You’ve Been Arrested for a Serious Crime: What’s next?

Being arrested for a serious crime is one of the most terrifying and disorienting experiences you can face. What you do in the immediate aftermath will have a profound impact on your case. You need to act quickly and decisively. Here’s what you must know:

Step 1: Stay Silent and Protect Yourself

The most important thing to remember is don’t say anything to the police except for these words: “I want a lawyer.”

Anything you say—no matter how innocent or well-meaning—can and will be used against you. Police are not your allies; their primary goal is to gather evidence that supports your prosecution. Even casual, offhand remarks can be twisted to fit their narrative.

Do not discuss your case with anyone except your lawyer and investigator.

Be extremely cautious about talking to family or friends over jail phones. Every call made from a jail or police-controlled phone is recorded. These recordings are regularly reviewed by investigators and prosecutors who are hunting for incriminating statements. Jokes, frustrations, or innocent remarks can be taken out of context and presented as evidence.

Even in person, don’t talk specifics with anyone other than your defense team. Fellow inmates, often desperate to gain favor with prosecutors, will not hesitate to fabricate stories about how you “confessed” to them.

Step 2: Secure Bail

Each state has different rules regarding bail, but in most cases, you’ll need to post something to secure your release. Most bail bondsmen accept credit cards and may offer payment plans if you’re not a repeat offender.

Being out on bail gives you more freedom to work on your defense, meet with your lawyer and investigator, and avoid the harmful conditions of pretrial detention. Get this handled quickly—your time is critical.

Step 3: Hire a Private Investigator—Immediately

If you’ve been accused of a violent crime or one involving injury or death, your most urgent need after securing bail is a skilled private investigator (PI). Time is your enemy. Evidence deteriorates, witnesses vanish, and surveillance footage is overwritten.

An experienced PI can:

• Locate and interview witnesses before they disappear.

• Retrieve and preserve surveillance footage from the scene.

• Document overlooked evidence—shell casings, tire marks, or items missed by police.

• Identify vehicles in the area by documenting license plates.

Don’t rely on advertisements when selecting a PI. Often, the bigger the ad, the less competent the investigator. Look for someone with substantial law enforcement experience. Former police officers have the training and instincts necessary for fast, thorough investigations. Those without this background are at a significant disadvantage, especially in criminal cases.

Step 4: Get Legal Representation

You need a skilled criminal defense attorney, but don’t expect immediate results. Lawyers are hard to reach on evenings and weekends when arrests often happen. Public defenders are overworked, and you may not see one until well after your first court appearance.

Even with a private attorney, the legal process moves slowly. Police and prosecutors are not required to share their evidence (known as “discovery”) until legally mandated, often weeks after your arrest. This delay can cripple your defense if you’re not proactive.

This is why a PI is critical. While your attorney waits for discovery, the PI should already be investigating your case, preserving evidence, and building a defense. Attorneys are not trained investigators, and if they attempt to investigate, they risk becoming witnesses, which disqualifies them from representing you.

The Golden Window: Your Best Chance to Beat the Charges

The period between your arrest and your grand jury indictment or preliminary hearing is your golden window. During this time, your PI can gather exculpatory evidence—proof that may clear your name or weaken the prosecution’s case.

If this evidence is presented to the prosecutor early, it can force them to disclose it to a grand jury, potentially invalidating the indictment. Once you’re indicted, the road to trial becomes long, costly, and difficult.

If the prosecution succeeds in securing an indictment or probable cause ruling, you’ll likely face trial in one to three years. In the meantime, if you’re denied bail or can’t afford it, you’ll sit in pretrial confinement, often in abysmal jail conditions.

The Reality of the Justice System

The justice system is not designed to ensure fairness—it’s designed to convict. Prosecutors routinely use unreliable evidence, junk science, and outright lies to win cases. They frequently withhold evidence (a violation of the landmark Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland) with little consequence.

If you’re innocent or overcharged, that won’t stop police and prosecutors from doing everything they can to convict you. This is why assembling the right team—attorney and PI—is critical.

How to Choose a Private Investigator

Your PI should have substantial police experience. This background provides the training and instincts necessary for criminal cases. Many licensed private investigators lack this foundation and are better suited for civil work.

If you don’t know where to start, ask your attorney for a recommendation. Be cautious—there are many licensed PIs who are unqualified to handle complex criminal investigations.

Final Words

Stay silent. Hire a lawyer and a private investigator. Act fast.

