Category Archives: Rights Watch

EXCLUSIVE: Executive Actions

“Even as Congress fails to act on common-sense proposals to reduce gun violence … President Obama and Vice President Biden remain committed to using all the tools in their power to make our communities safer,” administration flack Tobin Marcus announced on the White House blog.

He was referring to two executive orders, one he said would close “a loophole that has allowed machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons to get into the wrong hands,” and the other “to keep military-grade guns off the streets.” In other words, he was talking about adding regulatory burdens on National Firearms Act gun trusts, set up with lawyers by collectors and investors, and about halting importation of surplus firearms such as the venerable M1 Garand, portrayed by the White House as the street thug’s weapon of choice.

Unsurprisingly, the only real world “crime” example cited in the gun trust rule change justification involved an applicant who was denied transfer of a silencer, meaning current rules were adequate to stop him. That raises the question of just what the problem requiring a solution is, as nothing about gun trusts overrides federal laws that say prohibited persons may not even touch a gun. The problem is, this was the justification used by the National Firearms Act Trade and Collector’s Association, who actually petitioned for the rule change under the assumption that they’d be able to win elimination of a required signature from local Chief Law Enforcement Officers.

Unfortunately, the government proposal didn’t work out that way.

“ATF will not be eliminating the CLEO requirement and instead imposing it on all entities,” attorney Joshua Prince of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group revealed.

For its part, NFATCA now claims “the draft … does not reflect any discussions or negotiations we have had with the Federal Government regarding same. We did not support or advocate for the efforts of the Executive Branch…”

As for the surplus military firearm import ban, reports that the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship program would be shut down by the executive action have been refuted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which issued a clarification saying “CMP does not technically ‘re-import’ its rifles, so its acquisition of these rifles is not affected.”

“[A]nti-gunners’ worn-out ‘on the streets’ line, always grossly exaggerated, is especially so in this instance,” NRA observed, concluding “Obama’s policies are driven by little, if anything, more than ideology unfiltered by reality.”

What they’re filtered by is an administration bent on having its way regardless of whether Congress will give it to them or not. Mobilizing to respond to the gun trust threat, attorney Prince scheduled a “Day of Reckoning” providing sample letters and contact information so activists could demand leadership from their representatives. And writer/activist Kurt Hofmann reminded his readers of H.R.2247, the Collectible Firearms Protection Act that would “provide that certain firearms listed as curios or relics may be imported … without obtaining authorization from the Department of State or the Department of Defense.”

But there’s a catch: Currently languishing in committee with only nine co-sponsors, expect no action on that unless you demand leadership from your representative.

Notes: This column has been corrected to remove references to media reports that the Civilian Marksmanship Program would be affected by the executive action banning surplus military firearm imports.”
By David Codrea

Read More Rights Watch Articles

EXCLUSIVE: New Director, Same Old Direction

“He was confirmed,” a member using the screen name Jaime3 announced on the CleanUpATF “whistleblower” forum. That’s the website established by so-called “dissident” agents fed up with bureau waste, abuse, corruption and fraud. And it’s the same discussion board where, back in December, 2010, it was first leaked that guns were being “walked” to Mexico with ATF cognizance, and that some of those had been found at the murder scene of a Border Patrol agent.

The “he” who was confirmed, on the last day of July by a 53-42 vote, was ATF Acting Director B. Todd Jones, now the bureau’s first permanent director in seven years. The confirmation vote came after a bit of drama. Bowing to pressure, and no doubt politically relieved by NRA’s statement of neutrality on Jones, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski switched her vote on cloture, giving the Senate 59 of the 60 votes it needed to end debate on the nomination. And five hours after the cloture voting began, Heidi Heitkamp, reportedly recovering from illness, flew in from North Dakota to cast the one remaining vote needed to give the nominee his up or down majority vote.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley was not happy. A leader in championing whistleblowers and trying to get to the bottom of numerous ATF scandals, he’d opposed advancing the Jones nomination, in no small part due to unsatisfactory answers the candidate had provided in a committee hearing the month before.

“The vote today should have never happened,” Grassley complained in a statement after Jones was confirmed. “It was totally irresponsible to proceed before the Office of Special Counsel investigation was completed … It’s too bad that … a person who is alleged to have retaliated against a whistleblower is now the director of an agency that could use a lot more whistleblowers to help clean it up.”

