Author: HP McLovincraft

Seeker of rabbit holes. Pessimist. Libertine. Contrarian. Your huckleberry. Possibly true tales of sanity-blasting horror also known as abject reality. Prepare yourself. Veteran of a thousand psychic wars. I have seen the fnords. Deplatformed on Tumblr and Twitter.

Federal judge rules NCAA can allow men on women’s teams, Riley Gaines plans appeal

A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit against the NCAA that had challenged its policy of allowing men who identify as women to play on women’s sports teams.

U.S. District Judge Tiffany Johnson, a 2024 Biden appointee, ruled that the collegiate sports organization is not beholden to Title IX because it is not a recipient of direct federal financial assistance, Fox News reported.

The two-year-old lawsuit, Gaines v. NCAA, had challenged the organization and the University of Georgia for allegedly violating Title IX’s provisions for equal opportunity in sports by allowing males to compete in the women’s category. The judge found that the NCAA maintained separate funding streams from participating universities.

“What this ruling means is basically the NCAA can put as many men on a women’s sporting team as they want,” said Riley Gaines, the lead plaintiff, on a video post on X on Tuesday. “We are going to appeal.”

Gaines said she feels that while the dismissal will ultimately help lead the case to the Supreme Court and ultimate victory, “this doesn’t come without a toll; it’s mentally draining, emotionally draining.”

According to the lawsuit, the NCAA authorized “naked men possessing full male genitalia to disrobe in front of non- consenting college women and creating situations in which unwilling female college athletes unwittingly or reluctantly expose their naked or partially clad bodies to males.”

The Independent Council on Women’s Sports, or ICONS, is funding this lawsuit. Gaines is a former All-American swimmer at the University of Kentucky and current advocate for women’s sports. More than a dozen additional female plaintiffs are all current or former collegiate athletes.

“We believe the district judge erred and that the Court of Appeals will find that the NCAA, which is the controlling body of college sports for more than 1,100 member schools, almost all of which are federally funded, is subject to Title IX,” said ICONS Co-Founder Kim Jones, a former NCAA All-American tennis player, in a news release.

“We will not give up our fight for women and girls’ rights in sports,” Jones said.

Keep reading

REVEALED: Inside the Plan to Build ‘Trans Schools’ and Spread Their Lessons Nationwide

ANew York education group is planning a trans middle school—and wants its approach to reach classrooms far beyond New York.

Trans Formative Schools spells out its ambition:

“Eventually, we aspire to support trans teachers to launch trans schools around the country and the world.”

Its plans extend to teachers already working in other schools. The organization proposes national educator training and free classroom materials combining conventional academic subjects with sex education and activism.

It already operates a free afterschool program welcoming students ages nine to fifteen. Its advertised activities include “Activism/Transing School.” And this September, a philanthropic fund backed by MacKenzie Scott named the organization among its latest grant recipients.

The full middle school remains a proposal. The existing afterschool, published curriculum plans and new funding reveal how the organization wants to build toward it.

A middle school built around activism

The group’s school vision calls for teaching “transformational resistance” and empowering students to challenge racism, ableism, transphobia and what it describes as “other white supremacist systems.”

Its 2026–27 afterschool program operates at NYC Heritage of Pride in Manhattan. Alongside engineering, coding, creative writing and arts activities, it advertises queer media, student activism and exploration of identity. The program is open to all students in its age range.

Keep reading

Filing Taxes Will Cost Americans $544 Billion This Year

The process of paying taxes manages to add insult to injury by making it burdensome to comply as you cough up the money the government steals from you. The time lost keeping up on tax rules, filing paperwork, and calculating our own mugging is stolen from the rewarding areas of life, and the costs are diverted from productive activities. How much do we lose in satisfying government’s demands? A new report answers that question in painful detail, just in time for the October 15 extended filing deadline.

The High Cost of Paying High Taxes

“The federal tax code imposes many costs on the US economy. The most direct costs, of course, are the roughly $5.2 trillion in federal taxes (as of fiscal year 2025) that consume 17.3 percent of US gross domestic product (GDP),” the Tax Foundation’s Alex Muresianu and Guy Cardwell wrote last week. “A less direct cost is the time taken out of our lives to comply with a Byzantine tax code that requires billions of hours to complete IRS paperwork and file tax returns.”

