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!


« April 2011 | Main | June 2011 »

Leader of Brady Group Gloats About Coming Gun "Proposals"

Paul Helmke, ringleader of the aggressive Brady Anti-Gun gang, released this statement about the "bipartisan" gun-control meeting the White House scheduled. (Note: The "White House" is a building and can't do anything; the person responsible in that building remains unidentified.) The meeting only included people who want to ban guns, an indicator of the plans, according to unidentifiable experts.

"On Tuesday, I attended a meeting at the U.S. Department of Justice with representatives from the White House, the Vice-President's office, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the FBI, and others from the Obama Administration, along with leaders from the gun violence prevention movement, to discuss how to reach the goals outlined in the President's statement. Officials from the Administration indicated that this was the first of what they hoped would be a series of discussions. They said they had not settled on, or excluded, any relevant proposals.

"I began the discussion by listing basic measures that the Brady Campaign, and others, felt could make a difference. The list included: a strong background check system, with good and complete records of dangerous and irresponsible people, applicable to all commercial gun sales; more tools for law enforcement to stop trafficking in illegal guns; increasing the number and type of military-style weapons, including “assault clips,” that should not be readily available to civilians, like machine-guns and fully automatic weapons. Administration officials then asked questions. My colleagues and I gave examples and arguments for legislative, administrative, and voluntary policies that could help reduce the bloodshed.

Continue reading "Leader of Brady Group Gloats About Coming Gun "Proposals"" »

New Ammo Developed

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing. If it involves the arms industry, you get zero reporting. This is called diversity.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Alliant TechSystems, one of the nation's leading ammunition makers, has announced it has received a contract from the U.S. Navy, worth $49 million. The money has been used to develop a "new special operations ammunition round with improved accuracy, stronger barrier penetration and a lower muzzle-flash."

ATK Security and Sporting developed the round in partnership with the Naval Surface Warfare Center - Crane Division under the Special Operations Science and Technology (SOST) ammunition program. The U.S. has so many ammo and weapons developers your head would spin if the media ever reported on even a fraction of them all. Contracts like this are issued on a regular basis.

The ammo is being produced in 5.56x45mm and 7.62x51mm calibers, and is short-barrel optimized.  It is designed for use with the MK16 and MK17 Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle Weapon System. This is not consumer ammo, but it sure makes you want to try some. Production will be handled at ATK's Federal Premium Ammunition plant in Anoka, MN.  Deliveries are expected to be completed in 2015.

A public company, Alliant trades on the New York Stock Exchange, ticker symbol ATK.

Wyoming Gets Constitutional Carry

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Wyoming has become the fourth state in the
Union to remove the infringement on its residents' right to discreetly keep
and bear arms. Residents of the Equal Rights state, which has the lowest
population of any state in the country, no longer need a government-issued
permission slip to simply carry firearms discreetly, treating firearms
pretty much like any other privately held property.

Although the
law currently only applies to Wyoming residents, experts believe it should
be extended to anyone legally present in the state, as Arizona did when it
enacted similar legislation in 2010.

The national movement to ban
government control of a fundamental human right is expected to gain
traction in the next few years, as everyone learns that freeing people to
exercise their rights does no harm.

NICS Background Checks Expensive, But At Least They're Flawed

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Ph.D. researcher John Lott, author of More Guns Less Crime, has examined NICS and found that it is not what it's cracked up to be. Based on his report:

"NICS accidentally flags many law-abiding people, stopping those who simply have the same name as a prohibited individual from buying a gun. A similar problem occurred five times for the late Senator Ted Kennedy when he was placed on a no-fly list. An initial denial does not mean an individual is actually disqualified from owning a gun."

Using those initial denials to draw conclusions would violate every principle of accuracy, but it hasn't stopped anti-rights bigots from bragging about how good NICS is.

Take the numbers for 2008, the latest available. There were 78,906 initial denials. But of those, only 5,573, or 7%, were referred to BATFE for further investigation. So what about all the rest of the denials?

A report by the U.S. Department of Justice indicates, "The remaining denials (73,333 - 93%) did not meet referral guidelines or were overturned after review by Brady Operations or after the FBI received additional information." Lott makes this clear -- "To put it differently, the initial review didn't find that these individuals had a record that prevented them from buying a gun."