Add to Grassley’s concerns revelations from insider sources that Jones does not make a move without a green light from ATF’s Chief Counsel’s Office, itself tainted with ethical violations revealed in an internal report. Embarrassing “sweetheart deals” have been made on his watch. He has treated criminal matters resulting in lost human lives as personnel issues. He has not even attempted to clear up a gamut of institutional problems plaguing those ATF regulates, including contradictory rulings, inaccurate records, arbitrary license revocations and the like.

Rewarding such a manager with even more power seems a puzzler—until you remember that Obama and Holder want him to have it. So it’s hardly surprising to see yet another Jones management decision head-scratcher, published two days before the new director was confirmed.

“The ATF leader who oversaw a botched undercover operation in Milwaukee will now be in charge of the agency’s embattled Phoenix office, where agents allowed more than 2,000 guns to walk into the hands of suspected criminals through the infamous ‘Operation Fast and Furious,’” the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported.

Jones had cited the Privacy Act and refused to answer specifics when challenged about the pending appointment by Grassley during his confirmation hearings.
But really: What could go wrong?
By David Codrea

Read More Rights Watch Articles

EXCLUSIVE: Magical Misery Tour

That New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, principal stakeholder in Mayors Against Illegal [read “Your”] Guns, was expecting a bumpy ride for his 25-state, 100-day “No More Names” bus tour was evident from the start. Rather than post an itinerary with stops, dates and times, the project’s website required interested parties to provide contact information in order to “Get the latest updates about the tour [and] be the first to know when it’s coming to your town.”

Their obvious intent was minimize the chances of gun rights supporters having time to organize spotlight-stealing counter-demonstrations to piggyback off Hizzoner’s investment and get media play for their talking points, too. Not that much organizing has been needed to counter the “crowds” the tour has managed to attract to date, where closely-cropped publicity photos mask the pathetically sparse attendance.

“I was in Raleigh … giving a talk to Grassroots North Carolina,” economist and author John Lott wrote on his blog. “Apparently just that day MAIG was having their bus tour in Raleigh and … the GRNC was able to get more people at the event than could MAIG.”

This was but one of many Bloomberg embarrassments. At its stop a few days earlier in N.H., while reading off their list of “victims of gun violence,” the group called out the name of Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

“He’s a terrorist!” the Union Leader reported several protestors shouting back, objecting that someone killed in a gunfight with police would be used to justify citizen disarmament. And Tsarnaev wasn’t the only problematic inclusion.

“A preliminary analysis of the list of shooting ‘victims’ … finds that one in 12 are crime suspects killed by police or armed citizens acting in self-defense,” the Washington Examiner reported. “The review of 617 killings found that 50 were suspects in crimes ranging from assault to murder…”

If that weren’t enough, Bloomberg’s group suffered from two highly-publicized defections.

“The mayors of Rockford, Ill., and Nashua, N.H., have decided to leave Mayors Against Illegal Gun,” U.S. News & World Report noted. “Independent Mayor Lawrence Morrissey … and Republican Mayor Donnalee Lozeau … both said the group’s name is misleading.”

Compounding ethical lapses were media reports that New York City servers were being used to host the MAIG website, that city employees were being used to administer it, and that city staffers were being sent out of state to lobby on its behalf.

The Second Amendment Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and “Gun Talk” radio host Tom Gresham “sent a Freedom of Information Law request to the office of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, asking for all records relating to the Bloomberg administration’s involvement with Mayors Against Illegal Guns,” Senior Editor Dave Workman announced on

At this writing, the request is being reviewed by the city’s Public Advocate. It’s probably wishful thinking, but if they do the right thing, they’ll drag the lame duck authoritarian control freak out of the driver’s seat and throw him under his own bus.
By David Codrea

Read More Rights Watch Articles

EXCLUSIVE: Police State Europe

Promising its winning reader “a bottle of House of Commons claret and a box of Commons chocolates,” The Telegraph, “the UK’s most popular broadsheet newspaper,” solicited ideas for bills that members of the House of Commons should introduce for debate. Among the ideas selected for their online poll, including a term limit for Prime Minister and a flat tax, one dwarfed all others combined. A repeal of the ban on handguns, garnered over 86 percent of the vote.

“After all,” the proposal rationalized, “why should only criminals be ‘allowed’ to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenseless citizens and police officers?”

