The Uninvited Ombudsman Report, No. 109 - The Dangers of Being GUNLESS

1- Non-gun Owner's Title

Thanks to all of those who answered my call for a term to describe people who choose to reject personal ownership of firearms. Those numerous suggestions, ranging from silly to sarcastic to serious, led me to an answer.

The Dangers of Being GUNLESS

by Alan Korwin, Author
Gun Laws of America
http://www.gunlaws.com/consult.htm

Gunless people, those who steadfastly refuse to keep and bear arms, practice marksmanship or learn gun safety create certain burdens for the rest of society.

• Gunless people increase the need for police protection, by being unable to fend for themselves in certain dire emergencies.

• By remaining unarmed, a gunless person becomes a "free rider," obtaining safety and protection against criminal activity through the responsible actions of others.

• Gunless people in general reduce national security. An armed populace is more capable of aiding in national defense, from border risks to crime or terrorism events, and poses a greater deterrent to such activity.

• Borrowing the logic from the Wickard v. Filburn case at the U.S. Supreme Court, gunless people have a negative impact on interstate commerce. By failing to keep and bear virtually the only property that is constitutionally guaranteed,* they weaken the economy and contribute to lowered economic stimulus. This is admittedly a somewhat circuitous argument, but it seems quite popular in other arenas (e.g., growing grain for your own use) and so appears germane.

• A family that is gunless and feels secure because of it, fails to realize that being gunless is dangerous. The other side of the brag that, "We don't have a gun in OUR house," is "If push came to shove we'd be helpless victims and we plan to leave it that way." This is a person's free choice, but it should be recognized for what it is.

• The marginal position that gunlessness at home may reduce the chance of firearms accidents overlooks the fact that one out of two American homes on average has a firearm. Lacking experience, the risk of a gun accident actually increases while not at home, especially for children.

• The risk of genocide, as we have seen historically time and again, increases and in fact thrives to the degree with which a population is gunless, either by its own hand, or through the force of others.

• People sometimes resist being characterized ("I am not overweight!") and other times they embrace it ("I'm a Steelers fan!"). Being classified as gunless is not a positive thing, if for no other reason than that it relinquishes tactical advantage.

• The uniquely Latino characterization of manliness, "machismo," the ability to survive and thrive when aggressive action is called for, is harmed by gunlessness.

• Responsible adults do not use the disability of gunlessness to scorn, deride, insult, offend, demean, taunt, scold, mock or ridicule gunless people, even if they sorely deserve it. (Unfortunately, gunless people often show great disrespect for marksmen.)

• Being gunless does not increase a person's safety, it puts a person's safety at risk. On a grand scale it reduces the risk criminals face from the public they prey upon, and places a significant burden on the rest of society. A person who chooses to remain gunless unwittingly contributes to making crime easier for criminals.

• A significant portion of the population is kept gunless by prohibited-possessor laws, that permanently ban classes of people from firearms ownership, possession or use. Some form of relief from such disability, which does not presently exist, must be made available in order to have due process protection under law.

• Although gunlessness has been outlawed in some jurisdictions, most famously Kenesaw, Georgia, to the delight of many gun-rights advocates, it is no more government's role to demand being armed than to demand you have health insurance. It is a person choice and character reference.

• Hmmm •

• If private gun ownership dropped dramatically -- for whatever reason -- would the need for police protection go up or down?

• In other words, if the ten-to-one ratio of armed people (estimated at 100 million) to criminals (estimated at about 10 million) suddenly shifted so armed criminals outnumbered armed citizens and they had the ten-to-one advantage, would that be good or bad?

• Would the criminal element be affected at all if most law-abiding people became gunless, whether through choice, Eric-Holder-style brainwashing, or through legislated denial of the right to arms?

• If things were rational wouldn't you expect criminals to already be kept gunless by society? Why aren't criminals gunless? What can be done about that? Are criminals armed despite laws that already forbid them? But I see I repeat myself.

