Feed aggregator

You are receiving this email because today and tomorrow are the final days of early voting in a critical Special Election for Texas Senate District 9. — and the outcome of this race will directly impact your rights and freedoms.

Special elections are decided by turnout, and in low-turnout races, a small number of votes can determine the future direction of Texas.

GOA-endorsed candidate for TX SD 9 Leigh Wambsganss has a proven record of standing up for:

• The Second Amendment
• Individual liberty
• Texas families and constitutional government

During the 89th Texas Legislative Session, Leigh Wambsganss was a champion for the Second Amendment, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with GOA Texas to advance and defend key pro–Second Amendment legislation. Her leadership helped secure a strong and successful session for gun owners in Texas, protecting our rights and stopping harmful policies before they became law.

Her opponent supports policies that would expand government power and undermine the freedoms Texans value.

That’s why GOA Texas proudly endorses Leigh Wambsganss for Texas Senate District 9.

This election will shape:

• The future of gun rights in Texas
• How much power government has over your life
• Whether Texas continues to move toward freedom — or away from it

 

Early Voting : (Last Chance)

Today (Monday, Jan. 26) and Tomorrow (Tuesday, Jan. 27)
7:00 AM – 7:00 PM

Find your early voting location here: Early Voting Locations

 

Election Day:

Saturday, January 31
7:00 AM – 7:00 PM

Find your polling place here: Election Day Polling Locations

 

What You Need:

Bring a valid photo ID (Texas driver’s license works).

For up to date voting information visit: LeighforTexas.com

This is one of those elections where your vote truly matters.

 

Please make a plan today to vote for Leigh Wambsganss for Texas Senate.

TODAY, Monday, January 26, the Virginia Senate Courts of Justice Committee is meeting to vote on a large package of gun control bills that would severely restrict your Second Amendment rights.

Your immediate action is critical.

Anti-Gun Bills

• SB 27 – Sen. Carroll Foy
  Allows lawsuits against gun manufacturers, sellers, and accessory companies for criminal misuse of products.
• SB 38 – Sen. Favola
  Forces individuals under protective orders to surrender firearms, even when jointly owned.
• SB 115 – Sen. Pekarsky
  Ends Virginia’s broad concealed carry reciprocity with other states.
• SB 160 – Sen. Perry
  Strips gun rights for three years over certain misdemeanor dating offenses.
• SB 173 – Sen. Williams Graves
  Bans firearms in medical and mental health facilities.
• SB 272 – Sen. Deeds
  Restricts lawful firearm possession on college campuses.
• SB 312 – Sen. Ebbin
  Bans carrying many common semi-automatic firearms in public places.
• SB 323 – Sen. Ebbin
  Criminalizes possession of unserialized and home-built firearms.
• SB 348 – Sen. Boysko
  Mandates locked and unloaded storage in homes with minors or prohibited persons.
• SB 364 – Sen. Carroll Foy
  Creates a new “gun violence” bureaucracy focused on restricting firearms.
• SB 496 – Sen. Marsden
  Restricts firearm transport and imposes vehicle storage mandates.
• SB 643 – Sen. Surovell
  Imposes a permit-to-purchase system with fingerprinting, fees, and delays.
• SB 727 – Sen. Jones
  Expands bans on carrying certain firearms statewide.
• SB 749 – Sen. Salim
  Bans so-called “assault weapons” and magazines over 10 rounds made after July 1, 2026.
• SB 797 – Sen. Carroll Foy
  Creates another permit-to-purchase scheme similar to SB 643.

Pro-Second Amendment Bills

• SB 79 – Sen. Diggs
  Restores the right to carry at highway rest areas.
• SB 653 – Sen. Mulchi
  Strengthens due process protections in Red Flag proceedings.
• SB 723 – Sen. Sturtevant
  Establishes permitless carry for law-abiding adults.

We have prepared an email campaign to be delivered to the committee members effective immediately, we simply need you to share it.

Use the form above to tell these committee members to uphold the Second Amendment.

AMARILLO, Texas (January 20, 2026) – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced the filing of a combined reply and opposition brief in Jensen v. ATF, an FPC-backed federal lawsuit challenging key provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). FPC is supporting the litigation as part of its nationwide program of strategic litigation to eliminate unconstitutional laws and policies that restrict the right to keep and bear arms. The brief and more information about the case are available at firearmspolicy.org/jensen.

Americans may soon be able to ship handguns through the mail.

That’s the potential practical outcome of the Department of Justice (DOJ) changing its position on the constitutionality of the federal ban against civilians shipping pistols through the United States Postal Service (USPS). On Thursday, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel released a review of the shipping ban and concluded it violates the Second Amendment. It said the executive branch should no longer enforce the law, and USPS should update its rules to allow civilians to ship certain kinds of guns directly through the mail.