Drawing on data from the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Muresianu and Cardwell note that “Americans will spend almost 6.9 billion hours complying with IRS tax filing and reporting requirements in 2026. This is equal to 3.32 million full-time workers—more than the population of Chicago and nearly 35 times the workforce the IRS employed in FY 2025—doing nothing but tax return paperwork for a full year.”

That’s an enormous amount of time and energy diverted from Americans’ own priorities—like working, running businesses, and raising families—to satisfy federal paperwork requirements so we can cough up the money the government extorts from us under threats of fines and imprisonment. Few of us want to pay that money to begin with, but we have to surrender part of our lives to calculate the amount owed and satisfy tax rules.

As you might expect, all that tax-consumed time comes attached to a hefty price tag.

Keep reading

BBC removes article claiming bare nails trend perpetuates ‘White supremacist’ beauty standards

The BBC removed an article that suggested the trend of leaving fingernails unpainted could perpetuate “White supremacist” beauty standards after it drew backlash Saturday.

The original article, “How the bare nails trend became a class issue,” explored the beauty trend of women preferring clear and polished “naked” nails over the more stylish nail designs over the past few years. 

The BBC reported that while some consider this trend part of the ever-shifting standards in fashion, critics suggested the image said “something about class” and could potentially stigmatize Black, Latino and Asian communities that popularized heavily designed nails.

“That trend really promotes blankness and this kind of sameness and erasure of culture and identity that is so important to [B]lack and [B]rown communities,” beauty journalist Kristina Rodulfo told the BBC.

Keep reading

New Oklahoma City Revelations Raise More Questions

One of the enduring mysteries of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing case is the little-known but well-documented and indisputable fact that Timothy McVeigh and the “others unknown” involved in the bombing used two different Ryder trucks in the later stages of the bombing plot.

What happened to this second truck, where it was obtained (FBI documents indicate that the bureau may have believed it was purchased at auction—more on those documents in a moment), and its final purpose remain unknown today.

Dozens of witnesses in Kansas observed two distinctly different Ryder trucks between April 11 and April 18—both parked at Geary Lake and the Dreamland Motel. One of the trucks was smaller, frequently described as “faded yellow,” with either no visible Ryder logo or one that was barely visible, and with a cab-overhang on the front of the truck. This detail would also capture the attention of the FBI, who began asking witnesses whether the truck they saw had the cab-overhang and showed them a Ryder company flyer depicting several trucks, asking which type they had observed.

The other of the two trucks was described as much larger—the 20-foot model—and by witnesses as “cleaner” and “newer,” even “more aerodynamic.” This was the truck rented from Elliott’s body shop on April 17 and ultimately used to deliver the bomb.

The second truck, with a few exceptions, is generally omitted from most contemporary accounts of the bombing, yet its existence is confirmed in numerous FBI documents.

A half dozen people at the Dreamland Motel—where McVeigh stayed the week before the bombing—place McVeigh parking the smaller Ryder truck at the Dreamland Motel on Easter Sunday and Friday and Saturday—days before the larger bomb truck was rented at Elliott’s on Monday, April 17.

Consider the following account from Apache helicopter mechanic Shane Boyd, who stayed in room #28 at the Dreamland Motel for several weeks in April 1995 while working at nearby Ft. Riley. Boyd told FBI SA Mark Bouton that around 6:00 AM on Friday, April 14, he saw a Ryder truck with a steel-framed trailer pull out of the Dreamland Motel’s parking lot. Boyd also told the FBI that he is sure he saw the Ryder truck parked at the Dreamland Motel again on Saturday and on Easter Sunday.

Consider the accounts of Dreamland residents David King and his mother, Herta King. Both Kings saw the smaller Ryder truck the weekend before the bomb truck’s rental. FBI special agents Robert Knox and Leslie Gardner interviewed David King on April 27 about activities at and around the motel. David told the FBI that on Easter Sunday, his mother visited him at the Dreamland around half past noon. King stated that both he and his mother saw a yellow Ryder truck parked directly in front of his room that Sunday afternoon.

