Gold and Silver - Buy or Sell?

If you watch gold spot prices, for most of 2016 - February to October -  they were in a fairly tight band that ran between $1250 to $1350 per ounce.  Silver had a similar tight range as well.

Then in October, all hell broke loose.  Prices took a dump, then made a feeble comeback, and have now been all down.  This final quarter of the year has seen a drop in the neighborhood of $200 per ounce (it's sitting at $1151 as I push these keys).

For the year, things aren't too bad.  For other time frames, ouch!  As of today:

So, is it time to abandon gold, and jump into the hot stock market?  Maybe into some foreign exchange EFTs as there is a VERY realistic chance that interest rates are going to jump up.  Higher rates equals a stronger dollar.

Are ya in or out?  I can tell you, that business at our precious metals (PM) store has been brisk on the bullion side - both buying and selling!  Half think precious metals have peaked, and they want out.  The other half think we've hit bottom, and are squirreling away PMs like, well, squirrels.

JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, I'M NOT AN INVESTMENT COUNSELOR.  WHAT FOLLOWS IS WHAT I'M DOING, AND WHY I'M DOING IT.  I MAY BE WRONG, I MAY BE RIGHT.  YOU NEED TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

I don't buy PMs as an investment, per se.  I buy them as a hedge against a whole bunch of things - to maintain and protect my ability to purchase things - food, energy, shelter - in the future.

This is important to understand:  The price of gold and silver is basically irrelevant to me.  I understand that if gold and silver soar to new heights, my cost of living is likely doing the same - soaring!  The converse is true as well.

I believe that in the short-term future (next couple of years at least), the price of PMs is going to decline.  I believe that the Federal Reserve Bank will indeed raise interest rates multiple times next year, making the dollar stronger.

I believe that Trump will actually do SOME of what he promised during the campaign, and we'll get more jobs created, the economy will come out of its coma, and that too, will make the dollar stronger.

Despite the dollar (Federal Reserve Notes) being a flaming piece of crap (being able to buy 6 cents worth of what it could buy when it was introduced in 1913) , when compared to most other world currencies, it has big, brass balls.  It's absolutely crushing other currencies right now.

When the dollar gets stronger, PMs get weaker.
 
So, despite this belief that PM prices will be declining, every single month, I buy some gold and/or silver.  I only spend money that has no short- or medium-term obligations.  My bills are all paid, I have a nice emergency cushion, and my income earning investments are funded.

Here are 5 reasons I keep buying precious metals.

1.  Maintaining Purchasing Power

I use this example when explaining this concept to new customers to our store:

When I was a kid in 1964, for some reason, I have this memory of being at a Phillips 66 gas station buying gas with my mom, and gas being $0.26 per gallon.  Let's call it a quarter a gallon.

Back then, the quarters were made of 90% silver and 10% other metals.  One silver quarter has about 0.18 of a troy ounce of pure silver in it.

Doing the math, with spot silver today at roughly $16 per ounce:  $16 x 0.18 = $2.88, OR ABOUT THE COST OF A GALLON OF GAS TODAY!  The silver maintained its purchasing power.

So, a dollar in silver quarters would get you about 4 gallons of gas.  If you had kept a paper dollar bill from 1964, today you could get about 0.4 gallons of gas. The fiat paper currency dollar has lost its purchasing power.

Ya get it?  I didn't "make money" by holding the quarter, I simply maintained my purchasing power.  Precious metals are money.  Fiat currencies and bank accounts are representations of money that can be manipulated or confiscated by governments.


2.  Government Demonetization

You heard what India did at the beginning of November, right?  Their two largest bills were "demonetized" - made worthless - over night.  Bam!, the paper money wasn't worth squat.  You had to go into a bank and swap them out for the new and improved versions.

The problem - and the plan - was, they didn't have enough of the new bills available for the swap, so you had to put the money into an account, and get your cash at a later date.

The public reason for the demonetization was the usual bullshit:  terrorism and tax evasion.  Well, the soft-heads in the government didn't patch up all of the loopholes, and the effect on terrorism and tax evasion was precisely ZERO!  

People sold their bills at a discount to money changers.  The money changers shipped massive quantities of the bills to some remote tribes or to farmers - both of which are tax exempt - and the old bills were swapped without any consequence at all, other than screwing the guy on the street for the vig he had to pay to the money changers.  The people were willing to take a hit in the form of a discount to the money changers instead of paying tax to the government.  I love it!

This is a perfect example of why you shouldn't have "all of your eggs in one basket".  You never know what will have value in the future.  I keep "money" in gold and silver, cash, other hard assets, businesses and in trade/barter goods, as well as in retirement plans, savings plans and bank accounts.  If one or more are devalued or confiscated or made illegal, I'm not flat on my ass broke.  I may be hurting for a while until I figure things out, but I won't be broke.

Along the same lines, I've also got skills, and am continually learning more.  As an example, I can turn damned near any sugar source into an alcoholic beverage that you'd enjoy consuming. 

You may be saying, "BFD, Chief!  I can head to The Walmart and get all of the hooch I want!".  Yeah, you can do that now.  But if we were in a situation like they're going through in Venezuela - where the government is so broke it can't release foreign reserve currency so that the largest brewer in the country can make beer, and the brewery closes down!  No mas cerveza, amigo mio!  How valuable would beer, wine or hooch be in that circumstance?

I'm now in the process of learning how to grow food on a larger scale.  This coming season, I'll be starting with 3 raised beds, all 8x4 foot, expanding to 6 beds the following season if things go as planned.  I'll also be putting in a small orchard with fruit trees that thrive here in northern Nevada.

3.  Insolvent Retirement Accounts

This is a biggee.  My wife and I have Social Security accounts, private retirement accounts and 401(k) accounts.  Many of you have similar account, including public pensions for government workers.

Every (and I mean every) government-run retirement system in this country is underfunded.  Many (most?) are flat broke.  Social Security, military pensions, police and fire pension programs, federal, state and local government worker pensions systems simply do not have the cash or assets to pay their retirees what they were promised.

Some of the retirees see the writing on the wall, and are trying to cash out by taking a discounted lump sum payment, and they're being rejected.  Why?  The plans don't have the cash. 

I would GLADLY take a lump sum check from Uncle Sam for the amount of money that was forcibly taken from me for SSI - no interest, just the principle - and I would forgo any and all future payments.  I think many Americans would do the same, because I don't believe I'll ever get back what I put into it, let alone the lost interest I would have accrued on my own.

In fact, I believe in my lifetime, the Social Security Administration will institute some sort of "means testing" whereby they look at my assets and other retirement/savings plans, and determine how much is "fair" for me to live on.

So I make my pile of visible assets as small as possible.  PMs are one of many ways to do this.

4.  I Don't Trust Banks

Having been in the banking industry for 31 years - going from the lowest paid clerk to Executive Vice President - I know that banks have turned into de facto agents for the state and federal governments.  Banks are no longer there to protect your money and privacy.  They are there to do as the federal government tells them.

That is not hyperbole.  There is nothing you can do with your account that can't (or isn't) reported to a government agency.  The government granted itself these powers under the assumption that everyone is a criminal or terrorist.  If the banks disclose to you that they've disclosed your (formerly) private transactions to the government, they have broken federal law... and they're not going to break federal law for little ol' you.

This should make you sick to your stomach.  You are presumed guilty of .... whatever they wish, but you do nothing about it.  Their campaign of, "Only criminals and terrorists have anything to hide from the government," propaganda program has been a success.

As equally important, they are getting very lazy with the security of your accounts.  I don't know if they just don't care, or if they've got so many resources devoted to reporting you to the various agencies, they don't have money left for security.

The SWIFT system - think of it as wire transfers between banks in different countries - has been cracked open like a papier mache piggy bank on numerous occasions in recent months.   The hackers hack a small foreign bank, and use its credentials to get into SWIFT, where the real money lies.

