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

« May 2013 | Main | July 2013 »

Gun "Buyback" Crimes Possible

GUN "BUYBACK" FIASCO

"Mayors Against Guns" Involved

Was Bloomberg's Out-Of-State $200,000 Involved?

Anonymous funds spent, no investigations, tight lips, stonewalling could hide 2,000 straw-purchases, state-border felonies, more

The whole program was filled with feel-good hoaxes that "are doing zero percent for public safety." -Phoenix Law Enforcement Association


GUN "BUYBACK" FIASCO
POSSIBLE CRIMES INVESTIGATION




Can private person buy 2,000 guns with no license?

$200,000 "anonymous funds" adds to mystery

Mayors Against Guns involved, is mayor Bloomberg too -- or his cash?

Guns could "walk" with police help, lack of oversight

Where is BATFE when you need them

"News" media cheerleads instead of investigating

Nationwide phenomenon gets little scrutiny

Major legal questions emerge:




   How does federal law allow $200,000 firearm purchase without paperwork

   No FFL present, no 4473 forms filled out

   2,000 guns bought without BATFE Demand Letter 3 compliance

   What is the procedure for repeating this procedure



NOTE: My Arizona readership already saw the first part of this story in an eblast -- the state newspaper decided not to run it because it contradicts virtually everything they said about the glorious "Phoenix Gun 'Buyback' Program." They championed it like it was the State Fair. My report (reprinted at the end) revealed it for the expensive vain hoax it was. They didn't like having their laughing-gas balloon deflated.

The second half below is breaking news -- connect the dots on two thousand (2,000) guns bought with washed money -- $200,000 delivered by an unknown bag man (one police officer suggests bag men) and no publicly disclosed investigation.

Continue reading "Gun "Buyback" Crimes Possible" »

Help Stop Bloomberg's Gun Grab Today

GUN RIGHTS HANGING BY A THREAD
Call the Nevada Governor.
Dial 1-775-684-5670 and press “2.”

The Nevada legislature recently passed legislation, SB 221, that would require private firearms transactions to be recorded by a federal firearms licensee (FFL) and sent to the FBI.

If Nevada's Governor signs this bill, it will be a signal to the anti-rights bigots that they can accomplish the same thing in your state.

SB 221 is now waiting for a decision by Nevada’s Republican Governor, Brian Sandoval.

He is opting to see which way the political winds are blowing before making a decision.

He has set up a hotline for people to call in and express their opinion by simply pressing a button on their telephone.

All you need to do is call 1-775-684-5670 and press “2” to tell Governor Sandoval that you want him to veto SB 221.

You don’t have to live in Nevada.
You don't have to leave your name or address.

The entire process is automated and takes about 15 seconds.
And, you can call as many times as you want! Do it.

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has invested his significant wealth in the passage of SB 221 and is generating calls into the Governor’s hotline right now, encouraging Governor Sandoval to sign the universal registration bill.

If it can happen in Nevada, it can happen in your state.

Call 1-775-684-5670 right away and press “2” to tell Governor Sandoval to veto SB 221.

I got this alert from The Arizona Citizens Defense League http://www.azcdl.org, an all volunteer, non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization in my state.

They got it from Gun Owners of America http://gunowners.org/alert06072013b.htm.

I read the bill myself to make sure this was for real. It is. https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/SB/SB221_EN.pdf

The 28-page bill has other material attached, but the universal gun registration part is all bad. It is not even clear if a state can force federal gun dealers to register private gun transfers, accept liability for guns they don't sell, guns which may have been stolen or are defective, and it will block all guns sales when the feds close the NICS background check center, which they do from time to time. Then you can't buy a new gun or a used gun from a friend -- especially in an emergency.

Make the call. You know Bloomberg has his minions calling right now.

Call 1-775-684-5670 right away and press “2” to tell Governor Sandoval to veto SB 221.

The U.N. Is Preparing Global Gun Control

The lamestream media told you:

Part I: The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty has collapsed in complete failure. (That was back in June 2012; that was a complete lie, a perfectly good draft treaty had been written and was a good first step, as these things go). You can read it in plain English:http://www.gunlaws.com/Page9Folder100up/PageNine-114.htm

Part II: The final negotiating conference on the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty has failed to produce a Treaty Text that achieved consensus approval, to report to the U.N. General Assembly. It sounds like the wonderful effort by the glorious U.N. for an international ban on horrible guns has ended in failure.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Here's what really happened. In an effort to get unanimous support, called "consensus approval," the U.N. negotiating conference voted on an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) draft and got three "no" votes -- from the worst human-rights violators known to man -- Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They wanted to be free of the U.N.'s proposed controls, which is a good thing in a bizarre sort of way, but it won't stop the U.N.