Relax, it gets worse. Of the 5,573 referred for review, over 44%, (2,472), involve "delayed denials," meaning a check hasn't been completed. Only 3,101 covered cases where initial reviews indicated that the person should have been denied buying a gun. "But the government admits that upon further review about a fifth of these referrals involved 'no potential or unfounded' violations of the law, leaving about 4,400 cases. That implies an initial false positive rate of roughly 94.4%," according to Dr. Lott.

Up until this point, the merits of the case has entered the picture. If a review of the records indicates that someone is a prohibited individual, they are included in the numbers. But of these 4,400 cases, only 147 seemed serious enough to refer to prosecutors. Of those 147, prosecutors thought the evidence was strong enough to bring a case only 105 times. Bottom line, 78,906 NICS denials yielded 105 cases, about a tenth of a percent, and that's without knowing if anyone was found guilty. At least, the system only costs us hundreds of millions of dollars.

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead

The lamestream media told you:

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Osama Bin Laden Is Dead.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The U.S. reporting on the apparent death of Osama Bin Laden was disgraceful. A single fact was used for endless hours of repetitious and vacuous reporting. No new news is big news to the “news” media, once big news is released.

The U.S. public was treated to thousands of repetitious images of a vile criminal smiling, shooting guns, holding meetings, teaching, walking -- it was a horrendous tribute to a horrendous criminal, remorselessly played for the public ad nauseum. The repetitious-image approach mimicked the "reporting" of the suspect in the Tucson shooting of Gabrielle Giffords for reasons that were unclear at press time.

Images of Navy Seals training, shooting, swimming, running, deploying in multiple environments from multiple departure vehicles --  the real heroes in the event -- were not shown, because there was no time left after all the stock images of the dead guy day after day, according to experts.

No facts emerged for days, especially the most important facts that were immediately available -- the reaction of Osama's supporters -- vicious and dedicated muslim enemies of the U.S. in nearly 70 nations.

We do know that when the twin towers were attacked in 2001, our muslim arch-enemies, who Mr. Obama assures us we are not at war with, were dancing in the streets and giving out candy. Virtually no muslim stood up to condemn the attack back then, casting doubt on Obama's Osama assertions.

According to at least half of America, Mr. Obama may believe we are not at war with muslims, but muslims believe they are at war with us.

Rumors of Americans now going about fully armed all the time, to deter possible muslim reprisals cannot be confirmed, since smartly armed people do not give up tactical advantage easily.

Al Jazeera TV, available to anyone with an Internet connection, ate the U.S. media's lunch on the issue. While American talking heads were speculating and pontificating, and congratulating themselves on the glorious but ten-year-late victory, Al Jazeera was on the ground in muslim country after muslim country, covering what's going on in the belly of the beast. No grandstand cheering could be found from the religion of peace, now that its most prominent figure was apparently disposed of and, in true Mafia style, turned into fish bait.

Contrary to the words of Mr. Obama, Osama bin laden was not brought to justice, a tasteful euphemism preferred by girliemen in a position of power. He was put to death, a significant difference, especially to the dead person, according to leading experts who refused to be identified. The same experts point out that Obama's Osama victory was due in large measure to Obama's predecessors. Obama's actions in office actually severely weakened our fight against muslims, a fact easily studied with a simple Google search (banning effective interrogations, reducing assets, changing language and terms to protect the religion of peace from oprobrium, etc.).

According to Al Jazeera sources, locals reported a heavy-duty mission underway, with multiple helicopters running with lights off. Contributors in Pakistan (pronounced pock-EE-ston according to Obama) had long believed he was long dead. No clear representation of how much ISI -- Pakistani intelligence -- were involved, and if they were, unclear what reprisals that might generate.

Real news agencies would have Arabic-speaking reporters attending mosques around the world and reporting on what was going on there, you think?

How Is Gabrielle Giffords Doing?

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, except everything is fine. Not even the National Enquirer has obtained and released photos, in one of the most thorough blackouts of information in "news" media history.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

According to a knowledgeable private source in Tucson, where Congresswoman Giffords was assaulted and shot, "she is speaking in one-word and one-phrase expressions, and using a lot of hand gestures. She can take a few steps, and is weak on the right side. She is also expressing great frustration with not being able to say more, and recognizes Nelson. She called him by name." She still holds her democrat seat in Congress, but hasn't voted since the day before the crime. Rumors abound that her handlers will run her for office next time around, regardless of her ability to do the job, and she has gathered large sums for a campaign. We all hope she recovers from her wounds.

