During the House Oversight Committee hearings yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder denounced what he called a “political gotcha game.” And he was not without his defenders, Democrats all, who also tried to spin the hearing into nothing more than an election year sideshow orchestrated by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA). Yet ironically, even as Holder and his defenders tried to make Issa and his Republican colleagues look like naïve political opportunists, the rhetoric of the Democrats was little more than a politically charged lesson in sycophancy 101.

For example, when Congressman Gerald Connolly’s (D-VA) time began, he addressed the room, and Holder, thus: “Thank you for being here and showing such dignity and honor in the face of some who are suggesting that you are other [than dignified and honorable].” And Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL)  opened his time by referring to yesterday’s hearing as a “bonfire of the vanities.” He said this was so because “after nearly six hearings, [by those who] are looking for the perfect case to embarrass the AG and the President,” all that’s been learned is that “this is not it.” These two examples were indicative of the praise Democrats heaped upon Holder, and they clearly demonstrated that the facts don’t matter. Rather, they put party and power above the truth.

Yet as stomach turning as this was, perhaps even worse was the Democrats’ unabashed, open pursuit of more gun control during yesterday’s hearings. Almost to a man, once they finished praising Holder they took turns trying to alleviate the pressure he’s under by suggesting Fast and Furious couldn’t have happened if we had more stringent gun control laws. (In making this point, they conveniently overlooked the number of gun control laws that violated with impunity during Operation Fast and Furious.)

So as the saga unfolded yesterday, once Connolly had praised the “dignity and honor” of Holder, he and the AG basically had a conversation in front of the world about the supposed need for a new federal firearms trafficking law.

(more…)

When Obama was running for president in 2008, he promised to “fundamentally change America” – a phrase which lucid Americans took as meaning he was going to bring his leftist agenda to bear on us all. And if Obama has had any success as president, it’s certainly been his success in changing us fundamentally from a nation under law to a nation that often looks lawless. From a nation in which one feels secure into a nation in which more and more people are feeling that their security is in their own hands (literally). And this has led not only to record breaking gun sales since Obama’s election, but also to changes in state laws around the country to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for their own protection.

As a result of this, Wisconsin, which was one of the few states to not have some form of concealed carry law within its borders, now has one thanks to their much maligned Republican legislature and Gov. Scott Walker. With the stroke of a pen in July of 2011, Walker made Wisconsin the 49th state in the union to allow the concealed carry of handguns. (Only Illinois, Obama’s old stomping ground, continues to deny its citizens this option right.)

And while I don’t want to take away from what Walker has accomplished in Wisconsin, during the last few years the momentum has shifted from seeking to allow licensed citizens to carry concealed handguns to allowing all citizens without a felony in their criminal record or mental health problems to carry concealed without a license or a permit. In other words, the growing push abroad is to recognize the 2nd Amendment as a sufficient permit for concealed carry and go from there.  After all, the 2nd Amendment does say we have the right not only to keep but also to bear arms.

(more…)

The United States is at a fork in the road regarding which way we will go as a people. The 2012 election could be the most important in our lifetime, and conservative leaders have reached a consensus on how to channel the energy and concerns of the American people to realize historic change this year.

The status quo will not survive the year. Our debt and spending have reached catastrophic proportions in the context of global financial difficulties and political upheaval. Consequently, by the end of 2012, America will either have taken a decisive step toward socialistic collectivism in the name of “equality” and “social justice,” where businesses and owners are punitively taxed to “pay their fair share,” or America will take a major step in the direction of returning to our Founders’ constitutional government, restoring the rule of law, federalism, free enterprise, and individual initiative and responsibility.

The American people will decide which path to take in the 2012 elections, not only in the general election on November 6 but also in the nominating process in primaries over the next several months for all major offices, including the presidency. Conservatives must act in a concerted and informed fashion in all of these contests to shape the public dialogue and thoroughly vet the candidates.

