2016 United States House of Representatives Gun Control Sit-In

The Democrats staged a congressional sit-in over failure to pass new gun legislation.

Seriously? This is what allegedly passes as 'adult' leadership in this country, a sit-in? What the hell are you, children? This is the idiotic thing we see kids do in high school?

Is there any wonder why the overall approval rating for Congress is abysmally low? 

See this for what it is folks, a political publicity stunt, and I am begging you not to fall for it. The fact is that they could not care less about you. It's like Charlie Rangel saying to a reporter how he (and his fellow lawmakers) deserves protection, but apparently you and your family; not so much. Have you ever stopped to wonder why places like the White House, the U.S. Capitol, and Federal Court House’s, are all gun-free zones, yet they surround them with armed protection, but our schools, which hold our most precious assets, are labeled as gun free zones and give no protection? How does that make any sense?

First, let's be clear that the measures put forth didn't pass because they were ill-conceived, knee-jerk reactions. It has gotten to the point in this country that our representatives don’t look to actually fix anything, they just want to slap a Band-Aid on it and ignore the real problems. Seriously, have you heard anyone call for actually fixing the highly problematic terrorist no-fly list?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

No, right from the beginning all you hear about are calls for re-instituting the ‘assault weapons ban’ and how these horrific weapons of war don’t belong in civilian hands, unless they are in the hands of those protecting the politicians.

In terms of the latest gun fix we have this pesky little thing called due process, which for some strange reason doesn’t seem to matter to certain elected officials who are charged with: (repeat after me) ‘Upholding the Constitution.’ I can only assume that they believe the laws only apply to us lowly rabble.

Now I know a lot of folks think our Constitution can be a tad bit difficult to deal with, or even understand, sometimes. Especially when it comes to that damned 2nd Amendment, but consider that the Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be ‘deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’ The Fourteenth Amendment, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. Yet our vaunted representatives want to be able to toss you onto a list, without any evidence or due process, and let you fight with the government after-the-fact to get off said list. 

Did you know that the Orlando terrorist, Omar Mateen, was on not one, but two terror watch lists? He was subsequently removed from them in 2014, after twice being interviewed by the FBI, in 2013 and 2014, for potential terror ties.  In theory, for an individual to be included on the no-fly list or selectee list, additional evidence of his threat to aviation security and clear identifying information is needed above and beyond the standard of reasonable suspicion. I say in theory, because the list has included such notables as the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Congressmen John Lewis and Don Young, Journalist Stephen Hayes, not to mention a number of Federal Air Marshals. You know the guys who are supposed to keep us safe in the skies! Even poor David Nelson, or Ozzie & Harriet fame, was on the list and don’t even get me started on the young children who found themselves listed. One Canadian businessman went so far as to legally change his name, in order to avoid being delayed every time he flew.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have the Constitution in this country for a very good reason. It arose out of a need to protect us from things that were actually happening to us when we were under British rule. Yet now, we are seeing our very own government begin to act in the same way.

Trust me people, we are heading down a very slippery slope here and we really need to proceed with extreme caution. There is a lot going on that doesn’t make the news, but should give you pause. It is also one of the topics which I am currently writing about in my latest book. I’m sure no one reading this would be okay if the feds just seized the property from your home, without any explanation or court order, and told you that it was up to you to prove your innocence.  Yet the minute it becomes about evil guns, a large swath of society seem okay with that very premise. Perhaps many of the younger generation need an overall refresher course on American History.

Despite what they will say, the problem is not a gun control issue. As someone who spent over two decades in law enforcement I can speak on this subject from actual real-world experience. The truth is that we have tons of gun laws, already on the books, that either not being prosecuted or are simply plea bargained down for a quick conviction. 

This is an 'individual' problem and they refuse to acknowledge or address it. It is the reason why murders in Chicago, a city with some of the most stringent gun laws in the nation, has had 313 killed so far this year, yet NO ONE will address this problem because they have no answer for it. Likewise, they have no answer for why other U.S. cities, with a comparable population, have relatively low crime numbers.

At every turn they have coddled, praised, and emboldened criminals and so-called activists, while calling the police brutal, racist and stupid. Guess what, I imagine things will get a lot worse in the country, but don't worry, your petulant elected leaders will all be fine, surrounded by armed officers to protect them while they 'sit-in'..... You? Well, I guess you're pretty much on your own.

Oh, and as for the ‘sit-in’ that the Democrats engaged in, you’ll be happy to note that there bold statement was used as a fundraising solicitation. That’s right; the Orlando terror attack was hijacked to raise funds for the party!

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out an email, signed by Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which read: "This is an historically important moment! John Lewis has been leading a sit-in on the House floor for 11 long hours now. We’re fighting to prevent gun violence. The Republicans refuse to lift a finger. It’s shameful. I need your help to defeat them once and for all." The email asks for 6,000 donations and provided several options to donate amounts between $1 and $250. It was at least the sixth such email from the DCCC, which also included several that were signed by sit-in leader, John Lewis.  

But hey, it really is about those evil guns……. So will that be MasterCard or Visa?

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

The Orlando Terror Attack - It's Not About Guns, It's about Radical Islam

I’ve been staring at this blank page for the last few days. I’ve felt an urge to write, but the words have alluded me. It’s not that I don’t have anything to say, I am from New York City, after all, it’s just that I have too much to say and I am not even sure where to begin.

Now I know some of you will immediately want to know why I am not writing my latest book, but I promise you, I am. I just needed to get this off my chest.

The problem probably started where it always does, on Facebook. I’m not exactly sure what we did before FB, but I vaguely recall that it was a much more productive time. My quandary exists because I have what can best be described as very eclectic friends, who have posted a wide range of responses to the Orlando terror attack. What saddens me is the fact that there has even been a ‘wide range’ of responses.

In just over forty-eight hours I have heard some of the following diatribes play out in social media:

• The attack in Orlando was a hate crime.
• This has nothing to do with moderate Islam.
• We need to ban these senseless weapons of war.
• The police responded slowly because it was a LGBT club.

Let us set the record straight right from the beginning. This was, first and foremost, a terror attack committed by radical Islam. Anyone who wants to muddy the waters by mincing words is being disingenuous. When some try to claim that this was a hate crime, they are attempting to minimize the significance of what occurred at the Pulse Nightclub. While hate certainly played a role in the attack, it was part of a much larger picture that many are attempting to gloss over: Radical Islam.

This attack was carried out as a direct result of the theological beliefs of a particular group. Unfortunately, for some strange reason, a large majority of our politicians, pundits and ordinary people refuse to accept this. If I had a dollar for every time I heard: “These acts don’t reflect moderate Islam…” I’d be living on a tropical island, without Wi-Fi access, in a perpetual state of bliss.

The question then is: What is moderate Islam and what do they believe?

