Category: Government

WINNING: Ontario Caves to Trump on Tariffs.

Let me tell you what winning looks like. While the liberal media was busy predicting economic catastrophe from President Trump’s latest tariff moves, Canada just blinked — and blinked hard.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who thought he could play hardball with America by slapping a 25% surcharge on electricity exports to Michigan, New York, and Minnesota, just got a swift lesson in real negotiation.

“Canada is a Tariff abuser, and always has been, but the United States is not going to be subsidizing Canada any longer,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social Monday evening. “We don’t need your Cars, we don’t need your Lumber, we don’t [need] your Energy, and very soon, you will find that out. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!”

And then, Ontario responded by placing a 25% tariff on electricity coming into the United States, but Trump didn’t blink:

I have instructed my Secretary of Commerce to add an ADDITIONAL 25% Tariff, to 50%, on all STEEL and ALUMINUM COMING INTO THE UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, ONE OF THE HIGHEST TARIFFING NATIONS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD. This will go into effect TOMORROW MORNING, March 12th. Also, Canada must immediately drop their Anti-American Farmer Tariff of 250% to 390% on various U.S. dairy products, which has long been considered outrageous. I will shortly be declaring a National Emergency on Electricity within the threatened area. This will allow the U.S to quickly do what has to be done to alleviate this abusive threat from Canada. If other egregious, long time Tariffs are not likewise dropped by Canada, I will substantially increase, on April 2nd, the Tariffs on Cars coming into the U.S. which will, essentially, permanently shut down the automobile manufacturing business in Canada.

After Trump threatened to double existing tariffs on Canadian goods and announced a new 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum, Ford’s tough-guy act fell faster than Joe Biden on the steps to Air Force One.

“Today, United States Secretary of Commerce [Howard Lutnick] and Premier of Ontario Doug Ford had a productive conversation about the economic relationship between the United States and Canada,” the pair said in a joint statement Ford shared on X.

Secretary Lutnick agreed to officially meet with Premier Ford in Washington on Thursday, March 13 alongside the United States Trade Representative to discuss a renewed USMCA ahead of the April 2 reciprocal tariff deadline. In response, Ontario agreed to suspend its 25 per cent surcharge on exports of electricity to Michigan, New York and Minnesota.

The lesson here is simple: America First works. While Biden spent years letting everyone walk all over us, Trump is back to showing the world what real leadership looks like. Canada’s quick surrender proves what conservatives have always known — strength gets respect, and respect gets results.

Whether Canada will budge on tariffs remains to be seen, but Trump showed who has the upper hand in these negotiations because Ontario quickly caved. The economic relationship between the U.S. and Canada might be facing a test, but with Trump at the helm, there’s no doubt who’s going to come out on top. That’s what making America great again looks like in real time, folks.

Still too many.

Rubio cancels 83% of USAID contracts after six-week review

Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that his agency had canceled 83% of the U.S. Agency for International Development‘s contracts following a multiple-week review.

USAID was one of the first agencies targeted by the Department of Government Efficiency and Elon Musk for cuts under the Trump administration, with all foreign aid out of the agency paused initially. The Trump administration fired thousands of employees and contractors at USAID and put Rubio as the agency’s acting administrator during the reforms.

Rubio announced early on Monday that 5,200 contracts would be canceled because the programs did not serve U.S. interests, claiming the move would save “tens of billions of dollars” in a post on X.

“After a 6 week review we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID.”

Trump Kills an Intrusive Housing Rule, Again

This past week, Scott Turner, President Trump’s new secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), announced that HUD would be terminating the notoriously intrusive Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule. By attaching strings to billions of dollars in community development block grants from HUD, AFFH gives the feds the ability to control zoning regulations and many other aspects of local government.

AFFH severely undermines our federalist system, not only by expanding central control but by turning suburban municipalities into helpless satellites of neighboring urban centers. Over and above engineering residential patterns by race, ethnicity, English proficiency, country of origin, and more, AFFH is designed to urbanize suburbs — forcing dense development to cluster around public transit hubs with the goal of coercing suburbanites out of their cars.

Supposedly, AFFH carries out provisions of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. In reality, the rule is classic regulatory activism. It reads contemporary policy goals back into a law that mandated no such thing. AFFH, for example, slyly imposes a principle of “economic integration” on the suburbs, although nowhere does U.S. law recognize or demand economic integration.