To achieve these ends, top conservative leaders acting under the umbrella of the Conservative Action Project have released “A Conservative Consensus for 2012” announcing agreement on major policies. These issues span all three wings of the conservative movement: economic, social, and national security.

(more…)

A politician is described as a “lame duck” once he or she has been defeated or announced their retirement, and is simply finishing out the remainder of their term in office. And even after Nov. elections are over and a large number of Senate and House members are voted out, the lame duck Senators and House members are usually just that – lame. But occasionally, they are fierce because the defeated office holder is bitter and has approximately two months to wreak havoc with his or her vote before leaving DC. When this happens, ideologues will use the time where they’re completely accountable to voters to score points for their side. We saw this after the Nov. 2010 elections when defeated Senators and House members banded together in late Dec. to repeal “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” so homosexuals could serve openly in the military. Yet as bad as this is, the opportunities for a lame duck office holder to attack our freedom grows exponentially when said office holder is in the White House, and when he’s an ideologue who hates private gun ownership, the right to self defense, and the 2nd Amendment.

And this brings us to a crucial point. Namely, that if Obama wins re-election in 2012, he will be awarded four years of lame duck status in which to do anything and everything he wants to lessen our ability to own and use guns. He knows he won’t have to answer for it because he will not be running for re-election in 2016.

What would four years of a lame duck President Obama mean for gun owners? The only way to know is to gauge it by the things Obama has done already. In 1995, when pursuing a state level office in Illinois, Obama “endorsed a complete ban on all handguns.” At that time, he also expressed his support for waiting periods for handgun purchases. A “waiting period” is a set period of time, usually 5 to 10 days, which has to elapse between the time an individual buys a gun and is actually allowed to take it home. In other words, customer “X” would pay for a gun on Monday of this week, but would not be allowed to pick it up at the store until Monday of next week. (The foolishness of this scenario is evident when one considers what that waiting period might mean for a female who is being threatened by a violent criminal or sexual predator. She would have to buy her gun then spend the next week, the “waiting period,” hoping the criminal or predator would be willing to wait a week before attacking as well.)

(more…)

Walk into your local gun shop and you’re likely to be greeted by some of the hardest working salesmen and women in America. On Black Friday alone Gun dealers flooded the FBI with background check requests for prospective hand gun and long gun buyers, smashing the previous record by more than 30%. Deputy Assistant FBI Director Jerry Pender said the checks, required by federal law, surged to nearly 130,000 during the day, far surpassing the previous high of 97,848 on Black Friday of 2008. The actual number of firearms sold is likely much higher because multiple firearms can be included in a transaction by a single buyer. The FBI does not track actual gun sales.

Gun buyers are more diverse than ever. This however is not the kind of diversity the anti-gun left is happy about. Young professionals, people starting families and women, in greater numbers than ever, are purchasing guns. Dennis Henigan, acting president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said he was “skeptical” of the Black Friday gun surge.

Refusing to accept the reality of the trend, he said “I think there may be no real significance at all.” This of course is the same Brady Center that that in the face of gun violence, has focused it’s efforts on restricting law abiding citizens’ access to guns, rather than campaigning for tougher penalties against criminals who use guns in crimes.

(more…)

When Obama talked “hope and change” on the campaign trail in 2008, he was believable enough to get elected, even though a large part of the change he promised would knowingly lead to a burgeoning government. How else could he spread the wealth around and “fundamentally transform America”?

Well do we remember his 2008 campaign rhetoric:

Generations from now we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs for the jobless. This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

Here we are, three years later, and Obamacare threatens to uproot and destroy our entire healthcare system, unemployment is at 8.6%, and Obama’s job performance has been so poor that he’s admitted “I don’t control the weather.”