Herta King later testified at the McVeigh trial that she saw the Ryder truck parked at the Dreamland on Easter Sunday. She stated that she was friends with the motel owner, Lea McGown, and that they had discussed the truck being there on Easter Sunday. King said that Lea McGown told her, “it doesn’t make sense that a truck was there on Sunday, if McVeigh rented it on Monday.”

Indeed, it doesn’t make sense. McVeigh rented a truck on Monday, April 17, yet we have a half dozen witnesses who saw a yellow moving truck with McVeigh prior.

Keep reading

Eisenhower and Washington Both Spoke Out Against War

“God help the Nation when it has a President who doesn’t know as much about the military as I do.”
~ President Dwight D. Eisenhower speaking to his White House Staff Secretary, Gen. Andrew Goodpaster

These words are quoted in a book about Eisenhower’s foreign policy called Ike’s Bluff – President Eisenhower’s Secret Battle To Save The World by Evan Thomas.

In the same paragraph as the words above are these: “When Defense Secretary Neil McElroy warned him that further cuts would harm national security, Eisenhower acerbically replied, ‘If you go to any military installation in the world where the American flag is flying and tell the commander that Ike says he will give him an extra star for his shoulder if he cuts his budget, there’ll be such a rush to cut costs that you’ll have to get out of the way.’”

In a speech to the Canadian Club in Ottawa on Jan. 10, 1946, Eisenhower said these words: “I hate war only as a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity.”

In a speech broadcast from London in 1959, Eisenhower said: “I think people want peace so much that one of these days, governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.”

Because of these and many other things he said and did, I think a very strong case can be made that Eisenhower was our most antiwar President.

Certainly his most famous remarks were given in his farewell address from the White House on Jan. 17, 1961. He talked of the “grave implications” of “an immense military establishment and a large arms industry.”

Then he added these famous words: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

I think Eisenhower would be shocked at how far we have gone down the road against which he warned, especially since the Pentagon is now wanting a one-year budget of an incomprehensible sum of more than one trillion, four hundred billion.

Less famous than his farewell address is his first major speech after his inauguration. It was given on April 16, 1953 at a meeting in Washington to the American Society of Newspaper Editors and was probably the most antiwar speech ever given by an American President.

He gave several examples of wonderful things that could be done with war money and then said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

He added: “This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all… it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.”

This speech is quoted above Eisenhower’s grave and in a book by Brett Baker entitled Three Days In January – Dwight Eisenhower’s Final Mission.

In addition to his inspiring words, Eisenhower ended the Korean War and even went on national television shortly before the 1956 election to refuse Israel’s request (demand) to join a war against Egypt over the Suez Canal.

Mitchell Bard wrote in The Times of Israel in 2014: “Eisenhower went on television to criticize Israel’s failure to withdraw from Egypt and warned he would impose sanctions if it failed to comply. Eisenhower was prepared to cut off all economic aid, to lift the tax-exempt status of the United Jewish Appeal, and to apply sanctions on Israel.”

Israel withdrew, and war was averted.

I think it is very significant that possibly our other most antiwar President was our other most famous General, George Washington. His farewell address has been read in a ceremonial session of the Senate every year since 1862.

In that speech, he warned against “overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

He added these very important words: “A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest… betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.” (Israel?)

Finally, in Scott Berg’s lengthy biography of Woodrow Wilson is a statement about World War 1 made by Winston Churchill to a New York newspaper editor: “America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the world war.”

Then Churchill added: “If you hadn’t entered the war the allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no break-down in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have… enthroned Nazism.” (p583)

Keep reading

CA Gov. Gavin Newsom Signs ‘No Kings Act,’ Making It Easier to Sue ICE Agents

Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 21 bills into law on Tuesday, one of which, the “No Kings Act,” makes it easier for left-wing migrant activists and others to target Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents.

One of the bills attempts to impose a 25-percent tax on private detention centers, another purports to ban law enforcement from using electric shock gloves, and another has a provision that makes it easier to sue federal immigration officers for doing their job.

“Trump has put his political interests above the health, safety and livelihood of American families,” Newsom said in a statement upon signing the bills, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. “California is taking action to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight around immigration enforcement in our state. This is about stepping up where the federal government has failed our communities.”

