There are always going to be some people who simply make life harder for the rest of us. In gun rights circles, these are the people who loudly want their gun rights while loudly saying really stupid things, for example. They certainly have their rights--if saying stupid things justified stripping people of their rights, no member of Congress would be eligible to run for Congress, pretty much--but they don't make it easier for anyone else.

Then we have the felons who get guns despite all the gun laws enacted supposedly just to keep them disarmed. We know how well that crap worked, and their existence doesn't make our life any easier, either, since their criminal acts are used to justify gun control.

But an American with ties to the family that killed two police officers in Queensland, Australia seems to be a little bit of both.

A US man linked to the fatal shooting of two Queensland police officers has claimed that his right to own guns for self-defence has been violated by charges of alleged firearms possession while a convicted felon.

Donald Day Jr, 58, was arrested in December 2023 by the FBI in Arizona on two counts of “interstate threats” 12 months after the fatal shootings at rural Wieambilla, west of Brisbane.

He was later charged with illegally possessing firearms, including three military-style rifles, handguns and a sawn-off pump-action shotgun, along with a large cache of ammunition.

Day was convicted in the US state of Wyoming in 1987 of larceny, defined as a felony or serious crime, which prohibited him from using and owning firearms.

Public defender Jon Sands last week filed a defence on the firearms charges that claimed his second amendment rights under the US constitution had been violated.

That amendment states that “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”.

Sands referred to a landmark US supreme court decision in 2008 that found many forms of gun control violated the constitution.

“The supreme court held that the second amendment codified an individual right to possess and carry weapons, the core purpose of which is self-defence in the home,” Sands said.

Now, if the defense just mentioned the Heller decision, then Day has a big problem. It means his public defender is an idiot.

Heller, as noted in the above-linked piece, actually upheld the prohibition on felons as being constitutional. Bruen may have called that into question, but Heller most definitely did not.

Yet even here, Bruen found that so long as there's some historical precedent, some sort of similar law, then it's constitutional, and there have been laws disarming those believed to be dangerous.

I'm not saying I agree, but that's the finding.

Day corresponded with the Train family, who ambushed two police officers in Australia in 2022, which is the only reason that this is a semi-international story.

"But Tom, you said he said stupid things," you might mention, and I did say that. The problem, you see, is that Day was initially charged with threatening public figures linked to the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 response, then he reportedly threatened FBI agents.

While neither of those parties are people I'm overly thrilled with these days, threatening to kill them falls into the realm of "stupid."

It seems that when authorities found a bunch of guns being possessed by a felon, they stopped worried about the tricky case of threats and decided to focus on the illegally possessed firearms.

Here's the thing, folks. You can think anything you want, but when you open your mouth, treat it like a gun. Use it responsibly and don't be an idiot.