The gut instinct of many self-reliant Americans these days is to return to the land — to a homesteader’s version of self-sufficiency off the grid. It is not because we eschew the amenities of urban or suburban living. Rather, the irrational recklessness of a socialist president and an incompetent Congress causes us to recognize the possibility of an anarchistic breakdown in social structures, and we want to be able to survive on our own.

After listening to Obama’s One Hour Twelve Minutes Forty-Eight Seconds “State of The Union” address, I called my stockbroker and asked him what I should be buying. He said, “Canned goods and ammunition!”

The quote above is taken from a viral email that has been making the rounds since Obama presented his updated vision for America, uninformed by one year of on-the-job training. The DC establishment and the media paint such attitudes as the stuff of right-wing extermism. But that statement expresses the viewpoint of many very well-educated, professionally prominent, and credentialed leading citizens. Consider the following article:

(Bloomberg) — Barton Biggs has some offbeat advice for the rich: Insure yourself against war and disaster by buying a remote farm or ranch and stocking it with “seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc.”

The “etc.” must mean guns.

“A few rounds over the approaching brigands’ heads would probably be a compelling persuader that there are easier farms to pillage,” he writes in his new book, “Wealth, War and Wisdom.”

Biggs is no paranoid survivalist. He was chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley before leaving in 2003 to form hedge fund Traxis Partners. He doesn’t lock and load until the last page of this smart look at how World War II warped share prices, gutted wealth and remains a warning to investors. His message: Listen to markets, learn from history and prepare for the worst….

So there you have it — advice from a really senior stockbroker that mirrors the viral email exactly. (And note Bloomberg’s knee-jerk description of a survivalist as “paranoid” rather than self-reliant, the hallmark of a true socialist.)

---

During the “Cold War” between the United States and Russia (1945–1991) Americans lived with the realization that civilization could be ended by an aerial assault or, in later years, on thirty minutes notice by a flock of intercontinental ballistic missiles. Those of us who lived through that time remember the civil defense drills in the schools, the Nike bases at the edge of town, and the consequential prevalence of backyard bomb shelters:

As the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union escalated, fear of the bomb and anxiety over the possiblity of a nuclear war drove many Americans to dug [sic] deep into the earth in an effort to survive what seemed at the time the inevitable nuclear attack from our enemies. Ordinary Americans built bomb shelters in their backyards, often hiding them from their neighbors….

The threat of the bomb became a part of everyday life. Despite the Cold War, Americans were buying houses and settling into the suburbs at an unprecedented rate. With the memory of World War II still fresh, the country longed for an idyllic family life like that portrayed in television sitcoms….

Families with well stocked shelters lived with the fear that after a nuclear attack they’d be invaded by an army of friends and neighbors who neglected to build bunkers of their own…. In the late 1950s, a public opinion poll showed that 40 percent of Americans were seriously considering building a shelter….

In the public psyche, yesterday’s backyard bunker has become today’s survivalist farm. With respect to an American family, functionally they both serve the same purpose, have the same intrinsic value. Arguably the farm even has more lasting value — as a source of food, a recreational retreat, and a real estate investment.

In earlier days, self-reliant survivalists were praised as model citizens for their willingness to take personal responsibility. During his presidency, John Kennedy said:

“A fallout shelter for everybody as rapidly as possible.”

Today, the Obama administration and its media lackeys label comparable citizens as extremist wackos. What is the difference? Back then, the threat was external and overt — a Russia that threatened:

“It would take really very few multimegaton nuclear bombs to wipe out your small and densely populated countries and kill you instantly in your lairs.”

Today, the enemy is within, and it is politically incorrect to talk about preparing to deal with it. For those who scoff at the concept of social meltdown, may I remind you of Watts, the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the anarchy in New Orleans following Katrina?

Related:

Granny Warriors — Freedom County, Texas

eHow — How to Make a Personal Urban Survival Kit

Barack Hussein Obama already has the legal authority to enslave the United States citizenry. That power was allocated to the office of President of the United States in a series of executive orders signed into law one by one throughout the last several administrations.

The persuasion for enacting these orders was to

• postulate some imaginary crisis that MIGHT occur — devastating hurricane, massive terrorist attack, virulent pandemic, and
• define draconian authority for the president to deal with the hypothetical emergency.

The tools for a Marxist takeover of the United States are already in place. All that remains is to manufacture a crisis to trigger the implementation of these executive powers. Hurricanes are still random events of nature, so the socialist revolutionaries in the executive branch must look at the other two options.

The sudden attack on the Central Intelligence Agency that we are currently witnessing will weaken our ability to forestall a terrorist attack. The vaccine for the H1N1 virus being forced on the citizens without adequate testing has the lethal ability to CAUSE a pandemic. So the flashpoint for implementing the “new order” may be one of these two catastrophes.

Most citizens are blissfully ignorant of the state defined by the executive orders, one in which the government can forcibly take control of every aspect of their lives. They are preoccupied with the activities of everyday life — working, raising their children, going to church, enjoying their vacation days. Those of us who have become aware of the “clear and present danger” must alert everyone to the scope of these executive orders — before it is too late.

And this must be done immediately, in light of the power grab currently being undertaken by the Obama administration. In a bill currently before the Senate, Obama is seeking authority to shut down the Internet. Note that he already has the power to suspend the Constitution and to nullify habeas corpus and all other personal liberties and rights, which would include the power to confiscate our guns.

The Executive Orders

Here’s a partial list of executive orders that already have the force of law — The FEMA list of Presidential Executive Orders. All of these were in place before Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office:

• #10995 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS — Seizure of all communications media in the United States.
• #10997 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR — Seizure of all electric power, fuels, and minerals, both public and private.
• #10998 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE — Seizure of all food supplies and resources, public, and private, all farms and farm equipment.
• #10999 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE — Seizure of all means of transportation, including personal cars, trucks or vehicles of any kind and total control over all highways, seaports and waterways.
• #11000 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR — Seizure of all American population for work forces under federal supervision, including dividing families as necessary according to governmental plans.
• #11001 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE — Seizure of all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.
• #11002by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL — Empowers the Postmaster General to register all men, women and children in the U.S.
• #11003 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY — Seizure of all airports and aircraft.
• #11004 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING CERTAIN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE HOUSING AND HOME FINANCE ADMINISTRATOR — Seizure of all housing and finance authorities, to establish Forced Relocation. Designates areas to be abandoned as “unsafe,” establishes new locations for populations, relocates communications, builds new housing with public (‘tax-payers’) funds.
• #11005 by John Kennedy, 1962: ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION — Seizure of all railroads, inland waterways and storage facilities, public and private.
• #11051 by John Kennedy, 1962: PRESCRIBING RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT — Provides the Office of Emergency Planning complete authorization to put the above orders into effect in times of increased international tension or economic or financial crisis.
• #11490 by Richard Nixon, 1969: Assigning emergency preparedness functions to Federal departments and agencies — Combines Executive Orders #11001 to #11005 and #11051 into a single Executive Order.
• #11921 by Gerald Ford, 1976: Adjusting Emergency Preparedness Assignments to Organizational and Functional Changes in Federal Departments and Agencies — F.E.M.A. is authorized to develop plans control energy, prices and wages, credit and the money supply to U.S. banks in the event of a ‘National Emergency.’ Congress may not review a President’s decision to enforce a ‘National Emergency’ for six months. (emphasis mine)
• #12656 by Ronald Reagan, 1988: Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities – The National Security Council given authority to determine requisite emergency powers (increased domestic surveillance, isolation of communities, restriction of movement for groups and individuals in the USA, control of airspace, use of the national guard to enforce laws and seal borders).
• #12919 by Bill Clinton, 1994: NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS – “National Defense Industrial Resources Preparedness” delegates authorities, responsibilities and allocations of F.E.M.A.’s Executive Orders for the confiscation of ALL PROPERTY from the American people, and their re-location and assignment to ‘labor’ camps. This Executive Order also supersedes or revokes eleven (11) previous Executive Orders [from 1939 through 1991] and amends Executive Order #10789 and #11790. The declaration of a ‘National Emergency’ by the President may immediately lead to the implementation of all or part of these provisions and if he so desires he may implement martial law, suspend the Constitution, nullify habeas corpus and all other personal liberties and rights.

