Blog

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 that 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 that the law was only unconstitutional related to handguns but still applied to undetectable firearms, such as pen guns.

It also found that the Postal Service should not be required to carry ammunition or gunpowder, despite those being constitutionally protected, because the existing restriction on explosives “serves legitimate postal needs to prevent injury to postal employees and property.”

Still, the DOJ determined the restrictions on handguns are unenforceable because such firearms “fall within the core of the ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.”

“Consequently, so long as Congress chooses to run a parcel service, the Second Amendment precludes it from refusing to ship constitutionally protected firearms to and from law-abiding citizens, even if they are not licensed manufacturers or dealers,” the opinion stated.

Keep reading

UK Asylum Seekers to Be Given Taxpayer-Funded Personal Therapists: Report

The British government will reportedly provide taxpayer-funded therapists for alleged asylum seekers who entered the country illegally.

The Home Office has commandeered the Cameron Barracks in Inverness, Scotland, to accommodate around 300 male asylum seekers as it seeks to transition away from the practice of block-booking hotels throughout the country to house illegals.

However, the Cameron Barracks plans have also sparked controversy after The Telegraph reported this week that the illegals set to be housed at the site will have their own dedicated therapists provided to them at taxpayer expense.

Highland councillors were told this week that having therapists provided at the site would mean that the illegals would not have to access local NHS services.

“Primary health care will be available on-site, including mental health support. Funding for these services will be provided by the Home Office to minimise impact on local GP surgeries and NHS resources,” they were told.

However, some have noted that this would effectively mean that illegal migrants would be given preferential treatment, given that people in the area often wait around five months before being able to see an NHS therapist.

Thomas Kerr, a spokesman for Reform UK, said: “The Cameron Barracks is simply the wrong location for a facility like this. Local people are rightly angry and demanding their voices be heard.

“To now learn that taxpayers will also be paying for mental health support for people who have come to this country illegally is a massive slap in the face.”

Keep reading

‘Bonkers’ Lawsuit Levels Shocking Allegations Against Kyrsten Sinema

Former Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is facing a rather wild and crazy lawsuit that the ex-wife of her former bodyguard filed against her, claiming Sinema’s infamous independent streak impacted her husband’s fidelity. The world of politics is truly insane. I bet nobody had this on their 2026 BINGO card. I know the year just started, but we’re already off to a very weird start.

Heather Ammel, a mom of three and the former blushing bride of Sinema’s ex-bodyguard, has accused the Arizona politician of wrecking their 14-year-long marriage by carrying on a lengthy affair with him during trips where they criss-crossed the globe. But that’s not all. Ammel also says Sinema talked her ex-hubby into doing psychedelics. Who knew being a politician involved so much sex, drugs, and rock and roll?

“Prior to [Sinema’s] actions, Plaintiff and Mr. Ammel were happily married and genuine love and affection existed between them,” the lawsuit states. “As a direct and proximate result of [Sinema’s] intentional and unlawful actions, such marital love and affection was alienated and destroyed.”

Ammel filed the lawsuit from her home state of North Carolina, which remains one of the few states in the country with a “homewrecker law” that allows people to sue their former spouse’s mistresses. As a Catholic, I fully support laws that hold adulterers accountable for their actions. In the eyes of God, adultery constitutes a mortal sin, one that removes a person from a state of grace. The Church treats it as such a serious crime against the Lord because it defiles a sacrament that reflects the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Matthew Ammel, a veteran diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder who sustained several traumatic brain injuries due to mutiple deployments to the Middle East, first started working with Sinema and her security team in 2022. A year later, the head of the former senator’s security team stepped down from his position after raising concerns that she was “having sexual relationships with other security members,” according to the lawsuit.

“She encouraged Mr. Ammel to leave with her, but Mr. Ammel decided to stay due to the financial security,” his ex-wife’s lawsuit claims, referring to the former head of Sinema’s security team.

Not long after the resignation, Ammel and Sinema took a trip to Napa Valley, California. The pair acknowledged that “it would have appeared as if they were on a romantic getaway” to outside observers. God tells us in Scripture to avoid even the appearance of evil, so even if they were not sexually intimate, the picture such a trip paints does not look good.

Sinema, a professed bisexual, started communicating with Matthew more frequently, catching the eye of Heather, who discovered the two exchanging Signal messages even when he was at home with his family. That’s definitely a bad sign.