Your freedom depends on your ability to build a strong defense during the critical early days of your case. If you don’t act, the system will bury you in bureaucracy, delays, and false evidence.

Remember my personal slogan: “If justice ever happens, it’s usually by accident—and for all the wrong reasons.”

The Truth About silencers/Suppressors: Debunking the Myths of “Spy Weapons”

Phoenix, AZ—Here in Arizona, where gun laws are few and liberty thrives, firearms enthusiasts have the rare privilege of legally owning suppressors. These misunderstood devices, often sensationalized as “silencers,” have a reputation steeped in Hollywood drama and misconceptions. But what’s the real story behind these so-called “spy weapons”? Let’s pull back the curtain.

The Birth of a Legend

The suppressor, commonly referred to as a silencer, was the brainchild of Hiram Percy Maxim, a brilliant inventor and son of the legendary machine gun designer Hiram Stevens Maxim. In 1909, he patented the “Maxim Silencer,” marketing it as a revolutionary tool to reduce firearm noise. But Maxim wasn’t just thinking about guns—he also adapted his sound-dampening principles to create automobile mufflers, another enduring invention.

While clever, Maxim’s marketing stretched the truth. His device didn’t “silence” firearms; it merely dampened the explosive roar. Until 1934, suppressors were widely available and even sold at local hardware stores. Then came the National Firearms Act, which slapped a $200 tax on them—a staggering sum at the time. The once-accessible tool became a tightly controlled curiosity.

Myth vs. Reality

Suppressors don’t render firearms whisper-quiet. That Hollywood trope? Pure fantasy. The crack of a supersonic bullet—traveling faster than the speed of sound (1,125 feet per second)—cannot be silenced. What suppressors can do is reduce the decibel level of a gunshot, making it less ear-shattering. They’re most effective with subsonic ammunition, which travels slower and avoids that supersonic “crack.”

Another often-overlooked benefit is reduced recoil. With less kick, shooters gain better accuracy and control. Yet, for decades, suppressors weren’t particularly popular. They were tools for hunters and recreational shooters—not the shadowy assassins Hollywood would have you believe.

Hollywood’s Love Affair with Suppressors

By the mid-20th century, the silver screen had discovered suppressors. No spy thriller or action flick was complete without a sleek silencer, hissing like a whisper into the void. Foley artists exaggerated their capabilities, making them seem like magical noise-canceling devices that left no trace of their user.

Even revolvers—a firearm that mechanically exposes the gap between the cylinder and barrel—were portrayed as “silencer-ready.” In reality? Suppressors are useless on most revolvers. But Hollywood never let facts get in the way of a good story.

The Real Purpose: Hearing Protection

Beyond the myths and cinematic flair, suppressors serve a practical purpose: protecting hearing. Gunfire produces sounds loud enough to cause instant, permanent hearing damage. Suppressors reduce this risk, making shooting safer for everyone involved.

Consider this: The Department of Veterans Affairs issues more hearing aids than any other organization in the world. Why? Because generations of soldiers were exposed to deafening gunfire without adequate hearing protection. The military didn’t even issue earplugs until 1969, and even those were often ineffective. Suppressors could have prevented untold cases of hearing loss, but restrictive laws and misconceptions kept them out of reach.

Forbidden Fruit

Today, suppressors carry an air of forbidden allure. Their scarcity fuels their desirability. The more something is restricted, the more people want it. But let’s be clear: suppressors are not tools of stealthy assassins; they are safety devices—ones that reduce noise pollution, protect hearing, and improve shooting accuracy.

The real danger lies in letting Hollywood fantasies and outdated laws cloud our judgment. It’s time to separate fact from fiction and recognize suppressors for what they truly are: practical tools, not “spy weapons.”

One more thing to say about suppressors.   Today’s technology allows them to be manufactured with simple 3-D printers.  That means you can make your own effective suppressors and not rely on third-party manufacturers.  It will make things much more difficult for government to regulate.    Yes, the forbidden fruit can be in your own hands.

The Heroic Brinks Guard Who Changed Aviation Security Forever

Los Angeles, CA — As we reflect on air travel discomforts and the tragedies of 9/11 and consider how to handle similar threats in the future, let us revisit a long-forgotten story with a very different outcome.

