It’s brilliant! READ MORE...

“You’re never more than 15 minutes away from indulging.” READ MORE...

Pictures show a spectacular property in a pristine setting. Continue reading…

California has a novel plan to deal with its ongoing homeless problem that's been plaguing the state for years: Just give those people luxurious housing. KTLA reports that Wednesday was the official grand opening of the Weingart Tower, a homeless housing tower with 278 units in Skid Row, a Los...

Former President Donald Trump offered his support Thursday for a new Louisiana law that mandates placing the Ten Commandments in public schools classrooms. GOP Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry signed a bill into law Wednesday that requires a poster-sized display with “large, easily readable font” must be placed in classrooms from...

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday upheld a gun ban on individuals under restraining orders to stay away from their spouses or partners. “The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 for the government in USA v. Rahimi, saying that ‘an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment,'” Firearms Policy Coalition wrote. LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 for the government in USA v. Rahimi, saying that "an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment." https://t.co/1ngrRdiDVX pic.twitter.com/Kvhvdrfoj4 — Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 21, 2024 Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter. “The justices reversed a ruling from the federal appeals court in New Orleans that had struck down the law,” the Associated Press noted. WATCH: BREAKING: Supreme Court rules 8-1 upholding ban on domestic abusers owning guns. pic.twitter.com/8eVxuq66FF — MSNBC (@MSNBC) June 21, 2024 Fox News reports: Both liberal and conservative justices agreed with the Biden administration that there was a history and tradition of keeping firearms from dangerous persons, despite the lack of any specific ban that may have been in place when the Constitution was enacted in the 1790s. The case, U.S. v. Rahimi, is first major test of the Second Amendment since a high court ruling in 2022 expanding rights of law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for protection, and could have major implications for several gun-rights measures working their way through the legal system and in state legislatures. The conservative majority in that case known as “Bruen” said gun regulations must be consistent and analogous with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” in order to withstand present-day constitutional scrutiny. It could also affect current cases that deal with whether current and former drug users can similarly be denied gun ownership — like that of Hunter Biden. The president’s son plans to challenge his conviction this month for lying on a federal registration form in 2018 about his addiction when buying a firearm. The case before the court stemmed from a lawsuit that involves a Texas man, Zackey Rahimi, who — under a DVRO — argued he still had a right to keep a gun for self-protection. Rahimi was charged with separate state offenses that began with the 2019 physical assault of his ex-girlfriend and later another woman by use of firearms. Lawyer Robert Barnes called the ruling a “bad decision” that “greenlit red flag laws.” #SCOTUS just greenlit red flag laws. Bad decision. https://t.co/e31G6dgAQ7 — Robert Barnes (@barnes_law) June 21, 2024 Firearms Policy Coalition provided a “layman’s breakdown” of the decision: – The Court confirmed that “text informed by history” is the proper analysis, thus re-enforcing Heller and Bruen, meaning if it is an arm, the State must point to historically similar laws to prove the law/action is justified – Interest Balancing is confirmed dead, meaning the State can’t say, “It’s in the interest of public safety.” – The government bears the burden of proof, meaning the State cannot say it is up to us to prove a law is a violation; they must prove it’s not. – The Court completely rejected the State’s idea that lack of “responsibility” is grounds for disarmament, meaning simply breaking the law is not enough. This bodes well for nonviolent offenders and all peaceable people. Stop saying ‘law-abiding’; it’s wrong and unnecessary. – Justice Thomas is the only one to correctly point out that the Federal Government does NOT have the broad disarmament powers at issue in this case. Here is your layman's breakdown of today's Rahimi opinion: – The Court confirmed that "text informed by history" is the proper analysis, thus re-enforcing Heller and Bruen, meaning if it is an arm, the State must point to historically similar laws to prove the law/action is… https://t.co/UCjOgHPreg pic.twitter.com/OAbNl3tR1x — Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 22, 2024 From the Associated Press: Roberts turned to history in his opinion. “Since the founding, our nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms,” he wrote. Some courts have gone too far, Roberts wrote, in applying Bruen and other gun rights cases. “These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber,” he wrote. In dissent, Thomas wrote, the law “strips an individual of his ability to possess firearms and ammunition without any due process.” The government “failed to produce any evidence” that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, he wrote. “Not a single historical regulation justifies the statute at issue,” Thomas wrote. Seven of the nine justices wrote opinions in the guns case spanning 94 pages, mainly focused on the proper use of history in evaluating gun restrictions and other limitations on constitutional rights. Read the full ruling HERE.

A chemical leak at a manufacturing company in Buckeye, Arizona, prompted a hazmat response and shelter-in-place order for nearby residents. Video footage shows an orange cloud emitting from the plant. “Hazmat crews are on the scene after emergency officials issued a temporary shelter-in-place order early this evening. This was due to orange toxic clouds billowing from the Thatcher chemical manufacturing plant dangerously close to homes in Buckeye, Arizona. Plant officials report that the chemicals involved are nitric acid and ammonia. Since ammonia is a colorless gas, it is believed the orange cloud is from nitric acid, which is extremely hazardous to human health,” Rawsalerts wrote. “According to the National Library of Medicine, nitric acid is ‘very toxic by inhalation’ and ‘corrosive to metals or tissue.’ Officials have since lifted the shelter-in-place order and declared the area safe,” the post added. #BREAKING: Hazmat crews are on the scene after a temporary shelter-in-place was ordered due to the leak of two highly toxic chemicals, which produced orange toxic clouds. #Buckeye | #Arizona ⁰Hazmat crews are on the scene after emergency officials issued a temporary… pic.twitter.com/zoEf9D3ErB — R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) June 22, 2024 FOX 10 Phoenix reports: The chemical leak incident happened at Thatcher Company of Arizona, where an orange cloud could be seen emitting from a garage door on the side of the company’s warehouse. Officials say 200 gallons of nitric acid leaked into a basin, reacting with a metal that caused the gas to form. There were 80 people dispatched to help contain the leak. No firefighters were injured in the incident. “There is a nitric acid tank that sprung a leak and the fluids of that are being contained in a concrete basin. When it gets to that basin it can have a reaction – and it is – and that what we are seeing in the sky,” Buckeye Assistant Fire Chief Rayne Gray said. #ALERT: Shelter-In-Place Due to Chemical LeakA yellow haze hovers over a chemical manufacturing facility in Buckeye. There are concerns about air quality for residents in the vicinity. Avoid the area. #Buckeye #Arizona #Chemical pic.twitter.com/O4c4efgAlu — Citizen (@CitizenApp) June 22, 2024 Per Arizona’s Family: Currently, four of Thatcher’s plants have active EPA violations and are under compliance monitoring. None of those plants are in Arizona. The U.S. Department of Environmental Quality has previously settled with Thatcher Company of Nevada for a slew of violations at the company’s plants in Sparks, Nevada. During a “November 2021 inspection and subsequent investigation, EPA determined that the facility did not have the required safety information for equipment inside of its chemical storage and repackaging warehouse,” federal officials claimed. Thatcher was ordered to pay a penalty of $69,396 and was ordered to buy an environmental project valued at $110,000. In 2019, more than 50 people were treated after a “significant” leak at the company’s plant in Salt Lake City, according to the Deseret News.