In sum, AFFH is a systematic attack on America’s suburbs, an attempt to undercut their economic and political independence, urbanize them, and ultimately to absorb them into their greater metropolitan regions as if they never existed to begin with. The rule was the brainchild and longtime dream of President Obama’s Alinskyite community organizing mentors, who hated the suburbs, dismissed them as products of racism and greed, and blamed them for urban decay. AFFH is federal overreach on stilts, very arguably the most radical policy initiative of Obama’s presidency. Truly, the rule was designed to fundamentally transform the United States of America.

Thanks to President Trump, AFFH failed to do so. Trump, in fact, has uprooted AFFH twice. He killed off the Obama version in 2020, while running for reelection. Now Trump has moved to terminate the only very slightly revised Biden version of AFFH.

Continue reading “”

Senators Send Letter Urging Repeal of Biden-era Rule Damaging the Firearms Industry

On March 5th U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and U.S. Representative Mark Green (R-TN-07) sent a letter to Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick urging him to rescind an interim final rule (IFR) that the Biden Administration promulgated in an effort to hamstring the domestic firearms industry.

In October 2023, President Biden ordered a 90 day “pause” on firearm exports licenses issued by the Department of Commerce.

This order was in lock-step with other actions taken by the Biden Administration to hinder the U.S. domestic firearms industry in any way possible. And unsurprisingly, at the end of this “pause” the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) issued an IFR in April 2024. This IFR placed much tighter restrictions on semi-automatic firearms exports, listed dozens of countries as “high risk” countries which would be subject to a “presumption of denial” for export permits, removed a “presumption of approval” for licenses to many countries that had helped to expedite the process previously, and a number of other restrictions. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an organization that represents firearms manufacturers, stated that this decision would cost the industry nearly $500 million annually.

Continue reading “”

Trump Is Right to Deport Hamas Supporters:

Federal law authorizes denying or revoking the visa of anyone who supports terrorist activity.

Six weeks into the second Trump administration, and days after President Trump vowed to push back on “illegal protests” on college campuses, the State Department has pulled the first visa of a foreign student who engaged in pro-Hamas disruptions. That’s the right thing to do if we want to fix campus cultures. And contrary to disingenuous critics, such a move poses no First Amendment problems.

Indeed, it’s a basic application of U.S. immigration law, which says that people here on a visa (tourist, student, employment, or otherwise) who reveal themselves to be ineligible for that visa—“inadmissible,” in the parlance of the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA)—can have their visa revoked. As I wrote in a broader analysis of campus-related civil rights issues after the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, “The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the denial or revocation of a visa of ‘any alien who . . . endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.’” Biden’s State Department also told then-Senator Marco Rubio that it could revoke the visas of Hamas supporters.

But that’s not all Trump can do. The INA’s inadmissibility provision also empowers the president to “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whom he determines to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States” or to impose on them “any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.” During Trump’s first term, the Supreme Court upheld that broad grant of presidential discretion to vet, restrict, and even ban immigrants—and thus to direct executive-agency action in that regard—at the culmination of the high-profile “travel ban” litigation. In Trump v. Hawaii, the Court okayed an executive order restricting travel from various countries, with Chief Justice John Roberts affirming that the only statutory requirement is that the president “find” the entry of the affected aliens to be “detrimental to the national interest.”

That’s exactly what’s happening now. In one of the first executive orders Trump signed, he directed federal agencies to strengthen vetting and screening of those seeking admission and those already in the country, because “the United States must ensure that admitted aliens and aliens otherwise already present in the United States do not bear hostile attitudes toward its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles, and do not advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to our national security.” Then, as part of the “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” he ordered the use of “all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.”

All of this makes eminent sense: it’s the government’s duty to screen out visitors and migrants who would be harmful to our country, including those who reject our values or are hostile to our way of life, such as Communists, Nazis, or Islamists. When I got my green card, and again when I naturalized, I had to affirm that I wasn’t affiliated with these groups “or any other totalitarian party.” To give another example in a different context, in 2020, 1,000 Chinese nationals had their visas revoked for being national security risks—and the Biden administration successfully defended that Trump action in court.

These core government functions are supported by law. As the INA says, “The admission to the United States of any alien as a nonimmigrant shall be for such time and under such conditions as the Attorney General may by regulations prescribe.” Other provisions of the law cover “travel controls of citizens and aliens,” “issuance of visas,” and “deportable aliens.”