That’s a great question, but one the poll may not provide an accurate accounting of true British sentiment for, as anyone anywhere could vote. While there is a small segment of the UK population active in promoting the shooting sports and abolishing the Firearms Acts that banned, among other firearms, centerfire semi-automatic rifles and handguns, the awareness and demand from the general public to mandate change is not evident—yet.

That’s unfortunate, because tensions brought to the fore following the beheading of a British soldier on a London street, reportedly by British-born Muslim converts from the Nigerian immigrant community, were heightened with a chilling warning.

“You people will never be safe,” a “blood-soaked” suspect Michael Adebowale pledged on camera. “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

And it’s not just the UK. The European Union is reflecting the reality of immigration policies that, rather than assimilating disparate cultures, leave groups with different values and goals, and no small amount of hostility, occupying the same turf.

That’s evident from a Reuters report that “Sweden’s worst riots in years might benefit a far-right party in elections next year if scenes of immigrants burning cars and smashing up buildings cause voters to rethink their traditional welcome to foreigners.”

As if the cultural and religious differences weren’t enough, economic consequences point to a potential catastrophe “with young immigrants hit hardest.”

“We must win this battle against youth unemployment,” German Chancellor and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble warned, “or we will lose the battle to hold Europe together.”

“From the suburbs of Stockholm to the streets of Athens, however, the battle is being lost one riot at a time,” The Globe and Mail reported.

The law and order solution, according to Dame Stella Rimington, the former head of MI5 who, per Mail Online affirms, “The enemy is everywhere,” is to recruit “the British people to inform security services if they suspect their neighbors maybe extremists.”

“She said further terror attacks on the UK were inevitable unless the country became a ‘police state,’” the report continued. That means being able to protect themselves as government policies devolve their culture into chaos will not be an option for ordinary people, as a “monopoly of violence” remains the exclusive province of the state.

People there may come to regret that too late. And people here need to mind what is unfolding there as a foreshadowing of where those who would disarm us are trying to lead us.
By David Codrea

Read More Rights Watch Articles

EXCLUSIVE: Dodging A Bullet

The defeat of a host of ambitious measures in the US Senate provided an infuriating rebuke for the Obama administration, assorted anti-gunners, and their mainstream media cheerleaders.

The president was visibly livid after he was given the vote he’d demanded and came up short, and was quick to strike back through executive actions designed to, among other goals, remove medical record privacy barriers, “clarify” the powers of Eric Holder over munitions imports and exports, and direct the Centers for Disease Control to resume the anti-gun junk science agenda that provoked Congress to defund such “research” back in 1997, after they’d made no bones about wanting guns “dirty, deadly—and banned.”

Rage from the doctrinaire citizen disarmament lobby and its followers was often mob-ugly, with Bill of Rights supporters essentially blood-libeled for the actions of the lawless, and with the gulf between those who demand a monopoly of violence and those who will not back up another inch shown to be unbridgeable.

Rifts appeared between pro-gun proponents as well, particularly after Alan Gottlieb of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms not only came out in support of the Manchin-Toomey background check amendment, but revealed his group had a hand in writing it. He claimed it would prohibit a gun registry and provide numerous benefits, like restoration of veteran rights, interstate handgun sales, travel protections and the like.

Not so, attorney and author David B. Kopel shot back, calling it “a bonanza for gun control.” Ultimately, because key provisions were not advanced, CCRKBA withdrew its support, but not before those defending their actions as shrewd politics and those blasting Gottlieb had at each other.

NRA was put in an uncomfortable position because they had already gone on record as being “unequivocally opposed” to Manchin-Toomey and had pledged to score the procedural vote to bring it to the floor. Meanwhile, Gun Owners of America emerged with a higher profile, as no less than The New York Times said the group had “been successful in … freezing senators … who have appeared to be on the fence about supporting bills to expand background checks.”

What happens next, or more precisely, when it will happen, is anyone’s guess, and may be the stuff of yesterday’s headlines by the time this magazine reaches the newsstands. We know Harry Reid’s mask is off and he’s pulled the bill with the threat to resuscitate it, along with “other proposed amendments” when the time becomes right. We know Joe Manchin has promised not to give up, and can only wonder what will happen to his and Pat Toomey’s NRA “A” ratings. And we know that New York, Colorado and Connecticut have already done at the state level what the feds could not, while New Jersey, California and other “blue states” engage in feeding frenzies of their own.

