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!


« March 2016 | Main | May 2016 »

Caetano v. Massachusetts (part 2)

Supreme Court Protects Armed Women
Caetano Case Overlooked by Media

Part II

by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman (

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)" »

Caetano v. Massachusetts (part 1)

New Supreme Court Gun Case
Protects Helpless Women

Massachusetts Effort to Victimize Abused Lady Reversed

Court Says Second Amendment Saved Caetano’s Life, that’s it’s purpose

Restraining orders are “useless,” they say

Attempt to Outlaw Stun Guns Because They’re New Is Bogus

Of Course Guns Are Dangerous, That’s Not Grounds For Ban

Where is the “news” media on this monumental decision?

[Note: "SCOTUS" is the Supreme Court Of The United States.
“Heller” refers to the D.C. v. Heller case, a defining case in U.S. firearms law.]


by Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman (
April 20, 2016

The Caetano Supreme Court gun decision had so many critically important features it is unfathomable it did not steal the entire news cycle when it hit on March 21, 2016. A mere shooting by a sick person in a small town does that.

The U.S. Supreme Court just handed down such a monumental Second Amendment decision—its 113th gun case—that if the mainstream media had been doing its job it would have dominated the front page for days, and devoured cable news chatter for 24 hours daily, worse than the jihad or any other minor preemption that consumes news.

The decision recognized that brutish boyfriends terrorize their women and the women can be helpless based on size and strength—except for protection the Second Amendment and weapons provide. Read that again. All eight Justices unanimously said this. They formally recognized that orders or protection, issued repeatedly against the same brute, are, in their words “futile.”

But you haven’t even heard about the Caetano v. Massachusetts case.

It basically confirms that guns are good. They protect the helpless. They have social utility. Lower courts that attempt to write this out of the law by making things up, ignoring history and legal precedent—like the Massachusetts court did—have no place in our legal system. Concocting inventions from thin air that don’t even make sense, to advance an anti-rights agenda, earned ridicule. Read the decision yourself, it’s in basic English.

Even the liberal SCOTUS Justices all joined the decision. This is news. It’s big news. It’s monufrickinmental. Where are the talking heads? The fact that it has been broadly suppressed by the very organization responsible for telling you—The United States journalism profession acting in concert—demonstrates the astonishing bias that infects the nation’s culture and “news” media. This is proof.

If news like this proliferated as it should, you and the nation would be bombarded constantly with the good side of guns, the side that keeps streets safe, the idea that people who are armed can protect themselves, and do all the time just like Jaime Caetano did. It’s the plan the Founders gave us, that has made this the greatest nation the world has ever known. The failure of reporters, producers, editors, news directors and publishers is unaccountably grave. Look at what this case contains.

Continue reading "Caetano v. Massachusetts (part 1)" »

If Only Gun Control Worked

Unilateral Background Checks

Stop crooks and crazies.
Leave innocent people alone.
Halt “universal” gun registration.

by Alan Korwin

Gun owners, rights activists, gun makers, even our much-maligned lobbyists have no desire to see criminals, muslim jihadis and crazies walk into stores and buy guns -- despite terrified ravings to the contrary from progressives and the “news” media. Only unhinged individuals would even suggest such lunatic-fringe ideas.

Yet the way the FBI/NICS background check system is set up to stop bad guys it creates unconstitutional infringements on privacy and dangerous federal power grabs that threatens our liberty. That's why it earns such fierce resistance. Fix that and we'd all get along better, maybe.

New demands from left-wing partisans for so-called “universal” background checks, which would be even worse, would put the entire universe of legal gun owners' identities into federal agents' hands. That's tyrannical and gun owners want it stopped. Can background checks be done and still maintain a privacy wall between honest retail gun sales and madmen seeking arms? Yes.

Unilateral background checks work like good old fashioned Wanted Posters, but with digital accuracy and efficiency, and should replace the dangerous left-wing “universal” gun-owner registration scheme.