---

UPDATE, Sept. 2, 12:29AM:  A reader refers to A PRIMER ON “MARTIAL LAW” by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

It is difficult these days not to come upon some pessimistic patriotic commentator expressing the fear that something called “martial law” may soon be imposed on this country, as the General Government’s response to a new “terrorist attack”, or to the economic and social chaos arising out of a collapse of the monetary and banking systems, or to some other dire event that frightens hapless Americans into trading a sure and certain loss of their liberties for a dollop of conjectural safety.

An optimistic patriot might scoff at such fears. But both pessimists and optimists typically share the same implicit first premise: namely, that the form of “martial law” they have in mind is legitimate. Most of the time, this is a rather glaring and dangerous error.

This is a detailed and scholarly analysis (our correspondent calls it a “two-cup-of-coffee” article) but it only deals with various modes of martial law under the US Constitution. It does not take into account the damage done by the Executive Orders if the Constitution is suspended, and that is exactly what we are trying to warn our readers about.

After a catastrophic event occurs, legal challenges to government oppression during the post mortem may indeed show the illegitimacy of Orwellian measures. But by then the legal status is moot. For those who believe it cannot happen, let me point out that it already has. During the crisis of hurricane Katrina, New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin had his police force confiscate the guns of the law-abiding citizens. Then they were forced to watch helpless as marauding mobs vandalized and looted their homes.

The National Rifle Association brought suit against the City of New Orleans and won after a three-year legal battle. Only then could the citizens try to recover their property. Some never did, and others had watched as police deliberately smashed their heirloom firearms out of perversity. All had been without their means of self-defense for three years.

The Uninvited Ombudsman Report
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
May 10, 2009

Contents:
(searchable by item number)1- Environmental Firearm Abuse
2- Pocket Knife Ban
3- Fires From Muzzleloaders
4- Obama’s Mama’s Hajj
5- Tenth Amendment Smokescreen
6- “The Montana Firearms Freedom Act” HB246

STARTERS:

The NRA Annual Meeting will be in my home town this year, Phoenix, May 15-17. Anyone can go, you can get in free, meet scores of leaders and zillions of people in the pro-rights movement. You should plan to hang out with these people — your compatriots. Join me there. My band The Cartridge Family is making numerous appearances.

The brand new state gun guides are available for Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Ohio. It doesn’t make sense to own a gun and not know the rules. Plus — we’ve introduced the Armed Response series of self-defense DVDs, truly excellent, take a look.

Please also note — the new 7th edition of The Virginia Gun Owner’s Guide is now off press, with lots of changes and completely up to date.

The Montana Firearms Freedom Act has started a blaze nationwide. People are asking, “Is it real?” It is. It’s now law. Montana is attempting to get the feds out of the state’s gun business. I have first-hand details in this issue of Page Nine.

——–

1- Environmental Firearm Abuse

The lamestream media told you:

The National Parks won’t fight the environmental impact review now stalling CCW carry on those federal lands.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Even a blind man can see that the environmental impact of CCW-permit holders carrying guns which aren’t fired is so small that this is a total subterfuge and stonewalling effort to deny the right to keep and bear, even for people with FBI-certified approval.

The serious issue here is setting the precedent that statutes, such as various environmental protection laws, can supercede the Bill of Rights — the uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms. If discreet carry, with no measurable impact, can be halted on those grounds, then what of four guys out on a day enjoying marksmanship practice, and returning with an empty ammo can?

The CCW National Parks silliness is a prelude to bans on outdoor shooting.

Environmental terrorism is on the rise, even the government is tracking this. We now see the green terrorists preparing a frontal assault on the right to discharge firearms outdoors. The National Parks “impact study” is inappropriate and should be terminated without delay. The people proposing it should be brought up on charges of denial of civil rights under color of law, 18 USC §241 et. seq.

——–

2- Pocket Knife Ban

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Hawaii, the island paradise that has long been a haven for tyrannical government denial of civil rights, with virtual bans on the Second Amendment, has introduced a bill to ban pocket knives of any type. Knives are theoretically protected under the Second Amendment, whose careful wording protects “arms” and not just firearms.

No criminal activity or intent is required. Mere possession of the private property is all that’s needed, if the bill passes.

Senate Bill 126 defines a pocket knife as “a knife with a blade that folds into the handle and which is suitable for carrying in the pocket.” Blade length doesn’t matter. The bill then proposes that “Any person who knowingly manufactures, sells, transfers, possesses, or transports a pocket knife in the State shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

It adds that, once enacted, “no person shall import or manufacture pocket knives into the State for the purpose of selling or distributing pocket knives.” No criminal charges have been filed against the people proposing the blatantly anti-rights law, who have no legitimate delegated authority to do so.

The bill’s chances of passage are unknown, but if enacted, it would take effect on January 1, 2010. U.S. Senator Charles Schumer could not be reached to see if he plans a national version of Hawaii’s proposed common-sense law.

——–

3- Fires From Muzzleloaders

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

One of 18,579 contract-bid opportunities currently offered by the federal government is this interesting item, tucked away among requests for analysis of airplane fire-retardant drop patterns.

“Multi-variable analysis on the probability and prediction of fire ignitions from muzzle loaded guns.”

The feds now have a combined bid website, allowing people to review and bid upon active and upcoming contract work from across the “entire federal contracting community.” Working for the federal government is one way to get some of your tax dollars back, but you have to be able to read and write bureaucratese: “The successful offeror shall analyze provided data and create statistical analysis to support the project goals. The goals can be, but are not limited to, probability, design for experiments, spatial statistical analysis, multivariable analysis, etc.”

Marksmen of course know from practical experience that the probability of starting fires (in National Forests, since this request comes from the Dept. of Agriculture) is quite low, but why should that stop our apparatchiks from spending money on a study which, if it shows any probability at all, could fan the flames of gun bans on public lands.

The Founding Fathers would be aghast at the way we spend money, that taxes could be taken for such things, and the idea that peripheral threats to gun rights could come from the Dept. of Agriculture (nowhere authorized in the Constitution).

——–

4- Obama’s Mama’s Hajj

The lamestream media told you:

Islam, the religion of peace, is doing so little these days there is no need to mention them, associate their religion with the word terror, or put them in the news for almost any reason at all. There’s no problem with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano deciding to call extremist Muslim terrorism “man-caused disasters,” she’s merely using “nuance” to avoid offending jihadis. Even the “man” part doesn’t offend anything.

According to Richard Engel, the chief foreign correspondent for NBC-TV, speaking on national TV, “people in the Middle East consider Obama a Muslim.” [Note: I witnessed it with my own eyes and ears but cannot find a link for you, please send me one if you have it.]

