Tag: police state

RI State Rep: Banning AR-15s Not Enough; We Should Use ‘Police Power’ to Ensure Owners Dispose of Them

On Wednesday, Rhode Island state Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D) spoke in support of efforts to repeal a legislative grandfather clause and use “police power” to force AR-15 owners to dispose of their rifles.

Breitbart News noted in March that Democrats in Rhode Island’s state legislature were trying to remove the grandfather clause that was contained in the “assault weapons” ban passed last year. The grandfather clause allowed those who owned newly prohibited firearms to retain possession of them. But now, the Democrats are pushing to remove the grandfathered aspect of the ban and implement a prison sentence for merely possessing an AR-15. The legislation through which they are attempting this is H8073.

Tanzi spoke in favor of H8703 on Wednesday, saying, “Last year, we as a body, banned the sale, manufacture, and transfer, of certain ‘assault weapons’ as defined in that law. That was an important step, but it was only a partial one. We should be honest about that.”

She continued:

Right now our law draws an arbitrary line. We have said that these firearms cannot enter the market place going forward, but we continue to allow them to remain in circulation indefinitely. … If these weapons are too dangerous to be sold in Rhode Island then we really should have addressed possession at the same time. We didn’t, and this bill [H8073] corrects that.”

Tanzi explained that H8073 will force current AR-15 owners “to come into compliance by selling or transferring them lawfully.”

Keep reading

UK Foreign Affairs Committee Calls for Government Agency to Police Online “Disinformation”

The UK’s Foreign Affairs Committee wants the government to build a new censorship agency. The proposed “National Counter Disinformation Centre” would be given the power to identify and act against speech the state considers “disinformation,” placed on a statutory footing, and modeled on bodies like Sweden’s Psychological Defence Agency, which once ran a public campaign warning citizens about the dangers of memes.

The committee’s report, published on March 27 2026, goes further than a single new body.

It calls for new censorship rules in a forthcoming Representation of the People Bill to target AI-generated content and “the creation and dissemination of disinformation.”

It wants amendments to the Online Safety Act that would force platforms to publicly display where user accounts were created and whether the user connected through a VPN. It wants more money for the FCDO’s Hybrid Threats Directorate. And it wants the government to review the National Security Act’s foreign interference offense because, apparently, an existing law that carries up to 14 years in prison isn’t strict enough.

Keep reading

Killing and Indifference

Is personal freedom a reality or a myth? Does the government execute the will of the governed or the will of those who finance its officials? Does the Bill of Rights restrain the government? Are the levers of government power pulled by those the governed have elected or those we don’t see? Do elections change anything?

Can the president kill people whom he suspects might commit a crime? Aren’t even those who would cause great harm entitled to due process? Isn’t everyone entitled to a fair trial in front of a neutral judge and jury before any punishment can be administered?

Aren’t all persons legally innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty? Isn’t this presumption of innocence the linchpin of American jurisprudence? At trial and before punishment, isn’t it the government’s obligation to prove every element of the crimes charged? Isn’t there no such thing in American jurisprudence as a presumption of guilt?

Aren’t punishments prescribed by law? Can the president make up a punishment and direct the military to administer it to folks he thinks are probably guilty of criminal behavior? Can federal officials perform unlawful acts with impunity just because they are ordered to do so by the president? Is “probably guilty” a sufficient legal standard for punishment?

In war, can the combatants morally target civilians and their structures? Is war waged against the people of a given country, or against its government and military assets? What happens when there is killing without consequence?

Which is worse, a president who kills whomever he wishes or a Congress that funds the killing and is indifferent to the moral, constitutional and legal consequences?

Can the president morally bomb civilians “into the Stone Age” in a country where the civilian population has little control over the government? Why kill or ruin large numbers of civilians whose liberation you have urged?

What is the purpose of a Constitution if it is not followed? Why take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution and then not do so? Why limit war making to the Congress but then ratify the president’s war making as if the Constitution authorized it? If the U.S. bombs other countries to temper their offensive military appetite, who or what will temper America’s offensive military appetite?

Can Congress fund a war it has declined to declare? Why are undeclared wars now commonplace? What to do about a Congress that escapes its constitutional duties? Which is worse, a president who fights an undeclared war or a Congress that does nothing about it?

What is Congress afraid of? Where in the Constitution is the president empowered to spend billions killing foreign persons in an undeclared war? From what source does the president derive power to destroy a foreign land? Why was there no great American debate about war before the president began his killings?

Can the president order killings because he is in the mood for it or because it is fun? Doesn’t the Constitution establish a system of checks and balances so that one of the three branches of the federal government cannot amass power at the expense of either of the other two? Don’t the Constitution and history lay out the functions and powers of the branches of government, and aren’t they supposed to check each other so as to assure personal freedom?