Putting Numbers To The “Safest Border” Lie

The lamestream media told you:

Homeland Security Chief Janet Napolitano visited the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday to ensure Americans that it's safe to travel and conduct business across the border. The border is better now than it ever has been." (March 11, 2011). Mr. Obama, the current occupant of the White House, agreed with the assessment, and everyone in the administration, at least publicly, agrees.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Sorry this took so long, but I've now got the numbers for the safest border. The latest figures available (some 2008, some 2009, from multiple sources including an attendee of the recent non-public DHS Security Conference, and the Government Accounting Office) --

463,000 illegals were caught trying to cross the border, the lowest since 1992. That's people caught, about a half million. The total number of crossings is UNKNOWN, so saying it's safer is unsupportable. Captures are down from 1.2 million in 2005, because --

Part of the reason the captures are low, is because Border Patrol has specific orders to send people back across the border, not arrest them and reduce the strwbrain on the judicial and prison systems. If that isn't blatant deception I don't know what would be.

Judicial Watch reports that of the captures, 59,000 are OTMs, Border Patrol's now famous term for Other Than Mexicans.

Of those, 663 were from “Special Interest Nations,” a government way of not saying muslims. No other information on these muslims, or what they had with them, is available. Again, these are only captured muslims, the total number of muslims sneaking in from nations of special interest is UNKNOWN.

The border, which is about 2,000 miles long, includes 129 miles where we can fully control and stop invading illegals, according to GAO. Another 367 miles has what's called “pedestrian fencing,” the kind a pedestrian has to work at to cross.

There's more, but you get the idea. DHS Secretary Napolitano is still in office, despite the travesties perpetrated on the public from her own lips. Rumors that those lips have never kissed a man could neither be confirmed nor denied at press time, and if you want to attack me for an off-color joke, you're one of the reasons I wrote Bomb Jokes At Airports. My latest book points out that otherwise good Americans have soaked up this nonsense about banning speech to protect, well, what exactly? You think banning jokes protects you? If you want to help in the struggle for freedom, get a copy, have some good belly laughs, and learn a mouthful. See hundreds of things you can no longer easily say, as politics cancels the First Amendment. Plus, find out how you can fix the problem.

"Guns Save Lives" Censorship Opposed -- in Court

The lamestream media told you:

The city of Phoenix has censored 50 ads for the educational program of a local gun-safety training association, We oppose censorship in all its forms.

This particular billboard is posted at Deer Valley Rd. and 16th Street, approaching the Deer Valley Airport. It escaped censorship because it is not a Phoenix bus stop.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Although the "news" media steadfastly censors news about firearms, self-defense cases, new firearm products, the shooting sports and basically anything that confirms that guns are good, save lives, stop crime, and help keep America free -- the media is intolerant of censorship by government, and in this case it's a good thing.

On May 11, the The Goldwater Institute's Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation filed a free-speech lawsuit against Phoenix. The city has until the end of the month to respond, seek a dismissal or default in the case. Experts agree the city faces serious hurdles, but it now looks like they will object to the suit, moving the case along. The city changed its rules for bus-shelter advertising in March, after the censorship occured, but the new rules are pretty much just as vague as before, pose similar violations of free-speech guarantees and will not affect the suit. The new city rules for limiting speech in public are posted here, along with full background on the case:

Continue reading ""Guns Save Lives" Censorship Opposed -- in Court" »

Goldwater Institute Files Lawsuit to Stop Arbitrary Censorship of Gun Ads

Korwin v. Cotton Seeks To Protect Free Speech

PHOENIX – Today, the Goldwater Institute filed a legal challenge to the removal of a business advertisement from 50 Phoenix bus shelters in October 2010, claiming the city’s rules are so vague that they allow city officials to violate business owners’ right to free speech.

The Phoenix Public Transit Department says posters for a website operated by TrainMeAz did not comply with city standards for advertising at bus shelters. But city officials cannot explain how the TrainMeAZ ads are substantially different than posters that appear on bus stops throughout the city for other businesses including jewelry stores, fast-food restaurants, and weekend gun shows, said Clint Bolick, the Goldwater Institute’s litigation director.

“Phoenix’s officials can oversee the content of advertising on city property to prevent obscene material or truly inappropriate messages,” Mr. Bolick said. “But the city cannot dismiss ads based on a bureaucratic whim. The free speech protections of the First Amendment and the Arizona Constitution require the city to enforce clear and objective standards that treat advertisers in a fair and equal manner.”