Obama himself is believed to consider himself a Christian, and his campaign has repeatedly made this claim, although he hasn’t attended church since taking the presidency. FOX News reported the anomaly, which is unreported elsewhere.

According to the usually reliable LA Times, Mr. Obama has decided to not celebrate the National Day of Prayer in the White House this year, a tradition in place since Harry Truman held the office. The Times, with typical opprobrium, notes that “religion was a core tenet of Republican politics,” and quotes an Obama spokesmanwoman that, “I think the president understands, in his own life and in his family’s life, the role that prayer plays.” He thinks.

The Times goes on to say that, “Obama has shown an unusual sensitivity toward atheists, the first president to mention non-believers in an inaugural address.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Engel’s comment about Obama being seen as a Muslim in Muslim countries got no news coverage to speak of. If it did, the whole issue of Obama’s faith, if any, would be called into question, a topic the media has avoided like a third rail. (Can’t say “avoided like a plague,” because they’re all over the swine non-pandemic.)

In other news, missing from lamestream news, Obama’s grandmother Mama Sara Obama (on his black Kenyan father’s side), has decided to go on hajj.

This is the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, required at least once in a lifetime from all Muslims. She plans to go with her son, Syeed Obama.

According to Muslim law, as told in the Koran, any person born to a Muslim father is a Muslim for life. Renouncing the faith is apostasy, punishable by death. Anyone who has a chance to carry out the sentence but does not, or interferes with carrying out the sentence, is also punishable by death.

Sara Obama, who was flown from her tiny home town of Kogelo near Uganda to Washington, D.C. for her grandson’s inauguration, is the woman who asserted that she witnessed her grandson’s birth in Mombasa, Kenya. If true, this would make him ineligible to be president. The president has so far refused to show a birth certificate to clear up the lingering doubts. It was unclear at press time why he has so adamantly refused.

If proven to be true, the ineligibility would create a constitutional crisis of unimagined proportions, aside from possibly inevitable racial-tainted riots. For one thing, the vice president might not be qualified to assume the presidency, having taken office under erroneous circumstances (voting is for the president, not the vice president, who ascends to office on the winner’s coattails). That would leave Nancy Pelosi the next in line. It would also invalidate all acts signed by Mr. Obama. It was unclear at press time how bailout and buyout refunds would be made.

Some experts have also questioned Obama’s race, since his mother was a white woman, making him not a black but a mulatto, a word now used even less frequently than the now discredited “terrorist” and “Muslim extremist.” Media experts say the word changes are not Orwellian revisionism, thought control, or word control (“you can’t think of a thing that has no word”), it is merely sensitivity.

——–

5- Tenth Amendment Smokescreen

The lamestream media told you:

Several states have passed resolutions demanding Tenth Amendment rights.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Several states have sanctimoniously passed resolutions that are worthless trash demanding nothing designed to placate a half-asleep public. They mean nothing, have no effect in law, the spineless “servants” who introduce them know this, and act just so they can say, Oh what a good boy am I. Let one, just one, introduce such a bill with backbone and teeth, that truly repulses federal government intrusions and attacks on the 10th Amendment, and I’ll change my tune.

I guess that would be Montana, which has enacted a 10th-Amendment-based statute called the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. A nice rumor sheet about the bill has blazed across the web. My first hand details on the bill are posted below.

You should personally take up this cause, and ask your reps why they didn’t actually stand up to stop the abuses and usurpations before now. Ask if they know their “joint resolutions” bills do nothing actual (they know this of course, so see what they tell you, it can be revealing). Ask if they would stand up to stop a single federal abuse — like Montana is doing.

Or just coast along and be happy they passed those non-binding feckless balderdash bills that makes you feel good provided you don’t look at them too hard.

——–

6- “The Montana Firearms Freedom Act” HB246

Montana’s new gun law kicks the feds in the gut.

In a nutshell: “Any gun made and kept in Montana is free of federal gun regulation.”

People have been writing asking me if this is real — it is. It is important enough to dedicate this entire Page Nine. Well, I’ve included some other juicy items too.

I have followed the development of this law since the outset, I am friendly with its instigator Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association. And we sell Gary’s Montana gun-law book, which will be re-released in several weeks, updated and with the new law included. I was honored to coax and coach Gary into writing that book, now in its third edition.

Gary dreamed up the concept of the Montana gun-freedom bill, drafted the language himself (“that’s why it’s in plain English, I’m not a lawyer,” he said) and guided it through his legislature to a 29 to 21 win in the Senate, and a stunning 85 to 14 romp in the House. It is a fabulous law. Imagine what it could do for economics in the state, wait, don’t imagine, check this out — Texas just introduced it too, where it could benefit more than 300 state-based manufacturers. It will, “invite new industry into Texas,” according to its sponsor there, Leo Berman.

That’s not all. Tennessee has introduced it as well. Alaska moved it through the Senate 32 to 7 but adjourned before the House could act. States actively considering it include Arizona, Idaho, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. While some people got excited about virtually worthless feckless non-binding resolutions demanding 10th Amendment protection from federal abuse, this new law puts teeth into the demand.

This is a perfect point of pushback against illegal federal encroachment and violation of our constitutional rights. You should pick this up where you are, like we are here in Arizona, get someone in your state to make the small changes needed to match the language to your state, and run with it.

If the federales have their way, reaction would likely be directed against the first manufacturer to operate under the law. Feds will obtain a firearm produced in Montana, probably from a small shop without big time resources to fight the feds, and the person will be arrested, property confiscated, and charges filed with all sorts of laws that do not apply except in the feds imagination.

But then of course they run the courts that will convict the person, and the courts, if precedent is any gauge, will deny constitutional defenses and work vigorously to do the bidding of their federal masters. It will be a 9th and 10th Amendment case, and a Commerce Clause case, and a Supremacy Clause case, not a Second Amendment case.

However, the feds are unlikely to get their way so easily. We freedom types are pretty clever too, and little of this will happen without a plan. First, an effort is underway to find and temper any wildcat basement tool shop operators who ignorantly blast ahead making guns thinking they are immune to the federal hand. That will be good for the wildcats and for the proper movement of this important law.

A test case will be developed, Gary says, most likely with a carefully designed bolt-action .22 caliber youth rifle. The wood stock will come from a Montana grown tree. Standard steel-supplier stock will turn into the basic barrel and parts, and the statute makes clear that interstate regulation (if any) of raw stock does not apply to the stock once it is in state and used strictly for intrastate purposes (a point the courts will examine).

The people involved will have squeaky-clean records, including a Marine, tool makers with no FFL license to complicate things, and a youngster whose parents seek to get him the firearm. Clearance to make it will be sought from the proper authorities ahead of time. If it is granted (don’t hold your breath) the deal is done. If it is not granted (a pretty sure bet), the parties will have grounds to sue in civil (not criminal) court. It’s pretty complicated, but it’s well thought out.

In a conference call between Marbut and six top-level attorneys, it became obvious that the legal fight is an uphill battle, because the feds run the courts. To date, the federal judicial system has treated the 10th Amendment as a dead letter, and this from an attorney who has fought such cases from the lowest ranks to the Supreme Court itself. If the federal government wants something, it doesn’t let a little thing like the Bill of Rights stand in its way. I know, it’s infuriating, but that’s the way it is.

Now there’s a political dimension to this as well. All the states are being abused and denied their rights under the 10th Amendment. The public is outraged at the lack of control on the federal behemoth. It’s time for something to give.