The answer to this question is one that many do not want to hear. They want to believe in this illusion that there is a moderate world that just chooses to remain quiet, yet when you pull back the thin veneer, you see a world that doesn’t seem all that different from the radical.

I see you in the back, waving your hand like a maniac, and yes, I know you know a Muslim who is moderate…… and I know a lot of Catholics who live their lives quite differently then what is taught in the Bible. Hell, I used to be one of them. I was even an altar boy…… stop chuckling. The fact is that there is a big difference between calling yourself something and actually being engaged. I am talking about those who actually believe in and follow the teachings of the Qur’an.

In considering political rights and civil liberties, the vast majority of countries in the Middle East are simply not free. At least not the ‘being free’ which those of us, here in The West, think of. I am often amazed when I see groups, who identify themselves as feminists or members of the LGBT community, come out in support of moderate Islam, yet in the majority of those Muslim countries they would face severe penalties and even death for their beliefs. It’s tantamount to seeing a ‘Jew’s for Hitler’ sign.

The simple truth is, that even in moderate Islamic countries, the penalty for being homosexual is: prison, punishment and / or death. I’m not talking about Iran, or one of the other hardline countries, but the moderate ones like Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Qatar. If you are lucky enough to be a lesbian in Kuwait you get a free-pass, but males are still breaking the law…… don’t ask, I scratched my head on that one as well. These moderate nations have even used their influence to block advancements in LGBT rights at the United Nations.

Unlike the west, which enjoys a separation between politics and religion, the Muslim world does not. For some unknown reason, many people don’t understand or accept that theology is the driving force in Islamic government. Islam is not just a religious belief system, but a legal system as well. Sharia law is the religious legal system governing the members of the Islamic faith. And therein lies the real problem.

The lives we enjoy in western civilization are in direct opposition to the Muslim world. They don’t believe in our values and they don’t respect that we recognize individual rights.

In the United States we have the 1^st Amendment right to freedom of speech. It means that I don’t have to agree or even like what you say, but you still get to say it. What I find extremely funny is the fact that all of the real cutting edge comedians and Hollywood celebrity types have a field day mocking Jesus, yet those same folks are nowhere to be found when it comes to mocking Muhammad. Ever wonder why? That’s because death threats don’t seem to lose any of their significance when they come from moderates.  

The Avant Garde folks over at Charlie Hebdo decided to push those boundaries, it didn’t end well for them.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have a problem with Muslims. In fact, I’ve had the pleasure of working side by side with many of them during my career. I respect them, but I also understand that we have very different belief systems. If my path took me to a country where Islam was the rule, then I would act accordingly, but here in the United States, it is not, and that is what has always made us great.

Unfortunately for us, it seems the principle of America being one great ‘melting pot’ has been forgotten. Instead of people coming to here to become Americans, we have more and more people coming here who want to change us into something resembling what they left.

In 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt made a speech regarding the assimilation of immigrants into American culture. It was true then and even truer now:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American ... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag ... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language ... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." 

Why is this important? Because America is different.

Contrary to what many ill-informed people believe, we are not a democracy, but rather a constitutional republic. What this means is that we are a country where the officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law which limits the government's power over citizens. It is sometimes referred to as the rule of law, not man.

Why is this significant?

Because in a democracy, that is a political system in which the majority enjoys absolute power, the majority can vote to impose tyranny on themselves as well as the minority opposition.  Simply put, without the constraints of The Constitution, the majority can vote to elect those who will infringe upon our inalienable God-given rights.  Thomas Jefferson referred to this as elected despotism.

This brings us to the 2nd Amendment and the current argument that certain guns need to be banned; for our own good.

You might not like guns and that is your right, but you simply don’t get to choose that for me. That might not sit well with you. You might be one of those enlightened folks who believe that, by simply getting rid of all the guns, the world will be one big happy family and that is within your 1^st Amendment right to profess, but I also have my 2^nd Amendment right just in case you are wrong.

It’s like that old adage: Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn’t.

The truth is that we cannot legislate morality. 

I’m truly sorry for the loss of lives in Orlando, but if anyone believes that the sole responsibility for what happened resides with a mechanical object, I suggest you seek some immediate help. In over two decades in law enforcement I have had a front row seat to man’s inhumanity to man. In his desire to kill another, man has no limitations. I have seen baseball bats, hammers, steak-knives, cars, ropes, broom-sticks, machetes, rocks, handguns, dogs,  arson, poison, swords, rifles / shotguns, explosives, and planes, along with a few I have probably forgotten, used to kill other human beings.  This absurd belief that, by somehow removing one item from the inventory list, we will somehow be able to bring peace to modern civilization is not only patently false, but extremely dangerous.

We look for simplistic answers to complex questions that we don’t want to address, like thinking we can we hangone of those stupid little 'no gun' placards outside of or homes, schools and offices and think that we are safe.

Let us take the 1994 ‘Assault Weapons Ban’ as an example. This was supposed to cure everything. In fact, after the Orlando terror attack, many are calling for its re-instatement. The truth however is much different than what the politicians and pundits would lead you to believe. A number of academic studies determined that this ban had little to no effect on gun violence and that the re-institution of the ban would have no significant merit.

Now granted, when we have an attack like this, it does seem to grab the headlines, but is it the gun or the person wielding it that is the real problem?

There’s the complex question that no one wants to address.

Whether it was Adam Lanza, Nidal Hassan, Jared Loughner, Dylan Roof, James Holmes, and now Omar Mateen, each had clearly observable mental health issues that went unreported / unaddressed. These issues should have precluded them from having access to any firearm. In essence, they were already breaking the law long before they ever pulled the trigger.  Unfortunately, society does not have an answer for mental health issues, so they look to shift the blame to something else and that is most often guns. Guns can be banned and restricted. Politicians can pass more laws and the media can sing their praises, at least until the next shooting.

You know, it is kind of ironic.  After every terror attack I hear the admonishment that we shouldn’t judge all of Islam because of a few bad ones. When we have a mass shooting, the mental health community is quick to remind us that we should be wary of stigmatizing the many, in an attempt to stop the few. Yet if the NRA, or a responsible gun owner, protests, they are quickly attacked as being evil.

We don’t want to fix the problem; we simply want to pass the buck.

Which brings me to my final thought: Blame the police.

It seems that our men and women in law enforcement have become the political piñata when all else fails.  To aggressive, not aggressive enough, too militaristic, ill-equipped, and the complaints and accusations just continue to flow, ad nauseum. They speak of them in abstract, as if they are some foreign entity brought in to punish them.

I have a question for those who enjoy bashing the police: just where exactly do you think they come from?

In over two decades of law enforcement I worked with people from every walk of life: Heterosexual, Homosexual, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Muslim, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and the list goes on. The NYPD is comprised of well over fifty thousand uniformed and civilian members which covers the entire spectrum of the population of New York City.

We are not aliens, recruited from some distant planet, and brought here to subjugate the people.