Therefore, in the end, Obama’s promise of hope and change was a nonstarter, yet he has succeeded in fundamentally changing America and as a result citizens are unsettled. Obama has given us big government on an unprecedented scale and Gallup has given us a poll showing that everyone—Democrats and Republicans alike—are tired of the big government philosophy, of the big government approach to life’s problems. Throw in Obama’s support of #OccupyWallStreet, his elevation of Union thugs like Richard Trumka and Jimmy Hoffa on the national stage, his non-stop class warfare rhetoric, and the more than 1,000 weapons still loose on the streets following Fast and Furious, and it is little wonder the American people feel as unsafe physically as they do unsure financially.

(more…)

For the better part of a year, I have been saying that the end goal of Fast and Furious was more gun control. Rush Limbaugh has said this, Sean Hannity and other FOX NEWS personalities have said this, and the NRA and Gun Owners of America have said this, among others. (I had a post on Big Government on July 13th dedicated to making this very point.)

Throughout this time, I have had a copy of an email that was sent to me back in March of 2011. It’s an July 2010 email from ATF Special Agent in Charge Mark R. Chait to ATF Supervisor William Newell. It is copied to a third ATF Supervisor, William McMahon. Newell and McMahon were assigned to the Phoenix area at the time (and Phoenix just so happened to be ground zero for Fast and Furious.) In it, Chait asks Newell if he can find enough “anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales.” In other words, Chait was asking whether, in the midst of the flood of new weapons hitting the streets via Fast and Furious, a means could be found to justify more gun control.

(more…)

About a week ago, I wrote that people in western nations need the freedom to own guns just in case there are riots, chaos, and social disarray when welfare states collapse.

Much to my surprise and pleasure, this resulted in an invitation to appear on the National Rifle Association’s webcast to discuss the issue.

As I noted in the interview, I’m just a fiscal policy wonk, but the right to keep and bear arms should be a priority for anyone who believes in freedom and responsibility. And even though I only have a couple of guns, you can see that I’m raising my kids to have a proper appreciation for the Second Amendment.

I don’t think we’ll ever get to the point where we suffer societal breakdown, but I won’t be too surprised if it happens in some European countries. We’ve already seen the challenges faced by disarmed Brits during recent riots in the United Kingdom.

(more…)

With Operation Fast and Furious headlining the news, there is no doubt civilian arms have been trafficked into Mexico. However, many of the arms used by Mexican cartels are NOT supplied by civilian gun outlets in the United States. Based upon the statistics I have compiled, our State and Defense Departments may be the premier suppliers of weaponry to Mexican drug cartels — not the US civilian.

From 2003-2009, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers deserted from their ranks. Drug cartels became so confident in their recruitment of military personnel that they posted help wanted ads for hit men, traffickers, and guards. When these soldiers desert, their US-supplied weapons (grenades, sniper rifles, assault weapons, etc.) often accompany them over to the cartels. In 2008 and 2009, 13,792 and 20,530 small arms were exported to Mexico from the US. Over 92% of these arms were civilian legal semi-automatic or non-automatic firearms, a number eerily similar to the debunked 90% number echoed by the ATF. A 2008 State Department memo to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi shows a $1,000,000 shipment of select fire M4A2 assault rifles to the Mexican Federal Police Force, (AKA Federales) one of the most corrupt Mexican government agencies.

The most recent numbers from 2010 show the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) — the State Department agency responsible for overseeing the exportation of military goods — authorized the transfer of 2.5 million units of small arms, weapon optics, silencers, and related components. In that same year, over 11 million units of ammunition and 127,000 units of explosive ordnance were cleared for exportation to Mexico. This amounted to $25 million worth of small arms, ammunition, and explosives shipped to Mexico authorized by our State Department.

(more…)

Blame Bush. It has been almost three years since President Obama took office, yet he still blames Bush for the bad economy. Now the Obama administration is following the same strategy to get out of the “Fast and Furious” mess.

“Fast and Furious,” also called the “Gunwalker” case, involves the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) agents ordering American gun dealers to sell guns to obvious Mexican drug gang members during 2009 and 2010. This was done over the objections of the gun dealers.