The Associated Press and USA Today have picked up on it, and FOX-TV’s Glenn Beck is negotiating to get Marbut on the show.

As more and more states get on the case, the pressure builds, and the ability of the system to resist a straightforward and righteous demand weakens. The Montana Firearms Freedom Act can be the straw that breaks the federal back. Once 10th Amendment hegemony is re-established, the floodgates of freedom are open.

The feds and their lapdog lackies in the lamestream media are likely to refer to this action as an attempt at “illicit manufacture and trafficking in firearms,” the words in the CIFTA treaty. The feds would love to raid a compound (an innocent owner’s small tool shop), confiscate an arsenal (more than one firearm and some parts), and sick their legal dogs on the poor soul. They’re not going to get such an easy shot. As many as five coordinated cases will be structured.

The bill does a good job of describing what Montana has accomplished, and because it’s in plain English, something I’ve always said can and should be done, it’s readable. Take some time. Read it, you’ll love it.

Alan’s Executive Summary

The bill opens with the state’s “Declarations of Authority.” This basically asserts Montana’s rights under the U.S. Constitution, Montana’s contract upon entering the union, and principles of federalism. Very juicy and enjoyable.

An easy-to-read set of definitions is followed by the core legal principle: “A personal firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition that is manufactured commercially or privately in Montana and that remains within the borders of Montana is not subject to federal law or federal regulation, including registration, under the authority of congress to regulate interstate commerce. It is declared by the legislature that those items have not traveled in interstate commerce.”

One legal landmine exists in the fact that firearms are regulated not only under the Commerce Clause, they are controlled by tax laws, and the outcome of that quagmire is uncertain.

The legal protections are piled higher with this and similar wordings: “It is declared by the legislature that basic materials, such as unmachined steel and unshaped wood, are not firearms, firearms accessories, or ammunition and are not subject to congressional authority…”

To prevent side issues from interfering, full auto and large bore devices are excluded from this bill. Guns made under this law must be stamped “Made in Montana” and man oh man won’t that be a thing of pride.

The bill is easy reading, you should do it, then make sure your legislature gets on it.

———-

See the official Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics here. Compare it to the news you see every day.

Thanks for reading!
Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman

---

Visit the PAGE NINE weblog.	Sign up for automatic RSS feeds
Contact Alan Korwin	Visit the Gunlaws.com website

Barack Obama misrepresented gun numbers during his trip to Mexico last week in a way that amounts to lying. Appearing with Mexican President Felipe Calderón on Thursday, Obama spoke about the drug violence in Mexico:

“This war is being waged with guns purchased not here but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that lay in our shared border.”

Here’s the truth. When the Mexican government confiscates guns, it sorts out those that appear to be made in the United States and sends them to us so we can trace them by serial number. But the guns that they send to us are only a fraction of the total number of guns that they confiscate.

Of the subset of guns sent by the Mexican government to the US, 90% turn out to actually be from the US, and the rest were mistakenly identified. That’s where the 90% figure comes from. But the guns that are actually from the US used in the Mexican gun war are really only about 17% of the total number of guns confiscated by Mexico.

Nevertheless, Obama is using these misleading assertions to promote the Inter-American Arms Treaty, first unsuccessfully proposed in 1998 and now being revived in the new effort to disarm America. The Washington Times notes Obama’s real agenda:

Democrats aren’t alone in repeating phony gun statistics. The New York Times, CNN and numerous networks continue to repeat the 90 percent figure with no reporting to back it up. The hysteria is used to create the notion that a major problem exists with American guns – and Mr. Obama is anxious to step in to solve that problem with a $400 million program to stop U.S. guns from going to Mexico. That initiative would include clampdowns on U.S. gun shops.

It is ridiculous for Mr. Obama to blame Mexico’s lawlessness on Americans as if the longstanding corruption of Mexican elected officials, judges and law-enforcement officers has nothing to do with it. …his real agenda is to pursue gun control here at home.

Obama associate Bill Ayers had plans to overthrow America and conquer capitalism. He is still a proud communist, and proud of being a terrorist. Obama has gone completely unscarred by this friendship and he still hasn’t disowned that relationship.

Doesn’t it concern people that Obama still remains friends with this terrorist and his terrorist wife? That they shared an office and ideas for three years? That Obama launched his political career at a reception in Ayers’ home? That Ayers still poses for press photos stomping on the American flag?

This video is shocking and America needs to see it.

 

Much more at Stop The ACLU Blog.

…Regarding Obama’s History in the Illinois Senate

Barack Obama is the most anti-gun presidential candidate in American history! And one man who knows is Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) Executive Director Richard Pearson. He has been involved in the firearms rights movement for more than 40 years. He has been the chief lobbyist for ISRA for the last fifteen years, and is intimately familiar with the personnel and legislation in the Illinois government. Here is his open letter to American voters:

Fellow Sportsman,

Hello, my name is Rich Pearson and I have been active in the firearm rights movement for over 40 years. For the past 15 years, I have served in the Illinois state capitol as the chief lobbyist for the Illinois State Rifle Association.

I lobbied Barack Obama extensively while he was an Illinois State Senator. As a result of that experience, I know Obama’s attitudes toward guns and gun owners better than anyone. The truth be told, in all my years in the Capitol I have never met a legislator who harbors more contempt for the law-abiding firearm owner than Barack Obama.

Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2^nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners and forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

And speaking of friends, you can always tell a person by the company they keep. Obama counts among his friends the Rev. Michael Pfleger – a renegade Chicago priest who has openly called for the murder of gun shop owners and pro-gun legislators. Then there is his buddy Richard Daley, the mayor of Chicago who has declared that if it were up to him, nobody would be allowed to own a gun. And let’s not forget Obama’s pal George Soros – the guy who has pumped millions of dollars into the UN’s international effort to disarm law-abiding citizens.

Obama has shown that he is more than willing to use other people’s money to fund his campaign to take your guns away from you. While a board member of the leftist Joyce Foundation, Barack Obama wrote checks for tens of millions of dollars to extremist gun control organizations such as the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence and the Violence Policy Center.

Does Barack Obama still sound to you like a “friend” of the law-abiding gun owner?

You can see the original of Pearson’s letter here.

Chicago Alderman Richard Mell (33rd) was one of the senior city council members who passed a law requiring residents to re-register their guns annually. Now every family that owns two cars knows the difficulty of keeping track of two safety inspections, two emissions inspections, and two annual registrations among all the other recurring bills and items of paperwork required to keep a household on the right side of the law. So imagine the plight of a person in Chicago who owns a collection of guns! This law is almost prohibitive.

Nonetheless, Mell himself owns a collection of guns. But he forgot to re-register them last year!

Ald. Richard Mell (33rd) is a former hunter with an arsenal of weapons that reportedly features shotguns, rifles and pistols, including a Walther PPK of James Bond fame.

But there’s a problem.

Mell forgot to re-register the weapons as required every year by the ordinance that he helped to pass as one of the City Council’s most senior members….

Mell said he first realized he was in violation of the re-registration requirement about a year ago. When he tried to re-register his guns belatedly, the Chicago Police Department’s Gun Registration Section refused to bend the rules. Mell appealed that ruling to the city’s Department of Administrative Hearings but decided to re-write the law instead.”When we looked at the law, we saw the possibility of winning [the appeal] wasn’t gonna happen,” he said….