“We will continue protecting our people, upholding the rule of law, and making clear that if the federal government operates in California, we will hold them accountable,” Newsom added.

Radical left-wing state Senator Scott Wiener (D), who sponsored the bill, celebrated the signing.

“ICE and Border Patrol have terrorized California communities with impunity,” Wiener claimed. “That ends today.”

He continued:

When federal agents act lawlessly, they should be held accountable the same as any other lawbreaker. But for too long, a loophole in the law has shielded them from accountability. The No Kings Act provides long overdue accountability to end the impunity powering ICE and Border Patrol’s terror campaign.

It is likely that some of the provisions in these various bills won’t pass legal muster for their attempt to interfere in federal law enforcement matters.

Other provisions include requirements to disclose 911 and emergency response records, the creation of a so-called “detainees’ bill of rights,” a ban on the use of flash-bang devices, and a ban on former ICE officers being hired by state law enforcement agencies.

The Chronicle reported in August that ICE had arrested nearly 50,000 migrants across the state, some 6,800 of them in Southern California and 11,500 in Los Angeles.

California has opposed the Trump administration’s voter-mandated efforts to institute mass deportations of illegal migrants after the state used migrants for years to pad state tax subsidies, especially where it concerned the fattening of education budgets as millions of migrant children flooded the state’s school systems.

Keep reading

The Mirage of Statecraft: America’s Blind Drift in West Asia

For decades, the architecture of West Asia has rested on a comforting fiction: that Pax Americana could indefinitely manage the region through the policy of offshore balancing, security guarantees to autocrats and the supreme might of the U.S. military.

That order is gone. Not bruised, not bending, but wholly vaporized.

Washington’s illusion that it could facilely pivot away from the region while maintaining a stranglehold on its security dynamics has collided with the hard reality of enduring quagmires. Current historical events have swept away the geopolitical framework of the past that relied on predictable diplomatic patterns, managed proxy clashes and the arrogant belief that normalization pacts could be achieved while entirely ignoring public sentiment.

As Washington stumbles through the wreckage, one inescapable harrowing question hangs in the air: the old-order is spent; the status quo is dead; America is rudderless, clueless and at war. So what now?

To understand how the United States found itself adrift, one must confront a bipartisan delusion. For a quarter century, since the launch of the “war on terror,” U.S. strategists have operated on the flawed belief that military might could permanently freeze a dynamic region in embers.

Washington thought it could dispense billions in weaponry, project power through sprawling military bases across the Persian Gulf and treat the fundamental grievances of millions as merely background noise. It assumed that Arab rulers would remain compliant, that energy routes would remain permanently pacified by default and that their adversaries, like Iran, could be permanently contained through economic starvation, sabotage and periodic airstrikes.

The foundation has buckled under the weight of its own contradictions. The proliferation of precision drones, ballistic missiles and asymmetric warfare has punctured the myth of invulnerability. The comforting scripts of past decades no longer apply.

The United States now finds itself entangled in ever-widening military clashes. It is a superpower operating on muscle memory, reacting with kinetic force and without a coherent doctrinal compass. A rudderless empire is dangerous; not because of its strength, but because of its unpredictability.

Washington’s current geopolitical posture fluctuates between grand attempts to engineer a “new regional order” through flawed summits and reactively managing wars without a clear vision. Policy roadmaps look brilliant in think tanks, but they completely fail to align with the fractured realities of Beirut, San’a, Tehran, or Gaza. Policymakers ignore the reality that regional state and non-state actors have learned to operate around, beneath and directly against American power.

To label the current American establishment “clueless” is not an insult; it is a structural diagnosis. There is a profound failure of imagination among leaders who refuse to accept that U.S. hegemony in West Asia is no longer the organizing principle of local affairs. Regional powers are hedging, diversifying partnerships by building stronger ties with China and Russia, while pursuing their own agendas independent of Washington’s preferences.

When fighting a war you do not know how to exit and clinging to a status quo that has turned to ashes, you are no longer shaping events. Events are shaping you.

If the old superpower playbook is bankrupt and you are flying blind, what comes next? It is unrealistic to believe that the political conditions that led to the 1995 Oslo Accords or the 2010-2011 Arab Spring can be recreated today.