While the government can’t send foreigners to jail for saying things it doesn’t like, it can and should deny or pull visas for those who advocate for causes inimical to the United States. There’s nothing objectional or controversial about removing those who harass, intimidate, vandalize, and otherwise interfere with an educational institution’s core mission. More, please.

EPA’s $20B ‘Slush Fund’ Zeldin and DOGE Discovered Looking Really Dodgy

Well, well, well,’ as the old-time movie detectives always say when they surprise the culprits with their hands in the cookie jars.

WHAT HAVE WE HERE?

Three short weeks ago, a newly confirmed Lee Zeldin got to his office at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and hit the broom closet to start sweeping.

Thanks to the previous braggadocious occupants and their already well-documented pre-exit shoveling of cash and grants out the door, he had an inkling there might be plenty of questionable transactions to uncover that hadn’t exactly been notated ‘on the books’ or done ‘by the book’ either.

I mean, what were the odds?

It didn’t take long for Zeldin to find himself a whopper of a honeypot hidden away that made quite a splash when he announced it, particularly as it was tied to an infamous Project Veritas video from December boasting about its very surreptitious creation.

David covered the reveal.

Project Veritas dropped a shocker of a video back in December, in which an EPA manager was bragging that the Biden administration was metaphorically ‘dropping gold bars off the Titanic.’ They were shoving every dime they could out to their NGO buddies so they could harass the Trump administration and continue to suck off the taxpayers’ teat for years to come. 

We all know such things happen, but to have it so vividly described was revealing. 
Well, Lee Zeldin is retrieving those gold bars, and it turns out to be a lot of them. $20 billion, all sitting in the equivalent of a bank vault. 

The massive scale of this scam–which as with so many things is SOP at government agencies–blows your mind. Pushing $20 billion out the door to friends of the administration with little to no financial controls, zero accountability, and lots of malice aforethought is only different in scale and not in kind.

…Zeldin has referred the matter to the Inspector General & Attorney General Pam Bondi.

“Shockingly, roughly 20 billion of your tax dollars were parked at an outside financial institution by the Biden EPA. This scheme was the first of its kind in EPA history and it was purposefully designed to obligate all of the money in a rushed job with reduced oversight.

Even further. This pot of $20 billion was awarded to just eight entities that were then responsible for doling out your money to NGOs and others at their discretion, with far less transparency. Just under $7 billion was sent to one entity called the Climate United Fund.”

As if $20B squirreled away in a Citibank account wasn’t insult enough, when the dollar sleuths started digging into who the money was earmarked for – because surely someone had a bead on those bucks – one of the names that popped up for a two billion dollar payday was an organization associated with none other than the cranky claimant to the governorship of Georgia and President of Earth, Stacey Abrams.

Her organization – Power Forward Communities – was only a few months old and had a whopping $100 in the bank at the time of the $2B with a “B” award.

But they sure had good deeds planned – oh, you betcha. That’s what they needed the money for.

…How did Biden’s EPA even know who they were, less mind that they were worthy of a couple of billion of federal largesse aka Green grift?

One can only assume it was because the President of Earth was connected to the enterprise.

…Power Forward Communities was established in October 2023 as a coalition of groupsled by Rewiring America, a left-wing group that advocates for electrification policies and a transition away from fossil fuel dependence. Abrams, who serves as Rewiring America’s senior counsel, said at the time that she was “thrilled” to be part of the Power Forward Communities coalition. “This is how we expand access to clean energy—by prioritizing housing, equity and resilience,” she wrotein an X post.

…In itsonly press releaseto date, Power Forward Communities said that, in addition to induction stoves, it would use the $2 billion received from the EPA to help install heat pumps, heat pump water heaters, solar panels, home battery systems, EV chargers, and weatherization upgrades.

Not suspicious at all.

Continue reading “”

Impact of Trump ‘Gender Ideology’ Order on Firearm Transactions to Be Determined

“Trans star of hit HBO series says renewed passport now says male after Trump order,” Fox News reported in late February. “Hunter Schafer, a transgender actor and star of the HBO series ‘Euphoria,’ revealed that her new passport was issued with a male gender marker because of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump.”

The Executive Order Schafer referred to, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” signed by Trump on Feb. 20, asserts:

“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female.”