…decided to re-write the law … Ah, it is good to be king! But what about the rest of us poor subjects?

This puts us in mind of a famous incident in Washington, D.C. that happened back in 1988. Famed liberal journalist Carl Rowan was a prolifically outspoken advocate of gun control. And, as we all know from the current Supreme Court case Heller versus District of Columbia, guns have not been legal in the capital of this free nation. But, confronted with an intruder on his private residential property, Rowan pulled out a gun that he was not supposed to have and shot the fellow.

Carl T. Rowan writes in his syndicated column for Thursday that … he feels justified in using a gun to protect his home and family….

Mr. Rowan … has frequently written on the need for gun control….

Apparantly, there are the elites who make the laws and advocate for them, but do not have to follow them. And then there are the rest of us who get into a world of trouble if we miss a paperwork deadline or defend ourselves in a gun-free zone. That is the “do as I say, not as I do” philosophy of our government officials and of the chattering class.

Did I hear someone say “hypocrisy”?

Related articles:

Reason Magazine: Membership Has Its Privileges

By the way, if you move to or live in Chicago, you can forget about buying a handgun like one of those Mell owns. They’ve been banned since 1982. Mell was grandfathered in. Judge for yourself how well the ban has protected Chicagoans from gun violence. But hey, at least Mell feels safe.

Yahoo! News: Crime wave leaves dozens dead in Chicago

….Chicago is [in] the grip of a wave of violence that has left dozens dead and forced parents to keep their children home from school for fear of stray bullets….

“All the candidates are stooges. Is it too late to get someone good to run, so we have someone we can vote for, instead of people we can vote against?”

 

The Uninvited Ombudsman Report
by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
March 29, 2008

 

 

Contents:
(searchable by item number)

1- Second Amendment’s Meaning
2- Five Year War
3- Whether The Weather
4- Gun Lawsuits Misfire
5- Candidates: Three Stooges
6- Armed Government Drunks
7- Shooting Outshoots Golf
8- Pilots Don’t Carry

STARTERS:

“D.C. v. Heller – Eyewitness Report – Wrap-up and Photo Gallery” is now posted here. Final observations on the historic event, some insider scoop gathered while in D.C., Gura v. Dellinger review, “news” media’s coverage assessed and more.

Bob Levy, who funded and represented Heller in the case, will be in Phoenix for a Federalist Society debate on it, 4/16/08 (11 a.m. $5), and at the Goldwater Institute on 4/17/08 (5 PM, free) to discuss his new book. I’ll be at both, don’t miss it.
Federalist Soc.: 480-558-8300
Goldwater Inst.: 602-462-5000 ext. 223

Join me, Alan Korwin, at The Breakfast Club for a lively discussion of the Heller case, Sat. Apr. 5, doors open 7:30 AM, all-you-can-eat buffet $12: Coco’s Restaurant, south of the Paradise Valley Mall (N. side of Cactus, 1/2 mi. W. of Tatum Blvd.)

The new 5th edition Concealed Handgun Manual is now available here! Answers key questions for permit holders everywhere.

———-

1- Second Amendment’s Meaning

The lamestream media told you:

For the first time in history, the Supreme Court is addressing the meaning of the confusing, antiquated, poorly written Second Amendment. Widely understood to protect a right of the states to arm a militia, the Court may find a “newly recognized right” (NY Times) for individuals to keep and bear arms. The District of Columbia, which bans deadly handguns, says this is a reasonable restriction based on crime statistics, rifles are better suited to home self defense than handguns, guns can be unlocked and re-loaded by an old lawyer in the dark in just three seconds, and handguns are more dangerous than machine guns. A decision is expected in June.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Hey, I didn’t make that up, it’s what appeared on TV, in The New York Times, USA Today, and what the city’s attorney said in open court. The part about a decision in June is accurate.

The D.C. v. Heller case was the 96th gun case to reach the High Court, 36 of which name or quote from the Second Amendment. The rest deal with gun ownership, possession and use. This is clearly documented in Supreme Court Gun Cases, which reproduces all the cases, including the nearly forgotten 14 self-defense shootout cases that read like adventure novels. Heller is the 64th gun case to reach the Court since the confusing, antiquated, poorly written Miller case in 1939.

“The Supreme Court has consistently recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms for 200 years,” says co-author Alan Korwin, who spent six years with two co-authors researching the book.

References:

The book — Supreme Court Gun Cases

The Heller Case Wrap-up is here.

The Photo Galleries are here.

———-

2- Five Year War

The lamestream media told you:

On the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war, we’ve had this many soldiers killed from our country, this many from other countries, we’ve spent this much money, we have endless challenges remaining, there is no end in sight unless you elect the people we tell you to, and the dead include brothers and sisters, family members, parents and good people who volunteered, possibly without realizing what they were getting into. Those surviving have wounds, mental stresses, job problems at home, and many face the horrific prospect of being reassigned to duty.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Tales of heroism and success were notably absent in lamestream reports of the 5th anniversary of this conflict, whether you support the effort or not. The media’s one-sided bias is as reprehensible here as anything they’ve released in recent memory. There were probably some tales of accomplishment in the “news,” but none crossed my desk in print, so maybe this is my fault.

Rebuilt infrastructure, newly opened embassies and consulates, the education of women, significant reductions in Islam-on-Islam bedlam between Sunnis and Shiia, massive blows to al-Qaida members and leadership, and a constant flow of valuable intelligence and oil to points outside Iraq were unreported, for reasons that remain unclear at press time. Honor, courage, valor, bravery, sacrifice, compassion and love were also unmentioned. No correction has been made.

Direct reports from valiant American soldiers deployed in Iraq, which have reached the Uninvited Ombudsman, have an upbeat and positive tone, giving an impression that people doing the heavy lifting, at least, believe things are going better than the media believes. More than one expressed shock and awe on returning home and seeing the drivel being fed to the American public. “You’re not getting the truth,” one soldier said.

In other news, in a small, single-column story buried on page 15 locally, the usually unreliable USA Today reports, “Foreign militants fleeing Iraq, weakened al-Qaida disenchants fighters.” A growing number are fleeing “or attempting to flee,” because their effort is being wrecked by U.S.-led forces.

“They’re being told in their countries of origin by facilitators that, ‘Hey, we’re basically winning the war against the apostates,’ said Brig. Gen. Michael Flynn, intelligence director for Central Command. “They go there and find out it’s not quite the case.” The report claims 90% of suicide bombers are foreign recruits from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and most enter from Syria. No mention of the fifth anniversary was included in the brief report.

———-

3- Whether The Weather

The lamestream media told you:

“In what could be described as a monsoon dew-over, the National Weather Service will abandon its decades-old system of using dew points to mark the onset of summer thunderstorms and simply set a date,” writes Shaun McKinnon, on the lead page-one story for the Arizona Republic, entitled, “This Year We’ll Know.” The title refers to the monsoon starting date, which changes each year depending on conditions.

“We want to get the focus away from how we determine when it starts, and put the focus on awareness (of) our most violent weather,” said Tony Haffer, the federal agent in charge. By setting dates, public safety agencies can better prepare people for the risks of summer thunderstorms.

In the past ten years, measurements showed the season started between June 17 and July 19. The official date is now June 15.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Abandoning scientific principles altogether, climatologists in Arizona have decided to stop measuring conditions and simply declare a date on which the annual desert monsoon conditions begin. Whether Mother Nature agrees with the plan, or if the declared date will actually mean anything is uncertain.