We are the people.

We have just chosen to be that thin blue line which separates the innocent from the evil in the world. 

One of the best analogies I have ever read was Lt. Colonel David Grossman’s On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs.

Simply put: We hunt the evil that you pretend doesn’t exist.

This vilification and dehumanizing of law enforcement is done for one purpose and that is to pretend that the underlying problem is someone else’s fault.

I read a 2015 New York Times article that outlined a series of seventy-three (73) fatal police shootings, over the course of a 1 year period, from August 2014 to August 2015, throughout the United States. While the story strives to paint a picture of cops killing unarmed people, I could not help but note, that in all but three cases, the shootings where the end result of what started off as some type of criminal activity.

Look we have to be honest about things. Cops are not rolling down the streets of Chicago’s South Side doing drive-by shootings. Nor are they pulling up at playgrounds and schools to pop off a few rounds for giggles. In my twenty-two year law enforcement career I never worked with a cop that put on his gun belt and said ‘God, I hope I get to cap someone tonight.’ Yet, if you listen to the media and all the activists, you would think this nation was being patrolled by brutal mad-dogs Hell bent on killing everyone they encounter.

It should come as no shock to anyone that there are criminals in the world. If you engage in criminal behavior, eventually you will cross paths with law enforcement. There are unintended consequences of actions. Does that mean you should be killed for breaking the law? Of course not, but if it is 2 a.m. and you are coming out of a home, that you just burglarized, and you quickly reach into your waistband, as the cops approach you, there is a very good chance you are going to get shot. If it turns out you didn’t have a gun, well what can I say? Your mother raised an idiot.

I’m reminded of the Michael Brown case in Ferguson, Missouri. Here is someone who just robbed a store, then assaulted a police officer, while attempting to get control of his firearm, and then after running away, turned and charged back toward the officer. He was shot and killed.

The media and the political activists attempted to paint this picture of a mad-dog cop who gunned down an innocent child. The fact that the innocent ‘child’ was 6’4”, weighed 294 lbs., and had drugs in his system at the time of his death, seemed to somehow get lost in the translation.

• Crime 1 – Illegal Narcotics
• Crime 2 – Robbery
• Crime 3 – Assault / Attempted Robbery
• Crime 4 – ?

Well, let’s just say that I don’t think he was running back to surrender. Remember, “Hands Up – Don’t Shoot” was definitively proven to be a lie by eye-witnesses who testified that they believed Wilson’s life was in danger and that he fired in self-defense.

I’m sorry, but these are the unintended consequences of a criminal behavior.

Did Darren Wilson get up that morning thinking he was going to kill someone? No.

Did Michael Brown get up that morning thinking his illegal actions would lead to his death? No, and that is the problem.

We have turned a corner in society where we are abdicating personal responsibility. We are living in a new world, where it is always someone else’s fault for our actions and more and more people are buying into that premise.

• Bad grades in school: The teacher is at fault.
• Choose to pursue a useless degree program in college and now you can’t find a job when you graduate:  Greedy capitalism.
• Engage in bad behavior: The U.S. is a brutal police state.

I understand the allure. Let’s face it, who wouldn’t want to enjoy all the benefits, but none of the responsibility for ones actions?  But this is the real world.  The politicians and activist’s lie to you, the media paints a narrative they want you to believe, but ultimately it is up to us to search for the truth.

In the aftermath of the terror attack some are claiming that the police were at fault, that they were slow to respond because it was only a LGBT bar.

I was not there so I won’t comment on the tactics that were used, unlike some self-proclaimed experts who jumped at the chance to promote themselves. I will say that the moment Omar Mateen took hostages inside the club, and claimed to have explosives that he was going to strap onto the hostages, the entire situation changed.

Imagine the headlines Sunday morning had the police immediately entered and he detonated a bomb killing countless people. The press would have crucified the entire police department as well as the mayor and everyone in city government.

The problem with Monday morning quarterbacks is that, in most instances, they have never actually played the game, but have the luxury of being right 100% of the time. This causes them to think they are smarter than the people who actually do the job. Sorry Skippy, but you don’t get the right to judge me from your living room, twenty-four hours after the incident. You want to play Mr. or Mrs. Expert? Then I suggest you put on a uniform and get some skin in the game.

You might find that the BB gun, which looks so obviously fake, under the brilliant light of the TV cameras, looks a helluva lot more realistic at 1 a.m. when it is being pointed at your face.

In law enforcement this is called: damned if you do, dead if you don’t.

To the members of the LGBT community, don’t think for one second that the cops in Orlando did things any differently because it was a gay club. We don’t play games like. You needed help and they came and I can state with almost absolute certainty that in the group of cops who responded that morning a number of them were also members the LGBT community.

We are not the enemy, we are you.

The real enemy is the politicians we have elected. They don’t want to be bothered addressing the real problems and finding actual solutions; that would take honesty and require actual work on their part. They count on our ignorance and drive the wedge of division between us. One day soon we will have to wake up and realize that we are not Republicans or Democrats, but Americans. Only then will we be able to finally fix what is truly broken.

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

A closer look at the 'Common Sense' gun laws

I’m not an asshole, at least I don’t try to be, but sometimes my posts can come off a bit snarky at times. I blame it on the NY’er in me and my sometimes failing attempt at humor, at least that’s what my loving wife calls it.

The reality is that I try to be as open as possible when it comes to other’s positions, but lately it seems as if all that happens in ‘discussions’ is an inevitable breakdown in communication which usually leads to such name calling as: Liberal Lunatic, Teabagger, etc..  Once that occurs, civil discussion goes right out the window.

Now as we get ready to close the book on 2015, and move into the last year of the President's term, It is anticipated that he will make a move to bi-pass Congress and begin enacting some form of gun control through Executive Action, which is a topic for another day.

So I decided that I would try and take a revised look at this whole ‘common sense’ gun law thing and explain the reasons why I believe this is not realistic.

So what exactly are the new ‘common sense’ gun laws that folks on the left are proposing?

1.        Re-authorize the Assault Weapons Ban
2.       Stricter background checks
3.        Close the gun show loophole
4.        Denying guns to folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.
5.       Ban large capacity magazines
6.       Ban fully automatic weapons

I’m even willing to go out on a limb and throw in the old stand-by:

1. No one is trying to confiscate your guns

For the record, I spent twenty-two years in law enforcement. I tend to be one of the folks that believe in the law and, more importantly, that our laws should be enforced. So you would think that I would be in favor of these ‘common sense’ gun laws, but I’m not and here is the reason why.

The Assault Weapons ban of 1994 restricted the manufacture, transfer, and possession of semi-automatic assault weapons except for: a) those already in lawful possession at the time of the law's enactment; b) 660 rifles and shotguns listed by type and name; c) permanently inoperable, manually operated, or antique firearms; rifles unable to accept a detachable magazine of more than five rounds; d) shotguns unable to hold more than five rounds in a fixed or detachable magazine; e) and those made for, transferred to, or owned by the U.S. government or a U.S. law enforcement agency.

