Category: Government

Acting AG Todd Blanche Rejects ‘More Restrictive’ Gun Laws as Response to WHCD Attack

Acting AG Todd Blanche Rejects ‘More Restrictive’ Gun Laws as Response to WHCD Attack
During a Sunday morning appearance on CBS News’ Face the Nation, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made clear the push for “more restrictive” gun laws is the wrong response to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD) attack.

Host Margaret Brennan noted that alleged WHCD attacker traveled from California to Washington, DC via a train and asked if there are plans to change “security protocols” to “match on trains what you are expected to go through when you fly, when you do have to declare a weapon”?

Blanche responded, “This isn’t about… changing the law and making the laws more restrictive around possession of firearms. It appears he purchased these firearms the past couple of years. We don’t know how those firearms ended up in his possession in D.C. We can make some assumptions based upon what I just said about he got to D.C., but I don’t think the narrative here is about changing laws or making our laws more restrictive.”

Brennan said, “If you try to fly you do have to have your firearms declared in some way, you don’t when you get on a train.”

Consider this: Amtrak’s weapons policy statement is actually more stringent than that of an airline. It not only requires checked firearms to be placed in a “locked hard-sided container…” but also mandates that the passenger alert Amtrak of the intent to check guns 24 hours before departure.

NSSF Commends Indiana Gov. Mike Braun for Protecting Firearm Retailers, Ranges from Zoning Discrimination

NSSF®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, commends Indiana Gov. Mike Braun for signing a law prohibiting local governments from weaponizing zoning regulations to prevent firearm retailers and ranges from operating in areas already approved for commercial use. The NSSF-priority bill, Indiana’s Senate Enrolled Act (SEA) 176, was signed by Gov. Braun earlier this year and a ceremonial signing is scheduled for late April. The bill was led by State Sen. Jim Tomes and State Rep. Ben Smaltz.

“The passage of Senate Enrolled Act 176 into law is a vital step to ensuring that law-abiding gun owners have access to safe and state-of-the-art shooting ranges and firearm retail locations,” explained Chris Lee, NSSF’s Director of Government Relations – State Affairs. “This law will safeguard ranges and retailers from antigun agenda-driven weaponization of local zoning authorities. These establishments, which are necessary to the exercise of Second Amendment rights, are too often relegated to back corners of industrial parks and country roads that are inconvenient to access for most consumers, including hunters and law enforcement. NSSF is grateful to the Indiana legislature and Governor Braun for ensuring these ranges and retailers are protected so Hoosiers can safely and lawfully exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Continue reading “”

Machine Guns in “Common Use”: A realistic strategy

I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that the United States Supreme Court is not going to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear machine guns. The justices made this clear in Garland v. Cargil (2024).

In the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) oral argument, the attorney representing the District of Columbia correctly argued that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment. It was Justice Scalia who pushed back. In the view of the late justice, only arms that are in “common use” are arms protected by the Second Amendment.

The good news is that there is a strategy to bypass the 1986 de facto Federal ban on civilians acquiring machine guns, which would result in their becoming “in common use.”1

But we won’t be able to rely on the courts. We will have to come up with a political solution that will withstand the inevitable legal challenges.

In February, Senate Bill 1071 was filed in West Virginia. Reportedly, “A West Virginia lobbyist working for WVCDL threatened to kill the bill over the weekend in a verbal exchange in front of multiple lawmakers. The lobbyist threatened to kill the bill in other states as well, including Kentucky.” In any event, the bill died.

There were two problems with the bill. The first problem was that the bill relied exclusively on 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(2)(A), a Federal law that exempts “a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof…”

That argument failed recently in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kittson. You can read the decision as well as Judge Van Dyke’s dissent below.

U.S. v. Kittson 23-4132
433KB ∙ PDF file

Download

The second problem is that West Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A Circuit that has long vied with the 9th and 2nd Circuits for being the most anti-gun circuit.

The correct strategy is to rely on the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in a militia. All of the Second Amendment cert petitions granted since then have likewise been cases unrelated to the Militia Clause.

Instead of using the state to transfer machine guns to basically anyone via a Federal statute, one the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has already held only applies to “government personnel,”2 simply make the transfers to members of the state militia or similar state organization, and do it first in a Circuit, such as the Fifth Circuit, where any legal challenge would face an uphill battle.

The Texas State Guard is such an organization. Unlike the National Guard, members of the Texas State Guard report only to the governor.