OK, but this is AmmoLand Shooting Sports News, and while all peaceable human beings are encouraged here to recognize and claim their right to keep and bear arms, it’s fair to wonder what any of this has to do with that. Trump’s order offers a tangentially related clue:

“Agencies shall remove all statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications, or other internal and external messages that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology, and shall cease issuing such statements, policies, regulations, forms, communications or other messages.”

Gun owners will recall that in 2020, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive revised the ATF Form 4473 “Firearm Transaction Record,” required when purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer. Among other changes,  ATF added a box under “Sex” for prospective gun purchasers to check if they self-identify as “non-binary.”

What this means is the Form 4473 will need to be revised again if ATF is to comply with the executive order. As Orchid Advisors reported on AmmoLand in 2019:

“[A] 60-day notice seeking public comment … is required in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”). In essence, the PRA requires government agencies to seek approval every three years for continued use of forms utilized by government agencies and to seek public comment on the form or its new revision, if applicable.”

As far as form changes go, it’s hardly a big one, although some on either side of the issue would argue the sociological implications actually are a big deal. In 2019, the “libertarian” CATO Institute took issue with “ATF’s rigid and unreasoned stated policy” of insisting on selecting “male” or “female” for transfers before the “non-binary” option was added in. They presumably will make the same arguments if it’s revised back out.

As long as “gun rights advocates” are picking things to get upset about, I’d suggest that’s a bit of a red herring argument, and the true outrage ought to be reserved for a prior restraint that presumes a delegated federal override of “shall not be infringed.” Imagine explaining the 4473 to Tench Coxe or Samuel Adams, and what their reaction would be if you told them that before the national government would allow them to own a gun, they’d have to – among other things and under penalty of perjury – disclose who they were, where they lived, what they were buying, and what was or is now between their legs.

U.S. House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on ‘The Right to Self Defense’

The U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, under the leadership of Chairman Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), held a committee hearing focused on the right of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves.

It’s a critical moment for Second Amendment rights as President Donald Trump campaigned on restoring community safety and vowing to protect the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans. That priority resonated with voters, including more than 26.2 million law-abiding Americans persuaded by crime and threats of violence in their communities to purchase a firearm for the first time over the past five years.

This priority also aligns with the House Republicans as they are committed to standing up for those Second Amendment rights and ensuring American communities are safe from criminal violence after historic surges in crime during the Biden-Harris administration.

Continue reading “”

With due respect to friend Hobie, from the years I spent living at Newport News, I regard Virginia a good place to be from.

It’s Up To Gov. Youngkin To Rescue Virginians—Again.

If there’s a state that better exemplifies the phrase “elections matter” than Virginia, I don’t know which state it would be.

While Democrats maintain control of Virginia’s General Assembly, pro-gun efforts helped propel Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin into office in January 2022. Since then, he has been the primary barrier between commonwealth gun owners and numerous highly punitive gun ban schemes.

Last March, Youngkin vetoed nearly 30 anti-gun bills that Democrats had pushed through the assembly, including a so-called “assault weapons” ban and a five-day waiting period for firearm purchases after a purchaser has passed the federal background check. Now, Youngkin is once again the final hope to avert disaster, as Democrats have sent another two dozen anti-gun measures to his desk before the legislative session adjourned on February 21.

Here’s a brief rundown of some of the worst measures.

SB 848 would raise the purchase age for certain semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols to 21. Under federal law, adults aged 18 to 20 can legally buy long guns (rifles and shotguns), so this measure would directly infringe upon their freedom.

SB 880 would prohibit carrying certain semi-automatic centerfire rifles or shotguns on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, or in any public park or other places open to the public. Such bans on carrying in specific areas often infringe on freedom, and if enacted, they are typically expanded to include more types of guns and additional areas.

SB 891 and its House companion HB1607 These proposals are rehashes of the waiting period bill passed last year but vetoed by Gov. Youngkin. They would impose an arbitrary five-day delay before a law-abiding citizen may take possession of a legally purchased firearm. As we’ve mentioned many times in the past, there is no evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides, or mass shootings. In fact, no studies identifying causal effects have been recognized by any of the independent literature reviews conducted since 2004.

SB 1134 would require firearms and ammunition to be stored in a locked container, compartment, or cabinet. While safe gun storage is an important part of responsible gun ownership, the freedom to choose how to store a self-defense firearm should always be left up to the owner.