“The messages exceeded the bounds of a normal working relationship and were of romantic and lascivious natures,” the lawsuit goes on to say. “Plaintiff discovered messages which included a picture of [Sinema] wrapped in a towel.”

Sinema allegedly offered to help Matthew with his mental health challenges and even suggested he try MDMA, the “love drug,” more commonly known as either molly or ecstasy. Sinema has long advocated for the use of psychedelics since she left the Senate in January 2025.

Keep reading

War Powers Resolution: The Senate Had One Job

On January 14, a “war powers resolution” went down to defeat in the US Senate on a 50-50 vote, with vice president JD Vance breaking the tie.

The resolution, which would have required US president Donald Trump to at least casually mention to Congress that he planned more military misadventures in Venezuela before, rather than after, launching such misadventures, was a half-hearted half-measure, but somehow only half of US Senators could bring themselves to go even that far.

Let’s go over the way things are supposed to work:

The US Constitution assigns the power to declare war to Congress, not to the president.

If the president attacks another country without such a declaration, it’s not a war, it’s just a crime — a “high crime” legally meriting and ethically requiring that president’s impeachment and removal from office.

Unfortunately, presidents have been getting away with such crimes on a routine basis since the end of World War 2. The list is too long to fit in an op-ed, but a few high points include Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Those conflicts weren’t wars, at least so far as US law was concerned. They were criminal acts carried out by lawless presidents with the acquiescence — and often co-conspiracy — of Congress.

Toward the end of the Vietnam fiasco, Congress passed (and overrode Richard Nixon’s veto of) something called the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Nixon’s veto message claimed that the Resolution included “unconstitutional restrictions” on his power to kill as many people as he pleased, when and how it pleased him to kill those people.

What it actually included was an unconstitutional — absent ratification by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures — repeal of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 assignment of the power to declare war solely and exclusively to Congress.

The Resolution supposedly gave the president wiggle room to engage in illegal military operations if he got congressional “authorization” or made up a “national emergency,” and as long as he subsequently bothered to tell Congress about it.

Why would Congress (a notoriously power-hungry body) try so hard to give up its power to declare war? Because if there’s anything a politician hates more than he or she loves power, it’s being held responsible for the consequences of exercising that power. By trying to give up its power, Congress thought it could also rid itself of culpability.

The Senate had one job to do. It wasn’t an especially hard job, it wouldn’t have had any great effect (even if it passed the House, Trump would have vetoed it), and it didn’t even meet the bare minimum constitutional standard.

Keep reading

Hakeem Jeffries Just Crossed a Dangerous Line That Can’t Be Uncrossed

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries just fired a warning shot at the entire Trump administration, and it’s the kind of threat that ought to make every American nervous about what Democrats have in mind if they ever claw their way back to power.

This week on Fox News, Trump advisor Stephen Miller reminded ICE agents that the law is on their side.

“To all ICE officers: You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties. Anybody who lays a hand on you or tries to stop you or tries to obstruct you is committing a felony,” he said. “You have immunity to perform your duties, and no one—no city official, no state official, no illegal alien, no leftist agitator or domestic insurrectionist—can prevent you from fulfilling your legal obligations and duties. And the Department of Justice has made clear that if officials cross that line into obstruction, into criminal conspiracy against the United States or against ICE officers, then they will face justice.”

It was a simple, clear, factual message, informing them that no matter how much the left attacks them, the Trump administration stands with them. But Jeffries was so triggered by Miller’s message that he wrote a response on X, and it was rather chilling.

“To all members of the Trump administration,” Jeffries wrote, “the incitement and engagement in state violence against the American people is a serious crime. Donald Trump will leave office long before the five-year statute of limitations expires. You are hereby put on notice.”

That wasn’t an empty threat; he means it, and it would be a mistake not to believe he was serious. Hakeem Jeffries literally threatened ICE agents and Trump administration officials with future prosecution for doing their jobs and enforcing the law.

Keep reading

What’s Behind Washington’s Signaling Support For NATO Troops In Ukraine?

It might be a negotiating tactic to pressure Russia into concessions on its maximalist goals in the conflict as a quid pro quo for not reprioritizing Russia’s containment over China’s by extending Article 5 to NATO states’ troops in Ukraine and thus reducing the odds that they’ll actually deploy there.