That vote just kicked the whole thing up to a vote of the General Assembly members, for a less prestigious, but easier-to-get approval of the "Resolution" which has the same language. On April 3, 2013 they got 154 yeas, 3 nays (the same ones) and 23 abstentions. The U.S. voted "yes" (but that doesn't mean we adopted it). Russia and communist China were among the abstentions. This puts the draft in play, and instructs the Secretary General to open it up for signatures.

When 50 nations sign it -- and get it ratified by their governments -- and deposit that ratification with the U.N., the treaty enters into effect, 90 days later. That vote opens on June 3, a few days away. It is expected to pass. Our president is expected to sign it, which is an action taken solely by the Executive Branch, and is only for show. Sorta. The media and the antis will treat like an act of Greatness.

For it to become law here though, it would need ratification by 2/3 of the Senate (normally 67 out of 100 votes), and that is highly improbable. Now. But it will hang over our heads literally forever. Procedural trickery could possibly achieve "two-thirds ratification" with fewer than 67 votes, but that's another story.

You will see a flood of stories from the "news" soon assuring you the ATT has little affect on the Second Amendment. That's simply false. I'm also predicting a new narrative that bombards us with a sense that we are "out of compliance with the international community," and that our gun laws are "anachronistic," (old fashioned), no longer appropriate, that the world is sneering at us, that we should get with the program, and even that this should be the law even without it being the law, and we should obey. The "news" media is becoming one of the greatest impediments to freedom by campaigning for an agenda instead of reporting what is.

"Small arms" are right there in the treaty language. Signatories are required to create "national control lists" of all arms and ammunition imports and exports, and since this includes parts and even metals used, it's a very broad brush. Fine imported guns could be severely affected (can you say Glock?) Make, model and end users are covered, the U.N. is supposed to get copies of the lists, and the U.N. is supposed to give copies to every other participating nation, who are encouraged to make the lists public. "Improvements" are supposed to be made by amendment after six years.

Will this affect the tyrants, dictators, mass murderers, human-rights abusers, genocidal maniacs, people who want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth and others who it is ostensibly aimed at? An extensive analysis in the Penn State Law Review by Kopel, Gallant and Eisen (Vol. 114, No. 3) concludes that the ATT "would have no more effective force than the arms embargoes that are already imposed by the U.N. Security Council... accordingly, the ATT is a distraction."

The authors point out that, "Control Arms, the leading international gun prohibition lobby, forthrightly acknowledges that, every one of the 13 United Nations arms embargoes imposed in the last decade has been systematically violated."

80% of Kids Die From Undisclosed Causes

The lamestream media told you:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/05/11/children-protection-gun-violence/2079177/

Nearly one in five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents involve firearms, reports Liz Szabo, a reporter whose anti-gun stories are regular features in USA Today, a "news" paper with one of the worst anti-gun bias records in America. Thanks to First Amendment protection, they can spin stories and spew propaganda or anti-rights bigotry without any media control.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

More than four out of five injury-related deaths in children and adolescents do not involve firearms, but framing a story this way is banned by USA Today bias requirements. It is more important to imply fear of guns to readers, than to warn parents that 80% of the lethal risks their children face are from, well, the story doesn't say. Szabo is a winner of the excellence-in-media award.

"Why attack guns, when you could help more than 80% of parents keep their kids safe?" asks the Uninvited Ombudsman. "Do they have an agenda, rather than reporting the news and keeping the Republic informed? Can we bring these reporters up on some sort of ethics charges? Do they even know what harm they do, attacking fundamental rights while hiding lethal truths from the public?"

Unfortunately the answer is no, they know not what they do. They actually think they are doing good. It's unclear if "youths involved in accidents" includes "gangbangers in ghettos shooting each other," a frequent wording problem in lamestream reports.

USA Today story that encouraged gun ownership, and spoke highly of the many people who are alive today because they were armed and shot hardened criminals, well that story never ran in that paper, though it could run as often as the scare tactics do. This is called ethics. Makes me ashamed of those colleagues.