Like SB 848, SB 1181 would prohibit law-abiding adults and individuals under the age of 21 from owning specific semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols. Additionally, it would expand this prohibition to include firearms magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

Lastly, SB 1450 and its House companion measure HB 1608 would introduce new ambiguous laws and restrictions in an effort to undermine the already heavily regulated firearms industry. It would also empower the attorney general or a district attorney to sue a member of the firearm industry by alleging violations and even potential violations of these laws, allowing individuals “likely to be harmed” to seek equitable relief from a court, which could cost gunmakers millions in legal fees.

Most Virginians understand how close they are to legislative disaster, and hopefully, Gov. Youngkin will come through for them again with another mass veto. However, at some point, they will need to figure out how to regain Republican control of the General Assembly. If they don’t and a Democrat is elected governor, there won’t be much left to stop all the anti-gun schemes from steamrolling commonwealth gun owners.

Republican Hints at Using Appropriations Bills to Target Federal Gun Laws

The GOP may have majorities in both the House and Senate, but thanks to the filibuster in the upper chamber, Republicans are still going to struggle to get the 60 votes necessary to roll back federal gun laws using standalone bills. If, however, the GOP is serious about undoing current infringements as well as strengthening the Second Amendment, they could always try to attach those measures to appropriation bills, which only require simple majorities in both chambers before they’re adopted.

That strategy is likely to be deployed in the near future, according to one House member who recently spoke to Roll Call.

Rep. Robert B. Aderholt, R-Ala., a member of the House Appropriations Committee, said former President Joe Biden was not going to sign an appropriations bill with certain language that went after his own administration’s gun rules.

“We don’t have that issue this time,” Aderholt said. “I think it’s very ripe that we can get some of that language this time.”

The Trump administration is angling for change on its own. An executive order from Trump this month stated that the Second Amendment “is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty” and ordered the attorney general to examine all orders and regulations of executive departments to “assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.” The order also instructed the attorney general to present a “proposed plan of action.”

Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Wisconsin Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said he sees a role for Congress in going after Biden regulations.

“I don’t think we should make the administration do all the heavy lifting here,” he said, mentioning the Congressional Review Act, a tool that allows Congress to overturn federal agency rules.

The problem with using the Congressional Review Act to repeal federal rules is this: while the CRA only requires simple majorities, Congress only has sixty legislative days to disapprove of any given rule after the rule has been published in the Federal Register. The Biden administration’s rules on unfinished frames and receivers, pistol stabilizing braces, and who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms have already passed that threshold, so the CRA really isn’t a viable option to repeal those regulations.

Appropriations, on the other hand, are fair game for lawmakers, who could try to attach measures like the SHUSH Act or national Right to Carry reciprocity measures to budget bills.

Continue reading “”

Wyoming Bill Targeting “Gun-Free Zones” Becomes Law Without Governor’s Signature

A bill scrapping many of Wyoming’s “sensitive places” is now law, but Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon isn’t too happy about it. Though Gordon allowed the law to take effect without his signature, avoiding a veto override fight with the legislature, he had some choice words for the overwhelming number of lawmakers who voted in favor of HB 172.

In an open letter to House Speaker Chip Nieman, Gordon said he was “tempted” to veto the bill, just as he did with a similar measure in the 2024 session.

In my veto message, I noted my major concerns with the disregard shown to local jurisdictions and the infringement of our state Constitution’s intrinsic separation of powers. Importantly, my message also included a call to action for school districts and colleges around the state to review their gun free zone policies while my administration pursued reviewing the State’s.

Reflecting this legislature’s lackadaisical effort to openly debate and work on this legislation before sending it to my desk, it is tempting to copy and return my same veto letter.

Compare that effort to the work done locally from the time of my veto letter, when only four school districts had firearm carry policies, to today, when 60% of school districts (according to the Wyoming Association of School Administrators), every single community college, and the University of Wyoming heeded my call to action and took up the debate.

This exercise in local governance was noticed by a handful of legislators, who attempted to pass amendments to HB0172 recognizing that local process and grandfathering in those local decisions. Such lack of regard for the principle of “government closest to the people” so fundamental to our Republic is stunning.

It’s true that many of these educational institutions debated rescinding their gun-free policies over the past year, but many of them (including the University of Wyoming) chose to keep their prohibitions in place. Gordon might be okay with that, but a “government closest to the people” doesn’t always act in the people’s best interest or with the Constitution in mind (looking at you, Jim Crow).

