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!


Virginia Gun Laws on the Move

Anti-rights bills defeated, good bills alive

A few good bills have died unfortunately

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, as usual. A bit of lamenting has appeared in the lamestream, ever since Hillary's plans to confiscate and destroy the public's firearms—the Australia plan she and the entire democrat party touted before her campaign crashed and burned—but positive news about guns and gun laws remains heavily suppressed as always. Heavy losses at federal and state levels has not changed the media. They remain as biased and twisted as ever.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Virginia Citizens Defense League -- a national leader in how gun-rights are done at the state level -- are on the march and have moved the ball down the field. From their latest report:


First piece of good news is that we’ve managed to either kill or neuter all of the 37 gun-control bills that were introduced this year! [Take note -- legislators who are supposed to protect and defend the Constitution have introduced 37 bills to cut off or limit your right to arms. Criminals are unaffected by the new bills, because guns are already completely outlawed for criminals, a point always omitted in "news" reports. Alan.]


* Blocking CHP information being shared with states that don’t honor VA CHPs

* Legalizing switchblades

* Circuit Court Clerk to email notice of expiring CHP to permit holder

* Active duty or honorably discharged military under 21-years-old can get a CHP

* CHPs can be either laminated or plastic

* Protective orders become a temporary CHP for the person being protected

* Victims of certain crimes, such as domestic violence, can get free firearms training

* Gun owners cannot be disarmed while in an emergency shelter

* A photo ID must be provided when applying for a new CHP or renewal, but the application will no longer need to be notarized

* For a CHP address change, no proof of new address will be required any more

* Limited immunity when reporting an act of self-defense using 9-1-1

* Restoration for firearms rights for a person who had been adjudicated mentally defective, but no longer lives in Virginia

* Foster care parents can legally have a firearms on their person while at home

* Gun owners who vote in polling places that prohibit guns can vote absentee

* State law on “restricted ammunition” updated to take into account modern ammunition technology

* Possession of antique/black powder firearms by non-violent felons for purposes of hunting or recreational use legalized


* Constitutional Carry

* Restoration of legal fees for a person who was involved in a justifiable use of self-defense

* Codification of church carry (pulled by patron)

* Sales tax exemption for purchase of a gun safe

* Income tax deduction for purchase of a gun safe

* Reduction in CHP fees


Arizona's activists are following no less than 30 bills of importance to gun owners. Read a summary of each, the actual language, support/oppose ratings, and join the easy effort to win or lose here:

Of these bills, 11 are harmful to our rights, a few need to be watched, and the balanced would be good for us, controlling the authorities, protecting our rights, preventing monkey business with the ballot initiative and referendum process. Those citizen initiative tools are the latest in the gun-rights struggles. Billionaire anti-rights zealots Soros and Bloomberg are using their wealth to sway popular opinion regardless of facts, pay enormous sums to gather signatures, often under false pretenses, and push through policies legislatures and the federal government would other wise never pass.

Do not underestimate the power of bad people with bags of money and an agenda to make the public subservient to their armed will. They want you disarmed, but they stand protected by walls of armored heavily armed troops. For safety. 


This might be OK for our military,
but it has no place in civilian police forces.
When political elites want you disarmed,
but this is what they have instead of police,
you know in your heart something is wrong.
You only think you're armed
if the other guy is armored,
defeating the 2nd Amendment entirely.

What do you think people living in
"communities of color" think of this?


Tucson Melting Guns. Again

We banned this by law. They're ignoring it.

But this law has teeth, and it's biting.

Tucson is melting down guns it acquires. Again.

Arizona passed law specific banning this wasteful practice, and now state attorney general Mark Brnovich has taken action, required by law (this law has teeth!), to stop Tucson from illegally melting down guns.

State law requires cities to preserve this property, worth millions, instead of the politically correct nonsense happening there. But the case exposes something even deeper than withholding state shared funds, the $170 million penalty Tucson faces, that has one of our local columnists concerned.

If Tucson, regardless of its political structure, somehow has the power to destroy guns it acquires, (it does not have the "right," as the paper incorrectly says repeatedly, more grating to the nerves than hearing democrats constantly call our Republic a democracy), then nothing stops it from destroying cars it impounds -- or anything else.

The city must have an obligation to preserve, protect and defend the assets it acquires. This is public property of enormous value and cannot be wantonly senselessly destroyed. The reason these guns are being municipally melted is a sign of a sickness -- hoplophobia -- and pure gunism, blind hatred, with flagrant disregard for private property and the rule of law. The people who implement these policies need remedial counseling, possibly even penalties. Does destruction of public property come with no repercussions? Who covers the loss?

Can you imagine demanding the destruction of impounded vehicles, because they are more dangerous to life than guns? And they pollute Earth? Do they realize firearms have to move through FBI background checks, they're not "put on the streets" as media likes to help these weird politicians frame it. Cars are on the streets. Melting guns is irrational fear run wild, by politicians barely fit to serve.