NICS Operations Stats Too Horrible to Believe

The lamestream media told you:

Although 90% of Americans suddenly support something called "universal background checks," which they had never heard of before, now that a madman killed little children in Connecticut, Congress has done nothing. The checks would have done nothing to save the children, a point on which everyone agrees. Dianne Feinstein's bill to ban guns Americans already own, which she has been promoting for 20 years, did not even make it to Congress, again. Bills to identify crazy people have not been introduced. Or drafted.

Sen. Schumer's various modifications of Feinstein's bill, as well as bills of his own suffered the same fate, despite overwhelming support. The Manchin-Toomey amendment, which we told you had overwhelming support of 90%, only got 56% support in the Senate and died. The actual contents of the 49-page bill were never reported in any lamestream "news" outlet, not even the fair and balanced one. It was described in detail in Page Nine: http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

I could only find one official study of what goes on between the NICS background-check office, the FBI, the BATFE and the US Attorney's Office (USAO), which handles prosecution of criminals trying to buy guns at retail and pay sales tax. I hope you didn't eat a heavy meal, because you'll have trouble holding it down when you read this. The report was issued in July 2004.http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/ATF/e0406/exec.htm

This is what the media is trying to convince you that 90% of the public supports:

-- In the two years studied (CY 2002-2003), NICS handled 16.7 million background checks.

-- 121,909 people were denied firearms, and the FBI referred these to ATF, who refers them to their Brady Operations Branch, who refers them to their NICS coordinators, who refers them to their ATF division offices, who refers them to their satellite offices or field offices, to see if they meet "USAO prosecutorial guidelines" so they can be brought up on charges of criminals  trying to buy guns.

In other words, just because a person was denied a firearm does not mean the U.S. prosecutors want to go after them. They have to meet guidelines. Most don't.

Without boring you, most people in the NICS chain-of-command don't have the guidelines, haven't been trained, don't even know there are guidelines (I didn't, like you, I thought most everyone caught is a criminal). The functionaries don't have a way to communicate up or down the chain, have cases "without prosecutorial merit" (which is not described) because they just send piles of "captures" over without review. The space they have to make notes on their computer screens is too small for notes.

Typical Keystone Kops procedures plague the system -- "increasing the workload of already overburdened field investigators... delaying investigation of prosecutable cases... cases without merit... insufficient resources... insufficient staffing... extensive case backlogs... " it's a loooonng list.

-- 7,030 prohibited possessors got firearms because their "delayed" response time periods ran out. ATF agents either did not conduct retrievals, did not do them in a timely fashion, took four months to more than a year, and did not document retrievals so there was no way to tell what happened, if anything.

-- Before trying to retrieve a gun from someone who should not have it, ATF sends a letter telling the person to give it up. Sometimes. They might include a deadline. They might act if there is no response. Or not. They let the person give the gun to anyone, which can include another person who cannot have a gun. Yes, you read that right. In 55% of these cases (from this study) ATF made no records of what happened, and lets the case drop. Only ATF's high-profile homicides, arson of occupied satructures and gun-smuggling makes the news.

"ATF special agents did not consider most of the prohibited possessors who had obtained guns to be dangerous and therefore did not consider it a priority to retrieve the firearm promptly." ATF did not track the retrieval process at all.

-- ATF had not conducted a NICS coordinator training conference in years. When it did, 6 of the 17 coordinators showed up.

-- In a sample of 200 denials referred for action, 22 were illegal aliens. These are referred to Dept. of Homeland Security (ICE) and the Brady Operations Center. The ATF division offices "closed these cases without investigation because they did not involve other prohibiting factors." Illegal alien status is one of the nine enumerated bans specified in statute. ATF has decided not to enforce this law, out of hand.

-- In 36% to 95% of the cases, NICS division field offices provide no feedback to the Brady Ops Branch. Command has little idea what the local offices are up to. "Several of the field office group supervisors told us they did not investigate the majority of the referrals they received."

-- Between 8% and 35% of denials in the samples were people found not to be prohibited from possessing firearms.

-- Only 154 cases were prosecuted of the 16.7 million checks of the 121,909 denials. ATF had sent only 230 to the U.S. Attorney's Office, USAO accepted on 185, and then went after only 154. I recall reading somewhere it managed to convict a small handful. The Washington Post reports that for 2010 (out of more than six million NICS checks):

"In the end, 62 cases were referred for prosecution, but most were declined by prosecutors or dismissed by the court. Out of the original 73,000 denials, there emerge just 13 guilty pleas." Is this what 90% of the public supports? The Post only ran this online.

