Is the Walt Disney Company throwing “woke” overboard? The corporation is receiving praise and plaudits for its new heartfelt, pro-family “Midnight Magic” ad for Disney Cruise Line which aired…

A French mayor named Hittler is running for re-election in a small town in a race that has gained the internet’s attention. Charles Hittler, the incumbent mayor in Arcis-sur-Aube, won the first round…

The former principal of an Oregon high school was sentenced on Feb. 23 to five years in prison after being convicted of possessing child pornography, local media reported. Jeremy P. Williams, who…

A federal judge presiding over an immigration case sees no issue with the fact that he’s married to the prosecutor suing the Trump administration over a high-profile enforcement surge in Minneapolis.…

The film premieres exclusively in theaters on May 7. Continue reading…

He was also asked to be a member of Lynyrd Skynyrd, and played with Bob Marley, Joni Mitchell and others. Continue reading…

Today’s firearm market is awash with pistols designed and marketed for concealed carry. However, when semi-automatic (known then as automatic), self-loading pistols first came on the scene at the turn of the 20th century, one carry pistol stood out and remained an issued Army sidearm until the 1970s. Of course, John Moses Browning designed it.Related: You could be the next owner of Darth Vader’s revolver Known for such legendary firearms as the 1911 handgun and the M2 .50-cal machine gun, Browning did not design the first commercial semi-automatic pistol. That honor went to Hugo Borchardt’s C93 of 1893. However, Browning’s simple blowback operating system and reciprocating slide design are still in use today. These pioneering features were first seen on the FN 1900 pistol, which exploded in popularity across Europe and around the world. In fact, the name “Browning” became synonymous in Europe with any semi-automatic pistol with a slide for a time. John Moses Browning is considered the most famous and influential firearms designer in history. (National Museum of the U.S. Air Force) Seeing FN’s success, Colt wanted to get into the market and asked Browning to design a semi-auto carry pistol for them. At the time, an agreement existed allowing Colt to sell Browning designs in North America, Great Britain, and Ireland while FN could sell them in most of the rest of Europe; other regions were fair game. Aimed at the civilian concealed carry market, Browning created the Colt Model M 1903 Pocket Hammerless. Playing both sides and coming out on top, Browning simultaneously designed a 1903 pistol for FN that was basically a scaled-up version of the Colt for the European military market. At the same time, Browning was also developing a military pistol for Colt called the 1903 Pocket Hammer; a compact version of the Colt 1902 and derived from the Colt 1900, the 1903 Pocket Hammer is completely separate from the 1903 Pocket Hammerless and would go on to evolve into the famed Colt 1911. So easy, a caveman can carry it. (Public domain) Despite its name, the 1903 Pocket Hammerless actually uses a shrouded, internal hammer to aid in its pocketability. To indicate if the hammer is cocked, the thumb-actuated safety lever can only be engaged if the hammer is back. Additionally, the grip safety only protrudes when the hammer is cocked. Despite its connection with 1911, the phrase “cocked and locked” first appeared in the 1903’s patent. The design of a heel magazine release over a side-mounted button also lended to the pistol’s pocketability in an era when genuine pocket carry was common. The release of the 1903 was a huge success for Colt. With a 4-inch barrel and 8 rounds of .32 ACP onboard, the Type I 1903 was a gamechanger for the concealed carry market. To paraphrase the iconic Eli Duckworth, the Colt 1903 was the SIG Sauer P365 of its time. In an America dominated by revolvers large and small, Colt’s semi-auto pocket pistol was the only gun of its type. Moreover, .32 ACP was as commonplace as 9mm is today. In 1908, Colt cut down the barrel of the 1903 by a quarter-inch with the 1903 Type II and also introduced a .380 ACP version in the Model M 1908, which had its own serial number range. Just two years later, the bushing barrel was changed to a bushingless design with the Type III. This version ran until 1926 and is the most common of the 1903s. While the pistol saw limited adoption by the U.S. Navy and the Belgian military during World War I, it was extensively used during the interwar period.Bonnie Parker had one taped to her thigh when she broke Clyde Barrow out of prison. Al Capone reportedly carried a 1903 in his coat pocket as his personal weapon. When John Dillinger was shot and killed by federal agents in Chicago, he was reportedly reaching for a Colt Model M, supposedly a 1908 in .380 ACP, in his trouser pocket. On the other side of the law, the 1908 was famously issued by the Shanghai Municipal Police under the command of William Fairbairn, the father of modern SWAT who went on to train allied commandos during World War II. Gen. George Patton with his issued Model M on his hip. Note his stars on the pistol’s grip. (Public domain) In 1926, Colt introduced a magazine safety with the Type IV variant and military sights with the Type V. The 1903 changed from a blued to a parkerized finish in 1941 and was purchased by the War Department for issuance to intelligence officers and also sent to Britain. From there, 1903s were supplied to resistance fighters and carried by SOE and OSS commandos behind enemy lines. The popularity of .32 ACP made it easy to keep the pistols topped up in occupied Europe. Notably, a 1903 was carried by SOE-trained Czech agents during their assassination of Reinhard Heydrich, a key architect of the Holocaust, in Prague. In 1944, the military began issuing Colt 1903s and 1908s with a belt and holster to general officers. This marked the beginning of the General Officers Pistol program that carries on today. Upon their retirement, generals had the opportunity to purchase their General Officers Pistols. As a result, Colt Model Ms with “U.S. Property” marks and serial numbers connected with famous generals have made their way onto the civilian market. Colt Model Ms continued to be issued as General Officers Pistols until supply ran out and the model was replaced with the M15, a modified 1911, in 1972. Colt produced about 570,000 1903s and 138,000 1908s. As a result, these historically significant, but often overlooked, pistols can be found secondhand with relative ease. Of course, examples in better condition fetch higher prices. New production Model Ms were manufactured by U.S. Armament under license from Colt, and replacement parts are readily available for Type III and newer variants.While .32 ACP and even .380 ACP are considered underpowered by today’s standards, there’s something special about carrying a Colt 1903 over something like a P365 or other polymer pistol. After all, Humphrey Bogart carried a 1903 in classic films like “Casablanca” and “Key Largo.” You think you’re cooler than Bogie or any of the other legends that carried a Colt Model M? Don’t Miss the Best of We Are The Mighty • The most legit military watch is built for apocalyptic combat• Marines reject Army’s SIG M7 rifle, opting to keep H&K M27• The legendary HK416 rifle’s biggest competitors might be its own descendants Featured Firearms This classic carry pistol was used by gangsters, generals, SWAT, and spies By Miguel Ortiz World War II How the daring rescue of 3 Army soldiers after a WWII plane crash in ‘Shangri-La’ unfolded By Friedrich Seiltgen Special Operations The 10 most lethal special operations units from around the world By Shannon Corbeil History The 13 scariest dictators the world has ever known By Brittany Sulc Entertainment What actor Blair Underwood learned from his mother’s life as a military spouse By Stephen Ruiz The post This classic carry pistol was used by gangsters, generals, SWAT, and spies appeared first on We Are The Mighty.