FBI background check registrations are insufficient to these people. They begged and pleaded and campaigned for background checks, and now want more, but they're obviously not enough. The smelter is the real issue.

This is the topic Tucson raises -- violation of law by elected officials in pursuit of the same irrational perverse goal their fellow leftists pursue at everyone's dangerous expense. It is an impossible attempt to quench their paranoid fears by suppressing the rights of innocent people everywhere. The notion of guns in the public's hands is simply unacceptable to them. It's not political, it's medical, they're hoplophobic, and a dire threat to freedom. Their unbalanced actions qualify them for removal from setting public policy and destroying valuable public property in the process, in violation of law.

My White Paper on melting guns details the counterproductive nature of these feel-good plans, and the unintended harm they actually cause, written with a Harvard expert:

Stop The National Carry Permit

"Gun Guys" Are Pushing In Wrong Direction

Misguided effort to restore rights can destroy rights

Will NRA, GOA and others get it right?

The lamestream media told you:

"Do you have a firearms carry permit Mr. Trump?"

"Are you for law and order?"
"Yes. Law and order is very important."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The last thing you ever want is to have the federal government issuing national -- or any -- firearm carry permits.

The feds do not have this power. The feds should never have this power.

Your right to have a firearm anywhere in America should never depend on getting "papers" from any government, much less the federal powers in Washington, D.C.

If you have a gun -- constitutionally protected private property -- and you aren't doing anything inherently wrong, that should never be a crime. There is no victim. No one is harmed. No actual crime is committed. The idea that you need a wallet card to be somewhere you have a legal right to be is preposterous.

Too many gun owners, including some leaders of the gun-rights movement, sincere but totally misinformed and misdirected, are salivating for our permit-carrying president elect to issue some sort of national carry plan. It cannot, must not, better not be a national permit in any way shape or form.

The best solution

The best plan to resolve the travesty of national gun-rights denial Americans have suffered under for generations -- worse than racism -- is to repeal the restrictions that deny your rights. You don't need no stinkin' permits to be black and we don't need no stinkin' permits to be peacefully in possession of property.

Repeal restrictions
on the right to bear arms.

The next logical step would be to arrest and charge officials who under color of law deny a peaceful person's civil right to possess arms. Denial of rights is a federal felony under 18 USC §241 et seq. You can't just deny a person's constitutional, civil and human rights because you don't like those rights. That's got a name. It's gunism, like racism. This law 18-241 and the ones that follow it were written to prevent haters from denying blacks their rights. Everyone has fundamental rights that need the same protection.

Continue reading "Stop The National Carry Permit" »

Growth in Arizona Gun Law

You've heard the speculation and nonsense.

Here's the math:


These are the word counts for the law section, Appendix D, of this and previous editions of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide. The increases are caused by two factors—the discovery and inclusion of new sections of gun law (e.g., security guards, game and fish department, military affairs and emergency management, etc.), and the enactment of new laws by the state legislature, which has been occurring every year in recent times. Reductions, through amendments and repeals, also occur, but the net difference has been an increase since we began doing tracking. Gun laws are growing nationally, with no end in sight. Our gun laws here have tripled in 20 years. Politicians who claim they can’t pass more gun laws are either ignorant or deceptive, which is worse.

Hillary Insists: No-Fly No-Buy for Guns

She confirms her stance in 3rd debate.

"Gunism" runs rampant in lamestream media and leftist circles.

Ignorance, prejudice, bias are front and center when the subject is firearms.

Reporters fail to ask even the most basic questions:

If you can't fly, why can you drive?

Why are you even out walking around?

How can a person be too dangerous to go through a metal detector?

What are they charged with, exactly?

Nothing, except the prejudice of gunism.

We should take away all their other guns too, if they can't buy a new one, right?

It makes no sense to deny a person a flight, but let them keep all their guns, based on a secret police list you can't see -- that they're not told they're on, that only keeps them from buying new guns at retail. Does that get you confused too?

The whole idea makes no sense, but the democrats cheer like crazy. Like crazy.

It sounds like proof.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The idea that Hillary wants to ban your right to have a gun with a list she can write your name on has a name -- it's called tyrannical.

It's not about air safety.

Trump Pfumpfers Through No-Fly-Fraud

The No Fly Scheme Seems Attractive -- But It's Tyranny

They didn't get the memo?

The lamestream media told you:

During the first presidential debate, Trump, flustered and unprepared, almost said he thinks the secret-police no-fly list is a good way to deny gun rights. In typical unfortunate fashion, as the transcript here shows (his thoughts are disjointed, but you can sort of get his gist from his incomplete sentence fragments):

“First of all, I agree, and a lot of people even within my own party want to give certain rights to people on watch lists and no- fly lists. I agree with you,” Trump told Hillary*. “When a person is on a watch list or a no-fly list. I have the endorsement of the NRA, which I'm very proud of. These are very, very good people, and they're protecting the Second Amendment.” “But,” he continued, “I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn't be on there, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly.” (Agree with what exactly?)