•

On a ray of hope, one correspondent pointed out that a gunless person can also be thought of as a potential gun owner. Would that it were so. "Friends don't let friends be gunless" -- words have so much more oomph, as the media so frequently demonstrates, when they are contained in quote marks.

Thanks to my Tucson-based friend Charles Heller, Exec. Dir. of JPFO, whose suggestion of Glockless ultimately led me to the term I was seeking.

* No other property or objects are guaranteed to We the People, under the Constitution, as directly as "arms" in the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is an explicit recognition of legal property ownership.

Not to be exclusionary, thank you, along with arms, it can be easily argued that an implied right to own Writings and Discoveries exists in Art. I Sec. 8 cl. 8 (copyrights and patents), the right to home ownership is implied in Amendment III (no quartering of soldiers in a house without consent of the Owner), "houses, papers and effects" are enumerated in Amendment IV, unspecified "property" in Amendment V, etc.)

::::

2- National Training Week

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

National Training Week is when everyone is encouraged to go to the range and practice during 4th of July week (July 4 - 11). http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek.htm. "Celebrate the 4th of July with fireworks, firearms and freedom."

Wouldn't it be nice if, as a special project, your own local shooting ranges offered one-hour handgun rentals for free, so you could try out new guns?

Wouldn't the week of Independence Day be a nice time to do that? Sort of, celebrate your freedom with fireworks and firearms for the 4th of July. Ranges nationwide could make the offer, throw in special classes even for newcomers, and America would be better for it.

I'm trying to help make that happen.
We've been working this for four years now.
The ranges that have participated had good results,
new business, revenue, new customers.
You can help me make it happen.

Take a look at the plans for National Training Week, when everyone is encouraged to go to the range and practice during 4th of July week (July 4 - 11). http://www.gunlaws.com/NationalTrainingWeek.htm. "Celebrate the 4th of July with fireworks, firearms and freedom."

Let my good friend Bill at the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) know that you support the idea of National Training Week. Ask them to support it too.
http://www.nssf.org/industry/contactNSSF.cfm

3- Hispanic Shoots Black

The lamestream media told you:

A Hispanic volunteer neighborhood watchman shot a poor little unarmed black child to death, and he had the unmitigated gall to claim Florida's recent Stand Your Ground law let him commit the murder with impunity and no repercussions.

This has inflamed all Americans, as it should, and especially the black community, and especially the black people and people of all colors in Florida. Such a terrible law has been passed in many Neanderthal states, according to the unbiased Associated Press.

According to the esteemed New York Times, the shooter was actually something new called a "white Hispanic," proving the racial nature of the crime, or at least of the report. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/22/us/police-chief-draws-fire-in-trayvon-...

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

We can't really tell what actually happened in Florida since all we have are "news" reports, and we both know how accurate those are, especially related to armed self-defense and other gun-related subjects:

http://www.gunlaws.com/NewsAccuracy.htm

You'll get a kick out of this one--
http://www.gunlaws.com/HowGunSpinIsDone.htm

From the Florida "news" reports, it sounds like this guy stalked and gunned down a helpless little youngster. If that were true, there's no way he could be protected by law. There is no way he would not be charged.

If on the other hand, this kid posed a genuine and serious threat to life or limb, which the survivor claims, then of course the use of deadly force to protect yourself from the criminal assault would be legally justified, historically and culturally normative, and righteous and moral by any standard.

If that's true, then the universal news tone that this bigot murdered this poor innocent child, would really be, the neighborhood watchman stopped yet another murderous young black thug in the midst of a felony assault. We don't know yet, and the pictures of the kid are so cute, so why let facts get in the way of a good story. Guilty before facts are even known.

The "news" reports did also mention in passing that the person who claims he defended himself against the black youth was bloodied about the head, but that's such a small detail it should have little play in this tale. Life is a precious gift, and it is to be protected from unwarranted attack, whether four-legged, two-legged or other. All of this is completely regardless of the no-retreat law the media has mysteriously latched onto.

