Hook, a tenured art professor at the University of South Dakota, was reinstated after a court fight over a private Facebook post. At Clemson University, Dr. Joshua Bregy, an assistant professor, reached a settlement after the university agreed to rescind his termination and provide pay and benefits through the original term of his employment.

The cases followed a wave of punishment after Kirk was fatally shot Sept. 10, 2025. Reuters reported that more than 600 people were fired, suspended, investigated or otherwise disciplined over comments about his death, with educators among the most frequent targets.

The First Amendment does not protect every worker from every workplace consequence. Private employers generally have more room to discipline employees. But when the employer is the government, the Constitution limits retaliation against workers speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern.

That principle reaches back to the Supreme Court’s 1968 ruling in Pickering v. Board of Education, which held that a public school teacher could not be fired simply for writing a newspaper letter criticizing school officials. The court said public employees retain free-speech rights, though those rights must be balanced against the government’s need to operate efficiently.

Later rulings narrowed and shaped that test. In Connick v. Myers, the court said employee speech must involve a matter of public concern to receive constitutional protection. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the court held that speech made as part of official job duties is not protected in the same way as speech made as a private citizen.

The Kirk-related cases also draw from broader free-speech precedent. In Tinker v. Des Moines, the court sided with students, including Mary Beth Tinker, who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, ruling that students and teachers do not “shed” their rights at the schoolhouse gate. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the court protected even inflammatory advocacy unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action and likely to produce it.

Other landmark winners include Gregory Lee Johnson, whose flag-burning protest was protected in Texas v. Johnson; Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church, whose offensive funeral protests were protected in Snyder v. Phelps; and Simon Tam, whose band name was protected from viewpoint discrimination in Matal v. Tam.

For Ruhtenberg, Brown, Crook, Swierc, Michael, Bushart, Hook and Bregy, the legal question was not whether their posts were tasteful. It was whether government officials could punish them for speech made outside their official duties about a major public event.

So far, the answer in several cases has been costly for public employers.

Brown, who now has another job working with birds, told NPR she wanted her case to send a message: “You can’t get away with stuff like this.”

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday limited the federal government’s power to ban marijuana users from owning firearms, ruling that prosecutors cannot automatically take away a person’s Second Amendment rights simply because that person uses marijuana.

In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with Ali Danial Hemani, a Texas man charged under a federal law that bars unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The court said the government failed to show that Hemani’s marijuana use made him dangerous, addicted or intoxicated while armed.

The ruling places renewed attention on the plain words of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For supporters of gun rights, the most important words are the final four: “shall not be infringed.” They argue that the Constitution does not say the right to keep and bear arms belongs only to citizens the government approves of. It says the right belongs to “the people,” and that right cannot be restricted without a strong constitutional reason.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the court, said the decision was narrow. The ruling does not protect people who are addicted to drugs, carrying firearms while intoxicated or proven to be dangerous. It also does not prevent Congress from passing firearm restrictions that are targeted and historically grounded.

Still, the decision is a major Second Amendment ruling because it rejects a blanket government ban based only on marijuana use. The court said the government cannot erase a constitutional right by placing a citizen into a broad category without proving that the person presents a real danger.

The case is especially important because marijuana laws have changed across the country. Many states allow medical or recreational marijuana use, while federal law still treats marijuana as illegal. That conflict has left many Americans uncertain whether marijuana use could cost them their gun rights.

The ruling sends a broader message beyond marijuana. Constitutional rights are not privileges handed out by the government. They are limits on government power. The phrase “shall not be infringed” means the government must meet a heavy burden before restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Supporters of the decision said it protects ordinary citizens from being disarmed by assumption. Critics warned that drug use and firearms can create public safety risks and said lawmakers may need to write clearer rules.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not end the national debate over guns, drugs or public safety. But it makes one point clear: The Second Amendment remains a constitutional command, and the government cannot ignore the words “shall not be infringed” when deciding who may keep and bear arms.