They are successful stealing money 20% of the time!

A US bank getting hit wouldn't directly affect you, as your accounts are covered by the FDIC.  Oh wait... Unless..... the regulators forced a failed bank to pull the "bail in" trigger, and they consider you an unsecured creditor of your bank (which is what you really are), and instead of giving you your money back, they issue you stock in the failed bank.

Try buying bacon with that.


5.  An Economic Hit or Collapse Is Coming

I seriously have no idea when.  Next month, next year, next decade.  I don't know.  I just know that you can't build government programs on borrowings forever.  Eventually, the bills (as in Treasury Bills and notes) must be paid.

The federal government will continue to pay SSI, and pensions, and welfare and all of the other bullshit by either borrowing more money or printing more of it up for as long as it can.  Eventually, they won't be able to borrow any longer, or the hyper-creation of dollars will make them worthless.

I believe that paper currency will go away, maybe within the next 5 to 10 years.  To me, THAT will be the sign that the serious shit is about to hit the fan.  Requiring every single transaction to be recorded electronically (debit card, credit card, Apple Pay, Paypal, etc.) will give government the ability to manage every aspect of your life.

Every deposit into your account will have a known source.  If it's not an approved source, they'll just take it until you can prove you paid the taxes before you received it.  You know, like asset forfeiture works right now, only without the happy face.

Every use will be monitored.  "Mr. Chief Instructor, your expenditures on food are significantly below those of your peer group in your region.  Why is that?  You're not growing your own food without reporting it, are you?  An audit will be conducted and until these allegations have been disproved, there will be a reduction in your monthly food stipend from Socialist Security.  We'll be in touch.  Have a collectivist day!"

In these cases - where the PMs would be illegal - they would be kept buried for my kids or grandkids in the future - like what happened after the 1933 gold grab.  Eventually, sanity would return, the socialist/collectivist machine dismantled, and life might return to normal.

Or they could be used as fishing weights.  Ya never know.....



---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2016 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Pistol Packin' Psychos

**Potty-mouth alert**

So, we've had another mass shooting at a school.  No surprise there.

The common denominator of every one of these mass shootings is that they occur in Gun Free Zones.  Why is that so difficult for parents, teachers, administrators and politicians to see that these laws turn schools, et al, into shooting galleries for the criminal class?

The crazy bastard James Holmes who shot 12 dead in the Colorado movie theater did extensive planning for his killing spree.  He wanted a place where lots of people gathered.  He considered an airport, but didn't want to be considered a terrorist.  Just a mass murderer.  And I'll bet the whole, "There will be guns pointed my way after a my first shot," got his attention, too.

So he chose a Gun Free Zone theater, even though the police were close by.  He'd have plenty of time to do his deeds -

In the notebook, Holmes diagrammed the individual theaters and even noted that a police station was just three minutes away. Holmes apparently visited the theater two weeks before the night of the shootings, a detective testified in 2013. 

Holmes listed three options on how to conduct the shooting, when to begin the attack and weighed the possibilities. Holmes considered theaters 12, 10 and the theater he ended up in, 9.

Do I WANT to have guns on campus, in churches and movie theaters?  Hell no.  I'd love everything to be all rainbows and unicorns, but I'm an adult.  I recognize that there are bad guys in the world.  Always have been, and there always will be.

Why would I even consider that the best way to protect ourselves and our children in school from gun-toting maniacs would be to remove the means of defense from the good guys?  It's the exact opposite of what makes sense.

Your president jumped on TV and said that he supported "common sense" gun laws.  What might those be, Barry?  Give me a couple of laws that restrict access to guns by good citizens that could have stopped some insane shit-head from shooting up a school.  OK, I'll take just ONE, asshole!

As usual:  Gun laws don't restrict criminals in their activities (they're criminals, you soft-headed piece of shit!).  They restrict good citizens from stopping criminals in their illegal activities.

The usual list of "gun safety" solutions from these idiots:

"Gun Show Loophole" - What might that be?  Do you mean you want all guns registered or that the buyer must first go through a background check?  Tell me how that would stop these murders.  If memory serves, all of the guns used in Oregon, Sandy Hook, etc., were LEGALLY obtained guns.  How'd that law work out for ya?  And the psycho that shot up Virginia Tech - the one who had been judged mentally incompetent - he PASSED YOUR FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECK!

"Magazine Size Limits" - Gawd, this hurts my head.  When Mainstream America hears this one, they say, "Hey, that sounds good."  In their heads, they envision Rambo with a fully automatic AK47 spraying down Commies.  Did any of you mush-melons actually read about the Oregon shooting?  Well, it seems that skippy lined up the victims, asked them their religion, then shot them - one by one - in the head or legs depending upon the answer (answering, "Christian" got you the head shot).  How would having smaller magazines have reduced the number of dead/shot people?  Spoiler Alert:  IT WOULDN'T HAVE DONE SHIT.  The same thing could have been done with a bolt action rifle or a single-action revolver.  What would have stopped the carnage was a concealed pistol aimed and fired at the back of the sick bastard's head.  I'll volunteer to provide the Formula 409 to clean the walls of his brains.

"Sue Gun Manufacturers" - I will agree to this just as soon as every victim of a felony car crash can sue the automobile manufacturer for the death.  Or a felony knife stabbing.  Or a felony baseball bat beating.  Or a felon drowning in a pool, bathtub or bucket.  Why not?  All of those things did exactly what they were manufactured to do - cut/stab, batter something, hold water - but were misused by some psycho.  "Guns are made for only one thing - to kill something."  True dat - although just seeing a would-be victim with a gun stops MILLIONS of assaults each year.  But it wasn't manufactured for murder.  Some sick bastard chose to use it in that fashion.  In their typical myopic vision, they don't see the unintended consequence:  In their zeal to shut down gun manufacturers - and it would succeed - it would also remove guns from the police and military.  Suck on that one for a minute, cupcake.  Who's gonna protect your sorry ass now?  Officer Nerf Pistol?  Oh yeah, and it wouldn't stop Mr. Psycho from using a currently-existing gun, so it would do exactly NOTHING to stop the mass killings.

***

When my boys started school 20+ years ago, I gave them the same marching orders I was given when I was their age:  "When challenged to a fight, reply, 'You throw the first punch, and I'll throw the last punch.'"

I meant it in both actual practice and philosophy.  Don't go around picking fights, but don't be a victim for anyone.  Ever.

Each year, we'd get the "school rules" - the ones that said any fighting - even in self-defense - would result in suspension.  Each year, I'd have the talk with them again.  I told them that if a fight ever came about, and they were defending themselves, swing for the fences, Lose your fucking mind in defending yourself!  I'd take the heat.  Throw my ass under the bus!  "My dad told me to hit back!"

They had their fights - few and far-between - but I backed them every time, and they were never suspended.  Why didn't they get into many fights?  After all, they were both typical, rambunctious boys with more testosterone than sense.  Because everyone knew they'd fight back.  They were not going to get punked.

America is getting punked.  This all feeds into the government-spoon-fed notion of the Value Of Victimhood.  We fairly yearn to be victims.  We'll pass some fucking law that makes all of the soft-headed plebes feel safe.  And it does nothing.  Other than letting the bad guys know they'll be able to do their deed unimpeded.  Sure, the cops will eventually get there and stop the guy - with one of their guns - but not before the multiple, unnecessary deaths.

You're a defenseless victim.  Let someone of authority fix your problem.  Sorry your head got caved in, or your brains got blown out, but at least you have the moral superiority of following the law!

It's cliche, but true:  Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.  Until you accept responsibility and control for your own life, you are nothing but a bucket of chum in a pool filled with sharks.

Fuck that shit.