Nationally, we dodged a bullet—this time. But it’s pretty apparent that we remain one “gun free zone” incident away from a renewed barrage that Obama, Michael Bloomberg, Dianne Feinstein and the usual suspects are not only prepared for, but practically salivating to unleash.
By David Codrea

Read More Rights Watch Articles

EXCLUSIVE: A Right Delayed

Floodwaters from Hurricane Sandy “damaged tens of thousands of [New Jersey] mental health records used as part of background checks for gun purchases … meaning some prospective gun owners have not been able to buy pistols or rifles for several months,” The Wall Street Journal reported.

“The months-long backlog coincides with a surge in gun ownership,” the story continued, spotlighting one resident who decided to protect himself following a rash of burglaries and has since been waiting almost half a year for the ID card the Garden State requires to purchase a firearm.

“A right delayed is a right denied,” the would-be gun owner complained, echoing the famous quote by Martin Luther King. In this case, it’s not hard to see how such a delay could prove fatal.

Such delays don’t just happen due to natural disasters. And a new law being demanded under the guise of saving lives could actually end up endangering some.

“So-called ‘universal background checks’ can stop all gun sales nationally,” author Alan Korwin wrote recently in his popular “Page Nine” internet column. “When NICS [National Instant Check] is down, you can’t buy a gun at retail.

“If all transfers are forced through NICS … no one in the nation could get a gun if NICS were turned off, or broken, or went under maintenance for a while,” Korwin observed, pointing out just one of the new pitfalls such a law could create.

“NICS was closed 84 times in a 6-month period in 1999,” he related, advising, “It’s been closed for as long as 4 days in a row [and] can be closed regionally.

He’s recalling a time when suspicions ran high that it may not have been just a glitch.

“Senator [Orrin] Hatch called for [a] hearing in response to the growing concern that the Clinton-Gore Administration has deliberately sabotaged the NICS system through shoddy implementation and operation practices, causing NICS to be frequently ‘down’ for hours—even days—at a stretch,” NRA reported in a fax alert at the time. “Hatch pointed out the fact that [this] coincided with the so-called ‘Million Mom March,’ and that FBI reports show NICS was not operating for at least 215 hours last year.”

Fortunately, no one would have cause to suspect the Obama administration of such shenanigans, would they? Still, with demand for checks being created in record numbers thanks to the aforementioned surge, sheer volume seizing up servers appears to be a legitimate factor for concern. Aside from routine sharing of anecdotes on internet gun forums, the Bangor Daily News reported “intermittent outages” last year on “Black Friday” when calls from there overloaded the system.

So if that system freezes up, what are our options, particularly if we don’t live in a state that runs independent checks (and disregarding that Colorado does just that and was reporting 8-day queues this past December)?

“In the event of a ‘crash,’ if a dealer is not notified that the transfer should be denied in three business days, the transfer may proceed,” NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action advises.

What if you end up needing a gun before then?
By David Codrea

Get More Rights Watch

EXCLUSIVE: A Shotgun Approach

“If you want to protect yourself, get a double-barreled shotgun,” Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Gun Control Task Force point man, advised a woman who’d asked him a question on a Parents Magazine-sponsored online Q&A.

“Do you believe that banning certain weapons and high-capacity magazines will mean that law-abiding citizens will then become more of a target to criminals as we will have no way to sufficiently protect ourselves?” Kate Ernest asked, eliciting the VP’s response.

“As I told my wife, we live in an area that’s wooded and somewhat secluded, I said, ‘Jill, if there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony, put that double-barrel shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house,’” Biden related. “I promise you who’s ever coming in is not gonna … you don’t need an AR-15. It’s harder to aim, it’s harder to use, and in fact you don’t need 30 rounds to protect yourself. Buy a shotgun. Buy a shotgun.”

Aside from being “some of the poorest advice he could give anyone,” and citing examples such as putting yourself “in plain sight,” expending both your rounds and making yourself a “sitting duck” for an unknown number of assailants, Ernest told Megyn Kelly of Fox News, “it comes off a little sexist.”

It comes off as more than that. Aside from violating Col. Cooper’s cardinal rules of gun safety, a sergeant for the Wilmington, Delaware, police, where the Biden’s maintain their private residence, told U.S. News no one may fire guns in the city unless their lives are threatened. A defense attorney added that if Biden’s wife followed his advice, she “could be charged with aggravated menacing, a felony, and reckless endangering in the first degree.”