“Have they lost their minds?” asked one critic who preferred to remain unnamed. “The dew-point measurements gave hard data upon which to form a rational judgment, and we can see that the monsoon conditions began over a nearly five-week period each year for the past decade.” Picking some averaged date off a calendar can’t possibly do that, he claims. “It’s a good thing they’re not managing global warming,” he said, a fact that could not be immediately confirmed.

Newspaper reporter Shaun McKinnon dutifully reported the government announcement, getting the details of the press release correct on page one, so no correction is needed, as usual. He did however fail to ask how picking a date instead of taking measurements comports with the scientific method.

“Why should we, the government, be burdened with taking measurements and doing an analysis of conditions, when we can just issue an edict and rely on that?” said one esteemed government spokeslady. “If we can’t do that for such minor issues as science, how can we justify it for taxes, social programs or war? Think of the efficiency, and all the money it might save. Money doesn’t come from rain clouds, you know.”

The idea that schools might teach students that thunderstorms can be dangerous, or that people already know that, thus eliminating the need for government to pick an official start date for public safety, was not addressed. According to the “news,” thunderstorms produce “damaging winds, dust clouds and flash floods.” Thunder, which can scare people and pets, and lightning, which can kill people and pets, was not mentioned. The change, “reflects advances in weather forecasting technology,” the reporter said, with a straight face.

———-

4- Gun Lawsuits Misfire

The lamestream media told you:

Reeling from wave after wave of gun crime, cities across America have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers and the gun industry in general, to try to halt the senseless violence they initiate. These righteous lawsuits seek compensation for the acts of criminals, and are being waged by decent upstanding lawyers and smart officials across the land. Efforts to stop the criminals themselves have been hampered by the gun lobby, which seeks to arm criminals and terrorists to increase gun-industry profits, by resisting even sensible gun-control laws, according to protest signs seen at rallies.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Long criticized for using taxpayer funds to stage frivolous lawsuits against an entire industry, and blaming private businesses for the unrelated acts of desperate criminals, experts believe the recent spate of anti-rights lawsuits is actually a cover-up for the failed policies of government agencies nationwide in controlling crime and criminal perpetrators.

With the recent humiliation and resignation of New York governor Eliot Spitzer, a leading figure in the frivolous-lawsuit schemes perpetrated by anti-gun-rights politicians, the National Shooting Sports Foundation has looked into the whereabouts of others who participated in the attempt to close the gun industry through creative legal challenges.

In a shocking discovery, unreported by the same “news” organizations that loudly promoted the lawsuit attacks, a significant number of the lawsuit planners have been arrested, indicted or jailed on a wide assortment of charges. It seems these “valiant fighters for public safety” are in a thick stew of criminal activity themselves. Why this didn’t make page one like the lawsuit stories repeatedly did is unclear.

Charges against the leading figures include tax evasion, embezzlement, mail fraud, money laundering, obstruction of justice, torture of criminal suspects, employment scams, extortion, racketeering, wild junkets on taxpayer money, bribery, questionable land deals, illegal campaign funding, kickbacks, perjury, and of course, direct involvement in prostitution. I am not making this up.

When asked, experts said they were not surprised that people involved in complex legal schemes to remove the public’s civil right to arms, were themselves involved in dozens of crimes. Read the list and details yourself here.

———-

5- Candidates: Three Stooges

The lamestream media told you:

The presidential candidates are campaigning like crazy with some crazy results, but Obama seems to be the nation’s favorite, despite minor problems that only involve his former preacher, and he’s used that to help heal America’s racial divide. Hillary “misspoke” in a recent speech, and McCain is having trouble raising money.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Somewhere deep in America there are people with an extra $65 million on their hands, and they put it in the hands of presidential hopeful John McCain, who is having trouble raising money. His competitors raised even more money, putting him at a disadvantage.

This is the same John McCain who sponsored and pushed through the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law, to get big money out of politics. Records show that numerous McCain contributors have also given money to all the candidates, so no matter who wins, they win, considered a clever strategy now that the effect of big money has been removed. The law also happens to provide prison time for average citizens who mention a candidate’s name in a broadcast ad within 60 days of the election, a minor technicality.

Hillary’s misstatement concerned the foreign-policy expertise she got on a trip to Bosnia, and was widely reported in small stories in the backs of papers, before being headlined on TV news.

“I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Cut her some slack, folks, it’s the kind of simple error anyone could make, and even she called a “minor blip.” The usually reliable AP at the time though reported no extraordinary risks on the entire trip, and TV image re-runs show her smiling and kissing children, with no sniper fire.

As for Barack H. Obama, he’s in such deep doo the Uninvited Ombudsman need not comment, and will instead wait for confirmation of BHO’s statements of blissful religious ignorance — from his wedding and baptism videos reporters are scrounging around to get their hands on.

McCain has not yet renounced his support for the gun-show bill he introduced that, despite his statements to the contrary, would have permanently closed gun shows. Such a retraction would go a long way to rekindling support for him in some quarters, and I am willing to make myself available at any time in any place to receive it.

(The bill, in small print, provides for the imprisonment of the show organizer if any two people, even in the parking lot, discuss the sale of a gun, even a gun they don’t have with them, and subjects them to arrest as well; it is possible McCain was unaware of this, and many other helatious aspects of his bill — like central registration of anyone who exhibits or even walks in — which are detailed in plain English here.)

So, based on news reports, all the candidates are stooges. Is it too late to get someone good to run, so we have someone we can vote for, instead of people we can vote against?

And — do any of these little lies and deceits matter, with big lies floating around unchallenged, like — government somehow has been delegated power to run an insurance company and can manage your health care better than doctors?

———-

6- Armed Government Drunks

The lamestream media told you:

Virginian’s breathed a sigh of relief when governor Kaine wisely vetoed SB&nbs[’476, a dangerous bill that would have allowed the public to go drinking in bars while carrying loaded guns. “We need sensible gun laws to protect the public,” numerous pundits said in prominent news stories for a week. “Guns and alcohol are a deadly mixture, and the governor did the right thing. We don’t want blood in the streets.”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

SB 476, which would have allowed trained, FBI-certified citizens with state-issued firearm-carry permits to carry lawfully possessed sidearms into restaurants, as long as they consumed NO alcohol, was passed by both houses of the Virginia legislature, but vetoed by the governor. This will keep sober citizens disarmed while they eat, for public safety.

In a move that stunned all observers, the governor then signed SB 776, which allows Commonwealth Attorneys and their deputies (the equivalent of District Attorneys in other states) to carry concealed handguns into restaurants AND drink alcohol if they wish. Unlike the public, the attorneys and deputies need NO training of any kind to carry, eat and drink spirits while armed under this law.

“The governor clearly believes in a double standard: one for anyone who works for the government, no matter how unqualified, and one for “lowly” citizens, like you and I,” said Philip Van Cleave, President of the now legendary civil-rights group, the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

“The governor’s mantra about ‘guns and alcohol not mixing’ is just so much BS and the governor isn’t even trying to hide that fact. Kaine’s signature on SB 776 says it all,” Van Cleave said.

The governor, who graduated from Harvard, has publicly denied all this, caught on tape here, but to his dismay, the bills themselves contradict his denials (contact VCDL for the bill specifics). “He tried to play gun owners for suckers and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar,” says Van Cleave, who is pressing the governor for an admission and apology, and asking for a public letter-writing campaign to add pressure to get the truth out.