The recent rash of stand-your-ground laws are, to a large degree, a response to anti-gun-rights prosecutors who in the past have used any excuse to go after otherwise righteous and innocent people, just because they exercised their right to arms. In those cases, the prosecutors are the ones who belong in prison. Harold Fish, here where I live, spent 3-1/2 years in prison, and spent $700,000 in his self-defense case, and he was innocent. That should not be allowed to happen.

Government should at least pick up legal costs when it loses a self-defense case -- meaning you should never have been charged in the first place. This would also help deter politically motivated or agenda-driven charges, which are widely known to occur. I plan to draft such language.

Some legislators have introduced legally suspect laws that require you to abandon your home rather than protect it, or run away from where you have a right to be. That's always an option, and often the best one, but it certainly isn't something the state can legitimately require, granting all power to criminals and denying it to the public. Freedom is hollow if you can't stay where you have a right to stay.

Even without a no-duty-to-retreat law on the books, the immediate defense of innocent life, when necessary, is a right we all have, and should have, and is inherent in our very nature. The right to legitimately defend yourself should be honored by any court (assuming you have a good lawyer, plenty of money, a proper prosecutor, in a good jurisdiction, with ascertainable facts, and no contrary witness testimony from the perp's buddies, and cops who responded properly, and a benign face... the list is endless).

Arizona has the finest gun laws in the nation. Our self-defense statutes are particularly robust and protect the innocent while being harsh on criminals. If we can find out what actually happened in this incident, we could intelligently apply our laws to see what would have happened here.

If this white Hispanic male was criminally attacked by a black or by a white black or by a person of any color or color mixture, and he survived by his own hand, any law in the land should protect him. If he killed this youngster without cause, no law in the land will protect him and he could face death. That's what you call good law. We have the needed laws. They're good.

I can almost feel the antis brainstorming and gearing up to use this wholesome self-defense case (or heinous murder, as the case may turn out to be), to force new laws on us. The proper laws are already there, and justice will be served. Dancing in the blood of criminals (or victims, as the case may turn out to be), to get new anti-rights laws enacted, would be despicable. But no surprise.

Late breaking news (3/26/12): A leaked police report indicated today that the youngster was the aggressor, but the "family" denies this (and was not present to witness); evidence shows the youngster instigated the assault, which the "family" denies (and was not present to witness); the leaked report indicates the youngster had been suspended from school, and may have been high, and the family knew this, but the family says this has no bearing; CNN indicated the news should have never been revealed, but since it has, the world has to deal with it; CNN added that the search is on for the person who released these facts, and if found will likely face dismissal, to which CNN voiced no objection, probably because it was not a CNN leak source, which are highly honored.

EVEN LATER BREAKING NEWS: Images you have been treated to by the lamestream may not be accurate according to reports on the unreliable un-federally regulated (yet) Internet.

Don't forget, in self defense, the "victim" is the person with the gun who survives the criminal assault. The person with the bloody holes is not the victim, despite media reports to the contrary. The person shot is the perpetrator.

4- Self-Defense Poor House

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Florida has a self-defense law the rest of the nation needs badly.

If you "win" a self-defense court trial you're put in the poor house by the "justice" system. Costs can typically run into six figures. Do you have that kind of money? Kiss your house goodbye. That's not a win. And that's not justice by any rational definition.

If you prevail in a self-defense trial, which basically means the state should never have charged you at all, and you did their job by stopping or eliminating a violent felon, the state should be liable for your legal bills. The idea that you deserve a medal or a parade is too radical for the moderate Uninvited Ombudsman.

"Loser pays" is not some wacky new principle of law. It is a well established and just practice in civil cases. Not only does it make you whole again -- and this is key -- it is a serious deterrent to the state to go after you in the first place. It would eliminate many of the marginal attempts to incriminate people for defending themselves against truly bad actors.