The Arizona Constitution protects free expression to a greater degree than the federal Constitution – it gives every person in the state the right to “freely speak, write and publish.” But the City’s ordinance permits only commercial speech at bus stops, prohibiting all other types of advertisements. This doesn’t comply with the state’s broad speech protections. In Arizona, the government may not favor one type of speech over other types.

The TrainMeAz website was created in 2010 to connect self-defense and marksmanship trainers with potential customers. To grow the new business, the website launched a promotion campaign that included roadside billboards. It also contracted for poster locations with CBS Outdoors, a private company hired by the Phoenix transit department to manage advertising at city bus stops. A week after the bus stop ads were in place, Phoenix transit officials ordered their removal. Negotiations to restore the ads failed, as the city claimed the posters did not propose “a commercial transaction.”

“If this is left unchallenged, there’s a serious risk that bureaucrats will apply their own personal views to determine which ads are accepted or rejected, violating the First Amendment’s protection from arbitrary government censorship,” Mr. Bolick said. “A vegetarian transit official could reject ads featuring fast-food burgers, or a conservative official could reject ads for businesses associated with liberal causes.”

The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents TrainMeAz LLC and company manager Alan Korwin in this legal case. The Goldwater Institute has requested the courts strike down the city ordinance on bus shelter advertising, so that a new version can be adopted that provides clear standards for the transit department to follow. As an alternative, the courts also could determine that TrainMeAz’s ads should not have been removed.

Read more about this and other Goldwater Institute cases to protect individual rights and uphold the Constitution at The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

Phoenix Censorship Challenged

The Goldwater Institute today filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, alleging unconstitutional suppression of free speech. The city in October last year had censored a set of gun-safety-training advertisements posted under contract by TrainMeAZ LLC, a coalition of members of the firearms industry. (Goldwater's announcement is at the end of this email.)

The group's website,, displays the censored “Educate Your Kids” promotional ads, along with others the group has erected around the state. A total of 50 illuminated bus-stop ads had been posted around the city under contract for about one week before Phoenix told its contractor, CBS Outdoor, to tear down the printed messages. CBS replaced them with public-service announcements and some out-of-date older ads to fill the space. See the censored ads here:

“My jaw dropped when people began to call asking where our ads went,” said Alan Korwin, author of The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide and manager of the TrainMeAZ program. “We were getting great responses when the city let us know they had decided our ads were unacceptable,” he said. “What power do they have to sit in judgment of our free speech? We began an active dialog with the city about the content to which they objected. While we awaited the next phone call, they had them all torn down literally overnight, without notice,” Korwin said.

The suit charges the city with several violations of fundamental rights. First, the Phoenix transit advertising standards on their face impose greater restrictions on noncommercial than on commercial speech, which is unconstitutional.  The standards are also impermissibly vague, and are arbitrarily and unequally applied -- for which there is substantial proof -- all of which are constitutionally unacceptable. From the complaint: “Because defendants are violating plaintiffs' federal and state constitutional rights to free expression, due process and equal protection, the transit advertising standards as written and enforced cannot stand.”

The free-speech clause of the Arizona Constitution is generally considered a stronger protection of rights than the federal First Amendment protection. This is because Arizona specifically guarantees a right, as opposed to simply preventing government from acting against the right. The state Constitution says:

6. Freedom of speech and press
Section 6. Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right.

The ads featured a bright red heart with the words, “Guns Save Lives,” and a headline reading, “Educate your kids.” Though the website is filled with commercial shooting ranges and training opportunities for people to hire and use, the city claimed the ads were non-commercial and public-service advertising, both of which it claims it can censor.

A survey of ads posted at the time revealed numerous public-service ads and others that did not explicitly “propose a commercial transaction,” which the city claims is a prerequisite for all ads. This suggests it was actually the content to which the city objected, a speech restriction government cannot legitimately make. At the least, the standard is inconsistently and arbitrarily applied. The city in no uncertain terms publicly stated at a meeting that the non-headline content-rich text of the ad had to be removed. That text can be read at the bottom of the home page. Content-based censorship has virtually no support in the legal system.

A series of announcements is planned as the case proceeds.

The Goldwater Institute has set up a web page to track the case:

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!