What good are treaties if they’re not followed? Why are treaties the supreme law of the land along with the Constitution itself and all federal statutes? Why does the government violate treaties like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter that U.S. officials wrote and U.S. presidents signed or acknowledged and the U.S. Senate ratified?

Can the president choose which laws he personally will obey and which he will personally violate? Can the government legally break its own laws? Can the president spend money from the U.S. Treasury that has not been authorized by Congress? Can the president impose a sales tax on all goods entering the U.S. from foreign countries? Can the president pick and choose which statutes to enforce and which to ignore? Why is computer hacking a crime, unless it’s done by federal agents?

Can the president put his own name on American cash? Can he put an image of his face on all your cash? Does Congress still write the laws and appropriate funds, or does the president now do these things on his own?

Is the president required to tell the truth? Is the government required to tell the truth? Why is it that the government can lie to the people but it is a crime to lie to the government? Does the government work for us, or do we work for the government? Does the government know more about us than we do about it?

What happens when the government is untruthful and the people believe it? Isn’t truth the essential bond between the government and the governed in a free society? Doesn’t the government derive its just powers from the consent of the governed? What happens when the government does things to which the governed have never consented?

Keep reading

Democrats Turn to Unconstitutional Exit Taxes After Their Policies Drove the Wealthy Out of Blue States

Democrats believe all our money belongs to them. They believe they have the moral and legal authority to take the money we earn and redistribute it to their preferred constituencies, while ignoring (or even facilitating) massive fraud and enriching themselves in the process. 

With the news of massive fraud scandals in Minnesota and California, it’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a fraud problem, and we’d bet the majority of our deficit could be erased if we eliminated fraud. But Democrats don’t have any interest in doing that. They just keep taxing people more and more to make up for their fiscal mismanagement. 

And when they raise taxes, the people who can afford to move from those blue states to tax-friendlier red states. That leaves the blue states with even more self-inflicted budget woes.

Rather than roll back wealth taxes, Democrats have decided to tax the people even more in the form of an exit tax, and that concept is gaining traction in blue states.

Keep reading

Los Angeles Teen Blinded in One Eye by DHS Agent at ‘No Kings’ Rally, Attorney Says

An 18-year-old college freshman was blinded in his right eye by a federal agent during the Los Angeles “No Kings” protest on March 28. 

Tucker Collins, who is studying astronautical engineering with a minor in cinematic arts at the University of Southern California, was documenting the rally protesting policies implemented under President Donald Trump near the Metropolitan Detention Center, where immigration detainees are held. Video of the incident shared by Collins’ attorney, V. James DeSimone, shows a crowd of people separated from agents by a tall black fence surrounding the facility. Collins can be seen holding his phone and filming near the back of the group before abruptly falling to the ground. Blood streams from his right eye as bystanders come to his aid. He was helped by a nurse present at the protest, DeSimone told CNN, and later taken to the hospital.

In the video, DeSimone accuses Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents of unlawfully shooting Collins with “a less-lethal launcher…shooting directly into his head” while exercising his First Amendment rights. The strike caused irreparable damage to Collins’ eye and fractured bones in his eye socket, DeSimone told CNN. Collins’ eye had to be surgically removed. 

In a statement made to the Los Angeles Times, a DHS spokesperson claimed that agents “followed their training and used the minimum amount of force necessary to protect themselves, the public, and federal property” after a group of 1,000 protestors “threw rocks, bottles, and cement blocks at officers.” The agency said seven warnings were given before crowd control measures were used. “The First Amendment protects speech and peaceful assembly—not rioting,” the spokesperson continued. 

Under DHS use-of-force guidelines, while agents may be authorized to use less-lethal weapons, such as pepperballs and rubber bullets, using such a device is considered deadly force when “it carries a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury,” such as “strik[ing] the neck or head.” Deadly force is only permissible when “the [officer] has a reasonable belief that the subject of force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the [officer] or to another person.” 

Even with this guideline in place, a federal court in California issued a preliminary injunction last September prohibiting DHS agents from, in part, “using crowd control weapons,” including less-lethal weapons, “on members of the press, legal observers, and protesters who are not themselves posing a threat of imminent harm to a law enforcement officer or another person.” The order was a result of a lawsuit in which DHS agents were accused of using excessive force and suppressing First Amendment-protected activities when officers shot less-lethal weapons at people protesting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics in Southern California last summer. 

In this case, Collins “was not threatening anyone. He wasn’t attacking anyone,” DeSimone told The Guardian. “DHS officers took out his eye and they did it despite a federal injunction that plainly forbids firing these weapons at people’s heads,” he continued. 