Determined to outdo himself in an interview with Field & Stream released a few days later, Biden claimed “[M]y shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door. Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming.”

“Biden did not bother mentioning that shooting through an exterior door at someone outside your house would be illegal in many, if not all, states … even those with Castle Doctrine laws,” writer AWR Hawkins wrote on

That proved to be the case for “a 22-year-old man [who] found himself facing a summons after he told officers he fired his shotgun [at suspects through his bedroom door]” NBC’s Virginia Beach affiliate reported. Fortunately, for all parties concerned, no one was injured or killed.

“Now, granted, you can come back and say, ‘Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me,’” Biden continued digging in the magazine interview.

Those are exactly what do protect him as he carries out his mission to disarm the rest of us, and why the odds of Jill blowing away bushes, birds, doors, neighbors and deliverymen as Joe yells encouragement from the battlements are, thankfully, remote.
By David Codrea

Get More Rights Watch

EXCLUSIVE: Is Feinstein Assault Weapon Ban DOA?

The good news is, the requirement to register semi-automatics and pay a transfer tax is no longer part of Dianne Feinstein’s proposed “assault weapons” ban, a bill that includes in its title the ominous purpose “to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.”

At this writing, over one week after she referred it to committee, the bill has still not been posted on the Library of Congress THOMAS online legislative database, although I have posted at my website a draft copy received from a trusted legal source. What stands out, probably because most of the bill is occupied by a list of what her nibs will and will not allow us to own, is that she’s employing a classic “divide and conquer” strategy by exempting so-called “sporting arms.” She’s counting on that keeping enough sport shooters out of the fray, at least those who don’t realize their scoped deer rifles will be next up for demonization simply by manipulating the public discourse into one about “sniper rifles.”

That Feinstein’s bill will even get out of committee is something of a disappointment, but Harry Reid has guaranteed her it will get a floor vote, possibly, according to a Reuters report, as an amendment to “a broader package to curb gun violence.”

The hypocrisy of even having this discussion in the first place could not be made more evident than by a solicitation from the Department of Homeland Security for 7,000 select-fire rifles it calls “personal defense weapons” in the procurement specs. This ought to also expose the deception being perpetrated by labeling standard “personal defense capacity” magazines “high capacity clips,” or it would if we only had a non-agenda driven mass media.

Still, this may be much ado about nothing, perhaps a useful glimpse into the goals of the anti-gunners, but not a genuine clear and present danger, as politically-savvy odds makers assess chances of Feinstein’s bill passing between “slim” and “none.” Still, others on the watch for more nuanced maneuverings caution it may provide cover to make concessions on a due-process-violating mental health blanket dragnet, or on ending private sales at gun shows, yet still allow a claim of “victory” for turning back the larger threat of a gun ban.

Informed gun owners need to keep the potential for that in mind, and insist the only acceptable position from lobbying leaders, and the politicians they would have us support, is that we will not be scapegoated. No concessions are acceptable, and simple observation tells us the only rational response to mass shootings is to end fraudulent “gun free zones.”

Still, does that mean we can relax as far as Feinstein’s latest plot against our rights is concerned? Imagine as you’re reading this, right now, the TV playing in the background interrupts its regular program with breaking news of another mass shooting. It’s going to happen, you know, as long as maniac killers are guaranteed success and “fame.” So now ask yourself if your representatives have demonstrated enough fidelity to their oaths to give you confidence that they’ll hold fast.
Have they?
By David Codrea

Get More Rights Watch

EXCLUSIVE: Feeding Frenzy

An incendiary anti-gun pile-on, unprecedented even after Columbine and Virginia Tech, is targeting gun owners following the Newtown atrocities. Anti-gun organizations and politicians, emboldened by the amplification from sympathetic “news” media, are no longer afraid to touch the political “third rail,”and legislation is in the works that makes the ’94 Clinton gun ban look tame.

A victorious Obama, no longer needing to mask the agenda his apologists were all swearing he didn’t have, has confirmed he’s going after semi-autos and magazines, and appointed “Gun Free School Zones Act” sponsor Joe Biden to spearhead White House efforts toward disarming the Constitutional militia.

Perennial gun-grabber Dianne Feinstein had an “assault weapons” bill ready to hit the floor the first day of Congress, this one increasing prohibited features, targeting handguns and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, preventing transfers of currently-owned firearms, requiring registering currently-owned “assault weapons,” including paying a $200 transfer tax—that is, assuming your police chief approves you keeping it after running a check on you.