Both Fox News and the Washington Post started covering this scandal in early February this year. It may be excusable that Attorney General Eric Holder did not read the press reports, but, if we are to believe his congressional testimony Tuesday, he and his staff also neglected to pay attention to the 100 or so page “weekly reports” summarizing activity in the Justice Department.

Those reports began mentioning the operation as long ago as July 2010. When Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee in May this year he claimed: “I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.” Holder reiterated again Tuesday that he simply didn’t have the time to read even the summaries. Neither did his staff.

Holder had few options Tuesday.

(more…)

Read with caution. This is the kind of hell big government liberals can unleash on American citizens from their lofty perches in Washington DC.

In addition to having nearly unhindered access to our southern border, the most violent gangs in the Western hemisphere were armed to the teeth by the US federal government. The results are what one would expect. We know at least one US Border Patrol agent and hundreds of Mexican citizens were killed as a result. The guns are still out there and so are the gangs. Meanwhile, local law enforcement and border patrol agents must contend with the consequences created by elements outside of their control.

Their job is to prevent infiltration of guns, illegals, and drugs from entering our country and using local communities as bases of operation. Secretary Napolitano, with the approval from the Obama administration, has done her best to prevent border agents from doing their jobs. The Government Accountability Office estimated that only 15 percent of our southern border is actually operationally controlled. Inaction doesn’t do enough to explain this.

(more…)

What to do U.S. House members Dan Burton, Allen West, Lynn Jenkins, Trent Franks, Tim Huelskamp, Mike Pompeo, Duncan Hunter, Devin Nunes, Dennis Ross, Vicky Hartzler, Raul Labrador, Quico Canseco, Blake Farenthold, Paul Gosar, Joe Walsh, Gus Bilirakis and John Mica, have in common? All 17 of them have called for Attorney General Eric Holder to turn in his letter of resignation over Fast and Furious and his seeming inability to tell the truth.

Representative Burton (R-IN), in particular, is tired of Holder’s lies, and he was tired of them before Fast and Furious was even a reality. In fact, Burton never thought Holder should have been confirmed as Attorney General to begin with.

Said Burton:

When I was chairman of government reform and oversight during the Clinton administration, we had Holder before my committee a number of times and he misled the committee. In fact, he lied. During his confirmation in the Senate, I sent a letter to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, [Sen. Patrick] Leahy, and I sent it to the other members of the committee as well, and I cited specific cases where Holder had not been straight with the committee and I said he should not be confirmed.

And now that Fast and Furious is the topic Holder’s lying about, Burton adds: “I don’t think he’s a trustworthy Attorney General. He’s a political animal. He’s more concerned about politics than he is about what’s right for the country.”

(more…)

In late April 1970, the Vietnam War was raging, the draft for that war was still extant, and President Richard Nixon was describing our invasion into Cambodia as means of gaining the upper hand on the Viet Cong. The counter culture, which had already erupted violently at various times in the previous months and years, began to show signs of erupting once more. On and around the campus of Kent State in Ohio, the possibility for trouble was especially keen: protestors marched, fights broke out (both on campus and off), and police and National Guardsmen (who had been called in to keep the peace) were pelted with rocks. On the campus, the ROTC building was set on fire as “war protestors” unleashed their venom on what was the most recognizable symbol of our military they could find (apart from the National Guardsmen whom they were pelting with rocks, that is). Those first four days of May 1970 were crazy.

A month ago, Wall Street protesters revived the kind of protests we witnessed in the late 60s and early 70s. These soon became occupations (Occupy Wall Street) and, like those at Kent State so many decades ago, proved to be but a small part of a larger counter culture movement around the country. Sadly, the protests occupations also proved disrespectful, and frequently downright dangerous, to police officers, as those at Kent State proved to be during those first four days of May. From defecation on police cars, to graffiti on the same, to throwing objects at policemen, occupiers in cities around the country have literally gone after the police with an abandon that begs for relation yet criticizes any. Through it all, the police have somehow restrained themselves.