———-

7- Shooting Outshoots Golf

The lamestream media told you:

Golf tournament this, Tiger Woods that, new high-tech putter blah blah, Master’s Tourney scheduled, Women’s Open, 19th hole drunkenness, all-day coverage, whispering at the putt, PGA, LPGA, now this word from our sponsors.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Firearm and hunting gear sales grew 4.1% in 2006, to $3.7 billion, to reach the number two spot in national athletic and sporting goods sales. This forced golf, at $3.66 billion, down into third place. Only exercise equipment had bigger sales than firearms/hunting gear.

“Bias and deception in the news takes many forms,” according to sources close to the Uninvited Ombudsman. “This one is very subtle but very effective. Give a ton of exposure to one elite white-collar “sport” and make it seem mainstream, then totally black out another bigger sport, and pretend it doesn’t exist, even though people spend more money on it. The impression the public gets then completely distorts the policy debates.”

This is easily measured when the same “news” outlets conduct polls, and find the poll results closely match the stories they hand out, which surprises no one but the uninformed. Many poorly informed “news” consumers inaccurately take it for granted that golf is big time and shooting sports are marginal backwoods hobbies of fat toothless beer-guzzling destitute bubbas in dirty t-shirts living in shacks. This despite the proliferation of high-end firearm megastores like Cabellas, Bass Pro and Academy nationwide.

2006 Sales: Athletic and Sports Equipment Exercise – $5.22 billion Hunting and firearms – $3.71 billion Golf – $3.66 billion Athletic goods team sales – $2.62 billion Fishing tackle – $2.22 billion Camping – $1.53 billion Optics – $1.01 billion Snow skiing – $615.0 million Billiards / indoor games – $570.9 million Tennis – $419.8 million

Included in the hunting- and shooting-related equipment category are firearms ($2.18 billion in 2006 sales), airguns ($224.1 million), ammunition ($977.1 million), knives ($51.8 million), paintball guns/packages ($220.9 million) and reloading equipment ($52.0 million). A study conducted by author Alan Korwin found that Americans buy between five and nine billion rounds of ammunition yearly, none of which goes into crime. “So where does it go?” asked one reporter, incredulously. Downrange, buddy, downrange (and into storage…).

———-

8- Pilots Don’t Carry

The lamestream media told you:

A US Airways pilot’s gun discharged in the cockpit on Tue., March 25. No details were immediately available on how or why the gun fired, where the bullet went, who exactly is going to investigate what or for how long and which of six competing government agencies got notified in what order after the event was over, but at least no one was hurt according to official reports. The passengers were apparently unaware of the incident. It’s the first time a gun went off accidentally under the federal armed pilots program, now five years old.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

After several years of delays in implementing the “armed pilots” program, the federal government decided it couldn’t trust people who fly planes with hundreds of people on board to carry firearms, even though most commercial pilots are former military officers.

Instead, they came up with a scheme, finally enacted, in which pilots would be certified as “Federal Flight Deck Officers,” and the federal officers could then be armed. A person is only an FFDO while on the flight deck, formerly known as the cockpit, and can only possess the firearm there, a jurisdiction of several square feet, probably the smallest in the world. The idea that “pilots are now armed” is just inaccurate enough to bother the Uninvited Ombudsman, who critics say is very picky.

The incident confirms that the wild fears of explosive decompression and downed aircraft, completely debunked during tests and hearings, were baloney. A shot right through the fuselage of a jumbo jet “makes a whistling noise” according to the experts. That’s it. The Goldfinger movie, which prompted many of the ungrounded fears, was a movie.

Airplanes already have gaping holes designed into them to allow fresh air in and stale air out, so passengers can breathe. Later reports indicated the .40 caliber round from the H&K pierced the fuselage on the pilot’s side at about 8,000 feet over Charlotte, NC. Location of the spent round is unknown.

A commercial pilot, speaking on condition of anonymity, criticized “insane” policies of the TSA, and guessed the discharge might have something to do with the massive 4-tumbler-and-key brass lock TSA requires through the trigger guard of the firearm.

———-

See the official Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics here.
Compare it to the news you see every day.

Thanks for reading!
Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman

---

Visit the PAGE NINE weblog.	Sign up for automatic RSS feeds
Contact Alan Korwin	Visit the Gunlaws.com website

 

DATELINE: Scottsdale, Arizona
Offices of Bloomfield Press
Thursday, March 20, 2008

 
It is a most dangerous game we’re playing here.

The major “news” outlets seemed to agree with my assessment (and I went out on a limb with that, 12 hours before any of them), that the High Court seemed ready and willing to unequivocally affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms. [NOTE: see my pre-game and post-game eyewitness reports.]

But it doesn’t end there — it barely starts there. If they affirm, does that mean Gun Laws of America (listing every federal gun law, with plain English descriptions), is erased? How much of it becomes null and void? What about The Arizona Gun Owner’s Guide, or Texas, or any of the others? Are they history?

“Gun laws will be over” is the hysterical cry of the antis — that a pro-rights finding will wipe out every gun law in the country and plunge us into bloody terror. And those are almost the fears of the pros too — any finding less than total uninfringed keep and bear will jeopardize
200+ years of firmly established cherished rights.

That’s why the NRA and the Brady bunch were beyond reluctant to touch this thing. There’s no telling where it could end up. And the prospects, as I see them, are pretty scary stuff. The more I read my ton of inbound email, the more concerned I’m getting.

Not a single Justice or court brief suggested all or even many gun laws must go away, that’s just irrational raving. But whatever standard comes out, the Bradys will be able to make some claims that, “See, this falls within reasonable regulation.” And the pro-rights people will have
openings to challenge some of the more odious laws, and see if they can prevail. No one knows where any of that will lead. We’re back to square one, legislatures, local courts, and the ballot box.

New laws that ban rights may be tougher to enact or even introduce, and pro-rights arguments may have more fuel. Rights-supportive laws may have some obstacles removed, though Texas managed to pass ten of those good laws last session without the Heller case. So who wins in that scenario?

—–

I used to think that a mere 30 minutes for each side’s oral argument was hopelessly small — how could you possibly address a subject adequately in so little time? I no longer believe that. It’s more like the adage, “Work expands to fill available time,” and when time is short — like before a vacation, or at the Supreme Court — you get an enormous amount done in a day or an hour, that otherwise takes weeks.

The level of intensity in that courtroom defies description. The brain power those nine people brought to bear, on top of the months of prep from the litigants, was exhausting. Any more time than we spent would have been overwhelming. It’s a good thing it’s kept to an hour (and this case ran 38 minutes longer, quite rare). You just fit everything in, then declare an ending.

It’s like twilight magic when the Justices walk in through those crimson curtains. There, in one room at one table are the names you know, the faces you recognize, right in front of you clear as day, the most powerful legal minds (politically speaking) in the country, on the planet. And let me tell you, they knew their stuff. I was able to follow most, but not all, the proceedings. Some wrinkles were absolutely new to me, some connections they drew I couldn’t follow (but have begun to unravel in studying my notes and the transcript), and some parts I may never adequately connect. Those of you studying the transcripts (many wrote to say you are) are ahead of me.

The closing gavel bangs. Everyone rises. The nine nattily attired natives exit without delay. They retire to chambers just behind those crisp curtains — and though their actual procedures are not divulged, the process is roughly understood.