“Section 1715 of title 18, U.S. Code, is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected firearms, including handguns, because it serves an illegitimate purpose and is inconsistent with the Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation,” Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser wrote in the new opinion. “The Department of Justice may not, consistent with the Constitution, enforce section 1715 with respect to constitutionally protected firearms. The Postal Service should modify its regulations to conform with this opinion.”

The new position could reshape how American civilians buy, sell, loan, and transport handguns or other “concealable” firearms. If implemented, it would make all of those tasks easier for the average person. The move is also likely to buy additional goodwill from gun-rights activists, who’ve been strong supporters of President Donald Trump but who’ve also clashed with his administration over its continued defense of nearly all federal gun laws.

Currently, nearly anyone who doesn’t have a Federal Firearms License (FFL) is prohibited under the law from shipping a “concealable” firearm through the mail. Instead, they have to rely on FFLs to serve as a sort of paid middleman in order to send and receive handguns, short-barrel shotguns, or short-barrel rifles. That includes cases where the person purchased a gun from a dealer outside of their local area.

Gun Owners of America is currently challenging the federal prohibition in the Third Circuit in a case called Shreve v. USPS. The gun-rights group cheered the DOJ’s reversal.

“This opinion is a direct rebuke to decades of federal overreach that has unlawfully restricted Americans’ ability to acquire, maintain, and transport their firearms,” Erich Pratt, the group’s senior vice president, said in a statement. “For too long, law-abiding gun owners have been forced to navigate expensive, burdensome workarounds involving federal firearms licensees, just to ship a handgun—even for perfectly lawful purposes. The DOJ now recognizes what we’ve always known: the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and that includes the rights to acquire and transport them.”

The DOJ’s reasoning for changing its opinion on the law centered around the idea that Section 1715, which was enacted back in 1927, imposes a substantial burden on Americans’ gun rights. It said that burden wasn’t justifiable under the history-and-tradition test devised by the Supreme Court in 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“We conclude that the restriction imposed by section 1715 violates the Second Amendment,” Gaiser wrote. “Section 1715 makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting. 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. Indeed, the statute ultimately aims to suppress traffic in constitutionally protected articles thus rendering the law per se unconstitutional as to those articles, and we are aware of no historical analogues that would satisfy the government’s burden of showing that this unprecedented restriction ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

Gaiser pointed to several hypothetical examples that he said illustrate the difficulties regular Americans have in transporting firearms because of the ban. He said somebody taking a bus between Washington, DC, and Philadelphia wouldn’t be able to bring their gun with them due to most bus companies’ policies. He argued somebody flying from California to Vermont with a gun who got diverted to New York City could be arrested for illegal possession if they took possession of their checked luggage. He also said someone driving from Wisconsin to Michigan who stops in Chicago for two days with their gun would also likely face arrest since federal protections only apply to continuous trips.

“In these cases (and many others like them), a person has no ability to travel with a firearm, leaving shipment of the handgun to a destination as the only viable method of transportation,” Gaiser wrote. “But the person cannot use a common or contract carrier to ship himself the handgun because, currently, the large common carriers that deliver parcels refuse to ship firearms for private citizens. And section 1715 forbids mailing the handgun. The Postal Service’s ban on mailing handguns thus stifles the legitimate transportation and carriage of handguns for self-defense or any other lawful purpose.”

He further noted that “an individual cannot mail himself a handgun for core constitutionally protected activity, such as self-defense, target shooting, or hunting,” even though “traveling with a firearm can be difficult, if not impossible, rendering the mail the most effective way to transport an individual’s firearm to his destination.”

Gaiser also looked at the legislative record from when the pistol mail ban was passed and concluded Congress’s purpose was primarily to restrict access to pistols or other concealable firearms. But he said the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment has evolved significantly since that time, and Congress’s motive is no longer compatible with what the Court believes is allowed. He noted that “Heller and its progeny have thoroughly repudiated the claim that the Second Amendment does not protect handguns.”

“Such a purpose—to frustrate protected arms’ transportability, thereby making it more difficult for citizens to obtain such weapons—constitutes a per se infringement upon the Second Amendment,” he wrote.

However, the DOJ stopped short of requiring USPS to ship all firearms under all circumstances.