Members of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) are required to attend monthly drill weekends, four days of Annual Training, and emergency State Active Duty deployments when ordered.

That is an important element to defending against any legal challenge. A state that simply said every able-bodied adult who is a citizen of the state of Texas and who is between such and such an age is a member of the State militia would be hard pressed to defend its passing out or selling machine guns to the general public.

Were it up to me, machine guns would be as easy to purchase as firing reproductions of Revolutionary War muskets. But it is not up to me.

Around half of the states are “Red States,” with a combined population of about 150 million. If you want machine guns to become “in common use,” then you will have to organize and start lobbying the Red State legislatures to revitalize their state militias, and in those states like Texas, utilize the existing infrastructure.

An Alternative Strategy Recently Appeared

Speaking of Texas, a Federal lawsuit was filed on March 10th in the Northern District of Texas that claims 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) “is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs because it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers…” The case is Temple Gun Club, Inc. v. Bondi.

Given the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in McNutt v. Department of Justice et al., which held that the ban on the home distillation of alcohol is unconstitutional, if I were the Plaintiffs in Temple Gun Club, I would file an amended complaint.

DOJ Reverses Course on Defending Biden’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule for Gun Sales

Gun Owners of America is celebrating a win in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after the Department of Justice abruptly reversed course in a lawsuit challenging the ATF’s expanded definition of who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms that was put into effect under the Biden administration and then-ATF Director Steve Dettelbach.

The rule was explicitly designed to get as close as possible to “universal” background checks without a new law being passed by Congress, and treated the vast majority of private, person-to-person sales as those that should be conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer. The attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, along with GOA, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Tennessee Firearms Association filed a lawsuit to block the law from being enforced, and a district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against the plaintiffs in June, 2024.

Biden’s DOJ appealed that decision, though, and the Trump administration continued to defend the rule even as officials said that virtually every one of Biden’s executive actions on firearms were in the process of being undone.

On Thursday, however, the DOJ filed a request with the Fifth Circuit to voluntarily dismiss its appeal with the plaintiffs’ consent. In their request, the DOJ’s attorneys said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “plans to revisit” the rule and “revis[e] the guidelines for determining who is considered ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms.”

The DOJ also informed the court (and the rest ofus) that a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the “engaged in the business rule” is “forthcoming”, and that in light of the proposed rule on the horizon the government “has determined that it is not appropriate to continue this appeal.”

Continue reading “”

VA Ground Zero on Guns: DOJ Legal Action Threat

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

In office only four months, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has found herself in the middle of a gun rights battleground, and the fault lies squarely in her lap and with her Democrat colleagues in the legislature for passing a slew of gun control bills, including one which brought a promise of federal legal action: Senate Bill 749.

Spanberger faces a deadline of 11:59 p.m. tonight—one minute before Midnight—to either sign or veto the bill. A third option, as noted by WVEC News, would let the bills become law without her signature.

In a sharply-worded letter to Spanberger, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon at the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which includes the newly-created Second Amendment section, Spanberger was warned the DOJ “will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms.” The letter specifically mentioned SB 749, which would “unconstitutionally” restrict the manufacture, purchase or sale of AR-15 rifles “and other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”

This was no idle threat. Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division has already taken legal action against the Virgin Island police and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over delays in approving gun permit applications.

Continue reading “”

Post Office Proposing Rule to Allow Americans to Mail Handguns

On April 2, 2026, the U.S. Postal Service will post a proposed rule revising “mailing standards for firearms” to allow “lawful handguns to be mailed” in a manner similar to long guns and shotguns.
On January 15, 2026, Breitbart News reported the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion indicating a ban against mailing handguns violates the Second Amendment.

Today, the Postal Service made clear their pending proposed rule is an attempt to comply with the OLC’s opinion:

On January 15, 2026, the OLC at the Department of Justice issued a Memorandum Opinion for the Attorney General concluding that Section 1715 of title 18 U.S. Code “is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected firearms, including handguns, because it serves an illegitimate purpose and is inconsistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation.” Constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 1715…OLC further concluded that the “Postal Service should modify its regulations to conform with the scope of the Second Amendment as described in [the OLC] opinion.”

…The Postal Service defers to OLC’s judgment as to the lawful scope of this criminal statute and worked in consultation with OLC to develop the proposed revisions to our mailability regulations…The proposed revisions expand the scope of mailable firearms compared to the existing regulations by allowing lawful handguns to be mailed under the same terms and conditions as lawful rifles and shotguns.

