Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!

Books

Korwin's Daily Caller Columns

 


They speak for themselves, get more of the good stuff --

http://dailycaller.com/search/?q=Korwin

If Only Gun Control Worked

Gun control won’t disarm the Syrian rebels. Or the Syrian Army. It can’t disarm the Russians, or the Kurds, or any of the combatants in the Middle East. If only gun control could disarm the European jihadis, currently under some of the strictest gun- and crime-control laws in the civilized world. That way, the murderous factions over there could stop murdering everyone. But it just doesn’t work, doggone it.

This is the great flaw with law. It doesn’t work...

Read my national column in Townhall.com

Korwin's 15th book is a comic book

 
 

Talk about changing hearts and minds! This puppy pulls no punches! Watch for it, on press now.

Coming soon, available from Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org and of course from GunLaws.com. Co-written with artist Kjartan "Karno" Arnorsson, and with Ray Carter, it's the continuing adventures of Gran'pa Jack, his grandkids and friends, as they look at the reasons to learn how to shoot. Check out the ferocious villains determined to kill you, cut off your head, set you on fire, beat you senseless, take everything you have -- and all decent people seek is the ability to shoot them if and when the moment arises. Talk to your gun club or rights group, church, tea party, synagogue, legislative district, about getting them by the 100 at deep discount to give to people who need to see this wonderful message.

KORWIN'S 15TH BOOK IS THE NINTH IN THE GRAN’PA JACK SERIES

Columnist E.J. Montini Sets Record

Most gun myths in a single article


http://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/ej-montini/2016/02/27/montini-gun-control-gabrielle-giffords-waiting-period-background-check/80944154/



Ed Montini

The lamestream media told you:


Writing for the Gannett empire’s #2 rag, The Arizona Republic, E.J. Montini, a talented, prolific but virulently biased gun-hating writer may have set a record for the greatest number of anti-rights gun myths in one short column, at 11. Because his paper does not allow rebuttals or even meaningful error corrections, Montini gets away with murder, figuratively speaking.

Montini's name has been submitted as a candidate for a Golden Calf Award, issued periodically by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org, to a person or group who:

"through specific and deliberate action worships at the false god of
deceptively named “gun control” and seeks to undermine the G-d given right
of all people to keep and bear arms for all legitimate purposes."


If you agree Montini is worthy of the award after reading about the contents of this column, please send a memo to JPFO: JPFO@liberty.seanet.com


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Each entry starts with Montini's myth in italics, followed by reality. (Sorry Ed, someone's got to do it.)

1. Polls constantly show 90% of the public support “universal” background check bills.
Reality: These bills call for gun registration, confiscations and arrests, which the polls don’t mention, so the results are a sham. When properly explained, the public is revolted by the plans: "Would you support arresting people if a federal gun registry has inaccurate data on them due to missing guns, missing entries or wrong serial numbers?" And that's the least of what the bills do. Support there is minuscule.

2. The powerful NRA prevents the bills from moving through Congress.
Reality: Though the NRA has an undeniable roll, Congress itself rejects the bills on legitimate grounds and is responsive to the 100 million gun owners who object to being deceived, disarmed or subarmed and press their reps directly (NRA has only 5 million members). Facing irrational and bizarre bills helps the proposals sink.

3. We could ban the sale or possession of armor piercing bullets.
Reality: Armor-piercing bullets are already banned -- only for the public. “Officials” though can have them for use against, well, anyone. The shift in balance of power this represents is too fundamental for most journalists to comprehend. The statism of E.J.'s suggestion here escapes him.

4. We could ban the sale or possession of hollow-tip bullets.
Reality: Because hollow ammo is far safer, police require its use, and the public prefers it. Banning it would be both dangerous and stupid, but people (like Montini) with intact ignorance don’t understand this at all. Police had to have a federal law enacted to prevent similarly ignorant bureaucrats from banning their possession of safe effective hollow ammunition when they travel. The public seeks the same safety officers crave for the same reasons. This myth deserves an apology (well, they all do).