Instead of your neighborhood gun dealers sending millions of names of innocent people every month to the FBI, the FBI should simply send the list of prohibited people to the dealers, where they can be checked locally. Easy.

The BIDS Alternative
The system, designed and described 15 years ago by Brian Puckett and Russ Howard, is elegant -- and far cheaper than what we have now. It eliminates the odious gun-registration scheme that has always been central to the NICS master plan, which generates most (but not all) of the resistance. (Government infringement of our rights is a complex topic for another time). The Blind Identification System (BIDS), designed to replace NICS, is described in detail and linked on the home page at (BIDS v. NICS).

The FBI has little interest in the BIDS system for unilateral checks because it represents a huge reduction in their power. BIDS would cost 90% less because the Justice Dept. wouldn't need the expensive army of FBI staffers who do the checking. Our firearm stores would simply do it when they make sales.

The FBI claims they have to check the NCIC and III criminal databases, but the NICS Index of prohibited people is the mainstay of the system. The tiny percentage of difficult cases and unresolved dispositions can be handled by a skeleton FBI crew. No bureaucracy wants to see its staff -- and its budget -- shrink, even if freedom grows as a result. Bureaucratic stonewalling would be a serious problem to overcome, and there are some technology issues as with anything of this size, but it can be done and is worth the fight.

That way, millions of innocent names don't go to Big Brother each month. That way, like wanted posters, it leaves decent people alone. Bad guys are identified. Innocent people are not. The federal government doesn't get to register every innocent American gun owner.

The great obstacle in the radical left-wing infringement plan, which Americans rightfully resent and reject is eliminated. Progressives would stop stopping progress at last. The party of obstruction -- the democrats -- would be exposed for their true motives:

They don't want BIDS because it doesn't gather everyone's names, which is their main (though publicly unstated) goal. If crime reduction was really their goal, they would be doing something about it even under NICS. They staunchly refuse. Everyone whose rights they deny (without trial or due process by the way) are just put on the street after denials, with their money, looking to buy a gun. How many get one? They don't know. Or care, if evidence is the gauge.

The left wing's real problem is that unilateral checks would show that “universal” checks are a scam. Progressives, leftists, liberals, democratic socialists -- whatever these gun-fearful folks call themselves these days -- don't really want to stop crime with “universal” checks. They want your names.

The Emanuel Doctrine
Crime and the muslim jihad builds political capital and incentive to go after privately held guns under the Emanuel Doctrine -- never let a crisis go to waste. As soon as a criminal or jihadi (they're different) explodes, leftists stand ready, prepared to immediately dance in the blood of the victims (a phrase created by Neal Knox), and attack our rights. Lefties need those crimes, to fuel their fires.

We can see this clearly because they find and release every murderer, escapee, fugitive, felon, sex offender, rapist, arsonist, armed robber, illegal alien, muslim jihadi, spousal abuser and other prohibited person they spot through their cherished NICS system.

But they do gather a huge list of innocent people buying guns, more than one million every month, and they desperately want that. That's been the goal of the billions they've spent on this thing all along. BIDS forces recognition of that.

Although they never admitted this publicly either, insiders understood that a primary motivation of government support for the Brady bill was not to implement background checks for gun purchases. It was to secure the quarter-billion dollars in funding the Justice Dept. hadn't been able to obtain to build a computer capable of checking out every American from a single FBI location. Without the shouting about guns, the money would never have been allocated.

A computer that size and scope doesn't fit on a desktop. It sits on a sprawling FBI campus in Clarksburg, W. Va., a sleepy little town two hours south of Pittsburgh. It's a crown jewel in the government's arsenal of population control tools. It needs a staff to run it.


If we switch over to unilateral checks, your gun-ownership information stays safer and more private, the way the Founding Fathers envisioned uninfringed gun ownership. Our Founders would freak out if they saw you waiting in a store for some federal agent back east to “allow” you to buy a firearm.

All the FBI has to do is maintain the prohibited-people list -- still a big and important job -- and keep the dealers informed. The FBI becomes our servants, not our masters. The list can be encoded, encrypted, password protected, updated, even hour-by-hour if they wish.

No, they're not interested in a unilateral background check, because that would only stop every criminal in America. That doesn't serve their purpose. They want their “universal” system, to collect the universe of gun owners in America -- you.

Sure, they claim they delete the records, and statute is clear in requiring it, (18 USC §922(t), but they won't allow a public audit (they claim a government audit keeps them honest). Trust, but don't verify? In direct personal interviews they make assurances that they strictly comply with the law. Look at their campus -- how would you audit that?

Besides, when designed in the 1990s, their system reportedly checked records of foreign agencies to be thorough, which made sense. According to reliable sources back then, that included Canadian authorities, Israeli Mossad, Scotland Yard, and more (they currently deny this). Those agencies are under no requirement to erase anything, so records of those inquiries would reside there. The public, even Congress, has little way to provide assurances it doesn't.

We trust our national network of licensed firearms dealers (50,000 stores, 130,000 licensed dealers) to sell guns and ammunition day in and day out. Surely we can trust them with the names of hardened criminals who can't buy guns, right? Any misuse of the information is a serious crime, you lose your business license and face prison. No checking out your daughter's boyfriend.

Is the government afraid this will save money? (It will.) Is the problem it will be more efficient? (It is.) Do they fear losing all those jobs they created with their “universal” system collecting your name every time you shop? (They do.) Is it a privacy problem for the public-record list of hardened criminals (they will raise that red herring, mark my words).

It's time to expose the boondoggle. It's time to stop even the impression that the FBI is recording the names of every gun buyer, as they knowingly gather the data daily. It's time for the money-saving, highly efficient, vast improvement of unilateral background checks, the BIDS system, and stop progressives from standing in the way of progress and keeping America free.

Judge Garland Is Not a Moderate, He's Leftist

News Media Is Not News, They're Cheerleaders

The lamestream media told you:

"... before the nomination of Garland, the chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, was even formally announced, there was a series of back-and-forth edits to his description as “a judicial moderate” and “a strong liberal” on Wikipedia...

"One of us (Michael Giles) has collected data that might permit us to answer this question...

"... Using these data, we estimated ideology scores for all judges sitting on the D.C. Circuit who participated in these cases. We used a standard model from psychometrics and ideal point estimation in political science, known as an item-response theory model... The figure suggests that Garland is indeed a moderate...." Washington Post, March 17, 2016

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The Washington Post, a widely recognized propaganda arm of the political left, has inaccurately labeled Barack Hussein Obama's choice to replace Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, a moderate. This come as no surprise to anyone.

Because the term is an adjective, "an opinion," run where news and reporting is supposed to appear, the paper cannot be accused of lying. The judge's voting record however makes it impossible to fairly use the word "moderate." Arguing with the Post, from past experience, is an exercise in futility.

When the D.C. Circuit Court overturned the ban on keeping a gun at home in Washington, D.C., he voted to overturn that. In a long string of National Labor Relations Board cases, he voted consistently against people and businesses and in favor labor unions.

A constant flow of reports from the left portray judge Merrick as a moderate. Reports from the right, recounting his voting record, reveal him to be a left-wing ideologue, surprising no one in Barack Hussein Obama's selection.

The only fly in the ointment is that, if this man isn't put in place and Hillary wins the election, she may nominate Mr. Hussein-Obama for the position, the worst possible choice in terms of survival of The American Way. Despite bluster that they will not act on the nomination, foolhearty Republicans have one again tasted shoeleather. We shall see.

Pistol Looks Like a Cell Phone

The lamestream media told you:

A man has invented a gun that looks like a cell phone. When closed, it appears more-or-less to be a phone, but it unfolds into a two-shot .380 caliber pistol. It is still in development, but he already has thousands of inquiries.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

As a matter of law, a gun that doesn't look like a gun, is an "Any Other Weapon" or AOW, specially regulated by BATFE, and it is treated like a machine gun or silencer. You can get them, but a $200 tax stamp is required, and it has to be registered and tracked. The inventor either knows this already, or will find out right quick, and it will put a kink in the plan. But still, it's a clever idea, and I hear he's working on a six-shot version. News reports are gushing about the device without noting this tiny little wrinkle. Some take a wow-how-cool perspective, while others think OMG-people-will-be-secretly-armed, as if they haven't noticed all 50 states have discreet carry laws, and 10 now have Constitutional Carry (Idaho and West Virginia just enacted it).