The Postal Service will accept comments on the proposed rule change for 30 days after it is published.

Wyoming’s Second Amendment Preservation Act Passes Despite Law Enforcement Opposition

While the current threat to our gun rights from the federal government is minimal, it was just a couple of years ago when we had to worry about all sorts of things. President Autopen was a big fan of gun control, and if he’d gotten his way, we’d just be left with nothing but double-barreled shotguns to shoot at bad guys through the door.

As a result, some pro-gun states started looking at ways to protect the gun rights of the people who live there. Missouri led the charge, and while that law ran into some judicial issues, the sentiment remains.

Wyoming, however, just passed a law that is essentially the same thing, but with a couple of tweaks, and law enforcement isn’t thrilled with this.

After a lively debate on the Wyoming House floor Thursday, a bill aimed at keeping federal agents from seizing Wyoming residents’ guns passed its final vote.

Having previously passed the Senate, Senate File 101, the Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA), passed the House on third reading by a vote 40 to 21.

It must pass concurrence with both chambers before heading to Gov. Mark Gordon’s desk. Gordon vetoed a similar bill during the 2025 legislative session.

If it becomes law, SAPA will forbid Wyoming law enforcement officers from assisting federal agents in seizing residents’ firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories.

It would also allow residents whose guns have been unjustly seized to seek civil damages.

‘Sword Of Damocles’

Law enforcement officials say SAPA would undermine their joint operations with federal agents on drug busts, tracking illegal immigrants and similar cases.

During debate leading up to the vote on Thursday, dissenting lawmakers reiterated law enforcement’s concerns.

Rep. Art Washut, R-Casper, a retired peace officer, said the bill rests on a false premise.

“A false premise that the only way we can keep our Wyoming peace officers from violating your constitutional rights and your next-door neighbor’s constitutional rights is to hang the sword of Damocles over their heads with a $50,000 civil judgment on it,” he said.

Now, I get some of why law enforcement organizations dislike this bill. One argument against it is that an officer could well be sued for an action that was, at the time he carried it out, presumed to be constitutional, only for it to be ruled later as unconstitutional. That’s a fair concern, in my book, though I also think that maybe people need to understand that any gun control law should be presumed as unconstitutional until proven otherwise, but that’s just me.

However, Rep. Washut has a lot more faith in some of his former colleagues than I do.

I’m not anti-cop. I was raised by a police officer and around police officers. I know that most are good people who are trying to do a difficult job in a very difficult time.

But I also know that a lot of them are also likely to just keep their heads down and do what they’re told in way too many instances. That’s just human nature, and to think that every police officer in the state will do otherwise is naive, at best.

Others argued that this is a bill trying to solve an issue that simply doesn’t exist.

My response is that it may not exist at the moment, but it will exist sooner or later unless we’re very careful.

Of course, those who say this isn’t solving a real issue are the very same people who support making this a very real issue, so take that as you will.

But as Kentucky’s goobernor is a democrap, the legislature will need a veto-proof majority to override his expected idiocy.

Second State Seeks to Run Its Own Machine Gun Sales to Residents

Following a roadmap drawn by gun rights advocates to end-run around the Hughes Amendment, Kentucky could soon be a very select-fire-friendly state.

As previously reported by Guns.com, a bill in the West Virginia Senate would establish an Office of Public Defense tasked with selling machine guns to interested members of the public who can legally possess such a firearm. Unlike the massively inflated prices seen for “Pre-86” transferable and highly collectible machine guns that were grandfathered under the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act signed by President Reagan, these could be “Post-86” guns at much more affordable prices.

Taking the West Virginia bill – which was written by Gun Owners of America – as a template, Kentucky state Rep. TJ Roberts (R) last week introduced HB 749 to the legislature in the Bluegrass State.

As detailed by Roberts, who is a practicing attorney, a Kentucky Colonel, and a member of the Federalist Society:

Through our history, Americans have armed themselves in case of invasion, but the NFA has significantly overburdened this practice through an unconstitutional tax and registration regime that has not defended public safety but only harmed essential liberty.

But there is a way out!

Since 1986, Federal Law has allowed for state governments to transfer machine guns to their citizens who are otherwise allowed to possess a firearm. HB 749 would create a process to sell machine guns to legal gun owners.

Kentucky House Bill 749, co-sponsored by six fellow Republicans, has been referred to the House Committee on Committees.