What are we paying for the 13 guilty pleas? Is this a good use of limited resources, or does it just make some people feel good, and make anti-rights legislators look good as long as the "news" keeps you in the dark and you don't know what's really going on?

"Historically, USAOs have been unsuccessful in achieving convictions in many of these cases and consequently have been unwilling to expend their limited resources on prosecuting most NICS cases."


Why? The report answers this question about the much ballyhooed NICS system:


"These cases lack 'jury appeal' for various reasons.  The factors prohibiting someone from possessing a firearm may have been nonviolent or committed many years ago.  The basis for the prohibition may have been noncriminal (e.g., a dishonorable discharge from the U.S. military).  It is also difficult to prove that the prohibited person was aware of the prohibition and intentionally lied to the FFL [federally licensed dealer].  We were also told that in parts of the United States where hunting historically has been part of the regional culture, juries are reluctant to convict a person who attempted to purchase a hunting rifle."




The big bottom line is that despite all the BS about background checks, the real reason to increase the system is to register more gun owners. Gun registration is a bad idea. If, like Piers Morgan, you don't understand why:

http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm
("How does writing my name, or your name, in an FBI book help stop crime?")

If you really want background checks, they can be done with zero registration, and 10% of the current cost:
http://www.gunlaws.com/BIDSvNICS.htm

BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE FAILING

Background-Checked Fugitives Set Free, Constantly

Lack of prosecutions outrages Congress.

Lack of arrests outrages everyone (except the media, who are clueless).

Congress is 20 years behind the curve on this one.

Push for more of the same in Manchin-Toomey bill now questioned.

Do we want innocents surveyed or criminals apprehended?




The lamestream media told you:

Nothing. They missed this part of the story altogether.
Actually, that's not correct. They had it and suppressed it.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Rep. Trey Gowdy (Rep., SC) asked AG Eric Holder why so few failed background checks lead to prosecutions. Holder didn't answer. Trey actually helped him off the hook, sympathizing about the low "jury appeal" of NICS-denial cases.

But after all, attempting to buy a firearm if you're an escapee, felon, fugitive, jihadi, certified mental case, illegal alien, renunciant, drug lord, etc., is a five-year federal felony, on top of filling out the form falsely, on top of handling the gun before trying to buy it.

That's what the NICS background check finds and prevents, or so we're led to believe. What happens to all those attempted criminals? Then the AG ducked and dodged about seeking to grant illegals citizenship (which would remove them from the prohibited possessor list, by the way). All media follow these things but it somehow didn't make the "news" (watch five juicy minutes:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaxZeA9VscI).

Here are the numbers since NICS checks began. The lamestream has kept this out of the debate for reasons that become immediately obvious:



Continue reading "BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE FAILING" »

Syrian Kidnapping Spun Into Anti-Gun Story

The lamestream media told you:

Gunmen on Saturday abducted the elderly father of Syria's deputy foreign minister (emphasis added) in the latest kidnapping targeting family members of figures in President Bashar Assad's regime, according to a story with no attribution or byline in The Arizona Republic, attributed in "news" media elsewhere nationwide to the AP http://tinyurl.com/qfz2q8y. There was no immediate claim of responsibility...

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Rebels on Saturday abducted the elderly father of Syria's deputy foreign minister... Islamists on Saturday abducted the elderly father of Syria's deputy foreign minister... Kidnappers on Saturday abducted the elderly father... Unknown thugs on Saturday... Someone on Saturday... gunmen is a biased term used by bigots in the media to smear gun ownership...

In lockstep compliance with Dr. Brown's rules for vilifying guns in the "news," AP reporters Bassem Mroue and Albert Aji on Sundayturned a story about a vicious muslim terror-tactic abduction into yet another gun-bashing story, by using the slanderous word "gunmen," as Brown recommends, instead of anything more accurate or descriptive.

Brown, whose revealing guidelines help make any story into a gun story, and any gun story a fear-filled screed, have been recently updated to include new buzzwords, anti-rights programs, mind-numbing legislative proposals and propaganda being promoted by liberals, now called progressives, leftists or blue staters.

One look at his guidelines is instantly enlightening. Much of what passes for news is described and recognizable as propaganda techniques that can be applied by any writer, as in the case cited above. Why call a kidnapper a kidnapper and lose an opportunity to smear firearms, when you can simply refer to any criminal as a gunman, and get the job done.

The new release of the guidelines is posted here:
http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm
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!