I don't see how you figure. Bruen only eliminated subjective "suitability" determinations in may-issue permitting. Objective criteria, like criminal history, are still allowed.
Also guns are expensive, so it's extra salt in the wound when you try to get them back and the cops say "oops we lost them" (i.e. they walked off into a buddy's trunk), or even if you do get them back, they've been stored in poor conditions and are rusted or otherwise damaged.
That said, they should still be removed if there is a credible threat of violence.
I've had an Americano from Starbucks (espresso, water, nothing else) and it was fine.
I wouldn't get regular black coffee from any chain place, though. Drip coffee in particular is just nasty, sometimes even through trying to mask it with cream and sugar.
I'm on my phone so it's a pain to try and find the original studies, but I see that in one, they didn't account for smoking vs eating edibles, and the other seems to have mostly focused on smoking.
Entrapment is when someone is convinced by a law enforcement agent to do something they wouldn't normally do. That's the key. The cops open up a shop for something completely illegal, you decide to walk in and buy whatever they purport to sell, straight to jail, not entrapment.
An undercover cop says "hey, we should go do X crime" "I don't know man, pretty sure that's illegal, I don't want to do it" "nah it'll be fine, you won't do it, no balls, I'll give you a huge cut", that's entrapment.
Typing these out, "entrapment" is not the most descriptive term, because the fake storefront is certainly a trap, but it's not legal entrapment.
That's the thing about effective prosecutions. They break it down into tiny little baby steps, each of which are simple and true, and nobody can argue against them. Then they put them all together, and the case is ironclad.
Because the state and county don't give a shit about black people. If anything, they're on board with it. That's why the feds are stepping in with a civil rights case now.
But note that "nuclear sub" refers to its power system, not armament. Nuclear subs can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. This is not a threat to nuke Israel or Palestine.
Edit: per articles quoting the Navy dude, this is a guided-missile sub, not a ballistic missile sub, meaning it only carries convention weapons, no nuclear weapons. That is, Tomahawk missiles.
Forgive my ignorance, what makes it so dangerous?