He later tweets: "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."

Moments later the NRA responds: Happy to meet @realdonaldtrump. Our position is no guns for terrorists-period. Due process & right to self-defense for law-abiding Americans

NRA's Chris Cox, same day:

“The NRA's position on this issue has not changed. The NRA believes that terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms, period. Anyone on a terror watch list who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing. If an investigation uncovers evidence of terrorist activity or involvement, the government should be allowed to immediately go to court, block the sale, and arrest the terrorist.

At the same time, due process protections should be put in place that allow law-abiding Americans who are wrongly put on a watch list to be removed. That has been the position of Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) and a majority of the U.S. Senate.  Sadly, President Obama and his allies would prefer to play politics with this issue.”

*In a lengthy anti-gun-rights monologue, Rodham-Clinton included this: "And we finally need to pass a prohibition on anyone who’s on the terrorist watch list from being able to buy a gun in our country. If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun." The no-fly list is a small (70,000) sub-set of the terrorist watch list (about 1 million). "Buy a new gun" and "have lots of guns" are different, one without the other makes no sense, and journalists, predictably, never ask about such things.

When the bill gets drafted, typically, it bears little resemblance to public statements. The current bill is an uncontrolled grant of power to authorities to regulate transfer of firearms, under the rubric of a no-fly something or other:
"No district court of the United States or court of appeals
of the United States shall have jurisdiction to consider the
lawfulness or constitutionality of this section..."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Forget what Rodham-Clinton said ("If you’re too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a gun.") --

If you're too dangerous to fly, you're too dangerous to be out walking around free. Right?

Should some reporter somewhere have asked her about that? What's wrong with these people? (The reporters, we know what's wrong with jihadis who should not be out walking around.)

Don't Airport Checkpoint Scanners Work On These People?

You're not telling us checkpoints are just for show and don't work, are you?

If people are too dangerous to get on a plane to Cincinnati,
why can they go there by AmTrak, or Greyhound, or car, or on foot?

Who are these people? (It's a secret.)
Are they even charged with anything? (No.)

You mean the Constitution has been suspended for American citizens,
because they're named on a police list -- in secret? A secret-police list?

Can politicians do that -- and remain in office?
Doesn't that violate the oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution? (It does.)

Are Americans awake?
How can you run for office with that as a platform?

The entire tyrannical travesty is spelled out here:

No-fly no-buy is a subtle but seductive error of logic --
and violates everything America stands for. For example:

Q: If you can't buy a gun,
what about all the guns you already have?

Didn't the moderator think about that?
Didn't you?
Rodham-Clinton is coming for your guns.


Attack On Gun Rights Takes New Shapes

Bureaucrats assume new roles—
testing waters for future administration?

Why use Congress when infringement works without representation?

Abuses skyrocket, but armed public remains quiescent

1. Gunsmiths (in theory at least), according to new "rules" put in place without Congress or public representation or approval, can't operate without international defense materiel qualifications and excessive fees and paperwork. This could force most of them out of business, into bankruptcy or into felony violation of the new "law" (actually, AECA and ITAR import/export regulations, even if you are a strictly domestic operation). Very clever attack on the part of the current administration -- it's another Hussein-Obama executive order.

2. A crucial gunpowder component (nitrocellulose, needed for smokeless powder which has been the key ingredient in what's commonly but inaccurately called gunpowder for decades) has been deemed an explosive by BATFE decree without notice or rationale. This virtually eliminates its transportation or storage by traditional means, by powder manufacturers and others in the manufacturing and distribution chain. Industry experts are (foolishly in my opinion) seeking a delay in implementation of the surprise ruling, instead of the identification of the people who invented this outrageous travesty, and demanding their ouster, with punishment, along with their superiors who facilitated this gross constitutional infringement. This sort of deliberate malfeasance should not go unpunished. Who gave the order? Who do these people think they are?

3. A medical marijuana CARD (not use) is now Second Amendment disqualification, according to a decision of the uber-liberal federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. In a case with no parallels, a woman who obtained the card to show support for the medical-marijuana movement -- but who doesn't use pot -- has been disqualified from her constitutional rights, for possession of the plastic card. Wherever you may stand on the drug issue, even the statute itself requires drug use, not government permission-slip possession. In its decision, this Court introduced the idea that you might not be sufficiently mentally OK at times to bear arms, so summarily removing your rights is totally is fine. Whether this applies to beer, over-the-counter medicine that might cause drowsiness and any other mental evaluations was not addressed, but surely can't be far behind in the minds of those who can come up with a decision like this, would seek any means to control the public.