Chief Justice Roberts asks the cadre, so where do we stand, and takes a straw vote to gauge things — exactly what we all want to know — and cannot. In this case, he needs to find out:

1. How many of you are with an individual right existing outside any sort of militia service? Probably gets five, some observers suggest maybe even seven, no one I know sees all nine, Stevens being the hardest holdout if it comes to that. Of course all of this is speculative, on our side of the man behind the curtain.

2. Does the D.C. gun ban fail on Second Amendment individual-rights grounds? Everyone (out here) seems to think it must. No way to guess how many in there will find space to toss the 100%-total-ban-on-operable-guns-at-home-in-the-District as an unreasonable limit.

3. Is this individual right to arms (assuming they find one) a fundamental right, making it subject to so-called “strict scrutiny”? Here’s where it gets fuzzy, and concurrences and dissents will tear this apart. Here’s where the NRA types and the Brady types get to sweat, and probably spin whatever decision emerges to suit their ends.

4. What about the off-point issues that came out in the orals and the briefs? What exactly is an “arm” for the purposes of the Second Amendment? (Doesn’t matter to decide solely the D.C. issue, unless you want to adopt the D.C. position that sidearms can “reasonably” be excluded.) Are handguns, rifles and shotguns equal?

How much further than keep-and-bear-only-at-home-for-only-the-District-of-Colombia does this case reach? (Not at all if the Justices stay on point, but they could stray if they wish.) These will not have simple tabulations adding up to nine. These will become dicta — non “holdings” of the case, that will fire discussions for a long time to come. My guess is that every Justice will weigh in on these and similarly fudgy points until the next case arises. And a next case will arise.

5. Who’s going to write this one? The Chief Justice decides, receptive to the wishes and predispositions of his cohorts. Scalia maybe, perhaps Thomas whose interest is already in the prior written record. Smart money says Roberts will write it, it’s just too seminal, too golden an opportunity for posterity. Whoever pens it, they’re all going to get in their say.

Maybe the bigger question is — who’s going to dissent, and what will that say. The losers (out here in the public) will latch on to every word. How will the concurrences add or detract to the main holdings? How much red meat will the red- and blue-leaners on the Court throw their fans? Know this — the Bradys will come out screaming, as will the rights advocates, that we got this, that, the other, and the rest is judicial activism that must be overturned.

6. The most eager (and knowledgeable) Court watchers will, when the decision is released, turn immediately to the last page and look for the word “remand” (meaning nothing is settled), or “affirmed” (and the fun really begins in earnest).

——–

Strict scrutiny is a non-constitutional invention that evolved in the early 20th century around free speech rights. At its core, it says because free speech is a such a fundamental human and constitutional right, any law that seeks to limit it must pass the harshest examination, and mere government interest, even compelling interest in limiting speech must be narrow, explicit, specific to the speech to be limited, easily understood and clearly applicable to any other case that must be tested under the limit.

(In a case called Central Hudson, the Court devised a four-part test for speech bans: 1 – whether the speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading; 2 – whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial; if so, 3 – whether the regulation directly advances the asserted interest; and 4 – whether it is not more extensive than is necessary to serve the interest. If “reasonable regulation” is a linchpin here — a frightening thought — can we expect to see some similar test?)

The reason U.S. Solicitor General Clement (the man who argues the government’s position at the Court) was granted time, was to fight to preserve existing “reasonable” federal gun laws. How many? Who knows. Which ones? No one can say (but machine guns and undetectables were mentioned repeatedly). Will he succeed? Undoubtedly. Undoubtedly.

A felon in prison will not be able to argue even under the wildest fantasy that the right to arms extends into prison even though, say, the right to due process or a fair trial does. The ban on arming a vessel of a foreign power (18 USC 961) will remain standing, no worries mate. Many gun laws serve a legitimate purpose and will not be compromised, despite some rather lunatic ravings to the contrary.

But what about owning some type of firearm currently banned to the public? How about a normal capacity magazine the exact same as police might be issued? How about bans on where you can carry — the known-to-be-dangerous so-called “gun-free” zones? Can bans on tasteful, discreet carry in public by innocent women (or men) withstand strict scrutiny? Is a government license/tax/test/expiration-date/required-papers/fingerprint a “reasonable” limit on the exercise of a fundamental right? There’s almost no end to such speculation. For these we must wait until June and then, it doesn’t end, it begins.

My guess — it’s unlikely the Court will go to such points. This time. They don’t have to, and to reach the greatest consensus they can, they won’t. Locally however, these points will be inescapable in years to come. Elect good representatives this November.

Don’t worry, as some people are, about machine guns and how quickly Mr. Gura “wrote them off.” 1 – They’re not at issue in this case, so it’s immaterial in context. 2 – You don’t want or need to push a court too far, so just stay on point, concede a pointless point, it’s moot. Get Mr. Heller the rights he seeks restored. 3 – Mr. Gura’s remarks are not the deal maker, the Justices’ are. Some of them were just fishing for something to grouse about. It’s fine to tell them, “Sure,” and get back to the business at hand.

The machine gun issue is also particularly sticky because, as the Court pointed out, it is standard issue for soldiers and so very neatly meets a definition of arms the public should have as related to potential militia service and readiness. Way too big and convoluted to go into in Heller, and simply not needed, yet.

It seems to me that the machine-gun issue will be easy for the Court to sidestep because they’re not technically banned, they’re taxed. The main controls are under Title 26, the tax code, not under Title 18, the criminal code, and again, neither matter in examining the D.C. ordinance.

When Congress first enacted those limits in 1934 the record shows they realized they had no authority to ban guns because of the Bill of Rights — but they reasoned they might be able to get away with implementing an insurmountable tax (the $200-per-gun tax was a fortune at the time). Through that mechanism they attached controls, paperwork, financial burdens and tax-evasion penalties that were almost as good as a ban for their purposes then. The courts acquiesced (and that’s a whole ‘nother story). The 1986 ban on no new full autos might be more difficult to justify, but it is just not at issue here at all. Some experts told me Gura was right on the mark handling that as he did. I also bridled though when the words first passed my ears.

Justice Roberts did ask if we even have to go anywhere near these things to settle the issue at hand, and he’s right of course, and will be prudent (read, very narrow) in the scope of this decision. I think they’ll duck all the fodder we out here like to chew, leave those to digest later. They’ve got enough on their plate without it.

Will the presidential election affect those future outcomes? You bet it will, and that may be the biggest question mark of all. Note that the news media has not raised the point. I wonder why.

That will have to hold you for now. Need to get to the 580 emails I found on my return (don’t worry, a lot are “anatomy enhancement” ads and similar spam), and the stack of interviews I’ve agreed to give. I plan to review the “news” media’s coverage of this (some great subtle
deceptions and bias I could only pick up by having been there, along with the usual blatant lying and distortions); Bob Blackmer’s revealing perspectives from his overnight vigil in front of the Court and his mug in full color on page one (B section) of The Washington Times with the protest sign I crafted; the skinny on how we actually got in and what that was like; and more. Now, an hour of streaming audio at Accent Radio Network (you’ll need to get their archive of it if available by the time this gets to you), and my wife wants sushi. Sounds good to me.

I listened to the arguments in the Heller case on C-Span today and I was heartened by the questions from the Justices. I think there will be a ruling that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and that the DC law is unconstitutional. The real question now is: what will the scope of the ruling be??? U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement was the fly in the ointment and I was disappointed in his argument. No telling what damage he may have done, if any, but I think we will be all right. Now the long wait begins and I anticipate it will be the end of the SCOTUS term in June before we will get the result.