Take an oil and gas operator who spends millions upgrading equipment, filing emissions reports, and complying with air-quality rules that change more often than a coastal forecast. Every form is filed. Every inspection is passed. And yet, a permit is suddenly delayed or reinterpreted, a new reporting requirement is layered on top of the old one, or an agency decides that yesterday’s compliance no longer counts. Production halts. Workers are sent home. The shutdown has nothing to do with pollution and everything to do with paperwork. Or consider a farmer trying to plan for the growing season. Water allocations shift midyear. Drought rules conflict across agencies. A permit required by one regulator violates the conditions of another. After spending thousands on consultants and compliance, fields are still forced to go fallow. Crops aren’t planted, workers aren’t hired, and food prices creep higher—not because water was wasted or laws were ignored, but because predictability vanished. These aren’t stories about bad actors cutting corners. They’re stories about Californians who are trying, often heroically, to follow the rules and still finding themselves buried under them. The consequences are real: lost jobs, stalled production, shrinking water supplies, higher energy and food prices, and communities slowly hollowed out. California’s problem isn’t just aggressive enforcement. It’s the crushing weight of regulation itself. The state has built a sprawling regulatory maze: thousands of rules, permit requirements, reporting systems, and overlapping agency directives that frequently contradict one another. Agencies are often granted broad discretion to reinterpret standards, impose new conditions, or deny permits outright, without meaningful legislative oversight. Compliance becomes a moving target, with standards shifting faster than businesses or farmers can reasonably adapt. By the time enforcement arrives, the damage is already done. The system is designed in a way that sets people up to fail, then punishes them for falling behind. The costs are staggering. Billions of dollars are spent annually on compliance. California’s oil and gas production continues to decline, not because demand has vanished or pollution is rising, but because permits languish and operations are shuttered for administrative reasons. Farmers leave fields unplanted because they can’t get reliable water allocations. Businesses shut down not for environmental harm, but because they missed a filing deadline or couldn’t reconcile contradictory instructions from different agencies. This approach doesn’t protect the environment. It undermines it. When compliance becomes impossible, the system stops encouraging stewardship and starts breeding cynicism. People spend more time navigating bureaucracy than investing in new technology, safer infrastructure, or more efficient practices. That’s why Pacific Legal Foundation recently launched its Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) practice group—a direct response to this growing crisis. The mission is straightforward: defend private property owners, farmers, ranchers, and energy producers from arbitrary, contradictory, or unlawful regulations. Confront enforcement activities that punish compliance rather than promote environmental responsibility. Restore constitutional limits on agency power and ensure that agency rules are actually rooted in law. This isn’t anti-environmentalism. It’s pro-rule of law, pro-clarity, and pro-common sense. California’s regulatory system has become punitive by design—not because of any single fine or rule, but because the architecture itself ensures failure. Regulations pile up without serious consideration of cost, practicality, or scientific grounding. Agencies create new requirements faster than regulated parties can absorb them. Enforcement then swoops in to penalize those who inevitably fall behind. The impacts ripple outward. In the energy sector, unlawful shutdowns and delayed permits mean reduced production and lost jobs in communities that can least afford them. In agriculture, unpredictable water rules and soaring compliance costs translate into lower yields and threats to the food supply. The state cannot achieve environmental goals by breaking the very people who produce its energy and grow its food. There is a better way. A better regulatory system starts with clear, consistent rules that don’t shift with political winds. It provides notice, guidance, and education before punishment. It focuses enforcement on true wrongdoing—actual pollution, real harm—not technical missteps or paperwork errors. And it includes robust judicial oversight to ensure agencies don’t exceed the authority granted to them by lawmakers. PLF’s ENR practice group is positioned to demand that fairness. By going to court when necessary, it can check regulatory overreach, defend constitutional boundaries, and protect Californians whose livelihoods are on the line. California cannot continue piling regulation on top of regulation and punishing those who comply while expecting either environmental protection or economic stability. Stewardship thrives on clarity, predictability, and trust, not on fear and confusion. California can protect its environment—but it can’t do it by crushing the very people who play by the rules. This op-ed was originally published in California Globe on February 1o, 2026. The post <em>California Globe</em>: In California, You Can Do Everything Right, and Still Get Crushed appeared first on Pacific Legal Foundation.