I stated in my veto letter last year that I support the repeal of gun free zones. I also respect local self-government.

My actions underscore my passion for both, which is not diminished. I am left to imagine this legislative session was never about “self-defense” or a common sense effort to extend carry rights. More to the point, it was always about the legislature grabbing power.

I find it interesting that this legislature’s vote was not so much about the sanctity of Second Amendment rights as it was who got to control them. Gun free zones are not repealed – they are now determined exclusively by the legislature.

Well, yes. Does Gordon take issue with firearm preemption laws that establish a statewide policy rather than a patchwork quilt of local ordinances that vary from town to town? It sure sounds like it. And despite the governor’s contention that HB 172 is nothing more than a legislative power grab, the bill still contains a major carveout for political subdivisions, which still have the authority to prohibit “the open carry, display or wearing of a firearm in its facilities or on its campus”.

In fact, that language may prove to demonstrate the weakness of HB 172 if, say, the University of Wyoming interprets that language as giving the Board of Regents the authority to prohibit concealed carry… which is, generally speaking, the “wearing” of a firearm”.

States chafe at having the Federal Government tell us what we can and cannot do. So I understand why local governments would harbor that same attitude for an “all-knowing” Cheyenne. To wit, the ability to debate nuances and advance wise, considered policy is not a strength the people of Wyoming have witnessed during this legislative session.

Honestly, if Gordon truly feels that lawmakers made a massive mistake in adopting HB 172, the courageous thing for him to do would have been to veto the bill and let the legislature override his decision. That, however, would have demonstrated Gordon’s political weakness, so instead he chose to let the bill become law alongside a heaping helping of snarkiness directed at the representatives and senators who voted for it. That’s not a good look for the governor, but at least his pouting won’t be standing in the way of Wyoming residents exercising their Second Amendment rights in more publicly accessible places once the law officially takes effect on July 1, 2025.

Knife Victory in Arkansas, Gov. Sanders Signs Preemption Law

Multiple United States Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms. Bearable arms include knives. Knife Rights, a knife owners’ organization, just secured a big win in Arkansas. Preemption legislation championed by the group was signed into law by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders on February 25, 2025.

Knife Rights, a 501(c)(4), has been lobbying to have prohibitions on bladed arms removed across the country. One of their big pushes is having preemption put into the statute of state laws. With preemption, people don’t have to work through a patchwork of regulations that vary from town to town, and instead can follow one set of laws established by the state legislature.

“After over a decade of Knife Rights’ efforts, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed HB 1418 that enacts Knife Rights’ signature Knife Law Preemption in the state, becoming Act 161,” a release from Knife Rights states. “The bill adds ‘Knives’ and ‘Knife-making components’ to the state’s existing Firearms Law Preemption statute. The new law is effective 91 days after the session ends, scheduled for April 11, but the session can be extended.”

Knife Rights has successfully deconstructed prohibitive laws across the country. They say that their first knife law preemption bill was in Arizona in 2010. Since then, Knife Rights has had knife preemption bills enacted in: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and now in Arkansas.

Knife Rights’ release further states:

Knife Law Preemption is a Knife Rights’ criminal justice reform effort that repeals and prevents local ordinances more restrictive than state law which only serve to confuse or entrap law-abiding citizens traveling within or through the state. Preemption ensures citizens can expect consistent enforcement of state knife laws everywhere within a state.

Congratulations and our thanks to Rep. Joey Carr and Sen. Terry Rice for their support and successful sponsorship of this important bill. Thanks to all who used our Legislative Action center to help move this bill forward.

Victories like these are needed across the U.S. There are states where the bearing of bladed arms – even pocket knives or box cutters – is illegal without just cause. Some jurisdictions are so strict that if a person admits that they’ve armed themselves with a knife for self-defense, they’d be in violation of the law. This work helps to keep prohibitive regulations from becoming a reality in municipalities that are in states with preemption.

A hearty congratulations to Knife Rights and the good people of Arkansas for securing this victory. We applaud Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders for her leadership on this issue. We’ll be continuing to keep our eyes peeled for more Knife Rights supported legislation and lobbying efforts. Their work leads to the destruction of unconstitutional laws and regulations.
More information about Knife Rights:

Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 51 bills enacted repealing knife bans and protecting knife owners in 32 states and over 200 cities and towns since 2010.