Noah Pollak

One of Trump’s greatest legacies will be how he blew up a half-century of western diffidence, restraint, and failure on terrorism. As the era of Islamic terrorism began in the 1970s, western countries (very much including Israel) spun up all kinds of pseudo-sophisticated theories and excuses to avoid carrying out the only successful policy, which is killing terrorists — as many as you can, whenever you can.

There are entire university departments, think tanks, media outlets, NGOs, foundations, and political parties devoted to promoting self-defeating, enervating fictions about terrorism designed to tie the hands of the West. We just have to live with it, deal with it, accommodate it, accept the barbarism. Terrorists have grievances. It’s partly our fault, after all, because reasons. There are no military solutions. If we’re nice to the terrorists they will actually help us stabilize the region. The tropes go on forever and they are invented by people who want the west to lose, and who would rather be wrong but appear sophisticated than be right and appear crude.

Trump wants our side to win. The winning approach to terrorism is very simple. Bomb them to smithereens. Kill them off. Decapitate the regimes. Sanction them until they have no more money for jihad. Trump gets it, because unlike so many people in politics, he doesn’t care whether Harvard likes him.

Winning is going to generate a real peace dividend for America. Finally dealing with Iran — the head of the snake — will enable the US to step away from the Middle East. It will send a message to our adversaries that the big dog is still in charge. And very enjoyably, it will sweep aside decades of dumb elite groupthink about how we have no alternative but to cut deals with terrorists. Thank you President Trump.

What to do about Mexican Drug Cartels: Letters of Marque

By Lee Williams

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Special to Liberty Park Press

The United States Congress still retains full authority to issue Letters of Marque, although none have been issued for more than a hundred years.

A Letter of Marque was actually a simple concept. They allowed private citizens in private warships to attack enemy vessels during wartime. These privateers could then take ownership of whatever plunder they seized—gold, weapons or the captured ships—after an admiralty court ruled in their favor and took a percentage of the profits.

Letters of Marque were used for hundreds of years across the globe, because they allowed a country to enlarge the size of their navy very quickly and cheaply.

The authority to issue Letters of Marque can still be found in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution: “The Congress shall have Power … to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

Congressman Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, and Senator Mike Lee, a Republican of Utah, who both have extremely solid Second-Amendment credentials, have drafted bills that would revitalize the Letters of Marque, in order to target Mexican drug cartels.

Congressman Burchett described the bill in a phone call Monday morning:

“It allows the president to contract out to privateers and go after the cartels,” he said. “These would be top-tier operators, SEALs, Special Forces, Marine Raiders and commando types. Some are still working as private operators. It allows private citizens to act against the cartels. In President Trump’s first term, when he got [Former Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem] Soleimani, the Democrats just berated our military leaders because they didn’t ask for their permission. If the Democrats still want us to ask for their permission, we got some real problems. This is constitutionally provided and has been done before. We went after the Barbary pirates. It’s constitutionally provided and within the law. In this day and age, we need it. The constitution grants congress the power to grant these letters.”

Senator Lee’s bill is titled “S. 3567: Cartel Marque and Reprisal Authorization Act of 2025.”

It is described as: “A bill to authorize the President of the United States to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to acts of aggression against the United States by a member of a cartel, or a member of a cartel-linked organization, or any conspirator associated with a cartel, and for other purposes.”

It was introduced before the latest outbreak of cartel violence, which has targeted American tourists in Mexico.

It specifies that cartels “present an unusual and extraordinary threat to national security and foreign policy of the United States.”

Senator Lee’s bill would allow “privately armed and equipped persons” to use “all means reasonably necessary” to operate outside our borders and seize any individual and their property who the President has determined to be a member of a drug cartel, or a member of a cartel-linked organization, “who is responsible for an act of aggression against the United States.”

Congressman Burchett was asked if he has discussed his bill with President Trump.

“I have not yet, but I put it out there,” he said. “It is constitutionally sound. We live in dangerous times, and we’ve got American people who need it.”

VA undoes decades-old wrong and protects Veterans’ Second Amendment rights
February 17, 2026

WASHINGTON — The Department of Veterans Affairs today announced a major new step to protect Veterans’ Second Amendment rights. Effective immediately, VA will not report Veterans to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System as “prohibited persons” only because they need help from a fiduciary in managing their VA benefits.

This corrects a three-decade-old wrong that deprived many thousands of Veterans in VA’s Fiduciary Program of their constitutional right to own a firearm without a legal basis.