The ban had outlined specific cosmetic features that would classify a firearm as an assault weapon. For example, rifles and shot guns could not have folding stocks, pistol grips, bayonet mounts (my particular favorite, it was just a small little hunk of metal for crying-out-loud), flash suppressors or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor (why, what was so inherently wrong with trying to cut down on muzzle flash?). The bill also went so far as banning an attachable grenade launcher. (Really? Another obscure little hunk of metal bites the dust).

The problem is that the ban defined the term ‘semi-automatic assault weapon,’ which is commonly shortened to assault weapon. Semi-automatic firearms shoot one round with each trigger pull. It was sort of a political shell game, because the term assault weapon was also commonly used to refer to some military weapons. The similar, but more technical accurate assault rifle, referred to military rifles capable of selective fire (Fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire). What they didn’t tell you was that these weapons are considered Title II weapons and were already regulated by the National FirearmsAct of 1934 and Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Neither the original ban, nor its expiration, changed the legal status of automatic firearms.

The reality is that the Assault Weapons Ban should be referred to as the Spooky Weapons Ban, because it is consistently portrayed in the media that way. Essentially, if it looks evil then it is evil. Unfortunately, it is tantamount to slapping a Lamborghini emblem onto a Prius and claiming it is a sports car.

Now, I can understand this confusion with the public. The fact is that our president doesn’t even understand it. After the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama referred to the weapon used as being fully automatic and he also seems to think that there is no apparent difference between assault weapons and machine guns. Likewise so does Hillary Clinton, who in 2008 called for sensible regulations to “keep machine guns away from folks who shouldn't have them” and has continued to champion for more restrictions. I guess our much vaunted former Secretary of State hasn’t heard of the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Interesting enough, after the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Gail Collins, of the New York Times, said that "the San Bernardino murderers were wielding assault rifles, with which they were able to fire an estimated 65-75 bullets in rapid succession." Collins also said that these assault weapons are "the armament of choice for mass shootings." The truth is they aren’t, as you will see in a moment. Collins was factually incorrect on both issues. So if the politicians and the press get it wrong, you can understand why the average citizen is confused.

How exactly did the much touted original ban workout? Well, not so well. Several academic studies, including the NRC, determined that the ban showed no clear impact on gun violence. The fact is that the pre-ban use of these types of weapons was rare to begin with. Their position was that, should the ban be reinstated, that  “its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as ‘assault rifles’ or ‘assault weapons’, are rarely used in gun crimes.” A position which I can personally attest too, based on my career in law enforcement.

So, if a new ban won’t work, perhaps stricter background checks would. Ok, I’m going to take a step out onto the ledge here and say “psst….. I agree”. Okay, get up off the floor, it isn’t that shocking. In fact, I think a lot of folks would say that they feel as if there should be more stringent checks. The problem here is who is going to do it and what will it encompass? Right now, each state has their own criteria. I agree that should be amended, but you have to be intellectually honest and admit that the federal government doesn’t exactly shine here. Consider for just a moment that some of the 9/11 hijackers overstayed their visas. The Boston Marathon bomber, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was known to the FBI and was even being investigated for a triple homicide. One of the San Bernardino shooters, Tashfeen Malik, who came here on a K-1 visa and was fully vetted, but the address she gave in Pakistan was non-existent. Neither her, nor her husband, had any criminal record nor were either of them on any terrorist watch list. Now granted, while these are notorious examples, they still serve as a reminder that simply saying that people are ‘checked’ doesn’t really mean a lot. Let’s not forget that the agency you would think would be able to be the keeper of records, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, doesn’t exactly have a stellar record of being able to track guns used in their own sting operation.

But let’s just say that we somehow came up with an all-powerful, all-knowing, federal agency that could handle it. What should be on it? Or maybe we could come up with a list of those who shouldn’t be on it. Persons arrested for violent felonies? Yeah, that’s a good start, but wait, should it be arrested for or convicted of? What about the man (or woman, in this PC world we live in) who beats up/ threatens their spouse. That’s kinda clear cut, except when the spouse is lying. Believe me, it happens a lot. So should that person lose their firearm? Some on the left believe this doesn’t happen, but it does. Who decides when they get it back? Maybe if they are acquitted, that sounds good. But wait, what happens if the spouse decides to retract her allegation? If she / he says they lied, then the person should get their firearms back, right? What if she / he is lying about lying? This also happens, a LOT.

What about mental health? Oh wait, they are already excluded. Yeah, you say, but that’s not working. Okay, I see your point. Let’s create a database so we can flag them. Hold on, can’t do that, federal privacy laws. Wait, you mean that the same federal government that calls for more in-depth background checks won’t allow mental health to be included? Yep.

Let’s take those wild and wacky Texans for example. You know that radical right state that seems to love everything bigger and better. Over one million folks a year buy a gun in Texas and get the required background check. The checks look at a person’s criminal history, but not always their mental health record. You see, in Texas, court ordered commitments or guardianships must be reported, but, according to both Texas and federal law, information about a person’s emergency mental health detentions / warrants, protective custody orders, or drug / alcohol rehab services cannot be made public for a background check.

Well that sucks.

But realistically, how much impact would that make?

Well, if you were the victims of Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Aaron Alexis, Nidal Hassan, Dylann Roof, or Robert Dear, a lot. You see, none of them should have had weapons, which is of little consolation to the 72 dead and 113 injured.  

So what new common sense law would have prevented it? Sadly, none.

You see, medical records are kept private to encourage folks to get help, which is a great idea, except when they don’t. Unfortunately, the mental health community believes that any new laws could do more harm than good and they tend to vociferously object to the inclusion of those records. In a way it makes sense. Most people will suffer from a mental ‘issue’ in their lifetime, whether it is the death of a loved one, marital problems, or financial issues. The majority of people sort it out and move on, a small minority don’t. The mental health community will tell you that we should be very wary of stigmatizing the many, in an attempt to stop the few.

Kind of odd that you always hear the NRA being blasted for saying something similar, yet no one objects when it comes from the mental health community. I guess they have a better lobbing group.

Well, it doesn’t seem that we are any closer to coming up with a better system, so let’s move on to what many believe to be the real problem: The Gun Show Loophole.

I so want to make this a drinking game, but I’m afraid that I’d be too boxed, in too short a period of time, to actually be able to breathe on my own. Here is the truth: there is no gun show loophole. Despite what politicians and the media claim, existing gun laws apply just as much to gun shows as they do to any other place where guns are sold. Since 1938, persons selling firearms have been required to obtain a federal firearms license. It doesn’t matter whether a dealer sells from a storefront, a room in his house or a table at a gun show, the rules are the same. The dealer must get authorization from the FBI for the sale. The truth is that firearms are the most regulated consumer product in the United States, the only product for which FBI permission is required for every single sale.