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2015 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

7 Shooting Incident Mistakes

Recently joint-published on BoomerPreps.com

I'm a big adherent to the right to keep and bear arms. I live that belief every day, without exception. I believe that armed citizens are the best deterrent to armed bad guys. It's simple math: There are more of us than there are of them.

But for us good guys, gun ownership and usage comes with a heavier burden than that imposed upon the bad guys. Being honest citizens, we willingly submit ourselves to the American justice system.

If some bad guy breaks into our home, and we shoot him in self-defense, we don't drag the body into the backyard and bury it along with all of the evidence. No, we call the police, report the incident and subject ourselves and our actions to the scrutiny of the law.

And there's the rub. Voluntarily subjecting ourselves to legal scrutiny. Regardless of the legitimacy of our actions, we can end up being detained, prosecuted and convicted.

To add insult to injury, the cost of defending ourselves against the initial criminal complaint and the subsequent civil complaint can ruin you financially.

Most folks have heard of the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. I'm not going to go into the specifics of the case - that's for you to do if you wish. SecondCall Defense - an organization that provides, "Complete legal protection for armed self-defense" recently published an article titled, "7 Critical Lessons From America's Most Notorious Gun Owner".

Self-inflicted shooting incident mistakes can land you in prison.

Here is my take on these 7 shooting incident mistakes Zimmerman made (FYI - in a recent article, Zimmerman noted that his cost from the state of Florida alone - for paperwork requests, etc., amounted to more than $360,000) -

Don't Get Out of Your Car

The entirety of the case against Zimmerman was that he "pursued" or "stalked" Martin, not that he was a Neighborhood Watch participant, and was being a good citizen looking out for his community.

Any situation can be twisted in any way.

The lesson from this is to not to put yourself in the position of being perceived to be the aggressor in any way, shape or form. This includes initiating contact with your bad guy.

If you see a bad guy in your backyard, get a gun, load it, disengage the safety, and call the police. Don't do a "sweep" of your backyard and shoot the guy. You were not in imminent threat of physical harm or loss of life while you were in your home and the bad guy was in the backyard - which is the standard for self-defense in most states.

Someone trespassing on your property is not legal grounds for lethal defense in most states. Like it or not, that's the law. Think before you act.

How will it look when you're on trial for murder and the family of the "good boy, with such a bright future, who had his life tragically extinguished" is weeping in the gallery as you testify?

Don't Rely On Cheap Equipment

I guess Zimmerman fumbled with a cheap flashlight. I don't recall that being an issue.

The point is well taken, though. When your life is on the line, don't expect junk to perform like premium equipment.

Don't Take Your Eyes Off The Threat

Amen to that!

An aggressor is always looking for a point of vulnerability or a moment of weakness. You averting your eyes from the potential threat - even for a second - is the opening they're looking for.

Arm yourself (but don't brandish your weapon) back up, keep moving, locate cover, but NEVER lose eye contact with your aggressor.

Zimmerman erred by allowing Martin to sucker punch him from behind - and this mistake could have easily cost Zimmerman his life.

A related "rule" is to not allow your aggressor to enter your personal "safety zone". If they are within arm's length, you've made a huge mistake allowing them in that close.

Educate yourself regarding your "reactionary gap" - sufficient distance for you to be able to stop injury or to save your life. Seriously, this is something your need to consider and incorporate into your self-defense plans.

Don't Assume Police Are Your Friends

As a law abiding citizen, the police are not your enemy, but you certainly should not assume they're your friends. They're doing a job.

They are investigating a death or serious injury, and you're the one who is unharmed, and has a gun in his hand.

Obviously, that is the goal of self-defense, but someone is dead or injured, and the police gather evidence for the county prosecutors. They gather ALL evidence, including physical evidence at the scene and statements made by any witnesses and by you.

That takes us to the next rule -

Don't Forget To Assert Your Fifth Amendment Right

Other than calling the police to report the shooting, and to request medical service for the bad guy, you need to keep quiet. It doesn't matter how justified the shooting may have been.

It is incredibly easy to say something that can be twisted and shredded - and used against you - at your trial.

Think about how "pumped" you would be after a shooting: An unknown assailant entered your home, threatened your life and forced you to defend yourself. Your heart will be pumping a mile-a-minute, and the adrenaline will be gushing into your bloodstream.

As a result of recent court cases, you are now required to verbally assert your fifth amendment right to silence. They can actually use a simple refusal to speak as an admission of guilt against you in court!

"Officer, I refuse to answer based upon my fifth amendment rights under the United States Constitution."

Once you do this, you must expect to be arrested. Get this in your head right now! Do not speak with anyone until you have spoken with an attorney that specializes in self-defense.

Don't Give Interviews Without Your Attorney

Do you see a theme here?

We non-attorneys have little knowledge of what can be damning self-incrimination. We cannot be compelled to make a statement, but if we voluntarily do so - say to reporters and cameras - our recorded statements can be used against us.

If you fall for the, "If you're not guilty, you should have no problem speaking with the police," garbage, you are sadly misinformed and naive.

This is doubly so in anti-gun states such as California, New York, Massachusetts, etc. Prosecutors in those states want to make examples of gun owners. It's as simple as that.

Don't help them ruin your life.

Don't Be Surprised If A Civil Suit Comes Next

It's the American Way, right? Everyone looks to make another buck.

I've never understood how this works, though. You've got a guy like OJ Simpson who is found not guilty (BTW, I think he was guilty as all hell, but I wasn't on the jury). The Brown family was then able to successfully sue him in civil court and win damages.

How can that be? Not guilty in one court, and guilty in another - all concerning the same incident.

I'd bet top dollar that the police officer in Ferguson will be facing a similar civil trial. It's going to be huge dollars.

Plain and simple, you have to assume it will happen if you're involved in a self-defense shooting.

Yes, SecondCall offers protection for this - up to Unlimited spending for your defense.

***

I can think of few things more horrible than taking the life of another human being - even the life of a dirt-bag threatening my life. It's unsettling, to say the least.

But if it comes down to the life of a good guy versus the life of a bad guy, I will not hesitate to exercise my right to self-defense. Not ever.

But you MUST think out your various responses to various situations. In my precious metals shop, we discuss - on a regular basis - how we will react to different types of aggression and threat.

My wife and I do the same for our home.

Plan, anticipate, train. Then do it all over again. And again.

Chief Instructor is an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor. He is a recruiter for the SecondCall Defense membership program. He proudly, and unapologetically supports both organizations. He receives compensation if you take a firearms instruction class from his company, or if you purchase a membership from SecondCall Defense through this website (please do so!).
 
---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Use Of Deadly Force Exceptions

Every gun owner I know or have had contact with understands that deadly force is only used when your life, or the life of another, is in mortal danger.  The gun grabbers would have the general population believe that we gun owners have, "itchy trigger fingers" just looking to pop a cap in the ass of some bad guy.

They'll point to the handful of incidents a year where some idiot goes off half-cocked and crosses a line.  In the eyes of the gun grabbers, all 100 million of us gun owners are represented by those nut jobs.

We "good guys" understand the heavy burden involved in owning and using a gun.  We willingly accept that burden.  The very last thing we want to do is to use our guns for self-defense, but the "bad guys" don't always give us much choice.  If we believe you are a threat to our life or the life of another, we will shoot you in self-defense.

Most of us have gone through training on how to ensure we only have to shoot the fewest number of shots to stop the threat.  THIS is a key concept we all understand:  We MUST stop shooting once the threat has stopped.  Otherwise, in the eyes of the law, we've become the aggressor.

A great example:  I was teaching one of my introductory pistol classes on a Saturday.  My classroom is way in the back of the gun range/shop.  All of what follows happened without any of us in the classroom being aware it was going on.

All of my students had shown up early, so my door was closed by 10:45, and class had begun.  Out in the shop, the manager was alone.  The other employee was delayed.