After a thorough review, VA recognized that many Veterans had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights without hearings or adequate determinations that they posed a sufficient risk of danger to themselves or others. In consultation with the Department of Justice, VA has determined this practice violates both the Gun Control Act and Veterans’ Second Amendment rights. According to federal law, a decision by a judicial or quasi-judicial body is needed before someone can be reported to NICS.

A determination by the VA that a fiduciary is needed to help manage a Veteran’s VA benefits falls far short of this legal standard.

In addition to immediately stopping the reporting of VA Fiduciary Program participants to NICS, the department is working with the FBI to remove all past VA reporting from NICS, so no Veterans are unfairly deprived of their Second Amendment rights based solely on participation in VA’s Fiduciary Program.

“Many Americans struggle with managing their finances, and Veterans’ Second Amendment rights shouldn’t be stripped just because they need help in this area. But for too long, Veterans who needed the services of a VA fiduciary were deprived of their right to bear arms,” said VA Secretary Doug Collins. “Under the leadership of President Trump, we’re correcting this injustice and ensuring Veterans get the same due-process and constitutional rights as all Americans.”

The Department of Justice supports this action.

“It is both unlawful and unacceptable for Veterans who serve our country to have their constitutional rights threatened,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “It has been my pleasure to partner with Secretary Collins on this project, and I am directing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to review its regulations and propose changes that will prevent current and future violations of our Veterans’ Second Amendment rights.”

BLUF
The administrative state spent decades expanding its power through creative interpretations of old laws never meant to address modern policy debates. Trump is finally pushing back, and the establishment can’t stand it.

Trump Just Ended the EPA’s Climate Power Grab, and the Left Is Losing It

President Donald Trump just delivered a knockout punch to Obama-era climate hysteria, and the bureaucrats are having a total meltdown.

On Thursday, the Trump administration finalized rules repealing the EPA’s endangerment finding — that dubious 2009 determination claiming six greenhouse gases threaten human health under the Clean Air Act. “We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding,” Trump announced, calling the policy exactly what it was: “disastrous.”

This wasn’t just some regulatory tweak. The endangerment finding was the entire foundation for the EPA’s power grab over climate policy under the Barack Obama regime. It allowed unelected bureaucrats to impose crushing regulations on the oil and gas industry, power plants, and vehicles, all without Congress ever voting to grant them that authority. Essentially, it let EPA staffers reshape the entire American economy based on a single “finding” they issued themselves.

Trump’s repeal also axes those vehicle emission rules, since they all stem from the same flawed finding.

In addition, the Trump administration will finalize a repeal of rules that regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, since they stem from the finding. Under former President Joe Biden, the EPA sought to tighten those standards to prod the auto industry to make more fuel-efficient hybrids and electric vehicles — an effort the industry has since backtracked on.

The full text of EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding wasn’t made available before the Trump administration announced it, but the justification will likely rely far more on legal arguments that climate pollution cannot be regulated by the landmark Clean Air Act than an outright rejection of climate science, legal experts told CNN.

Good riddance.

Continue reading “”

Trump Wins Big as 5th Circuit Upholds Indefinite Detention Without Bond for Illegal Immigrants

A divided federal appeals court handed the Trump administration a major victory Friday, ruling that immigration authorities can detain undocumented immigrants indefinitely without bond hearings during deportation proceedings, even if they’ve lived in the United States for decades.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 decision marks the first time an appellate court has upheld the administration’s mandatory detention policy, reversing two district court rulings and contradicting hundreds of similar cases nationwide where federal judges found the policy unlawful.

What the Court Ruled
The decision immediately affects thousands of immigrants in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—states that house the nation’s largest concentration of immigration detention facilities. Immigrants who were previously eligible for release on bond while their deportation cases proceeded through the courts now face mandatory detention until their cases conclude, which can take months or years.

According to CNN, the ruling allows authorities to deny bond hearings to immigrants who had been living in the country unlawfully, including those previously allowed to remain free while their immigration cases moved through the system.

The two plaintiffs at the center of Friday’s ruling, Victor Buenrostro-Mendez and Jose Padron Covarrubias (both Mexican nationals) entered the United States illegally in 2009 and 2001, respectively. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained them in 2025, both men requested bond hearings before immigration judges. ICE denied those requests, citing a September 2025 Board of Immigration Appeals decision that adopted a new interpretation of decades-old immigration law.

Both men had initially won their cases before district court judges, who ordered them released or granted bond hearings. Friday’s appellate ruling reversed those decisions.

