Greg Todd

06/23/2026

The Supreme Court unanimously struck down a federal gun law last week because it punished what a man was rather than what he did.

Red flag laws do exactly the same thing—and then shift the burden to the citizen to prove the prediction wrong.

Hemani didn't address ERPOs. It didn't need to.

New essay on why the logic of the Hemani decision is a guided missile aimed at every red flag statute in the country—including Michigan's, which explicitly lists drug use as a basis for seizure by judicial forecast.

The loaded question the founders refused to answer has been reissued. Under a different name. With a robe on.

Hemani, Red Flag Laws, and the Verdict Hidden in the Premise

05/25/2026

Memorial Day is one of the few civic observances that asks for something quieter than celebration.

Not gratitude in the abstract. Not performance. Not argument.

Just remembrance.

In courtrooms, government buildings, and cemeteries across the country, institutions continue because generations before us believed some things were worth defending even at personal cost. Whatever disagreements exist in public life now, Memorial Day remains a reminder that the stability of ordinary life was not created accidentally.

For many families, the cost of that stability was not symbolic. It was permanent.

The holiday is easy to treat as the beginning of summer. But historically, it was intended to preserve memory—to ensure that sacrifice eventually did not disappear beneath comfort, routine, and time.

That is probably still its most important function.

Today is a good day to remember the dead carefully, speak of them honestly, and conduct ourselves with at least some awareness that we inherited more than we built ourselves.

04/28/2026

A recurring mistake in how we talk about society is treating the individual as the smallest meaningful unit—as if everything else is optional, secondary, or constructed afterward.

In practice, that is not how anything durable works.

In litigation, I often see the downstream effects when the basic structures that hold people together begin to weaken. The law can respond to those situations—it can allocate responsibility, impose obligations, and attempt to stabilize outcomes—but it cannot recreate the conditions that were never formed or that have already dissolved.

The family, at its core, functions less like a preference and more like a structure. It is where people first learn obligation, continuity, and what it means to be bound to something beyond immediate choice. Those are not abstract values—they are habits formed over time, usually long before anyone encounters a courtroom.

When those habits are absent, the consequences tend to show up later, and often in ways that law is poorly equipped to address. Courts can manage conflict, but they are not designed to replace the foundational relationships that prevent certain conflicts from arising in the first place.

I wrote a longer piece exploring this idea—why the family may be better understood not as a lifestyle option, but as a necessary structure for any stable society, and what happens when that structure is treated as optional.

It’s a deeper treatment than fits here, but the central point is straightforward: not every constraint is a limitation. Some are the conditions that make anything else possible.

Have you seen situations where the absence of those underlying structures changes the outcome entirely?

https://quidestveritas1.substack.com/p/the-molecule-and-the-void