(more…)

Unsafe streets are unsafer almost entirely due to restrictions on the freedoms of the citizen to act in an emergency involving violence. Though states affirm the armed citizen, major cities refuse. All gun control interferes with the average reasonable person and it escalates crisis to the gain of the State. But some states do not want to preside over crises when they can preside over prosperity, “prosperity” meaning some of the greatest wealth: freedom. Everyone prospers under freedom better than under any other system. The word takes on new meaning under freedom.

I often receive letters for my position — the repeal of all gun laws. I answer every one of these. The idea is not to do without laws, but to erase all of the adversity gun control has caused and to start over. I am reasonably certain that America would write a few gun laws, but only a handful, having now lived with the disaster that is the political punishment of freedom. And punishing freedom is what gun control is about. Limiting one’s latitude to act in time of emergency aggravates adverse social conditions. This then cultivates an attitude of need or political remedy. The safeguard of freedom is undermined in mandates, such as gun control, and the crisis grows.

But not all public servants agree with this sort of governance. When it comes to the armed citizen, forty-eight states affirm their constituents’ right to carry a loaded sidearm, they don’t fight it or feel any mandate against it. Do these people like guns? No, not likely. What these people do like is propriety and integrity. In affirming the concept of the armed citizen throughout their state, these legislators do not believe in the gun, they believe in the citizen.

(more…)

In Seal Beach, California, a shooter took eight lives by a marauding sweep of a hair salon. The cry for gun control is now surfacing, this time being written, as I see, by contributors who seem to be middle-of-the road gun owners or second amendment mavens… but who seem to be ‘rethinking’ their views.

I doubt these, and their remarks are another chance for us to educate the electorate on the subject of role the armed citizen.

In summary, many of the op-ed pieces appearing after the Seal Beach Murders seem to be even-handed, but there is one tell which divulges that the contributor is probably not a gun owner. Yes, we have our critics within the liberty movement but on principle, which is within every armed citizen, we do not differ. A gun owner would likely know this. Yes, gun owners may differ on many things, but not on core principle.

At the core of suspicion is the concept that regulation or even a gun ban would have helped. No honest gun owner would believe this because they understand deeply how they are the only one they can count on in time of violence. The entire purpose of carrying a gun is – as we often say  – because a cop is too heavy.

Think of the death of Michael Jackson and the trial of his physician Conrad Murray: do you believe that regulation of all doctors would ever prevent this or remedy this case? As they gleefully said in Indiana Jones, “They’re looking in the wrong place!”

And this is one of the problems of the left, is it not: the practice of doing everything but the most effective thing. For all the handwringing, officials are looking for community safety in all the wrong places.

Criticism of guns following shootings such as the Seal Beach Murders will never stop violence, and a gun owner knows this, or h/she wouldn’t own a gun. Law does not stop killings, because law responds after the fact as in defining a crime and provision for penalty. This crime was not due to guns, but a combination of factors as so-called ‘new information’ emerges. The more we learn about the shooter’s environment, the more we conclude that no regulation would have stopped these murders. Please name one law which would have prevented this shooter from killing eight people. Just one.

Now look at how many laws were broken. Start with Murder. Every single crime of violence is an impeachment and humiliation of gun control.

Let me spell this out: if an armed citizen were present, chances are he or she may have stopped the shooter in his tracks.

[The armed citizen's immediacy, lawful authority and lethal force are what make the difference. Instances are well documented by the millions (2.5 million) each year, the only opposing anti-gun content being mocking and emotional carping.

Many times, I have said that your two hands can save a life, because your two hands holding your handgun and your two hands which can do CPR can make all the difference between death and survival of innocents.]