Keep reading

Federally Funded Study Reveals Marijuana Breathalyzer Breakthrough With 3-D Printed Roadside Tool Able To Detect THC

There’s been a new breakthrough in the development of a marijuana breathalyzer, with a study partly funded by the Justice Department showing a potential pathway for a “portable, low cost” device that looks like an inhaler for asthma, built with 3-D printed material that can detect delta-9 THC without secondary lab analysis.

The study, led by Emanuele Alves at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), detailed the results of experiments meant to address the current lack of a roadside impairment test for THC similar to those utilized by law enforcement for people suspected of driving under the influence of alcohol. With more states legalizing cannabis, there’s particular “need for rapid, reliable and low-cost roadside tools,” it says.

By using 3-D printed cartridges with a “Fast Blue” dye and gelatin system, the colorimetric experiments established “foundational data” that the device can be used to detect delta-9 THC, CBD and CBN “across multiple matrix systems.”

The tool was able to detect 10-100 nanograms of the cannabinoids, which could be differentiated using color-space modeling. Specifically, the tests revealed “two primary clusters,” with evidence that delta-9 THC and CBN analytes can be distinguished from CBD analytes based on color hue.

“Overall, this project established foundational data supporting the feasibility of a portable, low-cost, colorimetric tool for detecting cannabinoids using 3D-printed cartridges and readily accessible reagents,” the study says. “While additional validation and field-oriented development are needed, these findings provide a proof-of-concept framework for future roadside or point-of-collection testing technologies.”

The Justice Department provided funding for the study and posted the results on the Office of Justice Programs’s National Criminal Justice Reference Service website last month, but the author’s findings “do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies” of the agency, it says.

“The development of a breathalyzer for the early detection of marijuana’s recent use is an important matter considering the current legal status of marijuana-based products around the country,” VCU’s Alves said. “To achieve this goal, our initial approach was to develop a portable cartridge that would be able to react with cannabinoids selectively to detect THC use, but not CBD.”

“Most THC breathalyzers in the market are merely collection devices that will need further laboratory analysis,” he continued. “Considering the working system of an alcohol breathalyzer, using a redox reaction would be risky for the THC approach as it would not be selective for the specific cannabinoids and it would give a positive result to any molecule capable of oxidizing the reagent.”

Because of the “excellent results” of the experiment in the “establishment of the foundational chemical profile needed for the development of a THC breathalyzer,” the study says, a patent application has been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with a proposed design for a future prototype.

Keep reading

Tennessee House votes to ban kratom, bill now moves to Senate

The State of Tennessee is another step closer to becoming Kratom free.

State representatives voted Wednesday to approve legislation that would outlaw all forms of the substance, including a more potent derivative known as 7-OH.

The proposal now heads to the Senate.

Kratom is a plant-based substance from a Southeast Asian tree, often sold in gas stations and smoke shops. It has been at the center of a growing debate in Tennessee.

Supporters of the bill say the ban is needed to address safety concerns.

“This bill addresses the growing public concern and safety surrounding kratom,” Rep. Esther Helton-Haynes said during earlier hearings.

The legislation is named after a Chattanooga man whose family says he died after using kratom with other substances.

Lawmakers have pointed to risks, including possible links to overdose deaths and concerns about how the substance is marketed.

Keep reading

Automatic registration for US military draft to begin in December

Eligible men will automatically be registered into the military draft pool by December as part of an effort to streamline the previous process of self-registration and save money.

The Selective Service System (SSS) — the government agency that maintains a database of men to be called up to serve in the case of a national emergency — submitted a proposed rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs on March 30, according to the office’s website.

Most men between the ages of 18 and 25 are already required to register with the Selective Service, but automatic registration was mandated in December 2025 as part of the fiscal 2026 National Defense Authorization Act.

The change, which was meant to save money, “transfers responsibility for registration from individual men to SSS through integration with federal data sources,” according to the website.

The proposed rule is currently under review by the regulatory affairs office and awaiting finalization.

The U.S. has not had a draft since the Vietnam War, with military service being voluntary since 1973. 

But former President Jimmy Carter in 1980 reinstated the Selective Service in the event of a “national emergency,” where the registry could be used to “provide personnel to the Department of War and alternative service for conscientious objectors, if authorized by the President and Congress.”

Many have questioned whether a U.S. military draft could take place amid the war in Iran, which is currently in a tenuous two-week ceasefire. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt in March said that while a draft is “not part of the current plan right now,” President Trump “wisely keeps his options on the table.”

Trump alone cannot bring back the draft through executive action, as Congress would need to pass legislation to amend the Military Selective Service Act to authorize the president to induct personnel into the military.

Still, failure to register in the draft is considered a crime and can prevent people from receiving state-funded financial aid and employment in numerous states, cause ineligibility for many federal employment opportunities and job training under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, and can carry a fine of up to $250,000 and jail time for up to five years.