So what’s the issue? Well, it stems from private sales. In some states, individuals do not have to run a check. You might think that is odd, but let’s just say my wife falls in love with my old .38 S&W revolver. I am pretty sure of her criminal history, as well as her mental health background, and she has the proper license to possess it, so do I really need to do a background check before I give it to her?  

Now many believe that this loophole is a really big thing and they cite some impressive numbers like “25-50 percent of the vendors at most gun shows are unlicensed dealers.”

Holy crap, call out the National Guard!!

Whoa, hold on, wait a moment, I’ve been to a lot of gun shows. This is one of those trick questions, or rather a trick statement (pay attention, you’ll see this again).

You see the number might be correct, but it’s the terminology that is the problem. They use the generic term ‘vendor’ to promote their claim. Unfortunately, for those of you, like me, who have gone to gun shows, it is more often than not that you have to wade through table after table of ‘vendors’ selling:  Candles, Cookies, Jerky, Books, Knives, Lights, Coins, Stamps, Surplus Military Gear, and an assortment of other crap that makes you wonder why they just don’t call it a flea market. In fact, an NIJ study once concluded that gun shows were such a ‘minor source of criminal gun acquisition’ that they were not even worth reporting as a separate figure.

Damn, this isn’t working out well. Let’s move onto something we can all agree on, denying folks on the terror ‘no fly’ list.

Last night the president asked congress to pass legislation that would strip anyone who was on the terrorism ‘no fly’ list of the ability to purchase a firearm in the United States. Senator Dianne Feinstein has also proposed a bill that would prohibit anyone, whose name appears on the list, from buying a firearm. A lot of folks are claiming that makes sense, after all, no one wants a terrorist to be able to buy a gun.  I mean how controversial could this be? If they have been placed on the ‘no fly’ list, surely they pose a significant threat and should be banned from owning a weapon. Right?  

I see you nodding your head in agreement. You have much to learn my little padawan.

First, we need to establish some basic information about the ‘no fly’ list, which is a component of the FBI’s terror watch list. The list, which came about after the 9/11 attacks, was founded on good intentions, but we know all about the road that is paved with those. The truth is that the ‘no-fly’ list is an unmitigated disaster. While there are many on the list that are connected to terrorism, nearly half of the names belong to people who don’t.

Wait, how is this possible you’re asking?

Well, like I said before, it started out with the best of intentions, but government seems to always find a way to screw things up, even when they aren’t trying. In the case of the ‘no fly’ list, some would believe they are trying.  

Take for example Stephen Hayes, a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Mr. Hayes was added to the list simply because he booked a one-way trip to Istanbul for a cruise, and then returned to the U.S., a few weeks later, via Athens. Hardly grounds for someone to lose their right to own a firearm, but Mr. Hayes is a contributor on Fox so maybe…. No, perish the thought. How about priests, nuns, students and peace activists? Heck, in 2003 the New York Times railed against the Bush administration regarding the list, stating that some had been on the list simply for their liberal views. When President Bush left office the list contained nearly 50,000 names. Under the Obama administration this mangled, bureaucratic mess contains over 700,000. Not hearing much out of the NYT now however.

The truth is that all it takes is for the government to declare it has reasonable suspicion that someone could be a terrorist. In fact, it doesn’t even take the government. An anonymous source can make the claim.

The problem is that the list contains names, not identities, and has led to any number of misidentifications and confusion. As a result, innocent people, with no connection to anything remotely terror related, have found themselves smack dab in the middle of a nightmare. To make matters worse, there is no easy way to have one’s name removed from what amounts to a secret blacklist. I am certain that there are a number of folks who don’t even know they are on the list. Hell, former Senator, Ted Kennedy, and Congressman John Lewis were on the list. I won’t even begin to go into the details of the 18 month old child who was removed from a flight because she was on the list.

Under the Feinstein bill, those on the list would have their 2nd Amendment rights denied. Now there are some that say that our 2^nd Amendment right is not absolute, and they are correct. Under the current law felons, fugitives, drug addicts and domestic abusers are prohibited from purchasing firearms. The sticking point is that those folks listed above are entitled to due process, before that right is taken away, a luxury not afford to those on the ‘no fly’ list. All that would be necessary is to have your name pop up on a list, because someone in the government said, without any probable cause, that it should be there.

Oh, and remember what I said before about the ‘no fly’ list being a component of the FBI’s terror watch list? Well then this should make your head spin. It’s been revealed that, in the course of an Inspector General investigation, the names of seventy plus members of the Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Safety Administration, appear on the terror watch list. Do they have actual ties to terror or are they simply there by accident? I don’t know, but apparently neither does the TSA. If you couple this information along with the fact that OIG agents were able to get weapons past screening points in 95% of their exercises and it doesn’t exactly instill confidence in me to fly anytime soon.

I don’t know about you, but I thought this was going to be easier. I think I need a drink.

Let’s move on to banning large capacity magazines. Surely that’s something that shouldn’t be too controversial, right? Obviously, you’ve never loaded a magazine before. This matter sort of falls under the whole ‘spooky’ thing. Think about this for a moment. I am inclined to go on a shooting rampage, but the law says I can’t have a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds (7 rounds in New York). Damn, well there goes that rampage, said no one ever. Did you miss the part where I said 'I was inclined to go on a shooting rampage'? Do you really think that if I were limited to a 10 round magazine that I would somehow be less of a threat?

This is kind of a two-fer, and includes banning fully automatic weapons. First let us consider the weapon. The overwhelming majority, and I mean like 99.+% majority, involve semi-automatic weapons, not full auto. Why you ask? Well, because the overwhelming majority of folks that have the money to purchase full auto are really not the type that go out and commit crimes. So, let’s deal with the semi-automatic. It doesn’t matter whether you have ten rounds in the magazine, or thirty, or one hundred, you still have to pull the trigger to fire each round.  I once heard a reporter say that a particular ‘assault weapon’ could fire a staggering 800 rounds per minute. Sounds completely diabolical, where do I get one?

Again, this is the trick statement. While a particular weapon might be able to fire 800 rounds per minute, does the gun we are talking about have this ability? In the case of that reporter, the answer was no, it did not. Well, why not? Because the gun being talked about was the spooky semi-automatic gun. The 800 number is the cyclic rate, which is the technical rate of fire. Under mechanical conditions, at full auto, it can, but in semi-auto it’s not even remotely close. You would have to fire more than 13 rounds per second, without stopping, to achieve this number. I don’t know about you, but I have done more than my fair share of shooting and my trigger finger gets sore long before I ever hit this mythical number, and nowhere near in a one minute interval. You would also need twenty-six, 30 round, magazines to achieve this. Soldiers in Afghanistan don’t even carry that much ammo.