The solution to these is not to look in all the wrong places, such as gun control, because there is no such thing as controlling guns; it is a lack of self-control which murders people, not the availability of guns. Murder is in the mentality of anger or pathology which can easily outwit and overcome any gun law in order to obtain weapons and shoot people to death. As gun owners say, murder is already illegal irrespective of the weapon. You won’t prevent murders by adding lesser charges.

The goal is not to try and prevent them by law, but to stop them by force. Immediacy and force. The improved odds that a shooter will encounter an armed citizen can be as effective at preventing premature death as one out of ten citizens trained in CPR.

Thirty years ago, we used to say, “If only someone knew CPR.” We never said, “If only the paramedics were here…” We said ‘someone’.  Your two hands can save a life because you are there, not because of who you are. You don’t have to be a medical person to save a life, and you don’t have to be a policeman to save a life. Or eight of them. Or thirty-two of them.

It’s time to look in the right places and to stop governing by crisis in every corner of this country. We need to see our officials presiding over prosperity after the 2012 election and not crisis as a never-ending mandate for them somehow. We need to see less gun control and more nationwide acceptance of the armed citizen as the norm it is in forty-eight states. How 2012 candidates feel about the armed citizen will be a reliable indicator of how they feel about who is the Sovereign in this country, and that is how we want to live in this country; as the Sovereign, with more independence from our servants and less of their independence of the electorate.

With civil disturbance looming on the horizon and with shortages of all sorts, it is a distinct possibility that mobs can easily spill over into home invasions. For many of these individuals, the disturbance itself is cover. That violence mentality will be amok, and not with guns, but with bare hands, sticks, vehicles and arson.

Crime is fought best at the scene of the crime. Gun control only assists crisis and chaos, and it must be removed as an obstacle to self-governance.

The cost of freedom and safety is more than fair, it is quite a bargain. The price of gun control for safety is far, far too high; it makes for bigger government and dependency on it to the exclusion of all alternatives.

Meanwhile, many of us are working for smaller government as our best path back to safer streets. Safer streets are evidence of a healthier self-rule. We won’t find our way back to smaller government and self-rule without the repeal of gun control first.

__________________________________

Murder and violent crime rates were supposed to soar after the Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s and Washington, D.C.’s gun control laws. Politicians predicted disaster. “More handguns in the District of Columbia will only lead to more handgun violence,” Washington’s Mayor Adrian Fenty warned the day the court made its decision. Chicago’s Mayor Daley predicted that we would “go back to the Old West, you have a gun and I have a gun and we’ll settle it in the streets.” The New York Times even editorialized last month about the Supreme Court’s “unwise” decision that there is a right for people “to keep guns in the home.”

But Armageddon never happened. Newly released data for Chicago shows that, as in D.C., murder and gun crime rates didn’t rise after the bans were eliminated; they plummeted. They have fallen much more than the national crime rate, but the national media has been completely silent. One can only imagine the coverage if crime rates had risen.

In the first six months of this year, there were 14% fewer murders in Chicago compared to the first six months of last year– back when owning handguns was illegal. It was the largest drop in Chicago’s murder rate since the handgun ban went into effect in 1982. Meanwhile, the other four most populous cities saw a total drop at the same time of only 6 percent.

Similarly, in the year after the 2008 Heller decision, the murder rate fell 2.5 times faster in D.C. than in the rest of the country. It also fell more than three times as fast as in other cities that are close to D.C.’s size. (more…)

My brand is Safer Streets 2012 because of one essence: safer streets as we all want them are an indicator of a healthier self-rule.

You will not get to safer streets nor a self-rule without smaller government first, and that will not come as long as there is gun control. Everything else, every delay, every complication, is lip service, designed to waylay our time, energy and spirit away from anything productive, giving us the feeling that we are directing things, but actually wasting our time.

We’ve made some friends and allies in Congress and we have unseated some foes of liberty, but some of us still have the impression that we’re not getting the cooperation we need. Somewhere in there, the new freshmen believe, there is such a thing as sensible gun regulation.