Around 11am, a guy walked into the shop, and was asking questions about the pepper spray.  He wanted to buy one for his girlfriend.  The locked display case for the pepper spray was on a wall out in the store.

The manager grabbed his keys, and was pulling out a spray when his head got slammed into the edge of the case.  The "customer" grabbed for the manager's sidearm.  Thankfully, it was in a Serpa retention holster, and the guy couldn't get it out.

The manager shook off the stun of having his head slammed and threw an elbow backwards into the face of the bad guy.  The manager cleared his head, drew his weapon.... and cursed.

The bad guy was running out the door towards a get-away car.  The manager had ample opportunity (and skill) to drop the guy as he ran, but his training stopped him.

He had gone through similar scenarios in his head enough times to know NOT to shoot.  The manager would have been hauled off to jail for murder/attempted murder.

SecondCall Defense recently ran an article on some other scenarios where you may not be justified in using lethal force:

Initial Aggressor – Once again, laws vary from state to state. However, in most cases, if you are the one who initiates violence, you risk losing the ability to argue self defense. If you throw the first punch, then later start losing the fight and pull a gun to defend yourself, you may be considered the bad guy.

True enough.  Good reason to walk away from a fight especially if you're carrying concealed.  The law will likely side with the other person.  Opening statement from the DA in court:  "Mr. Smith - who was carrying a gun during the altercation - clearly felt omnipotent when he assaulted Mr. Jones."  Lose/lose situation.

Escalation – Anything you do that causes a bad situation to get worse can be held against you. For example, if someone is verbally threatening you and you respond with counter threats, you are escalating the situation. Escalation means you are playing a part in creating a deadly force encounter.

The key here is, "verbally threatening" you.  Remember the old, "sticks and stones" rhyme from your childhood.  Words cannot be considered by you to be a mortal threat.  Use your head, and don't taunt the aggressor.

Committing Felony or Unlawful Act – If you are robbing a gas station, physically assaulting someone, or otherwise committing a crime, and in the process you are faced with a deadly threat, you will have a very difficult time arguing self defense. It depends on the facts of the case, but in general the law is not designed to protect criminals.

Break the law while using a gun, means you're going down.  As you should.

Reengagements and Pursuit – Given the premise that justifiable use of deadly force must be something that is thrust upon you and not something you cause or seek out willingly, you can hurt your self defense argument if your attacker runs away and you then chase him in order to continue the conflict.

The example of the manager above is the perfect illustration of this principle.  Drill this into your head:  Once the threat has stopped, YOU must stop your self-defense.

States like California throw in additional exceptions.

If the aggressor would not be considered a physical threat by a reasonable person, deadly force is not justified.

For instance, I'm a physically big guy.  If a little old lady starts coming after me with a baseball bat, I'm likely not in fear for my life.  I can likely take the bat from the little old lady, and the incident is over.  But, if I were also a little old lady, and the aggressor was coming after me, I WOULD be justified in using deadly force, as the two actors in the incident are of equal physical stature.

There must be a reasonable expectation that you'd be severely harmed before you can use deadly force.

I guarantee you, though, that a "reasonable" person is very different in San Francisco than they are in Dallas.  In San Francisco, the gun grabbers only consider armed self-defense to be reasonable when they literally have a gun pointed to THEIR heads.  Otherwise, you're expected to chit-chat and delve into the psyche of the assailant to uncover why he's been forced to point a gun at someone else's head.


Accept The Challenge

Using deadly force is not for the timid, or the easily taunted.  I've mentioned before that if you use your gun for self-defense in any circumstances, you should expect to be arrested.  Get that in your head - right now - so that if you are arrested, you don't make the situation worse by resisting arrest.

Membership in organizations such as SecondCall Defense educate you on how/when it's justified to use a firearm in self-defense, and then provide legal and financial support once the incident is over.

Of equal importance is for gun owners to train on an ongoing basis.  Walk your own home to understand the various strengths and weaknesses for cover and concealment you can use.  Gain the, "home field advantage" by having insider knowledge about which walls, structures and appliances will provide you with cover from bullet penetration.

Understand your "fields of fire" in your home.  If you shoot in that direction and miss, what's on the other side?  A window?  An easily penetrated plaster board wall?  A bedroom?  In my precious metals store, taking a few steps in one direction makes a missed shot go into a wall... or into a busy parking lot.

Go through scenarios in your head.  If someone is walking towards you with a knife, when do they become a real threat?  What are you going to say and do as they approach?  What if they have a pepper spray or stun gun?  At what distance are you really threatened?

Are you defending a life or property?  This is a crime - or not - depending upon your state and your location (home versus a business).

Understand and train for different situations before you're in them for real.

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Unreasonable Gun Safety Questions From Unreasonable People

There is a group (probably several groups) that are pushing the, "Big 10 Gun Safety Measures" campaign. I won't link to their sites and give them more hits.  Their idea is to present the following 10 questions to political candidates, and then use the responses to determine whether or not the candidate will get your vote.

For those of you that have the ability to think, in anti-gun speak, "Gun Safety Measures" means figuring out ways to take guns away from everyone but government employees.

Now, I'm not a candidate, and will never be one, but I want to respond to the questions as though I were.

1.  Do you support universal background checks, including in private sales? If not, why not?

No.  Background checks do nothing to prevent criminals from acquiring and using guns.  And that's who we're worried about, right?  Good, decent Americans - the people submitting to the checks - have no intention of breaking the law.  Bad, evil Americans - the people NOT submitting to the checks - use the guns for criminal purposes.  The checks are nothing more than an exercise in, "feel good politics".

2.  Do you support an assault weapons ban? If not, why not?

No.  Because the term itself is only intended to scare and intimidate the uninformed.  Can you first define, "assault weapon" for me?  In California, for instance, if you take any kind of rifle - ANY kind - and add a collapsible stock and fore stock grip, that previously approved rifle is somehow transformed into an illegal assault rifle.  Shoots the same, loads the same, does everything the same.... it only LOOKS different.  Why would I want to ban that?

The common cry of the gun grabbers is that, "Assault rifles are only used for killing, not for self-defense."  OK, then why are they issued to the local police?  Are you saying you're OK with the police being nothing more than killing machines?

3.  Do you support mandatory child safety locks on all guns? If not, why not?

No.  Because it is just more futile, "feel good politics".   Try this on:  You have a single mom who owns a gun for self-defense.  She's got kids under 18 living in the home.  For whatever reason, the police come to her home, and see a pistol without a lock.  In your world, a crime has been committed and the single mom MUST be hauled off and jailed.  The children must be taken from the home.

In your eyes, this is a good thing?

Here's what I do support:  In homes with a likelihood of having children under the age of 18, if a child is harmed, or if a child harms another person with a gun owned by the adult occupant, that adult is held responsible for the actions or injuries of the child.

It's just like owning an automobile - if your child takes your keys for a joy-ride and kills 3 children playing in the street, you are responsible for the conduct of your child.

This places the onus of education and security on the adult, as it should be.  The government telling you how to secure your property is intrusive, and assumes the government knows your family better than you do.

4.  Do you support mandatory safe gun storage laws, particularly if a household contains a minor or person adjudicated mentally ill? If not, why not?

No.  See above.

5.  Do you support repealing the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents victims from holding the gun industry to account? If not, why not?

No.  Why would you feel it is appropriate for a consumer to be able to sue a company when their product did not fail?  Do you support the ability of a family to sue, say GM or Ford, when a person with, "reckless disregard for human life" purposely and maliciously runs over people on a sidewalk?  Sounds kind of crazy, doesn't it?

It is the user of the product that must be held accountable, not the maker of the inanimate object itself.

Cars don't kill people.  People kill people.

6.  Do you support limiting magazine sizes to ensure law enforcement are not outgunned? If not, why not?

No.  Police departments provide their officers with the largest possible magazines for what purpose?  To give them the greatest possibility of making it out alive when encountering a life-threatening situation.

I want that same advantage when I protect my life, and the lives around me.  The life of a police officer is not more valuable than any other life.  If you disagree, ask a close family member that if a choice had to be made over whose life were to be lost to a crazed shooter - your life or the life of a police officer - which would they choose?

All life is equally precious, be it the life of a politician, a public servant or a burger-flipper at McDonalds.  All have the equal right to defend their life as vigorously as possible.

7.  Do you support mandatory duty of states to report persons with mental health issues to the Federal background check system? If not, why not?

No.  Because it's unconstitutional.  With few exceptions in the Constitution, the federal government not granted the right to tell a state how to run its affairs.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The tenth amendment is quite clear on this subject.

More directly, though, is the government's ability to deem someone as, "mentally ill" and subsequently strip them of many of their rights.  I recently became aware of a mental health affliction called, "Oppositional Defiant Disorder" or ODD.  When I first heard the term - ODD - I assumed it was an Onion.com parody.

Instead, it was recently added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) - the bible of the psychiatric industry.

ODD is defined as follows, "Oppositional defiant disorder is a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures."

You're considered mentally ill because you disobey and are hostile towards authority?!  Apparently, there are a lot of mentally ill Americans out there.  I was under the impression that that's part of what makes us Americans - you know, that whole, "redress of grievances" deal.

8.  Do you support mandatory liability insurance for all gun owners? If not, why not?

No.  Because the majority of gun crime and violence is perpetrated by criminals.  Criminals who won't be getting gun insurance.  This is once again a proposal to impose costs and requirement on good, decent gun owners.

Our current liability laws allow victims to sue offenders for damages.  How many people each year are accidentally injured by firearms possessed by non-criminals?  It's an incredibly small percentage of our 300+ million citizens.  This is a proposal in search of a problem.

And going back to our automobile analogy, owning and possessing a gun is a right guaranteed by the second amendment.  There is no such amendment for owning and driving a car, so it is well within the rights of a state (and not the federal government) to impose liability insurance controls.

This is nothing more than another attempt by gun grabbers to marginalize and penalize good, decent gun-owning Americans.

9.  Do you support mandatory reporting by gun owners of lost or stolen guns? If not, why not?

No.  Why would you think it's a good idea to further penalize a victim of a lost or stolen gun?  If it's lost, the owner obviously does not know it's missing.  Are you suggesting that they be put in jail over something of which they have no knowledge?

Instead, I would ask you, "What benefit is there to society to criminalizing a victim of a crime or unknown act?"

Common sense tells us that a criminal won't be reporting his stolen guns, because they were likely obtained... as stolen guns.  A good citizen will report the crime because they want their goods recovered.

Again, this is nothing more than another attempt by gun grabbers to marginalize and penalize good, decent gun-owning Americans.

10.  Do you support Smart Gun technology to ensure only approved adults can fire a weapon, as soon as the technology is state-of-the-art? If not, why not?

No.  Because I don't want to place my life in the hands of some battery manufacturer or on the technology company that guarantees my biometric information is correct.

The primary reason I own guns is for self-defense, and the defense of others.  Hunting, plinking, and competing are just gravy.  I need them to work each and every time I pick them up.  They need to work whether the batteries are charged or not, whether my bleeding hand obscures the biometric reader or not, and whether the "proven technology" actually operates as promised.

If I believe an advancement in technology will further my goal of providing for my self-defense, I'll use it.  Laser grips, for instance, are a great thing.  But the gun still works even if the laser does not.

Here's a scenario for you:  I get a frantic call from you, and the line suddenly goes dead.  I enter your house through the back gate.  I peer in the window and see you on the floor, bleeding profusely from the head.  You've become yet another victim of a home invasion.

Your wife is screaming as three men take turns raping her.  I go around to the side of your house, sneak into your home office, and grab your government-approved Smart Gun.  I go back into the rape room, point the gun at the intruders.  The gun goes click, but doesn't go bang.

Apparently, I wasn't on your approved user list.

You'll probably die from your injuries, I'll probably die after being attacked by the 3 intruders (since I can't use the gun to defend myself) and your wife is probably wishing she were dead.

How's that technology working out for you?

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

GASP! Precious Metals Manipulated?

Most of us who buy precious metals have long believed that the "spot market" prices are being manipulated by various entities.  We're called paranoid, and anti-government, and all other sorts of names.

For me at least, it is like water on a duck's back.  The comments of the naysayers just rolls off my back.  I make all of my various investment decisions based upon logic and data.

For instance, when the government and Wall Street types say that increasing the amount of money in the economy (via Quantitative Easing) will have no effect on inflation, I know that to be untrue.  When you create more of something, those "things" currently in the market become less valuable.  This is true whether you're talking about bushels of wheat or dollars.

Yet, somehow, we've created nearly 4 trillion new dollars, and inflation stays flat.  How could that be?

Basic economics also tells us that when something is in high demand and low supply, prices increase.  It's basic market forces at play.  Yet, we see massive purchases of gold and silver - year after year after year - and prices for both metals drop.  Again, how could that be?

Not surprisingly, these are both tied together.  A weak dollar and strong precious metals put the US government at direct risk.  If the dollar were to ever lose so much of its value when compared to other world currencies, it would risk losing its one and only valuable role:  That of being the instrument of world trade.

The dollar - long since removed from the tangible backing of precious metals - is only valued because it is the currency used when countries buy goods from each other.  When Country X buys oil from Country Y, it's traded in dollars.  Or Country A buys wheat from Country B.  Foreign exchange (FX) as the global reserve currency is the only value possessed by the dollar.

If confidence in the dollar erodes and moves to another medium - say gold or silver - the dollar is no longer needed.  If dollars are worthless, our government would be unable to exert financial and political power throughout the world - we'd just be another France or Brazil or Japan.
---

So how can a government exert pressure on a commodity with worldwide demand?  Former US Treasury Assistant Secretary Paul Craig Roberts tells us what's going on -

In brief, Roberts, and his associate Dave Kranzler, assert that The Fed has had to resort to this practice in order to protect the value of the US dollar from its effective reduction in value through its Quantitative Easing policy. In order for the Fed to effectively support the reserve status of the U.S. dollar by pushing it higher when it starts to drop, it has also to prevent the price of gold from rising as this is seen globally as something of a bellwether for the dollar. If the gold price rises the dollar is seen as getting weaker and vice versa.

So what's the big deal?  Former Fed Head Bernanke told us gold isn't even money.  Well, the world disagrees -

Roberts and Kranzler avow that intervention in the gold market has been occurring for a long time, but that in the past several years this intervention has become more and more blatant and desperate through the fear that rising concerns about the dollar are causing countries like China and Russia, and others, to accumulate fewer dollars and more gold. The natural progression of this would see the dollar eventually lose its place as the global reserve currency and thus forfeit the huge trade advantages which come with this position.

What is so disgusting about all of this is that the Fed has had to enlist their Big Boy Banker Buddies on Wall Street to affect these engineered crashes on the precious metals markets.  Timing is everything...

So how did the Fed achieve this?  Roberts and Kranzler say that the Fed accomplishes it through its banking allies – said to be JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and others – implementing a series of gold price flash crashes by short selling huge amounts of gold futures into the COMEX market usually at times when trading is thin. These gold futures short sales trigger not only a sharp gold price decline directly, but also leads to stop-loss orders and margin calls coming in which hammer the price down further. The authors  illustrate the timings of these flash crashes in graphical format showing just how this was achieved during the month of March, and which brought the gold price down by around $80 an ounce.

Uhm, any questions now as to why the Fed bailed out the Too Big To Fail banks?  The Fed needs them to be their bag men.
---

Read the whole linked article, as well as the original article that goes into much more detail.

Then go buy precious metals.

Well, go buy precious metals if you:

• Have an emergency cash reserve
• No significant planned purchases (i.e., real estate)
• A steady job
• Other, liquid retirement resources

I tell the customers in my PM store that they should look at precious metals as the very bottom of their retirement resource bucket.  It is the stuff you want to touch last.

Why?  It IS volatile.  Manipulation does that sort of thing.  But, market fundamentals ALWAYS prevail.  The Ponzi Scheme our government is operating will eventually fail.  Maybe next year, maybe next decade.  They have a vested interest in keeping the lie alive, and they're a very creative bunch.

I personally started acquiring metals in 2005, because I believed it would all crash within 5 years.  Well, enter the "creative" Quantitative Easing series, and they've kept the corpse from stinking too badly.

There will be more moves along these lines, but it will eventually tip over.  All logic and math and history tell us this.

Precious metals also won't be paying you interest or a dividend.  BUT it will be preserving your capital.  And when this big ol' financial mess goes, "BOOM!", you'll be sitting pretty.

Buy what you can afford, and buy it over the counter for cash - it's no one's business what assets you own.  Buy a little bit each month, bury it in the backyard or put it in a fire safe for safekeeping,   Just keep it out of the banks.

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Discrimination Watch: Gun Laws Applied Per 14th Amendment?

I swear, one of my brothers is trying to kill me.  He sent me an email reminding me about this case.  He knows my blood pressure will go through the roof!

Many of you may have heard stories about a New Yorker who was a strong proponent of the SAFE Act that was passed in their state.  It was one of the knee-jerk laws passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook school shooting.

Since he was part of an anti-violence group that mentored in local schools, our hero worked tirelessly to get it enacted, especially the provision with regards to guns on school campuses.  The new law bumps the penalty from a misdemeanor to a felony.

In early February, he then went and got himself caught with a gun - on campus, no less.  Uh oh.

School 97 Harvey Austin Elementary School was put in lockdown shortly after 4 p.m. Feb. 6 when the school office received an anonymous call that there was a man with a gun on or near the school property on Sycamore Street. About 60 students were in the building for after-school programs.

About 15 patrol cars responded to the scene, and the lockdown ended about four hours later when Ferguson was arrested.

Funny how the article conveniently forgot to mention what a zealot Mr. Ferguson was for the enhanced penalties.  Haha, funny.

He's pleaded not-guilt.  Says he forgot he had the gun (DOH!) and it was an honest mistake.  The judge in the case is getting buried in letters of support for the guy.

Let's review one of the relevant Constitutional issues here - the Fourteenth Amendment.  In part - 

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Yeah.  The 'equal protection' clause.  It means that everyone in that state MUST be treated the same when they break the same law.  A very simple concept, that is stringently enforced by courts across the land.

Stop snickering!

He's black.  He's a liberal.  He's a community activist.

He's gonna get a 'pass'.

To be fair, if he were a white, conservative investment banker, he'd probably end up with the same sentence, he'd just use another route to get there.

He's going to get a David Gregory Reprieve.  The elites always do.
---

dis·crim·i·na·tion
Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

It's us middle-class Americans that would take the kick in the teeth were this to happen to us.  Felony, time in jail, gun rights stripped, voter rights stripped, community service, monetary penalty.

They'd probably come over and kick your dog just for good measure.

We don't have the political or financial clout to make this go away.

So those of us watching this - and we are watching - will stew in the injustice, and will make note.  It will give us yet another reason to withdraw from this discriminatory segment of society.  It will give us more incentive to take our brains, money and talents, and go where we're welcomed.

We'll financially bleed them dry.  That's how we hurt them.  Someone's gotta pay for their crap, and it won't be us.

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Gun Control For Dummies - The THIRD Amendment

So very sorry for the light posting - it's been a hectic week.  Back at it now.

A good friend showed me some pity, and sent me a link to a gun control video.  Check it out...





---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Safety Preps: Requirement To Retreat

I just read a great article on the legal right to stand your ground, and the legal requirement to retreat if reasonably able.  Huh?  Sound like a contradiction?  Yeah, welcome to the US judicial system -

The majority of states (34) do not impose a legal duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, making them effectively stand-your-ground states. In these states, retreat is therefore not an essential element of the law of self-defense, and your failure to take advantage of a safe avenue retreat cannot lose you the right to claim self-defense automatically as a matter of law.

That does not, however, mean that the prosecution cannot nevertheless argue to the jury that your failure take advantage of a safe avenue of retreat was unreasonable under the circumstances, and that the presence of a safe avenue of retreat made your use of deadly force unnecessary under the circumstances. This is true even in most statutory stand-your-ground states.  Retreat may not be an element of self-defense in these states, but reasonableness sure is, and necessity is the foundation of all self-defense law.

If, like me, you're in one of those 16 states that DOES require you to retreat, you've just opened a big can of toxic poo if you shoot someone in self-defense. To stay free, you've got to prove you didn't have a way to retreat without putting yourself in additional danger.  How do you like them apples?

Realistically, I don't give a damn what your state law says regarding self-defense.  If the local DA wants to fry your ass because he or she doesn't like guns, you're going to be prosecuted for murder.  If you don't consider those consequences every single time you pick up a gun, you are a fool.
---

We had a bit of a discussion with this post ("10 Other People You Shouldn't Talk To After A Self-Defense Shooting") on keeping your mouth shut, and on what to say to the police after a shooting.  I'm a huge believer in following the SecondCall Defense strategy:  Call 911 to report the shooting, tell them you feared for your life and to send the police and medical.  Provide your address, describe yourself, then hang up and call your lawyer.

When the police arrive, repeat exactly what you said on the phone to 911, then inform them you won't be making any other statements until you've met with your attorney. 

Then expect to be arrested.
---

Let's say some maggot entered your home, rushed you with a bat, and you shot him dead.  A totally justified response to a violent invasion of your home.  So you think.

The police arrive and start asking questions:

Police Officer (PO):  Sir, tell me what happened.

You:  Well, I was in my easy chair right there, when I heard someone banging on my door.  It sounded like they were trying to break it down! 

PO:  I see.  What did you do?

You:  I got up, and grabbed my gun.  I walked around the corner and could see this guy trying to kick my door in through the window over there.  The son of a bitch was kicking and kicking.  I got behind this wall right there so he couldn't see me through the window.

PO:  Then what happened?

You:  He finally kicked the door down, and came into the house.  He had a bag and was carrying a baseball bat in his hand.  You know - one of those aluminum ones.  He took a couple steps forward and saw me.  I guess he didn't expect anyone to be home, and he started coming right at me with that bat cocked back to hit me.  I shot him just like I've practiced at the range a hundred times - two to the chest and one to the head.  It stopped him right there.

PO:  Well done!  What happened next?

You:  I pulled my cell phone out of my pocket and I called you guys, that's what happened.

PO:  OK, good.  You did the right thing.  Anyone in your situation would have done what you did.  Let me ask you a couple of things.  Was there anyone else here in the house when this happened?

You:  No.  Just me.

PO:  Great.  Now you said you were in that chair over there.

You:  Yessir.

PO:  That sliding glass door right next to the chair - where does that go?

You:  To my backyard, of course.  Why do you ask?

PO:  Just filling in the details, sir.  You know - all that paperwork the LT will want!  I noticed a gate on your back fence.  Where does that go?

You:  Out to an alley that leads to the street.  Hey, what's with all of these questions?

PO:  I'm almost through sir.  One last question:  After you heard the man kicking your door, how long did it take for him to break it down?  It looks pretty strong.

You:  Hell yes it's strong!  I put on those fancy hinges that screw 6 inches into the wall studs.  And I reinforced the plate on the door jam and added a dead-bolt too.  We've had a lot of break-ins around here, and I needed to protect myself!