While we are on the topic of full-auto weapons I should let you know that, while they are capable of firing that way, the VAST majority of people who shoot, or have shot them, will tell you that almost no one does. Why? Well, if you are paying for your own ammo, the bill racks up pretty quickly. Add that to the fact that full-auto ain’t worth shit if you are trying to hit an actual target, hence the motto ‘spray and pray’. So realistically, just because it can, doesn’t mean you will. In my experience, the 3 round burst is the better choice.

So why shouldn’t we ban large capacity magazines? I guess the real question is why should we?

To be fair, this is a personal thing. I don’t like to reload; frankly it’s a pain in the ass, or at least a pointer finger. In the grand scheme of things, if I am so inclined to commit a heinous act, it won’t matter to me. I can reload from three 10 round magazines almost as quickly as I can fire from one 30 round. The average shooter will probably be a bit slower, but at that point it’s almost academic.

So where does that leave us? Well, no closer to a resolution, but I at least hope you have seen things in a different light.

Oh wait, I almost forgot my add-on, the old no one is trying to confiscate your guns story.

You know, there was a time when that wasn’t true. In fact it was actually only a couple of days ago. The New York Times said as much in their editorial. They are not the first and they certainly won’t be the last. To be clear, the word is not used, that would be bad optics. Gun confiscations rarely go over well, just ask those who witnessed it in my previous post. So they use passive words like surrendering for the good of all, or they issue notices that your weapons are now illegal and you need to turn them in. It’s the ‘rose by any other name’ syndrome.

But is the idea of gun confiscation really the manifestation of some right-wing nut job seeing government conspiracies behind every corner? Unfortunately, the answer is no.

I am reminded of the old adage: Once is a mistake. Twice is a pattern. Three times is a habit.

In 1861, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Confiscation Act, authorizing federal troops to begin confiscating weapons in preparation for military re-conquest of the South.

In 1890, at the height of the American Indian relocation effort, U.S. Troops, confiscated the weapons from the Sioux at Wounded Knee. After they were disarmed, the troops shot and killed nearly 300 of them.

In 1941, President Franklin Roosevelt used the attack at Pearl Harbor to justify the mass confiscation of guns, and other property, from people deemed ‘enemy aliens’ all over the United States.  After the confiscation, the disarmed individuals were rounded up and placed in concentration camps.

Most recently, in 2005, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the city of New Orleans launched a wholesale, door-to-door, gun confiscation under the declaration of martial law. Members of the New Orleans Police Department, as well as the National Guard, went door to door securing these weapons. Over 1,000 firearms were seized, and untold numbers of people, houses, and vehicles were aggressively searched in the process.  Residents, who had already suffered the hardships of the hurricane, were left vulnerable and defenseless by the government that had thus far shown they were unable to protect them.

Following the disaster, the government promised that gun confiscation would never happen again.  But the reality is that such guarantees aren’t worth the paper they are printed on during a crisis situation.  As the above shows, the guaranteed rights in the constitution have certainly not been upheld in the past, so why should one more promise prevent future gun confiscation?

Gun confiscation is an ugly term and is proving to be damning to those seeking higher office. Many gun owners are concerned, and rightfully so. There are many who feel strongly about removing firearms and make no bones about it, you only have to turn on the TV and see a whole host of pundits and politicians championing this. But even if they stop talking about confiscation, does that mean the threat is really gone? No.

Here is what I know.

Microstamping legislation was passed in California AB 1471 and signed into law on October 14, 2007. D.C. is the only other place to adopt similar legislation and is set to enforce it next year. Similar legislation is also under consideration in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Wisconsin, and Illinois.

Microstamping is a ballistics identification technology whereby microscopic markings are engraved onto the tip of the firing pin and onto the breech face of a firearm with a laser. When the gun is fired, these etchings are transferred to the primer by the firing pin and to the cartridge case head by the breech face, using the pressure created when a round is fired. At face value, most people would say that’s a great idea. Sadly, they would also be wrong. There are a number of variables which make this issue problematic from a law enforcement standpoint: a) Discarded brass, such as that from a firing range, could be misused, providing false evidence and increasing the workload for investigators. b) Firing a large number of rounds will eventually wear down the microstamp. c) Microstamping is relatively new, with a single source provider, and has not been subjected to sufficient testing.

The reality is that this was an end run. Rather than ban guns outright, the state of California created a de facto ban, where they simply eliminated new gun sales.  Gun manufacturers Smith & Wesson and Ruger have already stopped selling to California.

San Bernardino shows that, despite it being a direct terrorist threat, the narrative was immediately turned toward gun control. The fact that California has some of the nations’ most stringent ‘common sense’ gun laws on the books meant nothing to the two criminals who were so inclined to break the law. Gun laws also don’t mean anything to those suffering from mental illness.

For decades we have had what amounts to a revolving door justice system that has taught felons, old and young, that laws will not be enforced. It’s the same reason why a few weeks back, in New York City, Junior Regis, a member of the Brooklyn’s Most Wanted gang, with a lengthy rap sheet including robbery, was nabbed for the 2nd time in just ten days for gun possession. After the 2nd arrest, prosecutors recommended that Regis be held without bail or be given a $500,000.00 bail. Much to their surprise, the judge released Regis on $1,000.00 which he promptly posted.

To many this might be a bit of a shock, but to those of us in law enforcement, who have seen this same scenario play out time and again; it is nothing more than business as usual. Despite the incredible amount of gun laws, already on the books, the criminal justice system seemingly refuses to incarcerate offenders for them. Yet, we, the law abiding gun owners, are constantly being told, by this administration, that what we simply need to fix our gun problem is more gun laws.

In the immortal words of Rahm Emanuel: "You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

An Enemy By Any Other Name - Islamic Terrorism

#MuslimsAreNotTerrorist

It’s a catchy Twitter hashtag, isn’t it?

I saw it this morning as I did my daily Twitter session for my books and thought it kind of ironic that it was trending higher than #ParisAttack. In today’s politically correct climate, a certain segment of society goes to great lengths to scold the rest of us that we shouldn’t paint everyone with the same broad brush.

Unfortunately, that only seems to apply to their causes. It is the same group that seems hell bent on trying to use the same broad brush in making the connection between criminals and mentally ill folks, who use guns in mass shootings, and legal gun owners. They also like to try and blame Christians for disgusting groups, like the Westboro Baptist Church.  What they don’t tell you is that the ‘church’ was founded by Fred Phelps, a civil rights activist and member of the Democratic Party. But those are topics for another day.

I checked out the hashtag page and was not surprised to see a large majority of folks, the same type I routinely see on TV at various protests, condemning the association of Muslims with terrorism. To be fair, they are correct, not all Muslims are terrorists, but in the case of this attack, it appears that THESE Muslims were and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out.