Chief Justice John Roberts pauses judge’s order for Trump admin to pay foreign aid contractors by midnight

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on Wednesday paused a federal judge’s order that required the Trump administration to pay around $2 billion in foreign aid funds to contractors by midnight.

The ruling comes after the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to block the release of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funding, which the federal judge had required by midnight. Officials had said they would not be able to comply with the judge’s order.

The Trump administration said U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali’s order had created “an untenable payment plan at odds with the President’s obligations under Article II to protect the integrity of the federal fisc and make appropriate judgements(sic) about foreign aid – clear forms of irreparable harm.”

Any response from the groups that are fighting the Trump administration is due before Friday at 12 p.m., meaning the pause could potentially be relatively short-lived.

The Trump administration said it was eliminating more than 90% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world, putting numbers on its plans to eliminate the majority of U.S. development and humanitarian help abroad.

 The Great Unraveling.

For the last few weeks we have been watching one of the greatest collections of weaponized autistics in the world going happily about their task of unraveling exactly how much of our money was directed through previously undetected means for previously undetected and wholly curious ends. The Doge crew are going at it with the zeal and joy of unleashed rat terriers turned loose on a field of suitable prey, in tracking millions of dollars’ worth of our money into various progressive slush funds.

And interesting things are suddenly happening. Although coincidence is not causality, by any means … still, there are things that people on the conservativish side of things have wondered about for the last decade. Things like … strangely well-choreographed protests, with tens and hundreds of participants (who mostly have no obvious means of support) appearing almost like magic, carrying professionally-printed signs. Hmmm … we all wondered in times past: who is footing the bill for all this?

It may very well turn out that we all were – just as it has turned out that USAID grants went out to support practically every cause beloved by progressives nationally and world-wide. To non-governmental organizations playing hopscotch with international migrants. To champion the causes of LGBTWXYZLOL-whatever, around the world in our own back yard and in our elementary schools. To progressive media voices, like the BBC. What the ever-loving H-E-double hockey sticks? Don’t those smooth-talking euro-snob Jew-haters get enough moola from their own government, they have to vacuum up from us as well, like a coke addict snorting a line as long as the US-Canada border?

And while I’m on the topic of our very own dear media, what about the ongoing slaughter of careers and the driving rain of pink slips falling at CBS and NBC? Joy Reid, Lester Holt and other expensive performers are being pried out of their comfortable sinecures. Personalities whom I have never particularly followed and only hear about when they have been spectacularly stupid on camera and the conservative blogosphere takes notice. I imagine their superiors pried them loose, like a dentist with an impacted molar – but why now?

Is it because top management at the various media enterprises have suddenly realized with the election of Trump that a large chunk of the public ignores them – and they have not anything like the power that they thought they had? Have they figured out that advertising on their programs was money wasted, and business sponsors know it? This is a new world for our national establishment media organs, where CBS Sixty Minutes counts for naught, and a podcaster like Joe Rogan may have put Trump and Vance over the top with an important segment of the voting public through doing searching, free-form long-format interviews.

Or could it be that laundered government funds were holding up our own media, at least as much as paid advertising? Now that such funds are being short-stopped – is that another reason for the collapsing of our media’s house of cards, now that the gravy train has come to a halt?

Pam Bondi Dismisses Biden-Era DEI Lawsuits Involving Merit-Based Hiring of Firefighters, Cops

As part of President Donald Trump’s plans to end racist DEI policies, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s Civil Rights Division to dismiss several Biden-era lawsuits involving the hiring of police officers and firefighters on the basis of merit.

These lawsuits, launched by the Biden-Harris administration, “unjustly targeted” various fire and police departments across the country for using standard aptitude tests to screen candidates, according to a DOJ press release issued Wednesday.

Despite no evidence of intentional discrimination, per the Trump DOJ, only statistical disparities, Biden officials branded the aptitude tests as discriminatory. This effort sought to coerce cities into conducting DEI-based hiring and spending millions of dollars in taxpayer funds for payouts to previous applicants who had scored lower on the tests, regardless of qualifications.

“American communities deserve firefighters and police officers to be chosen for their skill and dedication to public safety – not to meet DEI quotas,” Bondi said in a statement.

Under Bondi, the DOJ is now dedicated to ending racial discrimination in the name of DEI and restoring merit-based opportunities nationwide. This issue is particularly important for frontline workers who protect the American people, according to the Trump DOJ, and prioritizing DEI over merit when selecting our firefighters and cops thereby jeopardizes public safety.