Feinstein announced a “buyback” was one of the options they were looking at. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo took things to the next level. “Confiscation could be an option,” he told The New York Times. “Mandatory sale to the state could be an option.”

Meanwhile, the National Rifle Association emerged from a self-imposed silence, first at a press conference, after which Wayne LaPierre was deemed a “loon” by the New York Post, and “the craziest man on earth” by the New York Daily News, all for claiming “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

David Gregory, someone who sends his children to a school that employs armed security, then tore into the embattled NRA executive on “Meet the Press,” and actually broke the law by waving a banned-in-D.C. magazine in LaPierre’s face, not that anyone seems inclined to prosecute him for it at this writing.

Not to be outdone, Hollywood weighed in, with celebrities joining in to “demand a plan,” or, in the case of CSI actress Marg Hellenberg, saying “One can only hope” NRA members would be shot, a sentiment widely agreed to and expressed by citizen disarmament zealots on social media websites and in comments to related news stories and editorials.

Meanwhile, a Gannett newspaper in New York published an interactive map with the addresses of gun permit holders, and another of their papers in Iowa published an editorial calling for repeal of the Second Amendment, declaring the NRA a terrorist organization, making ownership of semi-autos a felony, and killing gun owners who refused to give theirs up. Really.

Gun owners now find themselves facing empty shelves in the wake of panic buying. Some dealers are quitting or suspending semi-auto sales and others are raising prices through the roof. It’s a great real-world example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Had more gun owners gotten involved and spent tens of dollars on memberships in pro-gun organizations, they’d probably not be spending hundreds and thousands now, dealing with the fallout of their apathy.
By David Codrea

Get More Rights Watch

EXCLUSIVE: Give Them What They Want?

A holiday shooting “was at least the sixth time since 1985 that would-be robbers have been killed by store clerks or store owners in Wichita,” a story in The Wichita Eagle reported.

“Prosecutors have ruled that the five earlier shootings were ruled justifiable, and they said an initial review of the Thanksgiving night shooting does not indicate that there was any criminal wrongdoing by the clerk,” the report continued.

But while the clerks had a legal right to defend themselves—and to possess the means to do so—police officials could not resist using the media megaphone to throw cold water on the idea.

Capt. Brent Allred oxymoronically advised “…to avoid confrontation if possible during an armed robbery. Typically you want to comply with what they want … We always say that if you can be a good witness, that’s the best thing you can do … If they want money, give them the money. Money is not worth getting hurt over.”

The money is not what’s being threatened. And to trust the moral character of scum who would threaten your life over the contents of a convenience store cash register presents its own risks.

Not that a San Jose police spokesman considered that in the aftermath of a thwarted jewelry store robbery, where the female owner fired a shot at two would-be masked, hoodie-wearing, gun-pointing robbers, causing them to flee.

“We don’t recommend (drawing a gun or firing),” Sgt. Albert Morales told ABC7 News. “We would have preferred that they just go ahead and comply with the request or demands of the robbers. Again they were after material items that could be replaced and again our biggest fear is that somebody would have gotten hurt, injured and possibly even died.”

These aren’t just isolated misstatements by a few misinformed officers. More often than not, particularly among urban law enforcement agencies, it’s their position of preference, and it feeds right into the longstanding talking points promulgated by the gun-grabbers.

“The best defense against injury is to put up no defense—give them what they want, or run,” Handgun Control, Inc. founder Pete Shields, who has advocated a total handgun ban, wrote in 1981.

For some law enforcement agencies, that advice is official policy. The Illinois State Police website offered defense tips for women, advising fighting back may “…cancel any other options,” since your attacker may only wish to “…degrade and humiliate” you. Instead, they offer an escalating strategy that graduates from claiming to have an STD, to vomiting, to, ultimately, stabbing assailants with a rat-tailed comb, with the caveat “Use of a firearm to protect yourself or property is not recommended.”

Stories of victims who complied with all demands and were murdered anyway abound, along with stories of citizens who successfully defended themselves and others with a firearm. But these are rarely mentioned as a counterbalance when the authorities get a media opportunity to stump for helplessness.

Give attackers what they want? What if, after you bare your throat and cede all decision-making to remorseless reptiles, you find out what they want is you?
By David Codrea

Get More Gun Rights