I don’t care how you quantify it, clarify, or categorize it, the bottom line is that we are at war with radical Islam. Wring your hands, grit your teeth, but the folks in ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, Boko Haram, Hamas, Hezbollah, Haqqani Network, Palestine Liberation Front, or any of the hundred other groups, currently engaged in terrorist activities around the world, are at war with us.

Here’s a newsflash: They don’t care what you think of them or their religion. They are Muslims and they are proud to wage jihad against non-believers.

If the rest of the Muslim world is offended at being ‘lumped’ together with the radicals, then they need to stand up as one and condemn it. That means working with the rest of the world to root out this evil wherever it exists, like King Abdullah II of Jordan. Unlike Saudi Arabia which continues to be one of the most prolific sponsors of Islamic terrorism.

I'll be the first one to get up on the soapbox and vehemently condemn anyone who attempts to hijack my religion in order to kill non-believers. I think everyone has the right to their religious beliefs, but I also believe that they have a duty to denounce those who use it as justification in the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. If you can't grasp that concept, I can't help you. 

It is time we stop with the silly hashtags. It makes you look like a bunch of petulant little collegiate assholes, stomping your feet when someone bruises your feelings with their hurtful words. Your enemy is at the gate and you are too busy condemning the folks manning it, because they have the audacity to identify them for who they are: radical Islamic terrorists.

I spent over two decades in law enforcement, a majority of that time dealing with the threat of terrorism. This is not a new threat, but one we have been facing for decades.

In the 1970’s I thought we would wake up when we had to deal with the Iranian’s storming our Embassy in Tehran and taking our people hostage.

In the 1980’s I thought we would wake up after the embassy / barracks bombings in Beirut or Pan Am Flight 103.

In the 1990’s I thought it would be the 1^st World Trade Center attack, or the bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia or the embassy bombing in Kenya and Tanzania, Africa.

In the 2000’s I knew the attacks of September 11^th would finally be our wake up call.

But in the 2010’s we had the attack in Benghazi and then the Boston Marathon bombing.

Apparently we do not wake up easily.

Despite what you want to believe, despite what you have been told, we are at war with radical Islam. Whether we are weary doesn’t matter to our enemy, because they are not. It is literally what they live and die for.

If a Christian committed these acts, they would expect to go directly to Hell, but these radical Muslims expect just the opposite; they truly believe they will go directly to Heaven for killing infidels. That is what so many people refuse to acknowledge. We, the entire world collectively, need to shine the light of truth on Islamic terrorism and acknowledged it for what it is. If this offends you, grow the fuck up. Being offended is going to be the least of your problems when you’re standing there with a knife to your throat.

One of the most precious rights we have in this country is the 2^nd Amendment, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It is something that many civilized nations do not have, including France. French gun laws are extremely strict, but once again we must face the truth: Gun laws apply only to those who are so inclined to follow the law. Terrorists apparently do not fall into this group. In fact, it is a theme I have discussed previously in my books. I specifically wrote about the problem France was facing in the city of Marseille in Bishop’s Gate. Tragically, the first officers to arrive at the Charlie Hebdo attack last January were unarmed Paris police officers who had to retreat because they didn’t have the ability to confront their attackers. Three officers were later killed.

As I watched the attacks unfold last evening I couldn’t help but wonder if things might have been different if there was someone carrying a legal weapon? That is not a flippant comment, but an honest question. I know that many of my fellow sheepdogs are thinking the same thing.

Sadly, there is nothing we can do about the attack in Paris. It is done. All we can do is prepare for what is coming, and make no mistake, it is coming.

Last night Isis made the statement: “The American blood is best, and we will taste it soon.” 

If you do not believe them, then you are a fool.

Yesterday, on the very day of the Paris Attack, the first load of Syrian refugees quietly arrived in Louisiana. It is estimated that the United States will take in some 10,000 +  refugees over the next year with the president calling for an even greater number. This is a fairly significant issue, considering that over 70% of the ‘refugees’ are young men. Even more disturbing is the fact that an ISIS operative confirmed that the group had infiltrated the refugees and thousands of them were already in Western Europe. If that doesn’t make you take pause, consider that there are already members of ISIS in the United States; that is undisputed fact. Sadly, they are not the only terror group that is here.

Just like in 1993 and again in 2001 we must realize that the threat is not over there, but here in our own country. We saw that most recently in Texas where two terrorist were killed as they prepared to launch an attack on a 'Draw Muhammad' event. Whether you agree or disagree with the person hosting that event, you must understand that these terrorists were already here.

As the left continues to call for more ‘reasonable gun control measures,’ understand that you are facing a very real threat to your 2^nd Amendment rights. I am often mystified when I hear people talking about how military style weapons are not required for hunting or sport. No, you’re correct, they aren’t. Now show me where in the 2^nd Amendment it says anything about hunting or sport? The protected firearms, spoken about in the 2^nd Amendment, are precisely those used by the military.  The founding fathers were keenly aware of the threat they faced from the King and British military. The 2^nd Amendment addressed that and protected the individual right of Americans to possess the proper weaponry to defend themselves against that threat.

Yesterday I had an occasion to go to a location that proudly displayed a ‘no guns’ sticker on the front door. The paper threat was enforced by an unarmed, and extremely bored looking, security guard. I shook my head. This is the silliness of the left.

When, not if, we are subject to the next attack here, I wonder if the terrorists will be thwarted by the ‘aggressive looking’ no gun decals displayed outside the restaurant or government building? Maybe they will turn away when the unarmed guard sternly points out their flagrant violation of the paper noticed proudly displayed.

I don’t think so. Hopefully he will have a place to retreat to, like the first officers in the Charlie Hebdo attack.

Unfortunately, it has been my experience that you cannot change the mind of someone so inclined to believe in this silliness. The only thing that actually causes someone to re-examine their beliefs is when they become the victims.

For the rest of you, I suggest that you take the threat very seriously.

If you are so inclined to carry a concealed weapon then you had better train with it. Understand the responsibility that comes with it and the fact that you might one day be called upon to act in defensive or yourself or your loved ones. 

If you’d like to stay up to date on the newest releases, then please like my Facebook page and feel free to follow me on Twitter.

No Guns Allowed - What are you thinking ?

I think I woke up on the silly side of stupid and entered the Utopian world of No Guns Allowed.

Have you seen these little signs that have popped up all over? They are quite adorable, if you believe in that sort of nonsense. I guess that I am just a cynic.

Over the course of a day I encountered these little gremlins in a series of different places: a hospital, DMV, the bank, and a pizza shop. You see them popping up at malls, schools, movie theaters, hotels. Heck, even private citizens are putting them up outside their homes. Not the brightest of ideas, but hey, to each his own. I did get a pretty good chuckle out of the fact that the Mall of America in Minnesota has ‘no gun’ signs up.