Idaho overcame a ton of outside spending by anti-rights New York billionaire bigot Michael Bloomberg to defeat this right of the  public to keep and bear arms. West Virginia overrode a governor's veto to pass the important freedom legislation. Despite hoplophobic fear of "BITS" (blood in the streets) it has never happened anywhere permit laws or Constitutional Carry has been enacted.

Although the cell-phone gun that doesn't exist yet got a lot of news coverage, Constitutional Carry, a major advance of the public's fundamental freedoms, got little, for reasons that were unclear at press time.

Keep in mind a wallet gun -- a small pistol that fits in a leather pocket wallet, is an AOW and illegal without federal papers, if it can be fired from within the wallet without the gun visible. The feds consider it a violation to even own a trigger-hole wallet and a gun that fits it that can fire that way, even if you don't have them together. Sort of like owning the unassembled parts of a machine gun.

Background checks for presidential candidates

The lamestream media told you:

There's another presidential debate tonight, live at seven, don't miss it! There's a presidential caucus... polling coming... talking heads... this candidate hates that one... look at the wives... we don't objectify women... did you hear what that guy said today... blah, blah, blather, blather.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In light of recent revelations about political candidates at every level, the "news" media has continued to refuse to insist on background checks for people running for political office.

Critics point out that from the president on down, these people will have to handle top secret documents and information. The public should know before they vote if the people they're electing can pass a security clearance. Otherwise, the elections are fraudulent -- the people aren't qualified to do what they're being elected to do.

Another top issue is the eligibility question hanging over the man who was born in a foreign country to a Cuban father. Three other hopefuls also had direct foreign upbringing that probably disqualified them under the Article II instructions in the U.S. Constitution.

Article II requires a person to be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to become president, defined at the time of the Founding as having two citizen parents and being born on U.S. soil.

Background checks have become increasingly popular in American life. Even routine jobs for corporations, health care, education, transportation and many government positions require background checks, along with more traditional functions, like eligibility for various firearm permits and grade-school teaching. Security clearance background checks for elected office is a concept whose time has come.

A Presidential Fable

A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian American all tried out for the presidency of the United States. The Kenyan American said, "I'm eligible because the Founding Fathers believed a person with an African dad would make a fine president, would have no divided loyalty, and wouldn't even have to prove he was born here in the U.S. until well after he got into office." He said they put that logic right into the Constitution in Article II.

The Cuban American said, "I'm eligible because both my parents come from a brutal communist dictatorship that aimed nuclear bombs at the United States, but because they escaped in time to have me born in Florida, the Founding Fathers believed I would have no split allegiances of any kind, and I would be a perfect candidate for the presidency and the nuclear launch codes." He dropped out of the race when too few people voted for him in the primaries. Cuban law claims him as a citizen, as they do for everyone with even one Cuban parent, but Americans like to ignore that, because it would make things difficult with such a hostile enemy.

The Canadian American, who is also a Cuban American thanks to his Cuban refugee dad, giving him triple citizenship, said, "I'm a Harvard law grad, and I can tell you for certain the Founders would believe I'm eligible because I renounced my Canadian citizenship last year. I can also tell you it is a 'settled matter of law' that being born in a foreign country like I was doesn't matter, because I have at least one American parent, my mom, and that's how the Founders planned to protect the presidency, right there in Article II. Paternity didn't matter to them, despite what the British thought." The British thought nationality came from your father, not your mother. Other countries thought it was land based, or both.