The Gaza revolution of October 7, 2023, alongside the ongoing U.S.-Israel war against Iran, have established a completely new reality for the region. The road ahead for the United States demands a radical sober geopolitical reckoning built on epochal realities; much like the following:

  • Acknowledge the limits of power: Washington must accept that it can no longer dictate and control the geopolitical dynamics of the Levant and the Persian Gulf. It cannot rely on sheer military might to sustain its regional alliances with undemocratic regimes. The U.S.-led security framework has been exposed as an outdated fantasy that needs to be completely abandoned. Security will increasingly be negotiated, or fought over, by the people who actually live there.
  • Prioritize diplomatic statecraft over force: A realistic withdrawal from the addiction to endless interventions is long overdue. If the U.S. insists on maintaining a footprint in the region, it must replace its default reliance on military force and transactional alliances with diplomacy involving all regional stakeholders. It cannot continue treating allies merely as military outposts and and gas stations.
  • Stop enabling the Zionist colony: High priority must be given to the immediate cessation of all military assistance and diplomatic backing for Israel; ending the decades-long blank check policy. Washington should instead leverage its significant economic and diplomatic weight to end the genocide in occupied Gaza and the West Bank and halt Israel’s military escalation against its neighbors.
  • Palestinian grievances must be addressed: True lasting regional peace is impossible without placing justice for the Palestinians at the center of all diplomatic efforts. The United States must pivot toward comprehending and addressing root political grievances rather than furthering Israel’s reliance on brute military force. Until Washington transitions from active accomplice in Israel’s protracted expansive wars and begins acting as an honest broker bound by international law, any talk of regional stability will remain a cruel and lethal mirage.

The courage of regional state and non-state actors who, at great cost, have been resisting injustice has inspired a wave of action among frustrated, subjugated and oppressed people across the globe.

West Asia is writing a new chapter in real time. It is being written in the ink of shifting alliances, bitter resentments and intense struggles for local autonomy. The United States will be left completely sidelined, bypassed not by another global superpower, but by the relentless march of a region that has finally learned to move forward without asking permission from Washington. America’s political class must wake up to the changing reality.

Keep reading

Let’s talk about…RAF Fairford & the False Flag that never was

In the early hours of Sunday morning, police were called to the countryside outside RAF Fairford, a US-run air base in Gloucestershire, after a local farmer reported suspicious activity.

Upon arriving at the scene, three white vans were discovered and five unknown young men were arrested. Bomb disposal units were called in.

That sounds like the set-up for a fairly cut-and-dry false flag, doesn’t it?

But it gets weirder. Let’s take a look at this official timeline, provided by The Evening Standard, and see if you can spot some potential irregularities:

September 1-25 — Locals living in the villages surrounding RAF Fairford reportedly notice increased security around the military site. Heavy machinery and concrete bollards are said to be placed at gated entrances to the airbase. Plain-clothed police were spotted in the area.

Saturday, September 26 – A person walking their dog early on Saturday evening in the vicinity of the airbase is stopped by armed police and told to return home, they later tell the BBC.

Sunday, September 27, 12.45am – Gloucestershire Police receive first report of three suspicious white vans travelling towards RAF Fairford.

September 27, 1am – a farmer from Whelford, a village near RAF Fairford, is driving home from a party along quiet rural roads when she comes across three vans blocking the path to her farm. Turning around, she later reports seeing “a large group of hooded and masked men” at a nearby junction before they quickly disperse.

September 27, 1.36am – After a failed attempt to contact the Ministry of Defence police, the anonymous farmer phones 999 to alert Gloucestershire Police. She is said to post in the local residents’ WhatsApp group that “something very odd is going on in the village”.

September 27, approximately 1.46am – Armed officers, backed up by a police helicopter, surround the vans, arresting five men only 300m from the base’s perimeter. They are detained under the Explosives Act. Emergency personnel and vehicles are seen on September 27, 2026 in Fairford, United Kingdom

September 27, AM– Gloucestershire Police declares a major incident. A 400m security cordon is established around the vans and Army bomb disposal units are deployed.

September 27, AM – More than 80 households in Whelford are evacuated.