Keep reading

Voters Gave Ohio Legal Cannabis. Then Lawmakers Took Away the Part That Helped Me.

I’m Tobey MacCachran – a senior journalism and English student at Denison University– and an intern with NORML since December. I came to cannabis advocacy the way most people arrive at anything that matters: it stopped being abstract. 

I’ve had a birthmark on my right wrist my whole life. Other kids would notice it, point at it, and make jokes, but I never minded. It was a part of me that was as ordinary as my hands or my name. I was born with it, and I was comfortable. 

Eczema was different. 

It showed up in my early teens, uninvited and impossible to ignore. Red, cracking patches spread across my skin during dry winters, causing my hands, wrists, and neck to resemble the surface of Mars. The birthmark was mine. The eczema felt like an invasion. And somewhere in the space between those two things, my relationship with my own body quietly changed. 

By high school, my life was dictated by small adjustments. Long sleeves on some days. Certain seats. Situations I’d remove myself from before anyone noticed. Shirt always on at the beach. And then at 17, I tried a cannabis topical for the first time. 

Something actually worked. And last Friday, Ohio made it a crime to access the product that helped me most. 

SB56 was sold as consumer protection. For people who depend on cannabis topicals for chronic pain and skin conditions, it landed like a punishment.

A cannabis topical isn’t recreational. It’s a cream or balm infused with cannabinoids applied directly to the skin. No high. No altered state. For millions of people managing chronic pain, inflammation, and skin conditions, it’s simply the thing that works when nothing else does. It was that for me – the first treatment in years that gave back some ordinary comfort in my own body. The kind of comfort I hadn’t realized I’d lost until I had it again. 

Ohio Senate Bill 56 went into effect on March 20th. Governor DeWine signed it in December, framing it as consumer protection – a crackdown on unregulated intoxicating hemp products that flooded gas stations and corner stores. And there’s a real conversation to be had there. But buried inside the bill are provisions that go far beyond protecting anyone. 

Keep reading

Police Destroyed Innocent People’s Property—and Left Them With the Bill. Will the Supreme Court Step In?

2022 was a big year for both Carlos Pena and Amy Hadley. Separated by several states, SWAT teams left their properties in ruins while attempting to capture two suspects. In August, officers threw dozens of tear gas canisters into Pena’s Los Angeles printing business; two months prior, law enforcement had done the same to Hadley’s Indiana home before also destroying security cameras, punching holes in the walls, and ransacking the house.

Neither was suspected of a crime. They were, to put it mildly, unlucky. Which raises an unfortunate question: What is an innocent person owed when police wreck their property?

The Supreme Court will once again decide if it will address that question and offer legal clarity in a debate that has seen governments refuse to reimburse people when their property becomes major collateral damage in a law enforcement operation.

The circumstances leading up to Pena and Hadley’s property damage differ slightly. A SWAT team from the city of Los Angeles blew up Pena’s shop, NoHo Printing & Graphics, after a suspect ejected Pena from the business and barricaded himself inside while attempting to evade capture. (Police would later find that the man had escaped.) Over in Indiana, law enforcement arrived at Hadley’s house after an officer posited that a suspect was accessing the internet from her IP address, which wasn’t true.

The basic end result, however, was the same. Local government officials ignored their pleas for help and declined to compensate them for mutilating their respective properties, despite the fact that no party disputes their innocence. Pena has sued for over $60,000, alleging the raid destroyed his shop and the equipment inside, forcing him to relocate to a garage with one printer and a reduced capacity that has cost him significant revenue, according to his lawsuit. Hadley, meanwhile, says she incurred about $16,000 in losses, which insurance only partially covered. That it helped at all is not the norm. Pena’s insurance denied assistance, as most policies stipulate that they are not liable for government-induced damage.

Common sense may dictate that innocent people should not individually shoulder the financial burden of public safety (or, in Hadley’s case, a flawed police investigation). Yet both were denied relief because of how the property met its demise.

Is that constitutional? The Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause promises “just compensation” when private property is taken for public use. But some courts have ruled that it does not always apply when police are involved.

The courts are not in agreement on what exactly the exception is or how far it goes. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that Pena could not sue for damages because “law enforcement officers destroy[ed]” his shop “while acting reasonably in the necessary defense of public safety.” In other words, the judges declined to say if a categorical “police power” exception applies in such cases; that law enforcement acted reasonably and out of necessity was enough to kill his claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, however, did find a categorical exemption. “The Fifth Amendment does not require the state to compensate for property damage resulting from police executing a lawful search warrant,” wrote Judge Joshua Kolar, rejecting Hadley’s claim.

Keep reading