I wonder, in light of the recent threat to the mall, made by the terrorist group Al Shabaab, if the State Department should notify them that they will have to select a different target? Maybe Jen Psaki can send them a tweet. #PickAnotherMall

In the end, I finally threw my hands up in disgust and made a beeline straight to my sanctuary, far away from the lunacy that seems to grip society today. In fact, the grip seems to be more like a full-on death throttle, threatening to kill off any sort of resistance to their peace, love and harmony position.

It’s kind of ironic, isn’t it? 

Reminds me of those warm and cuddly folks over in the Middle East and their mantra: Convert, or Die.

Now before you start screaming about how you are just trying to protect innocent people, let me stop you. First, if that’s the best you can do, you need to go back to whatever school of higher learning you attended and demand a refund of your parent’s money. That’s just stupid, right out of the gate. Unlike you I have real world experience, earned during a twenty-two year career in law enforcement.

You’re not protecting people; you’re promoting your agenda. Let’s be honest, you don’t like guns, plain and simple. You think they are barbaric instruments that have no place in a civil society. The problem is that you place responsibility on the wrong thing. You believe that the tool is the problem, instead of looking at the person wielding it. You don’t have an answer for that, so you shift the focus away to something you can vilify.

During the course of my career, I encountered a number of people that were truly evil, and many more, who I would describe as ambitiously evil, those who had no qualms about using violence to further their criminal activities. These people were not encumbered by such niceties as obeying the law, respect for individual rights and properties. No, they believed that their particular needs, real or imagined, provided them the right to take from others. They did it with whatever tool was available at the time, whether it was a gun, knife, hammer, or physical force.

This is not a new trend, in fact it dates back to the earliest days of man, when Cain set upon his brother, Abel, and killed him out of jealousy and anger. I don’t recall any firearms being around at that time, and I don’t believe there was a big outcry of ‘No Stones.’

In the end, the actual culprit was not the weapon, but the person wielding it. The same is true today.

However, just like in the biblical days, man doesn’t seem to have an answer for man’s inhumanity to man. Not that we haven’t tried, ad nauseum, in terms of correctional rehabilitation, psychiatric care, and at-risk outreach programs. Yet the fundamental issue is that some people just don’t get along well with others. I’ve seen this many times over, and yet civil society has no answer. We believe that a term of imprisonment is sufficient to ‘correct’ a person’s behavior, but what about the person who likes his behavior and doesn’t want to change? To them, jail or a psychiatric facility is simply an imposed time-out, a place to wait until they can be unleashed on society again.

Do you think these folks worry about your silly little signs?

Do you think someone intent on robbing a bank; is going to simply walk away, his crime spree ground to a halt, because of a ‘no gun’ sign?

Do I need to answer that? Seriously?

The simple fact, based on my real world experience, and not some hippie-happy utopian fairytale is that criminals are not hampered by such niceties as the law. The politicians know this, the courts know this, and, honestly, so do you.

But you are not really interested in that, are you?

No, the truth is that you don’t like guns. You want them banished because they offend your sensibilities. They force you to recognize that there is evil in the world. An evil you pretend does not exist and one that I dealt with on a daily basis for twenty-two years. You believe that, because some professor taught you that guns were bad, grotesque, things that had no place in civil society. The same professors who taught you that prisons are inhumane and that those who are incarcerated are good people who were made into criminals, because of the socio-economic pressures that were imposed on them by a privileged society.

Yes, there are some that become criminals by virtue of necessity, but it has been my experience that those folks rarely use a weapon to further their crime. No mom is pulling out an MP-5 to heist a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread. No, it is the ones who have embraced the violent criminal lifestyle that use a weapon and they are not impeded by laws. If they were, we’d have no crime.

No, the sad truth is that these signs are hung up by idiots, who believe that this small placard will protect them from the wolves of society. That somehow this little plastic shield will keep them from harm. Jeez, why didn’t we think of this hundreds of years ago? Think of all the wars we could have prevented, just by hanging one of these signs at the border crossing. I’m sure Hitler would have turned away at the Polish border if there was a ‘No Invasion’ sign. In fact, why didn’t Wyatt Earp think about that? He could have just hung a sign saying no guns in Tombstone and could have avoided the whole O.K. Corral fiasco…… oh wait, he did. Guns were outlawed in Tombstone in 1878, three years before the gunfight. Yeah, I guess that worked out well.

Here’s the thing, I won’t sacrifice my freedom and safety, because you’re not comfy with my gun. The fact that you will never know that I have one, unless I have to defend myself or you, means nothing. Your signs indicate to me that you do not value me as a customer, just my money. So I will not give you either. I think of it as doing you a favor. The less money you have, the less you have to lose when the armed criminal comes in and rips you off.

I pray that nothing befalls you. Unlike the criminal, I believe in and respect laws. I wish that we lived in a peaceful world where there was no need for guns, the police or laws. I wish we were more civil with one another, but we aren’t.

And therein lies the rub: Society has no answer for the criminal element.

Politicians make more laws, that criminals will not follow, and businesses put up signs, that criminals will not follow.

When the folly of these things becomes known, then the next step is to ban firearms from legal owners.

In 2008, during a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia, then Sen. Barrack Obama said:  "I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won't take your handgun away.”

On February 13th, during another infamous late Friday information dump, the ATF revealed that it is proposing to put the ban on 5.56 mm ammo on a fast track. The reason for this, the ATF contends, is that the ammo can be used in semi-automatic handguns and that they pose a threat to police. So the agency now proposes to reclassify it as armor-piercing and not exempt, meaning that they will be banned from production, sale and use. This would then be signed into effect through a presidential executive order. I guess he was right; he doesn't want to take away your rifle, just the ammunition for it.

You would think that I, a veteran member of law enforcement, would be behind such a well-intentioned rule. But I see past the line of drivel they are spewing.  This is simply a ruse. One of those ‘surely you’re not opposed to common sense laws, designed to protect our law enforcement officers, are you?’ charades.

The ATF has not even alleged, much less offered evidence,  that even one such round has ever been fired from a handgun at a police officer, despite the fact that there are millions upon millions of rounds that have been sold and used in the U.S.

So why are they doing this?

It’s like the ‘no gun’ placard. They don’t have an answer for the real problem, so they go off chasing unicorns. It makes them feel better.

This isn’t about doing anyone any good; it is about pursuing their agenda of outlawing firearms. They don’t like them, and if you don’t agree you’re one of those knuckle-dragging, violence mongers who can’t be trusted to know what is best for you. I guess the fact that I served in law enforcement for over two decades means nothing.

Here’s a novel idea, you hold onto your beliefs. If you don’t like me and my guns, I will respect that and not patronize your establishment. At the same time, I demand that you respect my rights, protected under law. If you don’t like guns, I won’t force you to own one, but do not be so misguided to believe that you can tell me that I cannot own one.

Follow me on Twitter - @Andrew_G_Nelson