PO:  Great idea, sir.  You certainly understand the best ways to keep the criminals out of your house.  So how long did it take for the door to finally come down?

You:  Oh, it musta been a good 30 or 45 seconds, I'd guess.  Hell, maybe a minute!  I didn't put any cheap crap into my set-up.  Only the best!

PO:  Thank you for your cooperation, sir.  I'm done now.  Please turn around and put your hands behind your back.  You have the right to remain silent.  Anything you say....

You:  What the...??


Accept The Challenge

Shall I summarize as an anti-gun prosecutor might?   

By his own admission, he had up to a full minute to retreat to a safe location after he saw the threat.  He had the means and opportunity to stay safe, to avoid a violent confrontation, and to allow the police to do their job.  Any reasonable person would have done so.  Instead, he chose to pick a fight - to display his skills with a gun.  To violently protect inanimate, replaceable property, and that choice resulted in the death of another human being.

Don't help them put you in prison for a very long time.

Alert the authorities that a shooting has taken place, then shut the hell up.  You are going to be adrenaline-soaked, and more apt to say things you shouldn't.  Like any other emergency situation, preparation and a planned course of action will help you weather any storm.

With our scenario, in reality, our guy may have heard the banging for 30 or more seconds, but only saw the guy as he finally kicked in the door and charged the homeowner.  He may have been embellishing the events to show the police he wasn't going to be anyone's punk.

Speak with your attorney, who will assess the situation and determine what will be said to the police and prosecutors.  The method in which the same information is conveyed can mean the difference between freedom and prison.

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Communications Preps: Shut Up!

Many of you have heard the story of the Northern California couple that found 6 rusty cans on their property.  Those cans contained coins with a face amount of $27,000.  Nice haul, huh?  Woo hoo!  Par-tay!

Oh.  Those coins were pre-1933 $5, $10 and $20 gold pieces.  The gold alone in them is worth in the neighborhood of $2 million.  Did I mention that many of them were in Mint State?  Yeah, lots of 'em.


The entire "Saddle Ridge Hoard" is estimated to have a market value of $10 million.
---

When I first heard of this story, my first thought was, "Why do I know about this?  Why does anybody know about this?"

Apparently, this husband and wife decided to do, "the right thing" and publicize their find.  While their names have not - so far - been disclosed, the fact that their find is now public, is going to cost them dearly.

I've seen estimates that these folks might be looking at a liability in the neighborhood of $5 million between state and federal taxes.

For what?  What did any government bureaucrat do to earn a single dime from this find?  Not a damned thing.

What this really does is drive home the point about who really owns property in this country.  In case you're unclear on the concept, it ain't you.  If the state wants what you've got, they'll just take it - one way or another.

But wait, there's more!  It now seems that over a hundred years ago, this gold may have been stolen from the San Francisco mint.  I can guaran-damn-tee you, the feds, state and heirs of the guy who stole the coins are going to work their damnedest to sell that point.

According to U.S. Treasure Trove Laws, the whole collection could be taken away and given to descendants of the person who originally put it in the ground or even given to the state.

It would be impossible to prove a chain of ownership with these coins, unless there were some sort of note in the cans saying that the guy stole them.  Otherwise, the very nature of all minted coins - every one looks exactly like the one made before it and after it - would make it impossible to conclusively prove these coins were the ones stolen.

Still, put together a jury of soft-headed "peers" and you can kiss your hoard good-bye.  For God's sake, we're in the proverbial belly of the liberal beast.  This area spawned Pelosi, Feinstein, and Boxer.  People in these parts love giving their lives away to the state.

Source:  ijreview.com

Accept The Challenge

So, what have we learned from this little lesson?

Like we often say, "You don't own it unless you can hold it".  BUT, if you own it, and they know about it, they can take it.  The fewer people that know what you own, the less likely someone with a badge and a gun are going to come take it away.

Love thy neighbor, but keep him at arm's length.  If things get desperate enough, he'll come looking with a gun as well.

What do you have that some agency or neighbor might want someday?

• Gold
• Silver
• Cash
• Guns
• Ammo
• Food
• Water
• Real estate
• A bank account
• A retirement account

In all 50 states, the last 3 items must be held in a legal name, and must be tied to a government ID number (a social security number or tax ID number).  There are still ways in which ownership of those assets can be obscured.  A competent tax attorney can guide you there.

All of the other items are tangible assets that can be possessed without anyone else knowing about it.  No one but you.  You're responsible for their safe keeping, but that's one of the prices you pay for freedom. 

It is becoming increasingly difficult to "spend" the first 3 items, so pre-planning their use is paramount.  Act quickly or rashly, and your hard work can all be unraveled.

Never keep all of your assets in a single geographic location.  That's just begging to have them taken.

Be prudent.
Be resourceful.
Be prepared.

As we say up top, Audentes fortuna juvat - Fortune favors the bold...

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Wednesday Weenie Roast: Tyranny Edition

 Are Chinese puzzle boxes next...


Wow.  It's against the law to have a hidden compartment in your car?  WTF?


I came across this when I saw an article about some guy who was driving the car of a friend, got pulled over and the police used the, "we noticed the strong smell of marijuana in the vehicle," excuse to search the car.  During the search, they found a hidden compartment.  Nothing whatsoever was in the compartment, the car just had one.

"Without the hidden compartment law, we would not have had any charges on [Gurley]," a state trooper told the local news station.

He was arrested, and is paying legal fees to keep this from going to trial.

Here in California, the law basically says that if the government THINKS you use it for drugs, guns or any other sort of bad-boy activity, you've broken the law.   They don't need evidence to that fact, just the belief.

Let's think about this a bit:  For all intents and purposes, it's illegal to have a secret compartment becuase it's assumed it will be used to transport illegal drugs, illegal guns or [GASP!] be used for terrorist purposes.

"If you've got nothing to hide...." "If you've done nothing wrong..." "If you're a good citizen..." "If you're a true patriot..."  If, if, if...  

And then, of course, there's the juicy morsel known as 'asset forfeiture' - 

With civil forfeiture, police are under no obligation return a seized vehicle if prosecutors decide not to proceed with a criminal case or if the jury decides to acquit. Once police take a vehicle, property owners generally must file a lawsuit to get it back.

Police and prosecutors naturally like this arrangement; they usually get to keep seized vehicles or the profits from auctioning them off. But the process is a nightmare for property owners, who are considered guilty until proven innocent.

Hmm.  Guilty until proved innocent.
---

Coming soon to Amerika...

It's called capital controls.  The government wants to control your capital -

[W]e learn that Italy has just ordered banks to withhold a 20% tax on all inbound wire transfers: a decree which on to of everything will apply retroactively to February 1

This happens right now in the US when you sell a house, or cash in a 401(k) before the government says you're allowed to do so.  And of course, they take it out of each and every paycheck you earn.  They get paid up front, and you must justify why you get any of it back.

Hmmm.  I wonder what these type of government actions might lead to?

The government, through their own actions, is making more and more Americans understand the value of privacy with their financial affairs.  The unintended consequences is more and more people being paid in cash, and then hoarding that cash so that they can purchase what they wish, when they wish, without having the purchase being scrutinized.

Look what's going on in Colorado now at the new Pot Clubs.  These businesses can't get bank accounts because the Feds don't recognize them as legal businesses.  So everything is, "cash and carry".  I love it!

The Feds will counter this by gradually eliminating paper currency.  We're already well along that road, with the pervasive use of debit and credit cards, welfare cards, Paypal, and the like.

The eventual elimination of cash will be foisted upon us under the guise of "defending America against terrorists and drug dealers".  They'll also get some traction by saying it will be a cost saver, in that all of that paper currency won't have to be printed up each year, only to be destroyed a few years later.

You see, they're doing it all for you - just keepin' you safe and saving you a couple of bucks in the process.  'Cause you know - if you've got any large amount of cash, you MUST be a terrorist or a criminal.

