Well, it is one of the 4 major foods groups

CANDY CRUSH! Thieves make off with 12 tons of KitKat chocolate bars.

Twelve tons of KitKat chocolate bars went missing in ​Europe last week after thieves ‌made off with the truck transporting them, Swiss food giant Nestle (NESN.S), opens new tab said on ​Saturday.

KitKat, which is made by ​Nestle, said the truck carrying 413,793 ⁠bars of its new range ​set off from central Italy to ​distribute the chocolate throughout Europe, but never reached its scheduled final destination in Poland.

The ​vehicle and the merchandise remain ​unaccounted for.

Nestle did not reveal where ‌exactly ⁠the truck was lost.

In a separate statement, KitKat said the missing bars are traceable via a unique ​batch code.

Petrolino Sues New Jersey State Police for Violating 1st and 2nd Amendments.

For decades the New Jersey State Police have maintained a “good ol’ boy” culture, according to one man who is trying to bring sunlight into the darkened corridors of police power. “I have a tremendous amount of respect for police, but they are not more special than you or me,” said New Jersey resident and SNW contributor, John Petrolino.  

Petrolino is a U.S. Merchant Marine Officer, author, board member of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, husband and father of a nine-year-old son.  

John Petrolino
New Jersey resident John Petrolino (Photo: John Petrolino)

Problems first began when Petrolino attempted to obtain a New Jersey carry permit. The four-month process cost him hundreds of dollars for the permit itself plus training and background-check fees and must be renewed every two years. “I have both First and Second Amendment permits,” he said Monday. “Don’t forget they make journalists get a New Jersey press card, too.” 

Petrolino became curious about the Second Amendment rights New Jersey residents have compared to those of retired state police officers, so he sent a series of three public records request to the state’s Attorney General and to the New Jersey State Police.  In one of his requests, he asked for the number of state carry permits obtained by retired police officers. 

His goal was simple. 

“I wanted to compare how retired police officers were treated versus civilians,” he said. “Are retired police officers having the same trends that civilians get? Is there the same potential bias in their denials? Is there favoritism?” 

The New Jersey State Police first asked for an extension, but then denied his request, claiming it was overly broad and that he asked for information that wasn’t an actual record. 

Petrolino emailed the state police records bureau, stating he did not understand why they were denying such a simple request. “They said they can’t make firearm information public,” he said. “Our next course of action was to sue the state.” 

Petrolino and his attorney filed a lawsuit in February. His first court date is next month. 

“The public deserves to know if there is some sort of perceived bias or preferential treatment going on here,” he said. “It needs to be exposed and talked about. It’s strictly a Sunshine issue. The New Jersey State Police have denied every single public records request I’ve made. Even the New Jersey AG’s Office has fulfilled my records requests, whereas the state police have never once returned a single one.”

Petrolino, a Second Amendment journalist, has made public records requests in other states, which have complied with his requests. “But for some reason, the New Jersey State Police do not want to give any records to the public,” he said. 

Regardless of the outcome, Petrolino said he has no plans to ever leave New Jersey and move to a free state.  “Someone has got to be here to fight or shut the lights off when it’s over,” he said. 

Florida AG, NRA argue nonviolent felons should keep Second Amendment rights

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, with support from the National Rifle Association, is arguing that nonviolent felons should not lose their Second Amendment rights.

“My duty is to protect and defend the rights of the people as enshrined in our Constitution because those rights are nonnegotiable. As Attorney General, my commitment is to the people, no matter the cost,” Uthmeier said in a post on X.

The Attorney General’s position mirrors efforts by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, the organization’s legal and lobbying arm, which has long worked to defend Second Amendment rights through litigation and policy advocacy.

“The NRA has long held that firearm bans for nonviolent felons violate the Second Amendment, and Uthmeier is now advancing that argument in a state case, underscoring that such individuals are not barred from exercising their constitutional rights,” the advocacy arm of the NRA wrote on its X account.

Uthmeier made the case in Morgan v. State of Florida, which is now before the state’s First District Court of Appeal. The case involves Morgan, who was convicted in 2007 of a third-degree felony under Pennsylvania law for carrying a firearm without a license.

During a traffic stop in 2022, Morgan told officers he had a gun in his car’s center console. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Morgan challenged the law as unconstitutional. After a trial court upheld his conviction, he appealed.