France and the UK recently committed to deploying troops to Ukraine in the event of a ceasefire as part of their latest proposed security guarantees to that country, the principle of which was praised for the first time ever by Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the US’ Special Envoys for talks with Russia. The Paris Declaration that France and the UK signed also pledged their support for “Participation in a proposed US-led ceasefire monitoring and verification mechanism”. All of this certainly raises concern in Russia.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth declared last February during his speech at NATO HQ that his country won’t consider member states’ troops in Ukraine to be covered by Article 5 and won’t deploy any of its own there either as part of any security guarantee. In light of the Paris Declaration, however, some in Russia might wonder whether the US is soon planning to reverse both policies to protect its NATO allies’ troops in Ukraine upon their deployment and deploy its own there too for monitoring a ceasefire.

Putin himself warned as recently as last September that Russia would deem Western troops in Ukraine “legitimate targets for destruction.” It’s therefore easy to see how their deployment en masse, unlike the minor unofficial French and UK troop presence in Odessa that Russian spies confirmed later that same month, could spiral out of control into World War III if Russia targets their forces. That might not happen, though, if the US’ support for the latest security guarantees is just a negotiating tactic (at least for now).

To explain, Trump 2.0 could have continued pumping Ukraine with weapons for free and never initiated talks with Russia if it wasn’t sincere about ending the conflict, all while gradually ramping up escalations against Russia as part of a “boiling the frog” approach for normalizing the path to World War III.

Keep reading

‘We Cannot Be Afraid To Do Something Because the Left Might Do It in the Future’

Asked by a college student if Republicans ought to be more cautious about “abusing that power” when they control the federal government, Vice President J.D. Vance left no doubt that he’s unworried.

“The left is already going to do it, regardless of whether we do it,” he added.

You’ll have a hard time finding a more concise formulation of the will-to-power sentiment that has seized so much of the conservative movement in recent years. And this was no gaffe—Vance has said similar things on several occasions, and he posted a video of this comment to his official X account.

The full context of the moment is worth appreciating. At a Turning Point USA event in October 2025 at the University of Mississippi, Vance took a question from a student who expressed concern about an unfriendly administration potentially targeting conservatives who might protest against it. “How can we prevent someone from abusing that power?” the student asked.

Vance’s chilling response waves away those worries. Rather than asking conservatives to reflect on the proper limits of political power or the potential consequences of overreaching, the vice president is effectively granting permission for greater intrusions against Americans’ rights and liberties.

Keep reading

DHS Invokes Immigration Enforcement To Justify Gathering Americans’ DNA

Government agencies inevitably turn enforcement responsibilities into opportunities to extend the security state. Every initiative to document, monitor, track, or otherwise spy on Americans starts with a mandate to ensure that people are obeying some rule or law. So it is with immigration policies, which fuel government efforts to gather biometric information not just on those who want to enter the country, but on citizens born and raised here. Fortunately, the scheme is getting pushback.

Massive Data Sweep Hiding in a Proposed Rule Change

On November 3 of last year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) proposed a rule change allowing its agents to gather and store more biometric data on anybody associated with applications for “benefits” including family visas, Permanent Resident (green) Cards, and work permits. The DHS summary of the rule states, in part:

DHS proposes to require submission of biometrics by any individual, regardless of age, filing or associated with an immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, unless exempted; expand biometrics collection authority upon alien arrest; define “biometrics;” codify reuse requirements; codify and expand DNA testing, use and storage; establish an “extraordinary circumstances” standard to excuse a failure to appear at a biometric services appointment…

According to the proposal, the purpose of gathering biometric data, including fingerprints, photographs, signatures, voice prints, ocular images, and DNA (which is heavily emphasized by DHS) is “identity management” to verify that people are who they say they are.

Immigrants aren’t especially popular in certain U.S. circles at the moment, or perhaps it’s more accurate to say that leniency towards those who want to enter the country is unpopular. But the rule change also ropes in lots of Americans. The proposal specifies that “by ‘associated,’ DHS means a person with substantial involvement or participation in the immigration benefit request, other request, or collection of information, such as a named derivative, beneficiary, petitioner’s signatory, sponsor, or co-applicant.”

As attorneys Alessandra Carbajal, Lee Gibbs Depret-Bixio, and Ryan Mosser  note in an analysis, the new rule would affect not just immigrants but “U.S. citizens, nationals, and lawful permanent residents, regardless of age.” They add that “signatories for employers that serve as sponsors/petitioners may potentially be subject to biometrics requirements. This would mark a departure from current practice, where only foreign nationals seeking benefits typically provide biometrics.”