“We do not conclude that the Department of Justice may never enforce section 1715,” Gaiser wrote. “We conclude only that section 1715 is unconstitutional as applied to constitutionally protected arms. Section 1715, however, extends beyond such constitutionally protected arms to any firearms capable of being concealed upon the person. Our conclusion thus does not extend to arms that lack constitutional protection, such as undetectable firearms, or concealable gadget-type guns designed primarily for assassination, like pen guns. The Postal Service and the Department of Justice may therefore continue to enforce the shipping restrictions found in section 1715 against firearms that lack constitutional protection.”

It also said the Second Amendment doesn’t create “a positive entitlement to have the government deliver firearms on behalf of customers.” Similarly, it found there was sufficient historical precedent for the USPS to refuse to ship ammunition over safety concerns.

“We also do not conclude that the Postal Service is required to carry ammunition or gunpowder. Even though ammunition is constitutionally protected, mailing restriction on all explosives serves legitimate postal needs to prevent injury to postal employees and property. Such facially neutral restrictions do not discriminate against constitutionally protected items.”

Ultimately, the DOJ concluded USPS will have to change its rules to allow regular Americans to ship and receive handguns.

“Handguns fall within the core of the ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment. And unloaded firearms are not inherently dangerous in the same sense as explosives or poisons, which is why the Postal Service already accepts rifles and shotguns for mailing, together with handguns from certain qualified shippers,” Gaiswer wrote. “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.”

USPS did not respond to a request for comment on the new DOJ opinion.

Originally published by Stephen Gutowski for The Reload. Read the full story ›

Will Republicans ask him? How about Ranking Member Chuck Grassley? [More]

I'm going to end up sending questions about infringements by "AFT" to Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to put to the nominee while he's under oath, so feel free to leave your own in the article's "Comments" section.

I have two articles in this month's issue, on sale now at discerning newsstands throughout the Republic. [More]

I'm not resuming regular blogging because of the unresolved censorship issue but will continue to promote my work here as I prepare a new landing site.

Two recent appearances:

• The Michael Dukes Show, April 8.
• Armed American Radio's Daily Defense, April 12.

I'm not resuming regular blogging because of the unresolved censorship issue but will continue to promote my work here as I prepare a new landing site.

I'll be joining host Mark Walters at 4 pm Eastern to talk Biden and more.  Listen, watch or find a station near you at the Armed American Radio website.

Perhaps if he was better at picking them in the first place, he wouldn’t need to end up angrily attacking so many he had nothing but high praise for in the beginning. [More]What does "winning" mean if you end up losing?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-airs-its-ultimate-revenge-plan-for-america/ar-AAW5HB1

In other words, police should be “Les Seules” armed and authorized to use force to stop criminal attacks, even in the home. [More]

You have to wonder at what point some of these people will get tired of surrendering and start rolling out the tumbrels again...

I'll be joining up with Michael Dukes this morning to talk about the Google leviathan "unpublishing" my work.  Hopefully, this notice won't be taken down as a "community standards" violation before then.

Go to the show website to find an Alaska station or to listen online. They'll be calling me at 10:24 Eastern.

And no, this post doesn't mean the blog is back for business as usual. It means I'll continue using it for announcements promoting my stuff until I can settle in a new home, something I should have some time to seriously look into over the weekend.

“As such, they have an interest in the outcome of this case because a positive ruling in the instant matter will assist them in their efforts to have their lawful property returned to them in the future and will help guide other courts in reaching the correct conclusion which is that bumpstocks are not machineguns,” the brief elaborates. [More]

I'm not resuming this blog per normal practices-- as I said in the last post, I will still use it to promote my articles, assuming this one doesn't get "unpublished" as well.  In the meantime, I will be using this weekend to scout out a new home.

It linked to "blue check" correspondent Paul Bedard's Washington Examiner report on a peer-reviewed study by John Lott published in the journal Public Choice. 
Incidentally, its link appears on a general Google search including on Google Cache, but is suppressed in a "News" search, with an article attacking Lott's work appearing at the top of the page by two "researchers" of undisclosed political affinity that my money says will turn out to be sympathetic to Democrats. 

My suspicion is an algorithm went searching to erase it from existence. If this is all it takes to get booted from a personal opinion and commentary blog, everything I post here is subject to being undone and Blogger is no longer a viable platform to publish on. Either that or some troll saboteur complained, and the same applies. Until I see if I can get this reversed, I'm going to need to limit activity here to promoting my articles as I search for a reliable repository for my work.
Remember when Facebook booted a post for wishing everyone a contemplative Bill of Rights Day?
UPDATE:

Democratic Rep. Ami Bera of California says he was attacked by a rogue fox outside the US Capitol. [More]

Maybe if he wasn't an anti-gun fanatic he could have done something about that.

The thought strikes: That fox ended up being a bigger danger to a member of Congress than every one of the Jan. 6 "insurrectionists."

Then again, so did this Democrat.