On February 5, Bondi circulated an internal memo within the DOJ explaining that the department’s Civil Rights Division will “investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.”

Wednesday’s dismissal is an early step toward “eradicating” such DEI practices across the government and in the private sector, the Trump DOJ touted.

What Kash Patel Should Do As Acting ATF Director

I spent the weekend with a number of Second Amendment advocates, including some names you’ll probably recognize. That’s where I first heard that Kash Patel, in addition to being director of the FBI, was named to helm the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He wasn’t who I thought would get tapped, but the general consensus was that this was a good thing.

And I agree.

But now that Patel is in charge, what is on the agenda?

He started at the FBI by getting rid of some of the dead weight in that agency as well as some who used their positions to push their own agendas. Now, he’s got a chance to do that again.

With Kash Patel now in the position of Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the agency is in for a shake-up.

One thing that Patel can do is get rid of problem employees who have gone out of their way to infringe on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. This purge has already started with the firing of the ATF’s Chief Council, Pam Hicks. Hicks was a rabid anti-gun attorney that chose to defend very constitutionally dubious rules. Although Hicks was a good first step, without removing other problem members, nothing will change.

The first person that Patel should remove from the Bureau is the ATF’s Deputy Director, Marvin Richardson. Mr. Richardson has been behind some of the ATF’s most controversial rules. He was the driving force behind the reclassification of pistols equipped with braces. Mr. Richardson proposed reclassifying pistols with braces and unfinished firearms frames during a 2020 meeting with the Biden transition team without President Trump’s knowledge….

Mr. Patel should look at Matthew Varisco. Mr. Varisco is the ATF Assistant Director for the Office of Field Operations. When he worked out of the Philadelphia Field Office, he pushed the targeting of companies selling firearms precursor parts, including issuing a cease-and-desist letter to JSD Supply. This action was taken before the rule change of pistol frames. He pioneered the idea of firearms “structuring.” According to Varisco, if someone buys firearms parts from multiple companies to build a working firearm, that is “structuring.” This use of the term was the first time it was used outside banking crimes. He claimed that the possibility of “structuring” meant that all 80% firearm frames needed to be treated like completed guns. Mr. Varisco’s idea of “structuring” made it into the final rule.

Other names are, of course, mentioned, and I happen to agree. Far too many people achieved success in the ATF by supporting gun control, which would expand the agency’s authority by virtue of trampling on the rights of the American people and by reinterpreting rules as much as possible to expand it.

And a lot of names went into that.

However, there’s a lot more to be done than just clean house. Patel needs to also purge the ATF of some of the problematic interpretations of federal law, and do so in the way Brandon Herrera talked about in a video regarding what he would do as ATF director. No, the AK Guy isn’t calling the shots at the ATF, but Herrera says he came up with this after close consultation with groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America and they happen to be smart ideas.

Whether the end goal is to merge the ATF with the FBI and get rid of the agency entirely or not, the truth is that we have a golden opportunity to preserve gun rights for the next generation. Kash Patel strikes me as the kind of guy who would be interested in doing it just this way, too, so I’m incredibly hopeful going forward.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump’s appointment of Kash Patel (and Dan Bongino at the FBI), we’ve got the opportunity to make the FBI great again and bring the ATF to heel. The two-tiered system of justice that we’ve seen from the Biden administration is a thing of the past and the bureau is on its way back to being America’s premiere law enforcement agency.

Gov. Rhoden Signs Pro-Second Amendment Bill into Law

Gov. Rhoden Signs Pro-Second Amendment Bill into Law

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Larry Rhoden signed SB 81, which prohibits the use of a firearms code for transactions involving firearms, accessories, components, and ammunition and to provide a civil penalty therefor.

“I am proud to protect our Second Amendment rights with the signing of this bill,” said Governor Larry Rhoden. “South Dakota has seen strong growth of our firearm industry, and this bill will help that continue. I am grateful that both the bankers and the firearm industry came together on this issue.”

A private signing ceremony was held this morning and included representatives from South Dakota’s growing firearms industry, South Dakota’s banking industry, the National Rifle Association, and prime sponsors of the bill. You can find a picture of Governor Rhoden signing SB 81 here.

Governor Rhoden has signed 35 bills into law this legislative session.