I have said for years:

1- Federal government lacks any legitimate delegated constitutional power to control vegetables (which describes cannabis). The power they assert here is usurped. They could attempt to gain the power legally, but haven't, understanding they might not succeed and the failed attempt would demonstrate they have no authority in the field.

2- Federal government lacks any legitimate delegated constitutional power to control drugs (which marijuana apparently is). The power they assert here is usurped, and has been for decades, even if the public likes the drug prescription system, the various bans, wild price supports, cartels, lack of access and all the rest that goes with usurped powers.

3- With this ruling it is now much more clearly dangerous to your rights to get marijuana from the government cartel than from the Mexican cartel. The government cartel can strip you of your freedom, with massive invasive forces behind them. The Mexican cartel just takes your money. Both can shoot you if they so choose. You can shoot back, of course, but you know where that gets you. If it's against the Mexican and related cartels, your story gets buried, along with you. If it's against the government cartel, you end up on page one, along with the compound you live in, for days.

Korwin at American Handgunner

FYI, American Handgunner has a bunch of my articles posted in one convenient place here if you'd like to take a look.

The Helpless-Victim Myth

“If I Had A Gun The Crook Would Just Take It”

by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman (

Originally published in The Daily Caller, June, 2016

If this myth had any serious grain of truth we'd be in a world of hurt, because guns would be useless oxymorons and we'd be defenseless slaves by now. Everyone would be slaves, even the slave masters. This myth could never work. It's circular logic that never ends. Lookit:

If you had a gun to protect yourself, but the crook could just take it from you, you wouldn't need a gun. You could just take the crook's gun and use that.

Folks, guns just don't work that way. If they did, guards could never guard anyone, slaves could simply shoot their masters, the masters could then just shoot the slaves, it's absurd. The one with the gun gets things done son.

“The crook would just take it” myth has enormous value because it lights up the  scrambled eggs that pass for brains in the progressives and anti-rights bigots who offer up that silliness when the issue of self defense and guns is addressed.

So many of the people we battle over our gun rights are so terrified of guns they can only picture themselves like Don Knotts from the Andy Griffith show, fumbling and bumbling, doing themselves total harm and failing incompetently, with the crook masterfully overpowering them.

Guns Make You Strong

Anti-gun-rights advocates have no idea of the empowerment a firearm provides. They have no space in their psyche for true empowerment, the very idea is abhorrent and inconceivable. So they concoct this magic of a gun simply being wrested away, instead of fired and stopping an adversary cold. Isn't that what the gun is for?

The party of the teachers union (democrats), the people who consider themselves so much better educated and capable than the knuckle-dragging republicans who tout and laud guns -- how ironic that they are the ones who can't imagine having gone to a class and learning anything about a gun before venturing out with one and getting it snatched.

The idea that they might be trained, know how to hold onto the darned thing, grip it tightly, keep their distance, even know how to avoid the criminal in the first place... All their minds fill with is this notion that: “If I had a gun the criminal would take it and then I'd really be in trouble.”

Can you imagine living your life like that? Never feeling a sense of competence, ability, feeling like an adult who could handle and persevere in a difficult situation, especially given the overwhelming power a gun provides? God made us, Sam Colt made us equal. Not in their book.

Sure, it is possible to lose a firearm in a struggle. Police are shot with their own firearms. There are retention holsters and retention techniques and all sorts of steps a person can take to prevent that frightful awful experience from occurring. Shoot happens. But hinging your safety on the idea that a criminal might best you in an incident, and so deciding not to be able to respond, well, that's a choice you're free to make for yourself, but not for anyone else.

If a person doesn't want a gun because they harbor an internal terror that an attacker might get it (and I've met plenty of people like this) I counsel them in no uncertain terms, “You should NOT have a gun.” That puts their fears to rest. Sometimes. Takes the pressure off. Whew, I don't have to have a gun. No one ever really told them that in so many words. Release. I would never insist a person have a gun, and in fact I know people who I'm convinced should not have a gun, for all kind of reasons.

On the other hand, once some people hear that, especially “I think you should never have a gun,” some of them feel left out, a sort of, “What, you're special and I'm not?” kind of reverse psychology motivation, and suddenly the only thing they're interested in is owning a gun. Or three. They're not all too happy living with their recognized 'fraidy cat disability. Might maybe I should try that more often.


They Don't Want Your AR-15: They Want Everything

The “news” media is ranting the democrats familiar song, after a muslim jihadi committed atrocities in a gay nightclub: “We must ban the AR-15, a weapon of war, it has no place in the public’s hands. Why does anyone need an AR-15 to murder Bambi?”

It doesn’t matter to the “fair and balanced“ media that the mass murderer (not “gunman,” a deliberate derogatory sexist slur against men—and guns) didn’t use or even have an AR-15.


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

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!