5. We could limit magazines to ten bullets.
Reality: He means cartridges, or rounds of ammo (bullets are one-quarter of a cartridge, but we can decipher him). Because less ammo is extremely dangerous in a firefight when your life depends on it, police and other officials would never accept such a ludicrous suggestion, and always guarantee an exclusion for themselves when such outrageous proposals are made. The public deserves at least such moderate common-sense considerations. Why would you want criminals to have any bullets? Hint: They can have none legally. Why would you want to handicap the innocent? Hint: to salve your own internal hoplophobic terrors. Seek treatment.

6. Codify wider access to mental health records to prevent people with serious illness from buying weapons.
Reality: This of course is already law. Mental health processionals stand in the way for numerous legitimate reasons -- vilifying sick people, discouraging the sick from getting treatment, invasion of privacy, refusal to violate doctor-client privilege, fear of reprisal for failure to properly act and more, but might as well blame the invisible gun forces for the problem, it’s easier and it fits the progressive narrative.

7. Obama tried to do this by executive order but it should be law.
Reality: This is two myths actually. Obama cannot and should not enact law by fiat or executive order, or the nation is lost, and the president should be removed from office for usurping powers not delegated, but liberals like Montini care not for such fundamental values if it suits their ends. And as previously mentioned it is law.

8. Repeal the congressional ban on having the CDC do studies on gun ownership and the effects on public health.
Reality: Because the CDC had operated well outside the bounds of science, any legitimate delegated authority, and had used its vast resources to lobby against gun ownership, a ban on using taxpayer funds to continue campaigning against fundamental rights was and remains entirely appropriate. This is not exactly a myth or error, it is just entirely deceptive and misleading. Private research is still 100% available and can and should be conducted, but its results do not comport with Montini’s wishes, since it shows the enormous social utility of firearms and value of an armed public.

9. Expand gun owning restrictions on people convicted of domestic violence.
Reality: There is already a total denial of the right to keep and bear arms for this misdemeanor. Granted, it is ineffectively enforced, just like "useless, futile" orders of protection (the U.S. Supreme Court's descriptions), something more law won't correct. This is not something Montini seeks to fix, which is really needed. He calls for feckless "expand restrictions" which are already at 100%, not "disarm dangerous people," a total blind spot.

10. Establish a national waiting period for gun purchase.
Reality: Specifically banned by the language of the Second Amendment, the Founders would be appalled at the suggestion. The idea of this delay in exercising the human and civil right to arms has been so thoroughly discredited it is hardly worth repeating.

Expecting a psychotic or other miscreant to get a gun after a short wait, and then to remain reasonable for the rest of all time is insane. Preventing a person who needs a gun immediately for defense is an act of violence and cannot be justified. Conditions suggested for the Second Amendment must be gauged against the rest of the Bill or Rights for validity (e.g., waiting periods to attend church, read books, hold meetings, etc.) and point out the ludicrous nature of such suggestions and the irrational behavior of people making them.

11. “Impulse violence.”
Reality: The belief that a written law will prevent people from being impulsive demonstrates a lack of mental stability in the people seeking to implement it.

Ignorant Reporter Buys Gun, Brags, Sorta

Step in right direction

The lamestream media told you:

In a Christmas-time column for USA Today, columnist Trevor Hughes practically bragged he bought a handgun, despite advice against it from many -- including a colleague who nearly broke into tears about it. Quoting him here:

“I know the devastation handguns can cause… I’ve watched families ripped apart by death… some jerk who couldn’t control himself decided to take out his anger on the world with a weapon… statistics that show I’m at risk, as a middle age white man… of using the gun to kill myself… decision doesn’t make the best logical sense… this decision helps me feel better… I might actually just be making the problem worse… I never fired a handgun (emphasis mine)… [cops that shoot] often miss or accidentally shoot their colleagues or innocent bystanders… Soft targets. What a terrible phrase… For me… San Bernardino was a tipping point… I don’t like feeling like a soft target…”