Overwhelming Lower Court Opposition
The ruling contradicts a wave of district court decisions. According to Politico, at least 360 federal judges rejected the Trump administration’s expanded detention policy across more than 3,000 cases, while only 27 judges backed it in approximately 130 cases.

The policy shift triggered what one government lawyer recently described as a “tsunami” of habeas corpus petitions flooding federal courts nationwide. In Minneapolis, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz recently accused ICE of violating nearly 100 court orders directing the release of detainees.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi called Friday’s decision “a significant blow against activist judges who have been undermining our efforts to make America safe again at every turn,” according to Reuters.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem wrote that “activist judges have ordered the release of alien after alien based on the false claim that DHS was breaking the law. Today, the first court of appeals to address the question ruled that @DHSGov was right all along.”

What Happens Next
The Fifth Circuit’s ruling applies only within its jurisdiction—Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Other federal appeals courts are considering similar challenges, including the Seventh Circuit, which issued a preliminary ruling last year rejecting the administration’s interpretation.

Legal experts say the issue will reach the Supreme Court given the nationwide importance and the circuit split that may emerge.

“The Fifth Circuit isn’t just the most right-leaning appeals court in the country; the government drew on this panel two of that right-leaning court’s most right-leaning judges,” CNN legal analyst Steve Vladeck said. “It’s hard to imagine they’re going to get the last word.”

Finally: Trump Pulls the US Out of United Nations’ International Gun Registry Scheme

President Donald Trump just delivered a long-overdue message to the global gun confiscation cartel: America is not taking orders from the United Nations.

In a major move for national sovereignty and Second Amendment freedom, the Trump administration has formally withdrawn the United States from the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, a UN-run reporting system that gun rights advocates have warned for years is part of the international bureaucracy’s long game to pressure nations into “standardized” gun restrictions.

What Is the UN Register of Conventional Arms?

UNROCA is a so-called “voluntary” United Nations registry where participating countries report information about weapons transfers, including categories of conventional arms and, in many cases, small arms and light weapons.

Supporters claim it promotes “transparency.”

But gun owners know how this game works.

Transparency is always the excuse and control is always the goal. Because once international bureaucrats start collecting data, they don’t stop at tracking tanks and fighter jets.

Continue reading “”

HHS announces US has completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization.

The Department of Health and Human Services and the State Department announced Thursday that the United States has completed its withdrawal from the World Health Organization over its handling of the COVID-19 pandemic.

President Donald Trump signed the executive order that began the process of withdrawing from the global organization last year, on the first day of his second term.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also cited issues with the organization’s failure to adopt urgent reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from the political influence of WHO member states.

“Today, the United States withdrew from the World Health Organization, freeing itself from its constraints, as President Trump promised on his first day in office,” the secretaries said in a joint statement. “This action responds to the WHO’s failures during the COVID-19 pandemic and seeks to rectify the harm from those failures inflicted on the American people.”

The departments claimed the WHO delayed declaring a global public health emergency and pandemic during the early stages of COVID-19 and failed to adopt meaningful reforms to address political influence and poor coordination in the aftermath of the global crisis.

The secretaries added that the United States will still interact with the organization to effectuate its withdrawal, but that all funding for, and staffing of, WHO initiatives have ceased.

DOJ: Ban on mailing concealable firearms unconstitutional, can’t be enforced

A nearly 100-year-old federal ban on mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, according to an opinion released Thursday by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The 15-page opinion concluded that a 1927 law, which made it illegal to use the Postal Service to mail concealable firearms, such as pistols and revolvers, infringes on the Second Amendment.

“Section 1715 makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting,” wrote T. Elliot Gaiser, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

“The statute also imposes significant barriers to shipping constitutionally protected firearms as articles of commerce, which interferes with citizens’ incidental rights to acquire and maintain arms,” the opinion continued.

Postal Service policy mandates that nonmailable firearms found in the mail stream “must be immediately reported to the United States Postal Inspection Service,” and investigations are then referred to the relevant U.S. attorney’s office for prosecution.

The agency categorizes “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on a person,” including short-barreled shotguns and rifles, as handguns. It also notes there are no restrictions on mailing rifles and shotguns between licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers.

Major private carriers, including UPS and FedEx, also restrict the shipping of firearms to only licensed dealers, which the opinion argued effectively creates a “complete ban” for unlicensed people.

The opinion acknowledged some limitations, finding the law was only unconstitutional related to handguns but still applied to undetectable firearms, such as pen guns.

Continue reading “”