“This data collection would not be limited to just immigrants, it would also impact millions of American citizens,” agrees Institute for Justice (I.J.) attorney Tahmineh Dehbozorgi. “DHS is claiming this DNA collection is meant to serve one narrow purpose, but realistically, it is creating a vast genetic dragnet that endangers the Fourth Amendment rights of everyone, all without Congress’ approval.”

Keep reading

The Great Grok Bikini Scandal is just Digital ID via the Backdoor.

wo days ago, the British government announced a U-turn on their proposed digital identity, and that the much-anticipated “BritCard” would no longer be mandatory to work in the UK.

This was welcomed as a victory by both fake anti-establishment types whose job is to Pied Piper genuine opposition, and some real resistance who should know better.

The reality is that reports of the death of digital identity have been greatly exaggerated. All they said was that it would no longer be mandatory.

Having a bank account, a cellphone, or an internet connection is not mandatory, but try functioning in this world without them.

As we said on X, anybody who understands governments or human nature knew any digital ID was likely never going to be gun-to-your-head, risking-prison-time mandatory.

All it has to be is a little bit faster and/or a little bit cheaper.

Saving you half an hour when submitting your tax return, faster progress through customs, lower “processing fees” for passport or driver’s license applications.

An hour of extra time and 50 pounds saved per year will do more coercion than barbed wire and billy clubs ever could.

Running alongside this is the manufactured drama around Grok’s generation of images of bikini-clad public figures, something which it suited the press and punditry class to work up into “sexual assault” and “pornography” whilst imploring us all to “think of the children!”

Inside a week, X has changed its policy, and Sir Keir Starmer’s government has promised a swift resolution of the issue using legislation that was (conveniently) passed last year but has yet to be enforced (more on that in the next few days).

This issue became a “problem”, had an hysterical “reaction” and was supplied a ready-made “solution” all inside two weeks. A swifter procession of the Hegelian dialectic would be hard to find.

So, we have the reported demise of mandatory digital identity occurring alongside the rise of the “threat” of AI “deepfakes”.

Nobody in the mainstream press has actually linked these stories together, but the connection is as obvious as the next step is inevitable.

This next step is the UK introducing its own version of the Australian “social media ban” for under-16s. In effect, age-gating all online interaction on major platforms and ending online anonymity.

Keep reading

We Were Told There Is No Scientific Evidence for UFOs. Our Research Says Otherwise

Two months ago, the documentary The Age of Disclosure premiered in theaters and on Amazon Prime Video.

In the film, 34 government officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and senior members of Congress from both parties, reveal what they are able to disclose publicly about unidentified flying objects (UFOs).

Rarely have so many highly credible testimonies been assembled in a single production, which quickly became the most-purchased film on the streaming platform.

We learn not only about UFO sightings, but also about serious allegations of secret government programs studying UFOs, crash-retrieval efforts involving non-human vehicles, and threats directed at whistleblowers.

The implications are enormous: our planet may be visited — or even inhabited — by another intelligent species, far more advanced than ourselves.

The Age of Disclosure has been met with both fascination and skepticism. The skeptics’ central response has been, “Where is the data? Where is the evidence?”

Unsurprisingly, many news outlets have opted for lighter undertones in their coverage, choosing their language carefully to distance themselves from the exotic nature of the claims made in the film.

The topic has long been ridiculed and stigmatized within scientific circles, where engaging with it was considered a near-certain path to career ruin. Media houses and editors often fear publishing pieces that might appear to support such claims, and any articles that do emerge tend to downplay their significance.

But is there truly a serious lack of evidence for UFOs, as skeptics have insisted since the 1950s?

For the past several years, my colleagues and I have analyzed “transients,” intriguing astronomical phenomena which change in brightness – or disappear entirely – over short periods of time.

Our research has zeroed in on hundreds of thousands of bright, star-like short flashes of light, recorded in photographic surveys of the night sky. Importantly, these astronomical observations are from the years before the Soviet Union launched the first man-made satellite, Sputnik, in 1957.

In two papers published recently in respected, peer-reviewed scientific journals, we make a compelling case that at least some of these bright flashes are reflections of the Sun off of objects of unknown, but non-natural, origin.

We also find a statistically significant correlation among these bright flashes, historical eyewitness UFO reports, and above ground nuclear tests that were being conducted at that time. Unsurprisingly, our work has garnered significant attention from our scientific colleagues.

Keep reading