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


This does not sound to me like a person properly balanced or in the right frame of mind to buy a firearm -- a poster child for statists who would sit in judgment of everyone for anything. The fact the he advertises his psyche is not comforting. As an advocate of liberty however, I wouldn't decide for him or compel his actions by force of law. Since he could obtain a firearm anyway if he wished, even if they were placed under controls as strict as the absolute bans on heroin, cocaine or guns for drug dealers, I would defend his right to get one legally, and advertise that in USA Today as he has done. Instead, I'd say press for training in every school in the nation, instead of the abject ignorance foisted on us by the teachers unions and education establishment, which have this poor soul as misguided as he obviously is.

To his credit, he balanced his almost insane rant with a few other saving graces, including (quoting him here again):


“I’m no longer willing to wait for the government to protect me all of the time… I need to take more responsibility for my own safety…Maybe it’s time we made sure our enemies, both foreign and domestic, understand that we shoot back. I don’t like feeling like a soft target.”


Now I encourage every firearms trainer in Colorado, where Trevor Hughes announced he lives, to find this man who has never fired a sidearm, to locate him, offer him the training and education he so obviously desperately needs, and add one more American citizen to the ranks of informed gun owners that our government and education system discourages.

The rest of us warmly invite you into our ranks Trevor. Bought your first gun before you ever fired one? Hey, you're not the first. It's called "freedom." I'm thrilled you have it. For my part, Mr. Hughes, you have an “open to buy” $100 worth of books from us as a gift, no charge at all, give me a call, I’ll set you up right.

“We Sell Handguns” Sign Banned

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, but the Wall Street Journal did cover the incident with raised eyebrows.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


California’s 1923 gun-control law, one of the state’s earliest, bans signs in guns store windows advertising handguns (but not long guns). So the California Bureau of Firearms threatened to close Tracy Rifle and Pistol, a squeaky clean long-time business for its three small vinyl decals on the outside of the shop. The owner, Michael Baryla joined other gun-store owners and sued because the law infringes his First Amendment right to free speech.

This is reminiscent of The Uninvited Ombudsman’s lawsuit, Korwin v. Phoenix, when the city banned advertising Guns Save Lives, a commercial message, on bus shelters, also a violation of free speech in a commercial setting. Phoenix lost that suit. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the First Amendment protects commercial speech, which includes advertising.

California’s deputy attorney general made the virtually impossible argument that the ban, 90 years old, reduces crime, adding that, according to the Wall Street Journal, “on-premises ads particularly encourage dangerous, impulse purchases of handguns.” California’s 10-day waiting period shows how ridiculous that claim is and how far those bureaucrats will go in attempting to curtail even free speech if it relates to the right to keep and bear arms.

When asked to prove that “impulsive purchases” were more dangerous, the AG testified, There’s no evidence in the record on that point.” Because there can’t be, right?

Wesley Morris, who owns Ten Percent Firearms, found out he can put up a billboard across the street from his store, and as a plaintiff in the case, did so, with a huge picture of a Glock and the wording We Sell Handguns. On the billboard it’s legal, but on his window it would close him down -- an intolerable act.

Brandon Combs of the Calguns Foundation, joining the case on behalf of Tracy Rifle and Pistol v. Harris, was able to show blatant racist roots of the law, designed to keep Chinese and Latino immigrants disarmed. With a trial set for 2017, and appeals expected, free speech will be withheld for a long time. The Guns Save Lives case took four years before Phoenix lost its effort to squelch a positive message about guns. Government, which is supposed to defend fundamental rights, is in the exact opposite business. The people responsible for such travesties belong in prison, but no one expects them to end up there. Yet. (See teeth clauses.)

White House Uses Email to Promote "Gun Control"

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Information received here exposes a blast email from Jesse Moore, White House Associate Director of Public Engagement, in which he urged Hollywood entertainers to use Twitter to promote gun control.