Two states already have such protection, Washington and Florida.

Arizona, which constantly comes up with the best gun laws in the nation, should be next.
I'm working on it. You should too, for your state.

6- Arizona Attacks Animals

The lamestream media told you:

The Arizona legislature looks ready to pass, and governor Brewer seems ready to sign, a bill to allow hunting with legally owned silencers. Yet another wild idea from our state capital, hunting with silencers is unsporting and unfair to game, since it gives them no warning, according to hosts on KFYI-AM 550 radio.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Americans buy more than 27,000 silencers each year according to SilencersAreLegal.com. In its effort to promote the economy and help provide jobs, the federal government delays the purchase of silencers by as much as 120 days or more, to handle the paperwork, on top of the $200 tax per item. If you cannot imagine any private business operating like that, and staying in business, you're not alone.

In Europe and other developed countries, using silencers for hunting or at the range is considered an important health issue, since it protects hearing, and required in some jurisdictions. In France, where modulators (the British term) are not required at the range, they are considered a courtesy to other shooters. See The Worldwide Gun Owner's Guide for more worldly gun info.
http://www.gunlaws.com/WGOG.htm

If OSHA was doing its job, it would help make modulators widely available, for the beneficial health aspects they provide. If modulator sales tracked firearm sales, the one million or more units monthly would be a tremendous economic stimulus.

7- Criminals Switch -- Blades

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, unless you live in the U.K. --
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9024711/Knife-crime-rises-b...

National police figures show the number of robberies involving knives rose from 13,971 in 2010 to 15,313 last year, despite the overall number of crimes recorded by police falling by four per cent to 4.1 million, figures showed today.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

In a report that surprised no one in the U.S., crime with knives has increased in Great Britain, which has a virtual ban on firearms for the public. Handguns are essentially impossible to obtain, and long guns for hunting are strictly controlled and constantly monitored.

The report by the Telegraph, pointing out a decrease in overall crime, didn't refer at all to the criminal switch to knives, with guns so much harder to obtain. They also failed to point out that, with a population of 62 million, the chances of being a victim in a knife or other crime is only 1 out of 15, not very good for a nation touted as safe thanks to its gun-free approach to fighting crime.

According to the report, "Chief Constable Jon Murphy, the lead for crime for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said... 'This has been driven by a rise in robberies of personal property and police forces will want to focus actions on tackling these offences and offering crime prevention advice.'" We can only hope that they're crime-prevention advice is, like, really really good.

8- Acronymed To Death

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

When California's government-run gun-transfer bureaucracy crashes, it prevents any guns from being transferred or shipped into the state for the day. No apologies are made. Any business lost is lost. Martin Luther King Jr. day had this honor recently.

Because California Department of Justice (DOJ) must control everything, their California Firearms Licensee Check Program (CFLCP) must issue a Firearm Shipment Verification Approval Letter (FSVAL) to any Federal Firearms Dealer (FFL), all of whom must be enrolled in the California's Centralized List of Firearm Dealers (CCLFD).

Since the CDOJ's CFLCP requires the FSVAL for any CCLFD registered FFL to proceed, dealers and customers on MLK Day were SOL, a SNAFU, but AOK now. This may not be clear because it is FUBAR, OK? In California, this is considered acceptable management of your rights. Thanks to Chuck Michel at CalGuns for the details.

"I submit that an individual who breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-st-louis/void%280%29/%2a249%2a/ --Martin Luther King Jr.

--------

CONTENTS
1- Important missing word has been found: "Gunless"
2- National Training Week
3- Hispanic Shoots Black (includes amazing photo)
4- Self-Defense Poor House
5- New "N" Word ("Birther")
6- Arizona Attacks Animals
7- Criminals Switch -- Blades
8- Acronymed To Death

Page Nine is now a blog! You can sign up for automatic RSS feeds and find a wealth of interesting information at PageNine.org

Thanks for reading!
Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman