John Longenecker

Good For The Country.

by John Longenecker

Essays Bringing The Liberty Message Outside The Liberty Community.

H.R. 4547, Part III: For The Non-Gun Owners In America . . .

Well, you’ve probably heard all the arguments about the Second Amendment’s being a civil right and so forth, or that in a time of War as we are in now, preparedness and wariness (armed) is advisable.

And it’s worth noting that more and more states are loosening their latitude not about guns, but about how they are carried and how and when they are to be used. It's called the Standing Your Ground movement, and it imbues the doctrine with the concept of a presumption of innocence on the part of the defender. This is not new: it is something American all along and should be restored nationwide.

On the concealed carry / stand your ground debate in connection with H.R. 4547, introduced by Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla), the Bill that calls for Nationwide reciprocity of concealed carry permits, here’s one I bet few outside the Liberty Community have recognized:

All laws in America are backed by the threat of force: and our personal sovereignty is also backed by force. Our force, and by law.

If you believe in law enforcement as I do and as many officers do, understand that the law of personal authority is original with the declaration of the nation and that authority of officers is a delegated authority, delegated by the People, and not until the middle 1800's. Among the duties of Police, protection of individuals is not one of them: nowhere in the fifty states do police have a duty to protect individuals. This is one of the reasons H.R. 4547 of nationwide reciprocity is so important.

The evolution of gun control and police exclusivity in gun possession is a recent social development. It serves administrators and officials in terms of political gain in prestige, control of funds and more. In short, many officials forget who is really in charge. So do many households.

The idea of an organized police force did not develop until the middle 1800's. In the beginning, general law enforcement largely did not have weapons; many citizens, not all, did have weapons and for millennia. Marshals, Sheriffs and others had administrative authority, but an organized force wasn’t in existence in the U.K. and the U.S. until around 1845. Even the early FBI didn’t carry guns until they faced the reality of why they’d better carry guns. Hint: The same reason we all should.

Let us not forget that law enforcement is authorized by the People, and in so authorizing law enforcement, the People do not give up any authority of their own. That we do not surrender authority in order to grant it is important for the head of a household to weigh in planning household management in an encounter with violent crime.

Police weapons are not for the protection of citizens, but for the protection of the officers as they enforce the law on the authority we grant them.

In the decades that followed, crime was comparatively low, and the law was comparatively on the side of the citizen in righteous response to violence, a presumption of innocence you might say. As long as the citizen wasn’t the initiator of aggression, clean hands, so to speak, you could bet the law would side with the taxpayer. In short, you could trust the system. You could even carry a gun nearly anywhere as an honest citizen as late as the middle sixties.

But then, things changed. Drugs, present since the beginning of time, took hold in penetrating our society. Comedian Lenny Bruce died of a Heroin overdose; other entertainers followed. Then more civilians. The drug culture of tune in, turn on, drop out grew, and with it, violent rip-off crime as some sort of revenge against the Establishment. Angry children, runaways and Hippies disappointed with our system became dupes of a movement no one wanted to recognize: today, we see that it was so well connected to the direction of the country and gain of politicians.

Add to that the murder of John Kennedy in 1963; the Gun Control Act of 1968 began to punish everyone but the people who did the shooting. That made sense, didn't it?

In an effort to understand – and a great many policies involved trying to understand the afflicted – The War On Drugs pussyfooted around and even today accomplishes little, about as much as the War On Crime or the War On Poverty. In my surmise, the solution is simpler, as the two basically go nowhere and consume billions in revenues in a counterintuitive dissolution of personal sovereignty and self-respect. These are key to fomenting dependency.

Today, with tax collection and penalties to compel financing this reluctantly, with anti-household, anti-father laws to dissolve families even further, even with political correctness and an erasure of our history, few people have realized that all of these laws – in fact all of our nation’s laws – are backed by force. (Or maybe they have realized!!)

And more distressing is the idea that citizens are increasingly under suspicion from officials. This is the basis for RFID Chip stalking and National ID Cards, including the so-called Real ID Card. Everyone is under suspicion and sovereignty is dealt yet another blow on more and more false premises.

How do you stop a criminal who by definition will not be touched by any law you write?

Simple: you use your authority. And the force that protects sovereignty.

Sounds simplistic, but it’s actually fundamental: individual citizens already have the authority. Violent Crime is not fought by over-delegating this authority to agencies, but instance by instance in the use of personal authority, judgment, and superior force. Many American homes do not know this in planning their household management, and they surrender to the false premises of officials who want your dependency. Many states do know this, and thus, they increase the latitude of how that authority is to be an asset to the community and therefore unpunished. They have not regretted this, and no concealed carry law has been repealed.

38 states of the union advocate concealed carry of weapons, and their greater latitude in the news lately recognizes what came earlier than police forces and earlier than suspicion of citizens: from the beginning of our nation, it was declared that all of our sovereignty is also backed by force. Our force.

The force of officials is authorized by the People, it can be legally withdrawn; the force of the People is authorized by the Constitution as inalienable, as we are the ultimate authority, and it can’t be taken away.

..or can it?

The People can be talked out of their own sovereignty. The People can be bluffed.

In the remaining states who do not advocate concealed carry of weapons, the move is on to dissolve that declared authority one way or another, including lay pressure from within (the anti-gun crowd) so-called safety policies (gun control) and, of course, permitting crime to fester as a justification for further frustration of ownership in the form of bans, ridiculous ammunition restrictions, frustrated concealed carry terms and more, all aimed at the citizen and which will never – ever – reach the criminal. All of these neutralize personal resistance, both to violence and to social engineering which could ordinarily be stopped by better citizen involvement.

Remember that since the declaration of the nation (1776) and recent formation of an organized police force (1845), the concept of gun control and police exclusivity of weapons (1970's-1980's) is relatively new.

[Especially since Marxist thought was published.

Also in Marxist thought – and elsewhere among other so-called world philosophers – is the idea of permitting adverse social conditions to fester, to do nothing about them until cries and demands for change are shouted and then, and only then, to do something extreme that even worsens the situation, placing it even more in favor of the officials’ ultimate objectives. It is a trap, of course. The love of self in officials and the wish to help (unwelcome or not) is an intentional interference with our way of life as it freezes the self out of self-governance.
It is a clash not in genuine opinions, but in core values, as these individuals take office with values opposite to those for which they were elected.

Understand that insistent leftist officials probably do not even really believe in Marxism... it’s just a tool. But they do use Marxist ideas as a formulary. To Hell with Marx, the man: his ideas work, if you’re in the business of control against the will of the people through chicanery.

Permitting conditions to deteriorate, playing on so-called social injustice, hating capitalism and profit and all the rest – it’s all there. The clue is the fact that such policies never seem to work. Oh, but they do work, if your objectives are different from those of constituents. They perform just fine.]

Gun control and police exclusivity of weapons possession are incompatible with a free state because they promote dependency on government and punish or discourage dependency on self. Under threat of force. Never forget this.

And never forget that our sovereignty is also protected by force, a force officials are trying to talk us out of.

Two examples of this kind of game-playing with our lives are violent crime and the eminent domain newly adjudicated in 2005. I’ve written on this throughout much of last year.

In places such as New Jersey and Louisiana, it’s my observation that conditions that could be considered blighted were permitted to worsen over decades, doing nothing right about correcting them in a timely fashion, e.g. honest and respected police force, improvements, responsive officials, you get the idea. All missing conspicuously. The temptation of subsidy and of discouraging of marriage has its hand on the throat of the People.

Official indolence today plays an important role decades later in their self-serving interests over the interests of those they took an oath to serve.

This is the looting of America. Through bluff and discouraging and punishing the Spirit of our nation.

Laws of confiscation of private property have to be repealed for the good of the nation. And now.

Laws which seek to confiscate the ability and sovereign authority to resist violent crime must be repealed to relieve the individual from being an unwilling partner in the continuing decay of society for the gain of a few.

The looting of America – a hundred different ways – has to stop. For the Spirit that is America.

It begins with appreciating how socio-political decay is no accident; it is to farm a field to cultivate dependency and to persuade the People of futility.

Irrespective of however tempting some policies may be in social justice, citizens need to trust their instincts and stop going against their better judgment. The desire to cooperate in so-called compassion has made go-nowhere policies play us for fools. It begins by understanding how we’ve been played.

It begins by understanding today that our individual sovereignty was recognized upon the declaration of our nation and the constitutional assurance that it is we who are backed by force, and that it is we who will legally decide whether force of officials is even to be used at all.

Toward this recapturing of our nation, we need to recognize first that any move by the servant to disarm the citizen is always a move against our sovereignty. In any age.

"The Second Amendment is not about duck hunting...it's about our right to be able to protect ourselves from all of you guys up there." – Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, appearing before Representative Charles Schumer's committee hearings on the assault weapons ban. Dr. Hupp later became U. S. Representative of Texas.

___________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth, available worldwide. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net

RFID: The Flea And Human Implantation, 2006.

by John Longenecker.

RFID Chips are tiny electronic circuits activated and powered by an electronic pulse from an external source. These chips are miniature records of personal data, and can be hidden anywhere. They can be written, read and rewritten like the magnetic stripe on the back of your credit card, driver’s license or grocery membership card. Any card.

There is no law against them at this time, there's no regulation, but there are dozens and dozens of applications, ranging from product monitoring to tracking of personal behavior in buying habits and travel and even personal consumption of products on real-time.

Homes of the future would use RFID chips throughout in anticipating your arrival home to actuate specific things you like waiting for you, to monitor the remaining milk in your fridge and even sense whether you’re taking your pills on time.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

They can also monitor personal... shall we say tastes by knowing what you've bought and brought home. And personal habits around the home, such as how much milkfat you consume, how much animal fat you consume and even the type of magazines (tastes) you buy.

This means not only electronically frisking you on who and what you are, but perhaps even speaking to you about who and what you ought to be. As if it's not already happening now. If you like political correctness, you'll love the homeof the future with RFID tags.

As I write often, privacy is a safeguard against mistake, abuse and retaliation. Not only can the chip be read by marketers, by law enforcement and by criminals, but on worldwide databases, the content and character of what you buy can be read by insurance companies, sales weasels, and even columnists when you travel.

For those who honestly believe they have nothing to hide, remember what privacy is all about: preventing mistake, abuse and retaliation. Think it over before implantation.

Private Investigators can conduct asset searches and peek at your files today: will they, too, be able to peek in your home as sales weasels and others can?

Whatever you buy will be detected and possibly misunderstood once you get it home. Oops, I mean once you buy it. The Flea is on you.

The RFID Industry is making a big push for their chips and sales can total in the billions of dollars in no time. Among the advocates are officials and, of course, shareholders.

It’s easy to find stories touting the benefits, including RFID Chips in automobile tires, clothing, toothpaste, medicines, patient identification, magazines, lighter fluid, auto parts tracking in shipping..it goes on.

And then there’s human implantation.

The applications seem sound, yes, but where such tracking is already too high a price, this is where the price is over the top.

Worldwide database sharing makes sales weasel monitor now Stalking. RFID is one of those examples of a blend of well-intentioned and the ill-willed coming together for unrelated but long-sought gains. [The RFID Chip should be celebrating its thirty-fifth anniversary right about now. Patented in 1973, the Flea has been wanting to jump on people for three decades now, from the imagination of science fiction and automaton compliance of citizens to 2006 and beyond, there has never been a mistake in the goals of the little thing.]

I have said that privacy is a corner of our personal sovereignty, and our sovereignty and liberty are what America is all about. Much of the rest, well-intentioned or not, benefits or no, is intentional interference to remove that sovereignty for commercial gain, law enforcement gain and other gains.

Privacy and our sovereignty are carefully selected safeguards against mistake, abuse and retaliation. We reserve the right to say No.

..don’t we...?

The Industry has published pieces about how RFID will not succeed without the approval of the People, but their idea of approval is to carry surreptitiously placed fleas in everything around the world (their forecast).

And don’t forget that any published article on the subject – such as implantation of chips in your tires or new car ignition key - is considered having given Public Notice. And your use of it thereafter is considered "acceptance" or consent via constructive notice.

Yet how do we opt-out of ignition keys and tires, say, if we merely wanted to exercise (test the current validity of) our right to refuse?

It’s an underhanded game of eventual defeat for sovereignty if we don’t object now and get definition on the books.

But what if Congress doesn’t act, and soon to protect the sovereignty that is our way of life and theirs?

They go first.

I’m willing to bet that Congress Critters - as usual - don’t imagine themselves living our way of life, the American way of life, that is.

I don’t think they like the recently published story that a home-made parabolic reflector and a yagi antenna can extend the readability range of nearly any chip by many times. A range of thirty feet could become more than a hundred feet, and so forth.

It may sound ludicrous that a criminal or a ring of criminals could place themselves above traffic with a conspicuous antenna to read passers-by, but it was done rather easily in the nineties with bulky, conspicuous RF readers in pirating cell phones passing by.

The solution to the RFID debate is to forbid specific applications and to have provisions for a rather stiff penalty, mistake or no, with immense corporate liability. Like wiretapping is illegal. (Wait a minute..)

If they believe in the damned thing, let them back it up. I’m all for banning them entirely because of abuse from both the industry clientele and the criminal. Where the customer has to pick up the cost of the Flea in more lost privacy, more inconvenience, more adaptations of our way of life, it amounts to nothing more than another looting of America: opportunistic feeding on our changing society with little return in benefits, really. Convenience for business, but little convenience – some smidgen of benefits – for consumers.

All things have a price. If that price is acceptable to individuals championing the Flea, let them prove it to us who are opposed.

I’m open to hearing from the advocates and officials who endorse the Flea, a report from the field, so to speak; time to move out of the theoretical testing into field testing with real-life experience. Namely, theirs.

Officials take implantation and wear it for implanted 24/7 for five years with a nationwide moratorium on all other human implantation. Officials carry data on their personal identity, medical records and voting record, all of which are updated weekly. Build in the security features you like. Carrying that chip might save their life, or so it’s touted. Being a public servant doesn’t mean you are exempt from newfangled things, it means you’re the Guinea Pig, or you don’t perceive yourself as a servant.

Advocates take the implant immediately. Their content is personal data, but they keep the chip for life. Remember that the technology exists – even home-made technology – to identify the person from more than a hundred feet away. And remember that it would be important for the industry to prove the safety and benefits of the thing soon. Otherwise, people might get the idea that you don’t believe in your own product.

Better get started. I’d say by Summer, 2006, or you don’t really believe in the thing for yourself.
Why should we take it, then?

Oh, and one other thing: those such as myself who are opposed to the Flea get the opportunity to scan the chip for verification of proper placement and authentic content. You have to put in personal data and let me or someone I designate read it whenever we like to verify your verichip for shall we say. . good faith.

When some American cities advocated gun bans for citizens, I suggested in one of my articles disarming off-duty police first, then we'd talk about disarming citizens. After all, police weapons are not issued for the protection of citizens, but for the protection of the officer. Some cities actually began that policy, but it seems to have met with some resistance. I believe the RFID Industry will balk in much the same way.

When it comes to allowing a flea on you, let’s hear your real-time, real-life report from the field.

You go first.

Understand that it would be good for the country.

_____________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer of Wealth. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net

Good For The Country

by John Longenecker.

RFID: The Flea And Human Implantation, 2006.

RFID Chips are tiny electronic circuits activated and powered by an electronic pulse from an external source. These chips are miniature records of personal data, and can be hidden anywhere. They can be written, read and rewritten like the magnetic stripe on the back of your credit card, driver’s license or grocery membership card. Any card.

There is no law against them at this time, there's no regulation, but there are dozens and dozens of applications, ranging from product monitoring to tracking of personal behavior in buying habits and travel and even personal consumption of products on real-time.

Homes of the future would use RFID chips throughout in anticipating your arrival home to actuate specific things you like waiting for you, to monitor the remaining milk in your fridge and even sense whether you’re taking your pills on time.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

They can also monitor personal... shall we say tastes by knowing what you've bought and brought home. And personal habits around the home, such as how much milkfat you consume, how much animal fat you consume and even the type of magazines (tastes) you buy.

This means not only reading who and what you are, but perhaps even speaking to you about who and what you ought to be. As if it's not already happening now. As I write often, privacy is a safeguard against mistake, abuse and retaliation.

Not only can the chip be read by marketers, by law enforcement and by criminals, but on a universal (worldwide) database, the content of amounts and character of what you buy can be read by insurance companies, sales weasels, and even columnists when you travel. Private Investigators can conduct asset searches and peek at your files today: will they, too, be able to peek in your home as sales weasels and others can?

Whatever you buy will be detected and possibly misunderstood once you get it home. Oops, I mean once you buy it. The Flea is on you. If you buy that dirty magazine and then throw it away, it’ll be known.

The RFID Industry is making a big push for their chips and sales can total in the billions of dollars in no time. Among the advocates are officials and, of course, shareholders.

It’s easy to find stories touting the benefits, including RFID Chips in automobile tires, clothing, toothpaste, medicines, patient identification, magazines, lighter fluid, auto parts tracking in shipping..it goes on.

And then there’s human implantation.

The applications seem sound, yes, but where such tracking is already too high a price, this is where the price is over the top.

Worldwide database sharing makes sales weasel monitor now Stalking.

RFID is one of those examples of a blend of well-intentioned and the ill-willed coming together for unrelated but long-sought gains. [The RFID Chip should be celebrating its thirty-fifth anniversary right about now. Patented in 1973, the Flea has been wanting to jump on people for three decades now, from the imagination of science fiction and automaton compliance of citizens to 2006 and beyond, there has never been a mistake in the goals of the little thing.]

I have said that privacy is a corner of our personal sovereignty, and our sovereignty and liberty are what America is all about. Much of the rest, well-intentioned or not, benefits or no, is intentional interference to remove that sovereignty for commercial gain, law enforcement gain and other gains.

Privacy and our sovereignty are carefully selected safeguards against mistake, abuse and retaliation. We reserve the right to say No.

..don’t we...?

But the pressure continues as industry reps lobby Congress to make no law and at present, there are no laws regarding RFID intrusions.

The Industry has published pieces about how RFID will not succeed without the approval of the People, but their idea of approval is to carry surreptitiously placed fleas in someday everything around the world (their forecast).

And don’t forget that any published article on the subject – such as implantation of chips in your tires or new car ignition key - is considered Public Notice. And your use of it thereafter is considered "acceptance" or consent via constructive notice.

Yet how do we opt-out of ignition keys and tires, say, if we merely wanted to exercise (test the current validity of) our right to refuse?

It’s an underhanded game of eventual defeat for sovereignty if we don’t object now and get definition on the books.

But what if Congress doesn’t act, and soon to protect the sovereignty that is our way of life and theirs?

They go first.

I’m willing to bet that Congress Critters - as usual - don’t imagine themselves living our way of life, the American way of life, that is.

I don’t think they like the idea that a home made parabolic reflector and a yagi antenna can extend the readability range of nearly any chip by many times. A range of thirty feet could become more than a hundred feet, and so forth. It may sound ludicrous that a criminal or a ring of criminals could place themselves above traffic with a conspicuous antenna to read passer-by, but it was done rather easily with bulky RF readers in pirating cell phones passing by.

The solution to the RFID debate is to forbid specific applications and to have provisions for a rather stiff penalty, mistake or no, with immense corporate liability. Like wiretapping is illegal. Wait a minute..

If they believe in the damned thing, let them back it up.

I’m all for banning them entirely because of abuse on both the industry clientele and the criminal. Where the customer has to pick up the cost of the Flea in more lost privacy, more inconvenience, more adaptations of our way of life, it amounts to nothing more than another looting of America: opportunistic feeding on our changing society with little return in benefits, really. Coinvenience for business, but little convenience – some – for consumers.

All things have a price. If that price is acceptable to individuals championing the Flea, let them prove it to us who are opposed. I’m open to hearing from the advocates and officials who endorse the Flea, a report from the field, so to speak; time to move out of the theoretical testing into field testing with real-life experience. Theirs.

Officials take implantation and wear it for five years with a nationwide moratorium on all other human implantation. Officials carry data on their personal identity, medical records and voting record, all of which are updated weekly. Build in the security features you like. Carrying that chip might save their life, or so it’s touted. Being a public servant doesn’t mean you are exempt from newfangled things, it means you’re the Guinea Pig, or you don’t perceive yourself as a servant.

Advocates take the implant immediately. Their content is personal data, but they keep the chip for life.

Remember that the technology exists – even home made – to identify the person from more than a hundred feet away.

And remember that it would be important to prove the safety and benefits of the thing soon. Otherwise, people might get the idea that you don’t believe in your own product.

Better get started. I’d say by Summer, 2006, or you don’t really believe in the thing for yourself.

Why should we take it, then?

Oh, and one other thing: those such as myself who are opposed to the Flea get the opportunity to scan the chip for verification of proper placement and authentic content. You have to put in personal data and let me or someone I designate read it whenever we like to verify your verichip for shall we say. . good faith.

When some American cities advocated gun bans for citizens, I suggested in one of my articles disarming police first. After all, police weapons are not issued for the protection of citizens, but for the protection of the officer. Some cities began that policy, but it seems to have met with some resistance.

I believe the RFID Industry will balk in much the same way.

When it comes to allowing a flea on you, let’s hear your real-time, real-life report from the field.

You go first.

Understand that it would be good for the country.

_____________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer of Wealth. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net

H.R. 4547, Part II: What Do CPR and CCW Have In Common?

Here’s an idea I’ve had in my head since 1970. From this former EMS Professional’s point of view – a Liberty Enthusiast’s viewpoint – CPR and Concealed Carry are identical. It shakes out like this: each citizen intervention is necessary because the situation is grave and because first responders are not immediately available. Each saves lives.

1. Each can be managed by the individual on scene, if willing, if trained, by the fact that one is present and already in both legal and moral authority to act. Many non-gun owners do not know their legal authority in such instances. The morality of it is another issue. How awareness of one's authority impacts household is important.

2. First responders are not available, perhaps not likely to arrive in time.

3. The situation is grave, in the judgment of the citizen. [This is why authority is important.]

The problem is not with the law-aiding - dire forecasts of bloodshed never materialized. The problem is with officials who refuse to remember the authority individuals have, our sovereignty.

We are not talking about questioning the constitutionality of income taxes, and we’re not talking about drawing a weapon at the slightest provocation: we’re talking about the authority citizens already possess to act in their own defense in time of grave danger or great bodily injury and only then, and the political refusal to officially recognize it throughout the U.S.

We know that individuals acting to protect themselves in the face of grave danger are not taking the law into their own hands – we are the law. Officials derive their authority from the people, the persons wrongly accused of taking the law into their own hands, called Vigilante and worse. These accusers have no understanding of sovereignty in America.

Most households forget this.

Most debates leave out the grave danger part and muddy the waters arguing all sorts of less-than-grave scenarios.

Concealed carry advocates are speaking only of grave danger and severe bodily injury regarding defense of self or defense of another. That’s all.

In the middle seventies, when I was a full-time Paramedic, EMS professionals nationwide were asked by the American Heart Association to give an organized presentation to private physicians and attorneys to get behind the push to bring CPR into the lay community. It was called Citizen CPR. It is now known as Bystander CPR.

The chief question from the audience was this: why don’t we leave it to the professionals such as yourself?

I answered that the Squad cannot always arrive within a life-saving response time of under three minutes, and unless CPR is begun – by someone – the cardiac arrest patient will die. There are many non-heart-disease situations where cardiac arrest ensues across all age groups, such as choking or electrocutions or near drownings – many types of cases where bystander CPR can make all the difference.

Bystander CPR can keep the patient alive by pumping an unpumping heart until the Advanced Life Support arrives. The combination of no first responders and grave danger justfies intervention.

Historical Note: These professionals of course already knew that in cardiac arrest, brain death begins in four minutes; the significance of this was that, in a clinical setting, the cardiac arrest Code Blue Crash Cart is down the hall, a push-button alarm and a few paces away, able to arrive within seconds. In an out-of-hospital setting, where many cardiac arrests occur, the Advanced Life Support Unit [The Paramedics] is the crash cart, and we’re not exactly down the hall. Someone – a trained person already on scene – could keep the lid on until the Squad arrives.

In cases of cardiac arrest, CPR on scene vastly improves the patient’s chances, because, as we used to say, "We can’t be everywhere." This was too vague; let me call it the way it is: the ALS Unit cannot always arrive within a life-saving response time of under three minutes.

Guess what: in time of violent crime, neither can law enforcement. The Goleta Postal shooting is a perfect example of how fast it can all happen, and usually does.

What it takes to process an emergency request for aid for Police is very much like dispatching Paramedics. Presuming that you recognize the emergency and presuming that you can complete the call for aid. In the case of a crime, someone would very much like to stop you. In fact, they might even start thinking about no witnesses. Murders number in the tens of thousands and most murders are not solved. Many murders were the result of a lesser offense somehow escalating.

This is the identity of values between how EMS and the Heart Association get excited about training citizens and having faith in citizens to act until assets arrive, and how 38 states have enough faith in their citizens to act, too, when it comes to facing grave danger with the use of deadly force in response.

The key that makes it all work is that, in the case of a field cardiac arrest where the bystander can keep the patient alive until assets arrive, so an armed citizen can keep a life-threatening situation from escalating.

Finally, of all people, law enforcement believes in the people. Law enforcement believes in justice. Was there much doubt? Check out this link for details and click through to view the fraternity’s .pdf survey document. Not surprisingly, law enforcement is an ally of personal concealed carry.

Where H.R. 4547 is concerned, it’s time to restore the right to self-defense, whether officials agree or not.

When a target is unwilling to be the victim, when first responders are not going to make it in time, and when the situation is grave – why tie the hands of the givers to society another day by saying they may not meet aggression with righteous superior force?

Fighting crime is not done by adhering to policies which disarm the innocent and never reach the criminal – crime is defeated instance by instance by exercising sovereign authority and righteous superior force.

Urge your officials to vote for nationwide concealed carry.

And learn CPR and First-aid.

They're both good for the country.

_________________________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth. His website is http://www.transferofwealth.net

H.R. 4547: National Right-To-Carry Reciprocity Bill, Part I.

John Longenecker

Representative Cliff Stearns (R-Fla) has introduced House Resolution 4547, which calls for a nationwide reciprocity for concealed carry permits from other states, much like driver’s licenses are respected and honored by each other state.

This is huge.

For further information, click here.

When citizens are carrying concealed weapons, where they are CCW, as we say, several profound things occur, which are not often enumerated by the anti-gun crowd.

Chief among these is a more profound respect for government, more of a cooperation, because the officials respect more the sovereignty of the governed than they do on both coasts.

They don’t seem to have problems with this. In right-to-carry states, the populace there has not regretted placing its trust in its own citizens. After decades of false predictions, which ordinarily should have called attention to itself, dire forecasts such as road rage, hot-head shootings, accidental shootings and other calculations never materialized in spite of issuing hundreds of thousands of concealed carry permits throughout 38 states.

Also, the lies of so-called romantic or lover shootings were exposed, what with many, more weapons now within easy reach as CCW does. You know: the figures that said (falsely) that the odds were in favor that household members were so-many-times more likely to be shot by someone they knew and lived with. Hm. Didn’t happen. Those figures sort of remained the same, since most shootings occurred not during a spat, but during commission of a crime, anyway. Another statistic that doesn’t apply to honest citizens, but the criminal.

So-called accidental shootings were a fraud, too. They never were above 100 children per year, because the inflated stats called lying under oath and lying to police officers in the report ("It was an accident...") an accidental shooting; saying you didn’t mean to shoot the victim doesn’t count as an accidental shooting, and as such, in CCW / right-to-carry states, stats didn’t even twitch in the direction of any increase. Real accidental shootings remained low. Very low, just like they really do everywhere else, by the way.

One of the greatest things to emerge in the right-to-carry debate is that the hyperbole and hysteria of the anti-gun crowd is proven after decades now to be ..let’s see..not a lie, what’s the right word . . . more of a fraud.

Right. All of the gun bans never changed any stats, from before the ban, during a ten year ban, and afterward. And who obeyed the law, anyway? The law-abiding complied, not through loopholes, by in compliance. It was yet another useless law that never touched a criminal.

Out of more than 22,000 gun laws on the books, please point to one that stops crime. Just one.