Addressed to “Family,” the Subject line read, “Artists and Entertainers Unite to #StopGunViolence.” “Gun Violence” is the next in a long line of invented terms used by the left to redirect thought from crime and bad behavior to demeaning firearms. The programs essentially ignore criminals and encumber or infringe upon the innocent and civil rights.

FoxNews.com reports the memo read, “Below you have: short and long-term action steps, more info on POTUS’s actions, highlights from your tweets so far (thank you!) and draft tweets for you to build from if helpful.”

The White House press office is supplying propaganda for entertainers to adopt and use on their followers. Actors Ashton Kutcher and Mark Rufallo apparently took the bait and tweeted similar messages to their followers, along with others.

Dan Gainer of the Media Research Institute observed, “This seems an unprecedented abuse of White House influence to manipulate the public into believing celebrities genuinely supported the president. Hollywood is just an extension of Obama’s press office.”

Good Gun Law Identified

“Plinking Encouragement Act” Supports Safety


The lamestream media told you:

Guns are bad. “They should take them away.” Vote democrat and they will. Pro-gun groups should be closed down, this would not violate freedom of speech. [Note: Condensed from may articles to save space.]


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


It has become increasingly obvious that so-called “progressives” are actually responsible for blocking progress, especially when it comes to gun safety and education. Gun-controllers and the left can’t pass any so-called “common-sense gun-control laws” because they aren’t proposing any.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a highly regarded firearms-industry trade group, in a recent cover story about plinking in its Shot Business magazine, made several enlightening observations that have been missed by mainstream publications. Forever. The Uninvited Ombudsman observes the value of these recommendations:

“Encourage parents to review shooting safety rules with their kids. When my dad introduced me to shooting with my first BB gun, he made me feel the safety lesson was an honor:

“Son, you’re about to use a real gun that can hurt people and animals and damage property. It’s a step into adulthood. Used properly, it will give you a lifetime of fun and enjoyment. Used improperly, it can get you into a world of trouble. Be smart and shoot safely.”

It’s hard to imagine the anti-gun-rights advocates adopting such a sane policy, despite their lip service to safety. But the result would be incredibly beneficial, and we can hope. The entire left wing of America could not be reached for comment.

Draft bills are in the works: http://www.gunlaws.com/ModelLegislation.htm. In a spirit of cooperation and as a gesture of good will, conservatives could agree to introduce a marksmanship curriculum to the left's Common Core, and at least expand its appeal across the aisle a little bit. Why would educators object to broadening educational horizons?

Doctors As Gun Control Agents

The lamestream media told you:

"Screen All Adults for Depression, Doctors Told"

Liz Szabo (USA TODAY) – "Primary care doctors should screen all adults for depression, an expert panel recommended Tuesday..."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:


Because "diagnosed" conditions may be grounds for removing your right to keep and bear arms, the firearms community and civil-rights experts are understandably concerned about this broad directive from the government-medical complex. The U.S. Constitution delegates no power to the federal government over medical practice or mental health.

The announcement, made with all the pomp and circumstance of a formal decree, but which carries no actual authority or requirement, suggests that people are potentially incapable of handling their own affairs and that this medical intervention, by government directive, would be in the public interest, serve the public good, and promote the general welfare. Promoting the general welfare is an often used excuse for exceeding the boundaries placed on "government" (i.e., people working in Washington D.C.), through a deliberate misreading of Article I Section 8.

A previous limitation on those people from 2009 is no longer needed, the task force says, because insurers are now conveniently required by federal law to cover costs for treatment.

The revenue increase insurers will get is not mentioned, along with windfalls Big Pharma stands to gain from the recommendation. “Depression is common… painful… treatable” according to one task force member. In the past there wasn’t enough evidence to decide if this would be helpful or harmful. She said medication is common treatment. SSRI drugs, often associated with suicide in people aged 18 – 29 are the preferred drug to sell.

“Mental health advocates praised the task force’s recommendations, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)," who stand to make fortunes if the recommendation takes hold. JAMA is a highly controversial publication representing mainstream medicine and has demonstrated an unfiltered bias in the past and a severe anti-gun-rights position with little or no balance.