The state initially defended the conviction but changed course on Feb. 13, 2026. On March 18, Uthmeier filed a supplemental brief explaining the shift.

The brief leans on the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test, arguing that prohibiting gun ownership for nonviolent felons isn’t justified. It says Morgan, despite his felony, remains part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

It also points to historical examples, noting that English, Founding-era, and Reconstruction-era laws only disarmed people who were demonstrably dangerous or posed a public safety risk. Uthmeier’s brief argues that a felony conviction alone shouldn’t automatically strip someone of their gun rights.

While the brief notes that most felonies suggest some level of dangerousness, it says Morgan’s record shows no evidence he posed a threat.

Of course the current governor of Kentucky is a demoncrap, so we’ll see if he vetoes it.

HB 312 allowing adults under 21 to bear arms sent to governor

FRANKFORT – Members of the General Assembly voted to approve HB 312. This bill, sponsored by State Representative Savannah Maddox of Dry Ridge, is a straightforward but important statutory update that would allow eligible, law-abiding Kentucky adults between the ages of 18 and 20 to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

“This measure recognizes that many responsible young adults already legally vote, sign contracts, join the military, serve in combat, start a family, own a business, and work in law enforcement fields, yet under current law, these adults are prohibited from carrying a firearm concealed for self-defense,” Maddox said. “This creates a dangerous inconsistency. If we recognize their adulthood and the responsibilities that come with it in every other area, we can’t deny them the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.”

HB 312 would allow law-abiding Kentuckians age 18 to 20 years-of-age to obtain a provisional concealed carry license, which has the same requirements as Kentucky’s standard concealed carry license: background check, training, and proficiency in handling and operating a firearm.

“This bill strikes the right balance between individual liberty and personal responsibility by ensuring that young adults who choose to carry a firearm do so through a clear, lawful process,” Maddox said. “The Second Amendment is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Adults 20 and under are very much part of the people. State law should recognize those rights equally.”

The measure would align Kentucky with 25 other states that recognize that law-abiding citizens age 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to carry concealed for self-defense.

“I believe in constitutional carry for all law-abiding American adults. This bill is a good faith step forward that meets in the middle and gives young adults a lawful path to exercise their rights,” said State Senator Aaron Reed, R-Shelbyville, who carried the bill in the Senate. “This matters because every adult deserves a right to defend themselves, especially our daughters, who today are often left without that clear protection.”

Cleared in Self-Defense, Charged for Carrying: Michigan Case Shows Why ‘Sensitive Places’ Fail

A licensed concealed carry holder in Michigan is now facing punishment not because prosecutors say he committed a crime in his defensive gun use, but because the state says he was armed in the wrong place when he needed that gun the most. That is exactly why so-called “sensitive places” laws remain one of the most dangerous and constitutionally suspect fronts in the post-Bruen Second Amendment fight.

According to Fox 2 Detroit’s reporting, Genesee County prosecutors determined that 23-year-old Christopher Gill acted in lawful self-defense after being attacked inside a restroom at Ballenger Fieldhouse on the campus of Mott Community College during a day of basketball games. Prosecutors say Gill was confronted by a group, restrained, and punched several times. During the assault, Gill managed to reach into his hoodie pocket, where he had a handgun, and fired one shot through the hoodie, striking Malik Zamir Henderson. Prosecutor David Leyton ruled the shooting was lawful self-defense.

Henderson was charged with gang membership, assault with intent to rob while unarmed, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Gill, by contrast, was not charged over the shooting itself. Instead, he was charged with carrying a concealed handgun in a sports arena, a Michigan law lists a “sports arena or stadium” among the places where a concealed pistol license holder may not carry concealed. For a first offense, Michigan law provides for a civil infraction, a fine of up to $500, and a six-month license suspension; state guidance also says the pistol is subject to immediate seizure if carried concealed in a prohibited area.

That split outcome should get the attention of every gun owner in America. The government’s position here is effectively this: yes, you were lawfully defending yourself against a violent assault, but you still should not have been armed when the attack happened because the legislature had already declared that location a “sensitive place.” That insane theory collapses the moment it meets real life. The danger to Gill did not disappear because he was inside an athletic facility. The criminal assault did not stop because the law supposedly made the venue special.

Continue reading “”