September 27, 2.45pm – Counter-terrorism policing announces they are leading the investigation. The five men are also arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.

September 27, PM – US President Donald Trump says suspects had been “under view for a long time”, claiming they had been looking to cause “big damage” to the US-operated facility.

Monday, September 28, 1.22pm – In a statement on X (formerly Twitter), Iran’s London embassy says it “categorically rejects” what it calls “malicious speculation” about the country’s involvement in Sunday’s events in the Cotswolds.

September 28, 4pm – Police announce that the five men arrested over the RAF Fairford incident will be released on bail. The five suspects are a 24-year-old from Camden, north London, three men aged 23, 24 and 25 from Westminster, central London, and one aged 24 from Willesden, north-west London. Police say they are keeping an open mind about foreign interference, saying one possibility could be proxies “either knowingly or unknowingly working on behalf of a foreign state”.

September 28, 7pm – An emergency Cobra meeting into the security incident at RAF Fairford wraps-up.

September 28, 7.30pm – Evacuated residents in Whelford are permitted to return to their homes.

September 28, 8pm – Trump says he is “surprised” five suspects were released on bail. In comments in the Oval Office, he praises UK police but adds: “I will tell you, I would have said ‘Don’t let them have bail’.”

Tuesday, September 29, 4am (BST) – US secretary of state Marco Rubio says the “hand of a foreign actor” appeared to have been at play on Sunday but claims he is limited in what more he can say.

September 29, 7am – Police cordon remains in place around three vehicles at RAF Fairford.

Now, that timeline makes me want to ask a few questions.

Why were the MoD police not answering their phones despite apparent security concerns?

Why were five men suspected of planning a terrorist attack granted bail after less than 24 hours in custody?

And why is there still a cordon around those vans? How long is required to ascertain if there are bombs inside them or not?

Keep reading

Liberals admit ‘assault-style firearm’ has no legal definition as RCMP says it doesn’t track crimes involving them

The federal government has acknowledged there is no legal definition of an “assault-style firearm,” while the RCMP says it does not specifically track crimes committed with the very category of firearms Ottawa has spent years prohibiting and buying back.

The admissions came in a September 21 response to order paper question Q-1375, submitted by Conservative MP Alex Ruff of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

Asked directly for the government’s definition of an assault-style firearm, Public Safety Canada responded: “There is no legal definition of an assault-style firearm.”

Instead, the department said firearms are legally classified according to criteria contained in Section 84(1) of the Criminal Code. It said firearms prohibited through the May 2020, December 2024 and March 2025 measures share technical characteristics that led the government to deem them unsuitable for civilian use.

The response becomes more striking when Ruff asks for data showing how frequently these so-called assault-style firearms actually appear in crime.

The RCMP said it “does not collect data specifically regarding gun crimes for assault-style firearms.”

Nor could the force say how many firearms it traced between 2021 and 2025 fell into the government’s assault-style category. The RCMP said that information is not tracked in its existing database and would require a manual review.

That leaves Ottawa unable to provide a basic crime statistic for a category at the centre of its Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program.

The tracing data the RCMP does collect shows a sharp increase in firearms suspected of having been illegally imported.

In 2025, the Canadian National Firearms Tracing Centre conducted 1,464 crime-related traces involving firearms reasonably suspected of being illegally imported, up from 487 in 2024, 271 in 2023, 572 in 2022 and just 66 in 2021.

By comparison, 326 crime-related traces in 2025 involved firearms identified as manufactured in Canada.

The RCMP completed 3,011 traces in 2025 involving firearms used or suspected of being used in crimes. That means suspected illegal imports accounted for a substantial share of the crime-related traces reported that year.

The government’s own data also has significant gaps. The RCMP only began collecting information about stolen firearms in 2023 and does not collect information about lost firearms through the tracing centre.

And while Ottawa has prohibited hundreds of firearm makes and models under measures explicitly described as targeting “assault-style firearms,” the RCMP told Parliament it cannot provide the number of traces involving those firearms by reference number, make or model because it does not specifically collect an assault-style designation.

Ottawa’s compensation program is nevertheless explicitly called the Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program, relying on a definition that doesn’t exist.

Keep reading