According to the article, depression is a major disability in "wealthy countries" like ours, affecting 7% of adults or 16 million people -- a significant market size (my observation, not theirs). They do note 41,000 Americans commit suicide annually. Mr. Obama’s recent emphasis on 20,000 firearm suicides yearly thus informs us guns are involved in less than half of these medical emergencies (unethically sensationalized as "gun violence").

John Snook of the “Treatment Advocacy Center” says we should “take every opportunity to get these people the help they need,” implying they should all be on selective serotonin uptake inhibiting (SSRI) drugs. He did not mention gun-right denial in the USA Today story.

According to the article, the complexities of depression can be screened for with a simple 10-question survey. Doctors are already under fire for “boundary violations,” an unethical practice in which they ask patients if they own firearms, a subject for which most doctors have little or no training whatsoever, but plenty of agenda-driven bias, attitude and ignorance. We are left to guess what might be in the survey.

Caetano v. Massachusetts (part 2)

Supreme Court Protects Armed Women
Caetano Case Overlooked by Media

Part II


by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman (GunLaws.com)

In Part I, we saw how the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Massachusetts decision holding a women guilty for defending herself against a brutal boyfriend, after orders of protection proved "useless."

 

Unspeakable Legal Abuse


Under Massachusetts law however, even though Jaime may have saved her life, her possession of the stun device was illegal, so when police found it later she (not the guy) was arrested, tried and convicted.

To make it stick, the local courts bent over backwards, inventing the argument that, because stun guns didn’t exist in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified, it wasn’t “eligible for Second Amendment protection.” They had unwritten what the Supreme Court had written. She was imprisoned.

The Supreme Court had to take this case to prevent inferior courts from removing the scrotum from SCOTUS. That's partially why it’s unanimous—the lower court was thumbing its nose at the system. (You can almost hear the liberal Justice's bemoaning, ‘Why’d it have to be guns?’)

vulnerable individuals like Caetano
who must defend themselves
because the State will not.

“This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as ‘bordering on the frivolous,’ the argument ‘that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.’ The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not,” Justice Alito wrote, slapping them in his concurrence.

Years of history between this woman and her abusive partner are outlined in the 12-page decision. In typical elitist fashion, while state law denies non-lethal stun guns to the public, it grants them to the king’s men, also called officials and peace officers.

Massachusetts argued further that Caetano must be guilty because stun guns fall within the “traditional prohibition against carrying dangerous and unusual weapons.” But, as SCOTUS notes, “Although the Supreme Judicial Court [of Mass.] professed to apply Heller, each step of its analysis defied Heller’s reasoning.” There was no limit to that lower court’s hubris—Heller emphatically rejected accepting only arms in existence in the 18th century: “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Massachusetts just ignored the rule of law, and cited an unrelated case.

SCOTUS emphasized that “the Second Amendment accordingly guarantees the right to carry weapons ‘typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,’” and that this “is true for the weapons most commonly used today for self-defense, namely, revolvers and semiautomatic pistols.” Front page news. "SCOTUS Declares: Top Self-Defense Weapons Are Revolvers And Semi-Autos!" More crickets.

Electronic stun guns are no more exempt from the Second Amendment’s protections, simply because they were unknown to the First Congress, than electronic communications are exempt from the First Amendment, or electronic imaging devices are exempt from the Fourth Amendment.

When Massachusetts tried to justify its assault on the right to bear stun guns, using a “dangerous and unusual” ploy, the High Court saw right though it and would have none of that either. First, as they point out, it is a conjunctive test, both conditions must apply, and the state’s effort to apply them separately had to fail. But more to the point, as Alito writes, “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” The case notes that “virtually every covered arm would qualify as ‘dangerous.’” So you can see what that lower court was trying to do—outlaw everything—and why the Supreme Court had to step in and slap some sense into them.

Continue reading "Caetano v. Massachusetts (part 2)" »

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at Gunlaws.com

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!