Now, here is some gun law that does work: 47,000 persons a year are killed by guns. More accurately, 47,000 people a year die from crime-on-crime shootings, suicide and some truly accidental shootings, usually during a crime. Check it out at the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report and with Professor John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime.

On the other side of the question is the would-be victim, people like you and me and your loved ones. Taxpayers, lovers, friends, you know, honest folk; these people are shown to stop a crime, namely against them, more than 2.5 million times a year, according to the same authorities.

Please visit the links above and think of one thing: though the household plans for illness, unemployment, dental care and auto insurance, just how the family will respond in time of violent crime is the most neglected area of household management.

In 38 states of the union, it’s not that tough a problem, but where it’s really needed most – Kalifornia, New York, Washington, D.C, and San Francisco, as we shall soon see – it’s frustrated the most.

Why?

Indeed.

It’s time for nationwide concealed carry.

My thanks and appreciation to Representative Stearns.

______________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net

The Goleta Postal Shooting, Part II: Still A Case Study For The Non-Gun Owner.

John Longenecker

Are we managing violent crime?

No, we are not. Not in California, New York or Washington. D.C.

Crime is not managed by tying the hands of the law-abiding, rules which will never touch the criminal – violent crime is fought on an instance by instance basis where the would-be victim is the first line of defense with superior force.

Let me relate to you briefly two stories.

The first is my analysis of the Goleta shooting and the second is a case where this idea of citizens being the first line of defense is respected.

As reported recently, murderer and suicide actor Jennifer San Marcos visited the postal center to shoot people, and when her weapon misfired, she reloaded. How many seconds passed from the time she noticed the misfire until she again made her weapon, as we say, battery ready? (That means loaded and ready to fire, folks.)

Reports show that she released her clip and inserted another.

Was it enough time to stop her right then and there? Does a misfire on an automatic give you time to stop the crime?

The answer is probably yes.

Ask the experts. But be sure to phrase the question properly.

If a killer points a loaded gun at you and it misfires, and if the shooter is a little inexperienced and somewhat unfamiliar with guns, as Jennifer San Marcos was, can you have enough time to stop the crime?

Reportedly, one person had the time to exit the building without being shot.

The second case is excerpted from page 131 of my book, Transfer Of Wealth:

On January 16th, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa brought his .380 handgun to bear on students at the Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Virginia. He shot the Dean and two others before students reportedly subdued him.

Curious in this news item was a finding of Professor John Lott, Jr. who found that, of all the 280 news reports of the event a week following the shooting, only four reports made mention of the fact that Odighizuwa was stopped in progress by two armed students on scene. Their names were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges, law students. Reports printed that the killer was ‘subdued’ and ‘tackled’, but the real story was that Gross and Bridges held him at gunpoint with weapons they fetched from their private vehicles.

Virginia is a right-to-carry state. Their weapons were legally in their vehicles.

Talk about critical response time . .

A few seconds of clearing a jammed weapon isn’t a lot, but is it enough?

How it’s handled by an armed private citizen is a little specialized, and pretty risky, but look at the alternative. Compare the cases.

What some people describe as Cowboy actions or Wild West days is more honestly the intervention of a murder, sometimes a mass murder. What is important is that police will not arrive in time, and the murders are likely to be completed.

But you are there.

And her gun has just misfired.

Armed citizen involvement is, like most issues, a two-sided issue. Observers ask whether such-and-such a crime of violence is worth killing someone for. The other side of the question is whether completing the violent act is worth dying for. It depends on your values system and in that system just who is more important, the victim or the criminal.

In the case of a workplace shooting, the question is not whether a witness-citizen could shoot to kill someone like the aggressor, but whether they could act to save someone, like the deceased. Again, values system.

Crime is fought not by restraining the law-abiding, but on an instance by instance basis where the victim is the first line of defense.

_________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth, available worldwide. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net

The Goleta Postal Shooting: A Case Study For Non-Gun Owners.

As far as we're concerned, the law is already on scene.

The reportage of the mass shooting in Goleta, California, Monday, January 30th is still coming out, but it’s clear there’s a few lessons to be learned, especially by the non-gun owner community.

This is not an incident requiring more gun laws – obviously, laws did not stop Jennifer San Marco from getting a gun and ammunition. They never do.

And high technology didn’t work either; so much for federal registration databases. The key is not to maintain them; they key is to understand that they don't work for their intended purpose.
Criminals and the unstable will always be able to get weapons. Hasn’t that always been true?

[San Marco, with a history of being unstable, acquired the 9mm Smith & Wesson model 915 and ammunition in New Mexico. She reportedly completed an application for a background check, which didn't turn up any problems, and picked up the gun after a waiting period. She circumvented California law by shopping elsewhere, then returning to her target area in Goleta.]

Let’s look at it from the victim’s side instead of the coroner’s side.

Why do we summon police?

We summon them for their training, their authority and their force. They also document things and do a lot more.

They derive their training from experience of others who then pass it down. Whole generations of mistakes, new ideas and tactical judgment.