But then John Jay spoke up. He became our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Back in 1787 he said we have to prevent any chance that the commander in chief and the presidency "be given to, nor devolve on" foreigners, in a letter to George Washington, and Washington had written back to agree. [I have those letters posted here.] That's why the Committee of Eleven, the group appointed by the Constitutional Convention to do a lot of the editing of the Constitution while it was being drafted, wrote Article II to require only a "natural born Citizen" could hold the office of president and commander in chief of our military forces. They changed Alexander Hamilton's weaker draft.

So modern-day skeptics asked, "How did those old dead white guys even know what a 'natural born Citizen' was, or that it was the correct phrase? They might have used a term like that, in that critical spot, and just guessed at its meaning! They didn't even define it in the document itself!"

To which a frustrated uninvited ombudsman blurted out, "Only brain-dead idiots or followers of network "news" could believe such poppycock! They didn't go defining ANY of the terms in the Constitution. They knew EXACTLY what their words meant. Those white men were inspired geniuses. The definition of that exact term was written down at that time for Pete's sake."

In a reference book Ben Franklin brought to the Convention, Law of Nations, that phrase is precisely described, and it means just what you would expect if the Framers were trying to guarantee a 100% American president free from foreign entanglements, like Jay and Washington discussed in writing.

Law of Nations says, in Section 212: "Natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens." That's it. A three-part requirement. Two citizen parents at the time of birth (jus sanguinis in Latin, "of the blood"), on U.S. soil (jus soli in Latin, "of the land").

No Kenyan Americans. No Cuban Canadian Americans who renounce foreign citizenship the year before they run for office. Sorry folks, some people are not eligible. That was the Founding Fathers' plan. How foreign is too foreign? Any.

Ben Franklin wrote a long letter back to Charles Dumas in 1775, who provided their copies of Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel (Ben had gotten three), to thank him and tell him, "...the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly that copy, which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting..." He also mentioned, among many other items, they were working hard to make saltpeter, desperately needed to manufacture gunpowder. The letter is in the National Archives.

The Convention used "natural born Citizen" in only one place and to this day has only one use in our entire body of law -- as a restriction on who can be president and commander in chief. Every other official requirement in law uses the plain word "citizen," a condition that can be achieved in numerous ways, including after birth, and appears constantly in law. Natural born citizenship can only occur at the moment of birth.

A Kenyan American, a Cuban American and a Canadian Cuban American were sitting in a bar, having read this short essay and asked themselves, "So, what do we do now?" The Canadian Cuban American said, "I'm eligible for the U.S. Supreme Court, and since I'm a Harvard law grad, even though that's not a requirement, I think I'll go for that." The Cuban American said, "I'm a U.S. Senator, and even though I rarely vote there and too few people voted for me, I'll try to stay there." And the Kenyan American said, "I may have a problem, I'm going to seek legal advice from an undisclosed location." And everyone lived ever after, for a while.

If Only Gun Control Worked--at

New at the Daily Caller

New at: 

My catalog of myths the so-called progressives use to block progress is growing:

Of all the preposterous nonsense anti-gun-rights people have concocted, “invisible” x-ray-proof guns may be the most bizarre. They did this when the superb Glock safe-action pistol was introduced, and became the choice of police departments worldwide. Easily spotted at airport checkpoints, their fears were baseless, but they once again interfered with reality. The claim that self defense is uncommon, because it never appears on nightly news is just a measure of bias in news rooms, that won't show the millions of annual defensive gun uses.

To believe the media narrative you’d think the NRA is more powerful than the top 50 real power lobbies, like banks, drug makers, import-export, telecom, computers, railroads, automakers, retail, lawyers and the rest. It's not even just the NRA, it’s the 100 million gun owners who cling to their guns and rights. As far as phony gun buy-back schemes, criminals don't turn in their guns for $100 grocery cards, and the schemes are virtually illegal straw purchases, using out-of-state money and ought to be prosecuted.

More Gun Myths: Obama's SCOTUS Pick Is a Moderate, Armed Teachers Are Deadly,
Guns Are Germs, Gun Ownership Is a Disease
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!