The only hijacker ever shot aboard a U.S. airliner was stopped on September 15, 1970, aboard Trans World Airlines (TWA) Flight 15, a Boeing 707. The flight, originating in Chicago and bound for San Francisco, had just completed a stopover in Los Angeles when Donald Irwin, a 27-year-old armed hijacker, seized control of the aircraft. Irwin, brandishing a firearm, threatened flight attendants in the aft galley and demanded the plane be diverted to North Korea.

Unbeknownst to Irwin, the aircraft was neither equipped nor capable of such a journey. His plan was doomed from the start. However, the actions of one courageous individual ensured the safety of everyone onboard.

A Captain’s Quick Thinking

The pilot, Captain J.K. Gilman, was quickly informed of the hijacking and remembered that Robert DeNisco, a plainclothes Brinks security guard, was aboard in First Class, tasked with escorting a shipment of money. Using the airplane’s intercom, Captain Gilman relayed a simple yet shocking message to a flight attendant: “Tell him I said to go back and shoot that bastard!”

DeNisco’s Heroic Actions

DeNisco, a Vietnam and Korea combat war hero, didn’t hesitate. Slowly and methodically, he moved toward the aft galley where Irwin was holding court. DeNisco changed seats multiple times, inching closer with each move. When the time was right, he sprang into action.

Instead of firing immediately, DeNisco decided to take control of the situation verbally. He stood up, pointed his revolver, and shouted, “Police officer, drop your weapon!” Though he wasn’t a police officer, the authoritative command startled Irwin, who turned toward DeNisco with his gun. DeNisco fired a single, precise shot, hitting Irwin in the abdomen. The hijacker collapsed, and DeNisco secured his weapon. Thanks to his bravery, the plane made a safe landing, and all lives were saved.

Aftermath and Recognition

Irwin, critically injured, survived thanks to emergency medical care. Robert DeNisco was hailed as a hero. His actions marked the end of the hijacking, but his story didn’t stop there.

The incident inspired the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to create the Air Marshal program, a new layer of security for U.S. air travel. Recognizing DeNisco’s courage and expertise, the FAA recruited him to train the first generation of Air Marshals.

DeNisco’s heroics even caught the attention of President Richard Nixon, who personally called to congratulate him. Brinks, proud of their employee’s bravery, hosted an event in his honor at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, where DeNisco was recognized by numerous officials and peers.

A Troubling Turn of Events

Despite his contributions, DeNisco’s later life took an unfortunate turn. FAA regulations eventually disarmed even sworn law enforcement officers, leaving only federal agents and hijackers armed on planes. DeNisco, the very man who had saved Flight 15, was later stripped of his right to carry firearms due to a technicality: a juvenile joyriding incident that resulted in a conviction. Though it had no bearing on his fitness as a Brinks guard or an Air Marshal trainer, it was enough under gun control act of 1968 to permanently disarm him.

The Legacy of September 15, 1970

DeNisco’s story is one of heroism overshadowed by bureaucratic missteps. His quick thinking and courage saved countless lives and reshaped aviation security forever. Yet, the same government that honored him later undermined his rights and contributions.

Today, we face ongoing challenges in aviation security. Since 9/11, the TSA has implemented sweeping changes but has yet to prevent a single terrorist attack. Instead, it has created a culture of inconvenience, humiliation, and inefficiency for travelers.

Ordinary citizens—not the TSA—stopped both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber. Perhaps the lesson we should take from DeNisco’s story is this: heroes emerge when individuals are empowered, not hindered, by bureaucratic red tape.

As we remember September 15, 1970, let us honor Robert DeNisco and his legacy. His bravery serves as a reminder of what’s possible when individuals step up in the face of danger.

A sidenote: I wish to thank Robert DeNisco for granting me the interview long ago. Sadly, he passed away in 2013 at the age of 76.  

The Truth About Ghost Guns, Gun Registration, and Serial Numbers

New York, NY—The cold-blooded, brazen murder of a UnitedHealth CEO recently reignited the national conversation about so-called “ghost guns.” But what exactly is a ghost gun, aside from being a sensationalized propaganda term? At its core, it is simply a firearm without a serial number.

The push for serial numbers and gun registration has long been a favored strategy of politicians aiming to infringe on Second Amendment rights when outright bans on firearms were politically or constitutionally untenable. The end goal has often been the creation of a comprehensive registry to track every firearm in the United States—something that could facilitate future confiscation schemes if a total gun ban were ever implemented.

Do Serial Numbers and Gun Registration Actually Solve Crimes?