Hmm.  Guilty until proven innocent
---

Seriously... no one else has read the book, 1984???

Wait, what?!  Another database to track where you go, when you go, and even with whom you go there?  It's all for 'national security' of course.  Yep, the DHS wants a National license plate tracking system -

There are several other reasons why Americans should be concerned about DHS’s plans. First, the agency wants to be able to create its own “hot lists” of suspect vehicles from the data. As we’ve seen from ALPR records we received from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, officers are not required to define any individualized suspicion before putting a vehicle on a “hot list,” and it’s unclear how a vehicle would ever get off such a list. DHS proposes sharing its “hot lists” with other agencies. It also wants to be able to communicate with other users, “establish Lists submissions, flag license plates, and conduct searches anonymously.” If ICE agents can create hot lists, flag plates, conduct searches and discuss and share data anonymously, meaningful oversight of the program will be impossible.

Wait a minute:  I was under the impression that according to the fourth amendment, no government entity was able to collect information about a citizen without probable cause and a warrant from a judge.

Really.  I know I read that somewhere.  A history book I read way back when, explained how the British had these things called, 'general warrants' which allowed the government to look at everything in your life in an attempt to find some illegal activity.  Privacy be damned.

The fourth amendment was ratified to prohibit that sort of government intrusion into your life.  Wow, they're really going to town on the Constitution, huh?

It kind of moves me to song.  You know the tune.  Come on kids, and sing along!

You better watch out,
You better not cry,
You better not pout,
You better comply,
DHS is going to town!

They're making a list,
And checking it twice,
Gonna find out who's naughty or nice.
DHS is going to town!

They see you when you're sleeping,
They know when you're awake.
They know when you've been bad or good,
So be good for goodness sake!

OH!...You better watch out,
You better not cry
You better not pout,
You better comply.
DHS is going to town!

Hmm.  Guilty until proved innocent.

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com

Tuesday Trash Talk - Playground Politics

Seriously, what's happened to this country?  In particular, to our school system?  For God's Sake, how can people so stupid be charged with educating our children?

This school in Chicago is upset about guns.  Well, not guns, but legally required pictures of guns -

Some school officials aren’t happy about the stickers because they contain a very basic image of a gun.

“It is bothersome to have to post a sticker of a gun that says, ‘Hey, folks, leave your guns at home,’” Theresa Nolan, principal of Tinley Park High School, told the SouthtownStar.

Nolan stressed that she is very concerned with “safety and security” and concerned that, somehow, someone could wrongly interpret an image of a gun emblazoned with the universal sign for prohibiting something.

“I think the general public will be alarmed by it and wonder if people have been allowed to bring guns to school in the past,” Nolan also fretted.

 No, you mouth-breathing idiot, the general public will be alarmed to find you in charge of a high school, let alone that you had the mental capacity to graduate from high school yourself..

Perhaps her high school students can write a paper on the magical, invisible force field that protects them once they step into the Gun Free Zone.

Click your ruby slippered heels together, Theresa, keep them clicking...
---

Perhaps THE BEST article I've seen on helping teachers that are trapped in a Gun Free Zone have a chance of saving their lives and the lives of their students.  I was so impressed, I sent a copy of it to my wife, who is a 5th grade teacher.  She shared it with the teachers at her school.

Everything begins at the door. The door is a chokepoint. That narrow gap which decreases an aggressor's ability to attack, while increasing your odds for a successful defense. Everything depends upon what does or does not happen here. Therefore THE primary concern is to prevent an active shooter from gaining entry to the room. Locking a door is a problem if the door doesn't have locks. Reasoning as to why they don't is not the objective here. Creating a solution is.

This article is full of simple, inexpensive and most importantly, effective ways to keep the bad guys at bay while the good guys are on the way.

I predict a run on gallon jugs of cooking oil and 30 pound bags of kitty litter.  The 15 inch wrench - for classroom repairs, of course - has already been purchased, along with a homemade paracord wrist strap.  Don't want that baby slipping out of your hand while you're crushing uhm, tightening nuts...

To Serve and Protect

---

I wish I could believe that this was one of those, "Only in California" stories, but I fear it's not. 

It seems that a local all-girls Catholic school was going to help celebrate Black History Month by having a lunch which celebrates blacks in the school.  You know, like when it's Hispanic Month, you might serve tacos or burritos or tamales.  Filipino Month might have pansit and lumpia.  You get it.

Well, for Black History month, they decided to serve fried chicken, collard greens, cornbread and watermelon.

Apparently, this was uber Politically Incorrect -

The principal and dean of the school refused to talk to NBC Bay Area on Wednesday, but school officials held an assembly on campus to discuss the issue and sent an apology letter to parents.

"I'd like to apologize for the announcement and any hurt this caused students, parents or community members," Principal Nancy Libby said in the letter. "Please know that at no time at Carondelet do we wish to perpetrate racial stereotypes."

Seriously?  There are now Politically Incorrect fruits and vegetables?  What the hell is wrong with these principals?

As most of the commentors noted, what the hell SHOULD have been served?   And if the principal was so concerned about offending blacks and "racial stereotypes", why didn't she profusely apologize to the students and parents that were offended by the tacos, burritos and lumpia?

BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T OFFENDED!

This "boy who cried wolf" (oops, can I say 'boy' when discussing blacks?) crap is doing nothing more than desensitizing the public when a legitimate complaint is aired.

The Reverend Al should be proud of his work here.
---

When I attended school, if you got out of line, you were put on detention.  Do it again, and you got a suspension.  In both cases, your parents got a call, and there would be hell to pay once you got home.

Nowadays, the process is much more lenient - students can, "push the envelope" much further, but when they do, the detention and suspensions still happen.  On top of that, because of this lenient culture, some students go WAY too far, and the criminal justice system gets involved.

Well, apparently, too many minorities are getting violent in school and ending up in jail.  That's just not acceptable -

Winning praise from civil rights advocates, the U.S. Department of Education released new federal guidelines Wednesday aimed at stopping an explosion in student suspensions, expulsions and referrals to the criminal-justice system.

The ideas are a response to mounting concerns that overly punitive discipline is pushing too many low-income and minority students out of schools and toward failure rather than helping them engage academically. The Department of Education and the Department of Justice teamed up in a two-year effort to develop lists of resources and principles that educators have found effective at keeping campuses orderly without resorting to kicking out kids.

Yeah.  The rules are only applied to the poor and minorities.  And it's the "overly punitive discipline" that's at fault, not the actions of said poor and minorities.

The proponents of these changes say that minorities are treated more harshly than whites for the same offense.  OK, prove it.  And if you do, sue the hell out of the school and the administrator that enforced the punishment.

Instead, they want to cherry-pick some instances of disparate treatment, and point to them as the norm.  That's a steaming pile of crap.

I can tell you that, from my personal experience, it is usually the other way around.  Minorities are given much more leeway.  If they're punished, the school administrators come down on the teachers because so many of the classroom disrupters are black (usually) and, "it doesn't look good."

This was one of the primary reasons we sent our boys to a private school during their elementary and middle school years.  The two schools they would have attended were out of control.  If we wanted them to get an education, we could either move or pay for private school.  We couldn't afford to move, and could barely afford the tuition, but we made due.

For high school, it was a similar situation, and in that instance, we moved to a district with a good reputation.  My wife and I have already agreed that when/if our sons have children, we will help them to be home schooled, or at worse, attend a private school.  Public schools are a joke.

I'm sure the schools will be much better once the classroom disrupters are allowed to stay in the class regardless of their actions.  Yeah, that'll work out just fine...

---
Share this post! Click the Twitter, Facebook or Google+ icon below, and let your friends know!
Copyright 2014 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. Please note that in addition to owning Bison Risk Management, Chief Instructor is also a partner in a precious metals business. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com