They derive their authority from we the People, who authorize them. If we direct them to break off Code Three high speed chases, they’re dropped; if we direct them to modify policy to drop choke holds, no more choke holds; the People authorize and direct the police, not the other way around. With me so far?

And then there’s force. Guns.

Let’s look a little deeper.

The People authorize not only Police, but the Postal Service, also, in fact all agencies and all public buildings. What Congress does is on the direction of the People, is it not? The present situation of believing that we the People cannot effect change from here is a combination of over-ambitious officials exceeding the scope of their authority and of a sleepy, uninvolved electorate. How such a situation as Goleta could happen is a direct result of nonsense policies in connection with our sovereignty, that is, our training, our authority and our willingness to act.

This could be solved if you get involved.

Looking deeper now, we see that weapons are banned [by Congress and by others] in certain locations, such as churches, schools, public buildings and other areas. Notice how San Marco-type shootings don’t occur in gun shops, shooting ranges and other places where people are armed? One bumper sticker says it all: fight crime: shoot back.

First, on the subject of why we call Police, we see that not only Police are trained, but private individuals are often trained, also. Any private citizen can take training from Department of Justice or NRA Certified Instructors on subjects such as close-quarter defense, in-home defense tactics, streetside encounters, well it’s a whole candy shop of instruction, live-fire and evaluation. A lot of people don’t know that many gun owners are not only trained in how to discharge their weapon, but the when’s, the why’s, the precisely-just-how’s and what-if’s of using their weapon in self-defense in a public place or in defense of another. It's another of the best kept secrets in the anti-gun, anti-liberty movement.

It’s kind of stupid to make it illegal for an honest and trained citizen of self-restraint and good judgment to carry in a public place when criminals of no restraint and of bad judgment don’t obey the law, isn’t it? Goleta is exactly what happens when the perp knows their quarry is unarmed.

On the subject of authority: Now that’s one of the most misunderstood aspects of the entire scenario. Individuals already have all the authority they need to stop a crime in progress. How many non-gun owners knew this?

And finally, the weapon itself: Often – very often – the victim is the first line of defense in such matters. The targets can instantly become the very force that makes them the first line of defense for the entire community, not to mention those people in line or behind the counter in offices, workplace, school, church, public buildings. . . .

Don’t forget: we give police the authority to act without losing any authority ourselves. We still retain all legal authority to stop a crime in progress, including acting in self-defense in the face of grave danger.

What is the point in tying the hands of the honest and never reaching the criminal or unstable?

Finally, there is the practicality of the matter, that all-important response time.

In the Jennifer San Marco shooting, it only took her a minute or so. That’s less time than it takes to realize the gravity of the situation, to get to the phone to complete the call for aid, to prioritize the call to dispatch assets, the travel time for assets Code Three, time to arrive, and time to size up the situation and perhaps even stop her before she can shoot again.

Ah, but she took care of that: she committed suicide. She was dead before arrival of assets, her act completed. It's illegal: it's a killing for the purpose of evading justice.

Goleta is a case study for the disaster that is gun control. Goleta is a case study of just how officials side not with their electorate, but with the thugs and the insane. Keeping crises alive is part of the job of keeping your job in politics.

On the other hand, the American way of life says that an individual is sovereign, and that means being free to protect himself and others should the occasion arise – with the will, the training available and with all the authority one already possesses by law.

Meanwhile, there will be more successful Goletas to come because the Jennifer San Marco’s of the future will strike where they know no one will shoot back to stop them.

It’s at this point that the usual question appears: you’re not the police. No, we’re the People who give the police their training, their authority and their weapons. We still retain our authority to stop a crime in progress, especially in self-defense in the face of grave danger.

As far as we’re concerned, the law is already on scene. Never forget this.

"But that means there might be (gasp) shooting!!"

Then why summon armed officers?

Look at the alternative when no one stops them, not police, not citizens, not anybody, and the criminal and the unstable are permitted to complete everything they set out to do.

Right-to-carry states -- two-thirds of the states of the nation now -- not only permit people to carry concealed weapons, but are expanding the latitude of how their people can carry. Many states are inaugurating their own Castle Doctrine and the extended Castle Doctrine, the idea that a person is sovereign in their home and, now, away from home.

It's amazing: the right-to-carry states don't have more shootings, they have fewer. Armed citizens don't escalate violence; we stop a crime from escalating. Think of it.

Decriminalize concealed carry of weapons where it’s needed most; Kalifornia, New York, and Washington. D.C.

Fighting crime is not done by surrendering more rights to ineffectual anti-crime policies and waiting for assets while the criminal kills – fighting crime is done instance by instance, sometimes by individuals who refuse to be a victim.

And this is good for the country.

____________________________

John Longenecker is author of Transfer Of Wealth, available worldwide. His website is www.TransferOfWealth.net, and he welcomes all correspondence.