There are moments when you hear a legal argument and wonder whether common sense has quietly left the building. Take the case of an Oregon man who went to jail in 2012 for collecting rainwater in basins. The state water department said he was interfering with local rivers because they’re usually filled by the rain. If you “interrupt the flow of water” on your property, one official told the media, “that is an activity that would require a water permit from us.” It sounds too absurd to be real—but rainwater collection is regulated in various ways across the country, with some states historically placing restrictions on how homeowners can collect and store it. In fact, in Utah, for example, one businessman was told by state officials that he could not legally collect rainwater from the roof of his own building without first obtaining a state water right. A recent social media skit turned stories like this into an apocryphal courtroom scene: A man stands in court accused of collecting  rain in barrels on his property. The judge’s response is refreshingly simple. “Does the city own the rain before it hits the ground?” When the city’s attorney fails to answer, the judge finishes the thought: “Because it sounds absurd.” Case dismissed. The imagined exchange is funny because it exposes something deeper: when rules drift too far from reality, the law can start treating ordinary, harmless behavior as if it were a crime. Collecting rainwater for a garden suddenly becomes “theft.” A rain barrel becomes contraband. — Sometimes it takes a fake judge asking the obvious question to bring everyone back to earth. But when that doesn’t happen, it can take years of litigation—and sometimes the Supreme Court—to restore a little common sense to the law. Moments like this aren’t just courtroom comedy. They illustrate a real tension that shows up again and again in environmental and natural resource regulation—where well-intended rules can morph into sweeping claims of government control over land, water, and the way people use the resources around them. In fact, cases built around exactly these kinds of questions have reached the highest court in the country. At Pacific Legal Foundation, our Environment and Natural Resources practice exists in part to push back when that happens. We start from a simple premise: human ingenuity is the ultimate resource. When people are free to use land and natural resources productively—whether that means building homes, fishing, farming, or yes, collecting rainwater for a garden—innovation and prosperity follow. Since Pacific Legal Foundation’s founding in 1973, we have challenged arbitrary restrictions that prevent people from responsibly using natural resources for activities like energy development, mining, logging, fishing, homebuilding, and farming. Through litigation, research, and policy advocacy, PLF works to ensure that environmental protection and human flourishing are not treated as opposing goals. But what is real…  Across the country, property owners regularly find themselves in legal battles over government rules that stretch far beyond what most people would consider common sense. In Knick v. Township of Scott—a case litigated by Pacific Legal Foundation and taken to the U.S. Supreme Court—a Pennsylvania town required property owners to allow public access to their land if officials believed historical graves might be present. The Supreme Court ultimately reaffirmed that property rights deserve the same constitutional protection as any other right, allowing Americans to go directly to federal court to defend their property rights when the government takes their property without compensation. More recently, in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency—another PLF case argued before the Supreme Court—the Court rejected an expansive federal interpretation of the Clean Water Act that treated a small residential lot as a federally regulated wetland. The ruling restored limits on federal power and brought much-needed clarity to a law that had grown far removed from ordinary understanding. These cases may not involve rain barrels—but they raise the same underlying question: how far should government power extend when regulating the natural world and the people who live in it? Because most of the time, the real solution starts with the same thing that ended that courtroom argument: A little common sense. The post Who owns the rain? When government regulation loses common sense  appeared first on Pacific Legal Foundation.