A basic application of common sense suggests they do not. The only time a firearm is typically left at a crime scene is when the criminal is incapacitated—dead or wounded—or caught in the act. In such cases, the firearm’s connection to the crime is already established. Tracing the gun back to its original purchaser rarely provides actionable information, especially since most guns outlive their original owners and often end up passed down to family or friends.

Furthermore, the serial number traceability mandated by the Gun Control Act of 1968 only works for the first transfer of ownership, from the manufacturer to the initial purchaser through licensed dealers. After that, private transfers, inheritances, and undocumented exchanges render most firearms effectively untraceable by design.

In practice, the tracing of firearms has often been abused by law enforcement. Agencies routinely trace every firearm they encounter—whether or not it was used in a crime—then cite inflated numbers to support calls for stricter gun control. This misuse feeds into the narrative that every “recovered” firearm is associated with criminal activity, even when they are seized during unrelated investigations, such as searches conducted for non-violent offenses.

The Impact of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022)

The Gun Control Act of 1968, which imposed serialization requirements on firearms, has been effectively rendered unenforceable by the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). In that 6-3 decision, the Court reaffirmed the Second Amendment’s original meaning, declaring that government efforts to regulate firearms must align with the text, history, and tradition of the right as understood in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the majority in Bruen, rejected the “interest-balancing” approach that allowed courts to uphold gun laws in the name of public safety. Instead, the Court made clear that no modern governmental interest—no matter how urgent or compelling—can override the Constitution’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

This decision has significant implications, effectively casting doubt on the constitutionality of tens of thousands of federal, state, and local gun laws. It also builds on earlier decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), which collectively affirmed the individual right to bear arms and extended Second Amendment protections to the states.

A History of Supreme Court Decisions on Gun Rights

The Supreme Court has addressed gun rights in only a handful of cases:

1. Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) - While infamous for its pro-slavery ruling, the Court noted in passing that granting citizenship to African Americans would afford them the right to “keep and carry arms wherever they went,” inadvertently underscoring the broad scope of the Second Amendment.

2. United States v. Miller (1939) - The Court upheld a National Firearms Act restriction on sawed-off shotguns, but only because it erroneously determined there was no evidence such weapons were commonly used by militias. This case left significant questions unanswered.

3. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) - The Court definitively ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms, striking down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban.

4. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) - This case incorporated the Second Amendment against state and local governments, ensuring that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed at any level of government.

5. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) - The most recent and transformative case, Bruen dismantled many longstanding assumptions about permissible gun regulations, setting a precedent that laws must align with the Second Amendment’s original context.

The Reality: Rolling Back Unconstitutional Gun Laws

The Supreme Court has never expanded gun rights; instead, it has consistently struck down laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment. Gun control advocates lack the political support necessary to repeal or amend the Second Amendment, leaving them to pursue their goals through unconstitutional legislation that the courts have begun to unravel.

Efforts to vilify “ghost guns,” enforce registration schemes, or push for universal tracing of firearms are not about solving crimes—they are about control. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in Heller, the Second Amendment “is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people,” enshrining the right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution to prevent government overreach.

The ongoing assault on gun rights underscores the importance of vigilance. Without the judiciary’s recent reaffirmation of constitutional principles, the Second Amendment could have been eroded by decades of incremental infringements disguised as public safety measures. In reality, these measures serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens, while doing little to prevent crime or protect lives.

Do criminals have too many rights? You better think carefully before you answer!

 

I don’t give a rat’s ass if my friends are conservative or liberal—what matters is our unwavering celebration of the Bill of Rights. These aren’t just lofty ideals; they are the backbone of our freedom. And yes, we must especially venerate the rights that some find inconvenient or annoying, those that protect the accused, the outcasts, and yes, even the guilty. Why? Because those same rights are the only shield standing between you and false allegations, torture, or even execution at the hands of a corrupt government.

Never—ever—give an inch on your rights. Not one. These freedoms were not gifted to us; they were bought with the blood of young men who fought and died to preserve them. Throwing away even a single right because it feels unnecessary or inconvenient is an insult to their sacrifice and a betrayal of everything they stood for.

Look at the world. In Syria, a repressive regime was toppled, only for its replacement to descend into the same darkness—or worse. That is the fate of people who fail to protect their freedoms, who allow their rights to be stripped away bit by bit. Don’t let that be us. Stand firm. Stand strong. Celebrate and defend all of your rights as if your life depends on it—because it does.