There isn’t. Gun laws are incompatible with liberty. All gun laws.

In Part I, I said that in time of violence, when the target of crime is armed, there is more law present, more public policy present, and more public interest served than by all 20,000 gun laws in force. With a majority of states affirming second amendment latitude, it is clear what their public consensus is. The major cities are out of step.

In Part I, I said that we are the Sovereign, and that our 2012 candidates must acknowledge this on the stump. They should be asked outright and they must affirm this by the repeal of all gun laws, please.

The repeal of all gun laws will unveil one powerful societal dynamic, and that is the personal independence of the individual. When crime is fought best at the scene of the crime and not exclusively after the fact, say, for instance, detection, interdiction, apprehension and the administration of justice, it is because independence has been brought to bear on the problem when it can do the most good. Our greater independence from our own public servants is critical to everything from personal safety to prosperity. Our independence from our servants is critical to self-rule and safer streets.

(more…)

From Accuracy in Media’s Benjamin Johnson:

While there has been a lot of he said – she said about the Congressional Black Caucus Convention last week, it seems no one sought to report on the deeper purpose of the meeting. Accuracy in Media’s Benjamin Johnson covered black Americans’ feelings toward President Obama and the state of our Republic.  We gathered exclusive reactions from movie stars, civil rights leaders, athletes, politicians, military heroes and a Nigerian priest in the process.

The CBC was a practice in how well Barack Obama has served the black community.  Even though their allegiance lay (almost) exclusively with the President, there seemed to be a need to explain the shortcomings of the last three years.

(more…)

From The Los Angeles Times:

In the fall of 2009, ATF agents installed a secret phone line and hidden cameras in a ceiling panel and wall at Andre Howard’s Lone Wolf gun store. They gave him one basic instruction: Sell guns to every illegal purchaser who walks through the door.

For 15 months, Howard did as he was told. To customers with phony IDs or wads of cash he normally would have turned away, he sold pistols, rifles and semiautomatics. He was assured by the ATF that they would follow the guns, and that the surveillance would lead the agents to the violent Mexican drug cartels on the Southwest border.

When Howard heard nothing about any arrests, he questioned the agents. Keep selling, they told him. So hundreds of thousands of dollars more in weapons, including .50-caliber sniper rifles, walked out of the front door of his store in a Glendale, Ariz., strip mall.

(more…)

The Italians have caused an outrage among American firearms customers. A Italian company named Chiappa Firearms sent out a press release (in Italian) last week announcing that it will soon be putting inside each firearm it manufactures an RFID chip (Radio Frequency Identification) meant to track quality control, inventory, and shipping. American gun owners and consumers were whipped into a frenzy of suspicion and fear that government agents will be able to use these RFID chips to track their firearms. But what are the facts and will these RFID tags become common with all firearms manufacturers in the near future?

First of all there is a lot of fear about the capabilities of governments to use RFID chips for nefarious purposes. These are devices that can radio information to someone with a device as inexpensive as $250 and without any “approval” needed for the reading. These chips can relay all sorts of information from location, to detailed records of all sorts.

There are several different kinds of chips but most uses require non-powered chips that can only be read at short distances. In other words we are told that a satellite orbiting in space cannot read a non-powered RFID chip from that distance. Some chips can only be read for a few feet others a few meters.

Despite all the supportive spin that advocates of RFID chips release to ease people’s minds, this identification technology is far easier to misuse than any other ID technology ever invented. But that does not make RFID chips all bad, either.

The fact is, RFID chips are a dream device for manufacturers to identify their products from fabrication all the way to delivery of final products to retail customers. It makes life much easier for companies trying to track their work, improve their process, and make more money.

Companies like Walmart already use RFID chips and so do many others. Book sellers, libraries, even ranchers and farmers use RFID chips to keep track of their livestock.

But, let’s face it, guns are not books or sheep.

(more…)